UK pilot breathalysed after go arounds
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, thank you to those who have posted more reasoned comments.
Backtrack
The go rounds really are not that relevent, and I wouldn't worry about it. The woman made her comments, police got involved and the result is as it is. Her comments were made, for whatever reason, but could equaly have been made with the same result over anything.
While that perhaps puts the crew at risk of being tested, it is the same risk any driver faces.
FL.
Investigate. Means to gather all of the facts, that means to hear both sides of a story. Unpopular on here it may be, but that's how it is done.
You use 3 examples of what the woman could have been asked, and I understand they are hypothetical, and perhaps he did. But that does not remove the responsibility to find out the crew's point of view.
The smell of alcohol is, as you know an indication. It's not the be all and end all.
Mr Chips may have hit the nail on the head with his suggestion. In those circumstances would you still say that was wrong?
Yes, I do try to see the Police side, partly because of what I did for a living and partly because I believe in people having a fair hearing. I can answer back (when there is a point in doing so) when I am attacked on here. The Police officers involved in most of the incidents complained of cannot.
Most of the attacks on Police Officers on here are because the full story is not known, and the police side of it is not even considered let alone looked at.
If trying to balance the debate makes me, as one poster says as 'To$$er', then so be it.
I am suprised, you normaly try to look at both sides.
airborne_artist
Had they refused, then if the officer suspected they had been drinking then could have been arrested. If he did not then there is an offence which they could be summonsed for.
While that sounds daft, it is the way it is because the test can be required in the case of an accident without any suspicion of drink being involved.
Backtrack
The go rounds really are not that relevent, and I wouldn't worry about it. The woman made her comments, police got involved and the result is as it is. Her comments were made, for whatever reason, but could equaly have been made with the same result over anything.
While that perhaps puts the crew at risk of being tested, it is the same risk any driver faces.
FL.
Investigate. Means to gather all of the facts, that means to hear both sides of a story. Unpopular on here it may be, but that's how it is done.
You use 3 examples of what the woman could have been asked, and I understand they are hypothetical, and perhaps he did. But that does not remove the responsibility to find out the crew's point of view.
The smell of alcohol is, as you know an indication. It's not the be all and end all.
Mr Chips may have hit the nail on the head with his suggestion. In those circumstances would you still say that was wrong?
Yes, I do try to see the Police side, partly because of what I did for a living and partly because I believe in people having a fair hearing. I can answer back (when there is a point in doing so) when I am attacked on here. The Police officers involved in most of the incidents complained of cannot.
Most of the attacks on Police Officers on here are because the full story is not known, and the police side of it is not even considered let alone looked at.
If trying to balance the debate makes me, as one poster says as 'To$$er', then so be it.
I am suprised, you normaly try to look at both sides.
airborne_artist
Had they refused, then if the officer suspected they had been drinking then could have been arrested. If he did not then there is an offence which they could be summonsed for.
While that sounds daft, it is the way it is because the test can be required in the case of an accident without any suspicion of drink being involved.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Asia
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FACT :
Both parties involved consented without question to the request for a breath test from the police
Backtrack - Why should you imagine that every go-around would require a breath test ???? Dont speak rubbish
Both parties involved consented without question to the request for a breath test from the police
Backtrack - Why should you imagine that every go-around would require a breath test ???? Dont speak rubbish
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it had been a train driver who had expertly delt with an emergancy and found himself being breath tested for it on the word of a passenger I doubt that any trains would be running in the UK today. Its a crazy situation.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
We've been overtaken by FL245's post, but I'm happy to give my answer to Mr Chips' post nonetheless.
"Mr Chips may have hit the nail on the head with his suggestion. In those circumstances would you still say that was wrong?"
Mr C put forward two suggestions (or scenarios) in the alternative, not one.
(1) Copper - , so i shall be on my way
Lady passenger - See, its a cover up, he won't breathalyse him, pilot is drunk.
I assume "so I shall be on my way" means the policeman in the example has satisfied himself after investigation that the breath-test procedure isn't necessary, otherwise he would not be 'on his way' - and there'd be no point in the question.
Yes, having made his decision, the PC would be wrong if he then required a breath-test in response to the passenger's comment; he would have no power under the Act (his only power) to do so.
As Tartan Giant has correctly said, Section 96 of the R&TS Act gives Police power to require a person to co-operate with a preliminary test in certain circumstances. The Act lays down the specific circumstances. The two which are relevant for the purpose of this discussion are 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.
In each case, it is the constable who must 'reasonably suspect', not someone else, before he can require a breath-test.
The specified circumstances giving him his power do not include 'to pacify a third party', 'to avoid any suggestion of a cover-up', or 'in any other circumstances where the constable thinks it's a good idea.'
(or alternatively)
(2) 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 show 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.
I read this as an 'invitation' scenario, not a formal request, and there are several reasons why I think it would be wrong:
It is up to the PC to decide whether he has power under the Act to require a breath-test.
If he hasn't formed the necessary 'reasonable suspicion', then he has no power and that is the end of the matter.
Having no power, he should not put the pilot in the invidious position of having to decide whether or not to undergo a test voluntarily. If the pilot declines the invitation, that may be misinterpreted as having something to hide, when it's far more likely that the pilot has had enough of the stupid woman who's already caused more than enough trouble and he doesn't see why he should do more than he's legally required to do.
A meeting between a policeman and a member of the public in 'official' circumstance is not a meeting on equal terms. The pilot might refuse someone else without hesitation, but be worried about turning down a policeman's 'invitation.' He might, for example, be worried that if he refuses, the policeman might change his 'friendly' attitude. eg "Having been close to you for longer, Sir, I can now smell alcohol on your breath after all. I shall now require you to .................."
See the comments in my previous about 'manner'. Not an unthinkable, totally incredible scenario, is it.
If someone offers, entirely unprompted, that's different. Subject to any Force orders dealing with that situation, it's up to the PC what he does.
"Unpopular on here it may be, but that's how it is done."
I take your word for it, but it doesn't make it right. Fully investigating could in theory go considerably further but, IMHO, it should go no further if it's clear the allegation is silly.
I don't accept there's a responsibility to find out the crew's "point of view", nor do I accept that's the reason the police would speak to them.
I don't think anyone criticises you for 'trying to balance the debate.'
Yes, I do normally try to look at both sides, and this is no exception. You offered some scenarios based on your experience in the police, and I responded with some the other way, based on my experience of some policemen.
I'm not anti-police and, as you know, in my criminal work I prosecute and defend. The City wizz-kids I've just finished prosecuting started their sentences last Friday. The leader of the conspiracy got five years. The result was almost entirely due to a very thorough (and balanced) investigation by an outstandingly able Detective Sergeant in the City Fraud Squad.
If you're interested, there's a report here..
-------------------------
Must get back to my work. I'll do my best to answer questions raised in other posts at another time.
To those who asked if pilots are entitled to refuse to provide a specimen of breath .............
Do not refuse to provide a specimen of breath, even if you think the PC has no grounds to make the request.
You will almost certainly be arrested, and almost certainly be convicted of refusing without reasonable excuse. At the police station, you will again be asked to provide a specimen and, if you refuse, are likely to be convicted of a second 'refusal' offence.
In practical terms, there is really only one circumstance where refusing throughout might be the better course from the perspective of the person requested - and I'd prefer not to spell it out.
FL
(Edit)
CB the FO
FL245 was simply pointing out that the breath-tests were required by the police and the pilots fully co-operated with the requirement.
(I sent him a PM suggesting it would be helpful if he could tell us if the police required or the pilots volunteered - so that the 'voluntary' scenario suggested by some for consideration could either be confirmed or laid to rest. He very kindly agreed to do so.)
We've been overtaken by FL245's post, but I'm happy to give my answer to Mr Chips' post nonetheless.
"Mr Chips may have hit the nail on the head with his suggestion. In those circumstances would you still say that was wrong?"
Mr C put forward two suggestions (or scenarios) in the alternative, not one.
(1) Copper - , so i shall be on my way
Lady passenger - See, its a cover up, he won't breathalyse him, pilot is drunk.
I assume "so I shall be on my way" means the policeman in the example has satisfied himself after investigation that the breath-test procedure isn't necessary, otherwise he would not be 'on his way' - and there'd be no point in the question.
Yes, having made his decision, the PC would be wrong if he then required a breath-test in response to the passenger's comment; he would have no power under the Act (his only power) to do so.
As Tartan Giant has correctly said, Section 96 of the R&TS Act gives Police power to require a person to co-operate with a preliminary test in certain circumstances. The Act lays down the specific circumstances. The two which are relevant for the purpose of this discussion are 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.
In each case, it is the constable who must 'reasonably suspect', not someone else, before he can require a breath-test.
The specified circumstances giving him his power do not include 'to pacify a third party', 'to avoid any suggestion of a cover-up', or 'in any other circumstances where the constable thinks it's a good idea.'
(or alternatively)
(2) 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 show 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.
I read this as an 'invitation' scenario, not a formal request, and there are several reasons why I think it would be wrong:
It is up to the PC to decide whether he has power under the Act to require a breath-test.
