remcor wrote:

One thing I would disagree with is that there is no evidence. There is not complete evidence but there is evidence. There’s the tape and there’s the important fact that only 2-3 days after the incident she is “no longer working at the FAA”.

I agree that there should be strong caveats on speculation, but this thread initially was sure that she had suffered a stroke or a medical emergency. That is also speculation.

So if we’re going to speculate on a medical problem I think it’s also entirely reasonable to speculate that it was misconduct. And weighing the evidence, I would say there’s more evidence (though not at all conclusive) that this was due to misconduct. That evidence, namely, is the fact that she was either terminated or resigned 2 days after the incident - this does not make sense to me if one suffered a severe medical issue.

remcor wrote:

if we’re going to speculate on a medical problem I think it’s also entirely reasonable to speculate that it was misconduct.

remcor wrote:

One thing I would disagree with is that there is no evidence. There is not complete evidence but there is evidence. There’s the tape and there’s the important fact that only 2-3 days after the incident she is “no longer working at the FAA”.

We should be careful about speculation, but this thread initially was sure that she had suffered a stroke or a medical emergency. That is also speculation.

So if we’re going to speculate on a medical problem I think it’s also entirely reasonable to speculate that it was misconduct. And weighing the evidence, I would say there’s more evidence (though not at all conclusive) that this was due to misconduct. That evidence, namely, is the fact that she was either terminated or resigned 2 days after the incident - this does not make sense to me if one suffered a severe medical issue.

DeltaB717 wrote:

remcor wrote:

One thing I would disagree with is that there is no evidence. There is not complete evidence but there is evidence. There’s the tape and there’s the important fact that only 2-3 days after the incident she is “no longer working at the FAA”.

We should be careful about speculation, but this thread initially was sure that she had suffered a stroke or a medical emergency. That is also speculation.

So if we’re going to speculate on a medical problem I think it’s also entirely reasonable to speculate that it was misconduct. And weighing the evidence, I would say there’s more evidence (though not at all conclusive) that this was due to misconduct. That evidence, namely, is the fact that she was either terminated or resigned 2 days after the incident - this does not make sense to me if one suffered a severe medical issue.

Actually, I would argue that the slow progression of her presentation is far more indicative of a stroke or some other medical episode. Likewise, as others have already said, terminating a government employee for misconduct is nowhere near that quick; and perhaps, just perhaps, having recovered from (or begun to recover from) a medical episode such as a stroke, and having the advice of her medical practitioners, this woman (being a reasonable and sensible) person has taken the very difficult decision that she cannot continue in her role.

Have we completely lost the ability to give people the benefit of the doubt?

Tugger wrote:

remcor wrote:

if we’re going to speculate on a medical problem I think it’s also entirely reasonable to speculate that it was misconduct.

No, not its not, your logic is false.

Tugg

DeltaB717 wrote:

remcor wrote:

Actually, I would argue that the slow progression of her presentation is far more indicative of a stroke or some other medical episode. Likewise, as others have already said, terminating a government employee for misconduct is nowhere near that quick; and perhaps, just perhaps, having recovered from (or begun to recover from) a medical episode such as a stroke, and having the advice of her medical practitioners, this woman (being a reasonable and sensible) person has taken the very difficult decision that she cannot continue in her role.

Have we completely lost the ability to give people the benefit of the doubt?

impilot wrote:

Talk to people who know her (or who know any controllers at LAS). There is no benefit of the doubt. The fact is she was drunk and it wasn’t her first alcohol related incident. Hopefully these facts make it out, but since alcoholism is a medical condition, she wasn’t arrested, and she resigned and wasn’t terminated, it may just successfully get swept under the rug. Sad for her regardless, but I feel a lot less sad about it than I did when I listened to it and thought it was a stroke.

remcor wrote:

Tugger wrote:

remcor wrote:

if we’re going to speculate on a medical problem I think it’s also entirely reasonable to speculate that it was misconduct.

No, not its not, your logic is false.

Tugg

No YOU’RE wrong!

So tell me professor, of the evidence that exists, how it’s not speculation to say that it was a stroke but it is speculation to say that it was inebriation.

remcor wrote:

That's not evidence, that's a stereotype. But if we want to call it evidence there's also evidence that many doctors, lawyers, sometimes airline pilots and other professionals have and continue to destroy their lives with alcohol or drugs. People are people, can't put them on a pedestal because of the profession they're in. I thought it was a stroke too, simply because the Youtube video says she "suffered a stroke", a video that 283k people have viewed and 1.8k people commented on despite the only evidence of a stroke is that she kind of sounded like she was having one. But she also kind of sounded drunk, and her immediate termination/resignation tips the balance in that direction for me + member comments. It's not a court and we aren't impugning the name of the controller, so we may as well debate what the truth might be.

