If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
County Sheriff Arrests Pilot After Botched Landing
Larry Dighera wrote:
I had no idea airmen operate under a federal law. Really Larry, you didn't know? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
County Sheriff Arrests Pilot After Botched Landing
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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
County Sheriff Arrests Pilot After Botched Landing
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.] |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
County Sheriff Arrests Pilot After Botched Landing
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
County Sheriff Arrests Pilot After Botched Landing
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
County Sheriff Arrests Pilot After Botched Landing
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
County Sheriff Arrests Pilot After Botched Landing
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
County Sheriff Arrests Pilot After Botched Landing
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
County Sheriff Arrests Pilot After Botched Landing
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....................... |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cook county | Big John[_2_] | Piloting | 5 | March 13th 08 05:36 AM |
Another Botched use of runways | Skunk | Instrument Flight Rules | 33 | November 7th 06 02:37 AM |
Bad landing; lucky pilot | Dave in San Diego | Naval Aviation | 9 | March 26th 05 06:10 PM |
Study pilot workload during approach and landing | Freshfighter | Piloting | 5 | December 7th 03 04:06 PM |
British pilot (in Britain), survives forced mountain landing | Tim K | Piloting | 3 | July 11th 03 04:14 PM |