ATC calls police to meet A/C because FO 'sounded drunk'

[Fokker28]

The title says it all, but hear is what our company communicated to us about the incident:

You may have heard of an incident in Portland on Monday the 22nd involving allegations of impairment of one of our pilots. Here are some facts:
The FAA noted some irregularities in radio communication and contacted the airline.
Before we could evaluate this information or respond, the FAA elected to conduct, via the Port Police, an interview and evaluation on their own. For reasons unknown, this was conducted in the crew lounge, in full public view, without any presumption of innocence or regard for the pilot's reputation.
We need to let you know that the allegations were found to be groundless and that the pilot remains on flying status and under no suspicion by the airline.
Please help us squelch any rumors and continue to presume the best of our pilots.

What's next? A breathalyzer every 5 minutes in the cockpit? My guess is that the crew and the ATC had some disagreement/conflict and the controller was out to exact some revenge.

Anybody else ever hear of anything similar (based solely on radio exchanges)?

[ayrprox]

you do hear people on the r/t who sound sluggish sometimes, but this is usually at 4am after they've just flown across the pond.to be honest at that time in the morning i probably don't sound full of the joys of spring myself.I certainly wouldn't be making any judgements on a pilot's impairment or lack there of based solely on how they sounded.what's next, premonitions?.

[green granite]

There was an incident awhile ago involing a private pilot at Cambridge who when given taxi clearance went the wrong way and went behind a C130 doing engine run ups, after several attemps to get it right he took off, infringed stansted's zone and eventually ran out of fuel and crashed killing himself. he was well over the leagle drink drive limit let alone flying limits, it turned out he'd lost his driving licence through drink driving. perhaps had ATC at Cambridge done the same thing perhaps a different outcome would have occurred (please don't think for a moment I'm in anyway criticising ATC here) but I appreciate it must be a very difficult call

[Hand Solo]

Maybe the next time ATC get themselves worked up at an airport I'm at I should call the police and tell them the tower staff are all half cut.

[bafanguy]

but I appreciate it must be a very difficult call

GG,

"...difficult call." ? There is a list of terms that come to mind describing this incident which does not include "...difficult call.".

The kindest and most moderator-evading term would be "witch hunt". The terms get rapidly nastier from there on.

[PAXboy]

We can but hope that the lawyers of the airline will extract a public apology from the Police for the way in which they behaved (lack of privacy etc.). The chances of getting an apology from ATC must be zero, "We acted with the best possible intentions and are guardians of public saftey Blah Blah". However, if the the Police action is correctly reported, it is very, very, bad.

[RoyHudd]

I wonder just what training the ATC person had had in voice recognition of a drunk person transmitting....precisely none, I reckon. And yet this person had the brilliance to contact the police. Who themselves are duty bound to react. In their inimitable fashion.

The world has gone mad, particularly the PC parts like U.K and U.S.A. Shades of the recent 146 episode at MAN, where a female passenger contacted the police about a suspected drunk flight crew. Who were stone cold sober.

Cheers folks.

(Not flying for a few days...need a drink after this reported stupidity!)

[Wizofoz]

The fact my keyboard can’t spell is not really pertinent to the point

Actually, just as pertinent as assuming you can form a reasnoble suspicion that someone is intoxicated on the basis of radio transmissions.

I note that whilst you suggest ATC was doing the right thing, you don't like someone making the same suggestion about you on just as little evidence.

Quid pro quo?

[amanoffewwords]

You're all assuming that this actually happened and does not qualify as a "contribution [that] may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions" category.

[green granite]

GG,

"...difficult call." ? There is a list of terms that come to mind describing this incident which does not include "...difficult call.".

The kindest and most moderator-evading term would be "witch hunt". The terms get rapidly nastier from there on.

You are misreading my comment, the term "difficult call" refers to the possibility
that a controller could decide that, in his opinion, there are sufficient grounds for thinking that the person is drunk from his speech and actions, and refers to the case I cited, not the original posters case, which, as you say, is more of a piece of spiteful behaviour
.

[skysoarer]

For reasons unknown, this was conducted in the crew lounge, in full public view, without any presumption of innocence or regard for the pilot's reputation.

That's just damned inconsiderate for both the airline and especially the crew, and I'm surprised at that kind of knee-jerk reaction. It's just not how you'd approach such a situation in terms of basic common sense, especially when the grounds proved to be unfounded.

