Air Canada Captain arrested on suspicion of alcohol offence CLEARED

[Dehavillandman]

Pilot 'marched off flight to Canada and arrested for being over drink limit' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5228314/Pilot-marched-off-flight-to-Canada-and-arrested-for-being-over-drink-limit.html)

This is getting stupid.

[remoak]

No, it isn't.

What is stupid is pilots drinking without due regard for the rules of the country they are guests in.

Anyone that gets caught in this way deserves all they get. There is absolutely NO excuse.

[fireflybob]

A man was arrested on suspicion of performing an aviation function whilst exceeding the alcohol limit.

Innocent till proved guilty - let's wait and see.

[eliptic]

Maybe time to implement alco meters !?

How many pilots are not recognized by the security ? it is scary indeed

[brit bus driver]

Security staff allegedly smelt drink on Daniel Dufour's breath as he went through a routine check at Terminal 3 of Heathrow Airport, according to The Sun.

The staff reportedly alerted police, who then reportedly led the Canadian captain from the Air Canada Flight AC851 to Calgary in front of fellow crew and travellers.

He was allegedly taken to Heathrow police station, where he reportedly gave a blood sample and was reportedly bailed for further inquires.

A police source is reported to have told the newspaper: "He was amazed to be still over the limit in the middle of the day. He was close to tears. At this stage he appears to have thrown away his distinguished career."

A reserve captain was reportedly called in to fly the Airbus A330.

Mr Dufour's alleged arrest comes four months after US first officer Michael Harr, 62, was marched off a Jet Airways flight to Mumbai at Heathrow for failing a breath test.

A Scotland Yard spokesman told the newspaper: "A man was arrested on suspicion of performing an aviation function whilst exceeding the alcohol limit. He was bailed to June 12."


So, 3 alleged(ly)....and 6 reported(ly)....nothing like just reporting the facts then...:hmm:

[Deep and fast]

An accurate device for telling you your level accurately would be helpful for knowing an individuals level before performing any function that has a limit. At the moment you have the bodies rate of removal coupled with total units consumed and the 8 hour rule, all of which are as good as useless.

The only sure way is to give up, but for everybody else ie normal everyday people who are drivers, train drivers, pilots, engineers, dispatchers etc the knowledge that you are safe to operate is vital.

It can't be that difficult to produce an approved handheld tester? Then this would not be happening.

Out of interest is a security staff member included in the legislation as their task is also an aviation safety issue? :E

D and F

[vovachan]

Seems like most of these guys get caught accidentally if they get into an argument with security who decide to stick it to them. How many slip through? Scary thought

[captainspeaking]

So, 3 alleged(ly)....and 6 reported(ly)....nothing like just reporting the facts then...

Presumably, or allegedly, for legal reasons.

In the service of Her Majesty, we availed ourselves of the pure oxygen available in the safety equipment section for testing oxy masks to clear any lingering cobwebs from the night before.

[One Outsider]

How many pilots are not recognized by the security ? it is scary indeed
Not as scary as ignorance and oh-this-is-so-terrible-something-must-be-done handwringing reactions which seems to be so in vogue.

Far too many people seem to equate 'being over the limit' with being wasted and a danger to world peace on par with Lex Luthor.

I bet the same people would demand their own shadow wear a hi-viz jacket, so it couldn't sneak up and scare them, if they could.

[DB6]

Scary my arse. When was the last time an airliner crashed in Western Europe/USA because the pilots were over the alcohol limit? What a load of bollocks.

[A and C]

The answer is very few............. just look at the FAA drug test numbers vs the number of people who get convicted.

This is by and large a "clean" industry, with the agressive and vinditive culture of the security operatives in the UK it is unlikely that anyone who smells of booze will not get reported.

What I would like to know is the number of pilots who have been "reported" by security who tested negative?

[Bronx]

eliptic it is scary indeed vovachan Scary thought

:rolleyes:

Not to any rational person with enough brains to consider the facts before shooting their mouth off.

[INNflight]

*Wonders how close to "security staff" you have to be for them to smell whether your last drink was alcoholic or not*

:ugh:

[smudgethecat]

UK security aggresive and vindtictive?.. surely not, further they have done a fantastic job in apprehending this alcohol crazed lush who could have had up the equivalent a third of a pint of "normal" beer sloshing around his system doesnt bear thinking about does it?

[choppercopper 99]

Am I going mad, people thinking "it's getting stupid" that somebody is about to fly a commercial flight intoxicated/over the legal limit??

If he is blowing over the limit around mid day, he MUST of had a skin full the night before or finished drinking in the very early hours.:ugh:

This is NOT "getting stupid". The only stupid thing about this is the Captains actions!!!!!!:=

The rules and limits are there for a bloody good reason!!

Personally I won't touch a drop poison 12 hours before reporting for duty. Thats a good rule of thumb.

Happy sober flying :ok:

[eliptic]

Not as scary as ignorance and oh-this-is-so-terrible-something-must-be-done handwringing reactions which seems to be so in vogue.

Far too many people seem to equate 'being over the limit' with being wasted and a danger to world peace on par with Lex Luthor.

I bet the same people would demand their own shadow wear a hi-viz jacket, so it couldn't sneak up and scare them, if they could

I hope you are not a pilot!!:ugh:

Scary my arse. When was the last time an airliner crashed in Western Europe/USA because the pilots were over the alcohol limit? What a load of bollocks.

Do you know? and even if this not happened it does n`t mean it can´t


In my opinion take control of a A/C with 300Pax (or whatever#) not 100 % alert are not professional and ii am shore the most pilots agree to that

[Avman]

Not just a matter of not drinking 12 hours prior, but also of how much you drunk just before your self imposed 12 hour curfew.

[Carnage Matey!]

In my opinion take control of a A/C with 300Pax (or whatever#) not 100 % alert are not professional and ii am shore the most pilots agree to that

Oh dear. Better cancel all those 3am departures and overnight flights when the pilots are half asleep then. 100% alert? What tosh!

[One Outsider]

I hope you are not a pilot!!
Oh! The ultimate insult, or so you probably think.

You strike me as one of an increasing number of people who come here for no other apparent reason, but to pass judgement and point fingers at an industry they have no connection with.

Jantelagen is alive and well, as is handwringing.

[eliptic]

You strike me as one of an increasing number of people

No, but i am amazed how quick some people have a need to go to defense ,maybe you feel guilty or maybe you think the "pilot" star falling apart?

My god!

[PJ2]

eliptic;

Read Carnage Matey's response to your, "opinion take control of a A/C with 300Pax (or whatever#) not 100 % alert are not professional and ii am shore the most pilots agree to that". You would have to cancel every overseas flight as well. Do you really think your crew is 100% alert in the descent at the end of a 15hr crossing? There are sufficient studies to support the notion that a crew member is equivalent to being legally drunk when driving home after an overseas flight.

Everyone; the issue is serious - of that there is no doubt, and I am not denying that. But don't set up an illusory "100% alert" straw-man standard and then shoot everyone in sight who disagrees - such a standard is simply is not the case in airline flying today - companies are pushing their crews as never before, on duty days, on rest periods, on booking off due to fatigue, (no pay).

To focus on one issue, a serious yet unproven accusation, and to turn attention towards London Security's propensity to smell every airline crews' morning breath, is to cherry pick your daily rant.

The issues of crew fatigue are a far more serious, insidious issues which indeed HAVE caused fatal aircraft accidents. I agree there is no excuse for any alcohol being in the blood when operating an aircraft. If that is ultimately proven here, that is a sad and personally tragic outcome.

That said, FUI is NOT at all common, while the issue of crew fatigue exists on every long haul flight, (even domestic duty days can be 14hrs).

Let the London Security people ask crews how much rest they got the night before in a noisy hotel before taking on extra duties. Let the flying public understand that the issue under discussion, while serious, is not a prime issue but crew fatigue, which can and does have the same effects as too much alcohol, certainly is. THAT is where to focus your serious discussions, not on some poor slob who may or may not be guilty, though apparently he is here.

[Palyvestre]

I know it's not a big deal, but AC851 was performed on Sunday by a B777 if I believe FLIGHTAWARE.. and not a A330. May be the title is not right..

[Ladusvala]

How do you feel about the new Flight Time limitations, FTL?

Recently a scientific study concluded that the FTL´s allow pilots to work such long hours that their level of fatigue equals being over the legal alcohol limit.
That makes me wonder, how it can be legal to fly fatigued when it´s illegal to fly when close but still over the legal alcohol limit. It doesn´t make sense.

I practically don´t drink alcohol at all and I have never suspected a colleague of being over the limit since 1990, when I began flying, (something I wouldn´t accept).

[FrequentSLF]

PJ2

I have seen your arguments on various posts and I believe that fatigue is an issue.
However IMHO to be over the legal limit and fatigued are two separated issues.
Reading the various threads about pilots being over the legal limit always the fatigue issue pops up. Sometimes it sounds more "if I can land the plane after a fifteen hours flight, I can also be over the legal limit without being impaired".
I am not saying that you stated that, but other posters sounded like that.
It is detrimental to the issue of fatigue which has to be addressed without comparison of being over the legal limit.

[castin]

What's more dangerous taking a flight after having a few beers the night before or taking a flight when you know you have not had enough sleep?:=

Will the gestapo UK security start harassing pilots to find out if they have had enough sleep?:confused:

So the so called "drunks" get caught but the real dangerous ones are still flying, often because they are flying crazy schedules imposed by there companies!:eek:

[eliptic]

Pj2,,

"100%" was more related to the discussion,, but if it is like you say there are even more reason to skip that drinking even before the 12 hours,,True??

I know that even in your profession there are "stupid" pilots,,and probably are the numbers small,,just hope it stay so

[PJ2]

Ladusvala;
That makes me wonder, how it can be legal to fly fatigued when it´s illegal to fly when close but still over the legal alcohol limit. It doesn´t make sense.
That is precisely the point here.

The regulators who are responsible for aviation's fatigue rules dismiss the science; regulators today are far too susceptible to corporate lobbyists which ensure that rules governing duty days etc are commercially, not safety-driven, (witness the recent American lobbying of the FAA's tighter duty day rules).

Rules surrounding the use of alcohol rely almost solely upon public emotion for enforcement (as clearly illustrated here) and capture attention far more quickly than crew fatigue issues which, as any airline pilot will say, are equal to an illegal level of alcohol in the blood.

This isn't setting the issue of alcohol and crews aside or begging the case. It is an attempt to place into perspective, the real issues with which professional airline crews must confront every day in balancing commercial and safety priorities. To assume that a few cases such as the one unfolding here deserves instant, harsh judgement for the accused is to approach these two issues with equal ignorance.

[Whiskey Papa]

If you have a well paid job flying commercial jets and liked a drink, it seems obvious to me that you need your own intoximeter. An accurate machine can be purchased for less than £300.00. What an investment to protect your career! Having said that, you can't call in sick too often so some self restraint is necessary. I bet those guys nicked recently wish they'd bought one. I use one prior to cranking up the C152 if I've had a few on board! Get one!

[Chesty Morgan]

It's the same old rhetoric from everyone.

If you're over the limit and you get nicked then tough.

All these statements of "the limit is too low" "fatigue" and blah blah blah blah blah blah are irrelevant.

There is a limit. We know what it is (I'm not implying that the limit is suitable or not). Why risk your career, your life and your reputation for a few beers?

Stupidity and ignorance spring to mind.

[PJ2]

FrequentSLF;

Thanks - yes, you're correct - I'm not arguing that "because one is acceptable, so is the other"!

The comparison is valid in the opposite direction however - that, if it is unacceptable to be disabled through alcohol, it is equally unacceptable to be disabled by fatigue. That is a valid point, whereas the reverse certainly is not. It is in this way that the two are indeed closely related.

The legal argument for alcohol is the level of same in the blood. The legal argument for fatigue is also in the science done on fatigue and it shows that impairment in terms of task-complexity and judgement, is the same. The issues differ politically, legally, not scientifically - that is the argument being advanced here.

So difficult has the argument been to make before the regulator and the various lobbyists, that such simplified comparisons arise to point out the hazards of both. As has been pointed out more eloquently by others here, we dont' permit or accept one, so why do the industry, the regulator and even the London Security people accept the other?

eliptic;
"100%" was more related to the discussion,, but if it is like you say there are even more reason to skip that drinking even before the 12 hours,,True??
True-and-false deal in binary opposite answers but the issue is more complex than that - it is at once trivially true, but also does not encompass very much in this discussion. There are also very good reasons for eating healthy foods etc, but in airline life that doesn't happen very often either. You made the statement that crews ought to be 100% alert and they are not, nor is that a realistic standard.

That doesn't mean it's unsafe, it just means that we're human beings and not machines that can, like aircraft, be on dty for 20hrs straight, (the MK B747 crew was (legally) on duty for 24hrs before they made a simple computer error in the takeoff data and crashed at Halifax). It means an extremely rare accusation of alcohol levels gets the headlines and the self-righteous crowd while the real industry problems are institutionally ignored by the same flying public and some commentators here.

[One Outsider]

What the pontificators and moralizers seems to not understand is that the legal limit is not set to indicate what is 'safe' and what is not. It's a politically motivated limit which, like much of the recent 'security initiatives', serves to show 'commitment' to safety.

It also serves as a convenient vehicle for the tall poppy pruners.

[eliptic]

PJ2

The Law stipulates for a truck driver in 24 hours need 11 hours rest,,this can be split in 2 but at least one minimum 8 hours

This is registered on the trucks instrument and log book and are if not followed quite expensive to ignore,,

I don´t know the Air regulations ?

[SKI]

I went through Manchester security the other day, and was searched. The guy that searched me absolutely stunk of alcohol...how can he perform his duties one may ask?

[PJ2]

eliptic;
The Law stipulates for a truck driver in 24 hours need 11 hours rest,,this can be split in 2 but at least one minimum 8 hours

This is registered on the trucks instrument and log book and are if not followed quite expensive to ignore,,


An excellent point.

The industry has used the example of both road and rail transport duty-day regulations to advance change based upon interminable studies of crew fatigue, but with little success.

I don´t know the Air regulations ?
In Canada, an international crew with one extra crew member, (a Relief Pilot who is not trained or qualifed to land the aircraft, not another Captain and not another First Officer), is legal to remain on duty for 20 hours straight providing the aircraft is equipped with an SAE "standard" bunk. Under the same Canadian rules, (CARS) they are legal to remain on duty for 23 hours under "unforeseen circumstances", which places the entire onus for continuing, on the crew with the final (legal) decision made by the captain. In other words, given commercial and other pressures, the rules say "you can go, if the delays fall under the 'unforeseen circumstances' definitions".

Pilots' associations spend their negotiation dollars on adding extra crews so the one airline in Canada that does international flying uses four crew members on duty days over 15 hours. The regulations do not even mention a fourth crew member and offer no "credit" for same.

I know very well how harsh the outcomes can be for truck or bus drivers who, if stopped by the police and found to have exceeded their legal duty day, are found to have exceeded them, even by minutes - I've had discussions with these people and they are serious about fatigue. Neither the airline industry nor the regulator are.

[polarus]

Listen guys lets give the guy the benefit of the doubt. If hes guilty then by all means throw the book at him.

BUT

I remember not that long ago a pilot was pulled off a flight from "suspected" booze on the breath when after exhaustive testing found out it was the same amount of alcohol as mouthwash.

What gives these guys the right! You wanna do it get a breathalizer and someone who knows how to operate it and then throw accusations!

IMHO

[PJ2]

John R;

I don't disagree with your or with Chesty Morgan's arguments - I agree completely; attempt to fly an aircraft while at/over the legal limit and you're toast, full stop.

Notwithstanding the "Keeping Up Appearances" aspect to the rule, clearly the rule is indeed in place for safety's sake as a proven factor in accidents. With this, I think we can all nod our heads and not bang them against the fridge or what-have-you.

But the fact is, it occurs so extremely rarely while crew fatigue is not at all rare nor is it a rare as a cause of accidents.

Of course it's "here we go again" - that's an obvious outcome to an unresolved aviation issue. Where is the surprise there, given all the hair being set on fire here about a rare occurence when nothing occurs regarding an equal but legal impairment through fatigue?

Anyway, that's my view as most of you know; exceeding the limit and FUI is unacceptable but there is an equally serious but ignored aspect to impairment - that's my point.

[JW411]

I remember visiting a fun/theme park on the outskirts of Stockholm in the 1960s. On the archway over the entrance in huge letters it said (in English) "Welcome to Gruneland - The Place Where Even the Swedes Smile".

That says it all really.

[jackharr]

I went through Manchester security the other day, and was searched. The guy that searched me absolutely stunk of alcohol...how can he perform his duties one may ask?Are aircrew reporting ground staff who clearly are over the limit? Maybe it's time that you did. It strikes me that at the moment it's a one-way reporting system.

Jack

[Dehavillandman]

Its getting stupid that crews are allegedly still drunk when they check in. Thats what I was trying to say, thanks for reading it the wrong way.

[lomapaseo]

These alcohol related threads are becoming more common and have a tendancy to take the same path again and again. They are as much fun in aguing as the gun threads in Jetblast.

... e.g. the letter of the law vs what level of impairment.

I doubt that we are going to change the law so what next?

Now the argument about level of impairment is interesting if only we had valid data and a expanded method of measurement.

With a a better level of measurement we could certainly measure such things as psychological fitment for flight inlculding judgement and reaction times. This would surely cull out a whole bunch of fatigued and bitchy pilots.

It's time to move these kind of discussions down to Jetblast where the more creative of us reside

[peter we]

I went through Manchester security the other day, and was searched. The guy that searched me absolutely stunk of alcohol...how can he perform his duties one may ask?

You can't be saying that searching someone requires a comparable level of sobriety to piloting?

[Bronx]

John R PJ2 - I agree fully.
:confused:

PJ2 said pilots attempting to fly an aircraft while at/over the legal limit occurs extremely rarely.
Does that mean you're now withdrawing your earlier rant where you saidSome of you are in serious denial, aren't you? Well I hope that pilots keep getting arrested again and again and again until you learn the lesson that you can't have a drink before you go flying, by which time no one will have an ounce of respect left for your profession


lomapaseo
Good point about Jetblast. :)
There's always a rush of spotters, armchair experts and melodrama queens into this forum if a pilot gets arrested for alcohol. :rolleyes: Thank God it very rarely happens.


B.

[PJ2]

John R.
When an incident like this happens, the two arguments cannot be run together or, worse still, the fatigue argument be used as a defence.

We all know that more attention will always be paid to alcohol-related incidents. Fatigue is not a sexy topic and newspapers will not write about it. That's life, and it doesn't just apply to aviation. It is a fact the industry must face.

As professionals, you just have to find another way to get the fatigue issue addressed and then resolved. And I do not doubt for one moment that it does need to be addressed.
Yup - full agreement there.

[eliptic]

There's always a rush of spotters, armchair experts and melodrama queens into this forum if a pilot gets arrested for alcohol. :rolleyes: Thank God it very rarely happens.Melodrama hehe!!

Yea, if Clinton screw his mistress it gives full page headlines for years,,if a Drunk pilot boarding a plane with 300 pax it is "melodrama" hmm,,

It´s just facts,,**** happens,,

Ps. after being in this forum less then one month i must say, i have never before encounter so many "step on mine or my colleges toes and we kick your ass DS

:p:p:p



I was going to delete this post on the grounds that it contributes nothing to the thread but Flying Lawyer's riposte in post #51 deals with it in a much more..........educational manner. On that basis only this post stays. Read and learn.

Duck Rogers
Moderator

[Robert Campbell]

Alcohol affects everyone differently. Some, such as myself, are just plain allergic to alcohol. I can't drink. Period. I get severe gastritis. It also raises my blood pressure. At 65, I'm 120/80 without drugs and without alcohol.

Some pilots I've flown with can drink all evening and barely show it. However, a breathalizer would bust them.

Then there are the hard core alcoholics who can't even function without the equivalent of a 750ml bottle of wine in them. They act normally and can fool anyone unless their breath gives them away. These guys would be more likely to be noticed if they hadn't had their drinks.

There was a good book published in the 1970s called" "The Pilot". It was made into a movie in 1979. The Pilot - User Reviews - Yahoo! Movies (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1800106264/user)

"The Pilot
by [email protected] (movies profile) Aug 20, 2004
Licensed pilots will love this movie. Very realistic, true to life scenarios, like proper radio call signs, frequencies, etc..
Cliff Robertson is a pilot himself and wanted everything as authentic as possible".

[nippysweetie]

If you're fatigued, you're more likely to make mistakes. If you have alcohol in your system, you're more likely to make mistakes.

If you're fatigued and have alcohol in your system, the risks of a mistake mount even more. If you're fatigued, have alcohol in your system and have broken the rules ... game over, whether you think it's fair or not.

If you're flying at the pointy end, you've already got enough headaches without alcohol adding to them.

[QCM]

We can find on this thread the Captain's name,his flight number,...etc...etc...innocent till proved guilty they say...more reserve should be displayed there and moderators should monitor and erase names and any personal references...modos are sleeping?

[Flying Lawyer]

eliptic Melodrama hehe!!
Within only 10 minutes of this thread starting, you posted this: How many pilots are not recognized by the security ? it is scary indeed I assume you don't consider that to be melodramatic.
In my humble opinion should be ZERO or the Crew can tell me so i can exit first:ooh: Not melodramatic?
Are you aware that many countries do not have a zero limit?
Given how you feel, I recommend checking before buying a ticket so you can avoid the need to exit first.
after being in this forum less then one month i must say, i have never before encounter so many "step on mine or my colleges toes and we kick your ass DS
http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/tongue.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/tongue.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/tongue.gif That may be because you usually express your opinions in the Passengers & SLF forum.
It's nothing to do with 'stepping on toes'. Some of the professional pilots are clearly fed up of the nonsense which is always posted on alcohol threads.

Do you really expect to be taken seriously in this forum when you make comments such as those I've mentioned, and respond to posts by professional pilots with such comments as maybe you think the "pilot" star falling apart? My god! and I hope you are not a pilot!!:ugh:
Or when you describe the pilot who was arrested as a Drunk pilot boarding a plane with 300 pax Drunk?
Where do you get that from? All we know at the moment is that a field breath-test showed the alcohol in his breath to be in excess of the extremely low aviation limit - which is a quarter of the legal limit for drivers in the UK.
Even if analysis of the subsequent blood sample he would have been required to give was to prove his alcohol level exceeded the legal limit, that would NOT necessarily mean he was drunk.

I've always found the professional pilots in this forum to be very helpful when asked questions by people who want to learn, and very patient even when faced with silly nonsense posted by uninformed people.
You've been on this website for less than a month, but they've seen it all before - each time this topic comes up. It's not surprising that some of them occasionally let their entirely understandable exasperation show.

.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Look

No-one says that flying while pished is good.

In the UK you can drive with 80mg per unit. So that presumably is safe- right?:uhoh: Otherwise it would be less.

Flying is quite a bit easier than driving, but the UK limit on flying is 20 mg.

Which is 25% of that which a UK citizen is judged to be perfectly safe and legal behind the wheel of a Ferrari.

Simple question?

Is the car driving limit too 'easy'...............One for the road?

Or the plane driving limit too 'tight'...........ermm mind my watch with those handcuffs.

Also, A lot of accidents on our roads are caused by drunk drivers (had to drive.....too drunk to walk:eek:) but very few (no?) aircraft crash due to drunk pilots. (Personally, I'd rather not fly unless I felt entirely fit to fly. the consequences of doing otherwise need little elaboration)

So while the UK 80mg limit serves us quite well in preventing many D & D car accidents, but sadly- not all.......

What does the 20 mg limit do for us in the aviation world?

In other words if you, or I, are ok to drive to the airfield at 80 mg (legally) but are illegal to fly until the level of alcohol has dropped to 20 mg, then plainly lots of folk who thought that they were (correctly, as defined by UK law, fit and sober enough to drive a car) ok, have committed the same sin as this Air Canada pilot did.

Having said that, for all I know he could have been roaring drunk. Or had a zero % blood alcohol figure. :)

I don't know which limit is 'off'. But for sure either the 80 'car' limit is too high, or the 20 mg 'air' limit is too low.

[Skipness One Echo]

Flying is quite a bit easier than driving, but the UK limit on flying is 20 mg.

