Amen, Will

Some people here seem to advocate a zero tolerance approach to this particular offence. I would be interested to know whether they would stand up to the scrutiny they would propose to put pilots under.

If you (and I mean the likes of jet_noseover, will fraser and fincaslte84) have ever allowed your car to go over some arbitarily set speed limit, should you be banned forever because you could have killed a child? If your answer is yes then by all means condemn any pilot who should be found to have breached an arbitarily set blood alcohol limit.

Perhaps some people would be wise to recognise that whilst they're not perfect, neither is anyone else. Very few things in life are black and white, and this should not be one of them.

Will Fraser; are you actually advocating capital punishment?! Now that would be a really good way to stop reoffending - why don't you write to your congressman...

JofM5
 

I find your post bizarre too.

Fully agree, guilty until proved innocent, so won't pass judgement, but the fact it is officially reported he failed the test would not seem favourable for him, concerning his guilt/innocence.

Now, I also agree that if he has a fundamental problem and cannot help himself, then he needs both help and sympathy, once he has paid the penalty for what he has done, assuming he has done it.

Ignorance is no excuse. If you get in your car and drive whilst over the limit, you will be prosecuted and deservedly so, even if you didn't know it was unlawful to drive over the limit set. If driving is a fundamental part of your job, and you loose your job as a result, tough; you knew the game.

An earlier poster suggested it was ok to drink and drive or drink and fly if it was his airplane and he wasn't carrying SLF. Get real everyone, whenever you get in your car or your airplane impaired through alcohol then you are a danger to everyone around you, whether it be in the air or on the ground. No excuse, and God forbid you kill or hurt anyone.

Time for help, and I agree with that, is when you have faced up to your responsibilities and paid your dues! Aviation is not a privileged club, exempt from responsibility.

This guy might yet be proved innocent. I hope, for his sake he is!

TDK,
There are accidents and the "induced accidents". What a lame excuse of the black and white. You show up drunk for work?


btw..I am for a capital punishment.

If only there was this much outrage over pilot fatique a much larger problem . Problem no simple test . Gets in the way of profits. All long haul pilots know the feeling of hanging in the straps. More coffee please

TDK mk2 Rather flippant response. If you are serious I would explain it thus: "Fatal" in the sense of permanent loss of certificate. "Zero tolerance"? In this case, yes.

I would recommend all who are convicted appeal the conviction if so disposed. If convicted of impairment, and there are unknown circumstances "to overturn the conviction", be heard, by all means. There are thousands of jobs available to skilled pilots other than piloting, if alcohol is a problem. If it is a problem, seek help, I could help you find a way out. Don't make it the Public's problem or pilots at large, please.

Nothing bizarre really about my post, ignorance was me referring to whether there was a disrespect of the rules and the "I am alright" attitude.

I think we all agree the guy should not have been allowed on the flight deck and the correct action was taken (even if some disagree by the wrong people i.e. airport security). But my post is about whether he should ever be allowed on the flight deck again.

Correct if you get caught drink driving and thats your job you lose your licence - but the ban is only for a specific period of time and often able to be reduced by undertaking an alcohol awareness course and also if you have an acohol problem upon production of a doctors letter saying they are happy with your rehabilitation.

My point is more towards the fact that aviation has its own stresses and couple with the time away from family and the things that go along with that then it would not be unreasonable to say that some may abuse the bottle too much as a way out. I am not saying this applies to all or it is excusable but it is a fact of life - it happens to many people in high stress roles - read John's post at the start of the thread.

The point of my post was that people are shooting a man whilst he is down and not even considering the position of why he may be there. Given we dont know these facts should we really be calling for him to be banned for life - could this not be just pouring more problem on a person with enough problems already ? Or should if the guy has problems we as humane humans help them out of the hole to rebuild their life ?

I am not saying that we should be all fluffy about this - I am saying we should not be executioner without the full facts. If the guy took unreasonable risks without thinking of the consequences (this is different from having a problem) then by all means throw the book - but what point is this thread if we are just going to say throw the book at everyone - what can the aviation industry learn from these examples from these comments other than someones judge/jury verdict ?

ea340
 

When will you guys stop associating an excess of alchohol with fatigue? Yes, both cause accidents, but some are self-inflicted.

