Government to Consider Random Alcohol testing for pilots

[porcsord]

http://globalnews.ca/news/3254770/alcoh ... m=Facebook

Transport Minister Marc Garneau said he is open to hearing arguments in favour of randomly testing airline pilots for alcohol consumption, a measure not currently practised in Canada.

“We will welcome discussion on [random testing] and I look forward to hearing from all quarters about what their thoughts are on random testing,” he said in an interview with Global News.

[Blueontop]

Because pilot intoxication is such a epidemic that it would require such extreme measures another knee jerk reaction to a statistically small problem. Why is it ok to act like pilots reporting to work drunk is such pervasive problem yet the issue of fatigue which has just the same effects isn't that big of an issue that it requires a knee jerk reaction of its own?.... a simple poll, how many of us have shown up to work after a few drinks and how many of us have shown up fatigued and continued flying for days on end when our cognitive abilities are as impaired to the extent that we might as well be actively drinking on the flight deck?!

[Roar]

a simple poll, how many of us have shown up to work after a few drinks and how many of us have shown up fatigued and continued flying for days on end when our cognitive abilities are as impaired to the extent that we might as well be actively drinking on the flight deck?!

Neither.

[Cat Driver]

how many of us have shown up to work after a few drinks and how many of us have shown up fatigued and continued flying for days on end when our cognitive abilities are as impaired to the extent that we might as well be actively drinking on the flight deck?!

Any pilot who does that should have their pilots license at least suspended for a period of time or cancelled permanently in my opinion.

[goingnowherefast]

Don't need to be that fatigued to be impaired the equivalent of 1 or 2 drinks.
A 5th approach at the end of a 13hr duty day is probably about the same as 2 or 3 drinks before showing up in the morning.

[Mick G]

Won't happen....would be a breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This will end up as a circus show in court, wasting taxpayers money and squadroning resources.

[single_swine_herder]

Because pilot intoxication is such a epidemic that it would require such extreme measures another knee jerk reaction to a statistically small problem. Why is it ok to act like pilots reporting to work drunk is such pervasive problem yet the issue of fatigue which has just the same effects isn't that big of an issue that it requires a knee jerk reaction of its own?.... a simple poll, how many of us have shown up to work after a few drinks and how many of us have shown up fatigued and continued flying for days on end when our cognitive abilities are as impaired to the extent that we might as well be actively drinking on the flight deck?!

This concept enjoys some traction compared to fatigue because of the coverage in the news media.

It is a real problem (albeit tiny segment of licence holders) that has come to the attention of Joe and Jane Public. It is perceived that something must be seen to be done, and who knows .... there may even be a few votes in it or a favourable Liberal Party telephone poll done by the CBC.)

Its the thought that something needs to be seen to be done which is the mother of many poor pieces of legislation to satisfy the "If it only saves one life, its worth it" crowd.

SSH

[rxl]

Won't happen....would be a breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This will end up as a circus show in court, wasting taxpayers money and squadroning resources.

Could the "notwithstanding clause" be put into operation here?

[HiFlyChick]

Won't happen....would be a breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This will end up as a circus show in court, wasting taxpayers money and squadroning resources.

Could the "notwithstanding clause" be put into operation here?

Not looking to start a flame war, but I'm interested in the argument against submitting voluntarily to a drug test if asked. If you haven't been drinking and have nothing to hide, why not just pee in the cup...?

[cdnpilot77]

Won't happen....would be a breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This will end up as a circus show in court, wasting taxpayers money and squadroning resources.

Could the "notwithstanding clause" be put into operation here?

Not looking to start a flame war, but I'm interested in the argument against submitting voluntarily to a drug test if asked. If you haven't been drinking and have nothing to hide, why not just pee in the cup...?

How many women do you think would mind if we asked in an interview if you are or intend to attempt to become pregnant within the next 24months?

Slippery slope when you start removing a persons rights.

[DanWEC]

Ah you beat me to it, slippery slope indeed when people are subjected to these.
However, it's still an arbitrary line that has to be drawn somewhere if you use the charter.
What's of equal concern is that it would open innocent people up to a fallible test and all the issues that come with it. Blackstone's thing about 10 guity going free over one innocent being imprisoned applies.

