Jail and 10-year ban for Thomson pilot!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cockney Steve
There are quite a few posters in this thread that simply ignore all the known facts and moan tediously about how the poor intoxicated pilot has been treated harshly.
If other posters express opinions contrary to the 'poor pilot' variety, they are subjected to ridicule and criticism.
Pathetic as it may seem, lacking the ability to articulate a credible argument, they resort to insults.
Professional pilots, I think not!
If other posters express opinions contrary to the 'poor pilot' variety, they are subjected to ridicule and criticism.
Pathetic as it may seem, lacking the ability to articulate a credible argument, they resort to insults.
Professional pilots, I think not!
IF it's so vital to have a co-pilot, how come most GA is single-pilot?
(often with a totally unskilled passenger sat at the second set of controls!
(often with a totally unskilled passenger sat at the second set of controls!
Most G.A. aircraft are designed for one pilot and can be flown by one pilot.
Boeings - or similar - aren't.
Q.E.D.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most G.A. aircraft are designed for one pilot and can be flown by one pilot.
However, you quietly ignore a previous quote...If one of the pilots is incapacitated, the remaining one always appears to make a single-handed landing and the aircraft is reusable.
you confuse prudence and desirability with necessity. if it's easier to understand, I'd suggest that the same thinking extends to long transoceanic flights....minimum 2 engines , just in case one jacks in (the other one MUST be able to carry the can, single-handed
I certainly would not like to fly in an airliner with only one pilot.
Can you, hand on heart, tell me you've NEVER heard of, or seen, a member of a flight-deck who was below par and "carried" by his /her flightdeck colleagues.
I attended several riotous parties thrown by pilots, at Southend in the early 60's....the culture was different in those days , people would leave the party to go on duty
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Orstarayyyleea
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cockney steve
I think you'll find that in the UK at least, the majority of light aircraft,by number, if not maker, are dual-control....even the Aeronca Chief and Champ and the little Rans.not to mention the huge fleet of Piper and Cessnas.
Irrelevant.
Bugsmashers have dual controls because they may be flown from either seat and it's sort of difficult to teach someone to fly otherwise. Larger aircraft have dual control controls because they need two pilots.
Nice try though.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve:
"If one of the pilots is incapacitated, the remaining one always appears to make a single-handed landing and the aircraft is reusable."
Oh gosh, well following that illuminating analysis, let's have all commercial aircraft flown by just the one pilot from now on, shall we? Let's see just how safe that is. After all, it's made no difference when there's been incapacitation in the past, has it?!
You're completely and utterly barking mad, mate.
"If one of the pilots is incapacitated, the remaining one always appears to make a single-handed landing and the aircraft is reusable."
Oh gosh, well following that illuminating analysis, let's have all commercial aircraft flown by just the one pilot from now on, shall we? Let's see just how safe that is. After all, it's made no difference when there's been incapacitation in the past, has it?!
You're completely and utterly barking mad, mate.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: sapporo
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like pilots have to pay tons of money to get a license, then have insecure jobs, prove they are capable of doing their jobs every 6 months, die younger than "normal" people, spend nights away from home, have ( sometimes) shakier marriages than other professions due to the nature of the job, and if you screw up and show up to work with the equivalent of 1 pint 0f beer in blood, go to jail for 6 months and lose your livelyhood for 10 years or forever.
So why the hell are our salaries and T&C's going down every year?
By the way, wasn't having a glass of wine with lunch permited in some airlines until not too long ago. Crazy world.
Not condoning drinking and flying, but without knowing all the facts, it seems very harsh to me.
So why the hell are our salaries and T&C's going down every year?
By the way, wasn't having a glass of wine with lunch permited in some airlines until not too long ago. Crazy world.
Not condoning drinking and flying, but without knowing all the facts, it seems very harsh to me.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the papers, the guy plead 'guilty'. If he hadn't had a drink or thought he was well below the limit, then he would surely have plead 'not guilty'? The blood test would have showed any other non-normal substances so what are you all getting upset about?
