Sunwing pilot pulled off YYC flight due to intoxication

[geewhizdriver]

Seems like Calgary Police have arrested a Slovakian foreign national Captain who passed out at the controls of a 737 before pushing off the gate. Supposedly with over 3 times the legal limit.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/pilot-removed-from-plane-was-severely-impaired-police-allege-1.3223307

[Airclues]

Calgary police arrest pilot accused of being impaired before takeoff | Calgary Herald (http://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/calgary-police-arrest-pilot-accused-of-being-impaired-before-flight-to-mexico)

[Markdp]

Why is this only now becoming a big problem. It has been going on for many years. Maybe they need to change the rule of bottle to throttle to 18 hrs?

[Hotel Tango]

Ban all Canadian airlines from Europe!!!

(you need to have followed the Indonesian thread to understand this) ;)

[unworry]

Sunwing spokeswoman Janine Massey says in an email that the suspect was the captain, and the airline praised the rest of the crew for handling what it calls a “very unfortunate matter.”

My pet peeve: How does a captain 3 times over the limit even make it to his seat without intervention?

[testpanel]

This slovakian pilot managed to pass security in Canada, hopefully a more secure place than Indonesia...
Video available?

[Longtimer]

It is possible that the crew were not from Sunwing, if flight tracker is accurate this may have been a WetLease operation.
Flight Tracker is showing this flight as being operated by Thomson airways... , who were granted authority to operate some flights for SunWing under: https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/333-a-2016
Flight Tracker Data
Flight Details
View track log/graph · Track inbound plane
Departure Times
Gate Departure
Taxiing
Takeoff
Actual
01:02PM CST36 minutes

01:38PM CST
Scheduled
10:15AM CST
10:15AM CST
Arrival Times
06:58PM EST
Aircraft information
Owner
Thomsonfly.com
Aircraft Type
Boeing 737-800 (twin-jet) (B738) Photos



Airline information



Airline

Sunwing "Sunwing" all flights

[hr2pilot]

My pet peeve: How does a captain 3 times over the limit even make it to his seat without intervention?

.... he got through just like this guy did:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/31/pilot-accused-of-being-drunk-after-video-shows-him-staggering-through-airport

[llondel]

He might not have been intoxicated when he passed security.

[hr2pilot]

This slovakian pilot managed to pass security in Canada, hopefully a more secure place than Indonesia...

Canadian airport security doesn't come close to what is in the States or Great Britain...low pay, entry level employment positions in the workforce. I fear Canada's day is coming.

[hr2pilot]

He might not have been intoxicated when he passed security.

Improbable, he would have had his bags screened for liquids to enter sterile, and would have had to purchase duty- free in sterile, and find somewhere to imbibe. More likely got through with no-one questioning him. I don't think security screeners would be too inclined to stick their necks out on questioning a captain.... " not my job, mon!"

[Longtimer]

Calgary police have charged a pilot after he allegedly passed out from intoxication in the cockpit of a plane with 99 passengers and six crew members.

The flight was scheduled to make stops in Regina and Winnipeg before continuing on to Cancun, Mexico.

According to police, the pilot boarded a Sunwing Airlines 737-800 series aircraft in Calgary shortly before 7 a.m. on Dec. 31.

Crews at the gate and on the plane noticed the pilot was "behaving oddly, before he became unconscious in the cockpit," Staff Sgt. Paul Stacey told reporters at a news conference.

The pilot — a 37-year-old foreign national from Slovakia in Canada on a work visa — was taken into custody.

High blood alcohol level

Stacey said the pilot's blood alcohol level was tested about two hours after the arrest and found to be more than three times the legal limit.

The pilot has been charged with having care and control of an aircraft while impaired, and having care and control of an aircraft with a blood alcohol level over .08.

"Because he has as much alcohol in his system as he does, they're going to wait before he sobers up somewhat before he goes before a justice of the peace," Stacey said.

He says while he personally has never experienced an incident like this, he's not surprised the pilot was stopped before operating the plane.

"It had all the potential for a disaster, but I'll tell you this much — the likelihood of a pilot on a major airline like this actually being able to take off when they're impaired like that is pretty slim, because there's a lot of checks and balances. There's the other flight crew and there's gate crew and they're all about safety," he added.

'We are very apologetic'

Jacqueline Grossman, a spokesperson for Sunwing, said the company is "appreciative of our crew's diligence in handling this very unfortunate matter."

The company was able to find another captain to take the flight.

"We are very apologetic for any upset that this has caused and would like to assure our customers that safety remains our utmost priority," said Grossman by email.

'He won't be flying anytime soon'

Stacey says Transport Canada will conduct their own investigation and more charges could apply.

"I fully expect that there will be additional charges," he said.

The pilot will go before a justice of the peace once he has sobered up.

"To be more than three times the legal limit, that is a lot of booze," Stacey said.

"He won't be flying anytime soon."

[Kakpipe Cosmonaut]

It is possible that the crew were not from Sunwing, if flight tracker is accurate this may have been a WetLease operation.
Flight Tracker is showing this flight as being operated by Thomsonfly.com , who were granted authority to operate some flights for SunWing under: https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/333-a-2016

Well done. Not done your homework before spouting nonsense.
Plus, who are Thomsonfly?

