It’s not a question of assault or intimidation, it’s a question of interference. By making that joking reference and triggering the drug testing of the crew, the passenger WAS interfering with them and, for the duration of the testing, lessening their ability to perform their duties (the 4 hour delay in take off),
They remove the passengers from the plane when they remove the crew, because you don’t want unsupervised Joe Public on the airplane for 4 hours with nothing to do. That is a legit security issue. I suppose you could call that an “evacuation”.
You will note that there is NO mention in that reg of intentions. Under strict interpretation, even accidental interference is, in theory, subject to fine and/or imprisonment.
But Broomstick, do you see that it wasn’t the comment itself that caused the interference with the performance of the duties of the pilot? It was the rule that was triggered because of that comment that caused it. There are two steps involved, not one and it is the rule that is to blame.
Let’s put it another way. Imagine that there was a statute in the USCA that said that anytime somebody questioned the intelligence of the President, he had to take an IQ test. After all, we wouldn’t want some dummy runninng the country would we? That would freak out the “passengers” don’t you think?
Now there’s another law that says that interfering with the duties of the President is a felony.
Guess what just happened? You’re now living in a country where political speech is banned. Questioning the President’s decisions gives the appearance of him being unintelligent so he must take an exam to dispel this rumor. Meanwhile, the country is at a standstill while they wait for their pilot to get back in the cockpit. This interference is a felony and they start locking up political commentators one by one.
How stupid is this example? Very! Wanna know why? Because they would never make a law like that. Ever. It would be blatantly unconstitutional. The point is that the LAW is to blame, not the speech that triggers it.
Either the passengers have the right to question or they don’t.
If they do, they better be right, just joking does not cut it. Gonna say it with a frown or a smile, either way, be right or be ready.
Safety and all that.
I still want to know why the pilot does not get the same right to question or joke at the expense of the passengers? Some passengers have cause more death and destruction in the last few years than all the bad pilots, plain accidents and airline malpractice put together. All in one day.
As a pilot, I enforce my right and duty to safely conduct my flight all the way to including the restriction of free speech when your yapping is distracting me from an difficult instrument approach.
If your jokes are making the majority of the passenger uneasy, you will be silenced. A plane load of panicky people is very dangerous on many levels.
So, you really need to be right and willing, if not, be ready for the consequences.
I have refused to take certain people on my airplane, even when they paid. They got their money back but they did not get in an airplane with me.
On major carriers, the pilots can do that but it usually cost them their jobs unless it is a really wild and obvious problem.
The buck always stops with the pilot and he is always the first one to the accident scene. So yes, he should get a little extra respect. YMMV
When he is wrong, he gets hung out to dry. Why should the passengers not be as responsible if they want the freedom to attack the pilot by word and gesture?
So, Passengers should have the same restrictions as the pilots IMO.
All passengers must fly sober? Must be polite? Must dress properly? Must pass sobriety and drug test? Must pass test on how to be a passenger? Get re-tested on a regular basis at their own expense? :smack: Thanks, I needed that. Got carried away there for a minute.
You keep using the phrase “all rights” in your arguements that one should not loose rights when boarding an airline. I’m saying that there’s a specific and quite limited set of specific rights that you’re expected to waive when you fly an airline, and that this in no way constitutes having “all” of one’s rights revoked.
If you’re going to rant that people shouldn’t have “all” their rights revoked by the airlines, it implies that they actually are revoking “all” rights. THEY AREN’T. Your gripe seems to be that people are getting in trouble with the law for saying things “that aren’t dangerous or threatening.” If that’s the only thing you list when someone would ask you to list “all” your rights, I feel very sorry for you.
(oh and the second quote in your post was incorrectly attributed to me. Someone else said that.)
I am not arguing that the rule is OK or anything but stupid - I’m arguing that the rule is there and that is how the game is played.
I speak as someone who has had the “enjoyment” of having something wholly out of my control go wrong with a flight and then being subjected to a multi-hour 3rd degree as the FAA “investigated” what happened - mind you, nothing was broke and no one got hurt. I have also been present when another pilot got reamed over for missing one goddamned piece of paper out of the cockpit. Much as I would have liked to have slunk off and taken the train home, I was held for two hours in a room and not permitted to leave, even with the nice government people reassuring me over and over that I had done nothing wrong and would in no way be held accountable for the actions/negligence of the pilot in command.
