Pilots face drug and alcohol tests

[Wirraway]

Thurs "The Australian"

Pilots face drug and alcohol tests
By Steve Creedy
March 18, 2004

THE Australian Transport Safety Bureau will recommend today that the Government consider introducing drug and alcohol testing across the aviation industry.

The recommendations is part of its final report on a plane crash at Hamilton Island that killed six people,

A New Zealand family of four, an American on his honeymoon and an Australian pilot died when the Piper Cherokee Six crashed shortly after takeoff on its way to Lindeman island in September 2002.

Speculation about the crash had centred on engine problems after witnesses reported the plane sounded abnormal, but a toxicology test is understood to have detected alcohol and substances linked to cannabis consumption in the pilot's blood.

The ATSB's interim report found the engine was still working when the plane hit the ground, and that the aircraft had sufficient fuel of the right kind. Weight and balance were within approved limits, and the 32-year-old aircraft had current airworthiness and maintenance documentation.

The report draws attention to the lack of information about the use of alcohol and drugs in the aviation industry, and expresses the view that current regulations do not act as a sufficient deterrent.

However, moves to introduce random drug and alcohol testing at airlines have proved controversial, and Qantas last year put widespread tests on hold after union opposition.

Airservices Australia's risk management procedures came under fire again yesterday after investigators found deficiencies in a decision to reduce air traffic control hours prior to a fatal mid-air collision at Melbourne's Moorabbin airport in 2002.

Moorabbin's air traffic control tower was not in use when two Cessna aircraft on final approach after doing circuits of the airport became entangled and crashed in a ball of flame on the runway.

Qantas trainee pilot Holly Smith, 19, died in the accident but a 24-year-old student pilot in the other plane, and his 20-year-old instructor, survived.

The ATSB found deficiencies in the risk management process, but could not determine whether the reduction contributed to the accident.

The Australian

==========================================

[TIMMEEEE]

So whats all the hoo-har about??

Big deal if crew are alcohol and drug tested.
You come to work sober and drug free and no hassle.

If a result turns up a drug (such as prescription) then thats justified.

In Japan apparently crew are required to be breath tested at sign on.

Have a few beers/wines etc but be responsible.
I reackon the drug testing may catch out a few cabin crew that indulge in party drugs etc.

[Paul Martin]

Timmee, I used to have the same attitude as yourself. If you have nothing to hide why worry? I don't think it is quite as simple as that any more. We are all working much harder these days. Longer duties with multiple sectors and then to cap it off we sometimes get minimum rest before we kick off to do it all again. Most pilots I know like to have a social drink. Particularly after a hard day. I have been informed by a quack friend that if I were to have 3 whiskey's on the rocks within 1 hour (not an uncommon situation) then after 10 hours without any more booze, I could still record a blood alcohol level of over ZERO.

Metabolic rates vary between individuals and also males and females. What concerns me is that even if I was being cautious and sensible, finishing a drink 2 hours before the legal requirement of 8 hours from bottle to throttle, I could still record a positive result, and as a consequence lose my licesense and livelihood.

If someone with a medical background could provide evidence of what safety risk a pilot, who finished a few quiet drinks 10 hours before sign on is, I would be very appreciatve.

I think we need to be convinced that what the authorities are embarking on is in some way going to improve safety. Just as importantly, pilot's need to have some recourse to appeal.

I have no doubt testing will be implemented. I just hope they get it right and treat pilots with impunity until the individual (threat to safety) case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

[Ang737]

Hot off the press



Media Release (http://www.atsb.gov.au/atsb/media/mrel049.cfm )
Occurence Report (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?) Alcohol and Pilots (http://www.atsb.gov.au/public/discuss/alcohol.cfm ) Wacky Tabacci and Pilots (http://www.atsb.gov.au/public/discuss/cannabis.cfm )


Ang ;)

[SM4 Pirate]

I have little problem with testing per sae, if conducted by an independent body; in a random and objective manner.

If there is no evidence that problems exist; why then is there a need.

I would be totally against 'targetting' without event. If there is an accident/incedent then there is probable cause to test; such as after a multiple car accident; but the test must test for impairment.

Urine based tests are more a 'history' rather than an impairment test. Saliva and breath tests are more indicitive to impairment.

Tests should be testing impairment and ability to perform, not your lifestyle choices. i.e. your latest trip to holland one month prior to being tested, which has totally nothing to do with your ability to do your job. Yet you could get a please explain; if it's at company level you are more likely to be targetted or tested 'randomly' again.

