UK pilot breathalysed after go arounds
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if someone had asked me to take a breath test on Thursday Am at LGW, then I would have told him to shove it up the A*$E of the Emirates 777 that forced me to go around. He might have got a result because it was appalling airmanship.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can tell bjcc is not an ATCO nor a Pilot due to his/her lack of command of the English language i.e. spelling and grammar. Most of us are highly qualified and trained professionals who undergo years of training. Not like the police which accepts cadets with few formal qualifications and then receive a short training course.
Again, I find it absurd that we are being criticised by other professions that are not qualified to do so. We are being accused by people who have not even seen us. The industry at the moment is a shambles and until we stand up and do something about it then it will deteriorate further. I'm glad I've only got two more trips and then I might become a London Cabby. Probably earn more and less hassle.
Again, I find it absurd that we are being criticised by other professions that are not qualified to do so. We are being accused by people who have not even seen us. The industry at the moment is a shambles and until we stand up and do something about it then it will deteriorate further. I'm glad I've only got two more trips and then I might become a London Cabby. Probably earn more and less hassle.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tartan Giant
You make a lot of points that with respect, are answered by the legislation. Or are not answerable because many of the facts are uncertain.
The ability of the crew is not an issue, nor are the G/A's. The issue is what the officer was told what that was based on and what he found when he spoke to the crew.
You have admitted, as I do, that you were not there. Your knowladge of this incident is based on what has been posted here.
If you are satisfied that the entire story has been given, then yes you can form your own opinons of the incident and how you feel you should respond. You have interpreted the legislation, and in parts have missunderstood it. (Arrest follows positive breath test, not as you imply the other way round, the legislation you quote is the RTA, wrong act.).
IF, the story on here is the entire story,then I would agree the officer was wrong. HOWEVER, I do not belive that the entire story has been told.
Until such time as that happens then I would ask you to keep an open mind. I have NOT said the officer was correct, NOR have I said he was wrong. I have tried to point to alternative explanations. You and others may not like those, but thats life.
IF it comes out that the officer was wrong, then I am happy to join in the protests that follow. IF it transpires that in fact the officer was acting correctly, I somehow doubt that a corus of applogies will go to the officer.
The Freedom of Information act may get you an explanation, I don't know.
GMP in common with most police services wont say much about an incident where the people accused have been exonorated, which is what has happened here.
In many cases that doesn't help anyone, an full explanation may have resolved this issue, but it seems to be policy not to do so.
You make a lot of points that with respect, are answered by the legislation. Or are not answerable because many of the facts are uncertain.
The ability of the crew is not an issue, nor are the G/A's. The issue is what the officer was told what that was based on and what he found when he spoke to the crew.
You have admitted, as I do, that you were not there. Your knowladge of this incident is based on what has been posted here.
If you are satisfied that the entire story has been given, then yes you can form your own opinons of the incident and how you feel you should respond. You have interpreted the legislation, and in parts have missunderstood it. (Arrest follows positive breath test, not as you imply the other way round, the legislation you quote is the RTA, wrong act.).
IF, the story on here is the entire story,then I would agree the officer was wrong. HOWEVER, I do not belive that the entire story has been told.
Until such time as that happens then I would ask you to keep an open mind. I have NOT said the officer was correct, NOR have I said he was wrong. I have tried to point to alternative explanations. You and others may not like those, but thats life.
IF it comes out that the officer was wrong, then I am happy to join in the protests that follow. IF it transpires that in fact the officer was acting correctly, I somehow doubt that a corus of applogies will go to the officer.
The Freedom of Information act may get you an explanation, I don't know.
GMP in common with most police services wont say much about an incident where the people accused have been exonorated, which is what has happened here.
In many cases that doesn't help anyone, an full explanation may have resolved this issue, but it seems to be policy not to do so.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS,
I am an ATSA at Manch, my son is a P.C. with GMP. he has 6 "O" GC[S]Es. Agreed, "shortish" course of only 20 weeks, followed by 2 years as a "probationer" PC [can be "booted out" with no reason]. He has attended "sudden deaths, assaults etc.
I am proud of my son and his colleagues
watp,iktch
I am an ATSA at Manch, my son is a P.C. with GMP. he has 6 "O" GC[S]Es. Agreed, "shortish" course of only 20 weeks, followed by 2 years as a "probationer" PC [can be "booted out" with no reason]. He has attended "sudden deaths, assaults etc.
