Alcohol and Drugs in Aviation Law
The Aviation law provisions the industry with safety measures creating an accident-free environment. Scholars in this industry point concerns on applied policies within the alcohol and drug issue. According to a survey on drug and alcohol policies within the commercial aviation business, the focus is on the factors affecting flight crews. The majority of companies have their own regulations on drugs and alcohol. These matters are subject to national and international legislation. Drug and Alcohol policies focus on restricting their consumption during flights and a relative period before flight takeoff. There are only a number of airlines that provide screening procedures that would help prevent alcohol and drug taking during flights and misuse of any kind by the flight crew members. Commercial airlines involve mainly passenger carrying and normally have very few cases of alcohol and drug usage thus few accidents occurrence. Aviation experts argue that that restriction policy within the industry is an effective step towards stopping fatal accidents thus guaranteeing the safety of passengers. Nevertheless, this all depends on the depth at which there is adherence to such policies as its attribution to aviation safety is open to extensive research (Bhatt 45).
There are various interpretations of the concept of modest drinking which may increase the advent of risks that are related to the rise of alcohol and drug-related dangers. The common phenomenon is that of not drinking while driving as it is a major cause of fatal road accidents and increased fatal rates in transport industry (Edwards, 2004, pp 56). However, the context of driving on the road is no way near the sensitivity as that of flights. Pilots who engage in these vices put innocent parties at the risk of losing their lives and themselves as well. Aviation is probably the most sensitive commuter service industries as performance deficits can severe outcomes and the potential costs for such risks are relatively high. Calamities that arise due to the issue of alcohol and drug consumption are avoidable due to the inception of rules and regulation such as screening plus other policies. However, there is little information relating to these accidents and how alcohol and drugs play a role in resulting in fatalities. The aviation environment encounters difficulties in formulating these policies and on the other hand there insufficient proof that these policies are not effective. It is evident that there no support from scientific study pinpointing the negative effects drug and alcohol taking within the aviation industry (Bartsch 76).
Research on drug and alcohol policies is a significant exercise as it involves flight crew members being responsible for the lives of passengers during flights. All the induced alcohol accidents are suggested that learning on the dangers of drug and alcohol consumption is important in understanding alcohol sensitive contexts. The high cost of commercial aviation, both the human and financial aspects suggest that it is vital to improving and maintain effective policies that preserve not only the employees themselves but also the passengers that they serve. There are three major levels involved in the formulation of drug and alcohol policies in aviation. These include international policies, national, and air force. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is being the formation of policies, which applies to international standards or rules within the international community, where all member states have to adhere to these standards after subscribing to it. ICAO is responsible for licensing all the air personnel, Flight Operation Officers, Air Traffic Controllers, and the flight crew members. One of the specifications for the organization is to ensure that all the applicants have no history of taking drugs or alcohol and most importantly making sure that they are not addicts (Bartsch 89). This paper will identify the impacts of drugs and alcohol in aviation legislation. In addition, it explains why it is necessary to have screening procedures to reduce the influence of drugs and alcohol within aviation companies.
International Civil Association Organization (ICAO) (Brief)
Robert M. Jarvis, a professor of law in the prestigious NSU (NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY) depicts aviation law as the a branch of law that deals with air travel, flight, and other associated business and legal concerns that relate with aviation. Nevertheless, the business aspects of most international and regional airlines plus their regulation fall under the Aviation law.
The ICAO (International Civil Association Organization) institution ensures that there are numerous medical assessments that are outlined in their regulations. ICAO is a specialized branch of the United Nations. These rules facilitate the detection of drug and alcohol problems that may arise from the license holders. Conclusively, there a policy prohibits both the pilot and flight crew members do not fly while having an impaired judgment that may affect their performance. Other national bodies such as the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) in the United Kingdom and the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) in the US have their own different legislations, which operate both nationally and internationally (Federal Aviation Administration, 1986). Air forces and individual airlines formulate their own distinct policies that put restrictions that are tougher than both national and international standards (Florio 63).
Drug Policies
In most cases, drug policies were much more briefly described and defined than the alcohol policies. Because of this, and because of lack of information provided by respondents, a comprehensive classification of these policies is still under study, However, in at least 12 cases where it was indicated that there was an illicit drug policy, this appeared to refer to general policy provisions concerning the use of any drugs. In seven of these cases, proscription of illicit drug use by aircrews appeared to be subsumed under a policy prohibiting the use of any drug that was not either prescribed or else taken under appropriate medical instruction. In the other five cases, illicit drug use was apparently subsumed under instructions prohibiting the use of any drugs that might impair performance on duty (Larsen, Gillick and Sweeney 91).
Prescribed Drug Policies
Prescribed drug policies entailed varying detail regarding specific drugs or groups of drugs, including’ over the counter’ medications as well as prescription only drugs. In many cases, they recommended or required that advice be sought from a company medical practitioner or from an approved aviation medical examiner (William E. Thomas 43).
Screening policies
Eighteen airlines indicated that they had an alcohol and/or drugs screening program for aircrew. Unfortunately, variable amounts of detail were provided, and in two cases no information was provided at all. Two airlines referred only to conducting medical examinations; in one case on a ‘frequent’ basis, and in the other case on a ‘random’ basis prior to flying duties. Six airlines referred to specific tests for illicit drugs, mostly modeled on FAA guidelines. Eleven airlines referred to specific tests for alcohol, including seven that specified the use of breathalyzers. Of the 11 airlines conducting screening for alcohol intoxication, the context of testing was: random (5), pre-duty (3), post accident (4), pre-employment (3), or on ‘reasonable cause'(4) (William E. Thomas 57.).
Prevention Policies
In many cases, it was not clear from the responses given that respondents had understood the distinction between the broader issue of prevention of drug and alcohol misuse, and the specific alcohol/drug policy issues addressed in other parts of the questionnaire. Few respondents gave any details in their answer to this question, and it appeared likely that most of those giving a positive reply considered any drug and alcohol policy to be a ‘prevention’ policy. However, inspection of the policy documents provided by some respondents revealed references to ‘increasing awareness’ of drug and alcohol problems, or a commitment to creating a ‘drug and alcohol-free workplace’. One company had prepared its own guide to alcohol/drugs for flight crew (William E. Thomas 68).
Get research paper samples and course-specific study resources under homework for you course hero writing service – Manage ment Policies
Amongst respondents indicating that their company had a policy, very few provided details concerning the nature of the policy that was implemented. Some companies only gave the indication of a disciplinary response, sometimes including dismissal. Others indicated that counseling and rehabilitation would he necessary, and in some cases, this was to be at the company expense. It was indicated in two responses that only one opportunity would be offered for rehabilitation and that dismissal would follow any relapse. Where rehabilitation was an available option, some sort of arrangement was provided for a follow-up to ensure both a good outcome for the employee and also safety in the aviation environment. Suspension from flying duties was invariably mandated during the process of rehabilitation (William E. Thomas 71).
The response rate observed in this survey is reasonable for a self-report questionnaire mailing and is arguably very good in respect of UK based airlines. However, it is clear that many airlines did not participate, and that they may be dissimilar from those that did. For example, the response rate was much higher amongst UK airlines, perhaps representing a tendency for respondents to be more willing or able to reply to a survey originating from their home country. Unfortunately, data concerning the fleet size, annual numbers of passengers and annual tonnage of freight transported were not readily available for the majority of airlines. It is therefore not possible to make calculations concerning the extent to which various policies apply to the total numbers of international commercial aircraft, or passengers/freight transported (William E. Thomas 83).
Table Showing Screening Statistics
% of Alcohol Violation Test
(2010 – Essay Writing Service: Write My Essay by Top-Notch Writer-2015 – Research Paper Writing Help Service) % of positive drug test
(2010 – Essay Writing Service: Write My Essay by Top-Notch Writer-2015 – Research Paper Writing Help Service)
Flight crew 0.11 0.07
Flight attendants 0.39 0.51
Flight instructors 0.08 0.14
Aircraft dispatchers 0.21 0.79
Maintenance personnel 0.24 1.28
Aviation screeners 0.24 2.09
Ground security coordinators 0.22 0.72
Air traffic controllers 0.00 0.52
TOTAL 0.25 0.99
Whilst the above comments may limit the extent to which the policies described are considered representative of airlines in general, there is no obvious reason to believe that the group of no responders harbors policies which are novel, more effective, or more comprehensive than those of other airlines. Indeed, the combined sample of policies described in this survey appeared to have considered almost every conceivable aspect of alcohol or drug use and misuse by aircrew which might reasonably be the object of policy making. There is, of course, a danger that the non-responding airlines might have poorer policies, and that they did not respond because of a concern not to be seen to have inadequate policies. The overall picture may therefore not be as good as the one painted here (Pearson and Riley 110).
The information culminating from most airlines indicates that there are policies present that not only curb the use of drugs and alcohol while on duty but regulations and penalties for all that would not adhere to the strict airline policies. This gives people the perception that there is significance in having these policies in place due to the alcohol and drug usage prevalence, which pose great risks in such work environments. Nevertheless, one will discover that not many airlines have policy measures that would hinder the use of drugs and alcohol amongst airline officers. The misfortune is that research through the use of questionnaires does not provide accurate information on matters relating to drug usage. This is the despite having only a few of the airlines policy documents as they clearly indicate that they have tackled the issue accordingly, which is not the case. The assumption by the majority was that other policies in place could mask the problem of drugs and alcohol in airlines. The other alternative is considering companies that dwell mainly on the employee behavior thus directly having an influence in their work. In addition, the advent of imposing more direct measures, which would constitute to intrusion on private matters. The ideology behind such measures is that this rule should apply to the whole working population and not only aircrew members. This means that airline officers should not be singled out in some sort of special treatment. There are many explanations on the drug topic but these policies tend to target the idea of avoiding intoxication while at the place of work. The paper addresses the airline section with the aim of lowering the consumption rate of drugs and alcohol thus averting dangers associated with such intoxication. There are numerous problems that arise due to alcohol use. One of the major side effects is having impaired judgment which would result in the loss of life. There is the need to tackle the imbalance and just because it effects does not surpass the alarming rates of other adversities, it does not mean that airlines cannot tackle the issue in a swift and actionable manner (Jarvis, Crouse and Fox 103).
There is a very little option if any within airline policy conventions that explore the concept of intoxication thus preventing airline offices such as pilots from flying while under the influence. However, organizations that works closely with airline companies point out that it is not an easy task to root out completely alcohol and drug usage through induction of policy making. The best illustration is that of a pilot who drinks heavily during specified occasions. If an individual takes ten pints of alcohol beer, which would take roughly twenty hours for them to flush it out of their system, thus rendering such policies as insufficient (Jarvis, Crouse and Fox 108).
It is only a few airlines that would have the ability or the power to stop this individual from flying with intoxication of their bottle to throttle policies singularly. One of the world airlines may have possibly achieved this through the imposition of a twenty-four hour period moderation which relates directly to the eight-hour bottle to throttle period. Notwithstanding, these airlines still not avert the potential risks of continued impairment beyond the point at which BAC reaches to the zero point. Post Alcohol Impairment agencies still argue that there is a risk to flight safety even in the scenario of having a longer bottle to throttle periods. Research verifies that only those airlines with a seventy-two-hour bottle to throttle period would seriously address the issue of alcohol and drugs causing impaired judgment (Jarvis, Crouse and Fox 116).
Legislations in majority nation’s airlines clearly stipulate that pilots cannot fly planes under the influence of alcohol though posse’s challenges in practice. It is almost impossible for the aircrew supervisors to determine whether an individual performance was impaired due to drug use not unless this was undertaken under test procedures. In addition, it would not be actual even if there was high-level of education relating to the study of given alcohol quantity effects. There are few airlines that wish to provision any amount of education or information to their crews especially on matters touching on drug and alcohol usage (Jarvis, Crouse and Fox 119).
It is relative that the introduction of these policies would trigger a mixed reaction from some of the airline crew, surprisingly is that majority took the policy induction positively. This supports the idea of having zero tolerance to intoxication to all airline staff thus a step forward in rooting out these devices within the aviation industry. This is true as it would resolve all the drug related problems with the crew. In addition, these matters are still under scrutiny by the international aviation bodies. This is to the extent that every commercial passenger conducting aviation accidents that result from alcohol or drug problem have reduced to almost none. It is a success story but still has not ridden the aviation industry of problems relating to alcohol. There is still the need to conduct more research on the matter to establish among which of the policies identified are absolutely relevant to the survey on alcohol and drug use in the aviation industry. What would be the best combination of these policies to make them effective in ensuring drugs and alcohol are no longer a problem for airline crew officers (Leasure and Nolan 58).
Speculations are there as to whether these policies can be effective to other forms of aviation. Yes, these policies have no limit to specific types of aviation as alcohol and drug usage affects individuals working performance and not the organization directly. An example is the private pilots who in view of the strict regulations disagree on the effectiveness of these policies to curbing the alcohol problem. There are the enforcement concerns which would affect employee motivation due to the feeling of invasive policies. Other than this aspect, there are matters such as the screening programs that would have a direct impact on the selection criterion. These policies pose risks of losing work and not forgetting the safety concern for the high number of passengers flying in and out of the country through different airlines. These policies are an added incentive to airline employees to be responsible in respect to the utilization of drugs. Scholarly attribution suggests that these policies should be uniform within all airlines to ensure that others do not have a competitive advantage over the others. This should be effective despite the cultural differences. (Flori, 2004) supports the cultural attribution by Arab nations on the misuse and use of alcohol as their culture prohibits them from indulging in such vices (Leasure and Nolan 62).
Screening policies at first may seem like an invasion of privacy but a necessary step in facilitating an alcohol and drug-free aviation industry. This is one of the major challenges of airlines across the globe. Most argue that the screening procedures will only provide a means of monitoring other airline policies and not address the major concern with which they are meant for. Research on drinking patterns and on drinking and driving are much applicable to the aviation context. It supports the contention that surprise checks and random tests will provision an effective intervention to the reduction of the prevalent intoxication of pilots. Nevertheless, a pre-flight breathalyzer still does not tackle the issue of PAI (Post Alcohol Impairment). There are no airlines that provide information on management policy on drug related problems with the aircrew. They view such information as private and confidential thus forming a report on the matter would prove difficult to researchers. The airline companies that gave out information on the drug problem strictly asked for maintaining confidentiality on the matter. Various publications have had the same encounter of confidentiality when describing problems facing the aviation industry (Leasure and Nolan 71).
Alcohol and Drug Policies for Licensed Air Operators
Alcohol, drugs and medication are the world’s most common causes of fatal airline commercial transport system accidents, which normally culminate from impaired judgment. Scholars argue that test programs aimed at identifying alcohol and drug users while on duty have instilled more confidence in the passenger travel industry as more testing programs are warranted within the aviation sector. This is a positive in the United Kingdom and also on the international platform as screening programs are on the rise within different airlines around the world (Leasure and Nolan 76).
The advent of a clear policy on the usage of drugs and alcohol does form an essential part of the Air Operator Certificate (AOC) Holder on Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSP) systems. An additional alcohol and drugs policy that facilitates the safety critical staff is essential within the aviation industry as they provision assurance of safety in the sector (Leasure and Nolan 79).
What are the effects of Alcohol, Drugs, and Medication?
Alcohol not only impairs performance at all levels but the impairment increases with the consumption level of a given individual. There are medicines that have come up through doctor’s prescriptions or other means even illegal drugs that will also impair the performance of an employee. When it involves the short-term period judgment where it affects the decision-making processes as there is an increase in errors and different forms of risk-taking behavior. Other challenges include bad attitude towards work, poor concentration, and slow cognition. In a scenario where an individual takes high volumes of alcohol can lead to that person contacting various types of ailments such as debilitating and chronic diseases (Leasure and Nolan 92).
Regulatory Requirements
International Civil Aviation Organization
The ICAO standards require that each state facilitates safety measures through screening of individual where there is certainty of no involvement with either drugs or alcohol. Personal Licensing to the convention dealing with the International Civil Association indicates that licensed holders will not venture in the consumption of psychoactive substances which might impair their judgment while conducting serious work tasks that require their full attention and risks the lives of other people. The organization in charge has the prerogative to take away such privileges to individuals who indulge in alcohol and drug usage. However, psycho-active substances exclude licensed tobacco users and those individuals that take coffee. Even though, such persons are previewed within the law not to create any problems (Bartsch 106).
The European Union is adamant and clear to a given set of rule for all air operators within the region. In caption 7, it states that “a crew member must not perform allocated duties on board an aircraft, when under the influence of psychoactive substances or alcohol or when unfit due to injury, medication, fatigue, sickness or other similar causes.” The reflection of this requirement falls mainly on the AOC. Additionally, the law provisions that every AOC holder must issue guidance to all crew members. This is on matters concerning their health and relay concerns of the airline in relation to alcohol consumption including all other types of narcotics. Article 17 of the European clearly stipulates that license holders shall misuse their privileges of their authorization at any particular time especially when they are aware of their unfit medical status or when under the influence of psychoactive substances that might tamper with their sound work judgment (Bartsch 111).
The United Kingdom legislation stipulates that health and safety at work are the responsibility of the employer. They should provide a suitable environment for their employees and ensure that work conditions do not hamper their delegation of duties or judgment for that matter (Bartsch 123).
The enacted Railways and Transport legislation of 2003 clearly explains the alcohol limits that aviation officers should not surpass while at work. These include flight crew, air-traffic controllers, and cabin crew. There alcohol limit is 20 mg of alcohol in their blood. This is with the exception of licensed engineers who have a higher limit of 80 mg of alcohol in their blood. Apparently it is the same level with the drink driving limit in England. Article 139 (2) that tackle the air navigation order states that “All persons must not as a member of the crew be under the influence of Alcohol to such n extent as to impair their capacity so to act”. The government together with the relevant bodies publishes a number of consultations on the matter of drug driving where there was the introduction of roadside drug testing (Bartsch 119).
Creating a Drug and Alcohol Policy
All AOC holders and ANSPs should have a drug and alcohol policy as part of their SMS which should include the following elements: training and education program covering the potential effects of alcohol and drugs medication use (prescribed or bought from a pharmacy) to ensure the safe exercise of license privileges whilst taking medication and the early recognition and rehabilitation of individuals with an alcohol or drug problem; a peer intervention program may be viewed in this context. Briefing on self-awareness and facilitation of self-referral for help with an alcohol or drug problem (Alvarez 32).
A procedure for monitoring the efficacy of the alcohol and drugs policy does involve a drug and alcohol testing program. AOC holders and ANSPs should review their employment contracts to make sure they permit testing. monitoring and support for return to work after rehabilitation for an alcohol or drug problem (Alvarez 46).
Issues to Be Considered For Drug and Alcohol Testing Include, (Florio 123)
• Frequency of testing
• When testing is undertaken, for example, pre-employment, before a duty period, the availability of repeat testing facilities
• The medicines and drugs that are tested
• Where testing takes place who undertakes testing (normally an external specialist provider)
• The samples that are taken
• Which safety critical personnel are tested?
• Safeguards for the process include things such as chain of custody, robust process, legally secure, confidentiality. Quality standards including the accreditation of the service and ISO standard
• Procedure to be followed in the event of a positive test
Drug and Alcohol Screening Program
Trained staff should carry out test processes through mouth test, swab, breath, blood, and hair or urine sample. Tests are becoming simpler to administer and less invasive as the technology continues to improve (White 26).
There should be no notice to avoid raising the attention of random testing. The sample collection and testing process should be designed to ensure the result is reliable. If a positive result is found further (usually blood) testing should be undertaken. A confirmed positive result should be reported to the relevant regulatory authority; in the United Kingdom, the report should be sent to the Medical Department of UK CAA for only aviation license holders (White 32).
When making decisions on drugs and medicines to test for and the frequency of testing should be determined by the individual operator in conjunction with their medical advisor. This will be influenced by the location of the safety critical workers, by employment and residence, and local factors including the availability of particular substances accepted regional practices and availability of medicines, certain types of food and drugs. Cultural practices and the diversity of the workforce and sectors were flown should also be taken into account (White 51).
Monitoring of results should be undertaken regularly and the results of testing workers should
• Introducing a Drug and Alcohol Policy
• Influence future testing frequency.
In a case when introducing a drugs and alcohol policy for the first time, the operator should communicate the fresh policy to all safety-critical employees who will be affected. Support should be offered to individuals who self-report a drug or alcohol problem to facilitate their rehabilitation (White 67).
The introduction of drug and alcohol testing and especially random testing is a sensitive issue. Operators will naturally wish to have regard to the employment, data protection, and other considerations which that arise (White 79).
Guidance on the introduction and monitoring of the policy in practice is available from aviation medicine practitioners (White 92).
Aero Medical Examiners (AMEs)
It is important to maintain a robust, impartial approach to the testing process and it is likely that operators will seek independent medical assistance with testing. The CAA has the services of a Consultant in Addiction Disorders who runs a fortnightly clinic (Ragazzi 112).
At the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority), Aero Medical Centre, Gatwick, Any commercial pilot or ATCO may self-refer or refer themselves via their AME to this clinic if concerned they have an alcohol or drug problem. Any individual who wishes to refer themselves because of a potential alcohol or drug problem or has concerns about a colleague may discuss the matter in confidence with a CAA Medical Assessor. The clinic has a successful record of reintroducing 80% of aviation safety critical workers with a treated alcohol or drug problem back into the workplace and continues to monitor and support these individuals long term. Aero medical Examiners have been trained by the CAA to support AOC (Airline Operator Certificate) holders and ANSPs in implementing a drugs and alcohol policy and advise on appropriate referral routes for other safety-critical staff (Ragazzi 121).
Aviation Law on Accidents Resulting From Drugs and Alcohol on International Level
The NTSB (National transport Safety Board) has a long history of working to reduce operator impairment in all modes of transportation. In 2000, the NTSB issued a letter to the DOT and its modal administrations and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) addressing multi-modal concerns about the potential safety effects of drug use in transportation. The letter included 24 recommendations to the DOT, the FAA, the FMCSA, the FRA, the FTA, the Coast Guard, and the FDA (National transport Safety Board) (Jarvis, Crouse and Fox 73).
Most recently, the NTSB (National transport Safety Board) has focused on eliminating substance-impaired driving by placing this safety issue on the 2016: 2024 – Do my homework – Help write my assignment online NTSB Most Wanted List, conducting a 2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service. Custom Essay Services Cheap public forum on substance-impaired driving and issuing a related safety report on alcohol-impaired driving that also highlighted the need for better data about drivers’ use of drugs. In 2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service. Custom Essay Services Cheap, the NTSB (National transport Safety Board) also issued a recommendation letter to the Coast Guard to align its standards for post-accident toxicological testing of Coast Guard military personnel to allow consistency with the requirements specified in Article 46 of the European Union (Larsen, Gillick and Sweeney 79).
The NTSB (National transport Safety Board) last examined pilot drug use in its safety study, Alcohol and Other Drug Involvement in Fatal General Aviation Accidents, 1983 through 1988. Research findings from toxicology tests brought forth in the early part of the study period were considered inconclusive because laboratory procedures were evolving during that time. A series of recommendations were issued to the FAA (Food and Drug Administration) the National Association of State Aviation Officials, and legislative leaders plus various state governors are to improve the frequency and quality of drug testing among pilots involved in accidents. Since those recommendations were issued over 20 years ago, the United States societal patterns and population demographics of drug utilization have transitioned. Scientific and technological advances also improve the ability to identify various drugs and understand toxicology results. As a result, this study presented an opportunity to assess pilot drug use, using the most current and accurate data available (Jarvis, Crouse and Fox 117).
Study Findings (Larsen, Gillick and Sweeney 131)
I. The percentage of study pilots with positive toxicology findings for all drugs, including either potentially impairing drugs or drugs used to treat potentially impairing conditions, plus controlled substances increased from just less than ten percent of study pilots in 1990 to 40% in 2015 – Research Paper Writing Help Service (Larsen, Gillick and Sweeney).
II. The patterns of increasing prevalence of drug use and use of multiple drugs identified in study pilots’ toxicology test results are consistent with observed trends of increasing drug use by the US population in general. Sedating antihistamines were the most commonly identified drug category in toxicology test results of study pilots (Larsen, Gillick and Sweeney).
III. The percentage of study pilots without a current medical certificate has been increasing since 2005, and the available pilot demographic data suggest that the increasing trend of pilots flying without medical certificates will continue (Larsen, Gillick and Sweeney).
IV. The distribution of accident event types has been generally similar for study pilots with and without evidence of recent use of potentially impairing drugs.
V. Diphenhydramine (an active ingredient in Benadryl and Unisom products) was the most commonly identified sedating antihistamine and the most commonly identified potentially impairing drug in this study (Larsen, Gillick and Sweeney).
VI. The percentage of study pilots testing positive for marijuana use increased over the study period, primarily in the last decade (Larsen, Gillick and Sweeney).
VII. Study pilots who did not have a medical certificate or whose medical certificate had expired were more likely to have positive toxicology findings for all drugs, potentially impairing drugs, drugs administering impairing conditions, controlled substances, and illicit drugs (Larsen, Gillick and Sweeney).
Future Research Needs
The examination exhibits trends in the prevalence of drugs that pilot’s use and ends up dying due to an aviation accident. The results indicate that fatally injured pilots are increasingly showing evidence of having used a wide variety of drugs. The increasing utilization of potentially impairing drugs, drugs that indicate potentially impairing medical conditions, controlled substances, and illicit drugs among fatally injured pilots as discussed in this study suggest a potentially serious aviation safety problem (Zhao 44).
Nevertheless, this research found no reliable connection between the evidence of drug use and the state of the fatal accidents. The distinctions between the NTSB’s determination of probable cause and the recent GAJSC analyses of NTSB (National transport Safety Board) data from loss-of-control accidents mentioned earlier in this report highlight the complexity of interpreting the relationships among evidence of a drug’s use, its effects, the effects of underlying medical conditions, and the risk of a transportation accident (Zhao 67).
The next step in understanding the relationships between drug use and accidents is to compare the prevalence of drug use among fatally injured pilots with the prevalence in pilots flying without having an accident. Further research may identify increased accident risk associated with some drugs or combinations of drugs, which would support improved guidance or limitations on use of those drugs while flying. Conversely, some drugs believed to be “potentially impairing” may not be correlated with accident risk and concerns about their specific effects may be reduced (Zhao).
The NTSB concludes that additional research is required to assess the complex relationship between pilots’ use of drugs and associated accident risk. Therefore, the NTSB (National transport Safety Board) recommends that the FAA (Food and Drug Administration) conduct a study to assess the prevalence of OTC, prescription, and illicit drug use among flying pilots not involved in accidents, and compare those results with findings from pilots who have died from aviation accidents to assess the safety risks of using those drugs while flying (Zhao 71).
Assessing the Safety of Pilots without Medical Certificates
Findings from this study indicate that pilots without an FAA (Food and Drug Administration) medical certificate who were fatally injured in accidents were more likely than pilots with at least a third-class medical certificate to have toxicological evidence of recent use of drugs, potentially impairing drugs, drugs that indicate a potentially impairing condition, controlled substances, and illicit drugs. The study findings further indicate that accident pilots conducting 14 CFR Part 121 and Part 135 operations subject to DOT mandatory drug and alcohol testing requirements for safety-sensitive aviation personnel were less likely than those conducting general aviation operations to have toxicological evidence of recent use of drugs, potentially impairing drugs, drugs that indicate a potentially impairing condition, controlled substances, and illicit drugs. Therefore, the NTSB (National transport Safety Board) concludes that FAA (Food and Drug Administration) medical certification requirements and DOT mandatory drug and alcohol testing requirements for safety-sensitive aviation personnel have been associated with fewer toxicological findings of impairing drugs and conditions among accident pilots subject to those requirements. Conversely, these results suggest that allowing pilots to fly without a medical certificate could contribute to an increased risk of pilot impairment while flying because study pilots without an FAA medical certificate were more likely to have toxicological evidence of impairing drugs and conditions. Study data also indicate that the proportion of study pilots flying without a valid medical certificate more than doubled since the Sports Pilot and Light Sports Aircraft Rule went into effect in September 2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service. Custom Essay Services Cheap. In combination, these findings suggest an increased risk of accidents due to pilot impairment for this group of pilots. However, there has not been a corresponding increase in the proportion of accidents in which the NTSB (National transport Safety Board) determined that impairment contributed to the accident. It is not currently possible to compare the safety of medically certificated pilots with those flying under the Sports Pilot and Light Sports Aircraft Rule because there is limited information about the number and flight activity of pilots without medical certificates (Augustin and ICAO 65).
Each year, the FAA (Food and Drug Administration) publishes a US Civil Airmen Statistics study using information from its official airmen certification records. For statistical analysis purposes, the FAA (Food and Drug Administration) defines an active pilot as one who holds both an airman certificate and a valid medical certificate. Because there is no medical requirement for pilots holding only a sports pilot certificate or pilots flying gliders only, statistics for those pilots are based on the total number of airmen certificates on record in those categories. According to the United States Civil Airmen Statistics study, the FAA (Food and Drug Administration) had issued about 4,500 sport pilot certificates as of 2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service. Custom Essay Services Cheap, which accounted for less than 1% of all estimated active pilots (Augustin and ICAO 69).
