Airline pilot arrested - drunk?

[theblackwatch]

I heard this mentioned on the local news this evening - an airline pilot was arrested at Leeds-Bradford Airport last night on suspicion of being drunk. It seems that it isn't just the railways (after the recent report into the DCR SPAD incident - being discussed at http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=89891 ) that have staff who totally disregard safety rules.

There is more on this story at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/t...unk-pilot-held-at-Leeds-Bradford-Airport.html

The 54-year-old man, who is believed to be an employee of Pakistan International Airlines, was arrested at the airport in Yeadon, West Yorkshire, at around 10pm last night.
A spokesman for West Yorkshire Police said the man had been arrested "on suspicion of carrying out an activity ancillary to an aviation function while impaired by drink".
It is not known whether he had also been at the controls of an aircraft yesterday, or how police were alerted to his alleged condition.
The man, a Pakistani citizen, is currently in custody, police confirmed.

 

[55003]

Rather unfair to bring this up and accuse him before he has been charged ,if he has committed a crime. The failure at Stafford was due to many technical failures within an organisation culminating with an inexperienced driver. Such incidents generally conform to an error chain as described by James Reason- the swiss cheese model or culmative act effect. In this case you are comparing apples to turnips comparing an alleged single act to multiple failures within an organisation.

 

[Murph]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-24175643

An airline pilot has admitted being four-and-a-half times over the legal alcohol limit just before being due to fly from Leeds Bradford Airport.

Irfan Faiz, 54, from Pakistan, was detained by police in the cockpit of a Pakistan International Airways Airbus shortly after 22:00 BST on Wednesday.

Magistrates in Leeds heard Faiz had been unsteady on his feet before the flight to Pakistan.

The court heard he also smelled of alcohol.

Faiz was charged with carrying out an activity ancillary to an aviation function while impaired by drink.

The court was told he was four-and-a-half times over the legal limit to fly.

 

[A-driver]

It seems that it isn't just the railways (after the recent report into the DCR SPAD incident - being discussed at http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=89891 ) that have staff who totally disregard safety rules.

Any chance of justifying that comment? How do rail staff 'totally disregard safety rules' exactly? And don't tell me to read the stafford report as I wouldn't say that it was exactly a total disregard for safety rules-there was more to it than that. Plus I can't for a second see how you can say that one single incident on the railways means that rail staff 'totally disregard safety rules'.

To be honest there was no need to mention that in your post at all. It added nothing to what you were trying to say and I'm assuming it's just yet more trolling in here.

I'm sure if you look at any industry in the world you will find a few examples of employees making mistakes or deliberately ignoring rules, safety or otherwise. So to suggest that a single SPAD incident which you refer to means that rail staff 'disregard safety rules' is rather offensive and very, very dim of you.

 

[Muzer]

He didn't say that rail staff disregard safety rules. He said the railways have staff who totally disregard safety rules - you know, staff like the driver who was quite happy to drive, over a route he didn't have sufficient knowledge of, a locomotive with an isolated DSD, without reporting the failures of multiple pieces of equipment as required to do by safety rules, driving over the speed limit imposed by safety rules.

It wasn't just the driver in that incident, but if that isn't a total disregard of safety rules, we have very different definitions of that phrase.


Saying that something has something else is not the same as saying that something is mainly composed of something elses.

 

[A-driver]

He didn't say that rail staff disregard safety rules. He said the railways have staff who totally disregard safety rules - you know, staff like the driver who was quite happy to drive, over a route he didn't have sufficient knowledge of, a locomotive with an isolated DSD, without reporting the failures of multiple pieces of equipment as required to do by safety rules, driving over the speed limit imposed by safety rules.

It wasn't just the driver in that incident, but if that isn't a total disregard of safety rules, we have very different definitions of that phrase.


Saying that something has something else is not the same as saying that something is mainly composed of something elses.

Well for a start that driver was not comparable to any other train driver as it says in the report he didn't have the same UK mainline competency so suggesting he was from within the rail industry is wrong.

Plus, as I said, all industries have staff who will make mistakes or bend rules. Not just railways and airlines.

And I stand by what I said-it sees the comment was made to inflame things and as such was no more than trolling. It was a needless thing to say.