Reporting 1st degree negligent driving

[Flying Pig]

The gulf thing is strange. There were quit a few people with dui's in their past down there. I worked at PHI and was surprised to find that there were new hires and pilots that had worked up to IFR captains who had dui's in their past. One had 2. Most from before they were pilots. The thing in common was everyone had told hr at the interview about it. I was told if you didn't it would come up in a background check and they would let you go because you lied. (It was a question asked on the application form).

 

Some of those guys had worked at RLC to start, as a lot of people do, so PHI isn't the only one to hire them. The guy who had 2 actually got hired at RLC but then got let go after training because he hid the fact but then got hired PHI later on. He said he even told them the RLC story.

 

A dui won't ruin your career. You just have to be honest with the companies up front.

My only question is, how long ago was this? In todays society, DUI is looked at as about a 1/2 degree below killing someone. "Bighead" got a DUI a couple of months ago vs someone who got one years ago or got hired with a DUI back when nobody thought much about them.

[avbug]

The original poster indicated that the conviction was five months ago, in august of last year. This is a recent action.

 

An aviation attorney is a necessity in this case. You can call the FAA, but without something in writing from the FAA Chief Legal Counsel, nothing you receive from any other source in the Administration will be defensible (even if in writing).

 

My concern isn't the legality, but the fact that the incident occurred at all. How does one expect an employer to allow him or her to operate a million dollar aircraft and represent the company when the individual can't be trusted to operate his or her own car?

 

"I learned a lot" and "I'm remorseful" is a good start, but remember that there are plenty of pilots out there. Employers have choices. Particularly as a low time pilot seeking work without any skills or experience to offer, any positive attributes are a plus, and any negative ones can make the road quite difficult.

 

This conviction is recent, and regardless of the semantics of status, the original poster was caught with an alcohol level nearly three times the legal limit. Was this the only time that he has driven under the influence? I very much doubt that. It's the only time he's been caught, or caught and convicted (that he's told us about). Where there's smoke, there's fire, and there's already fire in evidence.

 

An attorney should be consulted on how to address the notification matter with the FAA (particularly given that the notification time period window has passed). That is only one aspect of how a driving history such as this can and perhaps will affect a flying career, however, and the original poster needs to give considerable thought to that.

[rotormandan]

My only question is, how long ago was this? In todays society, DUI is looked at as about a 1/2 degree below killing someone. "Bighead" got a DUI a couple of months ago vs someone who got one years ago or got hired with a DUI back when nobody thought much about them.

I left the gulf a little over a year ago. I don't know how recent those folks got in trouble but it was before they hired on.

 

While a dui isn't going to help at all, I was suprised to learn it's not a career killer like I always thought it was before.

[Bighead]

How is .12 nearly 3 times .08?

[avbug]

The FAA's limit is .04.

 

14 CFR 91.17(a)(4)

 

You were at 300% of the limit.

 

Do you feel that under .08 is acceptable?

Edited January 18, 2015 by avbug

[r22butters]

I left the gulf a little over a year ago. I don't know how recent those folks got in trouble but it was before they hired on.

 

While a dui isn't going to help at all, I was suprised to learn it's not a career killer like I always thought it was before.

 

Sounds like being a low-timer who's not a CFI is worse than having a DUI,...if you want to talk about career killers.,...awh man that's sad!

 

Butters

[Bighead]

That's for flying, not driving. Just to be clear

[Bighead]

I got what I needed from this thread. And since now it's being taken off topic i'm finished using it. Have a good day all

[helonorth]

I got what I needed from this thread. And since now it's being taken off topic i'm finished using it. Have a good day all

Yes, best to get your coat before avbug sends it all off the rails. Good luck.

[rotormandan]

Since he was driving, it wasn't even double the limit. (Which is .08....for driving...a car....which is what he got in trouble for). The FAA limit for flying doesn't have anything to do with driving.

 

Big head - good luck.

 

R22 butters - not really. A mistake outside of flying can hurt your career but not end it.

Not getting all your ratings to be qualified for a job kinda makes it hard to get started.

You have the option to finish school. The op can't undue his mistake. 2 mistakes. He has to live with his. You can fix yours.

[rotormandan]

 

 

Do you feel that under .08 is acceptable?

 

Yes. For drivng, not flying, to be clear. .08 is 1 beer. In many instances (small guy or high content craft beer) it might only be half a beer. It's hard to argue that would be an issue. But that is my opinion and I'm sure someone would disagree.

[iChris]

I contacted FAA Security and Investigations, which is where the report/notification would go. Sheila told me that as long as I didn't receive a DUI/DWI/OWI etc then I am not required to report my Neg 1 under 61.15. Even a wreckless driving isn't reportable under 61.15, and a Neg 1 is lower than that. She also made sure to stress that I will have to report everything under part 67, on my next medical renewal (which I already knew).

 

By looking at the actual FAA notification letter template, it also does not include a Neg 1 under the convictions examples. Just the various terminologies of a DUI conviction.

