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

HPCR

11th Feb 2006, 15:53

FOR RELEASE: Saturday, February 11, 2006

STATEMENT FROM AMERICAN AIRLINES REGARDING ARREST OF CREW MEMBER AT MANCHESTERAIRPORT

American Airlines has confirmed that a crew member for today’s (February 11, 2006) Manchester-Chicago scheduled service was arrested at a security checkpoint by Police at Manchester Airport following suspicions that he was under the influence of alcohol.

The crew member was a relief First Officer who on American Airlines’ flights provides back-up for the two pilots (Captain and First Officer) on sectors of over eight hours duration. He was taken into the custody of Manchester Police and released on bail. An investigation into the circumstances of this event was immediately launched by the airline and no further details of the incident will be released until this is completed.

The flight departed from Manchester at 11:25 a.m. local time with a delay of fifty five minutes and it is planned to make an intermediate technical stop in New York to supplement the original crew. The flight’s arrival into Chicago will be delayed until approximately 3:49 p.m. local time, some two hours and fifty minutes late. American Airlines Flight 55 is operated by a Boeing 767-300 and today carried198 passengers and eleven flight crew.

American Airlines has apologised to all passengers for the inconvenience caused and has made alternative arrangements for those with connecting flights.

Our primary concern is for the safety and comfort of our passengers and crews. American Airlines has strict policies on alcohol and substance abuse and holds its employees to the highest standards. Employees at all levels of the company are not allowed to be on duty whilst under the influence of drugs or alcohol and regular screening is carried out. Support is available for those employees who seek help for problems with substance abuse.

We hope that this isolated incident is not allowed to detract from the professionalism of American Airlines employees and the tens of thousands of professional aircrew worldwide.

-ends-

Heliport

11th Feb 2006, 17:22

We hope that this isolated incident is not allowed to detract from .........

A little premature to be saying that when he hasn't (yet?) been proved to have done anything wrong.

:confused:

bjcc

11th Feb 2006, 17:30

Whats more interesting is the statement says he's due to appear in Court on Monday.

Normaly, people are bailed for up to 6 weeks for samples to be anyalised.....

captjns

11th Feb 2006, 18:07

Let's not be premature and hang the man in blue until the facts and results are in. If he'e innocent, then the man is due an appology. If he's guilty then he should be prosecuted to full extent of the law.... and may he be entered into the Darwin book of fame for stupidity:hmm:

lexxity

11th Feb 2006, 18:39

This is a direct link to the beeb story http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4704518.stm

flash8

11th Feb 2006, 19:16

Lets start a unique trend on pprune, that is, make the presumption that this guy is innocent until proven guilty (if in fact he is).

I have little hope though, the usual degenerative talk by the armchair analysts is sadly unavoidable.

TURIN

11th Feb 2006, 19:30

Anyone who thinks that this chap is instantly guilty should find the thread on the PIA captain who was also arrested at MAN last year.

He got an apology from the coppers and he's suing everyone else.:ok:

LatviaCalling

11th Feb 2006, 19:47

I'm splitting hairs here, but according to the AA statement, wasn't he a relief pilot who would have come on duty after landing in the U.S. If he was wearing a uniform, does that have anything to do with it? In any case, he would not be at the controls from MAN.

Stuck_in_an_ATR

11th Feb 2006, 19:49

What the hell is with MAN??? 9 out of 10 drunk pilot charges happen @ MAN. I guess you gotta be extra careful there...

Flyingphil

11th Feb 2006, 19:56

MAN MAN MAN

Something is wrong @MAN!
Alsways when I read about drunken pilots in Europe they are arrested @MAN
Very seldom that this occured somewhere else.

What is wrong at that airport? Is there a bar in the Terminal where you get Whiskey-Coke if you order a diet coke or what's up there?

According to the relief pilot:
He is linked to company policies.
All airlines I know have a "No-Alcohol-When-Wearing-Uniform"-Policy in their Staff-Guide.
So even when he was on private travel he broke internal rules if he had consumed alcohol.

As a relief-pilot he was supposed to take over control of the plane during the Atlantic-Crossing.
So in fact he would have flown drunken - clear broke of the well-known rules, §1.

Kind Regards

broadreach

11th Feb 2006, 20:41

An interesting aspect is that AA's crisis management team had a neutralising response ready.

PAXboy

11th Feb 2006, 21:05

broadreach any PR department has a swatch of press releases ready to go. They would start with a minor thing like this and go via the resignation/death of the Chairman + CEO, through to a hull loss. These will have been pre-approved by the lawyers and all they have to do is fill in the relevant details. It's the same as the newspapers having their obituraries of Sir Freddie all waiting in the drawer. It's no issue.

Flying Lawyer

11th Feb 2006, 21:13

Stuck_in_an_ATR
What the hell is with MAN?
I don't know if there is or isn't, but it was at Manchester that there was the incident (discussed on PPRuNe at the time) where two police constables breathtested both pilots following a complaint by some woman passenger that it had been a bumpy landing. :rolleyes:
Neither had any alcohol in their system.
(Well, the pilots didn't. I don't know about the constables.)

Flyingphil
Something is wrong @MAN!
You may be right, but I think there's something wrong with people who jump to conclusions of guilt on insufficient evidence, bring in irrelevant considerations and use the word "drunken" in the irresponsible manner commonly used by some sections of the press in circumstances such as these.

We don't yet know if the pilot has committed an offence.
Even if you're correct about company rules, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the criminal law.
Even if he is found to have alcohol in his system, it does not follow that he was drunk.I note that you're a student studying Aviation Management.
I'm sure professional pilots reading your post will look forward to the day when you become a Manager.

FL

Rwy in Sight

11th Feb 2006, 21:56

Latvia calling,

What do you mean he would be in duty after landing in the US. AA carry a second officer just for the taxing in the destination?

Rwy in Sight

ChrisVJ

11th Feb 2006, 22:17

Question, not speculating on the individual case but asking generally:

If a pilot is flying as "Relief" in the passenger cabin can he be charged with "being intoxicated while in charge of a plane" If so, when you get in the car with your wife, and she drives because you have had a couple too many can you be charged?

I expect the law varies from place to place but if I remember correctly the two pilots charged in the US were specifically arrested because they were in the cockpit and "in charge."

soddim

11th Feb 2006, 22:42

I understand that the offence is committed if one is over the rather low limit and engaged in an 'aviation related' task. That would seem to apply to many types of job in the industry.

Danny

11th Feb 2006, 22:44

In order to avoid this thread diverging into yet another 'teach the masses about flight time limitations and duty periods' I'll try and answer the question above. A 'relief' pilot is part of the operational crew. The relief pilot does not act as pilot flying (PF) or pilot not flying (PNF) during the first part or last part of a flight. He or she will only act as PF or PNF during the cruise when one of the other pilots can take a break. In other words the relief pilot is an operational member of the crew who is there in order to provide 'relief' to the other two pilots during the cruise on long flights. In the case of American Airlines I believe that it is any flight with a sector over 8 hours although I stand to be corrected.

So, whilst the mention in the news articles is that a 'relief pilot' was arrested for being over the legal LIMIT, it doesn't mean that the pilot was 'drunk' or any variation of 'drunk' that the media are likely to use. For pilots, the blood alcohol limit is one quarter of the driving limit which is in effect, zero or just above zero allowing for naturally produced alcohol in the body.

This pilot is innocent until proven guilty and with Manchesters reputation for getting it wrong I think the commentators on here should withhold judgement until the case is tried. Already the media have hyped this up and are asking if this is a problem amongst airline pilots. I have already had to point out to them that considering the number of airline pilots and the number of aircraft movements a day, the fact that you can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of instances of pilots being over the legal limit, never mind actually 'drunk', there is no 'problem' with such insignificant numbers.

So, a pilot has been arrested for being over the limit. That is all we know so far and until the case comes to court, it is best to keep the discussion to what we know. For the enthusiasts, a three or more crew consists of Commander, co-pilot and relief pilot/s. The relief doesn't sit in the cabin quaffing champagne and then take over to taxi at the destination but relieves the other two pilots during the cruise.

Nov71

12th Feb 2006, 01:41

Read the BBC report guys -
He was arrested on SUSPICION of being drunk or under the influence of drugs eg slurred speech, wobbly gait, flushed & sweating, all possible symptoms of other things though MAN traffic police often go on smell of breath, again could be sign of something else - mouthwash
He was bailed, pending tests
He has to report to Police on Mon for test results - then released or charged, he is not in Court on Mon
MAN is not a BAA airport, it has a high threat level (US airlines, El Al PIA etc) and often the target for undercover 'red top' reporters. Every time a mistake is made, the screw tightens If the relief pilot is exonerated I hope the fact is fully reported. That's one more for the UK DNA database if G dubbaya allows it.

Flyingphil

12th Feb 2006, 07:34

Sorry Lawyer, but I don't get your point.

I just stated that ALL Airlines I know forbit the consumption of alcohol when their staff wears uniform.
If this is a practical way of keeping a good reputation is another issue.
Personally I am able to identify people in T-Shirt and Jeans in the Hotel-Bar as the Crew of Airline XYZ that checked in 45 minutes before;)

It is for sure, that this guy -if he is guilty- broke internal and international rules.
He ignored §1, "Nobody under the influence of alcohol(...) is allowed to take over control of an airplane" (Which was Intended) and he ignored company policies.
I would be very surprised if this policy is not existing in the AA-Manuals.
As far as I know all european carriers copied this part from US-Airlines

That's all I stated!

bjcc

12th Feb 2006, 07:43

Nov71

'Read the BBC report guys -
He was arrested on SUSPICION of being drunk or under the influence of drugs eg slurred speech, wobbly gait, flushed & sweating, all possible symptoms of other things though MAN traffic police often go on smell of breath, again could be sign of something else - mouthwash'

Where do you get the drugs bit from? I have re read the BBC report, and it does not mention drugs as being a reason for arrest.

Nor does it mention the 'signs' of being drunk you mention.

I think you may be confused when you mention MAN trafpol 'going' on a smell of breath, as your post implies that is used as evidence of drunkeness. it can be part of that evidence, but is more used as a reason to breath test, to provide evidence for driving/flying above a prescribed limit.

IF someone displays the 'signs' of being drunk you mention, then yes, if the officer can arrest on that, but would probably still give a breath test, thus eliminating the cause being 'other things'. If the person is arrested, the a doctor would examine the prsioner at the Police station again, eliminating the other causes.

The prescribed limit does not show drunkeness, it is an arbitary limit of the amount of alcohol you can have in your body when doing a task, nothing more.

AA's statement mentions him appearing in Court on Monday. The BBC's press report says he will return to the Police Station on Tuesday. Interesting difference, but in either case, suprising it is that quick.

RoyHudd

12th Feb 2006, 08:49

The Ceefax teletext news item on Saturday afternoon referred to a "drunk" pilot, in its headline. Without evidence.

This is downright dishonest and misleading reporting. I am looking for the opportunity to sue the Corporation, and this may just be the material. Anyone else view the BBC this way?

ZQA297/30

12th Feb 2006, 11:39

This could be an interesting incident.
If the chap was going on as a relief pilot, and did not board as part of the designated cockpit crew, how would one determine what his B.A.C. would be when he finally went into cockpit to assume flying duties.
If he had stopped drinking more than 12 hours before he got into a flying seat, and his B.A.C. was by then below the proscribed limit would he be committing an offence, or not?

Danny

12th Feb 2006, 11:49

I give in! :rolleyes:

A relief pilot IS part of an OPERATING crew. It doesn't matter if he is acting as relief or not. It is your condition when you report for duty. Why is it so difficult for people to understand this? :hmm:

The pilot was arrested on suspition of being over the limit. How he pleads and any subsequent court case will determine whether he is guilty or not based on the evidence provided. It really is as simple as that.

What he was wearing when he was in the bar, assuming he was in a bar, whether he was relief pilot, PF or PNF is irrelevant. What will be interesting is who decided that he appeared to be over the limit and informed the police. Could it be another one of those disgruntled hotel employees who didn't get a tip? A bit of patience and less barrackroom lawyering would be good for a start. :rolleyes:

geraintw

12th Feb 2006, 11:57

Whats more interesting is the statement says he's due to appear in Court on Monday.
Normaly, people are bailed for up to 6 weeks for samples to be anyalised.....

I'm not sure how testing works with aircrew, but with drivers, they are breathalysed at the roadside (incidentally our breath test units ask when being powered up if they are for use by aircrew). If the person fails at the roadside, they are arrested on SUSPICION of having more than the permitted level of alcohol in their breath. The reason why it's suspicion is because the roadside units are not as accurate as the station breath test machine. Thus they are then taken to the station and tested there. It is the results from that machine which are used to decide if to charge, the lowest reading being used. Only if there is a valid reason not to give a breath sample or a problem with the equipment can they go to blood which is then sent off to be analysed. But for road traffic and railway offences, the result of the station breath test procedure is sufficient without a need to go to blood.

bjcc

12th Feb 2006, 12:08

Railsways & Transport Safety Act 2003

S 92
(1) A person commits an offence if-

(a) he performs an aviation function at a time when his ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs, or
(b) he carries out an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function at a time when his ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
(2) In this section "drug" includes any intoxicant other than alcohol.

(3) Section 94 defines "aviation function" and "ancillary activity" for the purposes of this Part.

S 93
1) A person commits an offence if-

(a) he performs an aviation function at a time when the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit, or
(b) he carries out an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function at a time when the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit.
(2) The prescribed limit of alcohol is (subject to subsection (3))-

(a) in the case of breath, 9 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,
(b) in the case of blood, 20 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and
(c) in the case of urine, 27 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.
(3) In relation to the aviation function specified in section 94(1)(h) the prescribed limit is-

(a) in the case of breath, 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,
(b) in the case of blood, 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and
(c) in the case of urine, 107 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending subsection (2) or (3).

(5) Section 94 defines "aviation function" and "ancillary activity" for the purposes of this

S 94

(1) For the purposes of this Part the following (and only the following) are aviation functions-

(a) acting as a pilot of an aircraft during flight,
(b) acting as flight navigator of an aircraft during flight,
(c) acting as flight engineer of an aircraft during flight,
(d) acting as flight radio-telephony operator of an aircraft during flight,
(e) acting as a member of the cabin crew of an aircraft during flight,
(f) attending the flight deck of an aircraft during flight to give or supervise training, to administer a test, to observe a period of practice or to monitor or record the gaining of experience,

That ought to answer the questions regarding his laibility to provide a screening breath test, if thats what happened, and be arrested.

Danny

You assume that he was arrested for having a BAC above the prescribed limit (S93). He may have been, or may not. There is a second offence(s92) of being unfit through alcohol. Again, he may or may not have been arrested for that.

I do hope we are not going to have yet another attack on 'grasses'. As other have pointed out, innocent until proved guilty. That applies as much to 'grasses' as this pilot.

geraintw

The reason why it is interesting is because the agreement with the CAA and Police is that blood will normally be anaylised, not breath as in the RTA. Blood tests usually take a couple of weeks to come back, and therefore the suspect is bailed for around 6 weeks, not a couple of days.

One can guess at why that is (assmuming the AA statement regarding court on Monday is incorrect) .

fudpucker

12th Feb 2006, 12:09

Danny, as always you've put the actual situation succinctly and accurately. Unfortunately, as I think I may have proven on another topic, people do not read what is actually posted, they read what they think is posted.

BusyB

12th Feb 2006, 12:29

ZQA297/30,
If you are a relief pilot you ARE a member of the designated crew and go on duty at the same time.

If you are not a pilot please don't post outside your areas of expertise (if any).

Heliport

12th Feb 2006, 12:38

Danny has already summarised the legal position.
There is more detailed information and discussion relating to the UK law here -

Alcohol and Flying: The New Law (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=113035)

bjcc
There have been instances of disgruntled people (security screeners and others) making complaints against pilots to the police. This being a professional pilots website, it is inevitable and entirely understandable that there have been discussions about that aspect.

bjcc

12th Feb 2006, 12:56

Heliport

There are cases where that is thought to be the position.

But it hasn't been shown, beyond an assumption, that it is based on anything other than a sense of public duty.

If that assumption had some basis, it would be an everyday occurrance, it isn't, so the suspcion doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

I can understand some of the comments, but they do have a habit of going beyond whats reasonable, and of course the victim of the comments cannot reply, or justify their position.

All I am suggesting is that perhaps this time, instead of blaming a member of the public, people stick to the point.

airliner1999

12th Feb 2006, 14:57

There is no official relief pilot position for crews on AA as far as I am concerned. Officially, for the 8hour plus flight, in this instance, there is one captain and two first officers. If one of the first officers is considered the relief, that is decided by the captain in the cockpit and most likely no earlier than one hour prior to flight. The term is just spin for any future justification to be lenient on the guy.

first time offense and he'll still be flying. Just hope never gets into a situation like this again.

captjns

12th Feb 2006, 17:24

Tartan Giant

12th Feb 2006, 18:23

I agree with all that Flying Lawyer and Danny have said.

One small technical point from the AA Statement:

American Airlines Flight 55 is operated by a Boeing 767-300 and today carried 198 passengers and eleven flight crew.

eleven flight crew:confused:

Would I be correct in assuming AA realy meant to say, 2 flight crew and 9 cabin crew?

If there was indeed 11 "flight crew" then AA could pick and chose which were realy on duty, and that particular F/O could say he was not 'on duty' and was a pax dressed as an AA pilot........ ;)

I hope the AA pilot proves once again that it's another Manchester false alarm:rolleyes:

TG

ZQA297/30

12th Feb 2006, 19:48

There certainly was a "relief FO" in the AMR contract, as amended, up to 8/31/01. They were called "international relief first officers (FB and FC positions)" in Supplement I to the AMR97Contract, as amended.

