bjcc
I'm concerned that air crew might be misled by your reference to the protocol agreed between the police and the CAA into thinking that means they won't be asked to provide a specimen of breath at the police station or, if they are, they can refuse and insist on providing a blood sample.
It is a protocol which the police have agreed, but it is not part of the legislation and the police are not legally bound by it.
If asked to provide a specimen of breath then, as has already been said correctly: “You don't have any choice about taking a breath test.”
In the LHR / Royal Brunei case, the pilot was required to provide a specimen of breath, and did so. He was then offered the opportunity to provide a sample of blood , which he also did.
A suspect has no right to choose the type of specimen.
If he is required to provide a speciment of breath and refuses then, subject to very limited exceptions, he commits an offence and will be prosecuted.
It would not be a defence to say ‘I offered to provide a sample of blood instead’, nor 'But the Police agreed with the CAA that they'd normally require a blood sample."
The reason for the agreement to which you refer was a concern that the machines were not sufficiently accurate to measure the minute amount of alcohol relevant to aviation cases where the limit is so low that the difference between no alcohol at all and a minute amount of alcohol is the difference between innocent and offence.
I'm told that many machines at police stations near airports have now been calibrated to measure 'aviation' levels accurately, and that all will be in due course. I don't know if that's true but, if/when all are suitable for measuring aviation levels, it's possible the agreement may be terminated as unnecessary - I don't know.
___________________
I agree it’s unlikely there will be an inquiry, but what a pity you couldn’t resist adding: “I doubt it is in the interests of the pilot to have one.”
I’ve noticed in each of these ‘alcohol’ threads that you’re always very quick to come up with some explanation which does or might justify the actions of police officers (all discussions), airport security guards (the LHR/Royal Brunei case), idiotic passengers (the other Manchester incident where a passenger suggested the pilots must have been drinking because it was a heavy landing and the police decided they should breathalise both pilots) and hotel staff (this one), and are vigorous in defending them against any criticism.
In stark contrast, for some reason, you never extend the same generosity of spirit to pilots - and show a marked reluctance to accept that a pilot might actually have behaved impeccably and be completely innocent.