Virgin Pilot held on Drink allegations
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excerpted from the December 23 Washington Post (as well as the December 21 Washington Post.
“Tom Sullivan, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, said an employee of the Transportation Security Administration smelled alcohol on [redacted] breath before he boarded. An Airports Authority police sergeant testified yesterday that there were no passengers aboard when police removed [redacted] from the cockpit about 7:25 p.m. Friday, just five minutes before the plane's scheduled departure.
[The Dec.. 21 Washington Post reported the sequence thusly:
“Law enforcement officials said the incident began when someone at the airport smelled alcohol on [redacted]l. It was unclear whether a screener noticed the smell or whether it was picked up when [redacted] was near the ticket counter area.
“The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Police Department was contacted and notified Virgin Atlantic. Airline officials boarded the plane and spoke to [redacted] in the cockpit before summoning airport police, who escorted him off, said Tara Hamilton, a spokeswoman for the authority. She said [redacted]l was cooperative when taken off the plane.”]
“Loudoun County District Court Judge James D. Forsyth said he would not risk allowing [redacted] to leave the country now, although he held out the possibility that [redacted]'s passport might be returned to him soon. "Once a defendant has crossed that border," Forsyth said, "it's very difficult to get him back."
“His attorney, Thomas C. Hill, had asked that he be allowed to return home, arguing that the airline would ensure that he appeared for court proceedings.
“A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Feb. 3.
“"Mr. [redacted] has a long and distinguished career and an exemplary record," Hill said. "He is the model of stability." In brief comments after the hearing, Hill said that [redacted] would "never do anything purposefully to jeopardize anyone's safety."
“Virgin Atlantic spokeswoman Libby Ciresi said that if [redacted]'s passport is returned to him, the airline likely will fly him to the United States for court dates. In the meantime, he is on administrative leave with pay, in accordance with British custom, she said.
"For 14 years, he's had a stellar reputation with us," Ciresi said. "He's never had a problem before, and it is the holiday season. It's a very difficult situation for him to be in."
“The flight was canceled after [redacted]'s arrest. The airline offered hotel rooms to the plane's 383 passengers, and they flew to London on Saturday. They were also given a voucher for a free ticket on Virgin.
[There were US media reports that Virgin ground staff told the passengers at the boarding gate the reason for the pilot’s removal and the flight cancellation. I believe the reported reaction was something like silent surprise, no uproar or anything like that. I think the story got much more play than otherwise because of the nearly 400 passengers who had to wait 24 hours before their flight began. If a substitute pilot had been available and the flight proceeded with little or no delay, there may have been little mention of it.]
“Representatives of the Air Line Pilots Association and the British Air Line Pilots Association were in the courtroom.
“The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating the incident. If it finds that [redacted] violated U.S. regulations -- which prohibit consuming alcohol within eight hours of flying -- the United Kingdom's Civil Aviation Authority would be notified, an FAA spokesman said. The authority then could decide to revoke or suspend his license."
“Tom Sullivan, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, said an employee of the Transportation Security Administration smelled alcohol on [redacted] breath before he boarded. An Airports Authority police sergeant testified yesterday that there were no passengers aboard when police removed [redacted] from the cockpit about 7:25 p.m. Friday, just five minutes before the plane's scheduled departure.
[The Dec.. 21 Washington Post reported the sequence thusly:
“Law enforcement officials said the incident began when someone at the airport smelled alcohol on [redacted]l. It was unclear whether a screener noticed the smell or whether it was picked up when [redacted] was near the ticket counter area.
“The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Police Department was contacted and notified Virgin Atlantic. Airline officials boarded the plane and spoke to [redacted] in the cockpit before summoning airport police, who escorted him off, said Tara Hamilton, a spokeswoman for the authority. She said [redacted]l was cooperative when taken off the plane.”]
“Loudoun County District Court Judge James D. Forsyth said he would not risk allowing [redacted] to leave the country now, although he held out the possibility that [redacted]'s passport might be returned to him soon. "Once a defendant has crossed that border," Forsyth said, "it's very difficult to get him back."
“His attorney, Thomas C. Hill, had asked that he be allowed to return home, arguing that the airline would ensure that he appeared for court proceedings.
