...if your captain is drunk?
-----------------------
Quote
“There appear to be many on Pprune who are still ignorant of the scientifically proven fact that chemical abuse is a disease.” Ignition Override
---------------------------------------------
Further to this, as a health specialist, I’d say that such a reliance on chemicals indicates their possible use as a coping mechanism – a reaction to stressors. If an airline finds that it has a preponderance of drunken pilots I would suggest that the airline looks at what it is doing wrong in terms of management. Such stress is called ‘organizational stress’ and one wonders how airlines can get away with this neglect of duty of care.
---------------------------------------
Quote
"If this hasn't been a problem up to now, why bother doing anything about it?". So we need to be able to point to fatigue-related accidents and incidents. Further, in contrast, we challenge the authorities to demonstrate any accident or incident that was alcohol-related.”Capt Stable
---------------------------------------------------
Both of these comments demonstrate an attitude within the aviation industry. I think I am correct in saying that it is alone in NOT using evidence-based practice. In no other profession can managers get away with making statements based on wild guesses as if they were speaking from knowledge. And this is not the only example.
If I were faced with “…this hasn’t been a problem up til now…” I’d ask for the up-to-date scientific evidence to substantiate such a view. How would such a person KNOW that there hadn’t been “a problem?” Do they have the qualifications to evaluate ‘problems’? What counts as a “problem”? Here we can range from full hull losses, through ‘incidents’, to stats on sickness, then deaths in service. If a person indicates that there hasn’t been a problem then I take it they must be an expert in all these fields and has the information at their fingertips! My argument only covers the health aspect of flying. If I were a lawyer (and I’m not) my response to “.. this hasn’t been a problem up to now…” might be in like vein: how many breaches of air laws are currently happening? If you don’t know the answer to that then the question is empty foolishness.
Being proactive about safety – the safety system – is what has been working thus far. “..this hasn’t been a problem up to now..” demonstrates a person who is ignorant of what a safety system is and why it should be in place proactively.
Such avoidance behaviour needs to be challenged with, “What’s your evidence that there isn’t a problem?” If pilots are reporting problems to management who dismiss them, that in itself demonstrates ‘artillery on the field of battle’. The battle has already begun!
So, information on fatigue-related accidents and incidents does seem to be a good place to start. (Thank you Captain Stable) To continue the military theme that seems to have developed in this thread, these are the walking-wounded – these are the evidence that problems exist. So let us Campaign.
As usual I end with a question! While CHIRPs might record fatigue-related accidents and incidents it is not ‘scientific’ in the sense that it chooses which reports to use and discards others. Does anyone know of any study that collates scientific, up-to-date information on fatigue-related accidents and incidents?