LBA Air Traffic Controller suspended

[ILS 119.5]

I've just found out that one of the Air Traffic Controllers at LBA has been suspended for allegedly being under the influence of alchohol whilst at work. As far as i am aware controller concerned started work at 0700 when someone thought they smelt alchohol on the controllers breath. The management were informed at approximately 0830 but the controller was then allowed to continue working until 1100. The controller was then asked by the management to take a breath test which was refused and therefore the controller was suspended. What i can't understand is why was the controller concerned allowed by the management to continue working if being suspected of being under the influence? I also thought that under the new rules it is up to the police to suspect and request a test.

[caniplaywithmadness]

If management suspected s/he had attended work whilst under the influence of alcohol, then they should have informed the police, who may then establish reasonable cause and require a specimen of breath to establish if s/he was in fact under the influence.

Letting him/her work until 1100 before suspending him/her to my mind means they haven't got a leg to stand on. If they thought s/he was under the influence then they should have pulled him/her immediately or got the police to attend and determine if they could require a breath sample.

Management cannot require you to take a breath test, only a police officer in uniform can do so.

The Railways and Transport Safety Act has been well published and as a controller I am well aware of the legal requirements regarding alcohol and work, and I've no doubt that this controller was also aware, my guess is s/he was fine why else would management allow hime/her to continue working?

[bjcc]

caniplaywithmadness is absolutly right, managers have no right or power (or probably ability) to require a breath test, only a Constable may do so.


What breach of the rules they have suspended the controller over I have no idea, but by allowing him to continue to work after thay have been made aware they have condoned it......

ILS 119.5, It is up to Police to Breath Test, they should have been called, initial suspcison can come from someone else, but its the Police officers decision not managements to administer a test, based on what he finds when he arrives.

[Stick Flying]

This 'appears' to be a blatant abuse of protocol.

As an LBA based crew member I would be only too happy to support this aviation colleague in a time of possible need.

You are either capable of the job or you are not. It can not be a case of "capable until we can find a replacement or shift change".

Stick

[MarkD]

Let's all stop the stampede - it could be the delay was in order to get the police officer on site. Not for the first time (myself included) the story seems to be racing ahead of verified fact.

[RPMcMurphy]

I'm sorry but I think I've missed the point.....
an LBA pilot would support the case of an ATCO who has refused a breath test? What if the controller was actually drunk and not just sober and obstructive?
I'd be happy to take a breath test whenever I'm at work.

[bjcc]

MarkD
Delay in a Police Oficer getting there really isn't the point. If that were the case then a Police Officer would have arrived at some point, the ATCO would then have either been exonarated or arrested. I would say thats not the issue however. To me, if management suspect he had had too much to drink then he should have been suspended at the time, not 2 1/2 hours later. In any event, management do not have the power to demand a breath test, that is a Police function.

RPMcMurphy
Yes I'd agree with you, I would be happy to take a breath test, however the point I made above still applies, there is no power for management to demand a Breath test, if they wanted him breath tested they should have called the Police, having taken him off controlling duties. Not make a demand they are not entitled to make 2 1/2 hours after an issue came to thier attention.

If he had been drinking then he deserves the book being chucked at him, but the book should be the proper one!

[Lu Zuckerman]

Several years ago a captain and first officer were seen drinking prior to boarding their aircraft. In Minnesota there is no law against flying an aircraft while under the influence. The aircraft flew to Detroit where both pilots were placed under arrest because in Michigan there is a law against flying while under the influence. Same problem but on a more massive scale.

:E :E

[bjcc]

Sorry you lost me...How is this the same problem????????

[Caslance]

it could be the delay was in order to get the police officer on site Surely there's a constant police presence at LBA?

[bjcc]

Possibly not, many regional airports don't have police there full time. Even if they do, they could be busy doing something else. In any case, no one has suggested they were called to this.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Maybe I've lost the plot here.. There should be no need to wait for a Police Officer. If an ATCO arrives for work smelling of alcohol, or in any way "unfit for work", his supervisor should suspend him and start an immediate investigation. Police can be called as part of that investigation but there is nothing to stop the person being suspended immediately the problem arises.

[bjcc]

Heathrow Director,

Yes he should have been suspended straight away, no, there is no need to wait for police, however if you want him breath tested that can't happen unless a Police Officer decides to do it. Thats his decision, not managements.

By waiting for 2 1/2 hours before suspending him, his management have condoned any offence he may have committed. Although, as it appears Police weren't called its not lightly we, management or the ATCO will ever know if he had, or had not done anything wrong.

As working as an ATCO while having a blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit is now a criminal offence, if management suspected he had been working while having had too much to drink, they should have called in police, not investigated it themselves as that could taint any evidence.

