LHR Breathtest. Update: Captain jailed
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Wivenhoe, not too far from the Clacton VOR
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone, indeed quite a few people, have queried the logic of the (relatively) low limit set by the legislation. Now I have spent a fair bit of time reading through this entire thread (I know, I should really get out more) and no-one has asked "WHAT EFFECT DOES ALTITUDE HAVE on a person with alcohol in their system?"
Assuming the crew aren't on a secretive oxygen jag behing their locked door they are at the same cabin altitude as Mr & Mrs SLF (Which is what, by the way? 8,000'? ish).
So I'm asking. Any aviation medicos out there?
Assuming the crew aren't on a secretive oxygen jag behing their locked door they are at the same cabin altitude as Mr & Mrs SLF (Which is what, by the way? 8,000'? ish).
So I'm asking. Any aviation medicos out there?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: atlanta
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just wonder who checks the checkers ? Do any accountants or lawyers get breath-tested? What about doctors, don't they party quite hard ? Not that its OK to drink and fly because it's not... but how do other professions check themsleves ? 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Haggisland
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft engineering staff have had random blood/alcohol testing for a few years now. In my field (North Sea helicopters) this was mostly brought into force in response to customers (oil companies) demands.
The testing is very expensive and not carried out that often. We have had positive tests on about 2 guys to my knowledge, but the thought of the test may be enough to have the desired effect on the behaviour of the workforce.
One area of concern is the myriad of chemicals that engineers come into contact with. The testers insist on a full detailed list of possible contaminants of a subjects' system, some of which can be introduced by contact. These lists can be very long.
The testing is very expensive and not carried out that often. We have had positive tests on about 2 guys to my knowledge, but the thought of the test may be enough to have the desired effect on the behaviour of the workforce.
One area of concern is the myriad of chemicals that engineers come into contact with. The testers insist on a full detailed list of possible contaminants of a subjects' system, some of which can be introduced by contact. These lists can be very long.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see we've got back on track over the past few days. 
dicksynormous
People have very different opinions/theories about the role/job description of security-screeners, but no-one has produced any facts. However, it doesn't really matter. What matters is people now know there is a real risk of being reported, whatever the motives of the person who reports. (There is reason to suspect the LHR security man had a personal grudge but not, as far as I know, the driver in the Manchester case, and the fact is both pilots were found to be over the limit.)
You're right that someone with a grudge can do a lot of damage to an innocent person, but I don't think there's a solution to that problem because the police can't just ignore reports.
I agree there's a very real danger of publicity damaging the reputation of someone who's innocent (even if the report is made in good faith) but, unfortunately, I don't think there's any way of preventing it. The police are notorious for giving tips to the press 'off the record', and police press departments sometimes issue press releases. I think it's outrageous, but the fact is it happens. Even if subsequent analysis of the blood sample shows someone was innocent, the fact that he/she was arrested will almost certainly be in the press/media within hours. I agree it's unfair and obviously damaging, but I doubt if it will change.
Hobie just about sums it up - ”it is (and has to be) a different world today.”
Fact: Like it or not, the days when being fit to fly was enough to stay out of trouble are over, probably for ever.
Now, if you’re found with even a tiny amount of alcohol in your system you will be prosecuted – even if the amount is so small it couldn’t possibly impair your ability to operate. Like it or not, that's what Parliament has decided.
Fact: For all practical purposes, the legal limit is effectively no alcohol at all.
Should the limit be the same as for drivers? I don't know, but I doubt if it will ever be changed.
Fact: There’s no meaningful chart which can predict a future alcohol level after a period of drinking.
Individuals absorb and excrete alcohol at very different rates, depending on various factors including sex (as in gender, not how often or how recently), body weight, alcohol tolerance, whether we’ve eaten and when.
Fact: Anyone prosecuted is likely to be dealt with in the Crown Court.
Parliament intended appropriate cases to be dealt with by the magistrates where the maximum penalty is a fine, but both cases so far have been sent to the Crown Court. That may change with time. (If it’s a contested case, I’d strongly recommend choosing trial by judge and jury, but I suspect most cases will be guilty pleas.)
Fact: Both pilots prosecuted to date have been sent to prison.
It appears from those two cases that anyone over the limit, even by a small amount (eg the Manchester pilot), is likely to end up in prison . Whether or not that’s too harsh (I think it is), work on that basis unless/until a different sentencing pattern emerges.
Is it worth taking a chance? The answer, at least IMHO, is definitely not – there’s too much to lose.
Remember that both the LHR and Manchester pilots were breath-tested because they'd been reported. In the Manchester case, by the crew’s driver; in the LHR case, by a security screener at the Crew gate.
