Alcohol, Drugs and the industry, heads in the sand
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: 370 MW (Plaza), Toxic Metropolis (MMMX)
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Careful ...
Aside – I would be very doubtful if pilots were anywhere near this (1.7%) figure – given the very dedication & responsibility it requires to become an airline pilot, to say nothing of the expense
The airlines are aware of this and do nothing. As usual.
In the US, if the FAA's regulatory "authorities" were half as concerned about a pilot's true physiological condition (as it applies to flight safety), as it is about his/her having not the tiniest bit (trace) of alcohol or any other substance in the blood system, then the FAA would have changed the FAR 135/125 and 121 maximum duty period/minimum rest regulations decades ago.
Fortunately for regulatory authorities and accident boards, even a very minute amount of alcohol or other substances can sometimes be detected, but not the crushing day-to-day or nightly fatigue, which can result from very "legal" interpretations of the regs.
Are any PASSENGERS (self-loading freight) reading this topic?
Politicians?
Fortunately for regulatory authorities and accident boards, even a very minute amount of alcohol or other substances can sometimes be detected, but not the crushing day-to-day or nightly fatigue, which can result from very "legal" interpretations of the regs.
Are any PASSENGERS (self-loading freight) reading this topic?
Politicians?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: netherlands, amsterdam
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First suspect a journo indeed, but out of the interest of the topic cant resist to react.
1. In every public job alcohol and drugs are a problem. What about the train/bus driver? What about the school teacher? What about politician (was Bush caught drink-driving, did Blair smoke something more than tobacco?) What about the military?
FACT is that it's a very very very very small number of people doing it (during their profession). See your national statistic buro for the figures. And as stated above I have to see the pilot make it to his airplane being under influance, if not stopped by a college or some regulating authority. Usually there is more behind someone not controlling his/hers drinking habit, and in my opinion it would really pay off investing more in a system to catch those people in a more socially controlled manner. Father state telling people "don't do this" usually is not of much effect. When was the last time you committed a speeding offence on the highway?
2. Is it a safety hazard? Being drunk clearly is. But being just over the legal limit, which is in most countries the least possible amount of alcohol they can reliably measure. And that is just above the level your body itself has in in its bloodlevel. Eating some over ripe fruits with lots of sugar in it brings your alcohol level already above the legal limit, with no effect on your performance.
And how do you feel after a month of heavy working, doing lot's of night flights, crossing many time zones, being in noisy hotels, not seeing your family for two weeks? Than your perfomance level is about the same as been drinking 5 pints, or 10 glasses of wine! Who has done some testing on that? Check some scientific reports about that, the best readable a swedish report about car accidents versus being tired. Also Nasa and US navy have some interesting reports about it.
Thinking about the new WRR being made in the EC really makes me grab the bottle!!! Hopefully some (EC) politician reads this and spend their money and time on some more benificial subjects than alcohol and drugs.
Edited for spelling mistakes and to add:
Hmmmm, I see Ignition Override already made my point very clear!
1. In every public job alcohol and drugs are a problem. What about the train/bus driver? What about the school teacher? What about politician (was Bush caught drink-driving, did Blair smoke something more than tobacco?) What about the military?
FACT is that it's a very very very very small number of people doing it (during their profession). See your national statistic buro for the figures. And as stated above I have to see the pilot make it to his airplane being under influance, if not stopped by a college or some regulating authority. Usually there is more behind someone not controlling his/hers drinking habit, and in my opinion it would really pay off investing more in a system to catch those people in a more socially controlled manner. Father state telling people "don't do this" usually is not of much effect. When was the last time you committed a speeding offence on the highway?
2. Is it a safety hazard? Being drunk clearly is. But being just over the legal limit, which is in most countries the least possible amount of alcohol they can reliably measure. And that is just above the level your body itself has in in its bloodlevel. Eating some over ripe fruits with lots of sugar in it brings your alcohol level already above the legal limit, with no effect on your performance.
And how do you feel after a month of heavy working, doing lot's of night flights, crossing many time zones, being in noisy hotels, not seeing your family for two weeks? Than your perfomance level is about the same as been drinking 5 pints, or 10 glasses of wine! Who has done some testing on that? Check some scientific reports about that, the best readable a swedish report about car accidents versus being tired. Also Nasa and US navy have some interesting reports about it.
