Random Testing

[deathcruzer]

Rumours are that we as an industry are going to be subject to random Alcohol and Drugs testing as soon as we check in for a flying duty...
More Big brother legislation..on an industry that had never in its history ever had an accident attributed to either :suspect:
We have been self regulating and IMHO that for the most part has worked.
Ah I hear you all say ...what about the pilots caught on the flight deck over the limit?...
Well surely the fact that this tiny minority that have been caught is a testimony to the system, as it stands,is working.
Why then is it necessary to inflict the stress of this random testing process on the rest of us?
I for one, am completely against this.
As mentioned above it inflicts unnecessary stress on crews at check in.
This Big Brother monitoring creates mistrust among the crews and the employers,which will further lower morale.
It could end up increasing sickness rates,consider,... a crew member has been to a party the night before and feels as though he/she may be a touch over....Job on the line if he/she is?...
Isn't this a form of harrassment...?? :uhoh:
It is bound to create a plausible case for a claimant on some point of law....
Any lawyers out there with comments on this....

[vapilot2004]

I propose random testing for those in all government positions,the police and security agencies, the DEA, the MIx, lorry drivers and train operators also then and while we are at it, why not the :mad: media as well. :E

[Blackcoffeenosugar]

I have worked in an Airline where there were alcohol tests conducted in the briefing room almost every day. The tests were performed by hirecops that normally worked airport security. Can you imagine? :hmm:
I am also against it- I never drink the day before a flight, but the stress of being tested in front of all the other crewmembers was still there. And the underlying inisinuations, and the fact that being a pilot in that company made everybody suspect you of being a drunk was far from plesant.
Let's hope the union guys stop this!

[millerman]

As an ATCO I have the possibility of being tested for alcohol or drugs at any time whilst on duty and I don't see it as a problem!
So why should it be any different for pilots?
I don't believe it should be done in front of everybody else in the crewroom, but if companies use discretion and courtesy it can be handled very well.
The alcohol test is the easy one but my company are having real problems with the drugs test. The original test brought up false readings which caused all sorts of problems and the new tests have to be sent to a lab and you get the results within 3 days!!! which kind of defeats the object as the person carries on working (at the moment ) until the results are received:ugh:
If the airline companies bring this in sensibly and with a little bit of thought it shouldn't really cause too many problems - unless you have something to hide:eek:

[fireflybob]

As one who has been out of the aviation industry but about to get back into it I have no qualms about being subject to random testing. The last job I had was working as a signaller in the railway industry. All operational staff on the railway could be random screened at any time and it was automatically done in the event of an incident or accident. When you join the organisation you know exactly what the Drugs and Alcohol Policy is and I must also give credit to the Company which, as part of our initial training, took time to teach all staff the effects of alcohol and drugs and how long it took for alcohol to be dissipated from ones system.

Of course all screening should be done in the correct manner and it is probably "off limits" for this to be conducted in front of other staff members, although it might be useful to have a witness to confirm that the process is being conducted properly.

In conclusion, random testing has my full support for those in safety critical occupations - this would include cabin crew as well as flight deck.

[London Mil]

More Big brother legislation..on an industry that had never in its history ever had an accident attributed to either :suspect:
We have been self regulating and IMHO that for the most part has worked.




What about the Aliyah crash then. The jury is still out but the 'evidence' seems rather compelling.


As mentioned above it inflicts unnecessary stress on crews at check in.

Oh puhlease................:oh: :oh:

[Blackcoffeenosugar]

As far as I know, all pilots are very very serious about their tasks and responsibilities when it comes to work. The fact that we should be subject to random screening is in it self an assumtion that there is a need for it.
As mentioned before, I felt great discomfort with having to undergo the tests, even though I know I have nothing to hide. In my pervious life I conducted alcohol and drugs tests on military personell, and I know that there is a margin of error. :=
As you said, if an error does occur, the person affected will be subject to even more suspicion.
We have a peer intervention culture that workes well, and in addition we have to do a medical examination once or twice a year. The doctors will pick up any hits of alcoholism. And if the person is not a drunk, than I trust my peers judgement. And trust them not to show up for work if in doubt of the alcohol, or drug level in their blood.
The same judgement I trust them to use when operating heavy metal at high speeds!!

[Groundloop]

It could end up increasing sickness rates,consider,... a crew member has been to a party the night before and feels as though he/she may be a touch over....Job on the line if he/she is?...

Looks to me like deathcruzer has just shot his own argument down in flames!
Someone thinks they may be "a touch over" but, WTH, report for duty anyway!

