Alcohol limits for pilots

[M61A1]

"Well it sounds you like telling people what to do, and pushing you own agenda.And thankyou M61A1 for letting me know what I should like or prefer or not. Sorry M61A1 another person telling me what I can do or not personally, this gets me right offside.

 

That you, and I quote in your post "CRANKY" , why have you the right to do something or not and you re telling me I have no right to do something or not.? It is legal because you cant find a politicians with balls to ban or outlaw items you don't agree with. They will have those (balls) cut off if they tried to ban alcohol and coffee, etc. I also believe that anything can be abused by some. I also believe that people can use heroin for cancer or justified medical reasons.

 

Really- to be clear yes I drink coffee and have a scotch or class of red socially, never been booked with DUI or been ugly drunk. Also I know how alcohol affects me and my doctor has some dam fine reds I drink with him. I certainly would drink a lot more If I had to here you spout off for any time on your crusade.

 

But please do not take to the pulpit here and preach to me or other people as it is my life and I do as I please within reason.

 

I am Cranky with an aforementioned minority trying to control and tell what a person or a majority should do.

 

How did we ever fly and survive 20 or 30 years ago without these people's help and divine guidance.

Well. once again, if you read what I posted, I was quoting facts from a doctor who had studied such things. Neither he, or I am suggesting that you stop drinking so , just settle down and have a nice red, if that's what it takes to calm your nerves. Just don't try telling people that medically you're different and that it has no effect, or that it has less effect than another drug. The reality is that alcohol is a drug and all drugs affect different people to a different extentI too cannot stand the concept of a state that takes my responsibility for me, off me, I'm not much of a drinker or illicit drug taker, but other things float my boat, but I'm not going into that, lest you start telling me how irresponsible I am.

 

 

[old man emu]

Yep. As I pointed out they throw reg 256 at you if they think you're under the influence - and while it's strict liability' date=' there is not cut and dry measure of what you need to do to be one side or the other if the guilty line. [b']It should probably be turned into a cut and dry measure[/b].

Quite right. As I said, there should be an addition to Reg 256 (2) which prescribes the amounts, determined by analysis of a bodily sample, beyond which the offence is committed. The amounts have already been prfescribed in Part 99.

 

On DAMP I think you're slightly off. Yes you only need a DAMP as an organisation if you meet set criteria BUT once you are required to have one anyone doing one of the specified actions within the operations of your organisation is within the testing regime. That is how an RAAus pilot flying into a licences aerodrome is subject to test because the licenced aerodrome has a DAMP and you are undertaking an act as prep to or as pilot on the aerodrome.

I disagree with your interpretation. Part 99 clearly states that an organisation must have a DAMP if it has an employee, or contractor undertaking SSAA. Therefore, the aerodrome licence holder's DAMP only applies to employees, or contractors doing SSAA, which in that case would probably be limited to construction and repair of runways and taxiways. A person who is not an employee or contractor, i.e.a pilot on a private flight does not fall under the DAMP criteria.

Also, it is not an offence to fail a DAMP sobriety test. The initial response is that the person who fails the DAMP sobriety test has to stop SSAA until it can be shown that the person is sober. If you go right into it, the goal of DAMP is to identify persons with a alcohol or other drug misuse condition and provide assistance to overcome the condition.

 

OME

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I wonder if extreme religion is not as bad or worse than being drunk? "everybody has their addiction " applies here.

 

Those guys who flew into the twin towers were not drunk on alcohol, but they sure were addicted to religion.

 

 

[facthunter]

There's a lot of difference between having a glass or two of a good wine with a meal and deliberately writing yourself off to have an experience that you can't recall a thing about later and render yourself into an out of control totally "mental" person that no one would want to be around. Having a drink and having a drinking problem is a different thing. In the old days if you were a BAD DRUNK you were told so and that IF you couldn't hold your liquor, you should join AA or sign the pledge. Excess consumption of alcohol is a proven risk to health, but so is excess consumption of fast food. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

SSCBD are you saying in post 23 that it is OK to have a drink, then go flying in one of our go carts of the sky?

 

I am all for having fun, but I don't want to be anywhere near one of these go carts with a pilot who has just consumed alcohol.

 

I must admit that I used to drink when not sober. I thought I was sober. I once timed myself on a narrow winding road after a few beers and found that by driving as fast as I could I was still slower than when sober.

 

In my case I could not afford to fly with even part of a stubby inside me until I was sure it had all been got rid of. It only takes a small amount of alcohol to degrade my judgement.

 

 

[Smurf]

Guys

 

I think we may be missing something! If you read the regs and 0.02% is the limmit, section (1) clearly states that I cannot have a quick one in the Qantas Club before the dirty weekend in Bali, Looks like we are all guilty and will have to turn ourselves in :(

 

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.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

(4) A person who is on board an aircraft as a member of the operating crew, or as a person carried in the aircraft for the purpose of acting as a member of the operating crew, shall not consume any alcoholic liquor.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

(5) A person shall not, while acting in any capacity in either air traffic control or Flight Service, 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.

