View Poll Results: Should airline pilots be tested for alcohol before every flight?
I am a professional pilot and I say YES
79
7.60%
I am a professional pilot and I say NO
616
59.29%
I am NOT a professional pilot and I say YES
64
6.16%
I am NOT a professional pilot and I say NO
240
23.10%
I have no opinion or am happy with the status quo
40
3.85%
Voters: 1039. This poll is closed
VS A340 pilot breathalysed at LHR: WRONGLY ACCUSED
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BJCC
Quite. The point i was highlighting is just because someone provides a positive screening test, its most definately does not mean they are guilty, which unfortunately is how the media would lead people to believe it is.
Quite. The point i was highlighting is just because someone provides a positive screening test, its most definately does not mean they are guilty, which unfortunately is how the media would lead people to believe it is.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
ie They were guilty really but got away with it.
avrodamo
Two former policemen.
Two very different approaches.
I always found the screening device to be accurate with those I arrested for drink drive,
occationaly, someone blew one or 2 points under the limit on the evidience test, but that would be accounted for by time difference between tests and the BAC going down.
The same applies to when the Evidiencial screening test machine was not available and blood was taken as an alternative, if the result came back under it was by a margin that would be expected in the time between original test and the doctor arriving at the Station to take a blood sample.
occationaly, someone blew one or 2 points under the limit on the evidience test, but that would be accounted for by time difference between tests and the BAC going down.
The same applies to when the Evidiencial screening test machine was not available and blood was taken as an alternative, if the result came back under it was by a margin that would be expected in the time between original test and the doctor arriving at the Station to take a blood sample.
avrodamo
bjcc
The point i was highlighting is just because someone provides a positive screening test, it most definately does not mean they are guilty ......
The point i was highlighting is just because someone provides a positive screening test, it most definately does not mean they are guilty ......
Two very different approaches.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to throw my hat into the ring.
Another Plod.
I have to disagree with bjcc.
Many is the time I have used an ESD (Electronic sampling device) at the roadside and the result to bypass the pass and warn lights and shoot straight to positive, only to find that the subject blows under the limit when tested on the EBM at the station a short while later.
These machines are merely indicators that a person MIGHT be over the prescribed limit and they are not infallible.
LM
Another Plod.
I have to disagree with bjcc.
Many is the time I have used an ESD (Electronic sampling device) at the roadside and the result to bypass the pass and warn lights and shoot straight to positive, only to find that the subject blows under the limit when tested on the EBM at the station a short while later.
These machines are merely indicators that a person MIGHT be over the prescribed limit and they are not infallible.
LM
Guest
Posts: n/a
To say I am relieved for the pilot concerned is putting it mildly (having been the target of mud-slinging in the past). I hope you get the time off you require to recover from this shocking ordeal and that you or the company take steps to see that the so-called journalists are called to account.
I note that certain people are now conspicuous by their absence from this thread. Shall we PM them and invite them back? Am I alone in thinking they don't have the balls to show up?
I note that certain people are now conspicuous by their absence from this thread. Shall we PM them and invite them back? Am I alone in thinking they don't have the balls to show up?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least B757-200, if his other posts are any indication, may have the mitigation of being just a schoolboy. Others who were so quick to suggest or imply the pilot was guilty don’t appear to have any such excuse. (See Bronx post #132 for a selection of comments.)
Some may just have posted without thinking what they were saying; others clearly have a chip on their shoulder, or both shoulders.
fyank1 has only ever posted on two threads: This one and the recent Manchester American Airlines thread. If you want to see what sort of person he is, read his previous posts. They include this gem, after we learnt the pilot wasn't guilty:
bjcc (responding to Bronx):
Chips?
"some people don't get down on their knees and worship pilots"
I see no chips.
SOPS and others have asked if there is any legal “comeback” if there has been a malicious allegation.
In theory, yes. In practice, it would be very difficult if not impossible to prove a report was malicious.
We’ll never know if the security guard in this instance was being honest or malicious. If he said he thought he could smell alcohol, it would be impossible to disprove.
We’ve got used to people who claim pilots were guilty, even when they’ve turned out not to be. There’s a new phenomenon in recent posts.
Nov71, who started the thread with news that the pilot had been arrested and for some reason chose to add “On board presumably to avoid the 'I was just reporting sick ' defence" now feels the need to say: “That is some serious diet if his breath smelt of 'alcohol'. The fact that it was a prolonged low carb diet leads to the hope that it was being regularly monitored by a medical doctor.”
