Nigel, CAA accident # 9101093D. Just to shut you up. And please, let me know it's you next time I'm unlucky enough to have you flying me around.. so I can get the hell off the aircraft.

Quote:
 

HeathrowDirector:

"At my last but one medical before I retired AME poked around and said: "You're a controller, right?" When I agreed he said "I can tell from your liver - in most pilot's of your age their livers are down to their knees". Sad, eh?"


Hmmmm.....

Do you think those that seek to become pilots are genetically predisposed to drink, or rather does this say something about the job of commercial aviator?

Having PPRuNe'd for a few years and noted with concern the bizarre rostering and inadequate recovery times permitted pilots I can say that I'm far more concerned about fatigue issues in the chaps flying me than a few micrograms of alcohol over already very low limits.

The point that NO commercial accident has been attributable to alcohol for many years is well taken. A disturbing number have however been attributed to fatigue. And what about the pilot who is still upset over the row he had with his GF/wife/neighbour the day before?

This is stupid hysteria akin to that that recently removed a pair of nailclippers from my overnight bag and does nothing to promte flight safety.

Mac M.D.

Mike

Thanks. The fact that Selfin has included the grand total of one incident and a GA one at that illustrates that GA is probably the limit of his knowlege.

Mac

well said

I'm still waiting for alcohol related incidents and accidents???

BJ

Were you p*ssed when you wrote that last post? Hope your not flying.

Mac, "more concerned about fatigue" .... your dead right but ...

...... is there any hope in a Nation that traditionally has worked its Junior Doctors for 80 to a 120 hours per week and is fiighting tooth and nail to retain the max hours despite E.U. pressure :(

Mike, not relevant eh? You know, 76% of light aircraft crashes in the US are down to alcohol. But at any rate, no fatalities attributed to alcohol in the UK on aircraft under parts 23 and 25.. what does that say? No need for the legislation since we all got by nicely without it, or sheer luck?

Considering the high percentage of pilot error involved in fatal aircraft accidents, and considering the propensity of alcohol abuse by British pilots (goes hand in hand with the thrill seeking nature of being a pilot), I would find it incredibly hard to believe that alcohol never once played a part in a fatality in the UK (commercial ops of course).

In any event, the very belief that no accidents have occurred yet in the UK as a result of alcohol consumption is neither here nor there. They have happened elsewhere.

HD's citation of his AME says it all. And with that in mind, it takes a HEALTHY liver an hour to process a unit.

And whatever happened to adhering to the ANO section 1 part 5 article 65 para 1? Seems to be a very funny attitude towards alcohol in this industry.

Furthermore it is very clearly stated in Finnish law that only a zero blood-alcohol level is tolerated whilst acting as a crew member. See Ilmailulaki 1995/281 38 §, paragraph 1, "Tehtävää ilma-aluksessa ei saa suorittaa se, jonka veren alkoholipitoisuus on alkoholin nauttimisesta kohonnut tai joka on käyttänyt muuta huumaavaa ainetta niin, että sitä on hänen elimistössään havaittava määrä." http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1995/19950281

Mike, it's never going to be possible to rule out the potential of luck having played a hand in the UK not having had an accident where the major contributory factor was alcohol. Fatal accidents and major incidents are not the only products of flying whilst either intoxicated or otherwise impaired. Maybe you can fly on a bottle of wine safely, but out of all the pilots whom this law effects take the 10% who have the slowest metabolism, throw in an unhealthy liver, moderate fatigue, domestic problems, perhaps a bit of post traumatic stress... and you have an irrefragably lethal mixture. Now try telling me a pilot who's had a few glasses of wine is sensible, or that any law which might exist permitting it is sensible (whilst flying of course). Perhaps it is, perhaps I'm stark raving mad. But it is afterall the public which buys the tickets, of whom 1 in 3 are scared to fly; the very idea that their pilot would be slightly intoxicated might not appeal to them.

And for your official figures, how about mandatory breathalyzation when reporting for flying duty? The number of complaints about that ought to be a fair indicator of who fully appreciates the immiscibility of flying and intoxication.

And most European pilots are probably aware of a lot of things when they're sitting behind a computer.

The lesson here is simple. Every pilot should have in their bag a calibrated breathalyser ( in terms of your career not expensive). Before leaving home or hotel check level, if in doubt go "unfit for duty".

The other alternative is to become teetotal.

Mike Jenvey

the new act applies equaly to GA aviation as it does to Public Transport. Otherwise it would like being having car drivers and bus drivers with different drink drive limits.

While what you say about Selfin's post be irrelevent to public transport is true, NN didn't specify, so Selfin has answered his question.

Ok, it is just one incident, but is one not too many?

The pilot was not tried as such, he pleaded guilty. In his country there is a zero BAC level, and he must therefore have realised with the amount he had drunk he would still have alcohol in his system. He was about to fly a Finish registered aircraft and he should have been mindful of his obligation to comply with Finish law, (for him to have been convicted there would have to be an equivilent offence in the country of registartion of the aircraft, so Finish law is relevent) not just UK legislation.

The legislation was suggested by the CAA, presumably because they felt there was either a problem or potential for one. Perhaps someone should ask them for the reason they wanted it. It may answer better the question about previous incidents concerning alcohol (and drugs)

Its been suggested by Sky9 that if you are subject to this law, you should buy a calibrated screening device, thats a good idea, it would keep some out of prison. Alternativly if airlines invested in a few machines and put them somewhere prior to crew checkin where they could be discreetly used before someone commits an offence.

Mike, Ganden Security Services Solutions put it at 40%.

It was in an article done by the Daily Mail within the last 8 years. Since you seem very keen on finding it, I can recall it said "British Airways at Heathrow runs a course to help people overcome their fear of flying, estimated to be as many as 1 in 3."

It would be conservative to say about 30% of commercial pilots have a propensity to abuse alcohol. It's what you'd call anecdotal evidence, which I strongly believe would be nearly impossible to back up scientifically owing to the very nature of alcoholism, being a disease of denial. People are naturally going to lie about their drinking if they have a problem.

Pilot arrested at Manchester
 

Hello all PPRuNes!


I decided to join this forum after having followed it since the Finn got arrested a few months back.

I am a close relative of an airline pilot who has managed to fly almost 30 years whilst being a serious alcoholic. By serious I mean someone who spends most of their time on the ground being heavily drunk (not to mention domestic violence, disturbed sleep, loss of memory and lack of deep relationships) and who reports-in under influence or hangover.

All this is tolerated year after year. No-one reports the pilot: family, fellow pilots, cabin crew, dispatch, wx office, ramp, crew bus driver, mechanics, passengers. Not to mention crew rostering who know the ones with this disease. Not to mention the annual / bi-annual medical check.

There are a lot of people who know who these people are. Yet hardly anyone dares to interfere.



I think that instead of pilots saying "NO" to routine breathelizer checks before reporting-in, there should be suggestions from the pilots themselves on how to make sure that one is fit to fly at least when it comes to being sober, or free from drugs. (Over)tiredness is also an important matter, but I won´t deal with it now, since I find it deserves its own thread.




Greetings from



Air Sober

Mike Jenvey

I had read your previous post, perhaps I put it badly. The CAA asked for the legislation, no idea why, and from what you have posted there seems to be no logical reason for it.

The CAA would not have had input into the BAC levels set, any more than than DVLA would have into the drink drive limits. That would have been done by advice from the Dept of Heath (or whatever its called this week). Like the limits for driving they are set given the level of impairment on somones ability to preform a task compared to when they have no alcohol in thier body.

You mention fatigue, and the effrect that has on a pilots ability, adding alcohol to that would only make it worse.

I accept again what you say about this being a about public transport, but the this legislation makes no distinction between the 2, if you are acting as crew of an aircraft you are covered by it.

