Suspicion of being under the Influence

[teresa green]

It is better if confronted with a crew member that smells of alcohol to ask them directly if they have had a drink in the last previous eight hours. I did just this to a F/O who was nothing more than guilty of eating TAA's now infamous trifle, which was later found to have been made by a cook who thought half a bottle of sherry added to it gave it extra flavour. (I believe the record for eating it was a LAME who managed six plates) The cook did not think for one minute as he was preparing food for airline crews, engineers or ground staff that it was one industry where alcohol and work did not mix. The mortified management soon put a stop to it, as the sudden interest in the canteen food peaked to astonishing levels becoming obvious to all and sundry that the stew had simply not improved. You owe it to the crew member to give them a chance to explain without rushing to the first manager you see, and if they have broken the rule, advise them to go sick, and go and see their GP if they have a problem. However if you sight them again in the same situation then you have no choice but to inform management.

[DutchRoll]

Originally Posted by PukinDog

He was still on duty and available. Taking a call at home doesn't mean you're on duty.

Yeah but the CASA explanation was simply that "technically he could be called to operate, therefore was liable to be tested".

Well "technically" we can be called to operate at any time of the day or night, within the limitations of getting ourselves to the airport. Still doesn't make sense, the way the CASA rep put it.

And what about paxing from, say, Sydney to LAX to crew a flight a couple of days later. There is no way you can operate any flight upon arrival. But one of the operating pilots gets food poisoning mid-flight. You had a glass of wine with dinner. The company says "get that paxing F/O to assist". But you can't help now. Have you violated any CASA regs? Can you be tested upon arrival in LAX and stood down pending a formal investigation?

Can of worms, unless common sense is applied. And does CASA have any?

[PukinDog]

teresa green

It is better if confronted with a crew member that smells of alcohol to
ask them directly if they have had a drink in the last previous eight
hours.

Yours question doesn't measure blood alcohol, and presupposes the person answering would be truthful about the 8 hours. What if they're still above the limit after 9, or 12? Someone with a chronic problem would probably not be truthful, and would be well-versed in giving answers they know you and others would like to hear.

I did just this to a F/O who was nothing more than guilty of eating TAA's now infamous trifle,

So you were suspicious and made that judgement call yourself? How do you know that was all he/she was guilty of, i.e., nothing, and not covering up other consumption by eating those. And if someone had answered "mouthwash", how do you know he/she wasnt consuming it to the point of being under the influence? Alcohol is alcohol no matter how it's ingested.

You owe it to the crew member to give them a chance to explain without rushing to the first manager you see, and if they have broken the rule, advise them to go sick, and go and see their GP if they have a problem. However if you sight them again in the same situation then you have no choice but to inform management.

What about the first debt and consideration a professional pilot owes is the one owed to the passengers who trust nobody on the crew isn't impaired? Where does that debt factor into your scenario if the person above answers you untruthfully, fools the person who's asking, and goes on to help operate the aircraft while over the limit? Isn't the primary goal of no aircraft taking off with a pilot over the limit being subordinated by your suggestion?

If you're truly suspicious enough to ask the question, why not give them a choice; give the person the chance to take themselves off duty or be subject to the DAMP process instead of trying to play a very imperfect game of 1 Question that's so full of holes it seems more like it's designed ot protect reputations rather than the traveling public.

[PukinDog]

Dutch roll

Yeah but the CASA explanation was simply that "technically he could be called to operate, therefore was liable to be tested".

Well "technically" we can be called to operate at any time of the day or night, within the limitations of getting ourselves to the airport. Still doesn't make sense, the way the CASA rep put it.

So after a required rest you are essentially considered to be on 24 hour rolling reserve? Yikes. Anyway, I still don't understand how this equates to being liable to be tested by CASA at home. Is that what you're saying?

And what about paxing from, say, Sydney to LAX to crew a flight a couple of days later. There is no way you can operate any flight upon arrival. But one of the operating pilots gets food poisoning mid-flight. You had a glass of wine with dinner. The company says "get that paxing F/O to assist". But you can't help now. Have you violated any CASA regs? Can you be tested upon arrival in LAX and stood down pending a formal investigation?

I haven't seen a Company Ops Manual yet that doesn't specifically address whether a deadheading crew can consume alcohol or not, and every Ops Manual is approved by the regulators so you would be bound to conduct yourself with whatever it says.

