Pilot caught smelling of alcohol at LHR

[cjhants]

Seems there may have been another pilot with alcohol on his breath caught out by LHR security this morning:ugh:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Just another total idiot then......?

[cjhants]

yes HD, they know the rules, and they know security love to catch crew out.

[YHZChick]

Are we going to wait for the facts to be in before we go splashing his name around and dragging his repuation through the mud this time?

[cjhants]

correct YHZ, i did not post his airline or his nationality for this reason, just cannot believe this keeps happening.

[Joetom]

Alcohol breath is ok, being over the reqd limit can be a problem.

Had a look at the LHR depts, BA185 stands out as a late one, was this the one ???

[Caudillo]

Being over the limit does not necessarily imply drunkenness.

[cjhants]

as above, do not want to name any airline, full facts will come out in due course. i just heard a pilot was found to be "over the limit" and had his collar felt. my point was that there have been a few of these incidents in the last couple of months, and it`s not doing the reputation of the industry any good.

[YHZChick]

I'm not having much faith these days in the ability of security in LHR to accurately detect over the limit pilots.

I think we need a little more evidence that said pilot was actually over the limit than simply LHR security pulling him aside. They seem to have difficulty differentiating between the smell of cherry chewing gum and booze....

If he was in fact impaired, have at 'em. There should be zero tolerance in my opinion, and it does the whole profession a disservice when such things happen. But until there is concrete evidence, I'm witholding judgment and assuming the pilot's innocence.

[One Outsider]

Last time a thread such as this appeared, there was much consternation and outrage. Until it turned out that there was no case, that is. Then all the consternators and outraged quietly disappeared without a word.

There are far too many people far too willing and quick to judge.

[JohnMcGhie]

I am sure that I am not the only alcoholic reading this board. For those of you who do not suffer from alcoholism, maybe I can contribute some new information:

* Perhaps 5 to 10 per cent of the population has a genetic predisposition to suffer from addiction.

* This predisposition can manifest itself in a wide variety of ways: booze, drugs, food, etc. It's strongly genetically linked: if one parent has an addiction, the kids have a 25 per cent chance of having one. If both parents have it, the kids have a greater than 50 per cent chance of problems.

* Alcoholism is strongly linked with a psychological need to over-achieve. That's why alcoholics have a greater-than-average chance of achieving greatness in society: in sport, in business, and in Seat 0A ...

* We alcoholics have a saying: "A social drinker drinker stops at three drinks because they don't like the feeling more would give them. A problem drinker drinks so much it becomes a problem to other people. An alcoholic drinks so much it becomes a problem to HIMSELF."

* An alcoholic does not drink because he or she likes the taste, or because they're thirsty. We drink because every fibre of our being tells us that we MUST. Yes, we're wrong, but we don't know that: a bit like ignoring what the instruments are telling you because the seat of your pants disagrees.

* A social drinker or a problem drinker can say "OK, I am flying in a couple of days, I can't drink." An alcoholic can't do that. By the time the disease has progressed to the point where airport security can pick it up, the alcoholic must have alcohol or he will get very sick indeed.

* You can not frighten an alcoholic into not drinking. We drink because we are already too frightened not to drink. More sanctions, more penalties, more detection -- this just makes alcoholism worse.

* The only "cure" is "Don't drink. At all. Ever." I have not had a drink since 1992: not even the smell of a cork. Of course, this doesn't cure the disease of alcoholism, it simply prevents its more unpleasant symptoms (e.g. unemployment...) from appearing. Any alcoholic will tell you they would rather shoot themselves than take that 'cure' (and many do...).

* I personally know four pilots who have regained the front left seat after losing the battle with the bottle. Three retired as captains of heavies for major USA airlines. One is still flying.

* Two of these guys handed in their ATPLs and had to re-qualify. One had to go right back to re-gain his PPL. One was hauled out of the captain's seat in handcuffs, in front of his startled passengers. They made it back, and I can tell you how.

* Some of the people reading this may have this problem right now. Alcohol is the greatest solvent known: it disolves cars, houses, marriages, parental rights, careers -- and pilots licences.

* Yes, it will keep happening as long as they keep making human beings. And alcoholism is more common amongst people with the ability to become pilots than it is in the general population.

If you are sitting there now, scared -- really scared -- that it just won't stop, and you can't find a way out: PM me.

If you find yourself delaying the trip home because you can't face the look in your wife's eyes: I know that look. If you are avoiding that look on your children's faces too: well, how bad does it have to get? If you go to work each day with a sick feeling in the pit of your stomach that "any day now, they're going to catch me" -- well, I know that feeling too.

If you don't know what to do: PM me. If you're frightened, and you're serious about it, I can tell you what I did. Worked for me...

If this helps just one pilot to hold onto his or her licence, was it worth making the rest of you read all this? I hope you think it was...

[Bealzebub]

John

Thanks for taking the time and the trouble to write that brilliant explanation.

They say you have to dig through an awful lot of dirt to find a diamond, and your post is that gem.

As you say if it helps just one person. On the other hand it helps a great many more people understand something that is all too easily misunderstood, despite the fact it is common enough in all sections of society to warrant better awareness.

[capt.cynical]

John Mc.

Bill W. is our friend and he would be proud of you today.

May serenity be with you sir. :ok:

[eliptic]

JohnMcGhie


Dawn Good post :D

[TDK mk2]

We could all learn something about our fellow man (or should I say human) from the poster above. But does humanity have the capability to be human?

[Jox]

J McG,

Well done Sir, thought provoking, dispassionate and carved from your feelings and experience.

Let's please have John's post re-posted at the top of every thread started on this subject. It may just stop the rather repetitive mindless rubbish that seems to follow what may just become another allegation that vanishes into the ether when the true facts are revealed.

How sad that the negative results rarely warrant a post. I for one will wait and see !

Jox :oh:

[haughtney1]

No idea about the facts of this "alleged" incident

But J McG

Superb post

[11Fan]

Well said John. :ok:

One day at a time.

[PA-28-180]

John-
Having gone through a similar experience (didn't lose my pilots license, but DID lose my 'day' job...more than once), I'd also like to say 'THANKS' for your post! Even in my 12 step days (which continue today), I NEVER heard things explained so clearly. So....thanks....and I here's to your continuing recovery! :D

[grizzled]

John,

One of the best posts I've ever seen -- anywhere.

Thanks for making a difference.

[glad rag]

...it IS time for PPRuNe to help.

Having a "sticky" on this subject at the top of the "billboard" rumours & news forum might encourage some on the path back up?

Just a thought.


JohnMcGhie Respect.:D

[sec 3]

If it's another false allegation, the security personnel involved should be terminated on the spot, then they might think twice about accusing someone with little or no real evidence:sad:

[Jofm5]

If it's another false allegation, the security personnel involved should be terminated on the spot, then they might think twice about accusing someone with little or no real evidence


I dont think that is the answer, it would probably leave the security personnel in a situation whereby they are too scared to intervene when they should.

I am not sure what the answer is, but if there is suspiscion over a member of flight crew then it should be handled in a respectful manner and the facts established - the correct way to address this should be a protocol established by a discussion between the security and pilots (Maybe BALPA).

[Romeo India Xray]

Before working in RIXland, random breath tests experienced when reporting for duty,0

After starting work in RIXland, random breath tests frequently.

The problem of security upstarts getting above their station in a disrespectful manner avoided.

Total respect for a system that is only there to aid flight safety.

Now that I spend the bigger part of my life flying a desk, I probably do drink more than I should, but never within a day of a duty period - the risks are just too prevalent (to myself, the aircraft and my licence).

John - Thanks for your post. Quite close to home for me.

RIX

[DownIn3Green]

RE: post 21 and 22 above...The security folks are neither trained or qualified to vet crew coming through their ck points...

False allegations are a serious threat to the whole industry...

I do agree that any pilot with a problem should seek help, however, airport security should not be the catalyst to make thisw happen...that's what other crewmembers and management pilots are for...

RIX...who are you working for? I have an apt on Stabu near Stabruks....

[flite idol]

Great post John. Thanks.

[chiglet]

I'm not having much faith these days in the ability of security in LHR to accurately detect over the limit pilots.


AFAIK, "security" in any form has nowt to do with "accurate" detection.
IF, they suspect owt, then they should [MUST?] call the Police...full stop.
Or am I wrong...again?

[mona lot]

Likewise if they suspect a crew of reporting for duty when fatigued, they should also take action:ok:

[Jofm5]

DownIn3Green:

RE: post 21 and 22 above...The security folks are neither trained or qualified to vet crew coming through their ck points...

False allegations are a serious threat to the whole industry...

I do agree that any pilot with a problem should seek help, however, airport security should not be the catalyst to make thisw happen...that's what other crewmembers and management pilots are for...



I agree with you that airport security are not trained/qualified to vet crew going through checkpoints.

I do disagree on your other points though.

A false allegation is a serious matter, but it is down to how any such suspicions are handled. Like I said in my post if it is dealt with respectfully i.e. the crew member asked to disembark for a quick check and this is witheld from public spectacle then any tests performed and proven false can be dealt with apologetically and the flight allowed to continue. This not only saves embarassment for the crew and company but also does not unsettle the SLF.

The issue I have with your last paragraph is "that is what other crew members and management pilot are for". I am not questioning the professionalism of anyone here, but covering for a friend whilst knowing they have a problem and encouraging them to deal with a problem or even a one off is one of those dilemmas that some people may find hard to deal with to do the right thing (Human Nature)- especially in the culture of some of the more eastern airlines where the CRM is less liberated than it could/should be.

I ask myself if I am confident a F/O in their probation period would really risk raising the alarm if they suspected their captain was over the limit and being proven wrong. In an ideal world we should say thats the right thing to do - but I doubt the consequences matches that.

My own personal view is that the safety of flights is paramount - anyone with a concern should be able to raise the alarm whether it is flight crew, security or SLF. This may seem demeaning to flight crew and a hassle but with safety in mind it is the only way to operate safely. I agree there needs to be controls/punitive measures for those being vindictive.

I can see how you see this is an issue by way of how previous incidents have been dealt with (F/O of UA being led off the plane in handcuffs) - there should be some tact used to establish the short term facts out of public view and eliminate a false alert.

As John has pointed out alcoholism is a disease and is highly prevelent in industries such as this where the stress factor can be high. It is not going to help the person suffering by covering up what is going on out of loyalty or sympathy. John may confirm this but most will not turn the corner until forced to do so - hiding it is not helping them as they are hiding it from themselves typically (Johns post was very close to home btw).

The real change that needs to take place in my view is the encouragement from the airlines to seek out, help and stand by those people that are struggling rather than just leaving alone till an issue arises - dont make it a taboo issue that will alienate the person that spots the problem or be vindictive on the person with the problem. The true team works with each other through good and bad.

[Carrier]

Quote: “Being over the limit does not necessarily imply drunkenness.”

Agreed, particularly as the UK’s limit is ludicrously low and out of line with other countries. What are pilots as a group going to do about the UK’s anti-pilot activities? I have seen a few mutterings on here regarding security nazis and ID cars but have not heard of any effective action.

The UK's goons want to catch pilots who smell of alcohol so why not accommodate them? My suggestion for the UK’s stupidly low booze limit is for pilots to organise a whole week of turning up smelling of alcohol. Just spill enough on your sleeves or elsewhere to give sufficient smell. Let the security nazis have a whole week of alcohol smelling pilots. If they should wrongly detain you, which would soon be proved by passing a proper test, then sue the bastards for any inconvenience or wrongful detention.

[SDFlyer]

Chiglet: AFAIK, "security" in any form has nowt to do with "accurate" detection.
IF, they suspect owt, then they should [MUST?] call the Police...full stop.
Or am I wrong...again?
--------------------
Not so far off IMHO.

Perfect "accuracy", i.e. (TP+TN)/(TP+TN+FP+FN) = 1.0, is the Holy Grail that is unlikely ever to be achieved for any sort of real-world predictive test, in aviation as in many other fields of endeavor (e.g. predicting clinical response to a pharmaceutical agent). Put it this way, I've never seen it in something that really counts and I'm into this sort of thing, statistically speaking ......

IMO in the aviation security business, a higher false positive rate (Type 1 or alpha error) is more acceptable than a higher false negative rate (Type 2 or beta error), if you had your druthers. IOW, technically speaking of course, very high "sensitivity" (TP/TP+FN) is more important to achieve than very high "specificity" (FP/FP+TN) in this type of case.

Why? Because detecting and nailing the bad actors is more important than avoiding falsely suspecting the good ones. After all, if you're a good actor yet falsely detected as "bad", you're going to be able to prove it rather soon (assuming that there's a solid objective test for the so-called "true" condition, as there is in this case of course). In the meantime, you should be accorded the greatest respect, and privacy. Then when it's all over you can go away and have a really stiff drink, on the house perhaps.:)

[F= false, T= true, P= test positive, N= test negative]

Caveat: in case of an inaccurate "truth" criterion, you're probably screwed.

[DownIn3Green]

Jofm5...I guess I didn't make my statement re: "crewmembers and Mgmt" clear...

One of my crew was accused by individuals not trained in evaulation....

This happened to be the gate agents who actually worked for the same airline as we did...

My response was we're all going for medical tests...screw the flight....big delay...

I don't wan't to fly with an alchol (or other substance) impaired flt crew or cabin crew member, however, if accused by some "wanna-be hero" I will take immediate steps to prove the finger pointing false...

[eliptic]

Carrier

Agreed, particularly as the UK’s limit is ludicrously low.......

I think you missed the whole point

DownIn3Green

My response was we're all going for medical tests...screw the flight....big delay...


