American Airlines Pilot Arrested at Manchester (NOT GUILTY) [Archive] - Page 2

KC135777

21st Mar 2007, 16:58

<<Confused.... but if he was not intending to fly why was he in his uniform?

--Due to restrictions on the carriage of liquids, I ALWAYS nonrev around in my uniform....especially when I'm w/ my wife.
Also, if crew sked wasn't aware of his "sick status" yet, uniform and ID gets him through security....then he could get his boarding pass AT the gate.

<<Surely he should have presented himself to check in to dead head home.

--why? going through security is just a process that everyone has to go through, period. They don't need to know jack. You only "present" to them what they need....to get you through the line/process. Whatever works...the KISS principle. But, it wasn't so simple for him, right? ;)

<<Baffled...Perhaps it has something to do with a certain vote on Thursday? Any of our comrades from the colonies care to comment?

--vote? the only thing I can think of, that you might be referring to, would be possibly something on open skies agreements? don't know any specifics. anyways, I thought it was a jury vote?

KC135777

Flying Lawyer

21st Mar 2007, 17:54

World of Tweed
"Confused....

OK so we don't know all the facts....."
Precisely.

I quote from my earlier post. Please note, in particular, the words in bold.An activity will be treated as 'ancillary to an aviation function' if it is undertaken by a person who has reported for duty

The prosecution claimed he'd reported for duty, but I've not seen or heard anything to support that claim.
Even if (which was disputed) he reported for duty by going to the Crew security gate, what 'activity ..... 'ancillary to an aviation function' he is alleged to have undertaken after that? None. He remained with Security.
Many of the press reports painted a picture of the pilot being intercepted immediately before he was about to board and fly, but that is not what happened.

American Airlines personnel (including the Captain) were summoned to the checkpoint and the pilot reported sick but, I'm told, Manchester airport security people insisted on calling the police.

The defence traced the taxi driver who drove the pilot from the hotel to the airport. In conversation during the journey, the pilot said he was not intending to fly.

I know he was acquitted shortly after lunch, but don't yet have the details. If I hear any more, I'll post an update.

FL

fyank1

21st Mar 2007, 17:55

The law as it stands clearly cannot protect the public from drunken pilots. If it is possible to report for work in the condition he did and not commit any offence its a disgrace!

If he was going to report sick to his captain why did he not do it when the Captain called at his hotel room when he failed to respond to an alarm call at 9am that morning? In any event he was not sick but drunk.The verdict in this case is absolute bull****.

Mandatory breath testing for all operating commercial pilots now needs to be introduced to protect the travelling public.:\

Airbubba

21st Mar 2007, 17:58

Does he still have his job as a matter of interest?

Based on cases I've seen over the past few years it could go either way. In recent years the FAA has started pulling licenses as well as medicals in alcohol cases. Even if he convinced the jury that he was showing up at the airport in uniform to tell everybody he wasn't going to fly, the fact that he tested drunk at show time means he's got some serious explaining to do to the FAA.

Airlines always proclaim a "zero tolerance" alcohol abuse policy but the reality is that in many cases a pilot will be quietly returned to work after successfully completing rehab. And that is as it should be.

As with Lyle Prouse, another pilot involved in a recent case was forced to re-earn all of his certificates after grossly failing an alcohol test. To my knowlege, law enforcement was not involved, he didn't make it to the aircraft and the matter was discreetly handled between the FAA and the company.

In another recent case where a pilot tested drunk on the aircraft, he was quietly allowed to retire a couple of years early.

The "we didn't know we wuz going flying" legal defense as well as preemptively checking into rehab has become boilerplate in these cases in the U.S.

Seems like in the 1990 Northwest Fargo incident, the FE claimed that he was going to report sick after doing the walkaround inspection but was persuaded not to when he saw the FAA onboard when he returned to the cockpit.

Don't know if it's still in NWA's manuals but it used to be that you could declare yourself unfit for flight without penalty up to the point the walkaround was completed. This was to encourage self-reporting.

