QF 767 Captain removed from flight

[Jon Harris]

From http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-...805-23nv8.html

A QANTAS captain was forced to relinquish the controls of a passenger jet last week just minutes before it was due to take off from Sydney Airport after cabin crew suspected she had been drinking alcohol before the flight. Qantas has since launched an investigation into the incident after the senior pilot recorded a positive reading for alcohol. The captain has been withheld from operational duties on full pay, but the airline will not comment on what reading she gave or how recently before the flight she had been drinking.

The incident occurred last Monday as the Qantas aircraft was about to depart for Brisbane. Flight attendants on the Boeing 767-300 aircraft, which can carry 254 passengers, informed the airline's flight operations managers that they suspected the captain of the plane had been drinking. The aircraft had already been pulled back from the domestic terminal and was taxiing towards a runway for take-off when Qantas management made the decision to stand down the captain from command of the plane. The 767 returned to the domestic terminal where the captain was taken off the plane and a replacement pilot was found to fly to Brisbane.

It is rare for pilots to be removed from flying for breaching airline procedure. Qantas has a zero tolerance to pilots recording an alcohol reading of any level. Fewer than 100 of Qantas's 2200 pilots are women. The investigation into the captain's alcohol reading is expected to take at least a month. Qantas has informed the air safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, of the incident. However, it is considered a matter for Qantas rather than the regulator because the testing of the captain was done under the auspices of the airline's drug and alcohol management plan. If it is determined to be a one-off incident, the pilot will be expected to undergo counselling and later a medical assessment to determine whether she is fit to fly.

But if it is a long-term problem, she will be suspended from duties. CASA has been conducting random breath tests of pilots, flight attendants and ground crews at airports since 2008. The rate of positive tests is understood to be very low. A Qantas spokesman confirmed that a captain had been ''withheld from service for administrative reasons'' last week but he declined to comment further because the matter was under investigation. A spokesman for CASA said yesterday that it would not comment on any specific testing carried out by an airline, nor on the results of any test.

"Anyone found to be affected by alcohol or drugs while performing, or when they are available to perform, safety-sensitive aviation activities will automatically be suspended from duties," he said. "They are not able to return to duty until they have been … given a medical clearance."

[Ray P.]

BZ to the Cabin Crew for highlighting their concerns to the flight operations managers and BZ for Qantas management for taking immediate action to prevent a potentially catastrophic outcome. Overall, I can't think of a better way in which this very sensitive issue can have been handled.

[Hugh Jarse]

I can think of a better way, Ray.

Perhaps the reporting crew should have raised the matter BEFORE pushback, and directly with the crew concerned, rather than through a third party (as seems to have been the case).

[Jason A]

Actually Hugh Jarse, you are making an assumption. You actually don't know if the cabin crew did raise it with the f/o as the said captain was doing the walk around and were 'palmed off'. Perhaps they were left with no option other than to contact the airport ground manager who was only able to get the a/c returned to blocks after the L1 door was closed and the aircraft had pushed.

Cabin crew are not at fault here. Perhaps even the captain is not at fault, mouthwash anyone ?

[Rob R]

If the Cabin Crew were so concerned then the L1 door should never have been closed. The cabin crew could have removed themselves from duty before the L1 door was closed, this would have kept the aircraft at the gate.

[Jason A]

Perhaps the cabin crew didn't want to cause a scene and protect the captain by being a little less discrete ( we're not all out to get each other ). Perhaps the f/o remained silent to protect the captain ? Assumptions.

Just don't think blaming anyone, especially cabin crew ( thank you hugh jarse ) is appropriate or fair, especially from a pilot himself who knows the importance of CRM.

[Hugh Jarse]

Actually, Jason A - I'm neither making assumptions nor accusing anyone of anything. I was merely responding to Ray's statement on the handling the situation.

Yes, I'm aware of CRM, Jason. Almost 20 years in the airlines has taught me, if nothing else: You MUST encourage an open line of communication between the flight and cabin crew. They are a vital part of the total safety of the operation.

I don't know what happened here. I find it interesting that the doors were closed and the aircraft pushed before any action was taken. Who knows why?

I hear ya, Rob. There are plenty of discrete ways to skin a cat

[A McLaughlin]

Were any of you there?
No?

Then can it! This is way too sensitive a subject to be speculating on...!

EDIT: OK, speculate away...I just think there's much more to the story than what has been reported in the media, so we can't really use the so far pretty pathetic reporting of it as a basis of fact.

[Hugh Jarse]

Originally Posted by A McLaughlin

Were any of you there?
No?

Then can it! This is way too sensitive a subject to be speculating on...!

Sensitive in what respect, A McLaughlin? All Australian airlines have robust DAMP policies, and I'm sure QF have followed theirs in this instance

I think the moderating team has the final say as to whether we "can it", or not. As for speculation, some of us with airline flight crew backgrounds are merely curious as to why the aircraft dispatched. No doubt, that will become apparent in the not-too-distant future. And asking the question on a bulletin board hardly breaches sensitivities or deserves stifling of genuine discussion.

[Philip Argy]

But for the management intervention, this pilot was apparently prepared to take off.

I for one want to know more in due course. It's not going to go away and be forgotten.

So far, it seems to have been well handled, and had it not become public maybe that would have been the end of it. But now that it's public the outcome also needs to become public.

Just IMHO!