Funny how the metropolitan legend of AF pilots drinking wine on cockpits keeps being resurrected any time someone is caught over the limit. Funny it's never a French pilot though, huh? :hmm:

Breath Testing before flight
 

Sorry Danny,

I have to disagree. When I flew in Japan there was a company breathalyser ( a rather difficult word for our Japanese colleagues to pronounce incidentally) in the crew briefing and dispatch room.

It was not used a priori but was used if any crew member appeared to be in question of being under the influence.

The result was that nothing got as far as in any of the last public cases - the crewmember was dealt with (in an understanding way, I may add) by the company and lived, somewhat chastened to fly another day.

I much prefer that system to a suspicion of alcohol on the breath
by some airport employee and what that leads to.

As for the copilot's passive reaction - see my post on the last drunken pilot thread - or was it the one before last - or the one before that...

Take care, FC.

Just checked google.de news service and their are 45 German newspaper articles about this. :{

Ludo

Touché. :)

There but for the grace of god go a lot of us, and before some sanctimonious git starts jumping up and down, having been in aviation for a long time I have heard and seen most of the legends that are recounted on these threads. I'm not saying that what went on in the past was excusable let alone acceptable but the system we had and the rules worked fine and as someone mentioned earlier has there ever been an accident or incident recorded where the pime or only blame was a p1ssed Pilot, tired pilot I can recall a few accidents attributed to that, lets hope they don't find a way of measuring how tired we are when we arrive at the security gate.

One things for sure though, The rules have changed, the rules are well known and the result of breaking the rules are catastrophic. as much as I would like to show symathy for the young lady concerned, If it is proved that she broke the rules, then she has been very silly, and no doubt a promissing career well and truly down the pan. You don't, from my understanding of how it works, end up with that level of alcohol in the Blood system from having a social drink and then abstaining for 10 hours.

Despite what some people think we are well paid, our training costs a lot the equipment we fly is expensive and passenger lives ....... you can put own price on those. In return we should turn up fit to fly.

Ludo

Let me say categorically that I sat on the next table in the airport restaurant, next to the flight deck crew of a DC9 in Southern Europe (not AF) and watched them have one smallish glass of red wine each with lunch, which the waiter poured from a bottle.

We all then boarded the DC9 (me through the normal channels) and I subsequently saw both pilots in the "office" as I entered the aircraft.

I'm not going to name the airline nor the airport, since it could result in trouble for PPrune, but it did happen, in 1979.

So if the AF wine is an urban legend, this was a direct observation. I certainly did not intend to suggest that French pilots drink on duty these days or report over the limit, so apologies if this is the impression that I agve.

Maybe I was a little young and naive in those days, but it never crossed my mind that this could be a problem.

She was sneaked on by the hotel barman who saw her at the bar at 2 in the morning, 3 hours before pickup.
Her blood/alcohol level was 0.8/1000ml
Source: Berliner Zeitung 13th Jan

Without wishing to deflect the central argument..... if the reading reported in yesterday's Guardian was correct (about 25% over the UK drink/Drive limit) - I, personally, would be more concerned at her lack of rest than her alcohol level.

I know how I feel after the equivalent of four units of alcohol and I know how I feel after less than 3 hours sleep. In my opinion the lack of sleep is by far the more serious threat to safety.

Final 3 Greensthank you for the clarification.
I work for AF and happen to experience that "Twilight Zone" feeling every time someone mentions that metropolitan legend as if they had witnessed it themselves, while I know from experience it is indeed a legend.

As a pilot, I would never (now under the new law) turn up for work knowing that I was above the limit. However, I could not guarantee it due to the unrealistic low limit. This is why I am one for mandatory company testing. It will cost a company far more to replace a pilot than paying for a day off sick. Unfortunately because of the new legislation the employers will pay the price, the employees will face the disgrace, the passengers will not know any difference.
In the old days nothing would be mentioned if you had a tot of whisky and jumped in a meteor to defend queen and country. Nothing was thought when soldiers were given drugs (now illegal) to stay awake to serve the country.
Point is:
Limit too low
If you tested all the professions subject to this law I reckon at least 30% would be over the limit.
Companies will have to introduce mandatory testing to save themselves money.
Sickness will increase.
Company profits will decrease, some may even become bankrupt.
Many professionals under this new legislation will be punished far beyond what they should be.

Enough said, I hope you get my drift.
Rgds
ILS 119.5

I don't really get you Danny!?
 

