Plenty of sanctimonious, self-righteous claptrap here.
Let's cut to the chase.
He KNEW he was putting his huge training investment at risk.
(pilots are above average intelligence, they have to absorb a vast spectrum of knowledge of various disciplinesand apply it to the working environment.-Physics,meteorology,biology, engineering and mechanics, specialised Law...)
everyone ASSUMES this was a "first offence" (who's to tell that he hasn't been pulled aside in the past and given the "look ,old chap, you're unfit, I don't want to fly with you, call in sick -or i'll have to make it official" )
Caulfield's post, meritorious though it undoubtedly is, is not relevant.
The "2 pilots are needed" argument is a bit of a red-herring....the second-pilot is , theoretically a BACKUP...(..the checklist-readbacks etc. are primarily "box-ticking, CYA exercises, -pushing paper doesn't fly the aircraft.....how many crashes have been caused or exacerbated because both pilots were busy "following procedures" shuffling papers instead of FLYING THE AIRCRAFT.
The alcohol limit is there, you join "the club" KNOWING that, Transgression shows disregard of rules, lack of respect for crew/pax for whom the drinker is responsible and reckless poor judgement to risk so much for a couple of hours of "feeling merry"
Yes, I too ,think the sentence was unfair, why he should have a much more draconian sentence imposed for a lesser offence is beyond rational comprehension (next, we'll chop off a shoplifter's hands just to "make an example " as people are obviously ignoring the lar that says thieving is illegal)
Ultimately, this man was the architect of his own downfall,-that his family have to suffer ,is a responsibility he alone has to bear.
It also demonstrates his piss-poor skills at risk-assesment.
there were no winners in this sad debacle...let's hope all you "defenders" learn something from it.