Crash near Halfpenny Green, Pilot breathalised
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Midlands, England
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crash near Halfpenny Green, Pilot breathalised
From the BBC;
BBC News - Plane crash-lands near Halfpenny Green after fuel shortage
Shropshire
19 October 2013 Last updated at 15:21 Plane crash-lands near Halfpenny Green after fuel shortage
Two people inside escaped uninjured from the crash
A plane made an emergency landing in a field after running out of fuel.
The light aircraft was brought down near Halfpenny Green, on the border of Staffordshire and Shropshire, hitting the ground nose first before flipping over.
One man inside escaped uninjured from the crash, at about 12:10 BST.
Firefighter Mark Weaver said the pilot took the decision to bring the plane down to avoid hitting houses in the nearby village of Bobbington.
'Heavy landing' He said it eventually landed about 400ft (120m) from the nearest house.
Staff at nearby Halfpenny Green Airport were able to free the occupant of the plane before fire crews arrived.
A Staffordshire Fire Service spokesman said they responded to a light aircraft that had crashed on the approach to the runway.
He said: "When we arrived we found it to be in the field. There had been a heavy landing but the pilot was up and walking about when we left the scene.
"He was left with the police and breathalysed."
____________________________________________________________ ___
I'm very pleased that there were no injuries, well done guys
But I wonder, is it normal ( or lawfull ) for a pilot in a forced landing to be breathalysed ? Under what legislation would this be carried out ?
I can only presume that this was done by Traffic Police but obviously not under the Road Treffic Act.
What would have happened if the pilot had refused the test, a twelve month ban and a licence endorcement ? Unlikely in my oppinion ?
I wonder what other peoples thoughts are on this, not stirring but a genuine question.
Regards,
a very sober Coldair !
Edit, I should add for clarity that there is no suggestion that the pilot had been drinking.
BBC News - Plane crash-lands near Halfpenny Green after fuel shortage
Shropshire 19 October 2013 Last updated at 15:21 Plane crash-lands near Halfpenny Green after fuel shortage
Two people inside escaped uninjured from the crash A plane made an emergency landing in a field after running out of fuel.
The light aircraft was brought down near Halfpenny Green, on the border of Staffordshire and Shropshire, hitting the ground nose first before flipping over.
One man inside escaped uninjured from the crash, at about 12:10 BST.
Firefighter Mark Weaver said the pilot took the decision to bring the plane down to avoid hitting houses in the nearby village of Bobbington.
'Heavy landing' He said it eventually landed about 400ft (120m) from the nearest house.
Staff at nearby Halfpenny Green Airport were able to free the occupant of the plane before fire crews arrived.
A Staffordshire Fire Service spokesman said they responded to a light aircraft that had crashed on the approach to the runway.
He said: "When we arrived we found it to be in the field. There had been a heavy landing but the pilot was up and walking about when we left the scene.
"He was left with the police and breathalysed."
____________________________________________________________ ___
I'm very pleased that there were no injuries, well done guys
But I wonder, is it normal ( or lawfull ) for a pilot in a forced landing to be breathalysed ? Under what legislation would this be carried out ?
I can only presume that this was done by Traffic Police but obviously not under the Road Treffic Act.
What would have happened if the pilot had refused the test, a twelve month ban and a licence endorcement ? Unlikely in my oppinion ?
I wonder what other peoples thoughts are on this, not stirring but a genuine question.
Regards,
a very sober Coldair !
Edit, I should add for clarity that there is no suggestion that the pilot had been drinking.
Last edited by coldair; 20th Oct 2013 at 07:22.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The relevant Legislation is contained in the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003.
Section 96 gives a police officer similar powers to those he has under section 6 of the Road Traffic Act in respect of motor vehicles.
Subsections (c) and (d) provide that a police officer in uniform can request a sample if
(c) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person was undertaking an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft at the time of the accident, or
(d) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person has undertaken an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft.
These subsections of the Act do not require that the Officer has a suspicion that the person has been drinking (although there is a separate power, sub paragraph (a), in respect of this).
A refusal to provide a specimen is an offence and a refusing pilot could be punished by way of a fine etc. but a court has no power to remove or suspend a pilot's licence. There is an argument that a court could make a prohibited steps order prohibiting an offender from acting as a pilot but I would have some reservations as to the legality of this as a way of circumventing the lack of of jurisdiction over the licence. I believe it has been done on one previous occasion but I don't know the full facts of that case and it may be that no objection was taken.
