Police Breath Tests
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Police Breath Tests
Does anyone know if pilots have to submit to breath tests from police?
I heard a rumor that a pilot refused a breath test from two coppers he'd spent the previous night drinking with. This happened quite recently on a charter up in Dubbo.
Good on him - tells you what you need to know about police i reckon!
What about after an accident? The cops would have juridiction over the plane but can they force the pilot to do anything?
I heard a rumor that a pilot refused a breath test from two coppers he'd spent the previous night drinking with. This happened quite recently on a charter up in Dubbo.
Good on him - tells you what you need to know about police i reckon!
What about after an accident? The cops would have juridiction over the plane but can they force the pilot to do anything?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless there is relevent legislation, which I think there isn't...yet. The rule is eight hours bottle to throttle. there is no mention of BAC.
It appears tha when legislation is passed it will set a limit of either zero or 0.2 BAC or suchlike.
Of course if you really get a skinful the night before.........well you shouldn't.
It appears tha when legislation is passed it will set a limit of either zero or 0.2 BAC or suchlike.
Of course if you really get a skinful the night before.........well you shouldn't.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wdn, I'm not aware of any legislative authority for State Police to act in a strictly aviation environment as you ask.
In an aviation environment of course they (Mr, Mrs & Ms State Plod) could also be charged with interfering with air navigation if they exceed their statutory authority.
They will naturally try to 'bluff' you with bluster and bulls++t when they have no other legitimate leg to stand on.
However if you happen to be a pilot driving home from work, then expect to add to the RBT statistics that are used to bolster the "we're doing a good job' image.
Lastly, having juridiction over the aeroplane in the event of an accident is as a delegate of the ATSB (to preserve evidence) or the Coroner (if its a fatal)
The Coaster
In an aviation environment of course they (Mr, Mrs & Ms State Plod) could also be charged with interfering with air navigation if they exceed their statutory authority.
They will naturally try to 'bluff' you with bluster and bulls++t when they have no other legitimate leg to stand on.
However if you happen to be a pilot driving home from work, then expect to add to the RBT statistics that are used to bolster the "we're doing a good job' image.
Lastly, having juridiction over the aeroplane in the event of an accident is as a delegate of the ATSB (to preserve evidence) or the Coroner (if its a fatal)
The Coaster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Aussie
Frozo,
how goes it? Thats been the case for a while now hasnt it?
Aussie
how goes it? Thats been the case for a while now hasnt it?
Aussie
Yeah the whole "Safety Critical Area" thing.. I find it amusing that some units define training classrooms as being a "Safety Critical Area"
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Aust
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know if pilots have to submit to breath tests from police?
). If he was airside however, I don't think he is required to. CASA certainly can't........Yet 
.
The rule is eight hours bottle to throttle. there is no mention of BAC.
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.
from the cops.
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...
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about
Were it that simple!
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.
Were it that simple!
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.
Bottums Up
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:
Similar requirements for FSO/ATC
Spotlight
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Capt Claret; 1st Jun 2006 at 09:46.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
That pretty well puts paid to the tampering problem alluded to in previous posts.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good on ya Clarrie
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 .........................
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 .........................
Originally Posted by Sunshine Coaster
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
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
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
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
If you are the aircraft commander and you requested Police attendance then they are acting on your authority.
Also
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
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
Also
if they suspect you could be a danger to yourself or another
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.