Pilot arrested at Manchester (merged)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Monrovia / Liberia
Age: 63
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Normal.... I'm with you mate !..... Wherein might I suggest that some of the folks who post on these threads need to put this into perspective, i.e. there's a whole world of difference between being 'p!ssed & incapable’ versus being 'over the limit' ( imho ). Rules or no rules.
By way of example… I know a good many airline pilots who I wouldn't fly behind when they’re sober; just as I know a good many airline pilots whom I'd be quite happy to fly behind after they had a couple of pints of Adnam’s Broadside, or some such ( not that they would do both, of course - but I'm sure you get my point ).
And fer gawds sake please don't give us that old chestnut about kith and kin who’ve been killed by drunk drivers because what you’re really talking about in nearly all of those cases are drivers who’re usually absolutely bladdered, i.e. often many times over the driving limit, and / or who were in any case driving like a complete knobs – and which is how they normally drive ( regardless of how much they might have imbibed ) !
I.e. the fact that these drivers happened to be over the limit often has little or no relevance to the fact that doing 70, 80 or 90mph down a windy country lane, etc ( it being their normal 'white van man' driving style ) is an accident waiting to happen !
Indeed, for the ‘common sense nimbys’ out there, if you’re so sure of your position then please name the last time an airliner fell out of the sky, crashed, etc, as a result of the pilots being inebriated; and whilst you’re at it please tell us how many passengers have been injured or died as a result of pilot who’ve, apparently, been p!ssed ?!
All in all it’s a akin to the argument to ban mobile phone use in cars – that is unless you’re a police officer and / or member of the ‘emergency services’ when it’s ok to use one whilst on the move ( often at high speed ) - duh !
Wherein to put that into perspective, could somebody remind us just how many innocent bystanders did HM Police kill last year whilst conducting high speed car chases ? ( perhaps they were they on the phone ?
).
We’d also be interested to know how many people died as a result of somebody using a mobile phone whilst driving – and we’d love to know the difference between the two sets of figures ?!
Now I’ll accept that there’s a risk in whatever we do and how we live our lives but wherein life is risky.... indeed, come to think of it, I could get piles from wiping my arse with tissue paper.... so maybe I’d better stop doing it ?!
In closure, would somebody please wrap me up cotton wool and save me from all the bleedin’ do-gooders, nimby’s, nanny-state, and life-without-risk merchants !!!
By way of example… I know a good many airline pilots who I wouldn't fly behind when they’re sober; just as I know a good many airline pilots whom I'd be quite happy to fly behind after they had a couple of pints of Adnam’s Broadside, or some such ( not that they would do both, of course - but I'm sure you get my point ).
And fer gawds sake please don't give us that old chestnut about kith and kin who’ve been killed by drunk drivers because what you’re really talking about in nearly all of those cases are drivers who’re usually absolutely bladdered, i.e. often many times over the driving limit, and / or who were in any case driving like a complete knobs – and which is how they normally drive ( regardless of how much they might have imbibed ) !
I.e. the fact that these drivers happened to be over the limit often has little or no relevance to the fact that doing 70, 80 or 90mph down a windy country lane, etc ( it being their normal 'white van man' driving style ) is an accident waiting to happen !
Indeed, for the ‘common sense nimbys’ out there, if you’re so sure of your position then please name the last time an airliner fell out of the sky, crashed, etc, as a result of the pilots being inebriated; and whilst you’re at it please tell us how many passengers have been injured or died as a result of pilot who’ve, apparently, been p!ssed ?!
All in all it’s a akin to the argument to ban mobile phone use in cars – that is unless you’re a police officer and / or member of the ‘emergency services’ when it’s ok to use one whilst on the move ( often at high speed ) - duh !
Wherein to put that into perspective, could somebody remind us just how many innocent bystanders did HM Police kill last year whilst conducting high speed car chases ? ( perhaps they were they on the phone ?
).We’d also be interested to know how many people died as a result of somebody using a mobile phone whilst driving – and we’d love to know the difference between the two sets of figures ?!
Now I’ll accept that there’s a risk in whatever we do and how we live our lives but wherein life is risky.... indeed, come to think of it, I could get piles from wiping my arse with tissue paper.... so maybe I’d better stop doing it ?!
In closure, would somebody please wrap me up cotton wool and save me from all the bleedin’ do-gooders, nimby’s, nanny-state, and life-without-risk merchants !!!
Last edited by Old King Coal; 2nd Dec 2004 at 20:46.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old King Coal
No one has said he was p***ed. The offence is working while being oer a prescribed limit. The papers may have made that suggestion, however the courts don't judge on waht the papers report. He pleaded guilty, something which is to his credit (although really there was not much option). But at the end of the day he knew the rules, he was in a position of responibilty and he broke them. End of story!
I think if you asked passengers if they would rather fly with a pilot who has drink nothing and one who's had a couple of pints you may find thier opinons differ from yours.
Deaths caused by drivers who have been drinking? I am sorry but your information is wrong. Most deaths caused by drivers who have been drinking are not the result of drivers been bladdered, more those that are above the driving prescribed limit. And on that subject I speak from dealing with them, not being related to the victim.
I have no idea bow many people were killed in high speed car chases, nor do I know how many would have died if a Police car hadn't been present. In relation to the number of chases and the number of miles driven by Police in any year I think you will find the number to be very very very low. However I am at a loss as to the relevence of your question.
Police drivers are subject the the same law as you are, and when they screw it up and are convicted they suffer much harsher penelties than mr avarage. That is probably right and proper afterall they are in a position of resposibility and should know better, like pilots really
No one has said he was p***ed. The offence is working while being oer a prescribed limit. The papers may have made that suggestion, however the courts don't judge on waht the papers report. He pleaded guilty, something which is to his credit (although really there was not much option). But at the end of the day he knew the rules, he was in a position of responibilty and he broke them. End of story!
I think if you asked passengers if they would rather fly with a pilot who has drink nothing and one who's had a couple of pints you may find thier opinons differ from yours.
Deaths caused by drivers who have been drinking? I am sorry but your information is wrong. Most deaths caused by drivers who have been drinking are not the result of drivers been bladdered, more those that are above the driving prescribed limit. And on that subject I speak from dealing with them, not being related to the victim.
I have no idea bow many people were killed in high speed car chases, nor do I know how many would have died if a Police car hadn't been present. In relation to the number of chases and the number of miles driven by Police in any year I think you will find the number to be very very very low. However I am at a loss as to the relevence of your question.
Police drivers are subject the the same law as you are, and when they screw it up and are convicted they suffer much harsher penelties than mr avarage. That is probably right and proper afterall they are in a position of resposibility and should know better, like pilots really
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drunk Finnish pilot jailed
Drunk passenger jet pilot jailed
Thursday, December 2, 2004 Posted: 1618 GMT (0018 HKT)
Pilot was arrested in the cockpit of Finnair Boeing 757 (file photo).
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Great Britain
Finland
Airlines
or Create your own
Manage alerts | What is this?
LONDON, England (AP) -- A pilot with the Finnish national airline Finnair was jailed for six months on Thursday for trying to fly a packed passenger jet while drunk.
Heikki Tallila, 51, a Finn, is the first person to be sentenced under legislation introduced in March that gives police powers to breathalyze pilots and cabin crew suspected of attempting to fly under the influence of alcohol.
The prosecution told Minchsull Street Crown Court in Manchester, northwest England that Tallila had almost 2 1/2 times the legal limit of alcohol in his blood when he was arrested in the cockpit of a Boeing 757 at Manchester Airport on August 23.
Tallila was completing pre-flight checks for the journey to Turkey when authorities -- who had been tipped off by the taxi driver who brought Tallila to the airport -- boarded the plane, which was carrying 225 passengers.
Passing sentence, Justice John Burke said Tallila was responsible for ensuring passenger safety.
"If you had been a mere passenger causing problems and interfering with your fellow passengers and crew and misbehaving you would have gone to prison," he said.
"In your case the passengers did not even appreciate their safety was in jeopardy. They assumed their safety was in good hands."
The prosecution said Tallila had drunk up to seven glasses of wine and a glass of beer on the afternoon before he was arrested.
A breathalyzer test showed he had 49 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, well above the legal limit for pilots of 20 milligrams of alcohol for every 100 millilitres of blood.
Tallila's lawyer said his client had since been sacked from his £100,000 pounds ($180,000) a year job with Finnair, where he had worked for 25 years.
He and his wife, who still works as a stewardess for the airline, had suffered a "great deal" of public humiliation following his arrest, Gerard McDermott said.
"This has been a very public humiliation. This has impacted very highly on this individual. The financial consequences have been hard," McDermott added.
He said his client now attends Alcoholics Anonymous course and is receiving counseling for substance abuse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/eu....ap/index.html
Thursday, December 2, 2004 Posted: 1618 GMT (0018 HKT)
Pilot was arrested in the cockpit of Finnair Boeing 757 (file photo).
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Great Britain
Finland
Airlines
or Create your own
Manage alerts | What is this?
LONDON, England (AP) -- A pilot with the Finnish national airline Finnair was jailed for six months on Thursday for trying to fly a packed passenger jet while drunk.
Heikki Tallila, 51, a Finn, is the first person to be sentenced under legislation introduced in March that gives police powers to breathalyze pilots and cabin crew suspected of attempting to fly under the influence of alcohol.
The prosecution told Minchsull Street Crown Court in Manchester, northwest England that Tallila had almost 2 1/2 times the legal limit of alcohol in his blood when he was arrested in the cockpit of a Boeing 757 at Manchester Airport on August 23.
Tallila was completing pre-flight checks for the journey to Turkey when authorities -- who had been tipped off by the taxi driver who brought Tallila to the airport -- boarded the plane, which was carrying 225 passengers.
Passing sentence, Justice John Burke said Tallila was responsible for ensuring passenger safety.
"If you had been a mere passenger causing problems and interfering with your fellow passengers and crew and misbehaving you would have gone to prison," he said.
"In your case the passengers did not even appreciate their safety was in jeopardy. They assumed their safety was in good hands."
The prosecution said Tallila had drunk up to seven glasses of wine and a glass of beer on the afternoon before he was arrested.
A breathalyzer test showed he had 49 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, well above the legal limit for pilots of 20 milligrams of alcohol for every 100 millilitres of blood.
Tallila's lawyer said his client had since been sacked from his £100,000 pounds ($180,000) a year job with Finnair, where he had worked for 25 years.
He and his wife, who still works as a stewardess for the airline, had suffered a "great deal" of public humiliation following his arrest, Gerard McDermott said.
"This has been a very public humiliation. This has impacted very highly on this individual. The financial consequences have been hard," McDermott added.
He said his client now attends Alcoholics Anonymous course and is receiving counseling for substance abuse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/eu....ap/index.html
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Monrovia / Liberia
Age: 63
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Road Traffic Accidents
Air Traffic Accidents
So lets just have a look at these numbers.
I.e. reading between the lines, one can see that 13 people in 100 who are killed on the UK’s roads died with some level of ‘excess’ of alcohol in their veins – but wherein it’s not stated if those who died did so as a result of their own actions, or of somebody else’s.
However, on the flip side, 87 people in 100 died on the UK’s roads as a result of some other reason ( one that is not drink related - so go figure ! ) and hence my earlier point, i.e the remaining 87% of people who die on the UK’s roads do so NOT as a result of anything to do with D&D !.
Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not promoting D&D ( indeed I’m just about teetotal in that respect myself ) but lets at least separate hysteria & hype from the facts.
Ok, they guy in this instance screwed-up and will pay the price of his actions - but let's not get to high and mighty about it all, shall we - to err, is human after all, is it not ?!
Statistics for Great Britain for the year 2003 show that there were a total of 214,030 reported road traffic accidents involving personal injury. Of these, 33,707 were serious injuries, and 3,508 were fatalities.
Drink drive casualties accounted for 5% of slight casualties, 6% of all serious injuries, and 13% of all road accident deaths.
Blood Alcohol Levels
Based on the blood alcohol levels the drivers who were killed in road accident in 1999: 20% of those tested were over the legal limit (80mg/100ml). 3% were approximately double the limit (150mg/100ml) and 2% were two and half times over the limit (200mg/100ml).
Mobile Phones
It’s estimated that of the 3508 road accident deaths, approx 100 of those deaths resulted in some way from the use of a mobile phone ( albeit it’s not clear if the resulting death is just that suffered by the recalcitrant user, and / or to the 2nd & 2rd parties ).
Source: Road Casualties Great Britain: 2003, Annual Report DfT- available from RoSPA
Drink drive casualties accounted for 5% of slight casualties, 6% of all serious injuries, and 13% of all road accident deaths.
Blood Alcohol Levels
Based on the blood alcohol levels the drivers who were killed in road accident in 1999: 20% of those tested were over the legal limit (80mg/100ml). 3% were approximately double the limit (150mg/100ml) and 2% were two and half times over the limit (200mg/100ml).
Mobile Phones
It’s estimated that of the 3508 road accident deaths, approx 100 of those deaths resulted in some way from the use of a mobile phone ( albeit it’s not clear if the resulting death is just that suffered by the recalcitrant user, and / or to the 2nd & 2rd parties ).
Source: Road Casualties Great Britain: 2003, Annual Report DfT- available from RoSPA
During 2003 there were a total of 106 casualties ( of all levels ) caused by aviation accidents in UK airspace. Of these there were 21 fatalities.
I.e. 89 casualties were caused by UK registered aircraft in UK airspace, of which 15 were fatalities, and 17 were caused by foreign aircraft in UK airspace of which there were 6 fatalities.
Source: Transport Statistics Great Britain 2004 Edition
I.e. 89 casualties were caused by UK registered aircraft in UK airspace, of which 15 were fatalities, and 17 were caused by foreign aircraft in UK airspace of which there were 6 fatalities.
Source: Transport Statistics Great Britain 2004 Edition
I.e. reading between the lines, one can see that 13 people in 100 who are killed on the UK’s roads died with some level of ‘excess’ of alcohol in their veins – but wherein it’s not stated if those who died did so as a result of their own actions, or of somebody else’s.
However, on the flip side, 87 people in 100 died on the UK’s roads as a result of some other reason ( one that is not drink related - so go figure ! ) and hence my earlier point, i.e the remaining 87% of people who die on the UK’s roads do so NOT as a result of anything to do with D&D !.
Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not promoting D&D ( indeed I’m just about teetotal in that respect myself ) but lets at least separate hysteria & hype from the facts.
Ok, they guy in this instance screwed-up and will pay the price of his actions - but let's not get to high and mighty about it all, shall we - to err, is human after all, is it not ?!
Old King Coal
I think this statement in incorrect.
"the remaining 87% of people who die on the UK’s roads do so NOT as a result of anything to do with D&D !."
If a drunk driver hits a sober driver and both die there will be 2 fatalities, only one of which will be over the limit but both of which will be due to drunk driving.
I think this statement in incorrect.
"the remaining 87% of people who die on the UK’s roads do so NOT as a result of anything to do with D&D !."
If a drunk driver hits a sober driver and both die there will be 2 fatalities, only one of which will be over the limit but both of which will be due to drunk driving.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Monrovia / Liberia
Age: 63
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... ah but there's the vice versa of that of course. I.e. should a sober driver just happen to crash into another driver, where the latter just happens to be at 81 mg ( when the legal limit is 80 mg ), and both get killed.... then whose fault is that and / or would this be but down as a D&D fatality statistic ?
Now, so that we can assess the true enormity of this problem, would somebody be so kind as to remind us all of how many passengers have been killed in commercial airline accidents in, say, the last 10, 20, 50 years or more, as a result of (apparently) inebriated pilots ?
Now, so that we can assess the true enormity of this problem, would somebody be so kind as to remind us all of how many passengers have been killed in commercial airline accidents in, say, the last 10, 20, 50 years or more, as a result of (apparently) inebriated pilots ?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old King Coal
Yes the numbers of drivers killed in accidents related to drink is low. But then one is too many.
You ask how many passengers are killed by pilots who have been drinking, no idea, but again one is too many. Which is the point of this legislation, to stop it happening not nesseserily to reduce the number.
I could ask how many people have been committed Treason in the last 30 years? I can think of one, does that mean there should not be legilsation to prevent it? Of course not.
At the end of the day, whether you like it or not, the public don't want to be flown round by people who have been drinking. Aircrew/ATCO's and engineers are all professionals, and in positions of responsibility for which they are well rewarded finacialy. If you want to drink don't fly and if you want to fly don't drink. The final choice is if you do both then expect the penelties.
Yes the numbers of drivers killed in accidents related to drink is low. But then one is too many.
You ask how many passengers are killed by pilots who have been drinking, no idea, but again one is too many. Which is the point of this legislation, to stop it happening not nesseserily to reduce the number.
I could ask how many people have been committed Treason in the last 30 years? I can think of one, does that mean there should not be legilsation to prevent it? Of course not.
At the end of the day, whether you like it or not, the public don't want to be flown round by people who have been drinking. Aircrew/ATCO's and engineers are all professionals, and in positions of responsibility for which they are well rewarded finacialy. If you want to drink don't fly and if you want to fly don't drink. The final choice is if you do both then expect the penelties.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before March this guy was half the drink driving limit, after he was double the new limit for aircrew. The guy had drunk a fair amount the day before and had misjudged his recovery rate. This Captain has paid a high price for his mistake.
There but for the grace of God etc.
There but for the grace of God etc.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Monrovia / Liberia
Age: 63
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc - you say 'Which is the point of this legislation, to stop it happening not necessarily to reduce the number'.
But that is the point, it doesn't stop it happening - just as similarly that D&D laws don't stop that happening either - albeit it might reduce it, but is does not stop it happening !
... and wr.t. 'treason', is it not the case that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter ?!.... and again, laws to prevent that do not stop it happening, do they ?!
Yeah, so let's have some more laws shall we. Heck lets have loads of laws, indeed more laws than you can shake a stick at
but wherein what we seem to be losing, in our highly regulated legally controlled lives, is common sense !
But that is the point, it doesn't stop it happening - just as similarly that D&D laws don't stop that happening either - albeit it might reduce it, but is does not stop it happening !
... and wr.t. 'treason', is it not the case that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter ?!.... and again, laws to prevent that do not stop it happening, do they ?!
Yeah, so let's have some more laws shall we. Heck lets have loads of laws, indeed more laws than you can shake a stick at
but wherein what we seem to be losing, in our highly regulated legally controlled lives, is common sense !
Just a numbered other
lead zeppelin,
Where was your article copied from?
Drunk?
just over 60% of the drink drive limit for most of Europe. Sober as a judge.
Someone tell me how this kind of reporting helps anyone?
Where was your article copied from?
Drunk passenger jet pilot jailed
A breathalyzer test showed he had 49 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood
just over 60% of the drink drive limit for most of Europe. Sober as a judge.
Someone tell me how this kind of reporting helps anyone?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the Old Days, Aviation and Drinking often went hand in hand ...... Aircrew ...... security .... Customs ..... APO's .... ATC ..... etc ..... I've seen them all involved big time
Today its another world ..... one thing still worries me .... have a look at the "Profiles" and see the constant emphasis on "Drinking" ...... you will be surprised
ps. EDIT .... "constant" is too strong a word! ..... "Frequent" is more appropriate
Today its another world ..... one thing still worries me .... have a look at the "Profiles" and see the constant emphasis on "Drinking" ...... you will be surprised
ps. EDIT .... "constant" is too strong a word! ..... "Frequent" is more appropriate
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6 months is no where near harsh.i think its disgraceful that he even contemplated flying a 757 with 220 or so people on board. I find it shocking that a pilot would even let alcohol past his lips knowing that he was flying the next morning. I hate to think that a realtive of mine would be boarding a plane and placing their lives in the hands of someone that has had (quote) 7 glasses of wine and a beer before hand and is over twice the legal limit for a pilot. If you do the crime, do the time. 
p.s is that documentary available anywhere of the (not naming) crew that had several pitchers to drink the night before they were to fly, i think it was about 4 years ago.BBC1 or BBC2, not sure.
old king coal,
maybe its down to sheer luck that there hasnt been any fatalities, although there was the risk.the aim now is to alleviate this risk.it nearly sounds like you are commending it.there is no way to justify the action of flying under the influence, its just not right.
p.s is that documentary available anywhere of the (not naming) crew that had several pitchers to drink the night before they were to fly, i think it was about 4 years ago.BBC1 or BBC2, not sure.
old king coal,
maybe its down to sheer luck that there hasnt been any fatalities, although there was the risk.the aim now is to alleviate this risk.it nearly sounds like you are commending it.there is no way to justify the action of flying under the influence, its just not right.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No apology.
Glad to see there are some other people on here who are realists and that don't indulge in the PPrune art of trying to out pomp each other.
HD is acting like a Sun reporter and its sickening to read. Grow up.
The guy wasn't pissed but as said misjudged his revovery rate and at worst would have had a bit of a hangover. Not condoning it but now that gets you six months in a scum filled prison.
You get less for burglary.
But we shouldn't spoil the fun of the Hang em brigade I suppose.
Glad to see there are some other people on here who are realists and that don't indulge in the PPrune art of trying to out pomp each other.
HD is acting like a Sun reporter and its sickening to read. Grow up.
The guy wasn't pissed but as said misjudged his revovery rate and at worst would have had a bit of a hangover. Not condoning it but now that gets you six months in a scum filled prison.
You get less for burglary.
But we shouldn't spoil the fun of the Hang em brigade I suppose.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To argue that the guy might have been legal elsewhere, or on some other day, doesn't hold water. Try driving down the M1 at 120mph.... and then explain to the traffic cop that it's legal in Germany.. If you're caught driving over the limit try explaining that it was perfectly legal 50 years ago.
Sure, I can recall drinking with pilots until 3am when they've been flying at 7.... I've seen a captain "walked" across the tarmac with an F/O under one arm and a steward under the other and I've visited flight decks which stank pubs.... but that was half a lifetime ago and things have changed - for much the better for us all. Hopefully we are all more safety concious now?
To the pilots who see no problem.... the guy was breaking the law. Full stop. If you argue that it was OK do you blatantly disregard other rules applicable to your position? When it's low vis do you gaily descend below DH? Aviation is strictly controlled by rules which apply to pilots, engineers, controllers, etc. The purpose of those rules is to enhance safety and prevent people from being killed and as professionals we should strive to follow them.
Alcohol means nothing to me - I could go for a year without a drop. For those who can't then I feel very, very sorry for you but implore you to consider those in the seats behind you before you break the rules.... (At my last but one medical before I retired AME poked around and said: "You're a controller, right?" When I agreed he said "I can tell from your liver - in most pilot's of your age their livers are down to their knees". Sad, eh?
Sure, I can recall drinking with pilots until 3am when they've been flying at 7.... I've seen a captain "walked" across the tarmac with an F/O under one arm and a steward under the other and I've visited flight decks which stank pubs.... but that was half a lifetime ago and things have changed - for much the better for us all. Hopefully we are all more safety concious now?
To the pilots who see no problem.... the guy was breaking the law. Full stop. If you argue that it was OK do you blatantly disregard other rules applicable to your position? When it's low vis do you gaily descend below DH? Aviation is strictly controlled by rules which apply to pilots, engineers, controllers, etc. The purpose of those rules is to enhance safety and prevent people from being killed and as professionals we should strive to follow them.
Alcohol means nothing to me - I could go for a year without a drop. For those who can't then I feel very, very sorry for you but implore you to consider those in the seats behind you before you break the rules.... (At my last but one medical before I retired AME poked around and said: "You're a controller, right?" When I agreed he said "I can tell from your liver - in most pilot's of your age their livers are down to their knees". Sad, eh?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old King Cole
Yes it does reduce the instances of an offence by making an act illegal. In some cases it can stop it. Look at the publicity surrounding this case, any pilot/ATCO/Engineer reading about this is going to have a little think before drinking near to the time they fly/Control/Use a spanner. If they don't? Well more fool them.
Regarding Treason, you are talking about terrorism, a different subject, which I am not going to debate on this thread. The point being that Treason is illegal. One person (to the best of my knowladge) has been convicted of an offence under the Treason Acts in the last 30 years. As far as I recall he is also the only person who has been charged. In other words there is vertualy no treason, therefore, by your standards there is no need for law against it. Alternattivly you could say that because the penelties for treason are so high, then that deters people from committing it. The same could be said of this law.
I-FORD
Unfortuatly ignorance is no defence. It is mitigation, and does not seem to have been used by this chap. As far as I am aware there is an equivilent offence now in many countries, including Finland. In fact there must have been if he was arrested on the aircraft( I wont go intot he civil aviation ammendments act and its effect on juristiction on offences on non UK registered aircraft)Your suggestion is therefore flawed. As indeed is your suggestion that this law is for the gratification of law makers/enforcers and the courts.
NN
You have summed it up, yes for that offence you get 6 months in a 'scum filled' prison. Odd thing about prisons they are full of people who have been convicted of criminal offences....As this pilot has been.
Yes it does reduce the instances of an offence by making an act illegal. In some cases it can stop it. Look at the publicity surrounding this case, any pilot/ATCO/Engineer reading about this is going to have a little think before drinking near to the time they fly/Control/Use a spanner. If they don't? Well more fool them.
Regarding Treason, you are talking about terrorism, a different subject, which I am not going to debate on this thread. The point being that Treason is illegal. One person (to the best of my knowladge) has been convicted of an offence under the Treason Acts in the last 30 years. As far as I recall he is also the only person who has been charged. In other words there is vertualy no treason, therefore, by your standards there is no need for law against it. Alternattivly you could say that because the penelties for treason are so high, then that deters people from committing it. The same could be said of this law.