I think you did the right thing,,there are so many delays anyway..i would take this delay any day


it is amazing how many here go in to "defense mode" as long the alco questions are raised.. maybe thats the denial stage

[etrang]

dont follow these links.

Pilot held in cockpit is ‘4 times drink limit’ | The Sun |News (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2440878.ece)

Plane delay after pilot 'fails B-test' - mirror.co.uk (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/05/21/plane-delay-after-pilot-fails-b-test-115875-21376219/)

[eliptic]

etrang

The airline said: "American Airlines has strict policies on alcohol and substance abuse and holds its employees to the highest standards."

Better not the AA enter the PPRuNe forum to read the opinions from some pilots here

[Curious Pax]

As humble SLF I hestitate to post in this forum, but a couple of things are bugging me:

The concept of security people reporting concerns about a possible alcohol smell on the breath of flight crew seems to be like a red rag to a bull to many flight crew here. I do wonder if that would be the same if the security hassles of the last few years, of which security personnel are the personification, had not taken place.

I'm also uneasy with the ideas that are often put forward on these type of threads - 'when was the last major incident due to an alcohol-impaired crew' and 'it's not alcohol you should be worrying about, it's fatigue'. I've no doubt that both points in isolation are completely correct, however given the normal air safety ethos of making sure that the holes in the swiss cheese don't line up, and eliminating as many of the holes as possible, it comes across as a little odd in contrast. I'm sure that the experts on here could come up with a long list of maintenance items that have never caused a crash, but are regularly checked anyway, because if they did ever fail the results could be catastrophic.

I do agree with some of the earlier posters however that the method of checking once a complaint has been made appears to need improvement. Asking the accused to step into a private room adjacent to the security for an extra check (without specifying what for, so pax milling around assume that it is just to confirm the size of his toothpaste is below 100ml) and doing the breath test etc there might help. If the complaint happens later in the process, once the accused is on the aircraft then at least cockpits present some privacy these days, and pax think nothing of police wandering onto aircraft.

Probably anathama (sp?) to most people on here, but I can't help wonder whether random or even compulsory breath tests at crew check in might be the way to go - if security knew that a check had already been performed then they would be less likely to point the finger. Not sure if that would be the lesser of the 2 evils though.

Final thought - should landlords, or bouncers on the doors, tip off the police if they see someone come out of their pub appearing impaired and jump behind the wheel of a car? The accused might be recovering from a stroke, and have been on orange juice all night. On the other hand if one of your kids was standing in a bus queue half a mile down the road you might prefer that someone checked. Emotive example I know, but do you see the point?

[Guava Tree]

There seems to be lots of "allegedly" in here.
We know that since skurity humiliate us and make us take off our shoes, that they are in fact our enemies.
For a false accusation they will walk free.Who says it is not possible to bribe them to accuse the pilot that you don't like or want to get ahead of?

[911slf]

Given the very low limit in blood alcohol permitted for pilots, and the difference in metabolism between individuals, perhaps cautious pilots should impose a 24 hour limit between drinking and flying. 12 hours might be enough for most but not all pilots. It may change with increasing age. If the Sun article is right, given the pilot was allegedly 4 times the limit for flying he would have been just about legal to drive. If a pilot unwisely has a drink the night before flying and regrets it, I suggest he would do well to call in sick.

I agree with previous posters about being discreet when testing pilots. I also think that if the blood alcohol level is legal for driving but not for flying, and it is a first positive test, prosecution is a bit heavy handed. Maybe a period of compulsory retraining would be in order. It might be possible to be discreet about the reason for it.

[TWT]

No need for any court or police action.

We can leave the entire judicial process to a few of the posters here on PPRUNE who are obviously in possession of all the relevant facts.Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty ?Just try to imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and it was you being accused.Wouldn't you want a fair hearing ?What if it's a false positive ?

Throw mud and some of it will stick.Even if you're proven innocent.

[Number34]

But that will just add something more to go wrong with the aircraft and it treats the crew with contempt.

[sitigeltfel]

and they know security love to catch crew out.Better them than the coroner.

[Phil Space]

Sorry to upset a few on here but if I fly my aircraft after drinking then it is the same as driving a car having a few in the pub.My risk!

When I pay for a bus,train or plane ticket then I pay for someone up front that can do the job and is not under the influence of drink or drugs.

Commercial pilots are like truck drivers..they are paid to do the job. They are also paid well just like politicians and exposed to the same risks of publicity and loss of employment if they mess up and the press find out. Commercial flying is no longer a gentlemens club as it was in the old days of BEA,BOAC and PAN-AMERICAN

When I fly my aircraft it's my machine and my risk and I am paying.

The moment I buy a ticket you are paid to fly me safely from A to B.:rolleyes:

[AnthonyGA]

If you can drive or fly in a place where there's no property or people that you might damage in a state of intoxication, then doing these things while drinking is indeed your own business. If you risk damaging the property of others or injuring people while intoxicated, however, then your state becomes a concern for everyone. Laws against operating vehicles while intoxicated are predicated upon this reality.

I'm afraid I find it difficult to trust pilots who engage in substance abuse, including the consumption of ethanol, no matter how much time elapses between their abuse and their flying activity. And that is all the more true when they attempt to rationalize their abuse and criticize anyone who suggests that such abuse might not be a good idea for pilots. This includes those who think it's okay to drink as long as you remain below some arbitrary legal limit.

I think JohnMcGhie's post said it best. More than a few people here seem to be in denial.

[16024]

What have the last three(3) posters been taking?
Sitigeltfel: "Better (security) than the coroner"
What coroner:eek:
To which incident are you referring?
I will make it easy for you. There has never been an alcohol related fatality in passenger transport.
AnthonyGA(GA): "Substance abuse"
Drinking the damn stuff is abusing it, now! What do you do with it?
Can no one else see WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE? (yes I was shouting that bit).
Oops, but there have been a few stupidity related accidents.
Think on, you two.

[Bronx]

YHZChick Are we going to wait for the facts to be in before we go splashing his name around and dragging his reputation through the mud this time? I guess you knew the answer to that question was gonna be No. But until there is concrete evidence, I'm witholding judgment and assuming the pilot's innocence.Yep, the only sensible thing to do but there's never any shortage of idiots happy to do the opposite.

Caudillo Being over the limit does not necessarily imply drunkenness. True. That's been explained over and over in every alcohol thread we've had but however many times it's explained there'll always be folk who haven't got the brains to understand it. :ugh:

One OutsiderThere are far too many people far too willing and quick to judge. There certainly are.

sitigetfelt Better them than the coroner. From smelling of alcohol to coroner in one move. :ok:
Have you thought of writing for the movies? http://www.xpmediacentre.com.au/community/images/smilies/3D/rofl.gif


AnthonyGA This includes those who think it's okay to drink as long as you remain below some arbitrary legal limit. Since "some arbitrary legal limit" is either zero or almost zero depending on the law of the state are you saying all pilots should be tee-total?

Would you care to explain why you think it's not okay for pilots to drink alcohol when they are off duty provided they are below the legal limit when they go to work.

Intoxicated? :confused:
I thought of trying to explain that being over the aviation alcohol limit doesn't mean someone's intoxicated but decided it would be a waste of time. :rolleyes:


B.

[Phil Space]

The alcohol issue goes way beyond aviation.
Europeans find it hard to understand the draconian US law on open or closed alcohol containers in cars.You can fight for your country in the USA but not drink until you are 21.

European visitors to the USA are also more or less treated as criminals by the
Stasi in New York and Miami the moment they step of the aircraft.

It looks increasingly like you are on duty from the moment you leave home until you return.Hence the old fashioned room parties are a thing of the past.Just look at the pictures that emerged in the UK tabloid press of the Heathrow BA who pulled off the Boeing landing.

Ask yourself if you have ever been in a situation of duty where a press picture would have wrecked your career.

I rest my case.

[hawker750]

Obviously a very emotive subject, one I would like to get involved in but I have just noticed that the pubs are open and am off for a pint

[pt-wind]

Well said Phil ...

Surely we're all in the business of 'minimising risk' - increased alcohol (to my knowledge) never reduces risk. We ought to ask the question: "would my flight be safer if I didn't drink <T-24hr?"

Whilst flying will never be totally safe, if we can easily & practically do one more thing to improve the odds, what is the argument not to? (and 'I like drinking' is not an acceptable answer)

[Mmmayday38]

'Phil Space' wrote;

"It looks increasingly like you are on duty from the moment you leave home until you return.Hence the old fashioned room parties are a thing of the past.Just look at the pictures that emerged in the UK tabloid press of the Heathrow BA who pulled off the Boeing landing."

Yes Phil, those party days are well and truly over; causal factors being, lack of days off anymore downroute, plus getting older!!

I was breathalysed straight after that landing by the LHR police (no objection from me as I was happy to be proved innocent of any blame) plus another urine test by the authorities after my AAIB interview some hours later... both negative.

People arrive at work in all sorts of state of mind; it is often up to the front line staff to recognise whether our colleagues are fit to fly. Our state of mind can be affected by all manner of personal problems and are quite often manifested by drinking too much. Our jobs include looking after others; and I hope that the other members of this crew from LHR are not cursing themselves for not warning this pilot. They might be blaming themselves now for not telling him to go sick at the hotel? He might have been showing signs of crying out for help over the previous sector/night stop or even months before. We all have the capacity to help guys help themselves and not end up in this situation.

Liquorice anyone?

[Will Fraser]

Did I actually read a post maintaining that "over limit is not necessarily drunk"?

It remains breathtaking that there are people defending mixing alcohol with aviation at all. Over limit is overlimit. The legal limit is established to prevent even the appearance of impaired flight. There will always be whiners and babies trying to justify their "rebellion", but taken in context, it remains immature and unproffessional.

Will

[One Outsider]

"over limit is not necessarily drunk" is a statement of fact. It is a neutral statement.

It is bizarre how some need to twist, embellish or exaggerate in order to make whatever point they are trying to make.

[Phil Space]

I am not having a go at anyone but in an increasingly big brother society where we are surrounded by cameras and 'citizen journalists' we are all just a couple of clicks from the front page.

The sort of initiations I experienced years ago would be tabloid fodder today:ok:

[Will Fraser]

Sorry you are late to this discussion. The phrase infers a defense of drinking. If you refuse to admit that, you may not be able to add to the debate. Why would one write that statement? If you are trying to disagree with my conclusion, say so. Your position that I am "twisting" the discussion is blatantly dishonest.



Will

[sitigeltfel]

Sitigeltfel: "Better (security) than the coroner"
What coroner:eek:
To which incident are you referring?
I will make it easy for you. There has never been an alcohol related fatality in passenger transport.
If this is true, then might it be because someone, possibly security or another crew member has stopped an intoxicated pilot from flying?

[One Outsider]

The phrase infers nothing. You, however, do.

It is not my position that you are twisting the discussion, that appears to be an exaggeration of yours.
It is my opinion that you twist Caudillo's words to suit your argument.

[DownIn3Green]

16024...better ck the NTSB reports for FAR 135 in the USA...several cases of fatal accidents due to pilot error...Contributing factor-"Pilot Impairment" due to drugs/and or alchol...

[16024]

Down-in-3-green.
I was quoting an FAA document so argue with them.
We are talking here about Airline Pilots. I suppose you would call it Part 121.
I don't know about part 135.
What you bush pilots put up your nose is your business...

[John R]

16024

You say: There has never been an alcohol related fatality in passenger transport

So let me ask you this: do you honestly believe that if this pilot had not been stopped by the police and had commanded that flight, his 'state' would not have increased the possibility an accident? Or do you think that being under the influence of alcohol makes no difference to the job?

[FrequentSLF]

The phrase infers nothing. You, however, do.

The following definition is taken from dictionary.com

quote
The modifier drunk in legal language describes a person whose blood contains more than the legally allowed percentage of alcohol
unquote

FSLF

[fincastle84]

Don't understand the arguement. He was breathalysed, found positive & then arrested. Job well done, good riddance to an irresponsible idiot!

[deScally]

Being only a mere SLF (a frequent one), it is not my place to join a debate of this sort. However many SLFs such as myself do read these threads with a great deal of interest. As such please permit me to make an observation: I find statements such as "there has never been an alcohol related fatality in passenger transport" and "over the limit is not necessarily drunk" baffling and disquieting. Whatever the factual accuracy of these statements, they seem to infer a mindset that does not reconcile with the professionalism most SLF associate with commercial pilots. IMHO

[fincastle84]

Don't understand the arguement. He was breathalysed, found positive & then arrested. Job well done, good riddance to an irresponsible idiot!

[eliptic]

they seem to infer a mindset that does not reconcile with the professionalism most SLF associate with commercial pilots. IMHO

Spot on! Just lets hope this persons that make this statements are not pilots and Piloting our flights, sometimes i can´t believe what i read

[SDFlyer]

Will: get in line will ya, I've been dealing with this type of a response before this thread ....:)
-------------
Responding to another poster: to state as if it were fact that no fatal aviation transportation accident (commercial) has ever involved alcohol as major causative factor (let's not quibble about the semantics) is to grossly over-stated the evidence. "Absence of evidence (if that is the case here), is NOT necessarily evidence of absence", often it just means we don't have the relevant data. Of course there may in fact be plenty of evidence, I wouldn't know.

To suggest such a thing would be laying yourself open to a very big Type 2 error (false negative scenario) - not a good thing when we're talking about the public safety. I'm suggesting that pilots may have crashed and burned along with their passengers, with no EtOH levels determined for the most obvious of reasons to do with the combustibility of hydrocarbons ....

