UK pilot breathalysed after go arounds

[behind_the_second_midland]

A BACX pilot was last week breathalysed after performing two go arounds at MAN due to a technical problem.

A passenger reported to police that he "must be drunk as he took three goes to land the plane".

Police breathalysed the Captain who was negative.

Speechless.

This law is totally flawed by stupid or malicious accusations.

OK BJCC, over to you for some ex-cop pontificating.

[MaximumPete]

Jeeeeeez.

I'm glad I'm out of it.

Would the same passenger run to the cops if his/her partner picked him up from the airport and smelt of cooking sherry, but then perhaps it didn't take him/her three goes to park the car, or did it?

MP;)

[Final 3 Greens]

If this statement is true passenger reported to police that he "must be drunk as he took three goes to land the plane". and I was the captain in question, I would give serious consideration to suing for libel.

The only thing that would put me off is that the pax may not be able to pay my costs, when I won.

[four_two]

Is it worth asking for the source of this story? Some sort of clue of its derivation.

[Old King Coal]

One suspects any offence is likely to be one of spoken defamation, i.e slander (http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&cr=countryUK|countryGB&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official_s&oi=defmore&q=define:slander) <-- click for dictionary definition(s).

[bjcc]

behind_the_second_midland

'OK BJCC, over to you for some ex-cop pontificating'

The breath test was negative...Has not appeared in the press, or if it has, there was no big thing made over it. Except by you.

Ever been breath tested driving and been negative? I have, so have 1000's of other people. Many of those, as the result of what someone thinks. So lets get rid of the breath test for drivers shall we?

Try reading the act, instead of pontificating over it....The passenger did not breath test the pilot, Police did. It was the officers decision to do so not the informant.

[Diesel]

Let me get this right. The pilot has a technical problem, demanding considerable concentration and probably a little perspiration, and some aggrieved passenger can get a policemann to breathalyse him????

Someone tell me this is not true!!

I dread to think what will haappen after my next sim check!

Will I get breatyhalysed after every "non standard" event in future? Does the policeman even know what is "normal" and what is not in avaition? On what basis of suspicion was this guy tested?

Pathetic. The law is really an ass.


So how about this - let's remove the fun and games before it gets going. How about a machine at check in. You blow, get cleared for the duty you are about to start and then all these scalp hunters can go get lost...

Amazed

[Six Lima]

Recently came across this award winning piece of journalism. (A little off topic I know).

"Screams as Team Plane Pulls Out of Landing" (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=160749)

I find amusing the commentary on the pilot's performance and state of mind.

[Tartan Giant]

This is one of the most dumb-assed reasons I have heard of to breath test a pilot/Captain.

BJCC

You seem to think the local copper had every right to humiliate this Captain by asking him to blow into the tube!

Correct me if I am wrong........... Under existing laws, UK police can only carry out a breath test if they believe the driver has been drinking.

Instead of "driver" as in road, make that "Captain" as in air......... so tell me BJCC, what had the copper to go on that made him seriously believe the Captain had been drinking - as far as I can tell, he only had some second-hand (?) verbal announcement from some PRAT 'down the back' ?

I do not condone drinking and driving, and I certainly do not condone drinking and flying, in fact I want far tougher penalties: BUT, there cannot be a case to breath-test a Commander on the say so of some ignorant fool riding down the back who thinks "3 goes to land the plane" equates to being drunk or indeed even having had a drink.

As Old King Cole said slander!

As Final 3 Greens suggests, I too would be after that bast*rd for slander - and I would write a very stiff letter to the Chief Constable to get the ball rolling.

If you think BJCC the "officer" (ha!) made a wise decision by using such pathetic evidence from an "informant" then I think you have been badly misled........... an ex-copper yourself? Pheww.

The police have a very difficult time on the streets, but to be reduced to this crap, does nothing to limit true crime.

I hope the Captain takes this further, so no further stupidity is enforced upon those who fly.

Like Max Pete, I am glad I am out of the profession, and so sorry for you guys that have to put up with such sh*t.

TG

[Final 3 Greens]

Old King Coal

Although not a lawyer, as I understand the law ...

- Slander is a false statement

- Libel is a false and malicious statement

Libel can be caused by a written or spoken statement.

Given the circumstances reported here (they may not be accurate), I think the latter would likely apply.

Neither are offences, since they are not criminal, but civil actions.

BJCC

The policeman may have made the decision to test the pilot, but he was applying the criminal law, not the civil law.

The pax who allegedly made the accusation can still be held to account for his/her actions in the civil courts, although a pyrrhic victory may be the result.

We shouldn't forget that both codes run in parallel under some circumstances.

[hobie]

I suppose it will be Pilots/Apples next :confused: ...... I wonder if they will use Tornado's as the Spotter aircraft with the Polite man in the rear seat :ugh:

[Old King Coal]

Final 3 Greens - As I understand it - the (civil) offence here is one encompassed as 'defamation'. Libel (http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial_s&q=define%3Alibel&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB) is written defamation
Slander (http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&cr=countryUK|countryGB&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official_s&oi=defmore&q=define:slander) is verbal defamationClick the links to see what I mean.

[Runway 31]

If this had been anywhere near true it would have been all over the media. I don't believe a word of it.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<If this had been anywhere near true it would have been all over the media. I don't believe a word of it.>>

I have no knowledge of this current incident but, based on my experience over a long time, I wouldn't doubt it one bit. I have been involved in perfectly normal, safe, go-arounds which suddenly became "seconds from disaster" simply because some pop-idol prat was on board and mouthed off to everyone on landing. I also experienced a passenger ringing ATC to file an airmiss!!! He'd seen something "alongside" during a bank in a holding pattern and insisted that it had been dangerous... wanted the pilot and controller suspended, etc. You can't believe the loonies who get on aeroplanes (at the back, that is!!)

[bjcc]

Tartan Giant

'Correct me if I am wrong........... Under existing laws, UK police can only carry out a breath test if they believe the driver has been drinking. '

No, Thats one of 3 reasons.


'If you think BJCC the "officer" (ha!) made a wise decision by using such pathetic evidence from an "informant" then I think you have been badly misled........... an ex-copper yourself? Pheww.'
'
Did I say he made a wise decision? No, I did not, nor did I say he didn't.

You jumped to a conclution, rather like this passenger appears to have done. I don't know I wasn't there. I presume nor were you, so think of it another way, how do you know he didn't have good reason to test?

Before you go jumping in with suggestions of sueing, think about the next time someone sees a house being broken into and thinks 'I wont ring the police, it might be innocent and I'll get sued.'

Runway 31, it may well be true, and in spite of the scare mongering on here, perhaps it isn't newsworthy.

[chiglet]

T'other night an A321 did 2 [repeat, 2] Go Arounds at Manch, then Diverted to Liverpool [Reason, 40kt Xwind]. Following night, same pilot landed ok [15kt Xwind] Remark from pilot. "Not as bad as last night" :ok:
Was he "Breathalised?"
Rollocks :mad:
watp,iktch

[Tartan Giant]

Right then BJCC......... with your old copper hat on, some questions for you.

1. What are the other two reasons that a policeman has solid grounds to ask somebody to blow into the bag?

2. Did the policeman in the purported incident have these other two reasons as back-up?

3. Getting off the fence for a moment, knowing what you know of this alledged incident, is it reasonable for this Commander to blow into the bag?


You jumped to a conclution (sic), rather like this passenger appears to have done. I don't know I wasn't there. I presume nor were you, so think of it another way, how do you know he didn't have good reason to test?

4. I think you would know for damn sure if I had been there - I would have said - and I would have rather more solid ground to jump to more conclusions, that this initial report of some prat down the back causing trouble for no sound reason that anybody here can see.
If you think a few go-arounds is good reason for a breath test then we have further evidence that we have nannies looking after us rather than policemen - would you agree?

5. There can be no comparison of actualy SEEING a crime in progress (breaking and entering) and this alledged incident where a passenger ASSUMES a crime has been committed through his pure ignorance - would you not agree?


6. From what you have read ( we all know you are not in possession of the true facts) of this passenger causing a Captain to be breath-tested, do you believe a policeman has good reason to ask the guy to blow in the bag?


TG

[behind_the_second_midland]

I can assure it its true

What do you want me to do name him?

It was an RJ captain based at MAN and thanks BJCC for not disappointing us.

[ILS 119.5]

Not got his fuel correct then!

[bjcc]

Tartan Giant

In the case of cars ..involved in an accident or a moving traffic offence.

In the case of aviation. Involved in an accident.

In both cases there does not have to be any suspicision of drink.

There obviously wasn't an accident, but the suspicion of having been drinking may have come from the officer himself.

Is it reasonable? I don't know, I wasn't there. You ask me to get off the fence, I can't sorry. I don't have all the facts, nor does anyone else, so no one can comment.

IF thats all there was, an off hand remark by someone who had not spoken, or seen the captain, then no I don't think it was reasonable. But then, there may be more to this, until we know one way or the other then slating the pax is doing the same thing you are accusing him of.

5. Yes there is a comparison, the informant does not KNOW a crime is being committed, he thinks it is. Same principle applies. The burglar may turn out to be a window cleaner. Think it doesn't happen? Yes it does, often.

6. Is that the same question as number 3?

You say, rightly I know no more than you do about this. I have pointed out that there is a narrow view of the incidnet being put across. There is an altenative view depending on what actualy happned.

[Tom the Tenor]

The coppers at MAN must have had a pretty good idea there was nothing amiss here but as soon as the pax went to them they had no choice but to follow up the complaint? Coppers being coppers they assume everyone is guilty so they let the thing sort of develop to see what happens. Nature of the beast?

Big egoes too and they sure do like to get off on the power trip thing especially the British ones at airports armed up to the teeth and in their paramilitary gear. Definitely a case of my one is bigger than yours!

[manx long tail]

Unfortunately I can assure everyone that this is a true story!

Is currently under discussion on the company internet site, and the management say we must abide by the police wishes for a breathyliser regardless of the reason for suspicion. No-one has yet asked about the possibility of legal action for libel (or slander whichever is appropriate).

This country has become too interested in 'where there's a blame there's a claim', and there is no retribution on false accusations. Even the coppers should be pushing for 'wasting police time'?

MLT (counting down the days!!!)

ps dicksy.. nearly an hour and still not moderated? Wow, you must have hit the nail on the head!

[etrang]

Diesel,
"How about a machine at check in. You blow, get cleared for the duty you are about to start and then all these scalp hunters can go get lost..."

You are correct, compulsory pre-flight testing would protect pilots against accusations like this.

[Loose rivets]

Keeping the pax calm in the first place could have helped. I'm certainly no ace, but I could always find time to let the punters know what's going on, even if I had my hands full. The only problem I found was, that being shaken around vigorously sometimes imposed a tremor onto my voice. It was imperative not to sound anything but calm.

Once I said ‘If they believe that they'd believe anything' after a soothing speech. My F/O looked at me in horror...and then at the intercom switch. The frightened pax were then treated to a kind of jibbering laughter-voice, trying to fob them off with ‘just one of my little jokes fOoOoOoAaAks' type explanations as we bounce the last mile or so.

[Anti Skid On]

Perhaps Officer Dibble should spend his time investigating real crime rather than Pax speculation.

Thank god I left the UK!

[Sleeve Wing]

My only thought is that it had to be MAN, didn`t it ?
I'm sure they must get their security people from the same heap as GLA and MME.
Max.Pete and Tartan Giant.
Can we, who are on the outside now, do anything to help the poor b*gg*rs who have inherited our noble profession ??
Or do we just breath a sigh of relief ?

Sleeve. :mad:

[eal401]

Hmm, obviously someone does think the police were right to pursue this and I was wrong!

:rolleyes:

[skydriller]

How about a machine at check in. You blow, get cleared for the duty you are about to start and then all these scalp hunters can go get lost

Making you prove your innocence prior to taking flight is insulting and a show of a lack of confidence on the part of your employer and the authorities who issued you a license in the first place.

What about if a self test machine was available voluntarily. If you happened to test over the limit (maybe you were at a dinner party the night before and think you are OK, but not sure?) you could turn around and walk away from the duty on health grounds (go sick?) with no come back or action against you?

This could be introduced in a very positive way by the company/BALPA or whatever, as after all, safety is paramount, right? You lose nothing personally if you test positive accidentally. Those that know they are OK, and would feel that their integrity was being questioned by testing themselves would not need to do so prior to duty. If there was any accusation of insobriety by anyone at all, you know you are OK, right?

The Airlines duty of care is fullfilled to passengers and its crews, hopefully this type of thread becomes a thing of the past.

Regards, SD..

[Flyingphil]

So that is the reaction of the EZY-Case in SXF?

Every pax reports its crew to the police/security staff if something happened thas was in the pax opinion "Weird"!

No blame for the police, they just do their jobs!


We can just hope that this situation is a one-time-happening and not as of now every pax that was shakened a bit due to turbulence or whatever is calling the police after ldg!


Regards

[Capt.KAOS]

after performing two go arounds at MAN due to a technical problem. what exactly was this technical problem?

[Mr Chips]

Can i suggest an alternative theory (without resorting to the pathetic Police/BJCC bashing)

Passenger accuses a pilot of being drunk
Police turn up
Pilot VOLUNTEERS to give the breath to prove to the passenger beyond any doubt that he is not "under the influence"
Everyone happy

In this case there is absolutely no question of the pilot being under the influence because he took the test.

Puts a slightly different spin on the whole thing? Just a thought.....

[hapzim]

Why not just ban alcohol full stop within the uk nanny state. That would remove the cause of most antisocial behaviour etc, allowing our overstretched police forces to concentrate and their speed cameras.

Might put another big hole in Gordons tax take.

:E

[Lackof747]

BJCC:
We all see now why you became a policeman.

[Human Factor]

Passenger accuses a pilot of being drunk
Police turn up
Pilot VOLUNTEERS to give the breath to prove to the passenger beyond any doubt that he is not "under the influence"
Everyone happy

Insert the following after "Pilot VOLUNTEERS...."

