If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WFAA Fort Worth)   American Eagle pilot arrested after an alcohol test revealed he was over the Minnesota 0.04% legal limit for pilots. In related news, PILOTS CAN LEGALLY FLY AFTER DRINKING in Minnesota   (wfaa.com) divider line 138
    More: Scary, American Eagle, Minnesota  
•       •       •

3091 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jan 2013 at 4:52 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



138 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-04 07:33:14 PM  

happyleper: Using alcohol-based mouthwash is enough to blow something greater than zero. While I'm not okay with my pilot knocking back a few before the flight, I am okay with him having fresh breath.


Not entirely true. Mouth wash leaves "Residual Mouth Alcohol" which can throw off readings in Preliminary Breath Test equipment. Standard procedure for any actionable breath test is at least 15 minutes where nothing is introduced into the mouth (both ways). Chewing gum, smoking, mints, vomiting, etc all reset the time. Additionally, the Datamaster breath tester used at the police station is the only device that is admissible in court in most states for demonstrating the presence of alcohol in the blood stream. The wait time before using the Datamaster is similar.

So yes, mouth wash will artificially spike a PBT reading within a few minutes of using it, and only a few minutes. But no, you cannot be arrested or convicted for a false PBT reading caused by mouth wash. SOP for using PBTs and Datamasters are set as to prevent Residual Mouth Alcohol from having any bearing.
 
2013-01-04 07:33:30 PM  

Fear_and_Loathing: Lol airlines are now putting iPads in the cockpit, it is all a crock.


Airlines are allowing them to be used in aircraft that have been tested for those particular devices, in that particular location.
 
2013-01-04 07:44:01 PM  
i4.ytimg.com
 
2013-01-04 08:06:55 PM  

Indubitably: Hoblit: Hoblit: I want to point out that .08 is higher than .04 as well as a .14

The article doesn't mention what his actually was, only that the law was .04 and he was arrested for possibly being somewhere above that. So he could have had a .20 for as much as the article tells us.

Indubitably
To decimal

I'm not sure what you are saying. .14 & .08 is higher than .04

My only point is that this guy could have been .20 or for the sake of argument, 2.04... this would still be above .04

The article simply doesn't say what he came in at, only that it was higher than .04

This guy could have been crazy drunk. Though the wording of the headline and the discussion seems to lean that he was right at .04 or just somehow above.

*shrugs

P.S. What I find most interesting is how many people on the internet don't nuance well. *)


I must disagree, I find 0.10 BAC to be an appropriately arbitrary level of nuance

Looks like the hyperbole was only brought to answer your initial derpin'
 
2013-01-04 08:08:02 PM  

warfieldred: Indubitably: Hoblit: Hoblit: I want to point out that .08 is higher than .04 as well as a .14

The article doesn't mention what his actually was, only that the law was .04 and he was arrested for possibly being somewhere above that. So he could have had a .20 for as much as the article tells us.

Indubitably
To decimal

I'm not sure what you are saying. .14 & .08 is higher than .04

My only point is that this guy could have been .20 or for the sake of argument, 2.04... this would still be above .04

The article simply doesn't say what he came in at, only that it was higher than .04

This guy could have been crazy drunk. Though the wording of the headline and the discussion seems to lean that he was right at .04 or just somehow above.

*shrugs

P.S. What I find most interesting is how many people on the internet don't nuance well. *)

I must disagree, I find 0.10 BAC to be an appropriately arbitrary level of nuance

Looks like the hyperbole was only brought to answer your initial derpin'


Pardon me, sir.

I infinitived.
 
2013-01-04 08:09:31 PM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Fear_and_Loathing: It used to be 8 hours bottle to throttle.



That's a good rule for driving as well as flying.


