Alcohol and Flying: The New Law
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 52N 20E
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nineiron,
Interesting stuff, problem there though, could find a lot failing the test regardless of whether they have had consumed alchohol, drugs or not.
It is still a mine field which ever way you look at it.
Interesting stuff, problem there though, could find a lot failing the test regardless of whether they have had consumed alchohol, drugs or not.
It is still a mine field which ever way you look at it.
It would seem from reading this lot that the only way to stay as Flight Crew is also to become teetotal! That's more than a 'bit' of a life-style change for the vast majority of us I would hazard. A pretty drastic series of attributable accidents must have prompted such a radical revamp of the rules.
Can't wait to hear about them.
Can't wait to hear about them.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be very interesting to see what effects the new legislation will have.
The legislation makes it an absolute offence to have drugs or alcohol in your body and sets specific limits for alcohol.
If you are tested positive, then you are guilty of a criminal offence and there is no defence (which is why a zero-tolerance level of 0.2% has been set). It seems unlikely that anyone found guilty would be returned to work......... and any airline that did not report "unfit" flight crew could be considered guilty of conspiracy - which reduces the scope for in-house rehabilitation.
What I find interesting in this thread is the lack of mention of "drugs". These are not effectively defined in the legislation and no "cutoff" levels are set. The term embraces a wide variety of illicit drugs as well as legally obtainable drugs that may impair your "function" - for example, anti-depressants, beta-blockers, heart drugs etc. Drugs are in widespread use (overtaking alcohol in traffic offences) and it seems niaive to ignore their use.
The body metabolises alcohol quickly (and even manufactures it, which is why the .02% cutoff level is set). However, the body metabolises other drugs much less efficiently and if "zero tolerance" levels are set (as with alcohol) as seems likely, this could mean that an individual may test positive several days after imbibing.
The police will test if they are reliably informed (by workmates etc) that an offence may have been committed.
The industry really does need to take this issue seriously and not pretend that cabin and flightdeck staff don't take "drugs". Pro-active random testing seems unavoidable.
The legislation makes it an absolute offence to have drugs or alcohol in your body and sets specific limits for alcohol.
If you are tested positive, then you are guilty of a criminal offence and there is no defence (which is why a zero-tolerance level of 0.2% has been set). It seems unlikely that anyone found guilty would be returned to work......... and any airline that did not report "unfit" flight crew could be considered guilty of conspiracy - which reduces the scope for in-house rehabilitation.
What I find interesting in this thread is the lack of mention of "drugs". These are not effectively defined in the legislation and no "cutoff" levels are set. The term embraces a wide variety of illicit drugs as well as legally obtainable drugs that may impair your "function" - for example, anti-depressants, beta-blockers, heart drugs etc. Drugs are in widespread use (overtaking alcohol in traffic offences) and it seems niaive to ignore their use.
The body metabolises alcohol quickly (and even manufactures it, which is why the .02% cutoff level is set). However, the body metabolises other drugs much less efficiently and if "zero tolerance" levels are set (as with alcohol) as seems likely, this could mean that an individual may test positive several days after imbibing.
The police will test if they are reliably informed (by workmates etc) that an offence may have been committed.
The industry really does need to take this issue seriously and not pretend that cabin and flightdeck staff don't take "drugs". Pro-active random testing seems unavoidable.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK what about the security people who check everybody. These people should be checked as well. If they have had too much to drink and cannot function properly then the rest of us are f*ck*d.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: EXETER,UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For perhaps the only time I find myself in agreement with most of smokies post. i must take exception to the quotation in Airbubies post-surely we are the most tested. supervised,overseen, pestered profession in the world.
Althought there is no specific remit in the AME for alcolhism to be looked for, the first symptoms of system failure will be picked up . which is more than can be said for drunk surgeons, ATC controllers, cannabis ridden civil servants etc.
I agree that self test should be made available--the resulting problems if any could be dealt with by airline management on the same basis that 'tactical sickness' is a problem without involving the draconian remedies apparently proposed by the double thinking bureaucrats.
Althought there is no specific remit in the AME for alcolhism to be looked for, the first symptoms of system failure will be picked up . which is more than can be said for drunk surgeons, ATC controllers, cannabis ridden civil servants etc.
I agree that self test should be made available--the resulting problems if any could be dealt with by airline management on the same basis that 'tactical sickness' is a problem without involving the draconian remedies apparently proposed by the double thinking bureaucrats.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS
Its not clear whether Airport Security staff are to be subject to testing........ I think BAA are not so keen on implementing random testing, its not clear why they have backed away from it.
However, it is reasonable for all Airside staff to be subject to random testing and perhaps an annual hair test (which can detect drugs taken over the previous 3 months). This is because Airside staff are more representative of the general population (large percentages of whom DO take drugs) rather than safety personnel who are (probably) less likely to take drugs.
