Alcohol (no, not another DUI thread!)

U

Unregistered

Guest
I'm concerned I am headed down the wrong road, figuratively speaking. Just about every day this year (and the better part of last year as well) I've had at least one, and usually multiple drinks (2-4 usually, but 6 is not uncommon).

While I have been careful about the 8 hour rule, I'm seeing the warning lights. I need to get back to more functional ways of dealing with stress and other issues in life. I've scheduled a session with someone who can help me get back on track.

With that in mind, I'm concerned about what effects my decision to take positive action would have on my certificate and medical. Before I get too far into this, is there anything I should be cautious about? My flying is non-commercial, FWIW...
 
The statistics are 80% that you will have a DUI in the next five years. At that DUI your substantial tolerance will be noted (unless you blow less than or equal to 0.149).

Then you will be down for two years or need rehab.

Dial it down, NOW.
 
bbchien said:
The statistics are 80% that you will have a DUI in the next five years. At that DUI your substantial tolerance will be noted (unless you blow less than or equal to 0.149).

Then you will be down for two years or need rehab.

Dial it down, NOW.
Click to expand...

I think he's more concerned whether his positive actions, such as going to a counselor or AA, etc. would be seen by the FAA and set up a red flag that labels him as a heavy drinker, alcoholic, and potential threat. From what I saw, he knows he needs to dial it down... I may be wrong though.
 
ebykowsky said:
I think he's more concerned whether his positive actions, such as going to a counselor or AA, etc. would be seen by the FAA and set up a red flag that labels him as a heavy drinker, alcoholic, and potential threat. From what I saw, he knows he needs to dial it down... I may be wrong though.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I read about people getting medicals denied when a little research would have avoided trouble later. I'm wondering if there's a right or wrong way to go about this... Anything I need to report now or at the next medical, etc.
 
FMD, aren't most programs anonymous? If you go to a counselor, pay cash. The only record that can be found is if you use insurance or a government benefit to pay for it. If you have cash, even the best shrink out there will deal with you on a 'John Doe' basis with no problem.

I would bet though that since you have come to this determination yourself, putting down the bottle may be easier than you think.
 
The first step to a positive outcome is for the subject to realize he or she has a problem, which it sounds like the OP did. My old man had at least one drink a night, and often two or three his whole life. Not a pattern I would care to emulate. Good luck to the OP. I think Henning is right, if you can keep this away from your insurer you can likely protect your anonymity.
 
Henning said:
FMD, aren't most programs anonymous? If you go to a counselor, pay cash. The only record that can be found is if you use insurance or a government benefit to pay for it. If you have cash, even the best shrink out there will deal with you on a 'John Doe' basis with no problem.

I would bet though that since you have come to this determination yourself, putting down the bottle may be easier than you think.
Click to expand...
+ THIS.
 
i have been in recovery for almost 20 years. the standard rule of thumb is, if you think you have a problem you probably do. the good news is that you've recognized it. first thing you should do is stop drinking completely. for someone with an alcohol problem there's no such thing as "dialing it down". also it wouldn't kill you to seek out an AA meeting. the second "A" means anonymous so you don't have to worry about being found out. trust me, you don't want this to get any more out of hand
http://www.aa.org/lang/en/subpage.cfm?page=28
 
The AA program is the only one of which I am aware with anything approaching proven efficacy.
 
out of a sense of curiousity and amusement, I bought one of those BAC testers that are fairly accurate, as accuracy goes with all of those things. I discovered what a true lightweight I really am. This may be of some help for you to discover your true tolerance.

I had Four 14.9oz Guinness the afternoon of St. Pattys Day sitting in the back yard of our friends and found myself feeling no pain. I drank them over the course of about 2 hours. [my wife drove - solving that problem for me] and I brought my little toy with me. After the 4 [ok, 5 reallly since they were 15oz essentially] and 2 hours my BAC was alternatively 0.05 or 0.06. Neither even close to the legal limit. But I was most definitely impaired. Another acquaintance, who was hammering the beer and had perhaps 7 or 8 the same 2hr period, was showing no ill affects whereas I knew was demonstrably intoxicated. No snockered, but we all know what it looks like when you get a little loose jointed. anyway, this guy, who weighs about what I do, blew a 0.12. And he was not showing any ill effects. This guy is a heavy drinker - every time I see him socially he is pounding the booze.

