America West crew arrested @ MIA (Update - Sentences)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: KMCO
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
about the breath box....
As perhaps the only non-mormon Airline Captain who abstains, I find this situation a little hard to understand and very sad. I just don't understand......
...but also, as a pilot who once ran afoul of Management and had a lot of "fellow professionals" write me off before being reinstated without prejudice (thank you ALPA!) I wish nothing but the best for these two FELLOW PILOTS who are now in the loneliest place in the world.....
Well, aside from my little speech, I wanted to add that I saw a documentary abut driving under the influence a few months back and the perp recalled how he field-tested just barely over the limit and was arrested (but potentially within a margin of error for the unit which could be argued by any law student). On arriving at the lock-up, the officer afforded him an opportunity to "blow again" to see if it was any lower.
Surprise, it was higher! Remember, metabolism is still taking place and in most cases, when you are offered the opportunity to "re-test" you are digging a hole for yourself and strengtaning the case for the state. SO DON'T! This is a bad time to learn that the police are not your always pals!
One thing I haven't seen commented on is the probable cause for following up on the snitch-tip of an airport screener.....I wonder if this is a nasty little precedent to fear?
...but also, as a pilot who once ran afoul of Management and had a lot of "fellow professionals" write me off before being reinstated without prejudice (thank you ALPA!) I wish nothing but the best for these two FELLOW PILOTS who are now in the loneliest place in the world.....
Well, aside from my little speech, I wanted to add that I saw a documentary abut driving under the influence a few months back and the perp recalled how he field-tested just barely over the limit and was arrested (but potentially within a margin of error for the unit which could be argued by any law student). On arriving at the lock-up, the officer afforded him an opportunity to "blow again" to see if it was any lower.
Surprise, it was higher! Remember, metabolism is still taking place and in most cases, when you are offered the opportunity to "re-test" you are digging a hole for yourself and strengtaning the case for the state. SO DON'T! This is a bad time to learn that the police are not your always pals!
One thing I haven't seen commented on is the probable cause for following up on the snitch-tip of an airport screener.....I wonder if this is a nasty little precedent to fear?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Montreal
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today's news on the CBC said that the crew was unceremoniously SACKED.
They do of course have the option of appealing this via their unions. I suppose this should fall under the same thinking as the Capt who got sent packing for his first offence smoking in the cockpit. Shouldn't these boys get another chance just like so many said that the smoker should have?
Hmmmm......
They do of course have the option of appealing this via their unions. I suppose this should fall under the same thinking as the Capt who got sent packing for his first offence smoking in the cockpit. Shouldn't these boys get another chance just like so many said that the smoker should have?
Hmmmm......
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: India
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6FU:
Do YOU fly aeroplanes? Or do YOU just comment on this forum?
FYI: I have been asked the first question before in this forum and answered it. Check it out yourself. Happy, Pappy?
Do YOU fly aeroplanes? Or do YOU just comment on this forum?
FYI: I have been asked the first question before in this forum and answered it. Check it out yourself. Happy, Pappy?
Last edited by Alpha Leader; 4th Jul 2002 at 05:28.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: STL
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me refer back to a couple of seemingly contradictory posts from just
before the outbreak of insanity in this thread.
On arriving at the lock-up, the officer afforded him an opportunity
to "blow again" to see if it was any lower. Surprise, it was higher!
Not a huge surprise. What is more surprising is that even if it were
lower than the first reading it still could have hurt his
defence!
in most cases, when you are offered the opportunity to "re-test"
you are digging a hole for yourself and strengtaning the case for the
state.
This contradicts what arcniz said, namely, "If you ever are in a
situation where you must involuntarily give a sample, politely demand
that they run two blood samples." In fact, each of the two strategies
is correct for the persons to which it is directed.