[SLFguy]

It could end up increasing sickness rates,consider,... a crew member has been to a party the night before and feels as though he/she may be a touch over....Job on the line if he/she is?...


Please dear God tell me you're not a pilot!!:uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh:

[deathcruzer]

London Mill......next time you and your children fly, you wont mind sitting behind a pilot who is stressed....? brave man.....:D

Sorry Slf guy wrong reply..but having said that It would surprise me whether you are involved in aviation yourself since you don't seen to have any knowledge on how things work....
People go sick when they are unhappy,stressed,piss--d off etc.This means extra costs to the business.Poor working practices create high turnover rates ,high training costs...etc
Do you have any idea how long it takes to get a pilot on line from engagement?.....and the costs involved.

[SLFguy]

Pilots never party.
They are superhuman machines that can stand 17 hours of duty without feeling sleepy, they don't eat or drink in the cockpit, they control transonic machines that weight hundreds of tons, they challege the strongest natural events without the least change in their heartpulse.
Sometimes they fail, stop working properly or just reach the "best before" date (60 yrs old) but are easily replaced by those everworking pilots producing plants called FTOs.

As a superhuman machine I feel insulted by this proposal of random testing, as I am from the security harassment.
Anyway the only way I will have to avoid both is to avoid flying.
The problems I had infligh related to drugs and alchool abuse only came from passengers, I strongly suggest random testing for them as well.

You seem to get near to making about 23 different points without ever finally getting there.:hmm:

MY point, (you seem not to have got it - bless), is that the original poster seemed to be of the opinion that such random tests may dissuade someone who was 'borderline' from pitching up for work. If that's part of his argument against testing then I reiterate my comment - I hope to God he's not a pilot!

You have a problem with that logic?...:confused: :confused: :confused:

[SLFguy]

SLFguy......next time you and your children fly, you wont mind sitting behind a pilot who is stressed....? brave man.....:D


Re-read the quote in my post - it relates to someone who maybe borderline after a party the night before.... how the hell did you manage to leap from that to a pilot under stress...:= :confused:

[FlapsOne]

We can be random tested anyway - what's the problem?

[SteveSmith]

SLFguy......next time you and your children fly, you wont mind sitting behind a pilot who is stressed....? brave man.....

I'd rather that than sit behind a pilot who was at a party last night, thinks s/he may be "a little bit over", but turned up to fly the plane anyway!

Steve.

[Re-entry]

In the USA during the 'war on drugs', an office manager was reported to the feds for her extreme cocaine habit. The result: all pilots and the dfo subjected to random and regular pee checks. ( All negative). For her, nothing. Cos she wasn't in a 'safety related role'.
Horse's a@@e.
Self regulation is alive and well.

[SLFguy]

[QUOTE=deathcruzer;2969342]London Mill......next time you and your children fly, you wont mind sitting behind a pilot who is stressed....? brave man.....:D
Sorry Slf guy wrong reply..but having said that It would surprise me whether you are involved in aviation yourself since you don't seen to have any knowledge on how things work....
QUOTE]

Apology accepted but you then start to piss all over your own toast again..my comment required NO knowledge of 'how things work' as it related entirely to the 'borderline' scenario.

I make no comment regarding other stress inducing factors involved in the testing as I am not qualified to do so.

[deathcruzer]

SLFguy,
For a member of aircrew the limit is 20 mg/100 ml of blood.That works out at about 1/2 pint of average larger.For a driver it is 80mg/100ml of blood..2 pints appx of average strength beer.At those levels it might be hard to know where the borderline is....It takes many years of time and effort to get a driving seat in an airliner.
But you are missing the point here.
The increase in intrusive monitoring is the problem.Why now has it become a issue?.It unnerves me to see a blind acceptance of yet more draconian measures by the general public.At some point we have to draw the line.Unless you want to live in an Orwellian state. :eek:

[mikehammer]

Without wishing to get into an argument, if you are flying the next day and you still decide to attend a party shouldn't you try to adhere to a sensible rule of a decent amount of sleep and only moderate (2 or 3 units) alcohol consumption in the 24 hours prior to a flight, zero units alcohol in the 12 hours before a flight? Or am I being naive?

What are the guidelines on this nowadays? What exactly is the alcohol limit - presumably most have trace alcohol retention? Scrub that last bit after reading the above quote - teach me to type quicker!

[goshdarnit]

H&S issue versus 'big brother' style interference - the philosophical argument will be never ending.

The self regulation argument worries me (as it does in any and all professions); what of the junior FO who is too nervous or even scared to challenge his captain? In a different scenario such an eventuality has even been mentioned in this very forum!

Commercial pilots are responsible for the lives of hundreds of pax every day and every reasonable precaution should be taken; as long as it is handled properly I'm not sure why pilots should be exempt from something that most folks would see as reasonable (and I am sure that most pilots would see as reasonable).

[deathcruzer]

mikehammer,
In a perfect world you stop....But with the duty rostering practises currently used, when aircrew do get off to a bash....not an easy thing to arrange these days ...well, the amount consumed may go unnoticed. However, don't get me wrong I am NOT in favour of aircrew piss..g it up and then going off to work..But i would rather their colleagues steered them here, as has happened in the past.

[anotherthing]

Deathcruzer...
I am 100% with London Mil on what he posted...


Quote:
As mentioned above it inflicts unnecessary stress on crews at check in.
Oh puhlease................:oh: :oh:
.


in response to your........

Why then is it necessary to inflict the stress of this random testing process on the rest of us?As mentioned above it inflicts unnecessary stress on crews at check in.
I for one, am completely against this


I'm sorry, but IF you are a pilot and being tested at random was to cause you so much stress, I for one, would never want to sit in an A/C which you are flying, because you obviously cannot handle real stress.

Pilots are not superhuman (us ATCOs are :E ), but they also know how to deal with situations and can cope without being unduly stressed.

The only reason I can see a random test being stressful is if you are pulled aside for one, and you know that you may be on dodgy grounds because you partied too hard the night before. In which case, again, I would not want to be a passenger in your aircraft.

[London Mil]

London Mill......next time you and your children fly, you wont mind sitting behind a pilot who is stressed....? brave man.....:D
S

I would absolutely mind because IMHO anyone who gets stressed by having to take a simple drug test shouldn't be flying an airliner.

I work in ATC and, on average, we undergo no notice drug tests every six months. Believe me, plodding off to the loo to give a few millilitres of yellow stuff doesn't make me fret when I'm on consol some 10 minutes later.

[mikehammer]

Point taken Deathcruzer - that's the world we live in. However if I find I am called in to fly knowing there's a bash to go to the evening before, I consider the bash to be partly ruined in as much as I can no longer let my hair down and relax with a good few drinks. I'll probably punish myself further and take the car rather than taxi it, to make sure I don't get tempted and go mad (I know what I'm like). I'm no angel but I couldn't take the stress the next day of worrying if I was over the limit.

As far as random testing goes - if there is in fact to be a campaign won't the initial pain fizzle out when the testers realise the situation's well under control, and hardly anyone, or even hopefully nobody, gets caught? That's not to say I would support the idea of a campaign, the situation seems well under control already, all seem aware of the issues and behave accordingly, but if it is imposed how far reaching a burden will it be?

[deathcruzer]

Anotherthing,
Try a fire with 400 souls in crap weather mid Atlantic ... our necks on the line as well ,.... not sat on the ground!... we know all about stress.There are many more stress related incidents in commercial flying than accidents as a result of drinking.
We also are aware that it is cumulative as you should be. Add to this secutity,OTP...ATC delays ,bad weather at destination and en route, a major failure/fire.....This might be a small contributing factor pushing a guy past his safe limit.I think we have enough.
Ive been flying for 25 years all over the world in heavies ...got as many landings as takeoffs.....:ok:

[jester42]

If this testing is designed to increase flight safety as a result of recent aircraft incidents and/or accidents due to excess alcohol in the pilot's blood, then I can see why it should be introduced.
However, random testing may never catch the 0.0001 % of those that may allegedly enjoy a touch too much to drink the night before, thus making the new safety measure somewhat impotent.

Far better to ask the pilots prior to their last sector as to when their last hot meal was, when their last break was ...... you get the picture!

[Torycanyon]

If the process Wasn't Stressful, then why do companies such as mine, insist that the crew members tested, whether positive or not, are excused from flying duties for the rest of the day?

[deathcruzer]

Guys,
I rest my case :hmm:

[FlyMD]

Fatigue is, on a symptom level, very close to the effects of alcohol. The difference is that fatigue is statistically linked to a greater number of accidents than alcohol...

So would it not stand to reason to random-check crewmembers for fatigue, and summarily dismiss anybody caught turning up for a flight in a state of fatigue?

Doesn't work, does it?

I agree with the argument made early in this thread: as long as the incidence of alcohol consumption on accidents is as low as it is now, we should not harass crewmembers with random tests. Random tests are expensive, distracting or even humiliating to the crewmembers involved, and do not promise a significant result.

Tests based on evidence or justifiable suspiscion are a different matter altogether...

[O'Neill No6]

FlyMD.

