LHR Breathtest. Update: Captain jailed
Totally agree - a quiet word in the guys ear - voicing concerns - would have been the decent thing to do
"snitch" comes to mind (flames welcome)
Hope the Brunei guy gets his life back together - other have in similar circumstances - wish him all the best
"snitch" comes to mind (flames welcome)
Hope the Brunei guy gets his life back together - other have in similar circumstances - wish him all the best
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: gatwick
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rocco in Budapest get a life! I stand by my original posting, JOHN JAMES Heathrow security guard, probably an aspiring PPL with no other qualifications with a chip on his shoulder towards all flight crew, needs to be mentioned.
There are ways and means of dealing with these scenarios but to be underhanded and tell the police first without challenging the pilot first IMHO JOHN JAMES' name needs to be repeated. I'm not for one minute saying that people should fly over the limit but there are ways of dealing with these things.
Remember, were it not for JOHN JAMES someone who believed themselves to be innocent wouldn't be behind bars this morning!
There are ways and means of dealing with these scenarios but to be underhanded and tell the police first without challenging the pilot first IMHO JOHN JAMES' name needs to be repeated. I'm not for one minute saying that people should fly over the limit but there are ways of dealing with these things.
Remember, were it not for JOHN JAMES someone who believed themselves to be innocent wouldn't be behind bars this morning!
amanoffewwords,
With the evidence (ie breath test), there was no choice but to plead guilty, that's how the court system works.
The point is that he presumably believed he was operating legally, so there was no intent.
Having got myself into some sticky situations myself completely unwittingly, its sobering
to consider how easily one's life can be turned upside down.
And for those who think James handled the matter correctly, how would any of you feel if you were reported by a fellow crew member for an operational matter, for example, without them voicing their concern to you first? He handled it poorly and is quite simply a snitch.
With the evidence (ie breath test), there was no choice but to plead guilty, that's how the court system works.
The point is that he presumably believed he was operating legally, so there was no intent.
Having got myself into some sticky situations myself completely unwittingly, its sobering
to consider how easily one's life can be turned upside down.And for those who think James handled the matter correctly, how would any of you feel if you were reported by a fellow crew member for an operational matter, for example, without them voicing their concern to you first? He handled it poorly and is quite simply a snitch.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
grrowler
Just to play Devil's Advocate for the moment - how would James have felt if he'd let the matter lie, the Brunei flight had suffered something catastrophic, Nicholls subsequently breath/blood tested and his condition officially judged to be contributory to/the cause?
OK, so James would have kept quiet, as otherwise he'd have been (morally) on a dereliction of duty charge, but who would then have been at fault? Nicholls, the First Officer, James? Perhaps all three?
Just to play Devil's Advocate for the moment - how would James have felt if he'd let the matter lie, the Brunei flight had suffered something catastrophic, Nicholls subsequently breath/blood tested and his condition officially judged to be contributory to/the cause?
OK, so James would have kept quiet, as otherwise he'd have been (morally) on a dereliction of duty charge, but who would then have been at fault? Nicholls, the First Officer, James? Perhaps all three?
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's one thing debating the rights and wrongs of the way the security man handled the situation but I won't have anyone try and use this forum to instigate any kind of vigilante action against him. Srjumbo's post has been removed as it had nothing to do with this issue except as self gratification for some worrisome need for his own expression of anger.
Maybe the security man should have taken the Captain aside and given him an opportunity to resolve any percieved problem but he was not trained in any way to handle that kind of situation. We all know, despite our reservations about the effectiveness of the cosmetic security that is in place, the people who man it are not paid, heaven forbid, to use their initiative. They have their SOP's to detect and confiscate pointy objects and that's it. He wasn't the one that called the police either. He called the Airline's handling agent and the airport management. It was one of them who called the police.
As was mentioned, the Captain had every opportunity to leave the flight deck and call in sick when he was informed about what was happening. Whilst his mitigation that he honestly didn't believe that he was over the limit was mentioned, it would appear that he really should have known better and the judge, in my opinion, was correct when he pointed that out. You don't have to be an expert on human anatomy and biological functions to know that regular, heavy drinking on an empty stomach isn't a clever thing to do at any time. To then be informed that you have been reported to the police because someone had smelled alcohol on your breath requires even less imagination as to the possible consequences.
