|
Alcohol is byproduct of normal metabolism. At the moment the Atkins diet, consisting of high protein content but no carbohydrate, and popularised by various Hollywood celebs including Jennifer Aniston, is very popular. If you remain on this diet for a long time you produce a higher amount of ketone bodies which result in smelly breath and the possibility that you may test positive on a breath test. If you have certain undiagnosed medical conditions you may test positive. I will investigate these further tomorrow since my degree was a while ago, but tonight will drink wine because I will not have the opportunity for another 2 weeks.
|
hello everyone!
no news on the blood test yet huh? well, lets not judge him just yet.... regarding the alcohol level in your blood and fatigue... lets say Mr Engel gets sh!te faced on saturday night, a few long island's under his belt....I might be legally fit to fly say, around 17.00 hours the next day and I might be able to drive my car to work but if some tricky situation arises will I be able to cope with it? we all know the way we feel the day after, so I might have a legal limit but I'm still fatigued...??? and yada yada yada. ;) BTW, good posts by Danny and FFF, DON'T DO IT... and bumblebee, I feel so sorry for you not being able to go to the bank on the lunch hour, have you ever stopped to think about if that office guy might not feel so lucky...maybe you could change.... |
Bengt Engel,
What are you trying to say? |
Bumblebee
In short, your post seemed to indicate that you feel entitled to enjoying the same possibilites as non-pilots working 9-to-5, i.e. go to the pub after work and finish off a few pints or 10.
In my opinion that is not an option if you have to work the next day, not as a pilot, train driver, ATCO, doctor etc. Some occupations leave you disadvantaged in some respects, being a pilot is one of them. However, as I posted earlier, there are other advantages that your regular 9-to-5 bloke doesn't have. I may very well have misunderstood you, if so you have my apologies. |
FFF
In short, your post seemed to indicate that you feel entitled to enjoying the same possibilites as non-pilots working 9-to-5, i.e. go to the pub after work and finish off a few pints or 10. Personally, I certainly do not feel entitled to go out on the **** any night I want to....and that is not what i meant....... As it stands, the 0.2promille limit prevents one from having even just one or two beers - (we are not talking about 10...) or glasses of wine with dinner the evening before, without putting one's licence and career at risk. It's all very well having very restrictive regulations - (we are talking about a limitation that is 25% of the UK drink-drive limit). I am quite happy to accept them, but if we are to have them they have to be looked at in context. Issues such as proposed increases in duty hours limitations are far more serious. The first place those hours will come from are rest periods...I find that ironic. What is needed is a sensible balance- something that we presently do not have. rgds Bumblebee Bengt Engel, errrr mate.......I think you totally missed the point. Hejdo |
lets say Mr Engel gets sh!te faced on saturday night, a few long island's under his belt Absurd, puritanical limits are completely unnecessary. The world is in the grip of faceless bureaucrats and self-serving politicians legislating to take more and more control of our lives, aided by the sensationalist gutter press and television quoting uninformed, ill-educated 'public opinion'. I have no argument if a real issue is being addressed in a rational, sensible manner. Like so many issues today that is not the case. We have absurd legislation that achieves nothing but does cause much disquiet and difficulty for the average law and rule abiding individual. I am sick of it. The pious, unverifiable and sweeping assertions evident on this thread are evidence of the malais afflicting today's society. |
Was trolling for informed technical info on naturally occurring alcohol and found this which stopped me dead.
