Virgin Co-Pilot arrested, allegedly over alcohol limit. No case to answer.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Up there
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe there is a legal requirement to wait 30 minutes between the last 'consumption' of alcohol and the breath test to prevent situations similar to this. If this is correct then should you declare using an alcohol wipe prior to the breath test and will the police wait the time period?
I wait to be corrected....
I wait to be corrected....
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bournemouth, UK
Age: 56
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm.. interesting, pardon me if i'm wrong.. i've no knowledge of how 'aviation related' personel are "tested" for alcohol..
But, the standard UK police practice is for the accused to be tested roadside with a handheld device which on it's own is NOT enough to bring a successful prosecution as it is not accurate enough.
Any charge is as a result of using an evidential breathaliser at the nick - these work on analysing the breath from deep within the lungs and therefore should be 'immune' from contamination from instances such as alcohol wipes or residue coming in contact with the mouth...
However.. (if your driving/flying) i'd strongly advise against using any mouthwashes - these usually contain rather alarmingly large amounts of alcohol
In any instance, i'd imagine the accused would be offered the chance of a blood test which would prove their innocence?
But, the standard UK police practice is for the accused to be tested roadside with a handheld device which on it's own is NOT enough to bring a successful prosecution as it is not accurate enough.
Any charge is as a result of using an evidential breathaliser at the nick - these work on analysing the breath from deep within the lungs and therefore should be 'immune' from contamination from instances such as alcohol wipes or residue coming in contact with the mouth...
However.. (if your driving/flying) i'd strongly advise against using any mouthwashes - these usually contain rather alarmingly large amounts of alcohol
In any instance, i'd imagine the accused would be offered the chance of a blood test which would prove their innocence?
Last edited by RichieD; 9th Nov 2007 at 15:24.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very true regards the further test at the station, but that doesn`t stop the reporter emailing his paper the story before your bums so much as left your seat. Innocent you might be but you`ve already been tried and convicted in the papers.
I`m not suggesting the above scenario is a likely possibility, just food for thought on a topical debate.
I`m not suggesting the above scenario is a likely possibility, just food for thought on a topical debate.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: land of the long BLUE cloud
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh anyone can be in this situation without wipes/hand cleaner/mouthwash. Most bodies contain some alcohol which has been manufactured within, which is why 'zero allowable' levels are just daft. And why random testing for any crew should never be permitted....
And also why false accusations should carry a heavy sentence!
And also why false accusations should carry a heavy sentence!
that the individual is in the clear and there is no case to answer to.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely what you should be berating RWU is the use of equipment by the police that is not fit for purpose, ie it cannot measure low levels of alcohol with sufficient accuracy nor can it distinguish between certain chemicals and alcohol.
Green Granite,
I do not believe that the police will ever have mobile equipment fit for the job as only a blood test will deal with the extremely low limit that pilots are restricted to. However what I do question is how newspapers are allowed to print such unbelievably sensationalist rubbish before anything has been proved. I hope Sir RB mobilises his lawyers & takes them to the cleaners! Also the alleged involvement of security needs questioning. This is the not the first & it will not be the last time that a crew has been falsely accused of being drunk by groundstaff.
I do not believe that the police will ever have mobile equipment fit for the job as only a blood test will deal with the extremely low limit that pilots are restricted to. However what I do question is how newspapers are allowed to print such unbelievably sensationalist rubbish before anything has been proved. I hope Sir RB mobilises his lawyers & takes them to the cleaners! Also the alleged involvement of security needs questioning. This is the not the first & it will not be the last time that a crew has been falsely accused of being drunk by groundstaff.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Valley Where the Thames Runs Softly
Age: 77
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
newspapers are allowed to print such unbelievably sensationalist rubbish before anything has been proved. I hope Sir RB mobilises his lawyers & takes them to the cleaners! Also the alleged involvement of security needs questioning. This is the not the first & it will not be the last time that a crew has been falsely accused of being drunk by groundstaff.
As for ground staff, surely the interests of safety mean that they should always report reasonable suspicions - after that it's up to the police. Of course many cases turn out to be groundless (let's hope this is one of them) but thousands of people pass breath tests every year - it's a hazard of the game.
Unwell_raptor,
The mirror headline was "Cops haul drunk pilot off jet". Nothing like being innocent until proven guilty.
On the side of security shopping crews we now have had two high profile events which were false alrms. Can you imagine what their families lives have been like for the time during which they were charged. I also do not believe that they will lose the stigma of being arrested whilst "drunk". The system is wrong & being administered by the wrong people. Maybe it is time for routine preflight tests with a sensible limit in place.
The mirror headline was "Cops haul drunk pilot off jet". Nothing like being innocent until proven guilty.
On the side of security shopping crews we now have had two high profile events which were false alrms. Can you imagine what their families lives have been like for the time during which they were charged. I also do not believe that they will lose the stigma of being arrested whilst "drunk". The system is wrong & being administered by the wrong people. Maybe it is time for routine preflight tests with a sensible limit in place.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great if the news is true the pilot in question is cleared of any alcoholic wrongdoing.
However the 'gutter press' must be made to pay.
Why is the 'gutter press' allowed to print stuff which clearly states a person is guilty before due process has taken place?
There should be a law against this kind of reporting in every country.
However the 'gutter press' must be made to pay.
Why is the 'gutter press' allowed to print stuff which clearly states a person is guilty before due process has taken place?
There should be a law against this kind of reporting in every country.
None but a blockhead
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current libel and slander laws are iniquitous. As a journalist, I have to be very careful over what I say about anyone who's likely to be able to sue, and can pretty much say what I like about someone who's not. (These are not by any means the only lights I steer by! The majority of hacks I know are ethical and aware of their wider responsibilities.)
Robert Maxwell kept a lid on all his terrible deeds by firing off writs like an epileptic with a Sten gun, while countless innocent individuals have been shafted by a press that knows full well the victims haven't got the money to fight.
In this case, and assuming that the rumours of innocence are true, the pilot concerned doesn't prima face have a case against papers which called him 'drunk' without identifying him - if you can't be identified, you can't legally be damaged by libel, no matter what personal distress has been caused. If on the other hand he can be identified, even if not directly by the papers who wrote the 'drunk' headlines, then he has a case (although whether it's advisable that he proceed is very questionable, given the extreme expense and unpleasantness of going to court in cases like this). That means that if someone identified him on here, he'd ironically be in a stronger legal position - although such action would be utterly irresponsible in all other ways.
Virgin, however, probably would have a case - it could say that the company's reputation has been damaged by the implication that it employs drunk pilots, an implication made by any article or headline that didn't give true weight to the fact that pending test results and any court case, the pilot was innocent of the accusation. Again, whether it wants to is another matter. I'd like to think that it would make representations to any publication who ran 'drunk pilot hauled off flight deck' saying that it wants to see a decent retraction published and a contribution to an appropriate charity made, and that this would be seen as the safest way out by the publishers - but it's a tough call. You need serious legals to decide this sort of thing.
I've no doubt that a saner legal system of libel and slander would result in better journalism and fairer treatment of accused people. As it stands, it's too easy to thump the innocent and too hard to get at the guilty.
R
Robert Maxwell kept a lid on all his terrible deeds by firing off writs like an epileptic with a Sten gun, while countless innocent individuals have been shafted by a press that knows full well the victims haven't got the money to fight.
In this case, and assuming that the rumours of innocence are true, the pilot concerned doesn't prima face have a case against papers which called him 'drunk' without identifying him - if you can't be identified, you can't legally be damaged by libel, no matter what personal distress has been caused. If on the other hand he can be identified, even if not directly by the papers who wrote the 'drunk' headlines, then he has a case (although whether it's advisable that he proceed is very questionable, given the extreme expense and unpleasantness of going to court in cases like this). That means that if someone identified him on here, he'd ironically be in a stronger legal position - although such action would be utterly irresponsible in all other ways.
Virgin, however, probably would have a case - it could say that the company's reputation has been damaged by the implication that it employs drunk pilots, an implication made by any article or headline that didn't give true weight to the fact that pending test results and any court case, the pilot was innocent of the accusation. Again, whether it wants to is another matter. I'd like to think that it would make representations to any publication who ran 'drunk pilot hauled off flight deck' saying that it wants to see a decent retraction published and a contribution to an appropriate charity made, and that this would be seen as the safest way out by the publishers - but it's a tough call. You need serious legals to decide this sort of thing.
I've no doubt that a saner legal system of libel and slander would result in better journalism and fairer treatment of accused people. As it stands, it's too easy to thump the innocent and too hard to get at the guilty.
R
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin Atlantic Pilot cleared
Internal Statement released on company intranet:
Summarising.... "following the results of his blood test, no offence was committed, no charges will be brought. The pilot is now expected to resume his duties."
It is about time the
wits that "write" for the red tops are forced to eat their words. Are we likely to see a retraction, I doubt it.
PS. Mods, any chance we can get the thread title changed to highlight this fact?
Summarising.... "following the results of his blood test, no offence was committed, no charges will be brought. The pilot is now expected to resume his duties."
It is about time the
wits that "write" for the red tops are forced to eat their words. Are we likely to see a retraction, I doubt it.PS. Mods, any chance we can get the thread title changed to highlight this fact?
Last edited by Jetdriver; 23rd Nov 2007 at 22:37.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really! I wonder if we will see some retractions and apologies from some of the thundering idiots who pronounced on this thread? Nah....guess not!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please, can we ask any VS drivers reading this to lobby SRB to thump the disgusting pond-life who hyped up this story where it hurts, in the Courts and in the pocket.
I'm sure he has a very competent firm of lawyers who would relish a libel / slander case.
I'm sure he has a very competent firm of lawyers who would relish a libel / slander case.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC News:
"The results of a blood test found he was under the legal limit for aviation workers."
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>I'm sure he has a very competent firm of lawyers who would relish a libel / slander case.
The papers are usually very careful to insert words like "suspicion".
I wondered if there was a case under advertising standards - do big headlines and over hyped stories ammount to missleading adverts designed to get people to buy papers? In which case are they misrepresenting the product (the actual news story)?
The papers are usually very careful to insert words like "suspicion".
I wondered if there was a case under advertising standards - do big headlines and over hyped stories ammount to missleading adverts designed to get people to buy papers? In which case are they misrepresenting the product (the actual news story)?