Suspicion of being under the Influence

[Yarra]

Hopefully this is incorrect. Equally if it is, the Captain gets support that she may need.



Pilot removed from flight after alcohol claim
Date
August 6, 2012


Qantas is investigating a pilot.
A QANTAS captain was forced to relinquish the controls of a passenger jet last week just minutes before it was due to take off from Sydney Airport after cabin crew suspected she had been drinking alcohol before the flight.

Qantas has launched an investigation into the incident after the senior pilot recorded a positive reading for alcohol.

The captain has been withheld from operational duties on full pay, but the airline will not comment on what reading she gave or how soon before the flight she had been drinking.

The incident occurred last Monday as the aircraft was about to depart. Flight attendants on the Boeing 767-300, which can carry as many as 254 passengers, told the airline's flight operations managers they suspected the captain of the plane had been drinking.

Advertisement
The twin-aisle aircraft had been pulled back from the domestic terminal and was moving towards a runway for take-off when Qantas management made the decision to stand down the captain from command of the plane.

The 767 returned to the domestic terminal where the captain was taken off the plane and a replacement pilot found.

It is rare for pilots to be removed from flying for breaching airline procedure. Qantas has a zero-tolerance to pilots recording an alcohol reading of any level. Fewer than 100 of Qantas' 2200 pilots are women.

The investigation into the captain's alcohol reading and removal last Monday is expected to take at least a month.

Qantas has informed Australia's air-safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, of the incident. However, it is considered a matter for Qantas rather than the regulator because the testing of the captain was under the auspices of the airline's drug and alcohol management plan.

If it is determined to be a one-off incident, a pilot would be expected to undergo counselling and later a medical assessment to determine whether they are fit to fly.

But if it is a long-term problem, the pilot would be subjected to a rehabilitation program and suspended from duties.

CASA has been conducting random breath tests of pilots, flight attendants and ground crews at airports since 2008. The rate of positive tests is understood to be low.

A Qantas spokesman confirmed a captain had been ''withheld from service for administrative reasons'' last week but he declined to comment further because the matter was under investigation.

A spokesman for CASA said yesterday it would not comment on any specific drug and alcohol testing carried out by an airline. ''Anyone found to be affected by alcohol or drugs while performing, or when they are available to perform, safety-sensitive aviation activities will automatically be suspended from duties,'' he said.

''They are not able to return to duty until they have been medically assessed, undergone rehabilitation if appropriate and given a medical clearance.''



Read more: Pilot removed from flight after alcohol claim (http://www.theage.com.au/national/pilot-removed-from-flight-after-alcohol-claim-20120805-23o18.html#ixzz22gm3GRFb)

[Capt Kremin]

I think the key phrase here right now is;

after cabin crew suspected she had been drinking alcohol before the flight.

That is all that is known and prudence dictates that QF do what they have done.

Any speculation, IMHO, particularly considering the number of female captains on the 767 is so small, would be unprofessional.

[Old Akro]

"The Age"this morning states explicitly that the pilot returned a positive reading. So, I don't think that bit is in dispute. We do not know the reading, so it could equally be the minimum threshold record-able as remnants of wine with dinner the night before (or mouthwash after breakfast) or swigging a hip flask as she walked on. Without getting do deep into semantics, it may be possible to record a positive reading, but still be competent, safe and legal.

But, the part that interests me is that CASA are quoted in the article saying its a matter for Qantas not CASA because the testing was done under the Qantas drug & alcohol test regime. Really? Exactly what does CASA see as its role? And where do they exhibit independence?

I also like the line saying the investigation will take a month. Is that because CASA needs 28 days to seek legal advice on what its role should be?

[SandyPalms]

Just a guess. But maybe she was under the 0.02 CASA limit, so CASA don't care.

[Conductor]

Akro,

My basic understanding of this is that Qantas has a DAMP (Drug and Alcohol Management Plan) which CASA required them to implement . Therefore, by the pilot being subject to the requirements of the DAMP, they are being subject to the requirements of CASA, as well as Qantas.

[The Voice]

My question is, why did the cabin crew member make the report and not the other pilot?

[piston broke again]

If cabin crew suspected (and I mean strongly suspected) they should have spoken to the FO and the aircraft should have never left the gate.

[teresa green]

No speculation please. To few of them, just support her, if you know her. No pilot would do this deliberately, (except those who ate TAA's famous trifle, and all smelt of alcohol,) that was quickly taken off the menu, I might add. One can only feel for this lass, and wonder what is happening in her life. Lets all back off.

[balance]

Oooooooh, I just gotta say I loved that TAA trifle...! ;)

[DutchRoll]

Well as a current F/O I've flown with almost all the female 767 Captains we have (I think bar one). This is quite a shock, as those I've flown with have been nothing but totally professional, and I might add a darn sight more pleasant to fly with than several blokes I've had to tolerate over the years.

I've also flown with a large variety of cabin crew, including on one occasion where a complaint (totally unrelated to alcohol - it was a "personality" issue - I think he lost his somewhere along the way to getting his command) about the Captain was passed through to me, managed very professionally by the crew, and ended up not causing any undue distress nor any impact on safety at all.

So I'm going to give everyone involved here plenty of leeway until the large number of blanks are properly filled in and we really know what transpired.

[ruprecht]

Why don't we all take a deep breath and wait for some facts to emerge before we start slagging off captains, FO's, cabin crew, CASA etc...:rolleyes:

Unusual approach, I know.

[ampclamp]

Having worked with a few of the 767 female pilots I have nothing but praise for them. Highly professional in my dealings with them and hope she is OK.

[teresa green]

If you know her enough to give her a call, please do so. She will need all the support from family and friends right now. It might have only been mouthwash, or some residue from a wine with dinner that particular night, whatever the cause, her life has been turned upside down. We don't know the circumstances, and sad it got into the press. Hopefully the AIPA will come in all bats swinging, and it turns out to be a storm in a teacup for the poor lass. Being on the committee of the AFAP for ten years I have seen what this can do to a bloke, let alone a girl. She is innocent till proven otherwise.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Some Baileys liquer choccys arrived in the office last christmas and they were very lovely, thank you to the CSOs for sharing :}

As Safety Dude I felt it would be interesting/educational/amusing to crack out the breathalyser....

Everyone who had eaten 2 of them without washing their mouth out (including self) blew 0.05+ :oh:

Did we report that to CASA? Yeah right! :eek:

[RENURPP]

You don't have to be falling out of your seat to be "considered" under the influence. Some people Might consider it reasonable to be concerned some one is under the influence due to the smell of alcohol?
It may not necessarily on ones breath, maybe they spilt some or some one else spilt some on them?

Anyway, I'm with the leave it alone, wait and see side of the story.

[Keg]

If the rumours are true, yeh you can blow over after gargling mouthwash but nobody would suspect you of being under the influence.....

I really didn't want to buy into this discussion at all but let's not hang the crew member concerned until everything is out in the open. Perhaps someone smelt alcohol and reported that. We're all aware that there can be many things that cause that smell (including rapid weight loss- see the BA pilot example from a couple of years back for that little gem) and not all of them mean you're under the influence of alcohol.

There is nothing I've read in this report that it was the actions of the crew member that resulted in the report going in and to suggest that it was at this early stage isn't exactly fair. You may turn out to be correct, but your gut call on the information available is not a fair one.

Renurrp said it better... whilst I was typing my response.

[FGD135]

I see that "Perth Now" have described the pilot as "drunk". I guess the story would not have been sensational enough otherwise.

Disgraceful and appalling reporting.

Drunk pilot ejected from flight minutes before take-off | Perth Now (http://www.perthnow.com.au/travel/news/drunk-pilot-ejected-from-flight-minutes-before-take-off/story-fn30173u-1226443689620)

[capt.cynical]

If this individual is cleared of any wrongdoing, I hope she finds a "mongrel DOG defamation lawyer" and lets it off the chain. :}

[Lookleft]

I am suspicious of where the media got the story in the first place. I would not be surprised if this is part of the QF dirty tricks pr campaign. Really would the CC report the pilot to management before talking to the F/O? The whole thing just doesn't gel IMHO.

[TIMA9X]

The pilots' union believes the alcohol-testing regime for its members and other workers in the airline industry, including engineers and baggage handlers, is sufficient because the rate of positive recordings is "infinitesimally low".
Australia's air-safety regulator also released figures today showing that only 45 people out of 51,000 tested for drugs and alcohol between late 2008 – when the regime was implemented – and March this year recorded positive readings.
The Civil Aviation and Safety Authority's random testing covers anyone who "touches an aircraft", including pilots, engineers, cabin crew and baggage handlers.
A spokesman for CASA, Peter Gibson, said that the regulator had pursued legal action against some of those who had recorded a positive reading.
Advertisement
The Herald revealed today that Qantas has launched an investigation after one of its captains recorded a positive test for alcohol last week. She was removed from command of a Boeing 767-300 last Monday at Sydney Airport after cabin crew suspected she had been drinking before the flight.
Several industry insiders said today that the aviation industry had a "drink-driven culture".
But Richard Woodward, the vice-president of the Australian and International Pilots Association, said he did not believe that CASA's random drug and alcohol testing, as well as the airline's own programs, were in need of an overhaul because the rate of positive recordings in the industry was "infinitesimally low".
Although he conceded that social drinking was a "strong element" of the industry, he said that in the 25 years he had been an airline pilot "the populous has changed".
"The pilots as a body are healthier than they have ever been. Sure, they might meet in a bar for a drink before they go to dinner ... but I would put that in perspective," he said.
Mr Woodward, an A380 Qantas captain, cited statistics from the US showing the number of flights disrupted because of positive recordings for alcohol or drugs was about 100 over a five-year period, in a country in which 15,000 flights were made each day.
He described that rate as "not even a measurable statistic".
"The probability of someone testing positive in the States is infinitesimally low. We don't see any requirement to increase the testing [in Australia]," he said. "There is always targeted testing if there has been some information to lead authorities to believe an individual needs it."
Mr Woodward said the follow-up regime for those who recorded a positive alcohol reading was strict, and "if someone has a genuine issue they end up retiring from our profession"

Read more: Pilot drinking breaches 'infinitesimally low': union (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/pilot-drinking-breaches-infinitesimally-low-union-20120806-23phq.html#ixzz22k5HYlRW)

Suggest it is now best to let the internal procedures take their course...the less said the less chance for the media to blow it all out of proportion.. I have seen some ugly media witch-hunts in the UK with similar incidents where on one occasion the pilots name got into the press.

.

[Tidbinbilla]

Well, a bloke goes off to deal with the Mars Rover landing with JPL, and Taylor makes a fool of himself again.

Take some time to reflect on your lack of understanding of DAMP, old man :)

[DirectAnywhere]

This pilot deserves, and will in all likelihood receive, professional medical support.

Assuming this case is real, I have to wonder whether this is symptomatic of the malaise which seems to be affecting QANTAS crew more generally at the moment. All but the most senior QF pilots have seen their career prospects disappear and 15 767 Captains are about to be hit by the first of what are sure to be many reductions in numbers and may be facing the loss of their commands. Is this pilot one of them?

The mainline pilot surplus is around 400 - some 15% of the pilot body - and continues to grow as management seems determined to gut the airline. Collectively, the mainline pilot body is probably as pyschologically stressed as it has ever been which, in many instances, is being directly caused by the policies of senior management. That stress may be being used as a deliberate industrial ploy and it will inevitably have consequences.

It is time management recognized that. PAN is not going to be enough.

[Arnold E]

remember innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Isn't a positive breath test proof, just askin'

[SOPS]

DirectAnywhere..excellent post and thoughts, well done. Could not agree more, rgds SOPS.

[TIMA9X]

The mainline pilot surplus is around 400 - some 15% of the pilot body - and continues to grow as management seems determined to gut the airline. Collectively, the mainline pilot body is probably as pyschologically stressed as it has ever been which, in many instances, is being directly caused by the policies of senior management. That stress may be being used as a deliberate industrial ploy and it will inevitably have consequences.DirectAnywhere, Great words,

What bothers me, apparently it took a week for this to get out in the press, and when I googled the topic it came up with this from just one news outlet.. :suspect:

zJtNMDXogZ0

The question is, how did they get the story.... @ 5.30 am..... and from whom? :confused: There is something not quite right about this..




google search result

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=video+qantas+pilot+drunk&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=video+qantas+pilot+drunk&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=y3z&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ei=fYwfUOKMIe-QiQe3i4GQBA&ved=0CE8Q_AUoAw&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=c994308b797383d7&biw=1920&bih=848

[deadcut]

Came here after I saw an update on the news about "a drunk pilot being dragged away from the controls, seconds before take off"....

Un-f***en believable! The people who write that s*** should be shot.

[Yarra]

Arnold, I believe that a breath test is not absolutely reliable and that a blood test would be required. That used to be law and assume that the same still applies.

[Wally Mk2]

Oh it wouldn't take much for the media to get hold of this story. Some media outlets would have their spies within any industry am sure. It's a dirty business reporting. The amount of people whom would be involved in a case such as this would grow from day one so it was only a matter of time before it hit the press.

I'd like to think that the pilot concerned here is caught up in a rather over exaggerated situation & that it will be corrected quickly but the question has to be asked how come the A/C got that far into the task (proposed flight) before the situation was brought to a head? No one would want to make that call that's for sure.


Lets all hope we can learn from this incident.


Wmk2

[Worrals in the wilds]

and when I googled the topic it came up with this from just one news outlet.. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cwm13.gif
Channel 10 ran the story with their usual dose of hyperventilated hysteria on the five pm news. It might have been the same broadcast deadcut saw. :yuk:

[TIMA9X]

Channel 10 ran the story with their usual dose of hyperventilated hysteria on the five pm news.

Good point worrels, a pretty good example of how these things get out of control, and very quickly..... sort of confirms what I said in a earlier post on this thread..

Suggest it is now best to let the internal procedures take their course...the less said the less chance for the media to blow it all out of proportion.. I have seen some ugly media witch-hunts in the UK with similar incidents where on one occasion the pilots name got into the press.

nuff said..

[Jack Ranga]

Just out of interest has anybody seen or been RBT'd by worlds best practice CASA?

4 years, I've never seen them in my workplace.

[PPRuNeUser0198]

I would not be surprised if this is part of the QF dirty tricks pr campaign.

Now why would Qantas would to bring the brand into disrepute by leaking this story?

This is nothing but embarrassing for Qantas. Something I am sure they'd have preferred to keep quite...

[Worrals in the wilds]

Just out of interest has anybody seen or been RBT'd by worlds best practice CASA?Yep, several times when the program first launched. The actual testing was subcontracted to a local pathology mob with nil positive results. Apparently someone told them we were pisshounds; a quote from the local AFP to a worker from another company was 'CASA are gonna get those XXX cowboys'.
They didn't, because there was nothing to get. FWIW the process was thoroughly professional, unlike the comments from everyone's favourite crime fighting agency.
Gotta love aviation rumours. Maybe once in a while they're founded on reality. :E

[Tidbinbilla]

Three times so far, Jack.

I'm just lucky, I guess :E

[ohallen]

Embarrassment does not appear to be a limiting factor in the past.

There is something odd about the detail and context that have obviously been leaked. If there were criminal factors fine, but this was workplace only and should not have been exposed when facts are less than substantiated.

I think everyone should take a chill pill and let those that matter sort this out outside of the media.

[rmcdonal]

Once, but I made them wait till I had signed on so I wouldn't be logged as late. They didn't seem that impressed. :}
Always wondered what would happen if I came in on a day off to grab my nav bag and was pulled aside for a test could I say no? And if I did test positive would I be in trouble?

[Worrals in the wilds]

If you weren't rostered for duty, weren't in uniform and weren't doing anything work related my understanding is that they'd be drawing a long bow. On the occasions I was present for they were careful to ascertain that all testees were working, rather than just hanging around or calling in.

[ThereISlifeafterQF]

I'd arrived at work about 30 minutes before my normal start time as I would cycle to work most days during the Dry Season. Was told by a colleague after I jumped out of the shower that I was next - after having been spotted enterring the hangar still in my helmet & knicks....... As I wasn't due to start, I was told I couldn't be tested ("not undertaking SSAA"), until I pushed the point to go ahead with the test. Negative BAC, but then a problem with the drug test....... "No effing way" was my response, until the CASA contracted tester admitted that there was a "bad batch" of the tongue swab tests, and I would be tested again. One hell of a thing to explain to your boss and colleagues when you are in the testing room for over 29 minutes, when all others were just over 10 minutes.......

[Capt Claret]

Just out of interest has anybody seen or been RBT'd by worlds best practice CASA?

Not personally but one of the regulator's best practice contractors sent a colleague home, reporting her for allegedly blowing 0.9. That's 90% incase you think I got the decimal wrong.

Colleague stood down, reserve called in for duty, before the stunned colleage realised that there must have been a mistake because they'd be dead before they got to point nine!

[packrat]

The remuneration at Casa must be peanuts cause they sure got a lotta monkeys~0.9 ???

