Last month, the Transportation Research Board published details of an FAA-funded project to review cannabis use among pilots and air traffic controllers. Current policy already prohibits marijuana use by pilots and other safety-sensitive aviation employees covered by DOT testing rules.
Why the FAA Is Studying It
The existing rules establish what covered individuals may not do, but the FAA says it lacks validated criteria for determining when impairment has ended after cannabis use. The review will examine how long the effects may last, how that period varies among users and how test results relate to operational fitness.
The agency said it wants scientifically supported standards that could guide screening, medical certification and return-to-duty decisions.
Federal Cannabis Policy Is Changing
Earlier this year, the federal government moved FDA-approved marijuana drugs and marijuana covered by qualifying state medical licenses from Schedule I to Schedule III. Schedule I is the federal category for substances considered to have no accepted medical use. Schedule III recognizes accepted medical use and a lower potential for abuse.
Recreational marijuana remains in Schedule I while a separate federal proceeding considers moving the broader category to Schedule III.
That split created what the FAA research record calls a dual-status regulatory environment. The FAA says that mismatch could complicate disclosure and compliance as cannabis becomes more widely available.
Expert Meetings Planned
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine will hold four closed expert meetings during 2026 and 2027. Participants will consider recent and cumulative use, impairment duration, detectability, cognitive screening and operational risk.
“The meetings will include relevant experts on impairment evidence, pharmacokinetics and detectability, operational risk translation, and policy framing,” the National Academies said.
The meetings will not produce a public report, though the FAA expects the work to support policy development over the next 12 to 18 months.
Waste of time and effort. Unless drug testing pilots is going to change it doesn’t matter. The FAA has enough things to do, many items that the FAA is behind on!
Of all the issues the FAA is dealing with, one has to ask, really? When I started in the airline business I quickly observed there was a subset of functional alcoholics in the industry. It took years for us as a community to address the problem, first to address individuals and second to come up with a program to help those individuals (HIMS).
Why in the name of all that is good would we even consider cannabis to be an acceptable drug for pilots to consider? While legal in some states (contrary to federal statute), it’s established science that it is an impairing substance. If one chooses to be a pilot (a choice) then the corollary is they should also choose (another choice) that some things aren’t compatible with the first choice.
I agree with the policy of “no pot for pilots” but I am highly suspicious of “closed” government meetings and “no report will be published”? We The People have a right to know the results of government meetings.
Look at how the government covered up all of the UAP (UFOs) for years and years. I am not anti-government but I am against them treating us like petulant children (although I realize some adults behave like children?). The ‘adults in the room’ didn’t panic; scream; and wave their arms in the air after learning of all the UAP records.
Cannabis/marijuana is cutesy, hippie, … Significant incidence of driving while intoxicated by cannabis or narcotics.
Saanich BC police stopped one woman for speeding in a school zone, smelled marijuana. By the time an officer trained to detect it arrived she was just under the legal limits. The stoopid bleep had celebrated return of children to school, with a few other sires before she drove the children to the school. !
I understood that the airline I worked for would give a pilot a prepaid visit to the Schick Shadel treatment center south of Seattle WA - one chance to stay employed as a pilot. It did have a return visit policy if the patient felt like s/he was slipping. (Its approach was psychological aversion. No longer operating.)
Airlines were obligated under the Americans With Disabilities Act to treat employees with dependency issues. But once the air carrier had satisfied its obligation by sending the employee to Betty Ford (or equivalent) then the employee could be terminated if he/she fell off the wagon. Most employers used caution by allowing the employee to have a second try at rehabilitation but, after that, the employee could be terminated without fear of litigation.