DWI/3rd Class Medical/HIMS

[Pilot91]

Little background...

I am currently 26 years old, I received a DWI when I was 20. I was in college, and after a recent break-up my buddies took me out for a night of heavy drinking. By the end of the night, I found myself in my truck trying to drive home, when I was pulled over. I was very intoxicated and didn't even know my age. I blew a bac of .217 and was arrested. The police report shows I was very cooperative during the entire arrest. This was my first and only DWI, and only arrest. I had not been in any trouble before the DWI for anything. I have had no further alcohol related offense. (few speeding tickets here and there)

I have gone back and forth with the FAA over the last few years trying to get them the information they are requesting. I am a private pilot, and I flew my 150 maybe 3 times a month. Flying was just a fun thing for me to do, I started flying when I was 15, and got my license at 17. I would supply the FAA with the information they had asked, but it never seemed to be enough, or adequate. So after years and years of back and forth, I finally got to the point of them saying I needed a HIMS sponsor due to my bac being so high.

I was able to get set up with a HIMS AME, and have been seeing him for about 4 months now. I am about 2 months into my monitoring stage. My HIMS AME is having me do a breathalyzer monitor 3 times a day at random. He stated we would do this for 3 months, then supply the data with some other info to the FAA for a SI. Now I have been completely abstinent for 3 months. I am not what you would consider as an "alcoholic". I am a social drinker, and during the time of my DWI 6 years ago, I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In the time since my DWI, I have finished college, got married, had 2 kids, and bought/started my own business. Not drinking is not the issue for me. I am not dependent, so no concern. What really bothers me, is that the FAA keeps asking for more and more, costing me more and more. I feel like I have supplied beyond more than enough information to plead my case. This fun hobby is slowly draining my savings. The monitoring is a couple hundred a month, including my HIMS AME fees. Today during our monthly visit, he made a comment that the monitoring wasn't just 3 months long. He stated it would be 2 years. This seems beyond realistic. I wanted to get a second opinion on this. I don't have an issue with the not drinking part of it. But I have an issue busting out thousands of more dollars to prove what I already have. What gives...

 

[PaulS]

Yeah, you are screwed, do what they want or no medical. Your line about "not what you would consider as an "alcoholic", I am a social drinker" is probably going to be problematic as you go through this. From what I've read about it they really want total abstinence. Others, namely Dr Bruce, will hopefully be along with some more advice and probably some sobering reality as far as cost and what you need to do. Pay careful attention and take notes.

 

[azure]

See this thread, post #134. The FAA is no doubt concerned that your 0.217 implies tolerance due to chronic drinking, and according to Bruce (a HIMS AME himself btw), it does. (To FAA, anything above 0.15 is a red flag and you were WAY over that line.) Are you dependent? Only you know that, in your heart of hearts. If you are, then no one wants you in the sky with us until you have addressed the problem. If you aren't, then you will have to prove it... and yes, it may well take 2 years to prove it to FAA's satisfaction.

 

[Pilot91]

Thank you for the information thus far. But your responses spark another question. So hypothetically I complete the 2 years of abstinence, prove it, submit it. The FAA then says I'm all good....is that it? Or does it continue after That? Do they require a follow up for years after that? Continued abstinence? Or will I be allowed to go back to social drinking? None of this has really been explained to me.

 

[Ravioli]

Or will I be allowed to go back to social drinking?

Way wrong question.

It would seem the lesson hasn't been learned.

 

[Pilot91]

Way wrong question.

It would seem the lesson hasn't been learned.

I don't think my question was conveyed properly.

An individual has the ability to consume a limited amount of alcohol in a social gathering whilst not becoming intoxicated. This is my term of social drinking. This was the type of drinking I am referring to. A single isolated incident of excessive drinking should not lead to a lifetime of being held to that standard.

Hopefully that puts it into better terms.

 

[Ravioli]

Getting it seems to be a continuing issue for you.

The event occurred, in your estimation, because of:
your friends
your break-up
alcohol
the police.

Did it have anything to do with you?