Just thinking the same thing! Fatigue is totally over-looked.

Rostering and crewing practices are quite simply dreadful in all the airlines I've been involved in. Too many people are expected to end their duty on adrenaline. No matter they are then hardly capable of driving home following such duites!

[Sky Wave]

Agree with firefly bob.

I've been in the rail industry for 15 years and random D & A screening was introduced just after I joined. Everybody in a safety critical role is subject to screening, that includes signalling designers, managers and other office based jobs. On the railway each company has to randomly screen a certain percentage of their staff per year. Generally you get 24 hours notice as you have to report to a medical centre. Anyone who fails a breath test when given 24 hours notice deserves to lose their job.
You do not get any notice of a test if there is an incident. Very often everyone in the area will get tested following an incident. A signalman could easily be tested as a result of a train driver running past a red signal. We all go to work with the knowledge that we could get tested the moment we walk through the door and therefore most of us make sure that we are comfortable that we have left sufficient time since our last drink.

As far as aviation goes the situation at the moment is that any pilot could be screened at any time if someone suspects they may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. I would have thought that the knowledge that screening is possible will make people think twice before risking an extra drink and will therefore protect them from failing a breath test should they be unlucky enough to be involved in an incident whilst taxying out.

If the thought of a breath test worries you then you probably should have had 1 pint less the night before. And for the record, I do like a drink myself as do most railwayman!

SW

[London Mil]

If the process Wasn't Stressful, then why do companies such as mine, insist that the crew members tested, whether positive or not, are excused from flying duties for the rest of the day?


Because some liberal idiot has been convinced that his ass will be dragged through the courts for no reason. Please, can someone explain why they believe a random drugs test would be stressful for anyone other than an individual who feels they have something to hide?

[fernytickles]

For the last 5 years living in the US, I have been required both as volunteer pilot and as an employed pilot to submit to random drugs and alcohol tests. The few times I have been called to go for a test, I haven't found it remotely stressful. I can't see what on earth would be stressful about peeing into a bottle, apart from trying to get it go to in the damn thing. Not easy for the "fairer sex", I'll tell you!

Someone mentioned the problem of the inaccuracy of the results. Any exact facts or figures available on that?

In the initial post, the comment was made that " subject to random Alcohol and Drugs testing as soon as we check in for a flying duty" Is there any point in doing it at any other time?

I really can't see what all the fuss is about. If you're genuinely over the limit, you're done for, and so you should be; if you're under the limit, who cares anyway?

[A and C]

Long ago when the FAA started random tests the cost per positive test was $60,000.

Almost all of these positive tests were on inital issue for a private licence, twenty five years later we are going down the same road not to inhance flight safety but for "political correctness" reasons.

The tests dont bother me because I won't test positive for a non perscribed drug, simply becuse like 99.99999999% of professional pilots I dont take drugs except under medical direction.

As an industry can't we spend the drug testing money more wisely on somthing that WILL enhance flight safety rather than trying to solve a problem that all the evidence shows that we don't have ?

[ChocksAwayUK]

This debate is all very interesting but... can anyone offer anymore info as to route of the rumours that deathcruzer refers to and how substantiated they are? How likely is this to be introduced?

Personally I think such a step would be counterproductive, unnecessarily intrusive, costly (and loads of other negative stuff already mentioned) and I'd be surprised if it was introduced, at least in the UK, where we're trying to build an 'open culture' on such matters. As has been said chemical induced lack of judgement, as far as I understand, has had very little influence on past accidents and incidents. So what's the point? (perhaps fatigue, stress, background personal issues etc would be a more sensible issue to tackle first). The only motive I can see would be to appease some PCish need as mentioned above.

If you want professionals, treat them like professionals.. encourage an open culture and a culture of self moderation. I'm not sure random tests are the way to go. Would they really have much effect on the 0.0001% who might occasionally be "a little over?"

[PBD 1]

Just trying to get ahead of the game here.....does anyone know what the delay code for this going to be? :hmm:

[anotherthing]

Deathcruzer -

I do understand your job and what it entails - hats off to you guys; when it comes to emergencies, you earn your money.

Before I became a lowly civvy ATCO, I flew for the military. Encountered a hell of a lot of emergencies (more than the average civilian aircrew - it's to do with the way the A/C are used etc), and had to get back to a floating airfield after a couple of hours on a mission, with nothing but a 2 bit 180 degree radar and a Dead Reckoning plot to get us back to the ship which had invariably moved). Not the same as having 400 passengers but it sharpened the mind.