Max Angle

21st Mar 2007, 18:05

This gentleman has got away with it by the skin of his teeth. In pure terms of the law he had not committed an offence and I am quite surprised that the Crown Prosecution Service thought they could get a conviction out of it given that he had not actually reported for duty and had not carried out an aviation function at the time of his arrest. As it turned out, they couldn’t

However with the best will in the world I find it hard to believe that his intention was not to operate the flight back the US, if you have got yourself into that situation the place to go sick is back at the hotel, not in uniform at the reporting point which is where he was heading when stopped. If it was a one off then he is a very stupid individual who has no doubt paid a high price, if he has a serious alcohol problem then I hope he gets, or is already getting, the treatment he needs and the support of his company and colleagues.

It can be tuned around as someone I used to fly with proved to himself and his fellow pilots.

green granite

21st Mar 2007, 18:07

The law as it stands clearly cannot protect the public from drunken pilots. If it is possible to report for work in the condition he did and not commit any offence its a disgrace!

So fyank1 If you walked from the pub towardsyour car to get your brief case so that you can go home by taxi and the police nick for being drunk with intent to drive, that would be ok would it?

KC135777

21st Mar 2007, 18:16

<<The law as it stands clearly cannot protect the public from drunken pilots.

--Fyank1, this person did NOT intend on piloting an aircraft, period. He was going to be a passenger.

<<If it is possible to report for work in the condition he did and not commit any offence its a disgrace!

--It was NOT possible to report for work in his condition-even if he wanted to-, as the security personnel DID grab him.

<<If he was going to report sick to his captain why did he not do it when the Captain called at his hotel room when he failed to respond to an alarm call at 9am that morning?

--have you ever overslept, missing an important/critical time? when you finally do awake, your heart is racing extremely fast, and the adrenaline is pumping, nervous, etc.....collecting rational thoughts (and finishing a physical evaluation regarding medical fitness to fly) is very hard. That exchange probably didn't last very long.

<<In any event he was not sick but drunk.

--IMO, he realized that his physical status was such (it does NOT matter what caused it!!) that he could NOT excercise his FAA medical certificate and operate an aircraft as a crewmember. The FAA gives the pilot, and ONLY the pilot, the responsibility and authority to SELF determine their ability to excercise that medical certificate, period.

<<The verdict in this case is absolute bull****.

--he said he was calling in sick, and apparently the cab driver backed that testimony up...so it was NOT a last ditch effort/excuse to 'dodge' the bullet. It was IMO a rationale decision made prior to getting 'nabbed'--as I've described above

<<Mandatory breath testing for all operating commercial pilots now needs to be introduced to protect the travelling public.

--not only no, but hell no! random D/A testing works just fine.

KC135777

Flying Lawyer

21st Mar 2007, 18:21

fyank1 The verdict in this case is absolute bull****. Comments like that from people who haven't heard a word of the evidence illustrate the need for the direction I mentioned earlier. The normal direction to a jury, repeated at each overnight adjournment, is not to discuss the case they are trying with anyone. Most judges explain the reason the first time they give that direction, saying something like: 'If you do, there's a good chance people will give their opinions, even though they haven't heard the evidence. The verdict you are required to give is the verdict of the 12 of you as a jury, uninfluenced by the views of other people.'

In stark contrast to new ppruner fyank1, the jury heard all the evidence. They retired to consider their verdict at about 1 pm and, when the court assembled again shortly after 2pm, were ready to give their verdict: A unanimous Not Guilty.

FL

fyank1

21st Mar 2007, 18:27

"Flying Lawyer" for your information I took the time to actually attend the trial and listen to the evidence unlike most of the other posters!:8

Bearcat

21st Mar 2007, 18:29

FL...take the legal cap off for a min and to joe public and a lot in the aviation community the sequence of events paints a poor picture. As a previous poster said...."he got away with it by the skin of his teeth."I agree with that poster no matter what legal angle / argueement one takes.

KC135777

21st Mar 2007, 18:29

FL,
too bad I don't fly LHR anymore...or, we'd have to 'tip one' together at the (one of many) watering holes!!! KC

Fly380

21st Mar 2007, 18:34

The best barrister usually wins.:}

KC135777

21st Mar 2007, 18:42

Fyank1,
did the Captain testify?

Bearcat,
Yates was NOT on duty as a crewmember.
Yates did NOT intend to act as a crewmember.
Yates did NOT act as a crewmember.
Yates performed NO aviation related duties -primary or ancillary-.

