Alcohol Testing of Flight Crew
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its interesting that it is seen as a right for govenrments to carry out drug testing of a crew at any time worldwide. However it is OK for pax who sit in overwing exits of B737 and A320 aircraft (and have a designated safety role) to not only be not liable for drug testing, but actually be supplied with alchol during flight.
I have asked (Australian) CASA for an answer on that one but nearly six months later, no answer.
I have asked (Australian) CASA for an answer on that one but nearly six months later, no answer.
and not knocking Aussies, but wasn't it some Aus. engineer that filled aircraft oxygen bottles with the wrong stuff - was he breathalysed before his error ? or after ?
Or the Pom who put the wrong sized bolts in the 1-11 windscreen, which then sucked the Captain out, never any suggestion that alcohol played apart, that I'm aware of, but did anybody check ?
Definitely not suggesting that alcohol consumption is A Good Thing, but almost everybody connected with aviation is licensed for the job that they do, and acts professionally.
Of course there are rotten apples in every barrel, but why only sample one type of barrel, as appears to be the case ?
Can anyone answer my previous quetion - just WHAT is the point of breathalysing a pilot AFTER an incident free flight ?
It can only be 'pour encourager les autres' - but for what reason ?
Or the Pom who put the wrong sized bolts in the 1-11 windscreen, which then sucked the Captain out, never any suggestion that alcohol played apart, that I'm aware of, but did anybody check ?
Definitely not suggesting that alcohol consumption is A Good Thing, but almost everybody connected with aviation is licensed for the job that they do, and acts professionally.
Of course there are rotten apples in every barrel, but why only sample one type of barrel, as appears to be the case ?
Can anyone answer my previous quetion - just WHAT is the point of breathalysing a pilot AFTER an incident free flight ?
It can only be 'pour encourager les autres' - but for what reason ?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Dart, l can`t do the reproducing text thing but your post 27th Feb 0456 is right on the mark.
A good few years ago l watched - to my frustration - a very junior employee use an inhouse breathalyser as a weapon.
Thumb nail sketch. 7 a.m. Fogged out farther north and oil workers starting to back up in the terminal. l went for a cup of nescaff at the back of the check-in desk for a natter, gold braid out of sight behind the advertising display. 3 staff on duty fending off questions concerning God`s intentions for the weather.
One gentleman did become loud - assertive but polite - and was dealt with by the junior.
l had to shuffle my seat aside as she pulled out the company breath test kit.
He failed.
lt turned out, after his job was gone, that he`d arrived about 2100 the previous night from 2 or 4 ( l can`t remember now) weeks off-shore to be told that his replacement hadn`t turned up and the oil company requested his presence on the first flight back.
A senior man.
He was given a room in town and £350 cash for expenses.
Any surprise at the outcome of that ?
He appeared absolutely fine and just needed to travel.
Rules and regulations are understandable, but being implemented by power crazed half wits is the real problem.
ln my opinion.
ps. having re-read this l feel l should explain that he was denied travel because of the breath test, as the captain of the flight l wasn`t consulted.
A good few years ago l watched - to my frustration - a very junior employee use an inhouse breathalyser as a weapon.
Thumb nail sketch. 7 a.m. Fogged out farther north and oil workers starting to back up in the terminal. l went for a cup of nescaff at the back of the check-in desk for a natter, gold braid out of sight behind the advertising display. 3 staff on duty fending off questions concerning God`s intentions for the weather.
One gentleman did become loud - assertive but polite - and was dealt with by the junior.
l had to shuffle my seat aside as she pulled out the company breath test kit.
He failed.
lt turned out, after his job was gone, that he`d arrived about 2100 the previous night from 2 or 4 ( l can`t remember now) weeks off-shore to be told that his replacement hadn`t turned up and the oil company requested his presence on the first flight back.
A senior man.
He was given a room in town and £350 cash for expenses.
Any surprise at the outcome of that ?
He appeared absolutely fine and just needed to travel.
Rules and regulations are understandable, but being implemented by power crazed half wits is the real problem.
ln my opinion.
ps. having re-read this l feel l should explain that he was denied travel because of the breath test, as the captain of the flight l wasn`t consulted.
Last edited by overun; 27th Feb 2011 at 23:53.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under the Australian CASA "DAMP" rules, everyone is testable except pax. It is common here for the testers to turn up at an airport and test everyone on site including engineers,cargo etc.
