United Pilot Cancels Flight to protect his pee

UTLonghorn_1979 said:
That's where I wish the FAA would use a bit more critical thinking, character witnesses, believe the pilot. The whole medical application process is based a lot upon honesty in the first place, so if a pilot has no previous background or personal issues/people substantiating a substance issue, I don't understand the current approach of shoot first ask questions later.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of a certain Navy Chief Petty Officer, Sailor of the Year, all around great guy. Popped positive for THC on 2 successive Pee-tests. First one, he claimed it was 2nd hand smoke from a party. 2nd time he said someone gave him a brownie.

2 months later, a locally notorious biker gang club house was raided. Guess who was there, in colors and high as a kite?... The ex-Chief Petty Officer got himself a big chicken dinner!
 
wilkersk said:
Reminds me of a certain Navy Chief Petty Officer, Sailor of the Year, all around great guy. Popped positive for THC on 2 successive Pee-tests. First one, he claimed it was 2nd hand smoke from a party. 2nd time he said someone gave him a brownie.

2 months later, a locally notorious biker gang club house was raided. Guess who was there, in colors and high as a kite?... The ex-Chief Petty Officer got himself a big chicken dinner!
Click to expand...
So that guy almost certainly had the exact opposite personal reputation of a pilot in the scenario I just described.

Sounds like it was just a matter of time before getting caught.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
So that guy almost certainly had the exact opposite personal reputation of a pilot in the scenario I just described.

Sounds like it was just a matter of time before getting caught.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, no one else in the command had any idea he was in a club or doing drugs. You're right it was only a matter of time. But, he looked like the all American boy next door, right up until he didn't.
 
wilkersk said:
As far as I know, no one else in the command had any idea he was in a club or doing drugs. You're right it was only a matter of time. But, he looked like the all American boy next door, right up until he didn't.
Click to expand...
It’s an interesting example, he was otherwise exemplary in his duties…it sounds like. I’ve known plenty of people that were incredibly successful, made great grades, academic scholarships, etc that were total addicts. It eventually catches up to you. As we say in AA…just add “yet” to the end of a sentence about not having consequences.
 
Personally, I don't care what other people do so long as it does not affect me. What does concern me, and maybe it is an irrational fear fostered by the local press coverage of a single event, is where a person who wishes to harm another uses "legal" THC products to manipulate a positive test result in another. The specific story was a soon-to-be-ex-wife spiking her husband's food with "legal" THC oil so that he (a public employee subject to testing) came up positive with all the pain that guarantees.

To me the kicker was the fact that law ignoring enforcement agencies did nada, because THC oil is legal . . . like using margarine instead of butter.
 
ateamer said:
Federal agencies use the Interstate Commerce Clause to assert jurisdiction. It was explained as thus by an ATF agent to me on a local case of ours that they took (ex-con gang member with a firearm): The gun was manufactured in New York and possessed in California. The feds located proof of a transaction at some point in the gun’s history where it crossed state lines and money was exchanged. Boom - ICC makes it a federal matter. (By the way, my agency didn’t bring in ATF. The DA’s office did because they were afraid a local judge or jury would derail the case. And then the federal prosecutor - who began his career at our DA’s office - botched the case and the jury acquitted.)

They will do the same with cannabis. If one drop of fertilizer or one nozzle from the irrigation system came from another state and was paid for in some manner, they’ll use the ICC if it suits their desire to prosecute.

The interstate commerce clause is probably the most-abused law in the nation.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I’m a retired federal agent and you pretty much summed it up.
 
State vs Fed MJ law is a mine field waiting to trap the unsuspecting. Federally, as soon as you start 'enjoying' your new state law, you become a prohibited person, and can no longer legally purchase a firearm. States KNOW this, and for some, it has become a rather convenient way to implement gun control - or at the minimum, purchase control - and technically, you can no longer possess a firearm, so should get rid of anything you already have. Throw in the fact that now fed.gov has some other thing to charge you with if they feel like it, and yeah, no thanks.

Nothing has been abused by fed.gove more than the Commerce Clause.....
 
EdFred said:
Section 8 of the Constitution says nothing about drug laws.
The 10th amendment in that crusty old document and a 1992 Supreme Court ruling says as long as things not listed in Section 8 stay within state lines, it's hands off.

