I’m not sure about other states. In Florida it requires a non-conviction or a withhold of adjudication to be eligible for expungement. The withhold is not possible on a DUI. If the NCIC has your fingerprints in the end it probably means no mainline job. That’s the whole thing we always talk about on here over whether I can get a medical. The issue of the medical and actually being employed in a career level position are far different.

I’m not sure about other states. In Florida it requires a non-conviction or a withhold of adjudication to be eligible for expungement. The withhold is not possible on a DUI. If the NCIC has your fingerprints in the end it probably means no mainline job. That’s the whole thing we always talk about on here over whether I can get a medical. The issue of the medical and actually being employed in a career level position are far different.

I don’t think a DUI is a show stopper. Especially after 10 years.

There are plenty of people in the Majors with a DUI. Of course the vast majority of them were hired during a different time. It will be a lot harder to be hired with one today (even pre covid) then it was for them.

Your best and most likely only chance is to go to a flow program if they still exist after all of this.

The COVID will make it less likely for people with blemishes to get hired for the foreseeable future.

What threshold do you define a "blemish"?

Obviously a DUI clearly is one, but I doubt one or two simple traffic tickets would be, on the other hand.

What about someone who failed their initial CFI or PPL checkride 10 yrs ago with no other issues be in that category?

How about someone who's had a completely clean training history and no legal issues, but was asked to resign in lieu of termination at a questionable 135 operator for reasons not having to do with performance or conduct?

I don't think the things you mentioned would be a show stopper. DUI is though, for awhile.

Failing 4 primary check rides did not stop me from getting hired at a regional 9 years ago when even regionals were still kind of choosy with whom they hire as majors hadn’t yet started hiring off the street following the ‘08-09’ financial crisis.
I would consider passing check rides in larger, more complex aircraft, especially as your career progresses, redemption for any pitfalls in small piston aircraft. The more passes under your belt going forward the merrier.
I think you shouldn’t have any issues getting hired at a regional of your choice once things start picking back up, which might be a good route to go as you rack up a large amount of flight time in a relatively small time frame.
Even if a corporate flying gig is your end goal, starting off at a regional makes sense for the experience unless you know the right people or have a knack for networking.
Flying professionally is not unlike the military in that it requires a lot of patience and persistence, as you have already discovered.
You’ll get a lot of negativity from people, especially in these precarious times, but altogether I think you will find lots of opportunity down the road. Good luck!

Failed Private is not a big deal provided there is ownership and growth.

Failed initial CFI is very common—same scenario as above.

That being said, a pattern of repeated failures is a red flag.

I know a couple at legacies, both with dui’s.
Albeit , they happened over 20 yrs ago in the late 90s but you can overcome it. It’s not the end of the world . Up until a few months ago any regional probably would have taken you with a good explanation, save Skywest .

Late 90s were a totally different time. Tides were starting to change then, but it was much more lenient back then.

I knew a guy who got hired at Skywest with a DUI and 6 checkride failures a few years back. True story. At the regional level pretty much anything could be overcome before the ‘rona.

He had to have known someone. Or all of that happened before 1980.

Not sure I even believe that, a few years ago I would have heard about it.

I would actually find it more plausible that he had six DUI's, dried out, and then got hired with one checkride bust.

Why "before 1980"?

I know a CEO of an airline with several DUI’s and you know he’s still there, so I don’t see what the bid deal is :rolleyes:

So he had 35+ years of clean living on his resume. Slight exaggeration but not by much.

Believe it or not but it’s true. I heard it from the guys own lips which of course means nothing on the internet. He asked me to recommend him to my own regional and told me his whole story. My defunct regional said no and Skywest hired him.

But his job is to get top-shelf investors drunk so they let their guard down. Occupational hazard.

Any CEO of ANY corporation should have the resources to provide alternate transportation.

It was a joke, mostly. Although I don't hold a bidnessman to quite the same standards as a pilot when it comes to substance abuse.

I knew it was a joke. As for “standards”.....what people do on their own free time is no concern of mine. Don’t show up influenced to work, and don’t operate a vehicle. Beyond that, not my concern.

I agree. That said, the FAA most certainly disagrees with us. God help you if they catch wind of anything even remotely related to alcohol dependency/abuse. It is a world of pain.

But that would entail doing something stupid in public like being arrested for DUI or public intoxication which they would obviously find out anyway through the NDR.

Nope. It’s that medical side that gets you. The 8500-8 that is a felony for lying on. They’ve also begun scouring insurance clearinghouse and other gov (DoD, VA, etc) databases to find the liars, strip them of their certificates, and prosecute them in federal court. Gotta tell the truth.

I personally know someone who was a passenger in a vehicle after a night of heavy drinking. He did the right thing and got a ride home. They were involved in a motor vehicle accident, and he lost consciousness. ER docs did the standard labs, to include BAC (I guess to make sure there weren’t any interactions with the meds they were administering) and it came back just under 0.20.

He had some fairly significant injuries and had to submit the hospital documentation for a special issuance. FAA saw the BAC and immediately determined it to be an indication of alcohol dependency/abuse. Cue the pain train.

