Why the FAA is so tough on alcoholics...

P

PaulS

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
14,144
Location
New England
Display Name
Display name:
PaulS
Because the FAA is so tough, it is rare. I only know of one other case which dates back to about 2001. I'm sure there are others.
 
Can’t scare an addict. FAA being tough doesn’t really explain it.
 
Tools said:
Can’t scare an addict. FAA being tough doesn’t really explain it.
Click to expand...
https://www.ntsb.gov/Pages/Search.aspx?k=cen14FA163#k=cen14FA163#l=1033

This guy was just released from HIMS. That is partially why they are now, never released entirely from HIMS. And that is why tools is partially correct. Since you can't scare 'em, you have to week by week, verify that they are still on the wagon. The question of making sure they "get recovery vs abstinence alone" the the heart of this matter.

The lack of trust sucks, but with the recidivism rate up, what choice does FAA have? Revoke the program?
 
That’s scary stuff right there...after listening to the recordings and reading the toxicology report, does it not appear that this was pretty much a suicide mission rather than a relapse? HIMS wasn’t stopping that one.
 
So initial incident was in 2000. Reapplied in 2005 for medical and received in about a month. under today’s guidelines how long would have tha process taken.
back then was it just a if you did the crime you did the time and were able to reapply with little effort??
 
Was listening to a radio show while driving the other day listing off all the societal dangers of legalizing marijuana.

Host didn’t get it when someone called in and said alcohol was orders of magnitudes worse.

Host even said he didn’t consider two glasses of wine a night any problem.

Sat there in traffic thinking about “Normalization of deviance”...
 
The biggest problem I see with marijuana...besides making people sound like idiots, is there is no viable on the spot testing for it. Determining level of influence is subjective unless there is some testing I am not aware of. So how is it enforced in regards to driving or anything that requires motor function?
 
bflynn said:
Because the FAA is so tough, it is rare. I only know of one other case which dates back to about 2001. I'm sure there are others.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but at the same time that toughness (not just with regards to past substance abuse, but also mental illness) adversely effects those who are responsible.
 
ProjectInfinity1 said:
Perhaps, but at the same time that toughness (not just with regards to past substance abuse, but also mental illness) adversely effects those who are responsible.
Click to expand...

it’s the one kid on the playground who ruins it for everyone. Now the FAA takes its ball and goes home.
 
RussS said:
it’s the one kid on the playground who ruins it for everyone. Now the FAA takes its ball and goes home.
Click to expand...
^this.

Maybe it’s just me and I view things through the lends of my ASD.

But I was struck with what Denver said, particularly “Normalization of deviance”.

denverpilot said:
Was listening to a radio show while driving the other day listing off all the societal dangers of legalizing marijuana.

Host didn’t get it when someone called in and said alcohol was orders of magnitudes worse.

Host even said he didn’t consider two glasses of wine a night any problem.

Sat there in traffic thinking about “Normalization of deviance”...
Click to expand...


Ultimately at the end of the day, regardless if you or I think it’s appropriate, society views certain things as acceptable risks.

We allow 16 year olds behind the wheel after what is essentially maybe 20 hours of teaching, a dozen or so hours with practicing driving with their parents, along with a written test and a final road test.

Yet for all of that, car accident are among the top killers in that age bracket.
We know kid’s brains aren’t fully developed particularly in the risk taking department until the early to mid 20s. (One of my close friends was in a car with her friends late at night on an interstate, a heated conversation came up and the driver inadvertently put more pressure on the pedal to the point that there were nearly at 90 mph. The driver somehow loss control and side scraped a lane barrier and they spun out. Everyone escaped with minor injuries).

There is a reason car insurance is more expensive for men under 25 than it is for women.

Or hell even the elderly, I’d bet money everyone here has known atleast on person of advanced age who still stubbornly drove beyond what was probably safe. (Which also adversely effects the safety of everyone else on the road).

