Pilot caught smelling of alcohol at LHR
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Never been an alcohol related accident in passenger transport"?
The following was posted in another alcohol related thread
Looking at 0.05% seems very low...but means that one in every 1000 flights a pilot might test positive.
Let me say, positive means above the legal limit...not impaired. Anyway if is called legal limit...it shall be respected? right? No? Why? Because 0.2% is too low?
The following are the legal limit for driving in Europe
0.0 per mg – Estonia, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary
0.2 per mg – Norway, Poland, Sweden
0.4 per mg - Lithuania
0.5 per mg - Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany (Germany is 0.3 if you’re in an accident), Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Serbia/Montenegro, Croatia, Latvia, Macedonia, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, Cyprus (North)
0.8 per mg – UK, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Switzerland
0.9 Cyprus (South)
Italy is considering to reduce to 0.2 per mg.
Let's get the millions of drivers which have a limit below 0.2 join your crusade...how many of them are fatigued when driving back home? Shall all those millions raise the same issue? Fatigue is much worse than drinking?
The two issue are separate ones, do not use the fatigue issue to justify the drinking one, you are just lowering the standards. We all do expect that a professional pilot acts and behave at the highest standards.
I do agree that fatigue is today a major issue on aviation, but shall not be mixed with the alcohol issues.
FSLF
At a recent Drug & Alcohol Management seminar I attended the following figures (as best I can recall them) were trotted out.
When the FAA commenced random testing their initial results were:
Of Tech Crew tested, 0.05% returned a positive result.
Of Cabin Crew tested, 0.5% (ten times as many as pilots) returned a positive result.
Of Security Staff tested, 34% (680 times as many as pilots and 68 times as many as cabin crew) returned a positive result.
When the FAA commenced random testing their initial results were:
Of Tech Crew tested, 0.05% returned a positive result.
Of Cabin Crew tested, 0.5% (ten times as many as pilots) returned a positive result.
Of Security Staff tested, 34% (680 times as many as pilots and 68 times as many as cabin crew) returned a positive result.
Let me say, positive means above the legal limit...not impaired. Anyway if is called legal limit...it shall be respected? right? No? Why? Because 0.2% is too low?
The following are the legal limit for driving in Europe
0.0 per mg – Estonia, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary
0.2 per mg – Norway, Poland, Sweden
0.4 per mg - Lithuania
0.5 per mg - Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany (Germany is 0.3 if you’re in an accident), Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Serbia/Montenegro, Croatia, Latvia, Macedonia, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, Cyprus (North)
0.8 per mg – UK, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Switzerland
0.9 Cyprus (South)
Italy is considering to reduce to 0.2 per mg.
Let's get the millions of drivers which have a limit below 0.2 join your crusade...how many of them are fatigued when driving back home? Shall all those millions raise the same issue? Fatigue is much worse than drinking?
The two issue are separate ones, do not use the fatigue issue to justify the drinking one, you are just lowering the standards. We all do expect that a professional pilot acts and behave at the highest standards.
I do agree that fatigue is today a major issue on aviation, but shall not be mixed with the alcohol issues.
FSLF
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A note on Roger's note. There are no perfect individuals here, Roger. It takes not even a casual acquaintance with discretion to never show up with alcohol in the blood. That isn't perfection, nor is it close. I continue to note the arguments in "defense" of drinking. This isn't about drinking, which is a legal pastime. Nor is it about hangin him high. You continue to purposely avoid the very simple premise (Law) that in interest of the common good, one's personal behaviour is subject to legislation. Those with authority issues or those who are uneasy with their alcohol use would do well to look inward, not attack an arguably harsh code that serves to protect the public from occasionally immature and irresponsible behaviour that has surfaced and probably will continue to.
I still have yet to read about why it is ok to have alcohol in the blood when commencing a flight. And if it is not okay, why it should be excused.
If one is too thick to avoid alcohol based mouthwash, or can't track his own body's metabolism of the offending chemical, you shouldn't be flying, period. Maybe the Breathalyzer is pants, ok, take the blood. Maybe you smell of it, ok, if accosted, give blood.
The public's right to sober and utterly alcohol free pilots isn't a perk, it is a right, and the Law.
I still have yet to read about why it is ok to have alcohol in the blood when commencing a flight. And if it is not okay, why it should be excused.
If one is too thick to avoid alcohol based mouthwash, or can't track his own body's metabolism of the offending chemical, you shouldn't be flying, period. Maybe the Breathalyzer is pants, ok, take the blood. Maybe you smell of it, ok, if accosted, give blood.
