PIA pilot fails breath test - Update - Not Guilty!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, Touch'n'oops, you see nothing wrong with testing everyone, eh? The problem, is that people make mistakes, and gov't folks seem to make more than their fair share. Do you want some 19 year-old interpreting your breathalizer? How about a brand new 20 year-old Technician interpreting your blood results -- maybe he'll use sterile gloves when he handles your sample, maybe not. Or, what if one of those folks who holds your fate in their hands, has a dislike for well-to-do people like you, or maybe he simply dislikes pilots. Point is, there are so, so many avenues for abuse, mistakes, and incompetence, along the way, you're at great risk for false results. I could tell a few stories of complete and undeniable abuse of power by supposedly "unbiased" parties, here in the U.S.. Like a Flight Attendant whose urine sample was deliberately made "positive." The lawsuit by the injured party found that his own company, the lab, and even a physician, conspired to produce a false result. Why? Because the FA was attempting to organize a union. I could tell of others.
How about video in the cockpit?
After the accident, the newspaper will be told that there was an inexplicable and complete loss of power on the right engine. Unable to explain it, even after exhaustive engine-remnant examination, the authorities have concluded that they saw you, the First Officer, on video, flipping the Fuel Cut-off Switch, to off. Except, the truth of the matter, is that you were simply picking up the pen that was lying underneath the switches, or maybe the trim switches were very close by. But, who cares? The authorities have closed the book on this one and, blamed you for the deaths of everyone aboard -- your family can live with it.
I noticed that under your Interests, you wrote, "Not getting caught." Considering you advocate complete openess, I find that to be a very strange and ironic philosophy.
Believe me, we want no more incursions into our privacy.
Saline, let me guess...you voted for GW Bush 
Mo
But maybe (I hope) you\'re just kidding
How about video in the cockpit?
After the accident, the newspaper will be told that there was an inexplicable and complete loss of power on the right engine. Unable to explain it, even after exhaustive engine-remnant examination, the authorities have concluded that they saw you, the First Officer, on video, flipping the Fuel Cut-off Switch, to off. Except, the truth of the matter, is that you were simply picking up the pen that was lying underneath the switches, or maybe the trim switches were very close by. But, who cares? The authorities have closed the book on this one and, blamed you for the deaths of everyone aboard -- your family can live with it.
I noticed that under your Interests, you wrote, "Not getting caught." Considering you advocate complete openess, I find that to be a very strange and ironic philosophy.
Believe me, we want no more incursions into our privacy.
Agree with Touch\'n\'oops. In fact I would expand it. There should be no part of our lives not open to examination and inspection if it means reducing infractions. I would say cameras in the cockpit and recorders in the cockpit and let the authorities review them periodically for possible infractions. If we are doing it right, nothing to fear. If it works out well in air transport, definitely move it into our private lives. Imagine, no crime in our homes, offices, autos, etc. It would be utopia.
Mo
But maybe (I hope) you\'re just kidding
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are better off taking the breath test.
The two systems are set up so that the mean alcohol concentration is measured and then 5 standard deviations are taken off to get the result which is printed out. Hence the result is not, "x mg per 100ml" but, "without a shadow of a doubt more than x mg/100ml". This avoids any legal arguments about measurement accuracy. If the SD was zero a person on the limit would score at the limit whether he took the breath test or the blood test. However, the breath test is inherently less precise and so the SD is bigger and effectively more gets taken off to produce the final reading. This is recognised as favouring the suspect who takes the breath test but is tolerated because the breath test is easier, cheaper and less messy to administer. A policeman can do it rather than a medical professional. In the UK two or more tests are done, separated by 2 hrs. You are not guilty till they get two consecutive results over the limit and they won't let you go till you give two consecutive specimens below the limit.
The limits, especially for commercial flying, are pretty low. It is a pain having to be careful about a couple of glasses of wine at dinner the night before, but is it worth your licence?
