FO removed from BA Flight
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Random checks are rare, in 20+ years on the line, I’ve only had 2 both in Scandinavia, even though you know you are sober it’s still a little stressful for the whole crew.
Personally I would not get on an aircraft if I suspected a member of the crew were intoxicated, the problem is that unless they reek of alcohol or are clearly drunk in terms of their behaviour it’s not an easy call.
Hopefully I’m never put in that situation, but I suspect we are only seeing the tip of the ice berg here
Personally I would not get on an aircraft if I suspected a member of the crew were intoxicated, the problem is that unless they reek of alcohol or are clearly drunk in terms of their behaviour it’s not an easy call.
Hopefully I’m never put in that situation, but I suspect we are only seeing the tip of the ice berg here
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3. Would be interesting to know if the CC side-stepped the usual chain of command and reported this incident to the police without talking to the senior CC and then the captain first. Outcome should involve FO removed and company informed, no doubt, but appropriate action from the company should remove the need to involve the police and the criminal courts, in my humble opinion.
What year are you living in?
I and I am sure 99.9% of the flying public would certainly hope that any flight crew caught being over the limit are in fact, dealt with accordingly and prosecuted for what is a criminal offence here in the UK!
How you can believe that this should have simply been dealt with internally by the airline, its staff and its internal procedures is scandalous.
Protecting the public and the passengers that fly with a particular airline is paramount, not your concerns for the 'usual chain of command'.
Replies, so far, seem to indicate two viewpoints - 'whistleblowers are poison' and 'whistleblowers save lives'. The first view is almost standard in British society, particularly business. The second requires strength of character out of all proportion to the good it can do.
From (personal) experience - 18 months with the same alcoholic captain, in a VERY steep cockpit 'gradient' sharpens ones reflexes greatly!!
From (personal) experience - recovering one's predecessor's personal effects from the crash site where he was killed by a 'known' irresponsible 'cowboy', makes the Boss's assessment "that we were ALL to blame, because we knew ... and did nothing!" a simple truism.
"Never grass up your mates" may well be a survival essential in criminal circles - it has NO place in any sort of RESPONSIBLE working environment.
From (personal) experience - 18 months with the same alcoholic captain, in a VERY steep cockpit 'gradient' sharpens ones reflexes greatly!!
From (personal) experience - recovering one's predecessor's personal effects from the crash site where he was killed by a 'known' irresponsible 'cowboy', makes the Boss's assessment "that we were ALL to blame, because we knew ... and did nothing!" a simple truism.
"Never grass up your mates" may well be a survival essential in criminal circles - it has NO place in any sort of RESPONSIBLE working environment.
" Fasting and flying is very common in the Middle East."
and there is no need for it
There are specific exemptions in the Koran & Hadith including travel, anything related to the safety & welfare of others, warfare, menstruation, severe illness, pregnancy, and breastfeeding. ] Those who are unable to fast still must make up the days missed late
and there is no need for it
There are specific exemptions in the Koran & Hadith including travel, anything related to the safety & welfare of others, warfare, menstruation, severe illness, pregnancy, and breastfeeding. ] Those who are unable to fast still must make up the days missed late
As others have observed in a healthy person the body regulates blood sugar by itself. Occasionally in vigorous exercise you'll hit the wall or as cyclists say 'bonk' but even then a sort rest is enough to let the metabolism catch up.
People's individual metabolism, together with sleep patterns disturbed by shifts are far greater risks to safety than a Ramadan faster who's eaten well before the fast starts at sunrise. Personally, I've not eaten since 19:00 last night. Now 12:46 and I'll probably grab something in next hour but I'm perfectly alert and focussed. Others, including both my adult offspring, wouldn't be.
( feathers ruffled)
Do you have any to the contrary?
If he was indeed already in the cockpit he also participated in a few briefing where somebody must have noticed but ignored.
If cabin crew gets physically close enough to notice then for sure your fellow flight deck members.
