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
Nov71
'Read the BBC report guys -
He was arrested on SUSPICION of being drunk or under the influence of drugs eg slurred speech, wobbly gait, flushed & sweating, all possible symptoms of other things though MAN traffic police often go on smell of breath, again could be sign of something else - mouthwash'
Where do you get the drugs bit from? I have re read the BBC report, and it does not mention drugs as being a reason for arrest.
Nor does it mention the 'signs' of being drunk you mention.
I think you may be confused when you mention MAN trafpol 'going' on a smell of breath, as your post implies that is used as evidence of drunkeness. it can be part of that evidence, but is more used as a reason to breath test, to provide evidence for driving/flying above a prescribed limit.
IF someone displays the 'signs' of being drunk you mention, then yes, if the officer can arrest on that, but would probably still give a breath test, thus eliminating the cause being 'other things'. If the person is arrested, the a doctor would examine the prsioner at the Police station again, eliminating the other causes.
The prescribed limit does not show drunkeness, it is an arbitary limit of the amount of alcohol you can have in your body when doing a task, nothing more.
AA's statement mentions him appearing in Court on Monday. The BBC's press report says he will return to the Police Station on Tuesday. Interesting difference, but in either case, suprising it is that quick.
'Read the BBC report guys -
He was arrested on SUSPICION of being drunk or under the influence of drugs eg slurred speech, wobbly gait, flushed & sweating, all possible symptoms of other things though MAN traffic police often go on smell of breath, again could be sign of something else - mouthwash'
Where do you get the drugs bit from? I have re read the BBC report, and it does not mention drugs as being a reason for arrest.
Nor does it mention the 'signs' of being drunk you mention.
I think you may be confused when you mention MAN trafpol 'going' on a smell of breath, as your post implies that is used as evidence of drunkeness. it can be part of that evidence, but is more used as a reason to breath test, to provide evidence for driving/flying above a prescribed limit.
IF someone displays the 'signs' of being drunk you mention, then yes, if the officer can arrest on that, but would probably still give a breath test, thus eliminating the cause being 'other things'. If the person is arrested, the a doctor would examine the prsioner at the Police station again, eliminating the other causes.
The prescribed limit does not show drunkeness, it is an arbitary limit of the amount of alcohol you can have in your body when doing a task, nothing more.
AA's statement mentions him appearing in Court on Monday. The BBC's press report says he will return to the Police Station on Tuesday. Interesting difference, but in either case, suprising it is that quick.
Last edited by bjcc; 12th Feb 2006 at 07:54.
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC misleading again
The Ceefax teletext news item on Saturday afternoon referred to a "drunk" pilot, in its headline. Without evidence.
This is downright dishonest and misleading reporting. I am looking for the opportunity to sue the Corporation, and this may just be the material. Anyone else view the BBC this way?
This is downright dishonest and misleading reporting. I am looking for the opportunity to sue the Corporation, and this may just be the material. Anyone else view the BBC this way?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This could be an interesting incident.
If the chap was going on as a relief pilot, and did not board as part of the designated cockpit crew, how would one determine what his B.A.C. would be when he finally went into cockpit to assume flying duties.
If he had stopped drinking more than 12 hours before he got into a flying seat, and his B.A.C. was by then below the proscribed limit would he be committing an offence, or not?
If the chap was going on as a relief pilot, and did not board as part of the designated cockpit crew, how would one determine what his B.A.C. would be when he finally went into cockpit to assume flying duties.
If he had stopped drinking more than 12 hours before he got into a flying seat, and his B.A.C. was by then below the proscribed limit would he be committing an offence, or not?
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I give in! 
A relief pilot IS part of an OPERATING crew. It doesn't matter if he is acting as relief or not. It is your condition when you report for duty. Why is it so difficult for people to understand this?
The pilot was arrested on suspition of being over the limit. How he pleads and any subsequent court case will determine whether he is guilty or not based on the evidence provided. It really is as simple as that.
What he was wearing when he was in the bar, assuming he was in a bar, whether he was relief pilot, PF or PNF is irrelevant. What will be interesting is who decided that he appeared to be over the limit and informed the police. Could it be another one of those disgruntled hotel employees who didn't get a tip? A bit of patience and less barrackroom lawyering would be good for a start.
A relief pilot IS part of an OPERATING crew. It doesn't matter if he is acting as relief or not. It is your condition when you report for duty. Why is it so difficult for people to understand this?
The pilot was arrested on suspition of being over the limit. How he pleads and any subsequent court case will determine whether he is guilty or not based on the evidence provided. It really is as simple as that.
What he was wearing when he was in the bar, assuming he was in a bar, whether he was relief pilot, PF or PNF is irrelevant. What will be interesting is who decided that he appeared to be over the limit and informed the police. Could it be another one of those disgruntled hotel employees who didn't get a tip? A bit of patience and less barrackroom lawyering would be good for a start.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bjcc
Whats more interesting is the statement says he's due to appear in Court on Monday.