[ILS 119.5]

After all your replies I have found out more info. The controller concerned was asked if he/she would go for a breath test. The local police were not asked to attend. Furtheremore, only half of the staff who were working on the day were intervieved regarding the events of the day. Again there are two questions, Why was the controller concerned allowed to continue if it was thought that he/she was under the influence? and why were statements not taken from all staff directly involved with the controller?
If, how I remember it, on an ATC watch you will have controllers then supervisors/watch managers and above that the management team. Why did the immediate supervisors/watch managers not suspend the ATCO concerned?

[Stick Flying]

Hey RPMcMurphy,
If you are happy to take a breath test outside the the bounds of the legal procedures, well you are a game man/woman. You will then be happy to take whatever findings they have on the chin. I myself would rather refuse until legal representation were present. Your call mate. And, before you start, I would be only too happy to give a test based on sound procedure.

Fact is this Chap/Chapess has been suspended (apparently). The procedure should be followed. If the DFT set the limits for alcohol influence operation limits, it should be they who enforce. And I think you will find it is up to the police to test. So please dont preach your condescending line that "they may have been drunk". Go get a job with the press.

I am absolutely confident that I have ATC service from competant personal. If you want to put them in the dock for insisting on fair play, well I cant endorse that policy at all.

Innocent till proven guilty. Sorry I will always follow this line.

Stick

[bjcc]

119.5

Asked to where to take a breath test?
and to what end?

Would this be similar to this message of yours on the ?Pilot arrested at Mancherster thread??????????

I quote what you wrote there below:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ILS 119.5
Over 150 posts! About time I clicked here and ordered a Personal Title.
posted 29th September 2004 21:35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok people, can you give me answers to the following scenario:-
A pilot turns up for work and someone thinks that they might smell alchohol on his/her breath. Further investigation is needed but the pilot is allowed to continue (by the management) on the next sector. By the end of the final sector the management decide to suspend the pilot on thinking he/she was under the influence. Who is now to blame. The pilot is innocent but the management have let him/her fly the sector thinking that the they were under the influence.?
ILS 119.5


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just what is your point? Apart from winding people up

[caniplaywithmadness]

BJCC,

119.5 has made valid points, management, especially within the aviation industry, have a duty of care to their customers whether they be the punters down the back of the aircraft or the aircrafdt, crew and passengers within the airspace controlled by ATC.

The fact that a manager has allowed a personwho they believed to be working whilst under the influence of alcohol, contrary to national legislation, anmd thereby committing a criminal offenece is in essence negligent and should any incident have arisen because a controller or pilot was allowed to continue to work whilst a manager "suspected" they were committing said offence then in my opinion they are guilty of aiding and abetting said offence.

If you knowingly allow someone to drive your car believing that your insurance does not cover them to drive then you are guilty of committing the offence of aiding and abetting, the same scenario applies here.


Management at EGNM allowed this controller to continue working for 1 1/2 hours after this matter was drawn to their attention, in total 4 hours after arriving at work.

Alcohol is absorbed by the "average" person at a rate of 1/2 unit per hour, after 4 hours that equates to 2 units of alcohol, the legal limit for controlling / flying in the UK is 1/2 unit.

The Police should have been called immediately suspicion arose and a breath test required (subject to the officer having reasonable grounds to require a sample).

You cannot as a manager require an employee to be subject to a breath test and you cannot as a manager suspend a person who you believe has committed such an offence if you HAVE DONE NOTHING ABOUT IT WHEN YOU WERE FIRST MADE AWARE OF IT

119.5 has made very valid points.

My colleague at Yeadon has my full support and I wish them well with the ensuing battle with management to clear their name

[niknak]

Most of know that alcohol takes a period of time to pass through the body, and any atco who is not aware of the very stringent regulations which recently came into force, must be living on Mars.

It is very obvious that if you have more than 4 units of alcohol the night before, and don't allow 12 hours + before working, there is a high risk that you'll exceed the prescribed legal limits.

The atco concerned could have decided to phone in sick, equally, they could have, at any time after the alleged incident was flagged to management, gone home sick, and the only person who could have done anything about it, would have been a uniformed police officer.
Equally, once home, the atco could have taken a "medicinal toddy", which would have further confused the issue.

I am by no means defending the right to break the new legislation (which I support fully), but I do think someone has handled this very badly, mostly because the gutter press is going to have a field day in slagging off our profession.

[bjcc]

WILL YOU LOT READ WHAT 119.5 WROTE ON A PREVIOUS THREAD WHICH I HAVE QUOTED ABOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




THIS IS A WIND UP!!!!!!!!!

Does no one think it odd that 119.5 is the only person who has any knowladge of this??????

119.5 put a question on another thread identical to this senario, except it concerned a pilot.....he failed then to say what exactly it is he is trying to get at, and is failing here again.


caniplaywithmadness

Please read what I have written on page 1. I am fully aware of the legislation. However Aiding and abetting probably would not apply in this fictional senario. As for letting someone drive your car that you KNOW not be insured, the offence is KNOWINGLY Permitting No Insurance.

