2 Dui's doing Private should they do Light Sport instead?

[Nouveau Hillbilly]

Originally Posted by Ron Levy

Then I guess it would only be valid for Sport Piloting during those 12 hours. But other states do use limitations like "valid only for driving to/from work and AlAnon meetings" for those who get a DUI, and there is nothing in the regs or guidance you cited specifically covering that situation. As I said above, this would only arise if they have that before obtaining their first pilot certificate, since any such motor vehicle action against anyone holding any pilot certificate (even Student) would have to be reported per 61.15 within 60 days whether they have a medical or not, and the FAA would initiate appropriate action. But let's say someone in that situation comes to me for Sport Pilot training -- what do I say/ do? I just don't know.

My original CFI was one of the first group of SP DPEs to be minted, and he seemed pretty clear about any and all restrictions on the person's driver's license also applying to its validity as an SP medical.

In fact, he told me that one of his students was an older woman whose driver's license had a restriction requiring pedal extensions because she had short legs and couldn't reach the pedals in an average car. Even though she could reach and manipulate the LSA's rudder pedals without extensions, the restriction prevented her from using her DL as a medical (unless extensions were installed on the rudder pedals, I guess).

She solved the problem by borrowing a tiny car with pedals she could reach, and then re-taking her road test to remove the restriction from her DL. That apparently was easier than whatever she would have had to do to get FAA to waive the requirement for rudder pedal extensions that she didn't need.

My point is that at least back then, FAA was pretty literal about any and all restrictions on the DL also applying to its use as an aviation medical for SP purposes. Until a restriction was removed or a waiver granted, the restriction applied even if it seemed to make no sense in the aviation context.

-Rich

[Cap'n Ron]

Thanks for sharing, Rich, but if your instructor had provided a written FAA reference, it would help. It's that specific written guidance I seek.

[Cap'n Ron]

...and here is the answer...

Per 61.303(b)(2)(i), if you are using a DL instead of a medical for Sport Pilot flying, you must comply with any restrictions or limitations on the DL. So, if the DL you are using instead of a medical says you can only drive to and from work, then you can only fly to and from work. And it says the same in 61.23(c)(2)(i). Reason I couldn't find it was that subparagraph (c)(2) was accidentally cut off the e-CFR database; fix is in work.

[steingar]

We're quite lucky to have you here looking this stuff up Ron.

[iHenning]

Originally Posted by Ron Levy

I see nothing in there about drivers licenses restricted as discussed due to DUI's. It does use the term "current and valid." Since those restricted DL's are not valid other than for the purpose stated on them (e.g., driving to work), I can easily see the Chief Counsel saying they are not valid for FAA purposes. So, unless you can find specific language in there germane to this question which I cannot, I think the issue is still unsettled.

Exactly, and if it's not in writing it doesn't exist. The restriction is not an issue of contemplation. That's the way the law works in the US, you can't just read in what's not written, you do that a hell of a lot.

[Cap'n Ron]

Originally Posted by Henning

Exactly, and if it's not in writing it doesn't exist. The restriction is not an issue of contemplation.

If you read post #53, you'd see that I found it is written in not one, but two regulations which I cited.

As for your other comment, if you'd been reading this thread carefully, I clearly stated that I was looking for the written regulatory guidance on point to support my personal guess as to the FAA's position. Thanks to Bob Monaghan at the Baltimore FSDO and the folks at the Sport Pilot desk in Oklahoma City, I was able to find it -- and sure enough, it matched my guess.

[iHenning]

Originally Posted by Ron Levy

If you read post #53, you'd see that I found it is written in not one, but two regulations which I cited.

As for your other comment, if you'd been reading this thread carefully, I clearly stated that I was looking for the written regulatory guidance on point to support my personal guess as to the FAA's position. Thanks to Bob Monaghan at the Baltimore FSDO and the folks at the Sport Pilot desk in Oklahoma City, I was able to find it -- and sure enough, it matched my guess.

Gotcha, I saw the later post. That was not addressed in the post I quoted.

[jbarrass]

Originally Posted by Henning

Exactly, and if it's not in writing it doesn't exist. The restriction is not an issue of contemplation. That's the way the law works in the US, you can't just read in what's not written, you do that a hell of a lot.

Actually it is in writing...

(b) A person using a U.S. driver's license to meet the requirements of this paragraph must—
(1) Comply with each restriction and limitation imposed by that person's U.S. driver's license and any judicial or administrative order applying to the operation of a motor vehicle;

So if the restriction is 12 hours a day, you get to fly half the day.....

[Cap'n Ron]

Originally Posted by jbarrass

Actually it is in writing...

(b) A person using a U.S. driver's license to meet the requirements of this paragraph must—
(1) Comply with each restriction and limitation imposed by that person's U.S. driver's license and any judicial or administrative order applying to the operation of a motor vehicle;

So if the restriction is 12 hours a day, you get to fly half the day.....

A "no night" restriction is moot for a Sport Pilot. Other interesting ones might be hand controls for those with bad (or no) legs and extensions on the pedals for really short people -- and they would have to be complied with. I remember when folks with no left arm got a restriction requiring electric turn signals (think one-armed WWII vets in the 50's/60's), but it's been a long time since electric turn signals were not required on cars, we've got pretty good prosthetics now, and I guess it's not an issue on airplanes anyway.

[iHenning]

I still question whether 'must have breathalizer', 'only for work' will hold under chief counsel review or court challenge, but in today's nanny state of bureaucratic mindset it probably would.

[Cap'n Ron]

Originally Posted by Henning

Gotcha, I saw the later post. That was not addressed in the post I quoted.

I would also point that your statement about "if it's not in writing it doesn't exist" doesn't exactly apply to the FAA in interpreting it's own rules retrospectively. The FAA is permitted to advance their new interpretation of a rule as part of an enforcement action as long as it doesn't conflict with a previously issued interpretation of that rule and isn't "arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not according to law" (a test the FAA rarely fails). So, it's often a good idea to think about what the Chief Counsel would do if the case ever came up, and not to "press-to-test" on issues where a prediction based on past cases and interpretations suggests the outcome would likely be negative for the respondant.

At least, that's my advice, although I know your risk tolerance level is a lot higher than mine, and that since you're not a CFI, you are not, as I am, legally responsible for what you teach other pilots.

[iHenning]

See, I don't care, I want them to kill themselves as martyrs to pilot safety.

[Cap'n Ron]

Originally Posted by Henning

I still question whether 'must have breathalizer', 'only for work' will hold under chief counsel review or court challenge, but in today's nanny state of bureaucratic mindset it probably would.

Given that it's black-letter law, I'd say the odds of it holding up would be extremely good. In any event, the only people who are going to be dealing with this without a firm reading from the FAA are those who already have such restrictions when they get their Student Pilot certificate. Anyone else (i.e., anyone already holding a pilot certificate, even Student) would have to report the motor vehicle action within 60 days per 61.15, and at that point the FAA will tell them in no uncertain terms what they may and may not do in the air as a result.

[Cap'n Ron]

Originally Posted by Henning

See, I don't care, I want them to kill themselves as martyrs to pilot safety.

[Rich]

I was just reading through this out of curiosity, and I'm glad I did. I just obtained my Sport Pilot Student Pilot Certificate, at Sun'n Fun, and a month before that I got a ticket for improper lane use. Last night in court, it was reduced to too fast for conditions. Seeing this thread, I now realize that I need to report it, but don't know how. I have not started taking lessons or anything like that, so I wouldn't have known without reading this. Can anyone tell me where to find how I report it?

[iHenning]

Originally Posted by hopmedic

I was just reading through this out of curiosity, and I'm glad I did. I just obtained my Sport Pilot Student Pilot Certificate, at Sun'n Fun, and a month before that I got a ticket for improper lane use. Last night in court, it was reduced to too fast for conditions. Seeing this thread, I now realize that I need to report it, but don't know how. I have not started taking lessons or anything like that, so I wouldn't have known without reading this. Can anyone tell me where to find how I report it?

You have no need to report that.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Henning

You have no need to report that.

I am working on looking it up now, but I thought someone said that 61.15 required reporting of a traffic action?

[Rich]

Ah - never mind. I see it. A traffic action has to do with drugs/alcohol. Thank you.

[iHenning]

Originally Posted by hopmedic

Ah - never mind. I see it. A traffic action has to do with drugs/alcohol. Thank you.

Yep, no worries.

[Cap'n Ron]

The correct phrase is "motor vehicle action," and 61.15(c) pretty clearly explains what that is -- and what you got ain't that. The critical factor is the involvement of drugs or alcohol.

[Bruce C]

TO THE ORIGINAL UNREG: I think I got an email from you but it got swept into the spam guard and I didn't manage to fish it out. WOULD YOU TRY AGAIN? My home server crashed and is being replaced, and I am having a hard time on the laptop.

Dr. B.

[DenverPilot]

Originally Posted by bbchien

TO THE ORIGINAL UNREG: I think I got an email from you but it got swept into the spam guard and I didn't manage to fish it out. WOULD YOU TRY AGAIN? My home server crashed and is being replaced, and I am having a hard time on the laptop.

Dr. B.

Backups. Backups. Backups.

[Bruce C]

I recovered it! (from backup #3) M.S, see your email!!!!

[DenverPilot]

Originally Posted by bbchien

I recovered it! (from backup #3) M.S, see your email!!!!

Yay!! (Grin!)

Darn computers. It'd be great if they never failed wouldn't it?

[DenverPilot]

Apparently Utah police departments don't keep backups. Three months to bring a system back online is ludicrous.

--Man Charged in Utah Police Website Attacks
(April 16, 2012)
An Ohio man has been charged with felony computer intrusion for
allegedly launching attacks on the websites of law enforcement agencies
in Utah. John Anthony Borell III, is accused of causing thousands of
dollars of damage by knocking two police sites offline. The Salt Lake
City Police Department website was offline for three months and has only
recently been relaunched. Borell has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-574...-police-hacks/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...kLT_story.html