easyJet - pilot tested over the limit?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you had been forced to sit between the morons that I had to endure returning from Florida last year you would know why they put gin on aircraft ! it is to dull the pain of the normal law abiding passenger.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CrossBars post on the Swedish regulations is interesting as being a regular visitor to Sweden I've always thought their rules to be almost unworkable under UK law. One would have thought that to establish that one was over the 0.2 promille limit 8 hours before flight you would have to be tested. Were you over the limit you could then say that you had no intention of flying the next day and were about to call in sick when they busted you. I can't see how you could be charged with a crime you've yet to commit. Perhaps Flying Lawyer could give us an expert opinion? Has anyone ever been charged in Sweden with being over the limit 8 hours before but not at the time of flight?
The figures CB quotes for a bottle of wine taking about 9 hours to clear are equally interesting. Working on the average bottle of wine being 750ml at 12.5% alcohol then I reckon 9 hours should also do you for about 4.5 pints of weak UK beer (3.7%) or 3.3 pints of continental angry juice (5%), which rather shoots down the argument of the people who say only 1 or 2 drinks are acceptable on a nightstop.
The figures CB quotes for a bottle of wine taking about 9 hours to clear are equally interesting. Working on the average bottle of wine being 750ml at 12.5% alcohol then I reckon 9 hours should also do you for about 4.5 pints of weak UK beer (3.7%) or 3.3 pints of continental angry juice (5%), which rather shoots down the argument of the people who say only 1 or 2 drinks are acceptable on a nightstop.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
119.5
About the drugs bit.. this act covers drugs too.
There is provision in the RTA for 'Special Circumstances' on driving while having had too much to drink. This act is based on the RTA therefore, it's logical to assume that the same thing would apply. However, it's not been tested, yet.
Tiredness is a point, but even a small amount of drink will have a more pronounced effect on a tired person. Therefore rather than prove the BAC limits are too low, you may be reinforcing the reasons for them being low.
Your list of other professions, I can't see how a lawyer will do anyone serious damage when having a BAC concentration as low as this act, maybe there is a case for some other professions to do so, some already have one. (eg train drivers).
About the drugs bit.. this act covers drugs too.
There is provision in the RTA for 'Special Circumstances' on driving while having had too much to drink. This act is based on the RTA therefore, it's logical to assume that the same thing would apply. However, it's not been tested, yet.
Tiredness is a point, but even a small amount of drink will have a more pronounced effect on a tired person. Therefore rather than prove the BAC limits are too low, you may be reinforcing the reasons for them being low.
Your list of other professions, I can't see how a lawyer will do anyone serious damage when having a BAC concentration as low as this act, maybe there is a case for some other professions to do so, some already have one. (eg train drivers).
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes like the Police. They have to drive cars at high speed and some of them have access to guns. They can have the same limits as us and if they fail they test they can go to jail too. After all, they could have run someone over or shot someone by mistake. What do you reckon the chances of that happening are?
Guest
Posts: n/a
BJCC
That's hardly the same thing.
On the ground, one has the choice whether to drive.
A jet rated pax (aka pilot on hols), enjoying a couple of bevvies, then called to take over has no other option - should he commit suicide and take 150 other people with him by refusing to take control? The laws of gravity will intervene if no one else does, when the gas runs out.
In fact, if both FD are incapacitated, wouldn't the chain of command then rest with the senior CC member, who would make the decision to invite the jet rated pax to have a go. In fact, could s/he lawfully command the pilot to fly, considering that the alternative is certain death?
Also the jet rated pax was hardly reporting for duty, when he checked in, so would the aviation act apply at all?
Anyway, it's not bl@@dy likely is it
, well not on a 2 crew aircraft.
There is provision in the RTA for 'Special Circumstances' on driving while having had too much to drink. This act is based on the RTA therefore, it's logical to assume that the same thing would apply. However, it's not been tested, yet.
On the ground, one has the choice whether to drive.
A jet rated pax (aka pilot on hols), enjoying a couple of bevvies, then called to take over has no other option - should he commit suicide and take 150 other people with him by refusing to take control? The laws of gravity will intervene if no one else does, when the gas runs out.
In fact, if both FD are incapacitated, wouldn't the chain of command then rest with the senior CC member, who would make the decision to invite the jet rated pax to have a go. In fact, could s/he lawfully command the pilot to fly, considering that the alternative is certain death?
Also the jet rated pax was hardly reporting for duty, when he checked in, so would the aviation act apply at all?
Anyway, it's not bl@@dy likely is it
, well not on a 2 crew aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the Swedish CAA trust people to follow the rules. Of course you can choose not to follow them as with any rule. But they give those who follow them the confidence that they will under no circumstances fail a test should they be asked to take one before flight.
The question about the 8 h and 0.2 limit is quite simple really. Since you are under the 24 h period you should not "build up" alcohol in you body. Meaning that you can't consume a bottle of wine but a glass to lunch and a beer or maybe two to dinner is ok. Knowing that, you just have to make sure you have that beer or two at the latest 2 h before the 8 h limit. I think common sense is the key here.
Well I guess technically you can drink a whole bottle of wine (UK law) say 10 h before your flight. So if you don't have an early departure or are an early drinker you might get away with it, but is it wise? Even though your blood alcohol level has passed below the 0.2 limit there are other things to consider. Someone wrote that he/she would rather have a co-pilot who had a beer too many the night before but got a good nights sleep, than someone who slept bad. The fact is that when you have alcohol in your body you don't get a good night sleep. Your liver is working overtime and even though you do actually sleep, it's of bad quality. So with drinking often comes fatigue.
Personally I think that the rule max 1 or 2 drinks on a night stop seems reasonable and safe. If anyone need to have more than that when working the next day maybe a look at its drinking habits would be a good idea.
The question about the 8 h and 0.2 limit is quite simple really. Since you are under the 24 h period you should not "build up" alcohol in you body. Meaning that you can't consume a bottle of wine but a glass to lunch and a beer or maybe two to dinner is ok. Knowing that, you just have to make sure you have that beer or two at the latest 2 h before the 8 h limit. I think common sense is the key here.
Well I guess technically you can drink a whole bottle of wine (UK law) say 10 h before your flight. So if you don't have an early departure or are an early drinker you might get away with it, but is it wise? Even though your blood alcohol level has passed below the 0.2 limit there are other things to consider. Someone wrote that he/she would rather have a co-pilot who had a beer too many the night before but got a good nights sleep, than someone who slept bad. The fact is that when you have alcohol in your body you don't get a good night sleep. Your liver is working overtime and even though you do actually sleep, it's of bad quality. So with drinking often comes fatigue.
Personally I think that the rule max 1 or 2 drinks on a night stop seems reasonable and safe. If anyone need to have more than that when working the next day maybe a look at its drinking habits would be a good idea.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly bral, I'd imagine they'd be exactly the same as your company. To summarise, no drinking during the eight hours prior to report (this is pick up time at the hotel down route, not departure time). No residual alcohol in the bloodstream when reporting for duty. To achieve the above light consumption of alcohol only during the 24 hours preceding such duties. In addition, crew members must comply with any local regs which may be more stringent than BAs (those are highlighted on our briefing sheets everywhere we nightstop).
I'm sure there's a point to your question other than the enlightenment of the non-BA community. Suffice to say I always comply with the wording and indeed the spirit of the more stringent of BA or local regs.
I'm sure there's a point to your question other than the enlightenment of the non-BA community. Suffice to say I always comply with the wording and indeed the spirit of the more stringent of BA or local regs.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final 3 Greens
I think you have misunderstood.
Special circumstances are where although someone is over the drink drive limit, and drives. Having been caught, they have given a reason why, in the circumstances they had no option but to drive which is credible, such as a life and death matter.
Although they are guilty of the offence, 'technicaly'. The magistrate has more latitude in how he deals with it. ie disqualification is not compulsary.
As I said, the legislation relating to aviation comes from the RTA. So it would be reasonable to assume that special reasons applies to that too. But as it has not come up yet, it has not been tried, and I am therefore assuming.
Yep, you are right in this rather unlighly senario, the pilot would have little or no option.
In any event, 119.5 says one glass of wine, which is ONE unit. That would be out of his system after an hour.
By the time anyone got round to thinking about a breath test (if anyone thought of doing it, or indeed wanted too, which is more unlightly than the senario) he would be well under the limit.
Even if he wasn't, I doubt the CPS would see it in the public interest to take him to court.
It may be unlightly, but you will have to ask 119.5 about it. I just tried to answered his question.
I think you have misunderstood.
Special circumstances are where although someone is over the drink drive limit, and drives. Having been caught, they have given a reason why, in the circumstances they had no option but to drive which is credible, such as a life and death matter.
Although they are guilty of the offence, 'technicaly'. The magistrate has more latitude in how he deals with it. ie disqualification is not compulsary.
As I said, the legislation relating to aviation comes from the RTA. So it would be reasonable to assume that special reasons applies to that too. But as it has not come up yet, it has not been tried, and I am therefore assuming.
Yep, you are right in this rather unlighly senario, the pilot would have little or no option.
In any event, 119.5 says one glass of wine, which is ONE unit. That would be out of his system after an hour.
By the time anyone got round to thinking about a breath test (if anyone thought of doing it, or indeed wanted too, which is more unlightly than the senario) he would be well under the limit.
Even if he wasn't, I doubt the CPS would see it in the public interest to take him to court.
It may be unlightly, but you will have to ask 119.5 about it. I just tried to answered his question.
Last edited by bjcc; 15th Jan 2005 at 20:38.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The correct answer to the scenario/question posed by ILS 119.5 is the one given by Finals 3 Greens.
___________
bjcc
Your answers are wrong in several respects.
eg It's not logical to assume that because two Acts of Parliament contain similar provisions, specific provisions not present in one will apply to the other.
It's not a matter of "testing". If something is ambiguous or capable of being read in more than one way, the Court of Appeal may be asked to give its interpretation. If the provisions aren't there, there's nothing to interpret/test.
There are usually reasons for differences between similar Acts, and there's a very simple reason in this instance - see my final point below.
eg "Special circumstances"? I assume you mean either 'special reasons' or 'mitigating circumstances'. They are different things in law.
eg Neither of them fall to be considered until after conviction. The question was whether a pilot who flew in emergency circumstances would be prosecuted.
(Edited) eg It seems from your further post that you mean 'special reasons'. They are irrelevant to drink/fly offences. If a motorist is convicted of an offence involving obligatory disqualification (eg drink driving) the court must disqualify him for not less than twelve months unless there are "special reasons" to disqualify for a shorter period or not at all.
However, as there is no power to disqualify pilots from flying under the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, there's no need for 'special reasons' provisions - and nothing to "test."
Please don't take offence, but it would reduce the risk of people being misled if you prefaced posts in which you give your understanding of the law with "I think ......" or "As I understand it ......" That's what most non-lawyers on PPRuNe do. I do the same thing unless I know with certainty what I'm saying about the law is correct. If it's not my field and I'm trying to remember things I learned years ago, or making an educated guess, I say so as a 'Health Warning'.
It would certainly mean less work for me if you did that.
I sometimes let your misunderstandings of the law pass without comment, but there are times when I feel obliged to correct them in case others are misled by what you say.
___________
bjcc
Your answers are wrong in several respects.
eg It's not logical to assume that because two Acts of Parliament contain similar provisions, specific provisions not present in one will apply to the other.
It's not a matter of "testing". If something is ambiguous or capable of being read in more than one way, the Court of Appeal may be asked to give its interpretation. If the provisions aren't there, there's nothing to interpret/test.
There are usually reasons for differences between similar Acts, and there's a very simple reason in this instance - see my final point below.
eg "Special circumstances"? I assume you mean either 'special reasons' or 'mitigating circumstances'. They are different things in law.
eg Neither of them fall to be considered until after conviction. The question was whether a pilot who flew in emergency circumstances would be prosecuted.
(Edited) eg It seems from your further post that you mean 'special reasons'. They are irrelevant to drink/fly offences. If a motorist is convicted of an offence involving obligatory disqualification (eg drink driving) the court must disqualify him for not less than twelve months unless there are "special reasons" to disqualify for a shorter period or not at all.
However, as there is no power to disqualify pilots from flying under the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, there's no need for 'special reasons' provisions - and nothing to "test."
Please don't take offence, but it would reduce the risk of people being misled if you prefaced posts in which you give your understanding of the law with "I think ......" or "As I understand it ......" That's what most non-lawyers on PPRuNe do. I do the same thing unless I know with certainty what I'm saying about the law is correct. If it's not my field and I'm trying to remember things I learned years ago, or making an educated guess, I say so as a 'Health Warning'.
It would certainly mean less work for me if you did that.
I sometimes let your misunderstandings of the law pass without comment, but there are times when I feel obliged to correct them in case others are misled by what you say.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 16th Jan 2005 at 15:20.
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're getting into the realms of hollywood fantasy here. What if the two pilots are incapacitated and an off duty pilot who has had a few drinks takes over and saves everyone! Can't the mods get this thread back on to the core topic, if there's anything new, without the never ending and oft repeated points of law from the amateur lawyers brigade which poor old Flying Lawyer has to correct them on time after time after time?
Are we going to be subjected to the repeat of this when the eJ captains case goes to court? If I wanted to read about imaginary scenarios that some of the muppets on here keep dreaming up, I'd go out and buy a book on 'Chaos Theory' and sit in a corner worrying about what all those butterfly wings flapping about on the other side of the world are going to do to me.
Are we going to be subjected to the repeat of this when the eJ captains case goes to court? If I wanted to read about imaginary scenarios that some of the muppets on here keep dreaming up, I'd go out and buy a book on 'Chaos Theory' and sit in a corner worrying about what all those butterfly wings flapping about on the other side of the world are going to do to me.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My perspective is put over from a pilots view. We all come from different backgrounds and different education. If our opinions were not considered then we would be in a dictatorship. I put my opinions forward as what I see, exactly the way I do to my management. All opinions and arguements have to be considered before a decision is made.
My personal opinion of the new law, is that the limit is too low. If it remains then mandatory testing should be brought in by all companies and the legislation should be broader, to include other responsible professions.
My view now, with only one month to go, is that the flight deck should check every passenger for drinking. If they have had a drink then not allowed to fly. End of story. Zero limit for everyone.
I might even start chucking them off as my decision is final. What would the company say?
My personal opinion of the new law, is that the limit is too low. If it remains then mandatory testing should be brought in by all companies and the legislation should be broader, to include other responsible professions.
My view now, with only one month to go, is that the flight deck should check every passenger for drinking. If they have had a drink then not allowed to fly. End of story. Zero limit for everyone.
I might even start chucking them off as my decision is final. What would the company say?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would the company say?
I guess the same as everybody else and then a whole lot more ending with 'You're fired.'
The passengers aint flyin the darn airplane.
(Hope you didn't drive home from your pub. )
I guess the same as everybody else and then a whole lot more ending with 'You're fired.'
The passengers aint flyin the darn airplane.
(Hope you didn't drive home from your pub.
)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Anywhere that pays
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"and sit in a corner worrying about what all those butterfly wings flapping about on the other side of the world are going to do to me"
- yeah, young cargo lad, and just imagine if those butterflies have been in the bar all night..............
- yeah, young cargo lad, and just imagine if those butterflies have been in the bar all night..............
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a nice house
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How come the public are always up in arms about a pilot having a couple of beers the night before a flight yet are more than happy for the EU to wave through new regulations on Flight Time Limitations that will create more fatigue than the current regulations.
It has been scientifically proven that a small degree of tiredness has the same effect as a small amount of alcohol.
Yet drinking is seen as a heinous crime .... but flying whilst knackered is seen as part of the job.
I reckon 100s more flights go out with tired or fatigued pilots every day than those that go out with one half of the flight deck crew having a small amount of alcohol in the bloodstream.
As for days off - days "free of all duties" except they are not, are they? As previously mentioned, 6 or 7 days on, 2 days off followed by an early start means the only day to relax and socialise with a drink is the middle night.
I am not condoning drinking but it needs to be put in perspective, particularly relative to the scientific evidence regarding the effects of fatigue, a much bigger problem.
Finally, why are doctors allowed to operate when a) knackered and b) having consumed alcohol (and judges can make a decision on whether a pilot was fit to operate whilst that judge may be drunk).
It has been scientifically proven that a small degree of tiredness has the same effect as a small amount of alcohol.
Yet drinking is seen as a heinous crime .... but flying whilst knackered is seen as part of the job.
I reckon 100s more flights go out with tired or fatigued pilots every day than those that go out with one half of the flight deck crew having a small amount of alcohol in the bloodstream.
As for days off - days "free of all duties" except they are not, are they? As previously mentioned, 6 or 7 days on, 2 days off followed by an early start means the only day to relax and socialise with a drink is the middle night.
I am not condoning drinking but it needs to be put in perspective, particularly relative to the scientific evidence regarding the effects of fatigue, a much bigger problem.
Finally, why are doctors allowed to operate when a) knackered and b) having consumed alcohol (and judges can make a decision on whether a pilot was fit to operate whilst that judge may be drunk).
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus Girl
The 'public' of which I am one have been fed an ongoing diet about 'drink driving' since the late 1960s / early 1970's and unfortunately the perception that being over the limit and unsafe as in 'drunk' have rather become merged.
One can be 'over' an arbitrary limit but not 'drunk'.
AS for the changes in hours.
Well if it was not for coming on here I would never have known about it. As it is I still don't understand the implications.
You shouldn't blame the public, when YOU as the Industry have failed admirably to raise the matter into the public domain.
If there is such unhappiness about working time, there are several things that you can do as individuals:-
1 Write to your local MP
2 Write to your local MEP
3 Seek to raise the issue through your various Unions/Associations
4 Vote for an opposition party who are opposed to increasing Euro Regulation.
Bottom line is MAKE A PUBLIC FUSS!
One can be 'over' an arbitrary limit but not 'drunk'.
AS for the changes in hours.
Well if it was not for coming on here I would never have known about it. As it is I still don't understand the implications.
You shouldn't blame the public, when YOU as the Industry have failed admirably to raise the matter into the public domain.
If there is such unhappiness about working time, there are several things that you can do as individuals:-
1 Write to your local MP
2 Write to your local MEP
3 Seek to raise the issue through your various Unions/Associations
4 Vote for an opposition party who are opposed to increasing Euro Regulation.
Bottom line is MAKE A PUBLIC FUSS!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Lots did
2. Lots did
3. Already done at several levels.
4. There aren't any in Brussels.
I guess you must have missed the full page adverts BALPA placed in the national press a couple of months ago highlighting the problem?
2. Lots did
3. Already done at several levels.
4. There aren't any in Brussels.
I guess you must have missed the full page adverts BALPA placed in the national press a couple of months ago highlighting the problem?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the most unpleasant aspects of all this is the behaviour of the Press.
It's understandable that they would report the incident. It's a good story from their point of view - hundreds of thousands of pilots all over the world going to work every day without a trace of alcohol in their system isn't.
However, the press hasn't stopped at just reporting the incident and waiting to see what proceedings may follow.
Reporters and photographers have been staking out her home since it happened, and were still there as recently as yesterday, even though she was arrested a week ago.
It so happens they're wasting their time because the lady has gone abroad and will remain out of the country until the matter has been concluded, and her husband is staying away from home for the time being - but how awful that they should be forced out of their home in this way.
Some members of the press haven't even stopped at that. They've been tracing members of the lady's family and her husband's family, and have gone to their homes asking them to comment.
How they can think that satisfying the idle curiosity of some of their readers justifies causing so much additional distress is beyond me. The lady and her family are understandably upset enough already, without the unwanted and unwarranted attentions of the newspapers.
The British Press is the finest in the world in many respects, but some sections of it do tarnish the reputation at times.
It's understandable that they would report the incident. It's a good story from their point of view - hundreds of thousands of pilots all over the world going to work every day without a trace of alcohol in their system isn't.
However, the press hasn't stopped at just reporting the incident and waiting to see what proceedings may follow.
Reporters and photographers have been staking out her home since it happened, and were still there as recently as yesterday, even though she was arrested a week ago.
It so happens they're wasting their time because the lady has gone abroad and will remain out of the country until the matter has been concluded, and her husband is staying away from home for the time being - but how awful that they should be forced out of their home in this way.
Some members of the press haven't even stopped at that. They've been tracing members of the lady's family and her husband's family, and have gone to their homes asking them to comment.
How they can think that satisfying the idle curiosity of some of their readers justifies causing so much additional distress is beyond me. The lady and her family are understandably upset enough already, without the unwanted and unwarranted attentions of the newspapers.
The British Press is the finest in the world in many respects, but some sections of it do tarnish the reputation at times.