County Sheriff Arrests Pilot After Botched Landing

Here's an interesting incident:


http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article...98214710935635
Man booked into jail after trouble landing plane
Jeremy Foster

May 15, 2008 7:36 AM

A pilot is accused of flying under the influence of alcohol
Wednesday after having trouble landing at the Santa Maria Airport.

At 6:25P.M. the Santa Barbara Fire Department responded to a
report of a plane making a nose-down landing and hitting the
tarmac.

The nose gear on a single-engine Cessna plane collapsed during the
landing according to county fire spokesman Capt. Eli Iskow.

The pilot was identified as Santa Maria resident Gregory Anderson,
57, who showed signs of being under the influence, according to
Santa Maria police

He was uninjured from the landing and was later booked into the
Santa Barbara County Jail.




Here's a law firm that specializes in flying under the influence
cases: http://www.californiaduihelp.com/bui...flying_fui.asp

Flying Under the Influence

A pilot who flies any aircraft, either commercial or private,
under the influence of alcohol or drugs can be charged with flying
under the influence, or FUI / FWI. Pilots who fly under the
influence can be charged under federal and/or state law, and the
potential penalties are severe. Anyone charged with FUI / FWI
should consult with a California criminal defense attorney with
experience defending flying under the influence cases.

The laws surrounding FUI / FWI are complex and challenging,
because pilots must follow both state law and the Federal Aviation
Regulations, or FARS, governed by the Federal Aviation
Administration.

The FAA has outlined strict rules regulating the consumption of
alcohol by crew members of any civil aircraft, either commercial
or private. The agency prohibits anyone from acting as a crew
member if he or she has consumed alcohol within eight hours of a
flight, while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or with a
blood alcohol content (BAC) of .04 percent or greater. [That's
twice the 0.08% BAC limit for motorists.] A pilot or crewmember
who violates any of these provisions faces imprisonment, fines,
and revocation of his or her pilot’s license.

Pilots operate under an implied consent law similar to the rules
governing vehicles on the ground. Implied consent means that any
pilot suspected of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs
must take a chemical test upon request. A pilot who refuses a
chemical test risks a substantial fine and suspension or
revocation of his or her pilot’s license. ...

http://www.californiaduihelp.com/dui...calculator.asp
Online Blood-Alcohol Content Calculator (BAC)

http://www.californiaduihelp.com/dui...al_testing.asp



I had no idea airmen operate under a federal implied consent law.

Below is an enlightening NTSB safety recommendation on the subject:



http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/1992/A92_113.pdf
National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, D.C. 20594
Safety Recommendation
Date: December 17, 1992
In reply refer to: A-92-113

To the Governors and Legislative Leaders
of the States
(See mailing list attached)
The Safety Board recently completed a study on alcohol and other
drug involvement in fatal general aviation accidents that occurred
from 1983 through 1988.’ Despite a downward trend in
alcohol-involved fatal general aviation accidents, about 6 percent
of the fatally injured pilots in the study were flying while
impaired. The mean blood alcohol concentration (BAC)
of the alcohol-positive pilots was 0.15 percent, nearly four times
the 0.04-percent BAC offense level established by current Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. More than 95 percent of
the alcohol positive pilots had a BAC that exceeded the
0.04-percent BAC offense level, more than 74 percent had a BAC
that exceeded the 0.10-percent level established as illegal for
drivers by most of the driving-while-intoxicated laws enacted by
States, and more than 47 percent had a BAC that exceeded 0.15
percent. The high BAC levels found in this study are similar to
the high BAC levels found in a 1984 Safety Board study.3 The Board
is concerned about alcohol involvement in general aviation
accidents because of its adverse effect on performance. Research
has demonstrated that BACs below 0.04 percent can produce
impairment.

Although the recent study provides information about fatal general
aviation accidents for the 1983 through 1988 period, little is
known about nonfatal general aviation accidents because the number
of toxicological tests performed after these accidents has been
small (about 1.0 percent of the 13,677 accidents that occurred
from 1983 through 1988) and some test results may not be
reported to the FAA.

The low rate of testing pilots involved in nonfatal general
aviation accidents is the result of the absence of an implied
consent provision (requiring a pilot to submit to toxicological
testing) in many existing State flying-while-intoxicated (FWI)
laws, and the absence of FWI laws in some States.

