PPRuNe Forums - Is it worth the effort?

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)

- - Is it worth the effort? (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/528598-worth-effort.html)

Is it worth the effort?

From The CASA "blurb".

Quote:

A total of 11,252 alcohol and drug tests were conducted by CASA during the 2012-13 financial year. From these tests there were only seven positive for alcohol and two positive for drugs.

Of those tested positive, how many were false positives and how many contained a therapeutic reading?

How many CASA staff were tested?

How much money was expended to achieve this result?

A positive percentage of 0.08%....

And the rates of drug/alcohol-related adverse safety outcomes before and after the testing program were ......?

There is no way a screening program like this would be approved in the real medical realm where the limited money has to be allocated according to measurable outcomes and cost-effectiveness. This has neither.

WOFTAM.

And the seven were aircrew, ground staff, ginger bears or admin....????

From my experience, those seven are likely to be ATOs or LAMEs ;)

I'd rather have my tax money spent on that than on the current security system in place at Australin airports. It would be interesting to know what trade the positives came from though.

Quote:

And the seven were aircrew, ground staff, ginger bears or admin....????

CASA FOIs? :}

And more importantly how many false negatives costing individuals and companies lost income/wages/benefits?!!!

On the subject of wastes of time and money, some of you may be aware of an FAA NPRM for an AD relating to ECi Cylinders. Well known expert and aviation journalist Mike Busch has said this, in part, in response:

Quote:

On August 12, 2013, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register for a proposed Airworthiness Directive (AD) that would basically legislate more than 30,000 ECi cylinders out of existence, forcing the owners of about 6,000 Continental IO-520, TSIO-520 and IO-550 engines to perform $14,000 top overhauls. The total cost to affected aircraft owners would be $83 million, making this one of the most costly general aviation ADs in history. The FAA’s rationale for this Draconian AD is that they’ve received reports of 30 head-to-barrel separations in ECi cylinders (out of a population of 30,000, a failure rate of 0.1%).

This proposed AD is one of the most unwarranted, inappropriate, punitive and generally boneheaded rulemaking actions I’ve ever seen come from the FAA. Here’s why:

- At 0.1%, the reported head separation rate of ECi cylinders is the lowest in the industry, lower than for Continental factory cylinders. Why is the FAA picking on ECi jugs?

- There have been ZERO accidents and ZERO injuries resulting from the reported head separations of ECi cylinders.
…

My all-time favourite comment on this proposed AD (and any other one for that matter) is:

Quote:

I am an emergency physician of 35 years experience with extensive involvement in helicopter EMS and a private pilot flying in the back country of Idaho. I understand, in detail, risk mitigation.

I wish to point out that based on available information the risk of appendicitis in FAA employees is much higher than having a ECI cylinder fail inflight. Following the FAA's assessment model, immediate prophylactic appendectomy is indicated for all 47,000 FAA employees.

Immediate appendectomy is particularly indicated for the 30,000 FAA employees involved air traffic control, as an appendix "failure" while on duty can affect the lives of hundreds people inflight.

I can provide the supporting calculations if desired.

We must be ever-vigilant to the tell-tale symptoms of regulators succumbing to the mystique of aviation. :ok:

Friend of mine was tested at a regional Victorian airport today. The CASA guy was there for the entire day and I believe tests 3 people. The day before was Benalla where I think 2 people were tested and the day before was another country airstrip that I forget where 1 person was tested. My mate was not "ramp checked". His licence, etc was not examined because "its not my job mate". Apparently that's another department.

He is a contractor to CASA.

And I have heard some really dumb actions :ugh: But that is another story.

I was informed by the Toowoomba Refueller (TL's cousin) that a pilot was nabbed in recent times.....at 8am :eek:

I have seen CASA do drug and alcohol testing twice where I work - he asked for 6 volunteers, 2 from Approach, 2 from Tower and 2 technicians. Who would be stupid enough to volunteer if they thought there was any chance of testing positive. Perhaps the roadside testing done by the police will become voluntary.

When you consider all this happened because of the PA-32 crash at Hamilton Island where the pilot was found to have a non therapeutic amount of cannabis in his system. Indeed, it was said, from memory, he smoked a joint some weeks earlier. As such it is relevant to ask, of all the positives, how many contained a therapeutic dose and were a safety concern.

I consider the claimed results lack credibility and are a waste of time and money.

Safety is a much abused word in Australia.

G'day Jabba,
Don't be suprised by the pilot being nabbed at 8 am. That's exactly the reason why cops set up RBT's early morning to catch people having a night out, getting a cab home at 4 am, have 3 hours sleep and drive to work in the morning thinking that they have slept it off. They could be four times over the limit still. I am not an expert but I think it takes an hour to wear off .01 of alcohol in your system after a big night out.
I think the old " 8 hours from bottle to throttle" is way out of date. I have been there, done it,..... and never do it again.

I've been breath & drug tested at work 3 times in the last 18 months or so. It certainly wasn't voluntary. It's the usual half arsed story though. From what I've heard they go where the staff numbers are bigger so they can they can get the required number of tests done.

Frank's stats are eye opening though, is it worth it? Clearly not.

Quote:

I've been breath & drug tested at work 3 times in the last 18 months or so.

Bit of a reputation, Jack????:E

Quote:

From what I've heard they go where the staff numbers are bigger so they can they can get the required number of tests done.

Makes sense but not demonstrated by my mate's experience and what the tester told him. How would you ever know what logic CASA follows?

Unless there's been an accident/incident, I have to agree that an external testing program is a huge waste. But, and I stand to be corrected; this silly system is not the unfortunate love child of CASA making. The way I heard it was some of the more loony political (left or right) religious zealot types wanted it done and after much pushing and shoving it was dropped in the ample lap of FF. I heard CASA wanted the 'doing' of it even less than we do; but then again, there's sort of inverted poetic justice in that....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/wink2.gif

Lots of companies have an 'internal' mandatory check before sign on, if we must have a system, why not leave it within the company, save a bundle and have an effective system.

Clearly not akro :E passed them all :ok:

The results would make interesting reading if the DAMP testing also included Federal and State Parliaments and all Federal and all State Government departments. There are (or should be) some very responsible positions in these bodies that should be monitored as we are.

Incredible to think that we stump up cheap booze for our parliamentarians to get down their necks while they pass laws to test us for booze and/or drugs.

The mere fact of a testing possibility stops a lot of the problem. People are more careful.

I got breath tested about 2 years ago at the end of a 16 hour flight.

Pure genius..:rolleyes: