American Airlines Pilot Arrested at Manchester (NOT GUILTY)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oilhead, I think you may be mistaken. FAR 121.543 seems to allow relief either by command or second in command qualified pilots, who need only be qualified for the cruise portion of the flight. Your company may choose to exceed the minimum requirement, and it is good sense to do so, but the FARs seem to allow cruise only s.i.cs.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Skidkid
It is very disturbing that some of the contributors seem to suggest that it is acceptable to "Drink and Fly". Well done MAN Police - keep up the good work.
Edited.
Responding to people who make silly, inaccurate and provocative posts like that only encourages them and increases the risk of the discussion being derailed and moved out of this forum.
Heliport
Last edited by Heliport; 14th Feb 2006 at 23:48.
Do airport police authorities find it much easier to pursue a perceived problem with a high-profile crewmember than pursue the more subtle, insidious terrorist threats which can threaten air travel? This would require more brains, coordination and many more man-hours. A pilot at a southern US airport, years ago, refused to take his belt off at the x-ray machine (before 9/11). He was treated in a rough manner, sent to the downtown jail for a night or so; that airport security company was reportedly fired/replaced.
A judge in the US allowed extrapolated guesses about blood alcohol content (following heavy drinking the night before), ASSUMING the blood alcohol content about two or three hours (or so) before a flightcrew's arrival time at a US airport. The judge was well aware of a recent (at that time) railroad accident which presumeably involved a locomotive engineer who was under the influence of an illicit substance, and was ready to throw the book at pilots or whoever. In that case, the Captain had been told by an FAA rep. during the preflight, that there was a concern. The Captain never told the other two flightcrewmembers about the concern, at least not before the flight was completed!
They each served one year in some bad US prisons.
A judge in the US allowed extrapolated guesses about blood alcohol content (following heavy drinking the night before), ASSUMING the blood alcohol content about two or three hours (or so) before a flightcrew's arrival time at a US airport. The judge was well aware of a recent (at that time) railroad accident which presumeably involved a locomotive engineer who was under the influence of an illicit substance, and was ready to throw the book at pilots or whoever. In that case, the Captain had been told by an FAA rep. during the preflight, that there was a concern. The Captain never told the other two flightcrewmembers about the concern, at least not before the flight was completed!
They each served one year in some bad US prisons.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geraintw
Please save me the drama queen hysterics.You sound like a lady's hairdresser.
I speak from knowledge as two of my family and about 3/4 of my close friends are in GMP. They all hate it now as they are hamstrung by PC nonsense (GMP being the second worst offenders behind Ian Blairs lot...oh sorry forgot about Brunstrom...ex GMP though..well trained to be a lunatic.).
It is the usual story here. It's the same with (universally hated by all, including other cops) traffic police nicking middle class motorists becasue they know the fines willl be paid. Ask them to go onto a council estate to serve something on a trouble family and you won't see them for burning rubber.
As for the two monkeys at MAN. They attended the aircraft and could clearly see that the pilots had not been drinking, but like the automons that GMP now turn out, they breathalysed. They didn't have to, they chose to. Another potential middle class scalp was too much of a temptation.
And yes this info comes from the pilots involved and a collegue of the aforementioned Junta.
Please save me the drama queen hysterics.You sound like a lady's hairdresser.
I speak from knowledge as two of my family and about 3/4 of my close friends are in GMP. They all hate it now as they are hamstrung by PC nonsense (GMP being the second worst offenders behind Ian Blairs lot...oh sorry forgot about Brunstrom...ex GMP though..well trained to be a lunatic.).
It is the usual story here. It's the same with (universally hated by all, including other cops) traffic police nicking middle class motorists becasue they know the fines willl be paid. Ask them to go onto a council estate to serve something on a trouble family and you won't see them for burning rubber.
As for the two monkeys at MAN. They attended the aircraft and could clearly see that the pilots had not been drinking, but like the automons that GMP now turn out, they breathalysed. They didn't have to, they chose to. Another potential middle class scalp was too much of a temptation.
And yes this info comes from the pilots involved and a collegue of the aforementioned Junta.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And yes, in between all this, police officers are trying to be pro-active and fight crime.
It is odd that a high-profile incident like this, at an airport known for its close ties to the British tabloid press (as well as one of the biggest spotter crowds in the world), would have so little follow-up. The guy was breathalyzed in the airport and arrested pending blood tests. The bad press and the tech stop have cost AA plenty of real cash. Where's the follow up?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by behind_the_second_midland
Geraintw
Please save me the drama queen hysterics.You sound like a lady's hairdresser.