[zlin77]

It is fortunate for the pilot concerned that this has happened within Qantas, at least they have a programme to rehabilitate if this is required, out here in The Contract World two of my former associates tested positive to alcohol and their careers ended there and then.!! I hope that all goes well for her in the future.

[Anthill]

During my whole career, I have been DAMP tested twice and in both instances it was at the end of the duty period. To test at this stage is a waste of time for 2 reasons: Firstly, that after a 15 hour ULH duty, a large quantity of alcohol that may have been present in the subject when commencing work would have been metabolised to below detectable limits. Secondly, as a 'safety tool' wouldn't it make more sense to test prior to depature?

I agree with the sentiment that we must wait for all of the facts in this QF case to come in before conclusions are made regarding this Captain and the stated allegations. What I don't agree with is the notion that it is some how acceptable or 'bad luck' to be pinged for being over the limit at sign-on. If you get busted over the limit after sign-on you only have yourself to blame. To turn up for work with alcohol in your sytem is unacceptable. I wont sugar-coat this: it is a dereliction of professional responsibilities.

The evidence is out there regarding the effect on crew performance after alcohol consumption and has been for about 30 years: the fact is that rate of errors in the aftermath of consuming alcohol remains high even after your BAC drops to zero. This has been established by Human Factors research. It is just as bad to fly hung over as to fly when over the limit.

I personally avoid alcohol in any amout the day before a duty for this very reason. I owe this to my passengers, my crew and to my self - I make enough errors at work by myself without the effects of grog adding to it. The other reason for abstinance the day before must be quite obvious and should hardly need explaining given the current topic.

[Stalins ugly Brother]

If you weren't rostered for duty, weren't in uniform and weren't doing anything work related my understanding is that they'd be drawing a long bow. On the occasions I was present for they were careful to ascertain that all testees were working, rather than just hanging around or calling in.

Interesting comment........

I am now wondering if we are safe having a few Chardy's deadheading considering technically we are on company time? Just a thought.

I have been tested three times so far. :cool:

[DirectAnywhere]

SUB, that's one of those questions you don't want to ask.

If someone should trip over a door sill and injure themselves after a paxing sector and blow over 0.02 it will get real ugly, real quick.

[Lodown]

I am really interested in the CASA response to this incident. There was a posting some weeks ago here from a pilot who voluntarily admitted to at least one past episode of excessive consumption on an innocuous looking CASA questionnaire during a medical. This questionnaire encouraged falsifying responses in part, because of the seemingly draconian measures required by the CASA in response to any self-confessed red flags. The CASA assumption seems to be that ALL excessive alcohol consumption, even if only once and many, many years in the past, is regarded as a red flag to safe aircraft operation.

Now we have a QF pilot allegedly engaged in the operation of an aircraft while under the influence of alcohol (as opposed to recreational consumption while off duty in accordance with the regs). Based on the story as copied and pasted by Yarra, and the earlier thread about the questionnaire, I was expecting to read that the CASA had a team of stormtroopers, attack dogs and a boatload of lawyers on the Qantas doorstep ready to go after the licence holder in question. Is it just me who is surprised to read that the CASA seems to be content with QF's internal handling of the incident? WTF! There appears to be one standard for the airlines (particularly Qantas) involving fluffy pillows, sequined gloves, pink kittens, unicorns and pixie dust and a completely different standard for the GA industry centred around baseball bats, brass knuckles and individuals with no necks and acid baths.

[PukinDog]

Lookleft

Really would the CC report the pilot to management before talking to the F/O? The whole thing just doesn't gel IMHO.


The first guess as to an answer would be "Policy". Reporting policy would be written to cover the following type of worst-case,hypothetical scenario:

CC to F/O: "I smell alcohol on the Captain's breath. I'm worried"

F/O to CC: "Um, let me go check for myself. Be right back".

F/O to CPT: "She smells alcohol on ya Trev. Do you think she knows you/we were out late last night?"

CPT to F/O: "Tell her I just had some mouthwash. No worries"

F/O to CC: "No worries. Mouthwash"

CC to F/O: "Ah, no worries then. Cabin's ready".

Any reporting policy that errs on the side of safety would have to require a channel/persons outside of those who may have motivation(s) to hide the problem.

If the CC had strong suspicion, there's really not much the F/O could say to change minds anyway. If the suspicion is enough to warrant telling the F/O, there's no reason for not proceeding right to her manager or hot line.

[DutchRoll]

....one of the regulator's best practice contractors sent a colleague home, reporting her for allegedly blowing 0.9.

You'd think someone would've pinged a little earlier than that.

There's no doubt that there are people out there for whom "grounding a pilot" would be a high point in their career, but it's a little disturbing that such excitement so profoundly affects their ability to draw sensible conclusions.

[flying-spike]

"I was expecting to read that the CASA had a team of stormtroopers, attack dogs and a boatload of lawyers on the Qantas doorstep ready to go after the licence holder in question. Is it just me who is surprised to read that the CASA seems to be content with QF's internal handling of the incident? WTF! There appears to be one standard for the airlines (particularly Qantas) involving fluffy pillows, sequined gloves, pink kittens, unicorns and pixie dust and a completely different standard for the GA industry centred around baseball bats, brass knuckles and individuals with no necks and acid baths."

Really, is that what you were expecting? QANTAS have a very comprehensive and well documented DAMP that relieves CASA of the need for intervention. It is an Acceptable Means of Compliance, so like any operator, big or small the only thing CASA would be interested in doing (eventually) is ensuring that the approved process is followed. As for the rest of the dribble in your post, it sounds like you may have been snorting the pixie dust. Better dob yourself in to your DAMP officer.

[Livs Hairdresser]

Something about this just doesn't sound right.

If you were the CC who reported the captain, I think you'd be pretty sure there was a problem before it got to that stage. So after having advised the ground staff would you be happy to see the front door close and the aircraft pushback? Or would you go sick and get off?

Same goes for the groundstaff it was reported to. Presumably they would take it further, possibly getting the airport manager to go and have a chat to the captain. So how did that play out? Talk to captain, you're fine to go, aircraft pushes back, no hang on, come back we're standing you down?

I think the best approach to have is treat anything you see in the media with a healthy dose of scepticism.

[43Inches]

If you weren't rostered for duty, weren't in uniform and weren't doing
anything work related my understanding is that they'd be drawing a long bow. On the occasions I was present for they were careful to ascertain that all testees were working, rather than just hanging around or calling in.


Be very careful if your crewroom is considered airside, once you enter a safety sensitive area you may find the DAMP applies whether on duty or not. If CASA or the company choose to ignore those who are not on duty may be luck rather than the rules.

[Lodown]

Thanks for the clarification FS.

[givemewings]

AFAIK Qantas policy is no alcohol to be consumed on company premises except for approved functions. So I always did wonder how it was allowable to consume when deadheading, as mentioned? We were getting paid and we were considered to be 'on duty' for a positioning sector.

Though the way it was explained was you could only do this if you were deadheading for ground duty or out of hours to operate, not if you were paxing at the start of the day and could be pulled off to operate another flight/duty.

Anyone?

On the original topic, I believe it is possible for some people to blow a reading even though they have not consumed ANY alcohol. I once blew under the limit when tested driving home from the airport, had spent all day in the standby lounge asleep and certainly not had anything but water, so would have expected a zero reading; this was not the case. Could also be an underlying medical cause. For instance, people suffering hyperglycaemia can have breath that smells like they have been drinking. Also the behaviour can lead one to suspect the same, when it's actually the blood sugar content.

[OneDotLow]

I was tested in the crew room post flight while sitting around waiting to deadhead a sector. I advised the CASA rep, and they said that because I was technically available to be called to operate, that I would still require testing.

And if I was sitting in the QF Club, would the same reasoning apply? It opens a can of worms, doesn't it?!

[PukinDog]

Livs Hairdresser

Something about this just doesn't sound right.

If you were the CC who reported the captain, I think you'd be pretty sure
there was a problem before it got to that stage. So after having advised the ground staff would you be happy to see the front door close and the aircraft pushback? Or would you go sick and get off?

Same goes for the groundstaff it was reported to. Presumably they would take it further, possibly getting the airport manager to go and have a chat to the captain. So how did that play out? Talk to captain, you're fine to go, aircraft pushes back, no hang on, come back we're standing you down?

I think the best approach to have is treat anything you see in the media with a healthy dose of scepticism.

What's known is that CASA stated that Qantas reported to them, as per DAMP, the pilot who'd been removed had tested positive for alcohol, and that the test had been prompted by the suspicions of CC. Pretty straightforward.