You’re not kept separated because you’re relief Crew.
The cabin crew did absolutely the right thing but it should have been the captain as well...he’s ( or she) is the PIC.
Was hè informed? If not why not? If so why didn’t he/she act on it?
Thats what I meant by synergy.
Do you have any to the contrary?
If he was indeed already in the cockpit he also participated in a few briefing where somebody must have noticed but ignored.
If cabin crew gets physically close enough to notice then for sure your fellow flight deck members.
You’re not kept separated because you’re relief Crew.
The cabin crew did absolutely the right thing but it should have been the captain as well...he’s ( or she) is the PIC.
Was hè informed? If not why not? If so why didn’t he/she act on it?
Thats what I meant by synergy.
Sorry Airbanda, but you are wrong. Fasting does not inevitably result in a low blood sugar, but it certainly can. In the last decade I have seen two surgeons in the NHS 'collapse' whilst operating during Ramadan. Whether the skills of others were diminished is harder to determine. Imans have repeatedly told both doctors and patients they should not fast.
Personally I would not fly if the pilot was fasting, if only i could find out......
Personally I would not fly if the pilot was fasting, if only i could find out......
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: world
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so, I'm shuffling dispatch papers at the gate adjacent to my Msp to Bos gate which is filled with a packed DC 10 passenger load and a nondescript gent pops up in front of me and says, I think you've been drinking.
So, what would YOU do?
a. Call the company,and head to the clinic for a breath test.
b. Tell him to take a hike, and press on.
I did b. and have regretted it for WAY too long. ( I hadnt had a drink in years btw, but I did look a bit slovenly for the role).
just saying, you gotta protect your back.
So, what would YOU do?
a. Call the company,and head to the clinic for a breath test.
b. Tell him to take a hike, and press on.
I did b. and have regretted it for WAY too long. ( I hadnt had a drink in years btw, but I did look a bit slovenly for the role).
just saying, you gotta protect your back.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: London
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we know as fact that the offending pilot was reported by people other than his 2 pilots colleagues. Did the offending pilot use the washroom between finishing briefing and passing through security?
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Runcorn,Cheshire,England
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Airbanda, but you are wrong. Fasting does not inevitably result in a low blood sugar, but it certainly can. In the last decade I have seen two surgeons in the NHS 'collapse' whilst operating during Ramadan. Whether the skills of others were diminished is harder to determine. Imans have repeatedly told both doctors and patients they should not fast.
Personally I would not fly if the pilot was fasting, if only i could find out......
Personally I would not fly if the pilot was fasting, if only i could find out......
Agreed. I lived and worked in the ME for years. Our company discouraged fasting but to little avail.
Anyway, this thread has nothing to do with fasting.
p.s. I wouldn't want to be flown by 3Greens. I've gone short of calories when on exercise in the mil. It makes you tired.
Anyway, this thread has nothing to do with fasting.
p.s. I wouldn't want to be flown by 3Greens. I've gone short of calories when on exercise in the mil. It makes you tired.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: London
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's have a full AND proper investigation, please.
It is, perhaps, unsurprising on such a Forum such as this where pilots discuss amongst pilots, that there should be an obvious lack of consideration on the event-matrix that underpins this event and the ramifications, thereof.
As I write, the names of the 3 pilots in this event are not in the public domain and my thoughts are based (as are all others expressed by others in this thread), entirely on the allegations cited in the media being true including and not restricted to the allegation that the 'drunk' pilot was indeed drunk in the normal meaning of the word.
I would suggest that there is a bombproof construct that shows the 2 other pilots covered up for the 'drunk' pilot which would automatically make them accessories to what the man in the street would regard as an extremely serious, life-threatening, crime. Flowing from that, BA should not have allowed ANY of the pilots (not just the 'drunk' pilot) continue on their rostered flight.
