Alcohol and Flying: The New Law

[Flying Lawyer]

Present Position: Air Navigation Order
The ANO provides that no member of an aircraft’s crew, LAME or ATC officer shall be under the influence of drink or drugs to such an extent as to impair his/her capacity to so act.
The current law does not set a blood alcohol limit, and does not require a person suspected of a drink or drugs offence to submit to a breath-test.


New Law: RAILWAYS and TRANSPORT SAFETY ACT 2003

Summary:
* The Police will have testing and enforcement powers broadly in line with those currently applied to motorists.

* A police officer will have power to require a breath-test if he has a reasonable suspicion that an offence either has been, or is in the process of being, committed.

* Enforcement is the responsibility of the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

* There is no provision for random testing.

* Crew members should not commence a flight duty period with a blood/alcohol level in excess of 20mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. (ie One-quarter of that allowed to motorists.) If they do, they risk prosecution.
Note: Courts will not have power to disqualify / suspend licences. Any licensing action remains the responsibility of the CAA.


Is the new Act in force?
Not yet.
It will come into force in early 2004.


To whom does the Act apply?
Flight Crew, CC, ATC and LAMEs in the UK
and
to the crew of British registered aircraft anywhere in the world.


What are the new Offences?

Being Unfit for Duty (Section 92)
Performing an "aviation function", or carrying out an activity that is "ancillary to an aviation function", at a time when your ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs. (“Drug” includes any intoxicant other than alcohol.)


Alcohol Exceeding the Prescribed Limit (Section 93)
Performing 'an aviation function', or carrying out an activity that is 'ancillary to an aviation function', at a time when the proportion of alcohol in your breath, blood or urine exceeds the 'prescribed limit.'


What are the Prescribed Limits?
Pilot
FE
CC
Navigator
In-flight R/T operator
persons on the flight deck during flight to give or supervise training, administer a test, observe a period of practice or to monitor or record the gaining of experience
and
ATC officers :
Breath: 9 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.
Blood: 20 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.
Urine: 27 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.

(LAMEs - Breath: 35/100, blood: 80/100, urine: 107/100.)


What are 'Aviation Functions'?
Under Section 94, 'aviation functions' are -
pilot,
navigator,
flight engineer,
flight R/T operator,
Cabin Crew,
attending the flight deck of an aircraft during flight to give or supervise training, to administer a test, to observe a period of practice or to monitor or record the gaining of experience,
licensed ATC, and
LAMEs.


What are 'Ancillary Functions'?
An activity will be treated as 'ancillary to an aviation function' if it is undertaken by a person who has reported for duty in respect of the function and -
as a requirement of,
or for the purpose of,
or in connection with,
the performance of the aviation function during the period of duty.

Note: If, under the terms of your employment, you are holding yourself ready to perform an aviation function if called upon, you will be treated as carrying out an ancillary function. So, if you're on standby under the terms of your employment, the law will apply.


Who has Power to Conduct a Preliminary Test?

Section 96 gives the police power to require a person to co-operate with a preliminary test (i.e. a breathalyser test) where:
(a) a constable reasonably suspects that the person is over the prescribed limit, or his/her ability to perform his/her aviation function is impaired through either drink or drugs,

(b) a constable reasonably suspects that the person has been over the prescribed limit or impaired through drink or drugs, and still has alcohol or a drug in his/her body or is still under the influence of a drug,

(c) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person was
undertaking an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft at the time of the accident, or

(d) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person has
undertaken an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft.
Note: The Police will determine when to test based on reasonable suspicion that either someone is over the prescribed limit, under the influence of alcohol and drugs, or following an accident.


What constitutes Reasonable Grounds for Suspicion?
Facts, and even information/intelligence relevant to the likelihood of an offence.


What constitutes an 'accident'?
For the purpose of this Act, an accident is defined as an unintended event with adverse physical effect.


Do the Police have a Right of Entry ?
Yes.
Under Section 98, a police constable in uniform may board an aircraft, or enter any place, if he reasonably suspects that he may wish to exercise a power by virtue of Section 96 (power to administer tests, etc.) or under Section 97 (arrest without a warrant) in respect of a person who is or may be on the aircraft or may be in that place.


What Test Equipment will be used?
A breathalyser will be used to obtain an indication of the level of alcohol present in your body. It's a 'screening test' or 'field test' only.
You will not be prosecuted on the result of the field test, even if it shows your alcohol level is over the prescribed limit.


What happens if my Breathalyser Test is Positive?
You will be arrested, taken to a Police station and asked to provide a further specimen of breath, blood or urine for laboratory analysis. In practice, you are most likely to be asked to provide a sample of blood.

Once a blood sample has been taken you will be released from the Police station on condition to return at a later date, by which time the Police part of the sample will have been analysed.

The Police may detain you at the Police station until it appears to the Custody Officer that there is no likelihood of you carrying out, or attempting to carry out, an aviation function whilst still over the prescribed limit or otherwise impaired through alcohol or drugs.

If (when you return to the police station to learn the results of the analysis) the sample shows you were over the limit, you will be charged and given a date to attend court.


May I refuse to provide a Specimen?
Not unless you have a 'reasonable excuse.'
In 99.9% of cases, the short answer is that you may not refuse.
NB: Failing to provide a specimen without reasonable excuse is itself an offence.


Will the Information be Disclosed?
If the Police acquire information giving cause for serious concern that a person performing a safety aviation function is unsuited to hold that position of trust, such information may be passed to that person’s employer or licensing Authority on grounds of public safety or for the prevention or detection of crime.
This may occur even before a sample of blood or urine has been analysed or the person has been charged.


What are the Penalties?
The penalties (set out in section 95) are the same as those currently applying to aircrew and air traffic controllers under Article 122 of the ANO:
On conviction in a magistrates court: Fine
On conviction on indictment in a Crown Court: Fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.


General:
The reason for the 20mg level is that we can all create small amounts of our own alcohol. This may appear in our blood as an alcohol level, but it will not reach 20mg per 100ml, and anyone who is breath or blood tested to that level is likely to have ingested alcohol in the recent past.

It is impossible to construct any meaningful chart that an individual can use to predict a future alcohol level after a period of drinking.
We absorb and excrete alcohol at very different rates. These depend on factors such as sex, body weight, tolerance to alcohol, and the presence of food.


Warning:

Flight crew and cabin crew should not commence duty for at least eight hours after taking small amounts of alcohol, and proportionally longer if larger amounts have been consumed.

Although it's likely that if a person consumes a maximum of five units of alcohol dispersed over some hours before the eight hour ban, his or her blood alcohol level will be zero at the end of the ban, it cannot be guaranteed.

Rough Guide: Half a pint of ordinary strength beer (3-3.5%) contains one unit of alcohol.





Please don't blame me for the language. Believe it or not, this is more readable than the original. ;)

Tudor Owen



.

[pilotwolf]

I may have missed something here - it is 0135hrs!

But it all seems to apply to commercial operations. How does it relate to private pilots and non - commercial ops?

PW

[Airbubba]

Attitudes toward drinking among crewmembers are starting to change in the UK as they did years ago in the U.S. after the Northwest Airlines Fargo incident. Random testing doesn't solve all the problems but it sure gives you a little conscience when deciding to have another.

______________________________________


Boozing is 'part of the cabin crew culture'

By Terry Kirby, Chief Reporter
23 December 2003


Four years ago, an embarrassed British Airways was forced to sack two of its pilots after they were filmed by Channel 4 Television indulging in heavy drinking bouts only hours before flying.

As public confidence in its pilots wavered, the airline launched an inquiry and vowed to crack down on alcohol abuse among its flight crews. Yet, just a few weeks ago, a BA pilot and a first officer both resigned after allegedly consuming alcohol before take-off from Oslo. And yesterday, after a Virgin captain was arrested in Washington over the weekend when alcohol was allegedly smelt on his breath, The Independent revealed that the airline pilots' union is refusing to allow its members to be subjected to random breath tests.

The rules are straightforward and strict: pilots are not allowed to drink for eight hours before flying and must keep alcohol consumption at moderate levels in the 24 hours before duty.

Although both airlines and the British Airline Pilots' Association reject suggestions of a drinking culture, anecdotal stories continue to emerge of pilots and cabin crews boozing late into the night before early morning flights, of mouthwashes kept close at hand to disguise alcohol on the breath and of crews being taken to airports straight from clubs.

After the Oslo incident, Richard Faulkner, a former cabin crew member sacked for drinking, said: "If the public had any idea of how much they knocked back, they'd never get on a flight. Drinking is a way of life at BA; it's part of the culture.''

About 12 to 15 pilots each year are investigated for alcohol abuse, because they have been convicted of drink-driving or their employers have registered concern. Only about two or three lose their licences, out of about 10,000 British pilots. In the past six years, only four BA pilots have been dismissed, as well as the two in Oslo who resigned. Virgin said the weekend incident was the only one of its kind in 20 years of flying.

Jamie Bowden, who worked for BA for 20 years, latterly as a manager at various airports, said he believed the "bottle to throttle'' rules were largely observed.

On the shorter European routes, with a late-night arrival followed by an early morning departure, he said the timing did not allow for drinking. And he believed that pilots would eventually accept random testing, rather than have it foisted upon them.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/story.jsp?story=475694

[BEagle]

"Crew members of commercial aircraft should not commence a flight duty period with a blood/alcohol level in excess of 20mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. ie One-quarter of that allowed to motorists and reflects JAR-OPS adopted by the JAA."

FL - does it really say 'should' rather than 'shall' not? Because 'should' is defined under JARs as being a recommendation only, whereas 'shall' refers to a mandatory requirement.

Thus this would seem merely to 'recommend' a limit, not mandate one.


Incidentally, 20 years ago it was common for the temporary cabin staff on at least one charter airline to add a little taste to the flight crew's fruit salad from a miniature bottle of Drambuie or something similar from the bar.... Or so one told me. But not if there was a checker on board!

Personally I'm totally against the idea of random testing from some constable wandering about the flight despatch or airside areas. 'Peer reporting' seems to work OK - I think BALPA has got it right. Do we really want to live in the police state that some seem to advocate?

[Jet II]

Todays Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/airlines/story/0,1371,1112112,00.html) has yet more on BALPA refusal to accept random testing.

British Airways has been trying to introduce random tests since a television documentary exposed lurid tales of drinking on overnight stop-overs three years ago.

Balpa has fought the proposals, insisting it favours a regime of "peer intervention", whereby colleagues who suspect that a pilot has a drink problem intervene to help.

Jim McAuslan, Balpa's general secretary, pointed out that random testing in the US had produced just 38 positive results out of 38,000 tests.

However, the aviation industry is out of line with other transport. Many rail operators, including Midland Mainline and freight firm EWS, impose random tests on train drivers with union cooperation.

Mick Blackburn, assistant general secretary of the rail union Aslef, said most drivers were supportive of the practice. "We recognise that the public need to trust that the driver of a train hasn't been drinking before coming on duty," he said.

The TGWU said it had no problem with random tests imposed by haulage companies on drivers. A spokes-woman said the union was "fully supportive" in making sure drivers "are capable of driving safely".



Can anyone in the hierarchy at BALPA give any idea as to why they are so adamantly against random testing? - as Random testing is used in the US is BALPA not out of step with the industry standard?

Also its very bad publicity when Train drivers accept the need for random testing and flight crew don't - perhaps BALPA needs someone with a bit more nous for publicity, Max Clifford anyone?

[Flying Lawyer]

pilotwolf

Enforcement
The Act extends to Flight Crew ........... in the UK
and
to the crew of a British registered aircraft anywhere in the world.

ie Flight Crew= Flight Crew whether General Aviation or commercial ops.

==============


BEagle

I suggested they "should not" because, if they do, they will be committing an offence and risk being prosecuted.

See ~

Offences - Being Unfit for Duty (Section 92)
and
Offences – Prescribed Limit (Section 93)


Tudor

[Moonraker One]

Strongly agree there should be random testing of all pilots.

But why all the fuss about booze and drugs when the real killer is a moment of inattention caused by fatigue?

It is unsafe for UK airline pilots to work 60 hours a week and 7 days in a row before a single day off.

Wakey wake UK CAA!

The working time directive should apply to transport workers.

[Sniff]

CAA FODCOM here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200328.pdf)

[Tandemrotor]

Moonraker One;

Good point, simple answer;

It's about politics, not performance!

[bjcc]

I doubt if Police would want to go wandering airside areas in the hope of catching a pilot out.
Would it not be better for airlines to install a hand held machine in the loo of where ever pilots check in? That way, if someone thinks they may have had too much the night before they can do a sneeky check before they check in? Doing it before checking in should get round the ancilary fuction bit, and possibly save thier licence.

FL..

Does the fact that the offence can be commited 'anywher in the world' mean that an aledged offence in say the US could be dropped in favour of a UK court taking juristiction more promptly?

[Flying Lawyer]

bjcc

That would be for the prosecuting authority in the country where you are charged to decide.
I suspect it's unlikely a prosecution would be dropped for 'territorial' reasons once proceedings have commenced.



[Edit]

Re "I doubt if Police would want to go wandering airside areas in the hope of catching a pilot out."

Perhaps not.
But if some security screener (or anyone else) decides to report his/her suspicions, either because he regards it as his 'duty' or because a pilot has upset him, the police would undoubtedly go into action.

[wasdale]

When will people realise that alcoholism is a disease and a mild form of insanity? A pilot suffering from this terrible affliction may know well before he drinks that he/she should not be drinking so soon before a flight, but nevertheless he/she is compelled to do so by the very nature of the illness and reason goes out of the window, because he/she fears the consequencies of being found out. Treatment (but no cure other than total abstinance) is available.
The only real way to avoid crew members operating while under the influence, or even heavily overhung, is alcohol testing for all when coming on duty. Those found "guilty" should be offered help and given the opportunity to recover -- but only once.

[Grainger]

Yes it is, but we're talking about 20 mg / 100 millilitres here.