This captain has paid a very heavy price for his lack of common sense. There was obviously no intent of criminal behaviour and I for one cannot understand the need for a custodial sentence in this case. I was under the impression that prison was meant to be a form of rehabilitation rather than exclusively as punishment. I would have thought that this man has paid a very high price already by losing his job and the associated publicity which is likely to prevent him from ever working as a pilot again, especially at his age. I think that most of us are aware of the consequences of being under the influence, whatever the arbitrary limit, when reporting for duty. Is the threat of a custodial sentence likely to make you any more aware or likely to abstain from alcohol?
The British, though not exclusively, seem to have a culture of heavy drinking. You only have to read many of the profiles of PPRuNe members to see the references to drinking. For some people it would appear that unless you are able to quaff several pints of beer or knock back 'chasers' of hard spirits then you are not worthy of being a part of their social group and therefore somehow inferior'. Strange that, especially from people who consider themselves to be professional aircrew with such huge responsibilities. I just don't understand how some supposedly intelligent people can consider alcohol intoxication to be in any way beneficial to their health or careers.
This case, as well as other recent ones, only serves to highlight that there is a problem with alcohol consumption by aircrew who are unable to determine the residual amounts left in their system. Whilst we can agree that there have been no alcohol related accidents for many years, do we know how many crew members are reporting for duty with enough alcohol in their system that would fail a test? Perhaps there needs to be a study to see how widespread the problem is... or isn't.
Does anyone know if there are any reports of the number of aircrew who have failed tests in the US where testing is mandatory? I am specifically looking for aircrew only and not all workers in the industry. From what I remember, anecdotally, the numbers are very small indeed. With the reputation of the British culture of alcohol consumption and the highlighting of this case, perhaps those who have a habit of being fuzzy headed after a night out downroute should indeed invest in a testing device. I am fairly sure that some of you would be surprised at the results. Perhaps as surprised as the Royal Brunei Captain was when he got his result.
You have a choice. Use it.
Maybe the security man should have taken the Captain aside and given him an opportunity to resolve any percieved problem but he was not trained in any way to handle that kind of situation. We all know, despite our reservations about the effectiveness of the cosmetic security that is in place, the people who man it are not paid, heaven forbid, to use their initiative. They have their SOP's to detect and confiscate pointy objects and that's it. He wasn't the one that called the police either. He called the Airline's handling agent and the airport management. It was one of them who called the police.
As was mentioned, the Captain had every opportunity to leave the flight deck and call in sick when he was informed about what was happening. Whilst his mitigation that he honestly didn't believe that he was over the limit was mentioned, it would appear that he really should have known better and the judge, in my opinion, was correct when he pointed that out. You don't have to be an expert on human anatomy and biological functions to know that regular, heavy drinking on an empty stomach isn't a clever thing to do at any time. To then be informed that you have been reported to the police because someone had smelled alcohol on your breath requires even less imagination as to the possible consequences.
This captain has paid a very heavy price for his lack of common sense. There was obviously no intent of criminal behaviour and I for one cannot understand the need for a custodial sentence in this case. I was under the impression that prison was meant to be a form of rehabilitation rather than exclusively as punishment. I would have thought that this man has paid a very high price already by losing his job and the associated publicity which is likely to prevent him from ever working as a pilot again, especially at his age. I think that most of us are aware of the consequences of being under the influence, whatever the arbitrary limit, when reporting for duty. Is the threat of a custodial sentence likely to make you any more aware or likely to abstain from alcohol?
The British, though not exclusively, seem to have a culture of heavy drinking. You only have to read many of the profiles of PPRuNe members to see the references to drinking. For some people it would appear that unless you are able to quaff several pints of beer or knock back 'chasers' of hard spirits then you are not worthy of being a part of their social group and therefore somehow inferior'. Strange that, especially from people who consider themselves to be professional aircrew with such huge responsibilities. I just don't understand how some supposedly intelligent people can consider alcohol intoxication to be in any way beneficial to their health or careers.
This case, as well as other recent ones, only serves to highlight that there is a problem with alcohol consumption by aircrew who are unable to determine the residual amounts left in their system. Whilst we can agree that there have been no alcohol related accidents for many years, do we know how many crew members are reporting for duty with enough alcohol in their system that would fail a test? Perhaps there needs to be a study to see how widespread the problem is... or isn't.
Does anyone know if there are any reports of the number of aircrew who have failed tests in the US where testing is mandatory? I am specifically looking for aircrew only and not all workers in the industry. From what I remember, anecdotally, the numbers are very small indeed. With the reputation of the British culture of alcohol consumption and the highlighting of this case, perhaps those who have a habit of being fuzzy headed after a night out downroute should indeed invest in a testing device. I am fairly sure that some of you would be surprised at the results. Perhaps as surprised as the Royal Brunei Captain was when he got his result.