If you have an aviation business, then you can designate non aviation areas, so office staff for example are not covered.
So in theory a fair system. From the results that they are getting and anecdotal evidence, there is a small drug problem in aviation, particularly with the younger members. Older ones are still getting caught for alchohol but not so many.
Wunwing
If you have an aviation business, then you can designate non aviation areas, so office staff for example are not covered.
So in theory a fair system. From the results that they are getting and anecdotal evidence, there is a small drug problem in aviation, particularly with the younger members. Older ones are still getting caught for alchohol but not so many.
Wunwing
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen some very good post and few good anecdotes. I would like to take chance to comment some of them, as I feel, for benefits of the crew worldwide, there are still questions that need to be answered regarding testing.
It seems, after re-reading Chicago Convention, that rules of the country overflown (Sweden in my case) prevail. However these must be published if they defer from ICAO recommendation. I still don't know if ICAO considers alcohol levels/testing at all.
If company procedure is 8hrs "from bottle to throttle" how am I supposed to know other countries higher limits.
What rights do you have if quick test is positive.
How can you prove you didn't drink but you have eaten grapes or had too many tea.
If the rule is to test only the landing crew (in order not to induce stress), than they should not test foreign crew during turnaround.
If there is anybody who has any info from local CAA or their union I would very much appreciate if you could share them (reference to info is good as well).
It seems, after re-reading Chicago Convention, that rules of the country overflown (Sweden in my case) prevail. However these must be published if they defer from ICAO recommendation. I still don't know if ICAO considers alcohol levels/testing at all.
If company procedure is 8hrs "from bottle to throttle" how am I supposed to know other countries higher limits.
What rights do you have if quick test is positive.
How can you prove you didn't drink but you have eaten grapes or had too many tea.
If the rule is to test only the landing crew (in order not to induce stress), than they should not test foreign crew during turnaround.
If there is anybody who has any info from local CAA or their union I would very much appreciate if you could share them (reference to info is good as well).
Title? What title?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont usually post in this forum, so please excuse my presence
I just wanted to point out that I am currently working in the UK rail industry which has a very strict drugs and alcohol policy and which regularly puts all types of staff through random p1ss tests whether actually involved in trackside operations, those on rail construction sites and even those in offices who are not allowed anywhere near the operational railway. If you are in the industry, you just have to accept it !
I just wanted to point out that I am currently working in the UK rail industry which has a very strict drugs and alcohol policy and which regularly puts all types of staff through random p1ss tests whether actually involved in trackside operations, those on rail construction sites and even those in offices who are not allowed anywhere near the operational railway. If you are in the industry, you just have to accept it !
Join Date: May 2006
Location: LHR ( EGLL )
Age: 57
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reality check: let us consider what we hold dear, others perception and the fact that we all believe that in these changing times nobody would attend work subject to the influence of either alcohol or medication / recreational substances.
Companies have their own policies which we are all subject to without negotiation or right of recourse. We are not asked, we are told -YOU- are subject to the policy, comply or find a role elsewhere.
Now let us consider that alcohol consumption is widely accepted but while its use is prevalent and acceptable in our society, problems arise in the use of alcohol and the performance of safety-related activities, such as flying an aircraft, driving a train, operating a ship, driving a bus or large goods vehicle. Problems are made worse by a common belief that "accidents happen to other people. Not me." There is a tendency to forget that flying and other roles as previously mentioned may be highly demanding, cognitive and psychomotor tasks that take place in inhospitable environments where pilots / operators are exposed to various sources of stress.
Research undertaken within Europe has indicated that pilots have shown impairment in their ability to fly an ILS approach or to fly IFR, and even to perform routine VFR flight tasks while under the influence of alcohol, regardless of individual flying experience. The number of serious errors committed by pilots dramatically increases at or above concentrations of 0.04% blood alcohol. Some studies have shown decrements in pilot performance with blood alcohol concentrations as low as 0.025%.
Flying is a precise, demanding, and unforgiving endeavour. Any factor that impairs the pilot's ability to perform the required tasks during the operation of an aircraft is an invitation for disaster. The use of alcohol or medication is a significant additional self-imposed stress factor that should be eliminated from the cockpit. The ability to do so is strictly within the pilot's control.
