Please NB that these sentences / the hearing were conducted with the defendants being absent, presumably by their own choice (and likely on good advice!)

I presume (FL?) that in general, had they appeared and made some sort of defence, they might have expected less harsh results, albeit they would now be serving them?

I don't see anything specious in Rainboe's post.
The CSD/Purser was jailed for just over 7 weeks for going on duty with excess alcohol; the Captain tested negative but was jailed for 26 weeks for failing to prevent her (and apparently the FO) from doing so.
IMHO that is bizarre, and very unfair - despite the Captain's greater degree of responsibility as the person in charge of the entire aircraft.

Nor do I see anything inconsistent with views (apparently) expressed by Rainboe in previous posts. He didn't suggest pilots and cabin attendants should be punished equally. That would arguably have been inconsistent.

Assuming roughly similar levels, I think pilots going to work with excess alcohol should be regarded as more serious than CC doing so, and punishments should reflect that.
If a pilot makes a mistake the consequences could potentially be far more serious than CC doing so. The scope for pilots turning a problem into an emergency (or actually causing an emergency) if they fail to perform properly is surely far greater than that of CC - even they are the CSD/Purser/FSM/ or whatever title a particular airline uses for the senior person running the cabin.
(I believe this to be true, but I'm open to correction by pilots or CC if I'm wrong.)

NoD
As a general proposition, yes. It would obviously depend upon the lawyer and how open the court was to being persuaded by argument.
The two pilots convicted in the UK both went to prison for 6 months. If that's the sort of sentence a pilot is to receive, and if it is more serious for a pilot to be over the limit, then 45 days for the Purser isn't out of line.

I haven't yet managed to find out what offence the Captain was said to have committed so I'm as much in the dark as everyone else at the moment. I suppose something like 'Endangering an aircraft' is a possibility, but that seems rather 'sledge-hammer and nut' on the facts.
One of the Jetblast moderators lives in Norway. I'll PM her to find out if she's read any Norwegian press reports which mention the actual offence.

What kind of a world are we moving towards.

I retired from line flying afew years ago, and although I am still fit and a licence holder, there is no way I would go back to line flying no matter what the pay.

6 on 3 off rosters, buy your own type rating and go on your hands and knees to some HR girl for a job.

I am training newbies now and I can not understand for the life of me why anyone would want to work for an airline.

The new drink laws mean that what little social life there was is now forbidden. For the whole summer and winter season any crew member that goes to the bar is crazy and now if any Captain hears that any of his crew has been he has got to ground the aircraft and breath test the lot.

If all that rant and rave here about the responsibility turned their attention to the NHS we would not have an operational hospital in the country and what about trains, buses, nuclear power stations, chemical plants, oil refineries to name a few. All those staff have as much responsibilty as any airline pilot. Does it matter the number of people you kill.

There has not been one accident that I am aware of where booze was a contributory factor.

If all you politically correct people out there carry on like this you will not have an aviation industry. Where are you going to get your pilots?

Air fares are going to rocket, because if a pilot is going to live like a hermit he is going to want a pretty large salary. I for one would not like my 'driver' to be a person that doesnt drink (ever) doesnt smoke and cant have a laugh. Would he pass the pysch test?

RIP the likes of Dan Air, Laker, Air Europe, Ansett, Pan Am and all the other good employers.

Off for a drink.
 

Crikey, reading this lot has upset me, amd i'm on duty in 5 hours. So just time for a few beverages mates, to steady the nerves and chill the soul.

Nobody can operate under this sort of pressure without recourse to a drink, before and after work at the very least.

I always keep a bottle handy in my flight bag, cos the thirst can strike pretty damn rapidly. And I'm not alone.

Guess this is off to the papers, courtesy of the criminally incompetent journos. well good luck to you, you hypocritical boozy crooks.

From a passenger's point of view, it seems to me that the sentences are appropriate.

The Captain is just that The Captain , not The Pilot and he is the person in overall charge of the aircraft, crew and passengers. IMHO, he ignored at least some of his responsibilities, although it is possible he was unaware of the CSD's level of intoxication. But was he proposing not to leave the flight deck for so much as loo break during the flight, knowing that the First Officer might not be 100%?

Equally, CSD's are responsible for rather more than pushing a trolley! Like everything that happens the other side of the locked cockpit door! Not least getting the passengers off in the unlikely event of a problem, dealing with sick passengers (heart attacks etc). Rare but they do happen.

CSD's are by definition not juniors and (again IMHO) this one really should have known better. I haven't been to Norway for a few years now and it's a great country but (ignoring the precise legal limits for a minute) they're not exactly famous for their tolerance towards booze when driving cars or flying aircraft.

As it happens, I come into contact with quite a lot of crew and their individual attitudes towards work, alcohol intake etc vary hugely. One of my best mates is a Purser and I have rarely met a more dedicated, conscientious or responsible! person.