Yates made the responsible decision BEFORE arriving to MAN to call in sick, and NOT excercise his medical certificate as an operating crewmember.

YES, regardless of what occurred the night before, he ultimately made a good call.

Therefore, Yates did NOT commit an offence under Section 92/93/94.

KC135777

curious though, will the coppers now "follow" any future "suspects" to their aircraft? ....or, will they continue to grab them at the security checkpoint?

fyank1

21st Mar 2007, 18:57

KC135777

In answer to your question, yes he did testify. He was witness number one on day one.;)

KC135777

21st Mar 2007, 19:01

so, what did he say? I assume it's legal in the UK to discuss this, now that the trial is complete?
KC

Flying Lawyer

21st Mar 2007, 19:09

fyank1

Fair enough, if that's true.
The fact remains that 12 members of the public, chosen at random to serve on the jury, disagree with you.

BearcatFL...take the legal cap off for a min and to joe public ..... the sequence of events paints a poor picture.
Okay, cap (or in my case, wig ;) ) off.

You mention joe public. It was 12 'Joe Publics' who, having heard all the evidence, including the pilot's account of what he did and what he intended, who decided he wasn't guilty.

The judge left the 12 "Joe Publics" with a clear decision to make -
If they were sure he intended to fly: Guilty.
Otherwise, Not Guilty.
They gave their verdict.

"the sequence of events paints a poor picture"
I agree.
But he wasn't charged with bringing the aviation industry into disrepute, he was accused (effectively) of trying to fly with an alcohol level in excess of the legal limit.
Legal hat on or off, there's a big difference between the two.

Final 3 Greens

21st Mar 2007, 19:10

KC135777 and others

Do we have to keep discussing this?

Mr Yates was charged, tried and found to be not guilty under the British jury system.

I am sure that he has suffered a good deal of stress and worry over the last year.

He should be allowed to go back to his normal life and live in peace
I don't know the gentleman, but I send him my best wishes for the future.

ILS 119.5

21st Mar 2007, 19:13

I think the verdict is correct and it's one for the pilots. I was over the pond one day last year and smelt alchohol on the breath of an f/o on the morning before an evening flight home, so I advised them to go sick to which he did. Luckily we had a stand by f/o who took the seat. In my view you have to protect your colleagues, and keep safety first. Most pilots who drink do not do it because they are alchoholics, they do it to adapt to time changes. OK for a holiday maker but difficult for pilots on long haul. Maybe we should be prescribed barbiturates to sleep and amphetamines to stay awake. Having said all that, and in my belief he was innocent of breaking the law but it should now be down to his company to monitor his sickness to ensure this does not happen again. They could also carry out blood tests to determine the extent of his drinking and if it is great, then attend a programme. There are many ways to solve this problem (if there is one), rather than just trying to prosecute every pilot who might have made a sligh error. I'm sure all commercial pilots would not fly if they thought to be over the limit as it would be the end of their career. I do not agree with random testing but if airlines brought in a way to test all pilots before flying then firstly, not the end of a career, and for example if a pilot did it twice (as the first time could have been a misjudgement) then the second time could be disciplinary. Then there wouldn't be a third, if so dismissal. This also identifies if a pilot has a problem. This would save embarrassment for the airline & pilot which would also save the government money in court cases. We need to prevent the problem and not have the "I am going to get you" attitude. In aviation we have to work as a team not just with each other on the flight deck but with all other associated departments. If non-aviation people want to spout off and condemn us regarding our professionalism then they should tell us what they do so we can have a go at them.
Rant over.
ILS 119.5

perkin

21st Mar 2007, 19:17

"So fyank1 If you walked from the pub towardsyour car to get your brief case so that you can go home by taxi and the police nick for being drunk with intent to drive, that would be ok would it?"

Actually, yes the police could prosecute you for drink driving in this situation. The mere prescence of your car keys in your pocket, and even more so in your hand, can be taken as intent to drive, so perhaps the same rules ought to apply to someone at the pointy end of a commercial flight?

