"Never been an alcohol related accident in passenger transport"?
 

The following was posted in another alcohol related thread

Looking at 0.05% seems very low...but means that one in every 1000 flights a pilot might test positive.

Let me say, positive means above the legal limit...not impaired. Anyway if is called legal limit...it shall be respected? right? No? Why? Because 0.2% is too low?
The following are the legal limit for driving in Europe
0.0 per mg – Estonia, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary
0.2 per mg – Norway, Poland, Sweden
0.4 per mg - Lithuania
0.5 per mg - Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany (Germany is 0.3 if you’re in an accident), Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Serbia/Montenegro, Croatia, Latvia, Macedonia, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, Cyprus (North)
0.8 per mg – UK, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Switzerland
0.9 Cyprus (South)
Italy is considering to reduce to 0.2 per mg.
Let's get the millions of drivers which have a limit below 0.2 join your crusade...how many of them are fatigued when driving back home? Shall all those millions raise the same issue? Fatigue is much worse than drinking?
The two issue are separate ones, do not use the fatigue issue to justify the drinking one, you are just lowering the standards. We all do expect that a professional pilot acts and behave at the highest standards.
I do agree that fatigue is today a major issue on aviation, but shall not be mixed with the alcohol issues.


FSLF

A note on Roger's note. There are no perfect individuals here, Roger. It takes not even a casual acquaintance with discretion to never show up with alcohol in the blood. That isn't perfection, nor is it close. I continue to note the arguments in "defense" of drinking. This isn't about drinking, which is a legal pastime. Nor is it about hangin him high. You continue to purposely avoid the very simple premise (Law) that in interest of the common good, one's personal behaviour is subject to legislation. Those with authority issues or those who are uneasy with their alcohol use would do well to look inward, not attack an arguably harsh code that serves to protect the public from occasionally immature and irresponsible behaviour that has surfaced and probably will continue to.

I still have yet to read about why it is ok to have alcohol in the blood when commencing a flight. And if it is not okay, why it should be excused.

If one is too thick to avoid alcohol based mouthwash, or can't track his own body's metabolism of the offending chemical, you shouldn't be flying, period. Maybe the Breathalyzer is pants, ok, take the blood. Maybe you smell of it, ok, if accosted, give blood.

The public's right to sober and utterly alcohol free pilots isn't a perk, it is a right, and the Law.

John R do you really believe alot of pilots on this forum have a drink problem.I have no problem taking a breath test before every flight some airlines do breath tests before every flight. What would be more interesting is an evaluation of mental alertness and reaction times you would catch all impairment issues. Problem is cost and time breath test so fast and easy and that false sense of security

John R

If you read this thread you will see that people that have commented on fatigue have done so in response to anothers comments, and fatigue is as serious a problem as Alcohol and it is a problem that manifests itself routinely. I made a comparison to drink driving when Will stated quite catagorically that if a pilot is found over the legal limit he believes his licence shoud be revoked for ever. My question is why? Why for ever? We give people who drink drive an opportunity to rebuild their lives so why not the pilot. There is no continuity. I have had a relative killed by a drink driver. The consequences of a drink driver being the cause of an accident are potentially as serious as the pilot who may drink and fly. So why the differing standards? Why can a judge not ban a pilot for a length of time? Why is it the CAA that must impose the ban. I am afraid I disagree that comparisons are ludicrous. Having read the entire thread again, I have not found one person that condones drinking and flying nor have I found anyone that considers being an alcoholic or heavy drinker is acceptable with their profession. What I have found is that there are many who once again want to hang someone before the full and correct details have been established.

edited to add
Will
If the guy is found guilty, then he should be punished hard and hopefully receive some sort of support. But he has NOT been found guilty at this moment in time.

Roger

It is my understanding that the licence is not revoked forever, a ban of 6 months is usually the punishment. The issue is that the pilot will loose is security clearance because of the criminal record...therefore the lengthy punishment. If an airport employee is found drink driving might loose is security clearance and therefore subject to the same punishment.
I am not very confident about the above and I seek the opinion of FL on this subject since I am not lawyer and are only my conclusions based on the information gathered in this forum

FSLF

Roger, from your previous writing I can only conclude that you are temporarily absent your skills.

