Casa big brother out of control

[Bill Hamilton]

As amended by Len Deighton ---The price of freedom is paranoia, eternal vigilance is not nearly enough.

Folks,

 

The basic principles of cost/benefit justification of regulation "flies" out the window, as soon as the sacred cow of "air safety" is mentioned.

 

The DAMP program and the whole security apparatus, ASIC cards etc. has never been justified. It was the US that had 9/11, but GA/Sports aviation doesn't need an ASIC equivalent to get onto most airports. Into passenger terminals, but not generally ---- So what the security problem in Australia that requires an ASIC to be reasonably flexible.

 

The results, so far, for screening, has been just over 1% for alcohol, that is not necessarily pilots ( I know, informally, that most of the few have been baggage loaders and cleaners) and for "drugs", a little over 4%.

 

The 4% includes false positives and aftereffects of prescription and over the counter cold remedies. The genuine positives, for pilots, have been negligible, the whole system fails any reasonable cost/benefit test to justify public policy.

 

Coming back to Turbo, it is quite clear to me that the aviation community is not just a small number of "the average" community, and all the motor accident surveys cannot be extrapolated to make assumptions about the percentage of pilots who "must" be under the influence, based on motor accident surveys.

 

Regards,

 

 

[djpacro]

A refusal to comply with a test carries the same penalty as a positive result... So refusing is not an option. ..

I understand that the testing applies "for personnel who are performing or available to perform safety sensitive aviation activities." If I have completed my working day and gone home then I am not eligible to be tested. That's what I would say if I got a phone call - if a student rang to go flying with me then the response would be similar - "I am not available".If I am about to leave to go home and my booking sheet shows that I am not available then I am not available to "perform safety sensitive aviation activities".

 

In either scenario, I would simply state something like: I am not available to perform safety sensitive aviation activities (plus add a substantiation eg "see my booking sheet") therefore not eligible for a test and I am leaving to go about my private business.

 

I assumed that sportaviation was in a similar situation - 5 pm, 20 kms away and no customer would expect to call and go flying with him that late in the day?

 

 

[winsor68]

Dj,

 

You are correct... The problem as I see it is that a refusal in this circumstance is of course acceptable, with the way things are you may have your flying privileges knocked on the head while it is all sorted out. I am just guessing... but would not want to be the first to test these waters.

 

 

[djpacro]

I don't mind testing these things, winsor68.

 

I have been known to have a beer at the Aero Club at Parkes or Temora, for example, near the end of the day. Whether I have or not, if the tester came into the Aero Club at that time I would refer to the regs and say that I am not available.

 

The CASA brochure that I have here states "If, when the testing occurs you refuse ... you will be required to cease performing safety sensitive aviation activities immediately. It will be an offence to recommence any activities until you have been cleared to return." Perhaps if you don't want to be messed around you might prefer to be tested then rather than trying to organise another test the following day - may be difficult if the tester is travelling and knows your name.

 

The brochure also mentions that the over-the-counter cold tablets I was taking earlier in the week "may return a positive result later than 48 hours after a dose." Over the cold and back to flying but still at risk of a false positive if I am tested anytime during the rest of the week!

 

 

[kaz3g]

Hi All

 

You can be done for refusing a breath test under Victorian (and I presume other) road law but you can also be done for having a BAC exceeding the prescribed limit anytime up to 3 hours after driving a motor vehicle.

 

This was introduced to spoil the fun of those who absconded from a PBT site or an MVA and went home to down a few before the cops arrived.

 

And the key doesn't have to be in the ignition for you to be deemed "in control". Sleeping it off in the car is NOT a good move from a legal viewpoint.

 

Not fair, is it?

 

kaz

 

 

[justinm001]

isnt the upto 3 hour thing only if you refuse the breath test/out run police or do a u-turn quickly when you see the police ?

 

If not, im fairly confident a year 9 legal studies student would be able to get you off once it got to court...

 

 

[Steve Donald]

Just an update, CASA contacted me and do not condone what happened here, they assured me that very appropriate action was taken, as i said it was strange because CASA has made huge steps forward in recent years as far as open communication with Aviators providing safety forums and they recognize the benefits of good relationships to be far more conducive in providing safe operational practice for all aviators.

