Rich little idiot!!

[Darren Hughes]

Helicopter pilot was drunk, DPS alleges in Ozona arrest

[Scarab]

Guns alcohol helicopter. What no fireworks? It is truly amazing how stupid some people are.

[gary-mike]

HAHA!! I love the comment Barney wrote.

 

"Good Lord man,is your Jesus nut cross threaded? Someone needs to take you out behind the hangar with a cyclic stick and beat you on the head until you are permanently "hover impaired".I wouldn't be surprised if the FAA feathered YOUR shaft for this stupid incident."

 

This dosen't seem right to me.

 

"Flying while intoxicated is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by 180 days in jail and a fine up to $2,000. Unlawful carrying of a weapon is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by a year in jail and a fine up to $4,000. Public intoxication is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine up to $500."

 

I think FWI should be a fellony, after all wouldn't that be a federal offense! You can go try to kill you and your buddy, and quite possibly multiple innocent people on the ground and you get less than half the punishment than if you unlawfully carry a gun! WTF!

 

What a fricken tool! Lets go break the law and call as much attention to ourselves as we can. At least we shouldn't have to worry about this idiot flying around our friendly skies anymore.

 

I wonder what a R-22 goes for at a police auction?

[WestTexas]

21 years old....think his helicopter career is over with? He was a pilot for the company not the owner. Stories vary but someone said he was asking the people at the party where he could get some weed too....

[rick1128]

This whole case sounds a little strange. It is Texas after all. First of all the type of firearms were not identified. Were they pistols or rifles? The rules are a little different. Second, were these firearms out in the open? If they were pistols and were in the open, there is definitely a problem. Were they under the seats and the police searched the helicopter without a warrant. There used to be a law in Texas, that you could carry a firearm in your immediate person, if you were traveling outside the county of your residence and/or carrying large sums of money. I do not know the present status of that law.

 

As for the beer cans in the helicopter, in and of themselves, they are not proof that the pilot was operating an aircraft under the influence. The passenger could have drunk all the beer. Passengers do not have to be sober. Maybe they landed off airport and found them and picked them up like all good law biding Texans do.

 

As for the public intoxication charges are concerned, it's TEXAS. They were at a private party. If the police arrested everyone who was drinking at private parties in Texas, the whole state would be locked up, including the cops and judges. There is a whole lot more to this story that we are not being told.

 

Before we condemn someone, we need to get all the facts.

[WestTexas]

They did a sobriety test on the pilot he failed. You can carry a weapon of you're traveling but if you commit a crime flying while drunk? Than it is void and you can be charged with carrying it. But yes there are still a few variables that they don't tell. Needless to say the pilot was fired from his position.

[gary-mike]

Before we condemn someone, we need to get all the facts.

 

Good point.

 

However an eye witness (ML2011) wrote in the comments "I was outside my house when they flew over TWICE! Very low!! It was only a matter of minutes when they landed that the sheriffs office was over there."

 

If this is true, I don't see the pilot becoming intoxicated that quickly.

 

You are right we shouldn't pass judgment too quickly based on a vague report, but even if he was obeying all the laws he is still not too wise. Who in thier right mind would want to park their heli in the middle of town overnight, especially around a bunch of drunk folks? Just my oppinion.

[Goldy]

1. Of course, they are flying low....they landed in a field your honor. Something which is allowed under federal law (FAR's). There is no aviation law that says you can only land a helicopter at an airport.

 

2. Members of the jury. It is not against state law to have a passenger drink a few. What are you supposed to do, litter and throw the cans out the window? The passenger was arrested for being drunk so duh...he obviously was the one that was drinking during the flight. After all, he was nervous about flying and felt it would help calm him.

 

3. My client was in fact at a party and did in fact have a few beers. So is that proof he was flying intoxicated? Absolutely not. The intoxication happened AFTER he landed and in a legal manner. And since my client had done nothing wrong at that point, why was he being singled out and harrassed by the police? There was no law broken. Only IF my client had reboarded the helicopter and attempted to take off would he have been in violation. In fact, he was expecting to spend the night, and leave in the morning with his passenger.

 

This is known as the Enstrom defense. If you don't know what I'm talking about, spend some time on Google.

 

4. As far as the weapons, excuse me, but we are in Texas aren't we?

 

So your honor, my client would like to plead no contest to the one count of trespassing, and take the 10 days of probabtion and promise to never do it again.

 

Case dismissed.

 

Geez, you would think I was a defense attorney.

[WestTexas]

Haha very nice.

[Eggbeater]

1. Of course, they are flying low....they landed in a field your honor. Something which is allowed under federal law (FAR's). There is no aviation law that says you can only land a helicopter at an airport.