The two systems are set up so that the mean alcohol concentration is measured and then 5 standard deviations are taken off to get the result which is printed out. Hence the result is not, "x mg per 100ml" but, "without a shadow of a doubt more than x mg/100ml". This avoids any legal arguments about measurement accuracy. If the SD was zero a person on the limit would score at the limit whether he took the breath test or the blood test. However, the breath test is inherently less precise and so the SD is bigger and effectively more gets taken off to produce the final reading. This is recognised as favouring the suspect who takes the breath test but is tolerated because the breath test is easier, cheaper and less messy to administer. A policeman can do it rather than a medical professional. In the UK two or more tests are done, separated by 2 hrs. You are not guilty till they get two consecutive results over the limit and they won't let you go till you give two consecutive specimens below the limit.
The limits, especially for commercial flying, are pretty low. It is a pain having to be careful about a couple of glasses of wine at dinner the night before, but is it worth your licence?
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't see the logic in that. If a breath test shows you are OVER the limit, what would you possibly have to lose by demanding a blood sample? It will normally take time for a doctor to arrive and take the sample, time that all works in your favour. The average body can shift 1 unit of alcohol in 1 hour - so by the time the blood sample is taken, especially if your are JUST over the limit, the result could be very different. I understand that the blood sample would take premacy as it is considered a more accurate test?
The way I see it there are only2 possible outcomes to a positive breath test:
Breath test over limit - leave it at that - GUILTY.
Breath test over limit - take your chances - demand blood test.
Then either:
1. Blood test over limit - GUILTY.
2. Blood test under limit - NOT GUILTY.
Where;s the disadvantage?
NOT that I am condoning deliberate alcohol consumption before a period of duty, but as someone already said, we all make a mistake from timt to time.
16B
The way I see it there are only2 possible outcomes to a positive breath test:
Breath test over limit - leave it at that - GUILTY.
Breath test over limit - take your chances - demand blood test.
Then either:
1. Blood test over limit - GUILTY.
2. Blood test under limit - NOT GUILTY.
Where;s the disadvantage?
NOT that I am condoning deliberate alcohol consumption before a period of duty, but as someone already said, we all make a mistake from timt to time.
16B
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
northwing
You don't have any choice about taking a breath test.
If you refuse the field test at the scene, you'll be arrested.
(Edit: At the police station, the police can ask you to provide a specimen of breath, blood or urine - their choice.)
If you refuse again, you'll be prosecuted for refusing.
Apart from the margin for error in favour of the suspect, what you've been told about the police station procedure is wrong.
According to you, you're not guilty unless you're still over the limit 2 hours after failing the first test. That's not correct.
Then you say "They won't let you go till you give two consecutive specimens below the limit."
What, they wait another 2 hours after the first test to see if a second test also shows below the limit? That's not correct.
If you were right and the second one showed over the limit (very unlikely) then what would happen?
Do they wait another 2 hours to see if they can get the second 'over the limit' reading which (according to you) they need before they can prosecute you
Nope, what you've said is totally wrong.
If the basic field breath test shows you below the limit, that's the end of the breath test procedure. If it shows you over, you'll be arrested and taken to a police station.
At the police station you'll be breath-tested on a more sophisticated machine which measures your blood/alcohol level. ie Not just over or under.
If the reading shows you below the limit, that's it. Finito. You'll be released.
Even if you're over the aviation limit, the police can't keep you there unless you're obviously drunk. You'll be released and, provided your alcohol level is under the road limit, you could even legally drive home - using the time to think how you're going to explain to your family and friends why you're probably about to lose your job and probably be going to prison. Not a happy prospect.
16 blades
Agreed, except I'm not sure you can demand a blood test.
If you're offered one, as you say, there's nothing to lose by taking it because you'll be no worse off and you might gain.
You don't have any choice about taking a breath test.
If you refuse the field test at the scene, you'll be arrested.
(Edit: At the police station, the police can ask you to provide a specimen of breath, blood or urine - their choice.)
If you refuse again, you'll be prosecuted for refusing.
Apart from the margin for error in favour of the suspect, what you've been told about the police station procedure is wrong.
According to you, you're not guilty unless you're still over the limit 2 hours after failing the first test. That's not correct.
Then you say "They won't let you go till you give two consecutive specimens below the limit."
What, they wait another 2 hours after the first test to see if a second test also shows below the limit? That's not correct.
