Has anyone done Rational Recovery instead of AA?

[Rational Recovery]

Hello,

I am trying to get into a 3rd class medical/special issuance, however I did a fair amount of drinking in college and have had several documented events of public intoxication from my younger days. I have come to the conclusion that I will never get my flying license unless I put away my drinking license, which I have done and I believe I can only stay tea-total through Rational Recovery. Everybody is different and I think something like total abstinence from alcohol for forever is a pretty serious lifestyle change that it's impossible to have a one size fits all program for something like this. Further, I think going tea-total is more likely to be successful if someone chooses it freely whether it is utilizing AA meetings or RR technique.

I am coming up on the two year mark where I would qualify for a special issuance. What should I do?

 

[weilke]

Uh-oh.

Just so you dont wonder about some of the responses you may get, about a year ago there was a troll here who started to beat up on the only person on this forum who could have helped him. The argument revolved around the fact that the troll was not able to accept the fact that the HIMS progam pretty much only accepts the AA approach to addiction treatment. I do remember reading previously in posts from doc bruce that there are alternatives if you have an established period of sobriety.

So, I would suggest that you pm Bruce Chien, the mod on this forum with your question. He is the expert on this issue and will have the right answer for you. Ignore the other noise that you may encounter.

 

[bbchien]

You should do Third Class.

(1) Can you prove continual participation in Rational Recovery?
(2) Have you been on a random program so that you can prove abstinence for two years?

If so it won't matter what program you were on. The want proof of abstinence, and proof of recovery activities, for 2 years. These are the key. If you have just sat out for two years, that might have worked with two events in your past. But if you have multiple, even for third, you have the presumptive diagnosis of recurrent alcohol abuse, if not alcohol dependency. They won't tolerate that even for third.

Otherwise you will need a HIMS AME, to sponsor you, monitor your, check urines randomly for 2 years (they call you pee and you pay~$50, once per month), and some psych evaluation.....and THAT path requires AA and 12 steps. I have a young man who is sitting out 2 years, who is on a monitoring program. This summer (11 months) he will return to the air...

....And just a reminder, on this forum I am not a mod.

 

[comanchepilot]

He said total abstinence was not on his menu . . . . at least I think did. Its hard to conclude given his comment on the issue of abstention.

This is where the government is so totally over the top . . . Take a kid in college. 3-4 instances of being arrested for public intox. No DWI's. Graduates with a degree, grows up, gets a job, becomes a responsible citizen and the government forever tags him with the 'drunken intoxicated fool' label. Now HE has to prove that hes not drinking forever? That's just stupid.

Sure - drunks are drunks and those with addiction issues have a lot to deal with to recover their sobriety. Some kid in college who never knew any freedom in HS and shows up and is crazy for a while is not a threat to civil aviation at age 26 with a job and no arrests since 21 or 22 and blood work that does not suggest chronic alcohol use. . .

Is there any way to restore common sense to the government? There is no longer any judgment allowed to anyone. They really have stopped working for us - and we now merely service their checklists. . .

 

[Rational Recovery]

If so it won't matter what program you were on. The want proof of abstinence, and proof of recovery activities, for 2 years. These are the key.

THIS. Can you tell me how do I prove it? Liver enzyme test? and how many do I have to do or does one test basically go back for years? It's pretty expensive, would be nice if it's a one time deal.

Everyone I have spoken too seems to believe I am truthful about having quit drinking altogether, however, I don't understand how I can 'prove' it ??? urine tests only test for drugs.


I do have documented abstinence all over the place acknowledged by professionals and from the Rational Recovery Monitoring Program.

 

[bbchien]

He said total abstinence was not on his menu . . . . at least I think did. Its hard to conclude given his comment on the issue of abstention.

This is where the government is so totally over the top . . . Take a kid in college. 3-4 instances of being arrested for public intox. No DWI's. Graduates with a degree, grows up, gets a job, becomes a responsible citizen and the government forever tags him with the 'drunken intoxicated fool' label. Now HE has to prove that hes not drinking forever? That's just stupid.

Well, the citizens of Hibbing MN did not think so for 28 years as they kept returing Congressman Oberstar to the Aviation Subcommittee Chairmanship. His view: pilots should be subjected to about the same standard as others in positions of public trust. And they should all be abstinent as there is unforecastable, frequent, epidemiologic crossover from social use to abuse and dependency.

Yet, the citizens of Freeport IL recalled their sheriff when he started enforcing the DUI laws.

Sure - drunks are drunks and those with addiction issues have a lot to deal with to recover their sobriety. Some kid in college who never knew any freedom in HS and shows up and is crazy for a while is not a threat to civil aviation at age 26 with a job and no arrests since 21 or 22 and blood work that does not suggest chronic alcohol use. . .

Well, I have a HIMS "but not on HIMS (his company doens't have a HIMS program)" airman who works for a 135 company, who lived the "U of I High Street" lifestyle event unto age 25 while flying. Blew a .215 on the way back from a rock concert, and did a partially creditable job on the roadside sobriety checks. He's tolerant. You want him single piloting your King Air?

