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.
Last edited by PLovett; 25th Jan 2010 at 23:59.
Reason: to correct a title