Pilot caught smelling of alcohol at LHR
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Kelowna, BC
Age: 66
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being only a mere SLF (a frequent one), it is not my place to join a debate of this sort. However many SLFs such as myself do read these threads with a great deal of interest. As such please permit me to make an observation: I find statements such as "there has never been an alcohol related fatality in passenger transport" and "over the limit is not necessarily drunk" baffling and disquieting. Whatever the factual accuracy of these statements, they seem to infer a mindset that does not reconcile with the professionalism most SLF associate with commercial pilots. IMHO
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 63
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they seem to infer a mindset that does not reconcile with the professionalism most SLF associate with commercial pilots. IMHO
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will: get in line will ya, I've been dealing with this type of a response before this thread ....
-------------
Responding to another poster: to state as if it were fact that no fatal aviation transportation accident (commercial) has ever involved alcohol as major causative factor (let's not quibble about the semantics) is to grossly over-stated the evidence. "Absence of evidence (if that is the case here), is NOT necessarily evidence of absence", often it just means we don't have the relevant data. Of course there may in fact be plenty of evidence, I wouldn't know.
To suggest such a thing would be laying yourself open to a very big Type 2 error (false negative scenario) - not a good thing when we're talking about the public safety. I'm suggesting that pilots may have crashed and burned along with their passengers, with no EtOH levels determined for the most obvious of reasons to do with the combustibility of hydrocarbons ....
If what we read is true about this fellow, good riddance to him. I hold the same view about people who I consider equally irresponsible in my own profession - I refer to fraud in the matter of reporting experimental results in the area of drug discovery. I've seen it, I've dealt with it in no uncertain terms, life goes on. IOW people like this need to be weeded out of the herd, the sooner the better.
[I know I'm going to get into more trouble for this post, esp. from certain quarters. Retrofitted flame suit donned}
Overall though, I find this thread highly reassuring.
Cheers.
-------------
Responding to another poster: to state as if it were fact that no fatal aviation transportation accident (commercial) has ever involved alcohol as major causative factor (let's not quibble about the semantics) is to grossly over-stated the evidence. "Absence of evidence (if that is the case here), is NOT necessarily evidence of absence", often it just means we don't have the relevant data. Of course there may in fact be plenty of evidence, I wouldn't know.
To suggest such a thing would be laying yourself open to a very big Type 2 error (false negative scenario) - not a good thing when we're talking about the public safety. I'm suggesting that pilots may have crashed and burned along with their passengers, with no EtOH levels determined for the most obvious of reasons to do with the combustibility of hydrocarbons ....
If what we read is true about this fellow, good riddance to him. I hold the same view about people who I consider equally irresponsible in my own profession - I refer to fraud in the matter of reporting experimental results in the area of drug discovery. I've seen it, I've dealt with it in no uncertain terms, life goes on. IOW people like this need to be weeded out of the herd, the sooner the better.
[I know I'm going to get into more trouble for this post, esp. from certain quarters. Retrofitted flame suit donned}
Overall though, I find this thread highly reassuring.
Cheers.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will Fraser
Yes, you did. I did too. And the poster who said it is correct.
Correct. But over the aviation limit does not necessarily mean drunk.
I'm not sure that is the reason, but there's an encouraging sign of progress now that you're referring to the appearance of impairment.
ie A pilot over the legal limit might give the appearance of being impaired - even if his alcohol level is so minute that he is not actually impaired.
There are two separate and different offences: (1) Exceeding alcohol limit and (2) Being impaired.
Blimey! And people accuse lawyers of being arrogant and pompous!
I don't know if O-O is late to the discussion but he's not only added to the debate but appears to be better informed and more logical in his thinking than you.
'Over the limit is not necessarily drunk' might "inferr a defense of drinking" to you, but I certainly don't infer that from it. It's an accurate and relevant statement of fact.
Why would one write that statement?
Perhaps it was an attempt to keep things in proper perspective?
And/or an attempt to deter (some) people from making stupid assertions that a pilot over the legal limit is necessarily 'drunk'?
And/or to try to stop (some) people's imagination running out of control?
"Your position that I am "twisting" the discussion is blatantly dishonest."
Interesting. I thought it was fair comment.
(Sorry I'm late to the discussion. Feel free to disregard everything I say.)
John R
If you'd asked me that question, my answer would be:
I have no idea.
