eliptic;

Read Carnage Matey's response to your, "opinion take control of a A/C with 300Pax (or whatever#) not 100 % alert are not professional and ii am shore the most pilots agree to that". You would have to cancel every overseas flight as well. Do you really think your crew is 100% alert in the descent at the end of a 15hr crossing? There are sufficient studies to support the notion that a crew member is equivalent to being legally drunk when driving home after an overseas flight.

Everyone; the issue is serious - of that there is no doubt, and I am not denying that. But don't set up an illusory "100% alert" straw-man standard and then shoot everyone in sight who disagrees - such a standard is simply is not the case in airline flying today - companies are pushing their crews as never before, on duty days, on rest periods, on booking off due to fatigue, (no pay).

To focus on one issue, a serious yet unproven accusation, and to turn attention towards London Security's propensity to smell every airline crews' morning breath, is to cherry pick your daily rant.

The issues of crew fatigue are a far more serious, insidious issues which indeed HAVE caused fatal aircraft accidents. I agree there is no excuse for any alcohol being in the blood when operating an aircraft. If that is ultimately proven here, that is a sad and personally tragic outcome.

That said, FUI is NOT at all common, while the issue of crew fatigue exists on every long haul flight, (even domestic duty days can be 14hrs).

Let the London Security people ask crews how much rest they got the night before in a noisy hotel before taking on extra duties. Let the flying public understand that the issue under discussion, while serious, is not a prime issue but crew fatigue, which can and does have the same effects as too much alcohol, certainly is. THAT is where to focus your serious discussions, not on some poor slob who may or may not be guilty, though apparently he is here.

I know it's not a big deal, but AC851 was performed on Sunday by a B777 if I believe FLIGHTAWARE.. and not a A330. May be the title is not right..

How do you feel about the new Flight Time limitations, FTL?

Recently a scientific study concluded that the FTL´s allow pilots to work such long hours that their level of fatigue equals being over the legal alcohol limit.
That makes me wonder, how it can be legal to fly fatigued when it´s illegal to fly when close but still over the legal alcohol limit. It doesn´t make sense.

I practically don´t drink alcohol at all and I have never suspected a colleague of being over the limit since 1990, when I began flying, (something I wouldn´t accept).

PJ2

I have seen your arguments on various posts and I believe that fatigue is an issue.
However IMHO to be over the legal limit and fatigued are two separated issues.
Reading the various threads about pilots being over the legal limit always the fatigue issue pops up. Sometimes it sounds more "if I can land the plane after a fifteen hours flight, I can also be over the legal limit without being impaired".
I am not saying that you stated that, but other posters sounded like that.
It is detrimental to the issue of fatigue which has to be addressed without comparison of being over the legal limit.

What's more dangerous taking a flight after having a few beers the night before or taking a flight when you know you have not had enough sleep?:=

Will the gestapo UK security start harassing pilots to find out if they have had enough sleep?:confused:

So the so called "drunks" get caught but the real dangerous ones are still flying, often because they are flying crazy schedules imposed by there companies!:eek:

Pj2,,

"100%" was more related to the discussion,, but if it is like you say there are even more reason to skip that drinking even before the 12 hours,,True??

I know that even in your profession there are "stupid" pilots,,and probably are the numbers small,,just hope it stay so

Ladusvala;
That is precisely the point here.

The regulators who are responsible for aviation's fatigue rules dismiss the science; regulators today are far too susceptible to corporate lobbyists which ensure that rules governing duty days etc are commercially, not safety-driven, (witness the recent American lobbying of the FAA's tighter duty day rules).

Rules surrounding the use of alcohol rely almost solely upon public emotion for enforcement (as clearly illustrated here) and capture attention far more quickly than crew fatigue issues which, as any airline pilot will say, are equal to an illegal level of alcohol in the blood.

This isn't setting the issue of alcohol and crews aside or begging the case. It is an attempt to place into perspective, the real issues with which professional airline crews must confront every day in balancing commercial and safety priorities. To assume that a few cases such as the one unfolding here deserves instant, harsh judgement for the accused is to approach these two issues with equal ignorance.

If you have a well paid job flying commercial jets and liked a drink, it seems obvious to me that you need your own intoximeter. An accurate machine can be purchased for less than £300.00. What an investment to protect your career! Having said that, you can't call in sick too often so some self restraint is necessary. I bet those guys nicked recently wish they'd bought one. I use one prior to cranking up the C152 if I've had a few on board! Get one!

It's the same old rhetoric from everyone.

If you're over the limit and you get nicked then tough.

All these statements of "the limit is too low" "fatigue" and blah blah blah blah blah blah are irrelevant.

There is a limit. We know what it is (I'm not implying that the limit is suitable or not). Why risk your career, your life and your reputation for a few beers?

Stupidity and ignorance spring to mind.

FrequentSLF;

Thanks - yes, you're correct - I'm not arguing that "because one is acceptable, so is the other"!

The comparison is valid in the opposite direction however - that, if it is unacceptable to be disabled through alcohol, it is equally unacceptable to be disabled by fatigue. That is a valid point, whereas the reverse certainly is not. It is in this way that the two are indeed closely related.

