UK pilot breathalysed after go arounds
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The incident adds further loss of respect for the plod profession.
the Nurse being taken to court, at massive expense, because of an Apple .....
and now the Sunday Times (Jan 30th 2005) tells us a motorist who pulled in to ask a Policeman for directions was given a £45.00 fixed-penalty notice for what police described as playing music in his car at "Excessive" volume
Respect?
..... ps. what type of music you ask? .... the driver was playing some Irish music "River Dance"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere probing
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once upon a time....
If I saw a copper getting a good kicking I'd rush to their aid - but not any more.
If I saw a crime being commited I'd call the police - but not any more.
I could go on with examples, but the gereral premis is that this particular 'upstanding citizen' no longer gives a stuff about HM Plod - infact I'd go so far as to say that I hope they get the living daylights kicked & beaten out of themselves every Saturday night; wherein, I might point out, I've seen the young lads in my home town win that battle more than once..... so "way to go yoof", at least they're fighting back against a police / nanny state and don't take any crap from the old bill, and thereby restoring my my hope for the future.
If I saw a copper getting a good kicking I'd rush to their aid - but not any more.
If I saw a crime being commited I'd call the police - but not any more.
I could go on with examples, but the gereral premis is that this particular 'upstanding citizen' no longer gives a stuff about HM Plod - infact I'd go so far as to say that I hope they get the living daylights kicked & beaten out of themselves every Saturday night; wherein, I might point out, I've seen the young lads in my home town win that battle more than once..... so "way to go yoof", at least they're fighting back against a police / nanny state and don't take any crap from the old bill, and thereby restoring my my hope for the future.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: overseas....
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Devils Advocate.
That Policeman who you wish "got a good kicking", could be my older brother.
The same older brother who has/will rush to someones house to help a member of the public like you, when you call in tears because someone is trying to break into your house.
This same policeman has a wife and young family to support, and believe it or not abides by the same rules/taxes as we do.
Please don't generalise....Good and bad in all jobs.
All Pilots are not all exRAF, battle of Britain types twiddling our moustaches.....some of us are quite normal too.
That Policeman who you wish "got a good kicking", could be my older brother.
The same older brother who has/will rush to someones house to help a member of the public like you, when you call in tears because someone is trying to break into your house.
This same policeman has a wife and young family to support, and believe it or not abides by the same rules/taxes as we do.
Please don't generalise....Good and bad in all jobs.
All Pilots are not all exRAF, battle of Britain types twiddling our moustaches.....some of us are quite normal too.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere probing
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vref+10.....to 44 - W.r.t. 'tears because someone is trying to break into your house'
If somebody breaks into my house they'll be lucky if they come out alive - don't ask - indeed last time somebody tried that on me ( in SA ) I emptied a full clip in their direction !
That said, due to namby-pamby UK laws, I'm not allowed to own a shooter here but I do have something that's just as good ( certainly as lethal ) and pretty much legal too ( bar the 'broadhead' bolts I normally use ).
So the last person I'd call is the old bill.
If somebody breaks into my house they'll be lucky if they come out alive - don't ask - indeed last time somebody tried that on me ( in SA ) I emptied a full clip in their direction !
That said, due to namby-pamby UK laws, I'm not allowed to own a shooter here but I do have something that's just as good ( certainly as lethal ) and pretty much legal too ( bar the 'broadhead' bolts I normally use ).
So the last person I'd call is the old bill.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Vref:
But as a former respecter of the law and those that uphold it, I have reversed my position over the last two or three years.
I also hope you brother gets a good kicking.
Im sorry, like the monarchy they have lost all my respect.
But as a former respecter of the law and those that uphold it, I have reversed my position over the last two or three years.
I also hope you brother gets a good kicking.
Im sorry, like the monarchy they have lost all my respect.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daysleeper/WMHB
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.
