Drug & Alcohol Testing

[coke drinker]

Can someone just confirm for me...with this mandatory drug and alcohol testing CASA are introducing, does it mean if I want to hire an aircraft privately I have to pee in a cup? If so, how does the government justify this victimisation and assumption that all pilots are secretly high or drunk? I don't drink, smoke or do drugs, yet its assumed that I will be operating under the influence? If so, this is worse than the ridiculous fatigue and RBT operation on the roads!

[Integro]

If so, this is worse than the ridiculous fatigue and RBT operation on the roads!

Yeah people should be allowed to drive around half asleep and drunk! So what if I want to fly a plane stoned out of my brain... It's a free country that we live it is it not?! Don't I have some rights?!

Who cares about the statistics of young people in car accidents and how many of them include alcohol as a contributing factor. Seems like all those who don't fly drunk or use drugs will be fine but what about the rest of the pilots out there! :ugh:

[Whiskery]

..........does it mean if I want to hire an aircraft privately I have to pee in a cup?

No, it does not.

As I understand the law, if you are preparing for a flight or have returned from a flight and an AOD tester is on sight you may be required to give a sample to test for alcohol or drugs.

No big deal.....................unless of course you have alcohol or drugs in your system!:E

[coke drinker]

But the problem with all these tests is none of them are ever perfect. If you use a mouthwash, you'll come up with a BAC. You eat iirc three cherry ripes (some people do) you'll come up with a BAC. Sounds way too much like Big Brother for me...

[Super Cecil]

I have no problem with drug tests, all mining companies and most larger operations havebeen doing them for years.
Who tests the testers? These tests would obviously be done to CASA employee's/ managers and senior management? That last question goes in the FAT CHANCE catergory. While their at it they can go and test our state and federal polititions, maybe after a long friday lunch? If you can't fly under the influence of any drugs then you certainly shouldn't be able to run a whole country after a couple bottles of red. What are the chances of pollies being tested?
As I said I have no problem with drug tests, lets have some consistancy.

[Time Bomb Ted]

Coke Snorter. Sorry Drinker....

Go here. Australian Government | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (http://www.casa.gov.au/aod)

You will find all the answers there.

Cheers

TBT

[flyinggit]

I believe it's meant to have been in place by mid Nov, anybody heard of anyone being checked to date?


Flyinggit

[panzerd18]

I believe Melbourne Airport has been trialing this for many many months. Mainly testing airside drivers and contractors building the new terminal. I have been tested, but only had to do a breath test.

[hef]

But the problem with all these tests is none of them are ever perfect. If you use a mouthwash, you'll come up with a BAC. You eat iirc three cherry ripes (some people do) you'll come up with a BAC. Sounds way too much like Big Brother for me...


A few years ago before I was a pilot, I applied for a job in the forestry industry (a well paid job that I really wanted), and I had to have a pre-employment drug test, to my amazement I tested positive for opiates. I was literally shown the door and someone else got the job.

I have never touched opiates in my life (even codeine), after talking to a few people and thinking about things I came to the conclusion that a poppy seed covered filled roll I had for lunch caused the positive reading....:ugh:

[BAE146]

Hey hef, you should have sued (http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/poppyseed.asp) the ass of them !

[hef]

In 1997, a woman in Florida was awarded $859,000 in her lawsuit against Bankers Insurance Group because it had withdrawn a lucrative job offer to her on the basis of her poppy seed-influenced drug screen results.


I think I should have!!! :ok:

I'm not sure if I would get anything like that in this part of the world though :}

Only in America...

[185skywagon]

Miscellaneous Instrument CASA EX07/09 – Exemption - extension of time for drug and alcohol education program (expires end of 30 April 2010)

On 12 March 2009, instrument CASA EX07/09 (Exemption – extension of time for drug and alcohol education program) was registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments and comes into effect on 13 March 2009. This instrument provides Qantas Airways Limited with an extension of time, from 23 March 2009 until 30 April 2010, within which to implement the requirement in Part 99 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 for delivery of a prescribed type of drug and alcohol education program for its employees who perform, or are available to perform, safety-sensitive aviation activities or who are relevant supervisors.

This and other Miscellaneous Instruments can be found on the CASA website:
Legislative instruments and exemptions – Miscellaneous Legislative Instruments (http://www.casa.gov.au/rules/miscinst/index.htm)


Nice to see some are more equal than others.