The alternative is to say that if you hold a PPL, you can't drink but if you hold an public transport one you can....an unacceptable diffenrence by any standard.

It may be that the CAA have been influenced by the actions of others in the GA in other countries, but the end result is the same, the legislation exists, and isn't going to go away.

Having established that, then either people have to learn to live with it, or do something positive to prevent themselves being caught out, one way to get your own test kit. The other is for employers to make everyones life easier by providing the facility for staff to test themselves before they are in a position where they could be committing an offence.

One thing I think is obvious and hasn't really been mentioned is that any pilot or ATCO and probably engineer caught committing this offence is stands a very high chance of going to prison, because of the position of high responsibilty and public desire for thier transport needs to be in safe hands. In that you arn't alone, the same would happen to a train driver, or ship's captain.

Estimates of how many pilots have a drink problem are probably wrong yes, but are based on the population as a whole. In any group of people there will be some that can't control thier desire for a drink. Pilots are no exception.

Surprised by the term for the Finn pilot.
No malice intended but what of the RBA pilot pulled off the flight in LHR.......any result?

Fire Wall,


since this thread started I have been surprised of how often the real message does not seem to get through to readers because of misspelling or language barriers between native and non-native English language speakers.

I kindly ask you to think it over, and submit any fruitful thoughts you have on this matter. Otherwise it is avoiding the question on what acts could be done for the fact that there is a n rate of alcoholics and alcohol abusers in professional pilots and something or someone should stop them before getting up there whilst under influence, or suffering a hangover.

By "getting up there" I mean operating an aircraft.




Communication by writing is difficult sometimes,




at Air Sober

I try to say it more clearly this time:

I decided to join this forum after following it since the 51-year old Finnish airline pilot Heikki Tallila, who by that time was employed by Finnair, got arrested on 23 August 2004 at Manchester Airport, when about to start an Air Scandic flight to Dalaman, Turkey.




Speak slower, words twice?


Air Sober

If the Finnair guy gets six months in jail for being 2.5 times the limit, what's gonnna happen to the Brunei Captain arrested at London Heathrow?
I heard he was 6 x the limit. :eek::eek:

selfin I'm sorry, pal, but I can't let that one go by.

On what do you base this insulting slur on a profession which has managed to kill 0 (that's zero) people in living memory through alcohol abuse?

Air Sober,
I'm very sympathetic to your problem but it is really dowm to you to do something about it if subtle hints are wasted. GOOD LUCK

Selfin, please go and find somewhere else to argue your case. You appear to be one of the 13.2% of non-pilots who have an opinion on 26.8% of matters relating to the 99.9999% of professional pilots in the UK who have never had an accident that was related to alcohol. Your constant reference to statistics to bolster a weak argument that shows no insight into the debate being conducted here just goes to prove that 89.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

As for someone claiming to have a relative who is an alcoholic pilot and is regularly endangering many others by working whilst under the influence and then coming on here claiming that no one is doing anything about it, what is your point? Why not take the initiative and do something about it yourself?

Most large airlines have systems in place where colleagues who have a drink or drug problem can be assisted by their peers through confidential reporting and a support/recovery system. It isn't the be all, end all solution but it has a reported success rate where it is in place.

As for working with colleagues who are under the influence? I have never come across this problem. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist but then I've never had a real engine failure whilst working and I do know that they exist. I don't come up with statistics made up at random though. Maybe I should. In my experience, 0.0% of pilots are alcoholics because I've never had to work with one. Same applies to engine failures.

The debate on here should be focused on the arbitrary limits as they have been set by the authorities and the methods of detecting them. What we appear to have is the usual misinterpretation of "drunk" and "over the limit" which can be two very different things. Of course, it suits those without a real understanding of the issues to resort to more emotive terminology with a sprinkling of ad-hoc statistics. :rolleyes:

Cargo Boy

Can you just clarify if you mean the limits have been set wrongly because of law makers misintpretation? Or that of the press and some on here?