All I know is that the press are reporting that a pilot was arrested after a field breath-test showed he was over the aviation limit and that some un-named person apparently told the Sun he was 'four times' over the limit.
A sample of the pilot's blood would have been taken for analysis.
The results won't be available yet. It usually takes a few weeks.
If I may borrow your phrase -
So let me ask you this: Do you honestly believe that any sensible and intelligent person would make any assumptions about the pilot's 'state' on so little information.
Or express an opinion about whether his 'state' (unknown) may or may not have increased the possibility of an accident?
FSLF
I can't account for the contents of dictionary.com, but that is certainly not the law in England.
I was surprised to read your post, very surprised in fact. You've taken an active part in previous alcohol threads in which I've explained the law in a way which I thought was very clear.
If it wasn't, there's nothing more I can do.
I'm at a loss to think of any way in which I could make it clearer than I have already - several times.
fincastle84
I agree.
You clearly don't understand.
Good for you. That's the spirit! 
Why bother waiting to find out if he's guilty.
.
Did I actually read a post maintaining that "over limit is not necessarily drunk"?
Over limit is overlimit.
The legal limit is established to prevent even the appearance of impaired flight.
ie A pilot over the legal limit might give the appearance of being impaired - even if his alcohol level is so minute that he is not actually impaired.
There are two separate and different offences: (1) Exceeding alcohol limit and (2) Being impaired.
One Outsider
Sorry you are late to this discussion. The phrase infers a defense of drinking. If you refuse to admit that, you may not be able to add to the debate. Why would one write that statement? If you are trying to disagree with my conclusion, say so. Your position that I am "twisting" the discussion is blatantly dishonest.
Sorry you are late to this discussion. The phrase infers a defense of drinking. If you refuse to admit that, you may not be able to add to the debate. Why would one write that statement? If you are trying to disagree with my conclusion, say so. Your position that I am "twisting" the discussion is blatantly dishonest.
I don't know if O-O is late to the discussion but he's not only added to the debate but appears to be better informed and more logical in his thinking than you.
'Over the limit is not necessarily drunk' might "inferr a defense of drinking" to you, but I certainly don't infer that from it. It's an accurate and relevant statement of fact.
Why would one write that statement?
Perhaps it was an attempt to keep things in proper perspective?
And/or an attempt to deter (some) people from making stupid assertions that a pilot over the legal limit is necessarily 'drunk'?
And/or to try to stop (some) people's imagination running out of control?
"Your position that I am "twisting" the discussion is blatantly dishonest."
Interesting. I thought it was fair comment.
(Sorry I'm late to the discussion. Feel free to disregard everything I say.)
John R
16024 So let me ask you this: do you honestly believe that if this pilot had not been stopped by the police and had commanded that flight, his 'state' would not have increased the possibility an accident?
I have no idea.
All I know is that the press are reporting that a pilot was arrested after a field breath-test showed he was over the aviation limit and that some un-named person apparently told the Sun he was 'four times' over the limit.
A sample of the pilot's blood would have been taken for analysis.
The results won't be available yet. It usually takes a few weeks.
If I may borrow your phrase -
So let me ask you this: Do you honestly believe that any sensible and intelligent person would make any assumptions about the pilot's 'state' on so little information.
Or express an opinion about whether his 'state' (unknown) may or may not have increased the possibility of an accident?
FSLF
I can't account for the contents of dictionary.com, but that is certainly not the law in England.
I was surprised to read your post, very surprised in fact. You've taken an active part in previous alcohol threads in which I've explained the law in a way which I thought was very clear.
If it wasn't, there's nothing more I can do.
I'm at a loss to think of any way in which I could make it clearer than I have already - several times.
fincastle84
Don't understand the arguement
You clearly don't understand.
Job well done, good riddance to an irresponsible idiot!
Why bother waiting to find out if he's guilty.
.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 21st May 2009 at 20:42.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quoting deScally "it is not my place to join a debate of this sort".
As SLF you are certainly well placed to comment.
It's just that a lot of us seem to be looking in the wrong direction.
If you are on the operating table are you really going to check whether the surgeon spent any time at the 19th after his round of golf the day before.
Most of the recent big accidents involve loss of airspeed.
Remember, it is not puritanism, but Airspeed and Attitude that is going to keep us all shiny side up, and you will get lots of both from me...
I'm tired of this now. It is obvious that intelligent and dispassionate factual comments have no place here, but before I go can we PLEASE stop saying "infer" when we mean "imply" or "suggest".
