DWI/3rd Class Medical/HIMS

Well, to be fair he did say that he really wasn't functional. It might be that he really, truly is not dependent. If so, that is good because it makes the HIMS stuff easier. If it is unimportant, then quitting is easy, right?
 
Tarheelpilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's the problem when something gets to the point of needing rules, a line has to be drawn. I think it was more permissive in the past, and people for whom it was really a one time screw up were able to get on with their lives and fly with out too much inconvenience. The problem is those morons who had a problem and consequences be damned, they were going to do what they were going to do, they did it and killed themselves or others. Those people always ruin it for everyone else. Now we have zero tolerance, if you get caught up in it it's your own fault. And it's probably a good thing.
 
These recent threads on alcohol and flight medicals had me curious as to what the applicant must have been feeling at the time their elevated BAC was recorded. Google found the chat below.

I thought the rest of you might also find it of interest. Link to the article if you can't read the image I copied.

BAC-Colorful-300x286.png
 
cowman said:
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.
Click to expand...
The resident Doctor replied and from his expert opinion, it seems the OP has a problem.
 
I would add that the OP made several references to wanting to know when he could go back to social drinking.
News flash-if you see social drinking as that big of a priority, you have a problem. Period. The common misconception is that to be alcoholic, you need to be a “drunk.” Not true. I would argue that if you see drinking to any degree as a priority, you are dependent.
I like my scotch, but if flying or any other important activity or relationship depended on never touching a drop again, consider me on the wagon. The OP doesn’t seem to share this viewpoint.
 
azure said:
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).
Click to expand...
The funny thing is, they are all extreme outliers, because even though all of these posters blew triple the legal limit, none of them have a problem. Interesting, no?

Interesting as well that none of them would have a problem not drinking... but they come to find out how they can keep drinking. If I had a choice between drinking and flying, it wouldn't be a problem. Guess why?

And I would get all the counter arguments if we were talking about people who had blown a .09. But it's always twice that and then some and they all have the same story. It's almost like the FAA has heard it all before...
 
The key is to not get caught. It's a big mistake to get totally ****** up on your first try. The best way to not get caught is to drink often and get good at functioning. That's why when you ask what you should put in your new hangar, the #1 response is "a beer refrigerator". https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/stuff-needed-for-a-hangar.109221/

And, of course, we know for a fact that the cop actually had the patience to get some totally ****** up drunk to properly blow into the breathalizer long enough and didn't just write down a random number on his report because the guy was obviously ****** up and it's just a lot easier than having the guy try over and over.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
...And, of course, we know for a fact that the cop actually had the patience to get some totally ****** up drunk to properly blow into the breathalizer long enough and didn't just write down a random number on his report because the guy was obviously ****** up and it's just a lot easier than having the guy try over and over...
Click to expand...
Just FYI, my department's breathalyzers, even the handheld PBT types, all record history, which is downloadable. If a cop "made up" a breathalyzer number, it might just be the last case that he/she would "make up" a breathalyzer number.
 
mryan75 said:
The funny thing is, they are all extreme outliers, because even though all of these posters blew triple the legal limit, none of them have a problem. Interesting, no?

Interesting as well that none of them would have a problem not drinking... but they come to find out how they can keep drinking. If I had a choice between drinking and flying, it wouldn't be a problem. Guess why?

And I would get all the counter arguments if we were talking about people who had blown a .09. But it's always twice that and then some and they all have the same story. It's almost like the FAA has heard it all before...
Click to expand...
Since I don't fancy myself to be Dr. Phil (or Dr. Oz, or whoever the television psychologist du jour happens to be...), and unlike some people here I don't have any special insight into the minds of addictive personalities, I prefer to stick with hard science. Scientifically, anyone MIGHT be an extreme outlier, yes it's extremely unlikely but we just aren't in a position to say about any particular person.

And I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions about someone who considers a lifestyle that includes social drinking to be something of value. Sure, I would give up drinking in a heartbeat to stay legal to fly - but like you, I'm already a pilot. I've caught the disease. IIRC the OP merely WANTS to become a pilot. How strongly, remains to be seen.

And yes, the OP could be an alcoholic. But I don't think that's for any of us here to say.
 
azure said:
Since I don't fancy myself to be Dr. Phil (or Dr. Oz, or whoever the television psychologist du jour happens to be...), and unlike some people here I don't have any special insight into the minds of addictive personalities, I prefer to stick with hard science. Scientifically, anyone MIGHT be an extreme outlier, yes it's extremely unlikely but we just aren't in a position to say about any particular person.

And I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions about someone who considers a lifestyle that includes social drinking to be something of value. Sure, I would give up drinking in a heartbeat to stay legal to fly - but like you, I'm already a pilot. I've caught the disease. IIRC the OP merely WANTS to become a pilot. How strongly, remains to be seen.

