Police Breath Tests [Archive]

Monopole

1st Jun 2006, 07:25

Does anyone know if pilots have to submit to breath tests from police?

Where was he when they asked for a test? I am of the understanding (likely to be incorrect however) that you can not refuse if you are on a public gazetted Rd, including roads within airport boundarys (so make sure you stop at all the stop signs lads :eek: ). If he was airside however, I don't think he is required to. CASA certainly can't........Yet :mad: .

The rule is eight hours bottle to throttle. there is no mention of BAC.
Not entirely correct. I don't have the regs in front of me right this moment, but it does mention not to be under the influence of. Dont mistaken this for not 'Blowing' a reading on a breath test.:{

I remember reading an article in the Crash Mag a few years ago about a study on the lasting effects of alcohol. While the boffins concluded that 1 drink can be rather beneficial to your performance, your decsion making ability and motor skills can be degraded up to 48 hour after a 'Bender'.
As for this
refused a breath test from two coppers he'd spent the previous night drinking with.
While I dont condone drink driving, this is just :mad: :mad: from the cops.

rmcdonal

1st Jun 2006, 08:01

If they are going to check for 8 hrs no Alcohol It would have to be a blood test. A breath test wouldn't be accurate enough. So if you get ramped then expect a ride down to the local plod or hospital for a quick jab. And if your like me a blood test well effect my ability to fly (I hate needles) therefore I would refuse to fly that day (with my ghost white skin and clammy hands) and the test would be a mute point. I could charge CASA for a loss of income (see regs where if a ramp check costs the company money (due loss of time, weight if flying ops inspector around etc) then the CASA are liable to pay for it. I’m thinking around the $130hr mark...:hmm:

Spotlight

1st Jun 2006, 08:32

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about
Were it that simple!:ugh: The short answer to your first question is no. State wallopers do not have the right to demand a breathalyser test from anyone other than those whom they reasonably suspect have been involved in operating a vehicle upon a Government Gazetted road. At various times in this great free land of ours the definition of a vehicle has been held by the courts to include pushbikes, horses, billy carts and on one memorable occasion a camel.
So. Should you land your aircraft on a road. With the written permission of the Main Roads and the road meeting the reqs of an ALA, or perhaps as the result of an emergency: Plod has a free kick at you.
At the drome and ready to depart an imaginative cop might ask how you got to work. Should you indicate that you drove, and in his opinion you exhibit signs of intoxication you may then be bound to provide a breath specimen for alcohol.
After an accident? You are not in a position to agree to anything other than medical treatment. You are in shock!
It has become common practice over the last 10 to 15 years for state police to attend occurances such as gear up landings at airports, take details and attempt to breathalise the pilot. Most pilots agree instantly, nothing to hide of course, even though they are not required under any law to submit to this.
Now: Take the example, as reported above of a situation at Dubbo. Did the pilot pull a sheila that the cop had his sights on. Did he make comments indicating his disdain towards the types that make up the Big Blue Gang? Could the cop himself register his own alcohol reading on a machine, make a play of a test and bust our hapless ladykiller?
My view is that once you give something to someone else be it an Ipod, book or bodily sample, you have lost control of it. Corruption and incompetence are the hallmarks of mankind. Can the naive who trot out the homilies be so blind as to the overturning of convictions for murder, rape etc of innocent people that we see on occasion.
Is there an identifiable problem with drugs or alcohol in Australian Aviation? I don't think so. The rules as they stand are strict. A report by anyone to Casa Medical Branch that a medical holder has an issue will result in a Direction under the CARs for an evaluation. No medical no licence!
Is there a Licence holder out there that would crew with or allow someone to perform an aviation function knowing they were impaired. I don't think so.
Hijacked your thread a bit wdn. All this will change in the not too distant future. It may well be that state cops will be able to drink with a pilot then bust him with the fuel drain in his hand the next morning. Or the vegetarian teatotal Virgin pilot who eats a lot of fruit will lose his job, family and spend 18 monthes in the courts proving he had not been drinking.

