Flying Lawyer
I'm sure you will read this, even if you choose to engage no further in the discussion. So a couple of points:
UK has not defined the alcohol level which impairs performance. It has prescribed, for the purpose of one of our two different offences, a maximum permitted level.
One is
ipso facto the other. The state has determined that
any alcohol in the bloodstream impairs performance (rightly or wrongly) and has, on that basis, established an arbitrary limit. The limit may in itself be meaningless, but it is not without a basis.
It is pretty obvious that the offence of
...
Performing 'an aviation function' .......... at a time when the proportion of alcohol in your breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit
... is a catch-all that is designed to overcome the problem of trying to prove impairment in a court of law. The limit itself is probably set so low because of the vagaries of the effects of alcohol on different people.
If you can point me to any other research relating to alcohol in aviation I’d be interested to read it.
I can't, and I suspect that there isn't any. That in itself is significant.
IMHO it provides a very helpful and informative indication, although not conclusive.
Without knowing in how many incidents or accidents the presence of alcohol was assessed, how can it possibly have any meaning at all? If only 22 cases in those 31 years were assessed for alcohol, the hit rate is 100% and we should all be worried. If every case was assessed for alcohol, the problem is minute and we can all breathe again.,,,
I’m not a flight safety expert but, as I understand it, no, flight safety is not predicated on the removal of all possible risk.
Well people who
are experts in flight safety disagree with you. For example, the RAF say this:
The aim of Flight Safety is to maximise operational capability by reducing those risks inherent in military aviation to a level as low as reasonably practicable.
I susppose you could have a semantic argument over "all possible risk" and low as reasonably practicable". However, the principle I have put forward is essentially what they teach you on day one of the Flight Safety Officer course. Well, they did on the one I attended, anyway.
I suppose it's possible that “many agencies and most pilots” are wrong and you are right.
It isn't an issue of "right and wrong", it is an observable phenomenon. Just read this thread and others like it. It is also an issue where little will be done until there is a major accident that is directly attributable to the misuse of alcohol. Other countries take this a lot more seriously than the UK does.
However, the fact is that the safety record of British carriers is and always has been excellent. (I appreciate you’ll probably dismiss that as irrelevant.)
Well the safety record of
most British carriers is and has been excellent. No, it isn't (completely) irrelevant.
Even assuming for the purpose of this discussion that your claims about pilots’ attitude to drinking are not exaggerated in an attempt to strengthen your arguments, I don’t know if they are based upon recent observations. (I know you used to fly in Europe but don’t know when.)
I was flying in Europe until late last year. The last time I had a personal brush with the misuse of alcohol was about two years ago, when I had to send an F/O home "sick" because he was still clearly intoxicated from the night before.
I find the allegation that I may make exaggerated claims to strengthen my case somewhat insulting. It is not in my nature to exaggerate. Maybe it is a response to my use of the word "
disingenuous". Oh well.
the introduction of the 'excess alcohol' offence has made pilots even more cautious
I think you would be amazed at how many pilots don't even know about it.
I've spent (or perhaps wasted) enough time on this topic.
Fair enough. This is just my morning entertainment over a cup of coffee. Hard to find a good, intelligent debate these days..