Originally Posted by
thorn bird
Regarding DAMP.
I have been told more than thirty million dollars was expended to implement it, just for the regulator alone. A lot of money to address a risk that may or may not have existed. Does a DAMP manual of biblical proportions prevent or deter a determined alcoholic pilot? How many alcoholic pilots are out there? In my career I have known many pilots who like a beer, I've never encountered one who flew under the influence, then again I'm probably naive.
I've never quite understood why, other than to add some income to testing facilities, a pre-employment drug and alcohol test is required. To prove what? At that time, on that day someone was sober? I know people can be stupid but it's beyond stupid to turn up for a known test under the influence.
Could just the threat of random testing achieve the same deterrent effect without the complicated extremely expensive DAMP system?
I've been in another industry for over a decade, but even in Rail, I've seen probably more than a dozen people lose their job over the last decade due to blowing the bag, or otherwise failing a drug test. Not just train driver's, but shunter's, and even a supervisor. Random testing sadly
is required, because some people just don't get the message.
Then again, other companies aren't as stringent about the testing process - as evidenced by a recent
ATSB investigation where a Driver failed the test after an incident, yet had not had a random test in the 14 years he was with V/Line