I am proud of my son and his colleagues
watp,iktch
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chiglet, I am not disrepectfull of the local police, in fact I play golf with many members of them. Unfortunately some of them ( not the ones I play with ) have a "them and us" attitude and also a power attitude. BJCC seems to put that attitude over to the forum. I hope your son does well and has a good career, I also hope he does not have a bad attitude and be understanding.
Live & Love, treat people as you would be expected to be treated yourself.
Rgds
ILS 119.5
Live & Love, treat people as you would be expected to be treated yourself.
Rgds
ILS 119.5
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
"Once an allagation has been made, the PC has no option but to investigate it. That involves speaking to the crew."
Surely the proper course is to question the person who made the allegation in order to find out on what grounds he/she is making such an allegation, and then decide whether questioning the crew is justified?
Are you really saying a policeman has no option but to move on to the second stage (speaking to the crew) regardless of the grounds given?
What if the person making the allegation says (for example):
"It was such a hard landing, the pilot(s) must be drunk/have been drinking"?
or
"The pilot(s) took three attempts to land, they must be drunk/ have been drinking"?
or
"We took off late. I think the pilot(s) were down the pub."
No option but to speak to the crew?
"The decision (to require a breath-test) 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."
It shouldn't be on the basis of the allegation alone, but I find your suggestion (as a former policeman) that the PC might have been "trying to keep everyone happy, doubted the test would be anything other than negitive, satisfy everyone that he's done his job" rather disturbing. Wouldn't that be an abuse of his power?
It certainly wouldn't satisfy me that he'd done his job (far from it), and I very much doubt if many pilots breath-tested for that reason would be either 'happy' or 'satisfied' - even if the test was negative.
"smell of drink"
Given that the maximum prescribed alcohol level for pilots is so very low, it seems rather unlikely that a pilot who passes an aviation breath-test was smelling of drink. Or perhaps you meant the smell of drink in the flight-deck - of an aircraft which has just landed?
"manner"
Very interesting that you should use the word 'manner' rather than 'demeanour' - which is more commonly used by policemen when seeking to justify their action in alcohol cases.
A little slip there?
I wonder because you've often said (in various 'legal' threads) that the 'manner' of someone questioned is likely to influence what happens next. Unfortunately, you also give the impression that demure grovelling may result in no further action, whereas 'challenging' the PC is more likely to influence him to take things further.
"Yes you can say you are giving it (the specimen of breath) 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 wonder if the pilots 'manner' (indignation, for example) got the PCs' back up and it was that 'manner' which influenced them to require breath-tests.
Some policemen do tend to interpret any questions as a 'challenge' to their status and/or authority, wouldn't you agree?
And that can cause some policemen to show how much power they've got, can't it?
On a more general point .....
You're always very keen in 'legal' threads to try to come up with explanations/possible explanations intended to persuade people to see things from the PC's point of view and/or scenarios in which someone subjected to police procedures brought them upon himself/herself and the PC's conduct is vindicated. That's understandable, given your previous job.
However, IMHO, you'd have more credibility (and also portray the police in a better light) if you showed the slightest sign of being able to see and understand things from the position of people who are subjected to those procedures and (in this context) people who might find themselves subjected to them. You seem incapable of understanding that what's of no great consequence to policemen can be very distressing for the people with whom they are dealing.
I've dealt with policemen constantly for many years. It's an attitude I've come across many times, almost exclusively in the lower ranks - more senior ranks tend to have a broader perspective. People who rarely if ever come into contact with the police are bound to be more taken aback - and worried because they realise it's the junior ranks with whom they are most likely to come into contact.
With respect, your contributions rarely do anything to improve people's perception of the police and may, I suspect, damage it. In at least one previous thread, your blinkered views even succeeded in driving another former policeman to distraction - to such an extent that he started criticising you.
You claim that "any alternative view is frowned upon here". That's true in a small minority of cases, but you might want to consider whether there's something in your approach which antagonises the others.
"Once an allagation has been made, the PC has no option but to investigate it. That involves speaking to the crew."
Surely the proper course is to question the person who made the allegation in order to find out on what grounds he/she is making such an allegation, and then decide whether questioning the crew is justified?
Are you really saying a policeman has no option but to move on to the second stage (speaking to the crew) regardless of the grounds given?
What if the person making the allegation says (for example):
"It was such a hard landing, the pilot(s) must be drunk/have been drinking"?
or
"The pilot(s) took three attempts to land, they must be drunk/ have been drinking"?
or
"We took off late. I think the pilot(s) were down the pub."