Pilot then sues supercillious passenger for defamation (be it slander, libel or whatever)

Everyone happy, except the supercillious fool who started this.

Beware anyone who accuses me, make sure your FACTS are irrefutable.

[bjcc]

Mr Chips,

Good try, but any alternative view is frowned upon here.

[Frank Furillo]

I'm supprised they did not do him for 'flying with out due care or attention' or maybe arrest him as a 'terror suspect' and send him off to Cuba, was he eating an Apple by any chance????

[MaximumPete]

Sleeve,

I agree there must be something we can do.

False accusers must be made accountable but then you get the old chesnut:- "I was only acting in good faith"

The government, 'cos they make the laws, should have thought of this when the law was drafted. They didn't and now the noble profession has to put up with every pip-squeak and guttersnipe having a go and you can't do a d**n thing because you are gagged from going to the press by your terms and conditions. The company can issue a statement and it's not long before a name trickles into the press and even though you are all clear mud sticks. So much for the Human Rights Act and the right to privacy!

The goverment pay a man a good six figure sum to draft laws but I guess it must have been his day off when it was drafted.

Try writing to your MP and see where that gets you. My views on the chances on a reply are unprintable but if you send an e-mail at least you won't have wasted a stamp and it might make you feel a bit better.

Max P


:oh:

[You splitter]

As people within the industry, either as crew or ground staff we are all more than familiar with a go-around (or two). However if you are an infrequent traveller it must seem pretty damn scary when the power comes back on the aircraft starts to cimb again. Especially with no idea whats happening or a reason why. Some family friends came back from holiday a month back and were telling me about the aircraft 'missing the landing' took me a few attempts to find out it was a simple go-around.

Im afraid that when you mix lack of knowledge with continued stories in the press re pilots caught drinking (no matter how badly they are reported) this is the end result.

Just out of interest if it had been you and the copper pitched up, listened to your story and said he was satisifed this was all a bit silly and no breath test was required, would any of you insist he carried out one anyway. I'm pretty sure I would have. Mud does stick so at least this way your innocence is undoubtable. Just a shame it has to come to this.

[ManfredvonRichthofen]

just to clarify the earlier point (i'm sure flying lawyer will give me a slap if i am wrong - i am after all in the "lesser" profession... )

Libel is a defamatory statement in permanent form, for example (eg writing, film etc). Slander is a defamatory statement in a transient form (ie spoken).
Libel is actionable per se (no need to prove that any damage has arisen from the libel). Generally some kind of damage must be proved for slander. However an exception is made to this rule in certain circumstances. One of these is where there is an imputation that the claimant is unfit to carry on his trade, profession or calling.
So if i say X is the worst banker in the world, he loses everyone's money - that is "actionable per se". There is no need to prove that any damage (eg loss of clients) flowed from my comments.

There's a lot more to a defamation claim than this, however...
:hmm:

[DOVES]

I shot a ride to Genova (LIMJ) on Rwy 29 a couple of nights ago with rt x-wind 23, gusting 35. A couple 'f self loading cargo had some sick but I didn't request them to be breathalysed.:O :O :yuk: :ok:

[Human Factor]

Just out of interest if it had been you and the copper pitched up, listened to your story and said he was satisifed this was all a bit silly and no breath test was required, would any of you insist he carried out one anyway.

You can't insist. It's up to the copper to make his own decision.

[christn]

Does the law regarding not being drunk on board an aircraft still apply to passengers?

If so, then if a passenger makes an accusation against a crew member then why not insist that they also have a breath test?

The chances are pretty good that they will fail!

[max nightstop]

I'm a bit confused as to the timing of all this.

I can't see any way in which the pax could have invoked the full force of the law until the aircraft was at the very least on stand, more probably disembarked. It would require a truly remarkable performance from plod to get to the aircraft before the crew got off, in my experience of calling for them, it takes a goodly while for them to put down their tea and meander to the gate.

Surely once off the plane, isn't breath-testing a bit irrelevant. I regularly have a drink at the earliest opportunity after getting off, and so, i imagine, do my pax. Wouldn't that screw up any subsequent breath-test?

[olympus]

Slightly off-topic but....a couple of years ago I had to go-around at MRS due to not getting three greens (146-300, 100+ in the back); flew perfect missed approach procedure, went to the hold to sort the problem out then normal approach and landing. All in a day's work you might think. We got on stand to be greeted by three members of France's finest (not sure which branch of the various heavily-armed quasi-military police organisations they were members of) who wanted chapter and verse of the go-around and gave me a grilling in order to get it! Nothing else happened-certainly no breathalyzer-and we departed none the worse for the experience shortly after.

I was slightly unsettled by the encounter with the police and wondered if anyone else had had a similar experience and if this is normal in France (if anything is normal in France) after something as routine as a go-around.

[Tartan Giant]

Mostly for BJCC

Some of your answers/ideas in this thread sounded a bit strange, and not knowing you from Adam, I had a look at some of your other posts.

You certainly have a strange slant on things - to my way of thinking anyway.

Here's just a few that might help explain your overt support for the idiot passenger in this Manchester go-around case.


Crime and punishment : Mark Winters, 42. Drunk driving (nearly 4 times over the limit), no insurance, driving whilst disqualified, and failing to stop after an accident. "Given one last chance by Magistrates". Will not go to jail, despite having 71 previous convictions, including a 5 year ban and time in jail for drink driving.

You said, "The magistrate or Judge make thioer (sic) decision based on many things as Unwell_Raptor says.
Police are often as frustrated as anyone else that those sentences appear lax."

In your post you called this guy "Mr" - he was a drunken bloody criminal rat bag............

You said, "those sentences APPEAR lax".... the bugger should have been slung in jail, there was NOTHING lax about it BJCC - why did you defend such a weak 'rap'? Why did you not say the guy should have been jailed?

You said, "Sadly its a fact of life, like many offences, if no one saw (or will admit to seeing) the suspect, or he can't be identified by some other method, then thats (sic) it..."

So the crime for this Manchester Commander starts with some dummy 'down the back' thinking a few go-arounds makes for a drunk pilot? Maybe these clowns should demand to smell the exhaled breath of the pilots before doors closed?

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

breath testing STN 11/12/04 : posted 12th December 2004 23:10

Its not legal to random stop for breath testing, however there are ways round it ... [get some prat passenger to spring a lie]

There are 3 reasons for requring (sic) a breath test.

1. Involved in an accident
2. committed a moving traffic offence
3 Constable has reasonable grounds to suspect a driver has a blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit.

1 is obviously not the reason, 2 is probably not, which leaves 3. The way round it is to stop the driver for other 'reasons', eg to check driving documents, and if they smell of drink then breath test. the smell being the reasonable grounds.


BJCC: So, it seems this Captain was illegally forced to have a breath test, right?
For it seems to most of us here BJCC (not having been present of course) reading about the event there was,

a) No accident

b) No moving traffic offence (albeit we are considering an aircraft and crew carrying out their lawful duties, which in this case, the aircraft Commander considered it necessary to go-around several times)

c) The constable in question would NOT have reasonable grounds to suspect - in the first instance - the pilot HAS a blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit, which I bet you the said constable would not have a clue what the aviation limit is, never mind "reasonable grounds" for suspecting the chap was above that (flying) limit.
He takes the lead from some loony down the back, and does not have the balls to say - sorry Captain but I have been wasting your time, and it is obvious to me, no offence has taken place. I will now go and interview the passenger about wasting police time.

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

posted 26th January 2005 19:52


Krystal n chips

The lady in question opted for it to go to court. Not Police & CPS. She was given a fixed penelty (sic) notice, which she declined to pay and she disputed the offence. The result was her decision no one elses (sic).

She was found guilty of course.

As to the orginal (sic) offence being petty, yes it is. However, her attitude and manner of driving would have been factors in the officers decision to issue a ticket. There is much made on here of inaccurate press reporting, which applies equaly (sic) court hearings as to everything else.


BJCC: Why would you want to say, "she was found guilty of course"? Of COURSE? Why?

Tell me where in Law there is an alleged crime been constructed around, "her attitude"?

BJCC: You admit the offence (how silly to even call it an offence) was petty, so why do you bother defending stupid, petty things?

BJCC: Since you were obviously not there when this young lady was pulled over, how can you say for sure, "... manner of driving WOULD have been factors".
You talk about me jumping to conclusions? Jeezzus H!!

Like I've said before, I think the police do a very difficult job, but when I read some of the PC tripe you come out with I have to wonder who they are fighting for.


Like Human Factors, I would be after somebody's guts for garters if they tried the same on me as the Captain in question.

As for volunteering for a breath test to satisfy some inadequate down the back - don't be absolutely stupid.

Sleeve
This country, under the present clowns in Noo Labour, have with lying stealth taken us beyond the point where common sense and fair play rules.
The dumb age of the PC brigade has been injected into most and like stupified rabbits caught in the headlamps most go along with the crap that is being preached - such as a headmaster now scrapping "homework" for all his pupils.

The likes of Blunkett remains in his accomodation after being found out to be using tax-payers money for his girlfriend's rail fares, and of course the VISA scam. With people like that in power, honest decent folk have no chance.
I would put the onus on BALPA and the IPA to make serious waves to disuade passengers making serious allegations, unless they are cast iron, for the full weight of the law will be on their ass if all their cards are not aces!


TG

PS: For our resident ex-copper BJCC, like you, I will exercise the right to sit on the fence (something I never normally do till now) - I refer to my question 6 asked some time ago! A bit like the Peter Sellars sketch and, "that is not my dog".

[andyloynes]

Story at: http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/144/144309_btest_fury_over_hero_pilots.html

[sammy shamal]

B-test fury over hero pilots
John Scheerhout

TWO pilots who struggled to land their plane when a warning light came on ended up being breathalysed.

The pair took three attempts to bring the aircraft down after they noticed the cockpit light.

But a passenger complained about the aborted landings and said the crew were "too relaxed".

Both the captain and co-pilot were in the clear after giving negative samples of breath when they were met by police in Terminal 3, following the flight from Lyon in France.

The incident has prompted BA to complain formally to Manchester Airport police while the pilots’ union Balpa has also hit out at the officers and the passenger.

BA spokeswoman Sue Redmond confirmed flight BA1952, coming into Manchester on January 16, twice aborted landings because of a warning light in the cockpit indicating problems with the landing gear.

It later emerged there was nothing wrong with the undercarriage – the warning light was faulty.

The captain aborted the first landing and carried out a so-called “go-round” so air traffic controllers could confirm visually that the landing gear had come down as normal.

He decided to carry out a second “go round” to make doubly sure there were no problems, said Ms Redmond.

Landed

The RJ100 aircraft, with 100 passengers on board, landed safely at the third attempt.

“It’s very disappointing that a passenger would assume just because a pilot was carrying out a normal safety procedure that he had been drinking when he had not been drinking at all,” added Ms Redmond.

“Apparently the female passenger had remarked while on board that the crew had seemed very relaxed.”

It is understood that BA will be writing a formal letter of complaint to the airport police.

Captain Mervyn Granshaw, chairman of Balpa, said: “We are appalled that the police seem to have acted inappropriately on the comments of a passenger who has obviously no knowledge of aviation.”

However, sources in GMP confirmed to the M.E.N. that two pilots had provided negative breath tests following a complaint from a passenger.

A spokesman for Greater Manchester Police said: “On Sunday, January 16, 2005, police officers at Manchester Airport breathalysed a pilot and co-pilot after a female passenger on an inbound flight expressed concern about their conduct.
Both tests proved negative and no further action was taken.
Neither member of the flight crew was arrested.
All incidents reported to GMP are treated seriously and investigated thoroughly.”
Everyday is a schoolday to how stupid some folk really are!

[MaximumPete]

Perhaps the "lady" in question should have been breathalised as well.

She could have been under the influence to the extent that she could not exercise proper judgement and thus committing an offence.

I can't remember the going rate for being a p****d passenger.

MP:confused:

[pprecious]

Its a good job that the passenger concerned doesn't hang around your local GA training airfield.

The local police would be busy all with all those go-arounds!

I suspect that the passenger has some strange axe to grind here, I wonder if the flight was running late for example, or she was refused another drink herself during the flight?

Either way I hope she gets a life at somepoint, before she drops herself right in it.

I hope the two pilots involved are Ok and don't receive any adverse affects from this silly woman.

[WHBM]

Passengers who make themselves a gross nuisance through drunkenness, false hijack claims, etc, are normally banned by the airline from further travel with them.

It would be good if BA/BACX would show a little support for all their crews against such wild accusations and do the same to this woman.

[RAT 5]

The female passenger had remarked "the crew seemed very relaxed".

Thank god! I'd hate to hear her reaction if the crew had seemed uptight and stressed out, hystreical and close to panic. Perhaps she would have assessed that as "being on top of the job."

In any case, how did she assess this? Cockpit door was locked, I assume. You no longer see the crew. Could she have made her judgement from their calm voices over the P.A.?

When did she make thee alligations? As she left the a/c to a handling agent; as she waited for her baggage; as she happened to pass a copper in the terminal?

It says the crew were met by police in T.3. Did she call them from the a/c on her mobile? 112 and they came running?

It really does sound a farce and once again opens the possibility if gratutitous vindictivnous.

[behind_the_second_midland]

Runway 31 wrote
If this had been anywhere near true it would have been all over the media. I don't believe a word of it.

Congratulations on your level of pomposity however you called me a liar.

Feel free to apologise at any time.

BTSM

[Lost_luggage34]

Perhaps the Lady passenger would benefit from a stern word from our colleagues in blue ?

Breathalysed herself so she can be educated about the process.

Then be invited to explain her actions, before being charged with wasting Police time.

[Runway 31]

BTSM,

Heartfelt apology offered, I still think that it is crazy and still cannot not believe that because the crew carried out their job in a professional manner, they should be treated in this way. I suppose that the next time this happens the crew should scream,shout and panic.

