Something I´m missing here is the fact that the pilots wouldn´t have been arrested if police didn´t have a good reason to suspect them being indeed intoxicated.
If some hotel employee decided to call police that´s one thing.
Police is required to look into it then.
Since they do have breathalizers at the airport I´d expect they are used first and if the pilots are tested positive (as a first "substantiated hint") police has a good reason to suspect intoxication which may be confirmed by a blood test afterwards.

So, I don´t understand all this talk about the OP didn´t have any facts at hand when posting.
He clearly said that rumours are that the pilot was 7 times over the limit.
The wording does not imply that the arresting itself was a rumour ...

It is safe for him to post that the pilot was arrested and no company/entity would dare trying to take legal actions against him or this forum because of his posting..

RetiredNWA wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

RetiredNWA wrote:

It seems all of you failed to notice that my post, hours ago, was directed at the fact that NO INE HAD ANY CREDIBLE SOURCE TO POST. Just as SQ22 stated - a “rumor”. Like most of the drivel on here.

I don't think you understand U.S. libel law. Lack of a citation of source doesn't mean something is untrue (but we have a duty to be skeptical). Truth - if pilots were arrested - is the absolute defense against libel. Now, if the OP is spreading rumors KNOWN TO BE UNTRUE, that's a problem.

You unintentionally proved my point, and, I appreciate your response. Unfortunately, you fail to note the legalities of the issue - “were the pilots drunk” - only the breathalyzer and toxicology tests may prove or disprove that assertion (not fact). Furthermore, the individuals here post as though they have the authority to, and *have* completed the breathalyzer and toxicology examination. (You should PM me and we can discuss the issue further).

Until it was posted by the BBC, this entire thread was rumor. My major point is that rumors cannot continue without some type of verification, and, should they continue to be perpetuated by the a.net community, they have chilling and far-reaching effect.

The poster who indicated earlier in this thread that they had received information from the hotel staff, and, the other poster that indicated they had knowledge of the event from the airport staff are clearly unaware of the legal implications of their posting should this case ever move forward in a court of law. They are stating, implied, that they have material knowledge of the aforementioned event....do they?

There’s no reason to break my balls about it. History is made in court - not on airliners dot net.

Libel requires that the OP knowingly posted false information, not that the OP posted information that had not been proven beyond a legal standard.

cpd wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Ahahahahahahahahaha oh mercy that's funny. No, it isn't libel. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Aren’t you the guy who reckoned Boeing should sue people over allegations of 737 Max problems on this forum? Something that also turned out to be true.

It was the FAA, but yes, the same legal expert.

It is standard practice in the UK for people suspected of being above the drink-driving (or drink-flying) limit to be breathalysed at the scene using portable equipment carried in every police car. If this shows results below the limit, that's the end of the matter and they walk away without being arrested. People who fail the test are taken to the police station and retested on evidential-standard breathalyser machines. If they choose, they can instead give blood samples at the police station. Refusal to co-operate with either is itself an offence.
If the results of the retest show the person as being below the limit, they are free to go on their way. However unless the police have failed to follow some part of the procedure correctly, a fail at the retest pretty much guarantees a conviction when the case comes to court.
While the Scottish legal system is different from that of England and Wales, in this area the procedures are identical. and the alcohol limit for pilots is set for the UK as a whole.

tlecam wrote:

Libel requires that the OP knowingly posted false information, not that the OP posted information that had not been proven beyond a legal standard.

I don't know a thing about US law but I am very surprised by what you say.

Can I legally publish (communicate to others than Joe X) that Joe X is a thief, a murderer and a rapist because I believe that to be true? I suspect that the onus is on the publisher to establish the truth of what has been published if challenged through use of the defamation law(s).

26point2 wrote:

Not condoning it but food for thought... We've had many decades of jet trans Atlantic transport with likely the same pilot behavior all these many years. Only now they are being caught and tested. Has there ever been an TATL air carrier accident due to the pilot being drunk? I don't think so. Pilots have always been drinking before work...we're now just finding out about it.

