Virgin Co-Pilot arrested, allegedly over alcohol limit. No case to answer. [Archive]

Hookerbot 5000

28th Oct 2007, 19:54

Police Arrest Pilot Before Take-Off

Updated: 19:22, Sunday October 28, 2007

A passenger jet co-pilot has been arrested on suspicion of being over the legal alcohol limit.

http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1604073.jpg

The Virgin Atlantic Plane was delayed

Police boarded the Virgin Atlantic Airbus A340-600 at about 11am to arrest the pilot just before take-off.

The 266 passengers on board the flight from Heathrow Airport to Miami were delayed three and a half hours while a replacement flight crew was found.

A spokesman for Scotland Yard said: "At 11.16am officers arrested a 42-year-old crew member on board a Virgin Atlantic flight to Miami.
"He was arrested under section 94 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003."

He was later freed on bail but remains suspended from duty pending a police investigation, the airline said

A spokeswoman for the airline said: "Virgin Atlantic can confirm that one of its first officers has been released on police bail in connection with an allegation made this morning.

"Virgin Atlantic would like to apologise for the inconvenience caused and would like to reassure passengers that the airline will be investigating this matter thoroughly in accordance with its strict company policies in relation to operational staff.

"The safety and security of its passengers and crew is Virgin Atlantic's top priority."

Airline regulations, in accordance with transport law, recommend flight crews drink no alcohol for at least eight hours before flying.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1290503,00.html

Yellow Sun

28th Oct 2007, 20:30

Does the airline industry have a similar routine to the railway as to testing for alcohol when reporting for work? I am breathalysed on a random basis about 2/3 times a month when booking on and the limit (I think) is 12 micrograms/100 ml of breath, about a third of the road limit.

SOTV,
The answer is no, the airline industry does not have such as system. From a personal point of view I would have no objection in principle to such a procedure.
I am interested in how it is adminstered in the railway industry, is the test done by your employer or by the regulatory body or the police?
What is happens if the test is positive but by a small margin? Obviously you must be removed from duty, but what happen then?
Is the procedure for handling those who fail by a large margin different from the situation outlined above?
How are repeated failures dealt with?
If the test is administered by your employer, and you fail, do they inform the police?
On another tack, I have long felt that given the number of police vehicles involved in accidents and the general demands of the job (including access to firearms), similar alcohol limits and testing procedures should be applied to all police officers reporting for duty.
YS

Pinkman

28th Oct 2007, 20:49

Nobby,

I was in Perth WA last year and picked up an AL 6000 on the recommendation of OverRun (who had purchased one 6 months earlier). It is indeed easy to use, and it looks the dogs bx. For fun OverRun and I decided to have a comparison shoot out between the two machines, and a bottle of WA's finest. To our astonishment at every stage there was 0.02 % points difference between them (i.e. his would read 0.06 and mine 0.08) for consecutive tests with the same person. I have since calibrated mine against other types and I am fairly sure that its 'worst-case' accurate (which suits me fine) and its consistent, but be aware - they don't last forever and individual machines vary.

OverRun? I think he ran his over with his Landcruiser. He was certainly in better shape than me the next day. :}

Pinkman

757_Driver

28th Oct 2007, 21:07

lets wait and see wether the police charge him or not. The last one was met by a tirade of self rightous bu****t, only for the guy to be found completely alchohol free, and it was because his breath smelt sweet due to excessive 'dr atkins' dieting.

This could well be another one of these, or even worse a malicious lie from some security to55er that this poor fella dared to actually question

I have certainly smelt alchohol on the breath of BAA "security" bods in the morning, on more than one occasion, maybe I should phone the police and get them arrested every time my unqualified suspicion makes me think they've had a drink?

Unwell_Raptor

28th Oct 2007, 21:27

The reason for this man being bailed is that the standard police Lion Intoximeter, used for car drivers, is not reliable down to 9ucg in 100ml of breath so a blood test has to be taken, and it will be a while before the report comes back from the lab. So all we know is that the police formed a reasonable suspicion he was over the limit. Time will tell if that was true.

Yellow Snow

28th Oct 2007, 23:42

sevenstrokeroll

understand the Airbus in question was actually in the Hangar (Virgin Hangar) behind the BA jet...just the caption was wrong.

Afraid not, if only Sky were this accurate. Was just hanging in on GMC2 when they returned from the 27R holding point, opposite to all the traffic flows. The aircraft returned to 582 and went out about 3 hours later.

Innocent until proven guilty, please folks. Could be any of us 'accused'!

Nov71

29th Oct 2007, 00:20

Let us hope the FO gets their bac result pdq and not under 'suspicion' for too long

Interesting that some posters assume the FO was 'shopped' by Security and not a vengeful cabin crew member (as per KLM) or A N Other - no report of who complained.

srs what?

29th Oct 2007, 08:20

VS have a drugs and alcohol policy which includes random tests. However, company policy is that anyone tested is stood down from duty regardless of the result.

I don't know the details of this case yet but I would guess there is good chance that as has been the case before all 3 crew were tested by the Police after the allegation was made and therefore all stood down.

twistedenginestarter

29th Oct 2007, 10:46

Interesting that some posters assume the FO was 'shopped' by Security and not a vengeful cabin crew member
Nov71, the tone of your comment is that it is a poor show to snitch on a pilot potentially under the influence. Is it not more important to worry about the lives of 350 people or, more pressing, your own life?

Right Way Up

29th Oct 2007, 10:51

Before this thread goes round & round in circles I suggest reading this thread, and let things lie until either the individual is charged or is proved to be innocent.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=270430&highlight=virgin+drunk

Only1Post

29th Oct 2007, 11:23

OldChinaHand (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=156210) stated "the crew member was arrested on the grounds of suspicion. It has not been proven that he is guilty of any offence. There is no disgrace in being arrested on the grounds of suspicion"

Although I wholeheartedly agree with that, due to the fact he was arrested he is exempt from the majority of Visa Waiver programmes that operate alongside a UK passport, making his long-haul days untenable now.

