Ok people, can you give me answers to the following scenario:-
A pilot turns up for work and someone thinks that they might smell alchohol on his/her breath. Further investigation is needed but the pilot is allowed to continue (by the management) on the next sector. By the end of the final sector the management decide to suspend the pilot on thinking he/she was under the influence. Who is now to blame. The pilot is innocent but the management have let him/her fly the sector thinking that the they were under the influence.?
ILS 119.5

And your point being ILS 119.5? I fail to see what relevance various scenarios such as yours have.

But if you want an opinion:

If 'someone' took it no further then nothing would be done. If they told the airline management then I cannot see any UK management just 'ignoring' the warning in order to get the next sector flown. They would most likely want to cover their backsides, even if they didn't have a safety culture. If they then suspended the pilot with no evidence other than hearsay then they would likely be on the losing end of an employment tribunal.

PP

Sorry, all i'm asking is, who is to blame in this scenario. Pilots or Management.

ILS 119.5

Unless this is some form of trick question...Your line, 'the pilot is innocent', implies he's not been drinking, ergo, he has commited no offence, there is therefore no 'fault' how can there be? Your senario is he's done nothing wrong......

Like Pilot Pete I am wondering quite what your point is???????????

OK points taken. What if, after landing the pilot is suspended beccause it was thought that he/she attended work and flew under the influence of alchohol. There is no conclusive proof but the management let the pilot fly whilst under suspicion. Do you not think that there is negligence on the management for not initially suspending the pilot concerned.
All i'm trying to do is point out possible flaws in the system which need to be rectified.
ILS 119.5

ILS 119.5

Er, I am still not sure what point you are trying to prove.

If nothing has happened, then there can be no negligence on anyones behalf.

Going back to your original senario, if the pilot has turned up and someones gone to managment before he gets to the plane, then I would presume that any management in any occupation where the amount of alcohol consumed by its staff is controlled by law would be very silly to allow the person to work. It could be seen as aiding and abetting an offence, but on that I think you would need the opinon of someone like Flying Lawyer.

With reference to alcohol in particular, there seems to be a problem of an objective determination of a pilots level of impairment prior to flight.
"He smelled/looked/acted like he was impaired" is a recipe for huge mistakes. Something more objective is needed.

What is interesting is that this may be begging another safety question.
Going back to the basic assumption that the reason for alcohol and other restrictions is to ensure safety, could it not be argued that there is a case for examining duty limits to ensure at least an equivalent level of safety?

ZQA297/30

There are 2 Criminal Offences now...One has to do with impairment, the other does not.

Legislation came in earlier this year, which is the RAILWAYS and TRANSPORT SAFETY ACT 2003

There are 2 offences related to drinking contained in it.

Section 92. Being unfit for duty. This is what it implies, being unfit is not capable of doing your job due to alcohol (or Drugs).

The new act is related to drink driving offences in the Road Traffic Acts. In that, (in section 92)the initial suspicision that normaly leads to arrest is a Constables opinon. To some extent thats subjective, but he would be looking for impairment. Basicly when I was a baby Policeman I was told if he falls out of the car nick him for being unfit. Otherwise.....

The other section is Section 93. This has nothing to do with impairment, just that you try to do your job with a Blood Alcohol Concentration above a prescribed limit. That limit is set in the act as 20 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres. That represents 1/4 of the drinking and driving prescribed limit.

There does not have to be evidence of impairment, and you can be breath tested (the same as you can be in drink driving cases) by a constable if he suspects you are on duty with a BAC above the limit, or if you are involved in an accident or involved in an incident.

The suspicision can come from many things, the way someone acts, a smell (and not just of alcohol, mints is a give away) or having just seen the person down a pint. The intial suspcision could also come from someone else, ie, bus driver smelling what he thinks is alcohol and calls Police. They turn up, smell alcohol which then gives the Constable reason to suspect that he may be commiting the offence thus giving reason to breath test. It is as a result of that breath test that you would be arrested, not as the result of what the driver of a bus thinks.

On having Breath/Blood or urine tested at a Police station the person would then either be charged and appear at court, or if the BAC are below the limit released. As with Stocks and shares, BAC goes up as well as down. Have 3 pints and BAC will continue to rise for some time afterwards....Then go down.

There is no way of reliably telling how fast the alcohol gets out of your system. And this section is NOT related to impairment.

