American Airlines Pilot Arrested at Manchester (NOT GUILTY)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: CGN
Age: 53
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tried to post this earlier today but somehow the posting got lost:
German magazine "Der Spiegel" reports another case today, again AA and again MAN-IAD.
Have I missed this on the news today or are they mixing things up because of the reports in English press about the court case?
German magazine "Der Spiegel" reports another case today, again AA and again MAN-IAD.
Have I missed this on the news today or are they mixing things up because of the reports in English press about the court case?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Section 94....preparing to carry out an aviation function or otherwise holding themselves ready to carry out one of those functions by virtue of being on duty or standby.
____________________________________________________________ _
apparently, he testified that he was arriving to "call in sick"...(I mentioned this 'hopeful' possibility on post #147, 13 months ago).
I suppose if they believe him, not guilty. If they don't, guilty.
Hopefully, based on his conversation w/ the Captain (at the hotel), the Captain will also be able to back up the FO's story, with his own supporting testimony.
____________________________________________________________ _
apparently, he testified that he was arriving to "call in sick"...(I mentioned this 'hopeful' possibility on post #147, 13 months ago).
I suppose if they believe him, not guilty. If they don't, guilty.
Hopefully, based on his conversation w/ the Captain (at the hotel), the Captain will also be able to back up the FO's story, with his own supporting testimony.
...the thin end thereof
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Yates denies a single charge of acting as first officer, while over the limit.
Inappropriate=risking contempt of court.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't seen the indictment, but assume the allegation is that he carried out an activity ancillary to an aviation function, contrary to section 93(1)(b) of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003
An activity will be treated as 'ancillary to an aviation function' if it is undertaken by a person who has reported for duty in respect of the function and as a requirement of or for the purpose of or in connection with the performance of that aviation function during the period of duty.
The relevant law is summarised here
FL
An activity will be treated as 'ancillary to an aviation function' if it is undertaken by a person who has reported for duty in respect of the function and as a requirement of or for the purpose of or in connection with the performance of that aviation function during the period of duty.
The relevant law is summarised here
FL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was NO activity undertaken by this pilot.
There was NO reporting for duty.
He (apparently-from news sources) has testified that he was about to call in sick....and then deadhead home, I suppose.
Will the jury believe it? We shall see.
There was NO reporting for duty.
He (apparently-from news sources) has testified that he was about to call in sick....and then deadhead home, I suppose.
Will the jury believe it? We shall see.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An activity will be treated as 'ancillary to an aviation function' if it is undertaken by a person who has reported for duty in respect of the function and as a requirement of or for the purpose of or in connection with the performance of that aviation function during the period of duty.
No doubt he would argue that the place of "report" is the crewroom or briefing facility. Going through security could not be construed as reporting.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wedge,
Denying "acting as a first officer" means he denies having accomplished ANY aviation related tasks (primary or ancillary). That would be testimony against any Section 92 or 93 charges (unfit for duty AFTER accomplishing aviation tasks, and over the limit breathalizer AFTER accomplishing aviation tasks). If you have NOT accomplished any aviation related tasks/duties, then an offence under Section 92 & 93, has NOT occurred.
If there's Section 94 charges (intending on carrying out aviation duties), then the testimony re: 'calling in sick' helps refute the "intent". Hopefully, similar testimony from the Captain, regarding advance knowledge of an intent to call in sick, will also be given.
KC135777
Denying "acting as a first officer" means he denies having accomplished ANY aviation related tasks (primary or ancillary). That would be testimony against any Section 92 or 93 charges (unfit for duty AFTER accomplishing aviation tasks, and over the limit breathalizer AFTER accomplishing aviation tasks). If you have NOT accomplished any aviation related tasks/duties, then an offence under Section 92 & 93, has NOT occurred.
If there's Section 94 charges (intending on carrying out aviation duties), then the testimony re: 'calling in sick' helps refute the "intent". Hopefully, similar testimony from the Captain, regarding advance knowledge of an intent to call in sick, will also be given.
KC135777
... perhaps because those tasked with returning a verdict are the only people who having been subject to the facts of this particular case, and advised as to their relevance to the offences alleged to have been committed may be the only people to deliver a verdict? 
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer has kindly asked that people refrain from commenting on the proceedings in order to protect me and this site from any possible contempt of court proceedings. Unfortunately, aside from posts already deleted because of inappropriate comment, there appears to be a total inability to understand the most basic request and so I am shutting this thread down.
As and when it may be appropriate to debate it again, we'll have to wait until the trial is over. Until then, you can thank those that really can't help themselves because I'm for sure not going to stay up 24 hours a day monitoring this thread!
