You can't insist. It's up to the copper to make his own decision.

Does the law regarding not being drunk on board an aircraft still apply to passengers?

If so, then if a passenger makes an accusation against a crew member then why not insist that they also have a breath test?

The chances are pretty good that they will fail!

I'm a bit confused as to the timing of all this.

I can't see any way in which the pax could have invoked the full force of the law until the aircraft was at the very least on stand, more probably disembarked. It would require a truly remarkable performance from plod to get to the aircraft before the crew got off, in my experience of calling for them, it takes a goodly while for them to put down their tea and meander to the gate.

Surely once off the plane, isn't breath-testing a bit irrelevant. I regularly have a drink at the earliest opportunity after getting off, and so, i imagine, do my pax. Wouldn't that screw up any subsequent breath-test?

Slightly off-topic but....a couple of years ago I had to go-around at MRS due to not getting three greens (146-300, 100+ in the back); flew perfect missed approach procedure, went to the hold to sort the problem out then normal approach and landing. All in a day's work you might think. We got on stand to be greeted by three members of France's finest (not sure which branch of the various heavily-armed quasi-military police organisations they were members of) who wanted chapter and verse of the go-around and gave me a grilling in order to get it! Nothing else happened-certainly no breathalyzer-and we departed none the worse for the experience shortly after.

I was slightly unsettled by the encounter with the police and wondered if anyone else had had a similar experience and if this is normal in France (if anything is normal in France) after something as routine as a go-around.

Mostly for BJCC

Some of your answers/ideas in this thread sounded a bit strange, and not knowing you from Adam, I had a look at some of your other posts.

You certainly have a strange slant on things - to my way of thinking anyway.

Here's just a few that might help explain your overt support for the idiot passenger in this Manchester go-around case.


You said, "The magistrate or Judge make thioer (sic) decision based on many things as Unwell_Raptor says.
Police are often as frustrated as anyone else that those sentences appear lax."

In your post you called this guy "Mr" - he was a drunken bloody criminal rat bag............

You said, "those sentences APPEAR lax".... the bugger should have been slung in jail, there was NOTHING lax about it BJCC - why did you defend such a weak 'rap'? Why did you not say the guy should have been jailed?

You said, "Sadly its a fact of life, like many offences, if no one saw (or will admit to seeing) the suspect, or he can't be identified by some other method, then thats (sic) it..."

So the crime for this Manchester Commander starts with some dummy 'down the back' thinking a few go-arounds makes for a drunk pilot? Maybe these clowns should demand to smell the exhaled breath of the pilots before doors closed?

-----------------------


BJCC: So, it seems this Captain was illegally forced to have a breath test, right?
For it seems to most of us here BJCC (not having been present of course) reading about the event there was,

a) No accident

b) No moving traffic offence (albeit we are considering an aircraft and crew carrying out their lawful duties, which in this case, the aircraft Commander considered it necessary to go-around several times)

c) The constable in question would NOT have reasonable grounds to suspect - in the first instance - the pilot HAS a blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit, which I bet you the said constable would not have a clue what the aviation limit is, never mind "reasonable grounds" for suspecting the chap was above that (flying) limit.
He takes the lead from some loony down the back, and does not have the balls to say - sorry Captain but I have been wasting your time, and it is obvious to me, no offence has taken place. I will now go and interview the passenger about wasting police time.

--------------


BJCC: Why would you want to say, "she was found guilty of course"? Of COURSE? Why?

Tell me where in Law there is an alleged crime been constructed around, "her attitude"?

BJCC: You admit the offence (how silly to even call it an offence) was petty, so why do you bother defending stupid, petty things?

BJCC: Since you were obviously not there when this young lady was pulled over, how can you say for sure, "... manner of driving WOULD have been factors".
You talk about me jumping to conclusions? Jeezzus H!!

Like I've said before, I think the police do a very difficult job, but when I read some of the PC tripe you come out with I have to wonder who they are fighting for.


Like Human Factors, I would be after somebody's guts for garters if they tried the same on me as the Captain in question.

As for volunteering for a breath test to satisfy some inadequate down the back - don't be absolutely stupid.