Guilty as charged.
Lose job, go to jail.
He was drunk and he turned up to fly an aeroplane.
End of story.
Defend that? Waste of time.
I reckon steve has it about right.
Guilty as charged.
Lose job, go to jail.
He was drunk and he turned up to fly an aeroplane.
End of story.
Defend that? Waste of time.
I reckon steve has it about right.
Last edited by rubik101; 14th Apr 2009 at 06:23. Reason: spelin
If anyone thinks that every one pleading guilty in court is guilty as charged, then they are being naive. One only has to witness proceedings in the US where plea bargains are common to understand why.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hunterboy, with what greater felony, as you are using the US as an example, do you imagine he was charged?
To bargain, you need to be convinced that at trial, you will be found guilty of the greater offence. The bargain is in the fact that you plead a lesser offence to save the cost of a trial and also, crucially, to get a reduced sentence.
So if he pled (or is it pleaded?) not guilty, went for the full trial, got found guilty, just what sentence do you imagine he would have got?
This is the UK, not the wild west.
To bargain, you need to be convinced that at trial, you will be found guilty of the greater offence. The bargain is in the fact that you plead a lesser offence to save the cost of a trial and also, crucially, to get a reduced sentence.
So if he pled (or is it pleaded?) not guilty, went for the full trial, got found guilty, just what sentence do you imagine he would have got?
This is the UK, not the wild west.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in the hills
Age: 68
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that the post by Caulfield was pretty good and aired a lot of points that we as professional aircrew feel strongly about, however he and most of the sanctimonious bull.... posted here seems to be missing one of the main points. This pilot was not drunk! He/she was over the proscribed limit, which I think was cited as "ridiculously low" in this or another post.
His fellow crewmembers would not have been aware that he was "drunk", so could not have done anything to help him, indeed he would have probably been unaware himself that he was deemed not fit to fly in a legal sense.
This will undoubtably bring out the next lot of self righteous ranting that will effectively say we should all become teetotallers!
As in everything, a modicum of of common sense and judgement should prevail in situations like these. If, as stated, he was only marginally over the limit, though an offence in law, any mitigating circumstances should be allowed to be considered. He may have responded to a call from crewing to report earlier than rostered, thus destroying his calculations to ensure he would be legal when he reported. How many of us would do the same, perticularly if you felt completely sober, rested and able to work?
The damage to his ability to get an airside pass, i.e. criminal record, is something that we should all petition to have reviewed. Even the sanctimonious bull........ will agree that he would pose no security threat, as would someone who had been convicted of debt arrears or careless or dangerous driving or any of a number of criminal offences that would have no effect on the vast majority of the population being able to continue their job.
If we are not to be offered these same considerations, then I would suggest that we are in a highly rarified profession, that demands extreme sacrifice, control and risk and thus should enjoy rewards far in excess of the current levels.
His fellow crewmembers would not have been aware that he was "drunk", so could not have done anything to help him, indeed he would have probably been unaware himself that he was deemed not fit to fly in a legal sense.
This will undoubtably bring out the next lot of self righteous ranting that will effectively say we should all become teetotallers!
As in everything, a modicum of of common sense and judgement should prevail in situations like these. If, as stated, he was only marginally over the limit, though an offence in law, any mitigating circumstances should be allowed to be considered. He may have responded to a call from crewing to report earlier than rostered, thus destroying his calculations to ensure he would be legal when he reported. How many of us would do the same, perticularly if you felt completely sober, rested and able to work?
The damage to his ability to get an airside pass, i.e. criminal record, is something that we should all petition to have reviewed. Even the sanctimonious bull........ will agree that he would pose no security threat, as would someone who had been convicted of debt arrears or careless or dangerous driving or any of a number of criminal offences that would have no effect on the vast majority of the population being able to continue their job.
If we are not to be offered these same considerations, then I would suggest that we are in a highly rarified profession, that demands extreme sacrifice, control and risk and thus should enjoy rewards far in excess of the current levels.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: sapporo
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wheelbarrow,
Exactly what I was trying to say.
I can't belief that as professionals we are so " potentialy unfair" and harsh with one of our own colleages.
Yes, he plead guilty. That is good, the man was willing to take responsibility for his actions/miscalculations. That doesn't justify him being crucified!
With comments like " well he pleaded guilty so what do you expect", no wonder nowadays you see more and more criminals of various degrees that when caught and brought to trial they just systematically deny everything!
We pilots are getting progresively more and more screwed.
Exactly what I was trying to say.
I can't belief that as professionals we are so " potentialy unfair" and harsh with one of our own colleages.
Yes, he plead guilty. That is good, the man was willing to take responsibility for his actions/miscalculations. That doesn't justify him being crucified!
With comments like " well he pleaded guilty so what do you expect", no wonder nowadays you see more and more criminals of various degrees that when caught and brought to trial they just systematically deny everything!
We pilots are getting progresively more and more screwed.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CEO's completely ruin a company and then spend either the employee's pensions or taxpayer's (again : the employee's ) money on their own bonuses..
Where's your indignation now?
Studies have shown that flying a four sector 13hr duty (with which the public seems to have no problem at all- as long as " it'll get'em tae Majorca cheap eh?") is about as unsafe as this amount of alcohol in your blood.
WHICH DOESN'T MAKE IT OK , just something to put this into perspective.
Right up there with making you leave your 0,5ltr Evian and your nasal spray at security and then merrily allowing you to go fly a 50 ton airplane...
The general public just loves stories like this , which is also why this poor guy got so thoroughly shafted.
Where's your indignation now?
Studies have shown that flying a four sector 13hr duty (with which the public seems to have no problem at all- as long as " it'll get'em tae Majorca cheap eh?") is about as unsafe as this amount of alcohol in your blood.
WHICH DOESN'T MAKE IT OK , just something to put this into perspective.
Right up there with making you leave your 0,5ltr Evian and your nasal spray at security and then merrily allowing you to go fly a 50 ton airplane...
The general public just loves stories like this , which is also why this poor guy got so thoroughly shafted.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: london
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the fact that a lot of pilots know whats at stake why do they insist on drinikimg before a flight. As a teetotalller i might ask the silly question is the compulsion to drink so great that some pilots are willing to risk thier licence and thier investment in an expensive career for a couple of pints.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On The Golf Course - On the River..!!
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ranting and Raving
Hi Y'all... Been watching this thread from afar, and getting really peeved off with the legal zealots that keep yapping on about... well not a lot really.
The interesting thing to note is quite simply.. just the difference with what was defined and justifiable as "unlawfull" or "criminal".. only 5 years ago. (and I refer only to UK legislation here"...
versus what is deemed as "unlawfull" and "criminal" in the all embracing sunrise of Nu Labour's 2009 scenario.
take a look at this http://acpo.police.co.uk
In so doing review the link relating to the procurement of a "Police Certificate" - and then have a really good look at what stays on the PCN (Police National Computer)... for up to 35 years... or in some cases ..forever..!!
This guy is shafted ...forever.. and yet some yobbo who robs a bank utilising a firearm... and get's less than 6 months in the nick... has his offence "stepped down".. after 20 years or so.. (that means it will never be disclosed to a 3rd party... including the Yanks, when the individual applies for a holiday visa for instance)
Also look at all the offences that stay with you for 20 years or so... Buckets of "racially... or religiously offending something.. or someone stuff).. which seem to carry the same response as "terrorism offenses". - they never appeared 3 years ago in UK legislation... let alone 5..!!
I'm just giving a bit of info' that might put things into perspective a tad a - 2 or 3 years ago... this guy would have been given a "good kick up the @rse by his gaffer... now... yet today under Nu Labour...he is shafted forever...!! and put in the same bracket as a (ned utilising a firearm to rob a bank... who got 6 months in the nick)... where's the common sense there then..!!
