I have a felony conviction question concerning medical certificate

@FullHeartedly -- something else you might be getting mixed up.... the difference between criminal law and administrative law. What you have argued for in this thread and the other DUI thread is the former, which may be correct in many other areas of life other than flying in the USofA. But the FAA is the latter, so the rules as they apply to medical certification are very different.

As Nate (@denverpilot) explained in the other thread, the FAA isn't as much interested that you were caught in the past, but what is going on with you now with regards to alcohol, especially your psychological wiring. This is why the HIMS doctors must be involved.

So we get it that your particular incidents were expunged. But please get from us that for the FAA and your situation, there is way more to it than just "the record was expunged." Continuing to declare "but it was expunged!" will still have the FAA saying, "That's nice, but we still need the required tests results from those HIMS psychologists before we can process your application."

They are not singling you out or creating an unfair process. Many of the FAA rules/refs/processes are written in blood. Because they didn't have the right preventative measure in place, people died. So the process of asking you to prove how alcohol (or any other substance abuse) factors into your life is their means of protecting you and others.

It's said that life is the set of consequences that result from our decisions and choices. That you must take these additional difficult and potentially very expensive steps to achieve your desire to fly an airplane is a consequence of your choice to drink excessively when you were younger.

Continuing to complain about it amongst us isn't going to change your require path. What will impress us more is you acknowledging what must be done, doing it, and coming out the other end successfully.
 
flyingron said:
You are deluded. That is an incomplete paraphrase of the meaning of expungement NOT a definition. Even in California where DUI expunction is possible, it remains on the driver record and in certain criminal records such that it can be used to enhance penalties on subsequent convictions. Again as you have been told already, there are times that inquiries about expunged convictions can INDEED be made and 18v on your medical application is indeed one of these.
Click to expand...


Ah, I'm deluded. Nice to know. I'm only pointing out the legalities of what an expungement or expunction qualifies, not what it has to do with anything federal like the FAA. That's all. I'm here because I don't know the laws and/or regulations of the FAA. So if I'm asked on the questionnaire, I shall check the box, deluded. I think "delusional" falls in the ranks of schizophrenia as they are both mental disorders, which is a disqualifying factor too. Thanks for your efforts in helping me out and your input.

I've gathered that it's about what @wsuffa said, "moral turpitude".

I need to line up my ducks and get all my documentation in order, see a HIMS doctor and get an evaluation or phych eval, or whatever is required; I have all my notes in order now, hopefully.
 
FullHeartedly said:
...Why else would a judge grant expungement if it doesn't mean anything?
Click to expand...
Was it a federal judge? I'm no legal expert, but I don't think state judges have jurisdiction over federal matters.
 
AggieMike88 said:
@FullHeartedly -- something else you might be getting mixed up.... the difference between criminal law and administrative law. What you have argued for in this thread and the other DUI thread is the former, which may be correct in many other areas of life other than flying in the USofA. But the FAA is the latter, so the rules as they apply to medical certification are very different.

As Nate (@denverpilot) explained in the other thread, the FAA isn't as much interested that you were caught in the past, but what is going on with you now with regards to alcohol, especially your psychological wiring. This is why the HIMS doctors must be involved.

So we get it that your particular incidents were expunged. But please get from us that for the FAA and your situation, there is way more to it than just "the record was expunged." Continuing to declare "but it was expunged!" will still have the FAA saying, "That's nice, but we still need the required tests results from those HIMS psychologists before we can process your application."

They are not singling you out or creating an unfair process. Many of the FAA rules/refs/processes are written in blood. Because they didn't have the right preventative measure in place, people died. So the process of asking you to prove how alcohol (or any other substance abuse) factors into your life is their means of protecting you and others.

It's said that life is the set of consequences that result from our decisions and choices. That you must take these additional difficult and potentially very expensive steps to achieve your desire to fly an airplane is a consequence of your choice to drink excessively when you were younger.

Continuing to complain about it amongst us isn't going to change your require path. What will impress us more is you acknowledging what must be done, doing it, and coming out the other end successfully.
Click to expand...

@AggieMike88
Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough comment. It's true, I was confused, very much. But after asking and thankfully getting replies I learned some valuable key words, like "HIMS doctor" and "evaluation with HIMS". These are useful insights and what I was fishing for.

As a software engineer I'm familiar with jargon and the dilemmas of not knowing how to ask the right questions due to lack of knowledge in very specific areas of study. Knowing what question to ask is the key in finding the correct answer. That's where only experience and education comes in handy, especially when doing research.

I have a friend who works for a group of lawyers in a DA's office and she mentioned expungement; I went forward with it. In my case, now, I can see it's not REALLY helpful in the eyes of the FAA. I see that now.

Next steps:
  • My next step is to find a qualified HIMS doctor specialized in AME for FAA.
  • Receive good findings in bill of health regarding alcohol abuse, which I know I will get because alcohol isn't my lifestyle (different at age 21 and 22 of course, I'm now over 40).

So thank you! Much appreciated.
 
Palmpilot said:
Was it a federal judge? I'm no legal expert, but I don't think state judges have jurisdiction over federal matters.
Click to expand...

I've read up on this matter now. Expungement is expungement. It's what to know about expungement was the key. I Q&A'd this and found out my confusion; I was able to distinguish, with help, what expungement is and what it IS NOT. Expungement, as it turns out, doesn't close anything for the FAA to see; the shortest answer. Which means anything Federal related ins't invisible or sealed or undisclosed nor erased, but it helps in other non-safety related fields like getting my next gig in a software company where they are most likely having all-nighters and happy-hour excursions. See, happy hour excursions and parties are okay, just as long as you don't go to jail as a result via DUI or something worse :\
 
FullHeartedly said:
I learned some valuable key words, like "HIMS doctor" and "evaluation with HIMS". These are useful insights and what I was fishing for.
Click to expand...
An additional to add to your list.... expen$ive. We are told by Dr. Bruce and other airmen that the evaluations with the HIMS doctors have a price tag of several thousands of dollars and are not covered by any insurance program. So plan for this to be an out of pocket item.

One thing I don't know that has been told to you about Dr. Bruce and why you need to be working with him. As you can imagine, there are many components to a medical certificate application such as yours, and done haphazardly, one item, small or large, will cause your house to come tumbling down and you will be denied. When you contract with (and pay for services) with Dr. Bruce, he acts as your General Contractor, advising you and "your subcontractors" on what to do next and what documentation is required, and determining when your house is properly built and sound enough to submit to the FAA.

Working with him, he will make sure you're choosing the right "subcontractors" that the FAA knows and trusts. Thus preventing you from selecting just anyone, going through the examination, paying a large bucket of money, only to have the FAA tell you the documentation provided by your random guy doesn't work.

Additional insight to working with Dr. Bruce... be humble.....use both ears to listen, and only your mouth to ask clarifying questions. He and his services are very much in demand and he doesn't have time for folks "who know better", or won't listen, or who will argue with him.
 
Even a board certified psych is going to be expensive. It runs about $1200 for the standard PPP testing (that can be done by any qualified provider). The psychiatrist is going to have to spend as many sessions as he thinks is required to understand your situation. As pointed out, this is all "occupational" as the insurers are concerned: not covered.
 
FullHeartedly said:
The only thing I see in my case on this exerpt, would be "misrepresentation". What an expungement is as explained and defined to me, is "the legal right to answer no to the charges against me." Example DUI: DUI expunged. "Have you a prior DUI?", "No". That's the legality of the expungement. But everything seems to not hold up in this thread for the reason of expungement's legalality. Under expungement the reasons are, "in the interest of justice". Why else would a judge grant expungement if it doesn't mean anything?
Click to expand...

Thats all fine and dandy... The State Judge gives you a pass. The state judge's decision isn't binding on the federal government. And they have a record of the arrest, which isn't erased.
The expunction is meaningful if a civilian employer cant find it. But I know folks who get tripped up for professional licensing as well who fail to disclose "Have you ever been arrested... " for whatever reason, even expunction. With regards to the state and federal govt it never..ever.. goes away. In almost every circumstance with regards to state level professional licensing, the consequences are harsher for the nondisclosure than for the "expunged" offense.
 
AggieMike88 said:
@FullHeartedly -- something else you might be getting mixed up.... the difference between criminal law and administrative law. What you have argued for in this thread and the other DUI thread is the former, which may be correct in many other areas of life other than flying in the USofA. But the FAA is the latter, so the rules as they apply to medical certification are very different.

As Nate (@denverpilot) explained in the other thread, the FAA isn't as much interested that you were caught in the past, but what is going on with you now with regards to alcohol, especially your psychological wiring. This is why the HIMS doctors must be involved.

So we get it that your particular incidents were expunged. But please get from us that for the FAA and your situation, there is way more to it than just "the record was expunged." Continuing to declare "but it was expunged!" will still have the FAA saying, "That's nice, but we still need the required tests results from those HIMS psychologists before we can process your application."

They are not singling you out or creating an unfair process. Many of the FAA rules/refs/processes are written in blood. Because they didn't have the right preventative measure in place, people died. So the process of asking you to prove how alcohol (or any other substance abuse) factors into your life is their means of protecting you and others.

It's said that life is the set of consequences that result from our decisions and choices. That you must take these additional difficult and potentially very expensive steps to achieve your desire to fly an airplane is a consequence of your choice to drink excessively when you were younger.

Continuing to complain about it amongst us isn't going to change your require path. What will impress us more is you acknowledging what must be done, doing it, and coming out the other end successfully.
Click to expand...
Correct.

Put yourself in the feet of the bureaucrat that wants to go to work each day, do the work, and go home without being called on the carpet. Suppose they did something, oh like grant a medical certificate to someone with multiple DUIs, and that person went and flew an airplane while intoxicated, had a crash, and killed a few innocent people. Now said bureaucrat gets called on the carpet in Congress and reamed a new one. And told to change the regulations to keep it from ever happening again OR ELSE!

BasicMed took an act of Congress - literally - to get done. Why? Because the agency didn't want to take the risk on their own.

Look at the reaction of the elected politicians after the balloon crash in Texas that took several lives. They are pushing for medical regs on balloon pilots.

Also look at the fallout from Randy Babbitt, former FAA administrator, being arrested himself for DUI.

Like it or not, DUi is a hot button right now across the country. No, it didn't used to be that way - it was legal at one point (in my lifetime) to sip on a beer while driving in Texas. People racked up multiple DUIs in various states with little action. Etc. But that changed starting in the 1980's and has become a politically sensitive issue now (gun control is another, but we won't go there). There are several big organizations that developed grassroots support for more and more restrictions - to the point where one state (that I know of, there may be more) mandates ignition interlocks with the first conviction. One strike, you're out.

The law-and-order types pushed for enhanced penalties for certain things, and that played off against certain other political "cause" groups to create what is effectively "one strike and you're out" for many crimes. And traveling internationally with even a single conviction for a misdemeanor can mean at the minimum extra hassle, and at the most denial to travel - some of that is tit-for-tat with the US for it's policies, some are simply a different attitude on certain crimes.
 
DesertNomad said:
Yes, I think you are wrong. I never did and I am quite certain that I am not in a 5% group.
Click to expand...

Really, 18-21 college years, not getting overly drunk at a party? That's pretty normal for the population at large. Getting DUI's on the other hand is something else. That's getting into an automobile after said party... and getting caught.

By abuse, I don't mean binge drinking for 4 years. Abuse is abuse, even if for one night. But it doesn't make a person an alcoholic, nor earn one's self a title, "substance abuser" nor "addict". Spanking a child today, is "child abuse", but it doesn't make a person an abuser, although the action was abusive in nature.
 
Last edited:
AggieMike88 said:
Not familiar with the acronym in this context....
Click to expand...
Psychological and Psychiatric something or other. Essentially it's a core test battery of MMPI-I|, WAIS, prospective test (Rorhschach or the like), and something appropriate to your situation. This and a request for a psychiatric evaluation from a board certified or likely HIMS psychiatrist is the standard form letter from the FAA for review of anything that smells psych related.
 
FullHeartedly said:
Really, 18-21 college years, not getting overly drunk at a party? That's pretty normal for the population at large. Getting DUI's on the other hand is something else. That's getting into an automobile after said party... and getting caught.

By abuse, I don't mean binge drinking for 4 years. Abuse is abuse, even if for one night. But it doesn't make a person an alcoholic, nor earn one's self a title, "substance abuser" nor "addict". Spanking a child today, is "child abuse", but it doesn't make a person an abuser, although the action was abusive in nature.
Click to expand...

I think the thing about the DUI is there is an assumption (don't know if it is backed up by actual proven facts) that for every DUI caught there are dozens more not caught and therefore if you are caught the statistical odds are you have driven drunk many more times and not got caught therefore it is unlikely you are the one time partier who drove once and scared himself learned his lesson and never did it again. And so they assume you are a regular drunk driver. If your BAC is high then you have a tolerance and that pretty much sews it up.
 
FullHeartedly said:
Really, 18-21 college years, not getting overly drunk at a party?
Click to expand...

Nope. I've never been drunk. And my best friend, who is 20 years older than me and also a pilot (and who I have known since high school), has never been drunk either. I guess it depends on the circle of friends you hang out with. I was working during high school and college, did not live on campus, and can't recall attending a single party. My friends were older than me and I associated much more with people at work than at school.

