CASA random alcohol tests

[Angle of Attack]

Hi all,

Just some info regards to the CASA testing particularly in relation to the alcohol testing. As you all are surely aware the limit for alcohol testing is 0.02. If the first test is positive then the second is done 20 mins later as a confirmation. I have not read in deep detail in the rules so I am not sure whether a blood test confirmation can be requested or not. I have already been tested 2 times, yeah no problem as we may all think but have since discovered an interesting or maybe worrying thing.

Last Xmas I received a breathalyzer as a present, and not a too shabby one, worth a few hundred bucks and reads to 3 decimal places. It's a fairly handy piece of kit, gave me some idea how long it takes to get under the driving limit, and have been using it randomly the last few weeks. I heard a few rumours regarding toothpaste containing alcohol through the traps, and tested myself a few times after with no reading at all. Several days ago after a new toothpaste (I just buy whatever is the cheapest at the time) I resulted in a 0.25 reading!! (immediately after brushing my teeth) (and I had not had an alcoholic drink for 3 days prior) I could not believe it! But the toothpaste I bought was one of those fancy Whitening super fresh Colgate ones, that usually I don't buy. )You know the ones that leave that cool feeling in your mouth. I did some research and indeed some of those toothpastes contain alcohol to leave that cool fresh aftertaste.

The worrying aspect I did around a dozen tests over a few days and in general it took me 28 mins after brushing my teeth to reduce to 0.02 reading. Sometimes up to 40mins. Well I guess not so worrying unless you brush your teeth just as you sign on but I found it quite surprising how long it took for supposedly small alcohol traces to leave your breath content. Just some food for thought, I thopught it was surprising. :ok:

[ZappBrannigan]

This needs to be stated again I think - you CANNOT legally fly with a BAC of .02. The limit is zero - and once the equipment tolerances are applied, your reading cannot be above 0.02, or you'll be stood down. This does not mean it's ok to have a BAC of 0.02. Someone at CASA should be shot for releasing all those posters with the huge ".02" printed on them - especially as a number of companies have them in view of pax in buildings/lounges. Everyone should be told the limit is ZERO - and of course, the testing officer will apply any tolerance to the equipment.

If 0.02 was the actual BAC limit, you could quite legally have a beer with lunch and go and fly a commercial op 30 minutes later. I've heard some flight attendants actually discussing this - how they could "legally fly a bit tipsy cause of the 0.02 rule" - and I'm sure a pax's first impression of that poster would be "my pilot could legally have had a beer an hour ago".

As for your question - breathalisers, even the more expensive ones, are not perfect items. A high reading immediately after brushing teeth/using mouthwash etc. is due to mouth alcohol. A reading 30 minutes later should not occur unless you've actually consumed the item - so it's probably equipment error - which leads back to the whole CASA thing.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

The CASA testing officer will also ask you if you have used breath fresheners, mints etc recently.

Zero limit, Spot on ZB.:ok:

[YPJT]

Slight thread drift here but in a discussion with someone the other day we discussed what appears to be a real can of worms.

OK, so you are a charter pilot working for an operation that has a few mining clients doing FIFO transfers. Your company as an AOC holder has a Part 99 DAMP in place. Now the mining strips being certified, also have DAMPs to cover their people such as reporting officers, bag chuckers, refuelers etc.

Here's the dilemma then. An interpretation is being made that as your company is contracted by the mining organisation, you are effectively a contractor to them and therefore covered by their DAMP. This could theoretically apply to every mining strip you fly into.

I personally think this is something of a long bow being drawn. You are already covered by your comapany's DAMP and subject to random testing by CASA. Why should you also be subject to it by a third party?

Appreciate other's thoughts on the matter. I suggested to my mate he refer it to the mining company's legal department.

[Kelly Slater]

If you fly into a mine site, you are generally required to meet the same requirements as any other contractor. If they have random testing in place, you may be selected. You may also be tested by your own company or CASA or the police on the way to or from work. It's a brave new world. Personal or professional integrity no longer count.