Bottle of Rum

[currawong]

Test away.

Just don't hit us for $200 a throw.

:yuk:

[Aussierotor]

Whats the motto-------2 standard drinks in the first hour and 1 every hour after keeps you under .05

I think a shot of Whiskey is a standard drink,so 3 shots in an hour would put you on around .075 minus 1 hour of the liver doing its job which brings it to .05 .Another 2 hours should have it on zero.

Where the problem lies is in the company-------what are their rules etc.

Where i am its 3 strikes and your out on drug results ,The first 2 your on holidays or unpaid leave until you finally get a neg result.
Blowing the breath test and failing ,go home or sit around an hour or so until it drops.

I think that is a fair way to do it cause if you have that kind of problem after 3 then your not going to improve.
But ,if a company gives you the chop after the first positive reading then i dont agree as everyone is human and makes a blunder sometime in their life.

Re drug issues ,they ask what meds your on first ,if any

[Baldricks Mum]

Oh Oh!
This means I won't be able to do my favorite toast before each flight.

"May the tinkle of our glasses be drowned out by the sound of our engines."

[Cactus Jack]

I agree with the principle of "I'm not worried because I've got nothing to hide". However - it is far more complex than this simple statement...

There are many medications which although prescribed, will show up in blood tests as prohibited drugs, sometimes many months later. And just like sportsmen and women, pilots will be found "GUILTY" until proven innocent.

Remember, we are talking about lifelong careers here.

Drug testing itself I'm sure is a good thing. BUT, the protocols MUST be worked out correctly.

[*Lancer*]

Paul, you're forgetting that there is no blood alcohol limit for flying (And to my knowledge no court has yet set a precedent). You just have to not be 'under the influence' - in practice that would probably be determined as 0.05. The aim of this sort of testing seems to be for chronic substance abuse, so it wouldn't necessarily be interested in a simple blood alcohol level (more like liver function etc).

[Transition Layer]

Speculation about the crash had centred on engine problems after witnesses reported the plane sounded abnormal, but a toxicology test is understood to have detected alcohol and substances linked to cannabis consumption in the pilot's blood.

That sentence really gives me the sh1ts!!! Basically it's saying that the investigation "had" centred on engine problems, but that is all irrelevant because of the alcohol/cannabis content in his blood.

Does that mean the aircraft would have still crashed had the engine not failed, cause the pilot was "high" or "drunk"? No bloody way!

The media strikes again...

TL

[The Voice]

speaking practicably ..

it is accepted here in the top end that a person who has recorded a breath analysis reading that requires him/her to be detained for a period of time, shall be so until the blood alcohol is 'down' to approximately .08%.

Without going into all the 'legal' whys and wherefors .. a loss of .02% per hour is used to calculate that period of time before release.

so, unless the session was particularly huge, 8 hours x .02% = alcohol loss of .16% .. any alcohol left in the system SHOULD be miniscule ... unless of course it was an absolute bender

as far as 'under the influence' goes, it is purely a subjective thing. What may appear to me to be sober, may appear to you to be under the influence .. and someone who doesn't drink regularly will appear to be more drunk than someone who does, after only a small intake.

Further, everyone has a different tolerance level of alcohol. Factors such as male/female, body height/weight, sleep/lack of, general health/fitness, any medication taken, time of last meal/type of meal, period of time/how many drinks consumed, all of these factors combined affect the actual absorption rate of alcohol ..


drugs are a different kettle of fish ..

[HotDog]

Transition, this is exactly like a traffic accident where somebody totally sober runs a red light and totals your car. Mandatory breathalyser tests show you are .05 but the driver running the red light is .00. You are then found guilty, loose your insurance etc. How many aviation accidents have been proven to be the result of over the limit aircrew?

[Wirraway]

Fri "The Age"

Pilot had drugs, alcohol: report
By Orietta Guerrera
Canberra
March 19, 2004

Kevin and Joanne Bowles with their children Sophie, 9, and Michael, 6, who were killed in a light plane crash on Hamilton Island off the Queensland coast in 2002.

Random alcohol and drug testing for all pilots will be considered after a report found substance use by a pilot may have contributed to a crash that killed him and five passengers.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau's final report on the crash recommended that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Transport Department consider testing.

The investigation found Andrew Morris, 27, had alcohol, cannabis and Panadeine in his system, and had had less than seven hours sleep when the Piper Cherokee he was flying crashed off Hamilton Island on September 26, 2002.

