Virgin Pilot held on Drink allegations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHERE'S THE INDUSTRY'S VOICE?
Why, oh why, don't you highly intelligent, skilled people that command so much respect, admiration (and personally speaking, envy,) for the job you do, appreciate that, in the eyes of the media, you have allowed yourselves to become a sitting target for stories that boost circulation figures. One of your own - and I am referring to the BA Oslo incident in this case - gets hung out to fry and then dry, but nowhere, either pre- or post-judgement, is the alternative to the 'guilty, guilty, drunk, drunk' media hype put forward in a professionally presented and argued way. You're letting the media set the agenda - which will always be the sensationalist, and which will only get worse - and until BALPA or PPRuNe or whoever, gets real to the need to put together a media relations function that is prepared to put forward reasoned arguments in support of aviation issues, then you're simply giving the media an open, unopposed field which will always result in bloody defeat. If the media - particularly here in the UK - had their way, they'd destroy companies and industries in the interests of sensationaism, journalists' egos and media magnates' bank balances. For goodness sake, get together and work out a way of protecting your reputations as an industry rather than having to vent your spleens on forums such as this!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
"But that really isn't the point" and "..... some of you have to face a couple of simple facts here, one of which if he is found guilty it is totally down to him and no one else."
I don't think anyone's said the buck doesn't stop with a pilot if he's guilty. In most cases, that's the bottom line.
Does that mean others aren't open to criticism?
Does that mean people shouldn't be interested in other points as well as what you call "the point"?
eg (In no particular order, and raised by various people):
How did the police become involved?
Why didn't the security man raise his concerns with the pilot or other member of the Flight Crew at the time?
Or with the company?
Who tipped off the Press?
Isn't it disgraceful his name was given to the Press before he was even charged? (He might not have been, but the damage is done.)
Isn't it disgusting that, regardless of whether he was charged, and regardless of whether he's guilty or innocent, the police (or someone else in authority) gave the Press a photograph taken for official purposes whilst he's in custody?
Isn't it terrible that someone gave his home address to the Press?
Isn't it outrageous that UK journos and photographers surrounded his home when he's (absurdly) locked up in jail in America? What do they hope to achieve? A photograph of his distressed family? To ask his family how they 'feel'?
Isn't it outrageous that he's been pilloried in the press/media as a 'drunk' pilot?
Isn't it hypocritical of the Press/media to make melodramatic comments about passengers' confidence being shaken when it's the media which is stirring things up?
And for the media to go on about crashes and 400 people being put at risk etc etc when, even if he is proved to be guilty, we don't know whether he was way over the limit or fractionally?
Come to think of it, isn't that what you were doing with your analogy with people being killed or injured in a taxi driven by a driver who'd been drinking?
"But that really isn't the point" and "..... some of you have to face a couple of simple facts here, one of which if he is found guilty it is totally down to him and no one else."
I don't think anyone's said the buck doesn't stop with a pilot if he's guilty. In most cases, that's the bottom line.
Does that mean others aren't open to criticism?
Does that mean people shouldn't be interested in other points as well as what you call "the point"?
eg (In no particular order, and raised by various people):
How did the police become involved?
Why didn't the security man raise his concerns with the pilot or other member of the Flight Crew at the time?
Or with the company?
Who tipped off the Press?
Isn't it disgraceful his name was given to the Press before he was even charged? (He might not have been, but the damage is done.)
Isn't it disgusting that, regardless of whether he was charged, and regardless of whether he's guilty or innocent, the police (or someone else in authority) gave the Press a photograph taken for official purposes whilst he's in custody?
Isn't it terrible that someone gave his home address to the Press?
Isn't it outrageous that UK journos and photographers surrounded his home when he's (absurdly) locked up in jail in America? What do they hope to achieve? A photograph of his distressed family? To ask his family how they 'feel'?
Isn't it outrageous that he's been pilloried in the press/media as a 'drunk' pilot?
Isn't it hypocritical of the Press/media to make melodramatic comments about passengers' confidence being shaken when it's the media which is stirring things up?
And for the media to go on about crashes and 400 people being put at risk etc etc when, even if he is proved to be guilty, we don't know whether he was way over the limit or fractionally?