Thinking about the new WRR being made in the EC really makes me grab the bottle!!! Hopefully some (EC) politician reads this and spend their money and time on some more benificial subjects than alcohol and drugs.
Edited for spelling mistakes and to add:
Hmmmm, I see Ignition Override already made my point very clear!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry...but the last post is so much cobblers!
Firstly I was a Policeman for 19 years and spent 11 years of that at Heathrow. I have arrested a couple of pilots for drink driving, given that very few airline staff are stopped, 2 represents a very high proportion of those that were. Of course that excludes others that were arrested by other officers.
The suggestion that 'over ripe' fruit' can cause a reading to the level prescribed by the new act is again rubbish. Never have I stopped anyone who has totaly denied drinking anything and they have blown a reading of 20, ie 1/4 the drink drive limit of 80. I have arrested people who have blown 0, probably meaning thier bad driving is down to drugs not drink.
That leads me onto drugs. OK its probably not a huge problem amongst aircrew, but to denie it happens is shoving your head in the sand. I lived with a hostie and several of her friends used it, and probably within a time frame that would have meant they were impaired when they flew. I know of one pilot arrested for possession of drugs, and before you start ranting about one pilot again I mention that very very few airline staff are stopped by police at the airport.
Does it matter if this was started by a jerno? I am suprised everyones not ead against both drink and drigs on aircraft and would be only too happy to do anything to prevent an incident.
Oh and train drivers are subject to aclohol tests as are most transport occupations!
Firstly I was a Policeman for 19 years and spent 11 years of that at Heathrow. I have arrested a couple of pilots for drink driving, given that very few airline staff are stopped, 2 represents a very high proportion of those that were. Of course that excludes others that were arrested by other officers.
The suggestion that 'over ripe' fruit' can cause a reading to the level prescribed by the new act is again rubbish. Never have I stopped anyone who has totaly denied drinking anything and they have blown a reading of 20, ie 1/4 the drink drive limit of 80. I have arrested people who have blown 0, probably meaning thier bad driving is down to drugs not drink.
That leads me onto drugs. OK its probably not a huge problem amongst aircrew, but to denie it happens is shoving your head in the sand. I lived with a hostie and several of her friends used it, and probably within a time frame that would have meant they were impaired when they flew. I know of one pilot arrested for possession of drugs, and before you start ranting about one pilot again I mention that very very few airline staff are stopped by police at the airport.
Does it matter if this was started by a jerno? I am suprised everyones not ead against both drink and drigs on aircraft and would be only too happy to do anything to prevent an incident.
Oh and train drivers are subject to aclohol tests as are most transport occupations!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: netherlands, amsterdam
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point, but I will myself make more clear;
1. Drunk driving is not the same as drunk flying, unless you caught those pilots on their way to work.
2. Your breathing test only will test levels above certain levels. A blood test, done after an accident etc will more precisely show the amount of alcohol levels.
Whenever alcohol or drugs involved, it's somebodies action to drink or use it. It's not something comming out of the blue. And I'm still of the opinion that it's a very very very very small number of pilots not having their (occasional) drinking habits uncontrolled, caused by other circumstances than ignorance.
Safety wise it's more effective to put some effort and money in changing other things (like WRR regulations, roster control etc) beyond the control of aircrew than doing all kinds of drug tests.
I'm not closing my eyes, its just a matter of chasing aircrew to catch a small number of alcoholic abuse or changing something 100 percent of the population is faced with.
1. Drunk driving is not the same as drunk flying, unless you caught those pilots on their way to work.
2. Your breathing test only will test levels above certain levels. A blood test, done after an accident etc will more precisely show the amount of alcohol levels.
Whenever alcohol or drugs involved, it's somebodies action to drink or use it. It's not something comming out of the blue. And I'm still of the opinion that it's a very very very very small number of pilots not having their (occasional) drinking habits uncontrolled, caused by other circumstances than ignorance.
Safety wise it's more effective to put some effort and money in changing other things (like WRR regulations, roster control etc) beyond the control of aircrew than doing all kinds of drug tests.
I'm not closing my eyes, its just a matter of chasing aircrew to catch a small number of alcoholic abuse or changing something 100 percent of the population is faced with.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: sion
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We keep on talking about alcohol but what about addiction to sleeping pills? I was quite amazed to see the percentage of pilots using some strong medications with side effects not very long before a flignt.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the Numbers
The proximity of the RTSA effective date and a calculation of the lead-time for placement of free-lance stories in monthly or even weekly publications says this would be just about the right moment for some junior level or free-lance journo to be working on a story for appearancd in early February as the Act becomes effective.
The headline might be: "Pilots Online confirm WORST FEARS of Public that Drunks and Druggies are Sometimes at the Controls!"
The proximity of the RTSA effective date and a calculation of the lead-time for placement of free-lance stories in monthly or even weekly publications says this would be just about the right moment for some junior level or free-lance journo to be working on a story for appearancd in early February as the Act becomes effective.
The headline might be: "Pilots Online confirm WORST FEARS of Public that Drunks and Druggies are Sometimes at the Controls!"
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or "Pilots online confirm that they share general concern about risks of alcohol and flying".
Well, one can hope for fair reporting.
Still, I think a bit of open discussion is better than BALPAs "nothing to see here, move along madam, we'll deal with this" proposal.
Well, one can hope for fair reporting.
Still, I think a bit of open discussion is better than BALPAs "nothing to see here, move along madam, we'll deal with this" proposal.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
will it sell papers ?
Unfortunatly the real news that 99.999% of aircrew are drink and drug free when working is not the news that is worth printing , in national paper terms it just wont sell papers.
So if anyone is hoping for fair and balanced treatment from the press just forget it.
On PPrune last week it was stated that at least one of the BA crew who had been tested in Oslo was not guilty of having had to much alcohol in his blood and at the levels that these tests are set at means that his blood/alcohol level was practicly NIL.
This did not stop one of the UK tabloid newspapers refering to the fact that this man had been stopped from flying for a drink related test AFTER the test had proved negitive !.
I would hope that the man involved has a case in court because the paper has used mis-information to blacken this mans name after he had been found to test negative for alcohol , the leagal experts on this forum may like to comment on this.
So if anyone is hoping for fair and balanced treatment from the press just forget it.
On PPrune last week it was stated that at least one of the BA crew who had been tested in Oslo was not guilty of having had to much alcohol in his blood and at the levels that these tests are set at means that his blood/alcohol level was practicly NIL.
This did not stop one of the UK tabloid newspapers refering to the fact that this man had been stopped from flying for a drink related test AFTER the test had proved negitive !.
I would hope that the man involved has a case in court because the paper has used mis-information to blacken this mans name after he had been found to test negative for alcohol , the leagal experts on this forum may like to comment on this.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit surprised at the level of hostility here.
Even more surprised that some think that there is no problem.
(usual aviation culture is that we have to positively prove safety).
Fact is, legislation has been passed in many countries mandating testing for drugs and alcohol (for a wide range of personnel in the UK - based on reasonable cause - i.e. if anyone "reliable" reports you). So its a fact, get used to it.
The legislation makes it an absolute offence to have drugs or alcohol in your body and sets specific limits for alcohol.
If you are tested positive, then you are guilty of a criminal offence and there is no defence (which is why a zero-tolerance level of 0.2% has been set). It seems unlikely that anyone found guilty would be returned to work......... and any airline that did not report "unfit" flight crew could be considered guilty of conspiracy - which reduces the scope for in-house rehabilitation.
What is of concern is that (zero tolerance) limits have been set for alcohol (.02%), but testing for "drugs" has been left undefined. "Drugs" includes illicit, prescribed and over the counter concoctions - anything that may impair your function - we just don't know what yet.
The body metabolises alcohol quickly, but is less efficient with other "drugs". If a zero tolerance level is set for "drugs" (as with alcohol) then an individual is likely to test positive several days after imbibing......... This could be a problem (whether for cocaine, ectasy or a prescribed anti-depressant).
What we need to know is what is meant by "drugs"?
Personally, I think random testing is just a prudent measure
and might encourage anyone with a problem to do something about it, before they lose their licence or their life.
And as long as we know what we are being tested for.........
Even more surprised that some think that there is no problem.
(usual aviation culture is that we have to positively prove safety).
Fact is, legislation has been passed in many countries mandating testing for drugs and alcohol (for a wide range of personnel in the UK - based on reasonable cause - i.e. if anyone "reliable" reports you). So its a fact, get used to it.
