Suspicion of being under the Influence
It is fortunate for the pilot concerned that this has happened within Qantas, at least they have a programme to rehabilitate if this is required, out here in The Contract World two of my former associates tested positive to alcohol and their careers ended there and then.!! I hope that all goes well for her in the future.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During my whole career, I have been DAMP tested twice and in both instances it was at the end of the duty period. To test at this stage is a waste of time for 2 reasons: Firstly, that after a 15 hour ULH duty, a large quantity of alcohol that may have been present in the subject when commencing work would have been metabolised to below detectable limits. Secondly, as a 'safety tool' wouldn't it make more sense to test prior to depature?
I agree with the sentiment that we must wait for all of the facts in this QF case to come in before conclusions are made regarding this Captain and the stated allegations. What I don't agree with is the notion that it is some how acceptable or 'bad luck' to be pinged for being over the limit at sign-on. If you get busted over the limit after sign-on you only have yourself to blame. To turn up for work with alcohol in your sytem is unacceptable. I wont sugar-coat this: it is a dereliction of professional responsibilities.
The evidence is out there regarding the effect on crew performance after alcohol consumption and has been for about 30 years: the fact is that rate of errors in the aftermath of consuming alcohol remains high even after your BAC drops to zero. This has been established by Human Factors research. It is just as bad to fly hung over as to fly when over the limit.
I personally avoid alcohol in any amout the day before a duty for this very reason. I owe this to my passengers, my crew and to my self - I make enough errors at work by myself without the effects of grog adding to it. The other reason for abstinance the day before must be quite obvious and should hardly need explaining given the current topic.
I agree with the sentiment that we must wait for all of the facts in this QF case to come in before conclusions are made regarding this Captain and the stated allegations. What I don't agree with is the notion that it is some how acceptable or 'bad luck' to be pinged for being over the limit at sign-on. If you get busted over the limit after sign-on you only have yourself to blame. To turn up for work with alcohol in your sytem is unacceptable. I wont sugar-coat this: it is a dereliction of professional responsibilities.
The evidence is out there regarding the effect on crew performance after alcohol consumption and has been for about 30 years: the fact is that rate of errors in the aftermath of consuming alcohol remains high even after your BAC drops to zero. This has been established by Human Factors research. It is just as bad to fly hung over as to fly when over the limit.
I personally avoid alcohol in any amout the day before a duty for this very reason. I owe this to my passengers, my crew and to my self - I make enough errors at work by myself without the effects of grog adding to it. The other reason for abstinance the day before must be quite obvious and should hardly need explaining given the current topic.
Last edited by Anthill; 6th Aug 2012 at 13:18.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Exiled in the Ukraine
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you weren't rostered for duty, weren't in uniform and weren't doing anything work related my understanding is that they'd be drawing a long bow. On the occasions I was present for they were careful to ascertain that all testees were working, rather than just hanging around or calling in.
I am now wondering if we are safe having a few Chardy's deadheading considering technically we are on company time? Just a thought.
I have been tested three times so far.
SUB, that's one of those questions you don't want to ask.
If someone should trip over a door sill and injure themselves after a paxing sector and blow over 0.02 it will get real ugly, real quick.
If someone should trip over a door sill and injure themselves after a paxing sector and blow over 0.02 it will get real ugly, real quick.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am really interested in the CASA response to this incident. There was a posting some weeks ago here from a pilot who voluntarily admitted to at least one past episode of excessive consumption on an innocuous looking CASA questionnaire during a medical. This questionnaire encouraged falsifying responses in part, because of the seemingly draconian measures required by the CASA in response to any self-confessed red flags. The CASA assumption seems to be that ALL excessive alcohol consumption, even if only once and many, many years in the past, is regarded as a red flag to safe aircraft operation.
Now we have a QF pilot allegedly engaged in the operation of an aircraft while under the influence of alcohol (as opposed to recreational consumption while off duty in accordance with the regs). Based on the story as copied and pasted by Yarra, and the earlier thread about the questionnaire, I was expecting to read that the CASA had a team of stormtroopers, attack dogs and a boatload of lawyers on the Qantas doorstep ready to go after the licence holder in question. Is it just me who is surprised to read that the CASA seems to be content with QF's internal handling of the incident? WTF! There appears to be one standard for the airlines (particularly Qantas) involving fluffy pillows, sequined gloves, pink kittens, unicorns and pixie dust and a completely different standard for the GA industry centred around baseball bats, brass knuckles and individuals with no necks and acid baths.