It seems odd you are sceptical. Perhaps the designed reporting and response process worked exactly as intended. Nothing happens in the blink of an eye and it wouldn't be a very good process if it depended on CCs going sick and getting off in order for it to function. Crew always have that option anyway, but as part of a dedicated process it's pretty weak if that's what it depended on.

[PukinDog]

Givemewings

On the original topic, I believe it is possible for some people to blow a
reading even though they have not consumed ANY alcohol. I once blew under the limit when tested driving home from the airport, had spent all day in the standby lounge asleep and certainly not had anything but water, so would have expected a zero reading; this was not the case. Could also be an underlying medical cause. For instance, people suffering hyperglycaemia can have breath that smells like they have been drinking. Also the behaviour can lead one to suspect the same, when it's actually the blood sugar content.


Surely they wouldn't rely on breathalyzer results, but rather an actual blood test that measured alcohol percentage.

[Ka.Boom]

Alcohol impairs response times
Fatigue impairs response times
Alcohol consumption is measurable
Fatigue is not easily measured
Any impairment of response times is dangerous
Fatigue to a certain extent is ignored during pattern planning.
The outcome of a fatigue related incident can be the same as an alcohol related incident.
Our evaluations need to change.
Good luck to the Captain involved.Hope for all concerned it comes down to a miscommunication

[FlareArmed]

I recall a similar thing happened in a previous company. One of the pilots turned up ex-layover worse for wear but trying to look normal (unsuccessfully). They were not at a crewing base for that type, so his cohort quietly asked another pilot just finishing work to do the flight and they sorted it out with crewing/flight department the next day.

It turned out the pilot was under a lot of stress in his personal life and the company gave him some leave to take the pressure off and sort things out. He was back to work with no drama in a couple of months.

[neville_nobody]

Ironically CASA announced their testing results the same day someone is allegedly caught. .08% Strike rate of ALL workers in 4 years.

Be aware of the bias in this story as CASA do not mention how many convictions were held up in court. The story states how many people were caught but does not say how many people were actually convicted. Big difference. Just because you were caught by CASA does not mean you are guilty.

Pity CASA don't release the conviction stats as I would suggest you would be in to a thousandths of a percentile.

Also goes to show how poor reporting is this days they just publish press releases verbatim

Is CASA DAMP funding under review by chance?

The pilots' union believes the alcohol-testing regime for its members and other workers in the airline industry, including engineers and baggage handlers, is sufficient because the rate of positive recordings is "infinitesimally low".
Australia's air-safety regulator also released figures today showing that only 45 people out of 51,000 tested for drugs and alcohol between late 2008 – when the regime was implemented – and March this year recorded positive readings.
The Civil Aviation and Safety Authority's random testing covers anyone who "touches an aircraft", including pilots, engineers, cabin crew and baggage handlers.
A spokesman for CASA, Peter Gibson, said that the regulator had pursued legal action against some of those who had recorded a positive reading.
Advertisement
The Herald revealed today that Qantas has launched an investigation after one of its captains recorded a positive test for alcohol last week. She was removed from command of a Boeing 767-300 last Monday at Sydney Airport after cabin crew suspected she had been drinking before the flight.
Several industry insiders said today that the aviation industry had a "drink-driven culture".
But Richard Woodward, the vice-president of the Australian and International Pilots Association, said he did not believe that CASA's random drug and alcohol testing, as well as the airline's own programs, were in need of an overhaul because the rate of positive recordings in the industry was "infinitesimally low".
Although he conceded that social drinking was a "strong element" of the industry, he said that in the 25 years he had been an airline pilot "the populous has changed".
"The pilots as a body are healthier than they have ever been. Sure, they might meet in a bar for a drink before they go to dinner ... but I would put that in perspective," he said.
Mr Woodward, an A380 Qantas captain, cited statistics from the US showing the number of flights disrupted because of positive recordings for alcohol or drugs was about 100 over a five-year period, in a country in which 15,000 flights were made each day.
He described that rate as "not even a measurable statistic".
"The probability of someone testing positive in the States is infinitesimally low. We don't see any requirement to increase the testing [in Australia]," he said. "There is always targeted testing if there has been some information to lead authorities to believe an individual needs it."
Mr Woodward said the follow-up regime for those who recorded a positive alcohol reading was strict, and "if someone has a genuine issue they end up retiring from our profession".


Read more: Pilot drinking breaches 'infinitesimally low': union (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/pilot-drinking-breaches-infinitesimally-low-union-20120806-23phq.html#ixzz22odFiyL1)

[neville_nobody]

As a supplement to the above post it is interesting to notice the spin in these stories. That story in yesterdays SMH was actually an old press release. Here is the original:

Those 51000 was everybody ATC, Cabin Crew, Baggage Handlers etc

Of the 45 there were caught 18 were overturned!!

So we are now down to 27 out of 51000. 0.052%

Hardly a epidemic that would justify the amount of money spent.

If hypothetically we convicted all 27 of those people what would be the total cost per conviction I wonder?


From the Director of Aviation Safety
John McCormick

Since 2008 a drug and alcohol management regulatory regime for Australian aviation has been in place. The development and implementation of the program was an important initiative to maintain and improve aviation safety by minimising the risks caused by people in safety sensitive positions being affected by alcohol or drugs while engaged in aviation activities. As many people would be aware, the program has two main elements – firstly the requirement for aviation organisations to have a drug and alcohol management plan and secondly a testing regime conducted by CASA. The drug and alcohol management plans are administered by aviation organisations and cover education, testing and rehabilitation where that is appropriate. Testing conducted under the plans includes situations such as pre-employment and after accidents or incidents. CASA has recognised that some of the drug and alcohol management plan requirements are onerous on smaller organisations and we will shortly be issuing an exemption for small organisations with not more than seven safety sensitive aviation activity employees. The exemption will mean these organisations will not need to have a drug and alcohol management plan, provided they formally adopt a special CASA drug and alcohol management program instead. This exemption will not apply to small aviation businesses engaged in or providing services to any regular public transport operation. More information about the exemption will shortly be placed on CASA’s website.
The testing regime conducted by CASA is usually random and may be conducted by CASA at any time. Anyone performing or available to perform a safety-sensitive aviation activity may be tested, including private and commercial pilots, flying instructors, cabin crew, ground and baggage handlers, air traffic controllers and maintenance personnel. In total CASA conducted more than 51,000 alcohol and drug tests between 2008 and March 2012. There were 29,197 alcohol and 22,448 drug tests carried out. During that time 45 people tested positive. While finding even one person affected by alcohol or drugs when operating in a safety sensitive position is concerning, it is heartening that the figures are very low. Clearly the vast majority of people in aviation understand their responsibility to be alcohol and drug free while at work, flying, on an aerodrome or in the workshop. Of those who tested positive, 18 were overturned on a medical review and infringement notices were issued or the matter was referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in the remaining cases. Please remember the alcohol limit is 0.02. Drug limits are in accordance with the Australian standard for oral fluid testing.
Best regards
John F McCormick

[Ixixly]

Neville_nobody, I'm sure the vast majority of us as Professional Pilots self-monitor ourselves and our colleagues, but there are of course the few who push the limits, sometimes over the edge, and slip through the holes.

The DAMP policy is just an extra layer designed to try and tighten that net and make sure none slip through and the ones who are found to be under the influence are handled in an appropriate manner for the safety of all those whom we fly from A to B every single day and also for their own benefit. Even if it only stops 27 people, thats 27 people who aren't out there potentially causing a large accident and killing innocent people, you can't exactly put a price on that. Other Transport Industries face similar scrutiny, why should we be any different?

[PukinDog]

Neville nobody

So we are now down to 27 out of 51000. 0.052%

Hardly a epidemic that would justify the amount of money spent.


27 since 2008 averages one person caught every other month. Some would argue that rate does justify the amount, whether you classify that as an "epidemic" or not.

[Slippery_Pete]

Other Transport Industries face similar scrutiny, why should we be any different?
Because with such horrifically low detection rates, on an expenditure vs. improved safety outcome basis, the money could be much better spent in other areas of aviation.

In the last few years, how many incidents/accidents worldwide can be attributed to drunk pilots? None I'm aware of.
In the same period, I can think of at least four separate incidents where pilots with unstable mental health have caused a serious incident or accident.

On those numbers alone, it means that surely this money would be better spent by CASA investing in the mental health of pilots - ie 1x free psych appointment per year to talk about your career, life at home, job security stresses, family or marriage problems etc. etc.

It's not rocket science - spend the money where it will have the GREATEST positive impact on safety.

[Slippery_Pete]

If you are, like me, disgusted with the article at perthnow.com.au - please feel free to cut and paste this letter to the editor.

[email protected]


Anthony,

I'd like to air my disgust at the article "Drunk pilot ejected from flight minutes before takeoff".

Let's get a few things straight:

1. The heading says the pilot was drunk. The first line says they were suspected of being drunk. The headline is sensationalist, and quite possibly completely false.

2. It further goes on to say about all airline pilots not being able to drink alcohol before flying. This demonstrates to me that the journalist has done absolutely no research, because it's a lot more complicated than this. The CASA limit is not 0.0% blood alcohol concentration (BAC), as your article would suggest. There are also additional conditions other than BAC, such as time limits.

I just don't understand how stories like this can get through the editing stage. The title is completely contradictory to the information your company actually has.

The writer most obviously hasn't taken what would probably amount to 2 minutes on google to find what the actual legislation is in this case.

Journalism used to involve getting information, verifying it, interviewing, researching and presenting a balanced and well informed piece.

It appears at perthnow.com.au it simply involves slapping an inflammatory headline on a couple of cut and paste quotes to "sell" the news.

I certainly will be looking elsewhere for news in the future, in the hope of finding some trace of journalistic integrity.

PS The photo and caption both indicate a Boeing 737-800. The main article body describes a 767-300... it is good to see your editors never let the facts get in the way of a good story, ey?

[PukinDog]

Slippery Pete

Because with such horrifically low detection rates, on an expenditure vs. improved safety outcome basis, the money could be much better spent in other areas of aviation.

In the last few years, how many incidents/accidents worldwide can be attributed to drunk pilots? None I'm aware of.



That sounds like the programs encacted to prevent people from showing up to work under the influence are for the most part having the desired effect. Why mess with success?

In the same period, I can think of at least four separate incidents where pilots with unstable mental health have caused a serious incident or accident.

On those numbers alone, it means that surely this money would be better spent by CASA investing in the mental health of pilots - ie 1x free psych appointment per year to talk about your career, life at home, job security stresses, family or marriage problems etc. etc.


Isn't CASA a regulatory agency? Are you really willing to go into a "soft science" doctor to let them evaluate your mental health yearly to determine whether or not you're fit to fly?

It's not rocket science - spend the money where it will have the GREATEST positive impact on safety.

How would 1 psych test per year do that? You're idea suggests that pilots need ongoing professional mental therapy to function.

[Slippery_Pete]

Okay PukinDog, I'll bite. Your arguments wouldn't hold up in a high school debating team, but regardless...

That sounds like the programs encacted to prevent people from showing up to work under the influence are for the most part having the desired effect. Why mess with success?

The only way you can ascertain that the low level rates are a result of the program and were not exactly the same pre-2008 is to compare data we don't have. Rates of people in security sensitive roles blowing a BAC above 0.02 may well have increased since 2008. You have a circular argument.

Isn't CASA a regulatory agency? Are you really willing to go into a "soft science" doctor to let them evaluate your mental health yearly to determine whether or not you're fit to fly?

Yes, CASA are a regulatory agency. They are also the ones who have been jamming TEM down our throats for the last few years. Are you suggesting they don't identify the threats which can lead to alcoholism? (Such as marriage/family issues, job security concerns, failed career progression etc.) They push TEM, yet when it comes to drinking and drugs, they ignore the threats, let the error occur, and then punish later just because they are "regulatory".

I would absolutely be willing to go to a "soft science" doctor as you call them to evaulate my fitness to fly. In fact, I'd hazard a guess most professional pilots would recognise they should be on the ground when a doctor say so (no matter how "soft" you think they are, or what exactly that means).

It would also be an opportunity for the company conselling and rehab services to be used before something becomes a problem. At the moment, you have to be busted after the offence before those services are provided. Are you suggesting providing these services AFTER someone has been caught drunk at work to be a better outcome than utilising them when someone exhibits risk criteria but before they develop a chronic, uncontrollable problem?


How would 1 psych test per year do that? You're idea suggests that pilots need ongoing professional mental therapy to function.

Please show me where exactly I suggested that pilots "need ongoing professional mental therapy to function".:ugh:
It would simply identify pilots where further investigation and rehabilitation might be in the best interests of safety. In this case, CASA could refer the issue to the airline who could provide a counselling type program to the affected pilot.

I never said it would be a "test" either. It might be as simple as mandatory with no pass/fail, but the Doctors could simply recommend to individuals or airlines that it gets looked into further.

[teresa green]

Please be aware of inviting litigation with what you say right now. This Capt. is innocent until proven guilty, and therefore any support you can give her right now is important. I don't know the girl in question, but I am sure she would not in her wildest dreams turn up to work knowingly having alcohol still in her bloodstream, any more than you or I would. I hope she has a excellent outcome and returns to work as soon as possible.

[PukinDog]

Okay PukinDog, I'll bite. Your arguments wouldn't hold up in a high school debating team, but regardless...

My answer was to your statement that said all the money spent on alcohol testing wasn't worth it, and could be spent better elsewhere. You haven't even begun to prove that not catching one person every other month in a safety-sensitive position isn't worth it on those grounds alone, let alone your alternative being worth it.

The degradation of judgement and performance doing any task while under the influence is well known. You're arguing that CASA really shouldn't bother trying to prevent this, or enforce CASA regulations written to prevent safety-sensitive personnel performing tasks that could easily affect passengers.

The only way you can ascertain that the low level rates are a result of the program and were not exactly the same pre-2008 is to compare data we don't have. Rates of people in security sensitive roles blowing a BAC above 0.02 may well have increased since 2008. You have a circular argument.


You have no argument, and mine's in no way circular. The goal is to have ZERO people showing up to work with alcohol in their system. As good as the record is, people are still showing up to work with alcohol in thier system at a rate of one every other month. And that's only those that are caught. Everyone isn't tested at work every day. Regardless if the rate, those are 27 people caught that wouldn't have been if there were no testing.

Yes, CASA are a regulatory agency. They are also the ones who have been jamming TEM down our throats for the last few years. Are you suggesting they don't identify the threats which can lead to alcoholism? (Such as marriage/family issues, job security concerns, failed career progression etc.) They push TEM, yet when it comes to drinking and drugs, they ignore the threats, let the error occur, and then punish later just because they are "regulatory".


Licences are not only statements of proficiency of the holder, they exist in the first place, literally and as a concept, so that the issuing Agency can take them away if warranted. Yes, as punishment for violating regulations. That's their prime reason for being, first and foremost. Hand-holding towards compliance is secondary. The licence holder is still expected to adhere to the regs even if no hand-holding is forthcoming.


I would absolutely be willing to go to a "soft science" doctor as you call them to evaulate my fitness to fly. In fact, I'd hazard a guess most professional pilots would recognise they should be on the ground when a doctor say so (no matter how "soft" you think they are, or what exactly that means).


Nothing is stopping you from seeking counseling, or grounding yourself if the pressures of life get to be so much you can't screw your flying head on. If the passengers' safety is foremost in your thoughts at all times, as it should be, this shouldn't be a problem.

It would also be an opportunity for the company conselling and rehab services to be used before something becomes a problem. At the moment, you have to be busted after the offence before those services are provided.

Those opportunities exist already, but why should the government pay for a company's employee couseling and rehab costs? It would seem that if that many employees need counseling and rehab, the company should re-vamp their screening and hiring process. If they don't directly bear the brunt of the cost, they never would.

Are you suggesting providing these services AFTER someone has been caught drunk at work to be a better outcome than utilising them when someone exhibits risk criteria but before they develop a chronic, uncontrollable problem?

Avenues to seek help are there for anyone prior to problems becoming chronic, but the truly chronic become experts at hiding it. This includes hiding it from family, friends, counselors, bosses, subordinates, and so on. That's the whole point of blood tests..random screening, on suspicion, post-accident, etc etc. You can't hide from that.

Please show me where exactly I suggested that pilots "need ongoing professional mental therapy to function".:ugh:
It would simply identify pilots where further investigation and rehabilitation might be in the best interests of safety. In this case, CASA could refer the issue to the airline who could provide a counselling type program to the affected pilot.


How is that a function of a regulatory agency? Don't you have to answer mental health questions and/or report visits to mental health professionals on your medical certificate? I don't see how someone lying on those questions would suddenly come clean in a once-a-year therapy session. Anyway, a lot can happen in a year in terms of stress factors, and your talking about one snapshot every 12 months. Just like the case of your physical condition, if circumstances change that would render your medical certificate invalid between those snapshots it's incumbent upon the professional to ground him/herself until the condition is corrected.

I never said it would be a "test" either. It might be as simple as mandatory with no pass/fail, but the Doctors could simply recommend to individuals or airlines that it gets looked into further.

That sounds like the purview of an internal, company wellness program to me. You still haven't made the case for CASA to stop alcohol screenings/testing in the name of safety. And even if they did do away with random screenings, the circumstances of this case (due to suspicion) would most likely require a test anyway.

[PukinDog]

teresa Green

Please be aware of inviting litigation with what you say right now.


nobody has come within 10 miles of writing anything libelous or defamatory in any post here.

[tail wheel]

nobody has come within 10 miles of writing anything libelous or defamatory in any post still here.

Correct.

But only because 35 posts or 34% of posts have so far been deleted by Moderators and one user permanently thread binned, due to posts being malicious, libellous, defamatory or merely ludicrous.

Stick to the thread title unless you have confirmed, factual, information and forget the theories and sanctimonious platitudes lest this thread gets locked.

The pilot concerned is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.

[Ixixly]

Tail Wheels right, as someone who has been a DAMP Officer, admittedly at a smaller GA company with around 10-15 pilots at a time, just because you get a positive result doesn't necessarily make them guilty straight away, theres a lot of mitigating factors. I had 2 Pilots who recorded Positive Drug results using approved drug testing equipment, 1 of them was cleared by the local doctor as it was due to medicine being taken some time ago and was perfectly legit and would not affect them, the other turned out to be a false positive on the first test!! It isn't 100% guys, especially the breahalyzers, even the ones that are up to the proper standard get it wrong for any number of different reasons.

And Slippery_Pete, I know this isn't definitive proof, but I know a lot of the Pilots in the area I was in at that time I was DAMP Officer changed their habits when the Policies took affect. Nothing drastic but they were all definitely more concious of their drinking...specially when I happended to be standing beside them most nights at the Pub!! I'd like to think this shows there has been some worth as a deterrent or at the very least as a method of further awareness.

I should also point out that part of the DAMP stuff isn't just detection of drug and/or alcohol use/abuse, another large part of the training was also identifying Co-Workers who were having their ability to perform their duties inhibited by other factors as well. Whilst I would never claim to be as effective as a trained full-time Psychologist, there is more awareness of such factors being put out there by CASA as part of the DAMP to cover other factors like you pointed out to hopefully prevent them causing accidents or incidents and putting in place systems to have them addressed. From what I recall we were required as part of the DAMP to have an outside organisation nominated that people could approach or be referred to in such circumstances.

[Capt_SNAFU]

I do think DAMP has had a habit changing effect for most. No more smashing them down to "8hrs from bottle to throttle." Much more aware if you are going to turn it on do so early and give yourself enough time to recover fully with a margin. A lot of my non flying friends are very surprised that we don't get tested every time we turn up for work.

[catch18]

I hope the person in question gets a lot of help through these times legally, emotionally and professionally whether innocent or guilty.

EVERYONE at some point in their life needs help, or a break, or a second chance.

There is recreational drinking, and there is also "drinking" as a symptom of deeper problems, hence rehabilitation.

In years to come mental illness such as depression will pose a far greater threat to airline safety than alcohol or drugs anyway.

I hope QF get her back in the air soon with their full support either way.

I'm appalled at people poking fun or making this out to be a big deal.

[DutchRoll]

I was tested in the crew room post flight while sitting around waiting to deadhead a sector. I advised the CASA rep, and they said that because I was technically available to be called to operate, that I would still require testing.

And if I was sitting in the QF Club, would the same reasoning apply? It opens a can of worms, doesn't it?!

That's a bit of a silly point of view from CASA (yet unsurprising all the same), given that you've finished all your operating duties and are not scheduled for any more. By their logic, the fact that we can be phoned at any time of the day while at home and asked to crew a flight if we answer the phone, means we can't have a beer or glass of wine....ever! :eek:

[PukinDog]

Dutchroll

That's a bit of a silly point of view from CASA (yet unsurprising all the
same), given that you've finished all your operating duties and are not
scheduled for any more. By their logic, the fact that we can be phoned at any time of the day while at home and asked to crew a flight if we answer the phone, means we can't have a beer or glass of wine....ever! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif


He was still on duty and available. Taking a call at home doesn't mean you're on duty.

[Keg]

He was still on duty and available.

Once he's had a beer he's not available. Further, if the first duty is a paxing sector there is no requirement to be 'available' at sign on. Turn up stonkered I say. That way they can't touch ou operate until the next day. :ok: :}

[rmcdonal]

He was still on duty and available.
Yes, but the duty was a non safety sensitive duty (Paxing) and therefore doesn't require testing. Had he then had a drink and been subsequently told he was to fly he would have had to reject the duty.

Interesting post by tail wheel, in the company I work for you can never call someone drunk even if they clearly are, something to do with defamation. Instead you have to say they are unwell and if you kick them off the flight then they are too unwell to fly.
That being said if a crew member thinks you have had a drink, and the subsequent test is positive then you're either under the influence or having a REALLY unlucky day.

[Anthill]

Perhaps some thing that we should equip our selves with are tools to deal with the issue of people presenting for work after a big night. From the statistical data that has been presented regarding capture rates, DAMP testing can be seen to be far less effective that DAMP education.

If you think that you can detect alcohol on a workmates breath, what are you to do? There are some options that we can adopt. 1) Do nothing and hope nothing bad happens. 2) Dob them in straight away to the company or CASA. 3) Take them aside and tell them that you think that they are affected by alcohol and suggest that they remove themselves from duty.

The course of action that you choose would depend on what you consider the most practical and ethical under the circumstances. I have used option 3 previously. There was no argument and I made a good friend in the process :)

[PukinDog]

rmcdonal
Yes, but the duty was a non safety sensitive duty (Paxing) and therefore
doesn't require testing. Had he then had a drink and been subsequently told he was to fly he would have had to reject the duty.



Keg
Once he's had a beer he's not available. Further, if the first duty is a
paxing sector there is no requirement to be 'available' at sign on. Turn up
stonkered I say. That way they can't touch ou operate until the next day.


Interesting. I'm used to the "not available" interpretation coming only while actually airborne on the last deadhead sector into rest, not before it, since most companies reserve the right to change your daily schedule once you are on duty within the time limits of the regs. If you've already reported for duty that day, and legal to still be flown and the crewmemember knows scheduling is within their rights to change you, then drinking while still on duty could be seen as falling under the "attempting to fly" category same as if you show up for duty under the influence. Must be different there.

Anyway, my answer was directed more to the notion that one could never have a drink ever since the company can call you anytime. Surely, the act of answering the phone isn't considered duty is it? I didn't follow the logic of that being CASA's "logic" just because they wanted to test an on-duty pilot who was later scheduled for a deadhead. I don't understand how that equates.

[Jack Ranga]

I grabbed a muesli bar while waiting for my bags, bored, I looked at the ingredients, alcohol was one of them. You are going to have to look at the ingredients of EVERYTHING you eat. On the menu at work one day was orange poppy seed muffins, mmmm, better not I thought!

What a minefield!

[Sonny Hammond]

AND meals prepared using alcohol as an ingredient.
It is widely believed that cooking with wine or vermouth etc removes the alcohol from it.
Lots of recent articles refuting this.

What for that! Red wine casserole, risottos.... You name it.

[teresa green]

It is better if confronted with a crew member that smells of alcohol to ask them directly if they have had a drink in the last previous eight hours. I did just this to a F/O who was nothing more than guilty of eating TAA's now infamous trifle, which was later found to have been made by a cook who thought half a bottle of sherry added to it gave it extra flavour. (I believe the record for eating it was a LAME who managed six plates) The cook did not think for one minute as he was preparing food for airline crews, engineers or ground staff that it was one industry where alcohol and work did not mix. The mortified management soon put a stop to it, as the sudden interest in the canteen food peaked to astonishing levels becoming obvious to all and sundry that the stew had simply not improved. You owe it to the crew member to give them a chance to explain without rushing to the first manager you see, and if they have broken the rule, advise them to go sick, and go and see their GP if they have a problem. However if you sight them again in the same situation then you have no choice but to inform management.

[DutchRoll]

He was still on duty and available. Taking a call at home doesn't mean you're on duty.

Yeah but the CASA explanation was simply that "technically he could be called to operate, therefore was liable to be tested".

Well "technically" we can be called to operate at any time of the day or night, within the limitations of getting ourselves to the airport. Still doesn't make sense, the way the CASA rep put it.

And what about paxing from, say, Sydney to LAX to crew a flight a couple of days later. There is no way you can operate any flight upon arrival. But one of the operating pilots gets food poisoning mid-flight. You had a glass of wine with dinner. The company says "get that paxing F/O to assist". But you can't help now. Have you violated any CASA regs? Can you be tested upon arrival in LAX and stood down pending a formal investigation?

