Denied medical / Alcohol & Drug Rehab

[Happy Dog]

The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait two
years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly tested
and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That sounds
unreasonable to me. I understand that they're going to appeal.

moo

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
> The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait two
> years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly
> tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That
> sounds unreasonable to me. I understand that they're going to appeal.
>

Why would that seem unreasonable?

[Peter R.]

Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:

> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait two
>> years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly
>> tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That
>> sounds unreasonable to me. I understand that they're going to appeal.
>>
>
> Why would that seem unreasonable?

When one completes rehab, isn't one supposed to be clean? :)

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>
>> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait two
>>> years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly
>>> tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That
>>> sounds unreasonable to me. I understand that they're going to appeal.
>>>
>>
>> Why would that seem unreasonable?
>
> When one completes rehab, isn't one supposed to be clean? :)
>
> --
> Peter

The two year recidivism rate for those undergoing drug & alcohol treatment
is around 70%.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:23:15 -0400, "Peter R." > wrote in
>:

>Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:

>> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait two
>>> years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly
>>> tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That
>>> sounds unreasonable to me. I understand that they're going to appeal.

>> Why would that seem unreasonable?

>When one completes rehab, isn't one supposed to be clean? :)

I'm not a professional in the field, but I do have some experience
with folks coming out of rehab.

Just doing some time away from one's drug of choice is a
great way to get started on the "clean and sober" life, but
it is no guarantee of success.

Someone who has put together two years is much, much more likely
to be able to keep up with the process of staying in recovery
than someone fresh out of rehab.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that the folks who made the ruling have
got some good stats as well as field experience to back up
the two-year rule.

Marty

[Happy Dog]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet>
> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
>> The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait two
>> years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly
>> tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That
>> sounds unreasonable to me. I understand that they're going to appeal.
>>
> Why would that seem unreasonable?

Because they no longer use drugs or alcohol. I don't see how the risk is
significantly changed by waiting. I'm curious as to whether everyone who
goes through rehab gets their medical revoked for two years. I really doubt
it.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr
>> When one completes rehab, isn't one supposed to be clean? :)
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
> The two year recidivism rate for those undergoing drug & alcohol treatment
> is around 70%.

So wouldn't five years be reasonable then? Just to be safe? How about ten?

moo

[Icebound]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
> The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait two
> years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly
> tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That
> sounds unreasonable to me. I understand that they're going to appeal.
>

Based on the procedure outlined in the AIP (LRA 3.4.5), it does not look
promising :-(

Even if you "win" the appeal, that only gains you "reconsideration".
Basically, "winning" just seems to kick the case upstairs to the National
office, and having the Director make the decision, instead of the Regional
medical officer.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message

> The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait two
> years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly
> tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That
> sounds unreasonable to me.

Why is that unreasonable?

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Happy Dog]

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote
> I'm not a professional in the field, but I do have some experience
> with folks coming out of rehab.
>
> Just doing some time away from one's drug of choice is a
> great way to get started on the "clean and sober" life, but
> it is no guarantee of success.
>
> Someone who has put together two years is much, much more likely
> to be able to keep up with the process of staying in recovery
> than someone fresh out of rehab.

So? Whay not make it ten years just to be sure?
>
> I'll bet dollars to donuts that the folks who made the ruling have
> got some good stats as well as field experience to back up
> the two-year rule.

I'll bet they don't. I think it's a CYA rubber stamp policy for which
numerous exceptions are made. Do you think that every person with a Medical
who goes through rehab gets it revoked for two years? And, I'll also bet
that this sort of policy encourages people to lie to their medical
examiners.

moo

[Richard Kaplan]

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message

> I'll bet dollars to donuts that the folks who made the ruling have
> got some good stats as well as field experience to back up
> the two-year rule.

That is correct.... and this policy is quite permissive compared with many
other countries.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr
>>> When one completes rehab, isn't one supposed to be clean? :)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter
>>
>> The two year recidivism rate for those undergoing drug & alcohol
>> treatment is around 70%.
>
> So wouldn't five years be reasonable then? Just to be safe? How about
> ten?
>

The number I gave you was for 2 year recidivism (The time period in
question). The 70% is made up of those who walked out of rehab and had a
drink within the hour, those that did so on day 729 and everyone in between.

Since you seem to have trouble understanding this that means that 7 out of
every 10 people who go through rehab will start using within the first 2
years after they get out.

While I don't have the 2+ recidivism rate info handy I'd bet it is much
lower but you are right five or ten would be lower still.

[Happy Dog]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet>
>> So wouldn't five years be reasonable then? Just to be safe? How about
>> ten?
>>
>
> The number I gave you was for 2 year recidivism (The time period in
> question). The 70% is made up of those who walked out of rehab and had a
> drink within the hour, those that did so on day 729 and everyone in
> between.

How about those who became addicted to prescribed painkillers?

In any case, I'm trying to find out what happens in the real world. I
expect to find that it's a, mostly, BS rubber stamp process. But, I'll
happily admit I'm wrong if I find otherwise. And, again, this sort of
policy would discourage addicts from seeking treatment, no? And, are there
any stats on which an opinion could be formed WRT risk of flying while
intoxicated? AFAIK, drugs and alcohol rarely are a factor in accidents. Of
those where they are, how many involved people who had been through rehab in
the prior two years?

moo

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote
>>
>> I'll bet dollars to donuts that the folks who made the ruling have
>> got some good stats as well as field experience to back up
>> the two-year rule.
>
> I'll bet they don't. I think it's a CYA rubber stamp policy for which
> numerous exceptions are made. Do you think that every person with a
> Medical who goes through rehab gets it revoked for two years? And, I'll
> also bet that this sort of policy encourages people to lie to their
> medical examiners.
>

Why would you think they don't there is plenty of recidivism rate date
available/

I think they do if they don't lie about it.

So do you think all disqualifing conditions just encourage people to lie to
the medical examiners? Of course they do. But if you get caught the chances
of getting a waiver are going drop signifigantly. Not to mention 61.59.

[Happy Dog]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@

> So do you think all disqualifing conditions just encourage people to lie
> to the medical examiners? Of course they do. But if you get caught the
> chances of getting a waiver are going drop signifigantly. Not to mention
> 61.59.

And rightfully so. But I think this one would also discourage people from
getting treatment.

moo

[NW_PILOT]

Look at cigarette smokers for the proof most can not go 3 months! October
will be my 2 years cold turkey from 3 pack's a day. Surprisingly the same
day I quit was the same day as my first solo! Yep I swapped one for the
other Cigarette's for altitude & adrenalin.


"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:23:15 -0400, "Peter R." >
wrote in
> >:
>
> >Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>
> >> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
> >> .. .
> >>> The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait
two
> >>> years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly
> >>> tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That
> >>> sounds unreasonable to me. I understand that they're going to appeal.
>
> >> Why would that seem unreasonable?
>
> >When one completes rehab, isn't one supposed to be clean? :)
>
> I'm not a professional in the field, but I do have some experience
> with folks coming out of rehab.
>
> Just doing some time away from one's drug of choice is a
> great way to get started on the "clean and sober" life, but
> it is no guarantee of success.
>
> Someone who has put together two years is much, much more likely
> to be able to keep up with the process of staying in recovery
> than someone fresh out of rehab.
>
> I'll bet dollars to donuts that the folks who made the ruling have
> got some good stats as well as field experience to back up
> the two-year rule.
>
> Marty

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:56:23 -0700, "NW_PILOT"
> wrote:

>Look at cigarette smokers for the proof most can not go 3 months! October
>will be my 2 years cold turkey from 3 pack's a day.

Do you still follow strangers down the street, sniffing at the pretty
blue fumes?

Do you still dream that you slipped and began smoking again?

(Congratulations, in any event :)


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:56:23 -0700, "NW_PILOT"
> > wrote:
>
>>Look at cigarette smokers for the proof most can not go 3 months! October
>>will be my 2 years cold turkey from 3 pack's a day.
>
> Do you still follow strangers down the street, sniffing at the pretty
> blue fumes?
>
> Do you still dream that you slipped and began smoking again?
>
> (Congratulations, in any event :)
>
>
> -- all the best, Dan Ford
>

DATA POINT.....

I quit smoking after 20 something years Feb. 1 2000. To this day I still
have a dream every 2 or 3 weeks where I pull into the C-Store where I used
to by my cigs, walk in, buy a pack, get back into my car and light up. I
then realize after a couple of drags that "oh crap, I quit smoking.

This is the single most realistic dream I have ever had. The really strange
thing is that though I have changed cars 3 times since I quit, in the dream
I'm always in the car I'm currently driving.

I have no doubt if I smoked a single cigarette I would be just as addicted
as I was over 5 years ago.

[Peter R.]

Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:

> This is the single most realistic dream I have ever had. The really strange
> thing is that though I have changed cars 3 times since I quit, in the dream
> I'm always in the car I'm currently driving.

A testament to the power of the subconscious mind.