Negligence is not the same as permitting or Aiding and abetting an offence. In this senario, the managemet do not KNOW he has committed an offence, they mearly suspect. As I said on page 1, they do not have the right to demand or require a breath test, and probably do not have the means to administer one. Until they have the result of a breath, blood or unine test they can only suspect not KNOW. You are correctly quoting me from page one when I said that a constable is the only person who can require a Breath test and it is his decision whether to administer one.

Again, on page one I said that they should have taken him off controlling duties immidiatly if they suspect he was committing an offence, they should also have called the police. To not do so is condoning what he is doing, until such time as he was suspended. There is and cannot be any bar to suspending someone later, although as I have pointed out ad nasium, they should have done it at the time they were informed.


As regards to this being a criminal offence, in the fictional circumstances 119.5 has given, he has not been given a breath/blood or urine test...there is therefore no evidence of a criminal offence. The same would apply if you drove your car after 6 pints, if you arn't stopped there is no offence.


I am wondering why you are quoting back to me exactly what I have said, I presume its because you have not read whats been written by me on this and other threads on the subject.....

I am sure you are supporting your collegue, trouble is he does not exist.....119.5 is winding you up!!!!

[Final 3 Greens]

The same would apply if you drove your car after 6 pints, if you arn't stopped there is no offence. So, let's be clear about this - when someone is murdered, but the perp isn't caught, are you saying that there is no offence committed?

Or are you confusing the commiting of an offence with the reporting of an offence?

The latter means that someone got away with something, the former means that something "bad" was done. 119.5 therefore takes us to the axiom of the debate by asking about the ethics of a fictional situation, where someone suspected of doing something "bad" is allowed to continue their actions, by those accountable and responsible for protecting the passengers.

Thererfore, far from being a wind up, 119.5's question is worthy of consideration.

Let me make it quite clear that I am responding to your question about 119.5's fictional case study, not commenting on any alleged events at LBA.

[bjcc]

119.5's original story is fiction

Have a look at page 7 of the post entitled

Pilot Arrested at Manchester.

the 6th post from the bottom is from 119.5 Have a read, strike you as similar?????



If no offence is reported or apparent then it does not exist. There is no offence, because it is not alledged, reported nor recordered.

Moving onwards. In the fictional circumstances at LBA described by 119.5, again there is no offence, there simply is no evidence.

Start at the beginging. This fictional ATCO is reported because someone smelt alcohol on his breath. The presence of a smell does not prove an offence.

If there is a criminal offence, then 119.5 does not provide enough information in this work of fiction, there are 2 offences, working while unfit, and working with a blood alcohol concentration above a prescribed limit. Insuffcient information is provided to decide which if either offence is apparent.

The fictional management do nothing until some 2 1/2 hours later. They then demand a breath test, something which they have no power to do. Not only that, but where does this magic breath test machine come from? Had the fictional management bought an ESD that alone does not provide evidence that is acceptable in a court. An evidencial breath test machine costs a fortune, and had they got hold of one, they would have found out under what circumstances they can use it.

Given that if action were to be taken against this fictional controller, then any solicitor with half an active brain cell would leap on that point and no doubt be asking for costs as well as large portions of compensation at an industrial tribunal.

Is it negligence? As nothing happened in this story, then negligence does not come into it. Is it aiding and abetting an offence? I would say, no, there is no evidence management know ans activly assist him to commit an offence, mostly because there is no evidence the fictional ATCO has committed an offence.

119.5 then adds to this story (apparently Jackanory is being re lauched in his honour) saying that half the staff on duty had statements taken from them, the other half did not. He asks why that was? Because you made the story up 199.5...thats why!
He also asks why the controller was allowed to continue working ....the same answer, because 199.5 made this all up!

As for raising important points, what points? This is FICTION!

Every incident is different and requires the full story, not a set of airy fairy b********ks.

119.5 if you are trying to establish something why not ask directly what it is you want to know, rather than starting silly rumours?


119.5's original story is fiction

[Final 3 Greens]

BJCC

You display thinking that would be admirably suitable for a policeman. The concrete world is certainly your domain and I mean this abstractly, not literally that you live in ReadyMix's best buildings or constantly stroll around pavements poured from mixer lorries.

But, if I recall the name of this forum, it is Rumours and News, not the Police Gazette ;), so unverifiable data is quite acceptable, since the forum title and the "warning in red" below should make it quite apparent that the stories here are not to be relied upon.

I say keep it going 119.5, it's an interesting matter to consider.

[P.Pilcher]

Whether or not the original story is fiction, one point does not appear to have been discussed so far, and that is the reason why said controller was left at his post for quite a long period after management were informed of the situation. Could it be that they did not have another controller to replace him? In other words, they were so stretched that a drunk controller was better than no controller at all? Says a lot for ATC management doesn't it!

P.P.

[Stick Flying]

Confirmed on this evenings BBC news, Air Traffic Controller suspended on grounds of suspected alcohol influence.

