American Airlines Pilot Arrested at Manchester (NOT GUILTY)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
Jury forgives pilot who 'drank whiskey in sleep'
By Russell Jenkins in London
March 23, 2007 03:19am
AN American Airlines pilot arrested at an airport after reportedly arriving for duty drunk was found not guilty yesterday after telling a jury that he must have consumed a third of a bottle of Irish whiskey in his sleep...
...He claimed a sleeping disorder might have led him to drink from a bottle of Bushmills whiskey the night before.
...He slapped colleagues on the back and grinned with delight when the verdict was announced.
Earlier, the jury was told he had left the Renaissance Hotel in Manchester for a seven-hour drinking session with his two fellow pilots.
He had drunk pints of beer in at least four pubs before retiring for a whiskey in the hotel bar.
Around midnight, he swallowed a sedative to help him to sleep.
When he woke up the next morning, after 9am, he could hear his captain banging on the hotel door.
He noticed that about a third of the Irish whiskey he had bought the previous night had been consumed, but he had no memory of drinking it.
He said that in the past his ex-wife, mother and fiancee had noticed he was capable of doing "strange things" in the middle of the night.
Once he had gone to bed, only to wake up in front of the television.
In evidence, he said that after the taxi driver taking him to the airport had rebuked him for his drunkenness he realised he was not in a fit state to carry out his flying duties...
Mr Yates, of Columbus, Ohio, may yet face internal disciplinary action by the airline.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...740-2,00.html#
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC News report
Jury clears drink-accused pilot
An airline pilot accused of turning up for work while six times over the limit to fly has been cleared.
American Airlines pilot James Yates, 46, from Ohio, was alleged to have arrived at Manchester Airport drunk, smelling of alcohol and unsteady.
Although he was over the limit, Mr Yates never intended to fly, Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court heard.
He was found not guilty of carrying out an activity ancillary to an aviation function while over the drink limit.
Earlier, the court heard he was to be one of three pilots on the American Airlines flight to Chicago on 11 February last year.
The jury heard he had been out for a drinking session in Manchester the night before he was due for work.
He was stopped when he could not find his pass at a security gate at the airport and was said to be dishevelled, red-faced and appeared drunk, the court heard.
But Mr Yates told police he turned up at the airport to tell the captain he was unfit for work and it was not his intention to be part of the crew.
He did not board the Boeing 767 aircraft, which had 181 passengers on board. Mr Yates was arrested after a postive breath test and taken to Altrincham Police Station where a doctor took a blood sample.
This gave a result of 129 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. The legal limit for flying an aircraft is 20 milligrams.
Earlier, the court was read a statement from Brigadier General Thomas Botchie, a senior commander in the Ohio National Guard, who had known Mr Yates since they were both fighter pilots in the 1980s.
"I have always found him to be a person of high morals and trustworthy," he said. "My opinion is, if James says he's telling the truth, he's telling the truth."
An airline pilot accused of turning up for work while six times over the limit to fly has been cleared.
American Airlines pilot James Yates, 46, from Ohio, was alleged to have arrived at Manchester Airport drunk, smelling of alcohol and unsteady.
Although he was over the limit, Mr Yates never intended to fly, Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court heard.
He was found not guilty of carrying out an activity ancillary to an aviation function while over the drink limit.
Earlier, the court heard he was to be one of three pilots on the American Airlines flight to Chicago on 11 February last year.
The jury heard he had been out for a drinking session in Manchester the night before he was due for work.
He was stopped when he could not find his pass at a security gate at the airport and was said to be dishevelled, red-faced and appeared drunk, the court heard.
But Mr Yates told police he turned up at the airport to tell the captain he was unfit for work and it was not his intention to be part of the crew.
He did not board the Boeing 767 aircraft, which had 181 passengers on board. Mr Yates was arrested after a postive breath test and taken to Altrincham Police Station where a doctor took a blood sample.
This gave a result of 129 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. The legal limit for flying an aircraft is 20 milligrams.
Earlier, the court was read a statement from Brigadier General Thomas Botchie, a senior commander in the Ohio National Guard, who had known Mr Yates since they were both fighter pilots in the 1980s.
"I have always found him to be a person of high morals and trustworthy," he said. "My opinion is, if James says he's telling the truth, he's telling the truth."
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it seems as if we are beating this one to death....
However, all of the excuses I read from his fellow AA Pilot KC135777 are in my opinion just that...excuses....
Drinking whisky in one's sleep??? Get real...great defence for your FAA Certificate, but if you have that kind of problem, it seems to me that Oklahoma City (The US Medical Folks) should take a closer look at this guy....