Very unfair on the crew involved. Hopefully a one-off.

Sky

[Chesty Morgan]

A friend of mine was merrily working his way through the turn around a few months back. He happened to glance out at the airbridge and noticed a pair of coppers. Being the nice chap he is he ventured outside to ask if he could help with anything.
Coppers then proceeded to FORCE him in to a breathalyser test in front of the boarding passengers. Of course he refused and said he'd happily comply in a private area away from the passengers. At this point he was threatened with arrest for not complying.
Turns out a few days before hand the cleaning agency contract had come to an end at it seems they had been offered a worse deal than the one they were currently on.
Bring forth disgruntled cleaners who it seems had decided to "get back" at the airline by falsely reporting "alcoholic smells" on the flight deck.
Absolutely disgusting if you ask me!:mad: :mad: :mad: But it just goes to show you can't be too careful these days!

[clarityinthemurk]

Other possibilities include latent brain injury, temporary psychosis (brought about by environmental or other stressors), temporary stroke like event…..but these are ones for the medics.

[bafanguy]

... a controller could decide that, in his opinion, there are sufficient grounds for thinking that the person is drunk from his speech and actions,
.

GG,

No controller will EVER be in that position in this, or any other, case. No controller will ever be in a position, from the receiving end of a radio, to judge the physical condition of a pilot muchless call in the dogs on him.

I occasionally get a bit down about being retired...until I read a thread like this and know why it's gonna take a good bit of money to get me off the front porch.

[Nov71]

If the a/c was about to depart, safety first. Escort f/o from a/c for 'medical' check. Slurred speech could indicate brain function impairment due to minor stroke, embolus, alcohol, lack of sleep etc. Same for arrivals.
Let management decide who pays for delays.
If the interview was conducted where non-involved 3rd parties could hear the (false) allegation and not the apology - sue for slander? Certainly poor situation management to reprimand in front of others.

I am all for aircraft safety legislation, but all laws can be abused and false allegations/overbearing authority should be penalised.

At least Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) got an apology from the Yanks after being refused entry to US because his name sounded suspicious!

[6chimes]

No one seems to have mentioned that the pilot in question was not alone, he had a fellow pilot with him who would have surely seen the man drink himself into a stupor. Sounds like someone got out of the bed the wrong side or they had both sides as an option!

6

[SLFguy]

*Dons non-pilot flame retardant gear*........

Original post says "FAA noted some irregularities in radio transmission...." then goes on to imply that they had a guy on the ground quick enough to 'interview' the pilot concerned.
Two questions...(a) Am I incorrect in thinking the 'interview' in the lounge took place when the a/c landed?... if it was at a later date surely it would have been scheduled in an office, and (b) Does the FAA 'monitor' radio traffic in real time? :confused:

[The Nr Fairy]

Chesty:

Suggest your colleague gets a printed copy of http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200328.pdf to keep.

Section 5.1.1 shows that legislation allows police officers to require a breathtest. Whether second hand reports of an "alcoholic smell" in a place where the police officer hasn't been counts as "reasonable suspicion" is dubious, in my mind. There is a power to board an aircraft if there is reasonable suspicion, however.

However, Section 5.1.4 is the one your colleague needed to be aware of. He was well within his rights to request it to be done in a non-public place, if my reading of the FODCOM is correct, but has no actual legal right to that. However the "ways and means" act of getting around this is may be to offer to provide the specimen but only in a private place - that way, there is no refusal.

[Chippie Chappie]

Well, The Nr Fairy, Section 5.4 goes a little into that. Are we getting to the stage that "Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on generalisations or stereotypical images of certain groups...."? Are pilots suffering from stereotype? I suggest there's growing evidence to support that we are.

The other interesting part of the FODCOM (UK, not US) is Section 6.3:

"Flight crew and cabin crew who are required to take a preliminary test, witha negative result, may decide that it is unsafe for them to operate because of the emotional impact."

Maybe you should just go sick, have the police make the announcement to the passangers that the test was negative, however the flight has been cancelled due to lack of crew?

Cheers,

Chips

[Oh that's super!]

Other possibilities include latent brain injury, temporary psychosis (brought about by environmental or other stressors), temporary stroke like event…..but these are ones for the medics.

Or being dog tired through over-work.