Lets hope it gets resolved quickly.

[Turn It Off]

Posting removed after BBC latch on to story.

[bjcc]

Ok, so what are these burning issues of interest?

Negligence? None, no incident, therefore how can anyone be held resposible for it?

Offences? Who knows, insufficent information. Possibly one of two, but irrelevent realy as police didn't attend. Possibly an offence under the ANO, but again irrelevent as there can be no evidence. Interesting defence, in the absence of a breath test and presumably a blood test...'I use John Smiths as aftershave' Prove otherwise.

Suspended for not taking a breath test? Management have no power to require a breath test. Therefore any half decent solicitor will sort it out with no problem.

Should he have been suspended earlier? Yes, obvious really.

Any other interesting points?

[Final 3 Greens]

BJCC, you said...

"Start at the beginging. This fictional ATCO is reported because someone smelt alcohol on his breath. The presence of a smell does not prove an offence.

If there is a criminal offence, then 119.5 does not provide enough information in this work of fiction, there are 2 offences, working while unfit, and working with a blood alcohol concentration above a prescribed limit. Insuffcient information is provided to decide which if either offence is apparent.

The fictional management do nothing until some 2 1/2 hours later. They then demand a breath test, something which they have no power to do. Not only that, but where does this magic breath test machine come from? Had the fictional management bought an ESD that alone does not provide evidence that is acceptable in a court. An evidencial breath test machine costs a fortune, and had they got hold of one, they would have found out under what circumstances they can use it.

Given that if action were to be taken against this fictional controller, then any solicitor with half an active brain cell would leap on that point and no doubt be asking for costs as well as large portions of compensation at an industrial tribunal.

Is it negligence? As nothing happened in this story, then negligence does not come into it. Is it aiding and abetting an offence? I would say, no, there is no evidence management know ans activly assist him to commit an offence, mostly because there is no evidence the fictional ATCO has committed an offence."

Do you still assert that 119.5 made this up?

[bjcc]

At the moment, it seems that something did happen at LBA. However, all the press office will say is that someone has been suspended. IF the facts are as 119.5 described, then its been a cock up from start to finish. (which is what I have said since the start) While not condoning drinking and working as an ATCO, then it is to the ATCO's advantage that they did cock it up, if the facts are as described.

If however the facts are not as described by 119.5, then we will have to see.....I stand by what I said in so far as the proccedure is concerned.

As to if this incident happened, we will have to see, I am willing to eat a large amount of humble pie if 119.5 has been factualy correct. However in my defence, read the post I pointed you at........

[ILS 119.5]

bjcc,

At last you believe me. Your concern about an offence under the ANO. Yes, maybe but not for the ATCO who is innocent. This may be an offence by the management by letting the ATCO continue whilst they thought he was under the influence. This to me comes under the "endangering an aircraft and it's occupants" article in the ANO. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and as far as I'm aware there is no proof. But the ATCO concerned was allowed to continue working whilst thought to be under the influence by the management. The guilt is therefore on the management and any offence is committed by them.

ils 119.5

[bjcc]

ILS 119.5.

The Endangering the Saftey of an Aircraft offence is a non starter unless, the ATCO caused specific danger to a sepcific aircraft.

If there is such evidence then the ATCO would be charged. He makes his own decisions and is responsible for them. In order to implicate management, then you would have to prove that they knew the ATCO was incapable of doing his job due to alcohol.


There is a difference between knowing or believing that he was incapable of doing his job and knowing he has been drinking. And that may be the crux of where this has gone wrong.

The easiest way to explain it is using driving as an example. If I have two pints I am not drunk, but I am judged by the Goverments medical advisers to be impaired. If I have one pint, I have been drinking yes, but I would not be over the limit of what the goverment has decided would impair my ability to drive.


Now relate that to this incident. The fact he smells of drink does not mean he is impaired, or that he is drunk. It could be he uses aftershave that smells of intoxicating liquor, or beer shampoo. This is where you have a problem in that you claim management 'know' he is 'under the influence'. There is a difference as I say.

Moving on, you say the ATCO is innocent. Yes if the circumstances you describe he is, that does not mean he did not go to work in a state which would be a breach of the Aviation and Railway Safety Act. By that I mean is is not proveable. Police were not called.

Again if the circumstances are as you disrcibe, then management can prove nothing....He did not have to take a breath test. there is no evidnce that will stand up, that he has been drinking, apart from the smell...that could be caused by many things.

The cock up seems to be on the part of management. You ask why they allowed him to continue to work. A Good question. But you are asking the wrong people. The only people that know are management themselves.

By not doing something about it when they found out, assuming that is correct, then they condone what he is doing. If they have no medical evidence then anything they do to discipline the ATCO is tainted. The immidiate and obvious reply to any action taken would be, 'I can't have been drunk/intoxicated/impaired because you allowed me to continue working'

To my mind they should have taken him off controlling duties immidiatly and called the Police. The effect of that would be to prove conculsivly he was innocent or not.