Is there any way to restore common sense to the government? There is no longer any judgment allowed to anyone. They really have stopped working for us - and we now merely service their checklists. . .

The real trouble, Joe, is that when one "gets what you request" one usually doesn't see it coming. Got any better ideas? The hand of gub'mnt is very very KLUGY.

A local helo medevac pilot, clan record for 42 years, gets thrown out of his house by his wife and blows .20. It's his one and only. He is really really slopppy drunk. We returned him to service in 82 days. He wasn't tolerant. There is some judgement still available. It is just narrowly proscribed....as in sentencing by the courts!

 

[denverpilot]

Well, the citizens of Hibbing MN did not think so for 28 years as they kept returing Congressman Oberstar to the Aviation Subcommittee Chairmanship. His view: pilots should be subjected to about the same standard as others in positions of public trust. And they should all be abstinent as there is unforcastable, frequent, epidemiologic crossover from social use to abuse and dependency.

Lawmakers don't drink? Who'd'a thunk it?

 

[wabower]

Neither do airline pilots. Unbelieveable, eh>

Lawmakers don't drink? Who'd'a thunk it?

 

[comanchepilot]

Bruce - ideas for thought . . . .

Someone in HIMS is kind of by definition in immediate right now trouble, ne pas? Being a good drunk would probably still mean you could feel their liver be a little bigger than mine was, right? No we don't want people presently addicted to alcohol flying airplanes. I'm not talking about the addicted airman who is presently flying and drinking and who has show a creditable lack of judgment perhaps by showing up to work legally drunk. I talking about the person separated by time and verifiable life events [such as college graduation and the appearance of a real job] from a time lacking in judgment or the requirement for exercising judgment. There needs to be some reasonable brought up = you know and I know and every one else knows there is HUGE difference between HIMS Airman #1 and Airman #2 in terms of the circumstances of their drinking - and JUDGMENT needs to be applied.

As for the ideas -

1. Push the decisions out to the field - the AME is on the hook for who they sign off. You'll let the market forces of a legion of hungry lawyers make the docs do a better job - I'll pay $200 for a 3rd class if it means I have humans making decisions instead of guys using checklists.

2. A consequence of #1 means an airman with issues needs to develop a relationship with an AME. It means that a new guy showing up on an docs doorstep is probably going to need to bring some bloodtests especially if he is a commercial or first class cert pilot - would prevent AME shopping.

3. The courts don't have any sentencing latitude anymore - its all in a schedule so everyone can be tough on crime - its like zero tolerance - lets suspend the second grader because he brought in a GI Joe with fake tiny plastic gun because guns are banned. . . .

4. I dunno - short of letting Docs be Docs . . . and giving airmen an incentive to voluntarily come forward and get treatment for their addictions - but you know - green eyed redheads are mine and I'm afraid alot of men share that one.

 

[BeeBee]

Beloved,

Yes, I quit drinking alcohol permanently using AVRT®-based recovery as presented by Rational Recovery® in 2007. I am a pilot for a major United States carrier who was inducted into my airline's Employee Assistance Program after having too much to drink on a layover. I was grateful to be able to keep my ATP, Medical Certificate and job despite my grievous immorality, however, I quickly realized that this was in exchange for lifetime membership and loyalty to Alcoholics Anonymous, an organization whose doctrine I could not accept. Such doctrine is against my original family values, violates all 10 of the Ten Commandments and the New Covenant, and is NOT a program of Abstinence.

Facing significant resistance from my airline, its doctors, and HIMS itself for quitting drinking, I chose abstinence in lieu of "one day at a time sobriety" and refused AA membership and forced participation in AA for the above stated reasons, and the fact that my family simply could not live with me under the day-by-day uncertainty of tentative abstinence. Despite significant pressure and a serious relapse hazing attempt by a Flight Office Manager and member of AA (AA policy as directed in AA's book "The 12 Steps and 12 Traditions" on page 23, bottom), I successfully graduated the HIMS program in minimum time, unlike my AA counterparts. I am not boasting or bragging by any means, but this rather, is a testament to the simple truth that there is no substitute for quitting drinking and that AA is a very powerful and wicked organization who represents and protects the rights of addicted airman at the expense of those who choose to face their addictions squarely and quit drinking. I will never drink again. Upon exiting the HIMS program, I signed an affidavit stating that should I be found to be drinking, or have been drinking, any amount, ever, my FAA Medical Certificate shall be revoked and I will summarily be fired/quit from my airline. This responsibility I gladly accept in exchange for Salvation and freedom.

