Drunk swedish pilot freed by court
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Up in the air. Sweden sometimes
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drunk swedish pilot freed by court
The essence of this article in swedish media is that since the pilot did not already started to fly, he was not posing a threat to the passengers, disregarding the fact that he was on his way to start flying after exterior controls of the ac.
Can´t see the sense in this. Pretty difficult to establish road blocks in the sky, pulling the plane over, park it on a cloud and let him blow the alco meter...
Google translation with minor adjustments for clarity:
Berusad pilot frias | Resor | SvD
"The pilot who was caught drunk at the Arlanda airport in May this year was acquitted. He had not had time to get start his work, consider Attunda District Court.
The man was caught in a random check.
During an inspection, it turned out that the 46-year-old pilot had a blood alcohol level of 0.96.
"It is not proven that the man had begun a task that was of "substantial importance to flight safety" stated the court.
The man worked at SAS, but is no longer employed. He drank, contrary to the SAS rules, alcohol the night before the flight to Copenhagen. Early in the morning he went to Copenhagen, where it was determined that he would act as co-pilot.
When he walked out of the plane to inspect it, he was met by police who conducted an alcohol control.
It is, according Attunda District Court, clear that the man was too drunk to fly the plane. But to be able to say he is guilty for exceeded alcohol level, it has to be proven that he performed a task "essential to flight safety."
Can´t see the sense in this. Pretty difficult to establish road blocks in the sky, pulling the plane over, park it on a cloud and let him blow the alco meter...
Google translation with minor adjustments for clarity:
Berusad pilot frias | Resor | SvD
"The pilot who was caught drunk at the Arlanda airport in May this year was acquitted. He had not had time to get start his work, consider Attunda District Court.
The man was caught in a random check.
During an inspection, it turned out that the 46-year-old pilot had a blood alcohol level of 0.96.
"It is not proven that the man had begun a task that was of "substantial importance to flight safety" stated the court.
The man worked at SAS, but is no longer employed. He drank, contrary to the SAS rules, alcohol the night before the flight to Copenhagen. Early in the morning he went to Copenhagen, where it was determined that he would act as co-pilot.
When he walked out of the plane to inspect it, he was met by police who conducted an alcohol control.
It is, according Attunda District Court, clear that the man was too drunk to fly the plane. But to be able to say he is guilty for exceeded alcohol level, it has to be proven that he performed a task "essential to flight safety."
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Home away from home
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It should read 0.96 ‰ for clairty I think.
@paparomeodelta you say this in your post:
"[...]he was not posing a threat to the passengers, disregarding the fact that he was on his way to start flying after exterior controls of the ac."
But the article says this:
"
Det står, enligt Attunda tingsrätt, klart att mannen var för berusad för att få flyga planet. Men för att kunna fällas krävs, utöver överskriden promillehalt, också att han utförde en uppgift ”av väsentlig betydelse för flygsäkerheten”.
Om han hade påbörjat säkerhetsinspektionen hade han fällts för flygfylleri, enligt rätten. Han har dock själv uppgett att han bara gick ut för att han såg poliserna komma."
Which translated would be:
According to the court of Attund it is clear that the man was to intoxicated to fly the plane. But to be convicted he had to, apart from being over the legal limit, have performed a task "of significant importance to flying/air security".
Had he started the security inspection he had been convicted for drunk flying (my own translation
), said the court. But he himself stated that he only went out because he saw the police approaching."
My point being that it seems he had not actually begun the external inspection, or atleast that it's not proven he had. Therefore he isn't convicted, had he done so he had been found guilty.
And since he's lost his job for breaking SAS rules and has had his certificate revoked I don't think we'll find him flying regardless, which I suppose is just as well...
@paparomeodelta you say this in your post:
"[...]he was not posing a threat to the passengers, disregarding the fact that he was on his way to start flying after exterior controls of the ac."
But the article says this:
"
Det står, enligt Attunda tingsrätt, klart att mannen var för berusad för att få flyga planet. Men för att kunna fällas krävs, utöver överskriden promillehalt, också att han utförde en uppgift ”av väsentlig betydelse för flygsäkerheten”.
