Suspicion of being under the Influence
Neville nobody
So we are now down to 27 out of 51000. 0.052%
Hardly a epidemic that would justify the amount of money spent.
So we are now down to 27 out of 51000. 0.052%
Hardly a epidemic that would justify the amount of money spent.
Other Transport Industries face similar scrutiny, why should we be any different?
In the last few years, how many incidents/accidents worldwide can be attributed to drunk pilots? None I'm aware of.
In the same period, I can think of at least four separate incidents where pilots with unstable mental health have caused a serious incident or accident.
On those numbers alone, it means that surely this money would be better spent by CASA investing in the mental health of pilots - ie 1x free psych appointment per year to talk about your career, life at home, job security stresses, family or marriage problems etc. etc.
It's not rocket science - spend the money where it will have the GREATEST positive impact on safety.
If you are, like me, disgusted with the article at perthnow.com.au - please feel free to cut and paste this letter to the editor.
[email protected]
[email protected]
Anthony,
I'd like to air my disgust at the article "Drunk pilot ejected from flight minutes before takeoff".
Let's get a few things straight:
1. The heading says the pilot was drunk. The first line says they were suspected of being drunk. The headline is sensationalist, and quite possibly completely false.
2. It further goes on to say about all airline pilots not being able to drink alcohol before flying. This demonstrates to me that the journalist has done absolutely no research, because it's a lot more complicated than this. The CASA limit is not 0.0% blood alcohol concentration (BAC), as your article would suggest. There are also additional conditions other than BAC, such as time limits.
I just don't understand how stories like this can get through the editing stage. The title is completely contradictory to the information your company actually has.
The writer most obviously hasn't taken what would probably amount to 2 minutes on google to find what the actual legislation is in this case.
Journalism used to involve getting information, verifying it, interviewing, researching and presenting a balanced and well informed piece.
It appears at perthnow.com.au it simply involves slapping an inflammatory headline on a couple of cut and paste quotes to "sell" the news.
I certainly will be looking elsewhere for news in the future, in the hope of finding some trace of journalistic integrity.
PS The photo and caption both indicate a Boeing 737-800. The main article body describes a 767-300... it is good to see your editors never let the facts get in the way of a good story, ey?
I'd like to air my disgust at the article "Drunk pilot ejected from flight minutes before takeoff".
Let's get a few things straight:
1. The heading says the pilot was drunk. The first line says they were suspected of being drunk. The headline is sensationalist, and quite possibly completely false.
2. It further goes on to say about all airline pilots not being able to drink alcohol before flying. This demonstrates to me that the journalist has done absolutely no research, because it's a lot more complicated than this. The CASA limit is not 0.0% blood alcohol concentration (BAC), as your article would suggest. There are also additional conditions other than BAC, such as time limits.
I just don't understand how stories like this can get through the editing stage. The title is completely contradictory to the information your company actually has.
The writer most obviously hasn't taken what would probably amount to 2 minutes on google to find what the actual legislation is in this case.
Journalism used to involve getting information, verifying it, interviewing, researching and presenting a balanced and well informed piece.
It appears at perthnow.com.au it simply involves slapping an inflammatory headline on a couple of cut and paste quotes to "sell" the news.
I certainly will be looking elsewhere for news in the future, in the hope of finding some trace of journalistic integrity.
PS The photo and caption both indicate a Boeing 737-800. The main article body describes a 767-300... it is good to see your editors never let the facts get in the way of a good story, ey?
Slippery Pete
Because with such horrifically low detection rates, on an expenditure vs. improved safety outcome basis, the money could be much better spent in other areas of aviation.
In the last few years, how many incidents/accidents worldwide can be attributed to drunk pilots? None I'm aware of.
Because with such horrifically low detection rates, on an expenditure vs. improved safety outcome basis, the money could be much better spent in other areas of aviation.
In the last few years, how many incidents/accidents worldwide can be attributed to drunk pilots? None I'm aware of.
In the same period, I can think of at least four separate incidents where pilots with unstable mental health have caused a serious incident or accident.
On those numbers alone, it means that surely this money would be better spent by CASA investing in the mental health of pilots - ie 1x free psych appointment per year to talk about your career, life at home, job security stresses, family or marriage problems etc. etc.
On those numbers alone, it means that surely this money would be better spent by CASA investing in the mental health of pilots - ie 1x free psych appointment per year to talk about your career, life at home, job security stresses, family or marriage problems etc. etc.
It's not rocket science - spend the money where it will have the GREATEST positive impact on safety.
Okay PukinDog, I'll bite. Your arguments wouldn't hold up in a high school debating team, but regardless...
