View Poll Results: Should airline pilots be tested for alcohol before every flight?
I am a professional pilot and I say YES
79
7.60%
I am a professional pilot and I say NO
616
59.29%
I am NOT a professional pilot and I say YES
64
6.16%
I am NOT a professional pilot and I say NO
240
23.10%
I have no opinion or am happy with the status quo
40
3.85%
Voters: 1039. This poll is closed
VS A340 pilot breathalysed at LHR: WRONGLY ACCUSED
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliport
You asked:
Quote:
"Feel free to give some examples of what else your post could mean other than all the drivers you arrested were over the legal limit when you arrested them, even those who passed the evidential test "
That isn't what I said is it?
What I did say is that I found the screening device to be accurate. The basis for saying so is that at the point of evidencial test, be that by blood or breath, if they were then under the prescibed limit, it would, in my experience be by a reading that was proportionate to the time between the first test and evidenital one.
For example if blood was taken, then that would take around an hour for the doctor to turn up, it would be no suprise then if a blood test came back with a reading in the early 70's. If the Custody Officer was busy and an evidencial breath test used, again, an hour after the first test, again it would be no suprise for a driver to blow 20 something.
What I have never had, is someone go straight to red on a screening device and then blow zero. In fact I have never had a screening device go red and an eviditaila test be anything other than a reading that would be accounted for by the time difference.
Had the discussion been about an incident that used the old crystal breath tests, then I would agree they were totally unreliable, and those who had not been near a drink could and did blow over the line.
You made the comment that this means they were guilty and got away with it. Again, not true. The evidence is the reading at the point of second test. The screening test provides evidence to justify arrest, it does provide evidence of guilt.
To the others that have made comment on Security Screeners 'judging' a pilot on fitness to fly. They have not, nor did anyone else. Yes, a Police Officer made a judgement that he had evidence of an offence that was further investigated, by taking a blood sample at a police station. That test was negative, and therefore there was no evidence to support a charge. That does not mean that any person who was invloved was wrong in their actions.
You asked:
Quote:
"Feel free to give some examples of what else your post could mean other than all the drivers you arrested were over the legal limit when you arrested them, even those who passed the evidential test "
That isn't what I said is it?
What I did say is that I found the screening device to be accurate. The basis for saying so is that at the point of evidencial test, be that by blood or breath, if they were then under the prescibed limit, it would, in my experience be by a reading that was proportionate to the time between the first test and evidenital one.
For example if blood was taken, then that would take around an hour for the doctor to turn up, it would be no suprise then if a blood test came back with a reading in the early 70's. If the Custody Officer was busy and an evidencial breath test used, again, an hour after the first test, again it would be no suprise for a driver to blow 20 something.
What I have never had, is someone go straight to red on a screening device and then blow zero. In fact I have never had a screening device go red and an eviditaila test be anything other than a reading that would be accounted for by the time difference.
Had the discussion been about an incident that used the old crystal breath tests, then I would agree they were totally unreliable, and those who had not been near a drink could and did blow over the line.
You made the comment that this means they were guilty and got away with it. Again, not true. The evidence is the reading at the point of second test. The screening test provides evidence to justify arrest, it does provide evidence of guilt.
To the others that have made comment on Security Screeners 'judging' a pilot on fitness to fly. They have not, nor did anyone else. Yes, a Police Officer made a judgement that he had evidence of an offence that was further investigated, by taking a blood sample at a police station. That test was negative, and therefore there was no evidence to support a charge. That does not mean that any person who was invloved was wrong in their actions.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: the sky
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That does not mean that any person who was invloved was wrong in their actions.
They inconvenienced the passengers of the flight that were subjected to one hour delay, forced Virgin to employ a standby pilot (with the expences related), disrupted the life of the accused pilot and subjected him to the libel we saw on this forum and the press.
All for a wrongly assessed SMELL!
I suppose an experienced policeman should be able to understand if somebody is under the influence and unable to perform his duties as a pilot from his behaviour, without being a simple and brainless smell-meter operator.
Or maybe not?
Last edited by I-FORD; 22nd Apr 2007 at 09:39.
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
So, does the attending police officer also have to suspect that an offence has been commited, ie. also smell what might be alcohol on the pilots breath or does he just whip out breath testing kit based on an allegation by one security monkey with no corroborating evidence?