“A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Feb. 3.
“"Mr. [redacted] has a long and distinguished career and an exemplary record," Hill said. "He is the model of stability." In brief comments after the hearing, Hill said that [redacted] would "never do anything purposefully to jeopardize anyone's safety."
“Virgin Atlantic spokeswoman Libby Ciresi said that if [redacted]'s passport is returned to him, the airline likely will fly him to the United States for court dates. In the meantime, he is on administrative leave with pay, in accordance with British custom, she said.
"For 14 years, he's had a stellar reputation with us," Ciresi said. "He's never had a problem before, and it is the holiday season. It's a very difficult situation for him to be in."
“The flight was canceled after [redacted]'s arrest. The airline offered hotel rooms to the plane's 383 passengers, and they flew to London on Saturday. They were also given a voucher for a free ticket on Virgin.
[There were US media reports that Virgin ground staff told the passengers at the boarding gate the reason for the pilot’s removal and the flight cancellation. I believe the reported reaction was something like silent surprise, no uproar or anything like that. I think the story got much more play than otherwise because of the nearly 400 passengers who had to wait 24 hours before their flight began. If a substitute pilot had been available and the flight proceeded with little or no delay, there may have been little mention of it.]
“Representatives of the Air Line Pilots Association and the British Air Line Pilots Association were in the courtroom.
“The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating the incident. If it finds that [redacted] violated U.S. regulations -- which prohibit consuming alcohol within eight hours of flying -- the United Kingdom's Civil Aviation Authority would be notified, an FAA spokesman said. The authority then could decide to revoke or suspend his license."
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: US
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone with a medical or other relevant background please give me a definitive answer regarding the effect of breath fresheners such as Tic Tacs, or mouth wash products such as Listerine, on orally administered blood alcohol checks.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update from VS website:
Virgin Atlantic can confirm that <redacted> has been released on bail and will be back before the Loudoun County Court, Virginia for a preliminary hearing on 3 February 2004.
Everyone at Virgin Atlantic remains shocked and saddened by this incident and also that one of its most senior pilots, with an exemplary record, is now facing this charge.
<redacted> was stood down from duty on Saturday will face an internal inquiry. This inquiry will take into account the outcome of the legal proceedings.
Virgin Atlantic’s no alcohol policy is well established and well understood by all our staff and this is demonstrated by the fact that this is the first time anyone employed by Virgin Atlantic has been charged with this sort of offence. However, Virgin Atlantic has launched a comprehensive review of this incident to see what lessons can be learned.
As formal legal proceedings have now commenced Virgin Atlantic will not be able to make any further statement on this incident until after the outcome of the case.
Ends.
It beggars belief that the chap must stay in the US until the trial date. Given his previous exemplary history, and the fact that VS have offered to fly him as necessary back to the US, do the prosecutors REALLY believe he's going to skip bail???? Or is there an agenda I'm missing here?
Virgin Atlantic can confirm that <redacted> has been released on bail and will be back before the Loudoun County Court, Virginia for a preliminary hearing on 3 February 2004.
Everyone at Virgin Atlantic remains shocked and saddened by this incident and also that one of its most senior pilots, with an exemplary record, is now facing this charge.
<redacted> was stood down from duty on Saturday will face an internal inquiry. This inquiry will take into account the outcome of the legal proceedings.
Virgin Atlantic’s no alcohol policy is well established and well understood by all our staff and this is demonstrated by the fact that this is the first time anyone employed by Virgin Atlantic has been charged with this sort of offence. However, Virgin Atlantic has launched a comprehensive review of this incident to see what lessons can be learned.
As formal legal proceedings have now commenced Virgin Atlantic will not be able to make any further statement on this incident until after the outcome of the case.
Ends.
It beggars belief that the chap must stay in the US until the trial date. Given his previous exemplary history, and the fact that VS have offered to fly him as necessary back to the US, do the prosecutors REALLY believe he's going to skip bail???? Or is there an agenda I'm missing here?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mouth Washes don't effect the test. You get asked here if you have used one, and a Breath test will be delayed for 20 mins if you have used one. Mints have no effect whatseoever, afterall what right does a Policeman untrained in mint smells have to say its a mint?
