Wino,

I hear everything you say and agree with the logic and reasoning. This is an issue that the whole industry has to look at. For those pilots who are using alcohol or drugs (OTC or not) are simply delaying the inevitable crunch. As long as the airlines keep getting more and more from the pilots they will keep taking more and more. A line in the sand has to be drawn for everyone's safety. I do not think it will be easy. It will take a number of very courageous individuals but the time to sort it is now before we have a major accident. Do you ( and the others ) agree?

Fireflybob,

No response ?

Miss D Point,

You missed your own point, I think.

Cheers

BHR

Pilot accused of being drunk held on $25,000 bond

12/22/2003

By CANDACE SMITH / Associated Press

A pilot accused of showing up drunk to fly a plane from Washington to London was ordered held Monday on $25,000 bond and told not to leave the country.

[redacted] was dressed in an orange jail jumpsuit when he appeared on a closed circuit television link from jail, where he has been since late Friday, when he was arrested at Washington Dulles International Airport.

Security screeners alerted Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Police after detecting alcohol on [redacted]'s breath, an airport spokeswoman said. Officers escorted [redacted] off the plane and questioned him at the airport before charging him with attempting to operate an aircraft while under the influence of an intoxicating drug or alcohol.

An authority officer testified he approached [redacted] about two hours before his plane's scheduled departure. The officer said no passengers were aboard, and the flight attendants were readying the cabin.

[redacted], 55, spent the weekend at the Loudoun County Adult Detention Center in Leesburg, about 40 miles west of Washington, D.C. The 14-year Virgin Atlantic veteran remained suspended by the airline, which said [redacted] is a U.S. citizen who lives in London and had a spotless record with the company.

[redacted]'s lawyers tried to persuade Loudoun County Traffic Court Judge James Forsythe to allow their client to return home.

"He's not doing well. He has a medical condition — a heart condition," lawyer Thomas Hill told the judge, adding [redacted] needed to see his cardiologist in London. Outside court Hill declined to elaborate about the heart condition.

"He's a model of stability in terms of his life," Hill told the judge. Hill said his client has been married 25 years, and his wife and two children live in London. "He's not a flight risk at all."

Prosecutors were against any bond because [redacted] lives overseas.

"Once a defendant has crossed that border it is very difficult to get them to come back," said Forsythe, who moved the case to the criminal division.

The 383 passengers and crew of 17 on flight VS 022 were put up Friday night at area hotels, with their flight finally leaving Saturday night more than 26 hours late. Passengers received a voucher for a free flight on the airline.

The Federal Aviation Administration said it would carry out a civil investigation along with Virginia's criminal investigation. The FAA licenses pilots to fly within the United States.

http://www.wvec.com/sharedcontent/AP...D7VJKCT80.html

What a truly dreadful state of affairs. How can it possibly take 6 weeks to bring about a mere preliminary hearing... I know we're talking about Spams and their blood-sucking lawyers (sorry, Tudor!), but surely even they can sort this out with a bit more speed? And what made that judge presume that the 'veteran aviator' would not return?

What was the result of the independent blood test? There was one, I presume..?? I just hope that he's proved innocent and then sues for a fortune!

Bjcc,
No, that's not what I said. I actually stressed (twice) in my original post that I was not condoning drinking and flying. Also I told you to feel free about whatever action you think is right.

I think you're missing my point. It's really a very simple one.

If you don't smell alcohol on my breath, and I am not falling down drunk, then patently I am sober enough to fly and you have no grounds on which to question my fitness.

Ergo, the simple application of a Polo mint will avert all this strife.

Reducto ad absurdum.

Flying Lawyer,

Your point I don't think was well made was that others may be open to critcism. I don't see why. The main mud slinging seems to be directed at this security guard. Why? Because he reported the matter to the Police? I see no reason why he should be the butt such venom. Maybe he has an axe to grind obout pilots, maybe he hasn't but the point is that the local Police turned up and presumably found enough evidence to arrest, as they did.