But I will say that if your Company allows drinking while on the deadhead aircraft under the scenario you cite, (in other words unlike jumpseating you are not considered to be an Additional Crew Member), and you had consumed alcohol on the leg within approved Policy, you had best not accept the Company's request to go act as crew in the cockpit. In FAA-land anyway, the regs prohibiting a pilot acting as a crewmember after consuming alcohol are actually telling a pilot he mustn't accept such duty, and there isn't an exception. This reg predates the testing/screening mandates and still stand. So by refusing that duty you are actually following the regs, not violating them, and I imagine CASA would look at it the same way if you indeed acted within your Company Ops Manual's policies.

[DutchRoll]

No, the rest limits aren't flexible. I'm essentially alluding to the "riot clause" in our contract, which basically says if you're at home, answer the phone, and the company wants you to go flying, then you "have to". There are some caveats of course, like a certain minimum number of hours notice, etc.

But if you've just been up late at a friend's party or something, you'd surely have to say "err no I'm sorry, had a few and don't know whether I'll be under the limit in the morning". So where does this leave you as far as CASA is concerned?

My opinion is that QF would be fairly understanding in that respect and they'd just call the next bloke and the problem would go away, but some other experiences relayed here do make me wonder about CASA itself.

There is no company prohibition in QF, that I'm aware of (in longhaul at least - I think shorthaul might be different) on having a vino on a paxing sector if you have no further scheduled duties and are not (or no longer) in uniform. This seems perfectly reasonable. But once again, the experiences of others with CASA make me wonder. What if CASA are waiting at the destination to RBT the crew? Can they decide to do crew who are paxing to become off-duty upon arrival too? I'm not sure that I trust CASA to apply any common sense here.

I agree with your last bit. If I'd had a glass of wine with dinner and was requested to assist, unless it was a dire emergency (in which case all bets are off), I'd caution them that I couldn't legally do so.

[Anthill]

TG--The infamous TAA wine trifle! My Mother-in-Law uses the same recipe.

Whilst working for an overseas based airline, one of the cabin crew thought that us guys in the flight deck would appriciate a dash of Kaluha in our coffees one night .

PukinDog, you are right about our assumptions perhaps being wrong. Our sinus cavities are not equiped with a built-in spectrophotometer and we can only detect what may smell of alcohol. Being accusational at this point is pretty dangerous-only scientific testing can confirm/rule out alcohol.
------------------------------------------------------
If you suspect someone as being unfit to fly, be subtle but firm. The only time that I have ever had to refuse to fly with someone, the conversation went somthing like:

Scene: 8am sign on, Domestic operation:

Anthill: "Hey, big night last night?"

Other guy: "Well, a big afternoon actually. Me and XXXX finished at lunch time yesterday and went for a round of golf at *****. We wound up having a BBQ at the 19th hole and had a few bottles of really nice red and a few schooners. We finshed up at about 8pm ish so I'm legal".

AH: " I hate to tell you this but you are really sweating it out. If Capt XXXX (the base manager) walks in and smells you he'll have a fit. Why don't you just go sick? Another Captain will sign on in 15 mins. Crewing will just grab them for your duty. It'll be no big deal".

Other guy: "That bad?".

Me: "Yep"...

And so he went home, crewing grabbed the next Captain, the flight left on time, someone went home to nurse his head and we all lived happily ever after.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Can they decide to do crew who are paxing to become off-duty upon arrival too?

If you were out of uniform - how would they know you were crew to be tested?

[PukinDog]

DR

No, the rest limits aren't flexible. I'm essentially alluding to the "riot
clause" in our contract, which basically says if you're at home, answer the
phone, and the company wants you to go flying, then you "have to". There are some caveats of course, like a certain minimum number of hours notice,
etc.

But if you've just been up late at a friend's party or something,
you'd surely have to say "err no I'm sorry, had a few and don't know whether I'll be under the limit in the morning". So where does this leave you as far as CASA is concerned?

I think CASA could only come into play when you physically report for duty as specified in your Ops Manual, whether you report because you were scheduled that way, or called in under a Riot Clause.

My opinion is that QF would be fairly understanding in that respect and they'd just call the next bloke and the problem would go away, but some other experiences relayed here do make me wonder about CASA itself.

I don't think you could ever go wrong with CASA by not accepting duty in that situation. The regs back you up.

There is no company prohibition in QF, that I'm aware of (in longhaul at least - I think shorthaul might be different) on having a vino on a paxing sector if you have no further scheduled duties and are not (or no longer) in uniform. This seems perfectly reasonable. But once again, the experiences of others with CASA make me wonder. What if CASA are waiting at the destination to RBT the crew? Can they decide to do crew who are paxing to become off-duty upon arrival too? I'm not sure that I trust CASA to apply any common sense here.

