Sun Article - US Pilot Arrested for being over alcohol limit [Archive]

paull

20th Oct 2008, 09:46

el #:
As you said "the law", my point is that It is not a "technicality" it is the law, and I was attempting to highlight that if everyone could just choose to ignore the ones that they though were not really useful then we have anarchy.

Unlike mine, your profile is empty so I cannot make any suitably pithy remarks about that, but let me try to add something of non-zero value, and perhaps you will find it witty.

According to an old guy involved in the initial research in the UK to set the drink-driving limits. They increased the alcohol, did the tests, increased again, etc.,. The only problem was that the results got better not worse!
The original limit was proposed at the level at which the performance started to fall instead of improve. At that limit it was still above Normal performance at zero alcohol! Why? Well, the tests were not blind, the subjects knew they had had a drink and they tried harder and that did work at levels way above your limit.

I would be more concerned about fatigue than alcohol at the levels we are discussing, but my point remains. It is no good saying "Technically I did not get enough sleep, but I'm wide awake and capable to fly." Rules are rules.
If you did not get enought sleep your are not FIT to fly.

I d

wheelbarrow

20th Oct 2008, 10:03

Are you now suggesting that we be tested on our levels of fatigue? This would be a good idea, if some way of accurately measuring performance was available.
If a pilot turns up for work when he is fatigued, something I guess we all have done, would he get 6 months jail (seems to be the going rate for flying over alchohol limit)?
I think it is about time that some sensible research was done into both fatigue and achohol and how they actually affecr the performance of pilots, rather than just say achohol is bad so pilots shouldn't drink at all and should have no other interests outside flying so they can rest the whole time when not at work.

captjns

20th Oct 2008, 10:14

Forget... I hope this sheds light on the story...

Incident: United Airlines B744 at London on Oct 19th 2008, delay after pilot fails breath test
By Simon Hradecky, created Monday, Oct 20th 2008 08:50Z, last updated Monday, Oct 20th 2008 08:57Z
An United Airlines Boeing 747-400, registration N107UA performing flight UA955 from London Heathrow,EN (UK) to San Francisco,CA (USA), after the first officer of the flight failed a breath test before departure to San Francisco. As a result, the flight departed with a three hour delay until a replacement first officer arrived and had to divert to New York JFK,NY (USA) because of crew duty time limitations.

The flight reached San Francisco with an overall delay of 7 hours.

Scotland Yard said: "The crew member was arrested on suspicion of being aviation staff performing an aviation function whilst exceeding the prescribed alcohol limit." The pilot has been released on bail until January 16th 2009.

United Airlines said: "The pilot has been removed from service while we are co-operating with the authorities and conducting a full investigation."

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL955/history/20081019/0915Z/EGLL/KSFO (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL955/history/20081019/0915Z/EGLL/KSFO)

forget

20th Oct 2008, 10:24

Forget... I hope this sheds light on the story...

Not in the least.

LONDON (Reuters) - Sat Apr 7, 2007. An airline pilot arrested just before take-off on suspicion of being over the alcohol limit was not drunk and the diet he was on may have been to blame for the confusion, airline Virgin Atlantic said on Saturday.

Police arrested the 47-year-old pilot of a New York-bound Virgin Atlantic plane at Heathrow airport last Saturday after being tipped off by security staff who thought the pilot had been drinking.

While an initial breath test showed the pilot to be over the alcohol limit, police told the pilot on Saturday that a blood test was negative, Virgin Atlantic spokesman Paul Charles said.

"The result showed the amount of alcohol in the blood was consistent with that of a non-drinker," he said.

No charges will be brought against the British pilot, whose name was not released. The pilot, suspended after the incident, will be able to resume his duties immediately, the airline said.

overstress

20th Oct 2008, 10:35

When I saw this story on the Daily Telegraph online, I logged on here as I knew there would be the usual collection of "flog 'em, hanging's too good for 'em" merchants.

I wasn't disappointed.

heliport, how would you feel if a disgruntled security employee with an axe to grind against pilots falsely reported you?

captjns has also missed the point. You can be alcohol-free, as you no doubt are, that won't stop someone reporting you. Then you captjns would be pulled down from the moral high ground as well.

I bet this thread goes on for at least 10 pages... :ugh:

sky9

20th Oct 2008, 11:37

Did the VA pilot sue any of the newspapers that falsely reported that he was "drunk" or is it sufficient defence in law for a newspaper to make an allegation without naming the individual?

It was good to see that the Express newspapers group allegedly had to pay about £400,000 to the friends of the McCanns.

paull

20th Oct 2008, 13:12

Wheelbarrow, I sympathise on the alco. rule. So, if we are really interested in the ability to perform your job then what can we do?
Well, today, you pass a test and a medical -You can fly.
We have periodic sim tests and medicals to see that you are still in the zone.
We have rules that say, get sleep , don't drink.

There are clearly differences in ability, I concede that there are people who drive better drunk than I do sober. In fact if a US cop asked me to walk down a straight line, I would probably get pulled in for drinking, but then I have spastic cerebral palsy. So, if we want to accept that it is performance that counts and get flexible on sleep/alcohol then we have (at least) two alternatives:
1- A test prior to flight. Something to measure performance.
Unfortunately this is bad for scheduling because some poor guy who is borderline most days might just fail prior to engine start even if he is sober and well rested. So,...lets move on to option2

2- Periodic re-test with a handicap system. This one is great for egos, you do your sim checks drunk, with little sleep and provided you pass, that is ok.
You receive calibration certificate saying that you are allowed to fly drunk.

Of course, the borderline guy, he fails if he so much as sniffs the barmaid's apron. BUT, some of those legendary flyers of days gone past, hell, we would even give them badges to wear. Imagine if you were cleared safe to fly on only 5 hrs sleep after 6pints of beer and had the badges to prove it! I would even expect such a pilot to get paid more, because it would be LEGAL for them to only have 5 hrs sleep and that means the airline could save costs.

Seriously though, it seems to me that apart from "more hours flown" there are not many visible rating systems for pilots, given how competitive you guys probably are, I am surprised that there is no real incentive (apart from staying alive!) to get better. Stirling Moss (ex F1 driver) suggested that instead of people just passing their driving test (pass/fail), there should be a rating system and might encourage all of us to actively try to get better.
Bring in a Handicap system and cut the best some slack! ;)

Sorry, it is impossible to stay serious on this one. We have been around it so many times and the best I have read was from a pilot who recovered from an alcohol addiction. Promise to stay quiet now. - Jet Blast??

Avman

20th Oct 2008, 13:44

paull,

Does this imply that flying over the limit is ok, it is just one of those ridiculous technical details that are there to be ignored..

I think you missed my point. I certainly did not say or imply that the rules are there to be ignored. Hence my comment as to why aircrew would (if indeed they do) still take the risk.

llondel

20th Oct 2008, 14:17

I saw this on the BBC website last night (as in California time) and pointedly didn't post it on here because I knew what I'd wake up to. Seems I did wake up to it anyway.

I did use the BBC's contact form to point out that the last few such cases were resolved in favour of the pilots and that the breathalyser is inaccurate at such low levels so it has to be done with a blood test. Not seen them update their story though, apart from to pinpoint the flight (and therefore the affected party) a bit more accurately :(

MAN2YKF

20th Oct 2008, 15:37

I am totally shocked by how many pilots have one too many the night before, so i am not suprised that this arrest has come.
While staying at the LGW Arora earlier this year, i got talking to a few US crew members that were on a 18/24 hr layover.
One crew in particular, Capt & FO of NW Airlines A330. We were in the bar chatting, the Capt was knocking them back, pints and whiskeys. One of the FA's had to be carried back to her room and after about 5 hrs of drinking he called it a night just after midnight.
Come 9am he was in the lobby ready to leave.

That amount of alcohol stays in your system for sometime, i remember from living in the UK, that the police would get most drunk drivers in the morning, on there way to work.

You may not of smelt it on him that morning but i am sure he would of been over the level to drive a car never mind fly across the Atlantic.

Chippie Chappie

20th Oct 2008, 16:11

The skipper had the presence of mind to keep this chap from the flight deck, contact company, and have the authorities awaiting the arrival of this flight.

IF this was the case, and the captain really wanted to do the FO a favour, the captain should have encouraged the FO to call in sick and then sort out the problem, not see to it that he potentially loses his job and livelyhood with a conviction to boot.

Chips

Boeing Junkie

20th Oct 2008, 17:08

Awaiting the facts here like many. However it's worth bearing in mind that Listerine has an alcohol content of between 21.9% and 27% abv depending on the flavour and is known to give false positive readings on breathalyzers.

The machine is incapable of differentiating whether the alcohol vapour is coming from the lungs or is residual in the mouth. Better to wait for the blood test results before judging the guy.

HeliRoute

20th Oct 2008, 17:14

Boys boys boys,Why is it that every time something like this comes up it ends up in a bitch between users.I don't post that often and normnally only post on the rotorheads but no matter what forum subject that is contentious that i view, people end up in a verbal fighting match. We're all the same, doing the same job and should stick together. It saddens me to see such faceless bitching, it is like faceless roadrage.Please guys lets all try to get along. There's enough pressures against us out there without us turning on ourselves!Live and let live.Paul

blimey

20th Oct 2008, 17:30

I would be more concerned about fatigue than alcohol at the levels we are discussing, but my point remains. It is no good saying "Technically I did not get enough sleep, but I'm wide awake and capable to fly." Rules are rules.
If you did not get enought sleep your are not FIT to fly.

If all the pilots who didn't get enough sleep erred on the side of caution, aviation would grind to a halt. It's ironic that although the alcohol limit for pilots is a quarter of the uk road limit, they are allowed to fly hours well in excess of the safety limits of a heavy goods vehicle driver. Explain that one; I can't.

Good luck to the FO. Hopefully he'll be exonerated.

