Pilot over drink/drive limit removed from aircraft [Archive]

jayteeto

30th Oct 2014, 12:24

Mike, the question was 'is this newsworthy because he isn't charged'.
My answer was that is was newsworthy, the public are interested and also because the police would not normally keep him in without reason. I implied that it was obvious that something was found. I still imply that. Of course I may be wrong, but I am willing to make a small wager (to charity of course) with anyone who seriously disagrees.
I actually hope he/she is innocent of all charges and would LOVE to be wrong. Of course this is a rumour network, so we are allowed to be wrong you know!!
Normally if you are bailed to appear in court, you are already charged. As mentioned above, you may be bailed for further enquiries. If they are awaiting the results of a blood test, my offer of a wager is a good one, because the breathalyser test may be inconclusive or VERY close to the limit. Lets hope it is below.

DaveReidUK

30th Oct 2014, 12:46

I actually hope he/she is innocent of all chargesCommendable though the politically-correct, gender-neutral references to "he/she" and "they" may be, the BBC link in the very first post does (now) say "A police spokesman confirmed a 48-year-old man was arrested."

Wycombe

30th Oct 2014, 13:04

The BBC article states that "a fellow crew member became concerned".

As none of us were there, we don't know whether that's because the crew had a drink the previous evening (and there was a "bottle to throttle" concern), or because he appeared to be physically under the influence immediately prior to the operation of the flight.

I understand that NQY flights are operated with EXT-based crews who nightstop?

Simplythebeast

30th Oct 2014, 13:11

Sounds like he has been charged and bailed to court.

JW411

30th Oct 2014, 16:44

I might well be wrong but I thought I heard on a Radio 4 news bulletin this morning that he had been charged with drink DRIVING. Perhaps my hearing is worse than I thought or else it was a reporting cock-up. If he was over the drink driving limit then he would be well over the flying limit (which is roughly equivalent to half a pint of bitter).

airsound

30th Oct 2014, 18:35

JW411, you didn’t mishear the drink-driving bit. It was in the written BBC report as well. I too was puzzled.

I had occasion to talk both to the CAA, and to Devon and Cornwall Police, about it today. Both said it had been misreported. CAA said:
For flight crew (and air traffic controllers) the blood/alcohol limit is 20 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. (This is set out in the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003). For context, the UK drink drive limit is 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres.
Note this applies to blood/alcohol only. Breath/alcohol, and indeed urine/alcohol have different figures.

The police amplified this:
Pilots, air crew, air traffic control, amongst others, have a lower legal breath alcohol limit which is 9 microgrammes per 100ml in breath compared to the Road Traffic Act 1988 which is 35 microgrammes per 100ml in breath. The equivalent is 20 ml in blood whereas the Road Traffic Act 1988 is 80ml in blood.
The pilot was tested using a Home Office Type Approved device and provided a breath specimen over the prescribed limit of 9 microgrammes. He was then taken to custody and dealt with accordingly.The pilot had been
…. arrested at Newquay Airport at around 9am on Wednesday 29 October on suspicion of being over the prescribed limit for carrying out an ancillary function, ie preparing to fly having reported for duty.   The man has been bailed until 8 December where (sic) he will report to Newquay station.

RedhillPhil

30th Oct 2014, 19:03

Meanwhile, the R.M.T. is balloting it's Northern line members for strike action in support of a driver who has been sacked for being found in possession of alcohol in his messroom.

bartonflyer

30th Oct 2014, 19:56

Just a subtle difference perhaps between alcohol in the messroom and alcohol in the bloodstream?

Tankertrashnav

30th Oct 2014, 23:43

I guess it's a very hard call for the whistle blower, and one not taken lightly. I would hope there was at least some discussion of concerns between the crew, with the aim of the suspected offender to fall on one's sword and call in sick.

Not really a hard call at all when lives are concerned.

I once witnessed this situation. The captain of a five man crew turned up quite obviously the worse for wear. It was known that he had been to a very late party in quarters the night before. His crew gave him some very strong hints that he seemed to have a heavy cold and should declare himself unfit to fly, but like an idiot he tried to bluff it out and continued to prepare for the flight. At that point his crew "blew the whistle" on him to a squadron exec, who immediately had him replaced. I know he received a huge rollicking and possibly some other "unofficial" punishment, but there was never any official disciplinary action. The pilot concerned distinguished himself in the air some years later, and received a gallantry medal for his actions, so perhaps the line that was taken was the best in the circumstances, but doing nothing was never an option.

Halcyon Days

31st Oct 2014, 09:41

Agree with tankertrashnav-not a difficult choice when your life or many others are at risk.
Sadly I have been in this position twice as an ops /crew controller-when I had no option but to report my suspicions to my seniors about a crew member (both Captains) reporting for a flight.
Both were subsequently sacked and whilst that aspect is not one I am particularly proud of-I wouldnt hesitate doing again if I had my suspicions.
I am glad to say that both occurences were now over 20 years ago-and it would be nice to think it was a thing of the past-but sadly I somehow doubt it.
Both Captains were extremely likeable individuals which made the choice even more difficult.

MaximumPete

31st Oct 2014, 09:54

Length of time in custody- Maybe he was medically unfit to be interviewed. Perhaps the Custody sergeant had concerns as to his physical/mental wellbeing and called in a doctor. He'd need to do that anyway for a blood test.

Do NOT draw any inferences.

How many times have we heard of someone collapsed on a pavement or in a bar and alcohol has been blamed when there's a perfectly innocent explanation?

Journey Man

31st Oct 2014, 12:37

Tanker trash / Halcyon

I don't refer to removing the pilot from the flight as being a hard call. Merely the method used. Again, I would directly suggest the affected crew member calls in sick, even stating to them my concerns; and if this fails I'd explain what I was then going to do: call in sick myself and contact my chief/fleet captain. Perhaps in the modern world that could be construed as masking the issue. However I'd like to give the individual the benefit of the doubt that they'd made a terrible error of judgement and I was doing them a favour.

The hard situation I refer to would be having that conversation with a colleague or taking it to the authorities directly.

putneyuk

31st Oct 2014, 14:06

BBC now reporting a pilot arrested this week on a charter flight into Norwich

BBC News - Charter pilot charged over alcohol level (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-29846379)

anotherthing

31st Oct 2014, 14:19

Maximum Pete

Length of time in custody... another possible explanation is the fact that if arrested and tested as being over the drink drive limit, the police will continue to hold and test you throughout the next few hours until you are below it before releasing you...

PPL Hobbyist

31st Oct 2014, 20:49

Most of you seem to have no clue about breathalysers. Because so many companies (many of them are my customers) test everybody entering their premises, I have actually taken the time to study the breathalyser.

What kind of breathalyser they used at the airport doesn't matter to me much, but the police would have tested him with a breathalyser that has an extremely accurate sensor called the Fuel Cell sensor. If their instrument was properly calibrated, the reading would have been extremely close to the blood sample they most likely took later on. A blood test is the most accurate reading you can get.

If the breathalyser at the police station showed 0.000, he would have walked out of the door and resumed work. Where I am, if you blow so much as 0.001 %BAC, you kiss your flying career goodbye, no police test required. It's a huge pity he didn't call in sick.

sharksandwich

1st Nov 2014, 01:11

From someone who is not certainly not a professional, and rarely a passenger, but interested in aviation: has there been many accidents when intoxication has been the main factor?
In all seriousness, the investigations into air crashes seem to most frequently point up equipment failure (something breaks unexpectedly), then human error (in the sense of flight deck failing to respond appropriately to the warnings when things have already started to go wrong), and human error in the sense of poor maintenance by the airline.
When has there been an accident primarily due to intoxication?

Stanwell

1st Nov 2014, 01:55

Shark,
"When have there ever been...."

Oh, goodness me! Where would you like me to start?
I, personally, have been witness to a few tragic events where alcohol has been the direct and sole cause.

Your post indicates that you have little or no understanding of the effects of alcohol.

Please educate yourself before you come back on here - it is not our place to drag you from such ignorance.

..or are you just trolling?

sharksandwich

1st Nov 2014, 02:02

No, I mean in the sense of an airline disaster where alcohol was the cause.
I know alcohol is bad for you, so is tobacco, cannabis,sex, dah de dah de dah....

49th

1st Nov 2014, 02:55

Stanwell,

"Oh, goodness me! Where would you like me to start?
I, personally, have been witness to a few tragic events where alcohol has been the direct and sole cause."

Well, please cite a few.
Not saying it hasn't happened, but I'd like to know about those incidents, especially on revenue passenger flights.

Coffin Corner

1st Nov 2014, 02:55

The issue is not what has happened in the past, but what could happen at the time. If the first officer became incapacitated then you are now single pilot with that operating pilot under the influence. Or what if the first officer was brand new on the line and the captain was intoxicated? There's several scenarios but just because there hasn't been a previous accident related to alcohol does not mean it's any less likely to happen than any other reason. Would you be happy if your family were down the back and it took off?

grounded27

1st Nov 2014, 06:29

Oh, goodness me! Where would you like me to start?
I, personally, have been witness to a few tragic events where alcohol has been the direct and sole cause.Oh, goodness me sir would you please start... and finish. Granted I feel a pilot should have a clear mind upon entering his duties yet I would like to hear of the bold statements of when you have witnessed a drunken pilot be the sole cause of a "tragic event"?

ekwhistleblower

1st Nov 2014, 07:13

It's not that long ago that a nice glass of wine was an accompaniment to a pil it's lunch with the odd carrier. I know of no losses.......yet!

Heathrow Harry

1st Nov 2014, 09:05

"No, I mean in the sense of an airline disaster where alcohol was the cause."

Google "Russian Airliner accidents"

IcePack

1st Nov 2014, 09:44

Russia is a different mind set & culture. Even including them I can not think of 1 accident that was put solely down to being drunk. Whatever it is a minuscule %.
When I 1st started commercial flying it was not un usual for capt to have drink on the last leg. "Just a sharpener old boy". We were not crashing in those days either.
However Drinking & Flying is a no no as it rather leaves the interpretation of how much open.
In my experience those caught if not alcoholics are those that misjudge the time for alcohol to clear the system. They don't purposely set out to drink & fly. & indeed probably would operate just fine. So if I smelt alcohol on a colleagues breath I would insist they went sick. & that would be an end to it, but should it happen again then the report would go in. Surely that is the human thing to do. Without compromising flight safety.

etrang

1st Nov 2014, 10:15

There have been at least some accidents where alcohol was a significant factor, although not nearly so many as implied by Stanwell.

Agaricus bisporus

1st Nov 2014, 14:36

An interesting conundrum, this fluffy way of "dealing" with the problem by persuading the person to go sick.
Pilots who turn up to work under the influence almost certainly have a problem, a serious alcohol problem. People without an alcohol problem just don't live like that, and thinking you're doing anyone a kindness (least of all his future passengers) by getting him to declare a cold and go home to get pissed and fly another day is surely a pretty good way of passing the buck to someone else to do a proper job later, hopefully before he scribbles a whole airliner full of people. How would you feel if you'd persuaded him to go home and a month layer he's lying in a field burning with a clear blue flame amongst 200 bodies?

May I suggest this isn't the right way to deal with the problem at all. Send him home by all means and perhaps give him the chance not to be nailed, but there has to be official follow-up or you're partly responsible for any future accident. All airlines should have an abuse programme that is designed to cope with people like this. Use it, or regret it.

