the other benefit of zero alcohol beers is they have next to no calories. I had 3 months on them and found I still got slightly silly, like on a real beer, and a few times a sore head the next day! A lot of drinking beer must be in my mind!

G

Sadly, I have to agree with him. The U.S. has all the hallmarks of a third world country these days.

I'm not sure it's an "obsession" with links. Unless a person is a certified, acknowledged expert on a particular subject and can document that to an audience of strangers, an opinion is merely an opinion. For example, I can think anything I want about the physiology of alcohol metabolism but since I'm not a physiologist my opinion is just that: an opinion.

If one of us non-experts is going to support/discuss/debate a subject, the proper course is to seek out real experts and in the process learn something. I'd be reluctant to accuse people of not thinking merely because they supported an opinion on which they lacked personal experience or education. Just a thought...

"I am not young enough to know everything."

Oscar Wilde

Ah, no reference, so just the same old arguments you have deployed before, in another context, about logic and reasoning.

So in 1990 you were in Sydney Australia and heard a story. When challenged here on it's accuracy you can't or won't offer up references..

I'll offer up that In 1990 I was at BA on the fleet in question and yet heard nothing of this incident or experiment, and in fact in my many years on that Fleet and on other fleets at BA I still have not heard the story you describe..IMHO if this incident occurred as you describe it was not at BA.

In the absence of any references I'll leave it to others such as Airbubba to use their powers of deduction to make an informed decision

And when you do think for yourself, you think it feasible that a pilot found drunk on the flight deck was taken to the simulator to be tested?

In the UK, some coach companies have fitted a device to their vehicles which requires a "clean" breath sample to be given before the engine can be started. I was on a coach through a hot and heavily congested central London once. The engine overheated and cut out. The driver had to blow into a tube before restarting the engine. Not sure how that system would work with a flameout at FL120 though :eek:

There is some information here about alcohol-impairment experiments on pilots here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2012569

carried out by;
Aerospace Human Factors Research Division and Human Research Facility, NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA 94035.

And if you look at the links to 'similar experiments' on the right of the page here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7980331
You'll find that in every one of the experiments alcohol impaired pilot performance.

Hope that helps.

Article in Flying by Richard Collins and Mac McClellan which might be of interest.

I can't help with the above. I do remember reading a piece of research (done in Scandinavia IIRC) which looked at stopping distances at various level of intoxication whilst driving (it was about 15-20 years ago and alas I never bookmarked the report). The slightly surprising finding of the research was that stopping distances were less with some alcohol in the blood rather than zero (can't remember the figures sorry). The authors suggested this was owing to drivers being less inhibited in stamping on the brakes, bringing in the ABS earlier resulting in shorter stopping distances by a small but measurable amount. It didn't mean they were better/safer drivers overall, it was a very specific test under controlled conditions.

At the time Sweden had a blood alcohol limit of 20mg alcohol/100ml of blood for driving (same as the 0.02 limit mentioned above?) and I think many pieces of research have show that at that there is no statistically significant increased accident risk up to 20 mg/100ml. The risks do start climbing about that level though. Compare that with most of Europe having drink driving limits of 50 mg/ml and the UK 80 mg/ml !
Each individual reacts differently to alcohol and an individual can react differently on different occasions. 20mg/100ml seems like a sensible limit to me and nobody should object if there was say regular random breath testing.

Perhaps these drunk pilots are trying to emulate Captain William "Whip" Whitaker Sr.? (movie Flight)

That's the definition of a functional alcoholic. Worse performance when sober due to alcohol withdrawal syndrome.

Do you remember the Top Gear experiments using a driving simulator shown on the BBC? One group of drivers were plied with alcohol. The results showed a small initial improvement in driving skills that was put down to the relaxing effect of the alcohol. This was followed by a gradual diminishment in skill levels over time, with the number of errors increasing as the booze took effect. This was compared with a second set of drivers who did not drink, but were deprived of sleep. This group maintained their performance level until they reached a point where the the graph nose-dived off a cliff.