WhatsThatNoise

20th Oct 2008, 17:53

Boeing Junkie

Listerine might well contain alcohol but if you drink enough of it, and do not just swill and spit it out, then you could well be over the fly/drive limit. If there is alcohol present, it does not matter whether it came from, Listerine or whiskey.

The machine IS incapable from distinguishing between residual alcohol and alcohol from the lungs. That is why when you provide samples at the Police Station you have to have had no drink or mouthwash etc in the last 20 minutes so that it can clear from the mouth. Its the same at the raodside aswell. Also, when you provide a specimen at the station, you provide a specimen of breath, the amount of which is determined by the machine in order that in can measure alcohol from the lungs and not the mouth.

Chippie Chappie

20th Oct 2008, 17:58

JohnR, Wouldn't we all. How we deal with it is a different matter. Do you care about your colleague's well being? Would you have "shopped" your work colleague? Would you have thought yourself above making a mistake?

Also, please note: There was a rather large IF at the front of my statement.

Chips

Boeing Junkie

20th Oct 2008, 18:07

Thanks for clarifying WhatstheNoise. I knew that there were procedures at the police station but couldn't remember what they were.

ExSp33db1rd

20th Oct 2008, 20:43

"...........There's enough pressures against us out there without us turning on ourselves!Live and let live......"

Well said. What do we know ? Was the breathalyzer accurate ? Was he over the limit, if so do we know what caused him to be in that state, maybe no excuse but maybe some reason ? Have we no compassion ? There But For The Grace of God .......... Let Him Without Sin Cast The First Stone ......

IS IT ANY BUSINESS OF OURS !!!

Manchester ATC

20th Oct 2008, 22:26

Bailed until January because it takes 6 weeks for the blood samples to be analyzed.
How wrong you are. It takes 1 Hour to complete this test with results printed out as evidence if required in court.

Been there seen it Wore the tee shirt.:=

Dream Buster

20th Oct 2008, 22:35

Blimey,

Another anomaly of blood testing pilots is that in 2006 100% of 27 airline pilots tested had a highly abnormal cocktail of chemicals containing nickel, lindane, benzene, organo phosphates etc. which caused them very serious ill health and most of them to lose their careers.

So whilst checking for alcohol, why not look for those chemicals which are involuntarily absorbed by all aircrew from contaminated cabin air during a fume event?

By not looking, it is so easy not to find.....Convenient for some, no doubt.

Meantime, AME's check for 'anaemia' of all things, on recurrent medicals.

It's a blxxdy scandal and they know it.

If anybody is feeling unusually rough and would like a 'proper' blood test, please contact the Aerotoxic Association (http://www.aerotoxic.org) to find out what may be lurking inside you?

Don't worry; such tests will never be compulsory....

DB :ok:

silverhawk

21st Oct 2008, 03:35

There are two samples. One for the prosecution and one for the defendant.

The six weeks time frame is to allow the defendant sufficient time to have their sample tested at an independent laboratory.

Being brought to court in a shorter time would invalidate the prosecution.

I don't think you had to wear that t-shirt for very long.

WhatsaLizad?

21st Oct 2008, 14:35

Mod,

If you get a chance, please change the thread title to "USA pilot.., United States Pilot..., sceptic pilot, or Colonial pilot....", just something else besides "AA"

Thanks

max_cont

21st Oct 2008, 16:31

John R, thank god you’ll never be in charge of anything bigger than a puddle jumper.

No one condones being over the limit…but a commander needs to exercise good judgment in dealing with any situation as it arises.

I know how I would have dealt with this situation. The end result would have been that the F/O would not have flown. The passengers would never have been put at risk, if indeed he was over the limit. The company would be dealing with this by internal means and that can be very severe. There would be no hysterical headlines with bad publicity for the airline concerned, a win win situation for all concerned.

darrylj

21st Oct 2008, 16:35

max_cont,
there's no such thing as a 'win' when your over the limit!.

timbob

21st Oct 2008, 17:04

Heathrow to San Francisco nonstop would have cockpit crew of three...Capt and two fully rated First Officers...not advocating or condoning anything, but that might have entered into the Capt's thinking...the flight could have legally operated to JFK or Dulles with a crew change Capt and F/O and then onto SFO. I know UAL operates EGLL to KJFK (or did) with two pilots year-round. Board the accused as a pax, operate the flight with minimal impact to the customers...by waiting 3 hours to shanghai another F/O from downtown London hotel to operate nonstop, the crew exceeded duty limits and had to go to New York anyway....either that or the "shanghaiee" had legality problems due to his/her short layover, etc., that were discovered enroute, causing the divert. Always mindful that SPECULATION and FORUM are the operative words in this case.

max_cont

21st Oct 2008, 17:23

Darrylj, I didn’t say he was over the limit.

John R, I made an assumption based on your public profile. That says you are a PPL. Now we both know you can’t be in command on a commercial jet, with a PPL.

You also mentioned that “The commander owes a legal duty of care to his passengers and crew for whom he is legally responsible” that statement is correct…but it doesn’t mean the commander has to call the police as a first resort. If you had had a command, you would know who that first phone call goes to.

maybe!

21st Oct 2008, 21:29

What is the legal limit?

Does it vary between different countries and if so are you held to your registration or state you are in?

Cheers.

BelArgUSA

21st Oct 2008, 22:00

Alcohol consumption rules FAA (USA) and observed by many other nations as well.
No drinking 8 hours before flight (FAR 91 applies to any and all flying).
xxx
Many airlines or commercial operators are more restrictive and apply other limits.
Rules are specified in their own GOM...
Some apply a rule of "12 hrs before takeoff time".
Other airlines wording is "12 hrs before start of duty time" generally starts 1 hr before scheduled T/O.
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

777fly

21st Oct 2008, 22:01

The aviation regulations (in the UK, at least) simply state that a pilot must not have consumed alcohol to the extent that his 'capacity to act' is affected. All mention of arbitrary limits is therefore legally irrelevant, in that context, and only a test of some kind, which would assess the functional ability of the pilot, would be acceptable in order to establish his 'ability to act'. Breathe alcohol and 'bottle to throttle' time limits are now part of most pilot's company contracts, but they are not state minimums, as far as I am aware. My company regularly tests my compliance pre-flight, which has a zero tolerance and I comply with that. However, the media assessment that a pilot is 'drunk' when he marginally exceeds a non-applicable state limit is defamatory.

eglnyt

21st Oct 2008, 22:21

In the UK the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 is the relevant legislation.

From that Act
A person commits an offence if he performs an aviation function at a time when his ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs, or he carries out an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function at a time when his ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs.

A person commits an offence if he performs an aviation function at a time when the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit, or he carries out an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function at a time when the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit.

The prescribed limit of alcohol for pilots is
breath, 9 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,
blood, 20 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres
urine, 27 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.

Basil

21st Oct 2008, 22:26

UK limit here. (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/ukpga_20030020_en_1)

777fly

21st Oct 2008, 23:36

Eglnyt and Basil

Thank you for updating me on the UK legislation.Does the UK ANO now promulgate those limits? Maybe I have been overseas for too long. However, my company regulations keep me on the straight and narrow at all times, regardless. Nevertheless, a pilot who is marginally over the minimal limits cannot be fairly described as 'drunk'.

Buter

22nd Oct 2008, 08:10

777fly - 'My company regularly tests my compliance pre-flight, which has a zero tolerance and I comply with that'.

Which compnay does this?

I'm from a different part of the world and am really a bit amazed that there aren't random spot checks for crews at UK airports; nothing major - just a quick 'here, blow into this' type of check.

What really strikes me as odd is that neither of the two companies I have flown for have had any kind of drug testing policy, either scheduled or random.

In a former life I dived in the US oil fields and there were constant drug tests; what is the policy for US airlines in regards to drugs testing?

Cheers

Buter

Ah - 777, Just read your profile.

Also, perhaps we should just put up a 'Drunk ---------- pilot arrested at ---------' thread as a sticky and each time this happens fill in the blanks with the correct airline and airport/country. This discussion is always the same with the 'shoot him now' and 'I hope he never flies again' crowd vs. the 'wait for the trial/blood test results' crowd.

Personally I hope he never flies again - because he hadn't drank a thing and he's won a massive libel suit against the media and his company and has now retired to a small, private island in the sun.

Win/win that way, really. Sort of.

pvmw

22nd Oct 2008, 09:31

A comment directed primarily to max_cont

As a mere “SLF” – and how patronising a phrase is that – who helps design and build the toys you play in, I seriously hope I never fly in an aeroplane in which you are in command.

Consider if you would another scenario. Pilot turns up over the limit, you “have a word” in his ear as has been suggested, suggest he calls in sick and send him home. A few weeks later he arrives for work in a similar state, but this time his condition isn’t noticed. Potential result of intoxicated pilot – several hundred dead passengers.

Sorry, but you are so very, very wrong. Your primary responsibility is to your passengers, not to your colleagues. If he has a problem that causes him to turn up to work intoxicated, he will do it again until he is either eventually caught or he makes a mistake so obvious it can’t be hidden – which in the worse case scenario will cause passengers to die. It would appear that your solution to the problem might be to hush it up and have it sorted “internally”. If he did turn up drunk with the intention to fly, then he has broken the law. By not reporting him, presumably that means you are proposing that you and your company compound a felony?

I’ll also comment on your patronising response to John R. He may not have your exalted staus, but he is still entitled to an opinion, indeed as a potential passenger who may have the misfortune to be YOUR passenger, he is one of the people paying your wages. He has every right to expect that his safety is your and your employers primary concern, not the well being of a colleague - who I accept may well have serious personal problems.

I’m not pre-judging the outcome of this case, or commenting on it. If he was over the limit, then that will be established. If not, he will be vindicated and, as Buter observes, may well end up getting compensation by other means.

Carnage Matey!

22nd Oct 2008, 09:36

A few weeks later he arrives for work in a similar state, but this time his condition isn’t noticed. Potential result of intoxicated pilot – several hundred dead passengers.

