"But if we really do feel it's necessary, why start with pilots? Medical profession would be first on the list, professional (or maybe all) drivers, nuclear plant personnel, armed police....."

At the risk of being insensitive in my first post, I suggest that pilots would not be the first. Armed (UK) police, when I was involved with the roles, were asked before being issued with a firearm and before being briefed on any specific job whether they had consumed alcohol in the last 24 hours, or whether there was any other reason they should not be issued with a firearm. Every person, every time. (Including the commanders, who would not be armed.)

OK, they weren't actually screened, but they could have been and they were asked and their colleagues were vigilant. I always received clear, robust responses when I asked the question, and I've known people stand down or decline a (lucrative) call-out when they couldn't answer this truthfully correctly.

I am presently engaged temporarily working for a UK infrastructure programme. Part of my induction was a very clear instruction that you were not allowed on the premises after imbibing alcohol, and you were not allowed to bring alcohol, even newly bought in sealed containers, on to the premises. And that's an office, not a construction site.

So I don't think pilot testing/screening/asking would be out of step.

PS. On a television documentary recently I saw that Indian train drivers (and signallers?) were tested every time they reported for duty.

Why not start with pilots? Medical surgeons are apparently learning from our profession and starting to use checklists etc, to prevent mistakes during operations, so why not take the lead here? Some sort of drug/alcohol testing is surely acceptable?

However, with respect, I do not think that airport security staff should be the ones to do this. As far as I am concerned, the quality of security staff I see have (just) enough authority to confiscate my slightly too large yoghurt etc, and I am quite happy for airport security staff to do their job and search me and my bags.

However, I think that something as serious as correctly performing a drug/alcohol test and/or preventing a person from proceeding to their aircraft (whether guilty of something or not), should only be done by fully trained officers of the law.

.

Poor bloke has his demons to fight, some support from his employers would be the first step...

"I think that something as serious as correctly performing a drug/alcohol test and/or preventing a person from proceeding to their aircraft (whether guilty of something or not), should only be done by fully trained officers of the law."

a very quick way to criminalise the whole procedure..... everyone could.should be tested but a nurse would be far more cost effective and probably better at talking people into a remedial proggramme. The police will be very tempted to arrest & charge anyone

I could share, perhaps even join in some of the self-righteous high-horse stuff on testing if we'd seen a string of airliners pranged in alcohol-related accidents. But the total is, er, zero. Total flight safety incidents, er, yes that's zero as well...(and yes, we would know since an incident will generally trigger a test).

Testing in Canada
 

Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is not legal to random test for alcohol or drugs after a person has been hired. Screening is legal as a pre-employment condition. Testing can only be done on suspicion of being under the influence.

From the Transport Canada aviation medical standards:

That seems pretty clear to me. Agreed that alcoholism is a disease, but it's a disqualifying disease for a pilot.

He should fight his demons away from piloting duties. I struggle to understand why his employer should support him, when he was intent upon putting his employers and their clients at huge risk. Perhaps they would support a pilot who declines flying duty to the chief pilot/company doctor with a conversation which begins "I have a problem..."

By presenting yourself to act in the capacity of pilot, you are declaring that you are medically fit. He misrepresented the facts.

The Eastern European approach to this might have some merit. Flight crews used to have to see a physician before starting their duties (it may even still be that way in some countries). I´d think that a trained medical professional is even more suitable to take care of such tests and possibly even more able to spot small tell-tale signs of the various intoxications than a law enforcement official.

Do Pilots Have an Alcohol Problem?
 

Often the focus is on pilots going flying when drunk. What about pilots using alcohol to fight fatigue and insomnia?
Here is an interesting article:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/do-pi...mp-reader-card

Interesting to contrast the semi-hysteria about impairment through alcohol with the almost universal disinterest in the far more serious issue of impairment through fatigue.

I think the best final defence against an intoxicated pilot showing up for work is the pilot sitting next to them. All the talk of 100 percent testing, training security screeners (really!) etc, is nonsense.

Where afety sensitive roles exist, such as pilots and air traffic controllers, random screening is needed at frequent enough intervals that people know it's a legitimate possibility, where people self declare a problem, they are screened randomly and often, where there's an incident they are screened (and educated that this will always happen after an incident) and the final defence will always be the guy or girl sitting next to you.

While I am aware that there are a few famous examples of both tech crew showing up intoxicated together, the cabin crew or other colleagues have called them out.

The problem as I see it isn't the pilot who is clearly hanging out of his a***, it is the pilot who has had a couple too many and is nursing a mighty headache. This is the type of individual who will likely get past crew scrutiny but is not fit to fly.

Not always:
The Road Back From Perdition Joseph Balzer, Lyle Prouse and his FE (Northwest 650). Lyle also showed what can be done to beat this curse and ended up re-hired and eventually retired from the LHS of a 747 (see "final approach").

You know, none of this matters: we can swap stats and opinions all night. We perhaps might agree it doesnt matter because we haven't "seen a string of airliners pranged in alcohol-related accidents". But it doesnt matter what you or I as individuals think - what matters is that the people at the back of the bus who are paying have an expectation that the crew are properly trained and that the airline has put in place arrangements to monitor performance.... and that the crew are physically able to do the job without impairment and that again, the airline has put in place arrangements to monitor that. I mean.. they have a duty of care... don't they?

One thing I don't understand is why they waited two hours to administer the alcohol test. For 11 years I was a trained intoxylizer operator and for 7 of those I was a trainer. The law and sops stated allow 20 mins to allow any residual alcohol to disperse from the mouth, then test. The 20 mins under observation.
If he was left two hours the blood alcohol level would be reducing all the time. It is in theory possible on a short flight to take off over the limit and be under "safe !" on arrival. Is there a requirement under Canadian law as applied to aviation for the pilots union rep or legal rep to be present before testing ?

If he's a Slovak national working for TVS on lease to Sunwings, he'd be almost surely absolutely on his own. Sorry soul indeed.

In the States, DOT regulations allow for random testing amongst commercial drivers, as do many other professions that involve the welfare of the public. And rightfully so.
So why should a pilot's union proclaim they're above such testing?
I would welcome it amongst medical personnel, surgeons, maritime operators, pilots, train engineers...you get my point. It's obvious there are enough folks who can't self regulate their alcohol. The public domain shouldn't have to find out the hard way.

And if further physical examination proves another medical culprit for alcohol levels above allowable, then they're exonerated/treated accordingly. How anyone could object is beyond reasonable. It falls into the same nanny state thinking that's taking over much of the world.

In the States, mandatory drug and alcohol testing (including random testing) of airline employees having safety-sensitive jobs have been the law since early 1990s. Pilots, flight attendants, flight dispatchers, mechanics, ATC personnel, etc., are all already subject to random testing.

In Canada, the regulatory situation is a bit different, but as far as I know all major airlines in Canada have comprehensive drug and alcohol policies in place.

One passenger, or 80+ airline passengers, it makes no difference to me.

I don't understand why a pilot who turns up for work over the limit should be allowed to be 'helped' by his colleagues and not prevented from working.

Why are we protecting pilots who drink ??

Uplinker....who is protecting them?

There may be some confusion here. Legal limits are defined in terms of alcohol percentages (i.e., in the blood, or in the exhaled breath). Assuming that a 200 lb person has about twice as much blood, muscle, internal organ mass, and other wet tissue as a 100 lb person, which is a pretty reasonable assumption, then it will take about twice as much alcohol for the 200 lb person to reach a given blood alcohol percentage as for the 100 lb person.