QDM joins him with: “That is some diet! Good idea to fly when on that kind of extreme regime?”
IMHO, it’s a pity they can’t just be happy for the Captain.
If journalists reported he’d been cleared and then made comments like those, they’d be criticised.
FL
Some may just have posted without thinking what they were saying; others clearly have a chip on their shoulder, or both shoulders.
fyank1 has only ever posted on two threads: This one and the recent Manchester American Airlines thread. If you want to see what sort of person he is, read his previous posts. They include this gem, after we learnt the pilot wasn't guilty:
“The law as it stands clearly cannot protect the public from drunken pilots ……….
Mandatory breath testing for all operating commercial pilots now needs to be introduced to protect the travelling public.
“
Mandatory breath testing for all operating commercial pilots now needs to be introduced to protect the travelling public.
“
"Where are those with a chip on their shoulder? Or is it your assumption because some people don't get down on their knees and worship pilots, they must have an issue with them?”
"some people don't get down on their knees and worship pilots"
I see no chips.
SOPS and others have asked if there is any legal “comeback” if there has been a malicious allegation.
In theory, yes. In practice, it would be very difficult if not impossible to prove a report was malicious.
We’ll never know if the security guard in this instance was being honest or malicious. If he said he thought he could smell alcohol, it would be impossible to disprove.
We’ve got used to people who claim pilots were guilty, even when they’ve turned out not to be. There’s a new phenomenon in recent posts.
Nov71, who started the thread with news that the pilot had been arrested and for some reason chose to add “On board presumably to avoid the 'I was just reporting sick ' defence" now feels the need to say: “That is some serious diet if his breath smelt of 'alcohol'. The fact that it was a prolonged low carb diet leads to the hope that it was being regularly monitored by a medical doctor.”
QDM joins him with: “That is some diet! Good idea to fly when on that kind of extreme regime?”
IMHO, it’s a pity they can’t just be happy for the Captain.
If journalists reported he’d been cleared and then made comments like those, they’d be criticised.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 8th Apr 2007 at 20:22.
Psychophysiological entity
As one who has experienced extreme pressure to keep me flying with two alcoholic captains, I'm perhaps highly biased in thinking that there is still a great deal of work needed to filter out the few that let the side down. It was a long time ago, but no one would listen to me. I finally stormed out of a very good job with a well known UK independent.
I like a drink in the evening, and if I were still flying, would now take substantial technical measures to quantify my intake. Once established, I would never vary from it.
The trouble is, the first drink lessons one's resolve and opens the ‘Oh, that'll be alright' door. So, knowing this, put me down for blowing into a machine every flight. It can only protect both passengers and one's own licence.
I see that I'm in the minority on the vote, but really just do not understand why. Just what is there to lose?
Just an aside that may be of interest.
The ‘Carbohydrate Diet' was of course, the ‘Carbohydrate Free Diet', or as near as one could get to it. It worked like magic, but was of course a very unwise procedure if taken to extremes.
The thing is, when it first became popular in the '60s, it was apparently just a copy of the ‘Canadian Airforce Diet'. Wether the Canadian Airforce doctors knew about this, is another question.
I like a drink in the evening, and if I were still flying, would now take substantial technical measures to quantify my intake. Once established, I would never vary from it.
The trouble is, the first drink lessons one's resolve and opens the ‘Oh, that'll be alright' door. So, knowing this, put me down for blowing into a machine every flight. It can only protect both passengers and one's own licence.
I see that I'm in the minority on the vote, but really just do not understand why. Just what is there to lose?
Just an aside that may be of interest.
The ‘Carbohydrate Diet' was of course, the ‘Carbohydrate Free Diet', or as near as one could get to it. It worked like magic, but was of course a very unwise procedure if taken to extremes.
The thing is, when it first became popular in the '60s, it was apparently just a copy of the ‘Canadian Airforce Diet'. Wether the Canadian Airforce doctors knew about this, is another question.
Last edited by Loose rivets; 8th Apr 2007 at 22:00.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cargo Boy said in part.....
"Do we have some kind of mark of Cain that we can put next to their usernames to indicate the low esteem that the rest of us hold them in? Do they exonerate themselves by making a public apology?"
Aviate 1138 adds....
Could we also have a law that makes the Newspapers print the retraction/apology in the very same font and size and on the page that the original inaccurate article appeared. So often the retraction is buried and in the smallest type possible.