That sounds like most policies I've seen as far as drinking during a deadhead once onboard. If your CASA-approved Company Manual states this last leg exception for drinking during the flight under those circumstances, then any CASA man trying to bring down the hammer would be operating outside his own Agency's authority. The approved manual has the force of regulation, and you've complied with it. It's a considerable stretch to think any would attempt it if you've just deadheaded into rest.

I agree with your last bit. If I'd had a glass of wine with dinner and was requested to assist, unless it was a dire emergency (in which case all bets are off), I'd caution them that I couldn't legally do so.

I'd do the same.

Anthill,

Exactly, subtle but firm and agree completely how you handled it. Do whatever convincing it takes to keep the other from reporting to work. That's the bottom line. Talk about the problems and/or make suggestions later. And if the other bloke insists, refuse it yourself and let the DAMP policy run its course with the chips falling where they may. Lives take precedence over reputations if the issue is doubt, that's common sense and risk management, and why it's an incumbent responsibility. If the guy shows up to work he's the one handcuffing everyone else to the process.

[teresa green]

Pukin Dog, I knew the bloke personally, I knew him in PNG when others feeling perhaps a little seedy still took off. He never drank much, never, and never turned up to work sick. (hungover). I am not saying any of these blokes were drunk they were not, the rule up there was nothing after 1630 hrs for a 0500 T/O, and it was a small community and we knew the ones who bucked the system, they got fixed, or were sent back to the motherland. So when I asked him and he said that bloody trifle has grog in it, I knew he was telling the truth. As for the blokes in PNG both QF and TN the heat had a lot to do with the drinking, but after a couple of rip tearing hangovers you soon learnt to keep the water up with the grog.

[neville_nobody]

The DAMP policy is just an extra layer designed to try and tighten that net and make sure none slip through and the ones who are found to be under the influence are handled in an appropriate manner for the safety of all those whom we fly from A to B every single day and also for their own benefit.

But it is still a waste of money and just another empire being built by CASA to make flying more expensive and inefficient to what end?

CASA should pay the airlines a fee for all the disruption those false positives caused.

Australia is a 3rd world country in terms of aviation infrastructure and service. We waste so much time on things that are inefficient and none on making the industry more efficient.

We don't have enough airports, we don't have CAT III, we have poor ATC service, our rules are a joke, yet you think things are great because a QF pilot may have been busted for FUI.

Time CASA started worrying about the big issues not just building stupid empires which is all that DAMP testing really is.

[ejectx3]

I finished a long haul duty from klax many years ago and picked up some tequila in duty free coming back into sydney.

I was commuting to brissy at the time and had to catch the shuttle bus over to domestic in uniform. In my jet lagged state I accidentally set my flight bag containing the duty free down too hard and shattered the spirits.

You should have seen the looks I received from passengers on the bus and waiting for my connecting flight absolutely reeking of tequila whilst in
uniform!

[givemewings]

UTR- as far as I can recall, deadheading crew are listed on the Gen Dec for international flights.

Especially if you came in operating and paxed back. CASA could also ask the company to provide the names and/or number of crew/staff onboard.

[PukinDog]

Pukin Dog, I knew the bloke personally, I knew him in PNG when others feeling perhaps a little seedy still took off. He never drank much, never, and never turned up to work sick. (hungover). I am not saying any of these blokes were drunk they were not, the rule up there was nothing after 1630 hrs for a 0500 T/O, and it was a small community and we knew the ones who bucked the system, they got fixed, or were sent back to the motherland. So when I asked him and he said that bloody trifle has grog in it, I knew he was telling the truth. As for the blokes in PNG both QF and TN the heat had a lot to do with the drinking, but after a couple of rip tearing hangovers you soon learnt to keep the water up with the grog.

I had assumed you must have known the person, and what he said and what you knew of him and the situation was satifactory to you. But as a policy designed to protect paying customers, where it must backstop all situations and various rostering, it falls short. It doesn't do you any favors either.

For instance, what if you had the same suspicion as you related, and you were satisfied with the answer as you were, so you and he departed and shared the cockpit for a live pax sector. Upon arriving you find out someone else at the last station had suspicions too, and made calls. He winds up getting tested during the stopover and fails, and it's a righteous failure because it turns out the person has a chronic problem or just lied really well that particular day after a one-off piss-up.

