N757ST wrote:

So he was held only because of being near the other dude? I don’t get it. If he wasn’t intoxicated and was being held because the Capt was, that’s some kind of backward crap right there.

He was held because he was reported as having been seen drinking by an informer at the hotel they were staying in. If he's been released its down to lack of or insufficient evidence. Not just because he was he was "near the other dude". Scottish law is not based on watching Beavis & Butthead.

JannEejit wrote:

N757ST wrote:

So he was held only because of being near the other dude? I don’t get it. If he wasn’t intoxicated and was being held because the Capt was, that’s some kind of backward crap right there.

He was held because he was reported as having been seen drinking by an informer at the hotel they were staying in. If he's been released its down to lack of or insufficient evidence. Not just because he was he was "near the other dude". Scottish law is not based on watching Beavis & Butthead.

You blow or you don’t. You’re over or you’re not. So obviously he wasn’t over or he’d be charged, so why was he held for days?

N757ST wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

N757ST wrote:

So he was held only because of being near the other dude? I don’t get it. If he wasn’t intoxicated and was being held because the Capt was, that’s some kind of backward crap right there.

He was held because he was reported as having been seen drinking by an informer at the hotel they were staying in. If he's been released its down to lack of or insufficient evidence. Not just because he was he was "near the other dude". Scottish law is not based on watching Beavis & Butthead.

You blow or you don’t. You’re over or you’re not. So obviously he wasn’t over or he’d be charged, so why was he held for days?

In Scotland you are remanded in custody pending an appearance before a Sheriff Court (judge). These guys don't work the weekends, therefore held until Monday or whenever the first court session is available. It's then at the discretion of said judge whether or not evidence is sufficient enough to proceed with prosecution. In this case the 'evidence' may have been purely anecdotal or physically borderline. The last two UA pilots detained at GLA received 15 and 10 month sentences however.

N757ST wrote:

So he was held only because of being near the other dude? I don’t get it. If he wasn’t intoxicated and was being held because the Capt was, that’s some kind of backward crap right there.

I would suggest waiting until facts are known before jumping to the conclusion that "backward crap" is involved.

He wouldn't have been held for no reason and we don't actually know exactly when he was released.

scbriml wrote:

N757ST wrote:

So he was held only because of being near the other dude? I don’t get it. If he wasn’t intoxicated and was being held because the Capt was, that’s some kind of backward crap right there.

I would suggest waiting until facts are known before jumping to the conclusion that "backward crap" is involved.

He wouldn't have been held for no reason and we don't actually know exactly when he was released.

Was he over the limit or not? If not, he shouldn’t have been held, and had his name dragged through the mud the last few days. If “evidence” is being seen drinking at a bar then you’d better go ahead and arrest 75% of working flight crews world wide. He was either drunk, or he wasn’t.

Also, I’m not the one here that has been “jumping to conclusions” for 102+ posts. You all have locked him up and thrown out the key on pure rumored bull crap, and what could be a totally unwarranted arrest.

intrance wrote:

zeke wrote:

tjerome wrote:

As far as this incident in Glasgow, they have a lot more than a 14 hour layover when going to Europe under normal circumstances. They don't normally land at 7am and then go again at 9pm. Just as an example, if they land at 7am with turn time of the plane the departure would be 8:30am. So really they have ~24 hours of downtime.

So they land at 7am (body clock 1-3am), get the hotel 8-8:30mlocal, shower and try and get to bed by 9am local. Get an 8 hr sleep have their first meal for the layover at 6pm, (12-2pm body clock). Departure next morning 8:30, wake up 5:30, so the would try and get to bed at 9pm local (3-5 pm body clock) to wake up 23:30-01:30 body clock for a 3:30-5:30 am body clock departure, worst possible time from an alertness point of view.

Out of a “24 hr” layover, they really only have around 3 hours because the time zone change. This is why they recommend layovers not to be in the 18-36 hr band as it is next to impossible to get two sleeps in.

