drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

"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.

"cylon" wrote in message
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.

They administered breathalyzers? Drug testing is different from alcohol
testing. There's a big difference between being impaired on the job and a
few days before, no?

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote

They administered breathalyzers? Drug testing is different from alcohol
testing. There's a big difference between being impaired on the job and a
few days before, no?

moo

I can't speak to the part 135 operators, but I have a commercial driver's
license, and yes, they come to your place of employment and do a
breathalyzer, on the spot.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message "Happy Dog"
wrote

They administered breathalyzers? Drug testing is different from alcohol
testing. There's a big difference between being impaired on the job and
a
few days before, no?


I can't speak to the part 135 operators, but I have a commercial driver's
license, and yes, they come to your place of employment and do a
breathalyzer, on the spot.

And, like I said, that's a very different kind of test. I have no issues
with it. Operating a commercial vehicle while under the influence of
alcohol is very different from operating a commercial vehicle a couple days
after you smoked a joint.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message Operating a commercial vehicle while under the
influence of
alcohol is very different from operating a commercial vehicle a couple
days
after you smoked a joint.

It may be unfair that one can not partake in getting high when one has
several days to recover. You have any reasonable way to accomodate the
casual user and still weed out the chronic users?

In the end, most professional pilots accept that they can't partake. It's a
compromise and flying is full of compromises.

D.

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
"Happy Dog" wrote in message Operating a commercial vehicle while under
the
influence of alcohol is very different from operating a commercial vehicle
a couple
days after you smoked a joint.

It may be unfair that one can not partake in getting high when one has
several days to recover. You have any reasonable way to accomodate the
casual user and still weed out the chronic users?
In the end, most professional pilots accept that they can't partake. It's
a
compromise and flying is full of compromises.

The issue I was raising is efficacy and cost effectiveness. And, the
pro-testing camp don't have solid evidence that random drug testing of
aviation professionals is either. The debate quickly degrades into
name-calling and accusations that people who oppose it are crazy or drug
users themselves. But, stick to the efficacy and cost-effectiveness issues
and it doesn't look justified. It's promoted by hype and hysteria.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
The issue I was raising is efficacy and cost effectiveness. And, the
pro-testing camp don't have solid evidence that random drug testing of
aviation professionals is either. The debate quickly degrades into
name-calling and accusations that people who oppose it are crazy or drug
users themselves. But, stick to the efficacy and cost-effectiveness
issues
and it doesn't look justified. It's promoted by hype and hysteria.

How would the pro-testing camp measure the lost productivity caused by a
chronic marijuana smoker? Even if the chronic user isn't under the
influence, studies have shown that his/her performance is not 100%. Chronic
users exhibit less ambition (more sick days), more anxiety (less likely to
get along with customers and co-workers), and short term memory impairment
(forget the landing gear). These traits are measured in scientific
laboratories.

A pilot exhibiting symptoms similar to those of a chronic user can cost me
more in one day than my drug abatement program costs for a whole year. It's
hard enough to contain costs for stupid pilot tricks without adding dopers
to the roster. Are you including these costs in your cost-effectiveness
study?

Add this cost to your study. If an accident happened, what would the
plaintif's lawyers have to say about employing a doper? "Ladies and
gentlemen of the jury, consider the negligence of this operator who put a
stoner in command of a airplane transporting the public. He unneccessarily
endangered my clients." At that point, it doesn't matter if the pilot wasn't
stoned. The image that a failed test will imprint on a jury will still be
there. Is this cost in your cost-effectiveness study?

Here's a cost you may have forgotten in your study. Eighty-five percent of
my clientele are repeat customers. They (most anyway) are of high social
standing. My business would suffer immeasureably if word of mouth spread
that I was using stoners for pilots. How does your study quantify this cost?

Life is unfair. All things aviation are a compromise. You want to get paid
to fly, or you want to join former Miami Dolphin Ricki Williams?

D.

"Happy Dog" wrote in message They administered breathalyzers?

Yes.

D.

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.

Are there? These people would have to be total idiots. Now, what is
more likely:
We have these total idiots applying for jobs, often with some pretty
impressive looking credentials, OR
The tests aren't quite as accurate as you think they are, and have a
fairly high false positive rate?

The question can be answered thus - what kind of GUARANTEE does the
drug testing operation give you? In other words, how much will they
pay in DAMAGES if they are wrong? If the answer is "a whole lot less
than a ruined career and reputation is worth" well, then, you have your
answer.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message - what kind of GUARANTEE does the
drug testing operation give you?

To provide for the non-believers, the collection method was modified. The
specimen is split into 2 containers. Only one is tested. If the results are
positive, the individual who provided the sample may have the second half
tested at the laboratory of his/her choice.

To answer your first question, yes, there are idiots that fail their
pre-employment tests.

D.