As was just illustrated in Glasgow, you are wrong.
Checks are needed and something a little more precise than a gate agent getting a whiff of the pilot's breath.

In the UK for drivers breath analysis is all that's required, the limit is 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100ml of breath. There used to be an option of blood test for marginal fails but that was abolished a few years ago. Not sure of position with blood test option for aviation functions where there is a lower limit but Police Station intoximeters are highly sophisticated, regularly calibrated and it's very rare for them to be proven wrong.

The 4th protects you against unreasonable searches, and then only from the government.

If you choose to operate an aircraft carrying up to 500 lives and enough fuel to effectively demolish a skyscraper, then the general public might consider it reasonable (a reasonable search) that you submit to a check before the flight.

Remember that that check does not necessarily have to be criminal: I could see a compromise where your medical certificate is "revalidated" by taking a breathalizer test, blood pressure, fatigueness check, and glucose levels before every flight. And then taken by a nurse, not a law enforcement officer. Alcohol level too high? Your medical is simply suspended for medical reasons. Nobody needs to know why; it could be a sugar rush or temporarily high blood pressure. And in the meantime, the company diverts you to an alcohol course without you being arrested.

Win-win-win in my book. Air crew have a safety net, traveling public know the boys and girls up front are fit to fly, and airlines won't have the negative publicity.

Sometime between 1977 and 1983 Car & Driver magazine (USA) published an article in which its staff took their favourite tipple to a test of how drink affected their driving. Various tasks driving around cones were performed as they got progressively drunker. In fact to the point that some could not even stand up, but could still drive -- not well though. However for most a "quick sharpener" did indeed sharpen their ability, although past a certain point destruction of cones became ever greater.

A couple of years later they repeated it with marijuana, but not being a smoker I wasn't interested in the conclusions.

C&D do not seem to have an online archive, shame it was always a very entertaining read.


'a

The random testing in place now (and any future additions to that program) is government mandated, carrying implied consent to submit to testing as a condition of "...exercising the privileges of..." .Therefore, it is a Fourth Amendment issue; this isn't just some company-initiated policy. ALPA testified to that at the Senate hearing when the mandated testing was being ramped up.

The Senate committee laughed it off when ALPA tried to explain the HIMS program as an alternative to the heavy hand of government. You alluded to the HIMS concept with your statement: "And in the meantime, the company diverts you to an alcohol course without you being arrested." So I assume you support something that would obviate the use of government/law enforcement as a "solution" to a complex problem.

I watched the hearing and spoke to the ALPA national aeromedical committee chairman after I saw the way he and the ALPA lawyer testifying with him were treated. It was infuriating political grandstanding by the senators pretending to save the serfs and peasants...and might be again. Stay tuned.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../drug_alcohol/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2012569 This was a series of flights in a 727 simulator. I recall seeing film of this, or similar, but I can't find it on the net.

Something that always comes to my mind- AFAIK, there has been no instance of an intoxicated pilot causing death or injury flying an airliner, yet being caught over the limit (though BELOW the limit for driving) seems to carry an automatic, lengthy jail term.

We KNOW that MANY lives are lost each year to drunk drivers,yet it takes multiple offences before any DUI driver is jailed, and then often for short periods.

Showing up intoxicated to fly is obviously a heinously irresponsible act. I would expect anyone doing this to be sacked, face licence loss or lengthy suspension, and face large civil fines, but why is it an automatic jail sentence for something we have no evidence has ever actually hurt anyone?

Fair enough, I see your point: random testing is government mandated, therefore it's a 4th amendment issue. I see two issues with this. Number one: as I mentioned earlier, the 4th protects you from unreasonable searches only. Is it really unreasonable to be checked? Second, this particular case happened outside of the U.S., so the 4th is of no concern. Yes, there are similar protections, but in the EUSSR you are not as protected as you are in the U.S.

