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

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

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

"Frank" wrote in message ...

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.

They might as well administer a sleep test. "How much sleep did you get
last night? Four hours?! Well, clearly you're a hazard to aviation."

So it boils down to bureaucracy and public image after all. Just making
sure. Drugs and alcohol just don't seem to be a significant source of
aviation accidents. If it's cost prohibitive to the extent that it hurts the
small-time commercial pilot, it just doesn't seem worth it.

(If it's not cost prohibitive after all, it's probably not an issue.)

-c

gatt wrote:

They might as well administer a sleep test.

That would certainly be a great idea, if they could do it. Several of the
existing regulations on airline pilots, truck drivers, and railroad engineers
have no other purpose than to ensure that these people have at least the
opportunity to get enough sleep.

Drugs and alcohol just don't seem to be a significant source of
aviation accidents.

And there's no way to tell to what extent that's due to the fact that random
testing is required in some fields of employment.

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

Bob,
It may be a feel good program but I know that it keeps some of my
co-workers from drinking during the week. We have an random drug and
alcohol testing (required by DOT).
I know of one one person fired for using drugs and one for alcohol in
the past two years.
Michelle

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.

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

"Michelle P" wrote in message
nk.net...
Bob,
It may be a feel good program but I know that it keeps some of my
co-workers from drinking during the week. We have an random drug and
alcohol testing (required by DOT).
I know of one one person fired for using drugs and one for alcohol in
the past two years.
Michelle

It would be interesting to know whether they were actually using drugs or
alcohol. Was their substance abuse discovered by random testing, or was it
something that everybody knew about anyway?

CJ,
The drugs we never knew. I worked with the guys several times. he had
been using them so frequently that we never knew.
The alcohol, we suspected but could not prove it.
The cost? I could care less. We are working on planes that carry people
and they are depending on safe reliable transportation. People who work
on or fly them should not be using either.
Michelle

C J Campbell wrote:

"Michelle P" wrote in message
ink.net...


Bob,
It may be a feel good program but I know that it keeps some of my
co-workers from drinking during the week. We have an random drug and
alcohol testing (required by DOT).
I know of one one person fired for using drugs and one for alcohol in
the past two years.
Michelle



It would be interesting to know whether they were actually using drugs or
alcohol. Was their substance abuse discovered by random testing, or was it
something that everybody knew about anyway?

"Michelle P"
....
Bob,
It may be a feel good program but I know that it keeps some of my
co-workers from drinking during the week.

Of course it does. But at what cost? And what is the safety benefit? You
sure that the resources couldn't be better spent elsewhere?

moo

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