Alcohol limits for pilots

[aro]

I pointed out earlier that a person authorised under Part 99 can only demand an employee of an organisation or contractor thereof conducting SSAA to provide a sample. Part 99 only applies in a workplace environment.

Seems unlikely. Why would CASA write a regulation that only allowed them to test employees?

Maybe look at part 99C: Drug and alcohol testing by CASA.

 

REG 99.115

 

Who may be drug or alcohol tested

 

(1) An approved tester may require a body sample for the purposes of a drug or alcohol test under this Subpart from a person who is performing or available to perform an applicable SSAA.

 

 

[old man emu]

Reg 99.115 you've got me

 

OME

 

 

[facthunter]

The application of these "powers" has been contentious at times, going back quite a while now. "Available to perform" is difficult to interpret. Working on your plane IS part of the "coverage". That would be YOU or anyone else and I think that's fair enough if you are actually doing it. If you are in a clubhouse having a beer with your snag or lobster thermidor and you show a mate your plane THAT should not be a crime. Nev

 

 

[kaz3g]

The application of these "powers" has been contentious at times, going back quite a while now. "Available to perform" is difficult to interpret. Working on your plane IS part of the "coverage". That would be YOU or anyone else and I think that's fair enough if you are actually doing it. If you are in a clubhouse having a beer with your snag or lobster thermidor and you show a mate your plane THAT should not be a crime. Nev

Please read the regulation below carefully, particularly noting sub-Reg (3) in the context of (2)(g)

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 99.015

 

SSAAs to which this Part applies

 

(1) This Part applies to the SSAAs specified in this regulation.

 

(2) The specified SSAAs are:

 

(a) any activity undertaken by a person, other than as a passenger, in an aerodrome testing area; and

 

(b) calculation of the position of freight, baggage, passengers and fuel on aircraft; and

 

© the manufacture or maintenance of any of the following:

 

(i) aircraft;

 

(ii) aeronautical products;

 

(iii) aviation radionavigation products;

 

(iv) aviation telecommunication products; and

 

(d) the certification of maintenance of a kind mentioned in paragraph ©; and

 

(da) the issuing of a certificate of release to service for an aircraft or aeronautical product in relation to maintenance carried out on the aircraft or aeronautical product; and

 

(e) the fuelling and maintenance of vehicles that will be used to fuel aircraft on aerodrome testing areas; and

 

(f) activities undertaken by an airport security guard or a screening officer in the course of the person's duties as a guard or officer; and

 

(g) activities undertaken by a member of the crew of an aircraft in the course of the person's duties as a crew member; and

 

(h) the loading and unloading of trolleys containing baggage for loading onto aircraft and the driving of such trolleys; and

 

(i) activities undertaken by a holder of an air traffic controller licence in the course of the person's duties as a controller; and

 

(j) activities undertaken by the supervisor of a holder of an air traffic controller licence in the course of the person's duties as such a supervisor; and

 

(k) providing flight information and search and rescue alert services:

 

(i) to a pilot or operator of an aircraft immediately before the flight of the aircraft; or

 

(ii) to a pilot or operator of an aircraft, during the flight of the aircraft; or

 

(iii) as an intermediary for communications between a pilot or operator of the aircraft, and an air traffic controller; and

 

(l) providing aviation fire fighting services.

 

(3) This Part applies to the safety-sensitive aviation activities specified in paragraphs (2)(b) to (l) even if those activities do not occur in an aerodrome testing area.

 

So you won't be DAMPED for showing someone your aeroplane airside but you may still have a problem with CAR 256 if you "enter" it or do something which can be construed as acting as a member of the aircrew (checking the tie-downs?) having used...ANY alcoholic liquor or having consumed any in the preceding 8 hours:

 

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 256

 

Intoxicated persons not to act as pilots etc or be carried on aircraft

 

(1) A person shall not, while in a state of intoxication, enter any aircraft.

 

Penalty: 5 penalty units.

 

(2) A person acting as a member of the operating crew of an aircraft, or carried in the aircraft to act as a member of the operating crew, shall not, while so acting or carried, be in a state in which, by reason of his or her having consumed, used, or absorbed any alcoholic liquor, drug, pharmaceutical or medicinal preparation or other substance, his or her capacity so to act is impaired.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

(3) A person shall not act as, or perform any duties or functions preparatory to acting as, a member of the operating crew of an aircraft if the person has, during the period of 8 hours immediately preceding the departure of the aircraft consumed any alcoholic liquor.