It is however inadequate .... a healthy adult liver an process around 20ml of ethanol per hour, and the rate does not vary by how wasted you are. A BAC of 0.04 dulls reaction times and cognitive processes considerably. It is totally irresponsible to fly any aircraft at that level, far less a commercial jet with innocent passengers. A more reasonable limit would be 0.01 which is stone cold sober with a margin for error.
 
2013-01-04 08:12:15 PM  

mark12A: I REALLY needed a drink last week flying to Rochester. I was on one of those little CRJ's out of Philly. We lifted off, gear came up, we were climbing out, when suddenly, without warning, the plane rolls into a 45 degree bank to the right, dfoes like a 2g turn, then rolls 90 degrees to the left, into a left 45 degree 2g turn, then levels out and continues climbing. I ripped my headphones off (was listening to the Jonny Quest theme, as I usually do during takeoffs) and damm near pissed my pants. What was it? A controls failure, crazy pilot fight in the cockpit??

No. A flight of geese flew in front of the plane after liftoff and the pilot went all Top Gunny to avoid them. I was impressed at the roll rate the pilot was able to generate with the CRJ. Almost as quick as the Pitts Special I used to fly.


The post 9/11 run up the Potomac to DCA was pretty interesting in those ... they seem to have a lot less manouevrability than a 737.
 
2013-01-04 08:13:57 PM  

WillyChase: Hebjamn: Simplified Regulation :

91.17 (a) No flying :
(1) within 8 hours of drinking
(2) while under the influence
(3) - drug related -
(4) with a BAC > .04

My understanding is that there's an implied 'Or' between 1, 2, 3 and 4.

It's hard to understand how you could have a BAC of .04 and not be under the influence.

It's hard to understand how you could have a BAC of .04 and be considered under the influence


Then you don't understand the effects of alcohol very well. Try playing your favourite car video game at 0.04 and see what happens to the score.
 
2013-01-04 08:17:40 PM  

happyleper: Baryogenesis: If I have to turn off my electronics due to the tiny chance of interference then the pilots should have a zero BAC.

/about to board a plane

Using alcohol-based mouthwash is enough to blow something greater than zero. While I'm not okay with my pilot knocking back a few before the flight, I am okay with him having fresh breath.


Which is why a valid breath test requires a 15 minute wait after consuming anything orally.

/ breath not admissable in most US jurisdictions anyway
 
2013-01-04 08:24:26 PM  

YouPeopleAreCrazy: Fear_and_Loathing: Lol airlines are now putting iPads in the cockpit, it is all a crock.

Airlines are allowing them to be used in aircraft that have been tested for those particular devices, in that particular location.


Not to mention on board cellular service .... apparently back in the 1980s there were analog phones which could splatter into the ATC band which is around 145Mhz FM and also analogue. Chances of interference from a modern digital cellphone is very small indeed.

Your big horizon can dink with cell networks during climb out and approach.
 
2013-01-04 08:26:06 PM  

mark12A: when suddenly, without warning, the plane rolls into a 45 degree bank to the right, dfoes like a 2g turn, then rolls 90 degrees to the left, into a left 45 degree 2g turn, then levels out and continues climbing. I ripped my headphones off (was listening to the Jonny Quest theme, as I usually do during takeoffs) and damm near pissed my pants. What was it? A controls failure, crazy pilot fight in the cockpit??


I was flying a couple months ago when two minutes after takeoff the pilot suddenly pitches over really agressively into a 20 degree nose low dive. Since I was in the back of the plane if I hadn't been belted I'd have bounced off the ceiling when he stabilized it in the dive. Yes I also almost pissed my pants, but I wasn't wondering what happened, there are only two things that will cause a pilot to do that kind of maneuvering in a commercial aircraft, birds as in your case or TCAS warning as in mine (which I confirmed afterward). TCAS started screaming dive dive at them, they're required to respond as if they're flying a Pitts, and the Scully incident certainly has every commercial pilot doing bat-turns if they see anything flying that's not made of metal.
 