Hardly the same thing . . .

[sky9]

The answer surely is to buy a breathaliser and keep it beside your bed. Wake up in the morning have a blow, if it registers phone up crewing report "unfit" and the go back to sleep.

Seriously though the problem that we have is that without a breathaliser you have no way of knowing how fast alchohol has been removed from your bloodstream. There is an article in today's Daily Telegraph; they cost £25. Cheap "loss of licence" insurance

[Flying Lawyer]

wasdale

Let's keep some sense of perspective here.

The new law is not being introduced to combat a serious problem.
The Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 merely provides a convenient opportunity to bring aviation into line with other transport modes by introducing a statutory testing regime.

It also reflects Joint Aviation Requirements Commercial Air Transportation (JAR-OPS) adopted by the JAA in 1996 which requires that crew members of commercial aircraft should not commence a flight duty period with a blood/alcohol level in excess of 20mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood.

The ANO does not set a blood alcohol limit, nor does it require a person who is suspected of a drink or drugs offence to be subjected to a test. Under the new provisions, there is now a set limit and a requirement to submit to a test. It is part of a harmonisation of standards across most of Europe.



Re your other point ..........

The CAA has a well-defined protocol when it is informed that a medical certificate holder (flight crew or air traffic controller) may be misusing alcohol or drugs.
This would be activated if a pilot had failed a breathalyser test whilst performing an aviation function. The person is medically assessed, including blood testing, and a decision made whether there is alcohol or drug dependency that could be a risk to
flight safety.
If that is so, the pilot’s medical certificate will be temporarily suspended. He/she will then be invited to take part in a treatment and rehabilitation schedule. If that is successful, the pilot will be returned to flying with the requirement to provide regular reports and to attend for follow-up assessments. Abstinence is required.

Approximately 85% of professional pilots with such problems have been returned to flying under this regime.

Tudor Owen

[wasdale]

20mg/100milliwhatnots means nothing to the alcoholic pilot. You can't even test yourself. He/She just wants to get on the flight, with a hangover, get over the suffering of not having a drink until the next rest period and so it goes on. At last you get home and - BLISS. Two days off with no worries because they have been obliderated. But they always come back eventually. That's the tragedy of the disease.
How many times have you heard of crew-room parties when a room has been trashed, not just through high spirits but because the crew were smashed and groped their way home?
I've been there, seen it, done it (but not the trashing) and got T-Shirts to prove it.
Alcoholism is viscious and totally baffling to those who have never suffered from it. And that includes your AME.

[harpy]

I would find it easier to accept random testing if it were also applied to the legislators who created the law. I don't know about the US legislators but, in the UK, generous quantities of alcohol are consumed in the Palace of Westminster during working hours by MPs, who then file into the division lobbies to vote on laws like this.

Please excuse the rant.

[paulo]

What would the 20 milligrammes / 100 millilitres be as a %ge?

I've tried doing the sums but I don't the specific gravity of either alcohol or blood.

[BEagle]

FL - thanks for your clarification to the word 'should' in your summary - I thought that it was actually from the original.

But JAR-OPS 1.085 (e) actually states:

A crew member shall not :

(1) Consume alcohol less than 8 hours prior to the specified reporting time for flight duty or the commencement of standby;

(2) Commence a flight duty period with a blood alcohol level in excess of 0·2 promille;

(3) Consume alcohol during the flight duty period or whilst on standby.


There's no 'should not' anywhere in those regulations - clear and unequivocally it is a 'shall not'! I note also that it isn't just '8 hours bottle-to-throttle' - it's 8 hours prior to reporting!

[Grainger]

paulo: Assuming that the density of blood is not too different to that of water (1 gram per millilitre) - approximately 0.02% (20 milligrams in 100 grams of liquid).

wasdale 20mg/100ml does not make anyone an alcoholic. It is barely higher than the body's natural content whether you have had anything to drink or not.

Alcoholism is not the issue here.

This limit will affect anyone who is not a complete teetotaller.

[Flying Lawyer]

BEagle

It's simply a common drafting convention of modern statutes which create criminal offences. (JAR-OPS doesn't create a criminal offence.)

eg The Theft Act doesn't say 'Thou shall not steal' but ..... "A person is guilty of theft if ......". The Act defines 'theft' and provides the maximum penalty which may be imposed upon those found guilty of it.

Similarly, the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 doesn't say 'Pilots shall not ......".
It creates and defines the offence(s):
"A person commits an offence if - "
and provides the maximum penalty which may be imposed upon someone convicted of committing the offences specified.

Happy Christmas.

Tudor

[Devils Advocate]

Tudor..... in your previous submissions it was written: if a pilot had failed a breathalyser test and What happens if my Breathalyser Test is Positive ?
You will be arrested, taken to a Police station and asked to provide a further specimen of breath, blood or urine for laboratory analysis. Could you perhaps elaborate, i.e. define 'failed' and / or ‘positive’ ?

At what reading, on a breathalyser test, would somebody find themselves being arrested and hauled off an aircraft, and / or that their employers and / or the CAA are informed that a breathalyser test was given and ‘failed’ ?

E.g. What if somebody blows in to a breathalyser and it then reads, say, 0.895 micrograms per 100ml – the limit for a breathalyser being 0.9 - i.e. they’ve provided a positive breath test but, being less than the limit, have they ‘passed’ ?
Or would they, as a result that the breathalyser test did not read 0, then be required to submit to further / more detailed ( blood ) tests and thus be arrested and taken away ?

Nb. My Ops Manual presently states: "Crew Members shall not commence a flight duty period with a blood alcohol level in excess of 0.2. mg per ml (milligrams per millilitre). This level is one quarter of the United Kingdom legal driving limit. There should be no residual alcohol in the bloodstream when reporting for duty".

Can that last sentence be valid, i.e. given that the law itself makes an allowance that there is seemingly no such thing as a ‘zero’ BAC, if one indeed had a BAC greater than zero ( but less than 0.2 ), how does this stand from a legal point of view - and just how is one meant to sample and test & validate ones own BAC just prior to reporting for duty ?

Nb. BAC = blood alcohol content.

Cheers in advance.

[B Sousa]

Times certainly change and Political Correctness is the latest rage. Remember just a few years ago when smoking was normal, now its a criminal offense. Difference being impairment?? Take a look as there was impairment of night vision with smoking, yet it was allowed....
Either way if one wants to risk a Career and Big Money over having a Drink before flying, you can usuaully find his picture in the Dictionary under Stupid.

[JW411]

A senior member of the aviation medicine fraternity once told me that the definition of an alcoholic was someone who drank more than his doctor!

[BEagle]

FL - thanks again!

In the wonderful world of JAR-land, as they've given specific meanings to 'will', 'shall' and 'should', I was merely trying to use the same convention! Which is why Devils Advocate's company's Ops Manual is interesting - in JAR-speak it states that he mustn't start a flight duty period with more than 20mg/ml, but only that is recommended that he doesn't have any residual EtOH in his bloodstream. Thus 21 mg/ml would be in contravention of his company's manual, but 19 mg/ml wouldn't.

Happy Humbug-tide, m'lud!:D

Incidentally, when travelling as SLF I'd be far more concerned at flying on that (non-Irish) lo-cost with well-reported exhausted pilots than ever I would at flying on an airliner with a pilot with a 20 mg/ml BAC...

[TomBola]

I can't really see any problem. Many of us flying in support of American oil companies have been subject to random drug and alcohol testing for years. Alcohol is a drug and drugs and flying don't mix. Don't get me wrong - I really love a nice drink as much as anyone - but being a professional pilot means one has certain responsibilities, one of which is to be certain of turning up for duty in a fit condition. The moral is - don't drink heavily in the period before commencing a flying duty.

[frangatang]

Lots of pointing the finger at pilots here,what about cabin crew?
in my many years of long haul its the male,shaved head members that trawl in from a night club in some foreign climes at 7 am, to report for duty at 5pm that should be breathalyzed!

[BEagle]

Count yourself lucky. I once had a U/T co-pilot who had partyed all night at Bangor - even woke me up at o-dark-hundred by yelling in the corridor outside my room - who then had to catch the 0730 wheels with us. He stank like a brewery. So he didn't get any operating on the entire leg, just the radio. Which he consistently porked up. I got out of the seat at TOC and handed over to his trainee captain - who promptly chewed his nuts off in a thoroughly efficient manner.

Remember that tw@t, eh Tonks?

[BRL]

Interesting thread. I have just read the first page and it seems some of you do not know/understand what random D&A is all about. First off, you won't get a copper walking around looking to catch a pilot out. I bellieve they cannot just turn up at your booking on point or anywhere else for that matter, and say "breath into this....".

Random is a bit misleading in a way. We get 48 hrs notice when they want one from us. Usually a letter handed to you beforehand. The "Random" bit is your name being pulled out of the computer. I have had 4 in the last two years, some drivers have had none at all in the last 10. The only time they can do it to you otherwise is after a serious incident, whether it be your fault or not, you will be tested for drugs by means of a urine test and will be asked to blow into the bag. A signaler over East Anglia way had a child/train incident and all the bosses came out to do whatever they do. The signal box at the end of the platform was the meeting point for the police/managers etc. The signaler was asked by one of the managers if he had been drinking as his breath smelled of alchol. He was tested there and then and was over the limit. It doesnt have to directly involve you when things go wrong as this point proves and he was out of a job shortly after.

Before the random testing came in in 1993, there was a lot of people booking on over the limit. The pub outside many stations would be affectionately known as platform 9 as that was were you would find the drivers on standby. Nowdays, you really do think about what you drink and when you drink before duty. The whole situation has changed about how we value our job. Once your done for anything like that (d&a) the chances are very slim of getting a similar, well paid job anywhere else, it just isn't worth it nowdays especially as you could go to prison for doing something we used to do a long time ago.

Times change as we all know and so do attitudes. The union should have put this to a vote to you all directly involved. Ours didn't. We didn't really have a say in it. They just announced that they were behind the changes and we should be behind it too. I often wonder since it came in, how many jobs this random testing has saved since it was introduced.

[bjcc]

Devils Advocate

A person would be arrested if they provided a positive (failed) breath test on a screening device. The expression positive and failed mean the same in general.

The arrest being nessesery to get the person to the Police Station for a evidencial test. There would be no dragging off a plane, unless the person wanted to fight about it.

You will have seen from Flying Lawyer's summary that the proccedure for a Police Officer is broadly similar to the action he would take with a driver. Which means that the first test would be on a screening device, at the place where the Officer is called too. This produces an indication based on a red/amber or green LED, rather than a reading of BAC. Red obviously indicating a blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit. I am assuming now that the machines used have not changed, I understand that there are hand held machines that give a read out of the BAC, however that reading wouldn't be the one used to provide evidence in court.

If a positive test, ie one that indicated a BAC above the prescribed limit (failed) the person would then be arrested and taken to a Police Station, where they would provide a speciem of Breath into an Evdiencal Breath Test Machine. The result of that provides the evidence for a court. As someone pointed out on another thread, if the result, in the case of a driver is slightly above then they would be allowed a blood test, however in all the cases I was involved in, that blood test was higher than the breath test reading. I don't know if that would happen under this legislation.

One thing which I don't know about is the LED type screening devices we had when I worked at Heathrow were calibrated for the Road Traffic Act limits. I can only presume they have diffeant ones calibrated for this legislation. The Police Station Machine gives a print out of the result, and gives it no matter what the reading.

You would be charged if the result of the Evidendial BT was above the prescribed limit for the appropriate legislation.

If on the specimen provided at the Police station is below the prescribed limit, then thats the end of the matter the person would be realeased. What he told his employers is then his affair. As for informing the CAA I don't know, I would guess that if the BAC was below the limit then no they wouldn't be told by Police, although they may be by the Persons company.

I can't comment on what it says in your ops manual, thats something for your company.

Hope that clarrifys things.

[Golden Rivet]

As a Licensed Engineer I can have 4 times more alcohol than the flight crew..........

I'm off down the pub:ok:

[You splitter]

I have been reading this with interest. This morning the post arrived with a letter from the CAA which was the FODCOm in question.

Having read through the interesting thing is that this will be for any 'Aviation Function'. This will include standby so technically if you wake up at home, come on standby slightly worse for wear you are breaking the new law. How they would catch you doing that is another matter!

On the subject of random testing there are a lot of jobs much less 'elevated' (no pun intended) than pilots who are subjected to these rules. A firend of mine drives a fork lift truck at an oil depot. All drivers on the plant are subject to random testing.

At the risk of getting shot down in flames there has been many a thread about pilots wages & conditions and the argument thrown up time and time again by pilots is how much more safety orinentated their job is compared to other professionals, and how they are repsosnible for 300 souls at the back of their aircraft. True.......so if so surely all the more reason why random testing should be just as applicable to this industry as to others!

The concern for most of us is translating the BAC limit into real terms. i.e how many beers the night before could I have to be safe. Maybe buying a tester or abstaining completely is now the only answer!

Golden Rivet - Yes that amused me too whilst reading the FODCOM. Surely it should all be the same or are you suggesting Engineers have a higher tolerance! :ok:

[wasdale]

Stastics prove that 99.978% of people who cause accidents are totally sober. So why the persecution of the very few who are not?:confused:

[MerchantVenturer]

"Stastics prove that 99.978% of people who cause accidents are totally sober. So why the persecution of the very few who are not?"

So what do we do? All get rat-ars*d before driving or (in the case of pilots) flying?

This proves what someone once said about statistics.

[Unwell_Raptor]

A number of Police procedures will have to be clarified now, and they will need to be consistent across the UK. Currently, for example, the Metropolitan Police do not prosecute drivers where the evidential reading is below 40 in breath, although they do prosecute 81 in blood. If the reading is 40 to 54.9 there is an option to have a blood or urine sample. Will similar procedures be used for pilots, with the numbers pro-rata?

