BJCC
Minor incident in terms of nobody was killed or injured; minor incident
NOT for abuse of police power.
From the 'evidence' we have, there could never have been
"reasonable grounds" for that copper to breath test the pilots for it was NOT his
ab initio suspicions that were aroused that one or both pilots to be above the legal flying limit and so give him the lawful excuse to ask for a breath-test.
Having met a fair few aircraft on arrival, the smell of alcohol when the doors are opened can be strong, throughout the aircraft.
So
BJCC does that give you any right to breath-test the pilots? Course not.
Tell the audience here what gave you the right to wander through those, "fair few" aircraft - which you must have done, to state the smell extended "throughout the aircraft". Was it a power trip or had you a real job to do?
Were you invited into the Flight Decks - or did you use your powers of entry?
Did you breath-test ANYBODY on those, "fair few aircraft"?
If not, why not?
So in fact there may have been that smell. In that case, the rather unscientific 'nose in the mouth test' would have been inappropriate, but a breath test would be.
So we now have the ludicrous
new law you have just invented, that if the inside of an
aircraft smells of alcohol when the front door is opened it gives coppers the right to breath-test the pilots - is that how you interpret your police powers? You want re-training Mr.
It is that sort of guff
BJCC that what most of us here translate into the abuse of power you seem to nurture and push.
So it is possible that someone could have been over the limit.
Oh! So it is down to "someone" now is it? It is down to just "possible" also.
Well we are gathering the "reasonable grounds" for the police powers to come into play are we not.
The inside of the aircraft smells of alcohol; right lads, breath-test the whole crew (forget the 100 passengers they have to drive home). In this minor incident of yours there was no mention of the aircraft being under the influence was there? No smell of alcohol, was there BJCC?
Would that
"someone" who could have been over the limit be the stupid woman who started all this crap in the first place?
I did not see the results of her breath-test splattered all over the Manchester Evening News!
This minor incident should never have been carried forward by the copper, from what we have before us.
That limit, as FL points out is very low. Therefore the reasonable grounds and the factors looked for would be correspondingly lower.
Ah! The aircraft smelling of alcohol throughout - of course!
A silly woman complaining that the crew were too relaxed!
No accident. No copper having his own, "reasonable grounds" to suspect TWO pilots were over the limit.
For our further education
BJCC what exactly would be these, corresponding lower factors which would conspire and build to make those reasonable grounds?
Where can we find in your Law Books those items to be checked in the case of suspecting PILOTS to be over the limit?
the object of a breath test, to show one way or the other.
The object of having "reasonable grounds" in
his (said copper) mind from the very outset, and NOT somebody else's utterly preposterous complaint is the heart of the matter - and abuse of police power comes from that.
I am not in BALPA any more, but I hope to hear or see the outcome of the complaints put forward on the pilot's behalf.
I doubt whether we will see the Police report into the matter - or those "reasonable grounds" and "suspicions".
Fight off these stupid "minor incidents" my fellow pilots.
TG