Sleeve
This country, under the present clowns in Noo Labour, have with lying stealth taken us beyond the point where common sense and fair play rules.
The dumb age of the PC brigade has been injected into most and like stupified rabbits caught in the headlamps most go along with the crap that is being preached - such as a headmaster now scrapping "homework" for all his pupils.

The likes of Blunkett remains in his accomodation after being found out to be using tax-payers money for his girlfriend's rail fares, and of course the VISA scam. With people like that in power, honest decent folk have no chance.
I would put the onus on BALPA and the IPA to make serious waves to disuade passengers making serious allegations, unless they are cast iron, for the full weight of the law will be on their ass if all their cards are not aces!


TG

PS: For our resident ex-copper BJCC, like you, I will exercise the right to sit on the fence (something I never normally do till now) - I refer to my question 6 asked some time ago! A bit like the Peter Sellars sketch and, "that is not my dog".

Story at: http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ne...ro_pilots.html

B-test fury over hero pilots
John Scheerhout

TWO pilots who struggled to land their plane when a warning light came on ended up being breathalysed.

The pair took three attempts to bring the aircraft down after they noticed the cockpit light.

But a passenger complained about the aborted landings and said the crew were "too relaxed".

Both the captain and co-pilot were in the clear after giving negative samples of breath when they were met by police in Terminal 3, following the flight from Lyon in France.

The incident has prompted BA to complain formally to Manchester Airport police while the pilots’ union Balpa has also hit out at the officers and the passenger.

BA spokeswoman Sue Redmond confirmed flight BA1952, coming into Manchester on January 16, twice aborted landings because of a warning light in the cockpit indicating problems with the landing gear.

It later emerged there was nothing wrong with the undercarriage – the warning light was faulty.

The captain aborted the first landing and carried out a so-called “go-round” so air traffic controllers could confirm visually that the landing gear had come down as normal.

He decided to carry out a second “go round” to make doubly sure there were no problems, said Ms Redmond.

Landed

The RJ100 aircraft, with 100 passengers on board, landed safely at the third attempt.

“It’s very disappointing that a passenger would assume just because a pilot was carrying out a normal safety procedure that he had been drinking when he had not been drinking at all,” added Ms Redmond.

“Apparently the female passenger had remarked while on board that the crew had seemed very relaxed.”

It is understood that BA will be writing a formal letter of complaint to the airport police.

Captain Mervyn Granshaw, chairman of Balpa, said: “We are appalled that the police seem to have acted inappropriately on the comments of a passenger who has obviously no knowledge of aviation.”

However, sources in GMP confirmed to the M.E.N. that two pilots had provided negative breath tests following a complaint from a passenger.

A spokesman for Greater Manchester Police said: Everyday is a schoolday to how stupid some folk really are!

Perhaps the "lady" in question should have been breathalised as well.

She could have been under the influence to the extent that she could not exercise proper judgement and thus committing an offence.

I can't remember the going rate for being a p****d passenger.

MP:confused:

Its a good job that the passenger concerned doesn't hang around your local GA training airfield.

The local police would be busy all with all those go-arounds!

I suspect that the passenger has some strange axe to grind here, I wonder if the flight was running late for example, or she was refused another drink herself during the flight?

Either way I hope she gets a life at somepoint, before she drops herself right in it.

I hope the two pilots involved are Ok and don't receive any adverse affects from this silly woman.

Passengers who make themselves a gross nuisance through drunkenness, false hijack claims, etc, are normally banned by the airline from further travel with them.

It would be good if BA/BACX would show a little support for all their crews against such wild accusations and do the same to this woman.

The female passenger had remarked "the crew seemed very relaxed".

Thank god! I'd hate to hear her reaction if the crew had seemed uptight and stressed out, hystreical and close to panic. Perhaps she would have assessed that as "being on top of the job."

In any case, how did she assess this? Cockpit door was locked, I assume. You no longer see the crew. Could she have made her judgement from their calm voices over the P.A.?

When did she make thee alligations? As she left the a/c to a handling agent; as she waited for her baggage; as she happened to pass a copper in the terminal?

It says the crew were met by police in T.3. Did she call them from the a/c on her mobile? 112 and they came running?

It really does sound a farce and once again opens the possibility if gratutitous vindictivnous.

Runway 31 wrote
Congratulations on your level of pomposity however you called me a liar.

Feel free to apologise at any time.

BTSM

Perhaps the Lady passenger would benefit from a stern word from our colleagues in blue ?

Breathalysed herself so she can be educated about the process.

Then be invited to explain her actions, before being charged with wasting Police time.

BTSM,

Heartfelt apology offered, I still think that it is crazy and still cannot not believe that because the crew carried out their job in a professional manner, they should be treated in this way. I suppose that the next time this happens the crew should scream,shout and panic.

I would have thought the Manchester police would have better things to do.

The more I read about this incident, the more disgusted I feel about the way this Crew were treated :mad:

Summed up , this seems to be the way things are going . We are sliding ..... no , plunging , into a society with no understanding/respect for life and it's aspects , no respect for the professions . It's so sad , what the UK had as a country (fair play etc.) seemingly has been lost - seems to be going the way of the rest of Europe . I'm not going to start on politics , if that has anything to do with it . INFURIATING .

"Ladies and Gentlemen, we apologise for having had to climb away again, but we have a small technical difficulty with a cockpit indication which we need to resolve. This will merely require us to make another approach so that our colleagues on the ground can confirm that all is well. After that we will climb away, circle back and land normally. Nothing to worry about, but your safety is our prime concern. Should there be any rancorous old sows in the cabin with an axe to grind, kindly SHUT THE F*** UP, sit down and don't piss off our cabin crew. Thank you for your attention"


Good for ba and BALPA - take Munchesterr Sickurriteh to the cleaners and ban this stupid woman from any further flights.

31

ta! and I agree.

Someone has posted the following on the BA BALPA forum with regard to refusing to take the test.

I hope he won't mind if I repeat it here.

I agree, the argument I would take would revolve around reasonable grounds
Policeman enters flightdeck
pilot asks what the matter is
Policeman says: pax alleges he must be drunk due three attempts to land
Pilot:states two G/A due tech problem and tower informed by radio and can conifrm.
If the policeman then says he still wants to breath test, then you have to stand your ground and ask what his "reasonable grounds" for the test are?
IMHO refusing now is not an offence as there are no reasonable grounds merely an unfounded accusation from layperson in cabin.

Hussien V Chong Fook Cam 1970 The house of lords held that "reasonable suspicion had to be based on some evidence and not a mere hunch".
Look forward to a positive protocol being drawn up by all concerned

BTSM

Incredible, in this day and age not too suprising unfortunately that the lady felt it was her place to report her suspicions....maybe she was hoping to sue BA for emotional distress if she turned out to be correct...However surely when the police turned up they would get a fair idea of what had happened before taking the complaint seriously...no wonder our taxes are so high if the police have to take everything at face value. Seems like a lack of judgement on the part of the Officers involved unless they were following some ill conceived police procedure/protocol for such incidents.
At least the press played the story the right way...although whether the pilots were heroes or just doing their job is open to question. Makes a change for such a story to get a positive spin for the pilot/airline. Seems like a pat on the back for a job well done and a round of applause from the pax is what these guys should have got.....

Spot On guys
 

BTSM

I am delighted to read your 'post' on this affair:ok:

I also am very pleased to see the fight against this lunacy has started in earnest.

I hope every pilot stands his ground and does NOT offer himself/herself up to a breath-test just because some PC (pun intended) copper has been approached, second-hand, by a passenger on a trumped up charge and then tries his luck.

We have read what BJCC reckons is the test for asking for a breath-test, and it does not involve some dummy down the back complaining, "the crew seemed very relaxed".

Fight it Ladies and Gentlemen.

TG

Not so easy to do when the guy or girl sat up front has probably been through financial hell to get into the position they are in after years of bloody hard work and sacrifice.

That's the cruel truth of the matter.

VFE.

View From The Ground

We have not heard the police officers side of this yet.

Sadly we probably wont ever hear it. If they didn't have reason, then they will probably hang for it.

If they did have good reason then why not let a proper investigation find out.

