From here
It’s an interesting question.
If it was a car crash, the police would be interested and this is understood. If it was a plane crash, they probably think they should be even if no injuries, but really the system is different (in the UK, the CAA prosecutes) and I don’t think they all know it.
However I bet there are countries where the police do get involved. Does anyone have any data on this? It’s probably a useful thing to know.
In Germany, the police do get involved.
They collect the facts and start an administrative procedure with number and all.
The aviation authorities and the insurance companies do request that number.
(source : personal experience)
In France too the police or gendarmerie get involved even if you make a successful landing in someone else’s field.The prefecture must also be informed and for instance in the case where you have landed perhaps for weather reasons in a field, one would need permission from the prefecture to take off again from that field to continue the journey.
There is a document about what to do in case of a forced or unforced landing outside of an airfield, I will try to find it.
When I crashed an aircraft, the Police were there, breathalysing me, very quickly. There was even an “Aircraft” (or possibly “Transport”?) switch on the breathalyser to reduce the threshold to a quarter of the drink drive level.
As it turned out, I then went on inadvertently to lie to the Police. They asked me when I had last had an alcoholic drink and I told them it was March 12th 2012, when, I later realised, I had had half a lager on July 24th 2014. To my shame, I didn’t go back and fess up.
In Belgium and The Netherlands the Aviation Police will take a very active interest
Peter wrote:
If it was a car crash, the police would be interested and this is understood. If it was a plane crash, they probably think they should be even if no injuries, but really the system is different (in the UK, the CAA prosecutes) and I don’t think they all know it.
I suppose the point is that although the CAA are the prosecuting authority, someone must gather the evidence in a methodical and professional way, and from the point of view of a potential prosecution that is the job of AAIB either.
I am somewhat opposed to the police getting unnecessarily involved in matters such as mentioned by Maroiga, but I guess if a formal “complaint” is made (which it appears it was) then we would all be annoyed if they didnt.
I assume in the UK they have the legal authority for the reasons I have given although whether their authority extends to private land (a private airfield) without the consent of the owner is another matter. I assume in the case of flying under the influence they may, as I believe the police are entitled to enter your home in similiar circumstances, grounds for which are purely based on someone I know who made it back to his home and “escaped” inside, followed shortly after by the police who insisted they had the right the breathalyse him. Fortunately for him when they got around to a blood sample it transpired he was just under the limit. At the time he was probably a little over.
The Dutch police will take interest. Their only roll is – next to aiding any casualties as first responders – to establish if any unlawful act was committed. If not, their involvement usualy ends and (civil) aviation investigators will take over.
From Maoraigh’s post it seems an over-reaction. Maybe if the controller and then local policeman aren’t sure what to do they err on the side of caution? Luckily this doesn’t happen all the time, because the end result is an environment where people are scared of making (or admitting to) mistakes; mistakes that anyone can easily make, and I’ve had a few tailwheel landings I’m not proud of.
I had a run-in with the (over zealous) Hampshire Constabulary a few years ago, and if I hadn’t memorised the airfield gate code it would have ended differently. It wasn’t a pleasant experience, and I’d dread to think what it would be like after breaking a plane.
Timothy wrote:
March 12th 2012
Ha! Excellent!
I find this worrying, in that there’s an assumption of wrongdoing or guilt if you have alcohol in your system. I assume the accident investigators would do their job properly, but the police would probably view it as an easy answer and close the case.
Capitaine wrote:
I find this worrying, in that there’s an assumption of wrongdoing or guilt if you have alcohol in your system.
I think that the difficulty is that all the time they spend wondering whether to breathalyse, you are busy metabolising the evidence away. I think an immediate breathalyser is quite reasonable.
The half lager in 2014 gave me a terrible migraine. I wish I had just had a Diet Coke.
I thought the UK police had the right to take a sample x hours after the incident and then extrapolate it backwards? Wasn’t there a recent test case, resulting from a car driver running away from a crashed car (as they often do – I’ve seen a few very pricey, freshly crashed and abandoned cars around here) but not disappearing for quite long enough.