[rotornut]

He'll be held in police custody and then brought before a JP later on in the day. Bail will be a cash deposit as he is a foreign national.

[9 lives]

Ban all Canadian airlines from Europe!!!

Shouldn't it be the other way around? The offending pilot was European.....

[emeritus]

The F/O is going to have to do some hard and fast explaining and he'll not be the only one.

disgraceful !

[hr2pilot]

....not so quick to blame the F/O please

Sgt. Paul Stacey, with Calgary police:

“They (the co-pilot) found him slumped over in the seat, in the pilot seat. He was the captain of the airline,” Stacey said.

[Willie Nelson]

Getting said pilot off the plane on the day I think is only the start of the problem for those colleagues that would find themselves in this situation.

Be interesting to hear how people would handle this scenario themselves. Perhaps more so the guy that you're reasonably confident is a bit on the nose but is fairly normal otherwise.

Do you suggest that he stand himself down in the hope that it's a one off and risk the possibility that it's not?

Do you refer them to management and risk their imminent dismissal?

Do you call security and have them tested when you're not even sure they're over the limit? Perhaps there is a medical condition that they're predisposed to?

I think even in advanced countries like mine this is a real legal and ethical minefield?

[McBruce]

Believe it was a TVS pilot whose under a foreign crew permit operating for Sunwing on C-reg aircraft. The Thomson link is the aircraft is one of ours on a dry lease transferred onto SWGs AOC for the season, nothing to do with TOM except its our equipment on loan being operated by other crew if the public tracking data was correct.

[Pinkman]

Why is this only now becoming a big problem. It has been going on for many years. Maybe they need to change the rule of bottle to throttle to 18 hrs?

I understand what you are saying but that wont help - in fact it may make it worse given human nature and the nature of addiction. In my industry (oil & gas) best in class operators typically operate a risk - based screening system for those involved in safety - critical operations eg refining, terminalling, offshore ops. I anecdotally hear that this is practiced on a limited basis by a few airlines (can anyone confirm?) and by some on a "for cause" basis (in other words on a crew where one individual is suspected or has been reported the entire FD and Cabin crew are tested without fear of favour). In our industry the unions sometimes support it and sometimes hate it, the employees mostly hate it and the companies dislike doing it but recognize that it saves lives. At the end of the day aggressive risk-based testing (where the frequency is adjusted to the location, the task and the outcomes) is the only way to cut this down to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP as we call it). You will never eliminate it except through 100% testing which is is simply not sustainable or desirable.

The programs we have are usually balanced by supportive intervention if the employee pre-emptively seeks help or admits (during a medical for example if markers in blood screens show that he/she has a problem).

Expecting some flak for the above but it seems that we are where we are and the point at where the increasing occurrence / discovery /media attention curve has intersected with the lack of public confidence curve. Time to get real.

See "programme management" in the following:

http://www.ipieca.org/media/2812/drug_and_alcohol_testing_guidelines_2016_12_13_lr.pdf

[Cazalet33]

low pay, entry level employment positions in the workforce.

And that's just the pilots.

The airport Securitate are even worse.

[Markdp]

Why is this only now becoming a big problem. It has been going on for many years. Maybe they need to change the rule of bottle to throttle to 18 hrs?


Pinkman

I don't think you understand the term bottle to throttle. It is a reference used in aviation for alcohol use prior to flying.(aviation Regulation). Simply put it means that if you are going to fly at 08:00 tomorrow morning, you will report for duty at 06:00(Normally 2 hours prior to departure, varies between operators) This means that you need to stop drinking 12 hours prior to reporting for duty I.E 18:00 today. This generally is OK for occasional and social drinkers, but not for heavy drinkers as a heavy drinker even if stopping 12 hours prior to reporting could still possibly smell of alcohol or even be over the legal limit at 06:00 the following morning.
In my experience over the years Aviation Crew are very professional and do follow these rules explicitly.(This Rule includes Cabin Crew)
However as mentioned above this rule does not cater for a heavy drinker hence my statement that bottle to throttle should be increased to 18 hours.

[WingNut60]

........ You will never eliminate it except through 100% testing which is is simply not sustainable or desirable.


Sorry, but it is both achievable and sustainable. Many industries where it is already in place and working effectively.


........ simply not sustainable or desirable.


That depends somewhat on whether you are the subject of the checking or the passenger paying for his services.


In some cases blanket testing is perceived as being a more equitable system.
That is, it closes the gap between those at the pointy end and those sitting in offices who may conveniently perceive that their transgressions are more acceptable than those with a higher risk exposure.

[fox niner]

So you pass the sobriety test in the crew center, after which you proceed to your aircraft. Lots of bottles available there, unlike a nuclear power plant control room.
And therein lies the big difference. You can impose all these checks, which are already in place in other industries. But after that, booze availability is still guaranteed.

[WingNut60]

,,,,,,,,,, after that, booze availability is still guaranteed.
True, but effective screening in the crew room would eliminate the vast majority of these incidents. It also has the advantage of intercepting inebriation out of the eye of the passengers.

I suspect (hope) that incidents where FD crew imbibe airside or even on the aircraft are pretty rare.
And of course the only solution to this would be screening "on the aircraft".
Probably a bit over-the-top and unnecessary until shown otherwise.

