drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

"C J Campbell" wrote in message

If I drink a pint of Guiness I'll puke. Does that make me an
alcoholic?

If someone continues to drink even though it makes him sick, I would say
that person may be an alcoholic,

Notice the "If." IF I jump off a bridge, I'll die. That is fact. Saying
so doesn't make me suicidal.

An alcoholic is a person who continues to drink when common sense says
that
he should quit.

Well, I admit to being a caffeine addict.

-c

"Happy Dog" wrote in message news:RKmwd.25324$%

The FAA has found that about
0.06 percent of pilots and air traffic controllers have a confirmed
positive
drug test, which works out to a cost of about $45,000 per positive result.
However, the programs are likely to continue because of public worries
about
safety. "

The off-net conversation I had went in this direction as well. The
secondary concern, beyond safety, is perception of safety by passengers.
Ultimately, the next question has been: Is it worth it to General Aviation
to test for drugs simply to ease the fear of the public?

-c

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
I don't see enough evidence of that in
this case.

Only 'casue you're not lookin:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...iving/s1p1.htm

--
Jim Fisher

"Jim Fisher"
But where here is the evidence that this type of abuse was a problem in
the aviation community to begin with and that the huge financial cost and
emotional burden of ther invasion of privacy is warranted? Nobody's
posted it here yet.

I know it won't do a damn bit of good to give you what you ask for but if
you wanna take your head outta your ass long enough to educate yourself,
take a look at the following Mooboy:

Adorable. Feel better now? Gotta love Usenet, eh?

"For on-demand (unscheduled) air taxi fatal accidents, the percentage of
those pilots tested that were positive for alcohol declined from 7.4 in
the 1975 to 1981 period to 1.8 in the 1983 to 1988 period (NTSB, 1984 and
NTSB, 1992). "

Hey stoopid, the topic is random drug testing. The above isn't about drugs
and does not address use of intoxicants away from the job.

"We have already reported to you that the Safety Board began documenting
the abuse of alcohol and other drugs in transportation accidents in the
1970's. By the early 1980's, it became clear that a problem existed in all
modes of transportation and that not much was being done about it."

The problem of intoxication by drugs in aviation accidents was almost
non-existent. Read the part labled "Aviation". Where is the decline in
accident related drug intoxication?

"From 1983 to 1988, no pilot in a fatal commuter crash tested positive for
alcohol. However, the pilot of one of these fatal crashes did test
positive for a metabolite of cocaine.

One. Wow. Serious problem. And I'd like to see how they concluded (they
did) that cocaine intoxication was a factor in the crash.

(******)Clearly, progress has been made and the aviation industry has now
been permitted to reduce the random drug test rate to 25 percent of
covered employees(*******)."

Exactly what progress? Show me the numbers that identify a significant
safety problem that has been effectively reduced by random drug testing.
And, if it's so effective, why are they reducing the test rate? Hello?
Does that make sense to you?

arf

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
Exactly what progress? Show me the numbers that identify a significant
safety problem that has been effectively reduced by random drug testing.
And, if it's so effective, why are they reducing the test rate? Hello?
Does that make sense to you?

You can't read with your head up your ass, Mooboy. Try again. The article
I posted is exactly what you've been requesting and is complete with plenty
of sources for the facts presented. The main fact presented is that DRUG
TESTING IS EFFECTIVE.

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
Exactly what progress? Show me the numbers that identify a significant
safety problem that has been effectively reduced by random drug testing.
And, if it's so effective, why are they reducing the test rate? Hello?
Does that make sense to you?

You can't read with your head up your ass, Mooboy. Try again. The
article I posted is exactly what you've been requesting and is complete
with plenty of sources for the facts presented. The main fact presented
is that DRUG TESTING IS EFFECTIVE.