Why is drink driving different than commercial transport? Gad.

A permanent loss of certificate (currently the effective standard) alerts others to conform to the restriction. Alcoholics will not conform to the Law, so this is a case of keeping the non alcoholics toed to the standard. Further, a revocation of ticket for even exceeding the minimum is a loud tocsin to those who can control their habits.

Massaging the standard on a case basis is misleading to those to whom the Law would speak. Re-acquiring the privilege at many levels tacitly permits a false sense of permission to those who would be borderline. If there is a problem in some way to prevent a personal bust of the admittedly low threshold, that individual is somehow less culpable? Justify a presence of alcohol in the blood if you care to, but for me it is permanently disqualifying to fly for hire upon doing so.

Jofm5: "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."

The analogy here would be if an assistant in the OR noticed alcohol on the breath of the surgeon and insisted on an evaluation of his condition before the operation commenced. The doc was then found to be breathalyzer positive, and later found to have a high BAC (in the view of the regulators, see below). I would indeed insist on being operated on by another surgeon, probably at a later date after my heart rate went down a bit ..:), and I would report the matter to the relevant State Medical regulatory board and would await their findings with interest - let the blasted hospital do what it likes to the guy (not pretty, probably), I would want to hear what the medical regulators had to say.

This would be one surgeon in very serious trouble indeed, and one surgeon I would never allow near me with a knife in his hand ......
:ugh:

Roger Sofarover You are at this point being dishonest or oblivious to my posts. At NO time have I proposed imposing any punishment on an individual whose issue has not been adjudicated and then appealed, at his/her discretion, to the fullest. Don't direct your inflammatory comments in my direction in honor of your obvious neglect of the issue.

Will

Roger Sofarover -

I appreciate that. My problem is when the fatigue argument is raised as a kind of twisted 'well-he-might-have-been-fatigued-too!' defence. They are not related issues.

I really do have a problem with the following comment:

You cannot really believe that to be true. A road traffic accident can certainly cause many fatalities, but please don't tell me that it is as serious as the potential loss of life if the captain of a passenger aircraft with 300 passengers has a hang-over while he struggles to handle an engine failure at V1.

Professionals carry responsibilities. So I find it somewhat bizarre that pilots are so keen to compare their job to driving a car when it comes to drinking!

I am stunned!

Someone get caught for smelling alcohol and that raise questions from public,,strange!?

Instantly the defense mechanism get full power and talking about "proved guilty"why?
I have not hear anyone here sentence this guy/s as guilty!?, contrary it is the"defenders" that make him look guilty .

If this discussion just needs undoubted guiltiness i can link to pilots with actual jail sentences regards to this issue

There seems to be a few communication errors going on here.

FSLF
I did not say that a pilot loses his licence forever, I was saying that Will recommends they lose their licence forever.

Will
well starting with that line I think it is you that is temporarily absent from your skills

I don't believe it is different so why do you want the pilot banned for life? Do you think it acceptable that the drink driver gets a ban for 12 months?

Now this is where you start making it up again, and why I am glad you are not a judge. I will give £50 to a charity of your choice if you show me where I have justified that presence of alcohol in the blood is acceptable when flying. Over to you!

7 minutes later (45 mins after my post) without intervention from me you add

I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you been drinking Will? Go latch onto somebody else Will I am not interested in your comments and I have certainly not been inflammatory..yet although I can feel it coming. I have not condoned drink flying, I have not condoned drink driving.

for you to suggest that one must avoid swilling your mouth out with mouthwash before flying is frankly idiotic. It is the norm to swill mouthwash and spit it out Will, you are not meant to swallow it or use it as a mixer. Bacardi and listermint perhaps? and what a clever chap you are to be able to track the metabolism of chemicals through your body. I wish I could do that, clearly myself and tens of thousands of others shouldn't be flying, I have never had any lessons on tracking the metabolism of chemicals in my body.