Blimey they're mad enough to let me on the road, so by God I demand a B777 to try out for myself this oh so awesome claim you make. With passengers !

[mercurydancer]

Just a few points-

Fatigue is a serious problem and rest hours do seem to need reappraisal. Its an integral part of any work that lasts for many hours, it needs to be rationalised. What concerns me deeply is that if any member of the crew starts off on any duty impaired by alochol then fatigue is going to make matters exponentially worse.

Anyone, be they drivers or pilots, who think that even a very moderate intake of alcohol has no effect then they are confronting huge amounts of scientific evidence about the effects of alcohol. In short, skilled tasks and alcohol arent compatible. Alcohol from the first drink has a marked deterioration on performance. Alcohol never increases performance it always has a negative effect. Not accepting this simple fact is a lack of professionalism.

[royalterrace]

A post from airliners.net. If this is accurate and it were me the lawsuits would be flying.

This has been dealt with internally, and the crewmember has already been cleared using a blood test. But, that wouldn't get into the news.

Oddly enough, we have been told that the breath test at LHR has a 7% FALSE positive rate!

Maybe if airlines started charging the authorities for delayed and canceled flights for spurious accusations, then they might get something a bit more accurate. Or better yet ... have a blood test result quicker than SIX WEEKS!

Air Canada's staff physician did the required blood test within 4 hours and the crew member positioned home through YYZ.

[MungoP]

Blah Blah Blah... same old cr*p ... all this since yesterday... Hand wringing... tut tut tut... Ohhh... My God... Blah Blah Blah.
Don't mistake the Law for Justice... they often have only a passing aquaintance....
Fatigue is way WAY worse than a small amount of residual alcohol yet the FAA recently decided not to pursue that problem because of their own close association with the airlines....
How many accidents have been caused in part by fatigue ? Too many to even guess at.... How many have been caused in part by alcohol... I can't think of any outside of a few PPL events.

I've probably come close to broaching the time limit for the 'bottle to throttle' rule on more than one occasion... days and days of 4 and 5 sector schedules that get you into a hotel at midnight having had no dinner and the adrenalin still pumping... and you need to be asleep bloody fast so take a dip into a 'miniture' scotch or whatever...

[Dairyground]

Quote:
I went through Manchester security the other day, and was searched. The guy that searched me absolutely stunk of alcohol...how can he perform his duties one may ask?
You can't be saying that searching someone requires a comparable level of sobriety to piloting?


If a security guy is exhaling alcohol fumes, they will not be aware of alcohol on the breath of anyone else. Whilst a minor degree of inebriation is probably not an impediment to handing out trays for articles to go through a scanner, it is unlikely to enhance the ability to interpret the output from the scanner. So if you suspect alcohol in the security bloodstream, report it!

[Tyres O'Flaherty]

Fatigue is terrible, its effect upon your ability to calculate or recognise mistakes, i.e. Judgement, is profound, & quite surprising in how bad it can be.

I've seen, & personally experienced this many times over 20 years of shift work.

I'll be the first to sympathise with this Captain, as it can be very hard to recognise or feel changes in your body when you are rota'd or sleep deprived.

There is quite a difference in my body's ability to deal with alcohol at different times in that shift pattern.

Figure that lot out if you're clever enough, I'm not.

[remoak]

This thread has indeed gone the way of all before it. Strong opinions and not a lot of common sense in some quarters.

I particularly like the ex-military buffoon who thinks that plundering the emergency O2 will somehow mitigate the effects of the bender the night before. I can only assume that the military drinking culture is alive and well.

Comparing the effects of alcohol and fatigue is peurile. One is (unfortunately) legal, the other isn't.

Of course there haven't been many (any?) accidents attributable to alcohol in the West. 99.9% of pilots are responsible and understand the rules. Should we then allow the rest to do what they want? The aircraft won't automatically fall out of the sky with a slightly under-the-weather pilot at the helm, but years of experience have taught us about the Swiss cheese effect. maybe it should be possible to ADD a pilot.

Yes, there are inconsistencies and fatigue, sickness and stress can all be as debilitating as the lingering after-effects of a few beers the night before. Doesn't matter in this case.

The point, to me at any rate, is what right-thinking PROFESSIONAL pilot would risk his or her career by flouting a rule when we all know that many security people are lining up to try and catch us out?

I also have a bit of trouble believing that the Police would take such drastic action unless they were pretty much convinced by the evidence before them.

The only sensible (personal) rule is no drink within 24 hours of commencing flying. if you can't manage to enjoy yourself without booze... well...

[stilton]

Lots of hysteria as usual here. I don't see what was wrong with 8 hours bottle to throttle.


But of course that was back when our judgement was trusted..


I have had security people lean in so close to my face when passing through a check point I have had to tell them to back off, (unless she wants to give me her number)


As a precaution I have carried a small electronic breath detector with me for years so if I suspect others the problem can be preempted.


I limit myself to 2 glasses of wine these days but just to be sure I test myself as well before leaving the hotel. Maybe paranoid but who knows !

[two green one prayer]

Two things haven't been mentioned. The great difference between fatigue and blood alcohol is that the latter is easy to measure accurately and devices for doing so are everywhere. Hence the concentration on alcohol levels.
The other matter is that legislation necessarily has adopted a one size fits all alcohol level. If I intend to drink more than one pint of beer at the pub I take a taxi. Not that two pints of beer would put me over the driving limit but simply as a matter of self preservation. Alcohol affects me more than the average person. Contrast this with a particular driver in the Le Mans 24 hour race. First his co-driver wrote their car off so he was free to attended the pre-race party. After four hours sleep he was told that his opposite number in the other car had broken his arm so he would be driving after all. Judging that to attempt to sober up in time would be futile he treated his hangover with coffee and brandy. He and his co-driver won the race. He cannot have been very impaired. Nevertheless rules are rules and it is foolish to break them.

[FrequentSLF]

BarbiesBoyfriend

In the UK you can drive with 80mg per unit. So that presumably is safe- right? Otherwise it would be less.

Flying is quite a bit easier than driving, but the UK limit on flying is 20 mg.

Which is 25% of that which a UK citizen is judged to be perfectly safe and legal behind the wheel of a Ferrari.

Here below the driving limits for the various European Countries...as you can see UK is well above the average of Europe...

0.0 per mg – Estonia, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary
0.2 per mg – Norway, Poland, Sweden
0.4 per mg - Lithuania
0.5 per mg - Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany (Germany is 0.3 if you’re in an accident), Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Serbia/Montenegro, Croatia, Latvia, Macedonia, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, Cyprus (North)
0.8 per mg – UK, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Switzerland
0.9 Cyprus (South)

[eliptic]

Or when you describe the pilot who was arrested as Quote:
a Drunk pilot boarding a plane with 300 pax


As a "Lawyer" you should be able to make difference between "the" and "a" Pilot!!!:=

Please understand i am not talking about specific individuals (as always: "Innocent until proved guilty")

[Flying Lawyer]

eliptic As a "Lawyer" you should be able to make difference between "the" and "a" Pilot!!!As a lawyer, I can spot a dishonest answer.

Link which started this thread: A pilot preparing to fly 300 passengers .....
You (after several people had been critical of your melodramatic comments): Yea, if Clinton screw his mistress it gives full page headlines for years,, if a Drunk pilot boarding a plane with 300 pax it is "melodrama" hmm, No, of course you were not talking about a specific individual. :rolleyes:

"Innocent until proved guilty"
At least we agree about one thing.


remoak Of course there haven't been many (any?) accidents attributable to alcohol in the West. 99.9% of pilots are responsible and understand the rules. Should we then allow the rest to do what they want? Nobody suggests that the rest should be allowed to do what they want.

Surely it's perfectly reasonable for people in the industry to counter the melodramatic, emotive and uninformed comments which always appear on the extremely rare occasions when a pilot is arrested on suspicion of being over the alcohol limit?


.

[Firestorm]

Remember that most mouthwashes contain a significant amount of alcohol, so if you've recently had a shower and dohbi, and swilled your mouth out with mouthwash you stand yourself into danger should someone decide to breathalise you for whatever reason, founded or unfounded. Could this have happened to this Air Canada Captain?

[eliptic]

extremely rare occasions when a pilot is arrested on suspicion of being over the alcohol limit?When you say rare,, do you mean compared to # of flights around the world or in time?

April 2009

The actual discussion

December 28 2008

prompted a passenger revolt that forced the airline to replace all three pilots on the Boeing 767 before it took off from Moscow to New York on 28 December last year.

August 16 2008
Two Russian pilots who were about to fly a Boeing 767 were arrested at Manchester Airport early today on suspicion they were drunk.

August 4 2008

PASSENGERS had to wait six hours for their flight to leave yesterday - after an air hostess turned up drunk and was arrested.

February 4 2008
A cargo plane has been blocked from taking off from Malmö Airport after two crew members were found to be under the influence of alcohol (http://www.thelocal.se/tag/alcohol) on Monday morning.


I will also call this rare in case of # flights:ugh: but even ONE is one to much in my
humble opinion!

Like:

Associated Press - February 10, 2009 1:05 PM ET MOSCOW (AP) - Russian officials say alcohol and pilot confusion over the instrument panel on a Boeing passenger jet were responsible for a crash…88 dead


I just looked at the Swedish regulations it says: NO drinking 24 hour before and max 0.2 at 12 hours and 0.0 at take of

[ExSp33db1rd]

Remember that most mouthwashes contain a significant amount of alcohol, so if you've recently had a shower and dohbi, and swilled your mouth out with mouthwash you stand yourself into danger should someone decide to breathalise you for whatever reason, founded or unfounded. Could this have happened to this Air Canada Captain?


Recently initially recorded positive at the roadside, but the next level of check showed nothing, as indeed I hadn't been drinking. The female Gestapo admitted that after shave could set off the first gadget, as did their own make-up, sometimes.

Not long ago left my wife's car behind because she had imbibed, stopped down the road and I was all clear, my wife then suggested that if she was also acceptable we could go back and collect her car, so turned around and went back through the same road block in the other direction, and was immediately re-tested by the same hofficer. My wife asked to be tested, and this was refused on the grounds that it wasn't their job to tell someone if they were over the limit, but only to arrest them if they were, and if my wife chose to collect her car and drive through they would advise her accordingly. Turned around to continue the original journey and was immediately tested again by the same clown. Road safety measure - don't make me laugh. It was Christmas Eve, too.

[atceng]

I suspect that any security officer taking this course of action has a very definite opinion of the state of the aircrew before subjecting them to testing and a possible extremely red face if wrong.

Will some security officer please give us their opinion?

[Captain-Crunch]

What should scare you vovachan, is presidents drinking with their finger on the button. We all risk our lives daily with a nuclear holocaust because we do not alcohol test our presidents (neither do we test our senators, our doctors, our policemen, our CEO's our Admirals and Generals.... are these people not also custodians of public safety?)

The USAF had a study showing that mistakes flying in the simulator were actually reduced after one drink.... but nobody wants to reference THAT study.

Thanks to the drunk pilot witch hunt, security thinks their job now is to sniff crew member's breath instead of spot hijackers. No wonder 911 got through!

Exactly how many drunk airliner crashes have there been?

Few to my knowledge. How many cock-ups have their been to sober tired crews who could not get enough rest out on the road? Dozens. The NASA sleep study in the early 90's that showed these REM sleep disorders was swept under the carpet. It showed that most crews surveyed and med-wired on long haul, back-side of the clock flying (sober) were operating in a dangerously impaired fashion!

I'd rather have the crew be adequately rested and a bit "scotchy" in the A.M, than to be red-eyed sober and dopey from sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation can be worse than drunkeness.

But none of you "Weekend Weenies" or Playstation armchair pilots that post so authoritatively here on this subject will understand the validity of my post because you don't fly long haul.

Crunch - out

[goeasy]

Where do so many people get this 'drunk pilot' idea????? Very very few pilots attempt to fly aware they are drunk. Most have followed the 'rules', and have had to assume they are legal.

IF I was to drink a reasonable amount prior to the BTT limit (12hrs), then get some sleep etc., before reporting to work, I have no idea what my blood alcohol concentration is at report. We 'assume' we are under the limit because of the 12hour rule (or 10/24!!). It is just pure luck that we dont get tested and found to have a miniscule amount of alcohol remaining.

