If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
"Happy Dog" wrote in message ... [snipped] 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. Actually, you are indeed advocating a higher risk that addicts and chronic abusers be in a position to put others at risk. Without drug testing, there is no way to weed drug users out of the commercial airman pool. Your position is nothing but an increased risk to air safety. Your justification of that increased risk seems to be that the costs of drug testing are not worth the safety benefits of drug testing commercial airmen. You are mistaken. Chip, ZTL |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message
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. Actually, you are indeed advocating a higher risk that addicts and chronic abusers be in a position to put others at risk. Without drug testing, there is no way to weed drug users out of the commercial airman pool. Your position is nothing but an increased risk to air safety. Your justification of that increased risk seems to be that the costs of drug testing are not worth the safety benefits of drug testing commercial airmen. You are mistaken. So you keep saying over and over and over. But nobody's posted the evidence that "addicts and chronic abusers" were a significant problem in aviation to begin with. And, information has been posted stating that random testing is being reduced. Why has nobody tried to make sense of this? If it's beneficial, why reduce it? I think that it isn't beneficial but the FAA doesn't want to eliminate it because it gives the public a false sense of security. Whatever the reason, it makes no sense to scale back an effective program that purports to solve a very serious issue. Can you explain it? moo |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message
k.net... The method madated by the FAA ala a DOT 49 CFR Part 40 random urine drug test is called a GC/MS drug test. GC/MS drug testing has virtually *no* false positives... You can read all about it he http://www.aviationmedicine.com/drugtest.htm Nothing at that web page states that the test has a low false-positive rate. The false-positive rate isn't even inherent in a test itself. Specificity is an inherent property of a test--but even an excellent test with very high specificity can still have an arbitrarily high false-positive rate if applied to a population in which positive examples are sufficiently rare. (The web page says nothing about the test's specificity either, by the way.) Do you have support elsewhere for your "virtually no false positives" claim? --Gary |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
"Happy Dog" wrote in message
But nobody's posted the evidence that "addicts and chronic abusers" were a significant problem in aviation to begin with. Those statistics are hard to come by. Federally mandated testing relieves employers of legal liabilities arising from slander and defamation lawsuits and the like. Before the liability issues were settled by federal mandate, statistics of the kind you request were not kept because they could have been used in court. Chemical dependency problems were kept very quiet. And, information has been posted stating that random testing is being reduced. "Is?" No. It WAS reduced, in 1995. Every new program needs tweaking. The 25% level has been in place 9 years now and isn't being changed. I think that it isn't beneficial but the FAA doesn't want to eliminate it because it gives the public a false sense of security. If it wasn't beneficial, wouldn't the airlines be lobbying Congress to have the federal government pay for it? The airlines see a benefit. What is it that they see and you don't? Whatever the reason, it makes no sense to scale back an effective program that purports to solve a very serious issue. Can you explain it? Again, it isn't being scaled back. D. |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
"Happy Dog" wrote in message Only after the other poster resorted to it.
Two wrongs don't make a right. You impugn yourself by stooping to the lower level of your debator. Huh? Did I argue that? No, I didn't. You argued that a drug test will show positive even if the user is no longer under the influence. You argued that casual use during time off shouldn't be cause for failing a drug test. This crash, involving a casual user no longer under the influence, undermines your argument. Only if you're unable to follow it. I am not very intelligent. Perhaps you could write so that I can follow it. You're big on hyperbole but short on facts. Where are *your* facts? 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.) Where's the evidence that there hasn't been a significant drop? The problem with reasonable suspicion is that usually it comes too late- after the crash. Random testing keeps pilots from using before a probable cause test is needed. It's called prevention. 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. You haven't produced evidence that is hasn't been reduced. In the last few years, how many airline accidents have occurred in the US due to impairment? None. Prevention is the key. Has drug testing prevented any accidents? Can't measure something that hasn't happened. Nor have you haven't produced evidence that the costs are significant. I have already stated that the costs for my 135 operation are very, very low. In pure speculation, do you think that the Metroliner captain would have used cocaine casually if he knew that he could be randomly tested and the metabolites would cause a positive for up to 3 days afterward? I don't know about that individual, but most of my colleagues have long ago decided it isn't worth it. It's more "drugs are bad so anything that reduces their use must be good". Then you haven't paid much attention to my posts. But I see no reason for people to give up more privacy without good reason. We agree about privacy. We disagree about the good reason. D. |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ... snip many other problems. And you know what? Every single one of these people thinks that a couple of drinks a day is beneficial to their health. My life would be a lot easier without alcohol. A couple of drinks a day is beyond the level where a person will benefit from drinking alcohol. I think that everything I have read says that anything in excess of the equivalent of one shot of whiskey is excessive... |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
You argued that a drug test will show positive even if the user is no longer under the influence. You argued that casual use during time off shouldn't be cause for failing a drug test. None of that is an argument in favour of flying while affected by anything. I can be hungover and not fit for flying but have a zero BAC. That argument applies to anything that might affect an avaition professional's ability to perform up to standard. This crash, involving a casual user no longer under the influence, undermines your argument. You know it was a "casual" user how? Without knowing the details of the investigation, you can't conclude this. This pilot could have been similarly affected by any number of things. There's nothing special about fatigue from amphetimine abuse. You're big on hyperbole but short on facts. Where are *your* facts? You are the one making the claim and trying to present evidence in favour of it. Trying to shift the burden of proof is so unbecoming. 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.) Where's the evidence that there hasn't been a significant drop? Accident reports. Lordy. If there was a problem with impaired pilots and accident reports showing this, you'd be all over it. Someone here would shove the stats in my face and I'd have to admit I was wrong. (It does happen.) The problem with reasonable suspicion is that usually it comes too late- after the crash. Where are the statistics showing this? Random testing keeps pilots from using before a probable cause test is needed. It's called prevention. I'm OK with that as long as someone shows me that something is being prevented. 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. You haven't produced evidence that is hasn't been reduced. You just don't get this debate thing, do you? FWIW, the lack of evidence where there should be some and easily obtained *is* evidence that it hasn't been reduced. Nor have you haven't produced evidence that the costs are significant. I have already stated that the costs for my 135 operation are very, very low. Your company, your rules. I've no problem with that. I don't think that random testing should be outlawed. I just don't think it's effective at reducing accidents. If you sleep better at night because of it, the worst I can say is that you may be misguided or erring on the side of caution. (And I don't think, in this case, that's a bad thing.) In pure speculation, do you think that the Metroliner captain would have used cocaine casually if he knew that he could be randomly tested and the metabolites would cause a positive for up to 3 days afterward? Likely not. But we can't know this. Obviously he was enough of an idiot to be flying while severely fatigued. So, maybe. le moo |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message ... "Chip Jones" wrote in message k.net... The method madated by the FAA ala a DOT 49 CFR Part 40 random urine drug test is called a GC/MS drug test. GC/MS drug testing has virtually *no* false positives... You can read all about it he http://www.aviationmedicine.com/drugtest.htm Nothing at that web page states that the test has a low false-positive rate. The false-positive rate isn't even inherent in a test itself. Specificity is an inherent property of a test--but even an excellent test with very high specificity can still have an arbitrarily high false-positive rate if applied to a population in which positive examples are sufficiently rare. (The web page says nothing about the test's specificity either, by the way.) This is an issue that I can neither defend or attack, because I can't quantify in my mind what an "arbitrarily high" false positive rate would be in a test group like commercial aviators, where positive examples are, I agree, very rare. To me, it is sufficient that GC/MS testing is very accurate at detection and errs on the side of the person being tested (see the false positive rate in the link below from a study from NIDA comparing self reporting to GC/MS testing, which mentions the false-positive rate of the GC/MS test across the spectrum). Do you have support elsewhere for your "virtually no false positives" claim? Here are a few links: Here's one from NIDA, where the false positive rate in GC/MS drug testing for THC was 0.3 to 3.1%, and this was before any MRO action as per the DOT CFR. http://www.drugabuse.gov/pdf/monogra...6_Harrison.pdf Here are some on the accuracy of GC/MS testing from some "how to beat the test" camps. The first one says: "Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) GC/MS is the most precise method of testing, it is so precise that guidelines set by NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse) require positive immunoassay (emit ), and gas chromatography tests be confirmed by a GC-MS test. Only the Federal Government is required to follow these guidelines and unfortunately most companies due not follow these guidelines. In other words should you test positive falsely the GC-MS will confirm that you are not a drug user, however the odds your tester confirms positive tests with GC-MS are miniscule (why? It is expensive)." http://www.streetdrugtruth.com/testing/testtypes.php4 And some more from pro-drug, anti-test groups on GC/MS testing accuracy: http://cocaine.org/drugtestfaq/index.html http://www.neonjoint.com/passing_a_d..._accuracy.html http://www.ushealthtests.com/dtbasics.htm http://www.onlinepot.org/misc/****tests.htm Chip, ZTL |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net... "Gary Drescher" wrote in message ... "Chip Jones" wrote in message k.net... The method madated by the