Is it really true that the alcohol blood tests came back negative? If so, I hope the guys involved are talking to Messrs. Sue Grabbit and Runne about suing those self important, hypocritical and irresponsible reptiles in the media, especially the Sun.

As for the internal politics and staff relations at BA, I thought the situation in my own company was bad enough, but BA does seem to have a particular problem in this area. I have many friends flying for BA, and all mention a climate of fear and intimidation. Not conducive to Flight Safety, IMHO.

This thread has typefied more than any I can think of the pompous, pointless preaching that a majority of posters here indulge in.

To the handfull that said 'innocent till proven guilty' bravo, the rest of you should hang your oversized heads in shame. But I doubt if you would even understand why.

To the Captain involved I hope you get a good lawyer that will savage that paper the way they savaged your BA career. :ok:

BA crew sentenced
 

Captain and senior CC sentenced in a Norwegian court today, reciving 6 months and 45 days in jail respectivly.

The 2Ps case have not appeared in court yet.

Nrk.no (Norwegian only)

This is regarding the incident on 11. Nov 2003 at Oslo Gardermoen. (2P and senior CC drunk when boarding the plane)

British Airways Pilot Jailed for Six Months



A Norwegian court today sentenced the pilot of a British Airways plane to six months in prison for preparing to fly even though members of his crew were drunk.

The flight’s chief air stewardess was sentenced to 45 days in prison for being drunk on duty.

Neither was present at the trial this week, and both have the right to appeal. A similar case against the co-pilot was still pending.

All three resigned from British Airways shortly after the November 11, 2003, incident.

The Eidsvoll District Court found that the pilot, William A. McAuliffe, 51, was sober but must have known his co-pilot, David J. Ryan, 27, was intoxicated when preparing for take-off from Oslo’s airport.

“The court notes that McAuliffe (as captain) was the highest authority on board the aircraft and was responsible for his personnel being in a condition that allowed them to perform their jobs,” the ruling said.

The case stems from a British Airways flight scheduled to leave from Oslo to London with 55 passengers. British Airways ground personnel suspected some of the crew had been drinking and called police, who went on board the Airbus A320 to conduct breath tests.

The flight was cancelled, and police took McAuliffe, Ryan, and Michelle Giannandrea, 50, to hospital for blood tests.

Under Norwegian law, flight crews must have a blood alcohol level of less than 0.2 parts per million.

Ryan is accused of having a blood alcohol level of 1.02 parts per million, while Giannandrea’s level was 1.34 parts per million.

McAuliffe tested negative for alcohol, but the court said ignoring the intoxicated state of crew members was a very grave offence, and a threat to air safety.

The court said hotel personnel told McAuliffe that Ryan had returned to his room at about 3am, appearing “drunk.”

McAuliffe went to Ryan’s room twice to wake him, at least once throwing water in his face and shaking him, the ruling said. The pilots then raced to the airport for the 8am flight.

McAuliffe “knew that a crewman was under the influence of alcohol, but did nothing about it,” the court said.

The case against Ryan was postponed because prosecutors had not been able to advise him of the charges ahead of the trial in Eidsvoll, about 30 miles north of Oslo, the ruling said.

It was not immediately clear if the other two defendants would appeal. If their convictions are upheld, Norway could ask for them to be extradited if they don’t surrender voluntarily.

British Airways spokeswomen Cathy L. West in London said the airline has a zero-tolerance policy on drinking before flying, and that all three resigned before facing any company disciplinary action.

“This was a rare incident but one incident is one too many,” she said.

“The airline recently introduced a new drugs and alcohol policy for all staff to adhere to which includes testing of staff.”



Latest News:

Amazing isn't it. You have people out there in street who kill people whilst drunk, driving a car which they are disqualified from driving. Usually, there's no insurance, no MOT etc. Some defence lawyer stands up and bleats on about how his client has had a hard life etc, I won't bore you with the rest.

The court then lets the defendant go with a slap on the wrist, suspended sentence of some description or whatever. But not prison. There is usually a lot of wailing about "Justice in this country", a few politicians come out of the woodwork to gnash there teeth, but what happens? Give it six month, it's quietly forgotten about, the law doesn't change, a person is still dead and a family is still grieving.