As one of the previous posters states, although it is obviously a rare occurrence, it is still very bad PR for an industry/profession which prides itself on safety and from an SLF perspective is rather disturbing. Either this guy was intent on piloting the flight or he has zero common sense turning up in uniform at the crew security area in that condition.

fox niner

21st Mar 2007, 19:28

Fyank1,

What a coincidence. you are one of the few people on this planet who actually took the time to attend he trial. Great, fair enough. But hey, look at this! you're also new on Pprune!

Probably decided to join pprune because of this trial, right?

And then bash away at all these pilots, by making some rrrrrreally questionable remarks like:

Mandatory breath testing for all operating commercial pilots now needs to be introduced to protect the travelling public

When I drive to the airport, I also want to be protected from drunk drivers. So shall we introduce a mandatory breath test for them as well before they drive off? I mean everyone?

Incidental surprise breathalizer testing, as is ongoing at this very moment, serves as a sufficient deterrent for all crewmembers not to report for duty while under influence.

Nov71

21st Mar 2007, 19:58

As the Judge is reported as saying No machine exists to determine intent. The wording of the Act in this respect is 'woolly' a bit like the legal definition of 'reasonable'

Reminds me of the story about the guy caught with a screwdriver in his pocket. The Police charged him with going equipped to commit burglary
The guy said 'you'd better charge me with rape as well'
Are you admitting to rape? he was asked

"No, but I carry the equipment all the time"

doublesix

21st Mar 2007, 20:04

Ok the trial is over and Mr Yates has been found not guilty. End of story unless the prosecution intend to appeal and that is highly unlikely. As a former police officer, if I had found myself unable to carry out my duties due to drink or anything else, I would have picked up the phone and rung in to say I was sick and gone back to bed. Surely American airlines have a crew briefing room or other way to report sick without turning up personally at the gate to report ill? Mr Yates has been found not guilty by the British legal system of the offence of which he was charged, but by his actions he brought it upon himself.

bjcc

21st Mar 2007, 20:31

He was found not guilty, whether thoise of us not on the Jury believe his version or not, doesn't matter, and it is pointless debabting if's and buts. He didn't do it in the eyes of those who matter.

What may come out of it is that those who fall within the act he was charged under, with MAY think twice before drinking and flying, or attempting to. That is surely good for everyone.

bomarc

21st Mar 2007, 20:35

found guilty? I thought the UK had guilty, not guilty, and innocent.

of course in the USA we have guilty and not guilty.

would someone clarify this for me?

Flying Lawyer

21st Mar 2007, 20:37

bjcc saysWhat may come out of it is that those who fall within the act he was charged under, with MAY think twice before drinking and flying, or attempting to. The overwhelming majority of pilots wouldn't dream of "drinking and flying, or attempting to."
The tiny minority who might be tempted already think twice.

I think what may come out of it is that those who don't intend to fly because they know (or suspect) they're over the limit won't go near airport security, and use some other method of declaring that they aren't fit to fly.

What may come out of it is that airport security "MAY think twice" about calling the police.
(But unlikely. ;) )

FL

bomarc
We don't have 'Innocent' as a verdict.
Someone found not guilty is presumed to be innocent.

QDMQDMQDM

21st Mar 2007, 21:23

What about his job? That's going to be the interesting thing.

groundbum

21st Mar 2007, 21:38

what comes of this decision is that next time security in the UK think they have a drunk pilot they will most likely not ring the alarm bells but will follow the person discretely and only once the suspect has entered the cockpit and touched a few buttons will they come crashing in.

whether this is a good way to do things or not .... this decision is a bit like police not being able to stop suspects because they may be accused of being racist etc etc

G

KC135777

21st Mar 2007, 21:45

What about his job? That's going to be the interesting thing.

IMO, he'll be back for requal fairly soon. Hell, he's had a whole 12 months to attend any/all alcohol treatment programs. I believe he attended one immediately following the incident last February. I would think he's been in a "holding" status, awaiting the outcome of this trial.

He has not been terminated.

ojs

21st Mar 2007, 21:47

Bomarc - with reference to the "Guilty, not guilty and innocent"...

Perhaps you're thinking of the Scottish legal system with its "Not Proven" verdict?

I believe I'm right in saying that somebody can't be punished if the verdict is "not proven". It's more of an indicator about the evidence presented.

fyrefli

21st Mar 2007, 21:51

found guilty? I thought the UK had guilty, not guilty, and innocent.

I think you're thinking of Scotland, where you have:

Guilty
Not Proven
Not Guilty

The rest of the UK just has Guilty and Not Guilty.

Edit: ah, you beat me to it!

Flying Lawyer

21st Mar 2007, 21:56

groundburn what comes of this decision is that next time security in the UK think they have a drunk pilot they will most likely not ring the alarm bells but will follow the person discretely and only once the suspect has entered the cockpit and touched a few buttons will they come crashing in. I doubt it but, assuming you're right, what's bad about that? :confused:
(Apart from 'come crashing in' rather than continuing to be discreet throughout.)
It would establish whether the pilot is intending to fly, or attempting to.

Another way would be to find out if he's reported for duty.

bomarc

22nd Mar 2007, 00:17

Thank you all for explaining the verdict possible under the UK/Scottish system.

I think we are all very lucky to live in countries that have legal systems that allow for fair trials.

as to whether the pilot had been drinking or not, I hope we all are a HECK of alot more careful about such things. Don't drink before flying and be darn sure that your conduct is above reproach.

Wedge

22nd Mar 2007, 00:40

I think we are all very lucky to live in countries that have legal systems that allow for fair trials.

I quite agree. Just that my experience is that pilots' views in general here (see JetBlast) are usually very hostile to the rights of the defendant in criminal cases. ;)

ROSUN

22nd Mar 2007, 01:42

KC135777

22nd Mar 2007, 03:20

Would you put your uniform on including one's hat, shiny shoes, stripes, pressed white shirt & tie to roll up to the gate to present one's self as not fit for work or put jeans & a t-shirt on then roll up to the gate and say "I don't feel like coming in today"? Just a thought.

Considering that we're (AA pilots) not allowed to nonrev on the aircraft in a t-shirt at all, or in jeans in 1st class, or get thru security WITH liquids when we're not in uniform....I'd go thru security in uniform (like I've mentioned in a previous post), get my boarding pass for my seat, then go to the men's restroom and take the white shirt/tie/hat off, and pack them, then put on a comfortable shirt with collar. Then, plan on sleeping the whole way back. Yes, that's exactly what I'd do. KC

Lasiorhinus

22nd Mar 2007, 04:39

Just at a guess, who's to say that he actually HAD jeans and a tshirt with him anyway?

If he had just overnighted and was departing the next morning, surely he would have brought his uniform, spare underwear, clean shirt, and pajamas?

Given the choice, I'd put the uniform back on rather than wear my jammies to the airport.

Anyway, at the end of the day he has been found not guilty. From the information Ive read, that appears to be a correct, well founded judgement, and a reminder to the rest of us to avoid Manchester - with so many pilots arrested for alcohol consumption there, possibly more than the rest of the country, if not the rest of the world combined...

StudentInDebt

22nd Mar 2007, 04:54

Would you put your uniform on including one's hat, shiny shoes, stripes, pressed white shirt & tie to roll up to the gate to present one's self as not fit for workActually, yes. I recently positioned back to base following an accident downroute that left me unfit for duty, as I was travelling on a flight deck jumpseat I had to be in uniform.

bjcc

22nd Mar 2007, 06:57

FL

Quote
"What may come out of it is that airport security "MAY think twice" about calling the police"

So you would prefer a pilot that had been drinking to fly?

I find what you say suprising. Airport Security are not Police. They don't have the knowladge of the ins and outs of legislation that you do. Their instrctions, as has been pointed out to you many times before is to call Police, not make a decision themselves. The penelty for them, if they don't follow their instructions to the latter is a P45. You may not like that, and it may not suit your argument, but what would you do given the 2 options?

I do accept that it is a tiny minority of crew (not just pilots) ATCO's and Engineers that do, or would do their job after having too much to drink, and like all legislation the idea is to deter, and only punish if that fails. The responsibility lays firmly at the feet of crew/ATCO's/Engineers, not with anyone else.

Flying Lawyer

22nd Mar 2007, 07:50

bjcc
FL

So you would prefer a pilot that had been drinking to fly?

I didn't say that.
Nor could any sensible and balanced person who's read my posts on this or the other 'alcohol' threads believe that is what I'd prefer.

I took time to explain the new law when it was introduced, and stressed the importance of pilots being even more careful to ensure they don't have any alcohol left in their system in case they fall foul of the new provisions inadvertently.

Although I wish you wouldn't, I accept I can't stop you misinterpreting what I say. I've tried many times, on numerous threads about legal matters over several years, but admitted defeat some time ago.

FL

In light of this case, I'd add some further advice to pilots:If you don't intend to fly because you know (or suspect) you're over the limit, don't go near airport security: Find some other method of declaring that you don't feel fit to fly.

Not being accused is infinitely preferable to being found Not Guilty a year later.

Anyone who's read about the case won't, of course, need me to state the obvious.

slip and turn

22nd Mar 2007, 11:41

Although I am sure the trial verdict was a perfectly legally correct one, I would suggest it is highly desirable that no pilot or crew in uniform is caught alcohol in hand, or alcohol on breath. I wouldn't do it because I feel that to do so shows a degree of contempt for the naturally puzzled views of those that have to witness it.

Re-entry

22nd Mar 2007, 13:43

Thread drift.

The accident rate in north american carriers, normalised for number of movements etc. is about 1/3 that of european carriers, and way less than the rest of the world.

doubledolphins

22nd Mar 2007, 14:19

Yes of course he should have rung in but it seems to be quite common now for aircrew to turn up for work sick, so some one else can see that they are sick, and send them home. I think you will find that his "crew room" was airside. Manchester airport security policy is that Aircrew will only be alowed airside on production of a valid ID and in uniform. Seems that the jury got it right.

Airbubba

22nd Mar 2007, 18:34

Yes of course he should have rung in but it seems to be quite common now for aircrew to turn up for work sick, so some one else can see that they are sick, and send them home.

Yes and here's more detail on his successful 'Ambien Sleepdrinking' defense:

Jury forgives pilot who 'drank whiskey in sleep'

By Russell Jenkins in London

March 23, 2007 03:19am

AN American Airlines pilot arrested at an airport after reportedly arriving for duty drunk was found not guilty yesterday after telling a jury that he must have consumed a third of a bottle of Irish whiskey in his sleep...

...He claimed a sleeping disorder might have led him to drink from a bottle of Bushmills whiskey the night before.

...He slapped colleagues on the back and grinned with delight when the verdict was announced.

Earlier, the jury was told he had left the Renaissance Hotel in Manchester for a seven-hour drinking session with his two fellow pilots.

He had drunk pints of beer in at least four pubs before retiring for a whiskey in the hotel bar.

Around midnight, he swallowed a sedative to help him to sleep.

When he woke up the next morning, after 9am, he could hear his captain banging on the hotel door.

He noticed that about a third of the Irish whiskey he had bought the previous night had been consumed, but he had no memory of drinking it.

He said that in the past his ex-wife, mother and fiancee had noticed he was capable of doing "strange things" in the middle of the night.

Once he had gone to bed, only to wake up in front of the television.

In evidence, he said that after the taxi driver taking him to the airport had rebuked him for his drunkenness he realised he was not in a fit state to carry out his flying duties...

Mr Yates, of Columbus, Ohio, may yet face internal disciplinary action by the airline.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21428740-2,00.html#

Heliport

22nd Mar 2007, 19:56

BBC News report

Jury clears drink-accused pilot

An airline pilot accused of turning up for work while six times over the limit to fly has been cleared.

American Airlines pilot James Yates, 46, from Ohio, was alleged to have arrived at Manchester Airport drunk, smelling of alcohol and unsteady.
Although he was over the limit, Mr Yates never intended to fly, Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court heard.
He was found not guilty of carrying out an activity ancillary to an aviation function while over the drink limit.

Earlier, the court heard he was to be one of three pilots on the American Airlines flight to Chicago on 11 February last year.
The jury heard he had been out for a drinking session in Manchester the night before he was due for work.
He was stopped when he could not find his pass at a security gate at the airport and was said to be dishevelled, red-faced and appeared drunk, the court heard.
But Mr Yates told police he turned up at the airport to tell the captain he was unfit for work and it was not his intention to be part of the crew.