The only way you can ascertain that the low level rates are a result of the program and were not exactly the same pre-2008 is to compare data we don't have. Rates of people in security sensitive roles blowing a BAC above 0.02 may well have increased since 2008. You have a circular argument.
Yes, CASA are a regulatory agency. They are also the ones who have been jamming TEM down our throats for the last few years. Are you suggesting they don't identify the threats which can lead to alcoholism? (Such as marriage/family issues, job security concerns, failed career progression etc.) They push TEM, yet when it comes to drinking and drugs, they ignore the threats, let the error occur, and then punish later just because they are "regulatory".
I would absolutely be willing to go to a "soft science" doctor as you call them to evaulate my fitness to fly. In fact, I'd hazard a guess most professional pilots would recognise they should be on the ground when a doctor say so (no matter how "soft" you think they are, or what exactly that means).
It would also be an opportunity for the company conselling and rehab services to be used before something becomes a problem. At the moment, you have to be busted after the offence before those services are provided. Are you suggesting providing these services AFTER someone has been caught drunk at work to be a better outcome than utilising them when someone exhibits risk criteria but before they develop a chronic, uncontrollable problem?
Please show me where exactly I suggested that pilots "need ongoing professional mental therapy to function".
It would simply identify pilots where further investigation and rehabilitation might be in the best interests of safety. In this case, CASA could refer the issue to the airline who could provide a counselling type program to the affected pilot.
I never said it would be a "test" either. It might be as simple as mandatory with no pass/fail, but the Doctors could simply recommend to individuals or airlines that it gets looked into further.
That sounds like the programs encacted to prevent people from showing up to work under the influence are for the most part having the desired effect. Why mess with success?
Isn't CASA a regulatory agency? Are you really willing to go into a "soft science" doctor to let them evaluate your mental health yearly to determine whether or not you're fit to fly?
I would absolutely be willing to go to a "soft science" doctor as you call them to evaulate my fitness to fly. In fact, I'd hazard a guess most professional pilots would recognise they should be on the ground when a doctor say so (no matter how "soft" you think they are, or what exactly that means).
It would also be an opportunity for the company conselling and rehab services to be used before something becomes a problem. At the moment, you have to be busted after the offence before those services are provided. Are you suggesting providing these services AFTER someone has been caught drunk at work to be a better outcome than utilising them when someone exhibits risk criteria but before they develop a chronic, uncontrollable problem?
How would 1 psych test per year do that? You're idea suggests that pilots need ongoing professional mental therapy to function.
It would simply identify pilots where further investigation and rehabilitation might be in the best interests of safety. In this case, CASA could refer the issue to the airline who could provide a counselling type program to the affected pilot.
I never said it would be a "test" either. It might be as simple as mandatory with no pass/fail, but the Doctors could simply recommend to individuals or airlines that it gets looked into further.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please be aware of inviting litigation with what you say right now. This Capt. is innocent until proven guilty, and therefore any support you can give her right now is important. I don't know the girl in question, but I am sure she would not in her wildest dreams turn up to work knowingly having alcohol still in her bloodstream, any more than you or I would. I hope she has a excellent outcome and returns to work as soon as possible.
Okay PukinDog, I'll bite. Your arguments wouldn't hold up in a high school debating team, but regardless...
The degradation of judgement and performance doing any task while under the influence is well known. You're arguing that CASA really shouldn't bother trying to prevent this, or enforce CASA regulations written to prevent safety-sensitive personnel performing tasks that could easily affect passengers.
The only way you can ascertain that the low level rates are a result of the program and were not exactly the same pre-2008 is to compare data we don't have. Rates of people in security sensitive roles blowing a BAC above 0.02 may well have increased since 2008. You have a circular argument.
Yes, CASA are a regulatory agency. They are also the ones who have been jamming TEM down our throats for the last few years. Are you suggesting they don't identify the threats which can lead to alcoholism? (Such as marriage/family issues, job security concerns, failed career progression etc.) They push TEM, yet when it comes to drinking and drugs, they ignore the threats, let the error occur, and then punish later just because they are "regulatory".
I would absolutely be willing to go to a "soft science" doctor as you call them to evaulate my fitness to fly. In fact, I'd hazard a guess most professional pilots would recognise they should be on the ground when a doctor say so (no matter how "soft" you think they are, or what exactly that means).
It would also be an opportunity for the company conselling and rehab services to be used before something becomes a problem. At the moment, you have to be busted after the offence before those services are provided.
Are you suggesting providing these services AFTER someone has been caught drunk at work to be a better outcome than utilising them when someone exhibits risk criteria but before they develop a chronic, uncontrollable problem?