Now, I in no way condone what happened in Norway. The Capt, FO were complete idiots for getting into the state which they did. BUT, they didn't kill anyone. They didn't hurt anyone. I appreciate they might have had they actually got airborne in the state they were in, but the fact is they didn't. Six months for being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle is unheard of, it would never happen. So six months for being drunk on the ground in a plane seems a bit excessive to me.

As for the CC getting 45 days. How absurd is that? What was he/she going to do, mow someone down with her trolley? If that's the case then the police will have to patrol every bloody supermarket to ensure boozed up customers aren't creating havoc in the frozen food section.

The sentences handed down here are not about justice. Loss of one's career for a night of drunken japes is a heavy enough sentence. This sentence is about politics.

Like I said earlier, I in no way condone what happened. But sentences really should reflect the events of an offence. I repeat what I said earlier. No one got hurt. The crew have lost their livelihoods. Isn't that punishment enough?

Read the article.

Strikes me the sentance on the CC was proportionate. She was well over the drink drive limit. Her responsibilty in the cabin is for safety, not trolley pushing which is a secondary duty.
Let us all learn from this that drinking is not to be tolerated.
Years ago I allowed a drunk CC to position back with us "sick", but she was still in uniform and although not directly working was a huge embarrassment. Now I hope I would just leave her behind.

DamienMK

The CC being intoxicated could have caused problems in the event of an emergency or an evacuation. I don't think mowing someone down with the trolley really comes into it.

On saying that I do think the sentences are a bit harsh.

Read it again!
What it actually says is:

How sad that when 'tested negative for alcohol', your career ends up in ashes and you get sentenced to prison?

>>How sad that when 'tested negative for alcohol', your career ends up in ashes and you get sentenced to prison?<<

The old days of overlooking a drunk crewmember and joking about it in the bar later are gone I'm afraid. Times have changed. And, when you're the captain, you do take a little responsibility for what happens on your aircraft from my experience. I realize he was probably trying to cover for his troops but once he let the flight get under way he was committing a crime, in some countries at least. The usual defenses of I've been through rehab, we didn't know we were going flying, it was ripe fruit and mouthwash didn't seem to work this time.

Wasn't this the guy that "resigned", proving his innocence, according to some of the viewpoints here?

Stop playing dumb Rainboe :rolleyes:
His career ended because he abrogated his command responsibilty.

And yes, that is very sad.

Damienmk
Yes, amazing isn't it.
Amazing that an ex-policeman should come out with such drivel about drivers who kill whilst drunk and/or disqualifed being "let go with a slap on the wrist, suspended sentence of some description or whatever. But not prison."
That's as accurate as your comment that "the Capt, FO were complete idiots for getting into the state which they did."

Do you really think sentences should be less if pilots with excess alcohol are caught before they take off?
Why?
With one exception, in all the excess alcohol cases discussed here in recent times the pilots have been breath-tested before taking off. The only exception is that Manchester 'hard landing' nonsense where a passenger thought the pilots must have been drinking and some police constable(s) decided to breath-test both pilots. :rolleyes: (Both tested negative.)

Do you seriously think a driver 'drunk in charge' of a motor vehicle is in any way comparable to a pilot "drunk on the ground in a plane" before departure?
Or that the position of a cabin attendant is in any way comparable to a customer in a supermarket? True, they both push trolleys but, in addition to their inflight service role, CC also have a safety role - particularly in an emergency.

"This sentence is about politics."
What on earth does that mean? What politics? Whose politics? :confused:

"The crew have lost their livelihoods. Isn't that punishment enough?"
I think a substantial fine or community service is more appropriate in most excess alcohol cases, but that's not how the courts in various countries see it - read the threads about various incidents.
I think sending this Captain to prison at all was too harsh, and six months was outrageous. Losing his livelihood would have been more than sufficient punishment. I sincerely hope he finds another job when he's released.
I also think sending the CC to prison was harsh. However, given that pilots caught even fractionally over the limit have been sent to prison for much longer than that in various countries, it's proportionate. And, if the press reports are correct, she does appear to have been the CSD or Purser in charge of the cabin.