The Dhc-8Q400 debate smacks very largely of fatigue and pilot ineptitude, but the fatigue there appears to have been self-inflicted, according to reports, so it was not down to a fatiguing roster. Rather the pilots lived so far away and were paid so little, they had no alternative but to turn up for work incapable?

Airlines that roster pilots to the point of fatigue, even if such rosters are "legal", have an argument to defend, but at the end of the day, the buck stops with the pilot. If you drink and go flying or you go flying when you are unfit, through illness or fatigue, then you are liable for whatever happens. Goes with the territory. If you don't like the consequences, then go get a desk job. The fact you dreamt of flying since you were 2 yrs old did not give you the right to do it!

A pilot's job carries great responsibility and intense pressure. There are many opportunities in life where one chance is all one gets. Risking the achievement and prestige of commercial piloting for the "right" to have a pint too close to flight time is inexcusably stupid. It speaks volumes about discretion, professionalism, respect and decorum that were prerequisites to the chair at some point. To me, this is not a subtle argument. It is such an avoidable problem. Use your head, decline a trip if the boss wants your services too close to your last drink.

I think most would by now know my position, I'll let it go for now. My bias is an alcohol free cockpit, What's yours?

Will

Jofm5
 

I'm not sure that we disagree at all, following your last post, with one exception;

Pilots are not a special case and therefore deserving of special attention. Sure, it's a stressful job at times, but most of the stress comes on the ground and not in the air. To imply that pilots therefore should gain a special exemption due to the stresses of the job does not hold water. Pilots get paid for what they do, and with some notable exceptions, get paid well for that.

I am told that doctors have a high incidence of alcoholism, but is it acceptable therefore that I might be operated upon by one that is under the influence? I am sure you will agree that is unforgiveable.

Most pilots are level-headed, sober and responsible folk. If one of our peers falls over, then we should help, but not condone him continuing to act that way. It dosen't matter who 'shopped' him. His crew would have served him better if they had done so, rather than security!

Just wondering..what time of a day (or night) was the breathalyzer test taken..
Not that it matters,,,it still was positive...

Cumulonimbus,

I agree pilots are not a special exception and concur with your doctors analogy.

I just think rather than people shooting off at how this guy should have his career terminated that more time is spent in the prevention of the situation in the first place.

I am SLF (hopefully soon a PPL) and hold great respect for you guys in what you do. But having read near enough all threads on here for the last year or so I observe the fatigue, security hassles, management hassles etc along with observing time away from home along with the stresses of flying in inclement weather - not to mention the mechanical issues experienced. All of these add to the stresses of the job - regardless of recompense.

All I have read on the various forums on here has made me wonder if the PPL is something I really want to do considering all the issues and stresses involved. But my input on this thread is driving at rather than assasinating this guy with little facts the discussion should more be around how to stop such a person ever getting on the flight deck in the first place regardless of whether it is self induced or not which was reflected in my initial posts on this thread. What more can everyone do to identify someone on that slippery slope etc.

My later posts have been to try to stop people kicking a man whilst he is down - why fellow pilots are having a go at someone they probably neither know or almost definately dont know the reasons behind what happened is beyond me. These fellow aviators know more than I do what the guy has gone through to get to the position he has and are more than willing to sacrifice that without thinking "There go I but for the grace of whichever god" or maybe not maybe it was stupidity but I doubt anyone with enough sense to get to that level will be that stupid (there will always be exceptions).

Going back to your doctors analogy - if the medical board accept the doctors rehabilitation should his expertise be wasted or used again ? I think the person on the operating table that requires a doctor will probably not care whether they are rehabillitated or not.

Prevention is better than cure....

Cumulonimbus There's a whole lotta people here who agree with you. I don't. I think innocent until proved guilty is best. And fairer, although fairness don't seem to be important to some here.


Will Frazer
So you think your acquaintance Lyle Prouse should have been barred from flying ever again for the rest of his life and not been given the chance to prove he was "a fine example of recovery." :confused:


Jofm5
Good post. :ok:
But with some of the guys here it's like :ugh:

Bronx, yes I do. He's a fine example of recovery wherever he goes. He was very fortunate to get his command back. It was one in a million.