If what we read is true about this fellow, good riddance to him. I hold the same view about people who I consider equally irresponsible in my own profession - I refer to fraud in the matter of reporting experimental results in the area of drug discovery. I've seen it, I've dealt with it in no uncertain terms, life goes on. IOW people like this need to be weeded out of the herd, the sooner the better.

[I know I'm going to get into more trouble for this post, esp. from certain quarters. Retrofitted flame suit donned}

Overall though, I find this thread highly reassuring.
Cheers.

[cats_five]

<snip>
Liquorice anyone?

Considering where it might have been :eek: :ooh:

I'll think I'll pass on that, thanks for asking though...

[Flying Lawyer]

Will Fraser Did I actually read a post maintaining that "over limit is not necessarily drunk"? Yes, you did. I did too. And the poster who said it is correct.
Over limit is overlimit.Correct. But over the aviation limit does not necessarily mean drunk.
The legal limit is established to prevent even the appearance of impaired flight. I'm not sure that is the reason, but there's an encouraging sign of progress now that you're referring to the appearance of impairment.
ie A pilot over the legal limit might give the appearance of being impaired - even if his alcohol level is so minute that he is not actually impaired.
There are two separate and different offences: (1) Exceeding alcohol limit and (2) Being impaired.

One Outsider
Sorry you are late to this discussion. The phrase infers a defense of drinking. If you refuse to admit that, you may not be able to add to the debate. Why would one write that statement? If you are trying to disagree with my conclusion, say so. Your position that I am "twisting" the discussion is blatantly dishonest. Blimey! And people accuse lawyers of being arrogant and pompous!
I don't know if O-O is late to the discussion but he's not only added to the debate but appears to be better informed and more logical in his thinking than you.

'Over the limit is not necessarily drunk' might "inferr a defense of drinking" to you, but I certainly don't infer that from it. It's an accurate and relevant statement of fact.

Why would one write that statement?
Perhaps it was an attempt to keep things in proper perspective?
And/or an attempt to deter (some) people from making stupid assertions that a pilot over the legal limit is necessarily 'drunk'?
And/or to try to stop (some) people's imagination running out of control?

"Your position that I am "twisting" the discussion is blatantly dishonest."
Interesting. I thought it was fair comment.

(Sorry I'm late to the discussion. Feel free to disregard everything I say.)

John R 16024 So let me ask you this: do you honestly believe that if this pilot had not been stopped by the police and had commanded that flight, his 'state' would not have increased the possibility an accident? If you'd asked me that question, my answer would be:
I have no idea.
All I know is that the press are reporting that a pilot was arrested after a field breath-test showed he was over the aviation limit and that some un-named person apparently told the Sun he was 'four times' over the limit.
A sample of the pilot's blood would have been taken for analysis.
The results won't be available yet. It usually takes a few weeks.

If I may borrow your phrase -
So let me ask you this: Do you honestly believe that any sensible and intelligent person would make any assumptions about the pilot's 'state' on so little information.
Or express an opinion about whether his 'state' (unknown) may or may not have increased the possibility of an accident?


FSLF
I can't account for the contents of dictionary.com, but that is certainly not the law in England.
I was surprised to read your post, very surprised in fact. You've taken an active part in previous alcohol threads in which I've explained the law in a way which I thought was very clear.
If it wasn't, there's nothing more I can do.
I'm at a loss to think of any way in which I could make it clearer than I have already - several times. :ugh:

fincastle84Don't understand the arguement I agree.
You clearly don't understand.
Job well done, good riddance to an irresponsible idiot! Good for you. That's the spirit! :ok:
Why bother waiting to find out if he's guilty. :rolleyes:


.

[16024]

Quoting deScally "it is not my place to join a debate of this sort".
As SLF you are certainly well placed to comment.
It's just that a lot of us seem to be looking in the wrong direction.
If you are on the operating table are you really going to check whether the surgeon spent any time at the 19th after his round of golf the day before.
Most of the recent big accidents involve loss of airspeed.
Remember, it is not puritanism, but Airspeed and Attitude that is going to keep us all shiny side up, and you will get lots of both from me...
I'm tired of this now. It is obvious that intelligent and dispassionate factual comments have no place here, but before I go can we PLEASE stop saying "infer" when we mean "imply" or "suggest".
You, too Fraser. Vocabulary, boy!

[Dick Deadeye]

Did I actually read a post maintaining that "over limit is not necessarily drunk"?


Yes, which bit of that factually correct post did you not understand?


It remains breathtaking that there are people defending mixing alcohol with aviation at all

No one is defending mixing alcohol and aviation.


it remains immature and unproffessional.

It is truly amazing how frequently people who pontificate about being professional can't even manage to spell the word correctly! :rolleyes:


If you refuse to admit that, you may not be able to add to the debate. Why would one write that statement?

So anyone who dares to disagree with you cannot add to the debate?

You pompous @rse! :mad:

[fincastle84]

Oh , you mean that the breathalyser was faulty. Get real, the guy probably had a few too many with the hosties in a cosy little hotel room party, probably not the first time, only this time he got caught. Obey the rules, no bottle, no throttle.:D

[Flying Lawyer]

fincastle84Oh , you mean that the breathalyser was faulty.
I have no idea if it was or wasn't.

However, what I do know is that, in the UK, guilt or innocence in an aviation context does not turn on the result of a breathalyser test.
(And rightly so IMHO.)


.

[eliptic]

Lawyer


All I know is that the press are reporting that a pilot was arrested after a field breath-test showed he was over the aviation limit and that some un-named person apparently told the Sun he was 'four times' over the limit.

Even i don´t like to discuss "individual" incidents, but more the attitude

i have to ask you:

Do you believe that this pilot was bailed until July 16 for no reason
or this is something that would just happen to anyone having a bad day?

Also the last period there have been some similar incidents (that you already defended) involving "US" Airline company's ,,why are not the airlines defending there innocence pilots and their reputation in the press?

[eliptic]

pompous @rse!

Thats sounds like a intelligent wording!! i found the pompus in Wiki but not the @rse

is that to find in the Phonetic Alphabet? (http://www.google.se/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boats.abelgratis.com%2Fphono.htm&ei=e8EVSrvWIYLX-Abw0-m0DQ&usg=AFQjCNGJeG-m9NJjP4B0vTmD-vYkNM-GHQ&sig2=JtyUZbI4FVkU7NUGNelYcA)

[Will Fraser]

Lawyer, I know, let's make it about me!! You? Vocabulary? Elegant modification of subject, that.

How's this.: In my opinion, anyone who pilot's an aircraft in public carriage whilst demonstrably in excess of the legal threshold should be barred from flying forthwith.

Barred, as in forever.

Will

[Flying Lawyer]

Will
Lawyer, I know, let's make it about me!! You? Vocabulary? Elegant modification of subject, that. When you calm down you'll see that I said nothing about your vocabulary.
I merely pointed out why your personal attack on One Outsider was not only unnecessary but IMHO incorrect.

How's this.: In my opinion, anyone who pilot's an aircraft in public carriage whilst demonstrably in excess of the legal threshold should be barred from flying forthwith.
Barred, as in forever. I disagree. Far too harsh.
If a pilot is guilty of being impaired by alcohol, then IMHO he should be prevented from flying for a much longer period than for the less serious offence of exceeding the limit.
In a very serious case, possibly for ever.

If you search for posts by LProuse you may change your opinion. Or you may not, but they are very well worth reading.
He's a retired Northwest Airlines Captain, former US Marine Corps captain and Vietnam vet...and former federal prison inmate.



BTW, in the UK, courts have no power to make any order in relation to a pilot's licence. It's left to the aviation authorities to decide what licensing action should be taken. IMHO that's sensible.

.

[Will Fraser]

Flying Lawyer, point taken, thank you.

[747-436]

Is it just me or have all these pilots been stopped by Terminal 3 security? Including the ones where there has subsequently been no case?

Obviously if someone is guilty of being intoxicated they should be dealt with accordingly as it shouldn't happen.

[eliptic]

747-436

Including the ones where there has subsequently been no case?

hmm, i did hear that before, were are the official statement of that? more then someone say so here

Lawyer

Absurd in my opinion.

What IF! someone was proved guilty flying over the limit with XXX number of passengers in his control (or non control in this case )

what do you call that?

[Will Fraser]

Flying Lawyer, Lyle Prouse is an acquaintance. He is eloquent and a fine example of recovery in the cockpit. This isn't about persons. This is about safety. What is annoying to me is the eagerness to blend one with the other. There can be no judgment here, other than the code. Pilots may not make dumb mistakes. Whether it's a hair over the breathalyzer or failing to brief weather due to time pressure, a dumb mistake, a mistake that can easily be avoided, is not tolerable. By definition, impairment is the realm above the set limit, parsing slang words to descriibe it is counter to the legal code. Flying while drunk is not excusable, not mitigable, and should disqualify fatally any pilot in public carriage, imo.

[jet_noseover]

I disagree. Far too harsh.
If a pilot is guilty of being impaired by alcohol, then IMHO he should be prevented from flying for a much longer period than for the less serious offence of exceeding the limit.
In a very serious case, possibly for ever.


Please elaborate..

How can you predict that impared by alcohol pilot will not/may not get involved in a very serious case, as you put it. Possibly killing/injuring the 200+pax.

What do you mean by "serious offence"?

I suggest you take his/her case.

I do not know what the law is in the UK, frankly..I hope, if this pilot was over the limit.. he never flies passengers again.

There is a reason why those "limits" are set.

[Jofm5]

I find it disappointing after John's post near the start of this thread that people are calling for this pilots license etc without finding out if there is ignorance behind this incident or whether the guy is suffering from a series of problems that have been expressed with alcohol.

Sometimes the best thing for all concerned is to take a conservative approach and if there is an underlying problem that resulted in this incident then a removal from service whilst those problems are addressed.

Taking a harsh or sympathetic view to this incident cannot be performed by ourselves on here as we are not furnished with the full facts behind the cause - we can only be objective, discuss the identification of the problems by all means but squabbling over the term "Drunk" and "over the limit" does little to expand the knowledge base.

Discussing the How's and Why's and prevention of such issues are way more valuable than being judge and jury when not furnished with the full facts.

My own view as I have expressed before is that security was correct to raise the alarm - as per my earlier discussion why did not the crew do it. But as for the person involved - I hope if he has a problem he gets the help he needs as the problem will affect his life and health beyond his career and if he needs and gets help with the problem he can continue his career.

We have to remember this is not "a pilot" it is a person we are talking about and if he has a problem it has all just come to a head and he can go one of two ways (I will leave that to your imagination).

[jet_noseover]

Will Frasier:
[............... ]Flying while drunk is not excusable, not mitigable, and should disqualify fatally any pilot in public carriage, imo.

Amen, Will

[TDK mk2]

Some people here seem to advocate a zero tolerance approach to this particular offence. I would be interested to know whether they would stand up to the scrutiny they would propose to put pilots under.

If you (and I mean the likes of jet_noseover, will fraser and fincaslte84) have ever allowed your car to go over some arbitarily set speed limit, should you be banned forever because you could have killed a child? If your answer is yes then by all means condemn any pilot who should be found to have breached an arbitarily set blood alcohol limit.

Perhaps some people would be wise to recognise that whilst they're not perfect, neither is anyone else. Very few things in life are black and white, and this should not be one of them.

Will Fraser; are you actually advocating capital punishment?! Now that would be a really good way to stop reoffending - why don't you write to your congressman...

[Cumulonimbus]

I find your post bizarre too.

Fully agree, guilty until proved innocent, so won't pass judgement, but the fact it is officially reported he failed the test would not seem favourable for him, concerning his guilt/innocence.

Now, I also agree that if he has a fundamental problem and cannot help himself, then he needs both help and sympathy, once he has paid the penalty for what he has done, assuming he has done it.

Ignorance is no excuse. If you get in your car and drive whilst over the limit, you will be prosecuted and deservedly so, even if you didn't know it was unlawful to drive over the limit set. If driving is a fundamental part of your job, and you loose your job as a result, tough; you knew the game.

An earlier poster suggested it was ok to drink and drive or drink and fly if it was his airplane and he wasn't carrying SLF. Get real everyone, whenever you get in your car or your airplane impaired through alcohol then you are a danger to everyone around you, whether it be in the air or on the ground. No excuse, and God forbid you kill or hurt anyone.

Time for help, and I agree with that, is when you have faced up to your responsibilities and paid your dues! Aviation is not a privileged club, exempt from responsibility.

This guy might yet be proved innocent. I hope, for his sake he is!

[jet_noseover]

TDK,
There are accidents and the "induced accidents". What a lame excuse of the black and white. You show up drunk for work?


btw..I am for a capital punishment.

[ea340]

If only there was this much outrage over pilot fatique a much larger problem . Problem no simple test . Gets in the way of profits. All long haul pilots know the feeling of hanging in the straps. More coffee please

[Will Fraser]

TDK mk2 Rather flippant response. If you are serious I would explain it thus: "Fatal" in the sense of permanent loss of certificate. "Zero tolerance"? In this case, yes.

I would recommend all who are convicted appeal the conviction if so disposed. If convicted of impairment, and there are unknown circumstances "to overturn the conviction", be heard, by all means. There are thousands of jobs available to skilled pilots other than piloting, if alcohol is a problem. If it is a problem, seek help, I could help you find a way out. Don't make it the Public's problem or pilots at large, please.

[Jofm5]

Cumulonimbus:

Now, I also agree that if he has a fundamental problem and cannot help himself, then he needs both help and sympathy, once he has paid the penalty for what he has done, assuming he has done it.