In the warmest regards, however, Jack and Lois Trimpey are the real heroes and deserve more adulation and praise than I can put into words. Not only has Jack Trimpey solved the puzzle of addiction, he understands how to disable AA and their doctors since they, and the disease model of addiction are the Addictive Voice in political form. Jack Trimpey is the undisputed master of his field and is feared by all in the addiction treatment industry. Regarding the public trust and flight safety, it is a tragedy that FAA and the airlines do not embrace AVRT®-based recovery. Given the choice, planned, permanent abstinence from alcohol and drugs as presented by Rational Recovery® should be available to airman when addiction surfaces, and is the safest, easiest, and most cost-effective way to end addiction and live an abstinent life.

BeeBee

 

[rotorhead1026]

As for the ideas -

1. Push the decisions out to the field - the AME is on the hook for who they sign off. You'll let the market forces of a legion of hungry lawyers make the docs do a better job

While I'm glad somebody with a good heart is thinking outside the box, I'm afraid what will happen is many (more) AME's will simply drop out.

 

[comanchepilot]

While I'm glad somebody with a good heart is thinking outside the box, I'm afraid what will happen is many (more) AME's will simply drop out.

Which kind of is a good thing. We want experienced docs who care about the consequences of what they o and who do it enough to be proficient. Right?

 

[Rational Recovery]

so back to me, what tests should I get to prove my abstinence?

should I do that liver enzyme test?

 

[RJM62]

I think a lot of medical certification conflicts, hoops, and red tape would be eliminated if they replaced most of the "have you ever's" with something like "have you, in the past 10 years." There are some less-than-wonderful aspects of human behavior that are to be expected in adolescence and early adulthood, and only suggest a problem when they continue beyond those years.

That's why college and military service are two environments in which intemperance is expected. Based on my experience, I think this is especially true in the seagoing services. At every port of call or liberty port, there was an expectation that we would (1) get drunk, and ( B ) get laid (or try to, at least).

But it was also expected that we would be sober and ready for our missions at morning muster, to which end there were "hangover kits" available at the sick bay for sailors to pick up as they crawled walked past the sick bay. The "hangover kits" contained promethazine, Sudafed, and Tylenol, if my memory serves me correctly, and they were packaged in little envelopes in a basket in the passageway outside the sick bay. You just reached in (or up, as it were) and grabbed one.

I rarely needed a hangover kit because I didn't do as much drinking in the service as most other guys did. I'd been drinking wine and the occasional beer since I was 12, under my parents' supervision and with their blessing. This was pretty typical for Italian-American families back then. Responsible drinking was fine. Drunkenness was not.

Consequently, drinking wasn't something new and exciting for me while I was in the service. I went out and drank with the guys, and even to excess once in a great while. But more often I would return to the boat on two steady legs and carrying an OOC shipmate over my shoulders.

When I left the service I enrolled in college. This was back before the drinking age was raised, and we had a perfectly-legal, licensed rathskeller on campus. It was in the basement of the Student Union Building, which had once been an old Army barracks, and still had rooms with beds upstairs.

Being a tad older than most of the students and having learned to drink responsibly, I typically would sit in the Rat for a few hours most evenings, mainly to socialize, and nursing no more than a beer or two over the course of the evening. And as was the case while I was in the service, I usually ended the evenings carrying assisting a few of the younger students to the "crash pad" upstairs, while some other student would confiscate their car keys and drop them off with the campus police. Once they slept it off, the students could pick up their keys at the police station and go their ways.

I'm not the world's brightest guy. I admit that. And yet it seems obvious to me that responsible drinking, like most other things, is something that must be learned. There is no magical change that occurs at midnight on a person's twenty-first birthday that makes him or her a responsible drinker. It needs to be learned -- a process which is made more difficult by the fact that the learning process, by necessity, must be undergone while impaired.

That's why I find it rather mystifying that the FAA (or any other agency, for that matter) would give a rat's hindquarters about a few episodes of even spectacular drunkenness while someone was in college (or the military), provided that the behavior didn't continue beyond those years. If everyone who ever abused alcohol while in college or the military were to honestly report that to the FAA, probably half the airliners in the country would have to be grounded for lack of pilots.

-Rich

 

[rotorhead1026]

Which kind of is a good thing. We want experienced docs who care about the consequences of what they o and who do it enough to be proficient. Right?

Yeah, but if there are only, say, three AME's left in the entire country ... and that could happen.

 

[Palmpilot]

Uh-oh.

Just so you dont wonder about some of the responses you may get, about a year ago there was a troll here who started to beat up on the only person on this forum who could have helped him. The argument revolved around the fact that the troll was not able to accept the fact that the HIMS progam pretty much only accepts the AA approach to addiction treatment...

I think the word "troll" is being thrown around much too freely around here. To me, "troll" implies someone who is not sincerely interested in the subject of his posts. I didn't get that impression from the poster you're referring to.

 

[weilke]

I think the word "troll" is being thrown around much too freely around here. To me, "troll" implies someone who is not sincerely interested in the subject of his posts. I didn't get that impression from the poster you're referring to.

Well, I did get that impression. I dont believe I was alone with it.