Congratulations on your victory some 20 years ago.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet>
>>> So wouldn't five years be reasonable then? Just to be safe? How about
>>> ten?
>>>
>>
>> The number I gave you was for 2 year recidivism (The time period in
>> question). The 70% is made up of those who walked out of rehab and had a
>> drink within the hour, those that did so on day 729 and everyone in
>> between.
>
> How about those who became addicted to prescribed painkillers?
>
> In any case, I'm trying to find out what happens in the real world. I
> expect to find that it's a, mostly, BS rubber stamp process. But, I'll
> happily admit I'm wrong if I find otherwise. And, again, this sort of
> policy would discourage addicts from seeking treatment, no? And, are
> there any stats on which an opinion could be formed WRT risk of flying
> while intoxicated? AFAIK, drugs and alcohol rarely are a factor in
> accidents. Of those where they are, how many involved people who had been
> through rehab in the prior two years?
>
> moo


Pain killers, Vodka it really doesn't matter though alchohol recidivism is
one of the worst. You seem to have this idea that everything the FAA does is
"BS rubber stamp process" but there is a reason for that. A. If they looked
at every single issue on its' own they would get to an individual case 10 to
15 years after the persons whose case it was died of old age. B. There is
data out there and studing ststistics is one thing the government is very
good at.

I certainly hope you aren't saying that you don't think drug or alcohol
would not impair a persons ability to fly. If you are there will be a
*plonk* coming very soon.

I did a quick search and came up with a couple of items. One stragly enough
is from the Redwood City police department.

http://www.redwoodcity.org/police/drug-info.html

It doesn't have any cite to go with the statement so I take it with a HUGE
grain of salt but it states that 76% of private aircraft accidents are
alcohol related.

I'm sure more ligitimate data is out there I just don't have time right now
to look for it.

[Happy Dog]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet>
>> In any case, I'm trying to find out what happens in the real world. I
>> expect to find that it's a, mostly, BS rubber stamp process. But, I'll
>> happily admit I'm wrong if I find otherwise. And, again, this sort of
>> policy would discourage addicts from seeking treatment, no? And, are
>> there any stats on which an opinion could be formed WRT risk of flying
>> while intoxicated? AFAIK, drugs and alcohol rarely are a factor in
>> accidents. Of those where they are, how many involved people who had
>> been through rehab in the prior two years?
>
> Pain killers, Vodka it really doesn't matter though alchohol recidivism is
> one of the worst. You seem to have this idea that everything the FAA does
> is "BS rubber stamp process" but there is a reason for that. A. If they
> looked at every single issue on its' own they would get to an individual
> case 10 to 15 years after the persons whose case it was died of old age.
> B. There is data out there and studing ststistics is one thing the
> government is very good at.

And I haven't seen any of it. But, my understanding is that alcohol or
drugs are rarely an issue in aviation accidents. I'm curious as to what
percentage of thoise where they are involve people who've been through
rehab.
>
> I certainly hope you aren't saying that you don't think drug or alcohol
> would not impair a persons ability to fly. If you are there will be a
> *plonk* coming very soon.

Of course not. I meant risk of a former addict using their vice of choice
and flying.
>
> I did a quick search and came up with a couple of items. One stragly
> enough is from the Redwood City police department.
>
> http://www.redwoodcity.org/police/drug-info.html
>
> It doesn't have any cite to go with the statement so I take it with a HUGE
> grain of salt but it states that 76% of private aircraft accidents are
> alcohol related.

Your credibility just took a major hit. *THINK*

moo

[Jose]

> but it states that 76% of private aircraft accidents are
> alcohol related.

I agree. In most cases, there was an impact with the ground, which only
goes to show the pilot wasn't high enough. :)

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[NW_PILOT]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:56:23 -0700, "NW_PILOT"
> > wrote:
>
> >Look at cigarette smokers for the proof most can not go 3 months! October
> >will be my 2 years cold turkey from 3 pack's a day.
>
> Do you still follow strangers down the street, sniffing at the pretty
> blue fumes?
>
> Do you still dream that you slipped and began smoking again?
>
> (Congratulations, in any event :)
>
>
> -- all the best, Dan Ford
>
> email (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
> Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
> the blog: www.danford.net
> In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com


Every now and then I still have the urge to have a smoke but when that
happens I go play with my airplane or read a airplane book.

[NW_PILOT]

Look at the relapse rate for meth addicts!!! My sister is a meth freak so is
my mother even when they have been clean for 6 months I would not trust them
behind the wheel of a car, nor would I take them in an airplane that they
had access to the controls


