The Second ENRI International Workshop on ATM/CNSTokyo JAPAN, November 10-12, 2010
Understanding the effect of alcohol consumption by
Airline Passengers in Safety Sensitive Aisles

Presenter: J. Bryan Burrows-McElwain

University of Maryland Eastern Shore

Overview
 Review of current Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) legislation that pertains to alcohol consumption
by passengers onboard commercial carriers

 Survey Study- Reliance on available subject survey toassess the impact of education on passenger attitudes
regarding alcohol usage on commercial carriers

 Discussion of Results
 Questions?

Case Study
Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) just after 6
o’clock on February 1st, 1991
Fairchild Metroliner bound for Palmdale California.

At 6:03:40pm (dusk), Skywest Flight 5569(a part
135 Fairchild Metroliner bound for Palmdale
California) was given clearance to taxi into
position for take-off on runway 24L (left) and hold.
Minutes later at 6:05:53pm, the local controller
cleared USAir flight 1493 (a Boeing 737 bound to
LAX from Syracuse, New York [SYR]) for landing
the same runway, 24L (10,285 feet by 150 feet).

Runway 24L

From the NTSB report…
 SKW5569, N683AV, HAD BEEN CLEARED TO RWY 24L, AT INTERSECTION 45, TO
POSITION AND HOLD. THE LOCAL CONTROLLER, BECAUSE OF HER
PREOCCUPATION WITH ANOTHER AIRPLANE, FORGOT SHE HAD PLACED
SKW5569 ON THE RUNWAY AND SUBSEQUENTLY CLEARED USA1493, N388US,
FOR LANDING.
 AFTER THE COLLISION, THE TWO AIRPLANES SLID OFF THE RUNWAY INTO AN
UNOCCUPIED FIRE STATION.
 THE TOWER OPERATING PROCEDURES DID NOT REQUIRE FLIGHT PROGRESSSTRIPS TO BE PROCESSED THROUGH THE LOCAL GROUND CONTROLPOSITION.
 BECAUSE THIS STRIP WAS NOT PRESENT, THE LOCAL CONTROLLER (Tower)
MISIDENTIFIED AN AIRPLANE AND ISSUED A LANDING CLEARANCE.
 All the occupants of the Metroliner, including crew, were killed as a result of the impact.
Twenty-two (22) occupants of the USAir Boeing 737 died as a result of the accident, twoof which were crew members.

Other risk factors affecting crashsurvivability:
Later studies of toxicology reports
implicated alcohol intoxication as a risk
factor for passenger fatality in this accident(Reinhart, 1992).

Li (Li et. al.,1998) determined that intoxicatedpassengers were less able to recognize the hazard,
follow directions and egress in a timely manner.
In fact, during a personal conversation between thescience investigators and the NTSB Board in 1997, it
was determined that one of the passengers on USAir
Flight 1493 had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of
0.24% and was found to have not unfastened his safetybelt.

Li et al.
 Investigators find alcohol in non-pilot

occupants to be twice as much (x 2) as inpilot victims and that positive BACs (over0.09%) exceed twenty (20%) percent.

Title 14 of the US Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 121.575(b),(c)§ 121.575 Alcoholic beverages.
(b) No certificate holder may serve any alcoholic
beverage to any person aboard any of its aircraft who—
(1) Appears to be intoxicated;(c) No certificate holder may allow any person to board
any of its aircraft if that person appears to be
intoxicated.

CFR 121.458 (c)§ 121.458 Misuse of alcohol.
(b) Alcohol concentration. No covered employee shall report for duty or
remain on duty requiring the performance of safety-sensitive functions
while having an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater. No certificate
holder having actual knowledge that an employee has an alcohol
concentration of 0.04 or greater shall permit the employee to perform
or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.
(c) On-duty use. No covered employee shall use alcohol while
performing safety-sensitive functions. No certificate holder having
actual knowledge that a covered employee is using alcohol while
performing safety-sensitive functions shall permit the employee toperform or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.

Unqualified Passengers• Elderly• Those withmedicalconditions• SmallchildrenShould passengers, asked to perform
safety sensitive functions during an
emergency, have to comply with thesame regulations as crew members?

Problem Statement
Currently, there is no requirement restricting alcohol
consumption by passengers seated in safety sensitive
aisles that may be called upon to perform safety duties
in the event of an emergency evacuation of acommercial aircraft carrier.

Culture Prior to deregulation in the 1970s, there was a two

drink minimum for passengers on commercial airlines(Drew, Colquhoum, & Long 1959)
 Under deregulation policies, airlines self-determine
passenger limits Unfortunately, this is prior to departure and prior toany on-board alcohol consumption
 flight crews reserve the right to remove passengers
from that aisle if they feel they cannot execute theirdutiesGeneral affects of alcohol
consumption
 Decreased reaction times
 Decreased tracking ability Decreased spatial judgment
 Difficulty with rudimentary cognition
 Person under the influence is often unaware of theimpairment of performance.
 Supposition: The absence of alcohol intoxication

increases one’s survivability during an emergency
evacuation onboard a commercial airline.

Width not a factor


Researchers conducting egress studies foundincreasing seating spacing had little effect on time
to exit aircraft.
Flow-rates were equivalent for 13” and 25” (Ideal
spacing) passageways. Deviations from those widths
were less effective.

Access to Egress

McLean, Corbett, Larcher, McDown, Palmerton, Porter, Shaffstall(2002). Access-To-Egress I: Interactive Effects of Factors
That Control the Emergency Evacuation of Naïve Passengers
Through the Transport Airplane Type-III Over wing Exit.
DOT/FAA/AM-02/16. FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute.

Access to Egress Knowing that row configurationand seating plays a role in more
speedy evacuations whencombined with prior knowledgeof layout of emergency
equipment operation, locationand the physical attributes andresponses of an average passenger
on board an aircraft operatingwith a type-III over-wing exit
system.
 Thus, any cognitive impairment
or decrement caused by alcohol
consumption would pose a
critical threat to one’s recall
ability (prior knowledge recall)and the overall egress time.

 The effects of alcohol are crippling on humanperformance during aircraft accidents.
 Hypoxia experienced after a rapid decompression is

only worsened by the presence of alcohol in the body,decreasing one’s time of useful consciousness (TUC)
and survivability.

Hypothesis
 Individuals that have an increased knowledge of effects ofalcohol consumption on motor functioning and increased
knowledge of aviation safety factors will be in favor of
requiring passengers seated in safety sensitive aisles aboard
commercial air carriers should be subject to the same
restrictions on alcohol consumption as flight crew
members.
 In addition, Participants given additional knowledge on theeffects of alcohol via a data sheet will be more conservative(toward greater restrictions concerning alcoholic
consumption and impairment levels) in their answers.

Research Design
 Static group comparison
 Surveys were distributed to undergraduate students in

Aviation Science programs.

Population
 Undergraduate students (freshman, sophomore,junior and senior) of various concentrations of the
field of Aviation Sciences n = 127

Research Design One group received learning on the subject matter ofthe effects of alcoholism and flying and one groupsimply completed a survey
 Surveys were administered and collected in person
 Data was collected individually from a Likert-scale

survey administered by this researcher

Data Collection Device A t-test was used to compare the mean responses ofundergraduate aviation students who were given an
informational handout outlining the effects of alcohol on
motor functioning and students not given the handout.
 T-test was used to determine whether the two means weresignificantly different at a selected probability level.
 A Likert-scale questionnaire was utilized. The rating ofanswers was matched with a numeric value with “Strongly
Agree” equaling five points, “Agree Somewhat” equaling
four points, “Undecided” equaling three points, “Disagree
Somewhat” equaling two points, and “Strongly Disagree”
equaling one point.

Instrument ReliabilityThis survey was not field tested or standardized inorder that it could be replicated at any place or time.

Responses could vary based differences in personal
belief, economic factors, and attitudes toward air
carrier operations, drinking, individualism, andsocial responsibility.

Instrument Validity
 A Student’s t-test was utilized to compare theresults of two groups on individual questions. A
survey pretest was conducted prior toadministering the survey. The researcher relied on
the accuracy of SPSS Science, Inc.™ software to
perform the statistical calculations. The researcher
is unaware of any existing flaws in the program.
For the purpose of this study, alpha () is set at
0.05.

Results
 Question #5: Alcohol should be served on-board
domestic Airlines.
Histogram

50

Frequency

40

30

20

10

Mean = 3.06
Std. Dev. = 1.187
N = 127

0
0

1

2

3

4

QuestionFive

5

6

 Question #5: Alcohol should be served on-board domestic

Airlines. The mode response for this question overall was
Agree (4.0).
 This indicates that the survey population does not wish

to enforce an overall alcohol ban on all airline
passengers as a whole.
 When this researcher conducted the t-test to distinguishthe two groups from each other, it found that the data
given group was more in favor of alcohol being served onboard airlines than the no data group. This may indicatethat the informed group was more interested in applying
restrictions only to individuals performing safety functions
while on-board the aircraft.

Results
 Question #6: All passengers should be screened
for intoxication prior to boarding.
Histogram

50

Frequency

40

30

20

10

Mean = 3.07
Std. Dev. = 1.216
N = 127

0
0

1

2

3

4

QuestionSix

5

6

 Question #6: All passengers should be screened for intoxication

prior to boarding.
 Again, the overall mode for this question was Agree (4.0).
 This indicates that the survey population is for passenger

screening. Passenger screening would allow air carrier crew toenforce the existing regulation restricting intoxicated passengers
from boarding domestic carriers for flight.
 The data given group was more in agreement with a group meanof 3.17 and the no data given group was not in agreement with agroup mean of 2.97. The information given in the data sheet
influenced the student’s response to answer more in agreement
to this statement due to the details regarding error rates,
decreased cognitive ability and performance.

Results

 Question #7: Passengers occupying emergency exit

rows should be screened for intoxication prior toboarding.
Histogram

50

Frequency

40

30

20

10

Mean = 3.84
Std. Dev. = 1.072
N = 127

0
0

1

2

3

4

QuestionSeven56 Question #7: Passengers occupying emergency exit rows

should be screened for intoxication prior to boarding.
 The mode response for this question was Agree (4.0).
 This question solicited the highest overall mean score of all

the survey questions. The overall mean indicated 3.84 as
the average response.
 Clearly, the majority of the population group is forscreening of the exit rows. As predicted, the data givenmeans exceeded the no data given means (3.87 and 3.81
respectively).
 More students strongly agreed with this statement after
reading the informational data sheet.

Results

 Question #8: A Blood Alcohol Content of .04 or

greater would impair my ability to operate an
emergency exit door during an evacuation.
Histogram

50

Frequency

40

30

20

10

Mean = 3.43
Std. Dev. = 1.144
N = 127

0
0

1

2

3

4

QuestionEight5

6

 Question #8: A Blood Alcohol Content of .04 or greater

would impair my ability to operate an emergency exit
door during an evacuation.

 The mode response for this question was Agree (4.0).

Both groups had almost identical means approaching
3.4.

 With or without the data, respondents agreed that a

BAC of 0.04 or more would impair one’s ability toegress from the emergency exit.

 This result is likely due to the student’s knowledge of

regulations for crew regarding BAC levels andperformance.

Results

 Question #9: A Blood Alcohol Content of .04 or

less would inhibit my ability to operate an
emergency exit door during an evacuation.
Histogram

50

Frequency

40

30

20

10

Mean = 2.83
Std. Dev. = 1.139
N = 127

0
0

1

2

3

4

QuestionNine

56 Question #9: A Blood Alcohol Content of .04 or less would inhibit

my ability to operate an emergency exit door during anevacuation.

 The mode response to this question was Disagree (2.0). The nodata given group was less in agreement with this statement thanthe data given group.

 Both groups lean toward disagreement but the group given data

sheet leans even greater toward disagreement.

 The no data group had more students that agreed with thisstatement than the data given group.

 This researcher can not give a reason for why this may haveoccurred. The hypothesis predicted that the data given groupwould have had more respondents answer Agree or Strongly
Agree due to the material covered regarding error rates with BAC
lower than 0.04.

Results
 Question #10: The current alcohol restrictions on

passengers and crew provide a sufficient margin ofsafety for flight.
Histogram

60

50Frequency

40

30

20

10
Mean = 3.5
Std. Dev. = 0.881
N = 123

0
1

2

3

4

QuestionTen

5

6 Question #10: The current alcohol restrictions on passengers andcrew provide a sufficient margin of safety for flight.
 The mode response for this question was Agree (4.0). Althoughboth groups individually responded closely to the combined meanof 3.5, the no data group agreed more (3.52) and the data given
group was less in agreement(3.47).
 Both groups answered relatively the same regarding theirimpression of the overall safety of flight.
 The data given groups response is, however, slightly lesssupportive of the statement. This is likely due to the influence ofthe data sheet that exposes the cognitive impairment and increasein error at significantly lower Blood Alcohol Contents (BAC).

Results
 Question #11: Passengers occupying an emergency exit row that may have toperform duties similar to flight crew members during an emergency should meetthe same restrictions regarding alcohol consumption as flight crew members.
Histogram

60

50Frequency

40

30

20

10
Mean = 3.67
Std. Dev. = 1.134
N = 123

0
0

1

2

3

4

QuestionEleven56 Question #11: Passengers occupying an emergency exit row that may

have to perform duties similar to flight crew members during an
emergency should meet the same restrictions regarding alcohol
consumption as flight crew members.

 The mode response to this question was Agree (4.0). This question

solicited the highest percentage of Agree responses (46%) and thehighest Strongly Agree responses (22.8%)of all the survey questions.

 Regardless of information given, the survey population agrees thatflight crew requirements regarding alcohol restriction should beapplied to passengers that are expected to perform crew duties during
an emergency.

 Based on the responses for Question #8 regarding a BAC of 0.04 andhigher, this researcher expected lower numbers from the no datagroup. This was not the case.

 The no data group had more students answer that they strongly agreed

to this question than the data given group. Clearly, another
determining factor is at play here that is not being measured directly by
the survey tool.

Conclusions
 Educating the public on safety related issues that affectthem does have an impact on their decision making andopinion on policy (or lack thereof).
 The research found that students educated on the

debilitating effects alcohol were more in favor of greater
restrictions and monitoring of alcohol consumption bypassengers in exit rows who must perform safety sensitive
functions in the event of an emergency.

Conclusions
Students disagree more with the use of alcohol by all
passengers after reviewing the data sheet.
Even though both groups responded in agreementwith the statement regarding the current alcohol
restrictions and the margin of safety being adequate(Question #10), the group that reviewed the data sheet
was less in agreement then that the group with noadditional information.

Conclusions
Student responses indicated that both groups (thosereceiving educational data and those not) are notconvinced that a BAC of 0.04 is enough impairment toaffect one’s level of safety onboard a commercial
aircraft.

Conclusions
Not a single student strongly disagreed with thestatement regarding the need for passengers who
would be operating the emergency exit doors to comply
with the same regulations covering the flight crew(Question #11). Implication: student population
Both student groups answered more in agreement for(Question #7) the testing for BAC of passengers
occupying the exit row seat.

Conclusions
The student population surveyed was supportive oflimiting alcohol consumption to passengers sitting inemergency exit rows and testing their BAC levels toverify their eligibility to perform those duties.

Conclusions
The data that is most paradoxical is the results from
Question #10. The researcher can not tell whether the data
sheet was effective or not. If the researcher had given thegroup 2 (data given) students a test without the data sheet
and then given them another survey after having them readthe data sheet.
One might be able to measure whether or not the answer
was more influenced by the information given. This
technique, however, would have tipped the students off to
the researcher’s hypothesis and may have skewed the dataand influence students to answer in such a way as tosupport that hypothesis

Recommendations
 The airline industry might consider a policy limiting,if not restricting, alcohol to passengers seated in aisles
that would require them to perform safety sensitive
duties during emergency operation.

Recommendations
 Both survey group’s means supported the use ofmeasuring the BAC levels of passengers in the safety
aisles before flight if there is reasonable suspicion.
 This could be implemented voluntarily by the airlines

themselves or made a requirement under Title 14 of
the Code of Federal Regulations for domestic air
carriers.

Why is this important?

Risk Assessment Matrix

Questions?

Survey Questionsa) Alcohol should be served on-board domestic Airlines. The researcher
expected participants to disagree more after the training;b) All passengers should be screened for intoxication prior to boarding.
The researcher expected this answer to have no change or lean slightly
more toward disagreement;c) Passengers occupying emergency exit rows should be screened forintoxication prior to boarding. The researcher expected this response
to be more in agreement after the training;d) A Blood Alcohol Content of .04 or greater would impair my ability tooperate an emergency exit door during an evacuation. The researcher
expected this response to be more in agreement after the training;Survey Questionse) A Blood Alcohol Content of .04 or less would inhibit my ability tooperate an emergency exit door during an evacuation. The researcher
expected this response to be more in agreement after the training;f) The current alcohol restrictions on passengers and crew provide a
sufficient margin of safety for flight. The researcher expected this
response to have increased disagreement after the training;g) Passengers occupying an emergency exit row that may have to perform
duties similar to flight crew members during an emergency should meetthe same restrictions regarding alcohol consumption as flight crew
members (BAC <.04, 8 hours since last alcoholic beverage). The
researcher expected this response to be more in agreement after the
training. Subgroups based on sex, age, aviation concentration, andstudent classification should occur.