 

[jbarrass]

I think a lot of medical certification conflicts, hoops, and red tape would be eliminated if they replaced most of the "have you ever's" with something like "have you, in the past 10 years." There are some less-than-wonderful aspects of human behavior that are to be expected in adolescence and early adulthood, and only suggest a problem when they continue beyond those years.

That's why college and military service are two environments in which intemperance is expected. Based on my experience, I think this is especially true in the seagoing services. At every port of call or liberty port, there was an expectation that we would (1) get drunk, and ( B ) get laid (or try to, at least).

But it was also expected that we would be sober and ready for our missions at morning muster, to which end there were "hangover kits" available at the sick bay for sailors to pick up as they crawled walked past the sick bay. The "hangover kits" contained promethazine, Sudafed, and Tylenol, if my memory serves me correctly, and they were packaged in little envelopes in a basket in the passageway outside the sick bay. You just reached in (or up, as it were) and grabbed one.

I rarely needed a hangover kit because I didn't do as much drinking in the service as most other guys did. I'd been drinking wine and the occasional beer since I was 12, under my parents' supervision and with their blessing. This was pretty typical for Italian-American families back then. Responsible drinking was fine. Drunkenness was not.

Consequently, drinking wasn't something new and exciting for me while I was in the service. I went out and drank with the guys, and even to excess once in a great while. But more often I would return to the boat on two steady legs and carrying an OOC shipmate over my shoulders.

When I left the service I enrolled in college. This was back before the drinking age was raised, and we had a perfectly-legal, licensed rathskeller on campus. It was in the basement of the Student Union Building, which had once been an old Army barracks, and still had rooms with beds upstairs.

Being a tad older than most of the students and having learned to drink responsibly, I typically would sit in the Rat for a few hours most evenings, mainly to socialize, and nursing no more than a beer or two over the course of the evening. And as was the case while I was in the service, I usually ended the evenings carrying assisting a few of the younger students to the "crash pad" upstairs, while some other student would confiscate their car keys and drop them off with the campus police. Once they slept it off, the students could pick up their keys at the police station and go their ways.

I'm not the world's brightest guy. I admit that. And yet it seems obvious to me that responsible drinking, like most other things, is something that must be learned. There is no magical change that occurs at midnight on a person's twenty-first birthday that makes him or her a responsible drinker. It needs to be learned -- a process which is made more difficult by the fact that the learning process, by necessity, must be undergone while impaired.

That's why I find it rather mystifying that the FAA (or any other agency, for that matter) would give a rat's hindquarters about a few episodes of even spectacular drunkenness while someone was in college (or the military), provided that the behavior didn't continue beyond those years. If everyone who ever abused alcohol while in college or the military were to honestly report that to the FAA, probably half the airliners in the country would have to be grounded for lack of pilots.

-Rich

The truth for sure.....

 

[bbchien]

Which kind of is a good thing. We want experienced docs who care about the consequences of what they o and who do it enough to be proficient. Right?

The reason for federal control is that no practitioner wants to be named when the 747 crashes killing 230 and injuring 200.....

so back to me, what tests should I get to prove my abstinence?

Well first you have to answer the question that you have been abstinent. IF the answer is yes, then you need a HIMS sponsor. Whether you need further testing depends on whether you have urine randoms for the last two years. You haven't answered that one either....

 

[Rational Recovery]

Well first you have to answer the question that you have been abstinent. IF the answer is yes, then you need a HIMS sponsor. Whether you need further testing depends on whether you have urine randoms for the last two years. You haven't answered that one either....

yes I have been abstinent as I explained in my original post and that I am coming up on the 2 year mark of zero alcohol consumption. I have gotten a few urine tests over the last ~1.5 years. About 3 or 4 total.

My abstinence is acknowledged by the FAA and a AME I have been talking too, meaning everyone believes that I have not been drinking at all, the difficulty lays in my interest in doing an alternative to the 12 step program. I am interested in getting into the air utilizing RR as an alternative for airmen with a history of alcohol abuse.

I suppose I can get more info from the AME I have been talking too than I can from on here. Although this is somewhat helpful as well. Now that I am getting closer to the 2 year mark I will get urine tests monthly and possibly that AME can start to do random calls for me.

I am not going to see a HIMS sponsor to try and grab a carrot of a stick, however, if I speak to one first and they are open minded about alternative options to total abstinence I would meet with them.

 

[bbchien]

I think something like total abstinence from alcohol for forever is a pretty serious lifestyle change that it's impossible to have a one size fits all program for something like this

First I don't think this says you were abstinent. It stops just short. Someone who's really abstinent says, "I'm coming up on my two year abstinece anniversary date".....or the like. It's a First person and affirmative statement.

yes I have been abstinent as I explained in my original post

No, you did not. See above.

...and that I am coming up on the 2 year mark of zero alcohol consumption.

Now you're talking....

I have gotten a few urine tests over the last ~1.5 years. About 3 or 4 total.

