Suspected drink drivers again - surely not?-
 

Two United pilots arrested at Glasgow this morning::

They can't be serious?

United Pilots drinking?

IG

Hope they finished that crew lounge at the Paisley Sheriff Court.

It's been almost three years since the last United pilots were caught over the limit at GLA. From the article linked above:

Quote:

---

In 2017, two United Airline pilots were jailed for breaching drink-fly limits at Glasgow Airport.

First Officer Paul Grebenc, 35, was sentenced to 10 months in prison.

His colleague Carlos Roberto Licona, 45, was jailed for 15 months.

Both had been arrested while preparing to take off from Glasgow on 27 August 2016.

---

Is United still staying at the Hilton?

Well, at least 2 of them are not. They are now staying in the police cells in Glasgow.

Why sad? Did you mean " possibly sad"?

You have a nice day now especially if you are in Barlinnie, notorious Glasgow prison.

This kind of thing needs to stop before the Imperial Federal Kackistocracy steps in with their "solution". No one will like that because it'll be 99% about making themselves look like they're protecting the serfs and peasants from the evil airline pilots.

And you thought random drug and alcohol testing was as far as they could go...how about a breathalyzer every time you report for work ? Those hand-held gizmos are cheap...cheap enough to be located at every layover station in your system. Administered by some gate agent supervisor who already hates your guts.

Never underestimate what government will do in its own interest.

I'm flying the Hajj for Garuda at the moment.

Garuda does a medical check when reporting for each duty at an Indonesian station.
Breathalyzer test & blood pressure.

Fine with me.

Breathalyser tests are already administered before every flight in India. And pilots still regularly fail the test and get 90 days off for the first offense.

See: https://indianexpress.com/article/in...light-5829703/

https://www.businesstoday.in/sectors...ry/307420.html

Pilots are going to show up for work drunk, it's an unfortunate fact of life. The days of 'you call in sick and I'll cover for you' are long gone in the U.S. in my opinion. I agree that we need to try to self police but you are right, stronger measures are probably coming.

bubba,

I would not particularly be inclined to agree that policies from 3rd world countries are the proper solution to issues here if that is offered as justification for whatever the Perfumed Princes in DC should/might do.

Of course, we long ago abandoned the Fourth Amendment as it might relate to airline pilots. If we keep poking the bear with stuff like this, we'll get what we asked for. Well, YOU will...I won't. They can't get at me any longer. Maybe Lizzy Dole will come out of retirement to help with the "solution".

The industry need not despair since there's no level of abuse pilots will not meekly submit to.

...and I quote from the "Max" thread:

Would you want to ride with any pilot who is impaired by drink? and the requirements for reaction and response time could be as short as quoted above?

Yes, this is the MAX but I doubt that the reaction and response times required are much more.

If there is nothing to hide there is nothing to fear in this regard.

IG

Just a question, but exactly how accurate are breathalyzers? Is a reading of 0.02 significantly different from 0.01? I would guess that they have a certain amount of error, and only a blood test can give you a really accurate reading.

That question really doesn't merit an answer.

I assume you are the citizen of a country where your civil rights are codified ? Do you not expect full recognition of those rights regardless of your occupation ?

"If there is nothing to hide there is nothing to fear in this regard." is irrelevant and the ruse of tyrants.

Breathalyzers are screening devices with some accuracy flaws (name a device that doesn't have flaws). That inaccuracy may win you a blood test. In the meantime, you're guilty until proven innocent...and still get to be that guy pulled off his flight for being "drunk" even when you weren't.

But if people are happy being treated like that I guess I'm happy for them.

Retirement gets better by the day.

As you say, the Breathalyzer can provide false positives so is normally not the final authority on impairment, a formal blood test will confirm the results some time later, but the blood test may also occur too late to confirm the limit being exceeded. Does that mean that some pilots intended to fly while impaired? but it could not be proved because of limitations in the equipment and processes available?.

I am not going to comment on whether the actual suspicions which give rise to a Breathalyzer test, for I agree that the powers that be, exceed their authority in some situations, due to jealousy, greed, and a false sense of authority. However this should be dealt with as a separate issue. As for the media's handling of these cases, I find their activities deplorable and frankly deserving of litigation when they cross the line. (I have already seen mention of the word "drunk" and that should meet with an appropriate response, A five line retraction at the bottom of page ten, does not cut it.)

As has been stated, this event is likely to result in a more expanded process to determine results quickly. Some airlines and nations are not even waiting for a better process to be introduced, preferring to err on the side of caution and safety. I, for one, appreciate that.