The public's right to sober and utterly alcohol free pilots isn't a perk, it is a right, and the Law.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: North America
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John R do you really believe alot of pilots on this forum have a drink problem.I have no problem taking a breath test before every flight some airlines do breath tests before every flight. What would be more interesting is an evaluation of mental alertness and reaction times you would catch all impairment issues. Problem is cost and time breath test so fast and easy and that false sense of security
John R
If you read this thread you will see that people that have commented on fatigue have done so in response to anothers comments, and fatigue is as serious a problem as Alcohol and it is a problem that manifests itself routinely. I made a comparison to drink driving when Will stated quite catagorically that if a pilot is found over the legal limit he believes his licence shoud be revoked for ever. My question is why? Why for ever? We give people who drink drive an opportunity to rebuild their lives so why not the pilot. There is no continuity. I have had a relative killed by a drink driver. The consequences of a drink driver being the cause of an accident are potentially as serious as the pilot who may drink and fly. So why the differing standards? Why can a judge not ban a pilot for a length of time? Why is it the CAA that must impose the ban. I am afraid I disagree that comparisons are ludicrous. Having read the entire thread again, I have not found one person that condones drinking and flying nor have I found anyone that considers being an alcoholic or heavy drinker is acceptable with their profession. What I have found is that there are many who once again want to hang someone before the full and correct details have been established.
edited to add
Will
If the guy is found guilty, then he should be punished hard and hopefully receive some sort of support. But he has NOT been found guilty at this moment in time.
e) this winds them up to the extent that they will drag everything from fatigue and ludicrous comparisons with drunk-drivers (nb: drink-driving is also illegal!) into the debate as a defence.
edited to add
Will
If the guy is found guilty, then he should be punished hard and hopefully receive some sort of support. But he has NOT been found guilty at this moment in time.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roger
It is my understanding that the licence is not revoked forever, a ban of 6 months is usually the punishment. The issue is that the pilot will loose is security clearance because of the criminal record...therefore the lengthy punishment. If an airport employee is found drink driving might loose is security clearance and therefore subject to the same punishment.
I am not very confident about the above and I seek the opinion of FL on this subject since I am not lawyer and are only my conclusions based on the information gathered in this forum
FSLF
So why the differing standards? Why can a judge not ban a pilot for a length of time? Why is it the CAA that must impose the ban
I am not very confident about the above and I seek the opinion of FL on this subject since I am not lawyer and are only my conclusions based on the information gathered in this forum
FSLF
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roger, from your previous writing I can only conclude that you are temporarily absent your skills.
Why is drink driving different than commercial transport? Gad.
A permanent loss of certificate (currently the effective standard) alerts others to conform to the restriction. Alcoholics will not conform to the Law, so this is a case of keeping the non alcoholics toed to the standard. Further, a revocation of ticket for even exceeding the minimum is a loud tocsin to those who can control their habits.
Massaging the standard on a case basis is misleading to those to whom the Law would speak. Re-acquiring the privilege at many levels tacitly permits a false sense of permission to those who would be borderline. If there is a problem in some way to prevent a personal bust of the admittedly low threshold, that individual is somehow less culpable? Justify a presence of alcohol in the blood if you care to, but for me it is permanently disqualifying to fly for hire upon doing so.
Why is drink driving different than commercial transport? Gad.
A permanent loss of certificate (currently the effective standard) alerts others to conform to the restriction. Alcoholics will not conform to the Law, so this is a case of keeping the non alcoholics toed to the standard. Further, a revocation of ticket for even exceeding the minimum is a loud tocsin to those who can control their habits.
Massaging the standard on a case basis is misleading to those to whom the Law would speak. Re-acquiring the privilege at many levels tacitly permits a false sense of permission to those who would be borderline. If there is a problem in some way to prevent a personal bust of the admittedly low threshold, that individual is somehow less culpable? Justify a presence of alcohol in the blood if you care to, but for me it is permanently disqualifying to fly for hire upon doing so.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jofm5: "If you have ever been into theatre the last thing on your mind is to ask if the surgeon operating is to ask if they are a recovering alcoholic. The main reason being is that you place trust in all the checks and controls that surround that situation, you rely on the medical authority to grant and check the license of the person(s) performing the procedure and you place your life in their hands."
The analogy here would be if an assistant in the OR noticed alcohol on the breath of the surgeon and insisted on an evaluation of his condition before the operation commenced. The doc was then found to be breathalyzer positive, and later found to have a high BAC (in the view of the regulators, see below). I would indeed insist on being operated on by another surgeon, probably at a later date after my heart rate went down a bit ..
