FAA approch to dual-DUI

[tiger]

Here's my bias. I had a front seat to the societal change from "there but for the grace of god go i" tolerance to the current zero tolerance viewpoint.

Do you think the USA now has a "zero tolerance" viewpoint on drinking and driving? Do you mean legally or culturally? Culturally I don't see it; certainly not compared to where I grew up (in the UK). We would have tackled a friend who went to drive after two or three drinks, but it very rarely had to be done.

I was horrified to see how acceptable it was when I came to the US. Some set of alcoholics will, of course, drink and drive everywhere. But there is much stronger disapprobation of 'casual' drink driving in the UK than the US, in my experience.

Not to mention that in the UK a first time offender gets a minimum one year suspension, not a 90 day slap on the wrist. And most of Europe has a lower BAC limit.

FWIW I agree not every DUI is an alcoholic, and I have no problem with people consuming whatever they choose...

 

[LDJones]

I don't think that the FAA expects pilots to be teetotalers. The fact that a high percentage of pilots like to drink and drink heavily at times seems to be a well accepted fact. However, they want you to be able to recognize when you are incapacitated and not operate a vehicle when you are. Either that or to make the right plans in advance to have a sober driver to get you home. DUI means a lack of judgement and a disregard for the safety of others. Drinking and even being drunk in and of itself, not so much.

Without disclosing security sensitive information, I know the FFDO program, which arms 121 pilots, focuses extremely heavily on historical and current alcohol usage while screening applicants. It’s a really big deal to them, and understandably so.

 

[ejensen]

Do you think the USA now has a "zero tolerance" viewpoint on drinking and driving? Do you mean legally or culturally? Culturally I don't see it; certainly not compared to where I grew up (in the UK). We would have tackled a friend who went to drive after two or three drinks, but it very rarely had to be done.

I was horrified to see how acceptable it was when I came to the US. Some set of alcoholics will, of course, drink and drive everywhere. But there is much stronger disapprobation of 'casual' drink driving in the UK than the US, in my experience.

Not to mention that in the UK a first time offender gets a minimum one year suspension, not a 90 day slap on the wrist. And most of Europe has a lower BAC limit.

FWIW I agree not every DUI is an alcoholic, and I have no problem with people consuming whatever they choose...

Agree we haven't seen anything yet. In Norway my host stopped me after one beer.

 

[murphey]

I'm not looking for loopholes, I'm asking a perfectly valid question.

99.9% of us here are not qualified to answer the question. AFAIK, there are only 3 people on this list that are qualified. You need to contact an AME who is familiar with DUIs and the FAA.

 

[BrianNC]

That statement, even if accurate, still does not lead to the conclusion that everyone who gets a DUI is an alcoholic.

I was never arguing that it did make everyone with a DUI an alcoholic. I was just addressing the probability of how many times someone had driven drunk when they were caught for the first time. Having said that, if it is accurate, if a person has driven drunk 80 times before they got caught, then they probably have a 'problem' with alcohol.

 

[injb]

Do you think the USA now has a "zero tolerance" viewpoint on drinking and driving? Do you mean legally or culturally? Culturally I don't see it; certainly not compared to where I grew up (in the UK). We would have tackled a friend who went to drive after two or three drinks, but it very rarely had to be done.

I was horrified to see how acceptable it was when I came to the US. Some set of alcoholics will, of course, drink and drive everywhere. But there is much stronger disapprobation of 'casual' drink driving in the UK than the US, in my experience.

Not to mention that in the UK a first time offender gets a minimum one year suspension, not a 90 day slap on the wrist. And most of Europe has a lower BAC limit.

FWIW I agree not every DUI is an alcoholic, and I have no problem with people consuming whatever they choose...

This.

I was never arguing that it did make everyone with a DUI an alcoholic. I was just addressing the probability of how many times someone had driven drunk when they were caught for the first time. Having said that, if it is accurate, if a person has driven drunk 80 times before they got caught, then they probably have a 'problem' with alcohol.

To me, the US seems to have a bizzare attitude to alcohol, and this comment sums it up perfectly. If a person drove a car 80 times while reading a novel, would you say they had a problem with books? Or just a problem behaving responsibly in general? I don't see why alcohol suddenly becomes the cause of everything when it's added to the equation. People drive drunk because they're irresponsible. They can give up alcohol if they want but that's just a way of blaming something other than their own personality. They'll still be irresponsible.

