Sunwing pilot pulled off YYC flight due to intoxication
It seems that this thread is degenerating, as with many other previous threads, into a squabble over which is the more serious problem, drunkenness or fatigue.
That is really regrettable because it is patently obvious that both problems need to be addressed and this type of argument effectively tries to reduce the significance of each in order to accentuate the significance of the other --- that is a lose / lose.
I don't see too many real opponents to the argument that duty cycles and resulting fatigue are perceived as a serious problem by pilots. This will only ever be resolved by getting airline management to see and acknowledge the problem. How can you do that? Whatever the answer, please don't denigrate the arguments to limit and control pilot inebriation as an means to highlight the fatigue problem.
While the use of drugs and alcohol may be a much smaller problem from a safety perspective, from the perspective of the paying passengers, it is not.
When the newspapers print a report that 40% of pilots confirm feeling fatigued while in control of an aircraft, the average oik won't even read past the first few lines.
But when the same newspaper reports a drunken pilot collapsed in his seat they will read every line and it will quite probably come up in conversation with their friends later, in the pub.
Whenever it happens it IS a problem. And it happens all too often
The problem is not simply that the pilot was incapacitated, but that he got as far as through into the public eye before being intercepted.
Existing self-policing policies may be quite adequate to ensure that incapacitated pilots do not actually get into the air, but they are clearly failing to assure the flying public that this system is effective.
Any argument that pre-flight screening in the crew room, or wherever, out of the public eye does not guarantee 100% interception of incapacity is a weak argument.
But then, nothing in life is 100% guaranteed.
Such a system can be implemented and eventually will be, despite all protestation, not because it will be 100% effective but because it is more effective than the current honesty-box system and because the paying passengers will come to expect it.
Hell, 12 or 18 hours from bottle to throttle; what does that really mean?
I have seen drinkers who have been drinking heavily (not necessarily heavy drinkers) who could not be safely trusted with a can opener 40 hours after their last drink. Let them in to control a passenger aircraft? Not one that I'm sitting on, thank you.
That is really regrettable because it is patently obvious that both problems need to be addressed and this type of argument effectively tries to reduce the significance of each in order to accentuate the significance of the other --- that is a lose / lose.
I don't see too many real opponents to the argument that duty cycles and resulting fatigue are perceived as a serious problem by pilots. This will only ever be resolved by getting airline management to see and acknowledge the problem. How can you do that? Whatever the answer, please don't denigrate the arguments to limit and control pilot inebriation as an means to highlight the fatigue problem.
While the use of drugs and alcohol may be a much smaller problem from a safety perspective, from the perspective of the paying passengers, it is not.
When the newspapers print a report that 40% of pilots confirm feeling fatigued while in control of an aircraft, the average oik won't even read past the first few lines.
But when the same newspaper reports a drunken pilot collapsed in his seat they will read every line and it will quite probably come up in conversation with their friends later, in the pub.
Whenever it happens it IS a problem. And it happens all too often
The problem is not simply that the pilot was incapacitated, but that he got as far as through into the public eye before being intercepted.
Existing self-policing policies may be quite adequate to ensure that incapacitated pilots do not actually get into the air, but they are clearly failing to assure the flying public that this system is effective.
Any argument that pre-flight screening in the crew room, or wherever, out of the public eye does not guarantee 100% interception of incapacity is a weak argument.
But then, nothing in life is 100% guaranteed.
Such a system can be implemented and eventually will be, despite all protestation, not because it will be 100% effective but because it is more effective than the current honesty-box system and because the paying passengers will come to expect it.
Hell, 12 or 18 hours from bottle to throttle; what does that really mean?
I have seen drinkers who have been drinking heavily (not necessarily heavy drinkers) who could not be safely trusted with a can opener 40 hours after their last drink. Let them in to control a passenger aircraft? Not one that I'm sitting on, thank you.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any argument that pre-flight screening in the crew room, or wherever, out of the public eye does not guarantee 100% interception of incapacity is a weak argument.
But then, nothing in life is 100% guaranteed.
Such a system can be implemented and eventually will be, despite all protestation, not because it will be 100% effective but because it is more effective than the current honesty-box system and because the paying passengers will come to expect it.
But then, nothing in life is 100% guaranteed.
Such a system can be implemented and eventually will be, despite all protestation, not because it will be 100% effective but because it is more effective than the current honesty-box system and because the paying passengers will come to expect it.
Personally I believe such policy is excessive and not based on sound risk analysis. But it is, as you say, a policy based on public expectations.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: India
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not know what the big technical issue is, in monitoring physical and mental capacity before entrusting someone with a task that needs to ensure the safety of hundreds of souls.
Devise a test that measures visual acuity, mental alertness, situational awareness, reaction time and decision making skills in 5 to 10 minutes in the crew lounge before departure.
Have a chip card that has your baseline values for the test, updated with natural improvement of skill values as you get more expert, each time you take the test.
Red flag anyone who cannot perform to 95% or whatever of their known baseline.
It's that simple.
Devise a test that measures visual acuity, mental alertness, situational awareness, reaction time and decision making skills in 5 to 10 minutes in the crew lounge before departure.
Have a chip card that has your baseline values for the test, updated with natural improvement of skill values as you get more expert, each time you take the test.
Red flag anyone who cannot perform to 95% or whatever of their known baseline.
It's that simple.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's simply nonsense to imply current rules are ineffective. Staff, crew and members of the public at every stage are empowered to trigger a test, the consequences of failing which are immediate and severe. This case, far from depicting an "honesty box system" demonstrates the robustness of the system. It works! A fact backed up by the total absence of incidents and accidents caused by alcohol. The 100% screening so misguidedly being sought would be very expensive, almost certainly wouldn't have prevented this incident and contribute nothing to safe flying.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Age: 48
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight crews used to have to see a physician before starting their duties (it may even still be that way in some countries).
Of course, recurring alcoholic incidents will be reason for a deeper investigation, but that will be triggered from the medical side through a suspension of a medical certificate. Which could be done for high blood pressure as well. Again, a face-saving way out for the air crew.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Age: 48
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although this kind of incident has occurred a few times over the years, this is the worst I have heard of...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-...es_Flight_2286
This flight had a first officer who failed multiple IFR checkrides, had a history of alcohol abuse, and the captain had used cocaine the night before the flight. If that's not a recipe for disaster, I don't know what is.
Court hearing postponed until 25 January
Gronych did not appear in person at the Calgary Courts Centre on Thursday. His lawyer addressed the matter at the case management office and it was put over until Jan. 25.