The said journo probably fabricated the 'story' while leaning on a bar and safe in the knowledge that he can work and drink with no comeback. What we need is a sort of Small Claims Court to make these scum pay compensation without the defamed having to bear huge Legal Fees.
Aviate1138
"Do we have some kind of mark of Cain that we can put next to their usernames to indicate the low esteem that the rest of us hold them in? Do they exonerate themselves by making a public apology?"
Aviate 1138 adds....
Could we also have a law that makes the Newspapers print the retraction/apology in the very same font and size and on the page that the original inaccurate article appeared. So often the retraction is buried and in the smallest type possible.
The said journo probably fabricated the 'story' while leaning on a bar and safe in the knowledge that he can work and drink with no comeback. What we need is a sort of Small Claims Court to make these scum pay compensation without the defamed having to bear huge Legal Fees.
Aviate1138
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was suprised to see myself listed with the 'bad boys' by Flying Lawyer, a person whose advice on the law I respect.
I initiated this thread as news, not expecting 10 pages of re-hashed opinions.
Following so close to the acquital in Manchester I thought it 'interesting' that the Police did not arrest the Virgin pilot until he was 'in the cockpit' as this would exclude the defence of 'reporting unfit for duty' This suggested a change in Police/Security tactics not a slur on the victim. Then again the reason could just be timing.
The high bac was explained as 'acetone breath' due to a long term low carb diet. It is 'some diet', or disease, that causes the body to metabolise it's own fat reserves for energy. The Atkins diet was condemned by dieticians as 'dangerous' since many followers bought the book without medical supervision-hence there must be risks. The report did not indicate if the pilot was receiving such supervision Though this is not a criminal offence.
A second evidential breath analysis would also record a high reading, the only accurate meaure would be a blood alcohol meaurement
I am pleased the pilot was quickly exonerated and the fact published asap
I initiated this thread as news, not expecting 10 pages of re-hashed opinions.
Following so close to the acquital in Manchester I thought it 'interesting' that the Police did not arrest the Virgin pilot until he was 'in the cockpit' as this would exclude the defence of 'reporting unfit for duty' This suggested a change in Police/Security tactics not a slur on the victim. Then again the reason could just be timing.
The high bac was explained as 'acetone breath' due to a long term low carb diet. It is 'some diet', or disease, that causes the body to metabolise it's own fat reserves for energy. The Atkins diet was condemned by dieticians as 'dangerous' since many followers bought the book without medical supervision-hence there must be risks. The report did not indicate if the pilot was receiving such supervision Though this is not a criminal offence.
A second evidential breath analysis would also record a high reading, the only accurate meaure would be a blood alcohol meaurement
I am pleased the pilot was quickly exonerated and the fact published asap
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some decades back I designed a family of measuring instruments for a company wanting to do alcohol breath testing.
The problem of distinguishing breath acetone from ethyl alcohol was a serious technical difficulty then and evidently still is. Reason is that the real-time sensors which are most practical and field-worthy for use in such devices tend to have difficulty distinguishing between these two quite similar organic molecules. More comprehensive tests - easy to obtain from instruments that spend their lives sitting on a table in a clean, temperature and environment controlled room - can readily make the distinction. Such is the zen of measurement.
Here is some general information about metabolism and Ketosis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis
And here is a study showing the direct link between diet and acetone in the breath: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/76/1/65
Clearly there's a need for some education about the risk of confusing alcohol and acetone on the breath. Training needed for the security people and also for the distinguished members of the press who tend to go over the top on these reports.
If I, as a pilot and sometimes also a low-carbivore, were concerned about breath testing at security creating a false positive, a few ounces of sweet chocolate - fruit juice - raw sugar, etc. half an hour before the event would seem like a precautionary way to snuff ketosis and largely eliminate breath acetone .... but I am not a doctor and am not qualified to offer advice in this regard.
The problem of distinguishing breath acetone from ethyl alcohol was a serious technical difficulty then and evidently still is. Reason is that the real-time sensors which are most practical and field-worthy for use in such devices tend to have difficulty distinguishing between these two quite similar organic molecules. More comprehensive tests - easy to obtain from instruments that spend their lives sitting on a table in a clean, temperature and environment controlled room - can readily make the distinction. Such is the zen of measurement.