The ultimate point of this is that these little devices can tell you a lot about your tolerance - its one thing to share a bottle of wine with your spouse at the end of the week or out at dinner - I think its another to have a bottle of wine every night. Or go through a 30 pack in a week. I have bottles of liquor [rum, vodka and scotch] that have been in the pantry for over a decade. Also, you may find that due to your tolerance for alcohol developed over time that 8 hours bottle to throttle is not enough.

Once you start buying for volume [the 1.75 liter of Vodka, the jug of wine and the 30 pack of beer because it is a good deal that starts to read alot like the path well traveled is starting to appear before you . . . .

I strongly applaud anyone who observes that they are perhaps drinking too much and goes to do something about it. The only real solution that has ever worked is not drinking anymore but there are many who swear that they can control it. I hope that works for you. In this case, if you never have a DUI and never have an alcohol-related arrest and never have a motor vehicle action, then getting a handle on the level of drinking is admirable and hard work.
 
This is an interesting post, because I've never really thought about alcohol consumption in these terms. In my family everyone older than 5 drank alcohol everyday. I don't ever remember seeing any of my relatives visibly impaired, not that it is always obvious. Alcoholism is a tricky thing to define if it is part of your culture.
 
Looks like he hasn't logged in since the last thread was closed. Maybe he got banned?
 
ebykowsky said:
I think he's more concerned whether his positive actions, such as going to a counselor or AA, etc. would be seen by the FAA and set up a red flag that labels him as a heavy drinker, alcoholic, and potential threat.
Click to expand...
While he won't have to make a 61.15 report as long as he stays out of legal trouble, as I read the instructions for FAA Form 8500-8 (GG edition -- the latest), visits to a health care professional for counseling for an alcohol problem must be reported on your next medical application in block 19. Perhaps Bruce can comment.
 
Ron Levy said:
While he won't have to make a 61.15 report as long as he stays out of legal trouble, as I read the instructions for FAA Form 8500-8 (GG edition -- the latest), visits to a health care professional for counseling for an alcohol problem must be reported on your next medical application in block 19. Perhaps Bruce can comment.
Click to expand...
But visits to AA or clergy do not...
 
ChrisK said:
But visits to AA or clergy do not...
Click to expand...
Agreed. OP just said "someone who can help me get back on track". If that someone's first name is Rabbi or Bill W., no report required. If it's "Doctor" (or other health professional title), then it must be reported.
 
steingar said:
The AA program is the only one of which I am aware with anything approaching proven efficacy.
Click to expand...

I wish you wouldn't have said that, someone please close this thread now, thank you, all that needed to be said has been said. The likelihood of further positive product from this thread is slim.
 
Ron Levy said:
While he won't have to make a 61.15 report as long as he stays out of legal trouble, as I read the instructions for FAA Form 8500-8 (GG edition -- the latest), visits to a health care professional for counseling for an alcohol problem must be reported on your next medical application in block 19. Perhaps Bruce can comment.
Click to expand...

Use some common sense man, FMD. It's not a bloody Eagle Scout world. The government DOES NOT have dominion over me, I will cooperate within reason. When the government acts unreasonably stupid I do not cooperate. The 5th Amendment is over riding this bureaucratic requirement. The Founding Fathers said I have the right not to **** myself over. The form may ask for it but it's an unconstitutional ask.
 
Alexb2000 said:
This is an interesting post, because I've never really thought about alcohol consumption in these terms. In my family everyone older than 5 drank alcohol everyday. I don't ever remember seeing any of my relatives visibly impaired, not that it is always obvious. Alcoholism is a tricky thing to define if it is part of your culture.
Click to expand...

I grew up around people who drank all day every day. My girlfriends dad who I worked for woke up to Coors light, drank a case through the day, switch to V.O. And Seven after work where he ran the floor and jobs of one of the biggest industrial sheet metal shops in St Louis, and proceed to drink a half gallon of that before we'd shut down the machine/fabrication shop out behind the house at 1:00am. My parents were the only lightweight drinkers I knew. Everybody drove drunk back then, heck, you get pulled over and the cop tell you to drive straight home if you were between your house and the neighborhood bar. I have know an AME to slide down off the wing of his plane drunk after just landing dead on the second to squeak in an air rally. He was not alone.

:dunno:
 
Henning . . . you may be right, esp on the 5th amend issue - but how is it self-incrim? What law has been broken by not reporting seeking a physicians help for drinking until it is not reported? The question itself incriminates no one - it asks about health care professional visits. This is not incriminating per se. What law has been broken by asking about medical visits unless there is some fact that is necessary to establishing the commission of a crime?

Anyway - lots of what the FAA does is objectionable under Constitutional grounds but it would cost more and take more time to address than either of us have left.

Everyone drank to excess when I was a kid. In fact until I was about 35-40, it was pretty normal and accepted. As was DUI and the constant patter of death from auto accidents . . .. that was the downside. Especially for the innocents.

Times change. But it remains that impairment from alcohol happens regardless of the amount you drink - you simply are able to deal with the impairment - does not mean you are not impaired. . . .
 
Alexb2000 said:
This is an interesting post, because I've never really thought about alcohol consumption in these terms. In my family everyone older than 5 drank alcohol everyday. I don't ever remember seeing any of my relatives visibly impaired, not that it is always obvious. Alcoholism is a tricky thing to define if it is part of your culture.
Click to expand...

There is a pretty big difference between imbibing a glass of beer or wine with dinner and having a martini the minute you get home. I don't see much of a problem with the former, alcoholic beverages are, well, beverages. People did this for a millenium But you don't have that cocktail to have something to wash down dinner.

All that said, there are probably folks who have a martini a night forever and have it all under control. My old man did, kept that routine going for a good 40 years. When they created a large common room in their house he put in a bar.

Then again, he stopped driving when he got picked up DUI. And boy did he get the Alzheimer's early.
 
Henning said:
Use some common sense man, FMD. It's not a bloody Eagle Scout world. The government DOES NOT have dominion over me, I will cooperate within reason. When the government acts unreasonably stupid I do not cooperate. The 5th Amendment is over riding this bureaucratic requirement. The Founding Fathers said I have the right not to **** myself over. The form may ask for it but it's an unconstitutional ask.
Click to expand...
You clearly haven't read the case law on point. The Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination in criminal cases does not apply when administrative law requires disclosure. That's been tried and tested before the US Supreme Court, and the FAA won. If you need the citation, you can find it in Gesell's "Aviation and the Law," or you can wait until I get home in about a week.
 
comanchepilot said:
Henning . . . you may be right, esp on the 5th amend issue - but how is it self-incrim? What law has been broken by not reporting seeking a physicians help for drinking until it is not reported? The question itself incriminates no one - it asks about health care professional visits. This is not incriminating per se. What law has been broken by asking about medical visits unless there is some fact that is necessary to establishing the commission of a crime?

Anyway - lots of what the FAA does is objectionable under Constitutional grounds but it would cost more and take more time to address than either of us have left.

Everyone drank to excess when I was a kid. In fact until I was about 35-40, it was pretty normal and accepted. As was DUI and the constant patter of death from auto accidents . . .. that was the downside. Especially for the innocents.

Times change. But it remains that impairment from alcohol happens regardless of the amount you drink - you simply are able to deal with the impairment - does not mean you are not impaired. . . .
Click to expand...

If I would answer that I had done something that by statute will deny me the liberty of flying, I have incriminated myself against that law. The medical application is a legal document to be used as evidence by the federal government.
 
Ron Levy said:
You clearly haven't read the case law on point. The Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination in criminal cases does not apply when administrative law requires disclosure. That's been tried and tested before the US Supreme Court, and the FAA won. If you need the citation, you can find it in Gesell's "Aviation and the Law," or you can wait until I get home in about a week.
Click to expand...

What part about I don't give a flying **** about the law are you so unfamiliar with after all this time?
 
Meh...if you're married, go for marriage counselling, and, er, talk about booze too...yeah, that's it.
 
Henning said:
What part about I don't give a flying **** about the law are you so unfamiliar with after all this time?
Click to expand...
I think we all understand that. But when you incorrectly claim that your Fifth Amendment rights are being violated, it suggests you do not even know what the law is. My only concern here is that nobody else believes you when you suggest there is such a right to lie to the FAA, as that can not only cost them all their FAA certificates, but also get them fined and even jailed. As for you, I really don't care what happens to you as a result of your own foolishness or ignorance. I just don't want to see anyone else get hosed because they believed something you said.
 
Ron Levy said:
I think we all understand that. But when you incorrectly claim that your Fifth Amendment rights are being violated, it suggests you do not even know what the law is. My only concern here is that nobody else believes you when you suggest there is such a right to lie to the FAA, as that can not only cost them all their FAA certificates, but also get them fined and even jailed. As for you, I really don't care what happens to you as a result of your own foolishness or ignorance. I just don't want to see anyone else get hosed because they believed something you said.
Click to expand...

You cite case law to defend your position, I don't care about someone else's interpretation of the constitution, I care about what the writers of the constitution meant by it. Their standing was that these rights be interpreted in the most broad manner. Government has ever since done nothing but countermand that by adding ever restricting interpretations. The government does not own me, I do not have to accept their interpretation.

Look, I know you're an Eagle Scout and believe the Government all powerful, but I don't. I know I cannot fight the government so I don't, I just don't play when I think the game gets stupid. So far the governments been pretty good with that, they let me get about with my life and in return I don't blow them up.

Everybody has the right to live their lives the way they please so long as they are not causing grave harm. Welcome to America the way it was meant to be.
 
Last edited:
I commend the OP for having the self-honesty to realize he has a problem, and to want to do something about it. He also recognizes it has become his way of 'dealing with stress and other issues". Here's a thought...quite often we are unable to remove a source of stress from life - perhaps it's work-related, or family-related, or due to a finacial situation. However if we can find some enjoyable or challenging activity (hobby, volunteer or church work, an exercise program etc.) to engage in regularly it can offset or displace the built-up stress. Maybe a self-help book can steer you in the right direction - and reading a book would not need to be reported to the FAA. Neither would "spiritual guidance" from a clergyman.
 
Henning said:
You cite case law to defend your position, I don't care about someone else's interpretation of the constitution, I care about what the writers of the constitution meant by it.
Click to expand...
Didn't know you were old enough to have discussed it with them. Do pray tell what TJ and the others told you on this point.

In any event, the question about who gets to interpret the Constitution was settled in 1804 in Marbury v. Madison, and a) it wasn't the individual citizen affected by the law, as you seem to think it is, and b) not only were authors of that document then still alive to provide their inputs, but some were participants in the decision. So if you really do care what the writers of the Constitution meant by it, perhaps you should read that decision (admittedly rather dry prose, although rather startling in its detail and logic) and maybe a law book or two so you know what the writers of that document really did think about it rather than projecting your own personal opinions on folks who have been dead for 200 years. They may be dead and unable to argue with you, but they left a rather sizable documentary paper trail of their thinking which it would appear you've never read.
 
Last edited:
DogDaddy said:
I commend the OP for having the self-honesty to realize he has a problem, and to want to do something about it. He also recognizes it has become his way of 'dealing with stress and other issues". Here's a thought...quite often we are unable to remove a source of stress from life - perhaps it's work-related, or family-related, or due to a finacial situation.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your kind words. Fortunately there are a couple things that I can change and I will be doing what I can towards that end.