Now, I can see it from the FAA's point of view. You can't measure all forms of irresponsibility from a person't record, but you can see DUIs, so why not use them? But I'd hate to think that someone could be caught driving recklessly (sober) any number of times and still be allowed to fly, while someone with 2 DUIs has to jump through the hoops just because alcohol. I'd prefer to see all people with a consistent record of irresponsible behavior being treated equally.

 

[tawood]

... If a person drove a car 80 times while reading a novel, would you say they had a problem with books?...

I would! Damn bookaholics.

 

[steingar]

Do you think the USA now has a "zero tolerance" viewpoint on drinking and driving? Do you mean legally or culturally? Culturally I don't see it; certainly not compared to where I grew up (in the UK). We would have tackled a friend who went to drive after two or three drinks, but it very rarely had to be done.

I was horrified to see how acceptable it was when I came to the US. Some set of alcoholics will, of course, drink and drive everywhere. But there is much stronger disapprobation of 'casual' drink driving in the UK than the US, in my experience.

Not to mention that in the UK a first time offender gets a minimum one year suspension, not a 90 day slap on the wrist. And most of Europe has a lower BAC limit.

FWIW I agree not every DUI is an alcoholic, and I have no problem with people consuming whatever they choose...

You stinking limeys live on an island the size of a US State. You enjoy robust public transportation systems such that someone who is under the influence has a halfway decent chance to get home without driving. Try that in most American cities and see how far you get, though Uber is starting to make inroads, though I doubt it'll last long.

 

[idahoflier]

Without disclosing security sensitive information, I know the FFDO program, which arms 121 pilots, focuses extremely heavily on historical and current alcohol usage while screening applicants. It’s a really big deal to them, and understandably so.

Why? I'm not trying to be flippant, but I don't understand why alcohol usage factors heavily into the FFDO screening. Do any other LEO's that carry on flights have the same extreme heavy screening? If a pilot isn't deemed safe to have a firearm in the cockpit then they shouldn't be in the cockpit to begin with.

 

[tiger]

You stinking limeys live on an island the size of a US State. You enjoy robust public transportation systems such that someone who is under the influence has a halfway decent chance to get home without driving. Try that in most American cities and see how far you get, though Uber is starting to make inroads, though I doubt it'll last long.

Haha... ..unless you routinely hit up a bar a few states over, not sure the overall size is relevant vs population density. And I think the quality of Euro public transport can be overstated - big cities are great (as they are here) but I grew up in a rural English village served by one bus per day. All that said, I live in an American city now and have never had any major problems getting myself to and from a bar or party without driving (if I wanted to drink). I've probably waited an hour for a late-night cab on the odd occasion.

The first drink driving ad in the UK ran in the 1960s and mentioned (I chit you not) the level of extra accident risk created by eight whiskies. Drink driving there has changed from entirely acceptable ~40 years ago to completely unacceptable now. If you're at all familiar with the public transport system of the UK you'll know that that can't be explained by its improvement in the same timeframe.

TLDR; acceptability of drink driving is a cultural more that can change without huge changes in circumstance.

 

[LDJones]

Why? I'm not trying to be flippant, but I don't understand why alcohol usage factors heavily into the FFDO screening. Do any other LEO's that carry on flights have the same extreme heavy screening? If a pilot isn't deemed safe to have a firearm in the cockpit then they shouldn't be in the cockpit to begin with.

You'd have to ask them for the definitive answer, but the fact they're giving a federally issued firearm to an individual I'm sure factors into their perspective. The pilot doesn't take the airplane home with him. The FFDO does take the weapon home with them, so off-duty behavior patterns are important to them.

 

[LDJones]

But I'd hate to think that someone could be caught driving recklessly (sober) any number of times and still be allowed to fly, while someone with 2 DUIs has to jump through the hoops just because alcohol. I'd prefer to see all people with a consistent record of irresponsible behavior being treated equally.

I think they do look at the driving record. I know the airlines do, and multiple reckless driving citations would definitely kill your chances of flying with most airlines.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Why? I'm not trying to be flippant, but I don't understand why alcohol usage factors heavily into the FFDO screening. Do any other LEO's that carry on flights have the same extreme heavy screening? If a pilot isn't deemed safe to have a firearm in the cockpit then they shouldn't be in the cockpit to begin with.

