Alcohol, Drugs and the industry, heads in the sand
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: here
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alcohol, Drugs and the industry, heads in the sand
Hi, first post, so expecting to be flamed etc.
Why is the industry stuck with its head in the sand over drug and alcohol testing?
This year, three British Airways pilots have been dismissed publicly for breaking its alcohol rules. Another went to an industrial tribunal over an occurence last year, and the case against him was upheld.
In 2000 British Airways said it would introduce drug and alcohol testing in 2001. It hasnt happened. Its regulator hasnt required it either.
In New Zealand, three flight crew have been sacked this year for similar reasons. A flight attendant was found to be in posession of cocaine, and someone else was dealing it at an engineering base.
Drug use among crews is probably the same as in comparable age/socio-economic groupings.
Why do the unions oppose the introduction of random testing?
The regulators do little, if anything. No prosecutions have resulted in the UK. You commit the offence, get sacked, go to a new employer. No fine, nada.
The industry isnt squeeky clean.
Drugs, and alcohol abuse is available for all to see, if only you would admit it, from the regulators down.
It stinks, and needs to be changed.
Why is the industry stuck with its head in the sand over drug and alcohol testing?
This year, three British Airways pilots have been dismissed publicly for breaking its alcohol rules. Another went to an industrial tribunal over an occurence last year, and the case against him was upheld.
In 2000 British Airways said it would introduce drug and alcohol testing in 2001. It hasnt happened. Its regulator hasnt required it either.
In New Zealand, three flight crew have been sacked this year for similar reasons. A flight attendant was found to be in posession of cocaine, and someone else was dealing it at an engineering base.
Drug use among crews is probably the same as in comparable age/socio-economic groupings.
Why do the unions oppose the introduction of random testing?
The regulators do little, if anything. No prosecutions have resulted in the UK. You commit the offence, get sacked, go to a new employer. No fine, nada.
The industry isnt squeeky clean.
Drugs, and alcohol abuse is available for all to see, if only you would admit it, from the regulators down.
It stinks, and needs to be changed.
Last edited by jalguy; 16th Dec 2003 at 19:16.
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Floatin' on th' Black Pig, Yarr!
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, I forgot, beware of TROLLS!
The issue is that the industry has to be seen to be clean as well as being clean.
Get stoned/drunk and drive your car and there is a slim chance that you will kill someone or yourself.
Multiply this by 189 plus crew for a B737 notwithstanding the hole in the ground it can make and it is clear that the risks are not worth accepting.
Certain trades have a zero tolerance attitude, those who enter these trades willingly know the score. There ar no conscripts flying airliners only volunteers.
The rule of the game is no drugs plus a bottle to throttle time. Break the rule, game over, you lose.
Get stoned/drunk and drive your car and there is a slim chance that you will kill someone or yourself.
Multiply this by 189 plus crew for a B737 notwithstanding the hole in the ground it can make and it is clear that the risks are not worth accepting.
Certain trades have a zero tolerance attitude, those who enter these trades willingly know the score. There ar no conscripts flying airliners only volunteers.
The rule of the game is no drugs plus a bottle to throttle time. Break the rule, game over, you lose.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: here
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maninblack
I agree the industry has to be seen to be clean, but why do the unions fight drug and alcohol testing?
Why dont the regulators push drug and alcohol testing?
I think until there is a smoking hole, as you put it, it will carry on being ignored by management, unions, and regulators. If there is a smoking hole, then they will be forced to take their blinkers off.
Surely we shouldnt have to wait until then.
The industry needs to clean up its act, from the regulators down.
I agree the industry has to be seen to be clean, but why do the unions fight drug and alcohol testing?
Why dont the regulators push drug and alcohol testing?
I think until there is a smoking hole, as you put it, it will carry on being ignored by management, unions, and regulators. If there is a smoking hole, then they will be forced to take their blinkers off.
Surely we shouldnt have to wait until then.
The industry needs to clean up its act, from the regulators down.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: here
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Angels
Your antennae may be twitching (must be an expensive mod), but we all have to start posts somewhere.
