DAMPS Drug and Alcohol Management

[megle2]

No doubt Casa will let us know about this soon.

The introduction of an Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD) program for the aviation industry will require the aviation sector to introduce minimum standards of drug and alcohol testing, education and support for safety sensitive personnel. This includes; flight crew, cabin crew (flight attendants), flight instructors, aircraft dispatchers, aircraft maintenance and repair personnel, aviation security personnel including security screeners, air traffic controllers, baggage handlers, ground rebuilders and all other personnel with airside access. The regulations were signed by the Executive Council on 18 September 2008, registered on 22 September 2008 and became effective on 23 September 2008.

Anybody been to the roadshows?

[compressor stall]

Yes - I went this morning. Be very happy and very concerned in the same breath.

The good bits:

Your organisation has 6 months to implement a drug and aclohol management plan. This includes inhouse testing of all new employees and after an accident (alcohol within 8 hours and drugs within 32 hours).

For small organisations, the testing is outsourced (at your expense). ALL employees that perform safety sensitive activities (read need to go airside) need to be drug/alcohol tested by your system - that includes each and every contractor.

For positive tests, they are dealt with in a proactive manner that appears to be designed with the health and wellbeing of the person in mind. CASA do not want to know names of those testing positive, just the stats - numbers tested and numbers positive.

The concerning bits:

ANYONE who is not a passenger may be tested airside by CASA's (outsourced) drug testers. This is an oral swab and breath test.

If positive, the sample will go off to get tested to identify the exact drug. Then the CASA doctor (one of 3) will get in touch with you for an explanation. The doctor will then consider your case.

Now consider this....

You as a pilot are ill and receive prescription medication. As such, you tell the Chief Pilot and remove yourself from flying duties. Keen to help out, you head in to do some amendments and other desk duties.

You wander out to the aircraft to grab the Jepps to update. THere is a tester floating around and you are tested - you have no choice as the regs say that if you are airside you are conducting a Safety Sensitive Aviation Activity.

You will test positive because of the medication in your system. YOU ARE THEN NOT ALLOWED BY LAW TO DO ANYTHING AIRSIDE or back in the office that involves manuals, flight planning, loadsheets, instruction etc.

The sample will be tested by the lab and the results send to one of three CASA doctors. The doctor will then ring you for an explanation. You tell him your case - you are not flying because of prescribed medication. the CASA doc will with ring your doctor for confirmation and then tell you that all is OK.

By admission of the CASA drug testing doctor running today's workshop, this could take up to TWO WEEKS.

So, if you are tested whilst on prescribed medication it will take 2 weeks to clear your name in which time you cannot do anything....:ugh::ugh:

[Led Zep]

Moral of the story is that, if you are crook, stay at home! :ok:

[Mixture Rich]

A tad misleading. They will be testing for alcohol and other drugs such as morphine, codeine, amphetamines etc. If you are in so much pain that you need morphine you wont be at work. It is possible you could be taking codeine and be at work but just ask the doc what he or she is giving you. You can buy codeine over the counter anyway.

[drivabilongbalus]

Quite right MR, BUT, the prescription meds (and even over the counter meds, depending on where you are) that can result in a false positive test are numerous as has been previously mentioned on other threads, (Lomitil/Immodium stand out in my memory). I for one, don't even want the idea that i've tried to operate under the influence of anything, getting me in that sort of predicament. Some mud always sticks and this needs a really well worked thought process and protocol testing first. My two bobs worth :ouch::ouch::ouch:

[compressor stall]

It is possible you could be taking codeine and be at work but just ask the doc what he or she is giving you. You can buy codeine over the counter anyway.

Um, that's the point MR. You can have legitimate medication even from the doctor (we were told that PanadINE will result in a positive test) and not be flying (doing flight plans, amendments, washing aircraft) and if you are tested you will be stood down from all duties for u to 2 weeks...

[Sunfish]

This whole process just annoys me. Is CASA really trying hard to shut down GA?

Suppose I'm on a trip somewhere, a thousand miles from home, and one of these characters tests me and I come up with a false positive, say as a result of taking a Sudafed or Codral?

Then there is the question of going airside to retrieve a manual or sunglasses, or going into a hangar to check the status of an aircraft, after having a couple of glasses of wine at lunch.

I would like an official answer to these questions. The reason I want answers is because these are not hypothetical questions. Both situations have occurred for me at YBHI.

If such trifles are NOT ruled out of bounds right now, then I predict that the wave of lawsuits is going to be impressive.

But then maybe that is CASA's lawyers intentions, more legal work until a judge finally rules that natural justice has not been served.

[Jabawocky]

Had they considered having a Dr's certificate stating you will be off flying duties for the period #### to #### and that XYZ has been prescribed over this period.

If tested and shows a positive the tester takes sample and photocopy of Dr Cert and its up to them in the next two weeks to prove something else is in your system. Then take it from there.

Maybe a more innocent til proven guilty system!

J

[Capt Wally]

It's all a sign of how crazy & politically correct we are getting, we are sh*t scared, of ourselves!:rolleyes:
Let 'em come test us & stand down say 3 of us who might be on drugs for colds etc, then we shall see how practicable this stunt is!

CW

[Chief Erwin]

Try this one on.
We had a barby and drinks in the hangar last friday.
Most of company pilots and engineers drinking with hangar doors open.
So if a tester turned up we alll would have been, well in various states of intoxication.
What does that mean for all of us?

[megle2]

So far I take it that two of us have done the road show.

At the one I attended ( well run ) there was provision for 70 attendee's.
There was me, a airport security rep, a catering Coy rep and a Casa observer.

Makes it hard for the Casa Avmed staff to get their message over to the industry.

[Socket]

It would probably help if they informed people, I am on their email list and got nothing. Notice the website is bare too.

[Timber]

A frightening, draconian piece of legislation. Have there really been so many drug/alcohol related incidents as to justify these sort of rules????

Just getting from the parking lot to your aircraft turns into an epic battle, fighting your way through passport control, security, ASIC checkers, DAMP testers and finally ramp checkers...; all this of course whilst wearing your high viz safety vest!!

Madness....

[nick2007]

Wait until the first positive result hits the papers :rolleyes:

[PlankBlender]

Wally and Timber make good points, and I think to a degree civil disobedience is the answer:

In the case of the hangar pissup, the CFI/CEO/highest rank present need to have the balls to tell the inspector to get lost in no uncertain terms. It's clear that it's a social event and there will be no intoxicated flying or handling of machinery, in any case the AOC holder has a responsibility for their men and women.

Same for the ground duty case. The CFI/CEO/OPS mgr. must have the authority to assign a pilot who's on meds to ground duty without fear of retribution.

In individual cases, it works as well: while at one of the big mining FIFO aerodromes in the west with a group on a fly-in, the security Nazi was trying to tell us to all get our ASICs out (some of the pilots in the group didn't have any, he didn't have an answer to that one) while we were schlepping gear and stuff. I simply ignored him and he went away..

Don't be afraid to stand up for common sense, and to threaten a lawsuit or a formal complaint, that'll normally reign in all but the most obnoxious tos$ers..

Methinks these rules are made for the large airports with hundreds of subcontracting entities. Seems Australia is a country that over-regulates to begin with, and when it comes down to it, common sense often prevails. Let hope :}

[601]

Has anyone investigated the costs associated with this testing for a GA Operator with three bases scattered across Qld with 2 pilots at each base.

[Pegasus747]

I have never had a problem with "show cause" testing but the whole random approach has the capacity of unintended consequences as discussed here

[megle2]

Socket - correct.
I received nothing then out of the blue a phone call the previous afternoon.
They are very aware of the Prune so maybe they may appear and post some answers to your questions.
Are you there B---?

[Socket]

Meagle,

Seems they were listening, the seminars appeared on the website and now there is a media release too.:ok:

[compressor stall]

Chief Erwin,

A scenario similar to your hangar barbie scenario was given to the CASA doc taking the seminar.

His explanation was in that case, the tester would first approach your company DAMP Officer who would then inform the tester who was performing a safety sensitive aviation activity and who wasn't.

[Icarus2001]

I have been watching this on the CASA website for a while..it will have HUGE implications.

A false positive causes a crew to be a person down one hour before departure...ops now need to cover the spot at short notice.

A couple of false positives happen and bingo no one goes to work whilst taking paracetamol anymore...there will be a huge rise in sick leave taken.

After I sign off and walk through the hangar can I refuse a test? What about dead heading in uniform?

My prediction... a massive change in 12 months to make it workable.

[Wunwing]

It goes well beyond just pilots,engineers etc. Note the references to cargo loaders, cleaners etc. I am unaware of any CASA rules that have up to now prohibited working as a cleaner or cargo loader on prescription drugs. So under these rules we now have a de-facto prescription drug prohibition on all persons airside that are not pax. To take it further we have the same restrictions on any workshop that handles aircraft components and even on areas where cargo is being packed for aircraft transport.

Obviously whoever dreamt this up has never loaded cargo and knows nothing about back pain.

Wunwing

[flying-spike]

Before we carried away with the HUGE implications lets just state a little fact. Paracetamol will NOT show up on a drug test, so PanaDOL is OK
PanadEINE contains codein which will give a false positve for opiates because it is made from/derived from Opium. So lets just have a BEX and a good lie down before worrying about the sky falling down.

[compressor stall]

So Flying-Spike - if a doctor prescribes me Panadeine for a complaint - what should I do?

By LAW I can no longer undergo:

(a) any activity undertaken by a person, other than as a
passenger, in an aerodrome testing area; and
(b) calculation of the position of freight, baggage, passengers
and fuel on aircraft; and
(c) the manufacture or maintenance of any of the following:
(i) aircraft;
(ii) aeronautical products;
(iii) aviation radionavigation products;
(iv) aviation telecommunication products; and
(d) the certification of maintenance of a kind mentioned in
paragraph (c); and
(e) the fuelling and maintenance of vehicles that will be used
to fuel aircraft on aerodrome testing areas; and
(f) activities undertaken by an airport security guard or a
screening officer in the course of the person’s duties as a
guard or officer; and
(g) activities undertaken by a member of the crew of an
aircraft in the course of the person’s duties as a crew
member; and
(h) the loading and unloading of trolleys containing baggage
for loading onto aircraft and the driving of such trolleys;
and
(i) activities undertaken by a holder of an air traffic controller
licence in the course of the person’s duties as a controller;
and
(j) activities undertaken by the supervisor of a holder of an air
traffic controller licence in the course of the person’s
duties as such a supervisor; and
(k) providing flight information and search and rescue alert
services:
(i) to a pilot or operator of an aircraft immediately
before the flight of the aircraft; or
(ii) to a pilot or operator of an aircraft, during the flight
of the aircraft; or
(iii) as an intermediary for communications between a
pilot or operator of the aircraft, and an air traffic
controller; and
(l) providing aviation fire fighting services.

