They can be, they can be...

But agree alcoholism is almost invariably self inflicted.

Call in sick when pissed = grossly unprofessional but the best course of action at the time.
Turn up for duty pissed = hanging offense, and don't bother with ridiculous excuses like "wanted to tell the Captain". Reporting for duty demonstrates intent and unforgiveable irresponsibility. End of. Go home. Leave uniform and id in bin.

Drink drivers are usually regarded as little less than potential murderers and rightly treated as such. Why the fluffy "oh the poor dear" angst for Professional pilots? They're far, far worse both practically, morally and I hope legally.

Being ignorant of the medical science of addiction doesn't make you right. Just ignorant.

Most U.S. airline FOM's explicitly forbid drinking alcohol or even being in a bar while in uniform. Some international pax lounges will not let you enter in uniform even if you are on a ticket and from another carrier.

However, most U.S. carriers still have legacy language that states if you remove your wings and epaulets, you are no longer in uniform for the provisions of the alcohol restrictions.

As far as jumpseating and drinking alcohol, a few years ago places like United and Northwest would allow you to drink as long as you didn't return to the cockpit for eight hours. Not sure I would try this these days.

And, being stopped by security in uniform when you might be legal to have alcohol on your breath, I wouldn't recommend it.

As FedEx Chief Pilot Jack Lewis put it in a memo a few years ago:

Every driver is a potential killer. Driver A with alcohol inside is likely to be less safe than without, but could be far safer than driver B will ever be sober. And what about driver C who has been up all night or driver D, who is driven to distraction wondering about how to pay off the mortgage and PTF rather than concentrating on the traffic or driver E who has never learned to drive in this country, but tries to muddle through our particular rules. Each of these could kill someone. Each could be mittigated against, but hypocritical society sees fit to condemn certain transgressions more than others. Driver A, who has never had an accident crucifeid if caught. Driver B is incompetent and always will be, but will never be stopped from driving no matter how many caused accidents. Driver C sleeps their way in to an accident, kills someone but society still expects them work though the night. There are ever more driver Ds etc.

Now apply to aviation.

Not much has changed :ok:

Same in Central Europe, even dead-heading, whatever.

Funniest thing I remember is what happened to a good friend, a naval aviator and then Defence Attache with a Central European nation to a northern African state.

He was travelling business class on duty in his finest uniform ... and was refused entry to the lounge as they confused/mistook him for a dead heading company crewmember. All his protests were futile.

Only later did the airline apologize after the embassy/foreign service concerned wrote a complaint and threatened to make it public.

Yes, I am aware that pilots may never work again if found to be over the limit and I'm sure the vast majority of pilots have no wish to endanger themselves or their passengers.

I was trying to make two points - firstly, this sentence is not because the pilot has an alcohol problem but because he was intending to fly a plane whilst over the limit; and secondly, the knowledge that you may lose your liberty has a strong effect on most people, especially respectable professionals who would never dream of being incarcerated with 'normal' criminals.

Perhaps what has happened to this pilot will encourage others with a problem to seek help before being caught - or worse.

It's correct I have no connection with the airline industry but many years ago I served in the Met Police where the devastation caused by drivers over the limit, some not by much, I well remember. There are few winners in an accident. On a personal level I do have some sympathy for this pilot.

Tough - I can live with it.

( There's always someone ready to defend the alcoholic !)

I'm reminded of a colleague who once remarked that medical science changes its' opinion about every 5 years, and when it's finally decided that lying on the couch, drinking beer and eating crisps as one watches TV was the secret to longevity - he was way ahead !

Me - I'm back to eating bacon and eggs ( but I do cut off the fat !) and chocolate - not at the same time of course - and coffee, and red wine.

Moderation in all things, including alcohol - alcoholism is a self inflicted injury which gets out of hand.

No contest. ( bigotted ? Moi ? )

Personally I don't agree with the prison sentence but always remember about the japanese 747 freighter out of ANC which rolled upside down and went in.

The skipper was virtually carried up the stairs by the cab driver and engineer.
After that the company introduced compulsory alcohol testing.

I thought it was a shame it wasn't introduced worldwide as I flew with several guys who should have been grounded and put through a program.