If you were right and the second one showed over the limit (very unlikely) then what would happen?
Do they wait another 2 hours to see if they can get the second 'over the limit' reading which (according to you) they need before they can prosecute you
Nope, what you've said is totally wrong.
If the basic field breath test shows you below the limit, that's the end of the breath test procedure. If it shows you over, you'll be arrested and taken to a police station.
At the police station you'll be breath-tested on a more sophisticated machine which measures your blood/alcohol level. ie Not just over or under.
If the reading shows you below the limit, that's it. Finito. You'll be released.
Even if you're over the aviation limit, the police can't keep you there unless you're obviously drunk. You'll be released and, provided your alcohol level is under the road limit, you could even legally drive home - using the time to think how you're going to explain to your family and friends why you're probably about to lose your job and probably be going to prison. Not a happy prospect.
16 blades
Agreed, except I'm not sure you can demand a blood test.
If you're offered one, as you say, there's nothing to lose by taking it because you'll be no worse off and you might gain.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: abroad
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can Danny advise if this was one of the airport hotels? plus any further clues as an occasional MAN nightstopper I'm more than a bit interested in this one.
I hope the PIA Captain sues the arse over all concerned.
The usual "rights without reponsibility" from pointer of fingers.
I hope the PIA Captain sues the arse over all concerned.
The usual "rights without reponsibility" from pointer of fingers.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliport
You're right mostly except for the procedure at the police station.
In the case of aircrew, then Police have a power to ask for a specimen of breath, or blood or urine.
However, they have agreed with the CAA that usualy a blood test will be required.
That invloves calling a doctor. Who, depending on how busy he is, can take between 10 minutes to 11.5 hrs to arrive. Only a doctor can take a blood test.
As has been stated, while waiting for a doctor, the BAC will not stay static, it could be either going down, or up depending on when the prisoners last drink was.
After a blood test has been taken, then usualy a person will be bailed while it is tested. I say usualy, because there can be times when that can be delayed.
I don't know where northwing gets the 2 tests seperated by 2 hours from. But it is not correct.
In answer to another point, the reason why Greater Manchester Police said this pilot had been drinking is because that is what the result of the blood test told them.
Will there be some form of enquiry? I doubt it very much. I doubt it is in the interests of the pilot to have one.
You're right mostly except for the procedure at the police station.
In the case of aircrew, then Police have a power to ask for a specimen of breath, or blood or urine.
However, they have agreed with the CAA that usualy a blood test will be required.
That invloves calling a doctor. Who, depending on how busy he is, can take between 10 minutes to 11.5 hrs to arrive. Only a doctor can take a blood test.
As has been stated, while waiting for a doctor, the BAC will not stay static, it could be either going down, or up depending on when the prisoners last drink was.
After a blood test has been taken, then usualy a person will be bailed while it is tested. I say usualy, because there can be times when that can be delayed.
I don't know where northwing gets the 2 tests seperated by 2 hours from. But it is not correct.
In answer to another point, the reason why Greater Manchester Police said this pilot had been drinking is because that is what the result of the blood test told them.
Will there be some form of enquiry? I doubt it very much. I doubt it is in the interests of the pilot to have one.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
I'm concerned that air crew might be misled by your reference to the protocol agreed between the police and the CAA into thinking that means they won't be asked to provide a specimen of breath at the police station or, if they are, they can refuse and insist on providing a blood sample.
It is a protocol which the police have agreed, but it is not part of the legislation and the police are not legally bound by it.
If asked to provide a specimen of breath then, as has already been said correctly: “You don't have any choice about taking a breath test.”
In the LHR / Royal Brunei case, the pilot was required to provide a specimen of breath, and did so. He was then offered the opportunity to provide a sample of blood , which he also did.
A suspect has no right to choose the type of specimen.
If he is required to provide a speciment of breath and refuses then, subject to very limited exceptions, he commits an offence and will be prosecuted.
It would not be a defence to say ‘I offered to provide a sample of blood instead’, nor 'But the Police agreed with the CAA that they'd normally require a blood sample."
The reason for the agreement to which you refer was a concern that the machines were not sufficiently accurate to measure the minute amount of alcohol relevant to aviation cases where the limit is so low that the difference between no alcohol at all and a minute amount of alcohol is the difference between innocent and offence.
