Jail and 10-year ban for Thomson pilot! [Archive]

captplaystation

28th Mar 2009, 21:57

Staying on topic ( I hope :rolleyes: ) it is a rather :mad: up society that thinks that putting a professional guy in jail for 6 months because he misjudged ( or perhaps had another medical problem that altered ) the time required to expel alcohol from his system.
For God sake , he was hardly what you could call pi$$ed was he? Surely the only thing that really matters is whether he has a problem with the juice, or whether this was a one-off miscalculation. Perhaps not his first "misjudgement" I admit, and prior to this he had been lucky, but in any case the guy needs help or his ear bent, hardly worthy of 6 months porridge.
Firefly Bob, if you look at the list of "disqualifying offences " published by the DoT it will open your eyes, forgot to pay your petrol on the way home from a 12hr duty starting at awful o'clock ? Bye Bye airside pass. . . . pathetic. No relation between that and an affinity to Al Quieda,(sp?) but well, in this screwed up country that issued our passport who cares ?
Thank God I was young when I was , and no longer have anything to do with living in "politically correct Blighty". My chance of staying a free man would be marginal at best. :=
As previously mentioned, a world of difference between this case , and the recent one where "yer man" was supported by his company ( Oh no Sir, not in the UK please ) and was to be hopefully re-instated following counselling.
We used to be able to lay claim to being an enlightened tolerant nation. For fear of immediate removal of my post I will not express my considered opinion of the current state of play in respect of the YOO Kay :yuk:

Pinkman

28th Mar 2009, 21:58

Protesting against Patrick Kyagera's 10 year ban is valid, because this is not an issue that has an "appropriate" deterrent. It's not linear like casual drinking and road use, where there is enough evidence to suggest that you can set a level of punishment that "fits" the crime and that provides a severe enough deterrent to change behaviour in the 95% of the population. In the aviation case you have already got that 95% (probably 99%) compliance simply because of the threat of loss of livelihood. You are mostly ONLY dealing with the problem drinkers.

I dont know whether Kyagera is an habitual drinker, or made a one-off silly mistake, or is one of the 5-10% of people (like the Japanese) that produce low levels of alcohol dehydrogenase - the enzyme that breaks down alcohol. But its likely that he would know that he might have been over the limit: its a fundamental criteria for your job as a pilot and you need to know your individual tolerance and limits much as you would know whether your vision needs correcting with glasses.

All the many pilots that I know take their fitness to work responsibilities very seriously. Clearly, a small minority are simply unable to change because they have a disease. A vanishingly small amount make a one off silly mistake or take a chance and get caught.

The length of sentence isnt the point because jailing or fining an alcoholic is about as much use as jailing or fining a paedophile: it doesnt affect the underlying behaviours. I dont have access to the full judgement but if it was simply as reported then it's awful - not because of the 6 months jail or 10 year ban, but because there is no opportunity to address the underlying behaviours and get on with your career if you are serious about reform and get the support you need.

Lyle Prouse and others have shown that it is possible (see the other thread Duck referred to).

By the way, I am very disturbed to see that many of you think that alcohol is eliminated by the body at more or less a standard rate. That is scary and untrue. It depends on gender, race, body mass, fat/lean tissue ratio, genetics, food quantity and type intake and habituation - which is why your pilot medical blood test usually includes Gamma-Glutamyl Transferase (GGT or 'Gamma GT') - an indication of longer-term liver abuse by alcohol. The rate at which you excrete alcohol can vary massively.

heli-cal

28th Mar 2009, 22:01

There exists no reason to sympathize with this guy, he knew the rules, the standards, the law, the risks and the consequences.

That he is imprisoned and will never be given another chance to betray the trust of his employer, colleagues and passengers is a good outcome!:D

captplaystation

28th Mar 2009, 22:19

When you make a mistake or misjudgement (as you may well one day) I am sure we are all united in wishing you as sympathetic and understanding a response as you have displayed here.
In the meantime, enjoy your lonely sad little existence perched on your unyeilding unseeing little soapbox.

Fredairstair

29th Mar 2009, 00:31

A life ruined for being 50% under the drink driving limit - equivalent to one pint of beer. How many of us can really castigate this poor bloke? The reality now for professional pilots is no alcohol at all - even some wine with your dinner, if you want to guarantee compliance with this 20mg rule. Think about it guys.......

I wish him good luck in his future.

mini

29th Mar 2009, 00:36

Given the sentence, surely there must be more to this?

Busting the rules gets you fair & square, but six months porridge + 10yrs grounded? sounds like Texas/Kabul/Bejing etc

Realistically, his flying days are over IMHO.

The court transcripts will be interesting.

PS. pity Flying Lawyer is somewhat constrained, his insight would illuminate this issue.

heli-cal

29th Mar 2009, 01:14

In the meantime, enjoy your lonely sad little existence perched on your unyielding unseeing little soapbox.

An accurate self description, captplaystation!

Whilst the guy refused to take his professional responsibilities seriously, the accountability aspect may register with him.

"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime!"

Publicly complaining about how the guy should have been treated so much more leniently is unprofessional, he merits no reduction in either the term of imprisonment, nor flying ban duration.

captplaystation

29th Mar 2009, 06:02

Given, as has been pointed out, that the limit appears to have been set as low as can be measured, and furthermore that any impairment to judgement is quite probably less than suffered by a pilot at the end of a "legal" but long duty, or indeed suffering from a heavy cold, I find it difficult to justify shoving this individual in jail for 6 mths.
If he has been proven to be a habitual offender, that is quite another matter, but for the moment I feel less lonely perched on my soapbox than perhaps you should.

Herc708

29th Mar 2009, 07:15

I think it is a little excessive - no injuries to anybody, another qualified pilot on the flight deck who can take over if there was any doubt etc, no malicious intent

This job is disintegrating as a career right in front of us - deteriorating T&C's, extra security hassle, huge investment at the start, bust at a moments notice. Not worth the hassle any more

Look at the destruction Fred Goodwin has done to us all, and he gets away with it

flyingtoothpick

29th Mar 2009, 08:15

One of our Captains got caught at LHR in 2004. He was sentenced to 6 months in Ford Open Prison and served 2.

I dont think he lost his licence for any time other than the medical issues but he ended up unable to regain employment in aviation and now sells insurance for a living.

Hankers

29th Mar 2009, 08:58

CONDUCT OF PROSECUTIONS BY THE CAA AS A PROSECUTOR

Licence Action
Licensing action cannot properly be taken in order to punish the licence holder. If the law has been broken, the offender can only be punished by the Courts after a prosecution. Refusal, revocation, suspension or variation of a licence, certificate or approval may only be taken if the conduct of the person concerned is such that he does not meet the criteria for holding such a licence, certificate or approval.

Havn't read the entire thread but a 10 year ban must be a security issue given the above guidance from the CAA

sagered

29th Mar 2009, 10:06

A bit more info here:Birmingham Post (http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/2009/03/28/pilot-at-birmingham-airport-jailed-for-being-5-times-over-alcolhol-limit-65233-23250850/)

Quote: The court heard Kyagera was preparing to take off at 8.30am on Monday, December 22, after drinking a “considerable amount of alcohol” at a family party on Saturday followed by several glasses of wine on Sunday.

A breath test showed 45 micrograms of alcohol in 100ml of breath, five times the 9mcg limit for pilots. A blood test at 11.45am revealed 42 milligrams in 100ml of blood, twice the 20mg limit.

Roger Sofarover

29th Mar 2009, 11:01

The Civil Aviation Authority said it would withhold his pilot's security clearance for 10 years for breaching its regulations and having a criminal conviction.Interesting that it was not the court that has imposed the ban. I am unsure whether with a ban of this length the CAA have over stepped the mark. The ban they have imposed is longer than the rehabilitation of offenders act should allow, which would be seven years till the conviction is 'spent'. I also think is is wrong in the UK that many 'crimes' that would be registered as 'misdemeanours' in other countries attract a life time criminal record, and lets face it this mans 'type' of crime does not make him a security risk at airports.

There is punishment and then there is the utter destruction of someone and his family, the latter is wrong. I wonder, there must be some pilots out there who have lost their driving licence due to drink driving. If they managed to continue with their jobs albeit difficult because of the practicalities, but if they did, did they then get a 10 year ban by the CAA for having a criminal record?

It is a funny aspect of human nature how many people judge this man as a 'drunk' who had a big drink problem. Maybe he is, but that is not something that can be concluded from the evidence. He had a level of alcohol in his blood that, many on this forum would have if they went out with their family for sunday lunch, had a glass of wine, and then drove them home. It is a little like how we all sneer at athletes who are labled 'druggies' guilty of 'drug abuse' when the reality is that they had a substance in their blood from chewing on a strepsil.

I hope he is able to put his life back together.

Heli Cal
After you have finished being so happy that this man is languishing in jail,
I wonder if you could please start a thread titled 'How to be Perfect', we would all benefit so much from your advice, and I for one would be an eager reader. Thanks:ok:

glad rag

29th Mar 2009, 11:14

Where did the 20mg value come from? And was it imposed with the tact aprtoval of all pilots??

captplaystation

29th Mar 2009, 11:44

Roger Sofarover,
Totally in agreement with your summary.
The Govt (via Transec) publishes a list of "disqualifying offences" which prohibit the issue of an airside pass, it is truly an eye opener, and indeed 50% or more of the offences listed could not by any stretch of the imagination, be linked to an increased "security risk".
There is an appeals procedure,however, given the general "jobsworth" mentality of the UK ,I wouldn't like to surmise what percentage of appeals are sucessful, I suspect fairly low.
Indeed, very callous to gloat on this poor guys circumstances, "Glass Houses" comes to mind.
When you look at some of the scumbags walking free from court every day this seems more than a little OTT, and how exactly is the poor guy supposed to be "rehabilitated" ( one of the oft stated aims of a custodial sentence ) when the denial of an airside pass is going to cost him his livelihood and profession for a very long time.
He has my very best wishes, those who wish to rejoice should truly hang their heads in shame.

Low Flier

29th Mar 2009, 12:05

In this particular case the guy knew exactly what he was doing and he knew exactly what he was risking by doing it.

Every time he raised a glass of alcohol to his lips he knew what he was doing and when he was doing it.

He knew his rostered duty time and he knew when he reported for duty that he was taking a great big chance.

Six months in pokey is purely symbolic. Everyone knows that he will only serve a fraction of that time actually in prison and that he is likely to be sent to a comfy country hotel such as Ford Open "Prison".

The "10 year" thing is complete bolleaux, as we all know that it would be an extremely unwise airline employee who would hire somebody like this after a major conviction such as Kyagera's, either within or beyond 10 years from now.

Even a Ugandan or Kenyan airline wouldn't hire this guy, with his track record.

We all know that laws exist for the guidance of wise men and for the blind obedience of fools. Kyagera is a fool.

Michael Birbeck

29th Mar 2009, 12:07

This surely is a case where the punishment does not fit the crime. The concept of rehabilitation or help for alcoholic issues does not seem to fit into the system of "justice" in this country. No societal good can come from ruining this man and his family.

There is little doubt that alcoholism is the dirty secret hidden under the airline corporate carpet. This kind of response by the law and some elements within the airline industry will only serve to push the issue further into the recesses as people with problems will diligently seek to cover their tracks with the overall result that the cause of aviation safety will not be improved.

The personal and family tragedies associated with alcoholism and alcohol abuse will continue unabated. We live in a doctrinaire society untrammelled by much intelligence or human compassion. :(.

KiloMikePapa

29th Mar 2009, 12:23

So what can be learned from all of this?

It seems flying and drinking are (legally) incompatible. So to be on the safe side: give up the juice if you want to keep flying. Might be a hard decision to make for some licensed pilots both pro's and weekend warriors such as me
As a professional group you'd better make sure you are fully aware of your legal position and the possible consequences. It seems to me this should be one of the main goals of your professional organizations such as BALPA. In other words: once it is in the law there is not much you can do so make sure the things you don't like don't get turned into a law! Where does that seemingly ridiculous low alcohol limit come from? Who proposed/approved this? This again underlines you have to keep a watchful eye on the legislator. If you don't you will suffer the consequences. If you let politicians rule your life this is what you will get.

Private jet

29th Mar 2009, 12:29

He has been made an example of... a bit like severed heads on sticks in the olde days........

LeadSled

29th Mar 2009, 12:30

Folks,
Take very great care if you are operating to and from or within Australia after April 1/09.

That's when the new Drug and Alcohol rules start, and the alcohol limit is 0.02 (compared to 0.05 for driving) and it applies to anyone airside or anyone with a "safety related" job landside.

