Lesser Of Two Evils

[Doc]

Jesus guys!
I'm NOT talking about pilots showing up to work drunk here!!!!!!
I'm talking about taking a group of pilots, with whom you have not had a single solitary reason even to SUSPECT the use of alcohol or drugs anywhere NEAR the workplace and "randomly" testing them for the aforementioned drugs and alcohol!
It's pissing on morale.
It's calling them guilty until they can prove their innocence, of a crime that has NEVER been even SUSPECTED!
It's total Bull Shit!

[ReserveTank]

I get it Doc. Canada is becoming Americanized. As much as I like aviation down there, everything else in the USA has pretty much turned against the average human. They're lining up to be a police state where all your activities are monitored. It's leaking up here mighty fast too.

[B-rad]

I'm not looking to argue Rowdy. I just wanted to play the devils advocate.
In all honesty, I agree with you on the matter. Except I don't believe in random drug testing because I think that trust should go both ways. A quality of being a Pilot in my opinion is being honest and dependable. I believe there is the expectation that Pilots are not drug smokers and that a good Pilot you can depend on being sober regardless if it's legal or not. Someone wants to give me a drug test, sure I'll do it, but I'll let them know that when I pass the test, I'll be packing up my things and heading somewhere were you can ask me to my face and take my word for it. If you can't trust the people you work with, there is a bigger problem on the job.

[Rowdy]

I'm not looking to argue Rowdy. I just wanted to play the devils advocate.
In all honesty, I agree with you on the matter. Except I don't believe in random drug testing because I think that trust should go both ways. A quality of being a Pilot in my opinion is being honest and dependable. I believe there is the expectation that Pilots are not drug smokers and that a good Pilot you can depend on being sober regardless if it's legal or not. Someone wants to give me a drug test, sure I'll do it, but I'll let them know that when I pass the test, I'll be packing up my things and heading somewhere were you can ask me to my face and take my word for it. If you can't trust the people you work with, there is a bigger problem on the job.

I figured you were playing that role I agree. random drug testing with no suspect nor reason is unnecessary! And like I said before, the places where I've seen them USE their ability to randomly test, was not, at all, Random! It was directed AT an individual and was 'told' it was random. Thankfully they said no to the test and called the lawyer!

[trey kule]

I'm talking about taking a group of pilots, with whom you have not had a single solitary reason even to SUSPECT the use of alcohol or drugs anywhere NEAR the workplace

I wish it were so, Doc, but unfortunately that is not the way the world works, and history tells us that those who we dont have even a single solitary reason to suspect sometimes , sadly, show up to fly under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

In the US you simply call the police, and if the person is found to be impaired they are taken away in handcuffs..I dont think you have to google very much to find rather recent examples.

So instead of ranting and calling BS, how do you think a company should plan for such an event, or more importantly, try to maybe provide a deterent in the first place to let people know of the consequences of such actions, even if they are very good at hiding it from all but the rest of the flight crew?
I read post after post about how terrible it is to do this..Offer an alternate solution than instead of just ranting. I can tell you from personal experience if there is another way to handle these situations, I am all for it, and I welcome any serious, well thought out suggestions.
Random testing has the added benefit that it may just get a pilot treatment instead of being fired if the tests are administered when they are not going to be flying.
It would be so very nice if all we had to do was look at it from the pilot's perspective, but unfortunately companies have to take a bit broader look at this type of issue.

Anyway, I wait with eager anticipation for your suggested solutions, as I am certain you are not one of those pilots who simply likes to bitch about things for the sake of bitching.

[Doc]

I'm talking about taking a group of pilots, with whom you have not had a single solitary reason even to SUSPECT the use of alcohol or drugs anywhere NEAR the workplace

I wish it were so, Doc, but unfortunately that is not the way the world works, and history tells us that those who we dont have even a single solitary reason to suspect sometimes , sadly, show up to fly under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

In the US you simply call the police, and if the person is found to be impaired they are taken away in handcuffs..I dont think you have to google very much to find rather recent examples.

So instead of ranting and calling BS, how do you think a company should plan for such an event, or more importantly, try to maybe provide a deterent in the first place to let people know of the consequences of such actions, even if they are very good at hiding it from all but the rest of the flight crew?
I read post after post about how terrible it is to do this..Offer an alternate solution than instead of just ranting. I can tell you from personal experience if there is another way to handle these situations, I am all for it, and I welcome any serious, well thought out suggestions.
Random testing has the added benefit that it may just get a pilot treatment instead of being fired if the tests are administered when they are not going to be flying.
It would be so very nice if all we had to do was look at it from the pilot's perspective, but unfortunately companies have to take a bit broader look at this type of issue.

Anyway, I wait with eager anticipation for your suggested solutions, as I am certain you are not one of those pilots who simply likes to bitch about things for the sake of bitching.

So, obviously your company indulges in the practice, and you think it's a good idea, then? Police forces don't do this. Our military doesn't. I disagree with it, and I'm "ranting"? Kind of surprised you're taking this stand? It's an erosion of rights and freedoms. It's identical to allowing police into your home for a "random look see". Are you in favour of that becoming the norm? Who knows? They might discover a meth lab. Think of the children! They might discover child or spousal abuse. Or a puppy mill. But, in our legal system, even though a hell of a lot more heinous activities could easily be discovered by "random home inspections" than the very rare polluted pilot, this requires "probable cause" and a warrant. FYI, I'm NOT against testing WITH PROBABLE CAUSE. You seem to think there is no danger in allowing your rights and freedoms to go down the toilet? End of "rant".

[trey kule]

Well thank you for the well thought out reply.
First of all, yes and no to my company's policy.. It is on the books. I do not think it has ever been applied operationally, but, it does allow for us to do drug and liver tolerance testing (for alcohol) during company medicals...not regulatory ones.
It is really this simple..and it is really different than the police random searchs. People are not forced to work for us, so you do not have to give up any percieved rights if you do not want to..It is entirely voluntary. And there is no reprocussions, actual, or implied if you chose to work somewhere else.
Our drug and alcohol policy is put right up front when a person applys for a position, so they need not waste anymore time on trying to secure a position with us if they do not like the policy...It is voluntary. The examples you were stating were not. I respect that some people feel that it may be asking them to give up some rights, and if that is the case , they can chose not to proceed with applying for employment.
I thought you would be able to notice the difference.
Secondly, it is a difficult discission to make, as you are quite right, it does skirt the line of individual rights, and I am not going to get into a debate on that, as I am generally a staunch defender of individual rights and freedoms. But it is just more important , that we have in place the necessary ability to step in to protect the public if we think they are in any danger. And , unfortunately, I have some very sad personal experiences with people I had not reason in the world not to trust. . It is not brought up when someone is offered a job..It is stated right in the application.
I have trouble with people making statements in the form of a question, and I dont think you want an answer to the questions you posed.
Again, thank you for thinking this whole issue through and making helpful suggestions as to how to deal with drug and alcohol problems with flight crews.
They do exist.
If someone would make a positive suggestion instead of just ranting, I assure you I would be the first to push for implemention.

BTW.. guys showing up drunk or stoned for work is part of what we are talking about. Random testing allows us to test without having probable cause..It is a legal thing, as a pilot that is laying on the floor in a pool of his own vomit 15 minitues before a flight, will, after being charged, claim no one had probable cause to think he was drunk as he was just laying there and not acting drunk in anyway.
As a preventative measure, random testing allows the company doctor to test for substance abuse as well. And lastly, when everyone knows its there it provides a deterrent..No boys will be boys stuff anymore.
I could not live with myself if a company pilot climbed into a plane impaired and killed some people, knowing I did not do everything I could to help prevent it.

[Doc]

Then it must really bother you, that none of the major airlines in this country, or any of the police forces randomly test their people for drugs and alcohol? The word is just such a big and scary place.
Okay Trey, we're not going to agree on this one. Time for a rum and coke. Cheers

[trey kule]

It does not bother me at all, and I am not sure your statement is factually accurate that none of the major airlines do not have similar policies . The US,however, deals with it a bit differently than Canada does.

Since 1995, the FAA has required that aviation professionals submit to random alcohol testing, according to the National Institutes of Health. Refusal to take a test, or a test that reveals a blood alcohol content in excess of .04, constitutes a violation of federal aviation laws. Airline employees working in “safety sensitive” capacities are more prone to random alcohol testing. No employee is permitted to drink any type of liquor while working, according to the FAA.


Employee Drug Regulations

Under federal laws, at least 25 percent of airline employees working in “safety sensitive” capacities will be randomly tested each year for drug abuse. Refusing to take a test constitutes a violation of FAA drug policies, even if the person in question works for a private company. Any positive drug test will result in a pilot’s license being suspended or an airline worker being suspended from her job. But if the grounded aviation professional successfully completes a rehabilitation program and is deemed recovered from his substance addiction, then FAA officials may allow her to work in the industry again. These regulations were last updated in 2009.

The Human rights commission in Canada and the Federal courts take a somewhat different approach, particularily to drug testing..I was going to post the link but it is about 10 pages long and I can forsee people not bothering to read the whole text and quoting things out of context.

In any event as you said you it was time for you to get ready to go flying, we can drop the matter.

[justbud]

So, obviously your company indulges in the practice, and you think it's a good idea, then? Police forces don't do this. Our military doesn't.

The Canadian Forces random drug tests. Last time I was subject, the MP's showed up and chained the doors until the present members were all tested.

[crazycanuck]

I was wondering about this the other day. I am new to aviation so please forgive my ignorance. Does Transport Canada have the right to drug test you after an aviation incident? Hypothetically for example, if I attended a Roger Waters concert to enjoy the clean music and the heavy air and then bent up my plane two days later would I have to pee in a cup as a private pilot? Do they have the right to test but are too busy to care? Do they not have the right? Is a drug test after an incident just normal operating procedure?

[North Shore]

Which brings me to ask you NS, how does your company handle it if someone shows up to fly and the company gets a call that they seem to be impaired? I am genuinely interested and interested in more than just the immediate reaction.
Does your company have a formal policy or a procedure for that situation?

We don't deal directly with the public, so any call made to the company would come from another employee. I'd like to think that my coworkers would approach the offender directly before making a call that could potentially sewer someone's career, though.

If someone does show up and is impaired how does you company deal with them in terms of counselling, discipline, etc..

I honestly have no idea, trey. To the best of my knowledge, it's never happened before in our organisation. We are civil servants, so I'm sure that there is a procedure in place, and there is past history somewhere across the civil service. From my perspective, sitting in the left, I'd probably have a quiet chat, asking if co-joe was good to go. If there was any doubt from either of us, then I'd tell him to go home, call it a sick day, and stand the aircraft down for the day. The next day, we'd have another chat, asking for it not to happen again. If it did become more than a one-off thing, then chat #3 would be along the lines of who (me or cojoe) gets to tell the Chief Pilot that co-joe needs to take a medical leave to deal with his issues.

How do you even determine if they are impaired..

Well, as I said above, I hope that it wouldn't come to that. However, I guess, if push really came to shove, the horsemen would show up with a screening device for the suspect to blow into...I think that a guy would have to be visibly, beyond a doubt, impaired before that would happen, though..

If they are not terminated, how many times do you allow them to show up impaired?

Policy; I dunno? Personally, I'd give a guy a freebie once a season (see chats #1,2 & 3 above)

It is well known that two pilots sitting in a cockpit for a few hours can solve every possible management problem a company has..

Isn't that the truth!

[Mr. North]

This thread has been interesting to read. I started a similar one back in 08 and the answers haven't changed that much. Drug and alcohol regulations are horribly lacking in clarity and should be improved to save people's lives and careers. Of course I'm talking about what people do in their off time, being intoxicated at work is clearly illegal, no argument there. Anyways, since I posted that thread five years ago, I've watched several people sewer their careers and I'm watching another person close to me flirt with disaster right now. Said individual has applied, was interviewed, and accepted for employment at a prestigious regional carrier. Only now are they confiding in me their apprehension for the pre-employment drug test. This is from one of those people you don't normally suspect but then again, I never hung out with them outside of work. When I asked them if they would wake up and change their lifestyle I was met with a blank stare (as in they knew they should but probably wouldn't). Pure stupidity. I hope said individual reads the following.

Until the day comes that there are UNBIASED studies done, levels set, impairment guidelines put in place and the product is regulated so that there is a baseline, this discussion on it is moot. It's still illegal and impairment in this environment is still criminal.

Studies have been done Rowdy, here's one...

