drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

"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.

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message news:fANwd.4675
"Happy Dog" wrote in message Kind of makes you look lame ...

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

Only after the other poster resorted to it. Look it up.

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,

Huh? Did I argue that? No, I didn't.

then crashed because of the after effects. Kind of ruins your argument.

Only if you're unable to follow it.

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?

You're big on hyperbole but short on facts. Did I argue that this crash was
statistically insignificant? No, I didn't. BTW, the pilot could have had a
similar problem with alcohol and had it go undetected.

How many lost lives will justify drug testing? How many crashes does it
take
for you to justify drug testing?

Very few. But I want to see where there's been a reduction. And this
hasn't been demonstrated.

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?

Do you have a particular thing for the False Dilemma fallacy? Again, you
support your argument with claims not in evidence. Where were the stoner
pilots? In any good commercial operation, pilots who act like they're
somewhere else, for any reason or no reason, are dealt with. 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.)
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. It's more
"drugs are bad so anything that reduces their use must be good". FWIW, I
have seen pilots with alcohol abuse problems whos ability is impaired
because of them. I'll bet almost anyone who's been around a commercial
operation for long has. They don't fly while intoxicated, but they're
affected just the same. But they can't be busted by any kind of testing.
They are dealt with other ways. Just they always have been.

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

Sure. My medical records are in half dozen different places now. I don't
like it but I can't see any easy way to improve that part of the process.
But I see no reason for people to give up more privacy without good reason.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message Only after the other poster resorted to it.

Two wrongs don't make a right. You impugn yourself by stooping to the lower
level of your debator.

Huh? Did I argue that? No, I didn't.

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

Only if you're unable to follow it.

I am not very intelligent. Perhaps you could write so that I can follow it.

You're big on hyperbole but short on facts.

Where are *your* facts?

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? The problem
with reasonable suspicion is that usually it comes too late- after the
crash. Random testing keeps pilots from using before a probable cause test
is needed. It's called prevention.

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. In the last few
years, how many airline accidents have occurred in the US due to impairment?
None. Prevention is the key. Has drug testing prevented any accidents? Can't
measure something that hasn't happened.

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.

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? I don't know
about that individual, but most of my colleagues have long ago decided it
isn't worth it.

It's more "drugs are bad so anything that reduces their use must be
good".

Then you haven't paid much attention to my posts.

But I see no reason for people to give up more privacy without good
reason.

We agree about privacy. We disagree about the good reason.

D.

"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