Drug and alcohol testing commenced at Moorabbin

[glenb]

Our company was the first organization in Australia to have the CASA drug and alcohol testing conducted on it. For the information of any other businesses or individuals to be tested we have elected to post our experiences here.

Firstly I must point out that the conduct of the tests was conducted in a professional manner and I have no intention of getting into a slanging match with anyone on this issue. However I believe this to be a suitable forum to outline the facts and let the readers form their own opinion.

Testing was conducted on 6 pilots, a combination of students and staff. Of the 6 tests conducted a person was identified as positive. This person was immediately stood down from any aviation related duties.

24 hours later the test was determined to be a false positive and the person is returned to flying duties. I feel that the turnaround time was satisfactory but I wonder how long it would take in a remote area. I think it would be a fair assumption that operators in remote areas will be less likely to be tested than capital city operators due to the logistics involved in remote area testing. In our situation the equipment used for testing was fairly bulky, required 3 phase A/C power and required trolleys to transport it.

Firstly, this particular person has potentially had their career affected as they were about to commence a new job dependant on obtaining a qualification prior to the Easter break which was not able to be completed. No doubt that person has also probably been through the most harrowing 24 hours in their life If the testing is found to be erroneous I strongly feel that there must be access to some sort of compensation. It seems unjust that when an operator is in error CASA comes down hard but when the shoe is on the other foot all bets are off.

Consider the scenario of a Chief Pilot or CFI returning a false positive. All pilots are immediately grounded with serious implications on any business.

Testing after an incident. A serious incident is one in which the occurrence gives rise to a danger of serious damage or death to an aircraft, person or property. I feel that this is a very vague definition and CASA needs to specify this particular section. If a student clips CTA, has a bird strike, a blown tyre on landing, or crosses an active runway are we required to conduct a drug and alcohol test. These tests cost approximately $300. Does the company foot the bill. If a fairly busy flight school has 15 of these a year that equates to $4500.

If the operator passes this fee on to the customer what does this do to the safety and reporting culture. Are pilots going to be less likely to report these matters? Of course they are. Personally I sincerely believe that overall there is a negative impact on aviation safety.

While I appreciate that 6 candidates is too small a number to conduct any sort of statistical analysis, lets have a look at it anyway. 16 % of pilots tested positive on the initial testing with 100% of the positive tests found to be in error, or as CASA likes to call it a “false positive.”
To date these are not very inspiring figures.

While I recognize that the effect of drug or alcohol consumption is serious I believe safety would be better improved by CASA putting the resources into a ramp check. Perhaps incorporate the testing as part of a wider check of license, medical, weight and balance, pax manifest, current weather etc. This would also accurately target people about to go flying rather than the student participating in a theory class.

If any operator is subjected to random drug testing I would advise that you nominate a discrete area. We made the mistake of nominating a very prominent area directly off our reception area for the testing. The differences in duration of tests for positive and negative results made the results of the tests fairly obvious. I would suggest you consider this when nominating the place for the test to be conducted.

[Lodown]

At these success rates, how long do we allow before the CASA gets the rug pulled out from under this stupid initiative? 6 months? 18 months? What was/is the cost? Can we drug test the CASA managers. They've got to be high on something.

When the dust finally settles, how many millions are spent to catch one or two people (if that).

[YPJT]

Glenb,
Thanks very much for sharing that info with us.:ok:
Very disturbing indeed that in their first batch of testing they come up with a false positive with all the possible consequences that you have put. I know many are vehemently against this regime and with valid reason. Lets just hope that CASA eventually get their sh!t in one sock and achieve precisely what the testing is intended to do without the possible consequences of ruining someones reputation, livelihood or business.

[Marauder]

One in Six, false positive, pretty buggered sort of system.

If an operator has a remote base, not necessarily a remote area base, just displaced from HQ, and has three crews (6 pilots) who are all required on the day,

If random testing occurs, chances are CASA is going to financially stuff a company because on these stats, it is odds on a false positive will ground one aircraft after their tests

[megle2]

GlenB - thanks for your post. Very helpful.

Did those that passed receive some form of written proof that they had completed the test and passed?

Likewise with the Company? What documentation did they receive?

[mostlytossas]

Interesting to hear CASA require 3phase power to operate their testing apparartus. That will mean they will have to keep to the larger airfields as few small country airports have a 3 phase outlet situated in the terminal or office of the local flying school. Those that have a LAME workshop nearby probably will so keep your ear to the ground for phone enquiries as to the availability of 3phase power because that will probably mean that a visit is on the cards.

[Dangly Bits]

I'm sure I read somewhere that CASA will be testing about 6,000 aviation sensitive people each year so a false positive on the first 6 doesn't bode well. 1000 false positives a year would be cause for great concern. Mind you, stats say what you want them to say.

[Mr. Hat]

but I wonder how long it would take in a remote area.

Doesn't need to be a remote area glenb. Airlines don't happen to have spare crews at every port.

Test at a port where no available crew:

Scenario 1. False positive Result: Flight Cancelled up to 180 pax affected. Pilot has the longest 24 hours wait of his/her entire career. Has about 2 minutes sleep in the process (wouldn't dare take anything to help settle the nerves and get some sleep!).

