Alcohol and Flying: The New Law
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
It's simply a common drafting convention of modern statutes which create criminal offences. (JAR-OPS doesn't create a criminal offence.)
eg The Theft Act doesn't say 'Thou shall not steal' but ..... "A person is guilty of theft if ......". The Act defines 'theft' and provides the maximum penalty which may be imposed upon those found guilty of it.
Similarly, the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 doesn't say 'Pilots shall not ......".
It creates and defines the offence(s):
"A person commits an offence if - "
and provides the maximum penalty which may be imposed upon someone convicted of committing the offences specified.
Happy Christmas.
Tudor
It's simply a common drafting convention of modern statutes which create criminal offences. (JAR-OPS doesn't create a criminal offence.)
eg The Theft Act doesn't say 'Thou shall not steal' but ..... "A person is guilty of theft if ......". The Act defines 'theft' and provides the maximum penalty which may be imposed upon those found guilty of it.
Similarly, the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 doesn't say 'Pilots shall not ......".
It creates and defines the offence(s):
"A person commits an offence if - "
and provides the maximum penalty which may be imposed upon someone convicted of committing the offences specified.
Happy Christmas.
Tudor
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere probing
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tudor..... in your previous submissions it was written:
and
Could you perhaps elaborate, i.e. define 'failed' and / or ‘positive’ ?
At what reading, on a breathalyser test, would somebody find themselves being arrested and hauled off an aircraft, and / or that their employers and / or the CAA are informed that a breathalyser test was given and ‘failed’ ?
E.g. What if somebody blows in to a breathalyser and it then reads, say, 0.895 micrograms per 100ml – the limit for a breathalyser being 0.9 - i.e. they’ve provided a positive breath test but, being less than the limit, have they ‘passed’ ?
Or would they, as a result that the breathalyser test did not read 0, then be required to submit to further / more detailed ( blood ) tests and thus be arrested and taken away ?
Nb. My Ops Manual presently states: "Crew Members shall not commence a flight duty period with a blood alcohol level in excess of 0.2. mg per ml (milligrams per millilitre). This level is one quarter of the United Kingdom legal driving limit. There should be no residual alcohol in the bloodstream when reporting for duty".
Can that last sentence be valid, i.e. given that the law itself makes an allowance that there is seemingly no such thing as a ‘zero’ BAC, if one indeed had a BAC greater than zero ( but less than 0.2 ), how does this stand from a legal point of view - and just how is one meant to sample and test & validate ones own BAC just prior to reporting for duty ?
Nb. BAC = blood alcohol content.
Cheers in advance.
if a pilot had failed a breathalyser test
What happens if my Breathalyser Test is Positive ?
You will be arrested, taken to a Police station and asked to provide a further specimen of breath, blood or urine for laboratory analysis.
You will be arrested, taken to a Police station and asked to provide a further specimen of breath, blood or urine for laboratory analysis.
At what reading, on a breathalyser test, would somebody find themselves being arrested and hauled off an aircraft, and / or that their employers and / or the CAA are informed that a breathalyser test was given and ‘failed’ ?
E.g. What if somebody blows in to a breathalyser and it then reads, say, 0.895 micrograms per 100ml – the limit for a breathalyser being 0.9 - i.e. they’ve provided a positive breath test but, being less than the limit, have they ‘passed’ ?
Or would they, as a result that the breathalyser test did not read 0, then be required to submit to further / more detailed ( blood ) tests and thus be arrested and taken away ?
Nb. My Ops Manual presently states: "Crew Members shall not commence a flight duty period with a blood alcohol level in excess of 0.2. mg per ml (milligrams per millilitre). This level is one quarter of the United Kingdom legal driving limit. There should be no residual alcohol in the bloodstream when reporting for duty".
Can that last sentence be valid, i.e. given that the law itself makes an allowance that there is seemingly no such thing as a ‘zero’ BAC, if one indeed had a BAC greater than zero ( but less than 0.2 ), how does this stand from a legal point of view - and just how is one meant to sample and test & validate ones own BAC just prior to reporting for duty ?
Nb. BAC = blood alcohol content.
Cheers in advance.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Times certainly change and Political Correctness is the latest rage. Remember just a few years ago when smoking was normal, now its a criminal offense. Difference being impairment?? Take a look as there was impairment of night vision with smoking, yet it was allowed....