Anyone with any long haul airline experience knows that "tomorrow's show time" is paramount....
Calling in "sick" for something you "ate" last night is one thing...
"Saying" you intended to call in sick (if you got caught, perhaps?) after the fact indicates that this is probably not the first time this pilot has been to this rodeo...
And by the way KC...why do you keep "shouting"?
However, all of the excuses I read from his fellow AA Pilot KC135777 are in my opinion just that...excuses....
Drinking whisky in one's sleep??? Get real...great defence for your FAA Certificate, but if you have that kind of problem, it seems to me that Oklahoma City (The US Medical Folks) should take a closer look at this guy....
Anyone with any long haul airline experience knows that "tomorrow's show time" is paramount....
Calling in "sick" for something you "ate" last night is one thing...
"Saying" you intended to call in sick (if you got caught, perhaps?) after the fact indicates that this is probably not the first time this pilot has been to this rodeo...
And by the way KC...why do you keep "shouting"?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
excuses? no, technicalities, maybe....
I never knew about the conversation w/ the cab driver..so, it seems that "sick" was not just a reaction to getting nabbed.
I don't even know if he was charged with "intending" on flying, or carrying out duties as a crewmember.
shouting? if you're talking about the bold print....well, this 'quote' function seems to be manual (which I just figured out w/i the last day or so). I was just differentiating between my responses and the original poster. Sometimes, I DO capitalize (if that's what you're referring to) for emphasis on the specific word.....shouting? no, not me.
KC135777
I never knew about the conversation w/ the cab driver..so, it seems that "sick" was not just a reaction to getting nabbed.
I don't even know if he was charged with "intending" on flying, or carrying out duties as a crewmember.
shouting? if you're talking about the bold print....well, this 'quote' function seems to be manual (which I just figured out w/i the last day or so). I was just differentiating between my responses and the original poster. Sometimes, I DO capitalize (if that's what you're referring to) for emphasis on the specific word.....shouting? no, not me.
KC135777
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL
You consistantly say that Airport security should use a different policy towards Crew they think may have been drinking. I pointed out the consequences to them of your advice. I note as usual you didn't bother answering the question you were asked, are you now going to do so, or as usual cloud the issue?
Its a straight forward question, I'll repeat it for you.
You said
"What may come out of it is that airport security "MAY think twice" about calling the police."
In light of yoiur comments on this, and every other occation where a pilot has been arrested, the question to you was that given the option is call Police, or face the sack, which would you do in their position?
You consistantly say that Airport security should use a different policy towards Crew they think may have been drinking. I pointed out the consequences to them of your advice. I note as usual you didn't bother answering the question you were asked, are you now going to do so, or as usual cloud the issue?
Its a straight forward question, I'll repeat it for you.
You said
"What may come out of it is that airport security "MAY think twice" about calling the police."
In light of yoiur comments on this, and every other occation where a pilot has been arrested, the question to you was that given the option is call Police, or face the sack, which would you do in their position?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DownIn3Green
KC135777 raised a number of points for discussion in this thread. He asked questions about the law, and about what would be the legal position in various scenarios.
Two days after the thread started (in February 2006), he said this:
From the outset, he consistently argued against jumping to conclusions on the basis of limited press reports, urging people to wait until the trial.
He sometimes misunderstood the quite tricky legislation, and I don't agree with every opinion he's expressed, but IMHO the cautious approach he steadfastly maintained in the face of considerable criticism by several (and sarcasm from a few) has been vindicated by the verdict.
After the fact?
The evidence given by the taxi driver who drove the pilot to the airport helped the defence demolish the prosecution's claim that it was 'after the fact'.
Airbubba
The title of that article, "Jury forgives pilot", sets the tone for what follows. The jury didn't 'forgive' him. They found that he was Not Guilty.
The journalist who wrote that piece, which has appeared in several publications, chose to concentrate on one aspect of the pilot's evidence.
However, I'm told by one of my sources (who is in a position to know) that the judge left the jury with a clear decision to make -
If they were sure the pilot intended to fly: Guilty.
Otherwise, Not Guilty.
FL
all of the excuses I read from his fellow AA Pilot KC135777 are in my opinion just that...excuses....
Two days after the thread started (in February 2006), he said this:
This pilot did NOT perform an aviation function,
he did NOT carry out an activity that was ancillary to an aviation function,
he did NOT act as a pilot of an aircraft during flight.