Come to think of it, isn't that what you were doing with your analogy with people being killed or injured in a taxi driven by a driver who'd been drinking?
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 22nd Dec 2003 at 23:43.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my No1 son [a Copper, GMP]
The local police prosecute above 39mg/100. betweem 41-50mg you have the "option" to take a blood test [It's more accurate apparently]
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
The local police prosecute above 39mg/100. betweem 41-50mg you have the "option" to take a blood test [It's more accurate apparently]
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHERE'S THE INDUSTRY'S VOICE?
Many professions with a lot less responsibility than flight crew are subject to random testing - what sort of message does this send out to Joe Public?
Link
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BillHicksRules
"1) What is the problem with pilots becoming alcohol free during the working week or even better at all times? I am greatly concerned by the seeming need of many on here to have a drink during their downtime. The seeming inability to “relax” without an alcoholic beverage smacks of institutional alcoholism.
2) If pilots want an easy way to regain the respect of the public that they crave I have a simple way to achieve it. Make an announcement that all their pilots will be required to refrain from alcohol. Have the airlines and the unions appear on the same podium at the press conference. "
fool !
"1) What is the problem with pilots becoming alcohol free during the working week or even better at all times? I am greatly concerned by the seeming need of many on here to have a drink during their downtime. The seeming inability to “relax” without an alcoholic beverage smacks of institutional alcoholism.
2) If pilots want an easy way to regain the respect of the public that they crave I have a simple way to achieve it. Make an announcement that all their pilots will be required to refrain from alcohol. Have the airlines and the unions appear on the same podium at the press conference. "
fool !
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JET 11
OK, BALPA are doing a c**p job on your behalf. Reinforces the point that someone should be speaking up collectively for the views of those at the sharp end (no pun intended). I earned my living from protecting corporate reputations, and can't quite believe what I read, see and hear about such a high profile and emotive (when things go wrong) industry as commercial aviation. Don't leave it all to RB's offer of free flights and his e-mail address. If journalists and media owners get it wrong, tell 'em and tell 'em again. But they'll only listen if you do it in a language they understand - and that's what you're not doing at the moment. Because silence isn't heard. And don't think, please, that I'm touting for business - golf has replaced PR. I'm just so frustrated at the lack of a corporate voice for your profession.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet II
That's what the Independent says.
Quote from Balpa web site (not included in the newspaper of course!)
Can't find any reference at all to balpa refusing to allow anything!
That's what the Independent says.
Quote from Balpa web site (not included in the newspaper of course!)
‘BALPA’s policy is well known – zero tolerance of any misuse of alcohol or drugs. In fact we have urged the Government to do more. We are advocating a system used in the United States called ‘peer intervention’ so that any pilot who has any suspicion about a colleague’s behaviour can have that colleague entered into a programme which is managed by, and supported by, both the union and the company. ‘
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
Do as you like bjcc, I simply pointed out that by removing a smell I remove your gripe....right? I mean, if I'm staggering around thats one thing...but your sense of smell seems to be too sensitive. More so than even the alcohol detectors used by the authorities to assess levels of blood alcohol! Can you explain how alcohol was smelled, but not actually detected? Perhaps it wasn't alcohol that was actually smelled at all, eh? Meanwhile someone lost his job based solely on your security mens mistaken suspicions.
Hand me the Polo Mints!
JetII
You can tell that just by sense of smell?
Pass me the TicTacs.
What exactly do you want people who smell alcohol on a pilots breath to do? Ignore it because they are flight deck crew?
Hand me the Polo Mints!
JetII
"Not excusing drinking before flying" So what are you doing? - either the guy was drinking and over the limit or he was not. Its not rocket science.
Pass me the TicTacs.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MMM..Interesting points Flying lawyer.
Some of which are well made.
My analogy with a Taxi driver who had been drinking was used to make the author of the comment think what he would do in similar circumstances, rather than to jump to the conculution the guard was wrong.
It seems to me grossly unfair to slate a security guard for doing what in the UK should have been a Public duty ( If my recollection of Judges Rules is correct, albeit they have been replaced by PACE, 'Every Citizen has a Duty to Assist Police).