Not aware that this has changed recently, but it is possible.
1 was required for 8 plus hrs in 2 man aircraft, 2 for 12 plus hrs.

stilton

12th Feb 2006, 19:58

'Flight Crew' is just another politically correct Americanism that seems to be used commonly over here now on the west side of the pond, that lumps us Pilots in with the F/A's.

Not by choice!

Sincerely hope the AA pilot in question (if indeed guilty) does not lose everything and is able to
recover from this.

ZQA297/30

12th Feb 2006, 20:06

Actually Stilton, it's worse than you think, according to FAR 1.1 you are all "crewmembers" not even flight crew.:(

Unwell_Raptor

12th Feb 2006, 20:16

Alcohol testing of drivers will soon be carried out with new, more accurate roadside testing machines which will eliminate the need to carry out the second, evidential, test at the police station. I wonder if this will spread to aviation?

Sunfish

12th Feb 2006, 20:24

I suspect that while the person may have transgressed company policy if, in fact, he had alcohol in his system, I'm not sure he would be in breach of the Act.

My reasoning (please to correct) is that he wasn't performing an aviation function within the meaning of the act, at the time he was tested, and by the time he was to be called upon to perform an aviation function, he could be below the limit.

A strict reading of the definition of aviation function:

(1) For the purposes of this Part the following (and only the following) are aviation functions-

(a) acting as a pilot of an aircraft during flight,
(b) acting as flight navigator of an aircraft during flight,
(c) acting as flight engineer of an aircraft during flight,
(d) acting as flight radio-telephony operator of an aircraft during flight,
(e) acting as a member of the cabin crew of an aircraft during flight,
(f) attending the flight deck of an aircraft during flight to give or supervise training, to administer a test, to observe a period of practice or to monitor or record the gaining of experience,

Was the person concerned required to do anything except sit down, strap in and shut up until required for relief?

ZQA297/30

12th Feb 2006, 21:17

Agree with you Sunfish, as far as it goes, but Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 go on to describe ancilliary functions, which are difficult to read and interpret.

"(3) For the purposes of this Part a reference to an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function is a reference to anything which falls to be treated as such by virtue of subsections (4) to (6).
(4) An activity shall be treated as ancillary to an aviation function if it is undertaken-

(a) by a person who has reported for a period of duty in respect of the function, and

(b) as a requirement of, for the purpose of or in connection with the performance of the function during that period of duty.
(5) A person who in accordance with the terms of an employment or undertaking holds himself ready to perform an aviation function if called upon shall be treated as carrying out an activity ancillary to the function.
(6) Where a person sets out to perform an aviation function, anything which he does by way of preparing to perform the function shall be treated as an activity ancillary to it."

The tricks are that, under the FARs, 121.543 for example, it is possible that the pilot may only be qualified for the cruise part of the flight, so he cannot (5) "hold himself ready" to perform until that point. May not apply here if pilot is fully qualified for duty in any segment of flight.
Which begs the question, effectively when does he (4 .a) "report for duty"?
(6)When does he prepare, and what preparation does he do?

Tartan Giant

12th Feb 2006, 22:43

Actually Stilton, it's worse than you think, according to FAR 1.1 you are all "crewmembers" not even flight crew.:(

Well, that's a real lowering of status if I ever I saw it!:eek:

It makes life easy for these PC pen-pushers if 11 "crewmembers" are on a flying machine; when does it get down to the nitty-gritty and these PC buggers recognise the "technical crew" apart from the cabin crew? Just in the pay packet egh.
I suppose airlines in the USA give CC a full set of wings too now, and 2/3/4 rings around the sleeves of their tunics!

It follows then CEO of a Fortune 500 company is just a little member of staff egh!;)

Take care

TG

bjcc

12th Feb 2006, 22:55

ZQA297/30

He reported for duty. Therefore I would suggest he satisfies Subsection 4, 5 and 6.

Unfortunatly, AA have stuffed him, by saying in their statement, he was a 'relief First Officer'.

Irrespective of his BAC (if that is the offence for which he has been arrested) at the time he actualy lays hands on any controls, he is 'in play'.

Of course it's open to him to argue the fact in court, should he be charged (if he already hasn't been) He may even win on it. Then again if I were facing 6 months I would grasp at anything I could too.

jondc9

12th Feb 2006, 23:40

it is a NO NO to be in uniform and to even be in a bar...unless it is a restaurant that serves food and the bar is incidental to getting to the food part.

again, this pilot is innocent until proven guilty...I am glad this happened in a civilized country!

the relief pilot is sometimes known as an international relief officer to allow segments longer than 8 hours to be flown. while another pilot is resting, he/she is in the cockpit doing their job. usually the pilot is in the cockpit for takeoff and landing too, another pair of eyes and that rot.

I think American elected to fly the flight to chicago with a stop in new york...the trip would then be less than 8 hours and they could operate with 2 pilots. Of course once in New York (neuvo york) a new crew would have to take over to go on to Chicago.

of course New York just had 26.9 inches of snow...we shall see how things go!

sadly, drunk pilots or accused drunk pilots are part of the problem of the downsizing of life for pilots...it used to be that if you had a problem, you called up someone and got up to a year off with full pay to deal with it...after that if you couldn't deal with it you could get half pay for a long long time rather than fly.

of course with problems , airlines (not american though...but not sure) have cut such things in one way or another...depression, alcoholism, hiding medical problems, will increase as benefits decrease.

regards

jon

arewenearlythereyet?

13th Feb 2006, 01:37

Airbubba

13th Feb 2006, 02:20

>>first time offense and he'll still be flying. Just hope never gets into a situation like this again.

Huh? I think reporting for duty drunk is a little more serious than this these days for U.S. carriers...

Usual caveats, we don't know the details, innocent until proven guilty, it could have been swamp gas or ripe fruit etc., etc., etc...

Sunfish

13th Feb 2006, 04:06

Dear arewenearlythereyet. I have simply pointed out two things.

1. AA's rules and procedures are not the law of the United Kingdom.

2. Should the gentlemen concerned be charged, it will be an English Court that interprets the law.

As for your insulting references to the simple speculation I'm engaging in, all I can say is that you have obviously never seen the creativity of a QC in full flight defending a client.

P.S. - Reading the definition of "ancilliary" suggests to me that if I make my flight plan the night before over a few drinks then I am actually committing an offence - whether or not I've made an alcohol induced mistake.

KC135777

13th Feb 2006, 05:06

regarding- the captain deciding which FO acts as the FO and the other as the FB...well, at AA the 2 positions are bid separately. If I were the FO, and the Captain and I didn't get along so great, and on the way back, he said he wants the FB in the seat for t/o and landing (act as SIC/FO for the trip home), I'd tell him I was going to have to call crew schedule and report 'sick'. Then, as I'm proceeding to do that, ask him if that was what he still wanted to do? :ok: That would screw up his > 8 hr flight! :)

The FB usually does the cockpit preflight and walkaround. There is NOTHING in the AA manuals that mandate these duties though, or the necessity to sit in the cockpit, for t/o & landing. So, if he wasn't 'feeling' very good at report time, the Captain 'could' have sat him in pilot's first class relief seat to get better. That could have been for ALL ground ops and 3 or 4 hours after t/o.

For you UK guys, did they take him to the hospital for breathalizer, or blood test? anyone know? How do the 2003 laws regarding BAC measurements convert to typical American measurements? Normally, driving while under the influence is .08% BAC to .1% BAC. Under the FAA mandated drug & alcohol testing program, a positive test (at AA) is considered .02%BAC or greater.

So, the folks at MAN have a bad reputation, eh? Are we talking about the security screeners, or other personnel?

KC135777

13th Feb 2006, 05:09

I think American elected to fly the flight to chicago with a stop in new york...the trip would then be less than 8 hours and they could operate with 2 pilots. Of course once in New York (neuvo york) a new crew would have to take over to go on to Chicago. of course New York just had 26.9 inches of snow...we shall see how things go! jon

Yep, they stopped in JFK and got a new crew (2), and DH'd to ORD. They were about 3+15 late in ORD. They beat the snowstorm on the East Coast.

KC135777

13th Feb 2006, 05:24

Railsways & Transport Safety Act 2003
S 92
(1) A person commits an offence if-

(a) he performs an aviation function at a time when his ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs, or
(b) he carries out an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function at a time when his ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
(2) In this section "drug" includes any intoxicant other than alcohol.

(3) Section 94 defines "aviation function" and "ancillary activity" for the purposes of this Part.

S 93
1) A person commits an offence if-

(a) he performs an aviation function at a time when the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit, or
(b) he carries out an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function at a time when the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit.
(2) The prescribed limit of alcohol is (subject to subsection (3))-

(a) in the case of breath, 9 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,
(b) in the case of blood, 20 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and
(c) in the case of urine, 27 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.
(3) In relation to the aviation function specified in section 94(1)(h) the prescribed limit is-

(a) in the case of breath, 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,
(b) in the case of blood, 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and
(c) in the case of urine, 107 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending subsection (2) or (3).

(5) Section 94 defines "aviation function" and "ancillary activity" for the purposes of this

S 94

(1) For the purposes of this Part the following (and only the following) are aviation functions-

(a) acting as a pilot of an aircraft during flight,
(b) acting as flight navigator of an aircraft during flight,
(c) acting as flight engineer of an aircraft during flight,
(d) acting as flight radio-telephony operator of an aircraft during flight,
(e) acting as a member of the cabin crew of an aircraft during flight,
(f) attending the flight deck of an aircraft during flight to give or supervise training, to administer a test, to observe a period of practice or to monitor or record the gaining of experience,

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? I'm guessing, when arrested, they didn't even know how many hours in the future he was to actually START his duties.
Sure, we all know where he was going, and what he was going to do.
BUT, in this above R&TSA 2003 UK law, I'm not seeing anything about the "contemplation" of performance of the above mentioned duties/activities.
Am I missing something here? How about "conspiracy to commit" the above mentioned aviation duties/activities? Well, doesn't conspiracy REQUIRE an intent to commit an illegal activity? A person never actually knows whether he is legal or illegal (over the limit, or under the limit) if he thinks he might be "close". So how could he have definitive knowledge of an illegal BAC? Is there anything further in the UK law about this? I'd really like to know.

Let's just hope this is an overzealous MAN employee. :ok:

Final 3 Greens

13th Feb 2006, 05:32

Am I missing something here?

Yes, please read what Danny (and others) have written about the consequence of reporting for duty.

Flying Lawyer

13th Feb 2006, 07:51

Sunfish
Although blunt, I don't think the comments made by arewenearlythereyet (and others) are surprising.

The legal position has been pointed out several times:
If his role on the flight has been correctly described, he comes within the provisions of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003.

KC135777
Are you seriously suggesting the pilot was off duty unless and until the moment he was called upon to actually fly the aircraft?

Re knowledge:
Whether or not a pilot knows his BAC exceeds the prescribed limit is not relevant under the Act.
UK law? :confused:
I'm open to correction, but I understand US law relating to pilots and alcohol is the same.

The same applies to drivers in the UK. Knowledge is irrelevant.
Again, I'm open to correction but I believe the same applies in the US.
It certainly does in some states.

Whether or not the pilot has committed any offence is, of course, a separate matter. We don't yet know if he was impaired because of drink or drugs or if the proportion of alcohol in his body (if any) exceeded the limit prescribed by the Act.

NB:
I'm assuming simply for the purpose of this discussion that the role of the AA pilot has been correctly described in the very limited reports currently available.
If that changes, so may the opinions I've expressed.

FL

westhawk

13th Feb 2006, 07:57

After reading the applicable British law kindly posted by another forum member, it seems concievable to me that even if an American relief pilot could possibly be found to be innocent of any violation of british law while exceeding the allowable BAC %, he could still be found to be in violation of US FARs for the following reason:

1) Appendix J to FAR part 121 defines the terms used for the purpose of the alcohol misuse prevention program air carriers are required to administer. Here is the definition of "performing a safety sensitive function":

Performing (a safety-sensitive function): an employee is considered to be performing a safety-sensitive function during any period in which he or she is actually performing, ready to perform, or immediately available to perform such functions.

This may differ somewhat from the British law definition in that a relief pilot would quite clearly be considered "immediately available to perform such functions" by the FAA and would therefore be a "covered employee" under the rules. The full text of appendix J (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=5697ce7481b183ad9c335a06bf874100&rgn=div9&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.4.19.26.11.5.55&idno=14) is a bit long and drawn out, but covers the subject pretty fully. 91.17 (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=5697ce7481b183ad9c335a06bf874100&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.1.4.9&idno=14) has some relevance to the matter as well.

Just as an aside, a BAC of .02% does not constitute a violation of the US rules. .04% BAC is the threshold for violation. However, a "covered employee" may not be allowed to perform safety-sensitive functions following testing until they test below .02% BAC or 8 hours after the first test if it was below .04% but .02% or more. Tests exceeding .04% are a violation of the alcohol misuse policy and the employee may not be returned to duty until completing a "program" and receiving clearance. 2nd offences result in permanent disqualification from performing such functions. Offences by medical certificate holders require notification of the federal air surgeon.

So even if he is exonerated of the British charges on the basis that he was not performing a listed function, there could still be serious trouble ahead if he is in violation of FARs. The only "good" outcome for him will be that the test comes back at less than .04% BAC. For his sake, I hope this is all some terrible misunderstanding on the part of the authorities involved. Every one of these instances is bad for all of us. The public only sees the sensational "drunk pilot" headline and rarely takes note of the fact that most of these cases are ultimately found to be baseless. And there are just enough idiots who are guilty to provide justification to the suspicions felt by the security types. I'll reserve judgement until the facts come out.

Best regards,

Westhawk

Flying Lawyer

13th Feb 2006, 08:14

westhawk

Section 94 (5):
"A person who in accordance with the terms of an employment or undertaking holds himself ready to perform an aviation function if called upon shall be treated as carrying out an activity ancillary to the function."

ie The Act applies (for example) to a pilot on Standby at home.

FL

(My comments in this and previous posts are based on his role as currently reported.)

Tartan Giant

13th Feb 2006, 10:00

Will someone please get the amateur lawyers/spotters/enthusiasts off this thread! For the umpteenth time, a relief pilot is a part of the OPERATING crew. Why can you not get that into your muddled heads. It is so obvious to the rest of us that operate these kinds of flights, with three or more crew, that you are posting drivel about not being on duty or whatever based on your total lack of experience. That makes you just a bunch of spotty amateurs, probably spotters, trying to get your posts read on here when in fact your are just a bunch of neanderthals spouting utter bovine excrement.

There is NOTHING about this pilot being in uniform and drinking alcohol in a bar. The fact that he was a relief pilot matters not one iota. If he REPORTS for duty, he has REPORTED for duty.

Please, go and find a website that caters for radio controlled models or something similar and leave this to adults, preferably those actually involved as airline pilots, to discuss this based on INFORMED speculation and not the pathetic waffle we keep seeing repeated on here by the likes of Sunfish, ZQ and Tartan.

arewenearlythereyet?
The unprofessional title/"handle" you use, and the lack of any authentication of your PILOT qualifications, could make you the one spouting utter bovine excrement.

I duly admit:O and yeild to the fact I did not know that the PC brigade in the USA had grouped Flight Deck Crew amongst the Cabin Crew, into the generic term crewmembers.

If you notice thereafterarewenearlythereyet?, I took the half-joking route of suggesting that with so many "Flight Crew" on board, the guilty could be tricky to find amongst the woodpile. I probably should not have done so, as the matter is so serious.

I shall let you slumber onarewenearlythereyet? knowing that your professionalism requires somebody else (maybe even the cabin crew) to tell you when you are nearly there - every time you go somewhere.

I think even you will get the gist of my background, and with glorious hindsight, realise your remarks were not appreciated.

On closing, I do NOT condone any Flight Crew member, or Cabin Staff member, reporting for duty having broken the drink/fly rules.

TG (now a spotty amateur:D - after 38 years [qualified adult:{ ] and touching 25,000 hrs)

ZQA297/30

13th Feb 2006, 10:23

Like Tartan Giant I have been engaged in professional aviation for 40 plus years and about 20,000 hrs.

In that time I have learned that NOTHING to do with rules and regulations is cut and dried, and that questioning the PC interpretations often leads to dogmatic responses, but quite often, in INTELLIGENT discussion, new insights are gained.

I have also learned that no matter how much you know, you do not know it all, and there is always something to be gained from asking questions.

westhawk

13th Feb 2006, 13:08

Section 94 (5):
"A person who in accordance with the terms of an employment or undertaking holds himself ready to perform an aviation function if called upon shall be treated as carrying out an activity ancillary to the function."

Flying Lawyer

Thank you for that clarification. That restores my faith in the abilities of the drafters of your country's legislation to write laws so as to have the broadest possible reach and effect! It appears the the US have not cornered that market. This particular section seems to be equivelant to the FAR 121 appendix J defininition of "performing a safety sensitive function".

ie The Act even applies (for example) to a pilot on Standby at home.

Interpretation of the definition of the term "standby" could create worries for many of us in a position of being subject to callout at any time that we are not engaged in a "required crew rest period" during which we must be free from all company duties.

