American Airlines Pilot Arrested at Manchester (NOT GUILTY)

[bjcc]

ZQA297/30

He reported for duty. Therefore I would suggest he satisfies Subsection 4, 5 and 6.

Unfortunatly, AA have stuffed him, by saying in their statement, he was a 'relief First Officer'.

Irrespective of his BAC (if that is the offence for which he has been arrested) at the time he actualy lays hands on any controls, he is 'in play'.

Of course it's open to him to argue the fact in court, should he be charged (if he already hasn't been) He may even win on it. Then again if I were facing 6 months I would grasp at anything I could too.

[jondc9]

it is a NO NO to be in uniform and to even be in a bar...unless it is a restaurant that serves food and the bar is incidental to getting to the food part.

again, this pilot is innocent until proven guilty...I am glad this happened in a civilized country!

the relief pilot is sometimes known as an international relief officer to allow segments longer than 8 hours to be flown. while another pilot is resting, he/she is in the cockpit doing their job. usually the pilot is in the cockpit for takeoff and landing too, another pair of eyes and that rot.

I think American elected to fly the flight to chicago with a stop in new york...the trip would then be less than 8 hours and they could operate with 2 pilots. Of course once in New York (neuvo york) a new crew would have to take over to go on to Chicago.

of course New York just had 26.9 inches of snow...we shall see how things go!

sadly, drunk pilots or accused drunk pilots are part of the problem of the downsizing of life for pilots...it used to be that if you had a problem, you called up someone and got up to a year off with full pay to deal with it...after that if you couldn't deal with it you could get half pay for a long long time rather than fly.

of course with problems , airlines (not american though...but not sure) have cut such things in one way or another...depression, alcoholism, hiding medical problems, will increase as benefits decrease.

regards

jon

[arewenearlythereyet?]

Will someone please get the amateur lawyers/spotters/enthusiasts off this thread! For the umpteenth time, a relief pilot is a part of the OPERATING crew. Why can you not get that into your muddled heads. It is so obvious to the rest of us that operate these kinds of flights, with three or more crew, that you are posting drivel about not being on duty or whatever based on your total lack of experience. That makes you just a bunch of spotty amateurs, probably spotters, trying to get your posts read on here when in fact your are just a bunch of neanderthals spouting utter bovine excrement.

There is NOTHING about this pilot being in uniform and drinking alcohol in a bar.
The fact that he was a relief pilot matters not one iota. If he REPORTS for duty, he has REPORTED for duty.

Please, go and find a website that caters for radio controlled models or something similar and leave this to adults, preferably those actually involved as airline pilots, to discuss this based on INFORMED speculation and not the pathetic waffle we keep seeing repeated on here by the likes of Sunfish, ZQ and Tartan.

[Airbubba]

>>first time offense and he'll still be flying. Just hope never gets into a situation like this again.

Huh? I think reporting for duty drunk is a little more serious than this these days for U.S. carriers...

Usual caveats, we don't know the details, innocent until proven guilty, it could have been swamp gas or ripe fruit etc., etc., etc...

[Sunfish]

Dear arewenearlythereyet. I have simply pointed out two things.

1. AA's rules and procedures are not the law of the United Kingdom.

2. Should the gentlemen concerned be charged, it will be an English Court that interprets the law.

As for your insulting references to the simple speculation I'm engaging in, all I can say is that you have obviously never seen the creativity of a QC in full flight defending a client.

P.S. - Reading the definition of "ancilliary" suggests to me that if I make my flight plan the night before over a few drinks then I am actually committing an offence - whether or not I've made an alcohol induced mistake.

[KC135777]

regarding- the captain deciding which FO acts as the FO and the other as the FB...well, at AA the 2 positions are bid separately. If I were the FO, and the Captain and I didn't get along so great, and on the way back, he said he wants the FB in the seat for t/o and landing (act as SIC/FO for the trip home), I'd tell him I was going to have to call crew schedule and report 'sick'. Then, as I'm proceeding to do that, ask him if that was what he still wanted to do? That would screw up his > 8 hr flight!

The FB usually does the cockpit preflight and walkaround. There is NOTHING in the AA manuals that mandate these duties though, or the necessity to sit in the cockpit, for t/o & landing. So, if he wasn't 'feeling' very good at report time, the Captain 'could' have sat him in pilot's first class relief seat to get better. That could have been for ALL ground ops and 3 or 4 hours after t/o.

For you UK guys, did they take him to the hospital for breathalizer, or blood test? anyone know? How do the 2003 laws regarding BAC measurements convert to typical American measurements? Normally, driving while under the influence is .08% BAC to .1% BAC. Under the FAA mandated drug & alcohol testing program, a positive test (at AA) is considered .02%BAC or greater.

So, the folks at MAN have a bad reputation, eh? Are we talking about the security screeners, or other personnel?

[KC135777]

Originally Posted by jondc9

I think American elected to fly the flight to chicago with a stop in new york...the trip would then be less than 8 hours and they could operate with 2 pilots. Of course once in New York (neuvo york) a new crew would have to take over to go on to Chicago. of course New York just had 26.9 inches of snow...we shall see how things go! jon

Yep, they stopped in JFK and got a new crew (2), and DH'd to ORD. They were about 3+15 late in ORD. They beat the snowstorm on the East Coast.

[KC135777]

Originally Posted by bjcc

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,

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? I'm guessing, when arrested, they didn't even know how many hours in the future he was to actually START his duties.
Sure, we all know where he was going, and what he was going to do.
BUT, in this above R&TSA 2003 UK law, I'm not seeing anything about the "contemplation" of performance of the above mentioned duties/activities.
Am I missing something here? How about "conspiracy to commit" the above mentioned aviation duties/activities? Well, doesn't conspiracy REQUIRE an intent to commit an illegal activity? A person never actually knows whether he is legal or illegal (over the limit, or under the limit) if he thinks he might be "close". So how could he have definitive knowledge of an illegal BAC? Is there anything further in the UK law about this? I'd really like to know.

Let's just hope this is an overzealous MAN employee.

[Final 3 Greens]

Am I missing something here?

Yes, please read what Danny (and others) have written about the consequence of reporting for duty.

[Flying Lawyer]

Sunfish
Although blunt, I don't think the comments made by arewenearlythereyet (and others) are surprising.

The legal position has been pointed out several times:
If his role on the flight has been correctly described, he comes within the provisions of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003.


KC135777
Are you seriously suggesting the pilot was off duty unless and until the moment he was called upon to actually fly the aircraft?

Re knowledge:
Whether or not a pilot knows his BAC exceeds the prescribed limit is not relevant under the Act.
UK law?
I'm open to correction, but I understand US law relating to pilots and alcohol is the same.

The same applies to drivers in the UK. Knowledge is irrelevant.
Again, I'm open to correction but I believe the same applies in the US.
It certainly does in some states.


Whether or not the pilot has committed any offence is, of course, a separate matter. We don't yet know if he was impaired because of drink or drugs or if the proportion of alcohol in his body (if any) exceeded the limit prescribed by the Act.


NB:
I'm assuming simply for the purpose of this discussion that the role of the AA pilot has been correctly described in the very limited reports currently available.
If that changes, so may the opinions I've expressed.


FL

[westhawk]

British law only the beginning......

After reading the applicable British law kindly posted by another forum member, it seems concievable to me that even if an American relief pilot could possibly be found to be innocent of any violation of british law while exceeding the allowable BAC %, he could still be found to be in violation of US FARs for the following reason:

1) Appendix J to FAR part 121 defines the terms used for the purpose of the alcohol misuse prevention program air carriers are required to administer. Here is the definition of "performing a safety sensitive function":

Performing (a safety-sensitive function): an employee is considered to be performing a safety-sensitive function during any period in which he or she is actually performing, ready to perform, or immediately available to perform such functions.

This may differ somewhat from the British law definition in that a relief pilot would quite clearly be considered "immediately available to perform such functions" by the FAA and would therefore be a "covered employee" under the rules. The full text of appendix J is a bit long and drawn out, but covers the subject pretty fully. 91.17 has some relevance to the matter as well.

Just as an aside, a BAC of .02% does not constitute a violation of the US rules. .04% BAC is the threshold for violation. However, a "covered employee" may not be allowed to perform safety-sensitive functions following testing until they test below .02% BAC or 8 hours after the first test if it was below .04% but .02% or more. Tests exceeding .04% are a violation of the alcohol misuse policy and the employee may not be returned to duty until completing a "program" and receiving clearance. 2nd offences result in permanent disqualification from performing such functions. Offences by medical certificate holders require notification of the federal air surgeon.

So even if he is exonerated of the British charges on the basis that he was not performing a listed function, there could still be serious trouble ahead if he is in violation of FARs. The only "good" outcome for him will be that the test comes back at less than .04% BAC. For his sake, I hope this is all some terrible misunderstanding on the part of the authorities involved. Every one of these instances is bad for all of us. The public only sees the sensational "drunk pilot" headline and rarely takes note of the fact that most of these cases are ultimately found to be baseless. And there are just enough idiots who are guilty to provide justification to the suspicions felt by the security types. I'll reserve judgement until the facts come out.

Best regards,

Westhawk

[Flying Lawyer]

westhawk

Section 94 (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."

ie The Act applies (for example) to a pilot on Standby at home.


FL

(My comments in this and previous posts are based on his role as currently reported.)

[Tartan Giant]

Originally Posted by arewenearlythereyet?

Will someone please get the amateur lawyers/spotters/enthusiasts off this thread! For the umpteenth time, a relief pilot is a part of the OPERATING crew. Why can you not get that into your muddled heads. It is so obvious to the rest of us that operate these kinds of flights, with three or more crew, that you are posting drivel about not being on duty or whatever based on your total lack of experience. That makes you just a bunch of spotty amateurs, probably spotters, trying to get your posts read on here when in fact your are just a bunch of neanderthals spouting utter bovine excrement.

There is NOTHING about this pilot being in uniform and drinking alcohol in a bar. The fact that he was a relief pilot matters not one iota. If he REPORTS for duty, he has REPORTED for duty.

Please, go and find a website that caters for radio controlled models or something similar and leave this to adults, preferably those actually involved as airline pilots, to discuss this based on INFORMED speculation and not the pathetic waffle we keep seeing repeated on here by the likes of Sunfish, ZQ and Tartan.

arewenearlythereyet?
The unprofessional title/"handle" you use, and the lack of any authentication of your PILOT qualifications, could make you the one spouting utter bovine excrement.

I duly admit and yeild to the fact I did not know that the PC brigade in the USA had grouped Flight Deck Crew amongst the Cabin Crew, into the generic term crewmembers.

If you notice thereafterarewenearlythereyet?, I took the half-joking route of suggesting that with so many "Flight Crew" on board, the guilty could be tricky to find amongst the woodpile. I probably should not have done so, as the matter is so serious.

I shall let you slumber onarewenearlythereyet? knowing that your professionalism requires somebody else (maybe even the cabin crew) to tell you when you are nearly there - every time you go somewhere.

I think even you will get the gist of my background, and with glorious hindsight, realise your remarks were not appreciated.

On closing, I do NOT condone any Flight Crew member, or Cabin Staff member, reporting for duty having broken the drink/fly rules.

TG (now a spotty amateur - after 38 years [qualified adult ] and touching 25,000 hrs)

[ZQA297/30]

Like Tartan Giant I have been engaged in professional aviation for 40 plus years and about 20,000 hrs.

In that time I have learned that NOTHING to do with rules and regulations is cut and dried, and that questioning the PC interpretations often leads to dogmatic responses, but quite often, in INTELLIGENT discussion, new insights are gained.

I have also learned that no matter how much you know, you do not know it all, and there is always something to be gained from asking questions.

[westhawk]

Section 94 (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."

Flying Lawyer

Thank you for that clarification. That restores my faith in the abilities of the drafters of your country's legislation to write laws so as to have the broadest possible reach and effect! It appears the the US have not cornered that market. This particular section seems to be equivelant to the FAR 121 appendix J defininition of "performing a safety sensitive function".

ie The Act even applies (for example) to a pilot on Standby at home.

Interpretation of the definition of the term "standby" could create worries for many of us in a position of being subject to callout at any time that we are not engaged in a "required crew rest period" during which we must be free from all company duties.

Best regards,

Westhawk

[ZQA297/30]

How would the Act treat with this?
Deadhead crewmember reports in with operating crew, to position to operate out of next stop. Would this be considered ancilliary?

[hughesyd]

I Agree, but i think some people are missing the point here. Firstly, you cant possibly complain about an airport because the majority of checks seem to take place there!, whether proved right or otherwise. If a member of the public smells alchohol on a pilot, and they report it, what are we to do, just ignore it??!.Once reported by a member of the public, the police have no choice but to investigate. Im sure as a passenger, i wouldnt like to think my pilot has been out on the sauce the night before. Fact is, you shouldnt be drinking AT ALL, NOT ONE DROP, Within the limits and more realistically beyond.There should be more discretionary random checks as far as im concerned. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. That way it saves embarasment all round for the Police, Airlines and pilots concerned.

[Flying Lawyer]

westhawk

'Standby' doesn't appear in the section. I used it as an illustration.
As for the scenario you mention, it would depend upon the terms of your employment.

hughesyd

I agree

With what?

If a member of the public smells alchohol on a pilot, and they report it, what are we to do, just ignore it??!.

Who are "we"?

Once reported by a member of the public, the police have no choice but to investigate.

The police are not bound to administer a breath-test just because a member of the public has made an allegation.

Im sure as a passenger, i wouldnt like to think my pilot has been out on the sauce the night before.

You're entitled to your view. I think it depends upon how much 'my pilot' had drunk the night before and how long had elapsed since his last drink. How many days do you as a PPL leave between drinking alcohol and going flying?

Fact is, you shouldnt be drinking AT ALL, NOT ONE DROP, Within the limits and more realistically beyond.

What does that mean?

There should be more discretionary random checks as far as im concerned.

If there was any evidence of a problem which justified such a measure, I might agree with you.

[bjcc]

FL

"Quote:
Once reported by a member of the public, the police have no choice but to investigate.

The police are not bound to administer a breath-test just because a member of the public has made an allegation. "

No, they are not 'bound' to require a breath test, and arrest may take place after such an allegation, without a breath test being conducted, or asked for.

However, they are bound to investigate. And that means find out what happened, to enquire into whether there is substance to that allegation. That CAN lead to a breath test being required, sometimes from the informant has said alone, and sometimes as a result of what the officer finds, or uncovers when he investigates.

[Flyingphil]

What is so difficult about the situation to understand?

1. The FAA requires Enlarged Crew for all 8+X-Duties.

2. When you report for Duty you to have to meet the alcohol-targets and there must have been a "Rest" between Alcohol-Consumption and Duty, as far as I know 12 Hours.

3. The Role within the Crew does not influence this basic need.
It does not matter, if the pilot in question is active on T/O in MAN or takes over during cruise somewhere over the atlantic.
When he reported for Duty @MAN he was supposed to be below the allowed alcohol-level (Which is 0.1 if I am correct)

These are the facts, and now, anybody heart anything about the outcome @Court today?