Ah, I see CH4.

I was just answering the question in his posting.:cool:

O come on Cathar, is that what you really think Maxprop is really saying? Take a chill pill and go read again. Maybe you suffer from English not being you're native language and you cannot see the nuances involved. If that's the case beware about 'jumping in with both big feet' until you understand what is being conveyed.

If English is your language, then I recommend a course of comprehension. No offence intended, but such posts are a bit ridiculous, IMHO.

Caslance <laffin>, I think we would all agree. We'd all sooner be up the front driving in any case. No offence intended, you are very right in what you say.

No one here condones any pilot reporting for duty, knowingly breaking any rules of soberness or fitnes to fly. That is the bottom line in what most people are saying, even if they chose different ways of saying it. :O

Me too, alas! (sigh):sad:

Boozzin' it up
 

I'd like to mention the great propaganda films of WW II when British Spitfire and Hurricane pilots came home to their base and raised one or two or three, or maybe even four pints to the lost comrades who, on the way back, didn't land on those grassy airfields.

Those films gave me a sensation as a young boy that pilots were a special breed who could drink all night and fly out in the early dawn to tackle the Nazis. They were unstopable. In every film I saw, whether they were British or American, the pilots always gathered at a pub aftwerwards for a heavy night of indulgence and some were carried out by their chaps to fly again the next morning.

Was this Hollywood and/or Rank to give us the idea that these young pilots were indestructible. For one thing, I don't think that they had alcohol testing in those days. No matter how bad your hangover was the next morning, you flew. Somehow they managed to win the Battle of Britain and then some.

Another point I want to make is if a pilot has a cough and he takes a dose of syrup for that, do you realize that most of them have 40% alcohol. If he's alergic to something and takes Claritin or some other equal brand, he may not operate heavy machinery etc...

The WHO again says that a glass of red wine at night will help your from getting a heart attack. This is too far fetched, but would you rather have a pilot with a glass of wine in his system, than one who falls dead while piloting the plane.

In the UK, causing death by dangerous driving even whilst stone cold sober, or even unstoned, is a criminal offence carrying a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment.

As maximum tarrifs go, I think this a bit light, but that's the subject of another thread.

cur

can anybody quote me an airliner accident in the past 75 years that has been attributed to alcohol???? probably NONE!!!!

can you say the same for roads?? rail?? etc???

Buzz Boy

Here's one:

http://www.jacdec.de/JAL.htm

Quote:

3.01.1977 Douglas DC-8-62F JA8054 46148 Anchorage-Intl AP /AK USA 2 + 3 0

With a cargo of 57 live cattle, the DC-8 was on a flight from Anchorage to Tokyo-Haneda (JL 8054). Very soon after liftoff the aircraft enetered a stall lost height and crashed 300 m past the runway. There were no survivors.

It was determined that the pilot in command had a blood alcohol level of 0.298 % at the time.

He rotated the DC-8 beyond its maximum angle resulting in a loss of lift. A small amount of ice accumulated on the aircraft´s wings during taxy for departure making the aircraft vulnerable to a stall.

Neither any other crewmember or one of the ground dispatcher made an attempt to prevent the captain from flying.

...Unquote

Reading through this topic, I cannot help getting the idea that we have a bunch of grown-up men acting like adolescent boys, trying to find an excuse for using alcohol when they really shouldn't.
While I can understand somebody wanting scientifically proven, 100% sure method of being at absolutely zero level of alcohol at a certain time, I do not understand why you don't use moderation. As somebody here has said before, one unit of alcohol (i.e. one pint of beer, glass of wine etc) takes approximately two hours to burn off for a normal person. So, assuming you allow yourself a sleeping time of 8 hours, have a breakfast, travel to airport, and your body has more or less 10 hours to burn off alcohol. That is 5 units. Just have four, and you'll be safe. And, btw, your body doesn't wait until you are in bed to start burning off alcohol, its starts it right away, an extra safety margin - the drinking time.
Believe me, I used to have access to a breathalyzer and tested it, both on duty mornings (always achieved 0) and also sometimes off-duty mornings, after long and wet dinners. To have 0.09 per cent alcohol in your blood, say 7 o'clock in the morning, you'd really have to be p***ed the night before.
Yes, I can hear somebody saying that on short haul overnights, you're likely not to have the luxury of 8 hours rest in your hotel room. Fine, try having three pints, or maybe two. Or is it entirely impossible to have just one, or perhaps none? I know, difficult, but it can be done...
Also, people seem to think that body's normal metabolism can raise the alcohol level to above zero, especially with some diets.
Well, I know that if you eat Scandinavian dark sour bread and immediately blow into the brathalyzer, the needle will flicker, but after 5 minutes it won't. And have a teaspoon of your cough medicine, yes, again you may get a slight indication. But don't take your medicine just before reporting to duty. Take it first thing in the morning - or after airborne...
As for the effect of fatigue vs. alcohol, I agree, being fatigued can be as dangerous as having had a couple of drinks. But if you have a wet evening before a flight, you'll be fatigued before the start of the day. So I think we are talking about two different things here. Use of alcohol is something each one of us has a direct control on, fatigue, well, more a matter of rostering, management and FTLs.

