Mature reactions all around...cheerio chaps

* chugging a Corona *

As far as how much this guy had to drink, just put that aside. Here's what I'm confuse about. He probably had a good hour or more from the time he got up to the time he went through security. He had plenty of time to call in sick or find a way to take himself off the trip, but choose not to. Having to explain to your base manager or chief pilot why you didn't report for the flight at an outstation, would be better than what this guy will have to go through.

I guess you don't know the whole story. It was the FA who broke into the fire chief's truck. I had the opportunity to fly with that CA after he completed the HIMS program, along with the FO and FA (on separate occasion) They will tell you what happened. Those charges for the CA and FA were dismissed.

On the other hand if he's an alcoholic he may have felt just fine. Rumor has it he blew just over .04, as in under .05. Doesn't excuse his actions, but I can see the argument as why he wouldn't have called off. He very well might have stopped drinking 8 or more hours before show time as well, but if he's an alcoholic he probably had a lot more to drink than the typical person.

He didn't try to go to work intoxocated, but still went through HIMS?

Did he have a problem or did they make him go through it?

Error in judgment? You're not serious with that blanket statement right?
An error in judgment is not brining enough pairs of underwear on a 5 day trip. An error in judgment is cutting it a little too close to a thunderhead that rattles the cabin a bit more than expected.

I get hopped up on meth, head out to buy some more, plow into your family at a red light...is that still an error in judgment? Do I deserve prayers and empathy that I get the help I need while your wife and kids are in ICU with a tube down their throat?

Addiction is real. Putting on the wings the morning after and willingly reporting to duty with peoples lives as your responsibility isn't an error in judgment. It's absurd anyone could attempt to make a legitimate argument to the contrary.

FWIW, I've made plenty of mistakes in my career, and will make plenty more. Willingly jeopardizing myself, my family, my airline, and the x amount of people in the back of the plane because I decided to show up to work smelling like the bar from the night before will never be one of them.

There are several ways to get into HIMS.

Voluntary referral, ie seeking help. By far the best, no legal ramifications.

Outside referral, ie the company gets word that you may have an issue and requests that you talk to HIMS. This is where other crew come into play, or possibly family members. This is an intervention.

Being caught first. Not good, and no guarantees. You will be fired, but may get your job and certs back eventually.

He never made it to work. He was arrested during the overnight. He has a few incident involving getting drunk on an over night. There was a time he knocked over a Christmas tree in a hotel lobby on an overnight IIRC. This was before the MDT incident. Getting into trouble a few times on an overnight seems to be the reason why he went through HIMS.

Yep, but see below.

Thanks, it was just general curiosity if a SINGLE event warranted it. OR, there was a pattern.

And with the additional info you provided, even more interesting that he was hired at DAL.

Yep, I know, SSP is a guaranteed interview, but NOT a guaranteed job. But Jesus.

Technically HIMS is for addiction, not stupidity.

To be eligible you must have an addiction, which is assumed to override your voluntary self-control.

You don't have to get caught more than once (or at all) but you have to have a pattern of drinking (or abuse of other substances). This does not have to be documented, you just have to say you drink X/day, Y days/week.

If you get arrested and claim that it was a one time-only bad judgement situation, and that you don't have a problem and rarely drink then: You do NOT have a substance problem, and are NOT eligible for HIMS, and WILL be fired and have your tickets shredded with NO recourse.

You guys see what I'm saying here?

Yep, perfectly. Not sure why you're asking.

What I was curious about was, did he "pull the card" to prevent what I quoted above?

Well, at least that video made me chuckle. I'm glad you are expanding your use of them rather than the odd smirk one. But yeah, I admit, I gave an eye roll and then proceeded to keep reading the forum.

Both pilots from the Northwest flight back in the 90s are flying again. Although the CA is over 65 now. The FO is at AA (both figuratively and at the airline).

The FO - Joe Balzer - Wrote a book - Flying Drunk
The CA - Lyle Prouse's book is - Final Approach Northwest Airline Flt 650

Both were terrific reads.

For all the people with respectable records and thousands of hours at a regional and can't get a phone call from a major, Joe balzer flew an airplane drunk af and got hired.

I read Joe Balzers book. I believe he was th FE. Either way, should be required reading in my opinion. It will make you think twice if you want that next drink. Best option, IMHO, if you think you may have overdone the drinking, call in sick. Hay beer *******s is reason enough! Sure you may end up screwing over your passengers, but maybe next time you will be smarter. And of course we wont need to keep having our names and compaies in the news.

Carry on :cool:

Blood test yet to come back?
From a week ago?

That is because he is stupid. Complete idiot really. He claims to be a retired mainline pilot but the way he acts leans more toward a 14 yr old in his mom's basement. (I think he is a PSA Lifer)

Regardless of who he is, I've never seen him contribute anything intelligent or constructive. Best to just ignore him for the worthless persona that he is.

Yea....
I'd say you might NOT want to get too blasted if you meet the hottest chick ever. Ya might have, um, performance, um issues...

Just sayin'

Normal backlog at LE labs. They can arrest and charge him based on breath-test and even field tests.

The blood test will just serve as more reliable evidence at trial, if it goes there.

I suspect the blood test will be below 0.04...

He is a large male with a large lung capacity, more importantly a higher than average lung tissue surface area. Therefore the concentration of alcohol in breath may be artificially higher. The handheld alcotests is notoriously inaccurate.

The blood test probably occurred hours after the initial breath test due to getting a search warrent, allowing for the ethanol to metabolize. The average person is able to metabolize 0.02% BAC/hr.

My guess is with a favorable blood test a decent lawyer will get the court case dismissed..

Dealing with the company is a different story.

Maybe.