Best regards,

Westhawk

ZQA297/30

13th Feb 2006, 13:45

How would the Act treat with this?
Deadhead crewmember reports in with operating crew, to position to operate out of next stop. Would this be considered ancilliary?

hughesyd

13th Feb 2006, 13:49

I Agree, but i think some people are missing the point here. Firstly, you cant possibly complain about an airport because the majority of checks seem to take place there!, whether proved right or otherwise. If a member of the public smells alchohol on a pilot, and they report it, what are we to do, just ignore it??!.Once reported by a member of the public, the police have no choice but to investigate. Im sure as a passenger, i wouldnt like to think my pilot has been out on the sauce the night before. Fact is, you shouldnt be drinking AT ALL, NOT ONE DROP, Within the limits and more realistically beyond.There should be more discretionary random checks as far as im concerned. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. That way it saves embarasment all round for the Police, Airlines and pilots concerned.

Flying Lawyer

13th Feb 2006, 13:52

westhawk

'Standby' doesn't appear in the section. I used it as an illustration.
As for the scenario you mention, it would depend upon the terms of your employment.

hughesyd
I agree With what?

If a member of the public smells alchohol on a pilot, and they report it, what are we to do, just ignore it??!.Who are "we"?

Once reported by a member of the public, the police have no choice but to investigate. The police are not bound to administer a breath-test just because a member of the public has made an allegation.

Im sure as a passenger, i wouldnt like to think my pilot has been out on the sauce the night before.
You're entitled to your view. I think it depends upon how much 'my pilot' had drunk the night before and how long had elapsed since his last drink. How many days do you as a PPL leave between drinking alcohol and going flying?

Fact is, you shouldnt be drinking AT ALL, NOT ONE DROP, Within the limits and more realistically beyond. What does that mean? :confused:

There should be more discretionary random checks as far as im concerned. If there was any evidence of a problem which justified such a measure, I might agree with you.

bjcc

13th Feb 2006, 14:22

FL

"Quote:
Once reported by a member of the public, the police have no choice but to investigate.

The police are not bound to administer a breath-test just because a member of the public has made an allegation. "

No, they are not 'bound' to require a breath test, and arrest may take place after such an allegation, without a breath test being conducted, or asked for.

However, they are bound to investigate. And that means find out what happened, to enquire into whether there is substance to that allegation. That CAN lead to a breath test being required, sometimes from the informant has said alone, and sometimes as a result of what the officer finds, or uncovers when he investigates.

Flyingphil

13th Feb 2006, 14:38

What is so difficult about the situation to understand?

1. The FAA requires Enlarged Crew for all 8+X-Duties.

2. When you report for Duty you to have to meet the alcohol-targets and there must have been a "Rest" between Alcohol-Consumption and Duty, as far as I know 12 Hours.

3. The Role within the Crew does not influence this basic need.
It does not matter, if the pilot in question is active on T/O in MAN or takes over during cruise somewhere over the atlantic.
When he reported for Duty @MAN he was supposed to be below the allowed alcohol-level (Which is 0.1 if I am correct)

These are the facts, and now, anybody heart anything about the outcome @Court today?

KC135777

13th Feb 2006, 15:05

KC135777

Are you seriously suggesting the pilot was off duty unless and until the moment he was called upon to actually fly the aircraft?

Whether or not the pilot has committed any offence is, of course, a separate matter. We don't yet know if he was impaired because of drink or drugs or if the proportion of alcohol in his body (if any) exceeded the limit prescribed by the Act.
FL

FL,
"off duty"? I don't know, I wasn't on that crew, and don't know what the Captain mandated his duties to be, if indeed, he changed them from the norm. But, he COULD have changed them. See the following....From AA's FM, "FB / FC duties are assigned by the Captain to include flying as relief pilot during Captain and FO enroute rest breaks"
Therefore, yes the Captain COULD have changed them and told him, "since you're not feeling very well 'at the present', relax in the crew rest seat for a few hours until better. (ie...I 'deem' you off duty for a few more hours)

AA pilot's "on duty period" or "flight duty period" normally starts 1 hour before scheduled departure time, period- NOT before. Therefore, if the crew was early (usually there's some overkill with the hotel p/u and transport to the airport), and the arrest took place "early", then there was NO offense committed regarding "commencement of duty period", or "reporting for flight duty" etc...because those "acts" had NOT occurred. That is a real possibility. He could have been going to a restaurant, sit for 15-30 minutes eating and reading the newspaper, BEFORE starting duty.

So, I suppose, there's a couple angles that could be used. I guess time will tell, eh?
kc135777

arewenearlythereyet?

13th Feb 2006, 15:10

Like Tartan Giant I have been engaged in professional aviation for 40 plus years and about 20,000 hrs.and then this little gem from someone who purports to have 40 years and 20k+ hours in the business... obviously not as a pilot:How would the Act treat with this?
Deadhead crewmember reports in with operating crew, to position to operate out of next stop. Would this be considered ancillary?If you're 'deadheading', in your own time to report for duty somewhere else then you are not on duty. If, however, you have to ask the stupidest questions about 'positioning' on duty to operate somewhere else then you would know that REPORTING for duty, even if it involves positioning to start work at a location that is not the pilots normal base then it is reporting for DUTY.

Of course you knew that as a pilot you are BASED at one location and that is your base for reporting for duty. If the company want you to operate out of a different base then you are required to report at your normal base and they will either position you the day before the duty is to begin elsewhere or else, if the subsequent flying will not impinge on Flight Duty Limitations, the positioning or deadheading is considered to be a part of that duty period.

Why on why do we still have to get these amateurish questions from people who pretend to be in the business but have no grasp of the rules as they apply to airline pilots? If you are a part of a crew, operating in ANY capacity, including relief pilot, then you are considered to have reported for duty whether your task involves touching the flight controls or not. If you are positioning to operate a flight from a different location and you will not have mandatory minimum rest before operating that flight then you are on FLIGHT DUTY from the time you report to position. If you are on your day off and you live far away from your base and you are commuting to your base to operate then you are not on duty and you do what you want within the limitations of your company rules and statutory regulations.

AA pilot's "on duty period" or "flight duty period" normally starts 1 hour before scheduled departure time, period- NOT before. Therefore, if the crew was early (usually there's some overkill with the hotel p/u and transport to the airport), and the arrest took place "early", then there was NO offense committed regarding "commencement of duty period", or "reporting for flight duty" etc...because those "acts" had NOT occurred. That is a real possibility. He could have been going to a restaurant, sit for 15-30 minutes eating and reading the newspaper, BEFORE starting duty.Obviously not a long haul pilot, if an airline pilot at all! This kind of nitpicking by amateur lawyers who also pretend to be airline pilots lower the standard of debate on here. As an airline pilot you would know that there are different report times for flights originating at base or at an outstation and between long haul and short haul flights. I have yet to meet ANY airline pilots who, operating a long haul flight, would be going to a restaurant for a sit down before the flight. To suggest that the captain will change the report time for duty or that the intention of reporting for duty is somehow not applicable because someone goes for a sitdown elsewhere shows the appalling lack of understanding of the requirements for the job and is made more obviously so by the kind of posts we are witnessing here from amateurs pretending to be airline pilots. Sheesh... Shakes head in disbelief

KC135777

13th Feb 2006, 15:15

...and there must have been a "Rest" between Alcohol-Consumption and Duty, as far as I know 12 Hours.

Sorry, but it's 8 hours.

FARs 91.17 and 121.458 reads in part:
1. No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft:
a) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage.
b) While under the influence of alcohol.

flown-it

13th Feb 2006, 15:30

KC135777

13th Feb 2006, 15:41

Yes legally 8 hours but the company contract is I believe considered to be under the same rules once it has been approved by the Feds. Those rules almost invariablly say 12 hours twixt bottle and throttle...EXCEPT ...the throttle is not the cockpit but the time you report for duty...typically an hour and a half prior to take off for international flights. Thus a lot (and I don't know if this includes AA) of US carriers have 13.5 hours prior to on duty as the cut-off point.

No, the above WAS pulled directly from the AA FM. Above it, it says: AA Alcohol Policy.

Prior to the mid-nineties, it used to say "within 24 hours, or on ANY layover"...but then, the chief pilot (Cecil Ewell) changed it to match the FARs.

Believe me, I "is" one.

kc135777

bjcc

13th Feb 2006, 15:53

KC135777

13th Feb 2006, 16:01

Obviously not a long haul pilot, if an airline pilot at all! This kind of nitpicking by amateur lawyers who also pretend to be airline pilots lower the standard of debate on here. As an airline pilot you would know that there are different report times for flights originating at base or at an outstation and between long haul and short haul flights. I have yet to meet ANY airline pilots who, operating a long haul flight, would be going to a restaurant for a sit down before the flight. To suggest that the captain will change the report time for duty or that the intention of reporting for duty is somehow not applicable because someone goes for a sitdown elsewhere shows the appalling lack of understanding of the requirements for the job and is made more obviously so by the kind of posts we are witnessing here from amateurs pretending to be airline pilots. Sheesh... Shakes head in disbelief
awnty,
I believe the above was directed to me. First of all, at AA, report times are ALL 1 hour prior to scheduled departure time. Hotel p/u time is determined based on normal travel time (for that time of day) to arrive at airport 1 hour prior to scheduled departure. Like I said, sometimes due to limo/van limitations, there is some overkill (getting to airport > 1 hr prior). It is ALWAYS 1 HOUR PRIOR--domestic; international; reporting at home base for the sequence origination; or coming off of a layover--PERIOD. I don't know about your airline, but at AA, the CA inputs a couple of computer codes, and the TPS, flight plan, notams, etc...all print up. Actually, at some international locations, the station personnel has it printed up BEFORE the crew arrives. The FO takes care of the chart, the CA reviews the paperwork (after it prints), then off to the a/c. If there's overkill (ie..early), grabbing some breakfast is NOT out of the question.

Unfortunately, it appears pilots are all the same EVERYWHERE. We love to eat our own. How sad. I throw some possible scenarios out for thought, and you've dismissed me as a non-pilot.

kc135777

cargo boy

13th Feb 2006, 16:07

KC135777, I think it is more about you being dismissed as a lawyer rather than as a pilot! :}

KC135777

13th Feb 2006, 16:23

KC135777
I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve.
FL and I may not see eye to eye on most things, but, he knows his stuff. He's pointed out the obvious, so have a few others. This guy was in play as far as the UK legislation is concerned.
It really does not matter one jot what the AA FM, or any other document says. Nor does it matter what notional manoevering is done by anyone to re arrange this guys status. He has been nicked! End.
Oh and just to hammer in the last nail to your theorising, He was at the security check point, to go through there he had to be either on duty or a pax. He would be asked which by Police. One can presume with a great deal of certainty, that he answered crew, on duty. That's of course leaving aside AA's statement saying what his status was!
As for time between drinking and flying, what you quote is company rules, not UK legislation. One over rides the other, I'll leave you to guess which.
Now, unless you are encouraging the perversion of the course of justice............
We have many of our operations on the secure side in the US. If I want to go empty my crew box for revisions while off duty, all I need is my ID. I don't have to be a pax, and I don't have to be (on duty) crew. Maybe it's different in the UK. If the UK law says something about "ready to perform" or something of that nature, and a lawyer has to defend a barely positive test result, AND if he was early (> 1 hr), HE WAS NOT ON DUTY, NOR DID HE COMMENCE A DUTY PERIOD.
Not trying to perverse anything, but just trying to bring out as many technicalities as possible, and give this pilot the benefit of the doubt.
But, it seems you're ready to hang (oops, I mean, 'nick') this guy. Too bad.
kc135777

bjcc

13th Feb 2006, 16:36

KC135777

I have checked, and there is nothing in anything I have said that shows I am out to hang this guy, or anyone else.

Your points seem to be made up of 'ifs'. a bit like saying If Henry 8th hadn't married that tart Anne Berline, we'd all be catholics. (excuse spelling!)

Please note that this is the UK. Since long before 9/11, you have not been permitted airside unless you are flying as a pax or on duty and it is nessesary for you to be airside.

The issues you have raised are non starters as a defence as far as I can see. But I 'm sure that should he be charged, his barrister/solicitor will explore all the possible ways out.

I'd agree with cargo boy, your abilities are probably better applied to flying.

KC135777

13th Feb 2006, 16:54

well, I'm definitely NOT a lawyer (domestic or international), and I don't play one on TV, either.

I just hope for this guy's sake, his alarm didn't go off and in the rush to make p/u, he didn't brush his teeth....thus the smell of alcohol.

Although, he IS senior to me!!!! :ok: (oooh, that was bad! How's that? "proof" I am a pilot!!)

kc135777

ps...didn't the article say he was scheduled for Tuesday?

bjcc

13th Feb 2006, 16:59

AA's staement said Court on Monday (today)

The BBC say Bailed to re appeaer at the Police Staion on Tuesday.

By the way, mouthwash wont effect any breath test 20 minutes after you use it. Unless you drink the stuff, then you are still committing the offence.

CAT3A

13th Feb 2006, 17:05

Quote:

[Please note that this is the UK. Since long before 9/11, you have not been permitted airside unless you are flying as a pax or on duty and it is nessesary for you to be airside.]

I am not sure about that!!!

While off duty, all you need is your ID.

bjcc

13th Feb 2006, 17:33

CAT3A

Yes, I'd agree. It is all you need, but in this guys case, not applicable.

KC135777

13th Feb 2006, 17:48

CAT3A
Yes, I'd agree. It is all you need, but in this guys case, not applicable.
SO, just the "act" of going through security doesn't mandate (if not a pax) that a pilot be "on" duty, right? IF > 1 hr prior to departure, he WAS NOT ON DUTY, DID NOT PERFORM **ANY** DUTIES, DIRECT, OR ANCILLARY.

....still an offense, though eh?

2. FLIGHT CREW REPORTING
A. Flight crewmembers will report for duty in uniform at the airport one
hour prior to scheduled departure time.

Hmmmm....maybe, just maybe! or, is that "if". ;-)

kc135777

bjcc

13th Feb 2006, 18:07

KC135777

From the American Airlines Statement:

"American Airlines has confirmed that a crew member for today’s (February 11, 2006) Manchester-Chicago scheduled service was arrested at a security checkpoint "

Please note the words 'Crew Member'.

It maters not what crew member he was, be Pilot or Cabin Crew, he is a member of the crew, by his emplyers admission.

CAT3A says, rightly, that you can get through Security with a Pass. However, the rules are that you are not permitted to do so unless you are A. On duty, and B. it is nessesary for you to go airside.

The fact you CAN get through, even though not on duty, does not change the rules. If he wasn't on duty, then he can expect to be charged with any number of other offences.

So, what have you got here? An admission by AA he was a member of the crew. Trying to enter a restricted area, a condition of entrance to which is that he is either on duty or a pax. Mouthwash doesn't have the effect you think it does, and he has been arrested anyway. Of course, you have assumed Police didn't bother to make any enquiries at the scene...

Not looking good for your theories is it? I'll give you your due, you are a trier though!

KC135777

13th Feb 2006, 18:11

Check out this link. It's pretty cool. Turn on your speakers. You can see all the "paperwork" (about 13 feet) that I mentioned, AND a pint or two being consumed in Paris. I can't believe the FO actually "kicks the tires" on exterior preflight. Watch out for the "whitie tighties" though. Geez, and take the hat off in the house, eh! Oh well, all for the 'show'.

probably high speed internet connections only....enjoy :

http://youtube.com/w/Pilot%27s-eye-view-of-a-three-day-trip?v=zZgwky7WEkg&search=cockpit

swedish

13th Feb 2006, 20:23

The act in BJCCs posting applies to all Aviation workers, so Flight Crew, Check In Agents, Ops Staff ...... everyone (this is based on information sent out by the Manchester police in 2003 to all airlines from MAN). So for example driving to the airport maybe ok under road traffic rules but you can be arrested at a lower limit if your arriving at the airport for work. The US regulations don't mean anything in this case, a pilot has to conform to the state rules where they are at any time, nothing to do with registration, company rules etc. (remember the BA pilot at OSL). The 12 hour rule is meaningless and should never be used, generally being sober and blood free of alcohol 12 hours before is a more realisitic rule.

As for the discussion on positioning crew, read your Ops Manuals - most refer to 'on duty', and the normal definition of 'on duty' includes positioning, even on a passenger ticket and not in uniform, after all you have minimum rest calculated pre and post positioning in accordance with the normal duty rules. Also Ops Manuals often state you must be fit, rested etc for the full limits of a duty, so even if your positioning you should be in a state to perform duties if required to the legal limits as this is 'duty'. In the main Ops Manuals are not applied in this way and the 'normal SOP' is not to follow this, but if you were ever in court I'm sure they would read the manual and not accept common practice.

Flying Lawyer

13th Feb 2006, 20:31

bjcc
I’m sorry to disagree with you when you’ve so generous to me but my comments have been made on the basis of the limited facts so far reported. We don’t yet know all the facts. It really does not matter one jot what the AA FM, or any other document says.It may well matter. If there’s a dispute about whether the pilot had reported for duty; it may well be relevant.

“Nor does it matter what notional manoevering is done by anyone to re arrange this guys status.” So you’ll dismiss anything which might be said by the defence in support of the pilot not being on duty.

“That's of course leaving aside AA's statement saying what his status was!” We don’t know the position of the person who issued the press release, nor what he/she was told nor by whom. One might think great care would be taken before statements are issued about delicate matters, but we both know that inaccurate assertions are sometimes made in statements issued quickly after far more delicate incidents. (eg Important inaccuracies in the statement made by the Met Police Commissioner following the police shooting of an innocent man last year – later corrected with an apology. I assume he made them in good faith on the basis of what he'd been told.)