Here is some general information about metabolism and Ketosis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis
And here is a study showing the direct link between diet and acetone in the breath: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/76/1/65
Clearly there's a need for some education about the risk of confusing alcohol and acetone on the breath. Training needed for the security people and also for the distinguished members of the press who tend to go over the top on these reports.
If I, as a pilot and sometimes also a low-carbivore, were concerned about breath testing at security creating a false positive, a few ounces of sweet chocolate - fruit juice - raw sugar, etc. half an hour before the event would seem like a precautionary way to snuff ketosis and largely eliminate breath acetone .... but I am not a doctor and am not qualified to offer advice in this regard.
I Have read that "This pilot is free to resume his flying duties."
He never should have been accused of this in the first place. This is another case of some ground pounder security dork trying to be a hero.This person should be fired for interfering with a flight crewmember.
I am really tired of these security folks who have been around aviation for 6 months deciding what is right for aviation professionals who have been in the business for decades.
He never should have been accused of this in the first place. This is another case of some ground pounder security dork trying to be a hero.This person should be fired for interfering with a flight crewmember.
I am really tired of these security folks who have been around aviation for 6 months deciding what is right for aviation professionals who have been in the business for decades.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliport
"ie They were guilty really but got away with it."
Your words not mine. A BAC over the limit at the time of evidential test (be that blood or breath) is the evidence relied on it court. My point was that BAC levels go up or down over time, depending on time of last drink, and that this can account for a screening test being positive, and an evidential test being negative. If you wish to see that as an implication of guilt, then so be it.
FL
"Chips?
"some people don't get down on their knees and worship pilots"
I see no chips"
Try standing up and looking then.
"ie They were guilty really but got away with it."
Your words not mine. A BAC over the limit at the time of evidential test (be that blood or breath) is the evidence relied on it court. My point was that BAC levels go up or down over time, depending on time of last drink, and that this can account for a screening test being positive, and an evidential test being negative. If you wish to see that as an implication of guilt, then so be it.
FL
"Chips?
"some people don't get down on their knees and worship pilots"
I see no chips"
Try standing up and looking then.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We’ve got used to people who claim pilots were guilty, even when they’ve turned out not to be. There’s a new phenomenon in recent posts.
Nov71, who started the thread with news that the pilot had been arrested and for some reason chose to add “On board presumably to avoid the 'I was just reporting sick ' defence" now feels the need to say: “That is some serious diet if his breath smelt of 'alcohol'. The fact that it was a prolonged low carb diet leads to the hope that it was being regularly monitored by a medical doctor.”
QDM joins him with: “That is some diet! Good idea to fly when on that kind of extreme regime?”
Nov71, who started the thread with news that the pilot had been arrested and for some reason chose to add “On board presumably to avoid the 'I was just reporting sick ' defence" now feels the need to say: “That is some serious diet if his breath smelt of 'alcohol'. The fact that it was a prolonged low carb diet leads to the hope that it was being regularly monitored by a medical doctor.”
QDM joins him with: “That is some diet! Good idea to fly when on that kind of extreme regime?”
I made a perfectly valid point that this occurrence throws up for discussion an important issue: to get to the point of metabolising ketone bodies requires a human being to abstain from carbohydrate for 48-72 hours. It is at least worth considering the possible effect that this may have on cognitive function. Further, this is not an issue many will have previously thought of, or that has even been studied, I suspect. Awareness has been raised, some good may come of this. Your problem is...?
it’s a pity they can’t just be happy for the Captain
Excessive partiality risks undermining the many good points you generally make. I'd have thought you would realise that as a distinguished lawyer.
QDM
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Essex
Age: 54
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder about pilots BJCC.
If the screeners THINK they smell alchohol (which is all they did in this case - remember they didn't actually smell alchohol, they were WRONG), then they should either say something there and then, or shut the **** up, not act like pathetic little bully boys and make the call later. Its the stereotypical behaviour of a pathetic looser bully pretending to be the 'big man', who hasn't got the balls to say anything to anyones face, but uses their percieved authority to pretend that they are important.
Mind you, hardly surprising that an ex-plod can defend that attitude, as it describes a reasonable proportion of my local police force.
and guys, stop trying to find guilt where none exists. Theres no law against dieting, or being tired, or angry, or upset and flying a plane. Maybe there should be something about some of these, but there isn't, so stop the crusade.
Want to find alchohol and fatigue in the workplace thats responsible for thousands of deaths? then go visit your local hospital, but seeing as there hasn't been a single death from commercial aviation in the UK for years (even decades?) then wheres the beef?