[ShotOne]

Before we get into the knee jerk demands for crew room screening (did he even go there?) this is a sorry case but lets not overlook that this was stopped by peer intervention. There was never the remotest chance of the rest of the crew allowing him to get airborne

[noflynomore]

There was never the remotest chance of the rest of the crew allowing him to get airborne

Never the remotest? I wonder.

Remember the Virgin Express pilot at Madrid who had to be woken in the hotel 3 times before he made it onto his feet, followed the rest of the crew in another taxi who got the plane ready, shambled through the departure lounge looking so wrecked that it alarmed the pax? They taxiied, apparently so erratically that pax began calling emergency services to say they were in a jet with a drunk pilot and only when the f/o was sufficiently scared (!) he took control and returned to the gate. Capt did a runner and was found an hour or more later in the hotel bar, pissed as a fart with a drink in front of him.

Never discount the remotest!

[Pinkman]

Sorry, but it is both achievable and sustainable.

I didn't say it wasn't achievable. It is achievable in the same way that 100% security screening is achievable (but not 100% effective).

It is not desirable because it seriously erodes trust, drives the issue underground and provides no guarantee of effectiveness. Human beings are very inventive. Fox niner gave one example. There is also the problem of false positives which become significant at high sample / high compliance rates.

I am willing to be proved wrong but I honestly believe that cost effective - wise and workforce morale wise it is not sustainable. What will happen is that the "capture rate" will decline to a point where the bean counters will say "this program is costing us $xx millions per year and we are getting 1 transgressor every 2 - 3 years and half of those are false positives" and they will back off to random screening/risk based screening.

[Radgirl]

In all the recent cases someone has identified the pilot as needing to be tested. It has been obvious that something was wrong and subsequent testing has or has not shown a high blood alcohol level. In all cases the pilot has been prevented from flying. So it is unclear what the lack of workforce morale, the cost, the legislation, and numerous other issues involved in mandatory testing would improve.

I would rather see more training for flight crew, cabin crew and others to ensure that they do not drink inappropriately in the first place, and are more aware of the need to challenge each other.

I am less enthusiastic of 'training' security staff as I suspect it will cause more harm than good.

[Longtimer]

Sorry about that. the WestLease agreement is with Thompson Airways as stated in the link I provided.
McBruce, thanks for the update re the carrier who operated the flight.

[ShotOne]

"Training" security staff? Ha, that's hardly necessary in this context. At some locations, any time they feel they've been shown insufficient deference a "drunk pilot" report is generated almost automatically.

[Pinkman]

I would rather see more training for flight crew, cabin crew and others to ensure that they do not drink inappropriately in the first place

For pity's sake!

You clearly do not understand the compulsive nature of alcoholism. I was married to an alcoholic and tried desperately to get her sufficient counselling, behaviour modification therapy, you name it so she did not "drink inappropriately". It is an illness. It is not voluntary behaviour or a "nice to have". It is a "have to have".

[Longtimer]

""Training" security staff? Ha, that's hardly necessary in this context. At some locations, any time they feel they've been shown insufficient deference a "drunk pilot" report is generated almost automatically. "

And based on some of the stories on this forum, even by the Hotel Staff where they overnighted.

[DespairingTraveller]

My pet peeve: How does a captain 3 times over the limit even make it to his seat without intervention?

Because aviation blood alcohol limits are, understandably, low.

A 180lb man would reach the limits implicit in this report after about four or five drinks. There are plenty of people who can drink that quantity and not be visibly drunk to a casual observer.

[rigpiggy]

In Canada the impaired for operation of a motor vehicle is .08, however the CARs say you cannot be under the influence, so he could well be 24 times over the limit

[innuendo]

Rigpiggy,
Although .08 is a limit where things get sticky, in BC .05 can result in penalties.
Penalties starting at 0.05:

Quote: There's also a new warning range for impaired driving which drops the legal blood alcohol limit to .05, said de Jong. Drivers caught once with a blood alcohol level in the warning range — between 0.05 and 0.08 — will face an immediate, three-day driving ban and a $200 fine. Those caught twice in a five-year period face a seven-day ban and a $300 fine; and those caught three times over five years face a 30-day ban and a $400 fine.

[Markdp]

It does not matter whether you way 180 lbs or 250 lbs. When you have a drink it is not measured in the amount of drink you have had. It is measured in the amount of alcohol in your blood stream.
Yes , the theory that some people can consume more than others before becoming apparently drunk does vary, of that there is no doubt. However all law agencies need to follow a certain criteria, hence the laws we have today.
Trying do justify your drinking habits by saying i way more than the person next to me does not exonerate you from the fact that you could effectively be under the influence according to law.

And secondly, how do you get passed your operations center where you must report before take off in that state of mind

[No Fly Zone]

No Flak From Here!
This may seem more common bit it is not; we simply HEAR more about it these days. IMO, ground the idiot and get him into treatment. If the Tx takes, monitor him for an entire year and then - Only Then - reconsider his license status, perhaps requiring him to fly as a supervised F/O for yet another year, before reinstating that fourth stripe.
And YES! Someone should have taken action long before this fellow made it to the flight deck. Better to test - and be wrong - than to not test and be even more wrong! Ninety nine SLC's plus crew?
You are correct that 100% pre-flight testing cannot be done. Random testing should increase - a lot.

