FAA asking for more info after reporting DUI

[deltaindia]

I got my 3rd class medical in March 2013, and got my first DUI in August 2013. The conviction was in November 2013 and I sent a letter, as required, to the FAA Security Office.

In February 2014 I got a letter from the FAA Security Investigator confirming receipt of the notification and that I was in compliance with no further action being taken on her part.

In March 2014 I got a letter from the Aeromedical office saying that, due to the DUI, they could not verify my eligibility for a medical certificiate, but also pointed out that the letter did not serve as a denial. They asked for a few things (this is from memory because I don't have the letter in front of me):

1.) Police report and breathalyzer report
2.) Court records
3.) Evidence of any classes/counseling
4.) 10 year driving history from state DMV

Questions I have:
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.

2.) Does the letter from the Aeromedical serve as a revokation of my current 3rd class medical that, when issued, was good until March 2015 (and I presume still is)? They stated no such revokation, so my question is whether or not I am legal to fly while they are awaiting the requested paperwork to review.


Slightly unrelated - reading the other posts on this medical forum about DUIs and all the dirty laundry that stays with people is frustrating to read. I am of the opinion that one DUI - particularly far in the past - does not make someone a risk to aviation. I, too, am of the opinion that the penalties that come with a DUI are absolutely more to generate money for the local municipalities than encourage safety. I lost my license for 3 months, which is minimal in the larger scheme of things. I had to pay not just a fine, but a multitude of "fees" to get reinstated again, on top of $1000/year in additional insurance - directly to the state, not even my insurance carrier. And, to compound matters, in my state there are no exceptions to the driving restriction so my ability to get to work was severely impacted. None of this is to say 'woe is me', because I fully accepted all the consequences and learned a sobering lesson (even though I fully knew getting in the car when I felt ok to drive was a bad calculated risk)

If I were applying for an ATP job at a carrier in 3, 5, 7 years down the road with a clean record aside from that "oops" DUI mistake I made, should that disqualify me? I don't think so. Does that make a candidate with 2000 hours less than me, but no DUI, more qualified? I don't think so.

Today society 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. That's not to minimize the DUI incident itself and the punishements that go with it. I absolutely do not condone the offense and believe there need to be punishments. But recovering from a single lapse of judgement long after you've paid your debt to society (and the local municipality coffers) is unreasonable, IMO.

 

[poadeleted20]

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.

Since the standards for admissibility of evidence are much lower in FAA proceedings than before a criminal court, it is possible that test result is still usable by the FAA. For that reason, I strongly suggest you consult an aviation attorney with experience in this field to get an answer to that question. Note that while you can get good medical advice from a medical source like Dr. Bruce Chien (http://www.aeromedicaldoc.com), providing incomplete, false, or misleading information to the FAA in response to a request like this can be a criminal offense under 18 USC 1001, and that's a legal question only a legal expert can help with.

2.) Does the letter from the Aeromedical serve as a revokation of my current 3rd class medical that, when issued, was good until March 2015 (and I presume still is)? They stated no such revokation, so my question is whether or not I am legal to fly while they are awaiting the requested paperwork to review.

Without seeing the letter, I can't say for sure, but based on what you said about it:

...they could not verify my eligibility for a medical certificiate, but also pointed out that the letter did not serve as a denial...

...I would say that it is not a revocation and you can continue flying for now. If they were revoking the medical which had been issued, there would be no doubt in your mind about that after reading it.

Slightly unrelated - reading the other posts on this medical forum about DUIs and all the dirty laundry that stays with people is frustrating to read. I am of the opinion that one DUI - particularly far in the past - does not make someone a risk to aviation.

You are entitled to your opinion on that, but the FAA's position is clear, and if you want to keep flying, you'd best accept that (especially if you want to fly for hire). One more DUI and you are done flying legally for a long time (maybe permanently as far as the airlines are concerned) whether you agree with the FAA or not. I'm not trying to dismiss or reject your thinking, but you need to understand the reality here -- if you can't bend your thinking to the established standards on this, there will be no place for you in aviation.

 

[murphey]

1. do not respond to the Letter.
2. go find a lawyer who specializes in FAA things.
3. go,talk to Dr Bruce Chien
4. after that and ONLY after that do you take their advice. Let the lawyer draw up the response letter with Dr Bruce's input.

Repeat. Do NOT respond to the letter until you've done this.

