easyJet - pilot tested over the limit?

[CrossBars]

When have I ever suggested "that everybody is drinking hard before flying"? I was simply amazed of the response from various posters that we should only count convictions as people who work under influence, or try to work under influence. That I find ridiculous and apparently others too.

My suggestion to test before flight was first and foremost a way to get rid of unflattering articles about pilots "over the limit". But sure we can follow your logic - if we can't test for everything then what's the point in testing at all. When we're at it, maybe there something else we should get rid of. What's the point in PCs? I mean they can't test us on all procedures so what's the point?

I'm well aware that not every pilot is a drunk, as a matter of fact I belive it's a very, very small number of pilots doing this. But this is a question about credibility. If things like these keep popping up, I'm pretty sure that it will have a bad impact on the publics view on pilots and the airline industry in general - not good for business.

You've heard it yourself: "Personally I'm fed up with the drink culture that appears to exist among pilots". Sure that's just one persons view but I'm pretty sure there are others too. For every article about pilots "over the limit" the crowd grows stronger. Just today there is a new post about a pilot arrested for being over the limit. It's just a matter of time until the next one pops up. And since the media regard this as such a newsworthy story it's blown out of proportion and that's why I think we should try to do something about it.

To me giving a breath of air is not that big a deal. Obviously to some it's the end of the world. Honestly I can't really understand what the problem is. Is it really that intrusive to take a breath test just as a safety measure? You go to the doctor once or twice every year, how do you cope with that? Can't they just trust us that we are fine to handle an airplane full of people? Someone suggested that you might even be under the influence without knowing it, from medications for example. Well then wouldn't it be good to know then if you were?

I can't really figure out your interpretation of my logic: "nobodys been caught so by your logic there must be a lot of people doing it." I simply stated that in any radom and reporting system it's a statistical fact that not all gets busted. Not everyone who drives over the speed limit get caught - the police have a radom monitoring system. Not once have I suggested that this mean that there are a hole bunch of drunken pilots flying around i Europe. I have only suggested that the amount of pilots over the limit is of a greater amount than the ones who get caught.

And Danny, I don't regard not being breath tested as a civil liberty. I feel priveliged to be working as a pilot and I'm proud of my proffession, I would simply like to keep it that way. Part of my job is to make people feel safe with me up front. If a breath test will accomlpish that and if that is my passengers wish, well then I see it as my got damn responabillity.

So what if it's a knee-jerk solution? At least it sends a message that we will not stand by this and that we are doing something instead of sitting around and waiting for the next over exposed "over the limit" case. I can hardly see how this could do any harm other than hurt your feelings.

I think that most of us can agree on, that flying under the influence of alcohol has a negative effect on your performance. What more proof do you need? Does it actually have to happen something before we figure out the fact that pilots over the limit is a hazard and don't belong on the flight deck? But I know, the ones who try gets caught so there is no problem.

Yes, I do care how others regard us as a community. Apperently It would do some good if others did as well. And yes, I'm willing to give up my so called civil liberty if that makes people feel safer. But some of us are obviously too high up on the food chain to care about what others think of us. Really admirable fellow pilots.

Maybe the reason why I seem to have such a different view on this, might be beacuse from where I'm from all pilots have to go through pretty intrusive screening. You might say that I have already given up all my civil liberties so why stop now. Honestly, I have a hard time understaing your reluctlance against this... but I'll respect it.

[Flying Lawyer]

Cpt.Unemployed
I have no problem with infringing civil liberties provided a sensible analysis of available evidence founds a convincing case that it's necessary for the greater good. There was ample evidence to justify the introduction of breath-tests for drivers. Where is the evidence of a similar problem relating to pilots?
'Just in case' some A380 pilot is impaired by alcohol and crashes at some time in the future doesn't amount to a convincing argument IMHO.
It's all very well to refer in tabloid style to "550-odd souls", but 747s with 400-odd souls have been flying around safely for more than 30 years without any evidence of carnage caused by pilots under the influence of alcohol. And don't 744s in 2-class config already carry 500-odd souls in equal safety?
Does the number of souls add anything to the argument other than dramatic effect? Surely the considerations are the same whether it's an A380 in the future or a Dash-8 now?

Given the very low level prescribed by the new law, I can see an argument for companies providing breath-test devices for the voluntary use of aircrew - but some might have concerns about where 'voluntary' might lead. I'm not a professional pilot and don't presume to offer an opinion.