I would have thought the Manchester police would have better things to do.

[hobie]

The more I read about this incident, the more disgusted I feel about the way this Crew were treated :mad:

[zed3]

Summed up , this seems to be the way things are going . We are sliding ..... no , plunging , into a society with no understanding/respect for life and it's aspects , no respect for the professions . It's so sad , what the UK had as a country (fair play etc.) seemingly has been lost - seems to be going the way of the rest of Europe . I'm not going to start on politics , if that has anything to do with it . INFURIATING .

[BEagle]

"Ladies and Gentlemen, we apologise for having had to climb away again, but we have a small technical difficulty with a cockpit indication which we need to resolve. This will merely require us to make another approach so that our colleagues on the ground can confirm that all is well. After that we will climb away, circle back and land normally. Nothing to worry about, but your safety is our prime concern. Should there be any rancorous old sows in the cabin with an axe to grind, kindly SHUT THE F*** UP, sit down and don't piss off our cabin crew. Thank you for your attention"


Good for ba and BALPA - take Munchesterr Sickurriteh to the cleaners and ban this stupid woman from any further flights.

[behind_the_second_midland]

31

ta! and I agree.

Someone has posted the following on the BA BALPA forum with regard to refusing to take the test.

I hope he won't mind if I repeat it here.

I agree, the argument I would take would revolve around reasonable grounds
Policeman enters flightdeck
pilot asks what the matter is
Policeman says: pax alleges he must be drunk due three attempts to land
Pilot:states two G/A due tech problem and tower informed by radio and can conifrm.
If the policeman then says he still wants to breath test, then you have to stand your ground and ask what his "reasonable grounds" for the test are?
IMHO refusing now is not an offence as there are no reasonable grounds merely an unfounded accusation from layperson in cabin.

Hussien V Chong Fook Cam 1970 The house of lords held that "reasonable suspicion had to be based on some evidence and not a mere hunch".
Look forward to a positive protocol being drawn up by all concerned

BTSM

[View From The Ground]

Incredible, in this day and age not too suprising unfortunately that the lady felt it was her place to report her suspicions....maybe she was hoping to sue BA for emotional distress if she turned out to be correct...However surely when the police turned up they would get a fair idea of what had happened before taking the complaint seriously...no wonder our taxes are so high if the police have to take everything at face value. Seems like a lack of judgement on the part of the Officers involved unless they were following some ill conceived police procedure/protocol for such incidents.
At least the press played the story the right way...although whether the pilots were heroes or just doing their job is open to question. Makes a change for such a story to get a positive spin for the pilot/airline. Seems like a pat on the back for a job well done and a round of applause from the pax is what these guys should have got.....

[Tartan Giant]

BTSM

I am delighted to read your 'post' on this affair:ok:

I also am very pleased to see the fight against this lunacy has started in earnest.

I hope every pilot stands his ground and does NOT offer himself/herself up to a breath-test just because some PC (pun intended) copper has been approached, second-hand, by a passenger on a trumped up charge and then tries his luck.

We have read what BJCC reckons is the test for asking for a breath-test, and it does not involve some dummy down the back complaining, "the crew seemed very relaxed".

Fight it Ladies and Gentlemen.

TG

[VFE]

Not so easy to do when the guy or girl sat up front has probably been through financial hell to get into the position they are in after years of bloody hard work and sacrifice.

That's the cruel truth of the matter.

VFE.

[bjcc]

View From The Ground

We have not heard the police officers side of this yet.

Sadly we probably wont ever hear it. If they didn't have reason, then they will probably hang for it.

If they did have good reason then why not let a proper investigation find out.

Is it not a little unfair of some to hang them before the complaint, and numerous hours of investigation that will result from it, has found out what ACTUALY happened, rather than what some here ASSUME happened?

On different note, please be careful following the advice about not taking breath tests.

You may feel you have good reason to refuse or to argue the point. You may well be right, but that wont help much if the PC has, or feels he has reason to require it.

Refusal could lead you to being arrested, and in some circumstances can be an offence in itself. Even if you have not had anything to drink. (That also applies to driving)

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Whilst the specifics of this case are outrageous, there is surely a much more profound issue at stake here. If Police Officers elect to create an environment within which aviation professionals are subjected to legal scrutiny, humiliation and potential media publicity as reward for correctly making safety-critical decisions, the day could follow when a crew will ill-advisedly proceed with a flight regardless of a potential problem in order to avoid such consequences.

BA and BALPA should make absolutely clear to all police authorities that any action which humiliates air-crew in response to safety-critical judgment-calls is a major threat to aviations' safety culture. We MUST NOT create a climate within which pilots will fear the consequences of following safety procedures. Nobody should face the choice of following safety procedures (and being interrogated by police and media) or ignoring a tech problem in the expectation of "getting away with it" and going home unmolested.

Now I am confident that all you guys will put safety first regardless, but we must not invite a situation where there is a 'carrot' for doing otherwise.

Clearly, the barmpot-madwoman in this specific case should never have been allowed anywhere near an airliner, but unfortunately the entire cross-section of society is permitted to buy air-tickets and that includes her and others of her persuasion. However, the police in this case may have used their judgment a tad unwisely. The Chief Constable should be invited to educate those involved of the potential consequences when those who must exercise safety-critical decisions are placed in fear of their jobs for so doing.

It is a crime to 'endanger the safety of an aircraft'. If this madwoman has made even one pilot question the wisdom of performing a go-around when safety calls for such action, then she has already endangered the safety of an aircraft. Maybe several! Your companies and BALPA must make clear to police and the media that a climate within which aircrew fear the consequences of following safety procedures is a development which society must never see.

[Parcelpup]

Perhaps the crew could ask for the police to confirm the passengers ATPL status. If the passenger is not a qualified pilot, then they have no right ro comment. After all, when was the last time a patient told a heart surgeon which way to cut?

There has to be some reasonable evidence for the police to progress in this way and the word of an unqualified layperson is certainly not reasonable grounds. I would be consulting my solicitor to sue the passenger if that had been me. Got to be some axe to grind by this woman.

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

bjcc; please don't assume from this post that I automatically believe the police officer on the scene was in the wrong- this question is purely for hypothetical similar future situations- and, indeed, similar circumstances when driving.
As per btsm's scenario, the constable enters the flightdeck. Captain explains course of events, offers evidence to support this. If the PC insists on taking a sample of breath, would the correct course of action be for the Captain to say
"I do not believe you have grounds for suspecting an offence has been committed. Nonetheless, under protest I will give a sample. I will, however, insist on taking your number and my company will take this to the Police Complaints Authority."
That way, the PC has investigated, the protest has been registered, and then let the lawyers fight it out.

[ComJam]

Absolutely incredible. You have a snag with your jet, you deal with it in a calm and professional manner and get breathalized by some plod with nothing better to do.

Ridiculous

[sss]

personally i dont have a problem with being breath tested, i am even up for completely random testing.

but then i keep my drinking seperate from work and driving and have nothing to fear, 30 seconds breath test then on my way again.

[pulse1]

Emergency procedures will now be amended to include an announcement to the passengers which will be designed to convey an extreme sense of panic on the flight deck. Something along the lines of "We're all going to die." would probably meet most eventualities.

[Capt H Peacock]

Whatever the legality of the constable’s challenge, it seems an affront to imply intoxication on the basis of a far from expert assessment of a pilot’s reaction to an abnormal situation. I think if I were to be the hapless Captain involved, I would have made clear to the constable that I would comply with the breath test under protest, but that I would require the circumstances surrounding his ‘reasonable suspicion’ to be disclosed, and the basis of the complaint made against me in hard copy.

There has never been a time in this great and just nation, when a hard working and diligent person could find themselves in jail in very short order because of the swift and zealous application of the ill drawn legislation of a knee jerk reactionary government. The Police find themselves in an invidious position, required to enforce laws from the detention hoards of red coated huntsmen to the house arrest of people who look like terrorists.

Where will this end? Will we breathalize surgeons because that critical by-pass operation failed? Do I insist on testing my barrister for narcotics because he failed to get me off a criminal indictment for telling a Dave Allen joke?

What about the bloke who set up the Child Support Agency, or the bloke who told Tiny Blur that we’d be in and out of Iraq inside 6 months with a pile of nukes? Why doesn’t the Chief Constable of the GMP test them for drugs. They’re the ones with the questionable judgement.:mad:

[cavortingcheetah]

:=

I am reminded of the somewhat absurd lengths to which The State Police recently descended in order to convict a girl for eating an apple whilst driving, ie: helicopters and so on.
Some of you may have read a subsequent letter in, I think, The Telegraph, relating how the writer, upon holding at a roundabout, had seen a car go around whilst the driver talked on a mobile which was in his right hand while he held a half eaten sandwhich in his left. The car in question was a marked police car.
Who is going to assume the responsibility for breathalyzing The State Police? Pilots? That would be fun.:E

[RUDAS]

thats absolutely monstrous!

[cavortingcheetah]

:) Yes, I quite agree but it might be elucidating.

[christn]

Why do we keep putting ourselves through all this? It costs a small fortune to get our licence and when we finally 'make it' we find the 'flying' is crap and we no longer get the respect we deserve from management, colleagues,passengers, security guards, police etc etc etc. Let's face it, we can now get equivalent salaries, pensions etc doing much less stressful jobs that would also allow us to be more than passing strangers to our families.
Why don't we take another job, fly for fun (flying+fun remenber that?). Let's leave the managers and accountants in the sinking ship to worry about where their next bonus is coming from. Let's leave the current generation of idiotic passengers to look forward to their 7 day, £2,000 ferry trip to Ibiza.

F**k 'em all!

[poorwanderingwun]

Christn is right...absolutely right....
Put airfares up to First Class prices...dump all the cheapy airlines...let the great unwashed wallow in their own backyards and stop clogging up the more beautiful parts of the world.....
A heap of pilots would have to find other work but in any case the new generation are better suited to accountancy or IT work anyway...fewer aircraft fewer morons travelling....especially those ladies that disappear into the loo when their flight is called and risk losing me my slot time.....

[ILS 119.5]

christn, well said the job is not held in high regard (although it should be) as it was years ago. There are many jobs that earn more money without the crap. I joined the industry because of my love of flying and not the crap that is now trying to undermine and belittle our profession.

[bjcc]

CarltonBrowne the FO

The PC makes his requirement based on what he thinks, given all of the evidence. The G/A's are not really relevent to that.

The allagation made by the pax is not the whole story, and that is why I said to be careful arguing or refusing to take a test.

Once an allagation has been made, the PC has no option but to investigate it. That involves speaking to the crew.

That decision is his and his alone, he may have to justify that decision either in Court or at a discipline board.

The decision is NOT made on the allagation alone. He would look for other things like smell of drink or manner. Having decided he would make or not make a requirment.

What has not been considered is the PC was trying to keep everyone happy, doubted the test would be anything other than negitive, satisfy everyone that he's done his job.

Yes you can say you are giving it under protest, it makes no difference except you may get his back up by threatening him with the IPCA and demanding his number, but yes it's your right to complain if you wish.

I am not assuming you believe he was automatically wrong, nor am I automatically assuming he was right.

[StressFree]

Capt. H.Peacock,

Good on you - you are SO right in what you say, absolutely SPOT ON, I cannot think of a better way to describe the way in which we have to live today...........

Where indeed will all this end? The next thing will be a new enforcement agency - the Thought Police, you'll be arrested for just having a non-PC brain wave.

When Orwell wrote 1984 it was rightly accepted as a fantasy idea of what the future might hold, the trouble is that its fast becoming a reality.

R.I.P. Great Britain - we once were someone in this World, now we're an embarrassment, a shadow of our former glory.............

:ugh:

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

Thanks bjcc, like I say I make no assumption as to the current case... I am aware of the risk of upsetting the constable involved. However, crews are accountable to the company for, among other things, delays- in this hypothetical case, unless the PC happens to have a breath-test kit immediately available, the delay is likely to cost the company money. I suspect my employers would be less than happy with my conduct if I did not take all reasonable measures to eliminate that delay.
If the PC in this case had genuine reason to believe a test was necessary, I would be very curious to know what that reason was. I would be very unhappy to discover it was just a power-trip; I was brought up to have more faith in the British police than that.

[Tartan Giant]

Reasonable suspicion and suspects?

Whilst BJCC thinks the policeman in this incident was trying to keep everyone happy, it would seem most of us here would have been highly pissed off and very unhappy to be asked to blow in the bag, on the dumb evidence (?) of that woman passenger!

I asked before BJCC where "manner" entered the equation, but you have not provided an answer. Fine.

Maybe the CAA can help with their DOC on the subject?

From what I can see here, your copper at Manchester was skating on some very thin ice and like CB the FO I would love to know what the suspicion was and why he suspected the Captain to be above the prescribed limit.

That we have not read an arrest was forthcoming, indicates the Captain was not over the limit - maybe you can justify why then this copper played the heavy hand?

See para 5.1.2 I can think of a good excuse. No case to answer.

A mountain out of a mole hill comes to mind, courtesy the Manchester police.

TG

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


Ref : http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200328.pdf

-------------------------------
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RAILWAYS AND TRANSPORT SAFETY ACT 2003 – AVIATION: ALCOHOL AND DRUGS

Excerpts

1.1.2 It is consistent with the criteria contained in an allied Police Protocol that has been developed to assist Police officers in the application and enforcement of this new legislation.

2.1 ............ The ANO however, does not set a blood alcohol limit nor does it require a person who is suspected of a drink or drugs offence to be subjected to a test.

2.2 ........... The Police testing and enforcement powers broadly mirror those currently applied on our roads and railways and are based on an officer's reasonable suspicion that an offence either has been, or is in the process of being committed.