No option but to speak to the crew?
"The decision (to require a breath-test) 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."
It shouldn't be on the basis of the allegation alone, but I find your suggestion (as a former policeman) that the PC might have been "trying to keep everyone happy, doubted the test would be anything other than negitive, satisfy everyone that he's done his job" rather disturbing. Wouldn't that be an abuse of his power?
It certainly wouldn't satisfy me that he'd done his job (far from it), and I very much doubt if many pilots breath-tested for that reason would be either 'happy' or 'satisfied' - even if the test was negative.
"smell of drink"
Given that the maximum prescribed alcohol level for pilots is so very low, it seems rather unlikely that a pilot who passes an aviation breath-test was smelling of drink. Or perhaps you meant the smell of drink in the flight-deck - of an aircraft which has just landed?
"manner"
Very interesting that you should use the word 'manner' rather than 'demeanour' - which is more commonly used by policemen when seeking to justify their action in alcohol cases.
A little slip there?
I wonder because you've often said (in various 'legal' threads) that the 'manner' of someone questioned is likely to influence what happens next. Unfortunately, you also give the impression that demure grovelling may result in no further action, whereas 'challenging' the PC is more likely to influence him to take things further.
"Yes you can say you are giving it (the specimen of breath) 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 wonder if the pilots 'manner' (indignation, for example) got the PCs' back up and it was that 'manner' which influenced them to require breath-tests.
Some policemen do tend to interpret any questions as a 'challenge' to their status and/or authority, wouldn't you agree?
And that can cause some policemen to show how much power they've got, can't it?
On a more general point .....
You're always very keen in 'legal' threads to try to come up with explanations/possible explanations intended to persuade people to see things from the PC's point of view and/or scenarios in which someone subjected to police procedures brought them upon himself/herself and the PC's conduct is vindicated. That's understandable, given your previous job.
However, IMHO, you'd have more credibility (and also portray the police in a better light) if you showed the slightest sign of being able to see and understand things from the position of people who are subjected to those procedures and (in this context) people who might find themselves subjected to them. You seem incapable of understanding that what's of no great consequence to policemen can be very distressing for the people with whom they are dealing.
I've dealt with policemen constantly for many years. It's an attitude I've come across many times, almost exclusively in the lower ranks - more senior ranks tend to have a broader perspective. People who rarely if ever come into contact with the police are bound to be more taken aback - and worried because they realise it's the junior ranks with whom they are most likely to come into contact.
With respect, your contributions rarely do anything to improve people's perception of the police and may, I suspect, damage it. In at least one previous thread, your blinkered views even succeeded in driving another former policeman to distraction - to such an extent that he started criticising you.
You claim that "any alternative view is frowned upon here". That's true in a small minority of cases, but you might want to consider whether there's something in your approach which antagonises the others.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a question for our 'Flying Lawyer':
Would the 'Freedom of Information' act permit BALPA to establish whether the original notification to the police came from the passenger's mobile phone while the aircraft was either airborne or taxying? Then, at least, SOME satisfaction could be obtained by the prosecution (assuming the police actually DID anything about it
).
The whole thing reminds me of (a badly paraphrased) exchange with Sir Winstion Churchill, when a 'lady' accused him of being drunk:
" Madam, I may be drunk, but you are ugly (insert 'stupid'). However, I shall be sober in the morning".
Would the 'Freedom of Information' act permit BALPA to establish whether the original notification to the police came from the passenger's mobile phone while the aircraft was either airborne or taxying? Then, at least, SOME satisfaction could be obtained by the prosecution (assuming the police actually DID anything about it
).The whole thing reminds me of (a badly paraphrased) exchange with Sir Winstion Churchill, when a 'lady' accused him of being drunk:
" Madam, I may be drunk, but you are ugly (insert 'stupid'). However, I shall be sober in the morning".
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lights blue touch paper……
Now come on chaps give the guy a break. I see nothing from bjcc’s posts to suggest anything other then he is trying to objectively examine the known facts surrounding this episode, without resorting to postulation on the unknown facts (shades of Donald Rumsfeld’s unknown unknowns).
Few here have considered the possibility that the pilot(s) involved voluntarily gave breath specimens to the attending PC to clear up the matter as quickly as possible.
