Alcohol and Flying: The New Law
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer,
Nice attempt at smear........... But I note you don't answer any of my points.
Is the law always right? Perhaps you think so, but I don't.
I'm saying something very simple: urine tests could lead to serious miscarriages.
The law is a fact, buts its implementation is not (yet).
This is not Road Traffic, so it does not follow that copying legislation over, changing the numbers will work or be fair. I think you know that, and are trying to obscure the real debate with legal B******t.
I haven't disputed breathe machines, but queried urine testing.
If crew are tested positive, then there will be few (if any) defences. So testing had better be right. Isn't that reasonable?
Few traffic offenders query the results of a breathe test or blood test - and quite right too. They wouldn't get very far. The cutoff levels set for alcohol certainly will impair an individuals ability to drive.
No levels have been set for drugs at all. Hence if the regime that is applied to alcohol, were applied to drugs, it could get messy. Especially, if traces of a substance (perhaps of over the counter medication) remained in the body many many days after imbibing.
Nice attempt at smear........... But I note you don't answer any of my points.
Is the law always right? Perhaps you think so, but I don't.
I'm saying something very simple: urine tests could lead to serious miscarriages.
The law is a fact, buts its implementation is not (yet).
This is not Road Traffic, so it does not follow that copying legislation over, changing the numbers will work or be fair. I think you know that, and are trying to obscure the real debate with legal B******t.
I haven't disputed breathe machines, but queried urine testing.
If crew are tested positive, then there will be few (if any) defences. So testing had better be right. Isn't that reasonable?
Few traffic offenders query the results of a breathe test or blood test - and quite right too. They wouldn't get very far. The cutoff levels set for alcohol certainly will impair an individuals ability to drive.
No levels have been set for drugs at all. Hence if the regime that is applied to alcohol, were applied to drugs, it could get messy. Especially, if traces of a substance (perhaps of over the counter medication) remained in the body many many days after imbibing.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer,
just wanted to clarify your opinion on the likely aviation procedure, The FODCOM appears to state that a blood test would be normal as the evidencial test in aviation cases.
Though I may be reading it wrong.
just wanted to clarify your opinion on the likely aviation procedure, The FODCOM appears to state that a blood test would be normal as the evidencial test in aviation cases.
Though I may be reading it wrong.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BlackSword
I've answered all your points and corrected your more important errors individually - see my previous post.
"urine tests could lead to serious miscarriages."
You may be right. I don't know the answer; I am neither a doctor nor a scientist. Perhaps you've discovered a flaw which has evaded all the experts who've considered this aspect over the decades, and continue to do so. If so, the Court of Appeal will be inundated with appeals by tens of thousands of victims of miscarriages of justice. Those who've been convicted on breath or blood evidence will no doubt wait in eager anticipation for your next discovery.
I'm not interested in discussing whether urine evidence should be admissible. Perhaps it won't be in the future but, for the moment, it is. If you're right, legislation will have to be changed. That's for Parliament, not the courts.
In practice, if the police go further than an evidential breath-test, they usually ask for a blood sample rather than urine - it avoids the unpleasant task of obtaining a urine sample from a drunk.
"The cutoff levels set for alcohol certainly will impair an individuals ability to drive."
Oh dear, we're back to that again. I suspected you didn't really understand the difference beween the two offences despite your protestations to the contrary.
No levels have been set for drugs at all ........ could get messy.
I dount if there will be set levels for drugs. The 'Unfit' offence doesn't require proof of drugs in the body above a prescribed level. Evidence of any intoxicating drug, at any quantity if combined with evidence of unfitness is what matters. The drug-screening procedure is set out in the Act at Section 76 and Schedule 7.
Professional pilots have always been generous with their expertise and experience (and the occasional interesting flight) and my aviation work with the industry pays me well for something I enjoy. One way I try to give something back is by helping with legal issues as they arise on PPRuNe. I've responded to your latest post out of courtesy. I hope others won't think it unreasonable if I don't to respond to you again.
PS: You mentioned Jetblast earlier for some reason. There are some good debates, but people frequently repeat their pet point over and over, often with complete disregard for whether it really adds anything to the topic. You might enjoy it.
==============================
[Edit]
Daysleeper
Part 5.5 of the FODCOM says someone who's been arrested and taken to a police station after testing positive in the initial/preliminary breath-test will be asked to provide a further specimen of breath, blood or urine for laboratory analysis and adds, as you say, "In practice, this will usually be a specimen of blood, taken by a Police doctor."
The ATSIN says "In practice this will usually take the form of a laboratory analysis of a sample of the suspected offender’s blood or urine."
