Denied medical / Alcohol & Drug Rehab

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote in message

I'll bet dollars to donuts that the folks who made the ruling have
got some good stats as well as field experience to back up
the two-year rule.

That is correct.... and this policy is quite permissive compared with many
other countries.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
"Gig 601XL Builder" wr
When one completes rehab, isn't one supposed to be clean?

--
Peter

The two year recidivism rate for those undergoing drug & alcohol
treatment is around 70%.

So wouldn't five years be reasonable then? Just to be safe? How about
ten?


The number I gave you was for 2 year recidivism (The time period in
question). The 70% is made up of those who walked out of rehab and had a
drink within the hour, those that did so on day 729 and everyone in between.

Since you seem to have trouble understanding this that means that 7 out of
every 10 people who go through rehab will start using within the first 2
years after they get out.

While I don't have the 2+ recidivism rate info handy I'd bet it is much
lower but you are right five or ten would be lower still.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet
So wouldn't five years be reasonable then? Just to be safe? How about
ten?


The number I gave you was for 2 year recidivism (The time period in
question). The 70% is made up of those who walked out of rehab and had a
drink within the hour, those that did so on day 729 and everyone in
between.

How about those who became addicted to prescribed painkillers?

In any case, I'm trying to find out what happens in the real world. I
expect to find that it's a, mostly, BS rubber stamp process. But, I'll
happily admit I'm wrong if I find otherwise. And, again, this sort of
policy would discourage addicts from seeking treatment, no? And, are there
any stats on which an opinion could be formed WRT risk of flying while
intoxicated? AFAIK, drugs and alcohol rarely are a factor in accidents. Of
those where they are, how many involved people who had been through rehab in
the prior two years?

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote

I'll bet dollars to donuts that the folks who made the ruling have
got some good stats as well as field experience to back up
the two-year rule.

I'll bet they don't. I think it's a CYA rubber stamp policy for which
numerous exceptions are made. Do you think that every person with a
Medical who goes through rehab gets it revoked for two years? And, I'll
also bet that this sort of policy encourages people to lie to their
medical examiners.


Why would you think they don't there is plenty of recidivism rate date
available/

I think they do if they don't lie about it.

So do you think all disqualifing conditions just encourage people to lie to
the medical examiners? Of course they do. But if you get caught the chances
of getting a waiver are going drop signifigantly. Not to mention 61.59.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@

So do you think all disqualifing conditions just encourage people to lie
to the medical examiners? Of course they do. But if you get caught the
chances of getting a waiver are going drop signifigantly. Not to mention
61.59.

And rightfully so. But I think this one would also discourage people from
getting treatment.

moo

Look at cigarette smokers for the proof most can not go 3 months! October
will be my 2 years cold turkey from 3 pack's a day. Surprisingly the same
day I quit was the same day as my first solo! Yep I swapped one for the
other Cigarette's for altitude & adrenalin.


"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:23:15 -0400, "Peter R."
wrote in
:

Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait
two
years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly
tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That
sounds unreasonable to me. I understand that they're going to appeal.

Why would that seem unreasonable?

When one completes rehab, isn't one supposed to be clean?

I'm not a professional in the field, but I do have some experience
with folks coming out of rehab.

Just doing some time away from one's drug of choice is a
great way to get started on the "clean and sober" life, but
it is no guarantee of success.

Someone who has put together two years is much, much more likely
to be able to keep up with the process of staying in recovery
than someone fresh out of rehab.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that the folks who made the ruling have
got some good stats as well as field experience to back up
the two-year rule.

Marty

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:56:23 -0700, "NW_PILOT"
wrote:

Look at cigarette smokers for the proof most can not go 3 months! October
will be my 2 years cold turkey from 3 pack's a day.

Do you still follow strangers down the street, sniffing at the pretty
blue fumes?

Do you still dream that you slipped and began smoking again?

(Congratulations, in any event


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:56:23 -0700, "NW_PILOT"
wrote:

Look at cigarette smokers for the proof most can not go 3 months! October
will be my 2 years cold turkey from 3 pack's a day.

Do you still follow strangers down the street, sniffing at the pretty
blue fumes?

Do you still dream that you slipped and began smoking again?

(Congratulations, in any event


-- all the best, Dan Ford


DATA POINT.....

I quit smoking after 20 something years Feb. 1 2000. To this day I still
have a dream every 2 or 3 weeks where I pull into the C-Store where I used
to by my cigs, walk in, buy a pack, get back into my car and light up. I
then realize after a couple of drags that "oh crap, I quit smoking.

This is the single most realistic dream I have ever had. The really strange
thing is that though I have changed cars 3 times since I quit, in the dream
I'm always in the car I'm currently driving.

I have no doubt if I smoked a single cigarette I would be just as addicted
as I was over 5 years ago.

Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:

This is the single most realistic dream I have ever had. The really strange
thing is that though I have changed cars 3 times since I quit, in the dream
I'm always in the car I'm currently driving.

A testament to the power of the subconscious mind.

Congratulations on your victory some 20 years ago.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet
So wouldn't five years be reasonable then? Just to be safe? How about
ten?


The number I gave you was for 2 year recidivism (The time period in
question). The 70% is made up of those who walked out of rehab and had a
drink within the hour, those that did so on day 729 and everyone in
between.

How about those who became addicted to prescribed painkillers?

In any case, I'm trying to find out what happens in the real world. I
expect to find that it's a, mostly, BS rubber stamp process. But, I'll
happily admit I'm wrong if I find otherwise. And, again, this sort of
policy would discourage addicts from seeking treatment, no? And, are
there any stats on which an opinion could be formed WRT risk of flying
while intoxicated? AFAIK, drugs and alcohol rarely are a factor in
accidents. Of those where they are, how many involved people who had been
through rehab in the prior two years?

moo


Pain killers, Vodka it really doesn't matter though alchohol recidivism is
one of the worst. You seem to have this idea that everything the FAA does is
"BS rubber stamp process" but there is a reason for that. A. If they looked
at every single issue on its' own they would get to an individual case 10 to
15 years after the persons whose case it was died of old age. B. There is
data out there and studing ststistics is one thing the government is very
good at.

I certainly hope you aren't saying that you don't think drug or alcohol
would not impair a persons ability to fly. If you are there will be a
*plonk* coming very soon.

I did a quick search and came up with a couple of items. One stragly enough
is from the Redwood City police department.

http://www.redwoodcity.org/police/drug-info.html

It doesn't have any cite to go with the statement so I take it with a HUGE
grain of salt but it states that 76% of private aircraft accidents are
alcohol related.

I'm sure more ligitimate data is out there I just don't have time right now
to look for it.