"I hope you haven't been drinking..."

[fromSIN]

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/local/4808587.htm

[BRUpax]

Not quite sure why this has been transfered to the SLF forum as I think pilots should see it too. Of course, I was not witness to how and in what tone the remark was made but, knowing Americans as I do, I wouldn't be surprised that this was an absolute over-reaction by the Captain (who wanted to make a point). Yes it was a very poor old joke well past its sell-by date but, some pax feel the need for a little "humour" to calm their fear-of-flying nerves. You can flame me as much as you want but all-in-all I'd say it was a pish poor call by the Captain. :mad: .

Is humour going out of fashion?

[fromSIN]

Agreed. If the story was at all accurate the pilot was very much involved.

[FlapsOne]

An old, bad taste and ill-timed joke with a probable over-reaction by the crew in their subsequent accusations BUT, if you want to talk about over-reaction I see the case has now been referred to the FBI..................Interpol next, no doubt!

[AtlPax]

Myself, if I were a pilot and had some yahoo poke his head in there asking the same question I would become perturbed also. Matter of fact it would downright p*ss me off! But the reaction in this instance goes way over the top. Bringing in the police and now the FBI. Perhaps just taking the person aside for a small chat would have been sufficient.

Like BRUPax said, there are (especially this time of year) a lot of infrequent flyers who are unfamiliar with things and perhaps a little nervous. Of course I don't know the exact particulars of this case, but locking the guy up doesn't sound appropriate.

Also, there are many people who will read and hear about this story who may now become even more reluctant to fly, and at a bad time for the industry. :(

[batty]

"the passenger leaned into the flightdeck"
So much for cockpit security!

[BlueEagle]

The way I read it the crew had no choice since, even in jest and only by insinuation, an allegation had been made?

"Federal Aviation Administration regulations require the flight crew to be tested for controlled substances when drug or alcohol abuse allegations are made":(

[PaperTiger]

"Federal Aviation Administration regulations require the flight crew to be tested for controlled substances when drug or alcohol abuse allegations are made" Anybody care to cite the pertinent FAR ? Apparently it's one with which I am unfamiliar. I mean they wouldn't just make this up, now would they ? :rolleyes:

[A-V-8R]

You'd think a paper tiger would have found this......

Sec. 61.14 - Refusal to submit to a drug or alcohol test.


(a) This section applies to an employee who performs a function listed in appendix I to part 121 or appendix J to part 121 of this chapter directly or by contract for a part 121 air carrier, a part 135 air carrier, or for a person conducting operations as specified in §135.1(a)(5) of this chapter.

(b) Refusal by the holder of a certificate issued under this part to take a drug test required under the provisions of appendix I to part 121 or an alcohol test required under the provisions of appendix J to part 121 is grounds for:

(1) Denial of an application for any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part for a period of up to 1 year after the date of such refusal; and

(2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part.





Sec. 61.16 - Refusal to submit to an alcohol test or to furnish test results.

A refusal to submit to a test to indicate the percentage by weight of alcohol in the blood, when requested by a law enforcement officer in accordance with §91.17(c) of this chapter, or a refusal to furnish or authorize the release of the test results requested by the Administrator in accordance with §91.17(c) or (d) of this chapter, is grounds for:

(a) Denial of an application for any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part for a period of up to 1 year after the date of that refusal; or

(b) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part.

Personally, if a person challenges me for drinking, they better have been trained in alcohol testing procedures, or face the fact that when I am finished with that individual I will own everything that they used to own as well a piece of their future wages.

[slim_slag]

A-V-AR,

Where does it say a pilot has to submit to an alcohol test if requested by a passenger (unless he happens to be a law enforcement officer I suppose)?

Why didn't the pilots just say "no we haven't been drinking, ha ha never heard that one before" and everybody carries on as normal. If the passenger still makes a fuss about that, only then is a bit of escalation reasonable.

[PaperTiger]

AV-8-R that FAR covers mandatory compliance when a tenable allegation is made concerning possible intoxication. It does not extend to the situation in which some brain-dead passenger makes a 'joke' (sic).

The captain can (and did) insist on taking a test, but there is no regulation which requires him/her to have done so. And while I have no real problem with that (although I would have just thrown the s0d off), I do find in disquieting that the media invent 'regulations' or 'security concerns' to fit their story. Hot buzzwords, I suppose.

[A-V-8R]

Generally, in the United States one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

However, as a Public Safety Employee, we are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

I differ with ALPA's and my carrier response; they say do not ask for an alcohol or drug test if accused. I would ALWAYS ask for a breath test.

In this job, so many things are out of your control, the Press (News) would have a field day with a pilot who was accused, in jest or otherwise, and later taxied off the hardstand onto the grass/ crossed an active runway/ad nauseum.

When I had my midlife crisis, instead of having an affair I became a part time cop in my home town. (Stupid move, I implore you not to do this...have the affair instead.....)

There is a relatively lengthly protocol involved in accusing some one (driver) of operating under the influence of alcohol.

At this point, the TSA people are not adequately trained to tell the difference in determing whether a pilot is drunk or is suffering from low blood sugar/Type II diabetes. (?spelling)

(Yes, it is possible to fly for the airlines in the US with Type II diabetes.....)

In the US all information on pilots is kept in a database in Oklahoma. Unlike drivers license information, it is not purged at 5 year intervals....That drinking accusation will follow you thru out your career....

We are held to a higher standard than the passengers. However, a history of circumstancial accusations will build the foundation of a pyramid to hang you for something you did not do.

Me, myself and I will not tolerate TSA people evaluating myself on subjective criteria. They are not trained to do so.

"Have you bagged a pilot today?"

Too many of them are looking for their 15 minutes of fame. And I will provide it, filmed as a Deposition in a lawsuit.

[flybhx]

AV8R

I've never understood the reasoning behind the long winded way of dealing with suspected drink driving/flying?. In the UK that also applies to railway staff in safety critical roles too.

We just get the suspect to blow into a screening device, couple of minutes and a straight forward pass/fail, game over and if a pass punter is on their way. There is no subjective side to it at all.

The airport Police could do the same thing over there with the flight deck. On the other hand of course do the same to the person making the allegation and if he/she fails it's sorry too drunk to fly bye-bye