You have a choice. Use it.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Valley Where the Thames Runs Softly
Age: 77
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It isn't that the Manchester sentence was a harsh one, but that the Heathrow one was on the low side.
In both cases the judge listened to the advocate's mitigation and made his decision. Plenty of people thought that the latest case would attract 12 months or even more.
What is clear is that both sentences were intended to be deterrent, and no pilot or engineer should be in any doubt about what will happen in any future cases. With the limit set as low as 20mg in blood, 12 hours' abstinence is no longer safe if you have drunk more than a small amount.
In both cases the judge listened to the advocate's mitigation and made his decision. Plenty of people thought that the latest case would attract 12 months or even more.
What is clear is that both sentences were intended to be deterrent, and no pilot or engineer should be in any doubt about what will happen in any future cases. With the limit set as low as 20mg in blood, 12 hours' abstinence is no longer safe if you have drunk more than a small amount.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: East of the Sun & West of the Moon
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Limit
One thing that seems to have been missing from this discussion is the appropriateness of the 20mcg limit.
It's fair enough to expect the law to enforce a standard that errs to the side of safety, but is there not a point where that standard has been pushed too far to the side of caution?
The actual scientific FAA/NASA studies of the effects of different levels impairment on flying abilities that I have read indicated that there was no measurable decrease in judgement or handling skill found among participants with 20 and 40 mcg blood alcohol contents. In fact, the participants when intoxicated to those levels showed a slight, but measurable, improvement versus their scores when sober. A decrease in performance only became noticable when the participants were tested at the 80 mcg level.
The reasonable conclusion from these studies is that the point where blood alcohol content begins to affect aviating skill lies somewhere between 40 and 80 mcg. Given this, unless there is significant evidence to the contrary, a 40 mcg limit would seem appropriate.
Granted, this pilot's actual blood alcohol content of 125 mcg was well in excess of even 40 mcg, but given the terrible consequences that confront any pilot accused (let alone found guilty) of exceeding the preescribed legal limit, should we not be asking hard questions about the basis for that limit?
As things stand a pilot's career can be ruined on the basis of a blood alcohol level well below that at which any measurable impairment can be detected, but a pilot whose abilities have been significantly eroded by fatigue induced by inadequate rest and duty regulations is considered fit to fly, and may be subject to penalty if he doesn't.
There's something wrong with that.
ELAC
It's fair enough to expect the law to enforce a standard that errs to the side of safety, but is there not a point where that standard has been pushed too far to the side of caution?
The actual scientific FAA/NASA studies of the effects of different levels impairment on flying abilities that I have read indicated that there was no measurable decrease in judgement or handling skill found among participants with 20 and 40 mcg blood alcohol contents. In fact, the participants when intoxicated to those levels showed a slight, but measurable, improvement versus their scores when sober. A decrease in performance only became noticable when the participants were tested at the 80 mcg level.
The reasonable conclusion from these studies is that the point where blood alcohol content begins to affect aviating skill lies somewhere between 40 and 80 mcg. Given this, unless there is significant evidence to the contrary, a 40 mcg limit would seem appropriate.
Granted, this pilot's actual blood alcohol content of 125 mcg was well in excess of even 40 mcg, but given the terrible consequences that confront any pilot accused (let alone found guilty) of exceeding the preescribed legal limit, should we not be asking hard questions about the basis for that limit?
As things stand a pilot's career can be ruined on the basis of a blood alcohol level well below that at which any measurable impairment can be detected, but a pilot whose abilities have been significantly eroded by fatigue induced by inadequate rest and duty regulations is considered fit to fly, and may be subject to penalty if he doesn't.
There's something wrong with that.
ELAC
Guest
Posts: n/a
Assuming the security man's motive was genuine concern for flight safety, he could easily have told the captain about his suspicions and warned him he'd report him if he went airside.
If a car driver is stopped by the police during an alcohol traffic control and he is over the limit, he will be charged accordingly and rightly so. With all due respect, Heliport, will you say the same for this case?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Gent Belgium
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Breathalyser
What's the cost of a relyable breathalyser?
Having one aboard could IMHO be an appropriate tool to avoid lots of trouble.
On any suspicion, be it from fellow crew members or third parties, once could be able to perform a 'self-test' to convince either oneself of a 'no - go' or relieve others of their concern of someone having had too much to drink before reporting for duty. Thus avoiding ruined carreers, possible jail sentences and above all maintaining the highest safety standards.
It might also come in handy to face potential troublemaking passengers if cabin crew believe said passenger is under influence. A discrete breathtest is at the least a strong and indisputable argument in the process of telling someone to behave and be good for the rest of the flight, explaining the possible consequences.
A small price to pay, for safety?
Rgds,
BC
Having one aboard could IMHO be an appropriate tool to avoid lots of trouble.
On any suspicion, be it from fellow crew members or third parties, once could be able to perform a 'self-test' to convince either oneself of a 'no - go' or relieve others of their concern of someone having had too much to drink before reporting for duty. Thus avoiding ruined carreers, possible jail sentences and above all maintaining the highest safety standards.
It might also come in handy to face potential troublemaking passengers if cabin crew believe said passenger is under influence. A discrete breathtest is at the least a strong and indisputable argument in the process of telling someone to behave and be good for the rest of the flight, explaining the possible consequences.
A small price to pay, for safety?
Rgds,
BC
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps before people express thier wish to hang the security guard they should consider a few important points.
BAA security are not allowed to use inititive, they react in a prescribed way to things. That means they call Police to all sorts of things that wouldn't normally justify it.
He would inform his supervisor who then would inform his, the message would eventualy get to the BAA's control Centre at heathrow, who would have, and ineed did call the Police. It isn't in BAA terms thier responsibility to take issue with a pilot, nor to give him advice, as many have rightly pointed out, they are not experts.
The pilot believed he was under the limit, who are the BAA to question that? They lack both the skills and the equiptment to do so.
I presume you would not expect the BAA to have a word in the ear of a driver who was about to get in his car when smelling of drink? Or to tell a shop lifter that they really shouldn't try to steal something. Why should they do so in the case of a pilot?
I can see why you regard the security guard as a 'snitch' but please consider that many of you are pilots and have called police to people on your aircraft who you claim to be drunk, not causing any danger to anyone, just drunk. You see no harm in that, and don't regard yourselves as 'snitches'. There is no difference in what the guard did to that action.
Something I really think should be mentioned is as follows:
I unit of alcohol = 1/2 pint
legal limit for driving is approx 2.5 units
therefore 1 unit would give a BAC(from a breath specien) reading of about 14
He gave a breath test sample (at time of arrest) of 69, equivilent to about 4.9 units. (2.5 pints)
alcohol leaves the avarage person at the rate of one unit an hour
he had 12 hours since the last drink. So you can presume that if he lost one unit per hour then he would have had to have at had about 12 units before he stopped drinking plus the 4.9 he had at the time he was arrested.
That makes a total of 17 units or the equivilent of 8 1/2 pints.
I am not going to try to take it back further to the lunch time, as its pointless but it does show how much he could well have had to drink.
BAA security are not allowed to use inititive, they react in a prescribed way to things. That means they call Police to all sorts of things that wouldn't normally justify it.
He would inform his supervisor who then would inform his, the message would eventualy get to the BAA's control Centre at heathrow, who would have, and ineed did call the Police. It isn't in BAA terms thier responsibility to take issue with a pilot, nor to give him advice, as many have rightly pointed out, they are not experts.
The pilot believed he was under the limit, who are the BAA to question that? They lack both the skills and the equiptment to do so.
I presume you would not expect the BAA to have a word in the ear of a driver who was about to get in his car when smelling of drink? Or to tell a shop lifter that they really shouldn't try to steal something. Why should they do so in the case of a pilot?
I can see why you regard the security guard as a 'snitch' but please consider that many of you are pilots and have called police to people on your aircraft who you claim to be drunk, not causing any danger to anyone, just drunk. You see no harm in that, and don't regard yourselves as 'snitches'. There is no difference in what the guard did to that action.
Something I really think should be mentioned is as follows:
I unit of alcohol = 1/2 pint
legal limit for driving is approx 2.5 units
therefore 1 unit would give a BAC(from a breath specien) reading of about 14
He gave a breath test sample (at time of arrest) of 69, equivilent to about 4.9 units. (2.5 pints)
alcohol leaves the avarage person at the rate of one unit an hour
he had 12 hours since the last drink. So you can presume that if he lost one unit per hour then he would have had to have at had about 12 units before he stopped drinking plus the 4.9 he had at the time he was arrested.
That makes a total of 17 units or the equivilent of 8 1/2 pints.
I am not going to try to take it back further to the lunch time, as its pointless but it does show how much he could well have had to drink.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: slightly left of you
Age: 43
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just asking Mrs cortilla about this one (a doctor), and she says it takes 1 hour per unit for alcohol to leave the body, + 1 hour to the total (for an average person) for the body to start metabolising the alcohol (so if you take 1 unit of alcohol it will take 2 hours to metabolise and 3 hours for 2 units and so on)
As an aside the way i understand it, british law is a precedent law. So if a judge in a similar case at the same level or lower court has set a scentence of 6 months and that was the last case, then the scentencing judge would have to set the same scentence to remain consequent with the legal aspects. Only a higher court can reduce that scentence ie the court of appeal or the house of lords, but these will only look at cases on points of law, and not re examine the facts.
As an aside the way i understand it, british law is a precedent law. So if a judge in a similar case at the same level or lower court has set a scentence of 6 months and that was the last case, then the scentencing judge would have to set the same scentence to remain consequent with the legal aspects. Only a higher court can reduce that scentence ie the court of appeal or the house of lords, but these will only look at cases on points of law, and not re examine the facts.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
>>There was obviously no intent of criminal behaviour and I for one cannot understand the need for a custodial sentence in this case.<<
Flying drunk has been considered criminal behaviour for many years now in the U.S., it is a serious crime. Several pilots have done hard time and others would have but got off on legal technicalities like the Virgin pilot at KIAD.
>>The British, though not exclusively, seem to have a culture of heavy drinking. You only have to read many of the profiles of PPRuNe members to see the references to drinking. For some people it would appear that unless you are able to quaff several pints of beer or knock back 'chasers' of hard spirits then you are not worthy of being a part of their social group and therefore somehow inferior'. Strange that, especially from people who consider themselves to be professional aircrew with such huge responsibilities. I just don't understand how some supposedly intelligent people can consider alcohol intoxication to be in any way beneficial to their health or careers.<<
Yep, current attitudes toward binge drinking make it much less socially acceptable in the U.S. than perhaps in the UK.
If this guy tested drunk twelve hours after he quit drinking, then he has a problem on several levels. Whatever the personal issues, he should not be at the controls of an aircraft. The system worked in this case.
In the U.S., if you have an alcohol problem outside of duty time, under the Americans with Disabilities Act you basically can not be fired if you agree to rehab. However, if you report for duty and test over the limit, you don't have the full "get out of jail free card" from the ADA. The first things many accused crewmembers do (like the America West crew at MIA) is hire a lawyer, proclaim innocence and book into rehab just in case.
Flying drunk has been considered criminal behaviour for many years now in the U.S., it is a serious crime. Several pilots have done hard time and others would have but got off on legal technicalities like the Virgin pilot at KIAD.
>>The British, though not exclusively, seem to have a culture of heavy drinking. You only have to read many of the profiles of PPRuNe members to see the references to drinking. For some people it would appear that unless you are able to quaff several pints of beer or knock back 'chasers' of hard spirits then you are not worthy of being a part of their social group and therefore somehow inferior'. Strange that, especially from people who consider themselves to be professional aircrew with such huge responsibilities. I just don't understand how some supposedly intelligent people can consider alcohol intoxication to be in any way beneficial to their health or careers.<<
Yep, current attitudes toward binge drinking make it much less socially acceptable in the U.S. than perhaps in the UK.
If this guy tested drunk twelve hours after he quit drinking, then he has a problem on several levels. Whatever the personal issues, he should not be at the controls of an aircraft. The system worked in this case.
In the U.S., if you have an alcohol problem outside of duty time, under the Americans with Disabilities Act you basically can not be fired if you agree to rehab. However, if you report for duty and test over the limit, you don't have the full "get out of jail free card" from the ADA. The first things many accused crewmembers do (like the America West crew at MIA) is hire a lawyer, proclaim innocence and book into rehab just in case.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Valley Where the Thames Runs Softly
Age: 77
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please do not rely on any of the alcohol/blood/breath calculations that you see in this thread. It is not an exact science, and the intake required to get to say 20mg in blood (nb) has so many variables such as body weight, food consumption, type of drink, that there is no safe answer.
Parliament decided to set the limit for pilots at one-quarter that for drivers. I am sure that was not so much scientific as a rule of thumb, but consider what chance there is of BALPA making headlines "Pilots demand right to drink more before they fly".
Different jurisdictions express alcohol measurements in different ways. For the record, the limit in the UK to drive a car is:
35 in breath 80 in blood and 106 in urine. The exact units are different for each. For flying, divide by four.
If the Blessed Danny will excuse just this one commercial link in the interests of educating the readership, there is a cheap and cheerful alcohol meter at
http://tesco.com/electrical/search.a...ode%2Bmatchall
I would not stake my career or my freedom on it, but it can at least give you an idea of where you are.
Parliament decided to set the limit for pilots at one-quarter that for drivers. I am sure that was not so much scientific as a rule of thumb, but consider what chance there is of BALPA making headlines "Pilots demand right to drink more before they fly".
Different jurisdictions express alcohol measurements in different ways. For the record, the limit in the UK to drive a car is:
35 in breath 80 in blood and 106 in urine. The exact units are different for each. For flying, divide by four.
If the Blessed Danny will excuse just this one commercial link in the interests of educating the readership, there is a cheap and cheerful alcohol meter at
http://tesco.com/electrical/search.a...ode%2Bmatchall
I would not stake my career or my freedom on it, but it can at least give you an idea of where you are.
Last edited by Unwell_Raptor; 7th Dec 2004 at 16:32.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unwell Raptor
Thanks, I had just come back to add something along those lines.
My calculations are very very rough and only give an idea for the 'avarage' person (what ever that is)
The only reliable way is to buy a breath test machine and test twice, first to make sure you are under and the second to make sure you are 'going down' not up.
The ones we used to use cost around £700, or so we were charged if we lost one, if they are the same price or less then well worth buying I would think.
Thanks, I had just come back to add something along those lines.
My calculations are very very rough and only give an idea for the 'avarage' person (what ever that is)
The only reliable way is to buy a breath test machine and test twice, first to make sure you are under and the second to make sure you are 'going down' not up.
The ones we used to use cost around £700, or so we were charged if we lost one, if they are the same price or less then well worth buying I would think.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always find it quite incredible to see the reactions to "drunk Pilots" type threads. If you were to read through all the ones we have had, you could believe that all Pilots are saints, who only make on minor transgression ever and don't deserve to lose their jobs. To see people on this thread naming the security gurad, and labelling him "a snitch" for doing his job almost defies belief. There is a hint in Flying Lawyers post that there was some history bewteen the pilot concerend and security. I wonder what the Pilot's reaction would have been to being told that he was suspected of being over the limit - would it have had any effect?
In this case, let us please not lose sight of the fact that not only was this pilot over the limit set for flying, he was over the limit for driving a car. Regardless of what you may think of the aviaition limit, this man clearly had a realtively high level of alchohol in his bloodstream, and had obviously consumed rather a lot the day before - 12 hours is fairly irrelevant if you have drunk lots, especially on an empty stomach. Not, I would suggest, a sensible action.
Funny how anyone who does anything that may affect a professional pilot is always assumed to be "an aspiring PPL"
In this case, let us please not lose sight of the fact that not only was this pilot over the limit set for flying, he was over the limit for driving a car. Regardless of what you may think of the aviaition limit, this man clearly had a realtively high level of alchohol in his bloodstream, and had obviously consumed rather a lot the day before - 12 hours is fairly irrelevant if you have drunk lots, especially on an empty stomach. Not, I would suggest, a sensible action.
probably an aspiring PPL with no other qualifications with a chip on his shoulder towards all flight crew,
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Airports
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where do your limits lie?
The question of how we know when we are in excess of the current limit is an important one to me. As we are all regularly made aware, different people metabolise alcohol in different ways and there are many variables to go along with it, as have already been described. When you turn up to work how can you be sure that your body has processed all the alcohol it received at last in take? I hear some people answer, don't drink at all, but that takes away the right to choose and means that your days free of duty remain under the control of the company or licensing authority. To me this is unacceptable.
Currently, the first indication a pilot may have that he has exceeded prescribed limits is when the police board the aircraft and have adminstered their test. I understand that one carrier, and possibly more, provide breath analysers to allow the pilot to test themselves and should they show to be over the limit they are able to report sick without pay. Only if this becomes a regular occurrence are questions asked. I think this is the way forward for us here in the UK as is the removal of taboo status for the whole subject. If we are able to talk on the subject more freely then views can be more readily aired. Maybe this is a subject to be discussed at the next CRM renewal.
I agree that the security guard could have dealt with the matter in a different way but do also appreciate the difficulty in approaching a pilot with such a suspicion. Maybe a card (similar to those used by many carriers these days) could be provided or an invite to use the provided test equipment to assess ones suitability for duty. Maybe amongst the professionals (respecting the fact that this forum has become widely used by interested parties and journalists) we could come up with some suggestions that may save one of our careers one day while maintaining the social life that I feel is important in the stressful envroment that is aviation today. I for one will be investing in a home unit to be able to measure my own tolerance and metabolic rate so as to avoid the unfortunate situation that Capt. Nichols has found himself in.
Currently, the first indication a pilot may have that he has exceeded prescribed limits is when the police board the aircraft and have adminstered their test. I understand that one carrier, and possibly more, provide breath analysers to allow the pilot to test themselves and should they show to be over the limit they are able to report sick without pay. Only if this becomes a regular occurrence are questions asked. I think this is the way forward for us here in the UK as is the removal of taboo status for the whole subject. If we are able to talk on the subject more freely then views can be more readily aired. Maybe this is a subject to be discussed at the next CRM renewal.
I agree that the security guard could have dealt with the matter in a different way but do also appreciate the difficulty in approaching a pilot with such a suspicion. Maybe a card (similar to those used by many carriers these days) could be provided or an invite to use the provided test equipment to assess ones suitability for duty. Maybe amongst the professionals (respecting the fact that this forum has become widely used by interested parties and journalists) we could come up with some suggestions that may save one of our careers one day while maintaining the social life that I feel is important in the stressful envroment that is aviation today. I for one will be investing in a home unit to be able to measure my own tolerance and metabolic rate so as to avoid the unfortunate situation that Capt. Nichols has found himself in.
Mr Chips,
If someone has a problem with me and is too weak or too vindictive to approach me with his/ her problem, then I'm afraid, in my opinion, s/he is either spineless, or a snitch, or possibly both. How would you handle the problem?
Yes , James was doing his job, but I believe the way he handled it resulted in too severe a punishment. Had he instead, for example, approached the cap, then if no satisfactory response was forthcoming approached the company, threatened further action. This may have seen the pilot even lose his job, but 6 months in the slammer is ridiculous.
If someone has a problem with me and is too weak or too vindictive to approach me with his/ her problem, then I'm afraid, in my opinion, s/he is either spineless, or a snitch, or possibly both. How would you handle the problem?
Yes , James was doing his job, but I believe the way he handled it resulted in too severe a punishment. Had he instead, for example, approached the cap, then if no satisfactory response was forthcoming approached the company, threatened further action. This may have seen the pilot even lose his job, but 6 months in the slammer is ridiculous.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Valley Where the Thames Runs Softly
Age: 77
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Prune archives contain scores of posts complaining about the quality of airport security people, and many more posts pointing out that most of these people are paid at or near the minimum wage. So they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by deviating one iota from the SOP, which is to refer any problem upwards.
You get what you pay for, I am afraid.
You get what you pay for, I am afraid.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree with U_R about the sentences.
I won’t deny that, from a professional point of view, I was pleased with the result - especially in light of a six month sentence having been imposed on the Manchester pilot for a much less serious offence. I underlined ‘professional’ only because, my personal view is that a community punishment order (unpaid work for the community) would probably have been sufficient. I’d have to accept it was borderline because the alcohol level was so high but, if a prison sentence was unavoidable, then I don’t think six months achieves anything that a much shorter sentence wouldn’t.
I simply don’t believe any pilot would think it was worth taking a chance if the likely sentence was (for example) ‘only’ a month, but not take a chance if a longer sentence was at stake. For decent people who haven’t been through the criminal courts or previously served a sentence, being sent to prison at all is horrific - whether for one month or six.
NB: My view would be very different if (for example) a pilot rostered to fly in the evening drank heavily at lunchtime and deliberately took a chance he wouldn’t get caught.
I think sending the Manchester pilot to prison was far too harsh. IMHO, he should have been given a heavy fine by the magistrates. I assume he’ll appeal, and it will be interesting to see if his sentence is reduced. (For various reasons, the best he can hope for is a reduced sentence. It’s extremely unlikely his sentence will be quashed altogether – but that doesn’t necessarily mean he shouldn’t have been fined in the first place.)
One thing is clear from these two cases:
Whatever our personal views may be about appropriate sentences, the courts are likely to take a severe approach to these offences.
BJCC
It may not be the responsibility of BAA personnel to give advice, but I’d think well of someone who tried to resolve the issue by having a quiet word. You don’t need to be an expert to do that. Unless a pilot has nothing to fear because he’s had nothing at all to drink, I suspect Go through and I’ll have to report it, go home and I won’t would do the trick in the vast majority of cases.
I don’t think your comparison with a shop-lifter is entirely valid. People who steal do so intentionally; the 20 mg limit is so low a pilot could easily commit this offence unintentionally.
Cortilla
That’s not how ‘precedent’ works.
Point of Law:
A court isn’t bound to follow a previous decision by a court of equal level.
Sentence:
If appropriate sentences for an offence have previously been considered by the Court of Appeal, particularly in a ‘sentencing guidelines’ case, Crown Court judges are bound to take the guidance into account but, even then, it is only guidance. The judge must impose the sentence he/she thinks is appropriate in the particular case - taking into account the facts/circumstances of the offence, any previous convictions, and any guidance given by the Court of Appeal in similar cases.
The judge sentencing the Heathrow pilot wasn’t bound by the sentence imposed by the judge in Manchester. It would be ludicrous if he was. If it was wrong, everyone else would be wrongly sentenced until the first appeal was considered by the Court of Appeal.
Either the Isleworth judge was too lenient (as U_R thinks) or the Manchester judge was too harsh. I don’t know anything about the Manchester case beyond what I’ve read in the Press and on PPRuNe but, given the big difference in alcohol levels between the two pilots, they can’t both have deserved the same sentence.
At present, there are no Court of Appeal decisions to give guidance. We’re not appealing the sentence. If the Manchester pilot appeals, there will be some guidance.
Tudor Owen
I won’t deny that, from a professional point of view, I was pleased with the result - especially in light of a six month sentence having been imposed on the Manchester pilot for a much less serious offence. I underlined ‘professional’ only because, my personal view is that a community punishment order (unpaid work for the community) would probably have been sufficient. I’d have to accept it was borderline because the alcohol level was so high but, if a prison sentence was unavoidable, then I don’t think six months achieves anything that a much shorter sentence wouldn’t.
I simply don’t believe any pilot would think it was worth taking a chance if the likely sentence was (for example) ‘only’ a month, but not take a chance if a longer sentence was at stake. For decent people who haven’t been through the criminal courts or previously served a sentence, being sent to prison at all is horrific - whether for one month or six.
NB: My view would be very different if (for example) a pilot rostered to fly in the evening drank heavily at lunchtime and deliberately took a chance he wouldn’t get caught.
I think sending the Manchester pilot to prison was far too harsh. IMHO, he should have been given a heavy fine by the magistrates. I assume he’ll appeal, and it will be interesting to see if his sentence is reduced. (For various reasons, the best he can hope for is a reduced sentence. It’s extremely unlikely his sentence will be quashed altogether – but that doesn’t necessarily mean he shouldn’t have been fined in the first place.)
One thing is clear from these two cases:
Whatever our personal views may be about appropriate sentences, the courts are likely to take a severe approach to these offences.
BJCC
It may not be the responsibility of BAA personnel to give advice, but I’d think well of someone who tried to resolve the issue by having a quiet word. You don’t need to be an expert to do that. Unless a pilot has nothing to fear because he’s had nothing at all to drink, I suspect Go through and I’ll have to report it, go home and I won’t would do the trick in the vast majority of cases.
I don’t think your comparison with a shop-lifter is entirely valid. People who steal do so intentionally; the 20 mg limit is so low a pilot could easily commit this offence unintentionally.
Cortilla
That’s not how ‘precedent’ works.
Point of Law:
A court isn’t bound to follow a previous decision by a court of equal level.
Sentence:
If appropriate sentences for an offence have previously been considered by the Court of Appeal, particularly in a ‘sentencing guidelines’ case, Crown Court judges are bound to take the guidance into account but, even then, it is only guidance. The judge must impose the sentence he/she thinks is appropriate in the particular case - taking into account the facts/circumstances of the offence, any previous convictions, and any guidance given by the Court of Appeal in similar cases.
The judge sentencing the Heathrow pilot wasn’t bound by the sentence imposed by the judge in Manchester. It would be ludicrous if he was. If it was wrong, everyone else would be wrongly sentenced until the first appeal was considered by the Court of Appeal.
Either the Isleworth judge was too lenient (as U_R thinks) or the Manchester judge was too harsh. I don’t know anything about the Manchester case beyond what I’ve read in the Press and on PPRuNe but, given the big difference in alcohol levels between the two pilots, they can’t both have deserved the same sentence.
At present, there are no Court of Appeal decisions to give guidance. We’re not appealing the sentence. If the Manchester pilot appeals, there will be some guidance.
Tudor Owen
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 7th Dec 2004 at 23:21.