I guess the real story here is that the RTA is comprehensively broken and the aviation sections need repealing and replacing with something that actually achieves its aims.


Some serious questions also need to be asked of the police and the equipment and procedures they are using in these cases.

I cannot see anything very different in the aviation and road traffic alcohol procedures. other than the much lower limit for the former. Officer forms reasonable suspicion that subject has consumed alcohol - requires screening test - if passed, no action. If failed or refused, subject arrested and taken to police station. If no screening tester is available the officer has power to arrest anyway (on reasonable suspicion) as they do with drivers.
Because the aviation limit is so low the evidential breath tester in the police station cannot be used (it is designed and calibrated for a limit of 35 mcg/100ml) so a blood sample has to be taken by a doctor, and sent off for analysis. If. as in the Virgin case, the test reveals the subject to be under the limit, no further action. If it's over, subject will be charged.

This was a gruelling experience for the pilot, and we have to sympathise with what he went through, but surely the overriding need to ensure airline safety makes it a price that has to be paid. It happens to train drivers and to car drivers all the time - there is no need for new rules for pilots.

The only equipment-related difference that I can see is that if a driver blows between 35.1 and 39.9 mcg/100ml he will not be charged. There is no such leeway given with a blood test, for pilots or motorists - it's pass or fail.

I'm saddened that the follow up isn't headlined as 'pilot cleared.'

Even now, there are undertones of suspicion in the report, hints of not proven innocent, etc.

More completely ballix reporting, trying to get a shock headline even when the story has disappeared.

When stating "was under the legal alcohol limit for aviation workers" it need to be remembered that the limit is not set to zero as it necessarily needs to make allowance for normal bodily functions (i.e. as is oft said, the human body itself can manufacture alcohol) and therein even a teetotaller could blow a 'non-zero' reading. It is therefore very unfortunate that this is not emphasised in subsequent reporting of 'not-guilty as below the limit'.

The limit for aviation is such that being under it you are effectively are as sober as a judge.

Unfortunately the individual involved is still not out of the woods...

Our guys are breath tested before going offshore to certain, (Norwegian), facilities..

We had a guy who 'failed' but subsequently 'passed' a blood sample, (he did the blood under his own steam and cash!!!).

To this day every time they are going out there's some '"had a drink xxxx?" comment.

Throw enough mud and it some will stick.

Update on AOL news this lunchtime
http://news.aol.co.uk/arrested-pilot...24023909990001

And the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/s...100084,00.html

Hopefully this will get some coverage over the weekend, not much of a consolation I know.

maybe the police could now expend some of their energy on questioning the pilot's accuser to asertain his/her reason for reporting this? it couldn't be that they smelt alcohol because there wasn't any.was it vindictive?

Unwell_RaptorYou say the system is fine, I don't have the stats but it would make an interesting Freedom of Information request.
How many operating crew have been subject to testing under the "reasonable suspicion" that they have breached the RTA?
How many have been positive using the field equipment?
How many have later been proven not to have been over the effective zero limit?
How many have later been found guilty of an offense?

In other words are the procedures and equipment actually able to reduce the number of false positives to an acceptable level?
And does the risk we are attempting to prevent actually justify the destruction of reputation's of pilots and airlines that a false positive produces.

windytoo Whilst I agree with you, how about "What a wonderful employee, looking out for the well being of pax." :*

Unwell_RaptorIt may well happen to train drivers - but do they get hauled off in front of pax, escorted through the terminal in front of pax and create headlines in the press that can smear the carrier and other crew? It is THAT which needs changing.

Is it not the case that, irrespective of how the police were informed of a possible offense being committed, that the officer may only administer a breath test if he has grounds for believing that the person has been drinking? I.E. he could smell Alcohol on the pilots breath/saw him/her drinking an alcoholic drink.

If the police did a breath test just based on a third party's say so would that not have been illegal?

Didn't stop them testing that crew in Manchester cos a passenger complained they had done a go around. :rolleyes:

It is worth reading the comments posted by the public (and even someone claiming a PPL) following the AOL report
http://news.aol.co.uk/arrested-pilot...24023909990001
It shows clearly just how much damage is done to a reputation and also shows why some sort of action should be taken to stop such accusations.

Feel free to add your own comment!

well I sincerely hope that he finds who made the allegation, which must have been malicious. Anyone who has a lower alchohol content than the aviation limit would not 'smell' of alchohol or exhibit any 'drunken' tendancies, which means that a malicious accusation sounds fairly likely.

this is not the first time this has happened. About time someone was prosecuted for these sort of accusations.

Green Granite, I assume that if an aircraft is forced to return to stand following such an accusation, a wait is incurred for steps/a stand/a jetty etc then plod strolling on deciding there isnt enough cause to administer such a test, patting the guy on the back and letting them on their merry way isnt sufficient. Would the falsely accused then be in a fit state to operate? Would the crew now be in hours? Has the destination got a curfew? Is it wise for any company to allow the falsely accused to operate and assume if anything totally unconnected occurs the red tops would not have a field day?

It appears in such an incident the police have no choice therefore to administer the test. I accept that. It therefore makes it even more important to ascertain why the accusation has been made and if any fault can be found the accuser is dealt with severly, it is not an acceptable defence to claim one was acting in the interests of the passengers and using it as a 'get out of jail card.'

Regards

I agree, the offense of "wasting police time" springs to mind.

vengefull
 

why on earth would it be a vengefull crew member our collegues in the flight deck are allways so pleaseant and a pleasure to work with why would any crew d that !!

I once failed a screening test while driving a car - despite not having drunk a thing for weeks prior to the incident. Although I have no proof, I suspect that my mouthwash had caused me to set the machine off, as I had used some about an hour before. Fortunately there is a second screening test here in NZ which doesn't just detect the presence of alcohol, it measures the breath alcohol content. After passing this I was able to proceed on my merry way.

Surely something similar could be used in situations like this to save all of that wasted time, money and tarnished reputations...

One must remember that a VS crew member was found intoxicated, prosecuted, and found guilty not all that long ago, even if that crew member was found over the limit downroute.
Therefore VS has a slight cloud over their operations in this regard.
Why?
How many other airlines passing through LHR has had a FD crew member sucessfully prosecuted for the relevent offence?
Numbers on a postcard.:rolleyes:

411a

'one swallow does not make a summer'

411, Royal Brunei springs to mind.....