Can you give us an example from the long history of commercial aviation in which a drunk pilot has crashed an aircraft and killed passengers? Just out of curiousity.

pvmw

22nd Oct 2008, 09:41

Ah, so its never happened (and how can you prove that). Thats OK then, what are we all worrying about!!

Can you guarantee that a drunk pilot never will? Plenty of drunk drivers kill people on the roads daily, perhaps flying an aeroplane is easier.

elgnin

22nd Oct 2008, 09:48

Because of course if it hasn't happened to date it can surely be assumed that it won't happen in the future.......heres an idea, let anyone flight all sorts of aircraft and training can be introduced if someone crashes....how much will that save!

Carnage Matey!

22nd Oct 2008, 09:54

Ah, so its never happened (and how can you prove that). Thats OK then, what are we all worrying about!!

The post-mortem toxicology reports well tell if it's happened. And it hasn't. So what are you worrying about?

Can you guarantee that a drunk pilot never will? Plenty of drunk drivers kill people on the roads daily, perhaps flying an aeroplane is easier

How many drunk drivers have killed people in cars fitted with dual controls? I'm going to have a guess at zero. Your comparisons are invalid for a whole range of reasons which have been explained on these forums ad nauseam. You are getting your knickers in a twist because someone mentioned the demon word 'alcohol', yet you'd turn up for a flight on which both the pilots are so tired they can barely keep their eyes open without batting an eyelid. Think about it.

BTW I can't guarantee a drunk pilot wil never crash a plane but I can tell you a few unhinged ones have deliberately murdered all their passengers. Perhaps I should have a psychiatric assessment each time I go to work?

elgnin

22nd Oct 2008, 10:04

Carnage. I am quite astounded by your comments. You are either playing devils advocate here to get a rise from the serious professionals in the industry or it appears that you condone drinking and flying! That you seem to think that because there is no proven case of a serious accident as a result of a drunk pilot there is no need to make such a fuss, is beyond comprehesion and display massive lack of judgement. I trust I never have the misfortune to sit behind you on any aircraft!

pvmw

22nd Oct 2008, 10:09

Er, no I wouldn’t – if I knew they were unfit to fly. Unfortunately that is much more subjective and there isn’t a simple medical test that can tell me. There is a simple test to tell me if someone has been drinking. I wouldn’t get in a car with a drunk driver, dual controls or not. If your guess is correct (and I concede it probably is) is that not because the only cars with dual controls belong to driving instructors – and they are not going to allow a drunk learner behind the wheel of their car? I know a couple of instructors, I’m now curious to know what their reaction would be. I’m pretty sure they would refuse to teach the pupil again, but whether ther is any further sanction they could take I’m unsure.

So drunk pilots are OK, as long as only one of them is?? Do you really mean that?

Agreeed, unhinged pilots have killed passengers – but again, there isn’t a simple medical test that can be performed before each flight. You may not have a psychiatric test every time you go to work, but you are regularly assessed – and any good employer will see the signs before they reach the point of catastrophy. You are not comparing like with like.

Captain Numpty

22nd Oct 2008, 10:31

Be warned!

Whilst there are some FD & CC like to knock them back, just remember there is often someone watching you!

You never know who your company employs to sit there and observe quietly in the cosy corner of the Hotel bar.

I know certain high street does this when it sends its staff off on courses & conferences. The "Grim Reapers" awaits those who return having over indulged with a P45!

C.N.

Carnage Matey!

22nd Oct 2008, 10:48

elgnin and pvmw - yet again you are both completely missing the point. If you want to talk about safety lets talk about safety. Re tiredness:

Unfortunately that is much more subjective and there isn’t a simple medical test that can tell me. There is a simple test to tell me if someone has been drinking.

So you'll overlook the tiredness problem because it's just too difficult to test for? But the drinking one we'll check because that is easier to test for? How does that fit in in with your overall safety outlook? We'll let the dangerously impaired pilot fly because we can't be @rsed to test him but the less impaired guy goes to jail?

That you seem to think that because there is no proven case of a serious accident as a result of a drunk pilot there is no need to make such a fuss, is beyond comprehesion and display massive lack of judgement

Do you know that until 5 or 6 years ago there was no legislation relating to alcohol consumption and flying? What was happening before then? Were aircraft dropping from the sky? Were drunken pilots colliding with each other all over the place? Of course they weren't, so perhaps the whole thing is statistically insignificant? Do you sit in your shed with tin foil on your head to stop the aliens controlling your mind on the basis that just because it hasn't happened it could? Or do you take a more common sense approach to life?

So drunk pilots are OK, as long as only one of them is?? Do you really mean that?

Define 'drunk'. Let me also ask you what you are really concerned about. Is it drunkeness, or is it impairment of flying ability that worries you?

Bruce Wayne

22nd Oct 2008, 11:15

I'm from a different part of the world and am really a bit amazed that there aren't random spot checks for crews at UK airports; nothing major - just a quick 'here, blow into this' type of check.

Could get the Security Screeners to do it !

ok. perhaps i should withdraw this flippant comment before someone get the idea !

elgnin

22nd Oct 2008, 11:57

Carnage, of course aircraft have not been dropping from the sky and god forbid that they ever do due to a drunk pilot. But like all legislation it is put in place because someone abuses the system (generally). I remain unclear as to why exactly you give the impression that pilots should be allowed to have some alcohol in their system when taking command of a passenger aircraft. There are limits in place now - forget what was not there in the past - and they have to be observed. I further cannot see what statistics have to do with it - I repeat an earlier comment that it would be irresponsible at best to wait for such an event to happen before putting limits in place.

Flintstone

22nd Oct 2008, 12:10

Hmmmmm. I don't read anywhere in Carnage's posts that he thinks pilots should be allowed alcohol in their system, not even by inference. I think perhaps you need to read them again.

MungoP

22nd Oct 2008, 12:28

I can bring myself to admit in these columns that on numerous occasions I could be found in the cockpit in no fit state to be flying... making unforced errors... unable to focus on the job in hand... I should have been marched out of the cockpit, shamed for showing a callous disregard for my fellow crew and passengers for having even walked onto the aircraft...
Only it wasn't due to alcohol it was fatigue....
So... that's alright then.
:(

pvmw

22nd Oct 2008, 12:37

Carnage, I think you are the one missing the point. I don’t condone or agree with tired pilots, any more than I condone tired land rover drivers who crash on to railway lines and cause the death of railway passengers.

However, there is no doubt that aclohol impairs ability, and there is a simple test for it. Just because there isn’t such a simple test for tiredness does not invalidate the test for alcohol. This thread isn’t discussing tiredness, which is a red herring, its discussing the possibility of drunk pilots. Just because there is no reliable test for a dangerously impaired pilot due to tiredness doesn’t invalidate the test – or the potential ramifications – of being impaired due to drink.

Legally, there is a definition of “drunk” as applies to the operating of aeroplanes. Its quite clear, and everyone knows what it is. If someone contravenes that definition then they are breaking the law. Since you ask, as a potential passenger of yours I am concerned about impairement In any form. One well known reason for impairment is alcohol, so if there is a test for it then I am in favour. Were there a reliable test for tiredness I would be in favour of that as well.

There is another difference. A pilot severly impaired by exhaustion will be aware of it, and if he is a responsible person should (and I admit to outside pressures) recognise his inability to fly. One of the features of being inebriated is a an increase in self-confidence and an inability to recognise one's own limitatations. That is an important difference.

Farmer 1

22nd Oct 2008, 12:41

pvmw,

I would like to point out one tiny flaw in your reasoning, but I can't see one just at the moment.

pvmw

22nd Oct 2008, 12:53

MungoP. No, that’s not all right then. If you really mean what you have just said – and please read it again - then you have just stated publically your willingness to risk yours and, more importantly, your passengers' lives. Please tell me which airline you fly for, so I can be very sure never to be a passenger of yours.

Marched out of the cockpit? No. Declined to fly on the grounds of a self-recognised impairment. DEFINITELY. Your admission clearly states that you are prepared to put others lives at risk. Would you expect a surgeon, or even your dentist, to operate on you when aware that they were too tired to perform their job adequately and safely.

To be frank, your post is one of the scariest things I’ve read on here from a “professional”.

Farmer1…. Its OK, I’ve just been down the pub to meet an old colleague (and before anyone asks I got a lift) so my reasoning ability is probably seriously impaired!

Basil

22nd Oct 2008, 12:56

A pilot severly impaired by exhaustion will be aware of it
Hmm, not necessarily.
Defective brain analysing defective brain (fatigue, tiredness, drugs inc alc & cigs, O2 deficiency, high N2 pp in diving , age related slowing, psychiatric problems etc)

. . and before anyone asks: Probably all but one - I think ;)

jshg

22nd Oct 2008, 13:06

Paull :

The permitted alcohol levels for flying were reduced in Europe a couple of years ago. As I understand it they were reduced to 'above zero', the minimum detectable by sophisticated techniques. This was done not for scientific reasons - ie because it could be proved that alcohol levels 'above zero' were unsafe for flying - but for political, tabloid publicity reasons.
Any shock by a statistician should surely be reserved for pointless law rather than the idea that a pilot might, only might, have alcohol levels 'above zero' for whatever reason. Mouthwash has already been mentioned, but there are others.
"Hold my beer" comments are unhelpful and gratuitous.

pvmw

22nd Oct 2008, 13:23

er... "hold my beer"????? What has that to do with it? Who mentioned beer?

I'm not sure of your point. There are clearly published limits. They are not zero - as you imply, residual alcohol exists in the body anyway - but are known to everyone. If they are exceeded then one has broken the law, whether flying or driving. Why is that so difficult for some people to accept???