He did not board the Boeing 767 aircraft, which had 181 passengers on board. Mr Yates was arrested after a postive breath test and taken to Altrincham Police Station where a doctor took a blood sample.
This gave a result of 129 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. The legal limit for flying an aircraft is 20 milligrams.

Earlier, the court was read a statement from Brigadier General Thomas Botchie, a senior commander in the Ohio National Guard, who had known Mr Yates since they were both fighter pilots in the 1980s.
"I have always found him to be a person of high morals and trustworthy," he said. "My opinion is, if James says he's telling the truth, he's telling the truth."

DownIn3Green

22nd Mar 2007, 20:53

Well, it seems as if we are beating this one to death....

However, all of the excuses I read from his fellow AA Pilot KC135777 are in my opinion just that...excuses....

Drinking whisky in one's sleep??? Get real...great defence for your FAA Certificate, but if you have that kind of problem, it seems to me that Oklahoma City (The US Medical Folks) should take a closer look at this guy....

Anyone with any long haul airline experience knows that "tomorrow's show time" is paramount....

Calling in "sick" for something you "ate" last night is one thing...

"Saying" you intended to call in sick (if you got caught, perhaps?) after the fact indicates that this is probably not the first time this pilot has been to this rodeo...

And by the way KC...why do you keep "shouting"?

KC135777

22nd Mar 2007, 22:24

excuses? no, technicalities, maybe....

I never knew about the conversation w/ the cab driver..so, it seems that "sick" was not just a reaction to getting nabbed.

I don't even know if he was charged with "intending" on flying, or carrying out duties as a crewmember.

shouting? if you're talking about the bold print....well, this 'quote' function seems to be manual (which I just figured out w/i the last day or so). I was just differentiating between my responses and the original poster. Sometimes, I DO capitalize (if that's what you're referring to) for emphasis on the specific word.....shouting? no, not me.

KC135777

bjcc

22nd Mar 2007, 22:33

FL

You consistantly say that Airport security should use a different policy towards Crew they think may have been drinking. I pointed out the consequences to them of your advice. I note as usual you didn't bother answering the question you were asked, are you now going to do so, or as usual cloud the issue?

Its a straight forward question, I'll repeat it for you.

You said
"What may come out of it is that airport security "MAY think twice" about calling the police."

In light of yoiur comments on this, and every other occation where a pilot has been arrested, the question to you was that given the option is call Police, or face the sack, which would you do in their position?

Flying Lawyer

22nd Mar 2007, 22:34

DownIn3Green

all of the excuses I read from his fellow AA Pilot KC135777 are in my opinion just that...excuses.... KC135777 raised a number of points for discussion in this thread. He asked questions about the law, and about what would be the legal position in various scenarios.
Two days after the thread started (in February 2006), he said this:
This pilot did NOT perform an aviation function,
he did NOT carry out an activity that was ancillary to an aviation function,
he did NOT act as a pilot of an aircraft during flight.
All he did was show up at the airport, attempted to go through security and got arrested, right?

From the outset, he consistently argued against jumping to conclusions on the basis of limited press reports, urging people to wait until the trial.
He sometimes misunderstood the quite tricky legislation, and I don't agree with every opinion he's expressed, but IMHO the cautious approach he steadfastly maintained in the face of considerable criticism by several (and sarcasm from a few) has been vindicated by the verdict.

"Saying" you intended to call in sick (if you got caught, perhaps?) after the fact indicates that this is probably not the first time this pilot has been to this rodeo... After the fact?
The evidence given by the taxi driver who drove the pilot to the airport helped the defence demolish the prosecution's claim that it was 'after the fact'.

Airbubba
The title of that article, "Jury forgives pilot", sets the tone for what follows. The jury didn't 'forgive' him. They found that he was Not Guilty.
The journalist who wrote that piece, which has appeared in several publications, chose to concentrate on one aspect of the pilot's evidence.
However, I'm told by one of my sources (who is in a position to know) that the judge left the jury with a clear decision to make -
If they were sure the pilot intended to fly: Guilty.
Otherwise, Not Guilty.