Under the Federal regulations pertaining to alcohol and drug
testing in civil aviation (Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
Part 91.17), which include general aviation pilots, pilots must
submit to toxicological testing for alcohol only if a test is
requested by a law enforcement officer under the provisions of
State law. Under most State laws, an officer may not request a
test unless an offense has been committed in the presence of the
officer or the officer has cause to believe (based on the odor of
alcohol on the pilot or other evidence at an accident) that an
offense has been committed. The authority to request such a test
is dependent on the existence of a State law pertaining to flying
while intoxicated.

Although 44 States have some form of law related to flying while
intoxicated, the provisions of the laws vary from State to State.
Only 16 States with FWI laws have an implied consent provision
(for chemical testing) and establish a BAC level at which a
pilot is presumed to be impaired: Arizona, California, Colorado,
Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire,
Oklahoma, and South Carolina establish a BAC of 0.04 percent;
Nebraska 0.05 percent; Alaska, Kansas, Louisiana, and
Massachusetts 0.10 percent. ~

It is important to note that a State law requiring a person to
submit to a chemical test (for alcohol) may not require a
toxicological test. The term "chemical test" means that the law
enforcement officer is legally permitted to request a test,
usually breath, for alcohol. A toxicological test
involves laboratory testing of biological specimens. State law
defines the specimen(s) that can be obtained--such as breath,
blood, urine, and/or other bodily substance--and whether multiple
tests (for alcohol and for other drugs) may be performed.

If a toxicological (or a chemical) test for alcohol is requested
from a pilot by a law enforcement officer, the pilot is required
by Federal regulation to report the results to the FAA, whether
the results are positive or negative. Of the 16 States with FWI
laws that include an implied consent provision and establish a BAC
offense level, 15 also require reporting of test results to the
FAA; the Kansas FWI law does not require reporting of test results
to the FAA.6 Thus, the law enforcement officer may or may not
report test results to the FAA, depending on the provisions of the
State law.

The FAA may also request test results if it is aware of the
aviation accident. If the pilot refuses the test or fails to
provide a specimen for testing, the pilot is required to notify
the FAA. In either case, the FAA may then take action against the
pilot’s airman certificate. Refusal to submit to a lawfully
requested test may result in sanctions by the FAA and, in States
with implied consent laws that apply to aviation, the State may
impose a sanction provided by State law.

Although a State with an FWI law may take some type of action, it
may not take any action against the pilot’s Federally issued
airman certificate. For example, conviction under the Minnesota
FWI law may result in prohibiting the pilot from flying in
Minnesota airspace but would not prohibit the pilot from flying in
the airspace of other States. Conviction under California law may
result in a prison sentence (30 days to 6 months) and a fine ($250
to $1,000). Conviction in Alaska, a State with a comprehensive law
on operating under the influence, may result in suspension or
revocation of the pilot‘s drivers license; Alaska’s law is
comprehensive in the sense that it pertains to the operation of
all motorized vehicles, aircraft, and watercraft while intoxicated
or impaired.

States cannot adequately identify pilots who fly under the
influence of an impairing substance and corrective actions cannot
be taken without comprehensive laws that establish a specific BAC
offense level, have an implied consent provision to obtain
biological specimen(s) for toxicological tests for alcohol and
other drugs, define the specimen(s) that may be obtained, and
require reporting of toxicological test results and refusals to
submit to testing to appropriate authorities. Most State
driving-while intoxicated (DWI) laws include these provisions.

The Safety Board believes that State FWI laws should include
similar provisions. Therefore, as a result of its safety study,
the National Transportation Safety Board recommends that each
State:

Enact comprehensive laws pertaining to alcohol and drug use in
aviation, or amend existing laws as appropriate, to include:
(a) an implied consent provision to obtain biological
specimen(s) for toxicological tests, for alcohol and other
drugs, of pilots involved in accidents that result in death,
serious injury, or substantial aircraft damage;

(b) definition of the specimen(s) that may be obtained--such
as breath, blood, urine, and/or other bodily substance;

(c) a blood alcohol concentration that defines the
offense; and

(d) a requirement to report to the Federal Aviation
Administration toxicological test results and refusals to
submit to testing. (Class 11, Priority Action) (A-92-113)

As a result of its safety study, the Safety Board issued
recommendations to the Governors and Legislative Leaders of the
States, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Aircraft Owners
and Pilots Association, the Experimental Aircraft Association, the
National Agricultural Aviation Association, the National Air
Transportation Association, the National Association of Flight
Instructors, and the National Association of State Aviation
Officials.