[Kickatinalong]

If you don't snort, inject, smoke drugs and drink booze you won't have a problem. Seems to me the ones making the most noise may just be the types who they want out of the aviation industry.
Kickatinalong.:=:=:=

[185skywagon]

If you don't snort, inject, smoke drugs and drink booze you won't have a problem. Seems to me the ones making the most noise may just be the types who they want out of the aviation industry.
Kickatinalong.
No problems here sunshine, just that the process of compliance has left some of us smaller operators behind.
I am not entirely convinced that the regulators team is acoss all the compliance issues either.
And the more equal ones get a little more time to get their ducks in a row than we do.
Another paper excercise.
:hmm:

[vortexstate]

I have a friend who attended one of the seminars in Sydney recently and the question was asked as to the testing of CASA FOI's and representives, as the proposal appears to exempt them from any testing. Apparently, it was confirmed at this meeting that CASA personnel are exempt!:rolleyes:

If this is the case and the whole testing scheme is so serious for the betterment of our industry, then why isn't EVERYONE that has an operational roll involved?

I feel that after near twenty years in this industry myself in an operational roll, this procedure is long over due, we just need to make sure that it is controlled sensibly.

VS:)

[Chief Erwin]

The problem is :- if you go to work with a headache or had shoulder reconstruction or some other medical problems that require you to take medicine you will test positive then you will be stood down till their medical doctor calls you and works out what has transpired previous to the test. No problem right?
Well this could take anywhere from 2 weeks to 2 months, what do you do in the mean time?
Drink chocalate milk before the test and you read a BAC ( this happened to me) now wait for approval to return to work.
How does piss off and let us get back to our job and stop wasting money on BS regulations that statistically cause >1% of incidences.
Dont start me on ASIC's
Rant over
:ugh:

[Socket]

I wonder how CASA intends to ensure every AOC and COA holder ( except Qantas :mad:) has their DAMP in place, including education of and testing of all SSAA employees on the morning of the 23rd.

No liftee flight bag or spanner if you havent been educated and tested and read your companies DAMP manual on monday boys, 50 penalty units ($5500).

[185skywagon]

Your particular DAMP will not be seen until you are up for an audit, as I understand it. At that stage, it would seem that everything had better be up to scratch. Until then, you could effectively have no plan, if you were game.

[Dances With Dingoes]

Does anyone have stats on exactly how many accidents are being caused each week buy pilots on the p!ss? If it is as many as on the roads then I guess this wouldn't be a case of creating jobs for the boys in hard economic times. :ok:

[the wizard of auz]

Yeah people should be allowed to drive around half asleep and drunk! So what if I want to fly a plane stoned out of my brain... It's a free country that we live it is it not?! Don't I have some rights?!

Ya friggen clown. :ugh: So if you don't agree with the way the system goes about its business, you must be a drunk or want to fly stoned??????
I guess because I don't agree with ASIC's and some of the methods used by the Gestapo clods when screening crew, That makes me a terrorist.... well, does it????
You must be stoned you idiot.

[sms777]

I am with Kickatinalong on this one.
There is no room for goddamn junkies or pissheads in aviation. :yuk: I am a professional aviator............. Are you?

[compressor stall]

OK - Have you ever been at work - even in the office doing amendments or airside not flying - having taken a panadene?

Does that a junkie make? :rolleyes:

[the wizard of auz]

Yup, sure am a professional aviator. And I also think drink and drugs have no place in aviation. But I object to the notion that I am to be a suspected drunk or drug user until I prove otherwise. There are undoubtedly folk out there that do fly when they shouldn't, but the percentage would be very small.
I have no problem with random D&A screening. I do have a problem with fools that immediately sprout crap in a knee jerk reaction when anyone voices a concern that their rights may be impinged by a proposed reg or action, and then labels someone as a drug user or drunk because of it.
Knee jerk reactions are why we have ASIC's.......... Remember?.

[BrissySparkyCoit]

Agreed. No space for pill poppers/snorters/smokers.

BUT.... the whole thing is flawed because prescription medicine may give a positive result. Weed out the junkies by all means, but not at the expense on innocent people with an illness.

[xxgoldxx]

to the self righteous professional crew..

If I am in uniform headed to the machine with books under arm then I deserve everything I get... dont think you will get any arguments there...

if however after doing and logging max duty and then having one in the carpark I duck back in to get my mail and get tested.. what then..

I cant legally fly anyway cause of duty.. Im not rostered to fly.. and I wouldnt have a crew or aircraft anyway .. but all this makes no diff.. I am in a "safety sensitive area" so I am guilty..

what about the private pilot that wants to duck in and wash the plane or grab the bags after the weeknd away at .03... no keys to the CASA approved fix all anti theft device, no flight plan, no headset.. GUILTY...

no false positive..

Do you think it would be fair to test pedestrians for DUI.. after all.. they could be about to drive .. even without keys they could still steal...

[RENURPP]

I am in no way supporting this D&A testing, however i would like to make one point.

It is not solely targeting people who will be flying an aircraft. It is possibly intended to catch the bag snatchers and other machinery operators who frequent the apron area.

Accidents invloving these people are common and (with no firm evidence to support this) rumour suggests alcohol and drug usage or influence is a commonfactor.

Point being if you are in what is classed as a safety sensitive area then so be it.

having said that if you are pinged under those circumstances then the tester would need testing him/herself and not for drugs.

[Ron & Edna Johns]

No it's not, RENURPP. It's the end result of years of politics following the Hamilton Is crash all those years ago. You the one: where the post-mortem on the pilot found a tiny trace of cannabis as well as a blood alcohol reading of 0.2 (or something ridiculously high).

Despite the autopsy stating that the BAC reading could not be relied so since the body produces alcohol post-mortem, the pollies all started screaming for blood. Gotta be seen to be doing something!

That is why we have what we have today.

Nevermind the fact that fatigue is a potentially bigger killer and that it hasn't been properly regulated since about 1950.... Show me anywhere in CAO's where it talks about ultra longhaul flights across 10 timezones, just as one example!

[xxgoldxx]

lycan.. you stole my thunder... where's my responses...:\

[Worrals in the wilds]

Accidents invloving these people are common and (with no firm evidence to support this) rumour suggests alcohol and drug usage ....


RENURPP, is that quite fair without evidence? I only speak for one airport, but accidents actually aren't very common, usually minor, and generally involve innattention (like people forgetting they were driving a stair truck with a height clearance :ouch:), medical conditions or inexperience. I'm happy to be proven wrong on the subject (it may be different nationally) but that's my experience over about ten years or so.

The word on this apron concurs with Ron and Edna's post, that this is a knee jerk reaction to the Ham Is accident. As a ramp dweller I'm not particularly for or against the testing (I certainly don't think people should be driving around airside stoned / drunk) but I suspect that it will become another poorly conceived and executed Government cluster:mad:. The conflicting information provided by the regulator so far is pointing to this outcome.

And for the lycanthrope the language scholar, From the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary...
Professional
1. Pertaining to, or proper to, or connected with a or one’s profession or calling. 1747
]2. Engaged in one of the learned or skilled professions. 1793
Profession
I. The declaration, promise or vow made on entering a religious order...

II. The occupation which one professes to be skilled in and to follow.

Using that definition, any occupation can be considered a professsion.

Wiki is not permitted as a source in most degree courses, 'professional' or otherwise. ;)

P.S. "Dances with Dingoes' is a really cool username and I wish I'd thought of it. Just had to say that:)

[More Right Rudder]

Bravo Mr Flappy!

I was about to say the same thing...

Lycan, you're a pissant of the worst order.

Tell you what, come out flying with me - you can point out the similarities between a Cessna 182 and a bus, and maybe a bit of altitude'll change your attitude!

[RENURPP]

Whats the big deal. :confused:

I said the Drug and aclohol testing is not SOLELY directed at pilots. Its not, pure and simple.

depending on your definition of "common" accidents involving ground equipment are common.

I saw some stats on it a while back, i will see if I can find them.

I supect at least one a week.

[Capt Claret]

At a DAMP seminar I attended, statistics (I know, lies, damn lies & statistics) were used at one point to illustrate things. As best that I can recall them, when random testing was introduced in the US, the results were in the order of:

0.05% of pilots tested returned a positive result
0.5% of Cabin Crew tested returned a positive result
34% of security personnel tested returned a positive result

[longrass]

I thought my ASIC card stopped me from producing a positive result....

