Better them than the coroner.

Sorry to upset a few on here but if I fly my aircraft after drinking then it is the same as driving a car having a few in the pub.My risk!

When I pay for a bus,train or plane ticket then I pay for someone up front that can do the job and is not under the influence of drink or drugs.

Commercial pilots are like truck drivers..they are paid to do the job. They are also paid well just like politicians and exposed to the same risks of publicity and loss of employment if they mess up and the press find out. Commercial flying is no longer a gentlemens club as it was in the old days of BEA,BOAC and PAN-AMERICAN

When I fly my aircraft it's my machine and my risk and I am paying.

The moment I buy a ticket you are paid to fly me safely from A to B.:rolleyes:

If you can drive or fly in a place where there's no property or people that you might damage in a state of intoxication, then doing these things while drinking is indeed your own business. If you risk damaging the property of others or injuring people while intoxicated, however, then your state becomes a concern for everyone. Laws against operating vehicles while intoxicated are predicated upon this reality.

I'm afraid I find it difficult to trust pilots who engage in substance abuse, including the consumption of ethanol, no matter how much time elapses between their abuse and their flying activity. And that is all the more true when they attempt to rationalize their abuse and criticize anyone who suggests that such abuse might not be a good idea for pilots. This includes those who think it's okay to drink as long as you remain below some arbitrary legal limit.

I think JohnMcGhie's post said it best. More than a few people here seem to be in denial.

What have the last three(3) posters been taking?
Sitigeltfel: "Better (security) than the coroner"
What coroner:eek:
To which incident are you referring?
I will make it easy for you. There has never been an alcohol related fatality in passenger transport.
AnthonyGA(GA): "Substance abuse"
Drinking the damn stuff is abusing it, now! What do you do with it?
Can no one else see WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE? (yes I was shouting that bit).
Oops, but there have been a few stupidity related accidents.
Think on, you two.

YHZChick I guess you knew the answer to that question was gonna be No. Yep, the only sensible thing to do but there's never any shortage of idiots happy to do the opposite.

Caudillo True. That's been explained over and over in every alcohol thread we've had but however many times it's explained there'll always be folk who haven't got the brains to understand it. :ugh:

One Outsider There certainly are.

sitigetfelt From smelling of alcohol to coroner in one move. :ok:
Have you thought of writing for the movies? http://www.xpmediacentre.com.au/comm...es/3D/rofl.gif


AnthonyGA Since "some arbitrary legal limit" is either zero or almost zero depending on the law of the state are you saying all pilots should be tee-total?

Would you care to explain why you think it's not okay for pilots to drink alcohol when they are off duty provided they are below the legal limit when they go to work.

Intoxicated? :confused:
I thought of trying to explain that being over the aviation alcohol limit doesn't mean someone's intoxicated but decided it would be a waste of time. :rolleyes:


B.

The alcohol issue goes way beyond aviation.
Europeans find it hard to understand the draconian US law on open or closed alcohol containers in cars.You can fight for your country in the USA but not drink until you are 21.

European visitors to the USA are also more or less treated as criminals by the
Stasi in New York and Miami the moment they step of the aircraft.

It looks increasingly like you are on duty from the moment you leave home until you return.Hence the old fashioned room parties are a thing of the past.Just look at the pictures that emerged in the UK tabloid press of the Heathrow BA who pulled off the Boeing landing.

Ask yourself if you have ever been in a situation of duty where a press picture would have wrecked your career.

I rest my case.

Obviously a very emotive subject, one I would like to get involved in but I have just noticed that the pubs are open and am off for a pint

Well said Phil ...

Surely we're all in the business of 'minimising risk' - increased alcohol (to my knowledge) never reduces risk. We ought to ask the question: "would my flight be safer if I didn't drink <T-24hr?"

Whilst flying will never be totally safe, if we can easily & practically do one more thing to improve the odds, what is the argument not to? (and 'I like drinking' is not an acceptable answer)

'Phil Space' wrote;

"It looks increasingly like you are on duty from the moment you leave home until you return.Hence the old fashioned room parties are a thing of the past.Just look at the pictures that emerged in the UK tabloid press of the Heathrow BA who pulled off the Boeing landing."

Yes Phil, those party days are well and truly over; causal factors being, lack of days off anymore downroute, plus getting older!!

