JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
You know, I've never tried XPlane while drinking...
DUIs automatic killer?
- Thread starter evaneeds
- Start date
You know, I've never tried XPlane while drinking...
My first flight instructor (who was also my roommate for the latter half of my training) drank like a fish. We'd go out drinking in Boulder (we lived just south of Jeffco) and would have to stop off at the end of our street at his brother-in-law's liquor store to get a six pack to drink on the way. He'd also drive home with his IFR hood on so he could "concentrate on the lines." (I always wondered how this would be explained to the police if he was ever stopped).
He never flew under the influence. He left aviation for real estate not too long after that anyhow.
DaleB
Final Approach
Some airline pilots, and some non pilots, will drive or fly drunk simply because the first thing that happens when they drink is that any trace of judgment they have goes right out the window.
When I drink -- even one or two beers, which is pretty much my max any more -- I know I'm not completely there, and I shouldn't drive, ride, fly, use power tools, or engage in any conversation that might end up serious. Some people simply don't have the ability to maintain any judgment at all. When they drink they feel completely in control, they're fine, they can do anything. Anything at all; in fact they're suddenly Superman, Albert Einstein, Mario Andretti, Bob Hoover and Hugh Hefner all rolled into one (look 'em up, kids).
mcmanigle
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2013
- Messages
- 521
- Display Name
Display name:
John McManigle
You summed up the logic very well here, which is:
1. You know drinking and flying has a higher chance of killing you or someone else than sober flying,
2. You know there are quantitative laws around drinking and flying to set standards for #1, so it's not a personal risk-benefit judgement call.
3. Because of #1 and #2, as you put it, "it will never happen, for me."
Compare that to drinking and driving. #1 and #2 are both still true. Someone who has a DUI has demonstrated that, for them, #3 does not follow from #1 and #2.
Let's look at "punishing one for a thought crime." In a way you're right about the "thought" part. The DUI has nothing to do with aviation. It has to do with a thought process. For whatever reason, the logical leap #1 + #2 => #3 didn't happen on one occasion, and the FAA is worried it won't happen again. And (as has been discussed) there are ways to demonstrate that the logical mishap is no longer a problem, but those ways are more difficult the more recently it occurred or the more times it occurred.
Now the "punishment" and "crime" bits. Denying a medical based on a demonstrated failure of the logical thinking faculties is no different than denying it based on demonstrated suicidality, or demonstrated active uncontrolled seizure disorder. A medical certification, and flying in general, isn't a right. Being afforded equal procedure in the evaluation process is a right (to due process and equal protection, specifically). The government cannot deny a blind person freedom of speech. The government can deny a blind person the freedom to fly an airplane, so long as all blind people are denied on equitable bases.
In short, if you want to take the most colloquial definition of "punished for a thought crime," the FAA does it all the time. Suicidality is a "thought crime." Inability to understand English is a "thought crime." And yes, if you want to put it that way, demonstrated failure in the logical inference that is the only think preventing intoxicated flying is a "thought crime" that the FAA "punishes."
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
One exemplar does not a statistically relevant population make.
NineThreeKilo
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,196
- Location
- Hard to keep up
- Display Name
Display name:
NineThreeKilo
Dude, life is dangerous, live with it or stay home.
I'm just sick of the American sheep going hook line and sinker for anything that "for saftey" "the children" "fight terror" etc etc.
Honestly if you see me swerving or running over a curb or something, by all means pull me over and have me do the roadside olympics.
But if I'm just driving in a normal manner, don't follow me, don't stop me at your BS roadblocks, basicsly F' off and leave me alone.
If that means there is a slightly higher chance of me getting hit by a drunk, fine, I'm freedoms are worth more to me then the slight chance something might happen.
Let's call a duck a duck, it's $20k a pop and they don't give that money to a victims fund or anything, the MASS MAJORITY is profit.
Just look at some of the lobbying by the private jail industry, I'm sure that's all for "your saftey" lol
DFH65
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2013
- Messages
- 2,615
- Display Name
Display name:
DFH65
You are barking up the wrong tree "dude." If you responded like that infront of anyone who knows me they would laugh at you. Do you even know what a minarchist view is? Show me where I said anything about road blocks or following people or any of the other crap was OK.
I simply said that 30% of fatal car accidents are alcohol related and that more improvement is needed. I don't drink but I don't care if you drink until your pickled every day of the week and your liver fails. Just don't get behind the wheel of a car or an airplane for that matter and drive where other people are exercising their freedom. Freedom doesn't mean doing whatever you want whenever you want without responsibility for your actions. You do not have a right to endanger my life with your stupidity.
What in your view is an appropriate penalty for DUI? Or is there no penalty unless someone dies or property is damaged?
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
/mod hat on
We're treading really close to personal comments about each other here.... let's not go down that road and get the thread closed. All the valuable information here gets lost in the personal sniping.
/mod hat off
We're treading really close to personal comments about each other here.... let's not go down that road and get the thread closed. All the valuable information here gets lost in the personal sniping.
/mod hat off
NineThreeKilo
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,196
- Location
- Hard to keep up
- Display Name
Display name:
NineThreeKilo
When you said your view point as a libertarian and followed it with a BUT, normally that's the way people justify going the opposite direction ie, "normally I'm a nice guy, but I'm going to kick a midget today".
Anywho, I said how I think it should be handled, I believe without evidence of drunk driving people should be left alone.
If someone is driving drunk all the fines should go to a local victims fund, maybe a hundred bucks or so go to the local PD for filing fees. Right now there is too much profit to be made by handing out DUIs, it's profit masquerading as saftey right now.