You raise a good point actually, the reality is that drinking and aviation have been synonymous since the Wright brothers, for years the only regulation was 8 hours from
‘bottle to throttle’


It was basically an honor system, most complied although 8 hours was often not enough to sober up completely if a large amount of alcohol was consumed


Then the Northwest incident happened and everything changed, random drug, alcohol testing and official BAC limits were introduced


Some countries are more stringent than others, the UK in particular seems to be on a ‘crusade’ of sorts with respect to overindulgent pilots



After all the previous incidents I don’t understand why guys keep doing this, these two pilots lives are over as they know
them


Having said that, and being very non PC
I’ll say that in the old days before all these regulations and testing there was next to no evidence of incidents and accidents due
to alcohol misuse


Pilots flew hungover, that’s the reality but
they were so used to it that it wasnt a problem


The only accident I know of on a Jet Transport directly attributed to alcohol was
the crash of a JAL Cargo DC8 in Anchorage


In that case the expatriate Captain showed up at the airport obviously inebriated yet
the FO and FE did nothing to stop him


After take off he just kept rotating until he stalled the aircraft and they crashed killing all three crew members and their bovine cargo


At this point it wouldn’t surprise me to see
airlines institute a blanket ‘ban’ for crews on drinking while on layovers


Curiously enough TWA had this policy although I think it was largely ignored

art wrote:

tlecam wrote:

Libel requires that the OP knowingly posted false information, not that the OP posted information that had not been proven beyond a legal standard.

I don't know a thing about US law but I am very surprised by what you say.

Can I legally publish (communicate to others than Joe X) that Joe X is a thief, a murderer and a rapist because I believe that to be true? I suspect that the onus is on the publisher to establish the truth of what has been published if challenged through use of the defamation law(s).

First a warning...defamation/slander/libel comes under state law so there are 50 different "right answers in the United States...but in general....

First off, if what you are saying is in fact, true, then yes you can say all of those things without any possible retribution absent some other specific privacy law. (I.e. medical records are specially protected, I haven't heard of any protections for adult criminal conviction records)

If in fact your statements are NOT true

And Joe can prove an actual harm...then

It comes down to who Joe X is.

If Joe X is a private individual - your average bloak that lives down the street...then before you made those statements you must not have been negligent in fact checking. Negligent means what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances. This is where the 50 different answers would come in heavy as what a "reasonable person" can vary quite a bit state to state. If you just repeated what your bar buddy said, you would probably be held negligent...if you checked the county online records and it turns out the records were wrong you are probably okay.

If Joe X is a "public figure" then the standard of care would then be "Malice a forethought". In other words, for a public figure to be successful, the public figure must prove that the defamer intentionally inflicted the harm alleged. This time repeating what your bar buddy said is probably not going to get you in trouble.

All of the above only relate to statements presented as facts.

Joe is a murderer
Joe is dishonest
Joe is a rapist

If the statement is clearly presented as an opinion then Joe would lose his case.

"Joe is a murderer" - Joe wins
"In my opinion, Joe is a murderer" Joe loses

Also, when you look at the statement you have to look at the whole statement to determine factualness.

"Joe is a murderer." - Joe wins
"My drinking buddy told me that Joe is a murderer" - Joe loses.

For this thread the OP was very clear that they were repeating rumors so there would be no claim for defamation.

"I heard that United pilots were arrested" - United would have to prove in a defamation suite - not that they didn't have pilots arrested - but, that the OP did not hear that there were pilots arrested.

United would also not prevail in a defamation suite against the original poster because United as one of the largest airlines in the world certainly be held to the "public figure" standard and so would not only have to prove that the OP did not in fact hear that pilots were arrested , but that he published the lie with the intention of doing harm to United Airlines. Additionally, United would have to prove that the statement actually caused harm to United's reputation.

Anyway, I think the OP doesn't have to worry about United bringing suite anytime soon.

readytotaxi wrote:

"Crew scheduling disruption" is code for?

