A and C
"yet to see a pilot under the influence make it to the aircraft" I assume you infer that his or her colleague/s have suggested that the pilot was unwell, and should go sick.
What if both pilots had been out together the night before, who would be the first to say "perhaps we shouldnt fly today?" I suspect neither of them would.
I still think this is a potential legal minefield, with potential rich rewards for successful litigants. Perhaps positive action will only be taken after passengers successfully sue an airline.
Boss Raptor, I agree with you that "This should not be a case of 'covering up' so the public are not alarmed...it is a known problem and should be addressed in an proactive manner so that confidence (and discipline) is upheld" But it isnt as yet.
The unions are not welcoming it, perhaps that is an indication in itself. If British Airways for instance was to uphold its October 2000 statement that it was going to introduce random testing it would need to be done throughout its worldwide network, and frequently enough so that it was a deterrent.
Perr intervention has been introduced for us in the US, but this is really quite limited in its usefullness. How often do you fly with a guy to know if he has a problem? Its a nice idea, but in my experience, is more of a cop out.
A better judge of crews behaviour is probably gained by the reception staff at the hotels, perhaps they should be included in the peer programs.
Once again, the industry needs to clean its act up, from the regulators (FAA, CAA etc), the unions, down to each employee.
But then, we would all have to realise that there is a problem. which appears unlikely, despite numerous occurences.