However, the changes to medical certification requirements in the Sports Pilot and Light Sports Aircraft Rule also apply to pilots holding higher-level airmen certificates but flying light sports aircraft and exercising the privileges of a sports pilot certificate. A valid medical certificate is defined as being within the duration of the third-class medical. Pilots may fly light sports aircraft as long as they hold a valid driver’s license and have not had an FAA medical certificate denied, suspended, or revoked. Thus, an airline transport pilot who develops a serious medical condition and believes the condition might lead to a denial of medical certification may allow the medical certificate to expire and continue to fly light sports aircraft with a valid driver’s license (Augustin and ICAO 76).
Similar to pilots holding medical certificates for the flight operations they are conducting, pilots flying without a medical certificate must adhere to federal regulations at 14 CFR 61.53 and 91.17, which prohibit a person from acting as pilot-in-command while that person “knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner.” Title 14 CFR 91.17 also states, “No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft while using any drug that affects the person’s faculties in any way contrary to safety.” However, without consulting an AME or comprehensive guidance about approved drugs and conditions, it is difficult to establish how pilots are supposed to know or have reason to know whether their medical conditions or drug use would be unsafe (Augustin and ICAO 82).
The accident data in this study suggest that the group of pilots flying without a medical certificate is much larger than the group of pilots with only sport pilot certificates. For example, about 9% of study pilots since 2016: 2024 – Do my homework – Help write my assignment online without a medical certificate had only sport pilot certificates; the rest held private, commercial, or airline transport pilot certificates. As a result, neither counting recently issued medical certificates nor counting pilot certificates on record captures the existence or flight experience of the majority of pilots flying without a medical certificate. Without this information, measures of aviation safety, such as the accident rate per pilot, fatalities per flight hour, and fatal accident rate per flight hour, cannot be determined or compared with historical data and other information to determine trends in aviation safety. The NTSB (National transport Safety Board) concludes that although this study found an association between fatally injured pilots flying without a medical certificate and increased evidence of such pilots using drugs with impairing effects, there has not been a corresponding increase in the proportion of accidents in which the NTSB (National transport Safety Board) determined that impairment contributed to the accident. The NTSB (National transport Safety Board) further concludes that the accident risk for pilots flying without a medical certificate cannot be accurately determined because the FAA does not collect information about the number of these pilots or their flight activity (Augustin and ICAO 85).
Petitions by pilot groups, proposed congressional action, and the FAA’s recently announced rulemaking efforts on medical certification all suggest that this group of pilots will expand if pilots will be allowed to fly a much wider range of aircraft without a medical certificate (Augustin and ICAO 95).
The General Aviation Pilot Protection Act of 2013, H.R. 3708, 113th Congress, and the companion General Aviation Pilot Protection Act of 2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay For Me Without Delay, S. 2103, 113th Congress, propose allowing pilots to use a valid state driver’s license in place of the traditional medical certificate if the flights are not for compensation; conducted under visual flight rules, at or below 14,000 feet; no faster than 250 knots; and in aircraft with no more than 6 seats and no more than 6,000 pounds gross takeoff weight. The proposed legislation would also require the FAA to provide Congress with a report on the resulting impact on general aviation safety within 5 years of enactment. The FAA’s rulemaking effort, “Limited Private-Pilot Privileges for Pilots Who Do Not Currently Hold an FAA Airman Medical Certificate to accurately assess the safety of this group of pilots. The NTSB also believes that requiring pilots without a medical certificate to periodically identify themselves as active pilots and report a summary of recent flight hours would provide the FAA with the minimum information necessary to assess the accident risk of this group. The NTSB is aware that on February 4, 2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay For Me Without Delay, the FAA initiated a rulemaking effort, “Private Pilot Privileges without a Medical,” to consider expanding the group of flight operations exempt from medical certification requirements. This rulemaking effort will provide an opportunity to address this important limitation to its current oversight of airmen certification. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the FAA require pilots who are exempt from medical certification requirements to periodically report to the FAA their status as an active pilot and to provide a summary of recent flight hours (Augustin and ICAO 104).
Federal Drug Testing Rules in Transportation
The DOT (department of Transportation) and the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as well as their modal agencies have extensive regulations for screening personnel in safety-sensitive positions for illicit drug use.14 The FAA, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and the US Coast Guard (Coast Guard) require that personnel in safety-sensitive positions within the industries they oversee submit to pre-employment, reasonable suspicion, random, return to sensitive duty, and follow-up drug and alcohol testing. In addition, there are requirements for testing these personnel following accidents. The mandatory testing in the transportation industry is limited to alcohol, opiates, marijuana, amphetamines, cocaine, and phencyclidine. The FAA’s (Food and Drug Administration) list of safety-sensitive positions includes pilots flying for 14 CFR Part 121 air carriers and 14 CFR Part 135 commuter air carriers, on-demand air carriers, and commercial air tour operations (Jarvis, Crouse and Fox 79).
Conclusions (Jarvis, Crouse and Fox 149)
I. Findings of increasing drug use and increasing use of multiple drugs by fatally injured study pilots are indicative of similar trends in drug use by the US pilot population in general.
II. The overall risk of drug-related pilot impairment is increasing due to the growing use of potentially impairing drugs.
III. An increasing number of pilots are flying without a medical certificate and will likely make decisions about their medical fitness to fly, including the use of drugs while flying, without periodic interaction with an Aviation Medical Examiner.
IV. The Federal Aviation Administration does not provide pilots with adequate information to make informed decisions about which drugs are safe or unsafe to use while flying.
V. Federal Aviation Administration medical certification requirements and US Department of Transportation mandatory drug and alcohol testing requirements for safety-sensitive aviation personnel have been associated with fewer toxicological findings of impairing drugs and conditions among accident pilots subject to those requirements.
VI. Although this study found an association between fatally injured pilots flying without a medical certificate and increased evidence of such pilots using drugs with impairing effects, there has not been a corresponding increase in the proportion of accidents in which the National Transportation Safety Board determined that impairment contributed to the accident.
VII. The accident risk for pilots flying without a medical certificate cannot be accurately determined because the Federal Aviation Administration does not collect information about the number of these pilots or their flight activity.
VIII. States’ guidelines for health care providers regarding prescribing controlled substances for pain provide an opportunity to highlight the importance of discussing risks in all transportation modes when prescribing these medications (Jarvis, Crouse and Fox 94).
IX. Current written and oral communications are not effectively informing patients about the risks their medical conditions and drug use may pose when operating a vehicle in any mode of transportation.
X. There is a gap in the Federal Aviation Administration’s policies regarding marijuana that may lead to confusion about the agency’s position on marijuana use by pilots not subject to mandatory US Department of Transportation drug and alcohol testing requirements.
XI. Additional research is required to assess the complex relationship between pilots’ use of drugs and associated accident risk.
XII. As a result of this safety study, the National Transportation Safety Board makes the following recommendations, To the Federal Aviation Administration:
XIII. Develop, publicize, and periodically update information to educate pilots about the potentially impairing drugs identified in your toxicology test results of fatally injured pilots, and make pilots aware of less impairing alternative drugs if they are available.
XIV. Require pilots who are exempt from medical certification requirements to periodically report to you their status as an active pilot and to provide a summary of recent flight hours.
XV. Develop and distribute a clear policy regarding any marijuana use by airmen regardless of the type of flight operation.
XVI. Conduct a study to assess the prevalence of over-the-counter, prescription, and illicit drug use among flying pilots not involved in accidents, and compare those results with findings from pilots who have died from aviation accidents to assess the safety risks of using those drugs while flying.
XVII. Among the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico include in all state guidelines regarding prescribing controlled substances for pain a recommendation that health care providers discuss with patients the effect their medical condition and medication use may have on their ability to safely operate a vehicle in any mode of transportation.
XVIII. Utilize existing newsletters or other routine forms of communication with licensed health care providers and pharmacists to highlight the importance of routinely discussing with patients the effect their diagnosed medical conditions or recommended drugs may have on their ability to safely operate a vehicle in any mode of transportation.
Works Best paper writer websites, Custom term paper writing service and Research papers owl essays – Professional help in research projects for students – Cite d
Alvarez, J.E. International Organizations as Law-makers Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Augustine, J and ICAO. Institute of Air and Space Law New York: McGill University, 2004.
Bartsch, Mr. Ronald I C. International Aviation Law Washington: Ash gate Publishing, Ltd, 2013.
Bhatt, S. International Environmental Law Kentucky: APH Publishing, 2007.
Florio, Filippo De. Airworthiness: An Introduction to Aircraft Certification. Boston: Elsevier, 2010 – Essay Writing Service: Write My Essay by Top-Notch Writer.
Jarvis, Robert M., et al. Aviation Law Cases and Materials Carolina: Academic Press, 2006 – Write a paper; Professional research paper writing service – Best essay writers.
Larsen, Paul B., John Gallic and Joseph Sweeney Aviation Law: Cases, Laws and Related Sources. Ottawa: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service. Custom Essay Services Cheap.
Leasure, Michael and Michael S. Nolan Unmanned Aviation Systems. Boston: eAcademicBooks LLC, 2015 – Research Paper Writing Help Service.
Pearson, Mr. Michael W and Mr. Daniel S. Riley Foundations of Aviation Law Boston: Ash gate Publishing, Ltd, 2015 – Research Paper Writing Help Service.
Ragazzi, M. The Concept of International Obligations London: Clarendon, 2006 – Write a paper; Professional research paper writing service – Best essay writers.
Tams, C. J. Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
White, N. D. The Law of International Organizations Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005.
William E. Thomas, Frank J. Dooley. Airline Labor Law New York: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2009.
Zhao, W. International Air Law Beijing: Publications for Treatises of Social Sciences, 2010 – Essay Writing Service: Write My Essay by Top-Notch Writer.
