. . . .
I can't speak to that, but I can tell you the FAA got tired of folks working deals with local officials to plead to some lesser offense that didn't say "alcohol" to avoid getting convicted of DUI after being arrested while driving with significant levels of alcohol in their blood. They're pretty well convinced that folks who do that are bad aviation risks, and they have the statistics to back their position.
So, they decided that the only way to identify those folks before they kill or injure someone in an aviation accident is to take note of and look into those arrested for such actions even if they never get found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You get a chance to explain it, and if it really was a bogus arrest, it won't count against you. However, if you really were driving with significant alcohol in your blood, and merely "beat the rap" by some legal maneuvering, they will hold that against you and require appropriate evaluation and action to ensure that you are an acceptable aviation risk.
Thank you, Captain Ron.
I understand the FAA's reasoning. I simply disagree with it.
The "deals" defendants cut with prosecutors are the way the system works, and are approved by both sides. Trials are a relative rarity. In addition, any "deal" that resulted in any conviction at all would have to be reported on line 18W, anyway. So that's not what raises my eyebrows.
Rather, what ruffles my Libertarian feathers is requiring information about arrests that led to no conviction at all, regardless of the reason. That seems like a slippery slope, much like many other laws and policies being pushed through today to "protect the children," "fight terrorism," "stop global warming," or whatever else the current
cause celebre' may be.
When these policies start contravening the principles set forth in the Constitution, I start hearing a duck of my own quacking.
The day when the government can take actions against innocent people because at some point they were merely
accused of a crime is the day when the transformation of the United States into a totalitarian dictatorship will be complete. Yes, I understand that the FAA medical process is an administrative one, not a criminal one. But it still amounts to the government getting a second chance to re-examine an allegation that has already been disposed of by the court system.
That's where
my duck starts quacking.
In this nation, we are blessed with a court system that attempts, at least, to dispense justice even-handedly. That's one of the things that distinguishes this nation from banana republics. When we are accused of wrongdoing, we have the right to a fair trial; and I believe that the justice system tries its best to arrive at fair and true decisions.
When the executive branch (of which the FAA is part) starts abrogating to itself the right to
ignore the decisions of the judicial system, that is worrisome to me as a Libertarian and as an American. Whatever ends may be achieved in terms of safety are not worth what is being given up in terms of liberty when we allow the government to ignore the decisions of the duly-constituted courts.
Yes, I imagine there are statistics that show that drivers who "beat" a DWI charge are more likely to get another one. I also
know that there are statistics showing that children of alcoholics have a higher probability of becoming alcoholics themselves. Does that mean that simply having an alky for a parent is sufficient cause to justify special scrutiny by FAA or other government agencies? Why not? I suspect that the statistical association is even stronger.
In any event, thanks again, Captain Ron. Your answers are always enlightening and fully-explained, and I appreciate that.
-Rich