"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:Ky7De.40416$DC2.24030@okepread01...
>
> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet>
> >>> So wouldn't five years be reasonable then? Just to be safe? How
about
> >>> ten?
> >>>
> >>
> >> The number I gave you was for 2 year recidivism (The time period in
> >> question). The 70% is made up of those who walked out of rehab and had
a
> >> drink within the hour, those that did so on day 729 and everyone in
> >> between.
> >
> > How about those who became addicted to prescribed painkillers?
> >
> > In any case, I'm trying to find out what happens in the real world. I
> > expect to find that it's a, mostly, BS rubber stamp process. But, I'll
> > happily admit I'm wrong if I find otherwise. And, again, this sort of
> > policy would discourage addicts from seeking treatment, no? And, are
> > there any stats on which an opinion could be formed WRT risk of flying
> > while intoxicated? AFAIK, drugs and alcohol rarely are a factor in
> > accidents. Of those where they are, how many involved people who had
been
> > through rehab in the prior two years?
> >
> > moo
>
>
> Pain killers, Vodka it really doesn't matter though alchohol recidivism is
> one of the worst. You seem to have this idea that everything the FAA does
is
> "BS rubber stamp process" but there is a reason for that. A. If they
looked
> at every single issue on its' own they would get to an individual case 10
to
> 15 years after the persons whose case it was died of old age. B. There is
> data out there and studing ststistics is one thing the government is very
> good at.
>
> I certainly hope you aren't saying that you don't think drug or alcohol
> would not impair a persons ability to fly. If you are there will be a
> *plonk* coming very soon.
>
> I did a quick search and came up with a couple of items. One stragly
enough
> is from the Redwood City police department.
>
> http://www.redwoodcity.org/police/drug-info.html
>
> It doesn't have any cite to go with the statement so I take it with a HUGE
> grain of salt but it states that 76% of private aircraft accidents are
> alcohol related.
>
> I'm sure more ligitimate data is out there I just don't have time right
now
> to look for it.
>
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet>
>>> In any case, I'm trying to find out what happens in the real world. I
>>> expect to find that it's a, mostly, BS rubber stamp process. But, I'll
>>> happily admit I'm wrong if I find otherwise. And, again, this sort of
>>> policy would discourage addicts from seeking treatment, no? And, are
>>> there any stats on which an opinion could be formed WRT risk of flying
>>> while intoxicated? AFAIK, drugs and alcohol rarely are a factor in
>>> accidents. Of those where they are, how many involved people who had
>>> been through rehab in the prior two years?
>>
>> Pain killers, Vodka it really doesn't matter though alchohol recidivism
>> is one of the worst. You seem to have this idea that everything the FAA
>> does is "BS rubber stamp process" but there is a reason for that. A. If
>> they looked at every single issue on its' own they would get to an
>> individual case 10 to 15 years after the persons whose case it was died
>> of old age. B. There is data out there and studing ststistics is one
>> thing the government is very good at.
>
> And I haven't seen any of it. But, my understanding is that alcohol or
> drugs are rarely an issue in aviation accidents. I'm curious as to what
> percentage of thoise where they are involve people who've been through
> rehab.
>>
>> I certainly hope you aren't saying that you don't think drug or alcohol
>> would not impair a persons ability to fly. If you are there will be a
>> *plonk* coming very soon.
>
> Of course not. I meant risk of a former addict using their vice of choice
> and flying.
>>
>> I did a quick search and came up with a couple of items. One stragly
>> enough is from the Redwood City police department.
>>
>> http://www.redwoodcity.org/police/drug-info.html
>>
>> It doesn't have any cite to go with the statement so I take it with a
>> HUGE grain of salt but it states that 76% of private aircraft accidents
>> are alcohol related.
>
> Your credibility just took a major hit. *THINK*

Well since you dared me...

Here's your report straight from the Feds.

http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/Abstracts/2000/FULLTXT/00_21.pdf

See, they study this ****.

Between 1994-1998 765 FATAL accidents involving drugs or drink.

[Peter R.]

Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:

> Well since you dared me...
>
> Here's your report straight from the Feds.
>
> http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/Abstracts/2000/FULLTXT/00_21.pdf
>
> See, they study this ****.
>
> Between 1994-1998 765 FATAL accidents involving drugs or drink.

Did you see the drugs listed in the table in that report? Not only were
illegal drugs and disallowed medicines listed, but this report also
included FAA-approved drugs, such as Ibuprofen, Acetaminophen, and
Pseudoephedrine. Are the Feds really counting pilots found with these
drugs in this study?

There probably isn't one flight I take where at least one of those drugs
above wouldn't be found in my body.



--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Gary Drescher]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>
>> Well since you dared me...
>>
>> Here's your report straight from the Feds.
>>
>> http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/Abstracts/2000/FULLTXT/00_21.pdf
>>
>> See, they study this ****.
>>
>> Between 1994-1998 765 FATAL accidents involving drugs or drink.
>
> Did you see the drugs listed in the table in that report? Not only were
> illegal drugs and disallowed medicines listed, but this report also
> included FAA-approved drugs, such as Ibuprofen, Acetaminophen, and
> Pseudoephedrine. Are the Feds really counting pilots found with these
> drugs in this study?
>
> There probably isn't one flight I take where at least one of those drugs
> above wouldn't be found in my body.