brakedwell

29th Oct 2007, 11:32

Cops haul drunk pilot off jet
Virgin flight stopped on the taxiway
Exclusive by Stephen Moyes 29/10/2007
A jumbo jet pilot was arrested seconds before takeoff yesterday - on suspicion of boozing.
Stunned passengers on a Virgin Atlantic flight saw police board their plane and take the first officer away.
The Miami-bound jet with 266 passengers on board was taxiing towards the runway when the alarm was raised.
The plane returned to its stand at Heathrow where police got on.
The first officer, one of three cockpit crew, is understood to have failed a breath test. A source said: "We had pushed back from the gate for takeoff when the plane did a massive U-turn.
"When we made it back to the gate armed police officers boarded and took away a member of the cockpit crew. It was dramatic and we were all open-mouthed.
"Eventually the other pilot came on and said they'd been forced to off-load one of their flightdeck crew. It is frightening that we could have been over the Atlantic with a boozy first officer at the helm."
Police were last night awaiting results of a blood test on the 42-year-old, who was reported by an airport worker to be smelling of alcohol.
The Airbus A340-600 was delayed for three hours while a new cockpit team was found. The arrested co-pilot was himself a relief officer and not a regular Virgin crew member.
Scotland Yard said: "At 11.16am officers at Heathrow arrested a crew member on a Virgin Atlantic flight.
"He was arrested under Section 94 of the Railways and Transport Act 2003 and bailed to a date in December."
Virgin Atlantic said: "Virgin can confirm that one of its first officers has been released on police bail in connection with an allegation made.
"The relief first officer was onboard flight VS5 Heathrow to Miami. The airline will investigate thoroughly."
A Virgin pilot was arrested in a similar incident in April - but he was found to just have bad breath and cleared.
The legal limit for pilots is nine micrograms of alcohol in breath.
A computer program failure caused chaos at Gatwick yesterday when it did not recognise the clocks had gone back and arrival and departure times were wrongly listed.

casper63

29th Oct 2007, 11:51

Yellow Sun,

100% testing of all crew (pilots, cabin crew and air marshals) when they report for work has now become a norm in some new airlines in India. The acceptable limit is .000.
Cheers!

ILS 119.5

29th Oct 2007, 12:17

as i said on a previous post anyone subject to the railways act should be given a course about alcochol and when they are alcohol free

757_Driver

29th Oct 2007, 13:07

twistedenginestarter the last person that "snitched" a VA pilot was wrong and nearly wrecked somones professional life, personally if I was the last guy who was wrongly accused I would of found out who wrongly shopped me and consider legal action for all sorts of arguments, deformation of character, undue stress etc etc.

So many people ready to play supacop with no official training !

indeed - I wouldn't hesitate - If it were me I would certainly ask the police to look very closely at the motives behind the allegation, especially if it occured after, say a confrontation or argument with someone (security, despacher etc)
And I would certainly launch my own legal procedings.
Whilst we can get all moralising about wether people's lives are at stake bla bla bla, the fact remains that security and other airport workers are not qualified, are not paid, and are not supposed to be policing the alchohol issue (if indeed there is an issue). Why they take it on themselves to do so is a mystery to me, when they will all go on strike at the drop of a hat if asked to do anything else outside their terms and conditions.
If it is not in their contracts and job descriptions that they should do so (I suspect not), then I believe they will be on very very very thin legal ice If if they take it into their head to make an allegation that subsequently turns out to be incorrect. If it is not a company policy for them to do so (which again I suspect it's not), then the company will wash their hands of the issue and any liablity will fall personally on the individual concerned.
For the sake of being vindictive it could lead to a significant personal loss to the accusee.

SOTV

29th Oct 2007, 13:24

The routine with my company is quite simple. Your line manager administers the test. A zero reading and you just get on with the job. A positive breath test under the limit could (depending on the level) initiate a full medscreen urine test and being taken off the job until results are known.

Fail a test then you are down the road at once, no questions. Also there would be little chance of ever being employed again as a driver.

As for the stress involved, it has become a routine thing. No big deal.

Any incident on the line will result in a medscreen if you are suspected of any fault. After a fatality (suicide) some years ago I was breathalysed three times in the space of 90 minutes. Civilian police, transport police and employer.

As I said before, 36 hrs between glass and seat.

tomahawk_pa38

29th Oct 2007, 13:34

Train Operating Companies are required to have a system for compliance with the Transport and Works act 1992 which makes it a criminal offence to work on the railway essentially above the drink drive limit. In response to this act the rail industry adopted the lower levels of alcohol (already quoted in this thread) to guarantee compliance with the act. Network Rail, LUL and th Train Operating Companies are compelled through their operator's licensing scheme (previously Railway Safety Cases) to have a system for random selection, pre-employment screening and 'for cause' screening.

In addition it is incumbent on contractors working on the infrastructure (through contract conditions and supplier accreditation) to have similar compatible system.

It is up to each contractror or operator to apply the rules which is subject to audit.

xetroV

29th Oct 2007, 14:06

100% testing of all crew (pilots, cabin crew and air marshals) when they report for work has now become a norm in some new airlines in India. The acceptable limit is .000.
Seems reasonable, until you realize you'll exceed that limit by drinking an orange juice.

HeliCraig

29th Oct 2007, 14:25

The issue of whether or not airport staff have reported the pilot concerned, while entirely speculative at the moment, and the subsequent posts on the topic raise an interesting question.

If, as has been suggested, it was an entirely malicious report resultant from some form of "squabble" earlier in the day then it is clearly totally unacceptable and the individual should be prosecuted for wasting police time as well as sent the bill for costs from Virgin.

However... the really interesting question (IMHO) is what if it was a genuine report made to the police because the staff member smelt alcohol on the pilot during an normal interaction between them?

As other contributors have said the staff member is most likely not qualified or obliged (contractually) to report the occurrence; however perhaps they have simply reported a smell of alcohol to the police; who have then decided to act on the information as has been reported. The staff member has done nothing more than report a fact "I can smell alcohol," and questionably is reporting this in the interests of flight safety??

So, they are essentially reporting an observation - in good faith - for further investigation by a competent body. It is then down to them how to deal with the matter - I would suggest going and seeing if they could also smell alcohol would be a good starting point!

It is just a thought which occurs to me, that's all. I am neither saying I agree with that standpoint, nor disagree - just my two penneth worth and seeing what the rest of you think!

Craig.

