>>There was obviously no intent of criminal behaviour and I for one cannot understand the need for a custodial sentence in this case.<<
Flying drunk has been considered criminal behaviour for many years now in the U.S., it is a serious crime. Several pilots have done hard time and others would have but got off on legal technicalities like the Virgin pilot at KIAD.
>>The British, though not exclusively, seem to have a culture of heavy drinking. You only have to read many of the profiles of PPRuNe members to see the references to drinking. For some people it would appear that unless you are able to quaff several pints of beer or knock back 'chasers' of hard spirits then you are not worthy of being a part of their social group and therefore somehow inferior'. Strange that, especially from people who consider themselves to be professional aircrew with such huge responsibilities. I just don't understand how some supposedly intelligent people can consider alcohol intoxication to be in any way beneficial to their health or careers.<<
Yep, current attitudes toward binge drinking make it much less socially acceptable in the U.S. than perhaps in the UK.
If this guy tested drunk twelve hours after he quit drinking, then he has a problem on several levels. Whatever the personal issues, he should not be at the controls of an aircraft. The system worked in this case.
In the U.S., if you have an alcohol problem outside of duty time, under the Americans with Disabilities Act you basically can not be fired if you agree to rehab. However, if you report for duty and test over the limit, you don't have the full "get out of jail free card" from the ADA. The first things many accused crewmembers do (like the America West crew at MIA) is hire a lawyer, proclaim innocence and book into rehab just in case.