Jofm5: "Going back to your doctors analogy - if the medical board accept the doctors rehabilitation should his expertise be wasted or used again ? I think the person on the operating table that requires a doctor will probably not care whether they are rehabillitated or not."

Speaking only for myself of course, the only time I wouldn't is if I were heavily anesthetised.

Other than that, I'd be off that table and running as fast as I could push the i.v. bag stand thingy in front of me.
:)

Will: eloquently argued, I agree 100%. It's about taking responsibility as a professional in a matter recognized by all (and codified) to have critical importance. To flout this and get caught in the act (hypothetically - no undue inferences made about the present subject) is to deserve what you get, in spades. From where exactly comes any "diminished responsibility" kind of an argument in a case like this? Fuggedabaudit. This isn't capital punishment btw guys, but it IS time to find another line of work.

But you still don't think he should have been allowed to fly ever again. :confused:

That's what I said, yes.

If you have ever been into theatre the last thing on your mind is to ask if the surgeon operating is to ask if they are a recovering alcoholic. The main reason being is that you place trust in all the checks and controls that surround that situation, you rely on the medical authority to grant and check the license of the person(s) performing the procedure and you place your life in their hands.

This is a good parallel with the aviation industry when SLF board a plane. We dont go up and check the credentials of the flight crew, we place our trust in the CAA/FAA to have done those checks for us. It makes little difference if someone is rehabilitated they have been checked and probably more closely than others - the crew around them are probably more aware to check also.

The opportunity on this thread is to discuss the identification prior to a crew member entering the flight deck in an inapporpriate state and how to manage the recovering crew member when they continue their duties. To imply you would not accept a procedure from a certified doctor after knowing they were rehabilitated is to imply you have no confidence in the staff around them - the same applys to the flight deck as they will have the same knowledge you will.

Thanks for the compliment - I just think the opportunity is being missed on here as to discuss the problem of a crew member being able to enter the flight deck in that state rather than being prevented prior. There has been no discussion as yet as to why the fellow crew members permitted this when Airport Security had identified the issue.

I dont think people stating their convictions on what punative measures should be dealt out is productive especially not knowing the full issue.

As SLF a discussion of punative measures for fellow crew turning a blind eye might as easily be discussed as well considering it was a Security guard that picked up on the problem. But it seems some just want to concentrate on the sole individual.

There are a number of issues to be discussed with the limited knowledge we know - such an unfortunate situation can be made into a positive learning experience to all in the industry.

ok, here's one for all you folk out there who think that pilots should only ever set foot in an aircraft in 'perfect' condition.

I'm sitting here with a screaming 10 week old in my arms. His mother is exhausted and unwell. His 22 month old brother has been awake twice in the last 2 hours. His 3 year old brother is covered in spots.

My standby starts at 4Z, do I:
1. call now and declare myself unfit,
2. wait and see if they call me and then tell them I'm unfit,
3. report if called and rely on caffeine and my collegue to get me through 4 sectors because sick leave (and unpaid dependancy leave as my manager will say this is) is part of the matrix my company say they will use for redundancy selection which they frequently refer to in various subtle and not so subtle ways. I've already had a week of unpaid dependancy leave this year in addition to two weeks unpaid paternity leave to support my partner.

So you guys out there in the 'perfect world' go ahead and tell me how fitness for duty is BLACK and WHITE. You just want to hang someone (literally in one case it seems) for failing a test to prove your blind theory of zero tolerance. I suppose you believe that staff security screening will save us from a terrorist attack as well - sorry, thread creap.

TDK mk2...You are a free man. You can do anything you think is proper. One thing you must not try to do.

Everything.

TDK mk2:

My advice is do what you feel safe to do. Putting your pax at risk is putting yourself at risk which at worst could be to deny your offspring a dad. Evaluate it that way and you will make the right choices !

p.s. congrats on the (fairly) recent arrival - mine is at 7 months and wow they are hard work - thankful for the jumperoo at least I can put him down for ten mins have a smoke and let him wear himself out lol.

FL

My intention was to show that sometimes words have different meanings depends on how you want to interpret them. You did use "impaired" not drunk, I already stated in the past that I do not think the use of the word drunk is appropriate at all in such thread. Thanks to you I understood pretty well the law in England.
However I do not agree with statements such as "being over the limit does not mean be drunk" implying fitness for duty..