Thanks

The blood/alcohol limit of 0.2 promille comes from paragraph 1.085(d) of JAR-OPS. The CAA were, of course, fully involved in that the drafting of JAR-OPS. All the Government has done is to provide for the enforcement of this requirement.

Cathar

An assumption on my part, sorry. It stands to reason that as in the case of the Raod Traffic Acts concerning Drinking obviously the medical proffession were consulted.

Anyway, having seen what you wrote and searched on the JAR OPS paragraph, I found this, which should answer the questions concerning where this act came from and the reasons behind it:

---------------------------------------------------

A.Background

Article 65(2) of the Air Navigation Order 200069(ANO) makes it an offence for a person to act as a member of the crew of an aircraft while under the influence of drink or drugsto such an extent as to impair their capacity so to act. Article 13(8) makes a similaroffence for maintenance engineers and article 96 for air traffic controllers. In addition,operations manuals established by aircraft operators in accordance with Article 31 of theANO are required to give clear guidance on abstention from alcohol before duty periods.There is no provision for breath testing in the ANO.Following an accident to a light aircraft in 1991 the Air Accidents Investigation Branchmade a recommendation that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) initiate action to amend what was then Article 57 of the Air Navigation (No 2) Order 19957 to require aircrew involved in an accident or suspected of an offence under the Article to provide a sample for testing. The CAA accepted this recommendation, but section 60 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 does not give it the power to include such a provision in the ANO. The department stated in its consultation paper on proposed legislation on combating alcohol at sea that it had agreed to consider amending section 60 of the Act when a suitable legislative opportunity arose. The department consulted on proposals to introduce "with cause" alcohol testing for safety critical civil aviation personnel in 1996 which had a positive response. The Joint Aviation Authority (JAA) is an associate body of the European Civil AviationConference and has been developing harmonized aviation safety standards, known as joint aviation requirements (JARs) since 1970. It now has 32 member states including allEU member states and other European countries. The Joint Aviation Requirement on Commercial Air Transportation (JAR-OPS) adopted by the JAA in April 1995 containsprovisions on alcohol and drug abuse. Section 1.085(b) states that:a crew member shall not:(1) consume alcohol less than eight hours prior to the specified reporting time for flight duty or the commencement of standby;(2) commence a flight duty period with a blood alcohol level in excess of 0.2promille [ie 20mg/100ml], or(3) consume alcohol during the flight duty period or whilst on standby.JAR-OPS do not have the force of EU law but there is a European Commission proposal(COM 2000/121) to make them part of EU law.B. The BillThe provisions covering aviation personnel are similar to those being introduced formariners and largely mirror those in road traffic legislation and the TWA 1992. Clause89 introduces provisions similar to those in the ANO but they are now supported inclause 90 by a prescribed limit of 20 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood forair crew and air traffic controllers. The levels for maintenance engineers are the same asin the road traffic acts..Clause 91(2),(3)&(4) apply the offences of being over the limit or unfit to a categoryspecific to aviation that of crews on standby.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It doesn't appear to have copied and pasted very well, so please don't blame me for mistakes in grammer and missing spaces.

cargo boy wrote I would think, bjcc, that he means that as our Finnish friend could quite legally have driven to Manchester airport before being castigated by our media as 'drunk' (and we most certainly do not allow drunk driving in this country) that some people have lost all sense of perspective in these cases.

Yes, I agree thats what I think his point is, and having spent many years enforcing the legislation on drink drive,and arresting people for drunk I am fairly well up on th difference.

The question was also asked as to how this legislation arrived. Well now you have the answer.

However sober he was he has now been convicted of a criminal offence, he is serving a prison sentence as a result, as will in all probabilty anyone else caught doing the same.

As I said, people will have to learn to live with this law, I am not suggesting anyone should like it. There are ways of avoiding dropping yourself in it, and those I have suggested. Whether people take any notice is thier affair....

