Random Testing
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK EAST COAST
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry about it, you are just catching up. It has been standard practice in the operational side of the oil industry for years,i.e. refineries, Shipping etc. I have been to some offshore oil rigs and had to take a breathaliser to get on the helicopter ( not sure about the pilot)..
Where i worked an independent test agency arrived at a time of their own discretion and randomly select ten percent of the people on site with no exceptions. It doesn't cause any stress to take the test.I suppose if you were concerned that you would fail it would be stressful but failure is very rare, all employees know the rules and virtually all them abide by them..
Where i worked an independent test agency arrived at a time of their own discretion and randomly select ten percent of the people on site with no exceptions. It doesn't cause any stress to take the test.I suppose if you were concerned that you would fail it would be stressful but failure is very rare, all employees know the rules and virtually all them abide by them..
Do not think it is the random screening that is the fear.
I have a friend a pilot who has not had a drink for 7 yrs. Medical reasons, but there would be a good chance that he would blow +ve just (keytones).
Now if that was the case obviously the blood test should show -ve but the stress would be huge.[who would believe him] + ( I bet there are pilots out there who have the same medical condition un-beknown to them. Not picked up on normal initial or subsequent medicals) As for the rest of us if say we blew +ve (Just) and the blood showed +ve (Just) we would loose our jobs and most likly end up in jail so would never pass a crc check in the future so never return to our work.( no airside pass)
Not sure what ATC limits or the oil workers limits are of the top of my head but if they are higher like Aircraft Technicians then you should be fairly safe if you had a pint some 12 hrs before but the pilot might not be.
For random test to not cause undue stress a little higher limit would help. Also the fact that you could "take the cure" and not ever get your job back is draconian.
Note have not mentioned the actual medical condition (it is very very rare as do not want to start a mass panic or indeed embarrass my friend if others know or think they know of the condition.)
Any Docs out there got any comments about the very low alowed limits and wether normal humans could test +ve
I have a friend a pilot who has not had a drink for 7 yrs. Medical reasons, but there would be a good chance that he would blow +ve just (keytones).
Now if that was the case obviously the blood test should show -ve but the stress would be huge.[who would believe him] + ( I bet there are pilots out there who have the same medical condition un-beknown to them. Not picked up on normal initial or subsequent medicals) As for the rest of us if say we blew +ve (Just) and the blood showed +ve (Just) we would loose our jobs and most likly end up in jail so would never pass a crc check in the future so never return to our work.( no airside pass)
Not sure what ATC limits or the oil workers limits are of the top of my head but if they are higher like Aircraft Technicians then you should be fairly safe if you had a pint some 12 hrs before but the pilot might not be.
For random test to not cause undue stress a little higher limit would help. Also the fact that you could "take the cure" and not ever get your job back is draconian.
Note have not mentioned the actual medical condition (it is very very rare as do not want to start a mass panic or indeed embarrass my friend if others know or think they know of the condition.)
Any Docs out there got any comments about the very low alowed limits and wether normal humans could test +ve
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK EAST COAST
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icepack..
In the oil industry booze limits were drink/drive limits for the country location, the drug test covered any trace of prohibited drugs for the country location..
The test covered alcohol and drugs..
Interesting fact.. The booze test gave an instant result and the drug test took about ten days. You could be sent home for being over the booze limit but go and blowup the plant or ship when under the influence of drugs and they would only know after you had done it!!!
In the oil industry booze limits were drink/drive limits for the country location, the drug test covered any trace of prohibited drugs for the country location..
The test covered alcohol and drugs..
Interesting fact.. The booze test gave an instant result and the drug test took about ten days. You could be sent home for being over the booze limit but go and blowup the plant or ship when under the influence of drugs and they would only know after you had done it!!!
Last edited by 1DC; 17th Nov 2006 at 21:44. Reason: additional information..
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You got to love it... you have mutants who have been out partying all night giving responsible adults D/A tests. I would love th know the percentage of these neanderthals conducting such test would not even pass a back ground criminal examination.