The legislation makes it an absolute offence to have drugs or alcohol in your body and sets specific limits for alcohol.
If you are tested positive, then you are guilty of a criminal offence and there is no defence (which is why a zero-tolerance level of 0.2% has been set). It seems unlikely that anyone found guilty would be returned to work......... and any airline that did not report "unfit" flight crew could be considered guilty of conspiracy - which reduces the scope for in-house rehabilitation.
What is of concern is that (zero tolerance) limits have been set for alcohol (.02%), but testing for "drugs" has been left undefined. "Drugs" includes illicit, prescribed and over the counter concoctions - anything that may impair your function - we just don't know what yet.
The body metabolises alcohol quickly, but is less efficient with other "drugs". If a zero tolerance level is set for "drugs" (as with alcohol) then an individual is likely to test positive several days after imbibing......... This could be a problem (whether for cocaine, ectasy or a prescribed anti-depressant).
What we need to know is what is meant by "drugs"?
Personally, I think random testing is just a prudent measure
and might encourage anyone with a problem to do something about it, before they lose their licence or their life.
And as long as we know what we are being tested for.........
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst there may well be a handful of cases whereby some crew operate 'outside the limit' it seems to me to be massively over- reacting to bring in this legislation. Keep the numbers in context. Elsewhere in the thread a few examples were quoted but the total number of flights is millions (world-wide). The evidence does not justify the means and it is just another example of nanny-state politics.
We already have far too many laws but why stop at just pilots? I want to know that my barrister / banker / solicitor / surgeon / doctor / nurse / MP etc, etc are all sober before representing/advising/diagnosing etc etc. This has not been well thought out at all - there are perfectly adequate laws already in place to deal with the few.
If BALPA etc called upon IFALPA and, globally, pilots refused to accept this latest legislation - if it is imposed aircraft will simply not fly (imagine how rapidly the system would shutdown). What Goverment is going to take that lot on? Think BIG!!
I hold my breath in anticipation.
We already have far too many laws but why stop at just pilots? I want to know that my barrister / banker / solicitor / surgeon / doctor / nurse / MP etc, etc are all sober before representing/advising/diagnosing etc etc. This has not been well thought out at all - there are perfectly adequate laws already in place to deal with the few.
If BALPA etc called upon IFALPA and, globally, pilots refused to accept this latest legislation - if it is imposed aircraft will simply not fly (imagine how rapidly the system would shutdown). What Goverment is going to take that lot on? Think BIG!!
I hold my breath in anticipation.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
>>If BALPA etc called upon IFALPA and, globally, pilots refused to accept this latest legislation - if it is imposed aircraft will simply not fly (imagine how rapidly the system would shutdown).<<
Yes, we must all defend the the right to fly drunk!
Yes, we must all defend the the right to fly drunk!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bloke
When did you last hear of a hijack and overpowering of a "barrister / banker / solicitor / surgeon / doctor / nurse / MP"?
You didn't because these people do not have alot of lives collectively held by many, single, moment in time, judgements.
That's why it's different. Medical professions can deal in life or death, but generally it's singular. The rest of the professions you name are not involved in death issues at all.
Pilots have far higher standards expected of them - I'd say rightly so.
When did you last hear of a hijack and overpowering of a "barrister / banker / solicitor / surgeon / doctor / nurse / MP"?
You didn't because these people do not have alot of lives collectively held by many, single, moment in time, judgements.
That's why it's different. Medical professions can deal in life or death, but generally it's singular. The rest of the professions you name are not involved in death issues at all.
Pilots have far higher standards expected of them - I'd say rightly so.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maxy101
No, to the first part of your question, there is something called discresion. It was him showing off, I chose to ignore him,
And yes to both On way to and from work to your second question. The one on way to was also reported to the CAA who chose to do nothing. Once he was released, he then checked in and flew a private jst. At that time there was nothing we could do to stop him.
No, to the first part of your question, there is something called discresion. It was him showing off, I chose to ignore him,
And yes to both On way to and from work to your second question. The one on way to was also reported to the CAA who chose to do nothing. Once he was released, he then checked in and flew a private jst. At that time there was nothing we could do to stop him.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know it makes sense!