I seem to recall some people with diabetes can, in theory produce a positive test, but never heard of it happening.
When we were trained to use the electronic breath test machine, we were given a mouth full of cheap scotch so we see what a positive test looked like, but had to blow into the machine straight away, as 5 minutes later we all produced a totaly negetive result.
Beagle, the security man had every right to do what he did. If he had been wrong then its not lightly that this chap would have been arrested. Thats not to say he is guilty thats for the court to decide. No Police officer is going to arrive and tell someone he's nicked 'cause that bloke over there says you smell of drink'. The must have been some other evidence, be that a machine or the walk the straight line type test.
Besides that most adults are perefectly well aware of what drink smells like, they have been to the school of alcohol smells, its called a pub!
I seem to recall some people with diabetes can, in theory produce a positive test, but never heard of it happening.
When we were trained to use the electronic breath test machine, we were given a mouth full of cheap scotch so we see what a positive test looked like, but had to blow into the machine straight away, as 5 minutes later we all produced a totaly negetive result.
Beagle, the security man had every right to do what he did. If he had been wrong then its not lightly that this chap would have been arrested. Thats not to say he is guilty thats for the court to decide. No Police officer is going to arrive and tell someone he's nicked 'cause that bloke over there says you smell of drink'. The must have been some other evidence, be that a machine or the walk the straight line type test.
Besides that most adults are perefectly well aware of what drink smells like, they have been to the school of alcohol smells, its called a pub!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been in the industry for 30 years, mainly at the pointed end and in a few different countries, and there is or was a problem with alcohol (and drug use if you include the cabin crew).
I fear that if random testing was introduced the figures would be appalling (especially if you included ground staff).
In our western society we tolerate alcohol (look at road accidents and days lost from work). People go on about the effects of smoking, but it is my belief that booze is just or more dangerous.
I for one do not understand the attitude of the unions or the authorities except that it is a problem best left undisturbed.
Maybe now is the time to be open and honest and try to resolve the problem.
I fear that if random testing was introduced the figures would be appalling (especially if you included ground staff).
In our western society we tolerate alcohol (look at road accidents and days lost from work). People go on about the effects of smoking, but it is my belief that booze is just or more dangerous.
I for one do not understand the attitude of the unions or the authorities except that it is a problem best left undisturbed.
Maybe now is the time to be open and honest and try to resolve the problem.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: No idea, I can't use a map
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must be missing a point here. Whilst I in no way condone flying under the influence of any kind of substance, since when was it an offence under civil law to turn up for work this way? AFAIAA, said pilot had not boarded the aircraft. Are law enforcers to charge car, lorry, bus and train drivers with the offence before they occupy their vehicle? "Excuse me sir, I believe you have been drinking and are likely to drive in the next hour or two, so I'm arresting you". What tripe!
He should have been prevented from boarding and the whole affair dealt with by the company, the end result would have been the same. It sounds like american law is as crap as British military law.
Rant over
He should have been prevented from boarding and the whole affair dealt with by the company, the end result would have been the same. It sounds like american law is as crap as British military law.
Rant over
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There .. but for the grace of God .. went us all!!!
Vehicle drivers in the UK know what the limits are. Until the CAA lays down DEFINITIVE guidelines as to blood/alcohol limits to operating flight and cabin crew, people will be sacked on other peoples whims. The 24/8 hours rules are too lax. Until we have defined limits, this must be used in defence in court. What is ''moderation''..what is ''excess''?
In my career I can honestly say that I have never drunk within 9 hours of flying....but I know I must have been over the limit a few times when I reported.
Surely, it is the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered that becomes the controlling legal authority. So, a UK pilot, flying a UK registered aircraft becomes subject to the laws of the UK, not the laws of the land of the country he is departing. If this is the case, then all companies must publish the exact laid-down laws of every country as to alcohol/blood limits.
A spoonful of Benelyn could be the end of a career..........
Vehicle drivers in the UK know what the limits are. Until the CAA lays down DEFINITIVE guidelines as to blood/alcohol limits to operating flight and cabin crew, people will be sacked on other peoples whims. The 24/8 hours rules are too lax. Until we have defined limits, this must be used in defence in court. What is ''moderation''..what is ''excess''?