Capt Claret

1st Jun 2006, 09:35

It surprises me how many people remember the 8 hours bottle to throttle but forget the rest of CAR (1988) 256, the relevant bits for pilots: 256 Intoxicated persons not to act as pilots etc. or be carried on aircraft
(1) A person shall not, while in a state of intoxication, enter any aircraft.
Penalty: 5 penalty units.
(2) A person acting as a member of the operating crew of an aircraft, or carried in the aircraft to act as a member of the operating crew, shall not, while so acting or carried, be in a state in which, by reason of his or her having consumed, used, or absorbed any alcoholic liquor, drug, pharmaceutical or medicinal preparation or other substance, his or her capacity so to act is impaired.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(3) A person shall not act as, or perform any duties or functions preparatory to acting as, a member of the operating crew of an aircraft if the person has, during the period of 8 hours immediately preceding the departure of the aircraft consumed any alcoholic liquor.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(4) A person who is on board an aircraft as a member of the operating crew, or as a person carried in the aircraft for the purpose of acting as a member of the operating crew, shall not consume any alcoholic liquor.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

Similar requirements for FSO/ATC

Spotlight
Is there a Licence holder out there that would crew with or allow someone to perform an aviation function knowing they were impaired. I don't think so.
Sadly, I beg to differ. I've heard the stories and seen the photos of a comatose pilot in a multicrew environment which, for that day, was single pilot. Admittedly years ago but I don't think much has changed in the intervening time. :eek: :{

Hugh Jarse

1st Jun 2006, 09:51

And further to Clarrie's comments, if you do the blood test for PCA, the coppers give you a second vial of blood from the same sample for you to get tested independently, if necessary.

That pretty well puts paid to the tampering problem alluded to in previous posts.

Sunshine Coaster

1st Jun 2006, 11:22

Spotlight

1st Jun 2006, 11:56

Mr Claret and Mr Jarse
At the risk of assumption can I take it from your posts that you do see an identifiable problem that needs to be addressed and that you fully support whatever practices the new regs may entail?
Fair enough. Obviously somebody must see a problem.
Mr Claret you say you heard, you saw photo's years ago of someone in a less than an optimal state in a seat. Hardly seems to be a big kick-off for a campaign of Drunken Pilots Need to be Stopped. Is this a problem in the company you work for? Well use the existing regs as I mentioned, drop a dollar coin to CASA Medical, give your name and state your concerns.
Mr Jarse
I guess you must have been going through a family media ban for the last 20 years or so. A surpreme court judge and the integrity of second samples springs to mind in your part of the world. A tin box on the wall was it not?

Richo

1st Jun 2006, 14:16

Glad you posted that Clarrie, I was going to type the whole thing out.

I think you did not take your comments far enough. The number of pilots out there who don't have a grasp on even a simple rule like this one, is astounding.

The 8 hours thing (which so many think is the Only RULE) is only a GUIDE to complying with the actual rule.

I do not know whether a copper can demand a breath test, even after an accident. I will ask a mate who is both CPL and Senior copper for his thoughts.

However I can offer advice along the lines of statments which can be offered by witnesses and "Expert witnesses".

If you refuse a breath test, it will be mentioned, possibly in the form of a leagal statment useable in court.
Then a person (maybe a police const. or maybe joe public) can make statemets like, yes I saw him he was staggering about and had slured speech etc.

I am sure you can see where this is going.

Where as if you do have the breath/blood test it will only prove that you are complying with the relevant Reg and prevent any un/informed comments or statements.

If you do have something to worry about, then .........................

WannaBeBiggles

1st Jun 2006, 21:32

Let us not even contemplate let alone countenance any State Police involvement in matters aviation. They are NOT capable, authorised or qualified to be involved in any regulatory matter in this sphere.

Do not even discuss anything with them, if they insist not until you have a suitably aviation qualified legal representative with you. Same goes for dealings with CASA for that matter.

The Coaster:ok:

Well maybe next time there is an irate passenger on an aircraft the police should wait until a qualified legal representative is with them... because aviation is not "their thing" :rolleyes:

As it's been said many times before, if you've got nothing to hide...

The police are also tasked with protecting the community and regardless of who you are, if they suspect you could be a danger to yourself or another they are well within their rights to do what ever is neccassary to ensure your and other peoples safety.

Also, there is nothing stopping the AFP or any other government agency delegating powers on a per case basis or as a blanket delegation, to another law enforcement agent or agencies.

Lastly, Drug & Alcohol testing is coming... for anyone that reads the CASA site.. http://www.casa.gov.au/media/2006/dotars06_056wt.htm

http://www.casa.gov.au/media/2006/dotars06_056wt.htm

YesTAM

1st Jun 2006, 23:33

Capt. Claret, I am aware of the full regulations which appear to have been written before the availability of BAC testing devices.

With reference to those rules, it is clearly stated that contravening the eight hours rule is an offence.

The definition of "Intoxication" would have to be the old military/police one of slurred speech, smelling of alcohol, etc.

The definition of "impairment" would have to be the old neuro tests - balance, walking a straight line, standing with eyes closed etc.

In other words, and not that I would condone the practice, if you had a BAC of say 0.04, didn't smell of alcohol, were steady on your feet, passed any old fashioned "sobriety" tests, you could not be judged as impaired.

