ATC calls police to meet A/C because FO 'sounded drunk'
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Nr Fairy
The FODCOM isn't law, it's advice. The legislation gives a Constable power to require a breath test and administer it at that place or nearby. There is no requirement on the Officer to administer it out of sight.
That said, it would be more sensible too.
The FODCOM isn't law, it's advice. The legislation gives a Constable power to require a breath test and administer it at that place or nearby. There is no requirement on the Officer to administer it out of sight.
That said, it would be more sensible too.
bjcc:
While the FODCOM isn't legislation it does quote it quite extensively. I'm quite aware of the difference, having a) been on your side of the fence, albeit a long time ago and b) read the FODCOm as a FODCOM rather than the Act itself.
I was merely hoping to point out that a desire to be breathalysed in a private setting isn't a refusal to provide such a breath test, and any officer worth their salt would most likely accede to such a request were it to be made politely.
While the FODCOM isn't legislation it does quote it quite extensively. I'm quite aware of the difference, having a) been on your side of the fence, albeit a long time ago and b) read the FODCOm as a FODCOM rather than the Act itself.
I was merely hoping to point out that a desire to be breathalysed in a private setting isn't a refusal to provide such a breath test, and any officer worth their salt would most likely accede to such a request were it to be made politely.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Nr Fairy
My concern was with your last bit.
"However the "ways and means" act of getting around this is may be to offer to provide the specimen but only in a private place - that way, there is no refusal."
It could be considered a refuasl by putting that condition on providing it.
I would agree that it would be better to do so out of sight of the pax, or indeed other staff, but there is no compulsion to do so. I just wanted to ensure that no one misunderstands, they can ask, but if its refused, thats that, the test is still not optional, unless someone wants to get arrested.
My concern was with your last bit.
"However the "ways and means" act of getting around this is may be to offer to provide the specimen but only in a private place - that way, there is no refusal."
It could be considered a refuasl by putting that condition on providing it.
I would agree that it would be better to do so out of sight of the pax, or indeed other staff, but there is no compulsion to do so. I just wanted to ensure that no one misunderstands, they can ask, but if its refused, thats that, the test is still not optional, unless someone wants to get arrested.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: cheshire uk
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BJCC,
Absolutley right.It makes sense to request a breath test (esp on an a/c) out of sight, if nothing else to avoid panicing the PAX and saving the crew member embarrassment. But there's no legislation to say it has to. Indeed, if a pilot placed a condition on giving a sample of breath requested by me - he's more likley than not going to be arrested for refusal.
Absolutley right.It makes sense to request a breath test (esp on an a/c) out of sight, if nothing else to avoid panicing the PAX and saving the crew member embarrassment. But there's no legislation to say it has to. Indeed, if a pilot placed a condition on giving a sample of breath requested by me - he's more likley than not going to be arrested for refusal.
Sims Fly Virtually
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Landmark
Indeed, if a pilot placed a condition on giving a sample of breath requested by me - he's more likley than not going to be arrested for refusal.
If this is the case, either my view of law enforcement officers has just seriously descended (and I'm proud to have a son-in-law who is one) or you are an unfortunate exception to the rule!
WHY would a sensible request that the test be carried out away from the eyes of passengers result in arrest - it's hardly an unacceptable condition?
When I'm flying with any airline, I don't expect to see the driver being "bagged" - If he IS "FUI", then I'd hope that it would be taken care of and that I'd not even be aware of the fact that an alternative pilot was going to be flying!
(and I'm old enough to remember the years-ago somewhat "bending" of the "8 hours rule", so not "over-sensitive")
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ExSimGuy
What I presume he means is the same as I said. That it is the Police officers decision to require a breath test from a pilot. Once that requirement is made, the legislation says that it must be taken at the place of request or nearby. But that is the officers decision to make not the person required to take the test.
So, if the officer decides that he is going to administer it at the doors of the aircraft, thats where you take it. If a pilot (or anyone else covered by this legislation) doesn't take it, then he faces either arrest or summons for refusal.