2013-01-04 08:27:02 PM  

Indubitably: warfieldred: Indubitably: Hoblit: Hoblit: I want to point out that .08 is higher than .04 as well as a .14

The article doesn't mention what his actually was, only that the law was .04 and he was arrested for possibly being somewhere above that. So he could have had a .20 for as much as the article tells us.

Indubitably
To decimal

I'm not sure what you are saying. .14 & .08 is higher than .04

My only point is that this guy could have been .20 or for the sake of argument, 2.04... this would still be above .04

The article simply doesn't say what he came in at, only that it was higher than .04

This guy could have been crazy drunk. Though the wording of the headline and the discussion seems to lean that he was right at .04 or just somehow above.

*shrugs

P.S. What I find most interesting is how many people on the internet don't nuance well. *)

I must disagree, I find 0.10 BAC to be an appropriately arbitrary level of nuance

Looks like the hyperbole was only brought to answer your initial derpin'

Pardon me, sir.

I infinitived.


Viking-arms up and defiantly raised!

To rape and pillage, figuratively, Lambeau Field!

To Viking
 
2013-01-04 08:27:41 PM  

mark12A: I REALLY needed a drink last week flying to Rochester. I was on one of those little CRJ's out of Philly. We lifted off, gear came up, we were climbing out, when suddenly, without warning, the plane rolls into a 45 degree bank to the right, dfoes like a 2g turn, then rolls 90 degrees to the left, into a left 45 degree 2g turn, then levels out and continues climbing. I ripped my headphones off (was listening to the Jonny Quest theme, as I usually do during takeoffs) and damm near pissed my pants. What was it? A controls failure, crazy pilot fight in the cockpit??

No. A flight of geese flew in front of the plane after liftoff and the pilot went all Top Gunny to avoid them. I was impressed at the roll rate the pilot was able to generate with the CRJ. Almost as quick as the Pitts Special I used to fly.


Give me five seconds of terror over three hours of the normal aggravations of flying any day.

I was on a normal, boring flight once, coming in for a normal, boring landing, when all of a sudden the plane (apparently) slewed hard to the left and dropped like a stone for about ten feet, landing hard before swerving back to the right. People screamed, because there was no warning whatsoever.

Within three seconds, the captain or first officer was on the PA system. "Textbook landing. Ladies and gentlemen, I just want to say that was absolutely textbook. Good job, Mike." From his tone of voice it wasn't really clear if he was giving his co-pilot shiat, or if he really was trying to explain something, but because of the tension it was the funniest thing anyone on the plane had ever heard.

Other pilots have told me it was probably a cross-wind landing, where you come in at a funky angle to the runway. But it was Delta, which has a hub in Minneapolis, so maybe he was just drunk!

/cathartic story bro
 
2013-01-04 08:28:26 PM  

Indubitably: Indubitably: warfieldred: Indubitably: Hoblit: Hoblit: I want to point out that .08 is higher than .04 as well as a .14

The article doesn't mention what his actually was, only that the law was .04 and he was arrested for possibly being somewhere above that. So he could have had a .20 for as much as the article tells us.

Indubitably
To decimal

I'm not sure what you are saying. .14 & .08 is higher than .04

My only point is that this guy could have been .20 or for the sake of argument, 2.04... this would still be above .04

The article simply doesn't say what he came in at, only that it was higher than .04

This guy could have been crazy drunk. Though the wording of the headline and the discussion seems to lean that he was right at .04 or just somehow above.

*shrugs

P.S. What I find most interesting is how many people on the internet don't nuance well. *)

I must disagree, I find 0.10 BAC to be an appropriately arbitrary level of nuance

Looks like the hyperbole was only brought to answer your initial derpin'

Pardon me, sir.

I infinitived.

Viking-arms up and defiantly raised!

To rape and pillage, figuratively, Lambeau Field!

To Viking


We will break the cheese upon your backsides.
 