You, too Fraser. Vocabulary, boy!
As SLF you are certainly well placed to comment.
It's just that a lot of us seem to be looking in the wrong direction.
If you are on the operating table are you really going to check whether the surgeon spent any time at the 19th after his round of golf the day before.
Most of the recent big accidents involve loss of airspeed.
Remember, it is not puritanism, but Airspeed and Attitude that is going to keep us all shiny side up, and you will get lots of both from me...
I'm tired of this now. It is obvious that intelligent and dispassionate factual comments have no place here, but before I go can we PLEASE stop saying "infer" when we mean "imply" or "suggest".
You, too Fraser. Vocabulary, boy!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did I actually read a post maintaining that "over limit is not necessarily drunk"?
It remains breathtaking that there are people defending mixing alcohol with aviation at all
it remains immature and unproffessional.
If you refuse to admit that, you may not be able to add to the debate. Why would one write that statement?
You pompous @rse!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh , you mean that the breathalyser was faulty. Get real, the guy probably had a few too many with the hosties in a cosy little hotel room party, probably not the first time, only this time he got caught. Obey the rules, no bottle, no throttle.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fincastle84
I have no idea if it was or wasn't.
However, what I do know is that, in the UK, guilt or innocence in an aviation context does not turn on the result of a breathalyser test.
(And rightly so IMHO.)
.
Oh , you mean that the breathalyser was faulty.
However, what I do know is that, in the UK, guilt or innocence in an aviation context does not turn on the result of a breathalyser test.
(And rightly so IMHO.)
.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 21st May 2009 at 21:17.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 63
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lawyer
Even i donīt like to discuss "individual" incidents, but more the attitude
i have to ask you:
Do you believe that this pilot was bailed until July 16 for no reason
or this is something that would just happen to anyone having a bad day?
Also the last period there have been some similar incidents (that you already defended) involving "US" Airline company's ,,why are not the airlines defending there innocence pilots and their reputation in the press?
All I know is that the press are reporting that a pilot was arrested after a field breath-test showed he was over the aviation limit and that some un-named person apparently told the Sun he was 'four times' over the limit.
i have to ask you:
Do you believe that this pilot was bailed until July 16 for no reason
or this is something that would just happen to anyone having a bad day?
Also the last period there have been some similar incidents (that you already defended) involving "US" Airline company's ,,why are not the airlines defending there innocence pilots and their reputation in the press?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 63
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pompous @rse!
is that to find in the Phonetic Alphabet?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lawyer, I know, let's make it about me!! You? Vocabulary? Elegant modification of subject, that.
How's this.: In my opinion, anyone who pilot's an aircraft in public carriage whilst demonstrably in excess of the legal threshold should be barred from flying forthwith.
Barred, as in forever.
Will
How's this.: In my opinion, anyone who pilot's an aircraft in public carriage whilst demonstrably in excess of the legal threshold should be barred from flying forthwith.
Barred, as in forever.
Will
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will
When you calm down you'll see that I said nothing about your vocabulary.
I merely pointed out why your personal attack on One Outsider was not only unnecessary but IMHO incorrect.
I disagree. Far too harsh.
If a pilot is guilty of being impaired by alcohol, then IMHO he should be prevented from flying for a much longer period than for the less serious offence of exceeding the limit.
In a very serious case, possibly for ever.
If you search for posts by LProuse you may change your opinion. Or you may not, but they are very well worth reading.
He's a retired Northwest Airlines Captain, former US Marine Corps captain and Vietnam vet...and former federal prison inmate.
BTW, in the UK, courts have no power to make any order in relation to a pilot's licence. It's left to the aviation authorities to decide what licensing action should be taken. IMHO that's sensible.
.
Lawyer, I know, let's make it about me!! You? Vocabulary? Elegant modification of subject, that.
I merely pointed out why your personal attack on One Outsider was not only unnecessary but IMHO incorrect.
How's this.: In my opinion, anyone who pilot's an aircraft in public carriage whilst demonstrably in excess of the legal threshold should be barred from flying forthwith.
Barred, as in forever.
Barred, as in forever.
If a pilot is guilty of being impaired by alcohol, then IMHO he should be prevented from flying for a much longer period than for the less serious offence of exceeding the limit.
In a very serious case, possibly for ever.
If you search for posts by LProuse you may change your opinion. Or you may not, but they are very well worth reading.