I have a cynical mind (as you have seen) and I wonder why they didn't do that?

[G-Foxtrot Oscar 69]

I guess the management will not look at the human factor, as to why a well qualified, well paid and obviously dedicated professional person feels the requirement to drink pre 07:00 then arrive in work drunk?

Yep thought not!

Under the principle of Jurisprudence, an offence is committed whenever any one either has committed a physical element of a crime whilst fulfilling the relevant mental element; or as in the case of being drunk on duty, it is a crime of circumstance. This means you only have to be unfit to work whilst at or attempting to be at work to have committed the offence.

So basically an offence does not have to be witnessed or reported to have happened, it just has to be done.


I get what bjcc is getting at. Now do I smell a journo, or some one who thinks the coffee machine is so disgusting that a tot of single malt would vastly improve it :E


B.T.W. I am in no way defending this person or condoning arriving at work drunk but there is a deeper question.

[bjcc]

If you smell jurno, then you need your nasal passages tested. As for Malt, it makes me vomit...mind you, so does the coffee machine.

The suggestion is not that this ATCO turned up drunk, me thinks you have confused the offence that is applicable....


An offence may have been committed, it may not, we will never know, because whether he did commit it or not, it cannot be proved before a court. He is therefore innocent.

You ask why management wont ask the question about why he felt the need to have a drink pre 7am, well perhaps he didn't as with drink drive in the early morning, its usualy the result of the night befores drinking. Far from being a crime of circumstance this requires a positive act, ie drinking.

Being drunk and being unfit are two different offences.....obviously you would be unfit if you are drunk, but you arn't always drunk if you are unfit.

[niknak]

If anyone does know, please don't post it here, although I imagine the moderators have a special alert put on this particular post to advise them if any names appear.

The implications of 1) The person being named here, and 2) The possible legal consequences for ILS 119.5 an pprune if the original post is factually incorrect, don't bear thinking about.

I think it's time for ILS to substantiate the allegations with a news report on the incident from a reputable organisation.

[bagpuss lives]

There's no trace at all of the story on the BBC news website (or indeed Google news) as far as I can tell.

[Flock1]

I caught a snippet of a report on BBC 1 local news - Calendar. It showed a reporter outside LBA perimiter fence (which showed the tower and thus seemed to be from the Multiflight section) saying that a controller had been suspended, pending further investigation.

I hope everything turns out okay, because I have nothing but admiration for all the controllers at LBA. All of them have heard me make a fool of myself at one time or another during my PPL.

Regards

Flock1

[ILS 119.5]

bjcc

sorry to say that you don't know the ANO. As a professional I do. I have learnt the book from back to front and as part of my profession I know how to apply it. If I need to apply a 939 action then I can.

[bjcc]

ILS 119.5

I am happy for you.

Please don't assume I do not know the ANO, or any of the other acts of covering aviation. I was a Police Officer at a London airport, and used them on a regular basis, there is a vast difference between quoting what the act says and knowing what elements are needed to prove that offence in court.

However I bow to your, superior no doubt, superior knowladge and experience in court proccedings......perhaps you can point to the specific evidence of endangering an aircraft in this case....

While you consider your answer please think about this.

You say the ATCO is innocent. Which he probably is. If he is innocent, then he can't have been drunk/impaired or over the precribed limit. If he was none of those then what is it he is doing that is Recklessly or Negligently endangered any air aircraft or person therein (Part 5, para 63 ANO 2000). If he wasn't because he was doing his job properly then how can his management be doing something reckless or negligent? A belief he has been drinking is not enough if he is working normally, which he must have been or he would have been removed from working.

[ILS 119.5]

bjcc

thanks for your comments, as an ex police officer can you explain the following. if you thought that someone was committing an offence and did not do anything about it, are you not aiding and and abetting regardless of whether that person is committing an offence or not. surely in this case if the controller is found guilty (i don't know how) then the management are guilty also for allowing the offence to be committed.

ils 119.5

[bjcc]

No, not nessesaly.

To aid and abet/permit /allow you have to do something active to assist or allow it. This is now departing from your senario.

Dealing with the subject of this first. You say the ATCO is innocent. If thats the case then you can't aid and abet an offence if hes not committed one.

I suspect that in this case they have cocked up, should have called the police and didn't. Sought advice, then found out they had cocked up and are now going down a discipline route. Yes in terms of reasonablity the fact that the ATCO was allowed to continue working gives him a huge defence (if he was allowed to continue to work) afterall if he was causing a problem or dangerous or they thought he was committing an offence he should have been taken off controlling duties, if he wasn't then he can't have done anything wrong.

In general, well thats a whole differant can of worms. knowing or believing someone has committed an offence isn't assisting them. If you saw a person nick a bar of chocolate and did nothing about it, would you say you were guilty of aiding and abetting theft? No, you wouldn't. If you saw someone get in thier car that you had just been with when they drunk 10 pints, would you be guilty of aiding and abetting/permitting/allowing him to drive while drunk/over prescribed limit? No.

