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
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RogerIrrelevant69, at least on here we can see the naivety and ignorance of those that jump to conclusions based on inaccurate and senstionalist reporting by the gutter press. Even more importantly, we can then put forward reasons why those ignorant and naive types shouldn't jump to their conclusions.
For all the rubbish that is spouted by a few posters who aren't capable of rationally thinking through their argument before posting there is a wealth of rational argument and explanation that is just not available elsewhere. Unfortunately, the damage is already done by the press and the media who went along with the Scum's sensationalist and totally inaccurate report, especially the lies about the Captain being arrested and handcuffed before being frog-marched off in front of all the passengers. Nothing of the sort happened and I don't mind calling the reporter who wrote that article a damned liar and a lazy sod for not even trying to verify his facts. He can try and sue me for libel if he wants.
Sadly, not enough people read PPRuNe because it is only here that the explanation of what really happened has been aired. A typical example of how bad it is out there, I arrived home today and was chatting to my neighbour who had a colleague with him. The colleague who knows I fly for the same airline asked me if I knew who the pilot that was arrested is. I retorted that whilst I know who it was, did he know that the charges had been dropped and there was no case to answer. Of course he didn't know that. He was amazed when I went on to explain to him what had really happened.
It just goes to show you how the media are quick to damn but reluctant to apologise. I await the day that the toothless Press Council force the media to give as much hype and headline to their apologies as they do to their lies. Until then, at least we can be sure that it will be debated on here and those ignorant types, whether they be pilots or not, can be educated and corrected.
For all the rubbish that is spouted by a few posters who aren't capable of rationally thinking through their argument before posting there is a wealth of rational argument and explanation that is just not available elsewhere. Unfortunately, the damage is already done by the press and the media who went along with the Scum's sensationalist and totally inaccurate report, especially the lies about the Captain being arrested and handcuffed before being frog-marched off in front of all the passengers. Nothing of the sort happened and I don't mind calling the reporter who wrote that article a damned liar and a lazy sod for not even trying to verify his facts. He can try and sue me for libel if he wants.
Sadly, not enough people read PPRuNe because it is only here that the explanation of what really happened has been aired. A typical example of how bad it is out there, I arrived home today and was chatting to my neighbour who had a colleague with him. The colleague who knows I fly for the same airline asked me if I knew who the pilot that was arrested is. I retorted that whilst I know who it was, did he know that the charges had been dropped and there was no case to answer. Of course he didn't know that. He was amazed when I went on to explain to him what had really happened.
It just goes to show you how the media are quick to damn but reluctant to apologise. I await the day that the toothless Press Council force the media to give as much hype and headline to their apologies as they do to their lies. Until then, at least we can be sure that it will be debated on here and those ignorant types, whether they be pilots or not, can be educated and corrected.
Life's too short for ironing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Scotland, & Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been pointed out, quite a lot, there's very little chance of the press writing the correct story, but is there anything to stop one person writing to all the letter sections of all the newspapers with the correct, final version? Not everyone reads the letter pages, and no doubt not all the papers will print that letter, but its a start?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They'd probably elect not to print those letters on the grounds that they'd already printed their retraction. Never mind that retractions can't possibly have the same revenue-generating space as headline articles.
And I stand by my previous comments, including the MAN case. Security screeners have the authority to call in law enforcement on issues directly related to threats to the flight crew. Either you give them the authority to evaluate the competency of the flight crew, and the training to evaluate those cases, or you instruct them that they better not use their special contact with law enforcement unless they are darn sure of what they're doing. The MAN case ended in a "Not Guilty" verdict because nobody gave the security screeners the authority to make those calls. So when the pilot (perhaps loaded like Granpa's repeatin' rifle) unapologetically said "I'm reporting sick", the security folks called the bobbies and the press, they screwed up: they exercised an authority they were granted, but not in the scope they were authorized. In the process, they involved the press, and they screwed up any possible chance of a conviction, if the guy were honestly attempting to report for duty (which I doubt).
In these cases, the airline in particular suffers, and suffers unfairly. While I do enjoy British classist snobbery as much as anyone else, that's not what's going on here. An average citizen has limited contact with the flight crew; some people have a little more contact. Among those who don't work for the company, security screeners are high up on the list. They also have access to law enforcement, but have been trained in a different area. If they're going to use their specific access to Law Enforcement, but outside their specific competence, they should suffer the consequences of making a "bad call."
At least, that should be the situation as long as airlines make alcoholism self-reporting and treatment as blame-free and recovery-oriented as possible. Once there's industry incentive for flight crews to hide their problems, then all bets are off.
And I stand by my previous comments, including the MAN case. Security screeners have the authority to call in law enforcement on issues directly related to threats to the flight crew. Either you give them the authority to evaluate the competency of the flight crew, and the training to evaluate those cases, or you instruct them that they better not use their special contact with law enforcement unless they are darn sure of what they're doing. The MAN case ended in a "Not Guilty" verdict because nobody gave the security screeners the authority to make those calls. So when the pilot (perhaps loaded like Granpa's repeatin' rifle) unapologetically said "I'm reporting sick", the security folks called the bobbies and the press, they screwed up: they exercised an authority they were granted, but not in the scope they were authorized. In the process, they involved the press, and they screwed up any possible chance of a conviction, if the guy were honestly attempting to report for duty (which I doubt).
In these cases, the airline in particular suffers, and suffers unfairly. While I do enjoy British classist snobbery as much as anyone else, that's not what's going on here. An average citizen has limited contact with the flight crew; some people have a little more contact. Among those who don't work for the company, security screeners are high up on the list. They also have access to law enforcement, but have been trained in a different area. If they're going to use their specific access to Law Enforcement, but outside their specific competence, they should suffer the consequences of making a "bad call."
At least, that should be the situation as long as airlines make alcoholism self-reporting and treatment as blame-free and recovery-oriented as possible. Once there's industry incentive for flight crews to hide their problems, then all bets are off.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even before the new Transport Act it's always been an offence to fly if you're impaired by alcohol, but there's been a flurry of allegations in the past few years.
Does publicity each time there's an allegation breed even more allegations?
Does seeing allegations turning out to be false make security guards etc more careful before they make allegations against someone or more keen to be the one who gets a winner?
Does publicity each time there's an allegation breed even more allegations?
Does seeing allegations turning out to be false make security guards etc more careful before they make allegations against someone or more keen to be the one who gets a winner?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't normally contribute to a R&N thread, being a humble pax, but the vote includes a category for us (I voted no to mandatory testing by the way) so I guess that's an invitation - apologies if I've overstepped the mark.
I'm slightly perplexed by the bile spouted in the direction of the security people in this topic. That some of them can be annoying, officious, and are unwilling (or unable) to differentiate between pilots and the rest of us unwashed SLF seems to be a given. However many here seem not to differentiate between that and the idea that they have a duty (as I see it) to report possible dangers to safety to the appropriate people.
After the Kegworth crash as I understand it, crews became more open to feedback from people down the back on things they thought were problems. Obviously such information is treated with a pinch of salt (rightly so), but appears not to be ignored by default (there's a Pprune thread on it somewhere - the consensus from the flightdeck seemed to be 'tell us, and let us decide if it's a problem or not'). Thus input from laymen is acceptable it seems.
From reading this thread you would think that security screeners are wrongly reporting crew very regularly. However given the lack of specific examples I doubt that is the case - chapter and verse would be quoted on here if it was. In this case the pilot was clearly innocent, but given that the police and their breath testing machine found grounds to take it further suggests that reporting it in the first place was the right thing to do. That it then took so long to clear the guy is not the security guy's fault. In other recent examples, the AA pilot at MAN was impaired, and in uniform, but was not planning to fly. Again the security screener couldn't know that for sure, and passed it the police to sort out. Just because someone is found not guilty doesn't mean that it wasn't right to follow up on the problem in the first place. The most notorious case - the pilots at MAN breathalysed for a 'dodgy' landing involved only pax and police, not security people.
In all other areas of aviation safety the attitude of crews seems to be a creditable 'solve the problem before it becomes an accident statistic', but the fact that there seem to be few or no smoking holes in the ground due to an alcoholically-impaired pilot seems to be grounds for assuming that it would never happen. As a passenger I'd prefer the cautious approach to be universal.
I'm slightly perplexed by the bile spouted in the direction of the security people in this topic. That some of them can be annoying, officious, and are unwilling (or unable) to differentiate between pilots and the rest of us unwashed SLF seems to be a given. However many here seem not to differentiate between that and the idea that they have a duty (as I see it) to report possible dangers to safety to the appropriate people.
After the Kegworth crash as I understand it, crews became more open to feedback from people down the back on things they thought were problems. Obviously such information is treated with a pinch of salt (rightly so), but appears not to be ignored by default (there's a Pprune thread on it somewhere - the consensus from the flightdeck seemed to be 'tell us, and let us decide if it's a problem or not'). Thus input from laymen is acceptable it seems.
From reading this thread you would think that security screeners are wrongly reporting crew very regularly. However given the lack of specific examples I doubt that is the case - chapter and verse would be quoted on here if it was. In this case the pilot was clearly innocent, but given that the police and their breath testing machine found grounds to take it further suggests that reporting it in the first place was the right thing to do. That it then took so long to clear the guy is not the security guy's fault. In other recent examples, the AA pilot at MAN was impaired, and in uniform, but was not planning to fly. Again the security screener couldn't know that for sure, and passed it the police to sort out. Just because someone is found not guilty doesn't mean that it wasn't right to follow up on the problem in the first place. The most notorious case - the pilots at MAN breathalysed for a 'dodgy' landing involved only pax and police, not security people.
In all other areas of aviation safety the attitude of crews seems to be a creditable 'solve the problem before it becomes an accident statistic', but the fact that there seem to be few or no smoking holes in the ground due to an alcoholically-impaired pilot seems to be grounds for assuming that it would never happen. As a passenger I'd prefer the cautious approach to be universal.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Up there somewhere
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Postings by non aviation based folk
I tend to agree with your sentiments on this but perhaps at the end of the day we should just ignore some of these postings as they usually stand out a nautical mile as not being involved in aviation and merely armchair flight crew.
Last edited by d71146; 12th Apr 2007 at 09:10. Reason: additions to posting
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: lanseria area
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I tend to agree with your sentiments on this but perhaps at the end of the day we should just ignore some of these postings as they usually stand out a nautical mile as not being involved in aviation and merely armchair flight crew."
Last edited by springbok702; 12th Apr 2007 at 09:54.
Seems to me a way to control some of the more "sensationalist" news papers would be to dictate that any retractions/apologies have to be on the same page and same printspace as the original article. Might make them think twice about printing uncorrobarated tosh.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been on and off ketogenic diets for years and still manage to pass my medical and LPC's....
My bmi would suggest I'm obese but my bodyfat level is ~7%.
Of course to claim, as a result, no effect on my cognitive function is a non-sequiter but I'd be interested to know if the research demonstrates the link.
I think the suggestion is BS myself....
My bmi would suggest I'm obese but my bodyfat level is ~7%.
Of course to claim, as a result, no effect on my cognitive function is a non-sequiter but I'd be interested to know if the research demonstrates the link.
I think the suggestion is BS myself....
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cartoon strip
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny,
Well I should really have finished my slant on this thread with "Unfortunately this backs up that argument" as I am still sitting on the fence in the recent debate about restricting contributor access. This current thread almost had me jumping off that fence and landing firmly on the side against open access to all contributors. However I only had to recall a recent thread about alcoholism started off by an equally misguided soul/plonker that provoked Lyle Prouse into writing a brilliant response and a number of equally eloquent follow-up responses. These ranked as some of the finest contributions on any subject I have ever read on Pprune. Had the poor fool who started that thread not started it, we would not have got to read Lyle Prouse.
So point taken. These reactionary little numpties are really really annoying but without them we might never get to hear what some real aviation professionals genuinely experience and think.
Personally, my interest is from the GA and ME-CPL holder perspective. So yes very much an interested party but not dealing with the actuality of heavy handed security personnel in large airports or indeed flying for a living. Therefore I try to keep my occasional contributions to what I know and not speculation or fantasy
Well I should really have finished my slant on this thread with "Unfortunately this backs up that argument" as I am still sitting on the fence in the recent debate about restricting contributor access. This current thread almost had me jumping off that fence and landing firmly on the side against open access to all contributors. However I only had to recall a recent thread about alcoholism started off by an equally misguided soul/plonker that provoked Lyle Prouse into writing a brilliant response and a number of equally eloquent follow-up responses. These ranked as some of the finest contributions on any subject I have ever read on Pprune. Had the poor fool who started that thread not started it, we would not have got to read Lyle Prouse.
