Notifying your governmental representatives

And it’s junk science. Not FDA approved, ergo not allowed in any DOT alcohol programs. The founder of the test originally set the cutoff at 100, and NOW believes it should be 1500 to indicate deliberate consumption.

How do I know this? It’s published. And I asked him, personally.

This is a tool to be used by professionals. Not James Bond truth serum... EVERY HIMS AME I know freely asserts they are NOT biomarker testing experts, yet they administer it without regard for an airman’s career. I got an idea, LEARN ABOUT IT. Ain’t that hard.

Ironically, only aviation venues still adhere to the 100 cutoff...

And so on and so on...
 
To keep this topical, the reason the FAA is so vague about pulling medical based on biomarker testing, is because THEY DONT KNOW MUCH ABOUT IT. No one does. It’s really NOT EVER been studied in the context of abstinence verification. THAT is the problem, and how this decision will help.

I believe it’s likely the FAA will stand by their decision, what will be informative is HOW they will now justify it.
 
pilot445 said:
I surmise CAMI may commission a study to test the airmens theory.

Take 10 non drinkers (test etg beforehand), serve them the exact same meal from the same restaurant, and test etg levels the next morning. Would be interesting as to the results.
Click to expand...

Rushie said:
I always thought so too but apparently not, unless you cook it long enough:

Does cooking with alcohol remove the alcohol?
The longer you cook, the more alcohol cooks out, but you have to cook food for about 3 hours to fully erase all traces of alcohol. A study from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Nutrient Data lab confirmed this and added that food baked or simmered in alcohol for 15 minutes still retains 40 percent of the alcohol.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to test this theory further, because I never really put much thought into it. When I first read about this case I considered that excuse along the lines of "contact high exposure, I was near a friend who recently smoked, I never inhaled " kind of thing. It seemed far fetched to me. Of course reading more here about the validity of the testing being utilized kind of changes my opinion.
 
I got one. A pilot I know in the program isn’t allowed to take a vacation (international) as the AME believes he will consume alcohol. The individual isn’t allowed to go camping because he has to be within a testing site. Wtf?
 
Keithlewis1900 said:
I got one. A pilot I know in the program isn’t allowed to take a vacation (international) as the AME believes he will consume alcohol. The individual isn’t allowed to go camping because he has to be within a testing site. Wtf?
Click to expand...
He is allowed to do all of those things. At his own peril, of course. Same as with a vax mandate: you still have a choice. But many choices have consequences.
To be honest, those are rather onerous restrictions—I'm torn between wanting the pilot to have more lax rules, or never flying with someone like that. Devil in the details.
 
Usually, the government ends up complying so it is rare, but there have been at least two times federal employees who were found in contempt of the federal court were imprisoned.

What happens most of the time is that while they follow the instant order, they go back and do the same thing to someone else that ends with them in court again (as happened in the case at the top of this thread).
 
Kenny Phillips said:
He is allowed to do all of those things. At his own peril, of course. Same as with a vax mandate: you still have a choice. But many choices have consequences.
To be honest, those are rather onerous restrictions—I'm torn between wanting the pilot to have more lax rules, or never flying with someone like that. Devil in the details.
Click to expand...
At his own peril? So a guy wants to go camping he misses a test and the FAA revokes medical. Seems logical right?
 
Keithlewis1900 said:
At his own peril? So a guy wants to go camping he misses a test and the FAA revokes medical. Seems logical right?
Click to expand...

Seems like this problem could be solved with the FAA requiring/offering an alcohol ankle monitor. Would be even more accurate than periodic testing.
 
pilot445 said:
Seems like this problem could be solved with the FAA requiring/offering an alcohol ankle monitor. Would be even more accurate than periodic testing.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, nothing like having a bunch of pilots walking around with ankle brackets. Totally makes sense. Wtf??
 
AND, scram devices are junk as well.

Turns out, the best defense is EXACTLY like called for on HIMSPROGRAM.COM, a peer monitor. Plain and simple. Worked from 1974 to 2000 with no incidents.

ETG hit the streets about 2000, PETH in 2010. Nothing BUT problems...