Of course the CAA have the power to consider whether a pilot is a fit and proper person to hold or continue holding a licence and they could take action irrespective of anything done by the police.
Section 96 gives a police officer similar powers to those he has under section 6 of the Road Traffic Act in respect of motor vehicles.
Subsections (c) and (d) provide that a police officer in uniform can request a sample if
(c) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person was undertaking an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft at the time of the accident, or
(d) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person has undertaken an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft.
These subsections of the Act do not require that the Officer has a suspicion that the person has been drinking (although there is a separate power, sub paragraph (a), in respect of this).
A refusal to provide a specimen is an offence and a refusing pilot could be punished by way of a fine etc. but a court has no power to remove or suspend a pilot's licence. There is an argument that a court could make a prohibited steps order prohibiting an offender from acting as a pilot but I would have some reservations as to the legality of this as a way of circumventing the lack of of jurisdiction over the licence. I believe it has been done on one previous occasion but I don't know the full facts of that case and it may be that no objection was taken.
Of course the CAA have the power to consider whether a pilot is a fit and proper person to hold or continue holding a licence and they could take action irrespective of anything done by the police.
Last edited by Legalapproach; 20th Oct 2013 at 08:10.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two people inside escaped uninjured from the crash
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks. I missed the photo caption.
I wonder if the caption is correct - the report mentions one occupant.
I find it very hard to believe that it's possible to fit two people into what looks like an early 80's Cassutt. They are tiny aircraft built for racing, and extremely cramped even for just one.
(Edit)
I've also found this on the (local) Express & Star website:
I wonder if the caption is correct - the report mentions one occupant.
I find it very hard to believe that it's possible to fit two people into what looks like an early 80's Cassutt. They are tiny aircraft built for racing, and extremely cramped even for just one.
(Edit)
I've also found this on the (local) Express & Star website:
Emergency services, including the air ambulance, were called to the crash at Wolverhampton Halfpenny Green Airport in Stroubridge at just before midday.
The male pilot suffered minor injuries and the plane - a lime green Cassutt Racer - was only slightly damaged.
Flight information service officer at the airport Tony Rowlands said the crash had been as a result of partial engine failure.
At the scene, West Midlands Ambulance paramedic Huw Jones tweeted: "Only one occupant of the aircraft, and he's had a lucky escape. Minor injuries only and currently been assessed by our crew."
The male pilot suffered minor injuries and the plane - a lime green Cassutt Racer - was only slightly damaged.
Flight information service officer at the airport Tony Rowlands said the crash had been as a result of partial engine failure.
At the scene, West Midlands Ambulance paramedic Huw Jones tweeted: "Only one occupant of the aircraft, and he's had a lucky escape. Minor injuries only and currently been assessed by our crew."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Midlands, England
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piper,
NO. It is a breach of patient confidentiality for any person employed by the WMAS to post such information and would possibly be classed as a disciplinary issue.
NO. It is a breach of patient confidentiality for any person employed by the WMAS to post such information and would possibly be classed as a disciplinary issue.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The frozen north....
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
No way in hell you'd get 2 people into a Cassutt!
Very well done to the pilot for getting it down with only minimal damage given the speeds involved and the Cassutts lack of glide ability. Always said the Cassutt is the one aircraft I never want to have to forced land.
Regards
UA
Very well done to the pilot for getting it down with only minimal damage given the speeds involved and the Cassutts lack of glide ability. Always said the Cassutt is the one aircraft I never want to have to forced land.
Regards
UA
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Whitby, North Yorkshire
Age: 38
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The flight manual i read during training says in the event of a forced landing, pick a field close to a pub, I would imagine for the alcohol.
So say someone did pick a field with a pub after engine failure and went for a few stiff ones, and then the police came and wanted a breath sample.....
Same thing happened to a friend of mine, except in a car - he crashed and decided to open a few tinnies he had just bought to settle his nerves, police came, took his breath and did him for drink drive.
So say someone did pick a field with a pub after engine failure and went for a few stiff ones, and then the police came and wanted a breath sample.....
Same thing happened to a friend of mine, except in a car - he crashed and decided to open a few tinnies he had just bought to settle his nerves, police came, took his breath and did him for drink drive.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Section 15(2) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 raises a presumption that the proportion of alcohol in a driver's breath, blood or urine at the time of the alleged offence was not less than in the specimen. However, the presumption can be rebutted if the driver proves various matters set out at section 15(3) on a balance of probabilities. Thus if a driver (pilot) can establish that any reading was due to post driving (flying) consumption then this would be a defence. In order to rebut the presumption it would be necessary to establish what and how much had been consumed post flight and then call medical/scientific evidence to having carried out a back calculation.