About two years ago someone walked across the track at Hitchin station into the path of a High Speed Train (running at 125 mph). Plod arrived, and insisted on breathalysing the train driver (presumably for being responsible and not stopping or steering out of the way). Turned out that said Driver's test was positive. Now for the GOOD bit. They arrest him and take him away, grinning happily, and thinking of promotion. When they get to the Police Station it seems that their breath test machine was not working correctly. Driver was definitely NOT drunk and had absolutely NO alcohol at all.
I should SO love to have been him. I suspect the payout could be rather large!
Scenario No. 2. Terminal station in Surrey. Train arriving into station encounters wet greasy rails with result that it gently touches the buffer stops. Plod who apparantly is on site sees this and immediately arrests and removes Driver form the scene. This without ANY information being passed to anyone and resulting in the train being left un-secured. Such action is in the view of all right thinking railwaymen criminal. Unfortunately the stupid arrogant arseholes who arrested him have presumably got off with it. By the way that Driver was NOT under the influence either.
From a railwayman's point of view the one good thing is that we still have our own Police force, whose Officers are still embodied with common sense. They understand the railways and how we operate.
On the occasions when they do ask us to provide a specimen we understand that they need us to do so, and are not on some power trip. There is still thus a very considerable respect for OUR Police against the civil police who on occasions can be total wankers when dealing with things off the road.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Great White North
Age: 51
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see by some of the post's that a few have lost some respect for the police. I am at a loss as to why. Is it because of you being at the wrong place at the wrong time in the past? Being asked questions a little too private for your comfort level?
I am sure the officer in question had a brain in his or her head. And is well versed in the law of the land. If the officer believes on resonable and probable grounds that a Breath test was required, they are obligated to issue a request for breath. Whether the situation, complaint or otherwise relates to a car, a train or even an airplane.
I personally have delt with numerous people that have called into police and reported a car swerving in the road, or a car that is driving erratically, and believes that the operator is drunk. It's the first thing a dispatcher will tell you.
When the car is stopped, the 75 year old man with pop bottle glasses spends 20 minutes locating the ownership and the proof of insurance. Or, the mom with 3 kids in the car is trying to get the kids home from school and the kids are all yelling and screming tossing a ball around the inside of the car.
I think that the officer acts on the report, using witness accounts of the given situation, and makes a determination as to wheter or not investigate further. I am unaware of the facts in this case, but I would Imagine that the police officer would have had resonable and probable grounds to ask the pilot for a sample of his or her breath based on an investigation made by that officer, of that pilot.
And if some of you see a police officer getting the snot kicked outta him, and you witness this, you can be arrested for obstructing justice. At least here in Canada anyway.
Just my 2 cents
I am sure the officer in question had a brain in his or her head. And is well versed in the law of the land. If the officer believes on resonable and probable grounds that a Breath test was required, they are obligated to issue a request for breath. Whether the situation, complaint or otherwise relates to a car, a train or even an airplane.
I personally have delt with numerous people that have called into police and reported a car swerving in the road, or a car that is driving erratically, and believes that the operator is drunk. It's the first thing a dispatcher will tell you.
When the car is stopped, the 75 year old man with pop bottle glasses spends 20 minutes locating the ownership and the proof of insurance. Or, the mom with 3 kids in the car is trying to get the kids home from school and the kids are all yelling and screming tossing a ball around the inside of the car.
I think that the officer acts on the report, using witness accounts of the given situation, and makes a determination as to wheter or not investigate further. I am unaware of the facts in this case, but I would Imagine that the police officer would have had resonable and probable grounds to ask the pilot for a sample of his or her breath based on an investigation made by that officer, of that pilot.
And if some of you see a police officer getting the snot kicked outta him, and you witness this, you can be arrested for obstructing justice. At least here in Canada anyway.
Just my 2 cents
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: overseas....