“KC135777’s points seem to be made up of 'ifs'. “So are mine. (If the facts are these, the law is this ….. etc.)
In contrast, yours are made up of asserted certainties.
Given we have very few facts, and those we appear to have may not be accurate, some might think caution is appropriate.

KC135777 is a pilot and openly admits a bias; he’s suggesting possible scenarios in which a fellow pilot may not have committed an offence.
Could you, as a former policeman, possibly be just a little biased?
Let’s be frank. Without exception, you have taken the police/prosecution side in every single one of these ‘alcohol’ threads.

KC135777 is a 'trier'?
He certainly thinks outside the box.
You and I have never agreed on the merits (as I see them) of doing that. ;)

”He has been nicked! End.”
I winced when I read that.
It oozes such satisfaction.
As you say, our approach is often very different.

FL

behind_the_second_midland

13th Feb 2006, 20:43

Anyone else noticed how close those chimps in unifoms that call themselves security get to you to smell your breath at MAN?

Oh and conratulations on the sheer weight of crap on this thread.

PPrune strikes again.

TURIN

13th Feb 2006, 21:09

Anyone else noticed how close those chimps in unifoms that call themselves security get to you to smell your breath at MAN?

Yup, that's why I always have a particularly pungent meal the night before my first day of shift. So far a good Cassoulet seems to be the winner but I'm gonna try the 40 clove garlic chicken one day.:}

Back to the thread,

The act in BJCCs posting applies to all Aviation workers, so Flight Crew, Check In Agents, Ops Staff ...... everyone

Just to ensure we haven't got our wires crossed here, my understanding is that flying staff are limited by 20mg/100ml of blood and and engineers are limited to 80mg/100ml blood. I have not heard whether there are legal limits to other airport workers. I await correction.

I would also like to echo behind_the_second_midland's view on this thread, but will, know doubt, be accused of adding to the cr@p!:hmm:

bjcc

13th Feb 2006, 21:09

Flying Lawyer

"Quote:
”He has been nicked! End.”
I winced when I read that.
It oozes such satisfaction.
As you say, our approach is often very different."

He was arrested. That is not in dispute. My choice of words in fact are driven by exasperation. Unfortunate, perhaps, in your eyes, differnet occupation diffent ways of putting things.

Quote:
"Quote:
“That's of course leaving aside AA's statement saying what his status was!”

We don’t know the position of the person who issued the press release, nor what he/she was told nor by whom. One might think great care would be taken before statements are issued about delicate matters,"

I agree. But the officers are not going to have used powers under the act to arrest a pax. It would be reasonable, given the rules concerning going airside that the officers would have made some efforts to ensure the act applied to this pilot.

Quote:
"KC135777 is a pilot and openly admits a bias; he’s suggesting possible scenarios in which a fellow pilot may not have committed an offence."

Thats one way of looking at it yes. Another is that he is suggesting ways out for this particular pilot. Before you say it, yes, I agree, it is my opinion of what he wrote.

I did add my comment, 'I'll give your due you are a trier' as a humorous comment, in an attempt to keep in friendly.

As for bias? yes, I agree, I am. Instead of wholesale assumption Police are wrong, I have offered an alternative view. You may not always agree with that view, as I don't always agree with yours. Then again, I don't see things in the sterile enviroment you do. Just as you don't see it with muck and bullets like I did. That may well account for our great diffences of opinion sometimes...ok mostly...

The same rules apply to police officers as apply to pilots arrested for drink/flying. They are inncocent until proven guilty. Although I don't see too many remmebering the second part of that statement.

ZQA297/30

13th Feb 2006, 21:22

arewethereyet,
Are you sure you are a real pilot?

It is entirely possible for the Capt to nominate a changed reporting time.
I have done it myself when confronted with tight FTDLs and a notified delay.
Whether one could do this in respect of an individual crew member is perhaps debatable.

Quite often the crew bus arrived 20/30 minutes early, even at LHR.
It was certainly not unknown for the crew bus to go through the control post, and proceed to the greasy spoon for a quick cup of coffee and an egg sandwich, whilst awaiting the incoming aircraft. Like KC135777, my company had a fixed 1 hour report for all international departures.

At airports like IAD and JFK it is possible to pass through security and go to a proper restaurant in the sterile area, and this happened quite often when crew was early.

I believe that the 12 hour rule becomes law once it is contained in the respective airline's ops manual, even though the FAA "only" needs 8 hours.

williewalsh

13th Feb 2006, 21:52

BJCC,
You can and do get airside in civvies at stn thru vp9 when you need to access the crewroom for ryanair. Many do it. They are not on a rostered duty just going in to sort out some paper work or some such.Sitting behind your screen i doubt you get out much.

You used to be a cop right?Did you used to be a traffic cop? Something about your manner that suggests so. Thank god your not a copper any more. God pity the victims of your warrant as I'm guessing you patronised and lectured them all the way to the station, boring the tits off them until you got your point across.Never have so many been glad to have been locked up in a cell and left alone.

I'll bet a pound to a penny that as a controller you have filed the most reports on your watch and know every little minor rule and regulaton.
I'm not really trying to insult you just musing and amusing my self and hopefully a few others.
Anyone else see a trend here or is it just me

bjcc

13th Feb 2006, 21:55

williewalsh

Entitled to your opinion....like everyone else is.....oh except those who don't agree with the norm.....

Yes, I see a trend, only those who agree with you permitted.

Don't ask me about STN, I worked at LHR. Having seen the Ryanair documentry, it doesn't suprise me they have another problem with security. Suggest you mention it to the BAA.

Nice to see that as per normal, these threads degrade into personel insults, rather than the issue at hand, which is education.

I don't suggest, nor, I doubt, does anyone else that any of the pilots involved in any of the incidents under this new act are bad. What is wrong is that no one that may be effected by it, knows very much about it. While the same applies to drinking and driving, thats not going to get you banged up for 6 months.

BBT

14th Feb 2006, 00:21

From WillieWalsh - "I'm not really trying to insult you just musing and amusing my self and hopefully a few others."Well the insults are accidental then!? The amusement must be in the eye of the beholder. You may not be impressed by the police, but I'm not so sure that pilots would come off too well if we were all to be judged by your contributions! bjcc did good in his restraint. Must be the training in dealing with ..... people like you!

Sunfish

14th Feb 2006, 04:31

It might be an interesting and very new development for Pprumers to wait for the allegations made by the police to be made public.

So far there seem to be a number of hoops that have to be jumped through for a conviction to be achieved.

The person must be shown to have been performing an aviation or ancilliary purpose under the appropriate act.

Assuming that hoop has been penetrated, the person must be shown to have been over the legal limit.

To penetrate that hoop requires that the testing officers have performed the tests correctly and that the "chain of evidence" has not been broken anywhere. It also assumes that the "mouthwash alcohol" and similar arguments are not relevent.

As for company regulations that is a separate matter, as I suspect is the reaction of the FAA.

Please note that a person is presumed innocent till proven otherwise.

I'm extremely interested in this matter because there are rumblings here about setting BAC limits and random testing instead of the current "8 hour" rule - for all pilots.

MOR

14th Feb 2006, 06:48

Personally I am able to identify people in T-Shirt and Jeans in the Hotel-Bar as the Crew of Airline XYZ that checked in 45 minutes before

So what? Once your duty period is over and you are off-duty, you no longer represent the company and can do whatever you like (bearing in mind your next duty period, and basic common sense).

Or maybe you believe that off-duty crew members in civvies should not eat pork for fear of upsetting a passing muslim, or drive a vehicle for fear of upsetting some rabid Green?

behind_the_second_midland

14th Feb 2006, 06:56

D SQDRN 97th IOTC

14th Feb 2006, 07:37

Who else could say bjcc's opinions are rounded? (but could you please explain what you mean by "rounded"? :confused: )

bjcc certainly has his opinions, and is obviously partisan in some of those opinions, but I wouldn't say they are always easy to follow.

not having a pop at you bjcc, you understand, but you seem to have found a disciple !:)

so MerchantVenturer - just because bjcc is a retired copper, you'd believe everything his says? If bjcc and I had a difference of opinion on law enforcement and the law in general, who would you believe?

and mods......is this a thread better suited to jet blast now?

captjns

14th Feb 2006, 08:09

Sorry, but it's 8 hours.

FARs 91.17 and 121.458 reads in part:

1. No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft:
a) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage.
b) While under the influence of alcohol.

Below is the actual citation for the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). It should be noted that the FARs may be superceded as may be deemed appropriate by the certificate holder (ei: American Arlines, United, Delta... etc:) While the FARs state 8 hours from bottle to throttle with additional limitations contained therein, the organization, I am contracted clearly states 24 hours from bottle to throttle. The previous carrier I flew with was 12 hours from bottle to report for duty time... which was 1 hour before flight.

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space

§ 121.458 Misuse of alcohol.
(a) General. This section applies to employees who perform a function listed in appendix J to this part for a certificate holder (covered employees). For the purpose of this section, a person who meets the definition of covered employee in appendix J is considered to be performing the function for the certificate holder.
(b) Alcohol concentration. No covered employee shall report for duty or remain on duty requiring the performance of safety-sensitive functions while having an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater. No certificate holder having actual knowledge that an employee has an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater shall permit the employee to perform or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.
(c) On-duty use. No covered employee shall use alcohol while performing safety-sensitive functions. No certificate holder having actual knowledge that a covered employee is using alcohol while performing safety-sensitive functions shall permit the employee to perform or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.
(d) Pre-duty use. (1) No covered employee shall perform flight crewmember or flight attendant duties within 8 hours after using alcohol. No certificate holder having actual knowledge that such an employee has used alcohol within 8 hours shall permit the employee to perform or continue to perform the specified duties.
(2) No covered employee shall perform safety-sensitive duties other than those specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section within 4 hours after using alcohol. No certificate holder having actual knowledge that such an employee has used alcohol within 4 hours shall permit the employee to perform or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.
(e) Use following an accident. No covered employee who has actual knowledge of an accident involving an aircraft for which he or she performed a safety-sensitive function at or near the time of the accident shall use alcohol for 8 hours following the accident, unless he or she has been given a post-accident test under appendix J of this part, or the employer has determined that the employee's performance could not have contributed to the accident.
(f) Refusal to submit to a required alcohol test. No covered employee shall refuse to submit to a post-accident, random, reasonable suspicion, or follow-up alcohol test required under appendix J to this part. No certificate holder shall permit an employee who refuses to submit to such a test to perform or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.
[Amdt. 121–237, 59 FR 7389, Feb. 15, 1994]

take note, when flying to or from a foreign, airmen are subjet to their regulations and random searches, not matter what... it comes with the job.

DA50driver

14th Feb 2006, 10:55

Assuming for the sake of argument that he was intoxicated, would he have been over the limit at the point that he acted as a crewmember? IE 8 hours bottle to throttle. He could have a beer two hours before takeoff, and fly 6 hours later. assuming his blood alcohol level was low enough. (According to FAA rules, not any company regs.)

The FO in question may be guilty of being stupid, but I do not think they can get him for anything else. How can they prove he would have been under the influence later in the flight when he assumed official pilot duties? He probably broke every company policy, but I don't think he can get nailed on anything else.

I am not familiar with rules in the uk, but I travel between the US and Europe in uniform twice a month. I choose not to be drunk or drink alcohol during that time, because the public think we are a bunch of drunk skirt chasers anyway.

christn

14th Feb 2006, 11:29

Surely even as relief pilot the flying duty period commences at 'sign on'. That must be the point at which one becomes a member of the operating crew.
My company often positions crew in uniform and listed on the GD (apparently saves money on pax surcharges). Are they considered part of the crew ? What if they are on a type on which they are not rated ? Can they have a drink with their meals? I know what common sense would dictate but legally where do they stand?

Oilhead

14th Feb 2006, 12:34

Wow this is a boring thread. A relief pilot as required by the FAR's is a an operating member of the cockpit crew for that flight. No less or more status than either of the other two pilots. No relief pilot? No scheduled flight over 8 hours. The relief pilot is a (Captain) type rated pilot, qualified to fly from either front seat. His responsibilities for self assessment for fitness and qualification for duty are identical to the other pilots. At our company the Captain can, and frequently does, have the relief pilot fly as regular right seater.

bjcc

14th Feb 2006, 13:20

D SQDRN 97th IOTC

I understand you are a Barrister.

That qualifies you in law, not in enforcement. No, not a pop at you either.

Barrister, like any other occupation group make mistakes, and yes, that includes Police Officers. I have disagreed with Barristers in the past, and been proven correct. They have disagreed with me, and they have been proven correct. Neither side has a monopoly on right and wrong.

When it comes to actualy putting law into practice, without access to a law libary, or advice from others, or indeed the time to sit and have a think about, I doubt you would be much better at enforceing legislation than a reasonably experienced Police Officer. In terms of practicality, proably a lot worse. I accept they are not exactly the same, but I have known Police Officers who are qualified Solicitors struggle in when they have had to do it sharpe end, not in a court.

What you and FL see is what ends up before the Courts, or comes to you for opinion. What neither of you ever see is the other things that are squared up, or dealt with in other ways, and that would represent the vast majority of what a police officer deals with.

I don't have in the training you had, nor the access to vast amounts of stated cases. So yes, I would hope your knowladge of law is infinatly better than mine. What you don't have is the practical knowladge of how to do my former job.

So when it comes to law, I would normally bow to yours, and FL's greater ability. When it comes to the pratcality of implimenting it, I would rather go with what I know.

So someone esle has decided to come down on my side...Good, and thanks. Inconvient as it is too you.

Now, interesting as this is, are we going back to the point?

D SQDRN 97th IOTC

14th Feb 2006, 15:18

No inconvenience caused. I am happy for you.
:)

Not sure I agree with your implied assumption that law enforcement is a synonym for policing. Having said that, I take your point about people in the front line with the experience (some of it being not very pleasant) to apply the law. Not a job I would like or a job I would be very good at. Some officers are also very able to understand the finer points of law, and in their areas of expertise can hold their own with barristers. In matters completely new to either a barrister or a policeman however, for example in interpreting comparatively new legislation, I would trust the opinion of another barrister to that of a policeman.

KC135777

14th Feb 2006, 15:52

OK gentlemen, it's late afternoon over there (MAN) now.
What's the result of the hearing? Been doing some searching, but can't find anything? kc135777

geraintw

14th Feb 2006, 19:38

BJCC
I take it you support the actions of Greater Manchester Police (touched on earlier) to breathalyse a BACX crew who were reported by some bint after doing two go-arounds due to a gear problem?
The police these days have got their heads so far up their collective arse it's not true. Too worried about upsetting their masters and catching middle class "criminals" instead of actually nicking anyone dangerous, anti-social or violent.
Funny how they crack heads at Countryside demos but not at Muslims inciting murder isn't it?
Traffic. Probably

The police have a duty to investigate what's reported to them. The officer on the ground investigates, collects what evidence as is necessary and then it is up to the CPS to decide if it goes to court or not.

If someone is genuinely concerned about something and reports it, then whilst it might not appeal to you in your professional capacity it has to be investigated. I may be wrong, but I'm presuming you are not in a position to discuss the conversation between the police officers in the crew in that instance, similarly nor am I. So we don't know under what circumstances they were breathalysed; Whether they voluntarily offered an airside sample or otherwise. If the police FAILED to investigate, then i'm sure there'd be a similar amount of vitriol coming the other way and the Daily Mail would be writing about the falling standards of British Police. Believe me, NO police officer would want to generate paperwork for the sake of it.

Your comments about police officers doing their best to appease their masters is laughable and also offensive to officers who put their lives on the line each time they don their uniform. It's easy to sit there and spout utter rubbish like that, you've never had to do the job. The same way as some pilots on here find it irritating when the anoraks dare to question their great knowledge on flying or journos make commercial flying look like it's all about sitting up front with shades on and looking forward to a shacking up with a Stewardess at your destination. When you've had to attend the death of a 18 month old baby in a road accident, where the parents are more concerned about themselves than their child, when you've picked a 14 year old boy off a railway line or had to go from one fight to another on an average weeknight, then you'll understand what policing is about. And yes, in between all this, Police offiers are trying to be pro-active and fight crime. But even talking to a member of public at night to check all is well or why they're in a particular area at the time now requires you to fill in a 10 minute form. Perhaps you should sign up as a special constable and get an overview of what the Police service is about, I guarantee it would open your eyes. Dangerous, anti-social and violent... that's just all in a nights work!

ETOPS

14th Feb 2006, 21:06

Just checked all the local News sources (10pm) but no mention of this case as yet...............

bjcc

14th Feb 2006, 21:07

geraintw

Well said.

Of course as well as the 10 minutes spent filling in poitless paperwork, there seems to be another consequence these days.

D SQDRN 97th IOTC

Make that 2 then.

Although I do respect you for your comments regarding what you could and couldn't do.

ZQA297/30

14th Feb 2006, 21:22

Oilhead, I think you may be mistaken. FAR 121.543 seems to allow relief either by command or second in command qualified pilots, who need only be qualified for the cruise portion of the flight. Your company may choose to exceed the minimum requirement, and it is good sense to do so, but the FARs seem to allow cruise only s.i.cs.

Skidkid

14th Feb 2006, 23:07

It is very disturbing that some of the contributors seem to suggest that it is acceptable to "Drink and Fly". Well done MAN Police - keep up the good work.

KC135777

14th Feb 2006, 23:33

It is very disturbing that some of the contributors seem to suggest that it is acceptable to "Drink and Fly". Well done MAN Police - keep up the good work.
I don't think ANYONE has advocating drinking and flying. I surely haven't.

