Thomson pilot arrested at BHX
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good news, so the "water bottle Nazis " got it wrong then.
This will not prevent an internal disciplinary action though.
Last edited by Dg800; 6th Mar 2013 at 11:10.
Rotate on this!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 64
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This will not prevent an internal disciplinary action though
Before you get jumped on I'm assuming you are meaning the case you quoted as opposed to the Thomson Pilot.
Before you get jumped on I'm assuming you are meaning the case you quoted as opposed to the Thomson Pilot.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually meant both. While charges of "endangering air safety" might not stick in a court of law, just being over the limit while on duty/in full company uniform could be reason for disciplinary action and possible dismissal. You know, breach of trust, damaging the company image etc. etc.
Different standards apply to different contexts and successful criminal prosecution is, in general, not a prerequisite to internal actions.
PS. I just noticed that he had already been subjected to disciplinary action, namely suspension from active duty. QED
Different standards apply to different contexts and successful criminal prosecution is, in general, not a prerequisite to internal actions.
PS. I just noticed that he had already been subjected to disciplinary action, namely suspension from active duty. QED
Last edited by Dg800; 6th Mar 2013 at 12:24.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: bad boy country
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually meant both. While charges of "endangering air safety" might not stick in a court of law, just being over the limit while on duty/in full company uniform could be reason for disciplinary action and possible dismissal.
Or, possibly, the reason for suspension from active duty was because of the police investigation. If thats now closed then the person in question might be able to get back to work.
Just because they are suspended from active duty doesn't mean they have done anything wrong. QED.
(Just playing devils advocate and putting a counter balance to your argument.)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who has said he was over the limit?
What I was pointing out is merely that his not being charged does not automatically mean that he was not drunk (i.e. "The water-bottle nazis got it wrong"), just that he had not committed a criminal offense he could be successfully charged with. Or is being drunk while merely wearing a pilot's uniform a criminal matter now?
As for suspension from duty (presumably with no pay?) not being of a disciplinary nature in itself, if that's your thing than good for you but it would certainly piss me off to no end (especially the no pay part).
Just because they are suspended from active duty doesn't mean they have done anything wrong. QED.
Last edited by Dg800; 6th Mar 2013 at 13:35.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cymru
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dg
When in a hole the best course of action is to stop digging. Pilots are never suspended without pay in Thomson Airways. Suspension is a normal practice whilst an inicident of any type is investigated. It is in no way an indication of guilt.
I seem to recall a foreign pilot being arrested in Manchester several years ago for being drunk. He was ritually humiliated by the media and by posters such as yourself on here. I think that he had upset someone in the hotel who called in to say he had been drinking and he was arrested. In the end, after some time and with nothing in the way of apology from the media of the malicious posters on here it emerged he had not been drinking at all.
Why don't we just assume that this case is similar until shown to be otherwise?
When in a hole the best course of action is to stop digging. Pilots are never suspended without pay in Thomson Airways. Suspension is a normal practice whilst an inicident of any type is investigated. It is in no way an indication of guilt.
I seem to recall a foreign pilot being arrested in Manchester several years ago for being drunk. He was ritually humiliated by the media and by posters such as yourself on here. I think that he had upset someone in the hotel who called in to say he had been drinking and he was arrested. In the end, after some time and with nothing in the way of apology from the media of the malicious posters on here it emerged he had not been drinking at all.
Why don't we just assume that this case is similar until shown to be otherwise?
Last edited by tightcircuit; 6th Mar 2013 at 14:11.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Love the evolution of some aussie's.
Can/does a field breathalyser detect the low amount needed for the requirements of aviation. The traffic light system detects either no alcohol (green), that there is alcohol (amber), or to much alcohol (red).
Or do the police just arrest and go to the evidential breathalyser?
Can/does a field breathalyser detect the low amount needed for the requirements of aviation. The traffic light system detects either no alcohol (green), that there is alcohol (amber), or to much alcohol (red).
Or do the police just arrest and go to the evidential breathalyser?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: bad boy country
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What john_smith said!
Lets not shoot first and ask questions later. The pilot, according to the law, has done nothing wrong. If he had, he would be charged with something. Thats the way it works.
Oh, and I'm not a "******* Pommy." I'm not even a normal "Pommy" because I'm not a "Pommy" at all. (I'm assuming by "Pommy" you mean someone from the United Kingdom)
Lets not shoot first and ask questions later. The pilot, according to the law, has done nothing wrong. If he had, he would be charged with something. Thats the way it works.
Oh, and I'm not a "******* Pommy." I'm not even a normal "Pommy" because I'm not a "Pommy" at all. (I'm assuming by "Pommy" you mean someone from the United Kingdom)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hove
Age: 72
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rjay259
I very much doubt that the police will have anything other than the normal issue breathalysers.
It may be that he blew amber and while as a traffic offence that would be a word of warning it could be that the officers knew the aviation limits and had enough to warrant a further test back at the station.
If what I've seen on TV is anything to go by if he blew under the limits on the station machine I would have thought he would have been released there and then. Given that this went further there must be something else we don't know about.
I very much doubt that the police will have anything other than the normal issue breathalysers.
It may be that he blew amber and while as a traffic offence that would be a word of warning it could be that the officers knew the aviation limits and had enough to warrant a further test back at the station.
If what I've seen on TV is anything to go by if he blew under the limits on the station machine I would have thought he would have been released there and then. Given that this went further there must be something else we don't know about.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was not known where in the airport the pilot was arrested, or whether it was the r
I do wander, was it the water bottle nazis or the blunt knife of the whistle blower.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Midlands
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under the Aviation section of the 2003 Railways and Transport Safety Act, a police officer may arrest a person he believes to be under the influence of drink or drugs. Subsequently a specimen can be required to confirm whether or not this is the case.
I can only imagine that there is no access to a special graduated unit, so therefore the person would have to be arrested in order to be tested at the Police Station as the normal road traffic one would not indicate the level accurately ?
In the case of Railway staff, the BT Police will breathalyse on site using an approved unit which will indicate whether or not the person exceeds the legal limit or they may wait for the independent testing agent to undertake the test which gives an immediate result.
If they do then they are arrested and further specimens taken at the Police Station if the Police intend to take action. Not all cases of staff being under the influence will result in a Police Prosecution.
I can only imagine that there is no access to a special graduated unit, so therefore the person would have to be arrested in order to be tested at the Police Station as the normal road traffic one would not indicate the level accurately ?
In the case of Railway staff, the BT Police will breathalyse on site using an approved unit which will indicate whether or not the person exceeds the legal limit or they may wait for the independent testing agent to undertake the test which gives an immediate result.
If they do then they are arrested and further specimens taken at the Police Station if the Police intend to take action. Not all cases of staff being under the influence will result in a Police Prosecution.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Midlands
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually modern 'preliminary breath test' machines are just as accurate as the station intoxyliser machines but there are other legal requirements of the intoxyliser machines that make them 'evidential' machines rather than 'preliminary'