Also though driving drunk is not a good thing, I've seen harsher punishments for DUIs then burglerys around here, that's F'd up, why?? Because there is no money to be made catching burglars and returning personal property.
Also when you get a DUI it's like a death sentence, if someone gets caught at a police check point and blows a .08, even though they were driving fine, it's on their record and possible going to destroy their career. THINK ABOUT IT, what does that person have to loose now? Their job is toast, probably not going to get another job in their field, now the dude has all these "fines" to pay out to the police system yet no job, so what happens when he can't pay the fees?
Also his insurance just shot through the roof even if the guy has never had a accident (profit), he has no license to drive to find another job (probably will have to break the law to get to work, possible future profit for the PD at the next check point) and still has his normal monthy bills.
Simply put the crime does not match the punishment and we have profit to thank for it.
DFH65
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2013
- Messages
- 2,615
- Display Name
Display name:
DFH65
You are right poor sentence structure on my part. As I said I don't know the answer but we need to find ways to keep improving. 10,000 deaths a year is too many. Could you imagine what the FAA would look like if we had 10,000 deaths a year. 
I would agree that it doesn't make much sense to set an arbitrary number at which someone is considered impaired and therefore likely to be driving recklessly depending on the person it could be .05 or it could be .09 or higher. I think checkpoints are unconstitutional.
I think you may be exaggerating a bit I know a few people that have had DUIs and very few have lost their jobs and I can't think of any that I know that turned to a life of crime. They did pay out the nose for lawyers and court fees.
As far as insurance goes I would disagree with you completely on that. The whole job of insurers are to assess risk and determine cost. Clearly if they believe someone with a DUI is a higher risk for them they should charge more.
I have no issue with enforcing laws against driving recklessly whether it is from alcohol other drugs, cell phones, big macs or putting on makeup.
I would agree that it doesn't make much sense to set an arbitrary number at which someone is considered impaired and therefore likely to be driving recklessly depending on the person it could be .05 or it could be .09 or higher. I think checkpoints are unconstitutional.
I think you may be exaggerating a bit I know a few people that have had DUIs and very few have lost their jobs and I can't think of any that I know that turned to a life of crime. They did pay out the nose for lawyers and court fees.
As far as insurance goes I would disagree with you completely on that. The whole job of insurers are to assess risk and determine cost. Clearly if they believe someone with a DUI is a higher risk for them they should charge more.
I have no issue with enforcing laws against driving recklessly whether it is from alcohol other drugs, cell phones, big macs or putting on makeup.
Last edited:
Dead Stick
Line Up and Wait
Two DUIs on your record??? You're not going to have a career in any cockpit. Period.
NineThreeKilo
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,196
- Location
- Hard to keep up
- Display Name
Display name:
NineThreeKilo
You are right poor sentence structure on my part. As I said I don't know the answer but we need to find ways to keep improving. 10,000 deaths a year is too many. Could you imagine what the FAA would look like if we had 10,000 deaths a year.
I would agree that it doesn't make much sense to set an arbitrary number at which someone is considered impaired and therefore likely to be driving recklessly depending on the person it could be .05 or it could be .09 or higher. I think checkpoints are unconstitutional.
I think you may be exaggerating a bit I know a few people that have had DUIs and very few have lost their jobs and I can't think of any that I know that turned to a life of crime. They did pay out the nose for lawyers and court fees.
As far as insurance goes I would disagree with you completely on that. The whole job of insurers are to assess risk and determine cost. Clearly if they believe someone with a DUI is a higher risk for them they should charge more.
I have no issue with enforcing laws against driving recklessly whether it is from alcohol other drugs, cell phones, big macs or putting on makeup.
True.
More people die due to poor health, diabetics, MIs, stroke, etc.
Maybe cops should start arresting the fatties at the checkpoints, fining them 20k and making their insurance go up for being over a certain body fat percentage.
Stupidity kills WAY more people then DUI, let's arrest and fine dumb people too.
I'll leave the thread be now, but my two points
1) We need to chill the F' out with DUIs, no roadblocks, no tailgating folks just because it's a weekend night, etc.
2) Any DUI money needs to be COMPLETLY prohibited from going to the police departments or prisons
Sac Arrow
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 11, 2010
- Messages
- 20,381
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
- Display Name
Display name:
Snorting his way across the USA
That has always been my point. Completely. If I take out a school bus while I'm putting on my makeup, fry me. If I don't take out a school bus, or another hapless driver or pedestrian, well, then.....
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Just remember, it was your elected congress that demanded the system that relates driving record to aviation.
So the standard you cite and according to your logic, DUI is just a thought crime.....when it comes to aviating. Alcoholism as a disease has never been known to restrict itself to one activity or another. Beating the wife I guess is a thought crime, too....which was usually alcohol related.....etc etc etc.
Congress has already decided not to let you wipe out the school bus. Just the way it is.
comanchepilot
En-Route
Have you ever tested your bac when you were 0.04? And then compared how you feel?
I'm no alcoholic and certainly lack any kind of alcohol tolerance - and when I'm 0.04 - I know I am impaired . . .
Skylane81E
Final Approach
Airmen database shows if you have a medical or not
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
A DUI does not, by default, take away your flying privileges.
If you're dealing with Light-Sport, and someone is flying on a "Driver's License" medical, then their flying is not permitted while their DL is suspended. If they have a 3rd Class or higher, then the DL suspension in and of itself does not impact their flight privileges.
That said, DUI arrests and convictions must be reported to the FAA at appropriate times (depending on the event, immediately or at next medical). The FAA can then take action that would impact flight privileges, but such actions are technically independent from a DL suspension.