There are two reasons I've heard. Probably interrelated.

1. Driving after drinking enough to impair, or drinking to excess knowing one is going to drive, are signs of lack of impulse control.
2. Alcoholism is a disease and FAA Medical is very serious about diseases which affect piloting.

 

[idahoflier]

You'd have to ask them for the definitive answer, but the fact they're giving a federally issued firearm to an individual I'm sure factors into their perspective. The pilot doesn't take the airplane home with him. The FFDO does take the weapon home with them, so off-duty behavior patterns are important to them.

OK, I didn't realize the firearm was issued by the government. That makes more sense. Thanks!

 

[Clip4]

Bruce if you see this, here is one for you. The prospective pilot has 1 DUI conviction as a juvenile and a BAC test result of less than .15. He also has another conviction for having physical control of a motor vehicle under influence as a adult. Which means he was technically convicted for being at the controls impaired. He refused test for the second event and was issued a license suspension after pleading guilty.

In my view, the FAA will consider both DUI events and will have to go HIMS route. What is your opinion?

 

[flyingron]

Technically convicted = convicted.
Anything involving alcohol and driving = A conviction of concern to the FAA (to include California's "wet reckless," etc...).
Any refusal of the chemical test on a conviction of concern = Alcohol tolerance as far as the FAA.

He's in for a tough slog (even notwithstanding the prior juvenile conviction).

 

[Clip4]

Technically convicted = convicted.
Anything involving alcohol and driving = A conviction of concern to the FAA (to include California's "wet reckless," etc...).
Any refusal of the chemical test on a conviction of concern = Alcohol tolerance as far as the FAA.

He's in for a tough slog (even notwithstanding the prior juvenile conviction).

Yes, that’s my belief as well.

 

[bbchien]

Bruce if you see this, here is one for you. The prospective pilot has 1 DUI conviction as a juvenile and a BAC test result of less than .15. He also has another conviction for having physical control of a motor vehicle under influence as a adult. Which means he was technically convicted for being at the controls impaired. He refused test for the second event and was issued a license suspension after pleading guilty.

In my view, the FAA will consider both DUI events and will have to go HIMS route. What is your opinion?

That airman had a judge who realized the life implication of a DUI, and made the deal for reduction to physical control but required him to have 80hours of rehab. Think about that. The judge realized the guy was alcohol dependent.

That's the difference between the diagnosis of abuse (2nd event) and dependency, as far as the courts are concerned.....FAA? we shall see.....it is AT LEAST an abuse SI.

 

[bbchien]

Alcohol is such amazing stuff. I got a call on Thursday, from an airman who really wanted to talk and not write. I turned him down and he called back. In that call, he described that he had had his alcohol SI revoked, for his AME not turning stuff in for 3 months. Problem was, that AME knew that the airman had a positive urine for alcohol metabolic products, 3 months prior. I'm not going to get into the responsibilities of a HMS AME- this HIMS AME is in jeopardy for waiting 3 months.

In the phone call:
(1) He declared that he was not alcoholic so it was okay to have gone and to drink with friends.
(2) It was the AME's fault.
(3) Since he was not an alcoholic it was okay to drink despite the clear English in his SI letter.
(4) And he argued with me (Dude, I'm trying to help you!)

My reply: This is about what's between your ears as much as what's in your mouth. You need:
Rehab- 160 hours.
90 AAs in 90 days
weekly aftercare
2/wk AAs thereafter. Monthly visits with your HIMS AME.
Concurrence of his Neuropsychologist and of his HIMS psychiatrist, and then a reapplication.

I pointed out to him the four things he did in the 20 minute call that were alcoholic.

I did feel for the guy- he's building a homebuilt. But he has no idea how much control alcohol has over him. And until he gets the message, he should not be able to operate.

And that summarizes why I rarely take cold calls.

 

[Clip4]

That airman had a judge who realized the life implication of a DUI, and made the deal for reduction to physical control but required him to have 80hours of rehab. Think about that. The judge realized the guy was alcohol dependent.

That's the difference between the diagnosis of abuse (2nd event) and dependency, as far as the courts are concerned.....FAA? we shall see.....it is AT LEAST an abuse SI.

And what is involved in an abuse SI?

 

[bbchien]

And what is involved in an abuse SI?

24 months of urine proven sobriety. See the counselor and HIMS AME regularly.

