Firstly, thank you to those who have posted more reasoned comments.

Backtrack

The go rounds really are not that relevent, and I wouldn't worry about it. The woman made her comments, police got involved and the result is as it is. Her comments were made, for whatever reason, but could equaly have been made with the same result over anything.

While that perhaps puts the crew at risk of being tested, it is the same risk any driver faces.

FL.

Investigate. Means to gather all of the facts, that means to hear both sides of a story. Unpopular on here it may be, but that's how it is done.

You use 3 examples of what the woman could have been asked, and I understand they are hypothetical, and perhaps he did. But that does not remove the responsibility to find out the crew's point of view.

The smell of alcohol is, as you know an indication. It's not the be all and end all.

Mr Chips may have hit the nail on the head with his suggestion. In those circumstances would you still say that was wrong?

Yes, I do try to see the Police side, partly because of what I did for a living and partly because I believe in people having a fair hearing. I can answer back (when there is a point in doing so) when I am attacked on here. The Police officers involved in most of the incidents complained of cannot.

Most of the attacks on Police Officers on here are because the full story is not known, and the police side of it is not even considered let alone looked at.

If trying to balance the debate makes me, as one poster says as 'To$$er', then so be it.

I am suprised, you normaly try to look at both sides.

airborne_artist

Had they refused, then if the officer suspected they had been drinking then could have been arrested. If he did not then there is an offence which they could be summonsed for.

While that sounds daft, it is the way it is because the test can be required in the case of an accident without any suspicion of drink being involved.

FACT :

Both parties involved consented without question to the request for a breath test from the police

Backtrack - Why should you imagine that every go-around would require a breath test ???? Dont speak rubbish

If it had been a train driver who had expertly delt with an emergancy and found himself being breath tested for it on the word of a passenger I doubt that any trains would be running in the UK today. Its a crazy situation.

FL245, just because both individuals consented to the test without question, does not make the request for a test legal.

I never said it did

bjcc
We've been overtaken by FL245's post, but I'm happy to give my answer to Mr Chips' post nonetheless.
"Mr Chips may have hit the nail on the head with his suggestion. In those circumstances would you still say that was wrong?"
Mr C put forward two suggestions (or scenarios) in the alternative, not one.

(1) Copper - , so i shall be on my way
Lady passenger - See, its a cover up, he won't breathalyse him, pilot is drunk.
I assume "so I shall be on my way" means the policeman in the example has satisfied himself after investigation that the breath-test procedure isn't necessary, otherwise he would not be 'on his way' - and there'd be no point in the question.
Yes, having made his decision, the PC would be wrong if he then required a breath-test in response to the passenger's comment; he would have no power under the Act (his only power) to do so.
As Tartan Giant has correctly said, Section 96 of the R&TS Act gives Police power to require a person to co-operate with a preliminary test in certain circumstances. The Act lays down the specific circumstances. The two which are relevant for the purpose of this discussion are 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.
In each case, it is the constable who must 'reasonably suspect', not someone else, before he can require a breath-test.
The specified circumstances giving him his power do not include 'to pacify a third party', 'to avoid any suggestion of a cover-up', or 'in any other circumstances where the constable thinks it's a good idea.'
(or alternatively)

(2) 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 show 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.
I read this as an 'invitation' scenario, not a formal request, and there are several reasons why I think it would be wrong:

It is up to the PC to decide whether he has power under the Act to require a breath-test.
If he hasn't formed the necessary 'reasonable suspicion', then he has no power and that is the end of the matter.

Having no power, he should not put the pilot in the invidious position of having to decide whether or not to undergo a test voluntarily. If the pilot declines the invitation, that may be misinterpreted as having something to hide, when it's far more likely that the pilot has had enough of the stupid woman who's already caused more than enough trouble and he doesn't see why he should do more than he's legally required to do.

A meeting between a policeman and a member of the public in 'official' circumstance is not a meeting on equal terms. The pilot might refuse someone else without hesitation, but be worried about turning down a policeman's 'invitation.' He might, for example, be worried that if he refuses, the policeman might change his 'friendly' attitude. eg "Having been close to you for longer, Sir, I can now smell alcohol on your breath after all. I shall now require you to .................."
See the comments in my previous about 'manner'. Not an unthinkable, totally incredible scenario, is it. ;)

If someone offers, entirely unprompted, that's different. Subject to any Force orders dealing with that situation, it's up to the PC what he does.

