|
Why are you troubled by this thread, late developer? Please tell us.
|
Jeff I just posted a longish reply but foolishly lost it by not copying it before the dreaded login screen that appears after a timeout.
I am now doubting the attractiveness of my own views to an extent, so I won't try to rephrase it all just now. I think it might go with the territory that many pilots could be of the opinion: "No-one judges me as critically as I judge myself". One of the things I am troubled about is what message the thread now gives, both to young pilots with important social lives, and to older pilots too who have learned to manage 'normal' lives including use of some alcohol and some other drugs alongside their voluntary roles as 'commanders of aircraft' or as 'leaders in adventure'. |
I see no confused or negative message from this thread. I view the thread only as hopeful and positive.
It has been said many times that alcoholics have great difficulty in coming to admit that they may have a problem with alcohol - either to themselves or to anybody else. The source of this difficulty (of admitting that they may have a problem) is often associated with an overwhelming fear of how the admission will be received, whom to share this information with, the consequences of the admission and what exactly does the future hold for the afflicted person post admission. Think of it for a moment - it's a lot for an ill person to consider in parallel to coping with all the struggles (financial, family, physical health, constant consealment etc) that go with an active untreated distructive disease. Ultimately a full and unconditional admission is essential in order for the problem to be sucessfully addressed and this full admission will require the sufferer to face up to and deal with some very painful issues. An important matter has been raised here and because it is being debated in a balanced, compassionate and considered manner (for the most part) it may motivate a person who suspects or knwos they have a problem to make that vital step and seek help.....instead of proceeding into the cockpit undetected while under the influence. |
Sounds like you may be extolling the virtues of a promise of a soft landing for the few, EI. I only wish it were so simple. How about the message to the many who on one day (or two, then three ... ) will have a bad day on the flightdeck with a hangover, or maybe just a little bit of performance lag?
Or have I got the many and the few mixed up? Sounds like random breath-testing might be part of a solution. |
SAFE and soft landings are always preferred.
|
Originally Posted by late developer
(Post 3023140)
Sounds like you may be extolling the virtues of a promise of a soft landing for the few, EI. I only wish it were so simple. How about the message to the many who on one day (or two, then three ... ) will have a bad day on the flightdeck with a hangover, or maybe just a little bit of performance lag?
Or have I got the many and the few mixed up? Sounds like random breath-testing might be part of a solution. Personally, I would have no problem with random breath testing, but it would be a rather expensive waste of resources, IMHO. There is simply not enough evidence to suggest an endemic problem among pilots which could justify the cost. The vast majority of pilots arrive at work in a state which would not result in a positive breath test. Are there exceptions? Yes, without a doubt. I admit to having stepped over the line a time or two in the past. Not any more, I can assure you. There is a far more effective and less expensive prevention method is available. It starts with education so that pilots gain a true appreciation of the hidden effects of alcohol on cognitive ability. Such effects do not require a significant level of alcohol saturation to become prevalent and we all need to appreciate that when we're on the way to work. Like understanding that busting weather minima can put our careers (or our lives) in jeopardy, it's pretty hard to justify having alcohol in the bloodstream at work once you know the consequences. |
late developer
One of the things I am troubled about is what message the thread now gives ..... How about the message to the many who on one day (or two, then three ... ) will have a bad day on the flightdeck with a hangover, or maybe just a little bit of performance lag? What's your basis for that assertion? Sounds like random breath-testing might be part of a solution. Are you suggesting there's a flight safety problem needing such a solution? |
Late Developer
I am sure you have used the term "I am troubled by this thread" on other threads. You should stop feeling so troubled. If you do feel troubled then leave the thread without comment and then maybe you wont feel so troubled, and then the rest of us wont feel troubled about you being troubled.:ok: |
troubled?
firstly i am not troubled, though at times, in trouble.
