Suspected drink drivers again - surely not?-

[hunterboy]

Slight thread creep:
As someone that gave up the demon drink several years ago, I can vouch for the fact that there are quite a few tolerable low and non alcoholic beers available now.
In the US, I find an O’Douls normally goes down well with the mandatory chicken wings. Becks Blue and the Heineken 0,0 are available in many places too. I’d recommend giving one a try on a night stop, it just may save your job one day.

[groundbum]

the other benefit of zero alcohol beers is they have next to no calories. I had 3 months on them and found I still got slightly silly, like on a real beer, and a few times a sore head the next day! A lot of drinking beer must be in my mind!

G

[NEDude]

Originally Posted by bafanguy

OK...thank you for your input.

Sadly, I have to agree with him. The U.S. has all the hallmarks of a third world country these days.

[bafanguy]

Originally Posted by Manwell

...and well before our current obsession with links to authoritative references so we don't have to think for ourselves.

I'm not sure it's an "obsession" with links. Unless a person is a certified, acknowledged expert on a particular subject and can document that to an audience of strangers, an opinion is merely an opinion. For example, I can think anything I want about the physiology of alcohol metabolism but since I'm not a physiologist my opinion is just that: an opinion.

If one of us non-experts is going to support/discuss/debate a subject, the proper course is to seek out real experts and in the process learn something. I'd be reluctant to accuse people of not thinking merely because they supported an opinion on which they lacked personal experience or education. Just a thought...

"I am not young enough to know everything."

Oscar Wilde

[wiggy]

Originally Posted by Manwell

No Airbubba and others. I heard this back before computers existed and well before our current obsession with links to authoritative references so we don't have to think for ourselves. There is plenty of evidence in my post to make an informed decision, aka deduced reckoning.

Ah, no reference, so just the same old arguments you have deployed before, in another context, about logic and reasoning.

So in 1990 you were in Sydney Australia and heard a story. When challenged here on it's accuracy you can't or won't offer up references..

I'll offer up that In 1990 I was at BA on the fleet in question and yet heard nothing of this incident or experiment, and in fact in my many years on that Fleet and on other fleets at BA I still have not heard the story you describe..IMHO if this incident occurred as you describe it was not at BA.

In the absence of any references I'll leave it to others such as Airbubba to use their powers of deduction to make an informed decision

[Jesse Pinkman]

Originally Posted by Manwell

No Airbubba and others. I heard this back before computers existed and well before our current obsession with links to authoritative references so we don't have to think for ourselves. There is plenty of evidence in my post to make an informed decision, aka deduced reckoning.

And when you do think for yourself, you think it feasible that a pilot found drunk on the flight deck was taken to the simulator to be tested?

[Vendee]

Originally Posted by Navcant

In Japan, city bus drivers are required to pass a breathalyzer test before starting their shift.

Just saying.

In the UK, some coach companies have fitted a device to their vehicles which requires a "clean" breath sample to be given before the engine can be started. I was on a coach through a hot and heavily congested central London once. The engine overheated and cut out. The driver had to blow into a tube before restarting the engine. Not sure how that system would work with a flameout at FL120 though

[Auxtank]

Originally Posted by Manwell

No Airbubba and others. I heard this back before computers existed and well before our current obsession with links to authoritative references so we don't have to think for ourselves. There is plenty of evidence in my post to make an informed decision, aka deduced reckoning.

There is some information here about alcohol-impairment experiments on pilots here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2012569

carried out by;
Aerospace Human Factors Research Division and Human Research Facility, NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA 94035.

And if you look at the links to 'similar experiments' on the right of the page here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7980331
You'll find that in every one of the experiments alcohol impaired pilot performance.

Hope that helps.

[treadigraph]

Article in Flying by Richard Collins and Mac McClellan which might be of interest.

[threep]

Originally Posted by Airbubba

Can you provide a reference for this claim?

I can't help with the above. I do remember reading a piece of research (done in Scandinavia IIRC) which looked at stopping distances at various level of intoxication whilst driving (it was about 15-20 years ago and alas I never bookmarked the report). The slightly surprising finding of the research was that stopping distances were less with some alcohol in the blood rather than zero (can't remember the figures sorry). The authors suggested this was owing to drivers being less inhibited in stamping on the brakes, bringing in the ABS earlier resulting in shorter stopping distances by a small but measurable amount. It didn't mean they were better/safer drivers overall, it was a very specific test under controlled conditions.