Of course had he not done anything, and it later come to light he had not reported anything, I wonder what the reaction of everyone would have been?
I agree with many of your other points regarding the way this has been treated, and especialy the non granting of bail. But then perhaps you and I are viewing that with regard to the UK system which sometimes goes to the other extreem, which is of course a different argument.
Idonno...
I may have missed your point, but it seems to me you are saying that your mythical person has been convicted on the evidence of the security guard and nothing else. I think you will find that there is a bit more required before anyone is sacked and definatly before any court would convict.
By the way, tic tacs, polos or any other mints arn't very good at hiding the smell of drink!
Some of which are well made.
My analogy with a Taxi driver who had been drinking was used to make the author of the comment think what he would do in similar circumstances, rather than to jump to the conculution the guard was wrong.
It seems to me grossly unfair to slate a security guard for doing what in the UK should have been a Public duty ( If my recollection of Judges Rules is correct, albeit they have been replaced by PACE, 'Every Citizen has a Duty to Assist Police).
Of course had he not done anything, and it later come to light he had not reported anything, I wonder what the reaction of everyone would have been?
I agree with many of your other points regarding the way this has been treated, and especialy the non granting of bail. But then perhaps you and I are viewing that with regard to the UK system which sometimes goes to the other extreem, which is of course a different argument.
Idonno...
I may have missed your point, but it seems to me you are saying that your mythical person has been convicted on the evidence of the security guard and nothing else. I think you will find that there is a bit more required before anyone is sacked and definatly before any court would convict.
By the way, tic tacs, polos or any other mints arn't very good at hiding the smell of drink!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Idunno
Well someone obviously could smell booze (or what they thought was booze) on the guy - and they did the correct thing - handed it over to the cops to sort out.
This is what we pay the cops for - if someone is over the limit, then it is for them, and them alone to take action.
I assume that the guy was over the limit as he has been arrested and charged?
Flaps One
I note that the BALPA web-site does not talk about 'random testing' - only 'peer intervention'.
You can tell that just by sense of smell?
This is what we pay the cops for - if someone is over the limit, then it is for them, and them alone to take action.
I assume that the guy was over the limit as he has been arrested and charged?
Flaps One
I note that the BALPA web-site does not talk about 'random testing' - only 'peer intervention'.
If this really is BALPA's stated policy I am very surprised.
They need to get real and realise that it is in the interests of all concerned to embrace random testing. If it's good for the railway industry then why not aviation?
They need to get real and realise that it is in the interests of all concerned to embrace random testing. If it's good for the railway industry then why not aviation?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh..Now you make sense Idunno....But the question remains,
What would you want the person smelling what they think is drink to do? Ignore it?
Would you ignore it on the breath of a Taxi driver?
As for the Arrested+Charged = Guilty .. No not at all,
I would arrest someone because I had sufficent evidence to do so, in your example a positive breath test. The calibrated breath test would give sufficent evidence to charge someone and its the courts buiness if they convict, not mine.
If my memory is correct the Oslo BA Pilot wasn't charged.
What would you want the person smelling what they think is drink to do? Ignore it?
Would you ignore it on the breath of a Taxi driver?
As for the Arrested+Charged = Guilty .. No not at all,
I would arrest someone because I had sufficent evidence to do so, in your example a positive breath test. The calibrated breath test would give sufficent evidence to charge someone and its the courts buiness if they convict, not mine.
If my memory is correct the Oslo BA Pilot wasn't charged.
Last edited by bjcc; 23rd Dec 2003 at 01:55.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHR,
There are many problems with Aviation that are not being discussed here that are actually VERY relavent.
The circadian rythm disruptions are BRUTAL. To try and force their bodies into the new rythm in short order one of the few "LEGAL" things available to a pilot on layover may be alchohol.
