I think "probably cause" testing only would be more cost effective. The
war on drugs is just one more handout to businesses involved in it.

I don't drink, smoke or do drugs because I wish to take care
of my health and continue to fly. Most pilots I know take good
care of their health for the same reason. There's always going
to be the occasional fool who feels differently.

Keep in mind however that drug testing is a BIG business and
the vendors providing these services are going to lobby any
way they can to keep it going.


"gatt" wrote in message
...

Casual debate he

Something like .1% of the pilots randomly tested for alcohol and drugs
(one
was .5%, I believe) tested positive in 2004. That's one in a thousand.
As
a result of this percentage, the random test rate will stay at 25% for
drugs
and something similar for alcohol.

Meanwhile, commercial pilots and operators say that the cost of a
Part-135-type drug and alcohol testing program is nearly cost prohibitive,
so it can be argued that this sort of testing program hurts General
Aviation.

The discussion is, is the aviation community's drug and alcohol habit--or
lack thereof--influenced by drug testing policy; do pilots obstain because
of drug tests, or do they obstain because they're pilots? Would it be
better for the aviation community to test after accidents only, and do
away
with the current random test practice and the associated expenses? 'Cause
if you have an accident, they're going to test you anyway, correct?

What are peoples' thoughts and experiences?

-c