As an ATCO, I deal with 10s of thousands of passengers and crew a day in the LTMA; I have more than just one A/C with 400 people on it to deal with, at the same time. So believe me, I know; random testing is NOT stressful, it is a nuisance, but not in any shape or form stressful!!

The argument should not be about any perceived stress, but whether or not it is ethically correct to test. I think professional pilots should be subject to random testing if there is any suspicion that they may be under the influence. It's what happens to us ATCOs.

The likes of London Mil can be tested randomly at any time, several times a year (it's a military thing). The testing team come along unannounced; stop military personnel from leaving the establishment (even if about to go off duty, they have to stay on the base until testing is complete - even if this is at the end of a nightshift); they get a printout of all personnel that are on duty; then randomly check about 15% of them. Do they get stressed about it - no... it's part of life. It's called compartmentalization, you get on with your job. As fernytickles states I can't see what on earth would be stressful about peeing into a bottle, apart from trying to get it go to in the damn thing. Not easy for the "fairer sex", I'll tell you! and more importantly I really can't see what all the fuss is about. If you're genuinely over the limit, you're done for, and so you should be; if you're under the limit, who cares anyway?.

There are too many bleeding heart liberals out there, what happened to a bit of backbone??

[deathcruzer]

Anotherthing
pilots should be subject to random testing if there is any suspicion that they may be under the influence.
Absolutily.....but the words here are if there is any suspicion
Currently the plan as I understand it is to random test everyone.
Even the police I believe need suspicion. :suspect:
As far as the stresses go this is similar to a trip through customs...you know you are ok but ......
We are increasingly being loaded with more and more of these, my argument still stands.

You may be happy to live in an increasingly nanny state but some of us are getting fed up with it.

[mikehammer]

Had to have a giggle at that advert adjacent to Deathcruzer's last post. The cruel irony of the nanny state!

Sorry: it's gone now, it was selling employee drug testing kits for one dollar 65.

[Sunfish]

With the greatest of respect, you all miss the point, which is again the meta message. (the message you send when you don't think you are sending a message)

"Our staff are our most important asset".

"Now pee in this bottle". In other words, staff cannot be trusted to turn up drug free.

Demeaning. Furthermore, such decisions are made over lunch and at Directors meetings when the wine flows freely.

To put it another way: When will shareholders demand random screening of company directors? I'm not holding my breath.

To put it yet another way, screening in a company is only ethical if it extends from the office boy to the managing director.

[fireflybob]

Sorry Sunfish but I beg to disagree.

Pilots are involved in safety critical work in real time. Whilst I agree that company directors can affect flight safety by the decisions they make there is, I would suggest, often more time to change decisions and indeed often an opportunity for those on the shop floor to comment should those decisions be questionable. I agree that all those involved in flight operations including up to board level should be fit for purpose.

I also agree that the vast majority of flight crew go about their work in a conscientous manner but any community tends to mirror what is going on in the world at large. We are not just talking about alcohol here but also drug screening. Earlier it was stated that if a pilot is found positive it can cost $60,000. I would put it another way, how much does it cost if an aircraft is involved in an accident as a result of the flight crew being impaired due to drugs or alcohol?

How you deal with a crew member who fails a screening is another matter which is open to debate.

Random testing does not mean screening everyone - by definition it is random. I have difficulty understanding why trained professionals such as pilots should have any misconceptions with this issue. As a passenger I would like to believe that the crew are "fit for purpose" in every respect.

Yes, fatigue is another factor and this is an important issue which needs to be addressed. However, I think the pilot community might be listened to more on this issue if they were more agreeable to random screening for drugs and alcohol.

The world has moved on considerably. In my early days of commercial aviation (1970s) pilots going on duty worse for wear as a result of the night before was almost accepted. This behaviour now cannot be acceptable as the vast majority would agree but as a professional body we have to be seen to be whiter than white. How can we argue with random screening when it has been operating in other safety critical industries for years?

[1DC]

Don't worry about it, you are just catching up. It has been standard practice in the operational side of the oil industry for years,i.e. refineries, Shipping etc. I have been to some offshore oil rigs and had to take a breathaliser to get on the helicopter ( not sure about the pilot)..
Where i worked an independent test agency arrived at a time of their own discretion and randomly select ten percent of the people on site with no exceptions. It doesn't cause any stress to take the test.I suppose if you were concerned that you would fail it would be stressful but failure is very rare, all employees know the rules and virtually all them abide by them..

[IcePack]

Do not think it is the random screening that is the fear.
I have a friend a pilot who has not had a drink for 7 yrs. Medical reasons, but there would be a good chance that he would blow +ve just (keytones).
Now if that was the case obviously the blood test should show -ve but the stress would be huge.[who would believe him] + ( I bet there are pilots out there who have the same medical condition un-beknown to them. Not picked up on normal initial or subsequent medicals) As for the rest of us if say we blew +ve (Just) and the blood showed +ve (Just) we would loose our jobs and most likly end up in jail so would never pass a crc check in the future so never return to our work.( no airside pass)
Not sure what ATC limits or the oil workers limits are of the top of my head but if they are higher like Aircraft Technicians then you should be fairly safe if you had a pint some 12 hrs before but the pilot might not be.
For random test to not cause undue stress a little higher limit would help. Also the fact that you could "take the cure" and not ever get your job back is draconian.:hmm:
Note have not mentioned the actual medical condition (it is very very rare as do not want to start a mass panic or indeed embarrass my friend if others know or think they know of the condition.)
Any Docs out there got any comments about the very low alowed limits and wether normal humans could test +ve:confused:

[1DC]

Icepack..
In the oil industry booze limits were drink/drive limits for the country location, the drug test covered any trace of prohibited drugs for the country location..
The test covered alcohol and drugs..

Interesting fact.. The booze test gave an instant result and the drug test took about ten days. You could be sent home for being over the booze limit but go and blowup the plant or ship when under the influence of drugs and they would only know after you had done it!!!

[captjns]

You got to love it... you have mutants who have been out partying all night giving responsible adults D/A tests. I would love th know the percentage of these neanderthals conducting such test would not even pass a back ground criminal examination.

I tell them that I refuse to use my hands to test my agility and aim from across the room.

[3MTA3]

Icepack..
Interesting fact.. The booze test gave an instant result and the drug test took about ten days. You could be sent home for being over the booze limit but go and blowup the plant or ship when under the influence of drugs and they would only know after you had done it!!!

Quite interesting that you mention that: I just clicked on one of the Google ads located on the left about drug testing: the company is selling drug tests which are supposed to give results in 2 minutes. According to them, no special knowledge is required to handle this test. So we might soon be given a drug test by the same kind of moron who just confiscated the captain's cheese sandwich because it was too liquid... Do you really think that airlines will invest in trained medical personnel to give the test? We don't even have enough nurses and doctors in our hospitals.
It was mentionned above that we are not tested for fatigue. In the past years I haven't met a single drunk colleague in the cockpit. But I had to stop counting how many of them were in an extreme state of fatigue. And fatigue has been proven to have the equivalent effects of twice the legal alcohol limit.

[FullWings]

The new limit is set very low, statistically just above what a normal body could produce by itself without ingesting any alcoholic beverage whatsoever. That's a medical fact and some would say this level has been set unnecessarily low.
I think this is at the heart of the protests over random screening. There could well be many more false positives than real ones, especially in some countries where the limit is "zero" - something impossible as anybody with rudimentary chemical knowledge will confirm.

[anotherthing]

Full wings

Although the level might be classed as 'zero' it is a well known medical fact that the body produces (and always has present) alcohol. A 'zero' limit takes this into account.

Icepack

The Civil ATCO limits are the same as pilots... whatever makes you even think that they might not be?!! It would not be fair to have two different levels. Having an under the weather ATCO is as bad, if not worse than having an under the weather pilot!

I honestly do not think this is a battle you can win - random testing will come in. The ATCO unions have accepted it, how can you resist?? Strike action will not work - what would Joe Public think if he heard that pilots wanted to go on strike to resist random alcohol and drug tests (especially when the powers at be let it out of the bag that the rail industry, ATCOs etc are already subject to it). Good old Joe Public would just think that "overpaid pilots have something to hide".

It's not another step towards a nanny state - hell we have had pilots on this thread virtually saying that they would come in to work if they felt they were slightly under the weather, rather than risk the wrath of taking another sick day. That alone says the threat is a good idea.

We have had it in the UK ATCO side of things for a while now - I work at a major centre and cannot think of one person that has been tested - but we all know it is something that can be done - therefore we make sure we are legal, or we take a sicky and risk the wrath of the management for having too many days off.

[IcePack]

Anotherthing,
because Aircraft Engineers (Maintenance personnel) do have a high limit.(drink Drive Limit) so you can fix the "scinson" valve, when up to that limit but as you say you need to have less alchol in your blood to instruct an aircraft to turn that is monitored.Ho Hum!:rolleyes:

[anotherthing]

Anotherthing,
because Aircraft Engineers (Maintenance personnel) do have a high limit.(drink Drive Limit) so you can fix the "scinson" valve, when up to that limit but as you say you need to have less alchol in your blood to instruct an aircraft to turn that is monitored.Ho Hum!:rolleyes:


Ice pack - the engineers should be subject to the same laws and same limits.... they like to let everyone know they are an integral part of safety (which they are). Therefore they should be treated the same!!

[alexban]

Guys,you have no ideea how easy would be for somebody to have a fake uniform,use a fake ID and pose as a pilot.Well,he's a bit late,the rest of the crew just passed the screaning.....
Did you see the movie "Catch me if you can"?
I have nothing against the security check and I am relieved seeing the security people doing their job.I feel a lot safer and I hope no one,and I mean no one,will be allowed to skip the security check.Why is so big a problem?
You must understand that the people at the security check are doing their job like we do ours,in the plane.They are trained for it,and I bet you'll do the same if you'll work in their place.You'll have to attend a security course,it's very interesting,and not so simple as one may think..
Regarding the alcohol test...if you're old enaugh in this job I doubt that at some point you didn't met someone with a little taste for the 'johny walker"..not during flight,but maybe too close to it.
We are all human,and maybe some random testing will make us think twice when needed...And don't say we'll never need it.:=
Excuse my spelling,I've just had a drink....what ? ..I'm on holliday..:ok:

[Baboon Boy]

This post is bound to court some controversy, although I believe the case I state is a perfectly reasonable one, and I urge readers to try to consider my point with an open mind.
May I first of all say that I absolutley deplore anybody who would think of piloting a plane, car, train, etc whilst under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Random alcohol testing I have no problem with, as a positive breath test is a clear indication that a person is under the influence of alcohol at the time of the test.

Random drug testing i am also in favour of, but it depends on the nature of the test. Urine/ blood testing can pick up traces of drugs, eg Cannabis many days after consumption, when a person is not actually under the influence of the drug. This is not fair, as someone will "test positive" for the drug dispite not being under its influence at the time of the test, and therefore have their career ruined for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
I know that many people consider the very act of taking drugs to be fundamentally wrong and would deplore any pilot who indulges in his spare time, however the aim of any testing practice is not to act as "moral guardians" over pilots extra curricular activities, but to protect aviation safety by discouraging on the job intoxication.

Isn't the important thing here to prevent pilots from flying whilst intoxicated, not to persecute them for something they do in their PRIVATE lives, completely detached from their profession?

I believe that saliva testing is much more accurate in detecting real and actual intoxication due to drugs and if drug testing proceedures are to be introduced then perhaps saliva testing should be considered above all else.

Just out of interest, you guys that have posted from the rail, ATC, oil industries, or even from the aviation industry, what kind of drug testing are you subjected to, saliva, blood, or urine?

[Pub User]

How is it that ATCOs are subject to random testing, when the Act gives no power to anyone to administer such testing? (In the UK, that is.)

[npasque]

if you have nothing to hide, what is the problem? I know of a few people who get 'high' and ill tell you good riddance if they are tested.
:D

[Sky Wave]

Baboon Boy

In the rail industry we get breathalysed for alcohol and have a urine test for all other substances.

I completely agree with everything that you have said. I've never been interested in drugs myself, but I don't see why someone shouldn't be allowed to go to Amsterdam for the weekend, smoke some cannabis and return to work once the effects have worn off without losing their job.

SW

[Baboon Boy]

if you have nothing to hide, what is the problem? I know of a few people who get 'high' and ill tell you good riddance if they are tested.
:D

Npasque, it is not a case of having something to hide, YOUR EMPLOYER HAS NO RIGHT TO KNOW if you smoke the odd jamaican woodbine in your spare time, so long as you dont turn up to work under the influence.

It is fundameltally wrong that your employer should be able to influence how you live your live away from the work place.
If I were a pilot, atc guy, train driver etc and I was subject to urine testing for drugs I would be straight in there with a legal case to have such a policy obliterated, and believe me I would win on grounds of human rights.

As I said before, saliva testing for drugs is the way forward, as that would allow detection of on the job intoxication, whilst at the same time protecting the privacy and human rights of the employee.

[kaikohe76]

Hi Everyone,

Sadly it looks as though testing is here to stay like it or not, either in the present form, or hopefully conducted in some more diplomatic & considerate manner than appears the norm so often at present

Whatever the outcome though, surely the rules must be the same throughout the industry, worldwide if possible. BALPA take note & action!! This should mean, in theory anyway, if any aircrew member was tested in Heathrow / Manchester etc, the process would be exactly the same if he / she were tested anywhere else in the world. A big ask I appreciate, but something the Airline Companies, Crew Associations / Unions etc must strive to establish.

Also, the actual testing must always be carried out in a courteous & tactful manner & the Crew Member involved should have the automatic right of redress if the situation justifies this. So often it is the attitude of various Officials, be it Airport Security / Customs or what, that by being needlesly confrontational, this can so easily lead to a unfortunate situation developing..

Whilst recently on holiday in Aeotearoa, I found my self pulled over for a Police random breath test. This was conducted in a very professional, but still courteous manner. Starting with `Good Evening Sir & ending with `Thank you Sir for your cooperation`, mind you, I think the very large Maori PC would have been less amenable, had I been over the limit. My point is though, courtesy on all sides, costs nothing, if all sides stick to that, it may at least help when transiting security screening, random testing or what.

Have good flying for 07.

[Two's in]

Here's a tip for all those Halo polishers out there - Get on Google and prepare a list of every Commercial Pilot who has been prosecuted for intoxication while preparing to fly an aircraft. Get all their addresses, and then pop over there and have your sanctimonious rant at those who have caused this course of action to be necessary. Then get your head out of sand.

[GT3]

UK ATCOs are NOT currently subject to random testing*. If a line manager suspects someone to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol then they can request a test. I am not full au-fait with these rules but they are available to NATS employees on the intranet.

I understand that there are concerns from both NATS and the Unions about the accuracy of random testing and the number of false positives it may produce. On that basis I am against random testing.




*unless they are within the first year of employ with the company.

[Orographic]

Whilst recently on holiday in Aeotearoa, I found my self pulled over for a Police random breath test. This was conducted in a very professional, but still courteous manner. Starting with `Good Evening Sir & ending with `Thank you Sir for your cooperation`, mind you, I think the very large Maori PC would have been less amenable, had I been over the limit. My point is though, courtesy on all sides, costs nothing, if all sides stick to that, it may at least help when transiting security screening, random testing or what.



a tangent i know, but this is a good example, and i have been though this too, and even got to the next stage in it ( no, i wasn't intoxicated, but i had had a drink a few hours before hand, and had thought that 4 hours would be enough for it to work its way out of the system)


If what i experenced was typical, then after then first "sniffer" test, assuming one has alcohol detected on the breath, one is very curtiously asked to pull in out of the way of other cars at the checkpoint, while the officer gets a diffrent device. ( the "sniffer" can only tell them that there is aerosol alcohols, or other similer aerosols exist on your breath ... )

Once you have pulled in, out of the way of other drivers, you are very nicely asked to blow though a tube , into the other device that the police officer was fetching, which does take slightly longer than the "sniffer", and is a lot more selective, giving them an idea of how much ethanol there is on your breath.


This is about as far as i got though this process, as the cop smiled and said that is a pass, and said to have a good evening.

and like kaikohe stated, the officers attitude was everything one could hope for. i am sure he would have liked to be home as well, but he was very professional and curtious, and thus gained a lot of respect from me, for it.

[goshdarnit]

Npasque, it is not a case of having something to hide, YOUR EMPLOYER HAS NO RIGHT TO KNOW if you smoke the odd jamaican woodbine in your spare time, so long as you dont turn up to work under the influence.

It is fundameltally wrong that your employer should be able to influence how you live your live away from the work place.



Baboon, I think you are being a little naive - like it or not you are always a representative of your profession and company, free time or otherwise. Most of the time this is not an issue as most people do not generally do things that would cause any embarrassment or harm to their employer.
I think it is reasonable that an employer knows or expects their employee is of "good character" (a subjective term!). The situation that you talk about is something that is very specific, and there are probably many opinions on it, especially since it is legal in some places and not in others, however it is more than just the law that defines "good" character.
I don't think that this is something that can be easily defined, however I suspect most of us know what we can and cannot do if we wish to remain in the good books.
My company recently looked at this very issue, the most senior HR lawyer involvced in the particular class / training / discussion session that I attended. Actually quite an interesting discussion; whilst nothing was formalised I think we all know where we stand.

GDI

[TBirdFrank]

Ex railway so I was also subject to this procedure and don't regard it lightly.

As far as I am concerned if you turn up for work with traces of drink or drugs then you are rightly out - but there is another side too

[birdonthewire]

And just how many accidents have been directly attributed to drugs/alcohol?
Ahhhh....thought so

[mini]

BOTW raises an interesting point,

Just about all regulations are reactionary - ie in response to a previous occurance - and often over the top...

So where did this one come from?

PS, on a tangent, one EU state with a reputation for copious consumption of alcoholic beverages is planning to reduce its driving limit to 20/100 this year... no doubt there will be a job fest for chauffeurs as a result :E