[Pinkman]

Absolutely concur.

Maybe the fact that this incident happened on the doorstep of ICAO (based in Montreal) will help them understand that this is an issue that needs their attention and to report on progress: 15 years has passed since the following resolution

2001

A33-12: Harmonization of drug and alcohol testing programmes

Whereas ICAO has for over 50 years effectively and efficiently fulfilled its functions in accordance with the Convention on International Civil Aviation;

Whereas the fundamental objectives of the Organization expressed in Article 44 of the Chicago Convention and the functions of the Council expressed in Articles 54 and 55 remain paramount;

Whereas appreciation is expressed to the Council and the Secretary General for the progress made regarding the elimination of substance abuse by personnel in safety related occupations in aviation;

Whereas there is still a need to achieve a consistent policy on the implementation by national authorities of regulations regarding the prevention and enforcement on the abuse of alcohol and drugs by personnel in safety related occupations in aviation;

Whereas the Organization is facing new and rapidly evolving challenges of a technological, economic, social and legal nature;

Whereas the response to these challenges affects the safety of international civil aviation; and

Whereas there is a need for ICAO to meet these challenges effectively;

The Assembly:
Directs the Council to review existing guidance for improvements aimed at helping States to develop consistent prevention and testing programmes.

Directs the Council to study the issues and to develop the necessary ICAO provisions to achieve consistency among the substance testing programmes of Contracting States and enforcement by Contracting States on the abuse of alcohol and drugs by certain safety-sensitive personnel.

Encourages Contracting States to foster consistency with respect to their prevention and testing programmes.

[ShotOne]

The report states that the first officer "found the captain slumped over the controls" which very much implies he'd bypassed the crew room and they hadn't met up to that point. It's hardly likely he saw him obviously drunk but waited until he was on board to raise the issue! The100% crew room screening some are demanding would be hugely intrusive and expensive. And crucially would have made no difference in this case. But if we really do feel it's necessary, why start with pilots? Medical profession would be first on the list, professional (or maybe all) drivers, nuclear plant personnel, armed police.....

[rarefly]

"But if we really do feel it's necessary, why start with pilots? Medical profession would be first on the list, professional (or maybe all) drivers, nuclear plant personnel, armed police....."

At the risk of being insensitive in my first post, I suggest that pilots would not be the first. Armed (UK) police, when I was involved with the roles, were asked before being issued with a firearm and before being briefed on any specific job whether they had consumed alcohol in the last 24 hours, or whether there was any other reason they should not be issued with a firearm. Every person, every time. (Including the commanders, who would not be armed.)

OK, they weren't actually screened, but they could have been and they were asked and their colleagues were vigilant. I always received clear, robust responses when I asked the question, and I've known people stand down or decline a (lucrative) call-out when they couldn't answer this truthfully correctly.

I am presently engaged temporarily working for a UK infrastructure programme. Part of my induction was a very clear instruction that you were not allowed on the premises after imbibing alcohol, and you were not allowed to bring alcohol, even newly bought in sealed containers, on to the premises. And that's an office, not a construction site.

So I don't think pilot testing/screening/asking would be out of step.

PS. On a television documentary recently I saw that Indian train drivers (and signallers?) were tested every time they reported for duty.

[Uplinker]

Why not start with pilots? Medical surgeons are apparently learning from our profession and starting to use checklists etc, to prevent mistakes during operations, so why not take the lead here? Some sort of drug/alcohol testing is surely acceptable?

However, with respect, I do not think that airport security staff should be the ones to do this. As far as I am concerned, the quality of security staff I see have (just) enough authority to confiscate my slightly too large yoghurt etc, and I am quite happy for airport security staff to do their job and search me and my bags.

However, I think that something as serious as correctly performing a drug/alcohol test and/or preventing a person from proceeding to their aircraft (whether guilty of something or not), should only be done by fully trained officers of the law.

.

[glad rag]

Poor bloke has his demons to fight, some support from his employers would be the first step...

[Heathrow Harry]

"I think that something as serious as correctly performing a drug/alcohol test and/or preventing a person from proceeding to their aircraft (whether guilty of something or not), should only be done by fully trained officers of the law."

a very quick way to criminalise the whole procedure..... everyone could.should be tested but a nurse would be far more cost effective and probably better at talking people into a remedial proggramme. The police will be very tempted to arrest & charge anyone

[ShotOne]

I could share, perhaps even join in some of the self-righteous high-horse stuff on testing if we'd seen a string of airliners pranged in alcohol-related accidents. But the total is, er, zero. Total flight safety incidents, er, yes that's zero as well...(and yes, we would know since an incident will generally trigger a test).

[777AV8R]

"I think that something as serious as correctly performing a drug/alcohol test and/or preventing a person from proceeding to their aircraft (whether guilty of something or not), should only be done by fully trained officers of the law."

a very quick way to criminalise the whole procedure..... everyone could.should be tested but a nurse would be far more cost effective and probably better at talking people into a remedial proggramme. The police will be very tempted to arrest & charge anyone
Heathrow Harry is online now Report Post Quick reply to this message

Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is not legal to random test for alcohol or drugs after a person has been hired. Screening is legal as a pre-employment condition. Testing can only be done on suspicion of being under the influence.