Is it not a little unfair of some to hang them before the complaint, and numerous hours of investigation that will result from it, has found out what ACTUALY happened, rather than what some here ASSUME happened?

On different note, please be careful following the advice about not taking breath tests.

You may feel you have good reason to refuse or to argue the point. You may well be right, but that wont help much if the PC has, or feels he has reason to require it.

Refusal could lead you to being arrested, and in some circumstances can be an offence in itself. Even if you have not had anything to drink. (That also applies to driving)

Whilst the specifics of this case are outrageous, there is surely a much more profound issue at stake here. If Police Officers elect to create an environment within which aviation professionals are subjected to legal scrutiny, humiliation and potential media publicity as reward for correctly making safety-critical decisions, the day could follow when a crew will ill-advisedly proceed with a flight regardless of a potential problem in order to avoid such consequences.

BA and BALPA should make absolutely clear to all police authorities that any action which humiliates air-crew in response to safety-critical judgment-calls is a major threat to aviations' safety culture. We MUST NOT create a climate within which pilots will fear the consequences of following safety procedures. Nobody should face the choice of following safety procedures (and being interrogated by police and media) or ignoring a tech problem in the expectation of "getting away with it" and going home unmolested.

Now I am confident that all you guys will put safety first regardless, but we must not invite a situation where there is a 'carrot' for doing otherwise.

Clearly, the barmpot-madwoman in this specific case should never have been allowed anywhere near an airliner, but unfortunately the entire cross-section of society is permitted to buy air-tickets and that includes her and others of her persuasion. However, the police in this case may have used their judgment a tad unwisely. The Chief Constable should be invited to educate those involved of the potential consequences when those who must exercise safety-critical decisions are placed in fear of their jobs for so doing.

It is a crime to 'endanger the safety of an aircraft'. If this madwoman has made even one pilot question the wisdom of performing a go-around when safety calls for such action, then she has already endangered the safety of an aircraft. Maybe several! Your companies and BALPA must make clear to police and the media that a climate within which aircrew fear the consequences of following safety procedures is a development which society must never see.

Perhaps the crew could ask for the police to confirm the passengers ATPL status. If the passenger is not a qualified pilot, then they have no right ro comment. After all, when was the last time a patient told a heart surgeon which way to cut?

There has to be some reasonable evidence for the police to progress in this way and the word of an unqualified layperson is certainly not reasonable grounds. I would be consulting my solicitor to sue the passenger if that had been me. Got to be some axe to grind by this woman.

bjcc; please don't assume from this post that I automatically believe the police officer on the scene was in the wrong- this question is purely for hypothetical similar future situations- and, indeed, similar circumstances when driving.
As per btsm's scenario, the constable enters the flightdeck. Captain explains course of events, offers evidence to support this. If the PC insists on taking a sample of breath, would the correct course of action be for the Captain to say
"I do not believe you have grounds for suspecting an offence has been committed. Nonetheless, under protest I will give a sample. I will, however, insist on taking your number and my company will take this to the Police Complaints Authority."
That way, the PC has investigated, the protest has been registered, and then let the lawyers fight it out.

Absolutely incredible. You have a snag with your jet, you deal with it in a calm and professional manner and get breathalized by some plod with nothing better to do.

Ridiculous

personally i dont have a problem with being breath tested, i am even up for completely random testing.

but then i keep my drinking seperate from work and driving and have nothing to fear, 30 seconds breath test then on my way again.

Emergency procedures will now be amended to include an announcement to the passengers which will be designed to convey an extreme sense of panic on the flight deck. Something along the lines of "We're all going to die." would probably meet most eventualities.

Whatever the legality of the constable’s challenge, it seems an affront to imply intoxication on the basis of a far from expert assessment of a pilot’s reaction to an abnormal situation. I think if I were to be the hapless Captain involved, I would have made clear to the constable that I would comply with the breath test under protest, but that I would require the circumstances surrounding his ‘reasonable suspicion’ to be disclosed, and the basis of the complaint made against me in hard copy.

There has never been a time in this great and just nation, when a hard working and diligent person could find themselves in jail in very short order because of the swift and zealous application of the ill drawn legislation of a knee jerk reactionary government. The Police find themselves in an invidious position, required to enforce laws from the detention hoards of red coated huntsmen to the house arrest of people who look like terrorists.