2.5 There is no provision in the Act for random testing.

5.1 Power to Conduct a Preliminary Test (i.e. a breathalyser test) by a Police Constable in Uniform

5.1.1 Section 96 of the Act provides that the Police have power to require a person to co-operate with a preliminary test where:

(a) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person is over the prescribed limit, or his/her ability to perform his/her aviation function is impaired through either drink or drugs,

(b) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person has been over the prescribed limit or impaired through drink or drugs, and still has alcohol or a drug in his/her body or is still under the influence of a drug,

(c) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person was undertaking an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft at the time of the accident, or

(d) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person has undertaken an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft.

5.1.2 A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to provide a specimen when required to do so in pursuance of this section commits an offence.

5.4 Reasonable Grounds for Suspicion

5.4.1 Reasonable grounds for suspicion depend upon the circumstances in each case. There must be an objective basis for that suspicion based on facts, information and/or intelligence that are relevant to the likelihood of an offence. Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on generalisations or stereotypical images of certain groups or categories of people more likely to be involved in criminal activity.

5.4.2 Reasonable suspicion can sometimes exist without specific information or intelligence and on the basis of some level of generalisation stemming from the behaviour of a person. Reasonable suspicion should normally be linked to accurate and current intelligence or information. For example, evidence of impairment from witnesses or from the result of a primary test of an employee by an employer could be sufficient.

6.3 Flight crew and cabin crew who are required to take a preliminary test, with a negative result, may decide that it is unsafe for them to operate because of the emotional impact. It is for individual flight crew and cabin crew to determine their fitness to fly in such circumstances regardless of individual operator policy. It would be advisable for flight crew and cabin crew to seek guidance from company management or company representatives.



10.1 For further information or clarification in the first instance contact should be made with Captain M A Vivian, Deputy Head Flight Operations Department or Mr N Butcher, Head of the Cabin Safety Office on the following:

Captain M A Vivian Tel: 01293 573470 Fax: 01293 573770 Mr N Butcher Tel: 01293 573341 Fax: 01293 573991

Captain D J Chapman

Head Flight Operations Department

22 December 2003

[normal_nigel]

BJCC

Well done mate. The old attitudes are still there!

Do you keep an old uniform in your wardrobe for "secret patrols" to remind you of the old days?

Ah memories...nicking people....knowing it all......bliss...

[beamer]

Is it any wonder that 'middle England' has long since lost any faith in the boys in blue ?

[View From The Ground]

BJCC

I know that the police have their own very considerable pressures, and god help them in dealing with some of the scum that they must have to deal with day in day out.
However what you should recognise, is that instances like the one being discussed, their actions can result in people who would normally be their supporters, and I would suggest that the majority of the pilot workforce is amongst them, taking a jaundiced view of the boys in blue.
Given that the breathtest was negative...against a 0.20 level, practicably zero, I would be suprised if these guys were in any way either acting or smelling drunk. Is it really the case that this level is set so low that even someone who is perfectly sober and in no way showing signs of consuming alcohol could be over the ridiculously abritrary limit.
Given this I guess that the only way to check is through a breath test. However I would also suggest that given the fact that the pilots WERE sober and that I would imagine they had explained what had gone on, what justification could there have been for the breath test. Apart from as you say to keep everybody...except the pilot and the majority of people on this forum...happy. Not really a good enough reason I would have thought!

[wiggy]

View from the ground

Well said.

[ILS 119.5]

Why did the accuser not report this upon boarding and why if the accuser thought that the flight deck were over the limit did they fly? I still cannot understand how the person accusing had access to the flight crew (i.e to smell alchohol) in the first place.

It looks like from now on that any member of the passengers (sober or not) will be allowed to accuse the professional flight crew of being over the limit.

In my last few weeks of flying I hope I do not have to carry out any go arounds or diversions.

For you short haul guys/gals, just watch out when you are doing the late evening palma/ibiza/mainland spain runs in the summer they will not be clapping they will be accusing,

[bjcc]

View From The Ground

I understand the point you are making. But that is based on what has been reported.

So far that is, that a woman may have said one of 2 things, even that is not confirmed nor is anyone certain of what she said, saw or indeed how that got as far as the police.

What she said, and what she said she saw are all relevent to the reasons why the breath test was required, as was what the officer saw.

We don't know exactly what she said. We don't don't what the officer found, saw and believed when he spoke to the crew. So while I can understand the outrage at the officers actions, I only ask that rather than attacking the officer, people wait until they know what the reasons were.

I'm afraid that many on here are posting based on half, at best, of the story, not the full facts. It MAY be that if the full facts come out that the officer was justified. It MAY also be that he was not. In that case, as I have said, he will probably be hung for it. Unlike your occupation the police service is not forgiving of mistakes.


Tartan Giant

No, the crew were not over the limit. Hence why they were not arrested.

You can think of a good reason why (according to Para 5.1.2 of the CAA documant you quote) a breath test should be refused. You don't know what the PC was told, and you don't know what he found, so I can't see how you can arrive at a good reason.

We would all, I am sure, be interested to find out what the grounds were. We don't know, and it is possible we will never know.

Please read Para 5.4 of your quoted document. It may answer some of your questions. Including the point about manner.

CarltonBrowne the FO

I take your point on delays. I would hope, and it may not always be the case that the officer being sent to such an incident would either have the ESD with him, or pick one up on the way. That should minimise the delay.

I would be suprised if he tested for reasons of 'Power trip', and like you I'd be unhappy about it if that turns out to be the case.

[HotDog]

I like this paragraph.6.3 Flight crew and cabin crew who are required to take a preliminary test, with a negative result, may decide that it is unsafe for them to operate because of the emotional impact. It is for individual flight crew and cabin crew to determine their fitness to fly in such circumstances regardless of individual operator policy. It would be advisable for flight crew and cabin crew to seek guidance from company management or company representatives.

Talk about the cat amongst the pigeons!

[NiteKos]

If you have an accident in a car it is pretty standard practice to breathalise the driver, how long will it be before any flying incident will be followed by a mandatory breath test.

[Tinytim]

Having spent a considerable time in my previous career dealing professionaly with the police I have to say that what happened here does not surprise me at all.

Recruiting standards have been lowered significantly over the years (And, no, I am not harping back to the halcyon days of graduate recruitment, which was abolished for elitism by the then home secretary).

Simply observing that the average bobby is pretty thick and when it comes to an intelligent assessment of a situation with which he is not familiar like nicking speeding motorists or dealing with a drunk then it is not surprising that plod comes up with a view which offends any rational or intelligent assessment.

Howl me down as you will, but by and large, intelligence is not a commodity conspicuous by its over supply in the ranks and the individual concerned will undoubtedly have been acting out of political correctness and to protect his own backside both of which he is well programmed for.

This is an absolutely apalling episode which detracts from safety because it increases the chance of someone commiting to a fatal landing when they should have gone around. Its as simple as that.

[christn]

I understand police officers are being issued with new breathalisers that have an 'air/ground' switch to select between driving and flying limits. We are obviously now considered to be as irresponsible and potentially dangerous as young lads who get pissed on a Saturday night and then drive home. How flattering!

[View From The Ground]

I personally would not want to see the policeman who carried out the breath test 'hung', whatever the circumstances...I am sure that there are many pressures on the police to take actions to cover their and their superiors' backsides which defy common sense. I merely point out that this culture is putting many people who are natural supporters of the police offside, and this does no one any favours least of all the police, who I am sure on occasions would be grateful for a little public support and even gratitude for the difficult job they do.
BJCC you are correct that none of us know the full facts of the story, and there are few people who do...perhaps not even the pilots themselves. However given the nature of this forum you are going to have to put up with speculation....sadly it is not a fact from fiction forum!
I think many people have highlighted the plausibility of the complaint as a problem. The passenger we presume was not an ATPL, or even a pilot so how was she qualified to judge what was a safe or unsafe flying performance. She also would not have had access to the flight deck during the flight, and possibly not afterwards, so on what basis was the accusation made. I am sure that the police are supposed to take into account the plausibility of an accusation, and take their action accordingly, if not God help us. Presumably there are many accusations that fly about during domestic disturbances, fights on the street etc etc, which are taken with a large pinch of salt by the Officers attending?
I must state I am not a pilot, however I am sure that some of my colleagues and friends who fly would dispute the comment about their employers being forgiving of mistakes. In fact pilots could justifiably claim to be the most closely monitored of all professions, with flight recorders etc etc. There are many cases around of pilots and indeed others in the aviation world who have been dismissed for making mistakes. I hope that this does not happen to the Officer, involved whatever the rights and wrongs of the particular case, surely some education rather than punishment would be appropriate if he/she is found to have taken incorrect action.

[christn]

It seems that professions that traditionally enjoyed a certain amount of respect (pilots and police officers included) have been deliberately 'dumbed down'. A lot of this I'm sure is an attempt to weaken our industrial strength, ultimately lowering our conditions of service and satisfying shareholders and bonus-hungry managers. In the past police officers probably would have been able to exercise discretion (or give an oik a clip round the ear!). Today in our nanny-state full of compensation claiming, 'I want the money but I'm not prepared to work for it!' types it is no longer deemed to be acceptable. I'm sure police officers would like to be able to exercise discretion but ultimately will get caught in the middle and end up as the bad guys. When we arrive on stand with a load of disruptive drunks we are very happy to see the police arrive and do the dirty work for us. What a shame that our mutual respect is being taken away from us!

[bjcc]

View From The Ground

Speculation is no problem to me, afterall, I am in the same boat as everyone else here as far as this incident is concerned.

What I object to is the blanket asummption of some, that the officer was wrong in what he did.

It's very easy to second guess given then bennifit of hindsight. It is not so easy when you are stuck in the middle dealing with it. Yes, the officer has a responsibility towards the crew, and to an ignore, an allagation which is obviously cobblers. He also has a responsibility towards the public.

Achieving that balance is not being heavy handed, whichever way he goes, someone gets humpy.

Much of the slating of the officer revolves around a lack of understanding of the way police operate. Some of it amounts to what the pax has been accused of, Libel.

To rephrase what some some else wrote, the people doing the slating are not police officers, have no training in police powers or procedures and did not have access to the flight deck after the incident.

One post on here says that BALPA plan to make a complaint against the officer. It is thier right to do so, however as with most complaints against public bodies the result of that investigation probably wont be made public.

[Stumpie]

Oh, for goodness sake BJCC. Get a life!

[Arkroyal]

She also would not have had access to the flight deck during the flight, and possibly not afterwards, so on what basis was the accusation made. Didn't I see somewhere on prune, that it's BACX policy for the captain to leap to his feet and thank his recent charges for their custom?

If so, I suggest it be ignored. One man's obvious grinning pride at a job well done, can easily be one old sow's p!sshead. After all, she probably only sees men smile when they're drunk:D If you have an accident in a car it is pretty standard practice to breathalise the driver, how long will it be before any flying incident will be followed by a mandatory breath test. Where've you been, Nitekos. It already is.and I would suggest that the majority of the pilot workforce is amongst them, taking a jaundiced view of the boys in blue. So, would that make them the boys in green?:=

I too would be enraged if the pilots were breathalysed without a reasonable suspicion, as appears to be the case here. I too share most of the irritation with bjcc plodding tone. But I won't join in condemning the PC without the whole story.

[cargo boy]

bjcc, fer heavans sake give it a rest. You don't have to respond in every detail to every point being put to you as though it were a court case. You've already totally blown yourself out of the water with your ill thought comment: "Unlike your occupation the police service is not forgiving of mistakes :rolleyes:

If that's your and a large majority of your colleagues attitude then no wonder you are suprised at the responses you are getting on here because of one plods exuberance in administering a breath test when it almost certainly wasn't warranted. If you and your ilk can't get it into your institutionalised brains that the vast majority of us act in a professional manner at ALL times when operating our aircraft with due regard to safety and we are most unlikely to be under the influence of drink or drugs, especially if we have had a multi sector day which culminated in an abnormal situation requiring several go-arounds. We are the first to arrive at the scene of any accident and unfortunately, a mistake by one of us may be a little more unforgiving than one by one of your fellow plod/plonkers on a power trip.

I for one will be writing to the Chief Constable of Greater Mancheter Police asking him for his views on the fact that one irate pax/layperson can accuse a crew of being under the influence because "they sounded too relaxed" and then one of their 'finest' (I use the word reservedly) has an obvious lack of intelligence/insight/fortitude/logic/awareness and asks for a breath test. I will ask him to explain why the result of this farcical episode may cause many of us to think twice about implementing a safety response because there is now the off chance that some irate excuse for a human sat in the back can take out her frustration by accusing any of us of operating under the influence and the first plod that hears the allegation is going to demand that we provide a breath test.

"Unlike your occupation the police service is not forgiving of mistakes." is just about the most pathetic response I've ever heard from you. It just goes to show you how big headed and self serving you and your colleagues really are. Our mistakes can result in the death and injury of hundreds of people and not just you or a perp as in your job. The 'holier than thou' type response we keep getting from you when defending the police is flabbergasting at times. I for one am another who has seen the support and admiratiuon of the work that the police do eroded because of repeated incidents such as this where obvious errors of judgement are defended with ill thought out remarks that only serve to precipitate the fall from grace that the modern police are experiencing. :*

[StressFree]

Cargo Boy,
Outstanding response, right on the money - WELL SAID!!!!!!

Keep it up, more please.

Best rgds,

:ok:

[hec7or]

Much of the slating of the officer revolves around a lack of understanding of the way police operate. Some of it amounts to what the pax has been accused of, Libel.

Exactly what understanding do police officers have in respect to the way properly qualified airline crews operate and how do these officers incorporate the ANO into their daily duties?

[WHBM]

So what's gone on here ?

Have BACX banned the passenger ?

Have BACX asked for the resignation of the Chief Constable of Manchester for being responsible for such ludicrous procedures ? (that should stir things up a bit).

[Desperate]

bjcc

I worry about you, I really do.

Due to a former life, I am probably better qualified than many to give my tuppenceworth about the Old Bill. Plod are a strange group: there are some really excellent, decent types, and there are some good lateral thinkers.