FAA ala a DOT 49 CFR Part 40 random urine drug test is called a GC/MS drug test. GC/MS drug testing has virtually *no* false positives... You can read all about it he http://www.aviationmedicine.com/drugtest.htm Nothing at that web page states that the test has a low false-positive rate. The false-positive rate isn't even inherent in a test itself. Specificity is an inherent property of a test--but even an excellent test with very high specificity can still have an arbitrarily high false-positive rate if applied to a population in which positive examples are sufficiently rare. (The web page says nothing about the test's specificity either, by the way.) This is an issue that I can neither defend or attack, because I can't quantify in my mind what an "arbitrarily high" false positive rate would be in a test group like commercial aviators, where positive examples are, I agree, very rare. Well, here are some illustrative numbers to help envision how an accurate test could produce an arbitrarily high false-positive rate. Suppose the test has a specificity of 99% and also a sensitivity of 99%. Specificity refers to the proportion of negative examples that correctly test negative; sensitivity is the proportion of positive examples that correctly test positive. Now, suppose you apply this very accurate test to a population of one million, among whom there are 1,000 positive examples. Among the 1,000 positive examples, about 990 will test positive, and about 10 will test negative. Among the 999,000 negative examples, about 989,010 will test negative, and about 9,900 will test positive. Thus, among the 10,890 who test positive, 990 are actually positive examples, and 9,900 are actually negative examples. Thus, the false-positive rate (the proportion of the positive test results that are false) is about 90.9%. Despite the use of an accurate test (99% sensitivity and specificity), more than 90% of those who test positive will actually be negative. Here's one from NIDA, where the false positive rate in GC/MS drug testing for THC was 0.3 to 3.1%, and this was before any MRO action as per the DOT CFR. Again, the false-positive rate *is not a function of just the accuracy of the test*. A highly accurate test (high sensitivity and specificity) might have an arbitrarily high or arbitrarily low false-positive rate, depending on the proportion of actual positive and negative examples in the tested population. Thus, a test's false-positive rate applied to one population tells you nothing about the same test's false-positive rate applied to a different population. --Gary |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message ... "Chip Jones" wrote in message ink.net... "Gary Drescher" wrote in message ... "Chip Jones" wrote in message k.net... The method madated by the FAA ala a DOT 49 CFR Part 40 random urine drug test is called a GC/MS drug test. GC/MS drug testing has virtually *no* false positives... You can read all about it he http://www.aviationmedicine.com/drugtest.htm Nothing at that web page states that the test has a low false-positive rate. The false-positive rate isn't even inherent in a test itself. Specificity is an inherent property of a test--but even an excellent test with very high specificity can still have an arbitrarily high false-positive rate if applied to a population in which positive examples are sufficiently rare. (The web page says nothing about the test's specificity either, by the way.) This is an issue that I can neither defend or attack, because I can't quantify in my mind what an "arbitrarily high" false positive rate would be in a test group like commercial aviators, where positive examples are, I agree, very rare. Well, here are some illustrative numbers to help envision how an accurate test could produce an arbitrarily high false-positive rate. Suppose the test has a specificity of 99% and also a sensitivity of 99%. Specificity refers to the proportion of negative examples that correctly test negative; sensitivity is the proportion of positive examples that correctly test positive. Now, suppose you apply this very accurate test to a population of one million, among whom there are 1,000 positive examples. Among the 1,000 positive examples, about 990 will test positive, and about 10 will test negative. Among the 999,000 negative examples, about 989,010 will test negative, and about 9,900 will test positive. Thus, among the 10,890 who test positive, 990 are actually positive examples, and 9,900 are actually negative examples. Thus, the false-positive rate (the proportion of the positive test results that are false) is about 90.9%. Despite the use of an accurate test (99% sensitivity and specificity), more than 90% of those who test positive will actually be negative. Here's one from NIDA, where the false positive rate in GC/MS drug testing for THC was 0.3 to 3.1%, and this was before any MRO action as per the DOT CFR. Again, the false-positive rate *is not a function of just the accuracy of the test*. A highly accurate test (high sensitivity and specificity) might have an arbitrarily high or arbitrarily low false-positive rate, depending on the proportion of actual positive and negative examples in the tested population. Thus, a test's false-positive rate applied to one population tells you nothing about the same test's false-positive rate applied to a different population. Thanks Gary, that's clearer to me now. Chip, ZTL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Testing Stick Ribs | Bob Hoover | Home Built | 3 | October 3rd 04 02:30 AM |
Bush's Attempt to Usurp the Constitution | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 20 | July 2nd 04 04:09 PM |
Showstoppers (long, but interesting questions raised) | Anonymous Spamless | Military Aviation | 0 | April 21st 04 05:09 AM |
No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil | Ewe n0 who | Military Aviation | 1 | April 9th 04 11:25 PM |
No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil | Ewe n0 who | Naval Aviation | 0 | April 7th 04 07:31 PM |