A commercial pilot who was detected over the alcohol limit at the start of a shift on his birthday has challenged the accuracy of the test that saw him convicted.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Lawyers for the pilot have also argued the embarrassment he suffered due to the grounding was "in itself a great punishment", and that a non-conviction order should have been made.
The pilot, 43, was working for Virgin when he was tested in the ACT on August 11, 2013.
The initial test was positive, and was later confirmed at 0.059.
He was grounded, and never flew for Virgin again.
A charge was laid and he came before the ACT Magistrates Court, where he was convicted and fined $2153 by Chief Magistrate Lorraine Walker.
But he has since appealed to the ACT Supreme Court, and Justice John Burns heard the challenge last week.
The pilot's lawyers say there was evidence that should have challenged the accuracy of the reading.
He argued that the amount of alcohol he consumed 10 hours earlier was not capable of producing a reading of 0.059.
The appeal also contested the claim that the interval between the initial and confirmatory testing was no less than 15 minutes.
The magistrate was also said to have been in error by becoming "overwhelmed that this person had 98 people sitting behind him", despite the pilot not actually being in a position to fly.
They argued that he was rostered on to fly, but that it was not guaranteed, and that he was not walking on to the plane at the time, so was not involved in a safety sensitive aviation activity.
The pilot had an otherwise unblemished flying record of over 20 years, and the offence was his first.
His grounding was the source of "great embarrassment", his lawyer argued.
"He suffered a punishment that we say was far greater than the financial penalty imposed by her honour in recording a conviction."
In response, Commonwealth prosecutors said the pilot had not contested the testing methodology or medical evidence during the hearing, and should not be allowed to do so on appeal.
They argued the pilot had admitted he was involved in a safety sensitive aviation activity, and that people in his position were required to pay heed to colleagues, passengers, and those on the ground.
The punishment was said to be a natural consequence of his actions, with air crashes a matter of public concern.
Justice John Burns has reserved his decision and will hand it down at a later date.
