Drunk swedish pilot freed by court

[paparomeodelta]

The essence of this article in swedish media is that since the pilot did not already started to fly, he was not posing a threat to the passengers, disregarding the fact that he was on his way to start flying after exterior controls of the ac.

Can´t see the sense in this. Pretty difficult to establish road blocks in the sky, pulling the plane over, park it on a cloud and let him blow the alco meter...

Google translation with minor adjustments for clarity:

Berusad pilot frias | Resor | SvD (http://www.svd.se/resor/berusad-pilot-frias_7606792.svd)

"The pilot who was caught drunk at the Arlanda airport in May this year was acquitted. He had not had time to get start his work, consider Attunda District Court.

The man was caught in a random check.

During an inspection, it turned out that the 46-year-old pilot had a blood alcohol level of 0.96.

"It is not proven that the man had begun a task that was of "substantial importance to flight safety" stated the court.

The man worked at SAS, but is no longer employed. He drank, contrary to the SAS rules, alcohol the night before the flight to Copenhagen. Early in the morning he went to Copenhagen, where it was determined that he would act as co-pilot.

When he walked out of the plane to inspect it, he was met by police who conducted an alcohol control.

It is, according Attunda District Court, clear that the man was too drunk to fly the plane. But to be able to say he is guilty for exceeded alcohol level, it has to be proven that he performed a task "essential to flight safety."

[paparomeodelta]

;)

That is 0/0.

In Sweden they measure 0/00

[Crazy Voyager]

It should read 0.96 ‰ for clairty I think.


@paparomeodelta you say this in your post:
"[...]he was not posing a threat to the passengers, disregarding the fact that he was on his way to start flying after exterior controls of the ac."

But the article says this:

"
Det står, enligt Attunda tingsrätt, klart att mannen var för berusad för att få flyga planet. Men för att kunna fällas krävs, utöver överskriden promillehalt, också att han utförde en uppgift ”av väsentlig betydelse för flygsäkerheten”.


Om han hade påbörjat säkerhetsinspektionen hade han fällts för flygfylleri, enligt rätten. Han har dock själv uppgett att han bara gick ut för att han såg poliserna komma."


Which translated would be:
According to the court of Attund it is clear that the man was to intoxicated to fly the plane. But to be convicted he had to, apart from being over the legal limit, have performed a task "of significant importance to flying/air security".

Had he started the security inspection he had been convicted for drunk flying (my own translation :rolleyes:), said the court. But he himself stated that he only went out because he saw the police approaching."


My point being that it seems he had not actually begun the external inspection, or atleast that it's not proven he had. Therefore he isn't convicted, had he done so he had been found guilty.

And since he's lost his job for breaking SAS rules and has had his certificate revoked I don't think we'll find him flying regardless, which I suppose is just as well...

[porch monkey]

0.096% would be the correct number I would think.

[Arkroyal]

0.096% would be the correct number I would think.

And therefore not 'Drunk'

[HeadingSouth]

So the intention to fly the plane in this state does not count as criminal offence ?
(I assume he intended to fly the leg as otherwise he'd been smart to hand himself over to police before they come out looking for him)
Sounds like he can be convicted only once there is the proverbial smoking hole in the ground.
(I won't discuss here about the 0.096 or the issue that this can arise due to medication etc.)

[green granite]

So the intention to fly the plane in this state does not count as criminal offence ?

No because intent cannot be proven in a court of law as was found out the hard way by the Manchester police a few years ago. Until a person commits aviation there has been no offence. The art is knowing at what point it can be deemed that an offence has been committed which is why British police wait until the person is settled in the aircraft.

[HeadingSouth]

thx granite... the time window to catch a possible offender just gets marginal then...

[RAT 5]

What about 'conspiracy before the fact.' There are numerous events, and certainly those of terrorist bombing nature, where they would shoot you to stop the act. That would be a bit drastic here. It is similar to drunk driving. There are grey areas, in that 'being in charge' of the vehicle can also be an offence. Once there was a driver who slept in his car as he was over the limit to drive. having the keys on his person deemed him to be 'in charge' of the vehicle. I assume he was not done for driving. Here the pilot might have to prove he did not intend to fly, but that does not seem to have been necessary. He got done for drunk on duty.

[Capn Bloggs]

0.096% would be the correct number I would think.

And therefore not 'Drunk'
Here, a pilot is "drunk" at 0.02%, a car driver is fined and loses licence for 3 months at 0.05%.

[Dg800]

What about 'conspiracy before the fact.'Conspiracy for starters requires more than one person to commit and it requires said people to actually take some preparatory actions before any court would convict, i.e. some level of definite commitment must be proven. Three drunk people around a table talking **** about robbing a bank does not constitute conspiracy to rob a bank. If they go out and start buying appropriate tools then you might have a case.