[9 lives]

From the Transport Canada aviation medical standards:

3.3 The applicant shall have no established medical history or clinical diagnosis which, according to accredited medical conclusion, would render the applicant unable to exercise safely the privileges of the permit or licence applied for or held, as follows:.....
(b) alcohol or chemical dependence or abuse;.......

That seems pretty clear to me. Agreed that alcoholism is a disease, but it's a disqualifying disease for a pilot.

Poor bloke has his demons to fight, some support from his employers would be the first step...

He should fight his demons away from piloting duties. I struggle to understand why his employer should support him, when he was intent upon putting his employers and their clients at huge risk. Perhaps they would support a pilot who declines flying duty to the chief pilot/company doctor with a conversation which begins "I have a problem..."

By presenting yourself to act in the capacity of pilot, you are declaring that you are medically fit. He misrepresented the facts.

[Tu.114]

"I think that something as serious as correctly performing a drug/alcohol test and/or preventing a person from proceeding to their aircraft (whether guilty of something or not), should only be done by fully trained officers of the law.

The Eastern European approach to this might have some merit. Flight crews used to have to see a physician before starting their duties (it may even still be that way in some countries). I´d think that a trained medical professional is even more suitable to take care of such tests and possibly even more able to spot small tell-tale signs of the various intoxications than a law enforcement official.

[bizjetway]

Often the focus is on pilots going flying when drunk. What about pilots using alcohol to fight fatigue and insomnia?
Here is an interesting article:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/do-pilots-have-alcohol-problem-fabrizio-poli?trk=mp-reader-card

[ShotOne]

Interesting to contrast the semi-hysteria about impairment through alcohol with the almost universal disinterest in the far more serious issue of impairment through fatigue.

[Willie Nelson]

I think the best final defence against an intoxicated pilot showing up for work is the pilot sitting next to them. All the talk of 100 percent testing, training security screeners (really!) etc, is nonsense.

Where afety sensitive roles exist, such as pilots and air traffic controllers, random screening is needed at frequent enough intervals that people know it's a legitimate possibility, where people self declare a problem, they are screened randomly and often, where there's an incident they are screened (and educated that this will always happen after an incident) and the final defence will always be the guy or girl sitting next to you.

While I am aware that there are a few famous examples of both tech crew showing up intoxicated together, the cabin crew or other colleagues have called them out.

[Cows getting bigger]

The problem as I see it isn't the pilot who is clearly hanging out of his a***, it is the pilot who has had a couple too many and is nursing a mighty headache. This is the type of individual who will likely get past crew scrutiny but is not fit to fly.

[Pinkman]

While I am aware that there are a few famous examples of both tech crew showing up intoxicated together, the cabin crew or other colleagues have called them out.

Not always:
The Road Back From Perdition (http://europe.newsweek.com/road-back-perdition-146723?rm=eu) Joseph Balzer, Lyle Prouse and his FE (Northwest 650). Lyle also showed what can be done to beat this curse and ended up re-hired and eventually retired from the LHS of a 747 (see "final approach").

I could share, perhaps even join in some of the self-righteous high-horse stuff on testing if we'd seen a string of airliners pranged in alcohol-related accidents. But the total is, er, zero. Total flight safety incidents, er, yes that's zero as well...(and yes, we would know since an incident will generally trigger a test)

You know, none of this matters: we can swap stats and opinions all night. We perhaps might agree it doesnt matter because we haven't "seen a string of airliners pranged in alcohol-related accidents". But it doesnt matter what you or I as individuals think - what matters is that the people at the back of the bus who are paying have an expectation that the crew are properly trained and that the airline has put in place arrangements to monitor performance.... and that the crew are physically able to do the job without impairment and that again, the airline has put in place arrangements to monitor that. I mean.. they have a duty of care... don't they?

[The AvgasDinosaur]

One thing I don't understand is why they waited two hours to administer the alcohol test. For 11 years I was a trained intoxylizer operator and for 7 of those I was a trainer. The law and sops stated allow 20 mins to allow any residual alcohol to disperse from the mouth, then test. The 20 mins under observation.
If he was left two hours the blood alcohol level would be reducing all the time. It is in theory possible on a short flight to take off over the limit and be under "safe !" on arrival. Is there a requirement under Canadian law as applied to aviation for the pilots union rep or legal rep to be present before testing ?

[FlightDetent]

If he's a Slovak national working for TVS on lease to Sunwings, he'd be almost surely absolutely on his own. Sorry soul indeed.

[CityofFlight]

In the States, DOT regulations allow for random testing amongst commercial drivers, as do many other professions that involve the welfare of the public. And rightfully so.
So why should a pilot's union proclaim they're above such testing?
I would welcome it amongst medical personnel, surgeons, maritime operators, pilots, train engineers...you get my point. It's obvious there are enough folks who can't self regulate their alcohol. The public domain shouldn't have to find out the hard way.

And if further physical examination proves another medical culprit for alcohol levels above allowable, then they're exonerated/treated accordingly. How anyone could object is beyond reasonable. It falls into the same nanny state thinking that's taking over much of the world.

[peekay4]

In the States, mandatory drug and alcohol testing (including random testing) of airline employees having safety-sensitive jobs have been the law since early 1990s. Pilots, flight attendants, flight dispatchers, mechanics, ATC personnel, etc., are all already subject to random testing.

In Canada, the regulatory situation is a bit different, but as far as I know all major airlines in Canada have comprehensive drug and alcohol policies in place.

[Uplinker]

most drivers of cars and trucks aren't directly responsible ofr 80+ passengers but TBH if they could come up with a gadget that imobilised cars etc if the driver was over the limit it would be a great step forward..................

One passenger, or 80+ airline passengers, it makes no difference to me.

I don't understand why a pilot who turns up for work over the limit should be allowed to be 'helped' by his colleagues and not prevented from working.

Why are we protecting pilots who drink ??

[ironbutt57]

Uplinker....who is protecting them?

[Gauges and Dials]

It does not matter whether you way 180 lbs or 250 lbs. When you have a drink it is not measured in the amount of drink you have had. It is measured in the amount of alcohol in your blood stream.
Yes , the theory that some people can consume more than others before becoming apparently drunk does vary, of that there is no doubt. However all law agencies need to follow a certain criteria, hence the laws we have today.
Trying do justify your drinking habits by saying i way more than the person next to me does not exonerate you from the fact that you could effectively be under the influence according to law.

And secondly, how do you get passed your operations center where you must report before take off in that state of mind
There may be some confusion here. Legal limits are defined in terms of alcohol percentages (i.e., in the blood, or in the exhaled breath). Assuming that a 200 lb person has about twice as much blood, muscle, internal organ mass, and other wet tissue as a 100 lb person, which is a pretty reasonable assumption, then it will take about twice as much alcohol for the 200 lb person to reach a given blood alcohol percentage as for the 100 lb person.

[WingNut60]

Mmmmm ..... sort of.
Actually, physical height and sex (gender that is) plays a part too.

A 200 lb male at 165 cm probably has about 500 ml less blood than a person of the same weight but 180 cm tall.
Refer - Nadler method of calculation.

[Gauges and Dials]

True dat. I should have made clearer that I was grossly approximating.

[ShotOne]

Uplinker, being as the whistle was blown here by the F/O, I don't see how it backs up your assertion on "protection".

[Uplinker]

No, I agree, but I am confused by the line of reasoning some use that says: we should not randomly or routinely test pilots, such things should be managed by peer intervention.

[ShotOne]

Perhaps because this incident WAS safely resolved by peer intervention? Not to say that's the only safeguard. Pilots face "with cause" testing which already goes way beyond other safety-critical personnel. There's no testing whatever, random or otherwise, for surgeons, doctors or medical staff -even if they made an error resulting in a patient death. Nor would a UK police officer face mandatory testing even if he'd just accidentally shot someone.

[Heathrow Harry]

A lot of people in engineering jobs in the UK face "without cause" & "random" testing and they aren't in anything like as critical safety jobs

[Pinkman]

Yep. Try being a train driver. Prohibition (bottle to throttle as you would say) times of days, not hours prior to working, when on-call total sobriety - can be for up to a week, employer "must exercise due diligence" to ensure train drivers are not impaired through drink or drugs - which is why testing is quite common.

Doesnt help the trains run on time tho' :{

[peekay4]

There's no testing whatever, random or otherwise, for surgeons, doctors or medical staff -even if they made an error resulting in a patient death.
A drunk surgeon might kill a patient. But a drunk pilot might kill hundreds of passengers in a single mass casualty incident. Hence there are special rules for transportation industry professionals and others in similar positions.

[rotornut]

Although this kind of incident has occurred a few times over the years, this is the worst I have heard of...
Pilot allegedly passed out prior to flight 'the worst I have heard of:' aviation expert | CP24.com (http://www.cp24.com/news/pilot-allegedly-passed-out-prior-to-flight-the-worst-i-have-heard-of-aviation-expert-1.3226134)

[Willie Nelson]

Pinkman pointed out that your colleagues are not always going to be able to call out a drunken pilot as they may be drunk also.

Obviously, that is true but no matter what provisions are put in place somebody will always find a way around whatever system is in place unless we start being tested at sign on and every half hour thereafter.

As far as being infallible, the human race sucks!

In Oz, we have a pretty good system where those that know they have a problem and act, can get help without losing their livelihood or trying to hide the problem (which is where the real problems start)

It does occur to me that in my 17.5 years of flying, I've been tested, for alcohol only, on two occasions both of which were at outports, up to 4 hours after sign on.

I'd like to see a bit more random testing, I don't think it would be too burdensome on the industry or the regulator.

[Gauges and Dials]

Our institutional treatment of the issue is hung up on a moral / legalistic framework when it should be looking at a systems performance and safety framework.

Consider our reaction to the video of a pilot staggering through the security checkpoint, which can in many cases be summed up as, "whoa! that guy needs to be sanctioned .... unless it was due to a medical condition."

The objective here is to avoid the situation in which someone who is not at the top of his or her game takes control of an aircraft full of passengers. If we get confused, and think that it's about stopping bad behavior, then we lose the plot.