However if we can find some enjoyable or challenging activity (hobby, volunteer or church work, an exercise program etc.) to engage in regularly it can offset or displace the built-up stress. Maybe a self-help book can steer you in the right direction - and reading a book would not need to be reported to the FAA. Neither would "spiritual guidance" from a clergyman.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head there. There are several things that I used to enjoy doing, and those have gone away. That needs to change.

You are right in that some causes of stress can't just go away. In dealing with that, I'd hope that a counseling visit for stress management wouldn't attract negative attention. Plus being truthful is key, I don't want to misrepresent myself. I'll have no trouble laying off the bottle as long as I focus on my underlying issues.

Thanks for the constructive post and sound advice!
 
Hey Henning, as long as you are talking with the Founding Fathers, can you ask them to explain the Second Amendment, The Commerce Clause, and if they expected the Feds to be in a) the welfare business, b) the retirement and pension paying business, and c) the provision of payment for doctoring.

Oh, and voting by non-white property owning males. That's kind of a big one.

Thank you very much. :D :lol:
 
bbchien said:
The statistics are 80% that you will have a DUI in the next five years. At that DUI your substantial tolerance will be noted (unless you blow less than or equal to 0.149).

Then you will be down for two years or need rehab.

Dial it down, NOW.
Click to expand...

Could you tell where this statistic comes from. It doesn't pass the smell test either for pilots or the general population to me.
 
flyingron said:
Could you tell where this statistic comes from. It doesn't pass the smell test either for pilots or the general population to me.
Click to expand...
Statistics are a interesting thing. You can often manipulate statistics to have them show almost anything you want. It is just how you ask the question, and how you crunch the numbers. Too often in my profession I have read things that just did not make sense to me and when I went to the primary resource the resource even though published in a well respected peer to peer mediated journals and written by someone well respected, the resource was based on poor methodology, unreliable procedures, poor design, and a lot of incorrect utilization of the statistical method. Unfortunately, careers are made on the results of such articles, and the truth often is never discovered. More unfortunately, a lot of things may be done on the basis of some of these papers that at best just do not work, and at worse can hurt people. So it would not surprise me if a source for that statement exists someplace and is attributable to an expert in the field. Call me cynical, but I call myself realistic and appropriately skeptical.
 
flyingron said:
Could you tell where this statistic comes from. It doesn't pass the smell test either for pilots or the general population to me.
Click to expand...
It comes from a variety of counselors-these are the guys who work the courts, and themselves frequent the AA meetings. They can't possibly have the denominator, but over time, they do see an amazing array of the individuals in a small city. That is their comment, almost universally.

But, how many folks drink 5-6/day and never in their life get a DUI? How is it even possible to find that number?

Suffice it to say that every one of them considers that chronic exposure above one per day is a strong risk factor- and seriously, in my city, we could fund the constabulary on DUI fines if we elected to do so.

That is slanted too. About 10 years ago the citizens of Freeport, IL recalled their sheriff when he started to enforce the DUI statues....
 
Henning said:
I care about what the writers of the constitution meant by it.
Click to expand...

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Click to expand...

I don't think filling out a medical constitutes a criminal case.
 
If I were OP, I'd stop buying alcohol for a while, just not have it around the house. If he can just not drink for a couple weeks and not feel an overwhelming compulsion for it then he's probably ok.

There are guys who like to drink and those who have a problem and I'd say the difference is that the guys with a problem are the ones who can't stop for a period of time when they want to. Note: not say/think they can but actually do it. Demonstrate it to yourself by stopping for 2 weeks and be honest about it... if you really can't there might be a problem.

The opinions of your wife, and possibly closest friends would be valuable too.
 
bbchien said:
It comes from a variety of counselors-these are the guys who work the courts, and themselves frequent the AA meetings. They can't possibly have the denominator, but over time, they do see an amazing array of the individuals in a small city. That is their comment, almost universally.
Click to expand...
Ah, so the number is just some non-scientific rectal extraction.

Properly worded 80% of those with an alcohol problem have had it manifested in the form of a DUI is a better characterization.
 
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