Medical - Previosue DUI

[timwinters]

(Canada will deny entry to folks with a DUI)

Well, not exactly (at least if the story I was told below is accurate). I'm told that if you want to slip them a couple hundred dollars every time you go in then it's not a problem and that Canada is doing this as a retaliatory money making move in response to the US slapping all kinds of onerous BS requirements on Canada after 9/11 and they're not doing it as a matter of safety.

I have an attorney friend who does business in Canada and he goes to Ontario 3 to 4 times a year. He has a DWI from about 15 years ago. He told me he is required to buy a $250 work visa every time he enters Canada.

He just charges his client.

 

[JeffDG]

Well, not exactly (at least if the story I was told below is accurate). I'm told that if you want to slip them a couple hundred dollars every time you go in then it's not a problem and that Canada is doing this as a retaliatory money making move in response to the US slapping all kinds of onerous BS requirements on Canada after 9/11 and they're not doing it as a matter of safety.

I have an attorney friend who does business in Canada and he goes to Ontario 3 to 4 times a year. He has a DWI from about 15 years ago. He told me he is required to buy a $250 work visa every time he enters Canada.

He just charges his client.

Tell him to just get a NAFTA status, like Canadians who get a TN-1...good for 3 years at a shot. Apply with a letter at the border/airport.

 

[Doggtyred]

And Dave, Doc Bruce... thanks for a good discussion..

 

[Aztec Driver]

David,
Maybe this question was answered already, and it is purely educational, as I don't condone anyone doing this, but, if someone were to have a DUI expunged, is there still a record of the arrest?

In other words, if someone had a DUI, had it expunged, and then answered falsely that they had never had an alcohol related arrest, would the FAA be able to dig up the paperwork necessary to verify that something did happen?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

David,
Maybe this question was answered already, and it is purely educational, as I don't condone anyone doing this, but, if someone were to have a DUI expunged, is there still a record of the arrest?

In other words, if someone had a DUI, had it expunged, and then answered falsely that they had never had an alcohol related arrest, would the FAA be able to dig up the paperwork necessary to verify that something did happen?

Just a preliminary, and somewhat obscure, point - as a very general matter, if you've been convicted of something, you can't necessarily get it expunged or sealed. It really depends on the state the conviction is in - some states, for instance, don't allow DUI cases to be expunged or sealed if there's a conviction.

But, assuming that something can be expunged:

I'm honestly not sure of the answer to this question; a lot of it turns on what kind of data mining is done. The bottom line is that once a paper trail exists, you can presume it will always exist in some fashion. Anyway, I'll tell you what I know.

There are several levels of arrest "reporting." First is the local police department - the one that arrests you. Obviously, that PD has a record. The local PD reports to some kind of statewide agency - in Colorado, it's the Colo. Bureau of Investigation (CBI); every state has some version of it. CBI and its counterparts, in turn, report the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC), which is a nationwide criminal database run by the FBI. If its an alcohol conviction, the DMV/MVA probably has a copy, too.

So, there are three levels - local, state, and Federal - of criminal records. Keep in mind that there will also likely be records with the court, the prosecutor's office, maybe even a newspaper office (things like the police beat). A private database also might pick it up.

So, you get your case expunged. As part of that, the Court issues an order requiring the various state agencies to physically destroy their records (or seal them, in cases of "sealing"). Nothing can be done about something with a private entity, such as a newspaper or private database, because of 1st Amendment and Takings Clause issues.

If the records aren't destroyed, the various custodians are looking at serious sanctions - a lot of places make it a felony to disobey an order of expungment.

So, you can presume that the state agencies - local and state databases, prosecutors, courts, etc. - have complied and the record is gone.

The tricky part is with the NCIC and other Federal databases. State courts don't have the inherent authority to issue Federal officers orders when the officers are acting under Federal authority (and the Feds can't give orders to state officers absent Federal authority to do so, which is actually quite limited).

So, the question that I don't know the answer to is whether Congress has passed a law - or the FBI created a regulation - requiring the NCIC and related databases to abide by state expungment orders. I'd be surprised if that exists.

So, based on my limited knowledge, I would not be comfortable telling someone subject to a mandatory disclosure (FAA, investigation for a security clearance, etc.) that they were safe not disclosing something.

