BA pilot sacked for snorting coke from, err, well...and then trying to fly home.

[Speed_Trim_Fail]

Originally Posted by RichardJones

Because the tests are flawed, period. Too much theory these days. I've known, what I would refer to as a psychopath and some nasty pieces of work, slip through the net. Independent coaching is available to assist in getting through.
Keep it simple. One of the best ways to spot possible undesirable traits etc, is to get them into a "social environment. Take:m all down to the pub! 😊

I have no idea if it is still done, but this used to be an informal part of the AIB between days 1 and 2.

[Right20deg]

Originally Posted by Jhieminga

I don't have any personal experience here, but I do understand from recent news articles that class A drugs are becoming as 'normal' and 'accepted' in younger generations as alcohol was when I was a bit younger. Apparently it is a normal thing to do to order a few lines/pills/whatever you fancy to support a party, have a good weekend and basically shut your brain down for a couple of hours before taking on the next week of advancing your career. Another 'modern' thing is of course bragging/publishing/sharing everything you do on the internet. The method and platform regularly changes but the norm here is that it didn't happen unless you shout about it from the rooftops to everyone on your contact list and your boss's mum. I'm just wondering how much of those modern mindsets is conflicting with the old style mindsets that others in the industry still have (not judging either way), and the safety mindset that you should have if you're put in a responsible position at the pointy end.

There was a World in Action documentary made decades ago, showing the professional classes taking high quality drugs over the weekends. Winding down after a big week in our cities , people in the judiciary, bankers solicitors accountants and dealers.....you name it, they were doing it. The documentary showed how clever people were able to do just enough drugs to relax and then be back in harness in the business on monday with nobody the wiser. The documentary, I believe, was withheld as it was deemed to risky to show to the public by setting a bad example of the correct way to do things.

[jumpseater]

Originally Posted by thetimesreader84

Having his name dragged through the papers is, in my opinion, far too much. Every time he goes for a job & tries to get his life back together, even outside Aviation, his misdeeds are just a Google search away. He has my sympathy in that, sole, regard.

If the quoted CV is correct then with his technology background, he of all people will have known the potential of digital data to provide evidence in many forms. Once you press ‘send’ you have lost control of that data/information/images, there is no guarantee the recipient will keep that information secure. There are previous prosecutions for emergency services employees sharing images of incidents they were attending, or receiving them and sharing them further. So if you’re dozy enough to send personal compromising messages that can be captured, I can’t see why that might deserve sympathy, particularly bearing in mind his professional experience regarding web activity.

He has the legal option of course of a deed poll name change. I suspect that may be a good option for him, and maybe his immediate family too. I do have particular sympathy for them, as they will be subject to the Google search, school gate, and village gossip which they almost certainly don’t deserve.

[Chiefttp]

He wrote a description of himself and listed his accomplishments , hobbies and interests, Yet, he finishes it wi this statement

“For fun I have mountain bikes, cameras, computers, cricket kit, model aircraft, a squash racket, running shoes, a tent, hiking boots, lots and lots of books - and possibly most significantly a local pub”.

I’m not an expert on English culture, but prioritizing the primacy of a “ LOCAL PUB” on an pilot resume seems like an odd item to list, and in hindsight should have been a red flag to this guys character.

[Count of Monte Bisto]

Any of you who have been involved with folks who have committed offences and ended up in jail will know the catastrophic effect a few moment's madness can have on a person's life and that of their family. I have had the privilege/misfortune (depending on your perspective) to be involved with people with criminal backgrounds and to go to jail to see them. I can promise you it is a salutary experience - a moment of misjudgement can have lifelong and overwhelmingly tragic results. It has sure made me think long and hard about roadside altercations over traffic disagreements etc - in a moment of foolishness people hit each other and suddenly there is a whole new disastrous world unfolding before them. Court cases, job losses, income loss, divorce etc - the litany of unintended consequences is truly terrifying. Our boy here is about to find out first hand how an incredibly bad decision is going to effect his future life. Like all the folks in jail I alluded to, once the ball is rolling, no one is protected from having their name in the paper, reputational loss or the disdain of their peers - a whole new world of pain is about to appear and you have to just suck it up. Some people do that better than others.