There are also some real to$$ers. All their 'mates' on the shift know who they are. Blinkered, arrogant and forever mouthing off down the pub/at parties about the finer points of law (which they've invariably misunderstood) and boasting how many people they've 'bagged' over the limit. Oddly, whenever there was a really dangerous situation they were conspicuous by their absence.

For some reason they often ended up on traffic, or were forever being moved sideways out of harm's way. Even when they left - usually prematurely - they could never forget the mighty powers they once had, and abused so frequently. It is usually this group who maintain the Police's 'bad name', even when they've left.

The common factors are: a love of power, a blinkered black-or-white mentality, a refusal to accept that to err is human, the inability to exercise discretion, a complete lack of empathy with anyone else. In short, the sort of person who loves to leave a high-vis jacket at the back of the car, in case other drivers think he's Old Bill.

Ring any bells, bjcc?

It doesn't worry me that (so you say) you were once in the Job. I really believe that you were because your character is strangely familiar. As I said, yours is a personality found in many walks of life. Some positions are ideally suited - parking attendants, night-club bouncers and wheel clampers for example. The sort who only need to distinguish between black and white. The sort who needs no lateral thinking ability, or empathy.

So what really worries me bjcc, isn't that you were once a copper.

It's because - allegedly - you are an air traffic controller. With your apparent dislike of pilots so evident from your numerous postings, I fear that, once again, you find yourself in the wrong job.

And that's what really worries me, bjcc.

(Here's a tip. Although Pprune seems to be your only real friend, why not try getting out more. Try a different pub - don't mention work - and people might warm to you. And leave your 'Pprune' alone for a while)

[Tartan Giant]

BJCC
Whilst ignoring several of my previous points, you ask (with rather odd grammar):
You can think of a good reason why (according to Para 5.1.2 of the CAA documant [sic] you quote) a breath test should be refused.
You don't know what the PC was told, and you don't know what he found, so I can't see how you can arrive at a good reason.


I think we all know by now, "what he found".
He found the allegation was unfounded.
He found he did not need to make any arrests.
He found "the crew" passed the breath test.
He found no reason to breath test the woman who started this stupid PC crap ball rolling.
He found he was led on a wild goose chase.
He found that his time had been wasted.
He found that "the crew" had been detained without just cause.
He found that the woman was talking through her asp.
He found he had made a bad error of judgement in his part; surely going against his better judgement (if he had any in the first place).


Having read as much as I can about this incident; my "reasonable excuse" (not lawful of course in this police state!) would be something along the lines of:

I have not been drinking.
I am therefore not above the prescribed limit and by the inferior, ignorantly weighted, evidence against me from this one woman passenger whom you have judged to be completely sober (unverified) and of sufficient intelligence and technical competence to accuse me of gross professional misconduct have, despite your own first-hand observations of my sober ground performance which obviously lies outside a "reasonable cause" to even suspect me of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and despite the fact you are NOT arresting me under any of those grounds or suspicions, still see fit to ask for a specimen of my breath.
I hereby ask you to reconsider your dubious request to ask for a sample of my breath.
Should you decline, then I doubt your judgement in the circumstances as being wholly reasonable taking all the factors into account, and I shall make a Formal Complaint after we go through this futile exercise.
Before we start, for the record, what are your grounds and suspicions for asking for this breath test?

(A police officer has the power to require a specimen from you if you have been arrested on suspicion of a driving or being in charge of a vehicle whilst unfit through drink or drugs with alcohol above the prescribed limits.)


5.1.2 A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to provide a specimen when required to do so in pursuance of this section commits an offence.

Let's play another little game here BJCC.

Manchester Policeman: May I have word Sir? I have been given information from a female passenger who was on your aircraft, that due to the go-arounds and final landing, she believes you having been drinking and as such are over the prescribed limit to perform your professional duties, and has asked me additionaly to investigate why the crew "sounded too relaxed".

Self: I see, and what qualifies this woman of unknown sobriety to judge my flying performance during the said flight?

MP: I do not have that information, Sir.

Self: Then I want you to get out your little black notebook and take very careful note of the words we are about to exchange, for if this 'interview' proceeds beyond a verbal exchange, then we shall be seeing more of each other in court, as you are going to be on the end of a rather deep Internal Disciplinary Inquiry for falsely accusing me of being over the prescribed alcohol limit - a poor and despicable error of judgement I may add - such that you require me to take a breath test.
Further to your future duties in this affair, you will be assisting me in suing this woman as I shall ask you to be in court to support my claim of, "defamation of character". You will probably use her previous verbal 'evidence' and obviously use the written statement, and notes, you took from her (you did take notes did you not?) and from me.

MP: It just so happens Sir I have noted what you have just said.

Self: Splendid, then let us begin with you telling me what your, "reasonable cause" is in furthering this inquiry; and then outline your numerous suspicions that I am, or was, unfit to perform my professional duties as Commander on the said flight.

MP: All I can go on is this woman's story in the first instance.

Self: So in the very first instance, it was not you who has the suspicion established in your mind that I have been drinking?

MP : No Sir.

Self: Secondly, have you "reasonable cause" to even suspect at this very instant (note the time constable) that I have been drinking - using as a base-line those well established signs, acts and ommisions that apply to a motorist whom you have stopped whilst 'in charge' of a motor vehicle?

MP: As this 'interview's progresses Sir, I cannot honestly say I have those reasonable grounds or suspicions to ask you to submit to a breath test.

Self: That is all I wanted to hear from you, thank-you constable.
We shall now go and find that woman who made these scurrilous allegations against my good and unblemished character, for I am going to serve notice on her publicly, with you as my witness, that I am going to sue her for the distress this incident has caused me: for defamation of character also, that has forced this police intervention upon me and hindered my freedom to proceed with my future schedule unnecessarily.
In due course I shall require a well publicised apology from you and her. Such monies that form her 'fine' shall reach a charity of my choosing, I will let you and the Greater Manchester Police Authority know of the sum and charity involved for your records.

MP: I have just been called to a mugging, I shall have to leave it all to you Sir......... excuse me.

Self: I have your details old chap, I shall advise your CI about your wise, considered and balanced approach to a difficult civil duty.


BJCC: Can you insert what you would say in such a role-play?
========================


Excerpt of BJCC 'post':

What I object to is the blanket asummption (sic) of some, that the officer was wrong in what he did.

What the majority here object to is the blanket assumption by the blue force which assumed the "the crew" were over the limit and he made them have a breath test; and that this copper did not having the sense to dismiss the allegation after his on-scene assessment of the pilot/s.


It's very easy to second guess given then bennifit (sic) of hindsight. It is not so easy when you are stuck in the middle dealing with it. Yes, the officer has a responsibility towards the crew, and to an ignore, an allagation (sic) which is obviously cobblers. He also has a responsibility towards the public.

The copper in question did not need hindsight, he needed a good dose of common sense.

The allegation as you rightly NOW admit AT LONG LAST was 'cobblers' - why then did the copper not use his common sense and exercise a modicum of the powers so granted to him to tell "the crew" to carry on and sorry for wasting their time.

Achieving that balance is not being heavy handed, whichever way he goes, someone gets humpy.

There was no balance, it was skewed by asking the Commander to blow into a machine.
It was not a balance of fair and reasonable judgement, but a hammer to crack a nut, and there's a quite a few here who get humpy over such stupid PC excursions BJCC.
I am severely humpy at that policeman going the full hog, and tipping the scales of Justice into a complete mess.

Much of the slating of the officer revolves around a lack of understanding of the way police operate. Some of it amounts to what the pax has been accused of, Libel.

I think most of the slating of the copper is because those of us here are incensed that he took the matter so far on very flimsy evidence, and far distanced himself from exercising the good judgement we expect; he went well beyond that required - as proven (no arrests, negative samples).

A lack of understanding falls squarely on the copper and his use of one stupid woman's statement, even described by you now as 'cobblers'.

I think most of us here have a fair idea of how the police operate - most aircraft Commanders have been round the block more than once. Some of us even know coppers!

To rephrase what some some (sic) else wrote, the people doing the slating are not police officers, have no training in police powers or procedures and did not have access to the flight deck after the incident.

And to rephrase, those administering the humiliation and false accusations to the Commander have no pilot training nor a clue of the technicalities which allowed them all to arrive safely and without one scratch on any of the 100 passengers (and crew) despite a technical difficulty.

One post on here says that BALPA plan to make a complaint against the officer. It is thier (sic) right to do so, however as with most complaints against public bodies the result of that investigation probably wont (sic) be made public.

I hope BALPA make their findings very public, and I hope the police just take a moment to retrain those who obviously do not know a drunk from a woman with a bit of a problem.

BJCC: From your knowledge of the Freedom of Information Act, why should any complaint against the public body in this case be, "exempt" from being in the public domain?


Without attempting to undermine the authority of the police, I hope aircrew take notice of this stupid Manchester police event as a lesson in authoritarian poor judgement and inappropriate handling of a complaint against a professional and wholly innocent flight deck crew.


Hit them hard BALPA - we have had a belly full of PC pleasing the mobs.


TG

[Nato 35]

Well if someone had asked me to take a breath test on Thursday Am at LGW, then I would have told him to shove it up the A*$E of the Emirates 777 that forced me to go around. He might have got a result because it was appalling airmanship.:cool:

[ILS 119.5]

You can tell bjcc is not an ATCO nor a Pilot due to his/her lack of command of the English language i.e. spelling and grammar. Most of us are highly qualified and trained professionals who undergo years of training. Not like the police which accepts cadets with few formal qualifications and then receive a short training course.
Again, I find it absurd that we are being criticised by other professions that are not qualified to do so. We are being accused by people who have not even seen us. The industry at the moment is a shambles and until we stand up and do something about it then it will deteriorate further. I'm glad I've only got two more trips and then I might become a London Cabby. Probably earn more and less hassle.

[bjcc]

Tartan Giant

You make a lot of points that with respect, are answered by the legislation. Or are not answerable because many of the facts are uncertain.

The ability of the crew is not an issue, nor are the G/A's. The issue is what the officer was told what that was based on and what he found when he spoke to the crew.

You have admitted, as I do, that you were not there. Your knowladge of this incident is based on what has been posted here.

If you are satisfied that the entire story has been given, then yes you can form your own opinons of the incident and how you feel you should respond. You have interpreted the legislation, and in parts have missunderstood it. (Arrest follows positive breath test, not as you imply the other way round, the legislation you quote is the RTA, wrong act.).

IF, the story on here is the entire story,then I would agree the officer was wrong. HOWEVER, I do not belive that the entire story has been told.

Until such time as that happens then I would ask you to keep an open mind. I have NOT said the officer was correct, NOR have I said he was wrong. I have tried to point to alternative explanations. You and others may not like those, but thats life.

IF it comes out that the officer was wrong, then I am happy to join in the protests that follow. IF it transpires that in fact the officer was acting correctly, I somehow doubt that a corus of applogies will go to the officer.

The Freedom of Information act may get you an explanation, I don't know.

GMP in common with most police services wont say much about an incident where the people accused have been exonorated, which is what has happened here.

In many cases that doesn't help anyone, an full explanation may have resolved this issue, but it seems to be policy not to do so.

[chiglet]

ILS,
I am an ATSA at Manch, my son is a P.C. with GMP. he has 6 "O" GC[S]Es. Agreed, "shortish" course of only 20 weeks, followed by 2 years as a "probationer" PC [can be "booted out" with no reason]. He has attended "sudden deaths, assaults etc.
I am proud of my son and his colleagues
watp,iktch

[ILS 119.5]

chiglet, I am not disrepectfull of the local police, in fact I play golf with many members of them. Unfortunately some of them ( not the ones I play with ) have a "them and us" attitude and also a power attitude. BJCC seems to put that attitude over to the forum. I hope your son does well and has a good career, I also hope he does not have a bad attitude and be understanding.
Live & Love, treat people as you would be expected to be treated yourself.
Rgds
ILS 119.5

[Flying Lawyer]

bjcc

"Once an allagation has been made, the PC has no option but to investigate it. That involves speaking to the crew."
Surely the proper course is to question the person who made the allegation in order to find out on what grounds he/she is making such an allegation, and then decide whether questioning the crew is justified?
Are you really saying a policeman has no option but to move on to the second stage (speaking to the crew) regardless of the grounds given?
What if the person making the allegation says (for example):
"It was such a hard landing, the pilot(s) must be drunk/have been drinking"?
or
"The pilot(s) took three attempts to land, they must be drunk/ have been drinking"?
or
"We took off late. I think the pilot(s) were down the pub."
No option but to speak to the crew? :confused:

"The decision (to require a breath-test) is NOT made on the allagation alone. He would look for other things like smell of drink or manner. Having decided he would make or not make a requirment."
It shouldn't be on the basis of the allegation alone, but I find your suggestion (as a former policeman) that the PC might have been "trying to keep everyone happy, doubted the test would be anything other than negitive, satisfy everyone that he's done his job" rather disturbing. Wouldn't that be an abuse of his power?
It certainly wouldn't satisfy me that he'd done his job (far from it), and I very much doubt if many pilots breath-tested for that reason would be either 'happy' or 'satisfied' - even if the test was negative.

"smell of drink"
Given that the maximum prescribed alcohol level for pilots is so very low, it seems rather unlikely that a pilot who passes an aviation breath-test was smelling of drink. Or perhaps you meant the smell of drink in the flight-deck - of an aircraft which has just landed?

"manner"
Very interesting that you should use the word 'manner' rather than 'demeanour' - which is more commonly used by policemen when seeking to justify their action in alcohol cases.
A little slip there? ;)
I wonder because you've often said (in various 'legal' threads) that the 'manner' of someone questioned is likely to influence what happens next. Unfortunately, you also give the impression that demure grovelling may result in no further action, whereas 'challenging' the PC is more likely to influence him to take things further.