Absolutely, there is no need to include law enforcement. Like I said: let the matter of fit-to-fly be handled by medical personnel. Of course, there will probably be a government mandate for that, but that's the only government intrusion needed in this case. HIMS is indeed exactly what would work; except that it's an FAA only thing. We need an ICAO thing.
Remember that most of the elected representatives have no clue about what they are talking about. Afterall, a 25 year old bartender was able to get elected to congress.

The intent to crew the flight while over the limit (note, not the same as 'drunk', or even 'under the influence') is what counts, as well as the potential outcome if your BAC contributes to an accident. I can't recall any incidents where alcohol contributed, but we could all probably bring up a couple dozen where fatigue was a factor...HERE's an incident where parents were 'outraged' at the lenient treatment to a school bus driver who was most assuredly drunk (0.15) with kids on board when she nearly crashed, so the door does swing both ways, even if it is not completely equitable, the courts take a dim view of anything 'aviation' related overly and in some cases, IMHO, wrongly over-emphasising the safety-critical and responsibilities associated with the job.

Actually there was a 737 crash in (IIRC) Russia - I'm thinking roughly 20 years ago - where the autopsy found the PF to be drunk. Not impaired, drunk. It's been long enough I don't recall details (PPRuNe being what it is, I'm sure someone will be along to fill in) but there were no survivors.
There was a fatal turboprop crash in Colorado several years back where it was found both pilots were under the influence of cocaine.
I would not be at all surprised if there are others.
I don't know where you live, but in many parts of the United States, DUI is mandatory jail time (at least overnight).

To the original point, while a breathalyzer might be a good screen - as others have noted they are not terribly accurate - certainly not accurate enough for a presumption of guilt.

From the BBC

Link below:

One Pilot released

IG

You should look up the origins of the 4th amendment sir. Comes straight from the UK from what I can remember.

But if this is a 4th amendment issue, then so is the need to sit tests to get your driver's licence.

Apparently, the reasonableness question has been answered by Congress.

And yes, the election of the bartender is a very sad commentary on the state of affairs here.

Personally, I think that's the least of the US' worries...:ouch:

Sadly, this has already happened in Japan but it is even worse. Alcohol check with a breathalyser at sign on, a check at the end of the flight (just in case one felt the urge to have a nip inflight). If there is a stopover of more than 2 hours, then a post flight check at the end of the sector PLUS another check before starting the other sector. Add to that a ban on alcohol consumption a certain time period before sign on during layovers ( the time period is twice as long s the no-drink rule in force)

oh yes, also endless emails and training courses about alcohol consumption, education and checks. Welcome to the new era. Most of this protects the bureaucrat sitting behind the desk rather than the consumer.

It is enough to drive one to drink!

Strangely, there appear to be more accidents due to FATIGUED pilots than drunk pilots, yet I do not see the system falling over itself to address fatigue issues in the industry, I guess safety is a priority, as long as it does not cost too much.

90% of the pilots I flew with had a few beers or a couple of hard drinks early in the layover.

Until someone comes up with a quick, easy, and reliable test that quantifies fatigue, little will change.
Figure out how to do that and you'll be rich :E

Isn't it ironic that she seems to have more wisdom and sense than almost anyone else in the demented world of US politics?

I think it was this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_821
Wiki says "unspecified amount of alcohol in the captain's tissue" - I'm reasonably sure that the report I read quoted a number, and it was high enough to qualify as drunk driving in the US (at least 0.08%). However that report might have been considered confidential - the report was given to me by someone involved in the accident investigation - I was working something at the time that made it relevant so I had a legitimate 'need to know'.

It's an occupational hazard (too long hours, too much workload, too much having to be in command and at the end of it having to smile at the pax) to sometimes "forget" the hours we do between Bottle and Throttle and gradually they reduce and converge...

If this means you; start here:

https://himsprogram.com/Home/About

Some excellent resources and guidance and shared experience. You're not alone.