If the screeners THINK they smell alchohol (which is all they did in this case - remember they didn't actually smell alchohol, they were WRONG), then they should either say something there and then, or shut the **** up, not act like pathetic little bully boys and make the call later. Its the stereotypical behaviour of a pathetic looser bully pretending to be the 'big man', who hasn't got the balls to say anything to anyones face, but uses their percieved authority to pretend that they are important.
Mind you, hardly surprising that an ex-plod can defend that attitude, as it describes a reasonable proportion of my local police force.
and guys, stop trying to find guilt where none exists. Theres no law against dieting, or being tired, or angry, or upset and flying a plane. Maybe there should be something about some of these, but there isn't, so stop the crusade.
Want to find alchohol and fatigue in the workplace thats responsible for thousands of deaths? then go visit your local hospital, but seeing as there hasn't been a single death from commercial aviation in the UK for years (even decades?) then wheres the beef?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AlexL
Chip? really, where's your evidence supporting that? Having met a large number, I can honestly say that the vast majority are very reasonable, sensible people, like every other occupation. Of course there are some who are total ******s, who are arrogant, obnoixious and rude, one who springs to mind. And thats the problem, like Police officers, you don't remember the good ones, you remember the one t****r.
You say that the screeners should have either said nothing, or said something to the pilot. You follow that with insults about them. Funny, I doubt that will make anyone more inclined to do as you suggest. That's assuming of course that they would be inclined to take the option of say nothing and risk thier job.
Much has been made of innoicent until proven guilty, why does the same not apply to the security staff?
It may come as a shock to you, but niether I, nor the Police Service, not BAA/MAN/Any other Airport Authority passed this law, Parliament did. Arguing the rights and wrongs by attacking me wont change it.
Chip? really, where's your evidence supporting that? Having met a large number, I can honestly say that the vast majority are very reasonable, sensible people, like every other occupation. Of course there are some who are total ******s, who are arrogant, obnoixious and rude, one who springs to mind. And thats the problem, like Police officers, you don't remember the good ones, you remember the one t****r.
You say that the screeners should have either said nothing, or said something to the pilot. You follow that with insults about them. Funny, I doubt that will make anyone more inclined to do as you suggest. That's assuming of course that they would be inclined to take the option of say nothing and risk thier job.
Much has been made of innoicent until proven guilty, why does the same not apply to the security staff?
It may come as a shock to you, but niether I, nor the Police Service, not BAA/MAN/Any other Airport Authority passed this law, Parliament did. Arguing the rights and wrongs by attacking me wont change it.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nov71
Following so closely to the sneers (and worse) about the acquittal in Manchester by those who don't let facts get in the way of their prejudices, ‘On board presumably to see if the pilot reported for duty’ would have been less open to misinterpretation. You obviously realised your next post was at least open to misinterpretation, because you began it with “This could make me unpopular ……”
If I’ve misinterpreted any of your comments, I apologise unreservedly.
QDM
This pilot has just gone through a 9 day nightmare. In consequence of a report by some security guard who may or may not genuinely have thought he smelled alcohol, he was arrested, removed from his aircraft, taken in custody to a police station, then put on bail, suspended from duty, villified in some sections of the press and even condemned by some here.
Although his name wasn’t mentioned in the press or posted here, it inevitably spread quite quickly in the section of the industry in which he works. eg I was first told it within about 24 hours, and I'm not in the industry. (NB Those who know him were adamant there must be some mistake, no way he would do that etc.)
We aren't discussing some anonymous pilot. There is a risk the serious discussion you invite would lead to ill-informed speculation about his fitness to fly. It would be kinder IMHO if it took place after the dust has settled, and preferably as an academic discussion in the Medical forum rather than in a thread about a specific person who has already suffered a great deal.
We had the usual, and predictable, melodramatic 'shock horror' comments in some sections of the press when the story was first published. What would be the reaction here if the press said something like ‘Pilot cleared of drink allegation – but was he safe to fly?’ in an article complete with rent-a-mouth quotes and people declaring they wouldn't want him flying their wives, children, favourite pets etc?
That is my view. You’re entitled to consider it asinine etc.
IMHO, more than enough distress has already been caused to an innocent man without inviting further speculation.
bjcc
Others may have recognised the adaptation of Nelson's 'I see no ships.'
(For his own reasons, Nelson didn't want to see any ships so raised his telescope to his eye patch. Some naval historians say it's a misquote, albeit not changing the meaning.)