D L X wrote:

remcor wrote:

That's not evidence, that's a stereotype. But if we want to call it evidence there's also evidence that many doctors, lawyers, sometimes airline pilots and other professionals have and continue to destroy their lives with alcohol or drugs. People are people, can't put them on a pedestal because of the profession they're in. I thought it was a stroke too, simply because the Youtube video says she "suffered a stroke", a video that 283k people have viewed and 1.8k people commented on despite the only evidence of a stroke is that she kind of sounded like she was having one. But she also kind of sounded drunk, and her immediate termination/resignation tips the balance in that direction for me + member comments. It's not a court and we aren't impugning the name of the controller, so we may as well debate what the truth might be.

I’m all for speculation on this site. I’m not for speculating, and then not accepting that it’s speculation.

Without outside information from the rumors in the ATC community, medical event fits the scenario much better than getting drunk while on the job. The event progressed: she was fine, and then she was incapacitated. So, either she was having a medical event (which naturally progresses), or she started the shift sober and drank while in the cab, with NO ONE noticing the alcohol. Yes, the latter is possible, and might even be what happened, so we shouldn’t rule it out. But that there are two possibilities does not remotely make them equally likely.

jetmatt777 wrote:

D L X wrote:

remcor wrote:

That's not evidence, that's a stereotype. But if we want to call it evidence there's also evidence that many doctors, lawyers, sometimes airline pilots and other professionals have and continue to destroy their lives with alcohol or drugs. People are people, can't put them on a pedestal because of the profession they're in. I thought it was a stroke too, simply because the Youtube video says she "suffered a stroke", a video that 283k people have viewed and 1.8k people commented on despite the only evidence of a stroke is that she kind of sounded like she was having one. But she also kind of sounded drunk, and her immediate termination/resignation tips the balance in that direction for me + member comments. It's not a court and we aren't impugning the name of the controller, so we may as well debate what the truth might be.

I’m all for speculation on this site. I’m not for speculating, and then not accepting that it’s speculation.

Without outside information from the rumors in the ATC community, medical event fits the scenario much better than getting drunk while on the job. The event progressed: she was fine, and then she was incapacitated. So, either she was having a medical event (which naturally progresses), or she started the shift sober and drank while in the cab, with NO ONE noticing the alcohol. Yes, the latter is possible, and might even be what happened, so we shouldn’t rule it out. But that there are two possibilities does not remotely make them equally likely.

Why would she quit the next day, then? She would likely be eligible to retain her job on leave until she cleared her medical, and if not; they likely would have found an admin position or training type position.

People don’t leave jobs that have excellent pay, benefits, and retirement plans when they have a medical scenario. In fact, in a medical situation the FAA would likely encourage you to stick around.

Bradin wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

D L X wrote:

I’m all for speculation on this site. I’m not for speculating, and then not accepting that it’s speculation.

Without outside information from the rumors in the ATC community, medical event fits the scenario much better than getting drunk while on the job. The event progressed: she was fine, and then she was incapacitated. So, either she was having a medical event (which naturally progresses), or she started the shift sober and drank while in the cab, with NO ONE noticing the alcohol. Yes, the latter is possible, and might even be what happened, so we shouldn’t rule it out. But that there are two possibilities does not remotely make them equally likely.

Why would she quit the next day, then? She would likely be eligible to retain her job on leave until she cleared her medical, and if not; they likely would have found an admin position or training type position.

People don’t leave jobs that have excellent pay, benefits, and retirement plans when they have a medical scenario. In fact, in a medical situation the FAA would likely encourage you to stick around.

Isn't it true that some medical conditions just get worse with time?

Tugger wrote:

Where do we have confirmation that she quit? She may have quit her position due to health reasons (or for other reasons of course).

But do we know for sure she has quit the FAA ATC program completely?

Tugg

impilot wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Where do we have confirmation that she quit? She may have quit her position due to health reasons (or for other reasons of course).

But do we know for sure she has quit the FAA ATC program completely?

Tugg

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/inca ... a-1525525/

Tugger wrote:

Where do we have confirmation that she quit? She may have quit her position due to health reasons (or for other reasons of course).

But do we know for sure she has quit the FAA ATC program completely?