 

(6) A person shall not act in any capacity in either air traffic control or Flight Service if the person has, during the period of 8 hours immediately preceding the commencement of the period of duty in which he or she so acts, consumed any alcoholic liquor.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

(7) A person who is on duty in either air traffic control or Flight Service shall not consume any alcoholic liquor.

 

Penalty for a contravention of this subregulation: 50 penalty units.

 

(8) An offence against subregulation (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) or (7) is an offence of strict liability.

 

 

[dutchroll]

(1) states that you can't enter an aircraft in a state of intoxication.

 

"Intoxication" doesn't mean "can't have a beer or two" before you board. Intoxication is slurring your words, stumbling, being argumentative, etc.

 

Like I tell all my friends: if we (the crew) believe you may be "intoxicated" we are obliged by law to refuse to carry you as a passenger. However if you've had a couple before your flight to Bali, walk calmly aboard, smile, generally shutup and be polite, then we have no grounds to believe you are intoxicated. As soon as you give us grounds to suspect it, our hands are tied by the legislation.

 

This is usually what actually happens. People board who've had a few but do not make it obvious. Then some idiot swaggers down the bridge smacking into everyone on his way, abuses someone, then gets stopped at the door and asked if he's been drinking, and promptly threatens to knock the block off anyone who stops him boarding (actually happened on one flight I was on - heard him from the cockpit - then we called for urgent security assistance over the radio). He was spoken to by 2 quite large Australian Federal Police while still at the front door wanting to get on, and they offered for him to turn around and head back up to the boarding lounge either the easy way or the hard way.

 

NSW Crimes Amendment Bill 2014 (example of definition of intoxication):

 

"an offender is intoxicated if the offender's speech, balance, co-ordination or behaviour is noticeably affected as the result of the consumption or taking of alcohol"

 

 

[old man emu]

Guys, I think we may be missing something! If you read the regs and 0.02% is the limmit, section (1).

Sorry Smurf, Reg 256 does not prescribe a blood alcohol concentration as it is currently worded. That is the problem with the application of the regulation. With the availability of breath analysing instruments, and analytical means to determine blood alcohol levels, the Reg should include an objective level, as well as permitting subjective evidence based on observation and experience of the observer in these terms: an offender is intoxicated if the offender's speech, balance, co-ordination or behaviour is noticeably affected as the result of the consumption or taking of alcohol".

 

 

The Act would also require amendment firstly to give an authorised person power to detain another person for the purposes of undergoing a screening test, then it must set out how an evidentiary analysis is to be conducted. Sounds like a lot of procedures to figure out, but really it only involves a bit of cut and paste from transport legislation.

 

OME

 

 

[facthunter]

Most people aren't intoxicated at .05 but that was the limit decided by those who have the job to "specify" a reasonable limit above which you would be A RISK. The 8 hours used in aviation is less than originally used as a limit. 00 is a bit hard to measure accurately. Some prescribed drugs are more likely to affect you than a few drinks, and low blood sugar levels or dehydration can be a problem also. Alcohol IS a PROBLEM in this country in plenty of ways but the alcohol industry has a lot of influence, and spends a lot of money to get you to buy the stuff. Nev

 

 

[greybeard]

Or you could stop being pedantic, remove head from orifice, consider the intent of the regulation and don't drink and fly.

 

If you're worried about the threshold of how much booze is in your system, then there is a fair chance that you've had to much.

 

Reckon you could nail a piece of string to a post and some of you guys would argue about it for days.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Common sense is off topic Greybeard!

 

 

[dutchroll]

For my entire aviation career I've lived by the rules of 8-9 hours absolute minimum from your last alcoholic drink (which also directly ties in with being adequately rested), zero blood alcohol, and no hangover effect.

 

For anyone who actually finds that difficult, flying planes is probably not for you.

 

 

[SSCBD]

For my entire aviation career I've lived by the rules of 8-9 hours absolute minimum from your last alcoholic drink (which also directly ties in with being adequately rested), zero blood alcohol, and no hangover effect.For anyone who actually finds that difficult, flying planes is probably not for you.

Thank you Dutch roll - some sense prevails.

To be clear on MY personal drinking and flying comment = I may fly out with some friends and we camp for the night. We have a few beers (4 to 6 cans) OR 3 or 4 glasses of red around the fire with bbq.

 

This is fun flying and what can be done with aussie sport aviation and seeing Australia, not just flying for an hour and go home.

 

a FEW people must get a grip on what is said here instead of always going to extremes.

 

It seems people are ASSUMING about flying to country pub - have a bender - and then fly out the next day.

 

 

[old man emu]

While it is true that the majority of people would not be considered to be intoxicated i.e. slobbering, jibbering idiots, at a BAC of 0.05 grams of alcohol in 100 mililitres of blood, it has been demonstrated in controlled settings that at a BAC between 0.02 and 0.05, there is a discernible loss of eye/hand coordination and other motor and cognitive skills.