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal
agency with the statutory responsibility "...to promote
transportation safety by conducting independent accident
investigations and by formulating safety improvement
recommendations" (Public Law 93-633). The Safety Board is
vitally interested in any actions taken as a result of its safety
recommendations and would appreciate a response from you regarding
action taken or contemplated with respect to the recommendation in
this letter.

Please refer to Safety Recommendation A-92-113 in your reply.

Chairman VOGT, Vice Chairman COUGHLIN, and Members LAUBER, HART,
and HAMMERSCHMIDT concurred in this recommendation.

[signature]
Chairman
[list of recipients omitted]


Additional research:


http://books.google.com/books?id=UzR...hzL3Ng8o&hl=en
On Criminalization: An Essay in the Philosophy of the Criminal Law
By Jonathan Schonsheck
Page 252:

... shown to be a reason "drug" does not pass through the
Pragmatics Filter.

Now it must be borne in mind that what is at issue is the use of
psychoactive substances per se, and not the doing of various
things while under the influence of such substance. To defend
that legality of alcohol consumption is not to be committed to the
permissibility of driving while intoxicated, or flying an airplane
while intoxicated, or performing brain surgery while intoxicated,
etc. Mill himself draws the distinction very nicely: "No person
ought to be punished simply for being drunk; but a soldier of a
policeman should be punished for being drunk on duty." [OL 99-100]
Thus, it is simply mistaken to claim that, since persons using
cocaine or marijuana pose a harm to others if they operate an
automobile or fly a plane of perform brain surgery etc., there is,
on these grounds, a Harm Principle justification for laws
prohibiting the use of these psychoactives. The dangers of drunk
driving provide a Harm Principle justification for laws
prohibiting drunk driving, but not for making the drinking of
alcohol itself illegal. The same is true of other psychoactives;
even if a law prohibiting some activities while under the
influence of psychoactives can be justified under the Harm
Principle, it just does not follow that prohibition of the use of
psychoactives itself is thereby justified.

I have discussed precisely this issue on numerous occasions, in
numerous contexts, both informal and professional. It is
disheartening and discouraging that my dialogue with the
audience--pretty much without exception--begins in this way. No
one wants to return to Prohibition. Virtually everyone thinks
that driving a car, flying an airplane, performing surgery, etc.,
etc. while under the influence of alcohol poses so serious a
threat of harm to others that these activities are properly
criminalized. Virtually everyone thinks that driving a car,
flying an airplane, performing surgery, etc., etc. while under the
influence of marijuana, or cocaine, or heroin, poses a serious
threat of harm to others. Virtually every one concludes that the
very use of marijuana, cocaine and heroin ought therefore be
criminalized. The solution to drunk driving, flying and operating
is the criminal prohibition of those activities, though not the
criminalization for the use of alcohol. The solution to stoned
driving, flying and operating /is/ the criminalization of the use
of those psychoactives /simpliciter/. (I am mildly pleased to
report that, though virtually all discussions begin this way, not
discussion end this way.)

It is undeniable that a vast amount of criminality is "associated
with" drug use. Secretary of Education William Bennett has
claimed, "When you get....





http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all
Jury Weighs Drunken Flying Charge

By ERIC WEINER, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: August 17, 1990

LEAD: In the first criminal trial of airline pilots charged with
flying under the influence of alcohol, a jury in Federal District
Court today began deliberating the case of three pilots who flew a
Northwest Airlines jetliner after a night of heavy drinking.

In the first criminal trial of airline pilots charged with flying
under the influence of alcohol, a jury in Federal District Court
today began deliberating the case of three pilots who flew a
Northwest Airlines jetliner after a night of heavy drinking.

Lawyers for the pilots said they were perfectly capable of flying
the next morning, as evidenced by the safe flight, despite a level
of alcohol in their blood that exceeded the limit set by the
Federal Aviation Administration.

But Elizabeth de la Vega, the Assistant United States Attorney
prosecuting the case, said in closing arguments, ''The law does
not require us to wait until somebody drops over in the cockpit
for us to find that he is under the influence.''

Judge James Rosenbaum told the 12-member jury that they must be
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the pilots' drinking had
affected their ability to fly the plane safely. He also said the
charges against the pilots should be considered separately.

Law Does Not Specify Limit

Unlike state drunken driving laws, the 1988 Federal criminal law
under which the pilots are charged does not specify a level of
alcohol in the blood as evidence of flying under the influence.
But F.A.A. regulations set a limit of 0.04 percent for loss of a
license. The level of alcohol in the blood of all three pilots
exceeded that limit when tested two hours after their flight.

But defense lawyers, in closing arguments, said the flight was
flawless and that this was evidence that the pilots' abilities had
not been impaired.

