American Airlines Pilot Arrested at Manchester (NOT GUILTY)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: surrey
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vref130
That is a whole new bag of worms you are opening. If someone is in uniform and doing anything that could be construed as being innapropriate behaviour then their company may be within their rights to discipline them through internal channels - along the lines of conduct unbecoming or bringing the company into disrepute.
In this case there are very few of us who know the real facts - we are all just speculating which is a shame (I would not like it to be about me), but it is human nature.
If he is guilty of reporting for duty whilst under the influence (which is I think the whole argument, regardless of the actual time he was going to fly) then he should have the book thrown at him. I do not think that there is an aviation professional in here that thinks otherwise.
If however he is innocent (and I sincerely hope for his sake that he is), then he will be exonerated and I hope that anyone here who has doubted him without knowledge of the facts is man enough to apologise through the forum.
What is worth bearing in mind is (in my belief) that although he was the relief pilot, he was still reporting for duty, regardless of how many hours it would be before he was going to assume PF duty.
As the relief pilot, I am sure that if anything happened to the PF or PNF before it had been planned that he would take over, then he would have stepped into their shoes. That in itself in my eyes makes any argument saying he was 'not due to fly for another x amount of hours' etc a moot point.
Meanwhile, I hope that the pilot involved is managing to carry on his day to day life - this has been hanging over him for some time -for someone who is a professional upstanding citizen, it must be hell.
As for calling the Police Officers 'Chimps' etc and giving them a hard time, I think we should again wait for the facts about how this came about. I firmly believe that there are a few coppers out there who are over zealous and that quite a few of them get a kick out of a feeling of power; however, they are far outweighed by many good ordinary Police.
That is a whole new bag of worms you are opening. If someone is in uniform and doing anything that could be construed as being innapropriate behaviour then their company may be within their rights to discipline them through internal channels - along the lines of conduct unbecoming or bringing the company into disrepute.
In this case there are very few of us who know the real facts - we are all just speculating which is a shame (I would not like it to be about me), but it is human nature.
If he is guilty of reporting for duty whilst under the influence (which is I think the whole argument, regardless of the actual time he was going to fly) then he should have the book thrown at him. I do not think that there is an aviation professional in here that thinks otherwise.
If however he is innocent (and I sincerely hope for his sake that he is), then he will be exonerated and I hope that anyone here who has doubted him without knowledge of the facts is man enough to apologise through the forum.
What is worth bearing in mind is (in my belief) that although he was the relief pilot, he was still reporting for duty, regardless of how many hours it would be before he was going to assume PF duty.
As the relief pilot, I am sure that if anything happened to the PF or PNF before it had been planned that he would take over, then he would have stepped into their shoes. That in itself in my eyes makes any argument saying he was 'not due to fly for another x amount of hours' etc a moot point.
Meanwhile, I hope that the pilot involved is managing to carry on his day to day life - this has been hanging over him for some time -for someone who is a professional upstanding citizen, it must be hell.
As for calling the Police Officers 'Chimps' etc and giving them a hard time, I think we should again wait for the facts about how this came about. I firmly believe that there are a few coppers out there who are over zealous and that quite a few of them get a kick out of a feeling of power; however, they are far outweighed by many good ordinary Police.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Heliport
captjns
No.
No.
After the intitial news and suppositions commented upon over the past week couple of weeks, this is by far the entry in this thread. Too much repetition.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It also shows (and was meant to show 
) that shortest isn't always best.
eg 'No. (His B/A level was not above the legal limit'), 'No. (I don't know)' or 'No. (I don't think anyone here knows).'
A more useful answer would have exceeded the 5 word maximum you stipulated -
None of the reports I've seen say if it exceeded the legal limit, or even whether the pilot was asked to provide a sample of blood for analysis.
Journos have probably found out, despite the claim earlier that "UK Police don't give out info to the public in respect of arrested persons", but I assume they have to be careful what they report at this stage.
All the same, good point about all the supposition (and descriptions of what police do/don't do generally) when we don't yet know the facts.
H.
) that shortest isn't always best.eg 'No. (His B/A level was not above the legal limit'), 'No. (I don't know)' or 'No. (I don't think anyone here knows).'