And before you all start ranting... it's wrong... We appear to live in a society that now actively supports "dobbing in"... rather than one that supports honesty and responsibiity... and reasonable behaviour from our peers.!!
If the ned at security.. or his F/O... or his SCCM.. suspected him of being intoxicated... then why not say so... and give the guy the opportunity to defer from duty,,, NO... Let's dob him in...and Eff him over... that's the mentality in the UK.. today... !!!.. and the reality of the reason why this poor guy's in the ... merde..!!!
The interesting thing to note is quite simply.. just the difference with what was defined and justifiable as "unlawfull" or "criminal".. only 5 years ago. (and I refer only to UK legislation here"...
versus what is deemed as "unlawfull" and "criminal" in the all embracing sunrise of Nu Labour's 2009 scenario.
take a look at this http://acpo.police.co.uk
In so doing review the link relating to the procurement of a "Police Certificate" - and then have a really good look at what stays on the PCN (Police National Computer)... for up to 35 years... or in some cases ..forever..!!
This guy is shafted ...forever.. and yet some yobbo who robs a bank utilising a firearm... and get's less than 6 months in the nick... has his offence "stepped down".. after 20 years or so.. (that means it will never be disclosed to a 3rd party... including the Yanks, when the individual applies for a holiday visa for instance)
Also look at all the offences that stay with you for 20 years or so... Buckets of "racially... or religiously offending something.. or someone stuff).. which seem to carry the same response as "terrorism offenses". - they never appeared 3 years ago in UK legislation... let alone 5..!!
I'm just giving a bit of info' that might put things into perspective a tad a - 2 or 3 years ago... this guy would have been given a "good kick up the @rse by his gaffer... now... yet today under Nu Labour...he is shafted forever...!! and put in the same bracket as a (ned utilising a firearm to rob a bank... who got 6 months in the nick)... where's the common sense there then..!!
And before you all start ranting... it's wrong... We appear to live in a society that now actively supports "dobbing in"... rather than one that supports honesty and responsibiity... and reasonable behaviour from our peers.!!
If the ned at security.. or his F/O... or his SCCM.. suspected him of being intoxicated... then why not say so... and give the guy the opportunity to defer from duty,,, NO... Let's dob him in...and Eff him over... that's the mentality in the UK.. today... !!!.. and the reality of the reason why this poor guy's in the ... merde..!!!
Last edited by ScottyDawg; 15th Apr 2009 at 23:03.
Totally agree scotty dawg
I totally agree scotty dawg, common sense has gone out of the window & far far away across the yonder horizon sadly....
ZERO TOLERANCE IS ONLY FINE FOR PERFECT SYSTEMS & PERFECT WORLDS WHICH SADLY WE DO NOT HAVE !
in our imperfect world & with our imperfect systems a sensible appproach would be to have a word with said person privately, suggest perhaps that today is not a good day for them to fly & step down sick / whatever, if they refuse / fight / whatever, then pull in the heavies etc but until then keep it private & still professional.
Tin hats on everyone for the incoming responses from the ever so righteous ones...
ZERO TOLERANCE IS ONLY FINE FOR PERFECT SYSTEMS & PERFECT WORLDS WHICH SADLY WE DO NOT HAVE !
in our imperfect world & with our imperfect systems a sensible appproach would be to have a word with said person privately, suggest perhaps that today is not a good day for them to fly & step down sick / whatever, if they refuse / fight / whatever, then pull in the heavies etc but until then keep it private & still professional.
Tin hats on everyone for the incoming responses from the ever so righteous ones...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On The Golf Course - On the River..!!
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Mate.!!! - At Least There's One Out There..!!
Thank you "Old Timer" for your burst of common sense and fairness there...
Will fly with you anytime...and you just keep me on the right track..(true or magnetic)
Cheers
Will fly with you anytime...and you just keep me on the right track..(true or magnetic)
Cheers