[Angle of Attack]

Well regardless if its 0.02 or zero, it is still worrying is it not? I did a quick tooth brush on a night out and even the cops equpiment gave me a 0.10 reading around 10 mins later. My reader gave 0.09 a min later, I wouldnt discount todays technology. I am not arguing whether you can have 0.02 or 0 just a heads up! :)

And Zap as for your zero limit assertion, if one gets done for 0.019 then 10 mins later 0.019 are you saying they are stood down? If not well sorry the limit IS 0.02. Hell you could have a beer a few hours before and your reading is 0 so what is the difference.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

I got a "random" test the other day.
Used the result to satisfy the new employment DAMP requirement without having to pay for a private test. Cheers, CASA!:E:ok::}

[pcx]

Zapp

I don't think you are quite correct.

CAR 1988 256 is the reg.

256 Intoxicated persons not to act as pilots etc or be
carried on aircraft
(1) A person shall not, while in a state of intoxication, enter any
aircraft.
Penalty: 5 penalty units.
(2) A person acting as a member of the operating crew of an
aircraft, or carried in the aircraft to act as a member of the
operating crew, shall not, while so acting or carried, be in a
state in which, by reason of his or her having consumed, used,
or absorbed any alcoholic liquor, drug, pharmaceutical or
medicinal preparation or other substance, his or her capacity so
to act is impaired.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(3) A person shall not act as, or perform any duties or functions
preparatory to acting as, a member of the operating crew of an
aircraft if the person has, during the period of 8 hours
immediately preceding the departure of the aircraft consumed
any alcoholic liquor.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(4) A person who is on board an aircraft as a member of the
operating crew, or as a person carried in the aircraft for the
purpose of acting as a member of the operating crew, shall not
consume any alcoholic liquor.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

Basically this says 2 things.

You as the pilot may not act as a pilot if you have consumed any alcoholic liquor within the 8 hours preceeding the departure of the aircraft. In essence this means that you are not allowed to have any alcoholic liquor even if it is only one light stubby. In this case if you have had only one stubby say 7 hours previous to departure you would have a BAC of 0 but would still not be legal to fly. You may also not consume any alcoholic liquor during the flight.

The second requirement is that you may not have your capacity to act as a crew member impaired by the consumption of alcohol or drugs etc. So you can not have a big night out wait 8 hours and then go flying if you are still impaired.

The big problem with this is that the definition and assesment of impaired is very difficult.

I do not think it is correct to state that the BAC limit is 0.

Having said the above I have to state that I have not bothered to study the DAMP requirements so there may be extra requirements specified there.

As an ex Ambo I have absolutely no time for drink drivers and even less for any pilot who may fly while affected by alcohol or drugs and I have no problem with the concept of pilots cabin crew etc having a zero BAC I just do not think that the regulations as they are written require this. ( Again with the proviso that I am excluding any DAMP requirements).

The concept of CAR 256 has been misunderstood by a lot of pilots for as long as I have been involved in aviation, especially the "8 hours bottle to throttle".

[Keg]

...after a new toothpaste...I resulted in a 0.25 reading!!

Copper mates of mine reckon that a king size cherry ripe will deliver the same result. Gone after 10 minutes or so.

[ZappBrannigan]

I understand what you're saying, and I agree with your intepretation of those regs. Although I can't find any reg that actually states a zero limit, anything above zero would surely be covered by the "his or her capacity so to act is impaired" bit. Granted, it's a tricky legal definition, same as the word "reasonable". I can't find a specific reference to the 0.02 thing either.

Yes, apologies, of course you can't have a beer with lunch regardless of the 0.02 thing, as it would infringe the 8 hour rule. I put that in there to make the point about what is interpreted as an "acceptable BAC" by some.

AoA, no you wouldn't be stood down for those readings. Your testing limit is 0.02, and you're under both times.

I just feel that no information would have been better than their advertising campaign, as many people now think it's quite acceptable to fly with a BAC. I can imagine the first time this is tested in court.

I would like to see a zero BAC specifically mentioned in the regs somewhere. Even thinking about it logically - how, especially in this day and age, could CASA get away with telling commercial pilots flying commercial operations that they can legally have alcohol in their blood when they fly, as long as they didn't drink for 8 hours and they feel it doesn't "impair" them?

[KopitePilot]

As I understand it, the reason the level is 0.02 rathet than 0.00 is due ot some people having medical conditions (possibly diabetes?) which naturally give them a positive reading no matter if they've not had a drink for 2 years.

It may be BS but that's what I have been lead to believe.

[PLovett]

The breathalysers used by the police and presumably CASA and or the DAMP agents are screening devices only. They are not accurate enough to on which to base a prosecution. That is why the 0.02 reading is there to allow for the inaccuracies in the device.

