American Airlines Pilot Arrested at Manchester (NOT GUILTY)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer
KC135777
Are you seriously suggesting the pilot was off duty unless and until the moment he was called upon to actually fly the aircraft?
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.
FL
Are you seriously suggesting the pilot was off duty unless and until the moment he was called upon to actually fly the aircraft?
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.
FL
"off duty"? I don't know, I wasn't on that crew, and don't know what the Captain mandated his duties to be, if indeed, he changed them from the norm. But, he COULD have changed them. See the following....From AA's FM, "FB / FC duties are assigned by the Captain to include flying as relief pilot during Captain and FO enroute rest breaks"
Therefore, yes the Captain COULD have changed them and told him, "since you're not feeling very well 'at the present', relax in the crew rest seat for a few hours until better. (ie...I 'deem' you off duty for a few more hours)
AA pilot's "on duty period" or "flight duty period" normally starts 1 hour before scheduled departure time, period- NOT before. Therefore, if the crew was early (usually there's some overkill with the hotel p/u and transport to the airport), and the arrest took place "early", then there was NO offense committed regarding "commencement of duty period", or "reporting for flight duty" etc...because those "acts" had NOT occurred. That is a real possibility. He could have been going to a restaurant, sit for 15-30 minutes eating and reading the newspaper, BEFORE starting duty.
So, I suppose, there's a couple angles that could be used. I guess time will tell, eh?
kc135777
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like Tartan Giant I have been engaged in professional aviation for 40 plus years and about 20,000 hrs.
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 ancillary?
Deadhead crewmember reports in with operating crew, to position to operate out of next stop. Would this be considered ancillary?
Of course you knew that as a pilot you are BASED at one location and that is your base for reporting for duty. If the company want you to operate out of a different base then you are required to report at your normal base and they will either position you the day before the duty is to begin elsewhere or else, if the subsequent flying will not impinge on Flight Duty Limitations, the positioning or deadheading is considered to be a part of that duty period.
Why on why do we still have to get these amateurish questions from people who pretend to be in the business but have no grasp of the rules as they apply to airline pilots? If you are a part of a crew, operating in ANY capacity, including relief pilot, then you are considered to have reported for duty whether your task involves touching the flight controls or not. If you are positioning to operate a flight from a different location and you will not have mandatory minimum rest before operating that flight then you are on FLIGHT DUTY from the time you report to position. If you are on your day off and you live far away from your base and you are commuting to your base to operate then you are not on duty and you do what you want within the limitations of your company rules and statutory regulations.
AA pilot's "on duty period" or "flight duty period" normally starts 1 hour before scheduled departure time, period- NOT before. Therefore, if the crew was early (usually there's some overkill with the hotel p/u and transport to the airport), and the arrest took place "early", then there was NO offense committed regarding "commencement of duty period", or "reporting for flight duty" etc...because those "acts" had NOT occurred. That is a real possibility. He could have been going to a restaurant, sit for 15-30 minutes eating and reading the newspaper, BEFORE starting duty.
Last edited by arewenearlythereyet?; 13th Feb 2006 at 15:24.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flyingphil
...and there must have been a "Rest" between Alcohol-Consumption and Duty, as far as I know 12 Hours.
FARs 91.17 and 121.458 reads in part:
1. No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft:
a) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage.
b) While under the influence of alcohol.
a) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage.
b) While under the influence of alcohol.
Yes legally 8 hours but the company contract is I believe considered to be under the same rules once it has been approved by the Feds. Those rules almost invariablly say 12 hours twixt bottle and throttle...EXCEPT ...the throttle is not the cockpit but the time you report for duty...typically an hour and a half prior to take off for international flights. Thus a lot (and I don't know if this includes AA) of US carriers have 13.5 hours prior to on duty as the cut-off point.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by flown-it
Yes legally 8 hours but the company contract is I believe considered to be under the same rules once it has been approved by the Feds. Those rules almost invariablly say 12 hours twixt bottle and throttle...EXCEPT ...the throttle is not the cockpit but the time you report for duty...typically an hour and a half prior to take off for international flights. Thus a lot (and I don't know if this includes AA) of US carriers have 13.5 hours prior to on duty as the cut-off point.
