Jail and 10-year ban for Thomson pilot!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I am astonish to see such posts. Where we draw the line? What about making a gross mistake on the flight deck and do not report it, just keeping it private?
I do expect a professional to be such from the time he reports to duty till he goes back to his private life. If not happy with that better to chose a different profession.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, the society we live in now encourages individuals to hide things, by virtue of the fact that revealing them will usually result in a right royal shafting, rather than a fair and compassionate hearing.
The jobsworth & holier than thou mentality displayed by some on here is merely a small indication of what one can expect nowadays in life if you "fess up". People want to remain in employment so masses of scary scary stuff is swept under the carpet.
As long as honesty is "rewarded" by being punished out of proportion to the crime commited (i.e. final result, the guy may well have lost his right to an airside passs & therefore his livelihood FOR LIFE
- I suppose the "holier than thous " think that is not out of proportion with what he did ?) it will remain like this.
And ,that is a MUCH bigger safety issue than someone coming to work with less impairement to his judgement than he would be suffering as he makes his last approach at the end of a long duty day at awful o'clock. But that is OK of course because he was operating within the rules/limits. the. Some compensation that is when you and the aircraft are dismembered on the final approach ground track or parked on some hillside.
The jobsworth & holier than thou mentality displayed by some on here is merely a small indication of what one can expect nowadays in life if you "fess up". People want to remain in employment so masses of scary scary stuff is swept under the carpet.
As long as honesty is "rewarded" by being punished out of proportion to the crime commited (i.e. final result, the guy may well have lost his right to an airside passs & therefore his livelihood FOR LIFE
- I suppose the "holier than thous " think that is not out of proportion with what he did ?) it will remain like this. And ,that is a MUCH bigger safety issue than someone coming to work with less impairement to his judgement than he would be suffering as he makes his last approach at the end of a long duty day at awful o'clock. But that is OK of course because he was operating within the rules/limits. the. Some compensation that is when you and the aircraft are dismembered on the final approach ground track or parked on some hillside.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes CaptPlayStation. Funny how recently a coleague shared a Managers Car positioning up to Manchester. The question was asked "would you drive this car after you have been up for 22 hours. Answer "of course not that would be dangerous." Reply so why do you expect us too ? Answer "well it must be Ok for you if the CAA says it is". Oh well that's alright then !
(before anyone starts working on ftl's this was a normal wake up time due body clock, but a late STBY and a call out)(anyway I know a rather well known airline that knows some of its Pilots position in from "far Afield" and then operate quite long sectors. Oh that's all right as well then.
Oh and well said Old Timer.
(before anyone starts working on ftl's this was a normal wake up time due body clock, but a late STBY and a call out)(anyway I know a rather well known airline that knows some of its Pilots position in from "far Afield" and then operate quite long sectors. Oh that's all right as well then.
Oh and well said Old Timer.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On The Golf Course - On the River..!!
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly - Desperate - thankyou for your kind words... and I defer to your most appropriate judgement... many thanks.!!!
I'm going to continue the thrust of the current UK... "Dobbing In" culture that appears to have invaded UK society as a consequence of "His Tonyness"... and now "His Gordeness" ... NU Labour culture that has so sneakely worked it's way into our society.
I can remember having a few jars with an old skipper and flight eng. a good few years back.. the following morning... said old skipper mentioned he was feeling a tad "delicate"... and would I mind awfully flying the A/c back to Blighty..
Of course not.. (desperate for P1/s hours etc..)... Cracking good Flight Eng.. The Capt..had a wee sleep... woke up around 20W.. and was spot on as we proceeded to approach LGW.. and give me all the benefit of his experience etc...
Now what the hell was wrong with that... we worked as a team.. covered the weakest link... did the job without any safety predudice..... And the "old skipper" ... wasn't dobbed in... for feeling a "tad delicate"...
There's the thrust... a team working together... covering the cracks etc... Seems that certain posters want all the "cracks" uncovered... WELL try doing that to the Legal.. or Medical professions... you will find a damn sight more individuals there with alcohol problems... than you will find in aviation,
So please feel free to preach your sermons outside Harley Street... and every High Court in the land.... AND... Do they get their breath's smelled before going to work... NO... I'm bloody well sure they don't..!!!
I'm going to continue the thrust of the current UK... "Dobbing In" culture that appears to have invaded UK society as a consequence of "His Tonyness"... and now "His Gordeness" ... NU Labour culture that has so sneakely worked it's way into our society.
