Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Alaska (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/alaska/)

- - Yikes Part 2 (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/alaska/112926-yikes-part-2-a.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moose (Post 2571785)

In a case of “she said; he said” what else do you have to go off of? She presented zero evidence. Just a probie drunk in the window saving her job is how some see it. Maybe she should take one.

I definitely agree. If we are going to involve a polygraph, they BOTH should take one. Now THAT would be interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lugar (Post 2571791)

I definitely agree. If we are going to involve a polygraph, they BOTH should take one. Now THAT would be interesting.

Sure but if she fails the polygraph, the man haters will immediately throw it out. Shoot first and ask later.

From the Office of Technology Assessment's

Congressionally mandated review of reliability of polygraphs:

Quote:

Results of OTA Review

The application of the polygraph to specific-incident criminal investigations is the only one to be extensively researched. OTA identified 6 prior reviews of such research (summarized in ch. 3), as well as 10 field and 14 analog studies that met minimum scientific standards and were conducted using the control question technique (the most common technique used in criminal investigations; see chs. 2, 3, and 4). Still, even though meeting minimal scientific standards, many of these research studies had various methodological problems that reduce the extent to which results can be generalized. The cases and examiners were often sampled selectively rather than randomly. For field studies, the criteria for actual guilt or innocence varied and in some studies were inadequate. In addition, only some versions of the control question technique have been researched, and the effect of different types of examiners, subjects, settings, and countermeasures has not been systematically explored.

Nonetheless, this research is the best available source of evidence on which to evaluate the scientific validity of the polygraph for specific-incident criminal investigations. The results (for research on the control question technique in specific-incident criminal investigations) are summarized below:

Six prior reviews of field studies:
average accuracy ranged from 64 to 98 percent.
Ten individual field studies:
correct guilty detections ranged from 70.6 to 98.6 percent and averaged 86.3 percent;
correct innocent detections ranged from 12.5 to 94.1 percent and averaged 76 percent;
false positive rate (innocent persons found deceptive) ranged from O to 75 percent and averaged 19.1 percent; and
false negative rate (guilty persons found nondeceptive) ranged from O to 29.4 percent and averaged 10.2 percent.
Fourteen individual analog studies:
correct guilty detections ranged from 35.4 to 100 percent and averaged 63.7 percent;
correct innocent detections ranged from 32 to 91 percent and averaged 57.9 percent;
false positives ranged from 2 to 50.7 percent and averaged 14.1 percent; and
false negatives ranged from O to 28.7 percent and averaged 10.4 percent.
The wide variability of results from both prior research reviews and OTA�S own review of individual studies makes it impossible to determine a specific overall quantitative measure of polygraph validity. The preponderance of research evidence does indicate that, when the control question technique is used in specific-incident criminal investigations, the polygraph detects deception at a rate better than chance, but with error rates that could be considered significant.

Polygraphs are unreliable and subject to manipulation. You can do that by asking the right questions, or with certain tradecraft-style techniques to defeat the device.

Who initiated this polygraph? The alleged offender's counsel? If so, it's useless, nobody would ever polygraph their client without coaching, without knowing the answers to the questions being asked, or without vetting the questions.

A polygraph conducted by law enforcement or a court might be of slight interest. But one arranged by one party's counsel, without any risk on "non-sympathetic" questions? Publicity stunt.

Sure. You’re right. I’ll just discredit both nationally accredited polygraph examiners. Their professional analysis is bunk because some pilot is more of an expert on polygraph standards and protocol. I’ll just stick with the “he said-she said” claims and destroy the guy in the court of public opinion.

Look, nobody is saying polygraphs are 100% correct but her story defies logic and facts on so many levels that it begs further scrutiny. At least the captain offered this up in his defense. What else can he do? If all the questions were meant to deceive it should be easy for Betty to respond with a lie detector of her own that cover those deficiencies. Not a good plan on the captain’s end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 2571821)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moose (Post 2571753)

Wow Lugar. You come in here previously lying about court documents and now you double down with this garbage. Me thinks you’re not credible.

I agree ... He is a lying idiot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lugar (Post 2571747)

(1) So he had SOMEONE ELSE “give/administer any drug.”

(2) She participated while drugged.

(3) No need, she was drugged.

So that’s how you pass the lie detector test, while still being guilty. Those questions, and how they’re worded, are clearly intended for him to pass the test.

If she was drugged, she has to prove it. Unless she can. It’s a draw. No one is right or wrong.. you’d think. 39 year old woman would know how this works and call the police. For whatever reason she didn’t. She is no more believable than the Captain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moose (Post 2571851)

Not commenting on the truth in the matter. Just saying polygraphs are weak, and an exam conducted by one's own counsel is obviously irrelevant... it would only be conducted under very specific conditions, ie no risk.

I'd be impressed if he volunteered for non-holds-barred polygraph by the law enforcement agency which has jurisdiction over the alleged events.

That would be reasonable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamike (Post 2571784)

This guy will never get convicted of anything and I don’t think they can fire him without paying him off. There are so many holes in this story any lawyer can tear it to shreds. It’s also why she went public, to get it into the court of public opinion because the evidence is too flimsy for a successful outcome in court.

I’m not saying he’s innocent, it’s irrelevant. The government cannot meet their burden of proof, and the plaintiff probably won’t even meet preponderance of the evidence in the civil claim.

Indeed. He may never get convicted, but they don't have to fire him - merely drag this out. Did you miss the numbers? Twenty-four years in the USAF - we can assume four years of that was Zoom school and he entered at 18, so that gets him up to age twenty-two when he was commissioned, and forty-two when he pulled the handles and retired. He has since worked twenty-two years for Alaska making him sixty-four.

AAG doesn't HAVE to fire him, but neither do they have to fly him, they can just drag this out another year and the problem evaporates, and no matter if he is on leave with or without pay, they are going to figure it's cheaper than taking the heat for putting him back in the cockpit.

As for it being too flimsy to win in court, this will be a KING COUNTY superior court. I wouldn't bet on anything in that venue.