Another pilot in alcohol realted incident
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nasaltown
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another pilot in alcohol realted incident
A US Airways pilot was detained Friday afternoon at Los Angeles International Airport after someone told authorities he had alcohol on his breath.
The pilot was scheduled to fly to Philadelphia later in the afternoon. The flight was delayed for more than four hours while the airline found a replacement.
Police released the pilot without charges,
A breath test showed that the pilot's blood-alcohol level was at or below...
The pilot's blood-alcohol level was nothigh enough for police to charge him with public intoxication, so they released him to US Airways.
TOTALLY in line with my line of thinking!
Wackers!
The pilot was scheduled to fly to Philadelphia later in the afternoon. The flight was delayed for more than four hours while the airline found a replacement.
Police released the pilot without charges,
A breath test showed that the pilot's blood-alcohol level was at or below...
The pilot's blood-alcohol level was nothigh enough for police to charge him with public intoxication, so they released him to US Airways.
TOTALLY in line with my line of thinking!
Wackers!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yep, those authorities are just being mean again...
_______________________________
Pilot at LAX Grounded by Alcohol
A US Airways flight is delayed for four hours after a passenger reports smelling liquor on the officer's breath.
Tests show he had alcohol in his blood.
By Jill Leovy and Jennifer Oldham
Times Staff Writers
April 8, 2006
A US Airways pilot was detained at Los Angeles International Airport on suspicion of being drunk before his flight Friday, and was later found to have alcohol in his blood.
The pilot, who was not identified, was scheduled to fly US Airways Flight 18 to Philadelphia, but the airline removed him from duty.
The search for a replacement pilot delayed the flight more than four hours after its scheduled 1:45 p.m. departure.
Airport security officials said a passenger smelled alcohol on the pilot's breath at the security checkpoint in Terminal One and reported it to screening officials, who summoned police.
The pilot was taken into custody for tests and failed a field sobriety test, security officials said.
At the LAX police station, a breath test was repeatedly administered to the pilot, airport officials said. They said that on the fourth test, the pilot's blood alcohol level registered 0.04%. US Airways contends that the official reading was 0.03%.
The higher level meets, but does not exceed, the legal limit allowed by the Federal Aviation Administration, US Airways spokesman Phil Gee said. The FAA's rule for pilots is half California's 0.08% blood-alcohol limit for driving.
The FAA temporarily took possession of the pilot's flight certificate, and an investigation was launched, airport security sources said. The FBI is also looking into the incident, they said.
Gee insisted that the pilot had not violated the law. He said that US Airways has stricter standards for drinking and flying than the FAA, however, and that the airline will investigate the pilot.
He declined to give specifics about US Airways' internal rules for drinking and flying, saying only that they were several times more stringent than the government's.
"Legally, the pilot still could have operated the aircraft. However, we hold employees to a higher standard, and we want to continue the investigation ourselves," Gee said. [many U.S. carriers have .02% as a limit for removal from duty and sometimes termination of employment]
If the pilot is found to have violated US Airways' policy, "we have absolutely no tolerance for matters like this," he added.
It remained unclear Friday how long before the flight the pilot was drinking. US Airways officials said he was stopped more than an hour before the flight. But airport officials believe that it was less than an hour before the scheduled departure. Airport police referred calls to the airline.
The issue of commercial airline pilots' drinking has come under scrutiny in recent months with a few high-profile incidents.
In February, an American Airlines pilot was arrested in Britain on suspicion of being drunk shortly before a flight to Chicago.
And last summer, two former America West pilots were convicted of operating a plane leaving Miami while drunk.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...a-story-footer
_______________________________
Pilot at LAX Grounded by Alcohol
A US Airways flight is delayed for four hours after a passenger reports smelling liquor on the officer's breath.
Tests show he had alcohol in his blood.
By Jill Leovy and Jennifer Oldham
Times Staff Writers
April 8, 2006
A US Airways pilot was detained at Los Angeles International Airport on suspicion of being drunk before his flight Friday, and was later found to have alcohol in his blood.
The pilot, who was not identified, was scheduled to fly US Airways Flight 18 to Philadelphia, but the airline removed him from duty.
The search for a replacement pilot delayed the flight more than four hours after its scheduled 1:45 p.m. departure.
Airport security officials said a passenger smelled alcohol on the pilot's breath at the security checkpoint in Terminal One and reported it to screening officials, who summoned police.
The pilot was taken into custody for tests and failed a field sobriety test, security officials said.
At the LAX police station, a breath test was repeatedly administered to the pilot, airport officials said. They said that on the fourth test, the pilot's blood alcohol level registered 0.04%. US Airways contends that the official reading was 0.03%.
The higher level meets, but does not exceed, the legal limit allowed by the Federal Aviation Administration, US Airways spokesman Phil Gee said. The FAA's rule for pilots is half California's 0.08% blood-alcohol limit for driving.
The FAA temporarily took possession of the pilot's flight certificate, and an investigation was launched, airport security sources said. The FBI is also looking into the incident, they said.
Gee insisted that the pilot had not violated the law. He said that US Airways has stricter standards for drinking and flying than the FAA, however, and that the airline will investigate the pilot.
He declined to give specifics about US Airways' internal rules for drinking and flying, saying only that they were several times more stringent than the government's.
"Legally, the pilot still could have operated the aircraft. However, we hold employees to a higher standard, and we want to continue the investigation ourselves," Gee said. [many U.S. carriers have .02% as a limit for removal from duty and sometimes termination of employment]
If the pilot is found to have violated US Airways' policy, "we have absolutely no tolerance for matters like this," he added.
It remained unclear Friday how long before the flight the pilot was drinking. US Airways officials said he was stopped more than an hour before the flight. But airport officials believe that it was less than an hour before the scheduled departure. Airport police referred calls to the airline.
The issue of commercial airline pilots' drinking has come under scrutiny in recent months with a few high-profile incidents.
In February, an American Airlines pilot was arrested in Britain on suspicion of being drunk shortly before a flight to Chicago.
And last summer, two former America West pilots were convicted of operating a plane leaving Miami while drunk.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...a-story-footer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nasaltown
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a nutshell, this is the TRUTH of this beat-up
"Legally, the pilot still could have operated the aircraft."
Maybe, in the minds of some (Airbubba, for one) pilots ought to be recruited from the ranks of Quakers.
"Legally, the pilot still could have operated the aircraft."
Maybe, in the minds of some (Airbubba, for one) pilots ought to be recruited from the ranks of Quakers.
Last edited by Ronnie Honker; 8th Apr 2006 at 22:24.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kelowna Wine Country
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 24 Likes
on
10 Posts
Without commenting on this particular case and not condoning any amount of alcohol at all in a pilot's blood:
If a person was known to have taken a drink in the few minutes before the test there might be reason to take a further test a while later when the alcohol had been absorbed into the blood stream. However if a person had been drinking some time before, the comment "A third test was taken and the blood alcohol level reached .04%," does smack rather of the attitude "We're going to go on taking tests until we get the result we want."
If a person was known to have taken a drink in the few minutes before the test there might be reason to take a further test a while later when the alcohol had been absorbed into the blood stream. However if a person had been drinking some time before, the comment "A third test was taken and the blood alcohol level reached .04%," does smack rather of the attitude "We're going to go on taking tests until we get the result we want."
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ IronWalt
If it comes to alcohol - yes they do!
Btw. did you all know, that when you eat a strong mint-candy (e.g. a Fishermans Friend) or use mouthwash/spray and take a breathalyzer test thereafter (10 mins), the results will be positive?
Btw. did you all know, that when you eat a strong mint-candy (e.g. a Fishermans Friend) or use mouthwash/spray and take a breathalyzer test thereafter (10 mins), the results will be positive?
e28 driver
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
security staff attitude to pilots
I know this is slightly off topic, but kind of close.
I was at my base airport recently taking my sister for a flight and reporting for duty. She checked in and went to security and I went through staff search (in uniform) and went up to the passenger concourse to see her off at the gate. I waited outside the security station and had seen her waiting in the queue so was just checking out the local talent (in the other direction) while I waited. Some time went past and I looked back to see where she was but couldn't see her. While I was scanning a female security supervisor approached me and asked if I was waiting for someone. I told her I was and she asked me if I realised I was not allowed to observe security operations. I was tempted to mention the 100 or so passengers waiting in the queues on the other side but thought better of it. I half expected her to quote some rule saying that pilots aren't allowed to fratenise with airside passengers so I quickly scuttled off and waited for my sister from a distance.
They are known to be fairly 'judicious' at my airport but that's a bit over the top don't you think?!
I was at my base airport recently taking my sister for a flight and reporting for duty. She checked in and went to security and I went through staff search (in uniform) and went up to the passenger concourse to see her off at the gate. I waited outside the security station and had seen her waiting in the queue so was just checking out the local talent (in the other direction) while I waited. Some time went past and I looked back to see where she was but couldn't see her. While I was scanning a female security supervisor approached me and asked if I was waiting for someone. I told her I was and she asked me if I realised I was not allowed to observe security operations. I was tempted to mention the 100 or so passengers waiting in the queues on the other side but thought better of it. I half expected her to quote some rule saying that pilots aren't allowed to fratenise with airside passengers so I quickly scuttled off and waited for my sister from a distance.
They are known to be fairly 'judicious' at my airport but that's a bit over the top don't you think?!
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect guys, what do you really want?
Pilot gets breathlysed, result negative, flight delayed by four hours - a pain the butt for all concerned, but the pilot is vindicated and life goes on.
If he had consumed alcohol before flying, hadn't been tested and subsequently made a mistake which resulted in serious injury or loss of life, would you be so quick to condemn?
Pilot gets breathlysed, result negative, flight delayed by four hours - a pain the butt for all concerned, but the pilot is vindicated and life goes on.
If he had consumed alcohol before flying, hadn't been tested and subsequently made a mistake which resulted in serious injury or loss of life, would you be so quick to condemn?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EARTH
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Europe as far as I know, No alcohol at all 8 hrs before the flight.
Its not that hard to remember!!! and keep things simple
TDK I suspect a certain London airport....(similar exper. my self)
Its not that hard to remember!!! and keep things simple
TDK I suspect a certain London airport....(similar exper. my self)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: South East UK
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect guys, what do you really want?
On this forum, niknak, it's assumed that pilots are gods who can do no wrong.
It'll be seen as the equivalent of persecution, and stuff the fact that, if a cop smelled alcohol on your breath as a driver, you'd reasonably expect to be blowing into the bag.While I'm basing this only on the reported information, alcohol levels 'below limits' isn't the same as 'no alcohol'. It might be technically legal, but it's not what I'd describe as being in the spirit (no pun intended) of good practice.
It's hard luck on the pilot involved, who I'm sure is generally an all-round good egg, but it's not like there isn't a precedent for this. If you want to be in charge of a couple of hundred people and fifty million dollars' worth of aluminium, then - regardless of your honesty, morals or seniority - you should expect the same scrutiny as would be given to any other critical part of the airplane. Don't like it, be a cab driver.
Last edited by Kalium Chloride; 10th Apr 2006 at 10:49.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nasaltown
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
K C, You look like an incoholic, your eyes are glazed - in MY opinion, you slur your words like one (an inco-alco-holic).........and did I mention that you look like you walk like one?!
Prove to the authorities (to whom I've reported my suspicions) that you're NONE of the above!
(Then I might feel half safe to fly..... I think I saw you having a glass of red wine with your meal yesterday! We'd prefer you didn't drink in the WEEK preceding your flying!
Be a terrorist - THEY don't drink!)
Prove to the authorities (to whom I've reported my suspicions) that you're NONE of the above!
(Then I might feel half safe to fly..... I think I saw you having a glass of red wine with your meal yesterday! We'd prefer you didn't drink in the WEEK preceding your flying!
Be a terrorist - THEY don't drink!)
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If he had consumed alcohol before flying, hadn't been tested and subsequently made a mistake which resulted in serious injury or loss of life, would you be so quick to condemn?
Being over the limit on duty is not acceptable. Neither is being harassed daily by passengers and over-zealous security who have no mandate or expertise in identify potential accident causing odours.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: London
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only think of one - and that was a JAL freighter DC-8 out of ANC many many moons ago.
Which of course means that one must assume all in the other accidents the pilots were sober - which in turn casts serious doubt on the current rules regarding the consumption of alcohol before ( or even during ) flight
Which of course means that one must assume all in the other accidents the pilots were sober - which in turn casts serious doubt on the current rules regarding the consumption of alcohol before ( or even during ) flight
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F.D
No, I cant and I hope that remains the case, but I for one, would be quite happy for pilots to be tested if there is even the slightest hint that they may have consumed alcohol.
As an ATCO, (who enjoys a drink away from work) the same rules to apply to me and I wouldn't have any problem with random testing if were ever introduced.
Prevention of accidents is easier and cheaper than cleaning them up.
No, I cant and I hope that remains the case, but I for one, would be quite happy for pilots to be tested if there is even the slightest hint that they may have consumed alcohol.
As an ATCO, (who enjoys a drink away from work) the same rules to apply to me and I wouldn't have any problem with random testing if were ever introduced.
Prevention of accidents is easier and cheaper than cleaning them up.
Originally Posted by Faire d'income
Can you point to a single commercial accident where alcohol was identified as a factor?
That's just my opinion - of course, I could be wrong
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trouble is we will end up with a situation where every time a pilot goes through security that some smart arse member of the flying public will go upto a security guard and claim that he/she could smell alcohol on the pilot's breath, then the breathalizer process beings.
We will end up being breathalied every time we go through security, where will it all end?
We will end up being breathalied every time we go through security, where will it all end?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cat3a
I would go and re-read the regulations if I were you as each state sets it's own rules and you WILL fall foul of many European jurisdictions if you use your 'simple' rule.
In the UK these are the DofT rules from the Railway and Transport Safety Act 2003
93 Prescribed limit
(1) A person commits an offence if-
(a) he performs an aviation function at a time when the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit, or
(b) he carries out an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function at a time when the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit.
(2) The prescribed limit of alcohol is (subject to subsection (3))-
(a) in the case of breath, 9 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,
(b) in the case of blood, 20 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and
(c) in the case of urine, 27 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.
(3) In relation to the aviation function specified in section 94(1)(h) the prescribed limit is-
(a) in the case of breath, 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,
(b) in the case of blood, 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and
(c) in the case of urine, 107 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending subsection (2) or (3).
(5) Section 94 defines "aviation function" and "ancillary activity" for the purposes of this Part.
94 Aviation functions
(1) For the purposes of this Part the following (and only the following) are aviation functions-
(a) acting as a pilot of an aircraft during flight,
(b) acting as flight navigator of an aircraft during flight,
(c) acting as flight engineer of an aircraft during flight,
(d) acting as flight radio-telephony operator of an aircraft during flight,
(e) acting as a member of the cabin crew of an aircraft during flight,
(f) attending the flight deck of an aircraft during flight to give or supervise training, to administer a test, to observe a period of practice or to monitor or record the gaining of experience,
(g) acting as an air traffic controller in pursuance of a licence granted under or by virtue of an enactment (other than a licence granted to a student), and
(h) acting as a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(h) a person acts as a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer if-
(a) he issues a document relating to the maintenance, condition or use of an aircraft or equipment in reliance on a licence granted under or by virtue of an enactment relating to aviation, or
(b) he carries out or supervises work on an aircraft or equipment with a view to, or in connection with, the issue by him of a document of the kind specified in paragraph (a).
(3) For the purposes of this Part a reference to an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function is a reference to anything which falls to be treated as such by virtue of subsections (4) to (6).
(4) An activity shall be treated as ancillary to an aviation function if it is undertaken-
(a) by a person who has reported for a period of duty in respect of the function, and
(b) as a requirement of, for the purpose of or in connection with the performance of the function during that period of duty.
(5) A person who in accordance with the terms of an employment or undertaking holds himself ready to perform an aviation function if called upon shall be treated as carrying out an activity ancillary to the function.
(6) Where a person sets out to perform an aviation function, anything which he does by way of preparing to perform the function shall be treated as an activity ancillary to it.
(7) For the purposes of this Part it is immaterial whether a person performs a function or carries out an activity in the course of an employment or trade or otherwise.
(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations-
(a) amend this section;
(b) make an amendment of this Part which is consequential on an amendment under paragraph (a).
Enforcement
95 Penalty
A person guilty of an offence under this Part shall be liable-
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both, or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.
PP
In Europe as far as I know, No alcohol at all 8 hrs before the flight.
Its not that hard to remember!!! and keep things simple
Its not that hard to remember!!! and keep things simple
In the UK these are the DofT rules from the Railway and Transport Safety Act 2003
93 Prescribed limit
(1) A person commits an offence if-
(a) he performs an aviation function at a time when the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit, or
(b) he carries out an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function at a time when the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit.
(2) The prescribed limit of alcohol is (subject to subsection (3))-
(a) in the case of breath, 9 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,
(b) in the case of blood, 20 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and
(c) in the case of urine, 27 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.
(3) In relation to the aviation function specified in section 94(1)(h) the prescribed limit is-
(a) in the case of breath, 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,
(b) in the case of blood, 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and
(c) in the case of urine, 107 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending subsection (2) or (3).
(5) Section 94 defines "aviation function" and "ancillary activity" for the purposes of this Part.
94 Aviation functions
(1) For the purposes of this Part the following (and only the following) are aviation functions-
(a) acting as a pilot of an aircraft during flight,
(b) acting as flight navigator of an aircraft during flight,
(c) acting as flight engineer of an aircraft during flight,
(d) acting as flight radio-telephony operator of an aircraft during flight,
(e) acting as a member of the cabin crew of an aircraft during flight,
(f) attending the flight deck of an aircraft during flight to give or supervise training, to administer a test, to observe a period of practice or to monitor or record the gaining of experience,
(g) acting as an air traffic controller in pursuance of a licence granted under or by virtue of an enactment (other than a licence granted to a student), and
(h) acting as a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(h) a person acts as a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer if-
(a) he issues a document relating to the maintenance, condition or use of an aircraft or equipment in reliance on a licence granted under or by virtue of an enactment relating to aviation, or
(b) he carries out or supervises work on an aircraft or equipment with a view to, or in connection with, the issue by him of a document of the kind specified in paragraph (a).
(3) For the purposes of this Part a reference to an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function is a reference to anything which falls to be treated as such by virtue of subsections (4) to (6).
(4) An activity shall be treated as ancillary to an aviation function if it is undertaken-
(a) by a person who has reported for a period of duty in respect of the function, and
(b) as a requirement of, for the purpose of or in connection with the performance of the function during that period of duty.
(5) A person who in accordance with the terms of an employment or undertaking holds himself ready to perform an aviation function if called upon shall be treated as carrying out an activity ancillary to the function.
(6) Where a person sets out to perform an aviation function, anything which he does by way of preparing to perform the function shall be treated as an activity ancillary to it.
(7) For the purposes of this Part it is immaterial whether a person performs a function or carries out an activity in the course of an employment or trade or otherwise.
(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations-
(a) amend this section;
(b) make an amendment of this Part which is consequential on an amendment under paragraph (a).
Enforcement
95 Penalty
A person guilty of an offence under this Part shall be liable-
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both, or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.
PP