Air Tindi Fatal TSB Report To Be Released March 20, 2013

[thatlowtimer]

If you knew about lutselke then you would know that there's a pretty solid chance of the pax having THC in their system as well. If he was burning during the flight then yes, godsarecrazy, that makes 5 broken rules. Is your mind blown yet?

[Doc]

The new D & A policy affects every one at Discovery Air, not just Tindi. You should pm Doc about his thoughts on the subject.

- Toeless.

My feelings on the subject haven't changed. I can see the "reason", I just don't see that it would be fair industry wide without "probable cause".....it still flies in the face of rights and freedoms.
If there are illegal activities at 27 Elm Street, it doesn't/shouldn't give the authorities the right to search every house on the street without "probable cause". Everybody is being painted with the same brush in these cases. It's just wrong. I have no knowledge of the aforementioned incident , other than what i've read in public publications, and here. I am however, a staunch believer in due process, and the innocent until proven guilty concept.

[whodareswins]

Canadian Human Rights Commission's thoughts on random drug testing:

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/pdf/poldrgalceng.pdf

Random alcohol testing of employees in safety-sensitive positions. Alcohol testing has been found to be a reasonable requirement because alcohol testing can indicate actual impairment of ability to perform or fulfill the essential duties or requirements of the job. Random drug testing is prohibited because, given its technical limitations, drug testing can only detect the presence of drugs and not if or when an employee may have been impaired by drug use.

[Tim]

I believe the only way to test for actual impairment is a blood test. There is no breathalyser equivalent for pot or any other drug AFAIK. That being said random tests can still confirm use at some point in the past, which is enough to get you fired from most places. I agree that random tests are a violation of human rights, I don't know anyone with the bankroll and desire to fight it to the bitter end.

Canadian Human Rights Commission's thoughts on random drug testing:

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/pdf/poldrgalceng.pdf

Random alcohol testing of employees in safety-sensitive positions. Alcohol testing has been found to be a reasonable requirement because alcohol testing can indicate actual impairment of ability to perform or fulfill the essential duties or requirements of the job. Random drug testing is prohibited because, given its technical limitations, drug testing can only detect the presence of drugs and not if or when an employee may have been impaired by drug use.

., if it's not too nosy on my part, I'm curious about what was involved in your rehab or treatment process as well as any subsequent scrutiny you faced? (just so the tone of my question is clear that is not meant as an attack, I have great respect for someone who can overcome addiction of any sort)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

., if it's not too nosy on my part, I'm curious about what was involved in your rehab or treatment process as well as any subsequent scrutiny you faced? (just so the tone of my question is clear that is not meant as an attack, I have great respect for someone who can overcome addiction of any sort)

I am more than happy to relate my experience with addiction because it is so important for people to know there is an out for addicts of any addictive substance.

First I tried A.A. twice, for me it did not work.

Then one day I heard an advertisement for Schick Shadel on the radio.

http://www.schickshadel.com/

I phoned them in October of 1984 and made an appointment for January 10/ 1985.

When I had completed the rehab I went to both my T.C. doctor and T.C. and told them of my problem and gave them access to my hospital records at Schick Shadel with the understanding that if I ever drink alcohol again my license to fly be revoked permanently.

By going that route there was zero problem with T.C.

I not only have never had another drink since my treatment I have never ever had the slightest desire to have one.

A weird thing about the treatment that Schick Shadel gives is I can sit and watch people drink for ever and there is zero desire on my part to have one.

By the way it cost me $11,000.00 USD for the treatment in 1985...best money I ever spent.

[Big Bird Anonymous]

Alcholism in aviation is rampant and this one accident on media hype alone will once again shroud the fact that alcoholics are silently accepted throughout the "guild".

Exactly, and it stretches the imagination to think that regular stoners do it in isolation and no one knows about it.

were hung over to the point of absolute impairment and those that were lucky enough to survive to tell the story should be in a rehab program and suspended indefinately from flying.

I am an alcoholic who went through a treatment program, should I have been suspended from flying after the treatment program was over?

Certainly not.

[Anvil Pilot]

As with any investigation the TSB does they will build their case. Indicating the Ft. Simpson to Yellowknife flight, the fuel issue and the over water portion establish a profile. I am sure many pilots have flown that exact route, only 100 feet higher, and have avoided the exposure of a TSB report.

[SeptRepair]

I am an alcoholic who went through a treatment program, should I have been suspended from flying after the treatment program was over?

That depends, up until the time before your treatment finished, did you ever fly under the influence?

[Meatservo]

A question for Tim, or anyone who cares to volunteer an opinion,

why do you feel that random testing is a violation of human rights? I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm genuinely interested in what you think and can't decide myself. There are many things that ruffle my feathers in a way that I perceive has to do with my "rights", mostly the right to be left alone, in my case. But I am interested in what other people think of the philosophical construct of "rights". What specific right is being violated by random testing for drugs? People test us on a regular basis to ensure our level of knowledge: how is this different from being tested to ensure our level of intoxicants? Both are things we have control over, both are linked to our sense of responsibility and both are linked to employment requirements and both are linked to safety? What is the philosophical difference between filling ourselves with knowledge, and filling ourselves with intoxicating substances, that makes one thing a reasonable thing to be rewuired to defend, and the other a violation of our human rights?

Please don't assume I'm being rhetorical: I actually can't make up my mind about this and am interested in a reasonable discussion on the subject of rights.

[Doc]

If that outfit intends to keep flying and I were the chief pilot I would immediately drug-test every employee...

I hear you xs, and while I can certainly see the spirit with which you made that remark, the fact remains, you just don't have the right to do that. The big court case regarding random drug testing is still in the courts with Suncor. Frankly, the "safety sensitive" positions everyone likes to site as a "reason" for testing.......well, lets just say that everyone commuting on the 401/400/QEW is in a "safety sensitive" position....

[Doc]

A question for Tim, or anyone who cares to volunteer an opinion,

why do you feel that random testing is a violation of human rights? I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm genuinely interested in what you think and can't decide myself. There are many things that ruffle my feathers in a way that I perceive has to do with my "rights", mostly the right to be left alone, in my case. But I am interested in what other people think of the philosophical construct of "rights". What specific right is being violated by random testing for drugs? People test us on a regular basis to ensure our level of knowledge: how is this different from being tested to ensure our level of intoxicants? Both are things we have control over, both are linked to our sense of responsibility and both are linked to employment requirements and both are linked to safety? What is the philosophical difference between filling ourselves with knowledge, and filling ourselves with intoxicating substances, that makes one thing a reasonable thing to be rewuired to defend, and the other a violation of our human rights?

Please don't assume I'm being rhetorical: I actually can't make up my mind about this and am interested in a reasonable discussion on the subject of rights.

Meat, let me answer your question with a question.
Would you feel comfortable allowing Police to randomly inspect your home in the interest of finding meth labs, spousal abuse, porn rings, grow ops, and any number of nasty crap? If you personally have no reason to fear this, because YOU have nothing to hide, would you feel this would be appropriate? It is your right to not be subject to search and seizure without due process, or just cause. Are you willing to give up that right in the interest (and they would catch quite a few perpetuators, make no mistake here!) of creating a deterrent that might reduce the number of illegal activities in some homes?
Would you be willing to allow Police to randomly check the contents of your trunk, garage etc.....you see where I'm heading here, I'm sure. Personally, I'm not. I'm against random drug testing. Totally. It may well become a fact of life in aviation, due to this unfortunate occurrence.... but the ONLY way I'll subject myself to random drug testing is by court order. It saddens me greatly that this is even an issue. What's next? Blood tests and pap smears?

[Koalemos]

I'm absolutely floored when I hear the "under the bus" line. The fact is the pilot showed criminal negligence leading to the death of one passenger as well as himself, and serious injury to two others. He knowingly busted multiple air regulations, and based on the tox reports had no business being in the front seat of an aircraft.

We have a responsibility to the people who are in the aircraft with us, being flippant with that fact is irresponsible and idiotic. If you don't get that fact, you shouldn't have a commercial license. If you want to go kill yourself through stupidity, that is your concern, don't take innocent people down with you. Some people need to grow up and get their priorities straight.

[Old fella]

A question for Tim, or anyone who cares to volunteer an opinion,

why do you feel that random testing is a violation of human rights? I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm genuinely interested in what you think and can't decide myself. There are many things that ruffle my feathers in a way that I perceive has to do with my "rights", mostly the right to be left alone, in my case. But I am interested in what other people think of the philosophical construct of "rights". What specific right is being violated by random testing for drugs? People test us on a regular basis to ensure our level of knowledge: how is this different from being tested to ensure our level of intoxicants? Both are things we have control over, both are linked to our sense of responsibility and both are linked to employment requirements and both are linked to safety? What is the philosophical difference between filling ourselves with knowledge, and filling ourselves with intoxicating substances, that makes one thing a reasonable thing to be rewuired to defend, and the other a violation of our human rights?

Please don't assume I'm being rhetorical: I actually can't make up my mind about this and am interested in a reasonable discussion on the subject of rights.

Meat, let me answer your question with a question.
Would you feel comfortable allowing Police to randomly inspect your home in the interest of finding meth labs, spousal abuse, porn rings, grow ops, and any number of nasty crap? If you personally have no reason to fear this, because YOU have nothing to hide, would you feel this would be appropriate? It is your right to not be subject to search and seizure without due process, or just cause. Are you willing to give up that right in the interest (and they would catch quite a few perpetuators, make no mistake here!) of creating a deterrent that might reduce the number of illegal activities in some homes?
Would you be willing to allow Police to randomly check the contents of your trunk, garage etc.....you see where I'm heading here, I'm sure. Personally, I'm not. I'm against random drug testing. Totally. It may well become a fact of life in aviation, due to this unfortunate occurrence.... but the ONLY way I'll subject myself to random drug testing is by court order. It saddens me greatly that this is even an issue. What's next? Blood tests and pap smears?

Some very good info on"rights"
http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/blog/2012 ... o-you.html

[Chuck Ellsworth]

That depends, up until the time before your treatment finished, did you ever fly under the influence?

It would be disingenuous of me to deny that I on occasion flew under the influence of alcohol because heavy drinkers will and do suffer from hangovers that can be very debilitating.

I did not actively drink and fly on the same day.

Now back to my question.

Taking into consideration that I recognized I had an addiction that was ruining my life and I took positive steps to cure said addiction and I informed my doctor and Transport Canada of the fact would you have denied me the right to earn a living as a pilot after I had completed the addiction treatment in the hospital?

[2.5milefinal]

Doc has some very good points. I am not really sure I agree with random drug testing OR video cameras (Appareo Vision 1000 Systems) watching my every move as I do my job in the cockpit. To tell you the truth the video cameras in the cockpit tick me off more then someone checking my fluids.

Question. Who has control of all those recordings...can the company review that data when ever they see fit???

[2.5milefinal]

.
More people like you need to tell their story. There are way to many guys in this industry that need help but are scared to go get.

[xsbank]

Doc, there is a difference - having the police enter your home capriciously is obviously illegal and for that I'm glad. Being a member of society is still not illegal. However, voluntarily working for a company puts you in agreement with their employment practices and if I were Le Grande Fromage at Tindi, I would immediately make mandatory testing a condition of continued employment in order to weed out (sorry) any rotten apples (I can't help it) and gain some credibility with the public, TC and probably the insurance company. If you objected to that new rule, you would have the right to refuse, Tindi would offer you the opportunity to change jobs; in fact you have the right to mail me your license and I will put it through my company's industrial-strength shredder for you.
"Hi, welcome to Walmart! You can work here and smoke your brains out coz we don't do drug testing and here at Walmart, you can't hurt anyone."

[Meatservo]

Doc, those are really good points and a thought-provoking analogy. Does anyone have an opposite viewpoint, that checking your blood for intoxicants is different than riffling through your home?

When I read Doc's analogy, it occurred to me that I would object much more strongly to my employer going through my locker than I would to them examining my urine. I don't know why that is, though.