Yellow Sun

29th Oct 2007, 15:22

SOTV & tomahawk_pa38,

Thank you for that information. I think it is important that the aviation industry becomes aware that it is not the only section of industry subject to strict controls and to see that there are other ways of approaching it. The rail operators however appear to have been left room for manoeuvre in the legislation. This does not exist in the aviation field where the breath test blood alcohol (BAC) limit was set at the lowest level that could be reliably detected. It does not imply that there is any impairment of function at that limit. Had the limit been set with more reference to the impairment level (which would still have been well below that for driving) then there would have been room for companies to introduce their own testing regimes below the legal limit. As it is the companies are now in a bind, they would be committed to the legal limit as it is not possible to test below it and as we know there appear to be a disturbing number of false positives at this level.

I am little surprised that no one has commented on my other observation that it might be appropriate to apply similar BAC limits to police and maybe customs officers.

YS

Pelican

29th Oct 2007, 15:49

As I said before, 36 hrs between glass and seat.

36 hours!!? I mean, come on! Where do we draw the line? Why not make it 48 hours, or indeed the whole week preceeding you coming to work?

I appreciate 8 hrs bottle to throttle may well not be enough, but really...

strake

29th Oct 2007, 15:59

So many people ready to play supacop with no official training

Sounds very easy when written after the event.

Returning from a recent trip, I was in a lift at T3 LHR at 7am with 3 or 4 other passengers and their "complimentary Limo" drivers. I was pushed up pretty close to someone elses driver and when he turned round towards me to get out, he reeked and I mean reeked of alcohol...he also looked pretty rough but I accept that's a fairly subjective state.
So, out of interest, anyone here care to state what they would do next and would it be any different had the guy been a pilot?

Andy Rylance

29th Oct 2007, 16:36

There has been much talk about "what you would do" in certain situations. No one really knows until they are faced with the problem - theory and practice as so different.

Airlines would hopefully seek out the informant to the authorities and get their details. It makes excellent pr anyway for an airline to contact the informant and make them feel as though they have done the right thing - on balance of course they are trying to find out exactly how/why they reported this matter. Do it under the guise of "we are hoping to make our detection rates of these matters better by learning" - say that an informant will probably feel they are high almighty and special and gush out information like there is no tomorrow.

If any vindictiveness is found in the informant's intentions then a clear letter from the airline would be in order that they intend to seek damages and make an example - BUT you would have to prove a link between the two of them to make it clear there was malicious play afoot....

ted baker

29th Oct 2007, 17:02

SOTV,

Jeez I need to be on your Roster, I'm working far far too hard.

36hrs means me having a glass of vino with my dinner once a week before my two days off or on annual leave. Alternatively I could start 1/2 way through a duty and be clear for the next one :rolleyes:

Right, I'm off to re-train (pun intended) ;)

Nicholas49

29th Oct 2007, 18:49

strake (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=56415), your point is excellent, but the chauffer in the lift was not an airline pilot responsible for the lives of hundreds of people. Yes, he could have crashed his car and killed people, and yes of course there should be stories written about his lot too, but there is quite obviously a distinction to be made here.

Inconvenient, yes. Embarassing, yes. Costly, yes. Time-consuming, yes. Headline-grabbing for that obsence newspaper the Daily Mail, yes definitely. But a necessary safe guard to ensure safety? I think so.

757_Driver

29th Oct 2007, 19:56

thread drift but:

If you actually look at real risk and real statistics and not daily mail propoganda then actually, yes the limo driver (and all professional drivers) should have zero alchohol limit and yes, should be dobbed in.
To my recollection there has not been a single commercial aviation fatality anywhere in the world, ever due to alcohol, wheras in the UK alone last year 3000 people died on the roads with 10,000s more seriously injured, of which 1/4 to 1/3 were due to alchohol, Including a National Express coach driver.
I'm certainly not condoning drinking before a flight and indeed anyone that does so should get the full force of the justice system, but if anyone wants to play vigilante then start looking where the damage is being done by people drinking when they shouldn't. May I suggest the roads, hospitals and police stations as a more worthwihle crusade than airports.

Nicholas49

29th Oct 2007, 20:20

757_Driver: Agreed, that's what the statistics show.

To look at it from another point of view, is it not the case that others should learn from the high standards set by pilots regarding safe conduct and responsible behaviour?

strake

29th Oct 2007, 22:09

Strake,
Is it possible the limo driver just had a terrible cold/flu hence looking awful, didnt sleep well and a really bad case of halitocious or had maybe spilt some alcohol on his unifrom the night before when filling up the vodka decanter in the back of the limo...... Innoncent until proven right

Oh absolutely, anyone of those reasons. I'm not his judge anymore than a police officer would be but the question is, "is it irresponsible not to report him?"

They've got vodka decanters in the back of Virgin limos...??B******s! They've always hidden them from me.....:{

ILS 119.5

29th Oct 2007, 22:13

As I said earlier the aviation industry is not aware of "alcohol free" times. The regulators (SRG) do not do anything to combat this situation. Unfortunately aeroplane crashes will never show a fatigued pilot and I'm sure that more accidents are due to tiredness rather than alcohol. I have done a lot with human factors recently and alcohol is probably the least worrying factor. The most worrying aspect is fatigue and problems on the ground which is not helped by airports and their management. I find the most stressfull time is on the ground where more mistakes can be made due to pressure to get airborne again.
What also tickles me is that Airport Security can turn up and work being under the influence i.e. pissed and can then let someone pass through and because they are under the influence not detect it. BANG bomb. However a pilot can turn up for work after only having half a pint of beer and be arrested. Or the pilot can turn up for work alcohol free and either fly the plane into the ground or get the axe from the cockpit and attack the passengers. I do not know what the world is coming to, I just wish that the people in power would listen to the people in the driving seat.

BYALPHAINDIA

29th Oct 2007, 23:26

Why couldn't the police have done the testing - onboard there and then, Then If he was under the limit, There would have being no delay, No cause for concern, And most of all no embarrasment of everyone deplaning at the F/O expense??

I have never understood why the police cannot give a full result at the roadside, Or in this situation on an Aircraft.

Without arresting someone, Taking them to the station and then doing the same test again, Can't they do all this away from the station??

There is not much travelling time before they get to the station anyway.

I have never understood this - Mind you I have never understood the police!!:D

There a law to themselves!!:ugh:

Hand Solo

30th Oct 2007, 00:05

The roadside breathalyser is not sufficiently accurate. If you fail the roadside test you are taken to the police station where you are tested on a much more accurate machine, and it is that machine which the police use to determine if you are over the limit. Perhaps they could do it all at the roadside but it would mean driving a van around with the calibrated machine in the back. Hardly practical or a good use of taxpayers money.

scroggs

30th Oct 2007, 08:59

Why couldn't the police have done the testing - onboard there and then, Then If he was under the limit, There would have being no delay, No cause for concern, And most of all no embarrasment of everyone deplaning at the F/O expense??