 

I told her I just want to make sure i'm not in hot water by not reporting the Neg 1 and she said i'm not required to via notification letter...so I guess i'm just gonna go with that.

 

 

....also, the answer you got from "Sheila" was based upon the way that you formulated the question, not based upon Washington State's or the FAA's interpretation of the offense. "Neg 1" is not an example on the FAA letter - it is an alcohol offense specific to WA state.

 

Shella was correct in the general context; however, in your case, as UH60L-IP stated, it may not apply. The reason is the stated elements of the 1st degree negligent driving.

 

“In our letter of April 2, 1991, we advised you that based on FAR 61.15[c](1), your client need not report his conviction on the “reckless operation” charge; however, in accordance with FAR 61.15 [c] (2), your client must report his license suspension for failure to submit to a chemical test.”

 

Your client's license suspension is "for a cause related to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, .as provided in the rule's definition of "motor vehicle action," even though he was not convicted of driving while under the influence.

 

Ref: FAA Legal Interpretations - June 5, 1991

 

In this legal interpretation above the “reckless operation” charge was not by definition an alcohol related infraction. However, the reason the license suspension was reportable is because it was an infraction related to the usage of alcohol.

 

The problem in your case is the underlying elements of the “negligent driving in the 1^st degree”. The “negligent driving in the 1^st degree” has the appearance of a standard “reckless operation” charge. However, when you look at the State of Washington’s code, it is in fact and definition an alcohol related infraction.

 

Note the different between negligent driving in the 1^st degree vs. negligent driving in the 2^nd degree below. The elements of negligent driving in the 2^nd degree doesn’t in fact or definition, relate to an alcohol infraction, as such would not need to be reported.

 

A person is guilty of negligent driving in the 1^st degree if he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, and exhibits the effects of having consumed liquor or marijuana or any drug or exhibits the effects of having inhaled or ingested any chemical, whether or not a legal substance, for its intoxicating or hallucinatory effects.

 

A person commits negligent driving in the 2^nd degree with a vulnerable user victim if, under circumstances not constituting negligent driving in the first degree, he or she operates a vehicle, as defined in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, and he or she proximately causes the death, great bodily harm, or substantial bodily harm of a vulnerable user of a public way.

Edited January 18, 2015 by iChris

[Bighead]

iChris,

 

I agree and now that it has been made crystal clear to me I am going to report it

[iChris]

I contacted FAA Security and Investigations, which is where the report/notification would go. Sheila told me that as long as I didn't receive a DUI/DWI/OWI etc then I am not required to report my Neg 1 under 61.15.

 

Even a wreckless driving isn't reportable under 61.15, and a Neg 1 is lower than that.

 

She also made sure to stress that I will have to report everything under part 67, on my next medical renewal (which I already knew).

 

 

 

iChris,

 

I agree and now that it has been made crystal clear to me I am going to report it

 

When you submit your report, submit the minimum per the rule, the same on the medical. You’re not required to define or interpret the violation, if it’s not in your favor.

 

The fact that “negligent driving in the 1^st degree” has the appearance of a standard “reckless operation” charge, the FAA, Civil Aviation Security Division my disregard it as non-reportable. In fact, Sheila, a representative at the Civil Aviation Security Division has already told you it was non-reportable.

 

Moreover, there’s legal precedent with respect to a pilot’s reliance on incorrect information from FAA offices:

 

 

A pilot called his local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) for advice within a few days after his arrest for DWI. The FSDO simply told the pilot to report the conviction on his next medical application, without mentioning the notice requirement of §61.15. The Board ruled that a suspension of the pilot's certificate was not warranted by the technical violation.

 

As a general rule, airmen are expected and obliged to know the regulations to which they are subject, and ignorance of them is no defense. The reporting regulation was in effect at the time of respondent’s conviction and its language is absolutely clear (respondent does not argue to the contrary).

 

For that reason, we have found a technical violation. However, we do not have mere ignorance here. We have unrebutted factual evidence, accepted by the law judge, that respondent was given incomplete advice by the FAA when he sought to satisfy his regulatory obligation.

 

Administrator v. Smith, NTSB Order No. EA-4088 (1994)

 

§61.15[e]

Each person holding a certificate issued under this part shall provide a written report of each motor vehicle action to the FAA, Civil Aviation Security Division, The report must include:

 

(1) The person's name, address, date of birth, and airman certificate number;

 

(2) The type of violation that resulted in the conviction or the administrative action;

 

(3) The date of the conviction or administrative action;

 

(4) The State that holds the record of conviction or administrative action; and

 

(5) A statement of whether the motor vehicle action resulted from the same incident or arose out of the same factual circumstances related to a previously reported motor vehicle action.

Edited January 19, 2015 by iChris

[avbug]

There are numerous other cases in which reliance on information obtained at the FSDO level resulted in violations, including suspension and revocation. It's very difficult to defend one's self based on "XXX at the FSDO told me..."