I'm told that many machines at police stations near airports have now been calibrated to measure 'aviation' levels accurately, and that all will be in due course. I don't know if that's true but, if/when all are suitable for measuring aviation levels, it's possible the agreement may be terminated as unnecessary - I don't know.
___________________
I agree it’s unlikely there will be an inquiry, but what a pity you couldn’t resist adding: “I doubt it is in the interests of the pilot to have one.”
I’ve noticed in each of these ‘alcohol’ threads that you’re always very quick to come up with some explanation which does or might justify the actions of police officers (all discussions), airport security guards (the LHR/Royal Brunei case), idiotic passengers (the other Manchester incident where a passenger suggested the pilots must have been drinking because it was a heavy landing and the police decided they should breathalise both pilots) and hotel staff (this one), and are vigorous in defending them against any criticism.
In stark contrast, for some reason, you never extend the same generosity of spirit to pilots - and show a marked reluctance to accept that a pilot might actually have behaved impeccably and be completely innocent.
I'm concerned that air crew might be misled by your reference to the protocol agreed between the police and the CAA into thinking that means they won't be asked to provide a specimen of breath at the police station or, if they are, they can refuse and insist on providing a blood sample.
It is a protocol which the police have agreed, but it is not part of the legislation and the police are not legally bound by it.
If asked to provide a specimen of breath then, as has already been said correctly: “You don't have any choice about taking a breath test.”
In the LHR / Royal Brunei case, the pilot was required to provide a specimen of breath, and did so. He was then offered the opportunity to provide a sample of blood , which he also did.
A suspect has no right to choose the type of specimen.
If he is required to provide a speciment of breath and refuses then, subject to very limited exceptions, he commits an offence and will be prosecuted.
It would not be a defence to say ‘I offered to provide a sample of blood instead’, nor 'But the Police agreed with the CAA that they'd normally require a blood sample."
The reason for the agreement to which you refer was a concern that the machines were not sufficiently accurate to measure the minute amount of alcohol relevant to aviation cases where the limit is so low that the difference between no alcohol at all and a minute amount of alcohol is the difference between innocent and offence.
I'm told that many machines at police stations near airports have now been calibrated to measure 'aviation' levels accurately, and that all will be in due course. I don't know if that's true but, if/when all are suitable for measuring aviation levels, it's possible the agreement may be terminated as unnecessary - I don't know.
___________________
I agree it’s unlikely there will be an inquiry, but what a pity you couldn’t resist adding: “I doubt it is in the interests of the pilot to have one.”
I’ve noticed in each of these ‘alcohol’ threads that you’re always very quick to come up with some explanation which does or might justify the actions of police officers (all discussions), airport security guards (the LHR/Royal Brunei case), idiotic passengers (the other Manchester incident where a passenger suggested the pilots must have been drinking because it was a heavy landing and the police decided they should breathalise both pilots) and hotel staff (this one), and are vigorous in defending them against any criticism.
In stark contrast, for some reason, you never extend the same generosity of spirit to pilots - and show a marked reluctance to accept that a pilot might actually have behaved impeccably and be completely innocent.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cheshire UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin M
I'm sorry but that "old boys network" type of talk is no longer acceptable in society and I'm frankly amazed by some of the comments on here suggesting some sort of witch hunt by the authorities in MAN, get a grip, if every pilot was tested for alcohol before flying then that would be OK by me, somewhat impracticle I know but the 350 odd people sitting behind you would feel a darn sight better
I'm gonna get off my high horse now and go drink a few "Paul Wellers"
Nippy
"A quiet word by one of the other co-employees, suggesting the person step down for the day, would be a far better scenario than that described here"
I'm sorry but that "old boys network" type of talk is no longer acceptable in society and I'm frankly amazed by some of the comments on here suggesting some sort of witch hunt by the authorities in MAN, get a grip, if every pilot was tested for alcohol before flying then that would be OK by me, somewhat impracticle I know but the 350 odd people sitting behind you would feel a darn sight better
I'm gonna get off my high horse now and go drink a few "Paul Wellers"
Nippy
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of interest, for the puritans here, exactly how many incidents / accidents in air travel have been attributed to alcohol, as a primary or aggravating factor? What do they represent as a percentage of hours / journeys flown, maybe factored per passenger for a meaningful comparison? Contrast this with the number of road fatalities attributed to alcohol.