I tell them that I refuse to use my hands to test my agility and aim from across the room.
I tell them that I refuse to use my hands to test my agility and aim from across the room.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: sion
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icepack..
Interesting fact.. The booze test gave an instant result and the drug test took about ten days. You could be sent home for being over the booze limit but go and blowup the plant or ship when under the influence of drugs and they would only know after you had done it!!!
Interesting fact.. The booze test gave an instant result and the drug test took about ten days. You could be sent home for being over the booze limit but go and blowup the plant or ship when under the influence of drugs and they would only know after you had done it!!!
It was mentionned above that we are not tested for fatigue. In the past years I haven't met a single drunk colleague in the cockpit. But I had to stop counting how many of them were in an extreme state of fatigue. And fatigue has been proven to have the equivalent effects of twice the legal alcohol limit.
I think this is at the heart of the protests over random screening. There could well be many more false positives than real ones, especially in some countries where the limit is "zero" - something impossible as anybody with rudimentary chemical knowledge will confirm.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Full wings
Although the level might be classed as 'zero' it is a well known medical fact that the body produces (and always has present) alcohol. A 'zero' limit takes this into account.
Icepack
The Civil ATCO limits are the same as pilots... whatever makes you even think that they might not be?!! It would not be fair to have two different levels. Having an under the weather ATCO is as bad, if not worse than having an under the weather pilot!
I honestly do not think this is a battle you can win - random testing will come in. The ATCO unions have accepted it, how can you resist?? Strike action will not work - what would Joe Public think if he heard that pilots wanted to go on strike to resist random alcohol and drug tests (especially when the powers at be let it out of the bag that the rail industry, ATCOs etc are already subject to it). Good old Joe Public would just think that "overpaid pilots have something to hide".
It's not another step towards a nanny state - hell we have had pilots on this thread virtually saying that they would come in to work if they felt they were slightly under the weather, rather than risk the wrath of taking another sick day. That alone says the threat is a good idea.
We have had it in the UK ATCO side of things for a while now - I work at a major centre and cannot think of one person that has been tested - but we all know it is something that can be done - therefore we make sure we are legal, or we take a sicky and risk the wrath of the management for having too many days off.
Although the level might be classed as 'zero' it is a well known medical fact that the body produces (and always has present) alcohol. A 'zero' limit takes this into account.
Icepack
The Civil ATCO limits are the same as pilots... whatever makes you even think that they might not be?!! It would not be fair to have two different levels. Having an under the weather ATCO is as bad, if not worse than having an under the weather pilot!
I honestly do not think this is a battle you can win - random testing will come in. The ATCO unions have accepted it, how can you resist?? Strike action will not work - what would Joe Public think if he heard that pilots wanted to go on strike to resist random alcohol and drug tests (especially when the powers at be let it out of the bag that the rail industry, ATCOs etc are already subject to it). Good old Joe Public would just think that "overpaid pilots have something to hide".
It's not another step towards a nanny state - hell we have had pilots on this thread virtually saying that they would come in to work if they felt they were slightly under the weather, rather than risk the wrath of taking another sick day. That alone says the threat is a good idea.
We have had it in the UK ATCO side of things for a while now - I work at a major centre and cannot think of one person that has been tested - but we all know it is something that can be done - therefore we make sure we are legal, or we take a sicky and risk the wrath of the management for having too many days off.
Anotherthing,
because Aircraft Engineers (Maintenance personnel) do have a high limit.(drink Drive Limit) so you can fix the "scinson" valve, when up to that limit but as you say you need to have less alchol in your blood to instruct an aircraft to turn that is monitored.Ho Hum!
because Aircraft Engineers (Maintenance personnel) do have a high limit.(drink Drive Limit) so you can fix the "scinson" valve, when up to that limit but as you say you need to have less alchol in your blood to instruct an aircraft to turn that is monitored.Ho Hum!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anotherthing,
because Aircraft Engineers (Maintenance personnel) do have a high limit.(drink Drive Limit) so you can fix the "scinson" valve, when up to that limit but as you say you need to have less alchol in your blood to instruct an aircraft to turn that is monitored.Ho Hum!
because Aircraft Engineers (Maintenance personnel) do have a high limit.(drink Drive Limit) so you can fix the "scinson" valve, when up to that limit but as you say you need to have less alchol in your blood to instruct an aircraft to turn that is monitored.Ho Hum!