The maximum penalty for the charge against the pilots is 15 years
in prison and a fine of $250,000.

The case has raised many questions about the Federal rules that
govern drinking and flying, and some safety groups and medical
experts are now calling for tougher Federal standards.

'Perfect-Flight' Defense

The three pilots were arrested after they flew a Northwest 727
from Fargo, N.D. to Minneapolis on March 8. A bar patron had
notified Federal officials that he had seen the three drinking
heavily the night before.

Lawyers for the pilots did not deny that they had been intoxicated
the night before the flight, but they focused on what they called
''the perfect flight.''

The plane's captain, Norman L. Prouse, had .13 percent alcohol in
his blood, which is higher than the legal limit of .10 percent
that most states have for driving an automobile and far in excess
of the F.A.A.'s limit of .04 percent. The plane's co-pilot, Robert
Kirchner, had .06 percent alcohol in his blood and the flight
engineer, Joseph Balzer, had .08 percent.

''It's not a crime for Mr. Balzer to have consumed alcoholic
beverages,'' said Bruce Hanley, a lawyer representing the plane's
flight engineer. ''It's not very smart, but it's not a crime.''

Peter Wold, the lawyer for Mr. Prouse, argued that because his
client has been an alcoholic for many years, he has built up a
higher tolerance for liquor.

The three pilots had spent several hours drinking at the Speak
Easy bar in Moorhead, Minn., the night before their flight,
scheduled at 6:25 A.M. Mr. Prouse drank at least 15 rum and Diet
Cokes, according to the bar's records and acconts of witnesses.
The two other pilots shared seven pitchers of beer, witnesses
testified.

'Drinking Like Fish'

Mr. Prouse fell off the bar stool during the evening and struck
his head on the floor, witnesses said. Later, he could not find
his hotel, which was one block away, witnesses testified.

''They had been drinking like fish at that bar,'' Ms. de la Vega
said.

Ms. de la Vega argued that the pilots could not have responded to
an in-flight emergency. She called the defense lawyers' arguments
the ''the Alice-in-Wonderland defense.''

Witnesses for the pilots testified that the flight was uneventful.
''Overall, I don't see any area that I can point to and say they
fell short,'' said Robert Collette, an expert defense witness who
reviewed tape recorded conversations between the crew and air
traffic controllers. The plane's three flight attendants also
testified that they believe the flight was normal.

But the prosecution presented expert witnesses who testified that
people can be impaired at much smaller amounts of alcohol than the
three pilots had consumed.

Shortly after the incident the F.A.A. revoked the pilots' licenses
and Northwest dismissed them. All three pilots have appealed the
F.A.A.'s action to the National Transportation Safety Board and
Mr. Prouse and Mr. Kirchner have appealed their dismissals to
Northwest. Mr. Balzer, who had been on probation as a new pilot,
has no appeal rights.

Doctors Want Tighter Rule

The F.A.A. prohibits pilots from flying within eight hours after
their last alcoholic drink. The rule has come under criticism as
too lenient in recent months.

In a report published in the current issue of The New England
Journal of Medicine, doctors recommended that the limit be
extended to 12 hours and that pilots be prohibited from flying
within 24 hours of consuming five or more drinks. The report also
proposed that the F.A.A.'s .04 percent limit of alcohol in the
blood be lowered to .01 percent. ''The weight of the evidence
suggests that even small amounts of alcohol can have a profoundly
negative effect on flight safety,'' the report said.

No fatal accidents involving a major airline have been traced to a
drunken pilot, but there have been dozens of such accidents
involving private or chartered planes. And some evidence suggests
that drinking and flying among even professional pilots may be
more widespread. Since 1984, 61 professional pilots have had their
licenses suspended or revoked for flying while under the influence
of alcohol.

A 1987 cross-check of the national driver registry and pilot
records found that more than 1,000 professional pilots had been
convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol and
failed to report the information to the Government, as required.

Last month, the aviation agency said it will revoke a pilot's
license if he has two or more drunk driving convictions within a
five-year period. The pilots union has objected to the rule,
calling it a ''witch hunt.''

Virtually every major airline has a rehabilitation programs in
which pilots can seek confidential help for alcoholism and, once
passing a battery of tests, return to the cockpit. But Northwest
had long been an industry holdout, only beginning such a program
last year.






http://www.dui.com/dui-library/pilots/pilots-covicted
Pilots Convicted of Flying Under the Influence
Jury Convicts Former Midland Pilot for Drunkeness in Plane

06/10/2005

Midland Reporter Telegram

Former Midland Pilot Convicted of 2002 Drunkenness in America West
Airliner

By Ed Todd

MRT Correspondent

Convicted PilotsThomas Cloyd Jr., a 47-year-old former Midlander
who grew up in aviation and who, until July 2002, was a pilot for
America West Airlines, and his co-pilot, Christopher Hughes, 44,
were convicted this week by a Miami jury for being drunk in the
cockpit of their airliner just prior to take-off on a
Miami-to-Phoenix flight.

"He (Cloyd) just made a terrible, terrible mistake," said Tom
Dollahite, a retired Midland corporate pilot who has known Cloyd
since his growing-up years in Midland and was a dear friend to
Cloyd's late father, Tom Cloyd Sr., a fellow corporate pilot who
died at age 64 in the 1995 crash of a Commemorative Air Force B-26
Marauder bomber of World War II vintage. The senior Cloyd, who was
not piloting the B-26 at time of the crash, was a seasoned CAF
pilot who regularly flew the B-29 Superfortress and the B-24
Liberator.

The younger Cloyd is a 1976 graduate of Midland's Robert E. Lee
High School. "He was kind of my surrogate son," Dollahite said.
"He and my son, Tommy Jr., grew up together."

Dollahite's son, a retired United States Air Force pilot,
currently is flying for Southwest Airlines.

Cloyd's mother, Margaret Cloyd, lives in Midland and is active in
the CAF.

The Associated Press reported earlier this week that Cloyd and
Hughes could be placed on probation or could be sentenced up to
five years in prison at sentencing on July 20. Florida Circuit
Court Judge David Young ordered both men to be jailed and held
without bail, The AP reported.

"I sure hope they (the courts) are lenient on their sentence,"
Dollahite said, "but ... ."

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) "immediately" revoked
Cloyd's and Hughes' commercial pilot's licenses after their
Miami-to-Phoenix flight was canceled as their Airbus 319 was being
removed from the gate by a tug in readying for flight on July 1,
2002.

Security screeners at Miami International Airport had detected the
strong scent of alcohol on the pilots' breath, and Cloyd had
gotten got into an argument because he wanted to bring a
prohibited cup of coffee aboard the airliner, The AP reported.
Airport police ordered the airliner to return to the terminal.

Aboard the flight were 124 passengers and three flight attendants,
The AP reported.

"We have protected some lives today," Florida prosecutor Deisy
Rodriguez said Wednesday following the two-week trial. She had
characterized the pilot and co-pilot as "stumbling, fumbling"
drunks who put the passengers' lives in grave danger, The AP
reported.

Testimony indicated the pilots had drunk 14 beers between them
late into the night prior to the scheduled morning departure of
their flight.

Cloyd and Hughes "demonstrated careless and reckless behavior by
getting into that cockpit under the influence of alcohol,"
Rodriguez said.

The AP also reported defense lawyers stated testimony indicated
neither pilot was visibly intoxicated and the pilots were not in
control of the aircraft when airport police ordered the airliner
back to the terminal. The aircraft was being positioned by a tug
for taxiing and then for takeoff.

"Flight doesn't occur until the plane begins to move under its own
power," said Cloyd's defense attorney Daniel Foodman, The AP
reported. "Nobody was in danger. Nobody testified Mr. Cloyd did
anything wrong in that cockpit."

However, Florida prosecutor Armando Hernandez said, "Within the
aviation community, it was clear they were operating this
aircraft" before the engines were powered up and before takeoff,
The AP reported.

Cloyd, who lives in Peoria, Ariz., and Hughes, who resides in
Leander, did not testify in their own defense during the trial.

Court testimony revealed the pilots had consumed 14 beers and had
a $122 tab at a Coconut Grove sports bar until 4:40 a.m. on
morning of the scheduled departure of their flight at 10:30 a.m.,
The AP reported. Sobriety breath tests hours later showed the
pilots' blood-alcohol level was above Florida's legal limit of
0.08 percent. Experts testified the blood-alcohol levels were
probably much higher when the pilots boarded the airplane.

Hughes' defense attorney, James Rubin, said even if the pilots had
been drinking the night before their flight, they exhibited no
signs of drunkenness.

"There was no untoward sign of impairment," Rubin said in closing
arguments, according to The AP. "They appeared to be acting in a
normal fashion."