If SLF want pilots who are free of blood alcohol, there is going to be a huge shortage of crew!! (imagine a world with no aircraft flying) As I unsderstand, it isnt humanly possible, to have zero alcohol in your bloodstream.

All this hysteria, just serves to force those who may suspect they are over the limit, to disguise the symptoms even better. :=

[YHZChick]

Not sure if it's been mentioned, and not that is would make being imparied acceptable, but the pilot was a relief pilot, not the Captain.

It is my understanding that an Air Canada Staff physician did a blood test within the required 4 hours, and the pilot has been cleared, and positioned home through YYZ. Don't expect to read that in the news. I also wouldn't expect to read that according to a source at AC, they have been told the breath test at LHR has a 7% false positive rate.

[Tigger_Too]

I posted this on another forum some time ago (and before anyone says anything, the discussion was very much tongue in cheek):

As a VERY rough rule of thumb, the body processes one unit of alcohol every hour. So take an average Sunday session:

Curry lunch at the Mess, arrive at 12.00, 4 pints, feeling bit full, switch to wine, 4 glasses, back to my place, feeling better now, 4 more pints, call out for a pizza, 2 glasses of wine, one for the road? Alright, just a double Remy if you insist.

Total intake: 24 units. 12 units processed during the day, so you stagger of to bed at midnight with 12 units in your blood.

First wave? Met brief at 08.00? 4 units left, so that is the equivalent of 2 double vodkas for breakfast. Yum!

On the programme for a midday take-off? Blood alcohol effectively zero (unless you had 2 double vodkas for breakfast!)

Summary: It needs to be a BLOODY good session before the 12 hour rule is inappropriate.

Now, tongue in cheek it may have been, but the arithmetic is pretty much correct and it does give an indication of the type of sesssion you need to have had if you are still over the limit after a decent nights sleep.

If you repeat the above experience, but behave "responsibly":= and call it a day when the pizza arrives, then under 'normal' circumstances you will be under the 20-limit at 08.00 the next morning.

So what on earth are people doing on the day before a flight if they are getting a decent nights sleep and are still over the 20-limit.

And I don't buy the mouthwash theory. Unless you are in the habit of swallowing fairly significant quantities of the stuff, it really is not going to make that much diference. Know your limits, know the rules and don't report for work if you suspect you may have have fallen foul of temptation.

But what are the terms of reference of BAA security guards? Is it part of their job spec to sniff breath, or do some of them just believe that they have a moral responsibility to keep us on the straight and narrow?

[remoak]

Flying Lawyer

Surely it's perfectly reasonable for people in the industry to counter the melodramatic, emotive and uninformed comments which always appear on the extremely rare occasions when a pilot is arrested on suspicion of being over the alcohol limit?

Of course it is... as long as they stick to the facts, keep the red herrings out of the conversation, and stop trying to compare apples with oranges.

I do rather wonder if you have been involved in defending a few of the people accused of excess blood alcohol while flying (or while attempting to go flying), as you seem a little more emotionally connected to this issue than normal.

I would also have to say, that over the last 20 years of airline flying I have seen plenty of cases of over-indulgence of alcohol followed shortly thereafter by flying activity. The range of participants ranges from experienced ex-military captains to green F/Os. The industry has been in denial about this for years. The only reason that folk getting caught is rare is that they are not routinely checked, and there is no concerted campaign to investigate the problem.

Security people dobbing in pilots is relatively rare, and when it happens it is always treated as a jobsworth trying to "get even" with a pilot for some assumed insult in the past. Maybe, just maybe, the security guy was being diligent and honestly feared that the pilot in question was impaired? Or do we not accept such possibilities here on PPRuNe?

[mensaboy]

Has anyone even considered the direct relationship between the massive increase in recent mishaps, moments of poor judgement or decision making.......... and the overall decline in our Terms and Conditions as pilots? Most of us who still have a job are fatigued most of the time and almost all other pilots are at least concerned about their jobs, pensions, or the continual decline in our Terms and Conditions.

Human beings are human beings and as such, we all make mistakes. I am in no way defending any pilot who knowingly breaks the ''bottle to throttle'' rule, or someone who shows up to fly an aircraft when they are not fit to fly. But these times are difficult for many people on the planet and particularly for pilots, who are not allowed to have moments of indiscretion.

If the critics on this forum were to witness firsthand what is going on at my airline, (Emirates), even the most despicable kiss-ass, management wannabe pilot, would admit that the limit of human tolerance has been surpassed. We have recently lost at least 7 pilots in the past 2 weeks (fired !) for indiscretions or less than ideal judgements. (no one really knows the true number due to the management style here). But most of these instances would not have happened in the first place if not for the extra stress put on pilots, and secondly our draconian masters would not have made the decision to fire these guys, even if they did mess something up.

Then again, I have to admit we have particularly incompetent and self-serving middle management, who are under the watchful eye of even worse senior management..... but I suspect my particular situation is similar to many other airline jobs.

There is a point beyond which......... stress is harmful. A certain amount of stress can actually help a person perform better, but long-term and abnormally high stress is detrimental. I don't mean to divert this thread, nor do I want to make excuses for anyone, but this profession has sunk to such a low level, that similar or worse occurences will increase.

There will be more instances such as the LHR one, and more accidents and incidents until this messed up industry gets it sh1t together! If there is stupidity going on at supposedly respectable airlines, just imagine what is being covered up at some airlines.

[GroundedSLF]

Pilots should be aware of the drink limits and stick to them - if they dont, they get what they deserve.

If (as seems likely judging by the post on here) pilots have a real issue feeling that flying hours/rostas leave them more impaired/fatigued/unsafe, then I would have thought that pilots have a moral duty to say so publicly, and refuse to fly the aircraft.

The feeling I get from reading these posts is that there are numerous pilots out there who feel that they are not "awake" enough to be in proper comand of the aircraft...scary!

If this is the wrong impression, then I apologise, but if its right, why dont pilots make a stand?

[Flying Lawyer]

remoak

You're mistaking exasperation for emotion. I'm not in the slightest emotionally connected to this issue.
I admit I do sometimes find it exasperating when people jump to conclusions without finding out and considering the facts, or make sweeping (and often absurd) generalisations, but there's not much I can do about that - I've been a lawyer for almost 39 years so 'Facts first, opinion second' is very deeply ingrained.
I'll try to be more patient. ;)
(I'll start by not responding to the ridiculous post just made by eliptic.)

I had no interest in the issue until the 2003 Act was announced. I then explained in quite a lot of detail how the new law would operate when it came into force, drew attention to the very significant changes, and warned pilots about how those changes might affect them. I was concerned that pilots used to the 'old' law might be at risk of inadvertently breaking the new law, with dire consequences.
I'd learnt a lot from professional pilots on PPRuNe over the years (and still do) and saw contributing my expertise as a way of putting something back into the pot.
If you're interested, the thread is here: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/113035-alcohol-flying-new-law.html


I've only been involved in one case, and that was way back in 2004. The 2003 Act came into force in 2004 and I represented the first pilot to appear in the Crown Court under what was then the new law.
The Captain concerned gave me permission to post the facts of his case on PPRuNe in the hope that his experience would prevent other pilots from making the same mistakes as he had, and from suffering the same consequences.
If you're interested, see post #32 in this thread: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/136060-lhr-breathtest-update-captain-jailed.html


And no, I'm not a heavy (or even regular) drinker, and never have been. Just in case you're wondering. :)

.

[YHZChick]

GroundedSLF
Eliptic - "The crew should have brains and know when they can fly safely"

No - totally disagree where alcohol is concerned. How many drunk drivers of cars have got behind the wheel thinking the same thing before having an accident?

Huh?
If I have to work in the morning, I have the common sense to stop drinking at a reasonable time prior, and 300 pax haven't placed their lives in my hands.
12 hours bottle to throttle. It's not rocket science. And I don't know a single professional pilot who doesn't respect that limit--and when I say respect that limit, I mean they aren't falling down drunk at 12:01:00.

Even if you go by the 8 hours required by CARS, if you don't have the judgment to know 8 hours after you quit drinking that you are in no shape to fly, you're probably in the wrong profession.

[Nicholas49]

I have a question for professional aircrew: do you think that the random breathalyser checks the police can now conduct on flight crew in the UK are a good thing? What about random checks that your company performs?

[TDK mk2]

I have three children under the age of 3 and a half and unfortunately I often get less than the optimum amount of sleep. In fact I only get it on nightstops whilst our littlest is night feeding. It's very likely that I have operated in a state less fit than someone who had a blood alcohol content above that allowed by the law. For those who think they should live in a perfect world welcome to the real world. If I reported unfit every time I thought I might be due to lack of sleep I'd be on our companys absence management program which is fairly punitive. I could check into a hotel whenever I have to work, put my kids in care or buy a bigger house but guess what? They don't pay me enough! Sorry if it's a surprise to some that real people with real lives and not gods fly planes around but get used to it.

[Lost in Saigon]

GroundedSLF


Huh?
If I have to work in the morning, I have the common sense to stop drinking at a reasonable time prior, and 300 pax haven't placed their lives in my hands.
12 hours bottle to throttle. It's not rocket science. And I don't know a single professional pilot who doesn't respect that limit--and when I say respect that limit, I mean they aren't falling down drunk at 12:01:00.

Even if you go by the 8 hours required by CARS, if you don't have the judgment to know 8 hours after you quit drinking that you are in no shape to fly, you're probably in the wrong profession.


Unfortunately, it IS rocket science....

I too often layover in LHR, and I always consume a few pints. And I always stop drinking at least 12 hours prior to my flight.

The problem is the legal limit in the UK is .010 percent blood alcohol. That is very close to ZERO. How can you be sure that you are below the limit 12 hours later? I always assumed that I was under .010 12 hours later, but now it's got me wondering. :rolleyes:

[PJ2]

TDK mk2;
It's very likely that I have operated in a state less fit than someone who had a blood alcohol content above that allowed by the law. For those who think they should live in a perfect world welcome to the real world.
Absolutely; BTDT just as any professional airman contributing to this thread has, which is why I compared the two, (as others did).

While the specific issue here is, "Why would anyone jeopardize their career?" and "no sympathy if they're arrested", that doesn't solve the larger flight safety issues at hand. The number of pilots who undertake this risk is miniscule compared to the number of departures each day the world over. I stated that I am not "comparing" the two to determine which is worse, but to state that the industry must deal with both issues and it is only dealing with one because it is high profile and an easy target with the certainty of a public reaction while the issue of crew fatigue is not.

remoak, you stated that this comparison was "peurile", which means "juvenile", "childish" and "lacking in maturity". From your posts I don't think that's the way you think of flight safety but all the same I'm left wondering what was meant, given the issues at hand. Tying the two issues together, as I said in my post, was not the intent. One does not change/improve flight safety by piggy-backing on another issue - I believe we both understand that; it is to draw attention to two equally risky issues, one of which is extremely rare, the other of which is swept under the carpet at every mention of it. The point is, one issue is serious and is widely experienced but ignored, the other is serious, has extremely high public currency but is equally extremely rare. It is clear which issue must be dealt with more effectively.

Arresting crew members under suspicion of drinking wins points as much as it may prevent the odd incident. While fear and power work in the short term, it is my view that no flight safety initiative ought to be advanced in this manner. I hope I'm a bit more clear.
Cheers,
PJ2

[remoak]

Flying Lawyer

Exasperation is an emotion, as it happens... and you are quite right to be exasperated (ie irritated intensely or infuriated).

I do remember the thread you started, and remember thinking it was timely and useful. I remember the story of the chap you defended as well - thought maybe there were more.

I also seem to recall that you are/were part of the PPRuNe "inner circle". It might interest you to know that the worst exhibitions of drinking to excess within 24 hours of flying that I have ever witnessed, have occurred at the two PPRuNe "bashes" that I attended - the first and second, I think. I well recall sitting around a table at a pub near Stansted with a bunch of other PPRuNers, when one of them asked in a very slurred voice who was flying the next morning. Half a dozen hands went up and trust me, they were all very drunk (the people, not the hands). Everybody seemed highly amused by this. There was more than one "mod" amongst them...

That's why I never went to another one after the second. I thought the first might have been an aberration - it wasn't.

As I said, drinking is deeply embedded in the British psyche and that includes pilots. It also includes doctors, police superintendents, and others who should know better. There is a significant problem in a number of professions, but the default position in the UK is one of denial.

