Random Drug and Alcohol Testing

[Sidebar]

I just read an interesting article about this at: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinio ... 07286.html

News reports regularly provide evidence of pilots flying or attempting to fly with alcohol in their bodies, and TSB reports show drugs are being used by people employed in transportation in Canada:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 5w0166.asp
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 1c0236.asp
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/preoccupations ... 052_bc.pdf
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 0v0038.asp

My two previous employers both had testing policies. Although I was never tested, I thought it was a valid approach to mitigating the risk of employee impairment. I certainly didn't want to be flying with someone who was using drugs. I also didn't see it as an unreasonable invasion of privacy, because I didn't have anything to worry about if I was tested.

Anybody out there been subject to testing? What are your thoughts?

[ahramin]

I also didn't see it as an unreasonable invasion of privacy, because I didn't have anything to worry about if I was tested.

This shows a complete lack of understanding of what privacy is. If the only time you protect your privacy is when you have something to hide, then you don't have any privacy do you? For example in the days of phone books many women tried to hide the fact that there was a woman living alone by only having the first letter of their name in the phone book instead of their female first name in full. Which meant that anyone in the phone book with only a first initial was a single woman living alone.

Do you really think that you wouldn't mind if the police went through everything in your home simply because you aren't hiding anything illegal there?

As for drug testing, it is an invasion of privacy, but so is an employer demanding to see your logbook. We seem to think the latter is reasonable, but I'm not sure the former is reasonable at this time. The drug laws in this country leave a lot to be desired, and are not based on any reasonable position.

On the other hand, alcohol is legal and available everywhere. I've never heard of or seen a situation where the safety of a flight was compromised by drugs, but I see alcohol abuse affecting flight safety several times a year. Wouldn't it be better to spend our efforts trying to deal with alcohol before we worry about drugs?

[CD]

Of course, in the land of the free just south of Canada, things are a wee bit different:

FAA: Industry Drug and Alcohol Testing Program

The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 requires drug and alcohol testing of safety-sensitive transportation employees in aviation.

The Drug Abatement Division develops and implements regulations for DOT/FAA drug and alcohol testing. These regulations cover employers, safety-sensitive employees and service agents. These rules are encompassed in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 40 and 14 CFR Part 120.

The division also oversees the aviation industry’s compliance with drug and alcohol testing regulations. This oversight is accomplished with on-site inspections, guidance documents, and policies.

A Message from the Secretary: Why this Program is so Important (PDF)
Contacts
Drug Abatement Division
Drug and Alcohol FAQs
Email: drugabatement @ faa.gov

[Meatservo]

I approve of drug testing. I have lots of friends outside of aviation who smoke drugs, and through my own observations I believe that prolonged dope-smoking leads to personality changes that aren't noticed or are even considered desireable by the dope smoker. Personally I think that long-term dope smokers, even when they aren't actually stoned, experience a diminishment in their concern for tasks, alertness, and motivation. This is what I feel I have noticed, at any rate. I do not approve of pilots smoking dope. Maybe the same things can be said about alcohol, but I think using this as justification to allow dope smoking is a logical fallacy.

[Taiser]

When they start drug testing all welfare recipients or anyone on the government teat with my tax dollars for that matter, then and only then will I gladly pee in a cup on demand for my job!!!

[PPslap]

Did anyone actually read the article:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinio ... 07286.html

8.3 percent of those who test positive are innocent!!! I've never done an illicit drug in my life, but this scares the shit out of me!! imagine being part of that 8.3 percent!! Career over. While the guy actually doing drugs is getting away with using a false sample, cause he knows he has something to hide!!

Has anyone ever had a problem with a co-worker showing up to work high or effected in anyway by drugs? I think this testing is just fear mongering .... A good way for a drug testing company to sell its services or products. Sounds like something they might do in the Excited States of America.

[Colonel Sanders]

I don't think that pilots should smoke cigarettes
either, but no one cares about impaired vision.

[Instructor_Mike]

8.3 percent of those who test positive are innocent!!! I've never done an illicit drug in my life, but this scares the shit out of me!! imagine being part of that 8.3 percent!! Career over. While the guy actually doing drugs is getting away with using a false sample, cause he knows he has something to hide!!

That's why people are tested multiple times. For alcohol as an exampled, if an officer gives you a breathalyzer and it shows you have been drinking, they have to wait 15 minutes (in case it was mouth wash) and test again. Then I believe they might even need to take a blood sample when you get to the station but i'm not sure about the last part.

For me the issue would be how they admin the tests and what is acceptable/when. I would think if there is a simple test like a breathalyzer they should simply do it randomly before the pilot gets on board an aircraft.

As far the drug tests that read into weeks of a persons personal life, then I'm more hesitant. What if I had the flu or something and took meds and booked off work while sick. The residual could still be in my system so if i get tested a week later I may show positive and would that be justified?

When they start drug testing all welfare recipients or anyone on the government teat with my tax dollars for that matter, then and only then will I gladly pee in a cup on demand for my job!!!

Yes assuming illegal drugs

[Doc]

Pretty simple. If I've had an Advil, I call in sick. Really. I don't intend to fuuk with this. One beer after 11:00 pm, it's a call in sick day. Done deal. Want to screw with my freedom? I'll spend the day sailing.

[Instructor_Mike]

Pretty simple. If I've had an Advil, I call in sick. Really. I don't intend to fuuk with this. One beer after 11:00 pm, it's a call in sick day. Done deal. Want to screw with my freedom? I'll spend the day sailing.

Unfortunately some people (hopefully a very very small minority) are the problem. I don't know how much of a freedom issue it is. I think that as long as the drugs are legal and you don't break 8 hours bottle to throttle there isn't a problem. You don't have the freedom to drink any fly anyway. Also what about freedom/right a passenger or crew member has to think their pilot is clean?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a little on the fence about it on some levels, but also consider that people that may drink and fly think they can get away with it. RIDE programs (random road stop) are of limited success directly but some of the less honest folk will avoid driving if they think the stops will around the corner. I'm not behind this 100%, but random pre-flight breathalyzers wouldn't be that bad IMO.

[North Shore]

Ok, I'll play the libertarian here...

As long as I show up, clean, sober and well rested, how is it anyone's business what I do on my time away from work? Most of those drugs simply show the presence of metabolites (ie, drugs/alcohol have been used in the past x hours) not actual impairment. If I want to snort, bang or pop on my own time, as long as I'm ready to go come work time, then it should be all good. And considering I sit in the (somewhat) pointy end of the plane, and thus am likely to hit the ground first in the event of my impairment becoming a factor, it's pretty much in my best interests to show up clear-headed!

What aren't they asking surgeons/judges/politicians to pee in a bottle too? They have just as much responsibility as we do, in a sense, and I've yet to hear jokes about drunk pilots.

Defendant: I was drunk as a judge when I committed the offense.
Judge: The expression is "sober as a judge". Don't you mean "drunk as a lord"?
Defendant: Yes, my lord.

[Meatservo]

Meh. I don't want to hear about druggies flying planes. There are plenty of jobs that you can do while tripping balls. Go get one of those jobs. I'm not interested in having a lazy pothead flying over my house in an aeroplane.

[North Shore]

Bloody druggies.. To the coffee pot, direct, every morning...

[Doc]

Meh. I don't want to hear about druggies flying planes. There are plenty of jobs that you can do while tripping balls. Go get one of those jobs. I'm not interested in having a lazy pothead flying over my house in an aeroplane.

If they're actually over your house, my good meat, you're safe.
Dope smoking, snorting, shooting up pilots are such a HUGE PROBLEM. Ya, sure. If it ain't broke, fix it till it is.

[Dash-Ate]

When they start drug testing all welfare recipients or anyone on the government teat with my tax dollars for that matter, then and only then will I gladly pee in a cup on demand for my job!!!

