drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

"C J Campbell" wrote in message The testing is worthless. Otherwise I
think the biggest factor in weeding
out problem pilots has been a cultural change.

That cultural change didn't come about until drug testing was instituted.
Chicken and egg kind of thing.

The truth is that if someone really tests positive on the tests, then his
co-workers probably already knew about his problem. I think most testing
centers would be hard pressed to come up with an example of actually
finding
genuine abusers that no one knew about already.

I agree with you as far as social abusers are concerned (drinking alcohol
and smoking marijuana). However, I disagree with you when it comes to
prescription drug abusers. People addicted to pain-killers,
anti-depressants, and other illicit pills may be closet users. Many times
their own families aren't aware of their dependency. How about heroin? Ever
see any pilots shooting up at the bar? Is a heroin user going to want his
colleagues to know about his habit? Will his non-aviation user friends care
if he flies at less than 100%?

Eventually, the abuser will have to decide if they want to get high with
drugs or with an airplane. That is the worth of testing. It doesn't happen
overnight. Without drug testing regulations, it may never happen, until it's
too late.

D.

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
The truth is that if someone really tests positive on the tests, then his
co-workers probably already knew about his problem. I think most testing
centers would be hard pressed to come up with an example of actually
finding genuine abusers that no one knew about already.

I agree with you as far as social abusers are concerned (drinking alcohol
and smoking marijuana). However, I disagree with you when it comes to
prescription drug abusers. People addicted to pain-killers,
anti-depressants, and other illicit pills may be closet users. Many times
their own families aren't aware of their dependency. How about heroin?
Ever
see any pilots shooting up at the bar? Is a heroin user going to want his
colleagues to know about his habit? Will his non-aviation user friends
care
if he flies at less than 100%?

Nobody always flies at 100%. I agree that it's hard to detect closet
abusers. 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.

Eventually, the abuser will have to decide if they want to get high with
drugs or with an airplane. That is the worth of testing. It doesn't happen
overnight. Without drug testing regulations, it may never happen, until
it's
too late.

With more invasive monitoring and spending we could weed out other potential
problems too. Government as nanny. Spend more money. Yesss...

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
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:

From James E. Hall, Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...iving/s1p1.htm

Excerpts:

"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). "

"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 U.S. Federal Aviation Administration reported that 1993, was the fourth
year in a row that aviation workers tested positive at a rate less than one
percent. Because of these low rates, new regulations that became effective
in 1995, will permit the random testing rates for those industries to be
reduced from 50 percent to 25 percent"

"Until recently, very little was known about the use of impairing drugs
(including alcohol) by the operators of railroad trains, airplanes, ships
and heavy trucks. In the United States, the data indicated that a
significant problem existed and that strong action was required to control
it."

"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. In 1988, a Trans-Colorado Airlines, Fairchild
Metro III, operating as Continental Express, with two crew members and 15
passengers on board, crashed short of the runway at Durango, Colorado,
killing the two crew members and seven passengers. The NTSB found that the
captain's use of cocaine degraded his performance and contributed to the
accident (NTSB, 1989).

"Pre-employment tests accounted for 49 percent of the positive total in 1991
and 44 percent in 1992. Random tests of current employees accounted for the
46 percent of the positives in 1991 and 50 percent in 1992. Return to duty,
reasonable cause, and periodic tests, in that order, accounted for the
remaining positive tests in 1992. There were no positive post-accident tests
in 1992 and four in 1991. Positive results from random tests remained below
1 percent for the third consecutive year. Flight crew accounted for 42
positive tests in 1991 and 32 in 1992. By far the largest number of positive
tests come from maintenance personnel (1,586 in 1991 and 1,598 in 1992).
Positive tests for both years indicated that marijuana was most prevalent
(52 percent in 1991 and 57 percent in 1992), followed by cocaine (42 percent
in 1991 and 33 percent in 1992), amphetamines (4 percent in 1991 and 4.7
percent in 1992), opiates (5 percent in 1991 and 4 percent in 1992), and PCP
(1 percent in 1991 and 0.7 percent in 1992). Some persons tested positive
for more than one drug (DOT, 1992,1994). (******)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(*******)."

"I would like to note that the transportation workforce has a very low
positive drug test rate compared to the total workforce in the United
States. A large independent testing lab reported that less than 3 percent of
transportation workers in safety-sensitive positions tested positive for
drugs in 1992 and 1993 while about 10 percent of the general workforce
tested positive in these years. (SKB, 1994) That said, there must be no
tolerance, absolutely zero, for alcohol and drug use in transportation. We
have had great success, but we are only half-way there. Obviously, testing
alone will not solve this problem. Testing does have a deterrent effect, but
effective programs must also include strategies to identify and treat
abusers before it is too late."

--
Jim Fisher

"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

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
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?

You can't read with your head up your ass, Mooboy. Try again. The article
I posted is exactly what you've been requesting and is complete with plenty
of sources for the facts presented. The main fact presented is that DRUG
TESTING IS EFFECTIVE.

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
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?

You can't read with your head up your ass, Mooboy. Try again. The
article I posted is exactly what you've been requesting and is complete
with plenty of sources for the facts presented. The main fact presented
is that DRUG TESTING IS EFFECTIVE.

Kind of makes you look lame when you snip almost the entire response and
then drop a few insults and shout your claim again. Children are welcome on
Usenet though. The article you posted isn't what I requested and I
explained why. What is it EFFECTIVE at doing? Hey stoopid, if there wasn't
a significant problem with drug related accidents, what, exactly is the
purpose it serves? How are we all significantly safer because of it? The
evidence posted here does not address this issue. So, wise guy, tell us how
it's effective and how this justifies the cost and invasion of privacy.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message Kind of makes you look lame ...

You stooped to name calling too, which doesn't help your argument.

The article you posted isn't what I requested and I explained why.

Actually, the Metroliner accident is what you requested. The coroner
concluded that the captain wasn't high at the time of the accident, but his
prior cocaine usage had left him fatigued which did contribute to the crash.
He had used cocaine during his time off, which you argue in favor of, and
then crashed because of the after effects. Kind of ruins your argument.

How are we all significantly safer because of it? The
evidence posted here does not address this issue. So, wise guy, tell us
how
it's effective and how this justifies the cost and invasion of privacy.

You argue that this crash was statistically insignificant. I ask you-
WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THOSE 17 LIVES?
How many lost lives will justify drug testing? How many crashes does it take
for you to justify drug testing?

Without passengers, there would be no airlines. The evidence from the NTSB
justifies testing if for no other reason than public perception. Most people
are very afraid of flying. Drug and alcohol testing lends a little bit more
confidence to them. Would you want a stoner pilot with your family aboard?

As for privacy, you give that up long before the drug testing phase of
training.

D.