My last employer paid for a six month residential rehab program and then employed the guys on the ground for another 18 months before reassessing them.
Most came back to flying.

Jailing them is a cruel waste of time (and money).

"Babies aren't born alcoholics."

The genetic, hereditary component of alcoholism is quite well-known. Except, apparently, by you.

Well if your first one didn't, your second post in this thread has answered that question quite clearly. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I'm glad you said 'will not' and not 'cannot'. Spot on.

I've absolutely no interest in alcoholics or their problems, Life's too short, and my contact with some confirm that - and my opinion.

If you've lived with one you are entitled to your opinion, too.

I'm comfortable with that.

Tough.

Fin.

Even with a medical acknowledgement of a hereditary component to some addictions, we all know that genes cannot be exclusively responsible. The test for that is obvious.

But I'm curious...

Lets suppose that the inebriated pilot in question actually piled into the dirt and killed 400 people but, miraculously, survived himself.

Are those defending the pilot who was drunk but didn't crash, still in favour of suggesting a jail sentence is unwarranted/useless...because its an addiction?

So should the sentence depend on whether or not you actually have an incident/accident at work whilst you're inebriated?

The needs of one, outweigh the justice entitled to 400?

The reactions to the issue are polarised in this thread but anyone who has actually lived with an alcoholic year in year out will know that you experience a whole spectrum of emotions whilst struggling to live your life side by side with them. They range from disgust to empathy and back....sometimes all within hours of each other...

As a general observation on our society today, my own sentiment is there is too little discussion of our general responsibilities towards our fellow citizens.

The law doesn't deal in hypotheticals. You can't charge someone with murder just because you catch them carrying an illegal weapon. Your hypothetical is also a stretch, IMO. There was more than one person on that crew.

A disagreement with the legal system's handling of this issue is NOT the same as defending this man's actions. Showing up for duty while under the influence is not acceptable, full stop. Anyone who would say otherwise is a fool, IMO.

The law isn't linear (or at least it shouldn't be). We are not dealing with robots, we are dealing with human beings and all that comes with that, both good and bad. Every day, judges and juries make decisions based on more than just the legal language. The "same" crime can result in many different punishments. If I were the judge in this case, and assuming conditional sentencing was allowed, I would hand down a sentence of the maximum time allowed. That sentence would be suspended pending the successful completion of an addiction treatment program. His certificate would be suspended until he was successful in completing the treatment and his doctor passed him as medically fit. The pilot's employer and his union colleagues would have to agree to provide him with the help he needs, and the aviation authority and his aeromedical physician would have to sign off. When he was allowed to returned to work, the pilot would have to agree to random workplace screening at the authority's (or his employer's) discretion. Any further attempts to come to work under the influence and he would serve every day of the suspended jail term.

If he never succeeded in completing the treatment, his licence would remain suspended and his career would be over. That would be more than enough punishment, IMHO.

J.O.

Because he showed up at the airport in uniform he is fired. That is a very big line he crossed, just like a drunk who gets behind the wheel of a car.

No but attempted murder is an indictable offence in UK law which revolves around certain matters relating to their intention.

But, it isn't the "law" that determines whether an act is morally wrong, merely, that it is unlawful.

So just because the law does not exert its strong arm over those who fly whilst they are drunk and don't get caught, nevertheless, the act of going to work (object) to fly a plane (intention) whilst drunk (circumstance) is morally bankrupt according to a classic Thomist view.

To that end, the culprit ought to experience some significant punishment.

I admire your suggestion for "justice" in the circumstances and do not necessarily disagree.

But I wonder (like aterpster perhaps?) if you'd extend the same to a drunk driver who killed your daughter?

No one is helping an alcoholic individual by ignoring or glossing over the need for them to come to terms with the consequences of their actions.

My $0.02.

Actus Rea
 

In the context of the law, the actions of the individual are straightforward, in that they breach the provisions. The current law in this regard may have some level of hypocrisy with the availability, advertising and commercialism associated with CnH(2n+1)OH's, but they are current, and evolved from the general (at least assumed) intent to protect the public (such as DUI laws).

There is hardly any archaic holdover in these statutes, this doesn't involve stoning (no offense..) or dunking to assess whether the person is a witch... it is reasonable for a society to have provisions to protect itself.

