Pilot caught smelling of alcohol at LHR
 

Seems there may have been another pilot with alcohol on his breath caught out by LHR security this morning:ugh:

Just another total idiot then......?

yes HD, they know the rules, and they know security love to catch crew out.

Are we going to wait for the facts to be in before we go splashing his name around and dragging his repuation through the mud this time?

correct YHZ, i did not post his airline or his nationality for this reason, just cannot believe this keeps happening.

Alcohol breath is ok, being over the reqd limit can be a problem.

Had a look at the LHR depts, BA185 stands out as a late one, was this the one ???

Being over the limit does not necessarily imply drunkenness.

as above, do not want to name any airline, full facts will come out in due course. i just heard a pilot was found to be "over the limit" and had his collar felt. my point was that there have been a few of these incidents in the last couple of months, and it`s not doing the reputation of the industry any good.

I'm not having much faith these days in the ability of security in LHR to accurately detect over the limit pilots.

I think we need a little more evidence that said pilot was actually over the limit than simply LHR security pulling him aside. They seem to have difficulty differentiating between the smell of cherry chewing gum and booze....

If he was in fact impaired, have at 'em. There should be zero tolerance in my opinion, and it does the whole profession a disservice when such things happen. But until there is concrete evidence, I'm witholding judgment and assuming the pilot's innocence.

Last time a thread such as this appeared, there was much consternation and outrage. Until it turned out that there was no case, that is. Then all the consternators and outraged quietly disappeared without a word.

There are far too many people far too willing and quick to judge.

Of course it will keep happening, unless we get "pilotless airliners"
 

I am sure that I am not the only alcoholic reading this board. For those of you who do not suffer from alcoholism, maybe I can contribute some new information:

* Perhaps 5 to 10 per cent of the population has a genetic predisposition to suffer from addiction.

* This predisposition can manifest itself in a wide variety of ways: booze, drugs, food, etc. It's strongly genetically linked: if one parent has an addiction, the kids have a 25 per cent chance of having one. If both parents have it, the kids have a greater than 50 per cent chance of problems.

* Alcoholism is strongly linked with a psychological need to over-achieve. That's why alcoholics have a greater-than-average chance of achieving greatness in society: in sport, in business, and in Seat 0A ...

* We alcoholics have a saying: "A social drinker drinker stops at three drinks because they don't like the feeling more would give them. A problem drinker drinks so much it becomes a problem to other people. An alcoholic drinks so much it becomes a problem to HIMSELF."

* An alcoholic does not drink because he or she likes the taste, or because they're thirsty. We drink because every fibre of our being tells us that we MUST. Yes, we're wrong, but we don't know that: a bit like ignoring what the instruments are telling you because the seat of your pants disagrees.

* A social drinker or a problem drinker can say "OK, I am flying in a couple of days, I can't drink." An alcoholic can't do that. By the time the disease has progressed to the point where airport security can pick it up, the alcoholic must have alcohol or he will get very sick indeed.

* You can not frighten an alcoholic into not drinking. We drink because we are already too frightened not to drink. More sanctions, more penalties, more detection -- this just makes alcoholism worse.

* The only "cure" is "Don't drink. At all. Ever." I have not had a drink since 1992: not even the smell of a cork. Of course, this doesn't cure the disease of alcoholism, it simply prevents its more unpleasant symptoms (e.g. unemployment...) from appearing. Any alcoholic will tell you they would rather shoot themselves than take that 'cure' (and many do...).

* I personally know four pilots who have regained the front left seat after losing the battle with the bottle. Three retired as captains of heavies for major USA airlines. One is still flying.

* Two of these guys handed in their ATPLs and had to re-qualify. One had to go right back to re-gain his PPL. One was hauled out of the captain's seat in handcuffs, in front of his startled passengers. They made it back, and I can tell you how.

* Some of the people reading this may have this problem right now. Alcohol is the greatest solvent known: it disolves cars, houses, marriages, parental rights, careers -- and pilots licences.

* Yes, it will keep happening as long as they keep making human beings. And alcoholism is more common amongst people with the ability to become pilots than it is in the general population.

