Pilot jailed (alcoholism & pilots)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeff I just posted a longish reply but foolishly lost it by not copying it before the dreaded login screen that appears after a timeout.
I am now doubting the attractiveness of my own views to an extent, so I won't try to rephrase it all just now.
I think it might go with the territory that many pilots could be of the opinion: "No-one judges me as critically as I judge myself".
One of the things I am troubled about is what message the thread now gives, both to young pilots with important social lives, and to older pilots too who have learned to manage 'normal' lives including use of some alcohol and some other drugs alongside their voluntary roles as 'commanders of aircraft' or as 'leaders in adventure'.
I am now doubting the attractiveness of my own views to an extent, so I won't try to rephrase it all just now.
I think it might go with the territory that many pilots could be of the opinion: "No-one judges me as critically as I judge myself".
One of the things I am troubled about is what message the thread now gives, both to young pilots with important social lives, and to older pilots too who have learned to manage 'normal' lives including use of some alcohol and some other drugs alongside their voluntary roles as 'commanders of aircraft' or as 'leaders in adventure'.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see no confused or negative message from this thread. I view the thread only as hopeful and positive.
It has been said many times that alcoholics have great difficulty in coming to admit that they may have a problem with alcohol - either to themselves or to anybody else. The source of this difficulty (of admitting that they may have a problem) is often associated with an overwhelming fear of how the admission will be received, whom to share this information with, the consequences of the admission and what exactly does the future hold for the afflicted person post admission. Think of it for a moment - it's a lot for an ill person to consider in parallel to coping with all the struggles (financial, family, physical health, constant consealment etc) that go with an active untreated distructive disease. Ultimately a full and unconditional admission is essential in order for the problem to be sucessfully addressed and this full admission will require the sufferer to face up to and deal with some very painful issues.
An important matter has been raised here and because it is being debated in a balanced, compassionate and considered manner (for the most part) it may motivate a person who suspects or knwos they have a problem to make that vital step and seek help.....instead of proceeding into the cockpit undetected while under the influence.
It has been said many times that alcoholics have great difficulty in coming to admit that they may have a problem with alcohol - either to themselves or to anybody else. The source of this difficulty (of admitting that they may have a problem) is often associated with an overwhelming fear of how the admission will be received, whom to share this information with, the consequences of the admission and what exactly does the future hold for the afflicted person post admission. Think of it for a moment - it's a lot for an ill person to consider in parallel to coping with all the struggles (financial, family, physical health, constant consealment etc) that go with an active untreated distructive disease. Ultimately a full and unconditional admission is essential in order for the problem to be sucessfully addressed and this full admission will require the sufferer to face up to and deal with some very painful issues.
An important matter has been raised here and because it is being debated in a balanced, compassionate and considered manner (for the most part) it may motivate a person who suspects or knwos they have a problem to make that vital step and seek help.....instead of proceeding into the cockpit undetected while under the influence.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like you may be extolling the virtues of a promise of a soft landing for the few, EI. I only wish it were so simple. How about the message to the many who on one day (or two, then three ... ) will have a bad day on the flightdeck with a hangover, or maybe just a little bit of performance lag?
Or have I got the many and the few mixed up?
Sounds like random breath-testing might be part of a solution.
Or have I got the many and the few mixed up?
Sounds like random breath-testing might be part of a solution.
Sounds like you may be extolling the virtues of a promise of a soft landing for the few, EI. I only wish it were so simple. How about the message to the many who on one day (or two, then three ... ) will have a bad day on the flightdeck with a hangover, or maybe just a little bit of performance lag?
Or have I got the many and the few mixed up?
Sounds like random breath-testing might be part of a solution.
Or have I got the many and the few mixed up?
Sounds like random breath-testing might be part of a solution.