Ignorance is no excuse. If you get in your car and drive whilst over the limit, you will be prosecuted and deservedly so, even if you didn't know it was unlawful to drive over the limit set. If driving is a fundamental part of your job, and you loose your job as a result, tough; you knew the game.

An earlier poster suggested it was ok to drink and drive or drink and fly if it was his airplane and he wasn't carrying SLF. Get real everyone, whenever you get in your car or your airplane impaired through alcohol then you are a danger to everyone around you, whether it be in the air or on the ground. No excuse, and God forbid you kill or hurt anyone.


Nothing bizarre really about my post, ignorance was me referring to whether there was a disrespect of the rules and the "I am alright" attitude.

I think we all agree the guy should not have been allowed on the flight deck and the correct action was taken (even if some disagree by the wrong people i.e. airport security). But my post is about whether he should ever be allowed on the flight deck again.

Correct if you get caught drink driving and thats your job you lose your licence - but the ban is only for a specific period of time and often able to be reduced by undertaking an alcohol awareness course and also if you have an acohol problem upon production of a doctors letter saying they are happy with your rehabilitation.

My point is more towards the fact that aviation has its own stresses and couple with the time away from family and the things that go along with that then it would not be unreasonable to say that some may abuse the bottle too much as a way out. I am not saying this applies to all or it is excusable but it is a fact of life - it happens to many people in high stress roles - read John's post at the start of the thread.

The point of my post was that people are shooting a man whilst he is down and not even considering the position of why he may be there. Given we dont know these facts should we really be calling for him to be banned for life - could this not be just pouring more problem on a person with enough problems already ? Or should if the guy has problems we as humane humans help them out of the hole to rebuild their life ?

I am not saying that we should be all fluffy about this - I am saying we should not be executioner without the full facts. If the guy took unreasonable risks without thinking of the consequences (this is different from having a problem) then by all means throw the book - but what point is this thread if we are just going to say throw the book at everyone - what can the aviation industry learn from these examples from these comments other than someones judge/jury verdict ?

[Cumulonimbus]

When will you guys stop associating an excess of alchohol with fatigue? Yes, both cause accidents, but some are self-inflicted.

The Dhc-8Q400 debate smacks very largely of fatigue and pilot ineptitude, but the fatigue there appears to have been self-inflicted, according to reports, so it was not down to a fatiguing roster. Rather the pilots lived so far away and were paid so little, they had no alternative but to turn up for work incapable?

Airlines that roster pilots to the point of fatigue, even if such rosters are "legal", have an argument to defend, but at the end of the day, the buck stops with the pilot. If you drink and go flying or you go flying when you are unfit, through illness or fatigue, then you are liable for whatever happens. Goes with the territory. If you don't like the consequences, then go get a desk job. The fact you dreamt of flying since you were 2 yrs old did not give you the right to do it!

[Will Fraser]

A pilot's job carries great responsibility and intense pressure. There are many opportunities in life where one chance is all one gets. Risking the achievement and prestige of commercial piloting for the "right" to have a pint too close to flight time is inexcusably stupid. It speaks volumes about discretion, professionalism, respect and decorum that were prerequisites to the chair at some point. To me, this is not a subtle argument. It is such an avoidable problem. Use your head, decline a trip if the boss wants your services too close to your last drink.

I think most would by now know my position, I'll let it go for now. My bias is an alcohol free cockpit, What's yours?

Will

[Cumulonimbus]

I'm not sure that we disagree at all, following your last post, with one exception;

Pilots are not a special case and therefore deserving of special attention. Sure, it's a stressful job at times, but most of the stress comes on the ground and not in the air. To imply that pilots therefore should gain a special exemption due to the stresses of the job does not hold water. Pilots get paid for what they do, and with some notable exceptions, get paid well for that.

I am told that doctors have a high incidence of alcoholism, but is it acceptable therefore that I might be operated upon by one that is under the influence? I am sure you will agree that is unforgiveable.

Most pilots are level-headed, sober and responsible folk. If one of our peers falls over, then we should help, but not condone him continuing to act that way. It dosen't matter who 'shopped' him. His crew would have served him better if they had done so, rather than security!

[jet_noseover]

Just wondering..what time of a day (or night) was the breathalyzer test taken..
Not that it matters,,,it still was positive...

[Jofm5]

Cumulonimbus,

I agree pilots are not a special exception and concur with your doctors analogy.

I just think rather than people shooting off at how this guy should have his career terminated that more time is spent in the prevention of the situation in the first place.

I am SLF (hopefully soon a PPL) and hold great respect for you guys in what you do. But having read near enough all threads on here for the last year or so I observe the fatigue, security hassles, management hassles etc along with observing time away from home along with the stresses of flying in inclement weather - not to mention the mechanical issues experienced. All of these add to the stresses of the job - regardless of recompense.

All I have read on the various forums on here has made me wonder if the PPL is something I really want to do considering all the issues and stresses involved. But my input on this thread is driving at rather than assasinating this guy with little facts the discussion should more be around how to stop such a person ever getting on the flight deck in the first place regardless of whether it is self induced or not which was reflected in my initial posts on this thread. What more can everyone do to identify someone on that slippery slope etc.

My later posts have been to try to stop people kicking a man whilst he is down - why fellow pilots are having a go at someone they probably neither know or almost definately dont know the reasons behind what happened is beyond me. These fellow aviators know more than I do what the guy has gone through to get to the position he has and are more than willing to sacrifice that without thinking "There go I but for the grace of whichever god" or maybe not maybe it was stupidity but I doubt anyone with enough sense to get to that level will be that stupid (there will always be exceptions).

Going back to your doctors analogy - if the medical board accept the doctors rehabilitation should his expertise be wasted or used again ? I think the person on the operating table that requires a doctor will probably not care whether they are rehabillitated or not.

Prevention is better than cure....

[Bronx]

Cumulonimbus guilty until proved innocent.There's a whole lotta people here who agree with you. I don't. I think innocent until proved guilty is best. And fairer, although fairness don't seem to be important to some here.


Will Frazer
So you think your acquaintance Lyle Prouse should have been barred from flying ever again for the rest of his life and not been given the chance to prove he was "a fine example of recovery." :confused:


Jofm5
Good post. :ok:
But with some of the guys here it's like :ugh:

[Will Fraser]

Bronx, yes I do. He's a fine example of recovery wherever he goes. He was very fortunate to get his command back. It was one in a million.

[SDFlyer]

Jofm5: "Going back to your doctors analogy - if the medical board accept the doctors rehabilitation should his expertise be wasted or used again ? I think the person on the operating table that requires a doctor will probably not care whether they are rehabillitated or not."

Speaking only for myself of course, the only time I wouldn't is if I were heavily anesthetised.

Other than that, I'd be off that table and running as fast as I could push the i.v. bag stand thingy in front of me.
:)

Will: eloquently argued, I agree 100%. It's about taking responsibility as a professional in a matter recognized by all (and codified) to have critical importance. To flout this and get caught in the act (hypothetically - no undue inferences made about the present subject) is to deserve what you get, in spades. From where exactly comes any "diminished responsibility" kind of an argument in a case like this? Fuggedabaudit. This isn't capital punishment btw guys, but it IS time to find another line of work.

[Bronx]

He's a fine example of recovery wherever he goes. But you still don't think he should have been allowed to fly ever again. :confused:

[Will Fraser]

That's what I said, yes.

[Jofm5]

Jofm5: "Going back to your doctors analogy - if the medical board accept the doctors rehabilitation should his expertise be wasted or used again ? I think the person on the operating table that requires a doctor will probably not care whether they are rehabillitated or not."

Speaking only for myself of course, the only time I wouldn't is if I were heavily anesthetised.

Other than that, I'd be off that table and running as fast as I could push the i.v. bag stand thingy in front of me.
http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif


If you have ever been into theatre the last thing on your mind is to ask if the surgeon operating is to ask if they are a recovering alcoholic. The main reason being is that you place trust in all the checks and controls that surround that situation, you rely on the medical authority to grant and check the license of the person(s) performing the procedure and you place your life in their hands.

This is a good parallel with the aviation industry when SLF board a plane. We dont go up and check the credentials of the flight crew, we place our trust in the CAA/FAA to have done those checks for us. It makes little difference if someone is rehabilitated they have been checked and probably more closely than others - the crew around them are probably more aware to check also.

The opportunity on this thread is to discuss the identification prior to a crew member entering the flight deck in an inapporpriate state and how to manage the recovering crew member when they continue their duties. To imply you would not accept a procedure from a certified doctor after knowing they were rehabilitated is to imply you have no confidence in the staff around them - the same applys to the flight deck as they will have the same knowledge you will.

[Jofm5]

Bronx:

Jofm5
Good post. http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
But with some of the guys here it's like :ugh:


Thanks for the compliment - I just think the opportunity is being missed on here as to discuss the problem of a crew member being able to enter the flight deck in that state rather than being prevented prior. There has been no discussion as yet as to why the fellow crew members permitted this when Airport Security had identified the issue.

I dont think people stating their convictions on what punative measures should be dealt out is productive especially not knowing the full issue.

As SLF a discussion of punative measures for fellow crew turning a blind eye might as easily be discussed as well considering it was a Security guard that picked up on the problem. But it seems some just want to concentrate on the sole individual.

There are a number of issues to be discussed with the limited knowledge we know - such an unfortunate situation can be made into a positive learning experience to all in the industry.

[TDK mk2]

ok, here's one for all you folk out there who think that pilots should only ever set foot in an aircraft in 'perfect' condition.

I'm sitting here with a screaming 10 week old in my arms. His mother is exhausted and unwell. His 22 month old brother has been awake twice in the last 2 hours. His 3 year old brother is covered in spots.

My standby starts at 4Z, do I:
1. call now and declare myself unfit,
2. wait and see if they call me and then tell them I'm unfit,
3. report if called and rely on caffeine and my collegue to get me through 4 sectors because sick leave (and unpaid dependancy leave as my manager will say this is) is part of the matrix my company say they will use for redundancy selection which they frequently refer to in various subtle and not so subtle ways. I've already had a week of unpaid dependancy leave this year in addition to two weeks unpaid paternity leave to support my partner.

So you guys out there in the 'perfect world' go ahead and tell me how fitness for duty is BLACK and WHITE. You just want to hang someone (literally in one case it seems) for failing a test to prove your blind theory of zero tolerance. I suppose you believe that staff security screening will save us from a terrorist attack as well - sorry, thread creap.

[Will Fraser]

TDK mk2...You are a free man. You can do anything you think is proper. One thing you must not try to do.

Everything.

[Jofm5]

TDK mk2:

My advice is do what you feel safe to do. Putting your pax at risk is putting yourself at risk which at worst could be to deny your offspring a dad. Evaluate it that way and you will make the right choices !

p.s. congrats on the (fairly) recent arrival - mine is at 7 months and wow they are hard work - thankful for the jumperoo at least I can put him down for ten mins have a smoke and let him wear himself out lol.

[FrequentSLF]

FL

FSLF
I can't account for the contents of dictionary.com, but that is certainly not the law in England.
I was surprised to read your post, very surprised in fact. You've taken an active part in previous alcohol threads in which I've explained the law in a way which I thought was very clear.
If it wasn't, there's nothing more I can do.
I'm at a loss to think of any way in which I could make it clearer than I have already - several times.

My intention was to show that sometimes words have different meanings depends on how you want to interpret them. You did use "impaired" not drunk, I already stated in the past that I do not think the use of the word drunk is appropriate at all in such thread. Thanks to you I understood pretty well the law in England.
However I do not agree with statements such as "being over the limit does not mean be drunk" implying fitness for duty..

FSLF

[Roger Sofarover]

Will

I assume following your logic that you would advocate that any individual who has been even the slightest over the legal limit whilst driving a car should lose their driving licence for ever, as the potential consequences of an accident involving a car could be the deaths of many people.?

The field breathalyser has been proved on countless occasions to have been inaccurate and is the reason why the field breathalyser result must be confirmed by another teast before it is admissable in court. So the chap is not guilty yet...get it.

Furthermore, there is a massive difference between being over the aviation limit for alcohol and being drunk. For those also commenting that drinking is self inflicted and fatigue is not, then think again. A point to ponder. If you only had 5 hours sleep last night, then when you wake up this morning and drive to work (let alone strap in to an aircraft), your reflexes are almost clinically identical to someone who has drunk 2 pints of lager. If you have had 20 hours of wakefulness then your reactions are the same as somebody that has had 5 pints of beer.

Now whilst many here will never advocate drinking and driving/flying, how many of you have packed the family into the car at 3am to make the 2 hour drive to the airport, so that you get the early morning cheap flight on your holidays? I assume those of you that are oh so perfect and professional will realise now that given the above information, whilst the causal effects of fatigue may not be self inflicted, the decision to drive and then subsequently fly when you no you are fatigued (or only had 5 hours sleep last night) is a decision that is entirely self inflicted.

Fincastle
Oh , you mean that the breathalyser was faulty. Get real, the guy probably had a few too many with the hosties in a cosy little hotel room party, probably not the first time, only this time he got caught.

Whilst i get over the urge that has been triggered by your post to shout AS*HOLE at the top of my voice, would you please make yourself known to MI5, CIA, FBI and the NSA. They have countless crimes waiting to be solved by an individual as gifted as you are for being able to pluck the facts of a case out of thin air when you know neither the individual, the chain of events or the technical knowledge required to make a balanced, informed decision. Thank god you will never be a judge.


Flying Lawyer

Thank You for your posts!