FSLF

Will

I assume following your logic that you would advocate that any individual who has been even the slightest over the legal limit whilst driving a car should lose their driving licence for ever, as the potential consequences of an accident involving a car could be the deaths of many people.?

The field breathalyser has been proved on countless occasions to have been inaccurate and is the reason why the field breathalyser result must be confirmed by another teast before it is admissable in court. So the chap is not guilty yet...get it.

Furthermore, there is a massive difference between being over the aviation limit for alcohol and being drunk. For those also commenting that drinking is self inflicted and fatigue is not, then think again. A point to ponder. If you only had 5 hours sleep last night, then when you wake up this morning and drive to work (let alone strap in to an aircraft), your reflexes are almost clinically identical to someone who has drunk 2 pints of lager. If you have had 20 hours of wakefulness then your reactions are the same as somebody that has had 5 pints of beer.

Now whilst many here will never advocate drinking and driving/flying, how many of you have packed the family into the car at 3am to make the 2 hour drive to the airport, so that you get the early morning cheap flight on your holidays? I assume those of you that are oh so perfect and professional will realise now that given the above information, whilst the causal effects of fatigue may not be self inflicted, the decision to drive and then subsequently fly when you no you are fatigued (or only had 5 hours sleep last night) is a decision that is entirely self inflicted.

Fincastle
Whilst i get over the urge that has been triggered by your post to shout AS*HOLE at the top of my voice, would you please make yourself known to MI5, CIA, FBI and the NSA. They have countless crimes waiting to be solved by an individual as gifted as you are for being able to pluck the facts of a case out of thin air when you know neither the individual, the chain of events or the technical knowledge required to make a balanced, informed decision. Thank god you will never be a judge.


Flying Lawyer

Thank You for your posts!

On general note, I feel that any threads on this subject should be completely banned in the future. I continue to be sickened by the 'off with their heads brigade' who deem anyone a drunkard or guilty until the facts, (as they are presented in court, rather than the media) are known. I wish I led such a perfect life as you perfect individuals.:hmm:

16024...

Well taken...you're tired of this thread, so good-bye...are you tired of PPrune yet?...I hope so...

Attacking me or any other poster is pretty ignorant on the "Prune", however, I'll accept your apology when you can quote the FAA "document" you reference in your post....

FAR Pt 135 pilots are held to the same standards as FAR Pt 121 pilots re: drug/alchol use...

You claim to have an ATPL, are freom the UK, and "joined" the Prune in 2002....But only 20 posts???

And BTW, I've flown over 24 yrs and have over 6,000 hrs Command time on International (read Transatlantic/Pacific) routes and everywhere in between on large transport jets.

But of course I started with a "commuter" (FAR 135) airline and never had time to put something "up my nose"...

:mad:

TDK
You should be able to take that decision your self, if not maybe piloting is not your call.

Your private "setup" should never be aloud to interfere with other peoples safety.

If you are professional you know if you are fit to fly, period!

Roger Sofarover
I agree. Unfortunately, it happens each time there's a press report that a pilot has been arrested on suspicion of committing an alcohol offence. :rolleyes:


FSLF Fair point. Again, we're back to the problem of how people want to interpret fit and unfit.
In the last alcohol thread, I wrote: "There are always people who continue to equate unlawful to fly (exceeding the zero or virtually zero prescribed limit, even by a miniscule amount) with unfit to fly (impairment)."
You responded "That sentence closes the discussion on the thread. I do agree with you 100%."

It's impossible to have a productive discussion if different people are using the same word but meaning very different things by it.



.

"Never been an alcohol related accident in passenger transport"? Wrong. For instance this crash here, with 25 fatalities:

ASN Aircraft accident Douglas C-47A-30-DK (DC-3C) OH-LCC Koivulahti

The investigation report is available on the internet, albeit in Finnish only, and I can post the link if anybody wants to check, but, according to autopsies performed by the Pathology Dpt of the University of Helsinki, the captain had over 0.2 % alcohol in his blood and the copilot 0.156 %. Therefore the captain was at 4 times the present drink & drive limit and the copilot at 3 times the limit.

John McG,

Excellent post, thank you. I concur with everything you said. We share the same sobriety date - '92. I lost my marriage, home, driving licence, senior management position, self-respect and was about to lose my class 1 medical. Thanks to our 'fellowship' I got the help I needed when I needed it most. My airline and CAA doctor knew what I was doing and gave me much support through some difficult times; so much so that I eventually made Head of TRTO again and retired a few years after my normal retirement date.
I now spend a happy and sober retirement in a beautiful place that now has AA. My daughter, who was 5 when I stopped drinking, was spared the horrors of growing up with a drunk for a dad and now visits for very happy holidays when she can spare the time from her medical studies.

Rod

And this is just Australia:

full article at: Aircraft accidents and avoidance - human factors - Intute: Science, Engineering and Technology scroll down to the relevant title and click on it.

green granite

Yes, the findings of the Australian research were interesting.

The researchers examined and analysed the accident and incident database, looking at all occurrences in which drugs or alcohol was recorded between 1 January 1975 and 31 March 2006, to determine the prevalence and nature of drug and alcohol related accidents and incidents in Australian civil aviation.

The research found that, in just over 31 years, there were only 22 such instances.

I don't know how many flights were flown by Australian pilots in those 31 years but it must be hundreds of thousands - possibly millions.

It is, of course, essential to bear in mind:

• that not all those accidents and incidents (ie no accident) were caused either wholly or partly by pilot error;
  
  and, even if they were caused wholly or partly by pilot error,
• that it does it does not necessarily follow that alcohol played any part whatsoever in the error.

FL

So, what´s your point?

And how many incidents can you prove that alcohol are NOT involved?
(i refer to a earlier post regarding not controllable,, "combustibility of hydrocarbons" remember? if not SDflyer#66 )

By now we all know that you will defend the crew even if he/she ending up in emergency past out from alcoholic consumption!! but still not proved guilty.

Finally i don´t understand what you want to accomplice with you Juridical debate?
I think you have a hard time to understand that most people here don´t like the alco attitude,, lets discuss that instead of acual cases or/and proved guilty or not!

Indeed FL I posted it really to counter the claim that booze had never been involved in any accidents, as you say whether or not alcohol paid a part in any accident/incident can only be a matter for conjecture anyway. I would imagine that it would be impossible to prove that a pilot, say 1% over the limit, had an accident due to alcohol.

At the risk of prolonging this thread needlessly I would like to return to what YHZChick said very early on in this thread -


I accept that it later emerged that he failed a rudimentary breath test but I also have grave reservations about others ability to detect the smell of alcohol correctly. Here's why.

I am not a pilot or in any way involved in transport or operation of machinery but accept that, in my line of work a certain professional standard has to be maintained. With my collegues I make no secret of the degree that alcohol plays in my social life whilst not getting out of control. Following a change of management I was recently called to the office and told that my manager could smell alcohol on me and her fellow manager, who had been called in for the purpose, informed me that she could smell it heavily on me even though I was about 4 feet away. I went out of the office while they discussed it and asked 2 colleagues if I smelled of alcohol. After breathing into one guy's face ( a teatotaller) he said 'very,very slightly' and my other colleague said 'Not at all'. On my return to the office I was informed that they were sending me home and I told them of my findings. Lo and behold, no further action. I am sure that the fact that I am one of those who will not be bullied by managers has absolutely nothing to do with it.

We do not hear of how many FC have been reported by security and been cleared immediately. Newspapers do not run non-stories.

Further, there are several medical conditions which will not impair abilities but produce substances similar to alcohol. Ethyl alcohol is one of a group of substances which also include acetone and ketone. Acetone is used in nail polish etc and ketone is produced by ketosis, a breaking down of food which is more usually found in bulimics but not exclusively so, it may affect those with highly irregular appetites or gastric problems. The ketone thus produced may smell similar to alcohol. This may be exacerbated by incipient dental problems as cavities in the mouth, unreachable by brushing, can cause build up.

Finally there is mouth wash, there is only one comercially available m/w in UK that I am aware of that does not have an alcohol-based carrier. If you want an interesting time at security go to toilets just before passing through and run some Listerine round your mouth, your colleagues can run book on you getting stopped.

All the above in no way exonerates those who knowingly break the rules but may put it in a wider context.

Now awaiting incoming.

