Is it any wonder that 'middle England' has long since lost any faith in the boys in blue ?

Reasonable Suspicion
 

BJCC

I know that the police have their own very considerable pressures, and god help them in dealing with some of the scum that they must have to deal with day in day out.
However what you should recognise, is that instances like the one being discussed, their actions can result in people who would normally be their supporters, and I would suggest that the majority of the pilot workforce is amongst them, taking a jaundiced view of the boys in blue.
Given that the breathtest was negative...against a 0.20 level, practicably zero, I would be suprised if these guys were in any way either acting or smelling drunk. Is it really the case that this level is set so low that even someone who is perfectly sober and in no way showing signs of consuming alcohol could be over the ridiculously abritrary limit.
Given this I guess that the only way to check is through a breath test. However I would also suggest that given the fact that the pilots WERE sober and that I would imagine they had explained what had gone on, what justification could there have been for the breath test. Apart from as you say to keep everybody...except the pilot and the majority of people on this forum...happy. Not really a good enough reason I would have thought!

View from the ground

Well said.

Why did the accuser not report this upon boarding and why if the accuser thought that the flight deck were over the limit did they fly? I still cannot understand how the person accusing had access to the flight crew (i.e to smell alchohol) in the first place.

It looks like from now on that any member of the passengers (sober or not) will be allowed to accuse the professional flight crew of being over the limit.

In my last few weeks of flying I hope I do not have to carry out any go arounds or diversions.

For you short haul guys/gals, just watch out when you are doing the late evening palma/ibiza/mainland spain runs in the summer they will not be clapping they will be accusing,

View From The Ground

I understand the point you are making. But that is based on what has been reported.

So far that is, that a woman may have said one of 2 things, even that is not confirmed nor is anyone certain of what she said, saw or indeed how that got as far as the police.

What she said, and what she said she saw are all relevent to the reasons why the breath test was required, as was what the officer saw.

We don't know exactly what she said. We don't don't what the officer found, saw and believed when he spoke to the crew. So while I can understand the outrage at the officers actions, I only ask that rather than attacking the officer, people wait until they know what the reasons were.

I'm afraid that many on here are posting based on half, at best, of the story, not the full facts. It MAY be that if the full facts come out that the officer was justified. It MAY also be that he was not. In that case, as I have said, he will probably be hung for it. Unlike your occupation the police service is not forgiving of mistakes.


Tartan Giant

No, the crew were not over the limit. Hence why they were not arrested.

You can think of a good reason why (according to Para 5.1.2 of the CAA documant you quote) a breath test should be refused. You don't know what the PC was told, and you don't know what he found, so I can't see how you can arrive at a good reason.

We would all, I am sure, be interested to find out what the grounds were. We don't know, and it is possible we will never know.

Please read Para 5.4 of your quoted document. It may answer some of your questions. Including the point about manner.

CarltonBrowne the FO

I take your point on delays. I would hope, and it may not always be the case that the officer being sent to such an incident would either have the ESD with him, or pick one up on the way. That should minimise the delay.

I would be suprised if he tested for reasons of 'Power trip', and like you I'd be unhappy about it if that turns out to be the case.

I like this paragraph.Talk about the cat amongst the pigeons!

If you have an accident in a car it is pretty standard practice to breathalise the driver, how long will it be before any flying incident will be followed by a mandatory breath test.

Having spent a considerable time in my previous career dealing professionaly with the police I have to say that what happened here does not surprise me at all.

Recruiting standards have been lowered significantly over the years (And, no, I am not harping back to the halcyon days of graduate recruitment, which was abolished for elitism by the then home secretary).

Simply observing that the average bobby is pretty thick and when it comes to an intelligent assessment of a situation with which he is not familiar like nicking speeding motorists or dealing with a drunk then it is not surprising that plod comes up with a view which offends any rational or intelligent assessment.

Howl me down as you will, but by and large, intelligence is not a commodity conspicuous by its over supply in the ranks and the individual concerned will undoubtedly have been acting out of political correctness and to protect his own backside both of which he is well programmed for.

