FAA asking for more info after reporting DUI

[poadeleted20]

I was simply bringing to light (after asking my initial questions about my FAA Aeromedical letter) that - long after someone has violated a DUI law, and long after they've paid their debt to society and can demonstrate improved behavior, they still face continued scrutiny that outweighs the offense.

And what you're missing is that in the 21st century, neither government nor society feels that this scrutiny does outweigh the offense. IOW, your thinking is reflective of the middle of the 20th century, and those days are OVER. My concern is that if you don't accept that a DUI is merely a symptom of some serious personal problems, you're going to get in a lot worse trouble further down the line.

@Ron - I understand the FAA's position on this. I'm on the more sympathetic side of those who have DUI offenses many years back on their record, however, and cannot even get consideration in light of all other factors for an aviation job.

Folks have buried DUI's in their past, but it takes a very long time and a fundamental change in their attitudes -- and I don't see in your posts an understanding of the need for you to change your thinking about drinking and driving, and what it says about the individual who does it. This is about judgment and decision-making, not sympathy.

 

[poadeleted20]

He has admitted his error which is great.

Admitting your error is only a start. Proving that you won't make the same mistake again is quite another, especially then there are plenty of available pilots who've never made that mistake once. The FAA has plenty of statistics to show that people who get one DUI are far more likely to get a second than those with no DUI history are to get their first, and those with any DUI history are far more likely to have an aircraft accident than those with no DUI history. That's the issue driving the situation the OP faces, and it's not going to change any time soon.

 

[jesse]

If he had stopped after asking his question, I certainly would have stopped after answering it. However, he went on to demonstrate his lack of understanding of the realities of DUI's in the 21st century, especially in aviation, and I have been trying to get him to realize that his denial of those realities does not bode well for his future in aviation, and he needs to change his fundamental thinking if he wants that future to happen.

I don't see where he failed to understand or accept the realities. He simply said he disagrees with them, not that he doesn't accept them. I disagree with the realities of how DUIs are treated as well, and I don't have one.

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't see where he failed to understand or accept the realities. He simply said he disagrees with them, not that he doesn't accept them. I disagree with the realities of how DUIs are treated as well, and I don't have one.

His disagreement, and the way he voiced it, suggests he doesn't understand why DUI's are viewed as such a red flag in aviation. Specifically, he sees it as just a little mistake, a minor "oops", rather than a symptom of a serious problem in attitude and judgment. I see that as a serious issue, and so will any aviation employer to whom he voices those disagreements as he has here.

 

[gismo]

If he had stopped after asking his question, I certainly would have stopped after answering it. However, he went on to demonstrate his lack of understanding of the realities of DUI's in the 21st century, especially in aviation, and I have been trying to get him to realize that his denial of those realities does not bode well for his future in aviation, and he needs to change his fundamental thinking if he wants that future to happen.

I could be wrong but to me Delta's posts after your answer were more about wishful thinking and a little whining rather than outright denial.

 

[poadeleted20]

I could be wrong but to me Delta's posts after your answer were more about wishful thinking and a little whining rather than outright denial.

As long as he sees what he did as just an "oops" event deserving of sympathy, it's more than just "wishful thinking and a little whining".

 

[Neil Rubin]

If you check other country's and see their solutions you will be glad your in the U.S. In some, you never drive again after one offense.

Can you name such a country? I know there are countries that revoke after multiple DUIs (parts of Australia or New Zealand, for example), but even they offer options to get your license back after rehabilitation and/or medical assessment.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Can you name such a country? I know there are countries that revoke after multiple DUIs (parts of Australia or New Zealand, for example), but even they offer options to get your license back after rehabilitation and/or medical assessment.

Yes. Try some of the Scandinavian country's which used to be very strict about it. To talk about old fogies driving automobiles, letting children drive is beside the point and immature. Drunken driving kills thousands per year, maims , ruins family's, on and on. It's going to become stricter here in the future due to the tremendous cost it incurs. Get used to it.

 

[mike d]

I think the OP has the advice he needs. (Get an attorney and work through it)

I also think that the idea that he may be out of the running for a "fly for pay" job may be the reality. In my mid 30's, I would have given a little sympathy. But in my mid 40's, I am not so willing to do so. The guys making the hiring decisions are probably over 40. So this may not be good for the OP.

To the OP, go for an aviation career if that is your dream, but you should also have a backup plan.