I will rephrase my sentence.
"He smelled/looked/acted like he had a BAC of more than 20mg per 100ml". Does a person who has 20mg per dl smell, look, or act in a manner that would betray this?
Come to think of it, just what is the rationale behind this particular limit of BAC?

BJCC says

"The intial suspcision could also come from someone else, ie, bus driver smelling what he thinks is alcohol and calls Police. "

There where 5 other people in the bus with the Captain in question. They did not notice anything suspicious in his behaviour nor did they smell anything.

If I have to fly to UK I will make sure that bus drivers I encounter are informed of my zero alcohol policy (Make em smell me).

Not only alcohol, there's more..... :eek:

"the way someone acts, a smell (and not just of alcohol, mints is a give away) "

Perhaps rather than take breath mints, to avoid a bus driver report, it would be preferable for the whole crew to turn up with "dragons breath" in the morning. :ugh:
Mouth wash is out of the question as most contain alcohol and might fail a pc plod breathalyser. (With zero BAC)

Regarding the 'limits' just mentioned, it is all very well being on or just under the limit on the ground....but at cabin alt of 8000' or so the effect of alcohol is effectively doubled.

If I am flying within 24hrs I will not drink...it doesn't drag my life into depression.
The reliance on alcohol by people is astonishing...get a life

ZQA297/30

The bus driver, or anyone else would not be quoting a guessed BAC, just that someone maybe smelt of drink, was acting in a way that made him think he had been drinking or maybe had seen someone down a pint....irrespective of that its not his evidence that leads to arrest. If Police are called, and then form the suspicison, based parlty on on the informant has said and partly on what he finds when he arrives, they will then breath test the pilot. The result of that breath test is the direct evidence which lead to the arrest. The bus driver/5 other crew members or anything else is then irrelevent. The Breath test is either pass or fail. Mouthwash will not cause the breath test to be positive if it has been used more than 1/2 hour before the test is administered. I, and most other policemen I know used to ask specificly if someone had used it and if they had waited 1/2 hour before giving the breath test. I think you are relying on urban myth for that one.....

What I said was that the way someone acts, smell (mints being a give away) were all things that could lead to suspcision. At the end of the day, if you have not got a BAC above the presribed limit, you will pass....everyone is then happy.

I have no idea why Goverment fixed the limit at the level they did....I presume on advice from SRG Medical people...


Atlanta-Driver

It is niether the bus driver, nor the other crew members on the bus that make the decision to breath test. The Police officer called to this made that decision. He would have done that based on his findings.

The Pilot was arrested. There are only 3 reaons why that would happen.

1. He failed the screening breath test.
2. He refused to take the breath test
3. He agreed to take it, but then didn't carry it out properly eg, blew round the tube or sucked rather than blew.

So in oder to fail the test, he must have had a BAC above the limit. Or refused to take it, which is his own fault..(but not lightly to have happened from what I gather in this case)

He appears to have apssed the evidencial test conducted at the Police station. Be that breath or blood. The obvious reason being that his BAC was going down and went below the limit between the first and evidencial tests.

It was not the yoghurt
 

Unfortunately it was not the youghurt. The 50-year-old Finnish 757 driver's blood contained alcohol and he has agreed to leave Finnair with a withdrawn ATPL. Reportedly he had had some shots from the hotel minibar in MAN the night before the flight, because he couldn't sleep.

After support from his colleagues, Finnair reportedly decided to go the soft way on the pilot; he does not fly anymore, but he will keep retirement benefits cumulated up until now. This is due to an immaculate almost 30 years' record with the airline.

Sources inside Finnair in Helsinki.

pilotbear,
you have a good point about the effect of altitude.
The following is an extract from a bmj article on the effect of length of "wakefulness" on performance of of simple mental and co-ordination tasks.
The fact that it is compared to the effects of alcohol, and has been done at "only" sea level leads one to wonder how safe the current duty limits are in the real world. Please note the legal driving limit is the comparison point, not the 20mg per dl.

http://oem.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/57/10/649

Quote (from way down near the end)

