Pilot Arrested, Suspected of Being Drunk

Juggs · Post by **Juggs** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:41 am

i thought they are suppose to be more proffessional than the ones without a degree

All spelling and weak grammar aside, the issue of professional occupation and being a professional are often times confused. Being a professional (juggler, musician, groupie) generally refers to your source of primary income derived from said occupation.

There are however, some "professional" professions, for lack of a better term. When someone says that they are a professional engineer, it implies that they have:

a. Graduated from an accredited university recognized by an engineering society
b. Have completed the engineer in training period (I believe 2 years)
c. and have written the appropriate P.Eng exams.

There are probably some other requirements that I can't think of off the the top of my head too.

However, by having the title of P.Eng attached to your name does not necessarily imply that you act as a professional outside of your engineering endeavors. For some things, (ATPL comes to mind) there is a clause about good moral character. This would imply acting like a professional.

Unfortunately, obtaining a university degree does not immediately make someone a professional, flying or otherwise.

djshan, I do get the impression that your level of maturity is below what one would generally define as professional. Now, I'm not trying to accuse you of not being a professional, but rather stating in my opinion, that your posts have a certain feel of immaturity contained with in them.

This bothers me to some extent and I am not convinced that this attitude will move you in a positive direction in your flying career, (should you choose to pursue one). You will soon find out that starting out, you have nothing better to offer than the other 100 people vying for that job besides your attitude. The last thing that I, or any operator needs is someone with an attitude, especially ones that reeks of immaturity.

Most people involved in aviation can, to a certain extent, fly the airplane. The things that set them apart (besides seniority) are attitude and work ethic.

I think you might need to think long and hard about where you want to end up in life.

TorontoGuy · Post by **TorontoGuy** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:51 am

split s wrote:Alcoholism is a disease,

It's not just about alcoholism, of course. As the doc told me the other day, it can also be a pilot who goes out on a singular bender on a layover because something rotten happened in his personal life -- a huge argument in which his wife walked out, for instance. Or a temporary period of time in which a pilot is drinking and should not be -- such as during a rough divorce, or a temporary, severe worry about money, or maybe after the death of a child.

BlueSkies12 · Post by **BlueSkies12** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:40 am

Split S said: Personally, if an alcoholic was driving the plane I was on, I would rather him smash back a couple for breakfast than be in the cockpit with none and that next drink being the only thing on his mind.

I know all forum boards here turn into controversy, but, i think this is the stupidest thing i've ever heard. At times pointing at alcoholism as the reason you made a bad decision can be a way out. Maybe you're just irresponsible. There are of course people who are alcoholics, and i'm not disregarding that. But alcoholic or not, you are responsible for your actions. In good times and bad.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:29 am

If that is the stupidest thing you have ever heard then you are either very young or very lacking in understanding what alcholosim is.

What Split S said is correct.

Cat

scm · Post by **scm** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:51 am

Alcoholic or not, if someone endangers the lives of others due to flying intoxicated, there should be a minimum penalty.

"No person shall act as a crew member of an aircraft

(a) within eight hours after consuming an alcoholic beverage;

(b) while under the influence of alcohol; or"

Sorry for quoting the CARs.

Does a hangover fall under the "influence of alcohol"?

As for hand-eye co-ordination tests, I find that I play FPS games better after a few drinks, but I wouldn't want to land a taildragger in the same situation.

BlueSkies12 · Post by **BlueSkies12** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:08 am

Cat Driver: If that is the stupidest thing you have ever heard then you are either very young or very lacking in understanding what alcholosim is. What Split S said is correct.

I don't understand what alcoholism is because i wouldn't want a pilot flying me around after they had a couple of beers for breakfast. I see. Thanks for setting me straight. It's an easy thing to hide behind when you put many lives in danger. In the air and on the ground. I sympathize with people who have problems getting their life straight. But even a retarded monkey would realize that jumping in a plane intoxicated with other peoples lives in your hands is wrong. Split S, if you're not saying you condone that. I don't know what you were trying to say.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:07 pm

Blueskies alcoholism is a very complex problem that is based on an addiction to a drug.

