Random Testing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deathcruzer...
I am 100% with London Mil on what he posted...
.
in response to your........
I'm sorry, but IF you are a pilot and being tested at random was to cause you so much stress, I for one, would never want to sit in an A/C which you are flying, because you obviously cannot handle real stress.
Pilots are not superhuman (us ATCOs are
), but they also know how to deal with situations and can cope without being unduly stressed.
The only reason I can see a random test being stressful is if you are pulled aside for one, and you know that you may be on dodgy grounds because you partied too hard the night before. In which case, again, I would not want to be a passenger in your aircraft.
I am 100% with London Mil on what he posted...
Quote:
As mentioned above it inflicts unnecessary stress on crews at check in.
Oh puhlease................
As mentioned above it inflicts unnecessary stress on crews at check in.
Oh puhlease................
in response to your........
Why then is it necessary to inflict the stress of this random testing process on the rest of us?As mentioned above it inflicts unnecessary stress on crews at check in.
I for one, am completely against this
I for one, am completely against this
Pilots are not superhuman (us ATCOs are
), but they also know how to deal with situations and can cope without being unduly stressed.The only reason I can see a random test being stressful is if you are pulled aside for one, and you know that you may be on dodgy grounds because you partied too hard the night before. In which case, again, I would not want to be a passenger in your aircraft.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I work in ATC and, on average, we undergo no notice drug tests every six months. Believe me, plodding off to the loo to give a few millilitres of yellow stuff doesn't make me fret when I'm on consol some 10 minutes later.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland mainly, rather than at home.
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point taken Deathcruzer - that's the world we live in. However if I find I am called in to fly knowing there's a bash to go to the evening before, I consider the bash to be partly ruined in as much as I can no longer let my hair down and relax with a good few drinks. I'll probably punish myself further and take the car rather than taxi it, to make sure I don't get tempted and go mad (I know what I'm like). I'm no angel but I couldn't take the stress the next day of worrying if I was over the limit.
As far as random testing goes - if there is in fact to be a campaign won't the initial pain fizzle out when the testers realise the situation's well under control, and hardly anyone, or even hopefully nobody, gets caught? That's not to say I would support the idea of a campaign, the situation seems well under control already, all seem aware of the issues and behave accordingly, but if it is imposed how far reaching a burden will it be?
As far as random testing goes - if there is in fact to be a campaign won't the initial pain fizzle out when the testers realise the situation's well under control, and hardly anyone, or even hopefully nobody, gets caught? That's not to say I would support the idea of a campaign, the situation seems well under control already, all seem aware of the issues and behave accordingly, but if it is imposed how far reaching a burden will it be?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anotherthing,
Try a fire with 400 souls in crap weather mid Atlantic ... our necks on the line as well ,.... not sat on the ground!... we know all about stress.There are many more stress related incidents in commercial flying than accidents as a result of drinking.
We also are aware that it is cumulative as you should be. Add to this secutity,OTP...ATC delays ,bad weather at destination and en route, a major failure/fire.....This might be a small contributing factor pushing a guy past his safe limit.I think we have enough.
Ive been flying for 25 years all over the world in heavies ...got as many landings as takeoffs.....
Try a fire with 400 souls in crap weather mid Atlantic ... our necks on the line as well ,.... not sat on the ground!... we know all about stress.There are many more stress related incidents in commercial flying than accidents as a result of drinking.
We also are aware that it is cumulative as you should be. Add to this secutity,OTP...ATC delays ,bad weather at destination and en route, a major failure/fire.....This might be a small contributing factor pushing a guy past his safe limit.I think we have enough.
Ive been flying for 25 years all over the world in heavies ...got as many landings as takeoffs.....
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this testing is designed to increase flight safety as a result of recent aircraft incidents and/or accidents due to excess alcohol in the pilot's blood, then I can see why it should be introduced.
However, random testing may never catch the 0.0001 % of those that may allegedly enjoy a touch too much to drink the night before, thus making the new safety measure somewhat impotent.
Far better to ask the pilots prior to their last sector as to when their last hot meal was, when their last break was ...... you get the picture!
