Denied medical / Alcohol & Drug Rehab

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
"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.


Did you READ the report. It was 7% not 76% percent 124 out of 1683.
The rate varied by year from 4% to 9%. Now I would argue that 1% is
still too high, but I know perfection isn't going to ever happen.

Margy

"Margy" wrote in message news:rChDe.9$fb1.
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Between 1994-1998 765 FATAL accidents involving drugs or drink.
Did you READ the report. It was 7% not 76% percent 124 out of 1683. The
rate varied by year from 4% to 9%. Now I would argue that 1% is still too
high, but I know perfection isn't going to ever happen.

You can argue that .00001% is still too high. But, no matter what you
argue, guys like gig will still waste time with inflammatory rhetoric.
Watch. This will get us no closer to answering the original questions. The
mere mention of drugs or alcohol brings out the government as nanny zealots
toute de suite. The results are predictable. Same problems. No answers
save more regulations and enforcement. Are people who go through rehab a
greater risk or not? Simple question, eh?

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
"Margy" wrote in message news:rChDe.9$fb1.
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Between 1994-1998 765 FATAL accidents involving drugs or drink.
Did you READ the report. It was 7% not 76% percent 124 out of 1683. The
rate varied by year from 4% to 9%. Now I would argue that 1% is still
too high, but I know perfection isn't going to ever happen.

You can argue that .00001% is still too high. But, no matter what you
argue, guys like gig will still waste time with inflammatory rhetoric.
Watch. This will get us no closer to answering the original questions.
The mere mention of drugs or alcohol brings out the government as nanny
zealots toute de suite. The results are predictable. Same problems. No
answers save more regulations and enforcement. Are people who go through
rehab a greater risk or not? Simple question, eh?


Inflammatory rhetoric? Your the guy who thinks that people with a KNOWN drug
or alcohol problem shouldn't have to wait a certain amount of time after
treatment before they get thier flight privlages back. Jeez.

The report I listed was just to counter your proposal that the FAA didn't
even study the issue.

"Margy" wrote in message
...
Did you READ the report. It was 7% not 76% percent 124 out of 1683. The
rate varied by year from 4% to 9%. Now I would argue that 1% is still too
high, but I know perfection isn't going to ever happen.


Margy, the 76% number came from a VERY quick Google of "Aircraft accidents
alcohol" from I beleive Redwood City PD. I said at the time I took that
number with a grain of salt.

Though I have no idea where the P.D. got their figures the 76% wasn't fatal
accidents while the second report was just fatal accident.

And no, I didn't spend more than about 5 minutes reading this report but
it's post was mainly to sho the Happy Dog that counter to his belief the FAA
did study this stuff before they made the rule.

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.

Actually, that's not true. The NTSB believes that the majority of
cases where toxicology found alcohol in the system are indeed due to
this. The true magnitude of the drinking-and-flying accident rate is
acknowledged by the NTSB to be tiny.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

Actually, that's not true. The NTSB believes that the majority of
cases where toxicology found alcohol in the system are indeed due to
this. The true magnitude of the drinking-and-flying accident rate is
acknowledged by the NTSB to be tiny.



That may well be the case but could one of the reasons it is tiny is that
the FAA makes those that go through rehab wait 2 years and jump through
hoops to get thier medical back? That issue is what got this thread started
in the first place.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet
"Margy" wrote in message news:rChDe.9$fb1.
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Between 1994-1998 765 FATAL accidents involving drugs or drink.
Did you READ the report. It was 7% not 76% percent 124 out of 1683. The
rate varied by year from 4% to 9%. Now I would argue that 1% is still
too high, but I know perfection isn't going to ever happen.

You can argue that .00001% is still too high. But, no matter what you
argue, guys like gig will still waste time with inflammatory rhetoric.
Watch. This will get us no closer to answering the original questions.
The mere mention of drugs or alcohol brings out the government as nanny
zealots toute de suite. The results are predictable. Same problems. No
answers save more regulations and enforcement. Are people who go through
rehab a greater risk or not? Simple question, eh?


Inflammatory rhetoric? Your the guy who thinks that people with a KNOWN
drug or alcohol problem shouldn't have to wait a certain amount of time
after treatment before they get thier flight privlages back. Jeez.

I didn't say that.

The report I listed was just to counter your proposal that the FAA didn't
even study the issue.

That either. So get stuffed.

moo

"Michael" wrote in

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.

Actually, that's not true. The NTSB believes that the majority of
cases where toxicology found alcohol in the system are indeed due to
this. The true magnitude of the drinking-and-flying accident rate is
acknowledged by the NTSB to be tiny.

Got a source for that? I'm surprised that the samples would have so often
deteriorated to that point. I'll do a bit of research and post what I find.

Thanks for the info.

moo

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:qtsDe.40436$DC2.8316@okepread01...

"Margy" wrote in message
...
Did you READ the report. It was 7% not 76% percent 124 out of 1683. The
rate varied by year from 4% to 9%. Now I would argue that 1% is still
too high, but I know perfection isn't going to ever happen.


Margy, the 76% number came from a VERY quick Google of "Aircraft accidents
alcohol" from I beleive Redwood City PD. I said at the time I took that
number with a grain of salt.

It's so absurd that your excuse isn't credible. You were just trying to
make a case using whatever info you could find.

moo

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet
"Michael" wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

Actually, that's not true. The NTSB believes that the majority of
cases where toxicology found alcohol in the system are indeed due to
this. The true magnitude of the drinking-and-flying accident rate is
acknowledged by the NTSB to be tiny.

That may well be the case but could one of the reasons it is tiny is that
the FAA makes those that go through rehab wait 2 years and jump through
hoops to get thier medical back? That issue is what got this thread
started in the first place.

It could be. Got any evidence of this? *That* is the issue that got this
thread started.

I'm actually quite pleased at the lack of knee-jerk responses that distil
the issue to a pro/con drug use one; complete with the attendant political
arguments and accusations of perfidy and substance abuse. Things are
looking up on Usenet!

moo