Can of worms, unless common sense is applied. And does CASA have any?

[PukinDog]

teresa green

It is better if confronted with a crew member that smells of alcohol to
ask them directly if they have had a drink in the last previous eight
hours.


Yours question doesn't measure blood alcohol, and presupposes the person answering would be truthful about the 8 hours. What if they're still above the limit after 9, or 12? Someone with a chronic problem would probably not be truthful, and would be well-versed in giving answers they know you and others would like to hear.

I did just this to a F/O who was nothing more than guilty of eating TAA's now infamous trifle,

So you were suspicious and made that judgement call yourself? How do you know that was all he/she was guilty of, i.e., nothing, and not covering up other consumption by eating those. And if someone had answered "mouthwash", how do you know he/she wasnt consuming it to the point of being under the influence? Alcohol is alcohol no matter how it's ingested.

You owe it to the crew member to give them a chance to explain without rushing to the first manager you see, and if they have broken the rule, advise them to go sick, and go and see their GP if they have a problem. However if you sight them again in the same situation then you have no choice but to inform management.

What about the first debt and consideration a professional pilot owes is the one owed to the passengers who trust nobody on the crew isn't impaired? Where does that debt factor into your scenario if the person above answers you untruthfully, fools the person who's asking, and goes on to help operate the aircraft while over the limit? Isn't the primary goal of no aircraft taking off with a pilot over the limit being subordinated by your suggestion?

If you're truly suspicious enough to ask the question, why not give them a choice; give the person the chance to take themselves off duty or be subject to the DAMP process instead of trying to play a very imperfect game of 1 Question that's so full of holes it seems more like it's designed ot protect reputations rather than the traveling public.

[PukinDog]

Dutch roll

Yeah but the CASA explanation was simply that "technically he could be called to operate, therefore was liable to be tested".

Well "technically" we can be called to operate at any time of the day or night, within the limitations of getting ourselves to the airport. Still doesn't make sense, the way the CASA rep put it.

So after a required rest you are essentially considered to be on 24 hour rolling reserve? Yikes. Anyway, I still don't understand how this equates to being liable to be tested by CASA at home. Is that what you're saying?

And what about paxing from, say, Sydney to LAX to crew a flight a couple of days later. There is no way you can operate any flight upon arrival. But one of the operating pilots gets food poisoning mid-flight. You had a glass of wine with dinner. The company says "get that paxing F/O to assist". But you can't help now. Have you violated any CASA regs? Can you be tested upon arrival in LAX and stood down pending a formal investigation?

I haven't seen a Company Ops Manual yet that doesn't specifically address whether a deadheading crew can consume alcohol or not, and every Ops Manual is approved by the regulators so you would be bound to conduct yourself with whatever it says.

But I will say that if your Company allows drinking while on the deadhead aircraft under the scenario you cite, (in other words unlike jumpseating you are not considered to be an Additional Crew Member), and you had consumed alcohol on the leg within approved Policy, you had best not accept the Company's request to go act as crew in the cockpit. In FAA-land anyway, the regs prohibiting a pilot acting as a crewmember after consuming alcohol are actually telling a pilot he mustn't accept such duty, and there isn't an exception. This reg predates the testing/screening mandates and still stand. So by refusing that duty you are actually following the regs, not violating them, and I imagine CASA would look at it the same way if you indeed acted within your Company Ops Manual's policies.

[DutchRoll]

No, the rest limits aren't flexible. I'm essentially alluding to the "riot clause" in our contract, which basically says if you're at home, answer the phone, and the company wants you to go flying, then you "have to". There are some caveats of course, like a certain minimum number of hours notice, etc.

But if you've just been up late at a friend's party or something, you'd surely have to say "err no I'm sorry, had a few and don't know whether I'll be under the limit in the morning". So where does this leave you as far as CASA is concerned?

My opinion is that QF would be fairly understanding in that respect and they'd just call the next bloke and the problem would go away, but some other experiences relayed here do make me wonder about CASA itself.

There is no company prohibition in QF, that I'm aware of (in longhaul at least - I think shorthaul might be different) on having a vino on a paxing sector if you have no further scheduled duties and are not (or no longer) in uniform. This seems perfectly reasonable. But once again, the experiences of others with CASA make me wonder. What if CASA are waiting at the destination to RBT the crew? Can they decide to do crew who are paxing to become off-duty upon arrival too? I'm not sure that I trust CASA to apply any common sense here.

I agree with your last bit. If I'd had a glass of wine with dinner and was requested to assist, unless it was a dire emergency (in which case all bets are off), I'd caution them that I couldn't legally do so.

[Anthill]

TG--The infamous TAA wine trifle! My Mother-in-Law uses the same recipe;).

Whilst working for an overseas based airline, one of the cabin crew thought that us guys in the flight deck would appriciate a dash of Kaluha in our coffees one night :eek:.

PukinDog, you are right about our assumptions perhaps being wrong. Our sinus cavities are not equiped with a built-in spectrophotometer and we can only detect what may smell of alcohol. Being accusational at this point is pretty dangerous-only scientific testing can confirm/rule out alcohol.
------------------------------------------------------
If you suspect someone as being unfit to fly, be subtle but firm. The only time that I have ever had to refuse to fly with someone, the conversation went somthing like:

Scene: 8am sign on, Domestic operation:

Anthill: "Hey, big night last night?"

Other guy: "Well, a big afternoon actually. Me and XXXX finished at lunch time yesterday and went for a round of golf at *****. We wound up having a BBQ at the 19th hole and had a few bottles of really nice red and a few schooners. We finshed up at about 8pm ish so I'm legal".

AH: " I hate to tell you this but you are really sweating it out. If Capt XXXX (the base manager) walks in and smells you he'll have a fit. Why don't you just go sick? Another Captain will sign on in 15 mins. Crewing will just grab them for your duty. It'll be no big deal".

Other guy: "That bad?".

Me: "Yep"...

And so he went home, crewing grabbed the next Captain, the flight left on time, someone went home to nurse his head and we all lived happily ever after. :)

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Can they decide to do crew who are paxing to become off-duty upon arrival too?

If you were out of uniform - how would they know you were crew to be tested?

[PukinDog]

DR

No, the rest limits aren't flexible. I'm essentially alluding to the "riot
clause" in our contract, which basically says if you're at home, answer the
phone, and the company wants you to go flying, then you "have to". There are some caveats of course, like a certain minimum number of hours notice,
etc.

But if you've just been up late at a friend's party or something,
you'd surely have to say "err no I'm sorry, had a few and don't know whether I'll be under the limit in the morning". So where does this leave you as far as CASA is concerned?


I think CASA could only come into play when you physically report for duty as specified in your Ops Manual, whether you report because you were scheduled that way, or called in under a Riot Clause.

My opinion is that QF would be fairly understanding in that respect and they'd just call the next bloke and the problem would go away, but some other experiences relayed here do make me wonder about CASA itself.

I don't think you could ever go wrong with CASA by not accepting duty in that situation. The regs back you up.

There is no company prohibition in QF, that I'm aware of (in longhaul at least - I think shorthaul might be different) on having a vino on a paxing sector if you have no further scheduled duties and are not (or no longer) in uniform. This seems perfectly reasonable. But once again, the experiences of others with CASA make me wonder. What if CASA are waiting at the destination to RBT the crew? Can they decide to do crew who are paxing to become off-duty upon arrival too? I'm not sure that I trust CASA to apply any common sense here.

That sounds like most policies I've seen as far as drinking during a deadhead once onboard. If your CASA-approved Company Manual states this last leg exception for drinking during the flight under those circumstances, then any CASA man trying to bring down the hammer would be operating outside his own Agency's authority. The approved manual has the force of regulation, and you've complied with it. It's a considerable stretch to think any would attempt it if you've just deadheaded into rest.

I agree with your last bit. If I'd had a glass of wine with dinner and was requested to assist, unless it was a dire emergency (in which case all bets are off), I'd caution them that I couldn't legally do so.

I'd do the same.

Anthill,

Exactly, subtle but firm and agree completely how you handled it. Do whatever convincing it takes to keep the other from reporting to work. That's the bottom line. Talk about the problems and/or make suggestions later. And if the other bloke insists, refuse it yourself and let the DAMP policy run its course with the chips falling where they may. Lives take precedence over reputations if the issue is doubt, that's common sense and risk management, and why it's an incumbent responsibility. If the guy shows up to work he's the one handcuffing everyone else to the process.

