Jail and 10-year ban for Thomson pilot!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why did one of his colleagues(FO/CCM)not take him aside and suggest he report sick?This is how it would have been dealt with many years ago.Back when we had no Disclosure Scotland,no yellow jackets,no power-crazed security staff.Back when there were very few SOP's and CRM hadnt been invented yet and there was just good airmanship.Back when the pilot not the autopilot flew the aircraft.Back when you didnt have to undress in front of your passengers every morning when you went to work.Back when if youd forgotten your pass,the customs chap wouldnt snarl at you and make you walk halfwayacross the airport but wave you through because he knew you.Back when if youd had one too many the night before,your crew would diffuse the situation by HELPING you and give a quick call to crewing saying "get a standby out..Joe's under the weather again".Back when there was occasion to get a bit merry the night before because the crew were actually on speaking terms and friendly.
We used to have a career First Officer who regularly drank on layovers and he and the company and all the passengers lived through it because we used our heads and applied common sense instead of the strict letter of the law.He was always covered by a standby even on layovers and the Company never promoted him to Captain.But they never fired him,never.Says a lot for that Company,I can tell you.
Now,its sheer hell for anyone "normal" to just get to work.The insanity of the security checks for aircrew at all UK airports makes getting to work a sheer misery.And if you look at them the wrong way or argue,they can quite easily say they smell alcohol on your breath and have you hauled off.Why should aircrew take their shoes off?Why should they put their neatly ironed uniform jackets through the machine?Take their belts off?Relinquish their drinks(water) and other harmless liquids?If they set off the machine,give them a pat-down and send them on their way.With a smile and some respect.Aircrew arent the enemy here.Is it any wonder some of them drink in this nanny police-state?
Recently saw a twenty-something ramp Nazi complain about a Captain not wearing his mickey mouse yellow jacket.He was only yards from his aircraft.We never wore them before some fool walked into a propeller somewhere in Scotland and we all managed to survive.
Pilots today are buttoned-down shadows of their predecessors.Yes-men with no sense of camraderie and spirit(you know the same kind of spirit that won us the war)You can see them in their yellow jackets obediently taking their shoes off and handing their flasks in to some bald-headed earring-wearing chav at security gates up and down the country.NO balls.And BALPA just squirms in its pitiful seat and washes its hands like Pontious Pilate.This chap who lost his job at Thomas Cook(who'd name an airline after a travel agency and a shoddy one at that?)..now he has balls.What a shame balls arent in fashion these days.I say fire the TC Chief Pilot and send him to Coventry indefinitely.Our island nation,a once-great land,always relied upon a sense of humour,fair-play and a willingness to bend rules and act on common sense to get things done.We're not Huns,we dont a rule book to tell us how to do things.If this guy was over the limit, his CREW should have acted to protect him.This used to be the "British" way.If he keeps doing it,give him counselling.There may be reasons which a 3 month sabbatical(unpaid) can find and cure.The trick is never to let someone in that state get as far as the cockpit.How you go about achieving that,says a lot about us as a crew,an airline,a people and a nation.
Rant over.Now why did you want to become a pilot Johnny?
We used to have a career First Officer who regularly drank on layovers and he and the company and all the passengers lived through it because we used our heads and applied common sense instead of the strict letter of the law.He was always covered by a standby even on layovers and the Company never promoted him to Captain.But they never fired him,never.Says a lot for that Company,I can tell you.
Now,its sheer hell for anyone "normal" to just get to work.The insanity of the security checks for aircrew at all UK airports makes getting to work a sheer misery.And if you look at them the wrong way or argue,they can quite easily say they smell alcohol on your breath and have you hauled off.Why should aircrew take their shoes off?Why should they put their neatly ironed uniform jackets through the machine?Take their belts off?Relinquish their drinks(water) and other harmless liquids?If they set off the machine,give them a pat-down and send them on their way.With a smile and some respect.Aircrew arent the enemy here.Is it any wonder some of them drink in this nanny police-state?
Recently saw a twenty-something ramp Nazi complain about a Captain not wearing his mickey mouse yellow jacket.He was only yards from his aircraft.We never wore them before some fool walked into a propeller somewhere in Scotland and we all managed to survive.