To me it seems to say that not only fruit but also aspartame used as a sugar replacement is a potential licence loser. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It has been shown that the ingestion of a moderate amount of fruit such as a 3-5 apples or oranges causes approximately 0.75 grams of methanol to be released into the body (Lindinger 1997). Such a daily intake throughout the day (or equivalent amount from juices) is approximately equivalent to the amount of methanol absorption seen in workplace exposure that has lead to the development of methanol toxicity symptoms (Frederick 1984, Kingsley 1954-55, Kavet 1990). In other words it is approximately equivalent to working five days per week in air with a methanol concentration of 260 mg/m3. This methanol air concentration is higher than found in a methanol-laden chemical plant (120 mg/m3) (Heinrich 1982) and a methanol-laden printing shop (~140 mg/m3) (Baumann 1979). Absorbed Methanol From 1.5 kg Fruit (or juice equiv) During Day 750 mg of methanol (from fruit) * 7 days / 70 kg = 75 mg/kg/week of methanol absorption. Absorbed Methanol From 260 mg/m3 Air Exposure During Workweek The formula used to calculate methanol inhaled in the Baumann (1979) study was discussed by Kavet (1990): (260 mg/m3 * 6.67 m3/workday * 5 workdays * 60 absorption rate) / 70 kg = 74 mg/kg/week of methanol absorption. 0.75 grams (750 mg) of methanol obtained from fruit is equivalent to the amount of methanol obtained from drinking 0.45 liters of brandy (40% ethanol) containing 0.5% methanol (Lindinger 1997). This amount of methanol without a protective factor such as ethanol would qualify as a "significantly methanol-contaminated beverage" (Lindinger 1997). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The article goes on in detail but if 5 apples equals .45 litres of brandy and the most common sweetner has the same affect we need to know more. Hope this link works http://www.kats-korner.com/health/aspartame.html |
Just for the record, this guy was within both the JAR limit (JAR-OPS 1.085) and the FAA limit (FAR 91.17). Both of these limits have been established by medical experts after many months of debate and after having reviewed all of the research documents on the subject.
Airclues |
<<As it stands, the 0.2promille limit prevents one from having even just one or two beers - (we are not talking about 10...) or glasses of wine with dinner the evening before, without putting one's licence and career at risk.>>
Not sure about this? "Old Language" I appreciate, but 1 Pint = 2 units 1 Glass of Wine = 1 Unit UK Drink Drive Limit about 5 units. Body expends ~1 unit / hour. So given no drinking in 8 hours prior report, in theory you could have 8 units (=4 Pints), and still be clear under any ruling i.e. nothing left from the beers. What's there due to other factors seems to be of legitmate concern however... Add in some safety factor, 2 pints still seems fine... (for blood levels - individual legislation might specify otherwise) Where has my maths gone wrong?? NoD |
Bumble
Fair enough. By the way, English was never my first, or even second, language so it's more than likely I missed your point to some extent. As the previous poster pointed out, having a beer or two early in the previous evening should not leave you over the limit. Any man, or woman, should be entitled to a landing beer. It just seems that some, though not necessarily the Nigel who sparked this thread, has a problem limiting themselves to just one or two drinks, or to call it quits in time.
M.Mouse Don't know who rained on your parade mate, but it sure sounds as if you got an axe to grind. I will agree that 0.02% is not a lot, in fact it's very little. However, if the rules says 0.02% then that's what you got to relate to. By all means, fight the rules anyway you can, but until such time that you have sucessfully turned the rules around you'd better live by them. |
0.2 Promille
So, what exactly are we talking about?
