Casa Drug screening
Bottums Up
I'd have thought it's a bit too early to tell. As I understand it, the legislation passed into Australian law about Sept 2008 and the regulator allowed a 6 month grace period for Industry to come to terms with it, and provide the necessary training. Actual testing should have commenced in the last week.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Start Date March 23rd 2009
Guy's,
The start date for the DAMP was March 23rd. That was the date that all industry participants had to have a DAMP programme in place. It would be highly unlikely that anyone has been pinged to date. One would hope not anyway!!!!
Groggy
The start date for the DAMP was March 23rd. That was the date that all industry participants had to have a DAMP programme in place. It would be highly unlikely that anyone has been pinged to date. One would hope not anyway!!!!
Groggy
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have their own internal policies for this just as in any workplace.
Think of them as the Police, Police don't get breathtested like a civillian whilst they are at work, same for these guys, but of course if they are suspected of activity thent they will be.
Of course if they were flying as part of their job they would be under scrutiny like any other pilot, but think about it, if you were a cop and you were on a random breath testing station and another cop drove by in a marked cal, would you pull him up and test him? I don't think so.
I can imagine their random testing will be blatantly obvious at the airfiled on the day, they may as well put a sign out the front like when they are ramp-checking.
Think of them as the Police, Police don't get breathtested like a civillian whilst they are at work, same for these guys, but of course if they are suspected of activity thent they will be.
Of course if they were flying as part of their job they would be under scrutiny like any other pilot, but think about it, if you were a cop and you were on a random breath testing station and another cop drove by in a marked cal, would you pull him up and test him? I don't think so.
I can imagine their random testing will be blatantly obvious at the airfiled on the day, they may as well put a sign out the front like when they are ramp-checking.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bring it on
The only people who should be concerned about the introduction of these random tests are the ones who know they should be concerned!
It really isn't that hard to be off the piss in time to be safe and legal for work. If something stronger/more illicit is your poison then expect a trip up **** creek with a turd for a paddle. Who gives a rats arse if people who get caught and lose their licence or whatever. The industry will be better off without them.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out!
It really isn't that hard to be off the piss in time to be safe and legal for work. If something stronger/more illicit is your poison then expect a trip up **** creek with a turd for a paddle. Who gives a rats arse if people who get caught and lose their licence or whatever. The industry will be better off without them.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out!
If something stronger/more illicit is your poison then expect a trip up **** creek with a turd for a paddle. Who gives a rats arse if people who get caught and lose their licence or whatever. The industry will be better off without them.
It's a run of the mill antibiotic, with no restriction on your ability to fly. However, it will cause a positive test for Cocaine.
If you get caught anywhere in a random CASA test, you will be stood down immediately until it can be clarified - a process of a couple of days at best.
It matters not that you told your DAMP representative that you were taking the anti-biotic.
Do you go to work?
Discuss.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CS, there are quite a few other drugs in small amounts that are used quite legally and are tested for. As you said, "Do you go to work?" Quite! I can see this potentially getting a bit ugly.
You beat me to it CS...
Four-balls, your thoughts are all well and good in a perfect world, however that's not where I live and work!
CS, my answer to your hypothetical is: "why would I go to work and risk being stood down WITHOUT PAY, when I can go sick, stay home, and get paid? That's not to mention the stigma that would certainly stem from a positive result".
You have identified one good example of the flaws in this arrangement - there are many others I'm sure.
I'm not suggesting that NOTHING should be done, or that substance abusers should be allowed to populate the industry, but I simply do not think that any of this really has merit. I have never been convinced by any of the wishy-washy reasoning put forward for it all in the first place, and naturally the cost is borne by the industry.
Now that it is in, I am looking forward to see exactly how many potential menaces to the travelling public are filtered from the workplace by this random testing.
I also look forward to the "8 hour" rule being removed - I can have a beer (maybe two!) at lunch (say, 13:00), have a snooze, and sign on at 18:00 with a zero BAC and in breach of NOTHING.
I can have some wine after dinner in the evening, say three glasses, all done by 23:30, hit the hay and report for duty at 06:00 - again, zero BAC and in breach of NOTHING (except the reg that says "thou shalt not have a life!" - what number is that one again?!)
CASA you can't have your cake and eat it too (but no doubt you will try)
What do you guys think?
CR.
P.S. Yeah, I love a drink, but not where it gives me any BAC whilst at work!!
Four-balls, your thoughts are all well and good in a perfect world, however that's not where I live and work!
CS, my answer to your hypothetical is: "why would I go to work and risk being stood down WITHOUT PAY, when I can go sick, stay home, and get paid? That's not to mention the stigma that would certainly stem from a positive result".