Phosphorus wrote:

So true. There is another subject, not often spoken about, but I will not be the first one to raise it, surely. The quality of airline pilot hotel rest down line.
Hotels happen to be noisier during the day, when your example pilot is trying to sleep.
Crew, who are on heavily discounted overnight rates, are at risk of being allocated accommodation that needs renovation (it's not like they have a lot of a choice, do they? They will not switch hotels), and/or near the places, where renovation takes place (noise, vibration, general commotion)..
Not to mention that if the hotel is full, the crew will have to wait while their colleagues will move out, their rooms are cleaned, and they can move in. In case of IROPS, probably situation is not good for crew, either.

All of this has basically zero to do with the issue of showing up with a blood alcohol content allegedly far over the limit.... I'd go as far as to say that if you can't survive a layover without drinking or if you are one of those persons who needs to have a beer or wine at the end of the day, aviation is not exactly the right career for you. Drink in your days off if layovers don't allow a drink according to regulations. You don't need alcohol to have a decent time on a layover. If you do, you have an issue. Simple.

I'm not condoning operating an aircraft under the influence of alcohol in any way. It is irresponsible and those caught under the influence need to face the music.

To pick up your point about career choices, although I agree with your basic point that aviation isn't for those who need a drink, it's probably worth bearing in mind that when it comes to crew having a drink on a layover there are human factors at play here. What you need to remember is that they are away from their loved ones for however long the layover is and only have themselves or their colleagues for company. Crossing different time zones, adjusting your body clock and ensuring you get sufficient rest before your next job must be a big challenge when you add it all up.

N757ST wrote:

scbriml wrote:

N757ST wrote:

So he was held only because of being near the other dude? I don’t get it. If he wasn’t intoxicated and was being held because the Capt was, that’s some kind of backward crap right there.

I would suggest waiting until facts are known before jumping to the conclusion that "backward crap" is involved.

He wouldn't have been held for no reason and we don't actually know exactly when he was released.

Was he over the limit or not? If not, he shouldn’t have been held, and had his name dragged through the mud the last few days. If “evidence” is being seen drinking at a bar then you’d better go ahead and arrest 75% of working flight crews world wide. He was either drunk, or he wasn’t.

Yes I agree on the 'was he wasn't he ?' aspect but you can still be legally held in this country 'under suspicion of committing a crime' for a fixed time period. The police can hold you incarcerated for questioning for I think at least 12 hours then up to 24 hours before having to have good reason to detain you further and this is normally decided at a court appearance, which as said would require waiting until court is in session after the weekend, or Tuesday seeing as Monday happened to be a public holiday here in Paisley.

https://www.mygov.scot/arrested-your-ri ... n-custody/

Edited to add: Legal Police incarceration time limit in Scotland information.

JannEejit wrote:

N757ST wrote:

scbriml wrote:

I would suggest waiting until facts are known before jumping to the conclusion that "backward crap" is involved.

He wouldn't have been held for no reason and we don't actually know exactly when he was released.

Was he over the limit or not? If not, he shouldn’t have been held, and had his name dragged through the mud the last few days. If “evidence” is being seen drinking at a bar then you’d better go ahead and arrest 75% of working flight crews world wide. He was either drunk, or he wasn’t.

Yes I agree on the 'was he wasn't he ?' but you can still be legally held in this country 'under suspicion of committing a crime' for a fixed time period. The police can hold you incarcerated for questioning for I think at least 24 hours then up to 48 hours before having to have good reason to detain you further and this is normally decided at a court appearance.

I understand that. But when it comes to DUI it’s pretty cut and dry. In you blow zeros then what reason could you have to hold a guy.