 

Why 0.02%, and not zero? Because there are some known medical conditions which can cause some small amounts of alcohol to be present in the blood. However, the main reason is that scientific instruments such as the breath analysis instrument, like all man-made things carry an error range. In this case the accepted error produces a result of + 0.02 grams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood (0.02%). The only time in traffic law that an analysis result of 0.02% or less would be acted upon is in the case of a Provisional licence holder who is supposed to be completely alcohol free. (Not that a reading so low is likely in a young buck who had just been pulled over for some bit of dickhead driving.)

 

Or you could stop being pedantic, consider the intent of the regulation and don't drink and fly. If you're worried about the threshold of how much booze is in your system, then there is a fair chance that you've had to much..

Too true.OME

 

 

[jetjr]

If there's 0.02 error in testing gear that means every reading from 0.0 and 0.07 should be Ok to drive or under challenge

 

Having an error around 40% of the legal level to drive seems absurd and if it could be challenged, would be

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I wonder if extreme religion is not as bad or worse than being drunk? "everybody has their addiction " applies here.Those guys who flew into the twin towers were not drunk on alcohol, but they sure were addicted to religion.

I'm not sure they were, Bruce. At least some of them spent time with prostitutes the night before. Perhaps they had doubts about receiving 70 virgins, and were making sure... Maybe they were simply angry disaffected young men clutching at the hope of a better existence in the next life. Easy recruits for an ideology of hate and destruction.

[old man emu]

If there's 0.02 error in testing gear that means every reading from 0.0 and 0.07 should be Ok to drive or under challengeHaving an error around 40% of the legal level to drive seems absurd and if it could be challenged, would be

I think that the error is taken to be + 0.02%. I see your point about challenging a borderline reading, but I think that the legislators have worded the Law to rule out challenges of that type. No doubt that a Court would take into account the accepted error when considering penalty. We should be thankful that the law for all is not zero BAC.

Are you aware that there is a zero limit for drugs? Therefore, if you want to drive, do not take any codeine containing medication as the metabolic products of codeine show up in the tests as opiates. Use ibuprofen or paracetamol for pain relief.

 

OME

 

 

[ben87r]

The limit for learners and P drivers in NSW has been zero for some time now, so it can be done but I'm sure an appeal would be easier then say a .03 reading with the previous .02 limit.

 

 

[old man emu]

The limit for learners and P drivers in NSW has been zero for some time now, so it can be done but I'm sure an appeal would be easier then say a .03 reading with the previous .02 limit.

That zero limit basically says "No Alcohol at all". It is the same for Heavy Vehicle and public passenger vehicle drivers. Their limit is 0.02, but that really means, in practical terms, zero.

Realistically, if you had only one "standard drink" with a meal, by the time you finished your meal, got back to driving and were screened, you would have metabolised the alcohol from the drink. Even more so if you were taken to a police station, waited the mandatory 15 minutes before the test, and then tested.

 

But who ever has only one standard drink away from home?

 

OME

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

The last time I did a test was years ago in Alice Springs. The instrument the cop had only gave "yes/no". I knew I was well under .05, but I was curious to find just what it was and the cop couldn't tell me, but he showed me his meter.

 

Maybe that was a special instrument they hand out to soft-hearted cops who might have been lenient on borderline cases.

 

 

[zodiacpilot]

Ok, after reading all of these posts it appears that the rules apply to any of us 'entering or preparing to operate' a aircraft. So......, how come a CASA authorised breath alcohol tester can approach a pilot certificate holder doing nothing more than cleaning his aircraft, with NO INTENTION of flying it, & demand a test be submitted to?.

 

FYTI file: ANYONE participating in a MOTORSPORT event in Australia, whether as a competitor or official or pitcrew may return a result of 0.01 grams of alcohol on a second test sample. At 0.015 they are exluded from any further participation.

 

Cheers.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I bet they can't demand a test legally. What regulation would be broken by working on your plane?

 

It has been stated on this forum that their ramp-tests are illegal, and that their powers are limited to checking out 3 or 4 bits of paper, like the certificates.

 

You would need police powers to stand in front of a taxying plane and flag it down, I wonder what would happen if you just didn't stop?

 

 

[dutchroll]

You would need police powers to stand in front of a taxying plane and flag it down, I wonder what would happen if you just didn't stop?

You wonder what would happen if a guy stood in front of your plane trying to flag you down and you deliberately didn't stop?Oh.....I don't know.

 

Conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm or manslaughter and a lengthy prison sentence sharing a cell with "Bubba", maybe?

 

 

[old man emu]

So......, how come a CASA authorised breath alcohol tester can approach a pilot certificate holder doing nothing more than cleaning his aircraft, with NO INTENTION of flying it, & demand a test be submitted to?..

They can't. 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.

There is no power to detain and test in Reg 256.

 

One could draw a long bow and look at Part 1AA, Division 4 Sect 3Z of the Federal Crimes Act. However, that Section applies to an indictable offence, and I think that Reg 256 makes FUI a misdemeanor.

 

OME

 

 

[djpacro]

.... There is no power to detain and test in Reg 256. ...

Interesting .... CASA has this on their new website despite it being statements from a decade ago: Testing of safety-sensitive personnel for alcohol and other drugs - Answers to common questions | Civil Aviation Safety Authority .... the answer to the first question is relevant, as is the one about a private pilot in the bush ...