 

[ClimbnSink]

The marketing for the war on DUI is so much better then the marketing for all our other wars on sin. Wonder why?

 

[gismo]

I think the OP has the advice he needs. (Get an attorney and work through it)

I also think that the idea that he may be out of the running for a "fly for pay" job may be the reality. In my mid 30's, I would have given a little sympathy. But in my mid 40's, I am not so willing to do so. The guys making the hiring decisions are probably over 40. So this may not be good for the OP.

To the OP, go for an aviation career if that is your dream, but you should also have a backup plan.

I think one thing's pretty clear: If the OP ever does get a flying job interview and that one DUI conviction comes up (pretty sure it will) he'd better not get into anything like what he's posted here along the lines of "ociety puts such a stigma on DUI's that are probably more than they need to be when it comes to allowing someone to get on with their life". If he sticks to his "I fully acknowledge what I did was wrong, and that I sucked it up and accepted the consequences leveled to me by the judge" and the parts about never taking such a "calculated risk" again there's a greater chance of landing the job.

 

[Clip4]

You are simply trying to rationalize your dangerous and reckless behavior. Rather sickening.

People convicted for dog off leash should be denied a pilots license because they engage in careless reckless behavior. And ask a parent of a severly bitten child.........

 

[Sac Arrow]

You are simply trying to rationalize your dangerous and reckless behavior. Rather sickening.

People like you are the reason we live in a nanny police state. Hope you like that solving every little problem like how many sheets of toilet paper you use to wipe your ass is accomplished by draconian legislation.

I'm sorry our OP's opinion gets in the way of your needy sense of protection and fragile existence.

 

[LoneAspen]

People like you are the reason we live in a nanny police state. Hope you like that solving every little problem like how many sheets of toilet paper you use to wipe your ass is accomplished by draconian legislation.

I'm sorry our OP's opinion gets in the way of your needy sense of protection and fragile existence.

/popcorncat

 

[timwinters]

Tell that to the family or friends of someone killed by a drunk driver.

Those events typically take place at a 0.15 or higher, not at 0.08.

All 0.08 accomplishes is to make criminals out of folks who like to have a couple of glasses of wine with dinner.

0.08 is about revenue.

0.12 and above is about legitimate enforcement.

(Typed by a German Catholic boy who knows how to drink beer...and hold it..and when not to.)

Almost three-quarters of deaths in drunk driving crashes in 2010 involved drivers who had blood alcohol levels that were nearly twice the .08 legal limit, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said Tuesday.

http://www.drugfree.org/join-togeth...have-almost-twice-legal-blood-alcohol-limit-2

 

[Sac Arrow]

Those events typically take place at a 0.15 or higher, not at 0.08.

All 0.08 accomplishes is to make criminals out of folks who like to have a couple of glasses of wine with dinner.

0.08 is about revenue.

0.12 and above is about legitimate enforcement.

(Typed by a German Catholic boy who knows how to drink beer...and hold it..and when not to.)

Summed up nicely. If you drive badly, get off the road. If you drink too much, don't drive. If you drank, don't fly. Seems reasonable to me.

 

[deltaindia]

Lots of lively discussion since my OP and follow up. My posts should not have come across as me personally trying to gain sympathy, because I absolutely wasn't. I was asking some questions and giving my opinions on how DUI's are perceived after one has paid their punishment (and fines).

To clarify some other posts regarding assumptions about me...
I'm 43, certified pilot for 19 years with a CFI. My day job is in IT/software engineering, which pays more than 95% of flying jobs so I continue to enjoy aviation as a hobby and make a little money on the side teaching. You can be sure Ill over emphasize the ground school chapters on aeromedical factors that a pilot needs to consider when flying...

 

[ClimbnSink]

To clarify some other posts regarding assumptions about me...
I'm 43, certified pilot for 19 years with a CFI. My day job is in IT/software engineering, which pays more than 95% of flying jobs so I continue to enjoy aviation as a hobby and make a little money on the side teaching. You can be sure Ill over emphasize the ground school chapters on aeromedical factors that a pilot needs to consider when flying...

Oh dear that sounds like most people here. Not what they wanted to hear, they wanted a young punk know it all reckless goofball to hang.
All the best for you, hope this stuff doesn't haunt you anymore.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Oh dear that sounds like most people here. Not what they wanted to hear, they wanted a young punk know it all reckless goofball to hang.
All the best for you, hope this stuff doesn't haunt you anymore.

I think I might actually agree with you.