In my career I can honestly say that I have never drunk within 9 hours of flying....but I know I must have been over the limit a few times when I reported.
Surely, it is the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered that becomes the controlling legal authority. So, a UK pilot, flying a UK registered aircraft becomes subject to the laws of the UK, not the laws of the land of the country he is departing. If this is the case, then all companies must publish the exact laid-down laws of every country as to alcohol/blood limits.
A spoonful of Benelyn could be the end of a career..........
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Throughout all the press coverage of this event, there has been no mention of the First Officer. If security staff were able to smell alcohol on the Captain, then I assume the First Officer would have been aware of the Captain's alleged state too.
I wonder if he/she face's discipline by the airline?!
I wonder if he/she face's discipline by the airline?!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the airline chose to breathalyse crew before considering them on duty, it would probably work as you suggest. They didn't. So that's an operational issue rather than a legal one.
I suspect that alot of pilots would be very resistant to this idea, although personally I think it's got it's merits. A one off lapse of judgement and you might get to keep your job. Frequent abuse would probably meant the sack, but no prison, no fines.
With regards to the point at which the offence occurs, it would be impractical to say this would have to be after, say, push back.
After that, there's little anyone could do make the allegation to someone suitably authorised and equipped to get clear evidence of guilt/innocense, except if someone was so nailed that they were still over after getting to the stand at the other end.
I suspect that alot of pilots would be very resistant to this idea, although personally I think it's got it's merits. A one off lapse of judgement and you might get to keep your job. Frequent abuse would probably meant the sack, but no prison, no fines.
With regards to the point at which the offence occurs, it would be impractical to say this would have to be after, say, push back.
After that, there's little anyone could do make the allegation to someone suitably authorised and equipped to get clear evidence of guilt/innocense, except if someone was so nailed that they were still over after getting to the stand at the other end.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
>>I must be missing a point here. Whilst I in no way condone flying under the influence of any kind of substance, since when was it an offence under civil law to turn up for work this way? AFAIAA, said pilot had not boarded the aircraft. Are law enforcers to charge car, lorry, bus and train drivers with the offence before they occupy their vehicle?<<
From the Washington Post article quoted a couple of times earlier:
"...The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Police Department was contacted and notified Virgin Atlantic. Airline officials boarded the plane and spoke to [redacted] in the cockpit before summoning airport police, who escorted him off, said Tara Hamilton, a spokeswoman for the authority. She said [redacted] was cooperative when taken off the plane..."
In the U.S., pilots can be tested after they report for duty. They do not have to start the engines (a little late to get the tester onboard) or even enter the aircraft. Of course, defense attorneys will try every trick in the book to claim that the test was improper (not that there's anything wrong with that <g>). In one case it was claimed that there was no intent of flight since the trip was canceled due to lack of crew after the captain was arrested.
From the Washington Post article quoted a couple of times earlier:
"...The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Police Department was contacted and notified Virgin Atlantic. Airline officials boarded the plane and spoke to [redacted] in the cockpit before summoning airport police, who escorted him off, said Tara Hamilton, a spokeswoman for the authority. She said [redacted] was cooperative when taken off the plane..."
In the U.S., pilots can be tested after they report for duty. They do not have to start the engines (a little late to get the tester onboard) or even enter the aircraft. Of course, defense attorneys will try every trick in the book to claim that the test was improper (not that there's anything wrong with that <g>). In one case it was claimed that there was no intent of flight since the trip was canceled due to lack of crew after the captain was arrested.
Title? What title?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are law enforcers to charge car, lorry, bus and train drivers with the offence before they occupy their vehicle?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that worries me most about this case is that there has been no statement of what, if any, test of intoxication this Captain has failed. So far, it would seem that he has been arraigned simply on the subjective opinion and suspicion of one security official and one policeman. Surely that is wrong?
Does anyone have any information to suggest that this man has failed any objective test at all? If he hasn't, what the bloody hell is going on?!!
Does anyone have any information to suggest that this man has failed any objective test at all? If he hasn't, what the bloody hell is going on?!!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Digitalis
I mentioned this point earier in the thread - it puzzles me too.