This is the way it has been for pilots and flight crews for quite some time. Now the passengers are being subjected to it. While the general public has been all in favor (apparently) in “cracking down” on those in aviation and tightening the screws, now that the shoe is on the other foot they’re finding that iron-clad regulations and calls for more and more security have their downsides.
I’m not saying it’s right - I’m saying that’s the way it is. If you don’t like it write your congress critter. Because the “Effin’” A- A doesn’t give a shit about Joe Passenger, Joe Pilot, or Joe Attendant, or Joe Mechanic. Neither does the TSA for that matter, or the FBI or the CIA.
Here’s an idea: Pilots are to have blood, urine, and spinal fluid withdrawn prior to each and every flight to check for drugs, alcohol, and unbalanced blood sugar levels. Meanwhile, each and every passenger is to strip naked, submit to full body cavity search, and be heavily sedated prior to boarding. Specially trained and heavily armed security administration forklift drivers will then load the unconcious passengers into the cargo hold of an airliner. Meanwhile, the pilots will be escorted on board then chained to their seats to prevent them from wandering out of the cockpit while in flight. Attendants will no longer be necessary in such schemes, they may apply for their unemployment insurance, then report to homeless shelters when that benefit runs out.
There, everybody happy now? No?
Everybody is talking about what’s wrong (as usual). How about ya’ll come up with ideas for what you think is appropriate and workable in the grand scheme of things, hmmm? Suggestions welcomed. Go to it.
>>The threat hanging over this guy’s head is a federal charge of “Interfering with a flight crew” which is dealt with by US Code Title 49 Section 46504:
quote:
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
The question is whether or not jokingly (or even seriously) making some reference to a pilot’s sobriety is an assault or intimidation. (Hint: assault is out by definition. Only intimidation may come into play, and even that is rather damned iffy by federal precedent.)<<
So asking for a soda is illegal. It takes them away or “lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties”
Oh geez, I haven’t read all the thread, yes, a big problem for some but…
Fucking joke or not. Flying an airplane is not exactly like driving a cab and even then I would like to know for sure that my cabbie has not been drinking.
Possible jail sentence?
Bullshit.
I am very afraid to fly, so much so that I haven’t flown anywhere since Vegas Dopefest of 2000.
Yes, I am more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a drunk pilot, but even if I “jokingly” asked if the pilots had been drinking, I sure as fuck wouldn’t expect to be contacted by the police, FBI or any other law enforcement agency. If a pilot is asked if he/she is drunk, then honestly the person is concerned about the safety of himself and the family members that are aboard that flight.
Since some pilots have been pulled aside in the years, I would think that the airlines (not the government) would take it upon themselves to spend a few hundred bucks on instant blood alcohol tests like some of the police forces have today. Can they appropriately do a drug test in a good amount of time? Probably not, but it is imperative that people that are transporting a great many people be screened, on a corporate level.
Imagine a doctor, operating on you while he/she is drunk. It’s not that far off. If my life or many lives are in your hands, then one should not be disparaged (sp) from asking questions about the sobriety of those that our lives are in their hands.
If those people don’t want to work for those companies or in the public realm that do testing, then they need to seek employment elsewhere.
I personally feel weird with the idea of people drug/alcohol testing me, which is why I work in areas of life that don’t require me to be 100%. With that said, if you are piloting a plane that carries 150-200 people, you damn well be willing to be sober and drug free.
I think–giddy optimist that I am-- that most of us would agree that a significant percentage of the general population, much less the flying population can be unmitigated assholes. Some can chalked up to cussedness, some to cluelessness, some to gonzo temporary circumstances. Most of 'em are stirred up by recent security risks and publicity. They want airlines and govenment to DO something. A force in action.
OTOH, airline crews still hafta transport said public from point to point, amidst the unlovely corporate and political blather. They’re pretty damned stirred up about security and publicity too. They want airlines and government to DO something. Another force in action.