If you are under the limit, as arcniz assumes, then you want as many
tests as possible. If you are over the limit, as SAM 2 seems to suppose,
then you want as few tests as possible. Let me give an example. Its
conclusions have been reached using statistical information that was
typical of well-conducted BAC tests fifteen years ago. I don't know if
there have been any changes to the tests since then and if there have
been I do not have current data. Nevertheless, the statistical principles
behind the conclusions would remain valid regardless of any changes that
may have taken place. Suppose the limit BAC is 0.04 and you test at 0.046
on your first sample. The correct statistical decision is to accept the
hypothesis that your true BAC is under the limit. However, if you
are given two more tests and your two additional test results decrease
to 0.044 and 0.042 then the correct statistical decision is to reject
the hypothesis that your BAC is under the limit.
before the outbreak of insanity in this thread.
On arriving at the lock-up, the officer afforded him an opportunity
to "blow again" to see if it was any lower. Surprise, it was higher!
Not a huge surprise. What is more surprising is that even if it were
lower than the first reading it still could have hurt his
defence!
in most cases, when you are offered the opportunity to "re-test"
you are digging a hole for yourself and strengtaning the case for the
state.
This contradicts what arcniz said, namely, "If you ever are in a
situation where you must involuntarily give a sample, politely demand
that they run two blood samples." In fact, each of the two strategies
is correct for the persons to which it is directed.
If you are under the limit, as arcniz assumes, then you want as many
tests as possible. If you are over the limit, as SAM 2 seems to suppose,
then you want as few tests as possible. Let me give an example. Its
conclusions have been reached using statistical information that was
typical of well-conducted BAC tests fifteen years ago. I don't know if
there have been any changes to the tests since then and if there have
been I do not have current data. Nevertheless, the statistical principles
behind the conclusions would remain valid regardless of any changes that
may have taken place. Suppose the limit BAC is 0.04 and you test at 0.046
on your first sample. The correct statistical decision is to accept the
hypothesis that your true BAC is under the limit. However, if you
are given two more tests and your two additional test results decrease
to 0.044 and 0.042 then the correct statistical decision is to reject
the hypothesis that your BAC is under the limit.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, this is becoming interesting.
bblank correctly argues that multiple bad results will set the hook deeper on each iteration. It appears that bb's premise is based on statistical grounds alone. Never having been strong at statistics or other forms of lying -(lame joke)- I am more inclined to apply logic:
In the hypothetical of a marginal field test and an equal or worse result at the station house, you have given away the possible argument that the field unit, being subject to handling, etc, was out of calibration and false. If, however, you insist at the station house on the TWO blood tests at different labs, then you may buy increased quality of information for either conviction or exoneration. If both blood tests turn out clearly on the wrong side, then your goose is cooked and you will just have to deal with it. However, if one or both blood tests contradict the breath test, or if they are dramatically inconsistent with each other, then there's some helpful room for arguing that the facts are not strong enough to send you to the pokey.
Of course, if you're really ploshed, you probably won't remember all this anyway. In that case, the best strategy is to be someone else.
bblank correctly argues that multiple bad results will set the hook deeper on each iteration. It appears that bb's premise is based on statistical grounds alone. Never having been strong at statistics or other forms of lying -(lame joke)- I am more inclined to apply logic:
In the hypothetical of a marginal field test and an equal or worse result at the station house, you have given away the possible argument that the field unit, being subject to handling, etc, was out of calibration and false. If, however, you insist at the station house on the TWO blood tests at different labs, then you may buy increased quality of information for either conviction or exoneration. If both blood tests turn out clearly on the wrong side, then your goose is cooked and you will just have to deal with it. However, if one or both blood tests contradict the breath test, or if they are dramatically inconsistent with each other, then there's some helpful room for arguing that the facts are not strong enough to send you to the pokey.
Of course, if you're really ploshed, you probably won't remember all this anyway. In that case, the best strategy is to be someone else.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alpha Leader writes to Paper Tiger: Can you explain why violating a no-smoking ban should be treated any differently from violating no-drinking ban?
The obvious difference is that smoking (tobacco) is mildly stimulating but does not adversely affect judgement or coordination, whereas drinking alcohol does slow reflexes, increase impulsiveness, and alter judgement -- probably all bad things in the cockpit. They will both kill you, but - according to poet Ogden Nash : ' liquor is quicker'.
Social and cultural perspectives vary greatly about alcohol. I remember a time and place when folks would fly into a nice little grass strip to have a beer or two and watch other folks doing the same. Of course, we were flying piper cubs and the like, and there wasn't anything important to hit, except the cows in the middle of the strip.
