DUI-HIMS

  • Thread starter Question about DUI-HIMS
  • Start date
Q

Question about DUI-HIMS

Guest
The questions I would like to ask this group are:

Are all Private Pilots with a 3rd class medical who receive a DUI now required to become abstinent for the rest of their flying days?

Is a Special Issuance Medical required for all who receive a DUI?

I was arrested for DUI a few years ago. When I applied for my next medical, I was given a letter that denied my application. The letter gave me several requirements to complete before I could re-apply. One of the requirements that I was given, was to go to an HIMS-AME. So, I made an appointment and saw an HIMS-AME. At this initial appointment, I was given the specifics of the program I would need to complete (4 months of counseling and testing to make sure I wasn't consuming any alcohol). I was also told I would have to maintain abstinence for as long as I held a medical for the rest of my life. I was also told that at the end of the program I would probably have to get a special issuance medical every year going forward.


Some back ground information: At the time of the DUI, I was 58 years old and have never had any issues with alcohol or any other substance. I hadn’t even had a speeding ticket in over 20 years. I have never operated an aircraft while under the influence of any alcohol or other substance. This was a one-off situation where I made a mistake and drove when I had consumed 3 beers (9.8 percent alcohol) within an hour and a half.

The State where I live has a rigorous program that if followed allows for the expungement of a first-time conviction for DUI. I completed all of the 28 requirements, including an assessment for dependency issues and a course of counseling. The assessment for dependency scored me as very unlikely to have substance abuse issues and I shared all of this with the Medical group at the FAA.
 
I no longer drink when I'm out, ever. If I have to drive home I drink nothing. This is an iron-clad rule I do NOT break. I worked hard to get my flying privileges, I'm not going to jeopardize them to go carousing. To the OP, do whatever the FAA tells you to do if you want to fly again legally.
 
Were you administered a breathalizer? If no, was it because you refused? If so, what was the BAC result? If 0.15 or greater, then what you describe makes sense. And it won't be a medical every year; it'll more likely be every 6 months.

Basically, the FAA has an "abuse" diagnosis and a "dependence" diagnosis. If the former, you'll be required to not drink for the life of the special issuance; after that it's up to you but be forewarned that anyone who drinks after that and has so much of a sneeze due to alcohol has just given the FAA everything they need to slap a dependence diagnosis on you. Then you get to start over, but with more stuff to do.

If the latter, then no drinking ever. If you want to fly, you'll be seeing a HIMS AME for the life of your medical and following his instructions.

Any of this is subject to change at any time; it probably already has.
 
I was given a Breathalizer and blew .14. This is what seems weird to me, the threshold is stated as .15.

And to steingar - I agree, no one should ever drink any amount of alcohol and then drive. I certainly have learned this important
 
CINAK said:
I was given a Breathalizer and blew .14. This is what seems weird to me, the threshold is stated as .15.

And to steingar - I agree, no one should ever drink any amount of alcohol and then drive. I certainly have learned this important
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, blowing 0.15+ is just the automatic qualifier. It's still possible to blow less than this amount and get diagnosed with dependence. Anyways, I'll wait for others to chime in. But if you haven't so much as had an evaluation from a certified counselor or HIMS Psych., then you haven't been diagnosed with dependence.

Anywhoo, you're in for a long process and there's no way to tell you exactly how it ends or how far it goes. My advice would be to make sure you're dealing with a Senior HIMS AME, and discuss it in detail with that person to get an idea of what your potential road looks like. Dr. Chien on this board is extremely helpful in this area; you might do a search and just read up on all of his posts.
 
KeepWatch said:
As far as I can tell, blowing 0.15+ is just the automatic qualifier. It's still possible to blow less than this amount and get diagnosed with dependence.
Click to expand...
Agreed. There are criteria the AME is supposed to use to determine dependence at the time and also the personal statement requirement (and in some cases additional testing.

It should be noticed that the poster said "a few years ago" which is vague, but if it is less than FIVE years, that triggers things as well.