Lots of good common sense stuff there Bames. Only 1 comment, a pint of beer is 2 standard drinks, not one. Potential for a bit of a problem there!

Cheers,

BM

Days off are going to have to be redefined. At the moment they are meant to be days when you can do what you like, relax away from work, etc. but when you finish late, have 2 days off, then start early, you cannot go out with friends for the evening and have any drinks at all.
I'm not saying that alcohol is a necessity just that the rules and rosters are getting to the point where airlines rule your entire life, and there is no "time off" in reality.
I do not condone anyone going out and getting plastered the night before an early report.

But if the CAA should say that 1/4 of the drink drive limit is the maximum for aircrew over here, then they should provide rules "for the avoidance of fatigue" that mean you never fly with a fatigue level that is equivalen to 1/4 of the drink drive level.
But it doesn't happen.

So to all those observers out there who are telling aircrew not to drink, could you instead start lobbying the CAA to provide rules on fatigue that protect the passengers too?

Thanks, Bad medicine, I stand corrected. Dunno what I was thinking, probably had a drink too much last night...
Airbus Girl: true, it is a shame that we can't do whatever we like on the last day off. But, like you said, this again is a matter of rostering etc...

With the current developements in salaries, sometimes I feel like going to the nearest bank and robbing it, but can't do that either...

CH4 if you had given me such a detailed view in the first place then i may have just a small chance to see your point :confused: :confused:

In the 1970s, folk were pretty unaware of the effect of the demon drink. For example, beer in the Officers' Mess at Scampton was 20p per pint and there were 5 in a Vulcan crew. To pop in to the scruffs' bar and have a 'crew round' (everyone bought their £1's worth) wasn't unusual - and then we drove home. Because we just didn't know any better, had no idea of how many beers it took to go over the 80 milliwhatsits - and in any case, Lincolnshire Plod didn't persecute HM's aviators particularly.....

But nowadays there's no real excuse. Even as SLF in business class, it's easy to go over the limit. "Aperitif, Sir" (the little gin miniature is actually 47% abv!), then the meal "Wine sir?" Probably a 187 ml bottle. "Would sir like a cognac with his coffee?" Yes sir would - and a 2 unit bottle of cognac is quaffed, or probably more if the cabin staff have poured it. So that's around 6-7 units in 2 hours, not including whatever has been guzzled in the business lounge.... How many then drive home with that little lot inside them? Would they be over the UK limit? I don't know; fortunately I don't have to drive anything after an outbound business flight and inbound it'll be tomato juice with Tabasco in the lounge and one glass of wine max with the meal.

'Zero-limit' is not the same as 'zero tolerance'. Set a limit, but then educate people as to how to stay below it - don't just pontificate about 'no safe limit' or 'they'll only drink up to the limit if you tell them how' or any other such sanctimonious tosh.

But I do recall my early days on the Vickers Funbus when "Shutdown checks complete" would be immediately followed by a tray of industrial strength gin and tonics with ice and lemon in 'borrowed' ba glasses on a 'borrowed' ba silver plated tray. I hasten to add that was only when weren't flying again or driving for a day or so!

The point is though bames , If you work for the Worlds Favourite, and register more than Zero point Zero , you will lose your job.

viaEGLL,

That's where you have to read a whole post to see what has been said before! Go back and look at what I said here earlier in this post and then you can Decide what someone is saying.

Airbusgirl sums up exactly what I was saying and in less words. Must be a clever girl! :O

Have just heard on the BBC news that both Captain and FO have resigned from BA.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this situation, if this information is true then I feel terribly sad for both individuals.