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dimbleby et others,
you really are twats.
i believe you've lost the plot........stop reading The Sun, on your dub-cdf-jsy-dub-jsy-cdf-dub, or in your grass strip aeroderome tin hut....take off your green flying suit, lose the epaulettes....and grow up.
like I said you are twats.
over generalising enough for ya?
regards.
vref.
(BTW brothers on his way round now....don't answer your door!)
you really are twats.
i believe you've lost the plot........stop reading The Sun, on your dub-cdf-jsy-dub-jsy-cdf-dub, or in your grass strip aeroderome tin hut....take off your green flying suit, lose the epaulettes....and grow up.
like I said you are twats.
over generalising enough for ya?
regards.
vref.
(BTW brothers on his way round now....don't answer your door!)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: somewhere out there
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ontariotech,
based on the information provided in this thread, under UK procedures, the officer does not have a power to require a breath specimen based on the fact that someone says a person must be drunk because they've carried out 2 missed approaches.
The officer MUST either smell alcohol and believe that the person has committed an offence or have strong suspicions because of the manner of the suspected offender.
As has been stated previously here, the limit set under the act are so low that it is unlikely that the officer will be able to smell alcohol, and it is unlikely that the pilots manner would have been such that he could remotley suspect that an offence has been committed.
Therefore all he / she could do is ask that the pilot provide a sample voluntarily provided that the suspect was clearly informed that they are under no obligation do do so.
Unfortunately some of these over zealous police officers polishing their shiny machine guns get carried away.
Under UK law if an officer has grounds to require a sample and you refuse then you are liable to arrest. My guess is that the officer said that he/ she required a sample of breath and advised the pilot that they would be liable to arrest if they failed to provide the sample, thereby putting pressure on the pilot to provide even though the officer had NO GROUNDS to require the sample.
Like I said previously, people are ignorant of the powers of the Police who will abuse these powers because they know that they can.
I've seen it done and much to my shame in th epast I've done it myself.
As for rushing to the aid of a Police Officer who was getting the crap kicked out of them, I would, purely because I know they would do the same for me.
Since moving to Scotland from England, I have had more than one dealing with the Police up here and I can honestly say that so far I have found them to be the worst for attitude towards people and abuse of authority.
based on the information provided in this thread, under UK procedures, the officer does not have a power to require a breath specimen based on the fact that someone says a person must be drunk because they've carried out 2 missed approaches.
The officer MUST either smell alcohol and believe that the person has committed an offence or have strong suspicions because of the manner of the suspected offender.
As has been stated previously here, the limit set under the act are so low that it is unlikely that the officer will be able to smell alcohol, and it is unlikely that the pilots manner would have been such that he could remotley suspect that an offence has been committed.
Therefore all he / she could do is ask that the pilot provide a sample voluntarily provided that the suspect was clearly informed that they are under no obligation do do so.
Unfortunately some of these over zealous police officers polishing their shiny machine guns get carried away.
Under UK law if an officer has grounds to require a sample and you refuse then you are liable to arrest. My guess is that the officer said that he/ she required a sample of breath and advised the pilot that they would be liable to arrest if they failed to provide the sample, thereby putting pressure on the pilot to provide even though the officer had NO GROUNDS to require the sample.
Like I said previously, people are ignorant of the powers of the Police who will abuse these powers because they know that they can.
I've seen it done and much to my shame in th epast I've done it myself.
As for rushing to the aid of a Police Officer who was getting the crap kicked out of them, I would, purely because I know they would do the same for me.
Since moving to Scotland from England, I have had more than one dealing with the Police up here and I can honestly say that so far I have found them to be the worst for attitude towards people and abuse of authority.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
caniplaywithmadness
No, a policeman does not have the power to demand for the sake of it. However, as you are well aware, you do not know the full circumstances of this incident. You were not on with the PC, when he made the requirement, nor are you party to the full details of what the woman said, or did not say.
Without those bits of information you are not able to say the officers had no grounds for requiring a test.