I think you'll find that both the airline and the Police would prefer that any testing takes place out of sight of passengers, some of whom will be quite nervous enough already. And who knows when there's a Daily Rant journalist about to turn a non-event into a crisis?

After the unfortunate event in April, when a teetotal Virgin pilot was wrongly accused yet 'failed' a breath test due to acetones in his breath from an over-enthusiastic adoption of the Atkins diet, I imagine and hope that the testing carried out now will be fully verified before any statements are made about the pilot's blood/alcohol level. That will take a little time.

As for reporting of pilots, it may be distasteful and demeaning but it will happen, and there is little rational or moral argument you can make against it. If safety is indeed paramount, then it must be subject to scrutiny - even from non-experts. If only there was a visual/smell test for fatigue!

Unwell_Raptor

30th Oct 2007, 09:17

If you fail the roadside test you are taken to the police station where you are tested on a much more accurate machine, and it is that machine which the police use to determine if you are over the limit.

Unless you are a pilot. As I said in an earlier post the police station machines are not sufficiently accurate at the very low (9mcg/100ml) maximum allowed for pilots, and only a blood test is accurate enough.

The law has just been changed to allow use of the next generation of roadside machines that will be accurate enough to use as evidence without the palaver of going to the police station. These machines are expensive though and they are likely to come into use slowly. The other problem is that drivers who blow between 40 and 50 ucg/100ml are entitled to blood or urine testing, so that will mean a trip to the nick too.

GearDown&Locked

30th Oct 2007, 15:31

Are we seeing some sort of a trend here? In this week alone 3 cases of alledged drinking & flying show up at Pprune. Is this the new weapon of aircrew massive distruction?! "Hey, I don't like this Capt... I think he smells of alchool, don't you think? Gimme the cellphone... that'll teach him".:=

GD&L

The Big Easy

31st Oct 2007, 10:38

Back on thread, anyone know if the VS pilot has been formally charged or not?

TBE.

Mister Geezer

31st Oct 2007, 10:44

Those of you who have been in the situation of living out of suitcases and coping with all the lifestyle consequences that go hand in hand with that, will appreciate that alcohol does play a significant role in the lives of some of our colleagues. These people need help and support and not hounded by people who obviously have no idea of how tiring and disruptive such a lifestyle can be! Even Lewis Hamilton said how his lifestyle was suffering due to 'living out of a suitcase' and not seeing friends and family often!

We all have a few drinks down route in the bar once we land but turning up from home and being accused of being under the influence is potentially pointing to a problem, which needs help! I hope this F/O does get the help and support that he needs if he is found to have reported whilst under the influence.

I fly short haul and spend most of my life away in hotels and I fly with people who do find that they need a drink every day after they fly. Having your bodyclock shot to pieces when you do longhaul will no doubt compound the problem further!

Kasual Observer

31st Oct 2007, 13:40

I hope this F/O does get the help and support that he needs if he is found to have reported whilst under the influence.

Whilst I'm sure that your intention is honourable, it is unfortunate that the tone of your post is one of condescension and pity. Where has it been quoted that this pilot has any sort of alcohol related problem at all?

I think that your post is just as damaging as the screaming, hysterical headline of the Daily Mail with their record of ignorance and lies. Until this pilot has actually been charged with anything and then found to be guilty of those charges then you should refrain from mawkish commentary.

May I remind you that the last time this happened, the pilot was found to have no alcohol in his system and the only reason there had been a false positive was because of excessive Ketones in his system due to a strict adherance to the Atkins diet. At the time, the torrent of abuse, schadenfreud and hysterical observation was enough to make one want to vomit when all that had happened, as in this case, was that someone on the ground had made an accusation and the pilot had been arrested based on that accusation and then had to give a blood sample. It takes about a week to 10 days for the results to get back to the police and for them to either formally charge the suspect or discharge him.

We still don't know who was the person who wrongly accused the other pilot of smelling as though he had alcohol on his breath. It is fairly obvious that the person who made the accusation was probably fairly sure about what they smelt. However, it is also fairly obvious that the person was a complete and total tosser because they applied their suspicion in isolation and without any other consideration or observation.

It is also very possible that the same thing has happened here. Someone has believed that they smelt something that they believe was alcohol from the pilot. An allegation is made and the police are bound to follow their procedures. If, it again turns out that the pilot was not under the influence of any alcohol then it is time that we looked at the way these allegations are handled.

In the meantime, we don't need sanctimonious sympathy or advice on how to look after this pilot. As and when the police either formally charge or discharge the pilot we can all have another rant, one way or the other. :rolleyes:

Farrell

31st Oct 2007, 16:00

Opinions about aircrew being taken from planes and from departure gates under suspicion of being 'over the limit' has been discussed to death on this forum over the years.
The same comments from the same folk - a thread like this is not worthy of comment. The link to the news website where the story is should be pasted in and those of you who feel the need to can read it and ponder on the event in your head.
Comments on it are a waste of bandwidth especially seeing as though most, if not all of you are unconnected to the incident in general apart from either sharing a simlar job title or having a passing interest in planes.

It's a bit like the hundreds of posts from the 'unqualified' about recent air crashes. Same old same old. :rolleyes:

rick0

31st Oct 2007, 22:47

Why is it that every thread turns into an argument? Its like a joke reading these threads!

Does anyone know about the VS Co Pilot then?

kiwi chick

31st Oct 2007, 22:54

My personal maxim is no alcohol in the 36 hours preceding a working day. Not worth it.

Um. I'm not sure there'd be any Pilots left if this became law.

;)

Fantome

1st Nov 2007, 16:37

Too right Farrell old chasp. But you will never outlaw, exclude or re-educate the vacuous.

Maybe stay longer in the desert. 40 days and forty nights seems hardly long enough

cwatters

1st Nov 2007, 19:59

> nteresting that some posters assume the FO was 'shopped' by Security and
> not a vengeful cabin crew member ...

This report says "Airport worker"..

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2007/10/29/cops-haul-drunk-pilot-off-jet-89520-20024343/

..best ignore the headline or it might effect your blood pressure.