, and I would report the matter to the relevant State Medical regulatory board and would await their findings with interest - let the blasted hospital do what it likes to the guy (not pretty, probably), I would want to hear what the medical regulators had to say.
This would be one surgeon in very serious trouble indeed, and one surgeon I would never allow near me with a knife in his hand ......
The analogy here would be if an assistant in the OR noticed alcohol on the breath of the surgeon and insisted on an evaluation of his condition before the operation commenced. The doc was then found to be breathalyzer positive, and later found to have a high BAC (in the view of the regulators, see below). I would indeed insist on being operated on by another surgeon, probably at a later date after my heart rate went down a bit ..
, and I would report the matter to the relevant State Medical regulatory board and would await their findings with interest - let the blasted hospital do what it likes to the guy (not pretty, probably), I would want to hear what the medical regulators had to say. This would be one surgeon in very serious trouble indeed, and one surgeon I would never allow near me with a knife in his hand ......
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roger Sofarover You are at this point being dishonest or oblivious to my posts. At NO time have I proposed imposing any punishment on an individual whose issue has not been adjudicated and then appealed, at his/her discretion, to the fullest. Don't direct your inflammatory comments in my direction in honor of your obvious neglect of the issue.
Will
Will
Guest
Posts: n/a
Roger Sofarover -
I appreciate that. My problem is when the fatigue argument is raised as a kind of twisted 'well-he-might-have-been-fatigued-too!' defence. They are not related issues.
I really do have a problem with the following comment:
You cannot really believe that to be true. A road traffic accident can certainly cause many fatalities, but please don't tell me that it is as serious as the potential loss of life if the captain of a passenger aircraft with 300 passengers has a hang-over while he struggles to handle an engine failure at V1.
Professionals carry responsibilities. So I find it somewhat bizarre that pilots are so keen to compare their job to driving a car when it comes to drinking!
If you read this thread you will see that people that have commented on fatigue have done so in response to anothers comments, and fatigue is as serious a problem as Alcohol and it is a problem that manifests itself routinely.
I really do have a problem with the following comment:
The consequences of a drink driver being the cause of an accident are potentially as serious as the pilot who may drink and fly.
Professionals carry responsibilities. So I find it somewhat bizarre that pilots are so keen to compare their job to driving a car when it comes to drinking!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 63
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the guy is found guilty, then he should be punished hard and hopefully receive some sort of support. But he has NOT been found guilty at this moment in time
Someone get caught for smelling alcohol and that raise questions from public,,strange!?
Instantly the defense mechanism get full power and talking about "proved guilty"why?
I have not hear anyone here sentence this guy/s as guilty!?, contrary it is the"defenders" that make him look guilty .
If this discussion just needs undoubted guiltiness i can link to pilots with actual jail sentences regards to this issue
There seems to be a few communication errors going on here.
FSLF
I did not say that a pilot loses his licence forever, I was saying that Will recommends they lose their licence forever.
Will
well starting with that line I think it is you that is temporarily absent from your skills
I don't believe it is different so why do you want the pilot banned for life? Do you think it acceptable that the drink driver gets a ban for 12 months?
Now this is where you start making it up again, and why I am glad you are not a judge. I will give £50 to a charity of your choice if you show me where I have justified that presence of alcohol in the blood is acceptable when flying. Over to you!
7 minutes later (45 mins after my post) without intervention from me you add
I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you been drinking Will? Go latch onto somebody else Will I am not interested in your comments and I have certainly not been inflammatory..yet although I can feel it coming. I have not condoned drink flying, I have not condoned drink driving.
for you to suggest that one must avoid swilling your mouth out with mouthwash before flying is frankly idiotic. It is the norm to swill mouthwash and spit it out Will, you are not meant to swallow it or use it as a mixer. Bacardi and listermint perhaps? and what a clever chap you are to be able to track the metabolism of chemicals through your body. I wish I could do that, clearly myself and tens of thousands of others shouldn't be flying, I have never had any lessons on tracking the metabolism of chemicals in my body.
No deflection Will and as you haven't displayed any debating skills then I tell you what, don't worry about my standard of articulation or reasoning, wait until the Bacardi and listermint wears off and come back to the forum (maybe thats a good drink for a pilot, at least your breath would be fresh in the morning
) then maybe you can set the standard and display some.
John R
The loss of my brother was far more serious than the Captain of an aircraft with a hangover struggling to handle an engine failure at V1. The FO would step in and save the 300 don't worry. One life or 300 whats more important? What a bloody stupid thing to say, for the person that loses a loved one then the one is important, to you the casual reader in the press you will deem the 300 more important.