nor am i troubled that others might be troubled. i are a peealot my self and have been known to drink from time to time. personally, i would be willing to forgive and forget another pilot for making the mistake under consideration here. in fact i have flown with some pilots who would be dangerous if they did give up drinking or smoking completely. but on the other hand, knowing what i do about the view of others, i would not be a bit surprized if i were kicked off the pitch if i were to make the mistake myself and really would not raise much ruckus. we know the hardliners are there in positions of authority and should not be surprized when the axe falls on us as a result of our lapse into stupidity. but nonetheless, personally, if i were in one of those positions of authority, i would be all for possible rehabilitation. (that's a big word). back into the darkness.... |
Tudor wrote:
Being Unfit for Duty (Section 92) Performing an 'aviation function', or carrying out an activity that is 'ancillary to an aviation function', at a time when your ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs. Is the driver who drives the catering truck / baggage truck into the aircraft going to be breath tested from date X onwards? Are the check in staff / ticket desk sales staff performing 'an ancillary to aviation function'? Is the guy who drives the bus from the car park to the terminal doing the same? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but where is the line drawn? One could argue that the Duty Manager at the Airport who has a glass of wine over a business lunch whilst discussing renting shop space to a retailer, or consortium of retailers, falls under this catch all definition. |
Drug testing is here already...
but whether there is enough of a problem in aviation to warrant that is dubious.
The statistics for the numbers tested versus the very few found to be positive for alcohol or other drugs seems to show that aviation does not have a large problem with this. In any case, drug testing is here to stay, along with having to take off your shoes for some renta-cop if that is what he wants you to do in the name of fighting terrorism. It is just an unpleasant fact of life. I think we are better off with having alcoholism up for open discussion, compared to the way it used to be when it was just another closeted activity, known about but not spoken about except as a subject for gossip. Even if some of us are stuck with old-fashioned attitudes, seeing an alcoholic as a morally weak person, just as we might view all homosexuals as commie faggots and women as biologically unfit for aviation, well, times have changed. We all need to get 'on message' insofar as possible with the new way of doing business. Just as hand-flying and individual decision-making have given way to the use of the autopilot and the other crewmembers because of a general consensus, when each of us has had to adapt to that, we also have to shift from other ways of doing business that were once the norm. Otherwise you might as well retreat to some corner of a aviation museum to sit there burbling away about iron men in wooden airplanes to anyone who would bother to listen. That can be a very tough thing to manage, especially if you have something not quite right in your own equilibrium. I don't think any reasonable person would read what has been written here and take that as an invitation to develop a drinking problem AND hope for a trouble-free aviation career. It can still be the kiss of death, just not automatically so. Yes, it is troubling that such problems as alcoholism exist in aviation but I don't think it should be troubling that that is open for discussion, particularly when we get a first-hand account of how one can make it back from being an alcoholic to being an airline pilot. |
Something worries me after reading a report on the case by Martin Wainwright of the Guardian Dec. 9th 2006 ......
Surely someone going on duty with the Guy must have realized something was very wrong and been in a position to stop it developing ................... :confused: A drunken airline pilot who tried to fly a packed plane to Dubai when he was seven times over the alcohol limit was sent to jail yesterday. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 51, was sentenced to four months by a judge who told him he had brought an unblemished 25-year career to a stupid and ignominious end. The Australian pilot for Emirates had been on such a bender, Isleworth crown court in London heard, that his drink level sent monitors through the ceiling, even though he claimed to have observed the ban on pilots taking alcohol within 12 hours of a flight. He was arrested after stumbling around during a routine search at Heathrow, making incoherent jokes about "not blowing up my plane" with his breath smelling strongly of drink. Douglas Adams, prosecuting, said that tests found 134 micrograms of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, compared with the allowed limit of 20 micrograms for a pilot. He was arrested minutes before the flight was due to leave, stranding hundreds of passengers. Judge Usha Karu told him that his behaviour during the search had been extraordinary. While waiting for security staff he drank water and ate a whole packet of chewing gum. She said: "Your face was red, and the security guards could smell alcohol on you." "You also stumbled as you took your shoes off for the security gate and again as you passed through the metal detector, hitting the side and activating the alarm." The behaviour belied defence claims that xxxxxxxxxx did not realise the state he was in. He pleaded guilty to preparing to fly while over the alcohol limit. Judge Karu accepted that he was suffering from stress and fatigue and that the debacle had lost him his job and his home in Dubai. But she told him, before he was taken from the dock after a brief glance at his wife in the public gallery, that an immediate jail sentence was unavoidable. "The courts take a very dim view of passengers who get drunk on an aircraft," she said. "It is much worse if it is the pilot, who has a high level of duty of care to those he would have been looking after." |
Even if some of us are stuck with old-fashioned attitudes, seeing an alcoholic as a morally weak person, just as we might view all homosexuals as commie faggots and women as biologically unfit for aviation, well, times have changed. Saturday, December 16, 2006 IBM aims to end ex-worker’s suit Fired vet: Trauma led to sex chat at work A 2004 lawsuit brought by a former East Fishkill IBM employee against the company was back in the news this week. James Pacenza was fired after IBM found him in a sex chat room while at work. They said he was behaving inappropriately at work. But the Vietnam veteran filed a lawsuit saying he had an Internet addiction because of his combat experiences. ‘‘In his legal action against IBM, James Pacenza admits that he spent time in chat rooms during work hours, but claims his behavior is the result of an addiction and that IBM should have offered him counseling instead of firing him,’’ Information Week reported. ‘‘Employees with much more severe psychological problems, in the form of drug or alcohol problems ... are allowed treatment programs’ at IBM, Pacenza argues in his lawsuit.’’ ‘‘... In his suit, Pacenza says his use of Internet chat rooms is a form of ’self medication’ he uses to treat post-traumatic stress disorder suffered as a result of combat experience in Vietnam... ...But cases like Pacenza's, which involve Internet misuse, may no longer be quite so simple, thanks to a growing debate over whether Internet abuse is a legitimate addiction, akin to alcoholism. Attorneys say recognition by a court—whether in this or some future litigation—that Internet abuse is an uncontrollable addiction, and not just a bad habit, could redefine the condition as a psychological impairment worthy of protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). That in turn would have far-reaching ramifications for how companies deal with workplace Internet use and abuse. For starters, businesses could be compelled to allow medical leave, provide counseling to, or make other accommodations for employees who can't control Internet use, says Brian East, co-chair of the disability rights committee of the National Employment Lawyers' Assn. East says recognizing Internet abuse as an addiction would make it more difficult for employers to fire employees who have a problem. "Assuming it is recognized as an impairment…it is analyzed the same way as alcoholism," says East... I wish Lyle all the best in retirement, too bad the other two crewmembers were not able to retire as 747 captains at NWA. |
hobie
Surely someone going on duty with the Guy must have realized something was very wrong ………. It’s always wise to be cautious about press reports of court hearings. Understandably, journalists select the parts most likely to make an interesting story, and some are extremely selective. In this instance, as is often the case, there is virtually nothing about what was said by defence counsel. As for the particular report you cite, I tend to be rather cautious when a journalist uses language such as “his drink level sent monitors through the ceiling.” :rolleyes: The report quotes the prosecution allegations contained in the statements of prosecution witnesses – the security men – which may or may not be true, and may or may not be grossly exaggerated. The pilot was charged with and pleaded guilty to excess alcohol, so the allegations made by the security guards weren’t tested in cross-examination. Just because someone pleads guilty to being over the limit, it does not mean that he/she agrees with every allegation made by every prosecution witness. I thought part of a (different) report I read was rather interesting. The judge said: "When your luggage was searched and some items were rejected ... you made the irrational comment 'I would not blow up my own plane' …..” There are many who wouldn’t consider such a statement to be even remotely “irrational” - although many who are more familiar with the industry might think it very risky to irritate security guards by saying it. Maybe the pilot now dearly wishes he hadn't? Real Slim Shady The people you mention are not covered by the Act. The 'line is drawn' in Section 94: (a) acting as a pilot of an aircraft during flight, (b) acting as flight navigator of an aircraft during flight (c) acting as flight engineer of an aircraft during flight, (d) acting as flight radio-telephony operator of an aircraft during flight, (e) acting as a member of the cabin crew of an aircraft during flight (f) attending the flight deck of an aircraft during flight to give or supervise training, to administer a test, to observe a period of practice or to monitor or record the gaining of experience, (g) acting as an air traffic controller in pursuance of a licence granted under or by virtue of an enactment (other than a licence granted to a student), and (h) acting as a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer if he issues a document relating to the maintenance, condition or use of an aircraft or equipment ……………………. or, he carries out or supervises work on an aircraft or equipment with a view to, or in connection with, the issue by him of a such a document. An activity is treated as ancillary to an aviation function if it is undertaken by a person who has reported for a period of duty in respect of the function ………… or who in accordance with the terms of an employment or undertaking holds himself ready to perform an aviation function if called upon.Tudor Owen |
3500
I think that I read in one of those moving earlier posts by LProuse that there are over 3500 recovering alcoholic pilots flying commercial passenger planes today. I need to go back in this thread to look for that figure again. Such a number would astound me. It is my understanding that not every recovering alcoholic is able to stay sober and such a policy troubles me. As a passenger who has flown for over 20 years without knowing of this practice I would feel reassured if random breath-tests were allowed.
|
Allowed? Mandatory!
One requirement for holding an AOC (Air Operator's Certificate) in many parts of the world, or for bidding on an aviation contract for many customers, is having a drug-testing program in place.
When you sign a contract of employment it is usual that you agree to submit to random drug-testing. If you refuse such a test then you shall be fired without any right of appeal. Well, I suppose you could try an appeal but I don't think you would get very far with it. As far as the States goes I definitely remember reading somewhere the number of tests given, in the thousands, and the number of people found to be positive for drugs, which was single digits. I might be wrong about that but it was not so that drug-testing had uncovered a great, undiscovered number of pilots who were abusing alcohol and other drugs. To suggest that the small number of high-profile cases is just 'the tip of the iceberg' would seem to be unfounded. Most of us in aviation are reasonable adults who understand that we put everything at risk if we indulge in drug abuse. There are an unfortunate few who are addicts to one drug or another, just as these people are found in the general population. Then there are those who are simply irresponsible, even though most professional pilots have been selected to exclude this misbehaviour. What can I say, except that aviation is just another activity involving fallible human beings? If someone reading this really feels that more needs to be done, well, there are all sorts of politicians ready and willing to get behind any sort of aviation safety proposals going. Of course it is so that as a commercial activity there is always a reasoned judgment about the cost of safety measures versus the savings from accident prevention. You could assume that every pilot is some sort of potential drug fiend and put him in quarantine for 24 hours before allowing him to fly, if you were just willing to pay the costs of that. Of course then we should assume that every passenger is a potential terrorist, so that one could only travel in irons with a heavy dose of Thorazine and two guards. Then we need two guards for each of the guards, since they cannot be fully trusted either, making six guards per passenger. The final safety measure should be a dog in the cockpit, trained to bite the pilot if he touches anything. |
Flying Lawyer ..... many thanks for some very valid comments as always ....
Bearing in mind the guy was 7 times the legal flying limit some 12 hours after he stopped drinking (his words) I can't help thinking there were warning signs that could have been spotted by those around him ...... who was he with during his drinking session ..... who did he have breakfast with ..... who did he ride into the airport with ..... who did he pre-flight with ..... My own guess is this Pilot is not an Alchoholic ...... this was an isolated incident that could have been avoided .... |
Tudor
Thanks for the explanation. |
rmiller74
As a passenger who has flown for over 20 years without knowing of this practice I would feel reassured if random breath-tests were allowed. If you need more reassurance, there are some interesting statistics in the link below. They relate to the Australian aviation industry over a 31 year period, but I have no reason to think the worldwide stats would be much different. |
Having started this thread with what some insensitive comments I admire the frank posts by those who fly and have been directly affected by alcohol.