SpamCanDriver

1st Nov 2007, 20:21

A Virgin pilot was arrested in a similar incident in April - but he was found to just have bad breath and cleared.
:D
Reminds me of a cabin crew memo when I worked fo Ryanair telling cabin crew to have a shower before they came to work! As they had had compaints about smelly cc :}

Beaver diver

1st Nov 2007, 20:45

I was always wondering why all the threads with alcohol related issues are ones amongst longest ones?
Don't drink and drive is a gesture given to us (or we have had enlightened ourselves prior to that) by the Government,but I really don't know about ; Don't drink and fly, as the Government has It's say on it as well, big time!
About the enlightement of the pilots here???
There will always be a John Wayne somewhere out there even though we all tend to be "straight" most of our time and follow our stereotypes hoping we won't become one.
Well, maybe Richie is too good of a boss?

Carpe

2nd Nov 2007, 19:10

Well lets wait and see. If this pilot proves innocent too, my suspicion will be heightened that someone at LHR Security has a hidden agenda!

The Big Easy

8th Nov 2007, 14:44

Well, was he charged or not, anyone know?

A and C

9th Nov 2007, 08:29

I think it takes about three weeks for the blood test results to return from the lab and I would be suprized if he could be charged without any evidence to support that charge.

So the answer to your question is if charges are to be made this would happen in the next week or so.

doubtfire

9th Nov 2007, 13:24

Below is a paste from the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 to which we now come under.

93 Prescribed limit

(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 Part.
94 Aviation functions

(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,

(g) acting as an air traffic controller in pursuance of a licence granted under or by virtue of an enactment (other than a licence granted to a student), and

(h) acting as a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer.

Note that Cabin Crew have the same limits as pilots.

Try this scenario:

You arrive in the flight deck on earlies with four sectors ahead of you completely sober and having not drunk any alcohol in the preceeding 48 hours (seriously, it can happen).

You spend a few minutes wiping down the Sidestick/control column, thrust levers, flap, speedbrake lever etc etc with a few alcohol based hand wipes the company thoughtfully provide for you in the crewroom.

With the last wipe you clean your hands all over, then a few moments later you casually wipe the back of your hand over your mouth/lips.

Next thing you know there`s a bit of a random check going on on the ramp and a very insistent policeman alongside airport official etc is asking you for a breathalyser sample.

You blow into the machine and find it reads 11 mg/100ml.

Now your being whisked off to the police station in view of pax waiting to board, including therein, a member of the press who gets the whole story from the dispatcher /baggage handler who is only to glad to spread the gossip.

Before you know it your in the paper next day and labelled a drunk, so on and so forth.

Far fetched....

I did all the above, only it was my breathalyser (AL6000) and very accurate (according to the price tag)

Same experiment but with alcohol based hand rub gel came up with a reading of 27mg/100ml. This no doubt would translate the next day to a comprehensive "Pilot 3 Times over the Limit" headline, just above your airlines name. blah blah, pilot drunk, blah blah, lives at risk, blah blah, public outraged, blah blah, share price fallen.....etc etc

Just a thought. (I was bored and waiting for slot)

Flintstone

9th Nov 2007, 13:34

Errrrm, what did you do with the wipes and gel afterward? If you're not going to finish them off.........................:E

Outlook

9th Nov 2007, 14:05

I believe there is a legal requirement to wait 30 minutes between the last 'consumption' of alcohol and the breath test to prevent situations similar to this. If this is correct then should you declare using an alcohol wipe prior to the breath test and will the police wait the time period?

I wait to be corrected....

RichieD

9th Nov 2007, 14:07

Hmmm.. interesting, pardon me if i'm wrong.. i've no knowledge of how 'aviation related' personel are "tested" for alcohol..
But, the standard UK police practice is for the accused to be tested roadside with a handheld device which on it's own is NOT enough to bring a successful prosecution as it is not accurate enough.
Any charge is as a result of using an evidential breathaliser at the nick - these work on analysing the breath from deep within the lungs and therefore should be 'immune' from contamination from instances such as alcohol wipes or residue coming in contact with the mouth...

However.. (if your driving/flying) i'd strongly advise against using any mouthwashes - these usually contain rather alarmingly large amounts of alcohol :ouch:

In any instance, i'd imagine the accused would be offered the chance of a blood test which would prove their innocence?

doubtfire

9th Nov 2007, 14:33

Very true regards the further test at the station, but that doesn`t stop the reporter emailing his paper the story before your bums so much as left your seat. Innocent you might be but you`ve already been tried and convicted in the papers.
I`m not suggesting the above scenario is a likely possibility, just food for thought on a topical debate.

outofsynch

9th Nov 2007, 15:35

Oh anyone can be in this situation without wipes/hand cleaner/mouthwash. Most bodies contain some alcohol which has been manufactured within, which is why 'zero allowable' levels are just daft. And why random testing for any crew should never be permitted....

And also why false accusations should carry a heavy sentence!

dazdaz

9th Nov 2007, 15:59

Doubtfire....
One could wear those cellophane gloves that come free at most petrol stations, to avoid skin contact with wipes. Just an idea.

Daz

Tags

23rd Nov 2007, 16:50

Internal Statement released on company intranet:

Summarising.... "following the results of his blood test, no offence was committed, no charges will be brought. The pilot is now expected to resume his duties."

It is about time the :mad: wits that "write" for the red tops are forced to eat their words. Are we likely to see a retraction, I doubt it.

PS. Mods, any chance we can get the thread title changed to highlight this fact?

Rainboe

23rd Nov 2007, 16:53

Really! I wonder if we will see some retractions and apologies from some of the thundering idiots who pronounced on this thread? Nah....guess not!

Random Electron

23rd Nov 2007, 19:09

Please, can we ask any VS drivers reading this to lobby SRB to thump the disgusting pond-life who hyped up this story where it hurts, in the Courts and in the pocket.
I'm sure he has a very competent firm of lawyers who would relish a libel / slander case.

Flying Lawyer

24th Nov 2007, 08:22

BBC News:

No charges for drink arrest pilot (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7110630.stm)

"The results of a blood test found he was under the legal limit for aviation workers."

Given that the limit for pilots is virtually zero, some may wonder how the person who saw fit to report him could genuinely have suspected he was over the limit.

cwatters

24th Nov 2007, 08:32

>I'm sure he has a very competent firm of lawyers who would relish a libel / slander case.

The papers are usually very careful to insert words like "suspicion".

I wondered if there was a case under advertising standards - do big headlines and over hyped stories ammount to missleading adverts designed to get people to buy papers? In which case are they misrepresenting the product (the actual news story)?

Daysleeper

24th Nov 2007, 08:40

I guess the real story here is that the RTA is comprehensively broken and the aviation sections need repealing and replacing with something that actually achieves its aims.

Some serious questions also need to be asked of the police and the equipment and procedures they are using in these cases.

Unwell_Raptor

24th Nov 2007, 09:04

Some serious questions also need to be asked of the police and the equipment and procedures they are using in these cases.

I cannot see anything very different in the aviation and road traffic alcohol procedures. other than the much lower limit for the former. Officer forms reasonable suspicion that subject has consumed alcohol - requires screening test - if passed, no action. If failed or refused, subject arrested and taken to police station. If no screening tester is available the officer has power to arrest anyway (on reasonable suspicion) as they do with drivers.
Because the aviation limit is so low the evidential breath tester in the police station cannot be used (it is designed and calibrated for a limit of 35 mcg/100ml) so a blood sample has to be taken by a doctor, and sent off for analysis. If. as in the Virgin case, the test reveals the subject to be under the limit, no further action. If it's over, subject will be charged.

This was a gruelling experience for the pilot, and we have to sympathise with what he went through, but surely the overriding need to ensure airline safety makes it a price that has to be paid. It happens to train drivers and to car drivers all the time - there is no need for new rules for pilots.

The only equipment-related difference that I can see is that if a driver blows between 35.1 and 39.9 mcg/100ml he will not be charged. There is no such leeway given with a blood test, for pilots or motorists - it's pass or fail.

Shiny side down

24th Nov 2007, 09:37

I'm saddened that the follow up isn't headlined as 'pilot cleared.'

Even now, there are undertones of suspicion in the report, hints of not proven innocent, etc.

More completely ballix reporting, trying to get a shock headline even when the story has disappeared.

Old King Coal

24th Nov 2007, 10:04

When stating "was under the legal alcohol limit for aviation workers" it need to be remembered that the limit is not set to zero as it necessarily needs to make allowance for normal bodily functions (i.e. as is oft said, the human body itself can manufacture alcohol) and therein even a teetotaller could blow a 'non-zero' reading. It is therefore very unfortunate that this is not emphasised in subsequent reporting of 'not-guilty as below the limit'.

The limit for aviation is such that being under it you are effectively are as sober as a judge.

SLFguy

24th Nov 2007, 10:49

Unfortunately the individual involved is still not out of the woods...

Our guys are breath tested before going offshore to certain, (Norwegian), facilities..

We had a guy who 'failed' but subsequently 'passed' a blood sample, (he did the blood under his own steam and cash!!!).

To this day every time they are going out there's some '"had a drink xxxx?" comment.

Throw enough mud and it some will stick.

swede-basher

24th Nov 2007, 10:50

Update on AOL news this lunchtime
http://news.aol.co.uk/arrested-pilot-under-alcohol-limit/article/20071124023909990001

And the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-7100084,00.html

Hopefully this will get some coverage over the weekend, not much of a consolation I know.

windytoo

24th Nov 2007, 11:30

maybe the police could now expend some of their energy on questioning the pilot's accuser to asertain his/her reason for reporting this? it couldn't be that they smelt alcohol because there wasn't any.was it vindictive?

Daysleeper

24th Nov 2007, 13:02

Unwell_Raptor surely the overriding need to ensure airline safety makes it a price that has to be paid.
You say the system is fine, I don't have the stats but it would make an interesting Freedom of Information request.
How many operating crew have been subject to testing under the "reasonable suspicion" that they have breached the RTA?
How many have been positive using the field equipment?
How many have later been proven not to have been over the effective zero limit?
How many have later been found guilty of an offense?

In other words are the procedures and equipment actually able to reduce the number of false positives to an acceptable level?
And does the risk we are attempting to prevent actually justify the destruction of reputation's of pilots and airlines that a false positive produces.

PAXboy

24th Nov 2007, 13:03

windytoo Whilst I agree with you, how about "What a wonderful employee, looking out for the well being of pax." :*

Unwell_RaptorIt happens to train drivers and to car drivers all the time - there is no need for new rules for pilots.It may well happen to train drivers - but do they get hauled off in front of pax, escorted through the terminal in front of pax and create headlines in the press that can smear the carrier and other crew? It is THAT which needs changing.

green granite

24th Nov 2007, 13:16

Given that the limit for pilots is virtually zero, some may wonder how the person who saw fit to report him could genuinely have suspected he was over the limit.

Is it not the case that, irrespective of how the police were informed of a possible offense being committed, that the officer may only administer a breath test if he has grounds for believing that the person has been drinking? I.E. he could smell Alcohol on the pilots breath/saw him/her drinking an alcoholic drink.

If the police did a breath test just based on a third party's say so would that not have been illegal?

Daysleeper

24th Nov 2007, 13:24

If the police did a breath test just based on a third party's say so would that not have been illegal?

Didn't stop them testing that crew in Manchester cos a passenger complained they had done a go around. :rolleyes:

BillS

24th Nov 2007, 15:32

It is worth reading the comments posted by the public (and even someone claiming a PPL) following the AOL report
http://news.aol.co.uk/arrested-pilot-under-alcohol-limit/article/20071124023909990001
It shows clearly just how much damage is done to a reputation and also shows why some sort of action should be taken to stop such accusations.

Feel free to add your own comment!

757_Driver

24th Nov 2007, 18:38

well I sincerely hope that he finds who made the allegation, which must have been malicious. Anyone who has a lower alchohol content than the aviation limit would not 'smell' of alchohol or exhibit any 'drunken' tendancies, which means that a malicious accusation sounds fairly likely.

this is not the first time this has happened. About time someone was prosecuted for these sort of accusations.

tablelover

24th Nov 2007, 20:47

Green Granite, I assume that if an aircraft is forced to return to stand following such an accusation, a wait is incurred for steps/a stand/a jetty etc then plod strolling on deciding there isnt enough cause to administer such a test, patting the guy on the back and letting them on their merry way isnt sufficient. Would the falsely accused then be in a fit state to operate? Would the crew now be in hours? Has the destination got a curfew? Is it wise for any company to allow the falsely accused to operate and assume if anything totally unconnected occurs the red tops would not have a field day?