As livers grow older and planes grow faster, alcohol has more effect. Add to that a lack of sleep, no food, dehydration, hypoxia, darkness and exhaustion, and you have a much worse result with demon rum than you would without.
That's it, plain and simple.
The obvious difference is that smoking (tobacco) is mildly stimulating but does not adversely affect judgement or coordination, whereas drinking alcohol does slow reflexes, increase impulsiveness, and alter judgement -- probably all bad things in the cockpit. They will both kill you, but - according to poet Ogden Nash : ' liquor is quicker'.
Social and cultural perspectives vary greatly about alcohol. I remember a time and place when folks would fly into a nice little grass strip to have a beer or two and watch other folks doing the same. Of course, we were flying piper cubs and the like, and there wasn't anything important to hit, except the cows in the middle of the strip.
As livers grow older and planes grow faster, alcohol has more effect. Add to that a lack of sleep, no food, dehydration, hypoxia, darkness and exhaustion, and you have a much worse result with demon rum than you would without.
That's it, plain and simple.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Bit nosey aren't you
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great banter about alcy tests and organic compounds. All great stuff but totally irrelevant. Just don't get p**sed and then try to fly an airliner. However you look at it the crew were irreprehensibly unprofessional.
If you are really so desperate to have a drink that you cannot guarantee an alcohol reading below .04 (ie zero) when you go flying; get another job. It isn't big, it isn't clever and fortunately most people grow out of this type of behaviour in their teens.
In both the military and the civilian world I have seen well intentioned people trying to protect people that couldn't protect themselves from their own stupidity. I have seen a smoking hole containing the results of this type of misguided action alongside a fighter jet.
Guess what the public pays us to protect them not some irresponsible idiot that thinks that having one for the road is acceptable. They must have been aware that they had screwed up (like many have in the past) and then should have raised a hand admitted their mistake and gone sick. That might have inconvenienced a guy on standby or maybe cost the airline a few bucks but they would probably still have a job and would not have betrayed the faith put in them by their airline and their passengers.
Good riddance. End of rant, have a nice day y'all.
Ghost
If you are really so desperate to have a drink that you cannot guarantee an alcohol reading below .04 (ie zero) when you go flying; get another job. It isn't big, it isn't clever and fortunately most people grow out of this type of behaviour in their teens.
In both the military and the civilian world I have seen well intentioned people trying to protect people that couldn't protect themselves from their own stupidity. I have seen a smoking hole containing the results of this type of misguided action alongside a fighter jet.
Guess what the public pays us to protect them not some irresponsible idiot that thinks that having one for the road is acceptable. They must have been aware that they had screwed up (like many have in the past) and then should have raised a hand admitted their mistake and gone sick. That might have inconvenienced a guy on standby or maybe cost the airline a few bucks but they would probably still have a job and would not have betrayed the faith put in them by their airline and their passengers.
Good riddance. End of rant, have a nice day y'all.
Ghost
Everything is under control.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CNN interviews former Northwest pilot on drinking and flying . . .
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TRAVEL/NEWS/...nna/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TRAVEL/NEWS/...nna/index.html
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I generally don't watch movies (except Python's, which dates me), but, wasn't there an excellent movie about 30 years ago about a captain with this problem on his back (and on the back of fellow crewmembers)? Seemed to deal with it intelligently, as I remember.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: West
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had Lyle on our jumpseat a few years back. His discussions were very interesting, but his recount of his time in Prison was chilling. He told us he had dedicated his free time to talking to groups. He also said he did not keep the money they paid him. He donates it, even though he was still trying to climb out of debt at the time. I asked him why he didn't keep any of it. He responded, "would you?"
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: STL
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
arcniz, your restating of my statistical inferences were by-and-large on
the mark but could use some fine-tuning in spots and even a correction in
one place.