As The Nr Fairy points out it is preferable to do it out of sight, but it is not compulsory. Trying to put a condition on where it will, or will not be taken will only annoy the person you really do not want to annoy.
Drivers are in the same position. As a police officer having had an accident, I was required to take a breath test, no problem with it, hadn't had a drink in days, but it was conducted in full view of the public. I wasn't impressed, and no doubt the public thought I had been a naughty boy. But at the end of the day, did it matter? No.
What I presume he means is the same as I said. That it is the Police officers decision to require a breath test from a pilot. Once that requirement is made, the legislation says that it must be taken at the place of request or nearby. But that is the officers decision to make not the person required to take the test.
So, if the officer decides that he is going to administer it at the doors of the aircraft, thats where you take it. If a pilot (or anyone else covered by this legislation) doesn't take it, then he faces either arrest or summons for refusal.
As The Nr Fairy points out it is preferable to do it out of sight, but it is not compulsory. Trying to put a condition on where it will, or will not be taken will only annoy the person you really do not want to annoy.
Drivers are in the same position. As a police officer having had an accident, I was required to take a breath test, no problem with it, hadn't had a drink in days, but it was conducted in full view of the public. I wasn't impressed, and no doubt the public thought I had been a naughty boy. But at the end of the day, did it matter? No.
Sims Fly Virtually
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the legislation says that it must be taken at the place of request or nearby. But that is the officers decision to make not the person required to take the test.
Regarding your own experience related above, I would have thought that a "reasonable" approach - especially if you were in uniform - yes, it did matter - , would to have the test taken out of the view of the public - for exactly the same reasons as I would expect the pilot to have been given the same consideration (or, to be more accurate, to avoid the confidence of the public in the police/pilots due to having one embarrassingly tested in front of them - especially if it turned out, as I hope in your case, to be a "negative")
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ExSimGuy
Yes, mine was a big fat nothing! There is a school of thought that producing a negitive result is in fact reassuring the public. I can see some merit in that, but I can also see your point, and agree that doing it out of the way would be a more reasonable approach.
In my case it was conducted by Traffic, who probably had issues with my parents being married.
My only reason for mentioning it, is that the FODCOM has no effect on the Officer making the request, he may not even have heard of it. So if asked to take a breath test, and you are willing to take it, and the officer declines to do it out of sight, then don't argue, as the result may be worse.
Yes, mine was a big fat nothing! There is a school of thought that producing a negitive result is in fact reassuring the public. I can see some merit in that, but I can also see your point, and agree that doing it out of the way would be a more reasonable approach.
In my case it was conducted by Traffic, who probably had issues with my parents being married.
My only reason for mentioning it, is that the FODCOM has no effect on the Officer making the request, he may not even have heard of it. So if asked to take a breath test, and you are willing to take it, and the officer declines to do it out of sight, then don't argue, as the result may be worse.
bjcc
Thanks for your input..just to be completely clear in my own mind over this.
If I am asked ( in the UK) to take a breathtest, for whatever reason, I can ask for it to be done in private, but if that request is denied by the officer on the spot , it is probably in my own interests to take the test there and then, wherever I am....
Thanks for your input..just to be completely clear in my own mind over this.
If I am asked ( in the UK) to take a breathtest, for whatever reason, I can ask for it to be done in private, but if that request is denied by the officer on the spot , it is probably in my own interests to take the test there and then, wherever I am....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rio
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One would expect US coppers to be agressive and nasty...But in the UK,some 12 years ago,I was stopped by police for speeding(doing 60 in a road with a speed limit of 40),was very respectfuly treated,admitted having had a pint,asked for a breath test,got the test explained to me in detail,did it,turned out ok,and released with a "have a very good night,mate".Few days later,reporting for duty at Gatwick,saw a police officer doing the same routine to an asian capt.who really had an odd balance in his walk,very politely,test explained in detail,and the officer himself insisted in taking this poor fellow away from public view.Every time I had any contact with british police in the 2 years I lived in the UK I've found them to be nice,polite,helpful and very well trained to deal with the "civilians".Couldn't and wouldn't say the same of the american couterparts.Very recently I was rudely approached by an american police officer at KMIA for having a cigarrete in my mouth,unlit,on my way out of the terminal,shouting on top of his lungs,causing every head to turn to me.Embarassing it was!Felt like a criminal.The whole episode with the pilot you guys described ,sounded typical american..
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wiggy
Correct yes.
Theres no problem with asking, but if it's refused, for whatever reason, then you have no real option but to take it. You can decline, but doing so will probably lead to arrest.
The chances are if you ask, and point out, politely the reasons why you'd want it done in private, then thats what the officer will do.
Correct yes.
Theres no problem with asking, but if it's refused, for whatever reason, then you have no real option but to take it. You can decline, but doing so will probably lead to arrest.
The chances are if you ask, and point out, politely the reasons why you'd want it done in private, then thats what the officer will do.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a school of thought that producing a negitive result is in fact reassuring the public.
As I understand it, after 9/11, the state of mind in the U.S. was such that pilots were very nearly subject to much more public humiliation including being frisked in public prior to every flight - with the in public bit being entirely intentional.
What takes place now is a "concession". While accepting that the mood at the time was not one conducive to negotiation and discussion, I don't feel that our representatives did a particuarly good job. Pilots are now treated as being little different to passengers in terms of the risk they bring to the very aeroplanes they fly.
I find the discussion above depressing, based on the simple observation that yet again we have the threat of arrest being bandied about when a perfectly reasonable position is taken. Allways depressing are the - ever present - pilots who take the "security" line without so much as a thought for what they are saying. Remember, there will allways be a pilot who will want to argue that it is possible that another pilot will be a terrorist and that pilots should therefore undergo special checks, strip searches/"internal investigations", suspension on the "slightest suspicion", etc. (After all, pilots get into the cockpit!! They can do terrible things there!!). We just need to be able to recognise such idiots for what they are and get back to looking after our interests in this "security game" a bit better.
By the way, I think that such testing in public would have exactly the opposite effect as that suggested. I also think it is a form of public humiliation.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hotazel
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting assumptions from a lot of guys
Having been on the other side of the mike for over 30 yrs, I must say that you obtain the ability to evaluate the person you are talking to. Mostly you have the friendly and appreciative voice on the other side.
You can definitely evaluate the persons mood on the radio. Be it friendly, tired, grumpy, plainly rude(because he is p..t off with someone), inexperienced or even some times lacking far behind the aircraft.
I had an aircraft going down a few year ago because of the instructor being intoxicated. (This you could tell from his speech and actions) The poor student was trying his best to keep the plane flying while his instructor did all sorts of unusual maneavers with the aircraft. Fortunately I had a friend in the military being on standby with his chopper and when the plane did crash and going up in flames, the chopper landed at the crash site. Fortunately the two walked away only a bit bruised.
So guys, it is not a "witch hunt". If ATC reported the matter, the police should have the correct procedures and diplomacy to handle the matter
Having been on the other side of the mike for over 30 yrs, I must say that you obtain the ability to evaluate the person you are talking to. Mostly you have the friendly and appreciative voice on the other side.
You can definitely evaluate the persons mood on the radio. Be it friendly, tired, grumpy, plainly rude(because he is p..t off with someone), inexperienced or even some times lacking far behind the aircraft.I had an aircraft going down a few year ago because of the instructor being intoxicated. (This you could tell from his speech and actions) The poor student was trying his best to keep the plane flying while his instructor did all sorts of unusual maneavers with the aircraft. Fortunately I had a friend in the military being on standby with his chopper and when the plane did crash and going up in flames, the chopper landed at the crash site. Fortunately the two walked away only a bit bruised.
So guys, it is not a "witch hunt". If ATC reported the matter, the police should have the correct procedures and diplomacy to handle the matter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: essex
Age: 76
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bjcc
ExSimGuy
Drivers are in the same position. As a police officer having had an accident, I was required to take a breath test, no problem with it, hadn't had a drink in days, but it was conducted in full view of the public. I wasn't impressed, and no doubt the public thought I had been a naughty boy. But at the end of the day, did it matter? No.
Drivers are in the same position. As a police officer having had an accident, I was required to take a breath test, no problem with it, hadn't had a drink in days, but it was conducted in full view of the public. I wasn't impressed, and no doubt the public thought I had been a naughty boy. But at the end of the day, did it matter? No.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: cheshire uk
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ExSimGuy,
I'm not ignoring you request but have in fact only just revisited the forum - in essence bjcc has given the answer I was have given,and yes, I am a police officer.
Personally I would happily make the request for a breath test in private if requested, my point was/is, and its been made perfectly well already, that it is wise not give any indication of awkwardness that could look like refusal - this isn't meant to be officious at all, just highlight the legislation as it stands.
I'm not ignoring you request but have in fact only just revisited the forum - in essence bjcc has given the answer I was have given,and yes, I am a police officer.
Personally I would happily make the request for a breath test in private if requested, my point was/is, and its been made perfectly well already, that it is wise not give any indication of awkwardness that could look like refusal - this isn't meant to be officious at all, just highlight the legislation as it stands.
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evenin' all
Plods seem to have arrested this thread, which started in Portland USA, where different laws prevail both for the police and the pilots, and presumably ATC. Dock Green Nick has nothing to do with this case.
Refocus please.
Refocus please.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: World
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This business has gone completely insane. ATC'ers who think they have the ability to analyze you by voice. Simply insane. I don't care if you do have 30 years behind the mic, some of us have 40 years in the aircraft. What next, calling the post office about a postal problem and having a mail "person" send the coppers to your house based on their 30 years experience delivering the mail.
In the US the ATC'ers actually make more than the ones doing the business on the flight deck because they are paid by the tax payers and simply are not accountable for costs. I retire in a matter of months, and although it has been a great ride, the changing environment makes me happy to get away from this insanity.
In the US the ATC'ers actually make more than the ones doing the business on the flight deck because they are paid by the tax payers and simply are not accountable for costs. I retire in a matter of months, and although it has been a great ride, the changing environment makes me happy to get away from this insanity.
Last edited by JustAnothrWindScreen; 2nd Jun 2006 at 05:48.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Portland, OR USA
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SLFguy
*Dons non-pilot flame retardant gear*........
Original post says "FAA noted some irregularities in radio transmission...." then goes on to imply that they had a guy on the ground quick enough to 'interview' the pilot concerned.
Two questions...(a) Am I incorrect in thinking the 'interview' in the lounge took place when the a/c landed?... if it was at a later date surely it would have been scheduled in an office, and (b) Does the FAA 'monitor' radio traffic in real time?
Original post says "FAA noted some irregularities in radio transmission...." then goes on to imply that they had a guy on the ground quick enough to 'interview' the pilot concerned.
Two questions...(a) Am I incorrect in thinking the 'interview' in the lounge took place when the a/c landed?... if it was at a later date surely it would have been scheduled in an office, and (b) Does the FAA 'monitor' radio traffic in real time?
As for the gentleman who doubted the veracity of the original post, all I can say is, "I wish 'twere a lie!"
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hove
Age: 72
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then of course there are the radios that are so good they make the crew sound drunk.
I feel sorry for the crew, as mentioned by a previous poster, once the details had been reported to the police they were duty bound to go in this "PC" correct world.
Had I taken that call when I first started my police comms career 19 years ago it's likely that call would never have left the control room but nowadays I'm guided by other rules and "SOP"'s.
I feel sorry for the crew, as mentioned by a previous poster, once the details had been reported to the police they were duty bound to go in this "PC" correct world.
Had I taken that call when I first started my police comms career 19 years ago it's likely that call would never have left the control room but nowadays I'm guided by other rules and "SOP"'s.