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1108.pdf

There is also evidence that residual effects of cannabis can persist for up to 24 hours. These
effects include persisting difficulty with psychomotor tasks and interference with cognitive
function (especially memory). These adverse residual effects will clearly cause problems for
anyone attempting to drive a car or train, fly an aircraft or navigate a ship during this period.

The exact duration of the cannabis carry-over effect and its interaction with other physiological
stressors (altitude, fatigue etc) are largely unknown.While carry-over effects have been observed
at 24 hours, the adoption of a 24 hour time limit between cannabis use and flying may well be
insufficient. Some pilots may exhibit carry-over effects of cannabis more than 24 hours after a
dose, depending on the circumstances and the level of task difficulty. An appropriate “cannabisto-
throttle” time remains to be determined, either scientifically or administratively (leaving
aside the wider social and regulatory question of whether such a rule is acceptable or not).
In summary, therefore, and on the basis of the currently available evidence, cannabis use in a
pilot should be considered a significant and unpredictable flight safety hazard, which can result
in impaired pilot performance.

As you said Rowdy, irregardless of the effects or our personal opinions, it is still illegal and the consequences are very real.

I was wondering about this the other day. I am new to aviation so please forgive my ignorance. Does Transport Canada have the right to drug test you after an aviation incident? Hypothetically for example, if I attended a Roger Waters concert to enjoy the clean music and the heavy air and then bent up my plane two days later would I have to pee in a cup as a private pilot? Do they have the right to test but are too busy to care? Do they not have the right? Is a drug test after an incident just normal operating procedure?

I took your questions to task CrazyCanuck and you can bet your ass they will ask for a blood and/or piss sample post incident. Unfortunately I could not find a solid link on Transport Canada for post accident drug testing. Whoever designed that website by the way was absolutely high on drugs because it is impossible to navigate! I did find this though..

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/legislation_pol ... 1-eng.aspx

5. Drug and Alcohol Testing as a Bona Fide Occupational Requirement

Drug and alcohol testing is prima facie discriminatory under Canadian human rights law. Nevertheless, employers can justify discriminatory practices and rules if they are a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR).

In Entrop v. Imperial Oil9, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted a critical difference between alcohol and drug tests. Alcohol tests such as a Breathalyzer test can determine whether a person is actually impaired at the moment the test is administered. In other words, an alcohol test, if applied to a person while on the job, can tell whether that person is fit to do their job. On the other hand, the Court noted that drug tests such as urinalysis cannot measure whether a person is under the effect of a drug at the time the test is administered. A drug test can only detect past drug use. An employer who administers a drug test cannot tell whether that person is impaired at that moment, or is likely to be impaired while on the job.

If testing is part of a broader program of medical assessment, monitoring and support, employers can test for alcohol in any of the following situations:
-on a random basis, for employees who hold safety-sensitive positions;
-for "reasonable cause," where an employee reports for work in an unfit state and there is evidence of substance abuse;
-after a significant incident or accident has occurred and there is evidence that an employee’s act or omission may have contributed to the incident or accident;
-or following treatment for alcohol abuse, or disclosure of a current alcohol dependency or abuse.

If testing is part of a broader program of medical assessment, monitoring and support, employers can test for drugs in any of the following situations:
-for "reasonable cause," where an employee reports for work in an unfit state and there is evidence of substance abuse;
-after a significant incident or accident has occurred and there is evidence that an employee’s act or omission may have contributed to the incident or accident;
-or following treatment for drug abuse, or disclosure of a current drug dependency or abuse. (Usually, a physician or substance abuse professional will determine whether follow-up testing is necessary for a particular individual.)

If in such circumstances your results are positive, your medical is immediately revoked.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... 4-1075.htm

Prohibition Regarding Exercise of Privileges

404.06 (1) Subject to subsection (3), no holder of a permit, licence or rating shall exercise the privileges of the permit, licence or rating if

(a) one of the following circumstances exists and could impair the holder's ability to exercise those privileges safely:

(i) the holder suffers from an illness, injury or disability,

(ii) the holder is taking a drug, or

(iii) the holder is receiving medical treatment;

(b) the holder has been involved in an aircraft accident that is wholly or partially the result of any of the circumstances referred to in paragraph (a);

In plain English: you're fucked!

My final quote is a post by Louis that really crystallized my position to avoid drugs and cannabis in particular.

Here's a link to an article I believe should be of interest:

http://www.jlaroche.com/cqfa/280-BUM/Ca ... Pilots.pdf

Quote:
Cannabis And Pilots

Jean LaRoche
Air Canada Pilot
Professor, Chicoutimi College

Many line pilots, training personnel, and aviation medical examiners worry nowadays about an increase of cannabis consumption by pilots. This is often described as a trivialization of the use of cannabis. Current disinformation seems to imply that younger pilots, early in their careers, are less conscious of the administrative and legal consequences of the use of marijuana, but the problem is not limited to young pilots. The discussion that follows is derived from the content of the Aeromedical Human Factors Course at the CQFA1 and constitutes a factual review of the consequences linked to consumption of cannabis by Canadian pilots in general.

To enjoy the privileges of their Canadian Aviation Document (Recreation, Private, or Commercial License), pilots must comply with Transport Canada requirements regarding intoxicating substances such as alcohol, medications, and other legal drugs. Pilots are also required to comply with Transport Canada requirements for illegal drugs as defined by federal legislation.

Intoxicated pilots are treated differently depending on whether they are prosecuted under the Canadian Air Regulation (CAR) or under Article 253 of the Canadian Criminal Code. The CAR applies to any circumstance in which cannabis was found in the pilot’s blood at the time the test was performed, whether the pilot was operating an aircraft or not or whether he or she was considered impaired or not. Under the Criminal Code, the pilot must be proven impaired at the time he or she was operating the aircraft or had custody of the aircraft.

Cannabis affects the brain’s neurotransmitters and impairs psychomotor skills and short-term memory (Baselt, 2001; Leirer, Yesavage, & Morrow, 1991). As a direct consequence of growing political and media awareness, budgets for research on cannabis, which were almost nonexistent in the past, are being increased, thus allowing scientists to study the potential beneficial effects of its active components for some illnesses as well as any long-term toxic effects.

It has been well demonstrated that today’s cannabis is several times more powerful than previous generations of plants. It has also been shown that it plays a key role in the emergence of serious mental conditions, such as schizophrenia, paranoia, hallucinatory psychosis, and mania, that may have otherwise remained latent in an individual (Bersani, Orlandi, Kotzalidis & Pancheri, 2002; Hambrecht, & Hafner, 2000). The associated abnormal behavior is incompatible with flying and can result in the suspension of a pilot’s Medical Validation Certificate (MVC) for an indefinite duration.

Structured air carriers require drug screening when hiring new pilots. Some pilots, who count on hiring being a foreseeable event, use cannabis but cease a few months before recruitment, then resume consumption once hired. Pilots should know that drug screening is also performed following serious aviation incidents, either by the carrier, the civil authority, or sometimes by the military in certain countries. Obviously, it is impossible to predict when or in which country an incident will occur, for example, a runway excursion, flat tire, or an inadvertent incursion on an active IFR runway.

The most frequent excuse invoked by pilots at fault is that they are the victims of secondary cannabis smoke from a few days preceding the screening. However, the screening tests are calibrated to eliminate levels attributable to secondary smoke exposure (false positive). When a screening test is positive, the candidate is considered to be a user, and the chain of administrative consequences begins immediately.

In Canada, a pilot testing positive for cannabis will lose his MVC with an automatic and immediate removal from flying duties. The length of the MVC suspension period depends on the active participation by the pilot in an approved rehabilitation program and on his close surveillance by a recognized multidisciplinary team. This type of program must be approved by Transport Canada and is presently in use within major unionized air carriers only. Experience shows that after 3 months of treatment a pilot can be reinstated to flying duties approximately 8 out of 10 times but will remain on probation for a minimum period of 2 years.

The onus to prove rehabilitation is always on the pilot at the outcome of the therapy. Proving a successful rehabilitation to Transport Canada is a delicate process even when the pilot is treated by a competent team. He or she must be supported by fellow pilots specially trained in pilot assistance and by a group disability plan that provides compensatory income to allow the pilot to dedicate full time and energy to achieve the goal. Conversely, a pilot left to himself will see his suspension period automatically set by Transport Canada at 2 years. Without organized support and flight pay, proving his rehabilitation is extremely difficult. The suspension often extends beyond the initial 2 years and sometimes will end the pilot’s career.

When detected following an aviation incident, the presence of cannabis in the pilot’s body will void the pilot’s professional liability insurance, whether the intoxicating substance contributed to the incident or not. This consequence rapidly becomes a nightmare for the pilot’s family as well as the individual in the event a civil law suits for damages is pressed. In this case, the pilot not only can lose income but also savings and personal assets.

1 CQFA stands for Centre québécois de formation aéronautique, the 35-year-old aviation faculty of the Chicoutimi College, located in the Saguenay region of Quebec.

Baselt RC. (2001). Drug effects on psychomotor performance. Biomedical Publications, Foster City, CA; pp 403-415.
Bersani G, Orlandi V., Kotzalidis GD., Pancheri P. (2002). Cannabis and schizophrenia : impact on onset, course, psychopathology and outcomes. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. Apr; 252(2):86-92
Hambrecht M., Hafner H. (2000). Cannabis, vulnerability, and the onset of schizophrenia : an epidemiological perspective. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Cologne, Germany. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. Jun; 34(3):468-75
Leirer VO, Yesavage JA, Morrow DG. (1991). Marijuana carry-over effects on aircraft pilot performance. Aviat Space Environ Med. 62(3):221-7.

So while you may not be impaired while operating an aircraft, under the CARS, any evidence of drug use could potentially result in the suspension of your medical and licence. There goes your job! I'll admit that I personally don't know anyone or their families being held liable for a positive post accident drug test but that possibility would absolutely terrify me.

As with so many things in aviation, the pilot makes the final call. Unfortunately the consequences of drug and alcohol abuse aren't properly presented/regulated to allow pilots to make informed decisions. When I started out everyone I talked to had a different answer. This thread is a perfect example of the various opinions and misconceptions out there. As a result people use and abuse this grey area of the law to their own benefit and knowingly or unknowingly risk their career and life in the process. In the end, is getting a little high really worth it?

I will close this long-winded post by saying I'm all for personal freedoms and human rights. I certainly don't want to be subject to random drug test even though I have nothing to fear, but I can certainly see why certain companies are pushing for it. With regards to the oil patch, what's so special about them? If they're granted the right to random test, would not the rest of the Canadian populace deserve the same standard of safety? I've yet to form an opinion on that, food for thought...

[Colonel Sanders]

I will not argue that it is not good for pilot performance
to smoke pot.

However, I might bring up the subject of cigarettes. I see
pilots smoking all the time. Right before night flights, as a
matter of fact. That certainly impairs their performance -
no question. So, why is it legal for pilots to smoke tobacco?

Also, the long term effects of alcohol are horrible. Even if
you never show up for work hung over (uh huh) the long
term effects of decades are drinking take their toll. Someone
who is 55 with 35 years of hard drinking is going to be in
pretty rough shape compared to a 55 yr old non-drinker.

So, why is it legal for pilots to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol?

The same argument can be made for the effects of diet.

For example, one could reasonably propose a maximum
BMI of 25 for a class one medical. Why not?

[xsbank]

It's a given that the number one cause of accidents and one of the two reasons we are going to be eventually removed from commercial cockpits entirely (after cost) is the pilot.

Hedley has raised the point about other forms of self-abuse (not that one) that can also affect your ability to perform your job.

Therefore, if you really consider yourself a professional, why would you place your freedom and perhaps even your right to ingest drugs above your responsibility to your employer, your passengers, your crew and your family?

Seems like a simple decision to me.

ZERO tolerance for drug use if you are a pilot. ZERO tolerance for showing up to work impaired or if you are not mature enough to get some sleep or any other hair-brained behaviour that makes you less than 100% capable. Make the decision - I am a professional with serious, life-altering responsibilities, or, I want to be a druggy or a boozer in my spare time and I am going to surrender my license.

Sorry if this seems intolerant (it is) but I have been around long enough to realize that not all of us aviators get to retire peacefully and we need all the (self) help we can get.

[Colonel Sanders]

The way I look at it, there is an awful lot of stuff out
there - legal and illegal, depending upon when and where
you are - that will make you stupider and older, before
your time.

Now, a lot of guys think they are too smart and too young
and need to find a cure for that condition. I guess I'm not
one of them.

It depends upon what you do. A lot of people think that
what they do is so easy, they can mail it in. My problem
is that if I f__k up, even a little bit, I'm dead. As a result
I am unhappy giving away any performance margin.

PS I had to piddle in a bottle as a condition of a recent
gig. Didn't have a problem with it. Nurse was young and
cute. Told her I had nothing to hide - I didn't need to pee
in private, and in fact I wouldn't mind her taking it out and
holding it, to make sure I did it right. Didn't want to spill
any.

[xsbank]

Sshhh! Don't let them know it could be more interesting than peeing in a bottle for your medical, which we all do 1 or 2 times a year anyway (don't remind them that their medical guy can ground them just like that...).

[crazycanuck]

?

[Colonel Sanders]

Ah, youth.

[Rowdy]

Hey crazycanuck.. if you're dumb enough to think there aren't long term affects (magnified by altitude, temp, pressure etc like Mr. North had so brilliantly posted) from any mind altering substances and you go off in your private aircraft and cause a conflict with me, with my revenue (read: paying to put their life in my qualified, competent and SOBER hands) and an accident results from YOUR poor decisions, you can bet your behind you will regret those choices and decisions for the rest of your life. Ask anyone thats been SOBER and clear headed about them being involved in an accident that claimed life.. not only will you have emotional trauma so great you'll hate yourself, but that will be compounded by the constant reminder from the courts, lawyers, regulator, families and the inmates who you will share a cell with for a good chunk of your life when you are CRIMINALLY convicted. By the way, what are you going to tell the mother of the 10 year old girl in the airplane going home for the weekend when you face her after the accident? How bout the pilots irate father and brothers? The judge and jury? Your own friends and family about smoking that joint the day before the flight? Right...

Paints a much clearer picture dont it?

I'm all for MANDATORY drug testing with the renewal of a medical in aviation. Screw this beat around the bush 'random' testing that gets the civil liberties crowds panties in a bunch. You want to fly planes, you stay clean. You wanna get high? go get an artsy degree and paint or work at the local seven eleven and stay far away from me.

[trey kule]

You guys take yourselves way too seriously

.

Nope..I take my responsabilities as a pilot seriously. I take the responsability to my passangers who trust me to fly them safely. I take my responsability to my fellow aviaitors serriously to make certain I am not the cause of any grief to them.
And I dont know ever want to be put in the position Rowdy described because I did something completely unneccessary like smoking dope or being imparired from alcohol.

Civil liberties are a cause dear to my heart..But the stark reality is that those that smoke dope, like addicts, rationalize their behavior by comparing it to worse things. Minimize the effect because they cant tell they are affected.

When other people suffer the consequences of intentional and wilful disregard for a person's behavior it is different than when you are being asked to give up your rights for no other reason than it makes someones job easier.

But of course, luck , as always plays a part so people might never know..And of course , if innocent people get hurt or killed the pilot responsable will feel bad and celebrate it as a learning experience..

So yes, I take things seriously, and when it comes to sharing airspace with you as a pilot, I expect you to grow up and do so as well.

Rant over

[trey kule]

For all you that think it is ok to smoke a little dope, there is an interesting thread on the general forum regarding the fatal Air Tindi crash.

[xsbank]

I posted this on the other thread - anyone want to bet whether the insurance company will wash its hands of this claim? Anyone want to bet on whether the claims that arise from this finding will sink Tindi? Anyone want to guess how hard this pilot's family is going to find it to get compensation, assuming Tindi has that sort of program? Any idea whose estate gets sued?

Anybody still think its OK to smoke up and operate an aircraft? Just you and a little weekend fun, on your day off, right?

Holy sh!t

[trey kule]

Well said XS...

I have to wonder how many of our recreational druggie pilots will think the lesson does not apply to them because they somehow will rationalize they are a diffent kind of doper.

[Rowdy]

Well said XS...

I have to wonder how many of our recreational druggie pilots will think the lesson does not apply to them because they somehow will rationalize they are a diffent kind of doper.

All of them. It is an addictive substance and hides a myriad of other underlying and root issues (depression, anxiety etc) So these fine folk will continue to rationalize and argue in favour of their continued usage.

XS, I'm betting the insurance company will certainly wash its hands. It is after all illegal to operate impaired. I will also imagine very difficult times for the pilots family. They will most likely bear the brunt of this and I do truly feel sorry for them, not only for their huge loss, but also for the fact that they will be dragged through the mud in the inquiries and courts.