Plus even for the illegal or FAA-prohibited drugs, the study didn't set any
concentration threshold (they used a threshold only for alcohol), so there's
no way to know if they were detecting usage that was either recent or
pharmacologically significant (who cares if the pilot smoked a joint two
weeks ago?).

Still, they report excessive alcohol concentration in 4-9% of fatal
accidents, which is way higher than the Nall Report's estimate of 1.1% (for
alcohol and all other drugs combined). I wonder what accounts for the
discrepancy.

--Gary

[Michael]

> Still, they report excessive alcohol concentration in 4-9% of fatal
> accidents, which is way higher than the Nall Report's estimate of 1.1% (for
> alcohol and all other drugs combined). I wonder what accounts for the
> discrepancy.

Decay, actually. Leave a dead body to sit for a while, and one of the
decay products will be alcohol. Since bodies in aircraft crashes are
often not recovered immediately, this is one of the problems with the
toxicology. It's well known, and the NTSB is aware of the problem, but
certain organizations with an axe to grind aren't interested in giving
readers the complete story. The Nall report is based on NTSB probable
cause, which takes such factors into account. The study probably uses
raw toxicology data.

Michael

[Happy Dog]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> Here's your report straight from the Feds.
>
> http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/Abstracts/2000/FULLTXT/00_21.pdf
>
> See, they study this ****.
>
> Between 1994-1998 765 FATAL accidents involving drugs or drink.

Now I dare you to learn how to interpret a report. We are talking about
illegal drug use and alcohol. The number is much smaller. (But, still too
many and a higher number than I thought.) One thing I'm unclear on is the
number of pilots who had a combination of drug classes in their samples.
(ie. Are any counted more than once.)

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Michael" > wrote in message news:

>> Still, they report excessive alcohol concentration in 4-9% of fatal
>> accidents, which is way higher than the Nall Report's estimate of 1.1%
>> (for
>> alcohol and all other drugs combined). I wonder what accounts for the
>> discrepancy.
>
> Decay, actually. Leave a dead body to sit for a while, and one of the
> decay products will be alcohol. Since bodies in aircraft crashes are
> often not recovered immediately, this is one of the problems with the
> toxicology. It's well known, and the NTSB is aware of the problem, but
> certain organizations with an axe to grind aren't interested in giving
> readers the complete story. The Nall report is based on NTSB probable
> cause, which takes such factors into account. The study probably uses
> raw toxicology data.

Yes, I neglected to point that out. But, the majority of samples shouldn't
have been affected by this. Not to a level of .04% anyway.

moo

[Margy]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet>
>>
>>>>In any case, I'm trying to find out what happens in the real world. I
>>>>expect to find that it's a, mostly, BS rubber stamp process. But, I'll
>>>>happily admit I'm wrong if I find otherwise. And, again, this sort of
>>>>policy would discourage addicts from seeking treatment, no? And, are
>>>>there any stats on which an opinion could be formed WRT risk of flying
>>>>while intoxicated? AFAIK, drugs and alcohol rarely are a factor in
>>>>accidents. Of those where they are, how many involved people who had
>>>>been through rehab in the prior two years?
>>>
>>>Pain killers, Vodka it really doesn't matter though alchohol recidivism
>>>is one of the worst. You seem to have this idea that everything the FAA
>>>does is "BS rubber stamp process" but there is a reason for that. A. If
>>>they looked at every single issue on its' own they would get to an
>>>individual case 10 to 15 years after the persons whose case it was died
>>>of old age. B. There is data out there and studing ststistics is one
>>>thing the government is very good at.
>>
>>And I haven't seen any of it. But, my understanding is that alcohol or
>>drugs are rarely an issue in aviation accidents. I'm curious as to what
>>percentage of thoise where they are involve people who've been through
>>rehab.
>>
>>>I certainly hope you aren't saying that you don't think drug or alcohol
>>>would not impair a persons ability to fly. If you are there will be a
>>>*plonk* coming very soon.
>>
>>Of course not. I meant risk of a former addict using their vice of choice
>>and flying.
>>
>>>I did a quick search and came up with a couple of items. One stragly
>>>enough is from the Redwood City police department.
>>>
>>>http://www.redwoodcity.org/police/drug-info.html
>>>
>>>It doesn't have any cite to go with the statement so I take it with a
>>>HUGE grain of salt but it states that 76% of private aircraft accidents
>>>are alcohol related.
>>
>>Your credibility just took a major hit. *THINK*
>
>
> Well since you dared me...
>
> Here's your report straight from the Feds.
>
> http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/Abstracts/2000/FULLTXT/00_21.pdf
>
> See, they study this ****.
>
> Between 1994-1998 765 FATAL accidents involving drugs or drink.
>
>
Did you READ the report. It was 7% not 76% percent 124 out of 1683.
The rate varied by year from 4% to 9%. Now I would argue that 1% is
still too high, but I know perfection isn't going to ever happen.