A New Zealand family of four and an American man on his honeymoon died along with Mr Morris.

The American and his new wife were separated when the woman took an earlier plane, volunteering her seat so that the Bowles family, from Auckland, could sit together.

Witnesses reported that the engine began "coughing" shortly after the plane reached the end of the runway on take-off, and the pilot initiated a steep right turn before it crashed.

The report said the incident was the result of a low-altitude aviation stall. It could not conclusively determine whether this could be blamed on the engine trouble or pilot error.

"There was insufficient evidence to definitively link the pilot's prior intake of alcohol and or cannabis with the occurrence," the report said.

"However, the adverse effects on pilot performance of post-alcohol impairment, recent cannabis use and fatigue could not be discounted as contributory factors to the occurrence."

Bureau executive director Kym Bills said inadequate training may also have been a factor.

"In hindsight, a safer course would have been to fly straight ahead and try to ditch into the sea," he said.

All flight crew on commercial and private aircraft currently are prohibited from boarding under the influence of drugs and alcohol, but the rule is self-policed.

Federal Transport Minister John Anderson said yesterday that CASA and the Transport Department would present him with the terms of reference for an inquiry into pilot testing by April 14.

He said there was a clear need to tackle the risks of drugs and alcohol in aviation.

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the inquiry would need to determine whether cabin crew and ground staff should be tested as well as pilots, whether random testing was necessary and who would test pilots.

The review might also need to include a study into the extent of the problem.

"There has been no Australian study of this so we don't actually know how widespread the problem may or may not be," Mr Gibson said.

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots - representing about 2000 pilots - said it would co-operate with the review, despite reservations about a random testing program.

Senior industrial officer Laurie Cox said most pilots were extremely professional. "I don't believe it's a widespread problem at all," he said. "I would have said it's a minor problem."

Qantas faced a union backlash when it proposed ran-dom drug and alcohol testing last year. An airline spokes-woman said yesterday that negotiations on the issue were continuing.

Qantas pilots undergo breath and urine testing before being employed, after an incident, upon reasonable suspicion, and after self-referral.

===========================================

[hadagutful]

OK Folks, here we go again.............................

Basically society (read politicians) make most rules based on the behaviour of the few to the detriment and inconvenience of all others.

There are numerous examples out there..............banning bringing your own alcohol at sporting venues because of the few idiots who throw cans at others, the ridiculous crackdown on 'speed' with speed cameras because of a few hoons, etc., etc.,

The point is I would hazard a guess that the overwhelming majority of pilots would have a responsible attitude towards alcohol and prescribed drugs and wouldn't think too many would be using the illicit kind.

Will there now be the typical knee-jerk reaction by the legislators because a pilot is found to have abnormal toxicology results post mortem.

We can only wait and see what will happen 'in the public interest'

[The Voice]

All of the media reports use the words "traces of alcohol, cannabis and a panadeine like medication"

alcohol once processed leaves the body, unlike cannabis which can be detected for an extended period of time (ie weeks) after consumption. Medication is similar to cannabis with regard to detection.

Within the legal system, if someone is ordered to undergo regular drug testing, particularly with cannabis, the first test undertaken detects a level which is then used as a base for future tests As long as that level reduces for each and every subsequent test, it is concluded that the user has 'stopped' using.

Just because there is a residual of the drug in someones system, it does NOT mean that the person is under the influence of it, it simply means that the person is or has used it ..

If testing is to be introduced it is going to be a very very costly exercise for each and every company.

I would suggest by the use of the word trace that on all counts, the amounts detected are minor, otherwise the media would be using much stronger language in describing the poor mans social activities .. and gladly bandying about the actual figures.

[the wizard of auz]

Just as I said on the other thread. Typical media hype, resulting in typical "unknowing public" outcry and then typical polly driven Kneejerk reaction......................... friggen Media should be made to pay for all the crap they start, and pollies should be made accountable for the money that going to be wasted on this crap.

Media.............. WAKE UP YOU FRIGGEN IDIOTS........ the crap you hype up during your attempt at selling the rags you print, have ongoing effects on other peoples lives. :mad:

[Northern Chique]

The general concensis on the toxicology of cannabis recordable levels will show up usually in miniscule amounts for short times after low level exposure, for example, being at a party where there are one or two folks having a quiet smoke nearby, may only show up for a couple of trips to the loo after exposure ceases.