Please show me where exactly I suggested that pilots "need ongoing professional mental therapy to function".
It would simply identify pilots where further investigation and rehabilitation might be in the best interests of safety. In this case, CASA could refer the issue to the airline who could provide a counselling type program to the affected pilot.
It would simply identify pilots where further investigation and rehabilitation might be in the best interests of safety. In this case, CASA could refer the issue to the airline who could provide a counselling type program to the affected pilot.
I never said it would be a "test" either. It might be as simple as mandatory with no pass/fail, but the Doctors could simply recommend to individuals or airlines that it gets looked into further.
Last edited by PukinDog; 7th Aug 2012 at 05:04.
Moderator
nobody has come within 10 miles of writing anything libelous or defamatory in any post still here.
But only because 35 posts or 34% of posts have so far been deleted by Moderators and one user permanently thread binned, due to posts being malicious, libellous, defamatory or merely ludicrous.
Stick to the thread title unless you have confirmed, factual, information and forget the theories and sanctimonious platitudes lest this thread gets locked.
The pilot concerned is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.
Tail Wheels right, as someone who has been a DAMP Officer, admittedly at a smaller GA company with around 10-15 pilots at a time, just because you get a positive result doesn't necessarily make them guilty straight away, theres a lot of mitigating factors. I had 2 Pilots who recorded Positive Drug results using approved drug testing equipment, 1 of them was cleared by the local doctor as it was due to medicine being taken some time ago and was perfectly legit and would not affect them, the other turned out to be a false positive on the first test!! It isn't 100% guys, especially the breahalyzers, even the ones that are up to the proper standard get it wrong for any number of different reasons.
And Slippery_Pete, I know this isn't definitive proof, but I know a lot of the Pilots in the area I was in at that time I was DAMP Officer changed their habits when the Policies took affect. Nothing drastic but they were all definitely more concious of their drinking...specially when I happended to be standing beside them most nights at the Pub!! I'd like to think this shows there has been some worth as a deterrent or at the very least as a method of further awareness.
I should also point out that part of the DAMP stuff isn't just detection of drug and/or alcohol use/abuse, another large part of the training was also identifying Co-Workers who were having their ability to perform their duties inhibited by other factors as well. Whilst I would never claim to be as effective as a trained full-time Psychologist, there is more awareness of such factors being put out there by CASA as part of the DAMP to cover other factors like you pointed out to hopefully prevent them causing accidents or incidents and putting in place systems to have them addressed. From what I recall we were required as part of the DAMP to have an outside organisation nominated that people could approach or be referred to in such circumstances.
And Slippery_Pete, I know this isn't definitive proof, but I know a lot of the Pilots in the area I was in at that time I was DAMP Officer changed their habits when the Policies took affect. Nothing drastic but they were all definitely more concious of their drinking...specially when I happended to be standing beside them most nights at the Pub!! I'd like to think this shows there has been some worth as a deterrent or at the very least as a method of further awareness.
I should also point out that part of the DAMP stuff isn't just detection of drug and/or alcohol use/abuse, another large part of the training was also identifying Co-Workers who were having their ability to perform their duties inhibited by other factors as well. Whilst I would never claim to be as effective as a trained full-time Psychologist, there is more awareness of such factors being put out there by CASA as part of the DAMP to cover other factors like you pointed out to hopefully prevent them causing accidents or incidents and putting in place systems to have them addressed. From what I recall we were required as part of the DAMP to have an outside organisation nominated that people could approach or be referred to in such circumstances.
Last edited by Ixixly; 7th Aug 2012 at 06:18. Reason: Sounded too much like I was having a go at Slippery_pete!!
I do think DAMP has had a habit changing effect for most. No more smashing them down to "8hrs from bottle to throttle." Much more aware if you are going to turn it on do so early and give yourself enough time to recover fully with a margin. A lot of my non flying friends are very surprised that we don't get tested every time we turn up for work.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: 3rd Rock
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope the person in question gets a lot of help through these times legally, emotionally and professionally whether innocent or guilty.
EVERYONE at some point in their life needs help, or a break, or a second chance.
There is recreational drinking, and there is also "drinking" as a symptom of deeper problems, hence rehabilitation.
In years to come mental illness such as depression will pose a far greater threat to airline safety than alcohol or drugs anyway.
I hope QF get her back in the air soon with their full support either way.
I'm appalled at people poking fun or making this out to be a big deal.
EVERYONE at some point in their life needs help, or a break, or a second chance.
There is recreational drinking, and there is also "drinking" as a symptom of deeper problems, hence rehabilitation.
