Originally Posted by
B2N2
Bit of a denialist attitude. You have no evidence of this, zero.
How many taxiway incursions, runway incursions, almost accidents, ATC clearance deviations (may) have been the result of impairment?
Could be lots or few/none as there is zero evidence for this as well? OK, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but would you fly with someone who was alcohol-impaired? I wouldn’t.
Neither one of us could provide evidence for either side of the argument as testing is only required after an accident or incident with significant damage.
However the truth might be hiding in plain sight.
As I am having difficulty finding any airline accident or incident where inebriation was officially cited as a factor, it is a bit of a leap of logic to extrapolate that there are lots of drunk pilots flying around? If that is true and they’re not having accident or incidents (see above) then, statistically, you could say you’re better off with an intoxicated pilot? I’m not suggesting this is the case, just showing that this argument has holes in it. Although if I only had a choice between a fatigued pilot or a tipsy one I’d choose the latter every time.
Peer intervention? Peer pressure you mean?
It’s a specific term used in psychology. Many airlines have peer intervention/support programmes for all sorts of issues, not just substance abuse. On a wider scale it happens throughout healthcare. Peer pressure might have been what got them started down this road, as alluded to below.
People are pack animals and ‘group feel’ is strong. Being the odd one out for not going out to dinner with fellow crew as drinking is somewhat expected? The don’t-worry-we’re-all-drinking attitude?
Cabin crew that gets absolutely hammered on overnights?
That maybe I’ve had one to many feeling in the morning?
Calling in sick and self disclosure of an issue is something else entirely then getting caught while attempting to gain access to an aircraft with the intention of ‘getting away with it again’ which is criminal.
I’m not trying to argue that putting jägerbombs in your tea on the flight home is somehow acceptable or that reporting for duty with a BAC over whatever the limit is in that jurisdiction is either. What I am trying to say (obviously unclearly) is that the overall risk to aviation is very low, compared to almost everything else, e.g. being sloppy with performance calculations, using the wrong intersection, fasting when you shouldn’t, etc. (which have all come up recently). These can and do happen involving pilots who are stone-cold sober but are effectively drunk on fatigue, etc. because a) there aren’t really any tests to determine how tired you are, b) there are no limits apart from the number of hours you are on duty and c) like anoxia, it is hard to self-diagnose once you are afflicted. If it was truly about flight safety these are the areas the industry should be concentrating on from the Regulators downwards. Sadly, commercial interests win out and the humans take the blame for being, well, human.