"Yes you can say you are giving it (the specimen of breath) under protest, it makes no difference except you may get his back up by threatening him with the IPCA and demanding his number, but yes it's your right to complain if you wish."
I wonder if the pilots 'manner' (indignation, for example) got the PCs' back up and it was that 'manner' which influenced them to require breath-tests.
Some policemen do tend to interpret any questions as a 'challenge' to their status and/or authority, wouldn't you agree?
And that can cause some policemen to show how much power they've got, can't it?

On a more general point .....

You're always very keen in 'legal' threads to try to come up with explanations/possible explanations intended to persuade people to see things from the PC's point of view and/or scenarios in which someone subjected to police procedures brought them upon himself/herself and the PC's conduct is vindicated. That's understandable, given your previous job.
However, IMHO, you'd have more credibility (and also portray the police in a better light) if you showed the slightest sign of being able to see and understand things from the position of people who are subjected to those procedures and (in this context) people who might find themselves subjected to them. You seem incapable of understanding that what's of no great consequence to policemen can be very distressing for the people with whom they are dealing.
I've dealt with policemen constantly for many years. It's an attitude I've come across many times, almost exclusively in the lower ranks - more senior ranks tend to have a broader perspective. People who rarely if ever come into contact with the police are bound to be more taken aback - and worried because they realise it's the junior ranks with whom they are most likely to come into contact.

With respect, your contributions rarely do anything to improve people's perception of the police and may, I suspect, damage it. In at least one previous thread, your blinkered views even succeeded in driving another former policeman to distraction - to such an extent that he started criticising you.

You claim that "any alternative view is frowned upon here". That's true in a small minority of cases, but you might want to consider whether there's something in your approach which antagonises the others.

[BOAC]

Here's a question for our 'Flying Lawyer':
Would the 'Freedom of Information' act permit BALPA to establish whether the original notification to the police came from the passenger's mobile phone while the aircraft was either airborne or taxying? Then, at least, SOME satisfaction could be obtained by the prosecution (assuming the police actually DID anything about it:* ).

The whole thing reminds me of (a badly paraphrased) exchange with Sir Winstion Churchill, when a 'lady' accused him of being drunk:

" Madam, I may be drunk, but you are ugly (insert 'stupid'). However, I shall be sober in the morning".:D

[feet dry]

Lights blue touch paper……

Now come on chaps give the guy a break. I see nothing from bjcc’s posts to suggest anything other then he is trying to objectively examine the known facts surrounding this episode, without resorting to postulation on the unknown facts (shades of Donald Rumsfeld’s unknown unknowns).

Few here have considered the possibility that the pilot(s) involved voluntarily gave breath specimens to the attending PC to clear up the matter as quickly as possible.

As for suing the passenger for defamation over her allegations, some of the comments made here about the passenger and the attending officer are at best insulting and at worst defamatory.

A little more balance ladies & gentlemen please.

[airborne_artist]

FL and BJCC

What could/would have happened if the pilot(s) had refused the officer's request to take a breath test?

Would the passenger's fears/allegation have been sufficient grounds for the officer's suspicion?

[Mr Chips]

Could someone count up the number of posts in this thread which aare simply BJCC bashing without any reference to teh issue? While youa re doing that, could you also count how many people have posted just to agree with such a bashing? The word "pathetic" springs to mind, and makes me think of playground bullies.

There also seems to be a major shift towards blaming the police officer involved. the fault here is with teh lady that reported the crew. i said this on page 3 and I will say it once more. Is it possible that the pilot concerned VOLUNTEERED to take the breath test to prove beyond all doubt that he was not under the influence.

Imagine the scene..

Copper - , so i shall be on my way

Lady passenger - See, its a cover up, he won't breathalyse him, pilot is drunk

or alternatively

Copper - Mr Pilot, that lady says you are drunk, but I can clearly see that you are not. However, if you blow in here we can ashow her the green light and prove to her that you are not under the influence in any way shape or form and then the papers can't print a sensationalist story full of errors

So maybe that is what happened.. maybe the police officer actually did these pilots a favour.....

And to those who are simply BJCC bashing... may i suggest you take your bullying elsewhere....

[The Greaser]

Do the police have a specific breathalyser for the reduced limit required of pilots???????

[Heliport]

Where does this idea that the pilots may have 'volunteered' to take breath-tests come from - apart from some people's imagination?
:confused:

This is taken from a post earlier on this thread. A spokesman for Greater Manchester Police said: “On Sunday, January 16, 2005, police officers at Manchester Airport breathalysed a pilot and co-pilot after a female passenger on an inbound flight expressed concern about their conduct. Both tests proved negative and no further action was taken. Neither member of the flight crew was arrested. All incidents reported to GMP are treated seriously and investigated thoroughly.” Are we to suppose it's possible the spokesman for Greater Manchester Police might have forgotten to mention:
"The police officers didn't require the pilots to take breath-tests. They volunteered to do so."

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

At the risk of seeming to reverse my position, I am now going to try and present a possibility more favourable to the PC involved.
If Mr Chips' scenario is correct, and the PC made his own assessment that the accusation was baseless, it is possible that he made the decision to require a breath test on grounds like these:
The pilots are plainly not drunk, but there is no precedent or guidance available to me. The safe option is to demand a test and let it be sorted out later. If so, then unfortunately there has to be a formal complaint by the airline, and by BALPA. At least then there WILL be a relevant precedent, and judicial position.

[Mr Chips]

heliport i have offered an alternative scenario... not suggested that it is the facts of the case. if it were me, i would have gladly taken the test to prove my innocence.. but thats just me

I don't think that many posters on this thread have let knowledge or otherwise of the facts get in the way of their opinions.. especially of the police officer involved

Mr Chips

[feet dry]

Sorry mr heliport, cannot let that slide....

The instances on these very pages of folk criticising the inability of the meejaa to accurately report a series of events as they transpired are many. The quote you selected appears to be from a GMP spokes person; the journalist who wrote the piece may well have edited it for reasons of brevity or space. It is not possible to draw any inference by the omission or otherwise of the limited number of facts which are currently in the public domain. The facts as they are known at present seem to be:

A passenger, for whatever reason made an allegation against the flight crew. The attending police officer is obliged to investigate. Two pilots were tested, the results of which were negative for the presence of alcohol. The airline is pursuing a complaint against the police. That is it.

I enjoy a bit of baseless speculation as much as the next chap, but I do not like to see discussions descend into the public stoning of individuals who are merely expressing their opinion (to wit the insults questioning everything from bjcc’s mental state to his command of the English language).

[Will Scarlet]

Mr C and Dry Feet, no disrespect to either of you but you do not see this from a pilots perspective. Gov IT and ATC are not breeding grounds for those to fully understand the implications this incident poses to Captains and First Officers.

I also don't think it is your place to start taking the holier than thou approach and to decide what or what should not be debated.

Some subjects should be debated on a purely pilots forum, I'm not sure how our opinions would be treated on "IT Rumours and News" or "ATC and Police Digest" ;)

[Mr Chips]

Will Scarlett Some subjects should be debated on a purely pilots forum then I suggest you go away and start one. ATC have been welcomed on this forum forever.... you don't need an ATPL or a big watch to comment on the pathetic childish postings on this thread

can we try to stick to the subject?

[FL245]

Gentlemen

Having not read Pprune for some considerable time, the reading of this thread reminds me why i stopped reading Pprune in the first place.

I have never read so much tripe in all my life, speculation, and people bantering theories on this subject.

I am a personal friend of the Senior First Officer involved in this incident and was aware of what happen as he called me on the way to his car after the incident.

I would guess less than half of you are fully in possession of ALL the facts, the rest of you just throwing your bit in.

Flying Lawyer, my friend could have done with your advice and insight, I find your posting very accurate and agree with your words very much.

Everyone else, just button it, turn the computer off, go outside and take a breath of fresh air !

[feet dry]

Go on then Will, what are the implications this incident exclusively poses to airline Captains and First Officers. The two in this case were found to not be in breach of any law therefore, I fail to see the implications which are exclusive to the aviation fraternity. Surely even the humble man or woman in the street might suffer the same degree of humiliation at being incorrectly accused of drink driving/flying.

"I also don't think it is your place to start taking the holier than thou approach and to decide what or what should not be debated."

Not holier than thou either old chum, it is just that anonymous snipes and outright bullying from some who purport to be professionals really, really sickens me.

Finally, I take it my PPL and my background of not unrelated public transport operations makes me ineligible to comment I assume?

[Heliport]

The airline pilots here might be heartened by public reaction to the story in the Manchester area. All comments posted on Manchester Online are quoted below - no editing, no selection. What a sad case. The lady in question may yell be an attention seeker of the worst kind. I suggest that this person should undergo a deep psychological examination berfore even thinking of flying again. I know that pilots have recently had a bad press but these are few and far between. Let these highly skilled men and women get on with their jobs without fear of recriminations such as hers. The police acted correctly even though they were wrongly alerted. Perhaps legal action against the complainee for waste of police time should be considered.
Aivars Pitans, Stretford
30/01/2005 at 08:00

Let me first say that I am no lover of British Airways, I fly every coupe of years from the USA to Manchester and BA is the worst airline I have ever flown but, I have to agree with the BA spokesman, If the pilot had a warning light then it's better to be safe than sorry. Perhaps the passenger would have prefered the poilot to Ignore the warning light and crashed the plane.
Malcolm, USA (formally of Salford, Manchester)
29/01/2005 at 19:51

Pilots are trained from day one the importance of keeping a cool head in any situation. The minute that calm breaks down is the minute a safety critical mistake occurs. Maximising Spare Mental Capacity is critical with flying. When your car breaks down you can pull into a lay by. Pilots do not have that luxury and must make well thought through correct decisions. The police should have used discretion with this woman who clearly had no aviation background.
Jonathan, Edinburgh
29/01/2005 at 03:21

Pilots are trained from day one the importance of keeping a cool head in any situation. The minute that calm breaks down is the minute a safety critical mistake occurs. Maximising Spare Mental Capacity is critical with flying. When your car breaks down you can pull into a lay by. Pilots do not have that luxury and must make well thought through correct decisions. The police should have used discretion with this woman who clearly had no aviation background.
Jonathan, Edinburgh
29/01/2005 at 03:18

The pilots should be commendedfor handling the situation correctly and the passenger should be allowed apologize to the pilots or refrain from flying in future.
Mr NEVILLE STUTTARD, Hamilton Ont Canada
28/01/2005 at 22:13

Ban this nervous nellie for life
Jharwood, Brantford Ontario
28/01/2005 at 18:48

These pilots deserve a pat on the back and an apology from this woman. I agree with the previous comment, give me relaxed pilots rather than stressed out ones every time.
Carolyne, Sale
28/01/2005 at 17:49

I am sickened by this stupid woman's behaviour - pilots undergo rigorous training and testing year after year to make sure they DON'T panic, even under very stressful conditions! These pilots seems to have coped professionally and taken extra safety measures. That's what they are paid to do. I think the passenger should be named and shamed.
Adrienne Smith, middleton
28/01/2005 at 15:24

What a stupid woman! If she feels so uncomfortable with flying, and has not faith in the staff, maybe she'd be better catching a bus or train - or would she behave in a similarly stupid manner?. Congratulations to the crew involved - nice one!
Angela, Stretford
28/01/2005 at 13:45

Perhaps the female passenger should have been breathalised as she may have committed an offence of travelling whilst intoxicated.
Peter Rolfe, Burton upon Trent
28/01/2005 at 11:29

Perhaps she'd have felt better if the pilots had run around shouting "Don't panic". Is it me or are more people becoming stupid and lacking in judgement?
IM, Ashton
28/01/2005 at 11:20

I can kind of understand the passengers' reaction. It wasn't appropriate, but then she has no knowledge of aviation either. She was naive and interfering, but the police were stupid to jump up and down because she said so.
Dan, City centre
28/01/2005 at 10:38

Professional Airline pilots are extremely well trained and an incident such as this wouldnB4t cause immediate panic to a commercial pilot. To say that the pilots were too relaxed about the problem is pure stupidity! The pilots have set procedures in their Airline Operation manuals and would have been following them exactly as published to rectify the warning light! Although "Go-Arounds" are unpleasant procedures for passengers, it is an entirely normal and safe procedure and one which a pilot should be able to carry out if he/she felt necessary without the worry of being breathalysed!
Dave Jones, Manchester
28/01/2005 at 09:37

Who wants to fly with 'stressed looking' pilots? Give me relaxed any day.
Chris, Deansgate
28/01/2005 at 09:37

[bjcc]

Firstly, thank you to those who have posted more reasoned comments.

Backtrack

The go rounds really are not that relevent, and I wouldn't worry about it. The woman made her comments, police got involved and the result is as it is. Her comments were made, for whatever reason, but could equaly have been made with the same result over anything.

While that perhaps puts the crew at risk of being tested, it is the same risk any driver faces.

FL.

Investigate. Means to gather all of the facts, that means to hear both sides of a story. Unpopular on here it may be, but that's how it is done.

You use 3 examples of what the woman could have been asked, and I understand they are hypothetical, and perhaps he did. But that does not remove the responsibility to find out the crew's point of view.

The smell of alcohol is, as you know an indication. It's not the be all and end all.

Mr Chips may have hit the nail on the head with his suggestion. In those circumstances would you still say that was wrong?

Yes, I do try to see the Police side, partly because of what I did for a living and partly because I believe in people having a fair hearing. I can answer back (when there is a point in doing so) when I am attacked on here. The Police officers involved in most of the incidents complained of cannot.

Most of the attacks on Police Officers on here are because the full story is not known, and the police side of it is not even considered let alone looked at.

If trying to balance the debate makes me, as one poster says as 'To$$er', then so be it.

I am suprised, you normaly try to look at both sides.

airborne_artist

Had they refused, then if the officer suspected they had been drinking then could have been arrested. If he did not then there is an offence which they could be summonsed for.

While that sounds daft, it is the way it is because the test can be required in the case of an accident without any suspicion of drink being involved.

[FL245]

FACT :

Both parties involved consented without question to the request for a breath test from the police

Backtrack - Why should you imagine that every go-around would require a breath test ???? Dont speak rubbish

[Daysleeper]

If it had been a train driver who had expertly delt with an emergancy and found himself being breath tested for it on the word of a passenger I doubt that any trains would be running in the UK today. Its a crazy situation.

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

FL245, just because both individuals consented to the test without question, does not make the request for a test legal.

[FL245]

I never said it did

[Flying Lawyer]

bjcc
We've been overtaken by FL245's post, but I'm happy to give my answer to Mr Chips' post nonetheless.
"Mr Chips may have hit the nail on the head with his suggestion. In those circumstances would you still say that was wrong?"
Mr C put forward two suggestions (or scenarios) in the alternative, not one.

(1) Copper - , so i shall be on my way
Lady passenger - See, its a cover up, he won't breathalyse him, pilot is drunk.
I assume "so I shall be on my way" means the policeman in the example has satisfied himself after investigation that the breath-test procedure isn't necessary, otherwise he would not be 'on his way' - and there'd be no point in the question.
Yes, having made his decision, the PC would be wrong if he then required a breath-test in response to the passenger's comment; he would have no power under the Act (his only power) to do so.
As Tartan Giant has correctly said, Section 96 of the R&TS Act gives Police power to require a person to co-operate with a preliminary test in certain circumstances. The Act lays down the specific circumstances. The two which are relevant for the purpose of this discussion are where:
(a) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person is over the prescribed limit, or his/her ability to perform his/her aviation function is impaired through either drink or drugs,
(b) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person has been over the prescribed limit or impaired through drink or drugs, and still has alcohol or a drug in his/her body or is still under the influence of a drug.
In each case, it is the constable who must 'reasonably suspect', not someone else, before he can require a breath-test.
The specified circumstances giving him his power do not include 'to pacify a third party', 'to avoid any suggestion of a cover-up', or 'in any other circumstances where the constable thinks it's a good idea.'
(or alternatively)

(2) Copper - Mr Pilot, that lady says you are drunk, but I can clearly see that you are not. However, if you blow in here we can show her the green light and prove to her that you are not under the influence in any way shape or form and then the papers can't print a sensationalist story full of errors.
I read this as an 'invitation' scenario, not a formal request, and there are several reasons why I think it would be wrong:

It is up to the PC to decide whether he has power under the Act to require a breath-test.
If he hasn't formed the necessary 'reasonable suspicion', then he has no power and that is the end of the matter.

Having no power, he should not put the pilot in the invidious position of having to decide whether or not to undergo a test voluntarily. If the pilot declines the invitation, that may be misinterpreted as having something to hide, when it's far more likely that the pilot has had enough of the stupid woman who's already caused more than enough trouble and he doesn't see why he should do more than he's legally required to do.

A meeting between a policeman and a member of the public in 'official' circumstance is not a meeting on equal terms. The pilot might refuse someone else without hesitation, but be worried about turning down a policeman's 'invitation.' He might, for example, be worried that if he refuses, the policeman might change his 'friendly' attitude. eg "Having been close to you for longer, Sir, I can now smell alcohol on your breath after all. I shall now require you to .................."
See the comments in my previous about 'manner'. Not an unthinkable, totally incredible scenario, is it. ;)

If someone offers, entirely unprompted, that's different. Subject to any Force orders dealing with that situation, it's up to the PC what he does.

"Unpopular on here it may be, but that's how it is done."
I take your word for it, but it doesn't make it right. Fully investigating could in theory go considerably further but, IMHO, it should go no further if it's clear the allegation is silly.
I don't accept there's a responsibility to find out the crew's "point of view", nor do I accept that's the reason the police would speak to them.

I don't think anyone criticises you for 'trying to balance the debate.'
Yes, I do normally try to look at both sides, and this is no exception. You offered some scenarios based on your experience in the police, and I responded with some the other way, based on my experience of some policemen.
I'm not anti-police and, as you know, in my criminal work I prosecute and defend. The City wizz-kids I've just finished prosecuting started their sentences last Friday. The leader of the conspiracy got five years. The result was almost entirely due to a very thorough (and balanced) investigation by an outstandingly able Detective Sergeant in the City Fraud Squad.
If you're interested, there's a report here. (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/59e07c3a-719a-11d9-9f56-00000e2511c8.html).

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

Must get back to my work. I'll do my best to answer questions raised in other posts at another time.
To those who asked if pilots are entitled to refuse to provide a specimen of breath .............

Do not refuse to provide a specimen of breath, even if you think the PC has no grounds to make the request.
You will almost certainly be arrested, and almost certainly be convicted of refusing without reasonable excuse. At the police station, you will again be asked to provide a specimen and, if you refuse, are likely to be convicted of a second 'refusal' offence.
In practical terms, there is really only one circumstance where refusing throughout might be the better course from the perspective of the person requested - and I'd prefer not to spell it out.

FL


(Edit)
CB the FO
FL245 was simply pointing out that the breath-tests were required by the police and the pilots fully co-operated with the requirement.
(I sent him a PM suggesting it would be helpful if he could tell us if the police required or the pilots volunteered - so that the 'voluntary' scenario suggested by some for consideration could either be confirmed or laid to rest. He very kindly agreed to do so.)

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

As I said, I am more concerned with the precedent for future cases- without wishing any unnecessary trouble or paperwork for anyone involved, I believe this matter will have to be fully investigated. My somewhat terse post to FL245 should have continued:
"... and even though your wish to spare your friend more hassle is laudable, further investigation and the attendant speculation will probably continue."
Personally, I think random breath-testing is on the way (both for drivers and for airline staff); it is probably a good idea... but I would say that, I don't drink. :rolleyes:

[FL245]

CarltonBrowne the FO -

Naturally the speculation will probably continue, thats what goes on on these fourms, speculation by people now fully aware of the facts, specualtion by people who just like a good gossip and speculation by people who have little else to do ! thats why its called Pprune and the disclaimer is placed at the bottom of the screen.

Flying Lawyer - Thank you

[View From The Ground]

BJCC states

The go rounds really are not that relevent, and I wouldn't worry about it. The woman made her comments, police got involved and the result is as it is. Her comments were made, for whatever reason, but could equaly have been made with the same result over anything.

While that perhaps puts the crew at risk of being tested, it is the same risk any driver faces.

I am still unsure as to why the go-arounds should make the pilots liable to a breath test. Why should they be 'put at risk of being tested' when what they are doing is perfetly correct procedure, completely safe flying and the best course of action. This seems to me a little like saying well if a car driver takes avoiding action to prevent an accident then that puts them at risk of a breath test. Surely in such cases pilots/drivers should be congratulated for taking the wisest course of action, something that might not have happened if they were under the influence!

It has previously been flagged up on this forum, that the scenario being discussed might give pilots second thoughts about performing a go around when necessary. I personally am sure that would not be the case, since whatever the inconvenience of a breath test, it would surely be outweighed by the professionalism of the pilot in performing his duties correctly. If however the pilot in any way suspected he might be over the ridiculously low limit set, I wonder how his actions and therefore the safety of the flight might be impacted.

[You splitter]

Was relating this case (and some of the debate on here) to a friend in the pub last night. We ended up discussing the rights of motorists re breath testing. He informs me that about two years ago some idiot drove straight into his car. Police arrived and insisted in my freind providing a breathtest. He was slightly annoyed at this because he had not been driving either of the two vehicles. He was at work with his car parked, quite legally, when the accident occured! He pointed this out to the officer, that there were witnesses he had been working all morning, the engine of the car was cold etc etc. Was told that the law required he was breathalised as his car was involved in an acccident, was advised to stop being 'smart' or would be arrested for failing to provide etc etc.

What has the world come to!! Anyway we finished our pints and jumped in a taxi! :ok:

[ZQA297/30]

It would appear that now any person who feels so inclined can accuse any person in charge of public/commercial transportation of being drunk, with impunity.

Here are some examples.

Constable I think the driver of that #10 bus is drunk, because he drove right past this request stop, totally ignoring me.

Constable I pulled the emergency stop on the train, because I think the driver was driving erratically, and I think he is drunk.

Constable , I think that truck driver is drunk, because he cut me off at the roundabout.

Constable , I think that pilot is drunk because he has his hat on tilted.

And so on.

[christn]

What we obviously need is a breathaliser in a glass case attached to the cockpit door; next to it a sign stating 'Pilot's breathaliser - penalty for improper use £50'

[caniplaywithmadness]

Speaking as an ex police officer (and having not trawled through all the posts on this thread), the police constable did not have a power to breathalyse the pilot in this instance. The fact that someone reported the pilot is not grounds for reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed.

In this case having spoken to the pilot the officer would either need to smell alcohol, or the pilots responses to questions were such, i.e slurred speech, that the officer believed an offence had been committed.

Personally I would have refused the breath test after asking the officer on what grounds he proposed to breathalyse me, if he said he could smell alcohol, I would submit to the test, blow 0 and then have him for abuse of power, or alternatively let him arrest me, provide a sample at the station have him for abuse of power and unlawful arrest.

All too often people don't know where they stand with the Police who are all too keen to abuse the authority that they have.

That's one of the reasons I'm glad I left.

[bjcc]

Flying Lawyer

I have absolutly no doubt that you are not anti police, nor do I have a problem with reasonably questioning something they have done. In fact, police invite critical responses to the way they deal with some things by not explaining them.

The only person who can give an answer as to the reasons, is the officer that required the test. And he will have valid reasons for doing so (yes, I know what you are thinking and you may be right!)

View From The Ground

The only reason the G/A are involed in this is because it APPEARS to have prompted her comments. The fact that you do something as a pilot is not alone a reason to breath test. Had there been no G/A, she ould have equaly made what ever comment because, she thought the landing was too harsh.

[etrang]

Does anyone know if the results of the police investigation of the official complaint from BA will be released to the public? And if so where and when could they be found?

[FL245]

CarltonBrowne the FO - Thanks for your PM, its no surprise to me reading your posts that your PM to me was of similiar standard. Total Mince.

Backtrack - Why dony i ask my 'mate' what exactly??

As I said in my first post on the topic, it has been some considerable time since I read Pprune, and the reason that I stopped reading it in the first place was the total amount of S***e that is bantered around on these fourms, by people who know little of nothing on the topic they discuss.

I placed the posting on the fourm to try and give an indication of some FACTS, what actually happened. But the topic has been twisted.

I sugguest anew topic is started to discuss the pros and cons of breath testing.

Time to go to work and turn this computer off, I sugguest you all do the same. Althought the issues regarding this event may affect some of you, the details of this event are not really any of your concern apart from 'wanting to know' or just being nosey!

Best to discuss the topic not this incident.

caniplaywithmadness, a lot of truth in wat you say.

Goodbye, I am posting no more on this topic

FL245

[HissingSid]

T.G.F.T. Which roughly translates as :---Thank God for That. Or you just a tease?

[WHBM]

Let's hope we don't go the way of the railways where it is standard procedure now to breathalyse/drug test a train driver after any incident at any time of the day.

Unfortunately the police then announce they did this (though not the negative result) to the waiting media with the result that any media story of a train incident contains "the driver was breathalysed after the incident" type copy. And people then relate this to their own cars where it only gets done where there is a genuine suspicion, and have the idea that the driver was under suspicion.

Aren't the various public bodies meant to be responsible for our security just GREAT :rolleyes:

[longstay]

What a load of *rap, it's only a matter of time before there is an industry wide strike, if not a national strike.
Where on earth are these people from ??
This government in it's relentless quest for social equalisation are dumbing down society.
Who the hell do these people think they are?
I hope the airline / captain involved will take the woman to court for what ever the flying lawyer says will stick.

I for one would contribute to a legal fund to do this.

:mad:

[bar none]

It would appear that one reason that pilots are so enraged at this incident is that there is a further loss of respect for the pilot profession.
In which case why do nearly all the replies refer to the policeman concerned as plod rather than police constable.

[L337]

The incident adds further loss of respect for the plod profession.

L337

[hobie]

The incident adds further loss of respect for the plod profession.
We have read all about the Crew being breath tested after a first class bit of flying, under emergency conditions .....

the Nurse being taken to court, at massive expense, because of an Apple .....

and now the Sunday Times (Jan 30th 2005) tells us a motorist who pulled in to ask a Policeman for directions was given a £45.00 fixed-penalty notice for what police described as playing music in his car at "Excessive" volume

Respect? :confused: .....

ps. what type of music you ask? .... the driver was playing some Irish music "River Dance" :{

[Devils Advocate]

Once upon a time....

If I saw a copper getting a good kicking I'd rush to their aid - but not any more.

If I saw a crime being commited I'd call the police - but not any more.

I could go on with examples, but the gereral premis is that this particular 'upstanding citizen' no longer gives a stuff about HM Plod - infact I'd go so far as to say that I hope they get the living daylights kicked & beaten out of themselves every Saturday night; wherein, I might point out, I've seen the young lads in my home town win that battle more than once..... so "way to go yoof", at least they're fighting back against a police / nanny state and don't take any crap from the old bill, and thereby restoring my my hope for the future.

[Vref+10.....to 44]

Devils Advocate.

That Policeman who you wish "got a good kicking", could be my older brother.
The same older brother who has/will rush to someones house to help a member of the public like you, when you call in tears because someone is trying to break into your house.

This same policeman has a wife and young family to support, and believe it or not abides by the same rules/taxes as we do.

Please don't generalise....Good and bad in all jobs.

All Pilots are not all exRAF, battle of Britain types twiddling our moustaches.....some of us are quite normal too.

[Devils Advocate]

Vref+10.....to 44 - W.r.t. 'tears because someone is trying to break into your house'

If somebody breaks into my house they'll be lucky if they come out alive - don't ask - indeed last time somebody tried that on me ( in SA ) I emptied a full clip in their direction !