Absolutely...
 

Well said JetLegs.... The responsibilities which are attached to command exceed merely staying sober! Another very unfortunate day for the profession and the industry. As for "careers finished"..... mmm.... well, not according to crew-room chatter. bm

I'm a little uncomfortable with him being sent to prison at all. He tested negative for alcohol. He is punished far more than a crewmember who actually tested over the limit.

Big problem for captains
 

How can the captain of an aircraft decide if a crewmember is over the limit ?

The alcohol limit is so low that any man in the steet would not judge a person to be "drunk" if they were just over that limit and the captain has not got any testing equipment to make a judgment.

Now just what do you think would happen if a captain stopped a crewmember flying and they managed to prove that they were not over the limit ? will the captain get hauled in front of the courts on a deformation charge ?

If the captain is to be responsable for the conduct of other adults when off duty then the authoritys must provide captains with the powers enforce this responasbility.

Sorry A and C but that is why you get the extra money for command.

On this occasion the reported claims that the Captain had to visit and revisit the bedroom of the First Officer and eventually throw water in his face to wake him may have been a pointer that all was not well.

sammypilot
In this instance maybe you got a point and maybe not but A and C was looking at the bigger picture not just this one case.

Why do cops on Prune always see things in black and white?
They never think outside the box.
I know all cops aint like that, so maybe we just get the junior ranks here. :confused:

I think these days you are just as likely to have to wake someone due to them being completely knackered. Waking someone doesn't mean the water thrower automatically assumes that their target is over the limit. Will the tabloids now run the headline, 'Pilot imprisoned & loses career for being sober'. No, didn't think so.

Flying Lawyer

Right on in every respect.

Probably the 1st time I have agreed with anything a lawyer has written without n iterations and huge fees! :O

Rainboe, yet another specious post from your keyboard.
The jailterm imposed on the captain is longer than the one imposed on the CSD/purser. Now unless my memory is really failing me rainboe, you are the one always whingeing about how overpaid CC are for the totally unimportant job they do on-board. You're the one always stressing how unlikely it is that in the course of their career CC will ever have to actually strutt their stuff in an emergency, as opposed to pilots who have to make grave and life-altering decisions every working day.
But now suddenly it's unfair to give an all important captain a longer sentence than a useless CSD? ;)

Try to strive for some consistency my dear chap, 't is either one argument or the other, not both.

Please NB that these sentences / the hearing were conducted with the defendants being absent, presumably by their own choice (and likely on good advice!)

I presume (FL?) that in general, had they appeared and made some sort of defence, they might have expected less harsh results, albeit they would now be serving them?

I don't see anything specious in Rainboe's post.
The CSD/Purser was jailed for just over 7 weeks for going on duty with excess alcohol; the Captain tested negative but was jailed for 26 weeks for failing to prevent her (and apparently the FO) from doing so.
IMHO that is bizarre, and very unfair - despite the Captain's greater degree of responsibility as the person in charge of the entire aircraft.

Nor do I see anything inconsistent with views (apparently) expressed by Rainboe in previous posts. He didn't suggest pilots and cabin attendants should be punished equally. That would arguably have been inconsistent.

Assuming roughly similar levels, I think pilots going to work with excess alcohol should be regarded as more serious than CC doing so, and punishments should reflect that.
If a pilot makes a mistake the consequences could potentially be far more serious than CC doing so. The scope for pilots turning a problem into an emergency (or actually causing an emergency) if they fail to perform properly is surely far greater than that of CC - even they are the CSD/Purser/FSM/ or whatever title a particular airline uses for the senior person running the cabin.
(I believe this to be true, but I'm open to correction by pilots or CC if I'm wrong.)

NoD
As a general proposition, yes. It would obviously depend upon the lawyer and how open the court was to being persuaded by argument.
The two pilots convicted in the UK both went to prison for 6 months. If that's the sort of sentence a pilot is to receive, and if it is more serious for a pilot to be over the limit, then 45 days for the Purser isn't out of line.

I haven't yet managed to find out what offence the Captain was said to have committed so I'm as much in the dark as everyone else at the moment. I suppose something like 'Endangering an aircraft' is a possibility, but that seems rather 'sledge-hammer and nut' on the facts.
One of the Jetblast moderators lives in Norway. I'll PM her to find out if she's read any Norwegian press reports which mention the actual offence.

What kind of a world are we moving towards.

I retired from line flying afew years ago, and although I am still fit and a licence holder, there is no way I would go back to line flying no matter what the pay.

6 on 3 off rosters, buy your own type rating and go on your hands and knees to some HR girl for a job.

I am training newbies now and I can not understand for the life of me why anyone would want to work for an airline.

The new drink laws mean that what little social life there was is now forbidden. For the whole summer and winter season any crew member that goes to the bar is crazy and now if any Captain hears that any of his crew has been he has got to ground the aircraft and breath test the lot.

If all that rant and rave here about the responsibility turned their attention to the NHS we would not have an operational hospital in the country and what about trains, buses, nuclear power stations, chemical plants, oil refineries to name a few. All those staff have as much responsibilty as any airline pilot. Does it matter the number of people you kill.

There has not been one accident that I am aware of where booze was a contributory factor.

If all you politically correct people out there carry on like this you will not have an aviation industry. Where are you going to get your pilots?

Air fares are going to rocket, because if a pilot is going to live like a hermit he is going to want a pretty large salary. I for one would not like my 'driver' to be a person that doesnt drink (ever) doesnt smoke and cant have a laugh. Would he pass the pysch test?

RIP the likes of Dan Air, Laker, Air Europe, Ansett, Pan Am and all the other good employers.

Off for a drink.
 

Crikey, reading this lot has upset me, amd i'm on duty in 5 hours. So just time for a few beverages mates, to steady the nerves and chill the soul.

Nobody can operate under this sort of pressure without recourse to a drink, before and after work at the very least.

I always keep a bottle handy in my flight bag, cos the thirst can strike pretty damn rapidly. And I'm not alone.

Guess this is off to the papers, courtesy of the criminally incompetent journos. well good luck to you, you hypocritical boozy crooks.

From a passenger's point of view, it seems to me that the sentences are appropriate.

The Captain is just that The Captain , not The Pilot and he is the person in overall charge of the aircraft, crew and passengers. IMHO, he ignored at least some of his responsibilities, although it is possible he was unaware of the CSD's level of intoxication. But was he proposing not to leave the flight deck for so much as loo break during the flight, knowing that the First Officer might not be 100%?

Equally, CSD's are responsible for rather more than pushing a trolley! Like everything that happens the other side of the locked cockpit door! Not least getting the passengers off in the unlikely event of a problem, dealing with sick passengers (heart attacks etc). Rare but they do happen.

CSD's are by definition not juniors and (again IMHO) this one really should have known better. I haven't been to Norway for a few years now and it's a great country but (ignoring the precise legal limits for a minute) they're not exactly famous for their tolerance towards booze when driving cars or flying aircraft.

As it happens, I come into contact with quite a lot of crew and their individual attitudes towards work, alcohol intake etc vary hugely. One of my best mates is a Purser and I have rarely met a more dedicated, conscientious or responsible! person.

Bit boring when they have two beers then head off to bed at 10pm cos they have an early pickup but contrast that with those out partying till 3am and I know who'd I rather have looking after my safety on a flight. Or that of my offspring flying unmin. Or my mum. It's not rocket science I'm afraid.

My two pence worth.


CS

flapsforty

Thanks for your help and very quick reponse.
PPRuNe is an amazing website. :ok:

Frustratingly, that report just like the others I've seen, repeats the court's criticism of the Captain but doesn't say what specific offence against Norwegian law he was found guilty of committing.

cargosales
"From a passenger's point of view ......."
I'm also only a passenger in this context. I disagree with you, but it's inevitable that opinions will vary.