OTOH ( Veb carelessly runs out of hands but hurries on) the terrorist attacks that ratcheded up security in the first place relied on disruption, right? But why assume those forces, which want the same things, can’t be reconciled? We’re still just feeling our way, but the temporary solution doesn’t serve ANYBODY. As it is, there’s way too much room for error by interpretation.
Certainly to heaven there are common sense compromises, if communication flows both ways. Passengers agree to certain behavior standards as part of ticket purchase. Airlines openly state, and stand by, safety and service standards. The details could make a nifty GD thread.
It’d mean some heavy changes in stated and implied contracts but it’d have to be better than all this mutal, well-meaning muddling around.
You are abosolutely correct. Flying a passenger jet is much more like driving a Greyhound bus than driving a cab.
Maybe. But here’s the government rationale: We jail one idiot and plaster it all over the news, then no one will joke about drunk pilots. We give the idiot a slap on the wrist, people will make jokes every flight, eventually someone WON’T be joking but will be assumed to be joking, and a drunk pilot will crash the plane. Therefore, it is far more cost effective to jail one asshole to great publicity than to take a measured approach with the punishment appropriate to the offense.
The above is not MY opinion - it’s how the FAA works. It’s called “making an example of someone”.
Well, now you know that such jokes are not considered funny by the authorities in involved and can lead to arrest.
Maybe the airlines should publicize what they do to find drunk/drugged piots and the steps they are already taking. Because I get the sense from a lot of posters here that the general public thinks no one is watching out for this sort of thing and they are.
The truth is, fatigue is probably a far greater hazard in aviation than alcohol or drugs. Really. Maybe you should be asking if your pilot got a good night’s sleep rather than what he drank with dinner.
Funny how this is always said by those who conviently aren’t subjected to such testing.
You are aware of false positives, yes? The idea that certain common things - such as certain foods - can result in a positive on the quick drug tests? And there is no appeal with the airlines - if it’s positive your fired, even if you’re clean and the lab made a mistake
The official BAC limited for the FAA it .04 Wonder why it’s not zero? There certainly was an argument for it when they instituted testing - zero tolerance! We want our pilots completely sober! So why isn’t it zero? Because a nice tall glass of orange juice frequently contains trace amounts of alcohol (fruit juice can and does ferment) which, while nothing near enough to have any effect on performance, can and will raise the BAC above absolute zero. The alternative would have meant pilots would be banned from consuming either fruit juice or actual fruit such as oranges (the little devils can ferment in their rinds, too), as well as any hot dog or hamburger buns with poppy seeds, and various other common items.
As it is, most airlines are more strict than the FAA. The FAA says eight hours from the last drink to the time you take the controls. It’s not uncommon for airlines to mandate 12 or even 24 hours.
Drunk pilots are extremely rare. Yes, it does happen - and gets a ton of publicity when it does. But as a pilot, I’d be much more concerned that the plane has been de-iced and the pilots have adequate rest, because those problems are much more likely to be problems.
If I thought a pilot was drunk would I say something? Sure. But I doubt I’d blare it out like a megaphone. If there was security around at that point I’d probably go up to one of them and express my concerns in a calm, quiet voice, emphasizing that my concern was for safety. Would that work? I don’t know - but it’s more likely than shouting HEY, THE PILOT IS FALLING ON HIS ASS DRUNK!
So, what you’re saying is that you don’t approve of it and won’t submit to it yourself, but it’s OK to impose that on somebody else?
And the vast, overwhelming majority of them are. In addition to having no bodily privacy whatsoever, pilots also get to have their every word on the job recorded. Maybe they’re such pissers because they aren’t allowed to make jokes at work for fear they’ll be recorded for posterity - not to mention the listening pleasure of the boss.
The wonder is that anyone does that job. And, in fact, prior to September 11, 2001 there was a severe pilot shortage. In another couple of years we’ll likely be back there again. Which is not an argument to tolerate drunks and junkies in the cockpit. But if you make the conditions of the job intolerable - for whatever reason - no one will do the job.
Don’t believe that? Take a look at nursing as a profession.
