Driver Education Reporting

For example, if you take a driver's ed course that the state doesn't use for "points" reduction, but gives you an insurance discount.

My work requires me to complete an online Defensive Driving course annually in order to be able to drive on company business...do I have to report that?
 
JeffDG said:
For example, if you take a driver's ed course that the state doesn't use for "points" reduction, but gives you an insurance discount.

My work requires me to complete an online Defensive Driving course annually in order to be able to drive on company business...do I have to report that?
Click to expand...
Since neither of those involves an arrest, conviction, or administrative action, there is nothing in 18v which suggests it must be reported.
 
How about a different scenario. Suppose you have a family history of type 2 Diabetes and your doctor suggests that you take a class in Diabetes Management to help you understand the cause and possible prevention of the disease. Does either the taking of the class or the fact that the doctor suggested it in the first place have to be reported? To clarify, this is without a diagnosis of Diabetes. Just education with a hope of prevention.
 
Gmaper said:
How about a different scenario. Suppose you have a family history of type 2 Diabetes and your doctor suggests that you take a class in Diabetes Management to help you understand the cause and possible prevention of the disease. Does either the taking of the class or the fact that the doctor suggested it in the first place have to be reported? To clarify, this is without a diagnosis of Diabetes. Just education with a hope of prevention.
Click to expand...
Did that class result from an arrest, conviction or administrative action? No? Then no, I don't see it requiring a "yes" check on 18v. Of course, your visit to that doctor will have to be reported in block 19, but that's another story.
 
SCCutler said:
I will be very interested in the result of your inquiry. I do not believe that the typical "traffic school in lieu of a conviction of a routine traffic offense" is intended to be the subject of disclosure here, either. Indeed, the bare conviction (where one opts to accept the citation, pay the fine and move on) is not subject to disclosure on the 8500-8, if they do not "...involve: alcohol or a drug; suspension, revocation, cancellation, or denial of driving privileges; or attendance at an educational or rehabilitation program." (Source: FAA 8500-8, Instructions).

In most states' driver licensing and enforcement schemes, there is the option of electing to attend traffic safety school (by whatever name) in lieu of accepting a conviction, the result of which is expunction of the entire offense from the driving record. It is not an administrative action which requires attendance, but rather, is an election by the cited party to substitute attendance at the class for acceptance of a conviction.

The distinction here, and it is an important one, is that the attendance is not ordered; it is allowed at the option of the cited party, and if the cited party opts not to attend, they have a conviction of the originally-cited offense - a conviction which is not reportable on the 8500-8. Note well that these programs are typically only available to drivers whose records are relatively clean - a persistent record of multiple offenses precludes use of these types of diversionary remedies.

I draw a marked distinction between the circumstance I describe - where the cited party is, as a result of a relatively clean driving record, able to elect a traffic safety school as an alternative to a conviction - and a circumstance where a cited party is convicted of an offense and, as a condition to retaining the driving privilege, is required to attend an educational or rehabilitation program.

The essential reasoning behind the traffic school regimes is that, for drivers who are not habitual offenders (and these are the only ones for whom such options are offered), exposure to the optional driver training will imkprove overall safety by reinforcing good and safe practices. I sincerely doubt that the FAA intends to discourage this safety-enhancing practice, and (indeed) the FAA has shown favor to a similar approach in the ASRS system and its penalty-abatement provisions.

As always, I am perfectly ready to be proven wrong, but I am applying code interpretation rules routinely used in the law, and (in my experience) federal codes and regs are no more obtusely-written than others.
Click to expand...

I have this verbally from both the FAA and a couple of Aviation attorneys that what you said is correct .
 
Unregistered said:
I have this verbally from both the FAA and a couple of Aviation attorneys that what you said is correct .
Click to expand...
Interesting, Mr. Anonymous. We have some respected folks here who've said the opposite - at least one (Dr. Bruce) says that they've talked to the FAA and were told something different.

We'll see what the Chief Counsel says.
 
TMetzinger said:
Interesting, Mr. Anonymous. We have some respected folks here who've said the opposite - at least one (Dr. Bruce) says that they've talked to the FAA and were told something different.

We'll see what the Chief Counsel says.
Click to expand...


Whaaaa? That's like two different FSDOs giving different answers when you ask them a question...

I'm with you on waiting for the CC to weigh in.
 
Unregistered said:
I have this verbally from both the FAA and a couple of Aviation attorneys that what you said is correct .
Click to expand...
Well, now we get to hear what Susan Caron sez........whether we like it or not.

The problem I have with Bob Miller is that he caused a year and a half of the fleet to be grounded in winter, when what we had before, was actually the same as what we have now. Have you read the counsel opinion on icing as revised? It's fancy legalese for "the same". The judge of the potential for icing is the pilot AS REVIEWED BY THE FSDO.

IMO, you have to be very careful what you put to the FAA before you do. Witness my experience iwth SSRIs, which was a prolonged 5 year effort. Successful, but it requried getting allies on the inside before asking the question.
 
I have the sense to ask verbally before asking in writing, Steve. But every now and then we get somebody who has to write. Bob Miller was one. He should have asked first, and his failure to do so resulted in the year -and-a-half-yada yada life with "any visible moisture below freezing definition. That was intolerable.

Be careful of what you ask.
Be ever more carfeful of what you ask in writing.
This'll be fun and I don't think we're going to do any damage here, but Tim's approach is very similar to Mr. Miller's.
 
bbchien said:
I have the sense to ask verbally before asking in writing, Steve.
Click to expand...

Two things with that.

First, you have to know exactly WHO to ask verbally

And Second, you have to have access to that person to be ABLE to ask verbally.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Two things with that.

First, you have to know exactly WHO to ask verbally

And Second, you have to have access to that person to be ABLE to ask verbally.
Click to expand...

Yep. And at the end of that road is our "democratic, representative" government looking more and more like a royal court, with nobles and courtiers and all that. This is NOT a comment on any of the recent presidents or such and shouldn't start an SZ discussion..
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Two things with that.

First, you have to know exactly WHO to ask verbally

And Second, you have to have access to that person to be ABLE to ask verbally.
Click to expand...
That is really really true.

It's like the Vatican.
Sometimes when you're Martin Luther, it has unexpected consequences.

The note has been nailed to the Cathedral door! Viva la revolucion!
 
bbchien said:
That is really really true.

It's like the Vatican.
Sometimes when you're Martin Luther, it has unexpected consequences.

The note has been nailed to the Cathedral door! Viva la revolucion!
Click to expand...

And I do know what usually happens to successful revolutionaries...

(Cue "Don't get fooled again" by The Who).
 
TMetzinger said:
And I do know what usually happens to successful revolutionaries...

(Cue "Don't get fooled again" by The Who).
Click to expand...
Lessee. Menachim Begin. Nelson Mandela. Mahatma Ghandi. Boris Yeltsin.

But seriously, if you had asked I would have provided you with the Cardinal's name and number.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
Lessee. Menachim Begin. Nelson Mandela. Mahatma Ghandi.

But seriously, if you had asked I would have provided you with the Cardinal's name and number.
Click to expand...

Nah - I've gotten too many "official" statements from individuals in the FAA before (from FSDOs and HQ) that turned out to be worthless when someone else was making a decision on the subject. The only things that any given official seems to give weight to are a counsel opinion or a direct instruction from the current administrator. (which is a sad comment, but I've seen the same thing in the FBI/DEA/IRS and other agencies too - it seems to be one of the things that just comes along with a bureaucracy).

I understand the trepidation of asking the question - it's like a lawyer asking a witness a question to which he doesn't already know the answer.

But in this case, the worst that should happen is that the counsel agrees with Ron and Bruce -and you must report educational or rehab attendance even if it's only remotely linked to a conviction, suspension or admin action for motor vehicle or any other offense. It's hard to see how they could further expand the scope of the question beyond what you allege they have already done.

Or they might say you have to do the above but only for motor vehicle offenses.

Or they might say you only report it when you're compelled by an order from the state to attend as the result of a conviction/suspension/admin action (which is what happens if you get too many points on your license in VA - they send you a letter ORDERING you to take a drivers class within so much time to avoid loss of privilege or to regain privilege).
 
"The answer to your question depends entirely on WHO you ask"

... The FAA is hardly the only place where that applies. Just about any organization I have ever been associated with works that way.

Dave
 
Tim, the key, actually, is to know exactly what your state puts on the datatapes and when. That's the true art. :)
 
Well, yesterday I got a notice to pick up a certified letter from the Department of Transportation. My initial reaction was that it couldn't be good news but I was pretty confident I hadn't busted any regs. In what may be a record for timeliness, the FAA has responded to my letter in less than one month, and they agree with me that unless a person is MANDATED to go to an education/rehabilitation program that it doesn't need to be reported. Letter is attached.

I'n now two for three.

And I think I'll go get a copy of my driving record and see if an online course will help my point score.
 

Attachments

  • counsel opinion on reporting driver education.pdf
    368.6 KB · Views: 349
TMetzinger said:
Well, yesterday I got a notice to pick up a certified letter from the Department of Transportation. My initial reaction was that it couldn't be good news but I was pretty confident I hadn't busted any regs. In what may be a record for timeliness, the FAA has responded to my letter in less than one month, and they agree with me that unless a person is MANDATED to go to an education/rehabilitation program that it doesn't need to be reported. Letter is attached.

I'n now two for three.

And I think I'll go get a copy of my driving record and see if an online course will help my point score.
Click to expand...
Great! Thanks for asking!
 
Tim, that is not a general counsel letter. That is from AAM 2, the office of medical specialties that reports to the Federal Air Surgeon.

You did NOT get a response from the chief counsel.

I know Jim DeVoll well. He's a doctor.
 
Bruce, given the fact that Dr. De Voll was answering on behalf of the Chief Counsel, wouldn't it hold the same weight? IOW, isn't it just a matter of symanics?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Bruce, given the fact that Dr. De Voll was answering on behalf of the Chief Counsel, wouldn't it hold the same weight? IOW, isn't it just a matter of symanics?
Click to expand...
Is it signed by the general Counsel? I don't see "general counsel" below the signature. Hmmn. It's signed by a doctor. A good one, but I don't see that he's a counsel of any sort.