I can remember having a few jars with an old skipper and flight eng. a good few years back.. the following morning... said old skipper mentioned he was feeling a tad "delicate"... and would I mind awfully flying the A/c back to Blighty..
Of course not.. (desperate for P1/s hours etc..)... Cracking good Flight Eng.. The Capt..had a wee sleep... woke up around 20W.. and was spot on as we proceeded to approach LGW.. and give me all the benefit of his experience etc...
Now what the hell was wrong with that... we worked as a team.. covered the weakest link... did the job without any safety predudice..... And the "old skipper" ... wasn't dobbed in... for feeling a "tad delicate"...
There's the thrust... a team working together... covering the cracks etc... Seems that certain posters want all the "cracks" uncovered... WELL try doing that to the Legal.. or Medical professions... you will find a damn sight more individuals there with alcohol problems... than you will find in aviation,
So please feel free to preach your sermons outside Harley Street... and every High Court in the land.... AND... Do they get their breath's smelled before going to work... NO... I'm bloody well sure they don't..!!!
I agree that everywhere I see public officials tasked with entrapping people rather than encouraging them (rather than forcing them through draconian laws) to obey the rules. If you want an example look at traffic wardens.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Put out to graze
Age: 64
Posts: 1,046
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Scott,
it was fine because nothing happened.
But would it of been fine with a critical engine failure at V1 or decompression etc etc?
Our job is very straightforward when things run on the rails, however when having to think out of the box, some people struggle to achieve the best outcome.
it was fine because nothing happened.
But would it of been fine with a critical engine failure at V1 or decompression etc etc?
Our job is very straightforward when things run on the rails, however when having to think out of the box, some people struggle to achieve the best outcome.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scott,
What would happened if you had become incapacitated?
Now what the hell was wrong with that... we worked as a team.. covered the weakest link... did the job without any safety predudice..... And the "old skipper" ... wasn't dobbed in... for feeling a "tad delicate"...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On The Golf Course - On the River..!!
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi again guys and gals.
To the last two posters.. Even though aforementioned "old skipper" might have been feeling a tad delicate... Should a V1 cut or an EFATO have reared it's head..as Pilot Flying I would have done the needfull... as I had been outstandingly trained by said "old skipper"
As far as incapacitation goes... then as a young, virile.. (BP 120/60) kinda chap.. not much risk of that occuring... and you see there's the rub..!
Aviation is all about risk management... if you don't want to expose yourself to risk.. then stay on the ground and don't get airborn.
To villify and treat an individual in a similar vein to a drug induced, firearm wielding ned.. threatening bank staff going about their business.. is frankly wrong... end of story.
As previously stated... 3-4years ago, this guy would not have even appeared in a UK court...since then the numbers game has been played with by the politicians.. in trying to set intoxication 'limits' that are legally enforceable.
The insidious nature of this unfortunate event.. is.. and always will be the "dobbing in" culture.. that now prevades all aspects of UK life.
If you have never done 71mph on the motorway.. or committed any other such breach of the infinite laws we now live under... then feel free to preach away about how terribly disgusting the rest of your peers are.
This guy was dobbed in... and he was made an example of... unfairly.. I do hope the "dobbers in"... are perfect citizens and feel proud of their actions... but somehow.. I don't think so
To the last two posters.. Even though aforementioned "old skipper" might have been feeling a tad delicate... Should a V1 cut or an EFATO have reared it's head..as Pilot Flying I would have done the needfull... as I had been outstandingly trained by said "old skipper"
As far as incapacitation goes... then as a young, virile.. (BP 120/60) kinda chap.. not much risk of that occuring... and you see there's the rub..!
Aviation is all about risk management... if you don't want to expose yourself to risk.. then stay on the ground and don't get airborn.
To villify and treat an individual in a similar vein to a drug induced, firearm wielding ned.. threatening bank staff going about their business.. is frankly wrong... end of story.
As previously stated... 3-4years ago, this guy would not have even appeared in a UK court...since then the numbers game has been played with by the politicians.. in trying to set intoxication 'limits' that are legally enforceable.
The insidious nature of this unfortunate event.. is.. and always will be the "dobbing in" culture.. that now prevades all aspects of UK life.
If you have never done 71mph on the motorway.. or committed any other such breach of the infinite laws we now live under... then feel free to preach away about how terribly disgusting the rest of your peers are.
This guy was dobbed in... and he was made an example of... unfairly.. I do hope the "dobbers in"... are perfect citizens and feel proud of their actions... but somehow.. I don't think so
to kick the tyres and frequent SLF.