Ice pack - the engineers should be subject to the same laws and same limits.... they like to let everyone know they are an integral part of safety (which they are). Therefore they should be treated the same!!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Europe-the sunshine side
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,you have no ideea how easy would be for somebody to have a fake uniform,use a fake ID and pose as a pilot.Well,he's a bit late,the rest of the crew just passed the screaning.....
Did you see the movie "Catch me if you can"?
I have nothing against the security check and I am relieved seeing the security people doing their job.I feel a lot safer and I hope no one,and I mean no one,will be allowed to skip the security check.Why is so big a problem?
You must understand that the people at the security check are doing their job like we do ours,in the plane.They are trained for it,and I bet you'll do the same if you'll work in their place.You'll have to attend a security course,it's very interesting,and not so simple as one may think..
Regarding the alcohol test...if you're old enaugh in this job I doubt that at some point you didn't met someone with a little taste for the 'johny walker"..not during flight,but maybe too close to it.
We are all human,and maybe some random testing will make us think twice when needed...And don't say we'll never need it.
Excuse my spelling,I've just had a drink....what ? ..I'm on holliday..
Did you see the movie "Catch me if you can"?
I have nothing against the security check and I am relieved seeing the security people doing their job.I feel a lot safer and I hope no one,and I mean no one,will be allowed to skip the security check.Why is so big a problem?
You must understand that the people at the security check are doing their job like we do ours,in the plane.They are trained for it,and I bet you'll do the same if you'll work in their place.You'll have to attend a security course,it's very interesting,and not so simple as one may think..
Regarding the alcohol test...if you're old enaugh in this job I doubt that at some point you didn't met someone with a little taste for the 'johny walker"..not during flight,but maybe too close to it.
We are all human,and maybe some random testing will make us think twice when needed...And don't say we'll never need it.
Excuse my spelling,I've just had a drink....what ? ..I'm on holliday..
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 46
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This post is bound to court some controversy, although I believe the case I state is a perfectly reasonable one, and I urge readers to try to consider my point with an open mind.
May I first of all say that I absolutley deplore anybody who would think of piloting a plane, car, train, etc whilst under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Random alcohol testing I have no problem with, as a positive breath test is a clear indication that a person is under the influence of alcohol at the time of the test.
Random drug testing i am also in favour of, but it depends on the nature of the test. Urine/ blood testing can pick up traces of drugs, eg Cannabis many days after consumption, when a person is not actually under the influence of the drug. This is not fair, as someone will "test positive" for the drug dispite not being under its influence at the time of the test, and therefore have their career ruined for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
I know that many people consider the very act of taking drugs to be fundamentally wrong and would deplore any pilot who indulges in his spare time, however the aim of any testing practice is not to act as "moral guardians" over pilots extra curricular activities, but to protect aviation safety by discouraging on the job intoxication.
Isn't the important thing here to prevent pilots from flying whilst intoxicated, not to persecute them for something they do in their PRIVATE lives, completely detached from their profession?
I believe that saliva testing is much more accurate in detecting real and actual intoxication due to drugs and if drug testing proceedures are to be introduced then perhaps saliva testing should be considered above all else.
Just out of interest, you guys that have posted from the rail, ATC, oil industries, or even from the aviation industry, what kind of drug testing are you subjected to, saliva, blood, or urine?
May I first of all say that I absolutley deplore anybody who would think of piloting a plane, car, train, etc whilst under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Random alcohol testing I have no problem with, as a positive breath test is a clear indication that a person is under the influence of alcohol at the time of the test.