I was breathalysed straight after that landing by the LHR police (no objection from me as I was happy to be proved innocent of any blame) plus another urine test by the authorities after my AAIB interview some hours later... both negative.

People arrive at work in all sorts of state of mind; it is often up to the front line staff to recognise whether our colleagues are fit to fly. Our state of mind can be affected by all manner of personal problems and are quite often manifested by drinking too much. Our jobs include looking after others; and I hope that the other members of this crew from LHR are not cursing themselves for not warning this pilot. They might be blaming themselves now for not telling him to go sick at the hotel? He might have been showing signs of crying out for help over the previous sector/night stop or even months before. We all have the capacity to help guys help themselves and not end up in this situation.

Liquorice anyone?

Did I actually read a post maintaining that "over limit is not necessarily drunk"?

It remains breathtaking that there are people defending mixing alcohol with aviation at all. Over limit is overlimit. The legal limit is established to prevent even the appearance of impaired flight. There will always be whiners and babies trying to justify their "rebellion", but taken in context, it remains immature and unproffessional.

Will

"over limit is not necessarily drunk" is a statement of fact. It is a neutral statement.

It is bizarre how some need to twist, embellish or exaggerate in order to make whatever point they are trying to make.

I am not having a go at anyone but in an increasingly big brother society where we are surrounded by cameras and 'citizen journalists' we are all just a couple of clicks from the front page.

The sort of initiations I experienced years ago would be tabloid fodder today:ok:

One Outsider
 

Sorry you are late to this discussion. The phrase infers a defense of drinking. If you refuse to admit that, you may not be able to add to the debate. Why would one write that statement? If you are trying to disagree with my conclusion, say so. Your position that I am "twisting" the discussion is blatantly dishonest.



Will

If this is true, then might it be because someone, possibly security or another crew member has stopped an intoxicated pilot from flying?

The phrase infers nothing. You, however, do.

It is not my position that you are twisting the discussion, that appears to be an exaggeration of yours.
It is my opinion that you twist Caudillo's words to suit your argument.

16024...better ck the NTSB reports for FAR 135 in the USA...several cases of fatal accidents due to pilot error...Contributing factor-"Pilot Impairment" due to drugs/and or alchol...

Down-in-3-green.
I was quoting an FAA document so argue with them.
We are talking here about Airline Pilots. I suppose you would call it Part 121.
I don't know about part 135.
What you bush pilots put up your nose is your business...

16024

You say: So let me ask you this: do you honestly believe that if this pilot had not been stopped by the police and had commanded that flight, his 'state' would not have increased the possibility an accident? Or do you think that being under the influence of alcohol makes no difference to the job?

The following definition is taken from dictionary.com

quote
The modifier drunk in legal language describes a person whose blood contains more than the legally allowed percentage of alcohol
unquote

FSLF

Don't understand the arguement. He was breathalysed, found positive & then arrested. Job well done, good riddance to an irresponsible idiot!

Being only a mere SLF (a frequent one), it is not my place to join a debate of this sort. However many SLFs such as myself do read these threads with a great deal of interest. As such please permit me to make an observation: I find statements such as "there has never been an alcohol related fatality in passenger transport" and "over the limit is not necessarily drunk" baffling and disquieting. Whatever the factual accuracy of these statements, they seem to infer a mindset that does not reconcile with the professionalism most SLF associate with commercial pilots. IMHO

Don't understand the arguement. He was breathalysed, found positive & then arrested. Job well done, good riddance to an irresponsible idiot!

Spot on! Just lets hope this persons that make this statements are not pilots and Piloting our flights, sometimes i can´t believe what i read

Will: get in line will ya, I've been dealing with this type of a response before this thread ....:)
-------------
Responding to another poster: to state as if it were fact that no fatal aviation transportation accident (commercial) has ever involved alcohol as major causative factor (let's not quibble about the semantics) is to grossly over-stated the evidence. "Absence of evidence (if that is the case here), is NOT necessarily evidence of absence", often it just means we don't have the relevant data. Of course there may in fact be plenty of evidence, I wouldn't know.

To suggest such a thing would be laying yourself open to a very big Type 2 error (false negative scenario) - not a good thing when we're talking about the public safety. I'm suggesting that pilots may have crashed and burned along with their passengers, with no EtOH levels determined for the most obvious of reasons to do with the combustibility of hydrocarbons ....

