What happened with Patty Wagstaff?

Ron Levy said:
I see a problem with that -- it would violate the constitutional concept of equal protection. Since the FAA doesn't permanently ban "regular" folks for their first "motor vehicle action," they should not ban Ms. Wagstaff, either. Rather, I think Ms. Wagstaff should be treated no differently by the FAA than any other pilot of her certification level, regardless of celebrity status -- no harsher, no more leniently. Bruce Chien can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the standard procedure in such is to require medical evaluation and counseling, but not to suspend her tickets unless more issues arise in the evaluation process. If so, that seems right to me for Ms. Wagstaff, too.
Click to expand...

What he said. No matter how awesome a pilot or how badly she behaved, she should be treated like any other pilot. I hope she can put this behind her.
 
SteveinMichigan said:
I see no problem with a permanent ban from flying. Perhaps since she is a role model for so many young aviators and not just some punk athlete, she should be made an example of. Since summary public executions are verboten, I guess a permanent ban from flying is an acceptable alternative.
Click to expand...

Well, I kind of see a problem with it. If I was dumb enough to get a DUI, I wouldn't expect to receive a permanent ban, so she shouldn't expect one either.

But I won't get a DUI unless there's an emergency and I HAVE to drive somewhere. I've seen what the outcome can be from a drunk driver. It sucks.
 
Ron Levy said:
I see a problem with that -- it would violate the constitutional concept of equal protection. Since the FAA doesn't permanently ban "regular" folks for their first "motor vehicle action," they should not ban Ms. Wagstaff, either. Rather, I think Ms. Wagstaff should be treated no differently by the FAA than any other pilot of her certification level, regardless of celebrity status -- no harsher, no more leniently. Bruce Chien can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the standard procedure in such is to require medical evaluation and counseling, but not to suspend her tickets unless more issues arise in the evaluation process. If so, that seems right to me for Ms. Wagstaff, too.
Click to expand...

Point taken.....damn Constitution... :D (KIDDING!)

And maybe a month with Jack Nicholson to work on anger management.:smilewinkgrin:
Click to expand...

Nicely played.
 
SteveinMichigan said:
Yeah, but normally that level of suspicion is pretty freaking high before the cuffs ever go on unless the person is just being a totally belligerent ass. However, I personally think if that is the case, the better options is tazing the dumb bastard or just plain ol' use of lethal force.
Click to expand...

Which is why law enforcement candidates take psych exams...thankfully.

Most people don't learn from the slap on the wrist you get for a DUI. With a lot of them, the only way to teach them is the same way Skinner taught his animals not to push or peck the wrong button- with pain (appropriately enough electricity in the case of the classic Skinner box experiments).
Click to expand...


The first electroshock treatment was forcibly administered to a homeless "schizophrenic" man in fascist Italy in 1938.
-- Thomas Szasz, M.D., "From the Slaughterhouse to the Madhouse", in L.R. Frank, ed., The History of Shock Treatment, pp. 8-11 (1978). See also: http://www.enabling.org/ia/szasz/




​
 
Which is why law enforcement candidates take psych exams...thankfully.
Click to expand...

You can't tell me that a gun pointed at someone with the order "FREEZE" or "DON'T MOVE" is not fair warning. I don't care if it's a cop or a crackhead who is holding the gun, that's a pretty good indication that you should probably comply or face the consequences.

The first electroshock treatment was forcibly administered to a homeless "schizophrenic" man in fascist Italy in 1938.-- Thomas Szasz, M.D., "From the Slaughterhouse to the Madhouse", in L.R. Frank, ed., The History of Shock Treatment, pp. 8-11 (1978). See also: http://www.enabling.org/ia/szasz/
Click to expand...

...and it continues to be used quite regularly (a lot more frequently than most people realize) in this country for successful treatment of intractable depression and other treatments. Please don't resort to reductio ad Hitlerum. It's beneath anyone with anything resembling functioning north of their tentorium.
 
SteveinMichigan said:
You can't tell me that a gun pointed at someone with the order "FREEZE" or "DON'T MOVE" is not fair warning. I don't care if it's a cop or a crackhead who is holding the gun, that's a pretty good indication that you should probably comply or face the consequences.
Click to expand...

You were advocating use of deadly force for someone being a belligerent ass. That's absurd.

...and it continues to be used quite regularly (a lot more frequently than most people realize) in this country for successful treatment of intractable depression and other treatments.
Click to expand...

ECT is at best controversial. You won't find many advocates for the use of ECT to treat alcoholism. Which isn't the point anyway - you were advocating that the legal system dispense pain-based punishment for DUI, which is, again, absurd.

