Jail and 10-year ban for Thomson pilot!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mercurydancer
Any sensible discussion about the case can only be based upon the proved facts, not upon what might or might not have been proved but wasn't. The result of the breath-test was relevant only to explain why the pilot was arrested. It is both dangerous and unfair to infer anything more than that from it.
Gosh!!
And, if it could have been proved he exceeded the speed limit during the journey, he could have been prosecuted for that as well!! And, I wonder if the car was taxed and insured!!
Of course, we don't know if he even travelled by car nor, if he did, whether he was the driver, but that clearly doesn't deter you.
Any amount of alcohol, regardless of level?
Can you point to the studies which you claim "prove beyond doubt" that even the alcohol level admitted in this case is "severely disabling"?
As I understand it from the various press reports, the pilot was prosecuted because the proportion of alcohol in his blood exceeded the prescribed limit. If there had been evidence that his ability to perform his aviation function was impaired then he would have prosecuted for a different offence: Being Unfit for Duty. ie Performing an aviation function ..... at a time when your ability to perform that function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
If your propositions were correct, there would be no necessity for two separate - and different - offences.
Re 2x, 3x etc the legal limit -
Although it's entirely understandable that the media describe offences in this way for dramatic effect in news stories, it is of little or no value in discussions in a forum such as this where people know (or should know) the legal limit for pilots is virtually zero and, accordingly, that the difference between being entirely legal and being 2x, 3x over the limit is actually very small.
emp18
You could go further than that, and people have in the past.
However, discussion in previous 'pilot/alcohol' threads shows that some posters don't need facts to interfere with their entrenched views.
________________
It's a pity the title of this thread is so misleading.
The originating post gives the impression that the pilot had his "licence pulled for 10 years" by the Court. That is not correct.
The Judge did not make any order in relation to the pilot's license.
FL
Any sensible discussion about the case can only be based upon the proved facts, not upon what might or might not have been proved but wasn't. The result of the breath-test was relevant only to explain why the pilot was arrested. It is both dangerous and unfair to infer anything more than that from it.
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 as well!!
And, if it could have been proved he exceeded the speed limit during the journey, he could have been prosecuted for that as well!! And, I wonder if the car was taxed and insured!!
Of course, we don't know if he even travelled by car nor, if he did, whether he was the driver, but that clearly doesn't deter you.
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.
Can you point to the studies which you claim "prove beyond doubt" that even the alcohol level admitted in this case is "severely disabling"?
Its not a matter of what flight crew can get away with, it is that their function is impaired by alcohol.
If your propositions were correct, there would be no necessity for two separate - and different - offences.
Re 2x, 3x etc the legal limit -
Although it's entirely understandable that the media describe offences in this way for dramatic effect in news stories, it is of little or no value in discussions in a forum such as this where people know (or should know) the legal limit for pilots is virtually zero and, accordingly, that the difference between being entirely legal and being 2x, 3x over the limit is actually very small.
emp18
..... no pilot has ever been proved to have caused an accident by having this blood-alcohol level .....
However, discussion in previous 'pilot/alcohol' threads shows that some posters don't need facts to interfere with their entrenched views.
________________
It's a pity the title of this thread is so misleading.
The originating post gives the impression that the pilot had his "licence pulled for 10 years" by the Court. That is not correct.
The Judge did not make any order in relation to the pilot's license.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 19th Apr 2009 at 00:56.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
When an error of judgement because negligence has to be prosecuted.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: se uk
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had enough.
Why oh why please , can't we have a real PPRN which would require a CAA ref No or some kind of professional verification simply to access. let alone post ? I am completely fed up with having to read ill informed self righteous clap trap from idiots, wannabees and journos who have no idea about aviation or anything connected to it. I really think that debating with idiots has actually damaged the reputation and standing of this industry . Why do we have to suffer reams of school in-house mag or local village paper type
ignorance and stupidity in order to find something of interest ?
ps don't waste your ignorance on me, I shall only be reading replies from AVIATION PROFESSIONALS.
ignorance and stupidity in order to find something of interest ?
ps don't waste your ignorance on me, I shall only be reading replies from AVIATION PROFESSIONALS.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John R
Negligence is not an element of the offence but that's no reason why the word should not be used in discussion.
Although I disagree with much of what FSLF writes, I don't disagree with his use of the word. The distinction he attempts to draw between negligence and an error of judgment puzzles me but, as I'm not interested in his opinions, I won't ask him to explain it
If, as you say, you do know the legal meaning of negligence then I don't understand your point but, having read the very black and white views you expressed on the alcohol/pilots issue in another thread, I'm not sufficiently interested to ask you to explain it.
Moonburn
Your point has been raised many times over the years - entirely understandably IMHO. One of the reasons is that it isn't practical.
Whilst I sympathize with the central thrust of your post, IMHO you go too far. There are some people who do have relevant expertise to bring to the discussion even if their expertise is not as professional pilots.
No FrequentSLF, it certainly is not called "negligence". I would explain to you what "negligence" means in law but I can't really be bothered. Perhaps Flying Lawyer has more time for you.
Although I disagree with much of what FSLF writes, I don't disagree with his use of the word. The distinction he attempts to draw between negligence and an error of judgment puzzles me but, as I'm not interested in his opinions, I won't ask him to explain it
If, as you say, you do know the legal meaning of negligence then I don't understand your point but, having read the very black and white views you expressed on the alcohol/pilots issue in another thread, I'm not sufficiently interested to ask you to explain it.
Moonburn
Your point has been raised many times over the years - entirely understandably IMHO. One of the reasons is that it isn't practical.
Whilst I sympathize with the central thrust of your post, IMHO you go too far. There are some people who do have relevant expertise to bring to the discussion even if their expertise is not as professional pilots.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Pointy End
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer…agreed. The quality of a person’s opinion is not based solely on their chosen profession. I have learned a lot from reading uninformed opinion…even if it’s merely that to my mind the need for a licence to breed is getting more urgent with each generation.
I agree that wading through page after page of drivel can be disheartening…especially when the authors seem to be Sun readers. (If it’s possible to actually read the Sun)
We as a profession do not operate in isolation.
We need to educate, not exclude.
I agree that wading through page after page of drivel can be disheartening…especially when the authors seem to be Sun readers. (If it’s possible to actually read the Sun)
We as a profession do not operate in isolation.
We need to educate, not exclude.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: london
Age: 59
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If its indeed the case as stated that even 20 mg of alcohol in the blood is "severely disabling" then im very suprised the CAA allow for eg licensed aircraft engineers to have a limit of 80mg one would assume that given the fact your severly disabled with a level of 20mg you would be virtualy comotose wth 80mg and in no fit state to be near a aicraft let alone carrying out vital safety related tasks,something doesnt quite add up here
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: se uk
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL
A valid point, I shall consider myself reprimanded. Expertise of course is always of value to any debate, my objection was and is to ill informed drivel, but how to get the one without the other ? And if the sad results of twentieth century social experiments wish to contribute to a subject about which they know little or nothing, they would do well to recognise our expertise and phrase their comments with due respect and humility, as you and I would hope to do in addressing experts in other fields.
A valid point, I shall consider myself reprimanded. Expertise of course is always of value to any debate, my objection was and is to ill informed drivel, but how to get the one without the other ? And if the sad results of twentieth century social experiments wish to contribute to a subject about which they know little or nothing, they would do well to recognise our expertise and phrase their comments with due respect and humility, as you and I would hope to do in addressing experts in other fields.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On The Golf Course - On the River..!!
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Flying Lawyer..
FL
Firstly .. thank you so much for contributing your very unbiased and factual contribution to this discussion... I do note that you expound the legal arguments of this unfortunate manner... infinitely better than myself and most of the protagonists on this thread... so thank you Tudor for all of that..!!
However.. comma.. I will take some time to tax your thoughts further:
Unfair Treatment
Whether or not my disdain for the judiciary in previous postings is warranted or not... nonetheless... a 6 month custodial sentence in which no demonstrated risk was prevalent to the travelling public is a travesty of justice...!!. As previously mentioned.. this individuals record on the PNC (Police National Computer)... will exist for 30 years before it is "stepped down". That means this individual will not be freely available to travel through most of the Western Hemisphere.... regardless of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act... (which only applies to the UK)
Additionally the amelioration of this act (and it's punitive results mentioned above)... is in parallel.. and association with ... drug infused GBH.. or internt to rob with a firearm...of which a similar record of retention is imposed upon regualations within the PCN...this must be deemed totally unfair and unrepresentative of the risk to the public.