On general note, I feel that any threads on this subject should be completely banned in the future. I continue to be sickened by the 'off with their heads brigade' who deem anyone a drunkard or guilty until the facts, (as they are presented in court, rather than the media) are known. I wish I led such a perfect life as you perfect individuals.:hmm:

[DownIn3Green]

16024...

Well taken...you're tired of this thread, so good-bye...are you tired of PPrune yet?...I hope so...

Attacking me or any other poster is pretty ignorant on the "Prune", however, I'll accept your apology when you can quote the FAA "document" you reference in your post....

FAR Pt 135 pilots are held to the same standards as FAR Pt 121 pilots re: drug/alchol use...

You claim to have an ATPL, are freom the UK, and "joined" the Prune in 2002....But only 20 posts???

And BTW, I've flown over 24 yrs and have over 6,000 hrs Command time on International (read Transatlantic/Pacific) routes and everywhere in between on large transport jets.

But of course I started with a "commuter" (FAR 135) airline and never had time to put something "up my nose"...

:mad:

[eliptic]

TDK
My standby starts at 4Z, do I:
1. call now and declare myself unfit,
2. wait and see if they call me and then tell them I'm unfit,
3. report if called and rely on caffeine and my collegue to get me through 4 sectors because sick leave (and unpaid dependancy leave as my manager will say this is) is part of the matrix my company say they will use for redundancy selection which they frequently refer to in various subtle and not so subtle ways. I've already had a week of unpaid dependancy leave this year in addition to two weeks unpaid paternity leave to support my partner.

You should be able to take that decision your self, if not maybe piloting is not your call.

Your private "setup" should never be aloud to interfere with other peoples safety.

If you are professional you know if you are fit to fly, period!

[Flying Lawyer]

Roger Sofarover
I continue to be sickened by the 'off with their heads brigade' who deem anyone a drunkard or guilty until the facts, (as they are presented in court, rather than the media) are known. I agree. Unfortunately, it happens each time there's a press report that a pilot has been arrested on suspicion of committing an alcohol offence. :rolleyes:


FSLF My intention was to show that sometimes words have different meanings depends on how you want to interpret them.
Fair point. However I do not agree with statements such as "being over the limit does not mean be drunk" implying fitness for duty.Again, we're back to the problem of how people want to interpret fit and unfit.
In the last alcohol thread, I wrote: "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)."
You responded "That sentence closes the discussion on the thread. I do agree with you 100%."

It's impossible to have a productive discussion if different people are using the same word but meaning very different things by it.



.

[Finn47]

"Never been an alcohol related accident in passenger transport"? Wrong. For instance this crash here, with 25 fatalities:

ASN Aircraft accident Douglas C-47A-30-DK (DC-3C) OH-LCC Koivulahti (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19610103-0)

The investigation report is available on the internet, albeit in Finnish only, and I can post the link if anybody wants to check, but, according to autopsies performed by the Pathology Dpt of the University of Helsinki, the captain had over 0.2 % alcohol in his blood and the copilot 0.156 %. Therefore the captain was at 4 times the present drink & drive limit and the copilot at 3 times the limit.

[rodthesod]

John McG,

Excellent post, thank you. I concur with everything you said. We share the same sobriety date - '92. I lost my marriage, home, driving licence, senior management position, self-respect and was about to lose my class 1 medical. Thanks to our 'fellowship' I got the help I needed when I needed it most. My airline and CAA doctor knew what I was doing and gave me much support through some difficult times; so much so that I eventually made Head of TRTO again and retired a few years after my normal retirement date.
I now spend a happy and sober retirement in a beautiful place that now has AA. My daughter, who was 5 when I stopped drinking, was spared the horrors of growing up with a drunk for a dad and now visits for very happy holidays when she can spare the time from her medical studies.

Rod

[green granite]

"Never been an alcohol related accident in passenger transport"?

And this is just Australia:

A search of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s accident and incident database was conducted for all occurrences in which drugs or alcohol were recorded between 1 January 1975 and 31 March 2006. There were 36 drug and alcohol-related events (31 accidents and five incidents).

full article at: Aircraft accidents and avoidance - human factors - Intute: Science, Engineering and Technology (http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/cgi-bin/browse.pl?id=26065) scroll down to the relevant title and click on it.

[Flying Lawyer]

green granite

Yes, the findings of the Australian research were interesting.

The researchers examined and analysed the accident and incident database, looking at all occurrences in which drugs or alcohol was recorded between 1 January 1975 and 31 March 2006, to determine the prevalence and nature of drug and alcohol related accidents and incidents in Australian civil aviation.

The research found that, in just over 31 years, there were only 22 such instances.

I don't know how many flights were flown by Australian pilots in those 31 years but it must be hundreds of thousands - possibly millions.

It is, of course, essential to bear in mind:

that not all those accidents and incidents (ie no accident) were caused either wholly or partly by pilot error;

and, even if they were caused wholly or partly by pilot error,
that it does it does not necessarily follow that alcohol played any part whatsoever in the error.FL

[eliptic]

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.

So, what´s your point?

And how many incidents can you prove that alcohol are NOT involved?
(i refer to a earlier post regarding not controllable,, "combustibility of hydrocarbons" remember? if not SDflyer#66 )

By now we all know that you will defend the crew even if he/she ending up in emergency past out from alcoholic consumption!! but still not proved guilty.

Finally i don´t understand what you want to accomplice with you Juridical debate?
I think you have a hard time to understand that most people here don´t like the alco attitude,, lets discuss that instead of acual cases or/and proved guilty or not!

[green granite]

Indeed FL I posted it really to counter the claim that booze had never been involved in any accidents, as you say whether or not alcohol paid a part in any accident/incident can only be a matter for conjecture anyway. I would imagine that it would be impossible to prove that a pilot, say 1% over the limit, had an accident due to alcohol.

[al446]

At the risk of prolonging this thread needlessly I would like to return to what YHZChick said very early on in this thread -


I think we need a little more evidence that said pilot was actually over the limit than simply LHR security pulling him aside. They seem to have difficulty differentiating between the smell of cherry chewing gum and booze....

I accept that it later emerged that he failed a rudimentary breath test but I also have grave reservations about others ability to detect the smell of alcohol correctly. Here's why.

I am not a pilot or in any way involved in transport or operation of machinery but accept that, in my line of work a certain professional standard has to be maintained. With my collegues I make no secret of the degree that alcohol plays in my social life whilst not getting out of control. Following a change of management I was recently called to the office and told that my manager could smell alcohol on me and her fellow manager, who had been called in for the purpose, informed me that she could smell it heavily on me even though I was about 4 feet away. I went out of the office while they discussed it and asked 2 colleagues if I smelled of alcohol. After breathing into one guy's face ( a teatotaller) he said 'very,very slightly' and my other colleague said 'Not at all'. On my return to the office I was informed that they were sending me home and I told them of my findings. Lo and behold, no further action. I am sure that the fact that I am one of those who will not be bullied by managers has absolutely nothing to do with it.

We do not hear of how many FC have been reported by security and been cleared immediately. Newspapers do not run non-stories.

Further, there are several medical conditions which will not impair abilities but produce substances similar to alcohol. Ethyl alcohol is one of a group of substances which also include acetone and ketone. Acetone is used in nail polish etc and ketone is produced by ketosis, a breaking down of food which is more usually found in bulimics but not exclusively so, it may affect those with highly irregular appetites or gastric problems. The ketone thus produced may smell similar to alcohol. This may be exacerbated by incipient dental problems as cavities in the mouth, unreachable by brushing, can cause build up.

Finally there is mouth wash, there is only one comercially available m/w in UK that I am aware of that does not have an alcohol-based carrier. If you want an interesting time at security go to toilets just before passing through and run some Listerine round your mouth, your colleagues can run book on you getting stopped.

All the above in no way exonerates those who knowingly break the rules but may put it in a wider context.

Now awaiting incoming.

[Jofm5]

Finally there is mouth wash, there is only one comercially available m/w in UK that I am aware of that does not have an alcohol-based carrier. If you want an interesting time at security go to toilets just before passing through and run some Listerine round your mouth, your colleagues can run book on you getting stopped.



Not a wise thing to do , if you do get stopped and breathalised you run the risk of failure of the breath test - which is why if you get stopped whilst driving prior to the breath test you will be asked if you have used mouth wash in the prior 20 minutes. To confirm the non-presence of alcohol should you state you have used mouthwash requires a blood test - this all takes time and would mean you probably would not make the flight and cause disruption.

[Roger Sofarover]

To confirm the non-presence of alcohol should you state you have used mouthwash requires a blood test - this all takes time up to 2 weeks! and would mean you probably would not make the flight and cause disruption.

and in the process show security as the oxygen thieves that they are, when you said 'mouthwash, and it was 'mouthwash' and all because you display a degree of dental hygeine

[Will Fraser]

Roger

Your response to my several posts needs an answer. "by your logic" and then what amounts to a straw man argument. This thread concerns commercial piloting with passengers, public carriage, not motoring. I won't answer your attempt to drift the focus off my opinion, which I believe is quite clear. What is yours? Rather than attack my "logic" and attempt to portray it as somehow irrational, explain yours.

The breathalyzer? Due process? Fatigue? Your every attempt to deflect the debate from a simple discussion into areas that are wholly unrelated is not typical of your usual articulate and well reasoned posts.

Laws are arbitrary, they need to be or be liable to attack as too specific and burdensome.That is why there is one standard for everyone, there is no other way.
Bewailing them as too harsh is ridiculous. What should be done, slide the index by nationality? Body weight? Gender?

Would you routinely allow a fellow pilot on deck with you whose senses are at 98%? 50%? Without alcohol but hungover? I doubt it.

I'll restate. If legally demonstrated to be over limit at flight time, one's certificate should be revoked.

It's curious to me the howls of protest from the others who disagree. Drinking alcohol is a legal pursuit, anyone who thinks my opinion involves a moral judgment is wrong. In uniform walking on the a/c with any measurable alcohol in the blood is so stupid as to bring into question the offenders sanity. Drinking and commercial flight should be strictly exclusive of each other. Anyone who mixes them shouldn't be flying. Further, residual alcohol can be indicative of a problem. Coming off a drunk?
Alcohol impairs the senses and judgment in many ways. Metabolytes of alcohol in the blood can cause sensate and perception problems, absent alcohol itself.

Sad to say one can no longer place utter faith in the people upfront. Whether it was ever justified, lately there are other issues staining the performance and trustworthiness of those who fly and those who manage flight. Lack of training, experience, and judgment are enough to counter, who needs the perception of an alcohol problem in the mix?

[ea340]

Cumulonibus a few minor corrections to your post I was six when I became interested in flying and the Vanguard was still a paper airplane. As for flying a desk that will come soon enough after 40 years all good things must come to and end .As for rostering long haul and ultra long haul have very serious fatique issues with no simple fixes as anyone who has done it will atest . Short and medium haul have their own fatique issues. The point is no matter what causes the impairment you are impaired. In my humble opinion fatique is a much more serious impairment issue than alcohol ever was . Should you go flying with alcohol impairment of course not is it even a minor problem in western aviation no. Dont try to tell me at 3 am body clock on a 10 hour trip you are not fatique impaired I have been around to long. Try reading TDK mk2 post we have all been there and that includes you I suspect. After that read some of the NASA research

[John R]

Flying Lawyer, if you want a fight then you've got yourself one. I know that you have defended a pilot in the past who had been caught over the limit, so I understand this subject is rather close, but that really does not excuse your nauseatingly sycophantic attitude towards the profession.

The point I was trying to make, as you are fully aware, is that IF the breathalyser results show he was over the limit and IF that pilot had flown, the safety of that flight would have been jeopardised. In exactly the same way that flight safety is jeopardised by fatigued crew. That's right, I realise that's a problem too.

What is quite clear from this thread (and others) is that:

a) a number of professional pilots who post on this forum have a drink problem
b) they believe, for whatever reason, that this is not incompatible with their job
c) they do not believe it makes a difference to their flying ability to the extent that flight safety is compromised (increased confidence being associated with drinking)
d) they do not like the fact that passengers and 'outsiders' realise this
e) this winds them up to the extent that they will drag everything from fatigue and ludicrous comparisons with drunk-drivers (nb: drink-driving is also illegal!) into the debate as a defence.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Stunningly articulate penetrating post that belies the affliction that dogs many of us - that of ADDICTION.

I am not a sauce monkey but I am a weed slave and your post strikes a deep cord for me.

[FrequentSLF]

The following was posted in another alcohol related thread

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.

Looking at 0.05% seems very low...but means that one in every 1000 flights a pilot might test positive.

Let me say, positive means above the legal limit...not impaired. Anyway if is called legal limit...it shall be respected? right? No? Why? Because 0.2% is too low?
The following are the legal limit for driving in 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)
Italy is considering to reduce to 0.2 per mg.
Let's get the millions of drivers which have a limit below 0.2 join your crusade...how many of them are fatigued when driving back home? Shall all those millions raise the same issue? Fatigue is much worse than drinking?
The two issue are separate ones, do not use the fatigue issue to justify the drinking one, you are just lowering the standards. We all do expect that a professional pilot acts and behave at the highest standards.
I do agree that fatigue is today a major issue on aviation, but shall not be mixed with the alcohol issues.


FSLF

[Will Fraser]

A note on Roger's note. There are no perfect individuals here, Roger. It takes not even a casual acquaintance with discretion to never show up with alcohol in the blood. That isn't perfection, nor is it close. I continue to note the arguments in "defense" of drinking. This isn't about drinking, which is a legal pastime. Nor is it about hangin him high. You continue to purposely avoid the very simple premise (Law) that in interest of the common good, one's personal behaviour is subject to legislation. Those with authority issues or those who are uneasy with their alcohol use would do well to look inward, not attack an arguably harsh code that serves to protect the public from occasionally immature and irresponsible behaviour that has surfaced and probably will continue to.

I still have yet to read about why it is ok to have alcohol in the blood when commencing a flight. And if it is not okay, why it should be excused.

If one is too thick to avoid alcohol based mouthwash, or can't track his own body's metabolism of the offending chemical, you shouldn't be flying, period. Maybe the Breathalyzer is pants, ok, take the blood. Maybe you smell of it, ok, if accosted, give blood.

The public's right to sober and utterly alcohol free pilots isn't a perk, it is a right, and the Law.

[ea340]

John R do you really believe alot of pilots on this forum have a drink problem.I have no problem taking a breath test before every flight some airlines do breath tests before every flight. What would be more interesting is an evaluation of mental alertness and reaction times you would catch all impairment issues. Problem is cost and time breath test so fast and easy and that false sense of security

[Roger Sofarover]

John R

e) this winds them up to the extent that they will drag everything from fatigue and ludicrous comparisons with drunk-drivers (nb: drink-driving is also illegal!) into the debate as a defence.If you read this thread you will see that people that have commented on fatigue have done so in response to anothers comments, and fatigue is as serious a problem as Alcohol and it is a problem that manifests itself routinely. I made a comparison to drink driving when Will stated quite catagorically that if a pilot is found over the legal limit he believes his licence shoud be revoked for ever. My question is why? Why for ever? We give people who drink drive an opportunity to rebuild their lives so why not the pilot. There is no continuity. I have had a relative killed by a drink driver. The consequences of a drink driver being the cause of an accident are potentially as serious as the pilot who may drink and fly. So why the differing standards? Why can a judge not ban a pilot for a length of time? Why is it the CAA that must impose the ban. I am afraid I disagree that comparisons are ludicrous. Having read the entire thread again, I have not found one person that condones drinking and flying nor have I found anyone that considers being an alcoholic or heavy drinker is acceptable with their profession. What I have found is that there are many who once again want to hang someone before the full and correct details have been established.

edited to add
Will
If the guy is found guilty, then he should be punished hard and hopefully receive some sort of support. But he has NOT been found guilty at this moment in time.

[FrequentSLF]

Roger

So why the differing standards? Why can a judge not ban a pilot for a length of time? Why is it the CAA that must impose the ban

It is my understanding that the licence is not revoked forever, a ban of 6 months is usually the punishment. The issue is that the pilot will loose is security clearance because of the criminal record...therefore the lengthy punishment. If an airport employee is found drink driving might loose is security clearance and therefore subject to the same punishment.
I am not very confident about the above and I seek the opinion of FL on this subject since I am not lawyer and are only my conclusions based on the information gathered in this forum

FSLF

[Will Fraser]

Roger, from your previous writing I can only conclude that you are temporarily absent your skills.

Why is drink driving different than commercial transport? Gad.

A permanent loss of certificate (currently the effective standard) alerts others to conform to the restriction. Alcoholics will not conform to the Law, so this is a case of keeping the non alcoholics toed to the standard. Further, a revocation of ticket for even exceeding the minimum is a loud tocsin to those who can control their habits.

Massaging the standard on a case basis is misleading to those to whom the Law would speak. Re-acquiring the privilege at many levels tacitly permits a false sense of permission to those who would be borderline. If there is a problem in some way to prevent a personal bust of the admittedly low threshold, that individual is somehow less culpable? Justify a presence of alcohol in the blood if you care to, but for me it is permanently disqualifying to fly for hire upon doing so.

[SDFlyer]

Jofm5: "If you have ever been into theatre the last thing on your mind is to ask if the surgeon operating is to ask if they are a recovering alcoholic. The main reason being is that you place trust in all the checks and controls that surround that situation, you rely on the medical authority to grant and check the license of the person(s) performing the procedure and you place your life in their hands."

The analogy here would be if an assistant in the OR noticed alcohol on the breath of the surgeon and insisted on an evaluation of his condition before the operation commenced. The doc was then found to be breathalyzer positive, and later found to have a high BAC (in the view of the regulators, see below). I would indeed insist on being operated on by another surgeon, probably at a later date after my heart rate went down a bit ..:), and I would report the matter to the relevant State Medical regulatory board and would await their findings with interest - let the blasted hospital do what it likes to the guy (not pretty, probably), I would want to hear what the medical regulators had to say.

This would be one surgeon in very serious trouble indeed, and one surgeon I would never allow near me with a knife in his hand ......
:ugh:

[Will Fraser]

Roger Sofarover You are at this point being dishonest or oblivious to my posts. At NO time have I proposed imposing any punishment on an individual whose issue has not been adjudicated and then appealed, at his/her discretion, to the fullest. Don't direct your inflammatory comments in my direction in honor of your obvious neglect of the issue.

Will

[John R]

Roger Sofarover -

If you read this thread you will see that people that have commented on fatigue have done so in response to anothers comments, and fatigue is as serious a problem as Alcohol and it is a problem that manifests itself routinely.

I appreciate that. My problem is when the fatigue argument is raised as a kind of twisted 'well-he-might-have-been-fatigued-too!' defence. They are not related issues.

I really do have a problem with the following comment:


The consequences of a drink driver being the cause of an accident are potentially as serious as the pilot who may drink and fly.

You cannot really believe that to be true. A road traffic accident can certainly cause many fatalities, but please don't tell me that it is as serious as the potential loss of life if the captain of a passenger aircraft with 300 passengers has a hang-over while he struggles to handle an engine failure at V1.

Professionals carry responsibilities. So I find it somewhat bizarre that pilots are so keen to compare their job to driving a car when it comes to drinking!

[eliptic]

If the guy is found guilty, then he should be punished hard and hopefully receive some sort of support. But he has NOT been found guilty at this moment in time

I am stunned!

Someone get caught for smelling alcohol and that raise questions from public,,strange!?

Instantly the defense mechanism get full power and talking about "proved guilty"why?
I have not hear anyone here sentence this guy/s as guilty!?, contrary it is the"defenders" that make him look guilty .

If this discussion just needs undoubted guiltiness i can link to pilots with actual jail sentences regards to this issue

[Roger Sofarover]

There seems to be a few communication errors going on here.

FSLF
I did not say that a pilot loses his licence forever, I was saying that Will recommends they lose their licence forever.

Will
Roger, from your previous writing I can only conclude that you are temporarily absent your skills.well starting with that line I think it is you that is temporarily absent from your skills

Why is drink driving different than commercial transport? Gad.I don't believe it is different so why do you want the pilot banned for life? Do you think it acceptable that the drink driver gets a ban for 12 months?

Justify a presence of alcohol in the blood if you care to, but for me it is permanently disqualifying to fly for hire upon doing so.Now this is where you start making it up again, and why I am glad you are not a judge. I will give £50 to a charity of your choice if you show me where I have justified that presence of alcohol in the blood is acceptable when flying. Over to you!

7 minutes later (45 mins after my post) without intervention from me you add

Roger Sofarover You are at this point being dishonest or oblivious to my posts. At NO time have I proposed imposing any punishment on an individual whose issue has not been adjudicated and then appealed, at his/her discretion, to the fullest. Don't direct your inflammatory comments in my direction in honor of your obvious neglect of the issue.I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you been drinking Will? Go latch onto somebody else Will I am not interested in your comments and I have certainly not been inflammatory..yet although I can feel it coming. I have not condoned drink flying, I have not condoned drink driving.

If one is too thick to avoid alcohol based mouthwash, or can't track his own body's metabolism of the offending chemical, you shouldn't be flying, period. for you to suggest that one must avoid swilling your mouth out with mouthwash before flying is frankly idiotic. It is the norm to swill mouthwash and spit it out Will, you are not meant to swallow it or use it as a mixer. Bacardi and listermint perhaps? and what a clever chap you are to be able to track the metabolism of chemicals through your body. I wish I could do that, clearly myself and tens of thousands of others shouldn't be flying, I have never had any lessons on tracking the metabolism of chemicals in my body.

The breathalyzer? Due process? Fatigue? Your every attempt to deflect the debate from a simple discussion into areas that are wholly unrelated is not typical of your usual articulate and well reasoned posts.No deflection Will and as you haven't displayed any debating skills then I tell you what, don't worry about my standard of articulation or reasoning, wait until the Bacardi and listermint wears off and come back to the forum (maybe thats a good drink for a pilot, at least your breath would be fresh in the morning;) ) then maybe you can set the standard and display some.

John R

You cannot really believe that to be true. A road traffic accident can certainly cause many fatalities, but please don't tell me that it is as serious as the potential loss of life if the captain of a passenger aircraft with 300 passengers has a hang-over while he struggles to handle an engine failure at V1.The loss of my brother was far more serious than the Captain of an aircraft with a hangover struggling to handle an engine failure at V1. The FO would step in and save the 300 don't worry. One life or 300 whats more important? What a bloody stupid thing to say, for the person that loses a loved one then the one is important, to you the casual reader in the press you will deem the 300 more important.

[Flying Lawyer]

John_R Flying Lawyer, if you want a fight then you've got yourself one.Forgive me for asking but: How old are you?
The last time anyone said that to me I was at school. I know that you have defended a pilot in the past who had been caught over the limit, so I understand this subject is rather close How funny. :)
Yes, I did once defend a pilot who had been caught over the limit. The case was in December 2004.
He was the first pilot arrested at LHR under what was then the new law so I obtained his permission to post details of his case on PPRuNe in the hope that his experience might be a useful warning to others.
If you're interested, see post #32 in this thread: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/136060-lhr-breathtest-update-captain-jailed.html#post1639296
If I’d been engaged to prosecute him I would have done so.
I’ve also defended murderers, rapists and child abusers etc. I can only assume that, in your opinion, that makes those subjects rather close to me. :rolleyes: (I’ve also prosecuted them, more times than I can remember.)

Close to the subject?
I've learnt a reasonable amount about it. In December 2003 (a year before the Heathrow case) I drew attention to a very significant change in the law due to come into force in 2004, explained it in some detail, and warned pilots about how that change might affect them.
I was concerned that some pilots, who had flown entirely lawfully under the 'old' law, might be at risk of inadvertently committing the new offence, with dire consequences.
If you're interested, the thread is here: Alcohol and Flying: The New Law (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/113035-alcohol-flying-new-law.html)
….. your nauseatingly sycophantic attitude towards the profession.If that’s how you choose to interpret my posts, feel free to feel nauseous. I certainly respect the profession. It has some bad apples, but so does the legal profession.
The point I was trying to make, as you are fully aware, is ………. etc As you say, I am, and was, fully aware of the point you were trying to make. My response remains unchanged:
I am not prepared to express an opinion based upon the (reported) breathalyser result.
Nor (for the same reason) am I prepared to speculate about whether the safety of that flight would have been jeopardised.

And no, I don't have a drink problem. I'm not a heavy, nor even regular, drinker and never have been. I mention it just in case that was going to be your next attempt at a childish personal attack. :rolleyes:

Will F
“utterly alcohol free pilots isn't a perk, it is a right, and the Law.”
A small point of information, just to avoid any misunderstanding in an area that’s proved to be ripe for misunderstandings whenever the topic comes up: That’s not the law in the UK, nor in many other jurisdictions. In the UK the limit is very close to zero, but not zero.
You give your location as Petaluma, which I assume is Petaluma, Sonoma County. FAR 91 used to prohibit an alcohol concentration of 0.04 (or more) grams of alcohol per decilitre of blood or per 210 litres of breath.
Please correct me if my memory is wrong or the FAR limit has changed.

.

[ea340]

Flying Lawyer do you know how many convictions there have been in the UK since the law was enacted .

[Flying Lawyer]

As far as I'm aware, five.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of the list below. It's based (apart from the first one) upon what I've read on PPRuNe, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't accurate.

Royal Brunei, LHR, 2004
Finnair, Manchester, 2004
Emirates, LHR, 2006
Thomson, Birmingham, 2009
United, LHR, 2009


BTW, just in case anyone misunderstands, the UK has had a law relating to alcohol in aviation for many years. (I can't remember how many.)
It used to provide that no member of an aircraft’s crew .......... shall be under the influence of drink or drugs to such an extent as to impair his/her capacity to so act.
That was effectively repeated (using different words) in the 2003 Act, which came into force in 2004, as the offence of Being Unfit for Duty

However, the Act also brought in a new and different offence:
Alcohol Exceeding the Prescribed Limit.
NB: There is an important difference between the two offences.
A pilot can be guilty of the 'new' second offence I've mentioned even if there is not a shred of evidence that the amount of alcohol impaired his ability to perform his aviation function. (There are well-established tests to determine if someone is impaired by alcohol.)

The UK has an equivalent distinction for drivers:
Driving ........... when under the influence of drink or drugs.
Driving ........... with alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit.


FL

[mizwings]

There are rules and if you break them there are consequences. I am surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that the effect of alcohol can be magnified on board the aircraft. I am under correction, but I recall reading somewhere that one drink on the ground can add up to 3 in the air? I personally do not drink 24 hours prior to throttle

[ea340]

Flying lawyer thanks

[ea340]

One more question do these laws affect cabin crew.

[Phil Space]

Of course they do. The days of opening the the bar for the crew as the slf disembarked are long gone as are the room parties.
As I have said before the thing to remember is that your job is just a few clicks away from the internet and the world media.

The cosy cartels that existed in flying,politics and the law are a thing of the past.

Google and an open media mean you'll get found out:ok:

[Captain Airclues]

ea340


do these laws affect cabin crew?


The answer is in the link provided by FL

To whom does the Act apply?
Flight Crew, CC, ATC and LAMEs in the UK
and
to the crew of British registered aircraft anywhere in the world.

[EternalNY1]

This is a good parallel with the aviation industry when SLF board a plane. We dont go up and check the credentials of the flight crew, we place our trust in the CAA/FAA to have done those checks for us. It makes little difference if someone is rehabilitated they have been checked and probably more closely than others - the crew around them are probably more aware to check also. The opportunity on this thread is to discuss the identification prior to a crew member entering the flight deck in an inapporpriate state and how to manage the recovering crew member when they continue their duties. To imply you would not accept a procedure from a certified doctor after knowing they were rehabilitated is to imply you have no confidence in the staff around them - the same applys to the flight deck as they will have the same knowledge you will.

Well said. Combined with your comment on page 1, there isn't much more to say.

[JohnMcGhie]

I just wanted to add a public note thanking those many PPRuNes who sent kind messages of support, both publicly and via PM. I am wading through the PMs as we speak!

For the record, I have always been strongly opposed to drink-driving/flying. During 26 years of destructive drinking, I was tested many time (Australia was one of the first countries to get Random Breath Testing) and never was found to be over the limit. With the benefit of hindsight, I remain surprised that my efforts to control my drinking succeeded... The alcoholics amongst us will understand how desperate those efforts sometimes were :O

I am not a pilot (well... gliders, a long time ago) but I clearly understood that alcohol has an increasing effect with increasing cabin altitude. While still a student pilot, I was fortunate to hear a hair-raising story from a pair of pilots in a light aircraft after a heavy night who felt fine on the ground, but discovered they were seriously impaired at 10,000 feet. I am sure this information is part of the training for anyone who rises to ATPL level?

I suggest that the impaired judgement that is an inevitable result of many years of excessive alcohol consumption, is perhaps a more important reason to avoid alcohol on the flight deck than the well-understood affects on reaction times and concentration.

Knowing alcoholics as I do, I could suggest that the only rule that will work for alcoholics is "0" and "Always". If an alcoholic knows the limit is "none" and that he will be tested on every flight, he will find a way to not drink. Sadly, that "way" will probably include prescription medication.

If the aircraft carries a breathalyzer, and the Captain and First Office are required to test each other as part of their preparation for every flight, you won't have people affected by alcohol at the controls. Sadly, your alcoholic crew-members will probably be popping pills in the toilet.

I guess that we are all waiting for science to come up with a "Fitness Tester" that would detect no only chemical ingestion but also fatigue.

Many thanks all, for your kind words.

[Will Fraser]

No, Thank you John. Your wisdom is appreciated.

Will

[clicker]

"Never been an alcohol related accident in passenger transport"?

We will never know for certain, after all how many accidents have lost all on board and never been traced or left so little evidence?

[merlinxx]

I drink Clausthaler when not drinking real ale. Tis 0.05 ABV (which in the UK is officially alcohol free), but after 3 or 4 my breath can smell as if I've been drinking 5.0ABV real ale:ooh:

I wonder why ?

[eliptic]

I am quite shore that this problem soon is history, regards to researches there is reliable equipment to meter alco levels easy and accurate


“There isn’t a possibility that these (more advanced alcohol measurers) would react to acetone,” said Bengt Svensson, spokesman for The National Police Board, adding that he sees no risk for drunks to claim fasting as an excuse when pulled over.

[SDFlyer]

O'Doul's (0.5%) is all I drink when contemplating riding a motorcycle or flying an aircraft. The heck with the regs, I've got my own standards and will-to-live.

As to punishment: IMO anyone found guilty of violating this regulation, after due process etc etc, should be fired by his employer immediately for cause. Then the transgressor will find out what other company is willing to hire him or her with such a record. Perhaps, after time has passed and a person has shown evidence of true reform, a commercial operator will take the person on. Then again perhaps not, the potential liability of doing so being what it is (commercial and legal, here in the U.S. at least).

Not ALL punishments are meted out by regulatory authorities; sometimes the marketplace plays an equally important role.

How would you feel if I had a couple stiff drinks before flying the VOR-A into Brown just as you're on the localizer in a 737 heading for RWY 27 at Lindbergh?

[One Outsider]

There will always be those who just can't help themselves and know when enough is enough.

[411A]

According to the news here, the concerned guy was 4 times over the allowed limit, as confirmed by testing.

Not especially good.:eek:

[John R]

Not really, no. But you certainly won't get some on here to admit that. I suppose they also wouldn't mind if their family had been on that flight.

[eliptic]

But you certainly won't get some on here to admit that.

:oh: be careful! Lawyer will wake up:mad:

[Bronx]

JohnR

If the British Sun newspaper claim he was 4x the limit on the field test is confirmed then I wouldn't mind if my family had been on the flight. 4x almost nothing is still almost nothing.
Over the limit is illegal and if the guy broke the law he deserves to be punished, but over the limit ain't the same as unsafe. It depends on the BAC level.

I can see why you'd be worried. ;)
John_R post in the Spotters forumI recently flew with Ryanair. During the cruise, the captain left the flight deck to pay a visit. On his way back (not a long walk, admittedly), he stopped to speak to the cabin crew.

I wondered if airlines have a policy for flight crew (I'm only talking about two pilot crews on short-haul flights like this one) leaving the flight deck during flight?

Or is it at the discretion of the captain? Could there not have been a problem if the F/O had been inexperienced and unable to handle a situation on his/her own during his absence? :uhoh::oh:

[John R]

Bronx - do you think that the NME is a more trustworthy publication? ;)

[eliptic]

wouldn't mind if my family had been on the flight. 4x almost nothing is still almost nothing.would you? what if the guy had no sleep on top of that? what about the raise of blood alcohol at 30`ft (still 4 times?)

"Even after complete elimination of all of the alcohol in the body, there are undesirable effects-hangover-that can last 48 to 72 hours following the last drink."

"Pilots have shown impairment in their ability to fly an ILS approach or to fly IFR, and even to perform routine VFR flight tasks while under the influence of alcohol, regardless of individual flying experience."

"The number of serious errors committed by pilots dramatically increases at or above concentrations of 0.04% blood alcohol. This is not to say that problems don't occur below this value. Some studies have shown decrements in pilot performance with blood alcohol concentrations as low as the 0.025%."

You are in control

"Flying, while fun and exciting, is a precise, demanding, and unforgiving endeavor. Any factor that impairs the pilot's ability to perform the required tasks during the operation of an aircraft is an invitation for disaster."
The use of alcohol is a significant self-imposed stress factor that should be eliminated from the cockpit. The ability to do so is strictly within the pilot's control.


Before you decide to put you family on that plane you should let them get some update
Alcohol and its Effect on Pilots (http://flightphysical.com/pilot/alcohol.htm)

[DownIn3Green]

SD...Give us a break...

You claim to have your own limits but still drink O'Douls which could put you over...

If you are that responsible...why not Coke, Pepsi or OJ before flying????

[computer jockey]

If you are that responsible...why not Coke, Pepsi or OJ before flying????

Well, actually...: BBC NEWS | Health | Too much cola zaps muscle power (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8056028.stm)

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Quick question Flying Lawyer,

I cannot find a provision in The Railway And Transport Safety Act for refusal to provide an evidential specimen, whereas the RTA 7(6) specifies that you are "guilty of an offence". Is there an equivalent offence for the R&TS and what are the penalties.

Perhaps those who know they are "banged to rights" may well be better taking this route, hoping to avoid a custodial.

[eglnyt]

Section 96 of the RTSA 2003 brings in the relevant sections of the RTA 1988 with modification. I'll leave Flying Lawyer to provide the legally correct interpretation of the law but the intention of Section 96 is to block that route in the same way that it is blocked for drink driving offences.

[411A]

I really do have to grin at all this...the AA clown was tested over the limit...full stop.
Therefore he will face charges.

As it should be...period.

All the rest of the scenarios of my wife ran off with the chauffeur and screwed the pooch, it totally without merit.
We don't care.
Over the limit, and proved....out the door.

Therefore, younger guys move up the seniority list.\IE:...have another belt, Captain, Sir!.

Done.:}

[ea340]

411A I would wait for the blood test to come in . I know of one individual who blow over the blood test confirmed he was at basicly zero. In his case about 3 weeks to get results a long 3 weeks . This individual never made the press .There are now 2 cases will be interesting to see the results . Both of whom have been convicted in the press.

[---tik]

Very well put. I am glad you made this post.:ok:

[KC135777]

March of 2007 (after our pilot got acquitted for the Manchester incident) I wrote:

"...curious though, will the coppers now "follow" any future "suspects" to their aircraft? ....or, will they continue to grab them at the security checkpoint?"

I think we now know the answer.

KC135777

[ea340]

Update blood test are in and I'am told the AC pilot is back on the line cleared of all charges. So there seems to be a problem with security .I wonder who advised the media .I also notice zero media coverage. To bad his name was dragged through the mud

[TowerDog]

I really do have to grin at all this...the AA clown was tested over the limit...full stop.
Therefore he will face charges.

As it should be...period.


Update blood test are in and I'am told the AC pilot is back on the line cleared of all charges.

You guys talking about the same pilot....?

If so, one is 100% wrong...:sad:

[ea340]

An Air Canada pilot was arrested about the same time he was cleared . I notice nothing has been heard of the AA pilot yet

[pilotbear]

If the blood test proved negative that is one point, but 411a's point is if you have a drink before you fly tough luck if you get caught and I agree. If you want to push the limits by drinking to the limit at the limit of time before duty then you are being stupid. If you get caught, again tough luck. If you have a drinking problem or feel you may have get help before you get caught...there are so many support groups now.
However, there are some malicious monkeys at security so sad so you must be on your guard:ok:

[cjhants]

I think there is a bit of a mix up here. the AA pilot who was the subject of the original post pleaded guilty at uxbridge magistrates court in july and was fined £1500 with £300 costs in august.

[AnthonyGA]

The easy way to fix this is to lower the limit to zero. Pilots should not have any alcohol on board at all when flying. There is no demonstrably safe level of alcohol in the blood, and I must question the ethics of any pilot who thinks it is okay to fly under the influence of the drug.

[cessnapuppy]

you must realize that your body produces alcohols all the time right?
There is no demonstrably safe level of alcohol in the blood

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

Fine post, dont ruin it with unsubstantiated pseudo scientific poppycock! lol
Plus, it doesnt 'fix' anything

[peter272]

A bit of a strong line there..

I think you'll find the current limit is effectively a zero level.

It takes into account that your body can manufacture a certain level of alcohol on its own.

Some innocous products help with this and that is already in case law.

[AnthonyGA]

Endogenous ethanol levels in the blood from fermentation in the gut do not normally exceed 0.04 mg/dl in healthy individuals. The FAA limit for ethanol in the blood is 40.00 mg/dl, which is 1000 times above the usual level of endogenous ethanol. Thus, the claim that this limit is necessary to account for endogenous ethanol, or that endogenous ethanol makes any significant contribution to intoxication in comparison to exogenous ethanol, is baseless.

The aviation limits for ethanol intoxication are extremely generous in this context. They are that way only because ethanol is a legal drug, and because it is so deeply ingrained in socially acceptable practices of Western society that hardly anyone seems able to do without it. This high limit, however, does not mean that the impairment caused by alcohol is any less severe quantitatively than that produced by many other illegal or less socially acceptable drugs, such as cocaine or nicotine. Additionally, the impairment due to alcohol is qualitatively different from that produced by many other substances. Caffeine, for example, is primarily a stimulant that enhances alertness, and does not necessarily impair a pilot in a way that makes him less safe (although this should not be construed to mean that taking caffeine is okay or a good idea); but alcohol impairs pilots in a number of ways that are quite different, and all of them are unsafe.

Because so many people consume this drug, it is common to hear diverse rationalizations of its use, and excuses for allowing it to be present in the bodies of persons engaged in safety-of-life tasks such as operating vehicles and piloting airplanes. Unfortunately this is a dangerous practice. Just because alcohol is legal up a certain limit does not make that limit (or any presence of alcohol) safe.

If a pilot cannot bring himself to abandon the use of this drug, at the very least he should take care to ensure that his blood levels of ethanol are zero within the limits of measurement while he is flying. Not 0.01, or 0.04, or 0.08, and not just 8 or 12 hours "from bottle to throttle," but truly zero. A pilot who flies intoxicated simply because he is "legal" has a poor sense of priorities: not only is his judgment significantly impaired as he flies, but his judgment in a broader sense is extremely questionable.

Indeed, if a pilot considers alcohol so important that he is willing to take these risks and cannot countenance total abstinence before flight and zero tolerance for alcohol during flying, he may have a much more serious problem with alcohol than he realizes, which itself is a good reason to disqualify him from flying.

There are many pilots who take their flying seriously and truly do make sure that their blood alcohol is zero when flying (indeed, many of these pilots simply do not drink at all, just to be on the safe side). They would sooner shoot themselves in the head than risk having booze on board in any measurable concentration in the cockpit. Their personal standards are higher than those of any law, and uncompromising. I'm not worried about them. I'm worried about the pilots who seem to think that arresting a pilot for being intoxicated is a bad thing, and who have a long list of excuses and rationalizations for being under the influence of alcohol on the flight deck. Some of the pilots in this latter category will become the subjects of accident investigations. Unfortunately, they may take a lot of other people with them when they go, and they are a disgrace to the profession.

