Law Helps Ground Drunk Fliers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bothell WA
Posts: 2,809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Law Helps Ground Drunk Fliers
Full Story
Arkansas
Under the old state law, pilots were prohibited from flying with a blood-alcohol level of more than 0.04 percent, the cutoff established by the Federal Aviation Administration. But police could only make an arrest if the pilot was already in control of the plane, either on the ground or in the air.
Under the new law enacted this spring, it's a crime for an airline pilot to even show up at the screening checkpoint with more than 0.04 percent blood-alcohol in his system. "When a commercial pilot presents himself to the security checkpoint under the influence, it becomes a police matter," said Henderson. "It allows us to push it out of the cockpit."
In addition, the new law makes it a felony for an airline pilot who is carrying a weapon under the government's new armed pilot program to have more than 0.04 percent blood-alcohol content. That law is believed to be the first of its kind in the nation.
The incidents at Little Rock began last August, when the pilot of a US Airways Express flight to Charlotte, N.C., was stopped by screeners. The pilot registered 0.06 percent blood-alcohol, above the FAA's legal limit. His license was revoked by the FAA and he was fired by Mesa Air, which operated the US Airways Express flight.
This spring, the TSA issued guidelines to screeners around the country, telling them to alert their supervisors if they see a pilot they believe is impaired. Some screeners have complained that they weren't hired to watch for intoxicated pilots, and some pilots feel that the TSA should stick to looking out for terrorists instead of passing judgment on whether the pilots are fit to fly.
Arkansas
Under the old state law, pilots were prohibited from flying with a blood-alcohol level of more than 0.04 percent, the cutoff established by the Federal Aviation Administration. But police could only make an arrest if the pilot was already in control of the plane, either on the ground or in the air.
Under the new law enacted this spring, it's a crime for an airline pilot to even show up at the screening checkpoint with more than 0.04 percent blood-alcohol in his system. "When a commercial pilot presents himself to the security checkpoint under the influence, it becomes a police matter," said Henderson. "It allows us to push it out of the cockpit."
In addition, the new law makes it a felony for an airline pilot who is carrying a weapon under the government's new armed pilot program to have more than 0.04 percent blood-alcohol content. That law is believed to be the first of its kind in the nation.
The incidents at Little Rock began last August, when the pilot of a US Airways Express flight to Charlotte, N.C., was stopped by screeners. The pilot registered 0.06 percent blood-alcohol, above the FAA's legal limit. His license was revoked by the FAA and he was fired by Mesa Air, which operated the US Airways Express flight.
This spring, the TSA issued guidelines to screeners around the country, telling them to alert their supervisors if they see a pilot they believe is impaired. Some screeners have complained that they weren't hired to watch for intoxicated pilots, and some pilots feel that the TSA should stick to looking out for terrorists instead of passing judgment on whether the pilots are fit to fly.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Midlands, UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TR4A, I don't understand your point!
If 0.04 is the limit, then that's the limit, pure and simple! If you are over, you are over and no excuse; if you are under, no problems.
Why do you link the issue of alcohol abuse with terrorism? No link at all, chum.
Get a life and grow up
If 0.04 is the limit, then that's the limit, pure and simple! If you are over, you are over and no excuse; if you are under, no problems.
Why do you link the issue of alcohol abuse with terrorism? No link at all, chum.
Get a life and grow up
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Wirral, U.K.
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Er, Jack The Lad, I don't think you understand what TR4A is trying to say! He's highlighting the major points of the newspaper article, the link to which he's posted, maybe for people who can't be bothered to read it...!
He's not saying that T.S.A. guys apprehending flight crew who are over the legal limit before a flight are, in any way, better or worse than searching for terrorists themselves or, indeed, terrorism in general. He's just reporting from the article, (which, possibly, he should have directly sourced and quoted from above his comments, although I don't know the full protocol!) that some pilots and T.S.A. screeners don't feel that it's the T.S.A.s responsibility to screen for pilots under the influence of anything. I'm not even going to comment where the T.S.A.s job description begins or ends, I'm just defending TR4A's post, which, in my humble and not so important opinion, you attacked unfairly.
M.G.T.
He's not saying that T.S.A. guys apprehending flight crew who are over the legal limit before a flight are, in any way, better or worse than searching for terrorists themselves or, indeed, terrorism in general. He's just reporting from the article, (which, possibly, he should have directly sourced and quoted from above his comments, although I don't know the full protocol!) that some pilots and T.S.A. screeners don't feel that it's the T.S.A.s responsibility to screen for pilots under the influence of anything. I'm not even going to comment where the T.S.A.s job description begins or ends, I'm just defending TR4A's post, which, in my humble and not so important opinion, you attacked unfairly.
M.G.T.
I'm confused
I thought TR4 was presenting news.
But even if he also presented his opinion as well I don't see a justfication for such harsh words aimed against him.
I appreciate seeing both sides of an argument but not this way.
I thought TR4 was presenting news.
But even if he also presented his opinion as well I don't see a justfication for such harsh words aimed against him.
I appreciate seeing both sides of an argument but not this way.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bothell WA
Posts: 2,809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TR4A, I don't understand your point!
If 0.04 is the limit, then that's the limit, pure and simple! If you are over, you are over and no excuse; if you are under, no problems.
Why do you link the issue of alcohol abuse with terrorism? No link at all, chum.
Get a life and grow up!
If 0.04 is the limit, then that's the limit, pure and simple! If you are over, you are over and no excuse; if you are under, no problems.
Why do you link the issue of alcohol abuse with terrorism? No link at all, chum.
Get a life and grow up!
Thanks for the kind words. I was on vacation when you responded.
I was posting a news article about an ARKANSAS LAW. The FAA already has a regulation on 0.04. There is no need for all 50 states to have their own laws about this. It also says that they (police) can arrest a commercial pilot. Does this mean one in uniform or not in uniform? Commuting, deadheading or working?
I think "The Lad" needs to grow up.