PJ2

I absolutely agree with your comments regarding fatigue and the correlation between performance while impaired by either alcohol or fatigue. My point was that the two differ in one fundamental way; excess alcohol can be easily tested for and is illegal, whereas fatigue is not. It SHOULD be, but it isn't. And we all know what happens to any pilot who claims they are "fatigued" under current FTLs - it is a one-way ticket to a short career unless you can prove chronic fatigue medically. THAT should be illegal too, but it isn't. Another quirk of British culture.

So with fatigue you absolutely can't win, whereas with alcohol the rules are simple and easily obeyed.

The fact that fatigue is far more likely to be the cause of an accident than alcohol, is quietly ignored...

So yes, you are clear and I do agree. It wasn't you I was responding to.

[16024]

Would it be too mischievous to suggest that arresting someone for being one third of the driving limit is free, but that ensuring aircrew are properly rested would cost money.

[Nicholas49]

remoak, if what you say is correct and I can entirely believe that is, then I don't think I need an answer to the question I asked a few posts back. The random breathalyser checks most definitely are required and they should be increased in frequency.

I also hope that every security guard who has the slightest suspicion about the likes of the people around that table continue to report such suspicions to the police and the appropriate legal proceedings ensue.

[TDK mk2]

Nicolars49
remoak, if what you say is correct and I can entirely believe that is, then I don't think I need an answer to the question I asked a few posts back. The random breathalyser checks most definitely are required and they should be increased in frequency.

I also hope that every security guard who has the slightest suspicion about the likes of the people around that table continue to report such suspicions to the police and the appropriate legal proceedings ensue.

Sir; why not just have breathylisers fitted to the flight deck door and make sure they are datalinked to the police so they can come and haul the offending crew member away to be sacrificed for their crime against aviation. Never mind if they were on a diet, or had just rinsed with mouthwash or even have a high natural occurance of alcohol in their blood, as I understand that a rare few people do.

How widespread do you really believe drinking amongst crew members is, based on an anecdote from 7 or 8 years ago? When was the last time any airline incident or accident was even partly attributed to the blood alcohol content of it's operating crew? I'll duck for the incomings after that one.

As has been said this is just the easiest thing to test for but not the one that represents the greatest threat to aviation. Have a look at the EK407 thread and start wondering what part fatigue might have played there.

But if it makes you feel safer then go ahead and call for increased random testing. It'll be up there with banning pilots (and police firearms officers) from taking liquids over 100mls through security for effectiveness.

[dash6]

Drinking is embedded in the british psyche? Fine. Looking at the accident stats. for UK aviation,perhaps there is an argument for making drinking compulsory?:}

[remoak]

When was the last time any airline incident or accident was even partly attributed to the blood alcohol content of it's operating crew?

Or to look at it another way, when was the last time a crew was tested for alcohol following an incident or accident? I have been involved in a few incidents over the years and it was never even suggested that the crew be breathalised. I have friends who have been unfortunate enough to have accidents, and they were never checked either. About the only time it ever happens is when there are dead bodies to be checked during a post mortem. Accident stats tell you precisely nothing about how big (or small) the problem is.

I don't think the problem is widespread, however I am also not just going to stick my head in the sand and pretend that all my colleagues are angels and never break the rules. To think that way is simply delusional.

So what do you want to do? Eliminate all risk, or just the socially acceptable ones?

I'm all for random testing, which does indeed happen in some countries. But then, I don't drink within 24 hours of flying so I have little to fear. If such testing catches nobody at all, you have still reduced or eliminated one of the holes in the cheese.

Of course, given the effectiveness of airport security in fingering offenders, it may actually catch quite a few...

[Capt Claret]

At a recent Drug & Alcohol Management seminar I attended the following figures (as best I can recall them) were trotted out.

When the FAA commenced random testing their initial results were:
Of Tech Crew tested, 0.05% returned a positive result.
Of Cabin Crew tested, 0.5% (ten times as many as pilots) returned a positive result.
Of Security Staff tested, 34% (680 times as many as pilots and 68 times as many as cabin crew) returned a positive result. :eek:

[cactusbusdrvr]

I believe the last 2 posters have got it right.

It is far easier to test for alcohol than it is for fatigue. And it costs far less to legislate 8 or 12 hours bottle to throttle than it is to develope realistic and prudent flight time and duty regulations.

Having said that, I have had a few friends that have had issues with alcohol abuse. One no longer flies, the others have stayed sober through rehabilitation and follow up programs. There is an element of the job that leads to situations that your average wage earner seldom encounters, overnights far from home in the company of fellow workers who want to have a good time. If that isn't a set up for potential abuse then I don't know what is. The fact is, we have to be careful in our actions and we have to monitor ourselves because we sure as hell live under a microscope in this profession.

[goeasy]

BUT the 12 hours doesn't guarantee the pilot is below the arbitrary limit.

People can rant rules are rules, but random testing will create huge disruption to pilots, and passengers lives, through false positives etc without improving flight safety one dot.

Which is precisely why it hasn't, and hopefully never will, be implemented. Airlines would need much higher levels of standby cover.

SLF always want more safety UNTIL its going to cost them 50% more to travel. The only reason flying is so much cheaper these days is because safety has been compromised, by making crew fly more, and more tired. Its a fact. :sad:

[beamer]

'Abscence management programme' - tell us more !

[Flying Lawyer]

remoak Accident stats tell you precisely nothing about how big (or small) the problem is.
That depends upon what you mean by "the problem".

I agree accident stats don't reveal the number (big or small) of pilots who, knowingly or unknowingly, fly when the level of alcohol in their bodies is still over the zero/virtually zero legal limit.
However, they do provide a very helpful indication of the effect (big, small or non-existent) that has upon flight safety.

The only formal research of which I'm aware is that carried out by the ATSB which conducted a thorough examination of its accident and incident database to determine the prevalence and nature of drug and alcohol related accidents and incidents in Australian civil aviation.
The rearchers 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 instances.
It must, of course, be borne in mind (1) that not all those accidents/incidents were caused wholly or partly by pilot error and (2) that, even if they were was caused wholly or partly by pilot error, it does it does not necessarily follow that alcohol played any part in the error.
I don't know how many flights were flown by Australian pilots in those 31 years, but it must be hundreds of thousands and probably millions.


If by "the problem" you mean the number of pilots who fly when the level of alcohol in their bodies is still over the zero/virtually zero legal limit, then I don't know whether that number is big or small.

But which is more important in the context of a discussion about flight safety:

the number (big or small) of pilots who break the law, whether they realise they are doing so or not, or
whether big or small, it has actually caused or contributed to accidents.Note: For the avoidance of any misunderstanding, I am not condoning breaking the law. I am merely urging people expressing outrage to consider the evidence, and the two separate issues, before jumping to conclusions. ie To keep some perspective when reading about alcohol offences or alleged offences.

[Michael Birbeck]

Having read through the alcohol related arrest threads on PPRUNE it is clear that an arrest and conviction is likely to destroy a professional pilot's hard won career (often for alcohol levels that would allow another person to drive a car).

I wonder if there is any mileage in pilots possessing and using the breath testing kit used by the police at road side checks. The use of this equipment in a private capacity prior to arriving for the flight would at least give the pilot a chance to assess the risk and if necessary to stand down on whatever grounds before the flight.

Would companies turn a blind eye to this practice or would evidence of such usage imply "a problem" and mark the pilot out?

I am not trying to turn a blind eye to alcoholism or drinking in this or any other safety critical industry but believe that the enforcement environment has become so draconian that some professional risk mitigation activity is warranted.

On a human note, I wish this Air Canada captain the best and hope that he is able to salvage his career.

[anotherthing]

The 12 hour rule is guidance, you still have to use your common sense. If you hammer back loads of drink you are not going to be legal after 12 hours!

(Mind you, people have put dogs into microwaves to dry them after a bath because the instructions did not say you couldn't, so maybe common sense is too much to ask for in todays dumbed down world).

Sleep, exercise, food, coffee etc make no difference in burning off units of alcohol.

Pilots are employed to be decision makers. One of those decisions is as to whether you are fit to fly, for whatever reason.
If you stink of alcohol, it is only right that you get challenged. Should mere security people do it? Well, why not, after all flight safety is everyone's concern and if there is any doubt whatsoever, it is better to check and be safe.

It is not pleasant for crew to be removed and accused (pending tests), but it is safer - what people should realise though is that just because there is suspicion or doubt, it does not indicate guilt.

Handheld devices are not accurate enough, which is why police have to take drivers back to the station after a failed roadside test.

Although intrusive, maybe there is an argument for a LION alcohol test machine to be installed at every airport - then in situations such as the one described, the pilot can be tested immediately and returned to duty within minutes when it is proved that he is not over the limit?

This would prevent any doubt and would be a quick way of resolving the issue.


The use of this equipment in a private capacity prior to arriving for the flight would at least give the pilot a chance to assess the risk and if necessary to stand down on whatever grounds before the flight.

You are missing the point completely, pilots should not be putting themselves in this position - if you value your job, why leave any room for doubt - 2 or 3 drinks 12 hours before a flight will always be safe, why do you have to drink more when you know you are going to be on duty? The job of aircrew brings with it responsibilities, if you can't forego staying sober 24 hours before a flight, maybe your priorities are wrong.

[Wod]

I have read many of the posts on this thread, but not all, so apologies if this point has already been made.

It seems that the problem, is not the witting, wilful contravention of the drink/fly rules. The problem is the increase in pilots being hauled off flights for suspected breaches of new laws/regs after they have signed on for duty.

The day-to-day health and metabolism of individuals varies; consequently the residual alcohol concentrations in individuals who have consumed similar amounts of alcohol will be measured at different levels 10 or 12 hours after the last drink.

I think that the time has come to consider the provision of reliable and trusted blood alcohol testing equipment at sign-on at RPT operations. It should be a given that nobody infringes deliberately, so a fail on the test is merely grounds for a (very) late sick call.

Doesn't sound easy to sell, but it would keep people in their jobs, out of the headlines and out of the courts. It would also keep the carriers out of the headlines.

FWIW

[ExSp33db1rd]

Many years ago now, one of my colleagues on a tiring longhaul trip away from home, adv. his local management that for various reasons he felt that he personally would be unable to operate beyond the first sector of a long, 2 - sector night, shortly to start, and that there was still time to position a relief at the first stop. He was told to operate as planned or be suspended. He operated the second sector.

Not long after, the same situation arose again, this time the pilot concerned kept quiet and operated the first sector, then demanded to see a doctor, who grounded him for symptoms of fatigue. As the stop was remote,the aircraft and passengers were forced to stop until the pilot concerned, and now of course the rest of the crew, obtained a minumum rest period.

The aircraft arrived some 12 hours late at its destination.

Only way to make 'em listen.

[Michael Birbeck]

"You are missing the point completely, pilots should not be putting themselves in this position - if you value your job, why leave any room for doubt - 2 or 3 drinks 12 hours before a flight will always be safe, why do you have to drink more when you know you are going to be on duty? The job of aircrew brings with it responsibilities, if you can't forego staying sober 24 hours before a flight, maybe your priorities are wrong."

I agree that in an ideal world, nobody would drink more than is reasonable and there wouldn't be a problem. I am not advocating alcohol abuse or irresponsibility. The truth is that nobody is perfect and a pilot is just as likely as any other person to wake up in the morning thinking "did I drink four or was it five pints last night and how stong was that lager I drank"? One mistake in answering any one of those critical questions could be career threatening.

Life is stressful, people drink at social occasions and we can't be perfect all the time unfortunately. We can, however, be responsible. Any activity that mitigates against career and safety risk is to be encouraged I think. If a pilot finds him/herself self checking and finding that they are on the edge of legality and safety might want to consider that they have a problem and look for help through the appropriate channels. If it is a one off then the risk mitigation has worked and a career and a company's good name is protected and safety has not been compromised. Either way this approach has to be better than hiding the issue and hoping for the best which is pretty much what is happening now at great cost to the industry and to the individuals concerned.

[remoak]

Flying Lawyer

That depends upon what you mean by "the problem".I would define the problem as flight crew pitching up for work with enough alcohol in their system to impair their performance, which the State has defined as 0.010 "whatevers" (I can't recall the unit used).