I was a Police Officer by the way and as for Judges Rules, like you I haven't had reason to look at them for a while, so I was relying on memory. In any event, I looked it up and it reads as follows:

'Judges Rules General Principles.

A. That Citizens have a duty to help a police officer to discover and apprehend offenders.'


I would read that as clear, although irrelevent as 1. they have been replaced by PACE and 2. The security guard is in america.

"blood-sucking lawyers"
:mad: :*

BEagle my old chum. We've known each other for more than thirty years so I hope I can safely assume you don't think I merit that description.
Coincidentally, minutes after reading your post, I was asked to comment on the case by one of the nationals - what a good thing I don't go in for that sort of sweeping generalisation about professional pilots. ;)

bjcc
No argument with the general principle expressed, but I don't think that made it a legal obligation breach of which was a criminal offence.

Not a bad guess about your previous incarnation. I suspected you might be, or might have been, one or the other.
Guess old habits die hard. ;) ;)

Sorry. But am I missing something here.
I have read the whole thread and now the prelim hearing report, but I do not see anywhere where the pilot was breathalised or blood tested. Just that he 'was questioned and then arrested'. Where was the actual determination made that he was under the influence apart from the initial report by the security screeners.
Or is it automatic that suspects are breathalised? And evryone assumes (the reader) knows this?
Why is this not mentioned in the report?
Mystified :confused: :confused: :confused:

Absolutely not, Tudor old chum! You certainly don't fall into the category of person to whom I was referring - as I'm sure you well know!

No 'advent calendar' this year? :(

Another account of today's hearing from a local newspaper:

Virgin Atlantic Pilot Charged With Boarding Plane Under The Influence

Dan Telvock

Dec 22, 2003 -- A Virgin Atlantic pilot pleaded not guilty today in Loudoun County General District Court to a charge of attempting to operate a jet from Dulles Airport while under the influence of alcohol.

[redacted], 55, of England, was released on a $25,000 bond under the condition that he would not leave the country. He is accused of boarding a flight while under the influence of alcohol, said Metropolitian Washington Airport Authority spokesman Tom Sullivan.

Sullivan said that at about 6:45 p.m. on Friday, an employee for the Transportation Security Administration contacted the airport authority after the employee allegedly smelled alcohol coming from [redacted] as he went through the security gate.

“So our police responded to the gate, entered the aircraft and spoke with the pilot,” Sullivan said. No passengers had yet boarded the Dulles-to-London flight.

Some basic tests were given to [redacted] and Sullivan said his responses gave police enough cause to detain him. Later that evening, he was charged and the case was sent to Loudoun County, where [redacted] has been held since Friday.

Although he lives in England, Sullivan said [redacted] is a U.S. citizen. Sullivan said he has not heard of any pilot being charged with such a crime in the six years he has worked for the airport authority.

A Virgin Atlantic spokeswoman said [redacted] has flown for the company for 14 years with a strong employee record. The Federal Aviation Administration, which licenses pilots, plans to conduct an investigation along with Loudoun authorities.

http://www.leesburg2day.com/current....=6&newsid=8232

_________________________________________

This article mentions that the pilot entered a plea of not guilty, a minor detail somehow missed in the earlier report.

About a year ago a Delta pilot encountered a somewhat similar situation, also in Virginia:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/...elta-pilot.htm

The police report of the incident is here:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/drunkpilot1.html

Apparently, the airport police failed to document a field sobriety test (touch your nose, walk a straight line etc.) so the pilot was acquitted of the state charges on technical grounds even though he blew a .07%:

http://www.news8.net/news/stories/0203/74030.html

Under federal law there are several technical errors that can render a breath test invalid:

(1) The 15 minute waiting period prior to a confirmation test is not observed.