Yes bjcc

I say again: You included

Perhaps you could explain how how I have lost my sense of perspective? Or is this you have lost your sense of reality?

I. He was convicted of a Criminal Offence.

2. He is serving a prison sentence. The reason why is that he was in a position of responsibility, he abused that. The courts obviously are going to take a serious view of that, in the same way as they do of any occupation where there is a responsibilty for safety. In his own country there is a ZERO tolelerence to alcohol and flying. He exceeded that.


I have never called this chap drunk, I am fully aware he was no where near drunk. However any alcohol can impair a person, not make them drunk just impair thier ability.

The Royal Brunei captain was sentenced today.

Link



bjcc
I'm hesitant to go quite as far as saying you've lost all sense of perspective, but I understand what Arkroyal means and do wonder. You do seem to have a certain type of police view, and don't show any signs of being even remotely understanding about the 'other' side.
I was surprised by your earlier comments about prisons.
normal_nigel said:
”The guy wasn't pissed but as said misjudged his recovery rate and at worst would have had a bit of a hangover. Not condoning it but now that gets you six months in a scum filled prison.”
I think that was an entirely reasonable comment.
Your response:
”You have summed it up, yes for that offence you get 6 months in a 'scum filled' prison." Fine so far, but then you added "Odd thing about prisons they are full of people who have been convicted of criminal offences....As this pilot has been.”
and subsequently added: ” I have some bad news for you....he was convicted of a criminal offence, earning him a prison sentence. He is therefore a criminal.”

Do you really see no difference between people who’ve spent their lives sponging off society and committing crimes against others, and decent people who’ve worked hard all their lives and make a single mistake of this nature which is a criminal offence?

Do you really think the effect of being sent to prison is the same on everyone, regardless of the way they’ve lived their lives previously?
I’m not suggesting people of previous good character shouldn’t ever be sent to prison (or no-one would ever be sent) but don’t you have any sympathy or pity for otherwise thoroughly decent respectable hard-working people who make a mistake of this nature and are then banged up in prison with the dregs of society?

"(The pilot) is therefore a criminal."
On reflection, I think you are losing perspective. You consider anyone convicted of a criminal offence can fairly be described as a criminal. I don't. I think there's a big difference between someone who commits a single criminal offence and 'a criminal', and an enormous difference between 'a criminal' and someone who commits an offence of this nature.

The old adage 'If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime' is true up to a point, but there's a difference between delibertately setting out to commit a criminal offence and finding out later you have committed one.


It will be interesting to see what the Court of Appeal says about the six month sentence on the Finnish pilot if he appeals - which IMHO, he certainly should.

Methinks, that he (If he was a UK pilot) would fail his CRC check so not be able to get an airside pass so would be out of a job. Bit harsh if he has done his therapy etc and a one off error of judgement.

My only surprise in relation to the Finnish pilot is that he got 6 months. There are lots of excellent points made in this very lengthy thread - especially points relating to many other professions which do not have an "excess alcohol" law relating to them. Nevertheless, I feel that sympathy is misplaced for those who get convicted of this offence. I truly believe that the passengers would fully endorse the Judges' sentence. He could have got up to 2 years.

FL

'You do seem to have a certain type of police view, and don't show any signs of being even remotely understanding about the 'other' side. '


Perhaps you didn't see the original comment I made amongst all the hype.

I felt and still do that 6 months is harsh (in respect of the Fin). I see both sides of this, I have no axe to grind against the Fin, nor the pilot sentenced today. I do however belive, as most of the public do that I have a right to travel in safety.

You know as well as I do that any alcohol will impare a person and reduce thier ability to do something in compasison to when they have had nothing to drink.


The term 'criminal' in respect of these 2 is objected to because of an emotional response, had they been any other occupation then it would no doubt be used regualy. That having been said I agree with your 'degrees' of criminal line.

There are many people doing time that have been convicted for offences while trying to do the 'right' thing, so I have never subscribed to the if 'if you can't do the time...' line. But I do feel that if you are in a position of responsibility where safety is a factor over which you have control then you must also accept the consequences if you do it wrong.

