Pilot caught smelling of alcohol at LHR
e28 driver
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people here seem to advocate a zero tolerance approach to this particular offence. I would be interested to know whether they would stand up to the scrutiny they would propose to put pilots under.
If you (and I mean the likes of jet_noseover, will fraser and fincaslte84) have ever allowed your car to go over some arbitarily set speed limit, should you be banned forever because you could have killed a child? If your answer is yes then by all means condemn any pilot who should be found to have breached an arbitarily set blood alcohol limit.
Perhaps some people would be wise to recognise that whilst they're not perfect, neither is anyone else. Very few things in life are black and white, and this should not be one of them.
Will Fraser; are you actually advocating capital punishment?! Now that would be a really good way to stop reoffending - why don't you write to your congressman...
If you (and I mean the likes of jet_noseover, will fraser and fincaslte84) have ever allowed your car to go over some arbitarily set speed limit, should you be banned forever because you could have killed a child? If your answer is yes then by all means condemn any pilot who should be found to have breached an arbitarily set blood alcohol limit.
Perhaps some people would be wise to recognise that whilst they're not perfect, neither is anyone else. Very few things in life are black and white, and this should not be one of them.
Will Fraser; are you actually advocating capital punishment?! Now that would be a really good way to stop reoffending - why don't you write to your congressman...
Last edited by TDK mk2; 21st May 2009 at 23:11.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JofM5
I find your post bizarre too.
Fully agree, guilty until proved innocent, so won't pass judgement, but the fact it is officially reported he failed the test would not seem favourable for him, concerning his guilt/innocence.
Now, I also agree that if he has a fundamental problem and cannot help himself, then he needs both help and sympathy, once he has paid the penalty for what he has done, assuming he has done it.
Ignorance is no excuse. If you get in your car and drive whilst over the limit, you will be prosecuted and deservedly so, even if you didn't know it was unlawful to drive over the limit set. If driving is a fundamental part of your job, and you loose your job as a result, tough; you knew the game.
An earlier poster suggested it was ok to drink and drive or drink and fly if it was his airplane and he wasn't carrying SLF. Get real everyone, whenever you get in your car or your airplane impaired through alcohol then you are a danger to everyone around you, whether it be in the air or on the ground. No excuse, and God forbid you kill or hurt anyone.
Time for help, and I agree with that, is when you have faced up to your responsibilities and paid your dues! Aviation is not a privileged club, exempt from responsibility.
This guy might yet be proved innocent. I hope, for his sake he is!
Fully agree, guilty until proved innocent, so won't pass judgement, but the fact it is officially reported he failed the test would not seem favourable for him, concerning his guilt/innocence.
Now, I also agree that if he has a fundamental problem and cannot help himself, then he needs both help and sympathy, once he has paid the penalty for what he has done, assuming he has done it.
Ignorance is no excuse. If you get in your car and drive whilst over the limit, you will be prosecuted and deservedly so, even if you didn't know it was unlawful to drive over the limit set. If driving is a fundamental part of your job, and you loose your job as a result, tough; you knew the game.
An earlier poster suggested it was ok to drink and drive or drink and fly if it was his airplane and he wasn't carrying SLF. Get real everyone, whenever you get in your car or your airplane impaired through alcohol then you are a danger to everyone around you, whether it be in the air or on the ground. No excuse, and God forbid you kill or hurt anyone.
Time for help, and I agree with that, is when you have faced up to your responsibilities and paid your dues! Aviation is not a privileged club, exempt from responsibility.
This guy might yet be proved innocent. I hope, for his sake he is!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: North America
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If only there was this much outrage over pilot fatique a much larger problem . Problem no simple test . Gets in the way of profits. All long haul pilots know the feeling of hanging in the straps. More coffee please
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TDK mk2 Rather flippant response. If you are serious I would explain it thus: "Fatal" in the sense of permanent loss of certificate. "Zero tolerance"? In this case, yes.
I would recommend all who are convicted appeal the conviction if so disposed. If convicted of impairment, and there are unknown circumstances "to overturn the conviction", be heard, by all means. There are thousands of jobs available to skilled pilots other than piloting, if alcohol is a problem. If it is a problem, seek help, I could help you find a way out. Don't make it the Public's problem or pilots at large, please.
I would recommend all who are convicted appeal the conviction if so disposed. If convicted of impairment, and there are unknown circumstances "to overturn the conviction", be heard, by all means. There are thousands of jobs available to skilled pilots other than piloting, if alcohol is a problem. If it is a problem, seek help, I could help you find a way out. Don't make it the Public's problem or pilots at large, please.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Age: 51
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cumulonimbus:
Now, I also agree that if he has a fundamental problem and cannot help himself, then he needs both help and sympathy, once he has paid the penalty for what he has done, assuming he has done it.
Ignorance is no excuse. If you get in your car and drive whilst over the limit, you will be prosecuted and deservedly so, even if you didn't know it was unlawful to drive over the limit set. If driving is a fundamental part of your job, and you loose your job as a result, tough; you knew the game.
An earlier poster suggested it was ok to drink and drive or drink and fly if it was his airplane and he wasn't carrying SLF. Get real everyone, whenever you get in your car or your airplane impaired through alcohol then you are a danger to everyone around you, whether it be in the air or on the ground. No excuse, and God forbid you kill or hurt anyone.
Now, I also agree that if he has a fundamental problem and cannot help himself, then he needs both help and sympathy, once he has paid the penalty for what he has done, assuming he has done it.
Ignorance is no excuse. If you get in your car and drive whilst over the limit, you will be prosecuted and deservedly so, even if you didn't know it was unlawful to drive over the limit set. If driving is a fundamental part of your job, and you loose your job as a result, tough; you knew the game.
An earlier poster suggested it was ok to drink and drive or drink and fly if it was his airplane and he wasn't carrying SLF. Get real everyone, whenever you get in your car or your airplane impaired through alcohol then you are a danger to everyone around you, whether it be in the air or on the ground. No excuse, and God forbid you kill or hurt anyone.
I think we all agree the guy should not have been allowed on the flight deck and the correct action was taken (even if some disagree by the wrong people i.e. airport security). But my post is about whether he should ever be allowed on the flight deck again.
Correct if you get caught drink driving and thats your job you lose your licence - but the ban is only for a specific period of time and often able to be reduced by undertaking an alcohol awareness course and also if you have an acohol problem upon production of a doctors letter saying they are happy with your rehabilitation.
My point is more towards the fact that aviation has its own stresses and couple with the time away from family and the things that go along with that then it would not be unreasonable to say that some may abuse the bottle too much as a way out. I am not saying this applies to all or it is excusable but it is a fact of life - it happens to many people in high stress roles - read John's post at the start of the thread.
The point of my post was that people are shooting a man whilst he is down and not even considering the position of why he may be there. Given we dont know these facts should we really be calling for him to be banned for life - could this not be just pouring more problem on a person with enough problems already ? Or should if the guy has problems we as humane humans help them out of the hole to rebuild their life ?
I am not saying that we should be all fluffy about this - I am saying we should not be executioner without the full facts. If the guy took unreasonable risks without thinking of the consequences (this is different from having a problem) then by all means throw the book - but what point is this thread if we are just going to say throw the book at everyone - what can the aviation industry learn from these examples from these comments other than someones judge/jury verdict ?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ea340
When will you guys stop associating an excess of alchohol with fatigue? Yes, both cause accidents, but some are self-inflicted.
The Dhc-8Q400 debate smacks very largely of fatigue and pilot ineptitude, but the fatigue there appears to have been self-inflicted, according to reports, so it was not down to a fatiguing roster. Rather the pilots lived so far away and were paid so little, they had no alternative but to turn up for work incapable?
Airlines that roster pilots to the point of fatigue, even if such rosters are "legal", have an argument to defend, but at the end of the day, the buck stops with the pilot. If you drink and go flying or you go flying when you are unfit, through illness or fatigue, then you are liable for whatever happens. Goes with the territory. If you don't like the consequences, then go get a desk job. The fact you dreamt of flying since you were 2 yrs old did not give you the right to do it!
