DWI/3rd Class Medical/HIMS

bbchien said:
....which signifies that he has control. But after a big DUI a rational person would cease...which is a pretty good case that the individual who continues to drink allows alcohol to control.....get it?

Knowing FAA’s position, as Azure implies...continuing to drink means alcohol is more important than aviatoon. So who’s in control here...alcohol or the OP?
Click to expand...
So I think you’re saying someone who drinks a lot, as long as they have the smarts to stay out of a motorized vehicle, demonstrates reasonable judgement? Perhaps I’m comfused on that point.
I also believe everyone is entitled to make a mistake. Granted, driving at .217 could be a fatal mistake, but it wasn’t in this case.
Also he didn’t show tolerance imo. Obviously he drove poorly enough to get noticed, plus he said he couldn’t even recite his age.
 
Even the DSM pretty much defines a substance abuse disorder not by "how much" you drink but the adverse impact on your life. Being criminally charged and being barred from your favorite recreational activity (or maybe second favorite) is certainly a pretty big adverse impact.
 
To some degree it depends on the person. Flying is a big deal to me, and I protect my certificate vigorously. On the other hand, if our OP is just flying his Cessna 150 on the odd weekend, maybe it isn't a big deal to him. Perhaps being able to drink with his pals is really more important to him. I like drinking, that would be hard for me too. Then again, were I to get a DUI with those sorts of number it would be a pretty big wake up call that its time to make some significant life changes.
 
Just wondering:

When a person gets a DWI, does the DMV require them to completely abstain from alcohol for two years and spend thousands of dollars proving it before they are allowed to drive again? If not, should they? Why or why not?
 
Palmpilot said:
Just wondering:

When a person gets a DWI, does the DMV require them to completely abstain from alcohol for two years and spend thousands of dollars proving it before they are allowed to drive again? If not, should they? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

The DMV has nothing to do with it. The police immediately suspend your license, but the judge will usually sell it back to you. The program required of first time offenders includes forced sobriety, AA meetings, and a diversion course. [I think the people who rely on AA hate that the courts send people to their meetings]

You will get to pay thousands of dollars to your insurance company.

Probably not a good return on saving that cab fare.
 
By the way, it seems like some people are ignoring he fact that the OP didn't complain about the demand to be abstinent; he complained about the demand to spend thousands of dollars proving it.
 
Ravioli said:
The DMV has nothing to do with it. The police immediately suspend your license, but the judge will usually sell it back to you. The program required of first time offenders includes forced sobriety, AA meetings, and a diversion course. [I think the people who rely on AA hate that the courts send people to their meetings]

You will get to pay thousands of dollars to your insurance company.

Probably not a good return on saving that cab fare.
Click to expand...

Does a DWI raise a pilot's aviation insurance premiums by a similar amount?
 
That very much depends on what state you are in. Often you get a double whammy. The DMV hits you with an administrative suspension *AND* when you're found guilty the judge imposes another suspension.

Different states have different attitudes, in Virginia, they're getting pretty aggressive on even first time DUIs.

Much as people can decry all this attention given to drunk drivers, I can tell you that having spent years as a paramedic rolling up on bad wrecks, you can almost guarantee that one of the drivers was rather intoxicated. Too bad, that often it's the sober driver who gets killed by the intoxicated one who sustains only minor physical injuries.

Frankly, as far as RISK goes, we probably ought to give up on doing much with the third class and be MORE aggressive DRIVERS LICENSES.
 
Palmpilot said:
By the way, it seems like some people are ignoring he fact that the OP didn't complain about the demand to be abstinent; he complained about the demand to spend thousands of dollars proving it.
Click to expand...
Well he did ask (in post #4 and in a couple after that) whether he would be able to go back to social drinking. That, in the eyes of the Dr. Phils here, is enough to prove he's an addict who values drinking over flying. I think it does show that he values it to some extent, just to what extent is not clear.
 
azure said:
Well he did ask (in post #4 and in a couple after that) whether he would be able to go back to social drinking. That, in the eyes of the Dr. Phils here, is enough to prove he's an addict who values drinking over flying. I think it does show that he values it to some extent, just to what extent is not clear.
Click to expand...

Dr Phils, lol, you guys crack me up.
 
From a practical standpoint, considering how frequently pilots have to abstain while others are drinking ($100 hamburger, evening out with a next day flight, etc.) someone who has to have a drink to be social is probably not a good fit for aviation. Just sayin...
 
Pilots are not required to have insurance, unless perhaps as a condition if they own and have loan on the plane.

Of course, they SHOULD have insurance. And I imagine that history is a rating factor, since I know it's a question on the insurance applications I complete each year.
 
steingar said:
I drink all the time, but I do not drink and drive ever. My pilots license is too important to me to jeopardize.
Click to expand...

Agree. I apply the same rules for driving as the FAA requires for flying.

8 hours bottle to ...pedal? Doesn't have the same ring. We need something better.
 
comanchepilot said:
yeah - so what? I asked what he was doing the three years BEFORE that
Click to expand...
People are acting like the last six years don't matter. Maybe they don't, to the FAA, but to a rational person, they should.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
So at least SOME of them are fooling themselves. Probably even MANY. But in order to conclude that any particular individual is, you would have to assume that there are NO cases where a person quits abusing alcohol after a DWI, and that would be a tall order to prove.
Click to expand...
He said himself that he's not interested in quitting.
 
Palmpilot said:
By the way, it seems like some people are ignoring he fact that the OP didn't complain about the demand to be abstinent; he complained about the demand to spend thousands of dollars proving it.
Click to expand...
Sure he did. He clearly stated a desire to keep drinking. Just like everyone else who blew a .2 and "doesn't have a problem".
 
azure said:
Well he did ask (in post #4 and in a couple after that) whether he would be able to go back to social drinking. That, in the eyes of the Dr. Phils here, is enough to prove he's an addict who values drinking over flying. I think it does show that he values it to some extent, just to what extent is not clear.
Click to expand...
Let's not do the strawman thing.
 
mryan75 said:
Let's not do the strawman thing.
Click to expand...
Okay, let me rephrase. That, in the eyes of the Dr. Phils here, proves he's alcohol dependent. Better? I can point you to at least three posts in this thread, not including several of yours, that either explicitly say that or imply it.
 
None of this much matters. He has tolerance, lifestyle centered on, and continued use in the face of known bad consequences. 3 of 5 criteria when only one is needed.

He will not be flying anytime soon.
 
.217 is very high. My good friend was only a little higher, .23, when he drove his car into a tree. His best friend in the passenger seat broke his neck and died at the scene and my friend is now in prison.
 
Palmpilot said:
People are acting like the last six years don't matter. Maybe they don't, to the FAA, but to a rational person, they should.
Click to expand...
but the FAA is owned by MADD and the fear of bad press.

What works is not relevant to the FAA. They have a program set up by MADD essentially - ask doctors? What? That's rational. alcohol and drug policy is set by fear of bad press and politics. What works and is rational is not relevant.

the rule is abstinence. Period. After getting caught. You can drink as much as you want as long as you don't get caught. The problem is that sooner or later - you get caught because you are drinking a fifth of vodka to wake up in the morning.

Tolerance is a bad thing when it comes to alcohol use - but getting straight and fixing your life for 6 years has no relevance to the FAA unless you can prove it. And who does random drug and alcohol screens for no reason? Thus - a DUI with 0.217 6 years ago happened yesterday to the FAA> Now - after a decade- those extra 4 years matter.
 
PaulS said:
Ah, that makes is more of a lie.
Click to expand...

I think that, wearing his lawyer hat, he believed it was a truthful and legally meaningful distinction. Unfortunately, he overlooked the fact that he needed to be wearing his politician hat instead. Too bad he didn't learn from the example of Grover Cleveland.

Of course, by now, his record for lying has been huuuugely surpassed. :eek2:
 
Palmpilot said:
"Not drinking is not the issue for me."

"I don't have an issue with the not drinking part of it."
Click to expand...
You forgot "Continued abstinence? Or will I be allowed to go back to social drinking?"
 
comanchepilot said:
but the FAA is owned by MADD and the fear of bad press.

What works is not relevant to the FAA. They have a program set up by MADD essentially - ask doctors? What? That's rational. alcohol and drug policy is set by fear of bad press and politics. What works and is rational is not relevant.

the rule is abstinence. Period. After getting caught. You can drink as much as you want as long as you don't get caught. The problem is that sooner or later - you get caught because you are drinking a fifth of vodka to wake up in the morning.

Tolerance is a bad thing when it comes to alcohol use - but getting straight and fixing your life for 6 years has no relevance to the FAA unless you can prove it. And who does random drug and alcohol screens for no reason? Thus - a DUI with 0.217 6 years ago happened yesterday to the FAA> Now - after a decade- those extra 4 years matter.
Click to expand...
I agree in general. I'm just saying that we shouldn't lose sight of the extent to which the way the FAA sees things is not always in accord with reality.
 
flyingron said:
Even the DSM pretty much defines a substance abuse disorder not by "how much" you drink but the adverse impact on your life. Being criminally charged and being barred from your favorite recreational activity (or maybe second favorite) is certainly a pretty big adverse impact.
Click to expand...

Sounds like it could get into circular reasoning...

"The FAA thinks you're an addict. You must be an addict!"

"So you want to be a pilot and the government has a problem with you? You must be an alcoholic, because it's having an adverse effect on your life!"

Not to dismiss the driving at .217. That's a pretty big deal.
 
Salty said:
You forgot "Continued abstinence? Or will I be allowed to go back to social drinking?"
Click to expand...
One can either interpret his question as evidence of addiction (bad), or as evidence of a desire to know what the rules are so that he can follow them (good). I don't think we, as a bunch of SGOTIs, have enough information to know which it is in his case. Plausibility arguments are insufficient for that purpose.
 
Palmpilot said:
"Not drinking is not the issue for me."

"I don't have an issue with the not drinking part of it."
Click to expand...

Ok, being a grammar Nazi here for a minute. Both of these quotes contain double negatives, which essentially cancel each other out. So let's rewrite them removing the negatives:

Drinking is the issue for me.

And

I do have an issue with the drinking part of it.
 
PaulS said:
Ok, being a grammar Nazi here for a minute. Both of these quotes contain double negatives, which essentially cancel each other out. So let's rewrite them removing the negatives:

Drinking is the issue for me.

And

I do have an issue with the drinking part of it.
Click to expand...
No, those are not double negatives. Reversing them does not retain the same logic that was intended as written.
 
PaulS said:
Ok, being a grammar Nazi here for a minute. Both of these quotes contain double negatives, which essentially cancel each other out. So let's rewrite them removing the negatives:

Drinking is the issue for me.

And

I do have an issue with the drinking part of it.
Click to expand...
I think you're allowing your beliefs in the matter to cloud your understanding of what he meant when he wrote that. Based on the context, it appeared to me that when he wrote "not drinking," he was referring to abstaining from drinking.
 
Palmpilot said:
I think you're allowing your beliefs in the matter to cloud your understanding of what he meant when he wrote that. Based on the context, it appeared to me that when he wrote "not drinking," he was referring to abstaining from drinking.
Click to expand...
Salty said:
No, those are not double negatives. Reversing them does not retain the same logic that was intended as written.
Click to expand...

I'm not allowing my beliefs to cloud anything. Just trying to "not incorrectly" regurgitate what my high school English teacher would whack a few points off my papers for doing. (I put the quotes in there for you guys.) I would have said "Abstaining is not the issue for me" and "I don't have an issue with the abstaining part of it." No interpretation required.

Based on the "context" of it, I understood what he MEANT, too, but as I said, I was being a grammar Nazi in that post. Carry on.
 
Palmpilot said:
I think that, wearing his lawyer hat, he believed it was a truthful and legally meaningful distinction. Unfortunately, he overlooked the fact that he needed to be wearing his politician hat instead. Too bad he didn't learn from the example of Grover Cleveland.
Of course, by now, his record for lying has been huuuugely surpassed. :eek2:
Click to expand...

Please don't go political and get the thread locked.

It's so much more enlightening for us to parse the words and meanings of our Troll who wants to fly, is not dependent on or abusing alcohol, and wants to know when he can return to social drinking.

He never said, and I neglected to ask, when his best friend is getting married. And whether that couple gives a flip if he has champagne or Martinelli's.
 
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