Whatever views may be held about people who report others, the fact is there’s a real risk it could happen again.
And not only by security men or drivers - what about your crew? If you’ve been drinking heavily/late in front of the rest of the crew, are you confident there’s no-one who might report you? They could have a variety of motives ranging from a genuine concern for flight safety through resentment of you personally because of some previous unrelated incident to (if you're a pilot) a chip on their shoulder about flight crew in general. Is it worth taking a chance?
Attitudes to drinking and driving have changed significantly over the years, and the change has already begun in aviation.
Remember when the breathalyser was first introduced? Some people used to boast about how they drove home totally plastered and knew some route where there were unlikely to be stopped by the police. They, and most of their audience, thought it was funny. Now, people who drive while drunk rarely boast about it because they know most people think it’s irresponsible not amusing.
Being aware of the risks of being over the limit unintentionally is sensible. Trying to calculate the most you can drink and still be legal is IMHO not only the wrong attitude but just too risky.
Leaving 24 hours between bottle and throttle after anything more than a couple of drinks with food may strike some as too cautious, but look at it in context: Balance the pleasure you’ll get from the extra drinks against the effect on you (and your family) if you lost your job, add the almost certainty of being sent to prison if you’re caught, and then ask yourself if it's too cautious.
Bern Oulli
As far as I know, the 20 mg limit was a policy decision without any reference to any research about the effects of alcohol at altitude. As I understand it, the only reason the limit wasn’t set at zero was to allow for the very small amounts of alcohol our bodies can produce. Perhaps a medic or scientist will tell us if there's been any research and, if so, the results. Interesting point.
Stagn8
There's no equivalent procedure for lawyers, doctors or security screeners. The emphasis has always been on transport - but I see your point.
dicksynormous
People have very different opinions/theories about the role/job description of security-screeners, but no-one has produced any facts. However, it doesn't really matter. What matters is people now know there is a real risk of being reported, whatever the motives of the person who reports. (There is reason to suspect the LHR security man had a personal grudge but not, as far as I know, the driver in the Manchester case, and the fact is both pilots were found to be over the limit.)
You're right that someone with a grudge can do a lot of damage to an innocent person, but I don't think there's a solution to that problem because the police can't just ignore reports.
I agree there's a very real danger of publicity damaging the reputation of someone who's innocent (even if the report is made in good faith) but, unfortunately, I don't think there's any way of preventing it. The police are notorious for giving tips to the press 'off the record', and police press departments sometimes issue press releases. I think it's outrageous, but the fact is it happens. Even if subsequent analysis of the blood sample shows someone was innocent, the fact that he/she was arrested will almost certainly be in the press/media within hours. I agree it's unfair and obviously damaging, but I doubt if it will change.
Hobie just about sums it up - ”it is (and has to be) a different world today.”
Fact: Like it or not, the days when being fit to fly was enough to stay out of trouble are over, probably for ever.
Now, if you’re found with even a tiny amount of alcohol in your system you will be prosecuted – even if the amount is so small it couldn’t possibly impair your ability to operate. Like it or not, that's what Parliament has decided.
Fact: For all practical purposes, the legal limit is effectively no alcohol at all.
Should the limit be the same as for drivers? I don't know, but I doubt if it will ever be changed.
Fact: There’s no meaningful chart which can predict a future alcohol level after a period of drinking.
Individuals absorb and excrete alcohol at very different rates, depending on various factors including sex (as in gender, not how often or how recently), body weight, alcohol tolerance, whether we’ve eaten and when.
Fact: Anyone prosecuted is likely to be dealt with in the Crown Court.
Parliament intended appropriate cases to be dealt with by the magistrates where the maximum penalty is a fine, but both cases so far have been sent to the Crown Court. That may change with time. (If it’s a contested case, I’d strongly recommend choosing trial by judge and jury, but I suspect most cases will be guilty pleas.)
Fact: Both pilots prosecuted to date have been sent to prison.
It appears from those two cases that anyone over the limit, even by a small amount (eg the Manchester pilot), is likely to end up in prison . Whether or not that’s too harsh (I think it is), work on that basis unless/until a different sentencing pattern emerges.
Is it worth taking a chance? The answer, at least IMHO, is definitely not – there’s too much to lose.
Remember that both the LHR and Manchester pilots were breath-tested because they'd been reported. In the Manchester case, by the crew’s driver; in the LHR case, by a security screener at the Crew gate.
Whatever views may be held about people who report others, the fact is there’s a real risk it could happen again.
