LBA Air Traffic Controller suspended
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
119.5's original story is fiction
Have a look at page 7 of the post entitled
Pilot Arrested at Manchester.
the 6th post from the bottom is from 119.5 Have a read, strike you as similar?????
If no offence is reported or apparent then it does not exist. There is no offence, because it is not alledged, reported nor recordered.
Moving onwards. In the fictional circumstances at LBA described by 119.5, again there is no offence, there simply is no evidence.
Start at the beginging. This fictional ATCO is reported because someone smelt alcohol on his breath. The presence of a smell does not prove an offence.
If there is a criminal offence, then 119.5 does not provide enough information in this work of fiction, there are 2 offences, working while unfit, and working with a blood alcohol concentration above a prescribed limit. Insuffcient information is provided to decide which if either offence is apparent.
The fictional management do nothing until some 2 1/2 hours later. They then demand a breath test, something which they have no power to do. Not only that, but where does this magic breath test machine come from? Had the fictional management bought an ESD that alone does not provide evidence that is acceptable in a court. An evidencial breath test machine costs a fortune, and had they got hold of one, they would have found out under what circumstances they can use it.
Given that if action were to be taken against this fictional controller, then any solicitor with half an active brain cell would leap on that point and no doubt be asking for costs as well as large portions of compensation at an industrial tribunal.
Is it negligence? As nothing happened in this story, then negligence does not come into it. Is it aiding and abetting an offence? I would say, no, there is no evidence management know ans activly assist him to commit an offence, mostly because there is no evidence the fictional ATCO has committed an offence.
119.5 then adds to this story (apparently Jackanory is being re lauched in his honour) saying that half the staff on duty had statements taken from them, the other half did not. He asks why that was? Because you made the story up 199.5...thats why!
He also asks why the controller was allowed to continue working ....the same answer, because 199.5 made this all up!
As for raising important points, what points? This is FICTION!
Every incident is different and requires the full story, not a set of airy fairy b********ks.
119.5 if you are trying to establish something why not ask directly what it is you want to know, rather than starting silly rumours?
119.5's original story is fiction
Have a look at page 7 of the post entitled
Pilot Arrested at Manchester.
the 6th post from the bottom is from 119.5 Have a read, strike you as similar?????
If no offence is reported or apparent then it does not exist. There is no offence, because it is not alledged, reported nor recordered.
Moving onwards. In the fictional circumstances at LBA described by 119.5, again there is no offence, there simply is no evidence.
Start at the beginging. This fictional ATCO is reported because someone smelt alcohol on his breath. The presence of a smell does not prove an offence.
If there is a criminal offence, then 119.5 does not provide enough information in this work of fiction, there are 2 offences, working while unfit, and working with a blood alcohol concentration above a prescribed limit. Insuffcient information is provided to decide which if either offence is apparent.
The fictional management do nothing until some 2 1/2 hours later. They then demand a breath test, something which they have no power to do. Not only that, but where does this magic breath test machine come from? Had the fictional management bought an ESD that alone does not provide evidence that is acceptable in a court. An evidencial breath test machine costs a fortune, and had they got hold of one, they would have found out under what circumstances they can use it.
Given that if action were to be taken against this fictional controller, then any solicitor with half an active brain cell would leap on that point and no doubt be asking for costs as well as large portions of compensation at an industrial tribunal.
Is it negligence? As nothing happened in this story, then negligence does not come into it. Is it aiding and abetting an offence? I would say, no, there is no evidence management know ans activly assist him to commit an offence, mostly because there is no evidence the fictional ATCO has committed an offence.
119.5 then adds to this story (apparently Jackanory is being re lauched in his honour) saying that half the staff on duty had statements taken from them, the other half did not. He asks why that was? Because you made the story up 199.5...thats why!
He also asks why the controller was allowed to continue working ....the same answer, because 199.5 made this all up!
As for raising important points, what points? This is FICTION!
Every incident is different and requires the full story, not a set of airy fairy b********ks.
119.5 if you are trying to establish something why not ask directly what it is you want to know, rather than starting silly rumours?
119.5's original story is fiction
Guest
Posts: n/a
BJCC
You display thinking that would be admirably suitable for a policeman. The concrete world is certainly your domain and I mean this abstractly, not literally that you live in ReadyMix's best buildings or constantly stroll around pavements poured from mixer lorries.
But, if I recall the name of this forum, it is Rumours and News, not the Police Gazette
, so unverifiable data is quite acceptable, since the forum title and the "warning in red" below should make it quite apparent that the stories here are not to be relied upon.
I say keep it going 119.5, it's an interesting matter to consider.
You display thinking that would be admirably suitable for a policeman. The concrete world is certainly your domain and I mean this abstractly, not literally that you live in ReadyMix's best buildings or constantly stroll around pavements poured from mixer lorries.
But, if I recall the name of this forum, it is Rumours and News, not the Police Gazette
, so unverifiable data is quite acceptable, since the forum title and the "warning in red" below should make it quite apparent that the stories here are not to be relied upon.I say keep it going 119.5, it's an interesting matter to consider.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether or not the original story is fiction, one point does not appear to have been discussed so far, and that is the reason why said controller was left at his post for quite a long period after management were informed of the situation. Could it be that they did not have another controller to replace him? In other words, they were so stretched that a drunk controller was better than no controller at all? Says a lot for ATC management doesn't it!
P.P.
P.P.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, so what are these burning issues of interest?
Negligence? None, no incident, therefore how can anyone be held resposible for it?
Offences? Who knows, insufficent information. Possibly one of two, but irrelevent realy as police didn't attend. Possibly an offence under the ANO, but again irrelevent as there can be no evidence. Interesting defence, in the absence of a breath test and presumably a blood test...'I use John Smiths as aftershave' Prove otherwise.
Suspended for not taking a breath test? Management have no power to require a breath test. Therefore any half decent solicitor will sort it out with no problem.
Should he have been suspended earlier? Yes, obvious really.
Any other interesting points?
Negligence? None, no incident, therefore how can anyone be held resposible for it?
Offences? Who knows, insufficent information. Possibly one of two, but irrelevent realy as police didn't attend. Possibly an offence under the ANO, but again irrelevent as there can be no evidence. Interesting defence, in the absence of a breath test and presumably a blood test...'I use John Smiths as aftershave' Prove otherwise.
Suspended for not taking a breath test? Management have no power to require a breath test. Therefore any half decent solicitor will sort it out with no problem.
Should he have been suspended earlier? Yes, obvious really.
Any other interesting points?
Guest
Posts: n/a
BJCC, you said...
"Start at the beginging. This fictional ATCO is reported because someone smelt alcohol on his breath. The presence of a smell does not prove an offence.
If there is a criminal offence, then 119.5 does not provide enough information in this work of fiction, there are 2 offences, working while unfit, and working with a blood alcohol concentration above a prescribed limit. Insuffcient information is provided to decide which if either offence is apparent.
The fictional management do nothing until some 2 1/2 hours later. They then demand a breath test, something which they have no power to do. Not only that, but where does this magic breath test machine come from? Had the fictional management bought an ESD that alone does not provide evidence that is acceptable in a court. An evidencial breath test machine costs a fortune, and had they got hold of one, they would have found out under what circumstances they can use it.
Given that if action were to be taken against this fictional controller, then any solicitor with half an active brain cell would leap on that point and no doubt be asking for costs as well as large portions of compensation at an industrial tribunal.
Is it negligence? As nothing happened in this story, then negligence does not come into it. Is it aiding and abetting an offence? I would say, no, there is no evidence management know ans activly assist him to commit an offence, mostly because there is no evidence the fictional ATCO has committed an offence."
Do you still assert that 119.5 made this up?
"Start at the beginging. This fictional ATCO is reported because someone smelt alcohol on his breath. The presence of a smell does not prove an offence.
If there is a criminal offence, then 119.5 does not provide enough information in this work of fiction, there are 2 offences, working while unfit, and working with a blood alcohol concentration above a prescribed limit. Insuffcient information is provided to decide which if either offence is apparent.
The fictional management do nothing until some 2 1/2 hours later. They then demand a breath test, something which they have no power to do. Not only that, but where does this magic breath test machine come from? Had the fictional management bought an ESD that alone does not provide evidence that is acceptable in a court. An evidencial breath test machine costs a fortune, and had they got hold of one, they would have found out under what circumstances they can use it.
Given that if action were to be taken against this fictional controller, then any solicitor with half an active brain cell would leap on that point and no doubt be asking for costs as well as large portions of compensation at an industrial tribunal.
Is it negligence? As nothing happened in this story, then negligence does not come into it. Is it aiding and abetting an offence? I would say, no, there is no evidence management know ans activly assist him to commit an offence, mostly because there is no evidence the fictional ATCO has committed an offence."
Do you still assert that 119.5 made this up?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the moment, it seems that something did happen at LBA. However, all the press office will say is that someone has been suspended. IF the facts are as 119.5 described, then its been a cock up from start to finish. (which is what I have said since the start) While not condoning drinking and working as an ATCO, then it is to the ATCO's advantage that they did cock it up, if the facts are as described.
If however the facts are not as described by 119.5, then we will have to see.....I stand by what I said in so far as the proccedure is concerned.
As to if this incident happened, we will have to see, I am willing to eat a large amount of humble pie if 119.5 has been factualy correct. However in my defence, read the post I pointed you at........
If however the facts are not as described by 119.5, then we will have to see.....I stand by what I said in so far as the proccedure is concerned.
As to if this incident happened, we will have to see, I am willing to eat a large amount of humble pie if 119.5 has been factualy correct. However in my defence, read the post I pointed you at........
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc,
At last you believe me. Your concern about an offence under the ANO. Yes, maybe but not for the ATCO who is innocent. This may be an offence by the management by letting the ATCO continue whilst they thought he was under the influence. This to me comes under the "endangering an aircraft and it's occupants" article in the ANO. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and as far as I'm aware there is no proof. But the ATCO concerned was allowed to continue working whilst thought to be under the influence by the management. The guilt is therefore on the management and any offence is committed by them.
ils 119.5
At last you believe me. Your concern about an offence under the ANO. Yes, maybe but not for the ATCO who is innocent. This may be an offence by the management by letting the ATCO continue whilst they thought he was under the influence. This to me comes under the "endangering an aircraft and it's occupants" article in the ANO. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and as far as I'm aware there is no proof. But the ATCO concerned was allowed to continue working whilst thought to be under the influence by the management. The guilt is therefore on the management and any offence is committed by them.
ils 119.5
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS 119.5.
The Endangering the Saftey of an Aircraft offence is a non starter unless, the ATCO caused specific danger to a sepcific aircraft.
If there is such evidence then the ATCO would be charged. He makes his own decisions and is responsible for them. In order to implicate management, then you would have to prove that they knew the ATCO was incapable of doing his job due to alcohol.
There is a difference between knowing or believing that he was incapable of doing his job and knowing he has been drinking. And that may be the crux of where this has gone wrong.
The easiest way to explain it is using driving as an example. If I have two pints I am not drunk, but I am judged by the Goverments medical advisers to be impaired. If I have one pint, I have been drinking yes, but I would not be over the limit of what the goverment has decided would impair my ability to drive.
Now relate that to this incident. The fact he smells of drink does not mean he is impaired, or that he is drunk. It could be he uses aftershave that smells of intoxicating liquor, or beer shampoo. This is where you have a problem in that you claim management 'know' he is 'under the influence'. There is a difference as I say.
Moving on, you say the ATCO is innocent. Yes if the circumstances you describe he is, that does not mean he did not go to work in a state which would be a breach of the Aviation and Railway Safety Act. By that I mean is is not proveable. Police were not called.
Again if the circumstances are as you disrcibe, then management can prove nothing....He did not have to take a breath test. there is no evidnce that will stand up, that he has been drinking, apart from the smell...that could be caused by many things.
The cock up seems to be on the part of management. You ask why they allowed him to continue to work. A Good question. But you are asking the wrong people. The only people that know are management themselves.
By not doing something about it when they found out, assuming that is correct, then they condone what he is doing. If they have no medical evidence then anything they do to discipline the ATCO is tainted. The immidiate and obvious reply to any action taken would be, 'I can't have been drunk/intoxicated/impaired because you allowed me to continue working'
To my mind they should have taken him off controlling duties immidiatly and called the Police. The effect of that would be to prove conculsivly he was innocent or not.
I have a cynical mind (as you have seen) and I wonder why they didn't do that?
The Endangering the Saftey of an Aircraft offence is a non starter unless, the ATCO caused specific danger to a sepcific aircraft.
If there is such evidence then the ATCO would be charged. He makes his own decisions and is responsible for them. In order to implicate management, then you would have to prove that they knew the ATCO was incapable of doing his job due to alcohol.
There is a difference between knowing or believing that he was incapable of doing his job and knowing he has been drinking. And that may be the crux of where this has gone wrong.
The easiest way to explain it is using driving as an example. If I have two pints I am not drunk, but I am judged by the Goverments medical advisers to be impaired. If I have one pint, I have been drinking yes, but I would not be over the limit of what the goverment has decided would impair my ability to drive.
Now relate that to this incident. The fact he smells of drink does not mean he is impaired, or that he is drunk. It could be he uses aftershave that smells of intoxicating liquor, or beer shampoo. This is where you have a problem in that you claim management 'know' he is 'under the influence'. There is a difference as I say.
Moving on, you say the ATCO is innocent. Yes if the circumstances you describe he is, that does not mean he did not go to work in a state which would be a breach of the Aviation and Railway Safety Act. By that I mean is is not proveable. Police were not called.
Again if the circumstances are as you disrcibe, then management can prove nothing....He did not have to take a breath test. there is no evidnce that will stand up, that he has been drinking, apart from the smell...that could be caused by many things.
The cock up seems to be on the part of management. You ask why they allowed him to continue to work. A Good question. But you are asking the wrong people. The only people that know are management themselves.
By not doing something about it when they found out, assuming that is correct, then they condone what he is doing. If they have no medical evidence then anything they do to discipline the ATCO is tainted. The immidiate and obvious reply to any action taken would be, 'I can't have been drunk/intoxicated/impaired because you allowed me to continue working'
To my mind they should have taken him off controlling duties immidiatly and called the Police. The effect of that would be to prove conculsivly he was innocent or not.
I have a cynical mind (as you have seen) and I wonder why they didn't do that?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Finding Out on 121.50
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the management will not look at the human factor, as to why a well qualified, well paid and obviously dedicated professional person feels the requirement to drink pre 07:00 then arrive in work drunk?
Yep thought not!
Under the principle of Jurisprudence, an offence is committed whenever any one either has committed a physical element of a crime whilst fulfilling the relevant mental element; or as in the case of being drunk on duty, it is a crime of circumstance. This means you only have to be unfit to work whilst at or attempting to be at work to have committed the offence.
So basically an offence does not have to be witnessed or reported to have happened, it just has to be done.
I get what bjcc is getting at. Now do I smell a journo, or some one who thinks the coffee machine is so disgusting that a tot of single malt would vastly improve it
B.T.W. I am in no way defending this person or condoning arriving at work drunk but there is a deeper question.
Yep thought not!
Under the principle of Jurisprudence, an offence is committed whenever any one either has committed a physical element of a crime whilst fulfilling the relevant mental element; or as in the case of being drunk on duty, it is a crime of circumstance. This means you only have to be unfit to work whilst at or attempting to be at work to have committed the offence.
So basically an offence does not have to be witnessed or reported to have happened, it just has to be done.
I get what bjcc is getting at. Now do I smell a journo, or some one who thinks the coffee machine is so disgusting that a tot of single malt would vastly improve it
B.T.W. I am in no way defending this person or condoning arriving at work drunk but there is a deeper question.
Last edited by G-Foxtrot Oscar 69; 8th Oct 2004 at 19:23.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you smell jurno, then you need your nasal passages tested. As for Malt, it makes me vomit...mind you, so does the coffee machine.
The suggestion is not that this ATCO turned up drunk, me thinks you have confused the offence that is applicable....
An offence may have been committed, it may not, we will never know, because whether he did commit it or not, it cannot be proved before a court. He is therefore innocent.
You ask why management wont ask the question about why he felt the need to have a drink pre 7am, well perhaps he didn't as with drink drive in the early morning, its usualy the result of the night befores drinking. Far from being a crime of circumstance this requires a positive act, ie drinking.
Being drunk and being unfit are two different offences.....obviously you would be unfit if you are drunk, but you arn't always drunk if you are unfit.
The suggestion is not that this ATCO turned up drunk, me thinks you have confused the offence that is applicable....
An offence may have been committed, it may not, we will never know, because whether he did commit it or not, it cannot be proved before a court. He is therefore innocent.
You ask why management wont ask the question about why he felt the need to have a drink pre 7am, well perhaps he didn't as with drink drive in the early morning, its usualy the result of the night befores drinking. Far from being a crime of circumstance this requires a positive act, ie drinking.
Being drunk and being unfit are two different offences.....obviously you would be unfit if you are drunk, but you arn't always drunk if you are unfit.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anyone does know, please don't post it here, although I imagine the moderators have a special alert put on this particular post to advise them if any names appear.
The implications of 1) The person being named here, and 2) The possible legal consequences for ILS 119.5 an pprune if the original post is factually incorrect, don't bear thinking about.
I think it's time for ILS to substantiate the allegations with a news report on the incident from a reputable organisation.
The implications of 1) The person being named here, and 2) The possible legal consequences for ILS 119.5 an pprune if the original post is factually incorrect, don't bear thinking about.
I think it's time for ILS to substantiate the allegations with a news report on the incident from a reputable organisation.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I caught a snippet of a report on BBC 1 local news - Calendar. It showed a reporter outside LBA perimiter fence (which showed the tower and thus seemed to be from the Multiflight section) saying that a controller had been suspended, pending further investigation.
I hope everything turns out okay, because I have nothing but admiration for all the controllers at LBA. All of them have heard me make a fool of myself at one time or another during my PPL.
Regards
Flock1
I hope everything turns out okay, because I have nothing but admiration for all the controllers at LBA. All of them have heard me make a fool of myself at one time or another during my PPL.
Regards
Flock1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
sorry to say that you don't know the ANO. As a professional I do. I have learnt the book from back to front and as part of my profession I know how to apply it. If I need to apply a 939 action then I can.
sorry to say that you don't know the ANO. As a professional I do. I have learnt the book from back to front and as part of my profession I know how to apply it. If I need to apply a 939 action then I can.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS 119.5
I am happy for you.
Please don't assume I do not know the ANO, or any of the other acts of covering aviation. I was a Police Officer at a London airport, and used them on a regular basis, there is a vast difference between quoting what the act says and knowing what elements are needed to prove that offence in court.
However I bow to your, superior no doubt, superior knowladge and experience in court proccedings......perhaps you can point to the specific evidence of endangering an aircraft in this case....
While you consider your answer please think about this.
You say the ATCO is innocent. Which he probably is. If he is innocent, then he can't have been drunk/impaired or over the precribed limit. If he was none of those then what is it he is doing that is Recklessly or Negligently endangered any air aircraft or person therein (Part 5, para 63 ANO 2000). If he wasn't because he was doing his job properly then how can his management be doing something reckless or negligent? A belief he has been drinking is not enough if he is working normally, which he must have been or he would have been removed from working.
I am happy for you.
Please don't assume I do not know the ANO, or any of the other acts of covering aviation. I was a Police Officer at a London airport, and used them on a regular basis, there is a vast difference between quoting what the act says and knowing what elements are needed to prove that offence in court.
However I bow to your, superior no doubt, superior knowladge and experience in court proccedings......perhaps you can point to the specific evidence of endangering an aircraft in this case....
While you consider your answer please think about this.
You say the ATCO is innocent. Which he probably is. If he is innocent, then he can't have been drunk/impaired or over the precribed limit. If he was none of those then what is it he is doing that is Recklessly or Negligently endangered any air aircraft or person therein (Part 5, para 63 ANO 2000). If he wasn't because he was doing his job properly then how can his management be doing something reckless or negligent? A belief he has been drinking is not enough if he is working normally, which he must have been or he would have been removed from working.
Last edited by bjcc; 9th Oct 2004 at 10:37.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
thanks for your comments, as an ex police officer can you explain the following. if you thought that someone was committing an offence and did not do anything about it, are you not aiding and and abetting regardless of whether that person is committing an offence or not. surely in this case if the controller is found guilty (i don't know how) then the management are guilty also for allowing the offence to be committed.
ils 119.5
thanks for your comments, as an ex police officer can you explain the following. if you thought that someone was committing an offence and did not do anything about it, are you not aiding and and abetting regardless of whether that person is committing an offence or not. surely in this case if the controller is found guilty (i don't know how) then the management are guilty also for allowing the offence to be committed.
ils 119.5
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, not nessesaly.
To aid and abet/permit /allow you have to do something active to assist or allow it. This is now departing from your senario.
Dealing with the subject of this first. You say the ATCO is innocent. If thats the case then you can't aid and abet an offence if hes not committed one.
I suspect that in this case they have cocked up, should have called the police and didn't. Sought advice, then found out they had cocked up and are now going down a discipline route. Yes in terms of reasonablity the fact that the ATCO was allowed to continue working gives him a huge defence (if he was allowed to continue to work) afterall if he was causing a problem or dangerous or they thought he was committing an offence he should have been taken off controlling duties, if he wasn't then he can't have done anything wrong.
In general, well thats a whole differant can of worms. knowing or believing someone has committed an offence isn't assisting them. If you saw a person nick a bar of chocolate and did nothing about it, would you say you were guilty of aiding and abetting theft? No, you wouldn't. If you saw someone get in thier car that you had just been with when they drunk 10 pints, would you be guilty of aiding and abetting/permitting/allowing him to drive while drunk/over prescribed limit? No.
The full facts would have to be investigated and then a decision made. Some offences purly having knowladge of the offence or intention makes you guilty of the principle offence. In others it does not. The intentions and knowladge have to be looked into before you can allege that someone aided, abetted, assisted or permitted an offence.
To aid and abet/permit /allow you have to do something active to assist or allow it. This is now departing from your senario.
Dealing with the subject of this first. You say the ATCO is innocent. If thats the case then you can't aid and abet an offence if hes not committed one.
I suspect that in this case they have cocked up, should have called the police and didn't. Sought advice, then found out they had cocked up and are now going down a discipline route. Yes in terms of reasonablity the fact that the ATCO was allowed to continue working gives him a huge defence (if he was allowed to continue to work) afterall if he was causing a problem or dangerous or they thought he was committing an offence he should have been taken off controlling duties, if he wasn't then he can't have done anything wrong.
In general, well thats a whole differant can of worms. knowing or believing someone has committed an offence isn't assisting them. If you saw a person nick a bar of chocolate and did nothing about it, would you say you were guilty of aiding and abetting theft? No, you wouldn't. If you saw someone get in thier car that you had just been with when they drunk 10 pints, would you be guilty of aiding and abetting/permitting/allowing him to drive while drunk/over prescribed limit? No.
The full facts would have to be investigated and then a decision made. Some offences purly having knowladge of the offence or intention makes you guilty of the principle offence. In others it does not. The intentions and knowladge have to be looked into before you can allege that someone aided, abetted, assisted or permitted an offence.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: frozen norff
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The allowable limit of alcohol under legislation applicable to Flight Engineers, Pilots and ATCOs is alot less than that allowed for vehicle drivers. As only the police have the authority to demand a breath test, do police officers now carry extra and different test equipment?