But the problem is proving that you are not dependent (what’s between the ears)....which if they can’t be convinced, is full HIMS.

 

[Lindberg]

Ah I knew that euphemism for 'biased preconception' was bound to come up at some point.

Reverse gambler's fallacy, or something like that.

 

[Lindberg]

That statement, even if accurate, still does not lead to the conclusion that everyone who gets a DUI is an alcoholic. Actually, its use by that company marketing personal alcohol trackers, suggests the opposite. They are selling a product to help an alcoholic "make better decisions while drinking"? Really? To the extent they have a market, seems like it's for the non-alcoholic who goes to too many parties.

Here's my bias. I had a front seat to the societal change from "there but for the grace of god go i" tolerance to the current zero tolerance viewpoint. I also probably dealt with a larger variety of DUI offenders than the average guy. Some alcoholics. Some not. As usual, our society avoids the happy medium and goes to the extremes on both ends, painting people with a broad brush rather than individually (all in the name of "common sense" of course).

Well, I guess that's enough useless ranting to start the day

We should all thank MADD for that.

It's about risk. Who's more likely to be the alcoholic? The pilot with no DUIs? With one DUI? With multiple DUIs?

It's about appearance and liability. The FAA could require random testing for all pilots. It doesn't. But if it let someone fly with a known history, that'd be really bad. If you believe the other statistics, then there are many more alcoholic and problem drinking pilots that the FAA doesn't know about than ones it does know about. There doesn't seem to be any effort to identify them.

 

[bbchien]

We should all thank MADD for that.

It's about appearance and liability. The FAA could require random testing for all pilots. It doesn't. But if it let someone fly with a known history, that'd be really bad. If you believe the other statistics, then there are many more alcoholic and problem drinking pilots that the FAA doesn't know about than ones it does know about. There doesn't seem to be any effort to identify them.

..,and how, aside from the DMV, might we do that without totally infringing on any remaining “rights”?

Have you done the cost benefit analysis as required for such a “make everyone pee randomly” program?

It it wasn’t possible under the former administration’s “value of a life”, it’s certainly impossible under the current administration’s value....

 

[Tarheelpilot]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/386255/

I really would like it if the FAA would unhitch their wagon from the AA horse. It’s retarded. It works for some but not for everyone. I think it’s time for real medicine to be controlling in dependency evaluations.

 

[flyingron]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/386255/

I really would like it if the FAA would unhitch their wagon from the AA horse. It’s retarded. It works for some but not for everyone. I think it’s time for real medicine to be controlling in dependency evaluations.

I agree. In fact, studies show that it's efficacy is about the same as people who attempt to do nothing for their alcoholism (i.e., they just spontaneously stop drinking to excess). However, the FAA is *NOT* concerned with efficacy here. They want to show the pilot is actively doing something. They might as well make him watch FAA safety videos for 20 hours a week, but AA is easier to document.

 

[azure]

I agree. In fact, studies show that it's efficacy is about the same as people who attempt to do nothing for their alcoholism (i.e., they just spontaneously stop drinking to excess). However, the FAA is *NOT* concerned with efficacy here. They want to show the pilot is actively doing something. They might as well make him watch FAA safety videos for 20 hours a week, but AA is easier to document.

But for that matter, it seems it would be just as easy to document treatment by a qualified physician with a specialty in addiction medicine using one of the evidence-based methods discussed in the Atlantic article. The only reason I can think of why that is not done is that the FAA's thinking is still under the sway of the AA-based consensus from the last century. And that, in turn, seems to have more to do with this country's puritanical attitudes toward alcohol and drugs than anything based on science.

 

[Matthew]

Medical treatment vs AA?

Pilots already complain about the cost of keeping a medical. I think the AA route might be as good a compromise by FAA as any. It may not have a great cure rate, but the pilot has to, at the very least, admit to a problem.

To quote a buddy of mine: "I love bourbon, but it's so expensive. I cost me my marriage, it cost me my house, it almost cost me my job."

 

[flyingron]

As far as the FAA is concerned, it shows an effort by the pilot. As I said, they're not concerned with efficacy.

 

[SCCutler]

The conversation related by Dr. Chien above so clearly illustrates the demon of addiction. It owns you.

