Driver Education Reporting

[TMetzinger]

Over in another thread "What to say?" one of the side topics that was spawned was whether an airman had to report taking a driver education class taken to improve a driving record when no government (court or DMV) had directed the airman to take the class.

Example - Andrew gets a speeding ticket and loses three points on his license. Andrew's been a good driver for many years and had built up five extra "good driver" points on his record, so he still has two points left, and he wouldn't get a suspension in his state until his "score" was below -5 points. But Andrew is worried about losing his insurance discount based on his +5 score, so he decides months later to take an online driver course that will result in him being credited three points - thus getting his score back where he wants it. Does Andrew have to report this course on his medical application form?

My opinion is that this is not reportable. Ron Levy and Dr. Bruce have disagreed.

I've sent a letter to the FAA Office of Chief Counsel (attached) and will report back when/if they reply (months).

Not really looking to start a debate in this thread - just wanted a place to park it so that when the results come back I can post them.

 

[RJM62]

I dunno... I'm no expert, but the form says "which resulted in," not "which required."

So.... If Andrew's speeding ticket inspired him to voluntarily take the course, even though it was not required for him to do so, then I'd say the course was a result of the ticket and would be reportable.

But if Bernie, who had no tickets, decided to take the course simply because he wanted the insurance discount, then Bernie's situation would not be reportable.

But as I said, I'm no expert, I fly SP and don't have an FAA medical (although I do have a DOT one), and I really have no idea what I'm talking about.

So just ignore everything I said. I just had a few extra keystrokes laying around to waste this morning.

-Rich

 

[gprellwitz]

So just ignore everything I said. I just had a few extra keystrokes laying around to waste this morning.

-Rich

Electrons are free. Radicals, too.

 

[TMetzinger]

I dunno... I'm no expert, but the form says "which resulted in," not "which required."

So.... If Andrew's speeding ticket inspired him to voluntarily take the course, even though it was not required for him to do so, then I'd say the course was a result of the ticket and would be reportable.

-Rich

That's a possible interpretation - but I don't think that's the proper use of "resulted". I would think that if someone went to court and the charges were dropped as part of an agreement to take the course - that's more of the "result". The driver wasn't forced to take the course but the course was a direct result of the ticket and the desire to avoid the fine. If the driver already PAID the fine and TOOK the points, then he's not trying to appease the state by taking the course. I think "resulted" should mean that this particular event led to that particular event in a clear chain of causality.

But we'll see what the FAA says... So far I've been "right" 2 times out of three, this could go either way.

 

[SCCutler]

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.

 

[TMetzinger]

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.

Thank you for putting my reasoning into much better words.

 

[poadeleted20]

I still suggest that unless/until the Chief Counsel says otherwise, you report it, since the Chief Counsel has the authority to advance his interpretation as part of an enforcement action against you. IOW, you can't go wrong by reporting it (if it's not an issue, they'll ignore it), but you can go wrong by failing to report it without assurance that it need not be reported.

 

[TMetzinger]

I still suggest that unless/until the Chief Counsel says otherwise, you report it, since the Chief Counsel has the authority to advance his interpretation as part of an enforcement action against you. IOW, you can't go wrong by reporting it (if it's not an issue, they'll ignore it), but you can go wrong by failing to report it without assurance that it need not be reported.

That's OK advice, but taking the "you can't go wrong" path of giving the state information that they haven't specifically required erodes your privacy and may expose you to other unforeseen consequences.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Ok, I am having a problem figuring out just what part of the application we are talking about and what specific situations are involved.

Is it 18 V and W we are talking about? I am at a loss as to how taking a driving course applies to either of those.

 

[TMetzinger]

Ok, I am having a problem figuring out just what part of the application we are talking about and what specific situations are involved.

Is it 18 V and W we are talking about? I am at a loss as to how taking a driving course applies to either of those.

18v - I initially thought these were drug/alcohol education or rehab programs only., but the language is not that specific.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes, it is 18v about which we are talking. I believe the FAA would say that assignment of points is an administrative action, and that any attendance at a driver ed program as a result (such as to have the points removed) would require a "yes" for 18v and an explanation appended.

 

[poadeleted20]

18v - I initially thought these were drug/alcohol education or rehab programs only., but the language is not that specific.

No, it isn't. Any education program attendance as a result of a conviction or administrative action is included, and that's not limited to driving, either. As I read it, if you had to go to parenting school as a result of some child abuse or neglect action, that would have to be reported, too.

 

[TMetzinger]

Yes, it is 18v about which we are talking. I believe the FAA would say that assignment of points is an administrative action, and that any attendance at a driver ed program as a result (such as to have the points removed) would require a "yes" for 18v and an explanation appended.

To summarize:

We all agree that if someone with no tickets or blemishes on their driving record takes a driver's education course, no reporting is necessary.

We disagree on if a person has to report a driver's education course if a person takes a course to earn back points he lost due to a conviction or adminstrative action (even though the conviction or administrative action isn't reportable unless it causes loss of driving privileges).

I think we disagree on if a person must report attending a school in lieu of a conviction or administrative action - meaning that the person's driving privilege is not in jeopardy if they don't take the course - they just get the conviction instead.

I think we all agree that if a person is convicted of a crime and "sentenced" to a course - that is to say the person must take the course to retain the driving privilege - that must be reported.

 

[TMetzinger]

No, it isn't. Any education program attendance as a result of a conviction or administrative action is included, and that's not limited to driving, either. As I read it, if you had to go to parenting school as a result of some child abuse or neglect action, that would have to be reported, too.

Um, I don't think so... I think THAT would be under 18w (nontraffic convictions), though I could see how you make that interpretation.

It's sort of murky - which is why your "no harm in reporting it" advice keeps one's butt covered. I would just rather have it clarified. Maybe I'll do another revision and ask if 18V covers other non-traffic actions as well.

Rev c. attached. The discussion is appreciated as it's brought a lot of clarity to the questions to be asked (and helps a slow day at work go by too).

 

[AggieMike88]

I too look forward to the response.

I reported attending Defensive Driving to wipe off a traffic citation (speeding) on my medical. OKC didn't blink at all, but it sure raised questions with the AME.

Of course, I was working on guidance from the recent webinar done by AOPA, Gary C, and Dr. Bruce about your medical. AME's office was working on what they knew.

Hopefully the instructions will become less murky one day.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

No, it isn't. Any education program attendance as a result of a conviction or administrative action is included, and that's not limited to driving, either. As I read it, if you had to go to parenting school as a result of some child abuse or neglect action, that would have to be reported, too.

Holy crap. There are so many "or"s, "and/or"s and general waffling to make any sense of that. And I believe that your last example falls outside the intent of that particular question, IOW, it is limited to driving offenses. Hence I am curious what the outcome of Tim's letter will be.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Man, major confusion. I think they should separate V(1) and V(2). As it stands, since it is all contained within 18V, I always took it to mean drug and/or alcohol issue ONLY.

Bottom line is that if you don't mess with that stuff, this becomes a non issue.

 

[TMetzinger]

Man, major confusion. I think they should separate V(1) and V(2). As it stands, since it is all contained within 18V, I always took it to mean drug and/or alcohol issue ONLY.

Bottom line is that if you don't mess with that stuff, this becomes a non issue.

I don't think so. I don't do drugs or alcohol, but have had one speeding ticket every 8 years or so. I'm thinking of taking a driver course rather than waiting the two years for my points to max out again, but we'll see what these guys say.

What if you go to rehab for addiction to aviation?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I don't think so. I don't do drugs or alcohol, but have had one speeding ticket every 8 years or so. I'm thinking of taking a driver course rather than waiting the two years for my points to max out again, but we'll see what these guys say.

What if you go to rehab for addiction to aviation?

Oh My Goodness. You have got to be kidding me. I NOW understand the issue. It is a totally screwed up thing that if you get a speeding ticket, you don't have to report it, but if you go to a Driver's Ed course to address it, you do.

I SERIOUSLY doubt that is the intent of that statement in 18V. Sorry Ron, won't buy it.

 

[RJM62]

Pray tell, how do all of these traffic questions on the form, and all of the possible interpretations thereof, relate to the medical fitness of a person to fly an aircraft?

Certainly losing one's driver's license might suggest general recklessness, but I wasn't aware that recklessness was considered an illness these days. It seems to me that it would make more sense to require that an airman report if he or she loses his or her driver's license on a separate form, and limit the medical form to questions that have some fleeting relevance to a person's medical condition.

But again, I have no idea what I am talking about, although I do admit to enjoying semantic exercises in general. So please ignore whatever I say on this matter. I'm just full of hot air and probably should consider either politics or ballooning (for either of which no medical is required, by the way).

-Rich

 

[poadeleted20]

Holy crap. There are so many "or"s, "and/or"s and general waffling to make any sense of that. And I believe that your last example falls outside the intent of that particular question, IOW, it is limited to driving offenses.

I see nothing in clause (2) limiting the reporting of attendance at an educational program resulting from an arrest, conviction, or administrative action to driving offenses. Hence, my caution, regardless of perceived intent.

 

[Doggtyred]

Pray tell, how do all of these traffic questions on the form, and all of the possible interpretations thereof, relate to the medical fitness of a person to fly an aircraft?
-Rich

It doesn't. What it does constitute is an opportunity to screen applicants on a recurring basis for issues regarding judgment and decisionmaking, which are essential for safe operation of aircraft.

If you cant or dont follow the rules for a car, how on earth do you expect to convince someone you can follow rules for an aircraft?

 

[bbchien]

Tim, exercise your right to get shot down by Susan Caron, General Counsel. I've had this conversation. She will interpret the logic literally.

Let us see the response..... :O Just be careful you don't become the CFI Miller of the medical aviation world.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I see nothing in clause (2) limiting the reporting of attendance at an educational program resulting from an arrest, conviction, or administrative action to driving offenses. Hence, my caution, regardless of perceived intent.

Understood. But can't you see how it might be interpreted as strictly a driving offense just because of the section it is in?

I have been reading that statement for 33 years and have never taken it the way it is being presented here.

 

[timwinters]

If you cant or dont follow the rules for a car, how on earth do you expect to convince someone you can follow rules for an aircraft?

That reminds me of an ex-boss who used to say "a man who cheats on his wife will cheat on me". Sorry, but there are two completely different parts of the brain working there. Driving a car and piloting an airplane aren't as far removed as the two transgressions in that example but they are fairly disparate.

Oh, and that boss...he divorced his wife and married his sexetary.

 

[RJM62]

It doesn't. What it does constitute is an opportunity to screen applicants on a recurring basis for issues regarding judgment and decisionmaking, which are essential for safe operation of aircraft.

If you cant or dont follow the rules for a car, how on earth do you expect to convince someone you can follow rules for an aircraft?

Possibly, but most of the pilots I know tend to have lead feet when driving, so I wonder how relevant it really is.

I'm also curious whether that question is on the DOT physical form. I'll have to look it up after I get back later. I've been getting those physicals for more than 20 years and I frankly don't recall whether they ask. Probably because I only recently had my first moving violation in 32 years of driving, so I wouldn't have spent too much time on such a question.

-Rich

 

[TMetzinger]

Tim, exercise your right to get shot down by Susan Caron, General Counsel. I've had this conversation. She will interpret the logic literally.

Let us see the response..... :O Just be careful you don't become the CFI Miller of the medical aviation world.

Heck - Bob Miller seems to be doing ok. There are worse things in life.

If there were logic (as it's taught to engineers anyway) in the wording of this, I wouldn't be writing the letter in the first place!

I completely understand that the FAA has valid reasons to need to know if someone has a problem with addictive substances, or if they have a problem with judgement and hazardous attitudes that could be indicated by a pattern of traffic violations that would lead to suspension or revocation of driving privilege, or to mandatory attendance at an education or rehab program.

But as Greg said, taking a driver safety course because you got a non-reportable ticket shouldn't itself be reportable. Reporting a traffic violation that sentences you to a driver safety course does make sense.

 

[poadeleted20]

Understood. But can't you see how it might be interpreted as strictly a driving offense just because of the section it is in?

Sure, I can see someone outside the FAA reading it that way. But that doesn't mean the FAA means it that way. I'll continue to advise erring on the side of caution unless/until the Chief Counsel says otherwise.

 

[TMetzinger]

Possibly, but most of the pilots I know tend to have lead feet when driving, so I wonder how relevant it really is.

I'm also curious whether that question is on the DOT physical form. I'll have to look it up after I get back later. I've been getting those physicals for more than 20 years and I frankly don't recall whether they ask. Probably because I only recently had my first moving violation in 32 years of driving, so I wouldn't have spent too much time on such a question.

-Rich

In Virginia, any moving offense commited by a CDL holder is a big deal. I don't know if they differentiate when you're exercising your CDL privileges and driving the big vehicles from when you're in your SUV on vacation or not.

 

[TMetzinger]

Sure, I can see someone outside the FAA reading it that way. But that doesn't mean the FAA means it that way. I'll continue to advise erring on the side of caution unless/until the Chief Counsel says otherwise.

And I agree with Ron that his interpretation is possible too - this isn't like some other cases where the reg really clearly states something we wish it didn't.

Ron's advice is good and practical. I just think that it's not THAT hard to write good guidance and we shouldn't settle for less. Heck, if the FAA did a more iterative approach to rule making where they solicited comments, then published their response, their reasoning, AND the draft language for one more public review pass to be sure that the symbol sent and received actually conveys the meaning intended (FOI strikes again!), we'd have a lot less problems (the last rewrite on instrument currency comes to mind...).

 

[poadeleted20]

Heck, if the FAA did a more iterative approach to rule making where they solicited comments, then published their response, their reasoning, AND the draft language for one more public review pass to be sure that the symbol sent and received actually conveys the meaning intended (FOI strikes again!), we'd have a lot less problems (the last rewrite on instrument currency comes to mind...).

It already takes 8 years. You want to add to that?

 

[SCCutler]

Just to gum things up further - Tim, you reference "points," where a driver gets points assessed against his or her license for a traffic violation, and they can "earn-off" some points by taking traffic school. This differs from our scheme here in Texas, where you have the elective option to take traffic school, the successful completion of which prevents the conviction from ever occurring.

Not sure how much of a distinction it is, though. In either event, the driver is electing to attend the school, not being ordered to do so.

 

[bbchien]

Heck - Bob Miller seems to be doing ok. There are worse things in life.

If there were logic (as it's taught to engineers anyway) in the wording of this, I wouldn't be writing the letter in the first place!

I completely understand that the FAA has valid reasons to need to know if someone has a problem with addictive substances, or if they have a problem with judgement and hazardous attitudes that could be indicated by a pattern of traffic violations that would lead to suspension or revocation of driving privilege, or to mandatory attendance at an education or rehab program.

But as Greg said, taking a driver safety course because you got a non-reportable ticket shouldn't itself be reportable. Reporting a traffic violation that sentences you to a driver safety course does make sense.

The way she explained it to me was that it is required to be reported, but is interpreted as non-alcohol if stated.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Just be careful you don't become the CFI Miller of the medical aviation world.

Heck - Bob Miller seems to be doing ok. There are worse things in life.

OK I missed it. What did Bob Miller do?

 

[poadeleted20]

Bob Miller is an instructor in upstate NY who puts out a newsletter in which he provided a detailed description of a flight in which he intentionally flew a non-FIKI aircraft into known icing conditions (not just the old "freezing temps plus visible moisture" business but he had just picked up ice descending through a layer and then climbed back up into it rather than land at the airport right in front of him), and then posted a bunch on the Red board about how it's OK to do that if you are sure you can get through it without picking up too much ice. His home FSDO got involved, and he was called in for a discussion after which he stopped saying it was OK.