[BusyB]

Anthony,
This has all been said and argued before. Whilst not in disagreement with your argument there are far more pilots flying when fatigued causing greater risk than those flying drug impaired.
Lets be realistic and cover the spectrum not just your hobby horse:ok:

[The Real Slim Shady]

They would sooner shoot themselves in the head than risk having booze on board in any measurable concentration in the cockpit. Their personal standards are higher than those of any law, and uncompromising.

Utter bolleaux.

I very rarely drink alcohol: my choice, not from some higher morale ground standpoint or religious fervour or a righteous feeling of having higher standards than my colleagues. A simple personal preference.

[moonbug]

May I be sarcastic and recommend before every flight that all Pilots get locked into a room and not released until they are fully examined by a team of sober professionals for the following;


Zero limit in alcohol, afterall this substance lowers reaction times.
A full drug test for every harmful illegal/legal substance that is known to affect ones performance. Mind altering substances (Psychoactive drugs), prescription drugs, stimulants and certain food substances. This list not being limited to opiates, crack, LSD, heroin, cocaine, dope, antihistamines, codines nicotine, MSG, aspartame, perfume etc.
A doctor should conduct a full physical examination to ensure before departure that the pilots are in peak physical fitness. I suggest an ECG at minimum – we cannot have pilots dying from heart attacks on the sector.
The tests should also evaluate reaction times, fatigue, tiredness, stress.
A pre-flight simulator evaluation to verify that the pilots skills havent atrophied during the layover and the motorskills are still functioning.
I suggest a tiny examination to ensure the pilots meet the required knowledge on the route they are conducting. I remember a flight landing on the wrong runway a while back. This would minimize the chances of the pilots getting lost.
An engineer spokesperson could also ask a few questions to ensure the pilots know about the complex machine they are flying. This will help refresh the pilots memory on system knowledge of the aircraft - in case of equipment breakdown.
A physcologist to establish the continuing sanity of the crew.
A lawyer to confirm the pilots existing financial state and verify that no large insurance policies have been taken.
A social worker to confirm the “home stress factor”. We cannot have pilots flying after the passing of a spouse, family member, a divorce, stolen vehicle, house burnt down, an argument etc.
A religious advisor to verify that the pilots current religion will ensure a safe landing at destination.
A dietician/lab technician to test the stomach contents for potential pathogens and contaminated food which could cause cramps and sudden incapacitation on a flight.
Now back to the thread. As a well informed individual, I do know that “Airline Transport” is relatively safe and that there have been ZERO accidents in this industry due to alcohol being the PRIMARY cause.

Alcohol on the pilots breath ???.......The sky is falling, the sky is falling.......Pleeeeaazzze give me a break.


DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT ENDORSE DRIVING at any time WHEN UNDER THE INFLUENCE.


p.s. John Mc. Great post.

[NOSIGN]

A shot for courage! Does this still exist?

I've seen old videos of Soviet Pilots have a preflight sip. There are advantages and disadvantages to this, depending on the individual.

[cessnapuppy]

you skin, more than your bowels, is the dumping ground for all you've consumed in the last 48 hours and harder to flush than your colon. The next organ is your lungs, absorbing VOC's (volatile organic compounds) in the oxygenation exchange in your lungs, and expelling them into each exhale:
That is why you could swill mouthwash for hours...to no avail!

Fatigue IS the silent killer though* and while we may have a great social experience with alcohol and it's effects, I am not sure we have enough knowledge (properly shared) about the relationship on rest deprivation with judgment, perception and responsiveness, especially when the stresses of high altitude are factored in.

In reality, you are never OFF duty, and since recovery time takes several hours.

I had an extensive chat once with someone... I tossed out the idea for a pre-flight cognizance check software I was thinking of developing. Basically a laptop that basically tested the pilot with some scenarios and questions and math prior to taking the plane, a five minute electronic version of the "Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test" this test would be easy to perform when alert and well rested, but very hard if not. Borderline cases would have to be approved before the pilot could continue. The feedback I got was that airlines would rather not know!





*caveat: because we can smell drunk but we cant smell tired

[FLCH]

When robots finally take over getting humans from A to B in perfect safety, what will the humans bitch about next ??

[cessnapuppy]

well....they DO have completely automated train lines now...

[FlexibleResponse]

May I be sarcastic and recommend before every flight that all Pilots get locked into a room and not released until they are fully examined by a team of sober professionals for the following;

* Zero limit in alcohol, afterall this substance lowers reaction times.
* A full drug test for every harmful illegal/legal substance that is known to affect ones performance. Mind altering substances (Psychoactive drugs), prescription drugs, stimulants and certain food substances. This list not being limited to opiates, crack, LSD, heroin, cocaine, dope, antihistamines, codines nicotine, MSG, aspartame, perfume etc.
* A doctor should conduct a full physical examination to ensure before departure that the pilots are in peak physical fitness. I suggest an ECG at minimum – we cannot have pilots dying from heart attacks on the sector.
* The tests should also evaluate reaction times, fatigue, tiredness, stress.
* A pre-flight simulator evaluation to verify that the pilots skills havent atrophied during the layover and the motorskills are still functioning.
* I suggest a tiny examination to ensure the pilots meet the required knowledge on the route they are conducting. I remember a flight landing on the wrong runway a while back. This would minimize the chances of the pilots getting lost.
* An engineer spokesperson could also ask a few questions to ensure the pilots know about the complex machine they are flying. This will help refresh the pilots memory on system knowledge of the aircraft - in case of equipment breakdown.
* A physcologist to establish the continuing sanity of the crew.
* A lawyer to confirm the pilots existing financial state and verify that no large insurance policies have been taken.
* A social worker to confirm the “home stress factor”. We cannot have pilots flying after the passing of a spouse, family member, a divorce, stolen vehicle, house burnt down, an argument etc.
* A religious advisor to verify that the pilots current religion will ensure a safe landing at destination.
* A dietician/lab technician to test the stomach contents for potential pathogens and contaminated food which could cause cramps and sudden incapacitation on a flight.

Now back to the thread. As a well informed individual, I do know that “Airline Transport” is relatively safe and that there have been ZERO accidents in this industry due to alcohol being the PRIMARY cause.

I think moonbug's post has come closest to the answer. Perhaps this could be extended to:

1. All train drivers.
2. All bus drivers.
3. All policemen carrying weapons.
4. All heavy equipment operators.
5. All air traffic controllers.
6. All security personnel.
7. All Magistrates and Judges and lawyers on duty.
8. All surgeons and assistant medical staff.
9. All doctors prescribing drugs.
10. All car drivers.
11. All pre-school teachers.

And everyone else that might potentially cause harm to any other member of the public by their authority, decision, presence or operation of any device in their control.

If there is no perceivable problem, you can bet that some politician or bureaucrat will invent a regulation to deflect attention away from the failures that are happening on his watch.

And we the stupid public will be drawn into his net and overlook the flaming obvious.

[Shannon volmet]

Hey, FlexibleResponse, you forgot to include sitting mp's in that list. Also members of 'the other place'!

[FLCH]

Don't forget the flight attendants that are there to evacuate the aircraft in an emergency, any slip up there too will cost lives. Meanwhile there are posters on this board that expect perfection and zero tolerance from us , at the same expecting rock bottom prices from A to B, while management line their pockets with bonuses and decimate our pensions and working conditions all at the same time.

Time for a drink....on my days off....

[finncapt]

I briefly summarise an article which appeared in the local press (Finland).

A lady motorist was stopped, randomly breath tested, and gave a very high reading (4%).
The police officers felt she couldn't possibly be that drunk (no other signs) and an investigation was commenced.
It concluded that the breathalyser machine had been contaminated by the disinfectant, which we are currently urged to rub on our hands, used to contain pig flu.

[ea340]

The Air Canada pilot tested over the limits until the blood test came in . Now he is back on the line. Interesting not a word about the AA pilot I suspect he is clear also:ok:. If he was convicted it would be public record. Flying Lawyer do you know

[cjhants]

see post 149

[Johnny767]

On my last (retirement) flight, I'm planning LHR.

On the crew bus I'll take a bottle of the cheapest, rot-gut whiskey and do my best "hai Karate cologne" (..you have to be old enough to remember the commercials) impersonation.

Get close enough to those security wankers to set off all the bells. It'll make their day, "great..we caught another one!"

Breath and Blood will be zero, as I don't indulge.

Maybe "book-off" for all the stress and indignity and send a message to the Monkeys that run the zoo.

[DownIn3Green]

Brilliant idea, Johnny...wish I could be there to see it...Good Luck in your retired years...

[merlinxx]

A canuk hooligan after me own heart:ok: Though I may ask, have you been "Screeched In" yet ? if not you've got to get Screeched afore you take the 'screw you lot' through the management floor on your last cmcl pole inbound :ok::E

[alexatex]

absolutely correct. LHR security are seriously over zealous with aircrew

[green granite]

absolutely correct. LHR security are seriously over zealous with aircrew

Considering that something in the order of 400,000+ pilots a year go through Heathrow, the half dozen or so a year reported of smelling of booze could hardly be called a vendetta by the security staff. ( but yes I understand your hatred of them. )

[jamestkirk]

Add insult to injury and eat a whole bulb of garlic the night before. Nothing like garlic and alcohol breath.

When they do the blood test they will say 'no alcohol but marvellous cholesterol levels'.

[europete]

I have been sober now for 1 year, 10 months and 17 days.

It was the single most important decision I took in my life. And the hardest thing I ever had to pull off, and will have to continue to pull off until mother nature claims me back.

I have regained my self-esteem, I'm back to teaching evolutionary biology at my university and I never was happier ever.

I can't thank you enough, Sir, for your post at the beginning of this thread.

I hope it will serve as a homing beacon for everybody in the aviation world who suffers from an addictive disease. There is plenty of help out there. Go get it!

Best regards and may the force be with you.

Peter

[fcom]

I've known 3 pilots to be breathalised at LHR and all proved to be negative.Maybe it's the small minded idiots we employ at LHR smelling each others breath which is confusing their limited senses.

[Dantruck]

Gentleman and Ladies

Just wondered if there isn't room in the airliner biz for one piece of technology slowly now being introduced in the less well funded trucking industry. If you follow this link:

Volvo Trucks Magazine (http://magazine.volvotrucks.com/global/)

...and click on the story about the French road transporter TECL at the top/right, you will see what I mean: an onboard device that prevents engine start if the driver/pilot fails a breath sample.

There have been several references so far in this thread to road transport and to trucking in particular, so maybe this is useful.

Dan

[Fundi-Ya-Ndege]

Can we have one of those in the house of commons too please......:}

[GlueBall]

Chewing a mouthful of "curiously strong" peppermints prior to entering the security checkpoint may get you through. But then again, if you're too drunk to think of that, then you deserve to be turfed. :{

[AnthonyGA]

I'm amazed by all the apologies, excuses, and rationalizations for drinking alcohol that I see here. Do you realize how negative an impression of pilots this creates? Apparently, as long as you are "legal," it's okay to take the drug, irrespective of any impairment it might cause. And procedures designed to prevent impaired pilots from endangering themselves and others are seen as nuisances to be worked around. And when pilots are found to be over the legal limit, there seems to be some persistent suspicion that they are somehow being railroaded by the authorities. Are there any pilots here who manage to lead a drug-free existence?

Instead of going out with the crew and having a few beers ( which would keep me legal AFAIK ) I drank soft drinks . My sleep pattern was disturbed and I was significantly more tired than normal for the sector home . During a non normal I was too slow to prevent a misselection by the Non handling pilot .

I just wasn't as sharp as normal for that particular time on that particular sector I don't think I was fatigued . I'm certain a few beers would have aided sleep and the incident would have been less likely .

Flying is stressful a few beers and the conversations that arise from that with fellow crew are really helpful engender teamwork and help crew synergy.

Are you aware that observations like these are typical of people who have developed a dependence on ethanol? They need it to sleep, to relax, to function socially, to stay calm, etc.

Note to all tosspots ... I'm not advocating drinking and flying but for those that think abstention from alcohol for all pilots will promote flight safety are not taking all factors into the equation.

I am absolutely certain that total abstention from alcohol would improve flight safety; the only question is by how much. A pilot who cannot get by without alcohol already has a problem serious enough to put his ability to fly safely into question. And while the use of alcohol well outside of flying duties presumably does not cause any direct impairment, the inability to get by in life without drinking for more than a short time strongly suggests a problem.

I think this all shows how pervasive drug use is in society. Just because it's legal doesn't make it okay. Indeed, there are some illegal drugs that cause less impairment than alcohol, from a flying standpoint.

It is said that John Denver was once asked by a Congressional committee what type of drug-induced state he had in mind when he wrote "Rocky Mountain High." He responded by saying, in effect, that anyone who has seen the Rocky Mountains on a clear day can get high from that sight alone … without any need for drugs.

Are pilots so jaded by the experience of flying among the clouds that they need drugs to be happy?

[Flintstone]

<checks calendar>

Is it groundhog day?

Please can we not go down this route again? A simmer/non-pilot berating people for what they have or haven't said about alcohol, comments being taken out of context, trolls pitching in for good measure. It's all been done to death before.

[qwertyuiop]

AnthonyGA you are a damn fool!!!!

I would really like to know which illegal drugs cause less impairment than alcohol!

I would also like to know whether you think fatigue or alcohol is the bigger problem!

Let me tell you, I have only ever, in 30 years of flying, encountered one person who was under the influence of drink. However, I do regularly fly with people flying well below par due to fatigue, I have even had people fall asleep minutes after take off and contribute nothing on a 5 hour flight.

Todays roster practices create much greater dangers than any drunk pilot.