The reality of course is that you would be, but I doubt that CASA would be able to prove it.

It will be interesting to see what CASA determines as a limit for BAC. My guess is that it will be "zero" BAC, but what exactly does zero mean? O.OOOOOOOOOOO? or 0.0+.001? You get my drift? What is the limiting level of detection?

Sunshine Coaster

1st Jun 2006, 23:36

Forget about the "if you've got nothing to hide" waffle.

Any officer, be it State Police or CASA cannot ask you to do something that exceeds their statutory authorisation.

Wannabe Well maybe next time there is an irate passenger on an aircraft
If you are the aircraft commander and you requested Police attendance then they are acting on your authority.
Also
if they suspect you could be a danger to yourself or another

Is their suspicion based on any particular knowledge or skill that allows them to make such a qualified decision. Again they DO NOT have the statutory authorisation to make or act on such a decision.

There are certainly some State Laws that impact on aviation, QLD liquor laws in certain communities for example. However State Police have NO powers to breath test you whilst carrying out you duties as an aircraft commander or at the commanders direction.

Future FEDERAL aviation legislation may attempt to change this situation, individuals imput is essential via their respective labour or alphabet organisation to ensure the law makers understand the feelings/ideas and concerns of those they legislate against.

The Coaster

tinpis

2nd Jun 2006, 01:43

Meantime dont get done driving to work :hmm:

wdn

2nd Jun 2006, 04:25

monopole,

i think he was driven to the airport in the same bus the coppers and the juvies were in. the request for the test came as they were boarding.

the company had to send another aircraft up there to bring them back as they refused to fly with the pilot who refused the bag.....it would be interesting to see if the company backs the pilot. i guess they wouldn't be too happy about the extra flying involved.

saying that if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't be worried is a little naive IMHO. we are talking about the potential misuse of police (government) authority. a quick history check would illustrate the potential extremes that could be achieved if the principles of due process are ignored by those with authority.

PennyBenjamin

2nd Jun 2006, 08:40

its a simple case of jurisdiction. According to a barrister i spoke to about this only federal police may ask for such a test airside. Also CASA and DOTARS can ask for a test. Under the influence is BAC >0.00. No one in their right mind flies pissed (or half drunk), and those who do generally die pretty quickly.

If a local copper asks you tell him/her to go give someone a parking ticket. They can't even go airside to talk to you!!

However, don't speed on the way home.

WannaBeBiggles

2nd Jun 2006, 09:13

Is their suspicion based on any particular knowledge or skill that allows them to make such a qualified decision. Again they DO NOT have the statutory authorisation to make or act on such a decision.

The Coaster

How is judging whether someone acting in control of one vehicle while under the influence different from an operator of another?

I work in a federal government installation and the RAAF Police often invite state police on base and they are free to book speeding drivers.. why should there be a double standard when it comes to booking pilots.

Just because laws of the air are governed by the federal government and aircrew are licenced by the federal government doesn't put them above the law.

The most I can offer is my OPINION, but must say the eliteist attitude some people seam to have is quite worrying!

At the end of the day there are plenty of people that complain about RBT's, speed cameras etc but most people put up with them, others :mad: and moan about it, and they are mostly the people without anything better to do, or the ones that think they are above the law and think they have some "right" to do what they want.

Just my 2 cents.

Spotlight

2nd Jun 2006, 14:12

Thinking Pilots

Isn't it hopeless? You can't beat them, the idiots and zealots always seem to prevail. To what end though.

pall

2nd Jun 2006, 16:48

After an air accident in which I was the pilot, my blood was taken for blood alcohol reading in the emergency department. I was informed that this was happening. I was not given any choice. Not that I cared as I had nothing to hide.

Doctors were clear that this was a requirement understanding that I was PIC on the day.

Sunshine Coaster

2nd Jun 2006, 23:26

Oh well if some of you can only equate the role of aircraft commander to that of a car driver then it is of little surprise that the attitudes and an appalling lack of legislative understanding is prevalent as in this thread.

Perhaps you have finally proven Mr Cessna right with his sales pitch of many many years ago when it was claimed, "If you can drive a car, then you can fly an aircraft" (or the Americanised version of those words).

The Coaster.:uhoh:

Black Maria

3rd Jun 2006, 00:31

Before one takes the advice of some that have posted it may be worth working through the following pieces of leglislation.

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATION;
“constable has the same meaning as in the Crimes Act 1941”.

