UK pilot breathalysed after go arounds
 

A BACX pilot was last week breathalysed after performing two go arounds at MAN due to a technical problem.

A passenger reported to police that he "must be drunk as he took three goes to land the plane".

Police breathalysed the Captain who was negative.

Speechless.

This law is totally flawed by stupid or malicious accusations.

OK BJCC, over to you for some ex-cop pontificating.

Jeeeeeez.

I'm glad I'm out of it.

Would the same passenger run to the cops if his/her partner picked him up from the airport and smelt of cooking sherry, but then perhaps it didn't take him/her three goes to park the car, or did it?

MP;)

If this statement is true and I was the captain in question, I would give serious consideration to suing for libel.

The only thing that would put me off is that the pax may not be able to pay my costs, when I won.

Is it worth asking for the source of this story? Some sort of clue of its derivation.

One suspects any offence is likely to be one of spoken defamation, i.e slander <-- click for dictionary definition(s).

behind_the_second_midland

'OK BJCC, over to you for some ex-cop pontificating'

The breath test was negative...Has not appeared in the press, or if it has, there was no big thing made over it. Except by you.

Ever been breath tested driving and been negative? I have, so have 1000's of other people. Many of those, as the result of what someone thinks. So lets get rid of the breath test for drivers shall we?

Try reading the act, instead of pontificating over it....The passenger did not breath test the pilot, Police did. It was the officers decision to do so not the informant.

Let me get this right. The pilot has a technical problem, demanding considerable concentration and probably a little perspiration, and some aggrieved passenger can get a policemann to breathalyse him????

Someone tell me this is not true!!

I dread to think what will haappen after my next sim check!

Will I get breatyhalysed after every "non standard" event in future? Does the policeman even know what is "normal" and what is not in avaition? On what basis of suspicion was this guy tested?

Pathetic. The law is really an ass.


So how about this - let's remove the fun and games before it gets going. How about a machine at check in. You blow, get cleared for the duty you are about to start and then all these scalp hunters can go get lost...

Amazed

On the subject of go-arounds...
 

Recently came across this award winning piece of journalism. (A little off topic I know).

"Screams as Team Plane Pulls Out of Landing"

I find amusing the commentary on the pilot's performance and state of mind.

The Policeman in question wants breath tested
 

This is one of the most dumb-assed reasons I have heard of to breath test a pilot/Captain.

BJCC

You seem to think the local copper had every right to humiliate this Captain by asking him to blow into the tube!

Correct me if I am wrong........... Under existing laws, UK police can only carry out a breath test if they believe the driver has been drinking.

Instead of "driver" as in road, make that "Captain" as in air......... so tell me BJCC, what had the copper to go on that made him seriously believe the Captain had been drinking - as far as I can tell, he only had some second-hand (?) verbal announcement from some PRAT 'down the back' ?

I do not condone drinking and driving, and I certainly do not condone drinking and flying, in fact I want far tougher penalties: BUT, there cannot be a case to breath-test a Commander on the say so of some ignorant fool riding down the back who thinks "3 goes to land the plane" equates to being drunk or indeed even having had a drink.

As Old King Cole said slander!

As Final 3 Greens suggests, I too would be after that bast*rd for slander - and I would write a very stiff letter to the Chief Constable to get the ball rolling.

If you think BJCC the "officer" (ha!) made a wise decision by using such pathetic evidence from an "informant" then I think you have been badly misled........... an ex-copper yourself? Pheww.

The police have a very difficult time on the streets, but to be reduced to this crap, does nothing to limit true crime.

I hope the Captain takes this further, so no further stupidity is enforced upon those who fly.

Like Max Pete, I am glad I am out of the profession, and so sorry for you guys that have to put up with such sh*t.

TG

Old King Coal

Although not a lawyer, as I understand the law ...

- Slander is a false statement

- Libel is a false and malicious statement

Libel can be caused by a written or spoken statement.

Given the circumstances reported here (they may not be accurate), I think the latter would likely apply.

Neither are offences, since they are not criminal, but civil actions.

BJCC

The policeman may have made the decision to test the pilot, but he was applying the criminal law, not the civil law.

The pax who allegedly made the accusation can still be held to account for his/her actions in the civil courts, although a pyrrhic victory may be the result.

We shouldn't forget that both codes run in parallel under some circumstances.

I suppose it will be Pilots/Apples next :confused: ...... I wonder if they will use Tornado's as the Spotter aircraft with the Polite man in the rear seat :ugh:

Final 3 Greens - As I understand it - the (civil) offence here is one encompassed as 'defamation'.

• Libel is written defamation
• Slander is verbal defamation

Click the links to see what I mean.

If this had been anywhere near true it would have been all over the media. I don't believe a word of it.

<<If this had been anywhere near true it would have been all over the media. I don't believe a word of it.>>

I have no knowledge of this current incident but, based on my experience over a long time, I wouldn't doubt it one bit. I have been involved in perfectly normal, safe, go-arounds which suddenly became "seconds from disaster" simply because some pop-idol prat was on board and mouthed off to everyone on landing. I also experienced a passenger ringing ATC to file an airmiss!!! He'd seen something "alongside" during a bank in a holding pattern and insisted that it had been dangerous... wanted the pilot and controller suspended, etc. You can't believe the loonies who get on aeroplanes (at the back, that is!!)

Tartan Giant

'Correct me if I am wrong........... Under existing laws, UK police can only carry out a breath test if they believe the driver has been drinking. '

No, Thats one of 3 reasons.


'If you think BJCC the "officer" (ha!) made a wise decision by using such pathetic evidence from an "informant" then I think you have been badly misled........... an ex-copper yourself? Pheww.'
'
Did I say he made a wise decision? No, I did not, nor did I say he didn't.

You jumped to a conclution, rather like this passenger appears to have done. I don't know I wasn't there. I presume nor were you, so think of it another way, how do you know he didn't have good reason to test?

Before you go jumping in with suggestions of sueing, think about the next time someone sees a house being broken into and thinks 'I wont ring the police, it might be innocent and I'll get sued.'

Runway 31, it may well be true, and in spite of the scare mongering on here, perhaps it isn't newsworthy.

T'other night an A321 did 2 [repeat, 2] Go Arounds at Manch, then Diverted to Liverpool [Reason, 40kt Xwind]. Following night, same pilot landed ok [15kt Xwind] Remark from pilot. "Not as bad as last night" :ok:
Was he "Breathalised?"
Rollocks :mad:
watp,iktch

OK Mr Plod
 

Right then BJCC......... with your old copper hat on, some questions for you.

1. What are the other two reasons that a policeman has solid grounds to ask somebody to blow into the bag?

2. Did the policeman in the purported incident have these other two reasons as back-up?

3. Getting off the fence for a moment, knowing what you know of this alledged incident, is it reasonable for this Commander to blow into the bag?


4. I think you would know for damn sure if I had been there - I would have said - and I would have rather more solid ground to jump to more conclusions, that this initial report of some prat down the back causing trouble for no sound reason that anybody here can see.
If you think a few go-arounds is good reason for a breath test then we have further evidence that we have nannies looking after us rather than policemen - would you agree?

5. There can be no comparison of actualy SEEING a crime in progress (breaking and entering) and this alledged incident where a passenger ASSUMES a crime has been committed through his pure ignorance - would you not agree?


6. From what you have read ( we all know you are not in possession of the true facts) of this passenger causing a Captain to be breath-tested, do you believe a policeman has good reason to ask the guy to blow in the bag?


TG

I can assure it its true

What do you want me to do name him?

It was an RJ captain based at MAN and thanks BJCC for not disappointing us.

Not got his fuel correct then!

Tartan Giant

In the case of cars ..involved in an accident or a moving traffic offence.

In the case of aviation. Involved in an accident.