All he did was show up at the airport, attempted to go through security and got arrested, right?
he did NOT carry out an activity that was ancillary to an aviation function,
he did NOT act as a pilot of an aircraft during flight.
All he did was show up at the airport, attempted to go through security and got arrested, right?
He sometimes misunderstood the quite tricky legislation, and I don't agree with every opinion he's expressed, but IMHO the cautious approach he steadfastly maintained in the face of considerable criticism by several (and sarcasm from a few) has been vindicated by the verdict.
"Saying" you intended to call in sick (if you got caught, perhaps?) after the fact indicates that this is probably not the first time this pilot has been to this rodeo...
The evidence given by the taxi driver who drove the pilot to the airport helped the defence demolish the prosecution's claim that it was 'after the fact'.
Airbubba
The title of that article, "Jury forgives pilot", sets the tone for what follows. The jury didn't 'forgive' him. They found that he was Not Guilty.
The journalist who wrote that piece, which has appeared in several publications, chose to concentrate on one aspect of the pilot's evidence.
However, I'm told by one of my sources (who is in a position to know) that the judge left the jury with a clear decision to make -
If they were sure the pilot intended to fly: Guilty.
Otherwise, Not Guilty.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 22nd Mar 2007 at 22:47.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Just for context, the Ambien defense is all the rage in U.S. drunk driving cases these days.
Here's a New York Times article from a year ago posted on William 'Bubba' Head's DUI lawyer website:
http://www.georgiacriminaldefense.co...beyond-bed.htm
Here's a New York Times article from a year ago posted on William 'Bubba' Head's DUI lawyer website:
http://www.georgiacriminaldefense.co...beyond-bed.htm
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL,
Thanks sir....about 'tipping one (or 3)'...they're on me.
So, for clarification, it appears he was charged NOT with carrying out an aviation duty? correct? But, was charged under Section 94 "preparing to carry out an aviation function" & "holding himself ready to carry out one of those functions"? Is that correct?
Also, what are the UK's requirements for a guilty verdict? like ours- "beyond a reasonable doubt" (although, I believe that's criminal, vs. civil trials) or maybe something less, like our civil requirements? Curious.
Thanks again for your inputs.
KC
Thanks sir....about 'tipping one (or 3)'...they're on me.
So, for clarification, it appears he was charged NOT with carrying out an aviation duty? correct? But, was charged under Section 94 "preparing to carry out an aviation function" & "holding himself ready to carry out one of those functions"? Is that correct?
Also, what are the UK's requirements for a guilty verdict? like ours- "beyond a reasonable doubt" (although, I believe that's criminal, vs. civil trials) or maybe something less, like our civil requirements? Curious.
Thanks again for your inputs.
KC
Well, the accused pilot must be relieved to be spared a conviction, but I have a feeling he did not enjoy writing out a fat, even though well earned, check to his lawyer
So if you do wake up in a hotel having had too much to drink the night before (by whatever means) with only your uniform to put on, you may be wiser to call dispatch and say you're too sick to even get out of bed.
So if you do wake up in a hotel having had too much to drink the night before (by whatever means) with only your uniform to put on, you may be wiser to call dispatch and say you're too sick to even get out of bed.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
“You consistantly say that Airport security should use a different policy towards Crew they think may have been drinking.”
My comments about airport security have depended upon the circumstances of the particular incident being discussed. I'm not sure any of them merit the description 'policy'.
To the best of my recollection, the only policy I've suggested in this context is that police constables should be required to consult a supervisory rank before breath-testing crew on board a public transport aircraft. IMHO it would reduce the risk of such incidents as this, also at Manchester: UK pilot breathalysed after go arounds . (It transpired to be both pilots.)
As a former constable, you understandably didn't agree with my suggestion.
“I pointed out the consequences to them of your advice.”
I haven't offered them any advice.
“I note as usual you didn't bother answering the question you were asked.”
I join in discussions I find interesting and, if asked questions, do my best to answer as many as my spare time permits. I’ve told you several times on various ‘legal’ threads why I now tend not to bother answering your questions.
“as usual cloud the issue?”
You’ve made that allegation on several occasions. If almost anyone else made it, I’d be concerned.
No-one else has. (I've been taking part in discussions since July 2000.)
You said "What may come out of it is that airport security "MAY think twice" about calling the police."
I adapted your phraseology to suggest it as a possibility, adding I thought it unlikely.
See post #286 for the context in which I made the suggestion.
"the option is call Police, or face the sack, which would you do in their position?"
Your question is based on a premise I don't accept. ie I do not accept they have to choose between "which" of only two options, one of which means facing the sack.
