Would you have a bird if...

Kritchlow

Kritchlow

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
7,888
Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
The Feds mandated a random drug testing (NO cost to you) on Private Pilots? Throw in random alcohol checks at FBO's.

ETA: I'm not saying this should or should not be done. I'm just thinking it may be a possibility in the future. Who knows??
 
Last edited:
Only if they could promise not privatization of ATC and eliminate ADSB requirements.
 
Kritchlow said:
The Feds mandated a random drug testing (NO cost to you) on Private Pilots? Throw in random alcohol checks St FBO's.

ETA: I'm not saying this should or should not be done. I'm just thinking it may be a possibility in the future. Who knows??
Click to expand...
Since I consent to it for work it would't bother me personally, but I'm sure others feel differently. It's like the background check thread.
 
Everskyward said:
Since I consent to it for work it would't bother me personally, but I'm sure others feel differently. It's like the background check thread.
Click to expand...

Exactly right for those of us that already participate in the screening... But I'm thinking now with weed leagal in some states this *could* rise to the level of a federal issue in regards to aviation.
 
Kritchlow said:
Exactly right for those of us that already participate in the screening... But I'm thinking now with weed leagal in some states this *could* rise to the level of a federal issue in regards to aviation.
Click to expand...
Even if it was legal federally, they could still prohibit flying while using it, just like alcohol and many other drugs.
 
I think it should be like hockey (and possibly other sports) where if you suspect someone's equipment is illegal and ask for a measurement, and they end up legal, you take a penalty (i.e. they get a bonus). So in this case, any pilot who passes with flying colors should get a tank of gas or a case of oil for their trouble.
 
RotorDude said:
I think it should be like hockey (and possibly other sports) where if you suspect someone's equipment is illegal and ask for a measurement, and they end up legal, you take a penalty (i.e. they get a bonus). So in this case, any pilot who passes with flying colors should get a tank of gas or a case of oil for their trouble.
Click to expand...

Lol!! That would work if flying was a right.
 
Sure, if they paid out of their personal paycheck $1k for every time I didn't **** hot, and they paid my normal hourly rate for my time.
 
Please don't give these people any ideas , as it is will happen and it will become a revenue stream!

To answer your question , I have two birds and have little , and even less need for the nanny state to further insult my integrity, what little I have. It will cause some to just fly under the radar , literally! Just like they do now!:D
 
Transportation and free passage should be a right. Both are heavily regulated rights, unfortunately.
 
Yeah, on the basis that it's a attitude of distrust and guilt until proven innocence. Not to mention that the whole basis for drug testing is the drug war, which is as stupid as prohibition. I don't drink beer, and I don't do drugs, but I don't believe that the war is a good thing.
 
Have been taking random tests for years. Now that I'm retired ,no way. If your going to test at FBOs ,you better have probable cause.
 
There are far better uses for federal money. This is a solution looking for a problem.
 
Hockey is not a right in Canajia, it is mandatory!
PS if not have a bird, ever heard of "Don't Have a Canary, Man?
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Hockey is not a right in Canajia, it is mandatory!
PS if not have a bird, ever heard of "Don't Have a Canary, Man?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so but I guess it's like a "conniption fit"? I Googled "don't have a canary" and some seem to think it's a corruption of "don't have a coronary". I guess "don't have a canary" can be flipped to "don't have a bird".
 
There should only be drug testing for private pilots if there is also drug testing for drivers of private automobiles, and especially, drug testing for legislators and regulators!
 
alfadog said:
No, I don't think so but I guess it's like a "conniption fit"? I Googled "don't have a canary"
Click to expand...

Right. And the Canary must be a localized thing, commonly said by my early life peers but not usual any more. How about "Don't Have a Cow?", heard of that?
 
alfadog said:
...I Googled "don't have a canary" and some seem to think it's a corruption of "don't have a coronary".
Click to expand...

That sounds very likely. It's probably similar to the way that "couldn't care less" morphed into "could care less."
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Right. And the Canary must be a localized thing, commonly said by my early life peers but not usual any more. How about "Don't Have a Cow?", heard of that?
Click to expand...

fark_QS1P2ab4ESgB2Ya3njVzwymP9AU.gif
 
I think a couple of those Amendment thingys might be a problem for the FAA - they get to make rules, but not laws.
 
Kritchlow said:
Every state I've lived in has stressed: Driving is not a right. It's a privlidge.
Click to expand...

On this subject, it's fortunate that it's not up to the states. In Shapiro v. Thompson, when the Supreme Court summarized previous rulings in various cases, they quoted many precedents that referred to a right to travel, and they concluded that

"This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement."​

Shapiro v. Thompson

I'm not an attorney, but I think that most people recognize that testing drivers (and pilots) for competence, and requiring them to obey properly adopted laws and regulations, are reasonable. Consequently, I think driving and piloting easily fit within the scope of what the Court was talking about above.

Whether you prefer to call travel a right or a privilege, if the government made decisions about who may drive a car or pilot an airplane that were sufficiently arbitrary for the Court to recognize them as unreasonable, my bet is that they would have no trouble invalidating them under precedents like the one quoted above.

Calling things "privileges," especially things that are as basic to modern life as driving, makes me nervous, because I think it's an invitation to arbitrary government.
 
Palmpilot said:
On this subject, it's fortunate that it's not up to the states. In Shapiro v. Thompson, when the Supreme Court summarized previous rulings in various cases, they quoted many precedents that referred to a right to travel, and they concluded that

"This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement."​

Shapiro v. Thompson

I'm not an attorney, but I think that most people recognize that testing drivers (and pilots) for competence, and requiring them to obey properly adopted laws and regulations, are reasonable. Consequently, I think driving and piloting easily fit within the scope of what the Court was talking about above.

Whether you prefer to call travel a right or a privilege, if the government made decisions about who may drive a car or pilot an airplane that were sufficiently arbitrary for the Court to recognize them as unreasonable, my bet is that they would have no trouble invalidating them under precedents like the one quoted above.

Calling things "privileges," especially things that are as basic to modern life as driving, makes me nervous, because I think it's an invitation to arbitrary government.
Click to expand...
I read that before I posted. I also found counter opinions saying the "right to travel" is NOT a "right to drive".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top