View Full Version : Scooping scuppered! Proposed alcohol rule
Janet 301
19th Mar 2001, 22:41
Just seen on Ceefax p114 that Bob Ainsworth has produced a proposed alcohol limit for aircrew and ATCOs (wot not ATSAs?)
The proposed limit is 20mg alcohol/100ml blood which is one quarter of the drink drive limit at present.
Perhaps the nice shop in the LATCC foyer should start bulk buying breath testing kits! Thinks......how about some New Horizons branded breath testers?
Janet
Bright-Ling
19th Mar 2001, 23:08
Probably the same as trolly dollies......although part of the crew/team they don't work of a licence.
The one quarter bit is the real worry..... 20mgs can't be much alcohol, or is a very long time between "bottle to throttle".
Only a proposal at the moment though, so I'm orf down the pub!!!
[This message has been edited by Bright-Ling (edited 19 March 2001).]
smooth approach
19th Mar 2001, 23:13
UK Mil controllers alraedy have a rule:
No drinking in the 10hrs immediately prior to controlling and only moderate amounts (described as 2-3 pints) in the 24hrs before rostered duty.
Religiously obeyed....... I'm told.
Smoothie
[edited for spellling]
[This message has been edited by smooth approach (edited 19 March 2001).]
Just to worry everyone...On avarage the drink drive limit is reached after just over a pint....or 2 glasses of vino.....so, and i admit my maths isn't too clever, thats just a couple of sips....oh er!
form49
20th Mar 2001, 15:25
It's all well and good having these proposals, however the difficulty lies with enforcing them. The police have to have reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed before getting a breath sample, and then if a blood sample is requested (only if the breath alcohol is between 35 and 49 a Doctor has to be called to take the sample, during thje time it takes for the Doc to arrive the blood alcohol levels have fallen, hence 8 times out of 10, they get away with it.
Now who will come in sya to me I suspect you have been drinking and require you to supply a sample of blood for analysis. Anybody does, I'd want my solicitor present (as is my right if I am suspected of something).
It'll never work!!!!
------------------
Turn left heading 230, close from the left, report established
HEATHROW DIRECTOR
20th Mar 2001, 18:31
When I worked or IAL over 30 years ago there were quite strict rules about alcohol - enshrined in their MATS. The UK CAA is streets behind the times..
Form49,
Almost correct, you don't just have to be suspected of commiting a moving traffic offence. You can be breath tested if you are involved in an accident or the officer suspects you are driving with a blood alchol concentration above the prescribed limit. So you can be stopped for any reason the officer comes up with, then, provided he can come up with some suspicion....its blow job time. Waiting for the doctor to arrive can mean the level of alcohol goes down.....unless you finished the 17th pint 40 mins ago, in which case it will continue to go up....So faily often you can find yourself in it deeper!
However thats all road traffic act...Which is not going to apply to LATCC ops rooms.
There is president however, train drivers involved in incidents can be required to take breath and blood tests for alchol and drugs ........
As regards to solicitors, well, a breath test under the RTA cannot be delayed while a solicitor is waited for.......But thats because its a requirment to provide the breath specimin and a solicitors presence is not going to change the result of it. if this is a proposal to be an act of parliement then it will probabl;y be the same.
Legs11
21st Mar 2001, 03:17
OOh, HeathrowDirector, looks like you've just pointed out that IAL (SERCO!!!) are more concerned about safety than NATS, and have been for a long time.
This was posted tongue very much in cheek, couldn't miss the opportunity, sorry.
Ausatco
21st Mar 2001, 04:14
It's 8 hours bottle to console here. There is no specific limit on blood alcohol content. However our Civil Aviation Regs (re-iterated in our ATC docs) say you cannot report for duty if impaired by the use of any drug or physical ailment/condition. It is therefore up to the individual and is difficult to police.
On the roads, in most (I think) states down here there is Random Breath Testing. Queues of cars are pulled over and drivers breath-tested with a hand-held device. The limit is .05 millimoles per litre. (Would that be the same as 50mg per 100ml?) If you're over you're carted off to undergo another more accurate test on a fixed machine. Its result is sufficient for the law - a blood sample is not required for prosecution.
The penalties for refusing a breath test are worse than the penalties for DUI.
AA
form49
21st Mar 2001, 19:20
BJCC,
After several years as one of the boys in blue, I am very familiar with the provisions of the RTA and a constables powers to require a specimen of breath for analysis at the roadside, and also the requirements for blood smaples and the effect of "finishing your 17th pint 40 mins ago".
Anybody that turns in for work who finished any large amount of alcohol in the lprevious couple of hours should be hung out to dry.
All the guidelines 8hrs bottle to console etc, are only guidelines, we are all individuals and our bodies process the alcohol we consume at different rates so guidelines or not after 8 hours you can still be p155ed, god knows I arrested enough people on Sunday mornings driving out for their papers!!.
As for having the tests, I have no objection to being tested after an incident in which I am believed to have been responsible for a losss of separation etc, hiowever who will have the power to have reasonable grounds to suspect that I have alcohol,in my system and require me to give a blood sample?
Making it up, saying I thought I smelled alcohol, or saying that after every incident you are required to give a sample will start to infringe on my human rights and things could turn nasty with claims for compensation after we are all vindicated when they find no trace of alcohol in our system and the whole thing becomes a farce
------------------
Turn left heading 230, close from the left, report established
Form49
We obviously share previous occupations. I agree your last part, and i'm not advocating that there should be breath tests, even if there is an incident...in any case would be difficult to enforce, there arn't exactly an surplus of old bill in the west drayton area and i doubt the Modplods on the gate at LATCC have the powers......so it really would be unenforcable........
Chilli Monster
23rd Mar 2001, 01:30
I think you'll find the Modplods do have the powers as they are a properly constituted constabulary - anyone want to be the first to try and disprove it ;) (We have them where I work too!).
slurp
23rd Mar 2001, 01:40
if i remember rightly..some years ago the MOD plod had to call the WD police to someone they suspected had had too much Xmas spirit and was driving....it might have been because of staffing levels...or the fact they are MOD police at the time....not sure ...but yeah those guys work in Whitehall etc ...bumped into one last year
airfox
23rd Mar 2001, 05:19
HI MARV,
Been on the case quite a while now and have finally cracked it.???
Modplods are a constabulary, but non home office. They do have the powers of constable but only in relation to certain acts, mostly concerning service personel and property. The reason why west drayton had to be called was that the modplods had no juristiction over the matter.....just the same as they can't do much mobile phones and driving ... whether they have powers at LATCC depends on the ownership of the property...eg is it ill mod, or not