Take your "logic" one step further.
What if both pilots are incapacitated? Have a third on board?
Maybe a Doctor ( or two, in case the first Doctor falls ill!!!)
Problem with the engines.
Lets take an engineer just in case.( dont let him take his tools on board though just in case his wife is being held hostage and he's been tasked by terrorists to kill the spare doctor with his Phillips no 7 screwdriver )
Several pax are kicking off, I know lets take along several tooled up policeman to keep the peace.
You see your arguments have no end in the REAL world.
In New Labour World total over regulation is the answer to everything.
There are no grey areas, just black and white.....right and wrong...legal and illegal. Theres the rub.
I'm afraid most people I know are a mixture of weak and strong , grumpy and happy, attractive and ugly.
I've flown with people who are tired and their performance can only be described as somewhat lacking! Worse than someone with very low levels of alcohol in them? I don't know. There was no machine handy to test their mental accuity at the time, but the CAA say it's ok so thats all right then
We're not androids we're human beings who happen to fly aircraft.
Lighten up a bit
You do know that we also set fire to fuel with no fire brigade on standby whilst airborne don't you? Goodness me, what if security or Elf n Safety found out about that then we'd be in serious trouble.Don't dob me in will ya?
Take your "logic" one step further.
What if both pilots are incapacitated? Have a third on board?
Maybe a Doctor ( or two, in case the first Doctor falls ill!!!)
Problem with the engines.
Lets take an engineer just in case.( dont let him take his tools on board though just in case his wife is being held hostage and he's been tasked by terrorists to kill the spare doctor with his Phillips no 7 screwdriver )
Several pax are kicking off, I know lets take along several tooled up policeman to keep the peace.
You see your arguments have no end in the REAL world.
In New Labour World total over regulation is the answer to everything.
There are no grey areas, just black and white.....right and wrong...legal and illegal. Theres the rub.
I'm afraid most people I know are a mixture of weak and strong , grumpy and happy, attractive and ugly.
I've flown with people who are tired and their performance can only be described as somewhat lacking! Worse than someone with very low levels of alcohol in them? I don't know. There was no machine handy to test their mental accuity at the time, but the CAA say it's ok so thats all right then
We're not androids we're human beings who happen to fly aircraft.
Lighten up a bit
You do know that we also set fire to fuel with no fire brigade on standby whilst airborne don't you? Goodness me, what if security or Elf n Safety found out about that then we'd be in serious trouble.Don't dob me in will ya?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scott,
I am expecting that the guys in front are professionals...risk management? Since when a pilot "legally over the limit" is part of risk management? The reason why he went to jail is because he was drunk on duty, and risk management does not contemplate that.
Charlie,
You have willing eliminated a protection layer! So please spare us about the limits of redundancies. Is NOT such case when you deliberately change the redundancies of the systems.
The guy was "legally over the limit" on duty, he played guilty as charged. End of the story.
Is none of your business if I done 71 mph or 72 mph on the motorway! While if you are legally over the limit on duty and I am paxing on such aircraft you are putting me at risk.
The reasons why are not set to zero is because the limits shall be enforceable.
Aviation is all about risk management... if you don't want to expose yourself to risk.. then stay on the ground and don't get airborn.
Charlie,
What if both pilots are incapacitated? Have a third on board?
The guy was "legally over the limit" on duty, he played guilty as charged. End of the story.
Is none of your business if I done 71 mph or 72 mph on the motorway! While if you are legally over the limit on duty and I am paxing on such aircraft you are putting me at risk.
in trying to set intoxication 'limits' that are legally enforceable.
Last edited by FrequentSLF; 18th Apr 2009 at 12:32.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: South of Watford
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
charlies angel
I'm not sure you are allowed to say that these days ?
In New Labour World total over regulation is the answer to everything.
There are no grey areas, just black and white
There are no grey areas, just black and white
Frequent SLF
Next time you are on an aircraft ask the flight crew if this is their 60th hour in a week or their 190th in 4 weeks.
Perhaps its their 5th 0330l wake up for a 6 sector day in a row.All perfectly legal in CAA regulated world, ergo must be safe .cos "dem is the roolz".
The sooner a "tired o meter" is invented the better, then we can sack all of the pilots turning up for work slightly fatigued because the Ops Manual( The Law) says you're not to be at work when fatigued.
Dont get me wrong,entirely agree one should NEVER report under the influence of alcohol,however dont let the bigger issues get overlooked by your holier than thou attitude to professional flightcrew.