If he hasn't formed the necessary 'reasonable suspicion', then he has no power and that is the end of the matter.
Having no power, he should not put the pilot in the invidious position of having to decide whether or not to undergo a test voluntarily. If the pilot declines the invitation, that may be misinterpreted as having something to hide, when it's far more likely that the pilot has had enough of the stupid woman who's already caused more than enough trouble and he doesn't see why he should do more than he's legally required to do.
A meeting between a policeman and a member of the public in 'official' circumstance is not a meeting on equal terms. The pilot might refuse someone else without hesitation, but be worried about turning down a policeman's 'invitation.' He might, for example, be worried that if he refuses, the policeman might change his 'friendly' attitude. eg "Having been close to you for longer, Sir, I can now smell alcohol on your breath after all. I shall now require you to .................."
See the comments in my previous about 'manner'. Not an unthinkable, totally incredible scenario, is it.
If someone offers, entirely unprompted, that's different. Subject to any Force orders dealing with that situation, it's up to the PC what he does.
"Unpopular on here it may be, but that's how it is done."
I take your word for it, but it doesn't make it right. Fully investigating could in theory go considerably further but, IMHO, it should go no further if it's clear the allegation is silly.
I don't accept there's a responsibility to find out the crew's "point of view", nor do I accept that's the reason the police would speak to them.
I don't think anyone criticises you for 'trying to balance the debate.'
Yes, I do normally try to look at both sides, and this is no exception. You offered some scenarios based on your experience in the police, and I responded with some the other way, based on my experience of some policemen.
I'm not anti-police and, as you know, in my criminal work I prosecute and defend. The City wizz-kids I've just finished prosecuting started their sentences last Friday. The leader of the conspiracy got five years. The result was almost entirely due to a very thorough (and balanced) investigation by an outstandingly able Detective Sergeant in the City Fraud Squad.
If you're interested, there's a report here..
-------------------------
Must get back to my work. I'll do my best to answer questions raised in other posts at another time.
To those who asked if pilots are entitled to refuse to provide a specimen of breath .............
Do not refuse to provide a specimen of breath, even if you think the PC has no grounds to make the request.
You will almost certainly be arrested, and almost certainly be convicted of refusing without reasonable excuse. At the police station, you will again be asked to provide a specimen and, if you refuse, are likely to be convicted of a second 'refusal' offence.
In practical terms, there is really only one circumstance where refusing throughout might be the better course from the perspective of the person requested - and I'd prefer not to spell it out.
FL
(Edit)
CB the FO
FL245 was simply pointing out that the breath-tests were required by the police and the pilots fully co-operated with the requirement.
(I sent him a PM suggesting it would be helpful if he could tell us if the police required or the pilots volunteered - so that the 'voluntary' scenario suggested by some for consideration could either be confirmed or laid to rest. He very kindly agreed to do so.)
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 31st Jan 2005 at 21:15.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said, I am more concerned with the precedent for future cases- without wishing any unnecessary trouble or paperwork for anyone involved, I believe this matter will have to be fully investigated. My somewhat terse post to FL245 should have continued:
"... and even though your wish to spare your friend more hassle is laudable, further investigation and the attendant speculation will probably continue."
Personally, I think random breath-testing is on the way (both for drivers and for airline staff); it is probably a good idea... but I would say that, I don't drink.
"... and even though your wish to spare your friend more hassle is laudable, further investigation and the attendant speculation will probably continue."
Personally, I think random breath-testing is on the way (both for drivers and for airline staff); it is probably a good idea... but I would say that, I don't drink.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Asia
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CarltonBrowne the FO -
Naturally the speculation will probably continue, thats what goes on on these fourms, speculation by people now fully aware of the facts, specualtion by people who just like a good gossip and speculation by people who have little else to do ! thats why its called Pprune and the disclaimer is placed at the bottom of the screen.
Flying Lawyer - Thank you
Naturally the speculation will probably continue, thats what goes on on these fourms, speculation by people now fully aware of the facts, specualtion by people who just like a good gossip and speculation by people who have little else to do ! thats why its called Pprune and the disclaimer is placed at the bottom of the screen.
Flying Lawyer - Thank you
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BJCC states
The go rounds really are not that relevent, and I wouldn't worry about it. The woman made her comments, police got involved and the result is as it is. Her comments were made, for whatever reason, but could equaly have been made with the same result over anything.
While that perhaps puts the crew at risk of being tested, it is the same risk any driver faces.
I am still unsure as to why the go-arounds should make the pilots liable to a breath test. Why should they be 'put at risk of being tested' when what they are doing is perfetly correct procedure, completely safe flying and the best course of action. This seems to me a little like saying well if a car driver takes avoiding action to prevent an accident then that puts them at risk of a breath test. Surely in such cases pilots/drivers should be congratulated for taking the wisest course of action, something that might not have happened if they were under the influence!
It has previously been flagged up on this forum, that the scenario being discussed might give pilots second thoughts about performing a go around when necessary. I personally am sure that would not be the case, since whatever the inconvenience of a breath test, it would surely be outweighed by the professionalism of the pilot in performing his duties correctly. If however the pilot in any way suspected he might be over the ridiculously low limit set, I wonder how his actions and therefore the safety of the flight might be impacted.
The go rounds really are not that relevent, and I wouldn't worry about it. The woman made her comments, police got involved and the result is as it is. Her comments were made, for whatever reason, but could equaly have been made with the same result over anything.
While that perhaps puts the crew at risk of being tested, it is the same risk any driver faces.
I am still unsure as to why the go-arounds should make the pilots liable to a breath test. Why should they be 'put at risk of being tested' when what they are doing is perfetly correct procedure, completely safe flying and the best course of action. This seems to me a little like saying well if a car driver takes avoiding action to prevent an accident then that puts them at risk of a breath test. Surely in such cases pilots/drivers should be congratulated for taking the wisest course of action, something that might not have happened if they were under the influence!
It has previously been flagged up on this forum, that the scenario being discussed might give pilots second thoughts about performing a go around when necessary. I personally am sure that would not be the case, since whatever the inconvenience of a breath test, it would surely be outweighed by the professionalism of the pilot in performing his duties correctly. If however the pilot in any way suspected he might be over the ridiculously low limit set, I wonder how his actions and therefore the safety of the flight might be impacted.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: S.E England
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was relating this case (and some of the debate on here) to a friend in the pub last night. We ended up discussing the rights of motorists re breath testing. He informs me that about two years ago some idiot drove straight into his car. Police arrived and insisted in my freind providing a breathtest. He was slightly annoyed at this because he had not been driving either of the two vehicles. He was at work with his car parked, quite legally, when the accident occured! He pointed this out to the officer, that there were witnesses he had been working all morning, the engine of the car was cold etc etc. Was told that the law required he was breathalised as his car was involved in an acccident, was advised to stop being 'smart' or would be arrested for failing to provide etc etc.
What has the world come to!! Anyway we finished our pints and jumped in a taxi!
What has the world come to!! Anyway we finished our pints and jumped in a taxi!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would appear that now any person who feels so inclined can accuse any person in charge of public/commercial transportation of being drunk, with impunity.
Here are some examples.
Constable I think the driver of that #10 bus is drunk, because he drove right past this request stop, totally ignoring me.
Constable I pulled the emergency stop on the train, because I think the driver was driving erratically, and I think he is drunk.
Constable , I think that truck driver is drunk, because he cut me off at the roundabout.
Constable , I think that pilot is drunk because he has his hat on tilted.
And so on.
Here are some examples.
Constable I think the driver of that #10 bus is drunk, because he drove right past this request stop, totally ignoring me.
Constable I pulled the emergency stop on the train, because I think the driver was driving erratically, and I think he is drunk.
Constable , I think that truck driver is drunk, because he cut me off at the roundabout.
Constable , I think that pilot is drunk because he has his hat on tilted.
And so on.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: somewhere out there
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking as an ex police officer (and having not trawled through all the posts on this thread), the police constable did not have a power to breathalyse the pilot in this instance. The fact that someone reported the pilot is not grounds for reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed.
In this case having spoken to the pilot the officer would either need to smell alcohol, or the pilots responses to questions were such, i.e slurred speech, that the officer believed an offence had been committed.
Personally I would have refused the breath test after asking the officer on what grounds he proposed to breathalyse me, if he said he could smell alcohol, I would submit to the test, blow 0 and then have him for abuse of power, or alternatively let him arrest me, provide a sample at the station have him for abuse of power and unlawful arrest.
All too often people don't know where they stand with the Police who are all too keen to abuse the authority that they have.
That's one of the reasons I'm glad I left.
In this case having spoken to the pilot the officer would either need to smell alcohol, or the pilots responses to questions were such, i.e slurred speech, that the officer believed an offence had been committed.
Personally I would have refused the breath test after asking the officer on what grounds he proposed to breathalyse me, if he said he could smell alcohol, I would submit to the test, blow 0 and then have him for abuse of power, or alternatively let him arrest me, provide a sample at the station have him for abuse of power and unlawful arrest.
All too often people don't know where they stand with the Police who are all too keen to abuse the authority that they have.