Either way (blood/blood or urine), I can't find any basis in the Act for the CAA's suggestions. I'll look again and, if I can't find the answer, I'll speak to the CAA and come back to you - It may be contained in a Protocol agreed with the Police.
In the interim, if someone else knows the answer, I hope they'll post it here.
Tudor Owen
I've answered all your points and corrected your more important errors individually - see my previous post.
"urine tests could lead to serious miscarriages."
You may be right. I don't know the answer; I am neither a doctor nor a scientist. Perhaps you've discovered a flaw which has evaded all the experts who've considered this aspect over the decades, and continue to do so. If so, the Court of Appeal will be inundated with appeals by tens of thousands of victims of miscarriages of justice. Those who've been convicted on breath or blood evidence will no doubt wait in eager anticipation for your next discovery.
I'm not interested in discussing whether urine evidence should be admissible. Perhaps it won't be in the future but, for the moment, it is. If you're right, legislation will have to be changed. That's for Parliament, not the courts.
In practice, if the police go further than an evidential breath-test, they usually ask for a blood sample rather than urine - it avoids the unpleasant task of obtaining a urine sample from a drunk.
"The cutoff levels set for alcohol certainly will impair an individuals ability to drive."
Oh dear, we're back to that again. I suspected you didn't really understand the difference beween the two offences despite your protestations to the contrary.
No levels have been set for drugs at all ........ could get messy.
I dount if there will be set levels for drugs. The 'Unfit' offence doesn't require proof of drugs in the body above a prescribed level. Evidence of any intoxicating drug, at any quantity if combined with evidence of unfitness is what matters. The drug-screening procedure is set out in the Act at Section 76 and Schedule 7.
Professional pilots have always been generous with their expertise and experience (and the occasional interesting flight) and my aviation work with the industry pays me well for something I enjoy. One way I try to give something back is by helping with legal issues as they arise on PPRuNe. I've responded to your latest post out of courtesy. I hope others won't think it unreasonable if I don't to respond to you again.
PS: You mentioned Jetblast earlier for some reason. There are some good debates, but people frequently repeat their pet point over and over, often with complete disregard for whether it really adds anything to the topic. You might enjoy it.
==============================
[Edit]
Daysleeper
Part 5.5 of the FODCOM says someone who's been arrested and taken to a police station after testing positive in the initial/preliminary breath-test will be asked to provide a further specimen of breath, blood or urine for laboratory analysis and adds, as you say, "In practice, this will usually be a specimen of blood, taken by a Police doctor."
The ATSIN says "In practice this will usually take the form of a laboratory analysis of a sample of the suspected offender’s blood or urine."
Either way (blood/blood or urine), I can't find any basis in the Act for the CAA's suggestions. I'll look again and, if I can't find the answer, I'll speak to the CAA and come back to you - It may be contained in a Protocol agreed with the Police.
In the interim, if someone else knows the answer, I hope they'll post it here.
Tudor Owen
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 12th Jan 2004 at 04:07.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL
Yes I agree, however I like a challenge!
To that end....
Blacksword,
The article I refered you to is about fatal accidents yes, but the idea was to demonstrate that it is established medical fact that BAC can be determined from urine.
I have to agree with FL, you do seem to have misunderstood the difference between 2 offences, and his answer contained no legal B******t, in fact an extreemly good clear explanation, which I found very easy to follow.
The drugs side of things I'll try to clarrify for you, and after that I wont enter into further debate with you.
To use the example I used before, Night Nurse used to cause a lot of people to feel drousey. In fact many of my collegues used it to help them sleep when they were on nights. Lets say one of them had the recomended mesure of Night Nurse, and started to feel sleepy. Got into his car and drove it. On stopping at Traffic lights he fell asleep. Police officer sees the diver of the car and wakes him up. Police officer speaks to driver, and finds that he keeps falling asleep, can't follow the conversation and doesn't appear to be 'with it'. Police officer asks a few questions regarding any medical reason why the driver should be like this and forms the opinon that he is not fit to drive in that state. Having established as best he can that there is no medical evidence, there is no smell of intoxicating liquer, however he sees the bottle of night nusre on the passenger seat which has been opened and some taken. He asks the driver if hes used the bottle of night Nurse, and gets the reply that the driver has. He arrests the man for driving whilke unfit through drugs.
At the Police station a doctor is called and examines driver, the doctor would then give evidnce of being fitness to drive. The evdience being that of the Police Officer, any evidence that exisist regarding side effects of the bottle of night Nurse and the Doctors findings.
There is no need for a blood test, urine test or breath test. Yes Police may ask for a blood or urine test and have it anyalised to establish there is whatever it is in Night Nurse that causes drouseyness in his blood. It is not however nessesery.
There is no 'cut off' level the offence is being unfit to drive end!
Now the example I have used is RTA but again, you have been told that the new act is related to the RTA.
This offence is different from the second offence which is having a BAC above a prescribed limit.
Yes I agree, however I like a challenge!
To that end....
Blacksword,
The article I refered you to is about fatal accidents yes, but the idea was to demonstrate that it is established medical fact that BAC can be determined from urine.
I have to agree with FL, you do seem to have misunderstood the difference between 2 offences, and his answer contained no legal B******t, in fact an extreemly good clear explanation, which I found very easy to follow.
The drugs side of things I'll try to clarrify for you, and after that I wont enter into further debate with you.
To use the example I used before, Night Nurse used to cause a lot of people to feel drousey. In fact many of my collegues used it to help them sleep when they were on nights. Lets say one of them had the recomended mesure of Night Nurse, and started to feel sleepy. Got into his car and drove it. On stopping at Traffic lights he fell asleep. Police officer sees the diver of the car and wakes him up. Police officer speaks to driver, and finds that he keeps falling asleep, can't follow the conversation and doesn't appear to be 'with it'. Police officer asks a few questions regarding any medical reason why the driver should be like this and forms the opinon that he is not fit to drive in that state. Having established as best he can that there is no medical evidence, there is no smell of intoxicating liquer, however he sees the bottle of night nusre on the passenger seat which has been opened and some taken. He asks the driver if hes used the bottle of night Nurse, and gets the reply that the driver has. He arrests the man for driving whilke unfit through drugs.
At the Police station a doctor is called and examines driver, the doctor would then give evidnce of being fitness to drive. The evdience being that of the Police Officer, any evidence that exisist regarding side effects of the bottle of night Nurse and the Doctors findings.
There is no need for a blood test, urine test or breath test. Yes Police may ask for a blood or urine test and have it anyalised to establish there is whatever it is in Night Nurse that causes drouseyness in his blood. It is not however nessesery.
There is no 'cut off' level the offence is being unfit to drive end!
Now the example I have used is RTA but again, you have been told that the new act is related to the RTA.
This offence is different from the second offence which is having a BAC above a prescribed limit.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Things you haven't said? You shift your ground every time something you've said turns out to be balls and then claim you never said it. FL's quoted EXACTLY what you said and then shot you down in flames.
If you're a "Company Director" the new law won't affect your job but it might affect some pilots who read Prune so let the rest of us learn without your silly distractions.
Blithering on about it? FL and bjcc have both tried to help you understand. Most of us would have given up sooner and given you a much shorter final reply. Just two words and the Prune software turns the first one into ****.
BTW, Beak is slang for magistrate and FL isn't a trainee anything. He's an experienced barrister who's been a Recorder (part-time judge) for years and if you'd been around Prune for longer you'd know he gives a lot of time free of charge to help pilots on and off the forums.
Why don't you write to your MP and tell him the law's wrong instead of making a nuisance of yourself here and being rude to people helping us.
If you're a "Company Director" the new law won't affect your job but it might affect some pilots who read Prune so let the rest of us learn without your silly distractions.
Blithering on about it? FL and bjcc have both tried to help you understand. Most of us would have given up sooner and given you a much shorter final reply. Just two words and the Prune software turns the first one into ****.
BTW, Beak is slang for magistrate and FL isn't a trainee anything. He's an experienced barrister who's been a Recorder (part-time judge) for years and if you'd been around Prune for longer you'd know he gives a lot of time free of charge to help pilots on and off the forums.
Why don't you write to your MP and tell him the law's wrong instead of making a nuisance of yourself here and being rude to people helping us.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's my bit.
I think the new legislation will do us all a lot of good. i.e. not drinking as much. I know that unsocial hours tend to make us drink more especially for sleeping purposes. That's why I,m writing this at 0125UTC with a glass of beer in front of me. Many years ago (a young trainee) I was sat in the sim (Tristar,showing my age) and there was a strong smell of alchohol. When I mentioned this to the training captain, he told me that drinking tends to go with the job (just like divorce I was later to find out).
This will be the law and we have to comply with it. We can all throw our teddies out of our cots but it will not do any good. We must all welcome this and no mater what it will improve aviation safety, if not so much in our eyes but for the travelling passengers which is the major concern. Unfortunately, there will be an increase in sickness which the Airline/ATC/Engineering companies will have to deal with. Unfortunately the new legislation will mean a lot of lifestyle changes for a lot of us but think about the benefits. Healthier, better defined six pack by the pool in Barbados or wherever, less hangovers, company profits increased (you know why) and lastly more money in your pocket. I know many who don't need it but to me an extra bonus. For those of you who are trying to mitigate already, don't bother, do it when you are found to be over the limit. I think FL has done a great job in providing us with the facts for discussion. If V1 is stated then it is, not questioned. If Vr is stated then it is, not questioned. We must abide by the law, if we don't then we do not deserve to be Aviation Professionals.
