Sunwing pilot pulled off YYC flight due to intoxication

[Cazalet33]

low pay, entry level employment positions in the workforce.

And that's just the pilots.

The airport Securitate are even worse.

[Markdp]

Originally Posted by Markdp

Why is this only now becoming a big problem. It has been going on for many years. Maybe they need to change the rule of bottle to throttle to 18 hrs?

Pinkman

I don't think you understand the term bottle to throttle. It is a reference used in aviation for alcohol use prior to flying.(aviation Regulation). Simply put it means that if you are going to fly at 08:00 tomorrow morning, you will report for duty at 06:00(Normally 2 hours prior to departure, varies between operators) This means that you need to stop drinking 12 hours prior to reporting for duty I.E 18:00 today. This generally is OK for occasional and social drinkers, but not for heavy drinkers as a heavy drinker even if stopping 12 hours prior to reporting could still possibly smell of alcohol or even be over the legal limit at 06:00 the following morning.
In my experience over the years Aviation Crew are very professional and do follow these rules explicitly.(This Rule includes Cabin Crew)
However as mentioned above this rule does not cater for a heavy drinker hence my statement that bottle to throttle should be increased to 18 hours.

[WingNut60]

Originally Posted by Pinkman

........ You will never eliminate it except through 100% testing which is is simply not sustainable or desirable.

Sorry, but it is both achievable and sustainable. Many industries where it is already in place and working effectively.

........ simply not sustainable or desirable.

That depends somewhat on whether you are the subject of the checking or the passenger paying for his services.


In some cases blanket testing is perceived as being a more equitable system.
That is, it closes the gap between those at the pointy end and those sitting in offices who may conveniently perceive that their transgressions are more acceptable than those with a higher risk exposure.

[fox niner]

So you pass the sobriety test in the crew center, after which you proceed to your aircraft. Lots of bottles available there, unlike a nuclear power plant control room.
And therein lies the big difference. You can impose all these checks, which are already in place in other industries. But after that, booze availability is still guaranteed.

[WingNut60]

Originally Posted by fox niner

,,,,,,,,,, after that, booze availability is still guaranteed.

True, but effective screening in the crew room would eliminate the vast majority of these incidents. It also has the advantage of intercepting inebriation out of the eye of the passengers.

I suspect (hope) that incidents where FD crew imbibe airside or even on the aircraft are pretty rare.
And of course the only solution to this would be screening "on the aircraft".
Probably a bit over-the-top and unnecessary until shown otherwise.

[ShotOne]

Before we get into the knee jerk demands for crew room screening (did he even go there?) this is a sorry case but lets not overlook that this was stopped by peer intervention. There was never the remotest chance of the rest of the crew allowing him to get airborne

[noflynomore]

There was never the remotest chance of the rest of the crew allowing him to get airborne

Never the remotest? I wonder.

Remember the Virgin Express pilot at Madrid who had to be woken in the hotel 3 times before he made it onto his feet, followed the rest of the crew in another taxi who got the plane ready, shambled through the departure lounge looking so wrecked that it alarmed the pax? They taxiied, apparently so erratically that pax began calling emergency services to say they were in a jet with a drunk pilot and only when the f/o was sufficiently scared (!) he took control and returned to the gate. Capt did a runner and was found an hour or more later in the hotel bar, pissed as a fart with a drink in front of him.

Never discount the remotest!

[Pinkman]

Sorry, but it is both achievable and sustainable.

I didn't say it wasn't achievable. It is achievable in the same way that 100% security screening is achievable (but not 100% effective).

It is not desirable because it seriously erodes trust, drives the issue underground and provides no guarantee of effectiveness. Human beings are very inventive. Fox niner gave one example. There is also the problem of false positives which become significant at high sample / high compliance rates.

I am willing to be proved wrong but I honestly believe that cost effective - wise and workforce morale wise it is not sustainable. What will happen is that the "capture rate" will decline to a point where the bean counters will say "this program is costing us $xx millions per year and we are getting 1 transgressor every 2 - 3 years and half of those are false positives" and they will back off to random screening/risk based screening.

[Radgirl]

In all the recent cases someone has identified the pilot as needing to be tested. It has been obvious that something was wrong and subsequent testing has or has not shown a high blood alcohol level. In all cases the pilot has been prevented from flying. So it is unclear what the lack of workforce morale, the cost, the legislation, and numerous other issues involved in mandatory testing would improve.

I would rather see more training for flight crew, cabin crew and others to ensure that they do not drink inappropriately in the first place, and are more aware of the need to challenge each other.

I am less enthusiastic of 'training' security staff as I suspect it will cause more harm than good.

[Longtimer]

Sorry about that. the WestLease agreement is with Thompson Airways as stated in the link I provided.
McBruce, thanks for the update re the carrier who operated the flight.

[ShotOne]

"Training" security staff? Ha, that's hardly necessary in this context. At some locations, any time they feel they've been shown insufficient deference a "drunk pilot" report is generated almost automatically.