Random drug testing i am also in favour of, but it depends on the nature of the test. Urine/ blood testing can pick up traces of drugs, eg Cannabis many days after consumption, when a person is not actually under the influence of the drug. This is not fair, as someone will "test positive" for the drug dispite not being under its influence at the time of the test, and therefore have their career ruined for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
I know that many people consider the very act of taking drugs to be fundamentally wrong and would deplore any pilot who indulges in his spare time, however the aim of any testing practice is not to act as "moral guardians" over pilots extra curricular activities, but to protect aviation safety by discouraging on the job intoxication.
Isn't the important thing here to prevent pilots from flying whilst intoxicated, not to persecute them for something they do in their PRIVATE lives, completely detached from their profession?
I believe that saliva testing is much more accurate in detecting real and actual intoxication due to drugs and if drug testing proceedures are to be introduced then perhaps saliva testing should be considered above all else.
Just out of interest, you guys that have posted from the rail, ATC, oil industries, or even from the aviation industry, what kind of drug testing are you subjected to, saliva, blood, or urine?
Last edited by Baboon Boy; 3rd Jan 2007 at 22:34. Reason: added a bit
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Grobelling through the murk to the sunshine above.
Age: 60
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is it that ATCOs are subject to random testing, when the Act gives no power to anyone to administer such testing? (In the UK, that is.)
Baboon Boy
In the rail industry we get breathalysed for alcohol and have a urine test for all other substances.
I completely agree with everything that you have said. I've never been interested in drugs myself, but I don't see why someone shouldn't be allowed to go to Amsterdam for the weekend, smoke some cannabis and return to work once the effects have worn off without losing their job.
SW
In the rail industry we get breathalysed for alcohol and have a urine test for all other substances.
I completely agree with everything that you have said. I've never been interested in drugs myself, but I don't see why someone shouldn't be allowed to go to Amsterdam for the weekend, smoke some cannabis and return to work once the effects have worn off without losing their job.
SW
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 46
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is fundameltally wrong that your employer should be able to influence how you live your live away from the work place.
If I were a pilot, atc guy, train driver etc and I was subject to urine testing for drugs I would be straight in there with a legal case to have such a policy obliterated, and believe me I would win on grounds of human rights.
As I said before, saliva testing for drugs is the way forward, as that would allow detection of on the job intoxication, whilst at the same time protecting the privacy and human rights of the employee.
Random Breath & Other Testing
Hi Everyone,
Sadly it looks as though testing is here to stay like it or not, either in the present form, or hopefully conducted in some more diplomatic & considerate manner than appears the norm so often at present
Whatever the outcome though, surely the rules must be the same throughout the industry, worldwide if possible. BALPA take note & action!! This should mean, in theory anyway, if any aircrew member was tested in Heathrow / Manchester etc, the process would be exactly the same if he / she were tested anywhere else in the world. A big ask I appreciate, but something the Airline Companies, Crew Associations / Unions etc must strive to establish.
Also, the actual testing must always be carried out in a courteous & tactful manner & the Crew Member involved should have the automatic right of redress if the situation justifies this. So often it is the attitude of various Officials, be it Airport Security / Customs or what, that by being needlesly confrontational, this can so easily lead to a unfortunate situation developing..
Whilst recently on holiday in Aeotearoa, I found my self pulled over for a Police random breath test. This was conducted in a very professional, but still courteous manner. Starting with `Good Evening Sir & ending with `Thank you Sir for your cooperation`, mind you, I think the very large Maori PC would have been less amenable, had I been over the limit. My point is though, courtesy on all sides, costs nothing, if all sides stick to that, it may at least help when transiting security screening, random testing or what.
Have good flying for 07.
Sadly it looks as though testing is here to stay like it or not, either in the present form, or hopefully conducted in some more diplomatic & considerate manner than appears the norm so often at present
Whatever the outcome though, surely the rules must be the same throughout the industry, worldwide if possible. BALPA take note & action!! This should mean, in theory anyway, if any aircrew member was tested in Heathrow / Manchester etc, the process would be exactly the same if he / she were tested anywhere else in the world. A big ask I appreciate, but something the Airline Companies, Crew Associations / Unions etc must strive to establish.