That's one of the reasons I'm glad I left.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer
I have absolutly no doubt that you are not anti police, nor do I have a problem with reasonably questioning something they have done. In fact, police invite critical responses to the way they deal with some things by not explaining them.
The only person who can give an answer as to the reasons, is the officer that required the test. And he will have valid reasons for doing so (yes, I know what you are thinking and you may be right!)
View From The Ground
The only reason the G/A are involed in this is because it APPEARS to have prompted her comments. The fact that you do something as a pilot is not alone a reason to breath test. Had there been no G/A, she ould have equaly made what ever comment because, she thought the landing was too harsh.
I have absolutly no doubt that you are not anti police, nor do I have a problem with reasonably questioning something they have done. In fact, police invite critical responses to the way they deal with some things by not explaining them.
The only person who can give an answer as to the reasons, is the officer that required the test. And he will have valid reasons for doing so (yes, I know what you are thinking and you may be right!)
View From The Ground
The only reason the G/A are involed in this is because it APPEARS to have prompted her comments. The fact that you do something as a pilot is not alone a reason to breath test. Had there been no G/A, she ould have equaly made what ever comment because, she thought the landing was too harsh.
Does anyone know if the results of the police investigation of the official complaint from BA will be released to the public? And if so where and when could they be found?
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Asia
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CarltonBrowne the FO - Thanks for your PM, its no surprise to me reading your posts that your PM to me was of similiar standard. Total Mince.
Backtrack - Why dony i ask my 'mate' what exactly??
As I said in my first post on the topic, it has been some considerable time since I read Pprune, and the reason that I stopped reading it in the first place was the total amount of S***e that is bantered around on these fourms, by people who know little of nothing on the topic they discuss.
I placed the posting on the fourm to try and give an indication of some FACTS, what actually happened. But the topic has been twisted.
I sugguest anew topic is started to discuss the pros and cons of breath testing.
Time to go to work and turn this computer off, I sugguest you all do the same. Althought the issues regarding this event may affect some of you, the details of this event are not really any of your concern apart from 'wanting to know' or just being nosey!
Best to discuss the topic not this incident.
caniplaywithmadness, a lot of truth in wat you say.
Goodbye, I am posting no more on this topic
FL245
Backtrack - Why dony i ask my 'mate' what exactly??
As I said in my first post on the topic, it has been some considerable time since I read Pprune, and the reason that I stopped reading it in the first place was the total amount of S***e that is bantered around on these fourms, by people who know little of nothing on the topic they discuss.
I placed the posting on the fourm to try and give an indication of some FACTS, what actually happened. But the topic has been twisted.
I sugguest anew topic is started to discuss the pros and cons of breath testing.
Time to go to work and turn this computer off, I sugguest you all do the same. Althought the issues regarding this event may affect some of you, the details of this event are not really any of your concern apart from 'wanting to know' or just being nosey!
Best to discuss the topic not this incident.
caniplaywithmadness, a lot of truth in wat you say.
Goodbye, I am posting no more on this topic
FL245
Let's hope we don't go the way of the railways where it is standard procedure now to breathalyse/drug test a train driver after any incident at any time of the day.
Unfortunately the police then announce they did this (though not the negative result) to the waiting media with the result that any media story of a train incident contains "the driver was breathalysed after the incident" type copy. And people then relate this to their own cars where it only gets done where there is a genuine suspicion, and have the idea that the driver was under suspicion.
Aren't the various public bodies meant to be responsible for our security just GREAT
Unfortunately the police then announce they did this (though not the negative result) to the waiting media with the result that any media story of a train incident contains "the driver was breathalysed after the incident" type copy. And people then relate this to their own cars where it only gets done where there is a genuine suspicion, and have the idea that the driver was under suspicion.
Aren't the various public bodies meant to be responsible for our security just GREAT
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mars
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a load of *rap, it's only a matter of time before there is an industry wide strike, if not a national strike.
Where on earth are these people from ??
This government in it's relentless quest for social equalisation are dumbing down society.
Who the hell do these people think they are?
I hope the airline / captain involved will take the woman to court for what ever the flying lawyer says will stick.
I for one would contribute to a legal fund to do this.
Where on earth are these people from ??
This government in it's relentless quest for social equalisation are dumbing down society.
Who the hell do these people think they are?
I hope the airline / captain involved will take the woman to court for what ever the flying lawyer says will stick.
I for one would contribute to a legal fund to do this.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Northern skyport
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would appear that one reason that pilots are so enraged at this incident is that there is a further loss of respect for the pilot profession.
In which case why do nearly all the replies refer to the policeman concerned as plod rather than police constable.
In which case why do nearly all the replies refer to the policeman concerned as plod rather than police constable.