"Capt.Doug" wrote in message

You argued that a drug test will show positive even if the user is no
longer
under the influence. You argued that casual use during time off shouldn't
be
cause for failing a drug test.

None of that is an argument in favour of flying while affected by anything.
I can be hungover and not fit for flying but have a zero BAC. That argument
applies to anything that might affect an avaition professional's ability to
perform up to standard.

This crash, involving a casual user no longer
under the influence, undermines your argument.

You know it was a "casual" user how? Without knowing the details of the
investigation, you can't conclude this. This pilot could have been similarly
affected by any number of things. There's nothing special about fatigue
from amphetimine abuse.

You're big on hyperbole but short on facts.

Where are *your* facts?

You are the one making the claim and trying to present evidence in favour of
it. Trying to shift the burden of proof is so unbecoming.

Where's the evidence that there has been a significant drop in accidents
because of random testing? (I'm in favour of testing where there's
probable
cause.)

Where's the evidence that there hasn't been a significant drop?

Accident reports. Lordy. If there was a problem with impaired pilots and
accident reports showing this, you'd be all over it. Someone here would
shove the stats in my face and I'd have to admit I was wrong. (It does
happen.)

The problem with reasonable suspicion is that usually it comes too late-
after the crash.

Where are the statistics showing this?

Random testing keeps pilots from using before a probable cause test
is needed. It's called prevention.

I'm OK with that as long as someone shows me that something is being
prevented.


If you wish to argue that random testing is justified because it gives
the
flying public a false sense of reduced danger, go ahead. But that's like
arguing in favour of the crazy things being dome in the name of security
now. Or do you think we're safer because of them too? Do you think that
drug testing is the best use of the funds allocated to it? Again, if
public perception is your goal, we can agree to disagree. But I still
haven't
seen the evidence that the accident or incident rate has been reduced.

You haven't produced evidence that is hasn't been reduced.

You just don't get this debate thing, do you? FWIW, the lack of evidence
where there should be some and easily obtained *is* evidence that it hasn't
been reduced.

Nor have you haven't produced evidence that the costs are significant. I
have already stated that the costs for my 135 operation are very, very
low.

Your company, your rules. I've no problem with that. I don't think that
random testing should be outlawed. I just don't think it's effective at
reducing accidents. If you sleep better at night because of it, the worst I
can say is that you may be misguided or erring on the side of caution. (And
I don't think, in this case, that's a bad thing.)

In pure speculation, do you think that the Metroliner captain would have
used cocaine casually if he knew that he could be randomly tested and the
metabolites would cause a positive for up to 3 days afterward?

Likely not. But we can't know this. Obviously he was enough of an idiot to
be flying while severely fatigued. So, maybe.

le moo