|
>>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?!!<<
Well, according to the article below, he blew a 0.11. Assuming this result was accurate, his best hope for getting off is a technical error (like a missing signature) somewhere in the paperwork. A Delta pilot in Norfolk, Virginia copped a walk on state drunk flying charges due to a procedural error earlier this year. Looks like that much maligned "security employee" may have made a very good call from a safety point of view. Of course, as always, some will claim it was mouthwash, breath mints, or overripe fruit that may have caused the breath test reading. I wish I could believe them. I would not be surprised to see him "voluntarily" enter rehab based on other cases I am familiar with. This gives you some protection under U.S. law, e.g. Rush Limbaugh and the MIA America West crew. Some other press reports have claimed that Virgin is (are) paying his legal expenses. Is it really Balpa as mentioned in this article? ________________________________________ Virgin Atlantic Pilot Failed Breath Test By Rosalind S. Helderman Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, December 24, 2003; Page A04 A breath test given to a Virgin Atlantic Airways pilot shortly before he was to fly a planeload of passengers to London last Friday showed a blood alcohol level of 0.11, according to court documents. That is more than twice the limit set by federal regulations and above the legal limit for driving a car in any state. Capt. [redacted], who was removed from the cockpit of a Boeing 747 at Dulles International Airport, is charged under a state law with attempting to operate an aircraft under the influence of alcohol. Unlike Virginia's drunken-driving statute, which sets a blood-alcohol limit of 0.08, state law does not specify a legal limit for flying. The Federal Aviation Administration, which also will investigate the incident, sets a limit of 0.04 and forbids flying a plane within eight hours of taking a drink. [redacted] holds a British pilot's license, and if the FAA finds that he violated its regulations, that information will be forwarded to Britain's Civilian Aviation Authority. Former FAA chief counsel Kenneth Quinn said British regulations are similar to FAA regulations but not as specific. Breath tests are considered preliminary, and Loudoun County Commonwealth's Attorney Robert D. Anderson said they generally are not admissible in court. Documents filed in the Loudoun County court case do not disclose the results of a test done on [redacted]'s blood. Passengers had not boarded when [redacted], 55, was taken off the plane about five minutes before flight time. A security employee at the airport had reported smelling alcohol on his breath, according to a spokesman for the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority. According to court documents, a sergeant with the authority police found [redacted] in his captain's chair, smelling strongly of alcohol, and then saw him stumble as he left the cockpit. The documents said that [redacted] was cooperative after his arrest and that when asked whether he had an alcohol or drug problem, he responded, "No, I do not." [redacted], a 14-year employee of the airline, was released from the Loudoun County jail on Monday after posting $25,000 bond -- provided by his union, the British Air Line Pilots Association -- and surrendering his passport. [redacted], a U.S. citizen who lives with his wife and two children in London, was placed on administrative leave with pay and ordered to stay in the United States. His attorneys argued in court Monday that he should be released on his own recognizance and allowed to go home. In documents supporting their arguments, they said he has taken heart medication since having triple-bypass surgery. They also said [redacted] worked for Trans World Airline for 15 years before being hired by Virgin Atlantic. Thomas C. Hill,one of [redacted]'s attorneys, said yesterday that the captain has "an exemplary record with no incidents of any kind. . . . When all the facts and circumstances are known, it will be shown that Captain [redacted] never intended to violate any laws." More than 380 passengers and 17 crew members were scheduled to make the flight, which was canceled after [redacted]'s arrest. The airline offered passengers hotel accommodations for the night before flying them to London on Saturday. They also were given vouchers for a free flight anywhere the airline flies. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Feb. 3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec23.html |
"Breath tests are considered preliminary, and Loudoun County Commonwealth's Attorney Robert D. Anderson said they generally are not admissible in court. Documents filed in the Loudoun County court case do not disclose the results of a test done on (****)'s blood. "
Why do they not disclose this? I hope that the defence is keeping its powder dry and will be able to rip the prosecution apart in February. But why does it take so long in the US? |
Just one small point.............
It's amazing just how many folk are saying that they could smell "Alcohol"........I wonder how? Afterall, alcohol in it's natural form is odourless! May be they should be smelling "Intoxicating Liquor"?? Just making a point! C.N. |
Works better in Japan
In the company dispatch offices in Japan, there is a breathaliser. If anyone supects a crew member of being unfit through alcohol, this device is produced and the crew member tested. If positive he doesn't operate.
Very discrete - no sackings - no newspapers and no recriminations. Safe though...... |
FL
Are you not judging US law on ours? I agree it seems the bail conditions are exessive and to object to bail for this matter is down right stupid, but again that may be because i am used to our system. I seem to recall photos of Maxine Carr from when she was charged being relaesed, and no one complained obout that, or Huntley being named when they were charged. At that stage they should have been considered just as innocent. I am NOT, before anyone starts to complain, comparing the those 2 with this pilot. Just wwondering why one rule for one etc...... |
In documents supporting their arguments, they said he has taken heart medication since having triple-bypass surgery. "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. |
"medication since having triple-bypass surgery"
What a good thing you deleted the unkind and sarcastic comment you made about his heart problems in an earlier post then, Airbubba? ---------- BEagle Possibly because the results of the analysis hadn't been received from the lab when the documents were filed. ---------- I have no idea whether the man is guilty or innocent - but what extraordinary notions of justice they have in Virginia! First they give the Press a photograph of the pilot taken in custody. Now, the Press are told the contents of documents filed with the court, some of which "generally are not admissible" as evidence. So let's tell the Press instead? Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Airport Authority is making statements to the Press about a case which has yet to be tried in court? I was in Virginia a couple of months ago. Beautiful state - but I'm very relieved I didn't do anything which might have led to my being prosecuted there. :rolleyes: [Edit] bjcc Sorry, I inadvertently deleted my post when editing so your response and my post are now out of sync. No, I'm judging what's happening in Virginia against what I consider to be justice and fairness to people charged with offences. I agree there's an increasing tendency for our police to say/give far too much to the Press and, IMHO, it's very troubling. No question of double standards - I think it was disgraceful that photographs of a defendant taken in police custody, copies of exhibits and even videos of police interviews were leaked to the Press in the case you mention. |
>>What a good thing you deleted the unkind and sarcastic comment you made about his heart problems in an earlier post then, Airbubba?<<
Please refresh my memory. The defense lawyer was trying to emphasize what poor heath the prisoner was in order to obtain bail. I do find it a little ironic to claim that the man is too sick to be in jail but well enough to command a 747 across the Atlantic. I think some others here (mere pilots, not lawyers) find that ironic as well. But hey, it worked, I suppose. Since you seem to be unfamiliar with mug shots, take a look here for some classics: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/index.html Most documents concerning court proceedings and arrests are publicly available in the U.S. unless sealed by a judge. Surely you must realize that the legal system in different in each country? The accused pilot is an American facing trial in an American court. Are you already implying that he is being treated unfairly? |
FL,
In this media age where everyone gets to tell their story to the press (WHILE NOT UNDER OATH I MIGHT ADD) the perp walk (pictures of the alledged criminal being brought in in handcuffs) have become something of a tradition that the prosecution uses to counter the inevitable press release of the perp being more holy than mother terresa. Do I like it? Nope... There is a fair amount of spin that goes on before a trial in high profile cases. I don't know how much it actually effects the outcome, but you should read a very good book by Thomas Wolf called "Bonfire of the Vanities" It was made into an okay moving strarring Tom Hanks and Melanie griffiths that was outright suppressed by the liberal media because it painted Al Sharpton for the lieing thug that he is... Its fiction, but consider it historical fiction and will give you a good idea of what drives some prosecutions. Also, while I am not comfortable with the steep bail here, the charges apparently are quite severe in this state. However, often they get overturned later because when a state makes an anti aviation law they are often over stepping their authority and taking actions that are reserved for the federal government. The problem is you first have to convict someone of this before you can declare it unconstitutional (usually). Oh and one other thing that we do differently. A cornerstone of American justice and the chief protection from the government is PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE COURTS. That's why David Dinkin's plan to move the courts out to Rikers Island (a prison Island in NY harbor where most NY criminals are held) in order to save the 100s of millions of dollars they spend a year transporting criminals from Rikers to Manhattan criminal courts was such a dangerous plan. There would have been no public access, then you are like a banana republic, Strait from your show trial to your punishment without ever seeing the light of day... But that public access to the courts may make things seam a little more open than they do in the crown courts... So more makes it into the news. Cheers Wino |
With rgds to any existing heart condition, whatever it is, the guy has a Class 1 medical so it has been assessed as OK for him to command 747. Numerous days in prison, with all the protracted stress that might bring is, I would suggest, a different matter.
Not really for this forum to speculate nor much room for further debate on that issue is there? Heart bypass ops are almost routine these days and there are plenty of very healthy people out there who have had it done. A relative of mine, who had one several years ago, says he wishes he had it much earlier as he has never felt fitter. |
Here is the section of Virginia law covering drunk flying. As Wino points out, sometimes these state laws get thrown out due to conflicts in jurisdiction with federal laws regulating air commerce.
Drunk flying is considered a felony charge in the Commonwealth of Virginia. _______________________________________________ § 5.1-13. Operation of aircraft while under influence of intoxicating liquors or drugs; reckless operation. Any person who shall operate any aircraft within the airspace over, above or upon the lands or waters of this Commonwealth, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of any narcotic or any habit-forming drugs shall be guilty of a felony and shall be confined in a state correctional facility not less than one nor more than five years, or, in the discretion of the court or jury trying the case, be confined in jail not exceeding twelve months and fined not exceeding $500, or both such fine and imprisonment. Any person who shall operate any aircraft within the airspace over, above or upon the lands or waters of this Commonwealth carelessly or heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, or without due caution and circumspection and in a manner so as to endanger any person or property, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (Code 1950, § 5-10.1; 1964, c. 416; 1966, c. 576.) http://leg1.state.va.us/000/lst/LH805571.HTM |
Airbubba
"I think some others here (mere pilots, not lawyers) find that ironic as well." No doubt they do, (Capt.KAOS for one) but they may be a little more understanding that the Captain and his lawyer used every possible argument in support of the application for bail, even if some were better than others. They may even be pleased he wasn't kept locked up in prison while he awaits his trial. He may be guilty and, if so, sympathy for him will inevitably and understandably disappear but, at the moment, he hasn't been convicted. "But hey, it worked, I suppose." I doubt it. It's more likely the court thought the prosecutor's arguments for keeping a respectable and unconvicted man in prison were even weaker than the defence 'health' argument for releasing him. "Surely you must realize that the legal system in different in each country?" Of course. Does that mean I shouldn't criticise aspects of another country's system which I think are unjust. I criticise aspects of our system with which I disagree. "Are you already implying that he is being treated unfairly?" I haven't implied anything. I've said so in unequivocal terms. I have no reason to suppose his trial won't be fair. My criticism has been of those in authority feeding the media circus, with complete disregard for him and his family, while he awaits that trial. BTW, I don't think your snide "mere pilots, not lawyers" remark will cut much ice on this forum. My respect for professional pilots is well-known to regulars on Pprune. Wino I'm not cricising Press pictures of an accused being brought to court, only the authorities (whether police or prison) giving the Press copies of pictures taken in custody - in this case, an official photograph of the pilot, an unconvicted man, in prison garb. I can't see how the public interest or the interests of justice, can be served by giving such pictures to the Press. From what you say, it appears practices in America are very different from ours. Here, prosecution lawyers would not respond to defence press releases, do not engage in a newspaper/media spin battle and would certainly not discuss the evidence with journos. Some police officers improperly give information to journos 'off the record' pre-trial, but prosecution lawyers don't. Indeed, the Press has to be very careful what it publishes pre-trial or risk being in contempt of court. eg If journos are present at preliminary hearings here, they are free to record what's said including any discussions about the evidence, but they aren't permitted to publish until after the trial. Giving the Press information for publicaton before the trial which will not be admissible in evidence before the jury which tries him is, IMHO, very dangerous. Such information is only published here after trial, if at all. In case there's any misunderstanding, all our criminal courts are open to the public unless, truly exceptionally, national security is at risk. eg Espionage prosecutions. I wonder where the idea of that 'cornerstone of American justice' came from? ;) T. O. (Good to meet you last weekend. Sorry it was so brief.) |
I don't think that the prosecuters can say anything that is patently false. But they sure can engage in a little spin now and then, to make sure someone doesn't arrive in court as a saint...
There have been a couple of very high profile cases that were probably spun by the defense to allow them to go free. (OJ, and few others come to mind) But the real problem in a high profile case is that often they are overcharged because someone is making a political statement. The other problem is the tendancy to overcharge a case to get a perp to plead guilty to what they really were guilty of. (Louise Woodward comes to mind in that). Its actually gotten so bad that I am starting to think that maybe plea bargains aren't such a good idea... I am aware of the backlog of cases so I don't have an easy solution however... Cheers Wino PS. It was a bleedin shame we didn't have a few hours over a few pints. Maybe next time... You could come to the coming NY bash in April... |
>>BTW, I don't think your snide "mere pilots, not lawyers" remark will cut much ice on this forum. My respect for, and assistance to, pilots is well-known to regulars on Pprune.<<
And likewise, I assure you I won't let your pedantic observations on my posts affect my opinion of lawyers one bit <g>. Did you see the links and cites I posted in response to your queries about how things work in America? |
Wino
I don't know anything about pre-trial defence spin in the OJ case, but the defence tactics during the trial were breath-taking to someone used to our system. Not the American system's finest hour, perhaps. Your assessment of the Woodward case is more generous than mine. I felt more sympathy for the way the poor parents were pilloried. I'm off-line now for Christmas. Have a good one! :D Airbubba Yes, I did. Thank you. |
Well we can all rest easy................Todays Daily Express (a tabloid rag in the UK) has a picture of the aircraft the pilot was about to fly and it was not a 747 at all!!!!!!
It was a 737 of Virgin Blue!!!!! Don't you just love the way the press get their story so factually correct in every detail! I hope Virgin Blue sue them to hell and back for defamation of the company name. I cannot add anything else to this thread as it seems to be repeating the same suppositions time and time again. Do Judges have to be lay off the booze beore trying people? |
Do Judges have to be lay off the booze beore trying people? Of course they do! Haven't you ever heard the expression 'Sober as a Judge' ;) |
Final and Only Comment
Having read 12 pages of support, denials, excuses etc...all I have to say is this.
IF the pilot did what he is accused of doing, he has lost his career and livelyhood which is a far greater punishment than any court could ever hand down. IF he didn't do anything to merit this arrest, I hope he will be found innocent and sue the a*s off the US Government. You just can't pick somebody's life up and throw it in the toilet which is what the TSA are doing IF he is innocent. Newarksmells |
Newarksmells,
I thought this side of it had finished now...go on then explain why it is that the Security man has done something wrong...??? Perhaps, while you are there, you can provide justification for sueing anyone who tells the Police anything, like 'I saw Fred Smith rob that person', 'John Brown is selling drugs', or 'I saw ********* hide a knife in his sock before he went off to catch a flight'. Because like it or not, it is exactly the same thing! Interesting idea if you take your point isn't it. Don't tell the Police if you think someone is committing an offence. Remember one day you may be the victim of crime, how would you feel if someone may have information about who was guilty and said nothing, in case they got sued. The evidence against this pilot is being provided by himself. In the shape of a blood or urine test. No one else. On the result of that evidence or some fault in proccedure the court will decide. On the other hand you could try and be sensible the guard, whatever you think of him or who he works for has EVERY right to call in the Police. |
The Ratchet
One problem inherent in cases of this sort is the potential for somewhat mindless escalation of the seriousness of a situation by individuals who are ill-qualified, ill-informed, tired, angry, confused or frightened by the circumstances of the moment. In the aviation version of this, the outcome that people read about is an airplane on a mountainside or wedged in a marsh. The law-enforcement version is quite similar, but it appears as a case which begins with very odd and sketchy initial circumstances. Each escalation of authority in the decision proocess ratchets the concept from complaint to suspicion to matter to charge to proceeding. The ranks of officialdom close up behind the process makers and no hint of any error is likely to emerge - except on the bloody end of discovery and maybe in the appeals process. The first escalation in the instant case now seems complete and the official players are evidently solidified into very hard positions. Whether a mindless escalation has occurred here - or not - remains to be determined by the rough grinding of the legal machinery. All too often, in the U.S. at least, the hamburger that comes out of legal process no longer resembles in any way the "facts" that went in. This is amplified by a pronounced tendency to overcharge individuals in every manner possible so as to bludgeon them into early confession... ahead of fact-finding. Any resemblance of U.S. style "plea-bargaining" to the Spanish Inquisition is purely chimerical, of course. Leakage to the press of incriminating allegations and details that undermine the defendant's ability to defend himselt is icing on the case.... er.. cake. It all starts with an unexpected situation arriving in the lap of someone who is marginally prepared to handle it. A necessary second ingredient is some inexorable outside pressure that demands quick action, rather than more deliberate or thoughtful study and problem-solving. In an aircraft, there are ample time pressures, even when something important is not broken or failing. In police work, the pace can sometimes be more leisurely, except in the presence of reporters, crowds of bystanders, schedules that are about to change the circumstances, strange accents, bad vibes, etc. With a marginally competent (at the moment) decisionmaker and a swift need to do SOMETHING, the conservative and (one might say) reasonable choice is to follow procedures with the utmost care and diligence. In an airplane this usually means "read the book" or "gawk the efis" to determine the data and SOPs that might apply. In law enforcement it tends to mean: "assume the charges and use that justification to call in a superior (who will then inherit responsibility for the actual decision)." After a few iterations of either approach, all the opportunity for a graceful, fact-oriented, and de-escalated resolution of the problem is gone in the wind. The consequenses then ensue. It's called "decision by default". |
bjcc
I don't understand what you can possibly think is wrong with with what Newark said. All he said is if the Captain's guilty he'll pay a very high price. He didn't say the price was too high and he didn't say he shouldn't have to pay it if he did what they allege. Then he said that if the Captain's innocent and has been put through all this for nothing then he should get some compensation for what he's been put through. How can you disagree with any of that? :confused: And how do you get from what Newark said to "I thought this side of it had finished now...go on then explain why it is that the Security man has done something wrong...??? I don't understand how you make the jump. :confused: Newark probably knows as much about how you go about getting compensation for this sort of thing as I do which is not a lot. I'd call in Flying Lawyer if it happened to me. But if the Captain's innocent I'd be very surprised if many people except you and the likes of Airbubba would think he shouldn't get some compensation for the humiliation, stress, distress, being locked up in prison, having his photo splashed all over the papers and some asshole of a prosecutor making it worse by talking to the papers. Wino explained that's how they do things in the States. The prosecutor tries to sway public opinion against the person accused ahead of the trial. That's dirty tricks in my book. "whatever you think of him or who he works for the security guard has got EVERY right to call in the Police." Sure. Has anyone said he hasn't? But what people think of him doing it is another thing and people have got different opinions. Some people have condemned the secutity man. Do you genuinely find that as hard to understand as you make out? Are you pretending you don't know most people don't like sneaks? Even if what the sneak says is true? Maybe it isn't logical, but God gave us hearts as well as heads and most people don't like seeing one man getting another man in the sh1t EVEN IF he's done something wrong. Andplease spare me all the media hype about '383 people narrowly escaping death over the Atlantic.' What a load of bollox. Once a copper always a copper, eh bjcc? ;) This is mainly a pilots forum so we're bound to feel compassion for a fellow pilot in trouble even if he's brought the sh1t on himself. That's not the same as saying he doesn't deserve to pay a high price if he's done wrong and been caught. I'm not saying we shouldn't have drink laws and I'm not saying people shouldn't done if they break them but I don't like the press whipping it up out of all proportion. Forgot to say Happy Christmas. You people lucky enough to be at home today are probably about to start tucking in to your turkeys about now. :D HAPPY CHRISTMAS to you all, especially to fellow pilots logging in from hotel rooms. |
Virgin
Yes once a copper always a copper. Your points all seem to be based round the premise that if this guy is aquitted, then everyone else must be a fault. Thats not the case. The arrest is a result of information received, but that information was not the sole reason for the guy getting arrested. An allagations been made, Police attend and investigate that allagation, if there is then suffiecent evidence and or reason to exercise a power of arrest then thats the Police Officers decision. In this particular case the reason for arrest is to secure evidence, that evidence being a breath/blood/urine (whichever applies) test. The result of those tests seem to have provided sufficent evidence to charge him. So how is the US Goverment at fault? How is the TSA at fault? You may well not like snitches, grasses or any other similar expression, but then again you probably wouldn't want to live in a society where Police didn't get information from the public either. I have no objection to supporting the guy, especialy when he's being treated in a way which seems harsh to you and me. But thats the US Judicial system and I doubt you raised an eyebrow when Micheal Jackson's photo was shown or when he was given strict bail conditions. But that support should not extend to the slating of others who can't or haven't defended themselves. All comes down to treating people fairly, so yes I will repeat it, once a copper always..... |
The reality in the U.S. is that security screeners will report a smell of alcoholic beverages on your breath. I'll leave it to the other geniuses here to discuss whether it is legal, appropriate or ethical. Coming back to work after a pint or two may be still be acceptable or even traditional in the UK in some jobs but for pilots reporting for duty in the U.S. it is definitely bad news.
Sometimes the screener's suspicion is proved correct, sometimes not but, like random alcohol testing, it does make you think twice about drinking in the hours before a duty period. Remember, we've had breath alcohol testing for pilots in the U.S. for about a decade now. Here are a few recent examples of U.S. security screeners reporting the smell of alcohol on pilots' breath: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=58299 http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=104007 http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=79661 http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=76410 http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=66110 http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=63157 |
I find it somewhat staggering that so much publicity is being given to this event, when (allmost five years ago to the day) a senior pilot at ROYAL BRUNEI was arrested at LHR in full veiw of hundreds of xmas travellers for possession of illicit drugs. Amazingly, apart from PPRUNE , there was zero publicity of ANY kind on the planet. How did they manage it? more to the point, what did the SULTAN ask tony blair to do to cover it up? was this done as a result of this pilots subsequent report to the then DFO implicating up to SEVEN fellow captains for similar irresponsible behavior? I would love to know the answer but guess its not going to happen.
|
:confused:
Two things:- I thought we were all to believe that there is a "Special Relationship" between the US & the UK; Tony told us so. So why can't a senior member of an International Airline leave the US - even when his employer has publicly agreed to facilitate his return. Is this person such a hardened criminal or so untrustworthy? Couldn't a "special arrangement" have been made in this case? Secondly: Reporting transgressers of the law. Yes, of course we should report people who break the law. Presumably now that includes people who use mobile phones while driving in the UK. Do you feel as strongly about that as reporting "breath" on a pilot? Let's hear it ..... |
One cannot help but conclude that at the moment in the USA you are guilty until proven innocent, but you are still guilty anyway.
I know Rawle Joseph, and he is a genuine "church man" who never curses or raises his voice. He goes about his job quietly and unobtrusively. It would be hard to imagine a more un-terrorist person, yet he is being put through the grinder. It therefore does not surprise me that the poor Virgin skipper is under heavy manners, whether innocent or guilty matters not. From Trinidad and Tobago Newsday FBI tells stunned BWIA pilot ‘We’ve got you!’ By HORACE MONSEGUE in NEW YORK BWIA pilot Rawle Joseph was surrounded by five armed FBI agents at JFK International Airport, New York, last week, one of whom shouted, “We’ve got you!” Joseph, 50, a father of three, of Pinto Road, Arima, a national scholarship winner, who joined BWIA in June 1980, was stunned when the agents pulled him aside and began two and a half hours of questioning, claiming that he was a terrorist, whose name and age, matched someone on a ‘no-fly list’ issued by the Transport Security Agency. Joseph denied being a terrorist and showed the agents that he always carried a bible in his flight bag. The agents then proceeded to go through the bible — page by page. Joseph who was detained at JFK, was last night at the Holiday Inn, Manhattan, where he has been ordered to stay “and not leave the US.” He told colleagues that his situation has him frustrated because he does not know how long he will have to stay in the United States while FBI agents continue their investigations. BWIA, Sunday Newsday understands, is also conducting its own investigation. Joseph along with fellow Trinidadian pilot Captain Anthony Wight, who was detained in Miami the same week, was yesterday still in the dark about their future, although they had been receiving calls from family, friends, and Trinidad government officials. Minister of National Security Martin Joseph has already briefed Prime Minister Patrick Manning on the episode and Trinidad embassy officials have been in touch with Joseph. The USA is on heightened alert risk status, following re-newed terrorist threats. Joseph and Wight feel they have been caught in a sinister web spun by persons who stole their identity. Talking to colleagues yesterday, Joseph, who is First Officer on the BWIA plane to New York said that what has happened to him has left him distressed and when he is allowed to leave he will not be at the controls of the BWIA aircraft. “I want to be a passenger like everyone else,” he told colleagues. Joseph’s nightmare began on Tuesday night last when he and other crew members were about to disembark the aircraft. On reaching a departure gate, they were accosted by the FBI who demanded their passports, but singled out Joseph. They put his passport in an orange bag and then searched his flight bag thoroughly, including his other travel bag. One of the agents then shouted “We’ve got him!” “They then went through my bible page by page,” Joseph told colleagues. Joseph told crew members, “One fellow said they were looking for a wanted terrorist, but they didn’t really think it was me.” He was grilled for two and a half hours, before he was allowed to leave. On Christmas Day when Joseph was about to board the 7 am flight back to Trinidad, he was again confronted by FBI agents and told that he would not be given clearance to leave the US. Joseph was again interrogated, and the mild-mannered pilot, according to sources kept his cool, even though he was being repeatedly asked the same questions, like how he spelt his name, if he ever changed his name, etc. “I am a virtual prisoner at the hotel,” said Joseph, who was yesterday short on money. His colleagues have rallied around him, telephoned him, and invited him out for meals. Still, Joseph’s situation is far from comfortable. He believes that every step he makes, he is being monitored. He feels that his room at the Holiday Inn is bugged, and the FBI is not telling him anything about how long he will have to stay in the US. The FBI agents have given Joseph back his passport, but he dares not leave the “Big Apple.” |
Thanks to AIRBUBBA for posting the section of the Virginia code that it appears CAPT redacted was arrested on. What , typical of Virginia, poorly drafted cr*& of a statute. His counsel should be able to drive trucks through it and then you get to the federal preemption because aviation is regulated by federal law and drunken flying (if one is convicted) is regulated by federal authority. If I recall properly none of the state statutes have been successfully used to prosecute anyone for drunken flying...the place where they did get them was operating the aircraft on the ground (a motor vehicle). And if this is considered a motor vehicle in Virgina there is a doctrine of implied consent for search and sobriety testing by just getting into the vehicle.
The court in question is a general district court of a Virginia county, Loudoun. I believe the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority (a creature chartered by the federal government and run by a board representing Virginia, Maryland, District of Columbia, and the legislative and executive branches of the federal government) has their police, the Dept of Homeland Security has their security. The WMAA police have powers on the airports and the access road to IAD but have to operate under Virginia laws (both DCA and IAD are in Virginia). A general district court is the court where everything criminal and civil for adults ( except family and domestic relations issues) are handled. The time from hearing to trial is different in different courts from the so called "rocket docket" in Fairfax County where you can be arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced in a week to some far less speedy proceedings. A February trial date for a criminal matter in Loudoun does not seem unusual. The avenues for appeal would be to the state supreme court (and good luck to you) or to the federal court on the federal preemption ( guess it would be Eastern district of Virgina where all the alleged terrorists get tried because it has a reputation for quick convictions and harsh sentences) or a U.S. court of appeals. Court proceedings in adult cases in Virginia are generally open and if one wants one can spend the day seeing this form of "theatre". That's it for the local color. |
BJCC
As you posted, once a cop always a cop...and then you posted:
"I thought this side of it had finished now...go on then explain why it is that the Security man has done something wrong...???" I never said any such words. But then again, the first sentance says it all. Namely, if in doubt, force words down the supspect's throat and make them confess. You wonder why people have so little trust in authority after seeing you spout your flase accusations and venom?? Newark |
About to get flamed.....
Let me start off by saying that I am not a pilot. Unfortunately, some of you might stop reading at this point, and that is a shame, cause it is exactly those people that this is aimed for.
Anyways, eventhough I am not a pilot I have the utmost respect for this profession. Yes, aviation is just a hobby to me, or rather a sickness, an addiction, but I try to keep informed, have gone fully through FAR/AIMs alone a few times, even got myself registered and have posted 1 (2?) posts in here. Now it is several threads in the past month that make me post this reply. What troubles me in this conversation is the fact that some of the pilots posting seem to be taking the pilot's side even if he is guilty. OK, STOP, rewind. I am NOT saying he is guilty. The fact that he needs to be proven guilty first in a court of law is given. Yes, the fact that this individual is being treated as guilty already, and that everything seems to have leaked to the press is regretable, however, it is not different than any other high-profile news-story. However, it does appear that some of you think that even if he is guilty and he gets away on a technicality, then it is ok. Good for him, good for all of us. Now I know all about supporting your fellow brothers in arms, but as I see it, that should go only if they are right. I fail to see that from some of you. I might be referred to as Self-Loading-Freight :hmm: by some of you, however even I know that flying any type of aircraft (even a user friendly Airbus :) ) requires immense skill and concetration, something that does not mix well with alcohol. Anything less, and not only that aircraft and its passengers are in jeopardy, but the whole environment around them. Yes, he might be a senior captain with no errors so far in his career. Yes, if this is proven to be a mistake he should be restored to flight-status immediately, and even be paid for lost wages. However if it turns out that he was under the influence, he has commited a crime and he was caught, whether he has been perfect so far or not. By even trying to operate an aircraft while intoxicated he was putting hundreds of lives in jeopardy. Some of you might say "what about the Christmas he has lost with his family and the trouble he has gone through ?". Well I must say that I do not expect the process to have reached this point without any special circumstances within this case. It would not make sense, no matter what. There must be other factors that we are either not aware off, or are to be proven. Only if there is no hint of improperness should the state be asked to pay for any sort of further "psychological" damages. Yes, it does suck that this profession requires a higher degree of discipline concerning such matters, but that is the job. You knew that when you started. I could even understand it, if it turns out he had been drinking, if he would have decided to call in sick. There are times when all of us have needed a drink, maybe it would have been one of those times for him. However, if he had been drinking and tried to have a go at it, then he did the crime and he should do the time, no matter what his past record. Now regarding the support-him-no-matter-what people: :rolleyes: I do understand that this profession, and the decisions that need to be taken from a commander in general require a strong personality, a certain arrogance (for the lack of a better word) of sorts. However it appears that a lot of pilots have taken the mentality of "we are perfect, so it must be them" and that it is "us against them" :confused:. I have 3-4 friends that are commercial airline pilots. All of them have my respect for what they do, as I do have an appreciation of part of what it takes, however the ones that have earned it even more are the ones that know that they still have things to learn, that they are not the "ultimate beings" :}. When you do not question the ways of other aviators ever, it is even more likely that you will not question your own ways. I find this very dangerous, especially when lives are at stake, and maybe a moment of thought on it is in order. The mentality of "5-dollar-an-hour rent-a-cops should not be allowed to question pilots or their sobriety" is beyond me. When you are going to be in-charge of the safety of 300 or so passengers and crew for the next 10 hours, at 35000 feet, anyone should have the right to question you. Should you be chastised before you are found guilty ??? No. However precaution does validate that you do take some sort of test. If you are in the right, there should be no fear. You will be proven innocent (Yes, I have more faith in courts acquiting the guilty than wrongfully convicting the innocent). Most of you will run to the recent case of the crew in Norway and say "they weren't drunk and look where that ended up". Well, the fact that they were chastised before proven guilty was the problem, not the fact that their sobriety was questioned. Again, regretable but not uncommon, as a society we seem to think the worst of people even before they are proven guilty, and yes, pilots are guilty of this too (or have you not ever thought of a politician being corrupt for example as soon as any sort of improperness is alleged???). So to summarize: 1) He should be restored to flight status and lost wages should be awarded (nothing more, nothing less) if he is found innocent (and I do not mean on a technicality). 2) He should be punished if he is found guilty. There is no excuse for flying while intoxicated. 3) Anyone should have the right to question the sobriety of anyone in charge of the safety of 300 people. 4) There should be a better process in place where the pilot is protected until the allegation is examined thoroughly with evidence. 5) Until this (4) happens, there will be pressure on all pilots accused. This is something that happens everyday, with dozens of other high-profile professions (doctors, lawyers, politicians for example) and whether it should happen or not, pilots cannot expect special treatment in regards to it. My more than 2 cents..... P.S: Actually, I think that if it was me running the show, I would probably make breathaliser tests a pre-requisite before someone is allowed to enter an aircraft as a crewmember. Rather have a few positives which are later proved to be false rather than having someone intoxicated commanding 200 tons of metal, with 100 tons of fuel and 350 people on board. |
HercBird: Not familiar with U.K. rules, but in the USA air carrier pilots already are subject to random drug & alcohol tests under CFR Title 14 Part 121.
Any media coverage of this subject is magnified, as if it were a major industry wide problem. Actually less than .5% of the 50,000+ major air carrier flight deck crewmembers have been found to have an alcohol problem since the testing started many years ago. :ooh: |
Newark
As you said.... "IF he didn't do anything to merit this arrest, I hope he will be found innocent and sue the a*s off the US Government. You just can't pick somebody's life up and throw it in the toilet which is what the TSA are doing IF he is innocent" the relevent bit being...'what the TSA are doing'. The presumption being that the TSA in the shape of this Security Guard went to the Police...if thats what you mean fine, all I want is for you to provide an alternative answer what do you suggest he did? If thats not what you mean, whats the TSA got to do with it? Thanks for your comments on my past profession, which I note with amusment. |
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with any aviation or airport personnel reporting genuinely held suspicions regarding any other aviation or airport personnel, and if those suspicions are determined to be reasonably justified by those appointed to make that judgement, then the individuals concerned should face the investigation and further legal action that the law allows. That, of course, includes all the defences that the accused individual may bring to bear.
HercBird, that said, this is a pilot's board and it's hardly surprising that there is both suspicion of the motives of the accuser (the TSA has been seen to be overly keen to 'trap' pilots in the past), and some encouragement for the accused to use the technical legal arguments that may be available to him. They are a legitimate and, while not necessarily to your taste, a perfectly reasonable way of conducting a defence. Whatever the result is, I don't doubt for a minute that the legal process will be fairly conducted under Virginia and Federal law. There is, however, a greater issue of trust here, and I don't believe that the way it is going will reflect well on either the flying profession or those who feel that it's their mission to undermine it at any and every opportunity. Rather like the medical profession, pilots rely on the trust of those placed in their care. If that trust is shaken, then the foundations of the entire industry are under threat. There will always be a few pilots (as there are doctors) who are themselves untrustworthy, and each of those does immeasurable harm to the industry - but a reasonable observer will understand that human nature does not make possible a perfect workforce in any field. Take the Christian clergy as perhaps a good example of a body that can't possibly live up to the standards expected of it at all times. Should aviation be expected to be less vulnerable to human nature than the Church? I think that would be unreasonable - and I'm quite sure that the general public would agree. Therefore, it must be expected that occasionally an individual will fall short of the standards expected of the industry as a whole. We should accept that, do our best to plug whatever loopholes are revealed by each case, and move on. There is no need for sensationalism - for or against those involved. This case will be revealed in its entirety in court. The Judge will have, by then, all the available information in front of him. If there is reasonable doubt of guilt (or if the technical procedures have not been carried out correctly), this pilot will walk free as an innocent man, there having been no case proven against him. If the evidence convinces the Judge that this pilot is guilty, then such sanctions as the State of Virginia allows will be available to be used against this man. Until then - when all the evidence has been presented - we should all refrain from prejudging the case. Meanwhile, whatever the eventual findings of the court, the plight of this man is worthy of the empathy of those fellow professionals who can understand the pressures that he is undergoing now, and who can find it in themselves to give him support should it be found that he has transgressed. If he has, he will deserve punishment. Condemnation, however, requires a deeper understanding of the facts of his case - and I doubt that anyone here commenting has that knowledge. Please, let's wait and hear what the court has to say. |
I did not mean to imply that the Aviator workforce should be perfect. There is going to be "bad apples" everywhere, and by this I do not mean that this is one here.
Quite to the contrary, what I did mean is that I see some hesitation to admit there are loopholes (as scroggs said) and "bad apples". Now, having said that, if we do allow people to get away with technicalities, even among ourselves, we encourage the behavior. Technicalities might get someone acquited in court, but it should not allow them to get away with breaking our (and by our, I mean the community's in general) trust in them. "Bad apples" should be identified and isolated from within. It makes everything safer for both us passengers, but even more so for you aviators, who afterall spend much more time out there and are more likely to find yourselves in a situation with them. Yes, noone is perfect and even the holiest of saints will make a mistake one day. What I am trying to say is that if you do see that a coworker is making one, or even suspect it, don't ignore it. Make them realize that it is a mistake and that they should avoid a bigger one by continuing. A pilot walking out/calling in sick when incapable of fully operating an aircraft will cause less harm to themselves than them being caught violating the law, and will be no risk of turning every person's day around them into a very dangerous one. By encouraging self-review of the ranks, you will not have to worry about the TSA trying to discredit any profession. They will never have a chance to find something substancial to use. Closing the ranks and just defending everyone, no matter what, just because they are "another one of US" will only help in the aggrevation of the "us against them" and the lack of trust from all. As for the specific case, I agree, let's see what we have yet to see... Blue Skies.... P.S: Yes, I know this is a pilot's forum, and I am a guest here. Whether it is apparent or not at this time, I am trying to protect the true nature of this noble profession, just because of the respect I have for it.... ;) |
GlueBall
Actually less than .5% of the 50,000+ major air carrier flight deck crewmembers have been found to have an alcohol problem since the testing started many years ago. If random testing were introduced, as it has been on the railways (don't get many stories about drunken train drivers?) then there would be definitive statistics to show whether there were a problem or not. The days of any profession 'policing' itself are coming to an end - whether they be Doctors, Lawyers or Pilots. |
[Post deleted]
This isn't Jetblast. Please do your best to make intelligent contributions. |
(I posted similar in another thread):
It will be very interesting to see what effects the new UK legislation will have. The legislation makes it an absolute offence to have drugs or alcohol in your body and sets specific limits for alcohol. If you are tested positive, then you are guilty of a criminal offence and there is no defence (which is why a zero-tolerance level of 0.2% has been set). It seems unlikely that anyone found guilty would be returned to work......... and any airline that did not report "unfit" flight crew could be considered guilty of conspiracy - which reduces the scope for in-house rehabilitation. What I find interesting in this thread (and others) is the lack of mention of "drugs". These are not effectively defined in the legislation and no "cutoff" levels are set. The term embraces a wide variety of illicit drugs as well as legally obtainable drugs that may impair your "function" - for example, anti-depressants, beta-blockers, heart drugs etc. Drugs are in widespread use (overtaking alcohol in traffic offences) and it seems niaive to ignore their use. The body metabolises alcohol quickly (and even manufactures it, which is why the .02% cutoff level is set). However, the body metabolises other drugs much less efficiently and if "zero tolerance" levels are set (as with alcohol) as seems likely, this could mean that an individual may test positive several days after imbibing. The police will test if they are reliably informed (by workmates etc) that an offence may have been committed. The industry really does need to take this issue seriously and not pretend that cabin and flightdeck staff don't take "drugs". Pro-active random testing seems unavoidable. |
TSA Chief At Dulles Is Charged With DWI
Agency Says Official Had Code Orange Duty By Steven Ginsberg Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 2, 2004; Page B01 The chief of the Transportation Security Administration at Dulles International Airport was placed on administrative leave yesterday after being charged with drunk driving while he was on duty for a New Year's Eve Code Orange alert, officials said. Acting federal security director Charles Brady was pulled over about 1 a.m. by a Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority police officer who saw him driving erratically on Route 28 near Dulles, airport spokeswoman Tara Hamilton said. Brady, 49, was taken to the Fairfax County jail, where was booked at 3 a.m. He was released at 1 p.m. yesterday after being charged with driving while intoxicated, said spokesman Lt. Tyler Corey, who described Brady as "extremely cooperative" during his stay. On a night considered at particular risk of terrorism, with extraordinary security actions in place across the country, Brady was supposed to be at his airport post until 2 a.m. TSA spokeswoman Jennifer Marty said that Brady should have been participating in a security exercise to ensure the safety of air travelers at that hour. "Obviously it was New Year's, and obviously it was not only a chance to practice but to be on site during the holiday to make sure everything goes smoothly," Marty said. Asked who at the airport had indeed made sure everything went smoothly at that hour, Marty replied, "I couldn't tell you." Reached at his home in Oak Hill last night, Brady maintained that he was stopped at 2:30 a.m., a half-hour after his shift had ended. He said he had spent his final work hours monitoring flights and declined to discuss his whereabouts after that. "I'm just waiting for the results of [the TSA] investigation," he said. Brady was arrested not long after the final passengers from a British Airways plane detained for hours because of security concerns were released from interviews at Dulles by TSA officials and FBI agents. Flight 223, en route from London Heathrow Airport with 247 passengers, had been escorted to Dulles by U.S. fighter jets. It landed just after 7 p.m. Wednesday and was directed to a remote area, several hundred feet from a terminal gate, where baggage was searched and the plane inspected. The nation was put under a Code Orange alert -- the second-highest level -- on Dec. 21 because of heightened fears of terrorism over the holiday season. That immediately triggered stepped-up security procedures across the country to protect government buildings, critical infrastructure such as nuclear plants and railroads, harbors, shopping malls and other locations where people congregate. Security officials cited a particular risk from terrorists commandeering a plane heading to the United States from a foreign country and using it as a weapon as they did in Washington and New York City in 2001. Six Air France flights heading to Los Angeles were canceled before Christmas, and two London-to-Dulles flights were canceled yesterday because of security concerns. U.S. officials said yesterday that an Aeromexico flight from Mexico City to Los Angeles also was canceled Wednesday evening for the same reasons. Marty said the agency had named Adm. James Shear as acting federal security director at Dulles pending its internal investigation into Brady's arrest. Brady said he came to Dulles in April 2002 as deputy federal security director. He became acting director in July when Scott McHugh resigned shortly after raising concerns internally about being shorthanded and unable to screen all luggage for explosives. |
Many security staff I have encountered around the world take great delight in giving pilots an extra strong screening compared to passengers.
The stupidity of their actions is lost on them. A pilot can kill all on board with the flick of a button or the smallest shove on the controls... why is it necessary to remove our shoes, belts, pens, glasses etc. to comply with idiotic rules that apply to passengers. Pilots should have access to weapons on the flight deck to protect the aircraft from the type of morons that occupy security jobs, not the other way around. While I'm at it. Why in heavens name do we allow duty free bottles on board, they could contain liquid explosive and be use as weapons if smashed off against our heads. I know what will fix it all, you security MORONS, lets have the crew tell the passengers not to congregate around the aircraft. There is only one way to achieve security, give control back to the controllers of the aircraft you FOOLS. |
What is the latest news regarding the Virgin captain? Is he still under detention, has his case been heard yet?
|
boofta, I think you are so right.
It is up to the INTERNATIONAL body of pilots to take action to stop these inane and puerile activities that you have enumerated. It is time to put the authority and responsibility for flight safety back with the aircraft commander where it rightly belongs. I am all for sensible measures but we know find that vast empires are being built on the back of the excuse of "security". As a body pilots must take concerted action to halt this ridiculous trend, ideally via IFALPA. How about world wide action such as everyone wearing an arm band/vest which some suitable inscription or even taken some other action which says that we will not put up with this dilution of our authority, |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 21:29. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.