However, random testing may never catch the 0.0001 % of those that may allegedly enjoy a touch too much to drink the night before, thus making the new safety measure somewhat impotent.
Far better to ask the pilots prior to their last sector as to when their last hot meal was, when their last break was ...... you get the picture!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Penzance, Penzance.
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the process Wasn't Stressful, then why do companies such as mine, insist that the crew members tested, whether positive or not, are excused from flying duties for the rest of the day?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Switzerland
Age: 55
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fatigue is, on a symptom level, very close to the effects of alcohol. The difference is that fatigue is statistically linked to a greater number of accidents than alcohol...
So would it not stand to reason to random-check crewmembers for fatigue, and summarily dismiss anybody caught turning up for a flight in a state of fatigue?
Doesn't work, does it?
I agree with the argument made early in this thread: as long as the incidence of alcohol consumption on accidents is as low as it is now, we should not harass crewmembers with random tests. Random tests are expensive, distracting or even humiliating to the crewmembers involved, and do not promise a significant result.
Tests based on evidence or justifiable suspiscion are a different matter altogether...
So would it not stand to reason to random-check crewmembers for fatigue, and summarily dismiss anybody caught turning up for a flight in a state of fatigue?
Doesn't work, does it?
I agree with the argument made early in this thread: as long as the incidence of alcohol consumption on accidents is as low as it is now, we should not harass crewmembers with random tests. Random tests are expensive, distracting or even humiliating to the crewmembers involved, and do not promise a significant result.
Tests based on evidence or justifiable suspiscion are a different matter altogether...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O'Neill No6
FlyMD.
Just thinking the same thing! Fatigue is totally over-looked.
Rostering and crewing practices are quite simply dreadful in all the airlines I've been involved in. Too many people are expected to end their duty on adrenaline. No matter they are then hardly capable of driving home following such duites!
Just thinking the same thing! Fatigue is totally over-looked.
Rostering and crewing practices are quite simply dreadful in all the airlines I've been involved in. Too many people are expected to end their duty on adrenaline. No matter they are then hardly capable of driving home following such duites!
Agree with firefly bob.
I've been in the rail industry for 15 years and random D & A screening was introduced just after I joined. Everybody in a safety critical role is subject to screening, that includes signalling designers, managers and other office based jobs. On the railway each company has to randomly screen a certain percentage of their staff per year. Generally you get 24 hours notice as you have to report to a medical centre. Anyone who fails a breath test when given 24 hours notice deserves to lose their job.
You do not get any notice of a test if there is an incident. Very often everyone in the area will get tested following an incident. A signalman could easily be tested as a result of a train driver running past a red signal. We all go to work with the knowledge that we could get tested the moment we walk through the door and therefore most of us make sure that we are comfortable that we have left sufficient time since our last drink.
As far as aviation goes the situation at the moment is that any pilot could be screened at any time if someone suspects they may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. I would have thought that the knowledge that screening is possible will make people think twice before risking an extra drink and will therefore protect them from failing a breath test should they be unlucky enough to be involved in an incident whilst taxying out.
If the thought of a breath test worries you then you probably should have had 1 pint less the night before. And for the record, I do like a drink myself as do most railwayman!
SW
I've been in the rail industry for 15 years and random D & A screening was introduced just after I joined. Everybody in a safety critical role is subject to screening, that includes signalling designers, managers and other office based jobs. On the railway each company has to randomly screen a certain percentage of their staff per year. Generally you get 24 hours notice as you have to report to a medical centre. Anyone who fails a breath test when given 24 hours notice deserves to lose their job.
You do not get any notice of a test if there is an incident. Very often everyone in the area will get tested following an incident. A signalman could easily be tested as a result of a train driver running past a red signal. We all go to work with the knowledge that we could get tested the moment we walk through the door and therefore most of us make sure that we are comfortable that we have left sufficient time since our last drink.
As far as aviation goes the situation at the moment is that any pilot could be screened at any time if someone suspects they may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. I would have thought that the knowledge that screening is possible will make people think twice before risking an extra drink and will therefore protect them from failing a breath test should they be unlucky enough to be involved in an incident whilst taxying out.
If the thought of a breath test worries you then you probably should have had 1 pint less the night before. And for the record, I do like a drink myself as do most railwayman!
SW
Guest
Posts: n/a
Because some liberal idiot has been convinced that his ass will be dragged through the courts for no reason. Please, can someone explain why they believe a random drugs test would be stressful for anyone other than an individual who feels they have something to hide?
Life's too short for ironing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Scotland, & Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the last 5 years living in the US, I have been required both as volunteer pilot and as an employed pilot to submit to random drugs and alcohol tests. The few times I have been called to go for a test, I haven't found it remotely stressful. I can't see what on earth would be stressful about peeing into a bottle, apart from trying to get it go to in the damn thing. Not easy for the "fairer sex", I'll tell you!
Someone mentioned the problem of the inaccuracy of the results. Any exact facts or figures available on that?
In the initial post, the comment was made that " subject to random Alcohol and Drugs testing as soon as we check in for a flying duty" Is there any point in doing it at any other time?
I really can't see what all the fuss is about. If you're genuinely over the limit, you're done for, and so you should be; if you're under the limit, who cares anyway?
Someone mentioned the problem of the inaccuracy of the results. Any exact facts or figures available on that?
In the initial post, the comment was made that " subject to random Alcohol and Drugs testing as soon as we check in for a flying duty" Is there any point in doing it at any other time?
I really can't see what all the fuss is about. If you're genuinely over the limit, you're done for, and so you should be; if you're under the limit, who cares anyway?
Last edited by fernytickles; 16th Nov 2006 at 22:43.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PC rubbish !
Long ago when the FAA started random tests the cost per positive test was $60,000.
Almost all of these positive tests were on inital issue for a private licence, twenty five years later we are going down the same road not to inhance flight safety but for "political correctness" reasons.
The tests dont bother me because I won't test positive for a non perscribed drug, simply becuse like 99.99999999% of professional pilots I dont take drugs except under medical direction.
As an industry can't we spend the drug testing money more wisely on somthing that WILL enhance flight safety rather than trying to solve a problem that all the evidence shows that we don't have ?
Almost all of these positive tests were on inital issue for a private licence, twenty five years later we are going down the same road not to inhance flight safety but for "political correctness" reasons.
The tests dont bother me because I won't test positive for a non perscribed drug, simply becuse like 99.99999999% of professional pilots I dont take drugs except under medical direction.
As an industry can't we spend the drug testing money more wisely on somthing that WILL enhance flight safety rather than trying to solve a problem that all the evidence shows that we don't have ?
Last edited by A and C; 17th Nov 2006 at 07:37.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Age: 47
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This debate is all very interesting but... can anyone offer anymore info as to route of the rumours that deathcruzer refers to and how substantiated they are? How likely is this to be introduced?
Personally I think such a step would be counterproductive, unnecessarily intrusive, costly (and loads of other negative stuff already mentioned) and I'd be surprised if it was introduced, at least in the UK, where we're trying to build an 'open culture' on such matters. As has been said chemical induced lack of judgement, as far as I understand, has had very little influence on past accidents and incidents. So what's the point? (perhaps fatigue, stress, background personal issues etc would be a more sensible issue to tackle first). The only motive I can see would be to appease some PCish need as mentioned above.
If you want professionals, treat them like professionals.. encourage an open culture and a culture of self moderation. I'm not sure random tests are the way to go. Would they really have much effect on the 0.0001% who might occasionally be "a little over?"
Personally I think such a step would be counterproductive, unnecessarily intrusive, costly (and loads of other negative stuff already mentioned) and I'd be surprised if it was introduced, at least in the UK, where we're trying to build an 'open culture' on such matters. As has been said chemical induced lack of judgement, as far as I understand, has had very little influence on past accidents and incidents. So what's the point? (perhaps fatigue, stress, background personal issues etc would be a more sensible issue to tackle first). The only motive I can see would be to appease some PCish need as mentioned above.
