Wanna Fly High? Fuggetaboutit!

[Floatsflyer]

Marijuana will be legal in Canada beginning in July, 2018. Despite that, Transport Canada medical authorities and regulators say it will still be illegal to fly with ANY level of THC in the blood. So zero tolerance will be the norm.

If a pilot is randomly tested and THC is found, his license could be revoked for as long as it takes for all traces to be out of his system.

So the memo to all Canadian pilots reads as follows: "If you want to keep your wings, best rely on your engine power to get high."

[robert l]

I've worked construction for over 40 years and we started having drug test in the '80's. The past 13 years it's been mostly Nuclear plants. Always a drug test on hire in and I have been random tested 4 times in a 3 month period. Guess I look the part. LOL. No matter if it's legal in your state there will always be businesses that won't accept it. So for me, it was, get high, or work and support your family. A no brainer !
Bob

[Frank Giger]

They don't call it dope because it makes one smart.

[CDS]

I've worked construction for over 40 years and we started having drug test in the '80's. The past 13 years it's been mostly Nuclear plants. Always a drug test on hire in and I have been random tested 4 times in a 3 month period. Guess I look the part. LOL. No matter if it's legal in your state there will always be businesses that won't accept it. So for me, it was, get high, or work and support your family. A no brainer !
Bob

I've heard that some good jobs - one with starting pay of $17.98/hour - have gone unfilled in Colorado because too many people fail the drug screen test. But I have to wonder, then where are those people getting the money to buy the weed in the first place? And where are they working now? Because I'd rather not do business with them.

[Bill Greenwood]

Your info probably came from someone who is not in Colorado, perhaps a dea guy who's a sore loser. Most jobs dont have a drug screen to do them. Our largest employer in town only does a check if there was a problem. The economy is good in this state ,legal pot has raised a lot of tax revenue, but otherwise it makes almost no difference for the average person.
It has long been used by many of the most educated and creative people. 60% say they have tried it once. Im pretty sure that somewhere like Silicon Valley has a lot of users and they aren't "dopes" . Propaganda from the anti side held sway for decades, but when a state legalizes it, people find the boggy man is only in Jeff Sessions head.
The idea of flying after using is a whole nother matter, you may need all your best facilties to deal with an emergency. No one really knows what effects and limits of pot are, and the big reason is that the Fed go prohibited research for all these years, they made the ludicrous claim that it was a class I narcotic and therefore bad, and so would only allow a study if it was designed to be negative, nothing independent or factual. Result we just dont know, is 8 hours toke to takeoff safe like liquor? I asked some friends and they dont have a problem driving with light use, much like one beer for lunch. And lots of athletes use even flying down a mountain at 80mph. Its not black and white.

[L16 Pilot]

Well Bill, to follow up on a previous thread: I went back and looked at the Basic Med form and under part "N" here's what I was referring to (direct quote) "Substance dependency, failed a drug test ever or substance abuse or use of illegal substance in the past two years". The last part seems pretty definitive to me so I don't know where your FAA guy is coming from as MJ is still listed as a class one on the federal level and we fly under federal regulations not Colorado.

[Bill Greenwood]

The medical advisory person read me the form for 3rd class medical over the phone, perhaps your form is different. I dont use it nor do I have "substance dependency" so I havent worried about that clause.

[Floatsflyer]

I went back and looked at the Basic Med form and under part "N" here's what I was referring to (direct quote) "Substance dependency, failed a drug test ever or substance abuse or use of illegal substance in the past two years".

Despite the wording on this Med form, who would ever actually voluntarily admit to these onerous questions when your objective is to renew your medical?

[DaleB]

Well, short answer, someone who doesn't want to lie on a government form.

Longer answer, I think it's more "perception protection" for the FAA. Some habitual drunk or drug abuser who maybe just hasn't been caught yet gets a pilot's license and proceeds to do something sadly predictable. Press interviews friends and neighbors and finds out he's got a huge problem and everyone knew about it. Would YOU want to answer questions about why you gave him a certificate without even so much as asking the question? I sure wouldn't.

[Floatsflyer]

You say, "perception protection". That's a euphemism for cover your behind. Either way those form questions do nothing to protect the applicant or the public so they should be made irrelevant and therefore deleted.

[DaleB]

You say, "perception protection". That's a euphemism for cover your ass.
You say that as if government agencies ever didn't. I never said asking the question would do any good... just giving you my opinion in response to your question. If you're not satisfied I'll refund every penny you paid for it, less shipping and handling.

[Frank Giger]

I realize it's once again fashionable to smoke dope, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a pretty stupid thing to do - especially for a pilot.

[robert l]

Despite the wording on this Med form, who would ever actually voluntarily admit to these onerous questions when your objective is to renew your medical?
Years ago on my first Hot Nuclear job one of our employees had to talk to the plant psychologist because of one of the answers he put to one of the questions on the PHQ, (personal history quiz). That’s a 500 plus questionnaire everyone has to take every few years for the Nuclear industry. A lot of the questions are the same but written in a different way. It’s like the’re trying to trip you up. Anyway, he answered yes to the question, “Have you ever enjoyed marijuana?” The psychologist said, we don’t like to see answers like that on these test and the employee said, well, you shouldn’t ask that kind of question, I’m just being honest. Since he passed the drug test everything was ok and he went to work. I guess they considered what he did in the past was, well, in the past.
Bob

[rwanttaja]

When I retired last spring, I was under pressure to keep my security clearances active so I could come back as a consultant. Told them I had no interest in maintaining them. The Security officer looked at me a bit disgustedly and said, "You're going to smoke pot, aren't you...."

Ron "Maybe...uhh, what was the question?" Wanttaja

[Marc Zeitlin]

I realize it's once again fashionable to smoke dope, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a pretty stupid thing to do - especially for a pilot.Is it stupider or less stupid (forgetting the national legal issue) than drinking alcohol, drinking caffeinated drinks, or smoking/chewing/snorting tobacco (all of which are physiologically addictive, while marijuana is not)? And are those things more stupid for pilots than for the population as a whole? Just curious as to why marijuana is singled out here...

If your position is that excessive usage of ALL of those substances are sub-optimal to varying degrees and for various reasons, particularly for pilots within their physiologically active time period, then I agree with you.

[Floatsflyer]

A lot of the questions are the same but written in a different way. It’s like the’re trying to trip you up. Anyway, he answered yes to the question, “Have you ever enjoyed marijuana?” The psychologist said, we don’t like to see answers like that on these test and the employee said, well, you shouldn’t ask that kind of question
Bob

I love his answer. His take on if you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question. This trick question is commonly referred to as a loaded or leading question. Like the classic "Have you stopped beating your wife?" or "When did you stop beating your wife?"

How do you challenge the assumption or premise of the question? How do you answer without agreeing with the implication? Just say "I never started."

[Frank Giger]

Is it stupider or less stupid (forgetting the national legal issue) than drinking alcohol, drinking caffeinated drinks, or smoking/chewing/snorting tobacco (all of which are physiologically addictive, while marijuana is not)? And are those things more stupid for pilots than for the population as a whole? Just curious as to why marijuana is singled out here...

If your position is that excessive usage of ALL of those substances are sub-optimal to varying degrees and for various reasons, particularly for pilots within their physiologically active time period, then I agree with you.

One can't forget the national legal issue. It's at the very heart of the matter.

Get arrested for having a case of whiskey in the very dry County of Dekalb in Alabama and you won't lose your pilot license. Get arrested for possessing a pound of pot and it's a different story. Have much less than that in your aircraft and transport it across state lines. Just one little joint is enough. If you're really, really unlucky and get ramp checked and there is a cop there....

I guess I'm a throwback, but there is absolutely nothing about the stoners I have known that makes me think "hey, they'd be great pilots between bong sessions!"

[Marc Zeitlin]

One can't forget the national legal issue. It's at the very heart of the matter.Only for pilots. Your statement was that it was a stupid thing to do, with the clause "especially for pilots" at the end. Let's assume that it is stupid for pilots due to the federal legal issue. My question was more for the rest of the statement (although obviously that doesn't have a lot to do with flying, so we can drop the conversation if the mods want).


Get arrested for having a case of whiskey in the very dry County of Dekalb in Alabama and you won't lose your pilot license.The 2nd/3rd class medical asks whether you've ever been arrested/convicted of an alcohol or drug related driving offense that resulted in revocation of driving privileges. So it might - get a medical refused, and you're not flying.


Get arrested for possessing a pound of pot and it's a different story. Have much less than that in your aircraft and transport it across state lines. Just one little joint is enough. If you're really, really unlucky and get ramp checked and there is a cop there....Your statement to which I responded was with respect to the usage of the substance, not to it's possession, transport and/or sale.

Let's get back to your statement regarding USING marijuana, and my question regarding USING other legal (under most circumstances) substances, and the relative stupidity of such USAGE.


I guess I'm a throwback, but there is absolutely nothing about the stoners I have known that makes me think "hey, they'd be great pilots between bong sessions!"How do you feel about the pilots that drink beer and/or hard liquor, or smoke cigarettes, or drink "energy drinks" or copious amounts of coffee?

Personally, I'll take a marijuana user over a drinker any day, but that's just me.

[DaleB]

Only for pilots. Your statement was that it was a stupid thing to do, with the clause "especially for pilots" at the end. Let's assume that it is stupid for pilots due to the federal legal issue.

8< snip...

How do you feel about the pilots that drink beer and/or hard liquor, or smoke cigarettes, or drink "energy drinks" or copious amounts of coffee?

Personally, I'll take a marijuana user over a drinker any day, but that's just me.

Regardless of whether your particular state has or chooses to enforce specific anti-marijuana laws or not, possession and use are still violations of federal law. Like it or not, them's the facts as it stands now. As for all of the various other substances mentioned, they're legal. Some, like OTC cold medicines and lots of prescribed meds, don't mix well with flying or driving. How long does it take for THC to reach a "safe" level for flying? Personally... I don't know, and really don't care.

I'll take a sober pilot (and driver) in full control of his or her faculties and not impaired by anything at all, thanks. And not playing with his or her stupid bloody cell phone either.

[Bill Greenwood]

Dale, the reason we dont know how long it takes to reach a safe level for mj is for decades the federal govt prohibited unbiased research on pot, they claimed it was a class I drug and therefore bad even though it doesnt fit the guidlines like physical addiction or overdose deaths. There is a sign at the mj dispensary that suggest not driving for 6 hours after using, but as a practical matter there are many drivers who use and there dont seem to be any more wrecks than before it was legal unless you add in alcohol. And there is also a federal law of max highway speed of 75 mph, do you think all drivers observe it?
I dont live in Alabama, but it about half the real world cities and states are not arresting people for having a joint.

[Frank Giger]

So Alabama isn't a "real state?" Garbage.

Your statement about half the USA having legalized marijuana is patently false. There are four of fifty. Maybe the rest are fake states, too?

And even where states have legalized it, there is no protection against the federal government. Indeed, at any time the Fed could come in and nullify those state laws. The question of who's laws reign supreme - the state or the federal government was resolved during a little dust up from 1861-5.

I think you may be fogging your cognitive functions with something.

[Bill Greenwood]

Some of the anti pot legal? acts are just this side of the Salem witch trials. Cops just broke into a house in Pa, and handcuffed a 66 year old lady and pulled her out to their car in her underwear while also attacking her 69 year old husband. The had no criminal history at all, were not drug dealers but the cops claimed their hibiscus plants were pot and refused to listen. It is bad enough when cops are just dumb but all too likely they are also crooked. Just had a decades long case exposed in Chicago where 7 cops were caught extorting young Black men for money or otherwise planting drugs on them and some innocent men went to prison. In Detroit 2 undercover cop units got into a fight over who was going to confiscate peoples cars.

And no pilot should fly using mj just like alcohol.

[Bill Greenwood]

Frank its not 4 states its about 29 that either medical pot is legal or recreational pot, more than half and about 8 plus Dc have legal for all uses. And without being rude, Alabama is not on the leading edge of change.
and why do you care so much what someone else uses? I dont drink coffee, eat salad dressing or like scotch but others can.

[Floatsflyer]

So Alabama isn't a "real state?"

Oh, it's definitely real and the focal point lately of much discussion. Sorry Frank, but in a nation-wide poll taken last Friday, respondents were asked, when they think about Alabama, what are the top five things that come to mind? Numbers 2-4 were the Crimson Tide. Number 5 was Tuskeegee Airmen. Number 1 was Malls.

[DaleB]

Dale, the reason we dont know how long it takes to reach a safe level for mj is for decades the federal govt prohibited unbiased research on pot, they claimed it was a class I drug and therefore bad even though it doesnt fit the guidlines like physical addiction or overdose deaths. There is a sign at the mj dispensary that suggest not driving for 6 hours after using, but as a practical matter there are many drivers who use and there dont seem to be any more wrecks than before it was legal unless you add in alcohol. And there is also a federal law of max highway speed of 75 mph, do you think all drivers observe it?
I dont live in Alabama, but it about half the real world cities and states are not arresting people for having a joint.

Just... don't... care. Don't like the rules about getting an FAA issued medical certificate while or shortly after using pot? Go talk to the FAA about it. I have neither the ability nor the desire to help you.

[Bill Greenwood]

Dale, you asked the question about how long it was till THC wore off to a safe level. I wasn't asking for your help, I have a medical, neither pot use or DUI apply to me. And I dont think anyone on the forum is advocating pilots use mj while flying any more than alcohol. No one is going to force you to use it no matter what state you live in.
By the way, does Nebraska have any singers better than Willie Nelson or football players better than Ricky Williams?

[Frank Giger]

Oh, it's definitely real and the focal point lately of much discussion. Sorry Frank, but in a nation-wide poll taken last Friday, respondents were asked, when they think about Alabama, what are the top five things that come to mind? Numbers 2-4 were the Crimson Tide. Number 5 was Tuskeegee Airmen. Number 1 was Malls.


Well, hyuk, hyuk, hyuk.

As just another stupid hick from Alabama, I'm out of this one.

[DaleB]

By the way, does Nebraska have any singers better than Willie Nelson or football players better than Ricky Williams?
I have no clue what you're talking about. Obviously I'm not alone. Have a nice day, guys.

[L16 Pilot]

The question about MJ is maybe not about you or me. My original post referred to the statement on the basic med form "Have you used any illegal drugs in the last two year?". It certainly doesn't affect me but it might some other pilots. The statement has to attested to (signed) by the pilot on the medical. Seems pretty simple to me.

[Marc Zeitlin]

Marijuana will be legal in Canada beginning in July, 2018. Despite that, Transport Canada medical authorities and regulators say it will still be illegal to fly with ANY level of THC in the blood. So zero tolerance will be the norm.To get back to the original post, this brings up an interesting question of interpretation. What is the meaning of "ANY"? What type of test will be performed to determine the level of THC (or THC metabolites)?


If a pilot is randomly tested and THC is found, his license could be revoked for as long as it takes for all traces to be out of his system.Depending upon the type of test used - urine, blood, saliva, hair - "detectable" amounts of THC can be found over varying time periods, and mean different things. Recent usage, or historical usage. These pages:

http://calculator.marijuanacentral.com/how-long-can-a-drug-test-detect-cannabis-usage/
http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html

Have well researched information on how long marijuana use is detectable. And it matters whether they're looking for THC (which is the psychoactive part) or THC-COOH (which is NOT psychoactive, but is just a metabolite that sticks around for a while).

I certainly applaud Canada for taking a step in the right direction - it would be good to have some clarity on how they intend to enforce the "zero tolerance" policy, based on the above.

Interestingly, similar questions about alcohol usage and detection bring up very similar issues - how is the testing done and what are they looking for? The "8 hour bottle to throttle" rule is almost meaningless in the context of determining impairment due to alcohol usage, yet alcohol usage can be detected in hair follicle tests up to 3 month after usage. Obviously, there's no impairment after 24 - 48 hours from usage, but the same rule about alcohol (zero tolerance) COULD have ramifications if hair follicle tests were what was used. These pages:

https://newlifehouse.com/how-long-does-alcohol-stay-in-your-system/
https://americanaddictioncenters.org/alcoholism-treatment/how-long-in-system/

discuss alcohol detection.

[Floatsflyer]

To get back to the original post, this brings up an interesting question of interpretation. What is the meaning of "ANY"? What type of test will be performed to determine the level of THC (or THC metabolites)?

Depending upon the type of test used - urine, blood, saliva, hair - "detectable" amounts of THC can be found over varying time periods, and mean different things. Recent usage, or historical usage.

I certainly applaud Canada for taking a step in the right direction - it would be good to have some clarity on how they intend to enforce the "zero tolerance" policy, based on the above.

Marc, these basic policy guidelines were just made public in the past week. It's a work in progress with more developing details to follow over the next 7 months. Stay tuned.

[robert l]

At one time I took Ambien because of a sleep disorder. I was going for a renewal of my 3rd class and after my initial Dr. visit to get things set up, I get a call from the nurse. She said the Dr. would feel better if I only took Ambien a few times a month and I told her, that would be fine if I only needed to sleep a few times a month, does he think I would take sleep meds and go fly??? I canceled the medical appointment knowing what was about to happen. I have since retired so I don't have to get up, (sleep or no sleep) at 4:30 am and put in a 14 hr. day, 7 days a week for 3 or 4 months. Now, I just get up when I feel like it! Ambien never made me feel groggy the next day but Benadryl sure did !
Bob

[Bob H]

When I worked in aerospace on both white and black programs, you were immediately fired if you used any drugs, period. HR would quietly screen all potential hires coming in for an interview and if a person
admitted he used pot at any time in his life, the job interview was over before it started. Security kept a very tight survalence on all employees. The higher the clearance, the tighter the security requirements.
Primary reason for the drug control was to keep anyone from security compromise by Soviets or other foreign agencies. And to maintain high integrity of work abilities, i.e., would you want you family flying on a plane
with parts designed or built by a pot head?

[rwanttaja]

...And to maintain high integrity of work abilities, i.e., would you want you family flying on a plane with parts designed or built by a pot head?
I'm kind of a traditionalist; planes should be designed or built by raging alcoholics.

Ron "Three martini lunches weren't just a MBA thing" Wanttaja

[Marc Zeitlin]

Primary reason for the drug control was to keep anyone from security compromise by Soviets or other foreign agencies.When I got my clearance, they told us that if we told the truth to them, we couldn't be blackmailed and that's what they were worried about. They didn't give a crap if someone had used drugs at some point in a prior life - just that they knew about it.


And to maintain high integrity of work abilities, i.e., would you want you family flying on a plane with parts designed or built by a pot head?Very close to the worst argument I've ever heard for denying someone a job (or firing them). Do you want your family flying on an aircraft designed by a drunk? How about someone that takes a lot of prescription painkillers? How about someone who is stressed out because of their wife suing for divorce? How about someone who's got insomnia and can't sleep? Or any one of a myriad of other reasons that may affect performance in a job, none of which are tested for?

Sheesh. There are a lot of reasons why someone might be incapable of performing their job, a small subset of which are listed above. If a company wants to have a PERFORMANCE test when everyone walks in the door in the morning to ensure that they're not incapacitated in any way for ANY reason, sign me up (and that's the argument I made to HP when HP started doing drug testing, an act with which I argued vehemently). But arbitrary rules against some particular substances that have nothing to do with performance when used responsibly (just like having a beer or four on Friday evening doesn't make you incapable of designing brackets on Monday) are merely the HR equivalent of TSA checks at airports - CYA moves to make it LOOK like you're doing something, while actually doing nothing useful.

I'll close with a quote from:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story/2015/12/workplace_drug_testing_is_widespread_but_ineffecti ve.html

" ... That might make sense if testing yielded clear benefits to the companies that deploy it or to society at large. But here’s the most distressing fact about drug testing in the workplace: As was the case 30 years ago, testing has no solid base of evidence, no proof that it succeeds. We don’t know if screening workers for recent drug use makes them more productive, lowers their risk of getting into accidents, or otherwise helps maintain the social order. And what positive effects we do understand—there are indeed a few—seem almost accidental. They may not be worth the time and money and intrusion."

Fire away.

[rwanttaja]

Read an interesting idea a while ago that testing for alcohol, THC, etc. in folks' systems should be eliminated in favor of PERFORMANCE testing. If the person can't pass the appropriate mental acuity and physical capability testing, they shouldn't be allowed to drive/fly/operate heavy machinery, whether it's because of booze, pot, or a splitting migrane.

Marc mentioned that the Power What Be want to know about drug use to preclude the bad guys blackmailing someone. On the same basis, they do occasionally ask pointed questions about sexual preferences and habits.

Ron "Boy, was my face red" Wanttaja

[L16 Pilot]

Personally I must lead a pretty protected life as I don't know anyone in my circle of friends who use illegal drugs. On the other hand I'm on the plus side of 70 and not near as 'enlightened' as some younger folks who apparently seem to feel "Hey, if it feels good...do it!". It still gets down to the question on the medical form "Have you used any illegal drugs in the last two years" and it depends on how honest the applicant might be.

[robert l]

For over 20 years of an almost 50 year career in construction I was the safety person. Normally we gave the drug test in house but some jobs required us to have a 3rdparty give the test. Hey, less work for me ! On a particular case my company wanted to give a hair test when the urine test came back inconclusive. The employee disappeared for a few days and when he came back to work, his hair had been bleached and cut real short. The testing technician said it didn’t matter,they could get hair from “ANY” part of the body ! OUCH !!! Anyway, she said the only problem with the hair test is that it won’t show anything that’s been used in the last two weeks because it hasn’t had time to get into the hair follicle.But beyond two weeks they can go pretty far back. This is mainly to tell if a person is a chronic user. Well personally, I’m not doing any work “In the past”,any work I do for an employer will be from the test date forward.
Bob

[1600vw]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWyzPpYslYc

[rwanttaja]

Personally I must lead a pretty protected life as I don't know anyone in my circle of friends who use illegal drugs.
Depends on whether people you know are casually willing to confess committing felonies. If I used, I certainly wouldn't tell any of MY non-using friends about it.

I've received a couple of shocks over the years, when acquaintances (and even friends) got busted for things I had no idea they were doing or were capable of doing. One emasculated another man in a bar fight, an espionage case, child porn, a rather virulent racist, and, of course, various people unfaithful to their spouses. One person I thought I knew well is currently serving a 70+ year sentence for a rather horrid series of crimes. Just a couple of months ago, I found out the wife of an acquaintance was addicted to opiods. Her husband drives to Mexico regularly to keep her supplied.

In the aftermath of discovery, it seemed obvious....various hints and odd occurrences suddenly made sense. But before the denouement, hadn't really crossed my mind.

Those that advertise their illegal activities generally get caught. But most of this stuff is pretty easy to hide.

Ron "Not what the guy did in the bar fight, but...." Wanttaja

[robert l]

A $15.00 drug test kit from any pharmacy will give you the results in 5 min. I know, I've given hundreds ! These cops have watched too much TV !!!
Bob

[Floatsflyer]

When I worked in aerospace on both white and black programs, you were immediately fired if you used any drugs, period. HR would quietly screen all potential hires coming in for an interview and if a person
admitted he used pot at any time in his life, the job interview was over before it started. Security kept a very tight survalence on all employees. The higher the clearance, the tighter the security requirements.
Primary reason for the drug control was to keep anyone from security compromise by Soviets or other foreign agencies. And to maintain high integrity of work abilities, i.e., would you want you family flying on a plane
with parts designed or built by a pot head?

Bob, did you ever think that you were part of a dystopian environment at work? Was there a Ministry of Truth down the hall from HR or did it replace HR?

Since it's your Thanksgiving today, it would seem very appropriate to ask if, in addition to these "interviews", you and the other potential employees were also "injected, inspected, detected, infected, neglected and selected?"
(Reference hint: you can get anything you want......)

[rwanttaja]

Bob, did you ever think that you were part of a dystopian environment at work? Was there a Ministry of Truth down the hall from HR or did it replace HR?

I worked in that environment for the last ~25 years of my aerospace career. There really wasn't that big of a deal about it, other than the physical security itself, and that varied from site to site, from program to program. Some places required all briefcases be inspected on the way out, some didn't. Didn't have windows in most places, a very few did. Usually had to go in through 3-5 security doors, often using different admission protocols (mechanical cypher lock, electronic cypher lock, manned security, badge readers, even a retina scanner).

The expected glut of "Loose lips sink ships" sorts of posters, a bunch of rules on what couldn't be brought inside. Friend of mine was fired for accidentally bringing his cell phone inside. He reported the lapse himself...as we were required to. Multiple layers of computer security, as well... towards the end of my time, if I wanted to catch up on all my email, I had to log in to five different computers.

Had an annual refresher to remind us of the rules.

Almost never saw an HR person. This was good in a lot of ways...but of course, being stuck in the "black" was hell on promotion. Nobody outside the box knew what you did, so how can you convince them that you're worthy of more pay? Security guys were ubiquitous, but I generally got along with them fairly well.


Since it's your Thanksgiving today, it would seem very appropriate to ask if, in addition to these "interviews", you and the other potential employees were also "injected, inspected, detected, infected, neglected and selected?"

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered!"

Ron "I am not a number, I am a free man! (at least since I retired in March)" Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

I worked in that environment for the last ~25 years of my aerospace career....
I should mention the upside. Absolutely FASCINATING work. Being a mad monk/skunk works sort of program also means you can bypass a lot of the bureaucratic stuff. What they don't know won't hurt them.....

My engineering DNA is on about 40 pieces of space hardware. Several of them have my physical signature on them. Here's a shot from one of the unclassified programs...my signature is highlighted by the arrow. Signed for both me and my wife.
http://www.wanttaja.com/batsat_sign.jpg

Ron Wanttaja

[Floatsflyer]

I worked in that environment for the last ~25 years of my aerospace career. There really wasn't that big of a deal about it, other than the physical security itself, and that varied from site to site, from program to program.

Were you exposed to the same draconian drug policies, interrogations and penalties as Bob H?.

[rwanttaja]

Were you exposed to the same draconian drug policies, interrogations and penalties as Bob H?.

I'm not certain as to what Bob meant for some of those, but:

1. I was not required to undergo a drug test during the course of my employment. However, when I returned from working at another company for several years, I *was* required to pass a drug screening as a condition of employment. No periodic ones at any time. I believe it wasn't allowed by the union contract. Those in the military, of course, are subject to random screening.

2. I was required to pass an enhanced security examination periodically. I would suspect Bob, Ron, and others probably understand what I'm referring to. It is unpleasant. In addition, the Government periodically performed a full background check, for which we had to agree to allow investigators access to certain financial and medical records. As part of that, I was once grilled about apparent spending beyond my means, and how I was able to support my lifestyle (e.g., new house, new cars, old airplane). Told them to talk to Jeff Bezos about my wife's stock options.....

3. As part of the agreements, you had to notify security of major changes in your life. Divorces, new co-habitants, financial problems, mental health issues, etc.

4. Also had to notify them about any contacts with the news media. This was entertaining for me in two ways:

- During the Engineer's strike at Boeing, I was interviewed by a French magazine. A French COMMUNIST magazine.
- *I* am considered news media (books published by McGraw Hill, lotsa articles in the aviation press). I gleefully told my co-workers that, when asked about news media contacts, they had to report that they had been in contact with me. :-)

5. Non-use of illicit substances was a condition of employment. During my long time period in the business, it did seem to change from "If you've ever used, you're out" to "don't use it any more." Bob's comment about the Government being concerned about blackmail rather than one's personal failings pretty much rings true, these days.

Draconian? I guess. But once these hoops are taken, you are allowed access to information for which, "....the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security." One might understand official caution.

I mentioned one of the offsetting positive aspects, the fascinating work. Another is job...pardon the pun...security. It costs about a half-million dollars to clear someone at these levels...and the process takes about ten months. Companies do NOT want to let you go, and pay accordingly.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

Pssst... Frank, your PM storage quota is exceeded, and I can't respond to your latest.

Ron "Don't mind me" Wanttaja

[Frank Giger]

Fixed. Fun trivia fact: items in your "sent" box count towards your total number of messages one can store on the site. So 25 messages and 25 replies fills it up.

[robert l]

Bob, did you ever think that you were part of a dystopian environment at work? Was there a Ministry of Truth down the hall from HR or did it replace HR?

Since it's your Thanksgiving today, it would seem very appropriate to ask if, in addition to these "interviews", you and the other potential employees were also "injected, inspected, detected, infected, neglected and selected?"
(Reference hint: you can get anything you want......)


No Float, a lot of people really want to work Nuclear, I wasn't crazy about it because of all the BS just to get the job and all the BS to do the job. I never looked for a Nuke job, I was always called by one company or another because I had a good reputation and most of the supervision liked me and most of the guys I worked with said, you're the best safety man I've ever worked with. I guess that was because I didn't get my knowledge from a collage but from actual work experience. I worked as a journeyman in 8 different crafts through the years so it was hard for anyone to get anything over on me, plus, I cut the guys some slack because I had been in their shoes, (boots) myself. Never got injected or infected but I got inspected, neglected and inspected ! I have worked as many as 3 Nuke jobs in a year and had to fill out the same paper work, (generally about 35 pages) plus a complete background check each time.
Bob

[saber25]

Considering what some of the respondents here have gone through to get and maintain their positions, is asking the potential head of state to go through a similar process too much?

Cheers, Hans

[L16 Pilot]

Or apparently members of congress could use some " further training" and I'd suggest drug and alcohol testing. If zero tolerance is good enough for pilots it should be good enough for those make the laws.

[rwanttaja]

Considering what some of the respondents here have gone through to get and maintain their positions, is asking the potential head of state to go through a similar process too much?
Several problems there. First, you have the issue as to *who* actually does the investigation. What happens if the investigation claims that the opponent of an incumbent president isn't qualified to serve? There's an obvious conflict of interest, since security investigations are under the control of the president (executive branch). How do you resolve that?

Second, this does tend to politically bias the selection process. An individual might be denied a security clearance because, for instance, they were arrested during peaceful political protests. But would that truly make them unsuitable for high office?

A lot of people don't understand that most of the "laws" governing security are implemented as presidential executive orders. Those executive orders can be changed on a political whim, and could obviously be used as political weapons.

Ron Wanttaja

[Dana]

When I worked for the Navy in the 1980s (civil service engineer) the security officer told us, "we don't care about weed, it's the beer of the 80s." Of course that was an era where having a couple of beers with lunch at the officer's club before going back to the office was routine.

I had two other jobs left that required pre employment drug screening, no random testing after hiring. I got the impression they were trying to weed out (no pun intended) people without the self control to abstain for a few weeks, but didn't much care beyond that if it wasn't a problem or on the job (one guy was fired for drinking in the parking lot on his lunch break).

As for drug testing for politicians, great idea! Give 'em a shot of sodium penthothal once a week and ask "what laws have you broken this week?"

[DaleB]

As for drug testing for politicians, great idea! Give 'em a shot of sodium penthothal once a week and ask "what laws have you broken this week?"
Not that I'm not concerned about the laws they have broken, but the real problem is generally the laws they pass.

[Floatsflyer]

Several problems there. First, you have the issue as to *who* actually does the investigation. Ron Wanttaja

Ron, I don't believe this is a problem at all as historical precedents have dealt with this issue very well in the form of the Office of the Independent Counsel and/or Special Counsel for investigations. Watergate, Bill Clinton, Enron and now Trump administration are high profile examples. Canada appoints Royal Commissions usually headed by a former Supreme Court Justice to do it's independent investigations of wrongdoing and illegal activities.

[Floatsflyer]

As for drug testing for politicians, great idea! Give 'em a shot of sodium penthothal once a week and ask "what laws have you broken this week?"

Excellent proposal! Should be made mandatory by law.

[rwanttaja]

Ron, I don't believe this is a problem at all as historical precedents have dealt with this issue very well in the form of the Office of the Independent Counsel and/or Special Counsel for investigations. Watergate, Bill Clinton, Enron and now Trump administration are high profile examples. Canada appoints Royal Commissions usually headed by a former Supreme Court Justice to do it's independent investigations of wrongdoing and illegal activities.
The problem there is that Special Counsels (and probably Royal Commission) are Very Big Deals. They're complex, disruptive, and still liable to claims of political bias. They also generally take a long time, and are not conducive to deadlines (e.g., voting day). If a Special Counsel reports that Candidate XXX is unfit two weeks before the election, there'll be hell to pay and no pitch hot.

The only alternative would be to start early...and then you'd be running a dozen or so Special Counsels in parallel to be able to cover all the candidates. And you'd STILL have the deadlines of the party conventions.


As for drug testing for politicians, great idea! Give 'em a shot of sodium penthothal once a week and ask "what laws have you broken this week?"

I tend to put sodium penthathol into the same bin of tools of mythical utility as lie detectors. If sodium pentathol actually *worked*, why the big deal setting up foreign sites to physically torture Taliban prisoners? Why go though all the effort to hire sadists to run waterboarding sessions, when, supposedly, a prick of a needle will get anyone blabbing?

Ron Wanttaja

[Floatsflyer]

The problem there is that Special Counsels (and probably Royal Commission) are Very Big Deals. They're complex, disruptive, and still liable to claims of political bias. They also generally take a long time, and are not conducive to deadlines (e.g., voting day). If a Special Counsel reports that Candidate XXX is unfit two weeks before the election, there'll be hell to pay and no pitch hot.

The only alternative would be to start early...and then you'd be running a dozen or so Special Counsels in parallel to be able to cover all the candidates. And you'd STILL have the deadlines of the party conventions.
Ron Wanttaja

You are very right to say that SP's deal only with Very Big Deals or as I like to point out only those events and issues that are of the highest public interest. And you point out some possible drawbacks but the positives in terms of independence, integrity, usual unimpeachable reputation of the lead investigator and the absolute least political bias possible outweighs, IMO, those limitations. Also, there is no time limit to produce findings and the budget is big to allow for the hiring of the best and brightest lawyer investigators.

[Floatsflyer]

In addition, the Government periodically performed a full background check, for which we had to agree to allow investigators access to certain financial and medical records. As part of that, I was once grilled about apparent spending beyond my means, and how I was able to support my lifestyle (e.g., new house, new cars, old airplane). Told them to talk to Jeff Bezos about my wife's stock options.....Ron Wanttaja

Your wife picked the company with the best upside IMO to work for. I just read this morning that as a result of Amazon shares surging on optimism over holiday sales, Bezos saw his net worth climb to over $100 Billion as of yesterday's market close. According to Bloomberg, this is the first time the $100 Billion threshold has been crossed since Bill Gates in 1999. Time for your wife to negotiate for more options.

Full disclosure: I own 14 shares bought 7 months ago(most I could afford at the time). Net profit is about $6K US to date or $100K Canadian :>)