American Airlines Pilot Arrested at Manchester (NOT GUILTY)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He was found not guilty, whether thoise of us not on the Jury believe his version or not, doesn't matter, and it is pointless debabting if's and buts. He didn't do it in the eyes of those who matter.
What may come out of it is that those who fall within the act he was charged under, with MAY think twice before drinking and flying, or attempting to. That is surely good for everyone.
What may come out of it is that those who fall within the act he was charged under, with MAY think twice before drinking and flying, or attempting to. That is surely good for everyone.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc says
The overwhelming majority of pilots wouldn't dream of "drinking and flying, or attempting to."
The tiny minority who might be tempted already think twice.
I think what may come out of it is that those who don't intend to fly because they know (or suspect) they're over the limit won't go near airport security, and use some other method of declaring that they aren't fit to fly.
What may come out of it is that airport security "MAY think twice" about calling the police.
(But unlikely.
)
FL
bomarc
We don't have 'Innocent' as a verdict.
Someone found not guilty is presumed to be innocent.
What may come out of it is that those who fall within the act he was charged under, with MAY think twice before drinking and flying, or attempting to.
The tiny minority who might be tempted already think twice.
I think what may come out of it is that those who don't intend to fly because they know (or suspect) they're over the limit won't go near airport security, and use some other method of declaring that they aren't fit to fly.
What may come out of it is that airport security "MAY think twice" about calling the police.
(But unlikely.
)FL
bomarc
We don't have 'Innocent' as a verdict.
Someone found not guilty is presumed to be innocent.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 21st Mar 2007 at 21:19.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the next time..
what comes of this decision is that next time security in the UK think they have a drunk pilot they will most likely not ring the alarm bells but will follow the person discretely and only once the suspect has entered the cockpit and touched a few buttons will they come crashing in.
whether this is a good way to do things or not .... this decision is a bit like police not being able to stop suspects because they may be accused of being racist etc etc
G
whether this is a good way to do things or not .... this decision is a bit like police not being able to stop suspects because they may be accused of being racist etc etc
G
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about his job? That's going to be the interesting thing.
He has not been terminated.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bomarc - with reference to the "Guilty, not guilty and innocent"...
Perhaps you're thinking of the Scottish legal system with its "Not Proven" verdict?
I believe I'm right in saying that somebody can't be punished if the verdict is "not proven". It's more of an indicator about the evidence presented.
Perhaps you're thinking of the Scottish legal system with its "Not Proven" verdict?
I believe I'm right in saying that somebody can't be punished if the verdict is "not proven". It's more of an indicator about the evidence presented.
The Analog Kid
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brecon Beacons National Park
Age: 57
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
found guilty? I thought the UK had guilty, not guilty, and innocent.
Guilty
Not Proven
Not Guilty
The rest of the UK just has Guilty and Not Guilty.
Edit: ah, you beat me to it!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
groundburn
I doubt it but, assuming you're right, what's bad about that? 
(Apart from 'come crashing in' rather than continuing to be discreet throughout.)
It would establish whether the pilot is intending to fly, or attempting to.
Another way would be to find out if he's reported for duty.
what comes of this decision is that next time security in the UK think they have a drunk pilot they will most likely not ring the alarm bells but will follow the person discretely and only once the suspect has entered the cockpit and touched a few buttons will they come crashing in.
(Apart from 'come crashing in' rather than continuing to be discreet throughout.)
It would establish whether the pilot is intending to fly, or attempting to.
Another way would be to find out if he's reported for duty.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you all for explaining the verdict possible under the UK/Scottish system.
I think we are all very lucky to live in countries that have legal systems that allow for fair trials.
as to whether the pilot had been drinking or not, I hope we all are a HECK of alot more careful about such things. Don't drink before flying and be darn sure that your conduct is above reproach.
I think we are all very lucky to live in countries that have legal systems that allow for fair trials.
as to whether the pilot had been drinking or not, I hope we all are a HECK of alot more careful about such things. Don't drink before flying and be darn sure that your conduct is above reproach.
...the thin end thereof
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we are all very lucky to live in countries that have legal systems that allow for fair trials.
I quite agree. Just that my experience is that pilots' views in general here (see JetBlast) are usually very hostile to the rights of the defendant in criminal cases.
I quite agree. Just that my experience is that pilots' views in general here (see JetBlast) are usually very hostile to the rights of the defendant in criminal cases.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Rochdale
Age: 54
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you put your uniform on including one's hat, shiny shoes, stripes, pressed white shirt & tie to roll up to the gate to present one's self as not fit for work or put jeans & a t-shirt on then roll up to the gate and say "I don't feel like coming in today"? Just a thought.
Last edited by ROSUN; 22nd Mar 2007 at 01:43. Reason: cahnt sphell
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you put your uniform on including one's hat, shiny shoes, stripes, pressed white shirt & tie to roll up to the gate to present one's self as not fit for work or put jeans & a t-shirt on then roll up to the gate and say "I don't feel like coming in today"? Just a thought.
