The Navy is to introduce a new breath alcohol screening policy. The ‘Breath Alcohol Screening Policy’ will see mandatory breath tests carried out for duty personnel (at all rank levels) and random tests for other personnel at work, both ashore and at sea. If you’re found to be over the limit of 100 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath (around one standard drink), you will be stood down until such time as you’re able to return to work safely. There may be follow on administrative consequences (such as attending alcohol counselling or rehab) depending on the seriousness of the breach or the frequency of failing the test. If the test is failed to such an extent that an individual could be deemed drunk as specified under the Armed Forces Discipline Act, then discipline procedures will result.

It is the intention that this policy will:

· prevent people working in safety critical areas or taking part in potentially dangerous activities when they are impaired by alcohol

· find out if problematic or dependant use of alcohol is occurring and if so work to establish better support programmes against inappropriate use

· identify problematic or dependant drinkers in the RNZN and to get them the help they need to use alcohol responsibly.

Mandatory screening for all Duty Watches (Shore and Sea), Standing Sea Emergency Parties, Ships’ Medical Emergency Teams and Special Sea Dutymen will be undertaken on a daily basis, prior to a person assuming their duty.

This entry was posted in General Updates. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. john snow says:

    In days of old if this policy had been in force no ships would have been able to put to sea or sail in the fleet. Is it needed or just a case of being PC?

  2. Dodger says:

    hehe in our day there wouldn’t have been enough sober people to actually man the ship if we had had a policy such as this !!! Imagine if they did the testing straight after squirt issue haha …


    11-30/1200 –SQUIRT (rum ration) TIME ..Skin K.



  5. Albie Cross says:

    very interesting. I would like to add to the comments provided by Dodger and Skin K of an incident which occurred in 1949 onboard Bellona. An enterprising AB who incidentally had rung more seawater out of his socks than I had ever sailed over wanted to change to the Radio Electrical branch. His request to do so was not granted mainly due to the fact that he would probably be time expired before he completed the course. He was obviously unhappy about this decision and somewhere around about 1 hour after tot time he decided to take out his feelings by going into the Radar Shack which was abaft the bridge and demolishing by using some sort of blunt instrument , a quantity of power amplifiers among other glassware. He was thrown into the brig and at a later Court hearing, was found guilty of malicious damage to Government property and sentenced to 18 months “up the hill”, and I don’t mean Ardmore. A dishonourable discharge was the final result. The moral of the story is – “If you want someone to stuff up the works then leave it to the RE”s. or change from G to T.

  6. Graham Cadwallader (Caddy) says:

    Is it just me and the way I think? I don’t recall sea-boats falling off their falls, ships running into each other. In 20 years service I recall 3 people being killed, none of which could have been attributed to booze, all 3 being unpreventable. With luck this will pass and be forgotten or relegated to a “once in a blue moon” event and then be recalled in some sailors ditty as “the way we were”. I strongly suspect that if there is an increase in work related accidents, that it is more because of multi-skilling – knowing a little about a lot – rather than becoming a “master” in one

  7. Jim D says:

    I agree Caddie. This navy is making more use of non-seaman personnel to carry out seamanlike duties. That’s why the crews of our ships are minimal because they expect cooks, comms operators and electronic technicians, etc to man the “sea-boats'” in times of emergency. Look at the strife that the RN got into when one of their RHIBs got into “Hostile” waters that their parent ship was unable to help out. The crew ( made up of stewards, etc including females) were captured and spent many days ashore before they were released – after having been televised around the world.
    What a bloody joke.

  8. Jim D says:

    PS – no wonder the RNZN has a retention problem.

    • John Bullock says:

      When personnel throw their “toy’s out their bunk”, it is so easy to tender ones resignation these days, instead of “taking it on the chin” and dealing/resolving with problem!

  9. Wayno says:

    All this PC Crap has only come about because n of the woman on board deal , and infact a law has now been passed that no alchol is to be carred on HMNZS ships

  10. NOEL KININMONT says:

    Not PC correct but to an old timer(NZ15309) —Do NOT have women(Front ??? sailors on ships)
    May be true as stats appear to show there are more girls than boys in the Andrew and they(the boys) probably sit to P ——The PC controller may not not like this but GAFUY…..

  11. Dave Wistrand says:

    Well at least if the ladies are in the majority and there is a cock up (sorry) then it will be able to proved they were in charge and hence to blame. This may prove a historic event as very few if any are to blame for anything and if they remove us it could only be them. Start of the fight back boys – now just to get past the AI threat (ask the farmers)

  12. George Black says:

    We survived the tot and manage not to fall in the oggy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s