Regarding Class A being the new alcohol - that is simply not the case. Every dire warning is out there for us all to know about what will happen if you indulge. Every absolutely dreadful outcome from this whole sorry tale was completely predictable and there is no professional pilot who can say they were not warned beforehand. On a personal level, I genuinely feel very sorry for this guy and the foolishness he has shown. He simply had no idea of how badly his life would unravel in very short order or he presumably would not have done it. Nonetheless, I also have to balance that against the requirement for his airline (in this case British Airways) to act quickly and decisively to preserve their reputation. As he will have discovered, when the trapdoor opens, it is very quick and absolutely final. A tragedy indeed.

As an aside, for those that equate Class A use to alcohol misuse, just have a look at this -

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk...harm%20caused.

Possession for personal use gets you up to 7 years. I would compare that to having a bottle of wine in your possession, which often gets you a pat on the back.

[Abrahn]

If your sample is drawn from the prison population then it's probably biased towards those who got a prison sentence. Which is an extreme end.

Class A possession is a gravity score 3 offence. Which would normally result in a charge but in exceptional circumstances for a first offender would be a caution. This, by the way, is one circumstance where you shouldn't go "no comment" in interview, you're only eligible for a caution if you confess.

Whilst drugs may not be the new alcohol use is high amongst both the young and middle aged, although not necessarily class A. If you work in what you consider a professional office, try asking your neighborhood policing team to come and do a drug swipe of the toilets - it may be illuminating.

In this particular case, I hope there has been no charge - if there has then we shouldn't be discussing it. Most people are entitled to privacy until charged. Somebody has leaked this story, and that person should be in trouble too.

[Count of Monte Bisto]

Abrahn - as I am sure you are aware, the breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) for a commercial pilot cannot exceed a level equivalent to 0.2 grams of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) per litre of blood. That is a quarter of the England/Wales drinking and driving limit. In those circumstances, if the said pilot was turning up to work under the influence (even to that very small level), the starting point here in the UK is 6 months in jail. If a pilot turns up to work under the influence of a Class A drug, do you really think this will be treated as a gravity score 3 offence? BA made the decision to get their previous employee out the country very quickly and get him back home, whereupon he appeared to fail a drugs test. From where I sit, he is extremely lucky not to be in jail and to only lose his job. The idea that 'everyone is doing this these days', which is kind of the line being taken by some here is just wrong at every level. Everyone is not doing it and those few that do cannot seriously say they had no idea of how it was going to pan out.

[Abrahn]

Originally Posted by Count of Monte Bisto

If a pilot turns up to work under the influence

I was mostly responding to rebut the rebuttal of the posts by Jhieminga and Right20deg, which were around the general prevalence of drugs in all echelons of society and the response of the criminal justice system. And to make the points that criminal offences should be tried by the criminal courts and not The Sun and that employers have a duty to respect the privacy of their employees.

[UV]

Has there been any information about his Licence?

I note that he has had his medical withdrawn but has the Authority taken any action to revoke his ATPL?

I would have thought this is the next step.

[Jhieminga]

Originally Posted by Count of Monte Bisto

The idea that 'everyone is doing this these days', which is kind of the line being taken by some here is just wrong at every level. Everyone is not doing it and those few that do cannot seriously say they had no idea of how it was going to pan out.

I'm not sure that that's what I was trying to say, but perhaps I'm misreading your post. I am vehemently against the use of narcotics in any way except when prescribed by a medical professional. I do think that our society is changing in its view on these things. When I grew up, drugs were used by junkies in derelict buildings. Now they're being used by adults who have a decent job at parties or at home with friends. It's certainly not everyone who's doing this, but the numbers are going up. More importantly, the perception of it is changing. I think there is a group of younger ones (that's: all younger than me) who accepts narcotics as part of the 'party scene' in the same way I saw beer and other alcoholic drinks when I was 18. The problem is that these young ones are in responsible jobs and have a duty of care. That's the bit that's baffling me.