Margy

[Happy Dog]

"Margy" > wrote in message news:rChDe.9$fb1.
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Between 1994-1998 765 FATAL accidents involving drugs or drink.
> Did you READ the report. It was 7% not 76% percent 124 out of 1683. The
> rate varied by year from 4% to 9%. Now I would argue that 1% is still too
> high, but I know perfection isn't going to ever happen.

You can argue that .00001% is still too high. But, no matter what you
argue, guys like gig will still waste time with inflammatory rhetoric.
Watch. This will get us no closer to answering the original questions. The
mere mention of drugs or alcohol brings out the government as nanny zealots
toute de suite. The results are predictable. Same problems. No answers
save more regulations and enforcement. Are people who go through rehab a
greater risk or not? Simple question, eh?

moo

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Margy" > wrote in message news:rChDe.9$fb1.
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>> Between 1994-1998 765 FATAL accidents involving drugs or drink.
>> Did you READ the report. It was 7% not 76% percent 124 out of 1683. The
>> rate varied by year from 4% to 9%. Now I would argue that 1% is still
>> too high, but I know perfection isn't going to ever happen.
>
> You can argue that .00001% is still too high. But, no matter what you
> argue, guys like gig will still waste time with inflammatory rhetoric.
> Watch. This will get us no closer to answering the original questions.
> The mere mention of drugs or alcohol brings out the government as nanny
> zealots toute de suite. The results are predictable. Same problems. No
> answers save more regulations and enforcement. Are people who go through
> rehab a greater risk or not? Simple question, eh?
>

Inflammatory rhetoric? Your the guy who thinks that people with a KNOWN drug
or alcohol problem shouldn't have to wait a certain amount of time after
treatment before they get thier flight privlages back. Jeez.

The report I listed was just to counter your proposal that the FAA didn't
even study the issue.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Margy" > wrote in message
...
> Did you READ the report. It was 7% not 76% percent 124 out of 1683. The
> rate varied by year from 4% to 9%. Now I would argue that 1% is still too
> high, but I know perfection isn't going to ever happen.
>

Margy, the 76% number came from a VERY quick Google of "Aircraft accidents
alcohol" from I beleive Redwood City PD. I said at the time I took that
number with a grain of salt.

Though I have no idea where the P.D. got their figures the 76% wasn't fatal
accidents while the second report was just fatal accident.

And no, I didn't spend more than about 5 minutes reading this report but
it's post was mainly to sho the Happy Dog that counter to his belief the FAA
did study this stuff before they made the rule.

[Michael]

> Yes, I neglected to point that out. But, the majority of samples shouldn't
> have been affected by this. Not to a level of .04% anyway.

Actually, that's not true. The NTSB believes that the majority of
cases where toxicology found alcohol in the system are indeed due to
this. The true magnitude of the drinking-and-flying accident rate is
acknowledged by the NTSB to be tiny.

Michael

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Michael" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Yes, I neglected to point that out. But, the majority of samples
>> shouldn't
>> have been affected by this. Not to a level of .04% anyway.
>
> Actually, that's not true. The NTSB believes that the majority of
> cases where toxicology found alcohol in the system are indeed due to
> this. The true magnitude of the drinking-and-flying accident rate is
> acknowledged by the NTSB to be tiny.
>


That may well be the case but could one of the reasons it is tiny is that
the FAA makes those that go through rehab wait 2 years and jump through
hoops to get thier medical back? That issue is what got this thread started
in the first place.

[Happy Dog]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet>
>> "Margy" > wrote in message news:rChDe.9$fb1.
>>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>>> Between 1994-1998 765 FATAL accidents involving drugs or drink.
>>> Did you READ the report. It was 7% not 76% percent 124 out of 1683. The
>>> rate varied by year from 4% to 9%. Now I would argue that 1% is still
>>> too high, but I know perfection isn't going to ever happen.
>>
>> You can argue that .00001% is still too high. But, no matter what you
>> argue, guys like gig will still waste time with inflammatory rhetoric.
>> Watch. This will get us no closer to answering the original questions.
>> The mere mention of drugs or alcohol brings out the government as nanny
>> zealots toute de suite. The results are predictable. Same problems. No
>> answers save more regulations and enforcement. Are people who go through
>> rehab a greater risk or not? Simple question, eh?
>>
>
> Inflammatory rhetoric? Your the guy who thinks that people with a KNOWN
> drug or alcohol problem shouldn't have to wait a certain amount of time
> after treatment before they get thier flight privlages back. Jeez.

I didn't say that.
>
> The report I listed was just to counter your proposal that the FAA didn't
> even study the issue.