I have a very close family member who, had his profession been avaition, would have undoubtedly made it to the top of the tree, as it was, his professional talents lay elsewhere and he became an authority in his particular field. He was a very clever man, he made advances in his field which were beyond imagination, he also managed to cover up the fact to most people, that he was an alcoholic but he wasn't clever enough to hide from me or let it kill him. Perhaps my asertion that the Emirates pilot should never fly again was over the top, but I dont regret the fact that he'll probably never find another job with a major airline. I just hope that he accepts any help available to him, gets on with his life elsewhere and recognises the enormity of what could have happened. |
niknak
but I dont regret the fact that he'll probably never find another job with a major airline. You've lost me, but no doubt it makes sense to you. ________________ It's interesting that some people (including the press) get very excited about extremely rare incidents involving alcohol and pilots, as if it was a serious flight safety problem, yet show little or no interest in pilot fatigue which actually is a serious flight safety issue which needs to be addressed and resolved. FL |
niknak:
How nice for you to be judge and jury. You attempt to put out the flames by saying you were insensitive, then you go being insensitive yet again. The man has been punished for breaking the law, but you'd go on punishing him for life for a human mistake. How nice it must be to be perfect. :ugh: Given the much greater societal problem of drinking and driving, I trust that you will never go near another automobile or roadway again in your life. Come to think of it, given the statistics about death caused by medical error, you'd best stay away from doctors and hospitals too! Have fun living out life in your little rubber room. |
I'm wondering if our vindictive friend niknak maybe's just got a chip on his shoulder about pilots? His attitude to controllers going to work when they been on a bender is kinda different. Check this out.
:rolleyes: |
My company has the following procedure:
1) Alcoholism is indeed a sickness from which people can be cured 2) The company will assist you to get proper treatment 3) All crewmembers are responsible for each other with respect to the abuse of alcohol while on nightstops (as far as is sensible) 4) If a crewmember is susspected of being intoxicated he will be given the choice of reporting sick or being checked, if then found intoxicate immediate termination of employment will follow, if not no record will be kept. To me this seems a simple but fair procedure, basically you'll be ok as long as you are not caught. Crewmembers who suspect alcoholism with a fellow crewmember are encougaged to seek indipendent aid for this abusing (sick) crewmember. So far this procedure has helped two great pilots to overcome their addiction, possibly even more but such information is kept confidential of course. Nick |
I think a point many seem to be missing is that there isn't some clearly defined "line in the sand" where, if you stand, as close as you like, but to one side of it, you're not an alcoholic, and one small pace left and suddenly you are.
*********** Getting back to the unfortunate case that triggered this thread, it needs to be said that the pilot involved: (a) Had not had a drink for 17 hours - that's seventeen - before departure time, or 16 prior to sign on. (b) Was suffering from high stress levels bordering on depression - and had been attempting to get treatment for this some time. (And any EK pilot will recognise how hard it is to get an appointment at the EK Clinic, where EK staff are obliged to go.) (c) Much like Lyle Prouse, he has made absolutely no attempt to fight the charge, (which in my opinion, while - like Lyle - is admirable, is unfortunate, because I believe a proper medical assessment would have shown that his liver function is shot and much of that can be attributed to the stress he was under). (d) Despite what was said in the media, neither the FO nor any of the cabin crew noticed anything unusual in his behaviour. I don't know for certain, but I'd suspect he didn't know himself that he was still over – or even anywhere near - the limit. He was simply feeling like **** at sign on - as many EK pilots do damn near every time they sign on lately, particularly since lately most are flying almost 100 STICK hours every 28 days. (Didn't I read somewhere that fatigue can impair performance as badly as being drunk? If that's the case, we've all been flying around as if drunk lately - and very cheaply, as we've rarely got time between flights to spend any of it in a bar!) (e) The incident occurred when the craziness of “absolutely no liquids” had just been introduced and the security person was being… shall we say.. a little over eager in his enforcing of this then new dictum. The argument that led to the so-called inappropriate joke was over a tube of lip balm. I don’t know about most readers on this site, but I for one admit I would be in quite some discomfort towards the end of a seven hour flight if I wasn’t able to grease my lips. His “inappropriate” remark was anything but – I’ve said almost exactly the same thing myself in utter frustration to overzealous security personnel – “do you think I’m going to crash my own aeroplane?” - and left unsaid, “would having a tube of bloody lip balm in my nav bag make one iota of difference if I took it upon myself to do so?!!!” (f) I know the man in question wears elastic-sided boots, which are a little more difficult to get on and off than lace ups. I know I present a less than graceful sight getting my lace ups off in the cramped space available at the head of the conveyor belt at LHR security. As has been mentioned already on this thread, I suspect there are quite a few of us who enjoy a drink still "out there" for whom 12 hours (and in some airlines - 8) are not enough to clear the system to under .02 after a heavy night, and hopefully, this terrible incident will be a wakeup call to us all. Whether any of us will admit to ourselves that we may be on the wrong side of that very ill-defined “line in the sand” is, I understand from what I have read (and observed in more than one of my friends and acquaintances), the hardest and most difficult step to take. Sadly, despite the many enlightened comments made here, the stigma is still there, and many men, (and if I am being brutally honest, I'd have to include myself), would find it difficult to completely shake that attitude were I to find myself having to make the decision to making that first, huge admission to myself that I may be on the wrong side of the line. |
Is there any hope in returning to aviation life after such a penalty has been imposed? What happened to the ex Royal Brunei pilot who was arrested at Heathrow and served a prison sentence? I believe he is flying again in Asia. And what happened to the other Royal Brunei pilot who was chased through Heathrow by police having tried to get drugs into Brunei? He escaped whilst on bail but is he flying again?
|
Some of you may have noticed that this post was deleted, (by me) then ressurected by the Moderator Heliport.
My reason for deleting was because I recieved a number of abusive emails from sources which I've been unable to identify, directly linked to my original comments. I had - perhaps rather naievly - put my family email address on my public profile, and the emails were opened by my young children, the nature of the abuse in the messages was, in this modern world, not entirely beyond their understanding and enough to cause them considerable distress. I know that there are a small minority of mentally challenged individuals on any such forum who partake in such activities, but my kids don't. In future, at least have the balls to abuse me by PM - then I can find out who you are! |
NikNak..as an airline pilot with 25+years invested in my career, I appreciate and admire your post...my first encounter with this situation was on my first check as a new capt...imagine the distress I suffered as I had to report sick to delay a flight when actually the check capt was still well under the influence...eventually thanks to an intervention program this individual became a "recovering alcoholic" and continued his career to a successful retirement...your concerns very justified...how do you know the surgeon performing surgery on yourself or family member is not a recovering alcoholic....or the driver who passes your car on the motorway wih a closure rate or 200kmh+ it is just "publicly correct" to publicize flt crew problems with alcohol...and rightfully so....remember some flt crews operate some horrific schedules with unbelievable time zone changes interrupted sleep patterns etc...etc one resorts to alcohol consumption which leads to abuse...not by any means attempting to justify these actions....just to shed some light on one of many reasons why it happens....so accept apologies from my colleagues from me....and please keep in mind that out of millions of airline departures daily these abusers are a very very small minority..an unacceptable one mind you..
|
"...how do you know the surgeon performing surgery on yourself or family member is not a recovering alcoholic...."
You don't. I personally know two very successful surgeons, in recovery for 7 and I think 18 years now. Both are highly regarded in their field and one went on to develop pioneering techniques that have saved many limbs and lives. If 'ol niknak had had his way both would be driving taxis now... Mac |
Alcoholism
For some insight into alcoholism I recommend:
"I'll Quit Tomorrow" by Vernon E. Johnson. It's worth reading. Sean |
Well done Chuck Ellsworth!
You are a special person with incredible self discipline. Your comments blow a lot of the naive posters here out of the water. |
Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer
(Post 3028155)
niknak
It's interesting that some people (including the press) get very excited about extremely rare incidents involving alcohol and pilots, as if it was a serious flight safety problem, yet show little or no interest in pilot fatigue which actually is a serious flight safety issue which needs to be addressed and resolved. FL That sir is one of the most Intelligent statements made on any aviation forum... Well Done!:D |
Originally Posted by Heliport
(Post 3028153)
rmiller74
Doesn't the fact that you've flown for 20 years and are still here to write about it make you feel reassured? If you need more reassurance, there are some interesting statistics in the link below. They relate to the Australian aviation industry over a 31 year period, but I have no reason to think the worldwide stats would be much different. |
As often happens on PPrune, the testosterone is drowning out the debate in some of the posts. Niknak has admitted he was insensitive, so leave him alone. This is an important debate for the industry and needs to be aired. Having been married to an alcoholic in denial, its easy to spot the posters who have been there and those that just don't 'get it'.
- Chuck Ellsworth, Lyle Prouse, and many others like them are the gold standard in what SHOULD happen - and frequently doesn't. In the 1990s Time Magazine ran an article about Lyle (one of several over the years) which included the following statement: ".......cockpit drunkenness is relatively rare. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, the rate of alcoholism is roughly the same for commercial pilots as for the U.S. population as a whole, affecting about 1 individual in 7. "We are not in a general sense concerned about alcohol use," says a spokesman for the Flight Safety Foundation, a Virginia-based research group. "We are always on the lookout, but there's no evidence that we have a significant problem." Sorry if this sounds pompous, but when I read that, I was utterly appalled. I can only hope its got better, because expectations have changed in the last 25 years - we expect the aviation community to NOT be the same as the population as a whole - we expect that number to be vanishingly small. The fact that this is reported in the media a couple of times a month means that its probably happening daily, multiple times around the world. I work in a safety critical field with zero tolerance for degradation of performance through Drugs and Alcohol (D&A). Employers conduct random D&A tests for safety critical jobs, and employees know they will probably get fired if they fail. Astonishingly, some still turn up pi***d for work. But we also know that the employer will go to extraordinary lengths to support us if we are honest and if we admit to having a problem. There is no easy answer to this one but there are a couple of 'no-brainers' for employers to help the good guys get back on track and get the bad actors out of the system: - Don't drive it underground - make D&A Voluntary Counselling and Testing easy, confidential, and non-discriminatory. - Adopt a zero tolerance policy and make the penalties for non-compliance more severe (yes, that includes losing your license). Tough. You knew the rules. - The moving post from Lyle speaks for itself. While it may have added to the wake up factor afterwards, as a deterrent, prison is a pretty blunt and fairly dumb incentive to change behaviour. Like you gave Niknak a hard time, you all can abuse me if you like, but I think this cozy 'don't ask - don't tell' and Nicks 'if you report in sick if challenged then you are OK' tells me that some parts of the industry just haven't 'got it' yet. Sorry Guys. We expect more. Pinkman As a Postscript, I want to thank you Lyle, for your inspiration. Reading your story back then, and your description of your climb again to a 747 pilot gave me - a classic enabler - the courage and determination back in the late 90's to persevere with trying to get help for my wife. Sadly she refused to acknowledge the problem, but at least I can face myself in the mirror. |
Pinkman:
As you found out first hand, the most important step in getting better is in admitting the problem. For some, that day may never come. I agree that a 1 in 7 ratio would be completely unacceptable, but I believe that professional pilots are better behaved than that. We are far less accepting of those who "push it" than we used to be. That said, there is still obvious room for improvement. I also believe that this debate should transcend our industry and that it should be addressed by society in general. As long as society continues to view addiction as a behavioural problem which is best corrected by punishment (loss of a job/career, loss of priveleges, time in jail etc.), people will continue to hide from their problem for fear of retribution, even if someone in their life tries to transcend society's view and show them a better path. We need to treat these people the same way we treat anyone with a medical condition, with treatment, aftercare and a program which helps them cope with recovery. I am not advocating that we coddle and hug people who put the lives of others in jeopardy while under the influence. They need to understand that society cannot accept putting others at risk. Sometimes that should mean incarceration. But, a large percentage of people who are nipped for DUI are repeat offenders, many of whom have done time in jail and/or had their driving priveleges suspended, but who have been allowed to drive again without any requirement to enter into a treatment program and a recovery process such as Alcoholics Anonymous. A program such as the ones Lyle and Chuck took part in is something we should offer to all of our peers, not just the ones who do the same job. IMHO Jeff |
Spot on Jeff, couldnt agree more.