I watched my brother-in-law, one of the smartest and kindest people I have ever known, relentlessly stalked and killed by addiction (in his instance, alcohol). Several rounds of inpatient treatment, but he refused to consider AA or equivalent -"...that's for alcoholics, and just because I like a glass or two of wine for dinner doesn't make me an alcoholic."

After he died (as an absolutely direct result of the drink), as we cleaned out his home, we found liquor hidden in dozens of places. 2-liter club soda bottles in the pantry, soda replaced by vodka, things like that. So much work to plan around enabling heavy drinking.

So, it's about judgment, but more importantly, about the evisceration of judgment - of free will - that results from addiction.

 

[wsuffa]

The conversation related by Dr. Chien above so clearly illustrates the demon of addiction. It owns you.

I watched my brother-in-law, one of the smartest and kindest people I have ever known, relentlessly stalked and killed by addiction (in his instance, alcohol). Several rounds of inpatient treatment, but he refused to consider AA or equivalent -"...that's for alcoholics, and just because I like a glass or two of wine for dinner doesn't make me an alcoholic."

After he died (as an absolutely direct result of the drink), as we cleaned out his home, we found liquor hidden in dozens of places. 2-liter club soda bottles in the pantry, soda replaced by vodka, things like that. So much work to plan around enabling heavy drinking.

So, it's about judgment, but more importantly, about the evisceration of judgment - of free will - that results from addiction.

Sigh.

Yes, I too have seen the impacts on in-laws. Lost 2 of them to addiction.

 

[Lindberg]

..,and how, aside from the DMV, might we do that without totally infringing on any remaining “rights”?

Have you done the cost benefit analysis as required for such a “make everyone pee randomly” program?

It it wasn’t possible under the former administration’s “value of a life”, it’s certainly impossible under the current administration’s value....

If rights had anything to do with it, the FAA couldn't do what it is doing now. My urine is already dipped for sugar, it could also be tested for drugs and etg. And the FAA could certainty send out a hundred letters every month requiring testing at an independent lab within the next 7 days. You'd likely have the hippy side effect of culling the inactive pilots out of the system.

 

[midlifeflyer]

We should all thank MADD for that.

Maybe. We are a country which tends to ride a pendulum from one extreme to another, rarely remaining in the middle any longer than it takes to pass through it. MADD was a reaction to extreme public tolerance of drunk driving. I watched cases go from extremely difficult to convict ("there but for the grace of god go I") unless there was an accident to extremely difficult to get a not guilty.

I guess you pick your poison.

 

[Clip4]

Why does a pilot getting a 2nd DUI has rehab option and a CDL holder doesn’t? Guess the Airline Pilots Association has more pull with the Department of Transportation than the Teamsters.

 

[steingar]

But for that matter, it seems it would be just as easy to document treatment by a qualified physician with a specialty in addiction medicine using one of the evidence-based methods discussed in the Atlantic article.

They’re somewhat rarer on the ground than you might expect. Most rehabilitation clinics are little more than scams to get insurance money. In a truly crowning irony Obama’s former Drig Czar recently had to deal with an addiction problem in his child and couldn’t figure out where to turn.

 

[Rushie]

They’re somewhat rarer on the ground than you might expect. Most rehabilitation clinics are little more than scams to get insurance money. In a truly crowning irony Obama’s former Drig Czar recently had to deal with an addiction problem in his child and couldn’t figure out where to turn.

This is spot on. So much truth and put together hilariously.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I agree. In fact, studies show that it's efficacy is about the same as people who attempt to do nothing for their alcoholism (i.e., they just spontaneously stop drinking to excess). However, the FAA is *NOT* concerned with efficacy here. They want to show the pilot is actively doing something. They might as well make him watch FAA safety videos for 20 hours a week, but AA is easier to document.

I don’t know how it is easy to document. It is anonymous. I know a guy doing aa for the FAA ... trust me there is no way for anyone to really know what he is doing.

 

[Kritchlow]

We should all thank MADD for that.

Join our counter group “DAMM”.

(Drunks Against Mad Mothers)

 

[DaleB]

So, it's about judgment, but more importantly, about the evisceration of judgment - of free will - that results from addiction.

Precisely. As I have pointed out repeatedly to a close family member with addiction problems, the very first thing that happens when he drinks or takes drugs is that any semblance of judgment he ever had goes right out the window.

 

[Palmpilot]

Join our counter group “DAMM”.

(Drunks Against Mad Mothers)

Is that affiliated with NAMBLA?