If a pilot is not in top condition, why do we even care the reason? That person should not be flying an airplane that day. Period. In the case of pilot error resulting in a crash, everyone's equally dead, regardless of whether the pilot's performance was impaired because of substance abuse, the flu, diabetic crisis, a fight with his wife, fatigue from overwork, or a crappy night's sleep because of the teenagers partying until 4:00 AM in the next hotel room.

We seem to be confused here. Yes, there is a moral, ethical, or contractual difference between, on the one hand, being unfit to fly because you contracted flu and are running a high fever and, on the other hand, being unfit to fly because of something you did to yourself. But that's really between you and your employer; as a co-worker or a passenger I don't care. I'd much rather that the procedures around detecting impairment focus 100% on the safety of the aircraft and 0% on enforcing any legal or contractual obligations.

[crippen]

All About Ignition Interlocks

All about Ignition Interlocks - how they work - costs - BAIID - breathalyzer (http://www.lifeguardbreathtester.com/Preventing_DUI/dui_ignition.shtml)


one of these on every 'plane?

[Gauges and Dials]

I'd be more interested in something that tests some combination of visual acuity, dynamic vision, reaction time, ability to cope with task saturation, etc.

"Before leaving the crew room, score over 76 on this video game or go home, no questions asked unless it starts happening regularly...."

[White Knight]

Which shouldn't be a problem for the gelled and spiky-hair generation who've grown up with X-boxes. Some of us haven't played video games since the days of Pac-Man and Space Invaders:rolleyes:


There are people in every profession who, sadly, hit the bottle too hard... And by too hard meaning that no threat of random testing, peer assistance etc etc will make a blind bit of difference - until they're caught out such as in this case!

[White Knight]

And to add. I'm damn sure I could fly better after a couple of pints of beer than after a restless night, say in Shanghai during Chinese New year, and then looking at the stars for 8 hours before shooting a Cat3 into Dubai after an hour of holding.

FATIGUE is far more of an issue in aviation than booze:ooh:

[Gauges and Dials]

Which shouldn't be a problem for the gelled and spiky-hair generation who've grown up with X-boxes. Some of us haven't played video games since the days of Pac-Man and Space Invaders:rolleyes:


well, yeah, the value of the approach depends entirely on whether or not the test is a realistic measure of "being on top of one's piloting game" I meant "video game" rather loosely.

[HighAndFlighty]

And to add. I'm damn sure I could fly better after a couple of pints of beer than after a restless night, say in Shanghai during Chinese New year, and then looking at the stars for 8 hours before shooting a Cat3 into Dubai after an hour of holding.

FATIGUE is far more of an issue in aviation than booze:ooh:
White Knight, your post doesn't make any sense at all.

Putting aside the question of whether a "a couple of pints", or about a litre, of a decent full strength brew would leave you fit to fly, surely, both fatigue and booze are problems?

Sure, a very fatigued pilot may be a bigger risk than a pilot who has imbibed a quiet light beer (and less than 2 pints) some hours before take-off. However, a pilot who has had several drinks prior to a flight will probably be a bigger risk than a a pilot who happened to have a less-than-perfect night's sleep.

Further, let's consider a fatigued pilot whose condition is exacerbated by having a few drinks. That is, one who is both fatigued and drunk. He would be considerably more dangerous than a pilot who is "merely" fatigued.

It's true that fatigue is a major issue, and a more prevalent problem than alcohol consumption by professional pilots. But to trivialize the severe effect of alcohol consumption on a pilot's aptitude is just plain silly.

[White Knight]

But to trivialize the severe effect of alcohol consumption on a pilot's aptitude is just plain silly.

I'm actually not trivialising it; but if you choose to read it that way...

As you point out both booze and fatigue are problems amongst the pilot masses, I do feel however that fatigue is actually a far greater issue...

But to trivialize the severe effect of alcohol consumption on a pilot's aptitude is just plain silly.

There are quite a few studies out there showing that small amounts of alcohol may actually improve performance. I say may. Take a look at them... Fatigue on the other hand NEVER improves performance. Been there and done that many times!

Not that I would condone flying after small amounts of booze of course. Just making a point!

[peekay4]

There are quite a few studies out there showing that small amounts of alcohol may actually improve performance.
It depends how one defines "performance". There are studies showing that small amounts of alcohol may improve creative problem solving, but at the expense of focus and alertness. Not a good thing when you're shooting that Cat 3 approach!

Plus alcohol is also a sedative (http://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/alcohol-and-fatigue): it increases fatigue levels and may also interfere with sleep. So it's silly to say fatigue is better than alcohol, since alcohol leads to fatigue.

The Sunwing Captain passing out in the cockpit is a good clue about the relationship between alcohol and fatigue...

[IcePack]

Their must be more to this story. "Passing Out" some how he got himself to the cockpit which would seem to me to be impossible for someone so drunk he was about to pass out. Whilst he was allegedly over the aviation limit, I wonder if he just fell asleep due to other reasons. Like fatigue.