The list of drugs tested for can be seen on the CASA web site, many cold medicines are going to be a problem, as will analgesics that contain any codein, which can linger for many days in the system, after the last dose.

There will be random breathalyser/drug teams around the country from now on, I would expect the major airports to be the first targeted.

See also the requirement for operators to have a company program, and the screening requirements.

Tootle pip!!

kick the tires

29th Mar 2009, 12:52

There has been soooo much publicity over the past couple of years of pilots being breath tested, arrested, court cases, convictions etc re alcohol and flying.

To be over the limit, you have choosen to drink when you know you are coming up to a duty. No one else, it was your choice to have that drink.

Good egg or not, if you take this path, you have got to expect, and accept, the consequences.

Oilhead

29th Mar 2009, 12:55

"Quote - Blind British "justice".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This surely is a case where the punishment does not fit the crime. The concept of rehabilitation or help for alcoholic issues does not seem to fit into the system of "justice" in this country. No societal good can come from ruining this man and his family.

There is little doubt that alcoholism is the dirty secret hidden under the airline corporate carpet. This kind of response by the law and some elements within the airline industry will only serve to push the issue further into the recesses as people with problems will diligently seek to cover their tracks with the overall result that the cause of aviation safety will not be improved.

The personal and family tragedies associated with alcoholism and alcohol abuse will continue unabated. We live in a doctrinaire society untrammelled by much intelligence or human compassion. ."

That is one of the most intelligent and understanding posts I have seen in all these threads.

Seperated by a week are two court cases in England involving airline pilots who showed up over the limit for public transport operation, i.e. for essentially identical offences with dramatically different outcomes. One life and career probably saved (his choice now), another in complete shreds (no choice left).

Why such a difference? Come on, someone take a stab at explaining why such dramatic outcomes to such similar court cases?

Oilhead - actually a HexHead now....:)

captplaystation

29th Mar 2009, 13:03

ANSWER
"Jobsworth Nannying Britain"
And I am (for the avoidance of doubt ) British, but this country now is just one pi$$ take after another. :ugh: :=

A good ol bit of " he is not fit for us to employ" rather than " he is an outstanding employee and we wish to help him resolve his difficulties" probably didn't impress the beak either. ( notwithstanding that the Yank scored 60 as opposed to this chap's 40 )
Human bloody resources indeed, British management style hasn't changed much since the mill-owners days.

flash8

29th Mar 2009, 15:38

British management style hasn't changed much since the mill-owners days.

Well said CaptPlayStation and oh so true. That goes for the Judiciary as well.

However, back to the topic.

The court heard Kyagera had been a commercial pilot for more than 20 years and clocked up more than 13,000 hours as captain, but that his “reputation, career,character and livelihood” were now in tatters after his dismissal last month.

If this were a white middle class Doctor, pulled out of theatre with alcohol on his breath (and assuming police were called which is close to zero) - I bet the judge would slap him/her on the wrist with a suspended and the GMC would give them perhaps a few years pasture, and it would all be forgotten. But no, Black and Professional! Judges have to make an example - what? Lets strip him of everything and then let the CAA put the boot in. Forget Balpa, I wouldn't use them even as a last resort - close to useless.

fellow crew members reported he smelled of drink.
And why the heck didn't they have a quiet word in his ear? Instead of straight on the blower to Management. Flames most welcome.

EGCC4284

29th Mar 2009, 15:50

The Govt (via Transec) publishes a list of "disqualifying offences" which prohibit the issue of an airside pass, it is truly an eye opener,

Where can I see this list?

fireflybob

29th Mar 2009, 16:22

I hesitate to say it but am surprised that the witholding of an airside pass for 10 years isn't a breach of the Human Rights Act!

If so perhaps the person involved in the case could do us a favour and go through the European Courts to have this aspect of the judgement overturned!

Coincidentally I am reading Vernon Coleman's "Living in a Fascist Country" (yes he is referring to UK!) which echoes many of the sentiments being expressed here - am sure he would be very interested in this case:-

Living in a Fascist Country (http://www.vernoncoleman.com/main.htm)

3REDS

29th Mar 2009, 17:01

He would have got a lesser sentance if he had told the court and his employer that he was an alcoholic and had a drink problem.

It would then have been very difficult for him to have been fired and jailed for an illness.

I am in no way saying he had a drink problem.

3REDS

29th Mar 2009, 17:14

I dont think there is anyone on here saying what he did was right just that the crime dosen't match the time.

NoJoke

29th Mar 2009, 17:24

Track record? Please elaborate.

Loose rivets

29th Mar 2009, 17:36

I've come back to this tread several times and may just have missed it, but do we know just when he took his last drink? I.e. did he break the time rule?

manrow

29th Mar 2009, 20:19

Can we return to the aspect on another thread that UA senior management supported their pilot in his dilemma; is there any evidence that Thomson did likewise, or did their management pilots just lie low?

captplaystation

29th Mar 2009, 21:07

EGCC4284

You need Department for Transport - Transport security (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/security/)
Scroll down page, 8th item is "criminal records check"

Chesty Morgan

29th Mar 2009, 22:34

Loose Rivets. The time rule isn't really relevant if you still have alcohol in your blood when you pitch up for work.

It doesn't matter a jot if he was drunk or not he had alcohol in his blood stream. End of story. This kind of case is fairly high profile at the moment as several similar cases have recently made it into the media so it is a very silly person who drinks before a duty.

I can state, with certainty, that I have been to work with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit but NOT because I'd been drinking within the time limit and that I'd been drinking to excess. If I'd been nicked I wouldn't have been happy about it, without a doubt, but I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Alcoholism is a problem and, as far as I know, you can't help drinking - you don't have a choice. BUT, turning up for work IS a choice and one which should be made responsibly, maturely and sensibly. I don't know if this guy is an alcoholic or not. If he isn't then what's his excuse? If he is then he shoudn't have been at work.

I have, in the past, mis-read my roster and had far too much to drink before flying and I called in sick. It is that simple. The only way you can safely say you are under the limit is to not drink for at least 24 hours before flying.

As far as the sentence is concerned. Dunno I'm not a judge. But how many times do we need to hear of a pilot getting nicked at work for excess alcohol before we start to pay attention?

He should have gone with the mouth wash defence.

Ex Cargo Clown

29th Mar 2009, 23:07

Having just read page 3 of this thread, a serious question has to be asked. Exactly what were his fellow crew up to allowing him to report for duty ?

If he hadn't been "nicked" surely he would have been an absolute liability for the flight, or did they want him to be caught.

I'm not defending the actions of the pilot, merely suggesting that if you had any idea that one of your operating crew were a little tipsy, then surely you would point that out ASAP. CRM hey, what a great concept....

Pinkman

29th Mar 2009, 23:14

I see three things here.

Firstly, the difference in attitude and support between UA (and Northwest in the Lyle Prouse case) and Thomson in the Kyagera case. Just an observation: it is what it is.

Secondly the insight the Birmingham Post article gives, if accurate. Frankly, I don't know any responsible pilot that would throw 'a considerable amount' of alcohol down their throat within 48 hours of a flight let alone during a bottle to throttle rule. IF that was habitual behaviour then it would certainly have shown up in an annual physical (see my post #24) and should have been picked up before by the airlines physician. IF so, why was it not seen earlier so that help could have been given? This isn't a one way street, you know, employers have responsibilities too...

I was intrigued by the apparent lack of correspondance between the statement on the drinking history and the fact that the BAC was 42mg/100ml. It doesnt add up: the average Western male metabolizes alcohol at very roughly 10 - 15 mg/100ml per hour. Do the math.

Finally, and I am not condoning the act, but you have to wonder about the judiciary in this country when you read "This sentence should deter others from compromising the high safety expected of airline pilots.” Duh. No it won't. Those that can obey the law (the 99%) already do, and those that dont, wont, because they simply cannot. There is virtually no deterrent there at all. I think that's what annoys me the most. If he had said "...should encourage them to seek help from their airline, which should actively assist" then I would have been impressed. All this does is drive these behaviours underground.

Chesty has a good point. But an alcoholic will never call in sick because he/she "willl be fine" "doesnt have a problem" etc. etc. To call in sick would force them to confront the problem and take responsibility for the behaviour - and this they can never do. So they carry on, get away with it, get away with it... and then one day they dont get away with it.

Read Lyle Prouse's story. Its inspiring and thought provoking. And helped me a lot.

Pinkman....whose ex-wife was an alcoholic.

Old Lizzy

29th Mar 2009, 23:23

"This sentence should deter others from compromising the high safety expected of airline pilots.” Duh. No it won't. Those that can obey the law (the 99%) already do, and those that dont, wont, because they simply cannot. There is virtually no deterrent there at all. I think that's what annoys me the most. If he had said "...should encourage them to seek help from their airline, which should actively assist" then I would have been impressed. All this does is drive these behaviours underground.

Now you lot are starting to think......:ok:

The Bartender

29th Mar 2009, 23:54

I don´t know about the UK, but in Germany you can´t be penalized for one offence more than once. As a pilot, you can and you are.

Not being able to go airside is the second penalty

Actually, no, it is not. :=

An airside pass, like your drivers license, pilots license, etc, is not a given right, it is an obtained privilege, and losing it as a consequense of you beeing convicted does not count as a second penalty, as it is a loss of privileges, not a loss of rights.

...as it should be...:D

StudentInDebt

30th Mar 2009, 06:58

Having a conviction under the Railway and Transport Safety Act is not a disqualifying offence for the holder of a restricted zone pass (according to the DoT list). In any event this is moot since his licence has been suspended for 10 years, the conviction would have been spent by the time he is eligible to fly commercially again so would not show on a CRC.

fireflybob

30th Mar 2009, 07:59

From the media report:-

The Civil Aviation Authority said it would withhold his pilot's security clearance for 10 years for breaching its regulations and having a criminal conviction.

StudentinDebt, you say:-

In any event this is moot since his licence has been suspended for 10 years, the conviction would have been spent by the time he is eligible to fly commercially again so would not show on a CRC.

Has his flying licenece been suspended? Or is it that he cannot hold an airside pass for ten years?

StudentInDebt

30th Mar 2009, 09:06

I read it as his licence had been suspended, the CAA plays no part in the issue of restricted zone passes, as far as I know it is the responsibility of the relevan airport authority.

deltayankee

30th Mar 2009, 09:18

Granted one is a pilot and one is a flight attendant, should there be a difference in the punishment just becasue the roles are different but governemd by the same limit ?

Most people perceive the risks as being significantly different. In the CC case there would be a risk to pax only in the very unlikely event of an evacuation while the role of pilots is critical in all flights.

llondel

30th Mar 2009, 09:26

Granted one is a pilot and one is a flight attendant, should there be a difference in the punishment just becasue the roles are different but governemd by the same limit ?

That's when you need a good lawyer to challenge the airside pass restriction as unfair and inconsistent. Something along the lines of restraint of trade and put the onus on the government to show that there's a security risk and all that. He shouldn't even need to have a job for that, given that the restriction is directly contributing to people not wanting to give him a job.

Wiggly Bob

30th Mar 2009, 11:55

Tarisio wrote:

"In Jan 08 a ship's master was fined £500 at Southampton magistrates' court for being three times the 80mg maritime limit as the vessel was about to sail."

As an ex-maritime navigation officer myself, I'm sorry to say that these types of offences rarely get to court, and certainly don't get punished to the extent above (whether or not you feel that £500 is adequate). The problem of alcoholism is quite widespread in the maritime industry, though I do feel that counselling and "therapy", for want of a better word, is more appropriate than fines and / or jail time.

Rob

Jetset320

30th Mar 2009, 17:09

In the (recent) past, has alcohol consumption by a pilot ever been blamed for an accident or even incident?

captplaystation

30th Mar 2009, 17:16

There was a recent 737 accident in Russia where the toxilogical examination gave cause to suspect the Capt "may" have had some juice in the system (if you can believe a Russian investigation :hmm: )
Apart from that, commercial aviation. . . . . nope, not to my knowledge.
Private flying is another ball game, and involvement of alcohol or other drugs in the conclusions of accident reports is not unknown. :=

heli-cal

30th Mar 2009, 18:42

Heli Cal
After you have finished being so happy that this man is languishing in jail,
I wonder if you could please start a thread titled 'How to be Perfect', we would all benefit so much from your advice, and I for one would be an eager reader. Thanks

I am not "so happy that the convicted man is languishing in jail", nor have I ever claimed to be able to advise others 'How to be Perfect'.

Having knowingly betrayed the trust of his employer, colleagues and passengers, breached the terms his contract of employment, and attempted to fly a full passenger aircraft whilst under the influence of alcohol, why should the employer stand by him?

He didn't apply for counseling or support through normal channels, he was prevented from taking off whilst under the influence of alcohol!