Edited.
Responding to people who make silly, inaccurate and provocative posts like that only encourages them and increases the risk of the discussion being derailed and moved out of this forum.
Heliport

BusyB

14th Feb 2006, 23:42

DA50,
Another thread where you show how much/little you know!!

Ignition Override

15th Feb 2006, 04:05

Do airport police authorities find it much easier to pursue a perceived problem with a high-profile crewmember than pursue the more subtle, insidious terrorist threats which can threaten air travel? This would require more brains, coordination and many more man-hours. A pilot at a southern US airport, years ago, refused to take his belt off at the x-ray machine (before 9/11). He was treated in a rough manner, sent to the downtown jail for a night or so; that airport security company was reportedly fired/replaced.

A judge in the US allowed extrapolated guesses about blood alcohol content (following heavy drinking the night before), ASSUMING the blood alcohol content about two or three hours (or so) before a flightcrew's arrival time at a US airport. The judge was well aware of a recent (at that time) railroad accident which presumeably involved a locomotive engineer who was under the influence of an illicit substance, and was ready to throw the book at pilots or whoever. In that case, the Captain had been told by an FAA rep. during the preflight, that there was a concern. The Captain never told the other two flightcrewmembers about the concern, at least not before the flight was completed!

They each served one year in some bad US prisons.:yuk: :ugh:

behind_the_second_midland

15th Feb 2006, 10:23

DingerX

15th Feb 2006, 11:22

And yes, in between all this, police officers are trying to be pro-active and fight crime.

At the risk of heading further off-track, I'd like to express my preference for police officers not to be "pro-active". If the activity of police officers is to occupy themselves with criminal suspects, their "pro-activity" involves potential criminal suspects. Every living person is potentially a criminal suspect, and most of us would rather not have our private lives searched by pro-active officers on fishing trips for criminal behavior, particularly if the motive is to generate revenue or personal prestige.

It is odd that a high-profile incident like this, at an airport known for its close ties to the British tabloid press (as well as one of the biggest spotter crowds in the world), would have so little follow-up. The guy was breathalyzed in the airport and arrested pending blood tests. The bad press and the tech stop have cost AA plenty of real cash. Where's the follow up?

geraintw

15th Feb 2006, 11:25

Geraintw
Please save me the drama queen hysterics.You sound like a lady's hairdresser.
I speak from knowledge as two of my family and about 3/4 of my close friends are in GMP. They all hate it now as they are hamstrung by PC nonsense (GMP being the second worst offenders behind Ian Blairs lot...oh sorry forgot about Brunstrom...ex GMP though..well trained to be a lunatic.).
It is the usual story here. It's the same with (universally hated by all, including other cops) traffic police nicking middle class motorists becasue they know the fines willl be paid. Ask them to go onto a council estate to serve something on a trouble family and you won't see them for burning rubber.
As for the two monkeys at MAN. They attended the aircraft and could clearly see that the pilots had not been drinking, but like the automons that GMP now turn out, they breathalysed. They didn't have to, they chose to. Another potential middle class scalp was too much of a temptation.
And yes this info comes from the pilots involved and a collegue of the aforementioned Junta.
Of course it's drama queen hysterics to you, but unfortunately that's what goes on outside your little bubble. Agreed, there's an element of political correctness in the system, it seems to be everywhere these days and yes a lot of it is unnecessary and over burdening (thus the amounts of paperwork). But, unfortunately, that's what the home office decrees. However, the majority of police officers use common sense when dealing with members of the public, but, still have a duty to investigate. I don't know why the GMP officers pursued the course of action they took, but they must've felt it was reasonable in the circumstances and, at the end of the day, if the pilots decided to complain/sue.. whatever, it is those officers who'll have to stand up and justify their actions.

I think you've been reading too much of the daily mail with regard your perceived persecution of the 'middle classes' (quite how one defines that I don't know). Of course, the argument could be applied that if they didn't break the law, there'd be no fines to pay... plus, just in case you're getting confused, the majority of speed cameras are operated by safety camera partnerships not forces directly. I'm sure you'll find quite a lot of traffic officers don't like them either; At least with a human being, they're going to use discretion and can and do let people off with just a flea in their ear.

Anyway, regardless of what I say, you're entrenched in your views, so I guess i'd better get back to doing my next perm and catch up with my latest reading "How to write a reply like a Hairy Camel" :)

williewalsh

15th Feb 2006, 12:21

Geraintw,
Save me also the sob story for the police. All cliche heroics. Like soldiers and fireman, if its all going to be so distressing dont join. When i got sick of beating paddies, shooting argies, and generally picking up bits of bodies I left the military(But mostly because i got more dosh for doing it as a contractor) It might work pulling some tart on the symapthy tatic but its the coppers choice.

If we as pilots are told that its part of the job to have no social life due to strict rules , its our choice to stay in the profession.We are told to shut up and get on with it.

Just how would two coppers who have discretionary powers, deem it necessary to test two pilots who have been maliciously reported due to some tart who thinks their failure to land the first time was due to alchohol.

Now, back to the point.What exactly has happened to this guy recently abducted by the manchester mafia.

BJCC,
The tone of your posts is not as patronising and superior as it used to be. Get a grip man, back to the old you please

bjcc

15th Feb 2006, 12:57

williewalsh

The 2 Police officers breath testing another crew has been discussed to death. Why bring it up again? You were not there, you therefore cannot know what happened. Fine, your opinion is that it wasn't justified, good. I am happy for you, now move on with your life, rather than trying to beat the Polce Service with what you read in the papers. That of course being the source of information, which is always wrong when critical of pilots, and always right when critical of anyone else.

As to what happend to the guy kidnapped' by the Manchester Mafia? Good question.

Did seem very quick for bail to return date, or charging and court, still info was from the BBC and AA. So, ask them.

williewalsh

15th Feb 2006, 17:20

BJCC,
Evenin all

My source is a lot closer to those two pilots than the paper, but as you said thats another topic.

I only access this board on standby when i'm slobbing around.It is definately upthere in the SAD ways to kill stanby duty. Whats your excuse?
Nee naw machine broken?Or was i right in the previous post.

Thread
Has this Americanguy been bailed, charged , discharged or what?

fyank1

15th Feb 2006, 17:41

Is it true that AA stands for Alcoholics Anonymous!? I think any criticism of the staff at MAN who brought the alleged condition of the pilot to the appropriate authorities is clearly misguided. When my bum is on a plane the very least I expect, and I do mean the very least, is that the pilot is sober! That's not asking too much , surely?

Flying Lawyer

15th Feb 2006, 18:07

Well done fyank1
You've certainly got a quick wit.http://www.clicksmilies.com/auswahl/lachen001.gif
In four days and 111 posts, nobody else has even thought of that one.
And you registered especially to make it.
(BTW, check age under your name. It's come up as 43.)

geraintw but they must've felt it was reasonable in the circumstances
Why must they? Are you suggesting policemen never behave unreasonably? People in every other walk of life do.
It would be a very simple task. In that context, the burden would be on the side complaining/suing to prove that the constables acted unreasonably, not for them to prove that they acted reasonably. All the constables would have to do is say that, when they spoke to the pilots, they thought they could smell alcohol and/or formed the view from their demeanour that they had been drinking alcohol and/or were under the influence of alcohol.

RRAAMJET

15th Feb 2006, 20:13

...but I'm sure, FYank1, that the very least [I]we can expect[I], as crew, is for you to be not sober and one of the boorish British drunk know-alls plagueing European travel every holiday season....:rolleyes:

Yes, I cringe at my fellow countrymen on holiday...with your kind of razor-sharp repartee...

Great user-name - no bias, of course?:hmm:

captjns

15th Feb 2006, 20:34

I am confused... why should there by sympathy for any one, whether they be a bus driver, truck drive, pilot, doctor... if they are convicted of conducting them selves while responsible for the lives of other while under the influence of alcohol? We are all responsible adults who are resonible for our actions, and equally be responsible to accept the punishment for such inapproriate behavior.

MrFire

15th Feb 2006, 20:37

Surely its everyones arses covered that way.
Or possibly just pilots getting upset about someone else in a position of authority?:suspect:

bjcc

15th Feb 2006, 21:32

FL

I think if you read the post surrounding your dealing with one case, that you would find there was plenty of sympathy for him.

I am not anti sympathy, conviction for this offence, as you pointed out on the above post seems to attract a heavy sentence, which is in my opinon unfair when compared to the effect of the actions, I realise thats possibly intended as a deterent, but, it is still heavy.

My problem with the attitude of some on these posts are summed up by your own words.

"Are you suggesting policemen never behave unreasonably?"

I will accept that yes, there are times when they do. Just as there are many more times when they have not, but it suits your profession to claim they have. But on the strength of press reports alone you are happy to claim they have been in a particular case.

" don't know if there is or isn't, but it was at Manchester that there was the incident (discussed on PPRuNe at the time) where two police constables breathtested both pilots following a complaint by some woman passenger that it had been a bumpy landing.
Neither had any alcohol in their system.
(Well, the pilots didn't. I don't know about the constables.)"

I don't see any ryder on your comments cautioning others that officers have not been convicted of any offence or had an finding against them, be that civil, criminal or discpline, and are thus innocent. Nor do I see any comment added by you that your opinions are based on press reports alone, and you have no first hand knowladge.

Now what colour was that pot you mentioned?

I had hoped this thread would be used to educate, rather than becoming a slagging match against the old bill. Where I work for instance it is staggering some of the wrong opinions of the effect of this act, and indeed the RTA offences regarding drinking.

Flying Lawyer

16th Feb 2006, 00:05

bjcc
”It suits your profession to claim they have (acted unreasonably)”

We present our instructions for whichever side we’re representing in a particular case. It would be a mistake to assume we necessarily believe every defendant we defend any more than we believe every policeman we call as a witness in support of the prosecution case.

FL

bjcc

16th Feb 2006, 07:23

FL

I assume the police have acted correctly, unless there is evidence otherwise.

I am fully aware that there is a small number of police officers that are bent, be that through greed, vindictivness or what a former commissioner termed 'nobel cause'. I don't agree with it, and I would nver have anything to do with it.

That does not make all police officers wrong, bent or mean all have acted incorrectly. But of course when you have one side alone, it is easy to come down on the side of what you have heard, and make it established fact. Your statement concerning the previous incident at MAN was written in a way which tends to give a different impression from it being your personal opinion, rather than being based on full knowladge of both sides. Because of your profession, a statement put in such way, could lead some to believe that it is factual, hence my comment regarding a rider.

Your comment regarding assumed guilt because he's in the box, is wrong in my, and most of the officers I know or have known's case. I have said before, I have been to court and seen convicted some who I know damm well are innocent.

RoyHudd

16th Feb 2006, 07:43

You are all off thread now.

What has actually happened in this case? Does any know facts, instead of long-winded opinions, refutations, etc?

geraintw

16th Feb 2006, 11:39

geraintw
Why must they?
Are you suggesting policemen never behave unreasonably?
People in every other walk of life do.

It would be a very simple task.
In that context, the burden would be on the side complaining/suing to prove that the constables acted unreasonably, not for them to prove that they acted reasonably.
All the constables would have to do is say that, when they spoke to the pilots, they thought they could smell alcohol and/or formed the view from their demeanour that they had been drinking alcohol and/or were under the influence of alcohol.
FL
No, I said THEY must've thought it reasonable in the circumstances. I didn't say other police officers wouldn't think it unreasonable. And of course, as in any job, you'll get someone who'll behave unreasonably. Sadly, for one or two, the whole idea of being in uniform does think they've got carte blanche to be the most obnoxious person in the world. I think it applies to quite a few uniformed jobs! You also find they're the ones not so popular with their colleagues and, in the usual way that what goes around comes around, they'll soon find themselves getting in a sticky situation.

D SQDRN 97th IOTC

16th Feb 2006, 13:05

bjcc

You say you've seen people convicted in court who you know to be innocent.
Are you referring to members of the general public, people you've arrested, or police officers?

And from the flip side, I presume you've also seen people who you know to be guilty to be acquitted.

But if you know people are innocent - then why stand back and watch them be convicted? Surely if you know someone is innocent because you have evidence of that, then that evidence should be admitted.

Or would these be situations in which the evidence you had wasn't admissible ?

bjcc

16th Feb 2006, 13:34

D SQDRN 97th IOTC

I thought you were a Barrister???

I mean members of the public. If I had meant Police Officers, I would have said so.

Why stand back? Did I say I did? Or is that an assumption?

The cases I mention, 3 that I can recall where were I had no direct evidence of the offence, my part being that of arresting officer and of interview only.

There were witnesses in all 3 cases, who would not, or could not give evidence for their own reasons. For example, one was having an affair with someone, and witnessed the offence after a quick shag on clapham common. She would not provide a statement for what she saw, refused to give her details and certainly would not attend court, in case her husbund found out.

The evidence of the witness/victim was suffiecent to support a charge, and could not be contradicted by anyone else. So there were no options other than to proceed.

So what did I do? I spoke to the CPS, who shrugged their shoulders. I then peed off the CPS by telling the defence solicitor, but as what the witrness said was hearsay, it could not be used. Apart from that, I made as much play I could of how reasonable the accused was, and the fumed as he was convicted.

Suprising as it may be to some, the Public are not adversed to lying.....Be that to the papers, the Police or the Courts.

D SQDRN 97th IOTC

16th Feb 2006, 16:25

bjcc

With respect, your grammar and use of english is just so poor that when you say:
"I have been to court and seen convicted some who I know damm well are innocent" but don't say what the "some" refers to, then who am I supposed to think the "some" refers to? You refer to police officers in the preceeding sentence, and also in the preceeding 2 paragraphs. The main thrust of your posting at 08:23 was in connection with policemen being "bent". It was possible that you meant police officers being convicted - that's why I asked.

Being a barrister does not make me a magician. At times, I am simply unable to follow you.

bjcc

16th Feb 2006, 18:01

D SQDRN 97th IOTC

Good, all the slating done now?

Perhaps, when something is known, we can return to the real issue.

Flying Lawyer

16th Feb 2006, 19:54

geraintw

RH makes a fair point. I’ll say no more.

bjcc
Your experience is as a policeman. ie the prosecution side. I prosecute and defend, roughly 50/50. We’ll never agree upon which experience is more likely to enable us to be objective.
You say you keep an open mind in these discussions. I only hope, as someone who prosecutes and defends people, that it was even more open when you were a policeman.
Let’s just agree to differ rather than divert the thread further.

FL

ZQA297/30

16th Feb 2006, 23:00

Where and when was the court appearance scheduled to be, and what is the current status?

KC135777

17th Feb 2006, 00:54

Where and when was the court appearance scheduled to be, and what is the current status?

I don't know. I DO know that the FO charged, DH'd to ORD on 2/15 (along w/a ORD chief pilot).

We've got our rumors, but nobody really knows. Anybody in the MAN area want to call the MAN police and inquire about the charges?

I'm gonna guess that they've been dropped.

AN offense had NOT been committed until flight duties--primary or ancillary--have been accomplished. The 2003 Transport Law clearly says this.

As he was being arrested, IF he told them he was coming to the airport to call in sick, then maybe it just took the police & prosecutors about 4 days to figure that out, and that a successful prosecution of the charges could not occur.

kc135777

ExSimGuy

17th Feb 2006, 08:06

I DO know that the FO charged, DH'd to ORD on 2/15 Does that mean he WAS charged?

7 pages of insults and allegations that coppers are, or are not, bent; that barristers do, or don't, know what they are talking about; quoting UK Law, FAR, AA regs. (I must have nothing to do but read them:bored: )

I don't think that phoning MAN cop-shop is going to get any answers:\

I'm just very interested in the outcome, hope for the sake of the pilot and the flying community's reputation that the allegations were unfounded, whether justifiable or not.

Also hoping for the sake of the 2 MAN cops that they don't get on a holiday flight to ORD anytime soon - Even if their actions were fully justified, I can imagine the amount of hot coffee spilled in their laps! Stick to Majorca for the next couple of years guys;)

bjcc

17th Feb 2006, 15:33

KC135777

To answer some of your points.

Phoning MAN police station probably wont get an answer. UK Police don't give out info to the public in respect of arrested persons. They may issue a press release if/when he is either charged or it is decided no further action is being taken. But thats only MAY, not will.

The time taken.

If, a blood or urine test has been taken, it has to be sent off to be anaylised. When that happens, usually, the arrested person is released on bail. The time for road traffic act offences where I was, was 6 weeks. That is not the time it takes for the Police specimin to be anaylised, but is based on how long an independent test can take.

That independent test, if conducted, is the responsibility of the arrested person, and is based on a portion of the sample he provided to police, and offered to them for that purpose.

If the Police test comes back as under the limit, the person is sent a letter saying don't worry about coming back to the police station. No further action is being taken.

If it is over the prescribed limit, then they return to the Police station on the date bailed to and are charged.

Thats why at the very begining of this I expressed suprise at the AA statement regarding him appearing in Court on the following Monday.

Please note that the above is in respect of being over the prescribed limit, although...

To complicate matter, there is another offence of being unfit through drink or drugs. Assuming this incident revolves round a suspiction of alcohol, lets ignore the drugs side for now. IF thats the offence he was arrested for, then a blood/urine test may not be nessesery. The evidence of a doctor can be used instead. However, it would not be unusal for a blood/urine test to be taken and anaylised as well, in which case the delays between arrest and charge would be as above.

The third possibility, is as you touched on, ie, it's being thought about. If he has put foreward at some point what you said regarding duty time, then the files could have been completed and sent to the Crown Proescution Service for advice. In which case, they will consider the evidence and decided how, or whether to proceed. Of course any blood/unrine test would still have been taken and sent off.

