Little Boy
Usually legislation is introduced in response to a problem or specific event. Why was the legislation introduced?
In relation to the UK: No. The legislation was not introduced in response to a problem or specific event.
The Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 was
the first convenient legislative opportunity to bring UK legislation relating to alcohol/aviation into line with most of the rest of Europe. The blood/alcohol limit for aviation personnel is lower than that in shipping or on roads or railways, but reflects the Joint Aviation Requirements Commercial Air Transportation (JAR-OPS), adopted by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) in 1996. The UK's adoption of this limit was intended to further the harmonisation of standards across Europe.
Before the 2003 Act, the relevant legislation was contained in the Air Navigation Order. In very brief summary, the new Act created an additional offence of being over the prescribed limit, introduced breath-testing and changed the wording of the offence relating to being impaired by alcohol.
Is there a problem?
If you mean in terms of flight safety, no.
Is the industry successfully policing itself?
Yes, IMHO.
The Royal Brunei and Emirates pilots sentenced to prison terms. Both had (please correct me if I'm wrong) BACs not only in excess of the flying limit but high enough to be considered legally drunk.
I can only comment on the Royal Brunei pilot who was dealt with in the UK. I represented him and am familiar with the facts of the case.
He was prosecuted for being over the legal limit.
There was no evidence that he was 'drunk'.
Had there been, he would have been prosecuted for the alternative and more serious offence.
There is no such thing in UK law as "legally" drunk, although evidence may be given which, if accepted, entitles a court to find as a fact that someone was drunk. I mention that only to correct your misunderstanding. It has no relevance to the Royal Brunei case for the reason I've explained.
Give me some sensible answers and put my mind at rest!
I have no idea why your mind isn't already at rest.
There is no evidence that alcohol is a serious problem in terms of flight safety. ie The stats show that the chance of an aircraft crash/incident being caused, or contributed to, by a pilot's ability being impaired by alcohol is so remote that there's no sensible reason to be worried.
If you've actually read this thread, as you say you have, then perhaps you missed the link to the result of a study into whether there is a problem. Given the tone of your posts, I think you would have found the conclusions reassuring.
If you want something flight safety related to be worried about, I suggest you read up about pilot fatigue.
FL