I do have a disdain for the legal profession in the UK... which can be best represented by the following link..
http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sc...al/7992244.stm
You will find that the above link describes the behaviour of a Procurator Fiscal (Scottish Crown Prosecutor)... Who was found pissed as a fart in her car on the public highway... yet was let off by the judiciary...'cause the keys of the car were on the floor of the passenger seat... Sorry for the language... BUT.. what a load of bollocks... Would that mean to say... that if our mistreated aviating friend.. had left his license in the crew room... then he would not have been able to conduct his Flight Crew duties....No chance.. One rule for the lawyers and the "Sirs" of this world... and a different one for the rest of us..
Experts
Now.. the experts by which we conduct our professional activities...and are mentioned in Court as 'Experts'... Who is that then... David Learmount.. John Farley... All no doubt the epitomy of aviation excellence... but.. are they doing the job day in... day out.Aviation transport Job.. no...So where is the relevance there in their contribution to modern Airline Transport Operations..... answer,,, none..!!
Further the the "Experts" scenario.... Some of you will recollect a legal case in Cheshire not so long ago... Where a female lawyer was convicted of the murder of three of her children... when in fact subsequently on appeal "cot death syndrom"... was the attested reason for the fatalities.
This poor woman (God Bless Her)... was sent down for LIFE for the attested murder of her children on the basis of a so-called expert who had subsequently been found guilty of doctoring his research data ..etc.. OK you might say... said woman won her appeal... But she committed suicide within 6 months... because of the psychological damage done to her...
So tell me FL the corrupt evidence that compelled her to take her life... the judiciary that sat embolden above the issue... and the lying, manipulative swine "Expert" that condemmed that poor woman... What are their just desserts for their actions... before God... and their peers....???
Answer... none
Reality
Somebody posted a comment regarding negligent complicity... in flight crew members consuming alcohol...
I'll tell you this... I am paranoid about alcohol ingestion into my system.. because of all the unregulated bollocks we work under today..
We talk ardently on the flight deck every day. about which mouth wash.. or breath freshener to use... we discuss whether it's safe to take "Night Nurse".. for a cold or cough.. and how many hours before duty report..etc...
I will not consume freshly squeezed fruit juice now.. prior to a flight..in case initial fermentation had onset itself....
The bloddy thing is out of control... ridiculous... incompetently regulated... and as previously said... the lunatics are now running the asylum
Finally
I will not embarass or disgrace the manner by which my late Father brought me to be a God-respecting... honest individual who tries to follow the laws of my peers....
By keeping quiet.. or saying sod-all - when I see such grossly, unfair treatment of a fellow professional aviator.... I simply fail to justify myself before God and my forefathers regarding what I percieve to be a politically, disgraceful and unfair treatment at the hands of an unjust, .. corrupt.. and mealy-mouth administration.-then I feel I have to stand up for those that are treated unjustly.... and I ask... where are the rest of you..???
For what it's worth... that's my opinion... and I hold it to my dying breath!!
I do have a lot more to say... on a pragmatic basis... but am saving it up for the usual flak..
Tudor... your turn..!!!
Firstly .. thank you so much for contributing your very unbiased and factual contribution to this discussion... I do note that you expound the legal arguments of this unfortunate manner... infinitely better than myself and most of the protagonists on this thread... so thank you Tudor for all of that..!!
However.. comma.. I will take some time to tax your thoughts further:
Unfair Treatment
Whether or not my disdain for the judiciary in previous postings is warranted or not... nonetheless... a 6 month custodial sentence in which no demonstrated risk was prevalent to the travelling public is a travesty of justice...!!. As previously mentioned.. this individuals record on the PNC (Police National Computer)... will exist for 30 years before it is "stepped down". That means this individual will not be freely available to travel through most of the Western Hemisphere.... regardless of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act... (which only applies to the UK)
Additionally the amelioration of this act (and it's punitive results mentioned above)... is in parallel.. and association with ... drug infused GBH.. or internt to rob with a firearm...of which a similar record of retention is imposed upon regualations within the PCN...this must be deemed totally unfair and unrepresentative of the risk to the public.
I do have a disdain for the legal profession in the UK... which can be best represented by the following link..
http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sc...al/7992244.stm
You will find that the above link describes the behaviour of a Procurator Fiscal (Scottish Crown Prosecutor)... Who was found pissed as a fart in her car on the public highway... yet was let off by the judiciary...'cause the keys of the car were on the floor of the passenger seat... Sorry for the language... BUT.. what a load of bollocks... Would that mean to say... that if our mistreated aviating friend.. had left his license in the crew room... then he would not have been able to conduct his Flight Crew duties....No chance.. One rule for the lawyers and the "Sirs" of this world... and a different one for the rest of us..
Experts
Now.. the experts by which we conduct our professional activities...and are mentioned in Court as 'Experts'... Who is that then... David Learmount.. John Farley... All no doubt the epitomy of aviation excellence... but.. are they doing the job day in... day out.Aviation transport Job.. no...So where is the relevance there in their contribution to modern Airline Transport Operations..... answer,,, none..!!
Further the the "Experts" scenario.... Some of you will recollect a legal case in Cheshire not so long ago... Where a female lawyer was convicted of the murder of three of her children... when in fact subsequently on appeal "cot death syndrom"... was the attested reason for the fatalities.
This poor woman (God Bless Her)... was sent down for LIFE for the attested murder of her children on the basis of a so-called expert who had subsequently been found guilty of doctoring his research data ..etc.. OK you might say... said woman won her appeal... But she committed suicide within 6 months... because of the psychological damage done to her...
So tell me FL the corrupt evidence that compelled her to take her life... the judiciary that sat embolden above the issue... and the lying, manipulative swine "Expert" that condemmed that poor woman... What are their just desserts for their actions... before God... and their peers....???
Answer... none
Reality
Somebody posted a comment regarding negligent complicity... in flight crew members consuming alcohol...
I'll tell you this... I am paranoid about alcohol ingestion into my system.. because of all the unregulated bollocks we work under today..
We talk ardently on the flight deck every day. about which mouth wash.. or breath freshener to use... we discuss whether it's safe to take "Night Nurse".. for a cold or cough.. and how many hours before duty report..etc...
I will not consume freshly squeezed fruit juice now.. prior to a flight..in case initial fermentation had onset itself....
The bloddy thing is out of control... ridiculous... incompetently regulated... and as previously said... the lunatics are now running the asylum
Finally
I will not embarass or disgrace the manner by which my late Father brought me to be a God-respecting... honest individual who tries to follow the laws of my peers....
By keeping quiet.. or saying sod-all - when I see such grossly, unfair treatment of a fellow professional aviator.... I simply fail to justify myself before God and my forefathers regarding what I percieve to be a politically, disgraceful and unfair treatment at the hands of an unjust, .. corrupt.. and mealy-mouth administration.-then I feel I have to stand up for those that are treated unjustly.... and I ask... where are the rest of you..???
For what it's worth... that's my opinion... and I hold it to my dying breath!!
I do have a lot more to say... on a pragmatic basis... but am saving it up for the usual flak..
Tudor... your turn..!!!
Last edited by ScottyDawg; 19th Apr 2009 at 19:28.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL
FL,
Taken from the dictionary and please note that English is not my mother tongue.
quote
The modifier drunk in legal language describes a person whose blood contains more than the legally allowed percentage of alcohol: Drunk drivers go to jail.
unquote
I have edited my post because some posters pointed out that the use of the word "drunk" was not correct.
I am not suggesting that every suspicion shall be reported, what I am stating is that covering up is wrong.
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?
Is he suggesting that every suspicion should be reported and that anything less is unacceptable?
Taken from the dictionary and please note that English is not my mother tongue.
quote
The modifier drunk in legal language describes a person whose blood contains more than the legally allowed percentage of alcohol: Drunk drivers go to jail.
unquote
I have edited my post because some posters pointed out that the use of the word "drunk" was not correct.
