Pilot caught smelling of alcohol at LHR
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps...
...it IS time for PPRuNe to help.
Having a "sticky" on this subject at the top of the "billboard" rumours & news forum might encourage some on the path back up?
Just a thought.
JohnMcGhie Respect.
Having a "sticky" on this subject at the top of the "billboard" rumours & news forum might encourage some on the path back up?
Just a thought.
JohnMcGhie Respect.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: the twilight zone
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's another false allegation, the security personnel involved should be terminated on the spot, then they might think twice about accusing someone with little or no real evidence
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Age: 51
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's another false allegation, the security personnel involved should be terminated on the spot, then they might think twice about accusing someone with little or no real evidence
I am not sure what the answer is, but if there is suspiscion over a member of flight crew then it should be handled in a respectful manner and the facts established - the correct way to address this should be a protocol established by a discussion between the security and pilots (Maybe BALPA).
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riga
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before working in RIXland, random breath tests experienced when reporting for duty,0
After starting work in RIXland, random breath tests frequently.
The problem of security upstarts getting above their station in a disrespectful manner avoided.
Total respect for a system that is only there to aid flight safety.
Now that I spend the bigger part of my life flying a desk, I probably do drink more than I should, but never within a day of a duty period - the risks are just too prevalent (to myself, the aircraft and my licence).
John - Thanks for your post. Quite close to home for me.
RIX
After starting work in RIXland, random breath tests frequently.
The problem of security upstarts getting above their station in a disrespectful manner avoided.
Total respect for a system that is only there to aid flight safety.
Now that I spend the bigger part of my life flying a desk, I probably do drink more than I should, but never within a day of a duty period - the risks are just too prevalent (to myself, the aircraft and my licence).
John - Thanks for your post. Quite close to home for me.
RIX
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: post 21 and 22 above...The security folks are neither trained or qualified to vet crew coming through their ck points...
False allegations are a serious threat to the whole industry...
I do agree that any pilot with a problem should seek help, however, airport security should not be the catalyst to make thisw happen...that's what other crewmembers and management pilots are for...
RIX...who are you working for? I have an apt on Stabu near Stabruks....
False allegations are a serious threat to the whole industry...
I do agree that any pilot with a problem should seek help, however, airport security should not be the catalyst to make thisw happen...that's what other crewmembers and management pilots are for...
RIX...who are you working for? I have an apt on Stabu near Stabruks....
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not having much faith these days in the ability of security in LHR to accurately detect over the limit pilots.
IF, they suspect owt, then they should [MUST?] call the Police...full stop.
Or am I wrong...again?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Age: 51
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DownIn3Green:
RE: post 21 and 22 above...The security folks are neither trained or qualified to vet crew coming through their ck points...
False allegations are a serious threat to the whole industry...
I do agree that any pilot with a problem should seek help, however, airport security should not be the catalyst to make thisw happen...that's what other crewmembers and management pilots are for...
RE: post 21 and 22 above...The security folks are neither trained or qualified to vet crew coming through their ck points...
False allegations are a serious threat to the whole industry...
I do agree that any pilot with a problem should seek help, however, airport security should not be the catalyst to make thisw happen...that's what other crewmembers and management pilots are for...
I do disagree on your other points though.
A false allegation is a serious matter, but it is down to how any such suspicions are handled. Like I said in my post if it is dealt with respectfully i.e. the crew member asked to disembark for a quick check and this is witheld from public spectacle then any tests performed and proven false can be dealt with apologetically and the flight allowed to continue. This not only saves embarassment for the crew and company but also does not unsettle the SLF.
The issue I have with your last paragraph is "that is what other crew members and management pilot are for". I am not questioning the professionalism of anyone here, but covering for a friend whilst knowing they have a problem and encouraging them to deal with a problem or even a one off is one of those dilemmas that some people may find hard to deal with to do the right thing (Human Nature)- especially in the culture of some of the more eastern airlines where the CRM is less liberated than it could/should be.
I ask myself if I am confident a F/O in their probation period would really risk raising the alarm if they suspected their captain was over the limit and being proven wrong. In an ideal world we should say thats the right thing to do - but I doubt the consequences matches that.
My own personal view is that the safety of flights is paramount - anyone with a concern should be able to raise the alarm whether it is flight crew, security or SLF. This may seem demeaning to flight crew and a hassle but with safety in mind it is the only way to operate safely. I agree there needs to be controls/punitive measures for those being vindictive.
I can see how you see this is an issue by way of how previous incidents have been dealt with (F/O of UA being led off the plane in handcuffs) - there should be some tact used to establish the short term facts out of public view and eliminate a false alert.
As John has pointed out alcoholism is a disease and is highly prevelent in industries such as this where the stress factor can be high. It is not going to help the person suffering by covering up what is going on out of loyalty or sympathy. John may confirm this but most will not turn the corner until forced to do so - hiding it is not helping them as they are hiding it from themselves typically (Johns post was very close to home btw).
The real change that needs to take place in my view is the encouragement from the airlines to seek out, help and stand by those people that are struggling rather than just leaving alone till an issue arises - dont make it a taboo issue that will alienate the person that spots the problem or be vindictive on the person with the problem. The true team works with each other through good and bad.
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: Where the job is!
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “Being over the limit does not necessarily imply drunkenness.”
Agreed, particularly as the UK’s limit is ludicrously low and out of line with other countries. What are pilots as a group going to do about the UK’s anti-pilot activities? I have seen a few mutterings on here regarding security nazis and ID cars but have not heard of any effective action.
The UK's goons want to catch pilots who smell of alcohol so why not accommodate them? My suggestion for the UK’s stupidly low booze limit is for pilots to organise a whole week of turning up smelling of alcohol. Just spill enough on your sleeves or elsewhere to give sufficient smell. Let the security nazis have a whole week of alcohol smelling pilots. If they should wrongly detain you, which would soon be proved by passing a proper test, then sue the bastards for any inconvenience or wrongful detention.
Agreed, particularly as the UK’s limit is ludicrously low and out of line with other countries. What are pilots as a group going to do about the UK’s anti-pilot activities? I have seen a few mutterings on here regarding security nazis and ID cars but have not heard of any effective action.
The UK's goons want to catch pilots who smell of alcohol so why not accommodate them? My suggestion for the UK’s stupidly low booze limit is for pilots to organise a whole week of turning up smelling of alcohol. Just spill enough on your sleeves or elsewhere to give sufficient smell. Let the security nazis have a whole week of alcohol smelling pilots. If they should wrongly detain you, which would soon be proved by passing a proper test, then sue the bastards for any inconvenience or wrongful detention.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chiglet: AFAIK, "security" in any form has nowt to do with "accurate" detection.
IF, they suspect owt, then they should [MUST?] call the Police...full stop.
Or am I wrong...again?
--------------------
Not so far off IMHO.
Perfect "accuracy", i.e. (TP+TN)/(TP+TN+FP+FN) = 1.0, is the Holy Grail that is unlikely ever to be achieved for any sort of real-world predictive test, in aviation as in many other fields of endeavor (e.g. predicting clinical response to a pharmaceutical agent). Put it this way, I've never seen it in something that really counts and I'm into this sort of thing, statistically speaking ......
IMO in the aviation security business, a higher false positive rate (Type 1 or alpha error) is more acceptable than a higher false negative rate (Type 2 or beta error), if you had your druthers. IOW, technically speaking of course, very high "sensitivity" (TP/TP+FN) is more important to achieve than very high "specificity" (FP/FP+TN) in this type of case.
Why? Because detecting and nailing the bad actors is more important than avoiding falsely suspecting the good ones. After all, if you're a good actor yet falsely detected as "bad", you're going to be able to prove it rather soon (assuming that there's a solid objective test for the so-called "true" condition, as there is in this case of course). In the meantime, you should be accorded the greatest respect, and privacy. Then when it's all over you can go away and have a really stiff drink, on the house perhaps.
[F= false, T= true, P= test positive, N= test negative]
Caveat: in case of an inaccurate "truth" criterion, you're probably screwed.
IF, they suspect owt, then they should [MUST?] call the Police...full stop.
Or am I wrong...again?
--------------------
Not so far off IMHO.