Sir Richard
Next time you are on an aircraft ask the flight crew if this is their 60th hour in a week or their 190th in 4 weeks.
Perhaps its their 5th 0330l wake up for a 6 sector day in a row.All perfectly legal in CAA regulated world, ergo must be safe .cos "dem is the roolz".
The sooner a "tired o meter" is invented the better, then we can sack all of the pilots turning up for work slightly fatigued because the Ops Manual( The Law) says you're not to be at work when fatigued.
Dont get me wrong,entirely agree one should NEVER report under the influence of alcohol,however dont let the bigger issues get overlooked by your holier than thou attitude to professional flightcrew.
Sir Richard
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Self Righteous Freight,
Legally over the flying limit, or "drunk on duty"?, quite a difference.
By the same token 71 mph is my business. If your breaking the speed limit on a public road, I am a potential victim.
Get real.
Legally over the flying limit, or "drunk on duty"?, quite a difference.
By the same token 71 mph is my business. If your breaking the speed limit on a public road, I am a potential victim.
Get real.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On The Golf Course - On the River..!!
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Self Righteous Freight.
Napoleon is quite correct.
Legally over the flying limit is quite a difference from being labelled a "drunk"
These so-called 'limits' have been set by a bunch of pen-pushing politicians and civil servant types who have managed to align themselves as 'experts' in defining such limits.
Other professions such as the legal, nursing, dentistry and medical fraternities have systems in place where if - a member of said profession commits an offense (civil or criminal), then an duly elected board of their peers decide the relevant penalties with regard to their careers - i.e. lawyer or doctor etc.. 'struck off' and prevented from practising their profession.
This guy has been subject to appalling treatment at the hands of the judiciary. - and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Not so long ago there was a bloke who drove a Land Rover fatigued.. crashed into a railway line, train subsequently ploughed into Land Rover and people lost their lives as result of this tragic incident.
Bloke driving Land Rover is still in the pokey. The relevance here is that precedence in law has now been set for causing death or injury through fatigue...
So why isn't that so bloddy well regulated in public transport law?... answer.. because of commercial impact..i.e. money...
Where are all the reports of security staff at airports reporting aircrew for "visible signs of fatigue" etc...
Recent report on one of the motoring publications stated that a copper nicked a car driver for laughing... yes... laughing at a joke heard over the radio - 'undue care and attention' was the charge.
New Labour... or should I say the lunatics.. are now in charge of the asylum..
Napoleon is quite correct.
Legally over the flying limit is quite a difference from being labelled a "drunk"
These so-called 'limits' have been set by a bunch of pen-pushing politicians and civil servant types who have managed to align themselves as 'experts' in defining such limits.
Other professions such as the legal, nursing, dentistry and medical fraternities have systems in place where if - a member of said profession commits an offense (civil or criminal), then an duly elected board of their peers decide the relevant penalties with regard to their careers - i.e. lawyer or doctor etc.. 'struck off' and prevented from practising their profession.
This guy has been subject to appalling treatment at the hands of the judiciary. - and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Not so long ago there was a bloke who drove a Land Rover fatigued.. crashed into a railway line, train subsequently ploughed into Land Rover and people lost their lives as result of this tragic incident.
Bloke driving Land Rover is still in the pokey. The relevance here is that precedence in law has now been set for causing death or injury through fatigue...
So why isn't that so bloddy well regulated in public transport law?... answer.. because of commercial impact..i.e. money...
Where are all the reports of security staff at airports reporting aircrew for "visible signs of fatigue" etc...
Recent report on one of the motoring publications stated that a copper nicked a car driver for laughing... yes... laughing at a joke heard over the radio - 'undue care and attention' was the charge.
New Labour... or should I say the lunatics.. are now in charge of the asylum..
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charlie,
I do agree with you and I hope that such issue will be addressed.
Next time you are on an aircraft ask the flight crew if this is their 60th hour in a week or their 190th in 4 weeks.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Threads such as this always seem to bring posters with very extreme views out of the woodwork.
At one extreme we have (for example) heli-cal who not only has no sympathy himself for the pilot but boldly declares that there is no reason for anyone else to hold a different view and those who do are ‘moaning tediously’.
He applauds not only that the pilot is now in prison but also the fact (if true) that he will never be given another chance - helpfully adding a
to his post in case readers had difficulty believing he actually meant what he appeared to be saying.
I wonder if heli-cal has read the posts by LProuse on this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/2...ml#post3028066
Lyle is a retired Northwest Airlines Captain ….. and a former federal prison inmate. His posts, which start at #52, had a big impact upon many Ppruners at the time - especially upon those who have the capacity to see things in more than simplistic ‘black and white’ terms.