Not a wise thing to do , if you do get stopped and breathalised you run the risk of failure of the breath test - which is why if you get stopped whilst driving prior to the breath test you will be asked if you have used mouth wash in the prior 20 minutes. To confirm the non-presence of alcohol should you state you have used mouthwash requires a blood test - this all takes time and would mean you probably would not make the flight and cause disruption.

and in the process show security as the oxygen thieves that they are, when you said 'mouthwash, and it was 'mouthwash' and all because you display a degree of dental hygeine

Roger

Your response to my several posts needs an answer. "by your logic" and then what amounts to a straw man argument. This thread concerns commercial piloting with passengers, public carriage, not motoring. I won't answer your attempt to drift the focus off my opinion, which I believe is quite clear. What is yours? Rather than attack my "logic" and attempt to portray it as somehow irrational, explain yours.

The breathalyzer? Due process? Fatigue? Your every attempt to deflect the debate from a simple discussion into areas that are wholly unrelated is not typical of your usual articulate and well reasoned posts.

Laws are arbitrary, they need to be or be liable to attack as too specific and burdensome.That is why there is one standard for everyone, there is no other way.
Bewailing them as too harsh is ridiculous. What should be done, slide the index by nationality? Body weight? Gender?

Would you routinely allow a fellow pilot on deck with you whose senses are at 98%? 50%? Without alcohol but hungover? I doubt it.

I'll restate. If legally demonstrated to be over limit at flight time, one's certificate should be revoked.

It's curious to me the howls of protest from the others who disagree. Drinking alcohol is a legal pursuit, anyone who thinks my opinion involves a moral judgment is wrong. In uniform walking on the a/c with any measurable alcohol in the blood is so stupid as to bring into question the offenders sanity. Drinking and commercial flight should be strictly exclusive of each other. Anyone who mixes them shouldn't be flying. Further, residual alcohol can be indicative of a problem. Coming off a drunk?
Alcohol impairs the senses and judgment in many ways. Metabolytes of alcohol in the blood can cause sensate and perception problems, absent alcohol itself.

Sad to say one can no longer place utter faith in the people upfront. Whether it was ever justified, lately there are other issues staining the performance and trustworthiness of those who fly and those who manage flight. Lack of training, experience, and judgment are enough to counter, who needs the perception of an alcohol problem in the mix?

Cumulonibus a few minor corrections to your post I was six when I became interested in flying and the Vanguard was still a paper airplane. As for flying a desk that will come soon enough after 40 years all good things must come to and end .As for rostering long haul and ultra long haul have very serious fatique issues with no simple fixes as anyone who has done it will atest . Short and medium haul have their own fatique issues. The point is no matter what causes the impairment you are impaired. In my humble opinion fatique is a much more serious impairment issue than alcohol ever was . Should you go flying with alcohol impairment of course not is it even a minor problem in western aviation no. Dont try to tell me at 3 am body clock on a 10 hour trip you are not fatique impaired I have been around to long. Try reading TDK mk2 post we have all been there and that includes you I suspect. After that read some of the NASA research

Flying Lawyer, if you want a fight then you've got yourself one. I know that you have defended a pilot in the past who had been caught over the limit, so I understand this subject is rather close, but that really does not excuse your nauseatingly sycophantic attitude towards the profession.

The point I was trying to make, as you are fully aware, is that IF the breathalyser results show he was over the limit and IF that pilot had flown, the safety of that flight would have been jeopardised. In exactly the same way that flight safety is jeopardised by fatigued crew. That's right, I realise that's a problem too.

What is quite clear from this thread (and others) is that:

a) a number of professional pilots who post on this forum have a drink problem
b) they believe, for whatever reason, that this is not incompatible with their job
c) they do not believe it makes a difference to their flying ability to the extent that flight safety is compromised (increased confidence being associated with drinking)
d) they do not like the fact that passengers and 'outsiders' realise this
e) this winds them up to the extent that they will drag everything from fatigue and ludicrous comparisons with drunk-drivers (nb: drink-driving is also illegal!) into the debate as a defence.

JOHN McGHIE
 

Stunningly articulate penetrating post that belies the affliction that dogs many of us - that of ADDICTION.

I am not a sauce monkey but I am a weed slave and your post strikes a deep cord for me.