For the construct to work, the following 3 criteria must hold true (1) neither of the other 2 pilots who continued to operate to Mauritius can have a sense of smell any worse than the person who reported the 'drunk' pilot (this can be tested and there are potential medical implications) (2) the reporting of the 'drunk' pilot would have to have been done by someone other than the 2 other pilots (3) the 'drunk' pilot could not have attended the washroom between the end of pre-flight briefing and passing through security on the way to the aircraft (CCTV) which is the only place he could have consumed alcohol after briefing and before entering the aircraft.
If all the criteria stated above are satisfied, I would not be sleeping too well I were either of the other 2 pilots or the senior-most BA manager dealing nor, indeed, if I were BA itself. Alternatively, if the criteria are not met, then everyone should breathe a bit easier.
I am sure that a thorough investigation into the above will be conducted by Sussex Police and that is surely what we all want in the name of passenger air safety.
As I write, the names of the 3 pilots in this event are not in the public domain and my thoughts are based (as are all others expressed by others in this thread), entirely on the allegations cited in the media being true including and not restricted to the allegation that the 'drunk' pilot was indeed drunk in the normal meaning of the word.
I would suggest that there is a bombproof construct that shows the 2 other pilots covered up for the 'drunk' pilot which would automatically make them accessories to what the man in the street would regard as an extremely serious, life-threatening, crime. Flowing from that, BA should not have allowed ANY of the pilots (not just the 'drunk' pilot) continue on their rostered flight.
For the construct to work, the following 3 criteria must hold true (1) neither of the other 2 pilots who continued to operate to Mauritius can have a sense of smell any worse than the person who reported the 'drunk' pilot (this can be tested and there are potential medical implications) (2) the reporting of the 'drunk' pilot would have to have been done by someone other than the 2 other pilots (3) the 'drunk' pilot could not have attended the washroom between the end of pre-flight briefing and passing through security on the way to the aircraft (CCTV) which is the only place he could have consumed alcohol after briefing and before entering the aircraft.
If all the criteria stated above are satisfied, I would not be sleeping too well I were either of the other 2 pilots or the senior-most BA manager dealing nor, indeed, if I were BA itself. Alternatively, if the criteria are not met, then everyone should breathe a bit easier.
I am sure that a thorough investigation into the above will be conducted by Sussex Police and that is surely what we all want in the name of passenger air safety.
May I humbly and politely ask that some professional pilots posting here review their contributions and consider whether they should really be in the public domain?
They may be easily misunderstood.
They may be easily misunderstood.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Basil - agree 100%
2. T250 - Something tells me you are not a professional pilot. Once a pilot has been grounded for drinking experience shows that most won't return to flying, their career, as a pilot, is over, with all the upheaval and turmoil that causes. A criminal conviction is just rubbing salt into a gaping wound and does nothing, by comparison with a loss of livelihood, to deter or punish. Compulsory treatment for addiction would probably be more appropriate.
2. T250 - Something tells me you are not a professional pilot. Once a pilot has been grounded for drinking experience shows that most won't return to flying, their career, as a pilot, is over, with all the upheaval and turmoil that causes. A criminal conviction is just rubbing salt into a gaping wound and does nothing, by comparison with a loss of livelihood, to deter or punish. Compulsory treatment for addiction would probably be more appropriate.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So working for BA or an airline as a pilot makes you above the law? I don't think so, sunshine.
Where a criminal offence is proven (innocent until proven guilty) then prosecution of a criminal act is to follow, whether the airline likes it or not.
I see your location indicates that you are not from the UK. Maybe you should study our Air Navigation Order: Part 10: Chapter 1 'Prohibited Behaviour'.
Sussex Police will conduct their own investigation, leading to criminal charges if necessary, with all due respect BA will not get a look in if the guy is remanded!
Where a criminal offence is proven (innocent until proven guilty) then prosecution of a criminal act is to follow, whether the airline likes it or not.
I see your location indicates that you are not from the UK. Maybe you should study our Air Navigation Order: Part 10: Chapter 1 'Prohibited Behaviour'.
