Sunwing pilot pulled off YYC flight due to intoxication
 

Seems like Calgary Police have arrested a Slovakian foreign national Captain who passed out at the controls of a 737 before pushing off the gate. Supposedly with over 3 times the legal limit.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/pilot-r...lege-1.3223307

Pilots under the influence of alchohol
 

Why is this only now becoming a big problem. It has been going on for many years. Maybe they need to change the rule of bottle to throttle to 18 hrs?

Ban all Canadian airlines from Europe!!!

(you need to have followed the Indonesian thread to understand this) ;)

My pet peeve: How does a captain 3 times over the limit even make it to his seat without intervention?

This slovakian pilot managed to pass security in Canada, hopefully a more secure place than Indonesia...
Video available?

It is possible that the crew were not from Sunwing, if flight tracker is accurate this may have been a WetLease operation.
Flight Tracker is showing this flight as being operated by Thomson airways... , who were granted authority to operate some flights for SunWing under: https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/333-a-2016
Flight Tracker Data
Flight Details
View track log/graph · Track inbound plane
Departure Times
Gate Departure
Taxiing
Takeoff
Actual
01:02PM CST36 minutes

01:38PM CST
Scheduled
10:15AM CST
10:15AM CST
Arrival Times
06:58PM EST
Aircraft information
Owner
Thomsonfly.com
Aircraft Type
Boeing 737-800 (twin-jet) (B738) Photos



Airline information



Airline

Sunwing "Sunwing" all flights

.... he got through just like this guy did:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...hrough-airport

He might not have been intoxicated when he passed security.

Canadian airport security doesn't come close to what is in the States or Great Britain...low pay, entry level employment positions in the workforce. I fear Canada's day is coming.

Improbable, he would have had his bags screened for liquids to enter sterile, and would have had to purchase duty- free in sterile, and find somewhere to imbibe. More likely got through with no-one questioning him. I don't think security screeners would be too inclined to stick their necks out on questioning a captain.... " not my job, mon!"

Calgary police have charged a pilot after he allegedly passed out from intoxication in the cockpit of a plane with 99 passengers and six crew members.

The flight was scheduled to make stops in Regina and Winnipeg before continuing on to Cancun, Mexico.

According to police, the pilot boarded a Sunwing Airlines 737-800 series aircraft in Calgary shortly before 7 a.m. on Dec. 31.

Crews at the gate and on the plane noticed the pilot was "behaving oddly, before he became unconscious in the cockpit," Staff Sgt. Paul Stacey told reporters at a news conference.

The pilot — a 37-year-old foreign national from Slovakia in Canada on a work visa — was taken into custody.

High blood alcohol level

Stacey said the pilot's blood alcohol level was tested about two hours after the arrest and found to be more than three times the legal limit.

The pilot has been charged with having care and control of an aircraft while impaired, and having care and control of an aircraft with a blood alcohol level over .08.

"Because he has as much alcohol in his system as he does, they're going to wait before he sobers up somewhat before he goes before a justice of the peace," Stacey said.

He says while he personally has never experienced an incident like this, he's not surprised the pilot was stopped before operating the plane.

"It had all the potential for a disaster, but I'll tell you this much — the likelihood of a pilot on a major airline like this actually being able to take off when they're impaired like that is pretty slim, because there's a lot of checks and balances. There's the other flight crew and there's gate crew and they're all about safety," he added.

'We are very apologetic'

Jacqueline Grossman, a spokesperson for Sunwing, said the company is "appreciative of our crew's diligence in handling this very unfortunate matter."

The company was able to find another captain to take the flight.

"We are very apologetic for any upset that this has caused and would like to assure our customers that safety remains our utmost priority," said Grossman by email.

'He won't be flying anytime soon'

Stacey says Transport Canada will conduct their own investigation and more charges could apply.

"I fully expect that there will be additional charges," he said.

The pilot will go before a justice of the peace once he has sobered up.

"To be more than three times the legal limit, that is a lot of booze," Stacey said.

"He won't be flying anytime soon."

Well done. Not done your homework before spouting nonsense.
Plus, who are Thomsonfly?

He'll be held in police custody and then brought before a JP later on in the day. Bail will be a cash deposit as he is a foreign national.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? The offending pilot was European.....

The F/O is going to have to do some hard and fast explaining and he'll not be the only one.

disgraceful !

....not so quick to blame the F/O please

Sgt. Paul Stacey, with Calgary police:

“They (the co-pilot) found him slumped over in the seat, in the pilot seat. He was the captain of the airline,” Stacey said.

Getting said pilot off the plane on the day I think is only the start of the problem for those colleagues that would find themselves in this situation.