The individual who for various reasons breaches such provisions is subject to the process and outcomes of the law, whatever that may be. That does not mean they are unable to be rehabilitated, in fact, in the case of this type, for a certain period they are arguably a lesser danger to themselves, and certainly others.

Alcoholic or otherwise, in itself that should have little bearing on the initial societal response for the perceived risky behaviour that has been identified. How the licensing state, and his employer handle the outcome is entirely up to their regulations and their social conscience in the absence of existing processes. With the overwhelming level of awareness of the potential for enforcement action to occur, it certainly would appear that the individual has an issue that is in need of corrective intervention.

Alcohol is just one of the poisons that socially are approved, to a point. Other drugs have as much or more potential for harm, and yes, there is an argument that in the case of fatigue, that the commercial and regulatory institutions are hypocritical in their actions, but thats the current state of evolution. Maybe that will change... (yeah, right, pigs will fly first...).

Drink? Please go sick, turn up, "Mens Rea.."

Drilling up north stopped for the night has it?

;)

Tell me you're the only individual in the country who couldn't resist a smirk at the snouts in the trough getting their comeuppance?

The hypocrisy.

Who mentioned the guillotine?

In this country, people commit offences so they can go to jail. They get food, water, bed, light, heat, don't have to pay rent, maybe even a TV....

:E

Considering the number of lives at stake, 6 months is a pathetically weak punishment. :eek:

IMHO two years would be a more fitting tarrif for both being prepared to hazard an aircraft and for undermining public confidence.

I hope his union also expel him as a disgrace to their other members.:*

I however share the concern expressed by others that the rest of the crew don't seem to have noticed this pilots state or more worryingly may have ignored it.:ugh:

At offshore heliports one part of the security check of passengers is for the security staff to monitor passengers who may smell of alcohol or appear impaired by any substance consumption.:D

Perhaps this needs to be introduced at airport securitry checks to create a stronger deterent and enforce the UK law on this matter.

The inadequate monitoring of their crew by the airline is also of great concern. For nearly 20 years NTSB has used some very sophisticated Russian technology to detect drunk crew when analysing voice recordings, particularly the Captain of the Exxon Valdez. A proper programme of proactive cockpit voice recording monitoring (CVRM) to routinely sample CVR data and using such technology would also help deter such shocking behaviour as well as neatly complementing FDM (aka FOQA).

J.O. You are right.
For some reason, in threads of this nature, posters who suggest that imprisonment is too harsh a punishment and/or not the appropriate way to deal with a pilot found to be over the limit are invariably accused of defending the pilot's actions.

SR71 I can't remember, and can't find the post now, but I assume some of the comments posted here clearly reminded him/her of the women knitting at the foot of the guillotine while the heads rolled. Do they?
I've heard that claim too, but all the people at risk of being sent to prison I've encountered in 36 years in the criminal courts have been very anxious to avoid it if they can.

Whether or not pilots caught over the limit should be sent to prison, it's silly to trivialise/under-estimate the enormous impact of being imprisoned upon people who have never associated with criminals and have not previously been in trouble.

.

Hopefully he will not be subjected to the inhumane way he may face with other inmates. Not ever being in a jail I just heard of them.

Ah yes, lets give the drunk Captain a kicking. The fact that his state of sobriety had absolutely nothing to do with the accident, but everything to do with Exxon policy seems to be beside your point. Nothing but a scapegoat, which is typical when managerial failings come to the fore.

Investigative journalist Greg Palast in 2008 "Forget the drunken skipper fable. As to Captain Joe Hazelwood, he was below decks, sleeping off his bender. At the helm, the third mate never would have collided with Bligh Reef had he looked at his RAYCAS radar. But the radar was not turned on. In fact, the tanker's radar was left broken and disabled for more than a year before the disaster, and Exxon management knew it. It was [in Exxon's view] just too expensive to fix and operate." Exxon blamed Captain Hazelwood for the grounding of the tanker. Other factors, according to an M.I.T. course entitled "Software System Safety" by Professor Nancy G. Leveson, included:

1. Tanker crews were not told that the previous practice of the Coast Guard tracking ships out to Bligh reef had ceased.
2. The oil industry promised, but never installed, state-of-the-art iceberg monitoring equipment.
3. Exxon Valdez was sailing outside the normal sea lane to avoid small icebergs thought to be in the area.
4. The 1989 tanker crew was half the size of the 1977 crew, worked 12−14 hour shifts, plus overtime. The crew was rushing to leave Valdez with a load of oil.
5. Coast Guard tanker inspections in Valdez were not done, and the number of staff was reduced.

