NOT another DUI question

L

Lesson learned

Guest
Hi everyone, I just recently found this site, and I am feeling fortunate to be able to present this question here. I have only one very specific question, but I'm going to give you just a tiny bit of background before I get to it.

I have exhaustedly researched all the alcohol threads on this site, and I could be wrong, but I think I may have a question that hasn't been asked yet!

A few years ago, my SO (now ex) and I used to drink together at home. A LOT. Was usually happy, but one night, went too far, fight, fake break-up, bla bla. I became irrationally depressed, family got involved, decided I was a danger to myself, had me taken to hospital. I still cringe just typing it. Worst thing I have ever done.

Total abstinence since that day 4ish years ago. Yes, total. No champagne on New Year's Eve, no just one beer after mowing the lawn...

I don't have the medical records, but I'm sure that my BAC was embarrassingly high. Probably well into the 0.2xx range. When the nurse came to talk to me after she took my blood test, she said something to the effect of "I honestly can't believe you are standing up straight and having a rational conversation with me" Yikes.

My current medical is about to expire, and as this event is well beyond two years in the past, I am going to go basicmed. I am so grateful for this program, as it gives people like me who screwed up royally once, but just once, a chance to keep flying responsibly.

So here is the question:

If at some point in the future I decided I wanted to go back to class three, or even two, or one, I understand that there are other issues surrounding the hospitalization that I will have to answer for, but this is the one I'm curious about at the moment: What stance does the FAA take on a blood alcohol concentration that shows obvious tolerance, when it does NOT relate to an arrest or a driving offense? Do you get bonus points for "wow, he used to drink a lot, but at least he never did it and then got behind the wheel?" Or do they have one of their handy statistics that says something like "Well, research shows that if you can tolerate 0. 2, that means you have driven at at least 0.15, 40 to 45% of the time...."

this is all based on the assumption that if I ever decide to get a class 3 reinstated, I will most likely need those medical records.

So there is my question, how does the FAA feel about a past high alcohol tolerance for someone who DIDN'T get behind the wheel? and I thank you all for your input.
 
So there is the question: "How does the FAA feel about a past high alcohol tolerance for someone who DIDN'T get behind the wheel, but was deemed a potential harm to himself and was hospitilized because of it?

The FAA will have a keen interest!
 
Just to be clear, did you have your 3rd class when this event occurred?
 
Hey Doc, I understand. I know there are lots of other things to answer for that go along with this. I tried to put that in my original post, but maybe it wasn't clearly enough. I'm just trying to get an answer to this very one specific BAC question, from a purely technical rulebook standpoint, not from a psychological counseling perspective. I am not looking for a loophole, I have just literally read hundreds of threads on this site, and the only time the FAA stance on blood alcohol comes up is when it is related to a DUI. I have been reading these boards for a long time, and I know anytime someone asks a question like this, it always elicits a lot of opinions and judgement. If that's what I have coming my way, it is what it is. Thanks anyway, and I still really enjoy reading these boards, and thank you all for what you do.
 
I wanted to add something, which I really should have included in my original post. The only person who deemed me a danger to myself was the family member. I spent a night in the hospital, and the next day, once I was able to meet with the chief psychiatrist, we had a 20-minute conversation, he deemed me a danger to no one, and signed me out.
 
If the FAA considers it substance abuse then you'd have to answer yes on 18(n) and you would have to answer yes on 18(u) regardless of whether or not they consider it abuse. Then you explain, submit, and wait for them to take pleasure in denying you a medical.
 
Question 1 - were you admitted to the hospital or there for observation? Only the medical records can determine this.

If you were not admitted, wait 3 years and you will not have to report unless you were threatening suicide.
 
.....so ur under 40 and 1yrish after getting your medical, u had this one night stand with the devil...is that right?

or

U don't have a medical yet?
 
Thing is you get admitted to a psych hospital there are going to be some diagnosis codes associated with that- that you will have to answer to by way of the FAA will want to see those records- whether those codes accurately reflect your diagnosis or not doesn’t really matter. It will be up the the HIMS pysch to decide—bring money.
 
Clip4 said:
Question 1 - were you admitted to the hospital or there for observation? Only the medical records can determine this.

If you were not admitted, wait 3 years and you will not have to report unless you were threatening suicide.
Click to expand...