A more useful answer would have exceeded the 5 word maximum you stipulated -
None of the reports I've seen say if it exceeded the legal limit, or even whether the pilot was asked to provide a sample of blood for analysis.
Journos have probably found out, despite the claim earlier that "UK Police don't give out info to the public in respect of arrested persons", but I assume they have to be careful what they report at this stage.
All the same, good point about all the supposition (and descriptions of what police do/don't do generally) when we don't yet know the facts.
H.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Upagumtree
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the rumour going around Manchester Airport
Police were called because he tried to get through security with no ID. His initial breath test put him twice over the limit for driving. But that's only a rumour, it may or may not be true!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DH121
Police were called because he tried to get through security with no ID. His initial breath test put him twice over the limit for driving. But that's only a rumour, it may or may not be true!
if true, he can NOT be found guilty of the offense of accomplishing ANY primary or ancillary flight duties (a requirement of the 2003 UK transport law). My God, he was JUST going through security....probably w/ the pax, since he took a taxi to the airport.
I do NOT condone overindulging while on layover, or beginning a flight duty period while over the legal limits for BAC.
But, if the above scenario turns out to be true, calling in sick would have been the BEST scenario for this pilot.
KC135777
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone heard anything regarding this yet?
The pilot should have appeared in court by now (the court date was apparently scheduled for 14th March), but I've heard nothing in the news.
The pilot should have appeared in court by now (the court date was apparently scheduled for 14th March), but I've heard nothing in the news.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is more likely that this gentleman was bailed to re-appear at a police station on the 14th March. The Police have several options open to them one of which is deciding that there is no case to answer in which case they would write to him advising that he does not need to surrender to his bail. If that were the case then nothing will ever appear in the press.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure about he Virgin incident...but the two pilots from AWA are now serving time for being found intoxicated...Capt 5 yrs...F/0 2.5 yrs....in a miami state penn....the company I fly for offers a "checklist" to crew who are "accused" of being intoxicated or under the influence......no matter the outcome,this will never be positive news in our industry,....the facts will ultimatley surface....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Correct me if I wrong
I was under the impression that there is no legal limit of blood/alcohol for flying an aircraft - i.e. the limit is in fact zero.
The 8 hour bottle to throttle only being a rule which assumes to get to 0.08 - that is, if you get to 0.08 it takes out hours to get down to zero as the body metabolises alcohol at the rate of 0.01 per hour. If you really have a big night you might still be over 0.08 when you open up the taps.
The 8 hour bottle to throttle only being a rule which assumes to get to 0.08 - that is, if you get to 0.08 it takes out hours to get down to zero as the body metabolises alcohol at the rate of 0.01 per hour. If you really have a big night you might still be over 0.08 when you open up the taps.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
>>On a similar matter, does anyone know the eventual conclusion to the Case of the Virgin Captain who was accused and detained in the US?
He copped a plea on a technicality and got off with a slap on the wrist:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=138270
He copped a plea on a technicality and got off with a slap on the wrist:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=138270
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: surrey
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was under the impression that there is no legal limit of blood/alcohol for flying an aircraft - i.e. the limit is in fact zero.
It is there to cover the tiny amount of alcohol that everyones body naturally produces.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Thrid rock from the sun
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main point
Ladies and Gents,
Perusing the thread I have seen much drivel. Lets not forget a few main points.
1. As employees wearing uniform we are ambassadors of our employers.
2. The public notice us and scrutinise us.
3. When wearing uniform we are expected to behave in a proper manner.
4. In Uniform if you smell of alcohol or something that smells similar to alcohol it will attract attention.
5. Police and security personnel are there for the protection of the public.
6. Due process is a requirement of the British and most legal systems.
7. Positioning Crew in uniform should know if they drink they will attract undue attention and may subject themselves to intervention by the authorities.
8. Uniform=Etiquette=Discipline=Conformance.
9. Any reasonable person could construe a uniformed staff member smelling of, appearing under the influence of or consuming Alcohol as being about to carry out the duties that his uniform suggests. And would be justified in reporting same to the authorities.