He's a retired Northwest Airlines Captain, former US Marine Corps captain and Vietnam vet...and former federal prison inmate.
BTW, in the UK, courts have no power to make any order in relation to a pilot's licence. It's left to the aviation authorities to decide what licensing action should be taken. IMHO that's sensible.
.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 21st May 2009 at 21:25.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it just me or have all these pilots been stopped by Terminal 3 security? Including the ones where there has subsequently been no case?
Obviously if someone is guilty of being intoxicated they should be dealt with accordingly as it shouldn't happen.
Obviously if someone is guilty of being intoxicated they should be dealt with accordingly as it shouldn't happen.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 63
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747-436
hmm, i did hear that before, were are the official statement of that? more then someone say so here
Lawyer
What IF! someone was proved guilty flying over the limit with XXX number of passengers in his control (or non control in this case )
what do you call that?
Including the ones where there has subsequently been no case?
Lawyer
Absurd in my opinion.
what do you call that?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer, Lyle Prouse is an acquaintance. He is eloquent and a fine example of recovery in the cockpit. This isn't about persons. This is about safety. What is annoying to me is the eagerness to blend one with the other. There can be no judgment here, other than the code. Pilots may not make dumb mistakes. Whether it's a hair over the breathalyzer or failing to brief weather due to time pressure, a dumb mistake, a mistake that can easily be avoided, is not tolerable. By definition, impairment is the realm above the set limit, parsing slang words to descriibe it is counter to the legal code. Flying while drunk is not excusable, not mitigable, and should disqualify fatally any pilot in public carriage, imo.
jetsy
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US for now
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree. Far too harsh.
If a pilot is guilty of being impaired by alcohol, then IMHO he should be prevented from flying for a much longer period than for the less serious offence of exceeding the limit.
In a very serious case, possibly for ever.
If a pilot is guilty of being impaired by alcohol, then IMHO he should be prevented from flying for a much longer period than for the less serious offence of exceeding the limit.
In a very serious case, possibly for ever.
How can you predict that impared by alcohol pilot will not/may not get involved in a very serious case, as you put it. Possibly killing/injuring the 200+pax.
What do you mean by "serious offence"?
I suggest you take his/her case.
I do not know what the law is in the UK, frankly..I hope, if this pilot was over the limit.. he never flies passengers again.
There is a reason why those "limits" are set.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Age: 51
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it disappointing after John's post near the start of this thread that people are calling for this pilots license etc without finding out if there is ignorance behind this incident or whether the guy is suffering from a series of problems that have been expressed with alcohol.
Sometimes the best thing for all concerned is to take a conservative approach and if there is an underlying problem that resulted in this incident then a removal from service whilst those problems are addressed.
Taking a harsh or sympathetic view to this incident cannot be performed by ourselves on here as we are not furnished with the full facts behind the cause - we can only be objective, discuss the identification of the problems by all means but squabbling over the term "Drunk" and "over the limit" does little to expand the knowledge base.
Discussing the How's and Why's and prevention of such issues are way more valuable than being judge and jury when not furnished with the full facts.
My own view as I have expressed before is that security was correct to raise the alarm - as per my earlier discussion why did not the crew do it. But as for the person involved - I hope if he has a problem he gets the help he needs as the problem will affect his life and health beyond his career and if he needs and gets help with the problem he can continue his career.
We have to remember this is not "a pilot" it is a person we are talking about and if he has a problem it has all just come to a head and he can go one of two ways (I will leave that to your imagination).
Sometimes the best thing for all concerned is to take a conservative approach and if there is an underlying problem that resulted in this incident then a removal from service whilst those problems are addressed.
Taking a harsh or sympathetic view to this incident cannot be performed by ourselves on here as we are not furnished with the full facts behind the cause - we can only be objective, discuss the identification of the problems by all means but squabbling over the term "Drunk" and "over the limit" does little to expand the knowledge base.
Discussing the How's and Why's and prevention of such issues are way more valuable than being judge and jury when not furnished with the full facts.
My own view as I have expressed before is that security was correct to raise the alarm - as per my earlier discussion why did not the crew do it. But as for the person involved - I hope if he has a problem he gets the help he needs as the problem will affect his life and health beyond his career and if he needs and gets help with the problem he can continue his career.
We have to remember this is not "a pilot" it is a person we are talking about and if he has a problem it has all just come to a head and he can go one of two ways (I will leave that to your imagination).