 

[Brad Z]

Lots of lively discussion since my OP and follow up. My posts should not have come across as me personally trying to gain sympathy, because I absolutely wasn't. I was asking some questions and giving my opinions on how DUI's are perceived after one has paid their punishment (and fines).

To clarify some other posts regarding assumptions about me...
I'm 43, certified pilot for 19 years with a CFI. My day job is in IT/software engineering, which pays more than 95% of flying jobs so I continue to enjoy aviation as a hobby and make a little money on the side teaching. You can be sure Ill over emphasize the ground school chapters on aeromedical factors that a pilot needs to consider when flying...

If you go through old posts here, you'll find scores of "unregistered" or folks who pop up just to ask about a DUI never to be seen again. Many of them are younger folks who have aviation career aspirations. Often they express their opinion of how "unfair" it is, etc.Can't speak for others, but that's why I assumed you're one of the "young punks" Greg alluded to.

I hope that one day we can get past "drunk drivers are evil people", but texters are just folks who got momentarily distracted. Frankly, to some folks, the attraction to their iPhone with a new message is stronger than a bottle of jack to an alcoholic. But, the world is just the way it is.

Oh dear that sounds like most people here. Not what they wanted to hear, they wanted a young punk know it all reckless goofball to hang.
All the best for you, hope this stuff doesn't haunt you anymore.

Dangit Greg, who am I going to shake my cane at now?

I too hope the OP can put this stuff past him and have a fruitful aviation career. At this point, he only has to make sure it never happens again.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

The original post and his continuing " ya but after all" type response led me to think he was a young , maybe even student pilot. After hearing his last reply, over 40 and being a CFI ( am I correct?) he sure should have known better. Get a grip.

 

[Clip4]

Those events typically take place at a 0.15 or higher, not at 0.08.

All 0.08 accomplishes is to make criminals out of folks who like to have a couple of glasses of wine with dinner.

0.08 is about revenue.

0.12 and above is about legitimate enforcement.

(Typed by a German Catholic boy who knows how to drink beer...and hold it..and when not to.)



http://www.drugfree.org/join-togeth...have-almost-twice-legal-blood-alcohol-limit-2

You must be a skinny german catholic i if 08 is 2 drinks with dinner.

 

[DesertNomad]

Honestly I'd be happy if you never flew again. Your "single lapse of judgement" puts my family at greater risk on the roads. I agree there should be punishments. You shouldn't be allowed to drive or fly again.

Agreed. DUI is a very serious matter.

 

[jesse]

Agreed. DUI is a very serious matter.

Because society has for some reason made it so - not because 0.08 is statistically more dangerous than many other foolish things everyone does in their cars already.

 

[DesertNomad]

My thought is that it should be 0.0. I lived in Dubai for several years where this is the case and thought it was a good idea.

 

[RJM62]

I don't see where he failed to understand or accept the realities. He simply said he disagrees with them, not that he doesn't accept them. I disagree with the realities of how DUIs are treated as well, and I don't have one.

I agree. I've never had a DUI, either, but I still believe that the policies surrounding DUI are getting absurd. And the notion that everyone who gets pulled over for a DUI is a hopeless derelict gets more absurd every time the legal BAC limit gets lowered.

There are some nanny-state ninnies out there who want to lower the level to 0.05, which would mean that having a single beer or glass of wine while eating dinner at a restaurant would make you a criminal. That's just pathetically stupid. It serves no purpose other than to increase revenues for state and local government, and insure job security for the bureaucrats in the criminal justice system.

At some point, we need to get over this delusion that we can create a perfect world where nothing bad ever happens if we just enact enough laws.

-Rich

 

[ClimbnSink]

My thought is that it should be 0.0. I lived in Dubai for several years where this is the case and thought it was a good idea.

That would be great. Not because I believe in DUI enforcement as it now exists. Simply because setting the limit to zero in America would break the DUI system. One way or another.

 

[Clip4]

I think one thing's pretty clear: If the OP ever does get a flying job interview and that one DUI conviction comes up (pretty sure it will) he'd better not get into anything like what he's posted here along the lines of "ociety puts such a stigma on DUI's that are probably more than they need to be when it comes to allowing someone to get on with their life". If he sticks to his "I fully acknowledge what I did was wrong, and that I sucked it up and accepted the consequences leveled to me by the judge" and the parts about never taking such a "calculated risk" again there's a greater chance of landing the job.

