What a waste, what a fool.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Psychiatry Guidance Material | Medical | Personal Licences and Training
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2499/Alcoh...isuse%20FC.pdf
There is the medical requirements on the subject for a class 1
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...land-and-wales
Looks like I am ok with my changing my kitchen socket.
There are positions in the airlines which require an enhanced but a normal pilot doesn't
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2499/Alcoh...isuse%20FC.pdf
There is the medical requirements on the subject for a class 1
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...land-and-wales
Looks like I am ok with my changing my kitchen socket.
There are positions in the airlines which require an enhanced but a normal pilot doesn't
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why on earth aren't regular hair tests performed in the military, especially for those who are in positions of very high responsibility? Cocaine (and its metabolites) will show up in the hair long after the drug itself has been removed from the body. I recently had to have a hair test for an organisation where there is a zero-tolerance to drugs.
I cant think of a better way of avoiding a 12 month PVR time than publicly doing coke
Basil thought about shagging a sheep!!!!
Having an affair with a service wife (bit naff because it wrecks someone else's life) or 'coming out'* to the boss (who, knowing of complaints re Bas 'entertaining' in his mess room, probably would have smelt a scam) would be less civil career limiting ploys.
* 60s/70s
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its actually listed as a acceptable criminal offence for obtaining an airport airside pass.
When the new rules came out it was of great amusement with certain security chimps of the ex scots/welsh guards regiments that their hobby wouldn't be a career limitation.
When the new rules came out it was of great amusement with certain security chimps of the ex scots/welsh guards regiments that their hobby wouldn't be a career limitation.
Basil thought about shagging a sheep!!!! - Mad Jock
Ah, but whilst, no doubt, a common pastime on a Port Ellen nightstop, that's a criminal offence. Having an affair with a service wife (bit naff because it wrecks someone else's life) - Basil
You Gourock boys can be very, very naughty with your juxtapositioning, vide
Prince gives up flying royal aircraft after Hebrides crash - News - The Independent
Ah, but whilst, no doubt, a common pastime on a Port Ellen nightstop, that's a criminal offence. Having an affair with a service wife (bit naff because it wrecks someone else's life) - Basil
You Gourock boys can be very, very naughty with your juxtapositioning, vide
Prince gives up flying royal aircraft after Hebrides crash - News - The Independent
Basil thought about shagging a sheep!!!! - Mad Jock
Ah, but whilst, no doubt, a common pastime on a Port Ellen nightstop, that's a criminal offence. Having an affair with a service wife (bit naff because it wrecks someone else's life) - Basil
You Gourock boys can be very, very naughty with your juxtapositioning, vide
Prince gives up flying royal aircraft after Hebrides crash - News - The Independent
Ah, but whilst, no doubt, a common pastime on a Port Ellen nightstop, that's a criminal offence. Having an affair with a service wife (bit naff because it wrecks someone else's life) - Basil
You Gourock boys can be very, very naughty with your juxtapositioning, vide
Prince gives up flying royal aircraft after Hebrides crash - News - The Independent
You Gourock boys
Bas - actually from next door
I did feel for the captain who, wise after the event, probably spends the rest of his life thinking he should have said: "I'd better do this one."
As for the other: he should have married her first time round.
While I fall into the camp who believe he deserves to be thrown out, I'm surprised by some of the reactions, especially all those saying that they couldn't trust him in an aircraft and how he might have put lives in danger.
I like beer (in fact, I'm having one now). Sometimes I drink a lot of it until I fall over. Never, at any point in my career, have I been tempted to drink heavily then go flying viciously hungover, or to fly when directly under the influence. I know where the line is and I stick to it; and had I ever crossed it and been caught, I would expect the appropriate punishment.
This guy likes (liked?) cocaine. He used it of an evening, at least once and bragged about other occasions. Why does that suddenly mean he was likely to be flying while affected by it or the after effects of it?
Liking a glass of wine doesn't make you an alcoholic who's unable to work. Similarly, using drugs, even class A ones, doesn't make you an addict who needs it to get going in the morning.
It does make you someone perhaps prone to reckless or stupid decisions, it does cast aspersions on your character, and it does make you incompatible with service and holding a commission. None of that's in doubt. I can't make the connection though, that using a socially-unacceptable drug (at least a socially unacceptable in the military one) means you can't control your intake or use of it.
I like beer (in fact, I'm having one now). Sometimes I drink a lot of it until I fall over. Never, at any point in my career, have I been tempted to drink heavily then go flying viciously hungover, or to fly when directly under the influence. I know where the line is and I stick to it; and had I ever crossed it and been caught, I would expect the appropriate punishment.
