Originally Posted By Mr X <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/06/drunk.flightattendant.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law /08/06/drunk.flightattendant.ap/index.html</a> Interesting story. I put "drunk" in parentheses because I was wondering what her blood alcohol level really meant? It seemed like it was much LESS than the legal limit for driving a car? Or was it above? Did she just drink a shot of whiskey? Not that I'd excuse that, since part of her duties include safety in the event of an emergency...but what does everyone else think of this? I'm relatively sure her comment of "you're dead" to the pilot as she was escorted out was just anger due to the fact that he's the one who reported her? To charge her with "terrorism" for that, seems rather silly (though in this day and age, not surprising...and I don't mean that in a good way AT ALL). Thoughts? I'm holding back my opinion on this one til I read some more comments.
Originally Posted By Mr X lol...well, that's for sure. However, flight crew are all responsible for passenger safety first and formost (even though the airlines treat them like flying cocktail servers, without tips!). So, it is a pretty darn serious issue when a member of the crew is drinking on the job. Still, I'm not sure it was fair to title the article "Drunk flight attendant"...if in fact it was just one drink (or two)...
Originally Posted By RoadTrip What's with the Nick Nolte mug shot though? Can't they give people a chance to comb their hair and touch-up their make-up before hand?
Originally Posted By mele Pretty low alcohol blood content to be considered drunk and then be charged with public intoxication. Maybe they're charging her with that because she threatened the pilot? Honestly, I don't really feel all that sorry for her since she said "your dead" to the pilot. You just don't say things like that to people. However, are all bad things that happen on a plane considered terrorism? That seems kind of stupid. She sounds (and looks) like a real class act.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I put "drunk" in parentheses because I was wondering what her blood alcohol level really meant? >>> Her limit when tested later was 0.032% according to the story. I don't know what the requirements are for cabin crew, but it may very well be the same as it is for pilots, which are: 1. BAC less then 0.04% 2. Not consumed any alcohol for 8 hours prior to flight 3. Not be under the influence of alcohol Obviously, there is some overlap in the rules. It would seem based on everything described in the story, she at the very least violated #2 and #3, again assuming that cabin crew rules are the same as they for pilots.
Originally Posted By Mr X Good info, SD...I'd have to say though that if you pass rule number one that's pretty much the important thing (In my mind anyway)...isn't that mostly for unbelievably hung over pilots that drank tons like 10 hours pre-flight though? I'm not saying it was okay for her to grab a mini-bottle of jack from the stash and down it (which is what this sounds like to me)...she was probably having a super-crappy day or something (OR, maybe it's a flight ritual or something lol). I DO get the impression that her remark to the pilot (while she was being escorted out, right?), "you're dead"....while not cool of course, was probably out of sheer rage because she assumed the pilot is the guy who reported her to ground authorities for smelling like booze. Still, not excusable per se (especially being part of a safety "team" as it were), but the terrorism charge is more 9/11 paranoia if you ask me...simply ludicrous (but we have 10 year olds being charged with sexual harrassment too...at this point anything goes in our wacky, nervous, slap-happy U.S.A.).
Originally Posted By DVC_dad My best friend is a 5 year Captain for a large commercial airline and has been piloting for said airline for 19 years. I am surprised to know that once the plane leaves the ground a whole new set of laws come into effect. When that plane is in the air, it belongs to the Captain. If he feels that he or any of the crew, or any of the passengers are threatened in any way, he has legal rights to have said people physically restrained and turned over to authorities upon landing. He or she also has the right to not allow whomever he/she wishes to board the plane. My friend has discussed with me various (and they have been very few, and very far between) instances whereby a passenger had to be arrested and restrained while in the air. Also, I found it interesting that he once booted a passenger off the plane just minutes before take-off due to the passenger shouting profanity about the departure running late. I was really shocked as this person of whom I speak is the lowest key, most laid back, professional type guy I have met. I asked him, "Wow, it's great to see that you are so concerned with making the flight safe for your passengers." He replied, "Passengers? I want to come back home myself!" LOL If you think about it, if there is an emergency at 35,000 feet, you want someone in command on the plane that will take charge with a cool head. I have a lot of respect for the profession of commercial pilot, specifically Captain. It is a tremendous amount of responsibility.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I am surprised to know that once the plane leaves the ground a whole new set of laws come into effect. When that plane is in the air, it belongs to the Captain. >>> I'm surprised that this isn't general knowledge. As you said, the captain has near absolute authority over everyone and everything that happens on his/her ship, whether it floats on the ocean or flies through the air. The captain is granted this authority because they have the ultimate responsibility for the safety of all those aboard. I've known about this since I was a kid, and it's always a surprise to me to find out that others don't know this. Here's a scenario where I'd be interested in knowing about, although it's one where it would be difficult to get an answer from those in the know because they'll just clam up: What if there were an incident on board where Federal Air Marshals are on board and decide that the situation warrants them breaking cover and holding the passengers at gunpoint. Who in this case has the ultimate authority on board? I think that most people would say that the air marshals have the supreme legal authority at that point (separate from their ability to have effective authority due to having guns), but I'm not so sure that the captain doesn't still have the highest-ranking authority on board. This is almost certainly addressed in air marshal training.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad He laughed, changed the subject a couple of times, but would never really discuss it. Good for him I suppose. He did tell me that the changes since 911 are for the most part good, and that air travel has never been more safe, and people should fly and fly often. Yeah, no conflict of interest there. ;-)
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Yes to #15, from what I understand, there are two schools of thought. 1.) The DISPLAY of deadly force 2.) The USE of deadl force I don't have any facts here, just pure conjecture, but I'd guess that Federal Air Marshalls aren't going to reveal that they are armed for any reason other than to USE the weapon they have. It's not there for "show" afterall.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Why would air marshals hold people at gunpoint? >>> There has been footage on TV of training scenarios and descriptions by passengers that have actually been on the very few flights when air marshals decided that they had to take control of the passenger cabin. The basic procedure is to draw their weapons and order everyone to clasp their hands behind their heads and remain that way until the airplane is on the ground. As to why this is done, I would guess that the issue of how to have a small number (say, two) air marshals effectively control 150 people in an airplane cabin where there may several bad guys (some of which are still hidden and distributed in unknown positions among the passengers) has been studied and thought through extensively, and the "hold everyone at gunpoint" tactic was determined to be the most effective.
Originally Posted By debtee <<< I am surprised to know that once the plane leaves the ground a whole new set of laws come into effect. When that plane is in the air, it belongs to the Captain. >>> The Captain also has control on the ground too. We own an international freight company and if the captain wants a certain amount of freight offloaded, it gets off-loaded, no matter what it is. He/she has final say on weight limits for the plane and I agree with this, as it's their responsibility to make sure the flight is safe.
