Drunk pilot loses certificate

Big John wrote in message . ..

I've see a number of individuals who drank from wake up to the time
their eyes closed for sleep at night.

They were able to pass any and all tests of ANY kind (memory, verbal,
body activity, etc) given to them

Can you direct me to the published results which show this?

In contrast, there are a large number of published studies
which show impairment of some form, even in habituated
individuals who show less apparent effects. When the *same*
individuals were tested on tasks requiring judgement, ability
to divide attention/multitask and so forth, their skills
suffered vs. their skills when measured in the absence of
alcohol (or hangover).

This includes a number of individuals who loudly asserted
that alcohol had no effect on their skills.

This result is so consistant that I'd be very interested to
see a study showing a number of individuals who could pass
"any and all tests of ANY kind" while drinking from wake
up to lights out.

Regards,
Sydney

Big John wrote:

I'm glad you both understood what I said.

I understood completely what you said as well, but I also completely
disagree.

Every one will be gone Monday thank God.

Wrong on that count as well. However, I will be away the rest of the
week.

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

Orval Fairbairn wrote:


What causes the most severe damage to the environment? Cutting down millions
of trees or planting one Bush?



Environmentalists cause the most damage.

Yeah, just like flashlights create cockroaches when you point them into dark corners.

In article ,
Robert Lyons wrote:

Orval Fairbairn wrote:


What causes the most severe damage to the environment? Cutting down
millions
of trees or planting one Bush?



Environmentalists cause the most damage.

Yeah, just like flashlights create cockroaches when you point them into dark
corners.


Banning DDT has caused more deaths than any dictator. Muslims should be
envious of the success environmentalists have had in killing and causing
suffering.

A forest in Colorado had Spruce Budworm back in the 1930's. They
sprayed with DDT. It killed the worms. The trees died, but their roots
did not. A new tree grew out of each root structure right next to the
dead tree trunk. We now have the world's weirdest forest, with a dead
tree and a distorted live tree right next to the dead one. This would
not have happened if they had not sprayed.

I was flying up in Canada west of Prince George. There is a huge area
there infected by pine beetles. The locals are bemoaning that the
government doesn't do anything. Trouble is, there isn't any fix that
will give a better result than mother nature running her course. Been
there, done that.

I'm not saying there aren't times when insecticides are appropriate.
But not always. Biological systems are very complex. We humans just
don't know and don't have all the tools to do the right thing. Nature
does. Just give it time.


Legrande Harris wrote in message .. .
In article ,
Robert Lyons wrote:

Orval Fairbairn wrote:


What causes the most severe damage to the environment? Cutting down
millions
of trees or planting one Bush?



Environmentalists cause the most damage.

Yeah, just like flashlights create cockroaches when you point them into dark
corners.


Banning DDT has caused more deaths than any dictator. Muslims should be
envious of the success environmentalists have had in killing and causing
suffering.

"Doug" wrote in message
om...
| A forest in Colorado had Spruce Budworm back in the 1930's. They
| sprayed with DDT. It killed the worms. The trees died, but their roots
| did not. A new tree grew out of each root structure right next to the
| dead tree trunk. We now have the world's weirdest forest, with a dead
| tree and a distorted live tree right next to the dead one. This would
| not have happened if they had not sprayed.
|
| I was flying up in Canada west of Prince George. There is a huge area
| there infected by pine beetles. The locals are bemoaning that the
| government doesn't do anything. Trouble is, there isn't any fix that
| will give a better result than mother nature running her course. Been
| there, done that.
|
| I'm not saying there aren't times when insecticides are appropriate.
| But not always. Biological systems are very complex. We humans just
| don't know and don't have all the tools to do the right thing. Nature
| does. Just give it time.

Sure, if you don't mind the Dutch elm becoming extinct.

C J Campbell wrote:

"Doug" wrote in message
om...

| I'm not saying there aren't times when insecticides are appropriate.
| But not always. Biological systems are very complex. We humans just
| don't know and don't have all the tools to do the right thing. Nature
| does. Just give it time.

Sure, if you don't mind the Dutch elm becoming extinct.

Since there has never been a "Dutch Elm" species I don't see why anyone
would mind if it became extinct.

There is a fungal infection called Dutch Elm disease to which different elm
species show varying degrees of susceptibility, but not to the point of it
causing extinction. The American elm is particularly susceptible, but would
not have become extinct given the length of time it takes for the fungus to
kill the tree. Even if infected, new trees may already reproduce before
they are killed by the fungus. In a natural setting the more susceptible
species will have their range reduced and there will be selective pressure
to increase resistance until stability is restored. The introduction of
resistant hybrid strains is an artificial attempt to speed up this process,
but extinction would not have been likely in any event.

The problem we perceive is largely manmade with the deliberate planting of
row upon row of the same species of elm down city streets and in replanted
forests followed by the inadvertent introduction of the fungus in imported
wood from Europe.

In my part of Michigan there is disease that goes through the white birch
trees in my woods about once a decade and kills them... Being they are not
a hot political issue no gov't agency has come to my 'rescue' with a cure
worse than the disease... As a result I still have lots of white birch trees
even if the big old ones have died off...
denny

"Doug" wrote in message Trouble is, there
isn't any fix that
will give a better result than mother nature running her course. Been
there, done that.