Aviation... and DWI right at the beginning of my journey.

ExtremeA79 said:
Yeah, so 3 bourbons, ate before, ate after, like 3 hours passed after the last drink. Additionally I'm endurance and weight trained and I'm ~170lbs and 5'8".
Click to expand...
Endurance and weight training doesn't help here. If having a lower BAC after three bourbons is your goal, gain a hundred pounds.
 
Flatiowa said:
Well you put it into public domain so you kinda did already, then made the situation worse by following it up with confirmatory statements that you did so knowingly, and did so on a forum that has members whom are employed by the agency you are ranting against, so idk, but to me that in itself would be another red flag against your judgment or materially significant improvement on maturity and responsible thinking. User names are not a free “nobody will know who you are” way of remaining anonymous. IP address from the poster (which I think would never be brought into question short of a major investigation from something else), but more likely disclosure of lots of details that start to ring bells of a reviewer when you case file comes across their desk for them to put two and two together. Just my hillbilly gut feeling.
Click to expand...

I understand that. It's not an issue that has existed for over 5 years though, so I'm genuinely not bothered. I think it'd be worse if I denied using marijuana or downplayed it's effects in general, and on my life. I also didn't rant against the FAA, like at all. Lol.
 
GaryM said:
Endurance and weight training doesn't help here. If having a lower BAC after three bourbons is your goal, gain a hundred pounds.
Click to expand...
More weight on the body in general and higher blood cell count potentially could. I'm also not crazy lean, have fat but not a lot but muscle is certainly there. I'm sure it does something but yeah you're definitely right that 100 lbs of fat would do more, haha.
 
The size of the bourbons matter, three 5 ounce ones or three standard one shot mixed drinks… three standards after three hours especially with food should not only have been well below limits, but not impairing enough to justify testing. IMHO. I once worked with a man who died from alcohol caused medical issues who alway aggressively stood by that he only drank one drink a night, but he always left out it was a thermos of ice then filled with straight whiskey.
 
ExtremeA79 said:
I wasn't ever diagnosed for ADHD, I just noticed strong ADHD patterns in my brother that were reflected less so in me. I'm 23. I haven't smoked in years since high school. It's quite irrelevant and I only brought it up to exemplify that I'm able to quit things that "feel" good. Good on you for being skeptical though. And no, I didn't disclose it to the FAA on my first application because who does? I wasn't even a legal adult when I did those things. I don't think any adult would potentially compromise themself on that application by explaining their undiagnosed MAYBE adhd, and marijuana use. Seriously, I get being honest and disciplined is important certainly but be realistic. Would you screw yourself over on that?
Click to expand...
You have clearly never dealt with the FAA, and it shows. Realistic and FAA do not exist within the same scope.

Even just saying this much would trigger the red flags at Oklahoma City. FAA is very much guilty until proven innocent. Even saying someone in your family had a history of ADHD would be cause enough for them to require you to prove that you don't have it.

And they will require you to prove it to THEIR standards. Not yours.

Even your willingness to lie to the FAA about ANYTHING, especially where you would be the beneficiary of said lie, would be considered a "hazardous attitude" and indicative of "narcissistic traits".

And they're not limited to just denying your application for lying. They can refer the case to the FBI for criminal prosecution (you can be fined up to $250,000 and jailed for five years for lying to the federal government).

Once they require you to undergo a substance abuse psych evaluation (and they will), they will evaluate you for ADHD, and will flag you as having it if you show ANY signs of it. And no, you won't be able to hide it.

You're in for a shock kid. Buckle up.
 
Last edited:
I suggest the OP doing a bit of research on the FAA Office of Aerospace Medicine and their HIMS program. The good and the bad. The r/FAAHIMS subreddit is a great place to start.

As Dr Bruce would say, best humble yourself and develop a problem solving attitude or take the bus.
 
ExtremeA79 said:
I'm looking at 61.53 and a little confused. Could you elaborate on what part of that grounds me/would ground me? I apologize.
Click to expand...

It could be either 61.53(a) or (b), depending on whether you're talking about an operation that requires a medical certificate or one that does not.
I wrote "could," and not "would" because I don't have enough information or expertise to elaborate further. It depends on how the FAA interprets things, not how I interpret things.
 
ExtremeA79 said:
I'm looking at 61.53 and a little confused. Could you elaborate on what part of that grounds me/would ground me? I apologize.
Click to expand...
14 CFR 61.53(a)(1) Knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation

Your DUI is evidence that you no longer meet the requirements of at least 14 CFR 67.307(b).
 
Jon Wilder said:
It doesn’t. But since 2020, the agency has been nabbing medicals on even a first DUI (they didn’t used to).
Click to expand...
Jon, the true history is: Actually since 2009 if your first one is 0.20 or above or the HIMS psychiatrist thinks it's affected the pilots perception of his problem.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
Jon, get your facts right.

Actually since 2009 if your first one is 0.20 or above or the HIMS psychiatrist thinks it's affected the pilots perception of his problem.
Click to expand...

"...since 2009 if your first one is 0.20 or above"

Is there a source document for that? I believe you. I've heard this also from a few different HIMS AME's. But I don't see it in AME Guide or related docs.

Thank you.
 
It's not published. It's common knowledge among those trained in addiction medicine. in the literature of addictionology, 0.20 or more demonstrates TOLERANCE (I'd be on a respirator. But attempting to drive a car at 0.20...something has changed, hasn't it). As late as 2009 the limit was 0.25 but that's long since gone. And escalating TOLERANCE is one of the part 67 criteria for (under the aviation definition of) alcohol dependency.

So there are many out there bitching "dependency? on ONE DUI ! W_F!"
Sorry, Charlie: that just means that person more than likely, has been drinking long and hard and just got caught just this once....after all that's the common route to tolerance--"PRACTICE, PRACTICE, over time!".
 
Last edited:
You see that’s just weird. The faa uses common knowledge addictionolgy to determine tolerance is a .2, but won’t listen to the DSM 5?

Won’t even listen when Kay administers a cog screen and says an airman is fine?

Won’t listen to LOTS of current practicing EXPERTS.

Awfully picky and choosy.
 
bbchien said:
It's not published. It's common knowledge among those trained in addiction medicine. in the literature of addictionology, 0.20 or more demonstrates TOLERANCE (I'd be on a respirator. But attempting to drive a car at 0.20...something has changed, hasn't it). As late as 2009 the limit was 0.25 but that's long since gone. And escalating TOLERANCE is one of the part 67 criteria for (under the aviation definition of) alcohol dependency.

So there are many out there bitching "dependency? on ONE DUI ! W_F!"
Sorry, Charlie: that just means that person more than likely, has been drinking long and hard and just got caught just this once....after all that's the common route to tolerance--"PRACTICE, PRACTICE, over time!".
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying.
 
bbchien said:
It's not published. It's common knowledge among those trained in addiction medicine. in the literature of addictionology, 0.20 or more demonstrates TOLERANCE (I'd be on a respirator. But attempting to drive a car at 0.20...something has changed, hasn't it). As late as 2009 the limit was 0.25 but that's long since gone. And escalating TOLERANCE is one of the part 67 criteria for (under the aviation definition of) alcohol dependency.

So there are many out there bitching "dependency? on ONE DUI ! W_F!"
Sorry, Charlie: that just means that person more than likely, has been drinking long and hard and just got caught just this once....after all that's the common route to tolerance--"PRACTICE, PRACTICE, over time!".
Click to expand...


Evidence based medicine demands quantifiable proof.


The FAA ignores even basic accepted medical standards.


After my alcohol traffic ticket, FAA sent me to multiple “experts.” The first substance abuse professional said I was fine…not the answer FAA wanted. Jokelahoma the demanded a HIMS psychiatrist. I paid, got a detailed report with collateral interviews and bloodwork, he found nothing wrong. With no more experts left, FAA quacks ignored everything and forced me into HIMS anyway. It took a lawyer and nearly a year to escape.


If today’s FAA were in charge of pilots in WWII, we’d have had maybe five pilots left after all their nonsense. We would’ve lost the war.



Also if .2 put you on a vent you have some other major underlying medical issues

Not sharing my name, no interest in self righteous demands for public self-flagellation.

It just seems to me you can be both honest and say the FAA is off the reservation when it comes to HIMS, but also offer advise for navigating the septic tank
 
HonestyPlease said:
Also if .2 put you on a vent you have some other major underlying medical issues
Click to expand...
None at all other than 40 years of sobriety.
HonestyPlease said:
Evidence based medicine demands quantifiable proof.
Click to expand...
We'll it's in the literature of addictionology. Once you get your MD degree and boards, you "might" "get it"...I'm not teaching Medicine 101, here.

0.20, are you out of your m__d? 2.5 times the legal limit? That just means you don't remember when with a .08 and you were all over the road. So your tolerance has increased and that's criteria for dependency. And its' a good bet that HMS psyhchiatry report doesn't say what you think it said. For now, take the bus. You do have a problem, you just don't recognize what it is.
 
Another POV that maybe helpful. There is precedent for using judgement of a limit. Where did the .08 limit come from? We agree that that is a good limit to have. Is it based on a double blind experiment, or based somewhat on judgment as well?

A limit has to be something that can apply to the population. .19? .21? Someone has to pick some number. Is .2 irrational?
 
Dude this is a public forum! Let's just say it was a choice I made and keep to, to this day.
and to JBarrass, I am not teaching psychiatry 101 here. You have the tools, do a search....
 
HonestyPlease said:
If today’s FAA were in charge of pilots in WWII, we’d have had maybe five pilots left after all their nonsense. We would’ve lost the war.
Click to expand...

Not taking sides, but I'm reminded of the beer mug featured in Twelve O'clock High:
Screen-shot-1-1000x800.jpg
 
You blow a 0.20, you get to pilot this...even then, you're a menace...

Gemini_Generated_Image_u54quiu54quiu54q.png
 
In this whole string the OP never answered the question if he had any sort of BAC determination. So the going guess is, the answer is "no".
So we cannot help him, it's off to the high level evaluators he goes....(Three bourbons puts a 170 pounder very near 0.15.....)
 
bbchien said:
Dude this is a public forum! Let's just say it was a choice I made and keep to, to this day.
and to JBarrass, I am not teaching psychiatry 101 here. You have the tools, do a search....
Click to expand...
Congrats Doc. Good call. Thank you for sharing your perspective with us here.
 
Back
Top