From the NTSB - The Safety Board considers the reduced manning practices of the Exxon Shipping Company generally incautious and without apparent justification from the standpoint of safety. The financial advantage derived from eliminating officers and crew from each vessel does not seem to justify incurring the foreseeable risks of serious accident. Regarding company manning practices that related to the EXXON VALDEZ, the Safety Board does not believe that the Exxon Shipping Company showed sufficient regard for the known debilitations that occur as a result of crewmember fatigue. Furthermore, the Safety Board could find no reasonable explanation for the following: the absence of company programs to ensure that crewmembers observed hours - of - service regulations ; the lack of procedures to ensure that at least one rested deck officer , in addition to the master, was available for watch at departure; the practice of rating a crewmember’s performance in part according to willingness to work overtime, thus giving an incentive to work an excessive number of hours; and the indiscriminate increase in work loads and standby time throughout the fleet before and after the grounding of the EXXON VALDEZ.

The Exxon Seamen's Union officials testified during depositions that the
sea passages for voyages between Alaska and California were not long enough for conducting necessary maintenance or permitting thorough crew rest between the around-the-clock demands of cargo handling in port. When the current minimum crew requirements were established for the EXXON VALDEZ, the vessel had been scheduled for the Valdez-Panamanian trade. But that trade was discontinued after December 1988, and the EXXON VALDEZ then began operating regularly between Valdez and ports in California. The mates on the EXXON VALDEZ were usually fatigued after cargo handling operations in Valdez, and the vessel usually put to sea with a fatigued crew.

Re the Captains alcohol issues Exxon failed again. From the NTSB - The Exxon alcohol policy directive in effect during 1985 when the master
underwent treatment instructs supervisors to refer to the medical department employees whose job performance is unsatisfactory owing to the perceived use of alcohol. In this case, the master’s supervisor was apparently unaware that the master had an alcohol dependency problem prior to his hospitalization . Upon learning of his dependency problem, his supervisor, according to Exxon procedures, was supposed to have referred his case to the medical department. The personnel documents provided by Exxon showed t hat a followup treatment program was recommended by the attending physician at the hospital . While it is documented that the master was given a 90-day leave of absence, no documents were provided to establish that this recommended outpatient treatment program was followed or that his progress was monitored by management. Nor does the Exxon medical department appear to have contacted the hospital where he received in - patient treatment. The lack of records suggests that no guidance, advice, or information was provided by Exxon management or the Exxon medical department to the master’s supervisor.

Furthermore, no one in the Exxon management structure seems to have consulted an expert on alcoholism about the following issues: the kind of support the master would need when he resumed his work, the kind of supervision and monitoring he would need, the chances that he would resume drinking , the signs that might indicate that he had resumed drinking , and the kind of assignments he could perform without risking his sobriety . The president of Exxon Shipping Company testified that the master “thought he was the most scrutinized employee in the company.” If this scrutiny did take place, written records either do not exist regarding his supervision and evaluations during this period or the records have not been provided, except one that was constructed from memory after the grounding. Furthermore, the solitary nature of a master‘s job is not conducive to monitoring; thus, visits to his vessel during short port calls are not likely to have been very effective in determining whether the master was abstaining from alcohol. Some personnel performance records (evaluations) were unsigned; thus, their authenticity could not be established. It must be surmised from the absence of information that the EXXON management and the medical department were unprepared or unwilling to deal with an alcoholic master and made insufficient effort to become informed or knowledgeable regarding the problems of an alcoholic and the rate of recidivism even under the most ideal conditions. As is well known, a carefully constructed support system that
includes frequent, continuous interaction with the support system is
necessary to prevent an alcoholic from returning to alcohol abuse. In
contrast, it is reasonable to assume that if Exxon had a technical problem,
such as an auto pilot failure, with one of its vessels, either the problem
would be assigned to an expert within the Exxon company structure or an outside consultant would be hired to solve the problem. Considering the
investment Exxon had made in the master, the potential cost of a marine accident in terms of human loss or environmental damage as a result of having an alcohol-impaired master, and the lack of oversight documentation, it can be concluded that the Exxon corporate management demonstrated inadequate knowledge of and concern about the seriousness of having an alcohol-impaired master. The Safety Board concludes that Exxon should have removed the master from seagoing employment until there was ample proof that he had his alcohol problem under control.