 

The incident that occurred was out of their hands, it was outside of policy and regulations, so there you go Great to see we wont get this sort of thing happening, any concerns they encourage you contact them, cool hey cheers all

 

 

[kaz3g]

Hi Justin

 

The relevant provision is contained in s49 of the Road Safety Act (Vic) which says:

 

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he or she—

 

(f) within 3 hours after driving or being in

 

charge of a motor vehicle furnishes a sample

 

of breath for analysis by a breath analysing

 

instrument under section 55 and—

 

(i) the result of the analysis as recorded or

 

shown by the breath analysing

 

instrument indicates that the prescribed

 

concentration of alcohol or more than

 

the prescribed concentration of alcohol

 

is present in his or her breath; and

 

(ii) the concentration of alcohol indicated

 

by the analysis to be present in his or

 

her breath was not due solely to the

 

consumption of alcohol after driving or

 

being in charge of the motor vehicle...

 

If the person has only recently consumed the alcohol, their BAC will be on the increase. If consumed some considerable period (eg more than 3 hours ago) the BAC will be declining and this will show on a further test. Unlike many other provisions to do with road safety, however, this one does not reverse the onus of proof -- the police have to prove that the alcohol was not consumed after the driving occurred.

 

There is a similar provision in relation to drugs.

 

.

 

As you will see, their is no limitation on the circumtances which might enliven the provision. Courts take such matters really seriously and year 9 students don't have much of a track record in saving drink-drivers from conviction. A couple of reputable witnesses to the drinking session occurring only after the driving would be more helpful.

 

kaz

 

 

[sportaviation]

The thing that still bothers me is how long will it take for a false positive result to be cleared up as many in aviation are depending on an income stream with narrow margins to make a living. On that most in aviation have too much tied up in capital, to venture near risk where legal and or illeagal drugs anr concerned !

 

 

[turboplanner]

The incident that occurred was out of their hands

If testing is conducted for CASA by contractors it's not out of their hands, and they have a direct responsibility to take action to correct misappropriate behaviour.

 

IF what happened was that unauthorised persons decided to have some fun, the matter should be handed over to the Police.

 

 

[justinm001]

Hey Kaz

 

Thanks for clearing that up and posting provisions :)

 

 

[kaz3g]

The DAMP legislation and its effects on aero clubs

 

I hate tryng to read Commonwealth legislation as the drafting officers seem intent on making this as difficult as possible, however I am slowly coming to terms with the legal intent of CASR Part 99 in regards to pilots having the odd drink at their aeroclub.

 

The more I think about it the more concerned I am.

 

The essential bits are:

 

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....

 

(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....

 

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; and

 

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

 

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.

 

Thus, as I read it:

 

1. A person may be tested at any time if they are performing activities in the course of their duties as aircrew. This will be the clause that affects the majority of us flying out of ALA's.

 

It means no going out to adjust the tie-down, checking oil-levels, etc after a couple of beers, but no huge imposition - really just a matter of commonsense.

 

For example, having a drink while camping under the wing at an ALA would be ok although I'd make sure the locks were in place and the keys were somewhere other than in my pocket.

 

It also seems to encompass a leisurely bit of flight planning at home in the evening with a G&T, or even the garage/workshop where some homebuilding is occurring but the more practical issues for many of us will be apparent where our flying activities are based at a registered or certified aerodrome.

 

2. If a person is in an aerodrome testing area (almost anywhere on a registered or certified aerodrome) and they are not a passenger but are performing or are available to perform SSAA's they may be tested in most situations.

 

This means, in addition to the proscriptions in 1 above:

 

No beers in the workshop (wherever that may be);

 

No beers in the flying school or clubroom attached to same (whether or not this is fenced off from airside);

 

No beers in the hangar;

 

No drinking then sleeping in your tent under the wings at a major fly-in; and

 

No beers with the BBQ next to the clubhouse unless it is isolated in such a way that it doesn't have access to the aerodrome testing area

 

Unless I've missed it, the legislation does not appear to spell out what being "available" means (does having your mobile phone number of your business card make you available when not actually at the airfield or flying?), nor does it set out how "access" can be denied (does a 3' chain wire fence with gates in it suffice?).

 

These are both crucial consderations in my view and CASA needs to spell it out.

 

kaz

 

The foregoing is my personal view and does not constitute, nor should it be construed as constituting, legal advice.