Suspected drink drivers again - surely not?-

[Imagegear]

Two United pilots arrested at Glasgow this morning::

They can't be serious?

United Pilots drinking? (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-49222120)

IG

[Airbubba]

Hope they finished that crew lounge at the Paisley Sheriff Court.

It's been almost three years since the last United pilots were caught over the limit at GLA. From the article linked above:

In 2017, two United Airline pilots were jailed for breaching drink-fly limits at Glasgow Airport.

First Officer Paul Grebenc, 35, was sentenced to 10 months in prison.

His colleague Carlos Roberto Licona, 45, was jailed for 15 months.

Both had been arrested while preparing to take off from Glasgow on 27 August 2016.



Is United still staying at the Hilton?

[KelvinD]

Is United still staying at the Hilton?
Well, at least 2 of them are not. They are now staying in the police cells in Glasgow.

[bunk exceeder]

Is there a disconnect between 0.04 there and 0.02 here? Or were they trashed after a night on Sauchiehall St? 80 shillings, some shorts and a curry. The toxicology results will be interesting. And sad.

[golfyankeesierra]

Not mentioning this as an excuse, but some European layovers must be hard for Americans.
When I (as an European) am Stateside, in the evenings the Jetlag sometimes makes me too tired to stand up, let alone hold a beer. In the Far East, otoh, in the evenings I have so much energy that I am glad to have only a few hours sleep before a morning departure back home.
So while my personal chances to be over the limit in the US are zero without even thinking about it, in the East I have to be consciously aware of limits when, if or how much to drink.
I guess that works the same for Americans in Europe.
While absolutely disapproving drinking and flying, and recognizing problematic use, I also see a bigger risk for honest (and stupid) mistakes for them overhere.

[Starbear]

Is there a disconnect between 0.04 there and 0.02 here? Or were they trashed after a night on Sauchiehall St? 80 shillings, some shorts and a curry. The toxicology results will be interesting. And sad.

Why sad? Did you mean " possibly sad"?

[compton3bravo]

You have a nice day now especially if you are in Barlinnie, notorious Glasgow prison.

[bafanguy]

Two United pilots arrested at Glasgow this morning::

They can't be serious?

This kind of thing needs to stop before the Imperial Federal Kackistocracy steps in with their "solution". No one will like that because it'll be 99% about making themselves look like they're protecting the serfs and peasants from the evil airline pilots.

And you thought random drug and alcohol testing was as far as they could go...how about a breathalyzer every time you report for work ? Those hand-held gizmos are cheap...cheap enough to be located at every layover station in your system. Administered by some gate agent supervisor who already hates your guts.

Never underestimate what government will do in its own interest.

[Mariner]

I'm flying the Hajj for Garuda at the moment.

Garuda does a medical check when reporting for each duty at an Indonesian station.
Breathalyzer test & blood pressure.

Fine with me.

[Airbubba]

And you thought random drug and alcohol testing was as far as they could go...how about a breathalyzer every time you report for work ?

Breathalyser tests are already administered before every flight in India. And pilots still regularly fail the test and get 90 days off for the first offense.

See: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/air-india-pilot-suspended-drunk-on-delhi-bengaluru-flight-5829703/

https://www.businesstoday.in/sectors/aviation/57-indian-pilots-found-drunk-before-takeoff-at-delhi-airport-in-four-years/story/307420.html

Pilots are going to show up for work drunk, it's an unfortunate fact of life. The days of 'you call in sick and I'll cover for you' are long gone in the U.S. in my opinion. I agree that we need to try to self police but you are right, stronger measures are probably coming.

[bafanguy]

Breathalyser tests are already administered before every flight in India.

bubba,

I would not particularly be inclined to agree that policies from 3rd world countries are the proper solution to issues here if that is offered as justification for whatever the Perfumed Princes in DC should/might do.

Of course, we long ago abandoned the Fourth Amendment as it might relate to airline pilots. If we keep poking the bear with stuff like this, we'll get what we asked for. Well, YOU will...I won't. They can't get at me any longer. Maybe Lizzy Dole will come out of retirement to help with the "solution".

The industry need not despair since there's no level of abuse pilots will not meekly submit to.

[Imagegear]

...and I quote from the "Max" thread:

Further to GordonR’s reply, I would add that the regulatory assumption of a 3-second response time to trim runaway is highly questionable. The operating data manual for my (military) type assumes a 3.5-second pilot response time for loss of thrust during takeoff, and that’s a readily-diagnosed failure where the pilot can reasonably be assumed to be in a state of optimum vigilance with hand on throttle, ready to cut. Contrast that with trim runaway on a 737, where the first second or two could easily be rationalised away as speed trim, leaving only another second to complete the diagnosis and instruct PNF to cutout the trim. Then add more time for PNF to process this startling instruction and find, unguard and flip the switches. Then maybe add more time for CRM SOPs (“state the malfunction”... “memory items”...), depending on company culture and crew experience. The Mentour Pilot video from months ago may have exaggerated this grossly (10:10 to 11:25 at the link below), but whichever way you look at it, an allowance of only 3 seconds to isolate the trim implies an optimistic assessment of human startle response.

Would you want to ride with any pilot who is impaired by drink? and the requirements for reaction and response time could be as short as quoted above?

Yes, this is the MAX but I doubt that the reaction and response times required are much more.

If there is nothing to hide there is nothing to fear in this regard.

IG

[SeenItAll]

Just a question, but exactly how accurate are breathalyzers? Is a reading of 0.02 significantly different from 0.01? I would guess that they have a certain amount of error, and only a blood test can give you a really accurate reading.

[bafanguy]

...and I quote from the "Max" thread:Would you want to ride with any pilot who is impaired by drink?

That question really doesn't merit an answer.

I assume you are the citizen of a country where your civil rights are codified ? Do you not expect full recognition of those rights regardless of your occupation ?

"If there is nothing to hide there is nothing to fear in this regard." is irrelevant and the ruse of tyrants.

Breathalyzers are screening devices with some accuracy flaws (name a device that doesn't have flaws). That inaccuracy may win you a blood test. In the meantime, you're guilty until proven innocent...and still get to be that guy pulled off his flight for being "drunk" even when you weren't.

But if people are happy being treated like that I guess I'm happy for them.

[Herod]

Retirement gets better by the day.

[Imagegear]

As you say, the Breathalyzer can provide false positives so is normally not the final authority on impairment, a formal blood test will confirm the results some time later, but the blood test may also occur too late to confirm the limit being exceeded. Does that mean that some pilots intended to fly while impaired? but it could not be proved because of limitations in the equipment and processes available?.

I am not going to comment on whether the actual suspicions which give rise to a Breathalyzer test, for I agree that the powers that be, exceed their authority in some situations, due to jealousy, greed, and a false sense of authority. However this should be dealt with as a separate issue. As for the media's handling of these cases, I find their activities deplorable and frankly deserving of litigation when they cross the line. (I have already seen mention of the word "drunk" and that should meet with an appropriate response, A five line retraction at the bottom of page ten, does not cut it.)

As has been stated, this event is likely to result in a more expanded process to determine results quickly. Some airlines and nations are not even waiting for a better process to be introduced, preferring to err on the side of caution and safety. I, for one, appreciate that.

IG

[serf]

Not mentioning this as an excuse, but some European layovers must be hard for Americans.
When I (as an European) am Stateside, in the evenings the Jetlag sometimes makes me too tired to stand up, let alone hold a beer. In the Far East, otoh, in the evenings I have so much energy that I am glad to have only a few hours sleep before a morning departure back home.
So while my personal chances to be over the limit in the US are zero without even thinking about it, in the East I have to be consciously aware of limits when, if or how much to drink.
I guess that works the same for Americans in Europe.
While absolutely disapproving drinking and flying, and recognizing problematic use, I also see a bigger risk for honest (and stupid) mistakes for them overhere.

Why would you drink anything on a layover?

[Navcant]

In Japan, city bus drivers are required to pass a breathalyzer test before starting their shift.

Just saying.

[Timmy Tomkins]

Sadly we get the rules/laws thet the irresponsible create justification for. I am sure we can all think of many in day to day life. Some idiot behaves badly and the "there needs to be a law for this" will kick in and then all the responsible people will have to suffer it.

[Drussjnr]

Sadly we get the rules/laws thet the irresponsible create justification for. I am sure we can all think of many in day to day life. Some idiot behaves badly and the "there needs to be a law for this" will kick in and then all the responsible people will have to suffer it.

What responsible people have an issue doing a Breathalyzer test before work?

[Webby737]

What responsible people have an issue doing a Breathalyzer test before work?
It's another check that just adds more misery in trying to get to the aircraft, the security screening in some countries is already a right pain in the backside, the last thing we need are more checks.

[EatMyShorts!]

Just because of a few rotten eggs everybody else has to suffer.

[golfyankeesierra]

Quote:
Originally Posted by golfyankeesierra https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/showthread.php?p=10536048#post10536048)
Not mentioning this as an excuse, but some European layovers must be hard for Americans.
When I (as an European) am Stateside, in the evenings the Jetlag sometimes makes me too tired to stand up, let alone hold a beer. In the Far East, otoh, in the evenings I have so much energy that I am glad to have only a few hours sleep before a morning departure back home.
So while my personal chances to be over the limit in the US are zero without even thinking about it, in the East I have to be consciously aware of limits when, if or how much to drink.
I guess that works the same for Americans in Europe.
While absolutely disapproving drinking and flying, and recognizing problematic use, I also see a bigger risk for honest (and stupid) mistakes for them overhere.



Why would you drink anything on a layover?



Because some of us spend more nights away then at home, and even then some nights at home are the night before a duty.
And some of us would like to enjoy a beer or a good glass of wine once in a while.

My point was that because of the timezones, jetlag and EB departure times it is much easier for an American pilot in Europe to fall in a pit of his own making and drink one too many..

[Phantom Driver]

Retirement gets better by the day.
Second that

[bafanguy]

Just because of a few rotten eggs everybody else has to suffer.

The entirety of human history demonstrates this regardless of occupation. But, you have to allow for those who are not reckless but have a disease which alcoholism is. Not trying to make excuses or be PC (heaven knows I'm not THAT) but it's a complex subject. Just sayin'.

[bafanguy]

What responsible people have an issue doing a Breathalyzer test before work?

Meekly submitting to officially being deemed guilty until YOU prove yourself innocent is not my definition of being "responsible".

[maxxer]

bubba,

I would not particularly be inclined to agree that policies from 3rd world countries are the proper solution to issues here if that is offered as justification for whatever the Perfumed Princes in DC should/might do.

Of course, we long ago abandoned the Fourth Amendment as it might relate to airline pilots. If we keep poking the bear with stuff like this, we'll get what we asked for. Well, YOU will...I won't. They can't get a me any longer. Maybe Lizzy Dole will come out of retirement to help with the "solution".

The industry need not despair since there's no level of abuse pilots will not meekly submit to.

Sorry but i think right now you come from the 3rd world country

[RoyHudd]

Review the level, make it 0.4, and make checks in the crew room mandatory. `There will be no more accidents due to "drunk" pilots, no more horrible media drivel, and pilots can relax and enjoy a beer 10 hours before report. Everyone's happy.

[bafanguy]

Sorry but i think right now you come from the 3rd world country

OK...thank you for your input.

[RHS]

Might be the strength of beer also. 4/5 pints of American beer finishing 12 hours before flying and you’re good to go at 0 the next morning. 4/5 pints of some of the nicer Ales/Lagers particularly the craft stuff around Glasgow, not so much.

I remember previous company had similar issues in Belgium. No one did anything untoward/illegal but after a few boisterous room parties a gentle reminder that most of the beer is 8/9% not 4/5% made a few suddenly think.

[KRviator]

Breathalyzers are screening devices with some accuracy flaws (name a device that doesn't have flaws). That inaccuracy may win you a blood test. In the meantime, you're guilty until proven innocent...and still get to be that guy pulled off his flight for being "drunk" even when you weren't.
But if people are happy being treated like that I guess I'm happy for them.I don't fly professionally anymore - thank god - but still work in an occupation where the regulator can be standing at my mailbox as I reverse out of the driveway in uniform and breath and drug test me on my way to work. They never would go to someones house, but the legislation is written that way to stop people 'going sick' in the carpark when they hear the testers are on-site. Am I happy for that? Bloody oath I am. I have to trust my colleagues with my life, with no recourse at times, it isn't like an airliner where you can overpower or palm off certain duties to your Coey...And after seeing a goodly number of (usually younger) crews getting busted for it and pushed out the door means I have more confidence in going home at the end of the shift. Those of that have failed AOD tests (with reason, ie Codiene medication etc) usually see it as a bit of a chuckle as you get a (fully paid) day or two off until the confirmatory results come back. No one here bats an eye and there is no stigma associated with a reasonable non-negative result.

In Japan, city bus drivers are required to pass a breathalyzer test before starting their shift.
Just saying.And I bet they don't have a problem with that. Neither would I - in fact I'd welcome it at my work, rather than a handful of crew getting picked for 'random' tests every day.

It's another check that just adds more misery in trying to get to the aircraft, the security screening in some countries is already a right pain in the backside, the last thing we need are more checks.Proving yourself legally capable of operating the aircraft by a 10 second blow-in-the-tube adds misery? C'mon...:rolleyes:

[EatMyShorts!]

As written above by another participant: in my understand you are not guilty until proven otherwise. Not the other way around. That's why security checks for crew are stupid, too.