If they can show how much he had to drink and when, based on credit card receipts, etc. they can reasonably extrapolate his BAC backwards.

The usual defense against extrapolation is that recently consumed alcohol had not yet reached the bloodstream at the time of the arrest, but caused BAC to rise after the arrest before the blood test. The defendant can claim that after a short drive home (if the cops hadn't stopped him), he would have been asleep in bed before his BAC exceeded legal levels.

But in this case he can't really claim that the alcohol hadn't reached his blood without admitting to drinking well inside of eight hours!

Company standard is 0.02, so yeah that's going to be hard.

I agree, but in pre trial, if the blood drawn is less than .04, there is no case.. if it goes to trial, than yes extrapolation and evidence will be used against him. All depends on the blood. Hopefully he is already checked into a rehabilitation program.

Balzer was the FE.

The FO from that flight is currently a 747 Captain approaching retirement.

The article stated he had a BAC of .046 and that he had refused to provide a blood sample until forced to by warrant. Isn't a refusal to submit to a drug/alcohol test grounds for an automatic revocation of certificates? I'm too damn lazy to take a look in the FARs at the moment, but my company has posters all over our crew rooms about drug/alcohol abuse.

Yep.....

.........

Presumptive limit, testimony based on observations will still get someone under the presumptive limits. Hence "stupid human tricks".
Feds may not get him,but individual states have DUI airplane laws.

Could be a problem for him, but the stars kind of have to line up for the fed to employ that reg, since it depends on how the state law in question is worded. Or they could just shred his certs and let him try to appeal...

The one thing that keeps coming to my mind is that here in the USA, you are innocent until proven guilty. Or at least thats how its supposed to work.

Also in regards to refusal, the person trying to administer the test must have appropriate authority to do so. Just because you pee in a cup for me doesnt constitute a refusal, after all im just some perv on a a forum. So whomever asked must have appropriate creds. Maybe, maybe not.

I tend to think that if his blood test comes back lower than .04, than career wise he is in a salvageable situation. It is my understanding that a blood test is controlling.

Then there is of course evidence issues. If proof can arise that either the breath was not aquired legally or correctly, than a DA would likely toss it out.

Lastly info from some broke local news may have inaccuracies, so collectivly it might be unfair to crucify the guy before all the real facts come out. More than anything it should be a reminder to be safe and responsible while at work or home.

True for criminal law.

Not true for admin law, which is how most FAR's are enforced by the FAA. Flying is a privilege, they can take certificate action and fine you with minimal due process (somewhat improved by pilot bill of rights).

Same way states can suspend you DL after a DUI stop, even before the trail.

I'm sure they had the creds. The problem for LE is that the refusal must be related to enforcement of state/local laws similar to the FARs in question. Maybe the state has laws that meet that test, maybe they don't.


Not if it's three hours later, they can extrapolate back, especially since they have the breath test and will probably find out when, where, and how much he drank.

Of course, but the FAA may not care and the company certainly won't.

Charges were dropped.. but I assume that doesn't mean he's out of the woods as far as his employmen goes.

Intoxication charge against pilot dismissed | Local | rapidcityjournal.com

That's what you would expect. With the blood being less than LOQ, limit of quantitation, which is extremely low depending on the testing performed, probably with gas chromatography and mass spec detection. This testing is capable of detection below microgram per deciliter of blood. To put that in perspective, it is common to detect cocaine on dollar bills in the parts per trillion amount, literally picograms.


Any decent employment lawyer would be able to keep the persons job with a blood test below LOQ. The handheld breath test given at the time is useless and a reading of 0.046 is well proven to be inaccurate from these devices. The BAC could have been 0.000 or 0.080 and the machine spits out that number. Further the donor may be diabetic, which often causes people to produce ketones that are expelled from the mouth, and has a very sweet smell much like alcohol. Further ketones will cause a breathalyzer to quantitate a number, as the machine is non specifics and detects all aldehydes, ketones and alcohol groups.

As far as denying to give blood, never ever give blood without a search warrant. Never ever.. Never ever give blood until you have consulted with a lawyer. Never ever give blood unless a second sample is taken at the same time that can be examined at a laboratory of your choice. I would not trust my future life to some laboraties as many of them are incompetent.

Great info, thanks.

Waiting to see what Cajun11 has to say now?

However--this does NOT trump your right to due process, or your right against self incrimination.

ALWAYS----NEVER SAY ANYTHING TO ANYONE, OR DO ANYTHING WITHOUT A LAWYER ON YOUR SIDE FIRST---EVER!

Unless you are a pilot and asked to submit to a test to indicate the percentage by weight of alcohol in the blood, when requested by a law enforcement officer in accordance with §91.17(c)

Then do that, otherwise you can kiss your certs goodbye.

I agree, but wait till a lawyer advises and a court order is issued specific to law enforcement officer in accordance with and specific to the CFR and our local statutes.

Breath is always required since you are freely breathing and most states have established breath testing as non invasive evidence collection. At least where I am a blood test must be court ordered. A blood test can be denied based on religious or medical reasons and it does not result in a refusal and therefore a judge must order the collection of evidence. Unless of course you submit the sample freely. Every state is different and therefore you have the right to consult a lawyer when you are under arrest as provided by the supreme court miranda ruling.

Ofcourse there are your companies drug and alcohol testing policy, but consult with your union contact prior. There is nothing wrong with being informed prior to continuing with the evidence collection process.

In those situations, state and criminal misdemeanor and felony charges should be your focus, company, second.

But-if you read the request-it doesn't say a specific "time", like within 30 seconds, within 5 minutes. You have the right to have an attorney present if you are suspected of committing any crime, before ANY questioning.

Think like a lawyer--you'll be glad you did.

91.17c. doesn't override the Constitution my friend.