I really find it hard to understand why anyone would argue the point. Any alcohol is detrimental to complex tasks. If the only person at risk is the drinker, I have some sympathy for the "on your own head be it" approach, I used to have a colleague who removed the ends of several fingers of one hand in his bandsaw - he liked a pint - but this is obviously not the case.

Flintstone

22nd Oct 2008, 13:25

pvmw.

Methinks your lunchtime session has rendered you somewhat tired and emotional. Yours is certainly one of the more sensationalist responses I've seen on here for a while. Best go for a lie down and when you've had a nap look up 'irony' in the dictionary before re-reading Mungo's post.

my reasoning ability is probably seriously impaired!

:hmm: Shhhurely not?

pvmw

22nd Oct 2008, 13:29

AH! The argument is lost, its time to apply the personal abuse. Well done, I'd hoped the topic serious enough for that not to happen. I've said my piece, I shall retire. I just hope some posters here re-read their posts and consider what they have said.

Flintstone

22nd Oct 2008, 13:31

Personal abuse? Where?

All I've done is suggest that you missed the irony in Mungo's post and reiterate your own admission that your judgement is impaired. If that upsets you perhaps you shouldn't post such admissions in the first place?

I just hope some posters here re-read their posts and consider what they have said.

Et tu Brute?

Anyone who wishes to ignore or dismiss fatigue or doesn't 'get' posts such as Mungo's clearly does not understand how it affects we professional pilots. To say it's irrelevant in the context of this thread merely serves to highlight their ignorance.

Make no mistake, fatigue is a bigger threat in aviation than alcohol or drugs and I'm happy to discuss or debate that with anyone capable of doing so with first hand knowledge. Registration collectors and aircraft spotters however may start their own thread here http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner-52/

pvmw

22nd Oct 2008, 13:42

Damn!!

I missed the lesson on irony, I was down the pub.

I'll retire hurt for a strong coffee

MungoP

22nd Oct 2008, 13:55

PVMW.. I can promise you that if trutheful, the overwhelming majority of high time pilots on these forums who've been flying scheduled ops will agree that they also have found themselves rostered to fly when fatigued (different to simply being tired)...
Body clocks are a very real problem when working the back of the clock...
fatigue has played a major part in many accidents... and will continue to do so.
If you have a fear of flying with a crew that's suffering from fatigue I suggest that you go by car/boat and train.

Carnage Matey!

22nd Oct 2008, 14:34

However, there is no doubt that aclohol impairs ability, and there is a simple test for it.

Oooh now we're getting somewhere. There is a simple test for alcohol. The test you are endorsing is not a test for impaired ability, so why are you endorsing it? Is it because it feels right to you. You see you are taking a moral stance against alcohol in this thread, but what you are advocating as a solution is scientifically indefensible.

Just because there isn’t such a simple test for tiredness does not invalidate the test for alcohol.

You have to validate the test for alcohol before you can invalidate it. It has never been validated. It is simply a comparison against a magic number plucked out of thin air.

This thread isn’t discussing tiredness, which is a red herring, its discussing the possibility of drunk pilots. Just because there is no reliable test for a dangerously impaired pilot due to tiredness doesn’t invalidate the test – or the potential ramifications – of being impaired due to drink.

Once again, you're not testing impairment due to drunkeness or otherwise. All you are testing is the sensitivity of an electronic contraption. Are you starting to see the problem now?

Legally, there is a definition of “drunk” as applies to the operating of aeroplanes. Its quite clear, and everyone knows what it is.

No there isn't, no it's not and no they don't.

Since you ask, as a potential passenger of yours I am concerned about impairement In any form. One well known reason for impairment is alcohol, so if there is a test for it then I am in favour.

I'm glad we agree on that then. If there was a test for impairment I'd be in favour of it too. If there is a test that has people arrested for levels of alcohol that have been achieved due to a dietary regime without the consumption of alcohol with no regard as to impairment then I want to see some justification for it other than "Something must be done, just in case".

A pilot severly impaired by exhaustion will be aware of it, and if he is a responsible person should (and I admit to outside pressures) recognise his inability to fly.

It doesn't work like that. You may not be aware of it at all. It may strike you late at night in the middle of the Atlantic. What do you do then? Get off? Remove yourself from flying duties mid-flight leaving the other (potentially equally tired) pilot to fend for themselves in the subsequent diverson? Or just think " I'll be ok, I'll press on. A couple of cups of coffee will fix me"

One of the features of being inebriated is a an increase in self-confidence and an inability to recognise one's own limitatations. That is an important difference.

Do find that after half a pint of weak beer you feel an increase in self-confidence and an inability to recognise your own limitations? That much alcohol would put you over the flying alcohol limit.

"aux vaches"

22nd Oct 2008, 14:35

Is it not time that everyone with an airside pass should be judged by these same limits (we'd really like to make it zero, but we can't) ?

Presumably if you're on the "airfield" you have some role to play in flight safety and "we'd" like you to be at your best !

When will aircrew start introducing the security staff / apron marshallers / bowser drivers - to the boys and girls in blue ?

Or shall we hear it for random testing for ALL (and perhaps we could include other drugs as well ?)

as the great man said in his song "stir it uup"

Pugilistic Animus

22nd Oct 2008, 14:45

Airfolk, Just follow the law:

as some of you all may not know [mainly directed to the punters] that US air law ---in determining civil penalties is--- administrative--- not procedural---therefore you are guilty until proven innocent and the penalties once assessed against an airman subsequently have to be appealed in a looooooooong series of trial-like hearings before an administrative law judge-----

---hearings which may include a a final arbitration involving the NTSB---so you definitely can not jump to conclusions--many people in various professions have difficulty with substances---and it may surprise you that the FAA recognizes this and does provide avenues for reinstatement of privileges in so-called safety sensitive functions--in fact a NWA pilot was reinstated to his duties--- after a jail sentence and revocation of his license after rehab-- if the FAA:\ could provide---an avenue it would be nice if the passengers would not comment on a complex issue that they really can't understand---as the pilot involved have to still prove their cases it will be a long time and cost him dearly in money/lawyers/etc etc...so why not let him have his trial if you're willing to wait about 4 years then we can revisit these pilots personal lives with a fair and balanced discussion--until then:zzz:

Lester:E

Airbubba

22nd Oct 2008, 15:06

Whatever the theory, with good legal representation, some luck and a sympathetic jury, hopefully the pilot will get off like the one in Manchester a couple of years ago:

Jury forgives pilot who 'drank whiskey in sleep'

By Russell Jenkins in London

March 23, 2007 03:19am

AN American Airlines pilot arrested at an airport after reportedly arriving for duty drunk was found not guilty yesterday after telling a jury that he must have consumed a third of a bottle of Irish whiskey in his sleep...

...He claimed a sleeping disorder might have led him to drink from a bottle of Bushmills whiskey the night before.

...He slapped colleagues on the back and grinned with delight when the verdict was announced.

Jury acquits pilot who 'drank whiskey in sleep' | NEWS.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21428740-2,00.html#)

pvmw

22nd Oct 2008, 15:15

Damn! I was going to keep my head down, but……..

To reply to Carnage’s points:-

ANY alcohol impirs ability. There is a test for alcohol, so by default if that test is failed there is impairment. It may be there has to be an arbitrary level but no-one is suggesting making pilots walk in a straight line or recite the alphabet backwards on the tarmac instead.

One of my winter pastimes is driving tests – otherwise known as autotests. I can win them (it’s a good car). A few years ago I had a error-free morning and was on target to win – then I had one pint with my lunch. I spent the afternoon knocking cones down all over the place. I was very disconcerted to find out how much my judgement was impaired, but in normal circumstances on the road I would never have been aware of it.

The ideal would be absolutely no alcohol, but that isn’t feasible. A measured level is the next best thing. OK, any measurement has to be arbitrary, but its better than no measurement at all.

As far as comparing tiredness and inebriation as both being causes for impaired ability I accept that entirely – but there is a difference. In both cases there is potential for error, but if you are dozing quietly in your seat late at night and there is a very loud bang adrenalin will ensure you are awake bloody fast – but it won’t instantly sober you if you are drunk. A tired person can wake up, albiet with possible slight impairment, but a drunk one can’t suddenly become sober and capable of sensible decision making.

I really have trouble understanding why this is a topic of conversation. Drinking and driving is stupid (and illegal) and surely no-one is claiming that the same is not true of drinking and flying. I think the issue of tiredness is a red herring. I hear what you say, and I accept it’s a problem, that doesn’t mean the issue of alcohol impairement is any less important.

blimey

22nd Oct 2008, 16:00

A tired person can wake up

Yes, to the fact that he was too tired to notice that he'd overlooked some vital action.

Carnage Matey!

22nd Oct 2008, 16:24

ANY alcohol impirs[sic] ability

Now from a scientific standpoint thats plainly a preposterous claim. What about 0.000000000001% blood alcohol? If you want a reasoned debate on this subject you can't start bandying around Daily Mail style claims like that. Alcohol, in sufficent blood concentrations, will impair ability. The goal is to remove alcohol impairment fom the flight deck. On those two points I think we agree. The question is 'What is a sufficient blood alcohol concentration?', and the answer is not widely known because the authorities are not particularly interested in the answer.

I am pleased that you can win driving tests and not in the least bit surprised that your skills were impaired by having a pint with your lunch, but thats not the kind of levels of blood alcohol I'm talking about. Its quite reasonable to expect somebody who drank that amount of alcohol immediately prior to flying to be over the limit. But what if they had that the night before? Would that be criminal? We've seen that even the calibrated breathalysers can return positive results from people who've not touched a drop. What does that say to you about the threshold at which the limit is set? Do you think the measured level is presently reasonable when I could possibly return a positive result simply by going on a diet?