I am not suggesting that every suspicion shall be reported, what I am stating is that covering up is wrong.
Last edited by FrequentSLF; 19th Apr 2009 at 19:42.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On The Golf Course - On the River..!!
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear FrequentSLF
Just a quick note from a former protagonist...
Your honesty and decency.. in retracting your (perhaps)... unfortunate comments... does yourself proud (at least in my eyes).... and for what it's worth...
Cheers.. and Happy Easter
Scotty dawg
Your honesty and decency.. in retracting your (perhaps)... unfortunate comments... does yourself proud (at least in my eyes).... and for what it's worth...
Cheers.. and Happy Easter
Scotty dawg
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do think, even if we have different opinions, that the discussion should be always civilized. As soon as you pointed out I realized that the word could be too extreme, although "legally correct". The thread is very interesting and I do not want that people wastes posts in arguing about the meaning of a word.
As FL pointed out various times the 10 years ban was not handed over by the judge. I think that is the issue, the 10 year ban, not the sentence for being over the legal limit. If what you have written is correct (not knowing more I assume it is) the system is wrong. Once he serves his period he should be cleared and allowed to resume is profession.
Cheers
FSLF
As FL pointed out various times the 10 years ban was not handed over by the judge. I think that is the issue, the 10 year ban, not the sentence for being over the legal limit. If what you have written is correct (not knowing more I assume it is) the system is wrong. Once he serves his period he should be cleared and allowed to resume is profession.
Cheers
FSLF
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
From your post is clear that you have not read the complete thread and is not point to argue with you about the use and the meaning of the word "drunk", and as I said is not adding anything to this thread. I have already retracted my previous statements that used such word.
From your post is clear that you have not read the complete thread and is not point to argue with you about the use and the meaning of the word "drunk", and as I said is not adding anything to this thread. I have already retracted my previous statements that used such word.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disagree, this seems to be quite disproportionate. Hope he has a successful appeal.
(this post is in response to another poster's comments earlier that the pilot deserved what he got)
(this post is in response to another poster's comments earlier that the pilot deserved what he got)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying lawyer wrote
So, now I'm totally confused (OK, you lot in the gallery, i know that's easy 
)
By Implication, the above states that he WAS NOT IMPAIRED by the alcohol in his bloodstream, so why the 2 different laws covering the same offence?
WHY do the professional organisations not contest this and have consistent and realistic laws enacted....
Either the alcohol level proscribed is the safe limit, or it's not...or is this just another government catch-all that even if you're not impaired, you're still over the arbitrary limit,so will be prosecuted anyway.
This does not affect my view of the specific case.-
play by the existing rules or get them changed.
As I understand it from the various press reports, the pilot was prosecuted because the proportion of alcohol in his blood exceeded the prescribed limit. If there had been evidence that his ability to perform his aviation function was impaired then he would have prosecuted for a different offence: Being Unfit for Duty. ie Performing an aviation function ..... at a time when your ability to perform that function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
If your propositions were correct, there would be no necessity for two separate - and different - offences.]
If your propositions were correct, there would be no necessity for two separate - and different - offences.]
)By Implication, the above states that he WAS NOT IMPAIRED by the alcohol in his bloodstream, so why the 2 different laws covering the same offence?
WHY do the professional organisations not contest this and have consistent and realistic laws enacted....
Either the alcohol level proscribed is the safe limit, or it's not...or is this just another government catch-all that even if you're not impaired, you're still over the arbitrary limit,so will be prosecuted anyway.
This does not affect my view of the specific case.-
play by the existing rules or get them changed.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Durham
Age: 62
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Impairment of skill starts as soon as the first part of the alcoholic drink enters the bloodstream. If the pilot has alcohol in his bloodstrream he is impaired. its a one way street... alcohol always impairs judgement and skills, it never sharpens them.
To what extent alcohol impairs judgement is a different issue, but to say that alcohol has no effect simply isnt true.
To what extent alcohol impairs judgement is a different issue, but to say that alcohol has no effect simply isnt true.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc's understanding of the law is not correct.
___________________
cockney steve
To bring UK law into line with the law in most European states.
There used to be only one offence (in the UK): No member of an aircraft’s crew, LAME or ATC officer shall be under the influence of drink or drugs to such an extent as to impair his/her capacity to so act.
However, that was changed by the the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 (which came into force in 2004) and we now have two similar but different offences:
The second offence is effectively the same as pre the 2003 Act, although it's now expressed in different words.
A pilot may be guilty of the first offence (being over the limit decided by Parliament) even if there is not a shred of evidence that his ability to perform his aviation function was actually impaired.
The pilot in this case appears to have been prosecuted for the first of the two offences.
FL
___________________
cockney steve
..... why the 2 different laws covering the same offence?
There used to be only one offence (in the UK): No member of an aircraft’s crew, LAME or ATC officer shall be under the influence of drink or drugs to such an extent as to impair his/her capacity to so act.
However, that was changed by the the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 (which came into force in 2004) and we now have two similar but different offences:
- Alcohol Exceeding the Prescribed Limit
Performing 'an aviation function' .......... at a time when the proportion of alcohol in your breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit. In practice, this means proportion of alcohol in blood.
- Being Unfit for Duty
Performing an 'aviation function' .......... at a time when your ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
The first of those offences was created by the 2003 Act.The second offence is effectively the same as pre the 2003 Act, although it's now expressed in different words.
even if you're not impaired, you're still over the arbitrary limit,so will be prosecuted anyway.
The pilot in this case appears to have been prosecuted for the first of the two offences.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 26th Apr 2009 at 12:01.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that, F.L As I suspected, the bungling beaurocrats of Whitehall decided on an arbitrary limit....by implication, you're safe to perform a function,therefore "unimpaired" ,if you're below that limit......but hold on, says Mr.Jobsworth... We'd better cover our asses and ALSO have a law regarding "impairment".....so, even if you're BELOW the LIMIT, you can still be prosecuted for being impaired!
Or, am I still missing something?- if the limit of permissible Blood-Alcohol does define "impairment"....then why the hell is there such a huge disparity between the "road " and "air" limits?
IMHO, the danger of a drunk-driver causing a multiple shunt including a group of passenger-filled coaches, is more likely than an intoxicated pilot piling the 'Plane.
the fact is, I can't remember any accident in commercial aviation, caused by alcohol intoxication.....the same doesn't apply to commercial road-transport
A more realistic limit, might allow Aircrew a better work-life balance, -meanwhile, if you want to fly commercially, it's best to be teetotal at least 24 hours before a duty-period. anything less is courting disaster.
Or, am I still missing something?- if the limit of permissible Blood-Alcohol does define "impairment"....then why the hell is there such a huge disparity between the "road " and "air" limits?
IMHO, the danger of a drunk-driver causing a multiple shunt including a group of passenger-filled coaches, is more likely than an intoxicated pilot piling the 'Plane.
the fact is, I can't remember any accident in commercial aviation, caused by alcohol intoxication.....the same doesn't apply to commercial road-transport
A more realistic limit, might allow Aircrew a better work-life balance, -meanwhile, if you want to fly commercially, it's best to be teetotal at least 24 hours before a duty-period. anything less is courting disaster.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cockney steve
The circumstances in which that could happen must, if they exist, be very rare.
eg If a pilot had some physiological intolerance to alcohol which was so acute that any amount, even miniscule, impaired his ability to perform his aviation function.
The opposite is the more likely of the two situations -
A pilot may be prosecuted if his blood/alcohol level exceeds the prescribed limit even if there is no evidence that it actually impaired his ability to perform his aviation function.
It doesn't.
That's not surprising.
The ATSB recently arranged for a thorough research of its accident and incident database to determine the prevalence and nature of drug and alcohol related accidents and incidents in Australian civil aviation. It looked at all occurrences in which drugs or alcohol were recorded between 1 January 1975 and 31 March 2006.
The research found that, in just over 31 years, there were only 22 alcohol-related incidents.
It should, of course, be borne in mind:
even if you're BELOW the LIMIT, you can still be prosecuted for being impaired!
eg If a pilot had some physiological intolerance to alcohol which was so acute that any amount, even miniscule, impaired his ability to perform his aviation function.