Nonetheless... The one thing in the event chain that YOU can eliminate forever is the alcohol. And you're asking the internet when you can get back on the sauce?

I'm not a teetotaler or a medical professional but my nose works pretty well and your story smells fishy.

 

[Pilot91]

This was the one thing I was afraid of...Trying to explain my story while not sounding like "one of them".

Unfortunately I have failed at doing that, and so this post is now tainted and realistic information will unlikely be shared at this point.

 

[Ravioli]

You can choose to drink or you can choose to fly.

Choosing "both" is not likely to be an option for you for a long time, if ever.

But it sounds like you're working with a HIMS AME who can try to reexplain the process with much more detail then I can. I'm just SGOTI.

 

[Pilot91]

I believe using the statement of choosing to drink or to fly is up for interpretation. I think the term "to drink" can be used loosely. In one person's view that may consist of drinking due to dependence. Another person's view, such as myselfs, would consider drinking as what I stated before...

....drinking limited quantities, during special occasions, not to intoxication levels.

With that view point I believe that both can be done in my case. I'm not here to plead that I need to drink. I am more or less confirming that say in 5 years I can have a glass of champagne at my best friends wedding without concern.

 

[Ravioli]

Hello! You have documented evidence of your inability to make the interpretation in at least one situation. But heck, you were only off by 3 times the legal limit to drive and 6 times the limit to fly, right?

You are also clearly unable to read the multiple times that SGOTI advised you to work with your medical professional and not discuss it on the public interwebs.

Tell ya what... if you agree to stop this line of inquiry I'll buy ya a couple of shots of Patron Silver.

Are you getting the gist of it yet?

 

[Pilot91]

One...One instance, 6 years ago. Before many life changes have come into place since. These are factors that have a major impact. You should be able to comprehend that. I would hope.

If that is all that SGOTI can say, then why does this forum even exist? Isn't that the purpose of it? To help people who are confused? Not try to push them to do the exact thing they shouldn't? Your demeanor is beyond childish and out of line. It shows no moral or helpful insight to any of my questions. It's in this threads best interest for you to cease responses due to the lack of relatable information.

 

[biplanebob]

watching an old topic with a new OP, we have all seen this argument before.

 

[PaulS]

You are arguing way too hard for that next drink. The way it has been explained here: the theory is that by the time the average dui is caught he has been not caught many more times while driving drunk. The other theory explained in the threads here is that someone at the level of 0.17 BAC should not be able to get out of a chair, never mind doing something as complex as operating an automobile at any level. So the theory is that a person, who is able to drive at 0.17 has high alcohol tolerance, something that is only attained through much practice. This, and a few high profile aviation accidents attributed to alcohol had resulted in the FAA's zero tolerance policy with alcohol and a very stringent program that will basically only allow those who are abstinent back into the left seat. This is where you are. Arguing for your next drink will get you nowhere, in fact if that is what you want, have a drink, but you probably won't fool your HIMS doc.

 

[Pilot91]

You are arguing way too hard for that next drink. The way it has been explained here: the theory is that by the time the average dui is caught he has been not caught many more times while driving drunk. The other theory explained in the threads here is that someone at the level of 0.17 BAC should not be able to get out of a chair, never mind doing something as complex as operating an automobile at any level. So the theory is that a person, who is able to drive at 0.17 has high alcohol tolerance, something that is only attained through much practice. This, and a few high profile aviation accidents attributed to alcohol had resulted in the FAA's zero tolerance policy with alcohol and a very stringent program that will basically only allow those who are abstinent back into the left seat. This is where you are. Arguing for your next drink will get you nowhere, in fact if that is what you want, have a drink, but you probably won't fool your HIMS doc.

Thank you, this is the information I was looking for.

 

[PaulS]

Thank you, this is the information I was looking for.

You're welcome, just remember, you heard it from a guy on the internet, best source of info is your HIMS doc. Personally I wouldn't have started without fully understanding what needs to be done. Time to make the HIMS doc explain what needs to be done.

 

[Ravioli]

I find it laughable that OP thanked @PaulS for a post that began and ended with "You are arguing for your next drink" while ignoring what could only be read in the same light.