Prior to the mid-nineties, it used to say "within 24 hours, or on ANY layover"...but then, the chief pilot (Cecil Ewell) changed it to match the FARs.
Believe me, I "is" one.
kc135777
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KC135777
I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve.
FL and I may not see eye to eye on most things, but, he knows his stuff. He's pointed out the obvious, so have a few others. This guy was in play as far as the UK legislation is concerned.
It really does not matter one jot what the AA FM, or any other document says. Nor does it matter what notional manoevering is done by anyone to re arrange this guys status. He has been nicked! End.
Oh and just to hammer in the last nail to your theorising, He was at the security check point, to go through there he had to be either on duty or a pax. He would be asked which by Police. One can presume with a great deal of certainty, that he answered crew, on duty. That's of course leaving aside AA's statement saying what his status was!
As for time between drinking and flying, what you quote is company rules, not UK legislation. One over rides the other, I'll leave you to guess which.
Now, unless you are encouraging the perversion of the course of justice............
I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve.
FL and I may not see eye to eye on most things, but, he knows his stuff. He's pointed out the obvious, so have a few others. This guy was in play as far as the UK legislation is concerned.
It really does not matter one jot what the AA FM, or any other document says. Nor does it matter what notional manoevering is done by anyone to re arrange this guys status. He has been nicked! End.
Oh and just to hammer in the last nail to your theorising, He was at the security check point, to go through there he had to be either on duty or a pax. He would be asked which by Police. One can presume with a great deal of certainty, that he answered crew, on duty. That's of course leaving aside AA's statement saying what his status was!
As for time between drinking and flying, what you quote is company rules, not UK legislation. One over rides the other, I'll leave you to guess which.
Now, unless you are encouraging the perversion of the course of justice............
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by arewenearlythereyet?
Obviously not a long haul pilot, if an airline pilot at all! This kind of nitpicking by amateur lawyers who also pretend to be airline pilots lower the standard of debate on here. As an airline pilot you would know that there are different report times for flights originating at base or at an outstation and between long haul and short haul flights. I have yet to meet ANY airline pilots who, operating a long haul flight, would be going to a restaurant for a sit down before the flight. To suggest that the captain will change the report time for duty or that the intention of reporting for duty is somehow not applicable because someone goes for a sitdown elsewhere shows the appalling lack of understanding of the requirements for the job and is made more obviously so by the kind of posts we are witnessing here from amateurs pretending to be airline pilots. Sheesh... Shakes head in disbelief
I believe the above was directed to me. First of all, at AA, report times are ALL 1 hour prior to scheduled departure time. Hotel p/u time is determined based on normal travel time (for that time of day) to arrive at airport 1 hour prior to scheduled departure. Like I said, sometimes due to limo/van limitations, there is some overkill (getting to airport > 1 hr prior). It is ALWAYS 1 HOUR PRIOR--domestic; international; reporting at home base for the sequence origination; or coming off of a layover--PERIOD. I don't know about your airline, but at AA, the CA inputs a couple of computer codes, and the TPS, flight plan, notams, etc...all print up. Actually, at some international locations, the station personnel has it printed up BEFORE the crew arrives. The FO takes care of the chart, the CA reviews the paperwork (after it prints), then off to the a/c. If there's overkill (ie..early), grabbing some breakfast is NOT out of the question.
Unfortunately, it appears pilots are all the same EVERYWHERE. We love to eat our own. How sad. I throw some possible scenarios out for thought, and you've dismissed me as a non-pilot.
kc135777
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KC135777, I think it is more about you being dismissed as a lawyer rather than as a pilot! 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bjcc
KC135777
I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve.
FL and I may not see eye to eye on most things, but, he knows his stuff. He's pointed out the obvious, so have a few others. This guy was in play as far as the UK legislation is concerned.
