A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 14th 04, 09:18 PM
gatt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?


Casual debate he

Something like .1% of the pilots randomly tested for alcohol and drugs (one
was .5%, I believe) tested positive in 2004. That's one in a thousand. As
a result of this percentage, the random test rate will stay at 25% for drugs
and something similar for alcohol.

Meanwhile, commercial pilots and operators say that the cost of a
Part-135-type drug and alcohol testing program is nearly cost prohibitive,
so it can be argued that this sort of testing program hurts General
Aviation.

The discussion is, is the aviation community's drug and alcohol habit--or
lack thereof--influenced by drug testing policy; do pilots obstain because
of drug tests, or do they obstain because they're pilots? Would it be
better for the aviation community to test after accidents only, and do away
with the current random test practice and the associated expenses? 'Cause
if you have an accident, they're going to test you anyway, correct?

What are peoples' thoughts and experiences?

-c


  #2  
Old December 14th 04, 10:23 PM
Bob Gardner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It's a feel-good program for the government, allowing them to show the
public that they are "doing something." It has no practical effect.

Bob Gardner

"gatt" wrote in message
...

Casual debate he

Something like .1% of the pilots randomly tested for alcohol and drugs
(one
was .5%, I believe) tested positive in 2004. That's one in a thousand.
As
a result of this percentage, the random test rate will stay at 25% for
drugs
and something similar for alcohol.

Meanwhile, commercial pilots and operators say that the cost of a
Part-135-type drug and alcohol testing program is nearly cost prohibitive,
so it can be argued that this sort of testing program hurts General
Aviation.

The discussion is, is the aviation community's drug and alcohol habit--or
lack thereof--influenced by drug testing policy; do pilots obstain because
of drug tests, or do they obstain because they're pilots? Would it be
better for the aviation community to test after accidents only, and do
away
with the current random test practice and the associated expenses? 'Cause
if you have an accident, they're going to test you anyway, correct?

What are peoples' thoughts and experiences?

-c




  #3  
Old December 14th 04, 10:32 PM
OtisWinslow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think "probably cause" testing only would be more cost effective. The
war on drugs is just one more handout to businesses involved in it.

I don't drink, smoke or do drugs because I wish to take care
of my health and continue to fly. Most pilots I know take good
care of their health for the same reason. There's always going
to be the occasional fool who feels differently.

Keep in mind however that drug testing is a BIG business and
the vendors providing these services are going to lobby any
way they can to keep it going.


"gatt" wrote in message
...

Casual debate he

Something like .1% of the pilots randomly tested for alcohol and drugs
(one
was .5%, I believe) tested positive in 2004. That's one in a thousand.
As
a result of this percentage, the random test rate will stay at 25% for
drugs
and something similar for alcohol.

Meanwhile, commercial pilots and operators say that the cost of a
Part-135-type drug and alcohol testing program is nearly cost prohibitive,
so it can be argued that this sort of testing program hurts General
Aviation.

The discussion is, is the aviation community's drug and alcohol habit--or
lack thereof--influenced by drug testing policy; do pilots obstain because
of drug tests, or do they obstain because they're pilots? Would it be
better for the aviation community to test after accidents only, and do
away
with the current random test practice and the associated expenses? 'Cause
if you have an accident, they're going to test you anyway, correct?

What are peoples' thoughts and experiences?

-c




  #4  
Old December 14th 04, 11:15 PM
Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bob Gardner wrote:

It's a feel-good program for the government, allowing them to show the
public that they are "doing something." It has no practical effect.

snip

If they were really serious about highway safety they'd give people a
'driving' test, not a drug test. Same applies to pilots.

I don't much care if you're high, liquored up, haven't slept in three days,
or just plain incompetent. The victims are just as dead.

--
Frank....H
  #5  
Old December 14th 04, 11:26 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:32:06 GMT, "OtisWinslow"
wrote in
::

Keep in mind however that drug testing is a BIG business and
the vendors providing these services are going to lobby any
way they can to keep it going.


Very BIG:
http://www.questdiagnostics.com/empl...ugtesting.html
  #6  
Old December 14th 04, 11:27 PM
Jim Fisher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"gatt" wrote in message
The discussion is, is the aviation community's drug and alcohol habit--or
lack thereof--influenced by drug testing policy; do pilots obstain because
of drug tests, or do they obstain because they're pilots?


I personally think drug testing throughout all areas of transportation is a
Very Good Idea.