Also, the actual testing must always be carried out in a courteous & tactful manner & the Crew Member involved should have the automatic right of redress if the situation justifies this. So often it is the attitude of various Officials, be it Airport Security / Customs or what, that by being needlesly confrontational, this can so easily lead to a unfortunate situation developing..
Whilst recently on holiday in Aeotearoa, I found my self pulled over for a Police random breath test. This was conducted in a very professional, but still courteous manner. Starting with `Good Evening Sir & ending with `Thank you Sir for your cooperation`, mind you, I think the very large Maori PC would have been less amenable, had I been over the limit. My point is though, courtesy on all sides, costs nothing, if all sides stick to that, it may at least help when transiting security screening, random testing or what.
Have good flying for 07.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Here's a tip for all those Halo polishers out there - Get on Google and prepare a list of every Commercial Pilot who has been prosecuted for intoxication while preparing to fly an aircraft. Get all their addresses, and then pop over there and have your sanctimonious rant at those who have caused this course of action to be necessary. Then get your head out of sand.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK ATCOs are NOT currently subject to random testing*. If a line manager suspects someone to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol then they can request a test. I am not full au-fait with these rules but they are available to NATS employees on the intranet.
I understand that there are concerns from both NATS and the Unions about the accuracy of random testing and the number of false positives it may produce. On that basis I am against random testing.
*unless they are within the first year of employ with the company.
I understand that there are concerns from both NATS and the Unions about the accuracy of random testing and the number of false positives it may produce. On that basis I am against random testing.
*unless they are within the first year of employ with the company.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: head in the clouds
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an almost relivent tangent
Whilst recently on holiday in Aeotearoa, I found my self pulled over for a Police random breath test. This was conducted in a very professional, but still courteous manner. Starting with `Good Evening Sir & ending with `Thank you Sir for your cooperation`, mind you, I think the very large Maori PC would have been less amenable, had I been over the limit. My point is though, courtesy on all sides, costs nothing, if all sides stick to that, it may at least help when transiting security screening, random testing or what.
If what i experenced was typical, then after then first "sniffer" test, assuming one has alcohol detected on the breath, one is very curtiously asked to pull in out of the way of other cars at the checkpoint, while the officer gets a diffrent device. ( the "sniffer" can only tell them that there is aerosol alcohols, or other similer aerosols exist on your breath ... )
Once you have pulled in, out of the way of other drivers, you are very nicely asked to blow though a tube , into the other device that the police officer was fetching, which does take slightly longer than the "sniffer", and is a lot more selective, giving them an idea of how much ethanol there is on your breath.
This is about as far as i got though this process, as the cop smiled and said that is a pass, and said to have a good evening.
and like kaikohe stated, the officers attitude was everything one could hope for. i am sure he would have liked to be home as well, but he was very professional and curtious, and thus gained a lot of respect from me, for it.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chavistan
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Npasque, it is not a case of having something to hide, YOUR EMPLOYER HAS NO RIGHT TO KNOW if you smoke the odd jamaican woodbine in your spare time, so long as you dont turn up to work under the influence.
It is fundameltally wrong that your employer should be able to influence how you live your live away from the work place.
It is fundameltally wrong that your employer should be able to influence how you live your live away from the work place.
I think it is reasonable that an employer knows or expects their employee is of "good character" (a subjective term!). The situation that you talk about is something that is very specific, and there are probably many opinions on it, especially since it is legal in some places and not in others, however it is more than just the law that defines "good" character.
I don't think that this is something that can be easily defined, however I suspect most of us know what we can and cannot do if we wish to remain in the good books.
My company recently looked at this very issue, the most senior HR lawyer involvced in the particular class / training / discussion session that I attended. Actually quite an interesting discussion; whilst nothing was formalised I think we all know where we stand.
GDI