Now we have a QF pilot allegedly engaged in the operation of an aircraft while under the influence of alcohol (as opposed to recreational consumption while off duty in accordance with the regs). Based on the story as copied and pasted by Yarra, and the earlier thread about the questionnaire, I was expecting to read that the CASA had a team of stormtroopers, attack dogs and a boatload of lawyers on the Qantas doorstep ready to go after the licence holder in question. Is it just me who is surprised to read that the CASA seems to be content with QF's internal handling of the incident? WTF! There appears to be one standard for the airlines (particularly Qantas) involving fluffy pillows, sequined gloves, pink kittens, unicorns and pixie dust and a completely different standard for the GA industry centred around baseball bats, brass knuckles and individuals with no necks and acid baths.
Last edited by Lodown; 6th Aug 2012 at 16:54.
Lookleft
Really would the CC report the pilot to management before talking to the F/O? The whole thing just doesn't gel IMHO.
Really would the CC report the pilot to management before talking to the F/O? The whole thing just doesn't gel IMHO.
CC to F/O: "I smell alcohol on the Captain's breath. I'm worried"
F/O to CC: "Um, let me go check for myself. Be right back".
F/O to CPT: "She smells alcohol on ya Trev. Do you think she knows you/we were out late last night?"
CPT to F/O: "Tell her I just had some mouthwash. No worries"
F/O to CC: "No worries. Mouthwash"
CC to F/O: "Ah, no worries then. Cabin's ready".
Any reporting policy that errs on the side of safety would have to require a channel/persons outside of those who may have motivation(s) to hide the problem.
If the CC had strong suspicion, there's really not much the F/O could say to change minds anyway. If the suspicion is enough to warrant telling the F/O, there's no reason for not proceeding right to her manager or hot line.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Capt Claret
....one of the regulator's best practice contractors sent a colleague home, reporting her for allegedly blowing 0.9.
There's no doubt that there are people out there for whom "grounding a pilot" would be a high point in their career, but it's a little disturbing that such excitement so profoundly affects their ability to draw sensible conclusions.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO Down
"I was expecting to read that the CASA had a team of stormtroopers, attack dogs and a boatload of lawyers on the Qantas doorstep ready to go after the licence holder in question. Is it just me who is surprised to read that the CASA seems to be content with QF's internal handling of the incident? WTF! There appears to be one standard for the airlines (particularly Qantas) involving fluffy pillows, sequined gloves, pink kittens, unicorns and pixie dust and a completely different standard for the GA industry centred around baseball bats, brass knuckles and individuals with no necks and acid baths."
Really, is that what you were expecting? QANTAS have a very comprehensive and well documented DAMP that relieves CASA of the need for intervention. It is an Acceptable Means of Compliance, so like any operator, big or small the only thing CASA would be interested in doing (eventually) is ensuring that the approved process is followed. As for the rest of the dribble in your post, it sounds like you may have been snorting the pixie dust. Better dob yourself in to your DAMP officer.
Really, is that what you were expecting? QANTAS have a very comprehensive and well documented DAMP that relieves CASA of the need for intervention. It is an Acceptable Means of Compliance, so like any operator, big or small the only thing CASA would be interested in doing (eventually) is ensuring that the approved process is followed. As for the rest of the dribble in your post, it sounds like you may have been snorting the pixie dust. Better dob yourself in to your DAMP officer.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Pants on fire
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something about this just doesn't sound right.
If you were the CC who reported the captain, I think you'd be pretty sure there was a problem before it got to that stage. So after having advised the ground staff would you be happy to see the front door close and the aircraft pushback? Or would you go sick and get off?
Same goes for the groundstaff it was reported to. Presumably they would take it further, possibly getting the airport manager to go and have a chat to the captain. So how did that play out? Talk to captain, you're fine to go, aircraft pushes back, no hang on, come back we're standing you down?
I think the best approach to have is treat anything you see in the media with a healthy dose of scepticism.