As for suing the passenger for defamation over her allegations, some of the comments made here about the passenger and the attending officer are at best insulting and at worst defamatory.
A little more balance ladies & gentlemen please.
Now come on chaps give the guy a break. I see nothing from bjcc’s posts to suggest anything other then he is trying to objectively examine the known facts surrounding this episode, without resorting to postulation on the unknown facts (shades of Donald Rumsfeld’s unknown unknowns).
Few here have considered the possibility that the pilot(s) involved voluntarily gave breath specimens to the attending PC to clear up the matter as quickly as possible.
As for suing the passenger for defamation over her allegations, some of the comments made here about the passenger and the attending officer are at best insulting and at worst defamatory.
A little more balance ladies & gentlemen please.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
FL and BJCC
What could/would have happened if the pilot(s) had refused the officer's request to take a breath test?
Would the passenger's fears/allegation have been sufficient grounds for the officer's suspicion?
What could/would have happened if the pilot(s) had refused the officer's request to take a breath test?
Would the passenger's fears/allegation have been sufficient grounds for the officer's suspicion?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could someone count up the number of posts in this thread which aare simply BJCC bashing without any reference to teh issue? While youa re doing that, could you also count how many people have posted just to agree with such a bashing? The word "pathetic" springs to mind, and makes me think of playground bullies.
There also seems to be a major shift towards blaming the police officer involved. the fault here is with teh lady that reported the crew. i said this on page 3 and I will say it once more. Is it possible that the pilot concerned VOLUNTEERED to take the breath test to prove beyond all doubt that he was not under the influence.
Imagine the scene..
Copper - , so i shall be on my way
Lady passenger - See, its a cover up, he won't breathalyse him, pilot is drunk
or alternatively
Copper - Mr Pilot, that lady says you are drunk, but I can clearly see that you are not. However, if you blow in here we can ashow her the green light and prove to her that you are not under the influence in any way shape or form and then the papers can't print a sensationalist story full of errors
So maybe that is what happened.. maybe the police officer actually did these pilots a favour.....
And to those who are simply BJCC bashing... may i suggest you take your bullying elsewhere....
There also seems to be a major shift towards blaming the police officer involved. the fault here is with teh lady that reported the crew. i said this on page 3 and I will say it once more. Is it possible that the pilot concerned VOLUNTEERED to take the breath test to prove beyond all doubt that he was not under the influence.
Imagine the scene..
Copper - , so i shall be on my way
Lady passenger - See, its a cover up, he won't breathalyse him, pilot is drunk
or alternatively
Copper - Mr Pilot, that lady says you are drunk, but I can clearly see that you are not. However, if you blow in here we can ashow her the green light and prove to her that you are not under the influence in any way shape or form and then the papers can't print a sensationalist story full of errors
So maybe that is what happened.. maybe the police officer actually did these pilots a favour.....
And to those who are simply BJCC bashing... may i suggest you take your bullying elsewhere....
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of interest ..........
Where does this idea that the pilots may have 'volunteered' to take breath-tests come from - apart from some people's imagination?
This is taken from a post earlier on this thread.
Are we to suppose it's possible the spokesman for Greater Manchester Police might have forgotten to mention:
"The police officers didn't require the pilots to take breath-tests. They volunteered to do so."
This is taken from a post earlier on this thread.
A spokesman for Greater Manchester Police said: “On Sunday, January 16, 2005, police officers at Manchester Airport breathalysed a pilot and co-pilot after a female passenger on an inbound flight expressed concern about their conduct. Both tests proved negative and no further action was taken. Neither member of the flight crew was arrested. All incidents reported to GMP are treated seriously and investigated thoroughly.”
"The police officers didn't require the pilots to take breath-tests. They volunteered to do so."
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of seeming to reverse my position, I am now going to try and present a possibility more favourable to the PC involved.
If Mr Chips' scenario is correct, and the PC made his own assessment that the accusation was baseless, it is possible that he made the decision to require a breath test on grounds like these:
The pilots are plainly not drunk, but there is no precedent or guidance available to me. The safe option is to demand a test and let it be sorted out later. If so, then unfortunately there has to be a formal complaint by the airline, and by BALPA. At least then there WILL be a relevant precedent, and judicial position.
If Mr Chips' scenario is correct, and the PC made his own assessment that the accusation was baseless, it is possible that he made the decision to require a breath test on grounds like these:
The pilots are plainly not drunk, but there is no precedent or guidance available to me. The safe option is to demand a test and let it be sorted out later. If so, then unfortunately there has to be a formal complaint by the airline, and by BALPA. At least then there WILL be a relevant precedent, and judicial position.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heliport i have offered an alternative scenario... not suggested that it is the facts of the case. if it were me, i would have gladly taken the test to prove my innocence.. but thats just me
I don't think that many posters on this thread have let knowledge or otherwise of the facts get in the way of their opinions.. especially of the police officer involved
Mr Chips
I don't think that many posters on this thread have let knowledge or otherwise of the facts get in the way of their opinions.. especially of the police officer involved
Mr Chips
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry mr heliport, cannot let that slide....
The instances on these very pages of folk criticising the inability of the meejaa to accurately report a series of events as they transpired are many. The quote you selected appears to be from a GMP spokes person; the journalist who wrote the piece may well have edited it for reasons of brevity or space. It is not possible to draw any inference by the omission or otherwise of the limited number of facts which are currently in the public domain. The facts as they are known at present seem to be:
A passenger, for whatever reason made an allegation against the flight crew. The attending police officer is obliged to investigate. Two pilots were tested, the results of which were negative for the presence of alcohol. The airline is pursuing a complaint against the police. That is it.
I enjoy a bit of baseless speculation as much as the next chap, but I do not like to see discussions descend into the public stoning of individuals who are merely expressing their opinion (to wit the insults questioning everything from bjcc’s mental state to his command of the English language).
The instances on these very pages of folk criticising the inability of the meejaa to accurately report a series of events as they transpired are many. The quote you selected appears to be from a GMP spokes person; the journalist who wrote the piece may well have edited it for reasons of brevity or space. It is not possible to draw any inference by the omission or otherwise of the limited number of facts which are currently in the public domain. The facts as they are known at present seem to be:
A passenger, for whatever reason made an allegation against the flight crew. The attending police officer is obliged to investigate. Two pilots were tested, the results of which were negative for the presence of alcohol. The airline is pursuing a complaint against the police. That is it.
I enjoy a bit of baseless speculation as much as the next chap, but I do not like to see discussions descend into the public stoning of individuals who are merely expressing their opinion (to wit the insults questioning everything from bjcc’s mental state to his command of the English language).
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Various
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr C and Dry Feet, no disrespect to either of you but you do not see this from a pilots perspective. Gov IT and ATC are not breeding grounds for those to fully understand the implications this incident poses to Captains and First Officers.
I also don't think it is your place to start taking the holier than thou approach and to decide what or what should not be debated.
Some subjects should be debated on a purely pilots forum, I'm not sure how our opinions would be treated on "IT Rumours and News" or "ATC and Police Digest"
I also don't think it is your place to start taking the holier than thou approach and to decide what or what should not be debated.
Some subjects should be debated on a purely pilots forum, I'm not sure how our opinions would be treated on "IT Rumours and News" or "ATC and Police Digest"
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will Scarlett
then I suggest you go away and start one. ATC have been welcomed on this forum forever.... you don't need an ATPL or a big watch to comment on the pathetic childish postings on this thread
can we try to stick to the subject?
Some subjects should be debated on a purely pilots forum
can we try to stick to the subject?
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Asia
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen
Having not read Pprune for some considerable time, the reading of this thread reminds me why i stopped reading Pprune in the first place.
I have never read so much tripe in all my life, speculation, and people bantering theories on this subject.
I am a personal friend of the Senior First Officer involved in this incident and was aware of what happen as he called me on the way to his car after the incident.
I would guess less than half of you are fully in possession of ALL the facts, the rest of you just throwing your bit in.
Flying Lawyer, my friend could have done with your advice and insight, I find your posting very accurate and agree with your words very much.
Everyone else, just button it, turn the computer off, go outside and take a breath of fresh air !
Having not read Pprune for some considerable time, the reading of this thread reminds me why i stopped reading Pprune in the first place.
I have never read so much tripe in all my life, speculation, and people bantering theories on this subject.
I am a personal friend of the Senior First Officer involved in this incident and was aware of what happen as he called me on the way to his car after the incident.
I would guess less than half of you are fully in possession of ALL the facts, the rest of you just throwing your bit in.
Flying Lawyer, my friend could have done with your advice and insight, I find your posting very accurate and agree with your words very much.
Everyone else, just button it, turn the computer off, go outside and take a breath of fresh air !