In short, there is no real inference that can be drawn from the silence, or time taken.

flash8

17th Feb 2006, 15:35

I just love pprune. I mean the same old people wheel out the same old prejudices and biases. The topic takes on a life of its own (often completely unrelated to the topic in hand). Slagging matches start. The Spotters get their bit in. Oh its a wonderful life. Some of you need to get out more.

Algy

17th Feb 2006, 15:52

Bailed until 14 March. Don't know conditions.

Dollond

17th Feb 2006, 17:35

Bailed until 14 March. Don't know conditions.

I can confirm this, I've just phoned up Greater Manchester Police's press office (because I had nothing better to do and was curious to find out how much the Old Bill would disclose).

The press officer said that the reported bail date of 14th February was incorrect, the pilot is bailed until the 14th March.

I asked whether the pilot had to remain in Britain, or whether he was allowed to return to America temporarily. The press officer said that he did not know the conditions of bail.

Oh well. Investigative journalism isn't for me - I won't give up the day job!

Bronx

17th Feb 2006, 21:07

Funny how people who guessed the program would be a load of journo crap turned out to be right.

etrang

18th Feb 2006, 06:20

Funny how people immediately jump to the defence of the AA pilot before knowing any of the facts, but were prepared to judge and lambast 'Dispatches' before seeing the programme. One rule for some, another rule for others. :rolleyes:

Its a pilots message board, what do you expect?

Heliport

18th Feb 2006, 07:16

ExSimGuy

The confusion isn't surprising, but nobody's criticised the police in this AA pilot incident.
The "2 MAN cops" were in one of the previous Manchester incidents.
They breathalysed both the pilots after a pax complained about the landing.

It may seem unbelievable, but it did happen.
If you didn't read about it at the time, the links are worth following.

Original thread here: UK pilot breathalysed after go arounds (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=160845)
(It was both pilots, not one.)

Press report here: Manchester Evening News online (http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/144/144309_btest_fury_over_hero_pilots.html)
(Includes a statement issued by Manchester police.)

Comments posted by members of public: Manchester Online 'Feedback' (http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/comments/view.html?story_id=144309)

The incident didn't exactly enhance the reputation of Manchester police,
and may explain the suspicion and negative reaction when an incident at Manchester is reported.

H.

Skidkid

18th Feb 2006, 08:54

My apologies if you were upset by my previous entry. It was in no way intended to be "silly, inaccurate and provocative". However, when certain contributors make statements such as:

"That's why I always have a particularly pungent meal the night before my first day of shift"

or

"Then you appear to drink too much/too late in front of a jealous hotel employee..."

it does raise suspicions that there are a few who may not be in a fit state to enter the flight deck on the following day.

My entry was aimed at totally condemning those that "Drink and Fly" and to support the police in weeding them out. As professional flight crew, we should be supporting the police instead of knocking them.

Surely, it is references to security staff as "Chimps" that are "silly, inaccurate and provocative" and have no place on this forum.

I wasn't upset in the slightest, just trying to stop the thread going off on even more of a tangent. The content and tone of your previous post was very different from this one.
"As professional flight crew, we should be supporting the police instead of knocking them."
People's opinions clearly differ about whether police officers actions should be supported regardless of what they do or how they do it. You might want to read about a previous incident at Manchester. (Links in my post immediately above.) Some might think the most damaging consequences of an incident like that is the damage it can do to the reputation of the police at that airport or even generally.
Nobody's condoned pilots who "Drink and Fly" or said those who do shouldn't be weeded out.
Heliport

captjns

18th Feb 2006, 10:44

Can anyone tell me in 5 words or less if this guy's B/A level was above the legal limit?

Heliport

18th Feb 2006, 11:22

captjns

No.

vref130

21st Feb 2006, 03:09

If he was wearing a uniform, does that have anything to do with it?

Any airline pilot in uniform represents our profession, their company, and the industry, as a whole. If that fellow was, in fact, smelling of booze, he should be jerked off the a/c, tested for alcohol, and dealt with accordingly. HOWEVER, if he was, in fact, NOT smelling of booze, then someone who reported him as such, should be sacked and hung out to dry.

ukatco_535

21st Feb 2006, 08:23

Vref130

That is a whole new bag of worms you are opening. If someone is in uniform and doing anything that could be construed as being innapropriate behaviour then their company may be within their rights to discipline them through internal channels - along the lines of conduct unbecoming or bringing the company into disrepute.

In this case there are very few of us who know the real facts - we are all just speculating which is a shame (I would not like it to be about me), but it is human nature.

If he is guilty of reporting for duty whilst under the influence (which is I think the whole argument, regardless of the actual time he was going to fly) then he should have the book thrown at him. I do not think that there is an aviation professional in here that thinks otherwise.

If however he is innocent (and I sincerely hope for his sake that he is), then he will be exonerated and I hope that anyone here who has doubted him without knowledge of the facts is man enough to apologise through the forum.

What is worth bearing in mind is (in my belief) that although he was the relief pilot, he was still reporting for duty, regardless of how many hours it would be before he was going to assume PF duty.

As the relief pilot, I am sure that if anything happened to the PF or PNF before it had been planned that he would take over, then he would have stepped into their shoes. That in itself in my eyes makes any argument saying he was 'not due to fly for another x amount of hours' etc a moot point.

Meanwhile, I hope that the pilot involved is managing to carry on his day to day life - this has been hanging over him for some time -for someone who is a professional upstanding citizen, it must be hell.

As for calling the Police Officers 'Chimps' etc and giving them a hard time, I think we should again wait for the facts about how this came about. I firmly believe that there are a few coppers out there who are over zealous and that quite a few of them get a kick out of a feeling of power; however, they are far outweighed by many good ordinary Police.

captjns

21st Feb 2006, 09:03

captjns

No.

Thanks hliport:

After the intitial news and suppositions commented upon over the past week couple of weeks, this is by far the entry in this thread. Too much repetition.:=

Heliport

21st Feb 2006, 10:34

It also shows (and was meant to show ;)) that shortest isn't always best.
eg 'No. (His B/A level was not above the legal limit'), 'No. (I don't know)' or 'No. (I don't think anyone here knows).'
A more useful answer would have exceeded the 5 word maximum you stipulated -
None of the reports I've seen say if it exceeded the legal limit, or even whether the pilot was asked to provide a sample of blood for analysis.
Journos have probably found out, despite the claim earlier that "UK Police don't give out info to the public in respect of arrested persons", but I assume they have to be careful what they report at this stage.

All the same, good point about all the supposition (and descriptions of what police do/don't do generally) when we don't yet know the facts. :ok:

H.

RoyHudd

23rd Feb 2006, 08:07

Any info yet?

MAN security and police need to be monitored for results, as they do seem to be over-zealous in comparison to all other airports.

DH121

23rd Feb 2006, 10:29

Police were called because he tried to get through security with no ID. His initial breath test put him twice over the limit for driving. But that's only a rumour, it may or may not be true!

KC135777

24th Feb 2006, 02:39

Police were called because he tried to get through security with no ID. His initial breath test put him twice over the limit for driving. But that's only a rumour, it may or may not be true!

rumor.....missed pickup, after t/w captain, he was to catch a taxi, forgot/lost his ID in the rush, 'pinched' at security....said he was calling in sick.......it would have been the 'right' thing to say.

if true, he can NOT be found guilty of the offense of accomplishing ANY primary or ancillary flight duties (a requirement of the 2003 UK transport law). My God, he was JUST going through security....probably w/ the pax, since he took a taxi to the airport.

I do NOT condone overindulging while on layover, or beginning a flight duty period while over the legal limits for BAC.

But, if the above scenario turns out to be true, calling in sick would have been the BEST scenario for this pilot.

KC135777

Dollond

18th Mar 2006, 14:22

Has anyone heard anything regarding this yet?

The pilot should have appeared in court by now (the court date was apparently scheduled for 14th March), but I've heard nothing in the news.

sammypilot

19th Mar 2006, 18:14

It is more likely that this gentleman was bailed to re-appear at a police station on the 14th March. The Police have several options open to them one of which is deciding that there is no case to answer in which case they would write to him advising that he does not need to surrender to his bail. If that were the case then nothing will ever appear in the press.

innuendo

20th Mar 2006, 06:22

On a similar matter, does anyone know the eventual conclusion to the Case of the Virgin Captain who was accused and detained in the US?

pakeha-boy

20th Mar 2006, 17:18

Not sure about he Virgin incident...but the two pilots from AWA are now serving time for being found intoxicated...Capt 5 yrs...F/0 2.5 yrs....in a miami state penn....the company I fly for offers a "checklist" to crew who are "accused" of being intoxicated or under the influence......no matter the outcome,this will never be positive news in our industry,....the facts will ultimatley surface....

VH-GRUMPY

22nd Mar 2006, 03:34

I was under the impression that there is no legal limit of blood/alcohol for flying an aircraft - i.e. the limit is in fact zero.

The 8 hour bottle to throttle only being a rule which assumes to get to 0.08 - that is, if you get to 0.08 it takes out hours to get down to zero as the body metabolises alcohol at the rate of 0.01 per hour. If you really have a big night you might still be over 0.08 when you open up the taps.

silverhawk

22nd Mar 2006, 05:13

BAC limit in uk for flying is 0.02, a quarter of the driving limit.

Airbubba

22nd Mar 2006, 06:03

>>On a similar matter, does anyone know the eventual conclusion to the Case of the Virgin Captain who was accused and detained in the US?

He copped a plea on a technicality and got off with a slap on the wrist:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=138270

ukatco_535

22nd Mar 2006, 08:20

I was under the impression that there is no legal limit of blood/alcohol for flying an aircraft - i.e. the limit is in fact zero.

As replied by silverhawk, there is a miniscule allowance for Pilots, ATCOs and train drivers in the UK.

It is there to cover the tiny amount of alcohol that everyones body naturally produces.

Pigsfly

23rd Mar 2006, 10:35

Ladies and Gents,

Perusing the thread I have seen much drivel. Lets not forget a few main points.
1. As employees wearing uniform we are ambassadors of our employers.
2. The public notice us and scrutinise us.
3. When wearing uniform we are expected to behave in a proper manner.
4. In Uniform if you smell of alcohol or something that smells similar to alcohol it will attract attention.
5. Police and security personnel are there for the protection of the public.
6. Due process is a requirement of the British and most legal systems.
7. Positioning Crew in uniform should know if they drink they will attract undue attention and may subject themselves to intervention by the authorities.
8. Uniform=Etiquette=Discipline=Conformance.
9. Any reasonable person could construe a uniformed staff member smelling of, appearing under the influence of or consuming Alcohol as being about to carry out the duties that his uniform suggests. And would be justified in reporting same to the authorities.

Best Advice.............Dont drink or smell of drink if in Uniform.

pakeha-boy

25th Mar 2006, 23:59

Pigsfly.....mate,its that simple.....:ok:

Johnson Bar

26th Mar 2006, 04:45

UKATCO. VH-Grumpy, and all,

in the USA it's 0.04% BAC by weight. FAR 91.17, 135.253, 121.458 cover general, air taxi, and scheduled airline rules. They all say .04 but the professional regs also extend to no drinking while in an on-duty status and things like, no drinking after an accident till you've been tested.

Now if there was a time a pilot ever needed a snort...

JB

Flying Lawyer

29th Mar 2006, 12:31

The original date of the pilot's bail was extended.
He is now due to return to the police station to on Wednesday 5th April.
This is police bail. ie To date, he has not been charged with any offence.
There can be many reasons for an extension so it's pointless speculating.

Pigsfly
Your propositions 5 & 9 provide scope for discussion, and I don't understand what your proposition 6 adds, but I'll resist the temptation to depart from topic.

FL

niknak

29th Mar 2006, 13:38

Flying Lawyer,

thanks for that.

Perhaps I shouldnt be, but I am begining to feel a tad sorry for this chap.

Having been breathalysed in the past following a minor road prang, I was informed there and then that had I been positive, I would have been dealt with swiftly and the appropriate court action would have taken place within a week or so.

What's the difference here? I ask because I genuinely can't see the difference, I would have thought regardless of nationality, you could be refused police bail if there was a cahnce you may not turn up in court.

Land After

29th Mar 2006, 14:10

For a Road Traffic offence, you would be tested at the police station, after arrest, on a more sophisticated breath machine. Your lower of two readings is then taken and a prosecution will follow if your lowest reading is over the threshold. You will be in court in a matter of days if you provide a sample over the limit. A minimum of a 12 month ban can be expected.

For pilots, etc., my understanding is that a blood sample must be used due to the lower threshold for prosecution. The time taken for analysis is the reason for the delay in processing charges, hence a bail pending the results. However, a failure on the station breath test would provide a good indication of the likely outcome of the blood test......

The right to bail is presumed, reasons need to be found not to grant it.

Flying Lawyer

29th Mar 2006, 14:31

(Assuming a specimen of blood has been sent for analysis) the analysis itself is very quick but there's always a backlog at the labs.

Someone suggested earlier that the period between arrest/sample and returning to the police station is based upon 'how long an independent test can take.' That is not correct.
The decision whether to charge is based upon the result of the 'official' analysis arranged by the police. The result of any independent analysis may/may not become relevant at a later stage if a suspect is charged.

FL

To avoid any misunderstanding:
I'm not involved in this case. I asked a friend in Manchester to find out what (if anything) had happened on the original 'return date'. He discovered the bail period had been extended.

Flying Lawyer

10th Apr 2006, 16:26

The original date of the pilot's bail was extended from 14th March to last Wednesday 5th April.

It has since been extended yet again - for further enquiries by Manchester police - this time for a another ten weeks to the 15th June.
This is police bail. He hasn't appeared before a court.

Police say "Enquiries are continuing".
If the police had sufficient evidence to charge him, they would have done so.
If the further enquiries produce sufficient evidence, he may yet be charged.

Such long delays are very unusual in an 'alcohol' case.
It's highly unlikely that the police have not yet received the results of the analysis from the lab - he was arrested on 11th February.

It's obviously not quite as clear cut as some here assumed. eg "He has been nicked! End."

FL

bjcc

10th Apr 2006, 17:29

FL

Would clouding issues by missquoting not be better suited to courts?

However moving on,...

The backlog of blood sample tests may have been the case in the days before ESD's and EBM's, in respect of drink drive cases, but is far less now, as it is unusual for a blood sample to need testing.

Even in the days when all samples of blood were anyalised, the delay was never more than 4 weeks. (although that was in London where we had our own lab, and didn't use HO facilities)

I would guess, the delay has nothing to do with the sample, if that is the case, that would indicate it was above the limit.

It would more probably have to do with claims of status of the arrested person in relation to what, if any aviation related function he was proforming.

Yes, I admit that is an assumption, but based on experence.

As for time of bail in drink drive cases In my force it was 6 weeks, because that would be how long an independent test would take, being mindful of originally, when the person returned to be charged (if he wasn't going to be he would be informed by letter he did not have to come back to the station), the court date would be within a few days. Thus the time between arrest and appearance at court gave him the chance to get his defence in order if he needed too.

Flying Lawyer

10th Apr 2006, 21:01

bjcc
It was 'copy and paste' not "missquoting." However moving on ...

I didn't suggest the delay might be caused by a backlog of blood sample tests. On the contrary; see my post.

Your assumption that the further delay concerns his alleged status/aviation function may well be correct - interesting that you refer to "claims" of status - but would it not be better to resist the temptation to make assumptions at this stage?

I posted a series of facts I know to be correct in order to keep people up to date with developments.
It wasn't my intention to encourage more assumptions, speculation and counter-speculation and IMHO it would be better (and fairer to the man) if that doesn't happen.

FL

KC135777

11th Apr 2006, 04:02

Flying Lawyer

11th Apr 2006, 08:28

KC135777 The above information seems to be good news for our pilot, eh?

So far, yes - but it's no indication of what might eventually happen.
ie We don't yet know what the 'further enquiries' will reveal.

Speculation in favour of the pilot by those whose background understandably leads them to hope a fellow pilot is innocent is no more productive than speculation against him by anyone whose background understandably leads them to take a police or prosecution view.

FL

TomConard

11th Apr 2006, 09:13

I heard....just a rumor...that the guy blew only a .01. I got this information from someone in management at AA.

bjcc

11th Apr 2006, 17:13

TomConard

If he had blown that, then why would he still be on bail? He would have committed no offence, there would have been no reason for arrest.

misd-agin

11th Apr 2006, 18:30

TomConard

If he had blown that, then why would he still be on bail? He would have committed no offence, there would have been no reason for arrest.

Perhaps the suspicion of 'under the influence of alcohol' was a bit premature?

And there are tons of other issues that can cause behavior causing folks to think someone's under the influence of alcohol. Drugs or illnesses come to mind.

That's why they have investigations.

bjcc

11th Apr 2006, 18:49

misd-agin

Indded there are, drugs for instance. But, the claim was he had blown 0.01, way way under the limit.

So the evidence for arrest for suspcion of an alcohol related offence (See AA's statement on page one) would not be there.

If he was arrested for another offence, unrelated to alcohol, yes, it could be the reason for the prolonged bail. It would be very unusal though, to bail someone for that length of time in the UK.

misd-agin

12th Apr 2006, 03:26

The arresting officers probably don't have the ability to do an blood alcohol test there. They make arrests based on observations. Perhaps his behavior lead them to think he was under the influence of alcohol.

Apparently he wasn't. So the question is still back to square one, what happened?

Time will tell all.

bjcc

12th Apr 2006, 04:03

misd-agin

Arresting officers in the UK certainly do have the ability to breath test.

misd-agin

13th Apr 2006, 02:06

misd-agin

Arresting officers in the UK certainly do have the ability to breath test.

