I am with Kickatinalong on this one.
There is no room for goddamn junkies or pissheads in aviation. :yuk: I am a professional aviator............. Are you?

OK - Have you ever been at work - even in the office doing amendments or airside not flying - having taken a panadene?

Does that a junkie make? :rolleyes:

Yup, sure am a professional aviator. And I also think drink and drugs have no place in aviation. But I object to the notion that I am to be a suspected drunk or drug user until I prove otherwise. There are undoubtedly folk out there that do fly when they shouldn't, but the percentage would be very small.
I have no problem with random D&A screening. I do have a problem with fools that immediately sprout crap in a knee jerk reaction when anyone voices a concern that their rights may be impinged by a proposed reg or action, and then labels someone as a drug user or drunk because of it.
Knee jerk reactions are why we have ASIC's.......... Remember?.

Agreed. No space for pill poppers/snorters/smokers.

BUT.... the whole thing is flawed because prescription medicine may give a positive result. Weed out the junkies by all means, but not at the expense on innocent people with an illness.

to the self righteous professional crew..

If I am in uniform headed to the machine with books under arm then I deserve everything I get... dont think you will get any arguments there...

if however after doing and logging max duty and then having one in the carpark I duck back in to get my mail and get tested.. what then..

I cant legally fly anyway cause of duty.. Im not rostered to fly.. and I wouldnt have a crew or aircraft anyway .. but all this makes no diff.. I am in a "safety sensitive area" so I am guilty..

what about the private pilot that wants to duck in and wash the plane or grab the bags after the weeknd away at .03... no keys to the CASA approved fix all anti theft device, no flight plan, no headset.. GUILTY...

no false positive..

Do you think it would be fair to test pedestrians for DUI.. after all.. they could be about to drive .. even without keys they could still steal...

I am in no way supporting this D&A testing, however i would like to make one point.

It is not solely targeting people who will be flying an aircraft. It is possibly intended to catch the bag snatchers and other machinery operators who frequent the apron area.

Accidents invloving these people are common and (with no firm evidence to support this) rumour suggests alcohol and drug usage or influence is a commonfactor.

Point being if you are in what is classed as a safety sensitive area then so be it.

having said that if you are pinged under those circumstances then the tester would need testing him/herself and not for drugs.

No it's not, RENURPP. It's the end result of years of politics following the Hamilton Is crash all those years ago. You the one: where the post-mortem on the pilot found a tiny trace of cannabis as well as a blood alcohol reading of 0.2 (or something ridiculously high).

Despite the autopsy stating that the BAC reading could not be relied so since the body produces alcohol post-mortem, the pollies all started screaming for blood. Gotta be seen to be doing something!

That is why we have what we have today.

Nevermind the fact that fatigue is a potentially bigger killer and that it hasn't been properly regulated since about 1950.... Show me anywhere in CAO's where it talks about ultra longhaul flights across 10 timezones, just as one example!

lycan.. you stole my thunder... where's my responses...:\

RENURPP, is that quite fair without evidence? I only speak for one airport, but accidents actually aren't very common, usually minor, and generally involve innattention (like people forgetting they were driving a stair truck with a height clearance :ouch:), medical conditions or inexperience. I'm happy to be proven wrong on the subject (it may be different nationally) but that's my experience over about ten years or so.

The word on this apron concurs with Ron and Edna's post, that this is a knee jerk reaction to the Ham Is accident. As a ramp dweller I'm not particularly for or against the testing (I certainly don't think people should be driving around airside stoned / drunk) but I suspect that it will become another poorly conceived and executed Government cluster:mad:. The conflicting information provided by the regulator so far is pointing to this outcome.

And for the lycanthrope the language scholar, From the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary...
Professional
1. Pertaining to, or proper to, or connected with a or one’s profession or calling. 1747
]2. Engaged in one of the learned or skilled professions. 1793
Profession
I. The declaration, promise or vow made on entering a religious order...

II. The occupation which one professes to be skilled in and to follow.

Using that definition, any occupation can be considered a professsion.

Wiki is not permitted as a source in most degree courses, 'professional' or otherwise. ;)

P.S. "Dances with Dingoes' is a really cool username and I wish I'd thought of it. Just had to say that:)

Bravo Mr Flappy!

I was about to say the same thing...

Lycan, you're a pissant of the worst order.

Tell you what, come out flying with me - you can point out the similarities between a Cessna 182 and a bus, and maybe a bit of altitude'll change your attitude!

Whats the big deal. :confused:

I said the Drug and aclohol testing is not SOLELY directed at pilots. Its not, pure and simple.

depending on your definition of "common" accidents involving ground equipment are common.