It knows no social nor mental barriers and can and does affect far to many pilots.

There is also the genetic factor to take into account as some segments of society are genetically more prone to becoming addicted than others.

Therefore there is the issue of being born with a lesser tolerance for alcohol.

I am one of those unfortunates by birth being part North American Indian. Having spent many decades in aviation with its lifestyle that is condusive to consuming alcohol through the life style makes the chance of becoming addicted even more probable.

Be careful in your assumptions and thinking that the issue is merely one of being able to control an addiction because it is destructive therefore one can just quit on a whim and even more important thinking that punishment is the answer.

For what it is worth I have been through the complete process of addiction leading to loss of family, property, a crimminal record and several jail sentenses which was probably one of the triggers that led to my seeking treatment and an eventual cure for the addiction.

There are many of my colleauges who did not, will not, or can not overcome the addiction and some of them are the best pilots that ever strapped on an aircraft.

Cat

Kilo-Kilo · Post by **Kilo-Kilo** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:15 pm

Split S said: Personally, if an alcoholic was driving the plane I was on, I would rather him smash back a couple for breakfast than be in the cockpit with none and that next drink being the only thing on his mind.

If the only two options available are:

A- board a plane where the pilot is hungover, has a chronic problem, and is jonesing for a drink

or

B- board a plane where the same pilot had a two beer buzz restorer

- then I think I'd take the train. To board a plane not knowing the pilot's condition is one thing, but to say these are your only options when you know the pilots condition is completely different. Although this scenario is hypothetical, many reading these threads use information gleaned from them and the arguments on both side of the fence as credible sources in their daily decision making processes. The scenario here is Hazard identification and risk management. Allow me to quote from the most recent Aviation Safety Letter:

A hazzard is a condition with the potential of causing loss or injury

A risk is the chance of loss or injury, measured in terms of severity and probability.

....Once hazzards and the risks associated with them are identified, you need to estimate the level of risk.

This brings us to the point. A pilot under the influence of alcohol mentally or physically is a hazzard, period. Are the risks associated with this hazzard acceptable? In this situation we will always assume that you know the pilot's condition or you are the pilot. Still think the first two options are the only available choices?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:03 pm

Yeh, I forgot when you want to really understand the subjects of hazard identification and risk management all you need is to read the stuff put out by TC...stupid me I completely forgot who really knows all about these issues.

Fortunately for aviation misguided has beens such as myself are retiring and leaving the how to make good decisions subject to the geniuses that get hired by TC...

...for the sake of safety I sure hope your new teachers do a better job of teaching you how to think than they are doing with teaching you how to fly.

Generally speaking of course.

Cat

Apollo · Post by **Apollo** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:30 pm

If I was a flight instructor - and one of my students came to a flight drunk - It'd be a miracle that there wasn't an 'accident' with a propeller and that student. It's absolutly intolerable - regardless of the circumstances. Would you give a meth-addicted pilot a second chance after showing up all tripped out? likely not.

Kilo-Kilo · Post by **Kilo-Kilo** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:37 pm

Cat Driver said:...for the sake of safety I sure hope your new teachers do a better job of teaching you how to think than they are doing with teaching you how to fly.

Are you calling my judgement and flying into question? Are you making an assumption of my age and/or experience? You may be right. Risk management and identification of hazzards may be over-rated in most scenarios to you because TC published it, but I like reading the Aviation Safety Letter because it helps keep you alert of risk issues and helps prevent complacentcy (sp?).

Slamming TC and myself doesn't provide legitimate arguments to support the hungover/hair of the dog is better than hungover argument.

Can you imagine the voice cockpit recorder?

Co-Pilot - "Are you sure you're alright to fly?"

Pilot - "Yeah, I pounded back a couple frosty-tastys in the shower - Good to go!"