"Unpopular on here it may be, but that's how it is done."
I take your word for it, but it doesn't make it right. Fully investigating could in theory go considerably further but, IMHO, it should go no further if it's clear the allegation is silly.
I don't accept there's a responsibility to find out the crew's "point of view", nor do I accept that's the reason the police would speak to them.

I don't think anyone criticises you for 'trying to balance the debate.'
Yes, I do normally try to look at both sides, and this is no exception. You offered some scenarios based on your experience in the police, and I responded with some the other way, based on my experience of some policemen.
I'm not anti-police and, as you know, in my criminal work I prosecute and defend. The City wizz-kids I've just finished prosecuting started their sentences last Friday. The leader of the conspiracy got five years. The result was almost entirely due to a very thorough (and balanced) investigation by an outstandingly able Detective Sergeant in the City Fraud Squad.
If you're interested, there's a report here..

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

Must get back to my work. I'll do my best to answer questions raised in other posts at another time.
To those who asked if pilots are entitled to refuse to provide a specimen of breath .............

Do not refuse to provide a specimen of breath, even if you think the PC has no grounds to make the request.
You will almost certainly be arrested, and almost certainly be convicted of refusing without reasonable excuse. At the police station, you will again be asked to provide a specimen and, if you refuse, are likely to be convicted of a second 'refusal' offence.
In practical terms, there is really only one circumstance where refusing throughout might be the better course from the perspective of the person requested - and I'd prefer not to spell it out.

FL


(Edit)
CB the FO
FL245 was simply pointing out that the breath-tests were required by the police and the pilots fully co-operated with the requirement.
(I sent him a PM suggesting it would be helpful if he could tell us if the police required or the pilots volunteered - so that the 'voluntary' scenario suggested by some for consideration could either be confirmed or laid to rest. He very kindly agreed to do so.)

As I said, I am more concerned with the precedent for future cases- without wishing any unnecessary trouble or paperwork for anyone involved, I believe this matter will have to be fully investigated. My somewhat terse post to FL245 should have continued:
"... and even though your wish to spare your friend more hassle is laudable, further investigation and the attendant speculation will probably continue."
Personally, I think random breath-testing is on the way (both for drivers and for airline staff); it is probably a good idea... but I would say that, I don't drink. :rolleyes:

CarltonBrowne the FO -

Naturally the speculation will probably continue, thats what goes on on these fourms, speculation by people now fully aware of the facts, specualtion by people who just like a good gossip and speculation by people who have little else to do ! thats why its called Pprune and the disclaimer is placed at the bottom of the screen.

Flying Lawyer - Thank you

BJCC states

The go rounds really are not that relevent, and I wouldn't worry about it. The woman made her comments, police got involved and the result is as it is. Her comments were made, for whatever reason, but could equaly have been made with the same result over anything.

While that perhaps puts the crew at risk of being tested, it is the same risk any driver faces.

I am still unsure as to why the go-arounds should make the pilots liable to a breath test. Why should they be 'put at risk of being tested' when what they are doing is perfetly correct procedure, completely safe flying and the best course of action. This seems to me a little like saying well if a car driver takes avoiding action to prevent an accident then that puts them at risk of a breath test. Surely in such cases pilots/drivers should be congratulated for taking the wisest course of action, something that might not have happened if they were under the influence!

It has previously been flagged up on this forum, that the scenario being discussed might give pilots second thoughts about performing a go around when necessary. I personally am sure that would not be the case, since whatever the inconvenience of a breath test, it would surely be outweighed by the professionalism of the pilot in performing his duties correctly. If however the pilot in any way suspected he might be over the ridiculously low limit set, I wonder how his actions and therefore the safety of the flight might be impacted.

Was relating this case (and some of the debate on here) to a friend in the pub last night. We ended up discussing the rights of motorists re breath testing. He informs me that about two years ago some idiot drove straight into his car. Police arrived and insisted in my freind providing a breathtest. He was slightly annoyed at this because he had not been driving either of the two vehicles. He was at work with his car parked, quite legally, when the accident occured! He pointed this out to the officer, that there were witnesses he had been working all morning, the engine of the car was cold etc etc. Was told that the law required he was breathalised as his car was involved in an acccident, was advised to stop being 'smart' or would be arrested for failing to provide etc etc.