Like I said above, once the paper trail exists, you can never be sure if it's gone. Even if it's supposed to be - the bureaucratic machine is a juggernaut, and once it gets started you have a tough time reigning it in. A flag in one database triggers flags in 15 others, which might trigger another one or two, and so forth.

Here's the bottom line: it's never in your best interests to be dishonest. It will catch up to you. Especially when there are mechanisms in place that are there to catch lies.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

PS - sorry for the long posts.

 

[RJM62]

PS - sorry for the long posts.

Hey, you're a lawyer. Who would expect short posts?

At least they're good long posts.

-Rich

 

[JeffDG]

PS - sorry for the long posts.

I can tell you many anecdotes about stuff like this.

You hear stories in Canada all the time. Young person (18-19) gets busted for doing something stupid (like some pot). Convicted and moves on with life.

Then years later they decide that they wanna head to Vegas for a trip in a few months. OK, they've heard the horror stories about being denied entry to the US if you have a drug conviction on your record, so off they go and apply for a pardon to expunge their record. Unlike the US, such pardons of old offenses for which the sentence has been completely served are fairly routine, and it's granted.

So our friend shows up at the airport, and lo and behold, USCIS still has their conviction on file. However, now, they can't go into CPIC (Canadian version of NCIC) to get details because of the pardon, so they can't issue a waiver and tell the guy to just go home.

The moral of the story...1) Records exist forever, and 2) Sometimes expungement can do more harm than good...if the records are destroyed you're gonna have a heck of a time providing court records that it was a minor offense.

 

[bbchien]

David,
Maybe this question was answered already, and it is purely educational, as I don't condone anyone doing this, but, if someone were to have a DUI expunged, is there still a record of the arrest?

In other words, if someone had a DUI, had it expunged, and then answered falsely that they had never had an alcohol related arrest, would the FAA be able to dig up the paperwork necessary to verify that something did happen?

Like David writes, it depends on whether or not the state data tape went to the feds in the period of time between the arrest and the expungement.

Youse be screwed if it did, and you did not report.

 

[RJM62]

Like David writes, it depends on whether or not the state data tape went to the feds in the period of time between the arrest and the expungement.

Youse be screwed if it did, and you did not report.

Doc, seriously, don't they cut some slack in a case in which the airman honestly thought, based upon an attorney's bad advice, that the conviction had "disappeared" via expungement? Most people do trust their attorneys to know the law, and I find it rather depressing to think that FAA would screw an airman for an honest mistake.

I understand your reasoning about it being an administrative process. I just don't think that more than one out of ten ordinary people, upon being told by their attorneys that they no longer had to report an arrest / conviction, would say to themselves, "Except for purposes of an FAA medical, because it's an administrative process."

-Rich

 

[JeffDG]

Doc, seriously, don't they cut some slack in a case in which the airman honestly thought, based upon an attorney's bad advice, that the conviction had "disappeared" via expungement? Most people do trust their attorneys to know the law, and I find it rather depressing to think that FAA would screw an airman for an honest mistake.

I understand your reasoning about it being an administrative process. I just don't think that more than one out of ten ordinary people, upon being told by their attorneys that they no longer had to report an arrest / conviction, would say to themselves, "Except for purposes of an FAA medical, because it's an administrative process."

-Rich

But the problem is, the question doesn't ask about just convictions. It also asks about arrests.

 

[RJM62]

But the problem is, the question doesn't ask about just convictions. It also asks about arrests.

Yes, but I think an average person wouldn't think too deeply about that in the case of an expunged conviction. I think most people would simply believe it went away, including all record of the arrest, and that they now had a clean record.

I think it would save FAA and everyone else involved a lot of grief if they just inserted the clause, "including arrests for convictions that were later expunged, and arrests that did not lead to convictions," in the language on the form.

-Rich

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Yes, but I think an average person wouldn't think too deeply about that in the case of an expunged conviction. I think most people would simply believe it went away, including all record of the arrest, and that they now had a clean record.

I think it would save FAA and everyone else involved a lot of grief if they just inserted the clause, "including arrests for convictions that were later expunged, and arrests that did not lead to convictions," in the language on the form.

-Rich

I think this is an excellent idea.

At the same time, the FAA might have purposefully avoided language to this effect.

