Be careful out there!

bbchien

bbchien

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
13,264
Location
Bolingbrook, IL
Display Name
Display name:
Bruce C
As you all know, PBOR will still send your National DL databank record to FAA every 2 years.

I received an inquiry today from a fellow who has two DUIs, both under 0.15, about ten years apart. When I told him he had a problem, he replied he did not, and that a sobriety program and psych eval was "excessive". And he sez he read it here.

The FAA response, (?) excessive, but be as it may:

.....let me cite 67.307 (subpart 4)

(4) Substance dependence, except where there is established clinical evidence, satisfactory to the Federal Air Surgeon, of recovery, including sustained total abstinence from the substance(s) for not less than the preceding 2 years. As used in this section—

(i) “Substance” includes: alcohol; other sedatives and hypnotics; anxiolytics; opioids; central nervous system stimulants such as cocaine, amphetamines, and similarly acting sympathomimetics; hallucinogens; phencyclidine or similarly acting arylcyclohexylamines; cannabis; inhalants; and other psychoactive drugs and chemicals; and

(ii) “Substance dependence” means a condition in which a person is dependent on a substance, other than tobacco or ordinary xanthine-containing (e.g., caffeine) beverages, as evidenced by—

(A) Increased tolerance;

(B) Manifestation of withdrawal symptoms;

(C) Impaired control of use; or

(D) Continued use despite damage to physical health or impairment of social, personal, or occupational functioning.

(b) No substance abuse within the preceding 2 years defined as:

(1) Use of a substance in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous, if there has been at any other time an instance of the use of a substance also in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous;

So, the use of alcohol outside the home in a DUI is clearly in a situation in which that use was hazardous, and there are two publically recorded events.

Whether under PBOR -2 or 3rd class, that will get you, after proven abstinence and concurrence of a HIMS psychiatrist (also that dependency is NOT present), 24 months of monitoring and six monthly visits to the AME on a special issuance. I've BTDT many times.

So please don't think that PBOR relieves the airman of the need to remain sober and have a record of same, and of no abuse.

The unfortunate fellow is now considering if it's worth going through the hoops. Poor guy! He does have a problem, it might NOT be with alcohol, but it might. that first response was not encouraging, but pilot beware, the agency is NOT loosening its grip on this one.
 
Last edited:
It's a good thing the FAA didn't have any authority over military aviators of the 1940's (or 50's or 60's or 70's or 80's for that matter)........we would've never won a war.
 
1 DUI for a naval aviator, you're gone. 2 for any enlisted bye bye.
 
Tom-D said:
1 DUI for a naval aviator, you're gone. 2 for any enlisted bye bye.
Click to expand...
It's not just Naval Aviators these days. Any officer is pretty much done after a DUI, and even enlisted can find themselves no longer upwardly mobile after one.
 
With the demotion of Admiral Dunleavy (and forced retirement) and the censure of Rear Admiral Flagg, the handwriting was on the wall.....
 
"Under" 0.15? Two of 'em?

To quote someone I know, "Sigh."
 
bbchien said:
As you all know, PBOR will still send your National DL databank record to FAA every 2 years.

I received an inquiry today from a fellow who has two DUIs, both under 0.15, about ten years apart. When I told him he had a problem, he replied he did not, and that a sobriety program and psych eval was "excessive". And he sez he read it here.

The FAA response, (?) excessive, but be as it may:

.....let me cite 67.307 (subpart 4)

(4) Substance dependence, except where there is established clinical evidence, satisfactory to the Federal Air Surgeon, of recovery, including sustained total abstinence from the substance(s) for not less than the preceding 2 years. As used in this section—

(i) “Substance” includes: alcohol; other sedatives and hypnotics; anxiolytics; opioids; central nervous system stimulants such as cocaine, amphetamines, and similarly acting sympathomimetics; hallucinogens; phencyclidine or similarly acting arylcyclohexylamines; cannabis; inhalants; and other psychoactive drugs and chemicals; and

(ii) “Substance dependence” means a condition in which a person is dependent on a substance, other than tobacco or ordinary xanthine-containing (e.g., caffeine) beverages, as evidenced by—

(A) Increased tolerance;

(B) Manifestation of withdrawal symptoms;

(C) Impaired control of use; or

(D) Continued use despite damage to physical health or impairment of social, personal, or occupational functioning.