And asking for a soda is being an ass? sounds like you’re an ass
the point is the way the assholes that used the rule quoted/cited earlier to clear the plane and arrest the passenger (but wait, he was not allowed to go so he really is not a passenger) could be interpreted to include one who asks for a soda - after all the flight attendant could be engaged with some other duty at the time and the mer asking is a distraction that takes them away from…
I know this is ridiculous, but it exemplifies the stupidity of the event, and interpretation of the rule, that caused this thread. - fuckin’ morons.
Or, just as likely, because one person is arrested because he asked whether the pilot is drunk, no-one will ever ask that question again, for fear of being arrested. Then, eventually there will be a drunk pilot, a passenger suspects said pilot of being intoxicated but says nothing for fear of arrest, and the drunk pilot crashes the plane.
To me, this is the biggest problem, more than the free speech issue. With news stories like this some people tend to hear “you can’t ask whether pilots were drunk” rather than “some idiot joker got arrested for running his mouth off.” So, just like people don’t bring nail clippers onto airplanes anymore (even though that is now legal, it was said enough that no-one does it any more), many people will get the idea that it is impossible to ask valid questions–any valid questions, including about airplane maintenance, weather conditions, etc. Frankly, I don’t see how this makes flying any safer.
BJ, you are tailgating so close you have your nose up my ass and I guarantee you’ll have brown stuff on it for all to see.
As to the OP, yes, people should be allowed to joke. Carry nail clippers and small pocket knives and other reasonable things IMO. I also think air marshals should shoot to kill any passenger that gets out of line and threatens flight safety. The traveling public has a right to look at all maintenance records, to request sobriety and drug testing and also has the right to pay for same in $$$$ and delays. If the pilots have been tested and even one passenger is not satisfied, then the flight should be held until that passenger has been satisfied that all is well.
Also, IMO, all passengers should then be prohibited by law from being able to sue the airline for any lacking in piloting performance. The pilots will have no problem with this as they are not in any hurry to get to Cleveland. They could give a rip, they get paid anyway. If a few passengers miss connections, so what, they can’t complain because they are the ones to hold up the flight.
So in conclusion, I feel that the passengers ALL have to sign a waiver prior to leaving the gate that they are completely satisfied with all maintenance on the aircraft, the pilots training and condition at that time and that they agree that it is safe to depart. If not, then they must not depart until all are satisfied.
>>BJ, you are tailgating so close you have your nose up my ass and I guarantee you’ll have brown stuff on it for all to see.<<
WTF are you talking about you jack jerk?
Are you still pissed about getting busted on your stupid interpretation of my comment where I said that I make sure that I am in control of my car, you just make sure you don’t hit me.
Your interpretation was that I claimed that I am allowed to tailgate, but you better not tailgate me.
The record is posted for all to see. Asses like you are probably the reason we are not permitted to edit our own posts!
Asses like you interpret the rules that cause the bull shit that is the subject of the OP
Nope, I’m one of the pilots that has had to put up with people like you.
Not claiming to be an airline pilot.
Part 135, corporate, etc. 10,000 + hours PIC, A&P also. I do know some about what goes on in aviation and also some of the things that have to be dealt with when the FAA is involved. You have no clue that is very obvious. You are also kind of thin skinned also IMO.
First sentence was aimed at you. Very good my boy.
*::note blank space.:: *
Next sentence was not about you at all. Get over yourself.
This is about BJ —> You are the type that can make the request for a soda an humiliating thing and actual interference with more important duties because you don’t seem to get that you can be wrong, that you are not the center of the universe and that just like other things you have as do all other people and like your opinion and your nose, it stinks.
Oh Boy! That makes a lot of sense! You can fly but cannot phrase a coherent paragraph - no wonder the FAA has these stupid rules.
BTW, try to tell me what I said that would cause you to believe that I would cause a problem on a plane or what I said that causes you to believe that I would humiliate a flight attendant - just would not happen. I count on them for service and even you should realize that it would not help to be a PITA to a person that ya count on for service. -maybe not.
Because I, and most others on this thread, don’t agree with you about this happening being a bunch of crap - it makes me the center of the universe?
Your drive by posts of no useful information or opinion?
Glad to know that you speak for everyone here. I in AWE !!! Pretty obvious you have not read the thread. Correct? Or you mean in spite of reading the thread you feel as you do? Okay…
Make MY day. Thanks. You are a good person and full of the milk of human kindness.