In both cases there does not have to be any suspicision of drink.

There obviously wasn't an accident, but the suspicion of having been drinking may have come from the officer himself.

Is it reasonable? I don't know, I wasn't there. You ask me to get off the fence, I can't sorry. I don't have all the facts, nor does anyone else, so no one can comment.

IF thats all there was, an off hand remark by someone who had not spoken, or seen the captain, then no I don't think it was reasonable. But then, there may be more to this, until we know one way or the other then slating the pax is doing the same thing you are accusing him of.

5. Yes there is a comparison, the informant does not KNOW a crime is being committed, he thinks it is. Same principle applies. The burglar may turn out to be a window cleaner. Think it doesn't happen? Yes it does, often.

6. Is that the same question as number 3?

You say, rightly I know no more than you do about this. I have pointed out that there is a narrow view of the incidnet being put across. There is an altenative view depending on what actualy happned.

The coppers at MAN must have had a pretty good idea there was nothing amiss here but as soon as the pax went to them they had no choice but to follow up the complaint? Coppers being coppers they assume everyone is guilty so they let the thing sort of develop to see what happens. Nature of the beast?

Big egoes too and they sure do like to get off on the power trip thing especially the British ones at airports armed up to the teeth and in their paramilitary gear. Definitely a case of my one is bigger than yours!

Unfortunately I can assure everyone that this is a true story!

Is currently under discussion on the company internet site, and the management say we must abide by the police wishes for a breathyliser regardless of the reason for suspicion. No-one has yet asked about the possibility of legal action for libel (or slander whichever is appropriate).

This country has become too interested in 'where there's a blame there's a claim', and there is no retribution on false accusations. Even the coppers should be pushing for 'wasting police time'?

MLT (counting down the days!!!)

ps dicksy.. nearly an hour and still not moderated? Wow, you must have hit the nail on the head!

Diesel,
"How about a machine at check in. You blow, get cleared for the duty you are about to start and then all these scalp hunters can go get lost..."

You are correct, compulsory pre-flight testing would protect pilots against accusations like this.

Keeping the pax calm in the first place could have helped. I'm certainly no ace, but I could always find time to let the punters know what's going on, even if I had my hands full. The only problem I found was, that being shaken around vigorously sometimes imposed a tremor onto my voice. It was imperative not to sound anything but calm.

Once I said ‘If they believe that they'd believe anything' after a soothing speech. My F/O looked at me in horror...and then at the intercom switch. The frightened pax were then treated to a kind of jibbering laughter-voice, trying to fob them off with ‘just one of my little jokes fOoOoOoAaAks' type explanations as we bounce the last mile or so.

Perhaps Officer Dibble should spend his time investigating real crime rather than Pax speculation.

Thank god I left the UK!

My only thought is that it had to be MAN, didn`t it ?
I'm sure they must get their security people from the same heap as GLA and MME.
Max.Pete and Tartan Giant.
Can we, who are on the outside now, do anything to help the poor b*gg*rs who have inherited our noble profession ??
Or do we just breath a sigh of relief ?

Sleeve. :mad:

Hmm, obviously someone does think the police were right to pursue this and I was wrong!

:rolleyes:

What about if a self test machine was available voluntarily. If you happened to test over the limit (maybe you were at a dinner party the night before and think you are OK, but not sure?) you could turn around and walk away from the duty on health grounds (go sick?) with no come back or action against you?

This could be introduced in a very positive way by the company/BALPA or whatever, as after all, safety is paramount, right? You lose nothing personally if you test positive accidentally. Those that know they are OK, and would feel that their integrity was being questioned by testing themselves would not need to do so prior to duty. If there was any accusation of insobriety by anyone at all, you know you are OK, right?

The Airlines duty of care is fullfilled to passengers and its crews, hopefully this type of thread becomes a thing of the past.

Regards, SD..

So that is the reaction of the EZY-Case in SXF?

Every pax reports its crew to the police/security staff if something happened thas was in the pax opinion "Weird"!