Sometimes we dont want to use our usual names lest we be identified by our carriers.
I live in the US. We have had 35 guys fail since random testing was introduced, including a couple who breathed fumes over security screeners. In June, the FAA finally decided to "toughen" its stance.
I ask again, why are the unions in the UK and NZ, for example, opposing a move which would hopefully show that the employees have nothing to hide?
Why did BA say in October 2000 that it would be introducing random testing in 2001, and then quietly do nothing? If it had, the latest incidents may not have occurred.
Why are the regulators not enforcing legislation already in place?
If they dont look, they dont find anything that will embarrass themselves!
I bet the lawyers are waiting for a passenger to raise a "I could have been killed by the drunk pilot" case. Its only a matter of time.
No one is looking after the rights of the passenger to be flown from A to B by a "clean" crew. The industry needs to clean itself up.
Your antennae may be twitching (must be an expensive mod), but we all have to start posts somewhere.
Sometimes we dont want to use our usual names lest we be identified by our carriers.
I live in the US. We have had 35 guys fail since random testing was introduced, including a couple who breathed fumes over security screeners. In June, the FAA finally decided to "toughen" its stance.
I ask again, why are the unions in the UK and NZ, for example, opposing a move which would hopefully show that the employees have nothing to hide?
Why did BA say in October 2000 that it would be introducing random testing in 2001, and then quietly do nothing? If it had, the latest incidents may not have occurred.
Why are the regulators not enforcing legislation already in place?
If they dont look, they dont find anything that will embarrass themselves!
I bet the lawyers are waiting for a passenger to raise a "I could have been killed by the drunk pilot" case. Its only a matter of time.
No one is looking after the rights of the passenger to be flown from A to B by a "clean" crew. The industry needs to clean itself up.
Last edited by jalguy; 16th Dec 2003 at 19:00.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
I'm sure I read somewhere recently that with effect of February 2004, police will have the right to breath test crew suspected of drinking. I think the limit will be 1/4 of the current drive limit (80mg/ml) so 20 mg/ml.
Not quite random testing but a start.
Not quite random testing but a start.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: here
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A4
I agree, its a start, but why has it taken so long? My UK spies says the legislation was passed a few months ago.
Why didnt BA decide to implement it, as they said they would, back in 2001.
I still cant wait for the lawsuit from the first passenger who realises they were only saved by a chance discovery!
Alcohol and and drug abuse is there, if only they will look for it.
The industry is hiding this, from the regulator down.
I agree, its a start, but why has it taken so long? My UK spies says the legislation was passed a few months ago.
Why didnt BA decide to implement it, as they said they would, back in 2001.
I still cant wait for the lawsuit from the first passenger who realises they were only saved by a chance discovery!
Alcohol and and drug abuse is there, if only they will look for it.
The industry is hiding this, from the regulator down.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London,Bucharest...wherever...
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the beginning of my career I worked for a short time for a European night express mail airline - alcoholism was a known problem but was diplomatically ignored by management and colleagues alike.
The individuals concerned would actually have bottles of booze in their bags which everyone could hear clanking as they got out of the crew bus, then the little boozing gang had day stop drinking sessions in a hotel room.
Everyone knew and it was treated in a 'dont make trouble, yes we know, it could be you one day' type attitude...until the leader of the boozing gang ran his aircraft off the runway during a take off run, denied any knowledge of it whilst they scrapped piles of mud out of his main wheel bay at the destination...he was sent home on paid furlough until 6 months later they finally terminated his contract...
Hardly a positive response to a very obvious and dangerous problem...more like 'let's not talk about it and hope it doesn't get embarrasing' - I leave it to you to define how far it has to go before it got 'embarrasing'
This should not be a case of 'covering up' so the public are not alarmed...it is a known problem and should be addressed in an proactive manner so that confidence (and discipline) is upheld.
The individuals concerned would actually have bottles of booze in their bags which everyone could hear clanking as they got out of the crew bus, then the little boozing gang had day stop drinking sessions in a hotel room.
Everyone knew and it was treated in a 'dont make trouble, yes we know, it could be you one day' type attitude...until the leader of the boozing gang ran his aircraft off the runway during a take off run, denied any knowledge of it whilst they scrapped piles of mud out of his main wheel bay at the destination...he was sent home on paid furlough until 6 months later they finally terminated his contract...
Hardly a positive response to a very obvious and dangerous problem...more like 'let's not talk about it and hope it doesn't get embarrasing' - I leave it to you to define how far it has to go before it got 'embarrasing'
This should not be a case of 'covering up' so the public are not alarmed...it is a known problem and should be addressed in an proactive manner so that confidence (and discipline) is upheld.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
over reaction ?
I,ve been flying airliners for over 12 years now and have yet to see a pilot under the influence make it to the aircraft.
As one post above states the drinking in the night cargo airlines was common but within the stated time the drinking stopped , I did once see a pilot make it as far as the hotel lobby drunk but the rest of the crew put a stop to his nights flying.
As for the drugs this is also almost a non event on the flight deck in all this time I,ve only seen one pilot give a postive drug test and that was only for a bit if puff that he had smoked about a week before the ( FAA ) test , so clearly his judgment would not have been impaired on the day in question.
I know that the "exotic pharmaceuticals" are a bit more prevalent with the cabin crew but it is not a big problem.
The USA has random testing bit the positve test rate is very low and I think that the testing is driven more by the American tendancy to over react to a situation than by the size of the problem.
As for the 20mg limit that is about to become law in the UK I am a little worried that it is getting a bit near the level at which a person might have background alcohol level in the blood without having had a drink ( medical experts your comments please).
We all agree that drink , drugs and flying dont mix but I would not want to see a witch hunt but what I would like to see is the people who vote these rules into law have to abide by the same rules when they are working.
As one post above states the drinking in the night cargo airlines was common but within the stated time the drinking stopped , I did once see a pilot make it as far as the hotel lobby drunk but the rest of the crew put a stop to his nights flying.
As for the drugs this is also almost a non event on the flight deck in all this time I,ve only seen one pilot give a postive drug test and that was only for a bit if puff that he had smoked about a week before the ( FAA ) test , so clearly his judgment would not have been impaired on the day in question.
I know that the "exotic pharmaceuticals" are a bit more prevalent with the cabin crew but it is not a big problem.
The USA has random testing bit the positve test rate is very low and I think that the testing is driven more by the American tendancy to over react to a situation than by the size of the problem.
As for the 20mg limit that is about to become law in the UK I am a little worried that it is getting a bit near the level at which a person might have background alcohol level in the blood without having had a drink ( medical experts your comments please).
We all agree that drink , drugs and flying dont mix but I would not want to see a witch hunt but what I would like to see is the people who vote these rules into law have to abide by the same rules when they are working.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: here
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C
"yet to see a pilot under the influence make it to the aircraft" I assume you infer that his or her colleague/s have suggested that the pilot was unwell, and should go sick.
What if both pilots had been out together the night before, who would be the first to say "perhaps we shouldnt fly today?" I suspect neither of them would.
I still think this is a potential legal minefield, with potential rich rewards for successful litigants. Perhaps positive action will only be taken after passengers successfully sue an airline.
Boss Raptor, I agree with you that "This should not be a case of 'covering up' so the public are not alarmed...it is a known problem and should be addressed in an proactive manner so that confidence (and discipline) is upheld" But it isnt as yet.
The unions are not welcoming it, perhaps that is an indication in itself. If British Airways for instance was to uphold its October 2000 statement that it was going to introduce random testing it would need to be done throughout its worldwide network, and frequently enough so that it was a deterrent.
Perr intervention has been introduced for us in the US, but this is really quite limited in its usefullness. How often do you fly with a guy to know if he has a problem? Its a nice idea, but in my experience, is more of a cop out.
A better judge of crews behaviour is probably gained by the reception staff at the hotels, perhaps they should be included in the peer programs.
Once again, the industry needs to clean its act up, from the regulators (FAA, CAA etc), the unions, down to each employee.
But then, we would all have to realise that there is a problem. which appears unlikely, despite numerous occurences.