IG

In Japan, city bus drivers are required to pass a breathalyzer test before starting their shift.

Just saying.

Sadly we get the rules/laws thet the irresponsible create justification for. I am sure we can all think of many in day to day life. Some idiot behaves badly and the "there needs to be a law for this" will kick in and then all the responsible people will have to suffer it.

What responsible people have an issue doing a Breathalyzer test before work?

It's another check that just adds more misery in trying to get to the aircraft, the security screening in some countries is already a right pain in the backside, the last thing we need are more checks.

Just because of a few rotten eggs everybody else has to suffer.

Second that

The entirety of human history demonstrates this regardless of occupation. But, you have to allow for those who are not reckless but have a disease which alcoholism is. Not trying to make excuses or be PC (heaven knows I'm not THAT) but it's a complex subject. Just sayin'.

Meekly submitting to officially being deemed guilty until YOU prove yourself innocent is not my definition of being "responsible".

Sorry but i think right now you come from the 3rd world country

Drunk?
 

Review the level, make it 0.4, and make checks in the crew room mandatory. `There will be no more accidents due to "drunk" pilots, no more horrible media drivel, and pilots can relax and enjoy a beer 10 hours before report. Everyone's happy.

OK...thank you for your input.

I don't fly professionally anymore - thank god - but still work in an occupation where the regulator can be standing at my mailbox as I reverse out of the driveway in uniform and breath and drug test me on my way to work. They never would go to someones house, but the legislation is written that way to stop people 'going sick' in the carpark when they hear the testers are on-site. Am I happy for that? Bloody oath I am. I have to trust my colleagues with my life, with no recourse at times, it isn't like an airliner where you can overpower or palm off certain duties to your Coey...And after seeing a goodly number of (usually younger) crews getting busted for it and pushed out the door means I have more confidence in going home at the end of the shift. Those of that have failed AOD tests (with reason, ie Codiene medication etc) usually see it as a bit of a chuckle as you get a (fully paid) day or two off until the confirmatory results come back. No one here bats an eye and there is no stigma associated with a reasonable non-negative result.

And I bet they don't have a problem with that. Neither would I - in fact I'd welcome it at my work, rather than a handful of crew getting picked for 'random' tests every day.

Proving yourself legally capable of operating the aircraft by a 10 second blow-in-the-tube adds misery? C'mon...:rolleyes:

As written above by another participant: in my understand you are not guilty until proven otherwise. Not the other way around. That's why security checks for crew are stupid, too.

The Breathalyzer is not accurate.
Firstly, if they are not regularly calibrated they are of little use.
Secondly, they only indicate the presence of alcohol. They are not used to "measure" the amount of alcohol merely to indicate its presence.
In some countries this means an arrest and conveyed to a "testing" facility. In others, it is accompany.

Problematic is the "mission creep" where increasingly the powers of detection and apprehension are no longer the civil power (police)

Curiously absent is airline management, who in efforts to squeeze "efficiency" from flight crew, reduce rest periods to statutory minimum, increase roster TOD to maximum. Circadian rhythm disturbance and sleep opportunity is irrelevant to them. Comfortably, in their own timezone, they enjoy whatever substance takes their fancy.

Whatever happened to the old "8 hours bottle to throttle" rule? Many years ago a BA 747 Captain was found to be intoxicated on the flight deck, so they performed an experiment with him in the sim and found he flew better pissed than sober!

If this subject was considered scientifically, a one size fits all blood alcohol concentration isn't a reliable indicator of impairment. Experienced long haul pilots are seasoned drinkers, so their tolerance levels of alcohol intoxication aren't the same as someone new to the job with no tolerance to alcohol. Of course, just as with the media, Government nannies don't like spoiling a good story with the facts, and will never admit that it's mostly their hare-brained rules and regulations that drive most people to drink in the first place in an attempt to deal with the bull****.

Can you provide a reference for this claim? :confused:

Never heard of that incident and subsequent experiment so just like Airbubba I'd be very interested in a reference..or at least some idea of how long ago it is supposed to have happened....

0.4???

I hope you mean 0.04.

No Airbubba and others. I heard this back before computers existed and well before our current obsession with links to authoritative references so we don't have to think for ourselves. There is plenty of evidence in my post to make an informed decision, aka deduced reckoning.

Sometime around 1990 is when I heard it, and I don't know exactly when it happened, but must have been after BA introduced B747's. I heard this in Australia, and since it happened in the UK, it might have taken some time to filter down to a flying school in Sydney.