I am asking the question because I cannot recall A SINGLE INCIDENT in the whole history of mass air transport that has been declared as such.
I am more than happy to be corrected here.
16B
I am asking the question because I cannot recall A SINGLE INCIDENT in the whole history of mass air transport that has been declared as such.
I am more than happy to be corrected here.
16B
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer
I can't see how it could mislead anyone. No, the protocol is not part of the legislation, and both you and I have explained ad nausam what the legislation says.
What I said was:
'In the case of aircrew, then Police have a power to ask for a specimen of breath, or blood or urine.
However, they have agreed with the CAA that usualy a blood test will be required.'
Note para 1, the words Police have a power to ask for, and, the word usualy in para 2.
Explaining my further comment, no, it is not in the pilots interest. I have a feeling you are as aware as I am of why is is not, if the report which is quoted as comming from him did in fact do so.
Yes he was lawfully arrested, he failed a breath test when required to provide one by a Constable. Not a breath test requirement made by a chef.
The fact is yes, he then provided a blood test which was below the limit, again you know as well as I do that does not mean that at the time he was arrested he was below the limit.
Yes, I will leap to the defence of Police in most cases, partly because there should be a balance and partly because having done the job, I can see it from thier side, the officers concerned cannot answer some of the misguided comments made about them. In the same way, you leap to the defence of pilots, even though you are probably as aware of the score as I am.
As regards to airport security, it's obvious you are not as well aware of the rules they work under, and I doubt you complain too often in court when information has led to the arrest and conviction for any other offence?
I can't see how it could mislead anyone. No, the protocol is not part of the legislation, and both you and I have explained ad nausam what the legislation says.
What I said was:
'In the case of aircrew, then Police have a power to ask for a specimen of breath, or blood or urine.
However, they have agreed with the CAA that usualy a blood test will be required.'
Note para 1, the words Police have a power to ask for, and, the word usualy in para 2.
Explaining my further comment, no, it is not in the pilots interest. I have a feeling you are as aware as I am of why is is not, if the report which is quoted as comming from him did in fact do so.
Yes he was lawfully arrested, he failed a breath test when required to provide one by a Constable. Not a breath test requirement made by a chef.
The fact is yes, he then provided a blood test which was below the limit, again you know as well as I do that does not mean that at the time he was arrested he was below the limit.
Yes, I will leap to the defence of Police in most cases, partly because there should be a balance and partly because having done the job, I can see it from thier side, the officers concerned cannot answer some of the misguided comments made about them. In the same way, you leap to the defence of pilots, even though you are probably as aware of the score as I am.
As regards to airport security, it's obvious you are not as well aware of the rules they work under, and I doubt you complain too often in court when information has led to the arrest and conviction for any other offence?
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nippy,
It is called "Peer Intervention" and the idea that people can admit to drink & drug problems without fear of punishment and look for rehabilitation.
It is called "Peer Intervention" and the idea that people can admit to drink & drug problems without fear of punishment and look for rehabilitation.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
I explained why I thought your reference to the protocol might mislead readers.
"No, it is not in the pilots interest. I have a feeling you are as aware as I am of why is is not, if the report which is quoted as comming from him did in fact do so."
Your feeling is wrong - I don't agree with you.
The difference between us is that your starting-point is that the pilot was (or might have been) guilty and lucky to get away with it, whereas I'm happy to presume he was innocent. He claims (if the report comes from him) that he was fitted up maliciously. Given what people who know him have said about him, I've got no reason to suggest he's a liar.
I don't think there will be an inquiry, and don't think it would achieve anything if there was. If his drink was spiked in readiness for tipping off the police, the chances of proving it are very remote.
"Not a breath test requirement made by a chef."
Make allowance for lay people's descriptions of events. They aren't as familiar with procedures/terminology as you.