"Not drinking while out" or "never go above .08" is not the FAA's definition of sobriety. You're either completely abstinent or not.
 
Pardon me while I go off the rails and show my ignorance here but I want understanding please. I fly with a Sport Pilot Certificate and use a driver's license as a medical. For the record I do not consume alcohol and have never had a DUI. I'm just curious about this medical business as it appears the FAA is extremely intolerant of any lapse of judgement in this area (to which I can agree) and I have a friend that has wondered about getting a PPL. I know some of his past and have suggested that he stay with Sport.

But my question has to with the Special Issuance Medical. Can an applicant, after receiving the SI, go apply for Basic Med? Obviously there are restrictions against this or others would be doing it. Some clarification for those of us that stand in awe of the PPL guys with real medicals ... :p
 
Clip4 said:
No, not everyone with a DUI is sent to HIMS.
Click to expand...

and yet some are sent through HIMS without DUI...or any other alcohol related incident. FAA is REALLY f’d up with their protocols.
 
RussS said:
and yet some are sent through HIMS without DUI...or any other alcohol related incident. FAA is REALLY f’d up with their protocols.
Click to expand...
Naw, it's more that individuals with the FAA act differently given the same circumstances. It's that way throughout the world. When I was taking my private practical, I chose the most difficult examiner (hey, he had a model tractor collection, I knew he'd be fair.) Other students chose a guy known as "Easy Al".
 
Here's the short answer

Question about DUI-HIMS said:
Are all Private Pilots with a 3rd class medical who receive a DUI now required to become abstinent for the rest of their flying days?
Click to expand...

If you're diagnosed with FAR defined substance dependence you will remain on some form of alcohol monitoring for as long as you hold a medical. Substance dependence is considered a life long diagnosis and consuming alcohol after this diagnosis (lapsing/relapsing) then flying would violate the FARs regarding self certification before flight. If you get an SI for substance dependence the SI letter will clearly state that you must abstain from "all mood altering substances". The current FAA position is that substance dependent pilots will never be released from a special issuance, and will be under an SI for life.

Those diagnosed with FAR defined substance abuse may eventually be released from monitoring. I can't say for certain, but I'm pretty sure you're still admonished to abstain from alcohol. Even if you aren't, it would be a very dumb idea to just go back to drinking as usual. You're more than likely going to do something else dumb alcohol related and then you will be substance dependent. Just the monetary cost of a DUI and obtaining an FAA medical should be enough to get a rational drinker to stop, nevermind the social, psychological, health, and professional aspects of someone who makes it to this point.

Question about DUI-HIMS said:
Is a Special Issuance Medical required for all who receive a DUI?
Click to expand...

No, a number of factors go into the decision. A HIMS AME hired to act as your personal physician is the best option to evaluate your situation.

Question about DUI-HIMS said:
The State where I live has a rigorous program that if followed allows for the expungement of a first-time conviction for DUI. I completed all of the 28 requirements, including an assessment for dependency issues and a course of counseling. The assessment for dependency scored me as very unlikely to have substance abuse issues and I shared all of this with the Medical group at the FAA.
Click to expand...

Those programs are usually conducted by professionals that use the DSM criteria to evaluate your propensity for abuse and dependence. The FAA doesn't care about what the DSM says. They care about whether you met any of the criteria laid out in 67.307(a)(4)(ii) and 67.307(b).
 
Daleandee said:
Pardon me while I go off the rails and show my ignorance here but I want understanding please. I fly with a Sport Pilot Certificate and use a driver's license as a medical. For the record I do not consume alcohol and have never had a DUI. I'm just curious about this medical business as it appears the FAA is extremely intolerant of any lapse of judgement in this area (to which I can agree) and I have a friend that has wondered about getting a PPL. I know some of his past and have suggested that he stay with Sport.

But my question has to with the Special Issuance Medical. Can an applicant, after receiving the SI, go apply for Basic Med? Obviously there are restrictions against this or others would be doing it. Some clarification for those of us that stand in awe of the PPL guys with real medicals ... :p
Click to expand...

Best to start a new thread rather than hijack this one.
 
I feel for the original poster. A 170# man drinking three ordinary (5% alcohol) beers in an hour and a half would be at .07%, legal to drive in all states... but three 9.8% beers is like drinking six ordinary beers, which pushes it to .16%. If he wasn't aware of the alcohol content it may well be an honest one time mistake, not that the FAA will buy that explanation.

It's one reason why I hate the current trend for high alcohol beers... I enjoy my beer (in moderation), and want to be able to drink one or three without getting hammered, so I always look for the alcohol content. Fortunately a lot of bars and restaurants are starting to post the percentage on their beer list.
 
Dana said:
I feel for the original poster. A 170# man drinking three ordinary (5% alcohol) beers in an hour and a half would be at .07%, legal to drive in all states... but three 9.8% beers is like drinking six ordinary beers, which pushes it to .16%. If he wasn't aware of the alcohol content it may well be an honest one time mistake, not that the FAA will buy that explanation.

It's one reason why I hate the current trend for high alcohol beers... I enjoy my beer (in moderation), and want to be able to drink one or three without getting hammered, so I always look for the alcohol content. Fortunately a lot of bars and restaurants are starting to post the percentage on their beer list.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the tip! I seldom drink beer, but when I do, I definitely want to stay off the FAA's radar.
 
Daleandee said:
Pardon me while I go off the rails and show my ignorance here but I want understanding please. I fly with a Sport Pilot Certificate and use a driver's license as a medical. For the record I do not consume alcohol and have never had a DUI. I'm just curious about this medical business as it appears the FAA is extremely intolerant of any lapse of judgement in this area (to which I can agree) and I have a friend that has wondered about getting a PPL. I know some of his past and have suggested that he stay with Sport.

But my question has to with the Special Issuance Medical. Can an applicant, after receiving the SI, go apply for Basic Med? Obviously there are restrictions against this or others would be doing it. Some clarification for those of us that stand in awe of the PPL guys with real medicals ... :p
Click to expand...

Short answer - yes. There are more detailed answers in other threads on this subject. Agreed perhaps start a separate thread with appropriate title and I imagine the experts will chime in.
 
Dana said:
I feel for the original poster. A 170# man drinking three ordinary (5% alcohol) beers in an hour and a half would be at .07%, legal to drive in all states...
Click to expand...

This is a common fallacy. There is no such thing as a BAC that you are LEGAL to drive. The so-called "legal" limit is only the per se limit, the point where if you hit you are PRESUMED to be intoxicated. You can be arrested, tried, and convicted at lower BACs but the state needs to show impairment. Some states are worse for this than others (DC is a real stinker as well).
 
flyingron said:
This is a common fallacy. There is no such thing as a BAC that you are LEGAL to drive. The so-called "legal" limit is only the per se limit, the point where if you hit you are PRESUMED to be intoxicated. You can be arrested, tried, and convicted at lower BACs but the state needs to show impairment. Some states are worse for this than others (DC is a real stinker as well).
Click to expand...
True, but proving impairment without an objectively measurable number is a lot harder. Either way, if the OP had consumed three 5% beers in an hour and a half instead of 9.8%, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
 
ThatOtherGuy said:
Here's the short answer



If you're diagnosed with FAR defined substance dependence you will remain on some form of alcohol monitoring for as long as you hold a medical. Substance dependence is considered a life long diagnosis and consuming alcohol after this diagnosis (lapsing/relapsing) then flying would violate the FARs regarding self certification before flight. If you get an SI for substance dependence the SI letter will clearly state that you must abstain from "all mood altering substances". The current FAA position is that substance dependent pilots will never be released from a special issuance, and will be under an SI for life.

Those diagnosed with FAR defined substance abuse may eventually be released from monitoring. I can't say for certain, but I'm pretty sure you're still admonished to abstain from alcohol. Even if you aren't, it would be a very dumb idea to just go back to drinking as usual. You're more than likely going to do something else dumb alcohol related and then you will be substance dependent. Just the monetary cost of a DUI and obtaining an FAA medical should be enough to get a rational drinker to stop, nevermind the social, psychological, health, and professional aspects of someone who makes it to this point.



No, a number of factors go into the decision. A HIMS AME hired to act as your personal physician is the best option to evaluate your situation.



Those programs are usually conducted by professionals that use the DSM criteria to evaluate your propensity for abuse and dependence. The FAA doesn't care about what the DSM says. They care about whether you met any of the criteria laid out in 67.307(a)(4)(ii) and 67.307(b).
Click to expand...

The problem with the FAA's definition of dependence is not based on reality. So when I turned 21, I got "initiated" by my older group of friends. In our house growing up alcohol wasa not verboten, but from the time I was 12 until I turned 21, I had exactly 1 beer and maybe a grand total of 5 seven&sevens (single shot). So my 21st came and in the period of about 3-4 hours I put away 9 to 11 Molsons, 1/2 a bottle of Seagram's and 1/2 a bottle of rum. (And I weighed around 150 at the time) No stumbling, no slurred words, no indication I had consumed alcohol. Next day, zero hangover. According to the FAA, I would be considered dependent because I have a naturally high tolerance, for, well, everything. OTC pain meds, I've always needed 2-3 times the dosage to get any relief, the take every 4-6 hours on prescription always wears off in 2 hours or so from the very first time I ever had them.

How the **** did I build up dependence for something I never/rarely ever consumed?


So according to the FAA I am an addict, an abuser, and completely dependent on everything because I happen to have a natural tolerance. That's the problem with the FAA and their programs.
 
The OP was ruled to have abused. He confuses DSM5 used in the community, and the subset of DSM 4 used by the Feds. Part 67 Abuse: This is what results in the requirement for 4 months of proven abstinence, and then monitoring while you pee in the cup for FIVE years, after reissued. He was not ruled to be dependent. (no I don't have inside information, it's all posted). And no, an abuse SI is not HIMS. Not at all. I have been dealing with a monitor pilot who thinks he knows- but he had to pee because of abuse, he never had HIMS. So he isn't the greatest peer monitor....he never experienced the revelation. Abstinence is not the same as recovery. CONFUSION between Abuse and HIMS is common. Abuse is treated by abstinence (nothing goes in the mouth). HIMS is treatment for Dependence, which is BETWEEN YOUR EARS, not just in your mouth. Very different.

FAA has no use for DSM 5 because all is confined to 2 years (Alcohol use disorder (AUD), mild/moderate/severe). We all know of folks that have lifelong issues....and manage to stay away from the law for 2 years. We're not interested in if you can operate an aircraft with AUD, mild. You need to have NONE.

Abuse is automatic if the airman used alcohol in a situation that created a danger, or had a second event, in which either was not blown below 0.149.
That means a single DUI below 0.149 can be ruled abuse if there are exacerbating factors- injury, property damage, an escape chase, etc.

If there is no repeat use after a single event, but there is lifestyle centered on the use of substance, tolerance, a withdrawal syndrome, continued use with adverse economic or biological effects, even a single event can be dependency. Even if years ago, that calls out for abstinence and rehab. So the OP is not telling us something, I'd wager. It's not as simple as it appears.

No Ed, because you've never had a publically recorded alcohol event, you have nothing. The FAA's view is that you can drink to your heart's content in your home, so long as you don't go out and create a danger, as of this moment, you have nothing.
 
Last edited:
Dana said:
True, but proving impairment without an objectively measurable number is a lot harder. Either way, if the OP had consumed three 5% beers in an hour and a half instead of 9.8%, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
Click to expand...
True. In same line if OP wasn’t behind wheel we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The tone I get from OG post is “I don’t have a problem” “I got caught”.
Thing is if you got “caught”, it’s not the first time you got behind the wheel impaired. Nobody gets caught the first time, especially at 58 yo. IMO that’s in part why the FAA comes down hard.
Ppl know the ramifications and despite the risk of punishment still take it
 
EdFred said:
The problem with the FAA's definition of dependence is not based on reality. So when I turned 21, I got "initiated" by my older group of friends. In our house growing up alcohol wasa not verboten, but from the time I was 12 until I turned 21, I had exactly 1 beer and maybe a grand total of 5 seven&sevens (single shot). So my 21st came and in the period of about 3-4 hours I put away 9 to 11 Molsons, 1/2 a bottle of Seagram's and 1/2 a bottle of rum. (And I weighed around 150 at the time) No stumbling, no slurred words, no indication I had consumed alcohol. Next day, zero hangover. According to the FAA, I would be considered dependent because I have a naturally high tolerance, for, well, everything. OTC pain meds, I've always needed 2-3 times the dosage to get any relief, the take every 4-6 hours on prescription always wears off in 2 hours or so from the very first time I ever had them.

How the **** did I build up dependence for something I never/rarely ever consumed?


So according to the FAA I am an addict, an abuser, and completely dependent on everything because I happen to have a natural tolerance. That's the problem with the FAA and their programs.
Click to expand...
I think it's more of an "everyone gets pushed through the same square hole, doesn't matter if you're a round peg, triangle peg, or square peg." For the majority of people, tolerance = dependance. So in the name of convenience, the FAA rules EVERYONE is dependant if tolerant.
 
bbchien said:
No Ed, because you've never had a publically recorded alcohol event, you have nothing. The FAA's view is that you can drink to your heart's content in your home, so long as you don't go out and create a danger, as of this moment, you have nothing.
Click to expand...

well this isn’t ENTIRELY true dr B.
 
To BBChien: Thank you for explaining the difference between DSM5 and DSM 4 used in Part 67.

In response to your statement that I am not telling something: I have nothing else in my past and there are no exacerbating issues, I didn’t crash my vehicle, injure anyone, try to escape, etc. I drank 3 beers that were 9.8 percent alcohol and drove. It was a one- time mistake, and it really is as simple as I stated. I don’t have a lifestyle of any substance abuse. I would gladly take the wager you offer.

Hopefully nothing I have said will sound like I am trying to defend a reprehensible act that I committed. Yes, I drove when impaired – thankfully I didn’t injure anyone or myself. This bad decision doesn’t have to require that there is AUD or other another contributing factor. I understand the FAA’s need to protect the public. And, I agree that they need to be on the safe side of things. I just wish they relied on a little more science to make the determination of Abuse. At the time we notify them of an action on our driver’s license, why don’t they require a hair test for ETG and FAEE? This would be definitive of abuse that has been occurring over several months, rather than subjective to an HIMS recommendation.
 
DUI-HIMS said:
To BBChien: Thank you for explaining the difference between DSM5 and DSM 4 used in Part 67. At the time we notify them of an action on our driver’s license, why don’t they require a hair test for ETG and FAEE? This would be definitive of abuse that has been occurring over several months, rather than subjective to an HIMS recommendation.
Click to expand...
They do, do that when they have enough information to make that reasonable. "within 48 hours of when you signed for the Certified letter, submit...." But there are so many situations where this isn't what is needed. In the situation where they send the demand, if it's positive the file is closed with a denial and that's that.
 
Last edited:
DUI-HIMS said:
In response to your statement that I am not telling something: I have nothing else in my past and there are no exacerbating issues, I didn’t crash my vehicle, injure anyone, try to escape, etc. I drank 3 beers that were 9.8 percent alcohol and drove. It was a one- time mistake, and it really is as simple as I stated. I don’t have a lifestyle of any substance abuse. I would gladly take the wager you offer.
Click to expand...
And herein lies the fallacy. If you drank 3 beers and drove you abused alcohol, period.
 
To each their own, but consuming alcohol with the knowledge that they will be driving afterward just seems to be asking for trouble. Impairment isn’t a black or white issue. Even one drink has some amount of impairment. It may not be noticeable, but it may be the difference between avoiding the car that blew through a stop sign or getting t-boned. After three beers you’re impaired, even if it’s three Utah beers. You might not notice the impairment since you’ve done it plenty of times before, but you’re still impaired. The fact that you blew a .08 rather than a .06 is just semantics.

I do drink, albeit infrequently these days, but when I do, I don’t drive. I plan ahead and have the wife drive, or take Uber, or the like. Or I stay home and do my drinking there. Even if it’s just one beer I still abstain...I don’t want to have that awkward conversation with a cop on the side of the road where I have to convince him I really did only have one beer. I rather say zero and take the intoxication issue off the table.
 
Brad Z said:
To each their own, but consuming alcohol with the knowledge that they will be driving afterward just seems to be asking for trouble. Impairment isn’t a black or white issue. Even one drink has some amount of impairment. It may not be noticeable, but it may be the difference between avoiding the car that blew through a stop sign or getting t-boned. After three beers you’re impaired, even if it’s three Utah beers. You might not notice the impairment since you’ve done it plenty of times before, but you’re still impaired. The fact that you blew a .08 rather than a .06 is just semantics.

I do drink, albeit infrequently these days, but when I do, I don’t drive. I plan ahead and have the wife drive, or take Uber, or the like. Or I stay home and do my drinking there. Even if it’s just one beer I still abstain...I don’t want to have that awkward conversation with a cop on the side of the road where I have to convince him I really did only have one beer. I rather say zero and take the intoxication issue off the table.
Click to expand...

This. Everybody who drinks anything at all and drives is creating risk for themselves with the FAA, and that's the best case scenario. Some people who "drink anything" and drive have a more serious problem than the FAA might create but don't/won't admit it. If you're the former, my friendly advice is to take it back a notch and remove a significant amount of risk you're taking on with minimal impact on your lifestyle. To the latter, well, advice is not going to do much good. You're probably going to have to see things get worse before they get better.
 
Brad Z said:
I do drink, albeit infrequently these days, but when I do, I don’t drive. I plan ahead and have the wife drive, or take Uber, or the like. Or I stay home and do my drinking there. Even if it’s just one beer I still abstain...I don’t want to have that awkward conversation with a cop on the side of the road where I have to convince him I really did only have one beer. I rather say zero and take the intoxication issue off the table.
Click to expand...
They haven't set up any sobriety checkpoints on the runway to catch me when I'm shooting down in my golf cart from the neighborhood (yes we have one) bar.
 
Of course, since I CCW, I have to stay under .02 if I'm driving and carrying. (Either that, or have to unload, separate, and lock)
 
flyingron said:
They haven't set up any sobriety checkpoints on the runway to catch me when I'm shooting down in my golf cart from the neighborhood (yes we have one) bar.
Click to expand...
In my neighborhood, it's fairly customary to circle the runway visiting with each other in golf carts with wine or scotch or beer openly consumed. I don't do it, but many do. It's almost certainly illegal, but I doubt they'd be charged unless they did something else as well.
 
Salty said:
In my neighborhood, it's fairly customary to circle the runway visiting with each other in golf cars with wine or scotch or beer openly consumed. I don't do it, but many do. It's almost certainly illegal, but I doubt they'd be charged unless they did something else as well.
Click to expand...
Driving on the private (yet open to public travel) roads in the neighborhood with open containers (or intoxicated) would indeed be illegal. Driving on the runway doesn't seem to be covered.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Of course, since I CCW, I have to stay under .02 if I'm driving and carrying. (Either that, or have to unload, separate, and lock)
Click to expand...
Good point. Down here carrying while drinking is one of the most abused laws out there. I suspect there are more violations of that than DUI.
 
flyingron said:
Driving on the private (yet open to public travel) roads in the neighborhood with open containers (or intoxicated) would indeed be illegal. Driving on the runway doesn't seem to be covered.
Click to expand...
By circle the runway, I mean on the roads around the runway, not on the runway itself. lol
 
Nah we run down the runway (or at least the edge. We've tried to get people to keep a golf cars width clear outside the runway lights to facilitate this.
 
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