I can sound quite drunk (e.g. somewhat slurred speech) after 16 hours of work despite not having had a drop of alcohol in a week, and I know a number of people who also sound drunk when they are very tired.

[bjcc]

The Nr Fairy

The FODCOM isn't law, it's advice. The legislation gives a Constable power to require a breath test and administer it at that place or nearby. There is no requirement on the Officer to administer it out of sight.

That said, it would be more sensible too.

[The Nr Fairy]

bjcc:

While the FODCOM isn't legislation it does quote it quite extensively. I'm quite aware of the difference, having a) been on your side of the fence, albeit a long time ago and b) read the FODCOm as a FODCOM rather than the Act itself.

I was merely hoping to point out that a desire to be breathalysed in a private setting isn't a refusal to provide such a breath test, and any officer worth their salt would most likely accede to such a request were it to be made politely.

[bjcc]

The Nr Fairy

My concern was with your last bit.

"However the "ways and means" act of getting around this is may be to offer to provide the specimen but only in a private place - that way, there is no refusal."


It could be considered a refuasl by putting that condition on providing it.

I would agree that it would be better to do so out of sight of the pax, or indeed other staff, but there is no compulsion to do so. I just wanted to ensure that no one misunderstands, they can ask, but if its refused, thats that, the test is still not optional, unless someone wants to get arrested.

[Landmark]

BJCC,

Absolutley right.It makes sense to request a breath test (esp on an a/c) out of sight, if nothing else to avoid panicing the PAX and saving the crew member embarrassment. But there's no legislation to say it has to. Indeed, if a pilot placed a condition on giving a sample of breath requested by me - he's more likley than not going to be arrested for refusal.

[ExSimGuy]

Indeed, if a pilot placed a condition on giving a sample of breath requested by me - he's more likley than not going to be arrested for refusal.
Landmark, are you a law enforcement officer? Unless I mis-understood your post, you say that a pilot who insists on a test being carried out in a discrete place would be arrested for refusal?

If this is the case, either my view of law enforcement officers has just seriously descended (and I'm proud to have a son-in-law who is one) or you are an unfortunate exception to the rule!

WHY would a sensible request that the test be carried out away from the eyes of passengers result in arrest - it's hardly an unacceptable condition?

When I'm flying with any airline, I don't expect to see the driver being "bagged" - If he IS "FUI", then I'd hope that it would be taken care of and that I'd not even be aware of the fact that an alternative pilot was going to be flying!

(and I'm old enough to remember the years-ago somewhat "bending" of the "8 hours rule", so not "over-sensitive")

[bjcc]

ExSimGuy

What I presume he means is the same as I said. That it is the Police officers decision to require a breath test from a pilot. Once that requirement is made, the legislation says that it must be taken at the place of request or nearby. But that is the officers decision to make not the person required to take the test.

So, if the officer decides that he is going to administer it at the doors of the aircraft, thats where you take it. If a pilot (or anyone else covered by this legislation) doesn't take it, then he faces either arrest or summons for refusal.

As The Nr Fairy points out it is preferable to do it out of sight, but it is not compulsory. Trying to put a condition on where it will, or will not be taken will only annoy the person you really do not want to annoy.

Drivers are in the same position. As a police officer having had an accident, I was required to take a breath test, no problem with it, hadn't had a drink in days, but it was conducted in full view of the public. I wasn't impressed, and no doubt the public thought I had been a naughty boy. But at the end of the day, did it matter? No.

[ExSimGuy]

the legislation says that it must be taken at the place of request or nearby. But that is the officers decision to make not the person required to take the test.

"place of request or nearby" sounds eminently sensible, but "it is the officer's decision" somewhat dilutes the wording above - especially if the officer concerned was somwhat officious. My feeling is that it (if that is the case) is a bad law (I know - we are stuck with them!!)

Regarding your own experience related above, I would have thought that a "reasonable" approach - especially if you were in uniform - yes, it did matter - , would to have the test taken out of the view of the public - for exactly the same reasons as I would expect the pilot to have been given the same consideration (or, to be more accurate, to avoid the confidence of the public in the police/pilots due to having one embarrassingly tested in front of them - especially if it turned out, as I hope in your case, to be a "negative")

[bjcc]

ExSimGuy

Yes, mine was a big fat nothing! There is a school of thought that producing a negitive result is in fact reassuring the public. I can see some merit in that, but I can also see your point, and agree that doing it out of the way would be a more reasonable approach.