Maybe it's because when you are the only person with a set of controls in a group of 20 or 100 people all hurtling through the air together, your blood (or urine) isn't only YOUR blood anymore, because all those people have an equal stake in its not being contaminated with intoxicants? Maybe their rights are entwined with your rights at that point?

I'm not arguing in favour of testing, necessarily. Just playing the devil's advocate. Like 2.5 mile final says, I find cameras in the cockpit and police riffling my house without cause much more offensive than testing my fluids. I lack the introspective ability to figure out why.

Anybody else feel the way Doc does, or conversely the opposite?

[xsbank]

2.5, . has balls. In fact, considering some of us still post anonymously, what he has revealed on this site in order to try and make the rest of us better pilots and people shows he has enough balls for 3 of us.
That's what it takes and that's how it works.

[xsbank]

Cameras, CVRs and flight data recorders - I can't help but think they are for our own good. Wouldn't it have been better if J.C.'s recorder had worked? I can't get past the feeling that the only reason people object to these devices is because they fear being caught out for something. Nobody will look at them unless there is an "incident" anyway.

Yes, we love to fly, and we like to be alone up there, but I know for a fact that if you know someone is watching you will make better decisions.

All the aircraft I fly have recorders, just not cameras yet, but lots of guys have GoPros and film themselves... what's the difference?

I am beginning to think we do not have any rights to privacy if we can't take our responsibilities and our professionalism seriously, if even our sobriety is in doubt. "Here, hold my coffee and watch this!"

[Old fella]

That depends, up until the time before your treatment finished, did you ever fly under the influence?

It would be disingenuous of me to deny that I on occasion flew under the influence of alcohol because heavy drinkers will and do suffer from hangovers that can be very debilitating.

I did not actively drink and fly on the same day.

Now back to my question.

Taking into consideration that I recognized I had an addiction that was ruining my life and I took positive steps to cure said addiction and I informed my doctor and Transport Canada of the fact would you have denied me the right to earn a living as a pilot after I had completed the addiction treatment in the hospital?

Alcohol dependence is a disease and treated as such by medical professionals. There is no stigma attached to this disease just like depression – a chemical imbalance. It annoys me personally when I hear the term “alcoholic” like a person is a the bottom on the barrel down and out, made fun at and is useless in life. You suffer from a disease like ALS,MS Thyroid disorder, leukemia etc., etc.
Glad to hear that your treatment for your disease was successful and you were able to continue on to a productive life. You are to be commended and I hope you had support in your efforts to combat.

[2.5milefinal]

XS- If the bosses think they need video capture devices in the cockpit then I want them to agree to put them in the hangers and hanger offices. I am not just saying that cause this pisses me off.
We all know the chain of events that lead up to an accident starts on the ground in the hanger or office.
Where was the boss(es) in this case. What was he/she doing while this guy was getting ready to go flying??

[xsbank]

I agree, there is no defined place to draw the line, who should be surveilled and who should have privacy.

Thing is, somebody starts a business and need help to run it so they hire people to do just that. The people they hire agree to do the work required in exchange for some money, maybe some benefits etc. If the company is smart, they have job descriptions and defined requirements and this forms part of the contract you sign while you are working. The way I see it, you are required to live up to your part of the bargain and "probably" privacy is not part of that contract. It might be and we certainly might not want to work somewhere if its not, but I don't think there is an argument that it is in any way a right while you are at work. Every corner store, every pub, virtually everywhere that serves the public has cameras that also film the workers. Why should a cockpit be any different? It gets back to the crux of whether you would withhold your services because you don't like the working conditions - you definitely have that right.

[2.5milefinal]

XS I mostly agree with what you have to say. I wish this camera thing (drug testing) was not an option anywhere.
What scares me a bit is there really seems to be no control on what they can do with these recordings... or use them for.
There are rules for the CVRs and when they can be listened too. But that does not mean the company's follow the rules all the time. I am sure that on any given day if someone watched me (and felt the need) they could nail me for not following SOP ...or something.

[AuxBatOn]

The day accidents like this don't happen and people don't fly under the influence is the day that I may agree than random drug testing is inappropriate. Up until then go ahead. I have no issue with that. I have nothing to hide.