(2) An air blank is not performed on the EBT before a confirmation test or the air blank doesn't result in a reading of 0.00

(3) The BAT does not sign the form as required by the regulations

(4) The BAT fails to note in the remarks section on the form that the employee failed the test or refused to sign.

(5) An EBT fails to print a confirmation test result

(6) The sequential test number or the alcohol concentration printed out is not the same as displayed on the EBT

(7) If an EBT fails an external calibration check, then every test result of 0.02 or above obtained on this particular device since the last valid external calibration check will be invalid.

(from: http://www.aviationmedicine.com/DOTetohtest.htm )

Of course, this doesn't mean you're off the hook, but the test cannot be used as evidence.

FL and any other experienced legal sorts - is it a tactic, for the prosecution, to delay their procedures when the case is high profile, controversial and they may not get their result? That would be the natural thing to do from a PR point of view.

The air rage case a year or so ago with some sports fans and a Gatwick based charter co. seemed to exhibit that kind of 'retreat' from the prosecutors - many harsh words said on both sides at the time, then a considerable cooling off period which let it subside from a press interest viewpoint.

The long delay between today's hearing and the next appearance is very odd- especially as the judge saw fit to uphold the prosecutor's objection to the pilot being allowed to return to the UK in the meantime. It appears from reports that the prosecutor objected to bail at all, so no doubt the pilot is grateful for small mercies.
This appears to have been a lower court, equivalent to our magistrates courts. I'd be surprised if a more senior judge insists he stays in America pending trial. However, I don't know much about the American criminal system - I thought it was terrible he was in jail at all, but perhaps that's the norm in America?

The most extraordinary aspect of today's hearing (based on reports I've read) is that there was no mention of what the blood/alcohol level is alleged to be.
That wouldn't necessarily be mentioned at a first appearance here, but our procedure is different. The US prosecutor called the police officer who arrested the pilot to give evidence of the cirumstances of arrest - that woudln't normally happen here.

Further, there was no mention of the results of an Intoximeter procedure at the police station (or even that it was carried out).
It's possible that blood or urine samples were taken for analysis and time is needed to obtain the lab results - but there doesn't seem to have been any mention of that being the reason for the long delay before the next hearing.


=====================

Paulo

Anything's possible but I doubt it was a prosecution tactic to delay proecdures for the reasons you suggest.
There are delays here, but I've never heard of a case being delayed for the reasons you mention.

=====================

BEagle
I wasn't sent one this year so nothing to forward. :D

>>Can an American Pruner help?
In the UK, a 'roadside' breath-test simply shows positive or negative. If positive, a driver is arrested and taken to a police where he provides a specimen of breath to a machine which almost instantly gives the precise proportion of alcohol.

Does that system and procedure exist in America?
Or are all alcohol proportions measured by analysis of a blood or urine sample?<<

In the U.S. driver alcohol testing procedures vary from state to state. Here's a lawyer's site with advice on local procedures and how to beat the rap:

http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com/g...eath-tests.htm

The federal procedure for testing pilots is described here:

http://www.aviationmedicine.com/DOTetohtest.htm

Associated Press report
12/22/2003, 8:22 p.m. ET

LEESBURG, Va.[/b] — A Virgin Atlantic Airways pilot accused of showing up drunk to fly a plane from Washington to London was released from jail Monday after posting $25,000 bond and surrendering his passport.

(He) refused to talk to reporters while leaving the jail in Leesburg, about 40 miles west of Washington, D.C.

(Very wise of him.)

I don't often post on here, am more of a silent reader, but I have to say that with this guy's face and name on every news bulletin (and I'm watching in Australia) maybe some of us - especially at this time of year - should have a little compassion for his family. I'm sure that some of you out there know him, and I'd like to think that somewhere the caring face of aviation isn't dead. He is not even guilty yet, spare a thought for those left in the UK.

WHAT PRICE A DECENT PUBLICIST?
 