Well how about the passengers. Dont they also have a duty of care not to be under the influence while onboard an aircraft.

Lets take this to its logical conclusion and ban booze completely from aviation. Lets have all the passengers breathalised before they board.

In this specific case it may be that the court had defintie evidence to suggest the the Capt knew his crew mwmbers were drunk. At least I certainly hope so. Because otherwise its just crazy.

Bear in mind that not all airlines even have their crew staying in the same hotel, so how can you reasonably be expected to know what your crew are up to? You might be on a different trip schedule, even between Captain and F/O, and only meet one another 20 minutes before pushback, with the law enforecment officer just a few footsteps behind you. How are you supposed to know if the other person is over a limit that requires a machine to test a very small number?

I'm so knackered on the early checkins I'm stumbling around like a brain dmaged gerbil, and its got nothing to do with booze.

This is just one more example of the kind of thing I'm happy to be leaving behind in 2 months time.

CPB

Thread Creep
 

Just going slightly off the topic.... with the tight rostering and long days most of us are working to, fatigue is likely to become more of a factor in the future than alcohol in terms of incidents.

Let us hope the EU Flight Time Limitation proposals don't become law. For those of you who are not aware, for the sake of "harmonisation", the EU plan is to allow even longer days, to ignore the effects of crossing time zones and night flying. It is not based on any physiological study (unlike current CAA regs), just someone's good idea!!

If this becomes a reality, then the skies will be full of fatigued pilots, who are by law legally allowed to fly (unless the declare themselves unfit). Of course, the airlines won't mind the EU plan, they will get more hours out of their pilots.

BALPA have been campaigning against the proposals, but it's all gone a bit quiet at the moment.

As a passenger, would you want to fly with sober but tired out pilots??
:uhoh:

Yes, rather than fly with wide-awake pi$$ed ones!

Fatigue can also be measured in "equivalent to an alcohol level of". I believe if up for 17 hours at 3 a.m. is equal to 50mg/100ml?

Saves a lot in allowances!

Seriously though, how many have flown knackered, or with knackered crew?

Perhaps if Captains started getting locked up for that then campaigns such as BALPA's Flying Fatigued would get more prominence and pilots worldwide would be far more empowered to put a stop to the issue the airlines and authorities don't seem that keen to tackle.

babybaby :{

Another well researched article, this time in today's Daily Mail from columnist Peter McKay:

Flying a bit too high...

You have to wonder how difficult it must be to handle modern jet airliners when British Airways pilot William McAuliffe,55, of Dublin, felt OK about flying an Airbus319 from Oslo to London while being six times over the alcohol limit.
Before going on duty his first officer David Ryan , was too drunk to speak and could only be woken at his hotel by having water thrown over his face. Yet both of them - together with their binge companion, stewardess Michele Giannandrea, 50, eight times over the limit - were prepared to take their chances.
Airbus jets are famous for their 'fly by wire' controls. Maybe they're even more automated than we're told.

The article by Peter McKay is blatantly libellous. I hope Captain McAuliffe sues the journalistic toad for evey penny he has!

oh, if McKay said that..............hang him high.

Capt. McAuliffe has been through more than enough already

Maybe someone should give the Editor a heads up ....

[email protected] :}

Unfortunately the offending item does not seem to be in the on-line addition so difficult unless you have the paper.

I can confirm that EPRman has the correctly shown the jots of Peter McKay as written in the Mail today.

Good point KN. Nope, definitely not. Or crew for that matter.

CS

Writing Journalistic Rubbish ...

You have to wonder how difficult it must be to write a newspaper article these days when Dreary Mail columnist Peter McKrap felt OK publishing more of his usual drivel.

Before writing the article, he realised what a sad existence his own life was and, unable to contribute anything constructive to society, realised there was easy money to be made by uninformed comment. Typically, a serious journalist would perform at least some research whereas there are no limits for a columnist - with zero research they can just take their chances and apologise later when they are wrong.

Gutter press columnists are famous for their automated responses. Given all one needs to do is react with superfluous observations to any news piece, maybe they are even more stupid than they appear.