F4TCT, if the alcohol had been consumed in a pub it should be possible for the bar staff to confirm what had been purchased/consumed and it would then be a relatively easy matter for a scientist to carry out the back calculation.
The problem arises when you self administer the alcohol at home as the suggested quantity consumed may well be taken with a pinch of salt (and lime if Tequila!)
F4TCT, if the alcohol had been consumed in a pub it should be possible for the bar staff to confirm what had been purchased/consumed and it would then be a relatively easy matter for a scientist to carry out the back calculation.
The problem arises when you self administer the alcohol at home as the suggested quantity consumed may well be taken with a pinch of salt (and lime if Tequila!)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it very strange, the fuss that is being made here about the pilot being breathalised.
Personally I'd prefer that I was breathalised after an accident so that there would be no cloud about that left over me. If you are not breathalised immediately, then that question can always be left lingering.
Alcohol is not the story here. The real story is:
If he really ran out of fuel.....I just really don't understand these sort of accidents. Running out of fuel is probably the most preventable accident that there is.
Personally I'd prefer that I was breathalised after an accident so that there would be no cloud about that left over me. If you are not breathalised immediately, then that question can always be left lingering.
Alcohol is not the story here. The real story is:
A plane made an emergency landing in a field after running out of fuel.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The frozen north....
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Might want to take that article with the pinch of salt it deserves.
I also saw another article elsewhere where the FISO was interviewed and qouted as saying that the aircraft returned back to the field with a partial engine failure. That being the case it looks like it gave up on him not far from the runway....
Indeed, here is the link with a better standard of reporting:-
Plane flips over in drama at Wolverhampton airport « Express & Star
Regards
UA
I also saw another article elsewhere where the FISO was interviewed and qouted as saying that the aircraft returned back to the field with a partial engine failure. That being the case it looks like it gave up on him not far from the runway....
Indeed, here is the link with a better standard of reporting:-
Plane flips over in drama at Wolverhampton airport « Express & Star
Regards
UA
Last edited by Unusual Attitude; 21st Oct 2013 at 11:22.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Hi,
LegalApproach mentions the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 but I believe that the maximum alcohol limit for those engaged in Aviation is one quarter that for driving on the roads. I think it highly unlikely that the police would routinely carry a Breathalyzer capable of giving a pass/fail at that level.
I am aware of a most unfortunate case, some years ago where I think that a pilot was arrested at a large airport at around 0700 whilst actually on the plane he was about to fly, having failed a breath test, using a Breathalyzer calibrated for Aviation use. At the Police station, as they didn't have an Intoximeter capable of giving readings that low, he gave a blood sample. The lab. weren't informed that it was for an Aviation related test and processed it for the road limit, where of course it came back negative. It is possible that there was residual alcohol from a drink with a meal the previous evening, combined with the body's ability to produce low levels of alcohol itself to just creep over the Aviation limit.
8 hours bottle to throttle simply isn't enough any more. Total abstention for at least 24 hours before flying seems to be the answer. I understand that train drivers are subject to the same limits and are subject to random tests having signed-on for work, a tougher regime than for airline pilots at present.
TOO
LegalApproach mentions the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 but I believe that the maximum alcohol limit for those engaged in Aviation is one quarter that for driving on the roads. I think it highly unlikely that the police would routinely carry a Breathalyzer capable of giving a pass/fail at that level.
I am aware of a most unfortunate case, some years ago where I think that a pilot was arrested at a large airport at around 0700 whilst actually on the plane he was about to fly, having failed a breath test, using a Breathalyzer calibrated for Aviation use. At the Police station, as they didn't have an Intoximeter capable of giving readings that low, he gave a blood sample. The lab. weren't informed that it was for an Aviation related test and processed it for the road limit, where of course it came back negative. It is possible that there was residual alcohol from a drink with a meal the previous evening, combined with the body's ability to produce low levels of alcohol itself to just creep over the Aviation limit.
8 hours bottle to throttle simply isn't enough any more. Total abstention for at least 24 hours before flying seems to be the answer. I understand that train drivers are subject to the same limits and are subject to random tests having signed-on for work, a tougher regime than for airline pilots at present.
TOO
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it highly unlikely that the police would routinely carry a Breathalyzer capable of giving a pass/fail at that level.