Narrative:

7/sat/92 approximately AM30 local 4 crew members were called in for charter, 2 trips fabricated to depart mor-clt-tys. After attempt to act as crew members the trips were terminated. The crew members were then informed of a 'sting' operation and asked if they would submit to a blood alcohol content blood alcohol breathalyzer test. Of 4 crew members only 3 had been selected. All 3 crew members agreed to testing. All 3 crew members in a timely manner were tested at local police departments. Test results were: pilot a, blood alcohol content .00; pilot B, .01; myself C, substance interference. My complaint is: that after submitting myself to local police, and after 45 min in discussion with officer at the jefferson city policy department, his opinion and testing results showed 'no sign of intoxication' and further testing was unnecessary. The results were promptly returned to our flying service. At approximately AM30 local I was called to the office at field. I was interrogated by the 135 D.O. And company attorney. It was brought to my attention that this 'set-up, sting operation' was approved by the FAA and that there were technical problems. I, and pilot B were suspended without pay until further noticed. I feel that my civil rights were violated when I was implicated in a sting operation conducted by our employer flying service involving reasonable basis to believe I was in violation of far 91.17 and others. There are many details involving this matter and I would be willing to discuss them in detail, if your department should have any questions. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information. Reporter seemed rather passive about the incident although he was off duty without pay for 10 days and subsequently terminated by operator. The charge by his employer was failure to provide a proper breathalyzer test. The officer giving the test indicated that smoking could have altered the results and there were no indications of being intoxicated or have had a drink. The initial scam or sting was set up on the basis of several first officer's reports on some capts possibly drinking before flight. Reporter has not contacted a lawyer for his defense. He had submitted a letter of resignation but that was pre-empted by the termination letter to unemployment office, which refused him any benefits. The level of company intimidation is revealed in that he is afraid to take any actions as his fiancee is still employed as a pilot with company. The director of flight operations had told him that any action reporter takes against company as a result of his termination might be reflected in possible termination of his fiancee if her attitude was changed by the situation. Reporter claims that this operator provides services for automatic industry as well as EMS services and runs a rather shoddy operation in unscheduled/undocumented maintenance procedures and using non tagged items for replacement parts.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLCS CALLED OUT FOR SUPPOSED FLT ASSIGNMENT. REAL REASON IS TO TEST PLTS FOR POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF FAR 91 PT 17, BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVELS.

Narrative: 7/SAT/92 APPROX AM30 LCL 4 CREW MEMBERS WERE CALLED IN FOR CHARTER, 2 TRIPS FABRICATED TO DEPART MOR-CLT-TYS. AFTER ATTEMPT TO ACT AS CREW MEMBERS THE TRIPS WERE TERMINATED. THE CREW MEMBERS WERE THEN INFORMED OF A 'STING' OP AND ASKED IF THEY WOULD SUBMIT TO A BLOOD ALCOHOL CONTENT BLOOD ALCOHOL BREATHALYZER TEST. OF 4 CREW MEMBERS ONLY 3 HAD BEEN SELECTED. ALL 3 CREW MEMBERS AGREED TO TESTING. ALL 3 CREW MEMBERS IN A TIMELY MANNER WERE TESTED AT LCL POLICE DEPTS. TEST RESULTS WERE: PLT A, BLOOD ALCOHOL CONTENT .00; PLT B, .01; MYSELF C, SUBSTANCE INTERFERENCE. MY COMPLAINT IS: THAT AFTER SUBMITTING MYSELF TO LCL POLICE, AND AFTER 45 MIN IN DISCUSSION WITH OFFICER AT THE JEFFERSON CITY POLICY DEPT, HIS OPINION AND TESTING RESULTS SHOWED 'NO SIGN OF INTOXICATION' AND FURTHER TESTING WAS UNNECESSARY. THE RESULTS WERE PROMPTLY RETURNED TO OUR FLYING SVC. AT APPROX AM30 LCL I WAS CALLED TO THE OFFICE AT FIELD. I WAS INTERROGATED BY THE 135 D.O. AND COMPANY ATTORNEY. IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTN THAT THIS 'SET-UP, STING OP' WAS APPROVED BY THE FAA AND THAT THERE WERE TECHNICAL PROBLEMS. I, AND PLT B WERE SUSPENDED WITHOUT PAY UNTIL FURTHER NOTICED. I FEEL THAT MY CIVIL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED WHEN I WAS IMPLICATED IN A STING OP CONDUCTED BY OUR EMPLOYER FLYING SVC INVOLVING REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE I WAS IN VIOLATION OF FAR 91.17 AND OTHERS. THERE ARE MANY DETAILS INVOLVING THIS MATTER AND I WOULD BE WILLING TO DISCUSS THEM IN DETAIL, IF YOUR DEPT SHOULD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. RPTR SEEMED RATHER PASSIVE ABOUT THE INCIDENT ALTHOUGH HE WAS OFF DUTY WITHOUT PAY FOR 10 DAYS AND SUBSEQUENTLY TERMINATED BY OPERATOR. THE CHARGE BY HIS EMPLOYER WAS FAILURE TO PROVIDE A PROPER BREATHALYZER TEST. THE OFFICER GIVING THE TEST INDICATED THAT SMOKING COULD HAVE ALTERED THE RESULTS AND THERE WERE NO INDICATIONS OF BEING INTOXICATED OR HAVE HAD A DRINK. THE INITIAL SCAM OR STING WAS SET UP ON THE BASIS OF SEVERAL FO'S RPTS ON SOME CAPTS POSSIBLY DRINKING BEFORE FLT. RPTR HAS NOT CONTACTED A LAWYER FOR HIS DEFENSE. HE HAD SUBMITTED A LETTER OF RESIGNATION BUT THAT WAS PRE-EMPTED BY THE TERMINATION LETTER TO UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICE, WHICH REFUSED HIM ANY BENEFITS. THE LEVEL OF COMPANY INTIMIDATION IS REVEALED IN THAT HE IS AFRAID TO TAKE ANY ACTIONS AS HIS FIANCEE IS STILL EMPLOYED AS A PLT WITH COMPANY. THE DIRECTOR OF FLT OPS HAD TOLD HIM THAT ANY ACTION RPTR TAKES AGAINST COMPANY AS A RESULT OF HIS TERMINATION MIGHT BE REFLECTED IN POSSIBLE TERMINATION OF HIS FIANCEE IF HER ATTITUDE WAS CHANGED BY THE SITUATION. RPTR CLAIMS THAT THIS OPERATOR PROVIDES SVCS FOR AUTO INDUSTRY AS WELL AS EMS SVCS AND RUNS A RATHER SHODDY OP IN UNSCHEDULED/UNDOCUMENTED MAINT PROCS AND USING NON TAGGED ITEMS FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.