Whichever it was, he put his problem im your lap but you assisted by assuming the responsibility of making the sober/not-sober determination when there was a better way made available specifically for that purpose, but you didn't use it and your assessment was incorrect. Now they'll look to you and find out if you followed policy and procedure when faced with suspicion that he was under the influence/unfit to fly. They'll do so because there were just passengers exposed to an unnaceptable risk. You may have tried to intervene in your own way, but you didn't intervene in the proscribed way. If CASA mirrors the FAA view on this non-intervention..you allowing it to happen when there was an avenue at your disposal to stop it...it falls under the classification of careless and reckless operation in the eyes of the Feds.

[Mr.Buzzy]

It's only a matter of time before carrying alcohol in uniform, including buying at duty free stores, is outlawed by some overenthusiastic poppy chopper.

Bbbbzbzbzbzbzzzzzzzzzz

[teresa green]

Pukin, I understand where you are coming from, but on that day I made a decision on leaning over towards him with a piece of paper and smelt alcohol. We were still on the arm, and I asked him directly about it and when he had last had a drink. He was quite shocked and having already heard from a CC member of our crew that the trifle in the canteen "knocks your socks off" and knowing he had some lunch with the CC, I realised upon his comment, that that trifle had grog in it, I knew he was telling the truth. The point I am making is had he been someone I did not know, I would have asked them to go sick, and if they had a problem to see a GP about it. I would have also said if I struck them again in the same situation I would go to management. I would have probably had a word with a few trusted skippers about it, and asked them to look out for the bloke and if the situation was the same, go to management. In other words treat each case as it comes to your attention with some consideration for the person involved, the Pax and the airline. What happened to the present Skipper is unacceptable, there was no consideration shown what so ever, and to be fed to the papers only adds to the grief. She was allowed to be humiliated, when it was possible she is only guilty of perhaps eating a desert that had a tiny amount of Liqueur in it like the bloody trifle. It is difficult to have a set rule when a desert, a chocolate, or mouthwash can start up a suspicion, and each case must be handled accordingly, unless of course its obvious that you are as drunk as a lord. (which has happened over the years)

[Jack Ranga]

Just out of interest has anybody seen or been RBT'd by worlds best practice CASA?

That's interesting, as I say 4 years and I've never seen them, don't know anybody at work that has been either. It would appear that once again they are targeting people that are in the spotlight and more visible to the public (pilots and cabin crew)....worlds best practice

[dogcharlietree]

My Mother-in-Law uses the same recipe.

Well come on Anthill, spill the beans (er, recipe)

[Anthill]

Actual court case in Melbourne circa 1980's...

of course its obvious that you are as drunk as a lord. which has happened
over the years)

Witness: " When I saw him(the defendant), he was as drunk as a Judge.."

Magistrate: "Ahem.. don't you mean that the defendant was 'as drunk as a Lord' ??

Witness: "Yes m'Lord".

[Spotlight]

Somebody had to be first! I am glad it wasn't me. The headlines in all the press are dreadful, 'Drunk and Dragged out of the cockpit' is a woeful use of journalistic license.

What we don't know, is a lot. Was it an overnight, had "words" been previously exchanged? Did a passenger comment to a Flight Attendant that last night at their hotel they saw the crew at the bar and policy took on its own life?

It surprised me in a previous role as a Management pilot in a third level airline in NSW (here boy, here boy) that three Captains had fallen foul of the DAMP early on and that one, at the time of my briefing had failed Rehabilitation.

Rehab being total abstinence, active membership of AA and open and honest communication with friends and family regarding the pilots home life. And ongoing testing of liver glucose.

Probably good for all of us that a female has taken the first fall, in the press at least. A more gentle tone will ensue.

None of this pre-supposes that the Qantas Captain is guilty of anything bar signing on for her employer.

If, like me she is as pure as the driven snow at every sign on and this nonsense occurred. Including; a spurious alcohol reading on a device, I would welcome the time at home and not worry.

[waren9]

But as a policy designed to protect paying customers, where it must backstop all situations and various rostering, it falls short. It doesn't do you any favours either.

And therein lies the essence of what is wrong with the modern PC world. Trying to have every aspect of human life and it's fallibility tied up with a neat little bow doesn't work. It simply makes criminals out of ordinary human beings.

All the legislation, rules, notices to crew and other prohibitions won't make the slightest bit of difference. The time honoured way of old school values and having a quiet chat to a colleague to sort them out has fallen by the wayside.

Nowadays if something happens it must be someones fault. The USA loves that **** and everyone else is sucking it up in their wake. A whole new industry in itself.

We seem to have lost the distinction between a small one off indiscretion and turning up smashed as a lord. Just as we have between smacking a kids arse (genuine discipline) and parental abuse.

I could go on.