remoak, if what you say is correct and I can entirely believe that is, then I don't think I need an answer to the question I asked a few posts back. The random breathalyser checks most definitely are required and they should be increased in frequency.

I also hope that every security guard who has the slightest suspicion about the likes of the people around that table continue to report such suspicions to the police and the appropriate legal proceedings ensue.

Nicolars49
Sir; why not just have breathylisers fitted to the flight deck door and make sure they are datalinked to the police so they can come and haul the offending crew member away to be sacrificed for their crime against aviation. Never mind if they were on a diet, or had just rinsed with mouthwash or even have a high natural occurance of alcohol in their blood, as I understand that a rare few people do.

How widespread do you really believe drinking amongst crew members is, based on an anecdote from 7 or 8 years ago? When was the last time any airline incident or accident was even partly attributed to the blood alcohol content of it's operating crew? I'll duck for the incomings after that one.

As has been said this is just the easiest thing to test for but not the one that represents the greatest threat to aviation. Have a look at the EK407 thread and start wondering what part fatigue might have played there.

But if it makes you feel safer then go ahead and call for increased random testing. It'll be up there with banning pilots (and police firearms officers) from taking liquids over 100mls through security for effectiveness.

Drinking is embedded in the british psyche? Fine. Looking at the accident stats. for UK aviation,perhaps there is an argument for making drinking compulsory?:}

Or to look at it another way, when was the last time a crew was tested for alcohol following an incident or accident? I have been involved in a few incidents over the years and it was never even suggested that the crew be breathalised. I have friends who have been unfortunate enough to have accidents, and they were never checked either. About the only time it ever happens is when there are dead bodies to be checked during a post mortem. Accident stats tell you precisely nothing about how big (or small) the problem is.

I don't think the problem is widespread, however I am also not just going to stick my head in the sand and pretend that all my colleagues are angels and never break the rules. To think that way is simply delusional.

So what do you want to do? Eliminate all risk, or just the socially acceptable ones?

I'm all for random testing, which does indeed happen in some countries. But then, I don't drink within 24 hours of flying so I have little to fear. If such testing catches nobody at all, you have still reduced or eliminated one of the holes in the cheese.

Of course, given the effectiveness of airport security in fingering offenders, it may actually catch quite a few...

At a recent Drug & Alcohol Management seminar I attended the following figures (as best I can recall them) were trotted out.

When the FAA commenced random testing their initial results were:

• Of Tech Crew tested, 0.05% returned a positive result.
• Of Cabin Crew tested, 0.5% (ten times as many as pilots) returned a positive result.
• Of Security Staff tested, 34% (680 times as many as pilots and 68 times as many as cabin crew) returned a positive result.

:eek:

I believe the last 2 posters have got it right.

It is far easier to test for alcohol than it is for fatigue. And it costs far less to legislate 8 or 12 hours bottle to throttle than it is to develope realistic and prudent flight time and duty regulations.

Having said that, I have had a few friends that have had issues with alcohol abuse. One no longer flies, the others have stayed sober through rehabilitation and follow up programs. There is an element of the job that leads to situations that your average wage earner seldom encounters, overnights far from home in the company of fellow workers who want to have a good time. If that isn't a set up for potential abuse then I don't know what is. The fact is, we have to be careful in our actions and we have to monitor ourselves because we sure as hell live under a microscope in this profession.

BUT the 12 hours doesn't guarantee the pilot is below the arbitrary limit.

People can rant rules are rules, but random testing will create huge disruption to pilots, and passengers lives, through false positives etc without improving flight safety one dot.

Which is precisely why it hasn't, and hopefully never will, be implemented. Airlines would need much higher levels of standby cover.

SLF always want more safety UNTIL its going to cost them 50% more to travel. The only reason flying is so much cheaper these days is because safety has been compromised, by making crew fly more, and more tired. Its a fact. :sad:

'Abscence management programme' - tell us more !

remoak That depends upon what you mean by "the problem".

I agree accident stats don't reveal the number (big or small) of pilots who, knowingly or unknowingly, fly when the level of alcohol in their bodies is still over the zero/virtually zero legal limit.
However, they do provide a very helpful indication of the effect (big, small or non-existent) that has upon flight safety.

The only formal research of which I'm aware is that carried out by the ATSB which conducted a thorough examination of its accident and incident database to determine the prevalence and nature of drug and alcohol related accidents and incidents in Australian civil aviation.
The rearchers looked at all occurrences in which drugs or alcohol were recorded between 1 January 1975 and 31 March 2006.

The research found that, in just over 31 years, there were only 22 instances.
It must, of course, be borne in mind (1) that not all those accidents/incidents were caused wholly or partly by pilot error and (2) that, even if they were was caused wholly or partly by pilot error, it does it does not necessarily follow that alcohol played any part in the error.
I don't know how many flights were flown by Australian pilots in those 31 years, but it must be hundreds of thousands and probably millions.