And not only by security men or drivers - what about your crew? If you’ve been drinking heavily/late in front of the rest of the crew, are you confident there’s no-one who might report you? They could have a variety of motives ranging from a genuine concern for flight safety through resentment of you personally because of some previous unrelated incident to (if you're a pilot) a chip on their shoulder about flight crew in general. Is it worth taking a chance?
Attitudes to drinking and driving have changed significantly over the years, and the change has already begun in aviation.
Remember when the breathalyser was first introduced? Some people used to boast about how they drove home totally plastered and knew some route where there were unlikely to be stopped by the police. They, and most of their audience, thought it was funny. Now, people who drive while drunk rarely boast about it because they know most people think it’s irresponsible not amusing.
Being aware of the risks of being over the limit unintentionally is sensible. Trying to calculate the most you can drink and still be legal is IMHO not only the wrong attitude but just too risky.
Leaving 24 hours between bottle and throttle after anything more than a couple of drinks with food may strike some as too cautious, but look at it in context: Balance the pleasure you’ll get from the extra drinks against the effect on you (and your family) if you lost your job, add the almost certainty of being sent to prison if you’re caught, and then ask yourself if it's too cautious.
Bern Oulli
As far as I know, the 20 mg limit was a policy decision without any reference to any research about the effects of alcohol at altitude. As I understand it, the only reason the limit wasn’t set at zero was to allow for the very small amounts of alcohol our bodies can produce. Perhaps a medic or scientist will tell us if there's been any research and, if so, the results. Interesting point.
Stagn8
There's no equivalent procedure for lawyers, doctors or security screeners. The emphasis has always been on transport - but I see your point.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 29th Dec 2004 at 10:04.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer,
My life has changed, off Christmas day, standby 26th, 27th, 28th. Two glasses of wine with lunch thats all, completely over the top but thats the way it is, better to see the writing on the wall than the bars on the door.
Thanks for your unbiased views on the subject.
My life has changed, off Christmas day, standby 26th, 27th, 28th. Two glasses of wine with lunch thats all, completely over the top but thats the way it is, better to see the writing on the wall than the bars on the door.
Thanks for your unbiased views on the subject.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer
I always read your posts with great interest, and learn a lot from them. Thank you.
As far as the 20 mg limit is concerned, I believe you are correct in as much as, it was a policy decision based not on ANY scientific research, regarding human performance (I believe alcohol is still a banned substance under the terms of the International Olympic Committee, since in some situations, and in small quantities, it can serve to OPTIMISE fine motor skills, such as those demonstrated in shooting!)
As I understand it, 20 mg was a compromise between the 'machismo' of politicians, who would have been perfectly happy to mandate, a zero rating (whilst pickling themselves in the commons bar!)
And the fact that current technology, will only accurately measure blood alcohol levels down to 20 mg.
As a 'sobering' (excuse the pun!) thought, I have heard rumours of teetotallers, who produce background alcohol levels above 20 mg!
Finally, if such a limit cannot be justified on the basis of degrading my performance, is it an infringement of my human rights?
I always read your posts with great interest, and learn a lot from them. Thank you.
As far as the 20 mg limit is concerned, I believe you are correct in as much as, it was a policy decision based not on ANY scientific research, regarding human performance (I believe alcohol is still a banned substance under the terms of the International Olympic Committee, since in some situations, and in small quantities, it can serve to OPTIMISE fine motor skills, such as those demonstrated in shooting!)
As I understand it, 20 mg was a compromise between the 'machismo' of politicians, who would have been perfectly happy to mandate, a zero rating (whilst pickling themselves in the commons bar!)
And the fact that current technology, will only accurately measure blood alcohol levels down to 20 mg.
As a 'sobering' (excuse the pun!) thought, I have heard rumours of teetotallers, who produce background alcohol levels above 20 mg!
Finally, if such a limit cannot be justified on the basis of degrading my performance, is it an infringement of my human rights?
Grandpa Aerotart
Flying lawyer I heard recently that under British Law once a person has 'paid his debt to society' it is deemed innappropriate to punish them further...and on that basis CAA must reinstate Chas' ATPL.
True or wishfull thinking?
Had more than a few drinks with him in the past...I'd like to think it's lesson learned.
True or wishfull thinking?
Had more than a few drinks with him in the past...I'd like to think it's lesson learned.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find the whole matter quite disturbing, for the following reasons.
Firstly, nothing can condone anyone who puts an a/c or peoples' lives at risk through use of alchohol, and I would speculate that those who might cross the line do so without malice and form a miniscule % of the profession. Is this a sledge hammer to crack a nut?
1. This law has been imposed, it would seem, without any consultation with the parties involved, i.e. the pilot unions. Why not? Surely anything that effects the working conditions of a whole profession should have included both sides in the discussions. Indeeed the unions should have insisted on it. And it would also seem very little medical consultation was taken.
2. Most similar laws, to my best knowledge, are clear about when you cross the line. i.e. one is aware at all times which side of the line one is on. In this case, not so. as has been said previously, the line is a scientific number, but its threshold is uncertain and will be different for different people, and even the same person under differing circumstances. Cars are provided with speedometers, a/c with altimeters. These alert us to limits constantly. They are standard issue. Should we not now be issued with a meter capable of alerting us to the limit, or are we obliged to purchase one ourselves? Either way, the law was introduced without any advice how we can identify the line. Is that responsible?
3. Without expressing any opinion on drinking for pleasure, it is obvious many people do, especially with a meal. It has really changed the meaning of a Day Off if 24 hours is the only insurance, and even that might be a guess. The requested Day Off for e.g. a wedding or birthday party may, for some, be not as festive as it once was. It is easy to say that this limit of 20mg is a good thing. Question is, do we know that it is necessary, or would 40mg or 60mg have been good enough? And if the higher figures would have achieved the desired result, will the current limit ever change? Will there be a review of this legislation?
4. It is said that 20mg was decided by HMG to bring us in line with JARS. I've always been told that JARS have no legal standing,but are only recommendations, and therefore are guidelines which nations can adopt or not. Blank adoption of these limits without research and consultation smacks of laziness at best and deriliction of duty to ones own at worst. (FTLs next.)
The future:
In one major European country they treat drink driving thus. If caught frequently with minor levels of excess, or once with high excess, you lose the licence for 12 months at least. An analysis of your blood is done. I'm told they can tell, not only the A) alchohol content at present, but also your use of alchohol over the past B) short & C) medium time periods. During your penalty period medical counselling is given and it is recommended to have periodic checks to ensure samples B) & C) are reducing. At the end of the penalty period you have to apply for the return of your licence. Then a further blood analysis is taken. If samples B) & C) show that you are still using alchohol outside the prescribed limits you may not get it back.
How soon before our medicals include such tests? I was once told by a medical centre that you could be 100% sober for the medical, but they could analyse if you were over using alcohol, if they wanted to. No drinking 24 hours before flying may get you below 20mg, but may not mean you are clean completely.
I wonder if this legislation is the thin end of a very large wedge which we have yet to appreciate.
Given the rosters of some crews, was it really the intention of our elected representatives to turn flying into an almost T'Total profession? Is the same limit applied to other public transport workers? And if not, why not?
Firstly, nothing can condone anyone who puts an a/c or peoples' lives at risk through use of alchohol, and I would speculate that those who might cross the line do so without malice and form a miniscule % of the profession. Is this a sledge hammer to crack a nut?
1. This law has been imposed, it would seem, without any consultation with the parties involved, i.e. the pilot unions. Why not? Surely anything that effects the working conditions of a whole profession should have included both sides in the discussions. Indeeed the unions should have insisted on it. And it would also seem very little medical consultation was taken.
2. Most similar laws, to my best knowledge, are clear about when you cross the line. i.e. one is aware at all times which side of the line one is on. In this case, not so. as has been said previously, the line is a scientific number, but its threshold is uncertain and will be different for different people, and even the same person under differing circumstances. Cars are provided with speedometers, a/c with altimeters. These alert us to limits constantly. They are standard issue. Should we not now be issued with a meter capable of alerting us to the limit, or are we obliged to purchase one ourselves? Either way, the law was introduced without any advice how we can identify the line. Is that responsible?
3. Without expressing any opinion on drinking for pleasure, it is obvious many people do, especially with a meal. It has really changed the meaning of a Day Off if 24 hours is the only insurance, and even that might be a guess. The requested Day Off for e.g. a wedding or birthday party may, for some, be not as festive as it once was. It is easy to say that this limit of 20mg is a good thing. Question is, do we know that it is necessary, or would 40mg or 60mg have been good enough? And if the higher figures would have achieved the desired result, will the current limit ever change? Will there be a review of this legislation?
4. It is said that 20mg was decided by HMG to bring us in line with JARS. I've always been told that JARS have no legal standing,but are only recommendations, and therefore are guidelines which nations can adopt or not. Blank adoption of these limits without research and consultation smacks of laziness at best and deriliction of duty to ones own at worst. (FTLs next.)
The future:
In one major European country they treat drink driving thus. If caught frequently with minor levels of excess, or once with high excess, you lose the licence for 12 months at least. An analysis of your blood is done. I'm told they can tell, not only the A) alchohol content at present, but also your use of alchohol over the past B) short & C) medium time periods. During your penalty period medical counselling is given and it is recommended to have periodic checks to ensure samples B) & C) are reducing. At the end of the penalty period you have to apply for the return of your licence. Then a further blood analysis is taken. If samples B) & C) show that you are still using alchohol outside the prescribed limits you may not get it back.