If you are sitting there now, scared -- really scared -- that it just won't stop, and you can't find a way out: PM me.

If you find yourself delaying the trip home because you can't face the look in your wife's eyes: I know that look. If you are avoiding that look on your children's faces too: well, how bad does it have to get? If you go to work each day with a sick feeling in the pit of your stomach that "any day now, they're going to catch me" -- well, I know that feeling too.

If you don't know what to do: PM me. If you're frightened, and you're serious about it, I can tell you what I did. Worked for me...

If this helps just one pilot to hold onto his or her licence, was it worth making the rest of you read all this? I hope you think it was...

John

Thanks for taking the time and the trouble to write that brilliant explanation.

They say you have to dig through an awful lot of dirt to find a diamond, and your post is that gem.

As you say if it helps just one person. On the other hand it helps a great many more people understand something that is all too easily misunderstood, despite the fact it is common enough in all sections of society to warrant better awareness.

Serenity
 

John Mc.

Bill W. is our friend and he would be proud of you today.

May serenity be with you sir. :ok:

JohnMcGhie


Dawn Good post :D

We could all learn something about our fellow man (or should I say human) from the poster above. But does humanity have the capability to be human?

J McG,

Well done Sir, thought provoking, dispassionate and carved from your feelings and experience.

Let's please have John's post re-posted at the top of every thread started on this subject. It may just stop the rather repetitive mindless rubbish that seems to follow what may just become another allegation that vanishes into the ether when the true facts are revealed.

How sad that the negative results rarely warrant a post. I for one will wait and see !

Jox :oh:

No idea about the facts of this "alleged" incident

But J McG

Superb post

Well said John. :ok:

One day at a time.

John-
Having gone through a similar experience (didn't lose my pilots license, but DID lose my 'day' job...more than once), I'd also like to say 'THANKS' for your post! Even in my 12 step days (which continue today), I NEVER heard things explained so clearly. So....thanks....and I here's to your continuing recovery! :D

John,

One of the best posts I've ever seen -- anywhere.

Thanks for making a difference.

Perhaps...
 

...it IS time for PPRuNe to help.

Having a "sticky" on this subject at the top of the "billboard" rumours & news forum might encourage some on the path back up?

Just a thought.


JohnMcGhie Respect.:D

If it's another false allegation, the security personnel involved should be terminated on the spot, then they might think twice about accusing someone with little or no real evidence:sad:

I dont think that is the answer, it would probably leave the security personnel in a situation whereby they are too scared to intervene when they should.

I am not sure what the answer is, but if there is suspiscion over a member of flight crew then it should be handled in a respectful manner and the facts established - the correct way to address this should be a protocol established by a discussion between the security and pilots (Maybe BALPA).

Before working in RIXland, random breath tests experienced when reporting for duty,0

After starting work in RIXland, random breath tests frequently.

The problem of security upstarts getting above their station in a disrespectful manner avoided.

Total respect for a system that is only there to aid flight safety.

Now that I spend the bigger part of my life flying a desk, I probably do drink more than I should, but never within a day of a duty period - the risks are just too prevalent (to myself, the aircraft and my licence).

John - Thanks for your post. Quite close to home for me.

RIX

RE: post 21 and 22 above...The security folks are neither trained or qualified to vet crew coming through their ck points...

False allegations are a serious threat to the whole industry...

I do agree that any pilot with a problem should seek help, however, airport security should not be the catalyst to make thisw happen...that's what other crewmembers and management pilots are for...

RIX...who are you working for? I have an apt on Stabu near Stabruks....

Great post John. Thanks.

AFAIK, "security" in any form has nowt to do with "accurate" detection.
IF, they suspect owt, then they should [MUST?] call the Police...full stop.
Or am I wrong...again?

Likewise if they suspect a crew of reporting for duty when fatigued, they should also take action:ok:

I agree with you that airport security are not trained/qualified to vet crew going through checkpoints.

I do disagree on your other points though.