My point is those acceptable risks we take as a society inevitably turn into acceptable losses.

And that is my issue with the FAA’s take on this. They pursue a noble goal, to basically keep the skies, passengers, and crew safe by attempting to eliminate as many points of failure as possible before they happen.

However their policy of risk mitigation above all else, has blocked many people who otherwise would’ve likely been fine airmen/women from skies.

There should be a balance, between risk mitigation and not flatly denying people who genuinely enjoy aviation.
Sport Pilot cert seems to have not been the accident prone disaster it’s critics made it out to be. Only if it covered sr22s...
 
Tools said:
Can’t scare an addict. FAA being tough doesn’t really explain it.
Click to expand...

I tend to think that most people that get drunk that are pilots still wouldn't fly a plane even though they would get in a car. Hence that being the reason it is so low including how strict the FAA is.
 
For commercial operators , sure ... but for private pilots flying under the influence surely presents fewer risks to the general public than driving ... generally you just end up with the pilot itself ( and perhaps an unlucky passenger ) being found dead on some lonely field vs typical multi-vehicle mayhem you tend to get on heavily trafficked and close proximity roads.
 
Warmi said:
For commercial operators , sure ... but for private pilots flying under the influence surely presents fewer risks to the general public than driving ... generally you just end up with the pilot itself ( and perhaps an unlucky passenger ) being found dead on some lonely field vs typical multi-vehicle mayhem you tend to get on heavily trafficked and close proximity roads.
Click to expand...

Unless that lonely field isn't lonely and is filled with children playing.
 
bflynn said:
Unless that lonely field isn't lonely and is filled with children playing.
Click to expand...

Of course there is that possibility but statistically speaking, a drunken driven going 80 mph on a highway is more likely to cause collateral damage simply because of traffic density and proximity.
 
So, you’re saying the courts are too lenient with drunk drivers. I can buy that.
 
Operating any equipment in public while under the influence of a mind-altering substance should be prohibited. I think we all agree on that. The problem here is that alcohol related offences are treated more harsh than operating while drowsy/inattentive/high/etc, which cause far more problems than alcohol related incidents do. Why aren’t inattentive drivers punished as harsh as the drunks?

Meanwhile in Wisconsin your first DUI is a civil infraction! Grab the ticket and walk away!
 
RussS said:
The biggest problem I see with marijuana...besides making people sound like idiots, is there is no viable on the spot testing for it. Determining level of influence is subjective unless there is some testing I am not aware of. So how is it enforced in regards to driving or anything that requires motor function?
Click to expand...
I’d rather be hanging out with a stoned guy than a drunk
 
RussS said:
The biggest problem I see with marijuana...besides making people sound like idiots, is there is no viable on the spot testing for it. Determining level of influence is subjective unless there is some testing I am not aware of. So how is it enforced in regards to driving or anything that requires motor function?
Click to expand...


Pretty easy, really. Drunks run stop signs. Stoners just sit there waiting for the sign to turn green.
 
YooperMooney said:
The problem here is that alcohol related offences are treated more harsh than operating while drowsy/inattentive/high/etc, which cause far more problems than alcohol related incidents do. Why aren’t inattentive drivers punished as harsh as the drunks?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the facts support your claim wrt "far more problems"

of course, I've only looked at the 2005 NHTSA safety report, in that report about half the fatalies (occupants and non-occupants) are in crashes involving alcohol. I haven't pulled down anything newer.
 
Curious, I have an uncle who is an alcoholic. Except for one very long month when he relapsed almost a decade ago, he has been sober for almost thirty years.
He says, if you are a confirmed alcoholic and you ever have a single drink and cannot stop drinking. Then you never recover, and will always be an alcoholic.
Why would the FAA ever think someone could exit HIMS for such a condition?

Tim
 
tspear said:
Curious, I have an uncle who is an alcoholic. Except for one very long month when he relapsed almost a decade ago, he has been sober for almost thirty years.
He says, if you are a confirmed alcoholic and you ever have a single drink and cannot stop drinking. Then you never recover, and will always be an alcoholic.
Why would the FAA ever think someone could exit HIMS for such a condition?

Tim
Click to expand...

It sounds like a good deed that did not go unpunished.
 
BrianNC said:
I tend to think that most people that get drunk that are pilots still wouldn't fly a plane even though they would get in a car. Hence that being the reason it is so low including how strict the FAA is.
Click to expand...

Agreed ..... and folks who might drive after having a drink would also never get on a motorcycle
 
denverpilot said:
Host even said he didn’t consider two glasses of wine a night any problem.

Sat there in traffic thinking about “Normalization of deviance”...
Click to expand...

Two glasses of wine a night isn't a problem. He was right about that.

“A better estimate from our papers would be: Using data from our 1981 survey, people who consumed one to two glasses of alcohol (beer, wine or hard liquor) per day had 9-15 percent lower likelihood of dying compared to those who abstain from all alcohol. Participants who exercised 15 to 45 minutes a day in 1981, cut the same risk of mortality by 15-35 percent.”

http://www.mind.uci.edu/research-studies/90plus-study/

bflynn said:
Unless that lonely field isn't lonely and is filled with children playing.
Click to expand...

Dan Gryder? Is that you?
 
172andyou said:
Two glasses of wine a night isn't a problem. He was right about that.

“A better estimate from our papers would be: Using data from our 1981 survey, people who consumed one to two glasses of alcohol (beer, wine or hard liquor) per day had 9-15 percent lower likelihood of dying compared to those who abstain from all alcohol. Participants who exercised 15 to 45 minutes a day in 1981, cut the same risk of mortality by 15-35 percent.”

http://www.mind.uci.edu/research-studies/90plus-study/
Click to expand...

Just like the duuuude who smokes a nightly joint isn’t really a real problem, but the talk show host was adamant that one was better than the other.

That’s all I was sayin.

FAA ain’t gonna like either one. Getting impaired regularly is getting impaired regularly — once you’re on their radar for whatever reason.

But I will definitely say that I’ve met a whooooole lot more people in denial that they have a drinking problem, than other stuff, legal or not, because society “likes” alcohol.

Tell a neighbor you drink daily they’ll think nothing of it. Tell them you eat psychedelic mushrooms daily, you’re a wacko. Ha. Same desire to be impaired.

Piles of alchys in my family, and one dead of suicide from it. I know all about their excuses. That talk show host is probably polishing off a bottle a night. Not two official 8 Oz glasses.

Been there done that, watched that particular denial chit-show. More than once.

Even have my own vices I make excuses for. They’re fully legal and FAA approved. LOL. Lucky me.

Off to go refill the caffeine... ha.
 
172andyou said:
Two glasses of wine a night isn't a problem. He was right about that.

“A better estimate from our papers would be: Using data from our 1981 survey, people who consumed one to two glasses of alcohol (beer, wine or hard liquor) per day had 9-15 percent lower likelihood of dying compared to those who abstain from all alcohol. Participants who exercised 15 to 45 minutes a day in 1981, cut the same risk of mortality by 15-35 percent.”

http://www.mind.uci.edu/research-studies/90plus-study/



Dan Gryder? Is that you?
Click to expand...


So I can reduce my risk of mortality by 15% by either (1) drinking a glass or two of wine or (2) exercising.

Hmmm. Decisions, decisions,......
 
Half Fast said:
So I can reduce my risk of mortality by 15% by either (1) drinking a glass or two of wine or (2) exercising.

Hmmm. Decisions, decisions,......
Click to expand...

Drink while exercising — you’ll outlive everyone you know by 30%.

Add four 8oz glasses of water and now you’re up to living to age 150!
 
Glad I never got into alcohol. Never been drunk in my life. And thank the Lord I survived my drug years when I was a teenager. Not that I was doing enough to cost me my life, but I was involved and it could have been worse.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top