The breath analysis machine the police use is the only one capable of delivering an accurate result sufficient to base a prosecution and then only if certain precautions are taken in its operation. Even then there are several deeming provisions in the legislation to make it work and I have spoken to a former chief government analyst for Tasmania who detested the machine and was very sceptical of its accuracy.

Given the dogs breakfast of Commonwealth legislation and more specifically, aviation legislation, I suspect the first time it is used in court will prove a bonanza for defence lawyers.

YPJT, the situation you allude to actually occurred in SA last year where a FIFIO crew inadvertently got caught up in the mining company's drug and alcohol screening program. Much embarrassment all round.

Owen Stanley, the advice is pretty general and is based on a very conservative metabolisation rate. The amount of alcohol you consume is a given - for example, most stubbies of full strength beer have 0.0289% alcohol/volume. It is the rate at which that is metabolised that varies and it varies considerably.

What is extremely worrying is a story told by a good friend. He volunteered for a test when CASA were going around the airport demonstrating the new system. He returned a positive test, twice. The second test also revealed more than alcohol. It was finally resolved when CASA advised that the testing procedure back in the laboratory had been totally compromised and that his actual readings were zero. Thankfully his employer had full confidence in him and were prepared to stand behind and support him.

I also understand that CASA did not want DAMP. It was foisted on them by a bureaucracy that was selling it to the politicians as a necessary safety issue.

[Rusty1970]

I've always thought it insane that Police Departments or Governments (whomever does it) give advice on how much you can drink and drive i.e. 2 standard drinks in the first hour and one every hour afterYeah this was a bit of a problem so Government/RTA/Police advertising (at least in NSW but I think otherwise) no longer gives "counting drinks" advice and hasn't for some time. Too much variability in an individual's reaction or BAC. Most places simply say if you're going to drink at all, don't drive nowadays.

[foqa]

I believe if you return a positive breath result it can be followed up by a blood test which will eliminate any alcohol reading caused by residual alcohol in the mouth and give a more accurate result than a breath test alone.

[mustafagander]

Here we have a solution desperately seeking a problem.

AFAIK the drug screening is fatally compromised. I can live with the massive waste of everyone's time and resources, but the fact that the screening test simply is not reliable makes the whole concept a cruel joke on the pilot community.

The cost to the airlines can be massive. Think about a long haul crew from SYD to LAX say - 1 pilot has a false positive to the screening test, stood down, call out a replacement. The replacement will most likely arrive at the office after the latest departure time for the rest of the crew - there's often not much fat in the times - so we replace the whole crew. This costs everyone a lot of money directly, the airline because of the extra pilots called from reserve and the individual pilots who lose pay credits, overtime and DTA.

The blood samples are processed and a few days later the results show that it was a false positive. I wonder whether there would be grounds for legal action given that CASA knows that the tests will throw up false positives?

[ozbiggles]

It is most effective as a deterrent
Its the same argument from people who get caught speeding. If you know someone who has been killed by speed or drink drivers your point of view would change.
If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have a problem. Vodka flavored toothpaste (mmmm, there's an idea) or not.
And If your dumb enough to flirt with 0.02 you deserve to lose your job.

[topdrop]

Every time I have been stopped for RBT, I have been asked have I been drinking. The answer had always been no until the last time, when I said I had one beer and finished it about 5 mins ago. I was sent on my way without being tested, as the policeman said he had to wait 20mins before testing me to ensure no alcohol was left in the mouth.

[Mainframe]

Kopitepilot

Hi, you're close to the mark.

Its not just medical conditions. Blood sugars may ferment, giving readings up to 0.02%.

Post mortems on verifiable non drinkers have returned such BAC readings, hence the need to be sensible about where to set the minimum level.

The legislation was introduced as a reaction to the Hamilton Island PA32 fatal tragedy, which also revealed positives to cannabis.

In my 40 yrs of flying, I have only known of two pilots who thought it was ok to fly after drinking.

One is now deceased due old age, the other is still flying in a SAR role.

The CARs do not define a BAC, but they do preclude flying within 8 hrs of consuming alcohol.

Given that, the 8 hrs bottle to throttle usually worked, unless there was an over indulgence.

Pilots, as a rule, are generally intelligent enough to think this through.

If you have a fatal prang, regardless of your drinking habits, the autopsy may reveal up to 0.02% anyway.

Hope this clears things up a bit.