That either. So get stuffed.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Michael" > wrote in

>> Yes, I neglected to point that out. But, the majority of samples
>> shouldn't
>> have been affected by this. Not to a level of .04% anyway.
>
> Actually, that's not true. The NTSB believes that the majority of
> cases where toxicology found alcohol in the system are indeed due to
> this. The true magnitude of the drinking-and-flying accident rate is
> acknowledged by the NTSB to be tiny.

Got a source for that? I'm surprised that the samples would have so often
deteriorated to that point. I'll do a bit of research and post what I find.

Thanks for the info.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:qtsDe.40436$DC2.8316@okepread01...
>
> "Margy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Did you READ the report. It was 7% not 76% percent 124 out of 1683. The
>> rate varied by year from 4% to 9%. Now I would argue that 1% is still
>> too high, but I know perfection isn't going to ever happen.
>>
>
> Margy, the 76% number came from a VERY quick Google of "Aircraft accidents
> alcohol" from I beleive Redwood City PD. I said at the time I took that
> number with a grain of salt.

It's so absurd that your excuse isn't credible. You were just trying to
make a case using whatever info you could find.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet>
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>> Yes, I neglected to point that out. But, the majority of samples
>>> shouldn't
>>> have been affected by this. Not to a level of .04% anyway.
>>
>> Actually, that's not true. The NTSB believes that the majority of
>> cases where toxicology found alcohol in the system are indeed due to
>> this. The true magnitude of the drinking-and-flying accident rate is
>> acknowledged by the NTSB to be tiny.
>
> That may well be the case but could one of the reasons it is tiny is that
> the FAA makes those that go through rehab wait 2 years and jump through
> hoops to get thier medical back? That issue is what got this thread
> started in the first place.

It could be. Got any evidence of this? *That* is the issue that got this
thread started.

I'm actually quite pleased at the lack of knee-jerk responses that distil
the issue to a pro/con drug use one; complete with the attendant political
arguments and accusations of perfidy and substance abuse. Things are
looking up on Usenet!

moo

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet>
>>> "Margy" > wrote in message news:rChDe.9$fb1.
>>>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>>>> Between 1994-1998 765 FATAL accidents involving drugs or drink.
>>>> Did you READ the report. It was 7% not 76% percent 124 out of 1683.
>>>> The rate varied by year from 4% to 9%. Now I would argue that 1% is
>>>> still too high, but I know perfection isn't going to ever happen.
>>>
>>> You can argue that .00001% is still too high. But, no matter what you
>>> argue, guys like gig will still waste time with inflammatory rhetoric.
>>> Watch. This will get us no closer to answering the original questions.
>>> The mere mention of drugs or alcohol brings out the government as nanny
>>> zealots toute de suite. The results are predictable. Same problems.
>>> No answers save more regulations and enforcement. Are people who go
>>> through rehab a greater risk or not? Simple question, eh?
>>>
>>
>> Inflammatory rhetoric? Your the guy who thinks that people with a KNOWN
>> drug or alcohol problem shouldn't have to wait a certain amount of time
>> after treatment before they get thier flight privlages back. Jeez.
>
> I didn't say that.

You were against the 2 year period.

>>
>> The report I listed was just to counter your proposal that the FAA didn't
>> even study the issue.
>
> That either. So get stuffed.

Sure you did I believe the phrase used was "This is just rubber stamp BS" >

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> news:qtsDe.40436$DC2.8316@okepread01...
>>
>> "Margy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Did you READ the report. It was 7% not 76% percent 124 out of 1683. The
>>> rate varied by year from 4% to 9%. Now I would argue that 1% is still
>>> too high, but I know perfection isn't going to ever happen.
>>>
>>
>> Margy, the 76% number came from a VERY quick Google of "Aircraft
>> accidents alcohol" from I beleive Redwood City PD. I said at the time I
>> took that number with a grain of salt.
>
> It's so absurd that your excuse isn't credible. You were just trying to
> make a case using whatever info you could find.
>
OK dog boy. I clearly in the post where I mentioned the 76% number said
where it was from and that it should be taken with a grain of salt. I have
yet to see any data from you that disproved that those who have been through
rehab are equal or less likely to be have an aircraft accident.

And guess what I don't have to prove my case the FAA is doing exactly what I
would do so if you think their policy on post rehab flying should be changed
you are going to have to come up with the data to sway them. Have fun.

[Happy Dog]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet>

> OK dog boy. I clearly in the post where I mentioned the 76% number said
> where it was from and that it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Only an idiot or someone unfamiliar with aviation would not instantly
dismiss it. Pick one.

> I have yet to see any data from you that disproved that those who have
> been through rehab are equal or less likely to be have an aircraft
> accident.

Stupid and uninteresting. Know why?
>
> And guess what I don't have to prove my case the FAA is doing exactly what
> I would do so if you think their policy on post rehab flying should be
> changed you are going to have to come up with the data to sway them. Have
> fun.