Personally, I would have no problem with random breath testing, but it would be a rather expensive waste of resources, IMHO. There is simply not enough evidence to suggest an endemic problem among pilots which could justify the cost. The vast majority of pilots arrive at work in a state which would not result in a positive breath test. Are there exceptions? Yes, without a doubt. I admit to having stepped over the line a time or two in the past. Not any more, I can assure you. There is a far more effective and less expensive prevention method is available. It starts with education so that pilots gain a true appreciation of the hidden effects of alcohol on cognitive ability. Such effects do not require a significant level of alcohol saturation to become prevalent and we all need to appreciate that when we're on the way to work. Like understanding that busting weather minima can put our careers (or our lives) in jeopardy, it's pretty hard to justify having alcohol in the bloodstream at work once you know the consequences.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
late developer
What message has it given you as a PPL?
The many?
What's your basis for that assertion?
Solution to what?
Are you suggesting there's a flight safety problem needing such a solution?
One of the things I am troubled about is what message the thread now gives .....
How about the message to the many who on one day (or two, then three ... ) will have a bad day on the flightdeck with a hangover, or maybe just a little bit of performance lag?
What's your basis for that assertion?
Sounds like random breath-testing might be part of a solution.
Are you suggesting there's a flight safety problem needing such a solution?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Late Developer
I am sure you have used the term "I am troubled by this thread" on other threads. You should stop feeling so troubled. If you do feel troubled then leave the thread without comment and then maybe you wont feel so troubled, and then the rest of us wont feel troubled about you being troubled.
I am sure you have used the term "I am troubled by this thread" on other threads. You should stop feeling so troubled. If you do feel troubled then leave the thread without comment and then maybe you wont feel so troubled, and then the rest of us wont feel troubled about you being troubled.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: very close to STN!!
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
troubled?
firstly i am not troubled, though at times, in trouble.
nor am i troubled that others might be troubled.
i are a peealot my self and have been known to drink from time to time.
personally, i would be willing to forgive and forget another pilot for making the mistake under consideration here. in fact i have flown with some pilots who would be dangerous if they did give up drinking or smoking completely.
but on the other hand, knowing what i do about the view of others, i would not be a bit surprized if i were kicked off the pitch if i were to make the mistake myself and really would not raise much ruckus. we know the hardliners are there in positions of authority and should not be surprized when the axe falls on us as a result of our lapse into stupidity. but nonetheless, personally, if i were in one of those positions of authority, i would be all for possible rehabilitation. (that's a big word).
back into the darkness....
nor am i troubled that others might be troubled.
i are a peealot my self and have been known to drink from time to time.
personally, i would be willing to forgive and forget another pilot for making the mistake under consideration here. in fact i have flown with some pilots who would be dangerous if they did give up drinking or smoking completely.
but on the other hand, knowing what i do about the view of others, i would not be a bit surprized if i were kicked off the pitch if i were to make the mistake myself and really would not raise much ruckus. we know the hardliners are there in positions of authority and should not be surprized when the axe falls on us as a result of our lapse into stupidity. but nonetheless, personally, if i were in one of those positions of authority, i would be all for possible rehabilitation. (that's a big word).
back into the darkness....
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tudor wrote:
What would be considered an 'aviation function' ? Apart from flying the airplane or acting as cabin crew or as ATC or the engineer who Ramp checks the jet, does it extend to the dispatcher or the guy in Ops who produces the flight plan and Met? Is the refuelling guy performing an 'aviation function'? Is the marshaller or the guy responsible for switching on the guidance system?
Is the driver who drives the catering truck / baggage truck into the aircraft going to be breath tested from date X onwards?
Are the check in staff / ticket desk sales staff performing 'an ancillary to aviation function'? Is the guy who drives the bus from the car park to the terminal doing the same?
I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but where is the line drawn? One could argue that the Duty Manager at the Airport who has a glass of wine over a business lunch whilst discussing renting shop space to a retailer, or consortium of retailers, falls under this catch all definition.
Being Unfit for Duty (Section 92)
Performing an 'aviation function', or carrying out an activity that is 'ancillary to an aviation function', at a time when your ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
Performing an 'aviation function', or carrying out an activity that is 'ancillary to an aviation function', at a time when your ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
Is the driver who drives the catering truck / baggage truck into the aircraft going to be breath tested from date X onwards?