The problem with the research you quote is that it isn't exhaustive. it only takes into account the number of cases where alcohol was identified as a factor, but what it doesn't tell you is how often alcohol was tested for. So, over those 31 years and 22 instances, how many times was alcohol actually checked for over how many accidents/incidents? As the sample goes back to the '70s, and we are talking about Australia, my guess is that virtually none of the accidents from the earlier years will have been. Without that information, the data is meaningless.

But which is more important in the context of a discussion about flight safety:
the number (big or small) of pilots who break the law, whether they realise they are doing so or not, or
whether big or small, it has actually caused or contributed to accidents.Whether or not excess blood alcohol actually caused or contributed to an accident is not relevant and a disingenuous argument. Is flight safety predicated on the removal of all possible risk, or just the ones that have been demonstrated to cause accidents?

Pilots flying with excess blood alcohol is analagous to a simple mechanical malfunction. Take the Aloha Airlines 737 that lost it's roof, for example. The corrosion that eventually caused the failure had been there for a long time, undetected. One day, it finally gave way - but the rot had set in years before. Now, using your argument, should pilots be allowed to get away with excess blood alcohol until eventually, for one pilot, the alcohol becomes the straw that breaks the camel's back? Or do we do our best to prevent that situation from ever occurring?

I believe the primary aim flight safety is preventative intervention, not simply reaction to events.

The real issue here is getting pilots to recognise that a very common recreational activity that is deeply engrained in many cultures (drinking alcohol) is incompatible with their profession. Pilots, being human, want to have their cake and eat it too. The State quite rightly says "no" and exercises what is essentially a zero tolerance approach to alcohol. I have no issue with that, because I believe that professional pilots should be held to high standards in this regard (or hold themselves to high standards, but my experience has been that this reliance on self-discipline often fails).

So what I am saying is this:

The number of accidents directly attributable to alcohol is irrelevant. One is too many.
Pilots should be held to high standards in this regard.
The available research is inconclusive.
The default view of many agencies and most pilots is one of denial.And finally, anyone who doesn't think that alcohol abuse is endemic in British society simply isn't looking. The "Boozed-Up Britain" culture is alive and well. My experience of night-stopping with many airline crews over 20+ years of airline flying has shown me that there is a remarkable lack of self-discipline when it comes to alcohol. Stricter controls are inevitable on pilots.

I'd love to hear the rationale for lowering the current standard, I think that's a hard case to make.

[Cytherea]

As a post script to Tigger Too's tongue in cheek post...but one with a serious message the believes that he'd have had 24 units of alcohol - great session! In reality I reckon he'd be closer to 35 units as foloows:
8 pints (2.5units/pint) = 20 Units
6 glasses wine (1.8units/175ml glass @10% ABV) = 10.8 Units
Large Brandy (1.8units/35ml UK pub measure) = 3.6 Units

total = 34.4 Units... still way over at the required moment.

UK units of Measure are based on 1960s glass sizes and alcohol levels...half a pint of modern regular lager even the piXX weak american stuff is more than one unit (a quick check of the label on Bud bottle beside me reveals 1.7 units!!!)...We need to take this into account.

[604guy]

I will admit to not reading every post in detail so I may have missed it. I'm curious as to whether in the UK, ATC and aircraft maintenance folks are held to the same .01 threshold? They are after all just as engaged in an aviation activity as the folks on the flight deck.

[Max Angle]

It applies to aircrew (pilots and CC) and ATC staff and also licensed engineers. The Railways and Transport Act 2003 is the law in question and covers shipping and railways as well. Pretty sure the limit is Europe wide.

Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 (c. 20) (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030020_en_1)

Aviation section: Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 (c. 20) (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030020_en_7#pt5-pb1-l1g92)

[FrequentSLF]

At a recent Drug & Alcohol Management seminar I attended the following figures (as best I can recall them) were trotted out.

When the FAA commenced random testing their initial results were:
Of Tech Crew tested, 0.05% returned a positive result.
Of Cabin Crew tested, 0.5% (ten times as many as pilots) returned a positive result.
Of Security Staff tested, 34% (680 times as many as pilots and 68 times as many as cabin crew) returned a positive result.

0.05% means that one occurrence every 1000 flights (assuming 2 pilots) or 500 flights when a relief crew is on board...it sounds quite alarming :uhoh:

Please correct me if I have interpreted your numbers wrongly...

[Carnage Matey!]

Or to look at it another way, when was the last time a crew was tested for alcohol following an incident or accident?

I think you'll find it's standard procedure for any major incident in the UK these days. When a colleague of mine, parked at the holding point with the park brake set, was struck from behind by another aircraft, his entire flight crew were breathalysed, including the relief pilots.

I would define the problem as flight crew pitching up for work with enough alcohol in their system to impair their performance, which the State has defined as 0.010 "whatevers" (I can't recall the unit used).

Except the state hasn't defined how much alcohol impairs their performance, it has simply chosen an arbitrary limit based upon the limitations of the measuring equipment.

[silverhawk]

In the UK, basic Plod has a device for the 'roadside' test. It is not accurate enough to read down to 0.20 eg at the aircraft

At the station for a proper test, the machine is also not accurate enough for a reading as low as 0.20 eg at the police station

Eventually a blood sample will be required which takes 6 weeks to analysis.


Some 15 months ago I was randomly tested by 3 officers, CID, Special Branch and Plod in the crewroom after a call from a member of the public who had to be kept anonymous for legal reasons. Obviously I came up as zero on the roadside test. How unfair is that?

The kit I own is more accurate than the roadside kit the Police have, but theirs could ground someone for 6 weeks waiting for results that prove one innocent.

^ Mud sticks!

[silverhawk]

That's brilliant

On the day in question I was **** all the way to wherever I went because even though I was innocent, I felt observed and operated appallingly.

Any chance you are qualified to send your observations to CAA?

[Jox]

Silverhawk,

Cannot speak for wherever you work but I did a course provided by the plod at my base where they took us all through the legislation introduced by this Act a couple of years ago. They showed us the devices that they use and explained the requirements in order that we could cascade them throughout the company.

The device is nothing to do with the roadside limits, it is a combined device calibrated for two different pieces of legislation with two different thresholds. This is why there is no secondary test at the station, the machine there is only calibrated for the road. Only option remaining - blood.

Plod at airports rarely detect the smell of alcohol on another’s breath, it is security or someone in the crew room who smell it first. Having been informed, the plod can only undertake the test to prove or dismiss the allegation. Pass you have no problem, fail and we know where you end up.

This legislation may only be undertaken by uniformed officers. I rather enjoyed the time they were present, they explained it well, answered all our questions and are very clearly experienced in aviation and what happens at airports. We all generally do stuff well because we have been trained in it, the coppers appear to be in a similar category.

Commentary on the thread in general;

Simple answer may be not to put yourself in a position where they may be called to undertake a test but until the circumstances of this case are confirmed and publicised, it is prudent to make no comments on what has happened to our colleague.

Any trial by judge and jury is the way of the Country. Any trial by PPruNe and those posting on a thread is neither welcome, warranted nor helpful to a colleague who has at this time been convicted of nothing. There will be enough soul searching going on, let’s all be conscious of another’s feelings without pouring some fuel on the fire needlessly.

Jox :oh:

[lomapaseo]

Last couple of pages on this thread have been enlightening to read (very little judgemental stuff),

Can I beseech the mods to capture some of this stuff (sticky, merging fodder, inserts or otherwise) so that next month when another pilot is hauled off we can at least start from the same level headed discussion

[Basil]

604guy,
The limit for a LAME is four times the crew limit.
In the case of blood, 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres cf 20 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres for crew.

FrequentSLF
0.05% means that one occurrence every 1000 flights (assuming 2 pilots) or 500 flights when a relief crew is on board...it sounds quite alarming
Do remember that the crew limit is set vanishingly low and, even if these figures are correct, they do not indicate skippers rolling aboard roaring "Single up to the bow spring; slow ahead!" :)

[FrequentSLF]

Basil

FrequentSLF
Quote:
0.05% means that one occurrence every 1000 flights (assuming 2 pilots) or 500 flights when a relief crew is on board...it sounds quite alarming

Do remember that the crew limit is set vanishingly low and, even if these figures are correct, they do not indicate skippers rolling aboard roaring "Single up to the bow spring; slow ahead!"

My point was that putting figures, specifically statics, without mentioning how they were extrapolated can produce distorted results. If those figures are correct we can deduce that at any given time there is at least one pilot over the legal limit at the controls. Since I take about 250 flights per year, I can also say that once a year, statistically, the pilot at the controls of my flight is above the legal limit.

[Stop Stop Stop]

Although intrusive, maybe there is an argument for a LION alcohol test machine to be installed at every airport - then in situations such as the one described, the pilot can be tested immediately and returned to duty within minutes when it is proved that he is not over the limit?

This would prevent any doubt and would be a quick way of resolving the issue


Having spoken to a friend who was breathalised on a random inspection at the aircraft, he said that he was so wound up by the whole 'guilty until proven innocent' attitude of the police following the experience that he was really unfit to fly afterwards. So maybe if the pilot IS hauled off to Plod's room and breathalised, he should go home once proved innocent.

In my company a couple of years ago, there was a well publicised incident where one of the flight attendants went onto the flight deck and smelt alcohol. Rather than say anything, whilst taxiing out, she called her boyfriend on her mobile phone and asked what she should do (he was a police officer). He decided to call his mates and the aircraft was stopped from getting airborne by the police telling ATC to prevent it departing. The aircraft returned to the stand and boarded by several police officers who breathalised both pilots. Obviously, they were both under the limit.

The Flight attendant had smelt alcohol wipes used to clean the headset and those parts of the cockpit that harbours the most germs (i.e. most of it). When the captain was told by the police how he had been reported, he stood in front of the passengers and explained the whole story to them- and then said that because he was so wound up by the whole situation, he was getting off. They were offloaded, the cockpit crew got off and the cabin crew member concerned was suspended from duty.

Moral- be careful who you accuse. Any problems, a quiet word will normally suffice. Alcohol is really not a problem amongst 99.99999% of crews. Of course there will always be one or two but the problem cannot be pretended that it is a new one. In the 50's and 60's pilots were often as pi$$ed as farts, but they didn't seem to cause crashes. Nowadays, it has (quite rightly) been eradicated from pilot culture to the most part through fear of getting caught- particularly since the channel four program with the undercover reporter crashing a BA room party. Once upon a time, the alcohol problem was self-policed by the crew ("can I have a word Nigel old chap- your breath is rather interesting this morning- you did say that your ears were remarkably blocked on your drive to work- would you like to borrow my phone to call crewing?")- that is why there are very few incidents relating to alcohol. Now, it is the fear of some big copper hauling you away because they smelt mints on your breath and if you are a tad over from the glass of wine you had the night before, you will go to Gaol (Jail for the Americans).

I don't condone drinking of course- I might have a pint the night before a duty but not within 12 hours of starting. It really is not worth throwing your career away for- not least your liberty. Prisons are not nice places- particularly not for the average pilot, who is unused to those sort of establishments. I feel very sorry for those who have been sent away.

[silverhawk]

No sarcasm at all, far too serious an issue for that.

Answer is B

In retrospect, I should have gone sick rather than operate the flight. As this was the first time I'd experienced this, I didn't realise just how much it had shaken me until already airborne.

If there is a next time, I will immediately remove myself from duties for a protracted length of time.

[kwh]

...to be considered. The current puritanical attitude to alcohol, any alchohol, as the root of all ills and risk in society notwithstanding, surely there has to be a sober (geddit?) cost-benefit analysis of this kind of testing and enforcement regime at these vanishingly low limits? Clearly I wouldn't want to fly to Ibiza with a pilot up front who was impaired by alcohol, but we also know that modest (note modest) alcohol intake is actually demonstrably good for people. Good for their physical health and their psychological health. Witch hunts and artificially imposed stress are equally demonstrably bad for people. If there was a real problem with pilots flying ratted, and safety being compromised, then draconian and thus demonstrably damaging attempts to address it would be more than justified by the nett benefit. Ditto if the only reason the sky isn't full of drunken pilots weaving around the airways is that such a draconian regime is in place. But given that it appears that there isn't a problem (by which I mean statistically significant numbers of broken aeroplanes and dead/injured people associated with crew alcohol misuse), has anybody considered whether the number of deaths and serious injuries that might result from the impact on crew health and well-being of attempting to effectively force all aircrew to become tee-total or of the additional stress on aircrew of the aformentioned enforcement regime?