Your moaning and sarcasm, like the statements of captplaystation really are pathetic!

IcePack

30th Mar 2009, 19:49

Chesty Morgon.

Are you sure 24hrs Mmme Try 5 years and then have a pint of freshly squeezed orange juice or the like. Give it a few hours then take an Alchol test. Some people will be over the 20mg Limit.

These levels are stupid and you could end up in prison for a drink of fruit juice.

Oh and try and prove that it was only fruit juice.

Before you jump down my throat I am not saying that you should drink and fly.

Pinkman

30th Mar 2009, 20:41

Ice Pack

It is possible to fool a BREATHALYZER (eg if you are a diabetic and hypoglycemic / in ketoacidosis). And I have heard it said that certain drinks can have the same effect: that is because certain types of breath test respond to more than ethyl alcohol (eg acetone breath). Its just a screening test.

But you won't fool a BLOOD test which you must ALWAYS insist be done asap. As far as I know, and Pom (post 55) seemed to confirm this, a breathalyzer cannot be used to convict (I stand to be corrected).

Pinkman

Flintstone

30th Mar 2009, 21:23

As far as I know, and Pom (post 55) seemed to confirm this, a breathalyzer cannot be used to convict (I stand to be corrected).

"Preliminary breath testing is used for screening purposes and allows police officers to make a decision based on the result of the breath test as to whether or not a driver suspected of drink driving is arrested. The screening test is not intended to give a precise measure of a suspects alcohol levels, it is used to indicate whether the level is likely to exceed the prescribed drink drive limit. Preliminary breath test readings are not used as admissable evidence for the basis of a prosecution in a court of law.................If a driver is arrested for suspected drink driving he will then be required to undertake an evidential breath test. Evidential breath testing machine readings ARE used as admissable evidence for the basis of a prosecution in a court of law."

(My emphasis).

From here Drink Driving | Alcohol Breathalysers (http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_information_breathalysers.php)

Pinkman

30th Mar 2009, 21:31

Hmmm. Compare your internet reference with this internet reference from the US. Hard to say who I would believe on the accuracy of breathalysers

[/quote] (http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/diabetes-and-the-counterfeit-dui)Diabetes and Effect on Breathalyzer Test for DUI/DWI - Avvo.com (http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/diabetes-and-the-counterfeit-dui)[/quote]

I would still insist on calling a doctor to do a blood test. In aviation, is it within your rights to do so?

Pinkman

Flintstone

30th Mar 2009, 21:37

Any sane person would want a blood test.

I'm basing my information on answers given to me by three serving police officers. Convictions are routinely secured in the UK on the basis of evidential breathalyser tests.

If you look at the sentencing guidelines Drink Driving | Magistrates Court | Sentences (http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_sentencing_guidelines.php) you'll see that those guidelines recommend sentences based upon blood or breath analysis. I'd say these sources might be a bit more relevant to the case under discussion. A US site won't have any bearing on a UK case.

George Zipper

30th Mar 2009, 22:22

You are entitled to provide a blood sample for analysis, but the police are not obliged to offer it.

There is a subtle difference there!

Ex Cargo Clown

30th Mar 2009, 23:23

You would have to be insane not to opt for a blood test. That test specifically for Ethanol in blood.

The common breathalyzer is an IR Spec machine which will pick up any -OH group and is not a great analytic instrument.

I'm saying this as someone who has used IR on a frequent basis and it is a horribly inaccurate way of working out alcohol levels.

Lou Scannon

31st Mar 2009, 13:18

"HIMS is an occupational substance abuse treatment program, specific to commercial pilots, that coordinates the identification, treatment and return to the cockpit of impaired aviators.

It is an industry-wide effort in which companies, pilot unions, and FAA work together to preserve careers and further air safety.

HIMS - A Substance Abuse Treatment Program For Commercial Pilots"

I have just seen this on another thread. It throws much light on the way in which the United Pilot was treated, supported by his company and his suspended sentence awarded.

With the British case: I hear that the CAA have done their best for Patrick in giving him his licence back following his full admission, paying for his own "drying out" and earning medical reports in his favour.

I have no doubt that the 10 year suspension "on security grounds" will be lifted after due consideration.

That only leaves TUI's positive contribution to this jail sentence where their motives in not offering any support will contrast with the US model and the CAA humane consideration of the medical facts.

It will leave many of us wondering whether there are side issues that TUI pilot management haven't mentioned such as the need to reduce pilot numbers in this economic depression.

TUI pilots must be left with a less than warm feeling when they have any problems.

nascargeek21

31st Mar 2009, 13:35

I think that's way too harsh of a sentence!! His license should have been pulled for a year or two, not ten years!

bjcc

31st Mar 2009, 16:21

In terms of drivers. You are not entitled to a blood test. The Road traffic act allows Police to require a breath sample, and doesn't place any obligation on Police to offer, nor option by the arrested person to to demand, a blood or urine test

The evidence of an evidential breath testing machine is suffiecent, if the sample you give is over the prescribed limit.

If you give a sample over the limit, but close to it, you will be given the option of a blood test. Everyone of those I've seen has given a result more than the breath tes reading, except one, where it took the doctor over an hour to arrive, and that one was only just less than the Breath reading when analysed.

However, those results are all from Road Traffic Act requirements, and in general those are taken not long after the arrested person has stopped drinking.

As for the aviation side of it, the legislation says the test can be blood, urine or breath, and it is the Police's decision. However, there is an agreement with the CAA that blood will be used. That is an agreement, not law though.

On the plus side, it means that time between screening test, and blood test being taken can be up to an hour and half, ( an evidential breath test would be taken in less than 30 mins) in that time the BAC will continue to drop (assuming that the arrested person hasn't just stopped drinking). So an 'avarage' person will loose about 1 unit, or twice the limit imposed by the act, before the blood sample gets taken. That weeds out those who are just over the limit at time of screening.

There are a lot of old wives tales about breath tests, one of them being about the levels of BAC that can be detected by breath machines, it is from zero upwards, and can easily identify the limits imposed by this act. I would be treat those tales with a great deal of caution, most if not all, are rubbish, and most have been tried as a defence, and been dismissed as not having any validity, after evidence of expert witnesses.

As for the sentence in this case, it seems very harsh, I agree, especially in comparison to the US pilot. But then in neither case was all the mitigation reported, so it's difficult to see why there's vast difference.

beamer

1st Apr 2009, 19:45

A simple answer to some of the sanctimonious waffle on this sad case.

'Let he that is without sin cast the first stone.....'

Pinkman

1st Apr 2009, 20:32

Good post! Clears up one or two questions I had, but I am still confused by

about 1 unit, or twice the limit imposed by the act

When you say "1 unit" do you mean the classic "UK unit = 120ml wine/half pint of beer"?

I hope not because what you would be implying is that there is a standard relationship between what you throw down your neck and what is evidenced in breath or blood. And there isnt - and it could mislead a lot of people, especially women, oriental races, etc. (see earlier posts).

Apologies if I have misconstrued what you have said.

Pinkman

manrow

1st Apr 2009, 22:15

On another thread a UA pilot received a lenient sentence. Whereas the Thomson pilot was hammered maybe because of no company support?

What we should be discussing is how we can improve sentencing for all aircrew who become invloved in such cases.

bjcc

2nd Apr 2009, 04:30

Pinkman

You have misconstrude. An 'avarage' person (is there such a thing?) looses around one unit, or half a pint of 'normal' strength beer an hour. I used the words 'avarage' and 'about' to save people assuming it was a hard rule that applied to everyone. It can only ever been an approximate calculation, and should never be assumed to be set in stone.

FlyingCroc

2nd Apr 2009, 06:59

That is a rough estimate. So if you would have a 12 hour ban and had 10 beers before (which is really a whole lot) you would have 0 BAC at check-in. So the only explanation is that that the guy had a whole lot more beers or he did not respect the 12 hour ban.

Mr D's

2nd Apr 2009, 08:56

Post #34 on this thread (page2) quotes:

'A breath test showed 45 micrograms of alcohol in 100ml of breath, five times the 9mcg limit for pilots. A blood test at 11.45am revealed 42 milligrams in 100ml of blood, twice the 20mg limit.'

The legal limit for drivers in the UK is 35 Microgrammes of alcohol in 100ml of breath, therefore the pilot was actually in excess of the drink drive limit and 5 x the Pilots limit when he was first breathalysed.
(35mcg/100ml breath = 80mg/100ml blood).

If it could have been proven that he had driven to the airport to commence his duty then he could have been banned from driving aswell!!

It is not clear form the infomation on this thread how long elapsed between the initial breath test and the blood test being taken. However it must have been long enough for his alcohol level to drop from five times the pilots limit to just over twice.

I see this sentance as not only a punishment for the pilot concerned but more so a deterrent for other pilots.

A lot of posts on this thread compare drink driving with this incident, the maximum number of deaths I have dealt with caused by drink driving in one incident is three, how many deaths could have been caused in this incident?

In my eyes it gives the sentence a bit more perspective.

breakscrew

2nd Apr 2009, 10:38

Can someone tell me why it is only pilots who seem to fall foul of the law? No engineers, groundcrew, air traffic controllers or even train drivers seem to get caught, even though the law applies to them as well.

wheelbarrow

2nd Apr 2009, 14:04

I was talking with a copper last night who was absolutely amazed at the fact that 6 months prison seems to be the going rate for being convicted of being over the alcohol limit. Professional drivers would not be expected to get a jail term for just being convicted of drunk driving. There are thousands of cases of accidents having been caused by drink driving. How many aviation accidents, involving commercial operations have had alcohol as as causal or even contributary factor?
Why is it that we have have allowed legislation to be enacted, or the courts to impose such sentences without protest?
I am not against the legislation, but surely there should be some justification for treating aircrew so severely! If there was some real evidence that there was a direct link between accidents / incidents and alcohol then there would be some justification. As these reported cases indicate, there is obviously some level of aircrew having alcohol in their blood whilst operating, but not causing accidents / incidents. I think we should be more supportive of those caught out, whether through a real problem or just a lapse of judgement, i.e. agreeing to come on duty early when requested by crewing. They should be offered the chance of some help and understanding, and rehabilitation if required.

Mr D's

2nd Apr 2009, 17:14

2dmoon - I agree with you there should be some consistency in the sentencing the UA pilot should have received the same. However I disagree that the breath result is not relevant as it must have been allowed to be brought up in court, so is therefore relevant. Had it not been relevant it wouldn't have appeared in the news reports because it would have been allowed to be used in the court case.

Unfortunately it is unlikely that an offender gets caught the first time, that's in all walks of life, we can't allow people (Professional Pilots) to even consider that it is acceptable to report for duty under the influence of alcohol. You are Professional Pilots and you have responsibilities.

It was the pilot who put himself in that position and I have no sympathy for him, I sympathise for his family, but he had the ultimate responsibility for his actions.

I also congratulate his co-workers or whoever it was that reported him to the authorities.

We all know what can happen when fellow workers turn a blind eye to such problems, it can end in catastrophe.

BusyB

2nd Apr 2009, 17:32

Mr D's
How many people does it take to drive a car?:ugh:

Mr D's

2nd Apr 2009, 17:34

BusyB how many pilots are there in the majority of aircraft that have crashed when pilot error is the cause? :ugh:

fireflybob

2nd Apr 2009, 18:15

I also congratulate his co-workers or whoever it was that reported him to the authorities.

We all know what can happen when fellow workers turn a blind eye to such problems, it can end in catastrophe.

Well I have to disagree here! Don't know the full circumstances of this case but we don't all have to go and "tell teacher" when we are adults. If I suspected that one of my colleagues was impaired through alcohol I would (I hope) take him to one side and "suggest" that he goes sick for the duty and also then warn him/her that if he does not do so I then feel duty bound to report this to the appropriate authorities. I would hope he/she would have the intelligence to act on said advice and go sick. If I thought my colleague had a recurrent problem and he is not willing to seek professional advice then I would advise him that I would be speaking to his/her manager "off the record" about his/her conduct.

I do NOT condone professional flight crew disobeying the regulations but there is, as they say, more than one way of "skinning a cat". That said throughout my nearly 40 years in commercial aviation I have yet to witness a colleague who has turned up for work who is not fit for duty with respect to alcohol. However I have seen quite a few cases of flight crew being tired or fatigued when signing on for duty due to the permissiveness of the flight time limitation rules.

Finally Mr D's can you please quote me an instance where a "catastrophe" has occurred where it has been proven that one or more of the flight crew were over the permittted alcohol limits?

bjcc

2nd Apr 2009, 18:24

Mr D

The reading from the screening device is only relevent is that it provides evidence to arrest, which has to be lawful, in order for the blood test to be admissable. The evidence will also have also said it was required by a Police Officer in uniform, again for the same reasons, it has to be administered by a Constable in uniform, or again, the requirement will not be lawful. Again, it is admissable evidence, but only relevent in establishing the lawful requirement of blood.