And (unelected) Senators' wives...

['CauseTheCaravanCan]

I say test 'em. Test me too!
I've seen a couple of real idiots (with numerous DUI's) under their belt,
show up for work/flying after a night of drink 'till you puke type partying.
This dates back to flight school too.
Call me goody two shoes, but I would have LLLLOVED to see them all burned.
I HATE drunk drivers.

Makes me less well liked, that attitude.

But...I'm a honey badger. I don't give a f*ck!

[Expat]

I remember one day, waiting for the flight in an unnamed airport. Sitting at the next table were a group of people, having breakfast. On the table, a bottle of vodka, and one of local cognac.
Then they stood up, put on their hats, and left. They were the crew flying me next. If you do it, do it well, do it in moderation.
In my opinion, a hang over can be worse than a couple of shots in the morning. For those who can drink of course.

[co-joe]

...

Has anyone ever had a problem with a co-worker showing up to work high or effected in anyway by drugs? ...

No I had a few show up retarded though.

Sunwest was the only company that actually made me pee in a cup. Everybody else threatened to but they were the only ones who paid the money for a full drug test.

[MrWings]

When they start drug testing all welfare recipients or anyone on the government teat with my tax dollars for that matter, then and only then will I gladly pee in a cup on demand for my job!!!

How is this even related?

One involves the needy getting government assistance. The other involves the safety of people and lives put at risk.

So you'd let people die before someone gets a few dollars you don't think they deserve?

[Meatservo]

What's a honey badger?

[Doc]

What's a honey badger?

Google it. Don't have a hot coffee in your hand while you do. Then you'll understand.

[Doc]

I say test 'em. Test me too!
I've seen a couple of real idiots (with numerous DUI's) under their belt,
show up for work/flying after a night of drink 'till you puke type partying.
This dates back to flight school too.
Call me goody two shoes, but I would have LLLLOVED to see them all burned.
I HATE drunk drivers.

Makes me less well liked, that attitude.

But...I'm a honey badger. I don't give a f*ck!

Problem is, once you start giving up your rights of freedom and privacy, it's a slippery slope. Be careful what you wish for. I'm as against drunk drivers as the next guy, and I've known one or two pilots who showed up for work in no condition to fly. One or two, maybe three or four, in 35 years. That's not very many. There is no problem here. It's a knee jerk reaction, as usual. Protect your rights and freedoms, because when they're gone, they're gone forever.

[azimuthaviation]

Why doesn't someone stc an interlocking device for aircraft? I could make some extra money during the slow times selling cans of compressed air at the airport.

[azimuthaviation]

There is no problem here. It's a knee jerk reaction, as usual.

Like mandating all passengers on float planes wear life jackets, requiring TAWS on all commercial flights and turbine powered aircraft, and taking toothpaste away from carry ons?

[Instructor_Mike]

Problem is, once you start giving up your rights of freedom and privacy, it's a slippery slope. Be careful what you wish for. I'm as against drunk drivers as the next guy, and I've known one or two pilots who showed up for work in no condition to fly. One or two, maybe three or four, in 35 years. That's not very many. There is no problem here. It's a knee jerk reaction, as usual. Protect your rights and freedoms, because when they're gone, they're gone forever.

There is a bit of balance here too. What about the rights/freedom of the passengers expecting to get on an aircraft (where they are a paying customer) where they expect the crew to be clean? (I'm not limiting to pilots either).

To go to an extreme should we take out the I'M SAFE checklist since it restricts you from flying while on Meth after not eating or sleeping for 24 hours? I know over the top but the slippery slope does work both way.

I don't agree with the blood tests that go so far as what you may have done weeks ago, but a breathalyzer isn't the same IMO. You either are intoxicated at that time or not. I partially agree with the libertarian of what I do on my own time is my business, but company time is not your time.

What's a honey badger?

Google it. Don't have a hot coffee in your hand while you do. Then you'll understand.