Come to that, what about even just the cost (headline and consequential) of the enforcement regime itself?

In an ideal world, nobody would ever fly a plane with any measurable alcohol in their systems at all, but all would also be relaxed, in perfect psychological health, free of any artificially induced stress and as fit as they could possibly be in every respect. This not being an ideal world, and those two conflicting requirements being somewhat mutually exclusive to an extent, where do I as a passenger want the line to be drawn?

My answer is that if a witch hunt culture on enforcing very very low alcohol limits actually makes me less safe overall, and costs me a fortune in the process, I don't want it, any more than I would want to be flown by a pisshead.

Pick the bones out of that if you like.

[Flying Lawyer]

remoak
I would define the problem as flight crew pitching up for work with enough alcohol in their system to impair their performance, which the State has defined as 0.010 "whatevers" (I can't recall the unit used). You are eliding two issues into one. It is a common mistake which I suspect lies at the root of the more extreme and emotive posts which often appear in these alcohol threads.

State?
I don’t know which State you have in mind but, as Carnage Matey has already pointed out, the UK has not defined the alcohol level which impairs performance. It has prescribed, for the purpose of one of our two different offences, a maximum permitted level.

Since the 2003 Act came into force, the UK has had two separate and different offences relating to alcohol in aviation:

(1) 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.

That was a change of words, not a change of substance. Those words (taken from the 2003 Act) reflect the offence which had existed in the UK for many years (under the ANO), namely that 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, the 2003 Act also created a second and different offence which did not previously exist in the UK:

(2) 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, blood.)

Note that impairment is not an element of this offence.
Accordingly, a pilot whose alcohol level exceeds the prescribed limit may still be guilty of this offence regardless of whether or not his ability to perform his aviation function was impaired.

The problem with the research you quote is that it isn't exhaustive. I didn’t suggest it was exhaustive. As I said, it is the only formal research of which I'm aware. If you can point me to any other research relating to alcohol in aviation I’d be interested to read it.
In your opinion, whether or not excess alcohol actually caused or contributed to an accident is not relevant. I think it is. I'm content to agree to differ.
I disagree that the data is meaningless. IMHO it provides a very helpful and informative indication, although not conclusive.

I can understand why the point I made is inconvenient to your own argument(s), but it’s a pity you’ve resorted to alleging that it is disingenuous. It is not in my nature to make disingenuous points and, even if I was so inclined, I have no reason whatsoever to do so. Unless obvious from the context (and/or a smiley) that I’m not being serious, you can safely assume that, having considered the various issues, I say what I mean and believe what I say.

Is flight safety predicated on the removal of all possible risk etc? I’m not a flight safety expert but, as I understand it, no, flight safety is not predicated on the removal of all possible risk.

Your Aloha 737 example is not IMHO analogous.

I believe the primary aim flight safety is preventative intervention, not simply reaction to events. I agree in principle. However, given a set of facts and stats to consider, I suspect we might disagree about the stage at which (if at all) preventative intervention is necessary.
The default view of many agencies and most pilots is one of denial. I suppose it's possible that “many agencies and most pilots” are wrong and you are right.

"Boozed-Up Britain" is the sort of phrase I expect to read in newspapers of a certain type rather than in intelligent debate, but I agree there is some force in what you say about many Brits’ attitude to drinking. However, the fact is that the safety record of British carriers is and always has been excellent. (I appreciate you’ll probably dismiss that as irrelevant.)

Even assuming for the purpose of this discussion that your claims about pilots’ attitude to drinking are not exaggerated in an attempt to strengthen your arguments, I don’t know if they are based upon recent observations. (I know you used to fly in Europe but don’t know when.)
I mention that because, from what I've been told and read on PPRuNe, whatever may or may not have gone on before, the introduction of the 'excess alcohol' offence has made pilots even more cautious than they already were because they know they are at risk of losing their careers and being sent to prison simply by being over the prescribed limit - even if they are not guilty of the 'Unfit for Duty' offence.

If I don't respond to any other post you may make, please don't assume it's because I agree with what you've said. I've spent (or perhaps wasted) enough time on this topic.


FL

(Edited to correct typos)

[FrequentSLF]

I've spent (or perhaps wasted) enough time on this topic.

Very unfortunate sentence. I always found your post very instructive, although I know you do not reciprocate.

FSLF

[Flying Lawyer]

It depends upon the topic being discussed. :)

Thank you for your kind comment.
I meant 'wasted' only in the sense that, however many times I or others try to explain the difference, there are always people who continue to equate unlawful to fly (exceeding the zero or virtually zero prescribed limit, even by a miniscule amount) with unfit to fly (impairment).

Doing that is as silly as suggesting that exceeding a speed limit even by a miniscule amount is dangerous driving.

.

[FrequentSLF]

FL
there are always people who continue to equate unlawful to fly (exceeding the zero or virtually zero prescribed limit, even by a miniscule amount) with unfit to fly (impairment).

That sentence closes the discussion on the thread. I do agree with you 100%.
People has to understand that rules are rules, even virtually zero over the prescribed limit is unlawful, that's the law...we might agree or disagree with it but is still the law...being fit or unfit (impaired) is another part of the law! Our society is based on respect of the laws, and we are bound to respect them. We might look for changes, but until the laws are changed we are bound to respect them!

FSLF

[Flying Lawyer]

FSLF

Watch what happens if another excess alcohol thread comes along.
The same routine will start all over again.

I agree with what you say about abiding by laws regardless of whether we happen to agree with them - although (for example) abiding by every speed limit each time we drive isn't easy. ;)

FL

[One Outsider]

There are people who will use any excuse to have a go at air crew. As this thread is a good example off.

It has become very predictable who will be in the forefront of the fingerpointing.

[swh]

As far as I am aware the blood test came back as zero, the pilot has been cleared by Air Canada.

The security guard did not smell anything illegal, he smelt "cherry" chewing gum.

This will not end up in the paper, as it does not help sell papers, like allegations of a drunk pilot.

[remoak]

Flying Lawyer

I'm sure you will read this, even if you choose to engage no further in the discussion. So a couple of points:

UK has not defined the alcohol level which impairs performance. It has prescribed, for the purpose of one of our two different offences, a maximum permitted level.

One is ipso facto the other. The state has determined that any alcohol in the bloodstream impairs performance (rightly or wrongly) and has, on that basis, established an arbitrary limit. The limit may in itself be meaningless, but it is not without a basis.

It is pretty obvious that the offence of...Performing 'an aviation function' .......... at a time when the proportion of alcohol in your breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit

... is a catch-all that is designed to overcome the problem of trying to prove impairment in a court of law. The limit itself is probably set so low because of the vagaries of the effects of alcohol on different people.

If you can point me to any other research relating to alcohol in aviation I’d be interested to read it.

I can't, and I suspect that there isn't any. That in itself is significant.

IMHO it provides a very helpful and informative indication, although not conclusive.

Without knowing in how many incidents or accidents the presence of alcohol was assessed, how can it possibly have any meaning at all? If only 22 cases in those 31 years were assessed for alcohol, the hit rate is 100% and we should all be worried. If every case was assessed for alcohol, the problem is minute and we can all breathe again.,,,

I’m not a flight safety expert but, as I understand it, no, flight safety is not predicated on the removal of all possible risk.

Well people who are experts in flight safety disagree with you. For example, the RAF say this:

The aim of Flight Safety is to maximise operational capability by reducing those risks inherent in military aviation to a level as low as reasonably practicable.

I susppose you could have a semantic argument over "all possible risk" and low as reasonably practicable". However, the principle I have put forward is essentially what they teach you on day one of the Flight Safety Officer course. Well, they did on the one I attended, anyway.

I suppose it's possible that “many agencies and most pilots” are wrong and you are right.

It isn't an issue of "right and wrong", it is an observable phenomenon. Just read this thread and others like it. It is also an issue where little will be done until there is a major accident that is directly attributable to the misuse of alcohol. Other countries take this a lot more seriously than the UK does.

However, the fact is that the safety record of British carriers is and always has been excellent. (I appreciate you’ll probably dismiss that as irrelevant.)

Well the safety record of most British carriers is and has been excellent. No, it isn't (completely) irrelevant.

Even assuming for the purpose of this discussion that your claims about pilots’ attitude to drinking are not exaggerated in an attempt to strengthen your arguments, I don’t know if they are based upon recent observations. (I know you used to fly in Europe but don’t know when.)

I was flying in Europe until late last year. The last time I had a personal brush with the misuse of alcohol was about two years ago, when I had to send an F/O home "sick" because he was still clearly intoxicated from the night before.

I find the allegation that I may make exaggerated claims to strengthen my case somewhat insulting. It is not in my nature to exaggerate. Maybe it is a response to my use of the word "disingenuous". Oh well.

the introduction of the 'excess alcohol' offence has made pilots even more cautious

I think you would be amazed at how many pilots don't even know about it.

I've spent (or perhaps wasted) enough time on this topic.

Fair enough. This is just my morning entertainment over a cup of coffee. Hard to find a good, intelligent debate these days..

[Phil.Capron]

If the reports of this pilot passing a blood test are true,I hope he sues somebody/everybody for all it's worth.It is surely not part of a security agent's job description to check pilots in this way.I was told some time ago that they had been told to engage pilots in conversation to assist them in their task.There was recently an example of a false positive-pilot on a diet.Did he take that any further?

[Bandit FO]

You do not have to talk to them. I don't.

[eliptic]

Have been standing aside reading all arguments instead of destroy the thread with bad spelling and grammatic.

Thanks PJ2, REMOAC, FREQUENTSLF , etc for some very good arguments :D

Flying Lawyer

I fund some interesting research:
The effects of alcohol on pilot performance and safety (http://www.google.se/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Faeromedical.org%2FArticles%2FPDF_files%2FA% 26A.pdf&ei=86P6SYnHFs6X_AbzuPytBA&usg=AFQjCNHVXhQ0w3iedTbcHXTQCSYYaRWmrw&sig2=kRO92Oa26rcTJ1_G51QgmQ)

http://aeromedical.org/Articles/PDF_files/A&A.pdf


This also tells you a lot regards the attitude to alcohol/driving

Résumé / Abstract

This paper assesses whether persons convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) are at increased risk of alcohol-related general aviation accidents. Past research has shown a clear link between DWI convictions and pilot-error accidents in commercial aviation. However, no study in the literature has addressed whether DWI convictions are associated with an increased risk of alcohol-related aircraft accidents. To evaluate a hypothesis, a total of 308 912 pilot records over a 10-year period were analyzed using logistic regression. After potentially confounding variables were controlled, DWI convictions were found to be associated with alcohol-related aviation accidents. Pilots with DWI convictions were about 3.5 times more likely than pilots without convictions to have alcohol-related general aviation accidents. Actual or potential applications of this research include providing policy makers with data-driven information that is useful in improving decisions related to the medical certification of pilots.

DWI convictions linked to a higher risk of alcohol-related aircraft accidents (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14696998)


And at last Flying Lawyer:

Is this the price we have to pay for some pilots can´t respect the stipulated law?

MOSCOW, Feb 10 (Reuters) - The chief pilot of a Russian airliner which crashed last year killing 88 people had alcohol in his blood but the primary cause of the crash was poor training, investigators said on Tuesday.

The existence of alcohol maybe not to prove the cause of accident but a "non existence" would prove not



AGAIN,, Thanks for some good discussions/reading all!

[Flintstone]

............the primary cause of the crash was poor training..........

Sort of undermining your own case there. Alcohol is mentioned, doesn't say how much. Could have been the slightest trace left over from mouthwash but hey, it says alcohol so we'll add to the hysteria.

Please, spare us.

[eliptic]

Humpmedumpme (http://www.pprune.org/members/233479-humpmedumpme)

Would you rather fly with someone who had an undisclosed amount of alcohol in his blood or had poor training?

I don´t want to fly with any of them!!!

And i am going to end my discussion with this becous i will never change my opinion on the alcohol issue

But, anyway i will make the conclusion to my future flights , the risk ending up with a flight with a toxic crew probably will be the same chances i have to win the lottery

[Nicholas49]

eliptic - is there any chance you could give it a rest? It's getting a bit tedious now.