Now since it's a Federal certificate you are bound by federal limitations. But if you have no federal certificates, and keep your consumption and transportation of pot inside the state lines, the feds have no say.
Click to expand...
We had to face this issue at Wright Patterson AFB. Legal in Ohio to smoke, BUT, come on base (federal property) and it was illegal. Work on base and test positive, you’re FIRED! Well, at least subject to it.
 
The only thing the FAA cares about is whether or not you have it in your system. Not how it got there.

With the extremely low thresholds they test at, they would consider trace amounts (second hand) as a valid positive test.
 
Jim_R said:
I saw a guy go blasting past a cop the other day going at least 10 miles over the speed limit. Cop didn't turn on his lights or react in any way.

Does that mean speeding is legal now?

Lack of enforcement of a law does not equate to "the law does not exist".
Click to expand...

This state has a law that says if you are hindering traffic in the left lane you can be given a citation, even if doing the speed limit:

Only use the left lane when actively passing
Fines up to $25, enforced on major highways
Applies even when driving at speed limit if blocking faster traffic ... https://www.tedlaw.com/sc-slow-poke-law-1600-tickets-explained/

I get the intent of the law but if the limit is the limit how can you be wrong? I'm certain that I'm not the only one that occasionally drives a mile or so over the limit. :eek:

"When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law ... just a fight for survival"

 
Half Fast said:
No, it’s not legal in Michigan.

As a pilot, you really should change your perspective. You are beholden to the Federal Aviation Administration, and pot is illegal under FEDERAL law everywhere.
Click to expand...
My post # 4 concerned the possibility of testing positive due to second hand smoke.

I don't plan on using THC. But I do understand the concerns the Un-tied pilot had. Which means that protecting my pee means keeping my head on a swivel, because in both Wisconsin and Michigan I have seen people partaking in public places.

Pot is illegal under federal law. But it is legal under Michigan law. Although some public sector employees cannot partake and are subject to drug screening, as are those holding DOT licenses and FAA certificates. The law in Wisconsin is ever stranger . . . but I won't try to explain it because it doesn't matter to pilots.

The bottom line is that as far as I am concerned, almost anywhere you go there is a risk of second hand smoke. And while I think the chance of a positive test from secondhand smoke is small it is not zero.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
That's where I wish the FAA would use a bit more critical thinking, character witnesses, believe the pilot. The whole medical application process is based a lot upon honesty in the first place, so if a pilot has no previous background or personal issues/people substantiating a substance issue, I don't understand the current approach of shoot first ask questions later.
Click to expand...

UTLonghorn_1979 said:
It’s an interesting example, he was otherwise exemplary in his duties…it sounds like. I’ve known plenty of people that were incredibly successful, made great grades, academic scholarships, etc that were total addicts. It eventually catches up to you. As we say in AA…just add “yet” to the end of a sentence about not having consequences.
Click to expand...
And that is why the FAA does what it does if there are any indications of abuse or dependence.
 
billsgs126 said:
My post # 4 concerned the possibility of testing positive due to second hand smoke.

I don't plan on using THC. But I do understand the concerns the Un-tied pilot had. Which means that protecting my pee means keeping my head on a swivel, because in both Wisconsin and Michigan I have seen people partaking in public places.

Pot is illegal under federal law. But it is legal under Michigan law. Although some public sector employees cannot partake and are subject to drug screening, as are those holding DOT licenses and FAA certificates. The law in Wisconsin is ever stranger . . . but I won't try to explain it because it doesn't matter to pilots.

The bottom line is that as far as I am concerned, almost anywhere you go there is a risk of second hand smoke. And while I think the chance of a positive test from secondhand smoke is small it is not zero.
Click to expand...
You are misinformed. I have such a case.
 
Lindberg said:
And that is why the FAA does what it does if there are any indications of abuse or dependence.
Click to expand...
Tell that to this guy:


And before you say that it was the airline that did this...who oversees the airlines, sets protocols, processes and has caused such blind “caution” to be the reason for the pilot in the thread topic to themselves be overly cautious? The FAA Medical Division.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
You are misinformed. I have such a case.
Click to expand...
I understand that as a doctor you have privacy concerns to deal with, but please educate me on how I am incorrect.

I made several statements, but this is the one that concerns me personally.

I am (like the United pilot) concerned that one could have traceable amounts of THC in one's body from second hand smoke.

(And yes, I realize that plenty of people who actually, knowingly used lied and blamed second hand smoke.)
 
Well, we have inperson testimony that the roomate never smoked but after the raid, his pee was (weakly) positive but was positive.
Don't be risking this. You are misinformed.
 
bbchien said:
Well, we have inperson testimony that the roomate never smoked but after the raid, his pee was (weakly) positive but was positive.
Don't be risking this. You are misinformed.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification . . .
1755528167769.png
rule 31: no roommates.
 
I used to enjoy going into downtown Boston for shows/events. Same for many other major metro areas.
I do so less and less because of the amount of weed. Never smoked, or used an durative of it. No interest. But the smell, drives me nuts and the smoke I am allergic to it (makes my eyes red and itchy, then start to tear after a little bit).

I think states are misjudging significantly the second smoke hatred that is slowly building against weed; just like it built up against cigarette smoke. Anecdotally, I hear more and more complaints about it.

Tim
 
try walking in manhattan for ten steps without being assaulted by that odious smell
 
Larry in TN said:
Going back to the title of this thread, an airline pilot can not cancel a flight. He can only remove himself from it. The company will decide what happens after that.
Click to expand...
True enough. The airline (I will assume unwittingly) allowed a passenger they received payment from to jeopardize the safety of the flight. They received the benefit, it is their responsibility to cure.
 
Larry in TN said:
Going back to the title of this thread, an airline pilot can not cancel a flight. He can only remove himself from it. The company will decide what happens after that.
Click to expand...
The article actually states it poorly (or I remember it poorly). The flight was not cancelled, it was delayed for 4 hours while a new crew was brought in; after the first crew removed themselves.

Tim
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
Tell that to this guy:


And before you say that it was the airline that did this...who oversees the airlines, sets protocols, processes and has caused such blind “caution” to be the reason for the pilot in the thread topic to themselves be overly cautious? The FAA Medical Division.
Click to expand...
What should I tell him? All you have is what he alleged in his complaint, and I still don't see anything that contradicts what I wrote, which was mainly just quoting what you wrote.
 
Daleandee said:
Do you also get a bad case if the munchies? :popcorn:


*** Kidding!***
Click to expand...
Pine Knob Music Theater, August 1995. Van Halen. About 4-6 of us went and had pavilion seats. Not much in the way of wind that day. Just rain and mostly still air. None of the 6 of us did any recreational drugs, not even cigarettes, and a couple were even too young to drink at the time. We were the hole in a doughnut of pot smokers. I hate the smell, but dealt with it, because, we paid for the tickets. Concert finishes. We make our way out to the car. We're all standing around the car waiting on traffic to clear out. Before we get in, we all look at each other, and with zero rehearsal say in unison, "Taco Bell." We had to drive around and find a TB before we could head back home. Second hand pot smoke will give you the munchies if exposed to it for 3+ hours.
 
It seems like there's a slow but steady march towards national legalization. Politics/current laws aside, would it make sense to eventually change regs around THC to something closer to what we already have with alcohol? Maybe a stand down period of so many hours/days and some kind of maximum allowable levels in a blood or urine test?

It seems kind of silly to me that pilots would have to worry about walking through a cloud of smoke or accidentally eating the wrong brownie at a party completely derailing their career. A legit worry under the current rules to be sure- but still pretty silly IMO.
 
There's plenty of ridiculousness to go around. But national legaization isn't going to happening this administration....and for the first time, we're seeing cannabis dependence making inroads into the former alcohol dependence majority of cases.
 
bbchien said:
There's plenty of ridiculousness to go around. But national legaization isn't going to happening this administration....and for the first time, we're seeing cannabis dependence making inroads into the former alcohol dependence majority of cases.
Click to expand...
National legalization is already here. Between Delta-8 and hemp-derived Delta-9, there are plenty of legal ways to get high on "pot."
 
We’re already a nation of zombies, who’ve been persuaded that weed is harmless. tragic
 
I am glad this whole subject came up.

My wife and I bought a condo last November and everything was great here until July when the unit right below us was purchased by some woman with more money than brains.