2013-01-04 08:42:06 PM  

semiotix: W. T. Fark: That's about 2 beers. Much more lenient than I would expect

Ehhh... if you were a decent-sized guy and you drank them slow. Neglecting metabolism (which is to say, neglecting time), BAC is basically just a question of alcohol divided by mass, which is why Stacy Stakowski totally got a DUI even though she only had like one and a half Zimas at Todd's party and left after half an hour because Todd was practically farking Denise Fetzer in the hallway to his parents' bedroom and he knew she was there and so now she like can't even get her license back until she's 19 and that's only because her dad is a tax lawyer and called in a favor with the district magistrate to get her charged with vehicular reckless endangerment instead.


So... Stacy is available?
 
2013-01-04 08:53:44 PM  

WillyChase: It's hard to understand how you could have a BAC of .04 and be considered under the influence


It's hard to understand how so many people in this thread think 0.04 is nothing but if someone drives at 0.08 it's "ZOMG!!!1111!!! You're gonna kill someone!"
 
2013-01-04 09:08:21 PM  

taurusowner: happyleper: Using alcohol-based mouthwash is enough to blow something greater than zero. While I'm not okay with my pilot knocking back a few before the flight, I am okay with him having fresh breath.

Not entirely true. Mouth wash leaves "Residual Mouth Alcohol" which can throw off readings in Preliminary Breath Test equipment. Standard procedure for any actionable breath test is at least 15 minutes where nothing is introduced into the mouth (both ways). Chewing gum, smoking, mints, vomiting, etc all reset the time. Additionally, the Datamaster breath tester used at the police station is the only device that is admissible in court in most states for demonstrating the presence of alcohol in the blood stream. The wait time before using the Datamaster is similar.

So yes, mouth wash will artificially spike a PBT reading within a few minutes of using it, and only a few minutes. But no, you cannot be arrested or convicted for a false PBT reading caused by mouth wash. SOP for using PBTs and Datamasters are set as to prevent Residual Mouth Alcohol from having any bearing.


Rules are different for commercial license holders. Probable cause is all that is necessary for license suspension/revocation even if the evidence does not allow for criminal conviction. For example in Indiana the breath test only establishes probable cause for a blood draw, which is the real evidence used in court. If a CDL holder flunks the breath test but passes the blood draw, that CDL is going away for a while based solely on the breath test. I'd imagine it is the same for any federally regulated license holder.
 
2013-01-04 09:23:24 PM  
SCARY TAG

!!!TERROR ALERT: PERIWINKLE!!!

SCARY TAG

!FOX NEWS ALERT!

PILOT FOUND WITH MORE THAN 0.00000% ALCOHOL IN HIS SYSTEM

MY ZERO TOLERANCE BRAIN DRIVEN BY A COMPLETELY IMPRACTICAL VIEWPOINT OF THE WORLD IS EXPLODING

SCARY TAG
 
2013-01-04 09:52:27 PM  
If you worked for American Eagle, you'd drink too!
 
2013-01-04 09:53:23 PM  
Dude was out late doing shots, probably slept a few hours max, and still reeked in the AM when heading into work. People smelled it, he blew trace amounts. The blood test will probably come back showing very little residual alcohol.

I still think he's a dumbass because I'm not worth a shiat the morning after a long night, either...I would not even think of flying a plane. Which I don't know how to do anyway, but that's another issue altogether.
 
2013-01-04 09:58:17 PM  

ParaHandy: Prank Call of Cthulhu: Fear_and_Loathing: It used to be 8 hours bottle to throttle.

That's a good rule for driving as well as flying.

It is however inadequate .... a healthy adult liver an process around 20ml of ethanol per hour, and the rate does not vary by how wasted you are. A BAC of 0.04 dulls reaction times and cognitive processes considerably. It is totally irresponsible to fly any aircraft at that level, far less a commercial jet with innocent passengers. A more reasonable limit would be 0.01 which is stone cold sober with a margin for error.


