American Airlines Pilot Arrested at Manchester (NOT GUILTY)

[TURIN]

Anyone else noticed how close those chimps in unifoms that call themselves security get to you to smell your breath at MAN?

Yup, that's why I always have a particularly pungent meal the night before my first day of shift. So far a good Cassoulet seems to be the winner but I'm gonna try the 40 clove garlic chicken one day.

Back to the thread,

The act in BJCCs posting applies to all Aviation workers, so Flight Crew, Check In Agents, Ops Staff ...... everyone

Just to ensure we haven't got our wires crossed here, my understanding is that flying staff are limited by 20mg/100ml of blood and and engineers are limited to 80mg/100ml blood. I have not heard whether there are legal limits to other airport workers. I await correction.

I would also like to echo behind_the_second_midland's view on this thread, but will, know doubt, be accused of adding to the cr@p!

[bjcc]

Flying Lawyer

"Quote:
”He has been nicked! End.”
I winced when I read that.
It oozes such satisfaction.
As you say, our approach is often very different."

He was arrested. That is not in dispute. My choice of words in fact are driven by exasperation. Unfortunate, perhaps, in your eyes, differnet occupation diffent ways of putting things.


Quote:
"Quote:
“That's of course leaving aside AA's statement saying what his status was!”

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,"

I agree. But the officers are not going to have used powers under the act to arrest a pax. It would be reasonable, given the rules concerning going airside that the officers would have made some efforts to ensure the act applied to this pilot.


Quote:
"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."

Thats one way of looking at it yes. Another is that he is suggesting ways out for this particular pilot. Before you say it, yes, I agree, it is my opinion of what he wrote.

I did add my comment, 'I'll give your due you are a trier' as a humorous comment, in an attempt to keep in friendly.

As for bias? yes, I agree, I am. Instead of wholesale assumption Police are wrong, I have offered an alternative view. You may not always agree with that view, as I don't always agree with yours. Then again, I don't see things in the sterile enviroment you do. Just as you don't see it with muck and bullets like I did. That may well account for our great diffences of opinion sometimes...ok mostly...

The same rules apply to police officers as apply to pilots arrested for drink/flying. They are inncocent until proven guilty. Although I don't see too many remmebering the second part of that statement.

[ZQA297/30]

arewethereyet,
Are you sure you are a real pilot?

It is entirely possible for the Capt to nominate a changed reporting time.
I have done it myself when confronted with tight FTDLs and a notified delay.
Whether one could do this in respect of an individual crew member is perhaps debatable.



Quite often the crew bus arrived 20/30 minutes early, even at LHR.
It was certainly not unknown for the crew bus to go through the control post, and proceed to the greasy spoon for a quick cup of coffee and an egg sandwich, whilst awaiting the incoming aircraft. Like KC135777, my company had a fixed 1 hour report for all international departures.

At airports like IAD and JFK it is possible to pass through security and go to a proper restaurant in the sterile area, and this happened quite often when crew was early.

I believe that the 12 hour rule becomes law once it is contained in the respective airline's ops manual, even though the FAA "only" needs 8 hours.

[williewalsh]

BJCC,
You can and do get airside in civvies at stn thru vp9 when you need to access the crewroom for ryanair. Many do it. They are not on a rostered duty just going in to sort out some paper work or some such.Sitting behind your screen i doubt you get out much.

You used to be a cop right?Did you used to be a traffic cop? Something about your manner that suggests so. Thank god your not a copper any more. God pity the victims of your warrant as I'm guessing you patronised and lectured them all the way to the station, boring the tits off them until you got your point across.Never have so many been glad to have been locked up in a cell and left alone.

I'll bet a pound to a penny that as a controller you have filed the most reports on your watch and know every little minor rule and regulaton.
I'm not really trying to insult you just musing and amusing my self and hopefully a few others.
Anyone else see a trend here or is it just me

[bjcc]

williewalsh

Entitled to your opinion....like everyone else is.....oh except those who don't agree with the norm.....

Yes, I see a trend, only those who agree with you permitted.