I've read every Press report of the court proceedings I can find on the net and can't find any mention of the prosecutor telling the court what test(s) were carried out, in what respect and/or to what extent the pilot is said to have failed such test(s) etc.
Given that the prosecutor called the arresting officer to give evidence of the circumstances of the arrest, and even added (for some reason) the wholly irrelevant fact that he had not encountered any similar case in all of his six (!) years working for the airport authority, it seems curious that he apparently made no mention of any intoxication tests. I say 'apparently'; if he had, I'm certain that aspect would have been reported.
Nor, apparently, was there any mention of waiting for the results of blood or urine samples being the reason for the long delay before the next hearing.
However, it also appears the defence attorney said nothing about these aspects.
In those circumstances, it may be there is more evidence upon which the prosecutor relies than the 'subjective opinion and suspicion of one security official and one policeman' even though it's challenged by the defence as being incorrect.
If there are flaws/weaknesses in the prosecution evidence, it is usually tactically better to keep powder dry for when the case is heard properly - yesterday was a formal hearing.
I mentioned this point earier in the thread - it puzzles me too.
I've read every Press report of the court proceedings I can find on the net and can't find any mention of the prosecutor telling the court what test(s) were carried out, in what respect and/or to what extent the pilot is said to have failed such test(s) etc.
Given that the prosecutor called the arresting officer to give evidence of the circumstances of the arrest, and even added (for some reason) the wholly irrelevant fact that he had not encountered any similar case in all of his six (!) years working for the airport authority, it seems curious that he apparently made no mention of any intoxication tests. I say 'apparently'; if he had, I'm certain that aspect would have been reported.
Nor, apparently, was there any mention of waiting for the results of blood or urine samples being the reason for the long delay before the next hearing.
However, it also appears the defence attorney said nothing about these aspects.
In those circumstances, it may be there is more evidence upon which the prosecutor relies than the 'subjective opinion and suspicion of one security official and one policeman' even though it's challenged by the defence as being incorrect.
If there are flaws/weaknesses in the prosecution evidence, it is usually tactically better to keep powder dry for when the case is heard properly - yesterday was a formal hearing.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 24th Dec 2003 at 01:29.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have tried, and failed to find the legislation this guy was charged under. If anyone knows that may well help the debate in that it way well show exactly what has to be proved.
For instance, does there have to be a blood/urine/breath test?
The words used by the press seem to be 'attempting to fly while under the infulence of alcohol'
I would guess there would have to be some form of evidence, other than the american walk in a straight line test, but then again maybe not.
If not it explains the lack of mention of a test.
For instance, does there have to be a blood/urine/breath test?
The words used by the press seem to be 'attempting to fly while under the infulence of alcohol'
I would guess there would have to be some form of evidence, other than the american walk in a straight line test, but then again maybe not.
If not it explains the lack of mention of a test.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Lusaka and Joburg
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Digitalis & Flying Lawyer
Thanks for highlighting this aspect. It has been puzzeling me as well. I thought I might have missed something but the analysis by Flying Lawyer does offer a 'maybe'explaination.
Strainge tho, that with the interest in the case, something as fundamental as this is not avialable. If the information was presented at the Prelim Hearing it would seem to be impossible that a reporter would not have picked up on the figures, if they exist.
But perhaps one of our USA pilot collegues could clarify. If A pilot is questioned in the USA is a Breath Test the standard proceedure or does the questioning/test vary from State to State or even vary within the different Police Aurthority.
But another point to pick up on:-
It does seem to be agreed that "airline officials" presumably Virgin, did the first contact with the pilot and then passed him over to the police for questioning. So that would indicated they felt the need for further investigative action.
Edited: after Heliports point below.
Yes. Good point. I withdraw that inference. But I still wish we could get info about the testing???
Thanks for highlighting this aspect. It has been puzzeling me as well. I thought I might have missed something but the analysis by Flying Lawyer does offer a 'maybe'explaination.
Strainge tho, that with the interest in the case, something as fundamental as this is not avialable. If the information was presented at the Prelim Hearing it would seem to be impossible that a reporter would not have picked up on the figures, if they exist.