She bought it to give her 33year old convicted felon son a place to live.

He wears an ankle monitor and has a record longer than the runways at DFW.

He smokes marijuana down there all day, everyday. It is smelling up the entire condo complex and, on occasion, the smell waffles into our unit.

He claims he has a legal medical marijuana card.

The question is, would a convicted felon be allowed to smoke that crap?

Does anyone here have any idea?
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
PS. I asked my doctor about breathing that crap in. He told me, “there is no chance you would test positive for MJ after breathing it in second -hand.”
I’m not so sure.
 
And this is where marijuana differs from alcohol. You can't get a "second hand" positive alcohol test. But you can get a second hand positive marijuana test, when they're testing at "trace" thresholds.

The real issue is that we have HIMS AMEs that are not airman advocates. As a HIMS AME, you receive the test results first. You should be educated enough to determine an extremely weak positive test result, offer the airman 24 hours to get more in depth testing to get a better picture of the real story, and obtain a greater totality of circumstances before reporting to the FAA. Not report every single screening threshold exceedance with no care in the world as to the how and why (threshold at 100ng/mL, airman tests at 101ng/mL, and not test any further, for instance...like c'mon, really?).
 
Jon Wilder said:
And this is where marijuana differs from alcohol. You can't get a "second hand" positive alcohol test. But you can get a second hand positive marijuana test, when they're testing at "trace" thresholds.

The real issue is that we have HIMS AMEs that are not airman advocates. As a HIMS AME, you receive the test results first. You should be educated enough to determine an extremely weak positive test result, offer the airman 24 hours to get more in depth testing to get a better picture of the real story, and obtain a greater totality of circumstances before reporting to the FAA. Not report every single screening threshold exceedance with no care in the world as to the how and why (threshold at 100ng/mL, airman tests at 101ng/mL, and not test any further, for instance...like c'mon, really?).
Click to expand...
I’m literally terrified of a false positive. Whether that be second hand, tainted/miss handled sample or inadvertently consuming something with an ingredient that results in a positive.

It’s crazy, when an applicant is already on the defensive side to prove they are sober, that they can fail a drug test by accidentally ingesting or using a product that could result in positive. Especially when so many states are legalizing things that are federally still illegal.
 
A protocol for disputed lab results isn’t exactly controversial… in fact REQUIRED by 49cfr40 and 14cfr120.

Gotta wonder why hims refuses to do this. It’s like Rush said, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.

NOTHING about this “program” is legit.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
I’m literally terrified of a false positive. Whether that be second hand, tainted/miss handled sample or inadvertently consuming something with an ingredient that results in a positive.

It’s crazy, when an applicant is already on the defensive side to prove they are sober, that they can fail a drug test by accidentally ingesting or using a product that could result in positive. Especially when so many states are legalizing things that are federally still illegal.
Click to expand...
And you should be. The FAA's zero tolerance policy only cares about the screening result. Not how it got there. And this is dead wrong. It's unfair. It's unjust. And it needs to change.

People can ***** all they want about "flying is a privilege, not a right". This does not give the FAA authority to stigmatize people and be overall unfair. That's not how it works.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. You don't see your state DMV making unfair and unjust laws. If they did, they can be challenged and struck down just like any other unconstitutional law.

A substance screen is an initial, rapid, and low-cost test used to detect the possible presence of drugs and/or alcohol in the body. Anytime a screen indicates the possible presence of a substance, you then are afforded the opportunity to follow up with a confirmatory substance test, which is a separate, more accurate lab test used to confirm a positive screen result and identify the exact substance and its concentration.

Your 14 UA's a year that you do in HIMS are a "screen". They indicate the "possible" presence of a substance. Like any other screen, the airman needs to be fairly awarded the opportunity to submit to a confirmatory test within a reasonable time frame (24 hours) when his/her screen comes back with a positive result. If the airman fails to comply, then the screen is treated as the end all result. But you have to give the airman that opportunity. And this is not happening.

It would be extremely difficult for someone with a legit substance use disorder to pass these tests consistently, even with fair and just industry standard testing thresholds, even when awarded the opportunity to do a confirmatory test. If they know they're using, they're not going to do the confirmatory test and they're going to consistently have issues with testing in general.
 
Last edited:
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top