Air Canada Captain arrested on suspicion of alcohol offence CLEARED
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Planet Earth for a short visit
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK, basic Plod has a device for the 'roadside' test. It is not accurate enough to read down to 0.20 eg at the aircraft
At the station for a proper test, the machine is also not accurate enough for a reading as low as 0.20 eg at the police station
Eventually a blood sample will be required which takes 6 weeks to analysis.
Some 15 months ago I was randomly tested by 3 officers, CID, Special Branch and Plod in the crewroom after a call from a member of the public who had to be kept anonymous for legal reasons. Obviously I came up as zero on the roadside test. How unfair is that?
The kit I own is more accurate than the roadside kit the Police have, but theirs could ground someone for 6 weeks waiting for results that prove one innocent.
^ Mud sticks!
At the station for a proper test, the machine is also not accurate enough for a reading as low as 0.20 eg at the police station
Eventually a blood sample will be required which takes 6 weeks to analysis.
Some 15 months ago I was randomly tested by 3 officers, CID, Special Branch and Plod in the crewroom after a call from a member of the public who had to be kept anonymous for legal reasons. Obviously I came up as zero on the roadside test. How unfair is that?
The kit I own is more accurate than the roadside kit the Police have, but theirs could ground someone for 6 weeks waiting for results that prove one innocent.
^ Mud sticks!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Planet Earth for a short visit
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Humpy
That's brilliant
On the day in question I was **** all the way to wherever I went because even though I was innocent, I felt observed and operated appallingly.
Any chance you are qualified to send your observations to CAA?
On the day in question I was **** all the way to wherever I went because even though I was innocent, I felt observed and operated appallingly.
Any chance you are qualified to send your observations to CAA?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: LHR ( EGLL )
Age: 57
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silverhawk,
Cannot speak for wherever you work but I did a course provided by the plod at my base where they took us all through the legislation introduced by this Act a couple of years ago. They showed us the devices that they use and explained the requirements in order that we could cascade them throughout the company.
The device is nothing to do with the roadside limits, it is a combined device calibrated for two different pieces of legislation with two different thresholds. This is why there is no secondary test at the station, the machine there is only calibrated for the road. Only option remaining - blood.
Plod at airports rarely detect the smell of alcohol on another’s breath, it is security or someone in the crew room who smell it first. Having been informed, the plod can only undertake the test to prove or dismiss the allegation. Pass you have no problem, fail and we know where you end up.
This legislation may only be undertaken by uniformed officers. I rather enjoyed the time they were present, they explained it well, answered all our questions and are very clearly experienced in aviation and what happens at airports. We all generally do stuff well because we have been trained in it, the coppers appear to be in a similar category.
Commentary on the thread in general;
Simple answer may be not to put yourself in a position where they may be called to undertake a test but until the circumstances of this case are confirmed and publicised, it is prudent to make no comments on what has happened to our colleague.
Any trial by judge and jury is the way of the Country. Any trial by PPruNe and those posting on a thread is neither welcome, warranted nor helpful to a colleague who has at this time been convicted of nothing. There will be enough soul searching going on, let’s all be conscious of another’s feelings without pouring some fuel on the fire needlessly.
Jox
Cannot speak for wherever you work but I did a course provided by the plod at my base where they took us all through the legislation introduced by this Act a couple of years ago. They showed us the devices that they use and explained the requirements in order that we could cascade them throughout the company.
The device is nothing to do with the roadside limits, it is a combined device calibrated for two different pieces of legislation with two different thresholds. This is why there is no secondary test at the station, the machine there is only calibrated for the road. Only option remaining - blood.
Plod at airports rarely detect the smell of alcohol on another’s breath, it is security or someone in the crew room who smell it first. Having been informed, the plod can only undertake the test to prove or dismiss the allegation. Pass you have no problem, fail and we know where you end up.
This legislation may only be undertaken by uniformed officers. I rather enjoyed the time they were present, they explained it well, answered all our questions and are very clearly experienced in aviation and what happens at airports. We all generally do stuff well because we have been trained in it, the coppers appear to be in a similar category.
Commentary on the thread in general;
Simple answer may be not to put yourself in a position where they may be called to undertake a test but until the circumstances of this case are confirmed and publicised, it is prudent to make no comments on what has happened to our colleague.
Any trial by judge and jury is the way of the Country. Any trial by PPruNe and those posting on a thread is neither welcome, warranted nor helpful to a colleague who has at this time been convicted of nothing. There will be enough soul searching going on, let’s all be conscious of another’s feelings without pouring some fuel on the fire needlessly.
Jox
Last couple of pages on this thread have been enlightening to read (very little judgemental stuff),
Can I beseech the mods to capture some of this stuff (sticky, merging fodder, inserts or otherwise) so that next month when another pilot is hauled off we can at least start from the same level headed discussion
Can I beseech the mods to capture some of this stuff (sticky, merging fodder, inserts or otherwise) so that next month when another pilot is hauled off we can at least start from the same level headed discussion
604guy,
The limit for a LAME is four times the crew limit.
In the case of blood, 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres cf 20 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres for crew.
FrequentSLF
Do remember that the crew limit is set vanishingly low and, even if these figures are correct, they do not indicate skippers rolling aboard roaring "Single up to the bow spring; slow ahead!" 
The limit for a LAME is four times the crew limit.
In the case of blood, 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres cf 20 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres for crew.
FrequentSLF
0.05% means that one occurrence every 1000 flights (assuming 2 pilots) or 500 flights when a relief crew is on board...it sounds quite alarming
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basil
My point was that putting figures, specifically statics, without mentioning how they were extrapolated can produce distorted results. If those figures are correct we can deduce that at any given time there is at least one pilot over the legal limit at the controls. Since I take about 250 flights per year, I can also say that once a year, statistically, the pilot at the controls of my flight is above the legal limit.
FrequentSLF
Quote:
0.05% means that one occurrence every 1000 flights (assuming 2 pilots) or 500 flights when a relief crew is on board...it sounds quite alarming
Do remember that the crew limit is set vanishingly low and, even if these figures are correct, they do not indicate skippers rolling aboard roaring "Single up to the bow spring; slow ahead!"
Quote:
0.05% means that one occurrence every 1000 flights (assuming 2 pilots) or 500 flights when a relief crew is on board...it sounds quite alarming
Do remember that the crew limit is set vanishingly low and, even if these figures are correct, they do not indicate skippers rolling aboard roaring "Single up to the bow spring; slow ahead!"
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although intrusive, maybe there is an argument for a LION alcohol test machine to be installed at every airport - then in situations such as the one described, the pilot can be tested immediately and returned to duty within minutes when it is proved that he is not over the limit?
This would prevent any doubt and would be a quick way of resolving the issue
This would prevent any doubt and would be a quick way of resolving the issue
In my company a couple of years ago, there was a well publicised incident where one of the flight attendants went onto the flight deck and smelt alcohol. Rather than say anything, whilst taxiing out, she called her boyfriend on her mobile phone and asked what she should do (he was a police officer). He decided to call his mates and the aircraft was stopped from getting airborne by the police telling ATC to prevent it departing. The aircraft returned to the stand and boarded by several police officers who breathalised both pilots. Obviously, they were both under the limit.
The Flight attendant had smelt alcohol wipes used to clean the headset and those parts of the cockpit that harbours the most germs (i.e. most of it). When the captain was told by the police how he had been reported, he stood in front of the passengers and explained the whole story to them- and then said that because he was so wound up by the whole situation, he was getting off. They were offloaded, the cockpit crew got off and the cabin crew member concerned was suspended from duty.
Moral- be careful who you accuse. Any problems, a quiet word will normally suffice. Alcohol is really not a problem amongst 99.99999% of crews. Of course there will always be one or two but the problem cannot be pretended that it is a new one. In the 50's and 60's pilots were often as pi$$ed as farts, but they didn't seem to cause crashes. Nowadays, it has (quite rightly) been eradicated from pilot culture to the most part through fear of getting caught- particularly since the channel four program with the undercover reporter crashing a BA room party. Once upon a time, the alcohol problem was self-policed by the crew ("can I have a word Nigel old chap- your breath is rather interesting this morning- you did say that your ears were remarkably blocked on your drive to work- would you like to borrow my phone to call crewing?")- that is why there are very few incidents relating to alcohol. Now, it is the fear of some big copper hauling you away because they smelt mints on your breath and if you are a tad over from the glass of wine you had the night before, you will go to Gaol (Jail for the Americans).
I don't condone drinking of course- I might have a pint the night before a duty but not within 12 hours of starting. It really is not worth throwing your career away for- not least your liberty. Prisons are not nice places- particularly not for the average pilot, who is unused to those sort of establishments. I feel very sorry for those who have been sent away.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Planet Earth for a short visit
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Humpmedumpme
No sarcasm at all, far too serious an issue for that.
Answer is B
In retrospect, I should have gone sick rather than operate the flight. As this was the first time I'd experienced this, I didn't realise just how much it had shaken me until already airborne.
If there is a next time, I will immediately remove myself from duties for a protracted length of time.
Answer is B
In retrospect, I should have gone sick rather than operate the flight. As this was the first time I'd experienced this, I didn't realise just how much it had shaken me until already airborne.
If there is a next time, I will immediately remove myself from duties for a protracted length of time.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Carmarthen
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As SLF, I think there's another wider factor...
...to be considered. The current puritanical attitude to alcohol, any alchohol, as the root of all ills and risk in society notwithstanding, surely there has to be a sober (geddit?) cost-benefit analysis of this kind of testing and enforcement regime at these vanishingly low limits? Clearly I wouldn't want to fly to Ibiza with a pilot up front who was impaired by alcohol, but we also know that modest (note modest) alcohol intake is actually demonstrably good for people. Good for their physical health and their psychological health. Witch hunts and artificially imposed stress are equally demonstrably bad for people. If there was a real problem with pilots flying ratted, and safety being compromised, then draconian and thus demonstrably damaging attempts to address it would be more than justified by the nett benefit. Ditto if the only reason the sky isn't full of drunken pilots weaving around the airways is that such a draconian regime is in place. But given that it appears that there isn't a problem (by which I mean statistically significant numbers of broken aeroplanes and dead/injured people associated with crew alcohol misuse), has anybody considered whether the number of deaths and serious injuries that might result from the impact on crew health and well-being of attempting to effectively force all aircrew to become tee-total or of the additional stress on aircrew of the aformentioned enforcement regime?
Come to that, what about even just the cost (headline and consequential) of the enforcement regime itself?
In an ideal world, nobody would ever fly a plane with any measurable alcohol in their systems at all, but all would also be relaxed, in perfect psychological health, free of any artificially induced stress and as fit as they could possibly be in every respect. This not being an ideal world, and those two conflicting requirements being somewhat mutually exclusive to an extent, where do I as a passenger want the line to be drawn?
My answer is that if a witch hunt culture on enforcing very very low alcohol limits actually makes me less safe overall, and costs me a fortune in the process, I don't want it, any more than I would want to be flown by a pisshead.
Pick the bones out of that if you like.
Come to that, what about even just the cost (headline and consequential) of the enforcement regime itself?
In an ideal world, nobody would ever fly a plane with any measurable alcohol in their systems at all, but all would also be relaxed, in perfect psychological health, free of any artificially induced stress and as fit as they could possibly be in every respect. This not being an ideal world, and those two conflicting requirements being somewhat mutually exclusive to an extent, where do I as a passenger want the line to be drawn?
My answer is that if a witch hunt culture on enforcing very very low alcohol limits actually makes me less safe overall, and costs me a fortune in the process, I don't want it, any more than I would want to be flown by a pisshead.
Pick the bones out of that if you like.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
remoak
You are eliding two issues into one. It is a common mistake which I suspect lies at the root of the more extreme and emotive posts which often appear in these alcohol threads.
State?
I don’t know which State you have in mind but, as Carnage Matey has already pointed out, the UK has not defined the alcohol level which impairs performance. It has prescribed, for the purpose of one of our two different offences, a maximum permitted level.
Since the 2003 Act came into force, the UK has had two separate and different offences relating to alcohol in aviation:
(1) Being Unfit for Duty
Performing an 'aviation function' .......... at a time when your ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
That was a change of words, not a change of substance. Those words (taken from the 2003 Act) reflect the offence which had existed in the UK for many years (under the ANO), namely that no member of an aircraft’s crew, LAME or ATC officer shall be under the influence of drink or drugs to such an extent as to impair his/her capacity to so act.
However, the 2003 Act also created a second and different offence which did not previously exist in the UK:
(2) Alcohol Exceeding the Prescribed Limit
Performing 'an aviation function' .......... at a time when the proportion of alcohol in your breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit. (In practice, blood.)
Note that impairment is not an element of this offence.
Accordingly, a pilot whose alcohol level exceeds the prescribed limit may still be guilty of this offence regardless of whether or not his ability to perform his aviation function was impaired.
I didn’t suggest it was exhaustive. As I said, it is the only formal research of which I'm aware. If you can point me to any other research relating to alcohol in aviation I’d be interested to read it.
In your opinion, whether or not excess alcohol actually caused or contributed to an accident is not relevant. I think it is. I'm content to agree to differ.
I disagree that the data is meaningless. IMHO it provides a very helpful and informative indication, although not conclusive.
I can understand why the point I made is inconvenient to your own argument(s), but it’s a pity you’ve resorted to alleging that it is disingenuous. It is not in my nature to make disingenuous points and, even if I was so inclined, I have no reason whatsoever to do so. Unless obvious from the context (and/or a smiley) that I’m not being serious, you can safely assume that, having considered the various issues, I say what I mean and believe what I say.
I’m not a flight safety expert but, as I understand it, no, flight safety is not predicated on the removal of all possible risk.
Your Aloha 737 example is not IMHO analogous.
I agree in principle. However, given a set of facts and stats to consider, I suspect we might disagree about the stage at which (if at all) preventative intervention is necessary.
I suppose it's possible that “many agencies and most pilots” are wrong and you are right.
"Boozed-Up Britain" is the sort of phrase I expect to read in newspapers of a certain type rather than in intelligent debate, but I agree there is some force in what you say about many Brits’ attitude to drinking. However, the fact is that the safety record of British carriers is and always has been excellent. (I appreciate you’ll probably dismiss that as irrelevant.)
Even assuming for the purpose of this discussion that your claims about pilots’ attitude to drinking are not exaggerated in an attempt to strengthen your arguments, I don’t know if they are based upon recent observations. (I know you used to fly in Europe but don’t know when.)
I mention that because, from what I've been told and read on PPRuNe, whatever may or may not have gone on before, the introduction of the 'excess alcohol' offence has made pilots even more cautious than they already were because they know they are at risk of losing their careers and being sent to prison simply by being over the prescribed limit - even if they are not guilty of the 'Unfit for Duty' offence.
If I don't respond to any other post you may make, please don't assume it's because I agree with what you've said. I've spent (or perhaps wasted) enough time on this topic.
FL
(Edited to correct typos)
I would define the problem as flight crew pitching up for work with enough alcohol in their system to impair their performance, which the State has defined as 0.010 "whatevers" (I can't recall the unit used).
State?
I don’t know which State you have in mind but, as Carnage Matey has already pointed out, the UK has not defined the alcohol level which impairs performance. It has prescribed, for the purpose of one of our two different offences, a maximum permitted level.
Since the 2003 Act came into force, the UK has had two separate and different offences relating to alcohol in aviation:
(1) Being Unfit for Duty
Performing an 'aviation function' .......... at a time when your ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
That was a change of words, not a change of substance. Those words (taken from the 2003 Act) reflect the offence which had existed in the UK for many years (under the ANO), namely that no member of an aircraft’s crew, LAME or ATC officer shall be under the influence of drink or drugs to such an extent as to impair his/her capacity to so act.
However, the 2003 Act also created a second and different offence which did not previously exist in the UK:
(2) Alcohol Exceeding the Prescribed Limit
Performing 'an aviation function' .......... at a time when the proportion of alcohol in your breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit. (In practice, blood.)
Note that impairment is not an element of this offence.
Accordingly, a pilot whose alcohol level exceeds the prescribed limit may still be guilty of this offence regardless of whether or not his ability to perform his aviation function was impaired.
The problem with the research you quote is that it isn't exhaustive.
In your opinion, whether or not excess alcohol actually caused or contributed to an accident is not relevant. I think it is. I'm content to agree to differ.
I disagree that the data is meaningless. IMHO it provides a very helpful and informative indication, although not conclusive.
I can understand why the point I made is inconvenient to your own argument(s), but it’s a pity you’ve resorted to alleging that it is disingenuous. It is not in my nature to make disingenuous points and, even if I was so inclined, I have no reason whatsoever to do so. Unless obvious from the context (and/or a smiley) that I’m not being serious, you can safely assume that, having considered the various issues, I say what I mean and believe what I say.
Is flight safety predicated on the removal of all possible risk etc?
Your Aloha 737 example is not IMHO analogous.
I believe the primary aim flight safety is preventative intervention, not simply reaction to events.
The default view of many agencies and most pilots is one of denial.
"Boozed-Up Britain" is the sort of phrase I expect to read in newspapers of a certain type rather than in intelligent debate, but I agree there is some force in what you say about many Brits’ attitude to drinking. However, the fact is that the safety record of British carriers is and always has been excellent. (I appreciate you’ll probably dismiss that as irrelevant.)
Even assuming for the purpose of this discussion that your claims about pilots’ attitude to drinking are not exaggerated in an attempt to strengthen your arguments, I don’t know if they are based upon recent observations. (I know you used to fly in Europe but don’t know when.)
I mention that because, from what I've been told and read on PPRuNe, whatever may or may not have gone on before, the introduction of the 'excess alcohol' offence has made pilots even more cautious than they already were because they know they are at risk of losing their careers and being sent to prison simply by being over the prescribed limit - even if they are not guilty of the 'Unfit for Duty' offence.
If I don't respond to any other post you may make, please don't assume it's because I agree with what you've said. I've spent (or perhaps wasted) enough time on this topic.
FL
(Edited to correct typos)
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 30th Apr 2009 at 22:26.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've spent (or perhaps wasted) enough time on this topic.
FSLF
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It depends upon the topic being discussed.
Thank you for your kind comment.
I meant 'wasted' only in the sense that, however many times I or others try to explain the difference, there are always people who continue to equate unlawful to fly (exceeding the zero or virtually zero prescribed limit, even by a miniscule amount) with unfit to fly (impairment).
Doing that is as silly as suggesting that exceeding a speed limit even by a miniscule amount is dangerous driving.
.
Thank you for your kind comment.
I meant 'wasted' only in the sense that, however many times I or others try to explain the difference, there are always people who continue to equate unlawful to fly (exceeding the zero or virtually zero prescribed limit, even by a miniscule amount) with unfit to fly (impairment).
Doing that is as silly as suggesting that exceeding a speed limit even by a miniscule amount is dangerous driving.
.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL
That sentence closes the discussion on the thread. I do agree with you 100%.
People has to understand that rules are rules, even virtually zero over the prescribed limit is unlawful, that's the law...we might agree or disagree with it but is still the law...being fit or unfit (impaired) is another part of the law! Our society is based on respect of the laws, and we are bound to respect them. We might look for changes, but until the laws are changed we are bound to respect them!
FSLF
there are always people who continue to equate unlawful to fly (exceeding the zero or virtually zero prescribed limit, even by a miniscule amount) with unfit to fly (impairment).
People has to understand that rules are rules, even virtually zero over the prescribed limit is unlawful, that's the law...we might agree or disagree with it but is still the law...being fit or unfit (impaired) is another part of the law! Our society is based on respect of the laws, and we are bound to respect them. We might look for changes, but until the laws are changed we are bound to respect them!
FSLF
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FSLF
Watch what happens if another excess alcohol thread comes along.
The same routine will start all over again.
I agree with what you say about abiding by laws regardless of whether we happen to agree with them - although (for example) abiding by every speed limit each time we drive isn't easy.
FL
Watch what happens if another excess alcohol thread comes along.
The same routine will start all over again.
I agree with what you say about abiding by laws regardless of whether we happen to agree with them - although (for example) abiding by every speed limit each time we drive isn't easy.
FL
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Inside
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are people who will use any excuse to have a go at air crew. As this thread is a good example off.
It has become very predictable who will be in the forefront of the fingerpointing.
It has become very predictable who will be in the forefront of the fingerpointing.
As far as I am aware the blood test came back as zero, the pilot has been cleared by Air Canada.
The security guard did not smell anything illegal, he smelt "cherry" chewing gum.
This will not end up in the paper, as it does not help sell papers, like allegations of a drunk pilot.
The security guard did not smell anything illegal, he smelt "cherry" chewing gum.
This will not end up in the paper, as it does not help sell papers, like allegations of a drunk pilot.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer
I'm sure you will read this, even if you choose to engage no further in the discussion. So a couple of points:
One is ipso facto the other. The state has determined that any alcohol in the bloodstream impairs performance (rightly or wrongly) and has, on that basis, established an arbitrary limit. The limit may in itself be meaningless, but it is not without a basis.
It is pretty obvious that the offence of...
... is a catch-all that is designed to overcome the problem of trying to prove impairment in a court of law. The limit itself is probably set so low because of the vagaries of the effects of alcohol on different people.
I can't, and I suspect that there isn't any. That in itself is significant.
Without knowing in how many incidents or accidents the presence of alcohol was assessed, how can it possibly have any meaning at all? If only 22 cases in those 31 years were assessed for alcohol, the hit rate is 100% and we should all be worried. If every case was assessed for alcohol, the problem is minute and we can all breathe again.,,,
Well people who are experts in flight safety disagree with you. For example, the RAF say this:
I susppose you could have a semantic argument over "all possible risk" and low as reasonably practicable". However, the principle I have put forward is essentially what they teach you on day one of the Flight Safety Officer course. Well, they did on the one I attended, anyway.
It isn't an issue of "right and wrong", it is an observable phenomenon. Just read this thread and others like it. It is also an issue where little will be done until there is a major accident that is directly attributable to the misuse of alcohol. Other countries take this a lot more seriously than the UK does.
Well the safety record of most British carriers is and has been excellent. No, it isn't (completely) irrelevant.
I was flying in Europe until late last year. The last time I had a personal brush with the misuse of alcohol was about two years ago, when I had to send an F/O home "sick" because he was still clearly intoxicated from the night before.
I find the allegation that I may make exaggerated claims to strengthen my case somewhat insulting. It is not in my nature to exaggerate. Maybe it is a response to my use of the word "disingenuous". Oh well.
I think you would be amazed at how many pilots don't even know about it.
Fair enough. This is just my morning entertainment over a cup of coffee. Hard to find a good, intelligent debate these days..
I'm sure you will read this, even if you choose to engage no further in the discussion. So a couple of points:
UK has not defined the alcohol level which impairs performance. It has prescribed, for the purpose of one of our two different offences, a maximum permitted level.
It is pretty obvious that the offence of...
Performing 'an aviation function' .......... at a time when the proportion of alcohol in your breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit
If you can point me to any other research relating to alcohol in aviation I’d be interested to read it.
IMHO it provides a very helpful and informative indication, although not conclusive.
I’m not a flight safety expert but, as I understand it, no, flight safety is not predicated on the removal of all possible risk.
The aim of Flight Safety is to maximise operational capability by reducing those risks inherent in military aviation to a level as low as reasonably practicable.
I suppose it's possible that “many agencies and most pilots” are wrong and you are right.
However, the fact is that the safety record of British carriers is and always has been excellent. (I appreciate you’ll probably dismiss that as irrelevant.)
Even assuming for the purpose of this discussion that your claims about pilots’ attitude to drinking are not exaggerated in an attempt to strengthen your arguments, I don’t know if they are based upon recent observations. (I know you used to fly in Europe but don’t know when.)
I find the allegation that I may make exaggerated claims to strengthen my case somewhat insulting. It is not in my nature to exaggerate. Maybe it is a response to my use of the word "disingenuous". Oh well.
the introduction of the 'excess alcohol' offence has made pilots even more cautious
I've spent (or perhaps wasted) enough time on this topic.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the reports of this pilot passing a blood test are true,I hope he sues somebody/everybody for all it's worth.It is surely not part of a security agent's job description to check pilots in this way.I was told some time ago that they had been told to engage pilots in conversation to assist them in their task.There was recently an example of a false positive-pilot on a diet.Did he take that any further?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 63
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have been standing aside reading all arguments instead of destroy the thread with bad spelling and grammatic.
Thanks PJ2, REMOAC, FREQUENTSLF , etc for some very good arguments
Flying Lawyer
I fund some interesting research:
The effects of alcohol on pilot performance and safety
http://aeromedical.org/Articles/PDF_files/A&A.pdf
This also tells you a lot regards the attitude to alcohol/driving
Résumé / Abstract
This paper assesses whether persons convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) are at increased risk of alcohol-related general aviation accidents. Past research has shown a clear link between DWI convictions and pilot-error accidents in commercial aviation. However, no study in the literature has addressed whether DWI convictions are associated with an increased risk of alcohol-related aircraft accidents. To evaluate a hypothesis, a total of 308 912 pilot records over a 10-year period were analyzed using logistic regression. After potentially confounding variables were controlled, DWI convictions were found to be associated with alcohol-related aviation accidents. Pilots with DWI convictions were about 3.5 times more likely than pilots without convictions to have alcohol-related general aviation accidents. Actual or potential applications of this research include providing policy makers with data-driven information that is useful in improving decisions related to the medical certification of pilots.
DWI convictions linked to a higher risk of alcohol-related aircraft accidents
And at last Flying Lawyer:
Is this the price we have to pay for some pilots can´t respect the stipulated law?
MOSCOW, Feb 10 (Reuters) - The chief pilot of a Russian airliner which crashed last year killing 88 people had alcohol in his blood but the primary cause of the crash was poor training, investigators said on Tuesday.
The existence of alcohol maybe not to prove the cause of accident but a "non existence" would prove not
AGAIN,, Thanks for some good discussions/reading all!
Thanks PJ2, REMOAC, FREQUENTSLF , etc for some very good arguments
Flying Lawyer
I fund some interesting research:
The effects of alcohol on pilot performance and safety
http://aeromedical.org/Articles/PDF_files/A&A.pdf
This also tells you a lot regards the attitude to alcohol/driving
Résumé / Abstract
This paper assesses whether persons convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) are at increased risk of alcohol-related general aviation accidents. Past research has shown a clear link between DWI convictions and pilot-error accidents in commercial aviation. However, no study in the literature has addressed whether DWI convictions are associated with an increased risk of alcohol-related aircraft accidents. To evaluate a hypothesis, a total of 308 912 pilot records over a 10-year period were analyzed using logistic regression. After potentially confounding variables were controlled, DWI convictions were found to be associated with alcohol-related aviation accidents. Pilots with DWI convictions were about 3.5 times more likely than pilots without convictions to have alcohol-related general aviation accidents. Actual or potential applications of this research include providing policy makers with data-driven information that is useful in improving decisions related to the medical certification of pilots.
DWI convictions linked to a higher risk of alcohol-related aircraft accidents
And at last Flying Lawyer:
Is this the price we have to pay for some pilots can´t respect the stipulated law?
MOSCOW, Feb 10 (Reuters) - The chief pilot of a Russian airliner which crashed last year killing 88 people had alcohol in his blood but the primary cause of the crash was poor training, investigators said on Tuesday.
The existence of alcohol maybe not to prove the cause of accident but a "non existence" would prove not
AGAIN,, Thanks for some good discussions/reading all!
Last edited by eliptic; 1st May 2009 at 08:33.