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:49 pm

Kilo-Kilo wrote:Can you imagine the voice cockpit recorder?

Co-Pilot - "Are you sure you're alright to fly?"

Pilot - "Yeah, I pounded back a couple frosty-tastys in the shower - Good to go!"

Or conversely...

Co-Pilot - "Can we make it in?"

Pilot - "Hell no, but we're gonna land the bloody plane, break minimums we need to get in so I can clock out and get a bloody drink!"

FRANKLY though, this conversation is a joke, because the people on the Regency flight or Keystone flight or wherever else we had pilots working and living in poverty so they could get an hour and move up were putting their lives at risk too.

So, fly with the alcoholic pilot(doesn't mean they're drunk 24/7 sorry)

or

fly with the pilot who know's he's flying over weight, under fueled, poorly maintained aircraft?

and as for taking the train, good luck crossing the ocean(NA - EU or Asia-NA) in one of those

BlueSkies12 · Post by **BlueSkies12** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:54 pm

Cat Driver: Be careful in your assumptions and thinking that the issue is merely one of being able to control an addiction because it is destructive therefore one can just quit on a whim and even more important thinking that punishment is the answer

I am so confused by your way of thinking you've almost left me speechless. But I guess if it wasn't for people like you this forum board would be pretty boring. I'm sorry for your problems in the past but when you have a high stress job where peoples lives are at risk, you have to be responsible enough to stay sober on the job. I know you're just going to respond to this by preaching about alcoholism, but it's true. If you don't believe so then we'll see how you feel when 100's of people are killed because of an accident due to an intoxicated pilot. And if the pilot lives then I think you'll be the only one who thinks that he doesn't deserve to be punished. Can you do me a favour and delicately remove your head from your ass.

Kilo-Kilo · Post by **Kilo-Kilo** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:33 pm

cyyz wrote:
Or conversely...

Co-Pilot - "Can we make it in?"

Pilot - "Hell no, but we're gonna land the bloody plane, break minimums we need to get in so I can clock out and get a bloody drink!"

This is exactly the scenario where the other posters like Cat Driver said it would be safer to avoid by pooring a couple down the gullet before take-off so your statement of....

cyyz wrote:
So, fly with the alcoholic pilot(doesn't mean they're drunk 24/7 sorry)

....supports the conclusion you wrote above. The jonesing alcoholic pilot wants down for some booze. Remember this has been the constant of the whole argument - wanting a drink vs. having a couple to calm nerves - Illegal.

cyyz wrote: or

fly with the pilot who know's he's flying over weight, under fueled, poorly maintained aircraft?

Again illegal and again, if you don't know the situation that's one thing, but the questions are posed as if you know. You might as well tell me my other alternative is getting in a Caravan when I can see the ice on the wings, as if the consequences (to me, not to mention the other passengers) are out of my control.

cyyz wrote: and as for taking the train, good luck crossing the ocean(NA - EU or Asia-NA) in one of those

... now you're just splitting hairs. You forgot to throw in Mars or the moon.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:48 pm

Blue skies I'm sorry I confuse you.

" I know you're just going to respond to this by preaching about alcoholism, but it's true. If you don't believe so then we'll see how you feel when 100's of people are killed because of an accident due to an intoxicated pilot. And if the pilot lives then I think you'll be the only one who thinks that he doesn't deserve to be punished. Can you do me a favour and delicately remove your head from your ass. "

The history of alcohol addicted pilots is quite well documented, however the history of one actually killing a plane load of people is slim to the best of my knowlege.

I have been posting here for years and I defy you to find anywhere where I have preached about alcoholism, I am only commenting here because that is the subject.

You are not impressing me with the remove my head from my ass comment as it shows a lack of respect for your coleauges who may be your elders in more ways than just age..

Cat

TorontoGuy · Post by **TorontoGuy** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:51 pm

Cat Driver wrote:
...There are many of my colleauges who did not, will not, or can not overcome the addiction and some of them are the best pilots that ever strapped on an aircraft.

Cat

And who, regardless, should not have been flying with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit. Surely you must agree with that.

Heart-felt anecdotes aside, we both know, I think, that anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it with the authorities when it comes down to a determination of whether rules have been broken and the public endangered.

The risk that on a particular day, at a particular time, a random factor intervenes and creates a tragedy that would not have occurred had the fella been sober means that it is incumbent on the industry to control those factors that are not random and that are indeed controllable. And one of those is to do the utmost to ensure that sobriety rules in the cockpit.

...or at the wheel of a bus (i.e. Greyhound), train or transport truck, each of which jobs also comes with strict sobriety rules for the same reasons.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:57 pm

Kilo Kilo you said:

" Are you calling my judgement and flying into question? Are you making an assumption of my age and/or experience? "

Kilo Kilo , read what I typed.

I said: ::

" ...for the sake of safety I sure hope your new teachers do a better job of teaching you how to think than they are doing with teaching you how to fly.

Generally speaking of course. "

I was making a general obversation regarding flight training, not regarding you personally.

Cat

Kilo-Kilo · Post by **Kilo-Kilo** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:00 pm

TorontoGuy wrote: And who, regardless, should not have been flying with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit..

And we all remember what the legal limit for pilots is doen't we? And why does it seem like we're asking for the world when all we want is an airworthy plane with a sober pilot? Is it because that's what TC wants so you have to object?

Kilo-Kilo · Post by **Kilo-Kilo** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:01 pm

Cat Driver wrote:
I was making a general obversation regarding flight training, not regarding you personally.

Cat

Check!

TorontoGuy · Post by **TorontoGuy** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:03 pm

Cat Driver wrote:
The history of alcohol addicted pilots is quite well documented, however the history of one actually killing a plane load of people is slim to the best of my knowlege.

Cat

Something I found on your point:

While the rate of alcohol-related accidents is low, they are frequently deadly. A review of accidents the NTSB determined to be alcohol-related found 33 such accidents in 1996-2001. About 70 percent of those accidents involved fatalities, and in only two did any occupant escape unharmed. Thirty-six people died.

http://www.avweb.com/news/safety/184515-1.html

Kilo-Kilo · Post by **Kilo-Kilo** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:07 pm

That would be a...

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:10 pm

My remark regarding drunk pilots crashing was aimed at the airline sector of aviation, and I have not heard of to many findings of that being the cause.

TorontoGuy · Post by **TorontoGuy** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:12 pm

Cat Driver wrote:My remark regarding drunk pilots crashing was aimed at the airline sector of aviation, and I have not heard of to many findings of that being the cause.

Quite so, and exactly what that article I linked to shows.

TorontoGuy · Post by **TorontoGuy** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:18 pm

A really interesting study on the whole thing by researchers last year at Johns Hopkins concluded:

Researchers at Johns Hopkins have found that nighttime flying and worsening weather conditions are two key characteristics of fatal plane crashes in general aviation where alcohol consumption by the pilot was also a factor.

The Johns Hopkins team found that most alcohol-related plane crashes, 52 percent, occurred during nighttime hours, between 7 p.m. and 6 a.m. In contrast, most non-alcohol-related plane crashes, 72 percent, occurred during the day, between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. Statistics also showed that 64 percent of alcohol-related crashes occurred in worsening weather conditions, such as rain or fog, which force the pilot to switch from visual flight rules to instrument flying.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_re ... 06_05.html

and that same study report, Cat, supports what you believed: "there are no cases where alcohol has been implicated as a probable cause in a fatal crash of a major U.S. airline."

TorontoGuy · Post by **TorontoGuy** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:24 pm

Kilo-Kilo wrote:That would be a...

No, not at all. Read the article I linked to. Alcohol-related accidents in aviation are low. The problem with them is that when they do occur, they're usually fatal.