[Mac the Knife]

For Heavens sake!

Is there any evidence that intoxicated pilots present a "clear and present danger" to the passengers and the industry? Answer: No, none whatever.

In that case all this "atemschnuffelei" (officious breath-sniffing) by untrained security staff is harassment pure and simple.

Mac the Exasperated

[SR71]

Presumably the law was changed because proving one was "unfit for duty" before you'd done any duty was a little tricky?

Hence the introduction of the second "arbitrary" offence.

Now we've got two useless offences and we call that progress.

Tremendous.

[Michael Birbeck]

Eliptic

If you are referencing the PERM 737 crash I believe the key factor noted by the investigators here was the reversion by the pilot flying to a previously learned interpretation of the AI in IFR conditions that resulted in loss of control and terrain impact. I believe the report noted that the alcohol noted in the autopsy could have been associated with natural levels and/or contamination by other alcohol sources on the aircraft at the time of the crash.

[FrequentSLF]

Humpmedumpme

Now you've admitted that you've got about a 1 in 14 million chance of flying with an intoxicated pilot I'm pleased that you've decided to end your discussion (blind, head in the sand monologue).

Does not match with figures given by Capt_Claret in post #89, based on such figures there is a chance every 2000! Pretty good to win a lottery.




If you are referencing the PERM 737 crash I believe the key factor noted by the investigators here was the reversion by the pilot flying to a previously learned interpretation of the AI in IFR conditions that resulted in loss of control and terrain impact. I believe the report noted that the alcohol noted in the autopsy could have been associated with natural levels and/or contamination by other alcohol sources on the aircraft at the time of the crash.

In the Perm 737 thread there are serious allegation from Russian speakers based on the ATC tapes that the Captain was intoxicated.

[eliptic]

Michael Birbeck (http://www.pprune.org/members/291956-michael-birbeck)

I don´t know, and what happen in past we can discuss forever ,,

My only thing was to hear pilots say "it is not ok flying with alcohol" period,,:)

The rest what´s ok or not with security playing alco police or fatigue are more dangerous or or etc etc,,,that i rest my case on(or i did not even try to start argue on)


"I love flying-im not a pilot enemy"

[FrequentSLF]

Humpmedumpme

It is clear from your previous posts that what concerns you more are training and fatigue, which undoubtedly are major issues.
I do not want to start playing the numbers game, since I do not have any reliable figures in my hand. Just reported what was stated previously here.

[Michael Birbeck]

Eliptic

No intention to suggest that you are anti pilot or aviation.Your contributions are thought provoking. :ok:

I guess the summmary of this thread might be that there a mutiple risk factors affecting pilot performance and that in the scheme of things the powers that be have focussed on one, namely alcohol (using Stasi like security methods and draconian legislation) to the almost complete exclusion of other factors that may be just as important, or more so, thereby adding no additional value to safety.

[remoak]

Michael Birbeck

Excellent summary. Fatigue is far more of an issue (but much harder to address).

I think folks here are missing ecliptics point. The primary cause of the Perm accident may have been bad training or whatever, but the fact he is bringing out is that the Chief Pilot was found to have alcohol in his blood - in other words, the one guy who should have been obeying his own rules, wasn't.

And just to throw another curve ball in this argument, I would be fairly sure that the risk of pilot incapacitation due to a toxic fumes event is more likely than alcohol being the cause of an accident. So, for that matter, could be stress, a bad curry, or even an insect trapped in the flight deck.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to ensure that ALL factors that might cause an accident are eliminated, as far as is practicable. Alcohol is a very simple factor to eliminate.

[lomapaseo]

P.S. Can we agree not to drag ourselves through this again if / when it happens again?

Count me in and capture some of the stuff on here as well.

alas there are still going to be some with judgemental posts

[Flying Lawyer]

remoak I'm sure you will read this, even if you choose to engage no further in the discussion. Yes, I read it. I was curious about what your response might be. I don’t share your opinions but we’re each entitled to our own.

Re your first two paragraphs about the legal aspects:
We remain poles apart, but I’m content to let people decide between your understanding and my explanation. (I’ve been a lawyer for almost exactly 35 years, my two specialist areas being criminal law and aviation law.)


The primary cause of the Perm accident may have been bad training or whatever .......... but the Chief Pilot was found to have alcohol in his blood - in other words, the one guy who should have been obeying his own rules, wasn't. Are you sure that's correct? And fair to the Chief Pilot?
I ask because I have a vague recollection (which may be wrong) that alcohol consumption was just one of three possible explanations for the small amount of alcohol in his blood.

FL

[Willit Run]

Some of these laws have gone way past sensible.
I wonder how many legislators, who make these laws and vote on these laws have just come back from lunch with a drink or two in them?

If the legislators had to succumb to the same stringent laws we do, we probably wouldn't have so many ridiculous laws???

Time for a pint. oops, have to fly tonight, darn!

[cardinal1]

do you have any links for this movie. perhaps a trailer.
for bob campbells attention apologies for edit. fatigue you know

[sharksandwich]

YouTube - Drunk Vegas Lawyer causes mistrial in court Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV2qtvbIPFE)

Any professional worker who turns up to perform his/her duties impaired through drink or drugs has a problem.
They would do well to recognise this to preserve their own lives, let alone others.
This is part 1 of four clips of a high profile lawyer who failed to recognise his problem until the s--t hit the fan with sufficient volume to destroy his career.
Any pilot who is experiencing difficulties may well be advised to watch all four clips.

[gbax]

Chopper;

I think the pilot in question was the 3rd wheel, doesn't make it right if in fact the rumors prove true.

Bax

[YHZChick]

The pilot in question WAS a relief pilot and has been cleared by his airline by way of blood test.

[captplaystation]

Perhaps someone who is involved, or the Canadian pilots union ? should have their avocats contact the involved British newspapers and demand the record be set straight, citing defamation of character, potential loss of business for the carrier concerned etc etc. About time we started hitting back at these bar-stewards. They are very quick to publish accusations, painfully remit in setting the record straight afterwards.

[YHZChick]

Perhaps we could start by not discussing it in this forum in a manner which finds him guilty before proven innocent.

[gbax]

Here here!!!!

[Tan]

Couldn’t agree more..

[Capt Claret]

I was reading some information about Australia's newly introduced Drug & Alcohol legislation, the other day. One piece that grabbed my attention, was a warning that some over the counter and prescribed medications could easily cause one to exceed the 0.02% BAC allowed! :eek:

[ExSp33db1rd]

What was that stuff we used to carry around the route with us to settle Delhi-Belly ? That had cocaine in it !! Taken off the shelves years ago.

But it sure worked.

[IcePack]

Kaolin & Morphine ?

[Bronx]

remoak What is stupid is pilots drinking without due regard for the rules of the country they are guests in.
Anyone that gets caught in this way deserves all they get.

Anyone know what happened with this guy?

Tried google but couldn't find anything. :confused:
Lots of press coverage when he got arrested on suspicion but nothing since.

[ea340]

I hear he was cleared of all charges back on the line. No press coverage of him being cleared not suprised . What has happened to the AA B 777 captain

[Rananim]

The security personnel are a law unto themselves and weak or non-existent pilots unions let them get away with it.The pilot should receive a letter of apology,the security personnel responsible should be publicly named and fired,and an investigation by the CAA should be instigated.I hate rats even when they get it right.When they're wrong,they should be publicly hung,drawn and quartered.Have the crews breathalyzed in flt ops before,print the result and present it to these megalomaniacal tyrants.Previous generation pilots would never have stood for this bs.Now anyone can become a pilot.Emasculated pussies,the whole lot of them.

[Lost in Saigon]

The pilot in question must have been cleared of all charges because he was back at work in July.

[merlinxx]

Remember the dreaded Gynamycin (correct if my memory works) Blues:E

[LeadSled]

---- that some over the counter and prescribed medications could easily cause one to exceed the 0.02% BAC allowed! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif

Capt Claret,

What it actually says is that many "over the counter" medications can cause you to fail the "drugs" part of the test, not the "0.02" blood alcohol limit. Incidentally, 0.02 is the number, because this is the lowest detectable limit.

So far, the programme has "not been without its problems", and just like security "persons", the persons administering the random test are already getting a reputation for being aggressive and heavy handed, particularly to anybody who doesn't grovel.

A hugely expensive reaction to a non-problem.

Tootle pip!!

[cessnapuppy]

"Air Canada Captain arrested on suspicion of being over alcohol limit"
I understand the Captain in question has been cleared. Any chance of adding that nugget of information to the thread title?? http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/smilies2/eusa_wall.gif
... (of course, it would cease to be so juicily inflammatory, eh? )

[ArthurBorges]

Presumably, or allegedly, for legal reasons.

In the service of Her Majesty, we availed ourselves of the pure oxygen available in the safety equipment section for testing oxy masks to clear any lingering cobwebs from the night before.


This tradition applies just as nicely and successfully on the other side of the Channel, if I am to believe a good cockpiteering friend.

Perhaps oxgyen supplies should be left hanging around before crew go through security.

[Carrier]

Is there any talk of a defamation action by the captain, an action for false arrest or wrongful detention, or a damages action by the captain, Air Canada or any pax on the affected flight who were inconvenienced? In civilised countries all are equal before the law and it applies to everyone, including security nazis. Have the responsible security personnel been charged with interfering with air traffic, obstructing aircrew in the carrying out of their duties, wrongfully delaying an aircraft or similar charges? It's not good enough for the culprits to escape full responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

[Lost in Saigon]

Just to clarify, the Air Canada pilot charged was a First Officer. Just one of the many facts the media got wrong.

This flight is normally scheduled with a Captain, First officer, and Relief Pilot, but on this day there was one Captain and two First Officers. (When this crew left Canada, there was no Relief Pilot available so a First Officer was substituted instead.)

When the First Officer had to leave the aircraft, the "augment" First Officer took his place. The additional pilot was a contract requirement, and not required by Canadian Air Regs, so they operated home with only a Captain and First Officer.

There was little or no inconvenience to the passengers. I doubt they even knew that there was an incident because the pilot left the aircraft on his own.

(I was told that after the initial breath test in the flight deck, the police left the aircraft and instructed the pilot to meet them in an area outside the aircraft)

[Vld1977]

Rananim, I think that is a bit harsh on security staff. If they have made a mistake, they should apologise and be dealt with using their disciplinary procedures. Thay are trained not to take any chances, so in doubt or suspicion, this would have been, in my opinion, the correct procedure in order not to joepardise safety. The pilot was cleared and he should be compensated and their name "cleaned", but if you name and shame the security guys, and have them publicly flogged in the media, this could lead to security staff being more reluctant to act when there is a real threat to safety, in order to avoid punishment if they are wrong in their judgements.

[Johnny767]

LHR Security staff are the worst. Uneducated, Unskilled...yet they live under the delusion that they are actually accomplishing something.

[jshg]

No, LHR security staff have stiff competition here in the UK for the world's most uneducated staff.
Yesterday I was asked by LTN Security what 'LGW' meant on an ID card. At least he was pleasant with it.

[RoyHudd]

UK airport security people..unwashed and uneducated chavs, (managers included) who have a class problem.

Treat them like stuff on your shoe, but don't swear and don't insult the ignorami. ``````````````just smile and pass on to the work they could never do.

[cessnapuppy]

Security personnel are the biggest joke of the century. Checking someone for nailclippers who flies an airplane is a substitute for the word contradiction!

Not only "flies an airplane" but flies THE airplane! :D

.... still, a poor attempt at an inflight pedicure brought down Amelia Earhart! :(

[KRviator]

Rananim, I think that is a bit harsh on security staff. If they have made a mistake, they should apologise and be dealt with using their disciplinary procedures.Question is, just what are these disciplinary procedures? And are they adequate to ensure the power-hungry goons at the checkpoints don't get overconfident about their newfound power to question the operating crew who looks at them in a manner they don't like?

If the information is accurate that the FO has been cleared, terrific. BUT he will most likely be remembered as "That FO that got done for blowing thebag".

No matter how he was arrested, on the flight deck, or if the wallopers had the decency to say "Meet us in the Terminal", he was still removed from his flight, and charged. That is something that will probably stay with him for life now, no matter the outome of the legal process.