I speak from knowledge as two of my family and about 3/4 of my close friends are in GMP. They all hate it now as they are hamstrung by PC nonsense (GMP being the second worst offenders behind Ian Blairs lot...oh sorry forgot about Brunstrom...ex GMP though..well trained to be a lunatic.).
It is the usual story here. It's the same with (universally hated by all, including other cops) traffic police nicking middle class motorists becasue they know the fines willl be paid. Ask them to go onto a council estate to serve something on a trouble family and you won't see them for burning rubber.
As for the two monkeys at MAN. They attended the aircraft and could clearly see that the pilots had not been drinking, but like the automons that GMP now turn out, they breathalysed. They didn't have to, they chose to. Another potential middle class scalp was too much of a temptation.
And yes this info comes from the pilots involved and a collegue of the aforementioned Junta.
Please save me the drama queen hysterics.You sound like a lady's hairdresser.
I speak from knowledge as two of my family and about 3/4 of my close friends are in GMP. They all hate it now as they are hamstrung by PC nonsense (GMP being the second worst offenders behind Ian Blairs lot...oh sorry forgot about Brunstrom...ex GMP though..well trained to be a lunatic.).
It is the usual story here. It's the same with (universally hated by all, including other cops) traffic police nicking middle class motorists becasue they know the fines willl be paid. Ask them to go onto a council estate to serve something on a trouble family and you won't see them for burning rubber.
As for the two monkeys at MAN. They attended the aircraft and could clearly see that the pilots had not been drinking, but like the automons that GMP now turn out, they breathalysed. They didn't have to, they chose to. Another potential middle class scalp was too much of a temptation.
And yes this info comes from the pilots involved and a collegue of the aforementioned Junta.
I think you've been reading too much of the daily mail with regard your perceived persecution of the 'middle classes' (quite how one defines that I don't know). Of course, the argument could be applied that if they didn't break the law, there'd be no fines to pay... plus, just in case you're getting confused, the majority of speed cameras are operated by safety camera partnerships not forces directly. I'm sure you'll find quite a lot of traffic officers don't like them either; At least with a human being, they're going to use discretion and can and do let people off with just a flea in their ear.
Anyway, regardless of what I say, you're entrenched in your views, so I guess i'd better get back to doing my next perm and catch up with my latest reading "How to write a reply like a Hairy Camel"
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Waterworld
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geraintw,
Save me also the sob story for the police. All cliche heroics. Like soldiers and fireman, if its all going to be so distressing dont join. When i got sick of beating paddies, shooting argies, and generally picking up bits of bodies I left the military(But mostly because i got more dosh for doing it as a contractor) It might work pulling some tart on the symapthy tatic but its the coppers choice.
If we as pilots are told that its part of the job to have no social life due to strict rules , its our choice to stay in the profession.We are told to shut up and get on with it.
Just how would two coppers who have discretionary powers, deem it necessary to test two pilots who have been maliciously reported due to some tart who thinks their failure to land the first time was due to alchohol.
Now, back to the point.What exactly has happened to this guy recently abducted by the manchester mafia.
BJCC,
The tone of your posts is not as patronising and superior as it used to be. Get a grip man, back to the old you please
Save me also the sob story for the police. All cliche heroics. Like soldiers and fireman, if its all going to be so distressing dont join. When i got sick of beating paddies, shooting argies, and generally picking up bits of bodies I left the military(But mostly because i got more dosh for doing it as a contractor) It might work pulling some tart on the symapthy tatic but its the coppers choice.
If we as pilots are told that its part of the job to have no social life due to strict rules , its our choice to stay in the profession.We are told to shut up and get on with it.
Just how would two coppers who have discretionary powers, deem it necessary to test two pilots who have been maliciously reported due to some tart who thinks their failure to land the first time was due to alchohol.
Now, back to the point.What exactly has happened to this guy recently abducted by the manchester mafia.
BJCC,
The tone of your posts is not as patronising and superior as it used to be. Get a grip man, back to the old you please
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
williewalsh
The 2 Police officers breath testing another crew has been discussed to death. Why bring it up again? You were not there, you therefore cannot know what happened. Fine, your opinion is that it wasn't justified, good. I am happy for you, now move on with your life, rather than trying to beat the Polce Service with what you read in the papers. That of course being the source of information, which is always wrong when critical of pilots, and always right when critical of anyone else.
As to what happend to the guy kidnapped' by the Manchester Mafia? Good question.
Did seem very quick for bail to return date, or charging and court, still info was from the BBC and AA. So, ask them.
The 2 Police officers breath testing another crew has been discussed to death. Why bring it up again? You were not there, you therefore cannot know what happened. Fine, your opinion is that it wasn't justified, good. I am happy for you, now move on with your life, rather than trying to beat the Polce Service with what you read in the papers. That of course being the source of information, which is always wrong when critical of pilots, and always right when critical of anyone else.
As to what happend to the guy kidnapped' by the Manchester Mafia? Good question.
Did seem very quick for bail to return date, or charging and court, still info was from the BBC and AA. So, ask them.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Waterworld
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BJCC,
Evenin all
My source is a lot closer to those two pilots than the paper, but as you said thats another topic.
I only access this board on standby when i'm slobbing around.It is definately upthere in the SAD ways to kill stanby duty. Whats your excuse?
Nee naw machine broken?Or was i right in the previous post.
Thread
Has this Americanguy been bailed, charged , discharged or what?
Evenin all
My source is a lot closer to those two pilots than the paper, but as you said thats another topic.
I only access this board on standby when i'm slobbing around.It is definately upthere in the SAD ways to kill stanby duty. Whats your excuse?
Nee naw machine broken?Or was i right in the previous post.
Thread
Has this Americanguy been bailed, charged , discharged or what?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cheshire
Age: 62
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fyank1
Is it true that AA stands for Alcoholics Anonymous!? I think any criticism of the staff at MAN who brought the alleged condition of the pilot to the appropriate authorities is clearly misguided. When my bum is on a plane the very least I expect, and I do mean the very least, is that the pilot is sober! That's not asking too much , surely?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done fyank1
You've certainly got a quick wit.
In four days and 111 posts, nobody else has even thought of that one.
And you registered especially to make it.
(BTW, check age under your name. It's come up as 43.)
geraintw
Why must they? Are you suggesting policemen never behave unreasonably? People in every other walk of life do.
It would be a very simple task. In that context, the burden would be on the side complaining/suing to prove that the constables acted unreasonably, not for them to prove that they acted reasonably. All the constables would have to do is say that, when they spoke to the pilots, they thought they could smell alcohol and/or formed the view from their demeanour that they had been drinking alcohol and/or were under the influence of alcohol.
You've certainly got a quick wit.
In four days and 111 posts, nobody else has even thought of that one.
And you registered especially to make it.
(BTW, check age under your name. It's come up as 43.)
geraintw
but they must've felt it was reasonable in the circumstances
It would be a very simple task. In that context, the burden would be on the side complaining/suing to prove that the constables acted unreasonably, not for them to prove that they acted reasonably. All the constables would have to do is say that, when they spoke to the pilots, they thought they could smell alcohol and/or formed the view from their demeanour that they had been drinking alcohol and/or were under the influence of alcohol.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 15th Feb 2006 at 18:36.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...but I'm sure, FYank1, that the very least [I]we can expect[I], as crew, is for you to be not sober and one of the boorish British drunk know-alls plagueing European travel every holiday season....
Yes, I cringe at my fellow countrymen on holiday...with your kind of razor-sharp repartee...
Great user-name - no bias, of course?
Yes, I cringe at my fellow countrymen on holiday...with your kind of razor-sharp repartee...
Great user-name - no bias, of course?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am confused... why should there by sympathy for any one, whether they be a bus driver, truck drive, pilot, doctor... if they are convicted of conducting them selves while responsible for the lives of other while under the influence of alcohol? We are all responsible adults who are resonible for our actions, and equally be responsible to accept the punishment for such inapproriate behavior.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats the problem with doing a breath test if you have nothing to hide?
Surely its everyones arses covered that way.
Or possibly just pilots getting upset about someone else in a position of authority?
Or possibly just pilots getting upset about someone else in a position of authority?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL
I think if you read the post surrounding your dealing with one case, that you would find there was plenty of sympathy for him.
I am not anti sympathy, conviction for this offence, as you pointed out on the above post seems to attract a heavy sentence, which is in my opinon unfair when compared to the effect of the actions, I realise thats possibly intended as a deterent, but, it is still heavy.
My problem with the attitude of some on these posts are summed up by your own words.
"Are you suggesting policemen never behave unreasonably?"
I will accept that yes, there are times when they do. Just as there are many more times when they have not, but it suits your profession to claim they have. But on the strength of press reports alone you are happy to claim they have been in a particular case.
" don't know if there is or isn't, but it was at Manchester that there was the incident (discussed on PPRuNe at the time) where two police constables breathtested both pilots following a complaint by some woman passenger that it had been a bumpy landing.
Neither had any alcohol in their system.
(Well, the pilots didn't. I don't know about the constables.)"
I don't see any ryder on your comments cautioning others that officers have not been convicted of any offence or had an finding against them, be that civil, criminal or discpline, and are thus innocent. Nor do I see any comment added by you that your opinions are based on press reports alone, and you have no first hand knowladge.
Now what colour was that pot you mentioned?
I had hoped this thread would be used to educate, rather than becoming a slagging match against the old bill. Where I work for instance it is staggering some of the wrong opinions of the effect of this act, and indeed the RTA offences regarding drinking.
I think if you read the post surrounding your dealing with one case, that you would find there was plenty of sympathy for him.
I am not anti sympathy, conviction for this offence, as you pointed out on the above post seems to attract a heavy sentence, which is in my opinon unfair when compared to the effect of the actions, I realise thats possibly intended as a deterent, but, it is still heavy.
My problem with the attitude of some on these posts are summed up by your own words.
"Are you suggesting policemen never behave unreasonably?"
I will accept that yes, there are times when they do. Just as there are many more times when they have not, but it suits your profession to claim they have. But on the strength of press reports alone you are happy to claim they have been in a particular case.
" don't know if there is or isn't, but it was at Manchester that there was the incident (discussed on PPRuNe at the time) where two police constables breathtested both pilots following a complaint by some woman passenger that it had been a bumpy landing.
Neither had any alcohol in their system.
(Well, the pilots didn't. I don't know about the constables.)"
I don't see any ryder on your comments cautioning others that officers have not been convicted of any offence or had an finding against them, be that civil, criminal or discpline, and are thus innocent. Nor do I see any comment added by you that your opinions are based on press reports alone, and you have no first hand knowladge.
Now what colour was that pot you mentioned?
I had hoped this thread would be used to educate, rather than becoming a slagging match against the old bill. Where I work for instance it is staggering some of the wrong opinions of the effect of this act, and indeed the RTA offences regarding drinking.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
”It suits your profession to claim they have (acted unreasonably)”
We present our instructions for whichever side we’re representing in a particular case. It would be a mistake to assume we necessarily believe every defendant we defend any more than we believe every policeman we call as a witness in support of the prosecution case.
FL
”It suits your profession to claim they have (acted unreasonably)”
We present our instructions for whichever side we’re representing in a particular case. It would be a mistake to assume we necessarily believe every defendant we defend any more than we believe every policeman we call as a witness in support of the prosecution case.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 16th Feb 2006 at 00:19.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL
I assume the police have acted correctly, unless there is evidence otherwise.
I am fully aware that there is a small number of police officers that are bent, be that through greed, vindictivness or what a former commissioner termed 'nobel cause'. I don't agree with it, and I would nver have anything to do with it.
That does not make all police officers wrong, bent or mean all have acted incorrectly. But of course when you have one side alone, it is easy to come down on the side of what you have heard, and make it established fact. Your statement concerning the previous incident at MAN was written in a way which tends to give a different impression from it being your personal opinion, rather than being based on full knowladge of both sides. Because of your profession, a statement put in such way, could lead some to believe that it is factual, hence my comment regarding a rider.
Your comment regarding assumed guilt because he's in the box, is wrong in my, and most of the officers I know or have known's case. I have said before, I have been to court and seen convicted some who I know damm well are innocent.
I assume the police have acted correctly, unless there is evidence otherwise.
I am fully aware that there is a small number of police officers that are bent, be that through greed, vindictivness or what a former commissioner termed 'nobel cause'. I don't agree with it, and I would nver have anything to do with it.
That does not make all police officers wrong, bent or mean all have acted incorrectly. But of course when you have one side alone, it is easy to come down on the side of what you have heard, and make it established fact. Your statement concerning the previous incident at MAN was written in a way which tends to give a different impression from it being your personal opinion, rather than being based on full knowladge of both sides. Because of your profession, a statement put in such way, could lead some to believe that it is factual, hence my comment regarding a rider.
Your comment regarding assumed guilt because he's in the box, is wrong in my, and most of the officers I know or have known's case. I have said before, I have been to court and seen convicted some who I know damm well are innocent.
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well? Outcome?
You are all off thread now.
What has actually happened in this case? Does any know facts, instead of long-winded opinions, refutations, etc?
What has actually happened in this case? Does any know facts, instead of long-winded opinions, refutations, etc?