"The overall implications of the results of this study are clear. They show that the effects on performance of moderate periods of being awake cannot be discounted. Sleep is needed after the end of a day if adverse effects on performance are to be avoided. Most importantly, this study has allowed interpretation of these effects on performance in terms of an accepted standard for safety. With a legal limit for alcohol use when driving as a standard, the results show that after 17-19 hours of wakefulness, subjects' performance on many tests had dropped to that found at the legal limits for safe driving. Many people remain awake for periods of 16 hours or more for reasons of work, family, or social life. These results suggest that after this duration of wakefulness fatigue reaches a level that can compromise safe performance.
The results also imply that many countries which set allowable BACs at the point that compromises safe performance should consider developing similar standards for fatigue to ensure that people who have had 18 hours or longer without sleep are kept from at risk behaviours such as driving, piloting aircraft, or operating machinery. "

Pilot is charged with being drunk
 

I have to say, fair enough that he has been done by all accounts, although hats off to Finnair in their treatment.

Update
BBC News

Anybody going to apologise to the taxi driver about their remarks?

He could just have prevented a major accident.

Having "skipped" through the above posts why does it give you the impression that pilots don't get drunk.

Let alone turn up for work under the influence, but it has turned out they are human after all :hmm:

I have a well paid interesting job which involves a lot of driving, and if I or any of my colleagues where found over the limit we would be out of a job, no pension, and everything else that goes with it.

So let's hope that more taxi drivers are not affraid of nice uniforms with bits of braid, and report ANYONE whom appears to have been drinking.

Standing by for the flames:cool:

PA38,

No problem at all, BUT: -

The taxi driver, or in fact whoever decides that someone has been drinking must then accept the consequences if they are wrong. With accusation comes responsibility.

I know that I would be very unhappy if so accused and innocent.

A very interesting board. Hardly a surprising selection of remarks tendered, especially by so many highly professional individuals. And it is hardly surprising that in this one regard, alcohol, they lose their rag. Such remarks are indeed revealing.

8 hours does seem rather short, given it takes alcohol 72 hours to leave the system. Nearly a half of accidents come down to what, human error?

If any of you know a good sniper, have a chat with him. Ask him whether he can smell the beer you had two days ago.

Sorry lads, but I'm with Hungary on this one.

Arctaurus, please see posts by BJCC above. It is NOT the taxi / bus driver who decides who has been drinking or is over the limit. It is the police.

Any individual who believes that a serious crime is about to be committed has a duty to report it. This is exactly what happened.

There has to be some "come back" on these type of accusations.
Say a Skipper has reason to chastise a ramp agent driver etc. said individual then says OK I'll ruin his day and reports him for supposedly smelling of alchol. (In a commercial world can be used to delay your competitors flights) If it proves that the accused person is totally clear he/she should have redress on that individual for wrongfull accuzation. Does Libel Law cover this as Pilots being proffesional it would be a slight on their character (no smoke without fire etc)
Unfortunatly in the genuine cases I would not like to surpress the honest concern of an individual.

Jeez, where do some of these posters crawl out from? WTF do we have to have a discussion about 'what would happen if the bus driver was wrong'? Read the whole thread fer gawds sake! It's beginning to sound like a bunch of 'Reginald S Potters' each trying to sound more authoritative than the other. :yuk:

The bus driver didn't falsely accuse the pilot and did the right thing. The consequences are there for all to see in the harsh glare of embarrassing publicity. The police were called, believed there was enough evidence to test for alcohol and were proved correct. The case has been brought and the pilot has to bear the consequences for his lack of responsibility.

If you need to find out whether there is any chance of 'libel' :rolleyes: had the bus driver been acting out of malice then:

a) Do a google search on "libel" and try and get an understanding of the term and how it applies before you show your ignorance on here and;
b) Read the whole thread to see if the discussion hasn't already taken place.

I hope the mods can try and keep these posts remotely associated with the topic and not have the whole thread hijacked by the Reginald S Potters debating society. :rolleyes: :mad:

Here's a start. Libel refers to a written accusation whilst slander refers to a spoken accusation.

He's got a point though.

How many malicious accusations could there be?

Cabin crew, ground, drivers....

Unfortunately an accuser isn't generally brought to book.

NN

IcePack

As cargo boy has pointed out, you cannot ruin the day of someone who has a BAC below the legal limit. In this particular case, as has also been pointed out the police breathalysed under their reasonable suspicion after the accusation from the bus/coach/taxi/bin lorry driver. That breath test was apparently failed which was the reason for the arrest.