At the other extreme, we have one professional pilot who, as well as making some good points, appears (unless I’ve misunderstood) to think it’s acceptable to embark on a flight with one of the pilots clearly suffering from the effects of alcohol on the basis that he’ll sleep it off during the flight.
FrequestSLF is astonished by the idea that a colleague who appears to be over the alcohol limit should be advised not to fly, and reported only if he refuses to accept the advice.
Given that FSLF thinks someone fractionally over the virtually zero aviation limit is "drunk", perhaps his astonishment his not surprising. He’s now altered what he said, after the error of that absurd proposition was pointed out by others, but the original comment is very telling.
Is he suggesting that every suspicion should be reported and that anything less is unacceptable?
Heli-cal says:
"Publicly complaining about how the guy should have been treated so much more leniently is unprofessional"
What utter nonsense.
Judges are not protected from criticism either by law or by convention - nor should they be - and professional pilots are very well placed to express informed opinions about matters such as this. The notion that they are being ‘unprofessional’ if they express disagreement with a sentence is ludicrous.
IMHO the various differing opinions expressed by those in the same profession as the man sentenced are far more interesting than the emotive, and often manifestly uninformed, twaddle emanating from some posters on this thread.
I express no opinion whatsoever about the sentence, but surely most sensible people would accept there are respectable arguments both ways regarding whether a prison sentence is too harsh or indeed serves any useful purpose in cases such as this.
See, for exampe, the sentence imposed in this case:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...cohol-law.html
FL
(Edit)
ScottyDawg
Professional misconduct is dealt with by the professional bodies concerned; criminal offences are dealt with by the courts. I see the force of the point you make, but pilots do not have a professional body governing their profession. Perhaps they should?
NB: The judge did not make any order regarding whether the pilot will be allowed to fly again.
IF it's correct (as some press reports claim) that a CAA spokesman said the pilot will be refused security clearance for ten years because of this conviction, then I wouldn't be surprised to see such refusal challenged in the courts.
.
At one extreme we have (for example) heli-cal who not only has no sympathy himself for the pilot but boldly declares that there is no reason for anyone else to hold a different view and those who do are ‘moaning tediously’.
He applauds not only that the pilot is now in prison but also the fact (if true) that he will never be given another chance - helpfully adding a
to his post in case readers had difficulty believing he actually meant what he appeared to be saying.I wonder if heli-cal has read the posts by LProuse on this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/2...ml#post3028066
Lyle is a retired Northwest Airlines Captain ….. and a former federal prison inmate. His posts, which start at #52, had a big impact upon many Ppruners at the time - especially upon those who have the capacity to see things in more than simplistic ‘black and white’ terms.
At the other extreme, we have one professional pilot who, as well as making some good points, appears (unless I’ve misunderstood) to think it’s acceptable to embark on a flight with one of the pilots clearly suffering from the effects of alcohol on the basis that he’ll sleep it off during the flight.
FrequestSLF is astonished by the idea that a colleague who appears to be over the alcohol limit should be advised not to fly, and reported only if he refuses to accept the advice.
Given that FSLF thinks someone fractionally over the virtually zero aviation limit is "drunk", perhaps his astonishment his not surprising. He’s now altered what he said, after the error of that absurd proposition was pointed out by others, but the original comment is very telling.
Is he suggesting that every suspicion should be reported and that anything less is unacceptable?
Heli-cal says:
"Publicly complaining about how the guy should have been treated so much more leniently is unprofessional"
What utter nonsense.
Judges are not protected from criticism either by law or by convention - nor should they be - and professional pilots are very well placed to express informed opinions about matters such as this. The notion that they are being ‘unprofessional’ if they express disagreement with a sentence is ludicrous.
IMHO the various differing opinions expressed by those in the same profession as the man sentenced are far more interesting than the emotive, and often manifestly uninformed, twaddle emanating from some posters on this thread.
I express no opinion whatsoever about the sentence, but surely most sensible people would accept there are respectable arguments both ways regarding whether a prison sentence is too harsh or indeed serves any useful purpose in cases such as this.
See, for exampe, the sentence imposed in this case:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...cohol-law.html
FL
(Edit)
ScottyDawg
Other professions ..... have systems in place where if - a member of said profession commits an offense (civil or criminal), then an duly elected board of their peers decide the relevant penalties with regard to their careers - i.e. lawyer or doctor etc.. 'struck off' and prevented from practising their profession.
