FO removed from BA Flight

[ph-sbe]

Originally Posted by Council Van

Guilty until proven innocent then?

You have a class 1 medical, right? Does that mean you are guilty until proven innocent? No, of course not. Your class 1 medical comes with the fine print which says that in any change in your medical condition, your class 1 medical is no longer considered valid. Any type of new prescription medication, as well as change in your physical well-being other than a simple flu-like illness, invalidates your class 1 medical.

All of these rules governing your medical state are aimed at ensuring you are fit to fly, as are the rules that (attempt to) govern fatigue.

Any future requirement to use a breathalyzer prior to operating a commercial aircraft is most certainly aimed at confirming that you are fit to fly. You may feel you have the right to be considered "innocent" until proven "guilty", but the lives of the 500+ people you are about to take into your hands, trumps that right in my opinion.

And again, I want to stress out that this is only a matter or perception. Those with a negative outlook will look at such a mandate as "guilty until proven innocent". Those with a more realistic outlook will consider it a confirmation that you're fit to fly*.

At the same time, I personally feel that those who fail the breathalyzer should be protected from over-aggressive criminal action. A sliding scale of coaching and non-criminal discipline would encourage safety, as opposed to immediate criminal action and LOL.

* and yes, I realize that this does not exclude fatigue, illness etc.

[His dudeness]

Those with a negative outlook will look at such a mandate as "guilty until proven innocent". Those with a more realistic outlook will consider it a confirmation that you're fit to fly*.

Those that you prescribe as having a more realistic outlook simply have an issue with their rights and wrongs.

[His dudeness]

A bus driver can have about 80 people in his back, often schoolchildren. They are worth less ? A driver of a high hazard chemical tanker can wipe out as many people as a A380 pilot - who is not alone in his "driver cabin" whilst there a no 2 wheels and brake pedals in trucks/busses. WHERE do you draw the line ?

[PiggyBack]

Zero - tolerance

Originally Posted by Deadstick126

I would never have even one sip of alcohol in the 12 hours preceding a flight. Limits are ridiculous when it should be zero tolerance.

What does zero tolerance mean? Alcohol occurs in the body without any consumption so if the limit was set to zero no one would fly at all.

The current driving limit of 80 mg/l was set after research that showed that this was at this point that performance started to degrade significantly, interestingly performance increased slightly at lower levels. The exact level is of course arguable, different studies give slightly different results, when is a change significant etc but setting the limit to a quarter of this level is rightly very cautious. Setting it significantly lower would mean that pilots who had consumed no alchol within that last several days could exceed the limit which is surely not desireable.

What evidence is there that setting a limit lower than currently would improve safety?

[recceguy]

I don't know the story in details, but as far as I'm concerned, should the cops want to remove me handcuffed me from my cockpit, there will have to be a dozen of them. Which is not going to work in the confined space of a cockpit which I know in details.
It's not going to be great in front of the passengers either.
Why should I bother ? if they decide to handcuff me, my career is dead anyway !
I think at some moment we need to remember we have a nicer uniform than they have, and that our fellow society at work is cabin crew instead of street prostitutes.
Also we need to remember the extraction and the average extraction of those "officers" .
They have powers, but not the one to humiliate and take revenge from other uniformed people which they have always been jealous of.
Now I agree it all depends from which countries come both opponents... some nationalities are more obedient than others !

By the way, I don't drink during layovers, before flights, after flights, and in fact virtually never - and then some people here will say that I have a boring life. At least it saves me from embarrassment, which has not been the case of quite a lot of colleagues this year in my big company.

[roving]

This is a useful article. Apologies if it has already been posted. It addresses many of the issues raised here including some EU countries having to relax their zero tolerance laws to accommodate pilots from other EU countries with less strict requirements.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-alcohol-limit

[Contact Approach]

So was the guy drunk? or not?

[LookingForAJob]

The drink-flying limit was fixed in European law in the late 1980s, meaning that some countries that had previously had a zero limit, such as Germany, had to relax the rules to accommodate different drinking traditions.

Not strictly correct. If the limit introduced in the late 80s referred to was from a European regulation it is directly applicable to all EU members and no individual State is supposed to have more stringent rules........the level playing field and all that.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Contact Approach

So was the guy drunk? or not?

Yes, definitely one of those two.

Are you asking us to predict what a court will decide (if it gets that far) ?