If you want professionals, treat them like professionals.. encourage an open culture and a culture of self moderation. I'm not sure random tests are the way to go. Would they really have much effect on the 0.0001% who might occasionally be "a little over?"
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deathcruzer -
I do understand your job and what it entails - hats off to you guys; when it comes to emergencies, you earn your money.
Before I became a lowly civvy ATCO, I flew for the military. Encountered a hell of a lot of emergencies (more than the average civilian aircrew - it's to do with the way the A/C are used etc), and had to get back to a floating airfield after a couple of hours on a mission, with nothing but a 2 bit 180 degree radar and a Dead Reckoning plot to get us back to the ship which had invariably moved). Not the same as having 400 passengers but it sharpened the mind.
As an ATCO, I deal with 10s of thousands of passengers and crew a day in the LTMA; I have more than just one A/C with 400 people on it to deal with, at the same time. So believe me, I know; random testing is NOT stressful, it is a nuisance, but not in any shape or form stressful!!
The argument should not be about any perceived stress, but whether or not it is ethically correct to test. I think professional pilots should be subject to random testing if there is any suspicion that they may be under the influence. It's what happens to us ATCOs.
The likes of London Mil can be tested randomly at any time, several times a year (it's a military thing). The testing team come along unannounced; stop military personnel from leaving the establishment (even if about to go off duty, they have to stay on the base until testing is complete - even if this is at the end of a nightshift); they get a printout of all personnel that are on duty; then randomly check about 15% of them. Do they get stressed about it - no... it's part of life. It's called compartmentalization, you get on with your job. As fernytickles states
and more importantly
.
There are too many bleeding heart liberals out there, what happened to a bit of backbone??
I do understand your job and what it entails - hats off to you guys; when it comes to emergencies, you earn your money.
Before I became a lowly civvy ATCO, I flew for the military. Encountered a hell of a lot of emergencies (more than the average civilian aircrew - it's to do with the way the A/C are used etc), and had to get back to a floating airfield after a couple of hours on a mission, with nothing but a 2 bit 180 degree radar and a Dead Reckoning plot to get us back to the ship which had invariably moved). Not the same as having 400 passengers but it sharpened the mind.
As an ATCO, I deal with 10s of thousands of passengers and crew a day in the LTMA; I have more than just one A/C with 400 people on it to deal with, at the same time. So believe me, I know; random testing is NOT stressful, it is a nuisance, but not in any shape or form stressful!!
The argument should not be about any perceived stress, but whether or not it is ethically correct to test. I think professional pilots should be subject to random testing if there is any suspicion that they may be under the influence. It's what happens to us ATCOs.
The likes of London Mil can be tested randomly at any time, several times a year (it's a military thing). The testing team come along unannounced; stop military personnel from leaving the establishment (even if about to go off duty, they have to stay on the base until testing is complete - even if this is at the end of a nightshift); they get a printout of all personnel that are on duty; then randomly check about 15% of them. Do they get stressed about it - no... it's part of life. It's called compartmentalization, you get on with your job. As fernytickles states
I can't see what on earth would be stressful about peeing into a bottle, apart from trying to get it go to in the damn thing. Not easy for the "fairer sex", I'll tell you!
I really can't see what all the fuss is about. If you're genuinely over the limit, you're done for, and so you should be; if you're under the limit, who cares anyway?
There are too many bleeding heart liberals out there, what happened to a bit of backbone??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anotherthing
Absolutily.....but the words here are
Currently the plan as I understand it is to random test everyone.
Even the police I believe need suspicion.
As far as the stresses go this is similar to a trip through customs...you know you are ok but ......
We are increasingly being loaded with more and more of these, my argument still stands.
You may be happy to live in an increasingly nanny state but some of us are getting fed up with it.
pilots should be subject to random testing if there is any suspicion that they may be under the influence.
if there is any suspicion
Even the police I believe need suspicion.
As far as the stresses go this is similar to a trip through customs...you know you are ok but ......
We are increasingly being loaded with more and more of these, my argument still stands.
You may be happy to live in an increasingly nanny state but some of us are getting fed up with it.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland mainly, rather than at home.