.01 is not 'a margin of error' it's within tolerances for the device, generally speaking. It's also 'you looked at a beer 15 hours ago' level of 'intoxication', and is highly suspect for false positives on such a low tolerance. You're effectively saying 'don't drink 24-48 hours or more' before flight, which would mean no drinking, ever, for most of these people. And while your 'health typical organ processes X at Y rate with little variance' schtick is nice, and probably kills at MADD, it's pointless. If the guy is an alcoholic, then .04 is below even baseline for him, let alone being into slowed reflexes or dysfunction rates. Alcohol impairment varies wildly by experience and consumpation averages for the person, along with other factors (male/female, genetic origin, etc.). Pilots, being responsible for hundreds of lives, have a more stringent requirement. I think .04 is reasonable, it's not restrictive to the 'out partying hard' types, but will filter out the 'out partying hard every night and still going' alcoholics.

Happy Hours: WillyChase: It's hard to understand how you could have a BAC of .04 and be considered under the influence

It's hard to understand how so many people in this thread think 0.04 is nothing but if someone drives at 0.08 it's "ZOMG!!!1111!!! You're gonna kill someone!"


Math, how the @#$% does that work? It's almost like .08 is double .04, or something. I don't know man, that's weird stuff.
 
2013-01-04 10:18:55 PM  

YouPeopleAreCrazy: Fear_and_Loathing: Lol airlines are now putting iPads in the cockpit, it is all a crock.

Airlines are allowing them to be used in aircraft that have been tested for those particular devices, in that particular location.


Yeah, because there are so many flight critical electronic components located in the passenger cabin, versus the cockpit.
 
2013-01-04 10:37:15 PM  

Gleeman: YouPeopleAreCrazy: Fear_and_Loathing: Lol airlines are now putting iPads in the cockpit, it is all a crock.

Airlines are allowing them to be used in aircraft that have been tested for those particular devices, in that particular location.

Yeah, because there are so many flight critical electronic components located in the passenger cabin, versus the cockpit.


You'd be surprised at how many critical components are stashed under the passenger cabins. Radio antennas, the radios themselves, on and on. Most of what's on the flight deck are just the display units for everything that can be anywhere on the plane.
 
2013-01-04 10:41:00 PM  

kroonermanblack: Happy Hours: WillyChase: It's hard to understand how you could have a BAC of .04 and be considered under the influence

It's hard to understand how so many people in this thread think 0.04 is nothing but if someone drives at 0.08 it's "ZOMG!!!1111!!! You're gonna kill someone!"

Math, how the @#$% does that work? It's almost like .08 is double .04, or something. I don't know man, that's weird stuff.


Flying a plane with potentially hundreds of people on-board at hundreds of miles per hour thousadns of feet in the air for your job is exactly the same thing as someone driving a couple miles home from a restaurant though, right?
 
2013-01-04 11:08:22 PM  
.04 BAC and I'm totally farked.

/I don't drink much.
//I blame my low tolerance on the minuscule amount of Choctaw blood in my veins.
///Can't handle my firewater.
 
2013-01-04 11:09:00 PM  

BolloxReader: semiotix:
Ehhh... if you were a decent-sized guy and you drank them slow. Neglecting metabolism (which is to say, neglecting time), BAC is basically just a question of alcohol divided by mass, which is why Stacy Stakowski totally got a DUI even though she only had like one and a half Zimas at Todd's party and left after half an hour because Todd was practically farking Denise Fetzer in the hallway to his parents' bedroom and he knew she was there and so now she like can't even get her license back until she's 19 and that's only because her dad is a tax lawyer and called in a favor with the district magistrate to get her charged with vehicular reckless endangerment instead.
So... Stacy is available?


Not only that, she can't drive. So she's at your mercy.
 