 

[bbchien]

Doc, seriously, don't they cut some slack in a case in which the airman honestly thought, based upon an attorney's bad advice, that the conviction had "disappeared" via expungement? Most people do trust their attorneys to know the law, and I find it rather depressing to think that FAA would screw an airman for an honest mistake.

I understand your reasoning about it being an administrative process. I just don't think that more than one out of ten ordinary people, upon being told by their attorneys that they no longer had to report an arrest / conviction, would say to themselves, "Except for purposes of an FAA medical, because it's an administrative process."

-Rich

Is the federal government not still going after Roman Polanski? Even though 30 years later the woman wants it dropped?

Rich, the change in wording on form GG was directly the result of Mr. Oberstar's efforts to detect each and every one. Omission is not something the docs can deal with. You get referred to the DOT Insp. General. Then your pilot cert. becomes "at risk". I've warned of this for about two years on all three boards....and here we are.

I just looked a guy who was a student pilot in 2005, who reported a DUI in 1975 on his first application in 2005. No big deal. But then he didn't report it in 2007. Today, I pointed out that he had to check the box "yes".

Lots of protestation but much reduced future pain. He wasn't blythe. Intention is pretty tough for the feds to prove, but now you're talking your own lawyer on a $5,000 retainer and $200+ per hour.

Ruh Roh, Rorge. I am beginning to understand the ones that move to Montana with lots of GUNS and ammo (I'm not saying it's right).

 

[RJM62]

Is the federal government not still going after Roman Polanski? Even though 30 years later the woman wants it dropped?

Rich, the change in wording on form GG was directly the result of Mr. Oberstar's efforts to detect each and every one. Omission is not something the docs can deal with. You get referred to the DOT Insp. General. Then your pilot cert. becomes "at risk". I've warned of this for about two years on all three boards....and here we are.

I just looked a guy who was a student pilot in 2005, who reported a DUI in 1975 on his first application in 2005. No big deal. But then he didn't report it in 2007. Today, I pointed out that he had to check the box "yes".

Lots of protestation but much reduced future pain. He wasn't blythe. Intention is pretty tough for the feds to prove, but now you're talking your own lawyer on a $5,000 retainer and $200+ per hour.

Ruh Roh, Rorge. I am beginning to understand the ones that move to Montana with lots of GUNS and ammo (I'm not saying it's right).

Yeah, I know what you mean. I don't particularly need the guns and ammo, but the solitude has a certain allure.

I think it was Plato who said that the biggest danger of a Republic was the risk of demagoguery overtaking reason, or something along those lines. I see that more and more these days. Oberstar's only one example. A certain senator from my state who shall remain nameless has elevated demagoguery into a high art form.

To me, common sense would say that if FAA wants airmen to report expunged convictions and the arrests that led to them, then just make that clear on the form. But perhaps David is right and they purposefully didn't do that. Why? Who knows. Maybe it's an attempt at a dime-store character assessment.

All I know is that I had occasion to visit my attorney today on a business matter, and I didn't run back to the office and try to prove him wrong, nor did I ponder possible contextual exceptions to the advice he gave me. I just assume that he knows the law. That's his job.

I've never had a criminal conviction expunged, but if I did, I would feel the same way: If my attorney told me I no longer had to report the arrest / conviction, then absent any explicit instructions to the contrary (whether on the form, on a board like this, or by instruction of the AME), I wouldn't report it, either. I would assume my lawyer knew what he was talking about.

Eh. I've never driven drunk in my life and certainly don't intend to start doing so now, so I guess its immaterial. It just surprises me that FAA takes such a hard line on what seems to me to be an innocent mistake based on legal advice that probably is correct in 99.9 percent of contexts.

-Rich

 

[Doggtyred]

I think it would save FAA and everyone else involved a lot of grief if they just inserted the clause, "including arrests for convictions that were later expunged, and arrests that did not lead to convictions," in the language on the form.

-Rich

But... an arrest is not a conviction, nor an adjudication of guilt. Its the arresting officers attestation that you've violated a law severely enough that your arrest is warranted. You still are entitled to due process and to have your day in court.

If you are found not guilty/ not convicted then you have nothing to be ashamed of, but nothing to report.

While its the overwhelming exception (in my opinion) rather than the norm, there are the occasional police officers who dont do their homework, or worse, LIE, to make their case.. We've incarcerated and executed folks as a result of these miscarriages of justice.

I have a BIG problem with any requirement to report an arrest for which there is no conviction.

I've kept silent on the whole expunction/sealing thing, but the states don't always follow their own rules either.. Texas Board of Nurse Examiners wants to know it all.. if you claim none (yet have an expunction) and their find it somewhere somehow, its considered a deceptive response and dealt with harshly.

Deferred adjudication... expunction... dont let anyone fool you.. its ALWAYS there.. it NEVER goes away. Someone can always find it.. and hang it around your neck..

 

[Ted]

I already know of at least a dozen pilots who are flying without medicals and AFAIK none of them have been caught and all this will do is exacerbate that situation.

Here in the midwest, ramp checks are pretty much non-existant. I also spent a lot of time in GA and AL and actually most of the "renegade" pilots that I know are down there.

I'm not condoning any of this mind you. Just sayin'.....

Pilots by our nature tend to be renegades and many won't let a little inconvenience like not having a medical keep them on the ground.

That's what I was thinking. If you're just doing Part 91 stuff in an area where getting ramp checked is unlikely, what's to stop you? Doubly so if you only fly VFR.

Not condoning nor agreeing, just saying I could see where a number of people would have that mindset. I can think of a number of places where it would work just fine. Around here I know several people who've lost their medicals and then proceeded to be law abiding citizens, but then again people who do otherwise I wouldn't suspect would advertise it.

 

[wsuffa]

Is the federal government not still going after Roman Polanski? Even though 30 years later the woman wants it dropped?

Rich, the change in wording on form GG was directly the result of Mr. Oberstar's efforts to detect each and every one. Omission is not something the docs can deal with. You get referred to the DOT Insp. General. Then your pilot cert. becomes "at risk". I've warned of this for about two years on all three boards....and here we are.

I just looked a guy who was a student pilot in 2005, who reported a DUI in 1975 on his first application in 2005. No big deal. But then he didn't report it in 2007. Today, I pointed out that he had to check the box "yes".

Lots of protestation but much reduced future pain. He wasn't blythe. Intention is pretty tough for the feds to prove, but now you're talking your own lawyer on a $5,000 retainer and $200+ per hour.

Ruh Roh, Rorge. I am beginning to understand the ones that move to Montana with lots of GUNS and ammo (I'm not saying it's right).

As Tom Ridge put it this morning in a talk he gave to a forum I attended: "The politicians and political process do not understand 'risk management' - all they understand is trying to remove risk entirely." And that's what we have driving this: politicians trying to remove all risk.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...And that's what we have driving this: politicians trying to remove all risk.

Can you blame them? Can you imagine the next time a plane has an emergency landing on a beach in winter, kills a runner, and it turns out the pilot had a DUI when he was 23? How about a conviction for possession of cocaine? Or distribution?

It's hard for me to place blame solely on the shoulders of politicians, when there are vocal members of the public (note that I don't say "majority" - a vocal minority seems to have more effect in our country than a silent majority) who would be out with pitchforks and torches over such an incident.

Whaddya mean you can fly a plane if you've had a DUI? Whaddya mean coke addicts can fly airplanes? Whaddya mean? Whaddya mean? I never go outside of my house because a cloud might fall on me, and now you're telling me that drunk coke addicts can fly?

As you (I think), along with others, have repeatedly and correctly pointed out - we're moving to a "zero risk" society. I don't want to say "zero tolerance," because we tolerate all kinds of things. But it doesn't seem that we tolerate the risk associated with the ordinary course of life very well.

Nobody wants to die before their time. But do I, say, not go skiing because, while I'm driving, a rock might tumble down a cliff, hit the driver's side of my car while I'm going 65 mph, and kill me? Of course not. But I know a surprising number of people who are scared of that very thing - to the point that they shape their lives around it.

 

[wsuffa]

Can you blame them? Can you imagine the next time a plane has an emergency landing on a beach in winter, kills a runner, and it turns out the pilot had a DUI when he was 23? How about a conviction for possession of cocaine? Or distribution?

It's hard for me to place blame solely on the shoulders of politicians, when there are vocal members of the public (note that I don't say "majority" - a vocal minority seems to have more effect in our country than a silent majority) who would be out with pitchforks and torches over such an incident.