This is an absolutely apalling episode which detracts from safety because it increases the chance of someone commiting to a fatal landing when they should have gone around. Its as simple as that.

I understand police officers are being issued with new breathalisers that have an 'air/ground' switch to select between driving and flying limits. We are obviously now considered to be as irresponsible and potentially dangerous as young lads who get pissed on a Saturday night and then drive home. How flattering!

I personally would not want to see the policeman who carried out the breath test 'hung', whatever the circumstances...I am sure that there are many pressures on the police to take actions to cover their and their superiors' backsides which defy common sense. I merely point out that this culture is putting many people who are natural supporters of the police offside, and this does no one any favours least of all the police, who I am sure on occasions would be grateful for a little public support and even gratitude for the difficult job they do.
BJCC you are correct that none of us know the full facts of the story, and there are few people who do...perhaps not even the pilots themselves. However given the nature of this forum you are going to have to put up with speculation....sadly it is not a fact from fiction forum!
I think many people have highlighted the plausibility of the complaint as a problem. The passenger we presume was not an ATPL, or even a pilot so how was she qualified to judge what was a safe or unsafe flying performance. She also would not have had access to the flight deck during the flight, and possibly not afterwards, so on what basis was the accusation made. I am sure that the police are supposed to take into account the plausibility of an accusation, and take their action accordingly, if not God help us. Presumably there are many accusations that fly about during domestic disturbances, fights on the street etc etc, which are taken with a large pinch of salt by the Officers attending?
I must state I am not a pilot, however I am sure that some of my colleagues and friends who fly would dispute the comment about their employers being forgiving of mistakes. In fact pilots could justifiably claim to be the most closely monitored of all professions, with flight recorders etc etc. There are many cases around of pilots and indeed others in the aviation world who have been dismissed for making mistakes. I hope that this does not happen to the Officer, involved whatever the rights and wrongs of the particular case, surely some education rather than punishment would be appropriate if he/she is found to have taken incorrect action.

It seems that professions that traditionally enjoyed a certain amount of respect (pilots and police officers included) have been deliberately 'dumbed down'. A lot of this I'm sure is an attempt to weaken our industrial strength, ultimately lowering our conditions of service and satisfying shareholders and bonus-hungry managers. In the past police officers probably would have been able to exercise discretion (or give an oik a clip round the ear!). Today in our nanny-state full of compensation claiming, 'I want the money but I'm not prepared to work for it!' types it is no longer deemed to be acceptable. I'm sure police officers would like to be able to exercise discretion but ultimately will get caught in the middle and end up as the bad guys. When we arrive on stand with a load of disruptive drunks we are very happy to see the police arrive and do the dirty work for us. What a shame that our mutual respect is being taken away from us!

View From The Ground

Speculation is no problem to me, afterall, I am in the same boat as everyone else here as far as this incident is concerned.

What I object to is the blanket asummption of some, that the officer was wrong in what he did.

It's very easy to second guess given then bennifit of hindsight. It is not so easy when you are stuck in the middle dealing with it. Yes, the officer has a responsibility towards the crew, and to an ignore, an allagation which is obviously cobblers. He also has a responsibility towards the public.

Achieving that balance is not being heavy handed, whichever way he goes, someone gets humpy.

Much of the slating of the officer revolves around a lack of understanding of the way police operate. Some of it amounts to what the pax has been accused of, Libel.

To rephrase what some some else wrote, the people doing the slating are not police officers, have no training in police powers or procedures and did not have access to the flight deck after the incident.

One post on here says that BALPA plan to make a complaint against the officer. It is thier right to do so, however as with most complaints against public bodies the result of that investigation probably wont be made public.

Oh, for goodness sake BJCC. Get a life!

Didn't I see somewhere on prune, that it's BACX policy for the captain to leap to his feet and thank his recent charges for their custom?