At the time Sweden had a blood alcohol limit of 20mg alcohol/100ml of blood for driving (same as the 0.02 limit mentioned above?) and I think many pieces of research have show that at that there is no statistically significant increased accident risk up to 20 mg/100ml. The risks do start climbing about that level though. Compare that with most of Europe having drink driving limits of 50 mg/ml and the UK 80 mg/ml !
Each individual reacts differently to alcohol and an individual can react differently on different occasions. 20mg/100ml seems like a sensible limit to me and nobody should object if there was say regular random breath testing.

[GLAEDI]

In Scotland the two crew would have had a second test done most likely a blood sample at the station. There’s also a requirement in Scotland of corroboration (differs from rUK) so two pieces of evidence the initial breathalyser test and then the 2nd test will be presented to the Procurator Fiscal. It’ll be the PF’s decision to instruct Police Scotland to Charge the crew. There would be a hearing done at the Sheriff (a Judge not a Law Officer as in the US) Court where the PF will present the evidence and Sheriff will decide wether the case proceeds and if they accused will be bailed. Scots drink drive limit is also lower than the rUK at EU average of 50mg/l in specimen of breath.

[Nil by mouth]

Perhaps these drunk pilots are trying to emulate Captain William "Whip" Whitaker Sr.? (movie Flight)

[Joe_K]

Originally Posted by Manwell

he flew better pissed than sober

That's the definition of a functional alcoholic. Worse performance when sober due to alcohol withdrawal syndrome.

[VariablePitchP]

Originally Posted by EatMyShorts!

Just because of a few rotten eggs everybody else has to suffer.

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)

[Milarity]

Do you remember the Top Gear experiments using a driving simulator shown on the BBC? One group of drivers were plied with alcohol. The results showed a small initial improvement in driving skills that was put down to the relaxing effect of the alcohol. This was followed by a gradual diminishment in skill levels over time, with the number of errors increasing as the booze took effect. This was compared with a second set of drivers who did not drink, but were deprived of sleep. This group maintained their performance level until they reached a point where the the graph nose-dived off a cliff.

[Navcant]

Originally Posted by Webby737

It's another check that just adds more misery in trying to get to the aircraft, the security screening in some countries is already a right pain in the backside, the last thing we need are more checks.

As was just illustrated in Glasgow, you are wrong.
Checks are needed and something a little more precise than a gate agent getting a whiff of the pilot's breath.

[Airbanda]

Originally Posted by SeenItAll

Just a question, but exactly how accurate are breathalyzers? Is a reading of 0.02 significantly different from 0.01? I would guess that they have a certain amount of error, and only a blood test can give you a really accurate reading.

In the UK for drivers breath analysis is all that's required, the limit is 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100ml of breath. There used to be an option of blood test for marginal fails but that was abolished a few years ago. Not sure of position with blood test option for aviation functions where there is a lower limit but Police Station intoximeters are highly sophisticated, regularly calibrated and it's very rare for them to be proven wrong.

[ph-sbe]

Originally Posted by bafanguy

bubba,
Of course, we long ago abandoned the Fourth Amendment as it might relate to airline pilots.

The 4th protects you against unreasonable searches, and then only from the government.

If you choose to operate an aircraft carrying up to 500 lives and enough fuel to effectively demolish a skyscraper, then the general public might consider it reasonable (a reasonable search) that you submit to a check before the flight.

Remember that that check does not necessarily have to be criminal: I could see a compromise where your medical certificate is "revalidated" by taking a breathalizer test, blood pressure, fatigueness check, and glucose levels before every flight. And then taken by a nurse, not a law enforcement officer. Alcohol level too high? Your medical is simply suspended for medical reasons. Nobody needs to know why; it could be a sugar rush or temporarily high blood pressure. And in the meantime, the company diverts you to an alcohol course without you being arrested.

Win-win-win in my book. Air crew have a safety net, traveling public know the boys and girls up front are fit to fly, and airlines won't have the negative publicity.

[aerobelly]

Originally Posted by wiggy

Never heard of that incident and subsequent experiment so just like Airbubba I'd be very interested in a reference..or at least some idea of how long ago it is supposed to have happened....

Sometime between 1977 and 1983 Car & Driver magazine (USA) published an article in which its staff took their favourite tipple to a test of how drink affected their driving. Various tasks driving around cones were performed as they got progressively drunker. In fact to the point that some could not even stand up, but could still drive -- not well though. However for most a "quick sharpener" did indeed sharpen their ability, although past a certain point destruction of cones became ever greater.

A couple of years later they repeated it with marijuana, but not being a smoker I wasn't interested in the conclusions.

C&D do not seem to have an online archive, shame it was always a very entertaining read.


'a

[bafanguy]

Originally Posted by ph-sbe

The 4th protects you against unreasonable searches, and then only from the government.

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.

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.

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.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../drug_alcohol/