2013-01-04 11:26:31 PM  

iron_city_ap: They don't trust the general public to do the same and can't expect the 90 year old flight attendants to know the difference between an iPod and an iPhone or any other wifi device, so they trust the general public to do the same make everybody turn them off


FTFY, drive through, no charge this time
 
2013-01-04 11:34:59 PM  

buzzcut73: Gleeman: YouPeopleAreCrazy: Fear_and_Loathing: Lol airlines are now putting iPads in the cockpit, it is all a crock.

Airlines are allowing them to be used in aircraft that have been tested for those particular devices, in that particular location.

Yeah, because there are so many flight critical electronic components located in the passenger cabin, versus the cockpit.

You'd be surprised at how many critical components are stashed under the passenger cabins. Radio antennas, the radios themselves, on and on. Most of what's on the flight deck are just the display units for everything that can be anywhere on the plane.


This. It drives me NUTS every time someone brings up this argument.

Yes, the plane's instruments will survive interference from a few ipads and cells phones being active during takeoff. Yes, it will still probably be OK if every damned person is using one. Is there a ~chance~ that a few hundred radio emitting devices could screw with an instrument or two during flight? HELL YES. You are inside a giant wave-guide. your little 1 watt transmitter is bouncing signals all over the place. Ever picked up a truckers CB on your car radio when he was right next to you? Similar principle.

I just wish the populous would understand that it isn't certain doom and gloom with the electronic rules. It's a potential risk. If there is a snowballs chance in hell that something could cause your plane to crash, even a 1 in 10,000 chance, why on earth would you fight so badly to take that chance?

Also think about it this way. If they allowed cell phones in flight, it wouldn't be long before some frequent flyer asshole sneaks a jammer on board because he's sick of listening to people jabber all night on his red-eye. It's easier just to let the rules be.
 
2013-01-04 11:37:22 PM  

Gleeman: Yeah, because there are so many flight critical electronic components located in the passenger cabin, versus the cockpit.


Actually, yes.
Various places right under your feet, in the cargo bay
Comm lines between the cabin display an controls and the engines behind you, and the control surfaces on the wing next to you.
Data sensors all over.

So yes. There are flight critical components in places other than the cockpit.
 
2013-01-04 11:38:03 PM  

Fear_and_Loathing:
Remember, the pilots usually arrive at the crash scene first.  Passengers forget that.


It they were smarter pilots, they would give it a little flap before smacking earth....


///I keed, I keed.
 
2013-01-05 01:12:56 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-05 02:30:58 AM  

downstairs: Duke_leto_Atredes: .04 is the limit for any commercial license. Pilot trucker limo driver bus driver.

filter: What are the limits for a CDL? I thought OTR drivers had .02 as a limit. How are pilots allowed more?

My buddy has a small landscaping business.  Has to have a CDL (or something similar) to drive his truck.  He told me its 0.02.  Maybe its a state thing.


had a california CDL for 15 years, its .08 for class c and .04 for class A here and Bus drivers limmo drivers CA just used Federal standards for comercial license standards. the .04 is the standard for the license type so whatever Vehical you are operating thats the limit not just the truck bus limo also your car you drive to work and a drug test every 2 years for the medical card and once a year for trucking companies or after an accident. that being said theere were a lot drivers out there high as a kite, drive safe now.
 
2013-01-05 03:00:12 AM  

semiotix: mark12A: I REALLY needed a drink last week flying to Rochester. I was on one of those little CRJ's out of Philly. We lifted off, gear came up, we were climbing out, when suddenly, without warning, the plane rolls into a 45 degree bank to the right, dfoes like a 2g turn, then rolls 90 degrees to the left, into a left 45 degree 2g turn, then levels out and continues climbing. I ripped my headphones off (was listening to the Jonny Quest theme, as I usually do during takeoffs) and damm near pissed my pants. What was it? A controls failure, crazy pilot fight in the cockpit??