They don't start by just giving breath tests. They see behavior that leads to a breath test. If the .01 report is accurate their suspicions of alcohol impairment were wrong.

bjcc

13th Apr 2006, 12:09

misd-agin

Yes, a Polcie officer has to have reasonable grounds for a test.

Once he has those, he can administer one, which in the UK is done at the place where the person he is called to is.

If thats positive, ie over the limit, that would lead to arrest. This screening breath test providing the evidence for that arrest.

At a Police station, the person is then required to give a further sample, of either breath, blood or urine. That is then tested.

If blood or urine is taken, the person will be released on bail until the result of the test is known. A breath test is obviously anyalised at the time, and provides an imidiate answer.

Whichever type of sample is taken, if and when it is negative, ie below the limit, then the suspect is either released, or informed he does not have to return on bail. In the case of blood/urine being below the limit, that would happen in a few weeks. Not months.

Yes, it is possible that another offence has become apparent. But given the time he was bailed for, I doubt it.

KC135777

13th Apr 2006, 15:25

misd-agin
If thats positive, ie over the limit, that would lead to arrest.

Well.....an offense--as defined by the 2003 UK Transport Law, had to have occurred (by a crewmember who has engaged in flight duties; primary or ancillary)--for an arrest to "stick".

Unless of course....you're talking about public drunkedness, or some other "general" public offense by any person. ;-)

Hey, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Going through security does NOT constitute flight duties, therefore no offense was committed.

I hope for this guy's sake, that's where it occurred.

KC135777

bjcc

13th Apr 2006, 18:05

KC135777

Thats your interpretation of it, it's not the same as mine. We will see what happens.

chandlers dad

14th Apr 2006, 04:45

I heard....just a rumor...that the guy blew only a .01. I got this information from someone in management at AA.

You can blow a .01 if you use the wrong kind of mouthwash in the morning and instead of spitting it out, swallow some of it. If the pilot in question was in a hurry, did this and ran for the shuttle and was tested shortly afterwards it would register a slight amount of alc in his breath.

A blood test however would not show this amount and he would be cleared.

Flying Lawyer

19th Apr 2006, 03:28

KC135777 Going through security does NOT constitute flight duties
That is correct.
Guilt or innocence does not depend upon whether someone goes through security.

An offence under the Act may be committed without going through security and, similarly, going through security does not necessarily mean that someone is performing an aviation function/an activity ancillary to an aviation function.

In each case, it would depend upon the circumstances.

KC135777

19th Apr 2006, 15:53

KC135777
That is correct.
Guilt or innocence does not depend upon whether someone goes through security.

An offence under the Act may be committed without going through security and, similarly, going through security does not necessarily mean that someone is performing an aviation function/an activity ancillary to an aviation function.

In each case, it would depend upon the circumstances.

FL,
19 April already.... so where does this thing stand? Any intel from the MAN police dep't? KC135777

Flying Lawyer

19th Apr 2006, 20:56

KC

Nothing more than I posted earlier - The original bail date of the pilot's bail was extended from 14th March to last Wednesday 5th April.

It has since been extended yet again - for further enquiries by Manchester police - this time for a another ten weeks to the 15th June.

All that can safely be inferred from that is the police didn't have sufficient evidence to charge him on the 5th April and they are still investigating/trying to gather evidence.

It's pointless speculating. If you say anything which suggests the pilot may be innocent, at least one of our number is bound to respond suggesting he may be guilty.

FL

swan2

28th May 2006, 13:50

can anyone tell me what the senario would be if a pilot was breath tested while driving his car on his days off and found over the limit. would he be obliged to inform his company or would it be considered a private matter.

bubbers44

28th May 2006, 14:16

KC135777

13th Jun 2006, 19:37

FL,
We're closing in on 15 June....any changes to your latest info?
Thanks, KC135777

chandlers dad

13th Jun 2006, 19:51

In the US you are asked these questions, especially about alcohol and drugs, on every physical. DMV records are checked by the FAA to make sure you didn't forget.

I don't think you need to contact your company but dealing with the FAA could affect your medical requiring you to tell the company.

If you do get busted and do not declare it on your latest medical, and the feds then find out about it (and they usually do) then the penalties are harsh.

They just busted about 200 pilots in California for things like this, but most of them were way over the line and really deserved it.

I know of several pilots who got busted driving while drunk and all maintained their medical but as well they realized how close they were to losing their jobs and livelyhood and slowed down on the partying.

CD

Flying Lawyer

14th Jun 2006, 15:36

I understand that the pilot was charged (earlier today) with Being Unfit for Duty contrary to section 92 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003.

s. 92: Performing an aviation function, or carrying out an activity that is ancillary to an aviation function, at a time when your ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs.

He will appear in the Magistrates Court tomorrow.
(Magistrates Courts are similar to Municipal Courts in the United States.)

Link: Alcohol and Flying: The New Law (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=113035)

dannydick

14th Jun 2006, 21:32

I've just read the following report on the BBC's North West News Ceefax page:

"An American Airlines pilot who was arrested shortly before he was due to fly from Manchester Airport has been charged with being unfit for duty.

James Yates, 46, of Ohio was arrested at Manchester Airport on Saturday 11th February 2006 under suspicion of being under the influence of alcohol.

He was charged under the Railways and Transport Safety Act and is due at Trafford Magistrates on Thursday.

American Airlines opened an internal investigation into the incident".

Edited to say that I've now found the story on the BBC's Manchester webpage: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/5080496.stm

Bronx

14th Jun 2006, 21:55

So Pprune beat the News agencies again.

When the arrest first got reported back in February there was all that talk of him getting bail while the cops waited for the labratory result.
Then they didn't charging him with being over the BAC limit but extended the bail so they could try and get enough evidence against him to charge him.
Then they did that a few times more.
Now after all that he aint been charged with the excess alchol charge but the other one being unfit for duty.

It all seems kinda strange.
Maybe there's more to it than meets the eye.

discountinvestigator

14th Jun 2006, 22:54

I was slightly involved in the setting up of the regulations, on the side of trying to get a limit posted as originally there was no defined limit. I think that the pilot fell within the "intended" meaning. Not sure if the legal interpretation of the words will be taken as such.

I do not wish to make comment on the amount of alcohol found in his body.

I have worked on at least one accident where the body alcohol level was suspect, even taking into account decay and burns. No easy for anybody to deal with that.

I think that there is a problem in that I have not heard of a single UK airline actually testing the employees on a routine/random basis. The problem is that if an employee turns up to work, and they are then tested, it becomes an offence if they show positive. Then the airline is duty bound to call the police and have the person arrested.

The testing kits for this are readily available for airline purchase, and include drugs as well. Hair samples can track some drugs for 3 months or so.

The limits were set so that the highest level of natural alcohol in the body, plus a testing calibration error was added to ensure a very low probability of false positives.

There is no safe limit for passing the UK test in terms of alcohol units and time.

There was a perceived issue with CAA doctors trying to cure as opposed to prosecute pilots. They are part of the regulatory function of aviation safety!

I have no feelings on the case whatsoever, I hope that the just outcome results from the process. However, it has taken a lot longer than I would wish for all concerned.

bjcc

14th Jun 2006, 23:26

Bronx

I doubt there is anything more than meets the eye.

If you read FL's link there are 2 offences.

The one you refer to, being "over the BAC limit" is one of the 2, but not the one he's been charged with.

The offence of being unfit through drink or drugs is just that, unfit because of either drink or drugs. It does not nessesarily depend on BAC.

Dealing with just the drink side of that, for the moment, it obviously means (in the terms of this Act) that a person was so effected by drink he could not properly do his job. That would almost always mean that the person would be way above the prescribed BAC limit, but not always. I used to work with someone who had an intolarance to alcohol, and any drink no matter how little would cause him to appear drunk.

If this charge is in relation to drugs, then any drug which has an effect can cause a person to fall foul of this act. In the same way as a UK driver could, in relation to road traffic law. "Drug" is not confind to 'illegal' drugs, it could be anything that say, causes someone to be drowsy.

The delay between arrest and charge is unusally long, certainly compared to someone dealt with under road traffic legislation, but I would guess that was caused by consideration by the Crown Prosecution Service, rather than investigation.

Bronx

14th Jun 2006, 23:30

discountinvestigatorThen the airline is duty bound to call the police and have the person arrested.Duty?
Is that the law or some other kinda 'duty' you think they should be under?

There was a perceived issue with CAA doctors trying to cure as opposed to prosecute pilots. They are part of the regulatory function of aviation safety! Why the exclamation mark?
I read somewhere the UK CAA medical department has done a lot of good work helping pilots who admitted they had a drink problem, pulling their certificates until they got sorted out and careers have been saved. Good for them IMHO and all part of maintaining flight safety.

However, it has taken a lot longer than I would wish for all concerned."all concerned"?
There's only one person who's had to wait 4 months while the cops have been trying to get enough evidence against him and not knowing if he's gonna be charged.

bjcc
I'm just as able to read the FL's link as you are. That's why I know there are two charges and the difference between them. That's why I said he'd been charged with one and not the other. :rolleyes:

The guy was arrested on suspicion of being under the influence of alcohol according to the BBC report and according to the American Airlines official statement.

IF his BAC level was higher than the legal limit AND he was 'on duty' in the terms of the Act he should have been charged with that offence when the labratory produced the results, not kept waiting not knowing.

So, either his BAC wasn't over the legal limit and they couldn't back calculate it OR they weren't confident he was on duty in the terms of the Act. I guess they got some evidence now he was on duty or he wouldn't be charged with anything.

If it turns out his BAC was legal but he he's got an unusually low tolerance to alcohol, or he wasnt under the influence of alcohol at all but under the influence of illegal or medical drugs, then that's more than meets the eye in my opinion.

Halfnut

15th Jun 2006, 05:16

Flying Lawyer,

What is the maximum and minimum penalty he could be facing?

Thanks

Heliport

15th Jun 2006, 07:04

The answer's in the first post of the link thread posted above.

Here it is again - Alcohol and Flying Law (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=113035)

dannydick

15th Jun 2006, 11:56

At Trafford Magistrates Court this morning, the pilot denied being unfit for duty. The case was adjourned until 10 August for a committal hearing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/5083356.stm

BBC News (link above) states that the maximum sentence for the offence is two years imprisonment.

Land After

15th Jun 2006, 22:16

Interesting, his blood test must have been positive, or the CPS would have dropped the charge.

What is interesting is the decision to go to the crown court... It could be that his lawyers thinks he stands a better chance with a jury (Magistrates would most likely convict on the blood test evidence)... or it could be that the Magistrates thought that their sentencing powers were insufficient (6 months in pokey in this case) and have sent it to the crown court for that reason.

misd-agin

16th Jun 2006, 04:17

Sunfish

16th Jun 2006, 04:35

I know its pure speculation, but I wonder at exactly what point he was tested and arrested? As a simple PPL, I wonder what act constitutes "reporting for duty"? One possible defence might be that he was about to designate himself as sick (impaired) but was denied the opportunity.

Was the gentleman concerned stopped at security? Was he then supposed to "sign on"? Or was he stopped at the aircraft about to board after actually "reporting" and purportedly representing himself as fit for duty?

I'm fascinated by this topic for the simple reason that Australia is in the process of drafting similar legislation. Without trivialising the situation, I'm wondering what would happen if you assisted a colleague to push his aircraft into a hangar after you have had a few at the aero club bar?

Bronx

16th Jun 2006, 07:18

Sunfish
All we know is he was arrested at a security checkpoint at Manchester.
We don't know if he'd reported for duty or was "performing an aviation function, or carrying out an activity that is ancillary to an aviation function" in the words of the law.

Land After

16th Jun 2006, 08:30

Interesting, his blood test must have been positive, or the CPS would have dropped the charge.
He was charged with being "unfit". That could be any number of issues with alcohol or drugs (Sec. 92 quoted by FlyingLawyer).
That does not mean his blood test had to be positive for alcohol. It might have been, it might not have been. If it wasn't positive for alcohol the filing under Sec. 92 would seem to indicate that it was related to drugs.
Well, the way I read the act is that Sec. 93 would apply if caught "at the stick", or having actually flown. Sec. 92 applies if you report for duty and are preparing to fly - flight plannng, pre-flight inspection, etc.
As for other drugs, I doubt that he would have been tested. The blood alcohol level would probably have been disclosed in court yesterday, if anyone was there to listen. If there were other drugs mentioned, I'm sure the good gentlemen of the press would have picked up on it!

Bronx

16th Jun 2006, 08:42

Well, the way I read the act is that Sec. 93 would apply if caught "at the stick", or having actually flown. Sec. 92 applies if you report for duty and are preparing to fly - flight plannng, pre-flight inspection, etc.

If you follow the link to the law you'll see that's wrong.

Land After

16th Jun 2006, 09:42

If you follow the link to the law you'll see that's wrong.

You're right, I'm wrong. Was going from memory, which is getting worse as I get older.

I wonder what the charge actually was... It may have been alcohol limit related, but misreported. If it is Sec. 92, I think they'll have a hard job to make a case if under the alcohol limits for Sec. 93, unless evidence of other drugs has been found.

Bronx

16th Jun 2006, 10:30

"It may have been alcohol limit related, but misreported."

This was posted before the News report.
The charge is Sec 92.

I understand that the pilot was charged (earlier today) with Being Unfit for Duty contrary to section 92 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003.

s. 92: Performing an aviation function, or carrying out an activity that is ancillary to an aviation function, at a time when your ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs.

He will appear in the Magistrates Court tomorrow.
(Magistrates Courts are similar to Municipal Courts in the United States.)

Link: Alcohol and Flying: The New Law (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=113035)

Halfnut

16th Jun 2006, 15:16

http://www.ambien.com

From the Ambien website:

Important safety information: AMBIEN is indicated for the short-term treatment of insomnia. There is a low occurrence of side effects associated with the short-term use of AMBIEN. The most commonly observed side effects in controlled clinical trials were drowsiness (2%), dizziness (1%), and diarrhea (1%). When you first start taking AMBIEN, use caution in the morning when engaging in activities requiring complete alertness until you know how you will react to this medication. In most instances, memory problems can be avoided if you take AMBIEN only when you are able to get a full night's sleep (7 to 8 hours) before you need to be active again. As with any sleep medication, do not use alcohol while you are taking AMBIEN. Prescription sleep aids are often taken for 7 to 10 days — or longer as advised by your doctor. All people taking sleep medicines have some risk of becoming dependent on the medicine.

For more information, please see important product information.

Important safety information: AMBIEN CR is indicated for the treatment of insomnia. AMBIEN CR is one of many treatment options, in addition to lifestyle changes, that you and your doctor can consider. Until you know how AMBIEN CR will affect you, you shouldn’t drive or operate machinery. Side effects may include next day drowsiness, dizziness and headache. You shouldn’t take it with alcohol. All sleep medicines carry some risk of dependency. Do not use sleep medicines for extended periods of time without first talking to your doctor. Be sure you’re able to devote 7 to 8 hours to sleep before you need to be active again.

For more information, please see important product information.

KC135777

16th Jun 2006, 18:33

1/2nut,

Has ambien been mentioned by anyone before?

Why did you feel the need to post info on ambien?

kc135777

bjcc

16th Jun 2006, 20:07

Halfnut

I realise its a side issue, but although KC135777 questions your reasons for mentioning it, it is an important point in relation to to the UK Act, although not nessesrily the case in question.

What it clearly shows is like a lot of prescription or perfectly legal drugs, there are often side effects. These side effects can cause people to fall foul of this and the Road Traffic Acts in the UK.

It's not usualy top of peoples thoughts when they are ill, or indeed just taking something to help them sleep, but legal drugs can cause problems!

Halfnut

16th Jun 2006, 22:41

Awh sucks guys I just find it interesting some keep barking up the alcohol tree when there is no fox up in that tree. We’ll know more come August 10th.

Here is some more information that some might like to chew on:

http://www.aviationmedicine.com/medications/index.cfm?fuseaction=medicationDetail&medicationID=32

Medication Class — Sleep-inducing Medications

Medication Class Description:

None of the OTC sleep preparations, including Sominex, Tylenol PM, and Excedrin PM, are allowed for flight deck use and require waiting 12-24 hours from last dose to flight duty. Prescription medications such as Sonata, Halcion and Restoril are not approved for airmen. Those pilots taking Ambien (zolpidem), another prescription medication, must wait 24-48 hours after the last dose before flying. The Federal Air Surgeon's Medical Bulletin states that Ambien may be used if no more than twice a week and not within 24 hours of flight duties.

The USAF has waived the use of Ambien in its pilots after ground testing and in very specific controlled situations. Sonata, a newly released sleep product, is not approved by the FAA. Sonata was approved by the USAF for ground use by aircrew in controlled situations.

Dietary supplements, such as melatonin, reportedly help reduce sleep problems. The FAA generally allows airmen to use these supplements if those airmen do not suffer side effects from them. However, claims about these dietary supplements' benefits in treating insomnia and "jet lag" often are overstated. Some individuals have significant side effects from these "natural" supplements. A future VFS article will address sleep disturbances and strategies for effective sleep.

Medications Within Class:

Sonata, Ambien, Restoril, Sominex, Tylenol PM, Excedrin PM, Halcion, Aolpidem, melatonin

ExSimGuy

17th Jun 2006, 00:24

Gut reaction from pax.