If he knows the police turned up as a result of an allegation from the hotel that he'd been seen drinking heavily, and the police breathalise him, then in his mind (and in ordinary language) he was breathalised because of what someone at the hotel said. He knows he had a disagreement with the chef the previous evening, so the chef is obviously his prime suspect. He might even have been told it was the chef who called the police - we don't know.
" .... again, you know as well as I do that does not mean that at the time he was arrested he was below the limit."
Again, there you go.
No, it doesn't necessarily mean he was, but why even mention it except to imply he might have been guilty and lucky to get away with it?
Some comments about the police in these cases are "misguided", but not all are. eg In the Manchester 'heavy landing' incident I would have had been very interested to know how on earth the police felt justified in breathalising even one of the pilots let alone both.
I'm inclined to think it would be better if the decision whether to breathalise pilots on board public transport aircraft had to be made by a police officer of supervisory rank (sergeants or above), but I doubt if you'd agree with that. It would, I appreciate, mean a supervisory rank attending to deal.
"In the same way, you leap to the defence of pilots, even though you are probably as aware of the score as I am."
I don't. I'm sorry to say so, but you always come across to me as having a chip on your shoulder about pilots and I merely try to encourage you to keep more of an open mind and to persuade you that people suspected of offences may genuinely be totally innocent, not just legally 'not guilty.' I suspect what you and I see as "the score" is very different.
I don't claim to know the detail of rules under which airport security guards work, but I do draw a distinction between someone doing his job, or duty as a responsible citizen, and someone motivated by a personal grudge or prejudice.
(Edit)
This isn't the first time you've suggested you and I 'know the score' and, debating aside, probably agree. I wish you wouldn't. I genuinely rarely agree with your opinions which, in my view, are far too extreme and one-sided.
You claim to be redressing the balance. I can't remember you showing any sign of being able to undertand things from the suspect's side - in this context, the pilots' side.
I explained why I thought your reference to the protocol might mislead readers.
"No, it is not in the pilots interest. I have a feeling you are as aware as I am of why is is not, if the report which is quoted as comming from him did in fact do so."
Your feeling is wrong - I don't agree with you.
The difference between us is that your starting-point is that the pilot was (or might have been) guilty and lucky to get away with it, whereas I'm happy to presume he was innocent. He claims (if the report comes from him) that he was fitted up maliciously. Given what people who know him have said about him, I've got no reason to suggest he's a liar.
I don't think there will be an inquiry, and don't think it would achieve anything if there was. If his drink was spiked in readiness for tipping off the police, the chances of proving it are very remote.
"Not a breath test requirement made by a chef."
Make allowance for lay people's descriptions of events. They aren't as familiar with procedures/terminology as you.
If he knows the police turned up as a result of an allegation from the hotel that he'd been seen drinking heavily, and the police breathalise him, then in his mind (and in ordinary language) he was breathalised because of what someone at the hotel said. He knows he had a disagreement with the chef the previous evening, so the chef is obviously his prime suspect. He might even have been told it was the chef who called the police - we don't know.
" .... again, you know as well as I do that does not mean that at the time he was arrested he was below the limit."
Again, there you go.
No, it doesn't necessarily mean he was, but why even mention it except to imply he might have been guilty and lucky to get away with it?
Some comments about the police in these cases are "misguided", but not all are. eg In the Manchester 'heavy landing' incident I would have had been very interested to know how on earth the police felt justified in breathalising even one of the pilots let alone both.
I'm inclined to think it would be better if the decision whether to breathalise pilots on board public transport aircraft had to be made by a police officer of supervisory rank (sergeants or above), but I doubt if you'd agree with that. It would, I appreciate, mean a supervisory rank attending to deal.
"In the same way, you leap to the defence of pilots, even though you are probably as aware of the score as I am."
I don't. I'm sorry to say so, but you always come across to me as having a chip on your shoulder about pilots and I merely try to encourage you to keep more of an open mind and to persuade you that people suspected of offences may genuinely be totally innocent, not just legally 'not guilty.' I suspect what you and I see as "the score" is very different.
I don't claim to know the detail of rules under which airport security guards work, but I do draw a distinction between someone doing his job, or duty as a responsible citizen, and someone motivated by a personal grudge or prejudice.
(Edit)
This isn't the first time you've suggested you and I 'know the score' and, debating aside, probably agree. I wish you wouldn't. I genuinely rarely agree with your opinions which, in my view, are far too extreme and one-sided.
You claim to be redressing the balance. I can't remember you showing any sign of being able to undertand things from the suspect's side - in this context, the pilots' side.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 9th Apr 2005 at 10:55.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question for Flying Lawyer:
The police need "reasonable suspicion" to demand a breath test.
In the Manchester 'heavy landing' incident, as you infer, it would be interesting to know what they thought was "reasonable".
If the pilots had refused to provide a breath test, would they have a defence in law? i.e. can you say "no, you have no reasonable suspicion, therefore I have no need to undertake a breath test".
Do the police even have to tell you what the "reasonable suspicion" is? i.e "someone smelt alcohol on your breath" "you're speech is slurred" "an anonymous tip"...etc.?
The police need "reasonable suspicion" to demand a breath test.
In the Manchester 'heavy landing' incident, as you infer, it would be interesting to know what they thought was "reasonable".
If the pilots had refused to provide a breath test, would they have a defence in law? i.e. can you say "no, you have no reasonable suspicion, therefore I have no need to undertake a breath test".
Do the police even have to tell you what the "reasonable suspicion" is? i.e "someone smelt alcohol on your breath" "you're speech is slurred" "an anonymous tip"...etc.?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you say "no, you have no reasonable suspicion, therefore I have no need to undertake a breath test"?
The short answer, for all practical purposes, is No.
In law, if a police constable doesn't "reasonably suspect" you have alcohol in your body, then he isn't entitled to require you to take a preliminary breath-test and, accordingly, your refusal would be lawful and you'd have a good defence when prosecuted for refusing.
That's the theory.
Now ask yourself what the chances are, when the case gets to the local magistrates court, of the officer not saying, for example, that your 'demeanour' led him to suspect you had alcohol in your body. Or that he believed he could smell drink on your breath? Or that he thought your speech was slurred?
Bear in mind that he doesn't have to reasonably suspect that you have alcohol in your body over the prescribed limit - just some alcohol in your body.
Do the police even have to tell you what the "reasonable suspicion" is?
The policeman has to tell you he suspects you have alcohol in your body and that is why he is requiring you to take a breath-test. He does not have to tell you the reason(s) for his suspicion.
(He'd have to give his reasons if subsequently challenged in court, but see my comments above.)
In summary:
If required to take a breath-test at the scene, or to provide a specimen (breath, blood or urine) subsequently at a police station, you should do so - however unreasonable/unjustified you think it is.
If you refuse and are prosecuted, the likelihood of a court finding that you were legally entitled to refuse is extremely remote.
_____________________________
I'll be offline for the next two weeks.
Tudor Owen
The short answer, for all practical purposes, is No.
In law, if a police constable doesn't "reasonably suspect" you have alcohol in your body, then he isn't entitled to require you to take a preliminary breath-test and, accordingly, your refusal would be lawful and you'd have a good defence when prosecuted for refusing.
That's the theory.
Now ask yourself what the chances are, when the case gets to the local magistrates court, of the officer not saying, for example, that your 'demeanour' led him to suspect you had alcohol in your body. Or that he believed he could smell drink on your breath? Or that he thought your speech was slurred?
Bear in mind that he doesn't have to reasonably suspect that you have alcohol in your body over the prescribed limit - just some alcohol in your body.
Do the police even have to tell you what the "reasonable suspicion" is?
The policeman has to tell you he suspects you have alcohol in your body and that is why he is requiring you to take a breath-test. He does not have to tell you the reason(s) for his suspicion.
(He'd have to give his reasons if subsequently challenged in court, but see my comments above.)
In summary:
If required to take a breath-test at the scene, or to provide a specimen (breath, blood or urine) subsequently at a police station, you should do so - however unreasonable/unjustified you think it is.
If you refuse and are prosecuted, the likelihood of a court finding that you were legally entitled to refuse is extremely remote.
_____________________________
I'll be offline for the next two weeks.
Tudor Owen
