HIMS AME false claim?

bigbird

bigbird

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jul 24, 2021
Messages
15
Display Name
Display name:
bigbird
I have been trying to get the FAA to verify this quote from my HIMS initial from Dr. 'G' " It’s not my position, The FAA is very specific in this. A refusal to obtain a breathalyzer or a BAL > 0.15 on a moving violation is equivalent to alcohol dependence.
That’s their regulatory position. It’s not my opinion, nor would I actually argue for that position.
It simply is where they stand."
The nearest I can find to the truth in this is that the AME's are asked to defer if the Airman has a BAC of 1.6, as I did.. Incidentally, This is from a OUI in 1999. (I know... no time limit, just sayin' 23 years ago)
I have pointed this out to the FAA and they have refused to make a comment to the accuracy of my HIMS AME's bold statement. They have taken the position that I am CFR Alcohol Dependent based solely on Dr. G's evaluation, in which he also refused to include any DSM criteria. Prior to Dr. G's evaluation had an extensive 12 session evaluation from a licensed evaluator at the behest of the Fed's with an outcome paraphrased as "past history of alcohol abuse, in complete remission..."
Has anyone else had a similar experience?
 
It AINT a medical diagnosis, in ANY way shape or form. It’s an ADMINISTRATIVE criteria you have met. Why they require a MD or DO when all that is required is the ability to read at a sixth grade level, is beyond me.

“The pamphlet says...”. Geesh.

Your best bet is to have a lawyer explain it to them.

There is a good argument that any “doctor” allowing a patient to be subjected to what the FAA wants when it’s NOT medically necessary, is in violation of their Hippocratic oath.

Since it’s administrative, they may as well allow a book keeper to force you to do this stuff.

I do know a guy who had to sign a waiver from the rehab facility he was sentenced to, stating that it was a non medically required treatment... wow.
 
Last edited:
bigbird said:
I have been trying to get the FAA to verify this quote from my HIMS initial from Dr. 'G' " It’s not my position, The FAA is very specific in this. A refusal to obtain a breathalyzer or a BAL > 0.15 on a moving violation is equivalent to alcohol dependence.
That’s their regulatory position. It’s not my opinion, nor would I actually argue for that position.
It simply is where they stand."
The nearest I can find to the truth in this is that the AME's are asked to defer if the Airman has a BAC of 1.6, as I did.. Incidentally, This is from a OUI in 1999. (I know... no time limit, just sayin' 23 years ago)
I have pointed this out to the FAA and they have refused to make a comment to the accuracy of my HIMS AME's bold statement. They have taken the position that I am CFR Alcohol Dependent based solely on Dr. G's evaluation, in which he also refused to include any DSM criteria. Prior to Dr. G's evaluation had an extensive 12 session evaluation from a licensed evaluator at the behest of the Fed's with an outcome paraphrased as "past history of alcohol abuse, in complete remission..."
Has anyone else had a similar experience?
Click to expand...

.15 or greater in most states is characterized as a super DUI. It means you were drunk off your ass. It usually involves a long suspension, mandatory jail time and dependence programs .

The FAA’s rules are you are medically unfit without HIMS completion.
 
Last edited:
You're not a victim. You drank to excess and drove a vehicle. You ARE CFR defined alcohol dependent due to increased tolerance. Go read 14 CFR 67.107, Unless you can prove prolonged sobriety and recovery activities you're not going to get medically certified. The DSM has nothing to do with your diagnosis, as the FAA defined their medical criteria in the FARs.
 
ThatOtherGuy said:
as the FAA defined their medical criteria in the FARs.
Click to expand...

I believe you are incorrect about this point. The FARs define what is required of currently-certificated pilots, they do not define how medical evaluation of alcohol dependence is defined for those who are applying to become pilots. It is Aeromedical Branch policy that defines these requirements, and these are not promulgated in the FARs. Consequentially, these policies have not been subjected to public comment.

