THC positive from ER visit but never smoked.

Assumptions…. What about a false positive?

Did you know the faa REQUIRES a non fda approved test PROVEN to have NUMEROUS false positives on which a medical is based?

Not only do they condone, they don’t even warn airmen of it, and have NO meaningful appeal of it.
 
Tools said:
Assumptions…. What about a false positive?

Did you know the faa REQUIRES a non fda approved test PROVEN to have NUMEROUS false positives on which a medical is based?

Not only do they condone, they don’t even warn airmen of it, and have NO meaningful appeal of it.
Click to expand...
Just as a matter of clarification.

-The FDA does not review any tox/drug screening tests that are for use in employment or screening by the federal government. So the fact it's not FDA approved is meaningless. The FDA can't approve this test for this indication.

Now, in medicine, any positive drug screen is confirmed by gas chromatography mass spectroscopy, which has a vanishingly low rate of false positivity. I don't know if this is how it is for the FAA, but I would imagine so. (Of course I could imagine wrong!)...
 
It is LC/MSMS, which has nothing to do with the false positives.

All testing required under 49cfr40 is required to be FDA approved.
 
Tools said:
It is LC/MSMS, which has nothing to do with the false positives.
Click to expand...
Your sentence has little meaning.

All tests have false positives and negatives. Typically for a urine based screening test, the initial screen is an immunoassay test designed to have very very high sensitivity, but so so specificity. In this scenario a negative test is very likely to be correct, however, a positive test has to be confirmed. Typically it's confirmed with LCMS, which has a very high specificity. So a positive test visually always a true positive. The rate of false positives under this dual sequence testing is vanishingly low. I mean, if you're science based...
Tools said:
All testing required under 49cfr40 is required to be FDA approved.
Click to expand...
You made me read 49cfr40. Sigh... I may have missed it, but nowhere did I see that DOT and FAA tests are FDA approved. This is all I can find.

40.81 What laboratories may be used for DOT drug testing?​

(a) As a drug testing laboratory located in the U.S., you are permitted to participate in DOT drug testing only if you are certified by HHS under the National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) for each specimen testing methodology performed under this part.

This is not the same as FDA approved. Again, the FDA doesn't approve or disapprove of these tests. The DOT doesn't use FDA approved tests because they think they have a higher standard. Either way, both the DOT/FAA tests and FDA tests are held to a very high standard.


You can take whatever position you want on whether pot should be allowed. But I don't think we will settle anything here since you seem to have an alternative set of facts and science as well.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Irrelevant. "Legal" has nothing to do with "acceptable to the FAA". You keep making this statement, and it is still just as irrelevant as the first time you said it.
Click to expand...
No. It’s not. He’s being effectively punished for something he did not do. That’s about as contradictory as a government action can be to the founding principles of our government. He wasn’t subject to the faa when he had the test and used the fully legal with the federal government hemp CBD oil.
 
Mark K said:
DOT/FAA tests and FDA tests are held to a very high standard
Click to expand...

Hmmm… dot and faa are the same under 14cfr120. Otherwise not so much.

Faa uses LDTs… do you consider those “high standard?”

Faa does not require MROs, or that the interpreters of those test results have ANY training.

And they will yank a medical based on the amateur interpretation of a known poorly performing test.

And this LDT is blood, not allowed under 49cfr40 either. It’s LCMSMS for the initial and “confirmatory”, which doesn’t make it confirmatory under 49cfr40 huh?
 
Tarheelpilot said:
e wasn’t subject to the faa when he had the test and used the fully legal with the federal government hemp CBD oil.
Click to expand...

How is that different from someone who takes a fully legal, safe, and prescribed anti-depressant long before starting pilot training, yet has to get an SI or even go through HIMS?
 
Half Fast said:
How is that different from someone who takes a fully legal, safe, and prescribed anti-depressant long before starting pilot training, yet has to get an SI or even go through HIMS?
Click to expand...
In the case of the anti-depressant, the denial and/or SI is based on the underlying diagnosis that the drug is prescribed for. In the case of a positive drug test, it's an automatic presumption of drug abuse without an actual diagnosis
 
Dana said:
In the case of the anti-depressant, the denial and/or SI is based on the underlying diagnosis that the drug is prescribed for.
Click to expand...
That’s not true. Many psychoactive drugs have effects that render one inadequate to pilot an airplane. Haloperidol is an obvious example. Wellbutrin is arguably another.
 
Half Fast said:
How is that different from someone who takes a fully legal, safe, and prescribed anti-depressant long before starting pilot training, yet has to get an SI or even go through HIMS?
Click to expand...
Fundamentally different. The scenario you present is an individual with diagnosed depression that required medication for effective management.

Nothing equivalent in the scenario presented here.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Fundamentally different. The scenario you present is an individual with diagnosed depression that required medication for effective management.

Nothing equivalent in the scenario presented here.
Click to expand...

You’re missing my point. The hypothetical person I proposed was also “not subject to the FAA” when he used a fully legal substance. From the FAA’s viewpoint, both have used a psychoactive substance and become subject to additional scrutiny. How they acquired or took the substance is irrelevant as far as the FAA is concerned.
 
For those of you minimizing the risks of THC use, here is a sobering article (apologies for NYT paywall):


As legal cannabis use becomes widespread and THC content increases, we are learning that it is more addictive than alcohol and creates more problems in people's lives. It is not puritanism or imposing morals to discuss just how problematic that drug is in an aviation environment, and to urge extreme caution in young prospective aviators.
 
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do know a couple guys in their 60's who occasionally eat half a gummy, about 2.5mg, as a sleep aid. I don't see them going off the deep end. They're probably better off than they would be sleep deprived.
But what the hell do I know.
 
Half Fast said:
You’re missing my point. The hypothetical person I proposed was also “not subject to the FAA” when he used a fully legal substance. From the FAA’s viewpoint, both have used a psychoactive substance and become subject to additional scrutiny. How they acquired or took the substance is irrelevant as far as the FAA is concerned.
Click to expand...
I would agree with that however our OP has used, prior to aviation interest, an unregulated topical substance that the federal government has evaluated as not being subject to the controlled substance laws. I.e. not regulated as a psychoactive substance. Just one that is derived from a plant in the same family as a psychoactive substance that resulted in a false positive for using the psychoactive substance.

The only basis for our OP being subjected to HIMS is the positive test. He did not ever use the psychoactive substance HIMS is used to evaluate.

Now since I’m a pilot I know any positive test is treated as though it’s the whispered word of god himself so as Bruce says “guard your pee”. I know how to avoid those false positives. This guy didn’t. Now he’s ****ed.
 
Back
Top