I agree that the post by Caulfield was pretty good and aired a lot of points that we as professional aircrew feel strongly about, however he and most of the sanctimonious bull.... posted here seems to be missing one of the main points. This pilot was not drunk! He/she was over the proscribed limit, which I think was cited as "ridiculously low" in this or another post.
His fellow crewmembers would not have been aware that he was "drunk", so could not have done anything to help him, indeed he would have probably been unaware himself that he was deemed not fit to fly in a legal sense.
This will undoubtably bring out the next lot of self righteous ranting that will effectively say we should all become teetotallers!
As in everything, a modicum of of common sense and judgement should prevail in situations like these. If, as stated, he was only marginally over the limit, though an offence in law, any mitigating circumstances should be allowed to be considered. He may have responded to a call from crewing to report earlier than rostered, thus destroying his calculations to ensure he would be legal when he reported. How many of us would do the same, perticularly if you felt completely sober, rested and able to work?
The damage to his ability to get an airside pass, i.e. criminal record, is something that we should all petition to have reviewed. Even the sanctimonious bull........ will agree that he would pose no security threat, as would someone who had been convicted of debt arrears or careless or dangerous driving or any of a number of criminal offences that would have no effect on the vast majority of the population being able to continue their job.
If we are not to be offered these same considerations, then I would suggest that we are in a highly rarified profession, that demands extreme sacrifice, control and risk and thus should enjoy rewards far in excess of the current levels.