Let say you report for duty at 0600. Last drink at 2200, using the 8 hour rule (regulations regarding alcohol and flying differs from company to company, where I work, the rule says 12 hours). The average man burns 0.15 Promille pr hour, so to be absolute sober, your promille at 2200 must be 1.2 or less. For you to be at 0.2 or less (this seems to be the industry standard in Europe), your promille must be 1.4 or less 8 hours before. 1.4, and NOT on the rise. Now, 1.4 promille is not something you get after 2 glasses of wine or 2 pints of beer. At 1.4 promille you are fairly drunk. I know there are exceptions to the rule, some burn faster, some burn less (like me). Your body mass, sex, amount of food eaten, etc, will affect how drunk you get. It's up to US to take these factors into account, and to be on the safe side. Fatigue is very real, and very dangerous. Drunk the night before flying will not improve your fitness, even at 0 promille Mouth rinse may trigger a breath test, but not a blood test. The Swedish rule, with max 0.2 promille 8 hours BEFORE duty, means, in most cases, no drinking during layovers in Sweden. I don't like this rule, I think it's way over the top, but it's there. It's real. Beware! As to alcohol being a booster for your performance, yes, it's true. Small amounts may calm your nerves and enhance performance with regards to certain precision sports, such as shooting, etc. If you need to calm your nerves before flying, maybe it's time to find another job? And to you journos out there, it's not illegal to get your facts right before you start the press. People’s lives, careers, and reputations are at stake. Printing a microscopic apology at page 22, 4 weeks after you crucified someone on the front page, is simply not the way to go. |
However, if the rules says 0.02% then that's what you got to relate to. By all means, fight the rules anyway you can, but until such time that you have sucessfully turned the rules around you'd better live by them. In fact I hardly drink anyway! |
FFF
Merely bringing one in a situation that may be suspect is stupidity made large in this business. But you already know that don't you? witch but here we have contributors who think alcohol levels above the legal minimum are not only unavoidable but acceptable No one here is advocating flying whilst under the influence. The industry has no history of a problem with this, and is now faced with being criminalized, not because pilots are attempting to do that, but because the clever instrument makers have managed to detect ever lower levels of alcohol. It’s the goalposts which are moving, not us. I find it particularly sad that it is the younger of our contributors (a guess, I know, but I think I’m right) who seem more likely to accept the rule rather than standing up for common sense. Yes we must obey the rules, but that doesn’t mean that challenging them is wrong. |
Bumble ,
this must be ironic, I missed your whole point, during late nite post, with a few beers under my belt....I'm deeply sorry if I was out of line.... Bengan. |
Arkroyal, M.Mouse and the likes,
Excellent posts! Nice to see there still are people how are able to think without the goverment telling them what to think! There is still hope for human kind!:cool: |
I am utterly disgusted by the paradox of people complaining of journalist's shabbiness and then doing exactly the same. Three times I have read here that in France pilots drink at meals while on duty etc.
I do work in a French airline and NEVER I have witnessed such an act nor anything similar. It is true that the French know how to enjoy a good wine or cognac, but the secret who allows them to do it (along with enjoying fatty food like cheese and stay slim) is that they taste more than gobble down. A glass of good wine instead of 6 pints of lager per night. Watch for the beam in your eye, folks... |
No one here is advocating flying whilst under the influence. The industry has no history of a problem with this, and is now faced with being criminalized, not because pilots are attempting to do that, but because the clever instrument makers have managed to detect ever lower levels of alcohol. |
Agreed Maxangle
Airclues; whilst I agree with what you say about UK limits etc, it boils down to a case of law. If said pilot was over the limits in the country concerned AND those limits are enforceable, then he is guilty of a crime. It seems like BA have tried to warn their pilots about this country's laws and if he (a big IF, until proved guilty) chose to disregard them, then he doesn't have a leg to stand on. We might sympathise, but that won't stop a conviction or the right of a conviction! Example: You smuggle drugs in many countries, you get the death penalty. It may not be humane and it isn't what would happen in the UK, but the warnings are there and if you choose to ignore them, you do so at your own peril. A defense consisting of, 'well, I'll get 10 years jail at home', won't wash! It's a harsh example, but so is life in many countries. Edited for spellos that were obvious; there might be more! |
Horatio
The JAR 0.02 limit is not intended to allow a few beers the night before. The figure was decided after allowing for any endogenous alcohol and any instrument error in the breathalyser. It is for these same reasons that the Swedes, who have a zero tolerence policy to drink driving, have a 0.02 limit on the roads. It would be most unlikely for even the most abstinate person to produce a reading of 0.00. Airclues |
>>It would be most unlikely for even the most abstinate person to produce a reading of 0.00<<
I'm not exactly abstinent and that's what I've blown each time I've been tested over the past several years. I realize that alcohol testing and locked cockpit doors are novelties in the UK but we've lived with both for quite a while in the States. All the arguments about mouthwash and ripe fruit have been tried without much success in pilot hearings in the U.S. Usually the best defense has been to hope for a paperwork irregularity like a missing signature or wrong date on a form. A couple of pilots where I work have beat the rap due to faulty technical procedures in the testing. If that doesn't work, check into rehab and demand your job back since as an alcoholic you have a disability that the employer must accomodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Here's a recent example of the "hop into rehab" maneuver: "Two America West pilots accused of being drunk when they tried to fly a jetliner have been in alcohol rehabilitation, prosecutors said. Lawyers for the pilots, Thomas Porter Cloyd and Christopher Hughes, requested a hearing to ask a judge to delay their Aug. 1 [2002] court appearance because the pilots will be in rehabilitation until Aug. 2, said Ronald Ramsingh, an assistant state prosecutor. The pilots entered the 28-day program in Arizona after they were arrested July 1 in Miami, Mr. Ramsingh said." - from the New York Times July 23, 2002 |
Seriously?
