Denied medical / Alcohol & Drug Rehab

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet
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?

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.

And I haven't seen any of it. But, my understanding is that alcohol or
drugs are rarely an issue in aviation accidents. I'm curious as to what
percentage of thoise where they are involve people who've been through
rehab.

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.

Of course not. I meant risk of a former addict using their vice of choice
and flying.

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.

Your credibility just took a major hit. *THINK*

moo

but it states that 76% of private aircraft accidents are
alcohol related.

I agree. In most cases, there was an impact with the ground, which only
goes to show the pilot wasn't high enough.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"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

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


Every now and then I still have the urge to have a smoke but when that
happens I go play with my airplane or read a airplane book.

Look at the relapse rate for meth addicts!!! My sister is a meth freak so is
my mother even when they have been clean for 6 months I would not trust them
behind the wheel of a car, nor would I take them in an airplane that they
had access to the controls


"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:Ky7De.40416$DC2.24030@okepread01...

"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.

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet
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?

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.

And I haven't seen any of it. But, my understanding is that alcohol or
drugs are rarely an issue in aviation accidents. I'm curious as to what
percentage of thoise where they are involve people who've been through
rehab.

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.

Of course not. I meant risk of a former addict using their vice of choice
and flying.

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.

Your credibility just took a major hit. *THINK*

Well since you dared me...

Here's your report straight from the Feds.

http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/A...LTXT/00_21.pdf

See, they study this ****.

Between 1994-1998 765 FATAL accidents involving drugs or drink.

Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:

Well since you dared me...

Here's your report straight from the Feds.

http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/A...LTXT/00_21.pdf

See, they study this ****.

Between 1994-1998 765 FATAL accidents involving drugs or drink.

Did you see the drugs listed in the table in that report? Not only were
illegal drugs and disallowed medicines listed, but this report also
included FAA-approved drugs, such as Ibuprofen, Acetaminophen, and
Pseudoephedrine. Are the Feds really counting pilots found with these
drugs in this study?

There probably isn't one flight I take where at least one of those drugs
above wouldn't be found in my body.



--
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 =----

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:

Well since you dared me...

Here's your report straight from the Feds.

http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/A...LTXT/00_21.pdf

See, they study this ****.

Between 1994-1998 765 FATAL accidents involving drugs or drink.

Did you see the drugs listed in the table in that report? Not only were
illegal drugs and disallowed medicines listed, but this report also
included FAA-approved drugs, such as Ibuprofen, Acetaminophen, and
Pseudoephedrine. Are the Feds really counting pilots found with these
drugs in this study?

There probably isn't one flight I take where at least one of those drugs
above wouldn't be found in my body.

Plus even for the illegal or FAA-prohibited drugs, the study didn't set any
concentration threshold (they used a threshold only for alcohol), so there's
no way to know if they were detecting usage that was either recent or
pharmacologically significant (who cares if the pilot smoked a joint two
weeks ago?).

Still, they report excessive alcohol concentration in 4-9% of fatal
accidents, which is way higher than the Nall Report's estimate of 1.1% (for
alcohol and all other drugs combined). I wonder what accounts for the
discrepancy.

--Gary

Still, they report excessive alcohol concentration in 4-9% of fatal
accidents, which is way higher than the Nall Report's estimate of 1.1% (for
alcohol and all other drugs combined). I wonder what accounts for the
discrepancy.

Decay, actually. Leave a dead body to sit for a while, and one of the
decay products will be alcohol. Since bodies in aircraft crashes are
often not recovered immediately, this is one of the problems with the
toxicology. It's well known, and the NTSB is aware of the problem, but
certain organizations with an axe to grind aren't interested in giving
readers the complete story. The Nall report is based on NTSB probable
cause, which takes such factors into account. The study probably uses
raw toxicology data.

Michael

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
Here's your report straight from the Feds.

http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/A...LTXT/00_21.pdf

See, they study this ****.

Between 1994-1998 765 FATAL accidents involving drugs or drink.

Now I dare you to learn how to interpret a report. We are talking about
illegal drug use and alcohol. The number is much smaller. (But, still too
many and a higher number than I thought.) One thing I'm unclear on is the
number of pilots who had a combination of drug classes in their samples.
(ie. Are any counted more than once.)

moo

"Michael" wrote in message news:

Still, they report excessive alcohol concentration in 4-9% of fatal
accidents, which is way higher than the Nall Report's estimate of 1.1%
(for
alcohol and all other drugs combined). I wonder what accounts for the
discrepancy.

Decay, actually. Leave a dead body to sit for a while, and one of the
decay products will be alcohol. Since bodies in aircraft crashes are
often not recovered immediately, this is one of the problems with the
toxicology. It's well known, and the NTSB is aware of the problem, but
certain organizations with an axe to grind aren't interested in giving
readers the complete story. The Nall report is based on NTSB probable
cause, which takes such factors into account. The study probably uses
raw toxicology data.

Yes, I neglected to point that out. But, the majority of samples shouldn't
have been affected by this. Not to a level of .04% anyway.

moo