Absolutely, Polyanna. A BA Captain has recently resigned honourably, out of a sense of responsibility to his crew, despite his own negative blood test. The Virgin PR response to Capt [redacted] case has been a lot more impressive and initially supportive IMHO than that seen from BA - is this just being sharper or a symptom of closer, better-informed management. The fallout in media terms has been much greater because it's the third case in the UK media this year and it delayed 383 pax at a difficult time in the travel season. Meanwhile, we wish all the families concerned some respite from this media hell as Christmas approaches. The Press are only doing their job, so perhaps we need union/company emergency funds to fight the story in the public domain in future cases. The truth is irrelevant once the story is dead - only perceptions count. Get me Max Clifford!

Also don't forget there was a piece of **** from Sky News due to travel on the flight as well. This is a Murdoch owned station remember. Can't think of a worse mob to get first hand details.

We are still in fog/IMC here!!
Following my posts and that of Airbubba and Flying Lawyer can some of our USA friends clarify what happened at the airport?
The latest report posted here says
"some basic tests were given to..."
Was this a breathaliser? Walking the line? Finger Nose??
Surely the Prosecuter at the Prelim Hearing had to give the Judge some alcohol level information and this is a matter of public record?? Still:confused: :confused: :confused:

After plodding through this long thread I am surprised that nobody seems to have remarked on the oddity of relatively untrained people - whether airline or TSA or XYZ - being able to start a situation like this because they "smell alcohol" or somesuch.

As one with more than a little experience smelling alcohol, I can tell you it isn't all that easy. I would bet that nine out of ten untrained people who think they're smelling alcohol are really triggering on some other familiar smell they associate with alcohol consumption... perhaps the unmistakable malty smell of beer, the fruity or vinegary smells of wine, or the volaitile hydrocarbon smells of just about any liquid that will burn with the touch of a match. Some of these latter ones can be produced by the body of relatively healthy persons who are in a strange place metabolically speaking - ketones and acetone being two very common substances, each smelling somewhat illicit on the breath, which the body manufactures on its own initiative. At least some breath analysis machines will surely be fooled by these as well. This is where a blood test - with multiple samples taken and tested at two or more different labs - can save the reputation of an individual unfairly accused.

My point is this: if people have not gone through a formal training course in discriminating alcohol smells from others, then they should not be allowed to put forward such accusations - and any person should expect to be held fully liable if they venture to do so without proper training.



Wino -- I believe the problem with Melatonin is not that it does not work.. but that it eventually decomposes into Seretonin, a feel-good hormone that might conceivably render the crew member insufficiently nervouus and wrought-up.

arcniz - I totally agree. What right has some untrained person to say that he/she 'thought they smelled alcohol' on someone's breath? Do they know what they're actually looking for? Pungent deodorant/aftershave or last night's consumption? And what of those who don't even know what 'alcohol' or 'hangover breath' actually smell like because their religion does not allow it and they have no experience of it?

If the Virgin captain (who has pleaded Not Guilty) is acquitted, will the trouble-making sniffers be held to account?

I thought I smelled alcohol on the breath of a security checker the other week - should I have called Plod to investigate?

I'm amazed that anyone should ever want a career in commercial flying these days....

arcniz & Beagel - it's a fundamental right in most countries that if you think someone could be breaking the law, you have the right to report that belief.

Not to investigate, judge or sentence, but the right to report is anyone's and quite rightly so.

Excerpted from the December 23 Washington Post (as well as the December 21 Washington Post.

“Tom Sullivan, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, said an employee of the Transportation Security Administration smelled alcohol on [redacted] breath before he boarded. An Airports Authority police sergeant testified yesterday that there were no passengers aboard when police removed [redacted] from the cockpit about 7:25 p.m. Friday, just five minutes before the plane's scheduled departure.

[The Dec.. 21 Washington Post reported the sequence thusly:
“Law enforcement officials said the incident began when someone at the airport smelled alcohol on [redacted]l. It was unclear whether a screener noticed the smell or whether it was picked up when [redacted] was near the ticket counter area.

“The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Police Department was contacted and notified Virgin Atlantic. Airline officials boarded the plane and spoke to [redacted] in the cockpit before summoning airport police, who escorted him off, said Tara Hamilton, a spokeswoman for the authority. She said [redacted]l was cooperative when taken off the plane.”]

“Loudoun County District Court Judge James D. Forsyth said he would not risk allowing [redacted] to leave the country now, although he held out the possibility that [redacted]'s passport might be returned to him soon. "Once a defendant has crossed that border," Forsyth said, "it's very difficult to get him back."
“His attorney, Thomas C. Hill, had asked that he be allowed to return home, arguing that the airline would ensure that he appeared for court proceedings.

“A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Feb. 3.

“"Mr. [redacted] has a long and distinguished career and an exemplary record," Hill said. "He is the model of stability." In brief comments after the hearing, Hill said that [redacted] would "never do anything purposefully to jeopardize anyone's safety."

“Virgin Atlantic spokeswoman Libby Ciresi said that if [redacted]'s passport is returned to him, the airline likely will fly him to the United States for court dates. In the meantime, he is on administrative leave with pay, in accordance with British custom, she said.

"For 14 years, he's had a stellar reputation with us," Ciresi said. "He's never had a problem before, and it is the holiday season. It's a very difficult situation for him to be in."

“The flight was canceled after [redacted]'s arrest. The airline offered hotel rooms to the plane's 383 passengers, and they flew to London on Saturday. They were also given a voucher for a free ticket on Virgin.

[There were US media reports that Virgin ground staff told the passengers at the boarding gate the reason for the pilot’s removal and the flight cancellation. I believe the reported reaction was something like silent surprise, no uproar or anything like that. I think the story got much more play than otherwise because of the nearly 400 passengers who had to wait 24 hours before their flight began. If a substitute pilot had been available and the flight proceeded with little or no delay, there may have been little mention of it.]

“Representatives of the Air Line Pilots Association and the British Air Line Pilots Association were in the courtroom.

“The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating the incident. If it finds that [redacted] violated U.S. regulations -- which prohibit consuming alcohol within eight hours of flying -- the United Kingdom's Civil Aviation Authority would be notified, an FAA spokesman said. The authority then could decide to revoke or suspend his license."

Can someone with a medical or other relevant background please give me a definitive answer regarding the effect of breath fresheners such as Tic Tacs, or mouth wash products such as Listerine, on orally administered blood alcohol checks.:confused:

Update from VS website:

Virgin Atlantic can confirm that <redacted> has been released on bail and will be back before the Loudoun County Court, Virginia for a preliminary hearing on 3 February 2004.
Everyone at Virgin Atlantic remains shocked and saddened by this incident and also that one of its most senior pilots, with an exemplary record, is now facing this charge.

<redacted> was stood down from duty on Saturday will face an internal inquiry. This inquiry will take into account the outcome of the legal proceedings.

Virgin Atlantic’s no alcohol policy is well established and well understood by all our staff and this is demonstrated by the fact that this is the first time anyone employed by Virgin Atlantic has been charged with this sort of offence. However, Virgin Atlantic has launched a comprehensive review of this incident to see what lessons can be learned.

As formal legal proceedings have now commenced Virgin Atlantic will not be able to make any further statement on this incident until after the outcome of the case.

Ends.

It beggars belief that the chap must stay in the US until the trial date. Given his previous exemplary history, and the fact that VS have offered to fly him as necessary back to the US, do the prosecutors REALLY believe he's going to skip bail???? Or is there an agenda I'm missing here?

Mouth Washes don't effect the test. You get asked here if you have used one, and a Breath test will be delayed for 20 mins if you have used one. Mints have no effect whatseoever, afterall what right does a Policeman untrained in mint smells have to say its a mint?

I seem to recall some people with diabetes can, in theory produce a positive test, but never heard of it happening.
When we were trained to use the electronic breath test machine, we were given a mouth full of cheap scotch so we see what a positive test looked like, but had to blow into the machine straight away, as 5 minutes later we all produced a totaly negetive result.

Beagle, the security man had every right to do what he did. If he had been wrong then its not lightly that this chap would have been arrested. Thats not to say he is guilty thats for the court to decide. No Police officer is going to arrive and tell someone he's nicked 'cause that bloke over there says you smell of drink'. The must have been some other evidence, be that a machine or the walk the straight line type test.

Besides that most adults are perefectly well aware of what drink smells like, they have been to the school of alcohol smells, its called a pub!

I have been in the industry for 30 years, mainly at the pointed end and in a few different countries, and there is or was a problem with alcohol (and drug use if you include the cabin crew).

I fear that if random testing was introduced the figures would be appalling (especially if you included ground staff).

In our western society we tolerate alcohol (look at road accidents and days lost from work). People go on about the effects of smoking, but it is my belief that booze is just or more dangerous.

I for one do not understand the attitude of the unions or the authorities except that it is a problem best left undisturbed.

Maybe now is the time to be open and honest and try to resolve the problem.

I must be missing a point here. Whilst I in no way condone flying under the influence of any kind of substance, since when was it an offence under civil law to turn up for work this way? AFAIAA, said pilot had not boarded the aircraft. Are law enforcers to charge car, lorry, bus and train drivers with the offence before they occupy their vehicle? "Excuse me sir, I believe you have been drinking and are likely to drive in the next hour or two, so I'm arresting you". What tripe!

He should have been prevented from boarding and the whole affair dealt with by the company, the end result would have been the same. It sounds like american law is as crap as British military law.

Rant over :rolleyes: :p

There .. but for the grace of God .. went us all!!!

Vehicle drivers in the UK know what the limits are. Until the CAA lays down DEFINITIVE guidelines as to blood/alcohol limits to operating flight and cabin crew, people will be sacked on other peoples whims. The 24/8 hours rules are too lax. Until we have defined limits, this must be used in defence in court. What is ''moderation''..what is ''excess''?
In my career I can honestly say that I have never drunk within 9 hours of flying....but I know I must have been over the limit a few times when I reported.
Surely, it is the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered that becomes the controlling legal authority. So, a UK pilot, flying a UK registered aircraft becomes subject to the laws of the UK, not the laws of the land of the country he is departing. If this is the case, then all companies must publish the exact laid-down laws of every country as to alcohol/blood limits.
A spoonful of Benelyn could be the end of a career..........

Throughout all the press coverage of this event, there has been no mention of the First Officer. If security staff were able to smell alcohol on the Captain, then I assume the First Officer would have been aware of the Captain's alleged state too.

I wonder if he/she face's discipline by the airline?!

If the airline chose to breathalyse crew before considering them on duty, it would probably work as you suggest. They didn't. So that's an operational issue rather than a legal one.

I suspect that alot of pilots would be very resistant to this idea, although personally I think it's got it's merits. A one off lapse of judgement and you might get to keep your job. Frequent abuse would probably meant the sack, but no prison, no fines.

With regards to the point at which the offence occurs, it would be impractical to say this would have to be after, say, push back.

After that, there's little anyone could do make the allegation to someone suitably authorised and equipped to get clear evidence of guilt/innocense, except if someone was so nailed that they were still over after getting to the stand at the other end.

>>I must be missing a point here. Whilst I in no way condone flying under the influence of any kind of substance, since when was it an offence under civil law to turn up for work this way? AFAIAA, said pilot had not boarded the aircraft. Are law enforcers to charge car, lorry, bus and train drivers with the offence before they occupy their vehicle?<<

From the Washington Post article quoted a couple of times earlier:

"...The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Police Department was contacted and notified Virgin Atlantic. Airline officials boarded the plane and spoke to [redacted] in the cockpit before summoning airport police, who escorted him off, said Tara Hamilton, a spokeswoman for the authority. She said [redacted] was cooperative when taken off the plane..."

In the U.S., pilots can be tested after they report for duty. They do not have to start the engines (a little late to get the tester onboard) or even enter the aircraft. Of course, defense attorneys will try every trick in the book to claim that the test was improper (not that there's anything wrong with that <g>). In one case it was claimed that there was no intent of flight since the trip was canceled due to lack of crew after the captain was arrested.

In the UK, anyone, and I mean anyone working in the rail industry , is subject to random breath test at any time they are on premises owned by the rail industry or are engaged in working for the rail industry on non railway premises. This is equally applied to drivers, computer staff etc.

The thing that worries me most about this case is that there has been no statement of what, if any, test of intoxication this Captain has failed. So far, it would seem that he has been arraigned simply on the subjective opinion and suspicion of one security official and one policeman. Surely that is wrong?

Does anyone have any information to suggest that this man has failed any objective test at all? If he hasn't, what the bloody hell is going on?!!

Digitalis

I mentioned this point earier in the thread - it puzzles me too.

I've read every Press report of the court proceedings I can find on the net and can't find any mention of the prosecutor telling the court what test(s) were carried out, in what respect and/or to what extent the pilot is said to have failed such test(s) etc.

Given that the prosecutor called the arresting officer to give evidence of the circumstances of the arrest, and even added (for some reason) the wholly irrelevant fact that he had not encountered any similar case in all of his six (!) years working for the airport authority, it seems curious that he apparently made no mention of any intoxication tests. I say 'apparently'; if he had, I'm certain that aspect would have been reported.

Nor, apparently, was there any mention of waiting for the results of blood or urine samples being the reason for the long delay before the next hearing.

However, it also appears the defence attorney said nothing about these aspects.
In those circumstances, it may be there is more evidence upon which the prosecutor relies than the 'subjective opinion and suspicion of one security official and one policeman' even though it's challenged by the defence as being incorrect.
If there are flaws/weaknesses in the prosecution evidence, it is usually tactically better to keep powder dry for when the case is heard properly - yesterday was a formal hearing.

I have tried, and failed to find the legislation this guy was charged under. If anyone knows that may well help the debate in that it way well show exactly what has to be proved.

For instance, does there have to be a blood/urine/breath test?

The words used by the press seem to be 'attempting to fly while under the infulence of alcohol'

I would guess there would have to be some form of evidence, other than the american walk in a straight line test, but then again maybe not.

If not it explains the lack of mention of a test.

Digitalis & Flying Lawyer

Thanks for highlighting this aspect. It has been puzzeling me as well. I thought I might have missed something but the analysis by Flying Lawyer does offer a 'maybe'explaination.
Strainge tho, that with the interest in the case, something as fundamental as this is not avialable. If the information was presented at the Prelim Hearing it would seem to be impossible that a reporter would not have picked up on the figures, if they exist.

But perhaps one of our USA pilot collegues could clarify. If A pilot is questioned in the USA is a Breath Test the standard proceedure or does the questioning/test vary from State to State or even vary within the different Police Aurthority.

But another point to pick up on:-
It does seem to be agreed that "airline officials" presumably Virgin, did the first contact with the pilot and then passed him over to the police for questioning. So that would indicated they felt the need for further investigative action.

Edited: after Heliports point below.
Yes. Good point. I withdraw that inference. But I still wish we could get info about the testing???

If the police received an allegation that a pilot who'd passed through security to airside was under the influence of alcohol, they would investigate it with or without Virgin's say so. The call to Virgin was more likely to be a courtesy call. What was Virgin meant to do? Try to stop them interviewing the pilot?
The fact that Virgin accepted there had to be an investigation of the allegation doesn't mean the company thought there was any truth in it. On the contrary, all Virgin's statements have spoken in glowing terms of the Captain and said that any such conduct would be totally out of character.

>>But perhaps one of our USA pilot collegues could clarify. If A pilot is questioned in the USA is a Breath Test the standard proceedure or does the questioning/test vary from State to State or even vary within the different Police Aurthority.<<

It does vary considerably from state to state, I posted a couple of links about this earlier.

Here's an overview of the Virginia law:

http://vatrafficlaw.com/dwiprimer.html

I'm trying to find out if Virgina has a specific drunk flying law, some states have them. In other states, aircraft are covered as "motor vehicles" through definition or earlier rulings.

The federal rules for testing pilots are discussed here:

http://www.aviationmedicine.com/DOTetohtest.htm

As the news articles have mentioned, there are parallel cases at both the state and federal levels.

>>It beggars belief that the chap must stay in the US until the trial date. Given his previous exemplary history, and the fact that VS have offered to fly him as necessary back to the US, do the prosecutors REALLY believe he's going to skip bail???? <<

Well, I've sure known pilots and other crewmembers to skip out on legal proceedings in other countries. One of my coworkers is still wanted in Germany for a paternity judgement years ago. And a Canadian pilot acquaintance was surprised to be arrested transiting JFK as a passenger for unpaid child support payments to an American ex-wife. Hey, they even took Michael Jackson's passport away for a while (but let him have it back only to go to the UK).

The lawyer argued that the Virgin captain was in poor health and needed to see his doctor in London:

"The judge also ordered [redacted] to surrender his passport, as the defense argued the pilot suffers a heart condition and needs to get home to London to see his cardiologist. When asked how a pilot with a heart condition can fly, a Virgin Atlantic spokesman says [redacted] meets British standards."

(from: http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1575353 )

openfly,

A very good question.


I would contend that the law of the country of registration does not become the legal authority in all situations.

The Chicago Convention declares that all states are sovereign over their own territory. When an aircraft enters the air space of a particular state, it is bound by the laws of that state. This applies not only to the rules of the air (which might differ a little bit from state to state, that’s why countries publish AIPs so that differences to international standards can be easier ascertained by foreign operators, for example) but also to other laws. Only when an aircraft is in the air space of “no mans land” (above the Atlantic, for example) does the state where the aircraft is registered have full jurisdiction. But, since it is a legal question, the answer is not so clear as I purport it to be. Variations to the above exist (the Tokyo Convention springs to mind).

Cosmo

I spent 13 years as a Policeman at heathrow, and up till about 1996 if we were called to a foriegn registered aircraft we couldn't do very much about anything that happened on board. If an offence continued when the parties got off we could possibly do something then, for instance could arrest a drunk when he crossed onto the airbridge, provided he was either disorderly or became incapable, possibly where the crew dropped him.

In around 1996, can't exactly remmeber the year but that would be close, the goverment passed the Civil Aviation(ammendment) Act.

This gave UK police juristiction in a forgein registered civil aircraft, provided there was an equivenlent offence in the coutry of registration (Which the accused had to show there wasn't) and The airport the aircraft landed at was the first point of landing since the offence took place.

I understand that this act was passed in responce to an international convention, so I belive that many other countries have a similar law.

Of course prior to this act we could do nothing and the aircraft crews seemed loath to take any action in thier own country. The only exception I recall was where the crew of an airline just to East of Iraq detained a passenger who said something about that country's political system as he got to the door on the way out. He wasn't alowed off and we were not allowed on.

It may well be that the REAL circumstances underlying this are quite different from what the press has reported.

The ethos of the District of Columbia and environs at present seems a bit like something one might find in Golding's "Lord of the Flies."

Perhaps with great justification in certain cases and surely without reasonable justification in others, there appears to be a focus on "exigent means" in the use and abuse of law these days which seems greater than has been seen since WW2.

The process of law in the dear old USA is fairer and more accountable than in many parts of the world - largely thanks to the character and diligence of most persons who make public safety their line of work - but sometimes one wonders.....