As far as comparing tiredness and inebriation as both being causes for impaired ability I accept that entirely – but there is a difference. In both cases there is potential for error, but if you are dozing quietly in your seat late at night and there is a very loud bang adrenalin will ensure you are awake bloody fast – but it won’t instantly sober you if you are drunk

I beg to differ. For a start if you are dozing in your seat the very loud bang you hear may be you hitting a mountainside. Why not try tracking down some of the graphs which show human performance versus stimulation levels. You'll find performance in the circumstances you describe much poorer than you expect. Having rapidly been placed in the over-stimulated zone of the graph you need to be tip top to get yourself back into a decent performance range and no amount of adrenalin will bring you back into it if you can't think straight. If you're 'drunk' as you like to say, then you're not going to perform well either. But nobody is going to get into a flight deck 'drunk' because it's easy to spot. In comparison a guy who's fractionally above the virtually zero alcohol limit but rested will perform much better in the scenario described than one who is at absolute zero alcohol but tired. In any circumstances. So why get hungup on achieving as near as dammit an absolute zero alcohol limit when you're still prepared to get into an aircraft with a knackered pilot?

The issue of alcohol impairment is important, but the key word is IMPAIRMENT. Introduce the word DRUNK and you take the argument away from the rational and towards moral pronouncements. If you want to talk about impairment then fretting about whether the alcohol limit is zero, nearly zero or somewhere above is like worrying that a mosquito has bitten your backside whilst you're standing in the lions den covered in steak.

Flintstone

22nd Oct 2008, 16:55

In comparison a guy who's fractionally above the virtually zero alcohol limit but rested will perform much better in the scenario described than one who is at absolute zero alcohol but tired. In any circumstances. So why get hungup on achieving as near as dammit an absolute zero alcohol limit when you're still prepared to get into an aircraft with a knackered pilot?

The issue of alcohol impairment is important, but the key word is IMPAIRMENT. Introduce the word DRUNK and you take the argument away from the rational and towards moral pronouncements. If you want to talk about impairment then fretting about whether the alcohol limit is zero, nearly zero or somewhere above is like worrying that a mosquito has bitten your backside whilst you're standing in the lions den covered in steak.

There you have it in a nutshell. Anyone who has spent the briefest period in a commercial aviation environment will recognise this for what it is.

Those on the outside banging righteous drums and focussing (or not) on the wrong things might just hear the whistling of the point going over their heads.

pvmw

22nd Oct 2008, 17:51

I must confess I’m puzzled that this argument continues. Let me précis as I see it….

No-one has suggested that flying while intoxicated is sensible, safe or legal, any more than driving a car isn't

Everyone agrees that a policy of absolutely zero tolerance to any alcohol in the blood is a non-starter (snide remarks about the Mail withstanding), Listerine, small levels of naturally occurring alcohol etc.

Some people, due to illness, addiction (same thing?), stupidity (a very small minority I’d hope) or possibly carelessness are found to have significant levels of alcohol in their blood.

“Significant” is totally subjective, and therefore it is not possible to arrest, ban or otherwise chastise someone on the basis of it.

The ingestion of significant quantities of alcohol result in “impairment” of one’s abilities – I have absolutely no difficulty with using this word instead of drunk. One’s abilities are impaired long before one becomes drunk.

The accepted, normal means of judging someone’s level of alcohol, and therefore intoxication, is by means of a blood/alcohol test.

Everyone knows this, motorists and pilots alike.

The permitted levels are known.

It is the responsibility of the subject to ensure he is within the law.

The issue of tiredness is an entirely separate issue. It also causes impairment, tho’ possibly not to the same degree unless comatose or so exhausted as to be incapable of rational thought. To claim there is no subjective means of measuring tiredness does not negate the need to have a means of measuring intoxication - unless one gives up entirely and relies on self regulation (and human nature means this won't work)

It would appear, from some of the responses to previous posts, that I am in error in some of the above assumptions!!!!!

Oh, and someone with a sense of humour is responsible for one of the banner ads at the bottom of this page!

.

FrequentSLF

22nd Oct 2008, 18:08

blimey

22nd Oct 2008, 18:32

Can I remind you last two contributors that this forum is for professional pilots. Isn't there somewhere else you'd prefer to be?

Flying Lawyer

22nd Oct 2008, 18:35

pvmw Legally, there is a definition of “drunk” as applies to the operating of aeroplanes. Its quite clear, and everyone knows what it is.No there isn't, at least not in UK law.

Also, your latest post suggests you can now see that you were confusing Alcohol Exceeding the Prescribed Limit (proportion of alcohol in breath, blood or urine exceeding the prescribed limit) and Being Unfit for Duty (ability to perform an aviation function impaired because of drink or drugs).
They are two very different offences.
'Alcohol Exceeding the Prescribed Limit' may be committed even if ability is not impaired.
'Being Unfit for Duty' may be committed without being drunk.
‘Drunk’ is not an element of either offence. ie Both offences may be committed even if the person concerned is not drunk.

It's important to keep some sense of perspective:

There is not, and never has been, any evidence of a widespread flight safety problem due alcohol, despite the misleading impression which might be created by some sensationalist reporting of isolated incidents - and the failure to give the same amount of prominent coverage when a suspect turns out to be innocent.
The aviation provisions in the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 were not introduced to combat a problem. Before the 2003 Act, the relevant UK law was contained in the ANO which provided that no member of an aircraft’s crew, LAME or ATC officer should be under the influence of drink or drugs to such an extent as to impair his/her capacity to so act. (The law did not set an alcohol limit, nor did it require a person suspected of a drink or drugs offence to submit to a breath-test.)
The 2003 Act merely provided a convenient opportunity to bring aviation into line with other transport modes by introducing a statutory testing regime, and was part of a harmonisation of standards across most of Europe, reflecting Joint Aviation Requirements Commercial Air Transportation (JAR-OPS) adopted by the JAA in 1996.

Edited for typos, and also because I forgot to say -

Airbubba (Post #80)
The headline of the press story to which you refer, and your selective quotes from it, create a misleading impression.
The pilot said he realised he should not be flying, had no intention of doing so and did not report for duty.
The judge left the jury with a clear decision to make -
If they were sure he intended to fly: Guilty.
Otherwise: Not Guilty.
The jury found him Not Guilty - in less than an hour.

FL

FrequentSLF

22nd Oct 2008, 18:50

Can I remind you last two contributors that this forum is for professional pilots. Isn't there somewhere else you'd prefer to be?

Please ban me from the forum...
Fatigue. Captain declared fatigue/exceed duty time after he diverted to Macau from ORD, if you recall? Per his letter, he seemed to get little support from the company. So, being responsible, he rented hotel rooms for his crew with his own credit card. He was excellent.

Well...the thread about such "declared fatigue" was long... and I did dispute if the rooms were rented because of fatigue or due to union issues.

Duck Rogers

22nd Oct 2008, 19:00

Please ban me from the forum...

Request granted.

Here to help.

Duck. ;)

Airbubba

22nd Oct 2008, 19:45

The pilot said he realised he should not be flying and had no intention of doing so.

Yeah, right.

Like the Virgin pilot at IAD, he showed up at the airport in uniform, went through security and suddenly had no intention of going flying after he got caught.

You can BS the fans but you can't BS the
players...:)

ExSp33db1rd

22nd Oct 2008, 22:27

Fatigue has entered the argument, but this might be too far off thread ?

We had a co-pilot ‘down the line’ next scheduled to fly A to C direct, but was given advance warning that he would be required to increase the duty period by flying A to B and then on to C. i.e two sectors instead of the planned single sector.

He advised he company that he would be too tired to operate beyond B, but there was sufficient time to provide a replacement at B to operate B to C, and he was willing to fly A to B.

The company ( I've worked for 3, so no names ) asked him if he was refusing to fly, as he wasn’t tired at that stage, and if so would be suspended and returned to base, and another pilot would be positioned to fly A to B to C. He replied that he wasn’t tired now, but would be having completed A to B. ( there were circumstances affecting this decision which aren’t relevant here ) He therefore flew both sectors under duress.

The next time the same scenario was presented, that co-pilot quietly accepted the change, and flew from A to B – then asked to see a Dr. who declared him too fatigued to continue and the flight ( and passengers ) was delayed at B whilst he gained legal rest. Courageous decision.

There are many pressures, and we all know the rules and it isn’t for us to pontificate on how we sometimes interpret them – in all aspects of Life. “There But For The Grace of God “ ………………… Best of luck

Whinging Tinny

23rd Oct 2008, 05:27

A similar scenario, different part of the world, different standards and outcome:

ANA copilot fails alcohol test, causing delay to flight from Naha Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion (http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/ana-copilot-fails-alcohol-test-causing-delay-to-flight-from-naha)

merlinxx

23rd Oct 2008, 06:21

I wonder what would have happened after a N/S in the Bristol BEY or the Pan Afric in NBO?:ok::E

captplaystation

23rd Oct 2008, 09:41

Whinging Tinny,
Of course in Japan the profession & the individual in this profession probably still command some respect. . . . . just like in Europe ( not)
As we see on this thread there are any number of non-pilots only too glad to jump down our throats and tell us how reckless we are etc etc even if their personal behaviour in many cases would probably not stand close scrutiny.
In this ANA case it seems common sense triumphed over jobsworths for once, a rare occasion indeed. BTW if his testimony is right it seems he obeyed the company rules but just had a lower tolerance than Captainsan.
Individual tolerances vary massively of course day by day so very difficult to lay a hard and fast rule unless you want to say "only drink on your days off - but not the last one of course" a little draconian methinks.

Nigd3

23rd Oct 2008, 10:29

C'mon fellas, isn't this a bit of a no-brainer?
If the pilot knows the legal and company rules regarding alcohol levels, then he should apply some sense with regards how much he consumes in the hours before he flies.

The individuals tolerance to alcohol and their ability to conduct their job safely is far too varied and subjective to be completely assessed, hence some form of datum has to be defined that applies to all. Whether he/she can drink 20 pints and still be standing, or falls over at the smell of shandy is irrelevant.

Finally allow the pilots blood-alcohol results to be publicly published, hopefully to the same extent as his arrest, before he gets his nuts ppruned on here.