The safety and security of air travel depends upon properly trained personnel, well-founded systems and procedures, and the application of a range of techniques to detect, identify, quantify and respond to both active and passive threats. Effective safety and security is built upon the integrity, reliability and performance of personnel performing essential duties.
Recent events have illustrated how much the performance of airport personnel and airline crew can directly affect aviation safety.
The prevalence of drugs in the wider community is a sad fact of life. Consequently, substance abuse is a genuine risk to safety and security, to public confidence in all forms of transport and the well-being of their industries.
It is important that airport and airline staff perform at their best. It makes sense for the operators to respond to concerns and have a robust drugs policy and to test personnel for substance abuse only to corroborate and substantiate the claim that crews are beyond reproach and are the responsible individuals that they assure their customers that they are.
Aviation has had many shocks in recent times and these have badly shaken the confidence of the travelling public and the commercial well-being of the industry. Even relatively small incidents are sufficient to perturb an already uneasy travelling public, with catastrophic commercial consequences to airlines and airports.
Recent incidents have demonstrated that, despite careful and intensive training, alcohol and drugs abuse does occur. In fact, studies have shown that substance abuse is more common than is generally believed. Substance abuse may occur within a small minority of the population, but the effects on the industry can be disproportionate.
Like an accident, most airlines and airports cannot afford even one such (usually well publicised) incident. Even when incidents occur elsewhere, all airlines will be faced with awkward questions about their own staff. It is sensible to be proactive in such circumstances and have appropriate procedures in place.
Many operators have embraced and enacted new legislation enabling drug testing of a wide group of airline and airport personnel. In addition Government legislation gives powers to the police to carry out drugs and alcohol testing of flight crew, cabin crew, maintenance engineers and Air Traffic Controllers, when given due cause with these powers applying whether the individual is on duty or on standby.
In 2007, an airline pilot turned up for work while almost six and a half times over the drink limit to fly a plane. The American pilot smelled strongly of alcohol and was unsteady on his feet when he turned up for duty at Manchester Airport.
A First Officer with American Airlines, he was to be one of three pilots on a 10.30am transatlantic flight to Chicago with 181 passengers on board. But when he went to go through a security gate for flight crew in his pilot’s uniform he could not find his identification security pass. Security staff could smell drink and called in police, who arrested him.
He was arrested and taken to Altrincham Police Station where a doctor took an evidential blood sample. This gave a result of 129 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. The legal limit for flying an aircraft is 20 micrograms.
I hasten to add that I do not know the personal circumstances of the pilot concerned but that the facts above are true as entered in evidence.
When I started in this industry we were subject of varying hours throttle to bottle (loosely enforced). Now we are subject to rigorous and proactive screening. I would surmise that this is a response to concern and whilst not being ecstatic about it, I for one accept it. Having done so I can now deal with genuine concerns for things I need to change and that I have a chance to change in my working life rather than attempting to hang onto old policies which are no longer balanced, practicable or acceptable in the 21st century.
Rant over, time for beer!
Jox
The "facts" of the AA pilot incident are not correct.
He did not report for duty.
See post #58 below.
Companies have their own policies which we are all subject to without negotiation or right of recourse. We are not asked, we are told -YOU- are subject to the policy, comply or find a role elsewhere.
Now let us consider that alcohol consumption is widely accepted but while its use is prevalent and acceptable in our society, problems arise in the use of alcohol and the performance of safety-related activities, such as flying an aircraft, driving a train, operating a ship, driving a bus or large goods vehicle. Problems are made worse by a common belief that "accidents happen to other people. Not me." There is a tendency to forget that flying and other roles as previously mentioned may be highly demanding, cognitive and psychomotor tasks that take place in inhospitable environments where pilots / operators are exposed to various sources of stress.
Research undertaken within Europe has indicated that pilots have shown impairment in their ability to fly an ILS approach or to fly IFR, and even to perform routine VFR flight tasks while under the influence of alcohol, regardless of individual flying experience. The number of serious errors committed by pilots dramatically increases at or above concentrations of 0.04% blood alcohol. Some studies have shown decrements in pilot performance with blood alcohol concentrations as low as 0.025%.