"yet to see a pilot under the influence make it to the aircraft" I assume you infer that his or her colleague/s have suggested that the pilot was unwell, and should go sick.
What if both pilots had been out together the night before, who would be the first to say "perhaps we shouldnt fly today?" I suspect neither of them would.
I still think this is a potential legal minefield, with potential rich rewards for successful litigants. Perhaps positive action will only be taken after passengers successfully sue an airline.
Boss Raptor, I agree with you that "This should not be a case of 'covering up' so the public are not alarmed...it is a known problem and should be addressed in an proactive manner so that confidence (and discipline) is upheld" But it isnt as yet.
The unions are not welcoming it, perhaps that is an indication in itself. If British Airways for instance was to uphold its October 2000 statement that it was going to introduce random testing it would need to be done throughout its worldwide network, and frequently enough so that it was a deterrent.
Perr intervention has been introduced for us in the US, but this is really quite limited in its usefullness. How often do you fly with a guy to know if he has a problem? Its a nice idea, but in my experience, is more of a cop out.
A better judge of crews behaviour is probably gained by the reception staff at the hotels, perhaps they should be included in the peer programs.
Once again, the industry needs to clean its act up, from the regulators (FAA, CAA etc), the unions, down to each employee.
But then, we would all have to realise that there is a problem. which appears unlikely, despite numerous occurences.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere probing
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jalguy - as you're making such a big deal about this, would you please be so kind as to enlighten the rest of us as to how many incidents and / or accidents there have been as a result of ( the apparently numerous ) crews who ( according to you at least ) are operating whilst under the influence of booze and / or drugs ?
I’m sure that we would all be delighted if you could supply us with such data for, say, the last 1, 5, 10 and 20 years, but please only include those sectors where incidents are directly attributable to over indulgence in 'recreational substances' ( rather than as a result hear-say or innuendo ).
We would also be pleased if you could present your data in % terms, i.e. in respect to the total of all sectors operated, so that we can get a true sense of the scale of this problem.
Thanking you in advance.
DA.
Ps. If quoting factual evidence please include the names of the reference sources from which your 'data' was obtained.
I’m sure that we would all be delighted if you could supply us with such data for, say, the last 1, 5, 10 and 20 years, but please only include those sectors where incidents are directly attributable to over indulgence in 'recreational substances' ( rather than as a result hear-say or innuendo ).
We would also be pleased if you could present your data in % terms, i.e. in respect to the total of all sectors operated, so that we can get a true sense of the scale of this problem.
Thanking you in advance.
DA.
Ps. If quoting factual evidence please include the names of the reference sources from which your 'data' was obtained.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JOURNALIST ALERT!
I have grave suspicions about the authenticity of jalguy. However just to correct his journalistic-type pronouncements, BA have sacked two people this year, and one resigned. Only one of the three failed a zero tolerance blood alcohol test. At least get your facts right.
Now as for drugs, do you have any evidence whatsoever to indicate the presence of a drug problem amongst any UK pilots? Are there any other things you'd like to legislate against just in case they are a prpblem as well. What about an alertness test in case the crew are tired. How about a 'mood-o-meter' in case they've had a row at home which might distract them?
This whole thread smacks of the prudish, puritancial zeal which emanates from some parts of the USA. There are a whole lot of other initiatives which will make a far more significant contribution to aviation safety than expending vast resources on a tiny problem whose profile has been exaggerated by a sensationalist media.
By the way, I don't recall any senior person within BA stating they would introduce a random screening program. Perhaps you picked up a slip of the tongue by a junior spokesperson. Unless of course you can name the individual involved?
I have grave suspicions about the authenticity of jalguy. However just to correct his journalistic-type pronouncements, BA have sacked two people this year, and one resigned. Only one of the three failed a zero tolerance blood alcohol test. At least get your facts right.
Now as for drugs, do you have any evidence whatsoever to indicate the presence of a drug problem amongst any UK pilots? Are there any other things you'd like to legislate against just in case they are a prpblem as well. What about an alertness test in case the crew are tired. How about a 'mood-o-meter' in case they've had a row at home which might distract them?
This whole thread smacks of the prudish, puritancial zeal which emanates from some parts of the USA. There are a whole lot of other initiatives which will make a far more significant contribution to aviation safety than expending vast resources on a tiny problem whose profile has been exaggerated by a sensationalist media.
By the way, I don't recall any senior person within BA stating they would introduce a random screening program. Perhaps you picked up a slip of the tongue by a junior spokesperson. Unless of course you can name the individual involved?
I would like to think that my employer trusts me to act in a responsible and adult like manner. That I am presumed innocent until proven guilty. I have never flown with anyone who was intoxicated, no have I ever flown under the influence of any intoxicant. It is disappointing that anyone would. Therefore, I object to being tested, often treated like a criminal, with little or no recourse in the event of a false positive. (I went through all of this in a former career. I never had the false positive, but during the orientation, we were told that they do happen and “that’s life.” You’re fired and you have no way to appeal that decision.) It is also worth noting that rarely, if ever, that the drug testing is company wide. It’s odd that you don’t see the management, president or the board of directors having to pee in a cup during work hours. How many decisions/deals have been made “under the influence” that resulted in lost money, efficiency and jobs? If it’s fair for me, it’s fair for everyone. If the people running these companies want drug testing, then lead by example.
Just a few thoughts on my part.
Just a few thoughts on my part.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: here
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Devils Advocate
Interesting approach, no-one has been killed, so we dont need to change anything?
Have a look at http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/97835.htm for a survey of airline alcohol policies.
http://www.asams.org/guidelines/Comp...ol%20Abuse.htm states alcohol is involved in 15% of
general aviation accidents
http://www.health20-20.org/how_high.htm for info on a crash with a pilot who had high levels of cocaine in his system, and for "Yet denial of the problem of alcohol's effect on aviation safety has been a continuous problem for those seeking to remedy the problem."
http://www.nzdf.org.nz/update/messages/2413.htm for a starter on info on the problems in New Zealand.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/...ot-alcohol.htm for info on a China Airlines pilot caught out by screeners who smelt alcohol on his breath.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/977237.stm for info on British Airways supposedly intoducing drug and alcohol testing in 2001.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...iving/s1p1.htm for info on drug testing program in the US.
I dont have a beef with BA, just if they are going to announce they do something, they should do! They got enough bad publicity recently, it even made my small state newspaper, if they had kept to their 2000 pronouncement of testing in 2001, it may not have occurred.
I assume you think that there is no problem? What do you have to fear from drug and alcohol testing?
Interesting approach, no-one has been killed, so we dont need to change anything?
Have a look at http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/97835.htm for a survey of airline alcohol policies.
http://www.asams.org/guidelines/Comp...ol%20Abuse.htm states alcohol is involved in 15% of
general aviation accidents
http://www.health20-20.org/how_high.htm for info on a crash with a pilot who had high levels of cocaine in his system, and for "Yet denial of the problem of alcohol's effect on aviation safety has been a continuous problem for those seeking to remedy the problem."
http://www.nzdf.org.nz/update/messages/2413.htm for a starter on info on the problems in New Zealand.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/...ot-alcohol.htm for info on a China Airlines pilot caught out by screeners who smelt alcohol on his breath.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/977237.stm for info on British Airways supposedly intoducing drug and alcohol testing in 2001.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...iving/s1p1.htm for info on drug testing program in the US.
I dont have a beef with BA, just if they are going to announce they do something, they should do! They got enough bad publicity recently, it even made my small state newspaper, if they had kept to their 2000 pronouncement of testing in 2001, it may not have occurred.
I assume you think that there is no problem? What do you have to fear from drug and alcohol testing?
Last edited by jalguy; 17th Dec 2003 at 06:15.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I checked the BBC link. It says specifically:
The claim that BA is to introduce random testing is the BBCs. I recall no senior BA personnel stating that random testing would be introduced. The company commited itself to look at the issue of random testing, but did not publicly state any intention to implement such a policy. Your beef should be with the BBC, not BA.
The 'endemic drinking culture' was a creation of the Dispatches program, which was extensively analysed and largely discredited on this forum at the time. Full of inconsistencies, false assertions, discredited assumptions, voice dubbing, time-shifting and other hallmarks of hatchet job exposes. It has almost nothing to offer an informed, sensible debate on this subject.
Heroin addiction? I'm not aware that BAC operated any BA flight, nor are they a BA subsidiary or franchise. Quite why that was linked to BA is a complete mystery to me. Might as well link JetBlue or Finnair to BA.
Virgin don't fly Madrid to Brussels, thats Virgin Express, a Belgian low cost airline partially owned by Richard Branson.
Then of course there's the Royal Air Maroc.
What we have there is a collected tale of bad behaviour drawn from all the professional pilots in the whole of Europe, and any who fly into Europe. I've have no idea how many tens of thousands there are, but the total number of confirmed rule breakers numbered five. What sort of percentage is that, and does it constitute a significant problem in any reasonable context.
No-one has been killed by meteorites hitting aircraft, but perhaps we should take preventative measures? What about alien attack in the skies? The point of this is that there are only finite resources to improve safety in aviation. CFIT remains far and away the biggest killer. If money is to be invested in safety it needs to be directed to where it will have maximum impact. It should not be sidelined into headline-grabbing measures directed at a small and statistically insignificant problem.
Edited to add that I've had a quick look at one of the other links.
health20-20 reports on a fatal crash in 1988 in which the pilot had cocaine in his blood. It touches on alcohol problems in general aviation (which is totally removed from commercial aviation), and mentions alcoholism in US Navy pilots 1960-70 (nothing to do with 'Nam then?). However the NTSB state no pilot of a U.S. certificated air carrier . . . . was found to have a positive alcohol test since at least 1964."
British Airways is introducing random alcohol and drug testing for staff following allegations that a pilot reported for duty after drinking the equivalent of 10 pints of beer.
It is the first major European airline to introduce the tests, which will come into force next year.
A working group has been established to look into the form of testing to be used and it will consider breath tests or blood tests.
It is the first major European airline to introduce the tests, which will come into force next year.
A working group has been established to look into the form of testing to be used and it will consider breath tests or blood tests.
The 'endemic drinking culture' was a creation of the Dispatches program, which was extensively analysed and largely discredited on this forum at the time. Full of inconsistencies, false assertions, discredited assumptions, voice dubbing, time-shifting and other hallmarks of hatchet job exposes. It has almost nothing to offer an informed, sensible debate on this subject.
Heroin addiction? I'm not aware that BAC operated any BA flight, nor are they a BA subsidiary or franchise. Quite why that was linked to BA is a complete mystery to me. Might as well link JetBlue or Finnair to BA.
Virgin don't fly Madrid to Brussels, thats Virgin Express, a Belgian low cost airline partially owned by Richard Branson.
Then of course there's the Royal Air Maroc.
What we have there is a collected tale of bad behaviour drawn from all the professional pilots in the whole of Europe, and any who fly into Europe. I've have no idea how many tens of thousands there are, but the total number of confirmed rule breakers numbered five. What sort of percentage is that, and does it constitute a significant problem in any reasonable context.
Interesting approach, no-one has been killed, so we dont need to change anything
Edited to add that I've had a quick look at one of the other links.
health20-20 reports on a fatal crash in 1988 in which the pilot had cocaine in his blood. It touches on alcohol problems in general aviation (which is totally removed from commercial aviation), and mentions alcoholism in US Navy pilots 1960-70 (nothing to do with 'Nam then?). However the NTSB state no pilot of a U.S. certificated air carrier . . . . was found to have a positive alcohol test since at least 1964."
Last edited by Carnage Matey!; 17th Dec 2003 at 07:43.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO For the foreseeable future alcohol will always be a bigger threat to performance than controlled drugs. To focus on the lesser threat is a diversion, and in that sense I agree with Carnage.
My guess is that cocaine etc could become more of an issue over the next decade, as the demographic of increasing use that is documented in urban society generally moves it's way up through the age ladder and thus into responsible professions. Either that, or the typical 'user' will simply grow out of it and drug taking will remain orientated around a younger and more hedonistic mindset, but the social trends at the moment don't bear this out.
Right now though, my guess is it's statistically irrelevent. Sure it would make a great headline, but there's other more important stories to tell about issues in aviation safety.
My guess is that cocaine etc could become more of an issue over the next decade, as the demographic of increasing use that is documented in urban society generally moves it's way up through the age ladder and thus into responsible professions. Either that, or the typical 'user' will simply grow out of it and drug taking will remain orientated around a younger and more hedonistic mindset, but the social trends at the moment don't bear this out.
Right now though, my guess is it's statistically irrelevent. Sure it would make a great headline, but there's other more important stories to tell about issues in aviation safety.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere probing
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carnage Matey! ....... your previous post took the words out of my mouth 
and I too suspect a journo. 
Paulo says - 'For the foreseeable future alcohol will always be a bigger threat to performance than controlled drugs.'
Err, it's not the controlled drugs that are the problem, it's the uncontrolled ones !
Incidentally, the airline I work for tests all our ( typically in their 20’s ) new / prospective Cabin Crew for drug usage. So far about 1.7% of them have failed the selection criteria as a result having traces of 'recreational substances' ( typically Cannabis and Ecstasy ) in their blood streams.
Now given that most young people are ( supposedly ) knee deep in drugs most weekends, I find it quite heartening to find that our reality (1.7%) seems to somewhat disprove this ( or maybe it’s that the other 98.3% of those who apply to us, to be Cabin Crew, are not representative of the rest of youthful society, uhm ?! )
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; indeed most junior pilots don’t get paid enough to stand their round in the pub – off duty of course - whereas us old pilots are just too stingy , never mind the cost of bags of charlie or speed !
Jalguy wrote – What do you have to fear from drug and alcohol testing?
I/we have nothing to fear from drug or alcohol testing but my objection is that it would appear to be testing for testing’s sake.
Tell you what, if we’re going to have testing for testings sake ( based on a supposed level of risk ) let’s have a Dr. at the bottom of the steps to give me a pre-flight once-over ( i.e. plenty of pilots have had heart attacks at the controls ), and / or maybe there should also be a quick pre-flight sim test just in case I’ve got rusty since my last LPC/OPC ( i.e. plenty of pilots have crashed due to being rusty ), and I would also agree with what Carnage Matey! said about having an ‘alertness test’ in case I’m tired ( which is quite often, especially in the summer ) plus the 'mood-o-meter' in case I’ve had a row at home ( which is precisely what happened between the old Duch and myself last night ).
W.r.t. - I assume you think that there is no problem?
I don’t need to assume as your own, so called, facts bear out the reality that there is ‘no problem’ aside from which, and as has been said before, the empirical evidence does not present lots of aircraft falling from the sky at the hands of bombed pilots, does it ?!
and I too suspect a journo. Paulo says - 'For the foreseeable future alcohol will always be a bigger threat to performance than controlled drugs.'
Err, it's not the controlled drugs that are the problem, it's the uncontrolled ones !
Incidentally, the airline I work for tests all our ( typically in their 20’s ) new / prospective Cabin Crew for drug usage. So far about 1.7% of them have failed the selection criteria as a result having traces of 'recreational substances' ( typically Cannabis and Ecstasy ) in their blood streams.
Now given that most young people are ( supposedly ) knee deep in drugs most weekends, I find it quite heartening to find that our reality (1.7%) seems to somewhat disprove this ( or maybe it’s that the other 98.3% of those who apply to us, to be Cabin Crew, are not representative of the rest of youthful society, uhm ?! )
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; indeed most junior pilots don’t get paid enough to stand their round in the pub – off duty of course - whereas us old pilots are just too stingy
, never mind the cost of bags of charlie or speed !Jalguy wrote – What do you have to fear from drug and alcohol testing?
I/we have nothing to fear from drug or alcohol testing but my objection is that it would appear to be testing for testing’s sake.
Tell you what, if we’re going to have testing for testings sake ( based on a supposed level of risk ) let’s have a Dr. at the bottom of the steps to give me a pre-flight once-over ( i.e. plenty of pilots have had heart attacks at the controls ), and / or maybe there should also be a quick pre-flight sim test just in case I’ve got rusty since my last LPC/OPC ( i.e. plenty of pilots have crashed due to being rusty ), and I would also agree with what Carnage Matey! said about having an ‘alertness test’ in case I’m tired ( which is quite often, especially in the summer ) plus the 'mood-o-meter' in case I’ve had a row at home ( which is precisely what happened between the old Duch and myself last night ).
W.r.t. - I assume you think that there is no problem?
I don’t need to assume as your own, so called, facts bear out the reality that there is ‘no problem’ aside from which, and as has been said before, the empirical evidence does not present lots of aircraft falling from the sky at the hands of bombed pilots, does it ?!
Controversial, moi?
There has been (in the UK) a change in culture in the last 10 - 15 years regarding drinking but like so many attitudes we have inherited from our US cousins we are trying to make life risk free, it isn't no one escapes alive!
I wish the same puritanical zeal would be used address the known and proven effects of fatigue which I and my colleagues ARE very familiar with and live with daily.
If the general public were aware of just how tired their pilots are on many occasions, well that would make some headlines.
I wish the same puritanical zeal would be used address the known and proven effects of fatigue which I and my colleagues ARE very familiar with and live with daily.
If the general public were aware of just how tired their pilots are on many occasions, well that would make some headlines.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: EGDN
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe I missed something earlier, but we all know about the RTSA don't we?
In case you missed this titbit of legislation, a synopsis is below:
Earlier this year, the Railways and Transport Safety Act (RTSA) came into force and Part 5 of the Act, making it an offence to work on or with aircraft if your ability is impaired due to alcohol or drugs, is due to commence in February 2004.
The key points of the RTSA are:
· A person commits an offence if he performs a function directly relating to, or ancillary to, an aviation function when the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood, or urine exceeds the prescribed limit.
· The limit for all, except aircraft maintenance engineers, is 9 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. This equates to one quarter of the drink and drive limit.
· The limit for aircraft maintenance engineers is 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. This is the same as the drink and drive limit.
· Preparing to carry out an aviation task also counts as an ancillary aviation function. It is specifically stated that personnel will be liable as soon as they report for duty.
· A person guilty of an offence shall be liable on conviction, to imprisonment for up to 2 years, to a fine or to both.
· Testing will initially be carried out by the civilian police taking a breath sample. The Act gives them the right to enter any place or board an aircraft if they reasonably suspect an offence is being committed.
· The police will be able to test those involved in an aviation accident and those who have controlled or maintained the aircraft, as they would after a road traffic accident.
· Full details of Part 5 of the Act can be found at www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30020--f.htm#92
Good Luck with the party season....
BS
In case you missed this titbit of legislation, a synopsis is below:
Earlier this year, the Railways and Transport Safety Act (RTSA) came into force and Part 5 of the Act, making it an offence to work on or with aircraft if your ability is impaired due to alcohol or drugs, is due to commence in February 2004.
The key points of the RTSA are:
· A person commits an offence if he performs a function directly relating to, or ancillary to, an aviation function when the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood, or urine exceeds the prescribed limit.
· The limit for all, except aircraft maintenance engineers, is 9 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. This equates to one quarter of the drink and drive limit.
· The limit for aircraft maintenance engineers is 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. This is the same as the drink and drive limit.
· Preparing to carry out an aviation task also counts as an ancillary aviation function. It is specifically stated that personnel will be liable as soon as they report for duty.
· A person guilty of an offence shall be liable on conviction, to imprisonment for up to 2 years, to a fine or to both.
· Testing will initially be carried out by the civilian police taking a breath sample. The Act gives them the right to enter any place or board an aircraft if they reasonably suspect an offence is being committed.
· The police will be able to test those involved in an aviation accident and those who have controlled or maintained the aircraft, as they would after a road traffic accident.
· Full details of Part 5 of the Act can be found at www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30020--f.htm#92
Good Luck with the party season....
BS