CRIMES ACT 1914; (the commonwealth one) Section 3
Constable" means a member or special member of the Australian Federal Police or a member of the police force or police service of a STATE or TERRITORY” (my capitalization)

CRIMES ACT 1914 section 3W (in part)
“A constable may, without warrant arrest a person for an offence if the constable believes on reasonable grounds that:
(a) the person has committed or is committing the offence; and “ ....(etc etc etc)

CRIMES ACT 1914 Section 3C
“Offence means
(a) an offence against a law of the Commonwealth (other than the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982) or...
(b) an offence against a law of a Territory or
(c) a State offence that has a federal aspect. ”

CAR (1988) 256 (intoxicated persons not to act as pilots etc, or to be carried on aircraft) is an offence section.

Therefore it would follow that one may be charged and in the appropriate circumstances may even be arrested by the State Police.

Sunshine Coaster, you stated in your last post...."appalling lack of legislative understanding is prevalent as in this thread", well, how does the saying go....if the cap fits, wear it.

Sunshine Coaster

3rd Jun 2006, 02:10

Nearly, but not quite.

Agree with Black Maria when talking about the Crimes Act 1941. That Act is a 'catch all' when nothing else is applicable.

Also agree with the 1988 CAR 256. However there is no reference to what sort of 'test' is applied and no 'measurement' or benchmark against which the test result! is to be referenced. There is also no written requirement to submit to any test either.

My received advice in such circumstances (State Police getting involved in matters aviation) is to be polite (so as to not encourage petty retribution) yet firm, not to 'volunteer or invite' anything in the way of comment, test, agreement or even disagreement.

Importantly, get in contact with a suitably qualified aviation savvy legal representative for your own protection.

If I was to be the target of such an attempt by a State Police person, I would happily act on the advice I have been given.

The Coaster

PLovett

3rd Jun 2006, 06:16

The power to force someone to undergo a RBT is very specific. It has to be so that the police can stop someone who is going about their lawful business driving down a "public" street and make them undergo a RBT and in the event of them refusing, to charge them with an offence.

In Tasmania where I practiced for a number of years the legislation was specific as to what was a vehicle, it didn't include aircraft but, for example, it could include a vehicle that was not moving at the time or had its engine running.

CAR (1988) 256 refers to "intoxicated persons". For police to RBT someone who was not showing obvious signs of intoxication it would be a clear exceeding of their powers. As to what are the signs of intoxication, the courts have in my experience taken judicial notice of the fact that most people have in their lifetimes seen intoxicated people.

As an aside, pall, I suggest you were assaulted by the hospital staff when they took blood for blood/alcohol test without your consent. Again, there is specific legislation to do this which covers medical staff when a person is unconscious. The sample has to be taken at the request of the police and the subject has to be informed unless they are unconscious. Given that your case involved an aircraft crash it would have been outside of their jurisdictional limits.

Pinky the pilot

3rd Jun 2006, 07:17

My late Father was a Law Clerk with a firm of respected Solicitors for around 40 years with service in WW2 as a pilot as well.
All through my childhood, then as a (somewhat wild) teenager and then as an adult he constantly drilled it into me......
"By all means, be friends with a police officer, talk, socialise and drink with them if you wish......But NEVER, EVER (emphasis intentional) trust them!!!!"
He added that all you are ever required to give them in the event of an accident etc is your name and address. You are not required to say anything else, and it can be foolish to do so unless you have a lawyer present. Once you have given your name and address if you are asked any further questions the correct response is
'I do not wish to make any further statements until I have spoken to a lawyer'
Sunshine Coaster;:ok: :ok:

LeadSled

3rd Jun 2006, 15:30

Folks,
Maybe Creampuff would like to comment on this one, don’t anybody be too certain about limitations on state wallopers.
Some little time ago, Queensland changed the definition of a vehicle to include an aircraft.
There gas been at least one successful prosecution of a pilot since, by Queensland Police, in a matter that CASA (rightly, in my opinion) didn’t want to know about. Rough justice, Queensland style.
The Commonwealth does NOT have some kind of absolute power over aviation, in fact aviation is “State’s Rights”, with an interesting case history back to the 1930’s --Who remembers Goya Henry? R.M.Ansett??
As to the “Dubbo” incident, the company sent an aeroplane to Dubbo loaded with LAME’s and parts, the “other” aircraft and pilot had a turn back the previous night. That is why there was a second aircraft, NO OTHER REASON!!
Tootle pip!!

Northern Chique

4th Jun 2006, 02:07

I cannot find it at the moment, but I believe there are provisions under the transport act governing professional drivers and operators of machinery. This stipulates that any person acting as a professional driver / operator must not exceed 0.00 BAC.

Most companies have drug and alcohol policies in place whereby specific figures and penalties are noted. This would be encompassed in most operations manuals. The companies have the option of requesting a qualified testing authority, either a qualified member of the company or suitable tester with can include a member of the police.

Anyone who refuses on private land is subject to company dicipline if no legal offense occured. If an offence has been deemed commited by the appropriate authority to have occurred, then the offender is subject to the bounds of the law and the enforcers of it. This also can depend on who owns the airport. State police are often present at airports around the country for various reasons from business to trespass. (Anyone visiting Darwin airport can vouch for that!)

To use some of my miners as an example as there are similarities. They have legal and company requirements not to drive above 0.00. They have not committed an offense coming to work, as they caught the company shuttle bus, but it is deemed that given they were dressed and on the bus heading to their place of work, that they had every intention of operating the machinery. This is deemed as intent. These lads and lasses have access to BAC breathalizers 24/7. These units are subject to and are calibrated to the same standard by the same folks that calibrate police units.

As a paramedic with authorised BAC and drug testing qualifications (and plenty of time on the other end of drunken abuse!) I am permitted to test any pilot landing on specific mining leases when acting on behalf of the company. Now, that pilot can refuse a drug and/or alcohol test, but by the single act of landing on the lease he/she has subject themselves to the regulations covering that lease. While I cannot press charges, I can pass on relevant information to security and that pilot will be sent back at his or her own expense, with a ban on re-entry.

So, while you think you are safe on a fedrally owned airport, with headsets in hand, flicking mental "birds" at the officers left standing at the fence, it may not be that easy. Your future may well be in jeopardy, particularly, if you get a reputation for flying under the influence. A history of mistakes and general poor performance are key employment indicators.

And think about this... those same police may be on their nightshift, picking up the pieces of you and your attitude as you drive home fatigued that night.

Black Maria

4th Jun 2006, 05:54

LeadSled you posted..

“Some little time ago, Queensland changed the definition of a vehicle to include an aircraft. There gas been at least one successful prosecution of a pilot since, by Queensland Police, in a matter that CASA (rightly, in my opinion) didn’t want to know about. Rough justice, Queensland style”.

Perhaps you are being a little unkind to Queensland’s style of justice. An internet search reveals the same possibility of it occurring in NSW. Further research could very well find it a possibility in the other states and territory as well.

My reasons.......

The Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (NSW) defines a motor vehicle to
mean a vehicle that is built to be propelled by a motor that forms part of the vehicle.

The Road Transport Act goes on to define a vehicle to mean any description
of a vehicle on wheels .(irrelevant .omitted)...but not including vehicles used on railways or tramways.

Therefore the definition of a motor vehicle is quite broad and would cover such things as ride on lawn mowers, dodgem cars, golf carts, scissor lifts, forklifts and motorised scooters, etc.

The Oxford dictionary also defines vehicle (n) any conveyance used on land or in space for transporting people, goods, etc.

So one can conclude that an aircraft (which is a vehicle, has wheels, and also is propelled by a motor that forms part of the vehicle) is a vehicle and should you decide to fire up the Cessna and drive it down the main street of town you are driving a vehicle. Thus you may be subject to all the road rules just as if you drove the commodore down that very same road.

With regards to Leadsled story of successful prosecution, I remember being told a story where a “cocky” used to fly from his property into town, land on a back street and taxi to the shops. The story goes that he was eventually charged with driving an unregistered vehicle etc. Whether this is just an urban legend or not, who knows, I don’t.

As to the whether a member of a Police Service or even CASA has the authority to demand a breath test from a pilot on an airport taxiway, runway or parking bay, for the purposes of prosecution, (ala ”pull over driver and blow into this”) I would seriously doubt that that legislation currently exists. However, I have no doubt that at some time in the future it will exist in one form or another.

Having said that I have no doubt that should the state police wish to proceed under CAR 256 (without the evidence from a breathalyser) they could.

Woomera

4th Jun 2006, 07:33

And there are a number of State Police who are sworn in to other (interstate and Federal) jurisdictions.

May I suggest a very simple solution - don't drink and drive - or fly!

YesTAM

4th Jun 2006, 09:58

Unfortuneately I'm not sure that the solution is that simple. Case in point. Saturday night was a fiftieth birthday of a friend at a regional centre about one hour flying from capital city. I was going to fly but didn't for domestic reasons and instead took three hour drive. Much booze and hilarity last night.

Today (Sunday) had three hour drive back. Within the 0.05 limit? Certainly yes. Capable of flying - by my judgement yes, especially as it was a nice day. Was I zero BAC? Stuffed is I know! Probably not, but no detectable impairment as far as reading the opinion pieces in the Sunday papers could tell. Did I comply with the eight hour rule? Of Course. Was I intoxicated? No. Was I impaired? Not as far as the road traffic acts were concerned.