And yes, the OP could be an alcoholic. But I don't think that's for any of us here to say.
Click to expand...
He started at 15 and got his ticket at 17. And he sounds exactly like every other guy who blew a .20+ that comes on here: none of them have a problem, they could all stop just fine if they had to, etc. etc.

Seriously, go back and read through some of the other dee-wee threads. Literally the same story every time.
 
mryan75 said:
He started at 15 and got his ticket at 17. And he sounds exactly like every other guy who blew a .20+ that comes on here: none of them have a problem, they could all stop just fine if they had to, etc. etc.

Seriously, go back and read through some of the other dee-wee threads. Literally the same story every time.
Click to expand...
Okay I missed the part where he said he already had his ticket. So maybe he is one of those who can just walk away from flying. Or maybe not. Remains to be seen.

In any case I'm well aware of how similar the stories sound, it makes no difference to me. Why can't we leave these determinations to the professionals?
 
mryan75 said:
And I would get all the counter arguments if we were talking about people who had blown a .09. But it's always twice that and then some and they all have the same story. It's almost like the FAA has heard it all before...
Click to expand...

DUI cases get reviewed by a relatively small group in OKC. My understanding is they have around 1,500 active cases at any given time. To say they've heard it all before is an understatement.
 
jordane93 said:
The resident Doctor replied and from his expert opinion, it seems the OP has a problem.
Click to expand...
He has a problem with the FAA. Whether he has a problem with drinking depends on what has happened in the six years since his DWI.
 
mryan75 said:
He started at 15 and got his ticket at 17. And he sounds exactly like every other guy who blew a .20+ that comes on here: none of them have a problem, they could all stop just fine if they had to, etc. etc.

Seriously, go back and read through some of the other dee-wee threads. Literally the same story every time.
Click to expand...
Your methodology is flawed if you think that proves that any particular individual is still abusing alcohol.
 
Palmpilot said:
He has a problem with the FAA. Whether he has a problem with drinking depends on what has happened in the six years since his DWI.
Click to expand...
The problem is, your second sentence doesn’t matter. The OP is trying to get right with the FAA. If they say he has a problem, he has a problem.
 
jordane93 said:
The problem is, your second sentence doesn’t matter. The OP is trying to get right with the FAA. If they say he has a problem, he has a problem.
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, there are things in life that matter besides flying.
 
This whole FAA alcohol thing is a joke. Many pilots get totally tanked every day but chose not to drive (or fly) while drunk.
 
I suspect the OP has left due to the fairly negative comments. The FAA has a fairly one-size-fits-all mentality. Perhaps it doesn't fit him, perhaps it does, but it is how it is. I can tell you that I am a very anti-social drinker, because to drink socially I have to drive. I drink all the time, but I do not drink and drive ever. My pilots license is too important to me to jeopardize.

I question what kind of friends he has who would allow him to drive off so impaired. Not very good ones I would suggest. And of course a man's character can be determined by the company keeps.

Says something pretty bad about me then, hanging around here.
 
Palmpilot said:
Your methodology is flawed if you think that proves that any particular individual is still abusing alcohol.
Click to expand...
More flawed than thinking every single dee-wee poster on here is the exception to the rule that if you blow a .20 while driving, it wasn't your first time and you aren't a genetic outlier?
 
Brad Z said:
DUI cases get reviewed by a relatively small group in OKC. My understanding is they have around 1,500 active cases at any given time. To say they've heard it all before is an understatement.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing. If someone came on here and said, "hey, XYZ happened, I was a real boob, I'm not an alcoholic, but this HIMS stuff is expensive. I'm never drinking again but is there a cheaper/easier option for me." That I could understand entirely. But it's always "I screwed up, I'm not an alcoholic, how can I prove that to them so I can keep flying and keep drinking?"

Every single time.
 
mryan75 said:
More flawed than thinking every single dee-wee poster on here is the exception to the rule that if you blow a .20 while driving, it wasn't your first time and you aren't a genetic outlier?
Click to expand...
No, assuming they're all one way or all the other is equally flawed either way.
 
mryan75 said:
Here's the thing. If someone came on here and said, "hey, XYZ happened, I was a real boob, I'm not an alcoholic, but this HIMS stuff is expensive. I'm never drinking again but is there a cheaper/easier option for me." That I could understand entirely. But it's always "I screwed up, I'm not an alcoholic, how can I prove that to them so I can keep flying and keep drinking?"

Every single time.
Click to expand...
So at least SOME of them are fooling themselves. Probably even MANY. But in order to conclude that any particular individual is, you would have to assume that there are NO cases where a person quits abusing alcohol after a DWI, and that would be a tall order to prove.
 
mryan75 said:
Here's the thing. If someone came on here and said, "hey, XYZ happened, I was a real boob, I'm not an alcoholic, but this HIMS stuff is expensive. I'm never drinking again but is there a cheaper/easier option for me." That I could understand entirely. But it's always "I screwed up, I'm not an alcoholic, how can I prove that to them so I can keep flying and keep drinking?"

Every single time.
Click to expand...
Not every single time. There was an anon poster on here a couple of years ago (maybe longer) who objected to the FAA's insistence on demonstrated attendance at AA, on the grounds that he did not believe in any higher power and resented being forced to embrace something outside his belief system, or pretend that he did, in order to get the FAA's okay to fly. As I recall he did not try to argue that he was not an alcoholic, agreed that sobriety was necessary, but tried to put forth data that AA did not have any monopoly on success at maintaining it, that other systems worked equally as well. The answer from Dr. Bruce, in so many words, was "it is what it is", basically, the FAA makes the rules and if you want to fly, you have to satisfy them.

I'm too sick at the moment to do the search to find the thread; maybe someone else will be interested enough to find it.
 
azure said:
Not every single time. There was an anon poster on here a couple of years ago (maybe longer) who objected to the FAA's insistence on demonstrated attendance at AA, on the grounds that he did not believe in any higher power and resented being forced to embrace something outside his belief system, or pretend that he did, in order to get the FAA's okay to fly. As I recall he did not try to argue that he was not an alcoholic, agreed that sobriety was necessary, but tried to put forth data that AA did not have any monopoly on success at maintaining it, that other systems worked equally as well. The answer from Dr. Bruce, in so many words, was "it is what it is", basically, the FAA makes the rules and if you want to fly, you have to satisfy them.

I'm too sick at the moment to do the search to find the thread; maybe someone else will be interested enough to find it.
Click to expand...
This might be the thread you're thinking of:

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...e-done-rational-recovery-instead-of-aa.52074/
 
Not only does the AA not have a monopoly on treatment, it's been shown to not even have any demonstrated efficacy over not doing anything. However, the FAA considers attendance at something like AA an ongoing effort on the pilot's part, even with a dismal prognosis.
 
steingar said:
I honestly try not to ignore anyone. Wisdom can spring from a variety of surprising places. Put another way, even the blind squirrel gets a nut.
Click to expand...
A blind squirrel may find a nut but a cow produces copious quantities of excrement...
 
Single Isolated Incident . . . where you got caught.

There is a way, if your body is only of those unusual 'accomodators' to alcohol that can take large amounts of intake and not produce the usual response. Unfortunately for you, the FAA aeromedical division will not let you prove it since there is only anecdotal evidence that people like this exist.

Tell us, @Pilot91 in the three months before you got caught, how many days a week did you drink - and how much did you drink each time - and be brutally honest. tolerance is not about what you did the last 6 years to become a decent human being, its what did the 3 years before that to become able to a) still be walking and b) conscious at 0.217.
 
comanchepilot said:
Single Isolated Incident . . . where you got caught.

There is a way, if your body is only of those unusual 'accomodators' to alcohol that can take large amounts of intake and not produce the usual response. Unfortunately for you, the FAA aeromedical division will not let you prove it since there is only anecdotal evidence that people like this exist.

Tell us, @Pilot91 in the three months before you got caught, how many days a week did you drink - and how much did you drink each time - and be brutally honest. tolerance is not about what you did the last 6 years to become a decent human being, its what did the 3 years before that to become able to a) still be walking and b) conscious at 0.217.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't he have to keep drinking at the same rate in order to maintain that level of tolerance for the subsequent six years?
 
I am soooooo glad that my one so sick I hate life hangover event 1) cured me of drinking that much and 2) didn't require me drive home (someone else made that happen).

I still remember how bad that hangover was and never want to get anywhere near that.

And I have an interesting method of telling that I've consumed my limit... the tip of my nose goes numb.... no idea why/how, but it usually means I'm buzzed enough and I need to switch to H2O
 
In my mind, tolerance doesn't matter, except to the extent that it is evidence of prior heavy drinking. Whether he would have to develop it all over agaIn, or whether once developed, tolerance is permanent -- doesn't matter. It doesn't really matter whether he is truly alcohol dependent either. (And those are separate, orthogonal statements - you can be dependent without having drunk enough to acquire high tolerance, and you can have drunk so much that you acquire enough tolerance at 0.217 to function somewhat, without being alcohol-dependent -- e.g. if you drank as much as you did to fit in with the company you kept, to show you were "a man", etc.) What matters is whether he's willing to give up even social drinking in order to fly. Because that is apparently what the FAA is going to require of him.

Does he want it badly enough? We might never find out, and the only one the answer really matters to is him.
 
Kritchlow said:
This whole FAA alcohol thing is a joke. Many pilots get totally tanked every day but chose not to drive (or fly) while drunk.
Click to expand...
....which signifies that he has control. But after a big DUI a rational person would cease...which is a pretty good case that the individual who continues to drink allows alcohol to control.....get it?

Knowing FAA’s position, as Azure implies...continuing to drink means alcohol is more important than aviatoon. So who’s in control here...alcohol or the OP?
 
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