The full facts would have to be investigated and then a decision made. Some offences purly having knowladge of the offence or intention makes you guilty of the principle offence. In others it does not. The intentions and knowladge have to be looked into before you can allege that someone aided, abetted, assisted or permitted an offence.

[JustaFew]

The allowable limit of alcohol under legislation applicable to Flight Engineers, Pilots and ATCOs is alot less than that allowed for vehicle drivers. As only the police have the authority to demand a breath test, do police officers now carry extra and different test equipment?

[bjcc]

There are hand held machines avialable that give a read out, rather then the red/amber /green ones I used. I would assume that they are available at stations that cover airports...But I can't say that for definate. It would be logical to have them as they provide the evidence to arrest by.

[WeeJimmy]

As a serving officer I would like to point out that on the day in question we were unable to attend for several hours due to other more pressing commitments.

It is now a requirement that all calls are categorised based on available manpower and the seriousness of the alleged offence. Due to limited resources most of our airport personel were tied up enforcing speeding restrictions on the airport approach road and in the Yeadon area in general as well as emptying film from roadside cameras.

Having been informed of the alleged offence the local support personel categorised the call as low risk as the controller in question was not in any likelyhood of driving his car untill the end of his shift. Prior to the end of the shift Officers did attend and appropriate action was taken.

I should like to point out that drink driving after a shift by an air traffic controller is very serious and should not be tolerated particularly if speeding is a factor.

[RTR]

Hey come on! Who is kidding who?

Police did NOT attend. No-one that I know over 40 years in aviation knows the ANO backwards and forwards. One came close but he was a very special CAA inspector who should come close. Fact is, that the ATCO is question was not breathalised, was not suspended at the time he should have been, and is therefore not guilty of any offence.

All the answers so far are simply verbose claptrap. Police, late in attending, wasn't important enough, and supervisiors unable to take action etc., It was, after all, outside their remit to accuse and, therefore, the guy cannot have been in a serious enough condition, if indeed he was in any 'condition' at all, to have been intoxicated. Was he? Did he cause an airmiss or such?

This is a load of crap that has been grossly mis-handled and the guy should not be trapped by this outrageous gossip.

[bjcc]

RTR

We all know Police didn't attend, thats because they were not called. In any event, the primary offence would not have been under the ANO. I doubt you have met everyone involved in aviation, so you can't claim that no one knows it. Even if they don't, oddly its written down and easily accessable.

I think you will find that mostly people agree, this has been mishandled.

[Astrodome]

I read this thread with some interest, and I hope that my observations as a railway man do not find disfavour.

I am intrigued that the relevant Act does not require a duty of "Due Dilligence" by employers to ensure compliance with the Act.

Within the Railway industry we are required to demonstrate that we have adequte "Due Dilligence" procedures, which include

* Pre-Employment screening,
* Transfer to Safety Critical Work screening,
* "For Cause" screening,
* Post Incident screening

Under Health and Safety At Work legislation there is a clear duty upon both the Employer (Section 2) and the employee (Section 7) in respect of any act or ommission that affects the health, safety and welfare of any person. This would also clearly apply to the aviation Industry I would have said.

Maybe there is a need to codify (if not legislate) procedures that should apply if a person is suspected as being under the influence of alcohol or drugs?. That way there is then a very clear set of standard procedures that apply to all, and do not require the attendance of a Police Officer.

That should prevent a situation such as the one discussed here arising?

[bjcc]

Astradome..

there is legislation that covers this, and you working in the Rail Industry are probably aware of it. That offence, like most is an individual repsonsibility. No one is forced to drink, no one is forced to go to work after they have been drinking. It may well be that someone goes to work not knowing they are over a limit for the amount of alcohol in thier blood, but ignorance is not a defence, it may however be mitigation. Your employer is not responsible if you steal something, nor if you assault someone, why should they be if you have had too much to drink? As you know the driver of a train will still be prosecuted if he is involved in something while having had drugs or too much to drink. The company wont be.

So there has been codification (if that word exists) and there is legislation. There has been enough publicity about this new act, certainly where I work.

The Goverment, for whatever reason have decided that that legislation does require the attendence of a police officer to investigate it. But as with anything, if no one calls the police, then there is nothing to stop it being dealt with another way. It seems, if the information given is correct, that thats whats happened here. Whether that was the right way is other matter.

Sadly nothing prevents this sort of situation arrising, drivers of trains still turn up having had a drink, bus drivers turn up over the drink drive limits, so do police officers......

[niknak]

BJCC

Refering to your most recent reply, hasn't it always been the case that a breath test can only be carried out by a uniformed police officer, which is precisely why the Government included the appropriate paragraph in the legislation?