What do you mean? Should we not post our reflections on this if it's something you don't agree with? Do you really think that if someone here talks about breath testing every pilot that's gona give the reporters ammunition. I surely think they possess enough brain cells to figure that one out by them selves. Newsflash: demands of breath testing every pilot has probably been around since the first one got caught over the limit.

I totally respect your opinion on this matter... so I would expect the same from you. And exactly what is so wrong with this idea? Sure this would have to be looked on and evaluated before implementing and sure there are downsides, but I think it's pretty arrogant to just put your foot down and say it's wrong.

Where I'm from there will soon be alcohol looks on all government cars. Probably pretty soon after that the busses and taxis will have them as well. Meaning you can't start the car if you are above the limit. And I don't hear anyone complain about that. As a matter of fact I think that most of us would feel a bit safer knowing that the taxi driver isn't drunk, oh sorry "above the limit". So why should we as pilots sit on our high horses and refuse this. I don't see it as a symbol of misturst but as a safety measure putting an end to all this bad publicity. Because two things are for sure, this isn't the last case and some pilots undeniably can't be trusted with a can of beer.

It's pretty naive to think that it's only those who get caught that brake the rules. If there is one caught every year you can be certain that there is a whole lot more that dosen't get caught. And this is exactly how the general public sees this. That's why it gets so much press, not because they are jealouse (get back on earth). This has gone to the extent that I often get to hear semi jokes about how all pilots are drunks, and I'm getting pretty tired of it.

I don't know about you but in my opinion ONE pilot over the limit is ONE to much regardless of the total amount of flights. Would you agree if that ONE pilot put a 747 into the ground? I thought that we should try to make it as safe as possible to fly, and this problem seems pretty possible to eliminate if people could overcome their egos.

Being wrongfully accused is not a possibility if this is handled in the right way. Where I'm from and as I understand, in Germany, every breath test has to be followed up with a blood test to guarantee a valid result.

What comes first, safety or your integrity?

In the Exxon - Valdez disaster, I believe Captain Hazelwood was drunk, and admitted as much.

Do ship captains now have to pass a breathalyser before a voyage on the high seas?

Food for thought, gentlemen.

"If there is one caught every year you can be certain that there is a whole lot more that dosen't get caught. And this is exactly how the general public sees this."
That's not true of the general public in the UK. They might think it's a widespread problem if they read Pprune and believe some of the claims made - such as yours. I'm not in a position to know if it's serious problem but, based on what my pilot friends say, it isn't.
"That's why it gets so much press etc."
No, it isn't. It gets Press coverage because it's easy to create a 'Shock horror! Hundreds might have been killed' story by claiming any pilot found over the legal limit was 'drunk'. There have been only two pilots prosecuted in the UK to date, and neither was 'drunk'.
"This has gone to the extent that I often get to hear semi jokes about how all pilots are drunks, and I'm getting pretty tired of it."
See above.
(If it continues, you'll get used to it. If jokes and ill-informed comments bother you, just be grateful you're not a lawyer. ;) )

_______________

bjcc
” I arrested a pilot, turned out to be just over the drink drive limit, on his way into LHR one afternoon” and ” It is, Mr Mach79, evidence that there are pilot’s who were happy to fly when frankly they shouldn't have been.”
That’s quite a jump from one pilot to “there are pilots”.

No-one suggested you apologise for arresting a pilot. Mach’s suggestion was that you “appear to write with such relish, that you seem to have issues re pilots”. I’m not convinced it’s limited only to pilots but, with respect, you do tend to come across as someone who relished nicking people and miss it.

Why are you so reluctant to reveal how long ago you left the police force?
You frequently reminisce about events which occurred, and repeat (rather rigid, IMHO) opinions you formed when you were a policeman. You also frequently post what you understand to be the law. Since you choose to mention you were once a policeman in support of the opinions you express, surely it’s reasonable for people to ask when you were on the beat and when you left the police?
You’ve said it’s not relevant. Surely when the incidents which form your opinions occurred is relevant? ie Were they recently, or a decade ago? Or more?
The fact you were in the job when Z Cars was on television isn't much of a clue. The series finished about 26 years ago.

Since all journalists and the whole of the press seem regularly to be slated on this website on the basis of individual examples of incompetent tabloid reporting*, I trust that the members of the pilot community will acknowledge that - owing to this, the latest in a string of similar incidents - they are just irresponsible idiots who shouldn't be anywhere near an aircraft?

Or do the rules of prejudiced stereotyping change when it's one of your own involved?



*With apologies to those contributors to this forum who aren't that narrow-minded.

If we have many more incidents like this, with the resultant publicity, how long will it be before the public/politicians demand preflight testing?

Flying Lawyer
 

oh, so you seriously think that the ones that have been caught so far are the only ones ever to show up for work above the limit? Well that's got to be the only 100% system in the world. That's just ridiculous! Or you don't believe that but you think that the general public is stupid enough to believe that and now you are worried that I have given them the truth?? Please! Remember a little documentary about BA pilots, do we???

You're kind of stepping on my point there with your "shock and horror!" That's exactly what they do and that's exactly what we should stop! But if, according to you, the general public believes that all pilots get caught before they can create a mess, why should anyone worry? I mean if anyone is stupid enough to show up above the limit then they will positively get caught, right? Now that's a superb story for the tabloids! "everyone, listen to this: the airline industry is 100% safe"!

You seem to have a talent to turn your own words against you. Good career choice! ;)

The only thing that is frightening is the X-files feel over this whole discussion. Cover-up, cover-up! Come on everyone if we all close our eyes then this might go away!

Yeah, well that's something that shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near an airplane!!!!

I remember a certain documentary about BA pilots, the one that employed selecetive editing, voice dubbing, clocks that went backwards and led to most of the pilots involved having no case to answer? Sure we'll go along with all manner of measures because the TV demands it. Right now I'm off to wrap my head in aluminium foil to stop the alien mind benders taking over my brain. I saw that on TV too.

If you'd care to read my post properly, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in case English isn't your first language, you can post your opinion exactly as I did. Your apparent contempt at my opinion leads me to assume that you have not quite grasped the concept of "opinion".

I am against mandatory breath testing before every flight because as far as I'm aware, I'm not a heavy drinker, I stick to the rules and add my own personal buffer to them and in the knowledge that I have no intention of arriving at work having consumed anything near the amounts that would cause residuals to give a positive test. However, I am not against companies having kit available for those that feel they should test themselves voluntarily should they not have the same personal regime as I do when it comes to alcohol consumption.

So, just because all government cars in Germany are to be fitted with alcohol keys is irrelevant as I am fairly sure that most government drivers haven't put in as much effort, training and on-going training and testing as I or my fellow colleagues have. I'm sure you'll be able to dig out statistics that will show a record of accidents caused to government cars in Germany because their drivers were over the limit. I challenge you to show any statistics that even one public transport, scheduled flight that has been involved in an accident and attributable to alcohol consumption by the crew.

Also, your assumption that because one person has been caught and two others already convicted after being caught before they even took control of the aircraft in some way proves that therefore there must be some that slip through doesn't stand. There may have been but all that proves that those that may have slipped through were obviously not drunk even if they were possibly over the extremely low limit. I would point out that the fact that because this pilot was caught and as were the other recently publicised ones that the current system is adequate. After all, those tested positive did not fly and there have been no airliner accidents related to alcohol that you can point me to.

Of course if you are so insecure in your own ability to judge your own alcohol intake then feel free to demand kit that can be used to test yourself. Personally, I like to believe that I don't live in a nanny state and that I can be trusted to behave properly. It may sound chaotic to you if you hail from a much more ordered society in your part of the world.

Just to challenge CrossBars conspiracy fears, the documentary that you refer to was proved here on PPRuNe to have been selectively edited to make it appear that the pilots involved had consumed alcohol within the bottle to throttle period. It was shown that it was impossible to have taken place as was suggested because the makers of the programme forgot to edit out the various clocks that appeared in the background.

Even more importantly, not one of those pilots was tested and any allegations made were hypothetical with no substantive evidence. Of course, if you wish to refer to that programme that is your choice but I would be very wary of trying to make a point with fellow colleagues when your regard for them is so contemptible. You have not offered one iota of evidence except to relate to German government cars. That is pathetic.

The argument here is either accidents caused due to alcohol (none) or pilots tested positive for alcohol before getting airborne, which as far as I can remember is the case being discussed here, the two recently convicted in the UK and a few in the US. The total number of departures made annually just by European and US carriers and the number of convictions is the point. The ratio is miniscule and therefore just goes to prove that you are so easily led by gutter press and media luvvies who will sensationalise a story and eat their own babies.

Crossbars

It might help if you read what I actually said. You seem to believe that press comment and public opinion are the same. I don't - although press comment/allegations, if repeated often enough, can of course influence public opinion.

BTW, I've managed to achieve a reasonable degree of success in my chosen career, but thank you for your concern.

Well maybe it's because English is not my mother tongue, but it sounds a lot like a recommendation from "capt pprune".

And I'm not from Germany nor have I ever lived there. I live in a little place called Sweden where we are all woken up 7 in the morning and put to sleep at 10.30 in the evening by our nanny. It feels safer that way. I can't really cope with personal responsibility. ;)

So that's the reason why we shouldn’t be tested. We have all gone through so much. Poor us. Well shame on the public for not trusting us. Personally I can't blame them after what the media have accomplished. And to be honest, thanks to all the screw-ups who have created this mess.

If a simple breath test would mean that these kind of stories wouldn’t pop-up time and again, well then that seems to be a pretty cheep price to pay.

That's just a splendid way of approaching this! Well nothing has happened so far so nothing will probably happen in the future either. Better safe than sorry, right? Well obviously there actually is a problem because they keep slapping us in the face.... ALL THE TIME!

I have no problems with alcohol and I don't doubt my judgment, thank you very much! Can't really understand why you would assume that. FYI I exercise zero alcohol when driving my car as well. But I hear that you don't know much about people with such problems. They are masters at disguise. You would probably find them acting in a strange way if they where sober.

And do you really mean that if someone slips through with, lets say 0.3-0.5 promille (limit is 0.2), then that's OK? I wouldn’t expect much understanding from the yanks since they think it's perfectly fine to drive a car with 0.8 in your blood but I thought that we all had pretty similar views on this in Europe. Especially amongst pilots.

Just to answer Dannys challenge. Who's got conspiracy fears?? "Various clocks that appeared in the background". First of all I don't take stand on whether the BA documentary was real or just edited crap. But the fact is that a lot of people saw it and I'm pretty sure that you didn't explain to them what you where able to expose on pprune. I used it as an argument to simply state that the publics view might not correspond to flying lawyers view. Or as you superiorly like to put it: If you would have read the post....

And I take serious offence when you accuse me for disrespecting my fellow colleges. I did no such thing! If those pilots in that film where wrongfully accused I would stand by them any day.

The cars, which by the way isn't German, isn't "evidence" it's an "example". Maybe Flying lawyer can help you sort this stuff out

When it comes to people slipping through or not, this is an impossible thing to prove.... hence the expression "slipping through". It's just a statistical fact in a random and reporting testing system.

We simply have a difference in opinion on what the facts are in this case. You choose to "see" number of convictions as number of pilots working under influence. I believe that there probably is a larger number which haven't been caught by the system. Sure I believe that everyone is innocent until prove guilty but I'm not singling out people here. I’m simply admitting that there might be a problem here and discussing possible solutions. But according to you there is no problem - so no need for a solution.

Finally, I would gladly take a breath test before every flight if it would improve the publics respect and trust in us as pilots regardless if there is a problem or not. But obviously a breath of air per day is too much to ask for. They can’t just come and walk all over us in such a respect less way, after all we are pilots. Who are they to question our morale - they are just trusting us with their lives.

Keep the head in the sand; I'll stay on the lookout!

Why should this surprise you? :confused:

One has only see the ratio of male pilots to female pilots in Easyjet & elsewhere in aviation for that matter to understand why the press thinks it will grab more public attention, its a rarer occurence, after all so many male pilots have been found p*ssed or allegedly recently p*ssed at the controls or about to take control it's a bit old hat. Unusual different stories sell papers, I know when I was on the tube the other day I was as guily of this as anyone else. When I saw the headlines 'female pilot found drunk' or whatever my curiosity became so insurmountable I ended up reading a strangers paper while she was reading it much to my colleagues embarassment.

Of course the press will emphasise the novelty of it being a member of the fairer sex in this case and of course the public are interested in this fact. One may not like it but one can't change human nature and public preceptions. Of course she was going to be thrown to the sharks & IMHO if shes guilty she deserves to be as much as her male colleagues.

Personally I'm fed up with the drink culture that appears to exist among pilots. When I get into a plane I am putting my life in these so called responsible peoples hand, the concern whether they've recently hit the bottle or not & are fully sober should not need to be there. Personally I think she and any other pilot who takes the controls without observing the bottle to throttle limit are a disgrace to themselves, their company & profession and do not deserve to wear the stripes they do on their sleeves. :mad:

My hunch is bjcc stopped being a cop a long time ago and don't want to let on he's out of date and 'air traffic' means air traffic security guard not a controller. ;)

I think Omaha said rather more than he appreciated when he posted the following (my italics, not his)

To echo Dannys previous points, how many flights operate to, from or within the UK each day on G or EI registered aircraft? Perhaps a thousand? Probably not far off at a guess, which means upwards of 300,000 commercial flights each year. And how many operators of those flights are found to be over the incredibly restrictive limit of 20 promilles? If my memory serves me correctly, just one pilot of a G or EI registered aircraft failed a breath test last year. Thats one in 300,000+. That doesn't strike me as even statistically significant. Human error/failing/weakness exists in every job which involves human involvement. That is simply impossible to avoid. Yet the puritans amongst us, notably those from the Nordic states, would ask us to invest heavily in expensive detection systems to find that one in 300,000 , rather than invest in technologies that would provide far greater returns in safety but would not sell newspapers.
Well to paraphrase a previous poster, personally I'm fed up with the drink culture that appears to exist among pilots simply because the gutter press can sell papers on it. I'm also fed up with the idea that I can't enjoy a pint or two downroute, should I feel like it, because it upsets some puritan who doesn't have an inkling about flight safety, metabolic rates or perspective. If they have a problem with that then I'm sure an unmanned airline will be along very soon and they can fly on that. I won't be joining them on it.

I think it’s really very silly to suggest that, in the absence of any comprehensive testing or control system and with new, very low blood alcohol limits, that the recent high profile cases represent 100% of all the occasions where a pilot has flown whilst over the limit.

this is getting me anoyed
 

My posts normally try to introduce a level of moderation and sense, however this thread is getting me anoyed.

Omaha ststed ' a drink culture that appears to exist'. The last one to admit he has a proble IS the alcholic. Think about it. The stories of flight crews on benders in hotels are legendary and rife. It may not happen the way it used to, but to say it doesn't go on at all is plain wrong.

Fact, the law has introduced rightly or wrongly an alcohole level that is to all intense and purpose zero. Accept it, live with it or get anotther job before you get a spel at HM's holiday camp.

Fact, with a near zero alcohole level, if your breath smells of booze you are almost certain to fail the breath test.

I am amazed by how many flight crew still tell me that there rules are 8, 10, 12, 24 hours bottle to throttle. It seam a lot of people (flight crew) just haven't caught up with what the law means. I would suggest that collegues, unions and the companies themselves need to do some urgent education.

These threads are full of how we think pilots are wounderful highly educated and talented proffessionals who work in poor conditions. My message is, if that's how you view yourself, act like it. 'Proffessional' is taking the bad with the good, not just cherry picking the good bits and saying 'I'm above the bad bits'

there have been a couple of threads recently about how wounderful women pilots are and how life is so hard for them compared to their male colleagues. I believe (see my other posts) in fair and equal treatment. If this female pilot was doing somthing wounderful she would be all for 'I'm a women and I'm great' therefore she can not expect to have the fact that she is a women overlooked, nay some would say 'be unmentionable as it's not PC' when she's done somthing bad. And being the first bad female pilot, and apparently very bad, is going to get the headlines, that's life.

To the coupple of posters who have implied 'that because pilots aren't caught over the limit there aren't any over the limit' or implied that all pilots over the limit have been caught; what planet are you on? FL I suspect you are applying the innocent until proven guilty stance, but it doesn't stack up statistically.

Sadly, I suspect that we are going to see a steady stream of flight crew being caught out by this legislation, both of the heavy drinkers and the accidental 'I had no idea' type. Eventually they will stop making the news as old news doesn't sell, but it will still put a premature end to people's career and probably liberty.

mgc

I do take the "innocent until proven guilty stance" because I think it's fair, especially when someone has been identified, but that wasn't the point I was making in this discussion.

I merely challenged Crossbars claim that the general public think if one pilot is caught every year they can be certain there are 'a whole lot more' who aren't caught. That may be public belief in Sweden where he lives, but I don't accept it's true of the general public in the UK.
I don't believe the overwhelming majority of the general public in the UK even think about the issue - except for a few days when the press/media try to whip up concern and make exaggerated and inaccurate comments about 'drunk' pilots. Public attention soon turns to some other hot topic.

What percentage of the thousands of people who board flights in the UK today do you think will give even a moment's thought to whether their pilots might be over the prescribed limit?
The UK public knows its aviation industry has a well-deserved fine reputation and a superb safety record, and I simply don't believe public opinion has changed because of a couple of widely-publicised cases.

Of course, that might eventually change if enough members of the public read some of the comments in these discussions - or the press quotes from posts which may have been made by people who aren't professional pilots and know little or nothing about the industry.
eg A journalist reading your post could accurately report that 'mgc' on 'the professional pilots website' referred to flight crews on benders in hotels, saying "It may not happen the way it used to, but to say it doesn't go on at all is plain wrong" - without knowing (or caring) if you're aircrew and speaking from personal observation or simply making a sweeping allegation based on nothing more than stories you've heard.

I don't think you really get the point here. The statistical fact is that there actually are a lot more than the system revels. The problem is that every time something like this shows up in the newspapers the trust for pilots degrade a bit. How many more cases like this do you think is tolerable? At what point will it be too much? But maybe this is something that you guys don't worry about since the public seems to be able to take an endless stream of stories like this and don't care a bit.

Thanks for taking it down a bit more! Sort your thoughts out before you post them, ok?

Anyone remember two Lufthansa pilots taken from their airplan at Helsinki Airport? Both were above the limit. Now what's the odds of that? 2 out of 600 000 IN THE SAME PLANE!? Sh*t, if they had only played the lottery.

Who said you can't?? Hell, I'll join you! I'm assuming that you mean that you'll still show up for work the next day clean and sober below the limit? If not, I suggest you take a look at the meaning of flight safety, metabolic rates and perspective.

Flying Lawyer, let me get this strait. You're not worried that the general public is influenced of what's printed in the paper but you are actually worried about what's said here??? Get real! And to think that they are stupid enough not to draw the conclusion that there probably are more pilots out there not being caught is :mad: .

Say stories of politicians caught for fraud is printed in the paper. You don't think that the publics trust for politicians are influenced by this?? And that some might think that a lot more politicians are probably also greedy suckers?

I'm not out to get breath test just for the fun of it. But I'm willing to take the collective burden of what some of us have bean able to create. If you can tell me that there is absolutely no mistrust for pilots here and that future stories will have no such affect, well then I would gladly skip the testing.

Wow, there are some bitter people who have clearly been raised in a flying world far different to mine. Wish I could be so perfect.
I note that article 54 (from memory) of the ANO states that it is also illegal to be under the influence as a passenger in an aeroplane, yet this coveniently appears to be largely ignored save for the occasional profile case. Strange how the law is used so selectively.

PAX
 

My "neighbour" to the left (where it is marginly preferable to like compared to the one on "the right") makes some interesting comments. Of course, Nanny Persson does like to restrict the sales of alcohol and keep the prices high through Systembolaget.

However it would be nice if all passengers could be breath tested too, and not just those flying AY or SK routes (actually, the Scandinavians that drink tend to get on with the drinking as a rule, not shouting about it as the Brits seems to do !)

An exercise in study is going to Alko (Finnish alcohol monopoly in Tornio) just by the border to Sweden.. Full of Swedes buying cheap (!) booze..

But as a pilot, if it makes your passengers feel safer, what's the problem of blowing into the bag. Noone expects you to do it by the cockpit door as the C class PAX parade on or an Intercom announcement "This is a non smoking flight.. Captain MadeupName is in command and he has scored 0.011 on the alcohometer, thus passing the mandatory limit of 0.0200 and thus he is cleared to fly this Boeing 747+400 today en route to Osaka:"

find similar stats for number of drink drivers each day / number of individual a to b car journeys and then buses, lorries and suchlike?

As a drinker myself, I think there\'s far too much emphasis placed on drinking, especially with the British and Irish people (as compared to others who drink heavily like Italians, Swedes, Danes and a few Finns).

Why is it that the British stag party has a worse reputation than a Polish one or a Finnish one in the same resorts+ Same with football "supporters".

Of course not all of the orchard has a crop of bad apples, mind.

Mr Flying Lawyer said: "I merely challenged Crossbars claim that the general public think if one pilot is caught every year they can be certain there are \'a whole lot more\' who aren\'t caught. That may be true of the general public in Sweden where he lives, but I don\'t accept it\'s true of the general public in the UK."

Maybe the typical British person does not think that they can/could have an alcohol problem and that alcohol problems in society are mostly "teenagers" and the smelly old wino drinking meths, instead of looking closer to home. Governments can have their "initiatives" but they don\'t have much impact. Scandinavian countries have their own problems and in some ways "alcohol problems" are accepted, but not accepted if you know what I mean, elements of society but the same degree of public nuisance causing, wantom damage, beating up passers by etc is not, on the whole, here. Same with knives and the like.

Of course, I\'ve not heard of any pilots brawling at an airport after imbibing so this is not strictly just about pilots or cabin crews.

Interestingly, in the Uk press this week, I read that there is more problem with binge drinking amonst the younger ladies now. Ladetteism is on the increase.

"I don\'t believe the overwhelming majority of the general public in the UK even think about the issue - except for a few days when the press/media try.."

Maybe because the "pilot" is still held in esteem like "the doctor" or "the lawyer" even though many jokes can be made or nasty comments made. The gold bars on the shoulder pander to security, trust and suchlike.

But the public is easy to manipulate anyway !

Why not look at it another way as a statistic.
How many commercial a/c have been involved with incidents where the handling pilot has been so called "drunk" - zilch I would think.
Unless you were falling about pissed with bad DT's or speech so slurred ATC could not understand your clearance, what problem would you have flying the a/c from A to B

jammydonut: I make no comment on the specifics but much research shows handling of machinery, cars, tools etc IS IMPAIRED by alcohol from the first drop through the "max drink" level and higher.

jammydonut
 

Well then we might as well go ahead and get stoned befor every flight. Obviously that hasn't had any impact on incidents so why not? Can't recall any incident where the pilot was f**ked up on cocaine - must be safe then, right?

If I would worry about anything posted on this forum getting to the press, it's comment like yours suggesting that: screw the limit, just try not to be too pissed. Scary really!

And might I say that attitudes of that sort just proves that there absolutely should be a mandatory testing system before each flight. Not to get rid of bad publicity but because some people obviously have a pretty screwed up idea of how alcohol impair judgment and performance. Hope you don't have to deal with an emergency on that flight - god forbid you would have to disconnect the AP.

And when it comes to your question, I sure as hell can't answer it. Havn't tried the "just-below-not-being-able-to-communicate-level" while flying. Hope you don't speak from own experience.

Well, if you believe what's been said in this thread, a lot of pilots at EZY are maybe flying around 'drunk' anyway, without even toughing a bottle of booze! :(

I'm curious to see what the reaction of EZY management will be to the pilot in question. Will they take the same approach as the way they combat their grueling schedules/rostering? Will they show their 'true' Southwest Airlines spirit and look at any possible human tragidy of the person involved before rushing to a decision? Or will they just fire her, ignore everything else and move on pretending nothing has happened? :rolleyes:

<<<
How many commercial a/c have been involved with incidents where the handling pilot has been so called "drunk" - zilch I would think.
>>>

The usual response here is the Japan Air Lines DC-8-62 in 1977 where a take-off on the wrong runway and subsequent stall at Anchorage killed 5 on a cargo flight.

The record seems to show 4 other possible fatal incidents where high alcohol consumption may have been contributory, including a Dornier 228 in Tahiti in 1991, plus three others in Norway, India and Finland between 1961 and 1973.

No I don't think you get the point CrossBars. The statisitical fact is not that there are a lot more than the system reveals. Thats just speculation on your part. I've no doubt there are some more, but you have no evidence as to the scale of any problem that exists, you just prefer to speculate widely that everybodies drinking hard before flying. Well on a day to day basis I'm not seeing the evidence for it. The lack of incidents suggests my guesstimates are a lot closer to the mark than yours. We all pass through security umpteen times a day there's plenty of opportunity to stop somebody evidently over the limit. Personally I don't think any case like this should be tolerated. Just like no accident should be tolerated. But until you take the human being out of the flight deck it's going to happen whether you like it or not. So that brings us to your ridiculous call for mandatory testing. Of what? Why just alcohol? What if somebodys done a line of coke at the weekend? Or a few E's? Or smoked a joint of two? Evidently nobody in the industry can be trusted to police themselves and so a regulator is required to police them for all banned substances. Perhaps you could have a full blood and urine analysis before work to ensure closet drug abusers can't take to the skies. After all, nobodys been caught so by your logic there must be a lot of people doing it.

Crossbar, you appear to assume that if every pilot was breath tested before every flight, let's say in the crew room before making their way to the aircraft, that that would prevent any pilots over the limit from getting near an aircraft and therefore the press wouldn't have any sensational stories to publish. All very nice but I would wager a months salary that every time (almost certainly very rarely) a pilot tested positive and had to be replaced before a flight that the information would be leaked, just as it was in this case and the press would have a field day.

You seem to be more worried about the image the public have of you. You are prepared to sacrifice your civil liberties so that your image isn't tarnished by the miniscule proportion of pilots who break the rules. :rolleyes:

Someone mentioned the two LH pilots who were tested over the limit on the same aircraft. Well, doesn't that just go to prove once again that the system as it stands works. The two were tested and removed from duty before taking control of the aircraft which is again one of the reasons we haven't had any accidents where alcohol is a contributory factor.

If we're going to go into the statistics of accidents where alcohol was a contributory factor then lets look at UK or even EU registered a/c over 5700kg within the last 20 years. Once again, I challenge Crossbar to provide the total number of accidents where alcohol was a factor. You can claim that there are probably many more incidents where pilots who were over the legal limit 'got away with it' but you can't provide any hard facts. If there really were so many actually turning up for work over the limit then we would have the statistics to prove it on record.

Can anyone give me an idea how many departures of UK registered aircraft of over 5700kg there have been in the last 20 years? How many accidents involving UK registered aircraft where alcohol was a contributory factor? Until those of you who are so worried about your image because the media is highlighting a single incident where the pilot has tested positive get over it you should not have to force the rest of us who have enough confidence in our own abilities and professionalism to subject ourselves to knee-jerk solutions that are just extra chips in the block of civil liberties.

I would rather we had the occasional rip roaring headline when the system works and a pilot who has turned up for work is tested positive rather than to be presumed guilty until proven innocent by being forced to take a mandatory breath test before every flight. Statistics speak for themselves:

UK/EU Flights over last 20 years = millions
Accidents due to alcohol = Zero
Pilots tested over the limit = a few
Pilots who are responsible and safe = 99.999% of us.
Pilots who worry about and are affected by the media hype = Crossbar and maybe a few others. :rolleyes:

Crossbars

You may be right that "every time something like this shows up in the newspapers the trust for pilots degrade a bit."
It's an assumption. Even if it's correct, I believe (as a member of the public) that the degradation miniscule.
"The statistical fact is that there actually are a lot more than the system reveals."
It may be a reasonable assumption, but is it a statistical fact? Where do we find the stats?

"Let me get this strait. You're not worried that the general public is influenced of what's printed in the paper but you are actually worried about what's said here??? Get real!"
I'm not worried - it's not my industry.
Yes, I do think what's said on PPRuNe could be more damaging than the occasional newspaper report if enough members of the public read some of the comments - or the press quotes from posts here - because it's a website on which people from inside the industry post and outsiders are likely to be influenced by what they read. The same danger arises in relation to many aspects of the industry, not just the issue being discussed here. eg I think it's a good thing the press don't publish the attitude of some FAs towards customers which is regularly displayed in the CC forum. (The attitude of FAs who work for UK carriers seems to be the worst by far.) I might pause to wonder if such an attitude is actually widespread in 'real life' because I've never had a bad experience myself, but the press wouldn't.

Re your response to jammydonut:
Scary?
Do you really think he's an airline pilot?
If he is, which I strongly doubt, do you think he was being serious?

Are you claiming there's a serious problem?
What are the statistics for alcohol having been a cause or contributing factor in airline accidents?
In what percentage of fatal accidents has alcohol been found in a deceased pilot's blood?
In what percentage of cases where alcohol was found (if any) was it sufficient to be reasonably inferred that the pilot's ability was or might have been impaired?


PS: Your command of English is very impressive. Why not use it to argue courteously instead of being so aggressive and rude to people with whom you disagree?

Crossbar,

I totaly agree with you. I think you have to be increadibly narrow minded to think that the only people to arrive for duty over the legal limit are those that get caught. I have personally sat with a group of pilots in a hotel bar the night prior to them all flying, and watched them all drink like fish until the early hours.

Flying Lawyer/Danny - While you may be right in saying that there have be no aircraft accidents directly attributed to pilot alcohol consumption, are you prepared to wait until a pilot who has been drinking crashes an A380 with all 550 pax on board into the ground? Is that what it will take?

Give me one good reason why pilots should not have to take a breath test before taking control of countless peoples lives (and Danny, smudging your lipstick does not count!) And don't start giving me the 'civil liberties' rubbish. If you are that against it what are your true motivations?

Cpt.Unemployed - I really don't mind what you do with your civil liberties, but please leave mine alone.

We all know that at some time in the future an A380 will probably crash taking 550-odd souls with it. However, following your line of reasoning, we might have to provide psychological profiles before each flight too.

In the end, if a company wants to address a problem, let it do so internally. Subjecting company "A" to regulations designed to cure a problem in company "B" is more than a bit silly.

Cheers,

LP

I honestly don't see the problem.

What about jobs that require employees to clock in before commencing duty. Is this a violation of civil liberties?

Low-pass - what I was trying to get across is will it take an incident caused by alcohol consumption and resulting in deaths of passengers to put a simple (and inevitable) system in place.

Low-pass - may I also ask if you would challenge a police officer if you were stopped in your car and asked to provide a breath test. Would you tell him no, because it violates your civil liberties?