There are obviously no sentencing guidelines as yet, but I would be surprised if prison did not feature largely when they do emerge. As it is, bus and coach drivers are treated more severely than car drivers.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Surely sentencing for PPLs should be in line with car drivers - or, logically, less severe since a drunken PPL is less likely to kill or maim others than is a drunken driver.

Bet it won't be, though.

SSD

[YouNeverStopLearning]

This needs to be said:

It has always been my observation that pilots tend to be smart people. Therefore it shouldn't be too difficult for any of you to work out that IF YOU DON’T DRINK ALCOHOL BEFORE FLYING YOU WONT HAVE A PROBLEM!

Consequently it doesn’t matter what the law says about drink-flying – if you don’t drink before flying you have nothing to worry about.

There are now plenty of alcohol assistance and support groups to help anyone with a drink problem.

Any pilot who gets CAUGHT breaching the drink-flying LAWS has no-one but themselves to blame and deserves everything they get; they will also incur my absolute disgust, contempt and they are a disgrace to my profession.

If YOU know anyone with a problem, find out what support is available to them both from within and without the airline and direct the abuser towards it; you will be doing your professional friend a favour by helping them. In time they will thank you.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

For what it is worth in more than 10 years military flying and 8 years civil flying I have never once flown with anyone who I had any reason to believe was under the influence of alcohol. That said, it is apparent that whether we want it or not there are new rules coming and they are a source of concern for even the most moderate of drinkers (of whom I am one).

'YouNeverStopLearning' made a very passionate statement about the disgrace of pilots flying over the limit and the necessity of seeking help for your alcohol problem. There is no doubt that if you are an alcoholic you are fundamentally unfit to be a professional pilot for as long as the condition exists, and I do not think many of my colleagues would dispute that.

With the arrival of this new legislation, the problem is now far greater than just the issue of the alcoholic - however tragic his/her circumstances may be. This new legislation will have significant lifestyle effects for anyone in flying who is not rigidly tee-total. I think I speak for many when I say that I feel very uncertain about this new legislation because I simply cannot translate this 20mg figure into anything meaningful in my own mind. Does that mean that if I have 2 glasses of wine the night before a flight (and do not infringe the 8 hour rule) that I may in fact be flying over the limit? I for one will certainly try and get hold of some device for measuring my own blood/alcohol levels (and no I am not an alcoholic).

We have to recognise that enormous new restrictions are being put on the lives of flight crew, and that to have this 20mg level in your body does not mean you are some kind of drunken yob. I want to be able to be absolutely certain in my own mind that I am not in some way endangering my future. I can foresee a scenario when a pilot will be feeling absolutely on top of things but find out via a random test that he was in fact over the limit due to a couple of glasses of wine with his wife the night before.

Our employers have a clear duty of care here. The answer has to be for company-provided facilities to test yourself prior to duty, and the option to go sick without subsequent recrimination if you find yourself over this new limit.

[bjcc]

Norman Stanley Fletcher

Your company has no duty of care in repsect of what you do when you are off duty, which is presumably when you would have a drink. Its your choice to do it, and you carry the can if by doing so you find yourself over the limit. You will find that a person who's job is to drive is in exactly the same position.

I agree however that you should have access to a discreet way of self testing before you actual do anything that within the new act would drop you in it.

I have to say that the reason I agree is differant for your reason for suggesting it though. My reasons are purly that there is No safe way of calculating what you can drink the night before you fly. Well there is one way, and thats drink nothing.

Everyone's differant and the speed at which they get the alcohol out of thier system verries from person to person, just as the speed at which its absorbed verries. Other factors can speed up absorbtion, like what you have eaten, when you eat it etc. So thats why you can't find anyone to give you guidence.

The drink drive limit equates to about 1 1/4 pints of normal strength beer for an avarage person. But remember that it takes a while to get into your blood, it doesn't happen instantly. So say you had 1.5 pints and blew into a breath test machine 5 minutes later. You would probably have a low reading, but say 30 minutes later, you could have gone up. On the other hand it could take an hour to go up. 2 hours later some of it could have passed out of your system, but there is no reliable way of telling how much so you could still be over the limit. This is why some people provide a positive test when stopped but a negitive test when they arrive at a police station, and why in boarder line cases when a blood sample is taken it is often higher than the breath test reading.


The limits under this act are about 1/4 of the drink drive limits. Personally I wouldn't risk it at all the night before, but then I am not going to be affected.

Something else you should remember, this is nothing new. The same problem has existed for drivers ever since the breath test was introduced.


At the end of the day, the old goverment slogan "think before you drink before you drive", should now be widened to

"Think before you drink, before you drive/fly/try to get your leg over."

[MaxProp]

The great (British) public seem to be having their cake and eat it here. It is ok for cabinet ministers et al to take drugs misc and have interesting historys and for them (the British Public) to have 80 ml or bananas or whatever it is, but they dont want to fly with a pilot with a bit of a hangover, Well, neither would I, but isnt there a bit of double think going on?

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

bjcc

Thank you for your reply. I hope that I have not given the impression of being somehow liberal on this issue because I am not. What I am saying is that with this dramatically reduced limit, it would be extremely hard to detect within yourself if you are somehow 'over the limit'. At this stage it may be that I will not be able to drink for 2 days before flying - I simply do not know at this stage, and that is my point. For what it is worth, it is my personal intent to never encroach upon whatever legal limits are in force but that does not change the fact that I am concerned that I do not know what these limits are in practice. I stand, therefore, by my view that it would be wise and reasonable for companies to provide self-testing facilities.

[Dan Winterland]

BEagle, I remeber that tw@t. I was just as p1ssed as he was - but I wasn't operating! All I had to do was sleep on the way home. As I remeber it, you didn't have to say anything - the silence spoke words!

The funny incident regarding that night out was the large Welsh FO who failed to get laid. Perhaps it was his trick of setting fire to his chest hair in the bar that caused that!

Remember the inert hand grenade? :eek:

[Airbubba]

>>I once had a U/T co-pilot who had partyed all night at Bangor - even woke me up at o-dark-hundred by yelling in the corridor outside my room - who then had to catch the 0730 wheels with us. He stank like a brewery. So he didn't get any operating on the entire leg, just the radio. <<

Well, the good old days of laughing about covering for a drunk cockpit colleague are pretty much gone in the U.S.

We've lived with the .02% BAC limit for a decade now (.02% removal from duty, .04% you lose your medical and, starting in a few days, your ticket as well under FAA rules).

As observed here, it will infringe upon the "lifestyle" of many crewmembers.

[bjcc]

Norman Stanley Fletcher,

The reason why there is no guidence on what you can and can't drink is because its not possible to do with any certainty. Today you could drink X amount and in 2 hours not be over, in a weeks time you could drink the same and find yourself in the poo. Which I think is maybe what you are saying. No Goverment, CAA or Airline is going to give you an amount for guidence, because as soon as someone sticks to it and finds they blow over the magic number what do you think they are going to claim in court?
I don't doubt for one minute that no ones going out with the intent to drink and fly.

I agree with you about having a way of self testing, although I would think that Airlines are going to say its your problem not ours. The other thing with that is that as soon as you turn up for duty you could be(and this hasn't been tested in court yet) be seen to be proforming an ancilary function, in which case you commit the offence. An airline isn't going to want you to do that, as they could be seen as condoning it.

So you have a problem of where to site this descreet self testing idea. To be honest if I was affected by this I would buy a screening machine, cost of that against eliminating the risk seems good value to me.

[prayboy]

You only have to look at the dec 1998 arrest at LHR of a senior royal brunei captain for drugs to recognize that the industry does have a problem it is not addressing. when said pilot subsequently provided the DFO with a report on what was going on and implicated seven other captains as well as many cabin crew and some engineers, what did they do about it? yep nothing. several of these scum are still employed there while others went to bigger and better jobs. Their only other action was to shut down all publicity at a great cost. universal alcohol/drug testing across the whole industry is the only answer.has there been a case of an airline pilot actually flying a jet while intoxicated on drugs/alcohol? im afraid to tell you the answer is yes.

[DeeTee]

A Good idea, but prefer routine testing to random. everyone, every flight, every day. Not difficult or time consuming really...helmet on, flack jacket on....Incommingggggg!! ;)

[BOEINGBOY1]

Why not? If you have nothing to hide that is?
Lets face it, we run the risk of a breath test every time we drive to work!
Initial breath test as in police road side tests - if positive secondary and far more in depth tests by medical staff. The only point I would ask for, would be to keep a sample of my sample for independant and neutral testing, should the need arise.

[Oilhead]

Why all this furor? I have far more issues with pissed passengers (plenty in fact) than pissed co-pilots (none so far).

I think a far greater problem is identifying drunken passengers prior to boarding. I find it amusing that an industry (of "news" reporters) that is well known for its inability to drink moderately at any point of the day should so self-righteously become obsessed with going to extreme and outrageous lengths to destroy in most, and occasionally all, senses an aviator or other high profile person.

Where is all the outrage at child molesting singers?
Where is all the outrage over deaths on the table caused by drunken or drugged up doctors and surgeons?

This guy didn't even touch a control - he may have been coming in on time to request a delay on the departure, due to feeling impaired. Did he get a chance to do this? When was he considered to have reported for duty? Several people had several opportunities to be up close with this guy prior to him arriving at the altar of obese and grotesque "Thousands Standing Around". So he stumbled? I would have felt my knees buckling once I knew I was in extremis and being humiliated by the second.

When are the reading public going to start understanding that alcoholism (if that is the case here) is indeed a disease and that a good dose of education, intervention and sympathy is the way to go - not executions by tabloid.

Heres to good old double standards.

Off for a Jack on ice - too much stress reading too much crap on all this.

Cheers!

[Bertie Thruster]

Any one know if the new legislation covers UK military?

[Smokie]

Probably not but if it did, it would certainly open a whole new can of worms.

[backofthedrag]

If down route, the morning after, and one of these self test machines shows some residual alcohol, but not too specific, do you go sick and the flight is lost costing tens of thousands? Do you phone the Chief Pilot and expect sympathy?
Perhaps a bit of practice with these machines might give you some idea but they're never going to be accurate enough.

[Dr Unken B Ligerant]

BEagle/Dan Winterland,
Oddly enough I remember that evening too. However, if my memory serves me correctly then it was that tall,"Aryan" looking navigator who prevented anyone from getting lucky; girls are just soooo shallow- all they were interested in was looks! Well, the navigator and that geographically challenged american @#$*! to be strictly accurate
Regards to you both
"Mighty Buttocks".
PS I can now spell "Officer Qualities":D :D

[no reds]

A quote from Dylan Thomas . "an alcoholic is someone you don`t like who drinks more than you":ouch:

[Flyer Flier]

With a report for a New Year's day flight, I am again in for a New Year's Eve of watching the party around me in a sober detached state of surrealism! Very similar to my 8am LHR depart on the first day of the new millenium! At least it makes me popular for saving the impossible task of finding a taxi on NYeve.

Anyway, I was at least hoping to get a drink the night 24hours before, but I too am becoming concerned at the low level of the limit at 20mg. Having checked the specs of the various breathalizers on the market, it is apparent that their accuracy is at such a level to be unreliable at the low limits. Even the high tech versions which cope with the driving limit in Sweden (also 20mg) only start at 20mg as the lowest available reading in their range at plus/minus 10mg accuracy. If the authorities are not using incredibly high spec breath testers ( are there any?), then some of us are bound to be falsely tested positive before the blood test proves our innocence, but no doubt that will look to our peers and company like we "got away with it !"

Therefore, I would agree with all the posters who have stated that their concerns are not against the principle of ensuring non alcohol impaired operation, but with the level and manner of its enforcement. I would also agree with all the comments that fatigue is a far more real and present danger to flight safety than this "headline" issue.

I only hope that if we do have a sky marshall on board, he will have had as a quiet a night as me. :hmm:

[Airbubba]

Growing number of pilots turn to drink to cope with stress


THE OBSERVER , LONDON
Monday, Dec 29, 2003,Page 7

Soaring stress levels among commercial airline pilots are leading to an alarming rise in drinking problems.

Pressure caused by long hours, cost-cutting following the growth of no-frills airlines and security measures to combat terrorism have all added to the numbers of those turning to alcohol, according to pilots, airline staff and aviation experts.

One stewardess revealed how heavy drinking the night before a flight was not uncommon. The 24-year-old from Manchester, who works for a large international airline, said: "I have been taken out by a pilot who has drunk half a bottle of wine at dinner, had a few beers and shooters and then gone back to his room with a bottle of vodka. He was due to fly again the following day."

One ex-pilot, who now specializes in the human factors associated with flight, said: "The Civil Aviation Authority are very concerned -- everything is about money, cutting costs and pushing hours up. It leads to fatigue, which itself can be highly dangerous and it leads to an increased prevalence of alcoholism. People succumb to stress and deal with it in the classic way -- by abusing themselves."

The revelations come a week after a Virgin Atlantic pilot was accused of being drunk in charge of a jumbo jet. Captain [redacted], 55, has been released on bail and is due to appear in court next February. Only a month earlier two British Airways pilots resigned after being arrested at Oslo airport on suspicion of being drunk.

But the deeper problem appears not to be that of pilots being drunk while flying but the numbers who are turning to alcohol to deal with the strains of the job. The industry is trying to ensure that new pilots are less likely to fall into the trap. Those training are now taught about how to keep an eye out if a colleague appears to be having problems. Notes given out to students include things to watch out for such as "drinking alone, gulping down the first drink, morning shakes and a high tolerance to alcohol."

Kate Keenan, a business psychologist who specializes in mental health and alcohol, said: "With the remote working that pilots do with no checks, people are more likely to slip into a habit without anyone realizing. Add this to the long hours and stress and you can see why this job carries a large risk of alcoholism. People need to be educated to really know how much alcohol will affect them and what a unit actually is. Companies are screaming for random testing, but they have to support workers first."

The British Air Line Pilots' Association (Balpa) says there needs to be a more co-operative system. Jim McAuslan, Balpa's general secretary, said: "This is our number one priority. We strongly believe there should be a system where any pilot can try and persuade another to go to a neutral board where they don't lose their job but get help. In the UK admitting to being an alcoholic would result in the sack.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2003/12/29/2003085596

[Flying Lawyer]

Bertie Thruster

The new law will not apply to military pilots.
Mil pilots are subject to military regulations.



Tudor Owen


BTW, Airbubba
It may make no difference to your proposition that the new law "will infringe upon the "lifestyle" of many crewmembers" but, for the record, I think BEagle and Dan were reminiscing about old mil days, not covering for crew members in civilian airliners.

[bjcc]

Flyer Flier

Your right in so far as the hand held machines are concerned. The ones in Police Stations will mesure the amounts for the new acts prescribed limit. As I said before blood tests usualy in my expereince came back higher than the breath test machines.

[Smokie]

So if the stress is the root of the problem then solve the problem that causes the stress.

BETTER ROSTERING.
STABLE ROSTER.
HALF DECENT SALARIES.
NO MORE MINIMUM REST IN HOTELS WHERE THERE IS A RAGING PARTY GOING ON NEXT DOOR, WHICH LEADS YOU TO HAVE A FEW TO GET TO SLEEP.

And don't start on the "Well ask if you can have a different room then" routine because that all depends on
1. The Time of year.
2. What sort of Hotel you are in.

And while we are on the subject of sleep, if my memory serves me correct, Her Majesties Government are not shy of prescribing "Drugs Various" to either assist crews in getting to sleep or to keep them awake!

The List goes on.............

At least have a level playing field so as everybody knows where they stand.

As some one has already mentioned " life style" is being affected
It wont be long before certain routes that attract more heavier screening will also attract more crews going sick on said routes.

Short haul springs to mind where Crew A who have perhaps not indulged for say 24 hrs but had been to say Capt "X" leaving do 48 hrs previous, still dont think they would be legal under the new legislation.

They call in sick just to be on "The Safe Side"

If the authorities want this level of testing then there MUST BE a way that one can self test without the fear of being pulled up on an "Ancilliary Duty Rap" to do so.


Rant over. :*

[onehunglow]

Thanks Flying Lawyer, I thought as much, (after all they don't have licences anyway)

Still if they don't change the Mil regs it will make a good headline:

"Military pilots in the UK to be allowed 4 times the new alcohol limit."

[Nineiron]

A hand held device that measures alcohol, drugs and basic competency
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994394

[Smokie]

Nineiron,

Interesting stuff, problem there though, could find a lot failing the test regardless of whether they have had consumed alchohol, drugs or not.


It is still a mine field which ever way you look at it.

[propulike]

It would seem from reading this lot that the only way to stay as Flight Crew is also to become teetotal! That's more than a 'bit' of a life-style change for the vast majority of us I would hazard. A pretty drastic series of attributable accidents must have prompted such a radical revamp of the rules.

Can't wait to hear about them.

[BlackSword]

It will be very interesting to see what effects the new legislation will have.

The legislation makes it an absolute offence to have drugs or alcohol in your body and sets specific limits for alcohol.
If you are tested positive, then you are guilty of a criminal offence and there is no defence (which is why a zero-tolerance level of 0.2% has been set). It seems unlikely that anyone found guilty would be returned to work......... and any airline that did not report "unfit" flight crew could be considered guilty of conspiracy - which reduces the scope for in-house rehabilitation.

What I find interesting in this thread is the lack of mention of "drugs". These are not effectively defined in the legislation and no "cutoff" levels are set. The term embraces a wide variety of illicit drugs as well as legally obtainable drugs that may impair your "function" - for example, anti-depressants, beta-blockers, heart drugs etc. Drugs are in widespread use (overtaking alcohol in traffic offences) and it seems niaive to ignore their use.

The body metabolises alcohol quickly (and even manufactures it, which is why the .02% cutoff level is set). However, the body metabolises other drugs much less efficiently and if "zero tolerance" levels are set (as with alcohol) as seems likely, this could mean that an individual may test positive several days after imbibing.

The police will test if they are reliably informed (by workmates etc) that an offence may have been committed.

The industry really does need to take this issue seriously and not pretend that cabin and flightdeck staff don't take "drugs". Pro-active random testing seems unavoidable.

[ILS 119.5]

OK what about the security people who check everybody. These people should be checked as well. If they have had too much to drink and cannot function properly then the rest of us are f*ck*d.

[MaxProp]

For perhaps the only time I find myself in agreement with most of smokies post. i must take exception to the quotation in Airbubies post-surely we are the most tested. supervised,overseen, pestered profession in the world.
Althought there is no specific remit in the AME for alcolhism to be looked for, the first symptoms of system failure will be picked up . which is more than can be said for drunk surgeons, ATC controllers, cannabis ridden civil servants etc.
I agree that self test should be made available--the resulting problems if any could be dealt with by airline management on the same basis that 'tactical sickness' is a problem without involving the draconian remedies apparently proposed by the double thinking bureaucrats.

[BlackSword]

ILS

Its not clear whether Airport Security staff are to be subject to testing........ I think BAA are not so keen on implementing random testing, its not clear why they have backed away from it.

However, it is reasonable for all Airside staff to be subject to random testing and perhaps an annual hair test (which can detect drugs taken over the previous 3 months). This is because Airside staff are more representative of the general population (large percentages of whom DO take drugs) rather than safety personnel who are (probably) less likely to take drugs.

Airside staff who take drugs are an easy target for criminals, terrorists and are more likely to engage in other illicit activities (perhaps to feed their habit).

Again, it will be interesting to see how this all unfolds.........

[FlexibleResponse]

General:
The reason for the 20mg level is that we can all create small amounts of our own alcohol. This may appear in their blood as an alcohol level, but it will not reach 20mg per 100ml, and anyone who is breath or blood tested to that level is likely to have ingested alcohol in the recent past.

We absorb and excrete alcohol at very different rates. These depend on factors such as sex,
body weight, tolerance to alcohol, and the presence of food.
It is impossible to construct any meaningful chart that an individual can use to predict a future alcohol level after a period of drinking.Translation: 20mg is the limit for Pilots. It is freely admitted that it is impossible for Pilots to predict a future alcohol level after a period of drinking.
Warning:
Flight crew and cabin crew should not commence duty for at least eight hours after taking small amounts of alcohol, and proportionally longer if larger amounts are consumed.
Although it's likely that if a person consumes a maximum of five units of alcohol dispersed over some hours before the eight hour ban, his or her blood alcohol level will be zero at the end of the ban, it cannot be guaranteed.
Guide: Half a pint of ordinary strength beer (3-3.5%) contains one unit of alcohol),
Translation: Because it is impossible to predict a future alcohol level, we will give you a guide to predict a future alcohol level. Blah, blah, blah…it cannot be guaranteed.

Flyer Flier said:
Anyway, I was at least hoping to get a drink the night 24hours before, but I too am becoming concerned at the low level of the limit at 20mg. Having checked the specs of the various breathalizers on the market, it is apparent that their accuracy is at such a level to be unreliable at the low limits. Even the high tech versions which cope with the driving limit in Sweden (also 20mg) only start at 20mg as the lowest available reading in their range at plus/minus 10mg accuracy.

So we have a new law which admits there is no way for the Pilot to predict when he can legally “fly”.

It sets the benchmark at a limit that is the same as or close to the natural level produced in the human body.

There appears to be no alcohol testing devices that are sensitive enough to detect the very low levels set by the new law.

Therefore, there appears to be no alcohol testing devices that will be available for a Pilot to test himself before going to work so that he may avoid committing a crime.

…and the new law allows an Engineer to work on an aircraft when he is four times as pi55ed as a Pilot!

[Cathar]

The number of UK air transport accidents involving aircrew detected with illegal alcohol levels for the last five years is zero.)

It is hardly surprising that there have been no incidents of aircrew being detected with illegal alcohol levels. Prior to the Act there were no illegal limits and no powers to test for them.

Either the CAA reply is poorly phrased or they are being disingenuous. I also note that they do not say whether the limits were set in accordance with their advice. I do not imagine that DfT would have acted contrary to advice from the CAA in this matter.

[bjcc]

FlexibleResponse

There is no accurate way of predicticing you can drive either, but no one moans on here about that.

The same responsibility rests with those now affected by the new law as drinking and driving legislation, the gartenteed way of being under the limit is not to drink. I don't before I drive, I don't see that as a restriction on my life, just common sense. If I do drink, 5 units one evening then I stay away from the car till the next evening.

Yes there are breath test devices which will mesure the limit in this new law, you quoted someone else who mentioned that Sweeden has the same limit. They manage with electronic screening.

At the end of the day the choice is yours, either drink, and not work or work and don't drink.

Oh, and engineers are able to be 4 times more p****d than pilots. No one said that anyone at the prescribed levels is p****d, just that they may be impairered.

[BlackSword]

The low level of the alcohol limits (0.02% blood/alcohol) has interesting consequences. The breathe or saliva test on its own is not currently sufficient evidence to convict - so corrobating evidence in the form of a blood test is necessary.

The body metabolises alcohol quite rapidly.

If a pilot were tested positive at or near this 0.02% limit, then it is probable that they would pass a blood test taken later at the police station. This is because it would take some time (perhaps an hour or so: arrest, read rights, transport etc.) to administer the blood test which has to be carried out by a Doctor, during which time the remaining alcohol would almost certainly have been metabolised by the body. (Urine tests are irrelevant as they do not indicate intoxication). Hence I think the alcohol limits are "evidentially suspect" (back calculation of alcohol levels not being legally acceptable).

As I have noted before, "drugs" are also included in the legislation, but no indication is given as to what a "drug" is or what the "blood drug" cutoff levels are. Presumably, they will be set at the "zero tolerance" level. Providing an acceptable "zero tolerance" drug test regime for courtroom purposes may be difficult (some drugs metabolise quickly, whilst others can be present for days or even weeks). This may be an even more serious issue.

In addition to all this, individuals are entitled to have recourse to testing for Defence purposes. Yet there seems to be no effective means for this at all (other than for blood/alcohol testing).

[FlexibleResponse]

bjcc,

Thank you for your comments. Just in case you got the wrong idea, I don’t think that anyone is against a law that prescribes alcohol limits for those performing “aviation functions”. But, it would be desirable that such law be drafted in a manner that was reasonable and achieved what it set out to do. This is probably why “Flying Lawyer” has thrown it into the Forum for discussion by those most affected.

The new law suggests at least eight hours after taking small amounts of alcohol, and proportionally longer if larger amounts are consumed. You are suggesting 24 hours. I guess some other folks might suggest 48 hours or even longer. However, these are general thoughts and in the long run are an inaccurate and unworkable method of guesstimating alcohol levels.

The basic problem facing a Pilot (ATC, LAME etc) each day is to ensure that he doesn’t report for duty with residual levels of alcohol that would be classified as criminal.

The new law says you can’t have greater than the Prescribed Limits of alcohol in each of breath, blood and urine when performing an aviation function. The Prescribed Limits are very low and approach what the human body manufactures by itself. Therefore it follows that it would be very useful (perhaps mandatory?) to be able to take a sample of each of the three body products and test the specimens to determine if you were fit for duty, before leaving home (or other overnight accommodation).

The questions that immediately spring to mind are: Do accurate test/screening devices exist that would allow self administered-testing of these three quantities? Would such devices be readily and easily available in the quantities necessary for all affected personnel? This could end up costing the airline industry an enormous amount of money and we know that the passenger will end up bearing this additional burden in the cost in his ticket.

Perhaps a smarter law would require mandatory testing of all personnel involved in aviation functions prior to reporting for duty and thus ensuring that alcohol-impaired folks are rejected. Now that would achieve the aim of the game and also prevent the possibility of a crime occurring in the first place.

Now, let’s go back to square one. What was the original problem? Has the new law addressed the issues in a sensible way? Is it a good law? Will passengers get value for the money that will be added to the price of their ticket?

[BlackSword]

Reliable and accurate drugs and alcohol tests have been around for a while and are in use by the Police, Prisons and Health Services. Breathe test meters, saliva tests (accurately reflecting blood alcohol or drug levels) and multi-drug urine tests are cheap and easy to use - although urine testing for alcohol seem somewhat irrelevant as urine does not reflect impairment.

So self testing for alcohol is cheap, practical and reliable.

Nobody has specified what "drugs" are or what the cutoff levels are - so no help there (and may not be told when we are being naughty for some time). Most drug tests conform to the SAMSHA standard, which aims to indicate levels in the body consistent with "recent" intoxication.

[Flying Lawyer]

Air Traffic Services Information Notice 40 issued by the SRG ATS Standards Department provides information and guidance on the new Act.

Excerpt:

6 Testing under the Act

6.1 Power to Conduct a Preliminary Test (i.e. a breathalyser test) by a Police Constable in Uniform
6.1.1 Section 96 of the Act provides that the Police have power to require a person to cooperate with a preliminary test where:
(a) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person is over the prescribed limit, or his/her ability to perform his/her aviation function is impaired through either drink or drugs,
(b) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person has been over the prescribed limit or impaired through drink or drugs, and still has alcohol or a drug in his/her body or is still under the influence of a drug,
(c) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person was undertaking an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft at the time of the accident, or
(d) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person has undertaken an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft.
6.1.2 A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to provide a specimen when required to do so in pursuance of this section commits an offence.
6.1.3 A person commits an offence under the Act if he/she performs an aviation function, or an activity that is ancillary to an aviation function, at a time when his/her ability to perform the function is impaired because of alcohol or drugs. This means that a person can be tested at any time after commencing duty, including standby. The Police will determine when to test based on reasonable suspicion that either someone is over the prescribed limit, under the influence of alcohol and drugs, or following an accident.
6.1.4 The Police are empowered to breathalyse and to perform subsequent tests (i.e. blood and urine tests). Police officers have been advised to exercise their powers under the Act as discreetly as circumstances allow and, if possible, in private, particularly where passenger aircraft are concerned. Overtly or insensitively
exercising these powers in certain circumstances could have detrimental affect on passenger perception and confidence, and could have commercial implications and liabilities.
6.1.5 The preliminary drug test is dependant on factors not yet finalised. The CAA will endeavour to provide additional information in due course.

6.2 Test Equipment
6.2.2 The equipment to be used by the Police to screen suspected offenders for the presence of ingested alcohol is that currently used to test motorists in road traffic cases. However, before approval for use in the aviation environment, each type of
device type has been subjected to a series of controlled laboratory tests to ensure its continued reliability and accuracy at the new aviation limit over a range of operational temperatures and after repeated use.
6.2.3 The technical specifications for the testing programme required that, for each type of device, the absolute error in indication at the aviation limit would be better than that required when used to screen suspected offenders in road traffic cases.
6.2.4 The results of any screening test will provide an indication of the level of alcohol present in an individual’s body. Any criminal proceedings will be based on the results of a subsequent evidential test using different equipment. In practice this will usually take the form of a laboratory analysis of a sample of the suspected offender’s blood or urine.

6.3 Testing following an Accident
6.3.1 An accident for these purposes is defined as an unintended event with adverse physical effect. It is unlikely that every accident involving an aircraft will warrant Police exercising any or all of their powers under this Act.

6.4 Reasonable Grounds for Suspicion
6.4.1 Reasonable grounds for suspicion depend upon the circumstances in each case.
There must be an objective basis for that suspicion based on facts, information and/or intelligence that are relevant to the likelihood of an offence. Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on generalisations or stereotypical images of certain groups or categories of people as more likely to be involved in criminal activity.
6.4.2 Reasonable suspicion can sometimes exist without specific information or intelligence and on the basis for some level of generalisation stemming from the behaviour of a person. Reasonable suspicion should normally be linked to accurate
and current intelligence or information. For example, evidence of impairment from witnesses or from the result of a primary test of an employee by an employer could be sufficient.

6.5 Procedure in the Event of a Positive Breathalyser Test
6.5.1 If, as a result of an initial Police breath test, an officer has reasonable cause to suspect that a person has more than the prescribed proportion of alcohol in their body, then they can expect to be arrested and taken to a Police station. There, they
will be asked to provide a further specimen of breath, blood or urine for laboratory analysis. In practice, this will usually be a specimen of blood, taken by a Police doctor. Failure to provide a specimen without reasonable cause is an offence. Where
a sample of blood or urine is taken, he/she will be entitled to request a part of the sample for themselves. He/she will be supplied with a booklet of analysts where they can have their specimen privately analysed if they wish.
6.5.2 Once a blood sample has been taken he/she will probably be released from the Police station on a condition to return at a later date, by which time the Police part of the sample will have been analysed. If the sample is under the limit he/she will probably be told not to attend. If when he/she attends, the results of the analysis of the sample shows that he/she was over the limit, he/she will be charged with the offence and be given a date to attend court.
6.5.3 After giving a specimen, the Police may detain the individual at the Police station until it appears to the officer that there is no likelihood of them carrying out, or attempting to carry out, an aviation function of the kind for which they have provided a sample, whilst still over the prescribed limit or otherwise impaired through alcohol or drugs.


Link to: ATSIN 40 (http://www.caa.co.uk/publications/publicationdetails.asp?id=1182)


Tudor Owen

[FlexibleResponse]

The document at the link supplied by the Flying Lawyer simplifies the situation somewhat. If I have read it correctly, it indicates that for screening stage, the standard breath test will be applied using the current equipment that has met the more stringent aviation requirements.

If this test is positive, then arrest will follow and blood and/or urine samples will be taken for laboratory testing.

But subsequent attendance at court will probably only take place if there is a positive result from the blood or urine testing.

So it would seem for practical application of the new law, one might take a reasonable guess at the required recovery time after consuming alcohol based on personal experience. But, before reporting for duty, one should take a breath test using the same type of equipment as used by the Police.

As Blacksword points out, relevant drugs, levels and testing still remains a mystery to all.

[BlackSword]

I don't think breathe or Blood/Alcohol testing is a problem (although there is evidence to show that breathe testing does not accurately reflect blood/alcohol), apart from the relatively low "zero tolerance" levels set (as there are no easy guidlines apart from complete abstinence).

Saliva and blood testing are the most reliable methods.

Despite the fact that the legislation and the CAA both mention urine testing, I find this odd (not that the CAA have helped much).

Urine testing does not reflect impairment. Although commonly used for (non-traffic) drug testing, it is not generally used in court for prosecution - as it does not provide proof that you were "under the influence" at the time of arrest.

Hence it is possible for a person to be clear in both breathe and blood tests, but for their urine test to be positive. I think that urine testing is unlikely to be used in court.

As for drugs, well don't hold your breathe! (pun intended)

[Flying Lawyer]

BlackSword: "Urine testing does not reflect impairment. Although commonly used for (non-traffic) drug testing, it is not generally used in court for prosecution - as it does not provide proof that you were "under the influence" at the time of arrest."

You're confusing two different offences. A driver may be guilty of driving with excess alcohol without any evidence he was actually impaired/'under the influence.'
Also, for the purpose of that offence, there is no distinction between evidence of breath, blood or urine.

The new Act creates two offences which are similar to those under the road traffic legislation:

Being Unfit for Duty (Section 92)
Performing an "aviation function", or carrying out an activity that is "ancillary to an aviation function", at a time when your ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
and
Exceeding the Prescribed Limit (Section 93)
Performing 'an aviation function', or carrying out an activity that is 'ancillary to an aviation function', at a time when the proportion of alcohol in your breath, blood or urine exceeds the 'prescribed limit.'
(NB: No evidence of impairment is required.)

The wording of the offences under the new Act is different from the equivalent road traffic legislation, and the prescribed limits in relation to the 'Exceeding the Prescribed Limit' offence are stricter, but the principles remain the same. For the purposes of determining whether someone performed an aviation function whilst over the prescribed limit there is no distinction between breath, blood and urine evidence.

[5by5]

Now call me thick but would somebody please define what is meant by 'a positive breath test' ?

One fully understands that if one blows into the breath-test device and that it then displays a reading that is clearly in excess of the limit then one will be hauled off to provide a blood sample.

However, if one were to blow into the breath-test device and it produces a reading that is below the 'limit', but ( and this is the important bit ) it is not zero, would one similarly be hauled off to provide a blood sample ? I.e. would the mere fact that one might have a token trace of alcohol upon ones breath, even if it was below the specified breath test 'limit', be cause for further, more detailed, investigation back at the Police station ?

E.g.

Copper: "We have reason to believe.... blah blah blah...... please blow into this breath-testing device".

Airline/ATC person: 'puffffffff.....'

Copper: "Uhm, you appear to have registered 0.19. As you might be aware the limit is 0.20 and you are less than that. So, sorry to have bothered you, please be on your way, have a safe flight".

Or will it be ?:

Copper: "Uhm, you appear to have registered 0.19 As you might be aware the limit is 0.20 and whilst you seem to be under the limit I would like you to accompany me to the station so that we might undertake a more detailed investigation".

So which one is it ?

[Daysleeper]

Seems there is a bit of inconsistancy in the new law with engineers alowed 4 times the BAC of Pilots/controllers. I understand from the FODCOM this is due to engineers not requiring the "speed of response" of crew but what speed of response do I need filling in the journey log post flight? yet that is covered by the law.


BTW , Hand Held Digital Breathalysers.
can be had for about £60. Hard to say if they are accurate enough for the new rules as they are aimed at the driving levels.

www.valuemed.co.uk

[Flying Lawyer]

5by5

'Positive' in this context means the initial breath-test indicates you've got more than the prescribed proportion of alcohol in your body. In simple terms, the device is designed to give a preliminary indication of 'none', 'some' or 'over the limit.'
I haven't seen one for many years but they used to show only 'green' (no alcohol), amber (some) or red (over the limit.)

If it indicates you're over the limit, you'll be taken to a police station for a further test on a calibrated machine. This later 'evidential' test measures the proportion of alcohol in your body which determines whether you are actually over the limit. If it shows you're under the prescribed limit, you'll be released.

If the initial test shows 'none' or 'some', that should be the end of the matter and, in practice, usually is.
However, if you're staggering about, incapable of standing up without help and stinking of booze, the police officer may consider he has reasonable grounds to suspect you're unfit for duty (the alternative offence), arrest you and take you to a police station for further tests.

[BlackSword]

Flying Lawyer,

No, I'm not confusing two different offences, I am pointing out that the law is confused (and in part) undefined and wrong.

The law specifically identifies impairment of function (Sect 92).
It then quotes absolute levels in breathe, blood and urine making it an offence so to do.
However, urine testing does not demonstrate impairment. Period.
Having alcohol in your urine has no relation whatsoever with your ability to do a function (in the same way that wearing bad ties does not impair your function - just reflects bad taste).

This is so, for simple biological reasons, i.e. urine is not reabsorbed into the body.

In relation to traffic offences, blood/alcohol is generally relied upon, although there are certified breathe test machines too.
Urine is not (these days) used - a blood sample is required.

As I have pointed out, it is possible to be clear on breathe and blood but positive on urine. That makes a fool of the law.

Whether for Sect 92 or Sect 93 Urine testing should not be used.
And the law should be changed, before any damage is done.
This is just bad (and, of course, presently untried) law.

One only has to ask what is meant by "drugs" and what limits apply for each "drug"? If zero tolerance is applied, then this law could get very ugly in application or simply be ignored in practice.
The law in relation to "drugs" is completely undefined.
That IS bad law.

[BlackSword]

5by5,

The scenario you suggest is plausible.
As the body metabolises alcohol quickly, it is possible to be clear
(or just below the breathe test limit) but for a urine test to be positive.

Whilst it is unlikely that a policeman would require a further sample down the station - it might happen if, say, you were particularly bolshy or he didn't like your handlebars or the cut of your jib (or maybe because he did............).

A test at the station could also be more comprehensive and could be extended to include "drugs"....... (say by sending the sample to a laboratory for further testing).

[Bronx]

BlackSword

You're still misunderstanding.

The law only identifies impairment of function for the offence of Being Unfit for Duty (Section 92).

You're guilty of the other offence of Exceeding the Prescribed Limit (Section 93) if the alcohol in your breath, blood or urine is over the prescribed limit.
Impairment of function doesn't come into it for the second offence.

[BlackSword]

Bronx

No, I'm not misunderstanding, I'm simply saying "what has alcohol in urine got to do with anything"?

Alcohol in urine does not indicate any wrong doing.
Its equivalent to making wearing anything red a criminal offence.

What legal purpose is served? What crime is committed, other than failing to empty one's bladder (apart from taking the pee)?

There is added significance in this (as already noted) in the mention of "drugs" - these are completely undefined and could allow all kinds of intepretation.

When any law is made, it is important to first ask:
What is the purpose?

Let me ask you a question: "if breathe and blood tests are negative, do you think a positive urine test should lead to prosecution, loss of license, livelihood and prison"?

[bjcc]

Black sword.

The amount of alcohol in your blood is the point at issue. There are 3 ways of mesuring that. Breath, the amount of alcohol in your blood is proprtional to that in your breath. This is how breath tests are useable in Road Traffic Cases.
Blood, obvious really about that one
Urine, again contains alcohol in proportion to your blood alcohol content.

None of the above show impairment. They mearly show you have a blood alcohol content above or below a prescribed limit. In my experience and that of other Police officers the blood and urine tests often give a slightly higher reading than breath.

As has been pointed out there are 2 seperate offences. If you are rolling drunk then you clearly unfit to fly, although you don't have to be 'rolling drunk, just obviously incapable of doing the job. Thats the first offence, section 92. It also applies to all forms of drugs, I am sure you have seen the warning 'may cause drowseness if affected do not drive' on some drugs, Night Nurse used to be one that affected lots of people, thats whats meant by the lower end of the drugs side of this section. ie the side effect means you are not fully capable of doing your job. Of course it also applies to hard drugs you wont get at the chemists.

The second offence is doing whatever function with a blood alcohol concenration above a prescribed limit. Does not matter what effect it has on you, in exactly the same way as driving with a BAC above a prescribed limit. No one is saying you are drunk or that you are impaired, just you have had more to drink than you are allowed. Blood Breath and Urine can all mesure the levels and be used as evidence.

As for what a Police Officer will do if you blow a level close to the limit, well speaking from the Road Traffic side I would warn them it was not in thier interests to continue to drive, given that thier BAC COULD still be going up, and that if they are stopped and tested again they could find they were over the limit. If they chose to drive there is nothing I could do to stop them. The same applies here, no power to stop you doing anything. However if there is reason to test you again you have been warned about the possible consequences.

As regards to the machines ability to mesure low levels of alcohol, yes they can, the Sweeds and the Australians manage with comercialy available equiptment. They Swedish level for driving is the same as under this law, and the australians as I recall is ZERO.

[BlackSword]

BJCC

Urine gives absolutely no indication of blood alcohol (or blood drug) levels.
None at all. Ask any Doctor.

Urine contains what was in your blood after it has been filtered and metabolised by your body. Urine is stored in the bladder until you can find a convenient opportunity to have a pee.

To all intents and purposes, anything in the bladder has all ready been excreted from the body.
Hence any prosecution based only on a urine test, would mean that you were being charged for failing to take a pee!
(and that is taking the pee!)

Urine testing can only ever demonstrate (historically) that a substance has been taken sometime (perhaps a very long time ago). It should never be used in the context of this legislation.
Whoever framed the legislation made a very, very bad mistake.

Perhaps deliberately so (consider the undefined nature of "drugs").

[bjcc]

Black sword,

I have no need to ask a doctor, I have seen the readings from Lab anaylsis, I have been in court when people have been convicted on Urine test evidence, and while our polititions may not be the sharpest tools in the box, they don't get that sort of thing wrong. Besides I am sure that every medical expert in creation has been wheeled in to try to disporve it, and so far with 100% failier rate.

The fact remains that urine, like breath refelcts the content of alcohol in your blood. If you don't want to take my word for it, please feel fee to test your theory. But I would suggest you get some medical advice first.

As for the drugs side of it, I'll reiterate what I said. Many drugs cause side effects, like Night Nurse caused some people to feel sleepy or drousey. Hence the warning about if the drug affects you don't drive, you see it on many drugs. Its also why the CAA don't let ATCO's or Pilots operate when taking anti depressents and other prescription drugs. Those are the lower end of the effects, obviously if you are taking LSD the effects are somewhat worse....
I hope that answers your point, if not please clarrify and I'll try again.

[BlackSword]

BJCC

You do need to talk to a Doctor.

He will say:

Alcohol when consumed, empties from the stomach into the gut, to the blood, is then broken down by the Liver and excreted in urine into the bladder. Urine contains what is excreted from the body, and does not reflect what is currently in the blood.

The Liver breaks down alcohol at a steady rate of about one standard unit per hour.
Hence, if you take one standard drink, wait one hour, take a pee then you will have no alcohol in your body.
If you choose not to take a pee, but wait a couple of hours and are then tested, then your breathe and blood will test negative but your urine positive and you are guilty of an offence.

Your crime?
Failing to take a pee!

I rest my case.

[bjcc]

Black Sword,

I bow to your superiour knowladge on the subject, and wait for the storm of press reports as 1000's of people convicted on the evidence of those know nothing lab people who test urine samples every day are pardoned due to your revelations.

Perhaps you would care to explain how 1000's of people have been convicted by the courts for providing samples of urine showing they have a blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit?

Is this some massive conspiricy by the Police, courts and Goverment, not to mention the medical proffession?

Well I am happy in the knowladge that you have exposed this....

Of course you could be wrong........

In the meantime, I would suggest that you don't offer advice on the subject, you may be seriously misleading people

[BlackSword]

BJCC

Whatever they have been prosecuted for, it could not (scientifically) have been blood alcohol levels based on a urine test. No laboratory would make the claim that a urine test reflects blood alcohol. Labs just carry out tests on demand.

Making a urine test the basis of a prosecution is very problematic.

There are lots of papers in the literature (since this is a well understood subject). For example:

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/other/dic1992/14.pdf

(just to turn your world upside down again)

[Flying Lawyer]

BlackSword

I started this thread to make fellow Ppruners aware that a new law is about to come into force which applies specifically to aviation and, in the case of specified professionals and cabin crew, may have dire consequences.

Your misunderstanding of the different nature of the two offences may (possibly?) have been resolved, but you've made several other assertions in various posts which may mislead people who don't realise they are inaccurate. eg Procedure at a police station if the preliminary test is positive, obtaining and using breath, blood or urine specimens, court process etc.
Also, although the Act is new, the procedure for preliminary tests and (where applicable) subsequest provision of a specimen isn't untested. It's copied from road traffic legislation which has been in force for decades and has been tested many times. In the early days of the breath-test, there were many successful appeals based on technical breaches of procedure but, over the decades, the loopholes have been closed.

Someone reading this thread may well be subjected to the new law in a few months time. It's important that they should know what procedures will be followed at various stages so that they know what to expect. Telling the police or the courts they think Parliament made a bad law is unlikely to help much.

[bjcc]

Well, I am sorry Black Sword, but yes people are convicted scientificly of having a BAC above the prescribed limit as shown by them providing a Urine sample. Been there seen it happen and that includes the defence evidnce of amount of alcohol in a urine sample.

So no, does not turn my world upside down, far from it.

I have read the document on your link, and your point is? I can't find any reference to Urine tests in it.

Yes granted it gives the figures for breakdown of alcohol in the body, but thats not the same as the relationship between BAC concentration and levels of alcohol in urine. It also righly points out that there are many factors which can verry the time to breakdown alcohol.

Rest assured that there is a relationship between alcohol in a urine sample and BAC and people are convicted.

By the way as I mentioned beofre you really should not give the advice you have, its misleading. Your own documentry 'evidence' does say that there is no reliable way of dtermining exactly how fast alcohol is brokendown. Whats avarage? do you know normal strength beer? Do you drink 'pub' mesures at home, which is what a standard unit of alcohol is based on? or do you just fillt he glass?


Flying Lawyer

You have a much better way of putting things than me!

[BlackSword]

BJCC, Flying Lawyer

BJCC - the article was a quick "heads up" on how alcohol passes through the body. Perhaps you could show me an article that links current blood alcohol to urine levels? I think not.

Despite repeated attempts to indite me for something I haven't misunderstood, you both still seem unable to take onboard the core point. I understand the two offences perfectly well.

I make no attempt to mislead anyone. Just inform.

I just see no reason to bow down and accept bad laws.
They can be changed and often are. This (still to be implemented) law is malformed and unsound. Thats bad.
Parts of it (e.g. drugs) completely undefined. Thats very bad.

Testing for alcohol and drugs is subject to scientific change.
And testing can be problematic. Oh yes.

Why do you think there is no mention of what "drugs" and what levels?
My concern is that use of urine testing is unsound and is a blunt "catchall".

I repeat my example:
1) Drink one standard unit, wait about one hour, take a pee then test yourself - you will have no alcohol in your body.
2) Drink one standard unit, wait a couple of hours and then test, your breathe and blood will test negative but your urine positive.

Now answer me this: "Why is it a crime not to pee?"
The law is an ass!

[Danny]

Why is it some people are unable to make their point and then let it stand instead of repeating, ad infinitum, their hypothesis without introducing something new to the argument? :zzz:

Black Sword, your point is made but you haven't backed it up with any reference except your own, very basic interpretation. FL and bjcc have both mentioned that the (English) law, as it stands at the moment, does use urine testing to determine BAC. I don't know the reasoning or methodology that is used to make this determination but I'm sure that someone from the medical profession would be able to. In the meantime, please stop sounding your own trumpet as it is getting repetitive and not getting this debate anywhere.

Perhaps you would like to take your theory and prove it. Why not partake of as many units of alcohol that you can stomach, apply your assumed time limit for your liver to metabolise the alcohol, clench your bladder muscle as tightly as may be needed and then get your sample and blood tested at the same time? If you are so sure about your position, I'm sure you could persuade some organisation to sponsor you to cover the costs of doing this, especially if it will make the news.

In the meantime, please stop repeating your assertion that alcohol in urine testing does not not reflect BAC. Whether it does or doesn't makes not one iota of difference in the eyes of the law as it stands. Until you are prepared to prove otherwise, the matter rests.

[BlackSword]

Danny,

Is this JetBlast?

The paper (and many others) at http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/other/dic1992/14.pdf
does back up my point, by stating the rates at which alcohol is metabolised by the liver from the blood into urine.

The law is not in place yet and the test procedures will be subject to change. For example, procedures and limits will have to be set for blood. They are not set yet.

I would have thought you would have an interest in getting a bad law changed?

Oooppss!

I meant "procedures and limits will have to be put in place to test for drugs"

[bjcc]

Blacksword,

As has been pointed out ad nausum, the procdures are copied from the Road Traffic Acts. The drugs side of it is perfectly well defined, if you impaired by drugs you commit an offence, end of story. Whats undefined about that?

The artical you refer to says lots of things, it does not however say in any way shape or form that there is no link between BAC and alcohol in Urine.

Please have a read of this, it may help you, it refers to the RTA, and as you have been told, that's what this law is based on.

http://www.trl.co.uk/static/dtlr/pdfs/TRL495.pdf

You will note under the heading methodology it says that URINE samples were used to test BAC and for drugs. While this involved fatal accidents the princible is the same, there is a link between BAC and urine alcohol levels.

The BAC and the breath and urine equivilents have been set and whether you, me or anyone agrees is irrelevent, the law exists. As to if its bad, well I can see no reason why its bad per say, except people may not agree with the levels set.

Whats becoming a worry in all of this is that you are putting a very amateur spin on what you have read, and applying your opions. The result of which could get someone into trouble if they are daft enough to give your theory a try. I have heard lots of theories on how to avoid being convicted for drink drive all except one were B*******s. (and that had to do with people who use funny handshakes). So please desist until you have some knowladge and experience in the subject.

[BlackSword]

So this is Jetblast.........

BJCC, I'm not an amateur.

You should read the report more carefully.
http://www.trl.co.uk/static/dtlr/pdfs/TRL495.pdf

If you did, you would note that urine is not used to determine blood alcohol (BAC).
Blood is, and only blood.

Urine is only used to confirm the presence of drugs.

BJCC

Technically, I have to retract:
Blood and urine samples were taken, and the urine samples sent for laboratory analysis - but this is just a convenient and rapid method of testing.
The blood samples were retained for confirmation.

The report assumes that a urine sample of 107mg per 100ml is equivalent to a blood alcohol level of 80mg per 100 ml.

However, the coroners form only allows for blood to be tested.

[bjcc]

Read it again then I will accept your apology.

Coranors have nothing to do with it, the princple is what I was trying to show you, which is urine samples give an admissable reading of BAC. Thats in a criminal court, end of your argument that urine samples are irrelevent and your theory regarding the 'offence of not being able to pee'.

[Flying Lawyer]

bjcc
Valiant effort, but I suspect you're wasting your time. There's no realistic prospect he's going to accept he misunderstands the law or is wrong about the procedures however many times we explain.

Warning:
I haven't got the time or inclination to enter into a p***ing contest about urine with BlackSword. Be warned that his posts are riddled with inaccuracies which, if you accepted them, might make your position worse.

A few examples taken at random:

The legislation makes it an absolute offence to have drugs or alcohol in your body
Wrong. It does not.
If you are tested positive, then you are guilty of a criminal offence and there is no defence.
Wrong. You may have a defence, It depends upon the facts. It would take too long to go through all the variables.
any airline that did not report "unfit" flight crew could be considered guilty of conspiracy.
Wrong. eg Sending you home without calling the police would not amount to conspiracy or any other offence.
‘Drugs’ are not effectively defined in the legislation.
A matter of opinion. The Act states that the terms ‘drugs’ includes any intoxicant except alcohol which is dealt with separately. (As bjcc has pointed out, the legislation isn't confined to illegal drugs.)
No "cutoff" levels (for drugs) are set.
Correct. The fact that BS considers they should be is another illustration of his misunderstanding of the different nature of the two offences.
The breath test on its own is not currently sufficient evidence to convict - so corrobating evidence in the form of a blood test is necessary.
Wrong. The result of the evidential breath-test machine at the police station is sufficient. No corroborating evidence is required.
In relation to traffic offences, blood/alcohol is generally relied upon.
Wrong. The evidential breath-test is generally relied on.
although there are certified breath test machines too.
Indeed there are, and the results are the sole evidence relied upon in the vast majority of cases.
Urine is not (these days) used - a blood sample is required.
Wrong. (See 'Procedure' below.)
Individuals are entitled to have recourse to testing for Defence purposes.
If (big 'If' - see below) the police ask for and obtain a specimen of blood or urine, you will be given part of the specimen for independent analysis.
In most cases the result of the evidential breath-testing device will bring the procedure to an end. You will be released or charged depending upon the result. (See below for the procedure if the result is 'over' but only just.)
There is no procedure (for obvious reasons) for providing you with part of the specimen of breath for independent analysis.
The evidential breath-test machines are Home Office approved, regularly tested for reliability/accuracy and there is a presumption that the machine has produced accurate results. It is very difficult, but not impossible, to rebut that presumption.


Procedure
I dealt with this earlier, but will repeat it (with additions) because of the recent inaccurate and potentially confusing contributions.

If the (preliminary) roadside test is positive, or you refuse, or can't give the necessary sample?
You will be arrested and taken to a police station.
At the police station you will usually be asked to provide two specimens of breath for analysis on another machine (commonly a Lion Intoximeter).
If the two readings differ then the police must rely on the lower reading.
If the lower reading is over the prescribed limit you will be charged. (See 'just over' below)

You do not have a right to insist on supplying a sample of blood or urine instead of breath.

If you fail to supply a breath specimen at the station you will committ an offence, unless you have a reasonable excuse. Being too drunk or unfit to supply the necessary breath specimen is not a reasonable excuse.
A medical condition which prevents you from supplying enough breath for the machine to sample may be a sufficient excuse. If you have such a condition you must advise the police at the time.

The police are entitled to request that you provide a specimen of blood or urine as an alternative to a breath test, if:
no automatic measuring device is available at the time of your arrest;
it's not working properly;
a doctor advises the police that your condition may be due to drugs; or
the police have reasonable cause to believe that breath samples should not be requested for health reasons.

What if the reading provided by the evidential breath-testing machine is over the prescribed limit but only just?
Being 'just over' is sufficient for the offence. However, if the breath reading is 50 micrograms or less, then you mustbe offered the option of providing a specimen of blood or urine.
If the police don't offer you this option you'll have a defence to the charge.

You should be asked which you would prefer (blood or urine), but it is up to the police which one they offer you, unless you have a medical condition which would preclude you from providing the necessary sample.

The police cannot take a blood sample without your consent but, if this is the option offered and you refuse to consent, the police can rely on the breath sample they have taken.

If the police ask you to provide urine, you are required to provide two samples within an hour. You have a right to have the second sample taken and you should do so.

If you are asked to provide blood, this must be taken by a police surgeon who will have to be called to the station.

Tudor Owen

[BlackSword]

BJCC

Don't try to make the report something its not.
The report is a study about drug and alcohol use in 1184 road deaths, most occurring in 2000.
Nothing to do with the courts or any prosecution. There were no prosecutions because the samples were taken from fatalities.
Blood and urine samples were collected, and the urine samples were analysed to identify whether alcohol or drugs were involved. Assumptions were made about amount of alcohol in blood from a measure of the amount in urine, for purposes of showing whether alcohol was involved.
What it shows is that drug use has risen to 24% of fatal injury accidents (rising from 7%) with alcohol at around 31% i.e. drug use has grown dramatically and is responsible for almost as many road deaths as alcohol.

It makes no difference to my point - urine should not be used, especially where the sample is small.

[Flying Lawyer]

If anyone's interested in learning more about alcohol and its effect on the body, there's useful and very readable information on the website of the manufacturer of the most commonly used Home Office approved breath-testing equipment.

Click here. (http://www.lion-breath.com/serv01.htm)

FL

[BlackSword]

Flying Lawyer,

Nice attempt at smear........... But I note you don't answer any of my points.

Is the law always right? Perhaps you think so, but I don't.

I'm saying something very simple: urine tests could lead to serious miscarriages.

The law is a fact, buts its implementation is not (yet).
This is not Road Traffic, so it does not follow that copying legislation over, changing the numbers will work or be fair. I think you know that, and are trying to obscure the real debate with legal B******t.

I haven't disputed breathe machines, but queried urine testing.
If crew are tested positive, then there will be few (if any) defences. So testing had better be right. Isn't that reasonable?

Few traffic offenders query the results of a breathe test or blood test - and quite right too. They wouldn't get very far. The cutoff levels set for alcohol certainly will impair an individuals ability to drive.

No levels have been set for drugs at all. Hence if the regime that is applied to alcohol, were applied to drugs, it could get messy. Especially, if traces of a substance (perhaps of over the counter medication) remained in the body many many days after imbibing.

[Daysleeper]

Flying Lawyer,

just wanted to clarify your opinion on the likely aviation procedure, The FODCOM appears to state that a blood test would be normal as the evidencial test in aviation cases.
Though I may be reading it wrong.

[Flying Lawyer]

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

[bjcc]

FL
Yes I agree, however I like a challenge!

To that end....

Blacksword,

The article I refered you to is about fatal accidents yes, but the idea was to demonstrate that it is established medical fact that BAC can be determined from urine.

I have to agree with FL, you do seem to have misunderstood the difference between 2 offences, and his answer contained no legal B******t, in fact an extreemly good clear explanation, which I found very easy to follow.

The drugs side of things I'll try to clarrify for you, and after that I wont enter into further debate with you.

To use the example I used before, Night Nurse used to cause a lot of people to feel drousey. In fact many of my collegues used it to help them sleep when they were on nights. Lets say one of them had the recomended mesure of Night Nurse, and started to feel sleepy. Got into his car and drove it. On stopping at Traffic lights he fell asleep. Police officer sees the diver of the car and wakes him up. Police officer speaks to driver, and finds that he keeps falling asleep, can't follow the conversation and doesn't appear to be 'with it'. Police officer asks a few questions regarding any medical reason why the driver should be like this and forms the opinon that he is not fit to drive in that state. Having established as best he can that there is no medical evidence, there is no smell of intoxicating liquer, however he sees the bottle of night nusre on the passenger seat which has been opened and some taken. He asks the driver if hes used the bottle of night Nurse, and gets the reply that the driver has. He arrests the man for driving whilke unfit through drugs.

At the Police station a doctor is called and examines driver, the doctor would then give evidnce of being fitness to drive. The evdience being that of the Police Officer, any evidence that exisist regarding side effects of the bottle of night Nurse and the Doctors findings.

There is no need for a blood test, urine test or breath test. Yes Police may ask for a blood or urine test and have it anyalised to establish there is whatever it is in Night Nurse that causes drouseyness in his blood. It is not however nessesery.

There is no 'cut off' level the offence is being unfit to drive end!

Now the example I have used is RTA but again, you have been told that the new act is related to the RTA.

This offence is different from the second offence which is having a BAC above a prescribed limit.

[Alty Meter]

Things you haven't said? You shift your ground every time something you've said turns out to be balls and then claim you never said it. FL's quoted EXACTLY what you said and then shot you down in flames.
If you're a "Company Director" the new law won't affect your job but it might affect some pilots who read Prune so let the rest of us learn without your silly distractions.
Blithering on about it? FL and bjcc have both tried to help you understand. Most of us would have given up sooner and given you a much shorter final reply. Just two words and the Prune software turns the first one into ****.
BTW, Beak is slang for magistrate and FL isn't a trainee anything. He's an experienced barrister who's been a Recorder (part-time judge) for years and if you'd been around Prune for longer you'd know he gives a lot of time free of charge to help pilots on and off the forums.
Why don't you write to your MP and tell him the law's wrong instead of making a nuisance of yourself here and being rude to people helping us.

[ILS 119.5]

Here's my bit.
I think the new legislation will do us all a lot of good. i.e. not drinking as much. I know that unsocial hours tend to make us drink more especially for sleeping purposes. That's why I,m writing this at 0125UTC with a glass of beer in front of me. Many years ago (a young trainee) I was sat in the sim (Tristar,showing my age) and there was a strong smell of alchohol. When I mentioned this to the training captain, he told me that drinking tends to go with the job (just like divorce I was later to find out).
This will be the law and we have to comply with it. We can all throw our teddies out of our cots but it will not do any good. We must all welcome this and no mater what it will improve aviation safety, if not so much in our eyes but for the travelling passengers which is the major concern. Unfortunately, there will be an increase in sickness which the Airline/ATC/Engineering companies will have to deal with. Unfortunately the new legislation will mean a lot of lifestyle changes for a lot of us but think about the benefits. Healthier, better defined six pack by the pool in Barbados or wherever, less hangovers, company profits increased (you know why) and lastly more money in your pocket. I know many who don't need it but to me an extra bonus. For those of you who are trying to mitigate already, don't bother, do it when you are found to be over the limit. I think FL has done a great job in providing us with the facts for discussion. If V1 is stated then it is, not questioned. If Vr is stated then it is, not questioned. We must abide by the law, if we don't then we do not deserve to be Aviation Professionals.

[5by5]

ILS w.r.t. -

Healthier - there's nothing sadder than dying with a healthy body, e.g look at those twits who drop dead running marathons !

Better defined six pack by the pool in Barbados or wherever - err, you don't work for low-cost airline do you ?

Less hangovers - for those that get them.

Company profits increased - not that the aircrew will see any of it.

More money in your pocket - that'll be handy, I'll be able to add it to the paltry annual pay increases we keep getting.

..... blimey, it's enough to drive somebody to drink ! ;)

[Flying Lawyer]

Further to the interesting question asked by Daysleeper:

Having looked at the Act again, I could find nothing to support the FODCOM suggestion that the specimen requested at the police station will in practice "usually be a specimen of blood", or the ATSIN suggestion that "in practice this will usually be "a sample of the suspected offender’s blood or urine."
As I've explained already, the Act expressly adopts the road traffic legislation and the usual practice in road traffic cases is to request a further specimen of breath measured by a calibrated evidential breath-test machine. (The law only requires the police to request or offer the blood or urine procedure in limited circumstances.)

I've discussed the issue with the Deputy Head of Flight Ops at the CAA who was very helpful and, between us, we arrived at what may be the explanation - it relates to the Police Protocol I mentioned in my earlier response:
The FODCOM reflects agreements reached between many bodies, including the CAA, Home Office and the Police. A 'Police Protocol' has been created to guide police officers applying and enforcing the new legislation. It may be that, in aviation cases, the police have agreed to request a specimen of blood rather than the usual second specimen of breath.

I emphasise this is no more than a possible explanation. I don't have access to the internal Police Protocol ( yet ;)) but the CAA will find out and come back to me. I hope to be able to post a definitive answer by the end of the week.

It seems credible because, under the present procedure, if your reading on the evidential machine at the police station is only just over the prescribed limit, the police must give you the opportunity to provide a sample of blood or urine for analysis.** That suggests an acceptance that the machine cannot give as precise a reading as is obtained from blood/urine analysis. Given that the aviation limits are lower (except for engineers), it may be that the police have agreed miss out the machine stage and go straight to the blood procedure. However, this is speculation on my part. I have nothing to support it.

** Subject to any medical considerations, the choice of blood or urine is made by the police, although the suspect can express a preference. They almost invariably opt for blood because that is taken by a doctor and it avoids an officer undertaking the unpleasant and often messy task of taking a urine sample from someone who's drunk.)



Tudor Owen

[tunalic2]

Blimey thats just taken me over an hour to read

Barrister,Pilot and Policeman battling it out on their interpretation of a new law. Each quite interestingly showing us a taste of their personalities I thought

I think that you commercial pilots are having a hard time of it,
you sit alone in your offices for up to 8/12 hrs with no visitors anymore perhaps looking forward to a couple or three pints later as an opportunity for a little social interaction...... but no more

Its like having speed limits without a speedometer,
the critics out there will say that you know how much fuel you've put in your car and how big the engine is which will give you an indication of how fast you are going, which is true but the officer with the radar gun has the recorded reading which is 100 % accurate and is not interested in your "indication".

If new limits are to be introduced then it would make good sense to make available accurate machines to self check such a low limit so that everyone can self monitor and could not realisically cry wolf when caught. Yes you could all become teetotal ,and the UK could bring in prohibition etc etc I think not.

the power of television eh?



Never confuse the law of Nature with the law of the Land

[bjcc]

tunalic2

I don't think there has been any battleing between Barrister, Policeman or Pilot. The interpretation is the same, certainly my moive is the same as FL's which is to inform.

I take your point over not being able to judge what level of Alcohol is in your system some time after you have had a drink. But as I have said before, thats nothing new, car drivers have had the same problem for decades. The issue is perhaps more difficult to judge with this act, because as you say the levels are lower.

I suspect that employers will not provide self test machines, for the same reason that coach firms don't for thier drivers, because its a personel responsibility. The Goverment has passed the law, the Queens signed it, its been publisied in the aviation community, the rest is up to the people effected. No one is forcing anyone to have a drink, even if you do, you can reduce the chances of being over the limit to zero by being sensible.

There is nothing to stop someone buying thier own screening machine, although I would steer clear of the old style ones where you blow a bag up and then look for cyrstals in a tube to change colour, they are very inaccurate.

[FlexibleResponse]

"Its like having speed limits without a speedometer"

tunalic2,

Your comments cut right to the heart of the matter.

I've already reviewed some of the links on equipment suitability and pricing to try determine what device might be best to carry around in the bottom of the old nav bag.

And thank you Flying Lawyer for raising the matter and your ongoing research.

[tunalic2]

Thanks FR

Bjcc

I didn't mean that employers should provide, only that it would be a good idea if the government could endorse or encourage an accurate affordable machine that someone who still partakes of a glass of sherry could afford to own and carry with them.

Hands up those of us that have had a big night on say a Friday and still felt a bit rough on sun morning ?
How about a stag do, 8 pints stella and 8 doubles Mathematically ( thats if you can remember all that you drank) from 2am sat morning you would be ok by(70 kg healthy male with food eaten)2200 sat but I'm blowed if I'd feel ok by tues let alone monday!

I once volunteered to be breathalysed (i was not driving and had no intention of doing so as I felt quite hungover),it registered orange but it was still a pass!!

I know you should save the above scenario for your weeks holiday etc, but with these lower limits it does make for a new limit that we are not familiar with and at present I believe we can not accurately test for(I will gladly be proven wrong if someone can point me in the right direction)

"Can't smoke can't drink what can you do???" how did that song go?


Never confuse the law of the Land with the law of Nature

[Maximum]

tunalic, it's extremely refreshing to read a post like yours that so simply and effectively sums up what our job has become. Thank you.

I think for a lot of pilots this is a real worry. Expected to work longer and longer hours at all times of the day and night, with all the additional changes post 9/11, for example being locked into the cockpit like a battery hen.

And yet at the very same time any chance we have of relaxing and unwinding at the end of a long hard day is being taken away.

It's a sad new world.........

[bjcc]

tunalic2

There are devices which can messure accuratly. Flying lawyer has already pointed everyone (on page 7 of this) at a site which gives details of devices which are Home Office approved for Police use. Thats as near to any form of endorcement that you will get from the Goverment.

I'll say this again, but those that say that you cannot messure accuratly these low limits are wrong. You can and the Swedes do.

I am fully aware that this law is seen as a restriction on peoples private life, and the concern over dropping yourself in it inadvertantly. But I can't help you there, except to try to expand on the practice side of the legislation FL has pointed out to you.

[chuks]

I find this very interesting for a presentation of an new approach to enforcement. It seems to have upset some people who might not want to change their habits but FL seems to be just reporting the new reality, not trying to spoil anyone's fun.

It would seem that none of the authorities are going to bother measuring impairment but just to check for the presence of various other drugs at all and alcohol in very small quantities. That would seem to mean an end to the usual practice of unwinding with a drink or two on a night-stop. Too bad, but there it is.

Lots of us end up alcohol-dependent without being particularly aware of this fact. Hell, I used to quit drinking every night! Unless it was Christmas or something, when the p*ss-ups could continue unabated for days. The only thing that brings dependency to the fore in a culture like aviation's is being forced to go without, in my experience.

There's a new twist to the tale if you work on certain contracts: you may not just be tested for forbidden drugs but also be tested for the required presence of anti-malaria drugs! How about that one? You can forget all this stuff about civil rights, too. By taking the contract you give implicit consent to being tested.

[Daysleeper]

Flying Lawyer.


Thanks for the info. Appreciate your time. I hope never to have to worry about this in too much detail!

If I can return the favour bout aeroplanes let me know.

Daysleeper.

[ILS 119.5]

FL
I think someone mentioned earlier regarding other professions and drinking but I am curious. Is the government allowed to bring in laws to target certain professions? The Drink/Driving law is generic to all drivers in the UK and not a particular profession. Surely there can't be a law for one and not the other.
If they can target certain professions with certain laws then why aren't the following targeted:-
Surgeons-over the limit could mean someones death.
Barristers-over the limit could mean bad presentation and therefore someone could be found guilty.
Architects/Surveyors-over the limit could mean incorrect specification therefore building falls down and people die.
Cruise Liner/Ferry Captains-over the limit, ship crashes/sinks and people die.
Taxi/Lorry Drivers-I know this is covered by the drink driving legislation, but they do far more hours and fatigue combined with a pint could lead to far more accidents and therefore a possibility of people dying.
Armed Police-over the limit, wrong decision and someone is shot.
I could specify far more professions but I'm sure you get my drift.
What do you think.

ILS 119.5

[bjcc]

119.5

There are already laws in place that cover some of the proffessions you mention.

The armed Police is cover by Drunk in possession of a firearm all police by the police discipline code.
Lorry divers hours are regulated and as you say they and taxi drivers are also covered by the Road Traffic Acts,
I have a vaugue recollections of ships crews being covered by a similar law.

Doctors are a law unto themselves and you try to get one to give evidence against another, no chance, so nice idea not enforcable, but possibly covered by thier own discipline code.
Barristers, mmmm, well no comment.
Judging by some buildings I have seen I agree about Architects/Surveyors.

Also people you not mentioned, Train Drivers are already covered by legislation. So don't go thinking its pilots being singled out. And yes most of the above if found to have been drinking would probably lose thier jobs.

[FlyingForFun]

It's also not true to say that it's a specific profession being singled out. I'm a professional software engineer (my colleagues may disagree, but it's what I write on my CV) with a PPL, but, as far as I'm aware, I'll still be subject to the same laws as commercial pilots when I decide to go flying. (The difference is that if I'm feeling a little hung over and choose not to fly, I don't have to worry about loosing my job.)

FFF
-----------

[chuks]

I recently read a short article in a magazine about the various breathalyser devices available for purchase and use by the German general public.

None of the devices was judged to be of any real use in determining the blood alcohol level with regard to the legal drink/drive limits under German law. Their advice was to refrain from drinking if you intend to drive.

When one looks at the guidelines for how many units of alcohol one should consume, it all seems like a cruel joke anyway. I used to bust through the amount I was supposed to consume in a week in just one night. Well, does one want to drink or else just sit around sipping, sipping, sipping.... A Brit might just hack that, but I prefer my beer cold, cold, cold.

And as for the rest of this regulatory stuff, we used to adhere very strictly to the local rule of 'No drinking within 50 feet of the aircraft!' Well, except for one guy who kept an emergency standby supply of beer in his desk in the flight line office. He was an alcoholic's alcoholic. Eight hours bottle to throttle; yeah sure. Whatever. It was not unknown for someone to stumble out of the boozer onto the crew bus in 'the old days'.

What would be the fun in having a 'half' at 2000 hrs and then toddling off to sit up in bed watching gorillas have sex on 'The Discovery Channel' until one finally had wound down enough to go to sleep? What is the point of that, for God's sake?

When one is alcohol-dependent one simply must have a few drinkies in order to unwind, relax, have some fun and get to sleep. The only way to break the pattern is to learn to do without alcohol, which is not easy or fun, especially after half a lifetime of happy boozing. But absent that step some dreary little wowser might just find it amusing to put the drug testers on one's trail. Some companies even actively encourage their passengers to make complaints and allegations. What with one thing and another, if some creep comes around with a request to blow into the little meter, I don't want to have to worry about the outcome.

If someone else has a better solution to this problem I sure would like to hear about it. The only solace I can take for now is that I already have drunk my share through about age 90. For now, though, just look for the grumpy guy over in the corner drinking 'softs'. Ugh!

[ILS 119.5]

bjcc
Thanks for the comments. Firstly, why can't Surgeons/Doctors have this law be enforced upon them? It would raise the same outcry as what is being imposed on Aviation Professionals now. To say they are a law to themselves is not acceptable. Boat drivers, "vague recollections". What do you mean? Either they have some form of lgislation or not. Maybe a company rule just like most airlines or a vague statement to cover any possibilities, like the ANO.What is the legislation covering train drivers? Is this a company rule or a law?
I'm not trying to say that Pilots/ATCO's?Engineers are being singled out, but to be fair, if the Aviation industry is being subjected to a drink/drugs law then other industries should be looked at as well. The other thing which concerns me is (as said before), can a certain profession be singled out for legislation?
I await your comments,
ILS 119.5

[Cathar]

Railway workers are covered by Part 2 of the Transport and Works Act 1992. Ship crew are covered by Part 4 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act, the same Act that covers aviation personnel.

[Mac the Knife]

Why do I get the feeling that the introduction of these new, very low residual limits are not about impairment at such, but rather that it is a feeling that "something must be done" - never mind exactly what or in which direction.

Is there really any hard evidence that currently professional pilots are putting their passengers or hulls at risk to any significant degree or in any significant numbers as a result of alcohol abuse and must be stopped? How many reputable airlines have had an adverse incident in the last ten years that was attributable to alcohol impairment?

Like tunalic2 says, "I think that you commercial pilots are having a hard time of it, you sit alone in your offices for up to 8/12 hrs with no visitors anymore perhaps looking forward to a couple or three pints later as an opportunity for a little social interaction...... but no more".

Are these very small alcohol residues any more impairing than a cold or a sick child at home, or chronic fatigue, moving house, getting divorced or the thousand different distractions that assail us all at one time or another?

Of course, the law is the law and we must now all follow it, but was there any real need for this? Will it make flying significantly safer?

[bjcc]

119.5

Someone beat me to the answers on Train Drivers and Boat crews. So no they are not company rules they are subject to much the same legislation as the aviation industry. The reason I had a vague recolection was that there arn't many boats at Heathrow which is where I worked last a policeman. The British Transport Police cover the railways so thats not something I dealt with much either.

Ok can a group be singled out? Well, I don't think they are, it seems that most transport workers are subject to much the same thing.

Regarding Doctors, try sueing one and seeing if you can get another to give direct evidence against one of thier own. As at some stage you would need some medical evidence, then you are on a loser. I'm not saying its right, there may even be some odd peice of legislation that covers it I don't know.

At the end of the day, if you don't like the legislation then write to your MP, outline your reasons, and I am sure he will give it his undevided attention.

[ILS 119.5]

I can see all points of view and I am not bothered either way, if the law says that it is so then it it is. I am just writing this after watching the CH4 programme called "p*****d on the job" which highlights resposible people being pissed whilst carrying out their functions. This includes Doctors. Are there any pilots/controllers/engineers on this programme. No. In my view if a law is passed then it should be for everyone and not for an individual profession.
bjcc
thanks, I don't think I'll write to my MP, too busy trying to live my life.
Cathar,
If you have time can you please let me know what these Acts are, especially the one covering aviation personnel. I only work to the ANO for the legal aspects. But it would be interesting to know what other professions (especially skippers) are subject to.
I still think BALPA/GATCO should have more input into this before it becomes law, (if they can).

[Cathar]

Transport and Works Act 1992 (see Part 2 Chapter 1 sections 26 to 40) can be found at: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/Ukpga_19920042_en_1.htm

The Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 (see Part 4, sections 78 to 91 for Shipping and Part 5, sections 92 to 102 for aviation) can be found at: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030020.htm

[Heliport]

If you have time can you please let me know what these Acts are, especially the one covering aviation personnel.
Can we take it you didn't notice the title of this thread, or read it from the beginning? ;)
Apart from certain distracting posts, the entire thread is about the new law as it affects UK CAA regulated aviation personnel. :D

[Desert Nomad]

I know there has been a great deal written on this subject here, but was just reading the Telegraph when I saw the following:

Stringent alcohol limits for airline pilots are to be introduced tomorrow, with legal levels four times lower than those for motorists.

The limit for pilots, cabin crew and air traffic controllers will be set at 20 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood - the equivalent of less than half a pint of beer or a small glass of wine. Drivers are permitted up to 80mg - about a pint and a half of beer.

Under the regulations, police could carry out breath tests, with anyone found in breach of the law facing dismissal. Courts would also have the power to fine or imprison offenders.

However, random tests will not be permitted following opposition from the British Airline Pilots Association.

The legislation - part of the Railways and Transport Safety Act - was unveiled last year and will come into immediate effect following an announcement by the Government tomorrow. It will cover any aircraft in UK airspace and UK-registered planes anywhere in the world.

The measure will provide a clear limit for all flight staff.

At present Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) guidelines suggest that aircrew "must not be under the influence of drink or drugs to such an extent as to impair their capacity".

Airlines currently operate their own regulations, with British Airways's policy stating that air personnel should only drink in moderation in the 24 hours before flight and abstain in the final eight hours. These will remain unaffected by the legislation.

"What this gives is a prescribed threshold. It is very important to tighten up the already high standards with aviation security to make sure that flying is as safe as possible," said a source at the Department for Transport.

The CAA will be informed of any flight crew who fail breath tests, allowing them to withdraw their licence.

The legislation will also cover professional mariners, who will be subject to the same 80mg alcohol limit as road users. It is expected to be extended to cover recreational sailors following further consultation.

I know that in 99.9% of the time it is no problem, and usually gets dealt with if found out. I would like to know that if this is not random testing how will the police decide who to check. I would assume it would continue to be when someone reports the person they suspect as being over the limit?

[kishna]

I have been led to believe that this level of alcohol is so minute, that even a non drinker (when faced with a stressful situation) will possibly attain this level through the body's own inner workings. Can anyone confirm this? If is this is the case then its probably time for most of us (Pilots and ATCO's alike) to hang up our headsets and start a new career!

k

[Pirate]

I guess this means that drinking for easyJet will mean Orange juice from now on and Ryanair may as well take the harp from the fin and put it back on the stout bottle.

(Yes, I know FR's an Irish company and not subject to UK legislation, but on the day they ban smoking in Paddy pubs, anything could happen.)

confundemus

[Bletchley]

The limit for Railway staff is set at 30mg/100mm blood within the Industry.

This limit allows for the natural level of alcohol that can be found in the blood and prevents 'false' positive. The body produces alcohol at varying levels naturally (as it was explained to us) and therefore it is impossible to get a 'safe' zero level.

With regards to testing, we have five testing secenarios.

1 Pre-employment/Transfer Screening

2 Transfer to a Railway Safety Critical Post

3 Random Screening - which is done by a computer programme remotely from the line of management. 48 hours notice is given and you are released from duty to attend.

4 Post Incident Screening - this occurs after any incident when a person has been directly involved in an incident/near miss/accident.

5 For Cause Screening - which is implemented in the event that you give someone due cause for concern that you may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

A refusal to be screened under 3,4, and 5 above is classed as a 'Test Failure' with immediate suspension followed by Disciplinary action which will almost certainly result in dismissal and banning from further employment within the Industry.

A refusal to test under 1 and 2 above results in your application being declined.

All testing is both for drugs and alcohol.

We are advised not to drink within 24 hours of duty, and NEVER within 8 hours of duty.


Just to clarify these arrangements apply to the Railway Industry, I have no idea what the arrangements for the Aviation Sector may be but the above may be of benefit.

It is rare that we get a failure for alcohol. Drugs is the far more sinister failure as it is in some cases not posible to identify someone who is potentially affected. We tend to find these after a Random or Post Incident screen.

Trust this helps.

Happy to give more info if requested

Cheers

[BoeingMEL]

So, no random testing at all and 48 hours notice otherwise! Usual political "initiative" which will lead nowhere and impress only the ignorant. In my 28 years at the front-end I never once was aware of flight-deck or CC the worse for drinking. On the other hand, I'd need a hundred hands to count the number of football-shirted pi**-head pax who should have been breath-tested. bm

[Maximum]

"What this gives is a prescribed threshold. It is very important to tighten up the already high standards with aviation security to make sure that flying is as safe as possible," said a source at the Department for Transport.

.........while conveniently ignoring the real safety threat of fatigue:rolleyes: ........

[fergineer]

Boeing you have led a very sheltered life in your 28 years thats all I can say!!!!!!!!

[Diesel8]

"So, no random testing at all and 48 hours notice otherwise!"

If that is the case, what on earth is the point?

[avoman]

Diesel8, the point is that there is now a quantitative guide. More than 20mg - under the influence. Less than 20 - not.
Much clearer than the ANO article 65, '...crew..shall not be under the influence of drink (or a drug) such as to impair his capacity to act'.
It could even be a protection of sorts to yourself against baseless accusations.

[Diesel8]

I certainly understand the need for a guideline, although imho, any alcohol, other than naturally occuring, while undertaking flying is wrong.

In the US, IIRC it is premployment, post accident, probable cause and random. Well, random is just that, your number gets picked and of you go, no 48 hour notice. Which to me, if you are going to do it, makes a lot more sense than advising someone 2 days prior.

As far as being accused of it. Should that happen, I will not fly the airplane, until such time, I have had a test, at which point, I will return and should I not have been replaced, I will have the accuser removed fom the aircraft.

[bjcc]

Careful people...

The new act DOES NOT give you 48 hours notice.

Please read the first page, Flying Lawyers summery.

If a Police Officer suspects you have a blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit he can require you to take a breath test THEN. There is no provision for a 48 hour wait, and if you refuse you are liable to arrest.

Also please don't confuse the 'under the influence' and having a Blood alcohol concentration above the prescibed level, the 2 things don't mean the same.

There is no provision in the new act for 'random' testing, nor is there any under the Road Traffic Acts, which is what this is based on, but I can assure you that there are ways and means of administering what is in effect a random test....

There is NO safe way, apart from not drinking of working out if you are over the new limit, unless you have invested in a breath test machine of your own. Even then, that only gives a reading at that moment, you could still be going up.

[Airbedane]

Hi FL,

A quick one (or to be pedantic, two):

Is the new law in place? and

Does it apply to all aircrew, i.e. private pilots and non-commercial ops?

Thanks,
Airbedane

[ecj]

Yes, the new limit is now in force.

It applies to all UK registered aircraft crews worldwide [unless a foreign country has even more severe limits - in which case this lower limit will apply], and anybody flying in UK airspace

[Airbedane]

Thanks ecj, and I can confirm that what you say is true.

A call to the CAA this morning verified that the legislation is now in force and it applies to all pilots, PPL, BCPL,CPL, ATPL, etc. A note will be put out in a future GASIL.