UK Aviation Alcohol Limits - ATCOs/Pilots/Cabin Crew and Engineers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: SE Eng
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK Aviation Alcohol Limits - ATCOs/Pilots/Cabin Crew and Engineers
All ATCO's, pilots, cabin crew and engineers should be aware that the new Railways and Transport Safety Bill is set to introduce specific limits on the amount of alcohol that you can have in your body when working. For ATCO's and flight crew these are well below the current drink/drive limits.
The pescribed limit of alcohol for ATCO's, pilots and cabin crew is 9 microgrammes in 100 millilitres of breath. The current limit for driving is 35 microgrammes.
This bill also gives wide ranging powers to police officers to enter aircraft and other places if they suspect an offence has been or is being committed.
The pescribed limit of alcohol for ATCO's, pilots and cabin crew is 9 microgrammes in 100 millilitres of breath. The current limit for driving is 35 microgrammes.
This bill also gives wide ranging powers to police officers to enter aircraft and other places if they suspect an offence has been or is being committed.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: sector 001
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alcohol limits on duty
This accords with the present JAR-OPS specifies a maximum blood C2H5OH limit of 20 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. The driving limit is 80 per 100; this equates to the 35 microgram limit.
20 milligrams/100 equates to the 9 micrograms/100.
Will new handheld eqipment will be required for the lower limit to give a positive sample & subsequent arrest?
The initial Bill stated that Engineers were allowed a maximum of 80 milligrams /100.
20 milligrams/100 equates to the 9 micrograms/100.
Will new handheld eqipment will be required for the lower limit to give a positive sample & subsequent arrest?
The initial Bill stated that Engineers were allowed a maximum of 80 milligrams /100.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a close look at your terms and conditions of employment, in addition to the specifics included in our individual contracts where I work, we are also bound by the "company handbook", (for anyone not familier, it's a generic document applicable to all staff at all levels, outlining what the company entitlements and disciplinary procedures are).
Within this document, any employee, is specifically forbidden to consume alcohol whilst at work, to do so comes under the provisions of "instant dismissal".
Fair enough - thre's no argument there, but I remember a similar case a few years ago where an employee (ground staff), had decided to have a few pints before coming to work - it was obvious he had consumed alcohol, but he'd not done it whilst "at work", he was still able to execute his duties competently, and the union successfully argued his case.
Within this document, any employee, is specifically forbidden to consume alcohol whilst at work, to do so comes under the provisions of "instant dismissal".
Fair enough - thre's no argument there, but I remember a similar case a few years ago where an employee (ground staff), had decided to have a few pints before coming to work - it was obvious he had consumed alcohol, but he'd not done it whilst "at work", he was still able to execute his duties competently, and the union successfully argued his case.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Police roadside / handheld breathaliser is calibrated for the drink / drive limit and is not that accurate hece if you provide a positive sample you are arrested on SUSPICION, until you blow into the proper calibrated machine.
They would have to have a separate machine calibrated to the limit for this act to breathalise under this act and have a power of arrest.
I would hope they wouldn't need more than one at each airport and therefore the cost would not be too great.
edited cos I'd blow positive
They would have to have a separate machine calibrated to the limit for this act to breathalise under this act and have a power of arrest.
I would hope they wouldn't need more than one at each airport and therefore the cost would not be too great.
edited cos I'd blow positive
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: SE Eng
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the roadside breath kits you are arrested "for providing a positive breath test." If there is no breath kit available and there is a smell intoxicating liqour (alcohol) you can be arrested on suspicion of driving with excess alcohol in your body.
The roadside equipment used by Surrey (SL2) operates on the traffic light system green = OK amber = some alcohol in system and red = over the limit. These devices are calibriated to ensure they provide the correct indications. The intoximeter at the police station provides an quantitive reading and written print out. Some other police forces are already using roadside equipment that can provide a digital readout.
The roadside equipment used by Surrey (SL2) operates on the traffic light system green = OK amber = some alcohol in system and red = over the limit. These devices are calibriated to ensure they provide the correct indications. The intoximeter at the police station provides an quantitive reading and written print out. Some other police forces are already using roadside equipment that can provide a digital readout.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South West England
Age: 73
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ECJ
The limit in the Transport Bill is indeed 20mg per 100ml (one quarter of the drive limit) for all aircrew (both cockpit - including jumpseat riders and cabin crew) The limit for MAINTENANCE engineers is the same as for driving ie 80mg per 100ml. The lower limit applies to ATCO's but not student ATCO's or ATSA's. It is to be enforced from the moment one reports for duty, so any one in the crew/briefing room can be committing an offence before even boarding the aeroplane or going into the operations room.
One clearly cannot argue against this legislation but it does seem sad that it is seen to be necessary. The interesting thing as far as ATC is concerned is the enforcement. Presumably after any incident the ATCO will have to be tested and presumably removed from duty until the check is confirmed negative. No more quick phone call to SRG and back on the radar because the service hit will be too big.
AI
The limit in the Transport Bill is indeed 20mg per 100ml (one quarter of the drive limit) for all aircrew (both cockpit - including jumpseat riders and cabin crew) The limit for MAINTENANCE engineers is the same as for driving ie 80mg per 100ml. The lower limit applies to ATCO's but not student ATCO's or ATSA's. It is to be enforced from the moment one reports for duty, so any one in the crew/briefing room can be committing an offence before even boarding the aeroplane or going into the operations room.
One clearly cannot argue against this legislation but it does seem sad that it is seen to be necessary. The interesting thing as far as ATC is concerned is the enforcement. Presumably after any incident the ATCO will have to be tested and presumably removed from duty until the check is confirmed negative. No more quick phone call to SRG and back on the radar because the service hit will be too big.
