Pilot over drink/drive limit removed from aircraft
 

Reported by BBC News this morning.

BBC News - 'Drunk' Flybe pilot arrested before flight

The article just states there was an investigation. It doesn't state the findings of that investigation. Until the outcome is known this is barely news worthy.

Yes it is, they may be innocent, but this is exactly the type of story that news networks want. Are you that green?
Also, the report states that they were breath tested, then arrested. There is a serious clue there.......
And STILL in custody.....

No doubt if he is charged and it goes to court he will be named and shamed and indeed admonished by ppruners alike.

Now being reported in local media, that 'the pilot has been released on police bail, due to appear in court in December. He has not been charged.'

That's utter nonsense, you don't go to court without being charged.
He's either been charged and will go to court, or bailed to return to the police station for charge or release.

classic interview question
 

I'm sure I've been asked in interviews what actions I'd take in this scenario...

I guess it's a very hard call for the whistle blower, and one not taken lightly. I would hope there was at least some discussion of concerns between the crew, with the aim of the suspected offender to fall on one's sword and call in sick.

Whilst there may be a serious clue, it prejudices a case when the implication is of guilt before even a trial takes place. Natural justice requires impatiality. Comments like "There is a serious clue there..." imply that required impartiality has been lost, and projected in a public domain. Even journalists would not be so green as to imply guilt before a trial: the courts would take a dim view of being so green.

Due to the low alcohol limit for flying it is normal for a blood sample to be taken for analysis to back up the results of the breath test machine in the police station, I doubt the police would charge before the results of the blood test become avalable.

It should be remembered that at the low alcohol levels that are set for transport workers breath testing is not 100% reliable, hence the blood test.

You cannot be serious!

What is the difference between these two statements?

You and I can read punctuation and interpret accordingly.
Millions can't or don't.

Turin, true, and difficult to argue with you. Despicable though the headline may be, it is within the rules. Just. It'd be nice to see who was being quoted.

Mike, the question was 'is this newsworthy because he isn't charged'.
My answer was that is was newsworthy, the public are interested and also because the police would not normally keep him in without reason. I implied that it was obvious that something was found. I still imply that. Of course I may be wrong, but I am willing to make a small wager (to charity of course) with anyone who seriously disagrees.
I actually hope he/she is innocent of all charges and would LOVE to be wrong. Of course this is a rumour network, so we are allowed to be wrong you know!!
Normally if you are bailed to appear in court, you are already charged. As mentioned above, you may be bailed for further enquiries. If they are awaiting the results of a blood test, my offer of a wager is a good one, because the breathalyser test may be inconclusive or VERY close to the limit. Lets hope it is below.

Commendable though the politically-correct, gender-neutral references to "he/she" and "they" may be, the BBC link in the very first post does (now) say "A police spokesman confirmed a 48-year-old man was arrested."

The BBC article states that "a fellow crew member became concerned".

As none of us were there, we don't know whether that's because the crew had a drink the previous evening (and there was a "bottle to throttle" concern), or because he appeared to be physically under the influence immediately prior to the operation of the flight.

I understand that NQY flights are operated with EXT-based crews who nightstop?

Sounds like he has been charged and bailed to court.

I might well be wrong but I thought I heard on a Radio 4 news bulletin this morning that he had been charged with drink DRIVING. Perhaps my hearing is worse than I thought or else it was a reporting cock-up. If he was over the drink driving limit then he would be well over the flying limit (which is roughly equivalent to half a pint of bitter).

JW411, you didn’t mishear the drink-driving bit. It was in the written BBC report as well. I too was puzzled.

I had occasion to talk both to the CAA, and to Devon and Cornwall Police, about it today. Both said it had been misreported. CAA said:
Note this applies to blood/alcohol only. Breath/alcohol, and indeed urine/alcohol have different figures.

The police amplified this:
The pilot had been

Meanwhile, the R.M.T. is balloting it's Northern line members for strike action in support of a driver who has been sacked for being found in possession of alcohol in his messroom.

Just a subtle difference perhaps between alcohol in the messroom and alcohol in the bloodstream?

Not really a hard call at all when lives are concerned.

I once witnessed this situation. The captain of a five man crew turned up quite obviously the worse for wear. It was known that he had been to a very late party in quarters the night before. His crew gave him some very strong hints that he seemed to have a heavy cold and should declare himself unfit to fly, but like an idiot he tried to bluff it out and continued to prepare for the flight. At that point his crew "blew the whistle" on him to a squadron exec, who immediately had him replaced. I know he received a huge rollicking and possibly some other "unofficial" punishment, but there was never any official disciplinary action. The pilot concerned distinguished himself in the air some years later, and received a gallantry medal for his actions, so perhaps the line that was taken was the best in the circumstances, but doing nothing was never an option.

Agree with tankertrashnav-not a difficult choice when your life or many others are at risk.
Sadly I have been in this position twice as an ops /crew controller-when I had no option but to report my suspicions to my seniors about a crew member (both Captains) reporting for a flight.
Both were subsequently sacked and whilst that aspect is not one I am particularly proud of-I wouldnt hesitate doing again if I had my suspicions.
I am glad to say that both occurences were now over 20 years ago-and it would be nice to think it was a thing of the past-but sadly I somehow doubt it.
Both Captains were extremely likeable individuals which made the choice even more difficult.

Length of time in custody- Maybe he was medically unfit to be interviewed. Perhaps the Custody sergeant had concerns as to his physical/mental wellbeing and called in a doctor. He'd need to do that anyway for a blood test.

Do NOT draw any inferences.

How many times have we heard of someone collapsed on a pavement or in a bar and alcohol has been blamed when there's a perfectly innocent explanation?

Tanker trash / Halcyon

I don't refer to removing the pilot from the flight as being a hard call. Merely the method used. Again, I would directly suggest the affected crew member calls in sick, even stating to them my concerns; and if this fails I'd explain what I was then going to do: call in sick myself and contact my chief/fleet captain. Perhaps in the modern world that could be construed as masking the issue. However I'd like to give the individual the benefit of the doubt that they'd made a terrible error of judgement and I was doing them a favour.

The hard situation I refer to would be having that conversation with a colleague or taking it to the authorities directly.

Another One Too
 

BBC now reporting a pilot arrested this week on a charter flight into Norwich

BBC News - Charter pilot charged over alcohol level

Maximum Pete

Length of time in custody... another possible explanation is the fact that if arrested and tested as being over the drink drive limit, the police will continue to hold and test you throughout the next few hours until you are below it before releasing you...

Most of you seem to have no clue about breathalysers. Because so many companies (many of them are my customers) test everybody entering their premises, I have actually taken the time to study the breathalyser.

What kind of breathalyser they used at the airport doesn't matter to me much, but the police would have tested him with a breathalyser that has an extremely accurate sensor called the Fuel Cell sensor. If their instrument was properly calibrated, the reading would have been extremely close to the blood sample they most likely took later on. A blood test is the most accurate reading you can get.

If the breathalyser at the police station showed 0.000, he would have walked out of the door and resumed work. Where I am, if you blow so much as 0.001 %BAC, you kiss your flying career goodbye, no police test required. It's a huge pity he didn't call in sick.

From someone who is not certainly not a professional, and rarely a passenger, but interested in aviation: has there been many accidents when intoxication has been the main factor?
In all seriousness, the investigations into air crashes seem to most frequently point up equipment failure (something breaks unexpectedly), then human error (in the sense of flight deck failing to respond appropriately to the warnings when things have already started to go wrong), and human error in the sense of poor maintenance by the airline.
When has there been an accident primarily due to intoxication?

Shark,
"When have there ever been...."

Oh, goodness me! Where would you like me to start?
I, personally, have been witness to a few tragic events where alcohol has been the direct and sole cause.

Your post indicates that you have little or no understanding of the effects of alcohol.

Please educate yourself before you come back on here - it is not our place to drag you from such ignorance.


..or are you just trolling?

No, I mean in the sense of an airline disaster where alcohol was the cause.
I know alcohol is bad for you, so is tobacco, cannabis,sex, dah de dah de dah....

Stanwell,


"Oh, goodness me! Where would you like me to start?
I, personally, have been witness to a few tragic events where alcohol has been the direct and sole cause."


Well, please cite a few.
Not saying it hasn't happened, but I'd like to know about those incidents, especially on revenue passenger flights.

The issue is not what has happened in the past, but what could happen at the time. If the first officer became incapacitated then you are now single pilot with that operating pilot under the influence. Or what if the first officer was brand new on the line and the captain was intoxicated? There's several scenarios but just because there hasn't been a previous accident related to alcohol does not mean it's any less likely to happen than any other reason. Would you be happy if your family were down the back and it took off?

Stanwell
 

Oh, goodness me sir would you please start... and finish. Granted I feel a pilot should have a clear mind upon entering his duties yet I would like to hear of the bold statements of when you have witnessed a drunken pilot be the sole cause of a "tragic event"?

It's not that long ago that a nice glass of wine was an accompaniment to a pil it's lunch with the odd carrier. I know of no losses.......yet!

"No, I mean in the sense of an airline disaster where alcohol was the cause."

Google "Russian Airliner accidents"

Russia is a different mind set & culture. Even including them I can not think of 1 accident that was put solely down to being drunk. Whatever it is a minuscule %.
When I 1st started commercial flying it was not un usual for capt to have drink on the last leg. "Just a sharpener old boy". We were not crashing in those days either.
However Drinking & Flying is a no no as it rather leaves the interpretation of how much open.
In my experience those caught if not alcoholics are those that misjudge the time for alcohol to clear the system. They don't purposely set out to drink & fly. & indeed probably would operate just fine. So if I smelt alcohol on a colleagues breath I would insist they went sick. & that would be an end to it, but should it happen again then the report would go in. Surely that is the human thing to do. Without compromising flight safety.

There have been at least some accidents where alcohol was a significant factor, although not nearly so many as implied by Stanwell.

An interesting conundrum, this fluffy way of "dealing" with the problem by persuading the person to go sick.
Pilots who turn up to work under the influence almost certainly have a problem, a serious alcohol problem. People without an alcohol problem just don't live like that, and thinking you're doing anyone a kindness (least of all his future passengers) by getting him to declare a cold and go home to get pissed and fly another day is surely a pretty good way of passing the buck to someone else to do a proper job later, hopefully before he scribbles a whole airliner full of people. How would you feel if you'd persuaded him to go home and a month layer he's lying in a field burning with a clear blue flame amongst 200 bodies?

May I suggest this isn't the right way to deal with the problem at all. Send him home by all means and perhaps give him the chance not to be nailed, but there has to be official follow-up or you're partly responsible for any future accident. All airlines should have an abuse programme that is designed to cope with people like this. Use it, or regret it.

Think on it...

Many may not realize that they are waking up blowing over .02 BAC. The culture is wrong to make you feel like a criminal if you do, I believe the airlines would be afraid of just how many delays they would have up front if they just made all flight crew blow before each flight. They should provide compassionate assistance to those who can not manage their lives and want assistance. Most airlines under FAA rule have a 0 tolerance rule, .02 you get benched and could probably plan on the airline aggressively doing "random" test's on you. .04 and you are done.

Stanwell
Is that your way of saying that you have no idea of the answer to the entirely reasonable question sharksandwich asked?
Or were you just trolling?

"not our place"? :confused:
On whose behalf were you purporting to speak?
I ask only because my experience of PPRuNe over many years is that the overwhelming majority of contributors respond courteously to questions and are happy to provide the answer if they know it.

I notice you live in Australia so you might like to start here:
Accidents and Incidents Involving Alcohol and Drugs in Australian Civil Aviation: 1975 - 2006

• of 160,338 occurrences (incident or accident), 36 were either drug or alcohol-related. ie 0.02%
• of those 36 drug/alcohol occurrences, 22 were alcohol.
• of the 8,302 accidents, 32 were either drug or alcohol related. ie 0.4%.
• 61% of drug/alcohol occurrences were in private flying operations.
• The next most common was agricultural ops at 11%.
• Drug and alcohol occurrences in the airline operations category: NONE
• The ATSB found that the results of the study were "consistent with other international experience."

And then, if you felt able to spare just a little more of your valuable time, perhaps you could deal with the data since 2006?




sharksandwich
No.
Over the decades since air accident investigation records have been kept, and despite the millions of miles flown every year, only a minute fraction of accidents and incidents have been found (or suspected) to have been caused or contributed to by alcohol.


FL

In the early 1950s, the Captain went to file his own York trooping Flight Plan at RAF Malta. It was customary for this task to be done by either the F/O or N/O.





The Captain was told by the Controller " YOU CAN DEPART IN EIGHT HOURS... WHEN YOU ARE SOBER..."



That was the end of his career as a Pilot. (Thereafter F/Os and N/Os had to climb the stairs as usual ! AND WE LEARNED THE LESSON, from a bad example.)