Tugg

jetmatt777 wrote:

D L X wrote:

remcor wrote:

That's not evidence, that's a stereotype. But if we want to call it evidence there's also evidence that many doctors, lawyers, sometimes airline pilots and other professionals have and continue to destroy their lives with alcohol or drugs. People are people, can't put them on a pedestal because of the profession they're in. I thought it was a stroke too, simply because the Youtube video says she "suffered a stroke", a video that 283k people have viewed and 1.8k people commented on despite the only evidence of a stroke is that she kind of sounded like she was having one. But she also kind of sounded drunk, and her immediate termination/resignation tips the balance in that direction for me + member comments. It's not a court and we aren't impugning the name of the controller, so we may as well debate what the truth might be.

I’m all for speculation on this site. I’m not for speculating, and then not accepting that it’s speculation.

Without outside information from the rumors in the ATC community, medical event fits the scenario much better than getting drunk while on the job. The event progressed: she was fine, and then she was incapacitated. So, either she was having a medical event (which naturally progresses), or she started the shift sober and drank while in the cab, with NO ONE noticing the alcohol. Yes, the latter is possible, and might even be what happened, so we shouldn’t rule it out. But that there are two possibilities does not remotely make them equally likely.

Why would she quit the next day, then? She would likely be eligible to retain her job on leave until she cleared her medical, and if not; they likely would have found an admin position or training type position.

People don’t leave jobs that have excellent pay, benefits, and retirement plans when they have a medical scenario. In fact, in a medical situation the FAA would likely encourage you to stick around.

D L X wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

D L X wrote:

I’m all for speculation on this site. I’m not for speculating, and then not accepting that it’s speculation.

Without outside information from the rumors in the ATC community, medical event fits the scenario much better than getting drunk while on the job. The event progressed: she was fine, and then she was incapacitated. So, either she was having a medical event (which naturally progresses), or she started the shift sober and drank while in the cab, with NO ONE noticing the alcohol. Yes, the latter is possible, and might even be what happened, so we shouldn’t rule it out. But that there are two possibilities does not remotely make them equally likely.

Why would she quit the next day, then? She would likely be eligible to retain her job on leave until she cleared her medical, and if not; they likely would have found an admin position or training type position.

People don’t leave jobs that have excellent pay, benefits, and retirement plans when they have a medical scenario. In fact, in a medical situation the FAA would likely encourage you to stick around.

Perhaps because the medical issue is something from which she cannot recover to do her job. A massive stroke frequently looks like being drunk and cans have over a year to recover ::as best you can::. People don’t usually fully recover. They’re learning how to talk and walk again and are learning their new disabled bodies. They have way bigger fish to fry than figuring out an administrative position to fall into while they recover.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, though. bringing liquor into the cab and getting smashed is absolutely a possibility. But outside the relay of rumors in the ATC community, it doesn’t fit the facts as well as medical incident.

jetmatt777 wrote:

D L X wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

Why would she quit the next day, then? She would likely be eligible to retain her job on leave until she cleared her medical, and if not; they likely would have found an admin position or training type position.

People don’t leave jobs that have excellent pay, benefits, and retirement plans when they have a medical scenario. In fact, in a medical situation the FAA would likely encourage you to stick around.

Perhaps because the medical issue is something from which she cannot recover to do her job. A massive stroke frequently looks like being drunk and cans have over a year to recover ::as best you can::. People don’t usually fully recover. They’re learning how to talk and walk again and are learning their new disabled bodies. They have way bigger fish to fry than figuring out an administrative position to fall into while they recover.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, though. bringing liquor into the cab and getting smashed is absolutely a possibility. But outside the relay of rumors in the ATC community, it doesn’t fit the facts as well as medical incident.

But quitting relieves her of her employer healthcare (that’s important while recovering from this supposed stroke), pension, and since this happened on the job: sick leave while recovering. She elected to immediately stop being paid and end her healthcare coverage. Does that sound like a normal reaction to an on the job stroke?

Tugger wrote:

Where do we have confirmation that she quit? She may have quit her position due to health reasons (or for other reasons of course).

But do we know for sure she has quit the FAA ATC program completely?

Tugg

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Just curious - are we completely ignoring the comments by posters with a bit more inside information? Not saying to take them as gospel but their “smoke” probably means there’s a “fire” - I.e. she did this to herself.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Just curious - are we completely ignoring the comments by posters with a bit more inside information? Not saying to take them as gospel but their “smoke” probably means there’s a “fire” - I.e. she did this to herself.

D L X wrote:

Perhaps because the medical issue is something from which she cannot recover to do her job. A massive stroke frequently looks like being drunk and cans have over a year to recover ::as best you can::. People don’t usually fully recover.

D L X wrote:

Perhaps because the medical issue is something from which she cannot recover to do her job.

portcolumbus wrote:

D L X wrote:

Perhaps because the medical issue is something from which she cannot recover to do her job.

ATC's don't resign because you have a debilitating medical condition pop up, you'd file for a medical retirement and go through the process. Whether it gets approved or you get assigned work depends on several factors. Why are you commenting on things you clearly have no knowledge about?

- ex-Vegas controller

portcolumbus wrote:

D L X wrote:

Perhaps because the medical issue is something from which she cannot recover to do her job.

ATC's don't resign because you have a debilitating medical condition pop up, you'd file for a medical retirement and go through the process. Whether it gets approved or you get assigned work depends on several factors. Why are you commenting on things you clearly have no knowledge about?

- ex-Vegas controller

EA CO AS wrote:

D L X wrote:

Perhaps because the medical issue is something from which she cannot recover to do her job. A massive stroke frequently looks like being drunk and cans have over a year to recover ::as best you can::. People don’t usually fully recover.

Wouldn't there be a requirement for the FAA to make a reasonable workplace accommodation to enable her to continue? If not as a controller, in some other capacity? For example, at my company we've had people who were flight attendants suffer medical incidents that required a workplace accommodation, intended solely to protect their employment status, such as moving from inflight to reservations. They remained employed by the company, but not at their former salary since they moved into an entirely new position, and were subject to the pay rules of that new role.

I'd imagine the FAA would have been required to look for a similar accommodation for this controller if she were medically unable to continue as a controller, and that accommodation process typically takes weeks to complete, if not longer, as the employer's medical department is usually working with the employee's physician and so on.

For the relatively quick resolution that took place here, I'd imagine this person either resigned in lieu of termination, or was terminated.

32andBelow wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Just curious - are we completely ignoring the comments by posters with a bit more inside information? Not saying to take them as gospel but their “smoke” probably means there’s a “fire” - I.e. she did this to herself.

ATC is a small community. Word goes out quick.

remcor wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Just curious - are we completely ignoring the comments by posters with a bit more inside information? Not saying to take them as gospel but their “smoke” probably means there’s a “fire” - I.e. she did this to herself.

ATC is a small community. Word goes out quick.

What I'm curious about is how many actual sources there are for this information? For example doing a Google search I see that the 0.32 BAC number seems to have been first mentioned on a Reddit post. It was then mentioned here and on a couple other posts. Are people getting this 0.32 number from primary sources or is everyone just quoting that first mention on Reddit?

So when you say it's a small community does that mean you talked to someone who actually works there or read it off another post?

National757 wrote:

If the FAA does not release the BAC number, how do primary sources obtain the information? I get the impression the FAA wants this whole thing to go away.

remcor wrote:

National757 wrote:

If the FAA does not release the BAC number, how do primary sources obtain the information? I get the impression the FAA wants this whole thing to go away.

May be true, but I'm just trying to find out whether we have multiple people who either work at the FAA, or has a friend or such that works at the FAA, that directly heard this. Or if everyone's "friend" at the FAA - where word apparently moves fast - actually ends up being just one guy on a Reddit board that we're all pointing to from different directions.

D L X wrote:

portcolumbus wrote:

D L X wrote:

Perhaps because the medical issue is something from which she cannot recover to do her job.

ATC's don't resign because you have a debilitating medical condition pop up, you'd file for a medical retirement and go through the process. Whether it gets approved or you get assigned work depends on several factors. Why are you commenting on things you clearly have no knowledge about?

- ex-Vegas controller

Come on dude. You know me from your 18 years here. I’m not claiming to know. I’m not even saying the folks that conclude she was drunk are wrong. But you have to admit that a healthy dose of skepticism is not just warranted but -required- when accusing someone of a crime like this.

The posters saying she was sacked tell a compelling, believable story. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Not based on stuff you read in an internet chat board, even if that board is as esteemed as this one. That’s why I asked for corroboration: I want to believe it. Don’t take it personally that I verify my trust.

wjcandee wrote:

remcor wrote:

National757 wrote:

If the FAA does not release the BAC number, how do primary sources obtain the information? I get the impression the FAA wants this whole thing to go away.

May be true, but I'm just trying to find out whether we have multiple people who either work at the FAA, or has a friend or such that works at the FAA, that directly heard this. Or if everyone's "friend" at the FAA - where word apparently moves fast - actually ends up being just one guy on a Reddit board that we're all pointing to from different directions.

We have some actual, no kiddin', controllers who post on here -- apparently only so newbies can question whether they're real.

I think this thread should be closed since it's unlikely we will get any actual new information.