Pilot arrested at Manchester (merged)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA38,
No problem at all, BUT: -
The taxi driver, or in fact whoever decides that someone has been drinking must then accept the consequences if they are wrong. With accusation comes responsibility.
I know that I would be very unhappy if so accused and innocent.
No problem at all, BUT: -
The taxi driver, or in fact whoever decides that someone has been drinking must then accept the consequences if they are wrong. With accusation comes responsibility.
I know that I would be very unhappy if so accused and innocent.
A very interesting board. Hardly a surprising selection of remarks tendered, especially by so many highly professional individuals. And it is hardly surprising that in this one regard, alcohol, they lose their rag. Such remarks are indeed revealing.
8 hours does seem rather short, given it takes alcohol 72 hours to leave the system. Nearly a half of accidents come down to what, human error?
If any of you know a good sniper, have a chat with him. Ask him whether he can smell the beer you had two days ago.
Sorry lads, but I'm with Hungary on this one.
8 hours does seem rather short, given it takes alcohol 72 hours to leave the system. Nearly a half of accidents come down to what, human error?
If any of you know a good sniper, have a chat with him. Ask him whether he can smell the beer you had two days ago.
Sorry lads, but I'm with Hungary on this one.
Arctaurus, please see posts by BJCC above. It is NOT the taxi / bus driver who decides who has been drinking or is over the limit. It is the police.
Any individual who believes that a serious crime is about to be committed has a duty to report it. This is exactly what happened.
Any individual who believes that a serious crime is about to be committed has a duty to report it. This is exactly what happened.
Last edited by etrang; 28th Oct 2004 at 08:22.
There has to be some "come back" on these type of accusations.
Say a Skipper has reason to chastise a ramp agent driver etc. said individual then says OK I'll ruin his day and reports him for supposedly smelling of alchol. (In a commercial world can be used to delay your competitors flights) If it proves that the accused person is totally clear he/she should have redress on that individual for wrongfull accuzation. Does Libel Law cover this as Pilots being proffesional it would be a slight on their character (no smoke without fire etc)
Unfortunatly in the genuine cases I would not like to surpress the honest concern of an individual.
Say a Skipper has reason to chastise a ramp agent driver etc. said individual then says OK I'll ruin his day and reports him for supposedly smelling of alchol. (In a commercial world can be used to delay your competitors flights) If it proves that the accused person is totally clear he/she should have redress on that individual for wrongfull accuzation. Does Libel Law cover this as Pilots being proffesional it would be a slight on their character (no smoke without fire etc)
Unfortunatly in the genuine cases I would not like to surpress the honest concern of an individual.
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez, where do some of these posters crawl out from? WTF do we have to have a discussion about 'what would happen if the bus driver was wrong'? Read the whole thread fer gawds sake! It's beginning to sound like a bunch of 'Reginald S Potters' each trying to sound more authoritative than the other. 
The bus driver didn't falsely accuse the pilot and did the right thing. The consequences are there for all to see in the harsh glare of embarrassing publicity. The police were called, believed there was enough evidence to test for alcohol and were proved correct. The case has been brought and the pilot has to bear the consequences for his lack of responsibility.
If you need to find out whether there is any chance of 'libel'
had the bus driver been acting out of malice then:
a) Do a google search on "libel" and try and get an understanding of the term and how it applies before you show your ignorance on here and;
b) Read the whole thread to see if the discussion hasn't already taken place.
I hope the mods can try and keep these posts remotely associated with the topic and not have the whole thread hijacked by the Reginald S Potters debating society. 
The bus driver didn't falsely accuse the pilot and did the right thing. The consequences are there for all to see in the harsh glare of embarrassing publicity. The police were called, believed there was enough evidence to test for alcohol and were proved correct. The case has been brought and the pilot has to bear the consequences for his lack of responsibility.
If you need to find out whether there is any chance of 'libel'
had the bus driver been acting out of malice then:a) Do a google search on "libel" and try and get an understanding of the term and how it applies before you show your ignorance on here and;
b) Read the whole thread to see if the discussion hasn't already taken place.