If he gets a second DUI, he could still be vice president of United States.

 

[Hank S]

My thought is that it should be 0.0. I lived in Dubai for several years where this is the case and thought it was a good idea.

That would destroy the mouthwash industry . . . even the anti-bacterial rinses a la Listerine, etc. But what stops people from running 15-20 over the limit? Ever hear "speed kills" [NOT a reference to drugs]. I've had friends die from both driving too fast and driving after drinking, and both suck. Guess which one gets more than a slap on the wrist when not fatal?

Don't even get me started on bozos texting while driving, even on crooked roads in West-by-Gawd, Virginny. "Dumb @ss" is simply too polite for those clowns!

 

[Unregistered]

You are simply trying to rationalize your dangerous and reckless behavior. Rather sickening.

I call BS. While I am totally opposed to drinking and driving (and have never had a DUI - need to apply fire retardant before the flame fiesta begins), the OP is presenting a valid argument that we have inconsistent laws related to safe driving.

You say he should lose both his pilots and his drivers license because he got a DUI. What possible sense can that make when sending a text message is more distracting and there is no real penalty for that. The data seems to prove that texting is more dangerous ... so, regardless of the law, should someone who texts while driving also lose the drivers and pilots license?

He may be rationalizing, but for you to call it "Rather sickening" while ignoring the heart of his argument is completely illogical and show a lack or thought and significant bias on your part.

 

[RJM62]

That would destroy the mouthwash industry . . . even the anti-bacterial rinses a la Listerine, etc. But what stops people from running 15-20 over the limit? Ever hear "speed kills" [NOT a reference to drugs]. I've had friends die from both driving too fast and driving after drinking, and both suck. Guess which one gets more than a slap on the wrist when not fatal?

Don't even get me started on bozos texting while driving, even on crooked roads in West-by-Gawd, Virginny. "Dumb @ss" is simply too polite for those clowns!

It's more difficult for police to tell when someone's texting while driving than to tell when they're speeding.

Speed's easier to monitor, and thus easier to prosecute. The problem is that speed limits and speeding laws / fines / enforcement stopped being based on safety decades ago. There is a scientific method of determining and setting speed limits, but it's pretty much ignored these days in favor of a method that maximizes revenue.

Legislating speeding fines is a lot like legislating cigarette taxes, as far as politicians are concerned. They want them both set at a point that will maximize revenue -- which means not so high that they significantly reduce the behavior. As is the case with cigarette taxes, the last thing politicians want to do is set speeding fines high enough that a large percentage of people actually stop speeding, which would cut into the revenue stream.

As for alcohol, the incidence of DUI has been steadily declining over the past few decades, which is something that law enforcement agencies are glad to take the credit for. Personally, I think it's just because drunk driving has become sufficiently socially unacceptable that fewer people are doing it. But whatever the case, DUI has become a less-reliable revenue source, which I believe is the real motive behind the move to further reduce the BAC limit from 0.08 to to 0.05.

-Rich

 

[kevin7500]

1.) In court, the breathalyzer test was thrown out due to procedural errors the cop made. The reading on that test was .11. By having it thrown out, the offense was reduced to 'tier 1' or a .08 - .10 offense. Do I need to provide the breathalyzer test if it was determined inadmissable in court? Or is that even relevant since the FAA seems to use .15 as the cutoff for determining if further treatment and analysis is warranted.

Your attorney failed you miserably. As soon as the breathalyzer was thrown out, the entire charge should have been argued for dismissal. The arresting officer lacks the ability to follow procedure for a breathalyzer yet is trusted to evaluate the results of a field sobriety test?

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/alcohol/sfst/appendix_a.htm

LEO is only accurate 91% of the time with field tests. While that is pretty high, it also means they are wrong 9% of the time.

 

[retailguy]

My best buddies like to get together at a local watering hole for beers many (if not most) Sunday afternoons. I join them as often as I am able and am known to the waiters there as the Diet Pepsi guy. We make our choices.

I'm the club soda guy. Caffeine keeps me up at night.

 

[RJM62]

Your attorney failed you miserably. As soon as the breathalyzer was thrown out, the entire charge should have been argued for dismissal. The arresting officer lacks the ability to follow procedure for a breathalyzer yet is trusted to evaluate the results of a field sobriety test?

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/alcohol/sfst/appendix_a.htm

LEO is only accurate 91% of the time with field tests. While that is pretty high, it also means they are wrong 9% of the time.

