drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

"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

"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

"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

"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.

"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.

"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...

"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

"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

"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

"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