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

Henning said:
If he is medically suitable for operating the car on that license, he is medically suitable to fly SP. That is ALL the license establishes.
Click to expand...
Henning's answer is not supported by any FAA regulation or guidance. This really is uncharted territory.
 
brcase said:
For the sport pilot exam you are going to have to fill out an 8710-11 and answer...

Za. Have you ever been convicted for violation of any Federal or State statutes relating to narcotic drugs, marijuana, or depressant
or stimulant drugs or substances.

I can't say how the FAA will respond to a yes answer, but I suspect a recent conviction won't be good.
Click to expand...
If the date of the final conviction is less than a year ago, the examiner is required to decline to accept the application and refuse to conduct the test. More than one year ago, and the test goes as scheduled and the certificate is issued if the test is passed. However, alcohol is is not a "narcotic drug, marijuana, or depressant or stimulant drug or substance" in this context. Ambien, on the other hand, is a depressant drug.
 
Ron Levy said:
Henning's answer is not supported by any FAA regulation or guidance. This really is uncharted territory.
Click to expand...

It appears to be supported by the FAA response to supporting comments in the final rule for the Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft
 
Steve Foley said:
Starting at page 154.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ron Levy said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Mass hardship license is not restricted for a particular purpose. It is valid for 12 hours per day.
 
Steve Foley said:
The Mass hardship license is not restricted for a particular purpose. It is valid for 12 hours per day.
Click to expand...
Then I guess it would only be valid for Sport Piloting during those 12 hours. :wink2: 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.
 
Ron Levy said:
Then I guess it would only be valid for Sport Piloting during those 12 hours. :wink2: 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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
...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.
 
Ron Levy said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Henning said:
Exactly, and if it's not in writing it doesn't exist. The restriction is not an issue of contemplation.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ron Levy said:
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.
Click to expand...


Gotcha, I saw the later post. That was not addressed in the post I quoted.
 
Henning said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.....
 
jbarrass said:
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.....
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Henning said:
Gotcha, I saw the later post. That was not addressed in the post I quoted.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Henning said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Henning said:
See, I don't care, I want them to kill themselves as martyrs to pilot safety.
Click to expand...
DoubleFacePalm_thumb.jpg
 
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?
 
hopmedic said:
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?
Click to expand...


You have no need to report that.
 
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.
 
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.
 
bbchien said:
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.
Click to expand...

Backups. Backups. Backups. ;)
 
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_3-57414740-83/ohio-man-charged-in-utah-police-hacks/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ice-websites/2012/04/16/gIQACKZkLT_story.html
 
denverpilot said:
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_3-57414740-83/ohio-man-charged-in-utah-police-hacks/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ice-websites/2012/04/16/gIQACKZkLT_story.html
Click to expand...


Depends on context. When the Department of Justice website got hacked in the 1990s, The problem wasn't that there weren't good backups available to use for recovery. The problem was that the investigating agency had taken the server equipment for evidence.

Smaller places that run their own hardware may not have backup hardware available, and every amateur data-center-wannabe in government says "oh, we'll just go buy new hardware", blissfully ignoring the evil contracting officer who will tell them it will take 30/60/90 days to get their purchase order issued, and no, unless lives are at risk it's NOT an emergency.

Fortunately for stuff that really matters, at least in the federal space, there are requirements for disaster recovery and continuity of operations, so there is at least a plan that specifies what should happen and the system owner has accepted that plan. I just recently had to remind a system owner that they'd elected to NOT have disaster recovery or offsite backup of their data, and they acted surprised and a little indignant until I showed them their signature on the page.

Forensics has gotten better too. Last time I was involved in a computer related criminal investigation we checked the computer for IEDs (yes this matters in certain cases) and then took out the drives, imaged them, the original drives went into evidence, but the computer went back into service, since it didn't have any unique hardware.
 