Pinkman |
Pinkman
As often happens on PPrune, the testosterone is drowning out the debate in some of the posts. We're each entitled to our opinions. IMHO this has been an excellent discussion, with considered and informed contributions by the professional pilots who've posted. A few hang 'em and flog 'em posts (early stages) are inevitable. JO "a large percentage of people who are nipped for DUI are repeat offenders, many of whom have done time in jail and/or had their driving priveleges suspended" In the UK, only about 12% of drink/drive offenders are convicted of a second offence within 10 years (Department for Transport figures) and there is no evidence (so far as I'm aware) that any significant proportion of those have previously been imprisoned for drink/drive offences. Their 'driving privileges' would normally have been suspended for 12 months (minimum) following the first conviction. (More severe penalties are imposed for a further conviction within 10 years so the figures are readily available for that period.) FL |
another toast?
Am I being a bit OTT when I say that Lyle Prouse's posts should be compulsory reading for all pilots? I found them enlightening, enlightened and moving. I have never read anything on PPrune that comes close to getting to the heart of an issue quite so eloquently and accurately.
As an added thought, is it significant that the originator of the thread, niknak, went awfully quiet during the time that Capt. Prouse was posting his thoughts, only to emerge once he had signed off? I for one, regret his absence and fear this thread will be the worse for his leaving. Perhaps it's time to close it, save it, print it and post it via CHIRP to us all. Indeed, Blue Skies! |
Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer
(Post 3041652)
JO That may be true of Canada, but not of the UK.
In the UK, only about 12% of drink/drive offenders are convicted of a second offence within 10 years (Department for Transport figures) and there is no evidence (so far as I'm aware) that any significant proportion of those have previously been imprisoned for drink/drive offences. Their 'driving privileges' would normally have been suspended for 12 months (minimum) following the first conviction. (More severe penalties are imposed for a further conviction within 10 years so the figures are readily available for that period.) I suppose the term "large" is subjective. I'm sure you'd agree that if someone said that 12% of pilots were alcoholics, there'd be a loud cry for change. I happen to believe that if 12% of drunk drivers are repeat offenders, it is a large percentage (and our statistics in Canada are similar). I also believe that we are missing an opportunity by not making it mandatory that all offenders undergo an assessment to determine if they have an addiction to alcohol, or if they are alcohol abusers (as they are different animals). The assessment should be followed by mandatory participation in an appropriate treatment and/or prevention program as a condition for the reinstatement of driving priveleges. The same could apply to anyone who is found to be performing any regulated "safety critical" activity while under the influence. Jeff |
(a) Had not had a drink for 17 hours - that's seventeen - before departure time, or 16 prior to sign on. (b) Was suffering from high stress levels bordering on depression - and had been attempting to get treatment for this some time. (And any EK pilot will recognise how hard it is to get an appointment at the EK Clinic, where EK staff are obliged to go.) (c) Much like Lyle Prouse, he has made absolutely no attempt to fight the charge, (which in my opinion, while - like Lyle - is admirable, is unfortunate, because I believe a proper medical assessment would have shown that his liver function is shot and much of that can be attributed to the stress he was under Secondly, liver function is not affected by stress - it is affected by long term heavy consumption of alcohol. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 21:22. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.