Effectively a zero BAC means I'm only flying somewhere on a three day weekend. Not interested because of the bureaucracy.

PLovett

5th Jun 2006, 01:00

YesTAM

Some simple maths for you. A stubby of full strength beer (of normal type not especially strong like the ones in excess of 5% by volume) is 0.0298 alcohol. So if you drink 1 stubby that is the max you can possibly read.

However, it then gets complicated because your body starts metabolising the alcohol immediately. About 5% of it gets transferred in the lungs to the air we are breathing which is why it can be measured there. The rest of it belts up the liver and digestive tract on its way to freedom. The lowest rate of metabolism recorded in the scientific literature is 0.01 per hour.

The reason different people record different levels of blood/alcohol for the same amount of alcohol imbibed is because they metabolise it at different rates. Women, for instance, metabolise alcohol more slowly as they have a higher percentage of fat cells in their bodies than men and alcohol is absorbed more easily in fat.

Now the alcohol in beer takes about 45 minutes to be totally absorbed by the body from the digestive tract, wine about 30 minutes and spirits about 15 minutes. So if you were to drink only 1 stubby of normal strength beer, you would reach a maximum reading about 45 minutes after starting to drink but it would never reach 0.0298 as the body would be trying its hardest to get rid of the stuff. The theoretical maximum would be about 0.0198 at about an hour.

Some police prosecutors I have known used to work on 3 stubbies in the first hour and 1 per hour after that. However, that was putting them very close to the 0.05 limit and if there was any doubt they could always call for a "blue light taxi" to take them home.

All information provided by a former Senior Government Analyst for the Tasmanian Government. It was learnt over several years of running unsuccessful drink pattern defences when said analyst was called as expert witness. The courts were very unwilling to accept that defence in the absence of a disinterested witness, preferably a man of the cloth who just happened to be there collecting for charity. :E

Woomera

5th Jun 2006, 01:29

Yup, and another thing.

"Name, address, rank and serial number", politely of course and regardless of any "blandishments or provocation" is ALL you are required to say beyond " I want me solicitor present".:= "routine check" yeah right.:rolleyes:
It is not an occasion for chit chat, they have already decided that you are probably guilty of something and will be wanting to build a case.

More people have talked themselves into a guilty charge than out of.:}

I worked with a bunch of really beaut rozzers, but there were only two types of people in their view, "members" (them) and the "civilians" = not members and therefore probably guilty of something.:uhoh: :E

YesTAM

5th Jun 2006, 03:40

I am concerned by a number of these posts that take a rather arbitrary view of breath testing and do not understand the subtleties (I don't understand them all either).

The first question is "what constitutes "zero" BAC? I guarantee that with a sophisticated bit of gear, like a mass spectrometer, or whatever, I can prove that any person, anytime, will have detectable amounts of ethanol in their body even if they don't drink. SO what does "Zero" mean?

Does it mean no more than 0.00001 percent? or 0.001 percent? My concern is that I often fly to visit friends in the country on the weekend. I don't overindulge, but I will have a few glasses as part of the usual dinner party. I do not like the idea that some clown is going to nail me for having 0.000001 percent alcohol the next morning.

The next question is about arbitrary testing. Northern Chique thinks she can test me if I turn up on her mining lease - wrong. You can only do that if the conditions of admission to the lease have been spelt out to me in advance and I sign a bit of paper that says I understand and have agreed to them. Charging out to the strip and attemptiing to breathalyse a pilot is not only going to be silly, its none of your business.

Then there is the question of police jurisdiction. While al sorts of Constables are sworne in in various States, etc. etc. They all act as if they have the power to do what they like and will act that way unless reminded in great deal by a capable legal brain as to just where their authority terminates.

Lest you think that this is a trivial matter, I can assure you from personal expereince that after a life threatening aviation incident (fortunately with very little damage, no injury and not pilot error) it is extremely distressing to have the police decide to "interview" you and take your particulars, let alone saying "blow into this".

The dangers of this type of punitive approach to "safety" should be obvious - its why we have an ATSB. In future if ever I have another aviation "incident" I will not stay around to be quizzed by the police about any possible breach of what they consider to be the law. They are not interested in a "safety culture" or the nice stories in the crash comic confessionals - they want convictions.

To put it another way, I'll be stuffed if I'm going to "share" any "safety lessons" with them.

Now as a further educational matter; I'd like to share with you some advice on how the roadside random breath testing system actually works in Victoria and also to tell why the police will never show you your reading.