In my case it was conducted by Traffic, who probably had issues with my parents being married.

My only reason for mentioning it, is that the FODCOM has no effect on the Officer making the request, he may not even have heard of it. So if asked to take a breath test, and you are willing to take it, and the officer declines to do it out of sight, then don't argue, as the result may be worse.

[rhovsquared]

"...and I know a number of people who also sound drunk when they are very tired".
I hear many people who sound drunk on the radio when they are not drunk:\

[wiggy]

bjcc
Thanks for your input..just to be completely clear in my own mind over this.
If I am asked ( in the UK) to take a breathtest, for whatever reason, I can ask for it to be done in private, but if that request is denied by the officer on the spot , it is probably in my own interests to take the test there and then, wherever I am....

[Johnbr]

One would expect US coppers to be agressive and nasty...But in the UK,some 12 years ago,I was stopped by police for speeding(doing 60 in a road with a speed limit of 40),was very respectfuly treated,admitted having had a pint,asked for a breath test,got the test explained to me in detail,did it,turned out ok,and released with a "have a very good night,mate".Few days later,reporting for duty at Gatwick,saw a police officer doing the same routine to an asian capt.who really had an odd balance in his walk,very politely,test explained in detail,and the officer himself insisted in taking this poor fellow away from public view.Every time I had any contact with british police in the 2 years I lived in the UK I've found them to be nice,polite,helpful and very well trained to deal with the "civilians".Couldn't and wouldn't say the same of the american couterparts.Very recently I was rudely approached by an american police officer at KMIA for having a cigarrete in my mouth,unlit,on my way out of the terminal,shouting on top of his lungs,causing every head to turn to me.Embarassing it was!Felt like a criminal.The whole episode with the pilot you guys described ,sounded typical american..

[bjcc]

wiggy

Correct yes.

Theres no problem with asking, but if it's refused, for whatever reason, then you have no real option but to take it. You can decline, but doing so will probably lead to arrest.

The chances are if you ask, and point out, politely the reasons why you'd want it done in private, then thats what the officer will do.

[GGV]

There is a school of thought that producing a negitive result is in fact reassuring the public. I think bjcc is absolutely correct about the existence of this orientation. This "school of thought" seems to be widely shared among the secocrats, especially in the U.S. This is the school of thought that believes that pilots and cabin crew should be explicitly treated to an evaluation of their [security] "suitability to operate" in public. What happened in this case is a reflection of an explicit policy that is now showing itself for what it is.

As I understand it, after 9/11, the state of mind in the U.S. was such that pilots were very nearly subject to much more public humiliation including being frisked in public prior to every flight - with the in public bit being entirely intentional.

What takes place now is a "concession". While accepting that the mood at the time was not one conducive to negotiation and discussion, I don't feel that our representatives did a particuarly good job. Pilots are now treated as being little different to passengers in terms of the risk they bring to the very aeroplanes they fly.

I find the discussion above depressing, based on the simple observation that yet again we have the threat of arrest being bandied about when a perfectly reasonable position is taken. Allways depressing are the - ever present - pilots who take the "security" line without so much as a thought for what they are saying. Remember, there will allways be a pilot who will want to argue that it is possible that another pilot will be a terrorist and that pilots should therefore undergo special checks, strip searches/"internal investigations", suspension on the "slightest suspicion", etc. (After all, pilots get into the cockpit!! They can do terrible things there!!). We just need to be able to recognise such idiots for what they are and get back to looking after our interests in this "security game" a bit better.

By the way, I think that such testing in public would have exactly the opposite effect as that suggested. I also think it is a form of public humiliation.

[radioexcel]

Interesting assumptions from a lot of guys:O
Having been on the other side of the mike for over 30 yrs, I must say that you obtain the ability to evaluate the person you are talking to. Mostly you have the friendly and appreciative voice on the other side.;) You can definitely evaluate the persons mood on the radio. Be it friendly, tired, grumpy, plainly rude(because he is p..t off with someone), inexperienced or even some times lacking far behind the aircraft.
I had an aircraft going down a few year ago because of the instructor being intoxicated. (This you could tell from his speech and actions) The poor student was trying his best to keep the plane flying while his instructor did all sorts of unusual maneavers with the aircraft. Fortunately I had a friend in the military being on standby with his chopper and when the plane did crash and going up in flames, the chopper landed at the crash site. Fortunately the two walked away only a bit bruised.
So guys, it is not a "witch hunt". If ATC reported the matter, the police should have the correct procedures and diplomacy to handle the matter:ok:

[mikip]

ExSimGuy



Drivers are in the same position. As a police officer having had an accident, I was required to take a breath test, no problem with it, hadn't had a drink in days, but it was conducted in full view of the public. I wasn't impressed, and no doubt the public thought I had been a naughty boy. But at the end of the day, did it matter? No.