But perhaps one of our USA pilot collegues could clarify. If A pilot is questioned in the USA is a Breath Test the standard proceedure or does the questioning/test vary from State to State or even vary within the different Police Aurthority.
But another point to pick up on:-
It does seem to be agreed that "airline officials" presumably Virgin, did the first contact with the pilot and then passed him over to the police for questioning. So that would indicated they felt the need for further investigative action.
Edited: after Heliports point below.
Yes. Good point. I withdraw that inference. But I still wish we could get info about the testing???
Last edited by Flying Bean; 24th Dec 2003 at 01:55.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does seem to be agreed that "airline officials" presumably Virgin, did the first contact with the pilot and then passed him over to the police for questioning. So that would indicated they felt the need for further investigative action.
The fact that Virgin accepted there had to be an investigation of the allegation doesn't mean the company thought there was any truth in it. On the contrary, all Virgin's statements have spoken in glowing terms of the Captain and said that any such conduct would be totally out of character.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
>>But perhaps one of our USA pilot collegues could clarify. If A pilot is questioned in the USA is a Breath Test the standard proceedure or does the questioning/test vary from State to State or even vary within the different Police Aurthority.<<
It does vary considerably from state to state, I posted a couple of links about this earlier.
Here's an overview of the Virginia law:
http://vatrafficlaw.com/dwiprimer.html
I'm trying to find out if Virgina has a specific drunk flying law, some states have them. In other states, aircraft are covered as "motor vehicles" through definition or earlier rulings.
The federal rules for testing pilots are discussed here:
http://www.aviationmedicine.com/DOTetohtest.htm
As the news articles have mentioned, there are parallel cases at both the state and federal levels.
>>It beggars belief that the chap must stay in the US until the trial date. Given his previous exemplary history, and the fact that VS have offered to fly him as necessary back to the US, do the prosecutors REALLY believe he's going to skip bail???? <<
Well, I've sure known pilots and other crewmembers to skip out on legal proceedings in other countries. One of my coworkers is still wanted in Germany for a paternity judgement years ago. And a Canadian pilot acquaintance was surprised to be arrested transiting JFK as a passenger for unpaid child support payments to an American ex-wife. Hey, they even took Michael Jackson's passport away for a while (but let him have it back only to go to the UK).
The lawyer argued that the Virgin captain was in poor health and needed to see his doctor in London:
"The judge also ordered [redacted] to surrender his passport, as the defense argued the pilot suffers a heart condition and needs to get home to London to see his cardiologist. When asked how a pilot with a heart condition can fly, a Virgin Atlantic spokesman says [redacted] meets British standards."
(from: http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1575353 )
It does vary considerably from state to state, I posted a couple of links about this earlier.
Here's an overview of the Virginia law:
http://vatrafficlaw.com/dwiprimer.html
I'm trying to find out if Virgina has a specific drunk flying law, some states have them. In other states, aircraft are covered as "motor vehicles" through definition or earlier rulings.
The federal rules for testing pilots are discussed here:
http://www.aviationmedicine.com/DOTetohtest.htm
As the news articles have mentioned, there are parallel cases at both the state and federal levels.
>>It beggars belief that the chap must stay in the US until the trial date. Given his previous exemplary history, and the fact that VS have offered to fly him as necessary back to the US, do the prosecutors REALLY believe he's going to skip bail???? <<
Well, I've sure known pilots and other crewmembers to skip out on legal proceedings in other countries. One of my coworkers is still wanted in Germany for a paternity judgement years ago. And a Canadian pilot acquaintance was surprised to be arrested transiting JFK as a passenger for unpaid child support payments to an American ex-wife. Hey, they even took Michael Jackson's passport away for a while (but let him have it back only to go to the UK).
The lawyer argued that the Virgin captain was in poor health and needed to see his doctor in London:
"The judge also ordered [redacted] to surrender his passport, as the defense argued the pilot suffers a heart condition and needs to get home to London to see his cardiologist. When asked how a pilot with a heart condition can fly, a Virgin Atlantic spokesman says [redacted] meets British standards."