(b) No substance abuse within the preceding 2 years defined as:

(1) Use of a substance in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous, if there has been at any other time an instance of the use of a substance also in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous;

So, the use of alcohol outside the home in a DUI is clearly in a situation in which that use was hazardous, and there are two publically recorded events.

Whether under PBOR -2 or 3rd class, that will get you, after proven abstinence and concurrence of a HIMS psychiatrist (also that dependency is NOT present), 24 months of monitoring and six monthly visits to the AME on a special issuance. I've BTDT many times.

So please don't think that PBOR relieves the airman of the need to remain sober and have a record of same, and of no abuse.

The unfortunate fellow is now considering if it's worth going through the hoops. Poor guy! He does have a problem, it might NOT be with alcohol, but it might. that first response was not encouraging, but pilot beware, the agency is NOT loosening its grip on this one.
Click to expand...

I'm confused.

The first part of your quote is in 14 CFR 67.307(a), and relates to a history or diagnosis of dependency, which would require evidence of recovery and two years of total abstinence to qualify for a medical. But the last part of your quote, the part that refers to use in a physically hazardous situation relates to substance abuse, and appears to be disqualifying if it happened in the preceding two years, with or without abstinence, and not disqualifying thereafter, with or without abstinence.

Now maybe two DUI events ten years apart earns you a diagnosis of alcohol dependency, I don't know. But it seems that if this guy's problem is with 67.307(b) he just needs to wait two years.
 
Last edited:
Getting a DUI shows a terrible lack of judgment. There's really no excuse for it unless someone has no self control. It's very easy to establish and monitor how much alcohol one can consume and remain legal to operate a motor vehicle. Be smart out there.
 
Last edited:
I sooo love this board. I post a cautionary tale and then someone argues with me.

So you're telling ME how they do it? The paragraph defines both dependency and abuse, separately. If also does not mention that they consider 0.20 (even once) = dependency.
Lindberg said:
I'm confused.

The first part of your quote is in 14 CFR 67.307(a), and relates to a history or diagnosis of dependency, which would require evidence of recovery and two years of total abstinence to qualify for a medical. But the last part of your quote, the part that refers to use in a physically hazardous situation relates to substance abuse, and appears to be disqualifying if it happened in the preceding two years, with or without abstinence, and not disqualifying thereafter, with or without abstinence.

Now maybe two DUI events ten years apart earns you a diagnosis of alcohol dependency, I don't know. But it seems that if this guy's problem is with 67.307(b) he just needs to wait two years.
Click to expand...
No PBR for you! :)

Well you're going to have to prove you were non-abusing during those two years, and the only way the FAA can see that is for you to prove abstinence. If you do it that way, that's 28 drug tests that look far enough back to exclude any alcohol use at all. Or you can wait 2 years and just claim you didn't abuse, good luck with that. And you still have to see the HIMS psychiatrist. That doesn't hunt. So you might as well do the testing and the get to fly during the 2 years.

He's got to win ONE certification to work under PBOR-2, and has no choice.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
I sooo love this board. I post a cautionary tale and then someone argues with me.

So you're telling ME how they do it? The paragraph defines both dependency and abuse, separately. If also does not mention that they consider 0.20 (even once) = dependency.
No PBR for you! :)

Well you're going to have to prove you were non-abusing during those two years, and the only way the FAA can see that is for you to prove abstinence. If you do it that way, that's 28 drug tests that look far enough back to exclude any alcohol use at all. Or you can wait 2 years and just claim you didn't abuse, good luck with that. And you still have to see the HIMS psychiatrist. That doesn't hunt. So you might as well do the testing and the get to fly during the 2 years.

He's got to win ONE certification to work under PBOR-2, and has no choice.
Click to expand...

I'm asking this question strictly out of curiosity. I have never had a DUI and have no plans to get one.

Suppose someone has had their last medical expire (within the past 10 years) and then gets convicted of DUI. Is there anything stopping them from flying under the new law anyway if they get the doctor sign-off? I know they would have to report it to the FAA, and the FAA would find out anyway when they go do the online course and give permission to search the NDR, but the law doesn't mention anything alcohol or substance related in the few things still requiring a new SI. It seems like whoever wrote the law made sure to include the NDR check, but never gave it any teeth.
 
bbchien said:
I sooo love this board. I post a cautionary tale and then someone argues with me.
Click to expand...

Putting a few select people on ignore can really help to clear the air here Doc. In fact, I had to click "show ignored content" to see what you were talking about.

My choice of ignorees, limited as they are, are typically validated when, on rare occasion, I decide to take a peek to see what the fuss is about when I see responses that make no sense without the context.
 
Doctor Chien, I encounter that all the time in lawyer stuff. Everybody's an expert, until they find out they're not.

"Well, yes, that's what the statute says, but here's how they apply it..." <------ Common phrase.
 
I remember a few years back, the local police department said for every time a person got busted for DUI, they had driven DUI 70 times before without getting caught. May be excessive, but believable.
 
bbchien said:
I sooo love this board. I post a cautionary tale and then someone argues with me....
Click to expand...

SCCutler said:
Doctor Chien, I encounter that all the time in lawyer stuff. Everybody's an expert, until they find out they're not....
Click to expand...

Hey, at least when people do that, it gives you a chance to dispel some of the myths that are out there!
 
Back in 1992, one of my 2LTs got a DUI. I and to go retrieve him from the MPs, at 0500 on a Saturday morning, who had retrieved him from the German Polezi. The Polezi had found his wrecked car on the side of the road and went to his home and pulled him out of bed, performed a breathalyzer and arrested him. He was kicked out of my (Artillery) Battery and became the Assistant Adjutant...a made up temporary position. While he was pending his non-judicial punishment and General Officer Letter of Reprimand, both of which were career enders, he was caught for a second DUI. At least this time, he didn't belong to me. He had a history of other alcohol related incidents. I had counseled him that he was heading in the wrong direction. I learned of his second DUI when I walked into the Battalion HQ and heard the Commander yelling to the Adjutant, "I don't care where he goes. Just put a stamp on his ass and send him out of this battalion." as I walked around the corner and face-to-face with the him. He just scowled at me and said, "Smith" (not his real name) and walked around me.

Ironically, the Lieutenant, a West Point graduate, had earllier told me he wanted to finish him time and go back home to be a Texas State Trooper. Bet two DUIs killed that dream.

We lost more than one officer to DUI in that tour. When I myself was a Lieutenant (85-89), a DUI/DWI wasn't necassrily immediately terminal. One could frequently still make Captain, but it still haunted them and they never made Major. Most who received one opted to get out when their commitment ended.
 
Bill Jennings said:
PBR is my hot weather beer of choice. It's darned hard to down a porter on the lake when it's 96 degrees.
Click to expand...
Well, one should not DOWN a porter. I have been known to enjoy a porter or stout on days exceeding 92 degrees. Haha.
 
MassPilot said:
IPA is the way to go. PBR is the crap we would buy in college when we couldn't afford anything better.
Click to expand...
I don't enjoy the about of hoppyness found in an IPA but a saison, wheat, hefeweizen, or similar would do it for me. Sunshine is a tasty beer for hot days too.

I like to tell customers who are about to get in the plane with me that all pilots are alcoholics. It usually gets a sideways glance and nervous chuckle.

But seriously, no drinking and flying folks. Save that for the interstate... or hot air ballooning.
 
Joshuajayg said:
I don't enjoy the about of hoppyness found in an IPA but a saison, wheat, hefeweizen, or similar would do it for me. Sunshine is a tasty beer for hot days too.