Either way if one wants to risk a Career and Big Money over having a Drink before flying, you can usuaully find his picture in the Dictionary under Stupid.
Either way if one wants to risk a Career and Big Money over having a Drink before flying, you can usuaully find his picture in the Dictionary under Stupid.
FL - thanks again!
In the wonderful world of JAR-land, as they've given specific meanings to 'will', 'shall' and 'should', I was merely trying to use the same convention! Which is why Devils Advocate's company's Ops Manual is interesting - in JAR-speak it states that he mustn't start a flight duty period with more than 20mg/ml, but only that is recommended that he doesn't have any residual EtOH in his bloodstream. Thus 21 mg/ml would be in contravention of his company's manual, but 19 mg/ml wouldn't.
Happy Humbug-tide, m'lud!
Incidentally, when travelling as SLF I'd be far more concerned at flying on that (non-Irish) lo-cost with well-reported exhausted pilots than ever I would at flying on an airliner with a pilot with a 20 mg/ml BAC...
In the wonderful world of JAR-land, as they've given specific meanings to 'will', 'shall' and 'should', I was merely trying to use the same convention! Which is why Devils Advocate's company's Ops Manual is interesting - in JAR-speak it states that he mustn't start a flight duty period with more than 20mg/ml, but only that is recommended that he doesn't have any residual EtOH in his bloodstream. Thus 21 mg/ml would be in contravention of his company's manual, but 19 mg/ml wouldn't.
Happy Humbug-tide, m'lud!
Incidentally, when travelling as SLF I'd be far more concerned at flying on that (non-Irish) lo-cost with well-reported exhausted pilots than ever I would at flying on an airliner with a pilot with a 20 mg/ml BAC...
Last edited by BEagle; 24th Dec 2003 at 00:59.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Afrika sometimes
Age: 68
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't really see any problem. Many of us flying in support of American oil companies have been subject to random drug and alcohol testing for years. Alcohol is a drug and drugs and flying don't mix. Don't get me wrong - I really love a nice drink as much as anyone - but being a professional pilot means one has certain responsibilities, one of which is to be certain of turning up for duty in a fit condition. The moral is - don't drink heavily in the period before commencing a flying duty.
Lots of pointing the finger at pilots here,what about cabin crew?
in my many years of long haul its the male,shaved head members that trawl in from a night club in some foreign climes at 7 am, to report for duty at 5pm that should be breathalyzed!
in my many years of long haul its the male,shaved head members that trawl in from a night club in some foreign climes at 7 am, to report for duty at 5pm that should be breathalyzed!
Count yourself lucky. I once had a U/T co-pilot who had partyed all night at Bangor - even woke me up at o-dark-hundred by yelling in the corridor outside my room - who then had to catch the 0730 wheels with us. He stank like a brewery. So he didn't get any operating on the entire leg, just the radio. Which he consistently porked up. I got out of the seat at TOC and handed over to his trainee captain - who promptly chewed his nuts off in a thoroughly efficient manner.
Remember that tw@t, eh Tonks?
Remember that tw@t, eh Tonks?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Brighton. UK. (Via Liverpool).
Posts: 5,068
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread. I have just read the first page and it seems some of you do not know/understand what random D&A is all about. First off, you won't get a copper walking around looking to catch a pilot out. I bellieve they cannot just turn up at your booking on point or anywhere else for that matter, and say "breath into this....".
Random is a bit misleading in a way. We get 48 hrs notice when they want one from us. Usually a letter handed to you beforehand. The "Random" bit is your name being pulled out of the computer. I have had 4 in the last two years, some drivers have had none at all in the last 10. The only time they can do it to you otherwise is after a serious incident, whether it be your fault or not, you will be tested for drugs by means of a urine test and will be asked to blow into the bag. A signaler over East Anglia way had a child/train incident and all the bosses came out to do whatever they do. The signal box at the end of the platform was the meeting point for the police/managers etc. The signaler was asked by one of the managers if he had been drinking as his breath smelled of alchol. He was tested there and then and was over the limit. It doesnt have to directly involve you when things go wrong as this point proves and he was out of a job shortly after.
Before the random testing came in in 1993, there was a lot of people booking on over the limit. The pub outside many stations would be affectionately known as platform 9 as that was were you would find the drivers on standby. Nowdays, you really do think about what you drink and when you drink before duty. The whole situation has changed about how we value our job. Once your done for anything like that (d&a) the chances are very slim of getting a similar, well paid job anywhere else, it just isn't worth it nowdays especially as you could go to prison for doing something we used to do a long time ago.