In the case of the above-legal-limit pilot the defense would argue that his professional and personal conscience might have caused him to exonerate himself (by calling in sick or too fatigued) at the last minute, causing no more than a delay in departure while the reserve was called in. If he had instead already taken his place in the cockpit and was actually going through the engine start checklist than such a defense would most likely get thrown out and you might get a conviction, even if the plane had not yet taken off, as starting the engines will most likely be seen as actually operating an aircraft, as opposed to just doing the walkaround.

Here the pilot might have to prove he did not intend to flyOf course you cannot prove that, it's the prosecution that has to prove that you intended to fly. Waiting until you have actually and unmistakably committed yourself to flying the plane might work better next time. On the other hand, waiting until the plane has started taxing and then stopping it to check the flight crew would be extremely disruptive, I don't think we'll be seeing that actually happen unless extremely suspicious behavior is detected (slurred speech on the RT?)

[Dg800]

Sounds like he can be convicted only once there is the proverbial smoking hole in the ground.Not really, checks are performed on landing as well. Any pilot who tests positive right after landing the plane will definitely get a conviction as well as lose his job and license. That said, not doing preventative checks but only checking after the fact simply because that way you can get more convictions (as if they were some sort of personal trophy :=) would in itself be borderline criminal. After all, actually improving flight safety should really be the Number 1 priority...

[EEngr]

"It is not proven that the man had begun a task that was of "substantial importance to flight safety" stated the court.When he walked out of the plane to inspect it, he was met by police who conducted an alcohol control.Hmm. I'd think that a pre-flight walk around would be of substantial importance to flight safety.

[Dg800]

Hmm. I'd think that a pre-flight walk around would be of substantial importance to flight safety. He was probably met by police either at the bottom of the stairs or even right at the door, hence he never actually commenced the walk around. I know, we're discussing minutiae here, but in a court of law they're often what decides whether there's going to be a conviction or not.

[HeadingSouth]

Law and jurisdiction always amaze me. This event fits neatly into the scheme.
Above someone stated that flight safety should be paramount, and this case once again shows that this simply is not the case. They filed a flight plan with the crew involved, and to me that's already sufficient to lock the bars.

[Dg800]

He lost his job and his license, i.e. he won't be flying any more. How does not putting him behind bars negatively affect flight safety?

[cwatters]

Are there no calculations (fuel, CoG etc) that you need to do or at least sign off on before external checks?

[Dg800]

There's two pilots, he might not have had to sign anything himself (yet). Point is, we don't really know the details as they were known to the court. I'm pretty confident myself that they reviewed the case very thoroughly before coming to their decision.

[HeadingSouth]

In don't wish this guy to be unemployed or even not flying anymore. There are numerous discussions about how to treat crew that have an alcohol problem. I don't want to touch this subject.
But if you were to sit on this plane flown by an intoxicated crew member - I am not sure you'd be too happy about it.
Putting someone behind bars was meant to imply some sort of punishment (doesn't have to be the proverbial bars, can be any other sort of punishment deemed appropriate).

But filing a legal flight plan being intoxicated and including himself in the crew setup already serves as a criminal offence - IMHO.

[Crazy Voyager]

Quote:
"It is not proven that the man had begun a task that was of "substantial importance to flight safety" stated the court.
Quote:
When he walked out of the plane to inspect it, he was met by police who conducted an alcohol control.
Hmm. I'd think that a pre-flight walk around would be of substantial importance to flight safety.
He hadn't begun a pre-flight walk around according to the article, I quote myself from my previous post:


"
Det står, enligt Attunda tingsrätt, klart att mannen var för berusad för att få flyga planet. Men för att kunna fällas krävs, utöver överskriden promillehalt, också att han utförde en uppgift ”av väsentlig betydelse för flygsäkerheten”.


Om han hade påbörjat säkerhetsinspektionen hade han fällts för flygfylleri, enligt rätten. Han har dock själv uppgett att han bara gick ut för att han såg poliserna komma."


Which translated would be:
According to the court of Attund it is clear that the man was to intoxicated to fly the plane. But to be convicted he had to, apart from being over the legal limit, have performed a task "of significant importance to flying/air security".

Had he started the security inspection he had been convicted for drunk flying (my own translation :rolleyes:), said the court. But he himself stated that he only went out because he saw the police approaching."
What the article says is that the pilot has not been proven to have begun the inspection, but rather that he left the aircraft to meet the policemen. Therefore it has not been proven a preflight inspection had begun and the court judged there was not enough to convict him.

The article in itself actually says "När han gick ut ur planet för att inspektera det möttes han av polis som skulle genomföra en nykterhetskontroll." which means: "When he left the plane to inspect it he was met by police who were to conduct a test looking for alcohol".

But further down it says:
"Om han hade påbörjat säkerhetsinspektionen hade han fällts för flygfylleri, enligt rätten. Han har dock själv uppgett att han bara gick ut för att han såg poliserna komma."
"If he had begun the safety inspection he had been convicted for "drunk flying", according to the court. But he himself has stated that he only left because he saw the police coming".


