"Jim Fisher"
But where here is the evidence that this type of abuse was a problem in
the aviation community to begin with and that the huge financial cost and
emotional burden of ther invasion of privacy is warranted? Nobody's
posted it here yet.
I know it won't do a damn bit of good to give you what you ask for but if
you wanna take your head outta your ass long enough to educate yourself,
take a look at the following Mooboy:
Adorable. Feel better now? Gotta love Usenet, eh?
"For on-demand (unscheduled) air taxi fatal accidents, the percentage of
those pilots tested that were positive for alcohol declined from 7.4 in
the 1975 to 1981 period to 1.8 in the 1983 to 1988 period (NTSB, 1984 and
NTSB, 1992). "
Hey stoopid, the topic is random drug testing. The above isn't about drugs
and does not address use of intoxicants away from the job.
"We have already reported to you that the Safety Board began documenting
the abuse of alcohol and other drugs in transportation accidents in the
1970's. By the early 1980's, it became clear that a problem existed in all
modes of transportation and that not much was being done about it."
The problem of intoxication by drugs in aviation accidents was almost
non-existent. Read the part labled "Aviation". Where is the decline in
accident related drug intoxication?
"From 1983 to 1988, no pilot in a fatal commuter crash tested positive for
alcohol. However, the pilot of one of these fatal crashes did test
positive for a metabolite of cocaine.
One. Wow. Serious problem. And I'd like to see how they concluded (they
did) that cocaine intoxication was a factor in the crash.
(******)Clearly, progress has been made and the aviation industry has now
been permitted to reduce the random drug test rate to 25 percent of
covered employees(*******)."
Exactly what progress? Show me the numbers that identify a significant
safety problem that has been effectively reduced by random drug testing.
And, if it's so effective, why are they reducing the test rate? Hello?
Does that make sense to you?
arf
|