 

2. Members of the jury. It is not against state law to have a passenger drink a few. What are you supposed to do, litter and throw the cans out the window? The passenger was arrested for being drunk so duh...he obviously was the one that was drinking during the flight. After all, he was nervous about flying and felt it would help calm him.

 

3. My client was in fact at a party and did in fact have a few beers. So is that proof he was flying intoxicated? Absolutely not. The intoxication happened AFTER he landed and in a legal manner. And since my client had done nothing wrong at that point, why was he being singled out and harrassed by the police? There was no law broken. Only IF my client had reboarded the helicopter and attempted to take off would he have been in violation. In fact, he was expecting to spend the night, and leave in the morning with his passenger.

 

This is known as the Enstrom defense. If you don't know what I'm talking about, spend some time on Google.

 

4. As far as the weapons, excuse me, but we are in Texas aren't we?

 

So your honor, my client would like to plead no contest to the one count of trespassing, and take the 10 days of probabtion and promise to never do it again.

 

Case dismissed.

 

Geez, you would think I was a defense attorney.

 

Yeah that's the first thing I thought when I heard about this case - unless the police administered the breathalyzer immediately after landing, then there is no proof that he was FWI. It reminds me of the case of David Martz, Tommy Lee's pilot, who landed at an airport with the police helicopter in hot pursuit. It sounds like David WAS drinking while flying but since he went immediately to a bar after landing there was no proof that he was flying while intoxicated when he failed the breathalyzer.

 

However, it reminds me of that old saying, "Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it". Unfortunately, this guy's name is in the news and I seriously question his future as a professional helicopter pilot.

 

P.S. How do we know this guy is rich?

[rick1128]

Good point.

 

However an eye witness (ML2011) wrote in the comments "I was outside my house when they flew over TWICE! Very low!! It was only a matter of minutes when they landed that the sheriffs office was over there."

 

If this is true, I don't see the pilot becoming intoxicated that quickly.

 

You are right we shouldn't pass judgment too quickly based on a vague report, but even if he was obeying all the laws he is still not too wise. Who in thier right mind would want to park their heli in the middle of town overnight, especially around a bunch of drunk folks? Just my oppinion.

 

Having taken an accident investigation course, I learned that eye witness accounts are not always that accurate. As for overnighting in the middle of town. It's Ozona! It's not even a wide spot on I-10. It is the type of town where they most likely leave the keys in their vehicles and don't lock their front doors.

 

The police can file charges all they want. It is up to the District Attorney to run with the case or drop it. And it is up to the Judge and jury, if they have one, to convict. So until this person is convicted, we need to consider him innocent. These charges being misdemeanors, the police have to be able to directly connect the pilot with the aircraft. Which means they pretty much have to see him get out of the aircraft. It has to do with the rules of evidence.

 

As for him being fired, if the case doesn't go any further, the pilot would have a good case against his former employer for improper discharge. Usually companies will protect themselves by placing the accused employee on suspension pending the outcome of the trail.

Edited January 27, 2011 by rick1128

[rick1128]

 

4. As far as the weapons, excuse me, but we are in Texas aren't we?

 

So your honor, my client would like to plead no contest to the one count of trespassing, and take the 10 days of probabtion and promise to never do it again.

 

Case dismissed.

 

Geez, you would think I was a defense attorney.

 

It is almost illegal not to own a firearm in Texas. As for the trespassing, the pilot was not charged with that, so don't give them any ideas. The defense attorney is going to have a field day with this case. Even if it did take him 12 tries to pass the bar.

[Goldy]

It reminds me of the case of David Martz, Tommy Lee's pilot, who landed at an airport with the police helicopter in hot pursuit. It sounds like David WAS drinking while flying but since he went immediately to a bar after landing there was no proof that he was flying while intoxicated when he failed the breathalyzer.

 

Uhh, yeah, I was going to mention that one too, since the bar is 100 yards from where I often fly, and I eat there pretty regularly!

 

But that case is not as famous as the Enstrom connection...I'm just wondering who can make that connection! Hit the defense law books!

[gary-mike]

Having taken an accident investigation course, I learned that eye witness accounts are not always that accurate. As for overnighting in the middle of town. It's Ozona! It's not even a wide spot on I-10. It is the type of town where they most likely leave the keys in their vehicles and don't lock their front doors.

 

The police can file charges all they want. It is up to the District Attorney to run with the case or drop it. And it is up to the Judge and jury, if they have one, to convict. So until this person is convicted, we need to consider him innocent. These charges being misdemeanors, the police have to be able to directly connect the pilot with the aircraft. Which means they pretty much have to see him get out of the aircraft. It has to do with the rules of evidence.