That.

Only your actual records will tell where to go from here
 
Last edited:
If a third class or BasicMed airman with no DUIs seeks outpatient rehab, is it grounding, or just reportable at the next exam? Is becoming friends with Bill a better option?
 
I'm skeptical even of the notion that someone could continue to exercise the privileges of their class 3 after a psych admit as a danger to yourself with a very high BAC, which the FAA would consider clearly indicative of substance abuse/addiction.
 
If this gives you any indication of what you are up against. On Jan 10th, 2019, I had dinner with friends. I had 3 drinks over 3 hours. I was at a high top table for the entire dinner. Not buzzed and definitely not drunk. I stood up and had a syncope episode (fainted) and hit my face. I was taken by ambulance to the hospital. Immediately self grounded. Because alcohol was "involved" FAA took the stance that I am an alcohol abuser until proven otherwise. I am $15k into this and 10 months of tests (psych, Cognitive, CT Scans, EKG) and documentation. Now awaiting HIMMS certification from the FAA which could take up to 5 more months. I did nothing illegal and had a perfect FAA, driving and medical history. Good luck!
 
I honestly wonder what, if any, positive effect these types of screenings have on actual flight safety.

DUI and certain things can demonstrate bad judgment, but that really is up to an individual psychiatric evaluation..

We are not perfect and there are other high-profile and high-risk industries that do not put the user through this kind of turmoil
 
"you sneezed 2 years ago and went to the doctor?! Better report it, government knows best"

Ugh.
 
James331 said:
"good samaritan" calls 911-->ambulance ride --> giving information/ID/insurance card --> databases
Click to expand...
are you sure? i doubt the feds have access to insurance dbs without your consent or a warrant
 
MalibuJim said:
If this gives you any indication of what you are up against. On Jan 10th, 2019, I had dinner with friends. I had 3 drinks over 3 hours. I was at a high top table for the entire dinner. Not buzzed and definitely not drunk. I stood up and had a syncope episode (fainted) and hit my face. I was taken by ambulance to the hospital. Immediately self grounded. Because alcohol was "involved" FAA took the stance that I am an alcohol abuser until proven otherwise. I am $15k into this and 10 months of tests (psych, Cognitive, CT Scans, EKG) and documentation. Now awaiting HIMMS certification from the FAA which could take up to 5 more months. I did nothing illegal and had a perfect FAA, driving and medical history. Good luck!
Click to expand...

That's total and utter ********. The FAA (or at least who ever signed their name to the denial letter) needs to be able to be sued for recuperation of costs on crap like this. Especially when you have to prove a negative.

"Prove to us that you don't beat your wife."
 
Tantalum said:
I honestly wonder what, if any, positive effect these types of screenings have on actual flight safety.

DUI and certain things can demonstrate bad judgment, but that really is up to an individual psychiatric evaluation..

We are not perfect and there are other high-profile and high-risk industries that do not put the user through this kind of turmoil
Click to expand...

Id guess about little to zero

And there is the whole facts thing


Being over weight, thats YEARS of bad judgement, also kills WAY more people (about 200,000 a year NIH)

A speeding ticket is also bad judgement, and also kills the same amount of people as drinking and driving (10k a year each NHTSA)

I could go on


But I dont think facts are the issue with some of the draconian and puritanical approach we see

Little history

Just 80 years ago under the political push of religious extremists (pietistic protestants) this counties government tossed people in jail over people having.... a drink, including a little event where the federal government poisoned alcohol causing about 10,000 deaths


A few generations before that we drown/hanged people because we thought they were "witches"

Good news is we are going in the right direction, bad news is we still have some puritanical garbage in our country that will likely take a few more generations to really work out.


EdFred said:
That's total and utter ********. The FAA (or at least who ever signed their name to the denial letter) needs to be able to be sued for recuperation of costs on crap like this. Especially when you have to prove a negative.

"Prove to us that you don't beat your wife."
Click to expand...

To what end? So you can spend your entire savings and have the SCOTUS say the FAA/NTSB did you wrong, but awards you no damages?

Read his attachment
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/posts/2815330/


Isosceles said:
are you sure? i doubt the feds have access to insurance dbs without your consent or a warrant
Click to expand...

riiight, read that attachment I linked too and call me in the morning lol

Heres a screenshot from his story

1.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Operation Safe Pilot and the Death of Privacy July 2018.pdf
    3.9 MB · Views: 142
Last edited:
MalibuJim said:
If this gives you any indication of what you are up against. On Jan 10th, 2019, I had dinner with friends. I had 3 drinks over 3 hours. I was at a high top table for the entire dinner. Not buzzed and definitely not drunk. I stood up and had a syncope episode (fainted) and hit my face. I was taken by ambulance to the hospital. Immediately self grounded. Because alcohol was "involved" FAA took the stance that I am an alcohol abuser until proven otherwise. I am $15k into this and 10 months of tests (psych, Cognitive, CT Scans, EKG) and documentation. Now awaiting HIMMS certification from the FAA which could take up to 5 more months. I did nothing illegal and had a perfect FAA, driving and medical history. Good luck!
Click to expand...
Wow, that is crazy. Best of luck to you.
 
Tantalum said:
I honestly wonder what, if any, positive effect these types of screenings have on actual flight safety.

DUI and certain things can demonstrate bad judgment, but that really is up to an individual psychiatric evaluation..

We are not perfect and there are other high-profile and high-risk industries that do not put the user through this kind of turmoil
Click to expand...
Thing is, you can't prove a negative. We can't prove what flight safety would look like if all the people who either washed out of flight school because of a medical issue or who never started to begin with had gotten certificates. That's the problem. The system may well do a very good job of keeping dangerous people out of the cockpit, but we can't really prove (or disprove) it.

And the reason they hold pilots to a different standard is that if you go tits up in the cockpit, it's a very unfortunate situation for your passengers. Kinda like the story about grandpa who died peacefully in his sleep, not screaming bloody murder like the passengers in his car.
 
mryan75 said:
grandpa who died peacefully in his sleep, not screaming bloody murder like the passengers in his car
Click to expand...
lol

mryan75 said:
Thing is, you can't prove a negative. We can't prove what flight safety would look like if all the people who either washed out of flight school because of a medical issue or who never started to begin with had gotten certificates. That's the problem. The system may well do a very good job of keeping dangerous people out of the cockpit, but we can't really prove (or disprove) it.

And the reason they hold pilots to a different standard is that if you go tits up in the cockpit, it's a very unfortunate situation for your passengers.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there are *loads* of people who lie on their medicals.. yet we don't see that manifest in the accident rates all that often. I think my point is, you shouldn't be terrified to go to the doctor for fear of losing your ability to fly.. we have people driving on the road who are 98 years old and barely conscious and folks with all sorts of hosts of other conditions

It's not that we need to let unsafe people fly, it's that if someone falls in a bar they shouldn't be in a situation where now they can't fly any longer
 
Isosceles said:
How did they know about the incident?
Click to expand...


Because I was taken by ambulance to the hospital with multiple fractures to my face. Because it was an "unexplained" loss of consciousness in the eyes of the FAA, it is an immediate self-grounding incident. My medical was up 45 days after the incident which would REQUIRE full disclosure of the event anyways.
 
EdFred said:
That's total and utter ********. The FAA (or at least who ever signed their name to the denial letter) needs to be able to be sued for recuperation of costs on crap like this. Especially when you have to prove a negative.

"Prove to us that you don't beat your wife."
Click to expand...

Yep, but administrative law would take years to adjudicate, I'd rather be flying.
 
MalibuJim said:
Yep, but administrative law would take years to adjudicate, I'd rather be flying.
Click to expand...

Get ticket back, sue for libel, losses, etc... It was printed/writeen that you are an abuser, right? Sounds like libel to me.

The fainting/loss of consciousness I get as being reportable. But as to saying it's alcohol abuse it worthy of a lawsuit.
 
Malibu Jim can't do that. The statute sez, normal natural health or its equivalent as determined b the Federal Air surgeon on "best available external medical advice". Falling on your face and breaking facial bones is cause for concern. And they are making the determination. And he will succeed. It just takes Forever.....hits the reverb button)
 
EdFred said:
That's total and utter ********. The FAA (or at least who ever signed their name to the denial letter) needs to be able to be sued for recuperation of costs on crap like this. Especially when you have to prove a negative.

"Prove to us that you don't beat your wife."
Click to expand...

