Amsterdam- SEX, DRUGS, but no breath freshner
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jolly Tall
You said 'Except to say that as a PPL if I were required to undergo a breath test whenever I took a passenger, or was subject to random breath tests (as do some countries for motoring), I would accept it as necessary in the interests of safety.'
Could you explain how this present farce is in the interests of safety?
It is like so many things in todays world -the great majority of us have to put up with tiresome rules and procedures that have little bearing on reality and serve purely to make life a little less pleasant whenever we come up against these bureaucraticly inspired changes. Bit like the myth perpetuated in the UK as a justification for unnecessary speed limits and so called 'traffic calming' that 'speed kills'. It doesn't. Speed is a causal factor in under 7% of UK car accidents. DETR statistical references supplied if required.
I have nothing to hide, I will comply with the breath test requirements if required to but please don't tell me it is in the interests of safety.
Edited for spalling mistiks.
[This message has been edited by M.Mouse (edited 11 April 2001).]
You said 'Except to say that as a PPL if I were required to undergo a breath test whenever I took a passenger, or was subject to random breath tests (as do some countries for motoring), I would accept it as necessary in the interests of safety.'
Could you explain how this present farce is in the interests of safety?
It is like so many things in todays world -the great majority of us have to put up with tiresome rules and procedures that have little bearing on reality and serve purely to make life a little less pleasant whenever we come up against these bureaucraticly inspired changes. Bit like the myth perpetuated in the UK as a justification for unnecessary speed limits and so called 'traffic calming' that 'speed kills'. It doesn't. Speed is a causal factor in under 7% of UK car accidents. DETR statistical references supplied if required.
I have nothing to hide, I will comply with the breath test requirements if required to but please don't tell me it is in the interests of safety.
Edited for spalling mistiks.
[This message has been edited by M.Mouse (edited 11 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Some good information posted above.
I think that it is our employers responsibility to disseminate information like this.
The problem with very low level limits is that very small margins of error can have very large impact upon our livelyhood. I pointed to the abuse of breath freshner which has an alchohol base, I am told that some people's physiology can create a background level of alchohol, this would not cause problems at the higher permitted levels for driving but for flying could cause you to loser your licence.
To support this inititive we all need to know with confidence where we stand.
Free, zero jeopardy breath tests/ use of test equipment before this becomes effective would go some way to allay my fears.
Further, conviction should never be permitted upon breath test alone. A sample must be provided for independent analysis.
Do you trust your flight management not to finger a face that does not fit?
I have been breath tested in a car, (glad to say negative) I was however quite shaken by the experience. My mind raced over the event and I talked of little else for quite some time after the event. This environment is not conducive to flight safety. I think that BALPA should cast off its sheeps clothing and insist that crews subject to a check, require two hours off before flight. Believe me the only thing upon the crews mind will be the trauma of the preceding event...
I think that it is our employers responsibility to disseminate information like this.
The problem with very low level limits is that very small margins of error can have very large impact upon our livelyhood. I pointed to the abuse of breath freshner which has an alchohol base, I am told that some people's physiology can create a background level of alchohol, this would not cause problems at the higher permitted levels for driving but for flying could cause you to loser your licence.
To support this inititive we all need to know with confidence where we stand.
Free, zero jeopardy breath tests/ use of test equipment before this becomes effective would go some way to allay my fears.
Further, conviction should never be permitted upon breath test alone. A sample must be provided for independent analysis.
Do you trust your flight management not to finger a face that does not fit?
I have been breath tested in a car, (glad to say negative) I was however quite shaken by the experience. My mind raced over the event and I talked of little else for quite some time after the event. This environment is not conducive to flight safety. I think that BALPA should cast off its sheeps clothing and insist that crews subject to a check, require two hours off before flight. Believe me the only thing upon the crews mind will be the trauma of the preceding event...
Guest
Posts: n/a
M.Mouse,
You quoted me correctly, but if I had spoken those words instead of written them I would have put the emphasis on 'if'. I hope never to have to undertake random breath tests, but presumably this would only come about if it were felt that there was a significant problem (and we can of course debate whether that really IS the case).
I suggested it would serve the interest of safety IF it deters some individuals from flying while under the influence, just as I imagine the current penalties deter some road vehicle drivers from doing the equivalent. I wasn't actually commenting on the particular situation in AMS, which may indeed have been a farce.
I believe random breath testing will happen - the legislation will need to be drafted carefully for reasons already discussed. Whether you or I like this eventuality is immaterial.
You quoted me correctly, but if I had spoken those words instead of written them I would have put the emphasis on 'if'. I hope never to have to undertake random breath tests, but presumably this would only come about if it were felt that there was a significant problem (and we can of course debate whether that really IS the case).
I suggested it would serve the interest of safety IF it deters some individuals from flying while under the influence, just as I imagine the current penalties deter some road vehicle drivers from doing the equivalent. I wasn't actually commenting on the particular situation in AMS, which may indeed have been a farce.
I believe random breath testing will happen - the legislation will need to be drafted carefully for reasons already discussed. Whether you or I like this eventuality is immaterial.