Habitual users, somewhat akin to every weekend on good weed will definitely show the longer term traces up to 20 days to a month after the last exposure. Each drug type has to be specifically tested for. One would assume that testing would focus on alcohol. cannabis and opiate or opiate synthetic products such as codine. The effects of drugs and the onset / offset of the drug depends on, what, how much, what quality, food or no food, any other drugs or substances in the system, liver and kidney state, general health and age.

Lack of good sleep is as much a disaster as drinking. Some folks blast through life on five hours, some need nine. Stress factors also play an incidious part in reducing ones efficacy.

Codine (that must have been on hell of a hangover!) orally has an onset of effect of approximately half an hour and depending on food intake and liver function, sometimes more quickly. It can play havok in a dehydrated body by further reducing the blood pressure. Thus dizzy spells, disorientation and nausea (if he wasnt nauseous enough already) can occur. Stress of a difficult take off with a full load will only compound the problem. Adrenaline increases the blood pressure to vital organs such as the heart and lungs. The pupillary response is to enlarge (the last thing you want during a hangover when the codine has nicely pinpointed them for you), the nausea increases, the disorientation increases, and the adrenergic response is to do something, anything, and do it quick.

Simplisticly, dehyrated bodies may have electrolyte imbalances depending on the cause of the dehaydration. In the worst case scenario, these can induce blackouts, through to seizures. Hypoglycaemia (low levels of sugar in the blood) can also result in the same outcome. In normal cases where a huge binge has occured, any food matter eaten may well have been lost, thus making the body work harder to break down stored sources.

That is made more difficult by the fact the liver is trying to process the alcohol and preservatives that are usually in it. The kidneys are now working overtime as the alcohol is a diruretic. The picture of the classic hang over. Brains despite their complexity are simple users. They need Oxygen, water, glucose, a good supply route, and waste disposal. As a diuretic, alchol reduces the water to the brain, thus reducing the effective transport medium. The nausea takes care of the reliable sugar source.

Bad decisions regarding emergencies can be made uner the best of circumstances. Reducing the odds, reduces the chance of a positive outcome significantly.

He made a decision to take off that day after what appeared to be one hell of a bender, with innocent lives. He took one hell of a risk. Ive seen it done before where pilots have gone home after pub closing and continued a drink or two at home. One was litterallyy picked up out of a gutter, thrown in the shower at the airport, and still very much under the weather, flew. Its not uncommon.

On the legal side of things, under the state transport act, a person in charge of a vehical for revenue shall not have a breath alcohol level in excess of 0.00. Most accept that errors and anommalies can occur, so anything up to 0.02 is investigated with a blood test. Anything over is loss of licence and a court hearing. Every pilot knows that also as a part of the bottle to throttle rule, the addition of or any other substance or condition that will be detrimental to the performance of the pilot. Id say he should have stayed at home. He would have been at home recovering. In addition to that, Im not saying the outcome would have been any different if an engine failure had occured.

We have drug testing at work, and no one objected its introduction. It is done by a third party, and we get to keep a sample of both products for independent analysis if we so wish. After all, you wouldnt want a hungover paramedic trying to save your kid now would you, or put the same kid on a school bus that has a driver really under the influence. Whats the difference? Sure, an immotive issue for those who defend positive readings during work... but I am sure if you read most Ops manuals, you will find a condition of employment is flying alcohol free.

The media would grab this and run! Thats what they do. Drink drivers are published all the time, along with some pretty bad excuses during court hearings. The NT has some of the highest readings Ive seen anywhere, and there seems to be an unofficial competetion to see who can score the highest when the levels are published in the paper. Its a bad situation but generally accepted. It costs lives and livelyhood. Dont accept the situation in avaition. Theres enough to contend with already, especially in GA.

I am all for drug testing. The folks who go about taking other peoples lives cheaply deserve to be caught.

[Captain Sand Dune]

The RAAF used to be "8 hours bottle to throttle" but changed to "zero blood alcohol content" some time ago. Theory being if one is involved in an incident/accident a blood sample could be taken, and if ANY alcohol is found - you're *****d.
About a year ago we were notified of random drug testing. Haven't heard of any in the aviation community - yet.

[VH-UFO]

I work in the mining industry and we are quite frequently tested for both alcohol and drugs.

Frankly, i'm surprised you pilots are not tested on a regular basis.

Our site is quite relaxed, we are tested on a random basis.

If you fail the alcohol test (.000), you are given half an hour then re-tested. If you fail again you are immediately sent home and given a written warning. Repeat offenders are sent down the road.

If you fail a drug test, you are suspended immediately and the rest of your sample sent to Perth for testing. If it comes up positive again you are sent for rehabilitation then sent back to work. Fail another test and its bye bye.

Some mine sites conduct tests EVERY day.

So when i say i'm surprised you lot are not tested regularly, if not before every flight, considering your responsibility, i MEAN im surprised!:oh:

[Duck N Weave]

Unfortunately for "The Voice" , alcohol is also a drug.

[Ushuaia]

Extracts from the ATSB Report (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/pdf/200204328.pdf)

"The pilot’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was found to be 0.081%. However, the
examining toxicologist stated that, due to the possibility for post-mortem production of
alcohol, that result should be interpreted with caution."

"A witness reported that, on 23 September 2002, the pilot retired for bed sometime after
2345. The pilot was free from flying duties on 24 and 25 September and moved into
alternative accommodation on 25 September. While the pilot’s eating and sleeping
patterns could not be fully determined for those days, the pilot was reported to have
consumed several alcoholic drinks on the night prior to the occurrence, before retiring to
his hotel room at about 2300.
Telephone records revealed that the pilot made two calls and sent four text messages to
the visiting friend that night, the last being at 0042 on the day of the occurrence.
Subsequently, the pilot spoke to that friend on the day of the occurrence at 1406 for 1
minute 30 seconds. The pilot informed the caller that everything was alright.

On the day of the occurrence, the pilot arrived at work at about 0725."

"At about 1708 Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 26 September 2002, ...... (he).... reported taxiing for departure
from runway 14 at Hamilton Island, Queensland."


If this pilot was 0.081 nearly ten hours after commencing duty, then it was either due to:

(a) him being well in excess of 0.081 at the commencement of duty at 0725, in which case he would have been virtually paralytic and incapable of flying; or

(b) drinking during the duty period; or

(c) post-mortem alcohol production of alcohol;

The report warns that (c) is possible hence the 0.081 needs to be treated with caution. The report also says he had a few drinks the night before and then went to bed. There is NO EVIDENCE of a blinder.

I reckon most people, passengers would know if a pilot was so drunk that ten hours on he is still 0.08. I personally believe option (a) is most unlikely. Option (b) is similarly almost impossible without someone noticing. Option (c) is the most likely.

And yet we now have this focus on random testing for the industry. I don't, as such, have a problem with a realistic, fair program....but I just don't trust them to get it right. It will be too hardline, too rigid and will end up screwing people. Zero BAC type programs will screw people. Even 0.02 will.

A pity they didn't actually determine what actually caused the engine failure. Sounds like there were plenty of warning signs that something was about to break..... There should be a little more focus on the reasons why new/junior pilots don't ground defective aircraft! Have a read of the report re vibration on earlier flights.

[Bad medicine]

CSD,

Just for info, the RAAF (and the rest of the ADF for that matter) rule was indeed zero blood alcohol, and no symptoms of hangover. As of last week it become that, plus 12 hours alcohol free.

Cheers,

BM

[The Voice]

Duck N Weave,

nothing unfortunate for me ...

I merely speak as others do .. would it be better for you if I wrote,

'OTHER' drugs are another kettle of fish?

[IBTheseus]

Here at CAL, where personal rights are yet to be respected, we have random alcohol testing with equipement that looks out of the 70's. The rules say the breathaliser is acceptable for the final reading.

Even CAL have a sence of humour up to 0.02. After that, its one strike and your out. We are not allowed to purchase duty free alcohol while on duty, or have any alcohol on you (bags) at all. Interpret that as you will. (after shave??).

After one of the locals came to work in Nov 03, when it would have been wiser to stay at home, CAL even for a while went down to 0.00. While the situation is fluid?? they now have returned to 0.02. The body has a natural level of alcohol production.

If alcohol and drug testing is done in Aust, then there will be some powerful unions (QF) ensuring personal rights are respected, and the verasity of the result can be ensured. The courts will also ensure the verasity of the results.

Here in CAL it is 12 hours between drink and sign on, which is wise with the strict limits. This really bugg@rs up you social life. 8 hours was a drink and a sleep and you were right. Many of our layovers stop you from having a drink.

[tenke]

If there really is a serious problem with drugs/alcohl and flying then the testing should not be random it should be for everybody always. That way no one can get away with flying intoxicated. But of course the problem isn't that big that the current advocates for random drug testing would want to bare the huge costs involved!!!