In your scenario, the malicious intent would become clear when a police breath test (note: not an evidential test carried out at the station because it would not be required!!) showed the accused was below the legal limit.

No smoke/fire/libel/slander/"come back" or similar.

Quite possible but there is also another reason, and this is from experience.

One evening after a few bevvies in the pub I stupidly got into my car and drove home. In the good old tradition of sods law I was pulled over for exceeding the speed limit (only slighty) for the first time ever.

The resultant breathaliser test proved positive (according to the police officer only just - not sure how they tell this) and I was arrested. At the station I undertook three official tests (which would be used as evidence). The police took the lower of the three tests as my result. It was over the legal limit by a fraction. I cant remember the exact figures sorry. However I was released without charge as the CPS will only prosecute above a certain percentage to allow for erorrs etc.

So although my name was 'clear' I was still breaking the law. What bought it home to me was that I did not feel drunk or even slightly impaired...but who does?

The officer did not get his 'collar' but as I explained to him out side the station he still had acheived his goal as I have never done it ever again and nor will I.

You splitter

You quote me, however in this case I used info from another post, which, wrongly claimed the pilot had provided a speciem below the limit. Obviously that was not the case.

You are mostly right in what you say, as I recall (and the exact numbers could be wrong) the limit for breath is 35, but police do not charge unless you actualy below above 40. There are actualy only 2 breath test speciens taken at a police station, of which as you rightly say the lower is used as evidence, the higher one is disregarded.

Now to everyone one on the 'malicious' intent.

If you believe someone on your flight is drunk, you call the Police. If, as has transpired on more than one occation, they arn't drunk, there is another explanation for thier behaviour. Would you regard it as Ok in those circumstances to be sued for slander (not liable as has been pointed out that is written). No.

The bus driver has done what you would do if you saw a man dressed in black disappearing behind a house, he called police. It is not him who has provided the evidence against this pilot, the pilot has done that himself. Just as Police called to the man in black may find he is actualy a window cleaner who thinks black makes him look slimmer, and not a burglar, would not nick him for burglary if there is an innocent explanation.

Yes, there are circumstances when malicious allagations are and have been made. A female pilot at LHR was grassed (for importing drugs) by her ex girlfriend when I worked there, the allagation turned out to be a load of B******s. These allagations are made against drivers all the time, frankly theres not much you can do about it, in any case if you haven't had too much to drink then thats the end of the matter.

bjcc
Yes - apart from coping with the humiliation of having been removed from your aircraft under arrest and, as I've heard rumoured happened to one Captain at LHR being carted off to the police station -- in handcuffs!! :rolleyes:

Heliport

Rumour, not fact then?

Second no you're not correct. If you have not been drinking you will not fail the screening test. You will therefore not be arrested.
So there is no embaressment of being led off the aircraft under arrest.

bjcc

Yes a rumour about the handcuffs, but this is 'Rumours and News'. :)
I agree it's hard to believe they'd do that but, as in all jobs, you get OTT types so it could be true.

Second - you've moved your goalposts from "if you haven't had too much to drink" to "if you have not been drinking".

As I understand it portable breathtest kits used for screening aren't always accurate (cuts both ways of course) so you could fail your screen-test and be arrested even "if you haven't had too much to drink".

Be clear - all I was pointing out is it's very easy to be blase about "that's the end of the matter" if you're the policeman but not so easy for the person arrested, even if it comes to nothing because the more sophisticated machine at the police station shows he's innocent.
Arresting people is all part of a day's work for the police, but being arrested must be traumatic for ordinary decent people.

Part of the problem is that if passengers see the police come on board and remove the pilot, the front page of the Sun will have "drunk pilot" splashed all over it the next day, regardless of what the breathaliser result was. This happened last year to a UK charter airline, where the pilot was later proven to have zero alcohol in his blood. Did the Sun retract? No chance.

Zippy.

Heliport



Unless things have changed, there is no real point in handcuffing someone unless they are puchy or lightly to do a runner. I doubt that was the case in this incident, but then I wasn't there, and in anycase as you say it's pure rumour at the moment. If it did happen it does seem over the top, however they may have been reasons.

To clarrify. Obviously if you have had nothing to drink, then you have no problem. If you have had less to drink than the prescribed limit, again you have nothing to worry about. So the goalposts have not moved, I just perhaps could have phrased it better.