No. A flight of geese flew in front of the plane after liftoff and the pilot went all Top Gunny to avoid them. I was impressed at the roll rate the pilot was able to generate with the CRJ. Almost as quick as the Pitts Special I used to fly.

Give me five seconds of terror over three hours of the normal aggravations of flying any day.

I was on a normal, boring flight once, coming in for a normal, boring landing, when all of a sudden the plane (apparently) slewed hard to the left and dropped like a stone for about ten feet, landing hard before swerving back to the right. People screamed, because there was no warning whatsoever.

Within three seconds, the captain or first officer was on the PA system. "Textbook landing. Ladies and gentlemen, I just want to say that was absolutely textbook. Good job, Mike." From his tone of voice it wasn't really clear if he was giving his co-pilot shiat, or if he really was trying to explain something, but because of the tension it was the funniest thing anyone on the plane had ever heard.

Other pilots have told me it was probably a cross-wind landing, where you come in at a funky angle to the runway. But it was Delta, which has a hub in Minneapolis, so maybe he was just drunk!

/cathartic story bro


Last week we had an aborted landing- maybe 10m from the ground in extreme winds. Seemed like it took an hour to climb, circle, queue up and finally land.
 
2013-01-05 07:11:56 AM  

BolloxReader: taurusowner: happyleper: Using alcohol-based mouthwash is enough to blow something greater than zero. While I'm not okay with my pilot knocking back a few before the flight, I am okay with him having fresh breath.

Not entirely true. Mouth wash leaves "Residual Mouth Alcohol" which can throw off readings in Preliminary Breath Test equipment. Standard procedure for any actionable breath test is at least 15 minutes where nothing is introduced into the mouth (both ways). Chewing gum, smoking, mints, vomiting, etc all reset the time. Additionally, the Datamaster breath tester used at the police station is the only device that is admissible in court in most states for demonstrating the presence of alcohol in the blood stream. The wait time before using the Datamaster is similar.

So yes, mouth wash will artificially spike a PBT reading within a few minutes of using it, and only a few minutes. But no, you cannot be arrested or convicted for a false PBT reading caused by mouth wash. SOP for using PBTs and Datamasters are set as to prevent Residual Mouth Alcohol from having any bearing.

Rules are different for commercial license holders. Probable cause is all that is necessary for license suspension/revocation even if the evidence does not allow for criminal conviction. For example in Indiana the breath test only establishes probable cause for a blood draw, which is the real evidence used in court. If a CDL holder flunks the breath test but passes the blood draw, that CDL is going away for a while based solely on the breath test. I'd imagine it is the same for any federally regulated license holder.


Well yeah, I'm sure both the company and the FAA have different BAC limits for pilots than drivers do. But the point stands that you're not really actually going to get dinged on a PBT for having used mouthwash. That's an urban myth. SOP for roadside and police station breath tests are designed to rule out Residual Mouth Alcohol.
 
2013-01-05 07:35:08 AM  

Corvus: WillyChase: It's hard to understand how you could have a BAC of .04 and be considered under the influence

I actually have a breathalyzer I go out with.


I'm dating a toaster.

She's Canadian, and totally hot.
 
2013-01-05 09:10:53 AM  
ooooh scarryy

listen to that SYNtheSIZER!!

img.youtube.com
 
2013-01-05 02:54:31 PM  
I have several friends that take Breathalyzers out with them, they get tested.  I have a BAC calculator o my cell phone, just to give a heads up, but if I go out, I leave it to two beers over 2 hours and then coke, the beverage.  I no longer get tested, but it ain't worth the hassle and 30 years of habit is hard to break.  That and I have a letter in my wallet, from a Doctor, that says I couldn't pass a roadside test sober.  Just take me in for a breath or blood test.
 
2013-01-05 02:57:15 PM  
BTW, I'm good with that.  If I feel the need to drink, I will do it at home. Where it is mostly harmless.
 
Displayed 38 of 138 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report