FL

Airbubba

22nd Mar 2007, 22:43

Just for context, the Ambien defense is all the rage in U.S. drunk driving cases these days.

Here's a New York Times article from a year ago posted on William 'Bubba' Head's DUI lawyer website:

http://www.georgiacriminaldefense.com/some-sleeping-pill-users-range-far-beyond-bed.htm

KC135777

22nd Mar 2007, 23:35

FL,
Thanks sir....about 'tipping one (or 3)'...they're on me.

So, for clarification, it appears he was charged NOT with carrying out an aviation duty? correct? But, was charged under Section 94 "preparing to carry out an aviation function" & "holding himself ready to carry out one of those functions"? Is that correct?

Also, what are the UK's requirements for a guilty verdict? like ours- "beyond a reasonable doubt" (although, I believe that's criminal, vs. civil trials) or maybe something less, like our civil requirements? Curious.

Thanks again for your inputs.

KC

RatherBeFlying

23rd Mar 2007, 01:48

Well, the accused pilot must be relieved to be spared a conviction, but I have a feeling he did not enjoy writing out a fat, even though well earned, check to his lawyer:uhoh:

So if you do wake up in a hotel having had too much to drink the night before (by whatever means) with only your uniform to put on, you may be wiser to call dispatch and say you're too sick to even get out of bed.

Flying Lawyer

23rd Mar 2007, 07:35

bjcc

“You consistantly say that Airport security should use a different policy towards Crew they think may have been drinking.”
My comments about airport security have depended upon the circumstances of the particular incident being discussed. I'm not sure any of them merit the description 'policy'.
To the best of my recollection, the only policy I've suggested in this context is that police constables should be required to consult a supervisory rank before breath-testing crew on board a public transport aircraft. IMHO it would reduce the risk of such incidents as this, also at Manchester: UK pilot breathalysed after go arounds (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=160845) . (It transpired to be both pilots.)
As a former constable, you understandably didn't agree with my suggestion.

“I pointed out the consequences to them of your advice.”
I haven't offered them any advice.

“I note as usual you didn't bother answering the question you were asked.”
I join in discussions I find interesting and, if asked questions, do my best to answer as many as my spare time permits. I’ve told you several times on various ‘legal’ threads why I now tend not to bother answering your questions.

“as usual cloud the issue?”
You’ve made that allegation on several occasions. If almost anyone else made it, I’d be concerned.
No-one else has. (I've been taking part in discussions since July 2000.)

You said "What may come out of it is that airport security "MAY think twice" about calling the police."
I adapted your phraseology to suggest it as a possibility, adding I thought it unlikely.
See post #286 for the context in which I made the suggestion.

"the option is call Police, or face the sack, which would you do in their position?"
Your question is based on a premise I don't accept. ie I do not accept they have to choose between "which" of only two options, one of which means facing the sack.
If you can support your assertion with an extract from an official document I’ll look at it and consider if it changes my view.

What I'd do would depend upon the circumstances.
In circumstances such as those discussed in this thread (airline pilot arriving alone, not part of a crew, appears to have been drinking), I'd ask him if he was on duty or intending to report for duty.
My actions thereafter would, in part, depend upon his answer:
(a) If he said he wasn’t and wished to inform his captain he was unfit for duty, I’d refuse to allow him airside and tell him he'd have to contact his company by some other means. If there was a telephone available, I'd allow him to use it. I’d tell him what (if any) further action I intended to take. eg Recording the incident, reporting it to someone in a senior position. I would not call the police.
(b) If he said he was on duty or intending to report for duty, I’d refuse to allow him airside, explaining I suspected he'd been drinking, and tell him I intended to report my suspicions to someone at a senior level so that they could decide what action to take.
If I was in a senior position -
Scenario (a): I'd see no reason to report the matter to the police.
Scenario (b): I'd inform the pilot's company. I'd need more information before deciding whether to call the police.

Others might act differently. That is what I would do.
I do not accept that someone taking the actions I've mentioned would face the sack.

RatherBeFlying
I don’t know if the pilot paid privately or, as in virtually all criminal trials in the Crown Court, his defence was funded by Legal Aid. (The title has been changed; I use the well-known expression.)
If privately, he would be entitled to have his costs reimbursed following his acquittal.

FL