Legal procedures basically. This wasn't a guy being pulled over at the roadside by a traffic cop.

zeke wrote:

tjerome wrote:

As far as this incident in Glasgow, they have a lot more than a 14 hour layover when going to Europe under normal circumstances. They don't normally land at 7am and then go again at 9pm. Just as an example, if they land at 7am with turn time of the plane the departure would be 8:30am. So really they have ~24 hours of downtime.

So they land at 7am (body clock 1-3am), get the hotel 8-8:30mlocal, shower and try and get to bed by 9am local. Get an 8 hr sleep have their first meal for the layover at 6pm, (12-2pm body clock). Departure next morning 8:30, wake up 5:30, so the would try and get to bed at 9pm local (3-5 pm body clock) to wake up 23:30-01:30 body clock for a 3:30-5:30 am body clock departure, worst possible time from an alertness point of view.

Out of a “24 hr” layover, they really only have around 3 hours because the time zone change. This is why they recommend layovers not to be in the 18-36 hr band as it is next to impossible to get two sleeps in.

This is not really an accurate representation at all. Who sleeps 8 hours, gets up for 3 hours and then sleeps 8 hours again?! Not at all realistic, nor possible (without something to induce sleep) .... In reality, most crew sleep for 3-4 hours on arrival i.e. 9-12ish, and then stay away for 7-8 hours (i.e. 12-8) and then back to bed again for 7-8 hours (9pm-5am).

Boeing74741R wrote:

To pick up your point about career choices, although I agree with your basic point that aviation isn't for those who need a drink, it's probably worth bearing in mind that when it comes to crew having a drink on a layover there are human factors at play here. What you need to remember is that they are away from their loved ones for however long the layover is and only have themselves or their colleagues for company. Crossing different time zones, adjusting your body clock and ensuring you get sufficient rest before your next job must be a big challenge when you add it all up.

Speaking as crew with frequent layovers, it takes its toll but socializing etc can be done without alcohol. And if it is such a burden to turn to drinking to cope, again, not suited for this job or career.

N757ST wrote:

Also, I’m not the one here that has been “jumping to conclusions” for 102+ posts. You all have locked him up and thrown out the key on pure rumored bull crap, and what could be a totally unwarranted arrest.

Says the person jumping to the conclusion his arrest wasn't justified and that "we all" (whoever that is) just locked him up because we felt like it.

If you have any evidence that due process wasn't followed please feel free to present it here or even better, let his solicitor know. Otherwise, you have nothing but your apparent outrage at what you perceive to be some horrible injustice.

N757ST wrote:

So he was held only because of being near the other dude? I don’t get it. If he wasn’t intoxicated and was being held because the Capt was, that’s some kind of backward crap right there.

It is a bit of a head-scratcher, isn't it? But I suspect there's more to the story. The question is, will we ever hear it?

scbriml wrote:

N757ST wrote:

Also, I’m not the one here that has been “jumping to conclusions” for 102+ posts. You all have locked him up and thrown out the key on pure rumored bull crap, and what could be a totally unwarranted arrest.

Says the person jumping to the conclusion his arrest wasn't justified and that "we all" (whoever that is) just locked him up because we felt like it.

If you have any evidence that due process wasn't followed please feel free to present it here or even better, let his solicitor know. Otherwise, you have nothing but your apparent outrage at what you perceive to be some horrible injustice.

If he was drunk, he’d be charged.... do you agree? So if he wasn’t charged, it’s unlikely he was drunk, ergo he shouldn’t have been held.

N757ST wrote:

If he was drunk, he’d be charged.... do you agree? So if he wasn’t charged, it’s unlikely he was drunk, ergo he shouldn’t have been held.

I wasn't there, I don't know exactly what happened. I suspect you weren't there either. I'll ask you again, do you have any evidence that due process wasn't followed? People are not detained for "no reason".

As was explained up-thread, due process in this specific case may have taken longer than usual owing to the timing of the alleged crime. They were arrested Saturday morning and scheduled to appear in court today (it was a public holiday weekend in Scotland).

I'd also point out that there can be other reasons why charges may not have been filed against the younger pilot.

Following on from previous comments we do not know what the 2nd pilot was questioned over. His breath test may have been borderline and they were looking for further evidence from interview. Also not sure if he may have been questioned over the fact he knew the captain was over limit and he was still prepared fo fly with him, there maybe an offence in there somewhere.

As stated by others the timing of this has meant they were detained longer than normal, as the weekend followed by the bank holiday meant no judge (in this case sheriff) was available till Tuesday. It is common practice in Scotland once detained by the police you are held until you meet the sheriff. Which can range from a few hours to several days.

madairdrie wrote:

Following on from previous comments we do not know what the 2nd pilot was questioned over. His breath test may have been borderline and they were looking for further evidence from interview. Also not sure if he may have been questioned over the fact he knew the captain was over limit and he was still prepared fo fly with him, there maybe an offence in there somewhere.

As stated by others the timing of this has meant they were detained longer than normal, as the weekend followed by the bank holiday meant no judge (in this case sheriff) was available till Tuesday. It is common practice in Scotland once detained by the police you are held until you meet the sheriff. Which can range from a few hours to several days.

There is no “borderline” in aviation. There is a red line and you are either over it or not.

Actually there is a borderline in Scots law, which is complicated and to do with the kind of test that is done, whether a blood test or a breathalyser. This also then is affected by time as a blood test could prove negative at time of doing, when in actual fact you were over limit when working.
Dont presume that every jurisdiction is the same.
I would agree there is no borderline in aviation or in car etc. but legally there can be especially with drink when time becomes an issue.

Deleted repeated post

N757ST wrote:

If he was drunk, he’d be charged.... do you agree? So if he wasn’t charged, it’s unlikely he was drunk, ergo he shouldn’t have been held.

You are failing to understand the vagaries of the Scottish legal system. He wasn't charged, he was "held under suspicion" and released within the time frame the system allows. It was up to a judge to drop the charge and release him.

Captain bailed pending further enquiry. No doubt the results of toxicology lab tests. This can take a week to report back.

BBC News - Pilot accused of failing breath test before US flight
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... t-49247380

I wonder if he had to surrender his passport?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... story.html

LONDON — A United Airlines pilot appeared in court in Scotland Tuesday, charged with being over the alcohol limit as he prepared to fly to New Jersey.

Glendon Gulliver was charged under the Railways and Transport Safety Act, but did not enter a plea. The 61-year-old pilot was granted bail by a judge at Paisley Sheriff Court near Glasgow.

Gulliver and his 45-year-old co-pilot were arrested Sunday on suspicion of being under the influence of drink or drugs.

The flight, UA62 from Glasgow Airport to Newark, New Jersey, was canceled after the arrests.

The other pilot was released without charge before Tuesday’s hearing.

scbriml wrote:

I wonder if he had to surrender his passport?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... story.html

LONDON — A United Airlines pilot appeared in court in Scotland Tuesday, charged with being over the alcohol limit as he prepared to fly to New Jersey.

Glendon Gulliver was charged under the Railways and Transport Safety Act, but did not enter a plea. The 61-year-old pilot was granted bail by a judge at Paisley Sheriff Court near Glasgow.

Gulliver and his 45-year-old co-pilot were arrested Sunday on suspicion of being under the influence of drink or drugs.

The flight, UA62 from Glasgow Airport to Newark, New Jersey, was canceled after the arrests.

The other pilot was released without charge before Tuesday’s hearing.

That's a normal condition of the bail procedure

If this happened on a foreign carrier, so many here would be bashing about their safety.

Deleted

JannEejit wrote:

N757ST wrote:

If he was drunk, he’d be charged.... do you agree? So if he wasn’t charged, it’s unlikely he was drunk, ergo he shouldn’t have been held.

You are failing to understand the vagaries of the Scottish legal system. He wasn't charged, he was "held under suspicion" and released within the time frame the system allows. It was up to a judge to drop the charge and release him.