It's code for we don't want to admit our pilot was drunk off his ass. So it's a scheduling disruption.

adamblang wrote:

COSPN wrote:

I think we still have freedom of speech in the USA... and this is not a newspaper

The First Amendment protects you from the government censoring you. It has no bearing on the actions of private individuals nor private corporations.

They should all read the whole document and note most of it is protection from the government, not the citizens.

Jetty wrote:

345tas wrote:

What is it with Glasgow and North American pilots?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... t-39368762
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... t-43907466

Adjusting too much to the local situation maybe? Scotland has the worst substance abuse of Europe with lots of degenerates.

and Ireland

RetiredNWA wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

RetiredNWA wrote:

It seems all of you failed to notice that my post, hours ago, was directed at the fact that NO INE HAD ANY CREDIBLE SOURCE TO POST. Just as SQ22 stated - a “rumor”. Like most of the drivel on here.

I don't think you understand U.S. libel law. Lack of a citation of source doesn't mean something is untrue (but we have a duty to be skeptical). Truth - if pilots were arrested - is the absolute defense against libel. Now, if the OP is spreading rumors KNOWN TO BE UNTRUE, that's a problem.

You unintentionally proved my point, and, I appreciate your response. Unfortunately, you fail to note the legalities of the issue - “were the pilots drunk” - only the breathalyzer and toxicology tests may prove or disprove that assertion (not fact). Furthermore, the individuals here post as though they have the authority to, and *have* completed the breathalyzer and toxicology examination. (You should PM me and we can discuss the issue further).

Until it was posted by the BBC, this entire thread was rumor. My major point is that rumors cannot continue without some type of verification, and, should they continue to be perpetuated by the a.net community, they have chilling and far-reaching effect.

The poster who indicated earlier in this thread that they had received information from the hotel staff, and, the other poster that indicated they had knowledge of the event from the airport staff are clearly unaware of the legal implications of their posting should this case ever move forward in a court of law. They are stating, implied, that they have material knowledge of the aforementioned event....do they?

There’s no reason to break my balls about it. History is made in court - not on airliners dot net.

Until the BBC posted it. Well now. How many papers & TV new stations have done a story before they had the facts. Don't rely on the BBC posting it as a mater of fact any more than CNN. We are not a newspaper, we are a chat group.

26point2 wrote:

Not condoning it but food for thought... We've had many decades of jet trans Atlantic transport with likely the same pilot behavior all these many years. Only now they are being caught and tested. Has there ever been an TATL air carrier accident due to the pilot being drunk? I don't think so. Pilots have always been drinking before work...we're now just finding out about it.

There has been a regulation forbidding drinking by pilots & FA's for decades. So you are incorrect.

@passedv1

Thanks for your comprehensive explanation of defamation law in the US. Think I prefer English law where (as I understand it) you can sue for defamation and win if your reputation is judged to have been damaged due to publication of (a) false report(s) about you by another.

I think in the training of pilots from day 1 and update training in their careers, there must be random testing for alcohol and drugs as well as clear instruction to discourage alcohol use overall and in particular during 'layovers'. It is sad that just a few will make it more difficult to someone to have a glass of wine or a beer at dinner 20+ hours before flying. Let us not forget that alcohol use with other compounding issues from time zone changes, flying overnight when our bodies want to be asleep, body clocks way off, not getting enough quality sleep, means we need airlines to have stricter standards to assure the safety of all.

art

I don’t think that the Law is as simple as that.

rbavfan wrote:

26point2 wrote:

Not condoning it but food for thought... We've had many decades of jet trans Atlantic transport with likely the same pilot behavior all these many years. Only now they are being caught and tested. Has there ever been an TATL air carrier accident due to the pilot being drunk? I don't think so. Pilots have always been drinking before work...we're now just finding out about it.

There has been a regulation forbidding drinking by pilots & FA's for decades. So you are incorrect.

Poster never said there haven't previously been regulations on it. Re-read the post. It's about the fact that they now seem to be getting caught and tested more frequently, not that regulations didn't exist previously. You are arguing against a strawman.

7x over the legal limit for pilots? That's friggin INSANE!!!! I'm surprised they were even able to WALK through the CHECKPOINT in the FIRST PLACE! I'm just sayin'!

ltbewr wrote:

I think in the training of pilots from day 1 and update training in their careers, there must be random testing for alcohol and drugs as well as clear instruction to discourage alcohol use overall and in particular during 'layovers'. It is sad that just a few will make it more difficult to someone to have a glass of wine or a beer at dinner 20+ hours before flying. Let us not forget that alcohol use with other compounding issues from time zone changes, flying overnight when our bodies want to be asleep, body clocks way off, not getting enough quality sleep, means we need airlines to have stricter standards to assure the safety of all.

You can drink on layovers. In fact most crews do go out for a drink or two on longer layovers. The beer halls in Munich are a real favorite of the American crews. But, it is supposed to be just that - a drink (or two). And there is still the 12hr bottle to throttle rule too. If this is true, I can’t even imagine how many drinks these guys had to be a whopping 7 times over the limit, especially considering it takes ~ 1 hour for just 1 drink to wear off.

klvk94550 wrote:

7x over the legal limit for pilots?

That is what is rumoured, isn't it? I think I read they will appear in court Tuesday. At that point the measured level might be given as evidence.

I don't know in Scotland but I think that in England guilt in cases of charges of driving while over the alcohol limit is usually determined quickly. Along the lines of limit is X, machine said your level was X+Y ergo you were over the limit ergo you are guilty as charged.

If one of the pilots is found to have been 7 x over the legal limit I imagine the sentence will be quite severe. Details of a Glasgow airport case where the pilot was about 2 x over the limit:

An airline pilot who admitted preparing to fly a passenger jet while at more than twice the legal alcohol limit has been jailed for 10 months.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ht-glasgow

Jetty wrote:

Is Glasgow's drinking getting worse? 41 bottles of vodka sold per person last year: http://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasg ... 1-11382490

This is misleading because tourists are buying some of this alcohol. The average Glasgow resident probably doesn't drink more than 39 or 40 bottles of vodka per year.

IPFreely wrote:

Jetty wrote:

Is Glasgow's drinking getting worse? 41 bottles of vodka sold per person last year: http://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasg ... 1-11382490

This is misleading because tourists are buying some of this alcohol. The average Glasgow resident probably doesn't drink more than 39 or 40 bottles of vodka per year.

On reconsideration I think it's more likely to be 38 to 39 bottles because you also have to account for all the alcohol bought by American pilots.

mcdu wrote:

Fire them both. Don’t let them come back. Stop this nonsense now.

That is a clean approach. Would act as a deterrent, wouldn't it?

I would be interested to know the level of recidivism among pilots who have been caught over the limit. If there are stats to show it is extremely low would it make sense to ditch the investment of several hundreds of thousands of dollars in training a pilot by never using those expensively acquired skills again?

In terms of prevention being better than cure, would it be a good idea to have all airline pilots' alcohol level checked by their company before flying? One advantage of this would be the certainty of being detected if over the limit. If you know you will be caught if you transgress you are far less likely to transgress, aren't you?

Some are saying the pilots were 7x over the limit. The limit for pilots. commercial truck, bus and school bus drivers in the USA is either 0.01 or 0.02% for driving a personal car it is usually 0.05%.. So 7x = 0.07 or 0.14% so well over the limit for driving a car.

Some have mentioned the high rate of alcohol consumption in Glasgow, Scotland. If I recall, last year Scotland raised their tax on alcohol by a huge amount to reduce consumption of alcoholic beverages.

When I posted the original post the news was known to just about all Glasgow airport staff. I cannot say who actually told me on a public forum.

Max Q wrote:

26point2 wrote:

Not condoning it but food for thought... We've had many decades of jet trans Atlantic transport with likely the same pilot behavior all these many years. Only now they are being caught and tested. Has there ever been an TATL air carrier accident due to the pilot being drunk? I don't think so. Pilots have always been drinking before work...we're now just finding out about it.

You raise a good point actually, the reality is that drinking and aviation have been synonymous since the Wright brothers, for years the only regulation was 8 hours from
‘bottle to throttle’


It was basically an honor system, most complied although 8 hours was often not enough to sober up completely if a large amount of alcohol was consumed


Then the Northwest incident happened and everything changed, random drug, alcohol testing and official BAC limits were introduced


Some countries are more stringent than others, the UK in particular seems to be on a ‘crusade’ of sorts with respect to overindulgent pilots



After all the previous incidents I don’t understand why guys keep doing this, these two pilots lives are over as they know
them


Having said that, and being very non PC
I’ll say that in the old days before all these regulations and testing there was next to no evidence of incidents and accidents due
to alcohol misuse


Pilots flew hungover, that’s the reality but
they were so used to it that it wasnt a problem


The only accident I know of on a Jet Transport directly attributed to alcohol was
the crash of a JAL Cargo DC8 in Anchorage


In that case the expatriate Captain showed up at the airport obviously inebriated yet
the FO and FE did nothing to stop him


After take off he just kept rotating until he stalled the aircraft and they crashed killing all three crew members and their bovine cargo


At this point it wouldn’t surprise me to see
airlines institute a blanket ‘ban’ for crews on drinking while on layovers


Curiously enough TWA had this policy although I think it was largely ignored

Blaming political correctness for not letting pilots fly drunk and claiming no accidents had been ever caused by being intoxicated.

I hope you are not a pilot

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The stats are the stats and they are more telling than a limited anecdote. Stereotypes are grounded in some grain of truth.

GF

A stereotype is grounded in your feelings and misinterpretation of facts.

The delayed flight just left GLA. Seems a crew hotel staff whistleblower rather than any enforced routine checks, which is slightly concerning

ltbewr wrote:

If I recall, last year Scotland raised their tax on alcohol by a huge amount to reduce consumption of alcoholic beverages.

It's not a tax, it's Minimum Unit Pricing at 50 pence per unit of alcohol, and the profit goes directly to the retailer, not any government.
It won't likely affect prices in pubs, clubs and hotel bars, as it's likely above the MUP anyway.

by738 wrote:

The delayed flight just left GLA. Seems a crew hotel staff whistleblower rather than any enforced routine checks, which is slightly concerning

Wasn't that the case the last time and the time before that involving the Air Transat crew ?

Super80Fan wrote:

Back to the topic, seems the pilots at this point are asking for stricter alcohol policies.

Where I work, strict rules are already in place and at some of the airports we operate out of, we get random breathalyser tests before our first flight. I don't think a stricter policy is the way to go, one would hope that the individuals responsible for operating an aircraft are clever enough to know and obey these rules.
However, I think these cases are quite rare (luckily), but they get a lot of media attention, which hopefully helps preventing it from happening again. People who are willingly about to operate an aircraft under the influence of alcohol (or anything else for that matter) shoud not be flying ever again, or at least not without proper sentencing and help if needed.

Human factors are seen as the weak point of air transportation safety. In the long-run this kind of mistakes will be used by aircraft and avionics manufacturers, regulation authorities and even public opinion to push for pilot-less aircrafts.

Punishment must be in accordance with those implications.

OA260 wrote:

As for the United Pilots it will be interesting how this pans out and if they are indeed found guilty of being drunk. Some bus companies have mandatory breath tests by use of a breathalyser before they start the vehicle maybe something similar would be beneficial in aircraft.

I had it in my company car.
https://accessories.volvocars.com/en-us/S80(07-)/Accessories/Document/VCC-481150/2016

FatCat wrote:

OA260 wrote:

As for the United Pilots it will be interesting how this pans out and if they are indeed found guilty of being drunk. Some bus companies have mandatory breath tests by use of a breathalyser before they start the vehicle maybe something similar would be beneficial in aircraft.

I had it in my company car.
https://accessories.volvocars.com/en-us/S80(07-)/Accessories/Document/VCC-481150/2016

Interesting that that's not possible with a keyless car. . .

art wrote:

mcdu wrote:

Fire them both. Don’t let them come back. Stop this nonsense now.

That is a clean approach. Would act as a deterrent, wouldn't it?

I would be interested to know the level of recidivism among pilots who have been caught over the limit. If there are stats to show it is extremely low would it make sense to ditch the investment of several hundreds of thousands of dollars in training a pilot by never using those expensively acquired skills again?

In terms of prevention being better than cure, would it be a good idea to have all airline pilots' alcohol level checked by their company before flying? One advantage of this would be the certainty of being detected if over the limit. If you know you will be caught if you transgress you are far less likely to transgress, aren't you?

Agreed. Just have the gate agent administer a breath test. The agent has to talk to the pilots anyway so it wouldn't take up much more time.

I have a solution!

Ignition interlocks in all commercial aircraft. Both pilots have to blow into tubes simultaneously just before engine start. If both pass, they can start the engines. If either fails, it can send an alter tone to ATC......

jomur wrote:

Any one got any news on the United flight from Glasgow today that has been cancelled due to the pilot being drunk? Seems the pilot was 7 times over the limit according to rumours around the airport.

7x over the limit? How was not crawling onto the plane or dead?

N649DL wrote:

jomur wrote:

Any one got any news on the United flight from Glasgow today that has been cancelled due to the pilot being drunk? Seems the pilot was 7 times over the limit according to rumours around the airport.

7x over the limit? How was not crawling onto the plane or dead?

The flying alcohol limit for pilots is significantly less than the legal drink driving limit. While they may have been 7 times over the flying limit, they were likely only 2 times over the driving limit, which would pretty much be a case of having a pint within 30 minutes, and driving within 30 minutes of finishing that pint.

Note: not condoning, just explaining. Never ever drink and drive, or drink and fly!

zuckie13 wrote:

I have a solution!

Ignition interlocks in all commercial aircraft. Both pilots have to blow into tubes simultaneously just before engine start. If both pass, they can start the engines. If either fails, it can send an alter tone to ATC......

I have a better solution. Bring back the normal down route layover times.

Crew around the world have had their layover times cut short by these MBA types that just see it as a cost. When you give your crew minimum layover times, with a hard limit on when the crew must finish drinking, it generates a timeline where little time is available to actually enjoy a meal and drink. For example if the crew has 14 hrs between flights, one hour of that is getting from the aircraft to the hotel, around 3 hrs a before departure is the wake up, depart the hotel 2 hrs before departure, sign on 1 hr before departure at the airport.

Out of a 14 hr “layover”, only 10 hours of that could be for eating, drinking, keeping in contact with family, and sleeping. And that could be on a different time zone.

As most airlines will want crew to stop drinking 8-12 hrs before sign on, the minimum layover times encourage a behaviour to drink quickly rather than enjoy slowly.

I don’t drink this does not impact me, but I know some people like to enjoy a drink after a days work.

zeke wrote:

zuckie13 wrote:

I have a solution!

Ignition interlocks in all commercial aircraft. Both pilots have to blow into tubes simultaneously just before engine start. If both pass, they can start the engines. If either fails, it can send an alter tone to ATC......

I have a better solution. Bring back the normal down route layover times.

Crew around the world have had their layover times cut short by these MBA types that just see it as a cost. When you give your crew minimum layover times, with a hard limit on when the crew must finish drinking, it generates a timeline where little time is available to actually enjoy a meal and drink. For example if the crew has 14 hrs between flights, one hour of that is getting from the aircraft to the hotel, around 3 hrs a before departure is the wake up, depart the hotel 2 hrs before departure, sign on 1 hr before departure at the airport.

Out of a 14 hr “layover”, only 10 hours of that could be for eating, drinking, keeping in contact with family, and sleeping. And that could be on a different time zone.

As most airlines will want crew to stop drinking 8-12 hrs before sign on, the minimum layover times encourage a behaviour to drink quickly rather than enjoy slowly.