What has the world come to!! Anyway we finished our pints and jumped in a taxi! :ok:

It would appear that now any person who feels so inclined can accuse any person in charge of public/commercial transportation of being drunk, with impunity.

Here are some examples.

Constable I think the driver of that #10 bus is drunk, because he drove right past this request stop, totally ignoring me.

Constable I pulled the emergency stop on the train, because I think the driver was driving erratically, and I think he is drunk.

Constable , I think that truck driver is drunk, because he cut me off at the roundabout.

Constable , I think that pilot is drunk because he has his hat on tilted.

And so on.

What we obviously need is a breathaliser in a glass case attached to the cockpit door; next to it a sign stating 'Pilot's breathaliser - penalty for improper use £50'

Speaking as an ex police officer (and having not trawled through all the posts on this thread), the police constable did not have a power to breathalyse the pilot in this instance. The fact that someone reported the pilot is not grounds for reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed.

In this case having spoken to the pilot the officer would either need to smell alcohol, or the pilots responses to questions were such, i.e slurred speech, that the officer believed an offence had been committed.

Personally I would have refused the breath test after asking the officer on what grounds he proposed to breathalyse me, if he said he could smell alcohol, I would submit to the test, blow 0 and then have him for abuse of power, or alternatively let him arrest me, provide a sample at the station have him for abuse of power and unlawful arrest.

All too often people don't know where they stand with the Police who are all too keen to abuse the authority that they have.

That's one of the reasons I'm glad I left.

Flying Lawyer

I have absolutly no doubt that you are not anti police, nor do I have a problem with reasonably questioning something they have done. In fact, police invite critical responses to the way they deal with some things by not explaining them.

The only person who can give an answer as to the reasons, is the officer that required the test. And he will have valid reasons for doing so (yes, I know what you are thinking and you may be right!)

View From The Ground

The only reason the G/A are involed in this is because it APPEARS to have prompted her comments. The fact that you do something as a pilot is not alone a reason to breath test. Had there been no G/A, she ould have equaly made what ever comment because, she thought the landing was too harsh.

Does anyone know if the results of the police investigation of the official complaint from BA will be released to the public? And if so where and when could they be found?

CarltonBrowne the FO - Thanks for your PM, its no surprise to me reading your posts that your PM to me was of similiar standard. Total Mince.

Backtrack - Why dony i ask my 'mate' what exactly??

As I said in my first post on the topic, it has been some considerable time since I read Pprune, and the reason that I stopped reading it in the first place was the total amount of S***e that is bantered around on these fourms, by people who know little of nothing on the topic they discuss.

I placed the posting on the fourm to try and give an indication of some FACTS, what actually happened. But the topic has been twisted.

I sugguest anew topic is started to discuss the pros and cons of breath testing.

Time to go to work and turn this computer off, I sugguest you all do the same. Althought the issues regarding this event may affect some of you, the details of this event are not really any of your concern apart from 'wanting to know' or just being nosey!

Best to discuss the topic not this incident.

caniplaywithmadness, a lot of truth in wat you say.

Goodbye, I am posting no more on this topic

FL245

FL 245
 

T.G.F.T. Which roughly translates as :---Thank God for That. Or you just a tease?

Let's hope we don't go the way of the railways where it is standard procedure now to breathalyse/drug test a train driver after any incident at any time of the day.

Unfortunately the police then announce they did this (though not the negative result) to the waiting media with the result that any media story of a train incident contains "the driver was breathalysed after the incident" type copy. And people then relate this to their own cars where it only gets done where there is a genuine suspicion, and have the idea that the driver was under suspicion.

Aren't the various public bodies meant to be responsible for our security just GREAT :rolleyes:

What a load of *rap, it's only a matter of time before there is an industry wide strike, if not a national strike.
Where on earth are these people from ??
This government in it's relentless quest for social equalisation are dumbing down society.
Who the hell do these people think they are?
I hope the airline / captain involved will take the woman to court for what ever the flying lawyer says will stick.

I for one would contribute to a legal fund to do this.

:mad:

It would appear that one reason that pilots are so enraged at this incident is that there is a further loss of respect for the pilot profession.
In which case why do nearly all the replies refer to the policeman concerned as plod rather than police constable.

The incident adds further loss of respect for the plod profession.

