Tug operator: I controlled plane, not pilots accused of intoxication
By Emanuella Grinberg
Court TV
MIAMI, Florida (Court TV) -- While prosecutors called several witnesses to convince jurors that two America West pilots operated a flight while intoxicated, the defense called just one witness Monday who testified that he, not the pilots, was in "full control" of the aircraft during the incident.
Tug vehicle operator Franklin Tejeda told jurors that on July 1, 2002, police stopped him while he was pulling the aircraft, which was attached to the vehicle by a steel rod.
"When the pin is in the nose wheel, what happens if the pilots try to steer?" defense attorney Daniel Foodman asked.
"In my knowledge, they cannot steer," Tejeda said.
After the aircraft returned to the gate, authorities performed a field sobriety test on Captain Thomas Cloyd and first officer Christopher Hughes on suspicions they were intoxicated.
The failed the test and were arrested soon afterward. They face up to five years in prison if convicted.
Franklin also testified that he observed the engines on the Airbus 319 were off, another indication that the pilots were not in control of the aircraft, the defense argues.
On cross-examination, however, he acknowledged that he only began tug vehicle operations after receiving orders from the pilots in the cockpit to do so.
"I don't give orders," he said. "I have full control of plane until it's out on the taxiway."
"But you don't do anything unless told to by the pilots?" Assistant State Attorney Hilla Katz asked.
"Yes," he said.
Tejeda's testimony brought an end to seven days of evidence in the felony trial.
Without disputing evidence that their clients were out drinking until 5 a.m. the night before, earlier in the day the defense attempted to cast doubt on their clients' level of impairment and its effect on their ability to do their job using the state's final witness.
Forensic toxicologist H. Chip Walls testified that the pilots had blood-alcohol contents nearly double the state's legal limit of .08 when they entered the cockpit around 10:10 a.m., less than five hours after they returned to their hotel after the night out.
Walls calculated the blood-alcohol levels using a formula that incorporates the average rate at which humans burn alcohol and the actual blood-alcohol figures from breathalyzer tests the two pilots took at about 1 p.m. the same day, three hours after they reported for work.
Those breathalyzer tests showed Cloyd's blood-alcohol content was .091 and Hughes' was .084. Florida's legal limit for driving is .08. Although the Federal Aviation Administration has a lower limit for pilots, the men are being held to the state standard because the case is being tried in state court.
Depending on Cloyd's metabolism rate, which Walls conceded on cross-examination he was unaware of, he testified Cloyd's potential blood alcohol content was as high as .15 or as low as .137 based on his projections.
Relying on the same variables, projected figures for Hughes went from .13 to .145.
Foodman and Hughes' lawyer, James Rubin, focused on the speculative nature of the test, emphasizing the fact that the witness was not present for the actual breathalyzer test the day of the arrest.
Walls also conceded that all his knowledge of the case came to him second-hand.
Citing Dean Martin's definition of "drunk," Walls said the pilots may not have needed "to hold onto the grass to keep from slipping off the face of the earth" after their drinking session the night before, the sheer quantity of alcohol that they consumed implied they must have been intoxicated, regardless of their appearance, Walls testified.
Previous witnesses have said the defendants did not demonstrate outward signs of impairment when they reported to Miami International Airport for work at about 10 a.m. on July 1, 2002, less than five hours after they had their last drink at Mr. Moe's cantina and returned to the Mayfair Hotel in Coconut Grove, Florida.
But Walls said those observations did not necessarily imply the men were not still under the influence.
"Alcohol is a significantly impairing drug. The complexity of an aircraft cockpit, even though much of it is done by computers, still requires skilled attention," he said, against the strenuous objections of defense lawyers who argued the forensic toxicologist was not qualified to speak about the operation of an aircraft.
He also said the notion of tolerance to alcohol was akin to taking antibiotics for a short time and then stopping prematurely.
"It robs us of our ability to judge ourselves correctly," he said.
Rubin attempted to challenge the implications of the findings.
"Blood alcohol content doesn't give specific level of specific judgment?" he asked.
"The number itself is not an indicator of impairment," he testified. "But thousands of studies have shown that a number is accurate in predicting the range."
Under redirect questioning, he elaborated on the issue of judgment.
"The scenario that led up to them going to work late may be one indication that they were using impaired judgment," he said.
Closing arguments were scheduled for Tuesday.