I don’t drink this does not impact me, but I know some people like to enjoy a drink after a days work.

Your point is valid to an extent on domestic rotations, crews are often doing those kind of turns on the domestic side.

But the airline is not forcing them to drink on their layover. It is their responsibility to be fit for duty when they are supposed to report for work.

As far as this incident in Glasgow, they have a lot more than a 14 hour layover when going to Europe under normal circumstances. They don't normally land at 7am and then go again at 9pm. Just as an example, if they land at 7am with turn time of the plane the departure would be 8:30am. So really they have ~24 hours of downtime.

LaunchDetected wrote:

Human factors are seen as the weak point of air transportation safety. In the long-run this kind of mistakes will be used by aircraft and avionics manufacturers, regulation authorities and even public opinion to push for pilot-less aircrafts.

Punishment must be in accordance with those implications.

Good luck with that, every job could be argued to be eliminated if you went down the path of arguing that human factors are the weak point rather than looking at the benefits of having a well trained human being doing it. Society always pushes for automation until they realize that they are advocating for their own doom.

I can't tell which side you fall on for the automation debate so this is not targeted towards you specifically at all and these two pilots should have the book thrown at them because they have betrayed the profession

mast2407 wrote:

N649DL wrote:

jomur wrote:

Any one got any news on the United flight from Glasgow today that has been cancelled due to the pilot being drunk? Seems the pilot was 7 times over the limit according to rumours around the airport.

7x over the limit? How was not crawling onto the plane or dead?

The flying alcohol limit for pilots is significantly less than the legal drink driving limit. While they may have been 7 times over the flying limit, they were likely only 2 times over the driving limit, which would pretty much be a case of having a pint within 30 minutes, and driving within 30 minutes of finishing that pint.

Note: not condoning, just explaining. Never ever drink and drive, or drink and fly!

Ah got it, it's that whole "Bottle to Throttle" Thing. 2x over the driving limit? That's still beyond out of control unless you're a tank that can handle your liquor. Pint ever 30 mins? Try shots haha.

tjerome wrote:

As far as this incident in Glasgow, they have a lot more than a 14 hour layover when going to Europe under normal circumstances. They don't normally land at 7am and then go again at 9pm. Just as an example, if they land at 7am with turn time of the plane the departure would be 8:30am. So really they have ~24 hours of downtime.

So they land at 7am (body clock 1-3am), get the hotel 8-8:30mlocal, shower and try and get to bed by 9am local. Get an 8 hr sleep have their first meal for the layover at 6pm, (12-2pm body clock). Departure next morning 8:30, wake up 5:30, so the would try and get to bed at 9pm local (3-5 pm body clock) to wake up 23:30-01:30 body clock for a 3:30-5:30 am body clock departure, worst possible time from an alertness point of view.

Out of a “24 hr” layover, they really only have around 3 hours because the time zone change. This is why they recommend layovers not to be in the 18-36 hr band as it is next to impossible to get two sleeps in.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

FatCat wrote:

OA260 wrote:

As for the United Pilots it will be interesting how this pans out and if they are indeed found guilty of being drunk. Some bus companies have mandatory breath tests by use of a breathalyser before they start the vehicle maybe something similar would be beneficial in aircraft.

I had it in my company car.
https://accessories.volvocars.com/en-us/S80(07-)/Accessories/Document/VCC-481150/2016

Interesting that that's not possible with a keyless car. . .

Yes in fact my S80 wasn't keyless.
Don't know if new gen Volvos have the keyless + breathalizer combination.

SierraPacific wrote:

LaunchDetected wrote:

Human factors are seen as the weak point of air transportation safety. In the long-run this kind of mistakes will be used by aircraft and avionics manufacturers, regulation authorities and even public opinion to push for pilot-less aircrafts.

Punishment must be in accordance with those implications.

Good luck with that, every job could be argued to be eliminated if you went down the path of arguing that human factors are the weak point rather than looking at the benefits of having a well trained human being doing it. Society always pushes for automation until they realize that they are advocating for their own doom.

I can't tell which side you fall on for the automation debate so this is not targeted towards you specifically at all and these two pilots should have the book thrown at them because they have betrayed the profession

Human factors will only be a pretext to cut jobs, the real reason will be less salaries to pay. I'm on your side, like a lot of people on this forum i am confident in the ability of the pilots. But the public opinion is easily manipulated and is only motivated by low fares. So we agree, there is no room for indulgence in this case.

zeke wrote:

tjerome wrote:

As far as this incident in Glasgow, they have a lot more than a 14 hour layover when going to Europe under normal circumstances. They don't normally land at 7am and then go again at 9pm. Just as an example, if they land at 7am with turn time of the plane the departure would be 8:30am. So really they have ~24 hours of downtime.

So they land at 7am (body clock 1-3am), get the hotel 8-8:30mlocal, shower and try and get to bed by 9am local. Get an 8 hr sleep have their first meal for the layover at 6pm, (12-2pm body clock). Departure next morning 8:30, wake up 5:30, so the would try and get to bed at 9pm local (3-5 pm body clock) to wake up 23:30-01:30 body clock for a 3:30-5:30 am body clock departure, worst possible time from an alertness point of view.

Out of a “24 hr” layover, they really only have around 3 hours because the time zone change. This is why they recommend layovers not to be in the 18-36 hr band as it is next to impossible to get two sleeps in.

Phosphorus wrote:

So true. There is another subject, not often spoken about, but I will not be the first one to raise it, surely. The quality of airline pilot hotel rest down line.
Hotels happen to be noisier during the day, when your example pilot is trying to sleep.
Crew, who are on heavily discounted overnight rates, are at risk of being allocated accommodation that needs renovation (it's not like they have a lot of a choice, do they? They will not switch hotels), and/or near the places, where renovation takes place (noise, vibration, general commotion)..
Not to mention that if the hotel is full, the crew will have to wait while their colleagues will move out, their rooms are cleaned, and they can move in. In case of IROPS, probably situation is not good for crew, either.

All of this has basically zero to do with the issue of showing up with a blood alcohol content allegedly far over the limit.... I'd go as far as to say that if you can't survive a layover without drinking or if you are one of those persons who needs to have a beer or wine at the end of the day, aviation is not exactly the right career for you. Drink in your days off if layovers don't allow a drink according to regulations. You don't need alcohol to have a decent time on a layover. If you do, you have an issue. Simple.

Drinking and flying is a real black and white issue, no grey area should be perceived here.

sandyb123 wrote:

Jetty wrote:

sandyb123 wrote:

I’m assuming that this is deliberately provocative? Have you ever been to Scotland?

Sandyb123

Yes I’ve been there and enjoyed it. Those are just facts though.

Scotland drug death rate highest in Europe and still on rise: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48358404

Alcohol abuse is so rife even teachers are tested for it: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1763 ... -drug-use/

Is Glasgow's drinking getting worse? 41 bottles of vodka sold per person last year: http://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasg ... 1-11382490

I can tell you speaking as a Scot in Scotland those stats apply to a very few people. I’ve never known or known of a drug addict or alcoholic. I’m sure this applies to my social group and it’s anecdotal.

But I don’t like the blanket stereotype that Scotland gets. The overwhelming percentage of us are far from the headline grabbing problems.

Out of interest, where are you from?

Sandyb123

As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan once famously said: "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts"

The difference between "I don't know anyone with a drug problem and the links provided is...... a scientific method"

And just for the record, I know quite a lot of people from scotland and they're all lovely people, but they're all also heavy drinkers.... not that I mind

One pilot released without charge, the other due in court at Paisley on Tuesday afternoon. We'll soon see what happens next...

https://stv.tv/news/west-central/143978 ... -released/

So he was held only because of being near the other dude? I don’t get it. If he wasn’t intoxicated and was being held because the Capt was, that’s some kind of backward crap right there.