AI
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was a interested with AIs post, In this he excludes student ATCOs and ATSAs from the proposed legislation. What would happen if a clearence or something similar were read back incorrectly by an ATSA who had been "influenced" by alcohol, would the ATCO be held responsible for that?. How about the FIR service at the ATC Centres which are licenced positions held by ATSA4 grade personnel?. Methinks this may be opening a whole can of worms!!.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Student ATCOS's are excluded because they are not operating under their own licence,not sure how it would work if the student was pi$$ed and cocked up and the mentor didn't notice!!!
In order for a police officer to require a specimen of breath he or she has to suspect that an offence has been committed (under the road traffic act, a moving road traffic offence, smell of alcohol, or after an accident).
there would have to be an additional part to the police powers to require a sepcimen after an incident, and remember, if u fancy some timne off, you can refuse a test and the scene, you will be arrested and required to provide a sample at a police station (if you don't provide at a police station you can kiss your job goodbye), Downside is you get arrested and spend time at the nick.
As for random testing that's another ball game and won't happen for quite some time
In order for a police officer to require a specimen of breath he or she has to suspect that an offence has been committed (under the road traffic act, a moving road traffic offence, smell of alcohol, or after an accident).
there would have to be an additional part to the police powers to require a sepcimen after an incident, and remember, if u fancy some timne off, you can refuse a test and the scene, you will be arrested and required to provide a sample at a police station (if you don't provide at a police station you can kiss your job goodbye), Downside is you get arrested and spend time at the nick.
As for random testing that's another ball game and won't happen for quite some time
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the US there need not be any probable cause for a controller to get drug or alcohol tested. The FAA can require it after any incident or accident.
regards
Scott
regards
Scott
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: SE Eng
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You do not have to be involved an incident to be tested. The act states "Being unfit for duty
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he performs an aviation function at a time when his ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs, or
(b) he carries out an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function at a time when his ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
(2) In this section “drug” includes any intoxicant other than alcohol.
(3) Section 91 defines “aviation function” and “ancillary activity” for the purposes of this Part."
If you turn up for duty and someone thinks you are over the pescrided limit then the police can require a breath test.
The act grants the police powers of entry to aircraft and premises by the use of reasonable force if necessary.
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he performs an aviation function at a time when his ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs, or
(b) he carries out an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function at a time when his ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
(2) In this section “drug” includes any intoxicant other than alcohol.
(3) Section 91 defines “aviation function” and “ancillary activity” for the purposes of this Part."
If you turn up for duty and someone thinks you are over the pescrided limit then the police can require a breath test.
The act grants the police powers of entry to aircraft and premises by the use of reasonable force if necessary.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Black Rat,
I haven't fully read the act yet, but I take it that Section 91 states that by turning up to work you are performing an aviatoin function?
If not then I would reckon that until you actually plug in then you are not performing an aviation function.
As an aside, if any one of your colleagues thinks you've had one too many and allows you to plug in (I'm thinking more WM types here), then will they be guilty of aiding and abetting the committing of the offence??
If you attempt to plug in but get stopped by said WM who thinks you might have had one too many are you guilty of ATTEMPT?
If said WM stops you plugging in and you subsequently pass the breath test, is said WM open to allegations of slander? will the union support cases of slander???
I haven't fully read the act yet, but I take it that Section 91 states that by turning up to work you are performing an aviatoin function?
If not then I would reckon that until you actually plug in then you are not performing an aviation function.
As an aside, if any one of your colleagues thinks you've had one too many and allows you to plug in (I'm thinking more WM types here), then will they be guilty of aiding and abetting the committing of the offence??
If you attempt to plug in but get stopped by said WM who thinks you might have had one too many are you guilty of ATTEMPT?
If said WM stops you plugging in and you subsequently pass the breath test, is said WM open to allegations of slander? will the union support cases of slander???
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: SE Eng
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radar 707,
This wonderful bit of legislation applies to performing an aviation function or an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function.
"(4) An activity shall be treated as ancillary to an aviation function if it is undertaken—
(a) by a person who has reported for a period of duty in respect of the function, and
(b) as a requirement of, for the purpose of or in connection with the performance of the function during that period of duty.
(5) A person who in accordance with the terms of an employment or undertaking holds himself ready to perform an aviation function if called upon shall be treated as carrying out an activity ancillary to the function.
(6) Where a person sets out to perform an aviation function, anything which he does by way of preparing to perform the function shall be treated as an activity ancillary to it.
(7) For the purposes of this Part it is immaterial whether a person performs a function or carries out an activity in the course of an employment or trade or otherwise."
So in simple terms yes, you turn up for work and a WM or another person thinks you are over the limit then they can call the police. You do not have to attempt to provide a service, just being in the VCR or the Ops room is enough.
The pescribed limit is so low that if you smell of alcohol it is highly likely you are going to be over the limit.
This wonderful bit of legislation applies to performing an aviation function or an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function.
"(4) An activity shall be treated as ancillary to an aviation function if it is undertaken—
(a) by a person who has reported for a period of duty in respect of the function, and
(b) as a requirement of, for the purpose of or in connection with the performance of the function during that period of duty.
(5) A person who in accordance with the terms of an employment or undertaking holds himself ready to perform an aviation function if called upon shall be treated as carrying out an activity ancillary to the function.
(6) Where a person sets out to perform an aviation function, anything which he does by way of preparing to perform the function shall be treated as an activity ancillary to it.
(7) For the purposes of this Part it is immaterial whether a person performs a function or carries out an activity in the course of an employment or trade or otherwise."
So in simple terms yes, you turn up for work and a WM or another person thinks you are over the limit then they can call the police. You do not have to attempt to provide a service, just being in the VCR or the Ops room is enough.
The pescribed limit is so low that if you smell of alcohol it is highly likely you are going to be over the limit.