Airside staff who take drugs are an easy target for criminals, terrorists and are more likely to engage in other illicit activities (perhaps to feed their habit).
Again, it will be interesting to see how this all unfolds.........
Its not clear whether Airport Security staff are to be subject to testing........ I think BAA are not so keen on implementing random testing, its not clear why they have backed away from it.
However, it is reasonable for all Airside staff to be subject to random testing and perhaps an annual hair test (which can detect drugs taken over the previous 3 months). This is because Airside staff are more representative of the general population (large percentages of whom DO take drugs) rather than safety personnel who are (probably) less likely to take drugs.
Airside staff who take drugs are an easy target for criminals, terrorists and are more likely to engage in other illicit activities (perhaps to feed their habit).
Again, it will be interesting to see how this all unfolds.........
Pilots Asked to Perform the Impossible?
General:
The reason for the 20mg level is that we can all create small amounts of our own alcohol. This may appear in their blood as an alcohol level, but it will not reach 20mg per 100ml, and anyone who is breath or blood tested to that level is likely to have ingested alcohol in the recent past.
We absorb and excrete alcohol at very different rates. These depend on factors such as sex,
body weight, tolerance to alcohol, and the presence of food.
It is impossible to construct any meaningful chart that an individual can use to predict a future alcohol level after a period of drinking.
The reason for the 20mg level is that we can all create small amounts of our own alcohol. This may appear in their blood as an alcohol level, but it will not reach 20mg per 100ml, and anyone who is breath or blood tested to that level is likely to have ingested alcohol in the recent past.
We absorb and excrete alcohol at very different rates. These depend on factors such as sex,
body weight, tolerance to alcohol, and the presence of food.
It is impossible to construct any meaningful chart that an individual can use to predict a future alcohol level after a period of drinking.
Warning:
Flight crew and cabin crew should not commence duty for at least eight hours after taking small amounts of alcohol, and proportionally longer if larger amounts are consumed.
Although it's likely that if a person consumes a maximum of five units of alcohol dispersed over some hours before the eight hour ban, his or her blood alcohol level will be zero at the end of the ban, it cannot be guaranteed.
Guide: Half a pint of ordinary strength beer (3-3.5%) contains one unit of alcohol),
Flight crew and cabin crew should not commence duty for at least eight hours after taking small amounts of alcohol, and proportionally longer if larger amounts are consumed.
Although it's likely that if a person consumes a maximum of five units of alcohol dispersed over some hours before the eight hour ban, his or her blood alcohol level will be zero at the end of the ban, it cannot be guaranteed.
Guide: Half a pint of ordinary strength beer (3-3.5%) contains one unit of alcohol),
Flyer Flier said:
Anyway, I was at least hoping to get a drink the night 24hours before, but I too am becoming concerned at the low level of the limit at 20mg. Having checked the specs of the various breathalizers on the market, it is apparent that their accuracy is at such a level to be unreliable at the low limits. Even the high tech versions which cope with the driving limit in Sweden (also 20mg) only start at 20mg as the lowest available reading in their range at plus/minus 10mg accuracy.
It sets the benchmark at a limit that is the same as or close to the natural level produced in the human body.
There appears to be no alcohol testing devices that are sensitive enough to detect the very low levels set by the new law.
Therefore, there appears to be no alcohol testing devices that will be available for a Pilot to test himself before going to work so that he may avoid committing a crime.
…and the new law allows an Engineer to work on an aircraft when he is four times as pi55ed as a Pilot!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The number of UK air transport accidents involving aircrew detected with illegal alcohol levels for the last five years is zero.)
Either the CAA reply is poorly phrased or they are being disingenuous. I also note that they do not say whether the limits were set in accordance with their advice. I do not imagine that DfT would have acted contrary to advice from the CAA in this matter.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlexibleResponse
There is no accurate way of predicticing you can drive either, but no one moans on here about that.
The same responsibility rests with those now affected by the new law as drinking and driving legislation, the gartenteed way of being under the limit is not to drink. I don't before I drive, I don't see that as a restriction on my life, just common sense. If I do drink, 5 units one evening then I stay away from the car till the next evening.
Yes there are breath test devices which will mesure the limit in this new law, you quoted someone else who mentioned that Sweeden has the same limit. They manage with electronic screening.
At the end of the day the choice is yours, either drink, and not work or work and don't drink.
Oh, and engineers are able to be 4 times more p****d than pilots. No one said that anyone at the prescribed levels is p****d, just that they may be impairered.
There is no accurate way of predicticing you can drive either, but no one moans on here about that.
