1. When does a controller assume that a pilot is impaired?

Never. Why would they make that assumption?

They NEVER assume that a pilot is impaired, no matter the aural evidence?

That's pretty unlikely.

How could you possibly be required by law to do something about it? You
watched the last Seinfeld episode a few too many times, I think.

Actually, I may be the only person here who has never seen a single episode
of Seinfeld. (Although I *could* pick him out of a line-up, thanks to all
the media hoopla he received.)

It think it's funny that you think the moral question is easily answered.
It's not even an easy question to answer when you have witnessed, with
your
eyes, some clear cut violation of the FARs. But you think you can
reliably
assess impairment simply by what was said on the radio? What a crock.

True enough. I have no way of knowing whether the guy was impaired -- thus
the question.

He sure sounded like it to us.

Bottom line: It just seems unacceptable that the only way we can truly
*know* a pilot is impaired is to simply wait until they crash. I would
hope ATC would have some sort of protocol.

An example of someone actually DOING something about this sort of thing:
Eight (?) years ago we witnessed the Wisconsin State Patrol giving a pilot a
Breath-a-lyzer test at Lake Lawn Lodge, an uncontrolled strip at a resort in
Lake Delavan, WI. It seemed that the pilot (a former Tuskegee airman, no
less) had just landed his Mooney on the TAXIWAY, sending pilots scattering
in all directions.

We left before the results were in, but clearly SOMEONE had called the cops
on the guy.

I still wonder what ATC is required to do when they hear a clearly impaired
pilot on the radio. Anyone know?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"