Be interesting to hear how people would handle this scenario themselves. Perhaps more so the guy that you're reasonably confident is a bit on the nose but is fairly normal otherwise.

Do you suggest that he stand himself down in the hope that it's a one off and risk the possibility that it's not?

Do you refer them to management and risk their imminent dismissal?

Do you call security and have them tested when you're not even sure they're over the limit? Perhaps there is a medical condition that they're predisposed to?

I think even in advanced countries like mine this is a real legal and ethical minefield?

Believe it was a TVS pilot whose under a foreign crew permit operating for Sunwing on C-reg aircraft. The Thomson link is the aircraft is one of ours on a dry lease transferred onto SWGs AOC for the season, nothing to do with TOM except its our equipment on loan being operated by other crew if the public tracking data was correct.

I understand what you are saying but that wont help - in fact it may make it worse given human nature and the nature of addiction. In my industry (oil & gas) best in class operators typically operate a risk - based screening system for those involved in safety - critical operations eg refining, terminalling, offshore ops. I anecdotally hear that this is practiced on a limited basis by a few airlines (can anyone confirm?) and by some on a "for cause" basis (in other words on a crew where one individual is suspected or has been reported the entire FD and Cabin crew are tested without fear of favour). In our industry the unions sometimes support it and sometimes hate it, the employees mostly hate it and the companies dislike doing it but recognize that it saves lives. At the end of the day aggressive risk-based testing (where the frequency is adjusted to the location, the task and the outcomes) is the only way to cut this down to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP as we call it). You will never eliminate it except through 100% testing which is is simply not sustainable or desirable.

The programs we have are usually balanced by supportive intervention if the employee pre-emptively seeks help or admits (during a medical for example if markers in blood screens show that he/she has a problem).

Expecting some flak for the above but it seems that we are where we are and the point at where the increasing occurrence / discovery /media attention curve has intersected with the lack of public confidence curve. Time to get real.

See "programme management" in the following:

http://www.ipieca.org/media/2812/dru...6_12_13_lr.pdf

And that's just the pilots.

The airport Securitate are even worse.

Pinkman

I don't think you understand the term bottle to throttle. It is a reference used in aviation for alcohol use prior to flying.(aviation Regulation). Simply put it means that if you are going to fly at 08:00 tomorrow morning, you will report for duty at 06:00(Normally 2 hours prior to departure, varies between operators) This means that you need to stop drinking 12 hours prior to reporting for duty I.E 18:00 today. This generally is OK for occasional and social drinkers, but not for heavy drinkers as a heavy drinker even if stopping 12 hours prior to reporting could still possibly smell of alcohol or even be over the legal limit at 06:00 the following morning.
In my experience over the years Aviation Crew are very professional and do follow these rules explicitly.(This Rule includes Cabin Crew)
However as mentioned above this rule does not cater for a heavy drinker hence my statement that bottle to throttle should be increased to 18 hours.

Sorry, but it is both achievable and sustainable. Many industries where it is already in place and working effectively.


That depends somewhat on whether you are the subject of the checking or the passenger paying for his services.


In some cases blanket testing is perceived as being a more equitable system.
That is, it closes the gap between those at the pointy end and those sitting in offices who may conveniently perceive that their transgressions are more acceptable than those with a higher risk exposure.

So you pass the sobriety test in the crew center, after which you proceed to your aircraft. Lots of bottles available there, unlike a nuclear power plant control room.
And therein lies the big difference. You can impose all these checks, which are already in place in other industries. But after that, booze availability is still guaranteed.

True, but effective screening in the crew room would eliminate the vast majority of these incidents. It also has the advantage of intercepting inebriation out of the eye of the passengers.

I suspect (hope) that incidents where FD crew imbibe airside or even on the aircraft are pretty rare.
And of course the only solution to this would be screening "on the aircraft".
Probably a bit over-the-top and unnecessary until shown otherwise.

Before we get into the knee jerk demands for crew room screening (did he even go there?) this is a sorry case but lets not overlook that this was stopped by peer intervention. There was never the remotest chance of the rest of the crew allowing him to get airborne

Never the remotest? I wonder.

Remember the Virgin Express pilot at Madrid who had to be woken in the hotel 3 times before he made it onto his feet, followed the rest of the crew in another taxi who got the plane ready, shambled through the departure lounge looking so wrecked that it alarmed the pax? They taxiied, apparently so erratically that pax began calling emergency services to say they were in a jet with a drunk pilot and only when the f/o was sufficiently scared (!) he took control and returned to the gate. Capt did a runner and was found an hour or more later in the hotel bar, pissed as a fart with a drink in front of him.

