Well, someone has to talk about the 12 hour BTT amdt.

[DanWEC]

A politically hot topic that hasn't been touched on here much. Here's my take....

New bottle to throttle regs will be 12 hours. My personal opinion is it's ridiculous to include this as a piggyback sneaking in concurrently to the new duty regs.
Not only will this have very little effect as many companies SOP's are 12 hours anyhow, it's a complete airball.

The CARS are, unfortunately, inherently reactive, but apparently based on analysis and scientific evidence.
However, I want to see one shred of empirical evidence differentiating between having 1 drink 12 hours before as opposed to 8 hours.
The crux of the alcohol law had always been 0% at report and operating, shouldn't that be the primary governing factor? If so, why the moot point of time?

It's merely a political thrust by Garneau, as drunk pilots are occasionally in the news, as are drunk truckers, drunk drivers, cops, doctors, teachers, etc. Combine the Aviation media bias with everything that is Garneau, and your result is pointless and politically slanted.

Now, to my point-
This being the CARS, it should be a reactive change that will prevent future incidents based on past mistakes. So that means that an additional 3 hours would have made all the difference with that drunk Sunwing guy that was 3x the limit. The poor cargo guys in the metro on the East coast that angered in with a young skip 3x the limit. Many news articles can be googled involving drunk pilots.
Not a single one that I could find was only very slightly over the limit. Not one. They've all blasted way past.

Point being the people with the severe problems and addictions, AKA the guys that have made the news, aren't, and have never, been affected by the lowering of any limits whatsoever. All this does is make straight out criminals of people who want to have one glass of wine with dinner before a 6am report the next morning, after a full nights' sleep.

To me, it's analogous to reducing the speed limit on the 401 to 30km/h for everyone, because there are guys doing 220 a few times year. Does it target them? Nope. Does it affect everyone else? Yes.

Anyhow, it doesn't affect me, I'm just a guy with a science background and an interest in personal rights and freedoms, who simply thinks laws should make sense. Don't get me started on C-46. It's tough to reconcile these measures even though I've lost close ones to drunk drivers.

[NotDirty!]

Don’t forget, it is also 12 hours bottle-to-duty, not bottle to throttle!

My company has had a 12 hour policy for ages (fairly recently they added an addition restriction on excessive drinking between 12 and 20 hours before departure), but it has always been bottle to throttle (or brake release/pushback/etc.). Since we are required to report for duty at least 1:15 before departure, this new reg will cut into my drinking time! Under the existing rules, we could have a quick drink with dinner on a 12 hour layover... now it will need to be a 13:30 or longer layover before we would be allowed to do the same.

I by no means need to have a drink on any given day (I haven’t had one for a couple of weeks, in fact), but I don’t like losing the possibility of having a drink, if I had wanted to! And as you have suggested, I think this will have zero impact on flight safety. The guys showing up to fly drunk were already breaking the rules, adding more rules that they will break anyways doesn’t make it better for them, and makes the rest of us, who actually follow the rules, more disenchanted with the whole system!

[goingnowherefast]

I think it's more for the people that have 6 drinks 8 hours before. Sure they're at 0 BAC, but the booze screwed up their quality of sleep and they'll be more prone to fatigue.

[pelmet]

Maybe you should forward the complaint to AA.

[Tail-Chaser]

Now, to my point-
This being the CARS, it should be a reactive change that will prevent future incidents based on past mistakes.

Breathalyze all pilots. Have a station at crew bypass stations at major airports and require that all smaller operators purchase one and use it when crews show up for duty. Problem solved.

[mixturerich]

I’m going to play devil’s advocate to your argument and say that the rule change will create a more prohibitive drinking culture amongst pilots, and that will help curtail a few of those that have a serious drinking problem. So a little something is better than nothing.

[hithere]

Still trying to figure out if this is subject to the 2/4 year implementation window like the rest of the new regs are...

[valleyboy]

I wonder if the "mall" is cops will have the same power as the traffic stop guys - I can not see any language you must be stopped in a vehicle before John Law can get you to blow. Interesting times and I'm sure this will be challenged in the courts. As stated 12 hours has been around for years in various comms. This is Mark's attempt to get at least a token word in after the drunk pilot incident that actually generated an email from him. I ignored it, and like many others, to get a follow up demanding a reason why I didn't respond. It was totally weird.

[CD]

Still trying to figure out if this is subject to the 2/4 year implementation window like the rest of the new regs are...

That particular change was effective on December 12, 2018, the date of the publication in the Gazette Part II. See section 20 of the amendments:

http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2018/2018 ... 9-eng.html

Coming into Force

20 (1) Subject to subsection (2), these Regulations come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

(2) Sections 2, 10 and 13 come into force on the second anniversary of the day on which these Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

[DanWEC]

Maybe you should forward the complaint to AA.

Hm?

[TeePeeCreeper]

Maybe you should forward the complaint to AA.

Hm?

Don’t sweat it DanWEC,

Our friend who should be wearing a helmet meant American Airlines in his response to you. Settle down!

[pelmet]

Perhaps 12 hours gives more time to recover from a hangover. Something that can't be detected but has an effect. Of course, one can call in sick, as if that actually happens at some remote overnight layover location up north. O% at report does not mean zero hangover. A lot of pax may prefer that their pilot doesn't have one. The longer the time to throttle, the lesser the hangover effect.

12 hours seem perfectly logical to me.

[TeePeeCreeper]

Perhaps 12 hours gives more time to recover from a hangover. Something that can't be detected but has an effect. Of course, one can call in sick, as if that actually happens at some remote overnight layover location up north. O% at report does not mean zero hangover. A lot of pax may prefer that their pilot doesn't have one. The longer the time to throttle, the lesser the hangover effect.

12 hours seem perfectly logical to me.

Hence why most operators already have a 12 hour limit in their COM.

What DanWEC is refering to is the half hazard manner that TC and it’s minister have gone about arbitrary changing the law without rhyme or reason.

[pelmet]

Perhaps 12 hours gives more time to recover from a hangover. Something that can't be detected but has an effect. Of course, one can call in sick, as if that actually happens at some remote overnight layover location up north. O% at report does not mean zero hangover. A lot of pax may prefer that their pilot doesn't have one. The longer the time to throttle, the lesser the hangover effect.

12 hours seem perfectly logical to me.

Hence why most operators already have a 12 hour limit in their COM.

What DanWEC is refering to is the half hazard manner that TC and it’s minister have gone about arbitrary changing the law without rhyme or reason.

Not really sure of any details of the manner in which this law was promulgated.

In the end, the important question is...does the law make sense. According to you, most operators already have this as a company rule which perhaps answers the question as to whether the rule makes sense and I assume there was a 'rhyme' and 'reason' for companies doing this. Now the rest of them will as well.

There seems to be a concern in the original post about not being able to have a glass of wine with dinner anymore while the heavy drinkers won't stop. But I have seen people do their drink cutoff at exactly 8 hours prior to standby duty. Now it will be 12. I suppose it is like any law, the irresponsible ones ruin it for the majority and a law is created in response to the irresponsible ones.

Cheers

[digits_]

In the end, the important question is...does the law make sense. According to you, most operators already have this as a company rule which perhaps answers the question as to whether the rule makes sense and I assume there was a 'rhyme' and 'reason' for companies doing this. Now the rest of them will as well.

To be fair, it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation: companies are proactively implementing it in their ops manual because it doesn't cost them any money, and makes them look good for TC and it was coming anyways. And then TC can say that the impact is negligent because most companies already do this anyway.

Oh, and it gives the operators an extra chance to fire those pesky pilots that stand up for themselves if they drink a beer 11 hours and 59 minutes before reporting for duty! Win win win!

[Tail-Chaser]

In the end, the important question is...does the law make sense. According to you, most operators already have this as a company rule which perhaps answers the question as to whether the rule makes sense and I assume there was a 'rhyme' and 'reason' for companies doing this. Now the rest of them will as well.

To be fair, it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation: companies are proactively implementing it in their ops manual because it doesn't cost them any money, and makes them look good for TC and it was coming anyways. And then TC can say that the impact is negligent because most companies already do this anyway.

Oh, and it gives the operators an extra chance to fire those pesky pilots that stand up for themselves if they drink a beer 11 hours and 59 minutes before reporting for duty! Win win win!

Maybe they should petition their company to change their rules, until then I guess they'll just have to, I dunno, drink something else.

[Schooner69A]

My company rules would be:

12 hours BTT before the start of a pairing.
Abstinence on the road.

Simple. Easily understood.

[Tail-Chaser]

My company rules would be:

12 hours BTT before the start of a pairing.
Abstinence on the road.

Simple. Easily understood.

I'd support that.

[DanWEC]

My company rules would be:

12 hours BTT before the start of a pairing.
Abstinence on the road.

Simple. Easily understood.

I'd support that.

You've never had to live in LaRonge have you?

[Tail-Chaser]

My company rules would be:

12 hours BTT before the start of a pairing.
Abstinence on the road.

Simple. Easily understood.

I'd support that.

You've never had to live in LaRonge have you?

I did a stint in Pickle Beach. Thankfully back in a bigger city now.