How soon before our medicals include such tests? I was once told by a medical centre that you could be 100% sober for the medical, but they could analyse if you were over using alcohol, if they wanted to. No drinking 24 hours before flying may get you below 20mg, but may not mean you are clean completely.
I wonder if this legislation is the thin end of a very large wedge which we have yet to appreciate.
Given the rosters of some crews, was it really the intention of our elected representatives to turn flying into an almost T'Total profession? Is the same limit applied to other public transport workers? And if not, why not?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu chuckles,
As you can see I'm not Flying Lawyer -or any kind of lawyer, but perhaps you might be thinking of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act? You'd have to search for it yourself to get the nitty gritty of it, but I think that it means some convictions can be "spent" after a certain time.
Flying lawyer I heard recently that under British Law once a person has 'paid his debt to society' it is deemed innappropriate to punish them further...and on that basis CAA must reinstate Chas' ATPL.
True or wishfull thinking?
True or wishfull thinking?
Much emphasis is now placed on alcohol but what about operating when not 100% fit?
Yes I realise the legislation says that we must be fit to operate but has any research been done into the effect on flying judgement and performance when, for example, suffering from a cold?
I am not currently employed in aviation but I am in a safety critical job in Transport. I am currently off sick due to a bout of flu. When I went sick there was the odd muttering about whether there were enough relief personnel to cover - surely this type of "intimidation" to work when not fit is just as bad as flying when marginally over the limit?
Yes I realise the legislation says that we must be fit to operate but has any research been done into the effect on flying judgement and performance when, for example, suffering from a cold?
I am not currently employed in aviation but I am in a safety critical job in Transport. I am currently off sick due to a bout of flu. When I went sick there was the odd muttering about whether there were enough relief personnel to cover - surely this type of "intimidation" to work when not fit is just as bad as flying when marginally over the limit?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just been talking to my GP about alchohol levels.
The aviation profession (the ones under the new law) will now have to watch which aftershave is used, which toothpaste and mouthwash is used, and the food they eat. All these products contain alchohol which could take them over the limit.
Scenario1: Captain lands at destination and prepares for next sector, eats beef and ale pie for dinner, then goes to get ready for flight, brushes teeth, has a mouthwash and puts on aftershave. The Captain is now over the limit. This is due to the natural production of alchohol by the body plus the extra alchohol additives from normal life. This Captain has not had a drink, but over the limit.
Scenario2: Captain orders his in flight meal. Is there any alchohol used in preparation for the meal? If so then why is this not being looked at?
As aviation professionals we are being too highly scrutinised.
From now on, before a flight, do not brush your teeth, do not eat food, do not use a mouthwash and do not put aftershave on. If you do you could be over the limit
The aviation profession (the ones under the new law) will now have to watch which aftershave is used, which toothpaste and mouthwash is used, and the food they eat. All these products contain alchohol which could take them over the limit.
Scenario1: Captain lands at destination and prepares for next sector, eats beef and ale pie for dinner, then goes to get ready for flight, brushes teeth, has a mouthwash and puts on aftershave. The Captain is now over the limit. This is due to the natural production of alchohol by the body plus the extra alchohol additives from normal life. This Captain has not had a drink, but over the limit.
Scenario2: Captain orders his in flight meal. Is there any alchohol used in preparation for the meal? If so then why is this not being looked at?
As aviation professionals we are being too highly scrutinised.
From now on, before a flight, do not brush your teeth, do not eat food, do not use a mouthwash and do not put aftershave on. If you do you could be over the limit
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS 119.5
I have worked in the Railway Industry for many years, and for the last ten or so we have had a strict Alcohol & Drugs Policy.
Similar comments to yours were passed when British Rail was introducing the Policy.
A few comments regarding your post.
Firstly, whilst I cannot comment authoritively on breath testing, my understanding of scenarios likely to register a 'positive' test result do not include the oft stated alcoholic mouthwash, or the Steak and Ale Pie tale.
I guess it is likely that if you undertook a breath test immediately after washing your mouth out you MAY possibly bring about a positive result, however that would be short lived as the alcohol within your mouth would rapidly disappate.
I am sure that the Police would undertake a second test somewhat later, which would then clearly be negative.
I am not sure whether the breath test result in the Police station can be admitted as evidence in a prosecution or whether a blood/urine test is done. I am sure those with the knowledge will provide the answer. Thank you in advance.
RAT 5 asked
Well I can confirm that for Railway staff deemed as 'Safety Critical' (normally those whose direct actions can impact upon the safety of staff and passengers/others) the limit is 40 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood for INTERNAL INDUSTRY purposes, and 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood and above for Police purposes.
My understanding of the reason for the equivalent of 40mg is that this is the level well above which 'false' positives may be experienced.
A person involved in a sufficiently 'serious' incident may well be tested (hopefully) by the British Transport Police and may be found to be below the legal level but subsequently found to have been over the Railway limit.
For the purposes of demonstration, it is generally accepted that 40mg equates to two units of low strength beer (1 pint) or two glasses of average strength wine.
Railway staff are counselled never to drink in the twelve hours preceeding duty and NEVER to report for duty less than eight hours after drinking.
We are guided broadly as to how to make a GENERAL calculation as to our alcohol level, but as all the trainers/instructors will say, if you need to calculate the level of alcohol in your body prior to reporting for duty then you definitely have a problem and shouldn't be reporting for duty.
Testing is undertaken by the provision of urine samples, taken and managed under 'chain of custody' arrangements.
Breath testing is carried out as a quick check, the accurate result is the urine test. To fail the breath test one would have to be pretty well close towards the legal limit as the breath equivalent of 40mg is set generously high in order to give the initial benefit of the doubt.
This debate has gone on for many months now in various different posts.
Frankly I am astounded at the way the air transportation Industry appears to have seriously mishandled both the management of the Policy and the education (in its nicest sense) of its personnel.
I see the same worries and criticism/concerns coming up here time and time again. I am sure that most if not all would be easily dealt with, and people a lot more re-assured, if the Air Trainsport Industry senior management got its collective act together properly and issued proper and cogent policies and procedures that are easily understood and accepted by all parties.
Maybe I am wrong, but the comments made on here certainly point to a serious lack of understanding of the Policy.
FInally, at risk of offending, if you reach the situation where it is necessary for you to test yourself for your alcohol levels before you report for duty then I think that is the time that you need to stand back and take a long hard view of yourself as an individual, and assess your personal situation, either subsequently with or without professional support.
Similar comments to yours were passed when British Rail was introducing the Policy.
A few comments regarding your post.
Firstly, whilst I cannot comment authoritively on breath testing, my understanding of scenarios likely to register a 'positive' test result do not include the oft stated alcoholic mouthwash, or the Steak and Ale Pie tale.
I guess it is likely that if you undertook a breath test immediately after washing your mouth out you MAY possibly bring about a positive result, however that would be short lived as the alcohol within your mouth would rapidly disappate.
I am sure that the Police would undertake a second test somewhat later, which would then clearly be negative.
I am not sure whether the breath test result in the Police station can be admitted as evidence in a prosecution or whether a blood/urine test is done. I am sure those with the knowledge will provide the answer. Thank you in advance.
RAT 5 asked
Is the same limit applied to other public transport workers? And if not, why not?
My understanding of the reason for the equivalent of 40mg is that this is the level well above which 'false' positives may be experienced.
A person involved in a sufficiently 'serious' incident may well be tested (hopefully) by the British Transport Police and may be found to be below the legal level but subsequently found to have been over the Railway limit.
For the purposes of demonstration, it is generally accepted that 40mg equates to two units of low strength beer (1 pint) or two glasses of average strength wine.
Railway staff are counselled never to drink in the twelve hours preceeding duty and NEVER to report for duty less than eight hours after drinking.
We are guided broadly as to how to make a GENERAL calculation as to our alcohol level, but as all the trainers/instructors will say, if you need to calculate the level of alcohol in your body prior to reporting for duty then you definitely have a problem and shouldn't be reporting for duty.
Testing is undertaken by the provision of urine samples, taken and managed under 'chain of custody' arrangements.
Breath testing is carried out as a quick check, the accurate result is the urine test. To fail the breath test one would have to be pretty well close towards the legal limit as the breath equivalent of 40mg is set generously high in order to give the initial benefit of the doubt.
This debate has gone on for many months now in various different posts.
Frankly I am astounded at the way the air transportation Industry appears to have seriously mishandled both the management of the Policy and the education (in its nicest sense) of its personnel.
I see the same worries and criticism/concerns coming up here time and time again. I am sure that most if not all would be easily dealt with, and people a lot more re-assured, if the Air Trainsport Industry senior management got its collective act together properly and issued proper and cogent policies and procedures that are easily understood and accepted by all parties.
Maybe I am wrong, but the comments made on here certainly point to a serious lack of understanding of the Policy.
