CASA confuses me.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Turbs, are you really saying that you approve of random audits? In what areas of your life do you approve of these? Are there areas of your life you don't want audited?

 

The very possibility of being audited by an uneducated CASA inspector would always keep me away from a fly-in. This has nothing to do with feeling guilty and everything to do with hating bullies.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

As with all statistics, the result depends on what was searched for

The CASA 2016/17 annual report claims that 10,000+ drug and alcohol tests were performed in that year. However, no results were recorded. Does that mean that there were no positives. Surely if the report of how many tests were performed, the effectiveness of those tests should also be reported.

The Victorian Transport Accident Commission reports (Drink driving statistics - TAC - Transport Accident Commission ) that 99.7% of the 24 million tests conducted 1997-2016 did not exceed the .05 BAC. Applied against the 10,000 tests conducted by CASA I would suggest that a maximum of 30 people tested would have returned a positive test. Why a maximum? many of the tests would have been carried out in the hours of darkness. the South Australian DPTI reports that "the majority of drink driving crashes occur between the hours of 6pm and 6am (79%)". In addition, many people who are tested under the CASA regime are just on the airfield, maybe not even pilots or as Bruce and I experienced, just picking up some tools to take home.

 

So the proposition remains that without clear evidence to support effectiveness of the random testing regime, it is at best an unwarranted intrusion of the State and at worst window dressing by an organisation looking to show it is "doing something".

 

However organisations with DAMP have other reasons to undertake testing - if indeed many of them do!

 

 

[turboplanner]

The CASA 2016/17 annual report claims that 10,000+ drug and alcohol tests were performed in that year. However, no results were recorded. Does that mean that there were no positives. Surely if the report of how many tests were performed, the effectiveness of those tests should also be reported.The Victorian Transport Accident Commission reports (Drink driving statistics - TAC - Transport Accident Commission ) that 99.7% of the 24 million tests conducted 1997-2016 did not exceed the .05 BAC. Applied against the 10,000 tests conducted by CASA I would suggest that a maximum of 30 people tested would have returned a positive test. Why a maximum? many of the tests would have been carried out in the hours of darkness. the South Australian DPTI reports that "the majority of drink driving crashes occur between the hours of 6pm and 6am (79%)". In addition, many people who are tested under the CASA regime are just on the airfield, maybe not even pilots or as Bruce and I experienced, just picking up some tools to take home.

So the proposition remains that without clear evidence to support effectiveness of the random testing regime, it is at best an unwarranted intrusion of the State and at worst window dressing by an organisation looking to show it is "doing something".

 

However organisations with DAMP have other reasons to undertake testing - if indeed many of them do!

You've just discussed the issue from one direction; that of the failure number in X number of tests. I have serious concerns about the academics at TAC who look at it from that viewpoint, because that's not why it was started. It was started as a result of 50% of dead drivers having excess alcohol in their system out of, if I recall 1034. So all the alcohol related deaths were coming from a minute section of the community, and that's where the focus should have stayed. The initial response to advertising led to a major drop in fatalities on the road, but the drop didn't continue, and these fatalities were coming from the recalcitrant rump, hence the introduction of RBT. You can imagine the cost of testing 24 million people, and the Courts still finding serial offenders, and that's what is leading the push for alcohol locks; then everyone is tested on every drive.

For the same reasoning I agree with you on CASA walking into a hangar and testing someone who might be just visiting to look at an aircraft; there needs to be some crossover point similar to keys in the ignition in a car. In addition to that, the audits should relate to the number of pilots killed with alcohol or drugs in their blood. You are at least then attacking the problem.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs, are you really saying that you approve of random audits? In what areas of your life do you approve of these? Are there areas of your life you don't want audited?The very possibility of being audited by an uneducated CASA inspector would always keep me away from a fly-in. This has nothing to do with feeling guilty and everything to do with hating bullies.

Starting at the back end first; the comments which came back from the locations where CASA inspectors, and were published have been that all were very educated; in fact the pilots thanked them for telling them things they didn't know, and they were thankful the inspectors didn't book them for things like no WB calculations, no fuel calculations, not met reports, no flight plans etc.,things that should be second nature to every pilot.

Yes, I approve of random audits in the safety area, where there are appeals/natural justice processes.

 

The reasons are:

 

1. For self administration bodies, it allows a sport to be affordable, and it works very well. Probably less than 1% or participants ever get to go through the non-compliance process because it has that psychological motivator which gently adjusts behaviour.

 

2. As an entrenched objector to speed controls on the road, I've seen the modification of driver speeds on the road due to the random audit process which has got beyond being able to predict when you might be audited. It has achieved common traffic speeds in each zone, which does have an effect on safety, but overall has had no real effect on fatalities, so I'm looking forward to the zone speeds gradually being lifted.

 

I know this itches your skin and you don't want any controls, but we're being pulled down by the small minority that can't help themselves from killing and injuring other people and themselves.

 

 

[old man emu]

99.7% negative RBT tests over a twenty year sampling period doesn't seem to be an improvement over the 99.92% negative tests I saw in the mid-1980's. However, I will concede that the figures I looked at were from tests done in the Goulburn area where most of those tested were travelling between cities. I imagine that most of the 0.08% were locals going home from the pub. However, you cannot discount the massive effect RBT has had on social behaviour. How many of us now stop off for a schooner or three after work? Now we have to be aware of the drug affected young driver who has used stimulants.

 

If CASA published the type of persons who have been detected 'over the limit', I'd bet that most were airport laborers like baggage handlers and cleaners, not AMEs, refuellers, and flight crew.

 

 

[billwoodmason]

You missed the endless posts and gripes, and the drop in attendances?

I think they have achieved much more than keeping the guilty away - attendance numbers (or lack thereof) would suggest that any flyin where RAA had influence has been declining for some years. Even including every other Sport Flying organisation hasn’t shielded them from their declining reputation amongst recreational fliers.

 

 

[Yenn]

There is no credibility in RBT numbers. There could be a very low rate of test failures due to the testing officers inflating the number of tests done, by not actually conducting a test. You may think this wouldn't happen, but only a week or so ago it was reported to have happened in Victoria, in tests supposedly conducted by the Vic police.

 

 

[turboplanner]

There is no credibility in RBT numbers. There could be a very low rate of test failures due to the testing officers inflating the number of tests done, by not actually conducting a test. You may think this wouldn't happen, but only a week or so ago it was reported to have happened in Victoria, in tests supposedly conducted by the Vic police.

Agree, they are looking at the wrong part of the equation, haven't yet rounded up all the drunks, and the explosion of drug driving is one of the more serious issues the community faces today.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Which is why we should be returning to the fatality evidence. Victoria's road toll has been hovering around a J curve for a few years, and additional issues confusing the decision makers are drug driving, Inattention (incl mob phones), and fatigue which are all more pronounced than they used to be 20-30 years ago.

[turboplanner]

It’s a free country; you can stay away if you want to.

 

 

[M61A1]

I deleted the post as the multiple quotes came out mashed up.

 

But no, it's not a free country, that's absolute bullsh1t !

 

 

[turboplanner]

I deleted the post as the multiple quotes came out mashed up.But no, it's not a free country, that's absolute bullsh1t !

Not if you show up, no.

 

 

[old man emu]

There are three major factors in a traffic collision:

 

1. The Roadway
    
    
   
2. The Vehicle
    
    
   
3. The human Factor,
    
    
   

 

 

Since the 1980's There has been massive improvement in the collision risk due to poor road design. Passive safety has been designed into vehicles. That just leaves the human factors.

 

Since the introduction of RBT, driver behaviour has changed greatly. The numbers of alcohol intoxicated drivers may not have changed on a pro rata basis, but the level of blood alcohol in affected drivers seems to have dropped significantly. Without doubt, many drivers in the 1980's were weed-affected. Those intoxicants have been replaced by the use of stimulants by the wider community. (In the 80's it was mainly long distance transport drivers who were on the 'beans'.)

 

Dropping the annual road toll from 1300 for NSW in the early 80's to the mid-300's now is a great result for the money spent on road and vehicle design and RBT. There will always be a background number of road fatalities. The problem for safety authorities is to identify what constitutes an inevitable fatality and what are the causes that can be reduced. For example, there will always be the elderly who walk into the paths of vehicle. There will always be the child behind the reversing car. There will always be the motorcyclist who leans across the centreline of a curve into the path of a vehicle coming the other way. There will always be the suicide made to look like a road accident.

 

 

[facthunter]

Ramp checks and such keep more than the guilty away. Most people have enough bull$#1t in their lives already to not go somewhere where more of it is a known part of the procedure, unless they HAVE to... People justifying their new job can be quite obnoxious. and often don't have the knowledge or judgement to go with the responsibility... Too much of it kills the venture off as a place to want to be.

 

.. RBT of pilots in the Coral sea would have grounded all of them in the last war.. Most pilots don't fly their "lighty" down to the pub to meet the mates after work. and I've never witnessed a pilot drink and go flying. I don't think the locals or their own compatriots would like to see that

 

IF your "Troopy" has been at the "local" every afternoon till dark, for a week or two, It's a fair chance you are having a drink (or three).. I don't want to share the road with drunks either. Being breathalised twice in the one day is getting a bit over the top... There comes a time when the law of diminishing returns comes into effect, and money is being wasted and people inconvenienced unnecessarily. Nev

 

 

[red750]

I never drank more than a couple of glasses a year, and not a teaspoon for five years. I don't mind being pulled in for an RBT if it keeps a few d1ckheads off the road. It's a giggle when they ask "Have you had anything to drink?" to be able to answer "Yes, two lemonades and an iced coffee."