The legal argument for alcohol is the level of same in the blood. The legal argument for fatigue is also in the science done on fatigue and it shows that impairment in terms of task-complexity and judgement, is the same. The issues differ politically, legally, not scientifically - that is the argument being advanced here.

So difficult has the argument been to make before the regulator and the various lobbyists, that such simplified comparisons arise to point out the hazards of both. As has been pointed out more eloquently by others here, we dont' permit or accept one, so why do the industry, the regulator and even the London Security people accept the other?

eliptic;
True-and-false deal in binary opposite answers but the issue is more complex than that - it is at once trivially true, but also does not encompass very much in this discussion. There are also very good reasons for eating healthy foods etc, but in airline life that doesn't happen very often either. You made the statement that crews ought to be 100% alert and they are not, nor is that a realistic standard.

That doesn't mean it's unsafe, it just means that we're human beings and not machines that can, like aircraft, be on dty for 20hrs straight, (the MK B747 crew was (legally) on duty for 24hrs before they made a simple computer error in the takeoff data and crashed at Halifax). It means an extremely rare accusation of alcohol levels gets the headlines and the self-righteous crowd while the real industry problems are institutionally ignored by the same flying public and some commentators here.

What the pontificators and moralizers seems to not understand is that the legal limit is not set to indicate what is 'safe' and what is not. It's a politically motivated limit which, like much of the recent 'security initiatives', serves to show 'commitment' to safety.

It also serves as a convenient vehicle for the tall poppy pruners.

PJ2

The Law stipulates for a truck driver in 24 hours need 11 hours rest,,this can be split in 2 but at least one minimum 8 hours

This is registered on the trucks instrument and log book and are if not followed quite expensive to ignore,,

I don´t know the Air regulations ?

I went through Manchester security the other day, and was searched. The guy that searched me absolutely stunk of alcohol...how can he perform his duties one may ask?

eliptic;
An excellent point.

The industry has used the example of both road and rail transport duty-day regulations to advance change based upon interminable studies of crew fatigue, but with little success.

In Canada, an international crew with one extra crew member, (a Relief Pilot who is not trained or qualifed to land the aircraft, not another Captain and not another First Officer), is legal to remain on duty for 20 hours straight providing the aircraft is equipped with an SAE "standard" bunk. Under the same Canadian rules, (CARS) they are legal to remain on duty for 23 hours under "unforeseen circumstances", which places the entire onus for continuing, on the crew with the final (legal) decision made by the captain. In other words, given commercial and other pressures, the rules say "you can go, if the delays fall under the 'unforeseen circumstances' definitions".

Pilots' associations spend their negotiation dollars on adding extra crews so the one airline in Canada that does international flying uses four crew members on duty days over 15 hours. The regulations do not even mention a fourth crew member and offer no "credit" for same.

I know very well how harsh the outcomes can be for truck or bus drivers who, if stopped by the police and found to have exceeded their legal duty day, are found to have exceeded them, even by minutes - I've had discussions with these people and they are serious about fatigue. Neither the airline industry nor the regulator are.

Listen guys lets give the guy the benefit of the doubt. If hes guilty then by all means throw the book at him.

BUT

I remember not that long ago a pilot was pulled off a flight from "suspected" booze on the breath when after exhaustive testing found out it was the same amount of alcohol as mouthwash.

What gives these guys the right! You wanna do it get a breathalizer and someone who knows how to operate it and then throw accusations!

IMHO

John R;

I don't disagree with your or with Chesty Morgan's arguments - I agree completely; attempt to fly an aircraft while at/over the legal limit and you're toast, full stop.

Notwithstanding the "Keeping Up Appearances" aspect to the rule, clearly the rule is indeed in place for safety's sake as a proven factor in accidents. With this, I think we can all nod our heads and not bang them against the fridge or what-have-you.

But the fact is, it occurs so extremely rarely while crew fatigue is not at all rare nor is it a rare as a cause of accidents.

Of course it's "here we go again" - that's an obvious outcome to an unresolved aviation issue. Where is the surprise there, given all the hair being set on fire here about a rare occurence when nothing occurs regarding an equal but legal impairment through fatigue?

Anyway, that's my view as most of you know; exceeding the limit and FUI is unacceptable but there is an equally serious but ignored aspect to impairment - that's my point.

I remember visiting a fun/theme park on the outskirts of Stockholm in the 1960s. On the archway over the entrance in huge letters it said (in English) "Welcome to Gruneland - The Place Where Even the Swedes Smile".

That says it all really.

Are aircrew reporting ground staff who clearly are over the limit? Maybe it's time that you did. It strikes me that at the moment it's a one-way reporting system.

Jack

Its getting stupid that crews are allegedly still drunk when they check in. Thats what I was trying to say, thanks for reading it the wrong way.

These alcohol related threads are becoming more common and have a tendancy to take the same path again and again. They are as much fun in aguing as the gun threads in Jetblast.

... e.g. the letter of the law vs what level of impairment.

I doubt that we are going to change the law so what next?

Now the argument about level of impairment is interesting if only we had valid data and a expanded method of measurement.

With a a better level of measurement we could certainly measure such things as psychological fitment for flight inlculding judgement and reaction times. This would surely cull out a whole bunch of fatigued and bitchy pilots.

It's time to move these kind of discussions down to Jetblast where the more creative of us reside