Think on it...

grounded27

1st Nov 2014, 17:46

Many may not realize that they are waking up blowing over .02 BAC. The culture is wrong to make you feel like a criminal if you do, I believe the airlines would be afraid of just how many delays they would have up front if they just made all flight crew blow before each flight. They should provide compassionate assistance to those who can not manage their lives and want assistance. Most airlines under FAA rule have a 0 tolerance rule, .02 you get benched and could probably plan on the airline aggressively doing "random" test's on you. .04 and you are done.

Flying Lawyer

1st Nov 2014, 21:49

Stanwell
Please educate yourself before you come back on here - it is not our place to drag you from such ignorance.

Is that your way of saying that you have no idea of the answer to the entirely reasonable question sharksandwich asked?
Or were you just trolling?

"not our place"? :confused:
On whose behalf were you purporting to speak?
I ask only because my experience of PPRuNe over many years is that the overwhelming majority of contributors respond courteously to questions and are happy to provide the answer if they know it.

Oh, goodness me! Where would you like me to start?
I notice you live in Australia so you might like to start here:
Accidents and Incidents Involving Alcohol and Drugs in Australian Civil Aviation: 1975 - 2006 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2006/b20060169_001.aspx)

The ATSB database was searched for accidents and incidents in which either alcohol or drugs (legal or illicit) were detected post-mortem or believed to have been significant causal or contributory factors in an aviation occurrence. In that period (just over 31 years):
of 160,338 occurrences (incident or accident), 36 were either drug or alcohol-related. ie 0.02%
of those 36 drug/alcohol occurrences, 22 were alcohol.
of the 8,302 accidents, 32 were either drug or alcohol related. ie 0.4%.
61% of drug/alcohol occurrences were in private flying operations.
The next most common was agricultural ops at 11%.
Drug and alcohol occurrences in the airline operations category: NONE
The ATSB found that the results of the study were "consistent with other international experience." And then, if you felt able to spare just a little more of your valuable time, perhaps you could deal with the data since 2006?

sharksandwich
Have there been many accidents when intoxication has been the main factor?
No.
Over the decades since air accident investigation records have been kept, and despite the millions of miles flown every year, only a minute fraction of accidents and incidents have been found (or suspected) to have been caused or contributed to by alcohol.

FL

Linktrained

2nd Nov 2014, 01:21

In the early 1950s, the Captain went to file his own York trooping Flight Plan at RAF Malta. It was customary for this task to be done by either the F/O or N/O.

The Captain was told by the Controller " YOU CAN DEPART IN EIGHT HOURS... WHEN YOU ARE SOBER..."

That was the end of his career as a Pilot. (Thereafter F/Os and N/Os had to climb the stairs as usual ! AND WE LEARNED THE LESSON, from a bad example.)

sharksandwich

2nd Nov 2014, 01:40

Thank you, Flying Lawyer, for your response.
Facts and figures beat anecdotal evidence every time.
So we can be more or less agreed that alcohol actually plays such little part in the performance/non-performance of pilots with regard to recorded accidents/incidents that it can be disregarded.
(And I'd personally prefer a BA captain with a half bottle of wine than a newbie when the bird hits the fan).

320goat

2nd Nov 2014, 05:42

Absolutely sharksandwich, I'm with you.

Although I would personally like to point out who I would prefer in the flight deck rather than a newbie.

Tui captain: 1/3 of a bottle of wine
TCX captain: 1/3 of a bottle of wine
EZY captain: 1/4 of a bottle of wine
FR captain: 1/5 of a bottle of wine

But I agree for me a BA captain is at the top of that table (I think I could possibly have him as high as 3/4 of a bottle but that would depend on type and experience).

All joking aside you asked a very reasonable question earlier. Although drinking seems not to have been labelled as a sole cause for many (if any) commercial aircraft accidents there is no doubt that drinking will slow your response time and possibly affect your judgement, not unlike fatigue which is equated to alcohol levels on occasion and has been attributed as the cause of or partially to blame for many accidents.

I would say drinking is obviously a big no no and gives you another hole in your Swiss cheese. Out here we have random drug and alcohol tests at report and down route. I have been breathalysed 3 times this year. A great way to ensure you abstain for a suitable period before work!

gcal

2nd Nov 2014, 09:28

Is there not a danger that if breath testing is not done voluntarily it may be forced upon the industry by regulation.
There are precedents in the railway industry and our armed forces where random drug testing is commonplace.

Capot

2nd Nov 2014, 09:51

(And I'd personally prefer a BA captain with a half bottle of wine than a newbie when the bird hits the fanYes, well, I do understand the point you are making, but let's remember that for precisely the same reason you have well-justified faith in BA Captains, you will probably not find one with half a bottle inside him or her, at least not within 12 hours of going to work.

deptrai

2nd Nov 2014, 10:51

Alcohol dulls the senses, impairs reaction time, makes motoric movements and reflexes slower. It's poison for the brain, and I'm not going to defend any drunk driver. Yet, as some correctly pointed out, alcohol is not a major cause of concern for airline accidents. It's a potential problem that people are well aware of, and airlines have an excellent track record of managing it, without the help of the police. Then...there's the issue of fatigue, which is just as dangerous, and in real life, a bigger threat, yet, methinks it gets less attention than alcohol.

Coffin Corner

2nd Nov 2014, 12:08

Very few, if any accidents attributed to alcohol? Don't let the statistics fool you. "Why" have there been so few related accidents? One pilot intoxicated, one pilot not, that could be the answer. Look at it this way; both pilots intoxicated. Now would you feel so comfortable placing your loved ones aboard?
Is the very reason there hasn't been many accidents attributed to alcohol down to the fact that there is, generally speaking, one sober crew member on board? Do the statistics exonerate alcohol as being debilitating to a pilot's ability to undertake his roles? Do the statistics point to the fact that it's ok to have a wee tipple before boarding an aircraft as flight crew? In my eyes no it doesn't, if both crew members were intoxicated I would be very, very concerned for the safety of any flight.
Statistics - Never tell the whole story.

Stanwell

2nd Nov 2014, 13:35

OK, I've only just arrived back.

It's less than 18 hours since I responded (somewhat discourteously, I will concede) to sharksandwich's above question.

I notice that sharksandwich subsequently clarified his original post to say that he was referring only to AIRLINE accidents.

I did state that I'd had personal experience with a few alcohol-induced tragedies - THREE, to be specific, all of them 'private' flights.

One, in particular, witnessed by many of us, stands out.
A number of us were enjoying an after-work beer at the High Flyer Hotel at Bankstown. (This was around '83-'84).
We did notice a heated discussion developing on the other side of the room between people, some of whom were known to us from the airport.
One young fellow, in particular, seemed to be getting a bit excited. He subsequently left and things quietened down.

After having had my couple, I said my goodbyes and left to drive home.
As I was leaving, I heard an aircraft apparently 'buzzing' the hotel. At the time, I didn't make any connection between the earlier arguing and the 'unusual' flying happening overhead.

Some distance down the road, I heard the aircraft noise suddenly cease and looked around to see a sizeable fire near the airport boundary.
I turned around and went back to see emergency services already arriving on the scene. Nothing could be done but to extinguish the flames.

It turned out that the argumentative young chap, a student pilot, had (quite intoxicated, it seems) gone across to the flying school, knocked off one of their aircraft and proceeded to demonstrate to people in the pub what he was made of.

(I saw some of his remains the following morning, so I know what he WAS made of.)

etrang; I said a FEW - 3, actually. Please take the trouble to read paragraph 2 of my original post. I implied nothing, statistically, beyond that.

49th; OK, I've given you ONE. I think that's as much as I want to relate in one post, thankyou. Stay tuned.

Flying Lawyer; Oh, I see, so there's no difference between 'any' and a statistically 'minute number'? Hmm.

Flying Lawyer

2nd Nov 2014, 14:37

sharksandwich So we can be more or less agreed that alcohol actually plays such little part in the performance/non-performance of pilots with regard to recorded accidents/incidents that it can be disregarded.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean but, for the avoidance of any misunderstanding, I don't agree that the risks posed by alcohol can or should be disregarded.

Coffin Corner
"Why" have there been so few related accidents? One pilot intoxicated, one pilot not, that could be the answer.
Possibly.
Is that your experience? Generally? At Flybe?Look at it this way; both pilots intoxicated. Now would you feel so comfortable placing your loved ones aboard?
I believe the chances of that happening are so remote that I never give it a thought.
Should I? Is the very reason there hasn't been many accidents attributed to alcohol down to the fact that there is, generally speaking, one sober crew member on board?
It could be. Is that your experience?
Or is it the case "generally speaking" that neither pilot's ability to fly is impaired by alcohol?

No, of course the statistics don't exonerate alcohol as being debilitating to a pilot's ability to undertake his roles nor, equally obviously, do they point to the fact that it's ok to have a wee tipple before boarding an aircraft as flight crew. Is that common practice these days in your experience?

Statistics - Never tell the whole story.
What's the whole story?
Is it your experience that pilots commonly fly whilst impaired by alcohol?
I'm led to believe, by sources I regard as reliable, that there has been a significant culture change during recent decades. Have I been misled?

Stanwell
Flying Lawyer; Oh, I see, so there's no difference between 'any' and a statistically 'minute number'? Hmm.
:confused:

I thought it highly unlikely that I would have said that so I checked my post. I didn't.

(BTW, I've noticed that you often begin your posts with a full stop.
Why? Just curious.)

Stanwell

2nd Nov 2014, 15:35

FL,
The question was asked..
"When has there been an accident primarily due to intoxication?"
Your response was along the lines of..
"despite the millions of miles flown every year, only a minute fraction..."

I cite three such aviation 'accidents' of which I, in my limited time on this planet, have personal knowledge.
Does that, statistically, make me an unrepresentative sample?

Re the stop at the start of some of the posts, I'll let you in on that by PM.

Cheers.

Flying Lawyer

2nd Nov 2014, 16:33

Stanwell

I quoted the question I was addressing: Have there been many accidents when intoxication has been the main factor?

I stand by the answer I gave.

pattern_is_full

2nd Nov 2014, 16:38

So we can be more or less agreed that alcohol actually plays such little part in the performance/non-performance of pilots with regard to recorded accidents/incidents that it can be disregarded.

I don't think we know that at all. Not based on the data presented so far.

Not unless we know:

The percentage and raw number of flights conducted by impaired pilots.

And the percentage of THOSE FLIGHTS which result in an accident - as compared with the accident rate overall.

The only way to test that is to test every crew for alcohol or drugs before every flight, and then let them fly, regardless of the test results, and record what happens.

There is a big difference between:

- What percentage of accidents are due to alcohol impairment?
- What are the odds of alcohol impairment resulting in an accident?

This report mentions an experiment in which 50 percent of instrument-rated pilots with a BAC over 0.12 lost control of their aircraft.

Alcohol Violations and Aviation Accidents: Findings from the U.S. Mandatory Alcohol Testing Program (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2041869/)

It is unlikely, thanks to self-policing by pilots, and regulatory testing and the threat of testing, that any given flight will be conducted by alcohol-impaired pilots. Even in GA, alcohol impairment found in fatal accidents has shrunk from 30% in the 1960s to 8% in the 1990s. A cultural change.