Whaddya mean you can fly a plane if you've had a DUI? Whaddya mean coke addicts can fly airplanes? Whaddya mean? Whaddya mean? I never go outside of my house because a cloud might fall on me, and now you're telling me that drunk coke addicts can fly?

As you (I think), along with others, have repeatedly and correctly pointed out - we're moving to a "zero risk" society. I don't want to say "zero tolerance," because we tolerate all kinds of things. But it doesn't seem that we tolerate the risk associated with the ordinary course of life very well.

Nobody wants to die before their time. But do I, say, not go skiing because, while I'm driving, a rock might tumble down a cliff, hit the driver's side of my car while I'm going 65 mph, and kill me? Of course not. But I know a surprising number of people who are scared of that very thing - to the point that they shape their lives around it.

And David, that is exactly what's become wrong with America. (Land of the regulated, home of the scared).

You think the founders of this country went for zero risk? The pioneers and explorers? The folks the fought for freedom (it's not free, remember?) ? Not a chance.

No, we've had a series of politicians that believe that all risk should be taken out of life of the citizens.... and they know that the more "afraid" they make us the more dependent we become on our benevolent "leaders" to tell us how and when to act. The parties play off each other on this: the R side tells us how scary the world is, and the D side thinks we have to be protected from every bloody thing. Even in my lifetime I've seen it happen. Folks are not allowed to act in their own rational self-interest.... we have to have the government "protect us". You are correct that part of this is driven by the public, who in turn are driven by fear mongering and hollow promises of "protection" by the government. I see the US government as having a worse protection racket than the mob ever did.

Problem is, it's impossible to remove all risk. Even Tom Ridge admits that (interesting that even he, the initial #2 at DHS, gets repeatedly pulled aside by TSA when flying commercially - I think he said at least 2 dozen times in the last year or so). And trying to go too far to eliminate risk in many cases causes more risk.

Anyone in business understands about managing risk and taking appropriate (and prudent) risks for their business. Pols and goverment don't understand risk management, they understand zero risk - instead we get a one-size-fits-all, lowest common denominator solution. Yes, we need more people with real-world experience in elected office and government. It ain't going to happen.

/soapbox off

 

[Everskyward]

No, we've had a series of politicians that believe that all risk should be taken out of life of the citizens.... and they know that the more "afraid" they make us the more dependent we become on our benevolent "leaders" to tell us how and when to act. The parties play off each other on this: the R side tells us how scary the world is, and the D side thinks we have to be protected from every bloody thing. Even in my lifetime I've seen it happen.

But is it really the politicians that started it or was is the people? I knew plenty of people who worried about everything even when I was a kid. I think it's a question of the chicken or the egg and I don't think you can blame it all on politicians. They definitely use it as a selling point but so do many, many businesses.

 

[RJM62]

But is it really the politicians that started it or was is the people? I knew plenty of people who worried about everything even when I was a kid. I think it's a question of the chicken or the egg and I don't think you can blame it all on politicians. They definitely use it as a selling point but so do many, many businesses.

I think it's the politicians more than the people, frankly. They stir up unwarranted fears because fear is their most potent weapon. Keep the people afraid enough and they'll tolerate almost any insult to their rights. This has been true for all of recorded history.

When Corey Lidle screwed the pooch over the East River, a certain Senator who will remain nameless lost no time in grabbing a soapbox and trying to turn the tragedy to his own political advantage. He was effectively shut up when Mayor Bloomberg (a pilot himself, and a good one) warned against paying too much attention to uninformed politicians shooting their mouths off without knowing what they were talking about -- in words not much gentler than the ones I just used.

The Senator got the message and shut up.

I personally have little tolerance for drunk driving. It is dumb, dangerous, and completely avoidable. I don't know anyone nowadays who would refuse a guest the use of their sofa rather than let him or her drive home tipsy, nor any bartender who wouldn't call a cab -- at the bar's expense -- to take a drunken patron home. There's just no reason to drive drunk. At least none that I can think of.

That doesn't mean that I would deny people a second chance. We all have our weaknesses, we've all made our respective mistakes, and we've all done our share (or more) of icky things. Like a Friend of mine once said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." So to me, the prospect of living in a world that has abandoned its belief in the human capacity for change is a scary one. Once we lose that, we're all in trouble.

I personally think the FAA is right in the way it handles these cases. Any previous arrest for a DWI / DUI warrants a closer look, in my opinion. I would also favor a stipulation that such an airman have a BAC of zero when flying, not 0.04. (That always struck me as odd, incidentally. If one obeys the eight-hour rule, how could he still have a 0.04 BAC eight hours later? He'd have to have been pickled.)

My only objection is that they don't just come out and say clearly and unambiguously that expungements, sealed records, and so forth don't apply. That's the rule, and its all fine and good. But be clear about it from the get-go, for goodness sake.

-Rich

 

[RJM62]

As an aside, all of the young drivers in my family get a greeting card from me when they first get their licenses. It contains another card, signed by me, that promises a free ride home from anywhere if they've been drinking, along with a promise of no lecture to follow. A few of them have taken me up on it over the years, and have been surprised when rather than chiding them, I commended them on their maturity and good judgment.

-Rich

 

[jesse]

nor any bartender who wouldn't call a cab -- at the bar's expense -- to take a drunken patron home.

Maybe in New York - but that sure the hell wouldn't happen in the midwest. The last taxi I took home cost me like $35. The place wouldn't make any money.

I personally think the FAA is right in the way it handles these cases. Any previous arrest for a DWI / DUI warrants a closer look, in my opinion. I would also favor a stipulation that such an airman have a BAC of zero when flying, not 0.04. (That always struck me as odd, incidentally. If one obeys the eight-hour rule, how could he still have a 0.04 BAC eight hours later? He'd have to have been pickled.)

Because there isn't much influence below a 0.04 and you can't just set it at 0.00 because a lot of things could equal 0.00001.

Being between 0.00 and 0.04 after 8 hours could easily happen. Being above 0.04 after 8 hours happens too. Of course, if you drank that much, you probably don't feel like flying...

 

[Trapper John]

Anyone in business understands about managing risk and taking appropriate (and prudent) risks for their business. Pols and goverment don't understand risk management, they understand zero risk - instead we get a one-size-fits-all, lowest common denominator solution. Yes, we need more people with real-world experience in elected office and government. It ain't going to happen.

/soapbox off

Oh, I think the politicians understand risk management with respect to their reelection goals. Beyond that, not so much.


Trapper John

 

[Ted]

I can't see it happening in NYC, either. Them cabs are expensive, and the bars wouldn't make any money, as Jesse stated.

The thing is, in NYC most people are already expecting to take a bus/subway/cabin the first place. Why would you drive to the bar when you wouldn't drive for any other reason?

 

[RJM62]

I've seen bartenders call cabs for patrons in NYC. I have no idea what kind of arrangement they had with the cab companies, or if they expected that the patron would eventually reimburse them, but I know I've seen it done.

There may be some law in NYS that holds bartenders and bars partially liable for damages if a drunk gets into an accident after they leave the bar. I know they were batting it around some years ago. I don't know if it was ever passed.

-Rich

 

[JeffDG]

I've seen bartenders call cabs for patrons in NYC. I have no idea what kind of arrangement they had with the cab companies, or if they expected that the patron would eventually reimburse them, but I know I've seen it done.

There may be some law in NYS that holds bartenders and bars partially liable for damages if a drunk gets into an accident after they leave the bar. I know they were batting it around some years ago. I don't know if it was ever passed.

-Rich

Just because the bartender calls the cab doesn't mean the bar picks up the tab...they just might be helping the patron out by getting them a ride, which the patron would then pay for themselves.

 

[Everskyward]

Maybe in New York - but that sure the hell wouldn't happen in the midwest. The last taxi I took home cost me like $35. The place wouldn't make any money.

It would probably cost in the $100 range or more to take a taxi to my house, that is if they would go there at all.

 

[Everskyward]

I think it's the politicians more than the people, frankly. They stir up unwarranted fears because fear is their most potent weapon. Keep the people afraid enough and they'll tolerate almost any insult to their rights. This has been true for all of recorded history.

I'm going to disagree and say it's the politicians reacting to what they perceive the people want. Whenever an incident happens (not just aviation) there are always people who say, "Something's gotta be done about that!" The politicians pander to these people because they want to get reelected. If the majority of people would say, "doing something about that is pointless" I doubt that they would.

 

[wsuffa]

I'm going to disagree and say it's the politicians reacting to what they perceive the people want. Whenever an incident happens (not just aviation) there are always people who say, "Something's gotta be done about that!" The politicians pander to these people because they want to get reelected. If the majority of people would say, "doing something about that is pointless" I doubt that they would.