[Rated De]

Just a question, but exactly how accurate are breathalyzers? Is a reading of 0.02 significantly different from 0.01? I would guess that they have a certain amount of error, and only a blood test can give you a really accurate reading.

The Breathalyzer is not accurate.
Firstly, if they are not regularly calibrated they are of little use.
Secondly, they only indicate the presence of alcohol. They are not used to "measure" the amount of alcohol merely to indicate its presence.
In some countries this means an arrest and conveyed to a "testing" facility. In others, it is accompany.

Problematic is the "mission creep" where increasingly the powers of detection and apprehension are no longer the civil power (police)

Curiously absent is airline management, who in efforts to squeeze "efficiency" from flight crew, reduce rest periods to statutory minimum, increase roster TOD to maximum. Circadian rhythm disturbance and sleep opportunity is irrelevant to them. Comfortably, in their own timezone, they enjoy whatever substance takes their fancy.

[Manwell]

Whatever happened to the old "8 hours bottle to throttle" rule? Many years ago a BA 747 Captain was found to be intoxicated on the flight deck, so they performed an experiment with him in the sim and found he flew better pissed than sober!

If this subject was considered scientifically, a one size fits all blood alcohol concentration isn't a reliable indicator of impairment. Experienced long haul pilots are seasoned drinkers, so their tolerance levels of alcohol intoxication aren't the same as someone new to the job with no tolerance to alcohol. Of course, just as with the media, Government nannies don't like spoiling a good story with the facts, and will never admit that it's mostly their hare-brained rules and regulations that drive most people to drink in the first place in an attempt to deal with the bull****.

[Airbubba]

Whatever happened to the old "8 hours bottle to throttle" rule? Many years ago a BA 747 Captain was found to be intoxicated on the flight deck, so they performed an experiment with him in the sim and found he flew better pissed than sober!

Can you provide a reference for this claim? :confused:

[misd-agin]

European beer, on average, has slightly more alcohol than U.S. beer. But it’s less than people think. Maybe 10%. So blaming it on ‘European beer’ is only true if they blew a 0.022.

https://gunaxin.com/american-beer-european-beer-really-weaker

[wiggy]

Many years ago a BA 747 Captain was found to be intoxicated on the flight deck, so they performed an experiment with him in the sim and found he flew better pissed than sober!


Never heard of that incident and subsequent experiment so just like Airbubba I'd be very interested in a reference..or at least some idea of how long ago it is supposed to have happened....

[Pearly White]

Review the level, make it 0.4, and make checks in the crew room mandatory. `There will be no more accidents due to "drunk" pilots, no more horrible media drivel, and pilots can relax and enjoy a beer 10 hours before report. Everyone's happy.
0.4???

I hope you mean 0.04.

[Manwell]

Can you provide a reference for this claim? :confused:

No Airbubba and others. I heard this back before computers existed and well before our current obsession with links to authoritative references so we don't have to think for ourselves. There is plenty of evidence in my post to make an informed decision, aka deduced reckoning.

[Manwell]

Never heard of that incident and subsequent experiment so just like Airbubba I'd be very interested in a reference..or at least some idea of how long ago it is supposed to have happened....

Sometime around 1990 is when I heard it, and I don't know exactly when it happened, but must have been after BA introduced B747's. I heard this in Australia, and since it happened in the UK, it might have taken some time to filter down to a flying school in Sydney.

[hunterboy]

Slight thread creep:
As someone that gave up the demon drink several years ago, I can vouch for the fact that there are quite a few tolerable low and non alcoholic beers available now.
In the US, I find an O’Douls normally goes down well with the mandatory chicken wings. Becks Blue and the Heineken 0,0 are available in many places too. I’d recommend giving one a try on a night stop, it just may save your job one day.

[groundbum]

the other benefit of zero alcohol beers is they have next to no calories. I had 3 months on them and found I still got slightly silly, like on a real beer, and a few times a sore head the next day! A lot of drinking beer must be in my mind!

G

[NEDude]

OK...thank you for your input.

Sadly, I have to agree with him. The U.S. has all the hallmarks of a third world country these days.

[bafanguy]

...and well before our current obsession with links to authoritative references so we don't have to think for ourselves.

I'm not sure it's an "obsession" with links. Unless a person is a certified, acknowledged expert on a particular subject and can document that to an audience of strangers, an opinion is merely an opinion. For example, I can think anything I want about the physiology of alcohol metabolism but since I'm not a physiologist my opinion is just that: an opinion.

If one of us non-experts is going to support/discuss/debate a subject, the proper course is to seek out real experts and in the process learn something. I'd be reluctant to accuse people of not thinking merely because they supported an opinion on which they lacked personal experience or education. Just a thought...

"I am not young enough to know everything."

Oscar Wilde

[wiggy]

No Airbubba and others. I heard this back before computers existed and well before our current obsession with links to authoritative references so we don't have to think for ourselves. There is plenty of evidence in my post to make an informed decision, aka deduced reckoning.

Ah, no reference, so just the same old arguments you have deployed before, in another context, about logic and reasoning.

So in 1990 you were in Sydney Australia and heard a story. When challenged here on it's accuracy you can't or won't offer up references..

I'll offer up that In 1990 I was at BA on the fleet in question and yet heard nothing of this incident or experiment, and in fact in my many years on that Fleet and on other fleets at BA I still have not heard the story you describe..IMHO if this incident occurred as you describe it was not at BA.

In the absence of any references I'll leave it to others such as Airbubba to use their powers of deduction to make an informed decision

[Jesse Pinkman]

No Airbubba and others. I heard this back before computers existed and well before our current obsession with links to authoritative references so we don't have to think for ourselves. There is plenty of evidence in my post to make an informed decision, aka deduced reckoning.

And when you do think for yourself, you think it feasible that a pilot found drunk on the flight deck was taken to the simulator to be tested?

[Vendee]

In Japan, city bus drivers are required to pass a breathalyzer test before starting their shift.

Just saying.

In the UK, some coach companies have fitted a device to their vehicles which requires a "clean" breath sample to be given before the engine can be started. I was on a coach through a hot and heavily congested central London once. The engine overheated and cut out. The driver had to blow into a tube before restarting the engine. Not sure how that system would work with a flameout at FL120 though :eek:

[Auxtank]

No Airbubba and others. I heard this back before computers existed and well before our current obsession with links to authoritative references so we don't have to think for ourselves. There is plenty of evidence in my post to make an informed decision, aka deduced reckoning.

There is some information here about alcohol-impairment experiments on pilots here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2012569

carried out by;
Aerospace Human Factors Research Division and Human Research Facility, NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA 94035.

And if you look at the links to 'similar experiments' on the right of the page here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7980331
You'll find that in every one of the experiments alcohol impaired pilot performance.

Hope that helps.

[treadigraph]

Article in Flying (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LEg5fVCKOngC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA72#v=onepage&q&f=false) by Richard Collins and Mac McClellan which might be of interest.