In years to come mental illness such as depression will pose a far greater threat to airline safety than alcohol or drugs anyway.
I hope QF get her back in the air soon with their full support either way.
I'm appalled at people poking fun or making this out to be a big deal.
Last edited by catch18; 7th Aug 2012 at 09:21.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was tested in the crew room post flight while sitting around waiting to deadhead a sector. I advised the CASA rep, and they said that because I was technically available to be called to operate, that I would still require testing.
And if I was sitting in the QF Club, would the same reasoning apply? It opens a can of worms, doesn't it?!
And if I was sitting in the QF Club, would the same reasoning apply? It opens a can of worms, doesn't it?!
Dutchroll
That's a bit of a silly point of view from CASA (yet unsurprising all the
same), given that you've finished all your operating duties and are not
scheduled for any more. By their logic, the fact that we can be phoned at any time of the day while at home and asked to crew a flight if we answer the phone, means we can't have a beer or glass of wine....ever!
That's a bit of a silly point of view from CASA (yet unsurprising all the
same), given that you've finished all your operating duties and are not
scheduled for any more. By their logic, the fact that we can be phoned at any time of the day while at home and asked to crew a flight if we answer the phone, means we can't have a beer or glass of wine....ever!
Nunc est bibendum
He was still on duty and available.
He was still on duty and available.
Interesting post by tail wheel, in the company I work for you can never call someone drunk even if they clearly are, something to do with defamation. Instead you have to say they are unwell and if you kick them off the flight then they are too unwell to fly.
That being said if a crew member thinks you have had a drink, and the subsequent test is positive then you're either under the influence or having a REALLY unlucky day.
Last edited by rmcdonal; 7th Aug 2012 at 13:17. Reason: Dam Keg, you just beat me.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps some thing that we should equip our selves with are tools to deal with the issue of people presenting for work after a big night. From the statistical data that has been presented regarding capture rates, DAMP testing can be seen to be far less effective that DAMP education.
If you think that you can detect alcohol on a workmates breath, what are you to do? There are some options that we can adopt. 1) Do nothing and hope nothing bad happens. 2) Dob them in straight away to the company or CASA. 3) Take them aside and tell them that you think that they are affected by alcohol and suggest that they remove themselves from duty.
The course of action that you choose would depend on what you consider the most practical and ethical under the circumstances. I have used option 3 previously. There was no argument and I made a good friend in the process
If you think that you can detect alcohol on a workmates breath, what are you to do? There are some options that we can adopt. 1) Do nothing and hope nothing bad happens. 2) Dob them in straight away to the company or CASA. 3) Take them aside and tell them that you think that they are affected by alcohol and suggest that they remove themselves from duty.
The course of action that you choose would depend on what you consider the most practical and ethical under the circumstances. I have used option 3 previously. There was no argument and I made a good friend in the process
rmcdonal
Yes, but the duty was a non safety sensitive duty (Paxing) and therefore
doesn't require testing. Had he then had a drink and been subsequently told he was to fly he would have had to reject the duty.
Yes, but the duty was a non safety sensitive duty (Paxing) and therefore
doesn't require testing. Had he then had a drink and been subsequently told he was to fly he would have had to reject the duty.
Keg
Once he's had a beer he's not available. Further, if the first duty is a
paxing sector there is no requirement to be 'available' at sign on. Turn up
stonkered I say. That way they can't touch ou operate until the next day.
Once he's had a beer he's not available. Further, if the first duty is a
paxing sector there is no requirement to be 'available' at sign on. Turn up
stonkered I say. That way they can't touch ou operate until the next day.
Anyway, my answer was directed more to the notion that one could never have a drink ever since the company can call you anytime. Surely, the act of answering the phone isn't considered duty is it? I didn't follow the logic of that being CASA's "logic" just because they wanted to test an on-duty pilot who was later scheduled for a deadhead. I don't understand how that equates.
Last edited by PukinDog; 7th Aug 2012 at 17:34.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I grabbed a muesli bar while waiting for my bags, bored, I looked at the ingredients, alcohol was one of them. You are going to have to look at the ingredients of EVERYTHING you eat. On the menu at work one day was orange poppy seed muffins, mmmm, better not I thought!
What a minefield!
What a minefield!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: bumf*ck, idaho
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AND meals prepared using alcohol as an ingredient.
It is widely believed that cooking with wine or vermouth etc removes the alcohol from it.
Lots of recent articles refuting this.
What for that! Red wine casserole, risottos.... You name it.
It is widely believed that cooking with wine or vermouth etc removes the alcohol from it.
Lots of recent articles refuting this.
What for that! Red wine casserole, risottos.... You name it.