The Limit
One thing that seems to have been missing from this discussion is the appropriateness of the 20mcg limit.
It's fair enough to expect the law to enforce a standard that errs to the side of safety, but is there not a point where that standard has been pushed too far to the side of caution?
The actual scientific FAA/NASA studies of the effects of different levels impairment on flying abilities that I have read indicated that there was no measurable decrease in judgement or handling skill found among participants with 20 and 40 mcg blood alcohol contents. In fact, the participants when intoxicated to those levels showed a slight, but measurable, improvement versus their scores when sober. A decrease in performance only became noticable when the participants were tested at the 80 mcg level.
The reasonable conclusion from these studies is that the point where blood alcohol content begins to affect aviating skill lies somewhere between 40 and 80 mcg. Given this, unless there is significant evidence to the contrary, a 40 mcg limit would seem appropriate.
Granted, this pilot's actual blood alcohol content of 125 mcg was well in excess of even 40 mcg, but given the terrible consequences that confront any pilot accused (let alone found guilty) of exceeding the preescribed legal limit, should we not be asking hard questions about the basis for that limit?
As things stand a pilot's career can be ruined on the basis of a blood alcohol level well below that at which any measurable impairment can be detected, but a pilot whose abilities have been significantly eroded by fatigue induced by inadequate rest and duty regulations is considered fit to fly, and may be subject to penalty if he doesn't.
There's something wrong with that.
ELAC