On a related note, I have to applaued your client today for allowing you to be so open about the circumstances leading to his conviction. Maybe if more people where like that then those that don't deseve a criminal record could stay out of trouble.

There is a famous saying, which goes along the lines,

Rules are for the guidance of the wise and obedience of idiots.

I do not agree/disagree with the new laws but thay have gone too far and only applying to certain aviation professions. What about doctors, surgeons, lorry drivers, taxi drivers, etc etc the list can be endless. During the 2nd world war, and I'm sure many recent conflicts, soldiers are given drugs to survive. How many soldiers are shot by their own people? I know it's not a great analogy but how far do we go to prove safety?
If laws are to be applied, then it should not be to one certain profession but to everyone. The aviation is the safest profession in the world and I, as an aviator, will always try to ensure that. But this does not stop a lorry driver driving through my village at 30mph, being slightly under the drink driving limit, and ploughing through my children walking home from school. However a commander of an aeroplane knows that if he is over the limit he does not go to work, also bearing in mind there are three more people to help him, one f/o, and 2 a/p's.
Two choices, either bring all professions under the same limit or readjust the whole system to be fair.
Rgds

119.5

Your point is well made, except perhaps that the limit for engineers is the same as the road traffic act which applies to everyone who drives for a living.

There really is no need for a clerk to have a limit on how much he's had to drink, the worst harm he is going to do is stab himself with a paper clip...The same goes for many occupations.

Those where there is a safety implication are becoming more regulated....Train drivers, ships crews are all covered by similar legislation.

Whether or not everyone on your list will ever be subject to something similar I don't know. However I would be more than happy to see a ZERO BAC for anyone in a saftey related job, or one where they could cause harm by thier actions, yes I include the Police in that.

Someone has suggested before that the limits applying to aircrew and ATCO's should also apply to anyone working at an airport, I agree, at the moment because its private property you can't even breath test a baggage handler with a 4 ton truck once he's airside. That same baggage driver can do a fair amount of harm with his 4 tonnes worth.

Parliament passed the law, apparently they operate on behalf of the public (OK its a nice theory) and if you ask the public what they want on the subject of pilots drinking what reply do you think you would get?

Ultimatly the responsibility lays with the person subject to legislation, whether that be a pilot deciding how much to drink, or a Police Officer having to decide in a split second if he's justified in shooting someone.

I chose to be a Police officer when I left school, and in doing so I had to accept the restrictions (of which there were many) that applied to my life away from work. Those restrictions changed over time, some for better, some for worse, at the end of the day the choice was still mine, either I accept them , or vote with my feet. The same applies here, if people don't feel they should or can accept changing conditions they have the option to leave. Just as when I left the Met the world will keep spinning.....

Your quote is well known, but in this case break it and it may well earn you 6 months.

Amongst the determination to get stuck into BJCC and turn legal, technical terms like criminal into emotive ones, I think the crux of this issue has been lost - namely - the guy was warned that questions had been raised about his fitness for duty and yet he decided off his own bat to continue.

Regardless of the training, competence or rank of the person raising the question - if there is any doubt as to fitness then not taking positive action to resolve it is reckless. Prosecution is then inevitable. Before the howls commence about upstart PPL wannabees (the security guard (and me for that matter)) unqualified to make such calls - the safety of the flight is paramount. If a malicious report was made that delays a flight then that can be dealt with too - through the laws of defamation if needs be. There's even a fairly strong argument to say that upstart wannabees (not that he was) or people with a chip on their shoulders have a role to play in the whole system as they are far less likely to turn a blind eye or be cowed by the status of a senior captain.