Those of us who are old enough to remember it was almost a right of passage to be able to have a skin full the night before & still operate the next day. Even have a " sharpener" on the last leg. Be what it may I never saw or heard of anyone passing out at the controls but I did hear of a pilot turning up to work in only his underpants. (Not a recomended procedure)

However I am not condoning drinking & flying as modern aircraft are much more complex & sheer flying skills are no longer second nature.

[WingNut60]

It seems that this thread is degenerating, as with many other previous threads, into a squabble over which is the more serious problem, drunkenness or fatigue.
That is really regrettable because it is patently obvious that both problems need to be addressed and this type of argument effectively tries to reduce the significance of each in order to accentuate the significance of the other --- that is a lose / lose.
I don't see too many real opponents to the argument that duty cycles and resulting fatigue are perceived as a serious problem by pilots. This will only ever be resolved by getting airline management to see and acknowledge the problem. How can you do that? Whatever the answer, please don't denigrate the arguments to limit and control pilot inebriation as an means to highlight the fatigue problem.

While the use of drugs and alcohol may be a much smaller problem from a safety perspective, from the perspective of the paying passengers, it is not.

When the newspapers print a report that 40% of pilots confirm feeling fatigued while in control of an aircraft, the average oik won't even read past the first few lines.
But when the same newspaper reports a drunken pilot collapsed in his seat they will read every line and it will quite probably come up in conversation with their friends later, in the pub.
Whenever it happens it IS a problem. And it happens all too often

The problem is not simply that the pilot was incapacitated, but that he got as far as through into the public eye before being intercepted.
Existing self-policing policies may be quite adequate to ensure that incapacitated pilots do not actually get into the air, but they are clearly failing to assure the flying public that this system is effective.

Any argument that pre-flight screening in the crew room, or wherever, out of the public eye does not guarantee 100% interception of incapacity is a weak argument.
But then, nothing in life is 100% guaranteed.
Such a system can be implemented and eventually will be, despite all protestation, not because it will be 100% effective but because it is more effective than the current honesty-box system and because the paying passengers will come to expect it.
Hell, 12 or 18 hours from bottle to throttle; what does that really mean?
I have seen drinkers who have been drinking heavily (not necessarily heavy drinkers) who could not be safely trusted with a can opener 40 hours after their last drink. Let them in to control a passenger aircraft? Not one that I'm sitting on, thank you.

[peekay4]

Any argument that pre-flight screening in the crew room, or wherever, out of the public eye does not guarantee 100% interception of incapacity is a weak argument.
But then, nothing in life is 100% guaranteed.
Such a system can be implemented and eventually will be, despite all protestation, not because it will be 100% effective but because it is more effective than the current honesty-box system and because the paying passengers will come to expect it.
100% pre-flight alcohol screening is already the law in India, for all pilots & cabin crew, before each flight segment.

Personally I believe such policy is excessive and not based on sound risk analysis. But it is, as you say, a policy based on public expectations.

[LocumStandi]

I do not know what the big technical issue is, in monitoring physical and mental capacity before entrusting someone with a task that needs to ensure the safety of hundreds of souls.

Devise a test that measures visual acuity, mental alertness, situational awareness, reaction time and decision making skills in 5 to 10 minutes in the crew lounge before departure.

Have a chip card that has your baseline values for the test, updated with natural improvement of skill values as you get more expert, each time you take the test.

Red flag anyone who cannot perform to 95% or whatever of their known baseline.

It's that simple.

[Heathrow Harry]

Nut is correct and I think says it all.................

[ShotOne]

It's simply nonsense to imply current rules are ineffective. Staff, crew and members of the public at every stage are empowered to trigger a test, the consequences of failing which are immediate and severe. This case, far from depicting an "honesty box system" demonstrates the robustness of the system. It works! A fact backed up by the total absence of incidents and accidents caused by alcohol. The 100% screening so misguidedly being sought would be very expensive, almost certainly wouldn't have prevented this incident and contribute nothing to safe flying.

[ph-sbe]

Flight crews used to have to see a physician before starting their duties (it may even still be that way in some countries).

Here is a good reason to implement that: to provide air crew with a safe way out. If it's the doctor that's declaring you unfit to fly, you don't have to make that dreaded call and explain yourself. The reasons for being unfit to fly are medical and thus privileged. Is it a cold, fatigue or alcohol? No need for dispatch to know.

Of course, recurring alcoholic incidents will be reason for a deeper investigation, but that will be triggered from the medical side through a suspension of a medical certificate. Which could be done for high blood pressure as well. Again, a face-saving way out for the air crew.

[ph-sbe]

Although this kind of incident has occurred a few times over the years, this is the worst I have heard of...

Oh, it can be worse. How about this captain, who was under the influence of cocaine and did not notice his poorly flying first officer fly the aircraft into the ground?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Colorado_Airlines_Flight_2286

This flight had a first officer who failed multiple IFR checkrides, had a history of alcohol abuse, and the captain had used cocaine the night before the flight. If that's not a recipe for disaster, I don't know what is.

[India Four Two]

Gronych did not appear in person at the Calgary Courts Centre on Thursday. His lawyer addressed the matter at the case management office and it was put over until Jan. 25.

Transport minister 'very concerned' about Sunwing pilot accused of passing out drunk in cockpit - Calgary - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/sunwing-drunk-pilot-calgary-court-case-put-over-1.3922533)