Ain’t rocket science.

So let me reiterate, truth serum doesn’t really exist... sorry to break the news to the believers... Geesh.
 
Ankle bracelets? How would you feel if you boarded a 777 and saw your pilots wearing ankle bracelets? Doesn't exactly evoke warm fuzzies from a passenger's perspective.
 
RussS said:
Ankle bracelets? How would you feel if you boarded a 777 and saw your pilots wearing ankle bracelets? Doesn't exactly evoke warm fuzzies from a passenger's perspective.
Click to expand...
No, but it doesn't give me warm fuzzies having a known alcohol abuser in recovery in such a position either.
 
flyingron said:
No, but it doesn't give me warm fuzzies having a known alcohol abuser in recovery in such a position either.
Click to expand...

Fair point.

So, then, the only path to warm fuzzies is to revoke a pilot’s certificate permanently following any sort of alcohol problem, with no recourse.

One and done. No more monitoring, no worries about relapse,...
 
flyingron said:
No, but it doesn't give me warm fuzzies having a known alcohol abuser in recovery in such a position either.
Click to expand...

Well that goes for literally every industry on the planet. Doctors being on the list of the largest abuser group. "a 2012 study by University of Washington researchers found that 1 in 6 surgeons meets the criteria for an alcohol use disorder." (https://www.addictioncenter.com/community/occupations-with-high-rates-of-alcoholism/). The world we live in.
 
Well 99 of a hundred 100 military pilots do...

And how many incidents or accidents has this caused in part 121 flying? Spoiler alert, it’s a very easy to remember round number... ZERO

Has drug use caused fatalities in part 121? Yep. Yet the same 35 days and hallelujah, they’re better!

Suicidal pilots caused any fatalities in part 121? Yep. Yet if it’s tied to alcohol, 35 days and hallelujah, they’re better.

I’d be more worried about drug users and suicidal tendencies than people who meet the FAAs administrative definition of alcohol abuse. Especially when how they deal with them violates basic rights guaranteed by the constitution, and I’m not talking about a right to fly. I’m talking about religious freedom, actual freedom (ya, hims causes wrongful imprisonment), not to mention vulgar insurance fraud, malpractice, coercion, and while we’re at it an average of 8 of 12 federally mandated patient rights violations and HIPPA violations.

What price is high enough to fix a non problem?
 
Half Fast said:
Fair point.

So, then, the only path to warm fuzzies is to revoke a pilot’s certificate permanently following any sort of alcohol problem, with no recourse.

One and done. No more monitoring, no worries about relapse,...
Click to expand...
Which is exactly what happened before HIMS.
 
flyingron said:
Which is exactly what happened before HIMS.
Click to expand...


Exactly. So as long as we have HIMS there’s no path to warm fuzzies.

So which is more important - a way for drunks to get back into the cockpit, or warm fuzzies for the rest of us?
 
Tools said:
To keep this topical, the reason the FAA is so vague about pulling medical based on biomarker testing, is because THEY DONT KNOW MUCH ABOUT IT. No one does. It’s really NOT EVER been studied in the context of abstinence verification. THAT is the problem, and how this decision will help.

I believe it’s likely the FAA will stand by their decision, what will be informative is HOW they will now justify it.
Click to expand...
Actually the reason they still accept urine ETG is low cost. They'll never say so but the guy who are down due to alcohol are POOR. They put it on the HIMS AMe to testify as to what it means. "BT, doin' that".
 
Half Fast said:
Exactly. So as long as we have HIMS there’s no path to warm fuzzies.

So which is more important - a way for drunks to get back into the cockpit, or warm fuzzies for the rest of us?
Click to expand...
Warm fuzzies sound like some hippie b*******. Do you get them when you board a CRJ and see that the captain is some nineteen-year-old barely out of his CFI diapers? I think I might rather have a grizzled old drunk.
 
Lindberg said:
Warm fuzzies sound like some hippie b*******. Do you get them when you board a CRJ and see that the captain is some nineteen-year-old barely out of his CFI diapers? I think I might rather have a grizzled old drunk.
Click to expand...
Who wizzed in your cheerios?
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top