It's not even ""Prove to us that you don't beat your wife", it's more like "Show us when you stopped beating your wife".
 
mtuomi said:
It's not even ""Prove to us that you don't beat your wife", it's more like "Show us when you stopped beating your wife".
Click to expand...
And if you never did, how do you prove you stopped something you never started??
 
bbchien said:
Malibu Jim can't do that. The statute sez, normal natural health or its equivalent as determined b the Federal Air surgeon on "best available external medical advice". Falling on your face and breaking facial bones is cause for concern. And they are making the determination. And he will succeed. It just takes Forever.....hits the reverb button)
Click to expand...

Oh I get that about the falling and know that needs to be straightened out but saying that its alcohol abuse is horse hocky.
 
EdFred said:
Oh I get that about the falling and know that needs to be straightened out but saying that its alcohol abuse is horse hocky.
Click to expand...


Anytime alcohol is/was involved in any incident, the presumption is that you are guilty of alcohol abuse unless you can prove otherwise. Basically, its an abundance of caution by the FAA, I see why they do this, but I don't agree with it. The FAA has nothing to gain by allowing ANYONE to fly that COULD be remotely considered a risk, not just with alcohol, but any ailment that could diminish flying skills or potentially pose a risk to the public. Proving innocence is the burden of the pilot as flying is a privilege, not a right. I had read somewhere that over 90% of pilots fighting the FAA just give up and forfeit their license rather than go through the battle. I choose to fight and as Dr. Bruce says, I will prevail after about $15k, and that involved NO legal bills.

If you have not read the "John King" story, I suggest you do: https://www.flyingmag.com/john-king-vows-battle-with-faa-to-reinstate-his-medical-certificate/
 
Last edited:
MalibuJim said:
...Proving innocence is the burden of the pilot as flying is a privilege, not a right....
Click to expand...
Due process is a right, not a privilege.

(Of course I realize that the words "due process" and "FAA" don't go together!) :(
 
MalibuJim said:
If you have not read the "John King" story, I suggest you do: https://www.flyingmag.com/john-king-vows-battle-with-faa-to-reinstate-his-medical-certificate/
Click to expand...
Isn't John King allowed to fly as a required crew member when two pilots are required, but not as sole PIC? Or did they even reverse that decision?

John King's case is one of the main reasons I decided to go Basic Med rather than roll the dice with the FAA, especially since even if I won, I would have to continue shelling out several AMU per year for medically unnecessary tests and imaging studies for the rest of my flying life. (No I didn't have an unexplained seizure, but my case was similar to his in other ways.)
 
EdFred said:
Oh I get that about the falling and know that needs to be straightened out but saying that its alcohol abuse is horse hocky.
Click to expand...
The federal psychiatrist defines abuse as “the use of a substance in a situation that could create a danger”. By that definition you can have a whole bunch in your home and if you don’t fracture something, don’t have a wet domestic disturbance, it’s all right. Head out of the house, not so much. Just telling how it is.....

This works for an acute intoxicant but is pretty draconian for a lipid soluble substance like THC, for which the test is positive for weeks.....

Azure is correct as to Mr. King afaik.
 
Palmpilot said:
Due process is a right, not a privilege.

(Of course I realize that the words "due process" and "FAA" don't go together!) :(
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, due process is only in effect before taking away a right, not before taking away a privledge.
 
Oh, and one other thing, I have had to give up alcohol altogether and will have undergone nearly 30 RANDOM alcohol tests over the course of nearly 3 years to satisfy the FAA that I don't drink any longer, "realizing" that alcohol was a contributing factor to my injuries.
 
MalibuJim said:
Oh, and one other thing, I have had to give up alcohol altogether and will have undergone nearly 30 RANDOM alcohol tests over the course of nearly 3 years to satisfy the FAA that I don't drink any longer, "realizing" that alcohol was a contributing factor to my injuries.
Click to expand...
Giving up alcohol wouldn't impact my life hardly at all, but forced attendance to regular AA meetings might be the only thing that could make me give up flying.
 
Salty said:
Giving up alcohol wouldn't impact my life hardly at all, but forced attendance to regular AA meetings might be the only thing that could make me give up flying.
Click to expand...

No AA meetings requested of me, yet, just the random tests at $65 each plus time off work. Missing the alcohol itself isn't a problem, but I do miss the wine tastings in Napa.
 
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