Government to Consider Random Alcohol testing for pilots

[Rockie]

Yes it is an answer. You can logically make the case for almost everything if you use logic narrowly enough. I could say random alcohol testing is logical, but not as logical as 100% testing. I could also logically argue it's useless because that won't stop a pilot from bringing his own nip for after he's tested. Alcohol testing doesn't test for drugs though, so logically you would have to conduct full on laboratory drug screening to be safe.

But then there's those pesky privacy laws that get in the way which are also very logical when you think about it. Competing logic and contradictory logic everywhere that makes your question unanswerable. I see your logic and raise you a bunch more.

[complexintentions]

Saying the same word over and over is the argument tactic of small children. I long ago gave up trying to get you to give a coherent answer to a simple question. I've come to simply enjoy watching you dance in a circle. C'est la vie.

You obviously don't have any experience with drug and alcohol testing. Both are easily and quickly done at a cursory screening level, which is all that is required. Blow in the breathalyzer (police grade, not consumer). Pee in a jar and it's screened for common recreational drugs and opiates. Easily implemented in a preflight procedure with minimal operational impact - I know, because I've been there.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of further scrutiny of pilots. I don't believe safety would be materially improved by doing so, because I don't believe there's a epidemic of pilots attempting to fly intoxicated. I also don't subscribe to the whole "if you have nothing to hide what are you worried about" bs. False positives happen. Happened to me. Stressful. But even in a supposedly repressive state like the UAE it wasn't an issue. Canada has far more legal protections. Geezus these days in Canada if the positive was for MJ the tester would probably high-five you.

What I DO find hilarious is YOU expressing concern about slippery slopes and the like. The reason I keep coming back to the two-in-the-cockpit rule is because there are some strong parallels in risk management to drug/alcohol testing:

- Both threats involve trust: we trust our pilots not to deliberately crash into the ground. We trust them to show up to work unimpaired by alcohol and drugs. That trust has been violated in both instances in multiple cases.
- Both threats could cause the loss of an entire flight.
- Both threats could involve imposing minor inconveniences on flight crew in an attempt to mitigate the threats.

I'm quite certain that there are more pilots that consume alcohol than there are that harbour secret thoughts of taking an entire flight down deliberately. True, that's only based on observing pilots for decades, and comparing their behaviour to the number of crashes attributed to suicide-by-pilot. Still, I'm confident that statement is correct. Yet if someone objects to the silliness of placing another body in the cockpit on the grounds that it's pointless (and actually introduces a new threat vector) you tell them to "grow up".

But when the idea of putting procedures in place that would attempt to guard against a threat that is arguably the greater one, it's suddenly an existential threat to personal freedom. As I said, pretty amusing to me. I'm not surprised you can't rebut it.

And I wouldn't get too cocky about being protected legally forever. If your populist, preening PM senses that the general public would be in favour of what I'm sure would be sold as "sensible, reasonable" precautions, those laws will be amended pretty right quick. Given the socialist, nanny state direction Canada is racing in it's hardly a stretch. Did I mention people are stupid, and scared?

But, good news too. As someone who both enjoys a drink and has lived with random D&A testing for many years, I'm here to tell you that you really shouldn't get too wrapped around the axle about it.

Gotta run. Getting messaged from the lobby that the posse requires my services to lead them on a heroic assault of some Irish watering holes in Manhattan.

Ta.

[MUSKEG]

Just try getting a job in the oil patch today without a drug test. Of course you are within your rights to refuse but then be prepared to not work there. Why should our line of work put us above that?

[Rockie]

Saying the same word over and over is the argument tactic of small children. I long ago gave up trying to get you to give a coherent answer to a simple question. I've come to simply enjoy watching you dance in a circle. C'est la vie.

Even small children can recognize an answer when it's given especially when it has been repeated.

Once again, my objection to random alcohol testing are privacy laws and the charter of rights and freedoms. Should I repeat it again?

My objection to random alcohol testing are privacy laws and the charter of rights and freedoms. Should I repeat it again?

[Rockie]

What I DO find hilarious is YOU expressing concern about slippery slopes and the like. The reason I keep coming back to the two-in-the-cockpit rule is because there are some strong parallels in risk management to drug/alcohol testing:

- Both threats involve trust: we trust our pilots not to deliberately crash into the ground.

It is not an issue of trust, it is an issue of safety that is not in any way constrained by privacy laws or the charter of rights and freedoms. YOU are not mistrusted so get over it.