As and when it may be appropriate to debate it again, we'll have to wait until the trial is over. Until then, you can thank those that really can't help themselves because I'm for sure not going to stay up 24 hours a day monitoring this thread!
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
American Airlines Pilot not guilty
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/6475913.stm
"An airline pilot accused of turning up for work while six times over the limit to fly has been cleared by a jury."
"An airline pilot accused of turning up for work while six times over the limit to fly has been cleared by a jury."
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think bearcat has a fetish with smilies! Well if he hadn't have got stopped at the checkpoint he could of easily tried to fly. I'd say there is alot of politics involved with this case.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Northport, NW England
Age: 44
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confused....
OK so we don't know all the facts..... but if he was not intending to fly why was he in his uniform?
Surely he should have presented himself to check in to dead head home.
Ironically, it would seem that if he had got to the aircraft to "inform" the skipper he wasn't operating he would most likely have been convicted.
Baffled...
Perhaps it has something to do with a certain vote on Thursday? Any of our comrades from the colonies care to comment?
OK so we don't know all the facts..... but if he was not intending to fly why was he in his uniform?
Surely he should have presented himself to check in to dead head home.
Ironically, it would seem that if he had got to the aircraft to "inform" the skipper he wasn't operating he would most likely have been convicted.
Baffled...
Perhaps it has something to do with a certain vote on Thursday? Any of our comrades from the colonies care to comment?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Confused.... but if he was not intending to fly why was he in his uniform?
--Due to restrictions on the carriage of liquids, I ALWAYS nonrev around in my uniform....especially when I'm w/ my wife.
Also, if crew sked wasn't aware of his "sick status" yet, uniform and ID gets him through security....then he could get his boarding pass AT the gate.
<<Surely he should have presented himself to check in to dead head home.
--why? going through security is just a process that everyone has to go through, period. They don't need to know jack. You only "present" to them what they need....to get you through the line/process. Whatever works...the KISS principle. But, it wasn't so simple for him, right?
<<Baffled...Perhaps it has something to do with a certain vote on Thursday? Any of our comrades from the colonies care to comment?
--vote? the only thing I can think of, that you might be referring to, would be possibly something on open skies agreements? don't know any specifics. anyways, I thought it was a jury vote?
KC135777
--Due to restrictions on the carriage of liquids, I ALWAYS nonrev around in my uniform....especially when I'm w/ my wife.
Also, if crew sked wasn't aware of his "sick status" yet, uniform and ID gets him through security....then he could get his boarding pass AT the gate.
<<Surely he should have presented himself to check in to dead head home.
--why? going through security is just a process that everyone has to go through, period. They don't need to know jack. You only "present" to them what they need....to get you through the line/process. Whatever works...the KISS principle. But, it wasn't so simple for him, right?
<<Baffled...Perhaps it has something to do with a certain vote on Thursday? Any of our comrades from the colonies care to comment?
--vote? the only thing I can think of, that you might be referring to, would be possibly something on open skies agreements? don't know any specifics. anyways, I thought it was a jury vote?
KC135777
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
World of Tweed
"Confused....
OK so we don't know all the facts....."
Precisely.
I quote from my earlier post. Please note, in particular, the words in bold.
American Airlines personnel (including the Captain) were summoned to the checkpoint and the pilot reported sick but, I'm told, Manchester airport security people insisted on calling the police.
The defence traced the taxi driver who drove the pilot from the hotel to the airport. In conversation during the journey, the pilot said he was not intending to fly.
I know he was acquitted shortly after lunch, but don't yet have the details. If I hear any more, I'll post an update.
FL
"Confused....
OK so we don't know all the facts....."
Precisely.
I quote from my earlier post. Please note, in particular, the words in bold.
An activity will be treated as 'ancillary to an aviation function' if it is undertaken by a person who has reported for duty
- The prosecution claimed he'd reported for duty, but I've not seen or heard anything to support that claim.
- Even if (which was disputed) he reported for duty by going to the Crew security gate, what 'activity ..... 'ancillary to an aviation function' he is alleged to have undertaken after that? None. He remained with Security.
American Airlines personnel (including the Captain) were summoned to the checkpoint and the pilot reported sick but, I'm told, Manchester airport security people insisted on calling the police.
The defence traced the taxi driver who drove the pilot from the hotel to the airport. In conversation during the journey, the pilot said he was not intending to fly.
I know he was acquitted shortly after lunch, but don't yet have the details. If I hear any more, I'll post an update.
FL