This guy likes (liked?) cocaine. He used it of an evening, at least once and bragged about other occasions. Why does that suddenly mean he was likely to be flying while affected by it or the after effects of it?
Liking a glass of wine doesn't make you an alcoholic who's unable to work. Similarly, using drugs, even class A ones, doesn't make you an addict who needs it to get going in the morning.
It does make you someone perhaps prone to reckless or stupid decisions, it does cast aspersions on your character, and it does make you incompatible with service and holding a commission. None of that's in doubt. I can't make the connection though, that using a socially-unacceptable drug (at least a socially unacceptable in the military one) means you can't control your intake or use of it.
5 Forward:
your points on pints are noted and agreed.
Where the matter of trust arises, consider the following character trait in a fella who is a career man in a position of responsibility and who by his job position has to now and again pass judgment on his subordinates ... regarding adherence to or breach of rules/ regs / laws.
Let's examine his view of the regulations he is to uphold and enforce by the actions he took: "That rule and those laws on cocaine are a load of bollocks and I don't feel bound by them."
Apply this to an SOP: "That SOP and those flight regs are for all the other pilots in the company, but not me.
"
I am not saying that was his attitude -- pilots often compartmentalize well between on duty and off duty issues.
But given how many pilots/officers don't take that attitude on the cocaine, the parallel penchant for such an attitude cross over might be hiding in there based on his decision regarding said rules and laws regarding cocaine.
This is something for a future employer to ponder before hiring, and possibly a topic of interest during an interview for an open position.
It may be that after a fall from grace a vital lesson is learned, permanently. One certainly hopes so.
your points on pints are noted and agreed.
Where the matter of trust arises, consider the following character trait in a fella who is a career man in a position of responsibility and who by his job position has to now and again pass judgment on his subordinates ... regarding adherence to or breach of rules/ regs / laws.
Let's examine his view of the regulations he is to uphold and enforce by the actions he took: "That rule and those laws on cocaine are a load of bollocks and I don't feel bound by them."
Apply this to an SOP: "That SOP and those flight regs are for all the other pilots in the company, but not me.
" I am not saying that was his attitude -- pilots often compartmentalize well between on duty and off duty issues.
But given how many pilots/officers don't take that attitude on the cocaine, the parallel penchant for such an attitude cross over might be hiding in there based on his decision regarding said rules and laws regarding cocaine.
This is something for a future employer to ponder before hiring, and possibly a topic of interest during an interview for an open position.
It may be that after a fall from grace a vital lesson is learned, permanently. One certainly hopes so.
Lonewolf, I agree; when I said "prone to reckless or stupid decisions," that's precisely what I was thinking. While some people are able to draw a line between their personal and professional lives, it's easy to make the sensible assumption that breaking the rules in one arena might show a risk-taking personality who'd break the rules in the other.
There's plenty of precedent for that. It was just the people saying they could control their drinking, but assuming he couldn't control his drug use that surprised me.
There's plenty of precedent for that. It was just the people saying they could control their drinking, but assuming he couldn't control his drug use that surprised me.
All the opinions you like to post here count for nought. The rules are very clear. Caught doing drugs, get discharged. The policy is zero tolerance. Everyone knows so no excuses. Fine to discuss the pros and cons here, but that won't change the rules.
There have to be clearly defined rules, without room for doubt. Rules open to interpretation lead to injustice. A bit like one person here discussing the rationale behind the rules and still being a member whilst another expresses a view and gets banned.
There have to be clearly defined rules, without room for doubt. Rules open to interpretation lead to injustice. A bit like one person here discussing the rationale behind the rules and still being a member whilst another expresses a view and gets banned.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,748 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
As Courtney says, it has to be clear cut, you cannot have double standards.
Thanks for the reply 5 Forward.
I suppose I was looking at what informs a decision, be it reckless or otherwise, rather than the decisions. That would be of interest in trying to determine what's behind this bad judgment: is it a mid life crisis sort of thing -- which is a known behavioral phenomenon for some men in their 40's -- or something else?
Full Disclosure: I recently read an article about mid life crises, and how men in the 50's tend to have fewer of them than men in their 40's (there is some sociological study on a "U" curve that's so soft that I can't consider it science). That recent line of thinking probably triggered me applying that model of analysis to this case.
Odds are that when one puts his whole record in the balance, he's probably got more to recommend him than not.
Must one aawww **** void all attaboys?
Chester Nimitz ran a ship aground. He ended up our Fleet Commander and a darned good one.
At one point did zero defects become the standard?
I suppose I was looking at what informs a decision, be it reckless or otherwise, rather than the decisions. That would be of interest in trying to determine what's behind this bad judgment: is it a mid life crisis sort of thing -- which is a known behavioral phenomenon for some men in their 40's -- or something else?
Full Disclosure: I recently read an article about mid life crises, and how men in the 50's tend to have fewer of them than men in their 40's (there is some sociological study on a "U" curve that's so soft that I can't consider it science). That recent line of thinking probably triggered me applying that model of analysis to this case.
Odds are that when one puts his whole record in the balance, he's probably got more to recommend him than not.
Must one aawww **** void all attaboys?
Chester Nimitz ran a ship aground. He ended up our Fleet Commander and a darned good one.
At one point did zero defects become the standard?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5 forward.
The main body of your post sums up why this chap had to go IMHO, and there is no need to debate whether he could control his intake, or whether he was an addict. The military are a bit touchy about people doing things secretly in contravention of rules, and with just cause usually.
I felt the need to just say that as I sometimes get the idea that the word 'addict' is very often wrongly used.
The military is full of addicts. There are still quite a lot of smokers in the military and many if them are addicted to smoking.
There are fitness addicts too.
If we turn things round a bit a smoker who is addicted to cigarettes is still an addict even if he or she hasn't smoked for twenty years!
Similarly a drug addict (illegal or prescription) can still join the military as long as they are clean and have been for a period of time.......but are still an addict.
An addict can use their drug all day long or once a week, it's the need that makes the addiction not the amount.
Sorry to bite about the word addict, but junkie was also used in this thread. Having worked in a rehab centre it was always amusing that a very high percentage of new customers assumed that the other customers were the tramps they had seen on park benches or down and outs in shop doorways and they they would be the only 'normal' person there. It was a shock for them to find out that the other addicts were shop workers, care workers, GPs, doctors, teacher and accountants..........and just normal looking people.
As is mentioned above this chap had to go as he broke the club rules.
The main body of your post sums up why this chap had to go IMHO, and there is no need to debate whether he could control his intake, or whether he was an addict. The military are a bit touchy about people doing things secretly in contravention of rules, and with just cause usually.
I felt the need to just say that as I sometimes get the idea that the word 'addict' is very often wrongly used.
The military is full of addicts. There are still quite a lot of smokers in the military and many if them are addicted to smoking.
There are fitness addicts too.
If we turn things round a bit a smoker who is addicted to cigarettes is still an addict even if he or she hasn't smoked for twenty years!
Similarly a drug addict (illegal or prescription) can still join the military as long as they are clean and have been for a period of time.......but are still an addict.
An addict can use their drug all day long or once a week, it's the need that makes the addiction not the amount.
Sorry to bite about the word addict, but junkie was also used in this thread. Having worked in a rehab centre it was always amusing that a very high percentage of new customers assumed that the other customers were the tramps they had seen on park benches or down and outs in shop doorways and they they would be the only 'normal' person there. It was a shock for them to find out that the other addicts were shop workers, care workers, GPs, doctors, teacher and accountants..........and just normal looking people.
As is mentioned above this chap had to go as he broke the club rules.
One factor that seems to be overlooked is that as Class A drugs are illegal, by using Class A drugs one is, without exception, trading with a criminal. That leaves one open to blackmail from the criminal or others in the know.
Last edited by Mechta; 11th Dec 2014 at 17:12. Reason: clarification
Lonewolf
I take your point, and would not say that one "awwww ****" should undermine all the "aaataboys".
But this was not an "awww ****". This was a "f@Łk you!"
Chester Nimitz did indeed run a ship aground and that's a CM offence. However, i imagine he did not do it intentionally with the full understanding of the fact that it would end his career.
This guy was dumb enough to 1) do it in the first place (knowing that if he was caught then he'd be sacked) and; 2) Brag about it and show off. He deserves to be sacked for stupidity alone.
I take your point, and would not say that one "awwww ****" should undermine all the "aaataboys".
But this was not an "awww ****". This was a "f@Łk you!"
Chester Nimitz did indeed run a ship aground and that's a CM offence. However, i imagine he did not do it intentionally with the full understanding of the fact that it would end his career.
This guy was dumb enough to 1) do it in the first place (knowing that if he was caught then he'd be sacked) and; 2) Brag about it and show off. He deserves to be sacked for stupidity alone.