If you were the CC who reported the captain, I think you'd be pretty sure there was a problem before it got to that stage. So after having advised the ground staff would you be happy to see the front door close and the aircraft pushback? Or would you go sick and get off?
Same goes for the groundstaff it was reported to. Presumably they would take it further, possibly getting the airport manager to go and have a chat to the captain. So how did that play out? Talk to captain, you're fine to go, aircraft pushes back, no hang on, come back we're standing you down?
I think the best approach to have is treat anything you see in the media with a healthy dose of scepticism.
If you weren't rostered for duty, weren't in uniform and weren't doing
anything work related my understanding is that they'd be drawing a long bow. On the occasions I was present for they were careful to ascertain that all testees were working, rather than just hanging around or calling in.
anything work related my understanding is that they'd be drawing a long bow. On the occasions I was present for they were careful to ascertain that all testees were working, rather than just hanging around or calling in.
AFAIK Qantas policy is no alcohol to be consumed on company premises except for approved functions. So I always did wonder how it was allowable to consume when deadheading, as mentioned? We were getting paid and we were considered to be 'on duty' for a positioning sector.
Though the way it was explained was you could only do this if you were deadheading for ground duty or out of hours to operate, not if you were paxing at the start of the day and could be pulled off to operate another flight/duty.
Anyone?
On the original topic, I believe it is possible for some people to blow a reading even though they have not consumed ANY alcohol. I once blew under the limit when tested driving home from the airport, had spent all day in the standby lounge asleep and certainly not had anything but water, so would have expected a zero reading; this was not the case. Could also be an underlying medical cause. For instance, people suffering hyperglycaemia can have breath that smells like they have been drinking. Also the behaviour can lead one to suspect the same, when it's actually the blood sugar content.
Though the way it was explained was you could only do this if you were deadheading for ground duty or out of hours to operate, not if you were paxing at the start of the day and could be pulled off to operate another flight/duty.
Anyone?
On the original topic, I believe it is possible for some people to blow a reading even though they have not consumed ANY alcohol. I once blew under the limit when tested driving home from the airport, had spent all day in the standby lounge asleep and certainly not had anything but water, so would have expected a zero reading; this was not the case. Could also be an underlying medical cause. For instance, people suffering hyperglycaemia can have breath that smells like they have been drinking. Also the behaviour can lead one to suspect the same, when it's actually the blood sugar content.
I was tested in the crew room post flight while sitting around waiting to deadhead a sector. I advised the CASA rep, and they said that because I was technically available to be called to operate, that I would still require testing.
And if I was sitting in the QF Club, would the same reasoning apply? It opens a can of worms, doesn't it?!
And if I was sitting in the QF Club, would the same reasoning apply? It opens a can of worms, doesn't it?!
Livs Hairdresser
Something about this just doesn't sound right.
If you were the CC who reported the captain, I think you'd be pretty sure
there was a problem before it got to that stage. So after having advised the ground staff would you be happy to see the front door close and the aircraft pushback? Or would you go sick and get off?
Same goes for the groundstaff it was reported to. Presumably they would take it further, possibly getting the airport manager to go and have a chat to the captain. So how did that play out? Talk to captain, you're fine to go, aircraft pushes back, no hang on, come back we're standing you down?
I think the best approach to have is treat anything you see in the media with a healthy dose of scepticism.
It seems odd you are sceptical. Perhaps the designed reporting and response process worked exactly as intended. Nothing happens in the blink of an eye and it wouldn't be a very good process if it depended on CCs going sick and getting off in order for it to function. Crew always have that option anyway, but as part of a dedicated process it's pretty weak if that's what it depended on.
Last edited by PukinDog; 6th Aug 2012 at 23:29.
Givemewings
On the original topic, I believe it is possible for some people to blow a
reading even though they have not consumed ANY alcohol. I once blew under the limit when tested driving home from the airport, had spent all day in the standby lounge asleep and certainly not had anything but water, so would have expected a zero reading; this was not the case. Could also be an underlying medical cause. For instance, people suffering hyperglycaemia can have breath that smells like they have been drinking. Also the behaviour can lead one to suspect the same, when it's actually the blood sugar content.