FInally, at risk of offending, if you reach the situation where it is necessary for you to test yourself for your alcohol levels before you report for duty then I think that is the time that you need to stand back and take a long hard view of yourself as an individual, and assess your personal situation, either subsequently with or without professional support.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not worth doing the job anymore, it's ruining one's social life. As I said in a previous post, be a plumber, have a couple of beers after work and earn loads of money. You only live once, and you are dead for a long time. You must thank somebody that you were not in Sri Lanka over the last few days, my mate was and has not been seen yet. Basically, there are more things in life than being subjected to ridiculous laws, implemented by people who do not know the business.
I am leaving my flying job with 10K plus hours, worked for the CAA as an ATCO previous and now just hacked off. What am I going to do?
Rgds ILS 119.5
I am leaving my flying job with 10K plus hours, worked for the CAA as an ATCO previous and now just hacked off. What am I going to do?
Rgds ILS 119.5
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: DXB
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Their seems to be a Kind Of Hush from the Abode Of Peace on this one. Anyone care to comment on the care he received from the airline.
Should it have been allowed to get this far?
Should it have been allowed to get this far?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Astrodome,
Many thanks for a clear and informative reply. Perhaps J.T. could follow your lead.
Now: I agree that the whole issue has been mishandled so incompentently. It beggars belief, especially considering the industry we are talking about. Where everything is measured and operated to limits, here is a critical area, when workers' livelyhoods are at stake, where it is airey fairey. Amazing.
I agree with the sentiment that if you have a doubt about your fitness to fly, there maybe a deeper problem that needs addressing. However, if you are in doubt what are your options? There is a blank space here. Should crew rooms have breath-test machines? Should crews have their own? But where do you buy one that is certified? And if you do use that to check yourself, and prove OK, but subsequently at an airport where random checks may apply, you may fall foul of the 'official' tester. Would you have a right to sue the provider of your personal equipment?
Is this limit of 20mg worldwide? Where are its areas of implication? Considering the consequences of this extremly low limit the lack of information and guidance on the whole matter is deplorable.
It does seem an inconsistancy that you could be driven to work, safely in the opinion of rosters, along the busy rush hour roads, for perhaps 3 hours, by a taxi driver who has 400% legally more alcohol in their blood than you, while in control of a rapidly moving hand controlled vehicle in close formation with other similarly 'impaired' road users. This is deemed OK. But for you, under the same or 50% of that limit, to take an autopilot controlled a/c into the relatively empty sky is deemed unsafe.
Have all JAA states adopted this limit? And what about the non-JAA states?
And if the governments have introduced this limit so easily without consultation and balancing discussion, what would happen if they decided that random testing should became the norm?
What is the ECA's, if it still exisits, opinion on this? Surely this is a matter for which unions exist? To discuss such matters.
It's a real buggar's muddle.
Many thanks for a clear and informative reply. Perhaps J.T. could follow your lead.
Now: I agree that the whole issue has been mishandled so incompentently. It beggars belief, especially considering the industry we are talking about. Where everything is measured and operated to limits, here is a critical area, when workers' livelyhoods are at stake, where it is airey fairey. Amazing.
I agree with the sentiment that if you have a doubt about your fitness to fly, there maybe a deeper problem that needs addressing. However, if you are in doubt what are your options? There is a blank space here. Should crew rooms have breath-test machines? Should crews have their own? But where do you buy one that is certified? And if you do use that to check yourself, and prove OK, but subsequently at an airport where random checks may apply, you may fall foul of the 'official' tester. Would you have a right to sue the provider of your personal equipment?
Is this limit of 20mg worldwide? Where are its areas of implication? Considering the consequences of this extremly low limit the lack of information and guidance on the whole matter is deplorable.
It does seem an inconsistancy that you could be driven to work, safely in the opinion of rosters, along the busy rush hour roads, for perhaps 3 hours, by a taxi driver who has 400% legally more alcohol in their blood than you, while in control of a rapidly moving hand controlled vehicle in close formation with other similarly 'impaired' road users. This is deemed OK. But for you, under the same or 50% of that limit, to take an autopilot controlled a/c into the relatively empty sky is deemed unsafe.
Have all JAA states adopted this limit? And what about the non-JAA states?
And if the governments have introduced this limit so easily without consultation and balancing discussion, what would happen if they decided that random testing should became the norm?
What is the ECA's, if it still exisits, opinion on this? Surely this is a matter for which unions exist? To discuss such matters.
It's a real buggar's muddle.
I think the essence of much of this thread is that of "trust" or (sadly) perhaps lack of it.
In the "olden days" aircraft commanders were much revered people and their word was final. Much of that has changed due to pressures such as the media headlines ("Drunk Pilot Pulled Over etc...), the fact that air travel has become "routine" and that, well its all automatic now anyway, isnt it, - all those pilots do is push a few buttons and command salaries of at least £100,000 per annum etc.