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

So what is the point of Human Factors training? We are regarded as being responsible enough to have a licence/certificate - without publication of detailed RBT outcomes CASA hasn't got a leg to stand on.

 

 

[derekliston]

Last RBT I had, I was asked “When did you have your last alcoholic drink?” (Stupid question!) My answer “The Christmas before last”

 

 

[turboplanner]

So what is the point of Human Factors training?

The point is that ATSB do have good statistics on pilot deaths caused by Human Factors, and from my observations over the years on the annual death toll in recreational aviation crashes the HF numbers may be quite a bit higher.

In both cases, GA and RA I'm of the opinion that CASA and RAA have not succeeded in coming up with a training and compliance method which is good enough. While it is true that if your had gone scuba diving, and then jumped into an aircraft without doing your calculations you could be in trouble, that;s not one of the central training examples I would have given.

 

Both have some urgent work to do.

 

We are regarded as being responsible enough to have a licence/certificate

In both GA and RA you are assessed for the physical skills to manipulate an aircraft, and tested for the theory and practical guidelines of safe flight, but the missing link, to a degree, is the responsibility (or behaviour).

You are not tested for behaviour, and while a very large percentage of licence and certificate holders will be totally responsible for life, a small percentage will be accidents waiting to happen because of their day to day habits and behaviour. Some of those go on to contribute to the fatality statistics, often killing others. Three I remember vividly were one who killed six people doing a steep turn after takeoff and smashing into a radio tower, one who incinerated himself in front of his lunch companions when he tried to do a steep turn between two hangars and hit the power line, and the third killed himself in front of the neighbours children when he buzzed them below roof level on Christmas Day, hitting....well you can probably guess what he hit.

 

While testing is not a reliable behaviour indicator, auditing is. I raced for twelve years under the full time supervision of at least six stewards who watched my behaviour for the full night. BMX racing doesn't start until about six stewards are in place, and at a Sporting Shooters range you are under constant supervision. You would expect that under this level of behaviour control, there would be very little behavioural accidents, and that's true, however, in one case I had to adjudicate on, a driver who was miffed at something or other which happened out on the race track, came into the pits at high speed, oversliding into his parking spot jamming a woman who had been feeding her baby up against a marker tyre, and in another case a driver, accused of forging a doctor's signature on his medical just about had us letting him off. He seemed a nice man and was very believable, but I tried one more question and he came back with "The only reason I signed the Certificate was...................." I upheld his 12 months suspension.

 

With a Compliance and Enforcement system in place then benefits of auditing for safety are accepted quickly, provided the Compliance standards are justifiable and the Enforcement follows natural justice principles.

 

- without publication of detailed RBT outcomes CASA hasn't got a leg to stand on.

CASA does have a leg to stand on if a CASA employee finds alcohol in your system.

The best RBT outcomes would be where x number of people had been tested and there were zero offences, so the back end doesn't mean much.

 

If you want Audits to be justified the best measure is a started datum of the number of pilots who died with alcohol in their blood at the start of the programme, and then measure against that year by year.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Last RBT I had, I was asked “When did you have your last alcoholic drink?” (Stupid question!) My answer “The Christmas before last”

The next person may have responded "an hour ago", providing his own evidence.

 

 

[old man emu]

The reason for "When was your last drink?" is to ensure that there is not alcohol in the mouth when the breath is tested.

 

Technically, one is in one's legal right to refuse that answer that question because any answer is self-incriminating.

 

The correct questioning should be:

 

Tester: "In order to obtain a reliable result from the screening test, I need to know if you have consumed alcohol in the past fifteen minutes. Have you consumed alcohol in the past fifteen minutes?"

 

Please note that the test carried out in the field is a test to see if "there may be present in your blood the prescribed concentration of alcohol" is simply a screening test. You are either under or over the line. The only acceptable evidence in a prosecution comes from the testing of the breath by an approved breath analysing instrument, which is something that looks like this:

 

 

 

[derekliston]

The next person may have responded "an hour ago", providing his own evidence.

Sorry, still think it is a stupid question! Just let me blow, or as is the new thing, just talk to it! Then, if it shows that I have in fact consumed alcohol, ask me when I had my last drink.

 

 

[old man emu]

Just on two years since this topic was active.

 

I was wondering if CASA is still sending out people to do drug and alcohol testing, or was this flurry of activity another Government knee-jerk.

 

I know some will say that COVID has reduced the number of pilots committing aviation, and that's acceptable, but the maintenance facilities are still operating, and that is a pool if likely lads for testing.

 

Has anyone heard of a random testing visit of late?

[Bruce Tuncks]

I don't think that they are allowed to test cleaners and baggage handlers at major airports. They are not allowed to search them, even if they are related to known drug people. The reason is that the airline objects to paying a salary while the person is being tested or searched.

The total effect of this is that lots of drugs enter the country from crooked cleaners.