Police Breath Tests
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frankston
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Sunshine Coaster
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
The Coaster
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
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.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lara, VIC.
Age: 67
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My blood was taken.
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.
Doctors were clear that this was a requirement understanding that I was PIC on the day.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Cairns
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,976
Received 104 Likes
on
59 Posts
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;
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;
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!!
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!!
PPRuNe's Paramedic
Join Date: May 2001
Location: tropical north
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Cairns
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
“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.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
May I suggest a very simple solution - don't drink and drive - or fly!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not So Simple Solution
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
"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. 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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Mariner Trench
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: East of YRTI
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because they can ???
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.
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.