L337

We have read all about the Crew being breath tested after a first class bit of flying, under emergency conditions .....

the Nurse being taken to court, at massive expense, because of an Apple .....

and now the Sunday Times (Jan 30th 2005) tells us a motorist who pulled in to ask a Policeman for directions was given a £45.00 fixed-penalty notice for what police described as playing music in his car at "Excessive" volume

Respect? :confused: .....

ps. what type of music you ask? .... the driver was playing some Irish music "River Dance" :{

Once upon a time....

If I saw a copper getting a good kicking I'd rush to their aid - but not any more.

If I saw a crime being commited I'd call the police - but not any more.

I could go on with examples, but the gereral premis is that this particular 'upstanding citizen' no longer gives a stuff about HM Plod - infact I'd go so far as to say that I hope they get the living daylights kicked & beaten out of themselves every Saturday night; wherein, I might point out, I've seen the young lads in my home town win that battle more than once..... so "way to go yoof", at least they're fighting back against a police / nanny state and don't take any crap from the old bill, and thereby restoring my my hope for the future.

Devils Advocate.

That Policeman who you wish "got a good kicking", could be my older brother.
The same older brother who has/will rush to someones house to help a member of the public like you, when you call in tears because someone is trying to break into your house.

This same policeman has a wife and young family to support, and believe it or not abides by the same rules/taxes as we do.

Please don't generalise....Good and bad in all jobs.

All Pilots are not all exRAF, battle of Britain types twiddling our moustaches.....some of us are quite normal too.

Vref+10.....to 44 - W.r.t. 'tears because someone is trying to break into your house'

If somebody breaks into my house they'll be lucky if they come out alive - don't ask - indeed last time somebody tried that on me ( in SA ) I emptied a full clip in their direction !

That said, due to namby-pamby UK laws, I'm not allowed to own a shooter here but I do have something that's just as good ( certainly as lethal ) and pretty much legal too ( bar the 'broadhead' bolts I normally use ).

So the last person I'd call is the old bill. :E

Sorry Vref:

But as a former respecter of the law and those that uphold it, I have reversed my position over the last two or three years.

I also hope you brother gets a good kicking.

Im sorry, like the monarchy they have lost all my respect.

So teacher finally semt this thread to JetBlast?

:E

Daysleeper/WMHB
 

Unfortunately the day has already arrived.

About two years ago someone walked across the track at Hitchin station into the path of a High Speed Train (running at 125 mph). Plod arrived, and insisted on breathalysing the train driver (presumably for being responsible and not stopping or steering out of the way). Turned out that said Driver's test was positive. Now for the GOOD bit. They arrest him and take him away, grinning happily, and thinking of promotion. When they get to the Police Station it seems that their breath test machine was not working correctly. Driver was definitely NOT drunk and had absolutely NO alcohol at all.

I should SO love to have been him. I suspect the payout could be rather large!

Scenario No. 2. Terminal station in Surrey. Train arriving into station encounters wet greasy rails with result that it gently touches the buffer stops. Plod who apparantly is on site sees this and immediately arrests and removes Driver form the scene. This without ANY information being passed to anyone and resulting in the train being left un-secured. Such action is in the view of all right thinking railwaymen criminal. Unfortunately the stupid arrogant arseholes who arrested him have presumably got off with it. By the way that Driver was NOT under the influence either.

From a railwayman's point of view the one good thing is that we still have our own Police force, whose Officers are still embodied with common sense. They understand the railways and how we operate.

On the occasions when they do ask us to provide a specimen we understand that they need us to do so, and are not on some power trip. There is still thus a very considerable respect for OUR Police against the civil police who on occasions can be total wankers when dealing with things off the road.

I can see by some of the post's that a few have lost some respect for the police. I am at a loss as to why. Is it because of you being at the wrong place at the wrong time in the past? Being asked questions a little too private for your comfort level?

I am sure the officer in question had a brain in his or her head. And is well versed in the law of the land. If the officer believes on resonable and probable grounds that a Breath test was required, they are obligated to issue a request for breath. Whether the situation, complaint or otherwise relates to a car, a train or even an airplane.

I personally have delt with numerous people that have called into police and reported a car swerving in the road, or a car that is driving erratically, and believes that the operator is drunk. It's the first thing a dispatcher will tell you.

