False DUI Arrests and the FAA

Lindberg said:
I'm asking you.
Click to expand...
You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not the one bestowing the requirements. The FAA is. Only they can answer as to why.

Lindberg said:
And if you're claiming that the FAA requires such, show us. The guidance for AMEs is publicly available.
Click to expand...
You assume they follow that guide to the T. You sure put a lot of faith in them.

I just showed you a few posts above regarding a designated driver who was pulled over. He refused the preliminary breath test, was arrested, and brought to the station. At the station, he submitted to a blood test. Test results came back clean. He was still required to go through HIMS. You can ask Tools more about it as it was a friend of his that it happened to.

Problem is I post up links for you when you ask me to "show you" and you retort with "I'm not doing your homework.", as you did when I posted up several links to news coverage regarding the sober DUI epidemic.

At a NTSB Safety Summit following the Alaska Airlines incident, FAA Dr Penny Giovanetti claimed that they "dropped the requirement for regular random cognitive screen testing in association with the SSRI program.We found looking in our some ten years of data that in fact that cognitive screening test was not adding to our decision making or our risk assessment. And so...we quit doin' it."

Guess what? People are still being required by the FAA to do cog screen testing. 14:20 on the clock -


I doubt you'll watch it though because that would be "doing my homework" as you once put it.
 
Jon Wilder said:
You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not the one bestowing the requirements. The FAA is. Only they can answer as to why.


You assume they follow that guide to the T. You sure put a lot of faith in them.

I just showed you a few posts above regarding a designated driver who was pulled over. He refused the preliminary breath test, was arrested, and brought to the station. At the station, he submitted to a blood test. Test results came back clean. He was still required to go through HIMS. You can ask Tools more about it as it was a friend of his that it happened to.

Problem is I post up links for you when you ask me to "show you" and you retort with "I'm not doing your homework.", as you did when I posted up several links to news coverage regarding the sober DUI epidemic.

At a NTSB Safety Summit following the Alaska Airlines incident, FAA Dr Penny Giovanetti claimed that they "dropped the requirement for regular random cognitive screen testing in association with the SSRI program.We found looking in our some ten years of data that in fact that cognitive screening test was not adding to our decision making or our risk assessment. And so...we quit doin' it."

Guess what? People are still being required by the FAA to do cog screen testing. 14:20 on the clock -


I doubt you'll watch it though because that would be "doing my homework" as you once put it.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Alcohol damages the brain. You conflate the SSRI path with the alcohol path.
 
Lindberg said:
Why would someone who had DUI charges dismissed after testing showed 0.0 BAC need to spend thousands to get a medical?
Click to expand...

Because a line pilot diagnosed them as an alcoholic, and the company bribed AME supported it.

And yes, I know someone PERSONALLY to whom this has happened.

On the flip side… ZERO incidents part 121 attributed to alcohol use. The “program” should be abolished. It has prevented nothing.
 
Tools said:
Because a line pilot diagnosed them as an alcoholic, and the company bribed AME supported it.

And yes, I know someone PERSONALLY to whom this has happened.

On the flip side… ZERO incidents part 121 attributed to alcohol use. The “program” should be abolished. It has prevented nothing.
Click to expand...
As you've said before. But that's an employer, not the FAA.

This really seems to have run its course. So many windmills, so little time.

And just for the record, not that anyone arguing to the contrary actually cares, but the FAA says that for a single incident with a BAC of 0.0, the AME can issue in office:
 
Tools said:
On the flip side… ZERO incidents part 121 attributed to alcohol use. The “program” should be abolished. It has prevented nothing.
Click to expand...
The FAA, of course, will just say, "that proves the system is working."

There have been several cases of revenue pilots going through HIMS and medical hell for a sober DUI. They've been discussed here in previous threads, and were in the news as well.
 
Jon Wilder said:
If you were actually operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, then you should have the book thrown at you.

If you were stopped and found to be not impaired, however, and the stop/arrest was found to be a false arrest, you should be treated as such. None of this "Yeah well you were arrested for it so we're gonna punish you anyway" nonsense.
Click to expand...
The process is the punishment. I recently retrieved a family member who had their car towed because they were stopped for speeding and did not have their license with them.

$300 to get the car out of the tow yard.
 
Lindberg said:
As you've said before. But that's an employer, not the FAA.
Click to expand...
Except the FAA sides with the employer without evaluating each employer reported case. So you don’t just lose your job. The FAA pulls your medical and you’re in the long arduous and expensive fight with them to get your medical back.

There is a court case filed in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals where a pilot employed by a cargo airline was on a personal trip abroad when his employer selected him for a random drug test and requested that he appear for testing in Seattle on the same day. The pilot was unable to comply due to his location and a medical issue. The airline determined that he had refused the test, reported this to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and subsequently terminated his employment. The FAA corresponded with the pilot, initially investigating the matter and ultimately informing him that, while it was not taking enforcement action against his certificates, he would be subject to return-to-duty requirements because of the refusal determination, and the test refusal would be reported to the Pilot Records Database.

The pilot challenged these consequences, arguing that the FAA had not independently reviewed the employer’s determination that he refused the test. The FAA responded that test-refusal determinations were made solely by the employer, not by the agency, and that the FAA did not review such determinations. The case came before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the pilot’s petition for review of the FAA’s actions.

The Court of Appeals held that the FAA’s internal guidance, specifically its Drug and Alcohol Compliance and Enforcement Surveillance Handbook, plausibly requires the FAA to independently review an employer’s test-refusal determination. The court interpreted the Handbook to require such review, partly to avoid serious constitutional concerns that would arise if the FAA entirely delegated this authority to private employers without oversight. Because the FAA conceded that it did not conduct any review, the court found the agency’s actions to be arbitrary and capricious for departing from its own procedures. The court granted the petition in part, remanding the case to the FAA for further review consistent with its opinion.

The case is Ryan J Paul v FAA.

You can post up all of the FAA’s published guidelines all you want. In the end, they’re just guidelines. They have been a repeat offender of acting arbitrary and capricious in their decision making, departing from their own regulations and procedures as they see fit. Erwin v. FAA is another classic case of this.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top