It really does not matter one jot what the AA FM, or any other document says. Nor does it matter what notional manoevering is done by anyone to re arrange this guys status. He has been nicked! End.
Oh and just to hammer in the last nail to your theorising, He was at the security check point, to go through there he had to be either on duty or a pax. He would be asked which by Police. One can presume with a great deal of certainty, that he answered crew, on duty. That's of course leaving aside AA's statement saying what his status was!
As for time between drinking and flying, what you quote is company rules, not UK legislation. One over rides the other, I'll leave you to guess which.
Now, unless you are encouraging the perversion of the course of justice............
I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve.
FL and I may not see eye to eye on most things, but, he knows his stuff. He's pointed out the obvious, so have a few others. This guy was in play as far as the UK legislation is concerned.
It really does not matter one jot what the AA FM, or any other document says. Nor does it matter what notional manoevering is done by anyone to re arrange this guys status. He has been nicked! End.
Oh and just to hammer in the last nail to your theorising, He was at the security check point, to go through there he had to be either on duty or a pax. He would be asked which by Police. One can presume with a great deal of certainty, that he answered crew, on duty. That's of course leaving aside AA's statement saying what his status was!
As for time between drinking and flying, what you quote is company rules, not UK legislation. One over rides the other, I'll leave you to guess which.
Now, unless you are encouraging the perversion of the course of justice............
Not trying to perverse anything, but just trying to bring out as many technicalities as possible, and give this pilot the benefit of the doubt.
But, it seems you're ready to hang (oops, I mean, 'nick') this guy. Too bad.
kc135777
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KC135777
I have checked, and there is nothing in anything I have said that shows I am out to hang this guy, or anyone else.
Your points seem to be made up of 'ifs'. a bit like saying If Henry 8th hadn't married that tart Anne Berline, we'd all be catholics. (excuse spelling!)
Please note that this is the UK. Since long before 9/11, you have not been permitted airside unless you are flying as a pax or on duty and it is nessesary for you to be airside.
The issues you have raised are non starters as a defence as far as I can see. But I 'm sure that should he be charged, his barrister/solicitor will explore all the possible ways out.
I'd agree with cargo boy, your abilities are probably better applied to flying.
I have checked, and there is nothing in anything I have said that shows I am out to hang this guy, or anyone else.
Your points seem to be made up of 'ifs'. a bit like saying If Henry 8th hadn't married that tart Anne Berline, we'd all be catholics. (excuse spelling!)
Please note that this is the UK. Since long before 9/11, you have not been permitted airside unless you are flying as a pax or on duty and it is nessesary for you to be airside.
The issues you have raised are non starters as a defence as far as I can see. But I 'm sure that should he be charged, his barrister/solicitor will explore all the possible ways out.
I'd agree with cargo boy, your abilities are probably better applied to flying.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, I'm definitely NOT a lawyer (domestic or international), and I don't play one on TV, either.
I just hope for this guy's sake, his alarm didn't go off and in the rush to make p/u, he didn't brush his teeth....thus the smell of alcohol.
Although, he IS senior to me!!!!
(oooh, that was bad! How's that? "proof" I am a pilot!!)
kc135777
ps...didn't the article say he was scheduled for Tuesday?
I just hope for this guy's sake, his alarm didn't go off and in the rush to make p/u, he didn't brush his teeth....thus the smell of alcohol.
Although, he IS senior to me!!!!
(oooh, that was bad! How's that? "proof" I am a pilot!!)kc135777
ps...didn't the article say he was scheduled for Tuesday?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA's staement said Court on Monday (today)
The BBC say Bailed to re appeaer at the Police Staion on Tuesday.
By the way, mouthwash wont effect any breath test 20 minutes after you use it. Unless you drink the stuff, then you are still committing the offence.
The BBC say Bailed to re appeaer at the Police Staion on Tuesday.
By the way, mouthwash wont effect any breath test 20 minutes after you use it. Unless you drink the stuff, then you are still committing the offence.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EARTH
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
[Please note that this is the UK. Since long before 9/11, you have not been permitted airside unless you are flying as a pax or on duty and it is nessesary for you to be airside.]
I am not sure about that!!!
While off duty, all you need is your ID.
[Please note that this is the UK. Since long before 9/11, you have not been permitted airside unless you are flying as a pax or on duty and it is nessesary for you to be airside.]
I am not sure about that!!!
While off duty, all you need is your ID.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bjcc
CAT3A
Yes, I'd agree. It is all you need, but in this guys case, not applicable.
Yes, I'd agree. It is all you need, but in this guys case, not applicable.
....still an offense, though eh?
2. FLIGHT CREW REPORTING
A. Flight crewmembers will report for duty in uniform at the airport one
hour prior to scheduled departure time.
Hmmmm....maybe, just maybe! or, is that "if". ;-)
kc135777
hour prior to scheduled departure time.
Hmmmm....maybe, just maybe! or, is that "if". ;-)
kc135777
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KC135777
From the American Airlines Statement:
"American Airlines has confirmed that a crew member for today’s (February 11, 2006) Manchester-Chicago scheduled service was arrested at a security checkpoint "
Please note the words 'Crew Member'.
It maters not what crew member he was, be Pilot or Cabin Crew, he is a member of the crew, by his emplyers admission.
CAT3A says, rightly, that you can get through Security with a Pass. However, the rules are that you are not permitted to do so unless you are A. On duty, and B. it is nessesary for you to go airside.
The fact you CAN get through, even though not on duty, does not change the rules. If he wasn't on duty, then he can expect to be charged with any number of other offences.
So, what have you got here? An admission by AA he was a member of the crew. Trying to enter a restricted area, a condition of entrance to which is that he is either on duty or a pax. Mouthwash doesn't have the effect you think it does, and he has been arrested anyway. Of course, you have assumed Police didn't bother to make any enquiries at the scene...
Not looking good for your theories is it? I'll give you your due, you are a trier though!
From the American Airlines Statement:
"American Airlines has confirmed that a crew member for today’s (February 11, 2006) Manchester-Chicago scheduled service was arrested at a security checkpoint "
Please note the words 'Crew Member'.
It maters not what crew member he was, be Pilot or Cabin Crew, he is a member of the crew, by his emplyers admission.
CAT3A says, rightly, that you can get through Security with a Pass. However, the rules are that you are not permitted to do so unless you are A. On duty, and B. it is nessesary for you to go airside.
The fact you CAN get through, even though not on duty, does not change the rules. If he wasn't on duty, then he can expect to be charged with any number of other offences.
So, what have you got here? An admission by AA he was a member of the crew. Trying to enter a restricted area, a condition of entrance to which is that he is either on duty or a pax. Mouthwash doesn't have the effect you think it does, and he has been arrested anyway. Of course, you have assumed Police didn't bother to make any enquiries at the scene...
Not looking good for your theories is it? I'll give you your due, you are a trier though!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check out this link. It's pretty cool. Turn on your speakers. You can see all the "paperwork" (about 13 feet) that I mentioned, AND a pint or two being consumed in Paris. I can't believe the FO actually "kicks the tires" on exterior preflight. Watch out for the "whitie tighties" though. Geez, and take the hat off in the house, eh! Oh well, all for the 'show'.
probably high speed internet connections only....enjoy :
http://youtube.com/w/Pilot%27s-eye-v...search=cockpit
probably high speed internet connections only....enjoy :
http://youtube.com/w/Pilot%27s-eye-v...search=cockpit
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The act in BJCCs posting applies to all Aviation workers, so Flight Crew, Check In Agents, Ops Staff ...... everyone (this is based on information sent out by the Manchester police in 2003 to all airlines from MAN). So for example driving to the airport maybe ok under road traffic rules but you can be arrested at a lower limit if your arriving at the airport for work. The US regulations don't mean anything in this case, a pilot has to conform to the state rules where they are at any time, nothing to do with registration, company rules etc. (remember the BA pilot at OSL). The 12 hour rule is meaningless and should never be used, generally being sober and blood free of alcohol 12 hours before is a more realisitic rule.
