Sober up, pilot unions
Eight months. That’s how l ong Miroslav Gronych will spend behind bars. The 37- yearold Slovak pilot had been charged with being intoxicated while operating a Sunwing airplane ( thankfully other crew suspected him of being drunk and he was pulled off the plane before take-off ). He was found guilty of those charges last month in Calgary. Gronych is also banned from flying for one year after his release. It is unlikely — given the severity of the charges — that the pilot, in Canada on a work visa, will ever fly in this country again.
The incident has raised questions about air safety in Canada. Although regulations require that pilots do not consume any alcohol before flying and cannot be under the influence when they report to work, there is a problem.
Pilots can only be tested for violating these rules if they are suspected of being drunk. This means an intoxicated crew could sit at the controls of a commercial jetliner until they get caught (or crash).
Administering random sobriety tests would address this issue. At least one study has found such testing is associated with a significant drop in alcohol i nvolvement.
But pilot unions have objected to doing so, citing privacy concerns. They have come up with another strategy: misdirection.
Union execs are now blaming the Sunwing incident on Gronych’s “foreign” status. Canada’s Federal Pilot’s Association chief noted, “It is possible (Gronych) had been disciplined for similar behaviour back home” and “might even have had his licence to fly suspended.” The association’s solution? Have government, rather than airlines, check foreign pilot credentials.
Such thinking is flawed for two reasons. Firstly, it assumes that government is better than airlines at detecting harmful behaviour among pilots. Yet there is no evidence to back this up. Secondly, airlines have more incentive than the government does to vet pilots, regardless of where those pilots are from. Airplanes — l i ke t he one Gronych commanded — can cost upwards of $100 million. What airline would knowingly hire a pilot that compromises that investment, let alone the lives of customers? The answer is none.
Union support for such a poorly formulated solution is hardly surprising. While touting their commitment to passenger safety, pilot unions have long supported contradictory positions. Drug testing and psychological testing — important safeguards in the aviation industry — have all been opposed by pilot unions.
So was the cockpit voice recorder ( CVR), commonly known as the black box, which records conversations in the cockpit. Investigators painstakingly go through it when looking for clues after a crash. What aviation would l ook l i ke without the CVR is anyone’s guess.
Why oppose such measures? Because pilot unions are a business, and members caught for failing tests or acting unprofessionally are bad for business. So union bosses fight to ensure pilots can never be held accountable.
The rationale, we’re told, is the pilots’ privacy. Yet, as Bloomberg’s Adam Minter notes, “pilots, as stewards of planes that might contain several hundred passengers, have no more right to privacy in the cockpit than a school bus driver has in the driver’s seat while driving down a busy highway.”
Following the Sunwing incident, federal Transport Minister Marc Garneau said he wanted to ensure “measures” were in place to confirm a pilot’s fitness to fly. Here’s one: Start alcohol testing the nation’s pilots. Our lives depend on it.