And I'd disagree with your view.

Politicians set themselves up to be reelected by making the citizens dependent on them. IF they make folks think that they're "protecting" the citizens, then they go and make their case during the election period. Nothing new here, Joe McCarthy made quite a name for himself "protecting" us from commies. By pretending to "protect" folks, they're aiming for re-election. The R party made a science of it after 9/11.

It's all about semantics. I shake my head every time I go through a store and see a sign that starts (or ends) "for your protection".... it's usually attached to a surveillance camera system or (in the case of Fry's, Sam's Club & Costco) to checking reciepts as you exit the store. They're not "protecting" you at all, and you still shop there.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

... Whenever an incident happens (not just aviation) there are always people who say, "Something's gotta be done about that!" ....

Along these lines, I think it's worth keeping in mind that the "squeaky wheel gets the grease."

How many of people write letters, make phone calls, etc., when they're satisfied with what the government, or a particular politician, has done? How many people write letters, make phone calls, etc., when they're dissatisfied with what the goverment, or a particular politician, has done?

Thus, if you're a politician, I suppose it could appear as if people are dissatisfied all the time....

 

[Everskyward]

Politicians set themselves up to be reelected by making the citizens dependent on them. IF they make folks think that they're "protecting" the citizens, then they go and make their case during the election period. Nothing new here, Joe McCarthy made quite a name for himself "protecting" us from commies. By pretending to "protect" folks, they're aiming for re-election. The R party made a science of it after 9/11.

But if the majority of people didn't buy into those views the tactic wouldn't work.

 

[RJM62]

Just because the bartender calls the cab doesn't mean the bar picks up the tab...they just might be helping the patron out by getting them a ride, which the patron would then pay for themselves.

Quite possible. Or the patron may be a "regular" who will reimburse the barkeep.

 

[Everskyward]

Along these lines, I think it's worth keeping in mind that the "squeaky wheel gets the grease."

How many of people write letters, make phone calls, etc., when they're satisfied with what the government, or a particular politician, has done? How many people write letters, make phone calls, etc., when they're dissatisfied with what the goverment, or a particular politician, has done?

Thus, if you're a politician, I suppose it could appear as if people are dissatisfied all the time....

Good point.

 

[JeffDG]

Quite possible. Or the patron may be a "regular" who will reimburse the barkeep.

Or a regular who the bartender knows they've made a bucketload of money off of and it's worth it to keep him happy!

 

[RJM62]

Maybe in New York - but that sure the hell wouldn't happen in the midwest. The last taxi I took home cost me like $35. The place wouldn't make any money.


Because there isn't much influence below a 0.04 and you can't just set it at 0.00 because a lot of things could equal 0.00001.

Being between 0.00 and 0.04 after 8 hours could easily happen. Being above 0.04 after 8 hours happens too. Of course, if you drank that much, you probably don't feel like flying...

Heck, I don't think I'd feel like breathing...

 

[RJM62]

Or a regular who the bartender knows they've made a bucketload of money off of and it's worth it to keep him happy!

and alive.

 

[colohan]

There may be some law in NYS that holds bartenders and bars partially liable for damages if a drunk gets into an accident after they leave the bar. I know they were batting it around some years ago. I don't know if it was ever passed.

When I was a grad student in PA I ran some CS grad student parties on campus. To serve alcohol we had to go through some liability training. Part of this training was learning that under PA law if someone got drunk off of beer we gave them, drove home, and killed someone, then:

a) the school was likely liable
b) so was the person who organized the party, personally
c) so was the person who served the beer, personally

Don't know how "true" this was, but we had to sign all sorts of papers acknowledging we learned this in our training.

Chris

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

When I was a grad student in PA I ran some CS grad student parties on campus. To serve alcohol we had to go through some liability training. Part of this training was learning that under PA law if someone got drunk off of beer we gave them, drove home, and killed someone, then:

a) the school was likely liable
b) so was the person who organized the party, personally
c) so was the person who served the beer, personally

Don't know how "true" this was, but we had to sign all sorts of papers acknowledging we learned this in our training.

Chris

A lot of places have laws that are similar to that. They're called "Dramshop Acts."

Some places are more permissive; some are more restrictive.