Flying is a precise, demanding, and unforgiving endeavour. Any factor that impairs the pilot's ability to perform the required tasks during the operation of an aircraft is an invitation for disaster. The use of alcohol or medication is a significant additional self-imposed stress factor that should be eliminated from the cockpit. The ability to do so is strictly within the pilot's control.
The safety and security of air travel depends upon properly trained personnel, well-founded systems and procedures, and the application of a range of techniques to detect, identify, quantify and respond to both active and passive threats. Effective safety and security is built upon the integrity, reliability and performance of personnel performing essential duties.
Recent events have illustrated how much the performance of airport personnel and airline crew can directly affect aviation safety.
The prevalence of drugs in the wider community is a sad fact of life. Consequently, substance abuse is a genuine risk to safety and security, to public confidence in all forms of transport and the well-being of their industries.
It is important that airport and airline staff perform at their best. It makes sense for the operators to respond to concerns and have a robust drugs policy and to test personnel for substance abuse only to corroborate and substantiate the claim that crews are beyond reproach and are the responsible individuals that they assure their customers that they are.
Aviation has had many shocks in recent times and these have badly shaken the confidence of the travelling public and the commercial well-being of the industry. Even relatively small incidents are sufficient to perturb an already uneasy travelling public, with catastrophic commercial consequences to airlines and airports.
Recent incidents have demonstrated that, despite careful and intensive training, alcohol and drugs abuse does occur. In fact, studies have shown that substance abuse is more common than is generally believed. Substance abuse may occur within a small minority of the population, but the effects on the industry can be disproportionate.
Like an accident, most airlines and airports cannot afford even one such (usually well publicised) incident. Even when incidents occur elsewhere, all airlines will be faced with awkward questions about their own staff. It is sensible to be proactive in such circumstances and have appropriate procedures in place.
Many operators have embraced and enacted new legislation enabling drug testing of a wide group of airline and airport personnel. In addition Government legislation gives powers to the police to carry out drugs and alcohol testing of flight crew, cabin crew, maintenance engineers and Air Traffic Controllers, when given due cause with these powers applying whether the individual is on duty or on standby.
In 2007, an airline pilot turned up for work while almost six and a half times over the drink limit to fly a plane. The American pilot smelled strongly of alcohol and was unsteady on his feet when he turned up for duty at Manchester Airport.
A First Officer with American Airlines, he was to be one of three pilots on a 10.30am transatlantic flight to Chicago with 181 passengers on board. But when he went to go through a security gate for flight crew in his pilot’s uniform he could not find his identification security pass. Security staff could smell drink and called in police, who arrested him.
He was arrested and taken to Altrincham Police Station where a doctor took an evidential blood sample. This gave a result of 129 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. The legal limit for flying an aircraft is 20 micrograms.
I hasten to add that I do not know the personal circumstances of the pilot concerned but that the facts above are true as entered in evidence.
When I started in this industry we were subject of varying hours throttle to bottle (loosely enforced). Now we are subject to rigorous and proactive screening. I would surmise that this is a response to concern and whilst not being ecstatic about it, I for one accept it. Having done so I can now deal with genuine concerns for things I need to change and that I have a chance to change in my working life rather than attempting to hang onto old policies which are no longer balanced, practicable or acceptable in the 21st century.
Rant over, time for beer!
Jox
The "facts" of the AA pilot incident are not correct.
He did not report for duty.
See post #58 below.
Last edited by Jox; 3rd Mar 2011 at 20:49.
Now we are subject to rigorous and proactive screening.
Each generation thinks that they had ' the best of times ' in their industry - I certainly agree with that !
Enjoy.
JOX,
How many more pilots are flying fatigued than flying with alcohol in their bloodstreams?
How many more accidents have fatigue as a factor than alcohol?
Waste of a rant when it is meaningless
How many more pilots are flying fatigued than flying with alcohol in their bloodstreams?
How many more accidents have fatigue as a factor than alcohol?
Waste of a rant when it is meaningless
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London England
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zut alors
Ah my leetle non Franch pilots, I am almost sorry for you. We 'ere at a fabulous euro Legacy carrier laugh at your silly trousers. We know what is culture and 'ave our beautiful 'ostesses, yes you know, ze ones on ze "u tube" bringing us a leetle bottle of chablis for ze cuise, just for artistic reasons of course. And you know why zay don't check us? Yes, zats right, because we are FRENCH! Ha Ha.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5° above the Equator, 75° left of Greenwich
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JOX,
How many more pilots are flying fatigued than flying with alcohol in their bloodstreams?