Normaly, people are bailed for up to 6 weeks for samples to be anyalised.....
Normaly, people are bailed for up to 6 weeks for samples to be anyalised.....
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Railsways & Transport Safety Act 2003
S 92
(1) A person commits an offence if-
(a) he performs an aviation function at a time when his ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs, or
(b) he carries out an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function at a time when his ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
(2) In this section "drug" includes any intoxicant other than alcohol.
(3) Section 94 defines "aviation function" and "ancillary activity" for the purposes of this Part.
S 93
1) A person commits an offence if-
(a) he performs an aviation function at a time when the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit, or
(b) he carries out an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function at a time when the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit.
(2) The prescribed limit of alcohol is (subject to subsection (3))-
(a) in the case of breath, 9 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,
(b) in the case of blood, 20 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and
(c) in the case of urine, 27 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.
(3) In relation to the aviation function specified in section 94(1)(h) the prescribed limit is-
(a) in the case of breath, 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,
(b) in the case of blood, 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and
(c) in the case of urine, 107 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending subsection (2) or (3).
(5) Section 94 defines "aviation function" and "ancillary activity" for the purposes of this
S 94
(1) For the purposes of this Part the following (and only the following) are aviation functions-
(a) acting as a pilot of an aircraft during flight,
(b) acting as flight navigator of an aircraft during flight,
(c) acting as flight engineer of an aircraft during flight,
(d) acting as flight radio-telephony operator of an aircraft during flight,
(e) acting as a member of the cabin crew of an aircraft during flight,
(f) attending the flight deck of an aircraft during flight to give or supervise training, to administer a test, to observe a period of practice or to monitor or record the gaining of experience,
That ought to answer the questions regarding his laibility to provide a screening breath test, if thats what happened, and be arrested.
Danny
You assume that he was arrested for having a BAC above the prescribed limit (S93). He may have been, or may not. There is a second offence(s92) of being unfit through alcohol. Again, he may or may not have been arrested for that.
I do hope we are not going to have yet another attack on 'grasses'. As other have pointed out, innocent until proved guilty. That applies as much to 'grasses' as this pilot.
geraintw
The reason why it is interesting is because the agreement with the CAA and Police is that blood will normally be anaylised, not breath as in the RTA. Blood tests usually take a couple of weeks to come back, and therefore the suspect is bailed for around 6 weeks, not a couple of days.
One can guess at why that is (assmuming the AA statement regarding court on Monday is incorrect) .
S 92
(1) A person commits an offence if-
(a) he performs an aviation function at a time when his ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs, or
(b) he carries out an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function at a time when his ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
(2) In this section "drug" includes any intoxicant other than alcohol.
(3) Section 94 defines "aviation function" and "ancillary activity" for the purposes of this Part.
S 93
1) A person commits an offence if-
(a) he performs an aviation function at a time when the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit, or
(b) he carries out an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function at a time when the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit.
(2) The prescribed limit of alcohol is (subject to subsection (3))-
(a) in the case of breath, 9 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,
(b) in the case of blood, 20 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and
(c) in the case of urine, 27 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.
(3) In relation to the aviation function specified in section 94(1)(h) the prescribed limit is-
(a) in the case of breath, 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,
(b) in the case of blood, 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and
(c) in the case of urine, 107 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending subsection (2) or (3).
(5) Section 94 defines "aviation function" and "ancillary activity" for the purposes of this
S 94
(1) For the purposes of this Part the following (and only the following) are aviation functions-
(a) acting as a pilot of an aircraft during flight,
(b) acting as flight navigator of an aircraft during flight,
(c) acting as flight engineer of an aircraft during flight,
(d) acting as flight radio-telephony operator of an aircraft during flight,
(e) acting as a member of the cabin crew of an aircraft during flight,
(f) attending the flight deck of an aircraft during flight to give or supervise training, to administer a test, to observe a period of practice or to monitor or record the gaining of experience,
That ought to answer the questions regarding his laibility to provide a screening breath test, if thats what happened, and be arrested.
Danny
You assume that he was arrested for having a BAC above the prescribed limit (S93). He may have been, or may not. There is a second offence(s92) of being unfit through alcohol. Again, he may or may not have been arrested for that.
I do hope we are not going to have yet another attack on 'grasses'. As other have pointed out, innocent until proved guilty. That applies as much to 'grasses' as this pilot.
geraintw
The reason why it is interesting is because the agreement with the CAA and Police is that blood will normally be anaylised, not breath as in the RTA. Blood tests usually take a couple of weeks to come back, and therefore the suspect is bailed for around 6 weeks, not a couple of days.
One can guess at why that is (assmuming the AA statement regarding court on Monday is incorrect) .
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: on my boat in the Caribbean
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny, as always you've put the actual situation succinctly and accurately. Unfortunately, as I think I may have proven on another topic, people do not read what is actually posted, they read what they think is posted.
ZQA297/30,
If you are a relief pilot you ARE a member of the designated crew and go on duty at the same time.
If you are not a pilot please don't post outside your areas of expertise (if any).
If you are a relief pilot you ARE a member of the designated crew and go on duty at the same time.
If you are not a pilot please don't post outside your areas of expertise (if any).
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny has already summarised the legal position.
There is more detailed information and discussion relating to the UK law here -
Alcohol and Flying: The New Law
bjcc
There have been instances of disgruntled people (security screeners and others) making complaints against pilots to the police. This being a professional pilots website, it is inevitable and entirely understandable that there have been discussions about that aspect.
There is more detailed information and discussion relating to the UK law here -
Alcohol and Flying: The New Law
bjcc
There have been instances of disgruntled people (security screeners and others) making complaints against pilots to the police. This being a professional pilots website, it is inevitable and entirely understandable that there have been discussions about that aspect.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliport
There are cases where that is thought to be the position.
But it hasn't been shown, beyond an assumption, that it is based on anything other than a sense of public duty.
If that assumption had some basis, it would be an everyday occurrance, it isn't, so the suspcion doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
I can understand some of the comments, but they do have a habit of going beyond whats reasonable, and of course the victim of the comments cannot reply, or justify their position.
All I am suggesting is that perhaps this time, instead of blaming a member of the public, people stick to the point.
There are cases where that is thought to be the position.
But it hasn't been shown, beyond an assumption, that it is based on anything other than a sense of public duty.
If that assumption had some basis, it would be an everyday occurrance, it isn't, so the suspcion doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
I can understand some of the comments, but they do have a habit of going beyond whats reasonable, and of course the victim of the comments cannot reply, or justify their position.
All I am suggesting is that perhaps this time, instead of blaming a member of the public, people stick to the point.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some Hearsay
There is no official relief pilot position for crews on AA as far as I am concerned. Officially, for the 8hour plus flight, in this instance, there is one captain and two first officers. If one of the first officers is considered the relief, that is decided by the captain in the cockpit and most likely no earlier than one hour prior to flight. The term is just spin for any future justification to be lenient on the guy.
first time offense and he'll still be flying. Just hope never gets into a situation like this again.
first time offense and he'll still be flying. Just hope never gets into a situation like this again.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by airliner1999
There is no official relief pilot position for crews on AA as far as I am concerned. Officially, for the 8hour plus flight, in this instance, there is one captain and two first officers. If one of the first officers is considered the relief, that is decided by the captain in the cockpit and most likely no earlier than one hour prior to flight. The term is just spin for any future justification to be lenient on the guy.
first time offense and he'll still be flying. Just hope never gets into a situation like this again.
first time offense and he'll still be flying. Just hope never gets into a situation like this again.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well there's a relief
I agree with all that Flying Lawyer and Danny have said.
One small technical point from the AA Statement:
American Airlines Flight 55 is operated by a Boeing 767-300 and today carried 198 passengers and eleven flight crew.
eleven flight crew
Would I be correct in assuming AA realy meant to say, 2 flight crew and 9 cabin crew?
If there was indeed 11 "flight crew" then AA could pick and chose which were realy on duty, and that particular F/O could say he was not 'on duty' and was a pax dressed as an AA pilot........
I hope the AA pilot proves once again that it's another Manchester false alarm
TG
One small technical point from the AA Statement:
American Airlines Flight 55 is operated by a Boeing 767-300 and today carried 198 passengers and eleven flight crew.
eleven flight crew
Would I be correct in assuming AA realy meant to say, 2 flight crew and 9 cabin crew?
If there was indeed 11 "flight crew" then AA could pick and chose which were realy on duty, and that particular F/O could say he was not 'on duty' and was a pax dressed as an AA pilot........
I hope the AA pilot proves once again that it's another Manchester false alarm
TG
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There certainly was a "relief FO" in the AMR contract, as amended, up to 8/31/01. They were called "international relief first officers (FB and FC positions)" in Supplement I to the AMR97Contract, as amended.
Not aware that this has changed recently, but it is possible.
1 was required for 8 plus hrs in 2 man aircraft, 2 for 12 plus hrs.
Not aware that this has changed recently, but it is possible.
1 was required for 8 plus hrs in 2 man aircraft, 2 for 12 plus hrs.
'Flight Crew' is just another politically correct Americanism that seems to be used commonly over here now on the west side of the pond, that lumps us Pilots in with the F/A's.
Not by choice!
Sincerely hope the AA pilot in question (if indeed guilty) does not lose everything and is able to
recover from this.
Not by choice!