 

 

[aro]

Please read the regulation below carefully, particularly noting sub-Reg (3) in the context of (2)(g)

 

So you won't be DAMPED for showing someone your aeroplane airside

I think 2(a) is where you run into trouble. It seems to apply to anyone (except passengers) doing anything in an area accessible to aircraft on a certified or registered aerodrome. So not only can you be tested, but your friend just having a look could also be tested unless they are specifically there as a passenger.

(3) is interesting - it seems to extend CASA testing to anywhere, e.g. your hotel or even home if you are performing a SSAA (flight planning, building a kit aircraft...). Not to suggest that it is OK to drink and plan or build, but it does seem a very broad power.

 

 

[dutchroll]

You're reading way, way too much into this.

 

They cannot enter your home. Not even the police can do that (without a warrant) unless they believe there is an imminent threat to the peace or serious physical harm about to occur/already occurring.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Gosh Nev, you have a better club than here. We never get lobster.

 

 

[aro]

You're reading way, way too much into this.They cannot enter your home.

I hope that is correct. This is an area where I am not comfortable interpreting the regulations.

99.465 Approved testers’ powers to access premises

 

(1) Subject to any aviation security requirements, an approved tester must, at all reasonable times, have access to any place to which access is necessary for the purposes of carrying out any of the approved tester’s powers and functions under this Part.

 

(2) A person must not prevent, or hinder, access by an approved tester to any place to which access is necessary for the purposes of carrying out any of the approved tester’s powers or functions under this Part.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

(3) An offence against subregulation (2) is an offence of strict liability.

 

So if CASA can't access your premises without either your permission or a warrant, is denying permission considered preventing or hindering access?

 

What happens if you refuse permission to access your:

 

• hangar where you are performing an oil change?
   
   
   
  
• hotel room where you are planning your flight?
   
   
   
  
• home where you are building an aircraft?
   
   
   
  

 

 

 

I agree it is very unlikely to be an issue, but I am wondering what these powers actually allow? e.g. if your neighbor gets fed up with all the riveting noise and reports to CASA that they have seen you enjoying a beer while you are building...

 

 

[Ron5335]

Denying them access to your premises is not preventing or hindering them.

 

It's just that they haven't done your "Safety Induction for your workplace"

 

So you are looking after their safety.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I think 2(a) is where you run into trouble. It seems to apply to anyone (except passengers) doing anything in an area accessible to aircraft on a certified or registered aerodrome. So not only can you be tested, but your friend just having a look could also be tested unless they are specifically there as a passenger.

Yes, I agree ARO...apologies for the misinformation. And I should have remembered this because it raised questions about the legality of having a beer in the hangar after flying.

" aerodrome testing area " means:

 

(a) any surface in a certified aerodrome or a registered aerodrome over which an aircraft is able to be moved while in contact with the surface of the aerodrome, including any parking areas; and

 

(b) any part of the surface of a certified aerodrome or registered aerodrome:

 

(i) that is not covered by paragraph (a); and

 

(ii) that does not have a building on it; and

 

(iii) from which access to a surface mentioned in paragraph (a) may be had; and

 

© a building located on a certified aerodrome or registered aerodrome that is used:

 

(i) for maintenance of an aircraft or an aeronautical product; or

 

(ii) for the manufacture of aircraft or aeronautical products; or

 

(iii) by an air traffic service provider to control air traffic; or

 

(iv) by the holder of an AOC for flying training; or

 

(v) by a Part 141 operator conducting flying training in an aircraft; and

 

(d) any part of an aircraft, aerobridge or other moveable structure in a certified aerodrome or a registered aerodrome.

 

(3) is interesting - it seems to extend CASA testing to anywhere, e.g. your hotel or even home if you are performing a SSAA (flight planning, building a kit aircraft...). Not to suggest that it is OK to drink and plan or build, but it does seem a very broad power.

Entry only with a warrant but this may not protect from the offence of failing to comply, etc. Police in Victoria regularly charge a drink-driving offence of exceeding BAC within three hours of driving? The onus of proof is reversed and the person has to prove the BAC is due to alcohol consumed after driving and not before. It is heading towards the ludicrous if you can't open OzRunways and play with it while enjoying a red

Kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

I hope that is correct. This is an area where I am not comfortable interpreting the regulations.99.465 Approved testers’ powers to access premises

(1) Subject to any aviation security requirements, an approved tester must, at all reasonable times, have access to any place to which access is necessary for the purposes of carrying out any of the approved tester’s powers and functions under this Part.