Scenario 2: Positive: Lets say for cold flu tablet. Flight Cancelled up to 180 pax affected. And the chances of this pilot keeping his or her job? ZERO.

Its in black and white boys you have no come back on this one.

[Lasiorhinus]

As I posted on the other thread - get it in writing from the company before you take the tablet, that taking a Codral is not going to result in your job, even if tested.

If the company won't come to that, then you call in sick as you take the tablet. That gives the company time to find a replacement crew. How easy or not that is for them is not your problem - and when enough people do this, the company will start lobbying CASA to get codeine off the prohibited list.

If the company happens to be Qantas, CASA will immediately remove codeine from the list. If the company isnt Qantas, well, nothing will change.

[Dangly Bits]

Gotta agree with Lasiorhinus on the Qantas thing. They sure seem powerful inside CASA.

Can you actually exclude codeine from the test without excluding opiates as well? I thought that was the problem. Can't test one without the other.

[PlankBlender]

The pilot in question should find a lawyer and sue CASA for compensation.

Assuming the pilot cannot afford this, I would suggest an initiative to collect donations to pay for the legal challenge.

This would send a strong signal to CASA that the pilot community thinks the current implementation is flawed to say the least.

The presumption of guilt in this testing process is victimisation of the most despicable kind, and will destroy numerous careers and reputations. Some of these tardy short-sighted buerocrats really do need their head examined:ugh: they haven't thought the whole thing through or simply don't care about sending people and businesses down the cr@pper :mad:

[Kelly Slater]

Did the pilot with the "False Positive" have any idea what he or she did to return a positive test? Was over the counter medication or prescription medication involved, perhaps an orange cake with poppy seeds? If the "False Positive" came about without any known cause, this is even worse than if the person took something that was harmless but showed up in the test.

[xxgoldxx]

can all the "done nothing wrong got nothing to fear" crew please explain to our first (proven..) false positive how this has had no effect whatsoever on his career and has made australian aviation a safer place in the process..??

[Mr.Buzzy]

Can we refuse a test if it will interfere with our operation. ie make us late?

What is the best course of action immediately following a positive result? Just shut up and them do all the hole digging?

bbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzz

[glenb]

Lots of interesting questions everyone. Great to get your feedback. I was really beginning to question myself, whether I am being overly awkward and combative. Great to see my view appears to be a widely held view. Very heartening. I am very open to any criticism however. With regards to answering questions; i must say one thing. We must respect the confidentiality of the person involved so it is difficult to elaborate. What i will say ,is that I believe by true consultation with the industry we can come up with far more cost effective ways to improve safety.

[Q-Ball]

99.330 Refusing or failing to give a body sample

(1) A person must not refuse or fail to give a body sample to an approved tester for a drug or alcohol test under Subpart 99.C if:

(a) the person is performing or available to perform an applicable SSAA;and

(b) at the time the person is performing or available to perform the
applicable SSAA, the person is required to give a body sample for a drug
or alcohol test by the approved tester; and

(c) the approved tester, in requiring and taking or seeking to take the body
sample, complies with the requirements of this Part or any legislative
instrument made under this Part.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) It is a defence to subregulation (1) if a person failed to give a body sample because the person had a medical condition that rendered the person unable to give the body sample.

(3) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

SSAA means a safety-sensitive aviation activity.

[Kelly Slater]

I'm finding it a little hard to believe that you need a three phase maching for the testing, I would have thought "spit on a stick". If it comes back positive then you roll out the heavy duty spectro analyser or whatever they use.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

glenb, the slow wheels of bureaucracy are turning. It will be pleasing to know the authorities have taken note and are investigating. Hopefully, for the better.

[airman1]

Thanks for the post Glenb very informative! :ok:

This false postitives bussiness is a real worry.......... next time I get hay fever or a runny nose. Which in winter and autumn I get regularly. I am not going to be able to take a demazin tablet? Looks like I will be more of a risk at the controls with watery eyes and trying to blow my nose while maintaining wings level in IMC and not to mention trying to unblock all my sinuses in the decent. :eek::eek::eek:

CASA are just the smartest and brightest, I am off to book an appointment with a DAME to see what I can take so I can show up to work on some sort of regular basis during these months.:ugh:

[Sunfish]

I'm hoping whats below is instructive and I will then make a prediction...

You all know how alcohol and drug testing was sold to the motoring community? It was "sold" as "random" testing by Governments and that idea was used to get around the common law restriction on the Police searching or questioning people without a warrant.

Well last week the Traffic Operations Group destroyed the "Randomness" in Victoria. They have a new camera system that recognises licence plates. It's connected to a database of registered owners and their driving and/or criminal records. It is capable of scanning 3000 licence plates per hour.

It was placed by the side of the Westgate Freeway outbound. At the Williamstown road exit, there were about Fifteen Traffic Operations Group cars arranged in a net to cover all possible exits.


The modus operandi was very simple. If the registered owner of the vehicle had a previous drinking or drugs record, or otherwise triggered the database decision rules, the computer beeped and threw up the details. These were then radioed to the so called "Random breathalyzer" unit situated on the other side of the Westgate bridge on the Williamstown road off ramp about Three minutes away.