No blame for the police, they just do their jobs!


We can just hope that this situation is a one-time-happening and not as of now every pax that was shakened a bit due to turbulence or whatever is calling the police after ldg!


Regards

what exactly was this technical problem?

Can i suggest an alternative theory (without resorting to the pathetic Police/BJCC bashing)

Passenger accuses a pilot of being drunk
Police turn up
Pilot VOLUNTEERS to give the breath to prove to the passenger beyond any doubt that he is not "under the influence"
Everyone happy

In this case there is absolutely no question of the pilot being under the influence because he took the test.

Puts a slightly different spin on the whole thing? Just a thought.....

Why not just ban alcohol full stop within the uk nanny state. That would remove the cause of most antisocial behaviour etc, allowing our overstretched police forces to concentrate and their speed cameras.

Might put another big hole in Gordons tax take.

:E

BJCC:
We all see now why you became a policeman.

Insert the following after "Pilot VOLUNTEERS...."

Pilot then sues supercillious passenger for defamation (be it slander, libel or whatever)

Everyone happy, except the supercillious fool who started this.

Beware anyone who accuses me, make sure your FACTS are irrefutable.

Mr Chips,

Good try, but any alternative view is frowned upon here.

I'm supprised they did not do him for 'flying with out due care or attention' or maybe arrest him as a 'terror suspect' and send him off to Cuba, was he eating an Apple by any chance????

Sleeve,

I agree there must be something we can do.

False accusers must be made accountable but then you get the old chesnut:- "I was only acting in good faith"

The government, 'cos they make the laws, should have thought of this when the law was drafted. They didn't and now the noble profession has to put up with every pip-squeak and guttersnipe having a go and you can't do a d**n thing because you are gagged from going to the press by your terms and conditions. The company can issue a statement and it's not long before a name trickles into the press and even though you are all clear mud sticks. So much for the Human Rights Act and the right to privacy!

The goverment pay a man a good six figure sum to draft laws but I guess it must have been his day off when it was drafted.

Try writing to your MP and see where that gets you. My views on the chances on a reply are unprintable but if you send an e-mail at least you won't have wasted a stamp and it might make you feel a bit better.

Max P


:oh:

As people within the industry, either as crew or ground staff we are all more than familiar with a go-around (or two). However if you are an infrequent traveller it must seem pretty damn scary when the power comes back on the aircraft starts to cimb again. Especially with no idea whats happening or a reason why. Some family friends came back from holiday a month back and were telling me about the aircraft 'missing the landing' took me a few attempts to find out it was a simple go-around.

Im afraid that when you mix lack of knowledge with continued stories in the press re pilots caught drinking (no matter how badly they are reported) this is the end result.

Just out of interest if it had been you and the copper pitched up, listened to your story and said he was satisifed this was all a bit silly and no breath test was required, would any of you insist he carried out one anyway. I'm pretty sure I would have. Mud does stick so at least this way your innocence is undoubtable. Just a shame it has to come to this.

just to clarify the earlier point (i'm sure flying lawyer will give me a slap if i am wrong - i am after all in the "lesser" profession... )

Libel is a defamatory statement in permanent form, for example (eg writing, film etc). Slander is a defamatory statement in a transient form (ie spoken).
Libel is actionable per se (no need to prove that any damage has arisen from the libel). Generally some kind of damage must be proved for slander. However an exception is made to this rule in certain circumstances. One of these is where there is an imputation that the claimant is unfit to carry on his trade, profession or calling.
So if i say X is the worst banker in the world, he loses everyone's money - that is "actionable per se". There is no need to prove that any damage (eg loss of clients) flowed from my comments.

There's a lot more to a defamation claim than this, however...
:hmm:

I shot a ride to Genova (LIMJ) on Rwy 29 a couple of nights ago with rt x-wind 23, gusting 35. A couple 'f self loading cargo had some sick but I didn't request them to be breathalysed.:O :O :yuk: :ok: