Jail and 10-year ban for Thomson pilot!
Folks,
That's when the new Drug and Alcohol rules start, and the alcohol limit is 0.02 (compared to 0.05 for driving) and it applies to anyone airside or anyone with a "safety related" job landside.
The list of drugs tested for can be seen on the CASA web site, many cold medicines are going to be a problem, as will analgesics that contain any codein, which can linger for many days in the system, after the last dose.
There will be random breathalyser/drug teams around the country from now on, I would expect the major airports to be the first targeted.
See also the requirement for operators to have a company program, and the screening requirements.
Tootle pip!!
Take very great care if you are operating to and from or within Australia after April 1/09.
That's when the new Drug and Alcohol rules start, and the alcohol limit is 0.02 (compared to 0.05 for driving) and it applies to anyone airside or anyone with a "safety related" job landside.
The list of drugs tested for can be seen on the CASA web site, many cold medicines are going to be a problem, as will analgesics that contain any codein, which can linger for many days in the system, after the last dose.
There will be random breathalyser/drug teams around the country from now on, I would expect the major airports to be the first targeted.
See also the requirement for operators to have a company program, and the screening requirements.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Put out to graze
Age: 64
Posts: 1,046
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
There has been soooo much publicity over the past couple of years of pilots being breath tested, arrested, court cases, convictions etc re alcohol and flying.
To be over the limit, you have choosen to drink when you know you are coming up to a duty. No one else, it was your choice to have that drink.
Good egg or not, if you take this path, you have got to expect, and accept, the consequences.
To be over the limit, you have choosen to drink when you know you are coming up to a duty. No one else, it was your choice to have that drink.
Good egg or not, if you take this path, you have got to expect, and accept, the consequences.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Quote - Blind British "justice".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This surely is a case where the punishment does not fit the crime. The concept of rehabilitation or help for alcoholic issues does not seem to fit into the system of "justice" in this country. No societal good can come from ruining this man and his family.
There is little doubt that alcoholism is the dirty secret hidden under the airline corporate carpet. This kind of response by the law and some elements within the airline industry will only serve to push the issue further into the recesses as people with problems will diligently seek to cover their tracks with the overall result that the cause of aviation safety will not be improved.
The personal and family tragedies associated with alcoholism and alcohol abuse will continue unabated. We live in a doctrinaire society untrammelled by much intelligence or human compassion. ."
That is one of the most intelligent and understanding posts I have seen in all these threads.
Seperated by a week are two court cases in England involving airline pilots who showed up over the limit for public transport operation, i.e. for essentially identical offences with dramatically different outcomes. One life and career probably saved (his choice now), another in complete shreds (no choice left).
Why such a difference? Come on, someone take a stab at explaining why such dramatic outcomes to such similar court cases?
Oilhead - actually a HexHead now....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This surely is a case where the punishment does not fit the crime. The concept of rehabilitation or help for alcoholic issues does not seem to fit into the system of "justice" in this country. No societal good can come from ruining this man and his family.
There is little doubt that alcoholism is the dirty secret hidden under the airline corporate carpet. This kind of response by the law and some elements within the airline industry will only serve to push the issue further into the recesses as people with problems will diligently seek to cover their tracks with the overall result that the cause of aviation safety will not be improved.
The personal and family tragedies associated with alcoholism and alcohol abuse will continue unabated. We live in a doctrinaire society untrammelled by much intelligence or human compassion. ."
That is one of the most intelligent and understanding posts I have seen in all these threads.
Seperated by a week are two court cases in England involving airline pilots who showed up over the limit for public transport operation, i.e. for essentially identical offences with dramatically different outcomes. One life and career probably saved (his choice now), another in complete shreds (no choice left).
Why such a difference? Come on, someone take a stab at explaining why such dramatic outcomes to such similar court cases?
Oilhead - actually a HexHead now....
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANSWER
"Jobsworth Nannying Britain"
And I am (for the avoidance of doubt ) British, but this country now is just one pi$$ take after another.
A good ol bit of " he is not fit for us to employ" rather than " he is an outstanding employee and we wish to help him resolve his difficulties" probably didn't impress the beak either. ( notwithstanding that the Yank scored 60 as opposed to this chap's 40 )
Human bloody resources indeed, British management style hasn't changed much since the mill-owners days.
"Jobsworth Nannying Britain"
And I am (for the avoidance of doubt ) British, but this country now is just one pi$$ take after another.
A good ol bit of " he is not fit for us to employ" rather than " he is an outstanding employee and we wish to help him resolve his difficulties" probably didn't impress the beak either. ( notwithstanding that the Yank scored 60 as opposed to this chap's 40 )
Human bloody resources indeed, British management style hasn't changed much since the mill-owners days.
British management style hasn't changed much since the mill-owners days.
However, back to the topic.
The court heard Kyagera had been a commercial pilot for more than 20 years and clocked up more than 13,000 hours as captain, but that his reputation, career,character and livelihood were now in tatters after his dismissal last month.
fellow crew members reported he smelled of drink.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North West, UK
Age: 56
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Govt (via Transec) publishes a list of "disqualifying offences" which prohibit the issue of an airside pass, it is truly an eye opener,
I hesitate to say it but am surprised that the witholding of an airside pass for 10 years isn't a breach of the Human Rights Act!
If so perhaps the person involved in the case could do us a favour and go through the European Courts to have this aspect of the judgement overturned!
Coincidentally I am reading Vernon Coleman's "Living in a Fascist Country" (yes he is referring to UK!) which echoes many of the sentiments being expressed here - am sure he would be very interested in this case:-
Living in a Fascist Country
If so perhaps the person involved in the case could do us a favour and go through the European Courts to have this aspect of the judgement overturned!
Coincidentally I am reading Vernon Coleman's "Living in a Fascist Country" (yes he is referring to UK!) which echoes many of the sentiments being expressed here - am sure he would be very interested in this case:-
Living in a Fascist Country
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: CamelShitCity
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He would have got a lesser sentance if he had told the court and his employer that he was an alcoholic and had a drink problem.
It would then have been very difficult for him to have been fired and jailed for an illness.
I am in no way saying he had a drink problem.
It would then have been very difficult for him to have been fired and jailed for an illness.
I am in no way saying he had a drink problem.
Psychophysiological entity
I've come back to this tread several times and may just have missed it, but do we know just when he took his last drink? I.e. did he break the time rule?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can we return to the aspect on another thread that UA senior management supported their pilot in his dilemma; is there any evidence that Thomson did likewise, or did their management pilots just lie low?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EGCC4284
You need Department for Transport - Transport security
Scroll down page, 8th item is "criminal records check"
You need Department for Transport - Transport security
Scroll down page, 8th item is "criminal records check"
Gender Faculty Specialist
Loose Rivets. The time rule isn't really relevant if you still have alcohol in your blood when you pitch up for work.
It doesn't matter a jot if he was drunk or not he had alcohol in his blood stream. End of story. This kind of case is fairly high profile at the moment as several similar cases have recently made it into the media so it is a very silly person who drinks before a duty.
I can state, with certainty, that I have been to work with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit but NOT because I'd been drinking within the time limit and that I'd been drinking to excess. If I'd been nicked I wouldn't have been happy about it, without a doubt, but I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Alcoholism is a problem and, as far as I know, you can't help drinking - you don't have a choice. BUT, turning up for work IS a choice and one which should be made responsibly, maturely and sensibly. I don't know if this guy is an alcoholic or not. If he isn't then what's his excuse? If he is then he shoudn't have been at work.
I have, in the past, mis-read my roster and had far too much to drink before flying and I called in sick. It is that simple. The only way you can safely say you are under the limit is to not drink for at least 24 hours before flying.
As far as the sentence is concerned. Dunno I'm not a judge. But how many times do we need to hear of a pilot getting nicked at work for excess alcohol before we start to pay attention?
He should have gone with the mouth wash defence.
It doesn't matter a jot if he was drunk or not he had alcohol in his blood stream. End of story. This kind of case is fairly high profile at the moment as several similar cases have recently made it into the media so it is a very silly person who drinks before a duty.
I can state, with certainty, that I have been to work with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit but NOT because I'd been drinking within the time limit and that I'd been drinking to excess. If I'd been nicked I wouldn't have been happy about it, without a doubt, but I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Alcoholism is a problem and, as far as I know, you can't help drinking - you don't have a choice. BUT, turning up for work IS a choice and one which should be made responsibly, maturely and sensibly. I don't know if this guy is an alcoholic or not. If he isn't then what's his excuse? If he is then he shoudn't have been at work.
I have, in the past, mis-read my roster and had far too much to drink before flying and I called in sick. It is that simple. The only way you can safely say you are under the limit is to not drink for at least 24 hours before flying.
As far as the sentence is concerned. Dunno I'm not a judge. But how many times do we need to hear of a pilot getting nicked at work for excess alcohol before we start to pay attention?
He should have gone with the mouth wash defence.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having just read page 3 of this thread, a serious question has to be asked. Exactly what were his fellow crew up to allowing him to report for duty ?
If he hadn't been "nicked" surely he would have been an absolute liability for the flight, or did they want him to be caught.
I'm not defending the actions of the pilot, merely suggesting that if you had any idea that one of your operating crew were a little tipsy, then surely you would point that out ASAP. CRM hey, what a great concept....
If he hadn't been "nicked" surely he would have been an absolute liability for the flight, or did they want him to be caught.
I'm not defending the actions of the pilot, merely suggesting that if you had any idea that one of your operating crew were a little tipsy, then surely you would point that out ASAP. CRM hey, what a great concept....
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see three things here.
Firstly, the difference in attitude and support between UA (and Northwest in the Lyle Prouse case) and Thomson in the Kyagera case. Just an observation: it is what it is.
Secondly the insight the Birmingham Post article gives, if accurate. Frankly, I don't know any responsible pilot that would throw 'a considerable amount' of alcohol down their throat within 48 hours of a flight let alone during a bottle to throttle rule. IF that was habitual behaviour then it would certainly have shown up in an annual physical (see my post #24) and should have been picked up before by the airlines physician. IF so, why was it not seen earlier so that help could have been given? This isn't a one way street, you know, employers have responsibilities too...
I was intrigued by the apparent lack of correspondance between the statement on the drinking history and the fact that the BAC was 42mg/100ml. It doesnt add up: the average Western male metabolizes alcohol at very roughly 10 - 15 mg/100ml per hour. Do the math.
Finally, and I am not condoning the act, but you have to wonder about the judiciary in this country when you read "This sentence should deter others from compromising the high safety expected of airline pilots. Duh. No it won't. Those that can obey the law (the 99%) already do, and those that dont, wont, because they simply cannot. There is virtually no deterrent there at all. I think that's what annoys me the most. If he had said "...should encourage them to seek help from their airline, which should actively assist" then I would have been impressed. All this does is drive these behaviours underground.
Chesty has a good point. But an alcoholic will never call in sick because he/she "willl be fine" "doesnt have a problem" etc. etc. To call in sick would force them to confront the problem and take responsibility for the behaviour - and this they can never do. So they carry on, get away with it, get away with it... and then one day they dont get away with it.
Read Lyle Prouse's story. Its inspiring and thought provoking. And helped me a lot.
Pinkman....whose ex-wife was an alcoholic.
Firstly, the difference in attitude and support between UA (and Northwest in the Lyle Prouse case) and Thomson in the Kyagera case. Just an observation: it is what it is.
Secondly the insight the Birmingham Post article gives, if accurate. Frankly, I don't know any responsible pilot that would throw 'a considerable amount' of alcohol down their throat within 48 hours of a flight let alone during a bottle to throttle rule. IF that was habitual behaviour then it would certainly have shown up in an annual physical (see my post #24) and should have been picked up before by the airlines physician. IF so, why was it not seen earlier so that help could have been given? This isn't a one way street, you know, employers have responsibilities too...
I was intrigued by the apparent lack of correspondance between the statement on the drinking history and the fact that the BAC was 42mg/100ml. It doesnt add up: the average Western male metabolizes alcohol at very roughly 10 - 15 mg/100ml per hour. Do the math.
Finally, and I am not condoning the act, but you have to wonder about the judiciary in this country when you read "This sentence should deter others from compromising the high safety expected of airline pilots. Duh. No it won't. Those that can obey the law (the 99%) already do, and those that dont, wont, because they simply cannot. There is virtually no deterrent there at all. I think that's what annoys me the most. If he had said "...should encourage them to seek help from their airline, which should actively assist" then I would have been impressed. All this does is drive these behaviours underground.
Chesty has a good point. But an alcoholic will never call in sick because he/she "willl be fine" "doesnt have a problem" etc. etc. To call in sick would force them to confront the problem and take responsibility for the behaviour - and this they can never do. So they carry on, get away with it, get away with it... and then one day they dont get away with it.
Read Lyle Prouse's story. Its inspiring and thought provoking. And helped me a lot.
Pinkman....whose ex-wife was an alcoholic.
Last edited by Pinkman; 29th Mar 2009 at 23:27.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In the upper parishes
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And another winner!
"This sentence should deter others from compromising the high safety expected of airline pilots. Duh. No it won't. Those that can obey the law (the 99%) already do, and those that dont, wont, because they simply cannot. There is virtually no deterrent there at all. I think that's what annoys me the most. If he had said "...should encourage them to seek help from their airline, which should actively assist" then I would have been impressed. All this does is drive these behaviours underground.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northern Europe
Age: 45
Posts: 152
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I donīt know about the UK, but in Germany you canīt be penalized for one offence more than once. As a pilot, you can and you are.
Not being able to go airside is the second penalty
Not being able to go airside is the second penalty
An airside pass, like your drivers license, pilots license, etc, is not a given right, it is an obtained privilege, and losing it as a consequense of you beeing convicted does not count as a second penalty, as it is a loss of privileges, not a loss of rights.
...as it should be...
Having a conviction under the Railway and Transport Safety Act is not a disqualifying offence for the holder of a restricted zone pass (according to the DoT list). In any event this is moot since his licence has been suspended for 10 years, the conviction would have been spent by the time he is eligible to fly commercially again so would not show on a CRC.
From the media report:-
StudentinDebt, you say:-
Has his flying licenece been suspended? Or is it that he cannot hold an airside pass for ten years?
The Civil Aviation Authority said it would withhold his pilot's security clearance for 10 years for breaching its regulations and having a criminal conviction.
In any event this is moot since his licence has been suspended for 10 years, the conviction would have been spent by the time he is eligible to fly commercially again so would not show on a CRC.