[Pinkman]

I would rather see more training for flight crew, cabin crew and others to ensure that they do not drink inappropriately in the first place

For pity's sake!

You clearly do not understand the compulsive nature of alcoholism. I was married to an alcoholic and tried desperately to get her sufficient counselling, behaviour modification therapy, you name it so she did not "drink inappropriately". It is an illness. It is not voluntary behaviour or a "nice to have". It is a "have to have".

[Longtimer]

""Training" security staff? Ha, that's hardly necessary in this context. At some locations, any time they feel they've been shown insufficient deference a "drunk pilot" report is generated almost automatically. "

And based on some of the stories on this forum, even by the Hotel Staff where they overnighted.

[DespairingTraveller]

My pet peeve: How does a captain 3 times over the limit even make it to his seat without intervention?

Because aviation blood alcohol limits are, understandably, low.

A 180lb man would reach the limits implicit in this report after about four or five drinks. There are plenty of people who can drink that quantity and not be visibly drunk to a casual observer.

[rigpiggy]

In Canada the impaired for operation of a motor vehicle is .08, however the CARs say you cannot be under the influence, so he could well be 24 times over the limit

[innuendo]

Rigpiggy,
Although .08 is a limit where things get sticky, in BC .05 can result in penalties.
Penalties starting at 0.05:

Quote: There's also a new warning range for impaired driving which drops the legal blood alcohol limit to .05, said de Jong. Drivers caught once with a blood alcohol level in the warning range — between 0.05 and 0.08 — will face an immediate, three-day driving ban and a $200 fine. Those caught twice in a five-year period face a seven-day ban and a $300 fine; and those caught three times over five years face a 30-day ban and a $400 fine.

[Markdp]

A 180lb man would reach the limits implicit in this report after about four or five d

It does not matter whether you way 180 lbs or 250 lbs. When you have a drink it is not measured in the amount of drink you have had. It is measured in the amount of alcohol in your blood stream.
Yes , the theory that some people can consume more than others before becoming apparently drunk does vary, of that there is no doubt. However all law agencies need to follow a certain criteria, hence the laws we have today.
Trying do justify your drinking habits by saying i way more than the person next to me does not exonerate you from the fact that you could effectively be under the influence according to law.

And secondly, how do you get passed your operations center where you must report before take off in that state of mind

[No Fly Zone]

No Flak From Here!
This may seem more common bit it is not; we simply HEAR more about it these days. IMO, ground the idiot and get him into treatment. If the Tx takes, monitor him for an entire year and then - Only Then - reconsider his license status, perhaps requiring him to fly as a supervised F/O for yet another year, before reinstating that fourth stripe.
And YES! Someone should have taken action long before this fellow made it to the flight deck. Better to test - and be wrong - than to not test and be even more wrong! Ninety nine SLC's plus crew?
You are correct that 100% pre-flight testing cannot be done. Random testing should increase - a lot.

[Pinkman]

ICAO

Absolutely concur.

Maybe the fact that this incident happened on the doorstep of ICAO (based in Montreal) will help them understand that this is an issue that needs their attention and to report on progress: 15 years has passed since the following resolution

2001

A33-12: Harmonization of drug and alcohol testing programmes

Whereas ICAO has for over 50 years effectively and efficiently fulfilled its functions in accordance with the Convention on International Civil Aviation;

Whereas the fundamental objectives of the Organization expressed in Article 44 of the Chicago Convention and the functions of the Council expressed in Articles 54 and 55 remain paramount;

Whereas appreciation is expressed to the Council and the Secretary General for the progress made regarding the elimination of substance abuse by personnel in safety related occupations in aviation;

Whereas there is still a need to achieve a consistent policy on the implementation by national authorities of regulations regarding the prevention and enforcement on the abuse of alcohol and drugs by personnel in safety related occupations in aviation;

Whereas the Organization is facing new and rapidly evolving challenges of a technological, economic, social and legal nature;

Whereas the response to these challenges affects the safety of international civil aviation; and

Whereas there is a need for ICAO to meet these challenges effectively;

The Assembly:
Directs the Council to review existing guidance for improvements aimed at helping States to develop consistent prevention and testing programmes.

Directs the Council to study the issues and to develop the necessary ICAO provisions to achieve consistency among the substance testing programmes of Contracting States and enforcement by Contracting States on the abuse of alcohol and drugs by certain safety-sensitive personnel.

Encourages Contracting States to foster consistency with respect to their prevention and testing programmes.

[ShotOne]

The report states that the first officer "found the captain slumped over the controls" which very much implies he'd bypassed the crew room and they hadn't met up to that point. It's hardly likely he saw him obviously drunk but waited until he was on board to raise the issue! The100% crew room screening some are demanding would be hugely intrusive and expensive. And crucially would have made no difference in this case. But if we really do feel it's necessary, why start with pilots? Medical profession would be first on the list, professional (or maybe all) drivers, nuclear plant personnel, armed police.....