As someon posted, it takes about 45 minutes for your alcohol level to peak after your last drink. The police know this too. So you get breathalysed.

The policeman doesn't show you the reading, and of course innocently askes, in a terribly cheerful and offhand way if you have had a drink and if so when?

Now the purpose of this inquiry isn't for your health. Let's say your last drink was 20 minutes ago and the Constable's tester shows you at 0.048. You guessed it! "Please park and wait over there". Ten minutes later he leads you into the trailer and you blow ) - 0.051. Pingggggg!

Of course if this person was a human, he/she should tell you that you are approaching the legal limit and advise you to stop driving immediately.

Lets reverse the situation and assume you have miscalculated a long lunch and blow 0.052 three hours later. The policeman after asking the innocent question will book you immediately, on the basis that waiting half an hour may allow your BAC to drop below 0.05.

The moral of the story is to always reverse the times you tell a Policeman when randomly breath tested if you have had any alcohol at all.

Some of you will ask how I know this? It's because I've watched it played out through the convictions of two friends, and it made a major impact on their lives.

I do not want to see enforcement of aviation regulations descend to the gutter as it has with road laws. I also fail to understand how a pilot could delierately drink and fly and I believe they are letting everyone down by doing so since it only encourages the bureaucrats and police to encroach further.

P.S. I ride my bicycle to the pub.

Deepsea Racing Prawn

5th Jun 2006, 04:13

Oh well if some of you can only equate the role of aircraft commander to that of a car driver then it is of little surprise that the attitudes and an appalling lack of legislative understanding is prevalent as in this thread.:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:
Aircraft commander??..right on Captain Kirk.
It's no wonder many members of the general community, or should I say "civilians" view most pilots as a group of tossers.:{

PLovett

5th Jun 2006, 05:25

YesTAM

At the risk of massive thread creep, roadside RBT is totally covered by legislation. It has to be because of the invasion of liberties involved.

Now, the little thingies you blow into have no legal authority whatsoever. The reading on those cannot be used in court to convict. They are screening devices only and can be way wrong. These are like the things mail order catalogues like to sell to tell you are safe to drive. I have never found out what reading it is which will trigger the request that you undertake a full blown breath test.

Now if someone has been drinking they can still have alcohol present in their mouth for a short time after they have been drinking. For fun sake if the pub where you are drinking has one of the breath test machines on the wall, try blowing into it immediately after swallowing a beer. The reading obtained would be one where you would normally be declared dead under proper circumstances. Because of this the legislation, at least in Tasmania and I suspect elsewhere, requires the operator to wait 15 minutes before getting you to blow into the machine. During this time you are to be observed to ensure that you neither eat nor drink anything or take any medication. Some types of medication can interfere with the reading.

There is the option of having a blood/alcohol test taken. The police have to advise you of the option but will try to suggest that it would be a waste of time. Normally they are right, the reading obtained is usually higher than the breath test (0.001 to 0.002) but they don't want the hassle of having to take you to a hospital so the blood samples can be taken. Again, whether you take this option or not is dependent on how long it has been since the last drink and whether the alcohol level in the blood is still going up or coming down.

Having one though can open up a whole new set of defences to any charge but you have to know the regulations and what to look for.

kimwestt

5th Jun 2006, 07:52

Being involved with an incident (minor) with the then state police minister, who - incidently - had a far from accurate recollection of what happened, the local D's at the country town demanded that the 2 pilots both had a breath test. Nothing to hide = nothing to fear may be ok, but what right did the D's have to employ standover (if you don't do this then we might have to lock you up) tactics? When I arrived some 90 minutes later, the cops took the view of bad luck, like it or leave it!! The uneducated opinions of those plods and their minister caused an unwarranted amount of trouble. It was an incident that occurred at taxi speed, caused a minor bump in the a/c, (no - didn"t hit anything) and was referred to to by the minister as a flight from hell.
Pays to be in the AFAP or something, ie, do nothing (incl breath test) and say nothing util you have a legal rep by your side.

YesTAM

5th Jun 2006, 21:56

Ahhh Yes! Here is a live prawn! "Driving an aeroplane is the same as driving a car"

Errr, no it's not.:yuk:

Perhaps you should try it someday and find out yourself.

OpsNormal

6th Jun 2006, 01:28

yesTAM wrote:

The next question is about arbitrary testing. Northern Chique thinks she can test me if I turn up on her mining lease - wrong. You can only do that if the conditions of admission to the lease have been spelt out to me in advance and I sign a bit of paper that says I understand and have agreed to them. Charging out to the strip and attemptiing to breathalyse a pilot is not only going to be silly, its none of your business.