It appears in such an incident the police have no choice therefore to administer the test. I accept that. It therefore makes it even more important to ascertain why the accusation has been made and if any fault can be found the accuser is dealt with severly, it is not an acceptable defence to claim one was acting in the interests of the passengers and using it as a 'get out of jail card.'

Regards

green granite

24th Nov 2007, 20:58

It appears in such an incident the police have no choice therefore to administer the test. I accept that. It therefore makes it even more important to ascertain why the accusation has been made and if any fault can be found the accuser is dealt with severly, it is not an acceptable defence to claim one was acting in the interests of the passengers and using it as a 'get out of jail card.'

I agree, the offense of "wasting police time" springs to mind.

victorviscount

24th Nov 2007, 21:07

why on earth would it be a vengefull crew member our collegues in the flight deck are allways so pleaseant and a pleasure to work with why would any crew d that !!

NZScion

24th Nov 2007, 21:27

I once failed a screening test while driving a car - despite not having drunk a thing for weeks prior to the incident. Although I have no proof, I suspect that my mouthwash had caused me to set the machine off, as I had used some about an hour before. Fortunately there is a second screening test here in NZ which doesn't just detect the presence of alcohol, it measures the breath alcohol content. After passing this I was able to proceed on my merry way.

Surely something similar could be used in situations like this to save all of that wasted time, money and tarnished reputations...

411A

24th Nov 2007, 21:29

One must remember that a VS crew member was found intoxicated, prosecuted, and found guilty not all that long ago, even if that crew member was found over the limit downroute.
Therefore VS has a slight cloud over their operations in this regard.
Why?
How many other airlines passing through LHR has had a FD crew member sucessfully prosecuted for the relevent offence?
Numbers on a postcard.:rolleyes:

tablelover

24th Nov 2007, 21:40

411a

'one swallow does not make a summer'

haughtney1

24th Nov 2007, 22:22

411, Royal Brunei springs to mind.....

4potflyer

25th Nov 2007, 00:05

Anyone who has a lower alchohol content than the aviation limit would not 'smell' of alchohol or exhibit any 'drunken' tendancies, which means that a malicious accusation sounds fairly likely.
Imagine someone is still groggy having not had their coffee yet and a poor night's sleep, and they've just had a quick rinse in the hotel with some alcohol laced mouthwash.
I am not saying this is what happened as I know nothing about any of this, however, this is a way someone could have appeared mildly drunk and smelt of alcohol, yet been completely OK.
Thank goodness the accused was cleared, it must be a great burden off them, however IMHO you can't go looking for revenge against someone who must be assumed to have had the safety of passengers in mind.
Now if the person who made the accusation was genuinely acting maliciously then it is a different matter, but there is no evidence of this.
How can people be happy to presume the accuser acted with malice but berate the press for similar reporting on the pilot? Pot, kettle, black?

PAXboy

25th Nov 2007, 00:56

I should like to propose a positive possibility.

This FO was found to be innocent of the accusation and at such a level that the words "smelt of alcohol" could not be true.

If the cabin crew now accused in Manchester also turn out to be innocent of the accusation - then the Police are going to have to think very carefully. Two cases close to each other if they both prove to be innocent will force the carriers to look askance at any casual comment.

Is that hoping against hope? Well, BALPA ought to be able to make that point for you and I don't imagine that BA and VS are very happy about the cost to them of these events. If people are playing games - two events close to each other, could be what is needed to change the game.

Bobbsy

25th Nov 2007, 04:50

4potflyer sums it up nicely.

It's been well discussed...even here in PPRuNe...that there are various circumstances that can produce an apparent smell of alcohol on the breath when no drinking is involved. Mouthwash, as frequently mentioned, is one of them but there's also the classic case of a particular diet that gave an unfortunate pilot bad, apparently alcoholic, breath.

It's just as wrong to assume the original accusation was malicious as it is to assume the innocent pilot was guilty before seeing the results of the blood test. Unless the full facts are known, this sort of speculation is just as damaging as that rubbish on the AOL board.

Bobbsy

tablelover

25th Nov 2007, 07:18

It is wrong, and the current situation, where any allegations causing stress and disruption to individuals, companies, crew and passengers can be made maliciously without any comeback has to be looked at. It has happenned already in the UK as discussed previously.

A situation where a disgruntled passenger, security staff or colleague etc can make patently false accusations is no different to hoax bomb threats IMHO. It is fantastic to hear this colleague has been found to have no case to answer due to his innocence, but that does not end the incident or the questions raised as a result. Where does it end? 'Drunk crew' is as sensationlist a headline as it is a false accusation and a sleight on our professional standing. People have and will make these claims based on no professional training and without coming into contact on occasions with crew. If only for 'educating' those who make false claims need to be dealt with.

Regards

Wiley

25th Nov 2007, 07:33

I have often wondered what I would do if the plod came to my cockpit before departure telling me they had received a report that I was drunk and wished me to take a breath or blood test. I am probably fooling myself, but I do not believe I would be outside my rights to agree to take the test, but only after I see the complaint in writing, with the name and address of my accuser clearly written on the letter making the allegation against me, with the clear inference that I will be taking the person making the allegation to court for every penny they own if I deliver a clean test.

Surely the police could be instructed to adopt a policy of informing any person attempting to place an anonymous report of this nature that their report will be ignored unless they are willing to give their name and address. If some such sytem is not adopted, we will quite possibly see flights cancelled and delayed by the dozen as those who think aeroplanes are polluting the environment realise they have stumbled on a surefire way of reducing such "polluting" flights.

Daysleeper

25th Nov 2007, 07:37

It is wrong, and the current situation, where any allegations causing stress and disruption to individuals, companies, crew and passengers can be made maliciously without any comeback has to be looked at. It has happenned already in the UK as discussed previously.

People who have genuine concerns should be able to report them to the police without fear of the consequences. The police officers are the ones who decide what action to take. I personally have reported someone for driving a car while I thought they were drunk.

It is what happens next that concerns me, as I said before there appears to be an issue that police officers responding to this sort of report seem "obliged" to test people using equipment that generates an unacceptably high level of false positives. This results in the mass of tabloid hysteria and the trashing of reputations and probably careers before the blood test turns out to have no alcohol.

I notice that very few media have this story while loads are covering the BA cabin crew one.... which sells more advertising.