30 years ago (or was it more - I'm getting old!) the culture was different, but I was a trifle nervous flying behind a driver who I had been with at an "airline party" the night before and who said "five to twelve, flight at 8 ack-emma, 5 minutes to the 8 hour rule" and downed an 8-ounce glass of Scotch in those 5 minutes.

Those days, we would sneak out of the party and remove the back wheels from his car if we thought maybe he'd kill himself if he drove home. Thoughts of "3rd parties" didn't occur to us those days. (Okay - we were a bit stupid, as well as "young and irresponsible", and pretty uninformed "way back then".

Don't happen these days!

If the guy had been a bit "over", but the circumstances were so muddied that it was hard for the cops to be sure of a conviction,may I suggest that he's "had a bl00dy good warning", and the best solution would be to let it drop and pretty surely be reassured that he's "had a good flea-in-the-ear" and surely will be more careful in the future, whether he's been on booze, illegal substances, or legal sleeping medication (not suggesting any of this might be the case).

IF he's innocent (for either not taking anything, or because he had no intention of "driving" that day), then it's a waste of the CPS costs to go any further.

My "humble" opinion is that it's gone on toooooo long. Whatever the truth, the whole issue shoudl be dropped if there's not been sufficient evidence found at this time. For the sake of the guy involved, his airline, and for the confidence of the public in air transport.

(signed, seat 31D)

Loose rivets

17th Jun 2006, 04:14

Edit to reformat and add.

I could barely believe that some of my captains of 35 years ago, could stand up in the morning, let alone fly. Squeezing that last 1/4 bottle down at 8 hrs five mins was almost routine with some guys. ‘It helps me sleep' they would say.

After being ‘forced' to fly with an alcoholic, who would start his night's binge with a double miniature while taxying in, I stormed out of a good gob with a very well known UK independent.

Things are better now, but don't let's turn it into a witch-hunt.

Just a quick note on Zolpidem. I am pretty sure that resorting to this drug, caused me to have problems with short term memory. You know, staring into the fridge, wondering why you're there. The effect was very marked. Because of a back injury, I used it over a several weeks, say 3 times a week. I also trimmed back on the dose. Happily, within three days this effect would wear off.

It was so useful, that I wanted to be sure, and have gone through this cycle about three times.

It is certainly habit forming, partly because it's so good.

Halfnut

10th Aug 2006, 17:54

Court was to reconvene today, any news?

KC135777

11th Aug 2006, 04:52

Hey FL, do you have any news?

chandlers dad

11th Aug 2006, 13:48

After the way things went yesterday in the UK, believe that many people, flight crew included, feel that having a stiff drink anytime when near the airport might be a good idea. (just kidding guys) This situation needs to be corrected and soon, otherwise no one will fly.

After yesterdays events the case may have been pushed on the back burner. That said, if the trial is not going to be done in a timely manner then it needs to be dismissed.

Halfnut

16th Aug 2006, 17:26

The Court was to reconvene on August 10th and still no news one week later. Could someone ring up the Flying Lawyer and see if he could get some information in regards to this case?

Thanks in advance,

rhythm method

16th Aug 2006, 17:45

Just as a brief aside, and I'm sure it has been mentioned here somewhere on the preceding millions of pages...

I recently purchased a digital alcohol meter just to see how it worked, etc.
I realise that its calibration is not as strict as that of the police units, BUT, this morning before my early I tried it out of interest and blew 0.02! I hadn't had a drink for 3 days! I then had a piece of chewing gum which I usually do while flying (my morning breath is atrocious until I have managed to get breakfast :} ). The reading was now up to 0.05!! :eek:

When I first got the unit I tried it after different toothpastes, mouthwashes, etc and always blew 0.00, but it shows how some items will give false high readings.

I went to work anyway as I knew if stopped, a blood test would prove I was totally dry.

Algy

18th Aug 2006, 13:34

Case remanded to Crown Court (not sure which one - but presumably Manchester neck of the woods) 28 September.

Halfnut

18th Aug 2006, 14:54

For someone on the other side of the pond is this a higher court? Any news of the out come of the August 10th court appearance? What transpired to have it moved to the Crown Court? Flying Lawyer we need you!

Thanks for the update Algy. Standing by to standby.

sammypilot

18th Aug 2006, 15:01

The Crown Court is the second tier of justice in the U.K. Usually when a case goes there it is either because the magistrates can't or will not listen to the case but more often than not it is because the defendant wishes to be tried by a Higher Court which includes the traditional 12 good men/women and true.

Algy

18th Aug 2006, 15:59

Yes that's it. It's routine in Magistrates Courts for the case to be 'remanded' a couple of times (or more) during which the authorities just update the court on how the case is coming along. And the defendant is not always required even to attend. So it's quite likely that nothing happened on 10 August apart from a date being set for the Crown Court trial (where it is also an option for the defendant to turn up and decide to plead guilty.)

There is a further complication, which is that under UK law very little is allowed to be reported of a remand Magistrates Court hearing even if it is said in open court. So even if any detail was given on 10 August, or any other hearing, then it could not be reported. Us media types actually quite like that law because it gives us a few months to get all our background material together before the trial (should there be one) finally starts.

(All a bit oversimplified, but that's the gist.)

mary_hinge

18th Aug 2006, 17:25

An American Airlines pilot who was arrested at Manchester Airport in February on suspicion of being under the influence of alcohol will appear at Manchester Crown Court next month, where he will be formally charged.

J**** ****s, who is 46 and from the US state of Ohio, was arrested at a security checkpoint on 11 February ahead of a Boeing 767-operated flight to Chicago for which he was scheduled to be the relief first officer.

A spokesman for the UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) says ****s appeared before Trafford Magistrates Court in Manchester on 10 August, where his case was committed to the city’s Crown Court on Minshull Street. The Crown Court hearing will take place on 28 September.

****s is being charged under the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 with carrying out an “aviation function when over the prescribed limit”, says the CPS spokesman.

Source: Air Transport Intelligence news

mary_hinge

28th Sep 2006, 15:06

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/5389276.stm
An American Airlines pilot who denies he was unfit to fly from Manchester to Chicago has appeared in court.
Pilot James Yates, 46, from Ohio, was stopped on suspicion of being under the influence of alcohol as he was about to board a Boeing 767 with 209 passengers.
He is charged with being unfit for duty under the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003.
Mr Yates is on unconditional bail and a trial date was set at Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court for March.

Nov71

28th Sep 2006, 20:26

Just saw that on local news. If this is a Court or CPS delay I am ashamed of the system. Either they can, by now, prosecute the charge he was 'unfit to perform..due to alcohol' or not! Why another 6 month delay? Perhaps a Judge had to check performances with a colleague or an illegal immigrant cleaner!
Maybe FL will provide a more professional opinion.

Globaliser

30th Sep 2006, 10:14

Why another 6 month delay?Almost certainly, simply because courts' diaries are already booked up until then.

In some of the cases that I'm involved in (not criminal cases), you can say to the court that you're ready for a three-day hearing. Fine, they say. Trial date set for 15 or whatever months away - it's the first slot that we can do for a case of your type.

I can't speak for what's happened between February and now, though - only those who know what's been going on in the investigation will know why it's taken so long to get to the current stage.

Nov71

30th Sep 2006, 14:37

I understand about gridlocked Courts & diary dates, so why tie up all participants, in courtroom, at cost to all, for 10 mins just to set a trial date?

If he had assaulted an elderly pax for her pension TB thinks he could have just paid £100 fixed penalty by post, but that sort of Justice assumes guilt without arrest or indictment.

Longtimer

30th Sep 2006, 15:30

Has his life also been on hold for 10 months or was he able to resume flying pending the results of the court case?

Globaliser

30th Sep 2006, 17:33

I understand about gridlocked Courts & diary dates, so why tie up all participants, in courtroom, at cost to all, for 10 mins just to set a trial date? Again, I don't know much about criminal procedure, but it's possible that he had to be present in order to enter a plea of not guilty in person, and/or that he had to surrender to the custody of the court to mark the end of the bail granted by the magistrates court, and to allow the judge to grant him Crown Court bail. There are some points in the criminal procedure where the defendant simply has to be there in person to speak for himself. I suspect that if it was anticipated to be a mainly formal hearing, it may be that only relatively junior and inexpensive lawyers attended.

chandlers dad

13th Oct 2006, 22:51

Here is how its handled in the states at times. Personally I would like to get the pilot below put in jail, as with his BAC this high he was drunk and had no business flying. At least it was handled and done quickly.

Feds won't prosecute Southwest pilot on alcohol charges

Associated Press
Oct. 13, 2006 07:10 AM

SALT LAKE CITY - Federal prosecutors dropped a criminal charge against a Southwest Airlines co-pilot who was removed from a plane in July after a security screener smelled alcohol.

A document filed in federal court in Salt Lake City said the case was being dismissed "in the interest of justice."

Spokeswoman Melodie Rydalch said there wasn't enough evidence against Carl Fulton, 41, of Fort Worth, Texas, who was charged with operating a common carrier under the influence of alcohol or drugs. She declined to elaborate.
advertisement

Fulton was arrested July 9 before a flight to Phoenix from Salt Lake City. He told authorities that he had consumed two large beers and a vodka drink the previous night, according to court documents.

Two tests showed a blood-alcohol level of .039 percent and .038 percent, authorities said.

Federal law presumes impairment at .10 percent, although prosecutors say other forms of evidence can be used to prove impairment.

Separately, under federal aviation rules, a pilot can't work if a blood-alcohol level is between .020 percent and .039 percent.

While federal prosecutors are dropping Fulton's case, Salt Lake County is taking a look at it.

"Probably in the next week or so, we are going to decide what will happen," prosecutor Sim Gill said Wednesday.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1013AZ-Pilot-Alcohol-ON.html

misd-agin

14th Oct 2006, 02:33

.039 or .038 is drunk? It's not drunk, it's above the allowed limit.

That's one beer. I don't think many of us consider ourselves "drunk" after the first beer is finished.

Fokker28

16th Oct 2006, 00:39

... under federal aviation rules, a pilot can't work if a blood-alcohol level is between .020 percent and .039 percent.

Has there been a change from .040% in the CFR??

KC135777

16th Oct 2006, 14:34

Has there been a change from .040% in the CFR??
I don't think so. If he was > .04%, the FEDs would have probably yanked his certs and prosecuted. I believe, when you're .02 - .039 %, you're just not allowed to fly until it's below .02%, due to the inaccuracies of the breathalizer machines. I think you can naturally produce some, and blow .02 with NO consumption of alcohol.

DownIn3Green

19th Oct 2006, 02:06

Hi Folks,

We're beating a dead horse to death...

Regs are Regs, and Airline's Rules superscede them.

What the FAA says re: Alchol Levels are absolute.

If I am an Airline President and my pilot group agrees to a stricker standard, then the FAR's are out the window as far as employment in my house is concerned. Period.

If the offender busts the FAR's, he should be punished. If he doesn't, he needs help, but doesn't need to work for or with me...

KC135777

16th Feb 2007, 18:15

Flying Lawyer, or anyone with knowledge on this......

What's the latest with this case? anyone? bueller?

bjcc

16th Feb 2007, 21:40

KC135777

As it says in a previous post. He was remanded on bail until March this year, presumably for an effective trial.

KC135777

16th Feb 2007, 22:02

Thank you....I must not have reviewed closely enough. Didn't see "March"...I was thinking it was this month. oh well, getting close.

egbt

19th Mar 2007, 17:37

BBC report on the trial http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6467361.stm

Abstract:

A pilot turned up for work almost six-and-a-half times over the drink limit to fly a plane, a jury heard.

James Yates smelled strongly of alcohol and was unsteady on his feet when he turned up for duty at Manchester Airport, the city's crown court heard.

Staff called police and the 46-year-old was arrested and failed a breath test.

Mr Yates told officers he intended to tell the captain he was sick and unable to work. He denies a charge of acting as first officer while over the limit.

A first officer with American Airlines, Mr Yates was to be one of three pilots on a mid-morning flight to Chicago with 181 passengers on board on 11 February last year.

But when he went to go through a security gate for flight crew he could not find his identification security pass.

Flying Lawyer

19th Mar 2007, 17:55

The trial continues.

Until it concludes, please may I urge people to resist any temptation to comment on the proceedings.
PPRuNe is read by many members of the public. Some of them may be on the jury.

I'm not involved in the case, just concerned about a fair trial and the risk of contempt of court proceedings against Danny if inappropriate comments are published.

FL

RoyHudd

19th Mar 2007, 17:58

Agreed. I suggest the moderator/s manage this closely, and scrub any inappropriate posting tout-de-suite. Inappropriate=risking contempt of court.

darrylj

19th Mar 2007, 21:27

just seen this as well.....

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1256527,00.html

KC135777

19th Mar 2007, 22:19

FL,
How long do you suppose this trial will last?
kc135777

niknak

19th Mar 2007, 23:01

But, isn't this a web site based entirely on conjecture and personal opinion? Surely the trial Judge will have directed the jurors to ignore anything they come across outwith the court proceedings?
Considering the things that have appeared on this forum previously on differing subjects and have no influence on the outcome of investigations, I am sure that even the high and mighty Flymo Lawyer would have difficulty arguing against the right to post a reasonable and constructive argument, or otherwise....

egbt

19th Mar 2007, 23:01

FL
Not being controversial or confrontational (Edit: unlike NikNak who posted at the same time?] but a genuine question. I only got called for jury service once - some years after my wife stopped being the jury summoning officer and left the LCD - and then for some reason I never made it onto a jury (perhaps I dressed to smartly?) so have no direct experience.
Perhaps it's watching to much Judge Deed or Perry Mason (showing my age) but when adjourning overnight would the judge not instruct the jury not to go doing research, reading comments on the trial etc?

Flying Lawyer

20th Mar 2007, 00:44

egbt when adjourning overnight would the judge not instruct the jury not to go doing research, reading comments on the trial etc?
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.'

Juries are not told they must not read press reports. There are restrictions on what may be published during a trial: The press can report the evidence given in court, but not make comments about it. If they go further than simple factual reporting of the proceedings, they risk being punished for contempt of court. That happens very rarely, because the press know the rule and the consequences of ignoring it, and almost always abide by it.

KC135777
I don't know how much evidence will be called by each side, so am not in a position to give an informed estimate.
Uninformed hunch - the trial will probably finish by Thursday or Friday.

niknak
The investigation was completed some time ago. This is the trial. Different rules apply.
"high and mighty"
You old charmer.
I'm neither, but thank you anyway for the flattery.

FL

kingair9

20th Mar 2007, 11:24

German magazine "Der Spiegel" reports another case at MAN:

http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/0,1518,472674,00.html

But I guess there just misread the English news about the trial and wrongly translated it into a "new" case.

Or have I missed some news and there IS in fact a new case? Again AA and again at MAN???

kingair9

20th Mar 2007, 14:36

Tried to post this earlier today but somehow the posting got lost:

German magazine "Der Spiegel" reports another case today, again AA and again MAN-IAD.

Have I missed this on the news today or are they mixing things up because of the reports in English press about the court case?

KC135777

20th Mar 2007, 15:30

Section 94....preparing to carry out an aviation function or otherwise holding themselves ready to carry out one of those functions by virtue of being on duty or standby.
____________________________________________________________ _

apparently, he testified that he was arriving to "call in sick"...(I mentioned this 'hopeful' possibility on post #147, 13 months ago).

I suppose if they believe him, not guilty. If they don't, guilty.

Hopefully, based on his conversation w/ the Captain (at the hotel), the Captain will also be able to back up the FO's story, with his own supporting testimony.

Wedge

20th Mar 2007, 15:39

Mr Yates denies a single charge of acting as first officer, while over the limit.

No, I don't know what that means either, but I'm sure FL can enlighten us!

Inappropriate=risking contempt of court.

Obviously I agree with FL about posting inappropriate comments about the case while the trial is in progress, and 'inappropriate' means anything that could prejudice a fair trial.

Flying Lawyer

20th Mar 2007, 19:00

I haven't seen the indictment, but assume the allegation is that he carried out an activity ancillary to an aviation function, contrary to section 93(1)(b) of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003

An activity will be treated as 'ancillary to an aviation function' if it is undertaken by a person who has reported for duty in respect of the function and as a requirement of or for the purpose of or in connection with the performance of that aviation function during the period of duty.

The relevant law is summarised here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=113035)

FL

KC135777

20th Mar 2007, 19:35

There was NO activity undertaken by this pilot.

There was NO reporting for duty.

He (apparently-from news sources) has testified that he was about to call in sick....and then deadhead home, I suppose.

Will the jury believe it? We shall see.

The Real Slim Shady

20th Mar 2007, 20:20

An activity will be treated as 'ancillary to an aviation function' if it is undertaken by a person who has reported for duty in respect of the function and as a requirement of or for the purpose of or in connection with the performance of that aviation function during the period of duty.
I would guess that Mr Yates is fireproof as he hadn't reported for duty.
No doubt he would argue that the place of "report" is the crewroom or briefing facility. Going through security could not be construed as reporting.

KC135777

20th Mar 2007, 20:36

Wedge,
Denying "acting as a first officer" means he denies having accomplished ANY aviation related tasks (primary or ancillary). That would be testimony against any Section 92 or 93 charges (unfit for duty AFTER accomplishing aviation tasks, and over the limit breathalizer AFTER accomplishing aviation tasks). If you have NOT accomplished any aviation related tasks/duties, then an offence under Section 92 & 93, has NOT occurred.

If there's Section 94 charges (intending on carrying out aviation duties), then the testimony re: 'calling in sick' helps refute the "intent". Hopefully, similar testimony from the Captain, regarding advance knowledge of an intent to call in sick, will also be given.

KC135777