Okay PukinDog, I'll bite. Your arguments wouldn't hold up in a high school debating team, but regardless...
My answer was to your statement that said all the money spent on alcohol testing wasn't worth it, and could be spent better elsewhere. You haven't even begun to prove that not catching one person every other month in a safety-sensitive position isn't worth it on those grounds alone, let alone your alternative being worth it.
The degradation of judgement and performance doing any task while under the influence is well known. You're arguing that CASA really shouldn't bother trying to prevent this, or enforce CASA regulations written to prevent safety-sensitive personnel performing tasks that could easily affect passengers.
The only way you can ascertain that the low level rates are a result of the program and were not exactly the same pre-2008 is to compare data we don't have. Rates of people in security sensitive roles blowing a BAC above 0.02 may well have increased since 2008. You have a circular argument.
You have no argument, and mine's in no way circular. The goal is to have ZERO people showing up to work with alcohol in their system. As good as the record is, people are still showing up to work with alcohol in thier system at a rate of one every other month. And that's only those that are caught. Everyone isn't tested at work every day. Regardless if the rate, those are 27 people caught that wouldn't have been if there were no testing.
Yes, CASA are a regulatory agency. They are also the ones who have been jamming TEM down our throats for the last few years. Are you suggesting they don't identify the threats which can lead to alcoholism? (Such as marriage/family issues, job security concerns, failed career progression etc.) They push TEM, yet when it comes to drinking and drugs, they ignore the threats, let the error occur, and then punish later just because they are "regulatory".
Licences are not only statements of proficiency of the holder, they exist in the first place, literally and as a concept, so that the issuing Agency can take them away if warranted. Yes, as punishment for violating regulations. That's their prime reason for being, first and foremost. Hand-holding towards compliance is secondary. The licence holder is still expected to adhere to the regs even if no hand-holding is forthcoming.
I would absolutely be willing to go to a "soft science" doctor as you call them to evaulate my fitness to fly. In fact, I'd hazard a guess most professional pilots would recognise they should be on the ground when a doctor say so (no matter how "soft" you think they are, or what exactly that means).
Nothing is stopping you from seeking counseling, or grounding yourself if the pressures of life get to be so much you can't screw your flying head on. If the passengers' safety is foremost in your thoughts at all times, as it should be, this shouldn't be a problem.
It would also be an opportunity for the company conselling and rehab services to be used before something becomes a problem. At the moment, you have to be busted after the offence before those services are provided.
Those opportunities exist already, but why should the government pay for a company's employee couseling and rehab costs? It would seem that if that many employees need counseling and rehab, the company should re-vamp their screening and hiring process. If they don't directly bear the brunt of the cost, they never would.
Are you suggesting providing these services AFTER someone has been caught drunk at work to be a better outcome than utilising them when someone exhibits risk criteria but before they develop a chronic, uncontrollable problem?
Avenues to seek help are there for anyone prior to problems becoming chronic, but the truly chronic become experts at hiding it. This includes hiding it from family, friends, counselors, bosses, subordinates, and so on. That's the whole point of blood tests..random screening, on suspicion, post-accident, etc etc. You can't hide from that.
Please show me where exactly I suggested that pilots "need ongoing professional mental therapy to function".
It would simply identify pilots where further investigation and rehabilitation might be in the best interests of safety. In this case, CASA could refer the issue to the airline who could provide a counselling type program to the affected pilot.
How is that a function of a regulatory agency? Don't you have to answer mental health questions and/or report visits to mental health professionals on your medical certificate? I don't see how someone lying on those questions would suddenly come clean in a once-a-year therapy session. Anyway, a lot can happen in a year in terms of stress factors, and your talking about one snapshot every 12 months. Just like the case of your physical condition, if circumstances change that would render your medical certificate invalid between those snapshots it's incumbent upon the professional to ground him/herself until the condition is corrected.
I never said it would be a "test" either. It might be as simple as mandatory with no pass/fail, but the Doctors could simply recommend to individuals or airlines that it gets looked into further.
That sounds like the purview of an internal, company wellness program to me. You still haven't made the case for CASA to stop alcohol screenings/testing in the name of safety. And even if they did do away with random screenings, the circumstances of this case (due to suspicion) would most likely require a test anyway.