 

[bbchien]

Bob Miller is an instructor in upstate NY who puts out a newsletter in which he provided a detailed description of a flight in which he intentionally flew a non-FIKI aircraft into known icing conditions (not just the old "freezing temps plus visible moisture" business but he had just picked up ice descending through a layer and then climbed back up into it rather than land at the airport right in front of him), and then posted a bunch on the Red board about how it's OK to do that if you are sure you can get through it without picking up too much ice. His home FSDO got involved, and he was called in for a discussion after which he stopped saying it was OK.

As a result of a letter Mr. Miller wrote to a deputy counsel (Alkalay), the definition of "known Ice" for about a year and a half was visible moisture at freezing temperatures". This essentially grounded all non FIKI aircraft from wintertime operations, THANK YOU BOB....not.

Until finally, FINALLY, someone at FAA had a fit of sense, and they revised the definition.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In Virginia, any moving offense commited by a CDL holder is a big deal. I don't know if they differentiate when you're exercising your CDL privileges and driving the big vehicles from when you're in your SUV on vacation or not.

Not any more.

Since a couple years ago, there's a big list of offenses that count whether or not you're in a CMV. Used to be only DUI crossed over.

Now, there's this new program called "CSA 2010" that makes things even more onerous - They went back to about 2007 or so, and since that date any violation I ever have in any kind of vehicle will be on record for life IIUC.

But, I don't much care any more - I'm out of the industry and back in school. Finally.

 

[TMetzinger]

Just to gum things up further - Tim, you reference "points," where a driver gets points assessed against his or her license for a traffic violation, and they can "earn-off" some points by taking traffic school. This differs from our scheme here in Texas, where you have the elective option to take traffic school, the successful completion of which prevents the conviction from ever occurring.

Not sure how much of a distinction it is, though. In either event, the driver is electing to attend the school, not being ordered to do so.

Both happen in VA - in one situation the driver may request traffic school and the judge gives it to him if he's got a good record, and then the conviction and point assessment never occurs. In another situation, the conviction does occur (driver just pays the fine by mail for example), the points are assessed, but a driver always has the option to earn points faster than the one-per-year-with no-violations by taking additional training.

The key thing you brought out was that in either situation the driver is not OBLIGATED to attend the school, and the school WASN'T required to keep the driving privilege.

 

[TMetzinger]

As a result of a letter Mr. Miller wrote to a deputy counsel (Alkalay), the definition of "known Ice" for about a year and a half was visible moisture at freezing temperatures". This essentially grounded all non FIKI aircraft from wintertime operations, THANK YOU BOB....not.

Until finally, FINALLY, someone at FAA had a fit of sense, and they revised the definition.

To be fair, I don't think it's right to blame the person who asked the question or made a statement when we should blame the person who gave the stupid answer or rebuttal.

Before this hullabaloo it was up to the opinion of each FSDO (or perhaps each inspector) whether flying in a cloud when temps were below freezing in a non-FIKI aircraft was a violation. Then the FAA definition grounded all non-FIKI airplanes with their assertion that if it's cold and cloudy that's known icing conditions. Not the answer we wanted, but at least it wasn't ambiguous. Then there was enough outrage that they changed the definition again, but I don't think it's as bad as it was originally - it's clear that cold clouds CAN cause icing, but the mere presence of a cold cloud is explicitly NOT enough to violate someone for flying a non-FIKI airplane.

I think the end result is slightly better than the original state. That's not to say Bob's a hero - I sometimes cringe when I hear him on a podcast, but he's not a Smoketown Bandit either.

 

[Steve Foley]

It seems that the question has already been asked and answered. I disagree that attending driving school to lower an insurance bill should be reportable, but it seems that they want to know, and will slap you for withholding the information, so you should go ahead and report it.

How's this one:

I get involved in a one-car accident and get a ticket for failure to stay within a marked lane (or some other infraction).

I decide I don't want to have another similar accident, so I enroll in the local skid-school. Is that reportable?

What if I get a ticket for speeding, but thought going fast was so much fun, I enroll in a NASCAR training class.

How far removed from the 'ticket' does the class need to be before it's no longer reportable?