Some years ago I was the accountable manager responsible for introducing what, at the time, was the first Drug & Alcohol random testing scheme employed by a UK AOC holder. The scheme was introduced following discussions with staff representatives after we faced up to the liklihood of having a scheme imposed upon us as a consequence of being awarded a contract with the US company ExxonMobil. If you work for ExxonMobil then you must have a scheme in place - this following the Exxon Valdez disaster.
We decided that we would rather have our own scheme in place than have to jump though someone else's hoops.
A democratic vote of all staff (70+) showed 80% in favour of a scheme that encompassed all staff not just "safety-critical" staff.
It took 6 months of organisation to bring the scheme to the point where we were ready to go live. During this period each department elected a representative to the Scheme Management Committee which I chaired. We all (4 in no.) attended training courses, held committee meetings with lawyers and doctors, all of which were highly qualified in their field. The basic scheme had to comply with internationally agreed norms and standards to avoid any assertions that our scheme was not good enough.
In operation the idea was to deter rather than "catch" and to help rather than sack any transgressors. We all expected the big problem to be alcohol but throughout the many tests carried out in the 18 month life of the scheme not one member of staff even indicated the lowest point on the alcohol breath tester (from memory this was 5 mmol/mltr) but we had one pilot and one engineer with drug related problems.
We were shocked and disappointed but in retrospect we had merely illustrated some of the problems prevelant in society. We would all like to think that as aircrew we have more sense than to "dabble". The reality is somewhat different and as "peer pressure" would not have helped in the cases we encountered i would venture to suggest that BALPA would like to rethink their stance.
May I suggest that a scheme set up by BALPA to international standards, administered by them and run on behalf of it's members would be the professional way out of the current dilemma. In our case the management were more than willing to meet the costs of the scheme and I suspect that this would be true of those airlines involved.
I'm more than willing to make more details of our experience available to anyone in BALPA empowered to ask.
The scheme ended, along with the Company, after 18 months due to the loss of the company's sole UK contract.
We decided that we would rather have our own scheme in place than have to jump though someone else's hoops.
A democratic vote of all staff (70+) showed 80% in favour of a scheme that encompassed all staff not just "safety-critical" staff.
It took 6 months of organisation to bring the scheme to the point where we were ready to go live. During this period each department elected a representative to the Scheme Management Committee which I chaired. We all (4 in no.) attended training courses, held committee meetings with lawyers and doctors, all of which were highly qualified in their field. The basic scheme had to comply with internationally agreed norms and standards to avoid any assertions that our scheme was not good enough.
In operation the idea was to deter rather than "catch" and to help rather than sack any transgressors. We all expected the big problem to be alcohol but throughout the many tests carried out in the 18 month life of the scheme not one member of staff even indicated the lowest point on the alcohol breath tester (from memory this was 5 mmol/mltr) but we had one pilot and one engineer with drug related problems.
We were shocked and disappointed but in retrospect we had merely illustrated some of the problems prevelant in society. We would all like to think that as aircrew we have more sense than to "dabble". The reality is somewhat different and as "peer pressure" would not have helped in the cases we encountered i would venture to suggest that BALPA would like to rethink their stance.
May I suggest that a scheme set up by BALPA to international standards, administered by them and run on behalf of it's members would be the professional way out of the current dilemma. In our case the management were more than willing to meet the costs of the scheme and I suspect that this would be true of those airlines involved.
I'm more than willing to make more details of our experience available to anyone in BALPA empowered to ask.
The scheme ended, along with the Company, after 18 months due to the loss of the company's sole UK contract.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just come back from a (glorious) week's holiday in Barbados. The outbound flight (VS29 on 27/12) was long delayed and Virgin made no announcement of the cause, but word spread that it was a crewing issue.
The number of people in the departure lounge who were murmuring that it must be another drink problem was tangible.
I'm sure that it wasn't anything to do with drink, but the industry should take seriously the effect that stories like this have on the SLF. The airlines are in enough trouble without another PR blight. If that means testing for only PR/confidence reasons then that is enough justification in itself.
Will
The number of people in the departure lounge who were murmuring that it must be another drink problem was tangible.
I'm sure that it wasn't anything to do with drink, but the industry should take seriously the effect that stories like this have on the SLF. The airlines are in enough trouble without another PR blight. If that means testing for only PR/confidence reasons then that is enough justification in itself.
Will