The same responsibility rests with those now affected by the new law as drinking and driving legislation, the gartenteed way of being under the limit is not to drink. I don't before I drive, I don't see that as a restriction on my life, just common sense. If I do drink, 5 units one evening then I stay away from the car till the next evening.
Yes there are breath test devices which will mesure the limit in this new law, you quoted someone else who mentioned that Sweeden has the same limit. They manage with electronic screening.
At the end of the day the choice is yours, either drink, and not work or work and don't drink.
Oh, and engineers are able to be 4 times more p****d than pilots. No one said that anyone at the prescribed levels is p****d, just that they may be impairered.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The low level of the alcohol limits (0.02% blood/alcohol) has interesting consequences. The breathe or saliva test on its own is not currently sufficient evidence to convict - so corrobating evidence in the form of a blood test is necessary.
The body metabolises alcohol quite rapidly.
If a pilot were tested positive at or near this 0.02% limit, then it is probable that they would pass a blood test taken later at the police station. This is because it would take some time (perhaps an hour or so: arrest, read rights, transport etc.) to administer the blood test which has to be carried out by a Doctor, during which time the remaining alcohol would almost certainly have been metabolised by the body. (Urine tests are irrelevant as they do not indicate intoxication). Hence I think the alcohol limits are "evidentially suspect" (back calculation of alcohol levels not being legally acceptable).
As I have noted before, "drugs" are also included in the legislation, but no indication is given as to what a "drug" is or what the "blood drug" cutoff levels are. Presumably, they will be set at the "zero tolerance" level. Providing an acceptable "zero tolerance" drug test regime for courtroom purposes may be difficult (some drugs metabolise quickly, whilst others can be present for days or even weeks). This may be an even more serious issue.
In addition to all this, individuals are entitled to have recourse to testing for Defence purposes. Yet there seems to be no effective means for this at all (other than for blood/alcohol testing).
The body metabolises alcohol quite rapidly.
If a pilot were tested positive at or near this 0.02% limit, then it is probable that they would pass a blood test taken later at the police station. This is because it would take some time (perhaps an hour or so: arrest, read rights, transport etc.) to administer the blood test which has to be carried out by a Doctor, during which time the remaining alcohol would almost certainly have been metabolised by the body. (Urine tests are irrelevant as they do not indicate intoxication). Hence I think the alcohol limits are "evidentially suspect" (back calculation of alcohol levels not being legally acceptable).
As I have noted before, "drugs" are also included in the legislation, but no indication is given as to what a "drug" is or what the "blood drug" cutoff levels are. Presumably, they will be set at the "zero tolerance" level. Providing an acceptable "zero tolerance" drug test regime for courtroom purposes may be difficult (some drugs metabolise quickly, whilst others can be present for days or even weeks). This may be an even more serious issue.
In addition to all this, individuals are entitled to have recourse to testing for Defence purposes. Yet there seems to be no effective means for this at all (other than for blood/alcohol testing).
bjcc,
Thank you for your comments. Just in case you got the wrong idea, I don’t think that anyone is against a law that prescribes alcohol limits for those performing “aviation functions”. But, it would be desirable that such law be drafted in a manner that was reasonable and achieved what it set out to do. This is probably why “Flying Lawyer” has thrown it into the Forum for discussion by those most affected.
The new law suggests at least eight hours after taking small amounts of alcohol, and proportionally longer if larger amounts are consumed. You are suggesting 24 hours. I guess some other folks might suggest 48 hours or even longer. However, these are general thoughts and in the long run are an inaccurate and unworkable method of guesstimating alcohol levels.
The basic problem facing a Pilot (ATC, LAME etc) each day is to ensure that he doesn’t report for duty with residual levels of alcohol that would be classified as criminal.
The new law says you can’t have greater than the Prescribed Limits of alcohol in each of breath, blood and urine when performing an aviation function. The Prescribed Limits are very low and approach what the human body manufactures by itself. Therefore it follows that it would be very useful (perhaps mandatory?) to be able to take a sample of each of the three body products and test the specimens to determine if you were fit for duty, before leaving home (or other overnight accommodation).
The questions that immediately spring to mind are: Do accurate test/screening devices exist that would allow self administered-testing of these three quantities? Would such devices be readily and easily available in the quantities necessary for all affected personnel? This could end up costing the airline industry an enormous amount of money and we know that the passenger will end up bearing this additional burden in the cost in his ticket.
Perhaps a smarter law would require mandatory testing of all personnel involved in aviation functions prior to reporting for duty and thus ensuring that alcohol-impaired folks are rejected. Now that would achieve the aim of the game and also prevent the possibility of a crime occurring in the first place.
Now, let’s go back to square one. What was the original problem? Has the new law addressed the issues in a sensible way? Is it a good law? Will passengers get value for the money that will be added to the price of their ticket?
