Pilot arrested in EHAM.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operators and authorities are stuck between a rock and a hard place with respect to pilots who drink alcohol.
If an authority/operator sets zero tolerance—no detectable alcohol at all—some pilots who drink will object that it's possible to have some alcohol in one's blood and still be effectively unimpaired. That is inevitably true: There will always be some extremely low threshold of BAC below which no real impairment occurs. This can be used as an argument to undermine the zero-tolerance policy.
But if the authority/operator sets a specific BAC limit, pilots who drink will argue that it's arbitrary and that one can be above it and unimpaired, or below it and impaired. That's also true, and once again this is a wedge that can be used to undermine specific BAC limits.
And if the authority/operator simply specifies impairment as the criterion, then pilots who drink will argue that it's highly subjective and difficult to measure, which is correct.
In other words, no matter what aviation authorities and airlines do, it will never make drinking pilots happy. These pilots want to drink with impunity, with their own judgment being the only criterion for determining their fitness to fly (even though judgment is the first thing to go when you drink, and having a desire to drink will affect judgment even when sober). If there's a zero-tolerance policy, these pilots will try to ease towards whatever the lower limit of measurement is. If there's a specific BAC limit, they'll try to get as close as they can to the limit without going over it. If the only criterion is impairment, they'll apply a very liberal notion of impairment to their work that allows the drinking they wish to undertake. It's a losing situation no matter how one looks at it, because the ultimate goal is to be able to drink freely and yet still fly.
Some pilots who drink, of course, will go to great lengths to make sure they are completely clean when flying. Not drinking for 48-72 hours, or simply not drinking at all during times when one might have to fly, are examples of the personal policies that these pilots might adopt. They don't raise any concerns for safety.
Likewise, pilots who choose not to drink at all can rest easy. They'll never have trouble because of alcohol abuse.
But there does seem to be a minority of pilots who insist on pushing the envelope. The fact that they are prepared to risk their jobs and their entire careers just to be able to drink a bit more or a bit longer implies that they may have trouble dealing with their own use of alcohol, which in itself is a serious concern, both on the flight deck and in private life. It's the first step towards alcoholism.
Just make sure you're at zero when you fly. It's not hard to do at all. If you cannot resist drinking in a way that might put you above zero when you step onto the flight deck, think long and hard about your drinking habits … because you may have a problem.
If an authority/operator sets zero tolerance—no detectable alcohol at all—some pilots who drink will object that it's possible to have some alcohol in one's blood and still be effectively unimpaired. That is inevitably true: There will always be some extremely low threshold of BAC below which no real impairment occurs. This can be used as an argument to undermine the zero-tolerance policy.
But if the authority/operator sets a specific BAC limit, pilots who drink will argue that it's arbitrary and that one can be above it and unimpaired, or below it and impaired. That's also true, and once again this is a wedge that can be used to undermine specific BAC limits.
And if the authority/operator simply specifies impairment as the criterion, then pilots who drink will argue that it's highly subjective and difficult to measure, which is correct.
In other words, no matter what aviation authorities and airlines do, it will never make drinking pilots happy. These pilots want to drink with impunity, with their own judgment being the only criterion for determining their fitness to fly (even though judgment is the first thing to go when you drink, and having a desire to drink will affect judgment even when sober). If there's a zero-tolerance policy, these pilots will try to ease towards whatever the lower limit of measurement is. If there's a specific BAC limit, they'll try to get as close as they can to the limit without going over it. If the only criterion is impairment, they'll apply a very liberal notion of impairment to their work that allows the drinking they wish to undertake. It's a losing situation no matter how one looks at it, because the ultimate goal is to be able to drink freely and yet still fly.
Some pilots who drink, of course, will go to great lengths to make sure they are completely clean when flying. Not drinking for 48-72 hours, or simply not drinking at all during times when one might have to fly, are examples of the personal policies that these pilots might adopt. They don't raise any concerns for safety.
Likewise, pilots who choose not to drink at all can rest easy. They'll never have trouble because of alcohol abuse.
But there does seem to be a minority of pilots who insist on pushing the envelope. The fact that they are prepared to risk their jobs and their entire careers just to be able to drink a bit more or a bit longer implies that they may have trouble dealing with their own use of alcohol, which in itself is a serious concern, both on the flight deck and in private life. It's the first step towards alcoholism.