Whinging Tinny

23rd Oct 2008, 11:00

captplaystation

In response, the link I posted was for comparison only.
I have not voiced any views on this subject.

Probably a better phrase to use would be 'different procedures' in lieu of 'different standards'.

captplaystation

23rd Oct 2008, 11:28

Exactly, there is always more than one way to skin a cat, and this option at least left it able to continue to chase mice.
Or to speak in plain English, the lesson will have been learned by this F/O and no doubt any of his colleagues with a modicum of imagination without hanging his balls out to dry ( although, the article says he was used to operate this flight - which may just have been commercial expediency- it doesn't however give any details of the welcoming commitee which greeted him on return from his trip, what is Japanese for P45 ? )
No one defends showing up for work incapable of performing the function, however with the limit set SO low ( basically as low as they could measure seems to be the idea) perhaps jumping to condemn can be taken as mildly offensive to those of us in the profession and that is why we jump in to defend.
As Fying Lawyer pointed out, there is a difference in terms of the offence between exceeding a pre-determined very low limit and being incapable. Both are against the rules, however it would be relatively easy to breach the former even without consumption of alcohol.
Considering the behaviour seen in society as a whole and the stresses associated with many aspects of this job ( how many colleagues do you know NOT on a 2nd or 3rd marriage ? ) I find it quite heartening that there are not a hell of a lot more incidents like this, or worse. Of course basic human frailty or fallability is strictly forbidden by those casting withering comment from outside the profession .
Lets discuss alcoholism and Doctors instead, statistically more of a "problem profession" I am sure ,or indeed the sobriety of those screwing up the world economy over the last decade or few, the red-braces crowd have never been noted for abstaining, and how much damage have they wreaked on society with their decisions. I think those holding the moral high ground should look at the record of the industry so far, how many pissed pilots have been responsible for accidents ? QED.

fireflybob

23rd Oct 2008, 12:54

I think there is an education issue here also. When I started working in the Railway Industry as a Signaller there was, during the initial training, comprehensive information given on their screening system for drugs and alcohol and also things like the alcohol content in different beverages and, more importantly, just how LONG it can take for alcohol to be dispersed from the system.

As a professional pilot I know that without exception all the flight crew I have come into contact with take the issue of being fit to fly very seriously. In certain isolated cases though individuals may not be aware that they are over the statutory limits because, quite simply, they have not been given the relevant information.

Airbubba

23rd Oct 2008, 15:17

There is not, and never has been, any evidence of a widespread flight safety problem due alcohol, despite the misleading impression which might be created by some sensationalist reporting of isolated incidents - and the failure to give the same amount of prominent coverage when a suspect turns out to be innocent.

In certain isolated cases though individuals may not be aware that they are over the statutory limits because, quite simply, they have not been given the relevant information.

Well, we seem to have a little more concern about such things in the U.S. We've done drug and alcohol testing on pilots for years now and there is definitely a problem from what I can see. Every couple of months, almost without fail, a crewmember will test positive at any major carrier. If anything, the issue is under reported in the media and often cases are handled quietly inhouse.

Most U.S. airlines have a HIMS program ( HIMS - A Substance Abuse Treatment Program For Commercial Pilots (http://www.himsprogram.com/) ). The FE in the 1990 Northwest Fargo alcohol incident is active in this field and has assisted several companies with setting up recognition and treatment programs. I realize this is a somewhat novel concept in other countries.

I think the problem is real, and we're addressing it much more than in the past, in the U.S. at least.

BelArgUSA

23rd Oct 2008, 17:45

I share AirBubba's opinion about the problem of alcohol and drugs with pilots.
Not only in the USA, but worldwide. The nature of concerns varies from one country to another.
And it also varies with the social traditions and environment.
And what can be said about pilots... applies as well to driving cars.
xxx
I was born in Brussels. Old fart here, so "long ago".
Belgians have Germanic and French traditions. They love wine and beer.
No need to mention that Belgian beers have international reputation.
Who controls InBev's (now includes Budweiser) - the Belgians.
Go to any restaurant in Belgium, you will see wine served for dinner, about everywhere.
Even their McDonald's sell beer as favorite beverage coming with hamburgers.
xxx
I recall (age 9 or 10...?) on school field trips, being served a Stella Artois lager.
Was normal when I was a kid... Yes, you read well... elementary school field trips.
My grand parents served me a glass of red wine for dinner, at age 10 or 12.
xxx
When I went to the USA as exchange student, I hated to have to drink Coca-Cola with dinner.
And a glass of milk with a steak dinner... told myself "they are crazy in USA".
I love milk, but certainly not as a dinner drink. Fine for breakfast if you ask.
xxx
Then I flew with PanAm from 1969 to 1991. I hope I never busted the rules.
Had a steak dinner at night, a glass of wine, go to bed and have a flight next day.
Never got a problem. Never was drunk on the job. Never used drugs.
Do not worry. Arriving at hotels, I never failed having 1 or 2 beers with the crew.
I recall crewmembers doing 3 or 4 vodkas or whiskies the night before a morning flight.
Never liked liquors anyway... so my glass of wine for dinner was somewhat tame.
xxx
I recall my friends flying for Sabena, Air France or UTA/Air Afrique.
These guys had a glass of wine while flying with dinner.
I know they stopped that in the 1980s... But... was legal, not exceeding a certain amount.
xxx
So, where do we stand now.
I am certain a pilot drinking 1 beer with a burger at 20:00, going to sleep, flying at 07:00 is NOT DRUNK.
Is it the case of that UAL first officer...?
xxx
Throw a stone at me for my opinions.
Some of you know that my wife died in a car accident in 2005... age 35.
And... sadly, she was drunk. I love her but hate her for having done that to me.
So, do not think I will ever condone drinking and driving/flying.
xxx
:rolleyes:
Sad contrails.

ribt4t

23rd Oct 2008, 18:10

Breath tests should not be accepted as the final answer for any kind of alcohol test due to the inability to distinguish between alcohol and other harmless metabolites such as acetone which can be found at an elevated level due to eating a high protein diet or a medical condition.

ExSp33db1rd

23rd Oct 2008, 23:08

I wonder what would have happened after a N/S in the Bristol BEY or the Pan Afric in NBO?

Precisely !! Don't know what all the fuss is about, never had any trouble !

( hat,coat,door, g'night )

bjcc

24th Oct 2008, 18:44

ribt4t

Think you'll find that while that was an issue with the first electronic breath test machines, it has long since been resolved, and it is no longer an issue.
However, so far as this legislation is concerned and in the Uk, the final reading is the result of blood test, not breath testing. Although a breath or urine sample can be required, by vertue of an agreement with the CAA, blood is used.

Obviously, if the result of the initial breath test is close to the prescribed limit, by the time the blood test is given at a Police station (usually between 30 mins and 1.5 hours later) the BAC will have gone below the limit. In that sense there are going to be people who were over the limit at time of arrest, who are below or indeed completly clear by the time of blood test. While that does not make them guilty, or mean they 'got off', it does not make the initial breath test wrong.

For those who persist with the theory that Breath Testing cannot detect lower levels of alcohol, there are many Countries that have a zero BAC for drivers, who manage to detect anything above that by way of breath test, both in initial screening and in evidential testing.

Flintstone

24th Oct 2008, 20:07

Obviously, if the result of the initial breath test is close to the prescribed limit, by the time the blood test is given at a Police station (usually between 30 mins and 1.5 hours later) the BAC will have gone below the limit.

Unless of course they had ingested a quantity of booze before they were breathalysed (20 minute rule acknowledged). In that case the continued digestion of alcohol would see an increase in the level of alcohol in their blood.

AnthonyGA

24th Oct 2008, 21:45

It worries me that so many people spend so much time trying to justify the consumption of ethanol before flying. Which is more important, the drug or the job? It surprises me that there are pilots who drink any alcohol at all, given how extremely unwise it is to take drugs and fly.

Is it also okay to take a sleeping pill or two, or amphetamine, or a bit of opium? For that matter, is it okay to take in nicotine from cigarettes? Why is it so hard to just skip the drugs entirely? Why do people feel that they MUST drink? Why is not drinking such an intolerable sacrifice in exchange for a career as a pilot? What are the real priorities?

captplaystation

24th Oct 2008, 22:00

It is not because we choose a career in the cockpit that we can't indulge in some of lifes forbidden little pleasures.
It is finally just a job, and nowadays that is the reality ,rather than whatever halcyon days you may still be living in.
As long as you control your behaviour to remain legal when obliged, that is enough , Non ?
Or you think being a pilot is akin to becoming a Monk, Oh sure pass the vows of celibacy/sobriety or whatever I'll sign them right now. Phaw :{ := :mad:

stator vane

25th Oct 2008, 10:23

sorry to hear of your loss, but good to hear some reasonable reply along with captplaystation--(i know who you are! Ha)

some are control freaks, some are lacking in self control. there is a very wide range in between those two stops and hopefully most of us fit somewhere in the middle most of the time, but on occasion, do hit either end, and again, hopefully, bounce back to the middle. some live and die on either end.

there are some who love to tell others what to do, there are some who need to be told what to do, and there are some who can figure most things out on their own. we flow between those landmarks in various times and areas of life and work.

i have seen some who were total abstainers and in truth were, some who said they were and really weren't, and some who actually could not function without some level of alcohol in their system, but were still head and shoulders above the rest of us mere mortals.

there is something to be said for freedom and something to be said for a policing of that freedom.

captplaystation

25th Oct 2008, 20:37

I remember reading an article ( relating to driving but the results are just as relevant) which identified the loss of ability suffered whilst driving with a heavy head cold to be worse than that suffered at quite a bit over the limit (for driving, so much more than the flying limit)
Many companies take a dim view of pilot's pulling sickies for mere head colds. Again, like fatigue, no-one makes a big deal out of someone coming to work (infecting all his colleagues BTW) with a cold. I have had the misfortune of flying with younger colleagues, either too new/young/intimidated/ inexperienced to know to stay home, and have seen some woefully inadequate performances from otherwise very competent individuals.