Perhaps every time we go through the farce that is called security we should wait until we get to the aircraft and then inform the police that we smelt alcohol on the breath of one or more of the screeners and let the police deal with it. I'm sure they'd soon think a bit more carefully before making such serious allegations without being sure.
No doubt there will be some new regulation introduced to give the security monkeys new powers to take a closer sniff whilst checking our ID's or giving us the 'random' pat down. Wouldn't it be better to give them some better guidelines such as asking the crew member to step to one side whilst they call a supervisor and then ask to smell the breath of the crewmember because they suspect they can smell alcohol. The supervisor can be trained to look for signs of inebriation to back up any claim made by a lowley monkey and also confront their suspect directly and informing him or her that they intend to call the police because they suspect an offence is about to be commited.
Nah, it'd never happen because the monkeys don't have the IQ and the police want to play with their expensive and sophisticated toys. Must justify the expense of purchasing them.
Perhaps every time we go through the farce that is called security we should wait until we get to the aircraft and then inform the police that we smelt alcohol on the breath of one or more of the screeners and let the police deal with it. I'm sure they'd soon think a bit more carefully before making such serious allegations without being sure.
No doubt there will be some new regulation introduced to give the security monkeys new powers to take a closer sniff whilst checking our ID's or giving us the 'random' pat down. Wouldn't it be better to give them some better guidelines such as asking the crew member to step to one side whilst they call a supervisor and then ask to smell the breath of the crewmember because they suspect they can smell alcohol. The supervisor can be trained to look for signs of inebriation to back up any claim made by a lowley monkey and also confront their suspect directly and informing him or her that they intend to call the police because they suspect an offence is about to be commited.
Nah, it'd never happen because the monkeys don't have the IQ and the police want to play with their expensive and sophisticated toys. Must justify the expense of purchasing them.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I-FORD
No, you have missed the point. He was not arrested for what you call
"under the influence and unable to perform his duties as a pilot"
He was however arrested on suspicion of having a blood alcohol concentration above a prescibed level. The 2 things are different.
The ONLY way of obtaining the evidence to arrest is by way of screening breath test, in exactly the same way the same evidence is gained from a car driver.
As for administering that test, there have to be grounds yes. Those grounds can be supported by what another person says, eg what a security screener has told police, BUT, it is for the officer who makes the requirement to justify why he made that it and that officer is the person who has to explain those reasons in court if required. So to claim that a security screeners words alone caused the initial test to be admistered is wrong.
The justification can be many things, only one of which is a smell of alcohol, or more properly intoxicating liquor.
In this case you claim it was wrong because people were inconvienced, and it obviously cost Virgin money. That however, is a result of what happened. It does not make the Police Officers (note Police Officers, not security screeners, as they had no part in that decision making process) actions wrong.
I'm afraid, like it or not, a breath test was administered, and that test was positive, as a result the pilot in question was treated the same way as a driver would be, and arrested. The arrest is nessesary because there is no other way of moving to the next stage. At a later stage, and from experience at the Police station in question, that later stage could be around an hour, a blood test was taken which was below the prescribed level. But that test result was then not the time of arrest.
You can shout and scream about how wrong it is for security screeners to call police. But please remember 2 things.
The amount of abuse aimed at them by some on here is hardly going to make them more sympathetic towards pilots, and anyway, if the choice is call police, or ignore it and risk their own job, which option do you think they will take?
Secondly, any member of the public can call police about something they think police should deal with, those things include, drinking & driving, theft, terrorism and sexual offences. That is the way the Policing system in the UK, and many other countries is based. Although a high proportion of those calls turn out to be wrong, they are in the vast majority of cases made with the best of intentions.
Lastly it has been assumed by many, and sadly whipped up by implication by one, that the original call was malicious. There is nothing supporting that assumption. The point about innocent until proven guilty applies equally to the security screener, however much you may dislike that.
cargo boy
Part of the above answers your first question.
As regards to calling police regarding smelling alcohol on screening staff, you can, but unless they are drunk, it wont achieve anything. They are not subject to this peice of legislation, and that you smell alocohol on them isn't a police matter. I'd suggest you ring the relevent aiport authority instead.
As for your last comment.......Do you really think that helps?
No, you have missed the point. He was not arrested for what you call
"under the influence and unable to perform his duties as a pilot"
He was however arrested on suspicion of having a blood alcohol concentration above a prescibed level. The 2 things are different.