Back in my younger years, I quit smoking pot because I got a job that did
random drug testing. That's good for y'all 'cause I was in charge of
remotely controlling the flows and pressures for thousands of miles of very
high pressure natural gas pipeline. It would not be good if I forgot to
open or shut a valve when I was supposed to do so.

I didn't smoke pot while flying because that would be stupid.

I don't smoke pot now because my short term memory is bad enough as it is.

Testing kits aren't "prohibitively expensive" as your buddy says.
Twenty-five people can be tested for about $250.00. That may be "expensive"
depending on how many you must do but I would not put it in the
"prohibitively expensive" category.

Either way, the cost of NOT doing pre, post and interim drug screening would
be much higher than I'm willing to pay. Too damn many people are like I
used to be.

--
Jim Fisher


  #7  
Old December 15th 04, 12:45 AM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

gatt wrote:
Something like .1% of the pilots randomly tested for alcohol and

drugs (one
was .5%, I believe) tested positive in 2004. That's one in a

thousand. As
a result of this percentage, the random test rate will stay at 25%

for drugs
and something similar for alcohol.


I seem to recall that the false positive rate for the lower-cost tests
(those that don't cost hundreds of dollars per test) is also something
like 0.1%. Perhaps that means the actual rate is zero, and the only
effect of the policy is to increase costs and ruin careers while doing
nothing to improve safety. That would be about par for the FAA.

Meanwhile, commercial pilots and operators say that the cost of a
Part-135-type drug and alcohol testing program is nearly cost

prohibitive,
so it can be argued that this sort of testing program hurts General
Aviation.


Which suggests to me that they're probably not using the expensive
tests with low false-positive potential.

The discussion is, is the aviation community's drug and alcohol

habit--or
lack thereof--influenced by drug testing policy; do pilots obstain

because
of drug tests, or do they obstain because they're pilots?


Pilots don't abstain. I know lots of professional pilots, and as a
whole they're the heaviest drinkers I know. They don't drink when
they're flying, though. I also know quite a few who quit smoking dope
after testing kicked in. None of them was ever high on the job,
though. I weigh in solidly on the "Testing is a waste of time and
money" side of the equation.

What are peoples' thoughts and experiences?


In my last job, we all ****ed in a bottle. We worked with radioactive
materials in refineries and chemical plants, so it just made sense.
Yeah, right.

The only positive that ever came up was from my boss - who was rabidly
anti-drug. He tested positive for opiates (heroin). He screamed
bloody murder, and because he was a senior manager and not a peon, an
investigation was done. There was a retest, which also showed positive
for opiates, but at a lower concentration. However, when the sample
was sent to a proper lab, it turned out to be a false positive - a
related chemical which is a breakdown product of poppy seeds. That
poppyseed bagel did him in.

In spite of this, I found the remains of a marijuana cigarette (a
roach) in the bathroom of our shop - only used by employees who were on
the program. Somehow they were passing the random tests - meaning they
had figured out a way to beat it. Truth is, I know exactly who was
high on the job - it was obvious from the quality of the work.
However, I couldn't have him fired for it - he was passing the tests.
One fine day he missed not one but THREE flights as I waited for him at
the airport and the customer got ****ed. We never got another contract
at that facility again. He was fired for this.

I don't have much respect for drug testing. I think it's a way for
lazy managers to hand over the tough decisions to a technician.
Michael

  #8  
Old December 15th 04, 12:48 AM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


gatt wrote:
Something like .1% of the pilots randomly tested for alcohol and

drugs (one
was .5%, I believe) tested positive in 2004. That's one in a

thousand. As
a result of this percentage, the random test rate will stay at 25%

for drugs
and something similar for alcohol.


I seem to recall that the false positive rate for the lower-cost tests
(those that don't cost hundreds of dollars per test) is also something
like 0.1%. Perhaps that means the actual rate is zero, and the only
effect of the policy is to increase costs and ruin careers while doing
nothing to improve safety. That would be about par for the FAA.

Meanwhile, commercial pilots and operators say that the cost of a
Part-135-type drug and alcohol testing program is nearly cost

prohibitive,
so it can be argued that this sort of testing program hurts General
Aviation.


Which suggests to me that they're probably not using the expensive
tests with low false-positive potential.

The discussion is, is the aviation community's drug and alcohol

habit--or
lack thereof--influenced by drug testing policy; do pilots obstain

because
of drug tests, or do they obstain because they're pilots?