Guest
Posts: n/a
Go on then Will, what are the implications this incident exclusively poses to airline Captains and First Officers. The two in this case were found to not be in breach of any law therefore, I fail to see the implications which are exclusive to the aviation fraternity. Surely even the humble man or woman in the street might suffer the same degree of humiliation at being incorrectly accused of drink driving/flying.
"I also don't think it is your place to start taking the holier than thou approach and to decide what or what should not be debated."
Not holier than thou either old chum, it is just that anonymous snipes and outright bullying from some who purport to be professionals really, really sickens me.
Finally, I take it my PPL and my background of not unrelated public transport operations makes me ineligible to comment I assume?
"I also don't think it is your place to start taking the holier than thou approach and to decide what or what should not be debated."
Not holier than thou either old chum, it is just that anonymous snipes and outright bullying from some who purport to be professionals really, really sickens me.
Finally, I take it my PPL and my background of not unrelated public transport operations makes me ineligible to comment I assume?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airline pilots here might be heartened by public reaction to the story in the Manchester area. All comments posted on Manchester Online are quoted below - no editing, no selection.
What a sad case. The lady in question may yell be an attention seeker of the worst kind. I suggest that this person should undergo a deep psychological examination berfore even thinking of flying again. I know that pilots have recently had a bad press but these are few and far between. Let these highly skilled men and women get on with their jobs without fear of recriminations such as hers. The police acted correctly even though they were wrongly alerted. Perhaps legal action against the complainee for waste of police time should be considered.
Aivars Pitans, Stretford
30/01/2005 at 08:00
Let me first say that I am no lover of British Airways, I fly every coupe of years from the USA to Manchester and BA is the worst airline I have ever flown but, I have to agree with the BA spokesman, If the pilot had a warning light then it's better to be safe than sorry. Perhaps the passenger would have prefered the poilot to Ignore the warning light and crashed the plane.
Malcolm, USA (formally of Salford, Manchester)
29/01/2005 at 19:51
Pilots are trained from day one the importance of keeping a cool head in any situation. The minute that calm breaks down is the minute a safety critical mistake occurs. Maximising Spare Mental Capacity is critical with flying. When your car breaks down you can pull into a lay by. Pilots do not have that luxury and must make well thought through correct decisions. The police should have used discretion with this woman who clearly had no aviation background.
Jonathan, Edinburgh
29/01/2005 at 03:21
Pilots are trained from day one the importance of keeping a cool head in any situation. The minute that calm breaks down is the minute a safety critical mistake occurs. Maximising Spare Mental Capacity is critical with flying. When your car breaks down you can pull into a lay by. Pilots do not have that luxury and must make well thought through correct decisions. The police should have used discretion with this woman who clearly had no aviation background.
Jonathan, Edinburgh
29/01/2005 at 03:18
The pilots should be commendedfor handling the situation correctly and the passenger should be allowed apologize to the pilots or refrain from flying in future.
Mr NEVILLE STUTTARD, Hamilton Ont Canada
28/01/2005 at 22:13
Ban this nervous nellie for life
Jharwood, Brantford Ontario
28/01/2005 at 18:48
These pilots deserve a pat on the back and an apology from this woman. I agree with the previous comment, give me relaxed pilots rather than stressed out ones every time.
Carolyne, Sale
28/01/2005 at 17:49
I am sickened by this stupid woman's behaviour - pilots undergo rigorous training and testing year after year to make sure they DON'T panic, even under very stressful conditions! These pilots seems to have coped professionally and taken extra safety measures. That's what they are paid to do. I think the passenger should be named and shamed.
Adrienne Smith, middleton
28/01/2005 at 15:24
What a stupid woman! If she feels so uncomfortable with flying, and has not faith in the staff, maybe she'd be better catching a bus or train - or would she behave in a similarly stupid manner?. Congratulations to the crew involved - nice one!
Angela, Stretford
28/01/2005 at 13:45
Perhaps the female passenger should have been breathalised as she may have committed an offence of travelling whilst intoxicated.
Peter Rolfe, Burton upon Trent
28/01/2005 at 11:29
Perhaps she'd have felt better if the pilots had run around shouting "Don't panic". Is it me or are more people becoming stupid and lacking in judgement?
IM, Ashton
28/01/2005 at 11:20
I can kind of understand the passengers' reaction. It wasn't appropriate, but then she has no knowledge of aviation either. She was naive and interfering, but the police were stupid to jump up and down because she said so.
