drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

"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.

"Capt.Doug" 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.

Aviation professionals do all the above just fine without the use of drugs.
And, for god knows how many times, nobody is advocating that addicts or
chronic abusers of anything be in a position to put others at risk.

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."

If that was more than a very remote possibility, I'd agree. But it isn't

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?

Again, this scenario wasn't a problem before testing so it hasn't been
significantly reduced. Did you note the quote about the reduction in random
testing? If it was effective, why on earth is would it be reduced? Doesn't
this sort of logic look like the FAA at its worst?

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?

That logical fallacy is called "False Dilemma". Your position is not backed
by the evidence.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message They administered breathalyzers?

Yes.

D.