[teresa green]

Pukin Dog, I knew the bloke personally, I knew him in PNG when others feeling perhaps a little seedy still took off. He never drank much, never, and never turned up to work sick. (hungover). I am not saying any of these blokes were drunk they were not, the rule up there was nothing after 1630 hrs for a 0500 T/O, and it was a small community and we knew the ones who bucked the system, they got fixed, or were sent back to the motherland. So when I asked him and he said that bloody trifle has grog in it, I knew he was telling the truth. As for the blokes in PNG both QF and TN the heat had a lot to do with the drinking, but after a couple of rip tearing hangovers you soon learnt to keep the water up with the grog.

[neville_nobody]

The DAMP policy is just an extra layer designed to try and tighten that net and make sure none slip through and the ones who are found to be under the influence are handled in an appropriate manner for the safety of all those whom we fly from A to B every single day and also for their own benefit.

But it is still a waste of money and just another empire being built by CASA to make flying more expensive and inefficient to what end?

CASA should pay the airlines a fee for all the disruption those false positives caused.

Australia is a 3rd world country in terms of aviation infrastructure and service. We waste so much time on things that are inefficient and none on making the industry more efficient.

We don't have enough airports, we don't have CAT III, we have poor ATC service, our rules are a joke, yet you think things are great because a QF pilot may have been busted for FUI.

Time CASA started worrying about the big issues not just building stupid empires which is all that DAMP testing really is.

[ejectx3]

I finished a long haul duty from klax many years ago and picked up some tequila in duty free coming back into sydney.

I was commuting to brissy at the time and had to catch the shuttle bus over to domestic in uniform. In my jet lagged state I accidentally set my flight bag containing the duty free down too hard and shattered the spirits.

You should have seen the looks I received from passengers on the bus and waiting for my connecting flight absolutely reeking of tequila whilst in
uniform!

[givemewings]

UTR- as far as I can recall, deadheading crew are listed on the Gen Dec for international flights.

Especially if you came in operating and paxed back. CASA could also ask the company to provide the names and/or number of crew/staff onboard.

[PukinDog]

Pukin Dog, I knew the bloke personally, I knew him in PNG when others feeling perhaps a little seedy still took off. He never drank much, never, and never turned up to work sick. (hungover). I am not saying any of these blokes were drunk they were not, the rule up there was nothing after 1630 hrs for a 0500 T/O, and it was a small community and we knew the ones who bucked the system, they got fixed, or were sent back to the motherland. So when I asked him and he said that bloody trifle has grog in it, I knew he was telling the truth. As for the blokes in PNG both QF and TN the heat had a lot to do with the drinking, but after a couple of rip tearing hangovers you soon learnt to keep the water up with the grog.

I had assumed you must have known the person, and what he said and what you knew of him and the situation was satifactory to you. But as a policy designed to protect paying customers, where it must backstop all situations and various rostering, it falls short. It doesn't do you any favors either.

For instance, what if you had the same suspicion as you related, and you were satisfied with the answer as you were, so you and he departed and shared the cockpit for a live pax sector. Upon arriving you find out someone else at the last station had suspicions too, and made calls. He winds up getting tested during the stopover and fails, and it's a righteous failure because it turns out the person has a chronic problem or just lied really well that particular day after a one-off piss-up.

Whichever it was, he put his problem im your lap but you assisted by assuming the responsibility of making the sober/not-sober determination when there was a better way made available specifically for that purpose, but you didn't use it and your assessment was incorrect. Now they'll look to you and find out if you followed policy and procedure when faced with suspicion that he was under the influence/unfit to fly. They'll do so because there were just passengers exposed to an unnaceptable risk. You may have tried to intervene in your own way, but you didn't intervene in the proscribed way. If CASA mirrors the FAA view on this non-intervention..you allowing it to happen when there was an avenue at your disposal to stop it...it falls under the classification of careless and reckless operation in the eyes of the Feds.

[Mr.Buzzy]

It's only a matter of time before carrying alcohol in uniform, including buying at duty free stores, is outlawed by some overenthusiastic poppy chopper.

Bbbbzbzbzbzbzzzzzzzzzz

[teresa green]

Pukin, I understand where you are coming from, but on that day I made a decision on leaning over towards him with a piece of paper and smelt alcohol. We were still on the arm, and I asked him directly about it and when he had last had a drink. He was quite shocked and having already heard from a CC member of our crew that the trifle in the canteen "knocks your socks off" and knowing he had some lunch with the CC, I realised upon his comment, that that trifle had grog in it, I knew he was telling the truth. The point I am making is had he been someone I did not know, I would have asked them to go sick, and if they had a problem to see a GP about it. I would have also said if I struck them again in the same situation I would go to management. I would have probably had a word with a few trusted skippers about it, and asked them to look out for the bloke and if the situation was the same, go to management. In other words treat each case as it comes to your attention with some consideration for the person involved, the Pax and the airline. What happened to the present Skipper is unacceptable, there was no consideration shown what so ever, and to be fed to the papers only adds to the grief. She was allowed to be humiliated, when it was possible she is only guilty of perhaps eating a desert that had a tiny amount of Liqueur in it like the bloody trifle. It is difficult to have a set rule when a desert, a chocolate, or mouthwash can start up a suspicion, and each case must be handled accordingly, unless of course its obvious that you are as drunk as a lord. (which has happened over the years)

[Jack Ranga]

Just out of interest has anybody seen or been RBT'd by worlds best practice CASA?


That's interesting, as I say 4 years and I've never seen them, don't know anybody at work that has been either. It would appear that once again they are targeting people that are in the spotlight and more visible to the public (pilots and cabin crew)....worlds best practice

[dogcharlietree]

My Mother-in-Law uses the same recipe.
Well come on Anthill, spill the beans (er, recipe) :O

[Anthill]

of course its obvious that you are as drunk as a lord. which has happened
over the years)


Witness: " When I saw him(the defendant), he was as drunk as a Judge.."

Magistrate: "Ahem.. don't you mean that the defendant was 'as drunk as a Lord' ??

Witness: "Yes m'Lord".

:\

[Spotlight]

Somebody had to be first! I am glad it wasn't me. The headlines in all the press are dreadful, 'Drunk and Dragged out of the cockpit' is a woeful use of journalistic license.

What we don't know, is a lot. Was it an overnight, had "words" been previously exchanged? Did a passenger comment to a Flight Attendant that last night at their hotel they saw the crew at the bar and policy took on its own life?

It surprised me in a previous role as a Management pilot in a third level airline in NSW (here boy, here boy) that three Captains had fallen foul of the DAMP early on and that one, at the time of my briefing had failed Rehabilitation.

Rehab being total abstinence, active membership of AA and open and honest communication with friends and family regarding the pilots home life. And ongoing testing of liver glucose.

Probably good for all of us that a female has taken the first fall, in the press at least. A more gentle tone will ensue.

None of this pre-supposes that the Qantas Captain is guilty of anything bar signing on for her employer.

If, like me she is as pure as the driven snow at every sign on and this nonsense occurred. Including; a spurious alcohol reading on a device, I would welcome the time at home and not worry.

[waren9]

But as a policy designed to protect paying customers, where it must backstop all situations and various rostering, it falls short. It doesn't do you any favours either.

And therein lies the essence of what is wrong with the modern PC world. Trying to have every aspect of human life and it's fallibility tied up with a neat little bow doesn't work. It simply makes criminals out of ordinary human beings.

All the legislation, rules, notices to crew and other prohibitions won't make the slightest bit of difference. The time honoured way of old school values and having a quiet chat to a colleague to sort them out has fallen by the wayside.

Nowadays if something happens it must be someones fault. The USA loves that **** and everyone else is sucking it up in their wake. A whole new industry in itself.

We seem to have lost the distinction between a small one off indiscretion and turning up smashed as a lord. Just as we have between smacking a kids arse (genuine discipline) and parental abuse.

I could go on.

[S70IP]

givemewings UTR- as far as I can recall, deadheading crew are listed on the Gen Dec for international flights.

No they are not. Which is why its against some legislation to wear your ASIC in the Customs area unless your are on the Gen Dec. only operating crew are to be on the Gen Dec.

[C441]

UTR- as far as I can recall, deadheading crew are listed on the Gen Dec for international flights.

Not normally at QF.
As I understand it, many/most other airlines do though, apart from other reasons, to avoid taxes on the travel.

[teresa green]

Dogcharlie, here is the recipe from the missus. One jam roll,( available from super market) a splash of sherry (or a wave depending on your needs!) ( if trying to impress new girlfriend, try wave) red jelly (set) tinned fruit if you need to feel healthy. Put cut up roll on bottom of dish, then the fruit, then the jelly add the grog, then the custard, then thickened cream if you wish. Check bottle to throttle time, get spoon, take to lounge, turn on the Olympics and a little cheeky liqueur in glass would enhance, enjoy!:E