I-FORD
Unfortuatly ignorance is no defence. It is mitigation, and does not seem to have been used by this chap. As far as I am aware there is an equivilent offence now in many countries, including Finland. In fact there must have been if he was arrested on the aircraft( I wont go intot he civil aviation ammendments act and its effect on juristiction on offences on non UK registered aircraft)Your suggestion is therefore flawed. As indeed is your suggestion that this law is for the gratification of law makers/enforcers and the courts.
NN
You have summed it up, yes for that offence you get 6 months in a 'scum filled' prison. Odd thing about prisons they are full of people who have been convicted of criminal offences....As this pilot has been.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the 'flying finn'has been found guilty and dealt with in surely a reasonable manner why do so many feel that his actions must be justified. Quote ' Tallia who is married to a Finnair CC has attended trauma therapy and alcoholics annonymous'. Why did BALPA offer references testifying to his caperbilitys. Surely he should have been dealt with long before this if he had a drink problem.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly whilst I stick to my opinions I have edited the post to HD and apologised for the "strength" of post.
Now
Can someone please tell me the last incient/accident attributed to drink in the UK? I won't wait up for the answer.
If truth be known the culture has changed only fairly recently mostly after C4. The new laws are draconian and using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
The real problem lies with airlines working their pilots to death. Long night there and backs, 2 crew 8 hour Atlantics, 6 earlies 4 sectors a day etc.
Now if you have been up all night and are landning in the morning it is said that your reactions and concentration is the eqivalant to having drunk 2-3 pints.
But that's OK?
Guess we all should be locked up.
BJ
Get a life. This guy is no criminal. I very much doubt you've ever met proper "hard" criminal but I can tell you it aint pleasant.
I hope he's got the strength to get through this OK.
NN
Now
Can someone please tell me the last incient/accident attributed to drink in the UK? I won't wait up for the answer.
If truth be known the culture has changed only fairly recently mostly after C4. The new laws are draconian and using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
The real problem lies with airlines working their pilots to death. Long night there and backs, 2 crew 8 hour Atlantics, 6 earlies 4 sectors a day etc.
Now if you have been up all night and are landning in the morning it is said that your reactions and concentration is the eqivalant to having drunk 2-3 pints.
But that's OK?
Guess we all should be locked up.
BJ
Get a life. This guy is no criminal. I very much doubt you've ever met proper "hard" criminal but I can tell you it aint pleasant.
I hope he's got the strength to get through this OK.
NN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NN
I have some bad news for you....he was convicted of a criminal offence, earning him a prison sentence. He is therefore a criminal.
I have a life thank you, I have also met many 'hard criminals'. Actualy it does not suprise me you think they are unpleasent, possibly your attitude has something to do with it???
As for incidents concerning alcohol? No idea, ask the CAA, afterall the idea for this legislation apparently came from them.
I have some bad news for you....he was convicted of a criminal offence, earning him a prison sentence. He is therefore a criminal.
I have a life thank you, I have also met many 'hard criminals'. Actualy it does not suprise me you think they are unpleasent, possibly your attitude has something to do with it???
As for incidents concerning alcohol? No idea, ask the CAA, afterall the idea for this legislation apparently came from them.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Formerly resident of Knoteatingham
Posts: 957
Received 116 Likes
on
57 Posts
I can kind of see both sides of the argument here. I think the point that NN is (imho) trying to make is that it would be nice if the CAA devoted as much time, effort and zealous rewriting of the FTL rules to address the severe flight safety issues caused by fatigue (which affects all crews) as they have recently devoted to rewriting the alcohol rules to address the flight safety issues associated with alcohol, which I would suggest has affected a far smaller %age of crews.
I do think that safety would be improved far more, far quicker if fatigue was seriously and maturely recognised as the potential killer that it is and legislation enacted accordingly.... but that would affect profitability and will therefore never get past the "Old Boy Network" of resistance. As far as fatigue is concerned, I fear we are going backwards and letting commercial pressure drive safety standards...which must be wrong.
I do think that safety would be improved far more, far quicker if fatigue was seriously and maturely recognised as the potential killer that it is and legislation enacted accordingly.... but that would affect profitability and will therefore never get past the "Old Boy Network" of resistance. As far as fatigue is concerned, I fear we are going backwards and letting commercial pressure drive safety standards...which must be wrong.