Best Advice.............Dont drink or smell of drink if in Uniform.
Perusing the thread I have seen much drivel. Lets not forget a few main points.
1. As employees wearing uniform we are ambassadors of our employers.
2. The public notice us and scrutinise us.
3. When wearing uniform we are expected to behave in a proper manner.
4. In Uniform if you smell of alcohol or something that smells similar to alcohol it will attract attention.
5. Police and security personnel are there for the protection of the public.
6. Due process is a requirement of the British and most legal systems.
7. Positioning Crew in uniform should know if they drink they will attract undue attention and may subject themselves to intervention by the authorities.
8. Uniform=Etiquette=Discipline=Conformance.
9. Any reasonable person could construe a uniformed staff member smelling of, appearing under the influence of or consuming Alcohol as being about to carry out the duties that his uniform suggests. And would be justified in reporting same to the authorities.
Best Advice.............Dont drink or smell of drink if in Uniform.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UKATCO. VH-Grumpy, and all,
in the USA it's 0.04% BAC by weight. FAR 91.17, 135.253, 121.458 cover general, air taxi, and scheduled airline rules. They all say .04 but the professional regs also extend to no drinking while in an on-duty status and things like, no drinking after an accident till you've been tested.
Now if there was a time a pilot ever needed a snort...
JB
in the USA it's 0.04% BAC by weight. FAR 91.17, 135.253, 121.458 cover general, air taxi, and scheduled airline rules. They all say .04 but the professional regs also extend to no drinking while in an on-duty status and things like, no drinking after an accident till you've been tested.
Now if there was a time a pilot ever needed a snort...
JB
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original date of the pilot's bail was extended.
He is now due to return to the police station to on Wednesday 5th April.
This is police bail. ie To date, he has not been charged with any offence.
There can be many reasons for an extension so it's pointless speculating.
Pigsfly
Your propositions 5 & 9 provide scope for discussion, and I don't understand what your proposition 6 adds, but I'll resist the temptation to depart from topic.
FL
He is now due to return to the police station to on Wednesday 5th April.
This is police bail. ie To date, he has not been charged with any offence.
There can be many reasons for an extension so it's pointless speculating.
Pigsfly
Your propositions 5 & 9 provide scope for discussion, and I don't understand what your proposition 6 adds, but I'll resist the temptation to depart from topic.
FL
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer,
thanks for that.
Perhaps I shouldnt be, but I am begining to feel a tad sorry for this chap.
Having been breathalysed in the past following a minor road prang, I was informed there and then that had I been positive, I would have been dealt with swiftly and the appropriate court action would have taken place within a week or so.
What's the difference here? I ask because I genuinely can't see the difference, I would have thought regardless of nationality, you could be refused police bail if there was a cahnce you may not turn up in court.
thanks for that.
Perhaps I shouldnt be, but I am begining to feel a tad sorry for this chap.
Having been breathalysed in the past following a minor road prang, I was informed there and then that had I been positive, I would have been dealt with swiftly and the appropriate court action would have taken place within a week or so.
What's the difference here? I ask because I genuinely can't see the difference, I would have thought regardless of nationality, you could be refused police bail if there was a cahnce you may not turn up in court.
Just another seat number
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NW UK
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a Road Traffic offence, you would be tested at the police station, after arrest, on a more sophisticated breath machine. Your lower of two readings is then taken and a prosecution will follow if your lowest reading is over the threshold. You will be in court in a matter of days if you provide a sample over the limit. A minimum of a 12 month ban can be expected.
For pilots, etc., my understanding is that a blood sample must be used due to the lower threshold for prosecution. The time taken for analysis is the reason for the delay in processing charges, hence a bail pending the results. However, a failure on the station breath test would provide a good indication of the likely outcome of the blood test......
The right to bail is presumed, reasons need to be found not to grant it.
For pilots, etc., my understanding is that a blood sample must be used due to the lower threshold for prosecution. The time taken for analysis is the reason for the delay in processing charges, hence a bail pending the results. However, a failure on the station breath test would provide a good indication of the likely outcome of the blood test......
The right to bail is presumed, reasons need to be found not to grant it.