Sincerely hope the AA pilot in question (if indeed guilty) does not lose everything and is able to
recover from this.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Valley Where the Thames Runs Softly
Age: 77
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alcohol testing of drivers will soon be carried out with new, more accurate roadside testing machines which will eliminate the need to carry out the second, evidential, test at the police station. I wonder if this will spread to aviation?
I suspect that while the person may have transgressed company policy if, in fact, he had alcohol in his system, I'm not sure he would be in breach of the Act.
My reasoning (please to correct) is that he wasn't performing an aviation function within the meaning of the act, at the time he was tested, and by the time he was to be called upon to perform an aviation function, he could be below the limit.
A strict reading of the definition of aviation function:
(1) For the purposes of this Part the following (and only the following) are aviation functions-
(a) acting as a pilot of an aircraft during flight,
(b) acting as flight navigator of an aircraft during flight,
(c) acting as flight engineer of an aircraft during flight,
(d) acting as flight radio-telephony operator of an aircraft during flight,
(e) acting as a member of the cabin crew of an aircraft during flight,
(f) attending the flight deck of an aircraft during flight to give or supervise training, to administer a test, to observe a period of practice or to monitor or record the gaining of experience,
Was the person concerned required to do anything except sit down, strap in and shut up until required for relief?
My reasoning (please to correct) is that he wasn't performing an aviation function within the meaning of the act, at the time he was tested, and by the time he was to be called upon to perform an aviation function, he could be below the limit.
A strict reading of the definition of aviation function:
(1) For the purposes of this Part the following (and only the following) are aviation functions-
(a) acting as a pilot of an aircraft during flight,
(b) acting as flight navigator of an aircraft during flight,
(c) acting as flight engineer of an aircraft during flight,
(d) acting as flight radio-telephony operator of an aircraft during flight,
(e) acting as a member of the cabin crew of an aircraft during flight,
(f) attending the flight deck of an aircraft during flight to give or supervise training, to administer a test, to observe a period of practice or to monitor or record the gaining of experience,
Was the person concerned required to do anything except sit down, strap in and shut up until required for relief?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with you Sunfish, as far as it goes, but Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 go on to describe ancilliary functions, which are difficult to read and interpret.
"(3) For the purposes of this Part a reference to an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function is a reference to anything which falls to be treated as such by virtue of subsections (4) to (6).
(4) An activity shall be treated as ancillary to an aviation function if it is undertaken-
(a) by a person who has reported for a period of duty in respect of the function, and
(b) as a requirement of, for the purpose of or in connection with the performance of the function during that period of duty.
(5) A person who in accordance with the terms of an employment or undertaking holds himself ready to perform an aviation function if called upon shall be treated as carrying out an activity ancillary to the function.
(6) Where a person sets out to perform an aviation function, anything which he does by way of preparing to perform the function shall be treated as an activity ancillary to it."
The tricks are that, under the FARs, 121.543 for example, it is possible that the pilot may only be qualified for the cruise part of the flight, so he cannot (5) "hold himself ready" to perform until that point. May not apply here if pilot is fully qualified for duty in any segment of flight.
Which begs the question, effectively when does he (4 .a) "report for duty"?
(6)When does he prepare, and what preparation does he do?
"(3) For the purposes of this Part a reference to an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function is a reference to anything which falls to be treated as such by virtue of subsections (4) to (6).
(4) An activity shall be treated as ancillary to an aviation function if it is undertaken-
(a) by a person who has reported for a period of duty in respect of the function, and
(b) as a requirement of, for the purpose of or in connection with the performance of the function during that period of duty.
(5) A person who in accordance with the terms of an employment or undertaking holds himself ready to perform an aviation function if called upon shall be treated as carrying out an activity ancillary to the function.
(6) Where a person sets out to perform an aviation function, anything which he does by way of preparing to perform the function shall be treated as an activity ancillary to it."
The tricks are that, under the FARs, 121.543 for example, it is possible that the pilot may only be qualified for the cruise part of the flight, so he cannot (5) "hold himself ready" to perform until that point. May not apply here if pilot is fully qualified for duty in any segment of flight.
Which begs the question, effectively when does he (4 .a) "report for duty"?
(6)When does he prepare, and what preparation does he do?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holly ****
Originally Posted by ZQA297/30
Actually Stilton, it's worse than you think, according to FAR 1.1 you are all "crewmembers" not even flight crew.
It makes life easy for these PC pen-pushers if 11 "crewmembers" are on a flying machine; when does it get down to the nitty-gritty and these PC buggers recognise the "technical crew" apart from the cabin crew? Just in the pay packet egh.
I suppose airlines in the USA give CC a full set of wings too now, and 2/3/4 rings around the sleeves of their tunics!
It follows then CEO of a Fortune 500 company is just a little member of staff egh!
Take care
TG