UK pilot breathalysed after go arounds
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so easy to do when the guy or girl sat up front has probably been through financial hell to get into the position they are in after years of bloody hard work and sacrifice.
That's the cruel truth of the matter.
VFE.
That's the cruel truth of the matter.
VFE.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
View From The Ground
We have not heard the police officers side of this yet.
Sadly we probably wont ever hear it. If they didn't have reason, then they will probably hang for it.
If they did have good reason then why not let a proper investigation find out.
Is it not a little unfair of some to hang them before the complaint, and numerous hours of investigation that will result from it, has found out what ACTUALY happened, rather than what some here ASSUME happened?
On different note, please be careful following the advice about not taking breath tests.
You may feel you have good reason to refuse or to argue the point. You may well be right, but that wont help much if the PC has, or feels he has reason to require it.
Refusal could lead you to being arrested, and in some circumstances can be an offence in itself. Even if you have not had anything to drink. (That also applies to driving)
We have not heard the police officers side of this yet.
Sadly we probably wont ever hear it. If they didn't have reason, then they will probably hang for it.
If they did have good reason then why not let a proper investigation find out.
Is it not a little unfair of some to hang them before the complaint, and numerous hours of investigation that will result from it, has found out what ACTUALY happened, rather than what some here ASSUME happened?
On different note, please be careful following the advice about not taking breath tests.
You may feel you have good reason to refuse or to argue the point. You may well be right, but that wont help much if the PC has, or feels he has reason to require it.
Refusal could lead you to being arrested, and in some circumstances can be an offence in itself. Even if you have not had anything to drink. (That also applies to driving)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst the specifics of this case are outrageous, there is surely a much more profound issue at stake here. If Police Officers elect to create an environment within which aviation professionals are subjected to legal scrutiny, humiliation and potential media publicity as reward for correctly making safety-critical decisions, the day could follow when a crew will ill-advisedly proceed with a flight regardless of a potential problem in order to avoid such consequences.
BA and BALPA should make absolutely clear to all police authorities that any action which humiliates air-crew in response to safety-critical judgment-calls is a major threat to aviations' safety culture. We MUST NOT create a climate within which pilots will fear the consequences of following safety procedures. Nobody should face the choice of following safety procedures (and being interrogated by police and media) or ignoring a tech problem in the expectation of "getting away with it" and going home unmolested.
Now I am confident that all you guys will put safety first regardless, but we must not invite a situation where there is a 'carrot' for doing otherwise.
Clearly, the barmpot-madwoman in this specific case should never have been allowed anywhere near an airliner, but unfortunately the entire cross-section of society is permitted to buy air-tickets and that includes her and others of her persuasion. However, the police in this case may have used their judgment a tad unwisely. The Chief Constable should be invited to educate those involved of the potential consequences when those who must exercise safety-critical decisions are placed in fear of their jobs for so doing.
It is a crime to 'endanger the safety of an aircraft'. If this madwoman has made even one pilot question the wisdom of performing a go-around when safety calls for such action, then she has already endangered the safety of an aircraft. Maybe several! Your companies and BALPA must make clear to police and the media that a climate within which aircrew fear the consequences of following safety procedures is a development which society must never see.
BA and BALPA should make absolutely clear to all police authorities that any action which humiliates air-crew in response to safety-critical judgment-calls is a major threat to aviations' safety culture. We MUST NOT create a climate within which pilots will fear the consequences of following safety procedures. Nobody should face the choice of following safety procedures (and being interrogated by police and media) or ignoring a tech problem in the expectation of "getting away with it" and going home unmolested.
Now I am confident that all you guys will put safety first regardless, but we must not invite a situation where there is a 'carrot' for doing otherwise.
Clearly, the barmpot-madwoman in this specific case should never have been allowed anywhere near an airliner, but unfortunately the entire cross-section of society is permitted to buy air-tickets and that includes her and others of her persuasion. However, the police in this case may have used their judgment a tad unwisely. The Chief Constable should be invited to educate those involved of the potential consequences when those who must exercise safety-critical decisions are placed in fear of their jobs for so doing.
It is a crime to 'endanger the safety of an aircraft'. If this madwoman has made even one pilot question the wisdom of performing a go-around when safety calls for such action, then she has already endangered the safety of an aircraft. Maybe several! Your companies and BALPA must make clear to police and the media that a climate within which aircrew fear the consequences of following safety procedures is a development which society must never see.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the crew could ask for the police to confirm the passengers ATPL status. If the passenger is not a qualified pilot, then they have no right ro comment. After all, when was the last time a patient told a heart surgeon which way to cut?
There has to be some reasonable evidence for the police to progress in this way and the word of an unqualified layperson is certainly not reasonable grounds. I would be consulting my solicitor to sue the passenger if that had been me. Got to be some axe to grind by this woman.
There has to be some reasonable evidence for the police to progress in this way and the word of an unqualified layperson is certainly not reasonable grounds. I would be consulting my solicitor to sue the passenger if that had been me. Got to be some axe to grind by this woman.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc; please don't assume from this post that I automatically believe the police officer on the scene was in the wrong- this question is purely for hypothetical similar future situations- and, indeed, similar circumstances when driving.
As per btsm's scenario, the constable enters the flightdeck. Captain explains course of events, offers evidence to support this. If the PC insists on taking a sample of breath, would the correct course of action be for the Captain to say
"I do not believe you have grounds for suspecting an offence has been committed. Nonetheless, under protest I will give a sample. I will, however, insist on taking your number and my company will take this to the Police Complaints Authority."
That way, the PC has investigated, the protest has been registered, and then let the lawyers fight it out.
As per btsm's scenario, the constable enters the flightdeck. Captain explains course of events, offers evidence to support this. If the PC insists on taking a sample of breath, would the correct course of action be for the Captain to say
"I do not believe you have grounds for suspecting an offence has been committed. Nonetheless, under protest I will give a sample. I will, however, insist on taking your number and my company will take this to the Police Complaints Authority."
That way, the PC has investigated, the protest has been registered, and then let the lawyers fight it out.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Wilmslow and North Yorks
Age: 53
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely incredible. You have a snag with your jet, you deal with it in a calm and professional manner and get breathalized by some plod with nothing better to do.
Ridiculous
Ridiculous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
personally i dont have a problem with being breath tested, i am even up for completely random testing.
but then i keep my drinking seperate from work and driving and have nothing to fear, 30 seconds breath test then on my way again.
but then i keep my drinking seperate from work and driving and have nothing to fear, 30 seconds breath test then on my way again.
Emergency procedures will now be amended to include an announcement to the passengers which will be designed to convey an extreme sense of panic on the flight deck. Something along the lines of "We're all going to die." would probably meet most eventualities.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the Tearooms of Mars
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever the legality of the constable’s challenge, it seems an affront to imply intoxication on the basis of a far from expert assessment of a pilot’s reaction to an abnormal situation. I think if I were to be the hapless Captain involved, I would have made clear to the constable that I would comply with the breath test under protest, but that I would require the circumstances surrounding his ‘reasonable suspicion’ to be disclosed, and the basis of the complaint made against me in hard copy.
There has never been a time in this great and just nation, when a hard working and diligent person could find themselves in jail in very short order because of the swift and zealous application of the ill drawn legislation of a knee jerk reactionary government. The Police find themselves in an invidious position, required to enforce laws from the detention hoards of red coated huntsmen to the house arrest of people who look like terrorists.
Where will this end? Will we breathalize surgeons because that critical by-pass operation failed? Do I insist on testing my barrister for narcotics because he failed to get me off a criminal indictment for telling a Dave Allen joke?
What about the bloke who set up the Child Support Agency, or the bloke who told Tiny Blur that we’d be in and out of Iraq inside 6 months with a pile of nukes? Why doesn’t the Chief Constable of the GMP test them for drugs. They’re the ones with the questionable judgement.
There has never been a time in this great and just nation, when a hard working and diligent person could find themselves in jail in very short order because of the swift and zealous application of the ill drawn legislation of a knee jerk reactionary government. The Police find themselves in an invidious position, required to enforce laws from the detention hoards of red coated huntsmen to the house arrest of people who look like terrorists.
Where will this end? Will we breathalize surgeons because that critical by-pass operation failed? Do I insist on testing my barrister for narcotics because he failed to get me off a criminal indictment for telling a Dave Allen joke?
What about the bloke who set up the Child Support Agency, or the bloke who told Tiny Blur that we’d be in and out of Iraq inside 6 months with a pile of nukes? Why doesn’t the Chief Constable of the GMP test them for drugs. They’re the ones with the questionable judgement.
Está servira para distraerle.
I am reminded of the somewhat absurd lengths to which The State Police recently descended in order to convict a girl for eating an apple whilst driving, ie: helicopters and so on.
Some of you may have read a subsequent letter in, I think, The Telegraph, relating how the writer, upon holding at a roundabout, had seen a car go around whilst the driver talked on a mobile which was in his right hand while he held a half eaten sandwhich in his left. The car in question was a marked police car.
Who is going to assume the responsibility for breathalyzing The State Police? Pilots? That would be fun.
Yes, I quite agree but it might be elucidating.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: hkg
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do we keep putting ourselves through all this? It costs a small fortune to get our licence and when we finally 'make it' we find the 'flying' is crap and we no longer get the respect we deserve from management, colleagues,passengers, security guards, police etc etc etc. Let's face it, we can now get equivalent salaries, pensions etc doing much less stressful jobs that would also allow us to be more than passing strangers to our families.
Why don't we take another job, fly for fun (flying+fun remenber that?). Let's leave the managers and accountants in the sinking ship to worry about where their next bonus is coming from. Let's leave the current generation of idiotic passengers to look forward to their 7 day, £2,000 ferry trip to Ibiza.
F**k 'em all!
Why don't we take another job, fly for fun (flying+fun remenber that?). Let's leave the managers and accountants in the sinking ship to worry about where their next bonus is coming from. Let's leave the current generation of idiotic passengers to look forward to their 7 day, £2,000 ferry trip to Ibiza.
F**k 'em all!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Heart of Darkness
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christn is right...absolutely right....
Put airfares up to First Class prices...dump all the cheapy airlines...let the great unwashed wallow in their own backyards and stop clogging up the more beautiful parts of the world.....
A heap of pilots would have to find other work but in any case the new generation are better suited to accountancy or IT work anyway...fewer aircraft fewer morons travelling....especially those ladies that disappear into the loo when their flight is called and risk losing me my slot time.....
Put airfares up to First Class prices...dump all the cheapy airlines...let the great unwashed wallow in their own backyards and stop clogging up the more beautiful parts of the world.....
A heap of pilots would have to find other work but in any case the new generation are better suited to accountancy or IT work anyway...fewer aircraft fewer morons travelling....especially those ladies that disappear into the loo when their flight is called and risk losing me my slot time.....
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
christn, well said the job is not held in high regard (although it should be) as it was years ago. There are many jobs that earn more money without the crap. I joined the industry because of my love of flying and not the crap that is now trying to undermine and belittle our profession.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CarltonBrowne the FO
The PC makes his requirement based on what he thinks, given all of the evidence. The G/A's are not really relevent to that.
The allagation made by the pax is not the whole story, and that is why I said to be careful arguing or refusing to take a test.
Once an allagation has been made, the PC has no option but to investigate it. That involves speaking to the crew.
That decision is his and his alone, he may have to justify that decision either in Court or at a discipline board.
The decision is NOT made on the allagation alone. He would look for other things like smell of drink or manner. Having decided he would make or not make a requirment.
What has not been considered is the PC was trying to keep everyone happy, doubted the test would be anything other than negitive, satisfy everyone that he's done his job.
Yes you can say you are giving it under protest, it makes no difference except you may get his back up by threatening him with the IPCA and demanding his number, but yes it's your right to complain if you wish.
I am not assuming you believe he was automatically wrong, nor am I automatically assuming he was right.
The PC makes his requirement based on what he thinks, given all of the evidence. The G/A's are not really relevent to that.
The allagation made by the pax is not the whole story, and that is why I said to be careful arguing or refusing to take a test.
Once an allagation has been made, the PC has no option but to investigate it. That involves speaking to the crew.
That decision is his and his alone, he may have to justify that decision either in Court or at a discipline board.
The decision is NOT made on the allagation alone. He would look for other things like smell of drink or manner. Having decided he would make or not make a requirment.
What has not been considered is the PC was trying to keep everyone happy, doubted the test would be anything other than negitive, satisfy everyone that he's done his job.
Yes you can say you are giving it under protest, it makes no difference except you may get his back up by threatening him with the IPCA and demanding his number, but yes it's your right to complain if you wish.
I am not assuming you believe he was automatically wrong, nor am I automatically assuming he was right.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Uranus
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt. H.Peacock,
Good on you - you are SO right in what you say, absolutely SPOT ON, I cannot think of a better way to describe the way in which we have to live today...........
Where indeed will all this end? The next thing will be a new enforcement agency - the Thought Police, you'll be arrested for just having a non-PC brain wave.
When Orwell wrote 1984 it was rightly accepted as a fantasy idea of what the future might hold, the trouble is that its fast becoming a reality.
R.I.P. Great Britain - we once were someone in this World, now we're an embarrassment, a shadow of our former glory.............
Good on you - you are SO right in what you say, absolutely SPOT ON, I cannot think of a better way to describe the way in which we have to live today...........
Where indeed will all this end? The next thing will be a new enforcement agency - the Thought Police, you'll be arrested for just having a non-PC brain wave.
When Orwell wrote 1984 it was rightly accepted as a fantasy idea of what the future might hold, the trouble is that its fast becoming a reality.
R.I.P. Great Britain - we once were someone in this World, now we're an embarrassment, a shadow of our former glory.............
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks bjcc, like I say I make no assumption as to the current case... I am aware of the risk of upsetting the constable involved. However, crews are accountable to the company for, among other things, delays- in this hypothetical case, unless the PC happens to have a breath-test kit immediately available, the delay is likely to cost the company money. I suspect my employers would be less than happy with my conduct if I did not take all reasonable measures to eliminate that delay.
If the PC in this case had genuine reason to believe a test was necessary, I would be very curious to know what that reason was. I would be very unhappy to discover it was just a power-trip; I was brought up to have more faith in the British police than that.
If the PC in this case had genuine reason to believe a test was necessary, I would be very curious to know what that reason was. I would be very unhappy to discover it was just a power-trip; I was brought up to have more faith in the British police than that.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reasonable suspicion and suspects?
Reasonable suspicion and suspects?
Whilst BJCC thinks the policeman in this incident was trying to keep everyone happy, it would seem most of us here would have been highly pissed off and very unhappy to be asked to blow in the bag, on the dumb evidence (?) of that woman passenger!
I asked before BJCC where "manner" entered the equation, but you have not provided an answer. Fine.
Maybe the CAA can help with their DOC on the subject?
From what I can see here, your copper at Manchester was skating on some very thin ice and like CB the FO I would love to know what the suspicion was and why he suspected the Captain to be above the prescribed limit.
That we have not read an arrest was forthcoming, indicates the Captain was not over the limit - maybe you can justify why then this copper played the heavy hand?
See para 5.1.2 I can think of a good excuse. No case to answer.
A mountain out of a mole hill comes to mind, courtesy the Manchester police.
TG
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ref : http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200328.pdf
-------------------------------
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RAILWAYS AND TRANSPORT SAFETY ACT 2003 – AVIATION: ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
Excerpts
1.1.2 It is consistent with the criteria contained in an allied Police Protocol that has been developed to assist Police officers in the application and enforcement of this new legislation.
2.1 ............ The ANO however, does not set a blood alcohol limit nor does it require a person who is suspected of a drink or drugs offence to be subjected to a test.
2.2 ........... The Police testing and enforcement powers broadly mirror those currently applied on our roads and railways and are based on an officer's reasonable suspicion that an offence either has been, or is in the process of being committed.
2.5 There is no provision in the Act for random testing.
5.1 Power to Conduct a Preliminary Test (i.e. a breathalyser test) by a Police Constable in Uniform
5.1.1 Section 96 of the Act provides that the Police have power to require a person to co-operate with a preliminary test where:
(a) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person is over the prescribed limit, or his/her ability to perform his/her aviation function is impaired through either drink or drugs,
(b) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person has been over the prescribed limit or impaired through drink or drugs, and still has alcohol or a drug in his/her body or is still under the influence of a drug,
(c) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person was undertaking an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft at the time of the accident, or
(d) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person has undertaken an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft.
5.1.2 A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to provide a specimen when required to do so in pursuance of this section commits an offence.
5.4 Reasonable Grounds for Suspicion
5.4.1 Reasonable grounds for suspicion depend upon the circumstances in each case. There must be an objective basis for that suspicion based on facts, information and/or intelligence that are relevant to the likelihood of an offence. Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on generalisations or stereotypical images of certain groups or categories of people more likely to be involved in criminal activity.
5.4.2 Reasonable suspicion can sometimes exist without specific information or intelligence and on the basis of some level of generalisation stemming from the behaviour of a person. Reasonable suspicion should normally be linked to accurate and current intelligence or information. For example, evidence of impairment from witnesses or from the result of a primary test of an employee by an employer could be sufficient.
6.3 Flight crew and cabin crew who are required to take a preliminary test, with a negative result, may decide that it is unsafe for them to operate because of the emotional impact. It is for individual flight crew and cabin crew to determine their fitness to fly in such circumstances regardless of individual operator policy. It would be advisable for flight crew and cabin crew to seek guidance from company management or company representatives.
10.1 For further information or clarification in the first instance contact should be made with Captain M A Vivian, Deputy Head Flight Operations Department or Mr N Butcher, Head of the Cabin Safety Office on the following:
Captain M A Vivian Tel: 01293 573470 Fax: 01293 573770 Mr N Butcher Tel: 01293 573341 Fax: 01293 573991
Captain D J Chapman
Head Flight Operations Department
22 December 2003
Whilst BJCC thinks the policeman in this incident was trying to keep everyone happy, it would seem most of us here would have been highly pissed off and very unhappy to be asked to blow in the bag, on the dumb evidence (?) of that woman passenger!
I asked before BJCC where "manner" entered the equation, but you have not provided an answer. Fine.
Maybe the CAA can help with their DOC on the subject?
From what I can see here, your copper at Manchester was skating on some very thin ice and like CB the FO I would love to know what the suspicion was and why he suspected the Captain to be above the prescribed limit.
That we have not read an arrest was forthcoming, indicates the Captain was not over the limit - maybe you can justify why then this copper played the heavy hand?
See para 5.1.2 I can think of a good excuse. No case to answer.
A mountain out of a mole hill comes to mind, courtesy the Manchester police.
TG
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ref : http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200328.pdf
-------------------------------
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RAILWAYS AND TRANSPORT SAFETY ACT 2003 – AVIATION: ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
Excerpts
1.1.2 It is consistent with the criteria contained in an allied Police Protocol that has been developed to assist Police officers in the application and enforcement of this new legislation.
2.1 ............ The ANO however, does not set a blood alcohol limit nor does it require a person who is suspected of a drink or drugs offence to be subjected to a test.
2.2 ........... The Police testing and enforcement powers broadly mirror those currently applied on our roads and railways and are based on an officer's reasonable suspicion that an offence either has been, or is in the process of being committed.
2.5 There is no provision in the Act for random testing.
5.1 Power to Conduct a Preliminary Test (i.e. a breathalyser test) by a Police Constable in Uniform
5.1.1 Section 96 of the Act provides that the Police have power to require a person to co-operate with a preliminary test where:
(a) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person is over the prescribed limit, or his/her ability to perform his/her aviation function is impaired through either drink or drugs,
(b) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person has been over the prescribed limit or impaired through drink or drugs, and still has alcohol or a drug in his/her body or is still under the influence of a drug,
(c) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person was undertaking an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft at the time of the accident, or
(d) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person has undertaken an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft.
5.1.2 A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to provide a specimen when required to do so in pursuance of this section commits an offence.
5.4 Reasonable Grounds for Suspicion
5.4.1 Reasonable grounds for suspicion depend upon the circumstances in each case. There must be an objective basis for that suspicion based on facts, information and/or intelligence that are relevant to the likelihood of an offence. Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on generalisations or stereotypical images of certain groups or categories of people more likely to be involved in criminal activity.
5.4.2 Reasonable suspicion can sometimes exist without specific information or intelligence and on the basis of some level of generalisation stemming from the behaviour of a person. Reasonable suspicion should normally be linked to accurate and current intelligence or information. For example, evidence of impairment from witnesses or from the result of a primary test of an employee by an employer could be sufficient.
6.3 Flight crew and cabin crew who are required to take a preliminary test, with a negative result, may decide that it is unsafe for them to operate because of the emotional impact. It is for individual flight crew and cabin crew to determine their fitness to fly in such circumstances regardless of individual operator policy. It would be advisable for flight crew and cabin crew to seek guidance from company management or company representatives.
10.1 For further information or clarification in the first instance contact should be made with Captain M A Vivian, Deputy Head Flight Operations Department or Mr N Butcher, Head of the Cabin Safety Office on the following:
Captain M A Vivian Tel: 01293 573470 Fax: 01293 573770 Mr N Butcher Tel: 01293 573341 Fax: 01293 573991
Captain D J Chapman
Head Flight Operations Department
22 December 2003
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BJCC
Well done mate. The old attitudes are still there!
Do you keep an old uniform in your wardrobe for "secret patrols" to remind you of the old days?
Ah memories...nicking people....knowing it all......bliss...
Well done mate. The old attitudes are still there!
Do you keep an old uniform in your wardrobe for "secret patrols" to remind you of the old days?
Ah memories...nicking people....knowing it all......bliss...