We all know that 99% of aircrew go about their tasks in a highly responsible manner and would never mix alcohol with going on a flying duty.
It seems that our legislators and politicians do not feel it is necessary to consult with pilots, witness the 20 mg limit and also "harmonisation" of FTL across Europe.
I have said it before but will say it again - the ONLY people who understand the pilots job are pilots!! We must spend much more time educating the politicians but I suspect this will be a lengthy process since a major hallmark of the current UK government is not to listen to the people over which it governs.
In the "olden days" aircraft commanders were much revered people and their word was final. Much of that has changed due to pressures such as the media headlines ("Drunk Pilot Pulled Over etc...), the fact that air travel has become "routine" and that, well its all automatic now anyway, isnt it, - all those pilots do is push a few buttons and command salaries of at least £100,000 per annum etc.
We all know that 99% of aircrew go about their tasks in a highly responsible manner and would never mix alcohol with going on a flying duty.
It seems that our legislators and politicians do not feel it is necessary to consult with pilots, witness the 20 mg limit and also "harmonisation" of FTL across Europe.
I have said it before but will say it again - the ONLY people who understand the pilots job are pilots!! We must spend much more time educating the politicians but I suspect this will be a lengthy process since a major hallmark of the current UK government is not to listen to the people over which it governs.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fireflybob
An interesting view.
When I take a flight, I prefer that the flight deck crew be physically and mentally fit to undertake their alloted duties.
I have no doubt that as you say 99% are.
That leaves us to (say) the 1%
Now of those 1% a number will perhaps be OK to fly but may be technically over the specified limit, some will definitely be well above the limit, and I am sure that at least 1 of those 1% will be technically 'drunk'.
I cannot put numbers to those percentages, however I am sure that the aviation experts can and no doubt will.
A number of posters have effectively said that they don't agree with the drug and alcohol legislation as Pilots are capable of determining their own fitness to fly.
That may well be so.
Let me pose this question.
If you travel by train exactly how safe would you feel if the track your train was due to travel over at 125 mph had been inspected by me, or the points certified as safe, or work carried out on the signalling by me or my colleagues.
As responsible professionally trained and competent people with all manner of checks and counter-checks on our performance no doubt you would be perfectly happy. Indeed you have to be because no-one else can do this type of job without an awful lot of training and experience.
If I or one of my colleagues restores a railway line to traffic and/or certifies signalling or other equipment critical to the safety we are making a legal statement and accepting the legal consequences of an error in our work, our checking or our inspection. Sometimes we will have to rely upon our professional judgement, always a very dificult thing to explain to certain classes of the bewigged buffoonery.
Historically very very few railway accidents were caused by critical staff being drunk, similar I guess to airline pilots.
Exactly HOW safe would you now feel if we were to be over the alcohol limit when we undertook such safety critical activities?. This bearing in mind that we are professional personnel capable of judging our own fitness?
Rat 5 Thank you !
When I take a flight, I prefer that the flight deck crew be physically and mentally fit to undertake their alloted duties.
I have no doubt that as you say 99% are.
That leaves us to (say) the 1%
Now of those 1% a number will perhaps be OK to fly but may be technically over the specified limit, some will definitely be well above the limit, and I am sure that at least 1 of those 1% will be technically 'drunk'.
I cannot put numbers to those percentages, however I am sure that the aviation experts can and no doubt will.
A number of posters have effectively said that they don't agree with the drug and alcohol legislation as Pilots are capable of determining their own fitness to fly.
That may well be so.
Let me pose this question.
If you travel by train exactly how safe would you feel if the track your train was due to travel over at 125 mph had been inspected by me, or the points certified as safe, or work carried out on the signalling by me or my colleagues.
As responsible professionally trained and competent people with all manner of checks and counter-checks on our performance no doubt you would be perfectly happy. Indeed you have to be because no-one else can do this type of job without an awful lot of training and experience.
If I or one of my colleagues restores a railway line to traffic and/or certifies signalling or other equipment critical to the safety we are making a legal statement and accepting the legal consequences of an error in our work, our checking or our inspection. Sometimes we will have to rely upon our professional judgement, always a very dificult thing to explain to certain classes of the bewigged buffoonery.
Historically very very few railway accidents were caused by critical staff being drunk, similar I guess to airline pilots.
Exactly HOW safe would you now feel if we were to be over the alcohol limit when we undertook such safety critical activities?. This bearing in mind that we are professional personnel capable of judging our own fitness?
Rat 5 Thank you !