We were discussing this case at work this morning, and we all agreed that none of us would consent to take a breath test if asked to do so by our employer, but would do so if a uniformed police officer asked us to.

Other than the requirements of the current legislation, our employer has no rights to insist on any other test than that which is prescribed by a legally entitled person, (i.e uniformed police officer), to do so would place them in a very precarious position in respect of being taken to the cleaners if they were wrong.

[Astrodome]

Offences by operators of transport systems.

28.—(1) If a person commits an offence under section 27 above, the responsible operator shall also be guilty of an offence.

(2) In this section "the responsible operator" means—
(a) in a case where the transport system on which the offence under section 27 above is committed has only one operator, that operator;
(b) in a case where the transport system on which the offence under section 27 above is committed has more than one operator, whichever of them is responsible for the work giving rise to the offence.
(3) No offence is committed under subsection (1) above if the responsible operator has exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission on the transport system of any offence under section 27 above.

The above section of the Transport and Works Act 1992 makes it the responsibility of the employer (The Operator) to ensure that has suitable systems in place to ensure no-one arrives to take duty in an unfit state.

Indeed funnily enough last night I was called for randon screening when I walked into the office.

It is a Contractual obligation to comply with ANY screening request. A failure to do so result in disciplinary action which will ALWAYS result in dismissal in the first instance.

No-one would reasonably refuse a screen in the railway industry. Why should we?. We are (practically all of us) responsible enough to report for duty in a fit and proper state.

We have broad guidelines concerning how we judge a requirement for a "For Cause" screen.


niknak.. Your views would no doubt be modified if one of your relatives was killed as a result of someone being under the influence at work??

We were discussing this case at work this morning, and we all agreed that none of us would consent to take a breath test if asked to do so by our employer, but would do so if a uniformed police officer asked us to. The attitude of you and your colleagues intriques me

[bjcc]

Yes, it is correct that as far as the Road Traffic Acts are concerned the breath test has to be conducted by a Police Officer in uniform. As far as the RTA is concerned that makes sense, as its mostly uniformed officers that deal with vehicles.

As far as the new act is concerned yes the Constable has to be in uniform, the reason appears to be purley that the provosions of testing are an almost direct lift of the Road Traffic Act. I suspect thats because the outers from the RTA have been tried and failed. Apart from that I can't seee any real need for the uniform bit to be written in, its not so nessesary as with motor vehicles. However it is there so thats the way it is.

The request by an employer is not compulsary, there being no legal power to make such a requirement. The REQUIRMENT from a Police officer is compulsary, failier to take a test is an offence in itself.

Astradome, thats all very interesting but S.26 says....

26.—(1) This Chapter applies to transport systems of any of the following kinds—
(a) a railway;
(b) a tramway;
(c) a system which uses another mode of guided transport and is specified for the purposes of this Chapter by an order made by the Secretary of State.

It therefore only applies to railways....

The offences in s.27 can only be investigated by a constable (ie a Breath test requirement) and is much the same as the act under which aviation related employees are now under.

Your point about due dilligence is noted, but has that been tested in a court, ie does telling people they can\'t do it count as \'due dilliegence"?

In any event, there is not an equivilent in relation the the aviation industry.

[Astrodome]

At great risk of thread creep.

The "Due Dilligence" process has been agreed with Her Majesty's Inspector of Railways", as being acceptable and they will not pursue a S28 Prosecution with it in place.

The "Due Dilligence" process is also contained within each railway Operators Railways Safety Case in accordance with the Railways (Safety Case) Regulations.

We as the Industry would not 'test' this, neither by agreement will HMRI.

[bjcc]

Astradome, the reason I asked if it had been tested was because i wanted to know what it means....ie if The Operator puts a sign up saying don't drink before you come to work is that sufficent? If not what is?
I only ask out of interest, as it does not apply to the aviation industry.

[Astrodome]

The railway industry "due Dilligence" process allows for screening for alcohol and substances of abuse to be carried out as follows:-

* Pre-Employment screening,
* Transfer to Safety Critical Work screening,
* Random Screening

In addition wherever an incident occurs I as a Manager can require an individual to undergo Post Incident screening

Where I have reasonable grounds to believe that an individual MAY be under the influence of alcohol or substances of abuse I can REQUIRE that person to undergo a screening test known as a "For Cause" screen.

All the above are written into an individual's Contract of Employment. A failure to comply with a request will ALWAYS result in dismissal in the first instance.

The above are entirely separate to the requirement of an individual to undergo screening by a Police Officer.

The purpose of "Due Dilligence" is to prevent, as far as possible the opportunity for a person to report for duty under the influence of alcohol or substances of abuse, and to identify those that may have.

We carry out "random" screens to identify anyone who may be using substances of abuse. This can comprise of an unannounced random screen, as happened to me last Fri night, or can be a programmed screen at which the individual is given 48 hours notice. It has been judged that the 48 hours notice will still enable a valid drug screen to be carried out.