How many more accidents have fatigue as a factor than alcohol?
Waste of a rant when it is meaningless
How many more pilots are flying fatigued than flying with alcohol in their bloodstreams?
How many more accidents have fatigue as a factor than alcohol?
Waste of a rant when it is meaningless
Sure, there must be larger quantities of fatigue-related incidents than there are related to alcohol; yet somehow, operators and authorities both deem it as a threat (proved by the AA pilot).
You all should stop whining about all this; if you ain't guilty, why on earth are you so scared about blowing on that silly thing? You all know which things also give a positive for blood alcohol content despite not containing alcohol at all; then don't use them! If you do use them and give a positive BAC test, then ask for a blood test instead, that should clear all doubts.
As Jox stated above: There are regulations in this industry and you either stick to them or find another job. A BAC test is nothing to make a revolution out of. We should be more focused on improving the ability to detect (or prevent) fatigue; there's your revolution right there
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, is there any way to detect fatigue in such an expedite manner as it currently exists to detect BAC?
Such a test would directly test performance in a way that correlated highly with piloting tasks. A pilot who failed the test would be considered impaired and would suffer the consequences, and the cause of the impairment would be irrelevant. With a test such as this, drug testing could be discontinued.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to design such a test. In the meantime, given that the use of certain drugs reliably results in impairment, testing for the drugs is the next best thing.
A test for fatigue would essentially be a performance test, and since the latter is very difficult to design, the former does not currently exist.
The use of drugs is extremely widespread, and those who use drugs are typically very nervous about drug testing. Drugs are a pox on society.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: over the hill
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A performance test would accomplish that, and it could also replace testing for alcohol.
Such a test would directly test performance in a way that correlated highly with piloting tasks. A pilot who failed the test would be considered impaired and would suffer the consequences, and the cause of the impairment would be irrelevant.
Such a test would directly test performance in a way that correlated highly with piloting tasks. A pilot who failed the test would be considered impaired and would suffer the consequences, and the cause of the impairment would be irrelevant.
and is fatigued - will find his job on the line?We all know there are some pretty stupid rostering practices out there (but they might still be 'legal'). As fatigue can be insidious in its appearance, who will be held responsible if you fail the test?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the pilot who has been subject to poor rostering practices … will find his job on the line?
An isolated case of impairment due to fatigue would reflect poorly on the pilot. But fatigue due to abusive or improper scheduling practices on the part of the airline would produce a pattern of impairments that would unambiguously incriminate the airline. By requiring that impairments be reported to authorities and that pilots failing the test be immediately taken off duty (thus requiring replacements for each flight before which a pilot fails the test), the airlines would have an irresistible financial incentive to fix their scheduling policies in whatever way necessary to ensure that pilots are fully rested before each flight.
Right now, pilots are tempted to try to fly when they are too tired to do so, but if a performance test effectively stops tired pilots from flying whether they want to or not, fatigue becomes so costly so quickly that even the greediest airline would be forced to correct its problems, rather than lose millions on canceled and delayed flights. As it is today, airlines may abusively prevent pilots from getting the rest they need because they make more money that way—but if they start losing tens of thousands of dollars each time a pilot is too sleepy to fly safely, you can bet that their scheduling procedures would change overnight. Just follow the money.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jox
It's unfortunate that your reference to the American Airlines pilot (Manchester 2007) is misleading in that it contains a fundamental error and omits a very important part of the story.
the facts above are true as entered in evidence.
- The F/O was accused of reporting for duty. ie An allegation, not a fact.
He always denied doing so.
When the captain was called to the security gate the F/O reported that he was unfit. However, airport security called the police.
(The F/O had travelled alone to the airport. He remembered telling the taxi-driver who took him that he would not be flying because he was unfit to do so. The taxi-driver was traced and confirmed the conversation.)
- You omitted to mention that he was acquitted.
One possible test for fatigue would be to have the pilot relax in a very comfy recliner, while he is asked to carry out some very boring mental task for 10-20 minutes; if he's tired, he'll be asleep in no time,
Last edited by Basil; 8th Mar 2011 at 14:53.