If so, I suggest it be ignored. One man's obvious grinning pride at a job well done, can easily be one old sow's p!sshead. After all, she probably only sees men smile when they're drunk:D Where've you been, Nitekos. It already is. So, would that make them the boys in green?:=

I too would be enraged if the pilots were breathalysed without a reasonable suspicion, as appears to be the case here. I too share most of the irritation with bjcc plodding tone. But I won't join in condemning the PC without the whole story.

bjcc, fer heavans sake give it a rest. You don't have to respond in every detail to every point being put to you as though it were a court case. You've already totally blown yourself out of the water with your ill thought comment: "Unlike your occupation the police service is not forgiving of mistakes :rolleyes:

If that's your and a large majority of your colleagues attitude then no wonder you are suprised at the responses you are getting on here because of one plods exuberance in administering a breath test when it almost certainly wasn't warranted. If you and your ilk can't get it into your institutionalised brains that the vast majority of us act in a professional manner at ALL times when operating our aircraft with due regard to safety and we are most unlikely to be under the influence of drink or drugs, especially if we have had a multi sector day which culminated in an abnormal situation requiring several go-arounds. We are the first to arrive at the scene of any accident and unfortunately, a mistake by one of us may be a little more unforgiving than one by one of your fellow plod/plonkers on a power trip.

I for one will be writing to the Chief Constable of Greater Mancheter Police asking him for his views on the fact that one irate pax/layperson can accuse a crew of being under the influence because "they sounded too relaxed" and then one of their 'finest' (I use the word reservedly) has an obvious lack of intelligence/insight/fortitude/logic/awareness and asks for a breath test. I will ask him to explain why the result of this farcical episode may cause many of us to think twice about implementing a safety response because there is now the off chance that some irate excuse for a human sat in the back can take out her frustration by accusing any of us of operating under the influence and the first plod that hears the allegation is going to demand that we provide a breath test.

"Unlike your occupation the police service is not forgiving of mistakes." is just about the most pathetic response I've ever heard from you. It just goes to show you how big headed and self serving you and your colleagues really are. Our mistakes can result in the death and injury of hundreds of people and not just you or a perp as in your job. The 'holier than thou' type response we keep getting from you when defending the police is flabbergasting at times. I for one am another who has seen the support and admiratiuon of the work that the police do eroded because of repeated incidents such as this where obvious errors of judgement are defended with ill thought out remarks that only serve to precipitate the fall from grace that the modern police are experiencing. :*

Cargo Boy,
Outstanding response, right on the money - WELL SAID!!!!!!

Keep it up, more please.

Best rgds,

:ok:

bjcc
 

Exactly what understanding do police officers have in respect to the way properly qualified airline crews operate and how do these officers incorporate the ANO into their daily duties?

So what's gone on here ?

Have BACX banned the passenger ?

Have BACX asked for the resignation of the Chief Constable of Manchester for being responsible for such ludicrous procedures ? (that should stir things up a bit).

bjcc

I worry about you, I really do.

Due to a former life, I am probably better qualified than many to give my tuppenceworth about the Old Bill. Plod are a strange group: there are some really excellent, decent types, and there are some good lateral thinkers.

There are also some real to$$ers. All their 'mates' on the shift know who they are. Blinkered, arrogant and forever mouthing off down the pub/at parties about the finer points of law (which they've invariably misunderstood) and boasting how many people they've 'bagged' over the limit. Oddly, whenever there was a really dangerous situation they were conspicuous by their absence.

For some reason they often ended up on traffic, or were forever being moved sideways out of harm's way. Even when they left - usually prematurely - they could never forget the mighty powers they once had, and abused so frequently. It is usually this group who maintain the Police's 'bad name', even when they've left.

The common factors are: a love of power, a blinkered black-or-white mentality, a refusal to accept that to err is human, the inability to exercise discretion, a complete lack of empathy with anyone else. In short, the sort of person who loves to leave a high-vis jacket at the back of the car, in case other drivers think he's Old Bill.

Ring any bells, bjcc?