The instrument maker made an instrument which can detect a pilot reporting for duty with alcohol in the blood, and HE is to blame????
Scandihooligans, the system, the law, instrument makers, who is the next one to blame? The butler? |
Whilst we all agree that we should not report for work inder the influence of alcohol, not even with the residual alcohol from a minimal intake during the off-duty period before the 8/12/24 hour threshold, is it not possible to have 0.2 promille detectable in the blood which has been produced metabollically?
It has been established that the 0.2 promille (0.02%) limit has been arbitarilly set as the limit due to the sensitivity of the detectors. What I am trying to find out is if it is possible that someone can be over that 0.2 promille level even though they have never had an alcoholic drink in their life? Information has been uncovered that there may be more to this case than meets the eye. Whilst investigations are still ongoing precise details cannot be revealed. Suffice it to say that there is growing evidence that a 'dirty tricks' campaign may have been and may still be underway against the pilot concerned. Having revealed this much I can state that there are likely to be some managers in BA who should be more careful about what and where they post on PPRuNe. If the evidence that is being collated proves to be correct and so far it appears to be so, then it will not be the first time that subterfuge and 'dirty tricks' have been used by some people in BA management. BALPA will be given access to the information as the pilot concerned is not only a member but holds a position as a BA rep. Those of you familiar with this kind of subterfuge will remember the cases of Capt. Glen Stuart and Capt. Stuart Clapson. Nuff said... for now!:suspect: |
Danny
It sounds very intriguing and if there is evidence of some form of subtefuge then I hope the person concerned will get the full support he deserves. I also hope that if that is the case, BALPA has had sufficient changes in management and policy in recent years to give that support. I remember only too well the case of poor Glen Stuart, who IMHO did not get the support from BALPA that he deserved. That was a black day in BALPA's past and one where those responsible should feel eternally shamed and contrite about. |
Hi Fifty Four
:cool: Long time no see, yup I was the Capt in SCN, and if I remember rightly You gave me two minature brandies and I did take the breathaliser and it registered 0!, so much for Dan's Brandy eh?, and yes the German police did then go away 'happy' with a statement!.
|
No drinks, but under the influence?
This was discussed at length in Norway, when they introduced 0.2 promille for driving. I seem to recall that, if you eat 2 loafs of freshly baked bread, yes you can get a level of alcohol in your blood. Same if you, like a moose (elk), eat 20 kilo of half rotten fruit.
In general, a normal healthy person, on a normal diet will not produce any alcohol. A number of intakes may give a false positive on a breath test, but will not show up on a blood test. Indeed, if your breath test is in doubt, the police in Norway will wait for 30 minutes, and then perform a new test. If still around the limit, a blood test will be taken. This will normally take care of mouth rinse, candy with some alcohol in it, etc. The traffic police that is, don't know how they would handle a pilot with 0.2. It's a sad world if the rest Danny is hinting at, is true.:eek: |
Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet reports that the blood test showed that the BA pilot had 0.59 promille alcohol in his blood - way above the preliminary 0.2 promille.
One reason for the big difference might be that the breathalizer equipment used by swedish police often only show if the alcohol level is above the legal 0.2 promille or not. If so, further tests, like a blood test, must be done. That test will then be used as evidence in court. So, it seems that he was drunk after all... |
me to read it....this is very sad....I'm getttin scared, how can anyone consider checkin in with this amount of alcohol in his or her blood????
I don't know if he was framed anymore...can we get a second opinion Danny? you seem to be on top of those things...anything in the UK papers??? http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/Inrikes/did_4816456.asp In swedish.... |
An article referring to the Arlanda breath- test now appears in the Telegraph Travel section.
I have started a thread under "Could your pilot be over the limit" which is the headline to the item. Oops. Danny seems to have binned that thread leaving one about "Are all UK pilots drunk?" on the same subject |
Translation of the swedish newspaper article.
Svenska Dagbladet 1-2-2003 Unclear if drunk pilot will be charged The CA captain who was stopped just before start at Arlanda last sarurday, was under the influence of alcohol. The result of the blood test that came in yesterday shows 0.59 promille. But Björn Frithiof, the public prosecutor who leads the investigation, has not decided if he will or will not bring charges. - Off the cuff, I feel that the action is so serious that charges are indicated. But here is a possibilty to refrain from bringing charges, since the pilot concerned is not swedish and lives abroad. One can also require him to be charged in England.- Aviation rules do not state any promille limits and the concept of of "drunk flying" does not exist. But someone who is so much under the influence of alcohol or other substances when working on a flight deck that he "can not execute his duties in a safe manner" can get up to two years in prison, or be fined when the transgression is of a lesser nature. |
LOL..
"....and the concept of of "drunk flying" does not exist." See?.. thats way we are all drunk, all the time, because its legal.. so there!!.. Another great statement by idiots.. |
If he was 0.59, then it's a fair cop.
With the UK driving limit at 0.8, he most certainly was not Drunk at 0.59 however. |
Reading Flapsforty's translation of the Swedish newspaper article "Unclear if drunk pilot will be charged", I suppose there's some small comfort in seeing that Britain isn't the only country with trashy newspapers who don't allow facts to get in the way of a sensationalist story. Drunk??? :rolleyes:
But depressing, regardless of country, when people in authority release information which they know will fuel 'trial by newspaper'. If the Captain is prosecuted, evidence of his blood/alcohol reading will be adduced in a Court. That is the proper time and place to release such information into the public domain. If he isn't prosecuted, then the information should not be released, except in confidence to the relevant aviation authority and/or his employers. In my view, the authorities should not have released any information whatsoever about the incident except to his company. The proper answer to any journalists' questions should have been "No Comment" or, at the very most, a short formal statement simply confirming that "A pilot has been arrested and investigations are continuing." |
This is from the FAA Office of Aviation Medicine:
"The number of serious errors committed by pilots dramatically increases at or above concentrations of 0.04% blood alcohol. This is not to say that problems don't occur below this value. Some studies have shown decrements in pilot performance with blood alcohol concentrations as low as the 0.025%". This might be related to this from the NIAAA: In a typical study of the effects of pilot impairment, aircraft pilots completed eight sessions of simulated flight between San Francisco and Los Angeles in a Boeing 727-232 simulator (16). Planning and performance errors, procedural errors, and failures of vigilance each increased significantly with increasing BAC. Serious errors increased significantly at the lowest BAC, 0.025 percent, compared with performance at 0 percent BAC. |
Swedish-English
To be fair, the headline is better translated into "Intoxicated pilot"(my opinion).
He is actually saying that Sweden does not have any limits with regard to flying and drinking. Either he doesn't know what he is talking about, or the rules have changed dramatically in Sweden. If this nigel is an average guy, he must have been close to 2 promille when he went to bed 8-9 hours before. If he could find his bed. As to releasing information, as far as I know, his name has not been printed anywhere. I don't really see the problem. |
Scando,
He is probably right. The LAW does not give any specified limit therefore hard to PROSECUTE due to BAC only. The regulations specify 0.02%. Now this is braking the rules and the CAA may revoke his license but the prosecutor can not do anything to him when only looking at the BAC. Any lawyeres here to verify this? |
Unfortunately one of the lower end of the gutter press, for reasons best known to themselves, have published the pilots's name and age.
No doubt they will apologise on the front page in big letters if they've got it wrong!!! MP:( |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 22:00. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.