One guy not the usual army of Eight with booze bus and dustbins etc. was standing there and he then pulled over the suspect vehicle as it hit the ramp. "Good evening sir, you are requested to submit to a random test"

Goodbye randomness. The court cases when this is exposed will be interesting.

How does this apply to aviation?

When the promoters of this scheme in CASA start getting desperate about their low hit rate, and the complete mess that is their cost/benefit analysis, watch them remove the element of randomness. They will hit schools and test large numbers of students very early in their courses. They will look for "known" characters, like the old Ag pilot living in his caravan at the end of the strip and suchlike. They will target baggage handlers on a Monday morning or just after a public holiday. They will reduce the Alcohol tolerance to zero, anything to get the hit rate up like the T.O.G. are doing right now.

[aero979]

Any idea where we would be tested if stopped say walking down a concourse at Sydney Airport? Do they whip out a trolley in front of our valued guests???

Did you happen to find out which company these people who conducted the testing at Moorabbin were from?? I understand they are not CASA staff?

[RENURPP]

To sort this mess out quickly I believe the best result would be some airline crew, preferably on an overnight away from home base, are tested and happen to be involved in these "false positives" read screw ups. The cost will affect the airlines and they won't be happy.
Accommodate 100 + pax, feed them, transport them and for what??:E

There is verty little I or you can do on our own.

CASA contractors, please check me and my crew. there are 6 of us, with some luck one of us will receive a "false positive" = a delayed or cancelled flight. watch QF jump up and down then!!

[compressor stall]

There was never any intention of the testers being CASA staff. In all the CASA seminars I have been to, it was made known that they were contractors.

I don't know where the expectation came from that they were to be CASA staff.

[Mr. Hat]

I'm going to sit and wait with my 100% no OTC attitude and wait for a false positive. The next step will be a letter from a lawyer/barrister ect.

Looking forward to the money this one could generate.

[Captain Dart]

There seems to be an element of incompetence common to the false positive and the appalling errors in the recent CASA DAMP mailout; it is almost as if the producers of the 'calendar' (and the CASA proof readers/acceptors of this rubbish) were under the influence of drugs/alcohol themselves!

The scope for legal redress in this situation appears great. Any 'flying lawyers' out there, what are your thoughts?

[hadagutful]

Yeah Folks, I knew it was coming and you got me started.

I've been kicking around aerodromes and airports since the good old days of the sixties, you know, back in the days when we could all be trusted.
I don't think any accidents or incidents that I can recall reading about in all the crash comics were caused by drugs or alcohol. I mean really, how many seriously professional pilots pop drugs or drink within the designated time frame before flying?

This is just more bureaucratic Bull....t that treats the vast majority of us like fools because a tiny minority if any, are suspected of doing the wrong thing.
It's just the way society is going and I'm fed up with putting up with stupid laws that are imposed under the guise of more safety!

Too bad about the person with the false positive, what protection do we have against this?

[Frank Arouet]

Didn't this all start with the Hamilton Is PA32 prang? Seems the pilot was allegedly seen three weeks prior walking past someone smoking a joint and there was some residual in the tox report. Same report from memory said it was insignificant and had no bearing on the outcome of the flight.

We are all guilty until proven innocent.

[RENURPP]

The Hamilton Island accident may have hasd an impact, how ever I believe QF particularly had a large influence on this. They have wanted to screen employees for quite a while, this finally allows them to.

Let them reap what they sew I reckon. I will seek out a screener, pick me pick me and hope it reads "false positive".

Same situation with security screening, let them do their job, take your time and let the events unfold. Delay code, "security screeing" I still go home happy. Why geet all bent out of shape about this stuff. let the management team respond to their own screw ups.
Moronic managers who are incapable of solving issues using common sense and discussions.

I do feel for the small operators though, and thanks to the originator of this thread. Interesting info.

[Mr. Hat]

Why geet all bent out of shape about this stuff.

Thats its REN - there are positives also:

No more expenses on OTC drugs.

Long term less build up of toxic chemicals in your system.


The only people this will hurt will be the operators dealing with increased sick leave and the screening authority dealing with multiple legal issues due to false positives. Screen all you like boys.

[Capt Claret]

I'd be really surprised if a false positive, in itself, left the regulator open to litigation.

Now if the regulator has the TV & print cameras at the ready to publicise their own effectiveness and having splashed some one's identity across the media, and subsequently there's a false positive, they (the regulator) might have something to worry about.

[tio540]

They need three phase AC power

Do they stick a welding rod up your nose until you confess?

[flying-spike]

I was tested two weeks ago and it was definitely single phase not 3 phase for what it is worth

[Mr. Hat]

Depends on the scenario I suppose Claret - sounds like the one at Moorrabin is a start.

If it happens to me and causes me a loss of income or a tarnished reptuation then I'll let lawyers work it out.

[airman1]

Just on the three phase business...... Just because it may have been plugged into a three phase outlet doesn’t mean that the appliance in question was or is a three phase appliance. A three phase outlet can have 5 pins these particular outlets have a neutral! Any phase and neutral with give you 240v! (Single phase)

The applicance in question may have a plug and lead setup, this would allow the appliance to be used at any nearby outlet. (The plug and lead being either a 3 pin or 5 pin but only utilizing 240v)

Just my 2 cents from another life! That life use to pay a lot better!:{

[glenb]

heard of another false positive at Moorabbin Airport. Perhaps CASA should be looking to find a more competent contract organisation to conduct their testing. It would be interesting to see if CASA is prepared to publish the statistics, or if we would have access to the information under Freedom of information.

[multime]

Met a few fat men in my travels.
Normally during a ramp check. But why isn,t it published on the CASA website that these people have all care no, responsibility.
Do we, as the public have access to their drink driving records, or other infringements.?
My guess would be a resounding no.
So why do they have access to our lives.? Seems wrong.
Wheres the privacy act.?
When (in a previous life) minesites in WA (godzone) require every member of staff to blow the bag 6am each and every morning. Accountability.
Casa should do the same, realise they have drunks, drug users and offenders within their ranks. But we are the only, ones accountable.
Putting myself at risk. But public servants (thats who they are), need to be crystal clear. That won,t happen.!!
M:sad:
Don,t know about fellow pruners, but i always carry my meth lab around.

[glenb]

Surprise surprise. Yet another false positive. This time out at Essendon.

[compressor stall]

Is it just flying schools thus far?

What about caterers, security, AFP, nut stranglers, ATC, firies....

Any words from those ranks???

[Ovation]

glenb

For the "False Positive" reading, was it for drugs or alcohol?

If it was alcohol, how was it determined to be false?

If it was narcotics, what was the substance falsely detected? And could it have been the subject had taken some OTC medication rather than cannabis or an opiate substance.

Or was the test subject 100% "clean"?

[tasdevil.f27]

What needs to happen is the friendly CASA testers head down to Tulla or other major port & test everyone in mid winter, hopefully most of the airport staff have the flu & have taken cold & flu tablets etc with plenty of codene. When they all test positive and the airport comes to a grinding stop for a few days maybe then CASA will realise that there testing process needs to change.

Well we can dream....:ugh:

[glenb]

i personally know two of the people involved, and they were both clean.

[Howard Hughes]

I always thought that a 'false positive' in drug testing terms, meant a failure of the testing procedure, rather than an incorrect positive reading.

I wil be interested to see how this thread develops!:ok:

[BULLDOG 248]

Any other locations of tests other than MB and EN.
What about in NSW???

[Obidiah]

An interesting side thought.

A few years ago I was warned by a reasonably well ranked Police Officer that if you are ever subjected to a drug swab test you should insist on having the swab returned to you if the result is a negative.

He was of the firm belief that there was an underlying agenda to keep the swab on file to build up a DNA data base.

Could be a bit of paranioa but makes you wonder, after all they have your details and now a DNA swab, that's all they need.

[BN APP 125.6]

It is going to be 'interesting' to see what happens when some false positives inevitably turn up in the ATC workplace. No idea what the turnaround time will be on clearing them, but the impact on the staff coverage, ability to replace staff, and consequences for provision of ATC services will then no doubt lead to some bush lawyers seeking compensation for delays. Who pays for this?

If there was a big drug & alcohol problem within the industry (ATC specifically) I would say, ok there is a problem lets deal with it - but really, apart from fulfilling some theoretical duty of care to discharge a potential liability in a possible court case, who is this helping?

I have always thought a common sense approach to allocating the limited budget and resources to where the problems are made sense in a small country like Australia, and especially in an even smaller industry within that country.

This just smacks to me of fixing a problem where one never existed, and keeping some people in shiny suits employed in grey corridors in an even greyer city.

In terms of safety based outcomes, I have little doubt there would plenty of you who have better ideas & better places this effort and expense could be made.

Now,,,, pass me the box of poppy seed bagels!

[GADRIVR]

I would of thought a testing regime that concentrated entirely on GAAPS and Kiwi flight instructors would return some interesting results!!!!
(ducks back into bomb shelter....waits for bang!!!)
:ok::E

[Capt Claret]

Freight Dog,

I think the underlying answer to your questions is that on-the-spot testing can't differentiate between codeine (good drug) and it's not so good relatives, without the swab and subsequent lab test. I guess another way of looking at the test, is that it really says, 'does this person's body have substances which could be detrimental.

Personally, I don't think a false positive is grounds to consider one's reputation tarnished but I see how many would, wrongly, jump to that conclusion. It will be sad if employers take such a view against their own employees.

[Fonz121]

What about this scenario?

Its just hit 4pm on a fri arvo and everyone cracks open the beers as a lot of the smaller schools and clubs do. A few pilots (students, instructors) are sitting around sharing a few stories as they do every fri. arvo when in walk the Narc's asking for a random breath test. Whats the definition of knocking off? This is a real scenario where I worked and I know it is at a lot of the other smaller schools too. Is it now illegal to have a few beers on a friday afternoon on the premises?

[TinKicker]

Freight Dog,

sorry to correct you, but it appears from the report that you linked in your post, it was not the ATSB. The first page indicates that it was DOTARS and CASA.

Tinkicker

[Lasiorhinus]

No, its not illegal to have a beer on the premesis.

But is illegal to remain there after you've tested positive. You have to leave, until you test negative again.

[glenb]

Had this clarified by CASA today. There is no requirement to actually leave the premises. The requirement is that you are unable to participate in safety sensitive activities.

[Worrals in the wilds]

So, by your understanding, is it still OK for a person to take cold and flu meds as long they are willing to be stood down pending the results of a lab test? If the results come back as codeine then everyone is free to go their separate way?

Frieght.dog, when I checked that was the exact advice from the consultant doctor our company is using. However, we don't have pilots and it may be different for you airborne people.

As for the negative connotations of an initial positive, we will all have to be careful not to cast the first stone and make negative assumptions until the lab tests are through.

Lasiorhinus and glenb, thanks for that, I had wondered that myself and CASA have not been free with explanations.

[Fonz121]

But is it now not ok to have a beer after work on the premises? ie. putting you over the 'limit' in a lot of cases. Whats the definition of being on the premises and working, or being there and being "knocked off" for the day but still in uniform minus epaulettes. Whats the defining point as far as they are concerned as Im sure "but Ive finished for the day" wont cut it.

[Worrals in the wilds]

If what glenb says is correct (I'm sure he's right but don't put money on CASA :}) I would have thought it was okay as long as you were not taking part in safety sensitive activities. If your duty hours were over (as per the sign on sheets or whatever your company procedure is) and you weren't doing anything safety sensitive it would seem to be permissable.

Personally, however, I will be retiring to the pub for any after work drinkies, because then there is no ambiguity. If staying on premises, maybe a change of clothes would be advisable.

[Mr. Hat]

Freight dog, plain and simple. No more OTC. Fullstop.

You call sick. You don't risk your career.

According to the pamphlet 48 hrs. 7 days well forget the OTC drugs then. Its funny how different parts of the industry have no idea about this at all. Spok to some flighties the other day at work and they had no idea about the whole thing.

[compressor stall]

I'm still waiting for them to start on the non pilot areas of aviation.

A few flying schools have no voice. Wait till they start this on the Firies, ATC, security, catering etc etc....

Then it will get some air time!

[bogdantheturnipboy]

I was looking on the net to try and find more information about testing and how long codeine stays in your system and look what I found -Saliva Drug Test Solutions!

To pass a saliva drug test has never been easier. Our Test'in research team has developed the first saliva cleanse on the market today. With outstanding results to pass any saliva swab drug test. A mouth wash that you rinse twice and feel confident about your saliva drug test. Our permanent cleansing products will also prepare you for any saliva drug test in 1 - 8 days depending on your usage. You can always rely on Test'in products to give you the results you need.

All Saliva Cleansing Solutions are certified with a full 100% MONEY BACK GUARANTEE! All you have to do is follow the simple instructions and the guaranteed passing result will be achieved. This includes all EMIT and GC/MS confirmation drug tests preformed by drug testing labs.

[hung start]

if i am in the middle of a $100,000.00 charter and get tested and fail even though i know i have not taken drugs or alcohol how do they stop you getting into your a/c and flying . There is only a few people who are endorsed on our a/c ( let alone current with company base checks ) . I think i will continue to fly and deal with it later when it is proved false . I will also be asking for my own identical specimen . Just imagine being tested and getiingba false positive on your departure to the US where we need weeks notice for TSA approval for each pax/pilot each sector . This will bring the careers and industry to its knees .

[PlankBlender]

Let's hope it does happen to the sole pilot of a very expensive charter as hung start paints it, because then the mo:mad:ns who came up with this rubbish half-baked process will get sued and this guilty-until-proven-otherwise w:mad:nk will be changed quicker than CASA can write out the huge cheques that the courts will make them pay in compensation..

Sadly my earlier recommendation to start a collection for the legal fees of the pilot disadvantaged by one of the first false positives seems not to have been met with great enthusiasm, that would have sent a very clear signal to over overzealous and underachieving regulator that they got it dead wrong:ugh:

[Stationair8]

Very valid point hung start.
I can also see the sick leave for F/A's, ATC, pilots going up at an alarming rate. Wait until flu season hits!!

[LeadSled]

hungstart,
Please read the regulation, if you fail a test, and "fly away", that alone is a serious criminal offense.
That the test is later found to be a false positive makes no difference. The regulation are really quite clear about this point, once you fail a test, you are immediately off line until the matter is resolved.
Please do not jeopardize you license and your career.
Tootle pip!!

[PlankBlender]

Agree with LeadSled here, in case you're grounded call you boss who should then call a lawyer (or if you're a private pilot/operator make the call yourself) and have the lawyer get on to CASA threatening an immediate law suit for heaps of compensation and see them give you a special dispensation to fly on very quickly..

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

The passengers will enjoy sitting under the wing on a nice warm NT day, while waiting for a replacement plane and pilot to be flown in!!

What about an incident at some remote airstrip, sorry passengers have to wait for a drug and alcohol test.

[inandout]

Has some one a link to what you can not take please.

[compressor stall]

Has some one a link to what you can not take please.


