Suspected drink drivers again - surely not?-

[Herod]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2012569 This was a series of flights in a 727 simulator. I recall seeing film of this, or similar, but I can't find it on the net.

[Sailvi767]

Originally Posted by VariablePitchP

Only if you’ve been drinking will the extra 5 seconds at security bother you (in addition to the bag scans, swabs and metal detector scan you already do in order to be allowed to get to an aircraft, though no one seems to mind doing all that)

A proper breathalyzer that is going to end people’s careers needs a lot longer than 5 seconds. The machines need to be cleared between uses and a blank tested. If someone does show positive there needs to be a 30 minute wait and then a retest in case it was a false positive for several possible reasons.

[Wizofoz]

Something that always comes to my mind- AFAIK, there has been no instance of an intoxicated pilot causing death or injury flying an airliner, yet being caught over the limit (though BELOW the limit for driving) seems to carry an automatic, lengthy jail term.

We KNOW that MANY lives are lost each year to drunk drivers,yet it takes multiple offences before any DUI driver is jailed, and then often for short periods.

Showing up intoxicated to fly is obviously a heinously irresponsible act. I would expect anyone doing this to be sacked, face licence loss or lengthy suspension, and face large civil fines, but why is it an automatic jail sentence for something we have no evidence has ever actually hurt anyone?

[ph-sbe]

Originally Posted by bafanguy

The random testing in place now (and any future additions to that program) is government mandated, carrying implied consent to submit to testing as a condition of "...exercising the privileges of..." .Therefore, it is a Fourth Amendment issue; this isn't just some company-initiated policy. ALPA testified to that at the Senate hearing when the mandated testing was being ramped up.

Fair enough, I see your point: random testing is government mandated, therefore it's a 4th amendment issue. I see two issues with this. Number one: as I mentioned earlier, the 4th protects you from unreasonable searches only. Is it really unreasonable to be checked? Second, this particular case happened outside of the U.S., so the 4th is of no concern. Yes, there are similar protections, but in the EUSSR you are not as protected as you are in the U.S.

Originally Posted by bafanguy

The Senate committee laughed it off when ALPA tried to explain the HIMS program as an alternative to the heavy hand of government. You alluded to the HIMS concept with your statement: "And in the meantime, the company diverts you to an alcohol course without you being arrested." So I assume you support something that would obviate the use of government/law enforcement as a "solution" to a complex problem.

Absolutely, there is no need to include law enforcement. Like I said: let the matter of fit-to-fly be handled by medical personnel. Of course, there will probably be a government mandate for that, but that's the only government intrusion needed in this case. HIMS is indeed exactly what would work; except that it's an FAA only thing. We need an ICAO thing.

Originally Posted by bafanguy

I watched the hearing and spoke to the ALPA national aeromedical committee chairman after I saw the way he and the ALPA lawyer testifying with him were treated. It was infuriating political grandstanding by the senators pretending to save the serfs and peasants...and might be again. Stay tuned.

Remember that most of the elected representatives have no clue about what they are talking about. Afterall, a 25 year old bartender was able to get elected to congress.

[KRviator]

Originally Posted by Wizofoz

Something that always comes to my mind- AFAIK, there has been no instance of an intoxicated pilot causing death or injury flying an airliner, yet being caught over the limit (though BELOW the limit for driving) seems to carry an automatic, lengthy jail term.

We KNOW that MANY lives are lost each year to drunk drivers,yet it takes multiple offences before any DUI driver is jailed, and then often for short periods.

Showing up intoxicated to fly is obviously a heinously irresponsible act. I would expect anyone doing this to be sacked, face licence loss or lengthy suspension, and face large civil fines, but why is it an automatic jail sentence for something we have no evidence has ever actually hurt anyone?