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had to have a giggle at that advert adjacent to Deathcruzer's last post. The cruel irony of the nanny state!
Sorry: it's gone now, it was selling employee drug testing kits for one dollar 65.
Sorry: it's gone now, it was selling employee drug testing kits for one dollar 65.
With the greatest of respect, you all miss the point, which is again the meta message. (the message you send when you don't think you are sending a message)
"Our staff are our most important asset".
"Now pee in this bottle". In other words, staff cannot be trusted to turn up drug free.
Demeaning. Furthermore, such decisions are made over lunch and at Directors meetings when the wine flows freely.
To put it another way: When will shareholders demand random screening of company directors? I'm not holding my breath.
To put it yet another way, screening in a company is only ethical if it extends from the office boy to the managing director.
"Our staff are our most important asset".
"Now pee in this bottle". In other words, staff cannot be trusted to turn up drug free.
Demeaning. Furthermore, such decisions are made over lunch and at Directors meetings when the wine flows freely.
To put it another way: When will shareholders demand random screening of company directors? I'm not holding my breath.
To put it yet another way, screening in a company is only ethical if it extends from the office boy to the managing director.
Sorry Sunfish but I beg to disagree.
Pilots are involved in safety critical work in real time. Whilst I agree that company directors can affect flight safety by the decisions they make there is, I would suggest, often more time to change decisions and indeed often an opportunity for those on the shop floor to comment should those decisions be questionable. I agree that all those involved in flight operations including up to board level should be fit for purpose.
I also agree that the vast majority of flight crew go about their work in a conscientous manner but any community tends to mirror what is going on in the world at large. We are not just talking about alcohol here but also drug screening. Earlier it was stated that if a pilot is found positive it can cost $60,000. I would put it another way, how much does it cost if an aircraft is involved in an accident as a result of the flight crew being impaired due to drugs or alcohol?
How you deal with a crew member who fails a screening is another matter which is open to debate.
Random testing does not mean screening everyone - by definition it is random. I have difficulty understanding why trained professionals such as pilots should have any misconceptions with this issue. As a passenger I would like to believe that the crew are "fit for purpose" in every respect.
Yes, fatigue is another factor and this is an important issue which needs to be addressed. However, I think the pilot community might be listened to more on this issue if they were more agreeable to random screening for drugs and alcohol.
The world has moved on considerably. In my early days of commercial aviation (1970s) pilots going on duty worse for wear as a result of the night before was almost accepted. This behaviour now cannot be acceptable as the vast majority would agree but as a professional body we have to be seen to be whiter than white. How can we argue with random screening when it has been operating in other safety critical industries for years?
Pilots are involved in safety critical work in real time. Whilst I agree that company directors can affect flight safety by the decisions they make there is, I would suggest, often more time to change decisions and indeed often an opportunity for those on the shop floor to comment should those decisions be questionable. I agree that all those involved in flight operations including up to board level should be fit for purpose.
I also agree that the vast majority of flight crew go about their work in a conscientous manner but any community tends to mirror what is going on in the world at large. We are not just talking about alcohol here but also drug screening. Earlier it was stated that if a pilot is found positive it can cost $60,000. I would put it another way, how much does it cost if an aircraft is involved in an accident as a result of the flight crew being impaired due to drugs or alcohol?
How you deal with a crew member who fails a screening is another matter which is open to debate.
Random testing does not mean screening everyone - by definition it is random. I have difficulty understanding why trained professionals such as pilots should have any misconceptions with this issue. As a passenger I would like to believe that the crew are "fit for purpose" in every respect.
Yes, fatigue is another factor and this is an important issue which needs to be addressed. However, I think the pilot community might be listened to more on this issue if they were more agreeable to random screening for drugs and alcohol.
The world has moved on considerably. In my early days of commercial aviation (1970s) pilots going on duty worse for wear as a result of the night before was almost accepted. This behaviour now cannot be acceptable as the vast majority would agree but as a professional body we have to be seen to be whiter than white. How can we argue with random screening when it has been operating in other safety critical industries for years?