 

[JeffDG]

Echo above advice about contating Dr. Chien.

However, your breathalyzer report should actually help you...If I recall Dr. Chien's posts from the past, <.15 is not as bad from the FAA perspective as either >.15 or no breathalyzer (which they presume to be >.15).

 

[frfly172]

Get an attorney ,don't try to represent yourself. The FAA is using attorneys.

 

[poadeleted20]

1. do not respond to the Letter.
2. go find a lawyer who specializes in FAA things.
3. go,talk to Dr Bruce Chien
4. after that and ONLY after that do you take their advice. Let the lawyer draw up the response letter with Dr Bruce's input.

Repeat. Do NOT respond to the letter until you've done this.

But make darn sure you do all those things and respond within the time limit listed in the letter. If you don't, they will deny the application and they will revoke the certificate you have, and then you'll have a much bigger problem to deal with -- checking "yes" for the question "have you ever had a medical certificate denied, suspended or revoked" on every future medical application, aviation insurance application, and pilot job application for the rest of your life.

 

[rwellner98]

I, too, am of the opinion that the penalties that come with a DUI are absolutely more to generate money for the local municipalities than encourage safety.

[...]

Today society 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

10,000 people a year are killed in drunk driving accidents. That's about a third of the total number of people killed in auto accidents. Seems like denial to say that enforcement and steep penalties aren't a legitimate part of trying to reduce that.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

10,000 people a year are killed in drunk driving accidents. That's about a third of the total number of people killed in auto accidents. Seems like denial to say that enforcement and steep penalties aren't a legitimate part of trying to reduce that.

I know two airline pilots who were turned in for drinking in the cockpit or in the men's room. One turned in by a stew, the other by the co pilot. Due to their seniority they were sent to rehab and flew again but only after intensive rehab, a year on the ground, interviews, on and on. Then there are those, both commercial and private who drink shortly before flying or with a bad hangover. Not too many years ago if you got a DWI or DUI the faa did not even get the report. That changed as it's serious business. Drunks around cars or airplanes is big trouble.

 

[radioguy01]

Today society 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. That's not to minimize the DUI incident itself and the punishements that go with it. I absolutely do not condone the offense and believe there need to be punishments. But recovering from a single lapse of judgement long after you've paid your debt to society (and the local municipality coffers) is unreasonable, IMO.

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.

 

[GMascelli]

Today society 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. That's not to minimize the DUI incident itself and the punishements that go with it. I absolutely do not condone the offense and believe there need to be punishments. But recovering from a single lapse of judgement long after you've paid your debt to society (and the local municipality coffers) is unreasonable, IMO.

Tell that to the family or friends of someone killed by a drunk driver. I'm sure they would all love to be able to get on with their life too.

 

[Irish_Armada]

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.

What a reasonable perspective.

 

[deltaindia]

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.

Have you ever driven over the speed limit? That's a lapse of judgement that puts my family at risk, too.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811751.pdf

Of the roughly 30,000 fatalities in 2011, 4705 were due to speeding where alcohol wasn't a factor. Another 3331 fatalities were related to distracted drivers using a cell phone.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/distracted_driving/

So, between Speeding and Cell phone distracted driving combined, they make up about 1000 fewer fatalities than DUI's did in 2011. They both carry fines and, with repeated offenses, loss of driving privileges. They represent reckless behavior to one's self and others around them. Yet, you can get numerous speeding tickets in your lifetime - quite a few actually - and continue to legally drive.

At the end of the day, DUI, speeding, texting all have the risk of killing yourself and other people. But we treat DUI's as though they the devil of all violations, and in some states a felony. In my state (NJ), 2 DUI's within 10 years is a suspended license for a year and jail time. 2 speeding tickets within 10 years is a couple hundred bucks in fines and increased insurance premiums. What consolation is that to the family who just lost their teenage daughter to a sober, reckless, speeding driver who had a history of speeding tickets but not enough to lose his license?

So, given your logic of suggesting I shouldn't be allowed to drive or fly again for my DUI, would you also advocate for first offenders of those non-DUI motor vehicle violations also be stripped of driving (and flying, if licensed) privileges forever?

 

[deltaindia]

Tell that to the family or friends of someone killed by a drunk driver. I'm sure they would all love to be able to get on with their life too.

But I didn't kill anyone, thank God. And, as I made clear in my post - I do not in anyway condone DWI. But I do thinik that there is some hypocracy in how a DUI violation is treated versus other dangerous driving activities. Hence, my comment on why a DUI (which did not involve manslaughter) carries such long lasting effects well after the offender has demonstrated responsible behavior and a clean driving record.

 

[poadeleted20]

I know two airline pilots who were turned in for drinking in the cockpit or in the men's room. One turned in by a stew, the other by the co pilot. Due to their seniority they were sent to rehab and flew again but only after intensive rehab, a year on the ground, interviews, on and on.

I would point out that once you are hired and in the union, it's very difficult for the airline to fire you. OTOH, your second DUI puts you out of action for at least one year. For that reason, the airlines avoid hiring anyone with even one DUI since a second will be very expensive for the airline, not just the pilot.

 

[poadeleted20]

But I didn't kill anyone, thank God. And, as I made clear in my post - I do not in anyway condone DWI. But I do thinik that there is some hypocracy in how a DUI violation is treated versus other dangerous driving activities. Hence, my comment on why a DUI (which did not involve manslaughter) carries such long lasting effects well after the offender has demonstrated responsible behavior and a clean driving record.

Again, you can think anything you want, but if you're going to stay in this business, you have to put your opinion on this aside and accept the reality that this is how DUI's are treated by the FAA and the aviation industry, and there's nothing you can do to change that. So move on, and just work on making sure you never have another one, not even an "oops", because no matter what you do now, you have in fact demonstrated (to the FAA's thinking) irresponsible behavior, and your driving record will never again be "clean".

Now stop posting here and go find a lawyer to help you out of the jam into which you dropped yourself entirely on your own by your own flawed judgment.

 

[JeffDG]

In my state (NJ), 2 DUI's within 10 years is a suspended license for a year and jail time.

First offense in Canada is a 1 year suspension of license, second offense (within, well, ever...no 10 year expiry) is 2 year suspension + 30 days in jail.

 

[wsuffa]

Slightly unrelated - reading the other posts on this medical forum about DUIs and all the dirty laundry that stays with people is frustrating to read. I am of the opinion that one DUI - particularly far in the past - does not make someone a risk to aviation. I, too, am of the opinion that the penalties that come with a DUI are absolutely more to generate money for the local municipalities than encourage safety. I lost my license for 3 months, which is minimal in the larger scheme of things. I had to pay not just a fine, but a multitude of "fees" to get reinstated again, on top of $1000/year in additional insurance - directly to the state, not even my insurance carrier. And, to compound matters, in my state there are no exceptions to the driving restriction so my ability to get to work was severely impacted. None of this is to say 'woe is me', because I fully accepted all the consequences and learned a sobering lesson (even though I fully knew getting in the car when I felt ok to drive was a bad calculated risk)
...........
But recovering from a single lapse of judgement long after you've paid your debt to society (and the local municipality coffers) is unreasonable, IMO.

Not to be judgemental, but as you're learning America and some other nations have moved to a "one strike and you're out" attitude over the past few years. Your record, with even *one* criminal or DUI matter will cause you grief for the rest of your life - it IS your permanent record.

For example, Canada will deny admission to folks with a DUI (or criminal criminal record) unless you obtain "rehabilition" through their immigration department. Google "entering Canada with a DUI" for more. Several Pacific Rim countries - including Japan and Australia - ask specifically about convictions on their landing cards. For countries that require visas, many ask about arrests or convictions (the US is at least as strict for people who want to enter the US from abroad). Some even require disclosure of "pardoned" or "expunged" convictions.

Domestically, a growing percentage of companies run background checks on prospective employees and may deny employment to folks with arrests, convictions or DUI. Professional licensing in some states may be affected, depending on what the arrest/conviction is ("good moral character" clause). CBP may deny access to the Global Entry (trusted traveler) program.

Technically, one may have served their time, but it is never forgotten. Though one's rights may remain unaffected, one may lose access to privileges.

Again, not being judgemental, just stating facts. The message to others is "choose wisely".

 

[poadeleted20]

Technically, one may have served their time, but it is never forgotten. Though one's rights may remain unaffected, one may lose access to privileges.

Like this old story...

There once was a little boy who had a bad temper. His father gave him a bag of nails and told him that every time he lost his temper, he must hammer a nail into the back of the fence.

The first day the boy had driven 37 nails into the fence. Over the next few weeks, as he learned to control his anger, the number of nails hammered daily gradually dwindled down. He discovered it was easier to hold his temper than to drive those nails into the fence.

Finally the day came when the boy didn't lose his temper at all. He told his father about it and the father suggested that the boy now pull out one nail for each day that he was able to hold his temper. The days passed and the young boy was finally able to tell his father that all the nails were gone.

The father took his son by the hand and led him to the fence. He said, "You have done well, my son, but look at the holes in the fence. The fence will never be the same. When you say things in anger, they leave a scar just like this one. You can put a knife in a man and draw it out. It won't matter how many times you say I'm sorry, the wound is still there."

The 21st century reality is that even one DUI makes a hole in your fence that will never be patched over.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Like this old story...
The 21st century reality is that even one DUI makes a hole in your fence that will never be patched over.

Very true. Also important to consider are mothers against drunk drivers who, after losing a child or other relative to a drunken driver monitor many court rooms and watch carefully the sentencing given. The airlines sometimes rehabs a pilot with an excellent flying record and many years in service provided they go thru intensive rehab. This is partly due to the money they have invested in this pilot and what it costs to hire another one, train them to their standards, etc. their are enough poor pilots roaming the sky's sober without adding drunks to the equation. Just check the FAA monthly accidents and some of the poor decisions made over and over by supposedly sober pilots.

 

[poadeleted20]

The airlines sometimes rehabs a pilot with an excellent flying record and many years in service provided they go thru intensive rehab. This is partly due to the money they have invested in this pilot and what it costs to hire another one, train them to their standards, etc.

I think it is more due to collective bargaining contractual requirements than it is due to financial considerations -- it is very expensive to keep a pilot on the payroll for a year while paying all his/her rehab expenses, not to mention the potential future liability if that pilot is ever involved in an accident. I suspect that at most nonunion airlines, it's "one strike and you're out", and hiring officials at three different airlines (two major, one regional) have told me "off the record" that one DUI in your record puts your resume at the bottom of the application pile.

 

[Brad Z]

You probably should have ended your post before you added the following commentary:

Slightly unrelated - reading the other posts on this medical forum about DUIs and all the dirty laundry that stays with people is frustrating to read. I am of the opinion that one DUI - particularly far in the past - does not make someone a risk to aviation. I, too, am of the opinion that the penalties that come with a DUI are absolutely more to generate money for the local municipalities than encourage safety. I lost my license for 3 months, which is minimal in the larger scheme of things. I had to pay not just a fine, but a multitude of "fees" to get reinstated again, on top of $1000/year in additional insurance - directly to the state, not even my insurance carrier. And, to compound matters, in my state there are no exceptions to the driving restriction so my ability to get to work was severely impacted. None of this is to say 'woe is me', because I fully accepted all the consequences and learned a sobering lesson (even though I fully knew getting in the car when I felt ok to drive was a bad calculated risk)

If I were applying for an ATP job at a carrier in 3, 5, 7 years down the road with a clean record aside from that "oops" DUI mistake I made, should that disqualify me? I don't think so. Does that make a candidate with 2000 hours less than me, but no DUI, more qualified? I don't think so.

Today society 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. That's not to minimize the DUI incident itself and the punishements that go with it. I absolutely do not condone the offense and believe there need to be punishments. But recovering from a single lapse of judgement long after you've paid your debt to society (and the local municipality coffers) is unreasonable, IMO.

I'm sorry that the law infringes on your lifestyle, but that's the way it is. If you don't like it, you can campaign for a state elected office on a platform of loosening up drinking and driving laws.

Fact is, you stated you read all of the previous posts and saw the responses. Did you honestly expect that going to get a sympathetic response, unlike the folks before you?

The reality of life for a pilot who has aviation career ambitions is zero tolerance if you're driving. Going to dinner and have a beer or a glass of wine? Fine, as long as you're not driving. There are plenty of folks--myself included-- that have done otherwise, but the moment you get stopped by a LEO, you'll be trying to explain yourself that you only had "one or two beers"...a line cops hear all day and night long.

Plain and simple, I several years ago I decided that one or two beers wasn't worth the risk. I'm sure it's stupid...whatever...I don't want to risk it. Former FAA administrator Randy Babbitt learned the hard way that a few drinks is all it takes to loose your job. No thank you.