[threep]

Can you provide a reference for this claim? :confused:

I can't help with the above. I do remember reading a piece of research (done in Scandinavia IIRC) which looked at stopping distances at various level of intoxication whilst driving (it was about 15-20 years ago and alas I never bookmarked the report). The slightly surprising finding of the research was that stopping distances were less with some alcohol in the blood rather than zero (can't remember the figures sorry). The authors suggested this was owing to drivers being less inhibited in stamping on the brakes, bringing in the ABS earlier resulting in shorter stopping distances by a small but measurable amount. It didn't mean they were better/safer drivers overall, it was a very specific test under controlled conditions.

At the time Sweden had a blood alcohol limit of 20mg alcohol/100ml of blood for driving (same as the 0.02 limit mentioned above?) and I think many pieces of research have show that at that there is no statistically significant increased accident risk up to 20 mg/100ml. The risks do start climbing about that level though. Compare that with most of Europe having drink driving limits of 50 mg/ml and the UK 80 mg/ml !
Each individual reacts differently to alcohol and an individual can react differently on different occasions. 20mg/100ml seems like a sensible limit to me and nobody should object if there was say regular random breath testing.

[GLAEDI]

In Scotland the two crew would have had a second test done most likely a blood sample at the station. There’s also a requirement in Scotland of corroboration (differs from rUK) so two pieces of evidence the initial breathalyser test and then the 2nd test will be presented to the Procurator Fiscal. It’ll be the PF’s decision to instruct Police Scotland to Charge the crew. There would be a hearing done at the Sheriff (a Judge not a Law Officer as in the US) Court where the PF will present the evidence and Sheriff will decide wether the case proceeds and if they accused will be bailed. Scots drink drive limit is also lower than the rUK at EU average of 50mg/l in specimen of breath.

[Nil by mouth]

Perhaps these drunk pilots are trying to emulate Captain William "Whip" Whitaker Sr.? (movie Flight)

[Joe_K]

he flew better pissed than sober
That's the definition of a functional alcoholic. Worse performance when sober due to alcohol withdrawal syndrome.

[VariablePitchP]

Just because of a few rotten eggs everybody else has to suffer.

Only if you’ve been drinking will the extra 5 seconds at security bother you (in addition to the bag scans, swabs and metal detector scan you already do in order to be allowed to get to an aircraft, though no one seems to mind doing all that)

[Milarity]

Do you remember the Top Gear experiments using a driving simulator shown on the BBC? One group of drivers were plied with alcohol. The results showed a small initial improvement in driving skills that was put down to the relaxing effect of the alcohol. This was followed by a gradual diminishment in skill levels over time, with the number of errors increasing as the booze took effect. This was compared with a second set of drivers who did not drink, but were deprived of sleep. This group maintained their performance level until they reached a point where the the graph nose-dived off a cliff.

[Navcant]

It's another check that just adds more misery in trying to get to the aircraft, the security screening in some countries is already a right pain in the backside, the last thing we need are more checks.

As was just illustrated in Glasgow, you are wrong.
Checks are needed and something a little more precise than a gate agent getting a whiff of the pilot's breath.

[Airbanda]

Just a question, but exactly how accurate are breathalyzers? Is a reading of 0.02 significantly different from 0.01? I would guess that they have a certain amount of error, and only a blood test can give you a really accurate reading.

In the UK for drivers breath analysis is all that's required, the limit is 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100ml of breath. There used to be an option of blood test for marginal fails but that was abolished a few years ago. Not sure of position with blood test option for aviation functions where there is a lower limit but Police Station intoximeters are highly sophisticated, regularly calibrated and it's very rare for them to be proven wrong.

[ph-sbe]

bubba,
Of course, we long ago abandoned the Fourth Amendment as it might relate to airline pilots.

The 4th protects you against unreasonable searches, and then only from the government.

If you choose to operate an aircraft carrying up to 500 lives and enough fuel to effectively demolish a skyscraper, then the general public might consider it reasonable (a reasonable search) that you submit to a check before the flight.

Remember that that check does not necessarily have to be criminal: I could see a compromise where your medical certificate is "revalidated" by taking a breathalizer test, blood pressure, fatigueness check, and glucose levels before every flight. And then taken by a nurse, not a law enforcement officer. Alcohol level too high? Your medical is simply suspended for medical reasons. Nobody needs to know why; it could be a sugar rush or temporarily high blood pressure. And in the meantime, the company diverts you to an alcohol course without you being arrested.

Win-win-win in my book. Air crew have a safety net, traveling public know the boys and girls up front are fit to fly, and airlines won't have the negative publicity.

[aerobelly]

Never heard of that incident and subsequent experiment so just like Airbubba I'd be very interested in a reference..or at least some idea of how long ago it is supposed to have happened....

Sometime between 1977 and 1983 Car & Driver magazine (USA) published an article in which its staff took their favourite tipple to a test of how drink affected their driving. Various tasks driving around cones were performed as they got progressively drunker. In fact to the point that some could not even stand up, but could still drive -- not well though. However for most a "quick sharpener" did indeed sharpen their ability, although past a certain point destruction of cones became ever greater.

A couple of years later they repeated it with marijuana, but not being a smoker I wasn't interested in the conclusions.

C&D do not seem to have an online archive, shame it was always a very entertaining read.


'a

[bafanguy]

The 4th protects you against unreasonable searches, and then only from the government.

The random testing in place now (and any future additions to that program) is government mandated, carrying implied consent to submit to testing as a condition of "...exercising the privileges of..." .Therefore, it is a Fourth Amendment issue; this isn't just some company-initiated policy. ALPA testified to that at the Senate hearing when the mandated testing was being ramped up.

The Senate committee laughed it off when ALPA tried to explain the HIMS program as an alternative to the heavy hand of government. You alluded to the HIMS concept with your statement: "And in the meantime, the company diverts you to an alcohol course without you being arrested." So I assume you support something that would obviate the use of government/law enforcement as a "solution" to a complex problem.

I watched the hearing and spoke to the ALPA national aeromedical committee chairman after I saw the way he and the ALPA lawyer testifying with him were treated. It was infuriating political grandstanding by the senators pretending to save the serfs and peasants...and might be again. Stay tuned.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/drug_alcohol/

[Herod]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2012569 This was a series of flights in a 727 simulator. I recall seeing film of this, or similar, but I can't find it on the net.

[Sailvi767]

Only if you’ve been drinking will the extra 5 seconds at security bother you (in addition to the bag scans, swabs and metal detector scan you already do in order to be allowed to get to an aircraft, though no one seems to mind doing all that)

A proper breathalyzer that is going to end people’s careers needs a lot longer than 5 seconds. The machines need to be cleared between uses and a blank tested. If someone does show positive there needs to be a 30 minute wait and then a retest in case it was a false positive for several possible reasons.