Never discount the remotest!

I didn't say it wasn't achievable. It is achievable in the same way that 100% security screening is achievable (but not 100% effective).

It is not desirable because it seriously erodes trust, drives the issue underground and provides no guarantee of effectiveness. Human beings are very inventive. Fox niner gave one example. There is also the problem of false positives which become significant at high sample / high compliance rates.

I am willing to be proved wrong but I honestly believe that cost effective - wise and workforce morale wise it is not sustainable. What will happen is that the "capture rate" will decline to a point where the bean counters will say "this program is costing us $xx millions per year and we are getting 1 transgressor every 2 - 3 years and half of those are false positives" and they will back off to random screening/risk based screening.

In all the recent cases someone has identified the pilot as needing to be tested. It has been obvious that something was wrong and subsequent testing has or has not shown a high blood alcohol level. In all cases the pilot has been prevented from flying. So it is unclear what the lack of workforce morale, the cost, the legislation, and numerous other issues involved in mandatory testing would improve.

I would rather see more training for flight crew, cabin crew and others to ensure that they do not drink inappropriately in the first place, and are more aware of the need to challenge each other.

I am less enthusiastic of 'training' security staff as I suspect it will cause more harm than good.

Sorry about that. the WestLease agreement is with Thompson Airways as stated in the link I provided.
McBruce, thanks for the update re the carrier who operated the flight.

"Training" security staff? Ha, that's hardly necessary in this context. At some locations, any time they feel they've been shown insufficient deference a "drunk pilot" report is generated almost automatically.

For pity's sake!

You clearly do not understand the compulsive nature of alcoholism. I was married to an alcoholic and tried desperately to get her sufficient counselling, behaviour modification therapy, you name it so she did not "drink inappropriately". It is an illness. It is not voluntary behaviour or a "nice to have". It is a "have to have".

""Training" security staff? Ha, that's hardly necessary in this context. At some locations, any time they feel they've been shown insufficient deference a "drunk pilot" report is generated almost automatically. "

And based on some of the stories on this forum, even by the Hotel Staff where they overnighted.

Because aviation blood alcohol limits are, understandably, low.

A 180lb man would reach the limits implicit in this report after about four or five drinks. There are plenty of people who can drink that quantity and not be visibly drunk to a casual observer.

In Canada the impaired for operation of a motor vehicle is .08, however the CARs say you cannot be under the influence, so he could well be 24 times over the limit

Rigpiggy,
Although .08 is a limit where things get sticky, in BC .05 can result in penalties.
Penalties starting at 0.05:

Quote: There's also a new warning range for impaired driving which drops the legal blood alcohol limit to .05, said de Jong. Drivers caught once with a blood alcohol level in the warning range — between 0.05 and 0.08 — will face an immediate, three-day driving ban and a $200 fine. Those caught twice in a five-year period face a seven-day ban and a $300 fine; and those caught three times over five years face a 30-day ban and a $400 fine.

A 180lb man would reach the limits implicit in this report after about four or five d
 

It does not matter whether you way 180 lbs or 250 lbs. When you have a drink it is not measured in the amount of drink you have had. It is measured in the amount of alcohol in your blood stream.
Yes , the theory that some people can consume more than others before becoming apparently drunk does vary, of that there is no doubt. However all law agencies need to follow a certain criteria, hence the laws we have today.
Trying do justify your drinking habits by saying i way more than the person next to me does not exonerate you from the fact that you could effectively be under the influence according to law.

And secondly, how do you get passed your operations center where you must report before take off in that state of mind

No Flak From Here!
This may seem more common bit it is not; we simply HEAR more about it these days. IMO, ground the idiot and get him into treatment. If the Tx takes, monitor him for an entire year and then - Only Then - reconsider his license status, perhaps requiring him to fly as a supervised F/O for yet another year, before reinstating that fourth stripe.
And YES! Someone should have taken action long before this fellow made it to the flight deck. Better to test - and be wrong - than to not test and be even more wrong! Ninety nine SLC's plus crew?
You are correct that 100% pre-flight testing cannot be done. Random testing should increase - a lot.

ICAO
 

Absolutely concur.

Maybe the fact that this incident happened on the doorstep of ICAO (based in Montreal) will help them understand that this is an issue that needs their attention and to report on progress: 15 years has passed since the following resolution

The report states that the first officer "found the captain slumped over the controls" which very much implies he'd bypassed the crew room and they hadn't met up to that point. It's hardly likely he saw him obviously drunk but waited until he was on board to raise the issue! The100% crew room screening some are demanding would be hugely intrusive and expensive. And crucially would have made no difference in this case. 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.....