Are the check in staff / ticket desk sales staff performing 'an ancillary to aviation function'? Is the guy who drives the bus from the car park to the terminal doing the same?
I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but where is the line drawn? One could argue that the Duty Manager at the Airport who has a glass of wine over a business lunch whilst discussing renting shop space to a retailer, or consortium of retailers, falls under this catch all definition.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drug testing is here already...
but whether there is enough of a problem in aviation to warrant that is dubious.
The statistics for the numbers tested versus the very few found to be positive for alcohol or other drugs seems to show that aviation does not have a large problem with this. In any case, drug testing is here to stay, along with having to take off your shoes for some renta-cop if that is what he wants you to do in the name of fighting terrorism. It is just an unpleasant fact of life.
I think we are better off with having alcoholism up for open discussion, compared to the way it used to be when it was just another closeted activity, known about but not spoken about except as a subject for gossip.
Even if some of us are stuck with old-fashioned attitudes, seeing an alcoholic as a morally weak person, just as we might view all homosexuals as commie faggots and women as biologically unfit for aviation, well, times have changed. We all need to get 'on message' insofar as possible with the new way of doing business. Just as hand-flying and individual decision-making have given way to the use of the autopilot and the other crewmembers because of a general consensus, when each of us has had to adapt to that, we also have to shift from other ways of doing business that were once the norm. Otherwise you might as well retreat to some corner of a aviation museum to sit there burbling away about iron men in wooden airplanes to anyone who would bother to listen. That can be a very tough thing to manage, especially if you have something not quite right in your own equilibrium.
I don't think any reasonable person would read what has been written here and take that as an invitation to develop a drinking problem AND hope for a trouble-free aviation career. It can still be the kiss of death, just not automatically so. Yes, it is troubling that such problems as alcoholism exist in aviation but I don't think it should be troubling that that is open for discussion, particularly when we get a first-hand account of how one can make it back from being an alcoholic to being an airline pilot.
The statistics for the numbers tested versus the very few found to be positive for alcohol or other drugs seems to show that aviation does not have a large problem with this. In any case, drug testing is here to stay, along with having to take off your shoes for some renta-cop if that is what he wants you to do in the name of fighting terrorism. It is just an unpleasant fact of life.
I think we are better off with having alcoholism up for open discussion, compared to the way it used to be when it was just another closeted activity, known about but not spoken about except as a subject for gossip.
Even if some of us are stuck with old-fashioned attitudes, seeing an alcoholic as a morally weak person, just as we might view all homosexuals as commie faggots and women as biologically unfit for aviation, well, times have changed. We all need to get 'on message' insofar as possible with the new way of doing business. Just as hand-flying and individual decision-making have given way to the use of the autopilot and the other crewmembers because of a general consensus, when each of us has had to adapt to that, we also have to shift from other ways of doing business that were once the norm. Otherwise you might as well retreat to some corner of a aviation museum to sit there burbling away about iron men in wooden airplanes to anyone who would bother to listen. That can be a very tough thing to manage, especially if you have something not quite right in your own equilibrium.
I don't think any reasonable person would read what has been written here and take that as an invitation to develop a drinking problem AND hope for a trouble-free aviation career. It can still be the kiss of death, just not automatically so. Yes, it is troubling that such problems as alcoholism exist in aviation but I don't think it should be troubling that that is open for discussion, particularly when we get a first-hand account of how one can make it back from being an alcoholic to being an airline pilot.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something worries me after reading a report on the case by Martin Wainwright of the Guardian Dec. 9th 2006 ......
Surely someone going on duty with the Guy must have realized something was very wrong and been in a position to stop it developing ...................
A drunken airline pilot who tried to fly a packed plane to Dubai when he was seven times over the alcohol limit was sent to jail yesterday.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 51, was sentenced to four months by a judge who told him he had brought an unblemished 25-year career to a stupid and ignominious end.
The Australian pilot for Emirates had been on such a bender, Isleworth crown court in London heard, that his drink level sent monitors through the ceiling, even though he claimed to have observed the ban on pilots taking alcohol within 12 hours of a flight. He was arrested after stumbling around during a routine search at Heathrow, making incoherent jokes about "not blowing up my plane" with his breath smelling strongly of drink.
Douglas Adams, prosecuting, said that tests found 134 micrograms of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, compared with the allowed limit of 20 micrograms for a pilot. He was arrested minutes before the flight was due to leave, stranding hundreds of passengers.
Judge Usha Karu told him that his behaviour during the search had been extraordinary. While waiting for security staff he drank water and ate a whole packet of chewing gum. She said: "Your face was red, and the security guards could smell alcohol on you."
"You also stumbled as you took your shoes off for the security gate and again as you passed through the metal detector, hitting the side and activating the alarm." The behaviour belied defence claims that xxxxxxxxxx did not realise the state he was in. He pleaded guilty to preparing to fly while over the alcohol limit.
Judge Karu accepted that he was suffering from stress and fatigue and that the debacle had lost him his job and his home in Dubai. But she told him, before he was taken from the dock after a brief glance at his wife in the public gallery, that an immediate jail sentence was unavoidable. "The courts take a very dim view of passengers who get drunk on an aircraft," she said. "It is much worse if it is the pilot, who has a high level of duty of care to those he would have been looking after."
Surely someone going on duty with the Guy must have realized something was very wrong and been in a position to stop it developing ...................
A drunken airline pilot who tried to fly a packed plane to Dubai when he was seven times over the alcohol limit was sent to jail yesterday.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 51, was sentenced to four months by a judge who told him he had brought an unblemished 25-year career to a stupid and ignominious end.
The Australian pilot for Emirates had been on such a bender, Isleworth crown court in London heard, that his drink level sent monitors through the ceiling, even though he claimed to have observed the ban on pilots taking alcohol within 12 hours of a flight. He was arrested after stumbling around during a routine search at Heathrow, making incoherent jokes about "not blowing up my plane" with his breath smelling strongly of drink.
Douglas Adams, prosecuting, said that tests found 134 micrograms of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, compared with the allowed limit of 20 micrograms for a pilot. He was arrested minutes before the flight was due to leave, stranding hundreds of passengers.
Judge Usha Karu told him that his behaviour during the search had been extraordinary. While waiting for security staff he drank water and ate a whole packet of chewing gum. She said: "Your face was red, and the security guards could smell alcohol on you."
"You also stumbled as you took your shoes off for the security gate and again as you passed through the metal detector, hitting the side and activating the alarm." The behaviour belied defence claims that xxxxxxxxxx did not realise the state he was in. He pleaded guilty to preparing to fly while over the alcohol limit.
Judge Karu accepted that he was suffering from stress and fatigue and that the debacle had lost him his job and his home in Dubai. But she told him, before he was taken from the dock after a brief glance at his wife in the public gallery, that an immediate jail sentence was unavoidable. "The courts take a very dim view of passengers who get drunk on an aircraft," she said. "It is much worse if it is the pilot, who has a high level of duty of care to those he would have been looking after."
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Even if some of us are stuck with old-fashioned attitudes, seeing an alcoholic as a morally weak person, just as we might view all homosexuals as commie faggots and women as biologically unfit for aviation, well, times have changed.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
IBM aims to end ex-worker’s suit
Fired vet: Trauma led to sex chat at work
A 2004 lawsuit brought by a former East Fishkill IBM employee against the company was back in the news this week.
James Pacenza was fired after IBM found him in a sex chat room while at work. They said he was behaving inappropriately at work. But the Vietnam veteran filed a lawsuit saying he had an Internet addiction because of his combat experiences.
‘‘In his legal action against IBM, James Pacenza admits that he spent time in chat rooms during work hours, but claims his behavior is the result of an addiction and that IBM should have offered him counseling instead of firing him,’’ Information Week reported. ‘‘Employees with much more severe psychological problems, in the form of drug or alcohol problems ... are allowed treatment programs’ at IBM, Pacenza argues in his lawsuit.’’
‘‘... In his suit, Pacenza says his use of Internet chat rooms is a form of ’self medication’ he uses to treat post-traumatic stress disorder suffered as a result of combat experience in Vietnam...
IBM aims to end ex-worker’s suit
Fired vet: Trauma led to sex chat at work
A 2004 lawsuit brought by a former East Fishkill IBM employee against the company was back in the news this week.
James Pacenza was fired after IBM found him in a sex chat room while at work. They said he was behaving inappropriately at work. But the Vietnam veteran filed a lawsuit saying he had an Internet addiction because of his combat experiences.
‘‘In his legal action against IBM, James Pacenza admits that he spent time in chat rooms during work hours, but claims his behavior is the result of an addiction and that IBM should have offered him counseling instead of firing him,’’ Information Week reported. ‘‘Employees with much more severe psychological problems, in the form of drug or alcohol problems ... are allowed treatment programs’ at IBM, Pacenza argues in his lawsuit.’’
‘‘... In his suit, Pacenza says his use of Internet chat rooms is a form of ’self medication’ he uses to treat post-traumatic stress disorder suffered as a result of combat experience in Vietnam...
...But cases like Pacenza's, which involve Internet misuse, may no longer be quite so simple, thanks to a growing debate over whether Internet abuse is a legitimate addiction, akin to alcoholism. Attorneys say recognition by a court—whether in this or some future litigation—that Internet abuse is an uncontrollable addiction, and not just a bad habit, could redefine the condition as a psychological impairment worthy of protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
That in turn would have far-reaching ramifications for how companies deal with workplace Internet use and abuse. For starters, businesses could be compelled to allow medical leave, provide counseling to, or make other accommodations for employees who can't control Internet use, says Brian East, co-chair of the disability rights committee of the National Employment Lawyers' Assn. East says recognizing Internet abuse as an addiction would make it more difficult for employers to fire employees who have a problem. "Assuming it is recognized as an impairment…it is analyzed the same way as alcoholism," says East...
That in turn would have far-reaching ramifications for how companies deal with workplace Internet use and abuse. For starters, businesses could be compelled to allow medical leave, provide counseling to, or make other accommodations for employees who can't control Internet use, says Brian East, co-chair of the disability rights committee of the National Employment Lawyers' Assn. East says recognizing Internet abuse as an addiction would make it more difficult for employers to fire employees who have a problem. "Assuming it is recognized as an impairment…it is analyzed the same way as alcoholism," says East...
I wish Lyle all the best in retirement, too bad the other two crewmembers were not able to retire as 747 captains at NWA.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hobie
Not necessarily. Bear in mind that the reading was (almost) 7 times the limit for pilots - not 7 times the limit for drivers, with which most people are more familar. People who drink a lot wouldn't necessarily show any abnormal signs at that level.
It’s always wise to be cautious about press reports of court hearings. Understandably, journalists select the parts most likely to make an interesting story, and some are extremely selective. In this instance, as is often the case, there is virtually nothing about what was said by defence counsel.
As for the particular report you cite, I tend to be rather cautious when a journalist uses language such as “his drink level sent monitors through the ceiling.”
The report quotes the prosecution allegations contained in the statements of prosecution witnesses – the security men – which may or may not be true, and may or may not be grossly exaggerated. The pilot was charged with and pleaded guilty to excess alcohol, so the allegations made by the security guards weren’t tested in cross-examination.
Just because someone pleads guilty to being over the limit, it does not mean that he/she agrees with every allegation made by every prosecution witness.
I thought part of a (different) report I read was rather interesting. The judge said: "When your luggage was searched and some items were rejected ... you made the irrational comment 'I would not blow up my own plane' …..”
There are many who wouldn’t consider such a statement to be even remotely “irrational” - although many who are more familiar with the industry might think it very risky to irritate security guards by saying it.
Maybe the pilot now dearly wishes he hadn't?
Real Slim Shady
The people you mention are not covered by the Act. The 'line is drawn' in Section 94:
Tudor Owen
Surely someone going on duty with the Guy must have realized something was very wrong ……….
It’s always wise to be cautious about press reports of court hearings. Understandably, journalists select the parts most likely to make an interesting story, and some are extremely selective. In this instance, as is often the case, there is virtually nothing about what was said by defence counsel.
As for the particular report you cite, I tend to be rather cautious when a journalist uses language such as “his drink level sent monitors through the ceiling.”
The report quotes the prosecution allegations contained in the statements of prosecution witnesses – the security men – which may or may not be true, and may or may not be grossly exaggerated. The pilot was charged with and pleaded guilty to excess alcohol, so the allegations made by the security guards weren’t tested in cross-examination.
Just because someone pleads guilty to being over the limit, it does not mean that he/she agrees with every allegation made by every prosecution witness.
I thought part of a (different) report I read was rather interesting. The judge said: "When your luggage was searched and some items were rejected ... you made the irrational comment 'I would not blow up my own plane' …..”
There are many who wouldn’t consider such a statement to be even remotely “irrational” - although many who are more familiar with the industry might think it very risky to irritate security guards by saying it.
Maybe the pilot now dearly wishes he hadn't?
Real Slim Shady
The people you mention are not covered by the Act. The 'line is drawn' in Section 94:
(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 if he issues a document relating to the maintenance, condition or use of an aircraft or equipment ……………………. or, 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 such a document.
An activity is treated as ancillary to an aviation function if it is undertaken by a person who has reported for a period of duty in respect of the function ………… or who in accordance with the terms of an employment or undertaking holds himself ready to perform an aviation function if called upon.Tudor Owen
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3500
I think that I read in one of those moving earlier posts by LProuse that there are over 3500 recovering alcoholic pilots flying commercial passenger planes today. I need to go back in this thread to look for that figure again. Such a number would astound me. It is my understanding that not every recovering alcoholic is able to stay sober and such a policy troubles me. As a passenger who has flown for over 20 years without knowing of this practice I would feel reassured if random breath-tests were allowed.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Allowed? Mandatory!
One requirement for holding an AOC (Air Operator's Certificate) in many parts of the world, or for bidding on an aviation contract for many customers, is having a drug-testing program in place.
When you sign a contract of employment it is usual that you agree to submit to random drug-testing. If you refuse such a test then you shall be fired without any right of appeal. Well, I suppose you could try an appeal but I don't think you would get very far with it.
As far as the States goes I definitely remember reading somewhere the number of tests given, in the thousands, and the number of people found to be positive for drugs, which was single digits. I might be wrong about that but it was not so that drug-testing had uncovered a great, undiscovered number of pilots who were abusing alcohol and other drugs. To suggest that the small number of high-profile cases is just 'the tip of the iceberg' would seem to be unfounded.
Most of us in aviation are reasonable adults who understand that we put everything at risk if we indulge in drug abuse. There are an unfortunate few who are addicts to one drug or another, just as these people are found in the general population. Then there are those who are simply irresponsible, even though most professional pilots have been selected to exclude this misbehaviour.
What can I say, except that aviation is just another activity involving fallible human beings? If someone reading this really feels that more needs to be done, well, there are all sorts of politicians ready and willing to get behind any sort of aviation safety proposals going. Of course it is so that as a commercial activity there is always a reasoned judgment about the cost of safety measures versus the savings from accident prevention.
You could assume that every pilot is some sort of potential drug fiend and put him in quarantine for 24 hours before allowing him to fly, if you were just willing to pay the costs of that. Of course then we should assume that every passenger is a potential terrorist, so that one could only travel in irons with a heavy dose of Thorazine and two guards. Then we need two guards for each of the guards, since they cannot be fully trusted either, making six guards per passenger. The final safety measure should be a dog in the cockpit, trained to bite the pilot if he touches anything.
When you sign a contract of employment it is usual that you agree to submit to random drug-testing. If you refuse such a test then you shall be fired without any right of appeal. Well, I suppose you could try an appeal but I don't think you would get very far with it.
As far as the States goes I definitely remember reading somewhere the number of tests given, in the thousands, and the number of people found to be positive for drugs, which was single digits. I might be wrong about that but it was not so that drug-testing had uncovered a great, undiscovered number of pilots who were abusing alcohol and other drugs. To suggest that the small number of high-profile cases is just 'the tip of the iceberg' would seem to be unfounded.
Most of us in aviation are reasonable adults who understand that we put everything at risk if we indulge in drug abuse. There are an unfortunate few who are addicts to one drug or another, just as these people are found in the general population. Then there are those who are simply irresponsible, even though most professional pilots have been selected to exclude this misbehaviour.
What can I say, except that aviation is just another activity involving fallible human beings? If someone reading this really feels that more needs to be done, well, there are all sorts of politicians ready and willing to get behind any sort of aviation safety proposals going. Of course it is so that as a commercial activity there is always a reasoned judgment about the cost of safety measures versus the savings from accident prevention.
You could assume that every pilot is some sort of potential drug fiend and put him in quarantine for 24 hours before allowing him to fly, if you were just willing to pay the costs of that. Of course then we should assume that every passenger is a potential terrorist, so that one could only travel in irons with a heavy dose of Thorazine and two guards. Then we need two guards for each of the guards, since they cannot be fully trusted either, making six guards per passenger. The final safety measure should be a dog in the cockpit, trained to bite the pilot if he touches anything.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer ..... many thanks for some very valid comments as always ....
Bearing in mind the guy was 7 times the legal flying limit some 12 hours after he stopped drinking (his words) I can't help thinking there were warning signs that could have been spotted by those around him ......
who was he with during his drinking session ..... who did he have breakfast with ..... who did he ride into the airport with ..... who did he pre-flight with .....
My own guess is this Pilot is not an Alchoholic ...... this was an isolated incident that could have been avoided ....
Bearing in mind the guy was 7 times the legal flying limit some 12 hours after he stopped drinking (his words) I can't help thinking there were warning signs that could have been spotted by those around him ......
who was he with during his drinking session ..... who did he have breakfast with ..... who did he ride into the airport with ..... who did he pre-flight with .....
My own guess is this Pilot is not an Alchoholic ...... this was an isolated incident that could have been avoided ....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rmiller74
Doesn't the fact that you've flown for 20 years and are still here to write about it make you feel reassured?
If you need more reassurance, there are some interesting statistics in the link below.
They relate to the Australian aviation industry over a 31 year period, but I have no reason to think the worldwide stats would be much different.
As a passenger who has flown for over 20 years without knowing of this practice I would feel reassured if random breath-tests were allowed.
If you need more reassurance, there are some interesting statistics in the link below.
They relate to the Australian aviation industry over a 31 year period, but I have no reason to think the worldwide stats would be much different.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having started this thread with what some insensitive comments I admire the frank posts by those who fly and have been directly affected by alcohol.
I have a very close family member who, had his profession been avaition, would have undoubtedly made it to the top of the tree, as it was, his professional talents lay elsewhere and he became an authority in his particular field. He was a very clever man, he made advances in his field which were beyond imagination, he also managed to cover up the fact to most people, that he was an alcoholic but he wasn't clever enough to hide from me or let it kill him.
Perhaps my asertion that the Emirates pilot should never fly again was over the top, but I dont regret the fact that he'll probably never find another job with a major airline.
I just hope that he accepts any help available to him, gets on with his life elsewhere and recognises the enormity of what could have happened.
I have a very close family member who, had his profession been avaition, would have undoubtedly made it to the top of the tree, as it was, his professional talents lay elsewhere and he became an authority in his particular field. He was a very clever man, he made advances in his field which were beyond imagination, he also managed to cover up the fact to most people, that he was an alcoholic but he wasn't clever enough to hide from me or let it kill him.
Perhaps my asertion that the Emirates pilot should never fly again was over the top, but I dont regret the fact that he'll probably never find another job with a major airline.
I just hope that he accepts any help available to him, gets on with his life elsewhere and recognises the enormity of what could have happened.