[Wizofoz]

Something that always comes to my mind- AFAIK, there has been no instance of an intoxicated pilot causing death or injury flying an airliner, yet being caught over the limit (though BELOW the limit for driving) seems to carry an automatic, lengthy jail term.

We KNOW that MANY lives are lost each year to drunk drivers,yet it takes multiple offences before any DUI driver is jailed, and then often for short periods.

Showing up intoxicated to fly is obviously a heinously irresponsible act. I would expect anyone doing this to be sacked, face licence loss or lengthy suspension, and face large civil fines, but why is it an automatic jail sentence for something we have no evidence has ever actually hurt anyone?

[ph-sbe]

The random testing in place now (and any future additions to that program) is government mandated, carrying implied consent to submit to testing as a condition of "...exercising the privileges of..." .Therefore, it is a Fourth Amendment issue; this isn't just some company-initiated policy. ALPA testified to that at the Senate hearing when the mandated testing was being ramped up.

Fair enough, I see your point: random testing is government mandated, therefore it's a 4th amendment issue. I see two issues with this. Number one: as I mentioned earlier, the 4th protects you from unreasonable searches only. Is it really unreasonable to be checked? Second, this particular case happened outside of the U.S., so the 4th is of no concern. Yes, there are similar protections, but in the EUSSR you are not as protected as you are in the U.S.


The Senate committee laughed it off when ALPA tried to explain the HIMS program as an alternative to the heavy hand of government. You alluded to the HIMS concept with your statement: "And in the meantime, the company diverts you to an alcohol course without you being arrested." So I assume you support something that would obviate the use of government/law enforcement as a "solution" to a complex problem.

Absolutely, there is no need to include law enforcement. Like I said: let the matter of fit-to-fly be handled by medical personnel. Of course, there will probably be a government mandate for that, but that's the only government intrusion needed in this case. HIMS is indeed exactly what would work; except that it's an FAA only thing. We need an ICAO thing.

I watched the hearing and spoke to the ALPA national aeromedical committee chairman after I saw the way he and the ALPA lawyer testifying with him were treated. It was infuriating political grandstanding by the senators pretending to save the serfs and peasants...and might be again. Stay tuned.

Remember that most of the elected representatives have no clue about what they are talking about. Afterall, a 25 year old bartender was able to get elected to congress.

[KRviator]

Something that always comes to my mind- AFAIK, there has been no instance of an intoxicated pilot causing death or injury flying an airliner, yet being caught over the limit (though BELOW the limit for driving) seems to carry an automatic, lengthy jail term.

We KNOW that MANY lives are lost each year to drunk drivers,yet it takes multiple offences before any DUI driver is jailed, and then often for short periods.

Showing up intoxicated to fly is obviously a heinously irresponsible act. I would expect anyone doing this to be sacked, face licence loss or lengthy suspension, and face large civil fines, but why is it an automatic jail sentence for something we have no evidence has ever actually hurt anyone?The intent to crew the flight while over the limit (note, not the same as 'drunk', or even 'under the influence') is what counts, as well as the potential outcome if your BAC contributes to an accident. I can't recall any incidents where alcohol contributed, but we could all probably bring up a couple dozen where fatigue was a factor...HERE's (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/outrage-over-drunk-school-bus-driver-case/) an incident where parents were 'outraged' at the lenient treatment to a school bus driver who was most assuredly drunk (0.15) with kids on board when she nearly crashed, so the door does swing both ways, even if it is not completely equitable, the courts take a dim view of anything 'aviation' related overly and in some cases, IMHO, wrongly over-emphasising the safety-critical and responsibilities associated with the job.

[tdracer]

Something that always comes to my mind- AFAIK, there has been no instance of an intoxicated pilot causing death or injury flying an airliner, yet being caught over the limit (though BELOW the limit for driving) seems to carry an automatic, lengthy jail term.

We KNOW that MANY lives are lost each year to drunk drivers,yet it takes multiple offences before any DUI driver is jailed, and then often for short periods.

Showing up intoxicated to fly is obviously a heinously irresponsible act. I would expect anyone doing this to be sacked, face licence loss or lengthy suspension, and face large civil fines, but why is it an automatic jail sentence for something we have no evidence has ever actually hurt anyone?

Actually there was a 737 crash in (IIRC) Russia - I'm thinking roughly 20 years ago - where the autopsy found the PF to be drunk. Not impaired, drunk. It's been long enough I don't recall details (PPRuNe being what it is, I'm sure someone will be along to fill in) but there were no survivors.
There was a fatal turboprop crash in Colorado several years back where it was found both pilots were under the influence of cocaine.
I would not be at all surprised if there are others.
I don't know where you live, but in many parts of the United States, DUI is mandatory jail time (at least overnight).

To the original point, while a breathalyzer might be a good screen - as others have noted they are not terribly accurate - certainly not accurate enough for a presumption of guilt.

[Imagegear]

From the BBC

One of two United Airlines pilots arrested for allegedly failing a breath test ahead of a flight to the US has been released without charge.

The men, aged 45 and 61, were held at Glasgow Airport before boarding a flight to Newark, New Jersey, on Saturday.

Police Scotland confirmed the 45-year-old had been released after questioning.

The 61-year-old pilot is due to appear at Paisley Sheriff Court later.

The incident resulted in the United Airlines flight being cancelled.



Link below:

One Pilot released (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-49247380)

IG

[cappt]

Three days in the pokey and no charges?

[triploss]

Fair enough, I see your point: random testing is government mandated, therefore it's a 4th amendment issue. I see two issues with this. Number one: as I mentioned earlier, the 4th protects you from unreasonable searches only. Is it really unreasonable to be checked? Second, this particular case happened outside of the U.S., so the 4th is of no concern. Yes, there are similar protections, but in the EUSSR you are not as protected as you are in the U.S..
You should look up the origins of the 4th amendment sir. Comes straight from the UK from what I can remember.

But if this is a 4th amendment issue, then so is the need to sit tests to get your driver's licence.

[bafanguy]

...therefore it's a 4th amendment issue. I see two issues with this. Number one: as I mentioned earlier, the 4th protects you from unreasonable searches only. Is it really unreasonable to be checked?

Apparently, the reasonableness question has been answered by Congress.

And yes, the election of the bartender is a very sad commentary on the state of affairs here.

[KRviator]

Apparently, the reasonableness question has been answered by Congress.

And yes, the election of the bartender is a very sad commentary on the state of affairs here.Personally, I think that's the least of the US' worries...:ouch:

[srjumbo747]

Glasgow Airport police think they’re above everything. I was in uniform, a few years ago, waiting for a friend to pick me up (away from the paying area to save money) and they told me to move on. I politely told the ‘cuntstable’ that I was merely admiring the architecture and that he should move on
I also used to work there. If their own mother or father were a pilot they’d shop them for any indiscretion. They have attitude and hate all things piloty!
They also have ridiculous hats.
Heathrow Police are always nice! Seriously

[gtseraf]

This kind of thing needs to stop before the Imperial Federal Kackistocracy steps in with their "solution". No one will like that because it'll be 99% about making themselves look like they're protecting the serfs and peasants from the evil airline pilots.