I know someone else who never had any legal or employment issues with drinking, but it started to have some personal/family consequences. He voluntarily sought treatment. FAA treated him just like a guy with a 0.28 BAC who hit a van full of nuns and babies—for doing the right thing.

A stupid or illegal act is absolutely not required to end up subject to a 12-18 month loss of medical, tens of thousands of dollars in expenses, and 5-6 years of follow-on monitoring and daily ‘recovery activities’. If I could shout this from the rooftops, I would. It has such a profound and horrific impact on professional aviators.

He's right, if the FAA sniffs heavy alcohol use, you're going for a ride on the HIMS wagon (without your medical for a good while). It doesn't matter how they find out, and it's also correct that you have to report anything like clinical intervention for dependency.

Also... know a guy who's soon-to-be-ex played the abuse card: he came over, yelled at me, slapped me, kicked my cat, smashed stuff up, and oh yeah he was drunk. All total BS, and it all went away real quick. All except that part about being drunk... he wasn't because he doesn't. But denial is a sign of abuse, so off he went to HIMS.

That's why I like to drink only at home especially on game day. Got a big screen TV. The liquor is cheaper and I'm the only obnoxious drunk I have to deal with.

If what you say in your first sentence is true though, over half (or close) of all pilots would fit the mold then. Just stop by the hotel bar at 9:00 after a long day of a NH class after studying systems, or in their room with the books and a bottle of Gin to know what I mean.

There HAS to be a lot more to what you say in your 2nd paragraph. They can't just haul you off to HIMS without corroborating evidence from a medical or legal professional. Kind of like that situation where a pax jokes about you being drunk, remove yourself and go get tested, blow a big fat zero %, and get back to work. No one believes the pax, but you clear yourself.

I like your style! Smart move, too

Yes. And that’s why I wish I could shout this from the rooftops. The DSM-V criteria for alcohol use disorder would include the majority of the pilot group. It’s exceptionally broad.

So if we dunk you in water for 10 minutes and you drown it proves you're not a witch?

So if you go to a bachelor party for your best friend (or your own?) and party hard one night out of the year and the FAA catches you with a high BAC then it's game over?! That's a load or bullshiz

Yes. Tread carefully, you don’t want to get caught up with the FAAs abuse/dependence web. It’s a mess.

If you drink more than two drinks per day it’s considered abuse. High BAC is considered dependency.

Yep. Their logic is that if you’re not half dead with a BAC over 0.15 or so, you have developed a tolerance. And if you developed a tolerance, you must have been drinking a lot, regularly, for a long time. And if you’ve been doing that, you have dependency/abuse.

It is insane.

The worst part is that since CAMI makes the rules, you have no choice but to play their game. People have tried to battle CAMI via the legal system, but they are judge, jury, and executioner. Only way through is to shut up and color.

That's a GREAT way to get pilots who might have a problem to come forward (sarcasm).

WHY in the world would anyone voluntarily come forward if they know, even without a legal incident involving alcohol, that they'll lose their certificate and income for a substantial period of time??

Why?

Talk about an incentive to hide everything!

Obviously someone with a DUI or other legal matter involving alcohol is one thing, I'm strictly talking about the scenarios where there are no legal triggering events like DUI or public intoxication.

[QUOTE=Bahamasflyer;3050960]That's a GREAT way to get pilots who might have a problem to come forward (sarcasm).

WHY in the world would anyone voluntarily come forward if they know, even without a legal incident involving alcohol, that they'll lose their certificate and income for a substantial period of time??

Why?

Talk about an incentive to hide everything!
/QUOTE]

Same thing for counseling for things like PTSD. Military says take advantage of counseling as we won't hold it against you for things like a security clearance/ career in general etc. If you do get counseling there's absolutely nothing as far as I can tell from the FAAs perspective to prevent it from potentially affecting your medical.

Because as bad as it is if you come forward - it will be much worse if they find out about it after a mishap or something of the kind.

My kid is still getting in trouble if he admits to playing around with the baseball in the house after being told no too; but if he breaks that window and then tries to hide it or lie about it - you bet the punishment is going to be worse.

It's one of the things that you signed up for when you joined this aviation career field. Safety sensitive positions have extra rules and they can be tough ones.

I've never gone down that road - so I'm curious if you are correct about just COUNSELING? Certainly if a doctor puts you on DRUGS - that is a HUGE deal.
We are still lucky that the rules don't seem to have changed that much after the JetBlue (over Amarillo wasn't it?) and the GermanWings incidents.

Except that when the rules make no sense, are over-bearing/heavy handed, or are irrational, then it simply breeds contempt for the rules.

This is what happens when you government.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences

Its worse than that though....

What is considered “alcohol abuse”?

1) The guy who gets hammered once a year on New Years Eve with a BAC of 0.20%?

2) The guy who is a “weekend warrior” and does 4-5 shots every Saturday with a BAC of 0.10%

3) The guy who just HAS to have a nightcap every single night, but never attains a high BAC?

None of these 3 examples violate the law and endanger the public. Why should pilots be treated differently by using a substance that is perfectly legal for adults to consume vs a surgeon or other professional in a safety sensitive position??

Marijuana...on the other hand, absolutely legal to prohibit, but even heavy boozing as long as you aren’t violating the law I just don’t see