Wheelbarrow

When you think about it, airline pilots have a status of professional, and being in a position of great responsibility. As such a breach of law, which is safety related is going to be taken seriously. Those are strong aggrivating factors. What is there mitigation wise? Not much really, again, your position acts against you. Same as a Police officer who abuses his position can expect prison if convicted, and certainly a higher sentence than a member pf the public.

BusyB

2nd Apr 2009, 18:45

Mr D's

Are you saying every 2 crew a/c that crashes is due to one pilot being under the influence of alcohol?:ugh:

Mr D's

2nd Apr 2009, 19:49

BusyB No that is not what I wrote at all, what I am saying is that two non-impaired pilots can, and do, make mistakes, without bringing alcohol into the equation.

bjcc The officer uses a breath test to assist him form the suspicion that the subject is over the prescribed limit, therefore providing him with his power to arrest. The defense would object to the amount being read out in court if it wasn't relevent as it shows how high the alcohol was at the time and not some time later when blood was taken, don't forget that the offence occured when he was at the controls of the aircraft not sometime later at a Police station when the blood sample was taken. I don't know if it was the case in this example but the home office can provide a back count to establish the alcohol level at the time of the offence.

fireflybob 1. In your world where 'we are all adults' why was there a need for the legislation to be introduced then?
2. I think you mistook 'can' for 'has', I wasn't suggesting that the results of any particular catastrophe were caused by excess alcohol (although a Russian one springs to mind), my point was that there are plenty of examples of poor CRM were the pilot in control makes mistakes and is not corrected by the other pilot, which can lead to them and alot of others dying.

silverhawk

2nd Apr 2009, 20:25

Surgeons, Judges, MPs and Magistrates, can these be added to the list ?

Because I know of individuals that have 'reported for work' above the drive limit, never mind the 'fly limit', in every one of these occupations. Never mind the journalists and politicians, who are the most prevalent offenders.

There are NO, ZERO incidents recorded of the Commercial flight crew causing an accident by being over the alcohol limit.

There is NO, ZERO way of recording how many people have died due to a Surgeon being piss3d in theatre. The BMA would not allow that sort of intensive observasion.

Re the Legal system and politicians, well what do you think? How many crap decisions get overturned in later years are there? What about the Judge who falls asleep in court? Does he/she get charged with contempt?

Of course not! A few days off to 'recover'

It's not just double standards, it's quadruple standards and more.

Mark R. Beacon

3rd Apr 2009, 00:53

I agree that our legal system's treatment of this chap was too harsh, especially as he didn't actually cause any harm to anyone. Compare this with the bankers who have brought our country to it's knees by their criminal negligence. What has the Government done to them? Nothing - except allow them to keep their obscene bonuses and pensions. Too easy to bash a pilot when he's down.

AlpineSkier

3rd Apr 2009, 21:07

I'm not sure if any others see it the same way but i feel that a number of people identifable as professional pilots are posting under the sub-heading..

" WTF, we're professional and know what we are doing, what the hell are the hoi-polloi doing daring to question us ? "

If you are so professional, why are you so upset when you ( generically) are punished within existing laws for a proven offence ?

The laws are there so why don't you obey them instead of bitching manically afterwards ( it seems that a PhD in this is awarded with every ATPL )

lilflyboy262

3rd Apr 2009, 23:38

I dont know if it has been said or not, I got bored of reading the same arguements over and over.
But the simple question is.

Why drink and fly in the first place? Why not just have a Coke? or Juice before you go flying? Booze isnt the be all and end all of life.

Pilots are meant to be intelligent people, so why put years of hard work at risk for a drink?

heli-cal

4th Apr 2009, 01:17

Spot On!:ok:

If you think that the moaning is excessive concerning the unfit to fly pilot in this case, look at what happens when a serviceable, virtually new aircraft is crashed by pilots whom flew it, full of passengers, into the sea!

By sheer luck, no one was killed, the aircraft was a write off, yet the main opinion of the pilots whom post is that it is not the fault of the pilots that they flew into the sea!

AAIB Bulletin (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/S3-2009%20G-REDU.pdf)

The notion of professional responsibility and accountability appears to be unknown!

rodthesod

4th Apr 2009, 10:20

lilflyboy262

Why drink and fly in the first place? Why not just have a Coke? or Juice before you go flying? Booze isnt the be all and end all of life.

Pilots are meant to be intelligent people, so why put years of hard work at risk for a drink?

Precisely. Anyone who does has a drinking problem, a serious problem if they do it repeatedly. Anyone who allows someone do do it is enabling their destructive behaviour and not doing them any favours. Well meaning people like that enabled me to practice my alcoholism as a pilot for almost 30 years until things got bad enough for me to do something about my problem. I did, and managed to enjoy 12 sober years until my retirement, in which time I regained the management position I'd had to resign through an admin error I made 'sober' between drinking bouts.
Alcohol, like many other drugs (e.g. pain-killers), affects judgement - a pilot may be able to sit down and fly very well with a fair amount on board, but a very small amount will always affect his judgement. I'd like to know how many CFIT or fuel related accidents, for example, could have been attributed to a captain's impaired judgement - I don't suppose we'll ever know, it's not easy to blood test a charred corpse.

blimey

5th Apr 2009, 22:33

"The Department has introduced a requirement for a criminal record check for holders of permanent restricted zone (RZ) passes. The purpose of these checks is to increase security at UK airports, so hindering terrorist activity and discouraging links between airport employees and crime."

Surely it's time for this rubbish to be judicially reviewed.

Unwell_Raptor

6th Apr 2009, 07:38

For the record, the six month sentence will mean in practice 90 days (after automatic 50% remission) less 18 days early release (because the prisons are full) making 72 days at most. Then there could be a Home Detention Curfew on a tag (Prisons full again) or the Governor can exercise discretion to let him out before the end of the sentence. It's such a short stretch that he may not be transferred to an open prison, where the locks are to keep intruders out rather then the prisoners in.

caulfield

6th Apr 2009, 19:01

Why did one of his colleagues(FO/CCM)not take him aside and suggest he report sick?This is how it would have been dealt with many years ago.Back when we had no Disclosure Scotland,no yellow jackets,no power-crazed security staff.Back when there were very few SOP's and CRM hadnt been invented yet and there was just good airmanship.Back when the pilot not the autopilot flew the aircraft.Back when you didnt have to undress in front of your passengers every morning when you went to work.Back when if youd forgotten your pass,the customs chap wouldnt snarl at you and make you walk halfwayacross the airport but wave you through because he knew you.Back when if youd had one too many the night before,your crew would diffuse the situation by HELPING you and give a quick call to crewing saying "get a standby out..Joe's under the weather again".Back when there was occasion to get a bit merry the night before because the crew were actually on speaking terms and friendly.
We used to have a career First Officer who regularly drank on layovers and he and the company and all the passengers lived through it because we used our heads and applied common sense instead of the strict letter of the law.He was always covered by a standby even on layovers and the Company never promoted him to Captain.But they never fired him,never.Says a lot for that Company,I can tell you.
Now,its sheer hell for anyone "normal" to just get to work.The insanity of the security checks for aircrew at all UK airports makes getting to work a sheer misery.And if you look at them the wrong way or argue,they can quite easily say they smell alcohol on your breath and have you hauled off.Why should aircrew take their shoes off?Why should they put their neatly ironed uniform jackets through the machine?Take their belts off?Relinquish their drinks(water) and other harmless liquids?If they set off the machine,give them a pat-down and send them on their way.With a smile and some respect.Aircrew arent the enemy here.Is it any wonder some of them drink in this nanny police-state?

Recently saw a twenty-something ramp Nazi complain about a Captain not wearing his mickey mouse yellow jacket.He was only yards from his aircraft.We never wore them before some fool walked into a propeller somewhere in Scotland and we all managed to survive.

Pilots today are buttoned-down shadows of their predecessors.Yes-men with no sense of camraderie and spirit(you know the same kind of spirit that won us the war)You can see them in their yellow jackets obediently taking their shoes off and handing their flasks in to some bald-headed earring-wearing chav at security gates up and down the country.NO balls.And BALPA just squirms in its pitiful seat and washes its hands like Pontious Pilate.This chap who lost his job at Thomas Cook(who'd name an airline after a travel agency and a shoddy one at that?)..now he has balls.What a shame balls arent in fashion these days.I say fire the TC Chief Pilot and send him to Coventry indefinitely.Our island nation,a once-great land,always relied upon a sense of humour,fair-play and a willingness to bend rules and act on common sense to get things done.We're not Huns,we dont a rule book to tell us how to do things.If this guy was over the limit, his CREW should have acted to protect him.This used to be the "British" way.If he keeps doing it,give him counselling.There may be reasons which a 3 month sabbatical(unpaid) can find and cure.The trick is never to let someone in that state get as far as the cockpit.How you go about achieving that,says a lot about us as a crew,an airline,a people and a nation.

Rant over.Now why did you want to become a pilot Johnny?

captplaystation

6th Apr 2009, 19:21

caulfield,
May I offer my nomination for post of the month ( if not year)
Thank you for saying what so many other less backboned individuals are nowadays too afraid/brainwashed to say.

Unwell Raptor,
Given the violence culture that exists in remand centres, do you really think it is a cause for celebration that he may spend "only" 72 days surrounded by some fairly dodgy/dangerous individuals ? :eek:
Never mind who his "cell-mate" is, I doubt he can go 72 days without visiting the ( assumedly) communal shower. :ooh:
Poor b@stard, and stuff any of you who would have it portrayed any other way. :=

heli-cal

6th Apr 2009, 19:39

Your post was too late for April 1st! http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv29/helixpteron/happy0054.gif

All is not lost, it prompted captainplaystation to share his knowledge of life behind the wall. http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv29/helixpteron/clap.gif

Perhaps you both could pool your expertise to aid those whom are unfit to fly as a result of alcohol consumption but then attempt to fly a full passenger jet, no doubt the Courts would appreciate your joint contribution! http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv29/helixpteron/happy0009.gif

Unwell_Raptor

6th Apr 2009, 19:45

Given the violence culture that exists in remand centres, do you really think it is a cause for celebration that he may spend "only" 72 days surrounded by some fairly dodgy/dangerous individuals ?

I didn't suggest that it was a 'cause for celebration'. I was merely adding a piece of information that many people would not be aware of. I don't know what a 'remand centre' is, but some prisons are certainly unpleasant places and the Sun/Mail storyline that they are holiday camps is a long way from the truth.

Mike7777777

6th Apr 2009, 19:48

A long thread, I've not read it all. I would prefer pilots to fly with zero alcohol in their bloodstream.

captplaystation

6th Apr 2009, 20:00

Unwell Raptor, sorry , yes I read something inbetween the lines in your post that indeed was not implied.

heli-cal, yes I understand you strength 5, indeed why not hang them and stop all this mincing around with " mere" custodial sentences.
Did you fail fixed wing selection and thereby end up by default with a wing thrashing around above your head to give you this chip on your shoulder, or are you just naturally gifted at being so intolerant of human failure & weakness ?

flash8

6th Apr 2009, 20:30

caulfield speaks from the heart - and a lot of commonsense - my vote goes his way - post of the year, now where do we vote?

smith

6th Apr 2009, 20:32

A lot of comments on here about the sentence being too harsh.

Not always in british law does the punishment fit the crime and judges may use a harsher sentence as a deterrant to others. If this sentence acts so as to prevent just one aircraft taking off with the pilot over the limit, the judges decision will have been villified.

390cruise

6th Apr 2009, 20:43

I think I aggree with caulfield,

In simple terms he is saying that 'the lunatics are running the asylum'

yes they are.

390
From the old school.

harpy

6th Apr 2009, 21:09

Smith
A lot of comments on here about the sentence being too harsh.

Not always in british law does the punishment fit the crime and judges may use a harsher sentence as a deterrant to others. If this sentence acts so as to prevent just one aircraft taking off with the pilot over the limit, the judges decision will have been villified.

Are you sure you mean villified [sic]?

fireflybob

6th Apr 2009, 21:58

Caulfield, your posting should be printed and displayed in every crew room round the land and we should have flyers with the same printed on them which we can dish out to "security" personnel and others.

I am of the opinion that Britain is now a "police state". As I recently walked through immigration at a municipal airport in the UK I will not mention one of the passengers in the queue happened to innocently take a flash photograph of his group. This was immediately followed by some stasi looking official marching up to said passenger and reading the riot act to him. My thoughts were "Welcome to England"! My father used to refer to the Union Jack as the "Land of the Free", I am sure he and many others who fought so valiantly in two world wars must be turning in their graves when they see was has happened to "Great" Britain.

I keep saying it but what we now need is a (peaceful, hopefully) revolution - enough is enough!

qwertyuiop

7th Apr 2009, 08:31

Going through Birmingham security last week and having removed shoes, belt jacket etc I was surprised to see two policemen walk through in their full kit. No check on them at all even after they bleeped. I did ask security why police are allowed through with no check and was told its obvious they are no threat. Will this change under Jacqui the Porn's new card?

The whole ID card scheme is an expensive new labour joke .

Desperate

7th Apr 2009, 09:29

Caulfield - undoubtedly the post of the year. Thank you.

cockney steve

7th Apr 2009, 09:47

Plenty of sanctimonious, self-righteous claptrap here.

Let's cut to the chase.

He KNEW he was putting his huge training investment at risk.
(pilots are above average intelligence, they have to absorb a vast spectrum of knowledge of various disciplinesand apply it to the working environment.-Physics,meteorology,biology, engineering and mechanics, specialised Law...)

everyone ASSUMES this was a "first offence" (who's to tell that he hasn't been pulled aside in the past and given the "look ,old chap, you're unfit, I don't want to fly with you, call in sick -or i'll have to make it official" )

Caulfield's post, meritorious though it undoubtedly is, is not relevant.

The "2 pilots are needed" argument is a bit of a red-herring....the second-pilot is , theoretically a BACKUP...(..the checklist-readbacks etc. are primarily "box-ticking, CYA exercises, -pushing paper doesn't fly the aircraft.....how many crashes have been caused or exacerbated because both pilots were busy "following procedures" shuffling papers instead of FLYING THE AIRCRAFT.

The alcohol limit is there, you join "the club" KNOWING that, Transgression shows disregard of rules, lack of respect for crew/pax for whom the drinker is responsible and reckless poor judgement to risk so much for a couple of hours of "feeling merry"

Yes, I too ,think the sentence was unfair, why he should have a much more draconian sentence imposed for a lesser offence is beyond rational comprehension (next, we'll chop off a shoplifter's hands just to "make an example " as people are obviously ignoring the lar that says thieving is illegal)

Ultimately, this man was the architect of his own downfall,-that his family have to suffer ,is a responsibility he alone has to bear.
It also demonstrates his piss-poor skills at risk-assesment.
there were no winners in this sad debacle...let's hope all you "defenders" learn something from it.

IcePack

7th Apr 2009, 22:47

Cockney Steve and all you holy'r than thow lot. Why do you hate pilots so much when no one on this thread really knows the circumstances of the poor chaps misjudgement. That is if it WAS a misjudgement.

cockney steve

8th Apr 2009, 19:00

ICE PACK i suggest you re-read my post carefully!

For WHATEVER reason, this pilot imbibed excess alcohol between duty-periods.

The putative consequences of this action are :-

Risking damage to the employer's reputation.
Risking damage to the employer's (very expensive) aircraft.
Risking the lives of fellow flight -crew
Risking the lives of a large number of fare-paying passengers.
Risking the lives of anyone this aircraft, it's parts or fuel-load struck.
Risking the employment which supports self and family and home.

Not to mention the social stigma of being caught alcohol-impairedwith the resultant potential fallout.

NO, I DON'T HATE PILOTS. BUT I have little time for selfish, thoughtless irresponsible people who jeapordise others by those actions, WHERE THOSE OTHERS ARE NOT FREE PARTICIPANTS IN THAT ACTION.

For instance, I've no problem with the Aussie aerobatic pilot who recently died.

He knew the risks, family and friends accepted it..he lucked-out.
the single, unattached person who takes up free-climbing, wing-suit alp-grazing, bungee -jumping and the like....that's a contract between them and their friends/relatives.......
but when they endanger UNWITTING bystanders, -that's another ball-game.

Does this make it clearer?....this guy relied on the goodwill of others, to carry the risk of flying with him....they weren't GIVEN the option to refuse (not by him)
wisely, someone TOOK that option.

Sure, thousands of flights have taken place with impaired aircrew (not talking about military with a +50% chance of not returning anyway,)
but today , that is not acceptable, neither is it acceptable to expect an unsuspecting colleague to shoulder the burden of "carrying " you.

NOT Holier than thou......but obviously a damned sight more CONSIDERATE and RESPONSIBLE than thou.

IcePack

8th Apr 2009, 22:48

I guess you must know all the facts then do you ? Did he drink alcohol ? Are you absolutly sure? Was their an underlying reason that he was over the limit? Give the guy a break if you don't. Sheesh! I know of at least 1 spiked drink incident in aviation for example. (in that case a side effect flaged it)(note no alcohol dunk)He was not inconsiderate.

FrequentSLF

9th Apr 2009, 01:32

I guess you must know all the facts then do you ? Did he drink alcohol ? Are you absolutly sure? Was their an underlying reason that he was over the limit?

Well he played guilty...that is a fact...so he drink alcohol

londonmet

9th Apr 2009, 09:03

The "2 pilots are needed" argument is a bit of a red-herring....the second-pilot is , theoretically a BACKUP...(..the checklist-readbacks etc. are primarily "box-ticking, CYA exercises, -pushing paper doesn't fly the aircraft.....how many crashes have been caused or exacerbated because both pilots were busy "following procedures" shuffling papers instead of FLYING THE AIRCRAFT.

Oh the ignorance.... So imagine you're driving a car and in the passenger seat is another driver. You're both chatting away about you're bridge club etc etc. All of a sudden the passenger notices a man in the middle of the road (which you're about to hit). However, he says nothing, as only one person is required to drive the car. BAM you, yes you cockney steve, kill the man.
Subsequently your passenger informs you "well I saw him, but I didn't feel it my place to tell you". I think you'd be a tad annoyed as you were shuffled off to the jail.

There are two (sometimes more) pilots on a flight deck for a number of reasons. It is a team that flies the aircraft with the captain in overall command making executive decisions based upon information gained from other team members and their personal experience and experiences. If on a modern aircraft the "2nd pilot" was a back up then we could from time to time fly it single pilot. We can't = QED.

L Met

cockney steve

9th Apr 2009, 12:10

Londonmet -
I said BACKUP...NOT passenger. As such there IS a role to play.

IF it's so vital to have a co-pilot, how come most GA is single-pilot?
(often with a totally unskilled passenger sat at the second set of controls! :eek:)

So, the reason is because a load of fare-paying passengers have elected to be carried to their destinatoin in an extremely expensive, complex public transport conveyance.

To that end, it's incumbent on the operator and the regulatory authorities to take every precaution to accomplish this. the weakest link is (arguably) the human controller of the machine....a "backup system" is therefore a basic requirement.

I would refer you to the recent case where a passenger flight made an unscheduled landing in Eireland and one of the flight-deck officers was escorted off and later hospitalised with mental-health problems.

The other flight-deck officer appears to have satisfactorily managed the workload of relieving his colleague of responsibility, planning and executing a diversion and satisfactorily landing the aircraft.

I am NOT saying a F/A wasn't used to help with checklists, etc. but this is all a side-issue.-IMO the subject of the thread , acted in a reckless manner and ruined his own carreer.

Mr Angry from Purley

9th Apr 2009, 15:28

The mans from Purley, i'm going to get so angry now :\

heli-cal

11th Apr 2009, 22:33

There are quite a few posters in this thread that simply ignore all the known facts and moan tediously about how the poor intoxicated pilot has been treated harshly.

If other posters express opinions contrary to the 'poor pilot' variety, they are subjected to ridicule and criticism.

Pathetic as it may seem, lacking the ability to articulate a credible argument, they resort to insults.

Professional pilots, I think not! :yuk:

ExSp33db1rd

11th Apr 2009, 23:03

IF it's so vital to have a co-pilot, how come most GA is single-pilot?
(often with a totally unskilled passenger sat at the second set of controls!

Such an ignorant comparison.

Most G.A. aircraft are designed for one pilot and can be flown by one pilot.

Boeings - or similar - aren't.

Q.E.D.

cockney steve

11th Apr 2009, 23:44

Most G.A. aircraft are designed for one pilot and can be flown by one pilot.

I think you'll find that in the UK at least, the majority of light aircraft,by number, if not maker, are dual-control....even the Aeronca Chief and Champ and the little Rans.not to mention the huge fleet of Piper and Cessnas.

However, you quietly ignore a previous quote...If one of the pilots is incapacitated, the remaining one always appears to make a single-handed landing and the aircraft is reusable.

you confuse prudence and desirability with necessity. if it's easier to understand, I'd suggest that the same thinking extends to long transoceanic flights....minimum 2 engines , just in case one jacks in (the other one MUST be able to carry the can, single-handed :p

I certainly would not like to fly in an airliner with only one pilot.

Can you, hand on heart, tell me you've NEVER heard of, or seen, a member of a flight-deck who was below par and "carried" by his /her flightdeck colleagues.

I attended several riotous parties thrown by pilots, at Southend in the early 60's....the culture was different in those days , people would leave the party to go on duty :\

The Beer Hunter

12th Apr 2009, 09:04

I think you'll find that in the UK at least, the majority of light aircraft,by number, if not maker, are dual-control....even the Aeronca Chief and Champ and the little Rans.not to mention the huge fleet of Piper and Cessnas.

Irrelevant.

Bugsmashers have dual controls because they may be flown from either seat and it's sort of difficult to teach someone to fly otherwise. Larger aircraft have dual control controls because they need two pilots.

Nice try though.

londonmet

12th Apr 2009, 09:24

Yes, well done Steve. I give you 10 out of 10 for effort, however, sadly only 1 out of 10 for attainment.

Happy Easter though, every cloud....

L Met

Nicholas49

13th Apr 2009, 22:46

Steve:

"If one of the pilots is incapacitated, the remaining one always appears to make a single-handed landing and the aircraft is reusable."

Oh gosh, well following that illuminating analysis, let's have all commercial aircraft flown by just the one pilot from now on, shall we? Let's see just how safe that is. After all, it's made no difference when there's been incapacitation in the past, has it?!

You're completely and utterly barking mad, mate.

suchiman

14th Apr 2009, 01:32

Looks like pilots have to pay tons of money to get a license, then have insecure jobs, prove they are capable of doing their jobs every 6 months, die younger than "normal" people, spend nights away from home, have ( sometimes) shakier marriages than other professions due to the nature of the job, and if you screw up and show up to work with the equivalent of 1 pint 0f beer in blood, go to jail for 6 months and lose your livelyhood for 10 years or forever.

So why the hell are our salaries and T&C's going down every year?

By the way, wasn't having a glass of wine with lunch permited in some airlines until not too long ago. Crazy world.

Not condoning drinking and flying, but without knowing all the facts, it seems very harsh to me.

rubik101

14th Apr 2009, 06:02

According to the papers, the guy plead 'guilty'. If he hadn't had a drink or thought he was well below the limit, then he would surely have plead 'not guilty'? The blood test would have showed any other non-normal substances so what are you all getting upset about?

Guilty as charged.
Lose job, go to jail.
He was drunk and he turned up to fly an aeroplane.
End of story.

Defend that? Waste of time.
I reckon steve has it about right.

hunterboy

14th Apr 2009, 09:16

If anyone thinks that every one pleading guilty in court is guilty as charged, then they are being naive. One only has to witness proceedings in the US where plea bargains are common to understand why.

rubik101

14th Apr 2009, 09:24

Hunterboy, with what greater felony, as you are using the US as an example, do you imagine he was charged?
To bargain, you need to be convinced that at trial, you will be found guilty of the greater offence. The bargain is in the fact that you plead a lesser offence to save the cost of a trial and also, crucially, to get a reduced sentence.
So if he pled (or is it pleaded?) not guilty, went for the full trial, got found guilty, just what sentence do you imagine he would have got?
This is the UK, not the wild west.

wheelbarrow

14th Apr 2009, 10:17

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

suchiman

14th Apr 2009, 11:10

Wheelbarrow,

Exactly what I was trying to say.

I can't belief that as professionals we are so " potentialy unfair" and harsh with one of our own colleages.

Yes, he plead guilty. That is good, the man was willing to take responsibility for his actions/miscalculations. That doesn't justify him being crucified!

With comments like " well he pleaded guilty so what do you expect", no wonder nowadays you see more and more criminals of various degrees that when caught and brought to trial they just systematically deny everything!

We pilots are getting progresively more and more screwed.

ChecklistPlease

14th Apr 2009, 22:30

PILOT= Lots of responsibility
So,
ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY

Dries v.d. Tillaard

15th Apr 2009, 09:03

CEO's completely ruin a company and then spend either the employee's pensions or taxpayer's (again : the employee's ) money on their own bonuses..
Where's your indignation now?