As for the BA pilot, I reckon that narcotics misuse is a valid ground for pulling a medical. I don't think that pulling his licence is warranted yet. Even though he turned up with the intention of operating the flight, he did not end up on the flight deck (thanks to the crewmember) and as such, did not get into a situation where he put others at risk. This guy may have a serious problem (more than one) but he too deserves to defend himself, work on his problems and perhaps at some point in the future get his medical back if he has learned enough.

[Winemaker]

Originally Posted by Chiefttp

He wrote a description of himself and listed his accomplishments , hobbies and interests, Yet, he finishes it wi this statement

“For fun I have mountain bikes, cameras, computers, cricket kit, model aircraft, a squash racket, running shoes, a tent, hiking boots, lots and lots of books - and possibly most significantly a local pub”.

I’m not an expert on English culture, but prioritizing the primacy of a “ LOCAL PUB” on an pilot resume seems like an odd item to list, and in hindsight should have been a red flag to this guys character.

His description of himself reads like it was written by a twelve year old; if I were a hiring manager I'd probably toss his application just from that.

[pax britanica]

wine maker

I think you are being rather unreasonable with your comemnt---what actually wrong with his hobbies, not pc enough. Of course back in the day no one had hiring mangers because the process was largely handled by experienced professionals in the discipline and HR or Personnel as they would have been were there to talk about pay and rations and a bit of company culture and perhaps to avoid any nepotism.

Lookign at it his comments it shows he is keen on fitness ( some decades back he might have not got hired if he didnt list cricket or another team sport) , the outdoors, technology ,and wide range of reading . So what is wrong with that But i do agree the pub comment is odd and maybe thats this guys problem , hes 95% a straight arrow BUT.......

[Winemaker]

Originally Posted by pax britanica

wine maker

I think you are being rather unreasonable with your comemnt---what actually wrong with his hobbies, not pc enough. Of course back in the day no one had hiring mangers because the process was largely handled by experienced professionals in the discipline and HR or Personnel as they would have been were there to talk about pay and rations and a bit of company culture and perhaps to avoid any nepotism.

Lookign at it his comments it shows he is keen on fitness ( some decades back he might have not got hired if he didnt list cricket or another team sport) , the outdoors, technology ,and wide range of reading . So what is wrong with that But i do agree the pub comment is odd and maybe thats this guys problem , hes 95% a straight arrow BUT.......

You misunderstand. It's not the content, it's the juvenile presentation.

[John Marsh]

Originally Posted by Jhieminga

I'm not sure that that's what I was trying to say, but perhaps I'm misreading your post. I am vehemently against the use of narcotics in any way except when prescribed by a medical professional. I do think that our society is changing in its view on these things. When I grew up, drugs were used by junkies in derelict buildings. Now they're being used by adults who have a decent job at parties or at home with friends. It's certainly not everyone who's doing this, but the numbers are going up. More importantly, the perception of it is changing. I think there is a group of younger ones (that's: all younger than me) who accepts narcotics as part of the 'party scene' in the same way I saw beer and other alcoholic drinks when I was 18. The problem is that these young ones are in responsible jobs and have a duty of care. That's the bit that's baffling me.

As for the BA pilot, I reckon that narcotics misuse is a valid ground for pulling a medical. I don't think that pulling his licence is warranted yet. Even though he turned up with the intention of operating the flight, he did not end up on the flight deck (thanks to the crewmember) and as such, did not get into a situation where he put others at risk. This guy may have a serious problem (more than one) but he too deserves to defend himself, work on his problems and perhaps at some point in the future get his medical back if he has learned enough.

You seem to be suggesting a degree of leniency. I would be inclined to grant such if he had removed himself from the JNB-LHR leg.

[Jhieminga]

I don't know if I was suggesting leniency, but I see your point. If he had removed himself, if he had recognised his condition and had stepped up, we would have looked at him differently. Still, the intention to do something is not the same as actually doing it. I was not able to find a similar article or list based on UK regulations, but this article has a decent overview of what would get a FAA licence revoked: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...-pilot-revoked It includes 'virtually any flight operation involving the use of drugs or alcohol contrary to the limits specified by the regulations' but note that this states 'flight operation' instead of 'turning up for a flight'. We can argue that turning up at the crew room is already part of... but to be honest, I don't know exactly where and when he was approached and pointed towards an economy class seat in the back. Also, I don't know if that's relevant right now. He did not actually operate the flight while under the influence of, and because of that, I doubt whether the CAA has enough of a case to pull his licence.