Times change as we all know and so do attitudes. The union should have put this to a vote to you all directly involved. Ours didn't. We didn't really have a say in it. They just announced that they were behind the changes and we should be behind it too. I often wonder since it came in, how many jobs this random testing has saved since it was introduced.
Random is a bit misleading in a way. We get 48 hrs notice when they want one from us. Usually a letter handed to you beforehand. The "Random" bit is your name being pulled out of the computer. I have had 4 in the last two years, some drivers have had none at all in the last 10. The only time they can do it to you otherwise is after a serious incident, whether it be your fault or not, you will be tested for drugs by means of a urine test and will be asked to blow into the bag. A signaler over East Anglia way had a child/train incident and all the bosses came out to do whatever they do. The signal box at the end of the platform was the meeting point for the police/managers etc. The signaler was asked by one of the managers if he had been drinking as his breath smelled of alchol. He was tested there and then and was over the limit. It doesnt have to directly involve you when things go wrong as this point proves and he was out of a job shortly after.
Before the random testing came in in 1993, there was a lot of people booking on over the limit. The pub outside many stations would be affectionately known as platform 9 as that was were you would find the drivers on standby. Nowdays, you really do think about what you drink and when you drink before duty. The whole situation has changed about how we value our job. Once your done for anything like that (d&a) the chances are very slim of getting a similar, well paid job anywhere else, it just isn't worth it nowdays especially as you could go to prison for doing something we used to do a long time ago.
Times change as we all know and so do attitudes. The union should have put this to a vote to you all directly involved. Ours didn't. We didn't really have a say in it. They just announced that they were behind the changes and we should be behind it too. I often wonder since it came in, how many jobs this random testing has saved since it was introduced.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Devils Advocate
A person would be arrested if they provided a positive (failed) breath test on a screening device. The expression positive and failed mean the same in general.
The arrest being nessesery to get the person to the Police Station for a evidencial test. There would be no dragging off a plane, unless the person wanted to fight about it.
You will have seen from Flying Lawyer's summary that the proccedure for a Police Officer is broadly similar to the action he would take with a driver. Which means that the first test would be on a screening device, at the place where the Officer is called too. This produces an indication based on a red/amber or green LED, rather than a reading of BAC. Red obviously indicating a blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit. I am assuming now that the machines used have not changed, I understand that there are hand held machines that give a read out of the BAC, however that reading wouldn't be the one used to provide evidence in court.
If a positive test, ie one that indicated a BAC above the prescribed limit (failed) the person would then be arrested and taken to a Police Station, where they would provide a speciem of Breath into an Evdiencal Breath Test Machine. The result of that provides the evidence for a court. As someone pointed out on another thread, if the result, in the case of a driver is slightly above then they would be allowed a blood test, however in all the cases I was involved in, that blood test was higher than the breath test reading. I don't know if that would happen under this legislation.
One thing which I don't know about is the LED type screening devices we had when I worked at Heathrow were calibrated for the Road Traffic Act limits. I can only presume they have diffeant ones calibrated for this legislation. The Police Station Machine gives a print out of the result, and gives it no matter what the reading.
You would be charged if the result of the Evidendial BT was above the prescribed limit for the appropriate legislation.
If on the specimen provided at the Police station is below the prescribed limit, then thats the end of the matter the person would be realeased. What he told his employers is then his affair. As for informing the CAA I don't know, I would guess that if the BAC was below the limit then no they wouldn't be told by Police, although they may be by the Persons company.
I can't comment on what it says in your ops manual, thats something for your company.
Hope that clarrifys things.
A person would be arrested if they provided a positive (failed) breath test on a screening device. The expression positive and failed mean the same in general.
The arrest being nessesery to get the person to the Police Station for a evidencial test. There would be no dragging off a plane, unless the person wanted to fight about it.
You will have seen from Flying Lawyer's summary that the proccedure for a Police Officer is broadly similar to the action he would take with a driver. Which means that the first test would be on a screening device, at the place where the Officer is called too. This produces an indication based on a red/amber or green LED, rather than a reading of BAC. Red obviously indicating a blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit. I am assuming now that the machines used have not changed, I understand that there are hand held machines that give a read out of the BAC, however that reading wouldn't be the one used to provide evidence in court.