And you thought random drug and alcohol testing was as far as they could go...how about a breathalyzer every time you report for work ? Those hand-held gizmos are cheap...cheap enough to be located at every layover station in your system. Administered by some gate agent supervisor who already hates your guts.

Never underestimate what government will do in its own interest.


Sadly, this has already happened in Japan but it is even worse. Alcohol check with a breathalyser at sign on, a check at the end of the flight (just in case one felt the urge to have a nip inflight). If there is a stopover of more than 2 hours, then a post flight check at the end of the sector PLUS another check before starting the other sector. Add to that a ban on alcohol consumption a certain time period before sign on during layovers ( the time period is twice as long s the no-drink rule in force)

oh yes, also endless emails and training courses about alcohol consumption, education and checks. Welcome to the new era. Most of this protects the bureaucrat sitting behind the desk rather than the consumer.

It is enough to drive one to drink!

[gtseraf]

Review the level, make it 0.4, and make checks in the crew room mandatory. `There will be no more accidents due to "drunk" pilots, no more horrible media drivel, and pilots can relax and enjoy a beer 10 hours before report. Everyone's happy.

Strangely, there appear to be more accidents due to FATIGUED pilots than drunk pilots, yet I do not see the system falling over itself to address fatigue issues in the industry, I guess safety is a priority, as long as it does not cost too much.

[aterpster]

90% of the pilots I flew with had a few beers or a couple of hard drinks early in the layover.

[tdracer]

Strangely, there appear to be more accidents due to FATIGUED pilots than drunk pilots, yet I do not see the system falling over itself to address fatigue issues in the industry, I guess safety is a priority, as long as it does not cost too much.
Until someone comes up with a quick, easy, and reliable test that quantifies fatigue, little will change.
Figure out how to do that and you'll be rich :E

[anson harris]

Remember that most of the elected representatives have no clue about what they are talking about. Afterall, a 25 year old bartender was able to get elected to congress.

Isn't it ironic that she seems to have more wisdom and sense than almost anyone else in the demented world of US politics?

[cappt]

There is a way that a pilot can avoid operating while fatigued that doesn’t cost much. Have a read of your Company Ops manual. Does it tell you that a pilot must not fly if they believe they are suffering from fatigue? Of course, that requires a backbone on your part to comply with the regulation.

As for claims that no passengers have died from flying accidents and incidents caused by an intoxicated pilot; go do your research.

Aviation rules and regulations are about minimising risk. Flying while suffering the effects of alcohol are 100% preventable.



Simple in theory, it becomes more complex when the government agency overseeing fatigue rules (U.S. FAA) allows companies refuse pay and take disciplinary action against employees who call off fatigued.

[tdracer]

Actually there was a 737 crash in (IIRC) Russia - I'm thinking roughly 20 years ago - where the autopsy found the PF to be drunk. Not impaired, drunk. It's been long enough I don't recall details (PPRuNe being what it is, I'm sure someone will be along to fill in) but there were no survivors.

I think it was this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_821
Wiki says "unspecified amount of alcohol in the captain's tissue" - I'm reasonably sure that the report I read quoted a number, and it was high enough to qualify as drunk driving in the US (at least 0.08%). However that report might have been considered confidential - the report was given to me by someone involved in the accident investigation - I was working something at the time that made it relevant so I had a legitimate 'need to know'.

[Auxtank]

It's an occupational hazard (too long hours, too much workload, too much having to be in command and at the end of it having to smile at the pax) to sometimes "forget" the hours we do between Bottle and Throttle and gradually they reduce and converge...

If this means you; start here:

https://himsprogram.com/Home/About

Some excellent resources and guidance and shared experience. You're not alone.

[Airbanda]

Remember that most of the elected representatives have no clue about what they are talking about. Afterall, a 25 year old bartender was able to get elected to congress.

Do you mean Ms Ocasio-Cortez?

I'm looking at this from UK so perhaps not as informed on US stuff as those of you left pond side but:
She's nearer 30 than 25
Surely you're not suggesting that bartending is as far as she could hope to go becuase,
If you read up her history she's got a damn good degree and
She was working long hours to support her family
By all means argue rationally against her politics but by demeaning her you only demean yourself.

[ph-sbe]

You should look up the origins of the 4th amendment sir. Comes straight from the UK from what I can remember.


I naturalized as a U.S. Citizen last year, which requires some study into the U.S. Constitution and its origins. I am very much aware of where it comes from, and its limitations...

[RoyHudd]

Airbanda knows nothing. About professional piloting. Which is what this website ie supposed to be about. Why is an NPPRUNE (Non Professional Pilot Rumour Network) opened to allow such people the opportunity to voice their views? So may are political, ill-informed, and frankly rubbish,so as to demean this site.

[cappt]

cappt: Do you have a reference for that?

My understanding is


Chief counsel of the FAA.
This ruling has been long known.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2014/Anderson-Teamsters357%20-1-%20(2014)%20Legal%20Interpretation.pdf


"Requiring pilot to change status to "fatigued" or "ill."

You next ask whether a certificate holder can require a PIC who is unwilling to concur with an extension to change his or her status to "fatigued" or "ill." As discussed in the answer to the previous question, § 117.19 is silent as to the details of how concurrence with an FDP extension is to be achieved. Thus, it neither prohibits the certificate holder from requiring the PIC to change his or her status to "fatigued" or "ill" nor prohibits the PIC from refusing to comply with the certificate holder's requirement. As mentioned previously, we expect this issue to be addressed as part of the certificate holder and PIC's employer-employee relationship.i

3. Disciplinary action for refusing an FDP extension.

In your next question, you ask whether a certificate holder may take disciplinary action against a pilot for refusing to concur with an FDP extension.

During the rulemaking process that created part 117, commenters asked the FAA to add a non-retaliation provision to part 117 to protect flightcrew members from disciplinary action. However, the FAA rejected this suggestion, explaining in the final rule that:

[C]arriers are entitled to investigate the causes for an employee's fatigue. If a carrier determines that the flightcrew member was responsible for becoming fatigued, it has every right to take steps to address that behavior. However, if the flightcrew member's fatigue is a result of the carrier not following the regulatory requirements of this rule, the FAA may initiate enforcement action against the carrier. 6

As discussed in the final rule preamble, part 117 does not prohibit air carriers from investigating the causes of their employees' behavior and acting on the results of their"

[shamrock_f22]

For those using civil liberties as a justification for not wanting to be breathalysed before every flight - remember what your job is, the impact of making mistakes and the responsibility you hold to the people sat behind you. If you value your civil liberty more than their lives, go find a new job you irresponsible and selfish fool.