Once again it's a case of management asleep at the wheel. Procedures in place, but management sees fit not to follow. Interesting that they always attempt to document compliance post event.

As the jury here is still out, and the Pilot has already been sentenced as per the existing laws, one still needs to ponder whether it was a one-off incidence of alcoholism (binging for some reason, though highly unlikely) or is he an alcoholic? In case of the latter, he shall need help - deaddiction and rehabilitation. As a psychiatrist friend of mine advised long back: alcoholism needs to be seen as an illness, like any other, which needs to be treated, without any biases and prejudices.
Here I am not defending the pilot, just stating a POV. For effect of alcohol, please check out Ah! Piloting in the arms of Bacchus | Aviation Medicine :: Aerospace Medicine

Dear 63 year old Shell Management .. aka "Disgusted" of the Hague
It seems you don't fly for a living, otherwise you wouldn't be advocating giving those awfully nice airport security people more power than they already have. The mandate to accuse pilots who they suspect might have been drnking would cause a bit of friction between us, I suspect.
They are not qualified to make a judgement, and some of them are only just qualified to search my flight bag.
If the incarcerated pilot is an alcoholic, he needs help, not hang em and flog em idiots like you mouthing off.
Have you ever been gatso'd for speeding ... say 34 in a 30 limit ?

Disease?
 

My family is prone to obesity, myself included. If I open my mouth and eat what I want I will be big as a house. If I exercise and eat right I can control it. Is this a disease as well?

SID PLATE

With the very greatest of respect, the way to avoid extra layers of checks is for your colleagues and you not to be caught over the limit.

It is apparent that only a tiny proportion of professional pilots are caught, but in this modern society, there will be many who ask "is it only because the checks are not tough enough to catch more?" Some may reasonably say that the vast majority do not transgress, but a quick look back over the past 20 years shows that 'knee jerk' reaction is very much in vogue.

You have been warned.

No, he clearly is not advocating that.
That is a distortion of what SID said.

:rolleyes:

Exactly we need accountability not apology. Treatment is great but if you turn up to fly drunk their need to be consequences.

A liberal no-blame, tolerate anything cultuire just leads to unprofessional behaviour and accidents.

Brian A has neatly showed that the airlines need an effective system to prevent drunk pilots reporting for duty. Clearly this airline failed like Exxon did.

SID PLATE So what would you do if your co-pilot was under the influence? Run the risk or run them in?

Easy solution to that:

Breathalyse them before they get on the aircraft.

This has already started in India:

Breath test for all pilots - The Times of India

Careful with the mouthwash then, guys and girls...

The same in Russia too.

I wouldn't mind blowing into a breathalyzer before every flight. It would always read zero, and I don't want to fly with an impaired pilot anyway.

But I should be paid for the affront, $10/hour would be adequate; and the point about doctors (and may I add cab drivers, legislators, McDonald's workers, hotel maids, rock stars and Charley Sheen, university professors, global warming scientists, sushi chefs and others) also be given the appropriate scrutiny.

Most pilots are paid well enougth to be professional already.:ugh:

Some are, but most are not.

Shell Management So were the oil industry managers who allowed the safety shortcuts that contributed to Exxon Valdez and the Gulf spill. :=

Kick him into touch. ;)

@DA50

My GP says yes - and it is becoming conventional wisdom in New Zealand

J.O.
Can you provide a link to this "medically proven fact"? I think you are confusing theory and fact.

Edited to add:

I'd also be very interested in how you know that this particular pilot is and alcoholic rather than a non-alcoholic who had drunk enough to put them over the limit.