drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

Casual debate he

Something like .1% of the pilots randomly tested for alcohol and drugs (one
was .5%, I believe) tested positive in 2004. That's one in a thousand. As
a result of this percentage, the random test rate will stay at 25% for drugs
and something similar for alcohol.

Meanwhile, commercial pilots and operators say that the cost of a
Part-135-type drug and alcohol testing program is nearly cost prohibitive,
so it can be argued that this sort of testing program hurts General
Aviation.

The discussion is, is the aviation community's drug and alcohol habit--or
lack thereof--influenced by drug testing policy; do pilots obstain because
of drug tests, or do they obstain because they're pilots? Would it be
better for the aviation community to test after accidents only, and do away
with the current random test practice and the associated expenses? 'Cause
if you have an accident, they're going to test you anyway, correct?

What are peoples' thoughts and experiences?

-c

It's a feel-good program for the government, allowing them to show the
public that they are "doing something." It has no practical effect.

Bob Gardner

"gatt" wrote in message
...

Casual debate he

Something like .1% of the pilots randomly tested for alcohol and drugs
(one
was .5%, I believe) tested positive in 2004. That's one in a thousand.
As
a result of this percentage, the random test rate will stay at 25% for
drugs
and something similar for alcohol.

Meanwhile, commercial pilots and operators say that the cost of a
Part-135-type drug and alcohol testing program is nearly cost prohibitive,
so it can be argued that this sort of testing program hurts General
Aviation.

The discussion is, is the aviation community's drug and alcohol habit--or
lack thereof--influenced by drug testing policy; do pilots obstain because
of drug tests, or do they obstain because they're pilots? Would it be
better for the aviation community to test after accidents only, and do
away
with the current random test practice and the associated expenses? 'Cause
if you have an accident, they're going to test you anyway, correct?

What are peoples' thoughts and experiences?

-c

I think "probably cause" testing only would be more cost effective. The
war on drugs is just one more handout to businesses involved in it.

I don't drink, smoke or do drugs because I wish to take care
of my health and continue to fly. Most pilots I know take good
care of their health for the same reason. There's always going
to be the occasional fool who feels differently.

Keep in mind however that drug testing is a BIG business and
the vendors providing these services are going to lobby any
way they can to keep it going.


"gatt" wrote in message
...

Casual debate he

Something like .1% of the pilots randomly tested for alcohol and drugs
(one
was .5%, I believe) tested positive in 2004. That's one in a thousand.
As
a result of this percentage, the random test rate will stay at 25% for
drugs
and something similar for alcohol.

Meanwhile, commercial pilots and operators say that the cost of a
Part-135-type drug and alcohol testing program is nearly cost prohibitive,
so it can be argued that this sort of testing program hurts General
Aviation.

The discussion is, is the aviation community's drug and alcohol habit--or
lack thereof--influenced by drug testing policy; do pilots obstain because
of drug tests, or do they obstain because they're pilots? Would it be
better for the aviation community to test after accidents only, and do
away
with the current random test practice and the associated expenses? 'Cause
if you have an accident, they're going to test you anyway, correct?

What are peoples' thoughts and experiences?

-c

Bob Gardner wrote:

It's a feel-good program for the government, allowing them to show the
public that they are "doing something." It has no practical effect.

snip

If they were really serious about highway safety they'd give people a
'driving' test, not a drug test. Same applies to pilots.

I don't much care if you're high, liquored up, haven't slept in three days,
or just plain incompetent. The victims are just as dead.

--
Frank....H

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:32:06 GMT, "OtisWinslow"
wrote in
::

Keep in mind however that drug testing is a BIG business and
the vendors providing these services are going to lobby any
way they can to keep it going.

Very BIG:
http://www.questdiagnostics.com/empl...ugtesting.html

"gatt" wrote in message
The discussion is, is the aviation community's drug and alcohol habit--or
lack thereof--influenced by drug testing policy; do pilots obstain because
of drug tests, or do they obstain because they're pilots?

I personally think drug testing throughout all areas of transportation is a
Very Good Idea.