A false allegation is a serious matter, but it is down to how any such suspicions are handled. Like I said in my post if it is dealt with respectfully i.e. the crew member asked to disembark for a quick check and this is witheld from public spectacle then any tests performed and proven false can be dealt with apologetically and the flight allowed to continue. This not only saves embarassment for the crew and company but also does not unsettle the SLF.

The issue I have with your last paragraph is "that is what other crew members and management pilot are for". I am not questioning the professionalism of anyone here, but covering for a friend whilst knowing they have a problem and encouraging them to deal with a problem or even a one off is one of those dilemmas that some people may find hard to deal with to do the right thing (Human Nature)- especially in the culture of some of the more eastern airlines where the CRM is less liberated than it could/should be.

I ask myself if I am confident a F/O in their probation period would really risk raising the alarm if they suspected their captain was over the limit and being proven wrong. In an ideal world we should say thats the right thing to do - but I doubt the consequences matches that.

My own personal view is that the safety of flights is paramount - anyone with a concern should be able to raise the alarm whether it is flight crew, security or SLF. This may seem demeaning to flight crew and a hassle but with safety in mind it is the only way to operate safely. I agree there needs to be controls/punitive measures for those being vindictive.

I can see how you see this is an issue by way of how previous incidents have been dealt with (F/O of UA being led off the plane in handcuffs) - there should be some tact used to establish the short term facts out of public view and eliminate a false alert.

As John has pointed out alcoholism is a disease and is highly prevelent in industries such as this where the stress factor can be high. It is not going to help the person suffering by covering up what is going on out of loyalty or sympathy. John may confirm this but most will not turn the corner until forced to do so - hiding it is not helping them as they are hiding it from themselves typically (Johns post was very close to home btw).

The real change that needs to take place in my view is the encouragement from the airlines to seek out, help and stand by those people that are struggling rather than just leaving alone till an issue arises - dont make it a taboo issue that will alienate the person that spots the problem or be vindictive on the person with the problem. The true team works with each other through good and bad.

Quote: “Being over the limit does not necessarily imply drunkenness.”

Agreed, particularly as the UK’s limit is ludicrously low and out of line with other countries. What are pilots as a group going to do about the UK’s anti-pilot activities? I have seen a few mutterings on here regarding security nazis and ID cars but have not heard of any effective action.

The UK's goons want to catch pilots who smell of alcohol so why not accommodate them? My suggestion for the UK’s stupidly low booze limit is for pilots to organise a whole week of turning up smelling of alcohol. Just spill enough on your sleeves or elsewhere to give sufficient smell. Let the security nazis have a whole week of alcohol smelling pilots. If they should wrongly detain you, which would soon be proved by passing a proper test, then sue the bastards for any inconvenience or wrongful detention.

Chiglet: AFAIK, "security" in any form has nowt to do with "accurate" detection.
IF, they suspect owt, then they should [MUST?] call the Police...full stop.
Or am I wrong...again?
--------------------
Not so far off IMHO.

Perfect "accuracy", i.e. (TP+TN)/(TP+TN+FP+FN) = 1.0, is the Holy Grail that is unlikely ever to be achieved for any sort of real-world predictive test, in aviation as in many other fields of endeavor (e.g. predicting clinical response to a pharmaceutical agent). Put it this way, I've never seen it in something that really counts and I'm into this sort of thing, statistically speaking ......

IMO in the aviation security business, a higher false positive rate (Type 1 or alpha error) is more acceptable than a higher false negative rate (Type 2 or beta error), if you had your druthers. IOW, technically speaking of course, very high "sensitivity" (TP/TP+FN) is more important to achieve than very high "specificity" (FP/FP+TN) in this type of case.

Why? Because detecting and nailing the bad actors is more important than avoiding falsely suspecting the good ones. After all, if you're a good actor yet falsely detected as "bad", you're going to be able to prove it rather soon (assuming that there's a solid objective test for the so-called "true" condition, as there is in this case of course). In the meantime, you should be accorded the greatest respect, and privacy. Then when it's all over you can go away and have a really stiff drink, on the house perhaps.:)

[F= false, T= true, P= test positive, N= test negative]

Caveat: in case of an inaccurate "truth" criterion, you're probably screwed.