And you would base this decision on what? You'd made up your mind before
you even went looking. Thanks for playing.

moo

[Judah]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in
:

> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet>
>> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
>>> The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait
>>> two years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function
>>> regularly tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or
>>> alcohol. That sounds unreasonable to me. I understand that they're
>>> going to appeal.
>>>
>> Why would that seem unreasonable?
>
> Because they no longer use drugs or alcohol. I don't see how the risk
> is significantly changed by waiting. I'm curious as to whether
> everyone who goes through rehab gets their medical revoked for two
> years. I really doubt it.
>
> moo

So then what seems reasonable to you? At what point do YOU consider someone
who has stopped using drugs or alcohol to no longer be addicted?

2 Months?

2 Days?

2 Hours?

2 Minutes?

When it comes to government regulation, there needs to be a standard
defined for what qualifies someone as being recovered. The FAA chose 2
years, probably based on some set of statistics somewhere, or perhaps based
on someone else's standard. What is the basis for your dispute?

[Happy Dog]

"Judah" > wrote in message
>> Because they no longer use drugs or alcohol. I don't see how the risk
>> is significantly changed by waiting. I'm curious as to whether
>> everyone who goes through rehab gets their medical revoked for two
>> years. I really doubt it.

> So then what seems reasonable to you? At what point do YOU consider
> someone
> who has stopped using drugs or alcohol to no longer be addicted?
>
> 2 Months?
> 2 Days?
> 2 Hours?
> 2 Minutes?

Somewhere between the last one and never. You?
>
> When it comes to government regulation, there needs to be a standard
> defined for what qualifies someone as being recovered. The FAA chose 2
> years, probably based on some set of statistics somewhere, or perhaps
> based
> on someone else's standard. What is the basis for your dispute?

"Probably"? That's my issue. I haven't seen an explanation of why this
figure was chosen or whether it's negotiable. Those are reasonable
questions, no?

moo

[Judah]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in
:

> "Judah" > wrote in message
>>> Because they no longer use drugs or alcohol. I don't see how the
>>> risk is significantly changed by waiting. I'm curious as to
>>> whether everyone who goes through rehab gets their medical revoked
>>> for two years. I really doubt it.
>
>> So then what seems reasonable to you? At what point do YOU consider
>> someone who has stopped using drugs or alcohol to no longer be
>> addicted?
>>
>> 2 Months?
>> 2 Days?
>> 2 Hours?
>> 2 Minutes?
>
> Somewhere between the last one and never. You?

Doesn't really matter what I think - I'm not the one who told the
student what he had to do to get his medical...

>>
>> When it comes to government regulation, there needs to be a standard
>> defined for what qualifies someone as being recovered. The FAA chose
>> 2 years, probably based on some set of statistics somewhere, or
>> perhaps based on someone else's standard. What is the basis for your
>> dispute?
>
> "Probably"? That's my issue. I haven't seen an explanation of why
> this figure was chosen or whether it's negotiable. Those are
> reasonable questions, no?

Sure. But your OP indicated that you felt that 2 years was
unreasonable. In fact, up until this post, your comments seemed to be
consistent along the lines that you believed 2 years was too long. Even
your quoted comment at the top of this message, "I don't see how the
risk is significantly changed by waiting," seems to be consistent with
that sentiment.

Did you ask the people who handed down the requirements to the student
if the decision is negotiable? Did you ask them what their basis was?
What did they say?

[Happy Dog]

"Judah" > wrote in message news:
>>> So then what seems reasonable to you? At what point do YOU consider
>>> someone who has stopped using drugs or alcohol to no longer be
>>> addicted?
>>>
>>> 2 Months?
>>> 2 Days?
>>> 2 Hours?
>>> 2 Minutes?
>>
>> Somewhere between the last one and never. You?
>
> Doesn't really matter what I think - I'm not the one who told the
> student what he had to do to get his medical...

Thanks for stating the obvious. I'm looking for some thoughts though.

>> "Probably"? That's my issue. I haven't seen an explanation of why
>> this figure was chosen or whether it's negotiable. Those are
>> reasonable questions, no?
>
> Sure. But your OP indicated that you felt that 2 years was
> unreasonable. In fact, up until this post, your comments seemed to be
> consistent along the lines that you believed 2 years was too long. Even
> your quoted comment at the top of this message, "I don't see how the
> risk is significantly changed by waiting," seems to be consistent with
> that sentiment.

Without defining "waiting", you can't know this. And, I haven't seen much
science behind any recommendation for waiting periods.
>
> Did you ask the people who handed down the requirements to the student
> if the decision is negotiable? Did you ask them what their basis was?
> What did they say?

They're not available for comment. I'm still looking.

moo