So from what I can tell the court has decided that in order to perform a task "of substantial importance tp flight safety" you would have to have begun a preflight inspection (or I guess something like start-up procedures, even though that's my guess and not something stated in the article). Since it can not be proven in this case he had begun an inspection, the court has decided to free him.

As stated above he has lost his job and license (and as I understand it did so long before the court had ruled) so there should be no risk of him ever flying again regardless.

It also says at the bottom of the article that the Swedish Pilot's association (Svensk Pilotförening) are pleased with the courts rule, even though they state that they do not defend his actions they find the legal ruling to be sound.

[Dg800]

In don't wish this guy to be unemployed or even not flying anymore.

Then you are clearly contradicting yourself, i.e. you don't want him to lose his job but on the other hand you would have preferred to see him served with a criminal conviction that would make him automatically lose his job and his license. You just can't have both, you have to pick one.

[FlexibleResponse]

The case does raise an interesting point.

If you are walking out of a bar in an intoxicated state in the general direction of the car park, AND you have your car keys in your pocket...can you be found guilty of exercising the privileges of your car driving licence whilst in an intoxicated state?

[riverrock83]

The case does raise an interesting point.

If you are walking out of a bar in an intoxicated state in the general direction of the car park, AND you have your car keys in your pocket...can you be found guilty of exercising the privileges of your car driving licence whilst in an intoxicated state?
Well in the UK if you then climb into the back seat of your car and fall asleep when drunk then you can be found guilty (a lawyer found that out the hard way a few years ago I believe) no matter how much you protest that you weren't going to drive it...

The words in the UK are "in charge of a motor vehicle". That could just mean "in the vicinity of". Essentially you have to prove you had no intention of driving it for the court to consider a defence. Always difficult to prove that you weren't going to do something...

[BobnSpike]

A few years back a US crew had pushed back, but were recalled to the gate for a breath test based on concerns raised by the security screeners. Both blew over limit.

At trial, the defense was that since the tug had not disconnected, technically it was the tug driver and not them operating the airplane.

Nice try.

At least one of them spent several years as a guest of the state.

[captplaystation]

This is a bit of a piss-take no ? he showed for work, signed in somewhere I guess (electronically or with a BIC) used (I assume) his ID rather than a boarding pass to go to the aircraft . . . .and then ? he was going to buy a ticket online & jump in the back ?/he was a closet plane-spotter ? / or he was going to be a member of the crew on the thing ?

Really truly, being a product of a much more forgiving era, I sympathise. . but FFS, he was "goin flyin", so, in this sh1tty politically correct era, if he has kept his pension, he should count himself lucky IMHO.

"Excuse me Sir, how did you gain access to this area,and what are your intentions here ?" Duh ! ! Julian Assange has maybe not so much to fear if this is how Swedish Justice works ;)

[Pace]

Surely prevention is better! on the Japanese rail system Train drivers have to blow into a breath test machine when signing in for duty first thing.

It would be an easy thing to do the same for pilots going through security airside. Items jackets belts etc through the scanning machine blow into the breath test equipment? Job done no more drunk pilots.

We have to be checked for weapons or anything we may take airside which could threaten the safety of aircraft why not alcohol?

[FlyingCroc]

Strange story, why would the police check him during the preflight check? I mean this guy not just had some left over alcohol, this guy was stone drunk with a BAC of 0.96. Why did this guy even show up for work, what about his fellow crew members, why did they not tell him to book off before the flight?

Now about the car laws. In the US you can sleep in the car drunk as long as the key is not in the ignition. Charging a guy because he is asleep in the back seat is ridiculous.

[flydive1]

this guy was stone drunk with a BAC of 0.96.

Well, stone drunk, he was slightly over the driving limit in the USA.
He might not have shown any evident sign of it.

[Dg800]

Strange story, why would the police check him during the preflight check?

As mentioned in the original article, he had not begun anything. As a matter of fact, he only stepped out of the plane because the police, who was evidently conducting random preventative checks, told him to.

To those saying that the Swedish justice system was wrong in not convicting him, do you also advocate people being convicted just for being members of a particular political party (let's say the German NPD, f.e.)?

[Pace]

Point taken! Hence prevention is a better option. A simple breath test machine at security would stop pilots knowingly boarding a flight while intoxicated or unknowingly doing the same from drinks the night before.
Maybe the Japanese railway system have it right expecting a breath test before hundreds of lives are put into your hands?

Pace

[Dg800]

Could not concur more, although I think blanket checks will be difficult to implement worldwide, ICAO notwithstanding. Hell, we cannot even agree on some sort of common rules of the air system! :} Implementation as part of a company's policy will also be difficult, as the public often has the childish view that if all pilots get checked, then that must be because they're all drunkards. See the childish posts in the thread about the Ukrainian (dead) pilots testing positive for alcohol (post mortem, obviously) for confirmation. Any company implementing such a policy risks a serious negative publicity backlash, when all they're doing is actually increasing the safety of their passengers compared to a company that performs no checks and just waits for the local police to perform them randomly (and most likely, not often enough for cost reasons). :(