The programmed screen is managed by a computer based programme selecting an indivual at random. They are then notified to attend to one of the screening centres at a specific date and time.

We do not ever anticipate a person failing a notified screen for alcohol, for obvious reasons.

Unannounced randon screening is just what it says...a screening team will arrive on site and select indivuduals to be tested. This may be at the start of a shift, or during a shift.

Screening is always undertaken by an independent organisation who operate a "Chain of Custody" process for samples.

Testing always requires to collection of urine, and can also involve a breath test.

Personnel in the Railway Industry have no problem with the process as it will dispel any suggestion that alcohol and drugs may have been a factor in an incident.

Despite some initial reservations, similar to those expressed here, after 10 years we have got used to the regime and I know of no-one who would ever object. Indeed anyone who would is viewed with suspicion by their colleagues for obvious reasons.

All the above however requires standard procedures to be in place and rigidly adhered to.

[bjcc]

Mike Jenvey

Be careful with this...

You have quoted S.92 Being unfit for duty. There is no requirement under that section for a screening breath test to be conducted (although one may be given). The power to arrest is contained in S.97, and only requires reasonable suspicion that an offence is being committed or has been committed and the person still has drink or drugs in thier body. The evidence would have to be the same as for a person driving while unfit, which in the cases I had were basicly drunk.

The other section is S.93 which is having a BAC above the precribed limits, that would always be dealt with by breath test as the screening test and thus giving power to arrest.

[bjcc]

You will also note that this law (or rather these offences) are related to the RTA.

There would be no alternative charge with this, why should there be, if you are guilty of section 92, then you will (because of the low BAC limit ) be guilty of S93. This is assuming Alcohol is involved not drugs. However if you are guilty of S93, then you may well not be guilty of S92.

There is a power to breath test for S92, but there is no requirment to do so. The offence is Working while unfit. The evidence of being unfit does not have to be the BAC level its the person as a whole and what he is, or is not doing. Whith vehicles, usualy I only used that for someone who was what amounted to drunk. In any case a person arrested under this section would be examined by a Doctor at a Police Station, and that would add weight to the evidence.

With regard to drugs under S92, thats never going to be revealed by a Breath test. Again the evidence is what the Police officer sees hears and possibly finds if he searches the person. Remember that drugs can be any substance (except alcohol)So some cold medicines can make you unfit though drugs.

The reason I said be careful with this is because the way you put it could be interpreted as Police will Breath test if someone is arrested for an offence under S92. They probably wont. Although it has to be said, I would always go for S93 and breath test, its easier to prove.

[timmcat]

Finally found mention (http://www.ypn.co.uk/viewarticle2.aspx?ArticleID=868608&SectionID=55&Search=air%20traffic%20controller&Searchtype=all&SearchSection=55&DateFrom=011995&DateTo=102004&Page=1&ReturnPage=Results.aspx) of the incident in the local press.

[niknak]

Astrodome

I said that we wouldn't have a problem in being tested by a uniformed police officer, but we would if our employer asked us to do so, simply because they have no system in place to ensure that such tests are conducted totally impartially and within the law.
Our current contract of employment dictates that we shall not drink alcohol whilst on duty , and to do so could lead to instant dismissal, there is no mention of being subject to the same procedure if we refuse to take a drug or alcohol test by our employer.

I assume that if we were to be suspected of doing either, our employer would call the police and then we would be subject to the due process of current legislation.

Personally, I would never drink prior to a duty, let alone do so whilst at work, and I would hope that if suspected of doing so, my employer would take me off operational duties immediately and I am sure that this applies to 99.9% of atcos.

Perhaps you would care to prove otherwise.

[bjcc]

Interesting Newspaper report. But the blood alcohol concentrations are irrelevent, so far as can be assatained he's not been charged with the criminal offence, just suspended for a discipline matter.

[Astrodome]

Maybe the difference is that we have a fully documented and controlled procedure using independent agencies to undertake the drug and alcohol screening.

All these procedures were implemented with the co-operation and agreement of the relevant railway Trade Unions.

In the Railways, and similar to yourselves no doubt, we do not as a matter of routine summon the Police if we believe (for example) that someone may be under the influence.

We arrange for them to be immediately relieved of duty, isolated with somebody, and 'For Cause' screened.

In all circumstances when a person is 'Post Incident', or 'For Cause' screened they are also by procedure immediately suspended from duty pending the outcome.

It is not normal practice to involve the Police in such cases.

If the Police attend an incident they can choose to exercise their right to require a person to undergo screening.

It appears strange that your organisation does not see fit to prohibit reporting for duty under the influence??

[bjcc]

Astradome

It does, and always has done.

Air Navigation order originaly, Now the RAILWAYS and TRANSPORT SAFETY ACT 2003, which is an act of parliament, it says ecactly that (in a lot more words) that you cannot work while 'under the influence'.

You can't have much more of a prohibition than that.