It's always easy to be critical when the full facts are not known, or rumour is listened too.
Like you, all police officers have been there seen it and done it. I can also presume you, like me have also bent the rules slightly to do people a favour and show someone accusing them that there is no substance to what they think. Thereby saving them from making allagations later when what they say cannot be disproved.
Whatever Police do it will upset someone. Most officers accept that as a fact of life.
No, a policeman does not have the power to demand for the sake of it. However, as you are well aware, you do not know the full circumstances of this incident. You were not on with the PC, when he made the requirement, nor are you party to the full details of what the woman said, or did not say.
Without those bits of information you are not able to say the officers had no grounds for requiring a test.
It's always easy to be critical when the full facts are not known, or rumour is listened too.
Like you, all police officers have been there seen it and done it. I can also presume you, like me have also bent the rules slightly to do people a favour and show someone accusing them that there is no substance to what they think. Thereby saving them from making allagations later when what they say cannot be disproved.
Whatever Police do it will upset someone. Most officers accept that as a fact of life.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike Jenvey
19 years
Heathrow (13 years) 2 South London Stations before that.
In uniform
5 years
Happy?
Now to move on....
You say:
'Assuming this is correct'
On what basis is it assumed to be correct? The story keeps changing. This piece of 'information' is nothing like the original, except it concerns a woman.
Your statements re crahes & handling the aircraft have nothing to do with this incident, no one said there was a crash, nor that they mishandled the aircraft. Neither is required to require a breath test.
See my last comment re being with the officer before you ASSUME that Police had no legal basis to conduct a test.
19 years
Heathrow (13 years) 2 South London Stations before that.
In uniform
5 years
Happy?
Now to move on....
You say:
'Assuming this is correct'
On what basis is it assumed to be correct? The story keeps changing. This piece of 'information' is nothing like the original, except it concerns a woman.
Your statements re crahes & handling the aircraft have nothing to do with this incident, no one said there was a crash, nor that they mishandled the aircraft. Neither is required to require a breath test.
See my last comment re being with the officer before you ASSUME that Police had no legal basis to conduct a test.
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nah, it's just JBs reaction to all those threads that get a posting like "I give this five minutes and it's off to JetBlast" 
err:
11 pages and the discussion is still going. Has it got anywhere yet?
There's a smiley I have to copy
err:11 pages and the discussion is still going. Has it got anywhere yet?
There's a smiley I have to copy
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike Jenvey
Where, in any of this thread have you read anything that is evidence? No where.
Has the Officer concerned spoken on here? No.
Has anyone any knowladge of what he found on the flight deck? NO.
Was anyone here present when the woman was spoken to by police? NO.
So what have you got here? Nothing. No evidence of what happened. Just second hand information and a lot of assumptions.
You can quote the act and sections all you like, but you are missing the one bit of information you need to decide if what happened was right or wrong...ie WHAT ACTUALY HAPPENED!
To compound it, you talk of 'supervisors' sending police to incidents. What are you talking about? 'Supervisors' do not send police to anything. Communications staff do. Supervisors make very few decisions at operational level, they don't have to. So why should they be punished for something you have assumed to be wrong.
I am fully aware of what this act says. As I said in THIS case crashes and or mishandling are irelevent. There was no crash, nor is the incident relevent as such. Neither of these factors are needed to require a breath test.
A crash DOES NOT mandate a breath test. A Constable MAY is what the act says, not MUST. Nothing in this, nor the RTA, MANDATE a breath test of anyone.
There is one person that knows the what the grounds for the test were. And he probably wont be telling you what they are. There are several reasons for it. Firstly, it's none of your, mine or anyone elses business.and secondly, it is not policy of most, if not all police forces to give details of incidents where people are exonerated.
Where, in any of this thread have you read anything that is evidence? No where.
Has the Officer concerned spoken on here? No.
Has anyone any knowladge of what he found on the flight deck? NO.