[mgc]

now I am getting really anoyed

Flying Lawyer

Your posts and reasoning here do not appear to be up to your usual standard. I normally find your posts to be amongst the most informed and well thought out on PPRUNE, in deed should I ever fall fowl of any aviation laws, you would be on my short list of people to contact.

However, to assume that all pilots over the limit are caught is ilogical. As I said before, if you show any sighns of having been drinking your chances of passing the breath test are close to zero. I suspect many people who show no signs at all of drinking would fail the test. Random testing would give a reasonable idea of how big the problem is, but I suspect that few would like the Old Bill to do this research. As I said before, education is the answer, and quickly!

Some people are caught out because they just do not realsie how restrictive the new rules are. The last 2 cases covered in PPRUNE both fit this category. By all accounts they were totally and genuinley amazed that they were over the limit; EDUCATION. These people have my total sympathy and it is my belief that the way they have been treated is a disgrace. In the case in question, it has been aledged, that the lady pilot was in the bar until shortly before reporting for duty. Not only is that blatantly stupid it also breaks every version of the rule book. I will agree with you though that she should be presumed inocent until proven otherwise. IF the allegations are proved she will get little of my sympathy because she knew exactly what she was doing and when.

I will aslo agree with you that the average punter doesn't give the blood alcohole level of their pilot a second thought. Aviation has a very good safety record and people know that. But to say that we need to be careful what we write on a 'rumour network' because it may be miss quoted seams a bit strong. The media will always find someone to quote, miss quote, distorte to to back up their fabricated version of events and stories, Damien from 'drop the dead donkey' springs ever to my mind. In my last post I carefully omitted any details that may have pointed at specific airlines or events to prevent any possibility of mis quotes. If you want quotes for air crews on benders you need go no further than the [discredited] BBC documentory on the subject. The fact that I said they do not occurr the way they used to is a positive statement. But go back to my point of the need for education, not everyone has yet fully adjusted to the massive change in the rules. My posts are more about encouraging air crews to be aware of the need to change and the consequences if they don't change than to provide dodgy quotes for lazy journalists. However, as I've already said, if you don't accept that there is a need to change you will not. Therefore the first part of the education process is to be open about what is or hopefully WAS the situation only a short while ago. Recent events show that we have not yet fully reached the 'WAS' state.

[Hand Solo]

CrossBars - In my opinion you spend far too much time worrying about what other people think of the profession. That is no way to run an industry or anybodys life. Take a look at the thread about the England rugby star Jonny Wilkinson being involved in a 'near miss'. No airprox report, no loss of seperation, by all accounts a perfectly normal flight. Yet the press are making it out to be a near disaster that should terrify every member of the public. What would your response to that be? Roll back the implementation of RVSM? Increase lateral seperation? You cannot change the world to satisfy the concerns of the media because those concerns can never be satisfied. To do so would put them out of business. The only way to deal with sensationalist press reports is to wait until the lose interest, not zealously sign up to any number of unnecessary and intrusive measures just to be seen to be doing something.

[Low-Pass]

Cpt.Unempoyed -

Firstly, I erroniously took you to mean that a pilot should be tested before every flight so I appologise if that is not the case. The odd random testing, I really don't have a problem with however then you start to get quotas like the police have for speeding etc. and then it DOES become a problem.

What about jobs that require employees to clock in before commencing duty. Is this a violation of civil liberties?

In this instance, the answer would be no unless there was a law requiring the person to do so. If the company chose to do so, then the employee would have the choice of complying or leaving. Your example would fit with actions being taken by the company to deal with a problem (tardiness or drunkeness or ....).

I understand that what you were suggesting is aimed at preventing deaths, which is admirable. But this world is a dangerous place. Life will kill you. So really, you have to draw the line somewhere. And I hate it that the many have to pay for the mistakes of the few.

Of course I wouldn't refuse to give a breath sample if Mr. Plod asked me to - that would be against the law and he would nail me anyway. But if they started making everyone give breath tests before they got into an automobile, I would have something to say about it.

Good luck,

LP

[DX Wombat]

May I just remind people that with civil liberties also come civil responsibilities?

[Danny]

I have personally sat with a group of pilots in a hotel bar the night prior to them all flying, and watched them all drink like fish until the early hours.

Hmmm... I don't remember reading about the subsequent accident that was attributed to the group of pilots you sat with at the hotel bar. Can you say with confidence that those pilots you were sat with were still 'over the limit' when they went to work at whatever time the next day? Of course you can't. You obviously weren't that concerned that you did anything about it such as highlight your concerns to those pilots or if that was too difficult, tip off the appropriate authorities to warn them about the possibility that several 'over the limit' pilots were on their way to the airport at some time the next day. At least in this case someone tipped off the German authorities and as the system shows, prevented a pilot over the limit from flying.

Until you or Crossbar or anyone else can provide evidence of this problem being so widespread that you have to introduce mandatory breath screening before every flight then perhaps you would settle for random breath testing? The railways here in the UK suffered from a few serious accidents that were alcohol related and random breath testing was introduced. No real problem with that but if you take the stats from the USA where they have had random testing for pilots for quite some time I challenge you to produce any stats that show the problem is widespread there. Surely there would be little difference in stat between two similar group from either side of the pond.

If your only worry is the current hype in the media, get used to it. Have you not heard of the 15 minutes of fame scenario. I can promise you that until the next pilot is caught over the limit, which may be next week or maybe next year, who knows, this incident will be forgotten by the news luvvies. It will be resurrected when any case comes to trial or else will be highlighted the next time someone is caught.

What about the miniscule number of pilots who have taken drugs of one kind or another? I'm sure there are some. How do you test for them? Surely they are even more likely to be involved in an incident. Never mind illicit drugs, what about over the counter drugs that have the ability to impair? You can't legislate for every single possibility. There is a risk factor in everything we do. If you keep worrying about what joe public thinks about pilots and you in particular because of the 15 minute furore this latest incident has caused then your paranoia will prevent you from getting out of bed in the morning.

It is here on PPRuNe that these things will be discussed long after joe public has forgotten about this pilot being tested positive. If you worry about the influence PPRuNe has on joe public then you give far more credit than is due!

[opsbod]

I find the tone of a number of posts here disappointing. Having been air crew myself during the 90's I can admit that I have had a few on a night stop, and no, there was never an incident because of it.

However, times have changed, the danger of alcohol and drugs, their effects n the body and our ability to make decisions have become increasing well know.

Given that we are now in the 21st century prehaps its time we realised that we should not be taking chances with the lives of our passengers and those on the ground. I work blocks of 5 shifts and during that time I don't drink....period!

I have no problem with breath testing for myself or any of my staff, random or otherwise, nor do I object to the testing of any other aircrew or ground staff. My advice to all is grow up, this is a professional industry and we should all behave as such. If anyone in our industry is caught over the limit they should be prosecuted.

I will now step off my soap box.

[Flying Lawyer]

mgc

Thank you for your kind remarks.

I don't assume all pilots over the legal limit are caught, and have never said that.
On the contrary, I think that under the new UK law (a very significant change from the old), there's a real risk some pilots may actually be over the prescribed limit without realising it - and at risk of losing careers and liberty if caught.

I wholeheartedly agree that education about the new law is vital. I began doing what I could in December 2003 - before the new law came into force:

Alcohol and Flying: The New Law

and continued in another thread in December 2004:

LHR Breathtest: Captain in Court

having asked for and obtained my client's permission to disclose on this forum what happened to him in the hope it would help other pilots.

I remain convinced that the overwhelming majority of pilots are both responsible and extremely careful, unlikely to find themselves in trouble and only need to remember the risk of being over the limit without realising it. The 'others' need to remember that impairment is no longer the only test and that 8 or 12 hours bottle to throttle isn't enough after a heavy session.

[mgc]

sanity at last, or nearly anyway

FL
At last your normal level of reasoning has returned and I fully agree with your last post.

OPSBOD
At last someone showing a truly 'profesional' attitude. However don't forget time from last drink to attending first shift! Also, with the way the law stands/ is interpeted I am not convinced all cases should be prosecuted, see FL's post above. I still believe in education as often being the best response, especially in marginal cases.

Danny, really?
I thought I was prety well up to speed on UK rail accidents and causes. I can not recall a major accident being attributed to drink, please enlighten me. However you are correct they do have random testing (inc drugs) which is carried out regularly by the transport police. The limits are the same as aviation. The Railway has adopted the correct profesional attitude without anywhere near the amount of complaints I hear in the aviation industry.

[CrossBars]

Here we go again

Little did I realize when I suggested that airlines should implement breath tests as a counter measure against the recent years media hype about pilots over the limit. That there was such a fundamental reluctance and offence taking against this "civil rights violation" took me totally by surprise.

If someone would stop me at the next flight with an alcohol testing device and inform me that the airline had implemented mandatory breath testing before every flight, I wouldn't do much more than give them my contribution of air and get on with my job. I would probably say to myself; ok, well that makes sense, we are after all responsible for a lot of lives and our jobs demands that we are ready to deal with the worst possible scenario any day. I realize now that others would probably take this as a token of mistrust and violation of their personal integrity.

We, of different opinion, will probably not understand each other without getting to know one and other on a deeper level. To me giving a breath test is nothing; it's like walking through the metal detector on my way to the airplane or having my bag screened. I don't see it as a violation of my civil liberty; I see it as a safety measure in an environment demanding just that - safety.

There have been some posts suggesting that passengers should be tested as well. I agree that a drunken violent passenger is a safety issue but I don't think that you can or should have the same standards for people just riding along vs. the ones responsible for their safety.

Hand Solo - I don't lay awake at night worrying about what the public thinks of us but I'm concerned about the recent trend in public view on pilots under influence, frankly I think we all should be. You say that concern about the public view is not to regard when representing or running a certain industry - well all I can say is that I disagree. They pay for the tickets, in other words your salary, remember?

Danny - Personally I think you are being a bit narrow minded with your demands of evidence and reluctance to admit anything. But hey, maybe It's just me? Sure we can go on with the system we have now and have these kind of stories putting a bad stamp on the industry popping up every now and then. I guess the important thing is that you won't have to back down and give a 1 min breath test every day.

Well then, it’s Friday night! Now I'm off to get pissed with my friends and chasing chicks. I wish you all a joyful weekend.

[no sig]

Much has been made of the 'system' which prevents pilots flying over the limit. I suggest that should be qualified as a 'self-regulating' system based on an individual’s judgment of his/her alcohol/drugs intake (and fitness to fly) and the time limits imposed in his/her ops manual. The question might reasonably be asked, is that appropriate in today’s aviation? Accident statistics won't give us the near miss or record impaired operations which, in the end, landed safely.

Do any of us really know the extent of 'over the limit' flying in Europe? Is the data in the US a valid indicator in an environment (UK) where a pilot will come to work not expecting to be breathalysed, opposed to one that includes the possibility? As with drink driving, is it possible for an individual to judge what their blood alcohol level is?

Our industry is as safe as it is because we have indeed regulated requirements and procedures and perhaps it would be no bad thing if a study were conducted into this matter, not so much for public consumption, but in the spirit of taking one further step toward flight safety.

[What to do?]

Legal booze limits?

Excuse my ignorance on the subject, but what is the legal limit, and what does that actually mean to the ‘average person’ (as far as precautions are concerned)?

Cheers

[Heliport]

UK limit
= 20mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood
= a quarter of the road limit
= effectively zero in ordinary language.


Precautions?
No quick answer to that one.
Read this thread - click here

[CrossBars]

Legal limit

On an other note, I'm amazed of the lack of knowledge concerning alcohol and its effect on the body. In this post the value of 1.6 promille has gone from; being unable to stand up straight to laying in your own vomit to having no problem at all to act sober. Well obviously this matter needs to be straitened out and a crash course on the subject seems well needed.

If dealing with this through education will have a positive effect, I'm all for it. But I was under the impression that there was no doubt about when you have 0 promille or above 0 promille. If you are uncertain don’t fly or take a test. One standard alcohol unit (approx. 1 glass of wine or one bottle of beer 33cl) will put you at the limit, depending on your weight and other factors. So no drinking when flying, simple as that.

The Swedish CAA have the following rules regarding "bottle to throttle": during a 24 h period before flying you should exercise a careful alcohol intake, meaning that you can have a beer or a glass of wine with your meals. 8 h before flying you have to be able to drive a car under Swedish law. In other words you have to pass below 0.2 promille (or 20 mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood), the limit for flying 8 h before actually getting into the plane. From 8 h before and to your flight you can't consume any alcohol. If you follow this there will be absolutely no doubt about your soberness when flying.

If you feel that all this is cryptic, I suggest that you get yourselves a simple testing device and use it 8 h before flying.

Some facts about alcohol: one bottle of wine will put a male at around 1.2 promille (or 120 mg per 100 ml of blood), a woman at around 1.5. Your body discharge of approx. 0.15 promille per hour. Mind this is very individual and women need to be extra careful because their bodies discharge alcohol at a slower rate. So one bottle of wine takes about 9 hours for your body to get rid of. To be on the safe side you can count on a 2 cl discharge per hour. Meaning, your body will discharge one standard drink in 2-3 hours. A standard drink is often referred to as one bottle of beer (33 cl) or one small glass of wine.

PS. Flying lawyer, if you feel offended or attacked in any way by any of my posts, I sincerely apologize. That was not my intention. I guess when you don't have your body language to clarify your message, people might misinterpret you.

[ILS 119.5]

I do not think that all flightdeck make an effort to get drunk whenever away in a hotel or the night before commencing duty. However, I do believe that due to the very low limit, people cannot gauge how much they can drink. Most of us like a drink, and whatever you say, it is part of the lifestyle we lead.
Some people are referring to pilots being drunk because they are over the legal limit. This is not the case. They are over the legal limit which is so low that they can be over by having a mouthful of wine. The legal limit was defined due to the natural production of alchohol within the body. Any person can produce up to the legal limit within its own body, hence any further alchohol consumption will take one over the limit.

The effect this new law is having on the industry is catastrophic. If mandatory testing is not introduced then we will be in a mess. I do not think mandatory testing should be a way of showing a widespread problem of alcoholics in the business, as due to the low limit then 90% of the world population would be alchoholics. It would be there to save money for the companies involved. As I said earlier, it is better to give a person a day off sick rather than to lose the person completely and to employ new staff. A company could also say that if a person was over the limit then no pay for that day, which I think would be fair.

As said earlier, on a different post, fatigue and stress is more worrying. Tenerife accident was due to stress and anxiety, the Staines crash also. More crashes are due to human factors and not alchohol.

Was the driver of the landrover which came off the motorway and then ended up on a rail track, colliding with a train and killing a lot of people drunk? No! Tired!
How many people have fallen to sleep at the wheel of a car and then crashed? Loads!
What about the controller in america who was high on drugs and caused an accident. No law about drug taking.

I would rather fly with a crew who might of had a few beers the night before but have had a good nights rest, feeling good the next day. They might be slightly over the legal limit but still very capable of doing the job.

Unfortunately the law, or limit, is wrong. I fully understand the reasoning but truly believe that if it is continually applied to our profession then other professions should be included. i.e. surgeons, lawyers, drivers, policemen etc.

The law was fine as it was before but because of the new limit dramatic changes have to be made NOW.

[luoto]

If a breathtest is a "civil liberties" issue what about getting paperwork from Disclosure Scotland or (both crew and passengers) going through security controls ? Both have their place to reduce certain risks...

[ILS 119.5]

What if, for example, an off duty 737 pilot was going on holiday on a 737. The flight deck become unable to fly the a/c due to say food poisening. The flight attendant has already served the pilot with a glass of wine and then informs the pilot of the incapacity of the crew. Does the pilot then elect to fly the plane knowing to be over the limit. Yes! Will the pilot then be in danger of prosecution, according to the law, Yes! What a dilemma, losing your job and going to prison after saving 130 people from death. Just again to prove that it is a a ridiculous limit to impose. If you got into a car and drove over the limit in an emergency situation and then blown over the limit you would be prosecuted

[Final 3 Greens]

119.5

Sorry, I don't follow the lgoic of your last post.

I have a PPL and am not rated on the 737.

In your scenario, if I landed the 737 and saved everyone (pretty unlikley, I know ), then would I be prosecuted?

Of course not and neither would the off duty pilot for acting in an emergency.

[luoto]

ILS.. you have to hope that the pilot is not right at the back in Y and can get past the foodcart.. but I think you will find that even courts will overlook such a technical offence.. and unless the off duty pilot crashes the plane maybe they won't know he was over.. and of course he didn't finish the one glass of vino..

I think they should close the parliament bars down though... why should they get subsidised everything...

Seriously, but on a tangent, why do we NEED alcohol on a plane anyway. If you cannot survive a few hours without a drinkie perhaps you should be a .....