Sorry yesTAM, N_C has it right, yet you also do as well. As someone who is rather conversant with FIFO contracts and their ramifications, you will find that any employer who has staff enter mine leases has already had this requirement spelt out to them in any contractual or otherwise document or purchase order they operate either under or to.

In our case, we have a rather large and convoluted contract to supply certain organisations with a service. Part of this contract requires of us that any member of my staff who enters any lease held by that one company must surrender themselves, if asked, to be drug and alcohol tested on site immediately. The fact that the employee has signed nothing on the day is irrelevant.

For an employer to do his/her job, the employee must be advised prior commencing that contrcated work with the company that random tests will be carried-out from time to time on site. Should I, for whatever reason, as that person's employer, fail to spell out to the employee that s/he must willingly submit themselves to these tests then that is a matter for the employee to take up with me. As that employee is my representative on site, the very fact that I have a contractual obligation to submit to testing forgoes his personal rights in that regard.

You will find that of the 20 or so operators in this country who conduct the same FIFO operations as we do, you will find that as part of their employment contract (with their employees) it will either cover this very subject directly or make reference to the terms and conditions as spelt out in the contract. If the employee does not read them after being made aware of them, then ignorance to them is no recourse to applicable regulations/legislation.

Deepsea Racing Prawn

6th Jun 2006, 02:02

"Driving an aeroplane is the same as driving a car"

Your words not mine.
Perhaps you should try it someday and find out yourself
Does 3500hrs constitute a reasonable trial period?:ugh:
My point is that there appears to be a large number of individuals in our industry who think that because they fly for a living they are somehow superior to other members of the community.
The irony is that these individuals are accusing the 'state wallopers' of the very same behaviour.:rolleyes:

YesTAM

6th Jun 2006, 03:39

Thank you for your post Ops Normal, you have exactly summarised the situation. If its a contractual requirement, then you require a back to back contractual agreement with your employees to submit themselves to the tests.

Mr. D.R. Prawn, I'd like to see a police helicopter "pull you over" at 10,000 feet.

The point I was trying to make is that if we apply the same standards of enforcement and punishment in aviation as are applied on the roads, then your safety culture is going to disappear almost immediately. There won't be a need for an ATSB because no one is going to cooperate.

Taking your argument to its logical extreme, let's look at all the money the State governments can make from "air traffic " fines that are equivalent to road traffic fines.

Simply station the wallopers at YMMB Tower for a weekend, and look at what happens, then apply road traffic enforcement logic.

"Failing to make a radio broadcast" - 20 X $150 = $3000

"Failure to obtain permission before crossing a runway" - 5 X $500 = $2500

"Entering a runway without permission" - 2 X $1000 = $2000

"Failure to obtain current ATIS " - 20 X $50 = $2000

"Dangerous Flying" (A catch all for any incident) - 10 X $2000 = $20,000

And so on and so on $29,500 for a weekends work.

One of the reasons I fly is to avoid having to put up with idiots on the roads and the perverse traffic operations police who attempt to keep order thereon. Please do not encourage them to take an interest in air transport

Deepsea Racing Prawn

6th Jun 2006, 12:17

Mr Tam, my dear fellow, you have completely lost me.:confused:

wdn

6th Jun 2006, 23:57

ops normal, you couldn't be more wrong. :ugh:

a test for drugs or alcohol that is neither mandated by legislation (like police RBTs) nor consented to by the individual (either on the day or beforehand) nor covered by an exception (like when someone is unconscious and a doctor renders medical aid) is a criminal offence.

it would also be an actionable tort - trespass (battery). the only defences to this tort are necessity and consent. to rely on this defence, your actions must be urgently necessary to prevent physical injury, loss or damage. since we are talking about a pilot who has just landed an aircraft at your strip without incident, you would be laughed out of court if you tried this one.

to rely on consent, you must have consent of the"victim". such consent must be informed. an employer cannot consent to the trespass of an employee vicariously, nor can you (as the tester) rely on your assumption that the employee has consented due to a contractual arrangement if the employee states to you that they do not consent.

in addition to all that, i would be careful about who you forced to submit. if you used physical force in the slightest degree, and you tried it on the wrong person, you might be explaining yourself without the benefit of any teeth. :} :D

from the bandleader of the Good Ole Boys

you're gonna look pretty funny tryin' to eat corn on the cob with no f*ckin' teeth....

even if the written consent of the employee was obtained previously, there is nothing stopping them withdrawing such consent verbally at any time. your action (if any, depending on the contract) would have to be against the employer for breach of contract.

edited to fix the spelling