119.5 discussed the M62 motorway crash. Well yes - if an ATCO or pilot feels that they are not up to the job due to tiredness then they are UNFIT FOR DUTY and have a legal duty to stand down - to not do otherwise rightly invites prosecution (hopefully before people get killed). Likewise - that ATCOs watch supervisor or that pilot's dispatcher who saw them behaving erratically or falling asleep prior to/during duty also has a duty of care to take positive action to ensure the ATCO/pilot is relieved. The reason that rest periods are mandated for pilots is because you can't just pull over and have a nap - the training, the rules and the intelligence required for the job involve you taking responsibility for your physical and mental fitness at the start of duty and at any point during duty when that changes.

Why different rules for different professions? I don't know the answer to that. Why is aviation being picked on? Well, it's not really - in fact the laws have taken a long time to catch up. I (currently) work in the railway industry. As far back as the turn of the century, signalmen were being rostered for 24 hour shifts and then prosecuted when they fell asleep and trains crashed. Admittedly they normally got off but we're back to my original point - they had no choice, no mechanism for going sick, no way of identifying or proving their fitness for duty or of taking any other action that wouldn't result in them being fired. On this occasion, the RBA captain had all of those opportunities and took none of them - as Kevin Bacon said in "A Few Good Men" - "these are the facts of this case and they are undisputed".

So is he a criminal? Yes. Is that fair? Yes. Should those who are upset that he has been branded a criminal step back from getting sucked in by tabloid headlines (branded a criminal - is it tattooed on his backside?) and take criminal for the legal technical term it is? Yes. It's an overrated emotive term. Ask yourself the question - have I ever done anything criminal? I'm not saying you have but if the answer is yes then just because you weren't caught doesn't mean you're not a criminal.

So 'Rules are for the guidance of the wise and obedience of idiots'. Which one is the Brunei pilot? How do you get the idiots to obey? Who defines wise? - self-awarding of status is an oxymoron - so who are the rules meant to be obeyed by? Everyone.

Regards,

UTR.

111.95:

"Rules are for the guidance of the wise and obedience of idiots"

In light of the consequences, perhaps you'd now agree that Rules are for the adherance of the wise, guidance of the unititiated and obediance of those who can't help themsleves.

I agree that the quote does not apply to the law. But for some people rules are rules and "its more than my jobs worth mate" comes to mind. If the security guard smelt alchohol on the captain, he could have had a private word and told him, just like a pub landlord would say to one of his customers if they've had too much to drive. I would always advise any of my friends or colleagues not to drive if they've had too much nor to fly. What if the plane had got airborne and then crashed. Since take off to crash the security guard had told his mates that he smelt alcohol o the captains breath. Whose fault is it then?

119.5

Yes he could, he didn't have too and didn't. You can hardly make him responsible for the captains demise because he didn't.

The fault I'm afraid lays with one person and one alone. Yes he may well have thought he would be under the limit. Having read some of the posts in the early days of this legislation and seen the ideas people have regarding what they can drink and be certain of being safe to drive, it would not suprise me. The CAA advice of 12 hours between drinking and flying may again have had some influence on his thinking.

But when it comes down to it, he decided to drink, he decided not to eat and he decided he would go to work. Not the person that sold him the drink, not the security guard, not the BAA not the Police nor the courts, him!

There is no point in looking for someone else to blame and saying if he had done such and such it would not have happened.

If this had been a coach driver in similar circumstances would there be the same comments?

[B]hang them all[/B]
 

Is the world out of its wit? 14 pages to acknowledge that the law is the law and a pilot with 49mg a criminal…

So what’s next?

Chop the head of Bush and Blair who told lies to the world and whose fault it is that so many Iraqis and American p eople die each day?

Hang those City bosses who after a well alcoholised dinner decide to delocalise their enterprises and ruin thousands of their employees?

Burn on the stack all the police chiefs unable to prevent their officers to drink alcohol?

I suggest we put a breathalyser at the boarding gate for the passengers, after all, an inebriated pax is probably more dangerous in an A/C than a captain below the already very tight drink and drive rule.

I only whish all those preaching tough justice meet their judge one day.

And to prevent any abuse, I don't drink .