As for the discussion on positioning crew, read your Ops Manuals - most refer to 'on duty', and the normal definition of 'on duty' includes positioning, even on a passenger ticket and not in uniform, after all you have minimum rest calculated pre and post positioning in accordance with the normal duty rules. Also Ops Manuals often state you must be fit, rested etc for the full limits of a duty, so even if your positioning you should be in a state to perform duties if required to the legal limits as this is 'duty'. In the main Ops Manuals are not applied in this way and the 'normal SOP' is not to follow this, but if you were ever in court I'm sure they would read the manual and not accept common practice.
As for the discussion on positioning crew, read your Ops Manuals - most refer to 'on duty', and the normal definition of 'on duty' includes positioning, even on a passenger ticket and not in uniform, after all you have minimum rest calculated pre and post positioning in accordance with the normal duty rules. Also Ops Manuals often state you must be fit, rested etc for the full limits of a duty, so even if your positioning you should be in a state to perform duties if required to the legal limits as this is 'duty'. In the main Ops Manuals are not applied in this way and the 'normal SOP' is not to follow this, but if you were ever in court I'm sure they would read the manual and not accept common practice.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
I’m sorry to disagree with you when you’ve so generous to me but my comments have been made on the basis of the limited facts so far reported. We don’t yet know all the facts.
It may well matter. If there’s a dispute about whether the pilot had reported for duty; it may well be relevant.
So you’ll dismiss anything which might be said by the defence in support of the pilot not being on duty.
We don’t know the position of the person who issued the press release, nor what he/she was told nor by whom. One might think great care would be taken before statements are issued about delicate matters, but we both know that inaccurate assertions are sometimes made in statements issued quickly after far more delicate incidents. (eg Important inaccuracies in the statement made by the Met Police Commissioner following the police shooting of an innocent man last year – later corrected with an apology. I assume he made them in good faith on the basis of what he'd been told.)
So are mine. (If the facts are these, the law is this ….. etc.)
In contrast, yours are made up of asserted certainties.
Given we have very few facts, and those we appear to have may not be accurate, some might think caution is appropriate.
KC135777 is a pilot and openly admits a bias; he’s suggesting possible scenarios in which a fellow pilot may not have committed an offence.
Could you, as a former policeman, possibly be just a little biased?
Let’s be frank. Without exception, you have taken the police/prosecution side in every single one of these ‘alcohol’ threads.
KC135777 is a 'trier'?
He certainly thinks outside the box.
You and I have never agreed on the merits (as I see them) of doing that.
I winced when I read that.
It oozes such satisfaction.
As you say, our approach is often very different.
FL
I’m sorry to disagree with you when you’ve so generous to me but my comments have been made on the basis of the limited facts so far reported. We don’t yet know all the facts.
It really does not matter one jot what the AA FM, or any other document says.
“Nor does it matter what notional manoevering is done by anyone to re arrange this guys status.”
“That's of course leaving aside AA's statement saying what his status was!”
“KC135777’s points seem to be made up of 'ifs'. “
In contrast, yours are made up of asserted certainties.
Given we have very few facts, and those we appear to have may not be accurate, some might think caution is appropriate.
KC135777 is a pilot and openly admits a bias; he’s suggesting possible scenarios in which a fellow pilot may not have committed an offence.
Could you, as a former policeman, possibly be just a little biased?
Let’s be frank. Without exception, you have taken the police/prosecution side in every single one of these ‘alcohol’ threads.
KC135777 is a 'trier'?
He certainly thinks outside the box.
You and I have never agreed on the merits (as I see them) of doing that.
”He has been nicked! End.”
I winced when I read that.
It oozes such satisfaction.
As you say, our approach is often very different.
FL
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone else noticed how close those chimps in unifoms that call themselves security get to you to smell your breath at MAN?
Oh and conratulations on the sheer weight of crap on this thread.
PPrune strikes again.
Oh and conratulations on the sheer weight of crap on this thread.
PPrune strikes again.