Perfect "accuracy", i.e. (TP+TN)/(TP+TN+FP+FN) = 1.0, is the Holy Grail that is unlikely ever to be achieved for any sort of real-world predictive test, in aviation as in many other fields of endeavor (e.g. predicting clinical response to a pharmaceutical agent). Put it this way, I've never seen it in something that really counts and I'm into this sort of thing, statistically speaking ......
IMO in the aviation security business, a higher false positive rate (Type 1 or alpha error) is more acceptable than a higher false negative rate (Type 2 or beta error), if you had your druthers. IOW, technically speaking of course, very high "sensitivity" (TP/TP+FN) is more important to achieve than very high "specificity" (FP/FP+TN) in this type of case.
Why? Because detecting and nailing the bad actors is more important than avoiding falsely suspecting the good ones. After all, if you're a good actor yet falsely detected as "bad", you're going to be able to prove it rather soon (assuming that there's a solid objective test for the so-called "true" condition, as there is in this case of course). In the meantime, you should be accorded the greatest respect, and privacy. Then when it's all over you can go away and have a really stiff drink, on the house perhaps.
[F= false, T= true, P= test positive, N= test negative]
Caveat: in case of an inaccurate "truth" criterion, you're probably screwed.
Last edited by SDFlyer; 21st May 2009 at 03:45.
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jofm5...I guess I didn't make my statement re: "crewmembers and Mgmt" clear...
One of my crew was accused by individuals not trained in evaulation....
This happened to be the gate agents who actually worked for the same airline as we did...
My response was we're all going for medical tests...screw the flight....big delay...
I don't wan't to fly with an alchol (or other substance) impaired flt crew or cabin crew member, however, if accused by some "wanna-be hero" I will take immediate steps to prove the finger pointing false...
One of my crew was accused by individuals not trained in evaulation....
This happened to be the gate agents who actually worked for the same airline as we did...
My response was we're all going for medical tests...screw the flight....big delay...
I don't wan't to fly with an alchol (or other substance) impaired flt crew or cabin crew member, however, if accused by some "wanna-be hero" I will take immediate steps to prove the finger pointing false...
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 63
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carrier
I think you missed the whole point
DownIn3Green
.
I think you did the right thing,,there are so many delays anyway..i would take this delay any day
Agreed, particularly as the UK’s limit is ludicrously low.......
DownIn3Green
My response was we're all going for medical tests...screw the flight....big delay..
I think you did the right thing,,there are so many delays anyway..i would take this delay any day
it is amazing how many here go in to "defense mode" as long the alco questions are raised.. maybe thats the denial stage
If you don't want to know the airline or his name
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 63
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
etrang
Better not the AA enter the PPRuNe forum to read the opinions from some pilots here
The airline said: "American Airlines has strict policies on alcohol and substance abuse and holds its employees to the highest standards."
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As humble SLF I hestitate to post in this forum, but a couple of things are bugging me:
The concept of security people reporting concerns about a possible alcohol smell on the breath of flight crew seems to be like a red rag to a bull to many flight crew here. I do wonder if that would be the same if the security hassles of the last few years, of which security personnel are the personification, had not taken place.
I'm also uneasy with the ideas that are often put forward on these type of threads - 'when was the last major incident due to an alcohol-impaired crew' and 'it's not alcohol you should be worrying about, it's fatigue'. I've no doubt that both points in isolation are completely correct, however given the normal air safety ethos of making sure that the holes in the swiss cheese don't line up, and eliminating as many of the holes as possible, it comes across as a little odd in contrast. I'm sure that the experts on here could come up with a long list of maintenance items that have never caused a crash, but are regularly checked anyway, because if they did ever fail the results could be catastrophic.
I do agree with some of the earlier posters however that the method of checking once a complaint has been made appears to need improvement. Asking the accused to step into a private room adjacent to the security for an extra check (without specifying what for, so pax milling around assume that it is just to confirm the size of his toothpaste is below 100ml) and doing the breath test etc there might help. If the complaint happens later in the process, once the accused is on the aircraft then at least cockpits present some privacy these days, and pax think nothing of police wandering onto aircraft.
Probably anathama (sp?) to most people on here, but I can't help wonder whether random or even compulsory breath tests at crew check in might be the way to go - if security knew that a check had already been performed then they would be less likely to point the finger. Not sure if that would be the lesser of the 2 evils though.
