drug & booze testing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: aussie
Age: 51
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok lets forget the false + stuff for a bit ..
Can anyone tell me .. if after 5 beers I get my wife to drive me to the airport to polish the windscreen on my (homebuilt/ga/exp/etc) aircraft and I get tested.... over .05 airside..
I am also a ATPL Pilot due to fly next day... Am I in breach of the rules ??
I am a LAEME who has a beer after work in the hangar.. I have forgotten my pen after signing the MR that is still in the aircraft.. as I go to get it after 4 beers I get tested... over .05 airside....
Am I in breach..?
Is it a simple as .02 etc Airside.. ? if i have a beer in the A/C or at the pub in the town next door while my mate fly's and then get tested on landing have I breached the rules ??
Can anyone tell me .. if after 5 beers I get my wife to drive me to the airport to polish the windscreen on my (homebuilt/ga/exp/etc) aircraft and I get tested.... over .05 airside..
I am also a ATPL Pilot due to fly next day... Am I in breach of the rules ??
I am a LAEME who has a beer after work in the hangar.. I have forgotten my pen after signing the MR that is still in the aircraft.. as I go to get it after 4 beers I get tested... over .05 airside....
Am I in breach..?
Is it a simple as .02 etc Airside.. ? if i have a beer in the A/C or at the pub in the town next door while my mate fly's and then get tested on landing have I breached the rules ??
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Sky is Falling
blokehitchedwith2 is that your RSVP Chat name or what? 
AOD testing is about risk management - although the likelihood of a pilot being impaired at work is very small, the potential consequences are catastrophic.
Same-same for LAMEs and everyone else.
As others have said above, we have been living with this idea for over 20 years on the roads and it is absolutely standard practice in most Australian industries using machinery... I can't believe it's taken this long in Aviation, or even believe we're having this debate!
...it's just a part of life.
EMB120ER ...Thank you! - well said.
Like Comp Stall I have been subject to random D&A testing on mine sites - given your limited exposure to mine sites over a relatively short time, Stallie mate I dunno what you were eating! In six years as a mining contractor (with 10% of our workforce randomly tested each week) I never returned a positive sample. There were several guys who did, however, and they were stood down on full pay until the results could be verified.
IF the results were verified as illicit drugs, the employee was referred to the company's AOD rehabilitation policy and was required to provide clean samples before they could return to work.
IF you refused to submit to the test, you were stood down without pay until you provided a doctor's certificate stating you were clean.
IF, on the day of the test, you shoot through and go home, you would be subject to a test when you next turned up to work.
The Chain of custody for the samples was water-tight and taken very, very seriously. Everyone doing the testing was aware that people's livelihoods were at stake, and everyone in the operation was aware that being at work under the adverse influence of anything could kill you, or one of your mates.
Sometimes, reading these threads, I think that some Aviation "professionals" could learn a thing or two from labourers I have known in the mining industry.
On another note- At one Anglo Coal site in the Hunter two or three blokes would get advanced warning of the test, pop 2 Panadeine Forte's and win themselves 4 days off on full pay The subsequent testing confirmed it was legit medication, and the HR dept had a doctor's letter in a sealed "medication" envelope in their files stating that employee ABC sometimes took Panadeine Forte for acute back pain. 
AOD testing is about risk management - although the likelihood of a pilot being impaired at work is very small, the potential consequences are catastrophic.
Same-same for LAMEs and everyone else.
As others have said above, we have been living with this idea for over 20 years on the roads and it is absolutely standard practice in most Australian industries using machinery... I can't believe it's taken this long in Aviation, or even believe we're having this debate!
...it's just a part of life.
EMB120ER ...Thank you! - well said.
Like Comp Stall I have been subject to random D&A testing on mine sites - given your limited exposure to mine sites over a relatively short time, Stallie mate I dunno what you were eating! In six years as a mining contractor (with 10% of our workforce randomly tested each week) I never returned a positive sample. There were several guys who did, however, and they were stood down on full pay until the results could be verified.
IF the results were verified as illicit drugs, the employee was referred to the company's AOD rehabilitation policy and was required to provide clean samples before they could return to work.
IF you refused to submit to the test, you were stood down without pay until you provided a doctor's certificate stating you were clean.
IF, on the day of the test, you shoot through and go home, you would be subject to a test when you next turned up to work.
The Chain of custody for the samples was water-tight and taken very, very seriously. Everyone doing the testing was aware that people's livelihoods were at stake, and everyone in the operation was aware that being at work under the adverse influence of anything could kill you, or one of your mates.