Studies have shown that flying a four sector 13hr duty (with which the public seems to have no problem at all- as long as " it'll get'em tae Majorca cheap eh?") is about as unsafe as this amount of alcohol in your blood.
WHICH DOESN'T MAKE IT OK , just something to put this into perspective.
Right up there with making you leave your 0,5ltr Evian and your nasal spray at security and then merrily allowing you to go fly a 50 ton airplane...

The general public just loves stories like this , which is also why this poor guy got so thoroughly shafted.

nuclear weapon

15th Apr 2009, 16:28

Given the fact that a lot of pilots know whats at stake why do they insist on drinikimg before a flight. As a teetotalller i might ask the silly question is the compulsion to drink so great that some pilots are willing to risk thier licence and thier investment in an expensive career for a couple of pints.

ScottyDawg

15th Apr 2009, 22:46

Hi Y'all... Been watching this thread from afar, and getting really peeved off with the legal zealots that keep yapping on about... well not a lot really.

The interesting thing to note is quite simply.. just the difference with what was defined and justifiable as "unlawfull" or "criminal".. only 5 years ago. (and I refer only to UK legislation here"...
versus what is deemed as "unlawfull" and "criminal" in the all embracing sunrise of Nu Labour's 2009 scenario.

take a look at this http://acpo.police.co.uk

In so doing review the link relating to the procurement of a "Police Certificate" - and then have a really good look at what stays on the PCN (Police National Computer)... for up to 35 years... or in some cases ..forever..!!

This guy is shafted ...forever.. and yet some yobbo who robs a bank utilising a firearm... and get's less than 6 months in the nick... has his offence "stepped down".. after 20 years or so.. (that means it will never be disclosed to a 3rd party... including the Yanks, when the individual applies for a holiday visa for instance)

Also look at all the offences that stay with you for 20 years or so... Buckets of "racially... or religiously offending something.. or someone stuff).. which seem to carry the same response as "terrorism offenses". - they never appeared 3 years ago in UK legislation... let alone 5..!!

I'm just giving a bit of info' that might put things into perspective a tad a - 2 or 3 years ago... this guy would have been given a "good kick up the @rse by his gaffer... now... yet today under Nu Labour...he is shafted forever...!! and put in the same bracket as a (ned utilising a firearm to rob a bank... who got 6 months in the nick)... where's the common sense there then..!!

And before you all start ranting... it's wrong... We appear to live in a society that now actively supports "dobbing in"... rather than one that supports honesty and responsibiity... and reasonable behaviour from our peers.!!

If the ned at security.. or his F/O... or his SCCM.. suspected him of being intoxicated... then why not say so... and give the guy the opportunity to defer from duty,,, NO... Let's dob him in...and Eff him over... that's the mentality in the UK.. today... !!!.. and the reality of the reason why this poor guy's in the ... merde..!!!

old-timer

15th Apr 2009, 22:55

I totally agree scotty dawg, common sense has gone out of the window & far far away across the yonder horizon sadly....:(

ZERO TOLERANCE IS ONLY FINE FOR PERFECT SYSTEMS & PERFECT WORLDS WHICH SADLY WE DO NOT HAVE ! :ugh:

in our imperfect world & with our imperfect systems a sensible appproach would be to have a word with said person privately, suggest perhaps that today is not a good day for them to fly & step down sick / whatever, if they refuse / fight / whatever, then pull in the heavies etc but until then keep it private & still professional.

Tin hats on everyone for the incoming responses from the ever so righteous ones...:bored:

ScottyDawg

15th Apr 2009, 23:11

Thank you "Old Timer" for your burst of common sense and fairness there...

Will fly with you anytime...and you just keep me on the right track..(true or magnetic)

Cheers

Desperate

15th Apr 2009, 23:32

Scotty

Contender for second best post of the year, after Caulfield's at #108.

FrequentSLF

16th Apr 2009, 01:28

in our imperfect world & with our imperfect systems a sensible appproach would be to have a word with said person privately, suggest perhaps that today is not a good day for them to fly & step down sick / whatever, if they refuse / fight / whatever, then pull in the heavies etc but until then keep it private & still professional.

The rules applied in England are the same for pilots, train conductors, etc...

I am astonish to see such posts. Where we draw the line? What about making a gross mistake on the flight deck and do not report it, just keeping it private?
I do expect a professional to be such from the time he reports to duty till he goes back to his private life. If not happy with that better to chose a different profession.

captplaystation

16th Apr 2009, 11:06

Unfortunately, the society we live in now encourages individuals to hide things, by virtue of the fact that revealing them will usually result in a right royal shafting, rather than a fair and compassionate hearing.
The jobsworth & holier than thou mentality displayed by some on here is merely a small indication of what one can expect nowadays in life if you "fess up". People want to remain in employment so masses of scary scary stuff is swept under the carpet.
As long as honesty is "rewarded" by being punished out of proportion to the crime commited (i.e. final result, the guy may well have lost his right to an airside passs & therefore his livelihood FOR LIFE :eek: - I suppose the "holier than thous " think that is not out of proportion with what he did ?) it will remain like this.
And ,that is a MUCH bigger safety issue than someone coming to work with less impairement to his judgement than he would be suffering as he makes his last approach at the end of a long duty day at awful o'clock. But that is OK of course because he was operating within the rules/limits. the. Some compensation that is when you and the aircraft are dismembered on the final approach ground track or parked on some hillside.

IcePack

16th Apr 2009, 19:18

Yes CaptPlayStation. Funny how recently a coleague shared a Managers Car positioning up to Manchester. The question was asked "would you drive this car after you have been up for 22 hours. Answer "of course not that would be dangerous." Reply so why do you expect us too ? Answer "well it must be Ok for you if the CAA says it is". Oh well that's alright then !
(before anyone starts working on ftl's this was a normal wake up time due body clock, but a late STBY and a call out)(anyway I know a rather well known airline that knows some of its Pilots position in from "far Afield" and then operate quite long sectors. Oh that's all right as well then.

Oh and well said Old Timer.:)

ScottyDawg

17th Apr 2009, 01:45

Firstly - Desperate - thankyou for your kind words... and I defer to your most appropriate judgement... many thanks.!!!

I'm going to continue the thrust of the current UK... "Dobbing In" culture that appears to have invaded UK society as a consequence of "His Tonyness"... and now "His Gordeness" ... NU Labour culture that has so sneakely worked it's way into our society.

I can remember having a few jars with an old skipper and flight eng. a good few years back.. the following morning... said old skipper mentioned he was feeling a tad "delicate"... and would I mind awfully flying the A/c back to Blighty..
Of course not.. (desperate for P1/s hours etc..)... Cracking good Flight Eng.. The Capt..had a wee sleep... woke up around 20W.. and was spot on as we proceeded to approach LGW.. and give me all the benefit of his experience etc...

Now what the hell was wrong with that... we worked as a team.. covered the weakest link... did the job without any safety predudice..... And the "old skipper" ... wasn't dobbed in... for feeling a "tad delicate"...

There's the thrust... a team working together... covering the cracks etc... Seems that certain posters want all the "cracks" uncovered... WELL try doing that to the Legal.. or Medical professions... you will find a damn sight more individuals there with alcohol problems... than you will find in aviation,

So please feel free to preach your sermons outside Harley Street... and every High Court in the land.... AND... Do they get their breath's smelled before going to work... NO... I'm bloody well sure they don't..!!!

finncapt

17th Apr 2009, 05:36

Couldn't agree more Scott - It may even have been me who was feeling a "little delicate".

fireflybob

17th Apr 2009, 07:19

I agree that everywhere I see public officials tasked with entrapping people rather than encouraging them (rather than forcing them through draconian laws) to obey the rules. If you want an example look at traffic wardens.

kick the tires

17th Apr 2009, 07:31

Scott,

it was fine because nothing happened.

But would it of been fine with a critical engine failure at V1 or decompression etc etc?

Our job is very straightforward when things run on the rails, however when having to think out of the box, some people struggle to achieve the best outcome.

FrequentSLF

17th Apr 2009, 07:39

Scott,

Now what the hell was wrong with that... we worked as a team.. covered the weakest link... did the job without any safety predudice..... And the "old skipper" ... wasn't dobbed in... for feeling a "tad delicate"...

What would happened if you had become incapacitated?

ScottyDawg

17th Apr 2009, 22:38

Hi again guys and gals.

To the last two posters.. Even though aforementioned "old skipper" might have been feeling a tad delicate... Should a V1 cut or an EFATO have reared it's head..as Pilot Flying I would have done the needfull... as I had been outstandingly trained by said "old skipper"

As far as incapacitation goes... then as a young, virile.. (BP 120/60) kinda chap.. not much risk of that occuring... and you see there's the rub..!

Aviation is all about risk management... if you don't want to expose yourself to risk.. then stay on the ground and don't get airborn.

To villify and treat an individual in a similar vein to a drug induced, firearm wielding ned.. threatening bank staff going about their business.. is frankly wrong... end of story.

As previously stated... 3-4years ago, this guy would not have even appeared in a UK court...since then the numbers game has been played with by the politicians.. in trying to set intoxication 'limits' that are legally enforceable.

The insidious nature of this unfortunate event.. is.. and always will be the "dobbing in" culture.. that now prevades all aspects of UK life.

If you have never done 71mph on the motorway.. or committed any other such breach of the infinite laws we now live under... then feel free to preach away about how terribly disgusting the rest of your peers are.

This guy was dobbed in... and he was made an example of... unfairly.. I do hope the "dobbers in"... are perfect citizens and feel proud of their actions... but somehow.. I don't think so

charlies angel

17th Apr 2009, 23:57

to kick the tyres and frequent SLF.

Take your "logic" one step further.

What if both pilots are incapacitated? Have a third on board?
Maybe a Doctor ( or two, in case the first Doctor falls ill!!!)
Problem with the engines.
Lets take an engineer just in case.( dont let him take his tools on board though just in case his wife is being held hostage and he's been tasked by terrorists to kill the spare doctor with his Phillips no 7 screwdriver )
Several pax are kicking off, I know lets take along several tooled up policeman to keep the peace.
You see your arguments have no end in the REAL world.
In New Labour World total over regulation is the answer to everything.
There are no grey areas, just black and white.....right and wrong...legal and illegal. Theres the rub.
I'm afraid most people I know are a mixture of weak and strong , grumpy and happy, attractive and ugly.
I've flown with people who are tired and their performance can only be described as somewhat lacking! Worse than someone with very low levels of alcohol in them? I don't know. There was no machine handy to test their mental accuity at the time, but the CAA say it's ok so thats all right then:)
We're not androids we're human beings who happen to fly aircraft.
Lighten up a bit :ok:
You do know that we also set fire to fuel with no fire brigade on standby whilst airborne don't you? Goodness me, what if security or Elf n Safety found out about that then we'd be in serious trouble.Don't dob me in will ya?:O

FrequentSLF

18th Apr 2009, 04:29

Scott,
Aviation is all about risk management... if you don't want to expose yourself to risk.. then stay on the ground and don't get airborn.

I am expecting that the guys in front are professionals...risk management? Since when a pilot "legally over the limit" is part of risk management? The reason why he went to jail is because he was drunk on duty, and risk management does not contemplate that.

Charlie,

What if both pilots are incapacitated? Have a third on board?

You have willing eliminated a protection layer! So please spare us about the limits of redundancies. Is NOT such case when you deliberately change the redundancies of the systems.

The guy was "legally over the limit" on duty, he played guilty as charged. End of the story.
Is none of your business if I done 71 mph or 72 mph on the motorway! While if you are legally over the limit on duty and I am paxing on such aircraft you are putting me at risk.
in trying to set intoxication 'limits' that are legally enforceable.

The reasons why are not set to zero is because the limits shall be enforceable.

Sir Richard

18th Apr 2009, 04:49

charlies angel

In New Labour World total over regulation is the answer to everything.
There are no grey areas, just black and white

I'm not sure you are allowed to say that these days ?:E

charlies angel

18th Apr 2009, 10:34

Frequent SLF

Next time you are on an aircraft ask the flight crew if this is their 60th hour in a week or their 190th in 4 weeks.

Perhaps its their 5th 0330l wake up for a 6 sector day in a row.All perfectly legal in CAA regulated world, ergo must be safe .cos "dem is the roolz".

The sooner a "tired o meter" is invented the better, then we can sack all of the pilots turning up for work slightly fatigued because the Ops Manual( The Law) says you're not to be at work when fatigued.

Dont get me wrong,entirely agree one should NEVER report under the influence of alcohol,however dont let the bigger issues get overlooked by your holier than thou attitude to professional flightcrew.

Sir Richard
:ok:

napolean

18th Apr 2009, 11:43

Self Righteous Freight,

Legally over the flying limit, or "drunk on duty"?, quite a difference.

By the same token 71 mph is my business. If your breaking the speed limit on a public road, I am a potential victim.

Get real.

ScottyDawg

18th Apr 2009, 12:17

Self Righteous Freight.

Napoleon is quite correct.

Legally over the flying limit is quite a difference from being labelled a "drunk"
These so-called 'limits' have been set by a bunch of pen-pushing politicians and civil servant types who have managed to align themselves as 'experts' in defining such limits.

Other professions such as the legal, nursing, dentistry and medical fraternities have systems in place where if - a member of said profession commits an offense (civil or criminal), then an duly elected board of their peers decide the relevant penalties with regard to their careers - i.e. lawyer or doctor etc.. 'struck off' and prevented from practising their profession.

This guy has been subject to appalling treatment at the hands of the judiciary. - and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Not so long ago there was a bloke who drove a Land Rover fatigued.. crashed into a railway line, train subsequently ploughed into Land Rover and people lost their lives as result of this tragic incident.

Bloke driving Land Rover is still in the pokey. The relevance here is that precedence in law has now been set for causing death or injury through fatigue...

So why isn't that so bloddy well regulated in public transport law?... answer.. because of commercial impact..i.e. money...

Where are all the reports of security staff at airports reporting aircrew for "visible signs of fatigue" etc...

Recent report on one of the motoring publications stated that a copper nicked a car driver for laughing... yes... laughing at a joke heard over the radio - 'undue care and attention' was the charge.

New Labour... or should I say the lunatics.. are now in charge of the asylum..

FrequentSLF

18th Apr 2009, 12:30

Scott,

You are correct, I apologize, I meant legally over the limit...i have edited my post.
Thanks for pointing out

FrequentSLF

18th Apr 2009, 12:34

Charlie,

Next time you are on an aircraft ask the flight crew if this is their 60th hour in a week or their 190th in 4 weeks.

I do agree with you and I hope that such issue will be addressed.

Flying Lawyer

18th Apr 2009, 21:59

Threads such as this always seem to bring posters with very extreme views out of the woodwork.

At one extreme we have (for example) heli-cal who not only has no sympathy himself for the pilot but boldly declares that there is no reason for anyone else to hold a different view and those who do are ‘moaning tediously’.
He applauds not only that the pilot is now in prison but also the fact (if true) that he will never be given another chance - helpfully adding a :D to his post in case readers had difficulty believing he actually meant what he appeared to be saying.

I wonder if heli-cal has read the posts by LProuse on this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/256861-pilot-jailed-alcoholism-pilots-2.html#post3028066
Lyle is a retired Northwest Airlines Captain ….. and a former federal prison inmate. His posts, which start at #52, had a big impact upon many Ppruners at the time - especially upon those who have the capacity to see things in more than simplistic ‘black and white’ terms.

At the other extreme, we have one professional pilot who, as well as making some good points, appears (unless I’ve misunderstood) to think it’s acceptable to embark on a flight with one of the pilots clearly suffering from the effects of alcohol on the basis that he’ll sleep it off during the flight.

FrequestSLF is astonished by the idea that a colleague who appears to be over the alcohol limit should be advised not to fly, and reported only if he refuses to accept the advice.
Given that FSLF thinks someone fractionally over the virtually zero aviation limit is "drunk", perhaps his astonishment his not surprising. He’s now altered what he said, after the error of that absurd proposition was pointed out by others, but the original comment is very telling.
Is he suggesting that every suspicion should be reported and that anything less is unacceptable?

Heli-cal says:
"Publicly complaining about how the guy should have been treated so much more leniently is unprofessional"
What utter nonsense.
Judges are not protected from criticism either by law or by convention - nor should they be - and professional pilots are very well placed to express informed opinions about matters such as this. The notion that they are being ‘unprofessional’ if they express disagreement with a sentence is ludicrous.
IMHO the various differing opinions expressed by those in the same profession as the man sentenced are far more interesting than the emotive, and often manifestly uninformed, twaddle emanating from some posters on this thread.
I express no opinion whatsoever about the sentence, but surely most sensible people would accept there are respectable arguments both ways regarding whether a prison sentence is too harsh or indeed serves any useful purpose in cases such as this.
See, for exampe, the sentence imposed in this case:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/367204-ua-pilot-falls-foul-idiotically-low-uk-alcohol-law.html

FL

(Edit)

ScottyDawg Other professions ..... have systems in place where if - a member of said profession commits an offense (civil or criminal), then an duly elected board of their peers decide the relevant penalties with regard to their careers - i.e. lawyer or doctor etc.. 'struck off' and prevented from practising their profession.
This guy has been subject to appalling treatment at the hands of the judiciary. - and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Professional misconduct is dealt with by the professional bodies concerned; criminal offences are dealt with by the courts. I see the force of the point you make, but pilots do not have a professional body governing their profession. Perhaps they should?

NB: The judge did not make any order regarding whether the pilot will be allowed to fly again.
IF it's correct (as some press reports claim) that a CAA spokesman said the pilot will be refused security clearance for ten years because of this conviction, then I wouldn't be surprised to see such refusal challenged in the courts.

.

mercurydancer

18th Apr 2009, 22:19

A previous poster quoted

"Post #34 on this thread (page2) quotes:

'A breath test showed 45 micrograms of alcohol in 100ml of breath, five times the 9mcg limit for pilots. A blood test at 11.45am revealed 42 milligrams in 100ml of blood, twice the 20mg limit.'

The legal limit for drivers in the UK is 35 Microgrammes of alcohol in 100ml of breath, therefore the pilot was actually in excess of the drink drive limit and 5 x the Pilots limit when he was first breathalysed.
(35mcg/100ml breath = 80mg/100ml blood).

If it could have been proven that he had driven to the airport to commence his duty then he could have been banned from driving aswell!!

It is not clear form the infomation on this thread how long elapsed between the initial breath test and the blood test being taken. However it must have been long enough for his alcohol level to drop from five times the pilots limit to just over twice."

I defy anyone on this thread to say that alcohol in the system does not impair function. That is what is important. Studies prove beyond doubt that alcohol impairs judgement and even at levels which the pilot admitted he had in his system, its severely disabling. Its not a matter of what flight crew can get away with, it is that their function is impaired by alcohol. Its seperate from fatigue, which is a different issue totally.

emp18

18th Apr 2009, 23:40

I'm not sure that we should be criticising the courts for the wicked penalties imposed upon this chap.

There may have been a new policy handed down (by stealth) from the Justice Secretary who, in the interest of fairness, may be insisting that any professional person who makes an error of judgement (e.g. a Judge whose decision in a case has been overturned by a higher court) will now have to subject himself to 6 months in prison and face a 10-year ban on working in the legal profession. We are fortunate here in the UK that the law-makers themselves, (Members of Parliament) never make errors of judgement otherwise they, too, may have to face 6 months inside and 10 years off the gravy train.

It would, of course, be "wrong to comment on individual cases" so it would probably be unfair to point out that no pilot has ever been proved to have caused an accident by having this blood-alcohol level, whilst a number of major crimes have followed erroneous decsions by Judges to release criminals back into society to reoffend.

Am I right to be so proud of our Justice system?

Flying Lawyer

19th Apr 2009, 00:22

mercurydancer

Any sensible discussion about the case can only be based upon the proved facts, not upon what might or might not have been proved but wasn't. The result of the breath-test was relevant only to explain why the pilot was arrested. It is both dangerous and unfair to infer anything more than that from it.
If it could have been proven that he had driven to the airport to commence his duty then he could have been banned from driving as well!! Gosh!!
And, if it could have been proved he exceeded the speed limit during the journey, he could have been prosecuted for that as well!! And, I wonder if the car was taxed and insured!!
Of course, we don't know if he even travelled by car nor, if he did, whether he was the driver, but that clearly doesn't deter you. :rolleyes:

I defy anyone on this thread to say that alcohol in the system does not impair function. That is what is important. Studies prove beyond doubt that alcohol impairs judgement and even at levels which the pilot admitted he had in his system, its severely disabling. Any amount of alcohol, regardless of level?
Can you point to the studies which you claim "prove beyond doubt" that even the alcohol level admitted in this case is "severely disabling"? :confused:

Its not a matter of what flight crew can get away with, it is that their function is impaired by alcohol.
As I understand it from the various press reports, the pilot was prosecuted because the proportion of alcohol in his blood exceeded the prescribed limit. If there had been evidence that his ability to perform his aviation function was impaired then he would have prosecuted for a different offence: Being Unfit for Duty. ie Performing an aviation function ..... at a time when your ability to perform that function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
If your propositions were correct, there would be no necessity for two separate - and different - offences.

Re 2x, 3x etc the legal limit -
Although it's entirely understandable that the media describe offences in this way for dramatic effect in news stories, it is of little or no value in discussions in a forum such as this where people know (or should know) the legal limit for pilots is virtually zero and, accordingly, that the difference between being entirely legal and being 2x, 3x over the limit is actually very small.

emp18 ..... no pilot has ever been proved to have caused an accident by having this blood-alcohol level ..... You could go further than that, and people have in the past.
However, discussion in previous 'pilot/alcohol' threads shows that some posters don't need facts to interfere with their entrenched views.

________________

It's a pity the title of this thread is so misleading.
The originating post gives the impression that the pilot had his "licence pulled for 10 years" by the Court. That is not correct.
The Judge did not make any order in relation to the pilot's license.

FL

FrequentSLF

19th Apr 2009, 04:55

There may have been a new policy handed down (by stealth) from the Justice Secretary who, in the interest of fairness, may be insisting that any professional person who makes an error of judgement (e.g. a Judge whose decision in a case has been overturned by a higher court) will now have to subject himself to 6 months in prison and face a 10-year ban on working in the legal profession. We are fortunate here in the UK that the law-makers themselves, (Members of Parliament) never make errors of judgement otherwise they, too, may have to face 6 months inside and 10 years off the gravy train.

Error of judgement? He did not make any error of judgement....he was over the legal limit by is own choice, that's is called negligence
When an error of judgement because negligence has to be prosecuted.

moonburn

19th Apr 2009, 08:55

Why oh why please , can't we have a real PPRN which would require a CAA ref No or some kind of professional verification simply to access. let alone post ? I am completely fed up with having to read ill informed self righteous clap trap from idiots, wannabees and journos who have no idea about aviation or anything connected to it. I really think that debating with idiots has actually damaged the reputation and standing of this industry . Why do we have to suffer reams of school in-house mag or local village paper type
ignorance and stupidity in order to find something of interest ?

ps don't waste your ignorance on me, I shall only be reading replies from AVIATION PROFESSIONALS.

Flying Lawyer

19th Apr 2009, 09:32

John R No FrequentSLF, it certainly is not called "negligence". I would explain to you what "negligence" means in law but I can't really be bothered. Perhaps Flying Lawyer has more time for you.

Negligence is not an element of the offence but that's no reason why the word should not be used in discussion.
Although I disagree with much of what FSLF writes, I don't disagree with his use of the word. The distinction he attempts to draw between negligence and an error of judgment puzzles me but, as I'm not interested in his opinions, I won't ask him to explain it

If, as you say, you do know the legal meaning of negligence then I don't understand your point but, having read the very black and white views you expressed on the alcohol/pilots issue in another thread, I'm not sufficiently interested to ask you to explain it.

Moonburn
Your point has been raised many times over the years - entirely understandably IMHO. One of the reasons is that it isn't practical.

Whilst I sympathize with the central thrust of your post, IMHO you go too far. There are some people who do have relevant expertise to bring to the discussion even if their expertise is not as professional pilots.

max_cont

19th Apr 2009, 09:50

Flying Lawyer…agreed. The quality of a person’s opinion is not based solely on their chosen profession. I have learned a lot from reading uninformed opinion…even if it’s merely that to my mind the need for a licence to breed is getting more urgent with each generation.

I agree that wading through page after page of drivel can be disheartening…especially when the authors seem to be Sun readers. (If it’s possible to actually read the Sun)

We as a profession do not operate in isolation.

We need to educate, not exclude.

simonchowder

19th Apr 2009, 10:21

If its indeed the case as stated that even 20 mg of alcohol in the blood is "severely disabling" then im very suprised the CAA allow for eg licensed aircraft engineers to have a limit of 80mg one would assume that given the fact your severly disabled with a level of 20mg you would be virtualy comotose wth 80mg and in no fit state to be near a aicraft let alone carrying out vital safety related tasks,something doesnt quite add up here

moonburn

19th Apr 2009, 12:12

FL
A valid point, I shall consider myself reprimanded. Expertise of course is always of value to any debate, my objection was and is to ill informed drivel, but how to get the one without the other ? And if the sad results of twentieth century social experiments wish to contribute to a subject about which they know little or nothing, they would do well to recognise our expertise and phrase their comments with due respect and humility, as you and I would hope to do in addressing experts in other fields.