Trouble is it could matter what if one of the Joe publics was a guy going to interview you for a job next day or your bank manager who you were going to see for a loan/mortgage, Joe public is convinced that there is no smoke without fire (as in your case there was)

[Landmark]

ExSimGuy,

I'm not ignoring you request but have in fact only just revisited the forum - in essence bjcc has given the answer I was have given,and yes, I am a police officer.

Personally I would happily make the request for a breath test in private if requested, my point was/is, and its been made perfectly well already, that it is wise not give any indication of awkwardness that could look like refusal - this isn't meant to be officious at all, just highlight the legislation as it stands.

[RoyHudd]

Plods seem to have arrested this thread, which started in Portland USA, where different laws prevail both for the police and the pilots, and presumably ATC. Dock Green Nick has nothing to do with this case.

Refocus please.

[JustAnothrWindScreen]

This business has gone completely insane. ATC'ers who think they have the ability to analyze you by voice. Simply insane. I don't care if you do have 30 years behind the mic, some of us have 40 years in the aircraft. What next, calling the post office about a postal problem and having a mail "person" send the coppers to your house based on their 30 years experience delivering the mail.

In the US the ATC'ers actually make more than the ones doing the business on the flight deck because they are paid by the tax payers and simply are not accountable for costs. I retire in a matter of months, and although it has been a great ride, the changing environment makes me happy to get away from this insanity.

[Fokker28]

*Dons non-pilot flame retardant gear*........
Original post says "FAA noted some irregularities in radio transmission...." then goes on to imply that they had a guy on the ground quick enough to 'interview' the pilot concerned.
Two questions...(a) Am I incorrect in thinking the 'interview' in the lounge took place when the a/c landed?... if it was at a later date surely it would have been scheduled in an office, and (b) Does the FAA 'monitor' radio traffic in real time? :confused:

Yes, the interview took place in the crew lounge after landing. The FAA most certainly does monitor radio traffic in real time! That's what the speakers/headsets in the tower cab are for!

As for the gentleman who doubted the veracity of the original post, all I can say is, "I wish 'twere a lie!"

[clicker]

Then of course there are the radios that are so good they make the crew sound drunk.

I feel sorry for the crew, as mentioned by a previous poster, once the details had been reported to the police they were duty bound to go in this "PC" correct world.

Had I taken that call when I first started my police comms career 19 years ago it's likely that call would never have left the control room but nowadays I'm guided by other rules and "SOP"'s.

[fantom]

This business has gone completely insane. I retire in a matter of months, and although it has been a great ride, the changing environment makes me happy to get away from this insanity.
It was not always like this. Now it is terrible. The over-enthusiastic rummage-squad operative; bus driver; baggage handler, etc., etc., leaning over (almost kissing you) so as to sniff your breath. Not that I am thinking of Manchester, of course.
Five months to go, for me. Good luck, the rest of you.:(

[CaptainFillosan]

Why is everyone trying to get in the act? What are they trying to prove? They must be attention seekers or the type who believe that they are in a better position to judge than the experts. Who was the expert in this case who 'identified' a pilot as being under influence, and was miles away from him and NO POSITION WHATSOEVER to make a judgment of such significance he caused a pilot to be breath tested after he landed.

It is absurd in the extreme and the ATC person(s) guilty of this are nothing more than mischief maker(s). They, and everyone else for that matter, should understand the terrible consequences of their actions.

Where will this series of 'reporting' get us?