Back in my younger years, I quit smoking pot because I got a job that did
random drug testing. That's good for y'all 'cause I was in charge of
remotely controlling the flows and pressures for thousands of miles of very
high pressure natural gas pipeline. It would not be good if I forgot to
open or shut a valve when I was supposed to do so.

I didn't smoke pot while flying because that would be stupid.

I don't smoke pot now because my short term memory is bad enough as it is.

Testing kits aren't "prohibitively expensive" as your buddy says.
Twenty-five people can be tested for about $250.00. That may be "expensive"
depending on how many you must do but I would not put it in the
"prohibitively expensive" category.

Either way, the cost of NOT doing pre, post and interim drug screening would
be much higher than I'm willing to pay. Too damn many people are like I
used to be.

--
Jim Fisher

gatt wrote:
Something like .1% of the pilots randomly tested for alcohol and
drugs (one
was .5%, I believe) tested positive in 2004. That's one in a
thousand. As
a result of this percentage, the random test rate will stay at 25%
for drugs
and something similar for alcohol.

I seem to recall that the false positive rate for the lower-cost tests
(those that don't cost hundreds of dollars per test) is also something
like 0.1%. Perhaps that means the actual rate is zero, and the only
effect of the policy is to increase costs and ruin careers while doing
nothing to improve safety. That would be about par for the FAA.

Meanwhile, commercial pilots and operators say that the cost of a
Part-135-type drug and alcohol testing program is nearly cost
prohibitive,
so it can be argued that this sort of testing program hurts General
Aviation.

Which suggests to me that they're probably not using the expensive
tests with low false-positive potential.

The discussion is, is the aviation community's drug and alcohol
habit--or
lack thereof--influenced by drug testing policy; do pilots obstain
because
of drug tests, or do they obstain because they're pilots?

Pilots don't abstain. I know lots of professional pilots, and as a
whole they're the heaviest drinkers I know. They don't drink when
they're flying, though. I also know quite a few who quit smoking dope
after testing kicked in. None of them was ever high on the job,
though. I weigh in solidly on the "Testing is a waste of time and
money" side of the equation.

What are peoples' thoughts and experiences?

In my last job, we all ****ed in a bottle. We worked with radioactive
materials in refineries and chemical plants, so it just made sense.
Yeah, right.

The only positive that ever came up was from my boss - who was rabidly
anti-drug. He tested positive for opiates (heroin). He screamed
bloody murder, and because he was a senior manager and not a peon, an
investigation was done. There was a retest, which also showed positive
for opiates, but at a lower concentration. However, when the sample
was sent to a proper lab, it turned out to be a false positive - a
related chemical which is a breakdown product of poppy seeds. That
poppyseed bagel did him in.

In spite of this, I found the remains of a marijuana cigarette (a
roach) in the bathroom of our shop - only used by employees who were on
the program. Somehow they were passing the random tests - meaning they
had figured out a way to beat it. Truth is, I know exactly who was
high on the job - it was obvious from the quality of the work.
However, I couldn't have him fired for it - he was passing the tests.
One fine day he missed not one but THREE flights as I waited for him at
the airport and the customer got ****ed. We never got another contract
at that facility again. He was fired for this.

I don't have much respect for drug testing. I think it's a way for
lazy managers to hand over the tough decisions to a technician.
Michael

gatt wrote:
Something like .1% of the pilots randomly tested for alcohol and
drugs (one
was .5%, I believe) tested positive in 2004. That's one in a
thousand. As
a result of this percentage, the random test rate will stay at 25%
for drugs
and something similar for alcohol.

I seem to recall that the false positive rate for the lower-cost tests
(those that don't cost hundreds of dollars per test) is also something
like 0.1%. Perhaps that means the actual rate is zero, and the only
effect of the policy is to increase costs and ruin careers while doing
nothing to improve safety. That would be about par for the FAA.

Meanwhile, commercial pilots and operators say that the cost of a
Part-135-type drug and alcohol testing program is nearly cost
prohibitive,
so it can be argued that this sort of testing program hurts General
Aviation.