Pilots don't abstain. I know lots of professional pilots, and as a
whole they're the heaviest drinkers I know. They don't drink when
they're flying, though. I also know quite a few who quit smoking dope
after testing kicked in. None of them was ever high on the job,
though. I weigh in solidly on the "Testing is a waste of time and
money" side of the equation.

What are peoples' thoughts and experiences?


In my last job, we all ****ed in a bottle. We worked with radioactive
materials in refineries and chemical plants, so it just made sense.
Yeah, right.

The only positive that ever came up was from my boss - who was rabidly
anti-drug. He tested positive for opiates (heroin). He screamed
bloody murder, and because he was a senior manager and not a peon, an
investigation was done. There was a retest, which also showed positive
for opiates, but at a lower concentration. However, when the sample
was sent to a proper lab, it turned out to be a false positive - a
related chemical which is a breakdown product of poppy seeds. That
poppyseed bagel did him in.

In spite of this, I found the remains of a marijuana cigarette (a
roach) in the bathroom of our shop - only used by employees who were on
the program. Somehow they were passing the random tests - meaning they
had figured out a way to beat it. Truth is, I know exactly who was
high on the job - it was obvious from the quality of the work.
However, I couldn't have him fired for it - he was passing the tests.
One fine day he missed not one but THREE flights as I waited for him at
the airport and the customer got ****ed. We never got another contract
at that facility again. He was fired for this.

I don't have much respect for drug testing. I think it's a way for
lazy managers to hand over the tough decisions to a technician.
Michael

  #9  
Old December 15th 04, 12:53 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
. ..
[...]
Back in my younger years, I quit smoking pot because I got a job that did
random drug testing.


Did you quit smoking pot because they were doing drug testing? Or because
the job was incompatible with smoking pot?

The former is a pretty idiotic approach to the issue, but the latter seems
more consistent with what you wrote about smoking pot and flying, and does
not invoke drug testing as a solution.

[...]
Testing kits aren't "prohibitively expensive" as your buddy says.
Twenty-five people can be tested for about $250.00. That may be
"expensive" depending on how many you must do but I would not put it in
the "prohibitively expensive" category.


$10/person isn't too bad for a company with 25 people to test. But there
are plenty of one-man operations that are also required to undergo drug
testing (they contract with a testing company, who randomly selects from
their "clients" to determine who will be tested). I admit, I don't know
what the cost is, but I can easily imagine that it's prohibitive at small
scales.

Either way, the cost of NOT doing pre, post and interim drug screening
would be much higher than I'm willing to pay. Too damn many people are
like I used to be.


IMHO, if a person is sober on the job, it doesn't matter what they are doing
off the job. Drug testing does not distinguish between the two, and
discriminates against people simply because of their lifestyle.

Maybe if I thought that drug testing was really being done out of a genuine
concern for people's safety, I'd feel differently. But I'm not convinced
that drug testing enhances safety all that much, and it's clear that the
primary push for drug testing is being done by the people who stand to make
lots of money doing it (as with various security regulations and similar
social expenditures).

Pete


  #10  
Old December 15th 04, 01:41 AM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



gatt wrote:

The discussion is, is the aviation community's drug and alcohol habit--or
lack thereof--influenced by drug testing policy; do pilots obstain because
of drug tests, or do they obstain because they're pilots?


I abstain from drugs because I can't afford the penalties if I were caught --
haven't done any illegal drugs in well over 20 years. I'm not on any sort of
test plan, so testing is not a factor. I obey the FARs as far as drinking goes
because I wouldn't want to find out the hard way that the Feds are right about
it.

Would it be
better for the aviation community to test after accidents only, and do away
with the current random test practice and the associated expenses? 'Cause
if you have an accident, they're going to test you anyway, correct?


If you have an accident, what good is the test? Since there are people out there
who would fly while intoxicated, I think it likely that random testing prevents
this to some extent.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Testing Stick Ribs Bob Hoover Home Built 3 October 3rd 04 02:30 AM
Bush's Attempt to Usurp the Constitution WalterM140 Military Aviation 20 July 2nd 04 04:09 PM
Showstoppers (long, but interesting questions raised) Anonymous Spamless Military Aviation 0 April 21st 04 05:09 AM
No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil Ewe n0 who Military Aviation 1 April 9th 04 11:25 PM
No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil Ewe n0 who Naval Aviation 0 April 7th 04 07:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.