If I had to make a semi-educated guess, based on traffic offences, about why someone is arrested for being under the influence and then released without charge it is because the original hand-held breatheliser gave a positive reading (ergo, reasonable suspicion for arrest) but the secondary sample taken at the station was negative, which is normally because if they are only marginally over the suspect sobers up enough in the superceding time to blow under, but it could also be because of a faulty breatheliser.

In some major airports, flight crews are subjected to random breathanayser tests. Iy would be a good thing if airlines make it compulsory to have their tech crew do the test when they are reporting for duty. In Indonesia, Lion Air./Batik Air pilots have their blood pressure test.. In some countries like China and taiwan even high speed train drivers are subjected to breathanalyser test and a blood pressue reading before they head out. Why cant airlines do the same to reassure their passengers and customers that their pilots are all good to fly.

I think the blood test is needed to calculate the alcohol level for this sort of offence. The FO may have been over the limit but the tech may not be accurate enough to confirm by how much? Or breathylser was enough to be nicked on suspicion but blood test showed just on the limit.

[

quote="foxtrotbravo21"]In some major airports, flight crews are subjected to random breathanayser tests. Iy would be a good thing if airlines make it compulsory to have their tech crew do the test when they are reporting for duty. In Indonesia, Lion Air./Batik Air pilots have their blood pressure test.. In some countries like China and taiwan even high speed train drivers are subjected to breathanalyser test and a blood pressue reading before they head out. Why cant airlines do the same to reassure their passengers and customers that their pilots are all good to fly.[/quote]


I have the joy, if you can call it that, of travelling a long distance every year by coach, the coaches we travel on all have a breathalyser as part of the start up of the coach. If it reads over the limit the coach engine will not start and the depot is immediately informed by the machine. I appreciate there are all sorts of ways round this but something similar and more complex on a plane would not be that hard to design

skipness1E wrote:

I think the blood test is needed to calculate the alcohol level for this sort of offence. The FO may have been over the limit but the tech may not be accurate enough to confirm by how much? Or breathylser was enough to be nicked on suspicion but blood test showed just on the limit.

If this was the case it would also give the police enough reason to detain for questioning as during questioning the pilot could perhaps admit he was over the limit at which point with the breathalyser test and the pilots admission it would.be enough to charge him even without a positive blood test.

United to introduce a 12 hour 'bottle to throttle' limit and warns it's crews to be aware of local aviation/alcohol flying limits. In the Glasgow/UK case this is half that of the USA.

https://skift.com/2019/08/12/united-air ... yzTsXLe63I

greg85 wrote:

Again? It’s always Glasgow!!

Bars must be good there then! We should all get on a group and head there Friday! (or to Amsterdam )

AntonioMartin wrote:

greg85 wrote:

Again? It’s always Glasgow!!

Bars must be good there then! We should all get on a group and head there Friday! (or to Amsterdam )

Glasgow is great for a night out, just don't pick up the keys for a 757 in the morning though...

JannEejit wrote:

AntonioMartin wrote:

greg85 wrote:

Again? It’s always Glasgow!!

Bars must be good there then! We should all get on a group and head there Friday! (or to Amsterdam )

Glasgow is great for a night out, just don't pick up the keys for a 757 in the morning though...

Well i dont even drive a car so...

I wonder if this isn't a cultural problem here?

Pilots are professionals, and know the rules ref drinking. I am left wondering, with the number of incidents listed upthread, has some sort of culture of drinking tolerance crept in amongst the US long-haul pilots, where low-level drinking is now being tolerated between flight crews? I am not suggesting crew are drinking onboard; I am referring to the layovers before the return flights, when in the hotel. At the point when crew know they should be stopping (or not drinking at all), has a culture developed that tolerates their continuation? For the majority, nothing happens, in that they do not go too far, but in a few incidents, they do?