There are two edges to this sword. If all Aeromedical Branch policy had to be spelled out in the FARs, it might not be a good thing, as trying to get changes made would be even more cumbersome than it already has become. The positive is, it would subject Aeromedical Branch's policies to more public scrutiny, a fair amount of which would likely come from medical professionals that might make the FAA look bad for not following current medical standards and guidance.
 
ThatOtherGuy said:
You're not a victim. You drank to excess and drove a vehicle. You ARE CFR defined alcohol dependent due to increased tolerance. Go read 14 CFR 67.107, Unless you can prove prolonged sobriety and recovery activities you're not going to get medically certified. The DSM has nothing to do with your diagnosis, as the FAA defined their medical criteria in the FARs.
Click to expand...
I think you are wrong but if you are right that regulation is morally wrong and should be removed.
 
No, you're uninformed. Alcohol dependence is very clearly defined and the FARs definitely went through the NPRM process.

Go read 14 CFR 67.107(a)(4)(ii) : "
“Substance dependence” means a condition in which a person is dependent on a substance, other than tobacco or ordinary xanthine-containing (e.g., caffeine) beverages, as evidenced by -
(A) Increased tolerance;
(B) Manifestation of withdrawal symptoms;
(C) Impaired control of use; or
(D) Continued use despite damage to physical health or impairment of social, personal, or occupational functioning.
"
A .15 BAC is de facto evidence of increased tolerance.
 
Uh... where is it a “fact” that any of that criteria = .15 BAC? Is that somewhere ELSE in the CFR? 14 cfr 67.107 doesn’t seem to say that. Only you did... Just curious...
 
I have a pilot who is an FO now, single DUI 0.15. Full HIMS. But the guy was “Hey I’m fine, what’s you problem?”. That didn’t go over so good. He had no ability to admit he had an issue.

So he was sent to “re-education” camp.
….”a lot depends….”
 
The message the OP should be hearing - fight this and you might never fly again.
 
bigbird said:
I have been trying to get the FAA to verify this quote from my HIMS initial from Dr. 'G' " It’s not my position, The FAA is very specific in this. A refusal to obtain a breathalyzer or a BAL > 0.15 on a moving violation is equivalent to alcohol dependence.
That’s their regulatory position. It’s not my opinion, nor would I actually argue for that position.
It simply is where they stand."
The nearest I can find to the truth in this is that the AME's are asked to defer if the Airman has a BAC of 1.6, as I did.. Incidentally, This is from a OUI in 1999. (I know... no time limit, just sayin' 23 years ago)
I have pointed this out to the FAA and they have refused to make a comment to the accuracy of my HIMS AME's bold statement. They have taken the position that I am CFR Alcohol Dependent based solely on Dr. G's evaluation, in which he also refused to include any DSM criteria. Prior to Dr. G's evaluation had an extensive 12 session evaluation from a licensed evaluator at the behest of the Fed's with an outcome paraphrased as "past history of alcohol abuse, in complete remission..."
Has anyone else had a similar experience?
Click to expand...
 
wow, just wow.... i'm amazed at the judgements passed down from some of the respondents.. Don't drink the Kool-Aid.
If i am going to be held to a Federal regulation... Please state your reference.
Sorry.. I'm not a lawyer as suggested, just a simple airman.
And to 'ThatotherGuy' that's some pretty poignant stuff. Perhaps you should look at some case law involving the FAA's own chief psychiatrist.
Google Dustman v. Huerta, No. 13 C 3565, 8 (N.D. Ill. May. 30, 2014) (“Dr. Chesanow noted [petitioner's] BAC of 0.239 exceeded the FAA level of 0.20.”)
If that isn't enough, how about a page from a recent HIMS seminar power point presentation from the FAA's Dr. Dumstorf:
(https://himsprogram.com/docs/2017 Basic Presentations/3 - FAA ETOH Reporting Issues - Dumstorf.ppt)
One DUI ≤ 5 years ago

If BAC ≥ .15 or Refusal then AME should DEFER.


AMCD will additionally ask for:

1)Driver’s license records for last 10 years.
2)Substance Abuse Evaluation to our specs
3)Possibly CBC, liver enzymes, etc.
●
If BAC very high (≥.20) and/or degree of impairment suggest tolerance then sub abuse P&P will be required instead of SAE.

Sorry I'm too new to the forums to be able to post links yet.

I could go on. This seems to be a very polar argument.
and to BFlynn, feel free to march with other lemmings.
How do you actually suppose that the HIMS program maintains a 90% recovery rate? Pretty good odd that it has a lot to do with non medical criteria used for admission.
Ponder showing clinical evidence of recovery from a regulation? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm not trying to be defensive... i can only find .20 in established case law, not .15
 
Hey thank you for citing your background information instead of just peddling hearsay on this board. If you can find me a case where someone sued because their AME based his/her decision to put someone into HIMS on anything other than a DUI (I know a few people that this has happened to) you have made a new friend.
 
The AME doesn't do that. The FAA does that, seriously dude, get real.
But If you have an attitude they will crush you into submission. Hey no Kidding.

That said, I recently had a guy with a 0.16 who got issued, after a HIMS psychiatrist opined that he though the applicant had no alcohol use disorder.

bigbird said:
wow, just wow.... i'm amazed at the judgements passed down from some of the respondents.. Don't drink the Kool-Aid.
If i am going to be held to a Federal regulation... Please state your reference.
Sorry.. I'm not a lawyer as suggested, just a simple airman.
And to 'ThatotherGuy' that's some pretty poignant stuff. Perhaps you should look at some case law involving the FAA's own chief psychiatrist.
Google Dustman v. Huerta, No. 13 C 3565, 8 (N.D. Ill. May. 30, 2014) (“Dr. Chesanow noted [petitioner's] BAC of 0.239 exceeded the FAA level of 0.20.”)
If that isn't enough, how about a page from a recent HIMS seminar power point presentation from the FAA's Dr. Dumstorf:
(https://himsprogram.com/docs/2017 Basic Presentations/3 - FAA ETOH Reporting Issues - Dumstorf.ppt)
One DUI ≤ 5 years ago

If BAC ≥ .15 or Refusal then AME should DEFER.


AMCD will additionally ask for:

1)Driver’s license records for last 10 years.
2)Substance Abuse Evaluation to our specs
3)Possibly CBC, liver enzymes, etc.
●
If BAC very high (≥.20) and/or degree of impairment suggest tolerance then sub abuse P&P will be required instead of SAE.

Sorry I'm too new to the forums to be able to post links yet.

I could go on. This seems to be a very polar argument.
and to BFlynn, feel free to march with other lemmings.
How do you actually suppose that the HIMS program maintains a 90% recovery rate? Pretty good odd that it has a lot to do with non medical criteria used for admission.
Ponder showing clinical evidence of recovery from a regulation? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm not trying to be defensive... i can only find .20 in established case law, not .15
Click to expand...
There is so much misinformation here I'm not even going to try.

S.H, getting evaluated by a HIMS psychiatrist is not the same as getting put into HIMS. But between 0.15 and 0.20 - since you do have tolerance, the only person in the system able to credibly make the decision between Dependency and abuse, is the HIMS psychiatrist....and my life would be a lot simpler if the only route to one WASN'T through a HIMS AME, but that's how it is.

You can yak and squawk all you want, but the HIMS psychiatrists generally do NOT want to see you without six months of provable abstinence. Why? Your $3,000 only buys a "too much going on to make a determination". Don't want to do six months of sobriety?......(testing is about $650).....that speaks volumes. "the man, with known tolerance, would rather have his alcohol than a pilot certificate.

0.20 is by definition a "don't see the HIMS pscyhiatrist, we already know the answer, go get rehab". 0.15 to 0.199 is a "needs precise evaluation from people we know"...zone.

So GET THIS: USING HIMS RESOURECES IS NOT THE SAME AS "IN THE HIMS PROGRAM"! Got it? It is an efficient way of getting a qualified determination so you aren't down for years and years at a time. I tell those guys, "call me after the denial".

I have recently declined to engage more than a half dozen attorneys who have attempted to parse the requirements. That is FAIL FAIL FAIL and my door is closed to that.
 
Last edited:
And a word to the wise, bbchien is an AME who is very experienced at getting medical certificates for people with difficult situations. He knows what it takes to succeed with the FAA.
 
Hmmm, thanks for all the concern about by welfare... but, for the record, I did jump through all the hoops required, and have had my unrestricted medical back for quite some time now..
well before the 'Lifetime Mandates' now implemented. Giving the Fed's 2 years of proven abstinence for me was strictly a formality and expense. In my case I had to stay in a location where I
had cell service for a soberlink device the entire time.. Not easy considering I live in a very remote part of the country, with no access to a testing facility near by. I'm not sure of what misinformation Dr. Chien thinks
i may be spreading, I'm just stating establish case law. Perhaps the FAA should not use language that parallels AMA established disease criteria without a clinical diagnosis.
I am apparently viewed as member of the 90% success rate. That part burns me to no end.. There was nothing that resembled treatment in my case just some bureaucratic mandates placed on me more than 10 years after the motor vehicle violation.
 
Last edited:
bigbird said:
Perhaps the FAA should not use language that parallels AMA established disease criteria without a clinical diagnosis.
Click to expand...

It's been said multiple times in this thread - the FAA isn't medically diagnosing you. Other members here have vehemently argued this point, not convinced anyone, and left.
 
bflynn said:
It's been said multiple times in this thread - the FAA isn't medically diagnosing you. Other members here have vehemently argued this point, not convinced anyone, and left.
Click to expand...

So why not change the language to reflect that?
If it is not a medical diagnosis, why use that language?


I know how touchy this subject is... It seems that the same names respond to any criticism of the system. So, ya in a small way I agree bflynn. some people will never change.
Are you claiming that this forum is not a place of open discussion, hoping that those with non aligned thoughts just move on?
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
The AME doesn't do that. The FAA does that, seriously dude, get real.
But If you have an attitude they will crush you into submission. Hey no Kidding.

That said, I recently had a guy with a 0.16 who got issued, after a HIMS psychiatrist opined that he though the applicant had no alcohol use disorder.
Click to expand...

I guess what I meant is that per the AME's direction, the applicant must at the very least see a HIMS Psych if there is suspicion of abuse/dependance.

Has the FAA has ever overturned a HIMS Psych opinion of abuse/dependance? Or is it more-so them relying on the AME/HIMS Psych to put the package together so they can review/rubber stamp issue/deny?
 
bigbird said:
Hmmm, thanks for all the concern about by welfare... but, for the record, I did jump through all the hoops required, and have had my unrestricted medical back for quite some time now..
well before the 'Lifetime Mandates' now implemented....
Click to expand...
Good to hear!
 
bflynn said:
It's been said multiple times in this thread - the FAA isn't medically diagnosing you. Other members here have vehemently argued this point, not convinced anyone, and left.
Click to expand...
I think that some who have vehemently argued that point have stuck around.
 
Principal said:
Has the FAA has ever overturned a HIMS Psych opinion of abuse/dependance? Or is it more-so them relying on the AME/HIMS Psych to put the package together so they can review/rubber stamp issue/deny?
Click to expand...

Yes.

But the other way around, there have been cases where the HIMS AME and at the request of the FAA, a HIMS psyc, stated the airman didn’t meet any DISQUALIFYING conditions per the FAAs own criteria, the FAA ignored all the findings THEY asked for and put the airman into HIMS anyways.

Posting as anon for obvious reasons
 
bigbird said:
I know how touchy this subject is... It seems that the same names respond to any criticism of the system. So, ya in a small way I agree bflynn. some people will never change.
Are you claiming that this forum is not a place of open discussion, hoping that those with non aligned thoughts just move on?
Click to expand...