At this point in time, pulling his medical has the same effect: it keeps him out of cockpits. Also, we don't know exactly what the circumstances are but we are playing judge and jury when we're saying 'pull his licence'. The article I linked to above, as well as a post earlier on (this one), talk about a second chance. I think we all agree that this guy has a problem, evidenced both by his partying attitude and perhaps also in some of his other actions, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's barred from flying for life. He still think he is allowed to get his day in court, his chance to learn from this, heal and re-evaluate what he wants to do. Time will tell if that involves flying.

[pax britanica]

W-m

Fair enough altho its presentation didnt look that odd to me in terms of what i haveseen from technology/engineering grads in my field . Perhaps t what you are alluding too is the slighty trivial and very basic presentation. Didnt show much maturity which is important for any flight deck group.

[glekichi]

Not to condone the actions at all, but was he actually under the influence of the drug? Story reads like he had plenty of time to sleep it off. The test on arrival back home would have shown recent use but not impairment AFAIK.
Lack of judgement, absolutely, on many counts.
Ilegal, yes.
Operating (or attempting to operate) under the influence though? I'm not really convinced on that one.

[Jhieminga]

Originally Posted by glekichi

Not to condone the actions at all, but was he actually under the influence of the drug? Story reads like he had plenty of time to sleep it off. The test on arrival back home would have shown recent use but not impairment.

There is no clear consensus on the boundaries between impairment and just having traces in your system. An overview of European traffic laws (see here: https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publica...riving/html_en) shows that some countries specify a limit over which impairment would be present, others simply state that the presence of the drug implies impairment. This note from the link above describes the issue:

In general, countries may either operate policies of “zero tolerance”, in which any trace of drug found is penalised no matter what the effect on the driver; or “impairment”, when drivers will be punished only if their driving skills were obviously affected. This is due to lack of scientific agreement up to now about what levels of concentration of the drug in the body may show impairment, and lack of suitable equipment for roadside testing. As science starts to converge on approximate levels of impairment, laws have started to specify blood-drug levels above which a driver will be considered guilty, but these may still fit the existing typology; a low threshold may be considered “zero tolerance” while a higher threshold may be considered 'impairment'.

I would need to look up the specifics but I suspect that within aviation the approach is still 'zero tolerance' on the drugs front. There is also an argument that just taking the risk of having drugs in your system when turning up for a flight shows a level of irresponsibility that is not acceptable. The effects of drugs, with its various options and use cases and on different persons is not understood well enough to be more specific, which leaves a grey area. Because of that, I would say that a zero tolerance approach is the way to go here.

[Count of Monte Bisto]

'Obviously affected' is almost impossible to define in a legal sense. Hence we have an acceptable blood alcohol level of 0.2 here in the UK. No is allowed the luxury of a debate on whether they were impaired or not - exceed that limit on report and you will get dual punishment of instant job loss followed shortly thereafter by a jail sentence. The approach to drugs is even stricter with a zero tolerance policy for any amount whatsoever. There is no discussion about levels of impairment as that is a defence lawyer's opportunity to argue black is white and run rings round an uneducated jury. Hence the rules in all airlines are even simpler than for alcohol - any participation of any kind gets you fired. What I am less certain of is at what point it turns into a court case and inevitable jail.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by glekichi

Not to condone the actions at all, but was he actually under the influence of the drug? Story reads like he had plenty of time to sleep it off. The test on arrival back home would have shown recent use but not impairment AFAIK.
Lack of judgement, absolutely, on many counts.
Ilegal, yes.
Operating (or attempting to operate) under the influence though? I'm not really convinced on that one.

Coke isn't like alcohol - you don't simply 'sleep it off'. In fact, it's a terrifically powerful stimulant to the point where 'sleep' is next to impossible. The 'high' is fairly short lived, but the stimulant effects mean that sleep in the next 12+ hours is very, very unlikely. I've heard of people going on coke benders that didn't sleep for multiple days.
So, best case, the pilot in question would have been heading out on a long-haul flight horribly fatigued.