 

(2) A person must not prevent, or hinder, access by an approved tester to any place to which access is necessary for the purposes of carrying out any of the approved tester’s powers or functions under this Part.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

(3) An offence against subregulation (2) is an offence of strict liability.

 

So if CASA can't access your premises without either your permission or a warrant, is denying permission considered preventing or hindering access?

 

What happens if you refuse permission to access your:

 

• hangar where you are performing an oil change?
   
   
   
  
• hotel room where you are planning your flight?
   
   
   
  
• home where you are building an aircraft?
   
   
   
  

 

 

 

I agree it is very unlikely to be an issue, but I am wondering what these powers actually allow? e.g. if your neighbor gets fed up with all the riveting noise and reports to CASA that they have seen you enjoying a beer while you are building...

They are exceptionally broad powers, ARO, limited only by the "at all reasonable times" condition and the common law protections against intrusions of privacy in regards places where we reside.

The hangar and an oil change is clearly within scope.

 

In my view, entry without warrant or permission of a closed hotel room or private residence would be unlawful and it would be best not to answer the knock on the door. If you answer that knock and the approved tester introduces themself AND produces their identification card (99.480), then you would likely face the prospect of a hinder and other charges if you refused to submit to the test.

 

BUT, to meet the points of proof of exceeding 0.02% BAC while performing SSAA they would need to be able to prove you were (1) performing flight planning or (2) building the aeroplane. And they might find this difficult if you don't make admissions.

 

The question of whether a testing officer's powers include a power of entry to residential premises without warrant or permission once the door is opened is one for a Court as is the determination of what constitutes reasonable times.

 

Kaz

 

 

[M61A1]

Drafting aviation regulation doesn't seem to appear in the SSAAs (and it clearly is a safety sensitive task) Maybe if CASA had fewer counter lunches we would have better, clearer legislation.

 

 

[djpacro]

.... while performing SSAA they would need to be able to prove you were (1) performing flight planning ....

my recollection is that one of the rules states that you only have to be available for SSAA ...

[old man emu]

my recollection is that one of the rules states that you only have to be available for SSAA ...

In this type of workplace drug and alcohol screening, being available for a defined activity is taken to mean, in one sense, en route to a normal place of employment. Recently a local bus driver was detected "over the limit" on his way to the start an early morning shift. He will have his authority to drive buses suspended under the public passenger regulations, not so much under the traffic regulations. The same applies to train crew.

So, following that precedent, "being available" means walking into a workplace carrying your tools of trade, spanners or whizz wheel.

 

OME

 

 

[dutchroll]

Yeah "being available" doesn't mean 24/7. It is designed to close the loophole defence of "oh yeah sure I was in uniform in the crew room 30 minutes before scheduled departure drunk as a skunk and barely able to walk, but I wasn't actually performing any aviation duties, therefore DAMP procedures don't apply to me!"

 

Well yes they do, as you were fully intending and "available" to fly in that state. So off to rehab for you......

 

These rules are not designed to catch Drifter pilots at the annual flying club BBQ or in their hangar having a beer after downing tools for the day. Whatever you think of CASA, they actually do have bigger fish to fry when it comes to the DAMP regulations.

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm pretty certain a "wide"net has been cast at times in the past. I would hope "common sense" has prevailed since but I wouldn't assume anything.. This HAS been an issue, I can assure you. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

I thought the act specified that you had to be airside. That would not include private residences, nor even on public transport on your way to airside.

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't think it's worth speculating on. Being available has a fair bit of latitude. As they have commented, "WE have deeper pockets than you". Nev

 

 

[dutchroll]

As they have commented, "WE have deeper pockets than you". Nev

When and where did they say that?

[facthunter]

Do you really expect I would tell you all I know. You don't have to believe me. I really don't care whether you do or don't. Do your own research if you are really interested. Check up on cases and contact the "victims" .They have been relentless on some people who have broken the rules as they see it and when they lose a case the Dept hands another charge as they leave the court. This doesn't happen every time, but it's not an isolated case either. Individuals don't have the resources to fight these matters in court. Nev

 

 

[kaz3g]

my recollection is that one of the rules states that you only have to be available for SSAA ...