ScottyDawg

19th Apr 2009, 18:39

FL
Firstly .. thank you so much for contributing your very unbiased and factual contribution to this discussion... I do note that you expound the legal arguments of this unfortunate manner... infinitely better than myself and most of the protagonists on this thread... so thank you Tudor for all of that..!!

However.. comma.. I will take some time to tax your thoughts further:

Unfair Treatment
Whether or not my disdain for the judiciary in previous postings is warranted or not... nonetheless... a 6 month custodial sentence in which no demonstrated risk was prevalent to the travelling public is a travesty of justice...!!. As previously mentioned.. this individuals record on the PNC (Police National Computer)... will exist for 30 years before it is "stepped down". That means this individual will not be freely available to travel through most of the Western Hemisphere.... regardless of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act... (which only applies to the UK)

Additionally the amelioration of this act (and it's punitive results mentioned above)... is in parallel.. and association with ... drug infused GBH.. or internt to rob with a firearm...of which a similar record of retention is imposed upon regualations within the PCN...this must be deemed totally unfair and unrepresentative of the risk to the public.

I do have a disdain for the legal profession in the UK... which can be best represented by the following link..

http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7992244.stm

You will find that the above link describes the behaviour of a Procurator Fiscal (Scottish Crown Prosecutor)... Who was found pissed as a fart in her car on the public highway... yet was let off by the judiciary...'cause the keys of the car were on the floor of the passenger seat... Sorry for the language... BUT.. what a load of bollocks... Would that mean to say... that if our mistreated aviating friend.. had left his license in the crew room... then he would not have been able to conduct his Flight Crew duties....No chance.. One rule for the lawyers and the "Sirs" of this world... and a different one for the rest of us..

Experts
Now.. the experts by which we conduct our professional activities...and are mentioned in Court as 'Experts'... Who is that then... David Learmount.. John Farley... All no doubt the epitomy of aviation excellence... but.. are they doing the job day in... day out.Aviation transport Job.. no...So where is the relevance there in their contribution to modern Airline Transport Operations..... answer,,, none..!!

Further the the "Experts" scenario.... Some of you will recollect a legal case in Cheshire not so long ago... Where a female lawyer was convicted of the murder of three of her children... when in fact subsequently on appeal "cot death syndrom"... was the attested reason for the fatalities.
This poor woman (God Bless Her)... was sent down for LIFE for the attested murder of her children on the basis of a so-called expert who had subsequently been found guilty of doctoring his research data ..etc.. OK you might say... said woman won her appeal... But she committed suicide within 6 months... because of the psychological damage done to her...
So tell me FL the corrupt evidence that compelled her to take her life... the judiciary that sat embolden above the issue... and the lying, manipulative swine "Expert" that condemmed that poor woman... What are their just desserts for their actions... before God... and their peers....???
Answer... none

Reality
Somebody posted a comment regarding negligent complicity... in flight crew members consuming alcohol...

I'll tell you this... I am paranoid about alcohol ingestion into my system.. because of all the unregulated bollocks we work under today..
We talk ardently on the flight deck every day. about which mouth wash.. or breath freshener to use... we discuss whether it's safe to take "Night Nurse".. for a cold or cough.. and how many hours before duty report..etc...

I will not consume freshly squeezed fruit juice now.. prior to a flight..in case initial fermentation had onset itself....
The bloddy thing is out of control... ridiculous... incompetently regulated... and as previously said... the lunatics are now running the asylum

Finally
I will not embarass or disgrace the manner by which my late Father brought me to be a God-respecting... honest individual who tries to follow the laws of my peers....
By keeping quiet.. or saying sod-all - when I see such grossly, unfair treatment of a fellow professional aviator.... I simply fail to justify myself before God and my forefathers regarding what I percieve to be a politically, disgraceful and unfair treatment at the hands of an unjust, .. corrupt.. and mealy-mouth administration.-then I feel I have to stand up for those that are treated unjustly.... and I ask... where are the rest of you..???

For what it's worth... that's my opinion... and I hold it to my dying breath!!

I do have a lot more to say... on a pragmatic basis... but am saving it up for the usual flak..

Tudor... your turn..!!!

FrequentSLF

19th Apr 2009, 19:30

FLGiven that FSLF thinks someone fractionally over the virtually zero aviation limit is "drunk", perhaps his astonishment his not surprising. He’s now altered what he said, after the error of that absurd proposition was pointed out by others, but the original comment is very telling.
Is he suggesting that every suspicion should be reported and that anything less is unacceptable?

FL,

Taken from the dictionary and please note that English is not my mother tongue.

quote
The modifier drunk in legal language describes a person whose blood contains more than the legally allowed percentage of alcohol: Drunk drivers go to jail.
unquote

I have edited my post because some posters pointed out that the use of the word "drunk" was not correct.

I am not suggesting that every suspicion shall be reported, what I am stating is that covering up is wrong.

ScottyDawg

19th Apr 2009, 19:37

Just a quick note from a former protagonist...

Your honesty and decency.. in retracting your (perhaps)... unfortunate comments... does yourself proud (at least in my eyes).... and for what it's worth...

Cheers.. and Happy Easter

:O
Scotty dawg

FrequentSLF

19th Apr 2009, 20:05

I do think, even if we have different opinions, that the discussion should be always civilized. As soon as you pointed out I realized that the word could be too extreme, although "legally correct". The thread is very interesting and I do not want that people wastes posts in arguing about the meaning of a word.

As FL pointed out various times the 10 years ban was not handed over by the judge. I think that is the issue, the 10 year ban, not the sentence for being over the legal limit. If what you have written is correct (not knowing more I assume it is) the system is wrong. Once he serves his period he should be cleared and allowed to resume is profession.

Cheers
FSLF

FrequentSLF

19th Apr 2009, 20:23

bjcc

From your post is clear that you have not read the complete thread and is not point to argue with you about the use and the meaning of the word "drunk", and as I said is not adding anything to this thread. I have already retracted my previous statements that used such word.

chippy63

21st Apr 2009, 21:21

Disagree, this seems to be quite disproportionate. Hope he has a successful appeal.
(this post is in response to another poster's comments earlier that the pilot deserved what he got)

cockney steve

22nd Apr 2009, 19:57

Flying lawyer wrote
As I understand it from the various press reports, the pilot was prosecuted because the proportion of alcohol in his blood exceeded the prescribed limit. If there had been evidence that his ability to perform his aviation function was impaired then he would have prosecuted for a different offence: Being Unfit for Duty. ie Performing an aviation function ..... at a time when your ability to perform that function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
If your propositions were correct, there would be no necessity for two separate - and different - offences.]

So, now I'm totally confused (OK, you lot in the gallery, i know that's easy :*)

By Implication, the above states that he WAS NOT IMPAIRED by the alcohol in his bloodstream, so why the 2 different laws covering the same offence?

WHY do the professional organisations not contest this and have consistent and realistic laws enacted....
Either the alcohol level proscribed is the safe limit, or it's not...or is this just another government catch-all that even if you're not impaired, you're still over the arbitrary limit,so will be prosecuted anyway.

This does not affect my view of the specific case.-

play by the existing rules or get them changed.

mercurydancer

22nd Apr 2009, 22:07

Impairment of skill starts as soon as the first part of the alcoholic drink enters the bloodstream. If the pilot has alcohol in his bloodstrream he is impaired. its a one way street... alcohol always impairs judgement and skills, it never sharpens them.

To what extent alcohol impairs judgement is a different issue, but to say that alcohol has no effect simply isnt true.

Flying Lawyer

26th Apr 2009, 11:46

bjcc's understanding of the law is not correct.

___________________

cockney steve..... why the 2 different laws covering the same offence?To bring UK law into line with the law in most European states.

There used to be only one offence (in the UK): No member of an aircraft’s crew, LAME or ATC officer shall be under the influence of drink or drugs to such an extent as to impair his/her capacity to so act.
However, that was changed by the the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 (which came into force in 2004) and we now have two similar but different offences:

Alcohol Exceeding the Prescribed Limit
Performing 'an aviation function' .......... at a time when the proportion of alcohol in your breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit. In practice, this means proportion of alcohol in blood.

Being Unfit for Duty
Performing an 'aviation function' .......... at a time when your ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs. The first of those offences was created by the 2003 Act.
The second offence is effectively the same as pre the 2003 Act, although it's now expressed in different words.

even if you're not impaired, you're still over the arbitrary limit,so will be prosecuted anyway.A pilot may be guilty of the first offence (being over the limit decided by Parliament) even if there is not a shred of evidence that his ability to perform his aviation function was actually impaired.

The pilot in this case appears to have been prosecuted for the first of the two offences.

FL

cockney steve

26th Apr 2009, 15:11

Thanks for that, F.L As I suspected, the bungling beaurocrats of Whitehall decided on an arbitrary limit....by implication, you're safe to perform a function,therefore "unimpaired" ,if you're below that limit......but hold on, says Mr.Jobsworth... We'd better cover our asses and ALSO have a law regarding "impairment".....so, even if you're BELOW the LIMIT, you can still be prosecuted for being impaired!

Or, am I still missing something?- if the limit of permissible Blood-Alcohol does define "impairment"....then why the hell is there such a huge disparity between the "road " and "air" limits?

IMHO, the danger of a drunk-driver causing a multiple shunt including a group of passenger-filled coaches, is more likely than an intoxicated pilot piling the 'Plane.
the fact is, I can't remember any accident in commercial aviation, caused by alcohol intoxication.....the same doesn't apply to commercial road-transport :ooh:
A more realistic limit, might allow Aircrew a better work-life balance, -meanwhile, if you want to fly commercially, it's best to be teetotal at least 24 hours before a duty-period. anything less is courting disaster.

Flying Lawyer

26th Apr 2009, 16:16

cockney steve even if you're BELOW the LIMIT, you can still be prosecuted for being impaired!
The circumstances in which that could happen must, if they exist, be very rare.
eg If a pilot had some physiological intolerance to alcohol which was so acute that any amount, even miniscule, impaired his ability to perform his aviation function.

The opposite is the more likely of the two situations -
A pilot may be prosecuted if his blood/alcohol level exceeds the prescribed limit even if there is no evidence that it actually impaired his ability to perform his aviation function.

If the limit of permissible Blood-Alcohol does define "impairment" It doesn't.

I can't remember any accident in commercial aviation, caused by alcohol intoxication..... That's not surprising.

The ATSB recently arranged for a thorough research of its accident and incident database to determine the prevalence and nature of drug and alcohol related accidents and incidents in Australian civil aviation. It looked at all occurrences in which drugs or alcohol were recorded between 1 January 1975 and 31 March 2006.

The research found that, in just over 31 years, there were only 22 alcohol-related incidents.
It should, of course, be borne in mind:

That not all the accidents/incidents were caused by pilot error. (The research didn't differentiate.)
That even where the accident/incident was caused by pilot error, it does it does not necessarily follow that alcohol either caused or even contributed to the error.FL

ScottyDawg

26th Apr 2009, 21:43

Dear CokneySteve & Flying Lawyer,

I do agree with some of your sentiments particularly yout comment as follows:
As I suspected, the bungling beaurocrats of Whitehall decided on an arbitrary limit

As I have previously stated, I am unaware of any industry, or BALPA, IALPA, or indeed any other organisation outside the bungling UK civil service, or so-called experts - that has conduct an effective and consequential review into aspects relating to alcohol ingestion - and the effects thereof, in the public transport industry at large.

Flying Lawyer's post relating to the impairment premise is even more of a concern.
For instance - does that mean if you get a bit of grit in your eye (dirty flight deck, which we all have experienced) - on final approach, and subsequent landing on the grass could result in a prosecution?... It would appear from what FL is alluding to, that this could be a possibility.

So if your impaired, (and I don't know what that really means i.e. cold or inability to clear your ears on descent)... and you screw up.. could you be prosecuted also for being "impaired..(question for FL)

On the other hand... it looks very much like regardless of your intentions and behaviour.. impairment.. will get you a spell in the pokey.

It's about time all this nonsense was effectively regulated by JAR (or the CAA) - with the onus put upon operators to confirm compliance within the Reg's.
and by that I mean stop blaming the pilot's... the rules have changed in legislation... a quick Paragraph in Part A.. should not absolve operators of shouldering some responsibility..!!

Cheers
SD