BA pilots resign over drink claims 01:59, Nov 20 2003

LONDON (Reuters) - Two British Airways pilots who were suspended last week over allegations they had been drinking before a flight have resigned, the airline says.

Captain William McAuliffe, 50, and first officer David Ryan, 26, were detained at Oslo airport last week shortly before going on duty to fly a passenger jet to London.

A BA spokeswoman said: "They (the two pilots) have resigned and their resignations have been accepted.

"The internal disciplinary investigation into the allegations made against a member of cabin crew is continuing."

The two pilots and a female purser were reported to Norwegian police by British Airways staff at Oslo Airport after they reported late for duty.

BA said the three crew members were alleged to have breached the airline's rules about alcohol consumption before duty.

They were about to fly to Heathrow. The service was cancelled and its 55 passengers eventually dispersed onto other services.

______________________________________________

BA's boozy pilots quit

By CHARLES RAE
and JAMIE PYATT

TWO boozy British Airways pilots who were arrested in their cockpit minutes before take-off resigned yesterday.


Captain William McAuliffe, 50, and First Officer David Ryan, 26, quit before BA could sack them.

Bosses have accepted the resignations “with immediate effect”. It means internal disciplinary action against the pair will not now take place.

Both were suspended after The Sun revealed last week they were arrested and breathalysed on an Airbus 320 due to fly to London from Oslo, Norway.

Cops had been called after ground crew staff said the cockpit “reeked of alcohol”. They both failed breath tests.

It later emerged Ryan drank so much he could not be woken by hotel staff.

A third crew member, purser Michele Giannandrea, 48, from Manchester, was also arrested.

She failed a breath test. Action against her is going ahead.

BA chiefs are still waiting for blood tests on all three to arrive from Norway. But the pilots were told by bosses their careers were effectively over.

Capt McAuliffe, of Dublin, earned around £75,000 and had been with BA for 13 years.

First Officer Ryan, of Keysoe, Beds, earned around £50,000 and was with BA for two years.

Neither will get any pay-off and it will be difficult for them to work for any other airline.

BA has a total ban on drinking eight hours before a flight.


http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003532650,00.html

BEagle !
<<20p per pint >>
It was 9p a pint at either Cotty or Wyton. Unsurprisingly, can't remember which - you could have had 10 pints each (almost a Friday nights worth :D )

p.s. No scruffs bar these days. Basil quite shocked when standing in mess bar a couple of years ago to note many growbags in evidence - world gone to the dogs! Baah! etc. :*

You are still presuming they are guilty.

I see they have now resigned.

Sad ending, but if you indulge in stupidity then what is the alternative.

There is no excuse for any pilot to drink when the rules and common sense dictate he should not.


If anybody thinks they can hold their drink and it does not affect their motor-skills, then try this on your days off !

http://www.hurtwood.demon.co.uk/Fun/copter.swf


Keep safe and well sober.

Cheers

TG

Airbus Girl says:

"I'm not saying that alcohol is a necessity just that the rules and rosters are getting to the point where airlines rule your entire life, and there is no "time off" in reality".




:sad: :confused: :} :mad: :rolleyes: :cool: ;) :O :( :8

....What is she on about?

Where now for them?

Good luck, is all I can say.......

<<....What is she on about?>>

Hmm, thought I could understand but I'll leave it to AG to elucidate.

BBc news today said they'd been arrested for being over their company limit!

I think not, they were allegedly over the national Norwegian limit of Naff All.

Guilty or not of this misdemeanor, it is wrong to call them 'boozy pilots'

I put it to all but the tee-total, and then some of them will have a natural level above zero, that any one of us could fall foul of a zero limit. It is a nonsense, and as Airbusgirl says, impinges more and more on what private life the airlines give us time to 'enjoy'.

Soon only be able to have a few beers during the first week of a two week leave period, but still have your tax assessed by a pie-eyed tax man or accountant and your vital parts diced by a surgeon one over the eight!

Funny old world :bored: :confused:

Hmm

So the Sun gave the F/O a pay rise and sacked him in the same fell swoop. ("after the Sun revealed....etc")

Wish I was a journo, It'd be payback time. Doncha love the Scum's deliberately provocative use of language?

I hope that the guys concerned go home, reflect soberly (no pun intended) on what they've done, and after a few months, return to aviation sadder and wiser men.