[roving]

The principle of margin of appreciation permits EU member states to impose stricter requirements.

See this extract from

https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fi...20Part-CAT.pdf

[ImageGear]

So was the guy drunk? or not?

The real question is:- Was the operator of the aircraft actually impaired mentally or physically in such a way as to increase the potential for error, above normal, during a flight.

In this case, "Drunk or not" means having to define whether an offence was committed by resorting to Law because the real question cannot be answered. Whether the law is an ass or not is considered irrelevant.

To my knowledge, the person in question did not exhibit characteristics that answer the real question.

[Heathrow Harry]

and since the only real way to check if he was truly incapacitated or not was to let him crew an aircraft with paying passengers quite reasonably the law has substituted a breath/blood test.

Or I guess they could have taken his word for it.

[ImageGear]

Personally, I would prefer to see an outright ban on the consumption of any alcohol or medication except for very minor ailments, not less than 48 hours before flight.

Interestingly, perhaps thought should be given to introducing carefully designed, short simulator sessions that could reveal functional and mental shortcomings immediately before every flight. They need not be longer than 10 minutes or so, and if failed, require either a follow up blood test or a programme of retraining. I am aware that this could introduce some serious delay if actioned but the alternative of letting someone loose while incapacitated is unthinkable.

There would, as always, be a cost to be carried, but the airlines could well benefit from an increased level of passenger confidence.

[underfire]

Personally, I would prefer to see an outright ban on the consumption of any alcohol or medication except for very minor ailments, not less than 48 hours before flight.

That would shut down air travel.

[roybert]

Imagegear
If I was to pull myself off the job every time I'm put on medication the chances of me working would be limited. Most of the medication I'm prescribed comes with the warning May cause Dizziness. Never had it happen but based on your thoughts I wouldn't be working. And I can't see airlines or airports putting in a simulator to ensure pilots are fit to fly, the cost would be prohibitive

[His dudeness]

There would, as always, be a cost to be carried, but the airlines could well benefit from an increased level of passenger confidence.

So you suggest there is a significant number of people who would fly if they could thrust the airlines/pilots ?

[yellowtriumph]

" .... Personally, I would prefer to see an outright ban on the consumption of any alcohol or medication except for very minor ailments, not less than 48 hours before flight. ..."

Originally Posted by underfire

That would shut down air travel.

Perhaps he meant the passengers ...?

[Burpbot]

Originally Posted by yellowtriumph

" .... Personally, I would prefer to see an outright ban on the consumption of any alcohol or medication except for very minor ailments, not less than 48 hours before flight. ..."



Perhaps he meant the passengers ...?

A 48 hour drinking ban for pax would be a huge benefit to many crews working lives!

What I do not understand is why the whole industry is held to some may say a rediculiusly low limit! But engineers can perform at the much higher drink drive limit? Surely engineers perform often more complex tasks, often alone with no supervision or “back up” pair of eyes should they be three times more pissed than the crew? Just seems illogical to me!

[RAT 5]

" .... Personally, I would prefer to see an outright ban on the consumption of any alcohol or medication except for very minor ailments, not less than 48 hours before flight. ..."

So the crews that work 5/2 or 4/2............? A new parameter to be included in pilot recruitment. As well as all the wonderful team playing, management & decisions making qualities, under stress, you need to be T-total.

[pilotmike]

ImageGear

Seriously?

As passengers appear to be their own worst enemy in (thankfully rare) emergency evacuations, and they have caused numerous costly diversions due to 'air rage', being drunk, and general stupidity, many here might very well approve of exactly those same sanctions for passengers before being allowed to board, and a few more added for good measure.

An example regime for passengers to match yours for the pilots might read something like this:

- breathalysed to ensure zero alcohol, else refused boarding

- refused boarding if they're on any medication whatsoever

- refused boarding if they fail to sign a disclaimer allowing the airline to reclaim from them £1M if they even attempt to take their hand luggage in an emergency evac.

- an instant £10k fine for operating any electrical equipment when instructed not to.

- an instant £10k fine for not paying attention to the safety briefing

- no wheelchairs, no elderly, nobody requiring oxygen, no smokers etc. Maybe set an intelligence test and refuse anyone with an IQ below 90?

The list could go on and on. Or maybe a modicum of reasonableness is required that would even allow ImageGear to carry on being allowed to fly?

Just sayin'!