Biscuit Head

2nd Nov 2014, 16:44

I don't think anybody would argue that intoxicaton impairs ones ability to fly. What I am wondering about this is how the police get involved. I am only a microlight flyer so I don't know anything about professional flying. But if you suspect a colleague of being over the limit, surely somebody from the company could be called to give him a breath test and ground him. Why get the police?

vmandr

2nd Nov 2014, 17:13

@Stanwell

a few I know of.. the first one is a classic...

ASN Aircraft accident McDonnell Douglas DC-8-62AF JA8054 Anchorage International Airport, AK (ANC) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19770113-0)

JAL-DC8-62

The DC-8 had been cleared for a runway 24L departure. Taxiing to the runway in thick fog, the crew ended up on runway 24R. Tower control gave directions and the crew then taxied to runway 24L. Just after lifting off the runway, the DC-8 stalled and crashed 300m past the runway. The initial blood alcohol level of the captain was 298 mgs percent. A blood alcohol level of 100 mgs percent was considered to be legally intoxicating for drivers in the State of Alaska.

PROBABLE CAUSE: "A stall that resulted from the pilot's control inputs aggravated by airframe icing while the pilot was under the influence of alcohol. Contributing to the cause of this accident was the failure of the other flightcrew members to prevent the captain from attempting the flight."

and,

ASN Aircraft accident Learjet 25D N999BH Pecos, NM (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19930905-1)

and,

ASN Aircraft accident Learjet 25 N51CA Newark International Airport, NJ (EWR) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19830330-1)

Night check courier flight. The Learjet descended steep and fast for runway 04R and bounced on landing. It banked to the right, hit the ground and burned. Both pilots exposed to marijuana and CO2 in blood from smoking.

PROBABLE CAUSE: "(a) Loss of control following ground contact, (b) an unstabilized approach. and c) impairment of the flightcrew's judgment, decisionmaking, and flying abilities by a combination of physiological and psychological factors."

the following is interesting too..

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-08/bottle-to-throttle-a-short-history-of-drunk-pilots

tdracer

2nd Nov 2014, 17:38

I recall reviewing a 737 accident report several years ago - the memory is vague but I think it was a -300 in China. During an attempted go-around, the engines didn't respond symmetrically (not uncommon pre-FADEC), the pilot responded badly, aircraft rolled and crashed - no survivors.

While the "official" cause of the crash was the asymmetric engine response, the pilot flying had a blood alcohol over 0.2% :eek:. I feel pretty comfortable that the minor technical glitch could have been adequately handled by a sober pilot - even a newbie.
I also have a vague memory of a fatal news chopper crash in Colorado where the pilot had just left a Christmas party and was drunk on his ass.

So, is 'drunk flying' a major problem? No, but it is a problem, aircraft have crashed, and people have died. As SLF, I feel perfectly justified in demanding that the guys (or gals) up front are competent and sober.

Flying Lawyer

2nd Nov 2014, 19:42

The 737 accident you mention sounds very much like the crash of the South China Airlines B737-300 in 1992 - although it didn't occur during an attempted go-around.
To the best of my recollection, the accident report didn't say anything about alcohol.
I assume you had 'inside information'?

The Colorado crash sounds like the Jetranger crash even longer ago in December 1982 when the (single) pilot of a news helicopter pressed on at night in atrocious weather (snow & fog) in mountainous terrain.

"drunk on his ass"
The pilot's alcohol level (some hours later) was 0.093%
(I doubt if it would be possible to fly a light helicopter while 'drunk on your ass'. ;) )

sharksandwich

2nd Nov 2014, 22:52

FL, when I said the risks posed by drunken pilots was negligible, I was of course taking into account that most pilots are responsible, that there has been a culture change with regard to alcohol and work generally which discourages irresponsible behavior, and that random tests sharpen awareness, so it is extremely rare for a pilot to go to work intoxicated.
(I was of course joking when I said I would refer a BA captain with a half bottle of wine,etc.)
In all seriousness, pilots are no more immune to alcohol problems than any other professional group, and I am concerned that the police seem to get involved at an early stage. This harshness is likely to discourage people from getting help before things get out of hand for them.
Do most airlines have in-house treatment programmes I wonder?
I believe it is entirely possible to go to work not realizing one has a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit, but it is not possible to innocently go to work with alcohol on the breath or some other signs of intoxication which give rise to the concern of colleagues. These people have clearly got a problem and they must be aware of it.The only "treatment" being arrest and dismissal, especially after sometimes decades of loyal service seems both unfair and unjust.

fox niner

3rd Nov 2014, 07:19

abou ten years ago there was a crash of a 737 in the Ural mountains, of which it was determined that the flight crew was intoxicated. I don't recall the exact details...

vmandr

3rd Nov 2014, 08:04

one of many(?) in that region...

Aeroflot Flight 821 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_821) '...possible alcohol consumption'
ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 737-505 VP-BKO Perm Airport (PEE) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20080914-0)
'...an unspecified amount of alcohol was detected in the pilot's body..'

TWT

3rd Nov 2014, 08:50

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/343141-aeroflot-b737-down-near-perm.html

Coffin Corner

3rd Nov 2014, 09:19

Possibly.
Is that your experience? Generally? At Flybe?

What a ridiculous statement.

I believe the chances of that happening are so remote that I never give it a thought.
Should I?

Why should that be any more remote or unlikely than any other possibility? Does that mean it couldn't happen? A wing falling off is so remote, but it's happened. A thrust reverser deploying in flight is so remote, but it's happened. A pilot committing suicide and killing everyone on board is so remote, but it's happened. I don't get your point.

It could be. Is that your experience?
Or is it the case "generally speaking" that neither pilot's ability to fly is impaired by alcohol?
No, of course the statistics don't exonerate alcohol as being debilitating to a pilot's ability to undertake his roles nor, equally obviously, do they point to the fact that it's ok to have a wee tipple before boarding an aircraft as flight crew. Is that common practice these days in your experience?

My experience? See answer to quote 1.
Is it common practice to have a tipple before flying? You tell me, you obviously fly, have you witnessed it?

What's the whole story?
Is it your experience that pilots commonly fly whilst impaired by alcohol?
I'm led to believe, by sources I regard as reliable, that there has been a significant culture change during recent decades. Have I been misled?

You tell me what the whole story is, I don't work for the AAIB. Statistics never answer all the unanswered questions, hence they can't possibly "tell the whole story".
Is it my experience that pilots fly whilst impaired by alcohol? Just as ridiculous as quote 1. What do you want me to say? It's easier to count the sober pilots? You spin more rhetoric than the house of lords.
A culture change? In which direction? Would you care to elaborate your experiences?

SLFguy

3rd Nov 2014, 11:49

I want to know about Stanwell's full stop..

Stanwell

3rd Nov 2014, 12:24

Well, OK then.
I was going to PM FL to answer his question (not wishing to take up space on a thread discussing more serious matters). - But, since you also ask...

It's pretty simple, really.
Having served some time as a publishing graphic designer, if I'm not using a heading or addressee's moniker, I like to leave a little space between the header bar and the first line of text - It aids visual communication.

Now, can we get back to the subject at hand please.

Flying Lawyer

3rd Nov 2014, 16:29

Coffin Corner

Ridiculous?

You asserted that statistics never tell the whole story.
I agree.
Why then, in a discussion about pilots and alcohol, is it ridiculous to ask what you have or have not seen during your career?
Your answer(s) would not tell the whole story but snippets of information can sometimes contribute towards building a picture.

Of course a remote chance does not (by definition) mean it couldn't happen. I'm sorry you didn't understand my response to your point; perhaps I should have expressed myself more clearly. I'll try again.
You mentioned (post 46) the possibility of either both or one pilot being impaired by alcohol. The reason I don't give that a thought when I board an aircraft, far less worry about it, is that I regard both possibilities as extremely remote.
I take the same approach to the catastrophic scenarios you mentioned in post 60 (wing falling off, pilot committing suicide etc). ie Possible but extremely unlikely.

You raised the issue of a 'tipple before flying' so why is it ridiculous to ask if that is common practice in your experience?
No, I have not witnessed anyone drinking before flying. I am aware of one PPL who, according to several reliable sources, was in the habit of doing so but I did not witness it.
What do you want me to say?I hoped you'd say what you have observed as an F/O and more recently as a captain with a lo-co European carrier flying a Q400 about (I estimate) 500-600 hours annually.
The experience of long-haul pilots, or even pilots with other European carriers, might be different; I don't know and would be interested to learn.

A culture change? In which direction? Would you care to elaborate your experiences? I'm happy to elaborate what I meant but my comment was based upon what I have learnt through working closely with the industry for many years not upon personal experiences. (I hold fixed-wing and rotary licences but I am not a professional pilot.)

Even if some pilots were inclined to take a chance years ago (I'm sure many of us have at least heard anecdotes), my impression based upon discussions with current and former professional pilot friends is that the attitude towards drinking/flying has changed significantly in the past twenty years or so – beginning long before (Police) breath-testing was introduced into UK aviation. If that is correct, it would be consistent with the change in attitude towards drink-driving. ie A significant reduction in instances coupled with a significant increase in peer disapproval of such behaviour.

The creation of a new offence in 2003 meant that flight crew had to be even more careful because abiding by the old rule/adage, variously expressed as 8 or 12 hours between bottle and throttle, would not necessarily ensure that their blood/alcohol level would be below the very low prescribed legal limit if they were to be tested by police when reporting for duty.
(I represented the first pilot to be prosecuted under the new law – December 2004. http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/136060-lhr-breathtest-update-captain-jailed-2.html#post1639296

I do not suggest that every pilot over the limit has been, or will be, caught. However, I believe that the vastly overwhelming majority of professional pilots conduct themselves responsibly and professionally; that includes abiding by the restrictions relating to alcohol.

If you consider my views to be ridiculous, no doubt you'll say so - again.

sharksandwich
Thank you for explaining what you meant.
I agree.

tdracer

3rd Nov 2014, 16:58

The 737 accident you mention sounds very much like the crash of the South China Airlines B737-300 in 1992 - although it didn't occur during an attempted go-around.

Sorry, faulty memory - it wasn't China, I checked with the coworker that forwarded me the report and it was Russia.
ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 737-505 VP-BKO Perm Airport (PEE) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20080914-0)
The ASN says "unspecified" alcohol, I'm assuming the report I saw was limited release since it did specify - and it was high :eek:

vmandr

3rd Nov 2014, 23:07

tdracer

UK was a participant in the investigation
got full report. very interesting material.. :sad:

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/VP-BKO_Report_en.pdf

No Fly Zone

4th Nov 2014, 10:00

I will reserve judgment until I see a verdict and confirmed numbers. However, an error on the side of extreme caution - removing the pilot from the flight - is the only fit and proper course at the moment. With even the slightest doubt, it is a No Fly Zone!:sad:

Airbanda

4th Nov 2014, 10:27

Reports of pilots removed from flight and/or arrested seem to come up every six months or so in UK. Approx a year ago a Pakistan airlines pilot was jailed after being removed from a flight from Leeds Bradford to Lahore.

Drunk PIA Pilot Irfan Faiz Jailed In Britain (http://news.sky.com/story/1172391/drunk-pia-pilot-irfan-faiz-jailed-in-britain)

IIRC there have been a few at LHR involving US airlines.

Hopefully the media will be as keen to report any acquittal as they are to headline 'dramatic' arrests.

ShotOne

4th Nov 2014, 10:33

What do you mean by "slightest doubt", no fly? There is an established procedure and police are empowered to test anyone performing an aviation related function (not just pilots) if they are suspected to be under the influence. This procedure is pretty robust but not quite the same as removal for "slightest doubt".

I can honestly say in 25 years plus of commercial flying I've never encountered an issue. I'm intrigued though, why degraded performance due to alcohol should be a cast iron front-page cause for tabloid hysteria while degraded performance due to fatigue is happily accepted by regulators and the travelling public.

A and C

6th Nov 2014, 14:58

Due to the professional attitude of almost all pilots the statistical risk of a passenger getting on an airliner with one crewmember under the influence of alcohol is almost nil and the chances of being in an accident caused by that crewmember is even closer to nil ( and that is just the way it should be) but it makes a very good headline in the papers when they can bring down an individual in authority with a story in about a drunk pilot without bringing down the whole system.

The elephant in the room is that a guy fresh from his bed with an achohol reading just above the very low limit is likely to be in a much better state to fly than a pilot who is on the fifth very early start of the week and has the very subtle fatigue setting in and as is the nature of the fatigue beast not aware of his lack of fitness to fly.

It is easy to measure achohol, almost imposable to mesure fatigue, In the eyes of the gutter press a pilot just over the very low acohol limit is a drunk, a pilot who phones in with fatgue and delays the holiday of Mrs Miggins will be overpaid and lazy according to the press.

It is easy to be seen dealing with the alcohol non problem, it is very expensive to deal properly with the fatgue problem and the press who would not want to be responsable for pricing flights out of the reach of their readers.

Before the totaly anti alcohol PC brigade get going nothing said above condones flying above the acohol limit.

Barcli

6th Nov 2014, 15:02

well said A and C :D

Mac the Knife

6th Nov 2014, 15:52

Agree with A and C

The situation is very similar in surgery/medicine, with fatigue a far more likely cause of mishaps.

[NB - General aviation is a different ball game]

JW411

6th Nov 2014, 17:27

Amen to that.

Lord Spandex Masher

6th Nov 2014, 17:28

The elephant in the room is that a guy fresh from his bed with an achohol reading just above the very low limit is likely to be in a much better state to fly than a pilot who is on the fifth very early start of the week and has the very subtle fatigue setting in and as is the nature of the fatigue beast not aware of his lack of fitness to fly.

Not a bad point but do we know if this guy was fresh from his bed or on his fifth early as well as being pished?

A and C

6th Nov 2014, 18:17

You can't tell !

But you are unlikely to put much money on a horse that had the same odds as getting on an airliner with a pilot who was over the alcohol limit.

I would suggest the odds of getting on an airliner with the crew suffering fatigue would be much more in favour of you getting some money back from the bookies ( unfortunately ).

Dysonsphere

6th Nov 2014, 18:37

I remember when I was a pupil and hadn't really being breifed on the drink limits for pilots. Was safe to drive but lucky for me was only doing circuits with my instructror. found out couldn't judge landing, on debrief asked if I had been drinking last night (yes). Lesson learnt guess I was lucky.

Consol

6th Nov 2014, 18:56

Well said A and C, rare common sense.

I've been waiting for my coffee or walking to the gates with it in my hand (I'm not EK) and heard comments made by passengers on the lines of 'at least that is all he is drinking'. I would guess there are a few nasties out there who would rejoice in 'bringing down a peg or two' a pilot. Be careful out there, know the rules, stick to them and regrettably, treat passengers and security with a bit of healthy suspicion.

jayteeto

6th Nov 2014, 20:07

The speed limit on UK motorways is 70mph. Many argue that this is wrong. It may be, but if you break the law you get punished. Some argue the drink drive limit is too low, but you still lose your licence.
In this case, a pilot exceeded the limit set by the authority. Some say he REALLY rang the bell on the pissometer. Where is the argument here??? Over the limit, go to jail, go directly to jail, do not collect £200, the end.
Simulator tests have shown alcohol does affect ability, fact.

The question of fatigue is a good one, but you do yourselves zero favours saying that you would rather have a pissed pilot than a fatigued one. NEITHER are acceptable.

He knew the rules and broke them. It is TOTALLY irrelevant that the rules are wrong.

A and C

6th Nov 2014, 20:17

Please read the last paragraph of post #69, you then might understand that I said that both a pilot over the alcohol limit and one who is fatigued are both unacceptable but you are far more likely to fly with a fatigued pilot.

Uncle Fred

6th Nov 2014, 20:51

Well said A and C. Nearly all of us clearly understand that you are set against both showing up fatigued or being above the alcohol limit.

Perhaps a topic for a new thread, but I have always wondered about the fine line between fatigued and just being very tired. Indeed fatigue is a danger--in just about any field where mental and physical coordination are involved. This ranges equally for piloting, surgery, or driving a fork lift at the local warehouse.

Although I have done a lot of lay reading on fatigue, I wonder how many accidents/incidents have been caused by just being out of sleep--even if it is not true fatigue.

Now I know the general public would crease over in laughter at someone even raising the idea of being "tired" for is not every gent/lady who works for a living tired at the end of the day? Indeed.

Yet I could be Rip van Winkle and have been asleep for a few years but keep me awake for 24 hours and I am going to be prone to mistakes. I think it has been a serious error for piloting groups just to trumpet the ill effects of fatigue (which of course they should be doing) but not expanding it to when pilots are just plain gassed.

I am not sure how to thread that needle but I do feel we do ourselves a disservice at times but having to let crewmembers go all the way to full fatigue before we raise the red card.

Your point is well taken however. Impairment, irrespective of its origin, has no place in the cockpit.

fokker1000

6th Nov 2014, 23:25

So Kayteeeto,
You say the rules are wrong… Or have I misunderstood your post?:}

fokker1000

6th Nov 2014, 23:35

And I must assume you are in the industry, not just another of the thousand or so armchair critics, or dare I guess media types.

A and C

7th Nov 2014, 06:50

This thread is starting to show more about the way this industry sees its self than the truth of the matter.

Some above have a very black and white view to incapacitation, I think that this is because they feel professional embarrassed when a fellow pilot turns up in the press over the drink limit and so rush to jump on the outrage bus.

Drinking and flying is not a serious issue for this industry flying fatigue is ! the very few who do drink and fly are a serious issue.

Part of the problem is the attitude of the press and the wish of so called journalists to make a big splash, getting the under achiving lower middle classes outraged sells a lot of copy's of the Mail and Express, to this end they will bend the truth to breaking point. I was the witness to the tragic fall from long haul pilot to vagrant of a guy with a drink problem. He had called in sick because of his problem and three days later he was caught driving his car over the limit, dispite the fact that he had called in sick three days previous one of the UK's tabloids headlined this as drunk on the way to work as he had been previously rostered to fly that day.
I have no doubt that the cheap and untrue actions of this newspaper had a detrimental effect on a guy who was seeking help for a problem and trying to get it sorted. I personally put 90% of the blame for this guys failure to recover from his achohol problem on the journalist who was more than happy kick this guy when he was down with an untrue story just to sell a few newspapers.

And so we see that a pilot who is incapacitated by drink is an easy target for selling newspapers and some above are just as happy to jump on the outrage bus but the fatigue incapasitation issue is almost imposable to define in the press and it is far too complicated to sell newspapers to the likes of Mrs Miggins.

And just to make it clear to the anti alcohol PC brigade nothing I have said above condones drinking and flying ( or driving ) it is just an observation of the attitudes of some on this forum who for their own reasons get outraged by one problem and try to pretend another even more serious problem even exists.

jayteeto

7th Nov 2014, 08:55

51 years old, career professional pilot.
Have I ever turned in whilst unfit? Yes, once, in a past life before my civil career. After an end of show party at one of the worlds largest airshows. I had a slot time to make and felt shabby. I forgot to engage the autopilot, lifted downwind and the crowd thought my departure was me showing off....... It wasnt.
Since then I have had some altercations stopping people entering the cockpit to make MY mistake. Once a squadron commander ordered me to let a junior pilot fly from germany when the plan changed at the last minute. Lets say he was incandescant with me stopping the flight. I stood my ground and he spent the whole flight back throwing up in the cabin. When the bass saw him, he thanked me for being a c@@t (his words).
So, Im not perfect, never claimed to be. In my civil career I have never ever turned up over the limit. Plan boozing for rest days.
Do I think it is an incorrect limit? Hell Yes!! But its what we have for now, live with it. If you want to start a campaign to link flying limits to driving limits, I am in. Just dont link this case in hand to the law being wrong. We have to work with what we have for now, nobody is above the law, no matter how stupid the law is.

A and C

7th Nov 2014, 10:34

This is not about changing the alcohol limits for flying.

It is about how the common problem of pilot fatigue is perceived in comparison with the very uncommon problem of alcohol on the flight deck both within the industry and the press.

Toruk Macto

7th Nov 2014, 11:02

No doubt we will look back in horror at the fatigue that was allowed in the industry today . How it will change is the worry . Someone flying with a substance abuse problem needs to be grounded and treated .

skridlov

7th Nov 2014, 13:33

I'm not in the industry although I am one of its customers from time to time. I'm also someone, regrettably, with personal experience of addiction to alcohol and almost 25 years of freedom from that addiction. I also know an awful lot of people similarly afflicted who have either recovered or still persisting in this behavioural disorder (or "illness" if you prefer.)

Of the thousands of stories I've heard from fellow alcoholics over the years, and the literature I've read on the subject, I can confidently say that all sectors of society and every profession is afflicted to some degree by this problem. There are plenty of anomalies - for example the medical profession is over-represented: I have no idea why. There are also firm genetic correlations; if you have someone in the immediately family with an alcohol/addiction problem your chances of also having one are a multiple of the statistical general population average.

For anyone interested in the numbers and the sociology Harvard Medical School have been running a long-term prospective study of this affliction, the results of which are published as "The Natural History of Alcoholism" in various revised editions.

I'm sure that the aviation industry has more significant safety problems than alcoholism. However I'm equally sure that it includes an equivalent proportion of alcoholics, more or less, to the general population. That'd be quite a few people, pilots included. What often escapes people's understanding where this phenomenon is concerned is that alcoholism is frequently managed by the functioning alcoholic so that at a superficial level their performance is not obviously affected. Quite often it's only when some crisis point is reached where their condition becomes apparent to their colleagues, family and friends - although those closest are obviously more likely to witness the underlying dysfunction. So there are probably plenty of alcoholics flying aircraft whose blood alcohol content is nil or legal.

Alcohol is so integrated into western society that the problems it causes are frequently rationalised away. But it's an addictive drug, just like heroin - although the physical dependency is slower in onset. And the functioning alcoholic who is never, ever drunk on the job (any job) is still an individual whose performance is compromised, subtly or otherwise. Choosing to look the other way doesn't do functioning alcoholics any favours, but that's what we often do.

Uncle Fred

7th Nov 2014, 18:38

Very well said Skridlov. Very well said.

sharksandwich

7th Nov 2014, 22:13

I would bet my house that more than one person who has read this thread has wondered how long their luck will last, or think they have had a lucky escape. Not a huge amount, but more than one.
There is a huge stigma attached to problem drinking, not helped by the huge industry which "treats" alcoholism and has a vested interest in keeping it high profile as a "disease" which needs specialized treatment.
It would help if the person worried about their drinking realized that it is not a reflection on their personal strength if they find it hard to refuse the last drink or feel a compulsion to take the party back to their room, even thought they have commitments the next morning.
Having a drink problem is not the same as being an alcoholic (though the treatment is the same- abstinence).The majority of people who are having problems with their drinking can return to enjoying a drink, as long as they have a period of abstinence which is long enough for them to learn why they are drinking to excess right now, and to know that there is an alternative.
We don't have to wait until the axe falls.

jayteeto

8th Nov 2014, 15:15

Well said. Particularly the bit about not all culprits being alcoholics. Mandalay party culture plus many other reasons can occur

Asterea

9th Nov 2014, 23:06

sharksandwich - what is your evidence for your contention that: "the majority of people who are having problems with their drinking can return to enjoying a drink, as long as they have a period of abstinence which is long enough for them to learn why they are drinking to excess right now, and to know that there is an alternative."? My experience as a mental health professional is the opposite, i.e. that the majority of people who are having problems with their drinking cannot return to 'enjoying a drink'. Insight into the underlying reasons as to why one drinks to excess is not sufficient to change the behaviour in and of itself, (with or without a period of abstinence to facilitate the insight).

sharksandwich

10th Nov 2014, 00:12

Asterea- professional experience over 30 years.PM me if you would like more info.

finfly1

10th Nov 2014, 16:30

Because your assertion that the 'majority' of problem drinkers can resume normal drinking following a suitable pause is so at variance with most of the literature on the subject, including my own 30 PLUS years of experience, I would be interested to see any reputable studies substantiating this claim which you might care to post.

Deep and fast

10th Nov 2014, 17:06

Fatigue doesn't have a social stigma attached to it so don't expect anyone buying a ticket to give a toss any time soon.
FTR I have been on the wrong side of long term chronic fatigue and didn't have a clue!
Been there! Fatigue has long gone but the tee shirt feels like a tattoo.

Pozidrive

10th Nov 2014, 17:10

And of course fatigue can't be detected and quantified - there's no "breathalyser" to do that.

Uncle Fred

10th Nov 2014, 22:27

Actually Pozidrive there is at least something that is being looked at as a decent and reliable indicator if someone is too tired to perform certain tasks. That something is how quickly one's eyes/pupils can contract or dilate.

The idea here is that whether on the line of sleepy or truly fatigued the bottom line is impairment. Again, this is being looked at and has by no means been perfected. It does however, show a lot of promise and was not something that sprung from the flying industry but rather after looking into shift work accidents.

I am sure the airline industry would push back violently against such a "test" but I would like to see some of the science progress with it. Impaired is impaired without rest no matter what the reason.

Remember, just something that is being worked at...

westhawk

11th Nov 2014, 03:53

Cognitive function testing has been under research for decades and progress has been made in defining measurable parameters. The difficulty seems to be in finding consensus on an acceptable objective standard for defining the parameters for acceptance or rejection. Meanwhile most societies will continue to apply the arbitrary BAC as being the standard for acceptance or rejection for vehicle operators. Perhaps someday a more objective cognitive function standard will be applied which recognizes cognitive function impairment causality is not limited to just the socially stigmatized acts of being impaired by alcohol or drugs.

Dr Mark Rosekind (along with others) has participated in fatigue research and as an NTSB board member, has advocated for further recognition of fatigue as a cognitive function inhibitor. Perhaps someday reason will prevail over the entrenched attitude that fatigue is just an excuse for the lazy. If a pilot is tired he or she needs to be careful how they broach the subject lest they be referred for a medical "sleep study" or become subject to being disciplined for absenteeism!

The tide of general opinion is influenced by reason and ignorance, and generally shifts very slowly, but is progressing in the right direction. (very slowly)

Even with all that said, taking a drink (or several!) is still a conscious choice made by the individual concerned. A pilot is expected to make responsible choices wherever they may affect one's suitability for flight duty. Screwing up once and having to call off sick or fatigued is an error. Doing it multiple times is a pattern of behavior and probably indicates the need for some sort of professional help.

I had a guy show up at the airplane for an early short notice call out for a charter flight. He was by my estimation about half in the bag. I told him to go away and that I wouldn't volunteer that I'd ever seen him that morning if he would call the CP and explain why he couldn't fly today. The CP called me 20 minutes later to tell me the guy had resigned and that a different FO would be arriving soon. He asked after my own "suitability for flight" and I told him that the 4 hours of sleep I'd had would likely be sufficient to carry me through to about noon before I'd have to check into a hotel to get some more sleep. The trip was scheduled to be completed by then so no problem as long as it didn't involve alcohol!

deptrai

11th Nov 2014, 06:37

If I have the choice between an experienced, safe, relaxed cow-orker who broke the bottle-to-throttle rule by 30 minures because he accidentally swallowed some mouthwash, before getting 8 hours of good sleep, and a “sober”, yet underpaid, stressed guy on a crappy roster, who falls asleep because he's dead tired, and can't focus because he's worried how he'll pay his dentist... hmmm... difficult choice.

A and C

11th Nov 2014, 08:42

You make a very good point about the conditions the induce fatigue and the fact that fatigue can't be cured by one good nights sleep.

Poor rosters, long duty hours in the small hours and not knowing how you are going to pay both the bank loan for the pilot training and the mortgage are all fatigue inducing factors............. What that guy needs is a holiday.......and that he can't afford !!!!!

As usual it all goes back to cost and blame, the lawyers can pin incapasitation from alcohol on an individual without a shadow of doubt, an airline boss who's business practices result in an accident that has fatigue as a major contributory factor will be far more slippery even if it gets as far as court.

Agaricus bisporus

11th Nov 2014, 09:49

How much good research has been done into flying under the influence as opposed to driving research being extrapolated into aviation?

To play Devil's advocate for a moment, aren't there substantial differences between the tasks and reactions required by car drivers and pilots? In that car drivers often experience what amounts to close formation flying for hours at a time (equivalent to half a car's width/wingspan on multi-lane roads) or head-on traffic avoidance with scant inches of clearance, often at very high combined speeds and in the dark/poor vis and with an absence of visual references that would terrify any pilot. There is virtually nothing that pilots experience that requires continuous, repeated and extended instant speed/distance judgements, rather sitting there trying not to get the leans if hand flying, nothing closer than a mile or two/1000ft and a buddy to keep them out of trouble. Even landing is imo a far less taxing "instant decision" phase than driving on a 2 lane road with oncoming traffic, and it is that instant control/judgement loop that alcohol strongly affects.
I'm not talking about emergencies, just routine flying which is what the stats will depend on. Even so damn few emergencies in the air result in the sort of instant and dire difficulties a dui would experience with, say a tyre blowing on the 2 lane road...Of course pilots under the influence are degraded, I just suspect they are far less degraded in practice than the layman would imagine.
We are, after all, expected to have brains like razors and perfect eagle-vision unlike granny in her Fiesta - yet she stays out of trouble on the roads most of the time. Why?

A and C

11th Nov 2014, 11:01

The car driver vs pilot a analergy is an interesting one and deserves futher investigation.

As most of the general public live a 9 to 5 lifestyle, going to sleep at night and working during the day I would guess that would have a large influence on the numbers, perhaps if you look at the numbers for those who have jobs that require nightshift work you might find things are a little more deferent I would hazard a guess that the road accident numbers for Heath care workers is higher than for the public at large.

wowzz

11th Nov 2014, 12:52

Slight thread drift, but there seem to be regular incidents reported on the early morning traffic [before 7:00 am] reports of delays caused by a jack-knifed lorry even when the weather s perfect. I always wonder if these are caused by driver fatigue, or rather drivers driving at times to which their bodies are not accustomed.

Agaricus bisporus

11th Nov 2014, 16:02

A combination of fatigue and habitually driving at a small fraction of their braking distance from the vehicle in front.

skridlov

11th Nov 2014, 16:53

I don't want to clog up this thread with comments from someone who isn't even in the aviation industry but I'd like to clarify a couple of points.

One post states that there's a difference between "a drinking problem" and "alcoholism". After almost a quarter century of interest in this subject I'd have to say that this is a meaningless distinction. Whichever label is chosen the phenomenon's the same. It could be said that the only really useful definition of "alcoholism" is one which is applied to an alcoholic by himself.

As for the notion that for people who have a serious compulsion to drink (avoiding for the moment the labels mentioned previously) it's quite possible to revert to "normal" drinking, I'd say that this is not borne out by either my own experience or by the evidence from studies I've read. Which is not to say that it's unknown. As best I recall, in the Harvard study there is evidence that amongst a blue-collar set of the sample there is evidence of this reversion where, after getting married and "settling down", some individuals who, during adolescence and early adulthood, had previously met the DSM criteria for alcoholism no longer did so.

But it looks more likely that after a sustained period of heavy alcohol use, whether episodic or regular, the behaviour pattern becomes "hard wired". Which is something alcoholism has in common with other behavioural disorders. Personally I'd rather like a glass of decent claret occasionally but the risk/reward ratio, having seen many people crash and burn after engaging in similar experiments, is unacceptable. Abstinence appears to be the only reliable solution.

Many "high-functioning" alcoholics may never be found drunk on the job for decades - or ever. Unfortunately the damage to emotional responses done by habitual drinking becomes significant long before intellectual or physical symptoms appear. This alone can significantly erode decision-making processes.

For anyone concerned about their own relationship with alcohol (or drugs for that matter) there are a number of questionnaires published which enable a rough evaluation. Here's one:
Alcohol Self Test | 20 Questions | 20 Question Alcohol Self Test | Alcohol self-test | Alcoholic Test | 20 Questions | AA (http://www.step12.com/alcoholic-20-questions.html)

This derives from the 12-step AA movement which not everyone can stomach but it's useful. There are several others, essentially similar, widely available online. One thing I'm quite certain about is that having done these questionnaires at the beginning of their recovery and scored high enough to qualify, every alcoholic I know scored far higher when repeating the test a couple of years into sobriety - myself included! Denial is often the litmus test of alcoholism.

manrow

11th Nov 2014, 17:52

westhawk in post 97 gives his version of events when he turned up for work at short notice and observed his FO was not up to the task (for whatever reason).

I wonder how others would react when you turn up in the hotel reception with all of the crew for a scheduled early morning departure from an island airfield, and the captain is not there? The FO phoned the captain, who mumbled that it was best if all the crew could continue to the airport, and prepare the aircraft for departure as he would join them as soon as possible. When the captain arrived shortly before departure time, he was clearly not capable of completing the flight, slurred speech, and a suspicion of alcohol on his breath, which was compounded when he could not complete the load sheet.

The FO refused to fly with the captain, who protested his innocence; it needed the local police to remove the protesting captain from his seat, and eventually be replaced by the standby captain who arrived an hour later from the same hotel.

All of this occurred a long time ago, in 1978 in fact, but how would you have responded, or recommended this FO to respond?

Mowgli

12th Nov 2014, 09:37

Manrow there is plenty of good advice earlier in this thread.

I have been involved in aviation as a professional pilot long enough to know that whilst alcohol and flying should not be allowed, by far the biggest problem for aviation safety is fatigue; mentioned earlier on this thread here and eloquently put by C and A.

I also instruct Human Factors, and in that role I am obliged to study in detail the reports of air accidents. This further convinces me that fatigue is what should grab headlines, but sorting out that problem would cost money and put up the price of the ticket.

The industry will be "happy" to see headlines about drunk pilots because it is an easy "problem" to solve, thereby making their actions and those of the regulators and law makers appear to be effective , whilst it diverts attention away from the true threat to safety which is fatiguing work patterns and shifts. Add to that a general lowering of pay and T and Cs, and the stage is set.

Uncle Fred

12th Nov 2014, 11:55

Very good thread going on here--probably the best so far as it is folding in what is an equally dangerous impairment in fatigue/tiredness.

Unfortunately these discussions usually have just devolved into a dogfight. Glad to see some serious and thoughtful input!

I would agree that from my experience in the industry that tiredness/fatigue is a real and constant threat and one that we as piloting groups are just starting to push back with.

Airbanda

13th Nov 2014, 12:27

Meanwhile another operator and another airport:

Pilot admits to being over drink-fly limit | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/13/pilot-admits-over-drink-fly-limit)

In this case Norwich and a Canadair Challenger so probably a private charter rather than an holiday flight.

Stanwell

13th Nov 2014, 12:45

airbanda,
This one was reported in post #24.
Interesting to see that he readily(?) admitted it, though.

Coltishall. loved it

14th Nov 2014, 19:55

Ok, I know the rules are the rules but: I actually feel sympathy for this gentleman.

It’s as usual the press I feel contempt for, headline: PILOT 3 TIMES OVER THE LIMIT. Now 99% of the population thinks that this man was absolutely hammered.

As we know he wasn’t 3 times over the driving limit but the flying limit which puts him under the driving limit. And if you can’t drink a pint of lager before you fly an a/c or drive a car safely. You really should not be doing it.

My last point: Flying an a/c is obviously “harder” than driving a truck/bus. But thousands of them/me are on the road every day, well above the a/c flying limit. And most a/c guys have a number 2 for backup that you don’t get in your bus full
Of 50 passengers that potentially could plough into another bus with as many?

Crown court? I really have lost the will to live

Coltishall. loved it

15th Nov 2014, 17:53

The silence......says it all

Docfly

16th Nov 2014, 04:17

If you had read the report then you would notice that he was three times over the limit AFTER flying from Spain. It is extremely likely that he would have been well over the drink drive limit too when he started his duty. He would have metabolised a fair amount of alcohol by the time he got to Norwich. I would not want my family flying with this man; what I would like to see however is him receive suitable rehabilitation so that he can go back to his occupation.
We are lucky to have a limit in UK, other countries have a zero limit which would be even easier to bust. Like it or not that is the law and we all have to abide by it.

PerAsperaAdAstra

16th Nov 2014, 05:25

Ah... in the good old days in the "operational area", us Air Force types would amaze the Pongo's with our strict application of the rules...no smoking 8 hours before the flight and no drinking within 30 metres of the aircraft...:}

Coltishall. loved it

16th Nov 2014, 18:34

Please don't get me wrong. I 100% agree with what you have said. My point being: As per, the bloody press has used a headline that is not wrong but has given the impression that jocks fly while very drunk indeed.
I don't know the chap, but to go to crown court with a chance of going down for 2 years? Now that is very wrong

manrow

16th Nov 2014, 21:10

Coltishall

What is your alternative proposal?

sharksandwich

17th Nov 2014, 00:41

A captain is responsible for the lives of many hundreds of people, on the ground as well as in the air, every working day.If he turns up for work impaired, then he faces the consequences. Of course there should be help before-hand, but no impaired pilot should take command.

Coltishall. loved it

17th Nov 2014, 17:59

I don’t know the answer to said gentleman’s punishment but insist a possible 2 years inside is way over the top.
The posters who are disagreeing with me…..what do you think the appropriate is then?

Incidentally I only replied initially because of the headline of “Pilot 3 times over the limit” that was hugely misleading to Joe on the street/myself.

jayteeto

17th Nov 2014, 19:46

People are approaching this from the wrong angle. It appears that (quite correctly) fatigue is worse than alcohol, so alcohol is more acceptable.
You can have more than one problem in the industry you know!!!
Those who say that they would rather have a hungover pilot over a tired one..... WTF???
I want NEITHER in the cockpit. This isn't Top Trumps, the highest problem wins.........

finfly1

18th Nov 2014, 18:24

My proposal for alternate punishment to two years in stir would depend on several factors.

What is his seniority, age and general history with the company? Senior, approaching retirement with good history? A 30 day unpaid suspension with requirement to take some alcohol counseling. Newby with spotty record and possible problems with past employers? Sayonara Sweetheart...don't look to us for a reference.

I think if his drinking had resulted in a crash with serious or fatal injuries, few would question the appropriateness of a jail sentence.

Flying Lawyer

18th Nov 2014, 19:08

Coltishall. loved it
I don't know the chap, but to go to crown court with a chance of going down for 2 years? Now that is very wrong.

I assume the Magistrates Court concluded that the case should be dealt by a Judge in the Crown Court where the maximum penalty is 2 years imprisonment and/or a fine. (The relevant legislation allows Magistrates Courts to deal with an offence of this nature but not to impose a prison sentence.)
I don't know if my assumption is correct nor, if it is, why the Magistrates Court came to that conclusion.

I don’t know the answer to said gentleman’s punishment but insist a possible 2 years inside is way over the top.

That is the maximum term of imprisonment which can be imposed but, to date, never has been.
Penalties have included fines, suspended sentences and immediate imprisonment. I haven't checked recently but, to the best of my recollection, the longest immediate prison sentence imposed in the UK to date is nine months.

The posters who are disagreeing with me…..what do you think the appropriate is then? Good question.
I can readily understand why opinions differ about whether an immediate prison sentence is appropriate where a pilot was not way over the limit, has a long unblemished history, admitted his guilt at the earliest opportunity etc.

I agree with you about the frequently misleading, and sometimes absurdly inaccurate 'drunk pilot', headlines. However, attention-grabbing headlines and melodramatic stories sell newspapers so the practice is very unlikely to change.

manrow

19th Nov 2014, 20:47

This thread has rightly matured to include the debilitating effect of fatigue on human performance.
There also seems to be an acceptance that fatigue is a bigger problem than alcohol.
That may be so, but as far as the effect on performance is concerned they are surely equal?
I do not know of any research that demonstrates whether one is better than the other, but we need to be aware that either or both together are likely to result in at least an incident/accident/fatality.
There seems to be an acceptance that alcohol consumption is a question of degree, i.e. how much is still affecting the individual at a moment in time; that is of course true, but as far as driving is concerned in the UK there is a lively debate on how much one can drink to establish whether a breathalyzer conviction is likely or not. My submission is that in aviation terms the answer has to be assumed to be zero, and we should move towards that as the acceptable limit.

sharksandwich

22nd Nov 2014, 00:40

There may well be two clear issues in this thread: fatigue and alcohol.
They even may be inter-linked.
However, one can be easily and cheaply identified and addressed, the other is more amorphous and certainly can not be addressed cheaply.
So which one will get the most news coverage?

Ex Cargo Clown

22nd Nov 2014, 01:15

I believe there was a UK case involving a bloke MSNing all night. He subsequently was sent down after falling asleep at the wheel and crashing onto a trainline. Makes you think.

Linktrained

22nd Nov 2014, 18:02

We may not all react quite the same way...

A Radio Officer used to get "fighting drunk" after a single, post flight beer. He was quietly apologetic to all, regularly, the following morning.

An elderly Steward, off duty, returned to our Hotel, saying " Look at thish... Pished on One and Shix " (That was 1/6d... before decimalisation, so some time ago !)

sharksandwich

23rd Nov 2014, 00:53

The above post, while nice and interesting, in a sense highlights what has often been raised as an issue on Pprune. That was then, now is now.
On the flight deck now we want extremely well-trained, computer savvy, sober and professional young men.

wiggy

23rd Nov 2014, 07:01

May I add.."and women, who BTW, must also all have solid hands on piloting skills" ;)

Mozella

23rd Nov 2014, 10:53

" ............................On the flight deck now we want extremely well-trained, computer savvy, sober and professional young men."

Well, those are certainly nice attributes to have these days. Back when I was working I was proud to say that I had these qualities myself, except for the "young" part.

But I will add that it was also nice to have someone sitting next to me on the flight deck who could actually FLY. Not every well-trained, computer savvy, sober and professional young man (or woman) can do that.

Many readers will say, "Yeah........... ain't that the truth". Unfortunately, some readers will say, "What's he talking about?"

Flying Lawyer

23rd Nov 2014, 13:01

SharkThe above post, while nice and interesting That's what it was meant to be.
BTW, 'Radio Officer ... post flight', 'elderly Steward ... off duty.'
That was then, now is now.True. The first clue is in Linktrained's username.
On the flight deck now we want extremely well-trained, computer savvy, sober and professional young men.Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?

Edit

Mozella
To be fair to Shark, he said earlier in the thread that he is interested in aviation but is not a pilot.

Airbanda

23rd Nov 2014, 13:17

I believe there was a UK case involving a bloke MSNing all night. He subsequently was sent down after falling asleep at the wheel and crashing onto a trainline. Makes you think.

Early 2001 at Great Heck, near Selby in North Yorkshire: Great Heck rail crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heck_rail_crash) The driver of the car was jailed. There's a school of thought that says he was unlucky. Selby was the third major accident on the UK railway in a relatively short period, and 'something must be done'.

sharksandwich

25th Nov 2014, 00:25

FL- I certainly hope I did not sound condescending to Linktrained.
I was trying to make the point that times have probably changed over the last three decades: from smoking, to drink driving, to celebrities abusing their fame.
I appreciate there is more to flying than turning a computer on or off at the correct times.
With regard to experience, am I right in thinking the Air France difficulties were exacerbated by a relatively inexperienced pilot clinging to the stick throughout?
And a captain Sullenberger said, of another incident:"One way of looking at this might be that for 42 years, I've been making small, regular deposits in this bank of experience, education and training. And on January 15 the balance was sufficient so that I could make a very large withdrawal."

Linktrained

25th Nov 2014, 14:10

SS
I had wondered if breathalisers, had they been around, would have shown " fighting drunk" after one beer - then.

The "elderly steward" ( now he would be called "young" by me !) would have had 15 shillings daily as his Overseas Allowance, plus his hotel accommodation paid for. Most UK citizens did not go abroad due to Exchange Control regulations, then.

( For me, in a very slightly earlier life, His Majesty paid £1 daily, with "all found" . Shops were bare, Meals out, could not cost more than 5 shillings for two courses. My 3 day's pay could buy me one hour's flying instruction from the Chief Test Pilot of the nearest manufacturer. A start..?)

dodger_16

28th Nov 2014, 00:06

That was then, now is now.
On the flight deck now we want extremely well-trained, computer savvy, sober and professional young men.

Smug little twenty year old nerd :ooh: Computer savvy, my foot. You can teach monkeys to press buttons.

Landflap

28th Nov 2014, 09:15

Well said Dodger. It was what most of us were thinking. LINKTRAINED, at the age of 87, should be allowed to say whatever he wants on any thread on any forum. In fact, Mods will probably smile and allow him to do so. Now, searching for me Bus Pass and I am off to swop stories with Linktrained, although, I rather fancy just listening.

FlightCosting

29th Nov 2014, 07:37

It does not matter how computer savvy a pilot is, it is all out the window when the state of the art system goes down. The whole reliance on technology breeds a bunch of pilots who have no idea how to handle the aircraft when his triple backup computers go down as has been seen by accidents over the recent past when either onboard systems or ground aids have failed. Pilots today seem not to be trained to use the Mk1 eyeball and certainly are not able of managing the "there I was upside down with nothing on the clock but the makers name" situation.
Being an expert computer geek will never make a good pilot, you need much more than that. I had the wish to be the next Biggles when I got my PPL but soon decided that I did not have that special something that would make a good pilot. I have still had over 40 years in the industry and enjoyed every minute.

sharksandwich

29th Nov 2014, 16:04

I agree, I said:I appreciate there is more to flying than turning a computer on or off at the correct times.
With regard to experience, am I right in thinking the Air France difficulties were exacerbated by a relatively inexperienced pilot clinging to the stick throughout?
And a captain Sullenberger said, of another incident: "One way of looking at this might be that for 42 years, I've been making small, regular deposits in this bank of experience, education and training. And on January 15 the balance was sufficient so that I could make a very large withdrawal."

Flying Lawyer

30th Nov 2014, 00:26

sharksandwich

BEA Final Report (http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601.en/pdf/f-cp090601.en.pdf)

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/489790-af-447-report-out.html

Stanwell

30th Nov 2014, 02:13

sharksandwich,

Kindly go away and read (and re-read) those reports that FL has taken the trouble to link you to.
Then, and only then, come back and let us have your considered opinion.

Remember... "The wise old owl, he sat on the oak and the more he heard, the less he spoke".

sharksandwich

30th Nov 2014, 22:38

Thanks FL and stanwell, but I am too long in the tooth to allow facts to colour my opinions.
Also, I would not at all be surprised that the day will come when pilotless planes become the norm, at least for transport (look at Amazon plans for drones, although obviously a smaller scale at present).
No problem with a computer being "under the weather" so to speak!

Dont Hang Up

2nd Dec 2014, 10:58

look at Amazon plans for drones, although obviously a smaller scale at present

A publicity stunt which has not even begun to climb the mountain of safety issues.

No problem with a computer being "under the weather" so to speak!

A problem has ocurred and this program has had to close. We apologise for the inconvenience. Do you wish to send a report to Microsoft now or do it later from the wreckage?

deefer dog

5th Dec 2014, 11:12

Latest news: The pilot in question here will not be charged!

dazdaz1

5th Dec 2014, 14:27

Link to BBC report......

BBC News - Breath-test Flybe pilot will not be charged (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-30342418)

LookingForAJob

5th Dec 2014, 16:55

This is undoubtedly good news in comparison to other possible outcomes. However, this pilot's career will probably have been irreparably damaged as will have been the image of FlyBe in some passengers' eyes.

I hope that the facts behind this sad episode, which is just one of several that have been reported in the past, are made available, regardless of whether they paint any individual or organisation in a good or bad light. Hopefully those who take the trouble to read below the headlines will then recognise the weaknesses in the present system.

SevenOfNine

5th Dec 2014, 17:07

Hi! First post!

Reading through this thread, the one question I can't seem to find an answer for is what do airlines themselves do to prevent the crews from flying over the limit/under the influence?

Are there checks in place?

And if not, what is the airlines' liability/responsibility here? Seems that given they are responsible for their passengers' safety, that NOT having any checks to ensure the pilots are safe to fly is a contradiction?

westhawk

6th Dec 2014, 04:26

what do airlines themselves do to prevent the crews from flying over the limit/under the influence?

SevenOfNine:

All US airlines are required by regulation to administer a DOT approved drug and alcohol misuse prevention program. This includes initial and recurrent training related to alcohol and drug abuse effects upon work performance. In other national jurisdictions like the UK, they have their own laws in effect that are similar but differ in some respects.

For US airlines, pre-employment, random and "for cause" (post accident and reasonable suspicion) drug and alcohol testing is mandatory for all employees working in "safety sensitive" positions. By law, the rate of random testing is determined by the percentage of positive test results throughout the national testing pool. So each "covered" worker is subject to pre-employment and random testing and may also be tested if reasonable suspicion is found to exist. Refusal to submit to testing is disqualifying and subjects the individual to sanctions. Any flight crewmember involved in an accident WILL be tested. (whether they survive the accident or not)

Most positive tests in the aviation industry are found in the required pre-employment tests. Flightcrew have an extremely low rate of positive tests, however they do find one occasionally.

Aside from the testing program, many companies including airlines operate an Employee Assistance Program which caters to employees who choose to voluntarily self disclose and receive treatment for substance or alcohol abuse before they are caught. (or worse)

In at least some companies, part of a flightcrew member's training is the recognition of cognitive impairment for whatever reason in oneself and fellow crew. Factors such as fatigue, sickness or emotional distraction are just as potentially dangerous as drug or alcohol impairment. Most professional pilots I've worked with will refuse to fly with anyone who they have reason to believe is significantly impaired by any cause, and especially if their impairment is believed to be caused by drugs or alcohol. There are no established and accepted objective tests for fatigue or other causes not related to intoxicant substances. Maybe someday there will be a reliable and objective pre-flight cognitive function test and maybe not. I hope that answers the question satisfactorily.

I'm happy that drug and/or alcohol use has become a rarely encountered problem in the flight operations business. But I'm equally unhappy with the fact that the aforementioned other causes of cognitive function impairment are not addressed by industry management or safety regulators with the same vigor as drug and alcohol impairment. Maybe THEY are the ones who should be presumed guilty of impairment until they provide proof of their sobriety!

So no formal charges against the pilot who is the subject of this thread eh? To me that brings into question the basis for his removal and arrest in the first place. Procedural legal error or technical problem with the testing equipment? Something else? As for the airline's internal investigation, I wouldn't expect to hear anything about that unless the airline somehow finds something they believe is in their own best interest to share with the public. There is no legal requirement that they do so after all.

Flying Clog

6th Dec 2014, 06:27

The rest of the operating crew on the day is the check/fail safe.

If you were operating single crew, different matter, some might get away with it. But we're talking airline ops here with 4 to 24 crew working in close proximity for give or take 10 hours.

manrow

8th Dec 2014, 08:48

This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory outcome so far.
Normally it is the Crown Prosecution Service make this decision based upon the strength of the evidence to achieve a guilty outcome.
Does that suggest the police service had not carried out procedures correctly?
Or was it simply that the subsequent blood test did not exceed the appropriate limits.
I just think the public need to know.
I am aware that FlyBe are still considering the evidence; how long do they need?

deefer dog

8th Dec 2014, 20:39

Yes, an extremely unsatisfactory situation for the pilot especially! Charged and arrested for being drunk i/c of an airplane, and now it appears that the prosecutors are unwilling to proceed. To me this equals NOT GUILTY, although FL will hopefully enlighten us all with the SP.

harrryw

9th Dec 2014, 07:35

My guess is a similar problem to that which used to exist with drunk driving in Australia. To be charged you had to be driving, police had to watch someone get in the vehicle and actually move it before they could act. The laws were changed to the person in charge of the vehicle and that meant even if you were outside the vehicle you could be charged with being over the limit.
A similar thing may have occurred here as the vehicle had not yet moved.

wiggy

9th Dec 2014, 08:33

A similar thing may have occurred here as the vehicle had not yet moved.

Doubt it, harry, AFAIK the rule in the UK (and I paraphrase) is that you should be below the limit when reporting for duty for an aviation related function...so at any point at or after "report" if found above the limit you will be in p***, e.g during briefing, on the bus to the aircraft, doing the walkround...etc.

deefer

an extremely unsatisfactory situation for the pilot especially

Agreed.

Pininstauld

11th Dec 2014, 16:36

The aircraft made an almost full barrel-roll with the nose down pitch increasing to 65°. It was impossible to recover from such a position without enough altitude even at a high speed (about 250 knots at the time of the impact) and having a vertical acceleration of 4.3g.

The aircraft collided with the trees and then with the ground at 23:09:25. At that time the aircraft was banking to the left intensively with a rate of 35-40 °/sec. The last recorded right bank 2-3 seconds before the crash (after the barrel-roll) was about 30°56.

I have just spent a most entertaining hour reading the full IACAAIC report (141 pages, but I recommend that you start at P96 to avoid fatigue) into the crash of VP-BKO, referred to above, which happened in 2008. (there's much creditable and professional work in this report but the bones come later...)

I am a firm believer that standards are dropping (and I don't blame the pilots themselves, just the system that allows some of them to occupy the front two seats) but, rather than agonise over 0.02% BAC (which to my knowledge never killed anyone) why don't we address the real issues and stop fart-assing around?

Edited to add:

The systemic cause of the accident was insufficient management by the airline of flight and maintenance operations of the Boeing 737 type of aircraft. These deficiencies in the aircraft maintenance also revealed through safety inspections conducted by the Russian Transport Oversight Authority and the Russian CAA after the accident.
Deficiencies in the aircraft maintenance led to a situation when flights were performed for a long time with a throttle stagger59 that exceeded the limitations in the AMM and when the maintenance staff did not follow the AMM recommended troubleshooting procedures. The need to manage the throttle stagger during the approach increased crew workload.
The forensic medical examination performed in the State Healthcare Center of Special Status “Perm Regional Forensic Expertise Bureau” confirmed the presence of ethyl alcohol in the Captain’s body before his death. The captain’s recent work schedule during the time period before the accident was conducive to fatigue and did not comply with national regulations.

Just qualifying my comments with a few words from the final report.

A and C

27th Dec 2014, 10:27

I have no doubt that if the police had given enough evidence to the CPS a prosecution would have followed, if there is not enough evidence ( all you need is a positive Breath test) then it is clear that the pilot in question is not guilty of the offence.

Now I think it is time to reflect on how someone gets pulled off an aircraft for as the BBC put it being drunk and yet the police can't gather enough evidence for the CPS to charge him.

Another crew member is reported to have raised the alarm in this case and of course the whole politicly correct movement swings into action removing the Captain in question from the flight but is unable to gather enough evidence of any wrongdoing. The exact circumstances around this case will probably never come to light but I can't help speculating that with better CRM the case would never have got this far.

Manrow I think the company have no option but to re-enstate the pilot without delay, after all he has been breath tested and insufficient evidence has been found to support prosecution proving he was not over the limit, you and I who have never been tested however don't have the luxury of being tested and proven not to be drunk !

In this country you are innocent until proven guilty .......... Except on the BBC, in the press and of course on Pprune !

Lemain

28th Dec 2014, 00:08

PPL Hobbyist -- I believe that gas spectrometry is the usual method, not a 'fuel cell'. Breath alc is not the same as blood alc; there is an accepted equation linking the two. In the early days of road testing the law in the UK used to state blood alcohol now driving with an excess of breath alcohol is also an offence.

Nobody is suggesting that the level of alcohol is an accurate measure of incapacity but it is a perfectly sensible and practicable way to test for those who shouldn't be flying or driving. So any correlation is academic. Zero is, of course, impracticable as the body produces ethanol. Nobody is 100% free of ethanol.

Miraculix

28th Dec 2014, 08:06

I might be deflecting from the thread a bit, but reading this article from INDIA: 170 pilots caught reporting for duty under liquor effect (http://www.deccanchronicle.com/141227/nation-current-affairs/article/170-pilots-caught-reporting-duty-under-liquor-effect) , I was both shocked and not...

A and C

28th Dec 2014, 09:10

Quick !! Let's all jump on this outrage bus !!

A typical piece of manipulation of facts from the press on a slow news day..... Let's try " Only 170 pilots test positive in five years " ...... Not much of a headline is it ?

This in fact represents a statistical chance of getting on an airliner with a pilot under the influence of alcohol of almost zero and I would guess far below that of being treated by a doctor or being sentenced by a judge who had consumed achohol before working.

Would the paper like to do a story on aircrew fatgue and its effects on flight safety ? ................ No too boring because it might shatter the under worked and overpaid pilot image that sells newspapers.

hapzim

28th Dec 2014, 09:37

Well said A & C :ok: fatigue a far greater problem!

Lemain

28th Dec 2014, 09:59

A and C, I don't think it's entirely fair to call it an outrage bus. Public opinion has proved to be far more powerful than breath testing in keeping drink-drivers off the roads. When I was a lad we used to warn others of police traps. On one occasion in the mid 1980s my department boss, having found a police trap sited on the only road from the office Christmas party to the office, sat in his car half a mile before the trap and flagged down/flashed staff returning. That was regarded as a thoroughly decent thing to do. Today he'd be stripped naked, hanged by his ankles from a tree, castrated and left for the crows. Attitudes have changed.

A and C

28th Dec 2014, 10:47

From earlyer posts on the thread you will see that I don't condone flying under the influence of achohol in any way.

What I am trying to do is put the problem of achohol in avation into a realistic statistical context, only by doing this do we have the evidence to asses the risks and bring proper effort to mitigate the risks to flight safety.

Because it is easy to do so achohol takes up far more time in the press and on the pages of PPRUNE than it should with regard to the current level of risk it poses to flight safety, fatigue is a far bigger statistical risk than achohol but far harder to quantify and almost imposable to make a good headline for the newspapers.

The irony is that this topic was started when a pilot was taken off an aircraft to be checked for acohol at the police station, as this is a very simple test to administer and the CPS are not taking this to court due to lack of evidence one has to assume this is a case of one NOT drunk pilot getting a lot of press coverage.

So I have to ask you if you have been on an aircraft with a drunk pilot ? And have you been on an aircraft with a fatigued pilot ?

I am going to guess that your answer will indicate that the statistics show that tackling the fatigue problem should be the focus of flight safety efforts as the industry had done just about all it realisticly can to tackle the very small acohol problem as was demonstrated in this case.

LIMA OR ALPHA JUNK

28th Dec 2014, 11:16

Well said A and C.

Fatigue and stress pose a far greater problem to aviation than alcohol. A pilot is far more likely to go sick if he suspects he is close to the alcohol limit for whatever reason than for tiredness/fatigue.

I have guarded sympathy for those who have used alcohol through addiction or stress, quite probably to sleep, and have been caught and imprisoned and lost everything.

The industry needs to wake up to the real issue.

Lemain

28th Dec 2014, 13:11

A and C

28th Dec 2014, 14:07

There is only one issue and that is flight safety and how the industry delivers the best response to the challenges within that remit.

I would argue that the airline industry's response to the issue of alcohol misuse is appropriate and robust, in other words now you could quadruple the money spent on enforce the alcohol rules and only get a 0.5 % increase in positive tests.

It therefore follows that the industry has now to move on to other more pressing issues that will spend the flight safety budget to achive the best increase in flight safety, my personal next flight safety target is the fatigue issue, clearly there are quite a few people on this forum who are in agreement but this is not the only issue that requires attention.

People have to understand that none of these issues are likely to make it to the front page of a newspaper, so should we let the headline writers of the Daily Mail control the flight safety agenda based on what sells newspapers or should we target the industry's flight safety efforts on issues that the statistics indicate will deliver the best improvement in flight safety.

Airbubba

28th Dec 2014, 14:22

Surely the point is that both are issues. They are different issues. Agree about not banning someone for life after an alcohol conviction. All that training, experience wasted, and the effect on near and extended family, with cost to the state. Would be VERY easy to prevent offenders from re-offending in the airline industry. Not in General Aviation, tho'.

In the U.S. the HIMS program has provided a route to recovery for many pilots with alcohol and other substance issues.

Judging from the spelling in the links at the top of the page, perhaps the author was not fully recovered in this ALPA sponsored listing of HIMS steps:

HIMS Steps (http://www.himsprogram.com/Home/HIMSSteps)

Heathrow Harry

28th Dec 2014, 15:43

if the pilot in question WAS over the limit the CPS would have him bang to rights and he would be prosecuted

I presume that someone thought he was over the limit, called the police, they rolled up and arrested him , removed him from the 'plane and only then tested him.... at which point it all became a little embarrassing as he wasn't over the limit

= buck passing on the usual scale

On the other hand he shouldn't have been anywhere near booze for at least 8 hours before flying so if he had had one (or two) he was playing with fire

Lemain

29th Dec 2014, 07:15

Airbubba -- Interesting to note HIMS is an alpha.org scheme and requires AA. All of them require (cough) spiritual content. I believe in the USA an unquestioning belief in 'God' is more widespread than in the UK (or most of the so-called Christian Europe)? In the UK today the accepted medical treatment model is CBT and Mindfulness. A decade or so ago it was AA + CBT. Sorry, that's a bit of a digression but it does affect the conditions under which pilots might be accepted back into the cockpit. No bad thing for the pilot, family or wider society.

Recently a hovercraft ferry pilot of twenty years experience was found so drunk he couldn't complete the few miles from Portsmouth to Ryde. His cockpit colleague took the controls and was so unskilled he couldn't fly the craft up the ramp (I had one direct eyewitness report of the arrival; the fellow couldn't get the momentum needed and just fell-off the ramp each attempt). The pilot will never again fly a hovercraft and he seemingly has no other work-skills. The pilot took full responsibility for something that surely someone should have foreseen?

If you mention drink in the context of flying (or driving) and the perp gets a public lynching. Lynching is not a good form of justice, punishment or rehabilitation.

Miraculix

30th Dec 2014, 07:03

Outrage???
I was shocked that 170 was over the limit in one country alone, ONE!
And then seeing where in the world it was happening, I was not so much any more. Outrage? I simply made a short comment to an article and if it's not "shocking" to you, well then we have a difference of opinion.

I've flown commercially since 1989 and have been tested for my alcohol level one (1) time on a short stop in Amsterdam. I wouldn't mind if it was done more often, since I dont drink and fly and anyone that dont drink and fly wouldn't mind.

I agree that fatigue is a much bigger problem in generel. Just last week I checked in twice on ground freq. as it totally slipped my mind were we should go and park. (I actually couldn't even remember that I had made a call to ground)

effortless

30th Dec 2014, 09:10

So I have to ask you if you have been on an aircraft with a drunk pilot ? And have you been on an aircraft with a fatigued pilot ?

Yup! And by the time we landed he was exhausted too. So was I as I was even more drunk than he was. Light aircraft in 1969 so we were less likely to be caught. It was a fairly erratic flight in that we didn't maintain a stable altitude. Out track was pretty good and the landing was on grass so we had quite a lot of leeway. I fell asleep in the terminal bogs but he drove home. I told the story a few times and everyone laughed. The pilot eventually lost his privileges for other reasons but was killed in a motor accident later on.

I look back with some shame at my drunken antics. What I am embarrassed about is tha fact I thought it funny. We drove under the influence. We flew hung over. We were pretty well the norm though. I remember more than once someone senior saying "for heaven's sake, get that man some coffee someone!"

Hey we were "men" doing manly things! I won't even start on the appalling way we treated women.

Flying Lawyer

30th Dec 2014, 10:01

Lemain Interesting to note HIMS is an alpha.org scheme and requires AA.
All of them require (cough) spiritual content.
I believe in the USA an unquestioning belief in 'God' is more widespread than in the UK (or most of the so-called Christian Europe)?

Alpha certainly does a great deal of good work internationally but I'm unable to find any involvement in the HIMS scheme.

Are (cough) 'you' confusing Alpha and ALPA?

Lemain

30th Dec 2014, 10:16

It looks like (cough) I'm going to have my eyesight checked...while I'm there I'll pick up something for this darned cough! :ok:

NephewBob

28th Jan 2015, 13:41

Bear in mind, the limit on the pre-flight breath test in India is 0.00%

brena

14th Aug 2015, 07:24

i have never been in an airplane with drunk pilot but i guess before take off its just right to test these pilot of alcohol so thy should be breathalyse before take off.. is it zero limit for pilots as well as FAs? is it different limit in every country? :) :ok:

IOS_331

21st Aug 2015, 19:05

It's amazing how often a report like this pops up.
In the past three years I've seen both captains and first officers with drinking problems, drug problems and full blown addictions. The majority going undetected or unreported.

While those with the addiction think people don't know about it, many do but choose not to officially report it, instead speaking to the colleague in private and attempting to help them. It will always be a problem with the job.

skyship007

3rd Sep 2015, 16:42

Very correct IOS 331, BUT you should follow the SOP's and not just try and sort things out yourself!
Yep, pilots with drug abuse and serious fatigue problems have been responsible for a number of major accidents.
I even had one P2 turn up so drunk that he could not use the radio. The only reason I did not notice until it was too late to replace him was that he had reached the flight deck before I did and swallowed enough mints and mouthwash not to smell of alcohol.
He did get a serious verbal warning from me after the flight and I reported the occurence to the Ops manager. Oddly enough he gave up drinking after that incident, as the company we were working for paid well, with lots of time off and good hotels etc.

I had another P2 turn up so tired he fell asleep just after take off and slept for the rest of a long night flight. I even had difficulty waking him up just before landing.

Part of the reason why we get such incidents, apart from bad pay, insecure contracts and miserable working conditions, is that most companies have no effective pilots association.
A good pilots association does not get involved in anything pay related, as that would define them as a union, BUT they sure do get involved in taking action against any pilot who has a drug abuse issue or who needs to be retrained. Many of you might think that the Ops manager, EASA inspectors or even the Police should stop a pilot under the influence of drugs (Or serious fatigue) from flying, but in many airlines or Biz jet operations, the system fails. Sometimes the managers just don't care or can't do anything because they do not have a spare pilot available.

A good pilots association will also guarantee that if a pilot reports in as unfit for duty due to fatigue, that the "Yes men" who often get senior positions such as Ops manager don't fire them. In fact the one I was in some years ago was very effective and sacked a few chaps who the senior management thought were good (The senior pilots sure didn't). Ultimately a good association should be able to call a one day strike, but only over safety related matters, including poor training standards and I do remember a one day strike over tech log defects lists and another threatened walk out over a new training captain who needed more training himself.

The "Old boys" I flew with when I was a lot younger understood just how important a good pilots association was, the newbies don't and that is one reason why they are treated as virtual slaves.