Pilots today are buttoned-down shadows of their predecessors.Yes-men with no sense of camraderie and spirit(you know the same kind of spirit that won us the war)You can see them in their yellow jackets obediently taking their shoes off and handing their flasks in to some bald-headed earring-wearing chav at security gates up and down the country.NO balls.And BALPA just squirms in its pitiful seat and washes its hands like Pontious Pilate.This chap who lost his job at Thomas Cook(who'd name an airline after a travel agency and a shoddy one at that?)..now he has balls.What a shame balls arent in fashion these days.I say fire the TC Chief Pilot and send him to Coventry indefinitely.Our island nation,a once-great land,always relied upon a sense of humour,fair-play and a willingness to bend rules and act on common sense to get things done.We're not Huns,we dont a rule book to tell us how to do things.If this guy was over the limit, his CREW should have acted to protect him.This used to be the "British" way.If he keeps doing it,give him counselling.There may be reasons which a 3 month sabbatical(unpaid) can find and cure.The trick is never to let someone in that state get as far as the cockpit.How you go about achieving that,says a lot about us as a crew,an airline,a people and a nation.
Rant over.Now why did you want to become a pilot Johnny?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
caulfield,
May I offer my nomination for post of the month ( if not year)
Thank you for saying what so many other less backboned individuals are nowadays too afraid/brainwashed to say.
Unwell Raptor,
Given the violence culture that exists in remand centres, do you really think it is a cause for celebration that he may spend "only" 72 days surrounded by some fairly dodgy/dangerous individuals ?
Never mind who his "cell-mate" is, I doubt he can go 72 days without visiting the ( assumedly) communal shower.
Poor b@stard, and stuff any of you who would have it portrayed any other way.
May I offer my nomination for post of the month ( if not year)
Thank you for saying what so many other less backboned individuals are nowadays too afraid/brainwashed to say.
Unwell Raptor,
Given the violence culture that exists in remand centres, do you really think it is a cause for celebration that he may spend "only" 72 days surrounded by some fairly dodgy/dangerous individuals ?
Never mind who his "cell-mate" is, I doubt he can go 72 days without visiting the ( assumedly) communal shower.
Poor b@stard, and stuff any of you who would have it portrayed any other way.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caulfield
Your post was too late for April 1st! 
All is not lost, it prompted captainplaystation to share his knowledge of life behind the wall.
Perhaps you both could pool your expertise to aid those whom are unfit to fly as a result of alcohol consumption but then attempt to fly a full passenger jet, no doubt the Courts would appreciate your joint contribution!
All is not lost, it prompted captainplaystation to share his knowledge of life behind the wall.
Perhaps you both could pool your expertise to aid those whom are unfit to fly as a result of alcohol consumption but then attempt to fly a full passenger jet, no doubt the Courts would appreciate your joint contribution!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Valley Where the Thames Runs Softly
Age: 77
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the violence culture that exists in remand centres, do you really think it is a cause for celebration that he may spend "only" 72 days surrounded by some fairly dodgy/dangerous individuals ?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unwell Raptor, sorry , yes I read something inbetween the lines in your post that indeed was not implied.
heli-cal, yes I understand you strength 5, indeed why not hang them and stop all this mincing around with " mere" custodial sentences.
Did you fail fixed wing selection and thereby end up by default with a wing thrashing around above your head to give you this chip on your shoulder, or are you just naturally gifted at being so intolerant of human failure & weakness ?
heli-cal, yes I understand you strength 5, indeed why not hang them and stop all this mincing around with " mere" custodial sentences.
Did you fail fixed wing selection and thereby end up by default with a wing thrashing around above your head to give you this chip on your shoulder, or are you just naturally gifted at being so intolerant of human failure & weakness ?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of comments on here about the sentence being too harsh.
Not always in british law does the punishment fit the crime and judges may use a harsher sentence as a deterrant to others. If this sentence acts so as to prevent just one aircraft taking off with the pilot over the limit, the judges decision will have been villified.
Not always in british law does the punishment fit the crime and judges may use a harsher sentence as a deterrant to others. If this sentence acts so as to prevent just one aircraft taking off with the pilot over the limit, the judges decision will have been villified.