At least I offered to buy him that next drink.

 

[PaulS]

I find it laughable that OP thanked @PaulS for a post that began and ended with "You are arguing for your next drink" while ignoring what could only be read in the same light.

At least I offered to buy him that next drink.

It takes a village Rob, lol.

 

[Palmpilot]

I find it laughable that OP thanked @PaulS for a post that began and ended with "You are arguing for your next drink" while ignoring what could only be read in the same light.

At least I offered to buy him that next drink.

What's the matter, get your feelings hurt because his explanation worked better than yours?

 

[Brad Z]

Abstinence is a small price to pay to fly. It could be worse, you could have easily killed a family of four, and wondering if you’d ever be able to have a drink again would be the least of your concerns.

 

[EminiTrader]

You dont want to hear this but regardless of what you think - you sir are in denial. At this point in your life you simply have no business flying a plane. When you are 100 percent committed to never EVER having a drink again and willing to bust your ass and wallet proving it then you can come back. And yes you will need to continue proving it. Lastly as others have said you made zero attempts to acceot responsibility. The phrase “wrong place - wrong time” umm. No. You put yourself there nobody else.

 

[mryan75]

(few speeding tickets here and there)

I am not what you would consider as an "alcoholic". I am a social drinker, and during the time of my DWI 6 years ago, I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In the time since my DWI, I have finished college, got married, had 2 kids, and bought/started my own business. Not drinking is not the issue for me. I am not dependent, so no concern.

We should have a DWI post template that includes the two highlighted quotes above to spare the poster from having to repeat these themselves. Because literally every DWI post is the same. Every. SIngle. One.

And you had your certificate, you knew the consequences. Underage no less. That's the whole adult thing - sorry.

And "few speeding tickets here and there"? That might add to the FAAs concern... just saying.

 

[mryan75]

I don't think my question was conveyed properly.

An individual has the ability to consume a limited amount of alcohol in a social gathering whilst not becoming intoxicated. This is my term of social drinking. This was the type of drinking I am referring to. A single isolated incident of excessive drinking should not lead to a lifetime of being held to that standard.

Hopefully that puts it into better terms.

See that's the other thing every DWI post says: "single isolated incident". People who are not regular overdrinkers aren't trying to drive home at .21.

 

[mryan75]

This was the one thing I was afraid of...Trying to explain my story while not sounding like "one of them".

Unfortunately I have failed at doing that, and so this post is now tainted and realistic information will unlikely be shared at this point.

Man, 3-for-3. Usually all three of these are in the initial post, but...

At least we've figured out why the FAA won't give you your medical back.

 

[bbchien]

Pilot 91, the gallery here did a very good job on the string. You ARE one of them, it would appear.

You have two choices: 2 years of demonstrated sobriety and adequate recovery activities: = Logged AA attendance-->commitment to the notion that although you can go long periods without a drink, you ARE alcohol dependent. "WHAT!" you say, "hell no!". "I am not dependent" which is what you don't get. Sobriety is one thing- that's about what's in your mouth. Recovery is about what's in between your ears. Continuing to drink AT ALL, is in the eyes of the FAA, "he does not get it".

Well, yes you are dependent. You meet FAA's definition. 0.20 means you have been drinking long and hard over time but were still able to be "functional". that means, tolerance and you have it. Tolerance is one of the FAA five criteria. Sorry, you have it and the skies belong to the crown.

After 2 years proven sobriety if you can get a HIMS psychiatrist to agree, you will have satisfied 67.307 (read the definition of abuse) and will have proven you are in compliance with 67.307, and not before.

Then you can get a 3rd class and you have three further years of monitoring ahead of you. But get it in your head that you have a lifestyle cented on the use of alcohol (another FAA criteria), even with long gaps .
***

If you want a revenue grade medical, you need formal rehab. "WHAT!" you say, "hell no!". We're talking 4 weeks, 8 hr/day, intense, no phone, FAA wants inpatient if you can get it. And on it goes.

 

[azure]

Yes, OP, listen to @bbchien on this, he knows the FAA's thinking and you can take what he says to the bank.