Sussex Police will conduct their own investigation, leading to criminal charges if necessary, with all due respect BA will not get a look in if the guy is remanded!
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be in the U.S. since he did not operate the airplane.
Having said that, recall the NWA crew who did operate a flight, all three under the influence. I believe they got two or three years in federal prison.
Having said that, recall the NWA crew who did operate a flight, all three under the influence. I believe they got two or three years in federal prison.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A rather silly assumption there T250, had the police not been immediately involved at LGW then the CAA would have had the option to prosecute and history tells us they most certainly would have. For all I know it was BA who called the police but if, as suggested, it was employees acting on their own initiative then I think the matter should have, as far as possible in the first instance, been handled internally but not, in any way, covered up, just different channels. Armed police, handcuffs, physically removed, splattered all over the media wasn't very 'innocent until proven guilty' to me, more like a terrorist apprehension. The outcome, if the FO was unfit through alcohol consumption, is inevitable, his career is all but over, regardless of any prosecution.
Born and bread in the UK, British ATPL plus several other countries too!
Obliged to retire in 2001 due to a stupid rule that enforced retirement at age 60.
I see your location indicates that you are not from the UK. Maybe you should study our Air Navigation Order: Part 10: Chapter 1 'Prohibited Behaviour'.
Obliged to retire in 2001 due to a stupid rule that enforced retirement at age 60.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that many of the comments on here are based on 'war stories', anecdotal evidence and/or emotionally motivated opinion yet few raise points about the following: what do the SOPs/Ops Manual/Company manual state? - i.e. PROCEDURES, what about Human Factors? How about SMS and Just Culture? Then, of course, the regulations. Presumably, BA has a set of procedures based upon the regulations that takes into consideration the principles of HF/SMS principles for A) acceptable consumption of alcohol and B) dealing with those who don't respect (A) - if an individual knowingly and willing breaks the the 'bottle to throttle' rules and chances it, then they know the repercussions. The crew who suspect that a breach has occurred should follow the Company procedures and if that requires calling the Police then so be it (suspect BA rules don't require this and should be handled internally unless the pilot is being unruly). Long-gone is the day where you cover for your 'mates' etc. Given the rosters, there are ample opportunities to get sauced between periods when you are on-duty. If you are responsible enough to fly 400+ pax on a long-haul flight, you need to be responsible enough to follow the rules and accept the accountability for breaking them.
sad to say, according to recent studies alcohol causes irreparable damage to DNA which can ultimately lead to cancer, so it's increasingly looking like a poor lifestyle choice on a par with smoking.
Drinking alcohol can cause cancer by damaging DNA, finds study | The Independent
The problem with addiction to alcohol (which may not be the case in the example that led to this thread starting) which was told to me by a recovering alcoholic, is that one drink is too many, and a thousand is never enough. It's binary. You simply cannot drink if you want to participate in any kind of normal life.
Most people are lucky. They can have a drink or two and just stop when they need to. Addiction means you are calling V1 as you raise your first glass and there's no stopping at that point, you have to continue. Best not to start. The so-called "functional alcoholic" does not and cannot exist in any kind of professional public transportation role.
Drinking alcohol can cause cancer by damaging DNA, finds study | The Independent
The problem with addiction to alcohol (which may not be the case in the example that led to this thread starting) which was told to me by a recovering alcoholic, is that one drink is too many, and a thousand is never enough. It's binary. You simply cannot drink if you want to participate in any kind of normal life.
Most people are lucky. They can have a drink or two and just stop when they need to. Addiction means you are calling V1 as you raise your first glass and there's no stopping at that point, you have to continue. Best not to start. The so-called "functional alcoholic" does not and cannot exist in any kind of professional public transportation role.
Hold those horses oh mighty righter of wrongs. A person is CHARGED. A prosecution MAY follow. If the prosecution is successful, then the offence is proven and sentencing follows that. You got your horses and carts all mixed up mate.