I don't know a single passenger that would want to risk their life at the hands of a pilot who was drunk so quite why you have an issue proving that you're fit to do your job is beyond me.

​​​​.

[shamrock_f22]

Sadly, this has already happened in Japan but it is even worse. Alcohol check with a breathalyser at sign on, a check at the end of the flight (just in case one felt the urge to have a nip inflight). If there is a stopover of more than 2 hours, then a post flight check at the end of the sector PLUS another check before starting the other sector. Add to that a ban on alcohol consumption a certain time period before sign on during layovers ( the time period is twice as long s the no-drink rule in force)

oh yes, also endless emails and training courses about alcohol consumption, education and checks. Welcome to the new era. Most of this protects the bureaucrat sitting behind the desk rather than the consumer.

It is enough to drive one to drink!

I don't know you, but it really seems like you genuinely need help concerning your relationship with alcohol. Nobody in your privileged position of responsibility should be this upset by rules designed to keep you and others safe. It really makes me question your cognitive abilities and god only knows what your employer would think.

[cappt]

cappt: you wrote

I don’t read the FAA ruling the way you do. A company would have to prove the employee wasn’t fatigued, and only then may they take what would be normal disciplinary action. If they couldn’t prove the fatigue the FAA may take action against the carrier.

Any responsible crew member who is fatigued and believes it to be as a result of their employment, should not operate. If a witch hunt follows the I think you work for a poor employer. If your fatigue has been caused by your own stupidity, more fool you.

Your opionion, you asked and I gave the the reference of the only opionion that matters. If the company doesn’t like your fatigue call it can be investigated and action taken. You can refuse a duty extension, but if for any reason other then fatigue your company can take action.

[viking767]

Why would you drink anything on a layover?
Let me think....I am in Paris, Rome etc. on a 24+ hour layover, but let me just have a water/ coke/ club soda with my fine meal.

[ironbutt57]

"but let me just have a water/ coke/ club soda with my fine meal.".....

or a couple of glasses of a fine wine, but not the whole cask....you sound like a 5 year old....what is needed is moderation...but if people keep doing this, yah, the airlines will impose their own restriction on drinking downroute.....think how much this cost the airline...

[SMT Member]

Let me think....I am in Paris, Rome etc. on a 24+ hour layover, but let me just have a water/ coke/ club soda with my fine meal.


Unless you're an alcoholic, "surviving" for 24 hours without resorting to a liquid dummy should pose no issues at all. If you're at the point where you can't ingest food without diluting it with alcohol, you may have a problem. Regardless of whether you're in Paris, Rome or Ulan Bator.

[GingerFI]

Every time somebody gets caught over the limit, these things turn in to a slinging match between those saying “just drink in moderation” and then tee-totallers arguing that if you can’t have 24 hours without a drink then you’re an alcoholic.

Some people drink, some people don’t, some people drink on 12/24/36/48 hour layovers in perfect moderation, some people drink too much on those layovers.

The trick is moderation, as previously discussed. If on a nightstop/layover and you fancy a glass of wine with a meal then that if you’re choice as an adult and as a professional. It does not mean that person has a drinking problem. In fact if as an adult and a professional, even if on a single occasion you have too much to drink on a layover you can still act as an adult and a professional and call in sick (unfit for duty as you are!) even that doesn’t define you as having a drinking problem. Of course if it becomes a pattern of behaviour then it may indicate an issue.We are all human and make mistakes. It’s how we deal with those mistakes that defines us.

The reality is, we do not need more blanket rules such as “no drinking down route”. We just need professionals to behave like professionals.

[SamYeager]

The reality is, we do not need more blanket rules such as “no drinking down route”. We just need professionals to behave like professionals.

Excellent post.

[bafanguy]

....what is needed is moderation...but if people keep doing this, yah, the airlines will impose their own restriction on drinking downroute.....

Yes, and heeding the restrictions that come with professional obligations. It's not company restrictions you have to fear. If the profession doesn't self regulate, the force and police power of government will be further tightened (mostly for the benefit of government itself) and NO ONE will like that. I watched government arrive at the current "solution" to this issue. Don't give them another reason to get involved.

Government already considers airline pilots chattel property. Don't feed the beast.

You don't want to be subjected to the monitoring system that's been described in Japan. Testing for cause ? Certainly. Testing everyone ...all the time ? Nope...

[viking767]

United has now imposed a company 12 hour rule instead of the FAA mandated 8 hours.

[Airbubba]

United has now imposed a company 12 hour rule instead of the FAA mandated 8 hours.

Years ago didn't United have a 24 hour rule? I remember hearing tales of Pan Am pilots who went to United with the sale of the Pacific routes in 1985 being surprised that they couldn't (legally) drink on shorter layovers.

I can also remember domestic folks being surprised that international pilots drank alcohol while deadheading in civvies on a company ticket.

Flying international on a cockpit jumpseat at United in the past I was allowed to go back to a seat in the cabin and guzzle champagne as long as I didn't return to the cockpit with eight hours according to the UAL FOM.

And, airlines with eight hour rules are sometimes surprised to find that local regulations in places like SIN prohibit alcohol consumption within 12 hours or more of operating a flight. You will have sea lawyers here and elsewhere tell you that those rules don't apply to you but I'm not sure that will impress the local judge.

[Winemaker]

A United Express flight attendant seems to have been under the weather... .204 blood alcohol. Passengers reported her to United.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/united-gets-complaint-after-fight-attendant-appears-drunk-slurs/ar-AAFzUC4?li=BBnbfcL

[Airbubba]

And, it's not just pilots allegedly showing up drunk for a flight. Air Wisconsin is colloquially known as 'Air Whiskey' for some reason.

Drunk flight attendant passes out on plane, doesn’t know what city she is in, cops [email protected]
AUGUST 08, 2019 12:40 PM, UPDATED AUGUST 08, 2019 10:27 PM
The flight attendant on a morning trip from Chicago to South Bend, Indiana, was intoxicated and didn’t know what city she had landed in when officers escorted her away, prosecutors say.

Airport police officers learned the flight attendant was either drunk or having a “medical issue” after the United Express airplane departed O’Hare International Airport on Aug. 2, according to an arrest affidavit.

Passenger Aaron Scherb tweeted at United Airlines while on the flight, saying he and others recognized her impairment.Scherb told McClatchy newsgroup the flight attendant bumped seats and travelers, dropped things and slurred the safety announcement .

“After everyone boarded the flight and we were still parked at the gate, the flight attendant began the security announcement, which seemed very slurred,” Scherb told McClatchy in an email. “She stopped after about 10 seconds without finishing.”

While the plane taxied to the runway, the flight attendant took her seat and appeared to “pass out” or fall asleep, Scherb said.

A video taken by Scherb shows the flight attendant become “briefly alert” when pilots called on the internal telephone, which she didn’t answer, he said.