Bit boring when they have two beers then head off to bed at 10pm cos they have an early pickup but contrast that with those out partying till 3am and I know who'd I rather have looking after my safety on a flight. Or that of my offspring flying unmin. Or my mum. It's not rocket science I'm afraid.

My two pence worth.


CS

flapsforty

Thanks for your help and very quick reponse.
PPRuNe is an amazing website. :ok:

Frustratingly, that report just like the others I've seen, repeats the court's criticism of the Captain but doesn't say what specific offence against Norwegian law he was found guilty of committing.

cargosales
"From a passenger's point of view ......."
I'm also only a passenger in this context. I disagree with you, but it's inevitable that opinions will vary.

Well how about the passengers. Dont they also have a duty of care not to be under the influence while onboard an aircraft.

Lets take this to its logical conclusion and ban booze completely from aviation. Lets have all the passengers breathalised before they board.

In this specific case it may be that the court had defintie evidence to suggest the the Capt knew his crew mwmbers were drunk. At least I certainly hope so. Because otherwise its just crazy.

Bear in mind that not all airlines even have their crew staying in the same hotel, so how can you reasonably be expected to know what your crew are up to? You might be on a different trip schedule, even between Captain and F/O, and only meet one another 20 minutes before pushback, with the law enforecment officer just a few footsteps behind you. How are you supposed to know if the other person is over a limit that requires a machine to test a very small number?

I'm so knackered on the early checkins I'm stumbling around like a brain dmaged gerbil, and its got nothing to do with booze.

This is just one more example of the kind of thing I'm happy to be leaving behind in 2 months time.

CPB

Thread Creep
 

Just going slightly off the topic.... with the tight rostering and long days most of us are working to, fatigue is likely to become more of a factor in the future than alcohol in terms of incidents.

Let us hope the EU Flight Time Limitation proposals don't become law. For those of you who are not aware, for the sake of "harmonisation", the EU plan is to allow even longer days, to ignore the effects of crossing time zones and night flying. It is not based on any physiological study (unlike current CAA regs), just someone's good idea!!

If this becomes a reality, then the skies will be full of fatigued pilots, who are by law legally allowed to fly (unless the declare themselves unfit). Of course, the airlines won't mind the EU plan, they will get more hours out of their pilots.

BALPA have been campaigning against the proposals, but it's all gone a bit quiet at the moment.

As a passenger, would you want to fly with sober but tired out pilots??
:uhoh:

Yes, rather than fly with wide-awake pi$$ed ones!

Fatigue can also be measured in "equivalent to an alcohol level of". I believe if up for 17 hours at 3 a.m. is equal to 50mg/100ml?

Saves a lot in allowances!

Seriously though, how many have flown knackered, or with knackered crew?

Perhaps if Captains started getting locked up for that then campaigns such as BALPA's Flying Fatigued would get more prominence and pilots worldwide would be far more empowered to put a stop to the issue the airlines and authorities don't seem that keen to tackle.

babybaby :{

Another well researched article, this time in today's Daily Mail from columnist Peter McKay:

Flying a bit too high...

You have to wonder how difficult it must be to handle modern jet airliners when British Airways pilot William McAuliffe,55, of Dublin, felt OK about flying an Airbus319 from Oslo to London while being six times over the alcohol limit.
Before going on duty his first officer David Ryan , was too drunk to speak and could only be woken at his hotel by having water thrown over his face. Yet both of them - together with their binge companion, stewardess Michele Giannandrea, 50, eight times over the limit - were prepared to take their chances.
Airbus jets are famous for their 'fly by wire' controls. Maybe they're even more automated than we're told.

The article by Peter McKay is blatantly libellous. I hope Captain McAuliffe sues the journalistic toad for evey penny he has!

oh, if McKay said that..............hang him high.

Capt. McAuliffe has been through more than enough already

Maybe someone should give the Editor a heads up ....

[email protected] :}

Unfortunately the offending item does not seem to be in the on-line addition so difficult unless you have the paper.

I can confirm that EPRman has the correctly shown the jots of Peter McKay as written in the Mail today.

Good point KN. Nope, definitely not. Or crew for that matter.

CS

Writing Journalistic Rubbish ...

You have to wonder how difficult it must be to write a newspaper article these days when Dreary Mail columnist Peter McKrap felt OK publishing more of his usual drivel.

Before writing the article, he realised what a sad existence his own life was and, unable to contribute anything constructive to society, realised there was easy money to be made by uninformed comment. Typically, a serious journalist would perform at least some research whereas there are no limits for a columnist - with zero research they can just take their chances and apologise later when they are wrong.

Gutter press columnists are famous for their automated responses. Given all one needs to do is react with superfluous observations to any news piece, maybe they are even more stupid than they appear.