Thank you for your comments. Just in case you got the wrong idea, I don’t think that anyone is against a law that prescribes alcohol limits for those performing “aviation functions”. But, it would be desirable that such law be drafted in a manner that was reasonable and achieved what it set out to do. This is probably why “Flying Lawyer” has thrown it into the Forum for discussion by those most affected.
The new law suggests at least eight hours after taking small amounts of alcohol, and proportionally longer if larger amounts are consumed. You are suggesting 24 hours. I guess some other folks might suggest 48 hours or even longer. However, these are general thoughts and in the long run are an inaccurate and unworkable method of guesstimating alcohol levels.
The basic problem facing a Pilot (ATC, LAME etc) each day is to ensure that he doesn’t report for duty with residual levels of alcohol that would be classified as criminal.
The new law says you can’t have greater than the Prescribed Limits of alcohol in each of breath, blood and urine when performing an aviation function. The Prescribed Limits are very low and approach what the human body manufactures by itself. Therefore it follows that it would be very useful (perhaps mandatory?) to be able to take a sample of each of the three body products and test the specimens to determine if you were fit for duty, before leaving home (or other overnight accommodation).
The questions that immediately spring to mind are: Do accurate test/screening devices exist that would allow self administered-testing of these three quantities? Would such devices be readily and easily available in the quantities necessary for all affected personnel? This could end up costing the airline industry an enormous amount of money and we know that the passenger will end up bearing this additional burden in the cost in his ticket.
Perhaps a smarter law would require mandatory testing of all personnel involved in aviation functions prior to reporting for duty and thus ensuring that alcohol-impaired folks are rejected. Now that would achieve the aim of the game and also prevent the possibility of a crime occurring in the first place.
Now, let’s go back to square one. What was the original problem? Has the new law addressed the issues in a sensible way? Is it a good law? Will passengers get value for the money that will be added to the price of their ticket?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reliable and accurate drugs and alcohol tests have been around for a while and are in use by the Police, Prisons and Health Services. Breathe test meters, saliva tests (accurately reflecting blood alcohol or drug levels) and multi-drug urine tests are cheap and easy to use - although urine testing for alcohol seem somewhat irrelevant as urine does not reflect impairment.
So self testing for alcohol is cheap, practical and reliable.
Nobody has specified what "drugs" are or what the cutoff levels are - so no help there (and may not be told when we are being naughty for some time). Most drug tests conform to the SAMSHA standard, which aims to indicate levels in the body consistent with "recent" intoxication.
So self testing for alcohol is cheap, practical and reliable.
Nobody has specified what "drugs" are or what the cutoff levels are - so no help there (and may not be told when we are being naughty for some time). Most drug tests conform to the SAMSHA standard, which aims to indicate levels in the body consistent with "recent" intoxication.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Traffic Services Information Notice 40 issued by the SRG ATS Standards Department provides information and guidance on the new Act.
Excerpt:
6 Testing under the Act
6.1 Power to Conduct a Preliminary Test (i.e. a breathalyser test) by a Police Constable in Uniform
6.1.1 Section 96 of the Act provides that the Police have power to require a person to cooperate with a preliminary test where:
(a) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person is over the prescribed limit, or his/her ability to perform his/her aviation function is impaired through either drink or drugs,
(b) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person has been over the prescribed limit or impaired through drink or drugs, and still has alcohol or a drug in his/her body or is still under the influence of a drug,
(c) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person was undertaking an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft at the time of the accident, or
(d) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person has undertaken an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft.
6.1.2 A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to provide a specimen when required to do so in pursuance of this section commits an offence.
6.1.3 A person commits an offence under the Act if he/she performs an aviation function, or an activity that is ancillary to an aviation function, at a time when his/her ability to perform the function is impaired because of alcohol or drugs. This means that a person can be tested at any time after commencing duty, including standby. The Police will determine when to test based on reasonable suspicion that either someone is over the prescribed limit, under the influence of alcohol and drugs, or following an accident.
6.1.4 The Police are empowered to breathalyse and to perform subsequent tests (i.e. blood and urine tests). Police officers have been advised to exercise their powers under the Act as discreetly as circumstances allow and, if possible, in private, particularly where passenger aircraft are concerned. Overtly or insensitively
exercising these powers in certain circumstances could have detrimental affect on passenger perception and confidence, and could have commercial implications and liabilities.
6.1.5 The preliminary drug test is dependant on factors not yet finalised. The CAA will endeavour to provide additional information in due course.
6.2 Test Equipment
6.2.2 The equipment to be used by the Police to screen suspected offenders for the presence of ingested alcohol is that currently used to test motorists in road traffic cases. However, before approval for use in the aviation environment, each type of
device type has been subjected to a series of controlled laboratory tests to ensure its continued reliability and accuracy at the new aviation limit over a range of operational temperatures and after repeated use.
6.2.3 The technical specifications for the testing programme required that, for each type of device, the absolute error in indication at the aviation limit would be better than that required when used to screen suspected offenders in road traffic cases.
6.2.4 The results of any screening test will provide an indication of the level of alcohol present in an individual’s body. Any criminal proceedings will be based on the results of a subsequent evidential test using different equipment. In practice this will usually take the form of a laboratory analysis of a sample of the suspected offender’s blood or urine.
6.3 Testing following an Accident
6.3.1 An accident for these purposes is defined as an unintended event with adverse physical effect. It is unlikely that every accident involving an aircraft will warrant Police exercising any or all of their powers under this Act.
6.4 Reasonable Grounds for Suspicion
6.4.1 Reasonable grounds for suspicion depend upon the circumstances in each case.
There must be an objective basis for that suspicion based on facts, information and/or intelligence that are relevant to the likelihood of an offence. Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on generalisations or stereotypical images of certain groups or categories of people as more likely to be involved in criminal activity.
6.4.2 Reasonable suspicion can sometimes exist without specific information or intelligence and on the basis for some level of generalisation stemming from the behaviour of a person. Reasonable suspicion should normally be linked to accurate
and current intelligence or information. For example, evidence of impairment from witnesses or from the result of a primary test of an employee by an employer could be sufficient.
6.5 Procedure in the Event of a Positive Breathalyser Test
6.5.1 If, as a result of an initial Police breath test, an officer has reasonable cause to suspect that a person has more than the prescribed proportion of alcohol in their body, then they can expect to be arrested and taken to a Police station. There, they
will be asked to provide a further specimen of breath, blood or urine for laboratory analysis. In practice, this will usually be a specimen of blood, taken by a Police doctor. Failure to provide a specimen without reasonable cause is an offence. Where
a sample of blood or urine is taken, he/she will be entitled to request a part of the sample for themselves. He/she will be supplied with a booklet of analysts where they can have their specimen privately analysed if they wish.
6.5.2 Once a blood sample has been taken he/she will probably be released from the Police station on a condition to return at a later date, by which time the Police part of the sample will have been analysed. If the sample is under the limit he/she will probably be told not to attend. If when he/she attends, the results of the analysis of the sample shows that he/she was over the limit, he/she will be charged with the offence and be given a date to attend court.
6.5.3 After giving a specimen, the Police may detain the individual at the Police station until it appears to the officer that there is no likelihood of them carrying out, or attempting to carry out, an aviation function of the kind for which they have provided a sample, whilst still over the prescribed limit or otherwise impaired through alcohol or drugs.
Link to: ATSIN 40
Tudor Owen
Excerpt:
6 Testing under the Act
6.1 Power to Conduct a Preliminary Test (i.e. a breathalyser test) by a Police Constable in Uniform
6.1.1 Section 96 of the Act provides that the Police have power to require a person to cooperate with a preliminary test where:
(a) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person is over the prescribed limit, or his/her ability to perform his/her aviation function is impaired through either drink or drugs,
(b) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person has been over the prescribed limit or impaired through drink or drugs, and still has alcohol or a drug in his/her body or is still under the influence of a drug,
(c) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person was undertaking an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft at the time of the accident, or
(d) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person has undertaken an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft.
6.1.2 A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to provide a specimen when required to do so in pursuance of this section commits an offence.
6.1.3 A person commits an offence under the Act if he/she performs an aviation function, or an activity that is ancillary to an aviation function, at a time when his/her ability to perform the function is impaired because of alcohol or drugs. This means that a person can be tested at any time after commencing duty, including standby. The Police will determine when to test based on reasonable suspicion that either someone is over the prescribed limit, under the influence of alcohol and drugs, or following an accident.
6.1.4 The Police are empowered to breathalyse and to perform subsequent tests (i.e. blood and urine tests). Police officers have been advised to exercise their powers under the Act as discreetly as circumstances allow and, if possible, in private, particularly where passenger aircraft are concerned. Overtly or insensitively
exercising these powers in certain circumstances could have detrimental affect on passenger perception and confidence, and could have commercial implications and liabilities.
6.1.5 The preliminary drug test is dependant on factors not yet finalised. The CAA will endeavour to provide additional information in due course.
6.2 Test Equipment
6.2.2 The equipment to be used by the Police to screen suspected offenders for the presence of ingested alcohol is that currently used to test motorists in road traffic cases. However, before approval for use in the aviation environment, each type of
device type has been subjected to a series of controlled laboratory tests to ensure its continued reliability and accuracy at the new aviation limit over a range of operational temperatures and after repeated use.
6.2.3 The technical specifications for the testing programme required that, for each type of device, the absolute error in indication at the aviation limit would be better than that required when used to screen suspected offenders in road traffic cases.
6.2.4 The results of any screening test will provide an indication of the level of alcohol present in an individual’s body. Any criminal proceedings will be based on the results of a subsequent evidential test using different equipment. In practice this will usually take the form of a laboratory analysis of a sample of the suspected offender’s blood or urine.
6.3 Testing following an Accident
6.3.1 An accident for these purposes is defined as an unintended event with adverse physical effect. It is unlikely that every accident involving an aircraft will warrant Police exercising any or all of their powers under this Act.
6.4 Reasonable Grounds for Suspicion
6.4.1 Reasonable grounds for suspicion depend upon the circumstances in each case.
There must be an objective basis for that suspicion based on facts, information and/or intelligence that are relevant to the likelihood of an offence. Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on generalisations or stereotypical images of certain groups or categories of people as more likely to be involved in criminal activity.
6.4.2 Reasonable suspicion can sometimes exist without specific information or intelligence and on the basis for some level of generalisation stemming from the behaviour of a person. Reasonable suspicion should normally be linked to accurate
and current intelligence or information. For example, evidence of impairment from witnesses or from the result of a primary test of an employee by an employer could be sufficient.
6.5 Procedure in the Event of a Positive Breathalyser Test
6.5.1 If, as a result of an initial Police breath test, an officer has reasonable cause to suspect that a person has more than the prescribed proportion of alcohol in their body, then they can expect to be arrested and taken to a Police station. There, they
will be asked to provide a further specimen of breath, blood or urine for laboratory analysis. In practice, this will usually be a specimen of blood, taken by a Police doctor. Failure to provide a specimen without reasonable cause is an offence. Where
a sample of blood or urine is taken, he/she will be entitled to request a part of the sample for themselves. He/she will be supplied with a booklet of analysts where they can have their specimen privately analysed if they wish.
6.5.2 Once a blood sample has been taken he/she will probably be released from the Police station on a condition to return at a later date, by which time the Police part of the sample will have been analysed. If the sample is under the limit he/she will probably be told not to attend. If when he/she attends, the results of the analysis of the sample shows that he/she was over the limit, he/she will be charged with the offence and be given a date to attend court.
6.5.3 After giving a specimen, the Police may detain the individual at the Police station until it appears to the officer that there is no likelihood of them carrying out, or attempting to carry out, an aviation function of the kind for which they have provided a sample, whilst still over the prescribed limit or otherwise impaired through alcohol or drugs.
Link to: ATSIN 40
Tudor Owen
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 10th Jan 2004 at 18:18.
The document at the link supplied by the Flying Lawyer simplifies the situation somewhat. If I have read it correctly, it indicates that for screening stage, the standard breath test will be applied using the current equipment that has met the more stringent aviation requirements.
If this test is positive, then arrest will follow and blood and/or urine samples will be taken for laboratory testing.
But subsequent attendance at court will probably only take place if there is a positive result from the blood or urine testing.
So it would seem for practical application of the new law, one might take a reasonable guess at the required recovery time after consuming alcohol based on personal experience. But, before reporting for duty, one should take a breath test using the same type of equipment as used by the Police.
As Blacksword points out, relevant drugs, levels and testing still remains a mystery to all.
If this test is positive, then arrest will follow and blood and/or urine samples will be taken for laboratory testing.
But subsequent attendance at court will probably only take place if there is a positive result from the blood or urine testing.
So it would seem for practical application of the new law, one might take a reasonable guess at the required recovery time after consuming alcohol based on personal experience. But, before reporting for duty, one should take a breath test using the same type of equipment as used by the Police.
As Blacksword points out, relevant drugs, levels and testing still remains a mystery to all.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think breathe or Blood/Alcohol testing is a problem (although there is evidence to show that breathe testing does not accurately reflect blood/alcohol), apart from the relatively low "zero tolerance" levels set (as there are no easy guidlines apart from complete abstinence).
Saliva and blood testing are the most reliable methods.
Despite the fact that the legislation and the CAA both mention urine testing, I find this odd (not that the CAA have helped much).
Urine testing does not reflect impairment. Although commonly used for (non-traffic) drug testing, it is not generally used in court for prosecution - as it does not provide proof that you were "under the influence" at the time of arrest.
Hence it is possible for a person to be clear in both breathe and blood tests, but for their urine test to be positive. I think that urine testing is unlikely to be used in court.
As for drugs, well don't hold your breathe! (pun intended)
Saliva and blood testing are the most reliable methods.
Despite the fact that the legislation and the CAA both mention urine testing, I find this odd (not that the CAA have helped much).
Urine testing does not reflect impairment. Although commonly used for (non-traffic) drug testing, it is not generally used in court for prosecution - as it does not provide proof that you were "under the influence" at the time of arrest.
Hence it is possible for a person to be clear in both breathe and blood tests, but for their urine test to be positive. I think that urine testing is unlikely to be used in court.
As for drugs, well don't hold your breathe! (pun intended)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BlackSword: "Urine testing does not reflect impairment. Although commonly used for (non-traffic) drug testing, it is not generally used in court for prosecution - as it does not provide proof that you were "under the influence" at the time of arrest."
You're confusing two different offences. A driver may be guilty of driving with excess alcohol without any evidence he was actually impaired/'under the influence.'
Also, for the purpose of that offence, there is no distinction between evidence of breath, blood or urine.
The new Act creates two offences which are similar to those under the road traffic legislation:
Being Unfit for Duty (Section 92)
Performing an "aviation function", or carrying out an activity that is "ancillary to an aviation function", at a time when your ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
and
Exceeding the Prescribed Limit (Section 93)
Performing 'an aviation function', or carrying out an activity that is 'ancillary to an aviation function', at a time when the proportion of alcohol in your breath, blood or urine exceeds the 'prescribed limit.'
(NB: No evidence of impairment is required.)
The wording of the offences under the new Act is different from the equivalent road traffic legislation, and the prescribed limits in relation to the 'Exceeding the Prescribed Limit' offence are stricter, but the principles remain the same. For the purposes of determining whether someone performed an aviation function whilst over the prescribed limit there is no distinction between breath, blood and urine evidence.
You're confusing two different offences. A driver may be guilty of driving with excess alcohol without any evidence he was actually impaired/'under the influence.'
Also, for the purpose of that offence, there is no distinction between evidence of breath, blood or urine.
The new Act creates two offences which are similar to those under the road traffic legislation:
Being Unfit for Duty (Section 92)
Performing an "aviation function", or carrying out an activity that is "ancillary to an aviation function", at a time when your ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
and
Exceeding the Prescribed Limit (Section 93)
Performing 'an aviation function', or carrying out an activity that is 'ancillary to an aviation function', at a time when the proportion of alcohol in your breath, blood or urine exceeds the 'prescribed limit.'
(NB: No evidence of impairment is required.)
The wording of the offences under the new Act is different from the equivalent road traffic legislation, and the prescribed limits in relation to the 'Exceeding the Prescribed Limit' offence are stricter, but the principles remain the same. For the purposes of determining whether someone performed an aviation function whilst over the prescribed limit there is no distinction between breath, blood and urine evidence.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 10th Jan 2004 at 20:04.
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: On the great big world
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now call me thick but would somebody please define what is meant by 'a positive breath test' ?
One fully understands that if one blows into the breath-test device and that it then displays a reading that is clearly in excess of the limit then one will be hauled off to provide a blood sample.
However, if one were to blow into the breath-test device and it produces a reading that is below the 'limit', but ( and this is the important bit ) it is not zero, would one similarly be hauled off to provide a blood sample ? I.e. would the mere fact that one might have a token trace of alcohol upon ones breath, even if it was below the specified breath test 'limit', be cause for further, more detailed, investigation back at the Police station ?
E.g.
Copper: "We have reason to believe.... blah blah blah...... please blow into this breath-testing device".
Airline/ATC person: 'puffffffff.....'
Copper: "Uhm, you appear to have registered 0.19. As you might be aware the limit is 0.20 and you are less than that. So, sorry to have bothered you, please be on your way, have a safe flight".
Or will it be ?:
Copper: "Uhm, you appear to have registered 0.19 As you might be aware the limit is 0.20 and whilst you seem to be under the limit I would like you to accompany me to the station so that we might undertake a more detailed investigation".
So which one is it ?
One fully understands that if one blows into the breath-test device and that it then displays a reading that is clearly in excess of the limit then one will be hauled off to provide a blood sample.
However, if one were to blow into the breath-test device and it produces a reading that is below the 'limit', but ( and this is the important bit ) it is not zero, would one similarly be hauled off to provide a blood sample ? I.e. would the mere fact that one might have a token trace of alcohol upon ones breath, even if it was below the specified breath test 'limit', be cause for further, more detailed, investigation back at the Police station ?
E.g.
Copper: "We have reason to believe.... blah blah blah...... please blow into this breath-testing device".
Airline/ATC person: 'puffffffff.....'
Copper: "Uhm, you appear to have registered 0.19. As you might be aware the limit is 0.20 and you are less than that. So, sorry to have bothered you, please be on your way, have a safe flight".
Or will it be ?:
Copper: "Uhm, you appear to have registered 0.19 As you might be aware the limit is 0.20 and whilst you seem to be under the limit I would like you to accompany me to the station so that we might undertake a more detailed investigation".
So which one is it ?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems there is a bit of inconsistancy in the new law with engineers alowed 4 times the BAC of Pilots/controllers. I understand from the FODCOM this is due to engineers not requiring the "speed of response" of crew but what speed of response do I need filling in the journey log post flight? yet that is covered by the law.
BTW , Hand Held Digital Breathalysers.
can be had for about £60. Hard to say if they are accurate enough for the new rules as they are aimed at the driving levels.
www.valuemed.co.uk
BTW , Hand Held Digital Breathalysers.
can be had for about £60. Hard to say if they are accurate enough for the new rules as they are aimed at the driving levels.
www.valuemed.co.uk
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5by5
'Positive' in this context means the initial breath-test indicates you've got more than the prescribed proportion of alcohol in your body. In simple terms, the device is designed to give a preliminary indication of 'none', 'some' or 'over the limit.'
I haven't seen one for many years but they used to show only 'green' (no alcohol), amber (some) or red (over the limit.)
If it indicates you're over the limit, you'll be taken to a police station for a further test on a calibrated machine. This later 'evidential' test measures the proportion of alcohol in your body which determines whether you are actually over the limit. If it shows you're under the prescribed limit, you'll be released.
If the initial test shows 'none' or 'some', that should be the end of the matter and, in practice, usually is.
However, if you're staggering about, incapable of standing up without help and stinking of booze, the police officer may consider he has reasonable grounds to suspect you're unfit for duty (the alternative offence), arrest you and take you to a police station for further tests.
'Positive' in this context means the initial breath-test indicates you've got more than the prescribed proportion of alcohol in your body. In simple terms, the device is designed to give a preliminary indication of 'none', 'some' or 'over the limit.'
I haven't seen one for many years but they used to show only 'green' (no alcohol), amber (some) or red (over the limit.)
If it indicates you're over the limit, you'll be taken to a police station for a further test on a calibrated machine. This later 'evidential' test measures the proportion of alcohol in your body which determines whether you are actually over the limit. If it shows you're under the prescribed limit, you'll be released.
If the initial test shows 'none' or 'some', that should be the end of the matter and, in practice, usually is.
However, if you're staggering about, incapable of standing up without help and stinking of booze, the police officer may consider he has reasonable grounds to suspect you're unfit for duty (the alternative offence), arrest you and take you to a police station for further tests.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 10th Jan 2004 at 21:28.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer,
No, I'm not confusing two different offences, I am pointing out that the law is confused (and in part) undefined and wrong.
The law specifically identifies impairment of function (Sect 92).
It then quotes absolute levels in breathe, blood and urine making it an offence so to do.
However, urine testing does not demonstrate impairment. Period.
Having alcohol in your urine has no relation whatsoever with your ability to do a function (in the same way that wearing bad ties does not impair your function - just reflects bad taste).
This is so, for simple biological reasons, i.e. urine is not reabsorbed into the body.
In relation to traffic offences, blood/alcohol is generally relied upon, although there are certified breathe test machines too.
Urine is not (these days) used - a blood sample is required.
As I have pointed out, it is possible to be clear on breathe and blood but positive on urine. That makes a fool of the law.
Whether for Sect 92 or Sect 93 Urine testing should not be used.
And the law should be changed, before any damage is done.
This is just bad (and, of course, presently untried) law.
One only has to ask what is meant by "drugs" and what limits apply for each "drug"? If zero tolerance is applied, then this law could get very ugly in application or simply be ignored in practice.
The law in relation to "drugs" is completely undefined.
That IS bad law.
No, I'm not confusing two different offences, I am pointing out that the law is confused (and in part) undefined and wrong.
The law specifically identifies impairment of function (Sect 92).
It then quotes absolute levels in breathe, blood and urine making it an offence so to do.
However, urine testing does not demonstrate impairment. Period.
Having alcohol in your urine has no relation whatsoever with your ability to do a function (in the same way that wearing bad ties does not impair your function - just reflects bad taste).
This is so, for simple biological reasons, i.e. urine is not reabsorbed into the body.
In relation to traffic offences, blood/alcohol is generally relied upon, although there are certified breathe test machines too.
Urine is not (these days) used - a blood sample is required.
As I have pointed out, it is possible to be clear on breathe and blood but positive on urine. That makes a fool of the law.
Whether for Sect 92 or Sect 93 Urine testing should not be used.
And the law should be changed, before any damage is done.
This is just bad (and, of course, presently untried) law.
One only has to ask what is meant by "drugs" and what limits apply for each "drug"? If zero tolerance is applied, then this law could get very ugly in application or simply be ignored in practice.
The law in relation to "drugs" is completely undefined.
That IS bad law.