dutchroll Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Yes that's right. You don't get infinite chances. I know our program is designed to get people back on their feet. Our company doesn't hire drunks. What usually happens is that pressure or adverse life events get the better of some people. The DAMP is designed to give them a chance to get back to work and stay off the grog or whatever it was they were doing. It doesn't apply to criminal activity - just substance (usually alcohol) abuse. When it comes to alcohol, as long as you are not actually working with aircraft, or about to go to work with aircraft, CASA could not care less whether you have had a few. This is what people need to understand about the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron5335 Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 I agree that DAMP is pretty much aimed at the "big end of town", and really shouldn't bother anyone with a bit of common sense, that said RAA is trying very hard to emulate " the big end of town", and if you were to have a bingle or incursion and were found to have alcohol in your system, I reckon they might go out of their way to make an example. In defence contractor maintenance, they will do what they can to help you if you get busted once, but the second time, you will be unemployed very quickly. If you think DAMP is only for the big end of town, then How do you explain the fact that The Oaks (Privately owned strip ) has been visited twice in the last couple of years by testers and victims got subjected to both tests ? So think twice before you decide on a hanger party....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Do you consider yourself a "victim" when you're stopped for an RBT on the road? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 If you think DAMP is only for the big end of town, then How do you explain the fact that The Oaks (Privately owned strip ) has been visited twice in the last couple of years bytesters and victims got subjected to both tests ?So think twice before you decide on a hanger party....... Well when you come from a place that you are likely to be tested twice in a week, twice in as many years seems a bit lax. Do you think that maybe they being tipped off? BTW, if you are drinking and carrying out SSAAs you're not a victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 ^^^ I was actually going to say much the same thing, almost word for word! Thanks for absolving me of any necessity to do it! I was also going to add "Twice in two years? Cry me a bloody river!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 OK steel helmet on here ... where is the demonstrable or readily apparent risk that warrants the investment in the random testing of recreational pilots? Now a pilot in a 737 with 90+ paying passengers down the back is not in the same class as an RAAus pilot getting into at best a two seat aircraft and flying privately. The demonstrable risk addressed by RBT on car drivers is there, is known and had near on 75 years of statistics behind it. And even if not demonstrable the apparent risk of driving under the influence on streets with people about was fairly clear... Private pilots have been around for pretty much the same length of time as private drivers ... where are the actual alcohol related accidents in the statistics? And from an apparent risk perspective its 2 people in a very slow moving non-commercial recreational activity ... Nothing above negates the desirability of a reg 256 type limit on alcohol/drug impairment (but it would be nice if it were a clear requirement) but IMO nothing points to the need for a random testing regime on the recreational flyers. That said i may just add a bit of body armour to the helmet and hunker down for a while ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 If you are on the road you ARE actually driving. Different matter entirely. Your Industry, Airlines, Dutchroll is self regulating in Australia and the conditions YOU have are the result of management and Pilot groups working together and CASA keep pretty much out of it unless something takes their attention. You are in a different world in this matter, and you are fortunate there. ' I recall drink being an issue a few times in airlines and it's a serious matter when it happens. I recall NO issue of it happening in rec flying, though I am not saying there would be no issues. It's just never shown itself to be an issue there. Someone might get caught driving their car home after a few at a celebration of end of year or something. Hardly an aviation event where a plane crashed. There have been crashes where a "substance " was found in the blood, but whether that caused the accident or not may be controversial. I am not advocating a tolerance for alcohol and flying in combination (or riding a motorcycle either) You need all your wits about you when flying an ultralight. "Fit to fly" means more than not having had a drink for 8 hours . Much more. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crezzi Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 I recall NO issue of it happening in rec flying, though I am not saying there would be no issues. It's just never shown itself to be an issue there. Someone might get caught driving their car home after a few at a celebration of end of year or something. Hardly an aviation event where a plane crashed. There have been crashes where a "substance " was found in the blood, but whether that caused the accident or nor may be controversial. Happily not very common but one here https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legacy/Accidents_and_Incidents/Accident_Reports/ZK-ZXL_Fatal.pdf John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 ALL the circumstances there would have to tick the UNUSUAL box. How much does one stack the cards against themselves? Love new Zealanders. Two problems though. They hug total strangers in the main street and they drink a lot. That's not ALL of them mind you. Ah.. the Shakey Isles, where you can really relax and do it. Punch above our weight?... easy. Now just watch this... It's the bloody governments's fault. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 OK steel helmet on here ... where is the demonstrable or readily apparent risk that warrants the investment in the random testing of recreational pilots?Now a pilot in a 737 with 90+ paying passengers down the back is not in the same class as an RAAus pilot getting into at best a two seat aircraft and flying privately. The demonstrable risk addressed by RBT on car drivers is there, is known and had near on 75 years of statistics behind it. And even if not demonstrable the apparent risk of driving under the influence on streets with people about was fairly clear... Private pilots have been around for pretty much the same length of time as private drivers ... where are the actual alcohol related accidents in the statistics? And from an apparent risk perspective its 2 people in a very slow moving non-commercial recreational activity ... Nothing above negates the desirability of a reg 256 type limit on alcohol/drug impairment (but it would be nice if it were a clear requirement) but IMO nothing points to the need for a random testing regime on the recreational flyers. That said i may just add a bit of body armour to the helmet and hunker down for a while ... I agree about low risk, while it's rec flying and pax are fully informed, but, remember that management is pushing for zero harm. We now have ex-military staff running the SMS, and you will get military style risk averse management. They love that word "proactive", and I quote another tosser I used to work with who used to justify every stupefying safety decision with "we have to be proactive y'know, we can't just sit here and wait for something to happen". It doesn't matter to them, that there is no history, all they see is a possibility it could happen, and they makes rules that show that they have thought about it, have been seen to have done something about it, and have covered their arxe accordingly. For the most part, the SMS is not for your safety (that's your responsibility), it's for covering management's ar*e, when sh*t goes bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Unless the threat is REAL and not what used to be called a "what if?" the scene will get nowhere with that kind of approach. Safety is a state of mind as much as anything else. That involves self discipline and a belief that you DO make your own luck. Being careful is not sissy. Carelessnes and AVIATION don't mix. Sometimes you will pick up a feeling that having to do all that takes all the fun out of it. Well some things WILL take the fun out of it and a lot of that is starting to emerge. Participants have to believe the rulemakers know what they are doing before they embrace a way of doing things. Not that it's just for show or covering someone higher ups @r$e. (which 1/2 the time it is these days). Education beats co-ercion. Knowing just what you are doing is a good start to a successful venture. Planning and managing the flight with due attention to the important aspects, like situational awareness, not peripheral show items of rote learning nature. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairoaks Flyer Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 Th maximum alcohol allowed by CASA is 0.02%. Suggest some of you guys go to CASA seminars in future and you will get the right answer. It is not 0.0% as some people naturally make alcohol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSCBD Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 Th maximum alcohol allowed by CASA is 0.02%. Suggest some of you guys go to CASA seminars in future and you will get the right answer. It is not 0.0% as some people naturally make alcohol. Let the good times roll!!!Some PPL guys flying back from the wineries into Bankstown on Sundays many years ago were very average on arrival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 In George Moffat's book "Winning on the Wind" he describes how in France, they stopped gliding to have a big lunch, with wine, before resuming operations. While I personally agree with the idea of no alcohol before flying, I do think the risk is exaggerated at least for most people. With car accidents, the biggest risk is having a low IQ, but it is politically incorrect to think this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 Th maximum alcohol allowed by CASA is 0.02%. Suggest some of you guys go to CASA seminars in future and you will get the right answer. It is not 0.0% as some people naturally make alcohol. Welcome to the forums - I see you’re a new member. I suggest that you might like to read all of this thread as it has covered the three seperate areas most pilots on here are under - 2 come fromCASA reqs and 1 comes from the RAAus ops manual ifvyou fly RAAus. CASA safety and communications messages focus on DAMP limits of 0.02 BAC because that’s what they have as a test limit on random testing ... which strangely does not apply to RAAus pilots flying from paddocks as the power to DAMP test does not apply to RAAus pilots unless operating from licenced airfields. BUT if you are actually charged it’s not under the reg setting out 0.02 but the horribly imprecise one referenced in the posts above. Whilst I agree that 0.00 should be the target practically 0.02 should see you safe and agree that nowhere does it say 0.00 in the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now