No deflection Will and as you haven't displayed any debating skills then I tell you what, don't worry about my standard of articulation or reasoning, wait until the Bacardi and listermint wears off and come back to the forum (maybe thats a good drink for a pilot, at least your breath would be fresh in the morning;) ) then maybe you can set the standard and display some.

John R

The loss of my brother was far more serious than the Captain of an aircraft with a hangover struggling to handle an engine failure at V1. The FO would step in and save the 300 don't worry. One life or 300 whats more important? What a bloody stupid thing to say, for the person that loses a loved one then the one is important, to you the casual reader in the press you will deem the 300 more important.

John_R

Quote:

---

Flying Lawyer, if you want a fight then you've got yourself one.

---

Forgive me for asking but: How old are you?
The last time anyone said that to me I was at school.

Quote:

---

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

---

How funny. :)
Yes, I did once defend a pilot who had been caught over the limit. The case was in December 2004.
He was the first pilot arrested at LHR under what was then the new law so I obtained his permission to post details of his case on PPRuNe in the hope that his experience might be a useful warning to others.
If you're interested, see post #32 in this thread: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/1...ml#post1639296
If I’d been engaged to prosecute him I would have done so.
I’ve also defended murderers, rapists and child abusers etc. I can only assume that, in your opinion, that makes those subjects rather close to me. :rolleyes: (I’ve also prosecuted them, more times than I can remember.)

Close to the subject?
I've learnt a reasonable amount about it. In December 2003 (a year before the Heathrow case) I drew attention to a very significant change in the law due to come into force in 2004, explained it in some detail, and warned pilots about how that change might affect them.
I was concerned that some pilots, who had flown entirely lawfully under the 'old' law, might be at risk of inadvertently committing the new offence, with dire consequences.
If you're interested, the thread is here: Alcohol and Flying: The New Law

Quote:

---

….. your nauseatingly sycophantic attitude towards the profession.

---

If that’s how you choose to interpret my posts, feel free to feel nauseous. I certainly respect the profession. It has some bad apples, but so does the legal profession.

Quote:

---

The point I was trying to make, as you are fully aware, is ………. etc

---

As you say, I am, and was, fully aware of the point you were trying to make. My response remains unchanged:
I am not prepared to express an opinion based upon the (reported) breathalyser result.
Nor (for the same reason) am I prepared to speculate about whether the safety of that flight would have been jeopardised.

And no, I don't have a drink problem. I'm not a heavy, nor even regular, drinker and never have been. I mention it just in case that was going to be your next attempt at a childish personal attack. :rolleyes:

Will F
“utterly alcohol free pilots isn't a perk, it is a right, and the Law.”
A small point of information, just to avoid any misunderstanding in an area that’s proved to be ripe for misunderstandings whenever the topic comes up: That’s not the law in the UK, nor in many other jurisdictions. In the UK the limit is very close to zero, but not zero.
You give your location as Petaluma, which I assume is Petaluma, Sonoma County. FAR 91 used to prohibit an alcohol concentration of 0.04 (or more) grams of alcohol per decilitre of blood or per 210 litres of breath.
Please correct me if my memory is wrong or the FAR limit has changed.

.

Flying Lawyer do you know how many convictions there have been in the UK since the law was enacted .

As far as I'm aware, five.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of the list below. It's based (apart from the first one) upon what I've read on PPRuNe, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't accurate.

Royal Brunei, LHR, 2004
Finnair, Manchester, 2004
Emirates, LHR, 2006
Thomson, Birmingham, 2009
United, LHR, 2009


BTW, just in case anyone misunderstands, the UK has had a law relating to alcohol in aviation for many years. (I can't remember how many.)
It used to provide that no member of an aircraft’s crew .......... shall be under the influence of drink or drugs to such an extent as to impair his/her capacity to so act.
That was effectively repeated (using different words) in the 2003 Act, which came into force in 2004, as the offence of Being Unfit for Duty

However, the Act also brought in a new and different offence:
Alcohol Exceeding the Prescribed Limit.
NB: There is an important difference between the two offences.
A pilot can be guilty of the 'new' second offence I've mentioned even if there is not a shred of evidence that the amount of alcohol impaired his ability to perform his aviation function. (There are well-established tests to determine if someone is impaired by alcohol.)

The UK has an equivalent distinction for drivers:
Driving ........... when under the influence of drink or drugs.
Driving ........... with alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit.


FL

Actions and consequences
 

There are rules and if you break them there are consequences. I am surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that the effect of alcohol can be magnified on board the aircraft. I am under correction, but I recall reading somewhere that one drink on the ground can add up to 3 in the air? I personally do not drink 24 hours prior to throttle

Flying lawyer thanks

One more question do these laws affect cabin crew.

Of course they do. The days of opening the the bar for the crew as the slf disembarked are long gone as are the room parties.
As I have said before the thing to remember is that your job is just a few clicks away from the internet and the world media.

The cosy cartels that existed in flying,politics and the law are a thing of the past.

Google and an open media mean you'll get found out:ok:

ea340

The answer is in the link provided by FL

To whom does the Act apply?
Flight Crew, CC, ATC and LAMEs in the UK
and
to the crew of British registered aircraft anywhere in the world.

Well said. Combined with your comment on page 1, there isn't much more to say.

Many thanks for all of your kind comments!
 

I just wanted to add a public note thanking those many PPRuNes who sent kind messages of support, both publicly and via PM. I am wading through the PMs as we speak!

For the record, I have always been strongly opposed to drink-driving/flying. During 26 years of destructive drinking, I was tested many time (Australia was one of the first countries to get Random Breath Testing) and never was found to be over the limit. With the benefit of hindsight, I remain surprised that my efforts to control my drinking succeeded... The alcoholics amongst us will understand how desperate those efforts sometimes were :O

I am not a pilot (well... gliders, a long time ago) but I clearly understood that alcohol has an increasing effect with increasing cabin altitude. While still a student pilot, I was fortunate to hear a hair-raising story from a pair of pilots in a light aircraft after a heavy night who felt fine on the ground, but discovered they were seriously impaired at 10,000 feet. I am sure this information is part of the training for anyone who rises to ATPL level?

I suggest that the impaired judgement that is an inevitable result of many years of excessive alcohol consumption, is perhaps a more important reason to avoid alcohol on the flight deck than the well-understood affects on reaction times and concentration.

Knowing alcoholics as I do, I could suggest that the only rule that will work for alcoholics is "0" and "Always". If an alcoholic knows the limit is "none" and that he will be tested on every flight, he will find a way to not drink. Sadly, that "way" will probably include prescription medication.

If the aircraft carries a breathalyzer, and the Captain and First Office are required to test each other as part of their preparation for every flight, you won't have people affected by alcohol at the controls. Sadly, your alcoholic crew-members will probably be popping pills in the toilet.

I guess that we are all waiting for science to come up with a "Fitness Tester" that would detect no only chemical ingestion but also fatigue.

Many thanks all, for your kind words.

No, Thank you John. Your wisdom is appreciated.

Will

We will never know for certain, after all how many accidents have lost all on board and never been traced or left so little evidence?

As well
 

I drink Clausthaler when not drinking real ale. Tis 0.05 ABV (which in the UK is officially alcohol free), but after 3 or 4 my breath can smell as if I've been drinking 5.0ABV real ale:ooh:

I wonder why ?

I am quite shore that this problem soon is history, regards to researches there is reliable equipment to meter alco levels easy and accurate


“There isn’t a possibility that these (more advanced alcohol measurers) would react to acetone,” said Bengt Svensson, spokesman for The National Police Board, adding that he sees no risk for drunks to claim fasting as an excuse when pulled over.

O'Doul's (0.5%) is all I drink when contemplating riding a motorcycle or flying an aircraft. The heck with the regs, I've got my own standards and will-to-live.