FSLF
I did not say that a pilot loses his licence forever, I was saying that Will recommends they lose their licence forever.
Will
Roger, from your previous writing I can only conclude that you are temporarily absent your skills.
Why is drink driving different than commercial transport? Gad.
Justify a presence of alcohol in the blood if you care to, but for me it is permanently disqualifying to fly for hire upon doing so.
7 minutes later (45 mins after my post) without intervention from me you add
Roger Sofarover You are at this point being dishonest or oblivious to my posts. At NO time have I proposed imposing any punishment on an individual whose issue has not been adjudicated and then appealed, at his/her discretion, to the fullest. Don't direct your inflammatory comments in my direction in honor of your obvious neglect of the issue.
If one is too thick to avoid alcohol based mouthwash, or can't track his own body's metabolism of the offending chemical, you shouldn't be flying, period.
The breathalyzer? Due process? Fatigue? Your every attempt to deflect the debate from a simple discussion into areas that are wholly unrelated is not typical of your usual articulate and well reasoned posts.
) then maybe you can set the standard and display some.John R
You cannot really believe that to be true. A road traffic accident can certainly cause many fatalities, but please don't tell me that it is as serious as the potential loss of life if the captain of a passenger aircraft with 300 passengers has a hang-over while he struggles to handle an engine failure at V1.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John_R
Forgive me for asking but: How old are you?
The last time anyone said that to me I was at school.
How funny.
Yes, I did once defend a pilot who had been caught over the limit. The case was in December 2004.
He was the first pilot arrested at LHR under what was then the new law so I obtained his permission to post details of his case on PPRuNe in the hope that his experience might be a useful warning to others.
If you're interested, see post #32 in this thread: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/1...ml#post1639296
If I’d been engaged to prosecute him I would have done so.
I’ve also defended murderers, rapists and child abusers etc. I can only assume that, in your opinion, that makes those subjects rather close to me.
(I’ve also prosecuted them, more times than I can remember.)
Close to the subject?
I've learnt a reasonable amount about it. In December 2003 (a year before the Heathrow case) I drew attention to a very significant change in the law due to come into force in 2004, explained it in some detail, and warned pilots about how that change might affect them.
I was concerned that some pilots, who had flown entirely lawfully under the 'old' law, might be at risk of inadvertently committing the new offence, with dire consequences.
If you're interested, the thread is here: Alcohol and Flying: The New Law
If that’s how you choose to interpret my posts, feel free to feel nauseous. I certainly respect the profession. It has some bad apples, but so does the legal profession.
As you say, I am, and was, fully aware of the point you were trying to make. My response remains unchanged:
I am not prepared to express an opinion based upon the (reported) breathalyser result.
Nor (for the same reason) am I prepared to speculate about whether the safety of that flight would have been jeopardised.
And no, I don't have a drink problem. I'm not a heavy, nor even regular, drinker and never have been. I mention it just in case that was going to be your next attempt at a childish personal attack.
Will F
“utterly alcohol free pilots isn't a perk, it is a right, and the Law.”
A small point of information, just to avoid any misunderstanding in an area that’s proved to be ripe for misunderstandings whenever the topic comes up: That’s not the law in the UK, nor in many other jurisdictions. In the UK the limit is very close to zero, but not zero.
You give your location as Petaluma, which I assume is Petaluma, Sonoma County. FAR 91 used to prohibit an alcohol concentration of 0.04 (or more) grams of alcohol per decilitre of blood or per 210 litres of breath.
Please correct me if my memory is wrong or the FAR limit has changed.
.
Flying Lawyer, if you want a fight then you've got yourself one.
The last time anyone said that to me I was at school.
I know that you have defended a pilot in the past who had been caught over the limit, so I understand this subject is rather close
Yes, I did once defend a pilot who had been caught over the limit. The case was in December 2004.
He was the first pilot arrested at LHR under what was then the new law so I obtained his permission to post details of his case on PPRuNe in the hope that his experience might be a useful warning to others.
If you're interested, see post #32 in this thread: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/1...ml#post1639296
If I’d been engaged to prosecute him I would have done so.
I’ve also defended murderers, rapists and child abusers etc. I can only assume that, in your opinion, that makes those subjects rather close to me.
(I’ve also prosecuted them, more times than I can remember.)Close to the subject?
I've learnt a reasonable amount about it. In December 2003 (a year before the Heathrow case) I drew attention to a very significant change in the law due to come into force in 2004, explained it in some detail, and warned pilots about how that change might affect them.
I was concerned that some pilots, who had flown entirely lawfully under the 'old' law, might be at risk of inadvertently committing the new offence, with dire consequences.