The most brutal layovers are not the short 8-12 hour ones. by far the most brutal layovers are in the 24-32 hour range. This may sound odd to you, but what happens is you arrive at the hotel after having already been awake for 24 hours (16 hours of duty, plus travel time to work and travel time to the hotel is usually in this range.) hit the hotel and crash out for 8 to 10 hours. Sounds great. So you are 10 hours into you 24 hour layover and now wide awake. Its not possible to go back to sleep easily. The most likely result is you will be awake for 14 hours strait (feeling pretty good) right up till show time for your next 16 hour duty period leading to fatigue right as you show up to work for your next duty period, continuing on to truly crushing fatigue. So by the time you set the brakes back in your home base you have been up for 30 plus hours. NOW you get to drive home...
Its a regulation problem as much as a money problem. A long over water flight cannot usually be followed up by a 10-12 hour layover which might actually be ideal for circadian rythm problems (and even if they were possible legally, commercial pressures as in what time the aircraft leaves might make it impossible)because of rest requirements that forbid flying x number of hours in x period of time. (rules that are sensible and VERY necesary for short haul, that are vicious and harmfull in this situation)
In the golden days of aviation this was less of a problem because long haul frequencies were often only one or two flights per week. so the layover lengths would usually be well on the far side of 48 hours (enough time to acclimate to your next reporting period) because another aircraft wouldn't arrive at the station till several days later. Or, the other thing that might happen is the aircraft might simply park till the crew was rested, so a SHORT layover would result. The commericial pressures were also much less (not as much competition in the idustry).
Now with high frequency flying and a strict eye on the bottom line combined with deteriorating employment contracts the pressure is on to make crews more "productive". What happens in a large number of 24-32 hour layovers.
In desperation the crews will try anything to go to sleep. A beer or two or 3 might seam like the solution, but its a slippery slope frought with peril, but there is often no other alternative left to the crew member. So 12 hours before departure you try and have a drink to go to sleep... maybe it works, maybe it won't, maybe that 2nd one will do the trick...
But Pilots are being ground up by the modern scheduling practices and this is just one of the symptoms.
Cheers
Wino
There are many problems with Aviation that are not being discussed here that are actually VERY relavent.
The circadian rythm disruptions are BRUTAL. To try and force their bodies into the new rythm in short order one of the few "LEGAL" things available to a pilot on layover may be alchohol.
The most brutal layovers are not the short 8-12 hour ones. by far the most brutal layovers are in the 24-32 hour range. This may sound odd to you, but what happens is you arrive at the hotel after having already been awake for 24 hours (16 hours of duty, plus travel time to work and travel time to the hotel is usually in this range.) hit the hotel and crash out for 8 to 10 hours. Sounds great. So you are 10 hours into you 24 hour layover and now wide awake. Its not possible to go back to sleep easily. The most likely result is you will be awake for 14 hours strait (feeling pretty good) right up till show time for your next 16 hour duty period leading to fatigue right as you show up to work for your next duty period, continuing on to truly crushing fatigue. So by the time you set the brakes back in your home base you have been up for 30 plus hours. NOW you get to drive home...
Its a regulation problem as much as a money problem. A long over water flight cannot usually be followed up by a 10-12 hour layover which might actually be ideal for circadian rythm problems (and even if they were possible legally, commercial pressures as in what time the aircraft leaves might make it impossible)because of rest requirements that forbid flying x number of hours in x period of time. (rules that are sensible and VERY necesary for short haul, that are vicious and harmfull in this situation)
In the golden days of aviation this was less of a problem because long haul frequencies were often only one or two flights per week. so the layover lengths would usually be well on the far side of 48 hours (enough time to acclimate to your next reporting period) because another aircraft wouldn't arrive at the station till several days later. Or, the other thing that might happen is the aircraft might simply park till the crew was rested, so a SHORT layover would result. The commericial pressures were also much less (not as much competition in the idustry).
Now with high frequency flying and a strict eye on the bottom line combined with deteriorating employment contracts the pressure is on to make crews more "productive". What happens in a large number of 24-32 hour layovers.
In desperation the crews will try anything to go to sleep. A beer or two or 3 might seam like the solution, but its a slippery slope frought with peril, but there is often no other alternative left to the crew member. So 12 hours before departure you try and have a drink to go to sleep... maybe it works, maybe it won't, maybe that 2nd one will do the trick...