 

The FAA's alcohol limit is very relevant to one's future and career. If one is ignorant enough to dismiss it on the basis that anything under the state driving limit is okay, one has no business in a cockpit, regardless of any legal implications.

[Bighead]

FAA doesn't have a DRIVING bac limit. They do have a flying limit (.04) but that's all i've read in the FARs. If you've found a section in the FARs stating "FAA's BAC limit for operating a motor vehicle", please share.

 

Furthermore, an AME can still issue a medical if the BAC was <.15, as long as all other requirements are met regarding disclosing on the 8500-8.

 

So i'm really not quite sure where you're going with all this, avbug

[eagle5]

You seem to be very concerned with how drunk you can be?

[Bighead]

Not at all. He just isn't making any sense. The FAA doesn't have a BAC limit for driving. Unless i'm mistaken he is trying to say they do

[eagle5]

I believe he's trying to say that you are focusing on the wrong thing?

[avbug]

FAA doesn't have a DRIVING bac limit. They do have a flying limit (.04) but that's all i've read in the FARs. If you've found a section in the FARs stating "FAA's BAC limit for operating a motor vehicle", please share.

 

Furthermore, an AME can still issue a medical if the BAC was <.15, as long as all other requirements are met regarding disclosing on the 8500-8.

 

So i'm really not quite sure where you're going with all this, avbug

 

Sure you know where it's going. You seem to be fine with drinking and driving, if it's less than the local legal limit. .07, no problem, is that it?

 

Drinking and driving isn't okay, period. If you intend to be a professional aviator, get that through your skull.

 

You may not have had your driver license suspended. If you'd been operating an aircraft, you'd have had a big problem; you'd have had your pilot certificate suspended. The mere technicality that you happen to have been caught in a location where the legal limit is double that allowed by the FAA is irrelevant. You were caught operating a motor vehicle. Whether a motor vehicle or an aircraft, there's little difference. As a pilot, your mission is to operate vehicles in several dimensions and exercise judgement. Piloting is all about judgement.

 

That you elected to operate a motor vehicle at triple what's legal for a pilot shows very bad judgement, and that you seem to feel there's no problem so long as your certificate wasn't suspended and so long as it driving doesn't exceed the state statutes for legal intoxication, you're displaying poor judgement. There's no defense for what you did, and you will need to take that attitude when you seek employment. I wouldn't provide instruction to you, though there are plenty of flight-time whores out there who will.

 

Your incident is recent. You'll need to put some distance between you and that event, but that distance will need to include a history of impeccable judgement. Presently as you seem to be content arguing in your defense, you appear to have learned nothing, despite your claims to the contrary.

 

Do you think it's okay to drive a vehicle with a BAC of .07?

 

.05?

 

 

.03?

[Bighead]

In no way did I ever try to defend my mistake. Nor did I say or attempt to portray that I see no problem with drinking and driving. This is ridiculous. Whatever inferior image you have of me is yours to keep if you wish. But i'm done. I came here looking for some guidance surrounding the grossest mistake of my life. Not to get trolled.

[iChris]

I agree, i've given my due diligence in researching that. It certainly isn't a good thing to get one, but it wasn't an end-all in the many cases i've read about.

 

 

It's not an "end-all" or "game-breaker." Drugs and alcohol have been and will continue to be a problem. I’ve seen them all, line-pilots, chief-pilots, CFIs, A&Ps, DOO, DOM, POIs, DPEs, DERs, general managers, and company owners.

 

It's even a problem with our lawmakers (link below):

Lawmakers Busted for Drunk Driving

 

Things to think about....

 

 

A single motor vehicle action does not carry adverse consequences, but under FAR 61.15 [d], two motor vehicle actions within a 3-year period establishes a basis for adverse action.

 

Motor vehicle actions are defined under 61.15[c][1]-[3]

 

Ref: Chief Counsel Interpretation

 

 

Section 61.15 of the Federal Aviation Regulations {14 C.F.R. 61.15) provides that a conviction for the violation of any federal or state statute relating to the growing, processing, manufacture, sale, disposition, possession, or importation of narcotic drugs, marijuana, or depressed or stimulate drugs or substances is grounds for:

 

(2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate or rating issued under this Part.

 

Our agency's practice, in cases other than a single conviction for simple possession is to revoke any pilot certificate. Once a pilot certificate has been revoked under these circumstances, we would not entertain an application for issuance of a new pilot certificate for a period of one year after the date of revocation. After this one-year period, it would be necessary for the applicant to requalify by taking the appropriate written and flight tests.

 

I should mention that if an aircraft were used in the commission of the offense and the FAA certificate holder was aboard the aircraft in connection with the offense, the situation is considerably different in that we are, in most cases, precluded by statute from ever issuing an airman certificate again.

 

Ref: Chief Counsel Interpretation

Edited January 19, 2015 by iChris

[avbug]

When the FAA Administrator got a DUI, it was certainly a career killer.

[rotormandan]

That's a different job from line pilot.

[avbug]

That's a different job from line pilot.

 

 

Really? You don't say.