DAMPS Drug and Alcohol Management
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scenario. Unlikely but possible.
6am on a monday there are 5 pilots all in one room, 2 going home after night shift & 3 coming on for the day shift.(Not to mention 2 engineers) All are spot tested in the office on that cold monday morning. The 2 night shift pilots both took a pill to assist in a headache from having slight head colds (could be toothache/backache also). All 3 day shift pilots have been tested positive from a variety of drugs/booze (all legal as in over the counter stuff) still left over in their system from say a staff party the previous sat night (that's 2 nights ago seeing as it's monday morning). All 5 pilots are stood down right there & then. I'll just tell the Ambulance Service that the days flying & possibly the next few days is either off altogether & or seriously restricted!!!. That's fine am sure the sick & dieing can wait
Hypothetical & a long shot I know but...what if??
You don't even need that many 'hit' at once to have a huge effect on the goings on in Aero-med.
Oh & just as a side note the drugs etc that are in the back of our planes would make a sniffer dog curl his toes up!!
CW
6am on a monday there are 5 pilots all in one room, 2 going home after night shift & 3 coming on for the day shift.(Not to mention 2 engineers) All are spot tested in the office on that cold monday morning. The 2 night shift pilots both took a pill to assist in a headache from having slight head colds (could be toothache/backache also). All 3 day shift pilots have been tested positive from a variety of drugs/booze (all legal as in over the counter stuff) still left over in their system from say a staff party the previous sat night (that's 2 nights ago seeing as it's monday morning). All 5 pilots are stood down right there & then. I'll just tell the Ambulance Service that the days flying & possibly the next few days is either off altogether & or seriously restricted!!!. That's fine am sure the sick & dieing can wait
Hypothetical & a long shot I know but...what if??
You don't even need that many 'hit' at once to have a huge effect on the goings on in Aero-med.Oh & just as a side note the drugs etc that are in the back of our planes would make a sniffer dog curl his toes up!!
CW
As promised, I enquired of a QC friend yesterday at a social function about this matter and it's implications.
His advice is that the regulations require a "saving clause" that makes it explicit that a person can challenge an allegation that they are performing a "Safety Sensitive Aviation Activity" in court and if they can prove to the satisfaction of a Judge that they aren't, then they are deemed to have no case to answer.
This, at least, solves the problem of the casual weekend Warrior pilot like myself, who has a few beers and then goes airside to retrieve the sunglasses, fit the pitot cover and check the tie - downs. It also solves the problem for the off duty pilot visiting a hangar or crew room.
You just simply tell the tester to **** - off because you are not carrying out an SSAA.
As for the problem of sensitivity of the tests to previous non prescription drug use that will be interesting.
His advice is that the regulations require a "saving clause" that makes it explicit that a person can challenge an allegation that they are performing a "Safety Sensitive Aviation Activity" in court and if they can prove to the satisfaction of a Judge that they aren't, then they are deemed to have no case to answer.
This, at least, solves the problem of the casual weekend Warrior pilot like myself, who has a few beers and then goes airside to retrieve the sunglasses, fit the pitot cover and check the tie - downs. It also solves the problem for the off duty pilot visiting a hangar or crew room.
You just simply tell the tester to **** - off because you are not carrying out an SSAA.
As for the problem of sensitivity of the tests to previous non prescription drug use that will be interesting.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey 'sunfish' let's hope yr QC friend is right about that, I'd hate to have to go to court to prove such a thing, CASA has very deep pockets & when the law is involved via the courts there is no end to it!
Common sense should prevail but that statement rarely finds it's way into a court room.
I guess we shall see how this ugly mess we have gotten ourselves into pans out with actual cases which no doubt will end up in here in detail. A whole new thread that will go well beyind that silly max 100 post thread being displayed elswhere in here.
CW
Common sense should prevail but that statement rarely finds it's way into a court room.
I guess we shall see how this ugly mess we have gotten ourselves into pans out with actual cases which no doubt will end up in here in detail. A whole new thread that will go well beyind that silly max 100 post thread being displayed elswhere in here.
CW
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Madness
At some point in the past someone of some influence must have said:
"We really should not have pilots flying their aircraft under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Let's put this into some form of (better) regulation"
I don't think anyone disputes the viewpoint, and alcohol and drugs were already mentioned in the regulations anyway.
CASA has now released this new regulation dealing with Alcohol and Drugs, its detection and penalties. As the regulation developed ever more areas of activity where added because they were seen as SSAA's in some form.
Reading the regulation, strictly speaking, a passenger packing his bags at home for a flight the next day is already performing a SSAA, and as such may be subject to ..... etc etc
The regulation has become applicable to a very very big group of people, ie pilots, cabin staff, maintainers, cleaners, baggage handlers, manufacturers of aircraft components and presumably those that produce parts for components, refuellers, etc etc ... you can make the list just about as long as you want.
It is obvious that CASA, in their haste to produce a politically "fantastic" piece of regulation, has stuffed it up big time. It has "stupidity" written all over it....!!!
There are so many problems and uncertainties with the workings of this new regulation that it boggles the mind that it is being implemented at all!!??
But in the name of "Safety", "Security" and "Protecting the Fare Paying Passenger" one non-sensical rule after the other can be (and is) fielded.
Look at how big the aviation security industry is now. A multi billion dollar market to detect toothpaste, shampoo and drinking water...!!!
The DAMPS industry is just forming and it will just be another gravy train for the fast operators (contractors). The wide intrepretation of who can be tested as per the regulation will make sure that the market grows rapidly (and is very profitably).
Madness........
"We really should not have pilots flying their aircraft under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Let's put this into some form of (better) regulation"
I don't think anyone disputes the viewpoint, and alcohol and drugs were already mentioned in the regulations anyway.
CASA has now released this new regulation dealing with Alcohol and Drugs, its detection and penalties. As the regulation developed ever more areas of activity where added because they were seen as SSAA's in some form.
Reading the regulation, strictly speaking, a passenger packing his bags at home for a flight the next day is already performing a SSAA, and as such may be subject to ..... etc etc
The regulation has become applicable to a very very big group of people, ie pilots, cabin staff, maintainers, cleaners, baggage handlers, manufacturers of aircraft components and presumably those that produce parts for components, refuellers, etc etc ... you can make the list just about as long as you want.
It is obvious that CASA, in their haste to produce a politically "fantastic" piece of regulation, has stuffed it up big time. It has "stupidity" written all over it....!!!
There are so many problems and uncertainties with the workings of this new regulation that it boggles the mind that it is being implemented at all!!??
But in the name of "Safety", "Security" and "Protecting the Fare Paying Passenger" one non-sensical rule after the other can be (and is) fielded.
Look at how big the aviation security industry is now. A multi billion dollar market to detect toothpaste, shampoo and drinking water...!!!
The DAMPS industry is just forming and it will just be another gravy train for the fast operators (contractors). The wide intrepretation of who can be tested as per the regulation will make sure that the market grows rapidly (and is very profitably).
Madness........
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just re examined the rules as posted on the CASA web site looking at them from an engineering /OH&S perspective.
Assuming that some of the testers are going to behave in the same belligerent way that some security staff currently behave, I can see real safety conflicts in engineering. I see no accomodation for example, if the tester turns up in the middle of a large engine change and demands the engineers leave the engine swinging on the crane. What of the crane driver who is probably an outside contractor, who by OH&S rules is not permitted to leave his crane while the load is unsecured, but by these rules must stay with the tester during the testing process? When we do a risk assessment as required by OH&S rules prior to a heavy lift, do we now have to allow for the arrival of a drug inspector? What about the guy handling air supply while workers are in a fuel tank or the situation where expensive sealants with short cure times have been mixed prior to the tester's arrival?
All this should be covered in the rules and if CASA seriously asked for opinions prior to making these rules, they either didn't listen or asked the boss's secretary or the cleaner
It will be interesting to see if Workcover prosecute a tester who causes an OH&S breech, or if CASA prosecute Workcover for obstructing testing.I for one will have no hesitation if I find myself in this position, calling my local Workcover inspector.
Wunwing
Assuming that some of the testers are going to behave in the same belligerent way that some security staff currently behave, I can see real safety conflicts in engineering. I see no accomodation for example, if the tester turns up in the middle of a large engine change and demands the engineers leave the engine swinging on the crane. What of the crane driver who is probably an outside contractor, who by OH&S rules is not permitted to leave his crane while the load is unsecured, but by these rules must stay with the tester during the testing process? When we do a risk assessment as required by OH&S rules prior to a heavy lift, do we now have to allow for the arrival of a drug inspector? What about the guy handling air supply while workers are in a fuel tank or the situation where expensive sealants with short cure times have been mixed prior to the tester's arrival?
All this should be covered in the rules and if CASA seriously asked for opinions prior to making these rules, they either didn't listen or asked the boss's secretary or the cleaner
It will be interesting to see if Workcover prosecute a tester who causes an OH&S breech, or if CASA prosecute Workcover for obstructing testing.I for one will have no hesitation if I find myself in this position, calling my local Workcover inspector.
Wunwing
Last edited by Wunwing; 5th Oct 2008 at 08:23.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
After a quick glance at the regs, it appears that CASA can only demand a random test at either a certified or registered aerodrome.
Gotta love floats - hardly go near either.
Gotta love floats - hardly go near either.
Werbil, no, they can do this where they like - even at your dock....
(3) This Part applies to the safety-sensitive aviation activities
specified in paragraphs (2) (b) to (l) even if those activities do
not occur in an aerodrome testing area.
specified in paragraphs (2) (b) to (l) even if those activities do
not occur in an aerodrome testing area.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Over the Rainbow
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish,
ANY activity airside is an SSAA (even just getting your sunglasses), if you tell the tester to F*** off and refuse the test you commit an offence, you are also automatically suspended immeadiatly as if you had a CONFIRMED positive with all the legal implications that carries.
I would advise strongly against refusing a test, CASA has pretty much sewn it all up in the way the regulation is written.
ANY activity airside is an SSAA (even just getting your sunglasses), if you tell the tester to F*** off and refuse the test you commit an offence, you are also automatically suspended immeadiatly as if you had a CONFIRMED positive with all the legal implications that carries.
I would advise strongly against refusing a test, CASA has pretty much sewn it all up in the way the regulation is written.
Socket, CASA has deemed any airside activity at a certified or registered airport to be an SSAA.
However it is open to the Courts and/or the AAT not to agree with CASA.
Let's hope it is someone like Dick Smith with very deep pockets who takes a Sudafed and gets accused of Amphetamine use while airside, not intending to fly but merely checking the tiedowns while a thousand miles from his home base.
The fireworks should then be most interesting. This little regulation has the capacity to cause untold suffering, uncertainty, misery and financial loss for zero gain. It's bad regulation and it it's application should be much narrower.
However it is open to the Courts and/or the AAT not to agree with CASA.
Let's hope it is someone like Dick Smith with very deep pockets who takes a Sudafed and gets accused of Amphetamine use while airside, not intending to fly but merely checking the tiedowns while a thousand miles from his home base.
The fireworks should then be most interesting. This little regulation has the capacity to cause untold suffering, uncertainty, misery and financial loss for zero gain. It's bad regulation and it it's application should be much narrower.
Guest
Posts: n/a
...if you tell the tester to F*** off and refuse the test you commit an offence...
just make sure you don't "volunteer" the information on your ASIC card to anyone approaching you who you don't know, if you're after your sunglasses after a few rounds, and of course don't get "caught" in the cockpit of your own aeroplane in such a situation 
If in doubt, say it's a friend's plane, it was open, and then just run and deny all allegations later
they're not going to appear in groups with security guards, are they?I share the concerns about false positives after for example harmless medication, and I am pretty sure that the inevitable complaints and lawsuits for loss of earnings from AOC holders will make CASA reconsider the execution of a possibly well-meaning regulation.
Why is it that we have to put up with increasing regulation and buerocrazy (sic) all the time?
Seems like the pencil pushers are free to create more justifications for their own kind's existence all the time, without a good check by common sense.. strange in a democratic society, one would think that people would vote unnecessary red tape out of office over time 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If in doubt, say it's a friend's plane, it was open, and then just run and deny all allegations later 
they're not going to appear in groups with security guards, are they?
they're not going to appear in groups with security guards, are they?
as if we did'nt have enough problems with staffing, now they think they're going to stand people down for 2 weeks during re-testing
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
compressor stall,
Yes they can test IF I am performing a SSAA, but not otherwise.
A quick glance suggests I may even still be able to enjoy a beer whilst washing down a mates plane at the end of the day (but possibly not my own). I can't see where it prohibits me from refelling an aircraft so long as I don't calculate the fuel required or maintain the fueling equipment.
The sad thing is I'm sure they will amend the regulations to extend the testing area to include all areas within x meters of an aircraft if it is not at a certified or registered aerodrome.
Yes they can test IF I am performing a SSAA, but not otherwise.
A quick glance suggests I may even still be able to enjoy a beer whilst washing down a mates plane at the end of the day (but possibly not my own). I can't see where it prohibits me from refelling an aircraft so long as I don't calculate the fuel required or maintain the fueling equipment.
The sad thing is I'm sure they will amend the regulations to extend the testing area to include all areas within x meters of an aircraft if it is not at a certified or registered aerodrome.
Werbil
Yep - shades of grey...
If CASA interpret washing the salt off your (or your mate's aircraft) as a maintenance activity then it's an SSAA. CASR99.015 (2)(c)(i)
If CASA interpret refuelling your a/c as an "activity undertaken by a member of the crew of an aircraft in the course of the person's duties as a crew member" then it too is an SSAA. CASR99.015 (2)(g)
Even if they did the latter, I guess you could be refuelling your mate's aircraft...
I reckon you're pretty safe though!
Yep - shades of grey...
If CASA interpret washing the salt off your (or your mate's aircraft) as a maintenance activity then it's an SSAA. CASR99.015 (2)(c)(i)
If CASA interpret refuelling your a/c as an "activity undertaken by a member of the crew of an aircraft in the course of the person's duties as a crew member" then it too is an SSAA. CASR99.015 (2)(g)
Even if they did the latter, I guess you could be refuelling your mate's aircraft...
I reckon you're pretty safe though!
Replenishing fuel and oil is deemed "pilot maintainence" in Schedule 8... therefore is maint and therefore an SSAA
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: (Not always) In front of my computer
Posts: 371
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you need a pilot's licence or refuellers qualifications to refuel an aircraft? Obviously refuellers are appropriately licensed to refuell aircraft, as are pilots.
Can your mate legally refuel an aircraft from a carnet bowser without any qualifications? Of course he would need an ASIC at most places!
My take on several of the new regs, COME THE REVOLUTION!!
Can your mate legally refuel an aircraft from a carnet bowser without any qualifications? Of course he would need an ASIC at most places!
My take on several of the new regs, COME THE REVOLUTION!!