But Pilots are being ground up by the modern scheduling practices and this is just one of the symptoms.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbubba
You can believe what you like about Oslo however I repeat.
Captain McAuliffe's blood test was negative. Not rumour not urban legend. Fact.
This is still an ongoing open case as other crew members have to answer to other authorities so any more detail of why Willie resigned would be inappropriate and may prejudice any case.
Both pilots have had and still have the support of BALPA to help them deal with whatever the future holds and they couldn't have a better rep from BA and Principal Negiator looking after them.
You can believe what you like about Oslo however I repeat.
Captain McAuliffe's blood test was negative. Not rumour not urban legend. Fact.
This is still an ongoing open case as other crew members have to answer to other authorities so any more detail of why Willie resigned would be inappropriate and may prejudice any case.
Both pilots have had and still have the support of BALPA to help them deal with whatever the future holds and they couldn't have a better rep from BA and Principal Negiator looking after them.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fireflybob
You'll find Balpa's official stance on their web site.
There is no reference whatsoever to stopping anyone from taking a test.
From the literature I can find, it seems the Independent made this one up to satisfy a headline.
Very glad to hear the the BA guys are getting all the support they deserve from Balpa- that's what the fees are for.
The same will apply, I'm sure, to our colleague from Virgin.
If this really is BALPA's stated policy I am very surprised.
There is no reference whatsoever to stopping anyone from taking a test.
From the literature I can find, it seems the Independent made this one up to satisfy a headline.
Very glad to hear the the BA guys are getting all the support they deserve from Balpa- that's what the fees are for.
The same will apply, I'm sure, to our colleague from Virgin.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some aviation agencies have not approved melatonin.
Generally all medications even over the counter ones, when used for flying the guide line is not to be taken within DOUBLE the effective period. So if you want to use an 8 hour lasting cough suppressant, you can't do it less than 16 hours before flying.
Just because something is over the counter does not mean you can take it and go fly a jet.
Furthermore, the results on melatonin vary from person to person and doesn't seam to last even if it did work for you initially... (hope I didn't just destroy a placebo effect for you)
Cheers
Wino
Generally all medications even over the counter ones, when used for flying the guide line is not to be taken within DOUBLE the effective period. So if you want to use an 8 hour lasting cough suppressant, you can't do it less than 16 hours before flying.
Just because something is over the counter does not mean you can take it and go fly a jet.
Furthermore, the results on melatonin vary from person to person and doesn't seam to last even if it did work for you initially... (hope I didn't just destroy a placebo effect for you)
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain McAuliffe's blood test was negative. Not rumour not urban legend. Fact.
So why resign? It seems no-one can say just now. Wasn't there a first officer & cabin crew involved in the Oslo case also? What were their blood test results? Is it just barely concievable that it's a case of knowingly turning a blind eye to other crew members drinking? It's an old dilema, best answered (in the short term) by the old answer: 'call in sick NOW... (unstated: or else)'.
R1
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
I'm not sure which of my points you think wasn't well made.
I can't pretend I'm too young to have been at the Bar when the 'Judges Rules' applied but, not having had reason to look at them for almost 20 years, I don't remember them in any detail.
However, assuming your recollection is correct, a "Duty to Assist Police" doesn't mean there is a duty in law to report all suspected offences to the police. There may in certain circumstances be a moral or civic obligation to do so, but that's a different matter.
Even if the pilot is guilty, that doesn't mean many others involved aren't deserving of criticism.
I'm curious. Your profile says your occupation is 'air traffic' but you seem to have a 'police constable' approach.
I'm not sure which of my points you think wasn't well made.
I can't pretend I'm too young to have been at the Bar when the 'Judges Rules' applied but, not having had reason to look at them for almost 20 years, I don't remember them in any detail.
However, assuming your recollection is correct, a "Duty to Assist Police" doesn't mean there is a duty in law to report all suspected offences to the police. There may in certain circumstances be a moral or civic obligation to do so, but that's a different matter.
Even if the pilot is guilty, that doesn't mean many others involved aren't deserving of criticism.
I'm curious. Your profile says your occupation is 'air traffic' but you seem to have a 'police constable' approach.