The opposite is the more likely of the two situations -
A pilot may be prosecuted if his blood/alcohol level exceeds the prescribed limit even if there is no evidence that it actually impaired his ability to perform his aviation function.
If the limit of permissible Blood-Alcohol does define "impairment"
I can't remember any accident in commercial aviation, caused by alcohol intoxication.....
The ATSB recently arranged for a thorough research of its accident and incident database to determine the prevalence and nature of drug and alcohol related accidents and incidents in Australian civil aviation. It looked at all occurrences in which drugs or alcohol were recorded between 1 January 1975 and 31 March 2006.
The research found that, in just over 31 years, there were only 22 alcohol-related incidents.
It should, of course, be borne in mind:
- That not all the accidents/incidents were caused by pilot error. (The research didn't differentiate.)
- That even where the accident/incident was caused by pilot error, it does it does not necessarily follow that alcohol either caused or even contributed to the error.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 26th Apr 2009 at 20:12.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On The Golf Course - On the River..!!
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed - and Concerned.!
Dear CokneySteve & Flying Lawyer,
I do agree with some of your sentiments particularly yout comment as follows:
As I have previously stated, I am unaware of any industry, or BALPA, IALPA, or indeed any other organisation outside the bungling UK civil service, or so-called experts - that has conduct an effective and consequential review into aspects relating to alcohol ingestion - and the effects thereof, in the public transport industry at large.
Flying Lawyer's post relating to the impairment premise is even more of a concern.
For instance - does that mean if you get a bit of grit in your eye (dirty flight deck, which we all have experienced) - on final approach, and subsequent landing on the grass could result in a prosecution?... It would appear from what FL is alluding to, that this could be a possibility.
So if your impaired, (and I don't know what that really means i.e. cold or inability to clear your ears on descent)... and you screw up.. could you be prosecuted also for being "impaired..(question for FL)
On the other hand... it looks very much like regardless of your intentions and behaviour.. impairment.. will get you a spell in the pokey.
It's about time all this nonsense was effectively regulated by JAR (or the CAA) - with the onus put upon operators to confirm compliance within the Reg's.
and by that I mean stop blaming the pilot's... the rules have changed in legislation... a quick Paragraph in Part A.. should not absolve operators of shouldering some responsibility..!!
Cheers
SD
I do agree with some of your sentiments particularly yout comment as follows:
As I suspected, the bungling beaurocrats of Whitehall decided on an arbitrary limit
Flying Lawyer's post relating to the impairment premise is even more of a concern.
For instance - does that mean if you get a bit of grit in your eye (dirty flight deck, which we all have experienced) - on final approach, and subsequent landing on the grass could result in a prosecution?... It would appear from what FL is alluding to, that this could be a possibility.
So if your impaired, (and I don't know what that really means i.e. cold or inability to clear your ears on descent)... and you screw up.. could you be prosecuted also for being "impaired..(question for FL)
On the other hand... it looks very much like regardless of your intentions and behaviour.. impairment.. will get you a spell in the pokey.
It's about time all this nonsense was effectively regulated by JAR (or the CAA) - with the onus put upon operators to confirm compliance within the Reg's.
and by that I mean stop blaming the pilot's... the rules have changed in legislation... a quick Paragraph in Part A.. should not absolve operators of shouldering some responsibility..!!
Cheers
SD
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SD
The offence relates specifically to being " impaired because of drink or drugs. "
There is no practical difference between those words and the old offence that existed for many years under the ANO, which referred to 'being under the influence of drink or drugs to such an extent as to impair his/her capacity to so act.'
The significant change introduced by the 2003 Act was the creation of an additional offence of 'Alcohol Exceeding the Prescribed Limit' which can be committed even where there is no evidence of impairment because of alcohol or drugs.
.
The offence relates specifically to being " impaired because of drink or drugs. "
There is no practical difference between those words and the old offence that existed for many years under the ANO, which referred to 'being under the influence of drink or drugs to such an extent as to impair his/her capacity to so act.'
The significant change introduced by the 2003 Act was the creation of an additional offence of 'Alcohol Exceeding the Prescribed Limit' which can be committed even where there is no evidence of impairment because of alcohol or drugs.
.