As to punishment: IMO anyone found guilty of violating this regulation, after due process etc etc, should be fired by his employer immediately for cause. Then the transgressor will find out what other company is willing to hire him or her with such a record. Perhaps, after time has passed and a person has shown evidence of true reform, a commercial operator will take the person on. Then again perhaps not, the potential liability of doing so being what it is (commercial and legal, here in the U.S. at least).

Not ALL punishments are meted out by regulatory authorities; sometimes the marketplace plays an equally important role.

How would you feel if I had a couple stiff drinks before flying the VOR-A into Brown just as you're on the localizer in a 737 heading for RWY 27 at Lindbergh?

There will always be those who just can't help themselves and know when enough is enough.

According to the news here, the concerned guy was 4 times over the allowed limit, as confirmed by testing.

Not especially good.:eek:

Not really, no. But you certainly won't get some on here to admit that. I suppose they also wouldn't mind if their family had been on that flight.

:oh: be careful! Lawyer will wake up:mad:

JohnR

If the British Sun newspaper claim he was 4x the limit on the field test is confirmed then I wouldn't mind if my family had been on the flight. 4x almost nothing is still almost nothing.
Over the limit is illegal and if the guy broke the law he deserves to be punished, but over the limit ain't the same as unsafe. It depends on the BAC level.

I can see why you'd be worried. ;)
John_R post in the Spotters forum :uhoh::oh:

Bronx - do you think that the NME is a more trustworthy publication? ;)

would you? what if the guy had no sleep on top of that? what about the raise of blood alcohol at 30`ft (still 4 times?)

"Even after complete elimination of all of the alcohol in the body, there are undesirable effects-hangover-that can last 48 to 72 hours following the last drink."

"Pilots have shown impairment in their ability to fly an ILS approach or to fly IFR, and even to perform routine VFR flight tasks while under the influence of alcohol, regardless of individual flying experience."

"The number of serious errors committed by pilots dramatically increases at or above concentrations of 0.04% blood alcohol. This is not to say that problems don't occur below this value. Some studies have shown decrements in pilot performance with blood alcohol concentrations as low as the 0.025%."

You are in control

"Flying, while fun and exciting, is a precise, demanding, and unforgiving endeavor. Any factor that impairs the pilot's ability to perform the required tasks during the operation of an aircraft is an invitation for disaster."
The use of alcohol is a significant self-imposed stress factor that should be eliminated from the cockpit. The ability to do so is strictly within the pilot's control.


Before you decide to put you family on that plane you should let them get some update
Alcohol and its Effect on Pilots

SD...Give us a break...

You claim to have your own limits but still drink O'Douls which could put you over...

If you are that responsible...why not Coke, Pepsi or OJ before flying????

Well, actually...: BBC NEWS | Health | Too much cola zaps muscle power

Quick question Flying Lawyer,

I cannot find a provision in The Railway And Transport Safety Act for refusal to provide an evidential specimen, whereas the RTA 7(6) specifies that you are "guilty of an offence". Is there an equivalent offence for the R&TS and what are the penalties.

Perhaps those who know they are "banged to rights" may well be better taking this route, hoping to avoid a custodial.

Section 96 of the RTSA 2003 brings in the relevant sections of the RTA 1988 with modification. I'll leave Flying Lawyer to provide the legally correct interpretation of the law but the intention of Section 96 is to block that route in the same way that it is blocked for drink driving offences.

I really do have to grin at all this...the AA clown was tested over the limit...full stop.
Therefore he will face charges.

As it should be...period.

All the rest of the scenarios of my wife ran off with the chauffeur and screwed the pooch, it totally without merit.
We don't care.
Over the limit, and proved....out the door.

Therefore, younger guys move up the seniority list.\IE:...have another belt, Captain, Sir!.

Done.:}

411A I would wait for the blood test to come in . I know of one individual who blow over the blood test confirmed he was at basicly zero. In his case about 3 weeks to get results a long 3 weeks . This individual never made the press .There are now 2 cases will be interesting to see the results . Both of whom have been convicted in the press.

Very well put. I am glad you made this post.:ok: