hungstart,
Please read the regulation, if you fail a test, and "fly away", that alone is a serious criminal offense.
That the test is later found to be a false positive makes no difference. The regulation are really quite clear about this point, once you fail a test, you are immediately off line until the matter is resolved.
Please do not jeopardize you license and your career.
Tootle pip!!

Agree with LeadSled here, in case you're grounded call you boss who should then call a lawyer (or if you're a private pilot/operator make the call yourself) and have the lawyer get on to CASA threatening an immediate law suit for heaps of compensation and see them give you a special dispensation to fly on very quickly..

The passengers will enjoy sitting under the wing on a nice warm NT day, while waiting for a replacement plane and pilot to be flown in!!

What about an incident at some remote airstrip, sorry passengers have to wait for a drug and alcohol test.

Has some one a link to what you can not take please.

I was going to be blunt and rude and moan about the laziness and ignorance of some pilots but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a pilot and some other area (security etc) affected by these regs and as such not familiar with the CASRs and the search button on this web page...

So.... go to the CASA website and then follow the links. If the general CASA propoganda is not specific enough, download CASR part 99 and read through it. It's all there.

Hung Start Yep, fully concur with the TSA/crewing issues. Have been in the same situation myself and chatted about the massive $$ consequences with our DAMP. However as others point out, do not be tempted to fly. You will be hung drawn and quartered by CASA irrespective of the result.

Get the boss to get a lawyer.

If they're going to have this type of testing in place, I still think the solution is to conduct the testing like police do (as in, police getting randomly drug tested themselves at work). There is NO testing of samples completed on the day - merely collection of samples which are sent to a lab - thus there is no chance of being stood down immediately due to a false positive. The first you hear of it is when your "A" sample tests positive - they then invite you to witness the opening and testing of your "B" sample.

With this method, false positives do not cause any stress, you're invited to declare any OTC meds you've taken recently, and these are obviously looked at first if something comes up positive in the lab. If an actual banned substance is found during accurate lab testing (and these testing methods are immune to false positives), THEN you're stood down and the whole "please explain" procedure commences.

This is enough of a threat to stop you taking illegal drugs due to the chance of random testing, but there's none of the implications (both personal and operational) of being stood down due to a false positive.

The "threat" shouldn't be the act of actually getting stood down - it should be getting black-marked for life that scares people. I'd like to see someone take them on legally when their career is half-ruined due to a false positive.

Zapp, what's got into you, coming up with a common sense approach like that? :ok:

Zapp, that's a good method from a fairness perspective, but what happens if someone is bombed out on cocaine when the samples are taken? Does it remove them from the workplace before they can cause harm, or do they work the day under the influence? I thought that was the gist of the DAMP testing, to remove people immediately before they made a mess of themselves or others.

Of course, any group of employees worth their salt can spot a p:mad:ssed person before they go on duty and firmly suggest they go home (been happening for years), but that's a bit common sense for CASA...

You make a good point - but it's no different to police, where they could rock up to work bombed out on cocaine, get tested, and immediately grab their firearm, other gear and go off to work (unless there are other obvious factors at play - such as they are quite obviously "bombed out" - but this doesn't require a drug test to be pulled offline in the police).

Regardless of what the governing bodies tell you, drug testing comes under the "credible deterrent" banner. If there's a reasonable chance of getting tested, losing your job and never working as a pilot again, this should be enough of a threat to not take any illegal drugs, or if you do, not turn up to work - mission accomplished. The actual act of pulling someone offline is secondary to the threat that you WILL be tested at some stage.

Let's face it, random testing is not going to stop the odd pilot flying in an inappropriate state, for whatever reason, in exactly the same way that booze buses do not stop some people getting pissed and driving home every Friday night. The deterrent needs to be there, and to use the booze bus analogy again, the fact that they exist and the police actually advertise when they're putting them out there is the key to cutting down drink driving - not the act of actually charging someone with a driving offence - this is just the end state for a few people.

Fair enough.
I believe that the deterrent aspect has already curbed some monster hangovers round here, so I guess you could say it's working.

They will have to test a reasonable number of people at a reasonable number of airports to keep that up, though, otherwise the 'Haven't been breath tested in years' argument will start to apply.

Actually, I haven't been breath tested in years :hmm:

Very true, they do have to keep it up.

It's just a pity that, especially in the incestuous world that is GA, pulling someone offline and potentially cancelling a paid operation due to lack of crew can have far reaching consequences - we all know what GA can be like - a pilot goes up north for a while, but before he arrives, word's already got around his new place of work that two charters were cancelled the previous year due to him being pulled offline for positive indications on a drug test. It's along the same lines as rape - the charge is almost as bad as the conviction, guilty or not.

