Pilots weren't drunk, and weren't in control of the plane

Well, they WERE drunk (as per Florida BAC laws) and they WERE in command of the plane, even if they weren't directly in control.

I would hope the FAA will have expert witnesses to testify as to how much the two had to do before pushback while in an impaired state.

I mean, the checklists that they have to review are *SERIOUS BUSINESS* - and being intoxicated while doing them is NOT something to inspire confidence in the quality of their work, as far as I'm concerned.

I have 0 sympathy - the jury should bite - bite hard - on their butts. These guys gave us all a black eye.
 
It made me sick hearing what their lawyer was trying. I actually yelled at the radio. I think I scared the old lady in the car beside me. :D

Come ON. You're in the plane, it's getting pushed back from the gate, you're in the only pilot and co-pilot seat available and your intent is to fly. Guilty, guilty, guilty.

My faith in our justice system, however, makes me wonder if this will really work...
 
You're drunk. Stop at the side of the road for a quick pit stop. Get back in, put the key in the ignition, and before you start the car, a trouper pulls up behind you. Are you DWI?
You bet.
Rationale is you are in a position to drive with intent to drive.
If your keys were on the floor, no matter where you were sitting, you couldn't be DWI. Drunk tank for the night, sure, but not DWI.
No sympathies. 8 hours bottle to throttle. Even better, 24!
 
They're screwed - no jury will buy that story. What do they expect, that the pilots would have a change of heart, and return to the terminal to turn themselves in?
 
I'm pretty sure this question is one of law, not fact, so it will be decided by the judge, not the jury. The judge will instruct the jury on the law as it applies to the case, and the jury is obligated to follow the judge's instructions.
 
What I was hearing today is that if they can get the jury to believe they were not yet in command only had the intent "to be" in command the crime is a misdeminor (sp) not a felony.
Rob Singles
 
While it's a question of Law, the Federal Government sets the rules governing airport and aircraft operations, so wouldn't the judge and jury be obligated to consider the definition of "in command" to be based on what the FAA says it is?

If I, as PIC, am responsible for all aspects of the flight including the pre-flight, then I'm in command of the flight long before the loggable moment when the prop starts turning.

I just hope the prosecution is working closely with FAA experts on this.
 
Greebo said:
While it's a question of Law, the Federal Government sets the rules governing airport and aircraft operations, so wouldn't the judge and jury be obligated to consider the definition of "in command" to be based on what the FAA says it is?

If I, as PIC, am responsible for all aspects of the flight including the pre-flight, then I'm in command of the flight long before the loggable moment when the prop starts turning.

I just hope the prosecution is working closely with FAA experts on this.
Click to expand...

AMEN! and AMEN! They knew what they were doing. They knew the rules. They are professionals. They have violated the rules. They were planning to put passengers in harms way with every sip they took. I would call it "First Degree Attempted Murder".
 
Actually, my brother the police officer tells me that in Maryland, sitting behind the wheel drunk with the engine off and keys out is DWI. They've charged a few "sleeping it off at the side of the road" cases for that.
 
MSmith said:
Actually, my brother the police officer tells me that in Maryland, sitting behind the wheel drunk with the engine off and keys out is DWI. They've charged a few "sleeping it off at the side of the road" cases for that.
Click to expand...
Same in WV. Buddy of mine in college got busted for that.
 
Greebo said:
Same in WV. Buddy of mine in college got busted for that.
Click to expand...


Ditto PA. I have seen it charged many times. "Operating or in actual control of..." You get drunk in PA, and decide to sleep it off, don't do it in the car.

If you are in the back seat lying down, not likely to charge. Or possibly the front passenger seat. But... The problem is that car had to get there somehow, and someone drove it there, unless it is in the bar parking lot. So... If you are sitting in the driver's seat, off by some corn field, sleeping off a drunk, the circumstantial evidence indicates that you drove it there, drunk. And you are likely to have to defend against the charge. Let's face facts, citizens don't want drunk drivers on the road.

I don't know, however, if you would be charged with DWI if you were attached to a tow truck that was pulling you down the road. Now that is what these jerks are arguing, by analogy. It is a novel argument. With 130+ passengers on board who were about to be taken for a ride by these cowboys, I am not sure I could pick a jury of 12 to buy it. But it IS better than nothing to argue.

I am with the rest of you, though. I hope they get all the punishment they so obviously deserve. 8 hours bottle to throttle is not hard to comply with. And below .04 BAC is not that hard either.

As a private pilot who would love to have the opportunity to fly professionally, it ticks me off that these two would, literally, P--s it all away for the sake of a buzz.

I know, as an attorney, if I commit a criminal offense, I lose my license to practice. The ethics board will see to that. Might be temporary but it means a loss of my livelihood, nonetheless. If I break the law, that is one of the punishments that awaits me. If I fail to consider it and do something stupid, I pay that price. Shame on me. Ditto these two.

Jim G
 
grattonja said:
I don't know, however, if you would be charged with DWI if you were attached to a tow truck that was pulling you down the road. Now that is what these jerks are arguing, by analogy. It is a novel argument. With 130+ passengers on board who were about to be taken for a ride by these cowboys, I am not sure I could pick a jury of 12 to buy it. But it IS better than nothing to argue.
Click to expand...

One big difference in your analogy is that I think the driver behind a tow truck would be more likely to be charged if there was evidence he had driven to the point where the tow truck got attached vs the pilots who were prepared to fly after the "tow truck" released them. IOW it seems unlikely that the car would be towed somewhere so the drunk could drive away. That leaves the pilots with guilty intentions vs the driver's actions.

OTOH, like Chuck posted, I'd think that in the pilot's case, there is a clear definition of PIC responsibilities that begins long before the tug pushes the airplane. Assuming the pilots had already begun configuring the airplane for engine start, running checklists etc, I'd think it should be fairly easy to convince a jury that they were "operating" the aircraft even though they weren't steering or directly controlling the engine power at the time.

I suppose it all comes down to how the law was crafted. If it merely prohibits "flying" while intoxicated, you might be legal to taxi to the runway or even commence the takeoff roll as long as you didn't actually get airborne, but if the law prohibits "operating" an aircraft, these guys should be toast if the jury has any sense.

Either way I think they ought to receive as much grief from the authorities as possible under the law.
 
Anyone out there got the text of the Fl law? I don't know about "flying drunk" laws per se. Haven't had to deal with one in PA. I know my way around DWI pretty well. I would like to read the statute.

We defense attorneys work with what we are given by the clients. I don't know what was offered for a plea offer for these guys, but I imagine it was not much, considering it wasn't some yahoo in a 172 but two yahoos with a whole bunch of innocent passengers. So there is probably little for these guys to lose by going to trial, and hoping that a hail mary works.

Jim G
 
Something else to keep in mind: this is a state trial for state laws and has nothing to do with the FARs that were broken. They still have the FAA to deal with if they haven't already.
 
Brian Austin said:
Something else to keep in mind: this is a state trial for state laws and has nothing to do with the FARs that were broken. They still have the FAA to deal with if they haven't already.
Click to expand...
FAA has already spoken -- revocation. And, of course, the airline fired them. All that remains to be seen is whether they also go to jail.
 
Don't they start the engines before pushback? Before they unhook from the terminal's power supply?
 
Greebo said:
Don't they start the engines before pushback? Before they unhook from the terminal's power supply?
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not -- most planes can push back with only the APU running and then start off that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top