I was going to be blunt and rude and moan about the laziness and ignorance of some pilots but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a pilot and some other area (security etc) affected by these regs and as such not familiar with the CASRs and the search button on this web page...

So.... go to the CASA website and then follow the links. If the general CASA propoganda is not specific enough, download CASR part 99 and read through it. It's all there.

Hung Start Yep, fully concur with the TSA/crewing issues. Have been in the same situation myself and chatted about the massive $$ consequences with our DAMP. However as others point out, do not be tempted to fly. You will be hung drawn and quartered by CASA irrespective of the result.

Get the boss to get a lawyer.

[ZappBrannigan]

If they're going to have this type of testing in place, I still think the solution is to conduct the testing like police do (as in, police getting randomly drug tested themselves at work). There is NO testing of samples completed on the day - merely collection of samples which are sent to a lab - thus there is no chance of being stood down immediately due to a false positive. The first you hear of it is when your "A" sample tests positive - they then invite you to witness the opening and testing of your "B" sample.

With this method, false positives do not cause any stress, you're invited to declare any OTC meds you've taken recently, and these are obviously looked at first if something comes up positive in the lab. If an actual banned substance is found during accurate lab testing (and these testing methods are immune to false positives), THEN you're stood down and the whole "please explain" procedure commences.

This is enough of a threat to stop you taking illegal drugs due to the chance of random testing, but there's none of the implications (both personal and operational) of being stood down due to a false positive.

The "threat" shouldn't be the act of actually getting stood down - it should be getting black-marked for life that scares people. I'd like to see someone take them on legally when their career is half-ruined due to a false positive.

[Capt Claret]

Zapp, what's got into you, coming up with a common sense approach like that? :ok:

[Worrals in the wilds]

Zapp, that's a good method from a fairness perspective, but what happens if someone is bombed out on cocaine when the samples are taken? Does it remove them from the workplace before they can cause harm, or do they work the day under the influence? I thought that was the gist of the DAMP testing, to remove people immediately before they made a mess of themselves or others.

Of course, any group of employees worth their salt can spot a p:mad:ssed person before they go on duty and firmly suggest they go home (been happening for years), but that's a bit common sense for CASA...

[ZappBrannigan]

Zapp, that's a good method from a fairness perspective, but what happens if someone is bombed out on cocaine when the samples are taken? Does it remove them from the workplace before they can cause harm, or do they work the day under the influence?You make a good point - but it's no different to police, where they could rock up to work bombed out on cocaine, get tested, and immediately grab their firearm, other gear and go off to work (unless there are other obvious factors at play - such as they are quite obviously "bombed out" - but this doesn't require a drug test to be pulled offline in the police).

Regardless of what the governing bodies tell you, drug testing comes under the "credible deterrent" banner. If there's a reasonable chance of getting tested, losing your job and never working as a pilot again, this should be enough of a threat to not take any illegal drugs, or if you do, not turn up to work - mission accomplished. The actual act of pulling someone offline is secondary to the threat that you WILL be tested at some stage.

Let's face it, random testing is not going to stop the odd pilot flying in an inappropriate state, for whatever reason, in exactly the same way that booze buses do not stop some people getting pissed and driving home every Friday night. The deterrent needs to be there, and to use the booze bus analogy again, the fact that they exist and the police actually advertise when they're putting them out there is the key to cutting down drink driving - not the act of actually charging someone with a driving offence - this is just the end state for a few people.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Fair enough.
I believe that the deterrent aspect has already curbed some monster hangovers round here, so I guess you could say it's working.

They will have to test a reasonable number of people at a reasonable number of airports to keep that up, though, otherwise the 'Haven't been breath tested in years' argument will start to apply.

Actually, I haven't been breath tested in years :hmm:

[ZappBrannigan]

I believe that the deterrent aspect has already curbed some monster hangovers round here, so I guess you could say it's working.

They will have to test a reasonable number of people at a reasonable number of airports to keep that up, though, otherwise the 'Haven't been breath tested in years' argument will start to apply.

Actually, I haven't been breath tested in years http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/yeees.gifVery true, they do have to keep it up.

It's just a pity that, especially in the incestuous world that is GA, pulling someone offline and potentially cancelling a paid operation due to lack of crew can have far reaching consequences - we all know what GA can be like - a pilot goes up north for a while, but before he arrives, word's already got around his new place of work that two charters were cancelled the previous year due to him being pulled offline for positive indications on a drug test. It's along the same lines as rape - the charge is almost as bad as the conviction, guilty or not.

I think a good solution would be on-the-spot alcohol breath testing, with immediate stand-down if you have a BAC - and drug testing as I outlined above.

Haven't been breath tested in a while myself... hmmm...

[Stationair8]

In the good old days, the boys from DCA, DOTAC and CAA regularly conducted alcohol testing at the RVAC bar on Friday nights.

One remembers having to test alcohol with the late Mr Lindsay after passing my IFR rating.

[chimbu warrior]

You call sick. You don't risk your career.

Unfortunately, even in the 21st century, some people are still employed on a casual basis and don't get sick leave. This is not necessarily small operators either; the "national" carrier employs (via an agency) quite a few cabin crew on a casual basis, and they do not get sick leave.

If, as has been suggested, QF were so keen for this D & A testing to be introduced, might they not have reconsidered (in the interests of fairness) this no sick-leave policy for casuals?

[Wally Mk2]

Scene 1 act 1.

Capt Wally on late night ops at remote airstrip where the wildlife is at times abundant.
Capt Wally has Medical team on board from Royal Childrens Hospital with a critical new born prem baby (can be as new as 24 weeks or so) about to be transported back to ML. We are at least an hrs flying time away from base. It's 3:30am local as Capt Wally applies max power for T/off. At around 80 kts a small flock of birds take flight & impact the airframe. All safe after a quick acting pilot (Capt wally is good:E) .brought A/C to safe stop.
Back at the dirt parking bay I check the airframe with torch & find nothing obvious other than a few feathers stuck to the L/E (we get a bit of that & often found upon shutdown). I check with the med team to make sure we have enough med supplies to last several hrs at least whilst on the ground. They ask why? Can you all imagine what I have to now say to that team? The results could be devistating. Worst case baby dies right there in the back of my plane (as they have done before sadly) The Coronor will love this case am sure!!!!:ugh:
Hypothetical? perhaps but even the slightest chance of the above developing will make headlines with a far greater impact than any of us as an individual ever will.

yes wally Mk2 is back, but just to add fuel to the fire here:-)

Wmk2

[tipsy2]

Despite the zealous efforts of the regulatory authority lawyer inhabitants, there will never be rules to cover every situation.

This particular legislation has more holes than a seive and is destined to be the butt of such mockery and ridicule as to render it ineffective. Sadly and predictably, those regulatory authority lawyer inhabitants will only try harder to cover every angle and situation (and their own ar$es) and write more legal rubbish.

:=tipsy
:yuk:furball:yuk:and another

[mcgrath50]

I was talking this over today,

What will happen if a RFDS pilot (or Ambulance chopper pilot or whatever) is tested just prior to a critical flight, they get a positive test (that later turns out to be false) and in the time it takes to get a new pilot the patient dies.

It's possible, it's the same situation as QF passengers being delayed but with more extreme consequences. If this happens CASA will have a lot of explaining to do.

[pcx]

Under these circumstances, if there were no other crew available, would you not be able to declare a mercy flight and continue.
If it was a false positive I suspect that no action would be taken.
It would involve some paperwork regarding the mercy flight but I suspect it would be a non event.

[gassed budgie]

This particular legislation has more holes than a seive and is destined to be the butt of such mockery and ridicule as to render it ineffective

I thought that particular trophy belonged to the Aviation Security Act 2004.

[glekichi]

Wally,

I think you would be alright after a birdstrike in the middle of nowhere:

(3) Suitable test conditions means conditions that exist after an accident or
serious incident if:
(a) testing can be conducted within:
(i) for drug testing — 32 hours after the accident or incident occurred;
and
(ii) for alcohol testing — 8 hours after the accident or incident
occurred; and
(b) it is practicable to conduct a test.

The thing I find strangest about these regs is that being above the limits for each of these drugs, in itself, is not an 'offence' under part 99.
Instead, they have simply added that:

99.415 When CASA may vary, suspend or cancel a civil aviation
authorisation
(1) CASA may, in writing, vary, suspend or cancel a person’s civil aviation
authorisation in the interests of aviation safety in the following circumstances:
(a) if:
(i) the person gives a body sample for drug or alcohol testing under
Subpart 99.C; and
(ii) a confirmatory alcohol test or confirmatory drug test is conducted
on the sample; and
(iii) the test result is a positive result;


So, (irresponsibly) one can have a big night, not drink within the 8 hours before duty (so as not to break the CAR), blow .04, and not have actually broken any single rule, as long as they comply with the procedures under CASR99 regarding the testing.

They have not broken any rule, yet CASA may suspend their licence if they so choose..... hmm...

Another employee may be (responsibly) taking medication that happens to contain codeine. Once again, there is no rule anywhere that actually classifies this as an offense. But, yet again, CASA may suspend their licence, if they decide they want to.

Seems way too grey to me.

I know its getting to be a long post, but one more point.

The mailouts all mentioned being available as an instructor as one of the SSAAs, however, CASR99 makes no mention whatsoever of instruction in its list of activities to which the rule applies. (Providing the instructor is not airside, in which case it falls under the umbrella of being in a testing area.)

You only need to comply with requests for testing if the person doing the testing is complying with the regulations, so I believe this may well be grounds to tell them to :mad: off!

[desmotronic]

PCX,
Its hardly a non event if the patient dies??

Makes you wonder why they would be testing students in theory classes and rfds pilots anyway... surely the public interest is at Tulla where all the RPT is.

[nick2007]

Wally, could you not declare it a mercy flight (as a life is at stake), and head off anyway?

[pcx]

Desmotronic
I think if you reread my post you will find that I am saying that the declaration of a mercy flight would involve some paperwork but would be a non event.
The reason for declaring a mercy flight would be to cover you and allow the flight to continue and hopefully provide the optimum outcome for the patient.

[desmotronic]

You are right my mistake.