Just at a guess, who's to say that he actually HAD jeans and a tshirt with him anyway?
If he had just overnighted and was departing the next morning, surely he would have brought his uniform, spare underwear, clean shirt, and pajamas?
Given the choice, I'd put the uniform back on rather than wear my jammies to the airport.
Anyway, at the end of the day he has been found not guilty. From the information Ive read, that appears to be a correct, well founded judgement, and a reminder to the rest of us to avoid Manchester - with so many pilots arrested for alcohol consumption there, possibly more than the rest of the country, if not the rest of the world combined...
If he had just overnighted and was departing the next morning, surely he would have brought his uniform, spare underwear, clean shirt, and pajamas?
Given the choice, I'd put the uniform back on rather than wear my jammies to the airport.
Anyway, at the end of the day he has been found not guilty. From the information Ive read, that appears to be a correct, well founded judgement, and a reminder to the rest of us to avoid Manchester - with so many pilots arrested for alcohol consumption there, possibly more than the rest of the country, if not the rest of the world combined...
Would you put your uniform on including one's hat, shiny shoes, stripes, pressed white shirt & tie to roll up to the gate to present one's self as not fit for work
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL
Quote
"What may come out of it is that airport security "MAY think twice" about calling the police"
So you would prefer a pilot that had been drinking to fly?
I find what you say suprising. Airport Security are not Police. They don't have the knowladge of the ins and outs of legislation that you do. Their instrctions, as has been pointed out to you many times before is to call Police, not make a decision themselves. The penelty for them, if they don't follow their instructions to the latter is a P45. You may not like that, and it may not suit your argument, but what would you do given the 2 options?
I do accept that it is a tiny minority of crew (not just pilots) ATCO's and Engineers that do, or would do their job after having too much to drink, and like all legislation the idea is to deter, and only punish if that fails. The responsibility lays firmly at the feet of crew/ATCO's/Engineers, not with anyone else.
Quote
"What may come out of it is that airport security "MAY think twice" about calling the police"
So you would prefer a pilot that had been drinking to fly?
I find what you say suprising. Airport Security are not Police. They don't have the knowladge of the ins and outs of legislation that you do. Their instrctions, as has been pointed out to you many times before is to call Police, not make a decision themselves. The penelty for them, if they don't follow their instructions to the latter is a P45. You may not like that, and it may not suit your argument, but what would you do given the 2 options?
I do accept that it is a tiny minority of crew (not just pilots) ATCO's and Engineers that do, or would do their job after having too much to drink, and like all legislation the idea is to deter, and only punish if that fails. The responsibility lays firmly at the feet of crew/ATCO's/Engineers, not with anyone else.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
I didn't say that.
Nor could any sensible and balanced person who's read my posts on this or the other 'alcohol' threads believe that is what I'd prefer.
I took time to explain the new law when it was introduced, and stressed the importance of pilots being even more careful to ensure they don't have any alcohol left in their system in case they fall foul of the new provisions inadvertently.
Although I wish you wouldn't, I accept I can't stop you misinterpreting what I say. I've tried many times, on numerous threads about legal matters over several years, but admitted defeat some time ago.
FL
In light of this case, I'd add some further advice to pilots:
FL
So you would prefer a pilot that had been drinking to fly?
So you would prefer a pilot that had been drinking to fly?
Nor could any sensible and balanced person who's read my posts on this or the other 'alcohol' threads believe that is what I'd prefer.
I took time to explain the new law when it was introduced, and stressed the importance of pilots being even more careful to ensure they don't have any alcohol left in their system in case they fall foul of the new provisions inadvertently.
Although I wish you wouldn't, I accept I can't stop you misinterpreting what I say. I've tried many times, on numerous threads about legal matters over several years, but admitted defeat some time ago.
FL
In light of this case, I'd add some further advice to pilots:
If you don't intend to fly because you know (or suspect) you're over the limit, don't go near airport security: Find some other method of declaring that you don't feel fit to fly.
Not being accused is infinitely preferable to being found Not Guilty a year later.
Anyone who's read about the case won't, of course, need me to state the obvious.
Not being accused is infinitely preferable to being found Not Guilty a year later.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 22nd Mar 2007 at 18:03.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I am sure the trial verdict was a perfectly legally correct one, I would suggest it is highly desirable that no pilot or crew in uniform is caught alcohol in hand, or alcohol on breath. I wouldn't do it because I feel that to do so shows a degree of contempt for the naturally puzzled views of those that have to witness it.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: orbital
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread drift.
The accident rate in north american carriers, normalised for number of movements etc. is about 1/3 that of european carriers, and way less than the rest of the world.
The accident rate in north american carriers, normalised for number of movements etc. is about 1/3 that of european carriers, and way less than the rest of the world.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes of course he should have rung in but it seems to be quite common now for aircrew to turn up for work sick, so some one else can see that they are sick, and send them home. I think you will find that his "crew room" was airside. Manchester airport security policy is that Aircrew will only be alowed airside on production of a valid ID and in uniform. Seems that the jury got it right.