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