Om han hade påbörjat säkerhetsinspektionen hade han fällts för flygfylleri, enligt rätten. Han har dock själv uppgett att han bara gick ut för att han såg poliserna komma."
Which translated would be:
According to the court of Attund it is clear that the man was to intoxicated to fly the plane. But to be convicted he had to, apart from being over the legal limit, have performed a task "of significant importance to flying/air security".
Had he started the security inspection he had been convicted for drunk flying (my own translation
), said the court. But he himself stated that he only went out because he saw the police approaching."My point being that it seems he had not actually begun the external inspection, or atleast that it's not proven he had. Therefore he isn't convicted, had he done so he had been found guilty.
And since he's lost his job for breaking SAS rules and has had his certificate revoked I don't think we'll find him flying regardless, which I suppose is just as well...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: next to a beautiful lake
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the intention to fly the plane in this state does not count as criminal offence ?
(I assume he intended to fly the leg as otherwise he'd been smart to hand himself over to police before they come out looking for him)
Sounds like he can be convicted only once there is the proverbial smoking hole in the ground.
(I won't discuss here about the 0.096 or the issue that this can arise due to medication etc.)
(I assume he intended to fly the leg as otherwise he'd been smart to hand himself over to police before they come out looking for him)
Sounds like he can be convicted only once there is the proverbial smoking hole in the ground.
(I won't discuss here about the 0.096 or the issue that this can arise due to medication etc.)
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the intention to fly the plane in this state does not count as criminal offence ?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about 'conspiracy before the fact.' There are numerous events, and certainly those of terrorist bombing nature, where they would shoot you to stop the act. That would be a bit drastic here. It is similar to drunk driving. There are grey areas, in that 'being in charge' of the vehicle can also be an offence. Once there was a driver who slept in his car as he was over the limit to drive. having the keys on his person deemed him to be 'in charge' of the vehicle. I assume he was not done for driving. Here the pilot might have to prove he did not intend to fly, but that does not seem to have been necessary. He got done for drunk on duty.
0.096% would be the correct number I would think.
And therefore not 'Drunk'
And therefore not 'Drunk'
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about 'conspiracy before the fact.'
In the case of the above-legal-limit pilot the defense would argue that his professional and personal conscience might have caused him to exonerate himself (by calling in sick or too fatigued) at the last minute, causing no more than a delay in departure while the reserve was called in. If he had instead already taken his place in the cockpit and was actually going through the engine start checklist than such a defense would most likely get thrown out and you might get a conviction, even if the plane had not yet taken off, as starting the engines will most likely be seen as actually operating an aircraft, as opposed to just doing the walkaround.
Here the pilot might have to prove he did not intend to fly
Last edited by Dg800; 30th Oct 2012 at 15:22.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like he can be convicted only once there is the proverbial smoking hole in the ground.
) would in itself be borderline criminal. After all, actually improving flight safety should really be the Number 1 priority...
Last edited by Dg800; 30th Oct 2012 at 14:06.
"It is not proven that the man had begun a task that was of "substantial importance to flight safety" stated the court.
When he walked out of the plane to inspect it, he was met by police who conducted an alcohol control.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm. I'd think that a pre-flight walk around would be of substantial importance to flight safety.
Last edited by Dg800; 30th Oct 2012 at 15:19.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: next to a beautiful lake
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Law and jurisdiction always amaze me. This event fits neatly into the scheme.
Above someone stated that flight safety should be paramount, and this case once again shows that this simply is not the case. They filed a flight plan with the crew involved, and to me that's already sufficient to lock the bars.
Above someone stated that flight safety should be paramount, and this case once again shows that this simply is not the case. They filed a flight plan with the crew involved, and to me that's already sufficient to lock the bars.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's two pilots, he might not have had to sign anything himself (yet). Point is, we don't really know the details as they were known to the court. I'm pretty confident myself that they reviewed the case very thoroughly before coming to their decision.
Last edited by Dg800; 31st Oct 2012 at 10:02.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: next to a beautiful lake
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In don't wish this guy to be unemployed or even not flying anymore. There are numerous discussions about how to treat crew that have an alcohol problem. I don't want to touch this subject.