When the car is stopped, the 75 year old man with pop bottle glasses spends 20 minutes locating the ownership and the proof of insurance. Or, the mom with 3 kids in the car is trying to get the kids home from school and the kids are all yelling and screming tossing a ball around the inside of the car.

I think that the officer acts on the report, using witness accounts of the given situation, and makes a determination as to wheter or not investigate further. I am unaware of the facts in this case, but I would Imagine that the police officer would have had resonable and probable grounds to ask the pilot for a sample of his or her breath based on an investigation made by that officer, of that pilot.

And if some of you see a police officer getting the snot kicked outta him, and you witness this, you can be arrested for obstructing justice. At least here in Canada anyway.

Just my 2 cents

dimbleby et others,

you really are twats.

i believe you've lost the plot........stop reading The Sun, on your dub-cdf-jsy-dub-jsy-cdf-dub, or in your grass strip aeroderome tin hut....take off your green flying suit, lose the epaulettes....and grow up.

like I said you are twats.

over generalising enough for ya?

regards.

vref.

(BTW brothers on his way round now....don't answer your door!)

Ontariotech,

based on the information provided in this thread, under UK procedures, the officer does not have a power to require a breath specimen based on the fact that someone says a person must be drunk because they've carried out 2 missed approaches.

The officer MUST either smell alcohol and believe that the person has committed an offence or have strong suspicions because of the manner of the suspected offender.

As has been stated previously here, the limit set under the act are so low that it is unlikely that the officer will be able to smell alcohol, and it is unlikely that the pilots manner would have been such that he could remotley suspect that an offence has been committed.

Therefore all he / she could do is ask that the pilot provide a sample voluntarily provided that the suspect was clearly informed that they are under no obligation do do so.

Unfortunately some of these over zealous police officers polishing their shiny machine guns get carried away.

Under UK law if an officer has grounds to require a sample and you refuse then you are liable to arrest. My guess is that the officer said that he/ she required a sample of breath and advised the pilot that they would be liable to arrest if they failed to provide the sample, thereby putting pressure on the pilot to provide even though the officer had NO GROUNDS to require the sample.

Like I said previously, people are ignorant of the powers of the Police who will abuse these powers because they know that they can.

I've seen it done and much to my shame in th epast I've done it myself.

As for rushing to the aid of a Police Officer who was getting the crap kicked out of them, I would, purely because I know they would do the same for me.

Since moving to Scotland from England, I have had more than one dealing with the Police up here and I can honestly say that so far I have found them to be the worst for attitude towards people and abuse of authority.

caniplaywithmadness

No, a policeman does not have the power to demand for the sake of it. However, as you are well aware, you do not know the full circumstances of this incident. You were not on with the PC, when he made the requirement, nor are you party to the full details of what the woman said, or did not say.

Without those bits of information you are not able to say the officers had no grounds for requiring a test.

It's always easy to be critical when the full facts are not known, or rumour is listened too.

Like you, all police officers have been there seen it and done it. I can also presume you, like me have also bent the rules slightly to do people a favour and show someone accusing them that there is no substance to what they think. Thereby saving them from making allagations later when what they say cannot be disproved.

Whatever Police do it will upset someone. Most officers accept that as a fact of life.

Mike Jenvey

19 years
Heathrow (13 years) 2 South London Stations before that.
In uniform
5 years

Happy?

Now to move on....

You say:

'Assuming this is correct'

On what basis is it assumed to be correct? The story keeps changing. This piece of 'information' is nothing like the original, except it concerns a woman.

Your statements re crahes & handling the aircraft have nothing to do with this incident, no one said there was a crash, nor that they mishandled the aircraft. Neither is required to require a breath test.

See my last comment re being with the officer before you ASSUME that Police had no legal basis to conduct a test.

Mods: Can we please send this one to Rumours and News? :ugh:

Nah, it's just JBs reaction to all those threads that get a posting like "I give this five minutes and it's off to JetBlast" :Derr:

11 pages and the discussion is still going. Has it got anywhere yet?





There's a smiley I have to copy :ok:

Mike Jenvey

Where, in any of this thread have you read anything that is evidence? No where.

Has the Officer concerned spoken on here? No.

Has anyone any knowladge of what he found on the flight deck? NO.

Was anyone here present when the woman was spoken to by police? NO.

So what have you got here? Nothing. No evidence of what happened. Just second hand information and a lot of assumptions.

You can quote the act and sections all you like, but you are missing the one bit of information you need to decide if what happened was right or wrong...ie WHAT ACTUALY HAPPENED!

To compound it, you talk of 'supervisors' sending police to incidents. What are you talking about? 'Supervisors' do not send police to anything. Communications staff do. Supervisors make very few decisions at operational level, they don't have to. So why should they be punished for something you have assumed to be wrong.

I am fully aware of what this act says. As I said in THIS case crashes and or mishandling are irelevent. There was no crash, nor is the incident relevent as such. Neither of these factors are needed to require a breath test.

A crash DOES NOT mandate a breath test. A Constable MAY is what the act says, not MUST. Nothing in this, nor the RTA, MANDATE a breath test of anyone.

There is one person that knows the what the grounds for the test were. And he probably wont be telling you what they are. There are several reasons for it. Firstly, it's none of your, mine or anyone elses business.and secondly, it is not policy of most, if not all police forces to give details of incidents where people are exonerated.

bjcc
 

Oh come now !

I cannot believe that a PC could have formed 'reasonable' grounds for considering that the flight deck crew were unfit and should be tested.

'Reasonable' would mean just that but would need to be justified by the smell of acohol, or something in their demeanour that indicate that they were unfit.

Taking the fact that they had just flown in from somewhere they would not have been over the limit at that stage from the night before.

I think the point practically everyone has made on here is along those lines.

The forming of a judgement requires sound reasoning skills, it would appear that they were lacking in this case.

I also think it is outrageous that the Police cannot be held to account for their actions in this case, and the 'policy' of not commenting is totally at odds with the natural law of justice.

Effectively they can act as they wish, and then 'hide' behind policy

bjcc

As you say, none of us was there. However, what we do know is that the both pilots were in fact under the aviation limit which is extremely low - it's effectively zero for all practical purposes.

Given that they were, it is inconceivable that there was alcohol on their breath and, it does seem at least very odd (perhaps unlikely?) that there could have been anything about them which could have caused the PCs who attended to reasonably suspect they had been drinking. And both pilots, at that.

The point would have no force if they were under the road limit (4 times higher) because it's possible to smell of alcohol and yet still be under the road limit.

True, we don't have all the facts from either side. However, you clearly assume, in the absence of facts to the contrary, that the PCs acted reasonably. Why shouldn't others assume in the absence of facts to the contrary, but in the circumstances mentioned above, that they didn't?

I take your point that 'supervisory rank' officers didn't necessarily play any part in what happened. However, in light of what did happen here, even on the bare facts we do know, perhaps there's a good argument that the nature of the 'complaint/report' should be considered by someone of supervisory rank before constables are dispatched to aircraft. It would take only minutes.
eg If a report was from some anonymous caller who claimed the pilots must have been drunk because they sounded 'relaxed', a supervisor could treat the report with such importance as he thought it justified and decide what action, if any, was required.
Whether or not in theory the police should follow up every call they receive, in practice they don't.

FL

You know as well as I do that a Constable is responsible for his own actions and decisions. 'Supervisor' functions are limited in that decision making process. The Police are not like the forces in that respect. I cannot see any role for a supervisor in this, or any other minor incident. Because that is what it is.

There is a difference between saying 'I don't think' there was a reason for requiring a test, and the conclusive statements made by some that the officer did not have a reason.

In the absence of facts I cannot say either way, nor can anyone else. You may be right that there was no smell of alcohol. Having said that, you could be wrong.

Having met a fair few aircraft on arrival, the smell of alcohol when the doors are opened can be strong, thoughout the aircraft. So in fact there may have been that smell. In that case, the rather unscientific 'nose in the mouth test' would have been inappropriate, but a breath test would be.

Referring back to something you were involved in, some 12 hours after drinking it is possible to be 6 times over the limit. So it is possible that someone could have been over the limit.

Obviously they were not, but that is the object of a breath test, to show one way or the other.

Astradome.

It is not a matter of being unfit, it is being above a prescribed limit.

That limit, as FL points out is very low. Therefore the reasonable grounds and the factors looked for would be correspondingly lower. You could be right, and they could have been lacking, alternatively they could have had very good grounds, just because they don't make those grounds public does not mean they don't exist.


The Force Policy is probably based around confidentiality as far as the person(s) complained of. Also, harsh as it sounds it really is no one else’s business

maybe the pax was the pilot's ex.....