"some people don't get down on their knees and worship pilots"
Some people might think that’s rather a telling attitude for someone who claims not to have a chip.
FL
Following so closely to the sneers (and worse) about the acquittal in Manchester by those who don't let facts get in the way of their prejudices, ‘On board presumably to see if the pilot reported for duty’ would have been less open to misinterpretation. You obviously realised your next post was at least open to misinterpretation, because you began it with “This could make me unpopular ……”
If I’ve misinterpreted any of your comments, I apologise unreservedly.
QDM
This pilot has just gone through a 9 day nightmare. In consequence of a report by some security guard who may or may not genuinely have thought he smelled alcohol, he was arrested, removed from his aircraft, taken in custody to a police station, then put on bail, suspended from duty, villified in some sections of the press and even condemned by some here.
Although his name wasn’t mentioned in the press or posted here, it inevitably spread quite quickly in the section of the industry in which he works. eg I was first told it within about 24 hours, and I'm not in the industry. (NB Those who know him were adamant there must be some mistake, no way he would do that etc.)
We aren't discussing some anonymous pilot. There is a risk the serious discussion you invite would lead to ill-informed speculation about his fitness to fly. It would be kinder IMHO if it took place after the dust has settled, and preferably as an academic discussion in the Medical forum rather than in a thread about a specific person who has already suffered a great deal.
We had the usual, and predictable, melodramatic 'shock horror' comments in some sections of the press when the story was first published. What would be the reaction here if the press said something like ‘Pilot cleared of drink allegation – but was he safe to fly?’ in an article complete with rent-a-mouth quotes and people declaring they wouldn't want him flying their wives, children, favourite pets etc?
it’s a pity they can’t just be happy for the Captain
IMHO, more than enough distress has already been caused to an innocent man without inviting further speculation.
bjcc
Others may have recognised the adaptation of Nelson's 'I see no ships.'
(For his own reasons, Nelson didn't want to see any ships so raised his telescope to his eye patch. Some naval historians say it's a misquote, albeit not changing the meaning.)
"some people don't get down on their knees and worship pilots"
Some people might think that’s rather a telling attitude for someone who claims not to have a chip.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 9th Apr 2007 at 14:04.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think many have missed an even more significant issue that perhaps flying lawyer can confirm.
Isn't the claim of drinking/drunk on duty alone within the industry (substantiated or not) enough to cause loss of employment.
Taking that as being the case, shouldn't we be looking at that issue.
I just thank god this ended in a positive way for the individual involved.
Isn't the claim of drinking/drunk on duty alone within the industry (substantiated or not) enough to cause loss of employment.
Taking that as being the case, shouldn't we be looking at that issue.
I just thank god this ended in a positive way for the individual involved.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Received medical wisdom -- or at least it was when I went to med school -- is that it takes three days of complete carbohydrate starvation to start burning ketone bodies and therefore have your breath smell ketotic.
That is some diet! Good idea to fly when on that kind of extreme regime?
QDM
That is some diet! Good idea to fly when on that kind of extreme regime?
QDM
I take prodigious amounts of exercise, and am quite skinny, and a urine test showed ketones present. The advice in my case was to eat more carbohydrate.
It's quite possible that the subject was on a no carbs diet and exercising to accelerate the weight loss.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
Feel free to give some examples of what else your post could mean other than all the drivers you arrested were over the legal limit when you arrested them, even those who passed the evidential test
You say “I always found the screening device to be accurate with those I arrested for drink drive”.
On the other hand, we have -
avrodamo (“Plod before flying”) who says “It gives a fairly accurate indication.”
Lord Mount (“Another Plod”) who says he disagrees with you, “These machines are merely indicators that a person MIGHT be over the prescribed limit and they are not infallible.”
It makes discussions more interesting to see different attitudes, and can only be good for the image of the police to see that not all policemen think the same way.
Heliport
If you wish to see that as an implication of guilt, then so be it.
If you wish to see that as an implication of guilt, then so be it.
You say “I always found the screening device to be accurate with those I arrested for drink drive”.
On the other hand, we have -
avrodamo (“Plod before flying”) who says “It gives a fairly accurate indication.”
Lord Mount (“Another Plod”) who says he disagrees with you, “These machines are merely indicators that a person MIGHT be over the prescribed limit and they are not infallible.”
It makes discussions more interesting to see different attitudes, and can only be good for the image of the police to see that not all policemen think the same way.