Unwell_Raptor

25th Nov 2007, 07:52

but I do not believe I would be outside my rights to agree to take the test, but only after I see the complaint in writing,
You have no such right, any more than a car driver does. Refuse the test and you are arrested anyway. Even if no tester is available you can be arrested on suspicion of being unfit.
It is ludicrous to suggest that the police can only investigate an alleged (nb) crime if they tell the suspect exactly who has alerted them.

Wiley

25th Nov 2007, 08:16

I did lead with "I am probably fooling myself...", Unwell Raptor. I just cannot help but think that anonymously, and possibly maliciously, reporting aircrew as being drunk has hugely expensive implications, both for the airlines in delayed and cancelled flights, and for the aircrew involved in career threatening legal action.

I cannot help but think the airlines will eventually demand something like what I suggested above if such reports become frequent enough to affect the bottom line more than they are willing to bear. Sadly, I suspect that they will come up with some system in the meantime that will be even more intrusive into our already overregulated lives.

NZScion

25th Nov 2007, 10:09

Yet another example:

http://www.wisinfo.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200771120052

Interesting that the pilot was carrying a gun... Is this normal in the USA?

Bobbsy

25th Nov 2007, 12:16

Happily not yet "normal" but quite legal. Legislation was passed four or five years ago legalising armed flight crew on American airlines as a "security" measure.

As you can imagine, this was pretty controversial among aviation professionals.

FYI, there has even been talk of America asking permission for its pilots to be armed when flying to international destinations. See this article from a couple of months ago: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2007-02-07-us-pilots-guns_x.htm

I can't imagine that being popular in many countries.

Bobbsy

President Bush

25th Nov 2007, 15:03

411A(Posting 106).
You are factually WRONG.No VS pilot has EVER been prosecuted re an aviation-related alcohol charge. The case to which I believe you refer(in the USA 4 years ago) was resolved without any mention or suggestion of alcohol,although the sensationalist reporting style at the time of the incident(not the prosecution itself)was very different.
If your posting contributes anything at all(debateable),it is to demonstrate the very damaging effect of innaccurate reporting and the corrosive results of the media being able to say pretty much what they like but NOT being required to reverse their sensationalism when the facts emerge,proving them wrong from the outset.
Now then 411A,point us all in the direction of ANY link or documentation which backs up your words-or offer an apology.

411A

25th Nov 2007, 16:59

If as you say, PB, the reporting of the USA incident and later prosecution was not related to alcohol, it certainly was not reported in the popular press at the time, nor later.
And, that of course, is part of the basic problem.
I would hardly imagine that the modus operande of the tabloid press nor electronic media is about to change, and I would further suspect that any legislation proposed is not going to change things either.
What to do?
You folks in the UK seem to like BALPA so much, why not start your own media distribution centre, and counter many of these allegedly false accusations?
It would seem to me that many of those same folks who so decry the alleged inaccurate reporting do little to alleviate the unfavorable situation.
IE: where is your media action group?
Seems to me what you folks need is a 'friendly' jurno who is attuned to your way of thinking...sadly, from some of the comments here, jurnos are not to be trusted.
Wonder why that is?:ugh:
Complaining here on PPRuNe will hardly make a difference.
Now, if you would care to relate in a factual manner the complete details of the USA case, I might consider an apology, provided one is appropriate and in agreement with the facts.
Further, my comments earlier about the latest incident may well have been in error, and for that I would certainly apologise.

President Bush

25th Nov 2007, 17:43

Tell you what 411A-apology not necessary.
What I would say though,is that what comes out of this is that your perception of VS has clearly been influenced by the manner in which this case was reported-so it is reasonable to suppose that the public would react similarly. The degree of presumption is considerable and this is both damaging and highly regrettable.
With regard to the case in the USA,the crew member was indeed arrested on suspicion of being over the b/a limit.This was reported in a BLAZE of sensational global publicity. After having had his passport witheld and spending around 7 months in the USA ,he pled guilty to a relatively minor charge in which alcohol did not feature AT ALL. Oddly,none of this was reported anywhere. However,as your posting 106 proves the damage had long since been done.

Airbubba

25th Nov 2007, 18:14

he pled guilty to a relatively minor charge in which alcohol did not feature AT ALL. Oddly,none of this was reported anywhere.

Yep, none of this was reported anywhere :) :

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

He copped a misdemeanor plea on the infamous "we didn't know we wuz going flying" claim. He had earlier resigned from VS, I guess that proves his innocence...

President Bush

25th Nov 2007, 18:35

Airbubba.As you've just proven,411A is not alone in his presumptions.
Either you accept the judicial system or you do not. You uphold the sound principal of innocent until proven guilty or you do not. Your (smart) posting makes it quite clear where you stand.
Note,please,that the court was unable to convict on any charge involving alcohol-had it been able to do so,it most certainly would have done.You are clearly not aware of the circumstances surrounding this case or of the defense of the accused. Neither are you aware of the legal,factual or personal aspects, yet you have chosen to pompously and publicly condemn the man. You're just the sort of balanced and fair-minded individual we need to sit on juries,aren't you?
Have you ever considered moving to down-market tabloid journalism? The only compliment I can consider is to say that you're emminently qualified.

Airbubba

25th Nov 2007, 19:39

Neither are you aware of the legal,factual or personal aspects, yet you have chosen to pompously and publicly condemn the man.

Well, professor, enlighten us with your special wisdom. :)

I thought you said all this stuff was secret and not reported anywhere. Yep, you do owe 411A an apology.

411A

25th Nov 2007, 20:06

Extreme example but I hope there is or will be proper procedures for dealing with such false allegations. Perhaps Balpa should push to ensure there is adequate steps ?
That is why BALPA urgently needs an agressive media centre, to refute these alligations.
Failing that, I expect that the media will contine, unabated.
BALPA members, what say you?
Put your money where your (collective) mouth is.
Urgently needed, in my considerered* opinion.
Nothing less will do.
Sorry, them's the facts.

* And, yes, I have been around a very long time is airline flying.
Find a receptive jurno, and consider soliciting his input.
Sadly, many expect that jurnos consider the other side of the story.
Make 'em listen.
To repeat, nothing else will do...reasonably.
The ball is clearly in BALPA's court.
IE: spend the funds necessary to make the reporting factual..
The American ALPA seems to do much better job.
Just an observation, you understand, but perception is everything.
Make it count.