Jofm5...I guess I didn't make my statement re: "crewmembers and Mgmt" clear...

One of my crew was accused by individuals not trained in evaulation....

This happened to be the gate agents who actually worked for the same airline as we did...

My response was we're all going for medical tests...screw the flight....big delay...

I don't wan't to fly with an alchol (or other substance) impaired flt crew or cabin crew member, however, if accused by some "wanna-be hero" I will take immediate steps to prove the finger pointing false...

Carrier

I think you missed the whole point

DownIn3Green

.


I think you did the right thing,,there are so many delays anyway..i would take this delay any day

If you don't want to know the airline or his name
 

dont follow these links.

Pilot held in cockpit is ‘4 times drink limit’ | The Sun |News

Plane delay after pilot 'fails B-test' - mirror.co.uk

etrang

Better not the AA enter the PPRuNe forum to read the opinions from some pilots here

As humble SLF I hestitate to post in this forum, but a couple of things are bugging me:

The concept of security people reporting concerns about a possible alcohol smell on the breath of flight crew seems to be like a red rag to a bull to many flight crew here. I do wonder if that would be the same if the security hassles of the last few years, of which security personnel are the personification, had not taken place.

I'm also uneasy with the ideas that are often put forward on these type of threads - 'when was the last major incident due to an alcohol-impaired crew' and 'it's not alcohol you should be worrying about, it's fatigue'. I've no doubt that both points in isolation are completely correct, however given the normal air safety ethos of making sure that the holes in the swiss cheese don't line up, and eliminating as many of the holes as possible, it comes across as a little odd in contrast. I'm sure that the experts on here could come up with a long list of maintenance items that have never caused a crash, but are regularly checked anyway, because if they did ever fail the results could be catastrophic.

I do agree with some of the earlier posters however that the method of checking once a complaint has been made appears to need improvement. Asking the accused to step into a private room adjacent to the security for an extra check (without specifying what for, so pax milling around assume that it is just to confirm the size of his toothpaste is below 100ml) and doing the breath test etc there might help. If the complaint happens later in the process, once the accused is on the aircraft then at least cockpits present some privacy these days, and pax think nothing of police wandering onto aircraft.

Probably anathama (sp?) to most people on here, but I can't help wonder whether random or even compulsory breath tests at crew check in might be the way to go - if security knew that a check had already been performed then they would be less likely to point the finger. Not sure if that would be the lesser of the 2 evils though.

Final thought - should landlords, or bouncers on the doors, tip off the police if they see someone come out of their pub appearing impaired and jump behind the wheel of a car? The accused might be recovering from a stroke, and have been on orange juice all night. On the other hand if one of your kids was standing in a bus queue half a mile down the road you might prefer that someone checked. Emotive example I know, but do you see the point?

allegedly
 

There seems to be lots of "allegedly" in here.
We know that since skurity humiliate us and make us take off our shoes, that they are in fact our enemies.
For a false accusation they will walk free.Who says it is not possible to bribe them to accuse the pilot that you don't like or want to get ahead of?

24 hours bottle to throttle?
 

Given the very low limit in blood alcohol permitted for pilots, and the difference in metabolism between individuals, perhaps cautious pilots should impose a 24 hour limit between drinking and flying. 12 hours might be enough for most but not all pilots. It may change with increasing age. If the Sun article is right, given the pilot was allegedly 4 times the limit for flying he would have been just about legal to drive. If a pilot unwisely has a drink the night before flying and regrets it, I suggest he would do well to call in sick.

I agree with previous posters about being discreet when testing pilots. I also think that if the blood alcohol level is legal for driving but not for flying, and it is a first positive test, prosecution is a bit heavy handed. Maybe a period of compulsory retraining would be in order. It might be possible to be discreet about the reason for it.

No need for any court or police action.

We can leave the entire judicial process to a few of the posters here on PPRUNE who are obviously in possession of all the relevant facts.Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty ?Just try to imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and it was you being accused.Wouldn't you want a fair hearing ?What if it's a false positive ?

Throw mud and some of it will stick.Even if you're proven innocent.

But that will just add something more to go wrong with the aircraft and it treats the crew with contempt.