Final thought - should landlords, or bouncers on the doors, tip off the police if they see someone come out of their pub appearing impaired and jump behind the wheel of a car? The accused might be recovering from a stroke, and have been on orange juice all night. On the other hand if one of your kids was standing in a bus queue half a mile down the road you might prefer that someone checked. Emotive example I know, but do you see the point?
The concept of security people reporting concerns about a possible alcohol smell on the breath of flight crew seems to be like a red rag to a bull to many flight crew here. I do wonder if that would be the same if the security hassles of the last few years, of which security personnel are the personification, had not taken place.
I'm also uneasy with the ideas that are often put forward on these type of threads - 'when was the last major incident due to an alcohol-impaired crew' and 'it's not alcohol you should be worrying about, it's fatigue'. I've no doubt that both points in isolation are completely correct, however given the normal air safety ethos of making sure that the holes in the swiss cheese don't line up, and eliminating as many of the holes as possible, it comes across as a little odd in contrast. I'm sure that the experts on here could come up with a long list of maintenance items that have never caused a crash, but are regularly checked anyway, because if they did ever fail the results could be catastrophic.
I do agree with some of the earlier posters however that the method of checking once a complaint has been made appears to need improvement. Asking the accused to step into a private room adjacent to the security for an extra check (without specifying what for, so pax milling around assume that it is just to confirm the size of his toothpaste is below 100ml) and doing the breath test etc there might help. If the complaint happens later in the process, once the accused is on the aircraft then at least cockpits present some privacy these days, and pax think nothing of police wandering onto aircraft.
Probably anathama (sp?) to most people on here, but I can't help wonder whether random or even compulsory breath tests at crew check in might be the way to go - if security knew that a check had already been performed then they would be less likely to point the finger. Not sure if that would be the lesser of the 2 evils though.
Final thought - should landlords, or bouncers on the doors, tip off the police if they see someone come out of their pub appearing impaired and jump behind the wheel of a car? The accused might be recovering from a stroke, and have been on orange juice all night. On the other hand if one of your kids was standing in a bus queue half a mile down the road you might prefer that someone checked. Emotive example I know, but do you see the point?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Asia
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
allegedly
There seems to be lots of "allegedly" in here.
We know that since skurity humiliate us and make us take off our shoes, that they are in fact our enemies.
For a false accusation they will walk free.Who says it is not possible to bribe them to accuse the pilot that you don't like or want to get ahead of?
We know that since skurity humiliate us and make us take off our shoes, that they are in fact our enemies.
For a false accusation they will walk free.Who says it is not possible to bribe them to accuse the pilot that you don't like or want to get ahead of?
24 hours bottle to throttle?
Given the very low limit in blood alcohol permitted for pilots, and the difference in metabolism between individuals, perhaps cautious pilots should impose a 24 hour limit between drinking and flying. 12 hours might be enough for most but not all pilots. It may change with increasing age. If the Sun article is right, given the pilot was allegedly 4 times the limit for flying he would have been just about legal to drive. If a pilot unwisely has a drink the night before flying and regrets it, I suggest he would do well to call in sick.
I agree with previous posters about being discreet when testing pilots. I also think that if the blood alcohol level is legal for driving but not for flying, and it is a first positive test, prosecution is a bit heavy handed. Maybe a period of compulsory retraining would be in order. It might be possible to be discreet about the reason for it.
I agree with previous posters about being discreet when testing pilots. I also think that if the blood alcohol level is legal for driving but not for flying, and it is a first positive test, prosecution is a bit heavy handed. Maybe a period of compulsory retraining would be in order. It might be possible to be discreet about the reason for it.
No need for any court or police action.
We can leave the entire judicial process to a few of the posters here on PPRUNE who are obviously in possession of all the relevant facts.Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty ?Just try to imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and it was you being accused.Wouldn't you want a fair hearing ?What if it's a false positive ?
Throw mud and some of it will stick.Even if you're proven innocent.
We can leave the entire judicial process to a few of the posters here on PPRUNE who are obviously in possession of all the relevant facts.Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty ?Just try to imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and it was you being accused.Wouldn't you want a fair hearing ?What if it's a false positive ?
Throw mud and some of it will stick.Even if you're proven innocent.