Clone of Victor Meldrew
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: england
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is running the Asylum?
I think I aggree with caulfield,
In simple terms he is saying that 'the lunatics are running the asylum'
yes they are.
390
From the old school.
In simple terms he is saying that 'the lunatics are running the asylum'
yes they are.
390
From the old school.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smith
Are you sure you mean villified [sic]?
A lot of comments on here about the sentence being too harsh.
Not always in british law does the punishment fit the crime and judges may use a harsher sentence as a deterrant to others. If this sentence acts so as to prevent just one aircraft taking off with the pilot over the limit, the judges decision will have been villified.
Not always in british law does the punishment fit the crime and judges may use a harsher sentence as a deterrant to others. If this sentence acts so as to prevent just one aircraft taking off with the pilot over the limit, the judges decision will have been villified.
Caulfield, your posting should be printed and displayed in every crew room round the land and we should have flyers with the same printed on them which we can dish out to "security" personnel and others.
I am of the opinion that Britain is now a "police state". As I recently walked through immigration at a municipal airport in the UK I will not mention one of the passengers in the queue happened to innocently take a flash photograph of his group. This was immediately followed by some stasi looking official marching up to said passenger and reading the riot act to him. My thoughts were "Welcome to England"! My father used to refer to the Union Jack as the "Land of the Free", I am sure he and many others who fought so valiantly in two world wars must be turning in their graves when they see was has happened to "Great" Britain.
I keep saying it but what we now need is a (peaceful, hopefully) revolution - enough is enough!
I am of the opinion that Britain is now a "police state". As I recently walked through immigration at a municipal airport in the UK I will not mention one of the passengers in the queue happened to innocently take a flash photograph of his group. This was immediately followed by some stasi looking official marching up to said passenger and reading the riot act to him. My thoughts were "Welcome to England"! My father used to refer to the Union Jack as the "Land of the Free", I am sure he and many others who fought so valiantly in two world wars must be turning in their graves when they see was has happened to "Great" Britain.
I keep saying it but what we now need is a (peaceful, hopefully) revolution - enough is enough!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going through Birmingham security last week and having removed shoes, belt jacket etc I was surprised to see two policemen walk through in their full kit. No check on them at all even after they bleeped. I did ask security why police are allowed through with no check and was told its obvious they are no threat. Will this change under Jacqui the Porn's new card?
The whole ID card scheme is an expensive new labour joke .
The whole ID card scheme is an expensive new labour joke .
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plenty of sanctimonious, self-righteous claptrap here.
Let's cut to the chase.
He KNEW he was putting his huge training investment at risk.
(pilots are above average intelligence, they have to absorb a vast spectrum of knowledge of various disciplinesand apply it to the working environment.-Physics,meteorology,biology, engineering and mechanics, specialised Law...)
everyone ASSUMES this was a "first offence" (who's to tell that he hasn't been pulled aside in the past and given the "look ,old chap, you're unfit, I don't want to fly with you, call in sick -or i'll have to make it official" )
Caulfield's post, meritorious though it undoubtedly is, is not relevant.
The "2 pilots are needed" argument is a bit of a red-herring....the second-pilot is , theoretically a BACKUP...(..the checklist-readbacks etc. are primarily "box-ticking, CYA exercises, -pushing paper doesn't fly the aircraft.....how many crashes have been caused or exacerbated because both pilots were busy "following procedures" shuffling papers instead of FLYING THE AIRCRAFT.
The alcohol limit is there, you join "the club" KNOWING that, Transgression shows disregard of rules, lack of respect for crew/pax for whom the drinker is responsible and reckless poor judgement to risk so much for a couple of hours of "feeling merry"
Yes, I too ,think the sentence was unfair, why he should have a much more draconian sentence imposed for a lesser offence is beyond rational comprehension (next, we'll chop off a shoplifter's hands just to "make an example " as people are obviously ignoring the lar that says thieving is illegal)
Ultimately, this man was the architect of his own downfall,-that his family have to suffer ,is a responsibility he alone has to bear.
It also demonstrates his piss-poor skills at risk-assesment.
there were no winners in this sad debacle...let's hope all you "defenders" learn something from it.
Let's cut to the chase.
He KNEW he was putting his huge training investment at risk.
(pilots are above average intelligence, they have to absorb a vast spectrum of knowledge of various disciplinesand apply it to the working environment.-Physics,meteorology,biology, engineering and mechanics, specialised Law...)
everyone ASSUMES this was a "first offence" (who's to tell that he hasn't been pulled aside in the past and given the "look ,old chap, you're unfit, I don't want to fly with you, call in sick -or i'll have to make it official" )
Caulfield's post, meritorious though it undoubtedly is, is not relevant.
The "2 pilots are needed" argument is a bit of a red-herring....the second-pilot is , theoretically a BACKUP...(..the checklist-readbacks etc. are primarily "box-ticking, CYA exercises, -pushing paper doesn't fly the aircraft.....how many crashes have been caused or exacerbated because both pilots were busy "following procedures" shuffling papers instead of FLYING THE AIRCRAFT.
The alcohol limit is there, you join "the club" KNOWING that, Transgression shows disregard of rules, lack of respect for crew/pax for whom the drinker is responsible and reckless poor judgement to risk so much for a couple of hours of "feeling merry"
Yes, I too ,think the sentence was unfair, why he should have a much more draconian sentence imposed for a lesser offence is beyond rational comprehension (next, we'll chop off a shoplifter's hands just to "make an example " as people are obviously ignoring the lar that says thieving is illegal)
Ultimately, this man was the architect of his own downfall,-that his family have to suffer ,is a responsibility he alone has to bear.
It also demonstrates his piss-poor skills at risk-assesment.
there were no winners in this sad debacle...let's hope all you "defenders" learn something from it.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cockney Steve and all you holy'r than thow lot. Why do you hate pilots so much when no one on this thread really knows the circumstances of the poor chaps misjudgement. That is if it WAS a misjudgement.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICE PACK i suggest you re-read my post carefully!
For WHATEVER reason, this pilot imbibed excess alcohol between duty-periods.
The putative consequences of this action are :-
Risking damage to the employer's reputation.
Risking damage to the employer's (very expensive) aircraft.
Risking the lives of fellow flight -crew
Risking the lives of a large number of fare-paying passengers.
Risking the lives of anyone this aircraft, it's parts or fuel-load struck.
Risking the employment which supports self and family and home.
Not to mention the social stigma of being caught alcohol-impairedwith the resultant potential fallout.
NO, I DON'T HATE PILOTS. BUT I have little time for selfish, thoughtless irresponsible people who jeapordise others by those actions, WHERE THOSE OTHERS ARE NOT FREE PARTICIPANTS IN THAT ACTION.
For instance, I've no problem with the Aussie aerobatic pilot who recently died.
He knew the risks, family and friends accepted it..he lucked-out.
the single, unattached person who takes up free-climbing, wing-suit alp-grazing, bungee -jumping and the like....that's a contract between them and their friends/relatives.......
but when they endanger UNWITTING bystanders, -that's another ball-game.
Does this make it clearer?....this guy relied on the goodwill of others, to carry the risk of flying with him....they weren't GIVEN the option to refuse (not by him)
wisely, someone TOOK that option.
Sure, thousands of flights have taken place with impaired aircrew (not talking about military with a +50% chance of not returning anyway,)
but today , that is not acceptable, neither is it acceptable to expect an unsuspecting colleague to shoulder the burden of "carrying " you.
NOT Holier than thou......but obviously a damned sight more CONSIDERATE and RESPONSIBLE than thou.
For WHATEVER reason, this pilot imbibed excess alcohol between duty-periods.
The putative consequences of this action are :-
Risking damage to the employer's reputation.
Risking damage to the employer's (very expensive) aircraft.
Risking the lives of fellow flight -crew
Risking the lives of a large number of fare-paying passengers.
Risking the lives of anyone this aircraft, it's parts or fuel-load struck.
Risking the employment which supports self and family and home.
Not to mention the social stigma of being caught alcohol-impairedwith the resultant potential fallout.
NO, I DON'T HATE PILOTS. BUT I have little time for selfish, thoughtless irresponsible people who jeapordise others by those actions, WHERE THOSE OTHERS ARE NOT FREE PARTICIPANTS IN THAT ACTION.
For instance, I've no problem with the Aussie aerobatic pilot who recently died.
He knew the risks, family and friends accepted it..he lucked-out.
the single, unattached person who takes up free-climbing, wing-suit alp-grazing, bungee -jumping and the like....that's a contract between them and their friends/relatives.......
but when they endanger UNWITTING bystanders, -that's another ball-game.
Does this make it clearer?....this guy relied on the goodwill of others, to carry the risk of flying with him....they weren't GIVEN the option to refuse (not by him)
wisely, someone TOOK that option.
Sure, thousands of flights have taken place with impaired aircrew (not talking about military with a +50% chance of not returning anyway,)
but today , that is not acceptable, neither is it acceptable to expect an unsuspecting colleague to shoulder the burden of "carrying " you.
NOT Holier than thou......but obviously a damned sight more CONSIDERATE and RESPONSIBLE than thou.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess you must know all the facts then do you ? Did he drink alcohol ? Are you absolutly sure? Was their an underlying reason that he was over the limit? Give the guy a break if you don't. Sheesh! I know of at least 1 spiked drink incident in aviation for example. (in that case a side effect flaged it)(note no alcohol dunk)He was not inconsiderate.
Last edited by IcePack; 8th Apr 2009 at 23:01.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess you must know all the facts then do you ? Did he drink alcohol ? Are you absolutly sure? Was their an underlying reason that he was over the limit?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cockney steve
The "2 pilots are needed" argument is a bit of a red-herring....the second-pilot is , theoretically a BACKUP...(..the checklist-readbacks etc. are primarily "box-ticking, CYA exercises, -pushing paper doesn't fly the aircraft.....how many crashes have been caused or exacerbated because both pilots were busy "following procedures" shuffling papers instead of FLYING THE AIRCRAFT.
Subsequently your passenger informs you "well I saw him, but I didn't feel it my place to tell you". I think you'd be a tad annoyed as you were shuffled off to the jail.
There are two (sometimes more) pilots on a flight deck for a number of reasons. It is a team that flies the aircraft with the captain in overall command making executive decisions based upon information gained from other team members and their personal experience and experiences. If on a modern aircraft the "2nd pilot" was a back up then we could from time to time fly it single pilot. We can't = QED.
L Met
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Londonmet -
I said BACKUP...NOT passenger. As such there IS a role to play.
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!)
So, the reason is because a load of fare-paying passengers have elected to be carried to their destinatoin in an extremely expensive, complex public transport conveyance.
To that end, it's incumbent on the operator and the regulatory authorities to take every precaution to accomplish this. the weakest link is (arguably) the human controller of the machine....a "backup system" is therefore a basic requirement.
I would refer you to the recent case where a passenger flight made an unscheduled landing in Eireland and one of the flight-deck officers was escorted off and later hospitalised with mental-health problems.
The other flight-deck officer appears to have satisfactorily managed the workload of relieving his colleague of responsibility, planning and executing a diversion and satisfactorily landing the aircraft.
I am NOT saying a F/A wasn't used to help with checklists, etc. but this is all a side-issue.-IMO the subject of the thread , acted in a reckless manner and ruined his own carreer.
I said BACKUP...NOT passenger. As such there IS a role to play.
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!
)So, the reason is because a load of fare-paying passengers have elected to be carried to their destinatoin in an extremely expensive, complex public transport conveyance.
To that end, it's incumbent on the operator and the regulatory authorities to take every precaution to accomplish this. the weakest link is (arguably) the human controller of the machine....a "backup system" is therefore a basic requirement.
I would refer you to the recent case where a passenger flight made an unscheduled landing in Eireland and one of the flight-deck officers was escorted off and later hospitalised with mental-health problems.
The other flight-deck officer appears to have satisfactorily managed the workload of relieving his colleague of responsibility, planning and executing a diversion and satisfactorily landing the aircraft.
I am NOT saying a F/A wasn't used to help with checklists, etc. but this is all a side-issue.-IMO the subject of the thread , acted in a reckless manner and ruined his own carreer.