Notifying your governmental representatives

Tools

Tools

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
1,613
Display Name
Display name:
Tools
This decision backs claims of arbitrary behavior by the FAA. A great framework that fits many people’s situations.

I’ve never thought it was a very viable Avenue, but this starts to sway my opinion.
 

Attachments

  • Hims decision.pdf
    154.8 KB · Views: 324
"And the FAA is a repeat offender. As we have previously told the agency, it "cannot simply declare its 'expertise';"

The FAA is already given broad latitude to be legislator, enforcer, and judiciary of its own regulations and requires deferral of interpretation of the regs to the agency, but there are tiny cracks in the armor.

Note all this decision does is mandate the FAA explain the "why and wherefore" of how they made the decision to not withdraw the action against the pilot. "Because we said so" doesn't cut it.

The briefs filed with the court are interesting. This guy never actually had a triggering event (like a DUI). His brother ratted him out to the FAA.
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
"And the FAA is a repeat offender. As we have previously told the agency, it "cannot simply declare its 'expertise';"

The FAA is already given broad latitude to be legislator, enforcer, and judiciary of its own regulations and requires deferral of interpretation of the regs to the agency, but there are tiny cracks in the armor.

Note all this decision does is mandate the FAA explain the "why and wherefore" of how they made the decision to not withdraw the action against the pilot. "Because we said so" doesn't cut it.

The briefs filed with the court are interesting. This guy never actually had a triggering event (like a DUI). His brother ratted him out to the FAA.
Click to expand...

The law needs to be changed to require FAA decisions to be handled in the regular civilian federal court system. No other govt agency gets away with such a lack of evidence and impunity, and has the ability to take away someone’s livelihood in a millisecond.
 
Actually, every other federal agency gets similar treatment. This is the way our regulatory environment works under statutory authority (ill-advised as it is).

The problem comes with the fact that even given broad latitude to act (ill-advised as that may be), the FAA continues to flout the law with regard to that latitude.
 
flyingron said:
Actually, every other federal agency gets similar treatment. This is the way our regulatory environment works under statutory authority (ill-advised as it is).

The problem comes with the fact that even given broad latitude to act (ill-advised as that may be), the FAA continues to flout the law with regard to that latitude.
Click to expand...

The court should have awarded the pilot punitive damages for the loss of income and damage to reputation.
 
The problem with the FAA is their guilty until proven innocent approach to everything. They can suspend your certificates or medical, denying you the ability to work, with the stroke of a pen with little to no evidence, then run you through months of process to get anywhere. And even after jumping through all their hoops, there is no guarantee they will ever let you fly again.

I had a student years ago that went through the entire HIMS process. He had a decades old drug conviction, same old story, young, dumb, wrong crowd, etc. Learned from his ways, doesn't do drugs or drink at all. He grew up for godssakes! He decided as an adult he wanted to learn to fly. He knew his past conviction would be an issue, he didn't hide it, and he went through the HIMS process to get a 3rd Class medical just to fly for hobby. After two years of cog screens, psycho therapy, and routine monitoring for a problem he didn't have, and spending more money than most spend to get a PPL, they finally awarded him a special issuance for 6 months, with the promise of a full 3rd class after that 6 months.

When the 6 months was up he started calling the AME to find out how and when he would get his full medical. OKC decided he needed to repeat the HIMS process AGAIN! The AME alluded to the fact, they were basically pushing him off onto BasicMed. Somehow the FAA felt there was less risk (to them) to let him fly BasicMed than give the poor guy a medical.
 
Last edited:
pilot445 said:
The court should have awarded the pilot punitive damages for the loss of income and damage to reputation.
Click to expand...
That's not how appellate actions work, nor did the petitioner ask for that.
 
flyingron said:
That's not how appellate actions work, nor did the petitioner ask for that.
Click to expand...
The point being someone should be held accountable for making a wrong call, and dragging their feet. Such a case could have been easily resolved in a month or two. Instead the Federal Air Surgeon did what bureaucrats do and dragged their feet for two years.
 

...the FAA has not provided even one sentence demonstrating a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.”

From page 14.

Says it all.
 
I've paid for pacer to give me a few of the submitted briefs if anybody wants them. THey are full of the stuff that is redacted in the opinion.
 
flyingron said:
I've paid for pacer to give me a few of the submitted briefs if anybody wants them. THey are full of the stuff that is redacted in the opinion.
Click to expand...

I’d like to see them. Post them here perhaps?
 
Here are the two final briefs, I've not yet gotten the reply briefs.
 

Attachments

  • FFBPEF.pdf
    364.7 KB · Views: 121
  • PFB.pdf
    1.7 MB · Views: 111
  • PFRB.pdf
    103.2 KB · Views: 134
Tool's guy had a positive test and then a negative PETH. I'd bet the PETH was JUST UNDER the "reporting as pos" line. Where he got the positive from, isn't clear in the notes.

I have a guy (first officer) who tested positive 3 times during HIMS. I made the case that he was just not the brightest tool in the box and had been negligent with (1) what he ate, (2) with vanilla extract in his eggs (100% Ethyl Alcohol is the solvent), and Hand sanitizer. None of his HIMS peer, AA sponsor, Chief Pilot, psychiatrist nor I think he'd been drinking.

At least he is still flying. He's been busted back to a first year authorization. But he's way out there on a limb, PETH and ETG testing (we did lose the soberlink).

The agency's view is, once on HIMS, you'd better d_mned well guard your urine. AIRMAN's responsibility.

The amazing thing is this pilot thinks, "What's the big deal".....sigh. I sure hope he "gets it".
 
Bruce's point about "guarding the urine" is key. Just as with many other things, there are times you have to be 100% sure what you are doing. Had he been on antabuse, he'd have more severe reactions.

The only thing that's happened here is the FAA needs to follow the law that's already stacked in their favor. They're, "We're too damn busy to write anything other than conclusionary" statements is exactly the kind of thing they hang airmen with. They were previously warned by the court they need to follow the rules.
 
flyingron said:
Bruce's point about "guarding the urine" is key. Just as with many other things, there are times you have to be 100% sure what you are doing. Had he been on antabuse, he'd have more severe reactions.

The only thing that's happened here is the FAA needs to follow the law that's already stacked in their favor. They're, "We're too damn busy to write anything other than conclusionary" statements is exactly the kind of thing they hang airmen with. They were previously warned by the court they need to follow the rules.
Click to expand...

Someone in the FAA needs to be jailed for contempt of court before they will learn to follow the rules.
 
Whoda thunk... urine guarding and creatinine control. Necessary skills for a pilot administratively labeled as having substance abuse issues.

That thinking might lead to PLC doping or PLD blocking... then where would we be?!!!

W O W
 
“Bruce's point about "guarding the urine" is key. Just as with many other things, there are times you have to be 100% sure what you are doing. Had he been on antabuse, he'd have more severe reactions.“


or it was just a false positive. Etg is junk science. There’s no MRO review in hims. Although mro’s aren’t trained to verify proper administration or handing of ANY tests. They scan paperwork and look for viable alternative reasons for a valid positive. NO ONE is trained to look for false positives that ABOUND with these non fda approved junk science biomarkers.
 
Tools said:
“Bruce's point about "guarding the urine" is key. Just as with many other things, there are times you have to be 100% sure what you are doing. Had he been on antabuse, he'd have more severe reactions.“

or it was just a false positive. Etg is junk science. There’s no MRO review in hims. Although mro’s aren’t trained to verify proper administration or handing of ANY tests. They scan paperwork and look for viable alternative reasons for a valid positive. NO ONE is trained to look for false positives that ABOUND with these non fda approved junk science biomarkers.
Click to expand...

The question being, what % of the non hims pilot population would test positive for alcohol dependence if this test were required as part of a standard medical?
 
A large percent. Problem is, NO ONE uses this to DETERMINE if you’re an alcoholic based on this test alone. But some AMEs, quite a few rehab center medical directors, and some aeromedical psychiatrists do.

Not the issue here, this was an abstinence verification scenario. Which brings up more issues. Incidental contact IS NOT relapse. Read the brain dead HIMS policies in effect throughout the industry. They even agree, yet rogue (or paid off quacks) folks are out there unchecked.
 
flyingron said:
The problem comes with the fact that even given broad latitude to act (ill-advised as that may be), the FAA continues to flout the law with regard to that latitude.
Click to expand...

What law are they flouting?

Although I agree there was room for the FAA to give way on this, my read from their decision is that even accidental alcohol ingestion violates the terms of the SI. Opening the door to let pilots argue that every positive test was an accident breaks the HIMS system. You might say “good”, but without HIMS, the FAA’s alternative is to permanently ground the pilot.

if the pilots wants to sue the party responsible for his injury, that would be the restaurant that didn’t call out alcohol in their food.
 
bflynn said:
What law are they flouting?

Although I agree there was room for the FAA to give way on this, my read from their decision is that even accidental alcohol ingestion violates the terms of the SI. Opening the door to let pilots argue that every positive test was an accident breaks the HIMS system. You might say “good”, but without HIMS, the FAA’s alternative is to permanently ground the pilot.

if the pilots wants to sue the party responsible for his injury, that would be the restaurant that didn’t call out alcohol in their food.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the FAA could require an ankle alcohol monitor? Would be actually science based. Sure would take a lot of the guesswork out of when the alcohol in question was consumed.

https://www.scramsystems.com/monitoring/scram-continuous-alcohol-monitoring/
 
None of this would be an issue if the pilot had not abused alcohol in the first place. Once you place yourself under the microscope, you have to understand that you are playing by a new set of rules and that you are responsible for ensuring that nothing enters your body that could put your medical at risk.
 
SkyDog58 said:
None of this would be an issue if the pilot had not abused alcohol in the first place. Once you place yourself under the microscope, you have to understand that you are playing by a new set of rules and that you are responsible for ensuring that nothing enters your body that could put your medical at risk.
Click to expand...
That doesn't justify violating due process, and that's what they're doing if they're making career-ending judgments that are not supported by the evidence.
 
Palmpilot said:
That doesn't justify violating due process, and that's what they're doing if they're making career-ending judgments that are not supported by the evidence.
Click to expand...

The criminal world operates off of - Reasonable Doubt is innocence

The FAA is operating off of by their own admission in briefs - Reasonable Doubt is Guilt
 
Practically, you only get the amount of due process that Congress budgeted. For all of HIMS there are only currently two FAA physicians. Each year we go to bat so that Congress does not cut that line item.

The rest of the due process has to come from the HIMS AMEs. ETGs are cheap, and the pilots are warned. Refractory pilots get every 3-4 week serum PETHS. And maybe Soberlink. Positive ETG or PETH? Split sample is sent to the competitive lab. I have never had disagreement between Labcorp, Quest, and USDTL. These are EXPEN$ive. Pilots on HIMS are relative paupers, without being able to earn their $300K. So they get coaching on "guarding the urine" and ETGs. IF they get a positive, the get the other two, in addition and fewer ETGs. GUARD YOUR URINE.

If you are a relapser, you get all 3, and a lot of "last chance" education. It's LIVE WITH IT or leave the industry. Acting as part 121 PIC is NOT A RIGHT.
 
If you’re talking USDTL you’re not talking serum peth.

I’ve seen LOTS of disagreement between these three labs.

Ive seen LOTS of no due process from hims everyone. But mostly 121 hims program managers, which nothing but messed up pilots.

Ive never seen FAA documentation require problematic cutoff levels, only amateur hack program managers (not docs, not sap pros, not shrinks, pure amateurs) defend it and require it.

All this urine guarding is a result of a poorly administered program. It’s a terrible work around required due to ignorance on the part of hims enforcers.
 
When you have a court tell you that you need to follow a legal procedure (in this case writing a proper response to a formal inquiry), you need to do that rather than doubling down on your original answer. What's particularly stupid about this entire litigation is that it would probably have taken less time for the FAA to comply with the order specifically considering the additional tests and upholding their action (which the court would have been likely obliged by law to accept) than it would to have fought this. However, the Doctors and the Lawyers at the FAA are different entities...
 
The court can order whatever it likes, but as far as I can tell they have no means to compel compliance. That makes the whole thing a sham.
 
Half Fast said:
The court can order whatever it likes, but as far as I can tell they have no means to compel compliance. That makes the whole thing a sham.
Click to expand...
That's not true. This court can compel compliance barring an appeal to a higher level.
 
It's unfortunate that the Courts have to compel the FAA to do its job. What's more unfortunate is how much that entire appeal probably cost. Folks who are quick to suggest lawsuits usually don't have any concept of what they cost. To get to the point where the Court of Appeals is issuing a decision is likely at least $100k in attorneys' fees.
 
Guard your urine is all well and good but who the hell thinks to ask a restaurant if they soaked the pulled pork in beer? It’s not like it’s Bananas Foster. There is a point beyond reasonable horse whipping an addict in recovery should be expected to endure.
 
Rushie said:
Guard your urine is all well and good but who the hell thinks to ask a restaurant if they soaked the pulled pork in beer? It’s not like it’s Bananas Foster. There is a point beyond reasonable horse whipping an addict in recovery should be expected to endure.
Click to expand...
Your server may not even know, or have access to, or care to read the original packaging. Many items come from the wholesaler semi-to completely prepared. How many stories have been read where the "diet soda" unknowingly contained sugar, the hamburger "protein powder" (read: ground freeze dried earthworms), or the french fries beef tallow?

PS: I haven't had a good Bananas Foster in years... mmmm... (Gian-Tony's on the Hill in St. Louis)
 
Rushie said:
Guard your urine is all well and good but who the hell thinks to ask a restaurant if they soaked the pulled pork in beer? It’s not like it’s Bananas Foster. There is a point beyond reasonable horse whipping an addict in recovery should be expected to endure.
Click to expand...

I always assumed that the alcohol usually cooked off in foods prepared with beer or liquors. Is that truly detectable afterwards, or just a good excuse? If so, can they serve such food to minors?
 
midwestpa24 said:
I always assumed that the alcohol usually cooked off in foods prepared with beer or liquors. Is that truly detectable afterwards, or just a good excuse? If so, can they serve such food to minors?
Click to expand...

I surmise CAMI may commission a study to test the airmens theory.

Take 10 non drinkers (test etg beforehand), serve them the exact same meal from the same restaurant, and test etg levels the next morning. Would be interesting as to the results.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I always assumed that the alcohol usually cooked off in foods prepared with beer or liquors. Is that truly detectable afterwards, or just a good excuse? If so, can they serve such food to minors?
Click to expand...

I always thought so too but apparently not, unless you cook it long enough:

Does cooking with alcohol remove the alcohol?
The longer you cook, the more alcohol cooks out, but you have to cook food for about 3 hours to fully erase all traces of alcohol. A study from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Nutrient Data lab confirmed this and added that food baked or simmered in alcohol for 15 minutes still retains 40 percent of the alcohol.

What can show up as alcohol in a urine test?
The ethyl glucuronide (EtG) test is widely used to detect the presence in the urine of ethyl glucuronide, a breakdown product of ethanol, the intoxicating agent in alcohol. It can also screen for EtG in your blood, hair, and nails, but the urine test is the most widely used.
https://houseofherby.com/other-coocing/will-cooking-with-alcohol-fail-a-drug-test.html
 
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