Too drunk to drive but sober enough to fly a plane?

[DinoDoc]

Judge: Only feds, not state, can try pilots on drunk charge

A federal judge on Tuesday ruled the state does not have authority to prosecute two America West pilots for trying to fly 124 passengers from Miami to Phoenix while they were allegedly intoxicated.

The ruling, however, does not prevent U.S. prosecutors from filing similar charges, though they would face a tougher challenge because of a higher federal standard for drunkenness while operating a commercial jet.

The pilots had blood-alcohol readings above the state's standard of .08 percent, but below the federal guideline of .10 percent.

U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz said federal law trumps state statutes in cases involving interstate commerce such as cross-country air travel -- unless the pilots caused loss of life, injury or property damage.

The pilot, Thomas Cloyd, 45, and copilot, Christopher Hughes, 42, were removed from their cockpit before takeoff on July 1, 2002, without causing any harm to passengers or property. They were later fired by the airline.

A spokesman for the Miami-Dade state attorney's office said it will contest Seitz's ruling to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

If the appeal fails, federal prosecutors said they will consider whether to pursue intoxication charges against the two pilots.

OTHER EVIDENCE

If new charges are filed, the defense could show the pilots' Breathalyzer results fell below federal criminal standards. But U.S. prosecutors could present other potentially incriminating evidence to prove the pilots were impaired before they boarded America West Flight 566 at Miami International Airport.

''Obviously, if you don't have the presumption of drunkenness, your case is a little tougher,'' said Miami lawyer Joel Perwin, an appellate expert. ``You have to find additional evidence that they were impaired, including wobbling or slurring of speech.''

There appears to be plenty of investigative evidence suggesting the two pilots were impaired as they prepared to fly from Miami to Phoenix.

SECURITY CHECK

The pilots first drew attention after alarmed MIA security screeners said Hughes and Cloyd tried to carry cups of coffee through a security checkpoint -- which violated new security rules imposed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The screeners told police that the pilots smelled of alcohol, had flushed faces and bloodshot and watery eyes. They notified Miami-Dade police, which patrols the county-run airport.

Sgt. John Methvin notified the control tower, which ordered the pilots to return to the gate.

After the two were escorted off the plane, police asked them about the smell of alcohol on their breath. Hughes explained it was ''merely mouthwash,'' according to a police report.

Police read the pilots their rights against self-incrimination, and then asked them how much alcohol they had drunk the night before their morning flight.

The pilots said they drank pints of draft beer at Moe's in Coconut Grove. Cloyd said he didn't know many he had consumed, but that it was ''too many,'' according to an investigator's notation. Hughes told police he had consumed ''many'' pints.

Officers asked the pilots to take a field sobriety test. The two did, and failed. They then were taken to an airport station for a Breathalyzer test about two hours after being taken off the plane.

ALCOHOL LEVELS

Cloyd's blood-alcohol reading was .091 and Hughes' was .084, police said. Those figures are above state criminal standards.

Federal Aviation Administration regulations prohibit pilots from operating an aircraft within eight hours of consuming alcohol or if they have a blood-alcohol level of .04. The pilots allegedly drank beer for six hours at the bar, until seven hours before the flight.

After the judge's ruling on Tuesday, Hughes' attorney, James Rubin, told The Associated Press that his client ''of course was happy.'' Cloyd's attorney was out of the office and not available for comment.

DOMINATES FIELD

Seitz agreed with defense arguments that the federal government has come to dominate the field of commercial aviation through its laws, rules and regulations. She recognized a ''dominant federal interest in uniform, nationwide standards'' for commercial pilots.

But Seitz noted her decision was a ''narrow holding'' based on the circumstances of the pilots' case and did not apply to anything besides regularly scheduled commercial flights.

The FAA stripped the pilots of their commercial licenses. As a bail condition, they were barred from recreational flying as well.

''They're not off scot-free. These are people who no longer have a career, and that's worse probably than prison,'' aviation analyst Mike Boyd of the Boyd Group in Evergreen, Colo., told the AP. ``Their punishment is that their careers are over, and that's pretty severe.''

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/6466934.htm

[Skanky Burns]

.08?
Our limit is .03

[Tingkai]

I was taught 12 hours from bottle to throttle, but Canadian air regs say eights hours, and you can't fly while under the influence of alcohol. Which means if you test positive for any alcohol, you're screwed.

[MichaeltheGreat]

.04 gets their asses in a sling with FAA.

These guys have been fired and had their licenses revoked. Not suspended, revoked. Over their remaining potential careers, that's well over a million bucks each in lost earnings.

The difference is that at .10, you not only get done for by the FAA and kiss all that hard work goodbye forever, you also get a little Federal time to think about the error of your ways.

The court is right though, in that their conduct once in the airport on duty, is governed by Federal law, not state law.

[Japher]

What if they were wearing a cape? I hear that you can fly drunk if you are wearing a cape....

[:) Smiley]

How often has this happened in the past?

And does anyone know what the standards are for Russian airlines?

[Flubber]

Legally there is nothing strange in different jurisdictions setting different standards for alcohol limits. I understand that many US states differ in their limits so you can be " too drunk to drive but sober enough to drive" depending on which side of the state line you are on.

In Canada, jurisdiction is clearer in that criminal law is federal so all of Canada has .08 as the legal limit for criminal matters. However the provinces have jurisdiction over things like traffic laws and I know of one province that mandates a small fine and a 24 hour licence suspension if caught driving above a .05 limit.

AS for the pilots, here the system worked-- the idiots were prevented from flying and loss of flying licence will be a severe punishment already. The US federal criminal system may add to their troubles ( and I wouldn't mind a little jail time as icing here) but the reality is that those guys have just thrown away their careers-- Whether or not they are convicted criminally, those pilots have already faced serious consequences

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
These guys have been fired and had their licenses revoked. Not suspended, revoked. Over their remaining potential careers, that's well over a million bucks each in lost earnings.

Nah, they'll just get a job flying for Korean Air.

[Sarxis]

Meh.. those things basically fly themselves nowadays.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Nah, they'll just get a job flying for Korean Air.

Won't pay them what they make for US airlines, though, and IIRC, the FAA takes the position that as US citizens, they won't fly anywhere, for anybody, if the FAA hears about it. At the very least, they'll never fly into US airspace, even if another national authority licensed them.