....Which leaves lots of gaps. Were they at least ethyl glucuronides? (a test whcih covers eight day spans?)

My abstinence is acknowledged by the FAA

Do you have such a letter? I've never seen such. WE call it a letter of eligibility, and if you had it you would not be posting here.

...and a AME I have been talking too, meaning everyone believes that I have not been drinking at all, the difficulty lays in my interest in doing an alternative to the 12 step program. I am interested in getting into the air utilizing RR as an alternative for airmen with a history of alcohol abuse.

I suppose I can get more info from the AME I have been talking too than I can from on here. Although this is somewhat helpful as well. Now that I am getting closer to the 2 year mark I will get urine tests monthly and possibly that AME can start to do random calls for me.

I am not going to see a HIMS sponsor to try and grab a carrot of a stick, however, if I speak to one first and they are open minded about alternative options to total abstinence I would meet with them.

IF you can demonstrate 2 years of abstinence convincingly, it won't matter whether you use rational, or 12 steps or behavior mod. They just want some demonstrable recovery activity. For Third class, after two years, several testimonials as to steady emplyment, lack of absenteeism, reliability from an employer, identible community leaders, an AME who knows you personally outside the office, helps a lot. NONE of that matters for second or first class. Liver enzyme tests and some components of the blood count help, but nothing really counts like random urines, MONTHLY without break.

But your problem is that you didn't carefully plan the 2 years. 2 years of randoms would have been only $580 a year. So you have to devise something that the agency is going to consider credible. IF the ageny is convinced that you have been abstinent, then you can use Rational Recovery, Behavior Mod, or anything reasonable.

If you have to have urine monitoring (because you weren't convincing), the ONLY AMEs that can sponsor you are HIMS certified. There are 100 of us. Your supportive AME friend, I hope he's got HIMS certification, because he's trying to do the right thing... The special issuance is issued BY NAME to the AME and he is obliged to see you often and report on you, and you are obliged to comply with whatever was negotiated, e.g, occasional randoms, interviews with a counselor, or an internist's quarterly report(s).

But I don't see why you're so torqued about HIMS. It's pretty obvious you've never sat down and spoken to a HIMS AME. I have a lotta guys on very different plans. It's all about what the agency will buy, and the credibility of the sponsor....who if I forgot to say it, HAS to be a HIMS certified AME. If you email me his name, I'll tell you if he's on the list. Most of us have met each other. In fact on Sept 9 we're all spending 3 days in Denver....

We don't have to use HIMS per se. But all the sponsorship assests at the agency, including the permitted AMEs have been put through HIMS certification.

I have a 135 guy who is non-HIMS but sponsored by.....a HIMS AME (which would be me). His company doesn't have HIMS. This airman just has a very understanding, PRINCE of a boss.

******

Now to change to the other topic: You appear still defiant, right in your first comment above, borne of ignorance (it is NOT one size fits all), and so in essence, I have to doubt your assertion about abstinence. This is going to be a hard sell to the Agency. Dr. W.M is a hard sell with guy with your attitude.

Much more productive would be, "what do I now need to do......", which is a problem solving mentality, as opposed to a "railing" kind of mentality. WE can tell that sort of stuff in the first three lines of a personal statement. The attitude that doesn't get a special issuance, devolves around, "Hey, I can drink and stay outta trouble". Why? Because you didn't do that, once already.

The problem solving mentality would be, "OK, I messed up. What do I need to do to get a second chance?" You're not near a second chance with that attitude.

*****

Maybe you don't understand, that the Federal Air Surgeon and the Federal Psychiatrist, will enforce abstinence as a condition of recertification forever for upperclass, and for TWO demonstrated years, for third class.

I am done here, and that's a fact.

 

[comanchepilot]

so back to me, what tests should I get to prove my abstinence?

should I do that liver enzyme test?

Good for you . . . and yes. its a huge lifestyle change. . ..

 

[Rational Recovery]

Human beings are diverse and there are lots of factors that make us all unique. It's hardly defiant to say there is a need for alternative approaches to total abstinence outside of the 12 steps. It is not a one a size fits all approach because we are all different.

I sounded 'vague' about my abstinence because I wrote the statement quick and did not want to reveal my identity by saying the day of my last drink so it came out bad. I'm not good with words anyways, but I am good at not drinking.

I think I got the jist of what I need to do, I am not in a hurry to fly so if they don't believe me, my urine and blood is available at any time : ) I think they do in fact believe me about my abstinence though so hopefully they sign me up with a HIMS person to monitor me.

 

[bbchien]

Okay, I'm not done. You're near but not quite there. Maybe salvageable.

Human beings are diverse and there are lots of factors that make us all unique. It's hardly defiant to say there is a need for alternative approaches to total abstinence outside of the 12 steps. It is not a one a size fits all approach because we are all different.

The one thing that does fit all is Abstinence. FAA will enforce that. Provable, verifiable abstinence.

I sounded 'vague' about my abstinence

You didn't SOUND vague, you WERE vague....