So point taken. These reactionary little numpties are really really annoying but without them we might never get to hear what some real aviation professionals genuinely experience and think.
Personally, my interest is from the GA and ME-CPL holder perspective. So yes very much an interested party but not dealing with the actuality of heavy handed security personnel in large airports or indeed flying for a living. Therefore I try to keep my occasional contributions to what I know and not speculation or fantasy
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Citizen of the World
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As it appears that some (only a few) security people think they have a right to assess a pilot's fitness to fly why doesn't BALPA take an action against the individual security wallah every time it is proven that he was wrong? BALPA should also try to ensure that such cases get the same level of publicity as the original false accusation. It's about time the pri*ks were taught a lesson. Right now they think (know?) they are God almighty.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Newcastle, UK
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sidstar what mkes you believe they thought they had the right to assess the pilot? How about they were just raising a concern?
The security weren't wrong by the way - he was unfit to fly.
Would it have been different if the person that noticed the man was drunk had been the cleaner or a captain?
The fact you feel the need to refer to them all as 'pr*cks' sums up the quality of your response.
The security weren't wrong by the way - he was unfit to fly.
Would it have been different if the person that noticed the man was drunk had been the cleaner or a captain?
The fact you feel the need to refer to them all as 'pr*cks' sums up the quality of your response.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
waveydavey
The security weren't wrong by the way - he was unfit to fly.
The security weren't wrong by the way - he was unfit to fly.
4.5 on the blood test. Driving limit is 80 and fly limit is 20
But samples taken from the 47-year-old prove his blood-alcohol level was consistent with a non-drinker.
Last edited by Tags; 21st Apr 2007 at 17:31. Reason: Clarification
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: It wasn't me, I wasn't there, wrong country ;-)
Age: 79
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wavey
Get back on your boat and wave at someone else SVP. Read the actual facts before you gab off again, or do you only look at the pics in the Sun?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This case highlights another 'problem'
Pilot legally 'unfit to fly' at 9mcg BAC but metabolic changes can confuse both breath machines & people, leading to erroneous judgements
An airline employee can refuse boarding to a pax on 'suspicion' of being drunk yet there is no legal BAC defined, same as 'drunk & disorderly'
Yet this may also be due to a medical condition
I suggest the Police should administer a breathalyser set to the driving limit for pax (on the grounds of impaired reactions in an emergency) to determine fitness to fly & avoid acusations of slander or bias.
Would a pax on a low carb diet or a diabetic hypo have grounds for compensation if refused boarding?
Pilot legally 'unfit to fly' at 9mcg BAC but metabolic changes can confuse both breath machines & people, leading to erroneous judgements
An airline employee can refuse boarding to a pax on 'suspicion' of being drunk yet there is no legal BAC defined, same as 'drunk & disorderly'
Yet this may also be due to a medical condition
I suggest the Police should administer a breathalyser set to the driving limit for pax (on the grounds of impaired reactions in an emergency) to determine fitness to fly & avoid acusations of slander or bias.
Would a pax on a low carb diet or a diabetic hypo have grounds for compensation if refused boarding?
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical... a wannabe whose closest experience to doing the job is sitting as a pax down the back and is considering a late career change. Has an opinion on everything and little experience to back it up. Just read Wavedavey's previous posts to see where the idiot is coming from.
It's bad enough having the Press make up lies which they claim as "what they were told by 'witnesses'" and doing the damage without having Muppets of the first order coming on here after it has been shown that the pilot was exonerated and then giving us the benefit of their brainless opinions.
Security WERE WRONG and they are obviously unfit to assess whether he was or wasn't fit to fly. Until you have the job and the experience of what we have to put up with undertrained security monkeys who couldn't find their noses if they had to pick them without an X-ray scanner, then you can come on here and give us the benefit of your opinion.
Until then, try and read the whole thread and understand what happened here before opening your mouth and proving beyond a doubt that you are an @rsehole transplant that was rejected by its owner.
It's bad enough having the Press make up lies which they claim as "what they were told by 'witnesses'" and doing the damage without having Muppets of the first order coming on here after it has been shown that the pilot was exonerated and then giving us the benefit of their brainless opinions.
Originally Posted by waveydavey
The security weren't wrong by the way - he was unfit to fly.
Until then, try and read the whole thread and understand what happened here before opening your mouth and proving beyond a doubt that you are an @rsehole transplant that was rejected by its owner.