The intent to crew the flight while over the limit (note, not the same as 'drunk', or even 'under the influence') is what counts, as well as the potential outcome if your BAC contributes to an accident. I can't recall any incidents where alcohol contributed, but we could all probably bring up a couple dozen where fatigue was a factor...HERE's an incident where parents were 'outraged' at the lenient treatment to a school bus driver who was most assuredly drunk (0.15) with kids on board when she nearly crashed, so the door does swing both ways, even if it is not completely equitable, the courts take a dim view of anything 'aviation' related overly and in some cases, IMHO, wrongly over-emphasising the safety-critical and responsibilities associated with the job.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Wizofoz

Something that always comes to my mind- AFAIK, there has been no instance of an intoxicated pilot causing death or injury flying an airliner, yet being caught over the limit (though BELOW the limit for driving) seems to carry an automatic, lengthy jail term.

We KNOW that MANY lives are lost each year to drunk drivers,yet it takes multiple offences before any DUI driver is jailed, and then often for short periods.

Showing up intoxicated to fly is obviously a heinously irresponsible act. I would expect anyone doing this to be sacked, face licence loss or lengthy suspension, and face large civil fines, but why is it an automatic jail sentence for something we have no evidence has ever actually hurt anyone?

Actually there was a 737 crash in (IIRC) Russia - I'm thinking roughly 20 years ago - where the autopsy found the PF to be drunk. Not impaired, drunk. It's been long enough I don't recall details (PPRuNe being what it is, I'm sure someone will be along to fill in) but there were no survivors.
There was a fatal turboprop crash in Colorado several years back where it was found both pilots were under the influence of cocaine.
I would not be at all surprised if there are others.
I don't know where you live, but in many parts of the United States, DUI is mandatory jail time (at least overnight).

To the original point, while a breathalyzer might be a good screen - as others have noted they are not terribly accurate - certainly not accurate enough for a presumption of guilt.

[Imagegear]

From the BBC

One of two United Airlines pilots arrested for allegedly failing a breath test ahead of a flight to the US has been released without charge.

The men, aged 45 and 61, were held at Glasgow Airport before boarding a flight to Newark, New Jersey, on Saturday.

Police Scotland confirmed the 45-year-old had been released after questioning.

The 61-year-old pilot is due to appear at Paisley Sheriff Court later.

The incident resulted in the United Airlines flight being cancelled.

Link below:

One Pilot released

IG

[cappt]

Three days in the pokey and no charges?

[triploss]

Originally Posted by ph-sbe

Fair enough, I see your point: random testing is government mandated, therefore it's a 4th amendment issue. I see two issues with this. Number one: as I mentioned earlier, the 4th protects you from unreasonable searches only. Is it really unreasonable to be checked? Second, this particular case happened outside of the U.S., so the 4th is of no concern. Yes, there are similar protections, but in the EUSSR you are not as protected as you are in the U.S..

You should look up the origins of the 4th amendment sir. Comes straight from the UK from what I can remember.

But if this is a 4th amendment issue, then so is the need to sit tests to get your driver's licence.

[bafanguy]

Originally Posted by ph-sbe

...therefore it's a 4th amendment issue. I see two issues with this. Number one: as I mentioned earlier, the 4th protects you from unreasonable searches only. Is it really unreasonable to be checked?

Apparently, the reasonableness question has been answered by Congress.

And yes, the election of the bartender is a very sad commentary on the state of affairs here.

[KRviator]

Originally Posted by bafanguy

Apparently, the reasonableness question has been answered by Congress.

And yes, the election of the bartender is a very sad commentary on the state of affairs here.

Personally, I think that's the least of the US' worries...

[srjumbo747]

Glasgow Airport police think they’re above everything. I was in uniform, a few years ago, waiting for a friend to pick me up (away from the paying area to save money) and they told me to move on. I politely told the ‘cuntstable’ that I was merely admiring the architecture and that he should move on
I also used to work there. If their own mother or father were a pilot they’d shop them for any indiscretion. They have attitude and hate all things piloty!
They also have ridiculous hats.
Heathrow Police are always nice! Seriously

[gtseraf]

Originally Posted by bafanguy

This kind of thing needs to stop before the Imperial Federal Kackistocracy steps in with their "solution". No one will like that because it'll be 99% about making themselves look like they're protecting the serfs and peasants from the evil airline pilots.

And you thought random drug and alcohol testing was as far as they could go...how about a breathalyzer every time you report for work ? Those hand-held gizmos are cheap...cheap enough to be located at every layover station in your system. Administered by some gate agent supervisor who already hates your guts.

Never underestimate what government will do in its own interest.

Sadly, this has already happened in Japan but it is even worse. Alcohol check with a breathalyser at sign on, a check at the end of the flight (just in case one felt the urge to have a nip inflight). If there is a stopover of more than 2 hours, then a post flight check at the end of the sector PLUS another check before starting the other sector. Add to that a ban on alcohol consumption a certain time period before sign on during layovers ( the time period is twice as long s the no-drink rule in force)

oh yes, also endless emails and training courses about alcohol consumption, education and checks. Welcome to the new era. Most of this protects the bureaucrat sitting behind the desk rather than the consumer.

It is enough to drive one to drink!

[gtseraf]

Originally Posted by RoyHudd

Review the level, make it 0.4, and make checks in the crew room mandatory. `There will be no more accidents due to "drunk" pilots, no more horrible media drivel, and pilots can relax and enjoy a beer 10 hours before report. Everyone's happy.

Strangely, there appear to be more accidents due to FATIGUED pilots than drunk pilots, yet I do not see the system falling over itself to address fatigue issues in the industry, I guess safety is a priority, as long as it does not cost too much.

[aterpster]

90% of the pilots I flew with had a few beers or a couple of hard drinks early in the layover.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by gtseraf

Strangely, there appear to be more accidents due to FATIGUED pilots than drunk pilots, yet I do not see the system falling over itself to address fatigue issues in the industry, I guess safety is a priority, as long as it does not cost too much.

Until someone comes up with a quick, easy, and reliable test that quantifies fatigue, little will change.
Figure out how to do that and you'll be rich

[anson harris]

Remember that most of the elected representatives have no clue about what they are talking about. Afterall, a 25 year old bartender was able to get elected to congress.

Isn't it ironic that she seems to have more wisdom and sense than almost anyone else in the demented world of US politics?

[cappt]

Originally Posted by Small cog

There is a way that a pilot can avoid operating while fatigued that doesn’t cost much. Have a read of your Company Ops manual. Does it tell you that a pilot must not fly if they believe they are suffering from fatigue? Of course, that requires a backbone on your part to comply with the regulation.

As for claims that no passengers have died from flying accidents and incidents caused by an intoxicated pilot; go do your research.

Aviation rules and regulations are about minimising risk. Flying while suffering the effects of alcohol are 100% preventable.

Simple in theory, it becomes more complex when the government agency overseeing fatigue rules (U.S. FAA) allows companies refuse pay and take disciplinary action against employees who call off fatigued.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by tdracer

Actually there was a 737 crash in (IIRC) Russia - I'm thinking roughly 20 years ago - where the autopsy found the PF to be drunk. Not impaired, drunk. It's been long enough I don't recall details (PPRuNe being what it is, I'm sure someone will be along to fill in) but there were no survivors.

I think it was this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_821
Wiki says "unspecified amount of alcohol in the captain's tissue" - I'm reasonably sure that the report I read quoted a number, and it was high enough to qualify as drunk driving in the US (at least 0.08%). However that report might have been considered confidential - the report was given to me by someone involved in the accident investigation - I was working something at the time that made it relevant so I had a legitimate 'need to know'.

[Auxtank]

It's an occupational hazard (too long hours, too much workload, too much having to be in command and at the end of it having to smile at the pax) to sometimes "forget" the hours we do between Bottle and Throttle and gradually they reduce and converge...

If this means you; start here:

https://himsprogram.com/Home/About

Some excellent resources and guidance and shared experience. You're not alone.