Sometimes, reading these threads, I think that some Aviation "professionals" could learn a thing or two from labourers I have known in the mining industry.
On another note- At one Anglo Coal site in the Hunter two or three blokes would get advanced warning of the test, pop 2 Panadeine Forte's and win themselves 4 days off on full pay
The subsequent testing confirmed it was legit medication, and the HR dept had a doctor's letter in a sealed "medication" envelope in their files stating that employee ABC sometimes took Panadeine Forte for acute back pain.
Last edited by Bendo; 6th Jun 2008 at 23:23.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Over the Rainbow
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
give it a rest everyone. CASA was told to institute this by mid year, they still havent posted the ground rules so like anything else with casa its wait and see.
I predict they will rush in a rule, fukc someone up, then be in court for a year.
I predict they will rush in a rule, fukc someone up, then be in court for a year.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bendo
Well said that man.
With the knowledge that psychosis and possibly pschysophrenia may be symptomatic of the use of some illicit drugs I am starting to develop an understanding of why some can't understand or won't accept Drug and Alcohol testing in aviation!
With the knowledge that psychosis and possibly pschysophrenia may be symptomatic of the use of some illicit drugs I am starting to develop an understanding of why some can't understand or won't accept Drug and Alcohol testing in aviation!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: in a sorry state of permit-icitus
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lucky they found this captain before he did the preflight....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1VmGjJJFrc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1VmGjJJFrc
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Katherine
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After a night finish I went back into work last week to get my sunnies. I left them there because it was about 5:30am when I left and still dark. We were having an audit by CASA at the time which I had forgotten about and really didn t give a f##k about as I was off duty and only there as a civie'.
As I walked through the pilots room to my locker the CASA rep blocked my progress and asked me if I flew %%%%% (aircraft type). I said yes and that I was not on duty and only here to pick up my sunnies and leave.
He insisted on asking me tech IFR questions. Again I told him I was only there to get my sunnies and actually said "F##k off mate, I am off duty". He continued with the questions which I answered correctly and then he said I was "FREE TO GO".
8888 I think you are following your own agenda because you know my IRL identity, and revel in your new annonimity with this logion, however, in context, if you now see what has happened on my time off, not associated with my employment, within the law, I became subject to the random annalisys in my off duty time and after explaination of where and why I was there I was still expected to pass any examination posed to me as if I was PIC of an IFR flight.
Foresight of this event was what caused what I admit was an outburst on this thread. Justified or not at the time, experience shows what to expect from a regulatory body that sees no boundry to its duristiction.
My point here is that I could have had two full strength beers and driven to work within the law to do what I had to do, and then find myself after explaining why I was there, out of uniform and off duty, facing criminal charges and a loss of licence (and job) due to the fact that I am subject to regulation and testing to a degree not required , to the best of my knoledge, of any other profession or trade.
For anyones sensitivities I offended with my first post on this thread. I do hope now that with this factual example that I have explained myself and my feelings at the \ time.
I am concerned that if I have told this guy I am off duty, attending this place for personal reasons and he feels he still has cause to test my knowledge for professional reasons, I would have to also ask where is the boundry.
I was off duty, and ‘Old Mate’ still saw fit to question me, so if I am at home is it still reasonable to expect a knock at the door to blow in the bag?
In principal I have nothing against DnA testing and I have nothing to hide. My concern here is that it may be applied with the same questionable jugement that this, and other experience has made me accustomed to.
BENDO SAYS
What makes me angry is these guys want to test us not because we are about to fly for a living, but because we want to fly for a living.
As I walked through the pilots room to my locker the CASA rep blocked my progress and asked me if I flew %%%%% (aircraft type). I said yes and that I was not on duty and only here to pick up my sunnies and leave.
He insisted on asking me tech IFR questions. Again I told him I was only there to get my sunnies and actually said "F##k off mate, I am off duty". He continued with the questions which I answered correctly and then he said I was "FREE TO GO".
8888 I think you are following your own agenda because you know my IRL identity, and revel in your new annonimity with this logion, however, in context, if you now see what has happened on my time off, not associated with my employment, within the law, I became subject to the random annalisys in my off duty time and after explaination of where and why I was there I was still expected to pass any examination posed to me as if I was PIC of an IFR flight.
Foresight of this event was what caused what I admit was an outburst on this thread. Justified or not at the time, experience shows what to expect from a regulatory body that sees no boundry to its duristiction.
My point here is that I could have had two full strength beers and driven to work within the law to do what I had to do, and then find myself after explaining why I was there, out of uniform and off duty, facing criminal charges and a loss of licence (and job) due to the fact that I am subject to regulation and testing to a degree not required , to the best of my knoledge, of any other profession or trade.
For anyones sensitivities I offended with my first post on this thread. I do hope now that with this factual example that I have explained myself and my feelings at the \ time.
I am concerned that if I have told this guy I am off duty, attending this place for personal reasons and he feels he still has cause to test my knowledge for professional reasons, I would have to also ask where is the boundry.
I was off duty, and ‘Old Mate’ still saw fit to question me, so if I am at home is it still reasonable to expect a knock at the door to blow in the bag?
In principal I have nothing against DnA testing and I have nothing to hide. My concern here is that it may be applied with the same questionable jugement that this, and other experience has made me accustomed to.
BENDO SAYS
As others have said above, we have been living with this idea for over 20 years on the roads and it is absolutely standard practice
Last edited by 3RAR; 11th Sep 2008 at 16:31.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whats the go with the random ifr questions? do you have to answer them even if you are on duty?
i like the fk off mate - nice one. you should have given him a good choking in the car park
i like the fk off mate - nice one. you should have given him a good choking in the car park
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So now I know why we pay;
$75 for medical, $65 CPL/ATPL exam per subject, etc.
It is to help finance further checking, testing & probing programs.
Couldn't agree with blokehitchedwith2 more
"I want to see the evidence that shows we need this sort of invasion of our privacy due to the high accident rates and the dugs and alcohol that were involved."
$75 for medical, $65 CPL/ATPL exam per subject, etc.
It is to help finance further checking, testing & probing programs.
Couldn't agree with blokehitchedwith2 more
"I want to see the evidence that shows we need this sort of invasion of our privacy due to the high accident rates and the dugs and alcohol that were involved."
y ect ect
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: International
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For once CASA is on the front foot. If you can't handle that, then get out of the cockpit or workshop or ATC unit, etc!
CASA should not have to rely on a history of Drug and Alcohol related accidents and/or incidents to decide to be pro-actively trying to avoid accidents and/or incidents that have a connection to misues of Drugs and/or Alcohol.
The sad reality is that many people regardless of their social, economic, or ethnic, etc background, do misuse Drugs and/or Alcohol. The aviation community is not immune to such misuse BUT, importanatly, the aviation community manages a high risk mode of transport that cannot afford even minor transgressions. That CASA is attempting to identify transgressions known to be capable of causing unacceptable risk exposure to the flying public (which includes me) gives me a great deal of comfort.
Off-duty or not, you should not be an impediment to CASA officers lawfully conducting their duty. If 3RAR bothered to read the regulations related to drugs and/or alcohol impairment, you would realise that provided you are not contributing to the aviation service for which you are trained (other regulations relate to how you may interfere with an aviation service when neither trained nor on duty), you need not fear prosecution.
Some of the posts on pPrune here and elsewhere, indicate to me that I have had a misperception that all aviation employees are professionals. Clearly, some are not and some (even more disturbingly) lack simple (let alone the required complex) intelligence.
ID
CASA should not have to rely on a history of Drug and Alcohol related accidents and/or incidents to decide to be pro-actively trying to avoid accidents and/or incidents that have a connection to misues of Drugs and/or Alcohol.
The sad reality is that many people regardless of their social, economic, or ethnic, etc background, do misuse Drugs and/or Alcohol. The aviation community is not immune to such misuse BUT, importanatly, the aviation community manages a high risk mode of transport that cannot afford even minor transgressions. That CASA is attempting to identify transgressions known to be capable of causing unacceptable risk exposure to the flying public (which includes me) gives me a great deal of comfort.
Off-duty or not, you should not be an impediment to CASA officers lawfully conducting their duty. If 3RAR bothered to read the regulations related to drugs and/or alcohol impairment, you would realise that provided you are not contributing to the aviation service for which you are trained (other regulations relate to how you may interfere with an aviation service when neither trained nor on duty), you need not fear prosecution.
Some of the posts on pPrune here and elsewhere, indicate to me that I have had a misperception that all aviation employees are professionals. Clearly, some are not and some (even more disturbingly) lack simple (let alone the required complex) intelligence.
ID
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: In a time warp
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All for it, why should I be at risk at work from someone under the effects. Lets just say that a certain airport, at a certain company (where i did work) half, yes half the pit crew used drugs & were under the effect of them when servicing your planes. And this was only last year and nothing was ever done about it. (and these guys are still ) obviously not been tested yet or hopefully have stopped, me thinks the first one.
Some may say big deal, there are only chucking bags, but they operate tugs around the aircraft and around passengers on the tarmac. They do the receipt & dispatch duties etc also.
Some may say big deal, there are only chucking bags, but they operate tugs around the aircraft and around passengers on the tarmac. They do the receipt & dispatch duties etc also.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAOD
I'm uncertain I agree with
The Regs are all embracing as distinct from the protection of fare paying pax. In a GA situation, the matter of two beers in the airfield bar - legit to maintain control of a motor vehicle and/or walk across the road - then remembering one's headset still in the aircraft so quietly across the taxiway carefully checking for any a/c taxying to collect one's goods with no intention of control of the a/c - according to my reading still leaves one liable to be pinged. Ditto people camped under the wing at a fly in.
The latter may be workable by written exemption via the fly-in organisers, the former is open to persecution (as distinct from prosecution). I would have no concern re the interpretation and enforcing of commonsense regulation - were it not for the lessons of history with CASA.
I'm uncertain I agree with
you would realise that provided you are not contributing to the aviation service for which you are trained (other regulations relate to how you may interfere with an aviation service when neither trained nor on duty), you need not fear prosecution.
The latter may be workable by written exemption via the fly-in organisers, the former is open to persecution (as distinct from prosecution). I would have no concern re the interpretation and enforcing of commonsense regulation - were it not for the lessons of history with CASA.
I've noticed that the regs aren't published yet, at least on CASA's website (CASR part 99).
Reading the NPRM, I think there are questions that must be addressed.
- the few beers at the aero club bar followed by "retrieving one's headphones or helping someone push an aircraft".
- the Birdsville races.
- even going into the ops office or hangar after a good lunch.
Furthermore, I am surprised that the regs actually allow 0.02 percent alcohol, since as I interpret the regs today, the limit is effectively zero.
The problem can be solved satisfactorily by CASA being extremely careful about the definition of "Safety Sensitive Aviation Activities" in their regulations to rule out activities that are not essentially aviation related in that they do not require some form of qualification or training.
If CASA doesn't do this, then my guess is that some very nasty personal vendettas will follow, and eventually the Courts will force CASA to rewrite the regulations for reasons of natural justice.
Reading the NPRM, I think there are questions that must be addressed.
- the few beers at the aero club bar followed by "retrieving one's headphones or helping someone push an aircraft".
- the Birdsville races.
- even going into the ops office or hangar after a good lunch.
Furthermore, I am surprised that the regs actually allow 0.02 percent alcohol, since as I interpret the regs today, the limit is effectively zero.
The problem can be solved satisfactorily by CASA being extremely careful about the definition of "Safety Sensitive Aviation Activities" in their regulations to rule out activities that are not essentially aviation related in that they do not require some form of qualification or training.
If CASA doesn't do this, then my guess is that some very nasty personal vendettas will follow, and eventually the Courts will force CASA to rewrite the regulations for reasons of natural justice.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish
We share the wavelength. In a perfect world of natural justice we would be unconcerned.
From memory from my research and meetings on D&A, the testing would also flow at CASA decision to off airfield maintenance sites. That embodies benefit and concern.
Having read the Ombudsman paperwork on one vendetta against a LAME, who achieved justice only after much pain, I am concerned.
The data on D&A abuse warrants action, it is the quality and integrity of the fieldwork and the appeal process that counts.
As an aside I supported the road reg approach - zero for professional people movers, 0.02 for others (0.05 being unacceptable). CASA felt proving zero a risk was an issue.
We share the wavelength. In a perfect world of natural justice we would be unconcerned.
From memory from my research and meetings on D&A, the testing would also flow at CASA decision to off airfield maintenance sites. That embodies benefit and concern.
Having read the Ombudsman paperwork on one vendetta against a LAME, who achieved justice only after much pain, I am concerned.
The data on D&A abuse warrants action, it is the quality and integrity of the fieldwork and the appeal process that counts.
As an aside I supported the road reg approach - zero for professional people movers, 0.02 for others (0.05 being unacceptable). CASA felt proving zero a risk was an issue.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: International
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
James
It is not CASA that prosecutes. It is the DPP so CASA's 'history' is irrelevant.
The regulations are about being impaired whilst exercising your licence or authority, etc, not about having had a drink or two and sleeping it off whilst sleeping under the wing. Lets be real. Don't go looking for demons that aren't there.
I am VERY confident that a court will be able to recognise the difference.
ID
It is not CASA that prosecutes. It is the DPP so CASA's 'history' is irrelevant.
The regulations are about being impaired whilst exercising your licence or authority, etc, not about having had a drink or two and sleeping it off whilst sleeping under the wing. Lets be real. Don't go looking for demons that aren't there.
I am VERY confident that a court will be able to recognise the difference.
ID
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO D
Reality check - the CDPP prosecutes based on information supplied by CASA. The CASA history is anything but irrelevant.
Fortunately the CEP will improve the process by better review before it gets to the CDPP.
Demons not there? I have been in discussion and focus groups re D&A testing with CASA. The demons are residing in Pandora's box, not just in my mind. They don't yet have solid answers to the airside issues I raised.
As a small aside, what many don't realise is that CASA intends to kick off the D&A testing then later hand it to industry. QF and the biggies already have infrastructure there, I'm not certain some of the little operators will be happy about the cost.
I'm all for D&A testing - I just don't believe 'trust me' is much help to someone sweating on a court appearance. And I have just researched a case of an AOC holder who spent $35K to clear the air on a case that I can only describe as conducted with malice afterthought before it got to the DPP. Not expanding on that, it's been canvassed earlier.
I have high hopes that the culture change moving through CASA will result in a completely opposite opinion from me in years to come. For the present, I am like Cochise - I have reservations
Reality check - the CDPP prosecutes based on information supplied by CASA. The CASA history is anything but irrelevant.
Fortunately the CEP will improve the process by better review before it gets to the CDPP.
Demons not there? I have been in discussion and focus groups re D&A testing with CASA. The demons are residing in Pandora's box, not just in my mind. They don't yet have solid answers to the airside issues I raised.
As a small aside, what many don't realise is that CASA intends to kick off the D&A testing then later hand it to industry. QF and the biggies already have infrastructure there, I'm not certain some of the little operators will be happy about the cost.
I'm all for D&A testing - I just don't believe 'trust me' is much help to someone sweating on a court appearance. And I have just researched a case of an AOC holder who spent $35K to clear the air on a case that I can only describe as conducted with malice afterthought before it got to the DPP. Not expanding on that, it's been canvassed earlier.
I have high hopes that the culture change moving through CASA will result in a completely opposite opinion from me in years to come. For the present, I am like Cochise - I have reservations
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3RAR, no agenda. Just took your earlier post at face value and figured... Well you know what I figured. Copied your explanation. Cheers. As for your IRL or identity or whatever it was that you were alluding that I might know... Umm... no?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Godzone
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has the testing started yet? An earlier post says
The problem can be solved satisfactorily by CASA being extremely careful about the definition of "Safety Sensitive Aviation Activities" in their regulations to rule out activities that are not essentially aviation related in that they do not require some form of qualification or training
Is safety sensitive aviation activities defined yet? I can think of lots of grey areas.
The problem can be solved satisfactorily by CASA being extremely careful about the definition of "Safety Sensitive Aviation Activities" in their regulations to rule out activities that are not essentially aviation related in that they do not require some form of qualification or training
Is safety sensitive aviation activities defined yet? I can think of lots of grey areas.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: aussie
Age: 51
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO
you are quite possibly well intentioned but you are ill informed...
If i get tested in uniform on the way to work or any time thereafter then i deserve what i get.. if its false i will have my chance to defend it...
I have DIRECTLY questioned the CASA team on these scenarios and If I was to walk accross the tarmac at .03 on the weekend to get my headset, sunnies, clean the windscreen, say hi to a friend or whatever, I can be tested and if posititve I will be charged
THERE IS NO FALSE POSITIVE HERE, I AM GUILTY !!!!
no keys no MR, no night rating if its dark, no IFR rating if its raining, it doesnt matter.... !!
This is akin to being booked DUI for walking through a cark park !!!
You still think this is a good idea ??
you are quite possibly well intentioned but you are ill informed...
If i get tested in uniform on the way to work or any time thereafter then i deserve what i get.. if its false i will have my chance to defend it...
I have DIRECTLY questioned the CASA team on these scenarios and If I was to walk accross the tarmac at .03 on the weekend to get my headset, sunnies, clean the windscreen, say hi to a friend or whatever, I can be tested and if posititve I will be charged
THERE IS NO FALSE POSITIVE HERE, I AM GUILTY !!!!
no keys no MR, no night rating if its dark, no IFR rating if its raining, it doesnt matter.... !!
This is akin to being booked DUI for walking through a cark park !!!
You still think this is a good idea ??