I'm a very light drinker. Always have been. The last time I drank myself stupid was when I was in the service. That makes me a good choice for DD duty because it doesn't bother me at all to abstain during a get together.

I also notice that DDs are commonplace now, to the point that we usually wind up with our own tables during sporting event parties and so forth at the local watering hole. That's a good thing, of course, from a safety perspective. But until recently, it didn't stop me from getting pulled over and field-tested. This was mainly when I still lived in The City. The police would just pull people over who'd just emerged from a bar; and of course, because everyone else in the car was ****-faced and the car smelled like a brewery, that was sufficient probable cause to question the driver.

Most times, if I told the officer I was the DD, that was enough. Not always, though. Younger cops seemed more likely to put me through the field-sobriety test silliness than more-experienced ones. In fact, sergeants would sometimes tell the younger cops to send me on my way while the tests were barely underway. I also had to blow into a few alka-sensors over the years.

What sometimes got me a bit annoyed was that even after passing their silly tests or blowing zeroes on their machines, some cops acted like they were doing me some sort of a huge favor by letting me go on my way. It was almost as if they blamed me for wasting their time rather than the other way around. Again, younger cops were much more likely to have that kind of attitude than older ones.

Nowadays, I'm older and grayer, and I live in a place where I know all the cops within a 25-mile radius by name. All three of them. So I don't get pulled over any more. I just get waved through the checkpoints, which are pretty rare up here anyway except on some holidays.

-Rich

 

[gismo]

If he gets a second DUI, he could still be vice president of United States.

What's your point?

 

[deltaindia]

Your attorney failed you miserably. As soon as the breathalyzer was thrown out, the entire charge should have been argued for dismissal.

This was how it played out in the hearing. To challenge it further the way you suggest, and try to challenge the state cop's credibility, I would have had to take it to trial. That would have been $3500 in legal fees, with no guarantee of winning of course. It's not uncommon (in NJ, at least) for courts to rely on the officer's field observation when a breathalyzer test is ruled inadmissible. Especially, in my case, there were 3 officers on the scene so they could have all been called in as witnesses. I would have a very slim chance of holding up against the testimony of 3 decorated state troopers in a jury trial.

My lawyer was very familiar with the court, the judge, the prosecutor and how cases tend to go. He could have encouraged me to go further and take it to trial if he really felt we had good shot at winning and that would have been $3500 more in his pocket. So, faced with spending the additional money and <unpaid> time off of work to deal with more court dates, I opted to just take the medicine and get it over with. The 3 months of no driving were challenging, but went by quick enough that I can put it all behind me rather than agonizing over a court trial.

 

[denverpilot]

Spike(wsuffa)

Bill and Spike are now scratching their heads wondering who is whom.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

As I mentioned, many drivers keep driving legally with 3-4 DUIs. It's possible your lawyer was not as adept as you thought. In any case I hope you can move on as it appears, up this point, you have not or you would not have posted in the first place. Depending on your driving record, with one DUI, in Maryland your revocation could have been much longer, easily a year.

 

[Unregistered]

This was how it played out in the hearing. To challenge it further the way you suggest, and try to challenge the state cop's credibility, I would have had to take it to trial. That would have been $3500 in legal fees, with no guarantee of winning of course. It's not uncommon (in NJ, at least) for courts to rely on the officer's field observation when a breathalyzer test is ruled inadmissible. Especially, in my case, there were 3 officers on the scene so they could have all been called in as witnesses. I would have a very slim chance of holding up against the testimony of 3 decorated state troopers in a jury trial.

My lawyer was very familiar with the court, the judge, the prosecutor and how cases tend to go. He could have encouraged me to go further and take it to trial if he really felt we had good shot at winning and that would have been $3500 more in his pocket. So, faced with spending the additional money and <unpaid> time off of work to deal with more court dates, I opted to just take the medicine and get it over with. The 3 months of no driving were challenging, but went by quick enough that I can put it all behind me rather than agonizing over a court trial.

So you couldn't afford to buy yourself more "justice"

End of the day if you had more money /better advocate you wouldn't be posting here. Thus is the sad state of the legal system.

 

[ClimbnSink]

So you couldn't afford to buy yourself more "justice"

End of the day if you had more money /better advocate you wouldn't be posting here. Thus is the sad state of the legal system.

That assumes we are guilty until proven innocent. Perhaps we are but that isn't how the instruction manual reads.