[wrongthong]

Daring to stick my neck in ... ATC can, do and should intervene if a pilot sounds 'strange'...we had an incident here a few years ago when ATC saved the life of a hypoxic pilot (just in time). What they can't do is presume the reason for the 'strangeness'. The story if true as posted sounds very unjust and obviously not the complete story. That being said drugs, alcohol and fatigue are serious issues. I read somewhere recently that about half of pilot fatalities in general aviation in the US have alcohol detected in their blood post-accident. What that means in terms of accident causation I do not know but scary statistics if true and hopefully not relevent to the professionals.

[20driver]

"I read somewhere recently that about half of pilot fatalities in general aviation in the US have alcohol detected in their blood post-accident"

I'd like to know where you read that. I read the reports on a regular basis and rarely see any positive toxicology mentioned. The NTSB reports almost always list results in the final reports. Now as for out and out stupidity we see a lot of that.
20driver

[Flying Lawyer]

Fokker28

America doesn't have a monopoly on such events.
Some police constables in Manchester breath-tested both pilots after a passenger complained about the landing and said the pilots must have been drinking. :rolleyes:
UK pilots breathalysed after go arounds (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=160845)


Landmark
"But there's no legislation to say it has to (take place in private). Indeed, if a pilot placed a condition on giving a sample of breath requested by me - he's more likley than not going to be arrested for refusal."
IMHO that sort of attitude alienates members of the public and, unfortunately, diminishes respect for the police.

[Ignition Override]

Previous comments which suggest that similar pilot radio transmissions could be the result of fatigue, hit the nail on the head.

Many, but not all, Upper Mgmts. view crew rest with undisguised contempt, especially at the bargaining table.

Many airlines have no bargaining table. Imagine the potential fatigue for their flightcrews. A chat with former Connie Kalitta Learjet, Sun Country DC-10 and Evergreen DC-8 crews might prove to be interesting, among many others.

[wrongthong]

20driver, here's the paper and its abstract: http://www.hf.faa.gov/docs/508/docs/cami/00_21.pdf.


The use of drugs and alcohol in aviation is closely monitored by the FAA Office of Aviation Medicine's (OAM’s) Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) through the toxicological analysis of specimens from pilots who have died in aviation accidents. This information on the use of drugs in aviation is helpful to the FAA in developing programs to reduce the usage of dangerous drugs and identify potentially incapacitating medical conditions that may cause an accident. Data collected from this research can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the FAA drug testing program. The toxicology reports prepared by the CAMI Forensic Toxicology Research Section are used by the FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board to determine the cause of aviation accidents. Specimens (blood, urine, liver, kidney, vitreous fluid, and other bodily specimens) were collected by pathologists near the accident and placed in evidence containers provided by CAMI. These samples were refrigerated and shipped by overnight air. Upon receipt, the specimens were inventoried and accessioned for the analysis of drugs, alcohol, carbon monoxide, and cyanide. All data collected by the laboratory were entered into a computer database for future analysis. The database was searched using a Microsoft Access TM program developed by a local contractor. The database was sorted based on the class of drug, controlled dangerous substance schedules I and II, controlled dangerous substance schedules III-V, prescription drugs, over-the-counter drugs, and alcohol. The Toxicology and Accident Research Laboratory received specimens from 1683 pilots for postmortem toxicology analysis between 1994 to 1998. Controlled dangerous substances, CDS, (schedules I and II) were found in 89 of the pilots analyzed. Controlled dangerous substances (schedules III -V) were found in 49 of the pilots tested. Prescription drugs were found in 240 of the pilots analyzed. Over-the-counter drugs were found in 301 of the pilots analyzed. Alcohol at or above the legal limit of 0.04% was found in 124 pilots. The number of positive drug cases has doubled over the past 5 years. Over-the-counter medications are the most frequently found drugs in fatal aviation accidents and many of these drugs, or the medical conditions for which they are being used, could impair a pilot's ability to safely fly an aircraft. The increased number of positive cases found in this research is most likely the result of improved methods of analysis, rather than an increase in the use of drugs. The low incidence of CDS III-V drugs found in fatal aviation accidents may be a result of the difficulty in finding and identifying the new benzodiazepines commonly prescribed in this class

[Dushan]

Since when is 124 equal one half of 1683?

[witchiepoo]

Why such indignant disbelief flight deck could possibly be under the influence?
Try to entertain it's a remote possibility, hyperthetically speaking of course...what are the real options if you suspect its been less than 12 hours since the person with you in the cockpit, left the bar?