Kind of makes you look lame when you snip almost the entire response and
then drop a few insults and shout your claim again. Children are welcome on
Usenet though. The article you posted isn't what I requested and I
explained why. What is it EFFECTIVE at doing? Hey stoopid, if there wasn't
a significant problem with drug related accidents, what, exactly is the
purpose it serves? How are we all significantly safer because of it? The
evidence posted here does not address this issue. So, wise guy, tell us how
it's effective and how this justifies the cost and invasion of privacy.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
The issue I was raising is efficacy and cost effectiveness. And, the
pro-testing camp don't have solid evidence that random drug testing of
aviation professionals is either. The debate quickly degrades into
name-calling and accusations that people who oppose it are crazy or drug
users themselves. But, stick to the efficacy and cost-effectiveness
issues
and it doesn't look justified. It's promoted by hype and hysteria.

How would the pro-testing camp measure the lost productivity caused by a
chronic marijuana smoker? Even if the chronic user isn't under the
influence, studies have shown that his/her performance is not 100%. Chronic
users exhibit less ambition (more sick days), more anxiety (less likely to
get along with customers and co-workers), and short term memory impairment
(forget the landing gear). These traits are measured in scientific
laboratories.

A pilot exhibiting symptoms similar to those of a chronic user can cost me
more in one day than my drug abatement program costs for a whole year. It's
hard enough to contain costs for stupid pilot tricks without adding dopers
to the roster. Are you including these costs in your cost-effectiveness
study?

Add this cost to your study. If an accident happened, what would the
plaintif's lawyers have to say about employing a doper? "Ladies and
gentlemen of the jury, consider the negligence of this operator who put a
stoner in command of a airplane transporting the public. He unneccessarily
endangered my clients." At that point, it doesn't matter if the pilot wasn't
stoned. The image that a failed test will imprint on a jury will still be
there. Is this cost in your cost-effectiveness study?

Here's a cost you may have forgotten in your study. Eighty-five percent of
my clientele are repeat customers. They (most anyway) are of high social
standing. My business would suffer immeasureably if word of mouth spread
that I was using stoners for pilots. How does your study quantify this cost?

Life is unfair. All things aviation are a compromise. You want to get paid
to fly, or you want to join former Miami Dolphin Ricki Williams?

D.

"Happy Dog" wrote in message Kind of makes you look lame ...

You stooped to name calling too, which doesn't help your argument.

The article you posted isn't what I requested and I explained why.

Actually, the Metroliner accident is what you requested. The coroner
concluded that the captain wasn't high at the time of the accident, but his
prior cocaine usage had left him fatigued which did contribute to the crash.
He had used cocaine during his time off, which you argue in favor of, and
then crashed because of the after effects. Kind of ruins your argument.

How are we all significantly safer because of it? The
evidence posted here does not address this issue. So, wise guy, tell us
how
it's effective and how this justifies the cost and invasion of privacy.

You argue that this crash was statistically insignificant. I ask you-
WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THOSE 17 LIVES?
How many lost lives will justify drug testing? How many crashes does it take
for you to justify drug testing?

Without passengers, there would be no airlines. The evidence from the NTSB
justifies testing if for no other reason than public perception. Most people
are very afraid of flying. Drug and alcohol testing lends a little bit more
confidence to them. Would you want a stoner pilot with your family aboard?

As for privacy, you give that up long before the drug testing phase of
training.

D.

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message

The issue I was raising is efficacy and cost effectiveness. And, the
pro-testing camp don't have solid evidence that random drug testing of
aviation professionals is either. The debate quickly degrades into
name-calling and accusations that people who oppose it are crazy or drug
users themselves. But, stick to the efficacy and cost-effectiveness
issues and it doesn't look justified. It's promoted by hype and hysteria.

How would the pro-testing camp measure the lost productivity caused by a
chronic marijuana smoker? Even if the chronic user isn't under the
influence, studies have shown that his/her performance is not 100%.
Chronic
users exhibit less ambition (more sick days), more anxiety (less likely to
get along with customers and co-workers), and short term memory impairment
(forget the landing gear). These traits are measured in scientific
laboratories.