When the plane landed, airport police officers and United Airlines employees boarded the airplane and met with the flight attendant, prosecutors say. A few of the passengers said they were “scared for their lives,” according to the arrest affidavit.

When police at South Bend International airport asked the flight attendant where she was, she answered “Chicago,” prosecutors said.

Once in a private airport office, officers evaluated the flight attendant for medical issues but found none, prosecutors said. Instead, they noticed she had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, poor balance and the smell of alcohol on her breath, according to the affidavit.

While on the way to jail, the flight attendant told an officer that she drank two vodka “shooters” before work that morning, according to the affidavit. A breath test later showed her blood-alcohol content level was .204, prosecutors said.

Julianne March, 49, of Waukesha, Wisconsin, was charged with public intoxication on Thursday, according to the affidavit. She could serve up to six months in jail, a spokeswoman for the St. Joseph County Prosecutor’s Office said.

“(She) was found in a public place or a place of public resort — specifically, a commercial airplane — in a state of intoxication caused by the person’s use of alcohol or a controlled substance,” the affidavit states. “(She) endangered the life of another person...the passengers on the flight.”

The flight was operated by an Air Wisconsin crew, an airliner that partners with United Airlines for United Express flights (http://www.airwis.com/), a spokesman for United said. The spokesman referred McClatchy to Air Wisconsin for comment.

Air Wisconsin said Thursday that the flight attendant is “no longer an employee of the company.”

“We will continue to cooperate with local authorities and assist them as necessary,” an Air Wisconsin spokesperson said in an email.

Scherb said United Airlines offered him a $500 voucher or 25,000 miles, in addition to a refund for the flight. But Scherb hasn’t yet accepted the offer, he said.

“Given that the safety and well-being of all 50 passengers on that flight was jeopardized, I find United’s response to be insufficient,” Scherb said, explaining that another would-be passenger appeared to have received a $1,200 voucher because the flight was overbooked.

However, Scherb said he doesn’t want the flight attendant to be terminated by the airline.

“I hope this flight attendant is not fired,” Scherb said Wednesday in the email. “I would hope that United Airlines and Air Wisconsin...treat this person as an employee, not as an expendable commodity, and that they will help her get treatment for addiction, if that’s in fact what she suffers from.”

But he also believes airlines should consider a zero-tolerance policy for flight attendants to ensure safety.

“Given the significant safety and security roles that flight attendants have, United (and other airlines) should consider adopting zero tolerance policies for flight attendants going forward,” Scherb said.

This isn’t the first report this week of intoxicated crew members on United flights.

On Saturday, two United pilots were arrested on the suspicion that they were intoxicated as they were set to pilot (https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2019/08/05/united-pilots-held-in-scotland-for-suspected-intoxication/1919900001/) a flight from Scotland to New Jersey, the Associated Press reported. One was charged for being over the legal alcohol limit. The other was released (https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2019/08/07/united-pilot-charged-failing-alcohol-test-scotland/1941447001/) without being charged, according to the news outlet.

https://www.bnd.com/news/state/illinois/article233658102.html

[tdracer]

The trick is moderation, as previously discussed. If on a nightstop/layover and you fancy a glass of wine with a meal then that if you’re choice as an adult and as a professional. It does not mean that person has a drinking problem. In fact if as an adult and a professional, even if on a single occasion you have too much to drink on a layover you can still act as an adult and a professional and call in sick (unfit for duty as you are!) even that doesn’t define you as having a drinking problem. Of course if it becomes a pattern of behaviour then it may indicate an issue.We are all human and make mistakes. It’s how we deal with those mistakes that defines us.

The reality is, we do not need more blanket rules such as “no drinking down route”. We just need professionals to behave like professionals.

When I'd go on remote flight tests, the flight test crews were often heavy drinkers. Then again, most of the places we went remote were in fact pretty remote, with little to do but join your coworkers in the hotel bar. But the pilots would always disappear about 10 hours before the planned pre-flight briefing (which typically started about two hours before we boarded the aircraft so ~12 hours bottle to throttle). As noted, professionals just need to act like professionals.

[Airbubba]

But the pilots would always disappear about 10 hours before the planned pre-flight briefing (which typically started about two hours before we boarded the aircraft so ~12 hours bottle to throttle).

Just to clarify, the required period after consuming alcohol ends these days when you report for duty, not when you block out or take off. Also the point at which you are considered to be on duty has been interpreted to be arrival at the airport in recent cases that I am aware of. However, you might get lucky with an international court like the American Airlines pilot in Manchester who claimed he was showing up at the airport drunk in uniform to tell the captain that he was unfit to fly.

After the 1990 Fargo alcohol incident Northwest had a policy where you could turn yourself in to the HIMS program and not be disciplined up until the preflight checklist was read. Nowadays if you report for work drunk as a crewmember you don't have to make it to the plane to be in violation of alcohol rules. I'll be the first to agree that this seems to play out a little differently in every case in different jurisdictions.

[NumptyAussie]

"United Airlines is to enforce stricter rules after one of its pilots was accused of failing a breath test ahead of a flight from Scotland.

The Chicago-based operator has now lengthened the amount of time from when a pilot drinks to when they take control of a flight.

A spokeswoman for the company confirmed it is now 12 hours. It was previously eight hours."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-49364140

[Steepclimb]

My brother an Engineer was in a nightclub about 2!in the morning when he met his flight crew. The 8am, departure.
No names no pack drill.
It happens.

Me? One beer then to bed. I'm boring though.

[Steepclimb]

Back in my skydiving days we had an an away day/weekend near a seaside resort. We all went to the pub for dinner after the first day. Notably everyone stuck to the one or two beers, even the Skydivers the Tandem Instructors. Skydivers are not noted for their restraint.
Anyway next morn bright and early we sallied to the airport. Everyone was bright and bushy tailed except one chap the packer. I didn't know.
On an early flight there was a slot for a single. But as he boarded the brewery followed. I ordered him off, even If wasn't dangerous to anyone but himself. I wasn't having it.
He's still a friend and he thanked me. But he still drinks too much.

[shamrock_f22]

My brother an Engineer was in a nightclub about 2!in the morning when he met his flight crew. The 8am, departure.
No names no pack drill.
It happens.

Me? One beer then to bed. I'm boring though.

Unacceptable. Should have been reported if they were drinking.

[Steepclimb]

Unacceptable. Should have been reported if they were drinking.
Yes indeed 'Shamrock'. Neither I nor my brother have evidence they were drinking. My brother wasn't and I had no evidence. Ironic your username.....

[Gauges and Dials]

That's why security checks for crew are stupid, too.

There is no such thing as "exempting crew from security checks," only "exempting people who appear to be crew from security checks." The failure modes should be obvious, but I heard it best from a screener, in response to a crew member who was complaining, "Forgive me, but down here at my pay grade, I can't reliably tell the difference between you and the guy who stole your uniform and ID out of your car."