I accept that arrest is for most people a very unusual experience, and probably worrying. Especialy when your livelyhood is on the line. But then thats the idea of having legislation like this, not to catch people out, but to deter them from doing it in the first place. The screening breath test machines are not considered accurate enough for evidencial purposes in court no, but I have to say since they came out, I had only one person come back under the limit on the evidencial machine, after a positive test on the screening device. As you rightly say the 'error' works both ways, I think the screening device probably leans more towards the lower end.

Of course there is a delay bewteen the screening test and breath test or blood sample being taken at the police station. During this period it is perfectly possible that BAC can dip below the line had it been very close to the limit at the time of the screening test. So although a sample may be below at the police station it does not mean that arrest was unjustified or that the person was not over at the time of the screening test.


Zippy2004


Your correct they probably wont, but then thats not confined to aircrew. The chap from REM was charged with offences on an aircraft and cleared by a jury. There was no retraction in that case.

bjcc,

I understand what you are saying but I'm not talking about people like celebrities who are already in the public eye anyway. I am talking about normal people who are trying to earn a normal living being thrust into the international spotlight. For example, I now worry that when I come to work for an early start (say wake-up at around 3:30am), going through security still bleary-eyed, is someone going to report me because I have blood-shot eyes (forget the fact that everyone else does too at that time of the morning). Or when it's the time of the year when I get irritable eyes from hayfever. I am not worried about failing the tests because I know I haven't had any alcohol, but I am very concerned about the media attention that is inevitably brought about as a result of simply undergoing tests.

The good thing is that it really has caused pilots to be very careful about what they do "the night before" which is a good thing. But I can't help but think that one day I am going to get caught up in something that I cannot control, through no fault of my own!

Zippy.

bjcc

I can confirm:

• that at least one Captain who was arrested and removed from his aircraft at LHR was taken away in handcuffs
• that there was no suggestion whatsoever he was anything other than totally co-operative with the police
• that there was no reason to suspect, nor did the police officers suspect, he was 'likely to do a runner.'

Fact, not rumour.

I can say no more at this stage.


Tudor Owen

FL

If that is the case, and I have no reason to doubt you, then I can't defend it and wouldn't try to do so. If he was co-operative, not lightly to leg it, then handcuffing will only serve to wind the prisoner up. Personally I wouldn't do it. I wonder if the Health and Safety Maffia have taken over the asylum and its now policy to handcuff all prisoners. If that is the case it seems pointless????!!!!

Zippy2004

I can understand your point. Yes, its possible that someone could see you have blood shot eyes and call the police. That alone would probably not lead to you being breath tested, although it may do, depends on the officer who attends.

The hope is that if aircrew are breath tetsed, it is done in private, the cockpit is ok, theres a door between that and the public, they have no idea whats going on. Its fairly regular for police to go on aircraft at Heathrow, for all sorts of different reasons, so no inference would be drawn by most of the public. Any that did would be guessing.


I doubt its very newsworthy for the press to report a passed/negitive breath test. It doesn't happen to clebs in cars, why should it to aircrew?

It has to be said that the same thing could happen over any offence, to any one at any time and always could have done. Upset someone and they can claim any manor of crimes.

While I am sympathetic to what you say (I have had false complaints made against me, while I was a Policeman) There isn't much you can do to stop it.

BAC limits
 

Would it be reasonable and fair for the bus-drivers, all airside employees, security, customs, and indeed the police on duty ALL to be subject to the same limits as aircrew?

It is tempting to play the undercover journalist and report suspicions concerning alcohol levels of some of the other responsible characters involved. I have a feeling the police would protect their own, and would show their usual disinterest in a report on, for example a bus-driver. And would the media pick this up? Not a chance.

whether its reasonsable or not depends on why the levels where set as they were, and wheteher the other occupations need to be able to operate without the level of impairment that goes with that BAC. Engineers are subject to the same legislation, but thier BAC max limit is the same as for drivers. That said Whether reasonable or not, I would agree that they should be the same for all workers at an airport.

You may have a 'feeling' that police would protect thier own' thats all its is a feeling. I can tell you from the other side of the coin, they wont, not in this day and age when being on the same planet as someone who has committed a offence is grounds for hanging, and Police Discipline boards operate on the 'march in the guilty b******d' system of justice.