If a positive test, ie one that indicated a BAC above the prescribed limit (failed) the person would then be arrested and taken to a Police Station, where they would provide a speciem of Breath into an Evdiencal Breath Test Machine. The result of that provides the evidence for a court. As someone pointed out on another thread, if the result, in the case of a driver is slightly above then they would be allowed a blood test, however in all the cases I was involved in, that blood test was higher than the breath test reading. I don't know if that would happen under this legislation.
One thing which I don't know about is the LED type screening devices we had when I worked at Heathrow were calibrated for the Road Traffic Act limits. I can only presume they have diffeant ones calibrated for this legislation. The Police Station Machine gives a print out of the result, and gives it no matter what the reading.
You would be charged if the result of the Evidendial BT was above the prescribed limit for the appropriate legislation.
If on the specimen provided at the Police station is below the prescribed limit, then thats the end of the matter the person would be realeased. What he told his employers is then his affair. As for informing the CAA I don't know, I would guess that if the BAC was below the limit then no they wouldn't be told by Police, although they may be by the Persons company.
I can't comment on what it says in your ops manual, thats something for your company.
Hope that clarrifys things.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: S.E England
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been reading this with interest. This morning the post arrived with a letter from the CAA which was the FODCOm in question.
Having read through the interesting thing is that this will be for any 'Aviation Function'. This will include standby so technically if you wake up at home, come on standby slightly worse for wear you are breaking the new law. How they would catch you doing that is another matter!
On the subject of random testing there are a lot of jobs much less 'elevated' (no pun intended) than pilots who are subjected to these rules. A firend of mine drives a fork lift truck at an oil depot. All drivers on the plant are subject to random testing.
At the risk of getting shot down in flames there has been many a thread about pilots wages & conditions and the argument thrown up time and time again by pilots is how much more safety orinentated their job is compared to other professionals, and how they are repsosnible for 300 souls at the back of their aircraft. True.......so if so surely all the more reason why random testing should be just as applicable to this industry as to others!
The concern for most of us is translating the BAC limit into real terms. i.e how many beers the night before could I have to be safe. Maybe buying a tester or abstaining completely is now the only answer!
Golden Rivet - Yes that amused me too whilst reading the FODCOM. Surely it should all be the same or are you suggesting Engineers have a higher tolerance!
Having read through the interesting thing is that this will be for any 'Aviation Function'. This will include standby so technically if you wake up at home, come on standby slightly worse for wear you are breaking the new law. How they would catch you doing that is another matter!
On the subject of random testing there are a lot of jobs much less 'elevated' (no pun intended) than pilots who are subjected to these rules. A firend of mine drives a fork lift truck at an oil depot. All drivers on the plant are subject to random testing.
At the risk of getting shot down in flames there has been many a thread about pilots wages & conditions and the argument thrown up time and time again by pilots is how much more safety orinentated their job is compared to other professionals, and how they are repsosnible for 300 souls at the back of their aircraft. True.......so if so surely all the more reason why random testing should be just as applicable to this industry as to others!
The concern for most of us is translating the BAC limit into real terms. i.e how many beers the night before could I have to be safe. Maybe buying a tester or abstaining completely is now the only answer!
Golden Rivet - Yes that amused me too whilst reading the FODCOM. Surely it should all be the same or are you suggesting Engineers have a higher tolerance!
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Stastics prove that 99.978% of people who cause accidents are totally sober. So why the persecution of the very few who are not?"
So what do we do? All get rat-ars*d before driving or (in the case of pilots) flying?
This proves what someone once said about statistics.
So what do we do? All get rat-ars*d before driving or (in the case of pilots) flying?
This proves what someone once said about statistics.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Valley Where the Thames Runs Softly
Age: 77
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A number of Police procedures will have to be clarified now, and they will need to be consistent across the UK. Currently, for example, the Metropolitan Police do not prosecute drivers where the evidential reading is below 40 in breath, although they do prosecute 81 in blood. If the reading is 40 to 54.9 there is an option to have a blood or urine sample. Will similar procedures be used for pilots, with the numbers pro-rata?
There are obviously no sentencing guidelines as yet, but I would be surprised if prison did not feature largely when they do emerge. As it is, bus and coach drivers are treated more severely than car drivers.
There are obviously no sentencing guidelines as yet, but I would be surprised if prison did not feature largely when they do emerge. As it is, bus and coach drivers are treated more severely than car drivers.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely sentencing for PPLs should be in line with car drivers - or, logically, less severe since a drunken PPL is less likely to kill or maim others than is a drunken driver.
Bet it won't be, though.
SSD
Bet it won't be, though.
SSD
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Greater London
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This needs to be said:
It has always been my observation that pilots tend to be smart people. Therefore it shouldn't be too difficult for any of you to work out that IF YOU DON’T DRINK ALCOHOL BEFORE FLYING YOU WONT HAVE A PROBLEM!
Consequently it doesn’t matter what the law says about drink-flying – if you don’t drink before flying you have nothing to worry about.
There are now plenty of alcohol assistance and support groups to help anyone with a drink problem.
Any pilot who gets CAUGHT breaching the drink-flying LAWS has no-one but themselves to blame and deserves everything they get; they will also incur my absolute disgust, contempt and they are a disgrace to my profession.
If YOU know anyone with a problem, find out what support is available to them both from within and without the airline and direct the abuser towards it; you will be doing your professional friend a favour by helping them. In time they will thank you.
It has always been my observation that pilots tend to be smart people. Therefore it shouldn't be too difficult for any of you to work out that IF YOU DON’T DRINK ALCOHOL BEFORE FLYING YOU WONT HAVE A PROBLEM!
Consequently it doesn’t matter what the law says about drink-flying – if you don’t drink before flying you have nothing to worry about.
There are now plenty of alcohol assistance and support groups to help anyone with a drink problem.
Any pilot who gets CAUGHT breaching the drink-flying LAWS has no-one but themselves to blame and deserves everything they get; they will also incur my absolute disgust, contempt and they are a disgrace to my profession.
If YOU know anyone with a problem, find out what support is available to them both from within and without the airline and direct the abuser towards it; you will be doing your professional friend a favour by helping them. In time they will thank you.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it is worth in more than 10 years military flying and 8 years civil flying I have never once flown with anyone who I had any reason to believe was under the influence of alcohol. That said, it is apparent that whether we want it or not there are new rules coming and they are a source of concern for even the most moderate of drinkers (of whom I am one).
'YouNeverStopLearning' made a very passionate statement about the disgrace of pilots flying over the limit and the necessity of seeking help for your alcohol problem. There is no doubt that if you are an alcoholic you are fundamentally unfit to be a professional pilot for as long as the condition exists, and I do not think many of my colleagues would dispute that.
With the arrival of this new legislation, the problem is now far greater than just the issue of the alcoholic - however tragic his/her circumstances may be. This new legislation will have significant lifestyle effects for anyone in flying who is not rigidly tee-total. I think I speak for many when I say that I feel very uncertain about this new legislation because I simply cannot translate this 20mg figure into anything meaningful in my own mind. Does that mean that if I have 2 glasses of wine the night before a flight (and do not infringe the 8 hour rule) that I may in fact be flying over the limit? I for one will certainly try and get hold of some device for measuring my own blood/alcohol levels (and no I am not an alcoholic).
We have to recognise that enormous new restrictions are being put on the lives of flight crew, and that to have this 20mg level in your body does not mean you are some kind of drunken yob. I want to be able to be absolutely certain in my own mind that I am not in some way endangering my future. I can foresee a scenario when a pilot will be feeling absolutely on top of things but find out via a random test that he was in fact over the limit due to a couple of glasses of wine with his wife the night before.
Our employers have a clear duty of care here. The answer has to be for company-provided facilities to test yourself prior to duty, and the option to go sick without subsequent recrimination if you find yourself over this new limit.
'YouNeverStopLearning' made a very passionate statement about the disgrace of pilots flying over the limit and the necessity of seeking help for your alcohol problem. There is no doubt that if you are an alcoholic you are fundamentally unfit to be a professional pilot for as long as the condition exists, and I do not think many of my colleagues would dispute that.
With the arrival of this new legislation, the problem is now far greater than just the issue of the alcoholic - however tragic his/her circumstances may be. This new legislation will have significant lifestyle effects for anyone in flying who is not rigidly tee-total. I think I speak for many when I say that I feel very uncertain about this new legislation because I simply cannot translate this 20mg figure into anything meaningful in my own mind. Does that mean that if I have 2 glasses of wine the night before a flight (and do not infringe the 8 hour rule) that I may in fact be flying over the limit? I for one will certainly try and get hold of some device for measuring my own blood/alcohol levels (and no I am not an alcoholic).
We have to recognise that enormous new restrictions are being put on the lives of flight crew, and that to have this 20mg level in your body does not mean you are some kind of drunken yob. I want to be able to be absolutely certain in my own mind that I am not in some way endangering my future. I can foresee a scenario when a pilot will be feeling absolutely on top of things but find out via a random test that he was in fact over the limit due to a couple of glasses of wine with his wife the night before.
Our employers have a clear duty of care here. The answer has to be for company-provided facilities to test yourself prior to duty, and the option to go sick without subsequent recrimination if you find yourself over this new limit.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norman Stanley Fletcher
Your company has no duty of care in repsect of what you do when you are off duty, which is presumably when you would have a drink. Its your choice to do it, and you carry the can if by doing so you find yourself over the limit. You will find that a person who's job is to drive is in exactly the same position.
I agree however that you should have access to a discreet way of self testing before you actual do anything that within the new act would drop you in it.
I have to say that the reason I agree is differant for your reason for suggesting it though. My reasons are purly that there is No safe way of calculating what you can drink the night before you fly. Well there is one way, and thats drink nothing.
Everyone's differant and the speed at which they get the alcohol out of thier system verries from person to person, just as the speed at which its absorbed verries. Other factors can speed up absorbtion, like what you have eaten, when you eat it etc. So thats why you can't find anyone to give you guidence.
The drink drive limit equates to about 1 1/4 pints of normal strength beer for an avarage person. But remember that it takes a while to get into your blood, it doesn't happen instantly. So say you had 1.5 pints and blew into a breath test machine 5 minutes later. You would probably have a low reading, but say 30 minutes later, you could have gone up. On the other hand it could take an hour to go up. 2 hours later some of it could have passed out of your system, but there is no reliable way of telling how much so you could still be over the limit. This is why some people provide a positive test when stopped but a negitive test when they arrive at a police station, and why in boarder line cases when a blood sample is taken it is often higher than the breath test reading.
The limits under this act are about 1/4 of the drink drive limits. Personally I wouldn't risk it at all the night before, but then I am not going to be affected.
Something else you should remember, this is nothing new. The same problem has existed for drivers ever since the breath test was introduced.
At the end of the day, the old goverment slogan "think before you drink before you drive", should now be widened to
"Think before you drink, before you drive/fly/try to get your leg over."
Your company has no duty of care in repsect of what you do when you are off duty, which is presumably when you would have a drink. Its your choice to do it, and you carry the can if by doing so you find yourself over the limit. You will find that a person who's job is to drive is in exactly the same position.
I agree however that you should have access to a discreet way of self testing before you actual do anything that within the new act would drop you in it.
I have to say that the reason I agree is differant for your reason for suggesting it though. My reasons are purly that there is No safe way of calculating what you can drink the night before you fly. Well there is one way, and thats drink nothing.
Everyone's differant and the speed at which they get the alcohol out of thier system verries from person to person, just as the speed at which its absorbed verries. Other factors can speed up absorbtion, like what you have eaten, when you eat it etc. So thats why you can't find anyone to give you guidence.
The drink drive limit equates to about 1 1/4 pints of normal strength beer for an avarage person. But remember that it takes a while to get into your blood, it doesn't happen instantly. So say you had 1.5 pints and blew into a breath test machine 5 minutes later. You would probably have a low reading, but say 30 minutes later, you could have gone up. On the other hand it could take an hour to go up. 2 hours later some of it could have passed out of your system, but there is no reliable way of telling how much so you could still be over the limit. This is why some people provide a positive test when stopped but a negitive test when they arrive at a police station, and why in boarder line cases when a blood sample is taken it is often higher than the breath test reading.
The limits under this act are about 1/4 of the drink drive limits. Personally I wouldn't risk it at all the night before, but then I am not going to be affected.
Something else you should remember, this is nothing new. The same problem has existed for drivers ever since the breath test was introduced.
At the end of the day, the old goverment slogan "think before you drink before you drive", should now be widened to
"Think before you drink, before you drive/fly/try to get your leg over."
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: EXETER,UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The great (British) public seem to be having their cake and eat it here. It is ok for cabinet ministers et al to take drugs misc and have interesting historys and for them (the British Public) to have 80 ml or bananas or whatever it is, but they dont want to fly with a pilot with a bit of a hangover, Well, neither would I, but isnt there a bit of double think going on?