ExSp33db1rd

25th Oct 2008, 21:48

Stator Vane.

Absolutely. Well said. Can't we end it there ?

Oh to live in a Perfect World.

( but then everyone would be a clone of me, and it would be SO borin' ) :ok:

pink dolley

26th Oct 2008, 19:06

It is ok to drink ethonal as put further up, I work the other side of the door and have reguarly seen flight crew drunk the night before, not 1 or 2 drinks but "DRUNK" and it's not 1 or 2 people

It's not just flight crew but CC also, it is very worrying that crew get worried when flying with such people and I am sure there are a few in every airline. Some choose to turn a blind eye, at what risk do we do this, fatigue is mentioned, so what do you think alcohol is going to do to that individual when they are drunk.

We take the jobs knowing the rules so why blatantly break them and when caught we are up in arms, because it's easy not to take responsibility for our actions, to blame someone else and to tell the regulators there wrong.

Well I hope it was all a mistake, but if not the risks were known!!

Happy flying:E

BelArgUSA

26th Oct 2008, 19:42

People react differently to alcohol.
Metabolism and body weight also are a tremendous factor to include.
A beer for a skinny guy like me (135 lbs/62 kg) has not same effect for a fat giant.
Three beers do not affect me, 3 glasses of wine make me sleepy. One whisky and I am drunk.
My wife got out of control with one half of these amounts, yet she was same weight.
And drinking with a meal has lesser effect, than with an empty stomach.
I have a few "drunk buddies". One is a happy drunk, another gets violent, the third falls asleep.
There are racial differences. Recall the effects of alcohol for the native American tribes.
xxx
So, to my opinion, it would be difficult to establish limits applying to everyone.
When I was around 20 of age and wild, I would go for 4, 5 even 6 beers. Then drive.
Never got an accident, never got a ticket (was the lenient 1960s, and I was stupid then).
And definitely would not do that anymore. Maturity changed me.
Now if invited for a "second beer", I say NO if I am driving.
xxx
Stay dry when you fly/drive. Do not overdo it - 8 or 12 hrs, as it applies to you.
:)
Happy contrails

justme69

26th Oct 2008, 22:47

I only know "first hand" of 1 case of a known alcoholic pilot that crashed in the jungle, probably under the influence. It was on a (very) small conmuter plane in rural south america. He perished in the accident, as did the passengers, some 15 years ago.

I do know that, some 20 years ago, it wasn't so uncommon to see pilots in parts of Europe (I have a close relative who is one) drink party-time the night before a flight. But, of course, they all tried to be responsably as sober and rested as possible around the flying time.

Just to light things up: YouTube - Foster Brooks as Drunk pilot on Dean Martin Show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzAXb7qCCAo)

Juud

26th Oct 2008, 22:49

... I work the other side of the door and have reguarly seen flight crew drunk the night before ...

Pink Dolley, there is no polite way of saying this, so I won't try.
You are lying.

There is no Western European airline where flight crews are reguarly (sic) drunk the night before a flight.
(not including other regions because I lack first hand experience)

Their fellow pilots wouldn't condone it, their cabin crews would not fly with them, their station managers would cancel their flights and airport security staff delights in reporting the merest suspicion of flight crew under the influence of alcohol.
PinkD, pilots/FAs over the legal limit happen, but they are a very rare occurrence and you know it.

Unlike what Bubba appears to think of Europe and the way we do things, Europe has come a long way since the days when drinking and flying were thought to be a normal combination.
European rules require companies to have a preventive programme in place where Pilots and FAs are regularly taught about the effects of alcohol and other drugs, are encouraged to consult with company doctors about how to solve sleep/stress/marital/life problems by other means than drugs and are instructed to not stand by idly when they see a colleague in trouble. Flight crews know that they themselves breach the law if they suspect a colleague is over a limit and they fail to take appropriate action.
The climate of tolerance that once existed, exists no longer.

Most major European airlines, like those in the States, also have programmes to spot the rare alcoholic and help him/her overcome the addiction. Unlike addressing widespread endemic fatigue, addressing incidental alcoholism makes financial sense.

Prevention and treatment for drug/alcohol addiction have their place in modern civil aviation.
But writing here that flight crews are a bunch of irresponsible drunks shows an appalling ignorance of current practices in civil aviation.

Airbubba

27th Oct 2008, 00:07

Pink Dolley, there is no polite way of saying this, so I won't try.
You are lying.

There is no Western European airline where flight crews are reguarly (sic) drunk the night before a flight.

Sounds like that river in Egypt...:)

pink dolley

27th Oct 2008, 20:49

Judd

As I have said there are those don't want to believe, and yes I have seen flight crew drunk as well as CC and you as flight crew cannot be that naive.

Does not happen you say, have we forgot the undercover work, drugs at BHX that were actualy security, BA drunk on take off after a night partying, Aliyah the singer killed through a pilot who had taken drugs. If you do not think this is happening you are in denial.

Flight crew reguarly drink the night before, some are controlled some are not, it happens, so why do you think i am lying, it hasn't happend to you, what a saint of an airline you are in!!!

Personally you should re-think before calling people liars, I have seen and pretty sure there are a lot of people on here will have too.

Happy flying:p

PS I said the night before, but guess they were not under the legal limit when they flew.

Airbubba

28th Oct 2008, 05:13

In the case of the Oslo Captain a failed Breath test was followed by a zero blood test - the Captain resigned because he felt a sacking was the likely outcome.

Huh? Doesn't BA have something like a union? I think this one doesn't pass the smell test. He quit to prove his innocence I suppose?

Is there some chance he will be made whole?

ExSp33db1rd

28th Oct 2008, 05:33

In the meantime can we try and support this individual by not making further comment and letting the legal process take place.

Absolutely - see post #35.

You may not wish to 'support' - but is it your place to 'condemn', either ?

I hereby withdraw from this thread - not that I suppose anyone cares ? Tough.

Carnage Matey!

28th Oct 2008, 10:27

Huh? Doesn't BA have something like a union? I think this one doesn't pass the smell test.

You might want to get your nose recalibrated as Exeng is correct on both counts.

Airbubba

28th Oct 2008, 14:11

Did the union at BA leave these guys twisting in the wind? Or, was the evidence against them so overwhelming that they had no chance to stay employed?

Is there a possibilty that they will get their jobs back?

The implication in the earlier posting is that these pilots were terminated for an unjust accusation. Wouldn't the union go to bat and fight these cases? Mine sure would, that's why I pay dues.

Rainboe

28th Oct 2008, 14:26

Airbubba, it did indeed happen like that. Sad to say long careers destroyed with no actual guilt applied! No going back- that's how it is these days. It seems to have almost the same cachet as paedophilia nowadays, with guilt immediately being implied everywhere, even here. The frequent subsequent exoneration seems to barely get a mention and the original case is long forgotten by the time it happens. But in the meantime, there's some fine sounding off and preaching the 'perils of drink', not least, here! There really is a case for only reporting the news here, then banning discussion on it until a guilty verdict is reached, and if not guilty....what is there to actually discuss? Following a Not Guilty verdict, the whole thing is no damn business of anybody's here, and indeed, brings the profession into disrepute even for discussing it for no reason!

Whilst I barely drink, I know a lot of my colleagues enjoy it. How can anyone imply that merely to be a pilot means you should never have a drink? It is just a job, not a way of life, and increasingly a job very ordinarily paid. The pay is not enough to restrict life for people. We are getting too many incidences of people being disrupted because they dared to take mouthwash. And as for pilots flying drunk, it does not happen. Colleagues will not allow it. Once again there is some absolute garbage being spouted here.

This is really rather sad, isn't it?:
skynews also reporting the story...

If it's true he should be fired..

pink dolley

29th Oct 2008, 09:09

All,

I am not blaming him, read my first post I hope it's a mistake, what I fail to see is..........that a lot of people do not think it go's on, I have worked many years inthe job and it does happen.

Whether you like it or not it happens, the matter of being caught or prosecuted or your friends / colleagues shopping you is a different argument one of which many people I have worked with have toiled over with the many lines like "do you know what would happen", "Your word against his" etc etc, It is more difficult than you think, forget the CRM unless they are blind drunk or an outsider (security, public) informs someone it is probably never going to happen.

If you fail a breath test as with a motoring offence you are right, you give a blood sample to be more accurate. However if you fail you are arrested under suspicion, nothing more nothing less. Hence why I said I hope it's wrong.

We work in an environment where it is unsocialble to drink, we are away for long periods etc so you are likely to join your peers in what they do, usually at the bar, not in all cases but it happens.

It is a sensitive subject and will always be. Keep an openmind though, to make a statement like it would never happen to a european carrier etc.

Anyway happy flying:ok:

PS Drunk or over the limit, again 2 differing things, but over the limit is the law.

FrequentSLF

29th Oct 2008, 14:17

Whilst I barely drink, I know a lot of my colleagues enjoy it. How can anyone imply that merely to be a pilot means you should never have a drink? It is just a job, not a way of life, and increasingly a job very ordinarily paid. The pay is not enough to restrict life for people.

What about a bus driver or a taxi driver, they are also subject to the same rule, yes different limits but also different pay.
As SLF when I read such sentences I am start to worry.
As another poster said
Drunk or over the limit, again 2 differing things, but over the limit is the law.
Are we all supposed to abide to the law?

