'Drunk' UAL Pilot Arrested Before Takeoff

In my breathalyzer training (Many years ago) you had to wait no less than 15 minutes before administering the test. You first checked in their mouth to make sure nothing was in it, and had to actually watch to make sure nothing went into their mouth for 15 minutes, then you gave the test. That way they couldn't claim the mouthwash defense:D
 
The nearest I could find to this type of scenario is Article 8 of the 1947 Paris Convention on the Legal Status of the Aircraft Commander:

Article 8 said:
(1) The provisions of this Convention [outlining the Commander's authority on an operator designated trip] do not affect any international conventions or the laws or regulations of the Contracting States defining the conditions of qualifications required of an aircraft Commander.
Click to expand...

By logical extension, this would seemingly also mean the Convention defined subordinate lieutenant commanders (other pilots). Obviously the FO was not meeting the contracting state's (UK) conditions for discharge of duty. If it were in the air, (especially over international waters), it would be a different beast as the Commander (captain) would hold the sole authority to remove the FO from duty as per Article 2 of the Convention (at least that's my interpretation of it, I'm no expert, by far no expert). So the police seemingly were justified in pulling the FO off, however why they would choose to do so aboard the aircraft is odd.
 
scramjet said:
The nearest I could find to this type of scenario is Article 8 of the 1947 Paris Convention on the Legal Status of the Aircraft Commander:



By logical extension, this would seemingly also mean the Convention defined subordinate lieutenant commanders (other pilots). Obviously the FO was not meeting the contracting state's (UK) conditions for discharge of duty. If it were in the air, (especially over international waters), it would be a different beast as the Commander (captain) would hold the sole authority to remove the FO from duty as per Article 2 of the Convention (at least that's my interpretation of it, I'm no expert, by far no expert). So the police seemingly were justified in pulling the FO off, however why they would choose to do so aboard the aircraft is odd.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly they had to wait to see if he would assume duties as a pilot. Thus the reason they had to wait for him to not only board the aircraft but actually start performing his duties (basically stepping into the cockpit). They can't arrest someone in a pilot's uniform with alcohol on their breath.
 
Screaming_Emu said:
Umm...when you go to a foreign country you have to play by their rules...US rules don't really apply anymore.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat: If was the other way around, it would be completely unacceptable now wouldn't it? If America wants people (other airlines) to play by their rules here, then the same should be vice versa. If anything people should be thanking the Brits for removing the FO, just because there are two pilots does not mean that in a situation the sole sober pilot can act by his self, and remember alcohol does impair reaction times and etc... btw what about the incident(s) with drunk pilots in the U.S., Do you feel that those cases broke some kind of rule? Seems to be the same case to me, just in different countries...:rolleyes:
 
FiveO said:
Close, but not entirely true.
Click to expand...
I think here in the peoples republic they give you one when pulled over, and another test at the station... no? Then if you are a hollywood actor, and you only ran over a couple of people, they let you go free.
 
To think

People actually defend the pilot.

Civilians are hauled out of their vehicles and into jail in most countries for failing a field sobriety test. If anything a pilot with hundreds of lives at stake should probably get worse not better treatment.
 
You can legally deny the hand-held breathalyser on scene, the only one that is "required" to take by law is at the station. Also remember that the Field sobriety test is always 100% voluntary. Majority of the time if an officer wants to give you a FST he/she has already made up in their mind to give you the on-scene breathalyser regardless of your performance hence every lawyer known to man will urge you to never take a FST. It will just be used horribly against you regardless of how well you do.


EDIT: Post only applies to driving a car in the USA lol.
 
RPJ said:
You can legally deny the hand-held breathalyser on scene...quote]

Just make sure you know what the ramifications are if you do that in your state. You have the legal right to deny the test but the officer also has the legal right to put you in handcuffs and take you down to the station. ;)
Click to expand...
 
skydog said:
The Captain and the rest of the crew had already been on duty with that FO for a couple of hours at least. If there had been a real issue, the crew would have done something about it.
Click to expand...

Haha, yeah right. I know of many cases where one of the crew was flying under the influence and the rest of them knew about it (vomiting etc.). I stand by my opinion that the reason there aren't more airliner crashes is sheer dumb luck.
 
I'm well aware that, when on foreign soil, you are subject to foreign laws. I guess what I found so disturbing was that he was hauled off and arrested on the suspicion of being under the influence. It doesn't sound like there was any attempt made to verify whether or not he was actually under the influence.

If it turns out that he was under the influence, I gotta wonder why neither the Captain, nor anybody on the crew attempted to do something, like convince the FO to call in sick or something. They weren't doing him, or themselves, any favors by ignoring the problem. Now the FO's career is over, and he has serious legal troubles. I bet that crew is facing some pretty serious questions from law enforcement and UAL management alike. I'd sure want to know why the crew allowed someone who was under the influence access to the airplane.
 
What's the big deal? Everyone knows ATC is the one doing the brain work behind flying... he just has to push a few buttons... LOL I am only playing.
 
skydog said:
I'm well aware that, when on foreign soil, you are subject to foreign laws. I guess what I found so disturbing was that he was hauled off and arrested on the suspicion of being under the influence. It doesn't sound like there was any attempt made to verify whether or not he was actually under the influence.

If it turns out that he was under the influence, I gotta wonder why neither the Captain, nor anybody on the crew attempted to do something, like convince the FO to call in sick or something. They weren't doing him, or themselves, any favors by ignoring the problem. Now the FO's career is over, and he has serious legal troubles. I bet that crew is facing some pretty serious questions from law enforcement and UAL management alike. I'd sure want to know why the crew allowed someone who was under the influence access to the airplane.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is enough info to make these speculations. Maybe the CPT was the one who tipped off the police. Maybe there was not enough contact with the crew to realize what was even going on until it was over etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Oxman
Former Santa Monica mayor Rex Minter ID’d as plane crash victim
Replies
14
Views
2K
mightynimbus
mightynimbus
Oxman
Spirit Airlines passenger zip-tied, arrested after assaulting flight attendants at airport
4 5 6
Replies
108
Views
8K
SlumTodd_Millionaire
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Oxman
Delta flight attendant falsely “accused” frequent flier of trafficking in special needs daughter
3 4 5
Replies
87
Views
7K
SlumTodd_Millionaire
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Oxman
Analysis-Pilot Training Puzzle Tests U.S. Airlines as Travel Takes Off
Replies
0
Views
652
Oxman
Oxman
Space Monkey
The "good" ol' days...
Replies
6
Views
4K
///AMG
///AMG
Back
Top