On the original topic, I believe it is possible for some people to blow a
reading even though they have not consumed ANY alcohol. I once blew under the limit when tested driving home from the airport, had spent all day in the standby lounge asleep and certainly not had anything but water, so would have expected a zero reading; this was not the case. Could also be an underlying medical cause. For instance, people suffering hyperglycaemia can have breath that smells like they have been drinking. Also the behaviour can lead one to suspect the same, when it's actually the blood sugar content.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Beyond The Envelope
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alcohol cf.Fatigue
Alcohol impairs response times
Fatigue impairs response times
Alcohol consumption is measurable
Fatigue is not easily measured
Any impairment of response times is dangerous
Fatigue to a certain extent is ignored during pattern planning.
The outcome of a fatigue related incident can be the same as an alcohol related incident.
Our evaluations need to change.
Good luck to the Captain involved.Hope for all concerned it comes down to a miscommunication
Fatigue impairs response times
Alcohol consumption is measurable
Fatigue is not easily measured
Any impairment of response times is dangerous
Fatigue to a certain extent is ignored during pattern planning.
The outcome of a fatigue related incident can be the same as an alcohol related incident.
Our evaluations need to change.
Good luck to the Captain involved.Hope for all concerned it comes down to a miscommunication
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall a similar thing happened in a previous company. One of the pilots turned up ex-layover worse for wear but trying to look normal (unsuccessfully). They were not at a crewing base for that type, so his cohort quietly asked another pilot just finishing work to do the flight and they sorted it out with crewing/flight department the next day.
It turned out the pilot was under a lot of stress in his personal life and the company gave him some leave to take the pressure off and sort things out. He was back to work with no drama in a couple of months.
It turned out the pilot was under a lot of stress in his personal life and the company gave him some leave to take the pressure off and sort things out. He was back to work with no drama in a couple of months.
Ironically CASA announced their testing results the same day someone is allegedly caught. .08% Strike rate of ALL workers in 4 years.
Be aware of the bias in this story as CASA do not mention how many convictions were held up in court. The story states how many people were caught but does not say how many people were actually convicted. Big difference. Just because you were caught by CASA does not mean you are guilty.
Pity CASA don't release the conviction stats as I would suggest you would be in to a thousandths of a percentile.
Also goes to show how poor reporting is this days they just publish press releases verbatim
Is CASA DAMP funding under review by chance?
Be aware of the bias in this story as CASA do not mention how many convictions were held up in court. The story states how many people were caught but does not say how many people were actually convicted. Big difference. Just because you were caught by CASA does not mean you are guilty.
Pity CASA don't release the conviction stats as I would suggest you would be in to a thousandths of a percentile.
Also goes to show how poor reporting is this days they just publish press releases verbatim
Is CASA DAMP funding under review by chance?
The pilots' union believes the alcohol-testing regime for its members and other workers in the airline industry, including engineers and baggage handlers, is sufficient because the rate of positive recordings is "infinitesimally low".
Australia's air-safety regulator also released figures today showing that only 45 people out of 51,000 tested for drugs and alcohol between late 2008 – when the regime was implemented – and March this year recorded positive readings.
The Civil Aviation and Safety Authority's random testing covers anyone who "touches an aircraft", including pilots, engineers, cabin crew and baggage handlers.
A spokesman for CASA, Peter Gibson, said that the regulator had pursued legal action against some of those who had recorded a positive reading.
Advertisement
The Herald revealed today that Qantas has launched an investigation after one of its captains recorded a positive test for alcohol last week. She was removed from command of a Boeing 767-300 last Monday at Sydney Airport after cabin crew suspected she had been drinking before the flight.
Several industry insiders said today that the aviation industry had a "drink-driven culture".
But Richard Woodward, the vice-president of the Australian and International Pilots Association, said he did not believe that CASA's random drug and alcohol testing, as well as the airline's own programs, were in need of an overhaul because the rate of positive recordings in the industry was "infinitesimally low".
Although he conceded that social drinking was a "strong element" of the industry, he said that in the 25 years he had been an airline pilot "the populous has changed".
"The pilots as a body are healthier than they have ever been. Sure, they might meet in a bar for a drink before they go to dinner ... but I would put that in perspective," he said.
Mr Woodward, an A380 Qantas captain, cited statistics from the US showing the number of flights disrupted because of positive recordings for alcohol or drugs was about 100 over a five-year period, in a country in which 15,000 flights were made each day.
