What do you mean? Should we not post our reflections on this if it's something you don't agree with?
If you'd care to read my post properly, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in case English isn't your first language, you can post your opinion exactly as I did. Your apparent contempt at my opinion leads me to assume that you have not quite grasped the concept of "opinion".
I am against
mandatory breath testing before every flight because as far as I'm aware, I'm not a heavy drinker, I stick to the rules and add my own personal buffer to them and in the knowledge that I have no intention of arriving at work having consumed anything near the amounts that would cause residuals to give a positive test. However, I am not against companies having kit available for those that feel they should test themselves
voluntarily should they not have the same personal regime as I do when it comes to alcohol consumption.
So, just because all government cars in Germany are to be fitted with alcohol keys is irrelevant as I am fairly sure that most government drivers haven't put in as much effort, training and on-going training and testing as I or my fellow colleagues have. I'm sure you'll be able to dig out statistics that will show a record of accidents caused to government cars in Germany because their drivers were over the limit. I challenge you to show any statistics that even one public transport, scheduled flight that has been involved in an accident and attributable to alcohol consumption by the crew.
Also, your assumption that because one person has been caught and two others already convicted after being caught
before they even took control of the aircraft in some way proves that therefore there must be some that slip through doesn't stand. There may have been but all that proves that those that may have slipped through were obviously
not drunk even if they were possibly over the extremely low limit. I would point out that the fact that because this pilot was caught and as were the other recently publicised ones that the current system is adequate. After all, those tested positive did not fly and there have been no airliner accidents related to alcohol that you can point me to.
Of course if you are so insecure in your own ability to judge your own alcohol intake then feel free to demand kit that can be used to test yourself. Personally, I like to believe that I don't live in a nanny state and that I can be trusted to behave properly. It may sound chaotic to you if you hail from a much more ordered society in your part of the world.
Just to challenge CrossBars conspiracy fears, the documentary that you refer to was proved here on PPRuNe to have been selectively edited to make it appear that the pilots involved had consumed alcohol within the bottle to throttle period. It was shown that it was impossible to have taken place as was suggested because the makers of the programme forgot to edit out the various clocks that appeared in the background.
Even more importantly, not one of those pilots was tested and any allegations made were hypothetical with no substantive evidence. Of course, if you wish to refer to that programme that is your choice but I would be very wary of trying to make a point with fellow colleagues when your regard for them is so contemptible. You have not offered one iota of evidence except to relate to German government cars. That is pathetic.
The argument here is either accidents caused due to alcohol (none) or pilots tested positive for alcohol before getting airborne, which as far as I can remember is the case being discussed here, the two recently convicted in the UK and a few in the US. The total number of departures made annually just by European and US carriers and the number of convictions is the point. The ratio is miniscule and therefore just goes to prove that you are so easily led by gutter press and media luvvies who will sensationalise a story and eat their own babies.