That said, due to namby-pamby UK laws, I'm not allowed to own a shooter here but I do have something that's just as good (http://www.barnettcrossbows-uk.com/rhinohunter.htm) ( certainly as lethal ) and pretty much legal too ( bar the 'broadhead' bolts I normally use ).

So the last person I'd call is the old bill. :E

[Dimbleby]

Sorry Vref:

But as a former respecter of the law and those that uphold it, I have reversed my position over the last two or three years.

I also hope you brother gets a good kicking.

Im sorry, like the monarchy they have lost all my respect.

[Onan the Clumsy]

So teacher finally semt this thread to JetBlast?

:E

[Astrodome]

If it had been a train driver who had expertly delt with an emergancy and found himself being breath tested for it on the word of a passenger I doubt that any trains would be running in the UK today. Its a crazy situation. Unfortunately the day has already arrived.

About two years ago someone walked across the track at Hitchin station into the path of a High Speed Train (running at 125 mph). Plod arrived, and insisted on breathalysing the train driver (presumably for being responsible and not stopping or steering out of the way). Turned out that said Driver's test was positive. Now for the GOOD bit. They arrest him and take him away, grinning happily, and thinking of promotion. When they get to the Police Station it seems that their breath test machine was not working correctly. Driver was definitely NOT drunk and had absolutely NO alcohol at all.

I should SO love to have been him. I suspect the payout could be rather large!

Scenario No. 2. Terminal station in Surrey. Train arriving into station encounters wet greasy rails with result that it gently touches the buffer stops. Plod who apparantly is on site sees this and immediately arrests and removes Driver form the scene. This without ANY information being passed to anyone and resulting in the train being left un-secured. Such action is in the view of all right thinking railwaymen criminal. Unfortunately the stupid arrogant arseholes who arrested him have presumably got off with it. By the way that Driver was NOT under the influence either.

From a railwayman's point of view the one good thing is that we still have our own Police force, whose Officers are still embodied with common sense. They understand the railways and how we operate.

On the occasions when they do ask us to provide a specimen we understand that they need us to do so, and are not on some power trip. There is still thus a very considerable respect for OUR Police against the civil police who on occasions can be total wankers when dealing with things off the road.

[Ontariotech]

I can see by some of the post's that a few have lost some respect for the police. I am at a loss as to why. Is it because of you being at the wrong place at the wrong time in the past? Being asked questions a little too private for your comfort level?

I am sure the officer in question had a brain in his or her head. And is well versed in the law of the land. If the officer believes on resonable and probable grounds that a Breath test was required, they are obligated to issue a request for breath. Whether the situation, complaint or otherwise relates to a car, a train or even an airplane.

I personally have delt with numerous people that have called into police and reported a car swerving in the road, or a car that is driving erratically, and believes that the operator is drunk. It's the first thing a dispatcher will tell you.

When the car is stopped, the 75 year old man with pop bottle glasses spends 20 minutes locating the ownership and the proof of insurance. Or, the mom with 3 kids in the car is trying to get the kids home from school and the kids are all yelling and screming tossing a ball around the inside of the car.

I think that the officer acts on the report, using witness accounts of the given situation, and makes a determination as to wheter or not investigate further. I am unaware of the facts in this case, but I would Imagine that the police officer would have had resonable and probable grounds to ask the pilot for a sample of his or her breath based on an investigation made by that officer, of that pilot.

And if some of you see a police officer getting the snot kicked outta him, and you witness this, you can be arrested for obstructing justice. At least here in Canada anyway.

Just my 2 cents

[Vref+10.....to 44]

dimbleby et others,

you really are twats.

i believe you've lost the plot........stop reading The Sun, on your dub-cdf-jsy-dub-jsy-cdf-dub, or in your grass strip aeroderome tin hut....take off your green flying suit, lose the epaulettes....and grow up.

like I said you are twats.

over generalising enough for ya?

regards.

vref.

(BTW brothers on his way round now....don't answer your door!)

[caniplaywithmadness]

Ontariotech,

based on the information provided in this thread, under UK procedures, the officer does not have a power to require a breath specimen based on the fact that someone says a person must be drunk because they've carried out 2 missed approaches.

The officer MUST either smell alcohol and believe that the person has committed an offence or have strong suspicions because of the manner of the suspected offender.

As has been stated previously here, the limit set under the act are so low that it is unlikely that the officer will be able to smell alcohol, and it is unlikely that the pilots manner would have been such that he could remotley suspect that an offence has been committed.

Therefore all he / she could do is ask that the pilot provide a sample voluntarily provided that the suspect was clearly informed that they are under no obligation do do so.

Unfortunately some of these over zealous police officers polishing their shiny machine guns get carried away.

Under UK law if an officer has grounds to require a sample and you refuse then you are liable to arrest. My guess is that the officer said that he/ she required a sample of breath and advised the pilot that they would be liable to arrest if they failed to provide the sample, thereby putting pressure on the pilot to provide even though the officer had NO GROUNDS to require the sample.

Like I said previously, people are ignorant of the powers of the Police who will abuse these powers because they know that they can.

I've seen it done and much to my shame in th epast I've done it myself.

As for rushing to the aid of a Police Officer who was getting the crap kicked out of them, I would, purely because I know they would do the same for me.

Since moving to Scotland from England, I have had more than one dealing with the Police up here and I can honestly say that so far I have found them to be the worst for attitude towards people and abuse of authority.

[bjcc]

caniplaywithmadness

No, a policeman does not have the power to demand for the sake of it. However, as you are well aware, you do not know the full circumstances of this incident. You were not on with the PC, when he made the requirement, nor are you party to the full details of what the woman said, or did not say.

Without those bits of information you are not able to say the officers had no grounds for requiring a test.

It's always easy to be critical when the full facts are not known, or rumour is listened too.

Like you, all police officers have been there seen it and done it. I can also presume you, like me have also bent the rules slightly to do people a favour and show someone accusing them that there is no substance to what they think. Thereby saving them from making allagations later when what they say cannot be disproved.

Whatever Police do it will upset someone. Most officers accept that as a fact of life.

[bjcc]

Mike Jenvey

19 years
Heathrow (13 years) 2 South London Stations before that.
In uniform
5 years

Happy?

Now to move on....

You say:

'Assuming this is correct'

On what basis is it assumed to be correct? The story keeps changing. This piece of 'information' is nothing like the original, except it concerns a woman.

Your statements re crahes & handling the aircraft have nothing to do with this incident, no one said there was a crash, nor that they mishandled the aircraft. Neither is required to require a breath test.

See my last comment re being with the officer before you ASSUME that Police had no legal basis to conduct a test.

[Onan the Clumsy]

Mods: Can we please send this one to Rumours and News? :ugh:

[Onan the Clumsy]

Nah, it's just JBs reaction to all those threads that get a posting like "I give this five minutes and it's off to JetBlast" :Derr:

11 pages and the discussion is still going. Has it got anywhere yet?





There's a smiley I have to copy :ok:

[bjcc]

Mike Jenvey

Where, in any of this thread have you read anything that is evidence? No where.

Has the Officer concerned spoken on here? No.

Has anyone any knowladge of what he found on the flight deck? NO.

Was anyone here present when the woman was spoken to by police? NO.

So what have you got here? Nothing. No evidence of what happened. Just second hand information and a lot of assumptions.

You can quote the act and sections all you like, but you are missing the one bit of information you need to decide if what happened was right or wrong...ie WHAT ACTUALY HAPPENED!

To compound it, you talk of 'supervisors' sending police to incidents. What are you talking about? 'Supervisors' do not send police to anything. Communications staff do. Supervisors make very few decisions at operational level, they don't have to. So why should they be punished for something you have assumed to be wrong.

I am fully aware of what this act says. As I said in THIS case crashes and or mishandling are irelevent. There was no crash, nor is the incident relevent as such. Neither of these factors are needed to require a breath test.

A crash DOES NOT mandate a breath test. A Constable MAY is what the act says, not MUST. Nothing in this, nor the RTA, MANDATE a breath test of anyone.

There is one person that knows the what the grounds for the test were. And he probably wont be telling you what they are. There are several reasons for it. Firstly, it's none of your, mine or anyone elses business.and secondly, it is not policy of most, if not all police forces to give details of incidents where people are exonerated.

[Astrodome]

Oh come now !

I cannot believe that a PC could have formed 'reasonable' grounds for considering that the flight deck crew were unfit and should be tested.

'Reasonable' would mean just that but would need to be justified by the smell of acohol, or something in their demeanour that indicate that they were unfit.

Taking the fact that they had just flown in from somewhere they would not have been over the limit at that stage from the night before.

I think the point practically everyone has made on here is along those lines.

The forming of a judgement requires sound reasoning skills, it would appear that they were lacking in this case.

I also think it is outrageous that the Police cannot be held to account for their actions in this case, and the 'policy' of not commenting is totally at odds with the natural law of justice.

Effectively they can act as they wish, and then 'hide' behind policy

[Flying Lawyer]

bjcc

As you say, none of us was there. However, what we do know is that the both pilots were in fact under the aviation limit which is extremely low - it's effectively zero for all practical purposes.

Given that they were, it is inconceivable that there was alcohol on their breath and, it does seem at least very odd (perhaps unlikely?) that there could have been anything about them which could have caused the PCs who attended to reasonably suspect they had been drinking. And both pilots, at that.

The point would have no force if they were under the road limit (4 times higher) because it's possible to smell of alcohol and yet still be under the road limit.

True, we don't have all the facts from either side. However, you clearly assume, in the absence of facts to the contrary, that the PCs acted reasonably. Why shouldn't others assume in the absence of facts to the contrary, but in the circumstances mentioned above, that they didn't?

I take your point that 'supervisory rank' officers didn't necessarily play any part in what happened. However, in light of what did happen here, even on the bare facts we do know, perhaps there's a good argument that the nature of the 'complaint/report' should be considered by someone of supervisory rank before constables are dispatched to aircraft. It would take only minutes.
eg If a report was from some anonymous caller who claimed the pilots must have been drunk because they sounded 'relaxed', a supervisor could treat the report with such importance as he thought it justified and decide what action, if any, was required.
Whether or not in theory the police should follow up every call they receive, in practice they don't.

[bjcc]

FL

You know as well as I do that a Constable is responsible for his own actions and decisions. 'Supervisor' functions are limited in that decision making process. The Police are not like the forces in that respect. I cannot see any role for a supervisor in this, or any other minor incident. Because that is what it is.

There is a difference between saying 'I don't think' there was a reason for requiring a test, and the conclusive statements made by some that the officer did not have a reason.

In the absence of facts I cannot say either way, nor can anyone else. You may be right that there was no smell of alcohol. Having said that, you could be wrong.

Having met a fair few aircraft on arrival, the smell of alcohol when the doors are opened can be strong, thoughout the aircraft. 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.

Referring back to something you were involved in, some 12 hours after drinking it is possible to be 6 times over the limit. So it is possible that someone could have been over the limit.

Obviously they were not, but that is the object of a breath test, to show one way or the other.

Astradome.

It is not a matter of being unfit, it is being above a prescribed limit.

That limit, as FL points out is very low. Therefore the reasonable grounds and the factors looked for would be correspondingly lower. You could be right, and they could have been lacking, alternatively they could have had very good grounds, just because they don't make those grounds public does not mean they don't exist.


The Force Policy is probably based around confidentiality as far as the person(s) complained of. Also, harsh as it sounds it really is no one else’s business

[nzmarty]

maybe the pax was the pilot's ex.....

[Tartan Giant]

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

[Flyin'Dutch']

Nobody here knows exactly what happened and neither do I, but I suspect that the PC's shoulders were not broad enough to resist the 'pressure' of the allegation and that he/she therefore felt the need to investigate and ask for a breathsample.

The crew's knowledge of the law may not have been enough, their shoulders not broad enough nor the situation conducive to a refusal, see FL's excellent advice on this.

It is all well and good for all of us here to be very clever about the ins and outs, and who should have done what, and what we would have done in the same situation.

This occurence is a reflection of what our society is all about, and a pretty sad state of affairs it is too.

Make no mistake, society, that is you too.

[bjcc]

Tartan Giant



'Abuse of police power' Ok, lets start with that shall we? How is it abuse?

In order to substantiate that you need to KNOW several things.

First exactly what was said by the woman, not what has been quoted on here. Do you know what she said?

Second. What the Police officer found when he arrived and spoke to the crew. Do you know what he found? Do you know what he saw?


In the absence of that knowlage, you cannot claim that there was any abuse of power. If you do know the FULL details, then please do tell. Then again, you did admit earlier in all of this that you were not there and don't know.


What gave me the 'right' to wander though an aircraft?

Plenty of right, ranging from investigating crime, to dealing with drunks to dealing with deaths and injuries. In any event is it relevent what 'right' I had?

Face some facts please. You accuse the officer of abuse of power, a serious allagation, without the knowladge to back that up. Are you not doing thing you accuse the woman of?

[Tuckunder]

What is everyone so worried about here? When I started flying it was in a profession that encouraged social drinking, perhaps to excess, when flying the next day. This was my experience both in my military and civilian careers. Thankfully those reckless days are gone and we are all much more professional in our "fit to fly approach". However, this is only due to public awareness and changes in the law. I personally do not have a problem with being breathalised and I am willing to accept that occasionally some young inexperienced policeman or even some macho hot head in paramilitary kit will breathalise me when the situation does not warrant it. I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE. I would rather this than the ludicrous situations I have witnessed in the past with pilots flying when very unfit through drink.

[Onan the Clumsy]

I turned up to fly some freight one night and they said "Right Onan, you've been selected for a random drug test. Here's the paperwork, the place is out on 183."

"Oh, ok" says I "what do I do? Call 'em up and make an appointment?"

"Well if you do that" she replied, an edge to her voice "it won't really be random now would it?"


Here is a picture of her telling me this ===> :rolleyes:



btw, I passed the random drug test, even though I had to guess at two of them.