This guy has been subject to appalling treatment at the hands of the judiciary. - and they should be ashamed of themselves.
This guy has been subject to appalling treatment at the hands of the judiciary. - and they should be ashamed of themselves.
NB: The judge did not make any order regarding whether the pilot will be allowed to fly again.
IF it's correct (as some press reports claim) that a CAA spokesman said the pilot will be refused security clearance for ten years because of this conviction, then I wouldn't be surprised to see such refusal challenged in the courts.
.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 18th Apr 2009 at 22:25.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Durham
Age: 62
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A previous poster quoted
"Post #34 on this thread (page2) quotes:
'A breath test showed 45 micrograms of alcohol in 100ml of breath, five times the 9mcg limit for pilots. A blood test at 11.45am revealed 42 milligrams in 100ml of blood, twice the 20mg limit.'
The legal limit for drivers in the UK is 35 Microgrammes of alcohol in 100ml of breath, therefore the pilot was actually in excess of the drink drive limit and 5 x the Pilots limit when he was first breathalysed.
(35mcg/100ml breath = 80mg/100ml blood).
If it could have been proven that he had driven to the airport to commence his duty then he could have been banned from driving aswell!!
It is not clear form the infomation on this thread how long elapsed between the initial breath test and the blood test being taken. However it must have been long enough for his alcohol level to drop from five times the pilots limit to just over twice."
I defy anyone on this thread to say that alcohol in the system does not impair function. That is what is important. Studies prove beyond doubt that alcohol impairs judgement and even at levels which the pilot admitted he had in his system, its severely disabling. Its not a matter of what flight crew can get away with, it is that their function is impaired by alcohol. Its seperate from fatigue, which is a different issue totally.
"Post #34 on this thread (page2) quotes:
'A breath test showed 45 micrograms of alcohol in 100ml of breath, five times the 9mcg limit for pilots. A blood test at 11.45am revealed 42 milligrams in 100ml of blood, twice the 20mg limit.'
The legal limit for drivers in the UK is 35 Microgrammes of alcohol in 100ml of breath, therefore the pilot was actually in excess of the drink drive limit and 5 x the Pilots limit when he was first breathalysed.
(35mcg/100ml breath = 80mg/100ml blood).
If it could have been proven that he had driven to the airport to commence his duty then he could have been banned from driving aswell!!
It is not clear form the infomation on this thread how long elapsed between the initial breath test and the blood test being taken. However it must have been long enough for his alcohol level to drop from five times the pilots limit to just over twice."
I defy anyone on this thread to say that alcohol in the system does not impair function. That is what is important. Studies prove beyond doubt that alcohol impairs judgement and even at levels which the pilot admitted he had in his system, its severely disabling. Its not a matter of what flight crew can get away with, it is that their function is impaired by alcohol. Its seperate from fatigue, which is a different issue totally.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the interest of fairness
I'm not sure that we should be criticising the courts for the wicked penalties imposed upon this chap.
There may have been a new policy handed down (by stealth) from the Justice Secretary who, in the interest of fairness, may be insisting that any professional person who makes an error of judgement (e.g. a Judge whose decision in a case has been overturned by a higher court) will now have to subject himself to 6 months in prison and face a 10-year ban on working in the legal profession. We are fortunate here in the UK that the law-makers themselves, (Members of Parliament) never make errors of judgement otherwise they, too, may have to face 6 months inside and 10 years off the gravy train.
It would, of course, be "wrong to comment on individual cases" so it would probably be unfair to point out that no pilot has ever been proved to have caused an accident by having this blood-alcohol level, whilst a number of major crimes have followed erroneous decsions by Judges to release criminals back into society to reoffend.
Am I right to be so proud of our Justice system?
There may have been a new policy handed down (by stealth) from the Justice Secretary who, in the interest of fairness, may be insisting that any professional person who makes an error of judgement (e.g. a Judge whose decision in a case has been overturned by a higher court) will now have to subject himself to 6 months in prison and face a 10-year ban on working in the legal profession. We are fortunate here in the UK that the law-makers themselves, (Members of Parliament) never make errors of judgement otherwise they, too, may have to face 6 months inside and 10 years off the gravy train.
It would, of course, be "wrong to comment on individual cases" so it would probably be unfair to point out that no pilot has ever been proved to have caused an accident by having this blood-alcohol level, whilst a number of major crimes have followed erroneous decsions by Judges to release criminals back into society to reoffend.
Am I right to be so proud of our Justice system?