BlackSword
I've answered all your points and corrected your more important errors individually - see my previous post.
"urine tests could lead to serious miscarriages."
You may be right. I don't know the answer; I am neither a doctor nor a scientist. Perhaps you've discovered a flaw which has evaded all the experts who've considered this aspect over the decades, and continue to do so. If so, the Court of Appeal will be inundated with appeals by tens of thousands of victims of miscarriages of justice. Those who've been convicted on breath or blood evidence will no doubt wait in eager anticipation for your next discovery.
I'm not interested in discussing whether urine evidence should be admissible. Perhaps it won't be in the future but, for the moment, it is. If you're right, legislation will have to be changed. That's for Parliament, not the courts.
In practice, if the police go further than an evidential breath-test, they usually ask for a blood sample rather than urine - it avoids the unpleasant task of obtaining a urine sample from a drunk.
"The cutoff levels set for alcohol certainly will impair an individuals ability to drive."
Oh dear, we're back to that again. I suspected you didn't really understand the difference beween the two offences despite your protestations to the contrary.
No levels have been set for drugs at all ........ could get messy.
I dount if there will be set levels for drugs. The 'Unfit' offence doesn't require proof of drugs in the body above a prescribed level. Evidence of any intoxicating drug, at any quantity if combined with evidence of unfitness is what matters. The drug-screening procedure is set out in the Act at Section 76 and Schedule 7.
Professional pilots have always been generous with their expertise and experience (and the occasional interesting flight) and my aviation work with the industry pays me well for something I enjoy. One way I try to give something back is by helping with legal issues as they arise on PPRuNe. I've responded to your latest post out of courtesy. I hope others won't think it unreasonable if I don't to respond to you again.
PS: You mentioned Jetblast earlier for some reason. There are some good debates, but people frequently repeat their pet point over and over, often with complete disregard for whether it really adds anything to the topic. You might enjoy it.
==============================
[Edit]
Daysleeper
Part 5.5 of the FODCOM says someone who's been arrested and taken to a police station after testing positive in the initial/preliminary breath-test will be asked to provide a further specimen of breath, blood or urine for laboratory analysis and adds, as you say, "In practice, this will usually be a specimen of blood, taken by a Police doctor."
The ATSIN says "In practice this will usually take the form of a laboratory analysis of a sample of the suspected offender’s blood or urine."
Either way (blood/blood or urine), I can't find any basis in the Act for the CAA's suggestions. I'll look again and, if I can't find the answer, I'll speak to the CAA and come back to you - It may be contained in a Protocol agreed with the Police.
In the interim, if someone else knows the answer, I hope they'll post it here.
Tudor Owen
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 12th Jan 2004 at 04:07.