The one thing that makes me hedge here is your age - 20 when you had the DWI. This is not my area of expertise (by far), but I have known people who abused alcohol and drugs, even heavily, when they were young and immature but did not (apparently) turn out to be alcoholics. The 0.217 BAC means you were doing it a lot -- tolerance is a purely physical effect. You might be an alcoholic, or you might not. But it doesn't matter. If you want a medical you have to satisfy the FAA's conditions. If you aren't an alcoholic, yes it will suck and you will want to rebel (and you will, especially if you are one!). But you have to do it.

It's all about your priorities. If you want to fly, you have to make that choice. If you would rather continue through life as a social drinker, maybe you can do that (if you're not an alcoholic that is).

But you can't do both, you have to choose.

 

[EminiTrader]

Pretty sure pilot 91 won't be back here to comment. But we'll see.

 

[bbchien]

He'll never fly if he doesn't "get it"....
Money
Business
Success
Wife
House

....."what gives", and does not imply recovery....

 

[Palmpilot]

You dont want to hear this but regardless of what you think - you sir are in denial. At this point in your life you simply have no business flying a plane. When you are 100 percent committed to never EVER having a drink again and willing to bust your ass and wallet proving it then you can come back. And yes you will need to continue proving it. Lastly as others have said you made zero attempts to acceot responsibility. The phrase “wrong place - wrong time” umm. No. You put yourself there nobody else.

Sometimes the self-righteous amateur psychoanalysis from a distance around here gets pretty thick.

 

[Palmpilot]

See that's the other thing every DWI post says: "single isolated incident".

It's also what people say when it really was a single isolated incident.

People who are not regular overdrinkers aren't trying to drive home at .21.

Because there's no such thing as genetic variation in tolerance level?

 

[Palmpilot]

Abstinence is a small price to pay to fly. It could be worse, you could have easily killed a family of four, and wondering if you’d ever be able to have a drink again would be the least of your concerns.

Good points.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

It's also what people say when it really was a single isolated incident.



Because there's no such thing as genetic variation in tolerance level?

No you don’t understand. It’s not possible to have a single isolated incident. See if you were caught once that means that you got away with it like 100000 times before. You see just being capable of a .2 and living is proof you’re dependent. You are an alcoholic. Anything you say otherwise is proof you’re still not accepting the fact you are an alcoholic.

Unfortunately that is exactly how the FAA and many people really see it. It’s not true. It’s complete ********. I would agree that statistically one could say it’s very likely those things are true but it’s not always true.

 

[Rykymus]

I'm going to assume the OP is in earnest here, and defend him. I drank my ass off in college, (because that's what you did back then) and probably had BA's as high as the OP on more than one occasion. I just never got caught. After college, I continued to drink socially, but never anywhere near to the extent I did in college. Eventually, the pleasure of social drinking lost its appeal and I stopped completely. It wasn't by a concentrated effort. I just lost interest in it. Currently, I haven't had any alcohol in 20 years. But if I wanted to have a beer with my friends, I could, and it wouldn't start a pattern of drinking because I simply was not an addict. Addicts have a need to drink. I never did. It was just what you did at parties back then. I stopped going to parties, hence, I stopped drinking.

I once ate an entire extra-large pizza, all by myself. (I don't remember why.) Does the fact that I was able to do that, and most people couldn't, automatically make me a pizza addict? Doubtful. And I never did it again. (Because I didn't like vomiting an hour later.)

I used to smoke 2 packs a day when I was doing stage-lighting on concert tours. Later in life, I grew tired of smoking and quit. No patches, no withdrawals, no cravings. I just lost interest in smoking. Haven't smoked in 25 years.

How many of you drink socially? How many of you can hold your liquor better than others? Based on the enthusiastic responses I've seen on this forum for the occasional thread about which brand of alcohol is favored, I'm guessing quite a few. I'm pretty sure many of you have been 3-sheets to the wind at least once in your life. One stupid mistake does not make one an alcoholic, and neither does denying that one is an alcoholic. Is it a common warning sign? Sure. But again, it's just that, nothing more. It certainly isn't a definitive diagnostic finding.

All that aside, the OP is in the unfortunate position of having to PROVE to the bureaucratic joke that is the FAA Aviation Medical division that he is not a risk and should be allowed to continue flying. There is simply no way around it, no matter how unfair it may seem. (I'm not interested in debating the merits of policy in regards to this.)

My advice to the OP is to simply stop drinking...period...for as long as it takes to satisfy the hypocrites at the FAA. (Who probably drink socially themselves.) If that means the rest of your life, then it's up to you to decide if flying is worth giving up social drinking. For me, it would be. (I have just as much fun watching my drunk friends act like idiots.) If you're concerned about the cost, ask the FAA how long you will have to do this, and if it's forever, at what level. Only you can decide if it's worth the BS or not.

Funny, that you're allowed to drive vehicles that weigh far more than airplanes, at high speeds, on crowded roadways with traffic coming at you from the opposite direction at even higher rates of closure, even though you once blew an astronomical BA. We're okay with letting you take risk the public's well being in that fashion, but flying in a relatively empty sky, in a much lighter plane, with far less chance of killing someone else is out. Like I said...hypocrites.

 

[azure]

Because there's no such thing as genetic variation in tolerance level?

I'm sure there is. But according to Bruce, the science says that 0.20 is a pretty hard cutoff. My takeaway is that above 0.20, one is many standard deviations into the tail of the distribution, far enough that the probability is vanishingly small to have that level of innate tolerance.

 

[cowman]

I'm going to assume the OP is in earnest here, and defend him. I drank my ass off in college, (because that's what you did back then) and probably had BA's as high as the OP on more than one occasion. I just never got caught. After college, I continued to drink socially, but never anywhere near to the extent I did in college. Eventually, the pleasure of social drinking lost its appeal and I stopped completely. It wasn't by a concentrated effort. I just lost interest in it. Currently, I haven't had any alcohol in 20 years. But if I wanted to have a beer with my friends, I could, and it wouldn't start a pattern of drinking because I simply was not an addict. Addicts have a need to drink. I never did. It was just what you did at parties back then. I stopped going to parties, hence, I stopped drinking.

I once ate an entire extra-large pizza, all by myself. (I don't remember why.) Does the fact that I was able to do that, and most people couldn't, automatically make me a pizza addict? Doubtful. And I never did it again. (Because I didn't like vomiting an hour later.)

I used to smoke 2 packs a day when I was doing stage-lighting on concert tours. Later in life, I grew tired of smoking and quit. No patches, no withdrawals, no cravings. I just lost interest in smoking. Haven't smoked in 25 years.

How many of you drink socially? How many of you can hold your liquor better than others? Based on the enthusiastic responses I've seen on this forum for the occasional thread about which brand of alcohol is favored, I'm guessing quite a few. I'm pretty sure many of you have been 3-sheets to the wind at least once in your life. One stupid mistake does not make one an alcoholic, and neither does denying that one is an alcoholic. Is it a common warning sign? Sure. But again, it's just that, nothing more. It certainly isn't a definitive diagnostic finding.

All that aside, the OP is in the unfortunate position of having to PROVE to the bureaucratic joke that is the FAA Aviation Medical division that he is not a risk and should be allowed to continue flying. There is simply no way around it, no matter how unfair it may seem. (I'm not interested in debating the merits of policy in regards to this.)

My advice to the OP is to simply stop drinking...period...for as long as it takes to satisfy the hypocrites at the FAA. (Who probably drink socially themselves.) If that means the rest of your life, then it's up to you to decide if flying is worth giving up social drinking. For me, it would be. (I have just as much fun watching my drunk friends act like idiots.) If you're concerned about the cost, ask the FAA how long you will have to do this, and if it's forever, at what level. Only you can decide if it's worth the BS or not.

Funny, that you're allowed to drive vehicles that weigh far more than airplanes, at high speeds, on crowded roadways with traffic coming at you from the opposite direction at even higher rates of closure, even though you once blew an astronomical BA. We're okay with letting you take risk the public's well being in that fashion, but flying in a relatively empty sky, in a much lighter plane, with far less chance of killing someone else is out. Like I said...hypocrites.