All tests, even those that are correctly calibrated, are subject to
"variance." Statistics is the branch of mathematics that concerns drawing
inferences in the face of variance. A BAC test value X is a Gaussian random
variable whose mean is the subject's true but unknown BAC. The
variance of X is much smaller than you would expect - or, more accurately,
than I expected - but still nonzero. Taking more than one test, say N samples
X1, X2, ... , XN, decreases variance. If Xbar denotes the average
(X1 + X2 + ... + XN)/N then the variance of Xbar is 1/N'th the variance
of X. Therefore by increasing the sample size more control over variance
is obtained. The Law of Large Numbers, a theorem in probability theory,
shows that as N tends to infinity Xbar tends to true BAC with probability 1.
The one point with which I would disagree with arcniz is the statement
"If both blood tests turn out clearly on the wrong side, then your goose is
cooked. Maybe yes, maybe no. Nobody should find themselves in such a
position but if it happens, then I would suggest instructing your lawyer
to hire a competent statistician. (I regret to say that expert statistical
opinion can be obtained much more economically than either medical
opinion or legal counsel.) For example, if your two tests were 0.046 and
0.042 and if the accuracy of the tests did not improve much in the last
fifteen years, then I doubt if I would have trouble convincing a jury that
the hypothesis "true BAC greater than 0.04" could not be accepted with
the certainty needed for a criminal conviction. Well, juries can be tricky
but the line of reasoning that I would use has been accepted by appellate
courts.
Incidentally, some jurisdictions attempted to avoid the variance issue
with laws that read "BAC tests at 0.10 or above" instead of "have
a BAC at 0.10 or above." I'm refering to motor vehicle laws of course
and I'm not sure whether those legislative dodges worked.
PaperTiger, You are right about the name but when I saw the movie on
Canadian TV long ago I think it went under the title "Danger in the Skies."
the mark but could use some fine-tuning in spots and even a correction in
one place.
All tests, even those that are correctly calibrated, are subject to
"variance." Statistics is the branch of mathematics that concerns drawing
inferences in the face of variance. A BAC test value X is a Gaussian random
variable whose mean is the subject's true but unknown BAC. The
variance of X is much smaller than you would expect - or, more accurately,
than I expected - but still nonzero. Taking more than one test, say N samples
X1, X2, ... , XN, decreases variance. If Xbar denotes the average
(X1 + X2 + ... + XN)/N then the variance of Xbar is 1/N'th the variance
of X. Therefore by increasing the sample size more control over variance
is obtained. The Law of Large Numbers, a theorem in probability theory,
shows that as N tends to infinity Xbar tends to true BAC with probability 1.
The one point with which I would disagree with arcniz is the statement
"If both blood tests turn out clearly on the wrong side, then your goose is
cooked. Maybe yes, maybe no. Nobody should find themselves in such a
position but if it happens, then I would suggest instructing your lawyer
to hire a competent statistician. (I regret to say that expert statistical
opinion can be obtained much more economically than either medical
opinion or legal counsel.) For example, if your two tests were 0.046 and
0.042 and if the accuracy of the tests did not improve much in the last
fifteen years, then I doubt if I would have trouble convincing a jury that
the hypothesis "true BAC greater than 0.04" could not be accepted with
the certainty needed for a criminal conviction. Well, juries can be tricky
but the line of reasoning that I would use has been accepted by appellate
courts.
Incidentally, some jurisdictions attempted to avoid the variance issue
with laws that read "BAC tests at 0.10 or above" instead of "have
a BAC at 0.10 or above." I'm refering to motor vehicle laws of course
and I'm not sure whether those legislative dodges worked.
PaperTiger, You are right about the name but when I saw the movie on
Canadian TV long ago I think it went under the title "Danger in the Skies."
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 92
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not a smoker, except for an odd cigar, but this anti-smoking hysteria bothers me more than the smoke does.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...rolASThompson/
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...rolASThompson/
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DFW, Tx - USA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Captain (can't remember name, but it is the older pilot) has had TWO PRIOR instances of alcohol related "discussions with police in his hometown. Both of these instances/events were at his home. One involved an "assault" on his wife, the other involved his neighbors in the apartment below his in shich he felt they were making too much noise and he "confronted" those neighbors who called the Police in that instance.
So - there is an "alcohol" related background with this particular pilot (the older one).
So - there is an "alcohol" related background with this particular pilot (the older one).