Just make sure you're at zero when you fly. It's not hard to do at all. If you cannot resist drinking in a way that might put you above zero when you step onto the flight deck, think long and hard about your drinking habits … because you may have a problem.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the word impaired, basically because it doesn't really mean anything. People can be impaired for many reasons. I'm sure we've all driven in cars behind either old folks or new drivers, who may well be impaired due to age or lack of ability. Would an experienced driver of middle age be more impaired with a pint or two compared to a new driver who has never driven down a certain city centre route? Surely the driver who has had a drink would be more impaired than had he not had a drink if we were to compare himself to himself, however, it's never that easy. I have flown with pilots who have been more detrimental to the operation just by being on the flight deck, let alone if they had had a pint or two. I suppose our operation was impaired.
In no way do I condone drinking prior to flying. It will always be wrong. You will indeed be impaired, compared to your own previous ability. However, an arbitrary alcohol reading will not be a simple judgement of impairment. Lack of sleep is a huge impairment. How do you compare a junior pilot with only a few hours of sleep compared to a senior Captain with two glasses of wine under his belt 8 hours before sign on? Food for thought. Or maybe not.
In no way do I condone drinking prior to flying. It will always be wrong. You will indeed be impaired, compared to your own previous ability. However, an arbitrary alcohol reading will not be a simple judgement of impairment. Lack of sleep is a huge impairment. How do you compare a junior pilot with only a few hours of sleep compared to a senior Captain with two glasses of wine under his belt 8 hours before sign on? Food for thought. Or maybe not.
Anthony,
It's not just pilots that drink that object to a zero tolerance policy. Alcohol is a natural by product of your body digesting sugar. Glucose is turned into ethyl alcohol and carbon dioxide. You do not have to drink alcohol to have a measurable amount of alcohol in your blood.
Years ago the HR Director at the company I worked for wanted to start a zero tolerance, one strike and you're out alcohol policy. My union position was somewhat related to that topic so I was at the meeting. I pointed out that US law did not allow holding one group of employees to a higher standard than the US DoT in the name of safety and the policy would have to apply to all employees. She was fine with that. I then explained the rationale behind the DoT .02/.04 and pointed out that anyone in the group that had eaten a couple of the glazed donuts on the table could have a measurable amount of alcohol in their blood and would be fired under this policy. We stayed with the DoT standards.
As you say, these are somewhat arbitrary numbers. Anyone with a blood alcohol content in the hundredths of a percent either just had a drink or had a really wild time a while ago. But calling for zero alcohol in the blood when we can measure to the thousandths and tens of thousandths of a percent flys in the face of reality.
It's not just pilots that drink that object to a zero tolerance policy. Alcohol is a natural by product of your body digesting sugar. Glucose is turned into ethyl alcohol and carbon dioxide. You do not have to drink alcohol to have a measurable amount of alcohol in your blood.
Years ago the HR Director at the company I worked for wanted to start a zero tolerance, one strike and you're out alcohol policy. My union position was somewhat related to that topic so I was at the meeting. I pointed out that US law did not allow holding one group of employees to a higher standard than the US DoT in the name of safety and the policy would have to apply to all employees. She was fine with that. I then explained the rationale behind the DoT .02/.04 and pointed out that anyone in the group that had eaten a couple of the glazed donuts on the table could have a measurable amount of alcohol in their blood and would be fired under this policy. We stayed with the DoT standards.
As you say, these are somewhat arbitrary numbers. Anyone with a blood alcohol content in the hundredths of a percent either just had a drink or had a really wild time a while ago. But calling for zero alcohol in the blood when we can measure to the thousandths and tens of thousandths of a percent flys in the face of reality.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not just pilots that drink that object to a zero tolerance policy. Alcohol is a natural by product of your body digesting sugar. Glucose is turned into ethyl alcohol and carbon dioxide. You do not have to drink alcohol to have a measurable amount of alcohol in your blood.
Urban legends have developed concerning endogenous ethanol and many DUI Web sites and others with an interest in propagating the myths have made it difficult to eradicate these legends. It sounds like you've fallen prey to them.
Here's the reality: The limit for performing safety-sensitive aviation activities in the U.S. is 0.02 grams of ethanol per deciliter of blood. The upper extreme of endogenous ethanol in the blood in healthy individuals is 0.00008 g/dl, roughly 250 times less than the limit. Normal blood tests will not show this endogenous ethanol. In fact, gas chromatography is usually required to detect it.