PoA has a "Search" function. You'll find there's a long history of discussion on this and related topics, spanning over a decade.

You are not the first to think that the FAA's handling of alcohol issues is "unfair" or "unjust" or "non-medical" or a variety of other negative adjectives one can come up with. Nor are you the first to rant about it, or try to prove it to everybody, or seeking the camaraderie of others to agree with you.

I personally have no expertise either legal or medical, but I respect those on this board that do (our AME's in particular -- a resource of value beyond measure). An airman seeking advice would be well-served by heeding theirs. If your purpose is just want to rile us all up about "the system" and how it needs a-changin', then that's a different kind of conversation -- one that personally I tire of easily, maybe because I've been here a long time.

I'm glad you (apparently) successfully navigated the hoops of the medical system long ago. Given that, I'm still not sure what your original question was, or if it got answered, or if it was ever a question at all?
 
I am leaning toward the rubber stamp as Pricipal mentioned.
I cant imagine why a HIMS AME would ever subject an airman or, moreover, themselves to the liability of a 'diagnosis' based on interpretation of a CFR without and associated APA or AMA diagnosis to satisfy the ethical requirements of their medical license.
I believe that the FAA now requires it as part of the package. My guy didn't even fill out a HIMS initial.
It's refreshing to hear that Dr. Chien does have knowledge of at least 1 HIMS psychiatrist who has opined that their airman didn't have a alcohol use disorder with a BAC of 0.16.
that contradicts what I have in writing from my HIMS psychiatrist: "a BAL > 0.15 on a moving violation is equivalent to alcohol dependence"
this last directly quoted statement is why I started this thread in the first place.

If HIMS Psychiatrists are trained by the FAA and the FAA spent more than 5 years prior reviewing the my case file. wouldn't a regulatory violation have been quite obvious to the sensei, not left to be misinterpreted by the seito
Yes, Virginia, the FAA (in my opinion) does use their HIMS trained docs as pawns to distance themselves from litigation under the guise of case load.
We all know the system is broken and denial is the all too often explanation given when an airmen fights for answers. Perhaps I'm afflicted with 23 years of a regulatory 'denial'

 
Case load is not a "guise"; we know that from the many stories about ridiculous lead times to get a deferral or SI processed.
 
AnonAirman said:
Yes.

But the other way around, there have been cases where the HIMS AME and at the request of the FAA, a HIMS psyc, stated the airman didn’t meet any DISQUALIFYING conditions per the FAAs own criteria, the FAA ignored all the findings THEY asked for and put the airman into HIMS anyways.

Posting as anon for obvious reasons
Click to expand...

Thats unfortunate.

I’m going to switch topics a bit. Is it true that everyone who is deemed abuser/dependent is now under lifetime monitoring? How does Basic Med fall under this scenario? Are these airmen even ellegible?
 
bigbird said:
I am leaning toward the rubber stamp as Pricipal mentioned.
I cant imagine why a HIMS AME would ever subject an airman or, moreover, themselves to the liability of a 'diagnosis' based on interpretation of a CFR without and associated APA or AMA diagnosis to satisfy the ethical requirements of their medical license.
I believe that the FAA now requires it as part of the package. My guy didn't even fill out a HIMS initial.
It's refreshing to hear that Dr. Chien does have knowledge of at least 1 HIMS psychiatrist who has opined that their airman didn't have a alcohol use disorder with a BAC of 0.16.
that contradicts what I have in writing from my HIMS psychiatrist: "a BAL > 0.15 on a moving violation is equivalent to alcohol dependence"
this last directly quoted statement is why I started this thread in the first place.