The AP reported that "central to the defense" was whether the two
pilots legally were operating the airliner prior to takeoff.
However, Rodriguez, the prosecutor, cited testimony that both
pilots had performed flight checks for 30 minutes before the
airliner was pushed away from the airport gate and the pilots,
when questioned by police on the day of their arrest, said "yes"
when asked if they had been operating an aircraft.

"They confessed, and they indicated that absolutely they were
operating that aircraft," Rodriguez said in The AP report.

Jury: Former pilots guilty of being drunk in cockpit

Fort Lauderdale, Fla. -- A Miami-Dade County jury on Wednesday
found two former America West pilots guilty of operating an
aircraft while drunk. The verdict came three years after the
pilots had gone on an all-night drinking binge.

The six-man jury convicted pilot Thomas Cloyd of Peoria, Ariz.,
and co-pilot Christopher Hughes of Leander, Texas, after
deliberating for about six hours. Both men wept as the verdicts
were read.
Posted Friday, March 23, 2007

Larry Dighera wrote:
I had no idea airmen operate under a federal law.


Really Larry, you didn't know?

On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:38:19 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
I had no idea airmen operate under a federal implied consent law.


Really Larry, you didn't know?


How would I know? It's not in the FARs that I'm aware of.

Are you able to cite the specific federal law that indicates airmen
have implied consent to law enforcement taking bodily specimens?

Um, my math says half, not twice.

Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle


blood alcohol content (BAC) of .04 percent or greater. [That's
twice the 0.08% BAC limit for motorists.]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:22:49 -0700, "RST Engineering"
wrote in
:

Um, my math says half, not twice.


Thank you for the correction.

On May 15, 2:59*pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:38:19 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
*I had no idea airmen operate under a federal implied consent law. *

Really Larry, you didn't know?

How would I know? *It's not in the FARs that I'm aware of. *

Are you able to cite the specific federal law that indicates airmen
have implied consent to law enforcement taking bodily specimens?

The pilot is in California anyway so it doesn't make a difference.
California has implied consent for anyone operating a motor vehicle in
any location (including private property). Don't drink beer while
riding your lawn tractor.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:

Are you able to cite the specific federal law that indicates airmen
have implied consent to law enforcement taking bodily specimens?

Looks like maybe 14CFR 91.17:

(a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil
aircraft—
(2) While under the influence of alcohol;
....
(c) A crewmember shall do the following:
(1) On request of a law enforcement officer, submit to a test to
indicate the alcohol concentration in the blood or breath, when—

(i) The law enforcement officer is authorized under State or local law
to conduct the test or to have the test conducted; and

(ii) The law enforcement officer is requesting submission to the test to
investigate a suspected violation of State or local law governing the
same or substantially similar conduct prohibited by paragraph (a)(1),
(a)(2), or (a)(4) of this section.

....
(d) Whenever the Administrator has a reasonable basis to believe that
a person may have violated paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that person
shall, upon request by the Administrator, furnish the Administrator, or
authorize any clinic, hospital, doctor, or other person to release to
the Administrator, the results of each test taken within 4 hours after
acting or attempting to act as a crewmember that indicates the presence
of any drugs in the body.

(e) Any test information obtained by the Administrator under paragraph
(c) or (d) of this section may be evaluated in determining a person's
qualifications for any airman certificate or possible violations of this
chapter and may be used as evidence in any legal proceeding under
section 602, 609, or 901 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.

On Thu, 15 May 2008 17:10:15 -0700, gatt
wrote in :

Robert M. Gary wrote:

Are you able to cite the specific federal law that indicates airmen
have implied consent to law enforcement taking bodily specimens?

Looks like maybe 14CFR 91.17:


So it does. Thanks.

On May 15, 4:52*pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

The pilot is in California anyway so it doesn't make a difference.
California has implied consent for anyone operating a motor vehicle in
any location (including private property). *Don't drink beer while
riding your lawn tractor.

BTW: In California a guy once got a DUI for riding his horse while
drunk. He said the horse knew its way home without him but he got the
DUI anyway. Eventually you'll be able to get a DUI for operating your
easy chair while watching TV.

-Robert

On May 16, 5:42*am, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On May 15, 4:52*pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

The pilot is in California anyway so it doesn't make a difference.
California has implied consent for anyone operating a motor vehicle in
any location (including private property). *Don't drink beer while
riding your lawn tractor.

BTW: In California a guy once got a DUI for riding his horse while
drunk. He said the horse knew its way home without him but he got the
DUI anyway. Eventually you'll be able to get a DUI for operating your
easy chair while watching TV.

-Robert

Another great reason NOT to live in California.......................