Good to see we've got back on track over the past few days.
dicksynormous
People have very different opinions/theories about the role/job description of security-screeners, but no-one has produced any facts. However, it doesn't really matter. What matters is people now know there is a real risk of being reported, whatever the motives of the person who reports. (There is reason to suspect the LHR security man had a personal grudge but not, as far as I know, the driver in the Manchester case, and the fact is both pilots were found to be over the limit.)
You're right that someone with a grudge can do a lot of damage to an innocent person, but I don't think there's a solution to that problem because the police can't just ignore reports.
I agree there's a very real danger of publicity damaging the reputation of someone who's innocent (even if the report is made in good faith) but, unfortunately, I don't think there's any way of preventing it. The police are notorious for giving tips to the press 'off the record', and police press departments sometimes issue press releases. I think it's outrageous, but the fact is it happens. Even if subsequent analysis of the blood sample shows someone was innocent, the fact that he/she was arrested will almost certainly be in the press/media within hours. I agree it's unfair and obviously damaging, but I doubt if it will change.
Hobie just about sums it up -
”it is (and has to be) a different world today.”
Fact: Like it or not, the days when being fit to fly was enough to stay out of trouble are over, probably for ever.
Now, if you’re found with even a tiny amount of alcohol in your system you will be prosecuted – even if the amount is so small it couldn’t possibly impair your ability to operate. Like it or not, that's what Parliament has decided.
Fact: For all practical purposes, the legal limit is effectively no alcohol at all.
Should the limit be the same as for drivers? I don't know, but I doubt if it will ever be changed.
Fact: There’s no meaningful chart which can predict a future alcohol level after a period of drinking.
Individuals absorb and excrete alcohol at very different rates, depending on various factors including sex (as in gender, not how often or how recently), body weight, alcohol tolerance, whether we’ve eaten and when.
Fact: Anyone prosecuted is likely to be dealt with in the Crown Court.
Parliament intended appropriate cases to be dealt with by the magistrates where the maximum penalty is a fine, but both cases so far have been sent to the Crown Court. That may change with time. (If it’s a contested case, I’d strongly recommend choosing trial by judge and jury, but I suspect most cases will be guilty pleas.)
Fact: Both pilots prosecuted to date have been sent to prison.
It appears from those two cases that anyone over the limit, even by a small amount (
eg the Manchester pilot), is likely to end up in prison . Whether or not that’s too harsh (I think it is), work on that basis unless/until a different sentencing pattern emerges.
Is it worth taking a chance? The answer, at least IMHO, is definitely not – there’s too much to lose.
Remember that both the LHR and Manchester pilots were breath-tested because they'd been reported. In the Manchester case, by the crew’s driver; in the LHR case, by a security screener at the Crew gate.
Whatever views may be held about people who report others, the fact is there’s a real risk it could happen again.
And not only by security men or drivers - what about your crew? If you’ve been drinking heavily/late in front of the rest of the crew, are you confident there’s no-one who might report you? They could have a variety of motives ranging from a genuine concern for flight safety through resentment of you personally because of some previous unrelated incident to (if you're a pilot) a chip on their shoulder about flight crew in general. Is it worth taking a chance?
Attitudes to drinking and driving have changed significantly over the years, and the change has already begun in aviation.
Remember when the breathalyser was first introduced? Some people used to boast about how they drove home totally plastered and knew some route where there were unlikely to be stopped by the police. They, and most of their audience, thought it was funny. Now, people who drive while drunk rarely boast about it because they know most people think it’s irresponsible not amusing.
Being aware of the risks of being over the limit unintentionally is sensible. Trying to calculate the most you can drink and still be legal is IMHO not only the wrong attitude but just too risky.
Leaving 24 hours between bottle and throttle after anything more than a couple of drinks with food may strike some as too cautious, but look at it in context: Balance the pleasure you’ll get from the extra drinks against the effect on you (and your family) if you lost your job, add the almost certainty of being sent to prison if you’re caught, and then ask yourself if it's too cautious.
Bern Oulli
As far as I know, the 20 mg limit was a policy decision without any reference to any research about the effects of alcohol at altitude. As I understand it, the only reason the limit wasn’t set at zero was to allow for the very small amounts of alcohol our bodies can produce. Perhaps a medic or scientist will tell us if there's been any research and, if so, the results. Interesting point.
Stagn8
There's no equivalent procedure for lawyers, doctors or security screeners. The emphasis has always been on transport - but I see your point.