If HIMS Psychiatrists are trained by the FAA and the FAA spent more than 5 years prior reviewing the my case file. wouldn't a regulatory violation have been quite obvious to the sensei, not left to be misinterpreted by the seito
Yes, Virginia, the FAA (in my opinion) does use their HIMS trained docs as pawns to distance themselves from litigation under the guise of case load.
We all know the system is broken and denial is the all too often explanation given when an airmen fights for answers. Perhaps I'm afflicted with 23 years of a regulatory 'denial'
Click to expand...

I don’t know who we all are, but 33% of DUIs are repeat offenders. I don’t believe the system is broken.
 
Last edited:
thank you all for your thoughts on this thread.
I do hope you all well in your pursuits. Perhaps my original question got muddled along the thread.
Or perhaps there is no answer to give. I was simply asking for proof of the accuracy to a very poignant statement made by my HIMS Psych, long ago.
I'll try 1 more time showing more of the quoted letter i received from my HIMS Psych:
"a BAL > 0.15 on a moving violation is equivalent to alcohol dependence. That’s their regulatory position. It’s not my opinion, nor would I actually argue for that position. It simply is where they stand. My original letter simply said you met their regulatory position and definition"
I was held accountable to a standard that I can't find anywhere or evidence of any legal precedent. only .20 in case law
I do hope that outside more of the obvious responses that will undoubtedly come back, someone can shed some substantive information.
and thank you to those that have pm'd
 
bflynn said:
The answer to your question in the AME guide. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...UIDWI_Alcohol_Incidents_Disposition_Table.pdf

More generically, https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/abuse_dep/

Not surprisingly, most people never have a reason to read this.
Click to expand...

bflynn,
thank you, again, for your reply but your information only points to a procedure for an AME: In short, fill out an Alcohol Event Status Report or DEFER and check with RFS or call AMCD
perhaps I'm missing something, that your trying to show. I'm asking about a HIMS Psychiatrist evaluation. Maybe you know of some other text that shows a BAC>.15 equates to Alcohol Dependence, but its not in your links given.
thanks though.
Do you have something similar to this FAA sponsored study to show?
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/2010s/media/201805.pdf
"Based upon review of the literature, we recommend the Federal Air Surgeon identify a documented BAC of 0.20% or greater to be presumptive evidence of ethanol tolerance under 14 CFR 67"
 
You misunderstand what the documents say. With a recent .15 or above, or a refusal, it's fill out the the status report AND defer, not OR.

The only wiggle room is that if it is a sufficiently OLD case and the records are missing rather than shown to be a high BAC or refusal. In that case, the call to the RFS/AMCD *MAY* result in an issuance.
 
ok, last try. I thank all for your help.
I do not dispute the current data helping AME's navigate what to do with a BAC>.15
I believe that we all can agree that they are to DEFER and put it on the RFS/AMCD.
It is at this point that I'm looking for substantive, citable, information that a BAC 0.15 "equates" to alcohol Dependence
as my HIMS psychiatrist boldly stated without definitive foundation. Not to be nit picky, but language matters here; better yet case law.
I'm, now sadly, getting the impression that this may not be the correct arena for my inquiries. bbchien, anything?
 
Again, being able to get far enough to drive with a high BAC is considered TOLERANCE. Substance dependence for the FAA is defined in the REGULATIONS (as was previously posted) and that includes tolerance. That's all the "citation" the FAA needs. Understand you can try to play lawyer with this, but you will lose. The FAA is given authority to interpret their own regulations by law and there isn't much interpretation needed here, the thing is directly laid out.
 
bigbird said:
bflynn,
thank you, again, for your reply but your information only points to a procedure for an AME: In short, fill out an Alcohol Event Status Report or DEFER and check with RFS or call AMCD
Click to expand...

The HIMS doctor is also an AME, aren't they? Or at least abiding by the AME standards.
 
flyingron said:
Again, being able to get far enough to drive with a high BAC is considered TOLERANCE. Substance dependence for the FAA is defined in the REGULATIONS (as was previously posted) and that includes tolerance. That's all the "citation" the FAA needs. Understand you can try to play lawyer with this, but you will lose. The FAA is given authority to interpret their own regulations by law and there isn't much interpretation needed here, the thing is directly laid out.
Click to expand...