It doesn't worry me that (so you say) you were once in the Job. I really believe that you were because your character is strangely familiar. As I said, yours is a personality found in many walks of life. Some positions are ideally suited - parking attendants, night-club bouncers and wheel clampers for example. The sort who only need to distinguish between black and white. The sort who needs no lateral thinking ability, or empathy.

So what really worries me bjcc, isn't that you were once a copper.

It's because - allegedly - you are an air traffic controller. With your apparent dislike of pilots so evident from your numerous postings, I fear that, once again, you find yourself in the wrong job.

And that's what really worries me, bjcc.

(Here's a tip. Although Pprune seems to be your only real friend, why not try getting out more. Try a different pub - don't mention work - and people might warm to you. And leave your 'Pprune' alone for a while)

BJCC
Whilst ignoring several of my previous points, you ask (with rather odd grammar):

I think we all know by now, "what he found".
He found the allegation was unfounded.
He found he did not need to make any arrests.
He found "the crew" passed the breath test.
He found no reason to breath test the woman who started this stupid PC crap ball rolling.
He found he was led on a wild goose chase.
He found that his time had been wasted.
He found that "the crew" had been detained without just cause.
He found that the woman was talking through her asp.
He found he had made a bad error of judgement in his part; surely going against his better judgement (if he had any in the first place).


Having read as much as I can about this incident; my "reasonable excuse" (not lawful of course in this police state!) would be something along the lines of:

I have not been drinking.
I am therefore not above the prescribed limit and by the inferior, ignorantly weighted, evidence against me from this one woman passenger whom you have judged to be completely sober (unverified) and of sufficient intelligence and technical competence to accuse me of gross professional misconduct have, despite your own first-hand observations of my sober ground performance which obviously lies outside a "reasonable cause" to even suspect me of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and despite the fact you are NOT arresting me under any of those grounds or suspicions, still see fit to ask for a specimen of my breath.
I hereby ask you to reconsider your dubious request to ask for a sample of my breath.
Should you decline, then I doubt your judgement in the circumstances as being wholly reasonable taking all the factors into account, and I shall make a Formal Complaint after we go through this futile exercise.
Before we start, for the record, what are your grounds and suspicions for asking for this breath test?

(A police officer has the power to require a specimen from you if you have been arrested on suspicion of a driving or being in charge of a vehicle whilst unfit through drink or drugs with alcohol above the prescribed limits.)


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.

Let's play another little game here BJCC.

Manchester Policeman: May I have word Sir? I have been given information from a female passenger who was on your aircraft, that due to the go-arounds and final landing, she believes you having been drinking and as such are over the prescribed limit to perform your professional duties, and has asked me additionaly to investigate why the crew "sounded too relaxed".

Self: I see, and what qualifies this woman of unknown sobriety to judge my flying performance during the said flight?

MP: I do not have that information, Sir.

Self: Then I want you to get out your little black notebook and take very careful note of the words we are about to exchange, for if this 'interview' proceeds beyond a verbal exchange, then we shall be seeing more of each other in court, as you are going to be on the end of a rather deep Internal Disciplinary Inquiry for falsely accusing me of being over the prescribed alcohol limit - a poor and despicable error of judgement I may add - such that you require me to take a breath test.
Further to your future duties in this affair, you will be assisting me in suing this woman as I shall ask you to be in court to support my claim of, "defamation of character". You will probably use her previous verbal 'evidence' and obviously use the written statement, and notes, you took from her (you did take notes did you not?) and from me.

MP: It just so happens Sir I have noted what you have just said.

Self: Splendid, then let us begin with you telling me what your, "reasonable cause" is in furthering this inquiry; and then outline your numerous suspicions that I am, or was, unfit to perform my professional duties as Commander on the said flight.

MP: All I can go on is this woman's story in the first instance.

Self: So in the very first instance, it was not you who has the suspicion established in your mind that I have been drinking?

MP : No Sir.