The Dhc-8Q400 debate smacks very largely of fatigue and pilot ineptitude, but the fatigue there appears to have been self-inflicted, according to reports, so it was not down to a fatiguing roster. Rather the pilots lived so far away and were paid so little, they had no alternative but to turn up for work incapable?
Airlines that roster pilots to the point of fatigue, even if such rosters are "legal", have an argument to defend, but at the end of the day, the buck stops with the pilot. If you drink and go flying or you go flying when you are unfit, through illness or fatigue, then you are liable for whatever happens. Goes with the territory. If you don't like the consequences, then go get a desk job. The fact you dreamt of flying since you were 2 yrs old did not give you the right to do it!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A pilot's job carries great responsibility and intense pressure. There are many opportunities in life where one chance is all one gets. Risking the achievement and prestige of commercial piloting for the "right" to have a pint too close to flight time is inexcusably stupid. It speaks volumes about discretion, professionalism, respect and decorum that were prerequisites to the chair at some point. To me, this is not a subtle argument. It is such an avoidable problem. Use your head, decline a trip if the boss wants your services too close to your last drink.
I think most would by now know my position, I'll let it go for now. My bias is an alcohol free cockpit, What's yours?
Will
I think most would by now know my position, I'll let it go for now. My bias is an alcohol free cockpit, What's yours?
Will
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jofm5
I'm not sure that we disagree at all, following your last post, with one exception;
Pilots are not a special case and therefore deserving of special attention. Sure, it's a stressful job at times, but most of the stress comes on the ground and not in the air. To imply that pilots therefore should gain a special exemption due to the stresses of the job does not hold water. Pilots get paid for what they do, and with some notable exceptions, get paid well for that.
I am told that doctors have a high incidence of alcoholism, but is it acceptable therefore that I might be operated upon by one that is under the influence? I am sure you will agree that is unforgiveable.
Most pilots are level-headed, sober and responsible folk. If one of our peers falls over, then we should help, but not condone him continuing to act that way. It dosen't matter who 'shopped' him. His crew would have served him better if they had done so, rather than security!
Pilots are not a special case and therefore deserving of special attention. Sure, it's a stressful job at times, but most of the stress comes on the ground and not in the air. To imply that pilots therefore should gain a special exemption due to the stresses of the job does not hold water. Pilots get paid for what they do, and with some notable exceptions, get paid well for that.
I am told that doctors have a high incidence of alcoholism, but is it acceptable therefore that I might be operated upon by one that is under the influence? I am sure you will agree that is unforgiveable.
Most pilots are level-headed, sober and responsible folk. If one of our peers falls over, then we should help, but not condone him continuing to act that way. It dosen't matter who 'shopped' him. His crew would have served him better if they had done so, rather than security!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Age: 51
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cumulonimbus,
I agree pilots are not a special exception and concur with your doctors analogy.
I just think rather than people shooting off at how this guy should have his career terminated that more time is spent in the prevention of the situation in the first place.
I am SLF (hopefully soon a PPL) and hold great respect for you guys in what you do. But having read near enough all threads on here for the last year or so I observe the fatigue, security hassles, management hassles etc along with observing time away from home along with the stresses of flying in inclement weather - not to mention the mechanical issues experienced. All of these add to the stresses of the job - regardless of recompense.
All I have read on the various forums on here has made me wonder if the PPL is something I really want to do considering all the issues and stresses involved. But my input on this thread is driving at rather than assasinating this guy with little facts the discussion should more be around how to stop such a person ever getting on the flight deck in the first place regardless of whether it is self induced or not which was reflected in my initial posts on this thread. What more can everyone do to identify someone on that slippery slope etc.