Which suggests to me that they're probably not using the expensive
tests with low false-positive potential.

The discussion is, is the aviation community's drug and alcohol
habit--or
lack thereof--influenced by drug testing policy; do pilots obstain
because
of drug tests, or do they obstain because they're pilots?

Pilots don't abstain. I know lots of professional pilots, and as a
whole they're the heaviest drinkers I know. They don't drink when
they're flying, though. I also know quite a few who quit smoking dope
after testing kicked in. None of them was ever high on the job,
though. I weigh in solidly on the "Testing is a waste of time and
money" side of the equation.

What are peoples' thoughts and experiences?

In my last job, we all ****ed in a bottle. We worked with radioactive
materials in refineries and chemical plants, so it just made sense.
Yeah, right.

The only positive that ever came up was from my boss - who was rabidly
anti-drug. He tested positive for opiates (heroin). He screamed
bloody murder, and because he was a senior manager and not a peon, an
investigation was done. There was a retest, which also showed positive
for opiates, but at a lower concentration. However, when the sample
was sent to a proper lab, it turned out to be a false positive - a
related chemical which is a breakdown product of poppy seeds. That
poppyseed bagel did him in.

In spite of this, I found the remains of a marijuana cigarette (a
roach) in the bathroom of our shop - only used by employees who were on
the program. Somehow they were passing the random tests - meaning they
had figured out a way to beat it. Truth is, I know exactly who was
high on the job - it was obvious from the quality of the work.
However, I couldn't have him fired for it - he was passing the tests.
One fine day he missed not one but THREE flights as I waited for him at
the airport and the customer got ****ed. We never got another contract
at that facility again. He was fired for this.

I don't have much respect for drug testing. I think it's a way for
lazy managers to hand over the tough decisions to a technician.
Michael

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
. ..
[...]
Back in my younger years, I quit smoking pot because I got a job that did
random drug testing.

Did you quit smoking pot because they were doing drug testing? Or because
the job was incompatible with smoking pot?

The former is a pretty idiotic approach to the issue, but the latter seems
more consistent with what you wrote about smoking pot and flying, and does
not invoke drug testing as a solution.

[...]
Testing kits aren't "prohibitively expensive" as your buddy says.
Twenty-five people can be tested for about $250.00. That may be
"expensive" depending on how many you must do but I would not put it in
the "prohibitively expensive" category.

$10/person isn't too bad for a company with 25 people to test. But there
are plenty of one-man operations that are also required to undergo drug
testing (they contract with a testing company, who randomly selects from
their "clients" to determine who will be tested). I admit, I don't know
what the cost is, but I can easily imagine that it's prohibitive at small
scales.

Either way, the cost of NOT doing pre, post and interim drug screening
would be much higher than I'm willing to pay. Too damn many people are
like I used to be.

IMHO, if a person is sober on the job, it doesn't matter what they are doing
off the job. Drug testing does not distinguish between the two, and
discriminates against people simply because of their lifestyle.

Maybe if I thought that drug testing was really being done out of a genuine
concern for people's safety, I'd feel differently. But I'm not convinced
that drug testing enhances safety all that much, and it's clear that the
primary push for drug testing is being done by the people who stand to make
lots of money doing it (as with various security regulations and similar
social expenditures).

Pete

gatt wrote:

The discussion is, is the aviation community's drug and alcohol habit--or
lack thereof--influenced by drug testing policy; do pilots obstain because
of drug tests, or do they obstain because they're pilots?

I abstain from drugs because I can't afford the penalties if I were caught --
haven't done any illegal drugs in well over 20 years. I'm not on any sort of
test plan, so testing is not a factor. I obey the FARs as far as drinking goes
because I wouldn't want to find out the hard way that the Feds are right about
it.

Would it be
better for the aviation community to test after accidents only, and do away
with the current random test practice and the associated expenses? 'Cause
if you have an accident, they're going to test you anyway, correct?

If you have an accident, what good is the test? Since there are people out there
who would fly while intoxicated, I think it likely that random testing prevents
this to some extent.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.