If what we read is true about this fellow, good riddance to him. I hold the same view about people who I consider equally irresponsible in my own profession - I refer to fraud in the matter of reporting experimental results in the area of drug discovery. I've seen it, I've dealt with it in no uncertain terms, life goes on. IOW people like this need to be weeded out of the herd, the sooner the better.

[I know I'm going to get into more trouble for this post, esp. from certain quarters. Retrofitted flame suit donned}

Overall though, I find this thread highly reassuring.
Cheers.

Considering where it might have been :eek: :ooh:

I'll think I'll pass on that, thanks for asking though...

Will Fraser Yes, you did. I did too. And the poster who said it is correct.
Correct. But over the aviation limit does not necessarily mean drunk.
I'm not sure that is the reason, but there's an encouraging sign of progress now that you're referring to the appearance of impairment.
ie A pilot over the legal limit might give the appearance of being impaired - even if his alcohol level is so minute that he is not actually impaired.
There are two separate and different offences: (1) Exceeding alcohol limit and (2) Being impaired.

Blimey! And people accuse lawyers of being arrogant and pompous!
I don't know if O-O is late to the discussion but he's not only added to the debate but appears to be better informed and more logical in his thinking than you.

'Over the limit is not necessarily drunk' might "inferr a defense of drinking" to you, but I certainly don't infer that from it. It's an accurate and relevant statement of fact.

Why would one write that statement?
Perhaps it was an attempt to keep things in proper perspective?
And/or an attempt to deter (some) people from making stupid assertions that a pilot over the legal limit is necessarily 'drunk'?
And/or to try to stop (some) people's imagination running out of control?

"Your position that I am "twisting" the discussion is blatantly dishonest."
Interesting. I thought it was fair comment.

(Sorry I'm late to the discussion. Feel free to disregard everything I say.)

John R If you'd asked me that question, my answer would be:
I have no idea.
All I know is that the press are reporting that a pilot was arrested after a field breath-test showed he was over the aviation limit and that some un-named person apparently told the Sun he was 'four times' over the limit.
A sample of the pilot's blood would have been taken for analysis.
The results won't be available yet. It usually takes a few weeks.

If I may borrow your phrase -
So let me ask you this: Do you honestly believe that any sensible and intelligent person would make any assumptions about the pilot's 'state' on so little information.
Or express an opinion about whether his 'state' (unknown) may or may not have increased the possibility of an accident?


FSLF
I can't account for the contents of dictionary.com, but that is certainly not the law in England.
I was surprised to read your post, very surprised in fact. You've taken an active part in previous alcohol threads in which I've explained the law in a way which I thought was very clear.
If it wasn't, there's nothing more I can do.
I'm at a loss to think of any way in which I could make it clearer than I have already - several times. :ugh:

fincastle84 I agree.
You clearly don't understand.

Quote:

---

Job well done, good riddance to an irresponsible idiot!

---

Good for you. That's the spirit! :ok:
Why bother waiting to find out if he's guilty. :rolleyes:


.

Quoting deScally "it is not my place to join a debate of this sort".
As SLF you are certainly well placed to comment.
It's just that a lot of us seem to be looking in the wrong direction.
If you are on the operating table are you really going to check whether the surgeon spent any time at the 19th after his round of golf the day before.
Most of the recent big accidents involve loss of airspeed.
Remember, it is not puritanism, but Airspeed and Attitude that is going to keep us all shiny side up, and you will get lots of both from me...
I'm tired of this now. It is obvious that intelligent and dispassionate factual comments have no place here, but before I go can we PLEASE stop saying "infer" when we mean "imply" or "suggest".
You, too Fraser. Vocabulary, boy!

Yes, which bit of that factually correct post did you not understand?


No one is defending mixing alcohol and aviation.


It is truly amazing how frequently people who pontificate about being professional can't even manage to spell the word correctly! :rolleyes:


So anyone who dares to disagree with you cannot add to the debate?

You pompous @rse! :mad:

Oh , you mean that the breathalyser was faulty. Get real, the guy probably had a few too many with the hosties in a cosy little hotel room party, probably not the first time, only this time he got caught. Obey the rules, no bottle, no throttle.:D

fincastle84I have no idea if it was or wasn't.

However, what I do know is that, in the UK, guilt or innocence in an aviation context does not turn on the result of a breathalyser test.
(And rightly so IMHO.)


.

Lawyer


Even i don´t like to discuss "individual" incidents, but more the attitude

i have to ask you:

Do you believe that this pilot was bailed until July 16 for no reason
or this is something that would just happen to anyone having a bad day?

Also the last period there have been some similar incidents (that you already defended) involving "US" Airline company's ,,why are not the airlines defending there innocence pilots and their reputation in the press?

Thats sounds like a intelligent wording!! i found the pompus in Wiki but not the @rse

is that to find in the Phonetic Alphabet?

Lawyer, I know, let's make it about me!! You? Vocabulary? Elegant modification of subject, that.

How's this.: In my opinion, anyone who pilot's an aircraft in public carriage whilst demonstrably in excess of the legal threshold should be barred from flying forthwith.

Barred, as in forever.

Will

Will
When you calm down you'll see that I said nothing about your vocabulary.
I merely pointed out why your personal attack on One Outsider was not only unnecessary but IMHO incorrect.

I disagree. Far too harsh.
If a pilot is guilty of being impaired by alcohol, then IMHO he should be prevented from flying for a much longer period than for the less serious offence of exceeding the limit.
In a very serious case, possibly for ever.

If you search for posts by LProuse you may change your opinion. Or you may not, but they are very well worth reading.
He's a retired Northwest Airlines Captain, former US Marine Corps captain and Vietnam vet...and former federal prison inmate.



BTW, in the UK, courts have no power to make any order in relation to a pilot's licence. It's left to the aviation authorities to decide what licensing action should be taken. IMHO that's sensible.

.

Flying Lawyer, point taken, thank you.

Is it just me or have all these pilots been stopped by Terminal 3 security? Including the ones where there has subsequently been no case?

Obviously if someone is guilty of being intoxicated they should be dealt with accordingly as it shouldn't happen.

747-436

hmm, i did hear that before, were are the official statement of that? more then someone say so here

Lawyer

What IF! someone was proved guilty flying over the limit with XXX number of passengers in his control (or non control in this case )

what do you call that?

Flying Lawyer, Lyle Prouse is an acquaintance. He is eloquent and a fine example of recovery in the cockpit. This isn't about persons. This is about safety. What is annoying to me is the eagerness to blend one with the other. There can be no judgment here, other than the code. Pilots may not make dumb mistakes. Whether it's a hair over the breathalyzer or failing to brief weather due to time pressure, a dumb mistake, a mistake that can easily be avoided, is not tolerable. By definition, impairment is the realm above the set limit, parsing slang words to descriibe it is counter to the legal code. Flying while drunk is not excusable, not mitigable, and should disqualify fatally any pilot in public carriage, imo.

Please elaborate..

How can you predict that impared by alcohol pilot will not/may not get involved in a very serious case, as you put it. Possibly killing/injuring the 200+pax.

What do you mean by "serious offence"?

I suggest you take his/her case.

I do not know what the law is in the UK, frankly..I hope, if this pilot was over the limit.. he never flies passengers again.

There is a reason why those "limits" are set.

I find it disappointing after John's post near the start of this thread that people are calling for this pilots license etc without finding out if there is ignorance behind this incident or whether the guy is suffering from a series of problems that have been expressed with alcohol.

Sometimes the best thing for all concerned is to take a conservative approach and if there is an underlying problem that resulted in this incident then a removal from service whilst those problems are addressed.

Taking a harsh or sympathetic view to this incident cannot be performed by ourselves on here as we are not furnished with the full facts behind the cause - we can only be objective, discuss the identification of the problems by all means but squabbling over the term "Drunk" and "over the limit" does little to expand the knowledge base.

Discussing the How's and Why's and prevention of such issues are way more valuable than being judge and jury when not furnished with the full facts.

My own view as I have expressed before is that security was correct to raise the alarm - as per my earlier discussion why did not the crew do it. But as for the person involved - I hope if he has a problem he gets the help he needs as the problem will affect his life and health beyond his career and if he needs and gets help with the problem he can continue his career.

We have to remember this is not "a pilot" it is a person we are talking about and if he has a problem it has all just come to a head and he can go one of two ways (I will leave that to your imagination).