My later posts have been to try to stop people kicking a man whilst he is down - why fellow pilots are having a go at someone they probably neither know or almost definately dont know the reasons behind what happened is beyond me. These fellow aviators know more than I do what the guy has gone through to get to the position he has and are more than willing to sacrifice that without thinking "There go I but for the grace of whichever god" or maybe not maybe it was stupidity but I doubt anyone with enough sense to get to that level will be that stupid (there will always be exceptions).
Going back to your doctors analogy - if the medical board accept the doctors rehabilitation should his expertise be wasted or used again ? I think the person on the operating table that requires a doctor will probably not care whether they are rehabillitated or not.
Prevention is better than cure....
I agree pilots are not a special exception and concur with your doctors analogy.
I just think rather than people shooting off at how this guy should have his career terminated that more time is spent in the prevention of the situation in the first place.
I am SLF (hopefully soon a PPL) and hold great respect for you guys in what you do. But having read near enough all threads on here for the last year or so I observe the fatigue, security hassles, management hassles etc along with observing time away from home along with the stresses of flying in inclement weather - not to mention the mechanical issues experienced. All of these add to the stresses of the job - regardless of recompense.
All I have read on the various forums on here has made me wonder if the PPL is something I really want to do considering all the issues and stresses involved. But my input on this thread is driving at rather than assasinating this guy with little facts the discussion should more be around how to stop such a person ever getting on the flight deck in the first place regardless of whether it is self induced or not which was reflected in my initial posts on this thread. What more can everyone do to identify someone on that slippery slope etc.
My later posts have been to try to stop people kicking a man whilst he is down - why fellow pilots are having a go at someone they probably neither know or almost definately dont know the reasons behind what happened is beyond me. These fellow aviators know more than I do what the guy has gone through to get to the position he has and are more than willing to sacrifice that without thinking "There go I but for the grace of whichever god" or maybe not maybe it was stupidity but I doubt anyone with enough sense to get to that level will be that stupid (there will always be exceptions).
Going back to your doctors analogy - if the medical board accept the doctors rehabilitation should his expertise be wasted or used again ? I think the person on the operating table that requires a doctor will probably not care whether they are rehabillitated or not.
Prevention is better than cure....
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cumulonimbus
There's a whole lotta people here who agree with you. I don't. I think innocent until proved guilty is best. And fairer, although fairness don't seem to be important to some here.
Will Frazer
So you think your acquaintance Lyle Prouse should have been barred from flying ever again for the rest of his life and not been given the chance to prove he was "a fine example of recovery."
Jofm5
Good post.
But with some of the guys here it's like
guilty until proved innocent.
Will Frazer
So you think your acquaintance Lyle Prouse should have been barred from flying ever again for the rest of his life and not been given the chance to prove he was "a fine example of recovery."
Jofm5
Good post.
But with some of the guys here it's like
Last edited by Bronx; 22nd May 2009 at 00:32.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jofm5: "Going back to your doctors analogy - if the medical board accept the doctors rehabilitation should his expertise be wasted or used again ? I think the person on the operating table that requires a doctor will probably not care whether they are rehabillitated or not."
Speaking only for myself of course, the only time I wouldn't is if I were heavily anesthetised.
Other than that, I'd be off that table and running as fast as I could push the i.v. bag stand thingy in front of me.
Will: eloquently argued, I agree 100%. It's about taking responsibility as a professional in a matter recognized by all (and codified) to have critical importance. To flout this and get caught in the act (hypothetically - no undue inferences made about the present subject) is to deserve what you get, in spades. From where exactly comes any "diminished responsibility" kind of an argument in a case like this? Fuggedabaudit. This isn't capital punishment btw guys, but it IS time to find another line of work.
Speaking only for myself of course, the only time I wouldn't is if I were heavily anesthetised.
Other than that, I'd be off that table and running as fast as I could push the i.v. bag stand thingy in front of me.
Will: eloquently argued, I agree 100%. It's about taking responsibility as a professional in a matter recognized by all (and codified) to have critical importance. To flout this and get caught in the act (hypothetically - no undue inferences made about the present subject) is to deserve what you get, in spades. From where exactly comes any "diminished responsibility" kind of an argument in a case like this? Fuggedabaudit. This isn't capital punishment btw guys, but it IS time to find another line of work.