Or is some little Hitler now going to suggest they never fly again??

Sad ending
 

I don't remember the exact details but a few years ago, a BA pilot almost landed his 747 on the motorway near Heathrow and was immediately suspended pending company investigation. He was a Scottish lad. No great surprise to learn that he quietly disappeared and was found a few days later in the Black Isle with a hose pipe from his exhaust into his car.
I agree with the earlier comment that these two lads will most likely never work in the industry again so I pray to God that they don't go the same way.
What would you come home and say to your wife and family if it was you?

Dai rear, might I suggest that you do some research before posting your ill considered insinuations about the 747 incident.
Alcohol was not a factor.

Aztruck,

I don't think Dai Rear is insinuating alcohol in his post reference the 747 incident, merely referring to how he was treated/lynched afterwards.....with a tragic outcome.

stange that you should say that
 

I never insinuated anything – on the contrary I displayed consideration and graciousness.
I never said that alcohol was a factor.
I stated clearly that I could not remember exact details.
If I had ; it is a rumour site.

Dai Rear.

Putting my mod hat on I think you have only yourself to blame, and aztruck may have a point.

The title of thread refers to a crew testing positive for alcohol. Putting your comments about the unfortunate incident at LHR on the same thread infers that it was perhaps alcohol related. Which it certainly was not. Rumour has nothing to do with it. It was thoroughly investigated by the CAA and a positive conclusion made.

The outcome however, was very sad indeed.

See the point?

PPP

And still people seem to have their heads in the sand.

You don't resign if you are not guilty. You use the not-inconsiderable legal resources available to you through BALPA and you fight.

The fact that BA were clearly going to terminate them with no compensation, and that they didn't put up any fight at all, tells you all you need to know. They clearly accepted that they were guilty, and the subsequent events indicate that they accepted that they were guilty of a lot more than having trace amounts of alcohol in their bloodstream in a zero-tolerance country.

I feel sorry for them personally,, but frankly the industry is better off without people who have such poor professional judgement.

Level playing fields
 

PPRuNe Pop,
No, I don’t accept that. I have been totally up-front. For the second time, I haven’t insinuated anything. If PPRuNe Pop wishes to be consistent with your own argument, then you have to go through this entire web page, look at and scrutinise every individual entry from every member, and offer the same chastisement to every one who has deviated from the main thread of the heading. Good luck!
I see that PPRuNe Pop has 122 entries on this web page, many of which have nothing to do with the main category under which they were originally listed. Similarly, Aztruck has 101 entries and the same applies. Check for yourself. Sauce for the goose comes to mind.
I am surprised about educated professional people attacking other similar colleagues accusing them of saying something that they have gone to great lengths to clarify and state that they are not saying at all.
If you really find my remarks out of order, despite my clarifications, then you should click on the hyperlink at the bottom right “Report this to a moderator” and insist in the strongest possible terms that I either categorically withdraw my remarks, capitulate humbly, and offer a grovelling apology, or be struck off. If this is unsuccessful, then you could resign your own membership of this web page in a fit of pique and insist that all your supporters do the same.
To those who are really thick and/or are on a self-righteous pilgrimage, please permit me to be crystal clear. My sympathies are to the poor blokes – them and their families - who have made some sort of error of judgement and who have lost their livelihood and/or paid the highest price.
There but for the grace of God . . . .
I think that they deserve better. They won’t get it from BA.

Dai Rear,

I agree with you...a case of RTFQ, I think. I knew the 747 Captain involved. A tragic waste of a human life brought about by poor company procedures for dealing with people who get themselves in trouble for WHATEVER reason.

Interesting bit of insider stuff. I understand that resigning, the guys protect their pension and notice payments. Not much for the FO, but serious money for the Captain . I also heard from an inside source that , as Visual has already posted,after tendering their resignations, the Norwegian medical results came back showing a blood level result of ZERO !!!!!

The Norwegians have requested that the pilots return for further tests. I assume they've been told where to go.

0

Zero


Zero Alcohol in blood test.


Yes that's what the results have come back as.

Yet this thread goes to show how big a bunch of two faced shysters are out there. Plenty of so-called "professional" colleagues out there have acted as judge, juror and executioner before any evidence was produced.