....because I wrote the statement quick and did not want to reveal my identity by saying the day of my last drink so it came out bad.

How does one's abstinence date reveal one's identity? That's a new one on me.

To those who are truly in control and have quit, they don't worry about "coming out bad". I have a 747-200 retired captain whose letter of eligibility is the final item on his picture library- the DC3, the DC6, the 727, the 737, the 747...all of which he captained. His letter of eligibility is the last one in the row. Framed. The message is clear.

I'm not good with words anyways, but I am good at not drinking.

Well, this is good . Drinking is totally incompatable with aviation.

I think I got the jist of what I need to do, I am not in a hurry to fly so if they don't believe me, my urine and blood is available at any time : ) I think they do in fact believe me about my abstinence though so hopefully they sign me up with a HIMS person to monitor me.

Attaboy. When he submits to sponsor you, just watch that "personal statement" that FAA requires. If you write it anything like you've posted here, it'll be a Loooooonnng time before you fly again.

Oh, and it's not about "they signing you up with a HIMS person". YOU have to go seek one out. This is about affirmative, positive action. Email me and I'll identify the nearest guy (there aren't many). Get busy, life's a wasting....

 

[Rational Recovery]

....Which leaves lots of gaps. Were they at least ethyl glucuronides? (a test whcih covers eight day spans?)


Not sure if I would want to get these done. According to an advisory issued by the substance abuse and mental health services administration the EtG test may be too inaccurate to be reliable:

The EtG test is sensitive to the presence of any alcohol, even low-levels, and can detect alcohol in the urine several days after consumption. But the test is so sensitive, it can produce a positive test for ethyl glucoronide from the mere exposure to alcohol that is present in many daily use products.
The EtG test came under scrutiny when a significant number of people, who insisted they had abstained from drinking alcohol, failed the test. SAMHSA used many of those protested cases to research the accuracy of the EtG test and determine the cause of the false positives.

According to SAMHSA's research, positive EtG tests can result from the use of hand sanitizers, medications, hygiene products, cosmetics, foods and other products that contain even small levels of alcohol. People can test positive for alcohol consumption after being exposed to laundry detergent, antiperspirant, aftershave and even hair spray.
There are hundreds of household products that contain ethanol, according to the National Library of Health's Household Products Database, which could possibly cause a false positive with the EtG urine test.

The EtG test is simply not reliable by itself to determine alcohol consumption. According to the SAMHSA advisory:
"Currently, the use of an EtG test in determining abstinence lacks sufficient proven specificity for use as primary or sole evidence that an individual prohibited from drinking, in a criminal justice or a regulatory compliance context, has truly been drinking.

"Legal or disciplinary action based solely on a positive EtG ... is inappropriate and scientifically unsupportable at this time. These tests should currently be considered as potential valuable clinical tools, but their use in forensic settings is premature."

SAMHSA recommends that biomarker tests be used as a tool to launch a more extensive investigation into possible alcohol use, but not as a stand-alone confirmation.

Source:
The Role of Biomarkers in the Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorders (PDF), September 2006, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


I myself frequently use hand sanitizer, deodorant, and probably many more of the 100s of common household products that can signal a positive for an EtG test.

 

[wabower]

Dude.

....Which leaves lots of gaps. Were they at least ethyl glucuronides? (a test whcih covers eight day spans?)


Not sure if I would want to get these done. According to an advisory issued by the substance abuse and mental health services administration the EtG test may be too inaccurate to be reliable:

The EtG test is sensitive to the presence of any alcohol, even low-levels, and can detect alcohol in the urine several days after consumption. But the test is so sensitive, it can produce a positive test for ethyl glucoronide from the mere exposure to alcohol that is present in many daily use products.
The EtG test came under scrutiny when a significant number of people, who insisted they had abstained from drinking alcohol, failed the test. SAMHSA used many of those protested cases to research the accuracy of the EtG test and determine the cause of the false positives.

According to SAMHSA's research, positive EtG tests can result from the use of hand sanitizers, medications, hygiene products, cosmetics, foods and other products that contain even small levels of alcohol. People can test positive for alcohol consumption after being exposed to laundry detergent, antiperspirant, aftershave and even hair spray.
There are hundreds of household products that contain ethanol, according to the National Library of Health's Household Products Database, which could possibly cause a false positive with the EtG urine test.

The EtG test is simply not reliable by itself to determine alcohol consumption. According to the SAMHSA advisory:
"Currently, the use of an EtG test in determining abstinence lacks sufficient proven specificity for use as primary or sole evidence that an individual prohibited from drinking, in a criminal justice or a regulatory compliance context, has truly been drinking.

"Legal or disciplinary action based solely on a positive EtG ... is inappropriate and scientifically unsupportable at this time. These tests should currently be considered as potential valuable clinical tools, but their use in forensic settings is premature."

SAMHSA recommends that biomarker tests be used as a tool to launch a more extensive investigation into possible alcohol use, but not as a stand-alone confirmation.

