"gatt" wrote in message 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.

My 135 drug testing program is a very small percentage of my operating
costs.

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?

Before drug & alcohol abatement programs, post accident testing wasn't
required unless local law enforcement suspected impairment.
No testing what-so-ever was required unless suspicions arose. Chronic
drinkers and users were not detected because they could function without
causing suspicion. I know pilots who have left the bar and flown trips
without anyone realizing they were impaired. A small part of the commercial
pilot group partaked in their desires before flying because the chances of
getting caught were slight. They could function on an acceptable level while
impaired.

Those people have slowly been weeded out by randon testing. Randon testing
is the one thing that has deterred the chronic users and drinkers. Either
they quit or were caught. It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen.
Contemporary commercial pilot groups (in general) place greater emphasis on
abiding by drug and alcohol regulations than their earlier piers. I don't
have statistics to back this up, just my 27 years of commercial flying
experience.

In the old days, an employer could demand a drug test as a condition for
employment, but incurred a legal exposure. The company that shared a
negative result with other prospective employers was sure to get sued. With
federal drug and alcohol testing requirements, a company's legal exposure
is greatly reduced. Perhaps the operators who still complain about the
expense of mandated testing forget about the expense of lawyers?

Then there are the pre-employment tests. The prospective employee knows that
pre-employment testing is required. The prospective employee knows that s/he
can decline or postpone the testing. Yet still, there are a few who fail
pre-employment testing. Do we want these lowly intelligent people flying our
families?

Testing isn't the only part of the program. Many forget, or don't know, that
education about recognizing impaired individuals is part of the program.
Recognizing colleagues who need help with a dependency problem is part of
the training. Steering these people with problems to professional help and
rehabilitation is part of the program. Those operators who complain about
the cost probably don't care much about their employees.

What are peoples' thoughts and experiences?

I am a Part 135 operator. I am a Part 121 pilot. Drug and alcohol abatement
programs are here to stay. I welcome them.

D.