[the wizard of auz]

Wheres my popcorn. :E

[Worrals in the wilds]

I saw some stats on it a while back, i will see if I can find them.

Thanks, I would be interested if you can dredge them up.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound grumpy. I don't think some type of airside D&A testing is a bad thing at all but IMO the implementation has been confusing, particularly relating to pharmacuticals.

Is there something the rest of us should know about Lycanthrope:confused:?

[ernie blackhander]

yeah did my damp course today. WILL be tested if i threaten anyone- what the f happened to being an angry little prick without drugs. i'm supprised they didn't quote how to spot a drug feind straight out of 'fear and loathing'..... the dope feind usually has semen stains on his pants from constantly jacking off cause he could not find his next r:mad:e victim

Dances with dingoes how you figure its el captain k

[thewaffler]

Some facts to dwell upon.

According to Li et al (2007), “Random testing serves primarily as a preventive measure through its deterrent effect, which is presumably a function of the testing rate”.
A recent study in the US has shown that between 1997-2002, random testing highlighted 440 violations for alcohol, representing a prevalence rate of 0.09% among safety sensitive employees. The study concluded that alcohol was a valid risk for aviation accidents but, “in reality alcohol misuse as a contributing factor has been virtually eradicated from U.S. major airline accidents”. However the study did note the FAA’s alcohol misuse prevention program is likely to have played a key role in maintaining these low levels of violations (Li et al: 2007)

[Grogmonster]

Geez I'm Crook. I started reading this thread yesterday morning and it really worried me because I started thinking that because of my name I would be a suspect. So like all suspects I decided I would get rid of the evidence. I went out to the hangar and started trying to clean out the beer fridge, oops I mean the lunch fridge, and therein lay the problem. As well as loving a beer I really worry about the cost of it so I just couldn't bring myself to throw it away. And because I couldn't involve any of my mates, read implicate them, in the commission of a crime I decided I would have to drink it all myself.

The rest, as they say is history, but for those of you who think I am a criminal don't worry too much as I hid the scotch bottles really well and I was wearing my ASIC the whole time!!!!

Now all I have to do is try to remember my password so I can log on and change my handle. But I can't cause I am too Friggin Sick. Stuff you and your DAMP, CASA you make me sick.

GROGGY!!!!!

[emu787]

The NPRM was for industry participants to make a comment to the lawmakers.....but most did not say boo.

Notwithstanding the above, the NPRM did not mention that "being present airside at a registered/certified aerodrome (unless a passenger) you are constituting a safety sensitive activity and therefore subject to testing and prosecution.......just standing there doing nothing.


I believe, unless I missed it, this is a gross misleading of the industry during the NPRM process and is grounds for an immediate review as I am sure most of the industry if they were aware of this point of law would have responded.

So here we have a situation where a pilot OFF DUTY jumps the fence at a non registered/certified aerodrome to retrieve his sunglasses and is subject to testing but the refueller attending his aeroplane at the exact point in time CANNOT be tested!!!!

Refuelling an aircraft at a non registered/certified aerodrome IS NOT a Safety Sensitive Activity....only at a registered/certified aerodrome and only because the refueller is PRESENT airside.

CASA also selected <0.02% BAC (UK standard) when they could have chosen <0.04% BAC (US standard).

They said it was based on a safety perspective....so that means the FAA have got it wrong...the largest aviation industry on the planet have got it wrong....how can CASA allow Australian registered airliners to operate in US airspace which is or possibly is overcrowed with what CASA would call pissed pilots!!!!

WRITE TO YOUR FEDERAL MP.

[thewaffler]

JAR regulations which are being replaced with EU-OPS for EU member states issue guidance for pilots and crewmembers in relation to this subject. Under JAR-OPS 3.085 a crewmember cannot commence a flight with blood alcohol level in excess of 0.2 promille (20mg%) Same as Aus!

Anything which improves safety has got to be a good thing, one major accident could result in a multiple of the annual number of needless deaths in road traffic accidents. Societial alocohol and drug use is increasing and it would be naive and indefensible to assume that aviation workers are immune or insulated from societys problems. Bolting the gate after the horse is gone is never a good policy.

Casa may have a few problems to iron out but at least they are doing something pro-active in preventing accidents. :D