Last edited by SDFlyer; 22nd May 2009 at 00:43.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Age: 51
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jofm5: "Going back to your doctors analogy - if the medical board accept the doctors rehabilitation should his expertise be wasted or used again ? I think the person on the operating table that requires a doctor will probably not care whether they are rehabillitated or not."
Speaking only for myself of course, the only time I wouldn't is if I were heavily anesthetised.
Other than that, I'd be off that table and running as fast as I could push the i.v. bag stand thingy in front of me.
Speaking only for myself of course, the only time I wouldn't is if I were heavily anesthetised.
Other than that, I'd be off that table and running as fast as I could push the i.v. bag stand thingy in front of me.
This is a good parallel with the aviation industry when SLF board a plane. We dont go up and check the credentials of the flight crew, we place our trust in the CAA/FAA to have done those checks for us. It makes little difference if someone is rehabilitated they have been checked and probably more closely than others - the crew around them are probably more aware to check also.
The opportunity on this thread is to discuss the identification prior to a crew member entering the flight deck in an inapporpriate state and how to manage the recovering crew member when they continue their duties. To imply you would not accept a procedure from a certified doctor after knowing they were rehabilitated is to imply you have no confidence in the staff around them - the same applys to the flight deck as they will have the same knowledge you will.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Age: 51
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bronx:
Jofm5
Good post.
But with some of the guys here it's like
Jofm5
Good post.
But with some of the guys here it's like
I dont think people stating their convictions on what punative measures should be dealt out is productive especially not knowing the full issue.
As SLF a discussion of punative measures for fellow crew turning a blind eye might as easily be discussed as well considering it was a Security guard that picked up on the problem. But it seems some just want to concentrate on the sole individual.
There are a number of issues to be discussed with the limited knowledge we know - such an unfortunate situation can be made into a positive learning experience to all in the industry.
e28 driver
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok, here's one for all you folk out there who think that pilots should only ever set foot in an aircraft in 'perfect' condition.
I'm sitting here with a screaming 10 week old in my arms. His mother is exhausted and unwell. His 22 month old brother has been awake twice in the last 2 hours. His 3 year old brother is covered in spots.
My standby starts at 4Z, do I:
1. call now and declare myself unfit,
2. wait and see if they call me and then tell them I'm unfit,
3. report if called and rely on caffeine and my collegue to get me through 4 sectors because sick leave (and unpaid dependancy leave as my manager will say this is) is part of the matrix my company say they will use for redundancy selection which they frequently refer to in various subtle and not so subtle ways. I've already had a week of unpaid dependancy leave this year in addition to two weeks unpaid paternity leave to support my partner.
So you guys out there in the 'perfect world' go ahead and tell me how fitness for duty is BLACK and WHITE. You just want to hang someone (literally in one case it seems) for failing a test to prove your blind theory of zero tolerance. I suppose you believe that staff security screening will save us from a terrorist attack as well - sorry, thread creap.
I'm sitting here with a screaming 10 week old in my arms. His mother is exhausted and unwell. His 22 month old brother has been awake twice in the last 2 hours. His 3 year old brother is covered in spots.
My standby starts at 4Z, do I:
1. call now and declare myself unfit,
2. wait and see if they call me and then tell them I'm unfit,
3. report if called and rely on caffeine and my collegue to get me through 4 sectors because sick leave (and unpaid dependancy leave as my manager will say this is) is part of the matrix my company say they will use for redundancy selection which they frequently refer to in various subtle and not so subtle ways. I've already had a week of unpaid dependancy leave this year in addition to two weeks unpaid paternity leave to support my partner.
So you guys out there in the 'perfect world' go ahead and tell me how fitness for duty is BLACK and WHITE. You just want to hang someone (literally in one case it seems) for failing a test to prove your blind theory of zero tolerance. I suppose you believe that staff security screening will save us from a terrorist attack as well - sorry, thread creap.