Tümü
← Back to Squawk list
Two drunk United Airlines pilots arrested before flight
Téo drunk United Airlines Pilots where arrested in Glasgow. (www.dailymail.co.uk) Daha Fazlası...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Not a big surprise, many pilots have a drinking problem, and they are not necessarily alcoholics. Maybe it's time that crews are subjected to breath test before they are allowed to fly, cabin crews as well.
I don't know what the technical dividing line is for determining "alcoholism," and I don't see how it matters here, but it seems fairly clear to me that if you have a job (or task) that requires that you're free of influence and you still show up for duty in a fog of EtOH, then you have at least a problem in judgment.
If you had a reasonably unobtrusive system like that, and if it were coupled with a promise of help for those who end up failing, then it could work.
The problem with "throw them all out" solutions is that it gives people an incredible incentive to find ways to beat the system. And you can be sure that if a lot is at stake, they will.
That's why most of the existing (and functioning) compliance systems include incentives for participation.
If you had a reasonably unobtrusive system like that, and if it were coupled with a promise of help for those who end up failing, then it could work.
The problem with "throw them all out" solutions is that it gives people an incredible incentive to find ways to beat the system. And you can be sure that if a lot is at stake, they will.
That's why most of the existing (and functioning) compliance systems include incentives for participation.
You can't beat a breathalyze. We as a Society are way too loose at cutting people slack, just look at the posts here defending/making allowances for being drunk.
Simply, check every pilot with a breathalyzer and fire those caught twice.
If you can't show up to ANY job sober you're irresponsible, but show up to a job that threatens OTHERS by your bad choices and you are a CRIMINAL.
Simply, check every pilot with a breathalyzer and fire those caught twice.
If you can't show up to ANY job sober you're irresponsible, but show up to a job that threatens OTHERS by your bad choices and you are a CRIMINAL.
At no point did I suggest "cutting people slack." I don't know how you managed to read that into my response.
Instead, what I said was that the system, if one were instituted, would have to have some possibility of a positive outcome for people to participate. An example of a good system is the ASRS run by NASA. I'm not suggesting that *exactly* the same mechanism be used here -- it certainly would make no sense to do so -- but rather that the same idea be employed: participation has to be a useful action.
If all you have is the threat of firing (and loss of an entire career and livelihood), then people will cheat. They'll cheat by getting someone else to do the test. Or by having someone submit false results. And others will certainly help them do so. It's just human nature.
Badly designed systems always have unintended consequences, and what you're describing strikes me as exactly one of those systems.
A good example of a bad system is our current medical examination system for pilots in the US. It has built-in incentives to do the wrong thing at every turn: if some condition is disqualifying, you may well see yourself as better off either to avoid having the problem diagnosed and treated properly, or falsifying your medical application (which is easy because the AME doesn't necessarily check everything). It's a crummy system precisely because it encourages people to do the things we don't want them doing, and rewards those who cheat. A well-designed system does the opposite.
Instead, what I said was that the system, if one were instituted, would have to have some possibility of a positive outcome for people to participate. An example of a good system is the ASRS run by NASA. I'm not suggesting that *exactly* the same mechanism be used here -- it certainly would make no sense to do so -- but rather that the same idea be employed: participation has to be a useful action.
If all you have is the threat of firing (and loss of an entire career and livelihood), then people will cheat. They'll cheat by getting someone else to do the test. Or by having someone submit false results. And others will certainly help them do so. It's just human nature.
Badly designed systems always have unintended consequences, and what you're describing strikes me as exactly one of those systems.
A good example of a bad system is our current medical examination system for pilots in the US. It has built-in incentives to do the wrong thing at every turn: if some condition is disqualifying, you may well see yourself as better off either to avoid having the problem diagnosed and treated properly, or falsifying your medical application (which is easy because the AME doesn't necessarily check everything). It's a crummy system precisely because it encourages people to do the things we don't want them doing, and rewards those who cheat. A well-designed system does the opposite.
I'm sorry to take exception to the wording "Too drunk to fly". I didn't realize there was a degree of drunkeness when it was acceptable to fly. Maybe I'm just being picky, but to a non-pilot it might sound like a few drinks are OK, just don't be "too drunk to fly.
well, techincally, you can't drink 8 hours before a flight, BUT if you were so drunk before then, youc an legally have a BAC of 0.03 and still fly. (14 cfr 91.17)