If you can support your assertion with an extract from an official document I’ll look at it and consider if it changes my view.
What I'd do would depend upon the circumstances.
In circumstances such as those discussed in this thread (airline pilot arriving alone, not part of a crew, appears to have been drinking), I'd ask him if he was on duty or intending to report for duty.
My actions thereafter would, in part, depend upon his answer:
(a) If he said he wasn’t and wished to inform his captain he was unfit for duty, I’d refuse to allow him airside and tell him he'd have to contact his company by some other means. If there was a telephone available, I'd allow him to use it. I’d tell him what (if any) further action I intended to take. eg Recording the incident, reporting it to someone in a senior position. I would not call the police.
(b) If he said he was on duty or intending to report for duty, I’d refuse to allow him airside, explaining I suspected he'd been drinking, and tell him I intended to report my suspicions to someone at a senior level so that they could decide what action to take.
If I was in a senior position -
Scenario (a): I'd see no reason to report the matter to the police.
Scenario (b): I'd inform the pilot's company. I'd need more information before deciding whether to call the police.
Others might act differently. That is what I would do.
I do not accept that someone taking the actions I've mentioned would face the sack.
RatherBeFlying
I don’t know if the pilot paid privately or, as in virtually all criminal trials in the Crown Court, his defence was funded by Legal Aid. (The title has been changed; I use the well-known expression.)
If privately, he would be entitled to have his costs reimbursed following his acquittal.
FL
“You consistantly say that Airport security should use a different policy towards Crew they think may have been drinking.”
My comments about airport security have depended upon the circumstances of the particular incident being discussed. I'm not sure any of them merit the description 'policy'.
To the best of my recollection, the only policy I've suggested in this context is that police constables should be required to consult a supervisory rank before breath-testing crew on board a public transport aircraft. IMHO it would reduce the risk of such incidents as this, also at Manchester: UK pilot breathalysed after go arounds . (It transpired to be both pilots.)
As a former constable, you understandably didn't agree with my suggestion.
“I pointed out the consequences to them of your advice.”
I haven't offered them any advice.
“I note as usual you didn't bother answering the question you were asked.”
I join in discussions I find interesting and, if asked questions, do my best to answer as many as my spare time permits. I’ve told you several times on various ‘legal’ threads why I now tend not to bother answering your questions.
“as usual cloud the issue?”
You’ve made that allegation on several occasions. If almost anyone else made it, I’d be concerned.
No-one else has. (I've been taking part in discussions since July 2000.)
You said "What may come out of it is that airport security "MAY think twice" about calling the police."
I adapted your phraseology to suggest it as a possibility, adding I thought it unlikely.
See post #286 for the context in which I made the suggestion.
"the option is call Police, or face the sack, which would you do in their position?"
Your question is based on a premise I don't accept. ie I do not accept they have to choose between "which" of only two options, one of which means facing the sack.
If you can support your assertion with an extract from an official document I’ll look at it and consider if it changes my view.
What I'd do would depend upon the circumstances.
In circumstances such as those discussed in this thread (airline pilot arriving alone, not part of a crew, appears to have been drinking), I'd ask him if he was on duty or intending to report for duty.
My actions thereafter would, in part, depend upon his answer:
(a) If he said he wasn’t and wished to inform his captain he was unfit for duty, I’d refuse to allow him airside and tell him he'd have to contact his company by some other means. If there was a telephone available, I'd allow him to use it. I’d tell him what (if any) further action I intended to take. eg Recording the incident, reporting it to someone in a senior position. I would not call the police.
(b) If he said he was on duty or intending to report for duty, I’d refuse to allow him airside, explaining I suspected he'd been drinking, and tell him I intended to report my suspicions to someone at a senior level so that they could decide what action to take.
If I was in a senior position -
Scenario (a): I'd see no reason to report the matter to the police.
Scenario (b): I'd inform the pilot's company. I'd need more information before deciding whether to call the police.
Others might act differently. That is what I would do.
I do not accept that someone taking the actions I've mentioned would face the sack.
RatherBeFlying
I don’t know if the pilot paid privately or, as in virtually all criminal trials in the Crown Court, his defence was funded by Legal Aid. (The title has been changed; I use the well-known expression.)
If privately, he would be entitled to have his costs reimbursed following his acquittal.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 24th Mar 2007 at 09:33.
I don’t know if the pilot paid privately or, as in virtually all criminal trials in the Crown Court, his defence was funded by Legal Aid... If privately, he would be entitled to have his costs reimbursed following his acquittal.
