Drug and alcohol testing commenced at Moorabbin
Thread Starter
Drug and alcohol testing commenced at Moorabbin
Our company was the first organization in Australia to have the CASA drug and alcohol testing conducted on it. For the information of any other businesses or individuals to be tested we have elected to post our experiences here.
Firstly I must point out that the conduct of the tests was conducted in a professional manner and I have no intention of getting into a slanging match with anyone on this issue. However I believe this to be a suitable forum to outline the facts and let the readers form their own opinion.
Testing was conducted on 6 pilots, a combination of students and staff. Of the 6 tests conducted a person was identified as positive. This person was immediately stood down from any aviation related duties.
24 hours later the test was determined to be a false positive and the person is returned to flying duties. I feel that the turnaround time was satisfactory but I wonder how long it would take in a remote area. I think it would be a fair assumption that operators in remote areas will be less likely to be tested than capital city operators due to the logistics involved in remote area testing. In our situation the equipment used for testing was fairly bulky, required 3 phase A/C power and required trolleys to transport it.
Firstly, this particular person has potentially had their career affected as they were about to commence a new job dependant on obtaining a qualification prior to the Easter break which was not able to be completed. No doubt that person has also probably been through the most harrowing 24 hours in their life If the testing is found to be erroneous I strongly feel that there must be access to some sort of compensation. It seems unjust that when an operator is in error CASA comes down hard but when the shoe is on the other foot all bets are off.
Consider the scenario of a Chief Pilot or CFI returning a false positive. All pilots are immediately grounded with serious implications on any business.
Testing after an incident. A serious incident is one in which the occurrence gives rise to a danger of serious damage or death to an aircraft, person or property. I feel that this is a very vague definition and CASA needs to specify this particular section. If a student clips CTA, has a bird strike, a blown tyre on landing, or crosses an active runway are we required to conduct a drug and alcohol test. These tests cost approximately $300. Does the company foot the bill. If a fairly busy flight school has 15 of these a year that equates to $4500.
If the operator passes this fee on to the customer what does this do to the safety and reporting culture. Are pilots going to be less likely to report these matters? Of course they are. Personally I sincerely believe that overall there is a negative impact on aviation safety.
While I appreciate that 6 candidates is too small a number to conduct any sort of statistical analysis, lets have a look at it anyway. 16 % of pilots tested positive on the initial testing with 100% of the positive tests found to be in error, or as CASA likes to call it a “false positive.”
To date these are not very inspiring figures.
While I recognize that the effect of drug or alcohol consumption is serious I believe safety would be better improved by CASA putting the resources into a ramp check. Perhaps incorporate the testing as part of a wider check of license, medical, weight and balance, pax manifest, current weather etc. This would also accurately target people about to go flying rather than the student participating in a theory class.
If any operator is subjected to random drug testing I would advise that you nominate a discrete area. We made the mistake of nominating a very prominent area directly off our reception area for the testing. The differences in duration of tests for positive and negative results made the results of the tests fairly obvious. I would suggest you consider this when nominating the place for the test to be conducted.
Firstly I must point out that the conduct of the tests was conducted in a professional manner and I have no intention of getting into a slanging match with anyone on this issue. However I believe this to be a suitable forum to outline the facts and let the readers form their own opinion.
Testing was conducted on 6 pilots, a combination of students and staff. Of the 6 tests conducted a person was identified as positive. This person was immediately stood down from any aviation related duties.
24 hours later the test was determined to be a false positive and the person is returned to flying duties. I feel that the turnaround time was satisfactory but I wonder how long it would take in a remote area. I think it would be a fair assumption that operators in remote areas will be less likely to be tested than capital city operators due to the logistics involved in remote area testing. In our situation the equipment used for testing was fairly bulky, required 3 phase A/C power and required trolleys to transport it.
Firstly, this particular person has potentially had their career affected as they were about to commence a new job dependant on obtaining a qualification prior to the Easter break which was not able to be completed. No doubt that person has also probably been through the most harrowing 24 hours in their life If the testing is found to be erroneous I strongly feel that there must be access to some sort of compensation. It seems unjust that when an operator is in error CASA comes down hard but when the shoe is on the other foot all bets are off.
Consider the scenario of a Chief Pilot or CFI returning a false positive. All pilots are immediately grounded with serious implications on any business.
Testing after an incident. A serious incident is one in which the occurrence gives rise to a danger of serious damage or death to an aircraft, person or property. I feel that this is a very vague definition and CASA needs to specify this particular section. If a student clips CTA, has a bird strike, a blown tyre on landing, or crosses an active runway are we required to conduct a drug and alcohol test. These tests cost approximately $300. Does the company foot the bill. If a fairly busy flight school has 15 of these a year that equates to $4500.
If the operator passes this fee on to the customer what does this do to the safety and reporting culture. Are pilots going to be less likely to report these matters? Of course they are. Personally I sincerely believe that overall there is a negative impact on aviation safety.
While I appreciate that 6 candidates is too small a number to conduct any sort of statistical analysis, lets have a look at it anyway. 16 % of pilots tested positive on the initial testing with 100% of the positive tests found to be in error, or as CASA likes to call it a “false positive.”
To date these are not very inspiring figures.
While I recognize that the effect of drug or alcohol consumption is serious I believe safety would be better improved by CASA putting the resources into a ramp check. Perhaps incorporate the testing as part of a wider check of license, medical, weight and balance, pax manifest, current weather etc. This would also accurately target people about to go flying rather than the student participating in a theory class.
If any operator is subjected to random drug testing I would advise that you nominate a discrete area. We made the mistake of nominating a very prominent area directly off our reception area for the testing. The differences in duration of tests for positive and negative results made the results of the tests fairly obvious. I would suggest you consider this when nominating the place for the test to be conducted.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At these success rates, how long do we allow before the CASA gets the rug pulled out from under this stupid initiative? 6 months? 18 months? What was/is the cost? Can we drug test the CASA managers. They've got to be high on something.
When the dust finally settles, how many millions are spent to catch one or two people (if that).
When the dust finally settles, how many millions are spent to catch one or two people (if that).
Glenb,
Thanks very much for sharing that info with us.
Very disturbing indeed that in their first batch of testing they come up with a false positive with all the possible consequences that you have put. I know many are vehemently against this regime and with valid reason. Lets just hope that CASA eventually get their sh!t in one sock and achieve precisely what the testing is intended to do without the possible consequences of ruining someones reputation, livelihood or business.
Thanks very much for sharing that info with us.
Very disturbing indeed that in their first batch of testing they come up with a false positive with all the possible consequences that you have put. I know many are vehemently against this regime and with valid reason. Lets just hope that CASA eventually get their sh!t in one sock and achieve precisely what the testing is intended to do without the possible consequences of ruining someones reputation, livelihood or business.
Last edited by YPJT; 10th Apr 2009 at 01:52. Reason: My spelling is shite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Here today, gone tommorrow
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One in Six, false positive, pretty buggered sort of system.
If an operator has a remote base, not necessarily a remote area base, just displaced from HQ, and has three crews (6 pilots) who are all required on the day,
If random testing occurs, chances are CASA is going to financially stuff a company because on these stats, it is odds on a false positive will ground one aircraft after their tests
If an operator has a remote base, not necessarily a remote area base, just displaced from HQ, and has three crews (6 pilots) who are all required on the day,
If random testing occurs, chances are CASA is going to financially stuff a company because on these stats, it is odds on a false positive will ground one aircraft after their tests
GlenB - thanks for your post. Very helpful.
Did those that passed receive some form of written proof that they had completed the test and passed?
Likewise with the Company? What documentation did they receive?
Did those that passed receive some form of written proof that they had completed the test and passed?
Likewise with the Company? What documentation did they receive?
Interesting to hear CASA require 3phase power to operate their testing apparartus. That will mean they will have to keep to the larger airfields as few small country airports have a 3 phase outlet situated in the terminal or office of the local flying school. Those that have a LAME workshop nearby probably will so keep your ear to the ground for phone enquiries as to the availability of 3phase power because that will probably mean that a visit is on the cards.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure I read somewhere that CASA will be testing about 6,000 aviation sensitive people each year so a false positive on the first 6 doesn't bode well. 1000 false positives a year would be cause for great concern. Mind you, stats say what you want them to say.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but I wonder how long it would take in a remote area.
Test at a port where no available crew:
Scenario 1. False positive Result: Flight Cancelled up to 180 pax affected. Pilot has the longest 24 hours wait of his/her entire career. Has about 2 minutes sleep in the process (wouldn't dare take anything to help settle the nerves and get some sleep!).
Scenario 2: Positive: Lets say for cold flu tablet. Flight Cancelled up to 180 pax affected. And the chances of this pilot keeping his or her job? ZERO.
Its in black and white boys you have no come back on this one.
Last edited by Mr. Hat; 10th Apr 2009 at 06:00. Reason: poor formatting
As I posted on the other thread - get it in writing from the company before you take the tablet, that taking a Codral is not going to result in your job, even if tested.