If by "the problem" you mean the number of pilots who fly when the level of alcohol in their bodies is still over the zero/virtually zero legal limit, then I don't know whether that number is big or small.

But which is more important in the context of a discussion about flight safety:

• the number (big or small) of pilots who break the law, whether they realise they are doing so or not, or
• whether big or small, it has actually caused or contributed to accidents.

Note: For the avoidance of any misunderstanding, I am not condoning breaking the law. I am merely urging people expressing outrage to consider the evidence, and the two separate issues, before jumping to conclusions. ie To keep some perspective when reading about alcohol offences or alleged offences.

A possible risk mitigation opportunity?
 

Having read through the alcohol related arrest threads on PPRUNE it is clear that an arrest and conviction is likely to destroy a professional pilot's hard won career (often for alcohol levels that would allow another person to drive a car).

I wonder if there is any mileage in pilots possessing and using the breath testing kit used by the police at road side checks. The use of this equipment in a private capacity prior to arriving for the flight would at least give the pilot a chance to assess the risk and if necessary to stand down on whatever grounds before the flight.

Would companies turn a blind eye to this practice or would evidence of such usage imply "a problem" and mark the pilot out?

I am not trying to turn a blind eye to alcoholism or drinking in this or any other safety critical industry but believe that the enforcement environment has become so draconian that some professional risk mitigation activity is warranted.

On a human note, I wish this Air Canada captain the best and hope that he is able to salvage his career.

The 12 hour rule is guidance, you still have to use your common sense. If you hammer back loads of drink you are not going to be legal after 12 hours!

(Mind you, people have put dogs into microwaves to dry them after a bath because the instructions did not say you couldn't, so maybe common sense is too much to ask for in todays dumbed down world).

Sleep, exercise, food, coffee etc make no difference in burning off units of alcohol.

Pilots are employed to be decision makers. One of those decisions is as to whether you are fit to fly, for whatever reason.
If you stink of alcohol, it is only right that you get challenged. Should mere security people do it? Well, why not, after all flight safety is everyone's concern and if there is any doubt whatsoever, it is better to check and be safe.

It is not pleasant for crew to be removed and accused (pending tests), but it is safer - what people should realise though is that just because there is suspicion or doubt, it does not indicate guilt.

Handheld devices are not accurate enough, which is why police have to take drivers back to the station after a failed roadside test.

Although intrusive, maybe there is an argument for a LION alcohol test machine to be installed at every airport - then in situations such as the one described, the pilot can be tested immediately and returned to duty within minutes when it is proved that he is not over the limit?

This would prevent any doubt and would be a quick way of resolving the issue.

You are missing the point completely, pilots should not be putting themselves in this position - if you value your job, why leave any room for doubt - 2 or 3 drinks 12 hours before a flight will always be safe, why do you have to drink more when you know you are going to be on duty? The job of aircrew brings with it responsibilities, if you can't forego staying sober 24 hours before a flight, maybe your priorities are wrong.

I have read many of the posts on this thread, but not all, so apologies if this point has already been made.

It seems that the problem, is not the witting, wilful contravention of the drink/fly rules. The problem is the increase in pilots being hauled off flights for suspected breaches of new laws/regs after they have signed on for duty.

The day-to-day health and metabolism of individuals varies; consequently the residual alcohol concentrations in individuals who have consumed similar amounts of alcohol will be measured at different levels 10 or 12 hours after the last drink.

I think that the time has come to consider the provision of reliable and trusted blood alcohol testing equipment at sign-on at RPT operations. It should be a given that nobody infringes deliberately, so a fail on the test is merely grounds for a (very) late sick call.

Doesn't sound easy to sell, but it would keep people in their jobs, out of the headlines and out of the courts. It would also keep the carriers out of the headlines.

FWIW

Many years ago now, one of my colleagues on a tiring longhaul trip away from home, adv. his local management that for various reasons he felt that he personally would be unable to operate beyond the first sector of a long, 2 - sector night, shortly to start, and that there was still time to position a relief at the first stop. He was told to operate as planned or be suspended. He operated the second sector.

Not long after, the same situation arose again, this time the pilot concerned kept quiet and operated the first sector, then demanded to see a doctor, who grounded him for symptoms of fatigue. As the stop was remote,the aircraft and passengers were forced to stop until the pilot concerned, and now of course the rest of the crew, obtained a minumum rest period.

The aircraft arrived some 12 hours late at its destination.

Only way to make 'em listen.

I agree that in an ideal world, nobody would drink more than is reasonable and there wouldn't be a problem. I am not advocating alcohol abuse or irresponsibility. The truth is that nobody is perfect and a pilot is just as likely as any other person to wake up in the morning thinking "did I drink four or was it five pints last night and how stong was that lager I drank"? One mistake in answering any one of those critical questions could be career threatening.