But if you were to sit on this plane flown by an intoxicated crew member - I am not sure you'd be too happy about it.
Putting someone behind bars was meant to imply some sort of punishment (doesn't have to be the proverbial bars, can be any other sort of punishment deemed appropriate).
But filing a legal flight plan being intoxicated and including himself in the crew setup already serves as a criminal offence - IMHO.
But if you were to sit on this plane flown by an intoxicated crew member - I am not sure you'd be too happy about it.
Putting someone behind bars was meant to imply some sort of punishment (doesn't have to be the proverbial bars, can be any other sort of punishment deemed appropriate).
But filing a legal flight plan being intoxicated and including himself in the crew setup already serves as a criminal offence - IMHO.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Home away from home
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
"It is not proven that the man had begun a task that was of "substantial importance to flight safety" stated the court.
Quote:
When he walked out of the plane to inspect it, he was met by police who conducted an alcohol control.
Hmm. I'd think that a pre-flight walk around would be of substantial importance to flight safety.
"It is not proven that the man had begun a task that was of "substantial importance to flight safety" stated the court.
Quote:
When he walked out of the plane to inspect it, he was met by police who conducted an alcohol control.
Hmm. I'd think that a pre-flight walk around would be of substantial importance to flight safety.
"
Det står, enligt Attunda tingsrätt, klart att mannen var för berusad för att få flyga planet. Men för att kunna fällas krävs, utöver överskriden promillehalt, också att han utförde en uppgift ”av väsentlig betydelse för flygsäkerheten”.
Om han hade påbörjat säkerhetsinspektionen hade han fällts för flygfylleri, enligt rätten. Han har dock själv uppgett att han bara gick ut för att han såg poliserna komma."
Which translated would be:
According to the court of Attund it is clear that the man was to intoxicated to fly the plane. But to be convicted he had to, apart from being over the legal limit, have performed a task "of significant importance to flying/air security".
Had he started the security inspection he had been convicted for drunk flying (my own translation), said the court. But he himself stated that he only went out because he saw the police approaching."
Det står, enligt Attunda tingsrätt, klart att mannen var för berusad för att få flyga planet. Men för att kunna fällas krävs, utöver överskriden promillehalt, också att han utförde en uppgift ”av väsentlig betydelse för flygsäkerheten”.
Om han hade påbörjat säkerhetsinspektionen hade han fällts för flygfylleri, enligt rätten. Han har dock själv uppgett att han bara gick ut för att han såg poliserna komma."
Which translated would be:
According to the court of Attund it is clear that the man was to intoxicated to fly the plane. But to be convicted he had to, apart from being over the legal limit, have performed a task "of significant importance to flying/air security".
Had he started the security inspection he had been convicted for drunk flying (my own translation
), said the court. But he himself stated that he only went out because he saw the police approaching."
The article in itself actually says "När han gick ut ur planet för att inspektera det möttes han av polis som skulle genomföra en nykterhetskontroll." which means: "When he left the plane to inspect it he was met by police who were to conduct a test looking for alcohol".
But further down it says:
"Om han hade påbörjat säkerhetsinspektionen hade han fällts för flygfylleri, enligt rätten. Han har dock själv uppgett att han bara gick ut för att han såg poliserna komma."
"If he had begun the safety inspection he had been convicted for "drunk flying", according to the court. But he himself has stated that he only left because he saw the police coming".
So from what I can tell the court has decided that in order to perform a task "of substantial importance tp flight safety" you would have to have begun a preflight inspection (or I guess something like start-up procedures, even though that's my guess and not something stated in the article). Since it can not be proven in this case he had begun an inspection, the court has decided to free him.
As stated above he has lost his job and license (and as I understand it did so long before the court had ruled) so there should be no risk of him ever flying again regardless.
It also says at the bottom of the article that the Swedish Pilot's association (Svensk Pilotförening) are pleased with the courts rule, even though they state that they do not defend his actions they find the legal ruling to be sound.
Last edited by Crazy Voyager; 31st Oct 2012 at 14:52.