 

As for him being fired, if the case doesn't go any further, the pilot would have a good case against his former employer for improper discharge. Usually companies will protect themselves by placing the accused employee on suspension pending the outcome of the trail.

 

I understand and agree with what you are saying. As fo the town of Ozona, I guess I should have google mapped it, I didn't realize it was one of them few great small towns left in the world.

 

I don't know if he would have a case against his employer though. I found this article which is pretty much the same but has a few more details and includes a statement from the company owner. Seems he has just cause to fire him even if he isn't found guilty, as the flight was not authorized. another article

[rick1128]

I don't know if he would have a case against his employer though. I found this article which is pretty much the same but has a few more details and includes a statement from the company owner. Seems he has just cause to fire him even if he isn't found guilty, as the flight was not authorized. another article

 

That is what his employer is saying right now. Texas is a right to work state, so the employer can discharge at will. However, if the employer has a history of letting his employees do things like this, it could be a different matter.

 

Like the FAA, LEOs will keep adding as many charges as they can. But if the main charge falls apart, the rest of the case usually goes with it. It is interesting that the first article states the passenger was arrested, but the second, states that the jail has no record of him.

[IFLY]

From Goldy

 

But that case is not as famous as the Enstrom connection...I'm just wondering who can make that connection! Hit the defense law books!

JASPER DI SANTO

v.

ENSTROM HELICOPTER CORPORATION

 

Is this the one your talking about? I doubt it but my Westlaw account seems to be locked out right now.

 

Jerry

Edited January 27, 2011 by IFLY

[crashed_05]

I was just loggin on to see if this topic made it here yet. I knew this was it when I saw the title of the thread. What an IDIOT!

[RagMan]

Actually, FAR 91.17b states :

 

Except in an emergency, no pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a person who appears to be intoxicated or who demonstrates by manner or physical indications that the individual is under the influence of drugs (except a medical patient under proper care) to be carried in that aircraft.

[Gomer Pylot]

Texas is a little different. Employers can fire you for any reason, or for no reason, and you have no recourse unless you are covered by a union contract. Even then it's very hard to win a suit. If the boss wants to fire you, he can, and you have essentially no chance of winning a lawsuit, no matter why he did it. Corporate profits are far more important than individual rights.

 

If you have a concealed carry permit, you can carry a gun almost anywhere, as long as it's concealed. Without the permit, you're in trouble if the gun is in a vehicle, of whatever type. It's so easy to get one, you really should have one if you own a gun.

 

It's a misdemeanor, tried in a local court, and the outcome will depend on the lawyer and who he knows in Ozona. Other legalities have little to do with it. The FAA, OTOH, can and probably will pull the pilot's certificate, and there is nothing he can do about it. The Bob Hoover case pretty much proved that. The FAA needs no sound reason to take any certificate action, either pilot's certificate or medical certificate, since they're a privilege, not a right. The Supremes backed the Feds, and it's now settled law.

[nikon858]

Actually, FAR 91.17b states :

 

Except in an emergency, no pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a person who appears to be intoxicated or who demonstrates by manner or physical indications that the individual is under the influence of drugs (except a medical patient under proper care) to be carried in that aircraft.

 

Ya, before boarding an aircraft, you can serve alcohol on a flight though....who said he appeared to be drunk anyways??? I can have quite a few and not appear to be drunk at all.

[Goldy]

Ya, before boarding an aircraft, you can serve alcohol on a flight though....who said he appeared to be drunk anyways??? I can have quite a few and not appear to be drunk at all.

 

Exactly....what is the definition of drunk? .04 if you're flying, .08 if you're driving...but what if youre just a passenger? Maybe a .12 ?? Thats about 6 drinks an hour when you weigh 240 pounds like I once did...I'm 250 now, so maybe 7 !!

 

And no, thats not the legal connection I was looking for. If you don't know it right away I doubt you could find it.

[Miloe]

Exactly....what is the definition of drunk? .04 if you're flying, .08 if you're driving...but what if youre just a passenger? Maybe a .12 ?? Thats about 6 drinks an hour when you weigh 240 pounds like I once did...I'm 250 now, so maybe 7 !!

 

And no, thats not the legal connection I was looking for. If you don't know it right away I doubt you could find it.

 

Well spill it already, what's the Enstrom defense?

[ironranger]

Is it F Lee Bailey?

[Gomer Pylot]

No, he was Bob Hoover's attorney, and he lost.

[Goldy]

Is it F Lee Bailey?

 

YES !

 

Nice job. Any chance you know the rest of the connection?

 

I'll buy you another beer at Heli Expo if you get it right.....