Thomson pilot arrested at BHX
 

Reportedly suspended. Incident from 10th February but only just emerged.

Do we assume strong waters
involved, or he just insulted one of the security lackys ?

Hopefully the latter, or maybe he suggested a more appropriate holiday destination for a prospective/former passenger.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2013/03/05/pilot-arrested-at-birmingham-airport-for-being-drunk-on-duty-92746-32925869/[/URL]

.......................

Good news, so the "water bottle Nazis " got it wrong then.

Not really. Not being charged and actually being innocent are two separate issues. Maybe he is not being charged because he was stopped before he started actively performing his duties, which means he could claim in his defense plea that he might still have decided to report "unfit for duty" before actually endangering anyone/anything. The prosecution cannot prove otherwise as he was caught too soon. There was a case recently where there was no conviction exactly for this reason, although the pilot was really well above limit and had already boarded his plane.
This will not prevent an internal disciplinary action though.

This will not prevent an internal disciplinary action though

Before you get jumped on I'm assuming you are meaning the case you quoted as opposed to the Thomson Pilot.

I actually meant both. While charges of "endangering air safety" might not stick in a court of law, just being over the limit while on duty/in full company uniform could be reason for disciplinary action and possible dismissal. You know, breach of trust, damaging the company image etc. etc.
Different standards apply to different contexts and successful criminal prosecution is, in general, not a prerequisite to internal actions.

PS. I just noticed that he had already been subjected to disciplinary action, namely suspension from active duty. QED :ok:

Who has said he was over the limit?

Or, possibly, the reason for suspension from active duty was because of the police investigation. If thats now closed then the person in question might be able to get back to work.

Just because they are suspended from active duty doesn't mean they have done anything wrong. QED. :ok:

(Just playing devils advocate and putting a counter balance to your argument.)

I presume the officers who tested him and then proceeded with the arrest? Or are you saying they arrested him just because they didn't like the way he looked at them.
What I was pointing out is merely that his not being charged does not automatically mean that he was not drunk (i.e. "The water-bottle nazis got it wrong"), just that he had not committed a criminal offense he could be successfully charged with. Or is being drunk while merely wearing a pilot's uniform a criminal matter now? ;)
As for suspension from duty (presumably with no pay?) not being of a disciplinary nature in itself, if that's your thing than good for you but it would certainly piss me off to no end (especially the no pay part). :}

Just as charges not being pressed does not imply he has done nothing wrong, just that he won't be prosecuted for it in a court of law. :ok:

Dg

When in a hole the best course of action is to stop digging. Pilots are never suspended without pay in Thomson Airways. Suspension is a normal practice whilst an inicident of any type is investigated. It is in no way an indication of guilt.

I seem to recall a foreign pilot being arrested in Manchester several years ago for being drunk. He was ritually humiliated by the media and by posters such as yourself on here. I think that he had upset someone in the hotel who called in to say he had been drinking and he was arrested. In the end, after some time and with nothing in the way of apology from the media of the malicious posters on here it emerged he had not been drinking at all.

Why don't we just assume that this case is similar until shown to be otherwise?

In a democracy, a person is innocent until found guilty. Might be different in Bongabongaland.

Love the evolution of some aussie's.

Can/does a field breathalyser detect the low amount needed for the requirements of aviation. The traffic light system detects either no alcohol (green), that there is alcohol (amber), or to much alcohol (red).

Or do the police just arrest and go to the evidential breathalyser?

What john_smith said!

Lets not shoot first and ask questions later. The pilot, according to the law, has done nothing wrong. If he had, he would be charged with something. Thats the way it works.

Oh, and I'm not a "******* Pommy." I'm not even a normal "Pommy" because I'm not a "Pommy" at all. (I'm assuming by "Pommy" you mean someone from the United Kingdom) :rolleyes:

rjay259

I very much doubt that the police will have anything other than the normal issue breathalysers.

It may be that he blew amber and while as a traffic offence that would be a word of warning it could be that the officers knew the aviation limits and had enough to warrant a further test back at the station.

If what I've seen on TV is anything to go by if he blew under the limits on the station machine I would have thought he would have been released there and then. Given that this went further there must be something else we don't know about.

It was not known where in the airport the pilot was arrested, or whether it was the r
 

I do wander, was it the water bottle nazis or the blunt knife of the whistle blower.

Pretty pointless thread when we have zero facts to pontificate on.