Don't ask me about STN, I worked at LHR. Having seen the Ryanair documentry, it doesn't suprise me they have another problem with security. Suggest you mention it to the BAA.

Nice to see that as per normal, these threads degrade into personel insults, rather than the issue at hand, which is education.

I don't suggest, nor, I doubt, does anyone else that any of the pilots involved in any of the incidents under this new act are bad. What is wrong is that no one that may be effected by it, knows very much about it. While the same applies to drinking and driving, thats not going to get you banged up for 6 months.

[BBT]

From WillieWalsh - "I'm not really trying to insult you just musing and amusing my self and hopefully a few others."

Well the insults are accidental then!? The amusement must be in the eye of the beholder. You may not be impressed by the police, but I'm not so sure that pilots would come off too well if we were all to be judged by your contributions! bjcc did good in his restraint. Must be the training in dealing with ..... people like you!

[Sunfish]

It might be an interesting and very new development for Pprumers to wait for the allegations made by the police to be made public.

So far there seem to be a number of hoops that have to be jumped through for a conviction to be achieved.

The person must be shown to have been performing an aviation or ancilliary purpose under the appropriate act.

Assuming that hoop has been penetrated, the person must be shown to have been over the legal limit.

To penetrate that hoop requires that the testing officers have performed the tests correctly and that the "chain of evidence" has not been broken anywhere. It also assumes that the "mouthwash alcohol" and similar arguments are not relevent.

As for company regulations that is a separate matter, as I suspect is the reaction of the FAA.

Please note that a person is presumed innocent till proven otherwise.

I'm extremely interested in this matter because there are rumblings here about setting BAC limits and random testing instead of the current "8 hour" rule - for all pilots.

[MOR]

Personally I am able to identify people in T-Shirt and Jeans in the Hotel-Bar as the Crew of Airline XYZ that checked in 45 minutes before

So what? Once your duty period is over and you are off-duty, you no longer represent the company and can do whatever you like (bearing in mind your next duty period, and basic common sense).

Or maybe you believe that off-duty crew members in civvies should not eat pork for fear of upsetting a passing muslim, or drive a vehicle for fear of upsetting some rabid Green?

[behind_the_second_midland]

BJCC

I take it you support the actions of Greater Manchester Police (touched on earlier) to breathalyse a BACX crew who were reported by some bint after doing two go-arounds due to a gear problem?

The police these days have got their heads so far up their collective arse it's not true. Too worried about upsetting their masters and catching middle class "criminals" instead of actually nicking anyone dangerous, anti-social or violent.

Funny how they crack heads at Countryside demos but not at Muslims inciting murder isn't it?

Traffic. Probably

Sunfish

I think what he is getting at is that you don't have to be in uniform to be recognised.

Then you appear to drink too much/too late in front of a jealous hotel employee (Oslo) or the next morning's early passengers. They mention it to dibble and the next thing you know BJCC's stormtrooper ex-collegues will have you at gunpoint.

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

MerchantVenturer is bjcc's Dad !

Who else could say bjcc's opinions are rounded? (but could you please explain what you mean by "rounded"? )

bjcc certainly has his opinions, and is obviously partisan in some of those opinions, but I wouldn't say they are always easy to follow.

not having a pop at you bjcc, you understand, but you seem to have found a disciple !

so MerchantVenturer - just because bjcc is a retired copper, you'd believe everything his says? If bjcc and I had a difference of opinion on law enforcement and the law in general, who would you believe?

and mods......is this a thread better suited to jet blast now?

[captjns]

Originally Posted by KC135777

Sorry, but it's 8 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.

Below is the actual citation for the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). It should be noted that the FARs may be superceded as may be deemed appropriate by the certificate holder (ei: American Arlines, United, Delta... etc While the FARs state 8 hours from bottle to throttle with additional limitations contained therein, the organization, I am contracted clearly states 24 hours from bottle to throttle. The previous carrier I flew with was 12 hours from bottle to report for duty time... which was 1 hour before flight.

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space

§ 121.458 Misuse of alcohol.
(a) General. This section applies to employees who perform a function listed in appendix J to this part for a certificate holder (covered employees). For the purpose of this section, a person who meets the definition of covered employee in appendix J is considered to be performing the function for the certificate holder.
(b) Alcohol concentration. No covered employee shall report for duty or remain on duty requiring the performance of safety-sensitive functions while having an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater. No certificate holder having actual knowledge that an employee has an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater shall permit the employee to perform or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.
(c) On-duty use. No covered employee shall use alcohol while performing safety-sensitive functions. No certificate holder having actual knowledge that a covered employee is using alcohol while performing safety-sensitive functions shall permit the employee to perform or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.
(d) Pre-duty use. (1) No covered employee shall perform flight crewmember or flight attendant duties within 8 hours after using alcohol. No certificate holder having actual knowledge that such an employee has used alcohol within 8 hours shall permit the employee to perform or continue to perform the specified duties.
(2) No covered employee shall perform safety-sensitive duties other than those specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section within 4 hours after using alcohol. No certificate holder having actual knowledge that such an employee has used alcohol within 4 hours shall permit the employee to perform or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.
(e) Use following an accident. No covered employee who has actual knowledge of an accident involving an aircraft for which he or she performed a safety-sensitive function at or near the time of the accident shall use alcohol for 8 hours following the accident, unless he or she has been given a post-accident test under appendix J of this part, or the employer has determined that the employee's performance could not have contributed to the accident.
(f) Refusal to submit to a required alcohol test. No covered employee shall refuse to submit to a post-accident, random, reasonable suspicion, or follow-up alcohol test required under appendix J to this part. No certificate holder shall permit an employee who refuses to submit to such a test to perform or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.
[Amdt. 121–237, 59 FR 7389, Feb. 15, 1994]

take note, when flying to or from a foreign, airmen are subjet to their regulations and random searches, not matter what... it comes with the job.

[DA50driver]

Drunk??

Assuming for the sake of argument that he was intoxicated, would he have been over the limit at the point that he acted as a crewmember? IE 8 hours bottle to throttle. He could have a beer two hours before takeoff, and fly 6 hours later. assuming his blood alcohol level was low enough. (According to FAA rules, not any company regs.)

The FO in question may be guilty of being stupid, but I do not think they can get him for anything else. How can they prove he would have been under the influence later in the flight when he assumed official pilot duties? He probably broke every company policy, but I don't think he can get nailed on anything else.

I am not familiar with rules in the uk, but I travel between the US and Europe in uniform twice a month. I choose not to be drunk or drink alcohol during that time, because the public think we are a bunch of drunk skirt chasers anyway.

[christn]

Surely even as relief pilot the flying duty period commences at 'sign on'. That must be the point at which one becomes a member of the operating crew.
My company often positions crew in uniform and listed on the GD (apparently saves money on pax surcharges). Are they considered part of the crew ? What if they are on a type on which they are not rated ? Can they have a drink with their meals? I know what common sense would dictate but legally where do they stand?

[Oilhead]

Wow this is a boring thread. A relief pilot as required by the FAR's is a an operating member of the cockpit crew for that flight. No less or more status than either of the other two pilots. No relief pilot? No scheduled flight over 8 hours. The relief pilot is a (Captain) type rated pilot, qualified to fly from either front seat. His responsibilities for self assessment for fitness and qualification for duty are identical to the other pilots. At our company the Captain can, and frequently does, have the relief pilot fly as regular right seater.

[bjcc]

D SQDRN 97th IOTC

I understand you are a Barrister.

That qualifies you in law, not in enforcement. No, not a pop at you either.

Barrister, like any other occupation group make mistakes, and yes, that includes Police Officers. I have disagreed with Barristers in the past, and been proven correct. They have disagreed with me, and they have been proven correct. Neither side has a monopoly on right and wrong.


When it comes to actualy putting law into practice, without access to a law libary, or advice from others, or indeed the time to sit and have a think about, I doubt you would be much better at enforceing legislation than a reasonably experienced Police Officer. In terms of practicality, proably a lot worse. I accept they are not exactly the same, but I have known Police Officers who are qualified Solicitors struggle in when they have had to do it sharpe end, not in a court.

What you and FL see is what ends up before the Courts, or comes to you for opinion. What neither of you ever see is the other things that are squared up, or dealt with in other ways, and that would represent the vast majority of what a police officer deals with.

I don't have in the training you had, nor the access to vast amounts of stated cases. So yes, I would hope your knowladge of law is infinatly better than mine. What you don't have is the practical knowladge of how to do my former job.

So when it comes to law, I would normally bow to yours, and FL's greater ability. When it comes to the pratcality of implimenting it, I would rather go with what I know.

So someone esle has decided to come down on my side...Good, and thanks. Inconvient as it is too you.

Now, interesting as this is, are we going back to the point?

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

No inconvenience caused. I am happy for you.


Not sure I agree with your implied assumption that law enforcement is a synonym for policing. Having said that, I take your point about people in the front line with the experience (some of it being not very pleasant) to apply the law. Not a job I would like or a job I would be very good at. Some officers are also very able to understand the finer points of law, and in their areas of expertise can hold their own with barristers. In matters completely new to either a barrister or a policeman however, for example in interpreting comparatively new legislation, I would trust the opinion of another barrister to that of a policeman.

[KC135777]

OK gentlemen, it's late afternoon over there (MAN) now.
What's the result of the hearing? Been doing some searching, but can't find anything? kc135777

[geraintw]

Originally Posted by behind_the_second_midland

BJCC
I take it you support the actions of Greater Manchester Police (touched on earlier) to breathalyse a BACX crew who were reported by some bint after doing two go-arounds due to a gear problem?
The police these days have got their heads so far up their collective arse it's not true. Too worried about upsetting their masters and catching middle class "criminals" instead of actually nicking anyone dangerous, anti-social or violent.
Funny how they crack heads at Countryside demos but not at Muslims inciting murder isn't it?
Traffic. Probably

The police have a duty to investigate what's reported to them. The officer on the ground investigates, collects what evidence as is necessary and then it is up to the CPS to decide if it goes to court or not.

If someone is genuinely concerned about something and reports it, then whilst it might not appeal to you in your professional capacity it has to be investigated. I may be wrong, but I'm presuming you are not in a position to discuss the conversation between the police officers in the crew in that instance, similarly nor am I. So we don't know under what circumstances they were breathalysed; Whether they voluntarily offered an airside sample or otherwise. If the police FAILED to investigate, then i'm sure there'd be a similar amount of vitriol coming the other way and the Daily Mail would be writing about the falling standards of British Police. Believe me, NO police officer would want to generate paperwork for the sake of it.

Your comments about police officers doing their best to appease their masters is laughable and also offensive to officers who put their lives on the line each time they don their uniform. It's easy to sit there and spout utter rubbish like that, you've never had to do the job. The same way as some pilots on here find it irritating when the anoraks dare to question their great knowledge on flying or journos make commercial flying look like it's all about sitting up front with shades on and looking forward to a shacking up with a Stewardess at your destination. When you've had to attend the death of a 18 month old baby in a road accident, where the parents are more concerned about themselves than their child, when you've picked a 14 year old boy off a railway line or had to go from one fight to another on an average weeknight, then you'll understand what policing is about. And yes, in between all this, Police offiers are trying to be pro-active and fight crime. But even talking to a member of public at night to check all is well or why they're in a particular area at the time now requires you to fill in a 10 minute form. Perhaps you should sign up as a special constable and get an overview of what the Police service is about, I guarantee it would open your eyes. Dangerous, anti-social and violent... that's just all in a nights work!

[ETOPS]

Just checked all the local News sources (10pm) but no mention of this case as yet...............

[bjcc]

geraintw

Well said.

Of course as well as the 10 minutes spent filling in poitless paperwork, there seems to be another consequence these days.

D SQDRN 97th IOTC

Make that 2 then.

Although I do respect you for your comments regarding what you could and couldn't do.