I have a similar situation. Wet wreckless in California (0.067) and DUI in 2007. FAA issued 3rd class medical in 2008 after multiple evaluations and testing, and I thought I was done. Sober since 2007, flying on and off, went to get current medical in 2011 and was denied. FAA stated I needed psych evaluation. I sent the one I had gotten in 2008, but they said it was too old. So I paid $1200 to see an FAA psychiatrist. The FAA stated that was not enough to get me a medical, and I needed to see another psychiatrist, an Aviation Medical Sponser. Smelling a rat, I sent a letter to the FAA and asked them to be more specific about what they needed from the psychiatrist. The FAA has failed to respond after months and a certified letter (and I was very polite and professional, I promise.)
Full disclosure: I quit drinking on my own and never looked back. I was happy to go to AA meetings as required, but I have never been convinced of AA's efficacy, and I have openly and honestly stated this. I don't think the FAA likes that.
So nearly six years hasn't erased anything for the FAA. I think you have to be a convincing born-again AA to impress the FAA. Finally, don't do Ambien (zolpidem). It has too much stigma, and I think the FAA sees it as alcohol in a pill.
I am interested in other's experiences getting back successfully, since I have no experience there.
 
Well, if it's an upper class certificate, they changed how they do that in 2009 so that would be appropriate. And what this means is the "FAA psychiatrist" wasn't comfortable that you didn't have recurrent abuse. The FAA certified guys also call up your colleagues, spouse, etc (per the permission) and he probably got a mixed story. So he punted on you.

No rat. Toughening of the rules/standards. Now for a second for a third, you have to be able to prove abstinence and be sponsored to fly. For a THIRD, you can arrange a random program (600/year) with a HIMS AME, and after two years of proven abstinence (they call you pee) you can be issued- a THIRD class. Or the HIMS AME can sponsor you, monitor you (they call you pee) and you can fly. The STRING is a CHAIN and it is short.

No, the agency doesn't issue specs to the psychiatrists for substance abuse. There was nothing to specify. Your last letter from the FAA specified who and what they wanted. Their attitude is "we don't have to certify you". You have to prove why we SHOULD. Here's what we demand that you do, now do it or go away.

Now after five years of no DUIs, if you apply for a third, can prove no more infractions, have letters from identible members of your community that you are reliable, don't cancel at the last moment, have a signed off AA record- you can be issued. But you have to lose that antiauthority attitude. They consider that part of alcoholism which even if your ARE dry, that you never mastered. FAA doesn't use DSM standards, their standards are TOUGHER.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but this is HOW IT IS.
 
Last edited:
So, who is going to get rich satisfying the niche market for the STC on a breathalyzer ignition interlock for light sport aircraft....?
 
bbchien said:
Well, if it's an upper class certificate, they changed how they do that in 2009 so that would be appropriate. And what this means is the "FAA psychiatrist" wasn't comfortable that you didn't have recurrent abuse. The FAA certified guys also call up your colleagues, spouse, etc (per the permission) and he probably got a mixed story. So he punted on you.

No rat. Toughening of the rules/standards. Now for a second for a third, you have to be able to prove abstinence and be sponsored to fly. For a THIRD, you can arrange a random program (600/year) with a HIMS AME, and after two years of proven abstinence (they call you pee) you can be issued- a THIRD class. Or the HIMS AME can sponsor you, monitor you (they call you pee) and you can fly. The STRING is a CHAIN and it is short.

No, the agency doesn't issue specs to the psychiatrists for substance abuse. There was nothing to specify. Your last letter from the FAA specified who and what they wanted. Their attitude is "we don't have to certify you". You have to prove why we SHOULD. Here's what we demand that you do, now do it or go away.

Now after five years of no DUIs, if you apply for a third, can prove no more infractions, have letters from identible members of your community that you are reliable, don't cancel at the last moment, have a signed off AA record- you can be issued. But you have to lose that antiauthority attitude. They consider that part of alcoholism which even if your ARE dry, that you never mastered. FAA doesn't use DSM standards, their standards are TOUGHER.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but this is HOW IT IS.
Click to expand...

holy crap. i don't have a DUI and I don't plan on ever getting one.. but is this seriously what happens if you have 1 DUI? YIKES.
 
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