This is how they manage an inquiry that they do now want to go to the "supreme court" who is this instance is a lady named Caron, the Counsel to AAM-1.
 
bbchien said:
Is it signed by the general Counsel? I don't see "general counsel" below the signature. Hmmn. It's signed by a doctor. A good one, but I don't see that he's a counsel of any sort.

This is how they manage an inquiry that they do now want to go to the "supreme court" who is this instance is a lady named Caron, the Counsel to AAM-1.
Click to expand...
When someone in an official capacity writes in their letter "I am responding on behalf of the Federal Air Surgeon and the Office of the Chief Counsel." (emphasis mine), the only reasonable (dangerous words applied to the government, I know) conclusion is that the person is authorized to do so and that the response has the same force as if the OCS had written it themselves. Were Dr. De Voll to assert he was doing so and in fact not be authorized to do so, then I would think he would be in a world of hurt.

And the next time I got a letter from someone acting on behalf of the Administrator, if it wasn't Randy Babbitt's signature personally witnessed I would be entitled to ignore it? :no:
 
This thing got sent certified (which my other counsel letters didn't), and unless/until the Chief Counsel or the Administrator sends me a similar missive saying "never mind", I'm comfortable that if anyone ever comes after me saying "hey you didn't report your driver class on 18v" I can say "The FAA says I don't have to".
 
uhhhhhhhh..Okay.

What you've done is accepted an opinion at the level of the appelate body, as opposed to the "supreme body". Caveat emptor. It's probably okay, I just don't want to be the "test case".

Save that letter, Tim, for when the state data tape contains the educational course, you didn't report it, and OKC makes inquiry. At least you have that on file :).
 
Heck, I'll give the guy a call to thank him for his prompt response and say that Bruce think's it's not binding on the FAA.

Bruce will get a call saying "I find your lack of faith..... disturbing" and experience shortness of breath.

Seriously, I'll see if this gets added to the "counsel opinion" database. I asked an attorney at DOJ for an opinion, and they agreed with Grant. When Dr. De Voll wrote that he was responding on behalf of the FAS and the OCC, that counts as THEIR opinion as well unless they specifically countermand it, which they should do promptly if they intend to do so after reading their copies.
 
Last edited:
If they would post it on the opinions and interpretations page....that would be citationable and would count for something :)
 
bbchien said:
If they would post it on the opinions and interpretations page....that would be citationable and would count for something :)
Click to expand...
The issue I have with your responses in this thread, Bruce, is that a pilot made a perfectly reasonable request for clarification from the Office of the Chief Council of the FAA. He gets a response back purporting to be on behalf of said office. Of course he is going to believe that it is an official interpretation upon which he can rely.

Too much, it seems that we believe that whatever we hear from the FAA, be it in the form of letters, FARs, or other interpretation, is just useless, because they will make an apparently arbitrary interpretation in respect to ones actions and that it will be upheld. Isn't there something precluding this sort of arbitrary rulemaking? Do you really believe that the NTSB, when presented with the letter that Tim received, would find for the FAA if he neglected to put a voluntary education program on his medical, having relied on the FAA's guidance to make the determination?

Or are you suggesting that each and every one of us must get a copy of this letter directly from the FAA before following the advice?
 
Many many pilots have learned, after having paid to lawyer up, that a letter from anyone but the general counsel, cannot be relied up in an enforcement proceeding.

Whether it be a regional counsel opinion, or a good guy like Jim DeVoll, it's not a General counsel opinion.

Grant you can have problems all you like, but in a law system that is administrative law, nothing but the GC counts. Believe anything you want, it does not make your wish come true.

I am not suggesting a thing. I am TELLING you that that is not a General Counsel Opinion, no matter what Jim represents. Looking in the FAA roster, I don't see a Jim DeVoll, General Counsel. Nope, doesn't exist. I do see a physician in AAM2 who IS NOT THE GENERAL COUNSEL. You all seem to forget that in administrative law, only the one that speaks for the ADMINISTRATOR counts. That would be Mr. Babbit's general Counsel, who is, oddly enough, the GENERAL COUNSEL.

The letter was generated by a person who will process your appeal to the federal air surgeon. I don't see that his jurisdiction binds the ADMINISTRATOR of the FAA, who is TWO levels above the Federal Air Surgeon, to any course of action. Actually, on the personell tree, Dr. DeVoll is THREE LEVELS below Mr. Babbitt.

It boils down to you all believe you've got something, go ahead and test it, I won't. The opinion has to come from the GENERAL COUNSEL, who speaks for the administrator.

Then, Grant, actually go read the question from #19. There is NOTHING in there about omitting if the nature of "resulting in going to an educational course" is voluntary or compulsory. So when a non-doctor sees your answer, you're likely up the creek.

Tim got a nice feels good letter, but it's NOT A GENERAL COUNSEL OPINION, and there's nothing in the wording that suggests you can omit based on "the result was voluntary".
 
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