Dan, City centre
28/01/2005 at 10:38
Professional Airline pilots are extremely well trained and an incident such as this wouldnB4t cause immediate panic to a commercial pilot. To say that the pilots were too relaxed about the problem is pure stupidity! The pilots have set procedures in their Airline Operation manuals and would have been following them exactly as published to rectify the warning light! Although "Go-Arounds" are unpleasant procedures for passengers, it is an entirely normal and safe procedure and one which a pilot should be able to carry out if he/she felt necessary without the worry of being breathalysed!
Dave Jones, Manchester
28/01/2005 at 09:37
Who wants to fly with 'stressed looking' pilots? Give me relaxed any day.
Chris, Deansgate
28/01/2005 at 09:37
Aivars Pitans, Stretford
30/01/2005 at 08:00
Let me first say that I am no lover of British Airways, I fly every coupe of years from the USA to Manchester and BA is the worst airline I have ever flown but, I have to agree with the BA spokesman, If the pilot had a warning light then it's better to be safe than sorry. Perhaps the passenger would have prefered the poilot to Ignore the warning light and crashed the plane.
Malcolm, USA (formally of Salford, Manchester)
29/01/2005 at 19:51
Pilots are trained from day one the importance of keeping a cool head in any situation. The minute that calm breaks down is the minute a safety critical mistake occurs. Maximising Spare Mental Capacity is critical with flying. When your car breaks down you can pull into a lay by. Pilots do not have that luxury and must make well thought through correct decisions. The police should have used discretion with this woman who clearly had no aviation background.
Jonathan, Edinburgh
29/01/2005 at 03:21
Pilots are trained from day one the importance of keeping a cool head in any situation. The minute that calm breaks down is the minute a safety critical mistake occurs. Maximising Spare Mental Capacity is critical with flying. When your car breaks down you can pull into a lay by. Pilots do not have that luxury and must make well thought through correct decisions. The police should have used discretion with this woman who clearly had no aviation background.
Jonathan, Edinburgh
29/01/2005 at 03:18
The pilots should be commendedfor handling the situation correctly and the passenger should be allowed apologize to the pilots or refrain from flying in future.
Mr NEVILLE STUTTARD, Hamilton Ont Canada
28/01/2005 at 22:13
Ban this nervous nellie for life
Jharwood, Brantford Ontario
28/01/2005 at 18:48
These pilots deserve a pat on the back and an apology from this woman. I agree with the previous comment, give me relaxed pilots rather than stressed out ones every time.
Carolyne, Sale
28/01/2005 at 17:49
I am sickened by this stupid woman's behaviour - pilots undergo rigorous training and testing year after year to make sure they DON'T panic, even under very stressful conditions! These pilots seems to have coped professionally and taken extra safety measures. That's what they are paid to do. I think the passenger should be named and shamed.
Adrienne Smith, middleton
28/01/2005 at 15:24
What a stupid woman! If she feels so uncomfortable with flying, and has not faith in the staff, maybe she'd be better catching a bus or train - or would she behave in a similarly stupid manner?. Congratulations to the crew involved - nice one!
Angela, Stretford
28/01/2005 at 13:45
Perhaps the female passenger should have been breathalised as she may have committed an offence of travelling whilst intoxicated.
Peter Rolfe, Burton upon Trent
28/01/2005 at 11:29
Perhaps she'd have felt better if the pilots had run around shouting "Don't panic". Is it me or are more people becoming stupid and lacking in judgement?
IM, Ashton
28/01/2005 at 11:20
I can kind of understand the passengers' reaction. It wasn't appropriate, but then she has no knowledge of aviation either. She was naive and interfering, but the police were stupid to jump up and down because she said so.
Dan, City centre
28/01/2005 at 10:38
Professional Airline pilots are extremely well trained and an incident such as this wouldnB4t cause immediate panic to a commercial pilot. To say that the pilots were too relaxed about the problem is pure stupidity! The pilots have set procedures in their Airline Operation manuals and would have been following them exactly as published to rectify the warning light! Although "Go-Arounds" are unpleasant procedures for passengers, it is an entirely normal and safe procedure and one which a pilot should be able to carry out if he/she felt necessary without the worry of being breathalysed!
Dave Jones, Manchester
28/01/2005 at 09:37
Who wants to fly with 'stressed looking' pilots? Give me relaxed any day.
Chris, Deansgate
28/01/2005 at 09:37