I hope the mods can try and keep these posts remotely associated with the topic and not have the whole thread hijacked by the Reginald S Potters debating society.
Guest
Posts: n/a
IcePack
As cargo boy has pointed out, you cannot ruin the day of someone who has a BAC below the legal limit. In this particular case, as has also been pointed out the police breathalysed under their reasonable suspicion after the accusation from the bus/coach/taxi/bin lorry driver. That breath test was apparently failed which was the reason for the arrest.
In your scenario, the malicious intent would become clear when a police breath test (note: not an evidential test carried out at the station because it would not be required!!) showed the accused was below the legal limit.
No smoke/fire/libel/slander/"come back" or similar.
As cargo boy has pointed out, you cannot ruin the day of someone who has a BAC below the legal limit. In this particular case, as has also been pointed out the police breathalysed under their reasonable suspicion after the accusation from the bus/coach/taxi/bin lorry driver. That breath test was apparently failed which was the reason for the arrest.
In your scenario, the malicious intent would become clear when a police breath test (note: not an evidential test carried out at the station because it would not be required!!) showed the accused was below the legal limit.
No smoke/fire/libel/slander/"come back" or similar.
Last edited by feet dry; 28th Oct 2004 at 16:08.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: S.E England
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He appears to have apssed the evidencial test conducted at the Police station. Be that breath or blood. The obvious reason being that his BAC was going down and went below the limit between the first and evidencial tests.
One evening after a few bevvies in the pub I stupidly got into my car and drove home. In the good old tradition of sods law I was pulled over for exceeding the speed limit (only slighty) for the first time ever.
The resultant breathaliser test proved positive (according to the police officer only just - not sure how they tell this) and I was arrested. At the station I undertook three official tests (which would be used as evidence). The police took the lower of the three tests as my result. It was over the legal limit by a fraction. I cant remember the exact figures sorry. However I was released without charge as the CPS will only prosecute above a certain percentage to allow for erorrs etc.
So although my name was 'clear' I was still breaking the law. What bought it home to me was that I did not feel drunk or even slightly impaired...but who does?
The officer did not get his 'collar' but as I explained to him out side the station he still had acheived his goal as I have never done it ever again and nor will I.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You splitter
You quote me, however in this case I used info from another post, which, wrongly claimed the pilot had provided a speciem below the limit. Obviously that was not the case.
You are mostly right in what you say, as I recall (and the exact numbers could be wrong) the limit for breath is 35, but police do not charge unless you actualy below above 40. There are actualy only 2 breath test speciens taken at a police station, of which as you rightly say the lower is used as evidence, the higher one is disregarded.
Now to everyone one on the 'malicious' intent.
If you believe someone on your flight is drunk, you call the Police. If, as has transpired on more than one occation, they arn't drunk, there is another explanation for thier behaviour. Would you regard it as Ok in those circumstances to be sued for slander (not liable as has been pointed out that is written). No.
The bus driver has done what you would do if you saw a man dressed in black disappearing behind a house, he called police. It is not him who has provided the evidence against this pilot, the pilot has done that himself. Just as Police called to the man in black may find he is actualy a window cleaner who thinks black makes him look slimmer, and not a burglar, would not nick him for burglary if there is an innocent explanation.
Yes, there are circumstances when malicious allagations are and have been made. A female pilot at LHR was grassed (for importing drugs) by her ex girlfriend when I worked there, the allagation turned out to be a load of B******s. These allagations are made against drivers all the time, frankly theres not much you can do about it, in any case if you haven't had too much to drink then thats the end of the matter.
You quote me, however in this case I used info from another post, which, wrongly claimed the pilot had provided a speciem below the limit. Obviously that was not the case.
You are mostly right in what you say, as I recall (and the exact numbers could be wrong) the limit for breath is 35, but police do not charge unless you actualy below above 40. There are actualy only 2 breath test speciens taken at a police station, of which as you rightly say the lower is used as evidence, the higher one is disregarded.
Now to everyone one on the 'malicious' intent.
If you believe someone on your flight is drunk, you call the Police. If, as has transpired on more than one occation, they arn't drunk, there is another explanation for thier behaviour. Would you regard it as Ok in those circumstances to be sued for slander (not liable as has been pointed out that is written). No.
The bus driver has done what you would do if you saw a man dressed in black disappearing behind a house, he called police. It is not him who has provided the evidence against this pilot, the pilot has done that himself. Just as Police called to the man in black may find he is actualy a window cleaner who thinks black makes him look slimmer, and not a burglar, would not nick him for burglary if there is an innocent explanation.
Yes, there are circumstances when malicious allagations are and have been made. A female pilot at LHR was grassed (for importing drugs) by her ex girlfriend when I worked there, the allagation turned out to be a load of B******s. These allagations are made against drivers all the time, frankly theres not much you can do about it, in any case if you haven't had too much to drink then thats the end of the matter.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
Yes - apart from coping with the humiliation of having been removed from your aircraft under arrest and, as I've heard rumoured happened to one Captain at LHR being carted off to the police station -- in handcuffs!!
..... in any case if you haven't had too much to drink then thats the end of the matter.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliport
Rumour, not fact then?
Second no you're not correct. If you have not been drinking you will not fail the screening test. You will therefore not be arrested.
So there is no embaressment of being led off the aircraft under arrest.
Rumour, not fact then?
Second no you're not correct. If you have not been drinking you will not fail the screening test. You will therefore not be arrested.
So there is no embaressment of being led off the aircraft under arrest.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
Yes a rumour about the handcuffs, but this is 'Rumours and News'.
I agree it's hard to believe they'd do that but, as in all jobs, you get OTT types so it could be true.
Second - you've moved your goalposts from "if you haven't had too much to drink" to "if you have not been drinking".
As I understand it portable breathtest kits used for screening aren't always accurate (cuts both ways of course) so you could fail your screen-test and be arrested even "if you haven't had too much to drink".
Be clear - all I was pointing out is it's very easy to be blase about "that's the end of the matter" if you're the policeman but not so easy for the person arrested, even if it comes to nothing because the more sophisticated machine at the police station shows he's innocent.
Arresting people is all part of a day's work for the police, but being arrested must be traumatic for ordinary decent people.
Yes a rumour about the handcuffs, but this is 'Rumours and News'.
I agree it's hard to believe they'd do that but, as in all jobs, you get OTT types so it could be true.
Second - you've moved your goalposts from "if you haven't had too much to drink" to "if you have not been drinking".
As I understand it portable breathtest kits used for screening aren't always accurate (cuts both ways of course) so you could fail your screen-test and be arrested even "if you haven't had too much to drink".
Be clear - all I was pointing out is it's very easy to be blase about "that's the end of the matter" if you're the policeman but not so easy for the person arrested, even if it comes to nothing because the more sophisticated machine at the police station shows he's innocent.
Arresting people is all part of a day's work for the police, but being arrested must be traumatic for ordinary decent people.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part of the problem is that if passengers see the police come on board and remove the pilot, the front page of the Sun will have "drunk pilot" splashed all over it the next day, regardless of what the breathaliser result was. This happened last year to a UK charter airline, where the pilot was later proven to have zero alcohol in his blood. Did the Sun retract? No chance.
Zippy.
Zippy.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliport
Unless things have changed, there is no real point in handcuffing someone unless they are puchy or lightly to do a runner. I doubt that was the case in this incident, but then I wasn't there, and in anycase as you say it's pure rumour at the moment. If it did happen it does seem over the top, however they may have been reasons.
To clarrify. Obviously if you have had nothing to drink, then you have no problem. If you have had less to drink than the prescribed limit, again you have nothing to worry about. So the goalposts have not moved, I just perhaps could have phrased it better.
I accept that arrest is for most people a very unusual experience, and probably worrying. Especialy when your livelyhood is on the line. But then thats the idea of having legislation like this, not to catch people out, but to deter them from doing it in the first place. The screening breath test machines are not considered accurate enough for evidencial purposes in court no, but I have to say since they came out, I had only one person come back under the limit on the evidencial machine, after a positive test on the screening device. As you rightly say the 'error' works both ways, I think the screening device probably leans more towards the lower end.
Of course there is a delay bewteen the screening test and breath test or blood sample being taken at the police station. During this period it is perfectly possible that BAC can dip below the line had it been very close to the limit at the time of the screening test. So although a sample may be below at the police station it does not mean that arrest was unjustified or that the person was not over at the time of the screening test.
Zippy2004
Your correct they probably wont, but then thats not confined to aircrew. The chap from REM was charged with offences on an aircraft and cleared by a jury. There was no retraction in that case.
Unless things have changed, there is no real point in handcuffing someone unless they are puchy or lightly to do a runner. I doubt that was the case in this incident, but then I wasn't there, and in anycase as you say it's pure rumour at the moment. If it did happen it does seem over the top, however they may have been reasons.
To clarrify. Obviously if you have had nothing to drink, then you have no problem. If you have had less to drink than the prescribed limit, again you have nothing to worry about. So the goalposts have not moved, I just perhaps could have phrased it better.
I accept that arrest is for most people a very unusual experience, and probably worrying. Especialy when your livelyhood is on the line. But then thats the idea of having legislation like this, not to catch people out, but to deter them from doing it in the first place. The screening breath test machines are not considered accurate enough for evidencial purposes in court no, but I have to say since they came out, I had only one person come back under the limit on the evidencial machine, after a positive test on the screening device. As you rightly say the 'error' works both ways, I think the screening device probably leans more towards the lower end.
Of course there is a delay bewteen the screening test and breath test or blood sample being taken at the police station. During this period it is perfectly possible that BAC can dip below the line had it been very close to the limit at the time of the screening test. So although a sample may be below at the police station it does not mean that arrest was unjustified or that the person was not over at the time of the screening test.
Zippy2004
Your correct they probably wont, but then thats not confined to aircrew. The chap from REM was charged with offences on an aircraft and cleared by a jury. There was no retraction in that case.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc,
I understand what you are saying but I'm not talking about people like celebrities who are already in the public eye anyway. I am talking about normal people who are trying to earn a normal living being thrust into the international spotlight. For example, I now worry that when I come to work for an early start (say wake-up at around 3:30am), going through security still bleary-eyed, is someone going to report me because I have blood-shot eyes (forget the fact that everyone else does too at that time of the morning). Or when it's the time of the year when I get irritable eyes from hayfever. I am not worried about failing the tests because I know I haven't had any alcohol, but I am very concerned about the media attention that is inevitably brought about as a result of simply undergoing tests.
The good thing is that it really has caused pilots to be very careful about what they do "the night before" which is a good thing. But I can't help but think that one day I am going to get caught up in something that I cannot control, through no fault of my own!
Zippy.
I understand what you are saying but I'm not talking about people like celebrities who are already in the public eye anyway. I am talking about normal people who are trying to earn a normal living being thrust into the international spotlight. For example, I now worry that when I come to work for an early start (say wake-up at around 3:30am), going through security still bleary-eyed, is someone going to report me because I have blood-shot eyes (forget the fact that everyone else does too at that time of the morning). Or when it's the time of the year when I get irritable eyes from hayfever. I am not worried about failing the tests because I know I haven't had any alcohol, but I am very concerned about the media attention that is inevitably brought about as a result of simply undergoing tests.
The good thing is that it really has caused pilots to be very careful about what they do "the night before" which is a good thing. But I can't help but think that one day I am going to get caught up in something that I cannot control, through no fault of my own!
Zippy.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
I can confirm:
Fact, not rumour.
I can say no more at this stage.
Tudor Owen
I can confirm:
- that at least one Captain who was arrested and removed from his aircraft at LHR was taken away in handcuffs
- that there was no suggestion whatsoever he was anything other than totally co-operative with the police
- that there was no reason to suspect, nor did the police officers suspect, he was 'likely to do a runner.'