Visual, naieve, am I? It seems you changed your tune a little since your earlier post. Maybe the answer to your question might lie in being blackmailed over pension entitlements, bullying, or perhaps in having had more than enough hurt done to him by all those around. Who knows? Personally I wouldn't want to work either for or alongside those who have cast so many aspertions over my professionalism, and let's face it, a lot of people have been quoted in the papers recently.

As for the hacks that crawl through these forums after a heavy session, looking for some tripe to assemble through a drunken haze, you are the lowest of the low. Not a chance you will be filling the front page headlines with the truth of the matter. Not a chance.

key word
 

To PPRuNe Pop,
your earler attack on me . . . . .
"Putting your comments about the unfortunate incident at LHR on the same thread infers that it was perhaps alcohol related."
The key word here is 'perhaps.'
Aren't you sure?

Visual

If (a very big if, coming from a paper) there was zero alcohol in the blood- why did he resign? Would you, if you knew you were completely innocent? I wouldn't. I'd use BALPA and fight.

The captain might have gained something if he was offered his pension and a notice payment, but the FO would have gained little, considering what he has given up.

For both of them, there are various remedies open to them if they are indeed innocent.

If they knew their blood alcohol was zero, and the Norwegians agree, BA have no basis for asking for their resignations and that could easily be reversed- either as part of the internal disciplinary procedure, or later in an Industrial Tribunal. I rather doubt that BA would try to get rid of them if they were not satisfied that the allegations were substantially true.

As I said before, the fact they resigned so quickly tells its own story.

You obviously don't know BA very well MOR. There are plenty of things they could sack the Captain even with a zero blood test. They'd throw every rule in the book at him until they could fnid something that stuck, then they'd fire him, then he'd have to go to an industrial tribunal, and even if he won BA are still not required to re-employ him and it would require industrial action by the pilots to force his reinstatement. Perhaps he simply decided it wasn't worth all the stress, especially as the last guy who went through the tribunal process dropped dead as a result of the stress.

So some of you are saying that it is possible that any BA employee who has it in for another BA employee can report them for possible alcohol abuse and those accused will have to resign or suffer the terrible consequences, even when it can be proven that they were never guilty of alcohol abuse? Because if no disciplinary action is brought against those who make false accusations, that is what you are implying.

That is rather sobering thought...no pun intended.
Time for a rethink of company attitude?

Carnage Matey

No, sorry, I don't wear that at all. It is probably fair to assume that other than this allegation, BA had no grievance with the Captain. If they did, the obvious question is why they hadn't dealt with it before.

The only way they could sack them immediately would be to show gross misconduct.

It is also obviously in BAs interest to show that the allegations were baseless to begin with. They too have essentially admitted
that the pilots were in fact over the limit, which is a serious failure on their part as well.

I have been to an Industrial Tribunal, they are designed to be non-threatening and the experience is hardly traumatic- certainly not as traumatic as losing your career with no compensation.

No, they did a deal along the lines of "go now and you get a tiny bit of recompense, make us sack you and you get nothing".

The fact that these guys rolled over so easily tells any future employer that they are guilty as charged, whatever the truth might be.

You have great, and completely misplaced, faith in BA human resources chaps! I'll speculate wildly here, but if it did happen to be the case that the Captain was clean, and it did happen to be the case that the FO missed his pick-up, and it did happen to be the case that the FO was obviously worse for wear, do you think BA would let the Captain who took him flying get away scot free? Not a hope in hell.They'll call that gross misconduct just for a start.

Why do you assume its fair to say BA had no grievance with this Captain? Do you know him? Those within the company say there's evidence that BA already did have a previous grievance with him. BA management have grievances with lots of people, and when they can't get them on technical breaches of the rule they criticise them for the entirely subjective crime of 'poor handling of the situation'. Its always happened, it's still happening and purportedly there was already one resignation in the pipeline from one disgusted Captain prior to this event.

BAs interest is to bury the story as quickly as possible, not to debunk the story. Did we see any official company rebuttal of the Dispatches program with its many fictitious claims? No. What we saw were people strung up by the company, including two guys who were actually sacked for no wrongdoing and later reinstated on appeal.

On the subject of false accusations, many people in BA are falsely accused of many things by their colleagues every year, from aclohol abuse to sexual harassament to racism to bullying to theft. I've personally known two people subjected to false allegations. They were stood down from flying, with associated loss of flying pay, whilst the allegations were investigated and found to be unfounded. Both accusers continued to fly and received no punishment.