New TC Cannabis rules

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, I WAS Birddog

Heliian
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1827
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: New TC Cannabis rules

Post by Heliian »

AuxBatOn wrote: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:29 pm What about AMEs? Any limitations wrt their consumptions in the law?
Nope, AMEs can stay up and party all night and then work 60 14hr shifts in a row. Smoke breaks will be replaced by toke breaks, productivity is up and complaints are down.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
C-GGGQ
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1753
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 12:33 pm

Re: New TC Cannabis rules

Post by C-GGGQ »

Our AME'S said it's 30 days for them. Also don't expect random testing to just show up. Under Canadian law you have to agree to in when hired. The employer can't just enact it afterwards because you can just refuse as you took the job under different conditions (this all straight from HR on why it won't be implemented as it's too large a headache)
---------- ADS -----------
 
Capt. Underpants
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:04 am

Re: New TC Cannabis rules

Post by Capt. Underpants »

Case precedent in Canada allows drug and alcohol testing in the workplace under three conditions; during hiring it can be used to screen candidates; if there is suspicion that impairment has contributed to an event on the job; or if there is a chronic problem with consumption in that industry / workplace. Many O & G companies around Fort Mac have been doing random testing because there were so many problems.

TC has no interest in conducting a research project to determine how long someone can go between consumption and being sober. There's no secret in their selection of the 28 day time frame. It's all about how long evidence of consumption can show up in a blood test.

I'm confused that they have chosen to apply the new rule to cabin crew but not to AMEs or flight dispatchers. Cabin crew are not issued a CAD, but AMEs and dispatchers are. You can't issue a NOS to a flight attendant for non-compliance.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Capt. Underpants
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:04 am

Re: New TC Cannabis rules

Post by Capt. Underpants »

lhalliday wrote: Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:06 am Link to the CARs (404/424) or Canada Gazette, or it didn't happen.

...laura
It seems this isn't a new regulation, but rather an interpretation of the term "fit for duty".
---------- ADS -----------
 
ekg
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2018 1:56 pm

Re: New TC Cannabis rules

Post by ekg »

Is CBD part of this?
---------- ADS -----------
 
garfield
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:35 pm

Re: New TC Cannabis rules

Post by garfield »

Well Voyageur's gonna get a ton of resume!
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Mr. North
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:27 am

Re: New TC Cannabis rules

Post by Mr. North »

Let's broaden our perspectives here for a moment and consider what's actually happening.

We're less than a year into legalisation and TC has gone from zero tolerance (medical revoked & licence suspended), to 28 days.

That's a remarkable change of stance. I find it interesting to watch TC (among other authorities) tackle this issue, trying to find a balance between effective regulation that protects public safety while limiting their own financial and legal liability. The 28 day buffer is a marginal improvement in the right direction. In reality however it's just as untenable as the zero tolerance policy it replaced and should be revisited in the future with a degree of practical sense that can only be applied once cannabis has become better understood.

Forgetting for a moment one's personal responsibilities, let's consider the amount of cannabis smoke one encounters on a professional basis. Waiting for the shuttle by smokers row, in and around hotels and restaurants on layovers, hell even the SkyTrain station can be 600 RVR at times - hard not to get a good waft then. So do I just book off for a month each time? Or do I hold my breath and risk my professional liability?

These regulations protect TC and your employer, they do nothing to protect YOU the pilot.
---------- ADS -----------
 
7ECA
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:33 pm

Re: New TC Cannabis rules

Post by 7ECA »

Mr. North wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 11:29 pm Or do I hold my breath and risk my professional liability?

These regulations protect TC and your employer, they do nothing to protect YOU the pilot.
Even Ross knew not to inhale. :rolleyes:

Very good, as has always been the way. Protect the employer and the regulator, all the while making the proles, er employees, feel as though they will be protected in the event of an occurrence.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DonutHole
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:36 pm

Re: New TC Cannabis rules

Post by DonutHole »

rookiepilot wrote: Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:16 pm
PilotDAR wrote: Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:15 pm
But if you are a casual user, smart about how and when you consume with plenty of time to recover ................., I don't see any issues at all.
And it sounds like TC has defined "plenty of time to recover", so we're good!
Instead of "bottle to throttle" -- the new acronym will be "toke to yoke" :mrgreen:
I'm not a "your fan" but this right here is good work
---------- ADS -----------
 
RatherBeFlying
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 624
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:27 am
Location: Toronto

Re: New TC Cannabis rules

Post by RatherBeFlying »

Under 2 nanograms / ml blood is legal for driving in Canada, but I don't know the sensitivity or accuracy of the tests. When you're down to nanograms, accuracy really matters.

The 28 day rule is basically a way to say any detectable THC is illegal for flying as it can take as long as that for it to clear the system after a major dose in an overweight person.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for TC to fund a scientific study to correlate THC levels to pilot impairment.

Said another way, the reported required 28 day abstinence period is saying don't get caught with any detectable level of THC.

Corollary:

High BMI pilots must abstain 28 days before medical or employment physical. Really thin guys can get away with 5.6 days
For those interested, a medical treatment of the rate of elimination of the active ingredient.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2587336/
This finding may have informed the length of time chosen by the Canadian authorities.
---------- ADS -----------
 
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8105
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: New TC Cannabis rules

Post by iflyforpie »

7ECA wrote: Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:44 pm
Even Ross knew not to inhale. :rolleyes:
That was Bill... not Ross. Ross inhaled, but it was second hand. ;)

It was kind of funny how they stripped him of the gold for performance de-hancing drug.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
plausiblyannonymous
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 206
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:35 pm

Re: New TC Cannabis rules

Post by plausiblyannonymous »

It's unfortunate, but until there is an accurate test of sobriety that can hold up in court, TC is not going to back down on this.

By going for 28 days, they are relieving themselves of responsibility of testing and enacting a fair regulation.

That being said, it really isn't 28 days because how will you prove it? The true regulation that they are enacting is that it is illegal to be caught with THC in your system when you report for duty.
---------- ADS -----------
 
goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1866
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: New TC Cannabis rules

Post by goingnowherefast »

It's illegal if I report for duty with alcohol in my system, even 0.01% BAC and there's no measurable level of impairment. Why should it be any different with THC? The body metabolises alcohol a lot faster than THC, and one expects a different standard because of that?

Zero means zero. Metabolic rate decides the timeline from "toke to yoke" or "bottle to throttle".
---------- ADS -----------
 
RatherBeFlying
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 624
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:27 am
Location: Toronto

Report on Business article in G&M

Post by RatherBeFlying »

Paywalled, but worth a trip to the library:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cannabi ... gulations/
Screenshot_20190704-103410.png
Screenshot_20190704-103410.png (342.86 KiB) Viewed 2618 times
---------- ADS -----------
 
Kejidog
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:55 pm

Re: New TC Cannabis rule

Post by Kejidog »

What blows me away is they think they will have the ability to test to the full 28 days. From what I’ve read it is metabolized different in everyone. Fat vs thin and genetics and liver function play a huge part. It is a knee jerk reaction from a non evidenced based rules framework. I am interested to see this develop further. My employer ( a fire dept) put a 24 hour before duty rule as this is all they are able to test reliably. While local police have the 28 day rule as well. Most local cops i know do not follow the 28 day rule as they know how junky the science is. I am not a user and nor do i care who does.

Do i care if the pilots who fly me and my kids are baked? Yes but i for one do not think it impairs ANYONE up to 28 days later. And if it does why do chronics need to smoke daily?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2212
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: New TC Cannabis rules

Post by AirFrame »

What I want to know is how much would be detected in my system due to second-hand smoke. I used to have a neighbour in an apartment building who smoked pot on his balcony (long before it was legal). I'd smell it most days. Now, living on Vancouver Island and pot being legalized, I can't go more than a day or two without passing near someone smoking a joint in public. I'm exposed to the smoke regularly, but i'm still not directly partaking. What happens when someone catches a whiff of pot smoke on me because some smoker blew a lungful of weed fire in my direction and I happened to walk around the corner and through it before I realized?
---------- ADS -----------
 
AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: New TC Cannabis rule

Post by AuxBatOn »

Kejidog wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:51 am Most local cops i know do not follow the 28 day rule as they know how junky the science is.
You are implying that most local cops smoke pot?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Going for the deck at corner
Capt. Underpants
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:04 am

Re: New TC Cannabis rule

Post by Capt. Underpants »

Kejidog wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:51 am What blows me away is they think they will have the ability to test to the full 28 days.
IMHO, TC has no intention of testing anyone. The only venue they’d have is during a medical and if they tried, they would almost definitely face a legal challenge. The 28 day thing is simply an interpretation of “fit for duty”. It could allow an Aviation Medical Examiner to deny a medical if the candidate were to admit consumption within the past 28 days.

There’s no secret where they got that number, it’s the max time THC will show up in a blood test. In the event of a positive test for THC after an accident, TC can say, “We have a policy that would prevent such results. This person violated that policy. It’s not our fault.”
---------- ADS -----------
 
Kejidog
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:55 pm

Re: New TC Cannabis rule

Post by Kejidog »

AuxBatOn wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:15 am
Kejidog wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:51 am Most local cops i know do not follow the 28 day rule as they know how junky the science is.
You are implying that most local cops smoke pot?
Put words in my mouth? Or have problems comprehending what you quoted? Read it again s l o w l y. Then you may perceive my hidden meaning.
---------- ADS -----------
 
AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: New TC Cannabis rules

Post by AuxBatOn »

Most local cops do not follow the 28-day rule.

In order to not follow a rule, you need to transgress a rule. In this case, you are saying that most cops transgress a rule: the 28-day rule. In order to transgress the 28-day rule, someone needs to smoke pot. So, you are implying, in how you worded your argument, that most cops smoke weed.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Going for the deck at corner
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”