Was anyone here present when the woman was spoken to by police? NO.
So what have you got here? Nothing. No evidence of what happened. Just second hand information and a lot of assumptions.
You can quote the act and sections all you like, but you are missing the one bit of information you need to decide if what happened was right or wrong...ie WHAT ACTUALY HAPPENED!
To compound it, you talk of 'supervisors' sending police to incidents. What are you talking about? 'Supervisors' do not send police to anything. Communications staff do. Supervisors make very few decisions at operational level, they don't have to. So why should they be punished for something you have assumed to be wrong.
I am fully aware of what this act says. As I said in THIS case crashes and or mishandling are irelevent. There was no crash, nor is the incident relevent as such. Neither of these factors are needed to require a breath test.
A crash DOES NOT mandate a breath test. A Constable MAY is what the act says, not MUST. Nothing in this, nor the RTA, MANDATE a breath test of anyone.
There is one person that knows the what the grounds for the test were. And he probably wont be telling you what they are. There are several reasons for it. Firstly, it's none of your, mine or anyone elses business.and secondly, it is not policy of most, if not all police forces to give details of incidents where people are exonerated.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
Oh come now !
I cannot believe that a PC could have formed 'reasonable' grounds for considering that the flight deck crew were unfit and should be tested.
'Reasonable' would mean just that but would need to be justified by the smell of acohol, or something in their demeanour that indicate that they were unfit.
Taking the fact that they had just flown in from somewhere they would not have been over the limit at that stage from the night before.
I think the point practically everyone has made on here is along those lines.
The forming of a judgement requires sound reasoning skills, it would appear that they were lacking in this case.
I also think it is outrageous that the Police cannot be held to account for their actions in this case, and the 'policy' of not commenting is totally at odds with the natural law of justice.
Effectively they can act as they wish, and then 'hide' behind policy
I cannot believe that a PC could have formed 'reasonable' grounds for considering that the flight deck crew were unfit and should be tested.
'Reasonable' would mean just that but would need to be justified by the smell of acohol, or something in their demeanour that indicate that they were unfit.
Taking the fact that they had just flown in from somewhere they would not have been over the limit at that stage from the night before.
I think the point practically everyone has made on here is along those lines.
The forming of a judgement requires sound reasoning skills, it would appear that they were lacking in this case.
I also think it is outrageous that the Police cannot be held to account for their actions in this case, and the 'policy' of not commenting is totally at odds with the natural law of justice.
Effectively they can act as they wish, and then 'hide' behind policy
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
As you say, none of us was there. However, what we do know is that the both pilots were in fact under the aviation limit which is extremely low - it's effectively zero for all practical purposes.
Given that they were, it is inconceivable that there was alcohol on their breath and, it does seem at least very odd (perhaps unlikely?) that there could have been anything about them which could have caused the PCs who attended to reasonably suspect they had been drinking. And both pilots, at that.
The point would have no force if they were under the road limit (4 times higher) because it's possible to smell of alcohol and yet still be under the road limit.
True, we don't have all the facts from either side. However, you clearly assume, in the absence of facts to the contrary, that the PCs acted reasonably. Why shouldn't others assume in the absence of facts to the contrary, but in the circumstances mentioned above, that they didn't?
I take your point that 'supervisory rank' officers didn't necessarily play any part in what happened. However, in light of what did happen here, even on the bare facts we do know, perhaps there's a good argument that the nature of the 'complaint/report' should be considered by someone of supervisory rank before constables are dispatched to aircraft. It would take only minutes.
eg If a report was from some anonymous caller who claimed the pilots must have been drunk because they sounded 'relaxed', a supervisor could treat the report with such importance as he thought it justified and decide what action, if any, was required.
Whether or not in theory the police should follow up every call they receive, in practice they don't.
As you say, none of us was there. However, what we do know is that the both pilots were in fact under the aviation limit which is extremely low - it's effectively zero for all practical purposes.
Given that they were, it is inconceivable that there was alcohol on their breath and, it does seem at least very odd (perhaps unlikely?) that there could have been anything about them which could have caused the PCs who attended to reasonably suspect they had been drinking. And both pilots, at that.
The point would have no force if they were under the road limit (4 times higher) because it's possible to smell of alcohol and yet still be under the road limit.
True, we don't have all the facts from either side. However, you clearly assume, in the absence of facts to the contrary, that the PCs acted reasonably. Why shouldn't others assume in the absence of facts to the contrary, but in the circumstances mentioned above, that they didn't?
I take your point that 'supervisory rank' officers didn't necessarily play any part in what happened. However, in light of what did happen here, even on the bare facts we do know, perhaps there's a good argument that the nature of the 'complaint/report' should be considered by someone of supervisory rank before constables are dispatched to aircraft. It would take only minutes.
eg If a report was from some anonymous caller who claimed the pilots must have been drunk because they sounded 'relaxed', a supervisor could treat the report with such importance as he thought it justified and decide what action, if any, was required.
Whether or not in theory the police should follow up every call they receive, in practice they don't.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL
You know as well as I do that a Constable is responsible for his own actions and decisions. 'Supervisor' functions are limited in that decision making process. The Police are not like the forces in that respect. I cannot see any role for a supervisor in this, or any other minor incident. Because that is what it is.
There is a difference between saying 'I don't think' there was a reason for requiring a test, and the conclusive statements made by some that the officer did not have a reason.
In the absence of facts I cannot say either way, nor can anyone else. You may be right that there was no smell of alcohol. Having said that, you could be wrong.
Having met a fair few aircraft on arrival, the smell of alcohol when the doors are opened can be strong, thoughout the aircraft. So in fact there may have been that smell. In that case, the rather unscientific 'nose in the mouth test' would have been inappropriate, but a breath test would be.
Referring back to something you were involved in, some 12 hours after drinking it is possible to be 6 times over the limit. So it is possible that someone could have been over the limit.
Obviously they were not, but that is the object of a breath test, to show one way or the other.
Astradome.
It is not a matter of being unfit, it is being above a prescribed limit.
That limit, as FL points out is very low. Therefore the reasonable grounds and the factors looked for would be correspondingly lower. You could be right, and they could have been lacking, alternatively they could have had very good grounds, just because they don't make those grounds public does not mean they don't exist.
The Force Policy is probably based around confidentiality as far as the person(s) complained of. Also, harsh as it sounds it really is no one else’s business
You know as well as I do that a Constable is responsible for his own actions and decisions. 'Supervisor' functions are limited in that decision making process. The Police are not like the forces in that respect. I cannot see any role for a supervisor in this, or any other minor incident. Because that is what it is.
There is a difference between saying 'I don't think' there was a reason for requiring a test, and the conclusive statements made by some that the officer did not have a reason.
In the absence of facts I cannot say either way, nor can anyone else. You may be right that there was no smell of alcohol. Having said that, you could be wrong.
Having met a fair few aircraft on arrival, the smell of alcohol when the doors are opened can be strong, thoughout the aircraft. So in fact there may have been that smell. In that case, the rather unscientific 'nose in the mouth test' would have been inappropriate, but a breath test would be.
Referring back to something you were involved in, some 12 hours after drinking it is possible to be 6 times over the limit. So it is possible that someone could have been over the limit.
Obviously they were not, but that is the object of a breath test, to show one way or the other.
Astradome.
It is not a matter of being unfit, it is being above a prescribed limit.
That limit, as FL points out is very low. Therefore the reasonable grounds and the factors looked for would be correspondingly lower. You could be right, and they could have been lacking, alternatively they could have had very good grounds, just because they don't make those grounds public does not mean they don't exist.
The Force Policy is probably based around confidentiality as far as the person(s) complained of. Also, harsh as it sounds it really is no one else’s business