The ONLY way of obtaining the evidence to arrest is by way of screening breath test, in exactly the same way the same evidence is gained from a car driver.
As for administering that test, there have to be grounds yes. Those grounds can be supported by what another person says, eg what a security screener has told police, BUT, it is for the officer who makes the requirement to justify why he made that it and that officer is the person who has to explain those reasons in court if required. So to claim that a security screeners words alone caused the initial test to be admistered is wrong.
The justification can be many things, only one of which is a smell of alcohol, or more properly intoxicating liquor.
In this case you claim it was wrong because people were inconvienced, and it obviously cost Virgin money. That however, is a result of what happened. It does not make the Police Officers (note Police Officers, not security screeners, as they had no part in that decision making process) actions wrong.
I'm afraid, like it or not, a breath test was administered, and that test was positive, as a result the pilot in question was treated the same way as a driver would be, and arrested. The arrest is nessesary because there is no other way of moving to the next stage. At a later stage, and from experience at the Police station in question, that later stage could be around an hour, a blood test was taken which was below the prescribed level. But that test result was then not the time of arrest.
You can shout and scream about how wrong it is for security screeners to call police. But please remember 2 things.
The amount of abuse aimed at them by some on here is hardly going to make them more sympathetic towards pilots, and anyway, if the choice is call police, or ignore it and risk their own job, which option do you think they will take?
Secondly, any member of the public can call police about something they think police should deal with, those things include, drinking & driving, theft, terrorism and sexual offences. That is the way the Policing system in the UK, and many other countries is based. Although a high proportion of those calls turn out to be wrong, they are in the vast majority of cases made with the best of intentions.
Lastly it has been assumed by many, and sadly whipped up by implication by one, that the original call was malicious. There is nothing supporting that assumption. The point about innocent until proven guilty applies equally to the security screener, however much you may dislike that.
cargo boy
Part of the above answers your first question.
As regards to calling police regarding smelling alcohol on screening staff, you can, but unless they are drunk, it wont achieve anything. They are not subject to this peice of legislation, and that you smell alocohol on them isn't a police matter. I'd suggest you ring the relevent aiport authority instead.
As for your last comment.......Do you really think that helps?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
The justification can be many things, only one of which is a smell of alcohol, or more properly intoxicating liquor
Surely someone should be accountable for this unmitigated cock up? Police need to be SEEN to be as accountable as the rest of us, and clearly in a situation as sensitive as this there needs to a be a clear justification for what the Police officer did. Whether you agree or not, the perception is that this Police officer exercised little or no common sense/discretion in this matter, and caused untold upset and misery for the individual concerned....all for nothing.
So I ask you..from your position as thread whipping boy, and resident Ex plod, where was/is the justification? (all the press reports indicate the screener smelled an alcohol like substance....but there is nothing to suggest what the Police officer discovered...or attempted to discover other than deciding to administering an evidental breath test which by its physical nature is a poor indicator of ones sobriety)
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
Originally Posted by bjcc
As for your last comment.......Do you really think that helps?
It is your consistent pontification, based on a past career which I have reason to believe was not left honourably, that casts doubt on the fact that the pilot was not under the influence of alcohol. You already made suggestions that you believe that many of your suspects managed to get off a prosecution because of the time it took between administering the original breath test and the subsequent evidential one or blood test. Thankfully it is not for you to decide as you appear to have a vindictive streak.
In this case, we do not know if the officer could smell "intoxicating liquor" or whether he or she decided to administer the breath test because they had the power to do so based solely on the security monkey's allegation. Of course it is impossible to prosecute the security monkey because of their claim that they were sure they could smell alcohol but based on my and my colleagues experience of these people, they have about as much initiative as a pebble and will puff up their egos by believing that they have a vital role to play in aviation when most of us know that they are nothing but lackeys who are not trusted to have any initiative and are paid to implement stupid security rules that are, in reality, nothing more than a waste of time and money.
So, in anticipation of your need to always have the last word PC bjcc, I will now hand the floor back to you.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haughtney1
Again, you are making the mistake of confusing 'sobriaty' and having aBAC above a prescribed limit.
The prescribed limit in this act, is very low, and it would be very very unusal to be anything but sobar with a BAC at that level.
You ask for justification for giving the test and of course I can't give you the answer, I was not the officer who made the requirement for it.
Beyond that, and without anything that has been said that shows the administering the test was not justified, the test itself was positive, and therefore arrest was fully justified.
The issue of 'common sense'. Please explain how what you say is common sense could have been applied at that point?
As regards to discretion, there is very little with any breath test, so once a test is administered, if it is positive then arrest is inevitable.
You can try to get the Met Police to give you the justification for their action, but I doubt you will get much of an answer, beyond 'Police were called and breath tested. The test was positive and he was arrested'. The reasons you wont get much more of an answer is because the second test was negative, the matter is now closed, and therefore is is no longer the buisness of anyone else.
Again, you are making the mistake of confusing 'sobriaty' and having aBAC above a prescribed limit.
The prescribed limit in this act, is very low, and it would be very very unusal to be anything but sobar with a BAC at that level.
You ask for justification for giving the test and of course I can't give you the answer, I was not the officer who made the requirement for it.
Beyond that, and without anything that has been said that shows the administering the test was not justified, the test itself was positive, and therefore arrest was fully justified.
The issue of 'common sense'. Please explain how what you say is common sense could have been applied at that point?
As regards to discretion, there is very little with any breath test, so once a test is administered, if it is positive then arrest is inevitable.
You can try to get the Met Police to give you the justification for their action, but I doubt you will get much of an answer, beyond 'Police were called and breath tested. The test was positive and he was arrested'. The reasons you wont get much more of an answer is because the second test was negative, the matter is now closed, and therefore is is no longer the buisness of anyone else.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cargo boy
Thank you, floor taken.
As I said before the BAC level at the time of second test is the reading that matters. That reading either goes up or down, depending on last drink. If it is going down, then of course there will times when the second test is below a set level. That does not mean, as you say anyone got off, it means there is not the evidence to support a charge. End. There is no, getting off, as you put it.
But, what it does do is explain why a person has been arrested, be that for drink driving or this offence, with a BAC apparently above the level, but a later test shows them to be below. And that although a second test is under a set BAC, that either information to police, or arrest can be justified.
There is no more implication in what I say than that. If you wish to read into things then carry on.....
Thank you, floor taken.
As I said before the BAC level at the time of second test is the reading that matters. That reading either goes up or down, depending on last drink. If it is going down, then of course there will times when the second test is below a set level. That does not mean, as you say anyone got off, it means there is not the evidence to support a charge. End. There is no, getting off, as you put it.
But, what it does do is explain why a person has been arrested, be that for drink driving or this offence, with a BAC apparently above the level, but a later test shows them to be below. And that although a second test is under a set BAC, that either information to police, or arrest can be justified.
There is no more implication in what I say than that. If you wish to read into things then carry on.....
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Again, you are making the mistake of confusing 'sobriaty' and having aBAC above a prescribed limit.
Beyond that, and without anything that has been said that shows the administering the test was not justified, the test itself was positive, and therefore arrest was fully justified.
He/she wasted valuable and finite resources, removed a wholly innocent professional from his place of work, and inconvenienced several hundred passengers.....for nothing
As regards to discretion, there is very little with any breath test, so once a test is administered, if it is positive then arrest is inevitable.
So I cannot but conclude that this Police officer made a rather coarse and unnecessary decision, that has had the net effect of further eroding the confidence of fellow professionals in their ability to perform relatively benign tasks
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haughtney1
Quote:
"I have already stated a breath test is an inappropriate means of measuring ones sobriety (call it below the required Breath alcohol limit if you wish)"
I don't call it either of the 2 things you mention. I call it having a BAC above a prescribed limit. As for how you mesure that level of BAC, I disgaree that a breath test is an inapproriate way of mesuring that. Your opinion differs, what do you base that on?
Quote:
"Which in itself proves nothing other than showing that the process is an ASS the officer who failed spectacularly in his duties.
He/she waisted valuable and finite resources, removed a wholly innocent professional from his place of work, and inconvenienced several hundred passengers.....for nothing"
How did he/she fail in his duties? A requirement was made for a breath test, that test was positive. You may think the process is an ASS, please explain that process, and show why it is an Ass then.
Quote:
"...or attempted to discover other than deciding to administering an evidental breath test which by its physical nature is a poor indicator of ones sobriety"
Then in your last post
"Quote:
Again, you are making the mistake of confusing 'sobriaty' and having aBAC above a prescribed limit.
