cactusmike

It's the SUN, never let facts get in the way of a story.

There have been several instances in the UK where the security staff have been a little overzealous. While the guy mave have indeed been over the limit the first response is to haul him off the flightdeck, give him a test and go on from thereand that will get your story in the papers. The follow up to this will be buried on some back page.

The salary thing probably came from the imagination of the reporter, whose mate's best friend's neighbor's brother in law flies for BA and that's what he makes. Or the guy was an IRO with a few years seniority, in which case he was probably going to sleep it off anyway. (just kidding)

Bellerophon

If I may just expand upon one or two points about UK law and police procedure, for those of you who do not visit the UK frequently.

As it is UK law that will apply in this case, FAA and/or UA regulations regarding alcohol levels, drinking time limits before flight or whether he was actually "flying" at the time of arrest, will not be relevant to proceedings brought in the UK, although both those bodies may decide to initiate enquiries, in the USA, under their own legislation.

From press reports here in the UK, it appears he was arrested on suspicion of committing the offence of ...being aviation staff performing an aviation function whilst exceeding the prescribed alcohol limit....

This is an offence under the UK Railways & Transport Safety Act 2003, and the wording, as ever, is very important. The three elements of the offence that any prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt are:

• Was he aviation staff?
• Was he performing an aviation function?
• Was he over the prescribed limit?

Under UK law, the prescribed aviation alcohol limit is 9mcg/100 ml breath for a flight crew member, in US terminology an alcohol level of 0.02.

This UK aviation limit for flight crew is one quarter of the current UK drink/drive limit of 35mcg/100ml breath, in US terminology an alcohol level of 0.08.

What now follows is not definitive; merely my view of what the procedure is likely to have been.

Two breath/alcohol tests are involved in any prosecution.

The first, the preliminary or screening test, will have been administered by a uniformed police constable, on the spot, using a hand-held device that was (probably) designed for the higher levels of drink driving.

Regardless of how the police come to be involved, or where the accusation comes from, before any screening test can be administered, the uniformed officer who attends must form the opinion that he ...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...

Failing, or refusing, this preliminary screening test, will result in arrest on suspicion of committing the offence.

However, in view of the minute levels of alcohol involved; and the tolerances of the hand-held screening device; this is not, in law, considered a reliable enough test on which to charge the defendant. A much more accurate test needs to be performed before the defendant can be formally charged with any offence and a prosecution mounted.

Back at the police station, this second, evidential test, test will take place.

This will probably have been a blood test (possibly urine), drawn by a police surgeon, and split into two specimens, one for police analysis, one for the defendant and his legal team.

The defendant will then be bailed, to return to the police station at a later date. Once the results of the evidential test are known, if positive, the defendant will be formally charged on his return, and the case will proceed to court.

If convicted, judging by previous recent cases, a custodial sentence would seem inevitable, the length depending on the amount of alcohol involved and any personal mitigation.

If negative, he will be advised that no further action will be taken, and that proceedings are concluded.

Permit me to conclude with two important points.

Firstly, in view of the very small amounts of alcohol required to commit the offence, and in view of the known tolerances of the hand-held device used for the screening test, even after failing the first test it is by no means uncommon for the second, more accurate test, to indicate that no limit had been breached and that no offence known to UK law has been committed.

Secondly, there is one important aspect of the law that is common to both countries, namely the presumption of innocence and I hope any who comment publicly on the merits of this case will remember that.


Best Regards

Bellerophon

BLott4

Just to reiterate on how the Sun does, did anyone notice that the plane was departing for SFO at the beginning and MIA near the end? That's fact checking!

DYNASTY HVY

"Cops swooped after a tip-off from ground staff, who suspected the airman was boozing before the 5,300-mile flight."
Ok so WHY was this f/o not held at the security check point if they suspected he was intoxicated?
Why wait till he was onboard the a/c ?
And why was this turned into a spectacle in front of pax?
Apparently the Brits have no idea as to how to use DISCRETION when arresting someone.

DYNASTY HVY

Maybe it was a 2 stopper

Bellerophon

Under what authority?

Security screeners in the UK have no right to detain anyone, let alone detain a pilot just because they suspect that he might be intoxicated.

They have a statutory right to deny passage through security for any breach of specific security policy, and a general right under UK law to report any suspected offence to the police (just as you and I do) but that's it.

In the UK, detaining someone without authority is one of the fastest ways of getting yourself detained!


Most probably because that was how long it took for the police to attend, following a security screener's report, if it was a security screener's report that alerted the police.


When police attend such an incident, inevitably some passengers will notice, but the Met Police are usually quite discreet in these matters.

This report was in the Sun. As cactusmike has implied, think of a down-market version of the National Enquirer, and you get some idea of the level of trust one can place in their reporting.

I remain unconvinced that it was turned into a spectacle in front of hundreds of passengers, as reported, until a more reliable source indicates that that was indeed the case!

Still hoping for a happy outcome to this case for this pilot.

Best Regards

Bellerophon

DYNASTY HVY

Ok I stand corrected on this then since it was a report done by the SUN and not a reputable paper.
Best of luck to the pilot involved in this.

1st overnite

What is a frog march?

DYNASTY HVY

Under what authority?

Security screeners in the UK have no right to detain anyone, let alone detain a pilot just because they suspect that he might be intoxicated.

They have a statutory right to deny passage through security for any breach of specific security policy, and a general right under UK law to report any suspected offence to the police (just as you and I do) but that's it.

In the UK, detaining someone without authority is one of the fastest ways of getting yourself detained!
How about common sense!
One of the crew brought up this analogy last night
If you see a child attempting to cross the street and a car is coming do you let them continue or do you stop them ?
I wonder if the skipper knew his f/o was intoxicated ?
Perhaps they schould change the rules to where they do have the right to detain .

Blue 2

40,000 Brit lbs = $64,757 at todays exchange rate (Oct22).

British Pound to U.S. Dollar Exchange Rate - Yahoo! Finance

Don't see what it has to do with the headline. Just filler.