I saw some stats on it a while back, i will see if I can find them.

I supect at least one a week.

At a DAMP seminar I attended, statistics (I know, lies, damn lies & statistics) were used at one point to illustrate things. As best that I can recall them, when random testing was introduced in the US, the results were in the order of:

• 0.05% of pilots tested returned a positive result
• 0.5% of Cabin Crew tested returned a positive result
• 34% of security personnel tested returned a positive result

I thought my ASIC card stopped me from producing a positive result....

Wheres my popcorn. :E

Thanks, I would be interested if you can dredge them up.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound grumpy. I don't think some type of airside D&A testing is a bad thing at all but IMO the implementation has been confusing, particularly relating to pharmacuticals.

Is there something the rest of us should know about Lycanthrope:confused:?

yeah did my damp course today. WILL be tested if i threaten anyone- what the f happened to being an angry little prick without drugs. i'm supprised they didn't quote how to spot a drug feind straight out of 'fear and loathing'..... the dope feind usually has semen stains on his pants from constantly jacking off cause he could not find his next r:mad:e victim

Dances with dingoes how you figure its el captain k

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Some facts to dwell upon.[/FONT]

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']According to Li et al (2007), “Random testing serves primarily as a preventive measure through its deterrent effect, which is presumably a function of the testing rate”.
A recent study in the US has shown that between 1997-2002, random testing highlighted 440 violations for alcohol, representing a prevalence rate of 0.09% among safety sensitive employees. The study concluded that alcohol was a valid risk for aviation accidents but, “in reality alcohol misuse as a contributing factor has been virtually eradicated from U.S. major airline accidents”. However the study did note the FAA’s alcohol misuse prevention program is likely to have played a key role in maintaining these low levels of violations (Li et al: 2007)
[/FONT]

CROOK
 

Geez I'm Crook. I started reading this thread yesterday morning and it really worried me because I started thinking that because of my name I would be a suspect. So like all suspects I decided I would get rid of the evidence. I went out to the hangar and started trying to clean out the beer fridge, oops I mean the lunch fridge, and therein lay the problem. As well as loving a beer I really worry about the cost of it so I just couldn't bring myself to throw it away. And because I couldn't involve any of my mates, read implicate them, in the commission of a crime I decided I would have to drink it all myself.

The rest, as they say is history, but for those of you who think I am a criminal don't worry too much as I hid the scotch bottles really well and I was wearing my ASIC the whole time!!!!

Now all I have to do is try to remember my password so I can log on and change my handle. But I can't cause I am too Friggin Sick. Stuff you and your DAMP, CASA you make me sick.

GROGGY!!!!!

You had Your Chance To Speak...but you did not!!
 

The NPRM was for industry participants to make a comment to the lawmakers.....but most did not say boo.

Notwithstanding the above, the NPRM did not mention that "being present airside at a registered/certified aerodrome (unless a passenger) you are constituting a safety sensitive activity and therefore subject to testing and prosecution.......just standing there doing nothing.


I believe, unless I missed it, this is a gross misleading of the industry during the NPRM process and is grounds for an immediate review as I am sure most of the industry if they were aware of this point of law would have responded.

So here we have a situation where a pilot OFF DUTY jumps the fence at a non registered/certified aerodrome to retrieve his sunglasses and is subject to testing but the refueller attending his aeroplane at the exact point in time CANNOT be tested!!!!

Refuelling an aircraft at a non registered/certified aerodrome IS NOT a Safety Sensitive Activity....only at a registered/certified aerodrome and only because the refueller is PRESENT airside.

CASA also selected <0.02% BAC (UK standard) when they could have chosen <0.04% BAC (US standard).

They said it was based on a safety perspective....so that means the FAA have got it wrong...the largest aviation industry on the planet have got it wrong....how can CASA allow Australian registered airliners to operate in US airspace which is or possibly is overcrowed with what CASA would call pissed pilots!!!!

WRITE TO YOUR FEDERAL MP.

JAR regulations which are being replaced with EU-OPS for EU member states issue guidance for pilots and crewmembers in relation to this subject. Under JAR-OPS 3.085 a crewmember cannot commence a flight with blood alcohol level in excess of 0.2 promille (20mg%) Same as Aus!

Anything which improves safety has got to be a good thing, one major accident could result in a multiple of the annual number of needless deaths in road traffic accidents. Societial alocohol and drug use is increasing and it would be naive and indefensible to assume that aviation workers are immune or insulated from societys problems. Bolting the gate after the horse is gone is never a good policy.

Casa may have a few problems to iron out but at least they are doing something pro-active in preventing accidents. :D