Aviation professionals do all the above just fine without the use of drugs.
And, for god knows how many times, nobody is advocating that addicts or
chronic abusers of anything be in a position to put others at risk.

Add this cost to your study. If an accident happened, what would the
plaintif's lawyers have to say about employing a doper? "Ladies and
gentlemen of the jury, consider the negligence of this operator who put a
stoner in command of a airplane transporting the public. He unneccessarily
endangered my clients."

If that was more than a very remote possibility, I'd agree. But it isn't

Here's a cost you may have forgotten in your study. Eighty-five percent of
my clientele are repeat customers. They (most anyway) are of high social
standing. My business would suffer immeasureably if word of mouth spread
that I was using stoners for pilots. How does your study quantify this
cost?

Again, this scenario wasn't a problem before testing so it hasn't been
significantly reduced. Did you note the quote about the reduction in random
testing? If it was effective, why on earth is would it be reduced? Doesn't
this sort of logic look like the FAA at its worst?

Life is unfair. All things aviation are a compromise. You want to get paid
to fly, or you want to join former Miami Dolphin Ricki Williams?

That logical fallacy is called "False Dilemma". Your position is not backed
by the evidence.

moo

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message news:fANwd.4675
"Happy Dog" wrote in message Kind of makes you look lame ...

You stooped to name calling too, which doesn't help your argument.

Only after the other poster resorted to it. Look it up.

The article you posted isn't what I requested and I explained why.

Actually, the Metroliner accident is what you requested. The coroner
concluded that the captain wasn't high at the time of the accident, but
his
prior cocaine usage had left him fatigued which did contribute to the
crash.
He had used cocaine during his time off, which you argue in favor of,

Huh? Did I argue that? No, I didn't.

then crashed because of the after effects. Kind of ruins your argument.

Only if you're unable to follow it.

How are we all significantly safer because of it? The
evidence posted here does not address this issue. So, wise guy, tell us
how it's effective and how this justifies the cost and invasion of
privacy.

You argue that this crash was statistically insignificant. I ask you-
WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THOSE 17 LIVES?

You're big on hyperbole but short on facts. Did I argue that this crash was
statistically insignificant? No, I didn't. BTW, the pilot could have had a
similar problem with alcohol and had it go undetected.

How many lost lives will justify drug testing? How many crashes does it
take
for you to justify drug testing?

Very few. But I want to see where there's been a reduction. And this
hasn't been demonstrated.

Without passengers, there would be no airlines. The evidence from the NTSB
justifies testing if for no other reason than public perception. Most
people
are very afraid of flying. Drug and alcohol testing lends a little bit
more
confidence to them. Would you want a stoner pilot with your family aboard?

Do you have a particular thing for the False Dilemma fallacy? Again, you
support your argument with claims not in evidence. Where were the stoner
pilots? In any good commercial operation, pilots who act like they're
somewhere else, for any reason or no reason, are dealt with. Where's the
evidence that there has been a significant drop in accidents because of
random testing? (I'm in favour of testing where there's probable cause.)
If you wish to argue that random testing is justified because it gives the
flying public a false sense of reduced danger, go ahead. But that's like
arguing in favour of the crazy things being dome in the name of security
now. Or do you think we're safer because of them too? Do you think that
drug testing is the best use of the funds allocated to it? Again, if public
perception is your goal, we can agree to disagree. But I still haven't seen
the evidence that the accident or incident rate has been reduced. It's more
"drugs are bad so anything that reduces their use must be good". FWIW, I
have seen pilots with alcohol abuse problems whos ability is impaired
because of them. I'll bet almost anyone who's been around a commercial
operation for long has. They don't fly while intoxicated, but they're
affected just the same. But they can't be busted by any kind of testing.
They are dealt with other ways. Just they always have been.

As for privacy, you give that up long before the drug testing phase of
training.

Sure. My medical records are in half dozen different places now. I don't
like it but I can't see any easy way to improve that part of the process.
But I see no reason for people to give up more privacy without good reason.

moo