[Matt-YSBK]

Did anybody notice the brand name/model of the saliva kits the contractors used to test for drugs. If the type/model can be noted these things can be purchased for a few bucks on the internet and keep them in your flight bag. Then if you think the medication you have taken is on the banned list (or your not even sure) just test yourself and go to work. If you test positive call in sick. Also works if you are unsure how long it takes for these drugs to get out of your system.

They could be sold at pilot shops and on pilot web sites and no one need put there license at risk again.

There are plenty of the kits available on US web sites but my research seems to point that there cutoff levels are different to the Australian ones.

[inandout]

I spoke to a CASA representative to clarify what types of medication one can take. I had assumed that if it did not contain a drug from the list from the 'CASA Part 99 - Drug and Alcohol Management Plans and Testing' then you could use it. The representative advised that this is not the case and you have to go to the chemist to find out what is in the medication. This affectively puts the onus on the pilot and lets CASA once again, control a completely ill-conceived operation. The whole thing is just bloody outrageous and someone should take it to the media.

To give an example of what I am talking about, I asked if I could take Sinutab (sinus medication) which on the labelling list none of the drugs mention in Part 99, yet he said that just because the packaging didn't mention the drugs it did not mean the product could be taken legally and advised me to check with a chemist. What a joke. CASA came up with the idea, it shouldn't be for us to find out what we can take, it should be up to them to tell us what we can't take. ie. a complete and thorough list.

[Mr. Hat]

gleckichi, i think its written somewhere from memory in addition to the 8hrs bottle to throttle "not under the influence".

Alcohol and medication, its all a risk. Chemist says its fine but really you are relying on his/her word.

[tmpffisch]

Went to the chemist the other day to get something for a cold, and the only thing he could recommend was a saline nasal spray. Every other product may/could/would cause a positive result, either by the ingredient physically being in the product, OR by it possibly metabolising into a form of banned ingredient once I consumed it.

[glekichi]

Mr Hat,

Kind of. What it (CAR256) says is:
(2) A person acting as a member of the operating crew of an aircraft, or
carried in the aircraft to act as a member of the operating crew, shall
not, while so acting or carried, be in a state in which, by reason of his
or her having consumed, used, or absorbed any alcoholic liquor, drug,
pharmaceutical or medicinal preparation or other substance, his or her
capacity so to act is impaired.

Which is essentially, as you say, the same as "under the influence". It is not clearly defined by a certain level of the drug/alcohol and they would need to show that you were actually impaired at the time.

Its like riding a bike when you're pissed. They can't do you for being over .05 but can nail you for DUI so long as you are clearly impaired (and you don't necessarily need to be over 0.05 either!).

Yep, I just looked that up, because I am on non-drowsy flu medication, with which I have done a ground trial to assure it does not make me drowsy, and I am flying tonight.

[Kelly Slater]

I'd say that there is a better than 50% chance that your non-drowsy flu medication would return a positive if you were tested tonight and there in lies the problem.

[Deaf]

Re Narcotics

Codeine and Morphine both come from opium and are almost the same (hydroxyl or methyl group attached to a big mess). Process in Oz and elsewhere is opium is seperated into codeine. morphine etc and they are then fiddled according as to what the demand is.

The separation is only so good so codeine will contain morphine. Heroin is a morphine compound.
So given a sufficently sensitive test someone who has taken codine will show as taken heroin (have they just had a cold tablet to disguise this).

In terms of how sensitive a test can be they tested the Po river in Italy (big river, sewerage for several million people) as a p**s test for cocaine.
The results showed x kilos (tons?) of cocaine had been consumed in the watershed far more than anyone had thought.

[inandout]

If I didn't work for an Airline I would go to the media re this , I wish someone would, to show up these :mad:

[glekichi]

KS

Yeah, the doctor (DAME) I spoke to said there was a slight chance it might be picked up on an initial test but that the lab test would clear me.

I am about to take 2 weeks leave anyway, and its not until a few people do get suspended incorrectly that this whole thing will be exposed for what it is!

Although, having said that a freight pilot being stood down probably wouldn't provoke any change. It would need to be a Q pilot with a good lawyer, I guess.

[Wally Mk2]

Re those saying could one not declare a Mercy Flight in the above scene that I painted?. Well yes you could declare a Mercy Flight this I have done a couple of times with another Co. but we at the 'Rufdus' rarely if ever have had to do such a flight due to options even if they are remote but possible. Mercy flight by it's very nature means to complete the task taking all reasonable care ref to rules etc.but going outside thoese rules where the PIC consideres it necesary & when there is no other means available to complete the mission/task. Well if I where in the scenario as described then there would be options as in ground transport albiet no doubt a risky undertaking with very low postive/s outcomes due time/distance constraints. I was faced with this type of situation (Mercy Flight) many years ago on a Pacific Is in the middle of the night where I had to delcare a Mercy Flight back to Oz due the WX at destination becoming forecast as needing more fuel than I could carry, that was a Mercy Flight due no other parcticable way of doing the flight & therefore saving the patient.
The DAMP is just another "to be seen to be doing something" in the eyes of the rule makers about what has essentially been around since man took flight
Remember WE put those stupid rule makers there, that's the sh1tty bit!!!


WMK2