I'm kind of with you on this. I don't know the OP, none of us do. I find his story entire plausible. Heavy and irresponsible drinking in college is a very common thing. In fact, whether we like it or not it's almost expected of college kids at some point. That's not a good thing but I think it's at least an understandable thing and I don't think it's proof of someone being an alcoholic.

I see these threads all the time with this similar pattern. OP did something dumb in college and got a DUI then everyone dogpiles on and accuses him of having a problem. Hey, maybe he does. I don't know the guy and I have no way of knowing either way. However I don't feel like it's right for us to assume and accuse someone who is coming here presumably in good faith asking for advice. Telling them what they FAA is going to assume and what they'll have to do is one thing- that's what we have this part of the board for after all.

The whole alcoholism thing feels like a witch hunt sometimes

"I'm not an alcoholic"

"That's something an alcoholic would say"

Maybe lets just leave such determinations up to the people, especially medical professionals, who actually know OP and are in a position to tell him with some level of certainty. Advise them on what the FAA requirements/doctor requirements are likely to be and let it lie there.

 

[Palmpilot]

I'm sure there is. But according to Bruce, the science says that 0.20 is a pretty hard cutoff. My takeaway is that above 0.20, one is many standard deviations into the tail of the distribution, far enough that the probability is vanishingly small to have that level of innate tolerance.

OK, but I thought one of the effects of tolerance was that you were still able to function at a high BAC. The OP said he was "trying" to drive home, was "very intoxicated," and didn't even know his age. That doesn't sound very functional to me.

Another point to consider is that we don't know how his alcohol consumption in the months or years leading up to the DWI compares to his consumption in the six years since then.

 

[Ravioli]

Yah, he was probably only planning to drink up to .19, but lost count... I hear that happens.

I know I get pretty drunk on the 6th beer. So I drink 5, let the 6th one sit there, and proceed with the 7th. Problem solved.

 

[azure]

OK, but I thought one of the effects of tolerance was that you were still able to function at a high BAC. The OP said he was "trying" to drive home, was "very intoxicated," and didn't even know his age. That doesn't sound very functional to me.

My understanding is, if you are able to walk to the car, start it, and drive at all with a BAC above 0.20, you are more functional than you would be without acquired tolerance (unless you're an extreme outlier on the innate tolerance scale).

Admittedly, I am taking Bruce's word for it on this; I have not seen the research myself.

Another point to consider is that we don't know how his alcohol consumption in the months or years leading up to the DWI compares to his consumption in the six years since then.

Agreed 100% with that. Though that is something for the OP to consider, more than us. (Not that it matters when it comes to the FAA's requirements... he has to comply or give up on flying.)

 

[Brad Z]

Actions have consequences.

Drink a ****load in college and embarrass yourself? Rite of passage.

Drink and then get behind the wheel? Lots of bad things can happen. If you're lucky, you scare the **** out of yourself and resolve to never do it again. If you're a slightly less lucky, you get a DUI and end up where the OP is now. If you are really unlucky, you hurt yourself or others, and we'd not be having this conversation, seeing as you'd be dead or in prison or probabtion.

Contrary to what we see here on the forums, folks rarely get a DUI the first time they drink and drive. FAA knows that too, which is why they have lots of questions for folks who've been arrested for drinking and driving.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Actions have consequences.

Drink a ****load in college and embarrass yourself? Rite of passage.

Drink and then get behind the wheel? Lots of bad things can happen. If you're lucky, you scare the **** out of yourself and resolve to never do it again. If you're a slightly less lucky, you get a DUI and end up where the OP is now. If you are really unlucky, you hurt yourself or others, and we'd not be having this conversation, seeing as you'd be dead or in prison or probabtion.

Contrary to what we see here on the forums, folks rarely get a DUI the first time they drink and drive. FAA knows that too, which is why they have lots of questions for folks who've been arrested for drinking and driving.

There’s nothing wrong with lots of questions. I find that to be a requirement frankly. I’m just saying there shouldn’t be one size fits all absolutes.