I like to tell customers who are about to get in the plane with me that all pilots are alcoholics. It usually gets a sideways glance and nervous chuckle.

But seriously, no drinking and flying folks. Save that for the interstate... or hot air ballooning.
Click to expand...

I didn't enjoy the hoppyness of IPA's at first, but I tried it a few times and now it's my favorite kind of beer. It's definitely an acquired taste. I'm a wheat beer fan too.
 
MassPilot said:
IPA is the way to go. PBR is the crap we would buy in college when we couldn't afford anything better.
Click to expand...

Hmm funny. I always thought IPA was that weak stuff that I whizzed when I took a leak. :p

I don't always drink PBR but I always have it on hand plus some Dos Equis, Sam Adams, Flat Tire etc.
 
retpd2001 said:
I remember a few years back, the local police department said for every time a person got busted for DUI, they had driven DUI 70 times before without getting caught. May be excessive, but believable.
Click to expand...

Chronic alcoholics can go a long time between busts because they are used to it and are in better control of it.. The poor bastards who seldom drink and have one too many on New Year's Eve are not in good control and get caught.
 
I keep a *good* breathalyzer in my vehicles (you really need to research what you're buying, be prepared to spend some money, read the manual, understand the device's margin-of-error, get it calibrated per the manufacture's schedule, etc). I don't drive after drinking unless it has been at least 30 minutes since the last drop and my BAC is .04 or below. That provides a huge buffer of protection against the device's margin-of-error. If I feel like there is a chance my BAC is still climbing (alcohol still in stomach) then I do multiple tests over a good length of time to confirm that my BAC is trending down, not up.

I've had some geniuses tell me that having a breathalyzer is a sign of an alcohol problem, blah blah. Whatever. The truth of the matter is -- ever since I started carrying and using the breathalyzer I drink a lot less. There is some kind of conscious thing in my head that says that I know I don't want to blow over a .04 and I'd really like to drive home. The result is better decision making. I also know how alcohol affects my body a lot better since I've done so many tests.

I would say the chance that I even will drink at a social situation is down at least 50% since I started really paying attention to my BAC and how my body metabolizes alcohol. At the end of the day I know that the chance of me getting a DUI is basically zero. Funny thing is one of those guys that gave me crap for using one got himself a DUI about a month after that. He has one now.

Three times now the breathalizer has prevented someone from driving home that shouldn't drive home. Most any drunk finds the idea of blowing into a BAC fun therefore they don't argue with you. Once they see the reading and know that they could be repeating the same experiment (and ending up in jail) they decide not to drive.

I've even had someone blow under .08 and not drive because they saw that they were close and seeing that number engaged some bit of logic in their brain.
 
I'm not much of a drinker lately; rarely I'll have more than one in a sitting, but for anyone in a semi-urban setting Uber ends this conversation imo.
 
midcap said:
I always find it funny when people try to debate Dr. Bruce.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the good doctor doesn't know everything. When my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer, I read everything I could find on the subject. One day at her PCP, the doc told me I probably knew more about "Medullary Carcinoma" than he did. I've actually done study in substance abuse and was offered a position at a counseling facility. After sitting in on a dozen or so sessions I decided I didn't want to be there with all those loose cannons.
 
retpd2001 said:
I remember a few years back, the local police department said for every time a person got busted for DUI, they had driven DUI 70 times before without getting caught. May be excessive, but believable.
Click to expand...

The number I'd heard was more like 30-40.. but the implications are the same. Its a reinforced behavior. You get away with it.. then again.. then again... then a little more drunk... and again... etc.. then next thing you know your first DWI bust is up in the .15-.20 range...
 
GlennAB1 said:
I'm sure the good doctor doesn't know everything. When my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer, I read everything I could find on the subject. One day at her PCP, the doc told me I probably knew more about "Medullary Carcinoma" than he did. I've actually done study in substance abuse and was offered a position at a counseling facility. After sitting in on a dozen or so sessions I decided I didn't want to be there with all those loose cannons.
Click to expand...


I'm sure he doesn't know everything either.

But I will tell you this.... at present there are 177 US based AME's who currently participate in the HIMS program... out of roughly 4000 AME's in the USA. HIMS is the program that was developed to provide a mechanism for professional pilots with alcohol problems to keep their livelihood and remain in the industry, in cooperation with the FAA, the pilots unions and other stakeholders. As one of those select 177 AME's I have no doubt that this is an area he is a subject matter expert on, and knows not only how folks end up IN the HIMS program, but how they are able to get OUT of the program (successfully or not).

I have no doubt you probably knew more about your wife's cancer than the PCP (a generalist) did at the time. I have severe doubts that you and Dr Google would have exceeded the expertise and knowledge of the treating oncologist - i.e. the specialist. And whether you choose to agree with him or not, Dr Chien is exactly that.. a specialist... in his field. And to boot, you are getting Expert advice from a specialist for FREE. And all of it is verifiable if you know where to look.
 
For the record: My wife took part in a chemotherapy trial (her decision), a one-two punch of drugs not normally given together. The Oncologist didn't administer the drugs, just prescribed them, probably needlessly. Medullary Carcinoma, the rarest form of breast cancer is also the most survivable. It rarely metastases. She had a surgeon telling her she didn't need chemotherapy. Odds are, the lumpectomy and radiation therapy alone would have been sufficient. My wife was a lab rat for the Oncologist (to the tune of $250,000), and I became an expert at giving Neupogen injections.
 
Last edited:
SCCutler said:
Doctor Chien, I encounter that all the time in lawyer stuff. Everybody's an expert, until they find out they're not.

"Well, yes, that's what the statute says, but here's how they apply it..." <------ Common phrase.
Click to expand...
Brother-in-law recently had an expert lawyer tell him "I don't know how this is going to go." Everyone else though it should have been cut and dry. Brother-in-law's repair station brought a neglected Lear Jet back to airworthy status and aircraft owner skirted the bill for two years. Brother-in-law placed a mechanics lien on aircraft and filed suit. Aircraft was impounded. Aircraft owner countersued seeking damages for lost usage. Judge ruled it a wash... a wash... you got to f'n kidding me. A repair station with numerous employees is out, parts and labor, to the tune of $130,000 and an aircraft owner can just fly away. Trust me, if I'm ever involved in business like that, you can have your aircraft back when check is in hand. If check bounces, we'll go from there.
 
Last edited:
GlennAB1 said:
Brother-in-law recently had an expert lawyer tell him "I don't know how this is going to go." Everyone else though it should have been cut and dry. Brother-in-law's repair station brought a neglected Lear Jet back to airworthy status and aircraft owner skirted the bill for two years. Brother-in-law placed a mechanics lien on aircraft and filed suit. Aircraft was impounded. Aircraft owner countersued seeking damages for lost usage. Judge ruled it a wash... a wash... you got to f'n kidding me. A repair station with numerous employees is out, parts and labor, to the tune of $130,000 and an aircraft owner can just fly away. Trust me, if I'm ever involved in business like that, you can have your aircraft back when check is in hand. If check bounces, we'll go from there.
Click to expand...
So all the internet lawyers who thought it would be cut and dry were wrong and the "expert lawyer" was right. Exactly.
 
GlennAB1 said:
For the record: My wife took part in a chemotherapy trial (her decision), a one-two punch of drugs not normally given together. The Oncologist didn't administer the drugs, just prescribed them, probably needlessly. Medullary Carcinoma, the rarest form of breast cancer is also the most survivable. It rarely metastases. She had a surgeon telling her she didn't need chemotherapy. Odds are, the lumpectomy and radiation therapy alone would have been sufficient. My wife was a lab rat for the Oncologist (to the tune of $250,000), and I became an expert at giving Neupogen injections.
Click to expand...

sorry to hear about your wife...but what Dr. Bruce does is not quite the same as Oncology. What he does would be similar to what a CPA does. Uses their expertise to navigate laws and regulations to help you reach your goal of flying.
 
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