Self: Secondly, have you "reasonable cause" to even suspect at this very instant (note the time constable) that I have been drinking - using as a base-line those well established signs, acts and ommisions that apply to a motorist whom you have stopped whilst 'in charge' of a motor vehicle?

MP: As this 'interview's progresses Sir, I cannot honestly say I have those reasonable grounds or suspicions to ask you to submit to a breath test.

Self: That is all I wanted to hear from you, thank-you constable.
We shall now go and find that woman who made these scurrilous allegations against my good and unblemished character, for I am going to serve notice on her publicly, with you as my witness, that I am going to sue her for the distress this incident has caused me: for defamation of character also, that has forced this police intervention upon me and hindered my freedom to proceed with my future schedule unnecessarily.
In due course I shall require a well publicised apology from you and her. Such monies that form her 'fine' shall reach a charity of my choosing, I will let you and the Greater Manchester Police Authority know of the sum and charity involved for your records.

MP: I have just been called to a mugging, I shall have to leave it all to you Sir......... excuse me.

Self: I have your details old chap, I shall advise your CI about your wise, considered and balanced approach to a difficult civil duty.


BJCC: Can you insert what you would say in such a role-play?
========================


Excerpt of BJCC 'post':

What the majority here object to is the blanket assumption by the blue force which assumed the "the crew" were over the limit and he made them have a breath test; and that this copper did not having the sense to dismiss the allegation after his on-scene assessment of the pilot/s.


The copper in question did not need hindsight, he needed a good dose of common sense.

The allegation as you rightly NOW admit AT LONG LAST was 'cobblers' - why then did the copper not use his common sense and exercise a modicum of the powers so granted to him to tell "the crew" to carry on and sorry for wasting their time.

There was no balance, it was skewed by asking the Commander to blow into a machine.
It was not a balance of fair and reasonable judgement, but a hammer to crack a nut, and there's a quite a few here who get humpy over such stupid PC excursions BJCC.
I am severely humpy at that policeman going the full hog, and tipping the scales of Justice into a complete mess.

I think most of the slating of the copper is because those of us here are incensed that he took the matter so far on very flimsy evidence, and far distanced himself from exercising the good judgement we expect; he went well beyond that required - as proven (no arrests, negative samples).

A lack of understanding falls squarely on the copper and his use of one stupid woman's statement, even described by you now as 'cobblers'.

I think most of us here have a fair idea of how the police operate - most aircraft Commanders have been round the block more than once. Some of us even know coppers!

And to rephrase, those administering the humiliation and false accusations to the Commander have no pilot training nor a clue of the technicalities which allowed them all to arrive safely and without one scratch on any of the 100 passengers (and crew) despite a technical difficulty.

I hope BALPA make their findings very public, and I hope the police just take a moment to retrain those who obviously do not know a drunk from a woman with a bit of a problem.

BJCC: From your knowledge of the Freedom of Information Act, why should any complaint against the public body in this case be, "exempt" from being in the public domain?


Without attempting to undermine the authority of the police, I hope aircrew take notice of this stupid Manchester police event as a lesson in authoritarian poor judgement and inappropriate handling of a complaint against a professional and wholly innocent flight deck crew.


Hit them hard BALPA - we have had a belly full of PC pleasing the mobs.


TG

Well if someone had asked me to take a breath test on Thursday Am at LGW, then I would have told him to shove it up the A*$E of the Emirates 777 that forced me to go around. He might have got a result because it was appalling airmanship.:cool:

You can tell bjcc is not an ATCO nor a Pilot due to his/her lack of command of the English language i.e. spelling and grammar. Most of us are highly qualified and trained professionals who undergo years of training. Not like the police which accepts cadets with few formal qualifications and then receive a short training course.
Again, I find it absurd that we are being criticised by other professions that are not qualified to do so. We are being accused by people who have not even seen us. The industry at the moment is a shambles and until we stand up and do something about it then it will deteriorate further. I'm glad I've only got two more trips and then I might become a London Cabby. Probably earn more and less hassle.