I think the new legislation will do us all a lot of good. i.e. not drinking as much. I know that unsocial hours tend to make us drink more especially for sleeping purposes. That's why I,m writing this at 0125UTC with a glass of beer in front of me. Many years ago (a young trainee) I was sat in the sim (Tristar,showing my age) and there was a strong smell of alchohol. When I mentioned this to the training captain, he told me that drinking tends to go with the job (just like divorce I was later to find out).
This will be the law and we have to comply with it. We can all throw our teddies out of our cots but it will not do any good. We must all welcome this and no mater what it will improve aviation safety, if not so much in our eyes but for the travelling passengers which is the major concern. Unfortunately, there will be an increase in sickness which the Airline/ATC/Engineering companies will have to deal with. Unfortunately the new legislation will mean a lot of lifestyle changes for a lot of us but think about the benefits. Healthier, better defined six pack by the pool in Barbados or wherever, less hangovers, company profits increased (you know why) and lastly more money in your pocket. I know many who don't need it but to me an extra bonus. For those of you who are trying to mitigate already, don't bother, do it when you are found to be over the limit. I think FL has done a great job in providing us with the facts for discussion. If V1 is stated then it is, not questioned. If Vr is stated then it is, not questioned. We must abide by the law, if we don't then we do not deserve to be Aviation Professionals.
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: On the great big world
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS w.r.t. -
Healthier - there's nothing sadder than dying with a healthy body, e.g look at those twits who drop dead running marathons !
Better defined six pack by the pool in Barbados or wherever - err, you don't work for low-cost airline do you ?
Less hangovers - for those that get them.
Company profits increased - not that the aircrew will see any of it.
More money in your pocket - that'll be handy, I'll be able to add it to the paltry annual pay increases we keep getting.
..... blimey, it's enough to drive somebody to drink !
Healthier - there's nothing sadder than dying with a healthy body, e.g look at those twits who drop dead running marathons !
Better defined six pack by the pool in Barbados or wherever - err, you don't work for low-cost airline do you ?
Less hangovers - for those that get them.
Company profits increased - not that the aircrew will see any of it.
More money in your pocket - that'll be handy, I'll be able to add it to the paltry annual pay increases we keep getting.
..... blimey, it's enough to drive somebody to drink !
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to the interesting question asked by Daysleeper:
Having looked at the Act again, I could find nothing to support the FODCOM suggestion that the specimen requested at the police station will in practice "usually be a specimen of blood", or the ATSIN suggestion that "in practice this will usually be "a sample of the suspected offender’s blood or urine."
As I've explained already, the Act expressly adopts the road traffic legislation and the usual practice in road traffic cases is to request a further specimen of breath measured by a calibrated evidential breath-test machine. (The law only requires the police to request or offer the blood or urine procedure in limited circumstances.)
I've discussed the issue with the Deputy Head of Flight Ops at the CAA who was very helpful and, between us, we arrived at what may be the explanation - it relates to the Police Protocol I mentioned in my earlier response:
The FODCOM reflects agreements reached between many bodies, including the CAA, Home Office and the Police. A 'Police Protocol' has been created to guide police officers applying and enforcing the new legislation. It may be that, in aviation cases, the police have agreed to request a specimen of blood rather than the usual second specimen of breath.
I emphasise this is no more than a possible explanation. I don't have access to the internal Police Protocol ( yet) but the CAA will find out and come back to me. I hope to be able to post a definitive answer by the end of the week.
It seems credible because, under the present procedure, if your reading on the evidential machine at the police station is only just over the prescribed limit, the police must give you the opportunity to provide a sample of blood or urine for analysis.** That suggests an acceptance that the machine cannot give as precise a reading as is obtained from blood/urine analysis. Given that the aviation limits are lower (except for engineers), it may be that the police have agreed miss out the machine stage and go straight to the blood procedure. However, this is speculation on my part. I have nothing to support it.
** Subject to any medical considerations, the choice of blood or urine is made by the police, although the suspect can express a preference. They almost invariably opt for blood because that is taken by a doctor and it avoids an officer undertaking the unpleasant and often messy task of taking a urine sample from someone who's drunk.)
Tudor Owen
Having looked at the Act again, I could find nothing to support the FODCOM suggestion that the specimen requested at the police station will in practice "usually be a specimen of blood", or the ATSIN suggestion that "in practice this will usually be "a sample of the suspected offender’s blood or urine."
As I've explained already, the Act expressly adopts the road traffic legislation and the usual practice in road traffic cases is to request a further specimen of breath measured by a calibrated evidential breath-test machine. (The law only requires the police to request or offer the blood or urine procedure in limited circumstances.)