Source:
The Role of Biomarkers in the Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorders (PDF), September 2006, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


I myself frequently use hand sanitizer, deodorant, and probably many more of the 100s of common household products that can signal a positive for an EtG test.

 

[weilke]

....Which leaves lots of gaps. Were they at least ethyl glucuronides? (a test whcih covers eight day spans?)


Not sure if I would want to get these done. According to an advisory issued by the substance abuse and mental health services administration the EtG test may be too inaccurate to be reliable:

The EtG test is sensitive to the presence of any alcohol, even low-levels, and can detect alcohol in the urine several days after consumption. But the test is so sensitive, it can produce a positive test for ethyl glucoronide from the mere exposure to alcohol that is present in many daily use products.
The EtG test came under scrutiny when a significant number of people, who insisted they had abstained from drinking alcohol, failed the test. SAMHSA used many of those protested cases to research the accuracy of the EtG test and determine the cause of the false positives.

According to SAMHSA's research, positive EtG tests can result from the use of hand sanitizers, medications, hygiene products, cosmetics, foods and other products that contain even small levels of alcohol. People can test positive for alcohol consumption after being exposed to laundry detergent, antiperspirant, aftershave and even hair spray.
There are hundreds of household products that contain ethanol, according to the National Library of Health's Household Products Database, which could possibly cause a false positive with the EtG urine test.

The EtG test is simply not reliable by itself to determine alcohol consumption. According to the SAMHSA advisory:
"Currently, the use of an EtG test in determining abstinence lacks sufficient proven specificity for use as primary or sole evidence that an individual prohibited from drinking, in a criminal justice or a regulatory compliance context, has truly been drinking.

"Legal or disciplinary action based solely on a positive EtG ... is inappropriate and scientifically unsupportable at this time. These tests should currently be considered as potential valuable clinical tools, but their use in forensic settings is premature."

SAMHSA recommends that biomarker tests be used as a tool to launch a more extensive investigation into possible alcohol use, but not as a stand-alone confirmation.

Source:
The Role of Biomarkers in the Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorders (PDF), September 2006, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


I myself frequently use hand sanitizer, deodorant, and probably many more of the 100s of common household products that can signal a positive for an EtG test.

In my limited work with addicts, I have been impressed with their writing skills when it came to explanations*.



* explanations as to why a prticular rule (curfew, no-contact order, time limit for UDS, fluid intake) didn't apply to them.

 

[Rational Recovery]

In my limited work with addicts, I have been impressed with their writing skills when it came to explanations*.



* explanations as to why a prticular rule (curfew, no-contact order, time limit for UDS, fluid intake) didn't apply to them.

Wow. You'd have to take it up with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, they know more about urine tests than I do.

But it really doesn't matter. I didn't say that about the EtG test, the federal government made the official statement that the test is unreliable. You are revealing more about yourself with comments like that.

 

[weilke]

Wow. This is exactly the kind of judgement that makes me worried about a false positives.

But it really doesn't matter. I didn't say that about the EtG test, the federal government made the official statement that the test is unreliable. You are revealing more about yourself with comments like that.

They dont say that at all. They say it should not be used as a standalone means to determine a breach of sobriety in a criminal justice or job related setting. They also suggest to use a monitoring contract with an individual on EtG monitoring that specifies what hygiene products to avoid (it's mostly not to use mouthwash).


I have met someone who
- only uses cosmetic products he brought himself (you can get quarternary soap based sanitizers in little single-use packages)
- checks with the restaurant chef on every ingredient in his food ('for allergies, you know')
- doesn't eat poppy bagels or lemon poundcake.

I am sure it's all his 'allergies' :wink2:









It really doesn't matter what you think 'is the right strategy for your kind of sobriety'. It matters what the FAA aeromedical division and your sponsoring AME think is right.

 

[Rational Recovery]

I'm not going to carry around my own soap everywhere I go that's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Steve Foley]

I'm not going to carry around my own soap everywhere I go that's absolutely ridiculous.

Yup. That'll teach them to mess you you.

 

[Palmpilot]

Yup. That'll teach them to mess you you.

You don't see anything strange about going to such lengths to make up for flawed technology?

 

[Steve Foley]

You don't see anything strange about going to such lengths to make up for flawed technology?

Nope.

It's pretty hard to prove a negative. There are alternatives, such as not flying. This is something OP has brought on himself.

 

[weilke]

I'm not going to carry around my own soap everywhere I go that's absolutely ridiculous.

So you don't really want to fly ?

It didn't seem ridiculous to me. Just someone who was serious to keep his professional license and be able to put food on his families table.

Just quit drinking after-shave and you'll be fine.

 

[Palmpilot]

I just don't see what's wrong with wanting to make sure that one is being judged using reliable technology.

 

[Henning]

The only thing that matters is the sobriety and being able to convince/prove it to the FAA's liking. The method of getting sober doesn't really matter, it's just that some have a built in methodology that provides evidence that the government officials are happy with which makes using those systems easier. Seems to me that if you had a personal 'come to Jesus' moment which triggered a switch in your brain that ended your desire to drink, that method (rather than a 12 step or whatever) with evidence, by signing up with a test facility to issue you random monthly testing, that in fact one had been sober for the required time period is sufficient. These services are available though every industrial medical clinic and other Doc in a Box providers for about $400- $750 a year typically (the amount of times they test you doesn't matter to cost as you are part of a large pool, in fact, the other guys in the pool will love you because you will always be one of the required pool percentage to be tested).

In the end, you can achieve the desired FAA medical result using no program at all if you have the wherewithal to gather the required evidence on your own and convince the AME that this was actually what occurred.

Did I get that right Bruce?

BTW, as for 12 steps, I just don't see them working well, they just trade one dependency for another.

 

[Steve Foley]

I just don't see what's wrong with wanting to make sure than one is being judge using reliable technology.

The technology detects alcohol. The problem is that there are other sources of alcohol besides alcoholic beverages, such as mouthwash, hand sanitizers, vanilla extract, and loads of other products.

Alcohol diminishes over time, so there really is no reliable way to distinguish between a tiny amount of alcohol ingested today in mouthwash and a rip-roaring bender that ended three days ago. I doubt any technology can be developed that can distinguish between the two.

So if OP want to fly with his background, he has to pay the price. Since he seems to feel that avoiding alcohol in all it forms is "absolutely ridiculous", he likely won't be permitted to fly.

 

[Unregistered]

Yes. I quit drinking the old fashioned way––I quit drinking, permanently. Below is my prior post concerning your question related to FAA, "Has anyone done Rational Recovery instead of AA?" The answer is a definite, "YES." If you are serious about solving your alcohol problem, I suggest you contact Jack Trimpey at Rational Recovery® at (530) 621-2667, or email him at <www.jack@rational.org>.


Beloved,

Yes, I quit drinking alcohol permanently using AVRT®-based recovery as presented by Rational Recovery® in 2007. I am a pilot for a major US carrier who was inducted into my airline's Employee Assistance Program after having too much to drink on a layover. I was grateful to be able to keep my ATP Certificate, Medical Certificate and job despite my grievous immorality, however, I quickly realized that this was in exchange for lifetime membership and loyalty to Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), an organization whose doctrine I cannot accept. Such doctrine is against my original family values, violates all 10 of the Ten Commandments and the New Covenant, and AA is NOT a program of Abstinence.

Facing significant resistance from my airline, its doctors, and HIMS itself for quitting drinking, I chose abstinence in lieu of "one day at a time sobriety" and refused AA membership and forced participation in AA for the above stated reasons, and the fact that my family simply could not live with me under the day-by-day uncertainty of tentative abstinence. Despite significant pressure and a serious relapse hazing attempt by a Flight Office Manager and member of AA (AA policy as directed in AA's book "The 12 Steps and 12 Traditions" on page 23, bottom), I successfully graduated the HIMS program in minimum time, unlike my AA counterparts. I am not boasting or bragging by any means, but this rather, is a testament to the simple truth that there is no substitute for quitting drinking and that AA is a very powerful and wicked organization who represents and protects the rights of addicted airman at the expense of those who choose to face their addictions squarely and quit drinking. I will never drink again. Upon exiting the HIMS program, I signed an affidavit stating that should I be found to be drinking, or have been drinking, any amount, ever, my FAA Medical Certificate shall be revoked and I will summarily be fired/quit from my airline. This responsibility I gladly accept in exchange for Salvation and freedom.

In the warmest regards, however, Jack and Lois Trimpey are the real heroes and deserve more adulation and praise than I can put into words. Not only has Jack Trimpey solved the puzzle of addiction, he understands how to disable AA and their doctors since they, and the disease model of addiction are the Addictive Voice in political form. Jack Trimpey is the undisputed master of his field and is feared by all in the addiction treatment industry. Regarding the public trust and flight safety, it is a tragedy that FAA and the airlines do not embrace AVRT®-based recovery. Given the choice, planned, permanent abstinence from alcohol and drugs as presented by Rational Recovery® should be available to airman when addiction surfaces, and is the safest, easiest, and most cost-effective way to end addiction and live an abstinent life.

I hope this helps you.

BeeBee

 

[Henning]

Eesh, avoiding alcohol in all forms in today's world where it is the carrier solvent of choice for so many products, especially food and OTC health care and sanitation products? I don't think I could do it, in fact thinking a bit deeper, I know I couldn't. I use a product called Sea Breeze which has a primary constituent of alcohol in my ears to prevent infections ever since a spider bit me in the ear. I would hate to have to find another product that does not contain alcohol since it does such a good job at nearly no cost.

 

[flyingron]

Hey if you really want to find out for sure, just go on disulfiram. You'll find out in short order what you consume or even wipe on your skin that has alcohol in it.