If you're interested, the thread is here: Alcohol and Flying: The New Law
….. your nauseatingly sycophantic attitude towards the profession.
The point I was trying to make, as you are fully aware, is ………. etc
I am not prepared to express an opinion based upon the (reported) breathalyser result.
Nor (for the same reason) am I prepared to speculate about whether the safety of that flight would have been jeopardised.
And no, I don't have a drink problem. I'm not a heavy, nor even regular, drinker and never have been. I mention it just in case that was going to be your next attempt at a childish personal attack.
Will F
“utterly alcohol free pilots isn't a perk, it is a right, and the Law.”
A small point of information, just to avoid any misunderstanding in an area that’s proved to be ripe for misunderstandings whenever the topic comes up: That’s not the law in the UK, nor in many other jurisdictions. In the UK the limit is very close to zero, but not zero.
You give your location as Petaluma, which I assume is Petaluma, Sonoma County. FAR 91 used to prohibit an alcohol concentration of 0.04 (or more) grams of alcohol per decilitre of blood or per 210 litres of breath.
Please correct me if my memory is wrong or the FAR limit has changed.
.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I'm aware, five.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of the list below. It's based (apart from the first one) upon what I've read on PPRuNe, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't accurate.
Royal Brunei, LHR, 2004
Finnair, Manchester, 2004
Emirates, LHR, 2006
Thomson, Birmingham, 2009
United, LHR, 2009
BTW, just in case anyone misunderstands, the UK has had a law relating to alcohol in aviation for many years. (I can't remember how many.)
It used to provide that no member of an aircraft’s crew .......... shall be under the influence of drink or drugs to such an extent as to impair his/her capacity to so act.
That was effectively repeated (using different words) in the 2003 Act, which came into force in 2004, as the offence of Being Unfit for Duty
However, the Act also brought in a new and different offence:
Alcohol Exceeding the Prescribed Limit.
NB: There is an important difference between the two offences.
A pilot can be guilty of the 'new' second offence I've mentioned even if there is not a shred of evidence that the amount of alcohol impaired his ability to perform his aviation function. (There are well-established tests to determine if someone is impaired by alcohol.)
The UK has an equivalent distinction for drivers:
Driving ........... when under the influence of drink or drugs.
Driving ........... with alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit.
FL
I can't vouch for the accuracy of the list below. It's based (apart from the first one) upon what I've read on PPRuNe, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't accurate.
Royal Brunei, LHR, 2004
Finnair, Manchester, 2004
Emirates, LHR, 2006
Thomson, Birmingham, 2009
United, LHR, 2009
BTW, just in case anyone misunderstands, the UK has had a law relating to alcohol in aviation for many years. (I can't remember how many.)
It used to provide that no member of an aircraft’s crew .......... shall be under the influence of drink or drugs to such an extent as to impair his/her capacity to so act.
That was effectively repeated (using different words) in the 2003 Act, which came into force in 2004, as the offence of Being Unfit for Duty
However, the Act also brought in a new and different offence:
Alcohol Exceeding the Prescribed Limit.
NB: There is an important difference between the two offences.
A pilot can be guilty of the 'new' second offence I've mentioned even if there is not a shred of evidence that the amount of alcohol impaired his ability to perform his aviation function. (There are well-established tests to determine if someone is impaired by alcohol.)
The UK has an equivalent distinction for drivers:
Driving ........... when under the influence of drink or drugs.
Driving ........... with alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 22nd May 2009 at 21:56.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actions and consequences
There are rules and if you break them there are consequences. I am surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that the effect of alcohol can be magnified on board the aircraft. I am under correction, but I recall reading somewhere that one drink on the ground can add up to 3 in the air? I personally do not drink 24 hours prior to throttle
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central London
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course they do. The days of opening the the bar for the crew as the slf disembarked are long gone as are the room parties.
As I have said before the thing to remember is that your job is just a few clicks away from the internet and the world media.
The cosy cartels that existed in flying,politics and the law are a thing of the past.
Google and an open media mean you'll get found out
As I have said before the thing to remember is that your job is just a few clicks away from the internet and the world media.
The cosy cartels that existed in flying,politics and the law are a thing of the past.
Google and an open media mean you'll get found out
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ea340
The answer is in the link provided by FL
To whom does the Act apply?
Flight Crew, CC, ATC and LAMEs in the UK
and
to the crew of British registered aircraft anywhere in the world.
do these laws affect cabin crew?
To whom does the Act apply?
Flight Crew, CC, ATC and LAMEs in the UK
and
to the crew of British registered aircraft anywhere in the world.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.