What’s frustrating is that there are many pilots out there that consume alcohol at levels that would be considered abuse/dependence. Yet, they have skated through their careers without a DUI or any other ill health that would put them in HIMS. In my opinion if the FAA is so concerned about drunk pilots flying, every airman should be randomly peth tested. I guarantee the criteria for abuse/dependence would be rewritten.
 
Thank you Flyingron and Principal for your insight.

My dog in his fight, is to show the incredible amount of inconsistencies in the entire HIMS Program, and to try to establish a baseline by which all airmen are judged equally.
It's important to know the etymology of the the current CFR's
History shows us that the current 14 CFR § 67.107(a)(4)(ii) was passed into law in 1994, guided by a FAA contracted study by the AMA in 1984.
The language is taken directly from DSM-3R citing only 4 of the 9 conditions listed and ominously removing the qualifying criteria of timeline and pattern. i.e DSM-3R asks for 3 of the 9 to be present over the same 12 month period.
The FAA, instead, asks that only 1 of their 4 cherry picked criteria need exist. Now, this is LAW so we as airmen must follow this no matter how skewed it may be regardless of no known precedent in medical literature.
So, this leaves us with 4 undefined criteria that are open to interpretation and, unfortunately malleable with time and policy. Is 1999 tolerance the same as 2022 tolerance? Apparently not.
Static CFR's...Dynamic Policy. This is one of the underlying problems with the system. In fact the aged CFR's are using terminology, now dropped by established medical bodies like AMA and APA. i.e. Dependence and Abuse.
This is where established case law can help sort things out. In previous posts I have shown testimony from the current FAA chief Psychiatrist, Dr. Chesanow confirming the FAA's baseline BAC of .20 for increased tolerance.
So, at least in 2014, the FAA uses BAC 0.20 as a baseline indicator of "increased tolerance". where is it now? Well, the 2018 study (Literature Review and Recommendations Concerning Alcohol Tolerance Under Part 67) by CAMI's own Chichester
seem to keep it at BAC 0.20 as indicated by the final summary: "Based upon review of the literature, we recommend the Federal Air Surgeon identify a documented BAC of 0.20% or greater to be presumptive evidence of ethanol tolerance under 14 CFR 67"

Another question to ponder now that it has been established that policy, which seems to govern, is somewhat dynamic in nature compared to 26 year old CFR's: Is an airman held accountable to current policy, or policy in place at the time of the infraction?
That one is easy when looked at through a legal mind.
Yes for the record, I had an oui in 1999, with a recorded BAC of 0.16 and the only person who has ever opined that I meet the FAA criteria for Alcohol Dependence under CFR 67.207 was a Independent Forensic evaluation by a HIMS certified Psychiatrist.
I believed what he had to say, as he was the expert provided by the FAA's own list. yet as I've repeatedly pointed out, his statement seems unsubstantiated: "a BAL > 0.15 on a moving violation is equivalent to alcohol dependence. That’s their regulatory position. It’s not my opinion, nor would I actually argue for that position. It simply is where they stand. My original letter simply said you met their regulatory position and definition"
I jumped though all the hoops (reeducation camp as Dr. Bruce calls it) and was fully reinstated. I believe that like me most of the HIMS 90% success' have similar stories.
Now that the policy is 'lifetime monitoring' I pity those of you currently engaged. I would fight like hell if you see any impropriety in procedure. It's important to me to mention that the HIMS program has done wonderful thing for many individuals, and
though I don't know of any personally it has been claimed as lifesaving. At least by internal media.
It's easy to rant and that is in no way my intention. I would just like to put an end to this whole >.15%BAC equates to 'alcohol dependence' misinformation.

For those of you that would like to see the links to how the FAR's were rewritten in 1986 and signed into law in 1992 as well as links to Chesanow's established case law, please PM me directly
 
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