Where will this end? Will we breathalize surgeons because that critical by-pass operation failed? Do I insist on testing my barrister for narcotics because he failed to get me off a criminal indictment for telling a Dave Allen joke?

What about the bloke who set up the Child Support Agency, or the bloke who told Tiny Blur that we’d be in and out of Iraq inside 6 months with a pile of nukes? Why doesn’t the Chief Constable of the GMP test them for drugs. They’re the ones with the questionable judgement.:mad:

:=

I am reminded of the somewhat absurd lengths to which The State Police recently descended in order to convict a girl for eating an apple whilst driving, ie: helicopters and so on.
Some of you may have read a subsequent letter in, I think, The Telegraph, relating how the writer, upon holding at a roundabout, had seen a car go around whilst the driver talked on a mobile which was in his right hand while he held a half eaten sandwhich in his left. The car in question was a marked police car.
Who is going to assume the responsibility for breathalyzing The State Police? Pilots? That would be fun.:E

thats absolutely monstrous!

:) Yes, I quite agree but it might be elucidating.

Why do we keep putting ourselves through all this? It costs a small fortune to get our licence and when we finally 'make it' we find the 'flying' is crap and we no longer get the respect we deserve from management, colleagues,passengers, security guards, police etc etc etc. Let's face it, we can now get equivalent salaries, pensions etc doing much less stressful jobs that would also allow us to be more than passing strangers to our families.
Why don't we take another job, fly for fun (flying+fun remenber that?). Let's leave the managers and accountants in the sinking ship to worry about where their next bonus is coming from. Let's leave the current generation of idiotic passengers to look forward to their 7 day, £2,000 ferry trip to Ibiza.

F**k 'em all!

Christn is right...absolutely right....
Put airfares up to First Class prices...dump all the cheapy airlines...let the great unwashed wallow in their own backyards and stop clogging up the more beautiful parts of the world.....
A heap of pilots would have to find other work but in any case the new generation are better suited to accountancy or IT work anyway...fewer aircraft fewer morons travelling....especially those ladies that disappear into the loo when their flight is called and risk losing me my slot time.....

christn, well said the job is not held in high regard (although it should be) as it was years ago. There are many jobs that earn more money without the crap. I joined the industry because of my love of flying and not the crap that is now trying to undermine and belittle our profession.

CarltonBrowne the FO

The PC makes his requirement based on what he thinks, given all of the evidence. The G/A's are not really relevent to that.

The allagation made by the pax is not the whole story, and that is why I said to be careful arguing or refusing to take a test.

Once an allagation has been made, the PC has no option but to investigate it. That involves speaking to the crew.

That decision is his and his alone, he may have to justify that decision either in Court or at a discipline board.

The decision is NOT made on the allagation alone. He would look for other things like smell of drink or manner. Having decided he would make or not make a requirment.

What has not been considered is the PC was trying to keep everyone happy, doubted the test would be anything other than negitive, satisfy everyone that he's done his job.

Yes you can say you are giving it under protest, it makes no difference except you may get his back up by threatening him with the IPCA and demanding his number, but yes it's your right to complain if you wish.

I am not assuming you believe he was automatically wrong, nor am I automatically assuming he was right.

Capt. H.Peacock,

Good on you - you are SO right in what you say, absolutely SPOT ON, I cannot think of a better way to describe the way in which we have to live today...........

Where indeed will all this end? The next thing will be a new enforcement agency - the Thought Police, you'll be arrested for just having a non-PC brain wave.

When Orwell wrote 1984 it was rightly accepted as a fantasy idea of what the future might hold, the trouble is that its fast becoming a reality.

R.I.P. Great Britain - we once were someone in this World, now we're an embarrassment, a shadow of our former glory.............

:ugh:

Thanks bjcc, like I say I make no assumption as to the current case... I am aware of the risk of upsetting the constable involved. However, crews are accountable to the company for, among other things, delays- in this hypothetical case, unless the PC happens to have a breath-test kit immediately available, the delay is likely to cost the company money. I suspect my employers would be less than happy with my conduct if I did not take all reasonable measures to eliminate that delay.
If the PC in this case had genuine reason to believe a test was necessary, I would be very curious to know what that reason was. I would be very unhappy to discover it was just a power-trip; I was brought up to have more faith in the British police than that.

Reasonable suspicion and suspects?
 

Reasonable suspicion and suspects?

Whilst BJCC thinks the policeman in this incident was trying to keep everyone happy, it would seem most of us here would have been highly pissed off and very unhappy to be asked to blow in the bag, on the dumb evidence (?) of that woman passenger!

I asked before BJCC where "manner" entered the equation, but you have not provided an answer. Fine.

Maybe the CAA can help with their DOC on the subject?

From what I can see here, your copper at Manchester was skating on some very thin ice and like CB the FO I would love to know what the suspicion was and why he suspected the Captain to be above the prescribed limit.

That we have not read an arrest was forthcoming, indicates the Captain was not over the limit - maybe you can justify why then this copper played the heavy hand?

See para 5.1.2 I can think of a good excuse. No case to answer.

A mountain out of a mole hill comes to mind, courtesy the Manchester police.

TG

---------------------------------------------------------------


Ref : http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200328.pdf

-------------------------------
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RAILWAYS AND TRANSPORT SAFETY ACT 2003 – AVIATION: ALCOHOL AND DRUGS

Excerpts

1.1.2 It is consistent with the criteria contained in an allied Police Protocol that has been developed to assist Police officers in the application and enforcement of this new legislation.

2.1 ............ The ANO however, does not set a blood alcohol limit nor does it require a person who is suspected of a drink or drugs offence to be subjected to a test.

2.2 ........... The Police testing and enforcement powers broadly mirror those currently applied on our roads and railways and are based on an officer's reasonable suspicion that an offence either has been, or is in the process of being committed.

2.5 There is no provision in the Act for random testing.

5.1 Power to Conduct a Preliminary Test (i.e. a breathalyser test) by a Police Constable in Uniform

5.1.1 Section 96 of the Act provides that the Police have power to require a person to co-operate with a preliminary test where:

(a) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person is over the prescribed limit, or his/her ability to perform his/her aviation function is impaired through either drink or drugs,

(b) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person has been over the prescribed limit or impaired through drink or drugs, and still has alcohol or a drug in his/her body or is still under the influence of a drug,

(c) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person was undertaking an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft at the time of the accident, or

(d) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person has undertaken an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft.

5.1.2 A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to provide a specimen when required to do so in pursuance of this section commits an offence.

5.4 Reasonable Grounds for Suspicion

5.4.1 Reasonable grounds for suspicion depend upon the circumstances in each case. There must be an objective basis for that suspicion based on facts, information and/or intelligence that are relevant to the likelihood of an offence. Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on generalisations or stereotypical images of certain groups or categories of people more likely to be involved in criminal activity.

5.4.2 Reasonable suspicion can sometimes exist without specific information or intelligence and on the basis of some level of generalisation stemming from the behaviour of a person. Reasonable suspicion should normally be linked to accurate and current intelligence or information. For example, evidence of impairment from witnesses or from the result of a primary test of an employee by an employer could be sufficient.

6.3 Flight crew and cabin crew who are required to take a preliminary test, with a negative result, may decide that it is unsafe for them to operate because of the emotional impact. It is for individual flight crew and cabin crew to determine their fitness to fly in such circumstances regardless of individual operator policy. It would be advisable for flight crew and cabin crew to seek guidance from company management or company representatives.



10.1 For further information or clarification in the first instance contact should be made with Captain M A Vivian, Deputy Head Flight Operations Department or Mr N Butcher, Head of the Cabin Safety Office on the following:

Captain M A Vivian Tel: 01293 573470 Fax: 01293 573770 Mr N Butcher Tel: 01293 573341 Fax: 01293 573991

Captain D J Chapman

Head Flight Operations Department

22 December 2003

BJCC

Well done mate. The old attitudes are still there!

Do you keep an old uniform in your wardrobe for "secret patrols" to remind you of the old days?

Ah memories...nicking people....knowing it all......bliss...