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 99.115

Who may be drug or alcohol tested

 

(1) An approved tester may require a body sample for the purposes of a drug or alcohol test under this Subpart from a person who is performing or available to perform an applicable SSAA.

 

(2) However, an approved tester must not, for drug or alcohol testing under this Subpart, require a body sample from a passenger.

 

I think the "available to perform" could only reasonably be applied to crew who were on a rostered standby. It would be pretty ridiculous to be charged on the basis that you were available to plan a flight if you were just sitting in your hotel room on holidays with a nice glass of red and your OzRunways iPad beside you....or charged for being available for SSAAs if you were repairing the mower in the garage at home where you had your partly built aircraft. But the phrase "available to perform" will no doubt be determined by a Court sometime down the track.

 

It's not quite a Star Chamber so there is no obligation to self-incriminate.

 

Kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

I thought the act specified that you had to be airside. That would not include private residences, nor even on public transport on your way to airside.

See 99.015(3)

(3) This Part applies to the safety-sensitive aviation activities specified in paragraphs (2)(b) to (l) even if those activities do not occur in an aerodrome testing area.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Do you really expect I would tell you all I know. You don't have to believe me. I really don't care whether you do or don't. Do your own research if you are really interested. Check up on cases and contact the "victims" .They have been relentless on some people who have broken the rules as they see it and when they lose a case the Dept hands another charge as they leave the court. This doesn't happen every time, but it's not an isolated case either. Individuals don't have the resources to fight these matters in court. Nev

Nev you're talking about other issues. We're talking about the DAMP program.Look....honestly, the second guessing of the legislation here and - to be quite frank - a fair tinge of paranoia surrounding it is getting quite ridiculous. The DAMP is aimed squarely at the big end of town and while technically it could be applied to others, if you don't drink and fly, or drink and maintain, then you have nothing whatsoever to fear.

 

Beating the door down of your house or hotel and demanding a breath test? Bursting into your hangar in the evening while you're in sitting in a lounge chair watching the footy sipping a beer after a day working on your plane? Seriously? That's what this thread has all boiled down to?

 

And the whole idea of DAMP is not to mercilessly prosecute people and lock them in prison. I know this from knowing the background of a couple of DAMP events in our company.

 

 

[M61A1]

Yeah "being available" doesn't mean 24/7. It is designed to close the loophole defence of "oh yeah sure I was in uniform in the crew room 30 minutes before scheduled departure drunk as a skunk and barely able to walk' date=' but I wasn't [i']actually performing[/i] any aviation duties, therefore DAMP procedures don't apply to me!"Well yes they do, as you were fully intending and "available" to fly in that state. So off to rehab for you......

These rules are not designed to catch Drifter pilots at the annual flying club BBQ or in their hangar having a beer after downing tools for the day. Whatever you think of CASA, they actually do have bigger fish to fry when it comes to the DAMP regulations.

I think that's how it''s supposed to work.If I am 'on call' or 'standby', to go into work and carry out any aviation related task, I am expected to have zero alcohol in my system. I Am fairly certain that some have been caught out after being fostered on standby, having a beer or two, then getting the call that they need to go and fix something in the field.

 

 

[M61A1]

Nev you're talking about other issues. We're talking about the DAMP program.Look....honestly, the second guessing of the legislation here and - to be quite frank - a fair tinge of paranoia surrounding it is getting quite ridiculous. The DAMP is aimed squarely at the big end of town and while technically it could be applied to others, if you don't drink and fly, or drink and maintain, then you have nothing whatsoever to fear.

Beating the door down of your house or hotel and demanding a breath test? Bursting into your hangar in the evening while you're in sitting in a lounge chair watching the footy sipping a beer after a day working on your plane? Seriously? That's what this thread has all boiled down to?

 

And the whole idea of DAMP is not to mercilessly prosecute people and lock them in prison. I know this from knowing the background of a couple of DAMP events in our company.

I agree that DAMP is pretty much aimed at the "big end of town", and really shouldn't bother anyone with a bit of common sense, that said RAA is trying very hard to emulate " the big end of town", and if you were to have a bingle or incursion and were found to have alcohol in your system, I reckon they might go out of their way to make an example. In defence contractor maintenance, they will do what they can to help you if you get busted once, but the second time, you will be unemployed very quickly.