Both threats could involve imposing minor inconveniences on flight crew in an attempt to mitigate the threats.

Having two in the cockpit is an inconvenience? What if she's cute, friendly and wearing a short skirt, is it still an inconvenience? As you can see the hypocrisy behind pilot's objection to this is one of the things that bothers me. You're insulted because you don't feel trusted and need to be babysat. I get it, I just don't think pilot's tender ego's are a good enough reason to ditch a sensible safety precaution.

Random drug and alcohol testing without cause is an inconvenience that's true...it's also a violation of the aforementioned privacy laws and individual rights which is a very serious thing not to be taken lightly. Certainly not as lightly as you do, or it seems the Minister of Transport.

[Rockie]

Just try getting a job in the oil patch today without a drug test. Of course you are within your rights to refuse but then be prepared to not work there. Why should our line of work put us above that?

There's a difference between voluntary drug testing and mandatory drug testing. It's as simple as that.

[trey kule]

Not going to happen folks.

Firstly, the media would be over every incident like Trudeau on a photo op. Just like airline accidents vs. car accidents in the media. It would present such a bad perspective to the public. The govt might instead, "encourage" companies to do the testing and quietly deal with employees outside of the media spotlight.
It is done in all sorts of other industries.
Anyone who thinks this is simply an issue of laws and logic does not understand how the real world works.
Lets take this a bit further. By speaking out against this it is obvious to me the you just might be an alcoholic trying to avoid being tested.
It is a very slippery slope.

Secondly, if they brought in universal alcohol testing, I am pretty sure it would create a huge pilot shortage.. In fact, this whole testing idea is probably a conspiracy put forward by those undetectable pot head millennials to move up the seniority lists.


I am a big supporter of the anti "If you are not doing anything wrong, then give up your rights, crowd."
There is no point in having rights , if you are expected to give them up, and if you refuse, are considered to be guilty of whatever offence you are being asked about.
But we have to ask how much damage did that idiot in Calgary do to our industry passing out in the cockpit.
This is a response to a few incidents the media has made to appear to be an epidemic. In this modern world where one or two isolated cases are made to appear to be the norm, this is going to happen more and more.
Difficult decision.

[Illya Kuryakin]

How about random testing for Trudeau and his cabinet ministers?
Trey nailed it.
Illya

[AuxBatOn]

Jazz taxied onto a bit of grass the other day in YVR. One of the comments on the news article was "I wonder if the sobriety test was done yet?"

You bend metal, you bet you should be screened for drugs and alchool, if only to find contributing factors and causes of an accident.

I don't understand the Privacy argument. You are carrying passengers for a living, they have the right to know you are fit to fly. Random drug/alcohol testing would dissuade most people willing to take a chance (and yes there are people doing this) This only would be worth it. Make it part of thr employment requirements which would make it voluntary. Don't want to subject? Don't fly for us.

[Rockie]

You bend metal, you bet you should be screened for drugs and alchool, if only to find contributing factors and causes of an accident.

Absolutely correct and that does in fact happen, but then you contradict yourself with this:

I don't understand the Privacy argument. You are carrying passengers for a living, they have the right to know you are fit to fly.

You don't have to understand the privacy argument or the rights argument (which you are defending when in uniform by the way), but so what? It's the law of the land based on principles that go way back. You also have to ask how far we should take your world view. Does someone entering a cab not have the right to know their driver is fit to drive? Drug tests before every cab ride perhaps? How about trains? Buses? Law makers? Politicians? That's a good one come to think of it...not just a sobriety/drug test but a sanity test for every politician before considering any law.

Do you take a sobriety test before every one of your flights?

[AuxBatOn]

No but my unit is subject from time to time to random anonymous testinng. I would be 100% okay and in favour of random, non-anonymous testing, like it is done in the US.

The consequences of flying impaired are, imo, greater than a cab or a bus driver. You can't just pull over the side of the road and the life of people in your plane and on the ground are at risk.

[Old fella]

Man, I can see a whole host of logistic and legal issues with this idea of random testing, especially since there isn't an epidemic of this type(airline pilot drinking while on duty) activity here in Canada, there simply isn't. I believe the Government realizes this and would have to come up with the resources, hence the " to consider random alcohol testing......"

I am not an airline pilot, never was but I understand there is more of an " epidemic " of pilot fatigue(while on duty)issues as our laws are a little behind in this regard.

[Rockie]

No but my unit is subject from time to time to random anonymous testinng. I would be 100% okay and in favour of random, non-anonymous testing, like it is done in the US.

How would you feel about getting pulled over at random in your car by the police for a breathalyzer and search of your car? Not the same I'm sure you're thinking but it is.

The consequences of flying impaired are, imo, greater than a cab or a bus driver. You can't just pull over the side of the road and the life of people in your plane and on the ground are at risk.

I think the consequences of a 52 passenger bus careening across the white line into another 52 passenger bus are just as great, as are a taxi cab plowing through a crowded sidewalk.

[Old fella]

No but my unit is subject from time to time to random anonymous testinng. I would be 100% okay and in favour of random, non-anonymous testing, like it is done in the US.

How would you feel about getting pulled over at random in your car by the police for a breathalyzer and search of your car? Not the same I'm sure you're thinking but it is.

The consequences of flying impaired are, imo, greater than a cab or a bus driver. You can't just pull over the side of the road and the life of people in your plane and on the ground are at risk.

I think the consequences of a 52 passenger bus careening across the white line into another 52 passenger bus are just as great, as are a taxi cab plowing through a crowded sidewalk.

Interesting questions for sure. I got to know a couple of Criminal Defence Attorneys quite well and I have peppered them with questions. They know the laws and understand it much better than the cops. You would be quite shocked and appalled at the lack of knowledge most people have on our Justice system and how it works in relation to their Constitutional rights in dealing with the state. These eminent Jurists as officers of the court told me their biggest issue is one of education to their clients. As one said Tis the CSI and a Law and Order TV syndrome from those garbage cops and robber TV shit...

[CpnCrunch]

How would you feel about getting pulled over at random in your car by the police for a breathalyzer and search of your car? Not the same I'm sure you're thinking but it is.

It happens all the time, and Canadians are apparently fine with it (random alcohol checks when driving). I've been stopped a few times myself, and I appreciate it. It's a big problem in Canada, which needs more work:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... tudy-finds

The reality is that people see all these stories about drunk pilots, and they wonder how many drunk pilots aren't caught. Is it not reasonable for people to be concerned?

[Rockie]

Not exactly CpnCrunch. RIDE programs stop you as you go past and the officer asks if you've been drinking, and they take a sniff to see if they can detect alcohol. If they do that is enough cause for a closer look. But they do not, and cannot, subject anyone to an alcohol test without cause.

[CpnCrunch]

Not exactly CpnCrunch. RIDE programs stop you as you go past and the officer asks if you've been drinking, and they take a sniff to see if they can detect alcohol. If they do that is enough cause for a closer look. But they do not, and cannot, subject anyone to an alcohol test without cause.

I suspect you would dislike an aviation version of Checkstops more than you would dislike random alcohol tests. I'm not saying I want to subject you to either...I just see why the politicians are pushing for it.

I'm pretty confident that any airline I'm likely to fly with has appropriate policies in place to detect drunk pilots without the government needing to do anything.

[Old fella]

Not exactly CpnCrunch. RIDE programs stop you as you go past and the officer asks if you've been drinking, and they take a sniff to see if they can detect alcohol. If they do that is enough cause for a closer look. But they do not, and cannot, subject anyone to an alcohol test without cause.

Correct Rockie, matter of fact you are not required to answer any questions or give an account of your activities at all, including if you had anything to drink nor are your passengers. When driving you are required to show your drivers licence, registration and insurance card upon demand. Thats all you are required to do..........

[CpnCrunch]

Correct Rockie, matter of fact you are not required to answer any questions or give an account of your activities at all, including if you had anything to drink nor are your passengers. When driving you are required to show your drivers licence, registration and insurance card upon demand. Thats all you are required to do..........

So what happens if the person driving refuses to utter a single word to the police officer?

[Rockie]

Not exactly CpnCrunch. RIDE programs stop you as you go past and the officer asks if you've been drinking, and they take a sniff to see if they can detect alcohol. If they do that is enough cause for a closer look. But they do not, and cannot, subject anyone to an alcohol test without cause.

I suspect you would dislike an aviation version of Checkstops more than you would dislike random alcohol tests. I'm not saying I want to subject you to either...I just see why the politicians are pushing for it.

I'm pretty confident that any airline I'm likely to fly with has appropriate policies in place to detect drunk pilots without the government needing to do anything.

We pass many, many people on our way to the plane who can, and do, detect the smell of alcohol and alert the appropriate authorities. But it is not he same thing as sobriety tests is it?