LBA Air Traffic Controller suspended
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LBA Air Traffic Controller suspended
I've just found out that one of the Air Traffic Controllers at LBA has been suspended for allegedly being under the influence of alchohol whilst at work. As far as i am aware controller concerned started work at 0700 when someone thought they smelt alchohol on the controllers breath. The management were informed at approximately 0830 but the controller was then allowed to continue working until 1100. The controller was then asked by the management to take a breath test which was refused and therefore the controller was suspended. What i can't understand is why was the controller concerned allowed by the management to continue working if being suspected of being under the influence? I also thought that under the new rules it is up to the police to suspect and request a test.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: somewhere out there
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If management suspected s/he had attended work whilst under the influence of alcohol, then they should have informed the police, who may then establish reasonable cause and require a specimen of breath to establish if s/he was in fact under the influence.
Letting him/her work until 1100 before suspending him/her to my mind means they haven't got a leg to stand on. If they thought s/he was under the influence then they should have pulled him/her immediately or got the police to attend and determine if they could require a breath sample.
Management cannot require you to take a breath test, only a police officer in uniform can do so.
The Railways and Transport Safety Act has been well published and as a controller I am well aware of the legal requirements regarding alcohol and work, and I've no doubt that this controller was also aware, my guess is s/he was fine why else would management allow hime/her to continue working?
Letting him/her work until 1100 before suspending him/her to my mind means they haven't got a leg to stand on. If they thought s/he was under the influence then they should have pulled him/her immediately or got the police to attend and determine if they could require a breath sample.
Management cannot require you to take a breath test, only a police officer in uniform can do so.
The Railways and Transport Safety Act has been well published and as a controller I am well aware of the legal requirements regarding alcohol and work, and I've no doubt that this controller was also aware, my guess is s/he was fine why else would management allow hime/her to continue working?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
caniplaywithmadness is absolutly right, managers have no right or power (or probably ability) to require a breath test, only a Constable may do so.
What breach of the rules they have suspended the controller over I have no idea, but by allowing him to continue to work after thay have been made aware they have condoned it......
ILS 119.5, It is up to Police to Breath Test, they should have been called, initial suspcison can come from someone else, but its the Police officers decision not managements to administer a test, based on what he finds when he arrives.
What breach of the rules they have suspended the controller over I have no idea, but by allowing him to continue to work after thay have been made aware they have condoned it......
ILS 119.5, It is up to Police to Breath Test, they should have been called, initial suspcison can come from someone else, but its the Police officers decision not managements to administer a test, based on what he finds when he arrives.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This 'appears' to be a blatant abuse of protocol.
As an LBA based crew member I would be only too happy to support this aviation colleague in a time of possible need.
You are either capable of the job or you are not. It can not be a case of "capable until we can find a replacement or shift change".
Stick
As an LBA based crew member I would be only too happy to support this aviation colleague in a time of possible need.
You are either capable of the job or you are not. It can not be a case of "capable until we can find a replacement or shift change".
Stick
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's all stop the stampede - it could be the delay was in order to get the police officer on site. Not for the first time (myself included) the story seems to be racing ahead of verified fact.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: here there and everywhere
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry but I think I've missed the point.....
an LBA pilot would support the case of an ATCO who has refused a breath test? What if the controller was actually drunk and not just sober and obstructive?
I'd be happy to take a breath test whenever I'm at work.
an LBA pilot would support the case of an ATCO who has refused a breath test? What if the controller was actually drunk and not just sober and obstructive?
I'd be happy to take a breath test whenever I'm at work.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MarkD
Delay in a Police Oficer getting there really isn't the point. If that were the case then a Police Officer would have arrived at some point, the ATCO would then have either been exonarated or arrested. I would say thats not the issue however. To me, if management suspect he had had too much to drink then he should have been suspended at the time, not 2 1/2 hours later. In any event, management do not have the power to demand a breath test, that is a Police function.
RPMcMurphy
Yes I'd agree with you, I would be happy to take a breath test, however the point I made above still applies, there is no power for management to demand a Breath test, if they wanted him breath tested they should have called the Police, having taken him off controlling duties. Not make a demand they are not entitled to make 2 1/2 hours after an issue came to thier attention.
If he had been drinking then he deserves the book being chucked at him, but the book should be the proper one!
Delay in a Police Oficer getting there really isn't the point. If that were the case then a Police Officer would have arrived at some point, the ATCO would then have either been exonarated or arrested. I would say thats not the issue however. To me, if management suspect he had had too much to drink then he should have been suspended at the time, not 2 1/2 hours later. In any event, management do not have the power to demand a breath test, that is a Police function.
RPMcMurphy
Yes I'd agree with you, I would be happy to take a breath test, however the point I made above still applies, there is no power for management to demand a Breath test, if they wanted him breath tested they should have called the Police, having taken him off controlling duties. Not make a demand they are not entitled to make 2 1/2 hours after an issue came to thier attention.
If he had been drinking then he deserves the book being chucked at him, but the book should be the proper one!
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Laws is laws.
Several years ago a captain and first officer were seen drinking prior to boarding their aircraft. In Minnesota there is no law against flying an aircraft while under the influence. The aircraft flew to Detroit where both pilots were placed under arrest because in Michigan there is a law against flying while under the influence. Same problem but on a more massive scale.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possibly not, many regional airports don't have police there full time. Even if they do, they could be busy doing something else. In any case, no one has suggested they were called to this.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe I've lost the plot here.. There should be no need to wait for a Police Officer. If an ATCO arrives for work smelling of alcohol, or in any way "unfit for work", his supervisor should suspend him and start an immediate investigation. Police can be called as part of that investigation but there is nothing to stop the person being suspended immediately the problem arises.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Director,
Yes he should have been suspended straight away, no, there is no need to wait for police, however if you want him breath tested that can't happen unless a Police Officer decides to do it. Thats his decision, not managements.
By waiting for 2 1/2 hours before suspending him, his management have condoned any offence he may have committed. Although, as it appears Police weren't called its not lightly we, management or the ATCO will ever know if he had, or had not done anything wrong.
As working as an ATCO while having a blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit is now a criminal offence, if management suspected he had been working while having had too much to drink, they should have called in police, not investigated it themselves as that could taint any evidence.
Yes he should have been suspended straight away, no, there is no need to wait for police, however if you want him breath tested that can't happen unless a Police Officer decides to do it. Thats his decision, not managements.
By waiting for 2 1/2 hours before suspending him, his management have condoned any offence he may have committed. Although, as it appears Police weren't called its not lightly we, management or the ATCO will ever know if he had, or had not done anything wrong.
As working as an ATCO while having a blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit is now a criminal offence, if management suspected he had been working while having had too much to drink, they should have called in police, not investigated it themselves as that could taint any evidence.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After all your replies I have found out more info. The controller concerned was asked if he/she would go for a breath test. The local police were not asked to attend. Furtheremore, only half of the staff who were working on the day were intervieved regarding the events of the day. Again there are two questions, Why was the controller concerned allowed to continue if it was thought that he/she was under the influence? and why were statements not taken from all staff directly involved with the controller?
If, how I remember it, on an ATC watch you will have controllers then supervisors/watch managers and above that the management team. Why did the immediate supervisors/watch managers not suspend the ATCO concerned?
If, how I remember it, on an ATC watch you will have controllers then supervisors/watch managers and above that the management team. Why did the immediate supervisors/watch managers not suspend the ATCO concerned?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey RPMcMurphy,
If you are happy to take a breath test outside the the bounds of the legal procedures, well you are a game man/woman. You will then be happy to take whatever findings they have on the chin. I myself would rather refuse until legal representation were present. Your call mate. And, before you start, I would be only too happy to give a test based on sound procedure.
Fact is this Chap/Chapess has been suspended (apparently). The procedure should be followed. If the DFT set the limits for alcohol influence operation limits, it should be they who enforce. And I think you will find it is up to the police to test. So please dont preach your condescending line that "they may have been drunk". Go get a job with the press.
I am absolutely confident that I have ATC service from competant personal. If you want to put them in the dock for insisting on fair play, well I cant endorse that policy at all.
Innocent till proven guilty. Sorry I will always follow this line.
Stick
If you are happy to take a breath test outside the the bounds of the legal procedures, well you are a game man/woman. You will then be happy to take whatever findings they have on the chin. I myself would rather refuse until legal representation were present. Your call mate. And, before you start, I would be only too happy to give a test based on sound procedure.
Fact is this Chap/Chapess has been suspended (apparently). The procedure should be followed. If the DFT set the limits for alcohol influence operation limits, it should be they who enforce. And I think you will find it is up to the police to test. So please dont preach your condescending line that "they may have been drunk". Go get a job with the press.
I am absolutely confident that I have ATC service from competant personal. If you want to put them in the dock for insisting on fair play, well I cant endorse that policy at all.
Innocent till proven guilty. Sorry I will always follow this line.
Stick
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
119.5
Asked to where to take a breath test?
and to what end?
Would this be similar to this message of yours on the ?Pilot arrested at Mancherster thread??????????
I quote what you wrote there below:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ILS 119.5
Over 150 posts! About time I clicked here and ordered a Personal Title.
posted 29th September 2004 21:35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok people, can you give me answers to the following scenario:-
A pilot turns up for work and someone thinks that they might smell alchohol on his/her breath. Further investigation is needed but the pilot is allowed to continue (by the management) on the next sector. By the end of the final sector the management decide to suspend the pilot on thinking he/she was under the influence. Who is now to blame. The pilot is innocent but the management have let him/her fly the sector thinking that the they were under the influence.?
ILS 119.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just what is your point? Apart from winding people up
Asked to where to take a breath test?
and to what end?
Would this be similar to this message of yours on the ?Pilot arrested at Mancherster thread??????????
I quote what you wrote there below:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ILS 119.5
Over 150 posts! About time I clicked here and ordered a Personal Title.
posted 29th September 2004 21:35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok people, can you give me answers to the following scenario:-
A pilot turns up for work and someone thinks that they might smell alchohol on his/her breath. Further investigation is needed but the pilot is allowed to continue (by the management) on the next sector. By the end of the final sector the management decide to suspend the pilot on thinking he/she was under the influence. Who is now to blame. The pilot is innocent but the management have let him/her fly the sector thinking that the they were under the influence.?
ILS 119.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just what is your point? Apart from winding people up
Last edited by bjcc; 8th Oct 2004 at 01:10.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: somewhere out there
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BJCC,
119.5 has made valid points, management, especially within the aviation industry, have a duty of care to their customers whether they be the punters down the back of the aircraft or the aircrafdt, crew and passengers within the airspace controlled by ATC.
The fact that a manager has allowed a personwho they believed to be working whilst under the influence of alcohol, contrary to national legislation, anmd thereby committing a criminal offenece is in essence negligent and should any incident have arisen because a controller or pilot was allowed to continue to work whilst a manager "suspected" they were committing said offence then in my opinion they are guilty of aiding and abetting said offence.
If you knowingly allow someone to drive your car believing that your insurance does not cover them to drive then you are guilty of committing the offence of aiding and abetting, the same scenario applies here.
Management at EGNM allowed this controller to continue working for 1 1/2 hours after this matter was drawn to their attention, in total 4 hours after arriving at work.
Alcohol is absorbed by the "average" person at a rate of 1/2 unit per hour, after 4 hours that equates to 2 units of alcohol, the legal limit for controlling / flying in the UK is 1/2 unit.
The Police should have been called immediately suspicion arose and a breath test required (subject to the officer having reasonable grounds to require a sample).
You cannot as a manager require an employee to be subject to a breath test and you cannot as a manager suspend a person who you believe has committed such an offence if you HAVE DONE NOTHING ABOUT IT WHEN YOU WERE FIRST MADE AWARE OF IT
119.5 has made very valid points.
My colleague at Yeadon has my full support and I wish them well with the ensuing battle with management to clear their name
119.5 has made valid points, management, especially within the aviation industry, have a duty of care to their customers whether they be the punters down the back of the aircraft or the aircrafdt, crew and passengers within the airspace controlled by ATC.
The fact that a manager has allowed a personwho they believed to be working whilst under the influence of alcohol, contrary to national legislation, anmd thereby committing a criminal offenece is in essence negligent and should any incident have arisen because a controller or pilot was allowed to continue to work whilst a manager "suspected" they were committing said offence then in my opinion they are guilty of aiding and abetting said offence.
If you knowingly allow someone to drive your car believing that your insurance does not cover them to drive then you are guilty of committing the offence of aiding and abetting, the same scenario applies here.
Management at EGNM allowed this controller to continue working for 1 1/2 hours after this matter was drawn to their attention, in total 4 hours after arriving at work.
Alcohol is absorbed by the "average" person at a rate of 1/2 unit per hour, after 4 hours that equates to 2 units of alcohol, the legal limit for controlling / flying in the UK is 1/2 unit.
The Police should have been called immediately suspicion arose and a breath test required (subject to the officer having reasonable grounds to require a sample).
You cannot as a manager require an employee to be subject to a breath test and you cannot as a manager suspend a person who you believe has committed such an offence if you HAVE DONE NOTHING ABOUT IT WHEN YOU WERE FIRST MADE AWARE OF IT
119.5 has made very valid points.
My colleague at Yeadon has my full support and I wish them well with the ensuing battle with management to clear their name
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of know that alcohol takes a period of time to pass through the body, and any atco who is not aware of the very stringent regulations which recently came into force, must be living on Mars.
It is very obvious that if you have more than 4 units of alcohol the night before, and don't allow 12 hours + before working, there is a high risk that you'll exceed the prescribed legal limits.
The atco concerned could have decided to phone in sick, equally, they could have, at any time after the alleged incident was flagged to management, gone home sick, and the only person who could have done anything about it, would have been a uniformed police officer.
Equally, once home, the atco could have taken a "medicinal toddy", which would have further confused the issue.
I am by no means defending the right to break the new legislation (which I support fully), but I do think someone has handled this very badly, mostly because the gutter press is going to have a field day in slagging off our profession.
It is very obvious that if you have more than 4 units of alcohol the night before, and don't allow 12 hours + before working, there is a high risk that you'll exceed the prescribed legal limits.
The atco concerned could have decided to phone in sick, equally, they could have, at any time after the alleged incident was flagged to management, gone home sick, and the only person who could have done anything about it, would have been a uniformed police officer.
Equally, once home, the atco could have taken a "medicinal toddy", which would have further confused the issue.
I am by no means defending the right to break the new legislation (which I support fully), but I do think someone has handled this very badly, mostly because the gutter press is going to have a field day in slagging off our profession.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WILL YOU LOT READ WHAT 119.5 WROTE ON A PREVIOUS THREAD WHICH I HAVE QUOTED ABOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS IS A WIND UP!!!!!!!!!
Does no one think it odd that 119.5 is the only person who has any knowladge of this??????
119.5 put a question on another thread identical to this senario, except it concerned a pilot.....he failed then to say what exactly it is he is trying to get at, and is failing here again.
caniplaywithmadness
Please read what I have written on page 1. I am fully aware of the legislation. However Aiding and abetting probably would not apply in this fictional senario. As for letting someone drive your car that you KNOW not be insured, the offence is KNOWINGLY Permitting No Insurance.
Negligence is not the same as permitting or Aiding and abetting an offence. In this senario, the managemet do not KNOW he has committed an offence, they mearly suspect. As I said on page 1, they do not have the right to demand or require a breath test, and probably do not have the means to administer one. Until they have the result of a breath, blood or unine test they can only suspect not KNOW. You are correctly quoting me from page one when I said that a constable is the only person who can require a Breath test and it is his decision whether to administer one.
Again, on page one I said that they should have taken him off controlling duties immidiatly if they suspect he was committing an offence, they should also have called the police. To not do so is condoning what he is doing, until such time as he was suspended. There is and cannot be any bar to suspending someone later, although as I have pointed out ad nasium, they should have done it at the time they were informed.
As regards to this being a criminal offence, in the fictional circumstances 119.5 has given, he has not been given a breath/blood or urine test...there is therefore no evidence of a criminal offence. The same would apply if you drove your car after 6 pints, if you arn't stopped there is no offence.
I am wondering why you are quoting back to me exactly what I have said, I presume its because you have not read whats been written by me on this and other threads on the subject.....
I am sure you are supporting your collegue, trouble is he does not exist.....119.5 is winding you up!!!!
THIS IS A WIND UP!!!!!!!!!
Does no one think it odd that 119.5 is the only person who has any knowladge of this??????
119.5 put a question on another thread identical to this senario, except it concerned a pilot.....he failed then to say what exactly it is he is trying to get at, and is failing here again.
caniplaywithmadness
Please read what I have written on page 1. I am fully aware of the legislation. However Aiding and abetting probably would not apply in this fictional senario. As for letting someone drive your car that you KNOW not be insured, the offence is KNOWINGLY Permitting No Insurance.
Negligence is not the same as permitting or Aiding and abetting an offence. In this senario, the managemet do not KNOW he has committed an offence, they mearly suspect. As I said on page 1, they do not have the right to demand or require a breath test, and probably do not have the means to administer one. Until they have the result of a breath, blood or unine test they can only suspect not KNOW. You are correctly quoting me from page one when I said that a constable is the only person who can require a Breath test and it is his decision whether to administer one.
Again, on page one I said that they should have taken him off controlling duties immidiatly if they suspect he was committing an offence, they should also have called the police. To not do so is condoning what he is doing, until such time as he was suspended. There is and cannot be any bar to suspending someone later, although as I have pointed out ad nasium, they should have done it at the time they were informed.
As regards to this being a criminal offence, in the fictional circumstances 119.5 has given, he has not been given a breath/blood or urine test...there is therefore no evidence of a criminal offence. The same would apply if you drove your car after 6 pints, if you arn't stopped there is no offence.
I am wondering why you are quoting back to me exactly what I have said, I presume its because you have not read whats been written by me on this and other threads on the subject.....
I am sure you are supporting your collegue, trouble is he does not exist.....119.5 is winding you up!!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The same would apply if you drove your car after 6 pints, if you arn't stopped there is no offence.
Or are you confusing the commiting of an offence with the reporting of an offence?
The latter means that someone got away with something, the former means that something "bad" was done. 119.5 therefore takes us to the axiom of the debate by asking about the ethics of a fictional situation, where someone suspected of doing something "bad" is allowed to continue their actions, by those accountable and responsible for protecting the passengers.
Thererfore, far from being a wind up, 119.5's question is worthy of consideration.
Let me make it quite clear that I am responding to your question about 119.5's fictional case study, not commenting on any alleged events at LBA.