The only documented cases of significant EE levels have been in a very small number of primarily Japanese individuals who had a combination of (1) genetically impaired aldehyde dehydrogenase activity (about 50% of Japanese have this mutation, but it is rare in other ethnic groups), (2) a yeast infection in the gut, (3) a diet very high in carbohydrates (e.g., rice), and (4) anomalies in the GI tract produced by surgical resection of the gut (which may have been the source of the yeast infections) or abnormal gut pH. I daresay there are very few pilots who satisfy all these criteria.
If EE were truly a factor, then everyone would always test positive for alcohol to some degree. In fact, people who have not been drinking will test zero within the limits of measurement (with the tests typically used for this purpose—I presume that most employers and aviation authorities are not using gas chromatography).
So did you bring donuts to the meeting, have everyone eat a few, and test their blood ethanol levels before and after?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Subsealevel mudland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad Breath at EHAM
OK guys you want to know how the test is done at EHAM.
I was subjected to the test in the crew centre a few weeks ago. I entered the crew centre on Monday, July 19th at around 12:30 local time and did not notice anything special. Only after I reported for duty at one of the computer terminals on the left, a guy in police uniform approached me from behind a column. He identified himself as "Luchtvaartpolitie", let's say: aviation cop, and invited me politely to follow him to a small room.
There was one male flight attendant being examined so I had to wait a few seconds. After he was ready a clean mouth piece was fitted to the breathaliser and it was my turn. Reading 0.06 promille, no problem, exit while the next person entered. Not more than two minutes delay. The rest of the reporting process, like dumping my baggage, checking my mailbox etc., was uneventful.
Actually in was a non-event, much better than the procedure the Authorities applied a while ago where they entered the plane through the gate under the watchful eyes of the passengers and the crew had to do the test on the flightdeck with passengers staring through the windows. This was subtle, professional and, unfortunately, necessary.
Cheers
,
Squelch
I was subjected to the test in the crew centre a few weeks ago. I entered the crew centre on Monday, July 19th at around 12:30 local time and did not notice anything special. Only after I reported for duty at one of the computer terminals on the left, a guy in police uniform approached me from behind a column. He identified himself as "Luchtvaartpolitie", let's say: aviation cop, and invited me politely to follow him to a small room.
There was one male flight attendant being examined so I had to wait a few seconds. After he was ready a clean mouth piece was fitted to the breathaliser and it was my turn. Reading 0.06 promille, no problem, exit while the next person entered. Not more than two minutes delay. The rest of the reporting process, like dumping my baggage, checking my mailbox etc., was uneventful.
Actually in was a non-event, much better than the procedure the Authorities applied a while ago where they entered the plane through the gate under the watchful eyes of the passengers and the crew had to do the test on the flightdeck with passengers staring through the windows. This was subtle, professional and, unfortunately, necessary.
Cheers
,Squelch
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Subsealevel mudland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad Breath continued
Oh by the way,
I had two beers, Amstel 250 ml, and a small glass of Balvenie Doublewood 12 years on Sunday night with my son. Some 13 hours later that amounts to 0.06 promille. This gives me a rough indication of what is needed to reach 0.23 promille.
Again: Cheers
I had two beers, Amstel 250 ml, and a small glass of Balvenie Doublewood 12 years on Sunday night with my son. Some 13 hours later that amounts to 0.06 promille. This gives me a rough indication of what is needed to reach 0.23 promille.
Again: Cheers
I had two beers, Amstel 250 ml, and a small glass of Balvenie Doublewood 12 years on Sunday night with my son. Some 13 hours later that amounts to 0.06 promille. This gives me a rough indication of what is needed to reach 0.23 promille.
First of all:
I feel sorry for this guy. Nobody is perfect. At least I am not.
But now for a little bit of a general view of this case:
Normally for an adult you expect a decrease of very roughly 0,01% per hour.
A 500ml Beer should give you very very roughly somewhere around 0,03%.
So In order to have 0,023% left after a night you have to drink significantly more than a glass of beer or wine.
Unless you're taking medicine or very rare cases where peolpe do not shed alcohol well.
Still every human body reacts differently and you can never know if your body sheds it well or not. If not you might easily end up as this poor guy.