No I'm not.....I didn't make the link, I made the point that the evidential breath test is a POOR indicator of sobriety..nothing more...please don't make assumptions on my behalf"
A breath test is not an indication of sobriaty, it is not claimed to be. It does not have to be, as that is not what it is being used for. What it is however, is mesure of BAC, because that is the offence being ivestigated.
The breath test used was not an 'evidential' breath test as you put it, it is a screening test, which gives the officer evidence that justifys arrest, nothing more.
You can conclude what you like, and what I say will make no difference to that. I don't see how the officer faced with a positive test can make any other decision other than arrest.
Quote:
"I have already stated a breath test is an inappropriate means of measuring ones sobriety (call it below the required Breath alcohol limit if you wish)"
I don't call it either of the 2 things you mention. I call it having a BAC above a prescribed limit. As for how you mesure that level of BAC, I disgaree that a breath test is an inapproriate way of mesuring that. Your opinion differs, what do you base that on?
Quote:
"Which in itself proves nothing other than showing that the process is an ASS the officer who failed spectacularly in his duties.
He/she waisted valuable and finite resources, removed a wholly innocent professional from his place of work, and inconvenienced several hundred passengers.....for nothing"
How did he/she fail in his duties? A requirement was made for a breath test, that test was positive. You may think the process is an ASS, please explain that process, and show why it is an Ass then.
Quote:
"...or attempted to discover other than deciding to administering an evidental breath test which by its physical nature is a poor indicator of ones sobriety"
Then in your last post
"Quote:
Again, you are making the mistake of confusing 'sobriaty' and having aBAC above a prescribed limit.
No I'm not.....I didn't make the link, I made the point that the evidential breath test is a POOR indicator of sobriety..nothing more...please don't make assumptions on my behalf"
A breath test is not an indication of sobriaty, it is not claimed to be. It does not have to be, as that is not what it is being used for. What it is however, is mesure of BAC, because that is the offence being ivestigated.
The breath test used was not an 'evidential' breath test as you put it, it is a screening test, which gives the officer evidence that justifys arrest, nothing more.
You can conclude what you like, and what I say will make no difference to that. I don't see how the officer faced with a positive test can make any other decision other than arrest.
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
Originally Posted by bjcc
I call it having a BAC above a prescribed limit.
The breath test machine cannot differentiate and therefore cannot be relied upon as an accurate indicator of breath alcohol. It gave a FALSE POSITIVE because of this flaw and therefore the police officer that attends the incident has to have more than just the word of a security monkey. He or she should have also assessed that they could smell "intoxicating liquor" or else the pilot appeared to inebriated. If he or she didn't assess that, and my sources tell me they didn't, then that officer is as despicable as the monkey who made the allegation in the first place.
As I mentioned before, we all base our opinions of others based on experience and whilst mine and many of my colleagues share similar opinoons of the security monkeys, I'm sure many of us share uncomplimentary opinions of the police that administer the breath test and your ex-colleagues in this case have not done themselves or public opinion any good. It's all very well hiding behind the current PC (excuse the pun) climate of covering ones @rse by not allowing any discretion but that only serves to highlight the idiocy of some of the current rules.
Cargo Boy
".... which I have reason to believe ...."
Your curious unsupported insinuation makes you start to sound like a would-be police officer yourself, quite apart from being exactly how this whole rather sad thread started. To quote Nubboy's response to Waveydavey, "Just put up or publicly retract."
Jack
Your curious unsupported insinuation makes you start to sound like a would-be police officer yourself, quite apart from being exactly how this whole rather sad thread started. To quote Nubboy's response to Waveydavey, "Just put up or publicly retract."
Jack
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cargo boy
In fact, according to 4enginines4longhaul, he did have a BAC reading of 4.5.
You say the breath test gave a false positive. Did it? He had alcohol in his blood, is it not also a possibility that it gave an accurate reading, which then reduced, as it would and at a time later when a blood test was taken was below that limit? You see, if the explanation of ketones was given at the time, there are 2 conflicting angles. It cannot be resolved in situ, so arrest and go through the blood test process is the only way matters can go. No matter how much verification is tried at the scene, there is no way of confirming that ketones alone are responisble for a reading.
No, before you start, that is NOT me saying he is guilty, but got off.
Ok, security. There are some who are as you discribe, some that are far worse, and some that try very hard and are good at it. Just like any occupation, including your own, and my former one. I agree they can be infuriating, I detested thier way of doing things when I had to deal with them. But it does not make them all bad.
Of course when you want a group of people, who in spite of a general assumption, can read, to treat you, or rather your occupation in a more sympathetic way over an issue, in this case smell of alcohol, it's hardly a good idea to slate publicly them to the extent you have done.
Moving to what you think of Police. you have your opinion, which you say is based on your sources. Mine tell me a different story, so we'll have to assume that the reality is probably between the 2. I can see why he was arrested, and I can also see why Police do themselves no favours sometimes because they don't explain extactly why they do things. I doubt that will change much, which is a shame. Then again, if they do provide a full explaination, there would be times when it would do the arrested person few favours.
In fact, according to 4enginines4longhaul, he did have a BAC reading of 4.5.
You say the breath test gave a false positive. Did it? He had alcohol in his blood, is it not also a possibility that it gave an accurate reading, which then reduced, as it would and at a time later when a blood test was taken was below that limit? You see, if the explanation of ketones was given at the time, there are 2 conflicting angles. It cannot be resolved in situ, so arrest and go through the blood test process is the only way matters can go. No matter how much verification is tried at the scene, there is no way of confirming that ketones alone are responisble for a reading.
No, before you start, that is NOT me saying he is guilty, but got off.
Ok, security. There are some who are as you discribe, some that are far worse, and some that try very hard and are good at it. Just like any occupation, including your own, and my former one. I agree they can be infuriating, I detested thier way of doing things when I had to deal with them. But it does not make them all bad.
Of course when you want a group of people, who in spite of a general assumption, can read, to treat you, or rather your occupation in a more sympathetic way over an issue, in this case smell of alcohol, it's hardly a good idea to slate publicly them to the extent you have done.
Moving to what you think of Police. you have your opinion, which you say is based on your sources. Mine tell me a different story, so we'll have to assume that the reality is probably between the 2. I can see why he was arrested, and I can also see why Police do themselves no favours sometimes because they don't explain extactly why they do things. I doubt that will change much, which is a shame. Then again, if they do provide a full explaination, there would be times when it would do the arrested person few favours.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
BJCC...
The process is an ass, because the Police Officer would appear to not have to justify their decision, and that would appear to be further compounded by a continued lack of explanation and/or acceptance of responsibility to the mistake that was made hence it is an ASS
There you go again..agreeing with me...I actually did say that it is a poor indicator of sobriety, which by implication you have agreed with
Wrong...ANY breath (screening) test can be used as an evidential instrument...go and check a little bit of case law BJCC
We are now however arguing semantic's......so lets move on, you still haven't offered a credible defense/justification regarding the use of a "breath screening test" as a measure to assess the pilot in question, and his ability to fly under the current regulations, you have merely offered that this "screening test" and its positive result mandates further investigation.
If that is so, then I put it to you that in order to achieve a consistent and unbiased sample of aircrew then "qualified" screeners will need to make assessments of aircrew breath alcohol levels...rather than having officer plod acting on unsubstantiated and consequently ill founded grounds to victimize a completely innocent individual.
If the Police don't wish to be derided or vilified, then they need to operate to the highest standards of professional integrity and operational transparency, they also need to be held to account for their actions, mistaken or otherwise.
The process is an ass, because the Police Officer would appear to not have to justify their decision, and that would appear to be further compounded by a continued lack of explanation and/or acceptance of responsibility to the mistake that was made
hence it is an ASS
A breath test is not an indication of sobriety, it is not claimed to be. It does not have to be, as that is not what it is being used for. What it is however, is measure of BAC, because that is the offence being investigated.
The breath test used was not an 'evidential' breath test as you put it, it is a screening test, which gives the officer evidence that justifies arrest, nothing more.
We are now however arguing semantic's......so lets move on, you still haven't offered a credible defense/justification regarding the use of a "breath screening test" as a measure to assess the pilot in question, and his ability to fly under the current regulations, you have merely offered that this "screening test" and its positive result mandates further investigation.
If that is so, then I put it to you that in order to achieve a consistent and unbiased sample of aircrew then "qualified" screeners will need to make assessments of aircrew breath alcohol levels...rather than having officer plod acting on unsubstantiated and consequently ill founded grounds to victimize a completely innocent individual.
If the Police don't wish to be derided or vilified, then they need to operate to the highest standards of professional integrity and operational transparency, they also need to be held to account for their actions, mistaken or otherwise.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haughtney1
I am sorry, but you and reality have parted company.
The offence in question has nothing to do with being sober or otherwise, it has to do with an arbitary amount of alcohol in blood, nothing else.
Quote:
"Wrong...ANY breath (screening) test can be used as an evidential instrument...go and check a little bit of case law BJCC"
Really? this will be interesting, perhaps you'll poin to this case law for us then?
Quote:
"so lets move on, you still haven't offered a credible defense/justification regarding the use of a "breath screening test" as a measure to assess the pilot in question, and his ability to fly under the current regulations,"
I don't have to. A screening test is the way in which evidence to arrest is gathered. It's use is written into at least 2 acts of Parliamnet. It's been in use for over 20 years for drivers. and the last 2 or so for those who fall under this act.
The 'ability' to fly (or drive) is not at issue. Never has been, it is used to measure a BAC in relation to a prescribed limit. Which is why I agreed with your point over being sobar. Sobriety is not at issue, it is of no relevence, why do you keep bring it up?
Quote:
"If that is so, then I put it to you that in order to achieve a consistent and unbiased sample of aircrew then "qualified" screeners will need to make assessments of aircrew breath alcohol levels...rather than having officer plod acting on unsubstantiated and consequently ill founded grounds to victimize a completely innocent individual."
This would be funny if it wasn't a serious subject. There already is a 'qualified screener' it's a hand held elctronic device, usually called an ESD. It's what we have been on about, I don't think I've ever used a biased one, I mean it's a machine, it doesn't have a bias!!!
I am sorry, but you and reality have parted company.
The offence in question has nothing to do with being sober or otherwise, it has to do with an arbitary amount of alcohol in blood, nothing else.
Quote:
"Wrong...ANY breath (screening) test can be used as an evidential instrument...go and check a little bit of case law BJCC"
Really? this will be interesting, perhaps you'll poin to this case law for us then?
Quote:
"so lets move on, you still haven't offered a credible defense/justification regarding the use of a "breath screening test" as a measure to assess the pilot in question, and his ability to fly under the current regulations,"
I don't have to. A screening test is the way in which evidence to arrest is gathered. It's use is written into at least 2 acts of Parliamnet. It's been in use for over 20 years for drivers. and the last 2 or so for those who fall under this act.
The 'ability' to fly (or drive) is not at issue. Never has been, it is used to measure a BAC in relation to a prescribed limit. Which is why I agreed with your point over being sobar. Sobriety is not at issue, it is of no relevence, why do you keep bring it up?
Quote:
"If that is so, then I put it to you that in order to achieve a consistent and unbiased sample of aircrew then "qualified" screeners will need to make assessments of aircrew breath alcohol levels...rather than having officer plod acting on unsubstantiated and consequently ill founded grounds to victimize a completely innocent individual."
This would be funny if it wasn't a serious subject. There already is a 'qualified screener' it's a hand held elctronic device, usually called an ESD. It's what we have been on about, I don't think I've ever used a biased one, I mean it's a machine, it doesn't have a bias!!!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
BJCC..nice fellow you appear to be..play the man I guess
Then you assume an offense when...
NO offense was comitted
Oh brother..lead a horse to water and all that........... but then don't contradict yourself...as evidence to arrest is part of ANY prosecution
Now a very convenient misinterpretation on your part..
The "screener" in question is the human element..and the justification to employe the machine..not the machine itself....which brings me back to my question...
Where is the justification?
I am sorry, but you and reality have parted company
The offence in question has nothing to do with being sober or otherwise, it has to do with an arbitary amount of alcohol in blood, nothing else.
Really? this will be interesting, perhaps you'll poin to this case law for us then?
but then don't contradict yourself...as evidence to arrest is part of ANY prosecution
A screening test is the way in which evidence to arrest is gathered.
There already is a 'qualified screener' it's a hand held elctronic device, usually called an ESD. It's what we have been on about, I don't think I've ever used a biased one, I mean it's a machine, it doesn't have a bias!!!
Where is the justification?
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
There you go again bjcc:
It COULD have been alcohol in his blood IF he had been drinking the night before the flight. However, I know the pilot and I know his colleagues and I know he is not the type to abuse his position or privilege by doing something so stupid which is why those of us that know him were so surprised.
Of course, your insinuation that it was probably a low level of ALCOHOL and had disappeared by the time he gave blood is just typical of the police (especially ex) that are so sure of themselves. Now I know what they do with all the bits of foreskin that are removed after a circumcision. They wait until they have enough and they make a plod out of them!
The breath testing machine used has a known flaw in that it canot differentiate between Acetone and Alcohol. Typical of someone like you to back up a mistake by the police by insiniuation that it was probably a low level of alcohol and not more likely Ketones due to the low carbohydrate diet.
I suppose benefit of the doubt must be a real pain for someone like you. Thankfully, you may be involved with aviation now but none of us have to put up with the likes of you on the flight deck.
Oh, and yes, this is quite venomous because there is nothing worse than someone who comes on here and tries to expound an air of 'expertise' when in fact it has been shown that it is not necessarily so. Worse still, you try to insinuate that a colleague who has been exonerated probably only did so because of the delay between the initial breath test and the blood sample being given. I hope the stitches that hold you together rot.
Originally Posted by bjcc
He had alcohol in his blood, is it not also a possibility that it gave an accurate reading, which then reduced, as it would and at a time later when a blood test was taken was below that limit?
Of course, your insinuation that it was probably a low level of ALCOHOL and had disappeared by the time he gave blood is just typical of the police (especially ex) that are so sure of themselves. Now I know what they do with all the bits of foreskin that are removed after a circumcision. They wait until they have enough and they make a plod out of them!
The breath testing machine used has a known flaw in that it canot differentiate between Acetone and Alcohol. Typical of someone like you to back up a mistake by the police by insiniuation that it was probably a low level of alcohol and not more likely Ketones due to the low carbohydrate diet.
I suppose benefit of the doubt must be a real pain for someone like you. Thankfully, you may be involved with aviation now but none of us have to put up with the likes of you on the flight deck.
Oh, and yes, this is quite venomous because there is nothing worse than someone who comes on here and tries to expound an air of 'expertise' when in fact it has been shown that it is not necessarily so. Worse still, you try to insinuate that a colleague who has been exonerated probably only did so because of the delay between the initial breath test and the blood sample being given. I hope the stitches that hold you together rot.
I am really getting a bit p*****d off with this thread. The guy is innocent.
bjcc
The breath test machines are obviously totally unsuitable for levels below 20 as they cannot differentiate between acetones and alcohol. This means that they should not be used if the level is of that order in which case they should let the accused party get on with his job. When they have a suitable detector they will be able to use them for all cases.
At the moment it is a random unfair spiteful process which does not reflect well on the officers using it.
bjcc
The breath test machines are obviously totally unsuitable for levels below 20 as they cannot differentiate between acetones and alcohol. This means that they should not be used if the level is of that order in which case they should let the accused party get on with his job. When they have a suitable detector they will be able to use them for all cases.
At the moment it is a random unfair spiteful process which does not reflect well on the officers using it.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And pilots are in limbo; can you have a glass of wine with your dinner (or even share a bottle with your partner) without running the risk of ruining your career the following morning, not to mention be accused of being drunk in charge of an aircraft by the newspapers?
What is needed is some clear advice from the regulating authorities.
What is needed is some clear advice from the regulating authorities.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys
I'm suprised that this one is still running.
I see Waveydavey has the courage to neither put up or retract his allegations.
The other point, well made, is that the breath test, which was the excuse to make an arrest, as flawed. The fact that it is KNOWN to be flawed and continues to be used is completelty indefensible. Until a more reliable piece of equipment is available, then is should not be used as a screening device which can lead to arrest and caution.
Drink driving is known to be a problem. Statiscally flying, or operating, undetr the influence is not.
As for the security staff being exempt, are they not undertaking an "avaition related" task and therefore should be under the same obligations as the rest of us?
I'm suprised that this one is still running.
I see Waveydavey has the courage to neither put up or retract his allegations.
The other point, well made, is that the breath test, which was the excuse to make an arrest, as flawed. The fact that it is KNOWN to be flawed and continues to be used is completelty indefensible. Until a more reliable piece of equipment is available, then is should not be used as a screening device which can lead to arrest and caution.
Drink driving is known to be a problem. Statiscally flying, or operating, undetr the influence is not.
As for the security staff being exempt, are they not undertaking an "avaition related" task and therefore should be under the same obligations as the rest of us?