You have identified one good example of the flaws in this arrangement - there are many others I'm sure.
I'm not suggesting that NOTHING should be done, or that substance abusers should be allowed to populate the industry, but I simply do not think that any of this really has merit. I have never been convinced by any of the wishy-washy reasoning put forward for it all in the first place, and naturally the cost is borne by the industry.
Now that it is in, I am looking forward to see exactly how many potential menaces to the travelling public are filtered from the workplace by this random testing.
I also look forward to the "8 hour" rule being removed - I can have a beer (maybe two!) at lunch (say, 13:00), have a snooze, and sign on at 18:00 with a zero BAC and in breach of NOTHING.
I can have some wine after dinner in the evening, say three glasses, all done by 23:30, hit the hay and report for duty at 06:00 - again, zero BAC and in breach of NOTHING (except the reg that says "thou shalt not have a life!" - what number is that one again?!)
CASA you can't have your cake and eat it too (but no doubt you will try)
What do you guys think?
CR.
P.S. Yeah, I love a drink, but not where it gives me any BAC whilst at work!!
Thanks CASA for my crappy desk calendar
got a nice drugs & alcohol calendar from CASA in the mail today.
It contains the same "your limit" rule on it as i've seen on posters around the airport.
The big noted catch phrase being
"The limit for you is less than 0.02"
right.... ok....
read further on the big posters or your new flash desk calendar....
"The permitted level for alcohol is a concentration less than 0.02 grams of alcohol in 210 litres of breathe (0.02% BAC). The permitted level is equivalent to 0.00% alcohol as it will measure sufficient levels to detect consumption"
eh? does this make sense to anyone else?
So if the permitted level is actually 0.00% to ensure you are legal and dont get busted for consumption within 8 hours before you start flying, why does CASA think its a good idea to plaster huge lettering "The limit for you is less than 0.02" on its posters and marketing material
If you are trying to explain a simple rule for BAC, why would you use the wording "is less than" ? To me, this gives an initial misconception (and i'm sure people who dont read the fine print) that apparently its ok to be up to the "limit" of 0.02.
If you need to prove you are 0.00% BAC, why bother mentioning 0.02% at all??
It contains the same "your limit" rule on it as i've seen on posters around the airport.
The big noted catch phrase being
"The limit for you is less than 0.02"
right.... ok....
read further on the big posters or your new flash desk calendar....
"The permitted level for alcohol is a concentration less than 0.02 grams of alcohol in 210 litres of breathe (0.02% BAC). The permitted level is equivalent to 0.00% alcohol as it will measure sufficient levels to detect consumption"
eh? does this make sense to anyone else?
So if the permitted level is actually 0.00% to ensure you are legal and dont get busted for consumption within 8 hours before you start flying, why does CASA think its a good idea to plaster huge lettering "The limit for you is less than 0.02" on its posters and marketing material
If you are trying to explain a simple rule for BAC, why would you use the wording "is less than" ? To me, this gives an initial misconception (and i'm sure people who dont read the fine print) that apparently its ok to be up to the "limit" of 0.02.
If you need to prove you are 0.00% BAC, why bother mentioning 0.02% at all??
Last edited by kingRB; 31st Mar 2009 at 09:13.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sydney (Blue Mountains)
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Four Balls
I'm with you, our DAMP program is in use and being used as we speak. The printed matter (policy) is in print and on the main counter fo all to see and read.
I'm told there IS a DAMP person assigned to YSBK and he is there all the time. He will be visiting "all" places on Bankstown Airport.
BRING IT ON.
Kickatinalong.
There is nothing worse than a reformed drunk.
I'm told there IS a DAMP person assigned to YSBK and he is there all the time. He will be visiting "all" places on Bankstown Airport.
BRING IT ON.
Kickatinalong.
There is nothing worse than a reformed drunk.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASR's explained?
Looking at one of the recent Misc. Instruments that just came out in regards to the upcoming barrage of alcohol and drug testing about to take place, I was wondering if someone with a solid understanding of the CASR's in relation to this new area could explin that...
For example I was to be tested at YMMB, it would be by an independent provider (only with an affiliation to CASA), and this person would have to be a Doctor or Nurse - practicing specifically in the area of fluid collection and storage. Does this mean that delegated collectors -people without formal medical qualifications - will be in remote areas?
Who is going to pay for this service, now that CASA has its balls firmly positioned into the mentality of "user pay". I seriously think that spending 10 minutes with a qualified Doctor or Nurse is insane. I understand the want and need to be as professional as possible, but why not just allow all "capable people" to do the tests?
I do not propose creating another breed of "super humans" like what has been done with the outsorcing of many airport security firms. But why is there going to be so much more cost associated when there are mechanisms set up for autonomy and clarity within the (CASA) organisation already?
SIGH....
Stupid hand out to say the least, again it is user pays... thank you for a crappy product which I will never use and that has a month missing! Maybe next time I should look into the NPRM papers in a bit more detail...
If you are not subscribed and are needing to get more confused about the issue please read on at... http://casa.gov.au/rules/miscinst/2009/CASAEX27.pdf
For example I was to be tested at YMMB, it would be by an independent provider (only with an affiliation to CASA), and this person would have to be a Doctor or Nurse - practicing specifically in the area of fluid collection and storage. Does this mean that delegated collectors -people without formal medical qualifications - will be in remote areas?
Who is going to pay for this service, now that CASA has its balls firmly positioned into the mentality of "user pay". I seriously think that spending 10 minutes with a qualified Doctor or Nurse is insane. I understand the want and need to be as professional as possible, but why not just allow all "capable people" to do the tests?
I do not propose creating another breed of "super humans" like what has been done with the outsorcing of many airport security firms. But why is there going to be so much more cost associated when there are mechanisms set up for autonomy and clarity within the (CASA) organisation already?
SIGH....
Stupid hand out to say the least, again it is user pays... thank you for a crappy product which I will never use and that has a month missing! Maybe next time I should look into the NPRM papers in a bit more detail...
If you are not subscribed and are needing to get more confused about the issue please read on at... http://casa.gov.au/rules/miscinst/2009/CASAEX27.pdf
Last edited by Mr_Pilot; 31st Mar 2009 at 10:43. Reason: definition and link
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Rather then the calendar, I think some education is needed. We have to do annual briefs (15-45 mins), its a pain, but you do walk away with a better understanding."
Exactly my thinking too. What use is a PR exercise of a shoddy peice of un-informative paper where the situation becomes more and more clouded. The common sence rule should apply, and to anyone who "tries to poke holes in the rules" I am sure they will.
I just think that there should be a zero tolerance attitude to flying and drugs, as I was always taught, you were never to commence duty or flying "if under the influence of a drug that may impair judgement/thinking". Aviation in my eyes is not part of drug taking culture, and excluding some rouge elements of the industry, never had the capacity to harbour it. The catalyst for this PR spin was a set of unfortunate events of pilots that "may" have been under the influence of drugs in the previous 2 days or more.
I honestly think you are an idiot to risk your licence with alcohol let alone drugs. If more emphasis had been put into curbing the culture of these rouge elements and proactive thought processes rather than reactionary "look at me I am doing something, and now have given everyone a piece of plastic, therefore they will not do drugs" stunt, then maybe I would not be so picky as to thier ruling.
You are quite right in saying that this process is not aviation specific, and I think it is a good implementation, but fear they reasons for which it was implemented and how the"authorities" have gone about it is a sorry reflection on lack of industry input.
I think it would be lovely to believe that this was the end we are going to hear about it all, but I see in two years time a lobbist from ASL pushing the government to make it compulsry for every new SPL applicant to sit a Drug Multi Choice Exam, with a 80% pass rate and nominal user pay (rape) recouperation.
Exactly my thinking too. What use is a PR exercise of a shoddy peice of un-informative paper where the situation becomes more and more clouded. The common sence rule should apply, and to anyone who "tries to poke holes in the rules" I am sure they will.
I just think that there should be a zero tolerance attitude to flying and drugs, as I was always taught, you were never to commence duty or flying "if under the influence of a drug that may impair judgement/thinking". Aviation in my eyes is not part of drug taking culture, and excluding some rouge elements of the industry, never had the capacity to harbour it. The catalyst for this PR spin was a set of unfortunate events of pilots that "may" have been under the influence of drugs in the previous 2 days or more.
I honestly think you are an idiot to risk your licence with alcohol let alone drugs. If more emphasis had been put into curbing the culture of these rouge elements and proactive thought processes rather than reactionary "look at me I am doing something, and now have given everyone a piece of plastic, therefore they will not do drugs" stunt, then maybe I would not be so picky as to thier ruling.
You are quite right in saying that this process is not aviation specific, and I think it is a good implementation, but fear they reasons for which it was implemented and how the"authorities" have gone about it is a sorry reflection on lack of industry input.
I think it would be lovely to believe that this was the end we are going to hear about it all, but I see in two years time a lobbist from ASL pushing the government to make it compulsry for every new SPL applicant to sit a Drug Multi Choice Exam, with a 80% pass rate and nominal user pay (rape) recouperation.