Pugilistic Animus

29th Oct 2008, 14:40

What about a bus driver or a taxi driver, they are also subject to the same rule, yes different limits but also different pay.
As SLF when I read such sentences I am start to worry.
As another poster said
---I don't think you read what he said--I don't think he's saying to fly intoxicate--he's just saying why should a pilot never enjoy a drink--IN HIS LIFE---I think if you were flying with me I'd drink-after the flight for sure--and perhaps if I were caught drinking during the flight---NO jury will convict:}

FrequentSLF

29th Oct 2008, 14:44

I don't think you read what he said--I don't think he's saying to fly intoxicate--he's just saying why should a pilot never enjoy a drink--IN HIS LIFE---I think if you were flying with me I'd drink-after the flight for sure--and perhaps if I were caught drinking during the flight---NO jury will convict

If so, beers are on me once landed...:ok:

max_cont

29th Oct 2008, 18:48

John R you said The commander owes a legal duty of care to his passengers and crew for whom he is legally responsible. And so, faced with this situation, I would have no qualms in calling the police. Anything less is to fall short of one's responsibilities

I understood this to mean that you would call the police as the aircraft commander hence my reply to you.

Pvmw. Post #53 is so wide of the mark I can’t be bothered to rebut in detail. “Handled internally” is not a cozy cover up. If you knew anything about what happens to a pilot suspected by an employer of having a drink problem you would not have posted that daft scenario.

You are welcome to an opinion, and you are entitled to yours.

However some opinions are worth more than others…now that’s patronizing.;)

Carnage Matey!

29th Oct 2008, 21:32

If the person in question has not gone airside with the intention of flying an aircraft then they haven't committed a crime, no matter how much alcohol they've consumed. You could call the police if you want but they'd simply scratch their heads for a while, look for something to charge them with, then release them. If the person in question had consumed sufficient alcohol that you'd be able to notice then you'd have challenged them long before they went airside. People don't just turn up drunk on an aircraft, reeking of alcohol. Scratch the surface and you'll often find many of these breathalyser tests are triggered by a 'tip off' from an individual with malicious intent.

Flying Lawyer

29th Oct 2008, 21:59

John R I still maintain that you're falling short of your legal responsibilites by not reporting a drunk crew member to the police.
What legal responsibility do you have in mind?
Is it your belief that the law requires an aircraft commander and/or everyone to report to the police any offence he/she sees committed?
(Underlining to avoid confusion with any moral obligation someone might feel.)

You'd involve the police if you witnessed an illegal act in public, wouldn't you? Would you?
Do you?
Any illegal act?
Or do you make an assessment in each case?

FL

max_cont

30th Oct 2008, 09:14

John R, I’m not the one confused, (max_conf :ouch:) you are.

Your knowledge of the law and the responsibilities of the aircraft commander under the ANO or equivalent, are somewhat confused. I am a current professional pilot. I have responsibilities to, and authority derived from, the state that issued my licence. I will carry out those responsibilities with the authority given to me…and that does not require me to call the police in the first instance, or the second, or indeed at all.

IMO, Flying Lawyer is the expert here. FWIW you and others should read and benefit from his vast knowledge of the law.

bjcc

30th Oct 2008, 17:36

FL

Does the principle of judges rules still exist, which places a duty to assist Police? I accept the rest was replaced but, I don't seem to recall that part being so.

If not, while I realise that it is not statute, then that duty can be seen as a requirement by some. The primary function of police being the prevention of crime, and secondly the detection and punishment of offenders.

I take the point, as you raised it as a question, about assessments, but the criteria for that, in this sort of offence is going to be understandably different for a member of the public than for a pilot.

mercurydancer

30th Oct 2008, 21:03

It wasnt so long ago I caught more flak than a Lancaster over Berlin for raising the issue of a (theoretical) drunken flight crew member on another thread.

Alcohol gets burned off in the system at a fairly constant rate of about 1 unit every 90 minutes. If I was in a bar and there was a person there who drank more than could reasonably be metabolised before flight and I saw him walking through the terminal wearing lots of scrambled egg on his hat then yes I would raise concerns. Loudly and vociferously.

If the person had a couple of beers and left it at that with a decent interval before they took charge of an aircraft... not a problem. Its not so much a legal requirement to report someone as just plain survival. I wouldnt get in a car with someone who had consumed more alcohol than the legal limit, let alone an aircraft.

bjcc

31st Oct 2008, 07:49

mercurydancer

And thats the difference between people's opinions on here. I would rather not get in a car, or a bus or a train or a plane with anyone that has alcohol in thier blood stream. It may well be that they are perfectly capable of driving/flying safely, but I, and I'd suspect the majority of the public don't want to put that to the test.

Bronx

1st Nov 2008, 08:32

bjcc And thats the difference between people's opinions on here. Is it? :confused:

I think the big difference is between pilots who would stop another pilot from flying if they knew or suspected he had alcohol in his bloodstream and those who would not only stop him flying but report him to the police as well.
There's a legal duty to do the first but not the second.

B.

max_cont

1st Nov 2008, 14:26

That’s the point John R, it doesn’t. If one of my pax is a bit tipsy and well behaved I don’t have them carted off by the boys in blue. If they are causing a ruckus and upsetting the other pax and crew, I will have them removed if the CC or I believe it is prudent. But they are being removed because they are nuisance not because they are tipsy.

For a pilot to be suspected by me of being over the limit, they would have to be significantly over for me to even notice. The limit is so low that in fact they are not drunk, but over the set arbitrary limit. If he/she has not reported for duty, IE we were at the hotac, I would ask them to consider another course of action. If they had reported and were in the crew room, a manager would deal with it. IF they got to the aircraft and I became aware, then a manager would still deal with it.

I will therefore have discharged my duties to the state, the company and the passengers. If the company choose to involve the police, that is their call not mine.

justme69

1st Nov 2008, 15:00

I have a quick question. Let's say a pilot lands in a "remote" airport with an incident that may indicate he had been drinking. Who has the authority to request an alcohol test? Local police can request he runs the same tests used by road drivers? Can the pilot refuse?

Do all airports have an authority in service that may demand a pilot to take an alcohol test? Even if he is a foreign citizen? What happens if he refuses, can he be suspended back home?

Is an alcohol test standard procedure for all pilots involved in an incident/accident? Who administers it?

Are foreign pilots routinely tested at airports? By who?

Carnage Matey!

1st Nov 2008, 17:14

Local laws apply at remote airports. If the local laws require you to take a test then you will. If you don't feel fit to operate afterwards then don't but it'd be a foolish man who tried to argue against the local fuzz.

ribt4t

1st Nov 2008, 18:07

bjcc wrote :

Think you'll find that while that was an issue with the first electronic breath test machines, it has long since been resolved, and it is no longer an issue.

Sadly not the case - There was a virgin pilot removed from the flight deck last year for a positive breath test while his blood alcohol level was effectively zero. It was thought to be caused by a high protein diet - which increases acetone in the breath.

bjcc

2nd Nov 2008, 06:07

ribt4t

Not quite. The pilot in question says that was the cause. That isn't the same as it was the cause.

Obviously if it was correct, then the Countries where the BAC for driving is zero, would have a large number of aquittals because of it.

justme69

Don't know about the rest of world, but in the case of the UK, you can refuse, but if the Police Officer suspects you have alcohol in your blood, you wil probably be arrested.

Only a Constable (ie Police Officer) has the right to require a person subject to the act in the UK to take a breath test, not the airport authority. That applies to non UK pilots yes.

Suspension is a matter for the employer, not the Police.

Flying Lawyer

4th Nov 2008, 23:39

I see no error in what ribt4t said.

bjcc Not quite. The pilot in question says that was the cause.I don’t know where bjcc gets that from. As far as I’m aware, the pilot said no such thing; he simply couldn't understand how he could possibly have tested positive. Scientists thought that was the likely cause.

Analysis of the pilot's blood sample proved that the level of alcohol in his blood did not exceed the prescribed limit. It was minute, and consistent with that of a non-drinker.
The pilot and those advising him were, not surprisingly, concerned to find out how the initial test could have given a positive reading.

One possibility was that the screening device didn’t provide an accurate reading. The devices used for ‘field tests’ are not infallible and are not claimed to be.
Extracts from posts by two policeman on another ‘alcohol’ thread: What you have to take into account is that a breath testing device used on an aircraft or at the roadside is a screening device only. It gives a fairly accurate indication, that gives the required grounds needed for an arrest. I would say in my career about 30% of the people who provided positive breath tests at the roadside gave negative results at the station. I have to disagree with bjcc.
Many is the time I have used an ESD (Electronic sampling device) at the roadside and the result to bypass the Pass and Warn lights and shoot straight to Positive, only to find that the subject blows under the limit when tested on the EBM at the station a short while later.
These machines are merely indicators that a person MIGHT be over the prescribed limit and they are not infallible.

However, further investigation revealed that the pilot had been on a very low calorie diet for a long period which provided an alternative explanation.
It is known that low-carbohydrate diets can produce acetone which is produced by the body trying to make up the glucose absent from low-carbohydrate diets. It can fool breath test equipment.
Prof. Wayne Jones, a professor in experimental alcohol research, says that breathalysers can sometimes fail to distinguish acetone from drink. "Then there's a risk you get a false positive reading."

From the International Journal of Obesity False-positive breath-alcohol test after a ketogenic diet.
“A 59-year-old man undergoing weight loss with very low calorie diets (VLCD) attempted to drive a car, which was fitted with an alcohol ignition interlock device, but the vehicle failed to start. Because the man was a teetotaller, he was surprised and upset by this result.
VLCD treatment leads to ketonemia with high concentrations of acetone, acetoacetate and β-hydroxybutyrate in the blood.
The interlock device determines alcohol (ethanol) in breath by electrochemical oxidation, but acetone does not undergo oxidation with this detector.
However, under certain circumstances acetone is reduced in the body to isopropanol by hepatic alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH).
The ignition interlock device responds to other alcohols (e.g. methanol, n-propanol and isopropanol), which therefore explains the false-positive result.
This 'side effect' of ketogenic diets needs further discussion by authorities when people engaged in safety-sensitive work (e.g. bus drivers and airline pilots) submit to random breath-alcohol tests.”

FL