Life is stressful, people drink at social occasions and we can't be perfect all the time unfortunately. We can, however, be responsible. Any activity that mitigates against career and safety risk is to be encouraged I think. If a pilot finds him/herself self checking and finding that they are on the edge of legality and safety might want to consider that they have a problem and look for help through the appropriate channels. If it is a one off then the risk mitigation has worked and a career and a company's good name is protected and safety has not been compromised. Either way this approach has to be better than hiding the issue and hoping for the best which is pretty much what is happening now at great cost to the industry and to the individuals concerned.

Flying Lawyer

I would define the problem as flight crew pitching up for work with enough alcohol in their system to impair their performance, which the State has defined as 0.010 "whatevers" (I can't recall the unit used).

The problem with the research you quote is that it isn't exhaustive. it only takes into account the number of cases where alcohol was identified as a factor, but what it doesn't tell you is how often alcohol was tested for. So, over those 31 years and 22 instances, how many times was alcohol actually checked for over how many accidents/incidents? As the sample goes back to the '70s, and we are talking about Australia, my guess is that virtually none of the accidents from the earlier years will have been. Without that information, the data is meaningless.

Whether or not excess blood alcohol actually caused or contributed to an accident is not relevant and a disingenuous argument. Is flight safety predicated on the removal of all possible risk, or just the ones that have been demonstrated to cause accidents?

Pilots flying with excess blood alcohol is analagous to a simple mechanical malfunction. Take the Aloha Airlines 737 that lost it's roof, for example. The corrosion that eventually caused the failure had been there for a long time, undetected. One day, it finally gave way - but the rot had set in years before. Now, using your argument, should pilots be allowed to get away with excess blood alcohol until eventually, for one pilot, the alcohol becomes the straw that breaks the camel's back? Or do we do our best to prevent that situation from ever occurring?

I believe the primary aim flight safety is preventative intervention, not simply reaction to events.

The real issue here is getting pilots to recognise that a very common recreational activity that is deeply engrained in many cultures (drinking alcohol) is incompatible with their profession. Pilots, being human, want to have their cake and eat it too. The State quite rightly says "no" and exercises what is essentially a zero tolerance approach to alcohol. I have no issue with that, because I believe that professional pilots should be held to high standards in this regard (or hold themselves to high standards, but my experience has been that this reliance on self-discipline often fails).

So what I am saying is this:

• The number of accidents directly attributable to alcohol is irrelevant. One is too many.
• Pilots should be held to high standards in this regard.
• The available research is inconclusive.
• The default view of many agencies and most pilots is one of denial.

And finally, anyone who doesn't think that alcohol abuse is endemic in British society simply isn't looking. The "Boozed-Up Britain" culture is alive and well. My experience of night-stopping with many airline crews over 20+ years of airline flying has shown me that there is a remarkable lack of self-discipline when it comes to alcohol. Stricter controls are inevitable on pilots.

I'd love to hear the rationale for lowering the current standard, I think that's a hard case to make.

What is a unit?
 

As a post script to Tigger Too's tongue in cheek post...but one with a serious message the believes that he'd have had 24 units of alcohol - great session! In reality I reckon he'd be closer to 35 units as foloows:
8 pints (2.5units/pint) = 20 Units
6 glasses wine (1.8units/175ml glass @10% ABV) = 10.8 Units
Large Brandy (1.8units/35ml UK pub measure) = 3.6 Units

total = 34.4 Units... still way over at the required moment.

UK units of Measure are based on 1960s glass sizes and alcohol levels...half a pint of modern regular lager even the piXX weak american stuff is more than one unit (a quick check of the label on Bud bottle beside me reveals 1.7 units!!!)...We need to take this into account.

I will admit to not reading every post in detail so I may have missed it. I'm curious as to whether in the UK, ATC and aircraft maintenance folks are held to the same .01 threshold? They are after all just as engaged in an aviation activity as the folks on the flight deck.

It applies to aircrew (pilots and CC) and ATC staff and also licensed engineers. The Railways and Transport Act 2003 is the law in question and covers shipping and railways as well. Pretty sure the limit is Europe wide.

Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 (c. 20)

Aviation section: Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 (c. 20)

0.05% means that one occurrence every 1000 flights (assuming 2 pilots) or 500 flights when a relief crew is on board...it sounds quite alarming :uhoh:

Please correct me if I have interpreted your numbers wrongly...

I think you'll find it's standard procedure for any major incident in the UK these days. When a colleague of mine, parked at the holding point with the park brake set, was struck from behind by another aircraft, his entire flight crew were breathalysed, including the relief pilots.

Except the state hasn't defined how much alcohol impairs their performance, it has simply chosen an arbitrary limit based upon the limitations of the measuring equipment.