(3) This Part applies to the safety-sensitive aviation activities
specified in paragraphs (2) (b) to (l) even if those activities do
not occur in an aerodrome testing area.

And to clarify:

aerodrome testing area means:
(a) any surface in a certified aerodrome or a registered
aerodrome over which an aircraft is able to be moved
while in contact with the surface of the aerodrome,
including any parking areas; and
(b) any part of the surface of a certified aerodrome or
registered aerodrome:
(i) that is not covered by paragraph (a); and
(ii) that does not have a building on it; and
(iii) from which access to a surface mentioned in
paragraph (a) may be had; and
(c) a building located on a certified aerodrome or registered
aerodrome that is used:
(i) for maintenance of an aircraft or an aeronautical
product; or
(ii) for the manufacture of aircraft or aeronautical
products; or
(iii) by an air traffic service provider to control air
traffic; or
(iv) by the holder of an AOC for flying training; and
(d) any part of an aircraft, aerobridge or other moveable
structure in a certified aerodrome or a registered
aerodrome.

[flying-spike]

Take a sicky and/or consult your DAME

If:
(a) the holder of a class 1 medical certificate and a licence:
(i) knows that he or she has a medically significant condition;
and
(ii) is reckless as to whether the condition has been disclosed
to CASA; and
(b) the condition continues for longer than 7 days; and
(c) the condition has the result that his or her ability to do an act
authorised by the licence is impaired;
he or she must tell CASA or a DAME about the condition as soon as
practicable after the end of the 7 days. (CASR PART 67)

[compressor stall]

Understood Flying-Spike. Let's say I have done so and removed myself from flying duties for the week(s). Now what else can I do?

And what can an engineer/baggage handler etc do?

[No Idea Either]

Compressor,

Dont forget, panadeine is over the counter. No prescription required. There are numerous over the counter medications which will set this off. We're pilots, we get exposed to more bugs than most people, we get head colds, URTI, etc, and we usually take these over the counter medications to 'soldier on'. I know if I went off sick all the time for these I would need about 30 days a year (little kids dont help either).

[Socket]

MMMMM lunch was good, that salad roll with the seeds on top was great, trouble is one of the seeds has given me a bit of a tooth ache, no worries popped a panadine tooth ache gone, now to change that tyre on the old 210.:ok:

G'day Mr CASA, sure take a swab.:)

What do you mean a positive test for drugs, what do you mean I have to go home and wait for weeks for a result of the second test and then have a talk to the CASA MRO to explain I only ate a few poppy seeds and had a panadine for my toothache.:confused: That will destroy my business, default my mortgage and starve my family.:mad:

I can see innocent people being put in this position. Some people may well react in a manner likely to cause serious harm. I would love to know where the natural justice benchmark is here.

[blackbandit]

You Sir sound precisely like the kind of idiot that works for CASA. Totally out of the loop when it comes to aviation. What happens to the foreign operator that flys into Australia. If I am doing my walk around and some idiot walks up to me and I indicate positive on a test, (because I had poppy seeds on my lunch roll), i am to be grounded. So it follows that my 150 million dollar aeroplane is also grounded??? Being a foreign operator there is no standby to take the aircraft back. I would enjoy seeing them try to prevent me from leaving!

Maybe you should take a permanent sickie on the grounds of section 8. That is your a freaking retard.

Take a sickie... my god you are a joke!

[flying-spike]

You should be OK as there is no test for angry pills. I will ignore the name calling as it detracts from the debate and some people have serious concerns and they deserve rational answers.
Yes poppy seeds may give a false positive however it would be discovered on the follow up Gas Chromotography test.Granted you may have to wait a day or so to be cleared so I think I would keep clear of poppy seed buns. About the same risk control you would apply by not eating the curry on the street or not drinking tap water on the layover in Mumbai.. Best bet don't eat the bunYes you would be the hero fighting off those mean CASA people as taxi your aircraft out. A bit hard to picture you taxying out with a few hundred punters in the back while you dodge vehicles on the taxiway. But if it works in your mind that's all that counts.

Compressor stall/Socket: I would consult with the medico to see if can give you an alternative that won't give you a positive test. In the case of a tooth ache would you really want the that distraction while you were flying? I have experienced it ( I flew after I had a temporary filling applied and nearly keeled over when the trapped gas in the tooth expanded). If were a back ache (yeah, I know plenty of loadys that are plagued with back and knee problems ) and they use locally applied anti inflammitory gels.
The point I am trying t make is that we have to consult to get the best solution. Too many people of all walks of life take pills (sometimes given by friends or relatives) without knowing how they will effect them. From now on will all have to be more aware of what we are consuming.

It is up to each organisation to set up there damp and the procedure relating to the handling of positive tests, employee education etc.If you want to apply a bit of thought to it you can come up with a solution that suits you and your organisation and achieves the objective of preventing people working in safety critical areas working under the influence of alcohol or debilitating drugs. I have established a DAMP for an organisation it works well and it is universally accepted by the workforce.
I do know a bit about this stuff so I am willing to help if anybody wants to listen.

And Blackbandit, I am an active pilot, I hold an ATPL and "Section 8" is outdated U.S. military jargon for a Psych discharge. I think you may be watching a little too much M*A*S*H* or Rambo or both.

[blackbandit]

As I mentioned previously, what about the foreign operator who flies in with one crew. False positive test, who pays for the delay on the ground waiting for the idiots in CASA to accept that a poppy seed cake is responsible. Last time i checked poppy seeds are still legal?

And yes what about the panadine, Also legal. And no, just because you are airside, doesnt mean you can be tested.

You twit!

By the way, are you employed in the sheltered workshop.(CASA)

[blackbandit]

Oh and yes, I am sure you hold an ATPL, most of the failures in CASA do! As far as MASH goes re: section 8, I'm glad you saw the funny side of it. You must be from the sheltered workshop.
love,
xxx

[ithinkso]

Etihad, Singapore, even United dont keep spare pilots on stand-by in Sydney for this eventuality.

And being a former US military aviator, I have never heard the term "section 8"??? Except on MASH, good looking woman that Clinger!! Reminiscent of the concord really.

[compressor stall]

Flying-Spike:

Granted you may have to wait a day or so to be cleared

The CASA doctor presenting the seminar I went to stated that this process of clearing your name in an innocent positive could take up to two weeks.

I agree with the thrust of your comment that we should be careful what we ingest in the name of medicine. As flight crew this is particularly important in our operation of machinery.

I can tell my Chief Pilot/Engineer/DAMP Officer that I am on XXX medication and that I have altered my duties accordingly. That's not an issue.

The biggest problem I have is that if I voluntarily remove myself from flying duties due to medication but help out in the office I can still be randomly tested by CASA and return positive. Then it's up to two weeks being stood down.

IMHO the scope of who is able to be randomly tested by CASA's outsourced testers, and when, needs to be urgently reviewed.

[teresa green]

Well lads, there goes the Viagra!:ooh:

[Sunfish]

Checked the new regs. If this is implemented the way people fear it will be implemented, then you can stick my pilots licence up the Ministers @rse.

I spend about $15,000 a year on my flying, and plan to spend more, but I have plenty of other things I can do with it.

CASA has not addressed the question of pilots going airside for non aviation related activities, in a circumstance where alcohol or Panadiene/Sudafed has been legitimately and legally ingested. Furthermore, I never travel without sudafed and codral cold and flu tablets in my bag, since Murphy's law always sees an attack of hay fever or the apparent onset of a cold or sore throat, just after I go somewhere interstate.

To put it another way, the first test will be the last. I also feel for the poor bastards who work in manufacturing. This is the last thing that particular industry needs.

To put it simply, there are going to be a lot of "unintended consequences" of this stupidity, and I pray that the matter will end up in court or the Administrative appeals tribunal quickly.

[james michael]

Sunny

I am with you that work is needed on airside access "non-flying".

As an aside, I had a beer with RV7 Simon last night - he is working for Rio Tinto at Karratha. Their treatment of it makes CASA look quite gentle.

I have asked him to get me a copy of their literature if possible. My understanding is: One over 0.02 = severe warning. Two = out. Below 0.02 = work but supervisor monitors.

Perhaps the way alcohol and drugs are penetrating the community requires AOD testing - it then comes to how it is managed - I have put to CASA several of the concerns raised for consideration.

[Falcon124]

Some people seem to be saying "Just go sick until proven OK" like it's not a problem. They may be thinking of life in the mining & manufacturing world where, if found to be under the influence, the person is rostered out *on full pay* until the second test occurs (amazing the power of "everyone's in the union" workforces).

a) The worker is still able to make the mortgage payments

b) The company has a vested interest in getting the worker checked ASAP

Unfortunately for many in aviation, "sick time" often equals no pay or much reduced pay.

Perhaps if CASA had to provide "make up pay" to cover the costs while the person was down until proven innocent, they might change the wording and/or implementation?

:)

NOTE: From experience, I can assure you that when many companies started to introduce "All workers get tested, including management" some of the white collar managers complained even more than the blue collar workers ;)

[flying-spike]

I have just re-read the legislation and there is no requirement for random testing. If your DAMP wants to do random testing that is up to them but CASA won't (or their contractors) won't be doing it. Testing will only be conducted on suspicion of being under the influence, (CASA or your employer would want to be pretty sure of your facts to pull that one), or after an accident or incident. Once again encourage your organisation to set up a DAMP that suits your organisation and meets the requirements. IF you are a member of a professional association get them involved in the process of establishing your DAMP if you have to but be part of the process.Have a medico lined up that meets the requirement so that he can give the ok to your poppy seed roll or whatever.

[compressor stall]

Flying-Spike - may I politely suggest that you keep reading through the regs beyond the paragraphs that you have correctly paraphrased to Subpart 99C.

Subpart 99B deals with the in house testing which is exactly as you describe - it's up to the organisation how they want to do it, although it is mandatory to test new employees and those after an accident or incident.

Subpart 99C deals with CASA testing. They can request that you stop doing your (SSAA) activity and be tested. You have no right to refuse, no matter what you are doing.

Para 99.125 sets out the "Powers of the Approved Testers". There is nothing there that prevents random testing. In fact I recall from the CASA Doc at the seminar stated that they were aiming to test 5% of the SSAA workforce annually.

[flying-spike]

Will do, and thanks for keeping it polite. I am only trying to contribute to awareness not attack anybody personally or by profession. When I was setting up our program I discussed it with CASA they said random testing was not on the agenda so that comes as a dissappointing surprise if it is true.

[blackbandit]

Responsible organisations are already doing it. Have ben for a long period.

[Wunwing]

I suppose some of the problem here is unlike say mining, we have 2 totally different kinds of aviation activities represented on this forum.

While I can see some relevence to mining in the professional aviation arena, I am unaware of such an activity as recreational mining. So maybe the CASA supporters should not be so loud in quoting what is normal in other industries.
From what I have seen of mining the production and domestic sections are stricly quarantined but that is not true in aviation. A good example is Scone where houses back onto the airport and have aircraft access from private land.

I also have severe problems with CASA defacto setting up a new list of "legal" medications. While those of you who fly may have access to a DAME, I am unaware of who non fliers would access for this information. Are CASA suggesting that on top of everything else, GPs and Chemists have to consult, they now need to access CASA rules and if this is the case who pays for the extra. If it is the worker has it been made tax deductible?

If this is such a watertight set of rules with no major adverse unfair implications to an individal or organisations then CASA should be sure enough of their grounds to guarantee that they will refund all expenses if they cause a loss and it is found to be a false positive. If they won't guarantee that, then they are admitting that the whole process is flawed.

Wunwing

[Spikey21]

I blame the management of the larger airlines for allowing the creation of this sort of nonsense.

Here we have the morons in Canberra writing more rules when they cannot even understand or implement some of the mess we have now.

Look at the security debacle, how to get a slab of beer airside, place it on the belt with the passenger baggage in the terminal and the baggies take it off when it gets to their side.
I cannot take a nail clippers throught security but I can walk into the tarmac staff kitchen and take any sharp object I want.

Why do airline management allow their staff to be subjected to such nonsense, especially when they complaining about costs but yet they are giving this crap the nod.

Is this the same CASA who are going to implement this that debit your credit card for your medical and then three weeks later tell you that they didn't get your medical paperwork to renew your medical ?, it is !!

This should work really well then, the travelling public can breathe a sigh of relief the knowledge that they are in safe hands and the dangerous period in Australian Aviation has passed.

Anyway, that's enough from me, I gotta go and read up on TIBA procedures.

What a complete :mad: :mad:

[Sunfish]

I note that there is still no response from anyone regarding my question about false positives from Sudafed or Codral use or being over the limit of 0.02 percent alcohol (but under the legal driving limit of 0.05 percent) when going airside for the purpose of retrieving sunglasses or checking the security of a tethered aircraft (as is required by my contract of aircraft hire).

I therefore assume that the legality or otherwise of such activities will be decided by the courts and I hope CASA has budgeted some hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs to decide these matters, since they seem incapable or resolving these obvious inconsistencies in any efficient manner in advance.

I'm also interested in whether suppliers delivering goods or services airside are fair game for testers as well if they airside

P.S. The situation I'm describing is not hypothetical as anyone who has done any air touring will tell you.

[flyinggit]

The whole thing looks like a legal mine field. What about the achohol & drug Co's? they will go broke over night !:E

Can they come into a crew room not on airside & test crew at random?

Some very valid points in these posts, I guess somebody will be "guinea pig" some time soon & be put under the spot light lets just hope they are wealthy & can show CASA what stupidity they have yet again dreamed up to justify their jobs!:bored:
A friend of my family's who has been involved in aviation since the Wright Bros! said probably 99% of people airside have in the past been under the influence of something sometime during their careers but I don't recall too many planes falling from the sky because of it. So from now on we can exepect perfect people doing their duties perfectly under this perfect system, yeah right, like to see that!:ugh:



FG

[compressor stall]

Sunfish

I note that there is still no response from anyone regarding my question about false positives from Sudafed or Codral use or being over the limit of 0.02 percent alcohol (but under the legal driving limit of 0.05 percent) when going airside for the purpose of retrieving sunglasses or checking the security of a tethered aircraft (as is required by my contract of aircraft hire).


In the above circumstance, you are deemed to be performing a SSAA (by virtue of being airside and not a pax) and as such you can be randomly tested.

The CASA doc explained the situation of a student who, after a first solo, has a glass of champagne. He then heads out to the aircraft to tie it down or retrieve his navbag. A student in this situation according to the CASA doc is able to be tested. (My reading of the regs is that he also would be able to be tested filling in the MR hours!).

FlyingGit

Can they come into a crew room not on airside & test crew at random?

Yes.

[Capt Wally]

.....insane it all is, we are all but totally controlled by control freaks, the world as we know is changing 4ever on a daily basis. It will take an ice-age to restore it back to pre 'CASA' days. Lets go carbon positive instead so as to hurry up the process !:ugh:


CW

[Socket]

The reg is written in such a manner that it covers EVERYONE in EVERY possible situation airside that is not a passenger.

You can be tested even if you are just standing around scratching your arse.

Its gonna be interesting come the flu season, instead of the usual large portion of your staff who pop a codral and soldier on, everyone who is concerned about being put out of work for two to three weeks will stay home sick.

I dont know of any aviation company that is likely to pay someone to have two to three weeks off for a false positive so the financial risks of coming to work with a medicated case of the sniffles are going to cause a lot of absenteeism.

CASA has supposedly had a lot of industry input into this. I'd like to know who it was because with idiots like that representing us we are all screwed.

Please note, I am all for testing, even random testing, but this limbo of a false positive needs to be cleared up. Also note that if you are over .02 you dont come back the next day, you need to have a 'comprehensive assessment', that aint gonna happen overnight. Best not come to work even slightly hungover-ever.

[Sunfish]

Stall:

The CASA doc explained the situation of a student who, after a first solo, has a glass of champagne. He then heads out to the aircraft to tie it down or retrieve his navbag. A student in this situation according to the CASA doc is able to be tested.

If this is the case, as you have reported it, then it lowers my respect for CASA even further.

While I am not a lawyer, my understanding is that the laws and regulations are required to be written in a way that a reasonable man can determine from a reading of them exactly how to comply with them, in the sense that it is clear exactly what act results in an offence is being committed.

Furthermore, the enforcement of the law should not be capricious, arbitrary or subject to the whims of the enforcers, because that is how corruption gains a foothold in organisations.

If CASA's answer was indeed that the hypothetical student is subject to testing, then they need to spell out very clearly exactly what the process would be that selects him for testing at such a time and CASA must then explain and justify exactly how it's organisational objectives are being met by forcing our hypothetical champagne drinking first solo pilot into a procedure involving two weeks of limbo and "assessment".

If they can't do it now, and it sounds like they can't from your statement, they are going to be doing it in front of an appeals court judge or the AAT before too long. I will ask the opinion of two QC's about it at a function next weekend.

If CASA think they are being smart by introducing uncertainty into this process, then they are in for a shock. There is no parallel with drink driving legislation because (a) unlike CASA's regulations, there is little problem with false positives, provided the required time period is allowed after drinking alcohol, and (b) the definition of being in control of a car is well understood, unlike CASA's vague and fuzzy definition of an SSAA.


My guess is that "being airside", or in a building with access to airside, is going to be regarded as too wide a definition of "Safety Sensitive Aviation Activity".

[xxgoldxx]

Sunfish has raised some excellent points and there is many that are very similar..
lets say you are visiting a interstate airport in your private A/C on the weekend and forget a case or something..
after 2 beers at 0.03 you drive back to the airport and go retrive it with your dayglo vest, asic, staff card, aopa card and god knows what else.. and get tested..
you havent even got the keys to the plane..
no false positive here though..
if you work for Qantas during the week and your friendly contractor needs the numbers then you probably just lost your job !!
CASA dont seem to mind if you send your pissed passenger onto the tarmac (so long as the escort has an ASIC) just dont do it yourself....!

[inxs]

Has anybody thought about the reality of the plain hard-working GA pilot out there in the bush who gets pulled up for, maybe, Nurofen+ or Panadeine for a light flu symptom or the like ??
Do you think the GA operator is going to wait 2 weeks until he/she is cleared to fly - no way !! He/she will get sacked (under some other trumped up charge) and take the next driver in the queue.
And this could happen in some cities too where there are plenty of rogue operators around who wouldn't think twice about giving you the boot in favour of some new jock who is ready to fly in a heartbeat. These operators make the poor pilot feel guilty enough as it is when suggesting sick leave, if its just a "sniffle" - they tell them get out there and fly, or we find someone else who will.
Now thats the reality of an Aus GA pilot - maybe not for a 217 org. or airline pilot, but the poor old GA jock.

[inxs]

Quote:
Can they come into a crew room not on airside & test crew at random?
Yes.

...you gotta be sh:mad:g me ??!!

[I wish]

Going for a class 2 medical after some years out of the scene.

If my flatmate smokes the funny stuff am I likely to be turned down?

Is testing part of the exam?

I couldn't find anything on CASA.

[Vref+5]

Number of accidents in commercial operations primarily caused by drug/alcohol intake - 0

Based on this historical evidence the likely number to be prevented in the future - 0

The only positive outcome will be a big promotion for the bright spark who has been riding this horse and cart. Seen it before. Of course as soon as they move on it will be forgotton about, but unfortunately we will be left with a piece of legislation that someone will pull out in 20 years time, blow the dust off, and hang someone with because they had a beer in the hangar after work.

Of course it will be rather simple to get this policy and procedures into your organisation. Simply make it part of your Total Error Management System, above your Safety Management System, next to your Fatigue Management system, adjacent to your Crew Resource Management Training, and just after your Risk Assessment and Control Policy!! Of course your Transport Security Policy has to fit in there as well.

Once you've drafted that lot and trained everyone up - which should take about 12 months - you can finally go flying. But don't have a beer to celebrate that achievement, that's illegal.

As a famous bear once said - Bother!

[No Idea Either]

Havent been to any forums and havent really read much on this but everyone seems to be saying what if....what if... Here's my what if,
What if you get tested after popping a panadeine for a headache and it comes up positive. You then get stood down pending the lab analysis which of course comes back negative. WHO pays your salary/wages whilst this is going on. Your employer (fat chance) or CASA (even fatter chance)? Can someone enlighten me as to where we stand in relation to this matter. As previously posted, in GA your most likely to be dropped straight away. Well where are the FEDS on something like this. We have had f#ck all from everyone on this matter, CASA, the FEDS and your employer no doubt.

[flying-spike]

If you popped a panadeine after reading the preceding 3 pages of posts I would wonder what was actually aching because it doesn't appear as there is much there to ache:ugh:

[inxs]

Oh boy..all this is giving me a headache, time to take a panadeine, me thinks :)

[sgriffin]

This is my first post on Pprune after lurking for several years. Be gentle!

I attending one of the briefing sessions in Brisbane. In fact I was the only attendee - personal briefing.:cool:

The real hidden danger here is the drugs testing. There are a plethora of over the counter drugs which will give a false positive in the tests and the tests are designed to detect drugs taken in the past 7 DAYS. Don't worry about the Panadiene or Nurofen Plus or poppy seed bun that you had last night or this morning its the one that you had last Saturday that is more likely to get you caught out.

There will need to be a significant education program as to what can give false results or there are going to be a lot of pilots, engineers, refuellers, baggies having a couple of weeks forced leave.

FWIW, As it stands I think that the legislation is unworkable. The implementation date of the random testing has been a regular question at the senate estimates so it is fairly clearly being pushed politically.

[D.Lamination]

Here is a mulitple choice question:

What poses the most danger to aviation safety?

(a) Eating three poppy seed bagels for breakfast.

(b) A international pilot (domestic too soon) armed with 110ml of tootpaste.

(c) Popping a couple of panadenes to ease a minor headache.

(d) Half the continent without ATC services for hours at a time.

Anthony Albanese and Warren Truss (his predecessor) are both clowns.:yuk: They think the answer is a+b+c.:ugh::ugh:

There has never been a Regular Public Transport accident or incident in this country where drugs or alcohol (or toothpaste!) have been listed as a cause.

Comparing professionals at work with random road users is not a valid comparision. Get off my back with all your stupid, useless & costly rules you government b******s:mad::mad::*

[Capt Wally]

Scenario. Unlikely but possible.

6am on a monday there are 5 pilots all in one room, 2 going home after night shift & 3 coming on for the day shift.(Not to mention 2 engineers) All are spot tested in the office on that cold monday morning. The 2 night shift pilots both took a pill to assist in a headache from having slight head colds (could be toothache/backache also). All 3 day shift pilots have been tested positive from a variety of drugs/booze (all legal as in over the counter stuff) still left over in their system from say a staff party the previous sat night (that's 2 nights ago seeing as it's monday morning). All 5 pilots are stood down right there & then. I'll just tell the Ambulance Service that the days flying & possibly the next few days is either off altogether & or seriously restricted!!!. That's fine am sure the sick & dieing can wait:ugh:
Hypothetical & a long shot I know but...what if??:sad: You don't even need that many 'hit' at once to have a huge effect on the goings on in Aero-med.
Oh & just as a side note the drugs etc that are in the back of our planes would make a sniffer dog curl his toes up!!


CW

[Sunfish]

As promised, I enquired of a QC friend yesterday at a social function about this matter and it's implications.

His advice is that the regulations require a "saving clause" that makes it explicit that a person can challenge an allegation that they are performing a "Safety Sensitive Aviation Activity" in court and if they can prove to the satisfaction of a Judge that they aren't, then they are deemed to have no case to answer.

This, at least, solves the problem of the casual weekend Warrior pilot like myself, who has a few beers and then goes airside to retrieve the sunglasses, fit the pitot cover and check the tie - downs. It also solves the problem for the off duty pilot visiting a hangar or crew room.

You just simply tell the tester to **** - off because you are not carrying out an SSAA.

As for the problem of sensitivity of the tests to previous non prescription drug use that will be interesting.

[Capt Wally]

hey 'sunfish' let's hope yr QC friend is right about that, I'd hate to have to go to court to prove such a thing, CASA has very deep pockets & when the law is involved via the courts there is no end to it!
Common sense should prevail but that statement rarely finds it's way into a court room.
I guess we shall see how this ugly mess we have gotten ourselves into pans out with actual cases which no doubt will end up in here in detail. A whole new thread that will go well beyind that silly max 100 post thread being displayed elswhere in here.


CW

[Timber]

At some point in the past someone of some influence must have said:

"We really should not have pilots flying their aircraft under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Let's put this into some form of (better) regulation"

I don't think anyone disputes the viewpoint, and alcohol and drugs were already mentioned in the regulations anyway.

CASA has now released this new regulation dealing with Alcohol and Drugs, its detection and penalties. As the regulation developed ever more areas of activity where added because they were seen as SSAA's in some form.

Reading the regulation, strictly speaking, a passenger packing his bags at home for a flight the next day is already performing a SSAA, and as such may be subject to ..... etc etc

The regulation has become applicable to a very very big group of people, ie pilots, cabin staff, maintainers, cleaners, baggage handlers, manufacturers of aircraft components and presumably those that produce parts for components, refuellers, etc etc ... you can make the list just about as long as you want.

It is obvious that CASA, in their haste to produce a politically "fantastic" piece of regulation, has stuffed it up big time. It has "stupidity" written all over it....!!!

There are so many problems and uncertainties with the workings of this new regulation that it boggles the mind that it is being implemented at all!!??

But in the name of "Safety", "Security" and "Protecting the Fare Paying Passenger" one non-sensical rule after the other can be (and is) fielded.

Look at how big the aviation security industry is now. A multi billion dollar market to detect toothpaste, shampoo and drinking water...!!!

The DAMPS industry is just forming and it will just be another gravy train for the fast operators (contractors). The wide intrepretation of who can be tested as per the regulation will make sure that the market grows rapidly (and is very profitably).

Madness........

[Wunwing]

I have just re examined the rules as posted on the CASA web site looking at them from an engineering /OH&S perspective.

Assuming that some of the testers are going to behave in the same belligerent way that some security staff currently behave, I can see real safety conflicts in engineering. I see no accomodation for example, if the tester turns up in the middle of a large engine change and demands the engineers leave the engine swinging on the crane. What of the crane driver who is probably an outside contractor, who by OH&S rules is not permitted to leave his crane while the load is unsecured, but by these rules must stay with the tester during the testing process? When we do a risk assessment as required by OH&S rules prior to a heavy lift, do we now have to allow for the arrival of a drug inspector? What about the guy handling air supply while workers are in a fuel tank or the situation where expensive sealants with short cure times have been mixed prior to the tester's arrival?

All this should be covered in the rules and if CASA seriously asked for opinions prior to making these rules, they either didn't listen or asked the boss's secretary or the cleaner

It will be interesting to see if Workcover prosecute a tester who causes an OH&S breech, or if CASA prosecute Workcover for obstructing testing.I for one will have no hesitation if I find myself in this position, calling my local Workcover inspector.

Wunwing

[werbil]

After a quick glance at the regs, it appears that CASA can only demand a random test at either a certified or registered aerodrome.

Gotta love floats - hardly go near either. :ok:

[compressor stall]

Werbil, no, they can do this where they like - even at your dock....

(3) This Part applies to the safety-sensitive aviation activities
specified in paragraphs (2) (b) to (l) even if those activities do
not occur in an aerodrome testing area.

[Socket]

Sunfish,
ANY activity airside is an SSAA (even just getting your sunglasses), if you tell the tester to F*** off and refuse the test you commit an offence, you are also automatically suspended immeadiatly as if you had a CONFIRMED positive with all the legal implications that carries.

I would advise strongly against refusing a test, CASA has pretty much sewn it all up in the way the regulation is written.

[Sunfish]

Socket, CASA has deemed any airside activity at a certified or registered airport to be an SSAA.

However it is open to the Courts and/or the AAT not to agree with CASA.

Let's hope it is someone like Dick Smith with very deep pockets who takes a Sudafed and gets accused of Amphetamine use while airside, not intending to fly but merely checking the tiedowns while a thousand miles from his home base.

The fireworks should then be most interesting. This little regulation has the capacity to cause untold suffering, uncertainty, misery and financial loss for zero gain. It's bad regulation and it it's application should be much narrower.

[PlankBlender]

...if you tell the tester to F*** off and refuse the test you commit an offence...

Yeah, but as with everything else, they can't prosecute if they can't catch you :} just make sure you don't "volunteer" the information on your ASIC card to anyone approaching you who you don't know, if you're after your sunglasses after a few rounds, and of course don't get "caught" in the cockpit of your own aeroplane in such a situation :ouch:

If in doubt, say it's a friend's plane, it was open, and then just run and deny all allegations later :} they're not going to appear in groups with security guards, are they?

I share the concerns about false positives after for example harmless medication, and I am pretty sure that the inevitable complaints and lawsuits for loss of earnings from AOC holders will make CASA reconsider the execution of a possibly well-meaning regulation.

Why is it that we have to put up with increasing regulation and buerocrazy (sic) all the time? :yuk: Seems like the pencil pushers are free to create more justifications for their own kind's existence all the time, without a good check by common sense.. strange in a democratic society, one would think that people would vote unnecessary red tape out of office over time :confused:

[undervaluedATC]

If in doubt, say it's a friend's plane, it was open, and then just run and deny all allegations later http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gif they're not going to appear in groups with security guards, are they?

does'nt work for ATC's.

as if we did'nt have enough problems with staffing, now they think they're going to stand people down for 2 weeks during re-testing:rolleyes:

[werbil]

compressor stall,

Yes they can test IF I am performing a SSAA, but not otherwise.

A quick glance suggests I may even still be able to enjoy a beer whilst washing down a mates plane at the end of the day (but possibly not my own). I can't see where it prohibits me from refelling an aircraft so long as I don't calculate the fuel required or maintain the fueling equipment. :ugh:

The sad thing is I'm sure they will amend the regulations to extend the testing area to include all areas within x meters of an aircraft if it is not at a certified or registered aerodrome.

[compressor stall]

Werbil

Yep - shades of grey...

If CASA interpret washing the salt off your (or your mate's aircraft) as a maintenance activity then it's an SSAA. CASR99.015 (2)(c)(i)

If CASA interpret refuelling your a/c as an "activity undertaken by a member of the crew of an aircraft in the course of the person's duties as a crew member" then it too is an SSAA. CASR99.015 (2)(g)

Even if they did the latter, I guess you could be refuelling your mate's aircraft... :E

I reckon you're pretty safe though! :p

[Horatio Leafblower]

Replenishing fuel and oil is deemed "pilot maintainence" in Schedule 8... therefore is maint and therefore an SSAA :ok:

[Two_dogs]

Do you need a pilot's licence or refuellers qualifications to refuel an aircraft? Obviously refuellers are appropriately licensed to refuell aircraft, as are pilots.

Can your mate legally refuel an aircraft from a carnet bowser without any qualifications? Of course he would need an ASIC at most places!

My take on several of the new regs, COME THE REVOLUTION!!