Please don't resort to reductio ad Hitlerum. It's beneath anyone with anything resembling functioning north of their tentorium.
Click to expand...

I didn't. You might want to introduce your tentorium to a history text, since it was Mussolini that ran Italy at that time...


Trapper John
 
SteveinMichigan said:
Please don't resort to reductio ad Hitlerum. It's beneath anyone with anything resembling functioning north of their tentorium.
Click to expand...

WOW! It took 368 posts until someone invoked Hitler or the Nazis. I guess it was just a matter of time until Godwin's Law would apply...
 
Trapper John said:
You were advocating use of deadly force for someone being a belligerent ass. That's absurd.
Click to expand...

Well, if the are being violent, yes. If they are just shouting "F**king pigs!" that's another story. Like I said, if you don't have the sense to stop swinging when someone points a gun at your head, then I don't know what to tell you. Besides, I would actually prefer them just to give the guy (or girl) a few good cracks with an ASP baton to put some sense into them. If that doesn't work, taze them. If they still persist (and trust me- as someone who volunteered to be tazed THREE times in the name of medical science- anyone who keeps fighting after that has to be nuts), then the situation needs to be dealt with before a law abiding citizen or an officer gets hurt. Pardon me for putting my concern on the safety of those who protect us and not the "rights" of some skell who can't follow orders.

ECT is at best controversial. You won't find many advocates for the use of ECT to treat alcoholism. Which isn't the point anyway - you were advocating that the legal system dispense pain-based punishment for DUI, which is, again, absurd.
Click to expand...

Did I mention alcoholism? And that is how medical research is normally carried out (the likely lack of informed consent etc notwithstanding of course): you think a therapy might work for a given condition and test it out. People would be shocked at how often negative results are had in trials of medications and other interventions.

What amounts to corporal punishment would likely reduce the recidivism rate which continues to be a problem despite high fines and jail time. Of course making prisoners do hard labor rather than sitting around working out and figuring out creative new ways to make weapons out of household items would likely do this too, but

I didn't. You might want to introduce your tentorium to a history text, since it was Mussolini that ran Italy at that time...
Click to expand...

Correct, but most people when it comes to atrocities simply use the "reductio ad Hitlerum" fallacy for simplification purposes. It's simply the argument that because evil regime X (be it the Nazis, the Fascists under Mussolini, Idi Amin, etc) used technique Y, that technique Y is therefore evil by association. I've literally seen it used to describe things that went on Gitmo and other situations much further removed from Hitler than his friend Mussolini.
 
SteveinMichigan said:
(and trust me- as someone who volunteered to be tazed THREE times in the name of medical science- anyone who keeps fighting after that has to be nuts)
Click to expand...

Anyone who volunteers to be tazed three times has to be nuts. You know, you can still give a little blood or pee into a cup. And what kind of looney "medical science" requires someone to be tazed three times?
 
For those of you who may not know on Thursday morning the day of her incident at Wittman Regional her longtime crew chief Gene was killed in a Velocity XL in Florida. This delivered a serious blow to Patty, that evening she attended a dinner banquet at the Eagle Hangar at AirVenture. I have read all the local news media reporting here in Oshkosh, and the real deal is yet to be unveiled. I'm not advocating unruly behavior here, but after speaking with several accounts revealed by Winnebago Sheriff staffers who were on hand and at the scene she did not pose any threat to attendees or their aircraft north of the Warbirds area. The reasons are many and one does have to account for their actions, but she retains her certificate to fly presently. Cirrus Design her sponsor stands firmly behind this and will continue to do so.

We have known Patty for many years and she does a tremendous job at her skills, it just happens to be one of celebrity status in which the public scrutinizes you at every move, and we all know what this would have done had it been one of us in the left seat of a Baron or Gulfstream. You are under watchful eyes and the public likes to sensationalize such undertakings. She will come through this and we hope she takes a great deal of experience and makes the wise decision to step lightly during the 2009 season
 
steingar said:
Anyone who volunteers to be tazed three times has to be nuts. You know, you can still give a little blood or pee into a cup. And what kind of looney "medical science" requires someone to be tazed three times?
Click to expand...

It was trying to disprove all the crap you hear on the news about people being "killed by a Tazer", which it more or less did. In an otherwise healthy person (no severe cardiac disease, no stimulant drugs (cocaine, meth, etc) on board, etc), the chances of a severe complication or death are minimal.

Can you still pass a medical?
Click to expand...
Yup. In fact one of the docs heading the research project is qualified as an aviation medical examiner and was the one who signed off on my last medical. The danger to your heart from being tazed is probably less than what one would get from a daily Whopper over a year or two.

For those of you who may not know on Thursday morning the day of her incident at Wittman Regional her longtime crew chief Gene was killed in a Velocity XL in Florida.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry for her loss, but you're right that it does not excuse the behavior she exhibited.
 
SteveinMichigan said:
It was trying to disprove all the crap you hear on the news about people being "killed by a Tazer", which it more or less did. In an otherwise healthy person (no severe cardiac disease, no stimulant drugs (cocaine, meth, etc) on board, etc), the chances of a severe complication or death are minimal.
Click to expand...

I'd still rather pee into a cup.
 
Just received an faa runway safety collection dvd with April 2009 Aopa flight training mag that has a video with Patty talking about runway incursions. Any one know if this is a new video or something made before her court date?
 
shywon said:
Just received an faa runway safety collection dvd with April 2009 Aopa flight training mag that has a video with Patty talking about runway incursions. Any one know if this is a new video or something made before her court date?
Click to expand...
At least two, maybe three, years old.
 
shywon said:
Just received an faa runway safety collection dvd with April 2009 Aopa flight training mag that has a video with Patty talking about runway incursions. Any one know if this is a new video or something made before her court date?
Click to expand...
Did they show her in a car? :D
 
SteveinMichigan said:
It was trying to disprove all the crap you hear on the news about people being "killed by a Tazer", which it more or less did. In an otherwise healthy person (no severe cardiac disease, no stimulant drugs (cocaine, meth, etc) on board, etc), the chances of a severe complication or death are minimal. .
Click to expand...

But in my experience, it's the ones WITH the stimulants on board that frequently you need to Taze. I'm not saying don't use it, however.

I did see a pretty cool "glue gun" thing on a military channel that looked useful. Basically you sprayed this stuff and it hardened to a block of foam pretty quickly, encasing and immobilizing a person effectively. Of course, you shouldn't spray their heads, and it looked very much like a flamethrower, so it's not likely to become trunk-gear for the cops anytime soon.
 
TMetzinger said:
I did see a pretty cool "glue gun" thing on a military channel that looked useful. Basically you sprayed this stuff and it hardened to a block of foam pretty quickly, encasing and immobilizing a person effectively. Of course, you shouldn't spray their heads, and it looked very much like a flamethrower, so it's not likely to become trunk-gear for the cops anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Cool! Didn't one of Batman's foes have one of those on the old TV series?


Trapper John
 
heliocourier said:
We have known Patty for many years and she does a tremendous job at her skills, it just happens to be one of celebrity status in which the public scrutinizes you at every move, and we all know what this would have done had it been one of us in the left seat of a Baron or Gulfstream. You are under watchful eyes and the public likes to sensationalize such undertakings. She will come through this and we hope she takes a great deal of experience and makes the wise decision to step lightly during the 2009 season
Click to expand...

Met Patty at the Branson airshow this weekend. She looked great and her performance was amazing. I didn't expect anything less from her.
 
TMetzinger said:
I did see a pretty cool "glue gun" thing on a military channel that looked useful. Basically you sprayed this stuff and it hardened to a block of foam pretty quickly, encasing and immobilizing a person effectively. Of course, you shouldn't spray their heads, and it looked very much like a flamethrower, so it's not likely to become trunk-gear for the cops anytime soon.
Click to expand...

And then someone who is latex sensitive dies of anaphylaxis, and we're back to being jackbooted thugs for not shooting them with a jacketed hollowpoint.
 
DawnW said:
Met Patty at the Branson airshow this weekend. She looked great and her performance was amazing. I didn't expect anything less from her.
Click to expand...

She must have left the beer bong at home that weekend.
 
alaskaflyer said:
And then someone who is latex sensitive dies of anaphylaxis, and we're back to being jackbooted thugs for not shooting them with a jacketed hollowpoint.
Click to expand...

If you don't want to be thought of as a jack booted thug, get a different job. If you like the job, don't worry about being called a jack booted thug. Cops of all ilks will always be considered jack booted thugs.
 
Can I buy Jack Boots and wear them to the Jack in the Box if my name's not Jack? Or if I don't know Jack?
 
gkainz said:
Can I buy Jack Boots and wear them to the Jack in the Box if my name's not Jack? Or if I don't know Jack?
Click to expand...


Jack boots, Hah. All I know, for the most part I don't know Jack sh*t. :D
 
Henning said:
If you don't want to be thought of as a jack booted thug, get a different job. If you like the job, don't worry about being called a jack booted thug. Cops of all ilks will always be considered jack booted thugs.
Click to expand...

If I cared what others thought of me I would have gotten another job seventeen years ago.

I was expressing what I think of others.
 
alaskaflyer said:
If I cared what others thought of me I would have gotten another job seventeen years ago.

I was expressing what I think of others.
Click to expand...


Richard, in my best "Mr. Burns" voice, "I like the cut of your jib." :D
 
Ron Levy said:
Bruce Chien can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the standard procedure in such is to require medical evaluation and counseling, but not to suspend her tickets unless more issues arise in the evaluation process.
Click to expand...
FAA has no budget to do that. What education you get is a stern talk from the AME...which usually gets ignored.

Remember, two events makes a trend.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
Remember, two events makes a trend.
Click to expand...

A large proportion of those driving while impaired go undetected (Voas, et al, 2001) and estimates based on roadside surveys suggest that the number of times a person drives drunk before being arrested has ranged from 300 (Voas & Hause, 1987) to 2,000 (Borkenstein, 1975). Voas (2001) suggests that findings such as these have implications for the courts and those assessing DWI offenders, “...few drivers coming before the courts for the first time are actually first-time offenders. Most have driven under the influence many times without being apprehended.”​


Voas R.B., AND Hause, J.M. (1987). Deterring the drinking driver: The Stockton experience. Accident Analysis and
Prevention 19(2):81-90.​


Borkenstein, R. F. (1975) Problems of enforcement, adjudication and sanctioning. In: Israelstam, S., and Lambert, S., eds. Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. Toronto, Ontario: Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario. 655-662.​

 
alaskaflyer said:
A large proportion of those driving while impaired go undetected (Voas, et al, 2001) and estimates based on roadside surveys suggest that the number of times a person drives drunk before being arrested has ranged from 300 (Voas & Hause, 1987) to 2,000 (Borkenstein, 1975). Voas (2001) suggests that findings such as these have implications for the courts and those assessing DWI offenders, “...few drivers coming before the courts for the first time are actually first-time offenders. Most have driven under the influence many times without being apprehended.”​


Voas R.B., AND Hause, J.M. (1987). Deterring the drinking driver: The Stockton experience. Accident Analysis and
Prevention 19(2):81-90.​


Borkenstein, R. F. (1975) Problems of enforcement, adjudication and sanctioning. In: Israelstam, S., and Lambert, S., eds. Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. Toronto, Ontario: Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario. 655-662.​
Click to expand...
..Yes..data from 1987 and 1975 are totally accurate in today's society with increased DUI enforcement and lowered BAC limits. I mean..seriously? 22 to 34 year data is a pretty terrible reference.

As far as what is considered "driving intoxicated" I am quite convinced that the current .08BAC for most people is way on the light side with them more influenced by such things like a cell phone or a passenger or the radio.
 
jesse said:
..Yes..data from 1987 and 1975 are totally accurate in today's society with increased DUI enforcement and lowered BAC limits. I mean..seriously? 22 to 34 year data is a pretty terrible reference.
Click to expand...


OK, so they do it only 100 times before they are caught these days :rolleyes: Whether the data have trended 10% up or down since then, the underlying point is very valid.

As far as what is considered "driving intoxicated" I am quite convinced that the current .08BAC for most people is way on the light side with them more influenced by such things like a cell phone or a passenger or the radio.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Certainly all behaviors listed are dangerous in some relative order. Particularly when you are above .08 and talking on your cell phone as my last defendant was.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Certainly all behaviors listed are dangerous in some relative order. Particularly when you are above .08 and talking on your cell phone as my last defendant was.
Click to expand...
I'm saying that there are equally as distracting or dangerous things done by drivers on a daily basis. The penalty, generally nothing.

The guy that is driving at a .08BAC may be less or an equal risk as them but yet he gets hit with a huge penalty which can haunt him for the rest of his life.

Basically, I'm saying, that yes at .08 you are influenced. But the level that you are influenced is no greater than all the other distractions drivers have. The consequences of that .08 are unfairly high.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that driving around intoxicated is a great idea. I personally won't do it and there isn't a quantity of alcohol that could swing my judgment into doing it.

As a society we tend to over-react while ignoring equal threats. This is one of those cases.
 
While doing a little surfing for facts for this reply I found that according to the NHTSA speed was a factor in the same percentage as fatal accidents as achcol ( ~30% for each ) What I find interesting is the relative outrage and bashing difference between the 2 crimes. While I also do not think drinking and driving is a good idea, I question how those laws are created and enforced and what the true effectiveness of them is vs the other risk factors in driving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top