(from: http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1575353 )
Last edited by Airbubba; 24th Dec 2003 at 03:13.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: the state of denial
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
openfly,
A very good question.
I would contend that the law of the country of registration does not become the legal authority in all situations.
The Chicago Convention declares that all states are sovereign over their own territory. When an aircraft enters the air space of a particular state, it is bound by the laws of that state. This applies not only to the rules of the air (which might differ a little bit from state to state, that’s why countries publish AIPs so that differences to international standards can be easier ascertained by foreign operators, for example) but also to other laws. Only when an aircraft is in the air space of “no mans land” (above the Atlantic, for example) does the state where the aircraft is registered have full jurisdiction. But, since it is a legal question, the answer is not so clear as I purport it to be. Variations to the above exist (the Tokyo Convention springs to mind).
Cosmo
Surely, it is the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered that becomes the controlling legal authority
I would contend that the law of the country of registration does not become the legal authority in all situations.
The Chicago Convention declares that all states are sovereign over their own territory. When an aircraft enters the air space of a particular state, it is bound by the laws of that state. This applies not only to the rules of the air (which might differ a little bit from state to state, that’s why countries publish AIPs so that differences to international standards can be easier ascertained by foreign operators, for example) but also to other laws. Only when an aircraft is in the air space of “no mans land” (above the Atlantic, for example) does the state where the aircraft is registered have full jurisdiction. But, since it is a legal question, the answer is not so clear as I purport it to be. Variations to the above exist (the Tokyo Convention springs to mind).
Cosmo
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I spent 13 years as a Policeman at heathrow, and up till about 1996 if we were called to a foriegn registered aircraft we couldn't do very much about anything that happened on board. If an offence continued when the parties got off we could possibly do something then, for instance could arrest a drunk when he crossed onto the airbridge, provided he was either disorderly or became incapable, possibly where the crew dropped him.
In around 1996, can't exactly remmeber the year but that would be close, the goverment passed the Civil Aviation(ammendment) Act.
This gave UK police juristiction in a forgein registered civil aircraft, provided there was an equivenlent offence in the coutry of registration (Which the accused had to show there wasn't) and The airport the aircraft landed at was the first point of landing since the offence took place.
I understand that this act was passed in responce to an international convention, so I belive that many other countries have a similar law.
Of course prior to this act we could do nothing and the aircraft crews seemed loath to take any action in thier own country. The only exception I recall was where the crew of an airline just to East of Iraq detained a passenger who said something about that country's political system as he got to the door on the way out. He wasn't alowed off and we were not allowed on.
In around 1996, can't exactly remmeber the year but that would be close, the goverment passed the Civil Aviation(ammendment) Act.
This gave UK police juristiction in a forgein registered civil aircraft, provided there was an equivenlent offence in the coutry of registration (Which the accused had to show there wasn't) and The airport the aircraft landed at was the first point of landing since the offence took place.
I understand that this act was passed in responce to an international convention, so I belive that many other countries have a similar law.
Of course prior to this act we could do nothing and the aircraft crews seemed loath to take any action in thier own country. The only exception I recall was where the crew of an airline just to East of Iraq detained a passenger who said something about that country's political system as he got to the door on the way out. He wasn't alowed off and we were not allowed on.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may well be that the REAL circumstances underlying this are quite different from what the press has reported.
The ethos of the District of Columbia and environs at present seems a bit like something one might find in Golding's "Lord of the Flies."
Perhaps with great justification in certain cases and surely without reasonable justification in others, there appears to be a focus on "exigent means" in the use and abuse of law these days which seems greater than has been seen since WW2.
The process of law in the dear old USA is fairer and more accountable than in many parts of the world - largely thanks to the character and diligence of most persons who make public safety their line of work - but sometimes one wonders.....
The ethos of the District of Columbia and environs at present seems a bit like something one might find in Golding's "Lord of the Flies."
Perhaps with great justification in certain cases and surely without reasonable justification in others, there appears to be a focus on "exigent means" in the use and abuse of law these days which seems greater than has been seen since WW2.
The process of law in the dear old USA is fairer and more accountable than in many parts of the world - largely thanks to the character and diligence of most persons who make public safety their line of work - but sometimes one wonders.....