If the company won't come to that, then you call in sick as you take the tablet. That gives the company time to find a replacement crew. How easy or not that is for them is not your problem - and when enough people do this, the company will start lobbying CASA to get codeine off the prohibited list.
If the company happens to be Qantas, CASA will immediately remove codeine from the list. If the company isnt Qantas, well, nothing will change.
If the company won't come to that, then you call in sick as you take the tablet. That gives the company time to find a replacement crew. How easy or not that is for them is not your problem - and when enough people do this, the company will start lobbying CASA to get codeine off the prohibited list.
If the company happens to be Qantas, CASA will immediately remove codeine from the list. If the company isnt Qantas, well, nothing will change.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta agree with Lasiorhinus on the Qantas thing. They sure seem powerful inside CASA.
Can you actually exclude codeine from the test without excluding opiates as well? I thought that was the problem. Can't test one without the other.
Can you actually exclude codeine from the test without excluding opiates as well? I thought that was the problem. Can't test one without the other.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sue them for a HUGE amount of money!
The pilot in question should find a lawyer and sue CASA for compensation.
Assuming the pilot cannot afford this, I would suggest an initiative to collect donations to pay for the legal challenge.
This would send a strong signal to CASA that the pilot community thinks the current implementation is flawed to say the least.
The presumption of guilt in this testing process is victimisation of the most despicable kind, and will destroy numerous careers and reputations. Some of these tardy short-sighted buerocrats really do need their head examined
they haven't thought the whole thing through or simply don't care about sending people and businesses down the cr@pper 
Assuming the pilot cannot afford this, I would suggest an initiative to collect donations to pay for the legal challenge.
This would send a strong signal to CASA that the pilot community thinks the current implementation is flawed to say the least.
The presumption of guilt in this testing process is victimisation of the most despicable kind, and will destroy numerous careers and reputations. Some of these tardy short-sighted buerocrats really do need their head examined
they haven't thought the whole thing through or simply don't care about sending people and businesses down the cr@pper
Did the pilot with the "False Positive" have any idea what he or she did to return a positive test? Was over the counter medication or prescription medication involved, perhaps an orange cake with poppy seeds? If the "False Positive" came about without any known cause, this is even worse than if the person took something that was harmless but showed up in the test.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: aussie
Age: 51
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can all the "done nothing wrong got nothing to fear" crew please explain to our first (proven..) false positive how this has had no effect whatsoever on his career and has made australian aviation a safer place in the process..??
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can we refuse a test if it will interfere with our operation. ie make us late?
What is the best course of action immediately following a positive result? Just shut up and them do all the hole digging?
bbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzz
What is the best course of action immediately following a positive result? Just shut up and them do all the hole digging?
bbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzz
Thread Starter
Drug Testing
Lots of interesting questions everyone. Great to get your feedback. I was really beginning to question myself, whether I am being overly awkward and combative. Great to see my view appears to be a widely held view. Very heartening. I am very open to any criticism however. With regards to answering questions; i must say one thing. We must respect the confidentiality of the person involved so it is difficult to elaborate. What i will say ,is that I believe by true consultation with the industry we can come up with far more cost effective ways to improve safety.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
99.330 Refusing or failing to give a body sample
(1) A person must not refuse or fail to give a body sample to an approved tester for a drug or alcohol test under Subpart 99.C if:
(a) the person is performing or available to perform an applicable SSAA;and
(b) at the time the person is performing or available to perform the
applicable SSAA, the person is required to give a body sample for a drug
or alcohol test by the approved tester; and
(c) the approved tester, in requiring and taking or seeking to take the body
sample, complies with the requirements of this Part or any legislative
instrument made under this Part.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) It is a defence to subregulation (1) if a person failed to give a body sample because the person had a medical condition that rendered the person unable to give the body sample.
(3) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
SSAA means a safety-sensitive aviation activity.
(1) A person must not refuse or fail to give a body sample to an approved tester for a drug or alcohol test under Subpart 99.C if:
(a) the person is performing or available to perform an applicable SSAA;and
(b) at the time the person is performing or available to perform the
applicable SSAA, the person is required to give a body sample for a drug
or alcohol test by the approved tester; and
(c) the approved tester, in requiring and taking or seeking to take the body
sample, complies with the requirements of this Part or any legislative
instrument made under this Part.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) It is a defence to subregulation (1) if a person failed to give a body sample because the person had a medical condition that rendered the person unable to give the body sample.
(3) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
SSAA means a safety-sensitive aviation activity.
I'm finding it a little hard to believe that you need a three phase maching for the testing, I would have thought "spit on a stick". If it comes back positive then you roll out the heavy duty spectro analyser or whatever they use.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the post Glenb very informative!
This false postitives bussiness is a real worry.......... next time I get hay fever or a runny nose. Which in winter and autumn I get regularly. I am not going to be able to take a demazin tablet? Looks like I will be more of a risk at the controls with watery eyes and trying to blow my nose while maintaining wings level in IMC and not to mention trying to unblock all my sinuses in the decent.
CASA are just the smartest and brightest, I am off to book an appointment with a DAME to see what I can take so I can show up to work on some sort of regular basis during these months.
This false postitives bussiness is a real worry.......... next time I get hay fever or a runny nose. Which in winter and autumn I get regularly. I am not going to be able to take a demazin tablet? Looks like I will be more of a risk at the controls with watery eyes and trying to blow my nose while maintaining wings level in IMC and not to mention trying to unblock all my sinuses in the decent.
CASA are just the smartest and brightest, I am off to book an appointment with a DAME to see what I can take so I can show up to work on some sort of regular basis during these months.
Random? Not.
I'm hoping whats below is instructive and I will then make a prediction...
You all know how alcohol and drug testing was sold to the motoring community? It was "sold" as "random" testing by Governments and that idea was used to get around the common law restriction on the Police searching or questioning people without a warrant.
Well last week the Traffic Operations Group destroyed the "Randomness" in Victoria. They have a new camera system that recognises licence plates. It's connected to a database of registered owners and their driving and/or criminal records. It is capable of scanning 3000 licence plates per hour.
It was placed by the side of the Westgate Freeway outbound. At the Williamstown road exit, there were about Fifteen Traffic Operations Group cars arranged in a net to cover all possible exits.
The modus operandi was very simple. If the registered owner of the vehicle had a previous drinking or drugs record, or otherwise triggered the database decision rules, the computer beeped and threw up the details. These were then radioed to the so called "Random breathalyzer" unit situated on the other side of the Westgate bridge on the Williamstown road off ramp about Three minutes away.
One guy not the usual army of Eight with booze bus and dustbins etc. was standing there and he then pulled over the suspect vehicle as it hit the ramp. "Good evening sir, you are requested to submit to a random test"
Goodbye randomness. The court cases when this is exposed will be interesting.
How does this apply to aviation?
When the promoters of this scheme in CASA start getting desperate about their low hit rate, and the complete mess that is their cost/benefit analysis, watch them remove the element of randomness. They will hit schools and test large numbers of students very early in their courses. They will look for "known" characters, like the old Ag pilot living in his caravan at the end of the strip and suchlike. They will target baggage handlers on a Monday morning or just after a public holiday. They will reduce the Alcohol tolerance to zero, anything to get the hit rate up like the T.O.G. are doing right now.
You all know how alcohol and drug testing was sold to the motoring community? It was "sold" as "random" testing by Governments and that idea was used to get around the common law restriction on the Police searching or questioning people without a warrant.
Well last week the Traffic Operations Group destroyed the "Randomness" in Victoria. They have a new camera system that recognises licence plates. It's connected to a database of registered owners and their driving and/or criminal records. It is capable of scanning 3000 licence plates per hour.
It was placed by the side of the Westgate Freeway outbound. At the Williamstown road exit, there were about Fifteen Traffic Operations Group cars arranged in a net to cover all possible exits.
The modus operandi was very simple. If the registered owner of the vehicle had a previous drinking or drugs record, or otherwise triggered the database decision rules, the computer beeped and threw up the details. These were then radioed to the so called "Random breathalyzer" unit situated on the other side of the Westgate bridge on the Williamstown road off ramp about Three minutes away.
One guy not the usual army of Eight with booze bus and dustbins etc. was standing there and he then pulled over the suspect vehicle as it hit the ramp. "Good evening sir, you are requested to submit to a random test"
Goodbye randomness. The court cases when this is exposed will be interesting.
How does this apply to aviation?
When the promoters of this scheme in CASA start getting desperate about their low hit rate, and the complete mess that is their cost/benefit analysis, watch them remove the element of randomness. They will hit schools and test large numbers of students very early in their courses. They will look for "known" characters, like the old Ag pilot living in his caravan at the end of the strip and suchlike. They will target baggage handlers on a Monday morning or just after a public holiday. They will reduce the Alcohol tolerance to zero, anything to get the hit rate up like the T.O.G. are doing right now.