People tend to think everyone is like themselves, so while you may have been a wild party guy in college, it does not mean that 95% of us were.
 
Last edited:
wsuffa said:
No, but there are presidential pardons. Good luck because those are very, very hard to get (unless, of course, you are politically connected).
Click to expand...
I'm not sure even a Presidential pardon will mean anything to the FAA
(*chortle*)
 
FullHeartedly said:
Amen!

Pre-existing condition. Null candidate and disqualified. No insurance for you. That's why I say, "Nope", to any and all questions a doctor asks me, "Have you ever had or done ...?" It stays in your doctor's visit jacket.

Most, and I mean upper 95% or more, of us as 18-21 have abused alcohol in a form or another. It's kinda a rights of passage am I wrong? So, if you are lucky (? not sure) enough to have "wheels" and dumb enough to use them after a party, then you are 100% screwed for life.
Click to expand...
Cite the reference for 95%. Most of us here were never in that category.
The other's that used their friend to drive them are 100% off the hook and 100% more qualified and 100% not alcohol abusers, right? So to get a DUI is to "be a drunk" 100%. That's good risk analysis :)

?
Click to expand...
Yup, that's how the FAA does risk analysis. People die, the FAA evaluates the chain of events and puts into place a new policy.
 
bbchien said:
See #22 below. This is FROM THE FAA.


You can be a convicted felon and hold a certificate unless it is one the thing TSA says you can't do. The FAA says even if you are convicted you must mark the block on the application. One year from the conviction and you can apply for a certificate. The TSA 1544.229 rule states the following:

Disqualifying criminal offenses. An individual has a disqualifying criminal offense if the individual has been convicted, or found not guilty by reason of insanity, of any of the disqualifying crimes listed in this paragraph in any jurisdiction during the 10 years before the date of the individual's application for authority to perform covered functions, or while the individual has authority to perform covered functions. The disqualifying criminal offenses are as follows:

(1) Forgery of certificates, false marking of aircraft, and other aircraft registration violation; 49 U.S.C. 46306.
(2) Interference with air navigation; 49 U.S.C. 46308.
(3) Improper transportation of a hazardous material; 49 U.S.C. 46312.
(4) Aircraft piracy; 49 U.S.C. 46502.
(5) Interference with flight crew members or flight attendants; 49 U.S.C. 46504.
(6) Commission of certain crimes aboard aircraft in flight; 49 U.S.C. 46506.
(7) Carrying a weapon or explosive aboard aircraft; 49 U.S.C. 46505.
(8) Conveying false information and threats; 49 U.S.C. 46507.
(9) Aircraft piracy outside the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States; 49 U.S.C. 46502(b).
(10) Lighting violations involving transporting controlled substances; 49 U.S.C. 46315.
(11) Unlawful entry into an aircraft or airport area that serves air carriers or foreign air carriers contrary to established security requirements; 49 U.S.C. 46314.
(12) Destruction of an aircraft or aircraft facility; 18 U.S.C. 32.
(13) Murder.
(14) Assault with intent to murder.
(15) Espionage.
(16) Sedition.
(17) Kidnapping or hostage taking.
(18) Treason.
(19) Rape or aggravated sexual abuse.
(20) Unlawful possession, use, sale, distribution, or manufacture of an explosive or weapon.
(21) Extortion.
(22) Armed or felony unarmed robbery.
(23) Distribution of, or intent to distribute, a controlled substance.
(24) Felony arson.
(25) Felony involving a threat.
(26) Felony involving --
(i) Willful destruction of property;
(ii) Importation or manufacture of a controlled substance;
(iii) Burglary;
(iv) Theft;
(v) Dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation;
(vi) Possession or distribution of stolen property;
(vii) Aggravated assault;
(viii) Bribery; or
(ix) Illegal possession of a controlled substance punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 1 year.
Click to expand...
What about 23 I’m dealing with this same situation but mine was for possession with intent and possession of a loaded firearm in the commence of a felony
 
AuntPeggy said:
I'm thinking any drug use will also need to be explained.

Long story short, flying is a privilege that puts the lives of others, even strangers, into the pilot's hands whenever they exercise that privilege. It is a very exclusive group and one of the best things about it is that we have all passed the scrutiny of highly critical observers.
Click to expand...
You mean… kind of like driving? I’d argue driving is more likely to injure the general public, and they let literally ANYONE drive…
 
Back
Top