Drunk pilot loses certificate

Big John wrote:

My posts were against those who arbitrarily made comments about
drinking that are/were not supportable by facts.

There was nothing arbitrary in the posts. The pilot was measured at
0.13 BAC, which is well above any measure of impairment, whether for
flying or driving a car. Those were the facts.

In this regard, can you give me cites where a drunken pilot killed any
one on the ground? This was the thrust of several vocal posts re the
pilot having his ticket pulled for flying with a breathalizer (sp)
test showing an arbitrary amount of alcohol in his system.

First, the limit for the amount of alcohol in a person's body is
definitely not arbitrary. Study after study has shown that certain
abilities, such as multitasking and spatial awareness are always
affected by a given proportion of alcohol in your blood. Long term
alcohol users are equally affected, and do not gain a tolerance for
those abilities. Only apologists think otherwise. The pilot was
impaired, period.

No impairment was ever tested for or shown in that event yet he was
pilloried.

That is wrong. The pilot had a BAC of 0.13, which means he was clearly
impaired. That level is well above any regulations that govern the use
of alcohol while flying or driving. It's almost four times that allowed
in many countries. There is no need to do any other tests.

I have see where GA pilots killed themselves and their passengers with
a high amount of alcohol in their systems but never an accident in
commercial aviation where alcohol caused the accident.

Are you now advocating the use of alcohol by commercial pilots. I can
think of at least one commercial accident where high blood alcohol was
considered responsible for a number of poor decisions on the part of the
pilot. It was a Japan Airlines cargo flight at Anchorage. AK in 1977.
There are probably more, but I don't have time to look for specifics
right now.

You might like to read this report on the subject:

http://www.aviationcrm.com/alcoholFAA.pdf

It reports that 5% of all the pilots involved in fatal accidents tested
positive for alcohol or drugs. ATP and commercial-rated pilots had
similar percentages.

This of course could be having two pilots in commercial planes
and mostly single pilots in GA?

It could also be because commercial pilots are subject to random checks,
so are less likely to indulge. Something like 10 commercial pilots were
caught last year over the limit as a result of the tests.

Have a nice day and get a cold beer and popcorn and watch the Super
Bowel.

Personally, I watched the Super _Bowl_, and left the _bowel_ watching to
others. I also had a few beer, and walked home after the party.

James Robinson wrote:

It reports that 5% of all the pilots involved in fatal accidents tested
positive for alcohol or drugs. ATP and commercial-rated pilots had
similar percentages.

But 95% of all the pilots involved in fatal accidents were sober. It sounds
like drunk is the safer way to fly grin.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:

But 95% of all the pilots involved in fatal accidents were sober.
It sounds like drunk is the safer way to fly grin.

That sounds like the old statistics lesson about safety while flying
commercial.

A person found out that the chance of being on an aircraft with a bomb
aboard was one in a million. It was also explained that the chance of
two bombs being on the same aircraft were less than one in a billion.

In pondering these two statistics, he therefore decided to carry a bomb
whenever he flew on a commercial airliner, since it greatly reduced the
chance of there being a second bomb on the aircraft.

James Robinson wrote in message ...
Andrew Gideon wrote:
A person found out that the chance of being on an aircraft with a bomb
aboard was one in a million. It was also explained that the chance of
two bombs being on the same aircraft were less than one in a billion.

One in a trillion, but who's counting...

"Bob" wrote in message
om...
James Robinson wrote in message
...
Andrew Gideon wrote:
A person found out that the chance of being on an aircraft with a bomb
aboard was one in a million. It was also explained that the chance of
two bombs being on the same aircraft were less than one in a billion.

One in a trillion, but who's counting...

No, billion, because the person in question was thinking of bringing the
bomb on board in England a couple of decades ago.

-- David Brooks