I've discussed the issue with the Deputy Head of Flight Ops at the CAA who was very helpful and, between us, we arrived at what may be the explanation - it relates to the Police Protocol I mentioned in my earlier response:
The FODCOM reflects agreements reached between many bodies, including the CAA, Home Office and the Police. A 'Police Protocol' has been created to guide police officers applying and enforcing the new legislation. It may be that, in aviation cases, the police have agreed to request a specimen of blood rather than the usual second specimen of breath.
I emphasise this is no more than a possible explanation. I don't have access to the internal Police Protocol ( yet
) but the CAA will find out and come back to me. I hope to be able to post a definitive answer by the end of the week. It seems credible because, under the present procedure, if your reading on the evidential machine at the police station is only just over the prescribed limit, the police must give you the opportunity to provide a sample of blood or urine for analysis.** That suggests an acceptance that the machine cannot give as precise a reading as is obtained from blood/urine analysis. Given that the aviation limits are lower (except for engineers), it may be that the police have agreed miss out the machine stage and go straight to the blood procedure. However, this is speculation on my part. I have nothing to support it.
** Subject to any medical considerations, the choice of blood or urine is made by the police, although the suspect can express a preference. They almost invariably opt for blood because that is taken by a doctor and it avoids an officer undertaking the unpleasant and often messy task of taking a urine sample from someone who's drunk.)
Tudor Owen
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 13th Jan 2004 at 13:48.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: near hat
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey thats just taken me over an hour to read
Barrister,Pilot and Policeman battling it out on their interpretation of a new law. Each quite interestingly showing us a taste of their personalities I thought
I think that you commercial pilots are having a hard time of it,
you sit alone in your offices for up to 8/12 hrs with no visitors anymore perhaps looking forward to a couple or three pints later as an opportunity for a little social interaction...... but no more
Its like having speed limits without a speedometer,
the critics out there will say that you know how much fuel you've put in your car and how big the engine is which will give you an indication of how fast you are going, which is true but the officer with the radar gun has the recorded reading which is 100 % accurate and is not interested in your "indication".
If new limits are to be introduced then it would make good sense to make available accurate machines to self check such a low limit so that everyone can self monitor and could not realisically cry wolf when caught. Yes you could all become teetotal ,and the UK could bring in prohibition etc etc I think not.
the power of television eh?
Never confuse the law of Nature with the law of the Land
Barrister,Pilot and Policeman battling it out on their interpretation of a new law. Each quite interestingly showing us a taste of their personalities I thought
I think that you commercial pilots are having a hard time of it,
you sit alone in your offices for up to 8/12 hrs with no visitors anymore perhaps looking forward to a couple or three pints later as an opportunity for a little social interaction...... but no more
Its like having speed limits without a speedometer,
the critics out there will say that you know how much fuel you've put in your car and how big the engine is which will give you an indication of how fast you are going, which is true but the officer with the radar gun has the recorded reading which is 100 % accurate and is not interested in your "indication".
If new limits are to be introduced then it would make good sense to make available accurate machines to self check such a low limit so that everyone can self monitor and could not realisically cry wolf when caught. Yes you could all become teetotal ,and the UK could bring in prohibition etc etc I think not.
the power of television eh?
Never confuse the law of Nature with the law of the Land
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tunalic2
I don't think there has been any battleing between Barrister, Policeman or Pilot. The interpretation is the same, certainly my moive is the same as FL's which is to inform.
I take your point over not being able to judge what level of Alcohol is in your system some time after you have had a drink. But as I have said before, thats nothing new, car drivers have had the same problem for decades. The issue is perhaps more difficult to judge with this act, because as you say the levels are lower.
I suspect that employers will not provide self test machines, for the same reason that coach firms don't for thier drivers, because its a personel responsibility. The Goverment has passed the law, the Queens signed it, its been publisied in the aviation community, the rest is up to the people effected. No one is forcing anyone to have a drink, even if you do, you can reduce the chances of being over the limit to zero by being sensible.
There is nothing to stop someone buying thier own screening machine, although I would steer clear of the old style ones where you blow a bag up and then look for cyrstals in a tube to change colour, they are very inaccurate.
I don't think there has been any battleing between Barrister, Policeman or Pilot. The interpretation is the same, certainly my moive is the same as FL's which is to inform.
I take your point over not being able to judge what level of Alcohol is in your system some time after you have had a drink. But as I have said before, thats nothing new, car drivers have had the same problem for decades. The issue is perhaps more difficult to judge with this act, because as you say the levels are lower.
I suspect that employers will not provide self test machines, for the same reason that coach firms don't for thier drivers, because its a personel responsibility. The Goverment has passed the law, the Queens signed it, its been publisied in the aviation community, the rest is up to the people effected. No one is forcing anyone to have a drink, even if you do, you can reduce the chances of being over the limit to zero by being sensible.
There is nothing to stop someone buying thier own screening machine, although I would steer clear of the old style ones where you blow a bag up and then look for cyrstals in a tube to change colour, they are very inaccurate.
"Its like having speed limits without a speedometer"
tunalic2,
Your comments cut right to the heart of the matter.
I've already reviewed some of the links on equipment suitability and pricing to try determine what device might be best to carry around in the bottom of the old nav bag.
And thank you Flying Lawyer for raising the matter and your ongoing research.
tunalic2,
Your comments cut right to the heart of the matter.
I've already reviewed some of the links on equipment suitability and pricing to try determine what device might be best to carry around in the bottom of the old nav bag.
And thank you Flying Lawyer for raising the matter and your ongoing research.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: near hat
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks FR
Bjcc
I didn't mean that employers should provide, only that it would be a good idea if the government could endorse or encourage an accurate affordable machine that someone who still partakes of a glass of sherry could afford to own and carry with them.
Hands up those of us that have had a big night on say a Friday and still felt a bit rough on sun morning ?
How about a stag do, 8 pints stella and 8 doubles Mathematically ( thats if you can remember all that you drank) from 2am sat morning you would be ok by(70 kg healthy male with food eaten)2200 sat but I'm blowed if I'd feel ok by tues let alone monday!
I once volunteered to be breathalysed (i was not driving and had no intention of doing so as I felt quite hungover),it registered orange but it was still a pass!!
I know you should save the above scenario for your weeks holiday etc, but with these lower limits it does make for a new limit that we are not familiar with and at present I believe we can not accurately test for(I will gladly be proven wrong if someone can point me in the right direction)
"Can't smoke can't drink what can you do???" how did that song go?
Never confuse the law of the Land with the law of Nature
Bjcc
I didn't mean that employers should provide, only that it would be a good idea if the government could endorse or encourage an accurate affordable machine that someone who still partakes of a glass of sherry could afford to own and carry with them.
Hands up those of us that have had a big night on say a Friday and still felt a bit rough on sun morning ?
How about a stag do, 8 pints stella and 8 doubles Mathematically ( thats if you can remember all that you drank) from 2am sat morning you would be ok by(70 kg healthy male with food eaten)2200 sat but I'm blowed if I'd feel ok by tues let alone monday!
I once volunteered to be breathalysed (i was not driving and had no intention of doing so as I felt quite hungover),it registered orange but it was still a pass!!
I know you should save the above scenario for your weeks holiday etc, but with these lower limits it does make for a new limit that we are not familiar with and at present I believe we can not accurately test for(I will gladly be proven wrong if someone can point me in the right direction)
"Can't smoke can't drink what can you do???" how did that song go?
Never confuse the law of the Land with the law of Nature
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tunalic, it's extremely refreshing to read a post like yours that so simply and effectively sums up what our job has become. Thank you.
I think for a lot of pilots this is a real worry. Expected to work longer and longer hours at all times of the day and night, with all the additional changes post 9/11, for example being locked into the cockpit like a battery hen.
And yet at the very same time any chance we have of relaxing and unwinding at the end of a long hard day is being taken away.
It's a sad new world.........
I think for a lot of pilots this is a real worry. Expected to work longer and longer hours at all times of the day and night, with all the additional changes post 9/11, for example being locked into the cockpit like a battery hen.
And yet at the very same time any chance we have of relaxing and unwinding at the end of a long hard day is being taken away.
It's a sad new world.........
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tunalic2
There are devices which can messure accuratly. Flying lawyer has already pointed everyone (on page 7 of this) at a site which gives details of devices which are Home Office approved for Police use. Thats as near to any form of endorcement that you will get from the Goverment.
I'll say this again, but those that say that you cannot messure accuratly these low limits are wrong. You can and the Swedes do.
I am fully aware that this law is seen as a restriction on peoples private life, and the concern over dropping yourself in it inadvertantly. But I can't help you there, except to try to expand on the practice side of the legislation FL has pointed out to you.
There are devices which can messure accuratly. Flying lawyer has already pointed everyone (on page 7 of this) at a site which gives details of devices which are Home Office approved for Police use. Thats as near to any form of endorcement that you will get from the Goverment.
I'll say this again, but those that say that you cannot messure accuratly these low limits are wrong. You can and the Swedes do.
I am fully aware that this law is seen as a restriction on peoples private life, and the concern over dropping yourself in it inadvertantly. But I can't help you there, except to try to expand on the practice side of the legislation FL has pointed out to you.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new reality... Don't shoot the messenger!
I find this very interesting for a presentation of an new approach to enforcement. It seems to have upset some people who might not want to change their habits but FL seems to be just reporting the new reality, not trying to spoil anyone's fun.
It would seem that none of the authorities are going to bother measuring impairment but just to check for the presence of various other drugs at all and alcohol in very small quantities. That would seem to mean an end to the usual practice of unwinding with a drink or two on a night-stop. Too bad, but there it is.
Lots of us end up alcohol-dependent without being particularly aware of this fact. Hell, I used to quit drinking every night! Unless it was Christmas or something, when the p*ss-ups could continue unabated for days. The only thing that brings dependency to the fore in a culture like aviation's is being forced to go without, in my experience.
There's a new twist to the tale if you work on certain contracts: you may not just be tested for forbidden drugs but also be tested for the required presence of anti-malaria drugs! How about that one? You can forget all this stuff about civil rights, too. By taking the contract you give implicit consent to being tested.
It would seem that none of the authorities are going to bother measuring impairment but just to check for the presence of various other drugs at all and alcohol in very small quantities. That would seem to mean an end to the usual practice of unwinding with a drink or two on a night-stop. Too bad, but there it is.
Lots of us end up alcohol-dependent without being particularly aware of this fact. Hell, I used to quit drinking every night! Unless it was Christmas or something, when the p*ss-ups could continue unabated for days. The only thing that brings dependency to the fore in a culture like aviation's is being forced to go without, in my experience.
There's a new twist to the tale if you work on certain contracts: you may not just be tested for forbidden drugs but also be tested for the required presence of anti-malaria drugs! How about that one? You can forget all this stuff about civil rights, too. By taking the contract you give implicit consent to being tested.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer.
Thanks for the info. Appreciate your time. I hope never to have to worry about this in too much detail!
If I can return the favour bout aeroplanes let me know.
Daysleeper.
Thanks for the info. Appreciate your time. I hope never to have to worry about this in too much detail!
If I can return the favour bout aeroplanes let me know.
Daysleeper.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL
I think someone mentioned earlier regarding other professions and drinking but I am curious. Is the government allowed to bring in laws to target certain professions? The Drink/Driving law is generic to all drivers in the UK and not a particular profession. Surely there can't be a law for one and not the other.
If they can target certain professions with certain laws then why aren't the following targeted:-
Surgeons-over the limit could mean someones death.
Barristers-over the limit could mean bad presentation and therefore someone could be found guilty.
Architects/Surveyors-over the limit could mean incorrect specification therefore building falls down and people die.
Cruise Liner/Ferry Captains-over the limit, ship crashes/sinks and people die.
Taxi/Lorry Drivers-I know this is covered by the drink driving legislation, but they do far more hours and fatigue combined with a pint could lead to far more accidents and therefore a possibility of people dying.
Armed Police-over the limit, wrong decision and someone is shot.
I could specify far more professions but I'm sure you get my drift.
What do you think.
ILS 119.5
I think someone mentioned earlier regarding other professions and drinking but I am curious. Is the government allowed to bring in laws to target certain professions? The Drink/Driving law is generic to all drivers in the UK and not a particular profession. Surely there can't be a law for one and not the other.
If they can target certain professions with certain laws then why aren't the following targeted:-
Surgeons-over the limit could mean someones death.
Barristers-over the limit could mean bad presentation and therefore someone could be found guilty.
Architects/Surveyors-over the limit could mean incorrect specification therefore building falls down and people die.
Cruise Liner/Ferry Captains-over the limit, ship crashes/sinks and people die.
Taxi/Lorry Drivers-I know this is covered by the drink driving legislation, but they do far more hours and fatigue combined with a pint could lead to far more accidents and therefore a possibility of people dying.
Armed Police-over the limit, wrong decision and someone is shot.
I could specify far more professions but I'm sure you get my drift.
What do you think.
ILS 119.5
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
119.5
There are already laws in place that cover some of the proffessions you mention.
The armed Police is cover by Drunk in possession of a firearm all police by the police discipline code.
Lorry divers hours are regulated and as you say they and taxi drivers are also covered by the Road Traffic Acts,
I have a vaugue recollections of ships crews being covered by a similar law.
Doctors are a law unto themselves and you try to get one to give evidence against another, no chance, so nice idea not enforcable, but possibly covered by thier own discipline code.
Barristers, mmmm, well no comment.
Judging by some buildings I have seen I agree about Architects/Surveyors.
Also people you not mentioned, Train Drivers are already covered by legislation. So don't go thinking its pilots being singled out. And yes most of the above if found to have been drinking would probably lose thier jobs.
There are already laws in place that cover some of the proffessions you mention.
The armed Police is cover by Drunk in possession of a firearm all police by the police discipline code.
Lorry divers hours are regulated and as you say they and taxi drivers are also covered by the Road Traffic Acts,
I have a vaugue recollections of ships crews being covered by a similar law.
Doctors are a law unto themselves and you try to get one to give evidence against another, no chance, so nice idea not enforcable, but possibly covered by thier own discipline code.
Barristers, mmmm, well no comment.
Judging by some buildings I have seen I agree about Architects/Surveyors.
Also people you not mentioned, Train Drivers are already covered by legislation. So don't go thinking its pilots being singled out. And yes most of the above if found to have been drinking would probably lose thier jobs.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's also not true to say that it's a specific profession being singled out. I'm a professional software engineer (my colleagues may disagree, but it's what I write on my CV) with a PPL, but, as far as I'm aware, I'll still be subject to the same laws as commercial pilots when I decide to go flying. (The difference is that if I'm feeling a little hung over and choose not to fly, I don't have to worry about loosing my job.)
FFF
-----------
FFF
-----------
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget self-testing, for now- German article
I recently read a short article in a magazine about the various breathalyser devices available for purchase and use by the German general public.
None of the devices was judged to be of any real use in determining the blood alcohol level with regard to the legal drink/drive limits under German law. Their advice was to refrain from drinking if you intend to drive.
When one looks at the guidelines for how many units of alcohol one should consume, it all seems like a cruel joke anyway. I used to bust through the amount I was supposed to consume in a week in just one night. Well, does one want to drink or else just sit around sipping, sipping, sipping.... A Brit might just hack that, but I prefer my beer cold, cold, cold.
And as for the rest of this regulatory stuff, we used to adhere very strictly to the local rule of 'No drinking within 50 feet of the aircraft!' Well, except for one guy who kept an emergency standby supply of beer in his desk in the flight line office. He was an alcoholic's alcoholic. Eight hours bottle to throttle; yeah sure. Whatever. It was not unknown for someone to stumble out of the boozer onto the crew bus in 'the old days'.
What would be the fun in having a 'half' at 2000 hrs and then toddling off to sit up in bed watching gorillas have sex on 'The Discovery Channel' until one finally had wound down enough to go to sleep? What is the point of that, for God's sake?
When one is alcohol-dependent one simply must have a few drinkies in order to unwind, relax, have some fun and get to sleep. The only way to break the pattern is to learn to do without alcohol, which is not easy or fun, especially after half a lifetime of happy boozing. But absent that step some dreary little wowser might just find it amusing to put the drug testers on one's trail. Some companies even actively encourage their passengers to make complaints and allegations. What with one thing and another, if some creep comes around with a request to blow into the little meter, I don't want to have to worry about the outcome.
If someone else has a better solution to this problem I sure would like to hear about it. The only solace I can take for now is that I already have drunk my share through about age 90. For now, though, just look for the grumpy guy over in the corner drinking 'softs'. Ugh!
None of the devices was judged to be of any real use in determining the blood alcohol level with regard to the legal drink/drive limits under German law. Their advice was to refrain from drinking if you intend to drive.
When one looks at the guidelines for how many units of alcohol one should consume, it all seems like a cruel joke anyway. I used to bust through the amount I was supposed to consume in a week in just one night. Well, does one want to drink or else just sit around sipping, sipping, sipping.... A Brit might just hack that, but I prefer my beer cold, cold, cold.
And as for the rest of this regulatory stuff, we used to adhere very strictly to the local rule of 'No drinking within 50 feet of the aircraft!' Well, except for one guy who kept an emergency standby supply of beer in his desk in the flight line office. He was an alcoholic's alcoholic. Eight hours bottle to throttle; yeah sure. Whatever. It was not unknown for someone to stumble out of the boozer onto the crew bus in 'the old days'.
What would be the fun in having a 'half' at 2000 hrs and then toddling off to sit up in bed watching gorillas have sex on 'The Discovery Channel' until one finally had wound down enough to go to sleep? What is the point of that, for God's sake?
When one is alcohol-dependent one simply must have a few drinkies in order to unwind, relax, have some fun and get to sleep. The only way to break the pattern is to learn to do without alcohol, which is not easy or fun, especially after half a lifetime of happy boozing. But absent that step some dreary little wowser might just find it amusing to put the drug testers on one's trail. Some companies even actively encourage their passengers to make complaints and allegations. What with one thing and another, if some creep comes around with a request to blow into the little meter, I don't want to have to worry about the outcome.
If someone else has a better solution to this problem I sure would like to hear about it. The only solace I can take for now is that I already have drunk my share through about age 90. For now, though, just look for the grumpy guy over in the corner drinking 'softs'. Ugh!