Tartan Giant

You make a lot of points that with respect, are answered by the legislation. Or are not answerable because many of the facts are uncertain.

The ability of the crew is not an issue, nor are the G/A's. The issue is what the officer was told what that was based on and what he found when he spoke to the crew.

You have admitted, as I do, that you were not there. Your knowladge of this incident is based on what has been posted here.

If you are satisfied that the entire story has been given, then yes you can form your own opinons of the incident and how you feel you should respond. You have interpreted the legislation, and in parts have missunderstood it. (Arrest follows positive breath test, not as you imply the other way round, the legislation you quote is the RTA, wrong act.).

IF, the story on here is the entire story,then I would agree the officer was wrong. HOWEVER, I do not belive that the entire story has been told.

Until such time as that happens then I would ask you to keep an open mind. I have NOT said the officer was correct, NOR have I said he was wrong. I have tried to point to alternative explanations. You and others may not like those, but thats life.

IF it comes out that the officer was wrong, then I am happy to join in the protests that follow. IF it transpires that in fact the officer was acting correctly, I somehow doubt that a corus of applogies will go to the officer.

The Freedom of Information act may get you an explanation, I don't know.

GMP in common with most police services wont say much about an incident where the people accused have been exonorated, which is what has happened here.

In many cases that doesn't help anyone, an full explanation may have resolved this issue, but it seems to be policy not to do so.

ILS,
I am an ATSA at Manch, my son is a P.C. with GMP. he has 6 "O" GC[S]Es. Agreed, "shortish" course of only 20 weeks, followed by 2 years as a "probationer" PC [can be "booted out" with no reason]. He has attended "sudden deaths, assaults etc.
I am proud of my son and his colleagues
watp,iktch

chiglet, I am not disrepectfull of the local police, in fact I play golf with many members of them. Unfortunately some of them ( not the ones I play with ) have a "them and us" attitude and also a power attitude. BJCC seems to put that attitude over to the forum. I hope your son does well and has a good career, I also hope he does not have a bad attitude and be understanding.
Live & Love, treat people as you would be expected to be treated yourself.
Rgds
ILS 119.5

bjcc

"Once an allagation has been made, the PC has no option but to investigate it. That involves speaking to the crew."
Surely the proper course is to question the person who made the allegation in order to find out on what grounds he/she is making such an allegation, and then decide whether questioning the crew is justified?
Are you really saying a policeman has no option but to move on to the second stage (speaking to the crew) regardless of the grounds given?
What if the person making the allegation says (for example):
"It was such a hard landing, the pilot(s) must be drunk/have been drinking"?
or
"The pilot(s) took three attempts to land, they must be drunk/ have been drinking"?
or
"We took off late. I think the pilot(s) were down the pub."
No option but to speak to the crew? :confused:

"The decision (to require a breath-test) 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."
It shouldn't be on the basis of the allegation alone, but I find your suggestion (as a former policeman) that the PC might have been "trying to keep everyone happy, doubted the test would be anything other than negitive, satisfy everyone that he's done his job" rather disturbing. Wouldn't that be an abuse of his power?
It certainly wouldn't satisfy me that he'd done his job (far from it), and I very much doubt if many pilots breath-tested for that reason would be either 'happy' or 'satisfied' - even if the test was negative.

"smell of drink"
Given that the maximum prescribed alcohol level for pilots is so very low, it seems rather unlikely that a pilot who passes an aviation breath-test was smelling of drink. Or perhaps you meant the smell of drink in the flight-deck - of an aircraft which has just landed?

"manner"
Very interesting that you should use the word 'manner' rather than 'demeanour' - which is more commonly used by policemen when seeking to justify their action in alcohol cases.
A little slip there? ;)
I wonder because you've often said (in various 'legal' threads) that the 'manner' of someone questioned is likely to influence what happens next. Unfortunately, you also give the impression that demure grovelling may result in no further action, whereas 'challenging' the PC is more likely to influence him to take things further.

"Yes you can say you are giving it (the specimen of breath) 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 wonder if the pilots 'manner' (indignation, for example) got the PCs' back up and it was that 'manner' which influenced them to require breath-tests.
Some policemen do tend to interpret any questions as a 'challenge' to their status and/or authority, wouldn't you agree?
And that can cause some policemen to show how much power they've got, can't it?

On a more general point .....

You're always very keen in 'legal' threads to try to come up with explanations/possible explanations intended to persuade people to see things from the PC's point of view and/or scenarios in which someone subjected to police procedures brought them upon himself/herself and the PC's conduct is vindicated. That's understandable, given your previous job.
However, IMHO, you'd have more credibility (and also portray the police in a better light) if you showed the slightest sign of being able to see and understand things from the position of people who are subjected to those procedures and (in this context) people who might find themselves subjected to them. You seem incapable of understanding that what's of no great consequence to policemen can be very distressing for the people with whom they are dealing.
I've dealt with policemen constantly for many years. It's an attitude I've come across many times, almost exclusively in the lower ranks - more senior ranks tend to have a broader perspective. People who rarely if ever come into contact with the police are bound to be more taken aback - and worried because they realise it's the junior ranks with whom they are most likely to come into contact.

With respect, your contributions rarely do anything to improve people's perception of the police and may, I suspect, damage it. In at least one previous thread, your blinkered views even succeeded in driving another former policeman to distraction - to such an extent that he started criticising you.

You claim that "any alternative view is frowned upon here". That's true in a small minority of cases, but you might want to consider whether there's something in your approach which antagonises the others.

Here's a question for our 'Flying Lawyer':
Would the 'Freedom of Information' act permit BALPA to establish whether the original notification to the police came from the passenger's mobile phone while the aircraft was either airborne or taxying? Then, at least, SOME satisfaction could be obtained by the prosecution (assuming the police actually DID anything about it:* ).

The whole thing reminds me of (a badly paraphrased) exchange with Sir Winstion Churchill, when a 'lady' accused him of being drunk:

" Madam, I may be drunk, but you are ugly (insert 'stupid'). However, I shall be sober in the morning".:D

Lights blue touch paper……

Now come on chaps give the guy a break. I see nothing from bjcc’s posts to suggest anything other then he is trying to objectively examine the known facts surrounding this episode, without resorting to postulation on the unknown facts (shades of Donald Rumsfeld’s unknown unknowns).

Few here have considered the possibility that the pilot(s) involved voluntarily gave breath specimens to the attending PC to clear up the matter as quickly as possible.

As for suing the passenger for defamation over her allegations, some of the comments made here about the passenger and the attending officer are at best insulting and at worst defamatory.

A little more balance ladies & gentlemen please.

FL and BJCC

What could/would have happened if the pilot(s) had refused the officer's request to take a breath test?

Would the passenger's fears/allegation have been sufficient grounds for the officer's suspicion?

Could someone count up the number of posts in this thread which aare simply BJCC bashing without any reference to teh issue? While youa re doing that, could you also count how many people have posted just to agree with such a bashing? The word "pathetic" springs to mind, and makes me think of playground bullies.

There also seems to be a major shift towards blaming the police officer involved. the fault here is with teh lady that reported the crew. i said this on page 3 and I will say it once more. Is it possible that the pilot concerned VOLUNTEERED to take the breath test to prove beyond all doubt that he was not under the influence.

Imagine the scene..

Copper - , so i shall be on my way

Lady passenger - See, its a cover up, he won't breathalyse him, pilot is drunk

or alternatively

Copper - Mr Pilot, that lady says you are drunk, but I can clearly see that you are not. However, if you blow in here we can ashow her the green light and prove to her that you are not under the influence in any way shape or form and then the papers can't print a sensationalist story full of errors

So maybe that is what happened.. maybe the police officer actually did these pilots a favour.....

And to those who are simply BJCC bashing... may i suggest you take your bullying elsewhere....

Do the police have a specific breathalyser for the reduced limit required of pilots???????

Just out of interest ..........
 

Where does this idea that the pilots may have 'volunteered' to take breath-tests come from - apart from some people's imagination?
:confused:

This is taken from a post earlier on this thread. Are we to suppose it's possible the spokesman for Greater Manchester Police might have forgotten to mention:
"The police officers didn't require the pilots to take breath-tests. They volunteered to do so."

At the risk of seeming to reverse my position, I am now going to try and present a possibility more favourable to the PC involved.
If Mr Chips' scenario is correct, and the PC made his own assessment that the accusation was baseless, it is possible that he made the decision to require a breath test on grounds like these:
The pilots are plainly not drunk, but there is no precedent or guidance available to me. The safe option is to demand a test and let it be sorted out later. If so, then unfortunately there has to be a formal complaint by the airline, and by BALPA. At least then there WILL be a relevant precedent, and judicial position.

heliport i have offered an alternative scenario... not suggested that it is the facts of the case. if it were me, i would have gladly taken the test to prove my innocence.. but thats just me

I don't think that many posters on this thread have let knowledge or otherwise of the facts get in the way of their opinions.. especially of the police officer involved

Mr Chips

Sorry mr heliport, cannot let that slide....

The instances on these very pages of folk criticising the inability of the meejaa to accurately report a series of events as they transpired are many. The quote you selected appears to be from a GMP spokes person; the journalist who wrote the piece may well have edited it for reasons of brevity or space. It is not possible to draw any inference by the omission or otherwise of the limited number of facts which are currently in the public domain. The facts as they are known at present seem to be:

A passenger, for whatever reason made an allegation against the flight crew. The attending police officer is obliged to investigate. Two pilots were tested, the results of which were negative for the presence of alcohol. The airline is pursuing a complaint against the police. That is it.

I enjoy a bit of baseless speculation as much as the next chap, but I do not like to see discussions descend into the public stoning of individuals who are merely expressing their opinion (to wit the insults questioning everything from bjcc’s mental state to his command of the English language).

Mr C and Dry Feet, no disrespect to either of you but you do not see this from a pilots perspective. Gov IT and ATC are not breeding grounds for those to fully understand the implications this incident poses to Captains and First Officers.

I also don't think it is your place to start taking the holier than thou approach and to decide what or what should not be debated.

Some subjects should be debated on a purely pilots forum, I'm not sure how our opinions would be treated on "IT Rumours and News" or "ATC and Police Digest" ;)

Will Scarlett then I suggest you go away and start one. ATC have been welcomed on this forum forever.... you don't need an ATPL or a big watch to comment on the pathetic childish postings on this thread

can we try to stick to the subject?

Gentlemen

Having not read Pprune for some considerable time, the reading of this thread reminds me why i stopped reading Pprune in the first place.

I have never read so much tripe in all my life, speculation, and people bantering theories on this subject.

I am a personal friend of the Senior First Officer involved in this incident and was aware of what happen as he called me on the way to his car after the incident.

I would guess less than half of you are fully in possession of ALL the facts, the rest of you just throwing your bit in.

Flying Lawyer, my friend could have done with your advice and insight, I find your posting very accurate and agree with your words very much.

Everyone else, just button it, turn the computer off, go outside and take a breath of fresh air !

Go on then Will, what are the implications this incident exclusively poses to airline Captains and First Officers. The two in this case were found to not be in breach of any law therefore, I fail to see the implications which are exclusive to the aviation fraternity. Surely even the humble man or woman in the street might suffer the same degree of humiliation at being incorrectly accused of drink driving/flying.

"I also don't think it is your place to start taking the holier than thou approach and to decide what or what should not be debated."

Not holier than thou either old chum, it is just that anonymous snipes and outright bullying from some who purport to be professionals really, really sickens me.

Finally, I take it my PPL and my background of not unrelated public transport operations makes me ineligible to comment I assume?

The airline pilots here might be heartened by public reaction to the story in the Manchester area. All comments posted on Manchester Online are quoted below - no editing, no selection.