I think a good solution would be on-the-spot alcohol breath testing, with immediate stand-down if you have a BAC - and drug testing as I outlined above.

Haven't been breath tested in a while myself... hmmm...

In the good old days, the boys from DCA, DOTAC and CAA regularly conducted alcohol testing at the RVAC bar on Friday nights.

One remembers having to test alcohol with the late Mr Lindsay after passing my IFR rating.

Unfortunately, even in the 21st century, some people are still employed on a casual basis and don't get sick leave. This is not necessarily small operators either; the "national" carrier employs (via an agency) quite a few cabin crew on a casual basis, and they do not get sick leave.

If, as has been suggested, QF were so keen for this D & A testing to be introduced, might they not have reconsidered (in the interests of fairness) this no sick-leave policy for casuals?

whatif?
 

Scene 1 act 1.

Capt Wally on late night ops at remote airstrip where the wildlife is at times abundant.
Capt Wally has Medical team on board from Royal Childrens Hospital with a critical new born prem baby (can be as new as 24 weeks or so) about to be transported back to ML. We are at least an hrs flying time away from base. It's 3:30am local as Capt Wally applies max power for T/off. At around 80 kts a small flock of birds take flight & impact the airframe. All safe after a quick acting pilot (Capt wally is good:E) .brought A/C to safe stop.
Back at the dirt parking bay I check the airframe with torch & find nothing obvious other than a few feathers stuck to the L/E (we get a bit of that & often found upon shutdown). I check with the med team to make sure we have enough med supplies to last several hrs at least whilst on the ground. They ask why? Can you all imagine what I have to now say to that team? The results could be devistating. Worst case baby dies right there in the back of my plane (as they have done before sadly) The Coronor will love this case am sure!!!!:ugh:
Hypothetical? perhaps but even the slightest chance of the above developing will make headlines with a far greater impact than any of us as an individual ever will.

yes wally Mk2 is back, but just to add fuel to the fire here:-)

Wmk2

Despite the zealous efforts of the regulatory authority lawyer inhabitants, there will never be rules to cover every situation.

This particular legislation has more holes than a seive and is destined to be the butt of such mockery and ridicule as to render it ineffective. Sadly and predictably, those regulatory authority lawyer inhabitants will only try harder to cover every angle and situation (and their own ar$es) and write more legal rubbish.

:=tipsy
:yuk:furball:yuk:and another

I was talking this over today,

What will happen if a RFDS pilot (or Ambulance chopper pilot or whatever) is tested just prior to a critical flight, they get a positive test (that later turns out to be false) and in the time it takes to get a new pilot the patient dies.

It's possible, it's the same situation as QF passengers being delayed but with more extreme consequences. If this happens CASA will have a lot of explaining to do.

Under these circumstances, if there were no other crew available, would you not be able to declare a mercy flight and continue.
If it was a false positive I suspect that no action would be taken.
It would involve some paperwork regarding the mercy flight but I suspect it would be a non event.

I thought that particular trophy belonged to the Aviation Security Act 2004.

Wally,

I think you would be alright after a birdstrike in the middle of nowhere:

The thing I find strangest about these regs is that being above the limits for each of these drugs, in itself, is not an 'offence' under part 99.
Instead, they have simply added that:

So, (irresponsibly) one can have a big night, not drink within the 8 hours before duty (so as not to break the CAR), blow .04, and not have actually broken any single rule, as long as they comply with the procedures under CASR99 regarding the testing.

They have not broken any rule, yet CASA may suspend their licence if they so choose..... hmm...

Another employee may be (responsibly) taking medication that happens to contain codeine. Once again, there is no rule anywhere that actually classifies this as an offense. But, yet again, CASA suspend their licence, if they decide they want to.

Seems way too grey to me.

I know its getting to be a long post, but one more point.

The mailouts all mentioned being available as an instructor as one of the SSAAs, however, CASR99 makes no mention whatsoever of instruction in its list of activities to which the rule applies. (Providing the instructor is not airside, in which case it falls under the umbrella of being in a testing area.)

You only need to comply with requests for testing if the person doing the testing is complying with the regulations, so I believe this may well be grounds to tell them to :mad: off!

PCX,
Its hardly a non event if the patient dies??

Makes you wonder why they would be testing students in theory classes and rfds pilots anyway... surely the public interest is at Tulla where all the RPT is.