On the original topic, Garneau, again, is all about spending his time putting out the fires with public exposure and not addressing policy and issues with actual relevence to aviation. Cabineteese I suppose.

[North Shore]

Won't happen....would be a breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This will end up as a circus show in court, wasting taxpayers money and squadroning resources.

Could the "notwithstanding clause" be put into operation here?

Not looking to start a flame war, but I'm interested in the argument against submitting voluntarily to a drug test if asked. If you haven't been drinking and have nothing to hide, why not just pee in the cup...?

If I've got nothing to hide, then you have no reason to search me...

Does Garneau pee into a cup every day before he assumes his duties in the HoC? I could argue that his responsibility for safety is a lot larger than mine...

[Black_Tusk]

Jazz taxied onto a bit of grass the other day in YVR. One of the comments on the news article was "I wonder if the sobriety test was done yet?"

The fact this is even being considered is an insult to all professional pilots, and gives creit those kinds of comments and attitude towards us by the public.

I hope the union shuts it down from the get go.

I am not one to say "I have nothing to hide so whatever." I don't have anything to hide, but this just lowers the bar and makes it seem like it's an epidemic/issue among pilots when it's not. And goes against the Canadian Labour code.

First it's Pilots, then it's taxi drivers, then bus drivers and train drivers, then what... teachers? To make sure they are "fit" to teach? Bring on big brother.

[Rockie]

"Insult to pilots" is why pilots don't like the 2 in the cockpit rule, to which I say "grow up".

This however is a question of individual rights which is another matter entirely. Slippery slope indeed.

[complexintentions]

I'm all in favour of individual rights, but which ones exactly are being infringed upon with drug/alcohol testing?

Pilots' standards are tested regularly: in the simulator for technical proficiency and in the medical examiner's office for health - how is being required to prove you meet a standard of sobriety any different?

I'm asking from a viewpoint of logic, not because I believe increased drug and alcohol testing will actually contribute one iota towards safety. Of course it's idiotic, but this is the age we live in. People are stupid and scared. Bad combo.

I'm surprised you're troubled by this Rockie, given your defense of the two-crew-on-the-flightdeck rule. There's far more likelihood of an impaired pilot than a suicidal/homicidal one. Of course NEITHER one is statistically significant but hey, it's all about perception with Joe Q. Public.

[Rockie]

Drug and alcohol testing in Canada can only be forced upon a person if they are suspected of breaking a law. Same reason you cannot be subjected to a random search and seizure by the police. And no, this is not the same as random screening at an airport.

2 in the cockpit is, well, 2 in the cockpit. Perhaps you could tell me how your rights are being violated with that?

Here are a couple of links briefly explaining some case law in Canada. While there are circumstances where it may be justified, the bar is set very high.

http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/246488/e ... +Workplace

http://www.mathewsdinsdale.com/ohs-news ... gust-2015/

[goingnowherefast]

The cost of this new "screening" should be taken out of the transport minister's paycheck. I'd piss in a cup twice daily if that were the case. The only accurate way to test BAC is with more expensive blood samples anyway. We'd all start to look like heroin addicts after a while and they'd have to start testing for that

[complexintentions]

Rockie,

Ok. Try answering the question from a logical perspective, not a legal one. Laws change, are challenged, and overturned. Random testing can be introduced legally into union contracts and so on. But set aside the legal posturing for a moment.

What exactly is your logical objection to random testing?

If having an extra person in the cockpit may prevent the extremely remote chance of being locked out by a suicical colleague, what is your argument against testing that could prevent the extremely remote chance of a pilot showing up to work impaired?

[Rockie]

logically speaking locking everyone in their house when not working or under 100% surveillance coverage would drastically reduce crime. Logically speaking permanently grounding all aircraft would reduce the accident rate to zero.

Real life complicates logic though.

[complexintentions]

Nope, not an answer. Random or even testing before every flight isn't complicated. What is your objection to proving sobriety based on, specifically, besides philosophical musings?