[DE1]

Fokker28

America doesn't have a monopoly on such events.
Some police constables in Manchester breath-tested both pilots after a passenger complained about the landing and said the pilots must have been drinking. :rolleyes:
UK pilots breathalysed after go arounds (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=160845)


This kind of "ATC-Reporting" happens quite often, at least here in Germany. I myself started 2 items like that in the last 5 Years. Both of them not only based on the Pilots voice but also on his overall-compliance.

In both cases the Pilots were incapacitated by drugs or alcohol. So what shall i say? Of course every ATCO knows what he´s bringing up when calling the AvD to test a Pilot - but believe me, no ATCO will derivate his decision only upon the voice....

[cwatters]

1683 pilots killed in 4 years? Is that really correct? 420 fatalities a year?

[overstress]

flight deck could possibly be under the influence?


A flight deck is a place of work, also known as a cockpit. How could it be under the influence of anything?

If you are a flight attendant, witchiepoo, how would you like me to call you 'passenger cabin'? :ugh:

[arcniz]

Surely the statistics cited for 1683 'pilot' fatalities over fours years of U.S. operations included every type of flying category, from ultralight to transport jet, with the largest numbers at the lowest end of the aircraft complexity scale. Likely the 7.5 percent of those unfortunate fatality persons who tested with significant alcohol inlcuded some number of non-pilots. There is a low-grade tradition in some rural places for the good-'ol'-boys to drink too much and then steal a semi-truck or bus or boat or aircraft to show off. Presumably the person who is peeled out of the wreck from the left front seat is likely to be designated as 'pilot', whether certificated or not.

My company employed a contract a&P of considerable skill and talent for several years. He was pleasant but moody, mediterranean origin, made miserable by a difficult young wife. Also fond of drink. One moonlit evening, he and another fellow followed a drinking session with a test flight of a 'borrowed' light single that caught some attention for irregular and low manoeuvering, then ended in collision with a stand of tall pines. Both occupants were severely injured. In the official reports he was listed as 'pilot', tho neither qualified nor licensed. He was not a fatality of record, but only by a hair.

Statistics are frequently MORE confusing than damn lies. In my experience, American ATP's are
a serious and sober lot, with very few wavering, and less of them every year.

[JustAnothrWindScreen]

Why such indignant disbelief flight deck could possibly be under the influence?

Huh, I think you have missed the entire theme of the thread witch!

[Landmark]

Landmark
"But there's no legislation to say it has to (take place in private). Indeed, if a pilot placed a condition on giving a sample of breath requested by me - he's more likley than not going to be arrested for refusal."
IMHO that sort of attitude alienates members of the public and, unfortunately, diminishes respect for the police.[/QUOTE]


The police enforce legislation - not write it!

[The Nr Fairy]

But the police do have latitude as to HOW to enforce the legislation at (as it were) the point of delivery. If simply by moving to a private place needless aggravation can be avoided, why not do it ?

[Screwballs]

But if there is no legislation to do it in private then is there any legislation forcing you to do it in public? And we are not talking about scene of an accident on a roadside, we are talking about pre-departure, in front of those who place a lot of trust in the pilots. I think this is where having a brain and allowing it to slip into gear every so often could be beneficial. What ever happened to innocent until proven otherwise? A pilot requesting a place of privacy, you refusing and he refusing the test and you then arresting him sounds a lot like judge, jury and wannabe executioner. How much time/hassle/money would be saved and professionalism maintained if the suspect was taken aside quietly and tested in private, found over/under the limit and then dealt with? I can imagine the pilot, if under the limit, thanking the cop for being understanding and for making it slightly more private - ie respect earned and shown.

IMHO your sort of attitude alienates members of the public and, unfortunately, has diminshed the respect I have for the police.

[witchiepoo]

Apologies Overstress, guess I'm showing my age! I've been flying left seat 11 years now so if someone called me passenger cabin, it would indeed seem a little strange. As an original "Chick in the Pit" I heard em all...now answer my question.....

[Landmark]

This is becoming slightly tedious now. At risk of repeating myself I think I have already stated that personally I would take a pilot to somewhere more appropriate to conduct a breath test.

BUT my further point, as supported by other contributors, is if a request is made by a police officer to do something AND that request is supported by statute - then don't be surprised if you land in hot water if you become obstructive and place conditions, and that includes pilots - that's just the way it is. I think I've made the point I'm trying to make so I'll say no more!