Fact, not rumour.
I can say no more at this stage.
Tudor Owen
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL
If that is the case, and I have no reason to doubt you, then I can't defend it and wouldn't try to do so. If he was co-operative, not lightly to leg it, then handcuffing will only serve to wind the prisoner up. Personally I wouldn't do it. I wonder if the Health and Safety Maffia have taken over the asylum and its now policy to handcuff all prisoners. If that is the case it seems pointless????!!!!
Zippy2004
I can understand your point. Yes, its possible that someone could see you have blood shot eyes and call the police. That alone would probably not lead to you being breath tested, although it may do, depends on the officer who attends.
The hope is that if aircrew are breath tetsed, it is done in private, the cockpit is ok, theres a door between that and the public, they have no idea whats going on. Its fairly regular for police to go on aircraft at Heathrow, for all sorts of different reasons, so no inference would be drawn by most of the public. Any that did would be guessing.
I doubt its very newsworthy for the press to report a passed/negitive breath test. It doesn't happen to clebs in cars, why should it to aircrew?
It has to be said that the same thing could happen over any offence, to any one at any time and always could have done. Upset someone and they can claim any manor of crimes.
While I am sympathetic to what you say (I have had false complaints made against me, while I was a Policeman) There isn't much you can do to stop it.
If that is the case, and I have no reason to doubt you, then I can't defend it and wouldn't try to do so. If he was co-operative, not lightly to leg it, then handcuffing will only serve to wind the prisoner up. Personally I wouldn't do it. I wonder if the Health and Safety Maffia have taken over the asylum and its now policy to handcuff all prisoners. If that is the case it seems pointless????!!!!
Zippy2004
I can understand your point. Yes, its possible that someone could see you have blood shot eyes and call the police. That alone would probably not lead to you being breath tested, although it may do, depends on the officer who attends.
The hope is that if aircrew are breath tetsed, it is done in private, the cockpit is ok, theres a door between that and the public, they have no idea whats going on. Its fairly regular for police to go on aircraft at Heathrow, for all sorts of different reasons, so no inference would be drawn by most of the public. Any that did would be guessing.
I doubt its very newsworthy for the press to report a passed/negitive breath test. It doesn't happen to clebs in cars, why should it to aircrew?
It has to be said that the same thing could happen over any offence, to any one at any time and always could have done. Upset someone and they can claim any manor of crimes.
While I am sympathetic to what you say (I have had false complaints made against me, while I was a Policeman) There isn't much you can do to stop it.
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAC limits
Would it be reasonable and fair for the bus-drivers, all airside employees, security, customs, and indeed the police on duty ALL to be subject to the same limits as aircrew?
It is tempting to play the undercover journalist and report suspicions concerning alcohol levels of some of the other responsible characters involved. I have a feeling the police would protect their own, and would show their usual disinterest in a report on, for example a bus-driver. And would the media pick this up? Not a chance.
It is tempting to play the undercover journalist and report suspicions concerning alcohol levels of some of the other responsible characters involved. I have a feeling the police would protect their own, and would show their usual disinterest in a report on, for example a bus-driver. And would the media pick this up? Not a chance.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whether its reasonsable or not depends on why the levels where set as they were, and wheteher the other occupations need to be able to operate without the level of impairment that goes with that BAC. Engineers are subject to the same legislation, but thier BAC max limit is the same as for drivers. That said Whether reasonable or not, I would agree that they should be the same for all workers at an airport.
You may have a 'feeling' that police would protect thier own' thats all its is a feeling. I can tell you from the other side of the coin, they wont, not in this day and age when being on the same planet as someone who has committed a offence is grounds for hanging, and Police Discipline boards operate on the 'march in the guilty b******d' system of justice.
You may have a 'feeling' that police would protect thier own' thats all its is a feeling. I can tell you from the other side of the coin, they wont, not in this day and age when being on the same planet as someone who has committed a offence is grounds for hanging, and Police Discipline boards operate on the 'march in the guilty b******d' system of justice.