You'll also be further inconvienenced by having to say no to pot, X, blow, or whatever else might be offered to you at a party. If you can't handle that, you may wish to consider work in the restaurant industry or become a rafting guide.

I sincerely wish you luck. I'm assuming you're a younger guy. Had I been in your shoes in my twenties, I probably would have felt the same way if it had happened to me. Now that I'm fourty, I have a little bit more perspective and realize that actions of my past have consequences, years later...like the other day I was submitting an application for a federal job that required me to submit my undergraduate transcripts. Needless to say, it's embarrassing that my crappy academic performance from my teens haunts me more than twenty years later.

 

[radioguy01]

Have you ever driven over the speed limit? That's a lapse of judgement that puts my family at risk, too.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811751.pdf

Of the roughly 30,000 fatalities in 2011, 4705 were due to speeding where alcohol wasn't a factor. Another 3331 fatalities were related to distracted drivers using a cell phone.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/distracted_driving/

So, between Speeding and Cell phone distracted driving combined, they make up about 1000 fewer fatalities than DUI's did in 2011. They both carry fines and, with repeated offenses, loss of driving privileges. They represent reckless behavior to one's self and others around them. Yet, you can get numerous speeding tickets in your lifetime - quite a few actually - and continue to legally drive.

At the end of the day, DUI, speeding, texting all have the risk of killing yourself and other people. But we treat DUI's as though they the devil of all violations, and in some states a felony. In my state (NJ), 2 DUI's within 10 years is a suspended license for a year and jail time. 2 speeding tickets within 10 years is a couple hundred bucks in fines and increased insurance premiums. What consolation is that to the family who just lost their teenage daughter to a sober, reckless, speeding driver who had a history of speeding tickets but not enough to lose his license?

So, given your logic of suggesting I shouldn't be allowed to drive or fly again for my DUI, would you also advocate for first offenders of those non-DUI motor vehicle violations also be stripped of driving (and flying, if licensed) privileges forever?

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

 

[stratobee]

Give the guy a break. He's paid his debt to society, he messed up, he acknowledges he's made a mistake. He doesn't need 53 more moral lectures all over again. Answer his question or don't.

 

[steingar]

We as a society have become particularly intolerant of impaired vehicular operation. I actually sympathize with some of the OP's thoughts (though agree thoroughly with the other posters, the OP should have known what was coming and acted accordingly). Unfortunately many law enforcement agencies have turned this intolerance into a scheme for revenue generation, and have decided that some of our constitutional rights are far too inconvenient. Sadly, the SCOTUS has agreed with them. I suspect abrogation of constitutionally protected freedoms is going to do far more harm to us than folks killed by drunk drivers.

 

[deltaindia]

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

Radioguy - with respect, you are completely missing my point. I made it clear that I fully acknowledge what I did was wrong, and that I sucked it up and accepted the consequences leveled to me by the judge, as well as the nontangible things like fallout with family, friends and work due to not being able to drive. I never inferred that it's ok to get behind the wheel after consuming any alcohol, so there's no way I could be trying to rationalize otherwise, as you suggest.

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.

@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.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

We as a society have become particularly intolerant of impaired vehicular operation. I actually sympathize with some of the OP's thoughts (though agree thoroughly with the other posters, the OP should have known what was coming and acted accordingly). Unfortunately many law enforcement agencies have turned this intolerance into a scheme for revenue generation, and have decided that some of our constitutional rights are far too inconvenient. Sadly, the SCOTUS has agreed with them. I suspect abrogation of constitutionally protected freedoms is going to do far more harm to us than folks killed by drunk drivers.

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. A big problem here is that many lawyers " specialize" in drunken driver offenses. Many drunk drivers are repeat offenders. I've met several with more than 4 DWI,s on their record, still driving legally. If you ask your state police what they see on the roads, what accidents they have gone to, what they have seen, you get the picture.

 

[jesse]

The guy has his opinion. I have my opinion too. We all do. He isn't saying that he's not going to handle this properly. Cut him a break guys.

 

[deltaindia]

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. A big problem here is that many lawyers " specialize" in drunken driver offenses. Many drunk drivers are repeat offenders. I've met several with more than 4 DWI,s on their record, still driving legally. If you ask your state police what they see on the roads, what accidents they have gone to, what they have seen, you get the picture.

We're headed in the direction of less tolerance for DUI's. Last year the NTSB recommended that the limits be reduced from .08 to .05. In the years since it was reduced from .10 to .08, the DUI fatalities have decreased so there is a solid correlation. It leads me to believe that once one or two states lower their limits to .05, the rest will follow. Never mind that, aside from continuing reduction in fatalities, the states and municipalities (and lawyers) will make more money.

 

[Brad Z]

We're headed in the direction of less tolerance for DUI's. Last year the NTSB recommended that the limits be reduced from .08 to .05. In the years since it was reduced from .10 to .08, the DUI fatalities have decreased so there is a solid correlation. It leads me to believe that once one or two states lower their limits to .05, the rest will follow. Never mind that, aside from continuing reduction in fatalities, the states and municipalities (and lawyers) will make more money.

Or people will just stop drinking and driving.

 

[Irish_Armada]

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

And you are simply avoiding his legitimate points. And he didn't include old drivers, talentless drivers, drivers with distractions such as kids in the vehicle, etc. All increase the risk to you, your family, me, my family, etc while on the road. The level of moral turpitude assigned to one (having a drink) is a political result, don't be mistaken. If politically feasible, the DUI threshold would be 0.01%. Is that reasonable? Maybe in the simplistic black and white world you live in. And that's fine. But it doesn't make this guy an a-hole, nor does it make a bad driver one, or a sweet old lady who can hardly pass a safe driving test. Funny to watch a board of uber-libertarian pilots show the limits of their anti-gov't rantings.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Lots of study's have been done on drunken driving, much of it funded by corporations who have lost millions on time lost at work, calling in sick, lawsuits due to employees driving company vehicles drunk, on and on. The study's show that if you were caught driving drunk, it usually is not the first time you did it....but got away with it until you did not. The AMA considers alcoholism a disease rather than a moral lapse which is why many corporations have insurance to pay for employee rehabilitation in hopes of retaining an otherwise valuable employee. Airlines are only one of many corporations who try and help good employees. This includes many management types who are not in a union. The FAA has no idea if it's a one time offense or if the person has "a real problem" so they take no chances. It's good that they don't.

 

[Lawreston]

I'm late coming in on this thread, but I particularly like what Spike(wsuffa) wrote: "The message to others is "choose wisely."
Over several decades I've become somewhat well-known as a regional actor/singer. During the course of hundreds of production nights there have been 8 to 10 weeks of theatrical rehearsal nights leading up to opening night and the average two week run time; and after each rehearsal would be the likely cast "relaxer" at a favored gathering spot.
Now, I really like a good stiff Bacardi, 7-UP with a wedge of lime, or two or - - - -.
However, at referenced "relaxer," it never occurred. Each cast probably having actors with whom I'd not worked previously, I have to offer my actor's lament when asked why "you're not joining us for a drink."
"Sorry, but after working/playing all day and rushing into town for rehearsal I may be tired. All it would take is to mix fatigue factor, maybe not having eaten, with even one good "belt," and perhaps to get stopped because of weaving. I have too much time and dollars invested in an airplane and related pilot instruction to screw up the future because of a momentary misjudgment. Oh, waiter; another iced tea, please."
That I "choose wisely" has yet to cause a problem. You need to do so, and pay attention to the advisories which appeared above.

HR

 

[Brad Z]

If politically feasible, the DUI threshold would be 0.01%. Is that reasonable? Maybe in the simplistic black and white world you live in.

Well, for flying, it effectively is, considering consumption of any alcohol is prohibited within eight hours of flight. Do you think that's unreasonable? Cars operate closer together than airplanes.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

I'm late coming in on this thread, but I particularly like what Spike(wsuffa) wrote: "The message to others is "choose wisely."
Over several decades I've become somewhat well-known as a regional actor/singer. During the course of hundreds of production nights there have been 8 to 10 weeks of theatrical rehearsal nights leading up to opening night and the average two week run time; and after each rehearsal would be the likely cast "relaxer" at a favored gathering spot.
Now, I really like a good stiff Bacardi, 7-UP with a wedge of lime, or two or - - - -.
However, at referenced "relaxer," it never occurred. Each cast probably having actors with whom I'd not worked previously, I have to offer my actor's lament when asked why "you're not joining us for a drink."
"Sorry, but after working/playing all day and rushing into town for rehearsal I may be tired. All it would take is to mix fatigue factor, maybe not have eaten, with even one good "belt," and perhaps to get stopped because of weaving. I have too much time and dollars invested in an airplane and related pilot instruction to screw up the future because of a momentary misjudgment. Oh, waiter; another iced tea, please."
That I "choose wisely" has yet to cause a problem. You need to do so, and pay attention to the advisories which appeared above.

HR

Far too sensible an answer. Not to mention that the only reason he was set free was that the officer screwed up the test. He's really most fortunate if this occurred. They usually go to school for this and make very few mistakes.

 

[deltaindia]

Well, for flying, it effectively is, considering consumption of any alcohol is prohibited within eight hours of flight. Do you think that's unreasonable? Cars operate closer together than airplanes.

I think it should be more than 8 hours. I think the BAC should be 0 for pilots, too, instead less than .04.

The guy who goes out for dinner and segways into late night drinks til midnight may not be up to snuff 8 hours later. He will also likely be borderline or above the .04 limit too, but there aren't any sobriety checkpoints at the airport.

Generally, it takes 1.5 hours for the "average" body burn to off one drink (shot/glass of wine/12 oz beer). Have 6 drinks? Better wait 9 hours - at a minimum - to even consider flying. And so on...

 

[deltaindia]

Far too sensible an answer. Not to mention that the only reason he was set free was that the officer screwed up the test. He's really most fortunate if this occurred. They usually go to school for this and make very few mistakes.

I wasn't set free. The court still used the field test (walking/standing/eye tests) and his observations to determine intoxication, though they couldn't prove beyond the .08-.10 limits.

If the Alcotest was admissible at with the .11 reading, it still wouldn't be any different in the FAA's eyes, though. The state would have given me a higher fine, and longer loss of driving privileges.

 

[jesse]

I think it should be more than 8 hours. I think the BAC should be 0 for pilots, too, instead less than .04.

The guy who goes out for dinner and segways into late night drinks til midnight may not be up to snuff 8 hours later. He will also likely be borderline or above the .04 limit too, but there aren't any sobriety checkpoints at the airport.

Generally, it takes 1.5 hours for the "average" body burn to off one drink (shot/glass of wine/12 oz beer). Have 6 drinks? Better wait 9 hours - at a minimum - to even consider flying. And so on...

What about the guy that goes to a BBQ at noon, drinks one Miller 64, and then at 6pm decides he might want to go for a flight? He's obviously going to blow nothing and isn't under the influence of alcohol what-so-ever.

The time thing doesn't make sense to me at all. You are either intoxicated or not intoxicated and it can be tested so why have another metric?

 

[steingar]

I'm late coming in on this thread, but I particularly like what Spike(wsuffa) wrote: "The message to others is "choose wisely."
Over several decades I've become somewhat well-known as a regional actor/singer. During the course of hundreds of production nights there have been 8 to 10 weeks of theatrical rehearsal nights leading up to opening night and the average two week run time; and after each rehearsal would be the likely cast "relaxer" at a favored gathering spot.
Now, I really like a good stiff Bacardi, 7-UP with a wedge of lime, or two or - - - -.
However, at referenced "relaxer," it never occurred. Each cast probably having actors with whom I'd not worked previously, I have to offer my actor's lament when asked why "you're not joining us for a drink."
"Sorry, but after working/playing all day and rushing into town for rehearsal I may be tired. All it would take is to mix fatigue factor, maybe not having eaten, with even one good "belt," and perhaps to get stopped because of weaving. I have too much time and dollars invested in an airplane and related pilot instruction to screw up the future because of a momentary misjudgment. Oh, waiter; another iced tea, please."
That I "choose wisely" has yet to cause a problem. You need to do so, and pay attention to the advisories which appeared above.

HR

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.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Having one beer and flying is no big deal. Being drunk the night before, drinking until the A.M then flying at say 7 A.M. Is a whole other story. No one functions correctly under those conditions. Had the police done the test correctly and found this fellow to be drunk and it was up held, it would have been a sorry story. I think he's very fortunate. They can also insist on a blood test in some states. To say they are " picking on the poor public" is not true. It's been demanded by those who have lost family to drunks on the road. He has admitted his error which is great. Many have done that and gone on to kill someone later on.

 

[poadeleted20]

Give the guy a break. He's paid his debt to society, he messed up, he acknowledges he's made a mistake. He doesn't need 53 more moral lectures all over again. Answer his question or don't.

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.