He described that rate as "not even a measurable statistic".
"The probability of someone testing positive in the States is infinitesimally low. We don't see any requirement to increase the testing [in Australia]," he said. "There is always targeted testing if there has been some information to lead authorities to believe an individual needs it."
Mr Woodward said the follow-up regime for those who recorded a positive alcohol reading was strict, and "if someone has a genuine issue they end up retiring from our profession".
Read more: Pilot drinking breaches 'infinitesimally low': union
Australia's air-safety regulator also released figures today showing that only 45 people out of 51,000 tested for drugs and alcohol between late 2008 – when the regime was implemented – and March this year recorded positive readings.
The Civil Aviation and Safety Authority's random testing covers anyone who "touches an aircraft", including pilots, engineers, cabin crew and baggage handlers.
A spokesman for CASA, Peter Gibson, said that the regulator had pursued legal action against some of those who had recorded a positive reading.
Advertisement
The Herald revealed today that Qantas has launched an investigation after one of its captains recorded a positive test for alcohol last week. She was removed from command of a Boeing 767-300 last Monday at Sydney Airport after cabin crew suspected she had been drinking before the flight.
Several industry insiders said today that the aviation industry had a "drink-driven culture".
But Richard Woodward, the vice-president of the Australian and International Pilots Association, said he did not believe that CASA's random drug and alcohol testing, as well as the airline's own programs, were in need of an overhaul because the rate of positive recordings in the industry was "infinitesimally low".
Although he conceded that social drinking was a "strong element" of the industry, he said that in the 25 years he had been an airline pilot "the populous has changed".
"The pilots as a body are healthier than they have ever been. Sure, they might meet in a bar for a drink before they go to dinner ... but I would put that in perspective," he said.
Mr Woodward, an A380 Qantas captain, cited statistics from the US showing the number of flights disrupted because of positive recordings for alcohol or drugs was about 100 over a five-year period, in a country in which 15,000 flights were made each day.
He described that rate as "not even a measurable statistic".
"The probability of someone testing positive in the States is infinitesimally low. We don't see any requirement to increase the testing [in Australia]," he said. "There is always targeted testing if there has been some information to lead authorities to believe an individual needs it."
Mr Woodward said the follow-up regime for those who recorded a positive alcohol reading was strict, and "if someone has a genuine issue they end up retiring from our profession".
Read more: Pilot drinking breaches 'infinitesimally low': union
Last edited by neville_nobody; 7th Aug 2012 at 00:42.
As a supplement to the above post it is interesting to notice the spin in these stories. That story in yesterdays SMH was actually an old press release. Here is the original:
Those 51000 was everybody ATC, Cabin Crew, Baggage Handlers etc
Of the 45 there were caught 18 were overturned!!
So we are now down to 27 out of 51000. 0.052%
Hardly a epidemic that would justify the amount of money spent.
If hypothetically we convicted all 27 of those people what would be the total cost per conviction I wonder?
Those 51000 was everybody ATC, Cabin Crew, Baggage Handlers etc
Of the 45 there were caught 18 were overturned!!
So we are now down to 27 out of 51000. 0.052%
Hardly a epidemic that would justify the amount of money spent.
If hypothetically we convicted all 27 of those people what would be the total cost per conviction I wonder?
From the Director of Aviation Safety
John McCormick
Since 2008 a drug and alcohol management regulatory regime for Australian aviation has been in place. The development and implementation of the program was an important initiative to maintain and improve aviation safety by minimising the risks caused by people in safety sensitive positions being affected by alcohol or drugs while engaged in aviation activities. As many people would be aware, the program has two main elements – firstly the requirement for aviation organisations to have a drug and alcohol management plan and secondly a testing regime conducted by CASA. The drug and alcohol management plans are administered by aviation organisations and cover education, testing and rehabilitation where that is appropriate. Testing conducted under the plans includes situations such as pre-employment and after accidents or incidents. CASA has recognised that some of the drug and alcohol management plan requirements are onerous on smaller organisations and we will shortly be issuing an exemption for small organisations with not more than seven safety sensitive aviation activity employees. The exemption will mean these organisations will not need to have a drug and alcohol management plan, provided they formally adopt a special CASA drug and alcohol management program instead. This exemption will not apply to small aviation businesses engaged in or providing services to any regular public transport operation. More information about the exemption will shortly be placed on CASA’s website.
The testing regime conducted by CASA is usually random and may be conducted by CASA at any time. Anyone performing or available to perform a safety-sensitive aviation activity may be tested, including private and commercial pilots, flying instructors, cabin crew, ground and baggage handlers, air traffic controllers and maintenance personnel. In total CASA conducted more than 51,000 alcohol and drug tests between 2008 and March 2012. There were 29,197 alcohol and 22,448 drug tests carried out. During that time 45 people tested positive. While finding even one person affected by alcohol or drugs when operating in a safety sensitive position is concerning, it is heartening that the figures are very low. Clearly the vast majority of people in aviation understand their responsibility to be alcohol and drug free while at work, flying, on an aerodrome or in the workshop. Of those who tested positive, 18 were overturned on a medical review and infringement notices were issued or the matter was referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in the remaining cases. Please remember the alcohol limit is 0.02. Drug limits are in accordance with the Australian standard for oral fluid testing.
Best regards
John F McCormick
John McCormick
Since 2008 a drug and alcohol management regulatory regime for Australian aviation has been in place. The development and implementation of the program was an important initiative to maintain and improve aviation safety by minimising the risks caused by people in safety sensitive positions being affected by alcohol or drugs while engaged in aviation activities. As many people would be aware, the program has two main elements – firstly the requirement for aviation organisations to have a drug and alcohol management plan and secondly a testing regime conducted by CASA. The drug and alcohol management plans are administered by aviation organisations and cover education, testing and rehabilitation where that is appropriate. Testing conducted under the plans includes situations such as pre-employment and after accidents or incidents. CASA has recognised that some of the drug and alcohol management plan requirements are onerous on smaller organisations and we will shortly be issuing an exemption for small organisations with not more than seven safety sensitive aviation activity employees. The exemption will mean these organisations will not need to have a drug and alcohol management plan, provided they formally adopt a special CASA drug and alcohol management program instead. This exemption will not apply to small aviation businesses engaged in or providing services to any regular public transport operation. More information about the exemption will shortly be placed on CASA’s website.
The testing regime conducted by CASA is usually random and may be conducted by CASA at any time. Anyone performing or available to perform a safety-sensitive aviation activity may be tested, including private and commercial pilots, flying instructors, cabin crew, ground and baggage handlers, air traffic controllers and maintenance personnel. In total CASA conducted more than 51,000 alcohol and drug tests between 2008 and March 2012. There were 29,197 alcohol and 22,448 drug tests carried out. During that time 45 people tested positive. While finding even one person affected by alcohol or drugs when operating in a safety sensitive position is concerning, it is heartening that the figures are very low. Clearly the vast majority of people in aviation understand their responsibility to be alcohol and drug free while at work, flying, on an aerodrome or in the workshop. Of those who tested positive, 18 were overturned on a medical review and infringement notices were issued or the matter was referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in the remaining cases. Please remember the alcohol limit is 0.02. Drug limits are in accordance with the Australian standard for oral fluid testing.
Best regards
John F McCormick
Last edited by neville_nobody; 7th Aug 2012 at 00:53.
Neville_nobody, I'm sure the vast majority of us as Professional Pilots self-monitor ourselves and our colleagues, but there are of course the few who push the limits, sometimes over the edge, and slip through the holes.
The DAMP policy is just an extra layer designed to try and tighten that net and make sure none slip through and the ones who are found to be under the influence are handled in an appropriate manner for the safety of all those whom we fly from A to B every single day and also for their own benefit. Even if it only stops 27 people, thats 27 people who aren't out there potentially causing a large accident and killing innocent people, you can't exactly put a price on that. Other Transport Industries face similar scrutiny, why should we be any different?
The DAMP policy is just an extra layer designed to try and tighten that net and make sure none slip through and the ones who are found to be under the influence are handled in an appropriate manner for the safety of all those whom we fly from A to B every single day and also for their own benefit. Even if it only stops 27 people, thats 27 people who aren't out there potentially causing a large accident and killing innocent people, you can't exactly put a price on that. Other Transport Industries face similar scrutiny, why should we be any different?