DUI Conviction

On 8/5/2008 2:10 AM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

Nomen Nescio writes:

Seeing that you consider sipping one drop of wine to be impaired,
that doesn't surprise me.

I consider any alcohol in the blood to carry a risk of impairment.

What you consider is irrelevant.

Anyone who considers "any alcohol in the blood to carry a risk of
impairment" - even if that amount is measured in single-digit
micrograms - is exceptionally stupid.

I've never tested it, but I could probably fly just fine with a .08.

Just don't fly anywhere near me.

What will you do if he does? How will you know?

Oh wait. Moot point. You don't fly.

On 8/5/2008 2:19 PM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

writes:

I do wonder if your opposition to wine and alcohol has been lifelong,
or only since you can't afford to buy jug wine.

I've always considered substance abuse stupid.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

You are incapable of understanding the difference between responsible
consumption of alcohol beverages and substance abuse. This is the
type of thinking exhibited not merely by someone who is stupid, but
someone who is profoundly stupid.

On 2008-07-31 19:54:30 -0700, "ceaser28" u45176@uwe said:

Hello Everyone,

I am 23 years old and I have been convicted of 1 DUI for smelling like
alcohol pratically in New Hampshire, do I still have a shot at being a
commercial pilot?

Yes. But I wouldn't recommend getting another DUI. I know of at least
one line guy who lost not only his job, but his girl friend because of
a single DUI -- and a line guy is not even a pilot. But then, he was
driving 120 mph down a runway in his car, flew off the end, and crashed
into the approach lights. Worse yet, he had a contract control tower
guy with him in the car -- and that guy already had a couple
convictions for bar fights as well as DUI. Makes it kind of tough to
ignore. He was lucky he wasn't killed. But even in his case I think he
could probably get a job as a commercial pilot if he keeps his nose
clean. He's a smart kid who probably learned from his mistakes. As for
the air traffic controller, IMHO he has had enough chances. At some
point you have to figure the guy not only is not going to stop drinking
but that he has bad judgment as well. But I understand he actually
found a job somewhere else, giving weather briefings or some such.

I am not sure you have learned anything from your mistake, however.
Have you? What does "pratically" mean? I think the best approach in an
interview is to be up front about it. "Yeah, I got a DUI in New
Hampshire a few years ago. I'm not proud of it and I sure learned a
lesson from it." Make of it an opportunity to demonstrate your honesty,
genuineness, and willingness to admit mistakes and learn from them.
These are great assets in a commercial pilot. Screwing up as a pilot is
not nearly as bad as being unable to admit that you screwed up.

I personally do not drink, never have. Nevertheless, I don't see the
point of condemning someone forever simply because they have done
something stupid once or twice. And I see no reason why others should
not drink simply because I choose not to. Let he who is without sin
cast the first stone.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

yod-yog+ais writes:

Anyone who considers "any alcohol in the blood to carry a risk of
impairment" - even if that amount is measured in single-digit
micrograms - is exceptionally stupid.

People who drink and drive/fly tend to be exceptionally stupid, and people who
try to justify such behavior aren't far behind.

Sorry, but nothing you say is going to convince me to toss safety out the
window in favor of taking drugs.

What will you do if he does? How will you know?

I can just follow the smoke to the crash site.

yod-yog+ais writes:

You are incapable of understanding the difference between responsible
consumption of alcohol beverages and substance abuse.

I know that the safest use of recreational drugs is _no_ use of recreational
drugs.

On Aug 7, 7:59*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
yod-yog+ais writes:
You are incapable of understanding the difference between responsible
consumption of alcohol beverages and substance abuse.

I know that the safest use of recreational drugs is _no_ use of recreational
drugs.

And I suspect you have a very broad definition of 'recreational
drugs'. Some of us get high on flying. Some others are addicted to TV,
or computers.

writes:

And I suspect you have a very broad definition of 'recreational
drugs'.

The definition includes nicotine (from tobacco) and alcohol. Nicotine (like
caffeine) is a stimulant and generally does not result in impairment (although
smoking does). Alcohol is a depressant and generally results in impairment.

On Aug 7, 10:55*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
And I suspect you have a very broad definition of 'recreational
drugs'.

The definition includes nicotine (from tobacco) and alcohol. *Nicotine (like
caffeine) is a stimulant and generally does not result in impairment (although
smoking does). *Alcohol is a depressant and generally results in impairment. *

Not 'the' definition, but 'your' definition, and it's likely a moving
target. That's perfectly fine, so long as people you are attempting to
communicate with understand the meanings of the words as you use them.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

And I suspect you have a very broad definition of 'recreational
drugs'.

The definition includes nicotine (from tobacco) and alcohol. Nicotine (like
caffeine) is a stimulant and generally does not result in impairment (although
smoking does). Alcohol is a depressant and generally results in impairment.

Earlier you said alcohol always results in impairment irrespective of
the dose.

Smoking increases the probablility of developing certain diseases,
but does not itself result in any "impairment".

Nicotine causes blood pressure to increase, which could marginally
be concidered an "impairment" in those with already high blood
pressure.

Seems you don't know **** from shinola about physiology.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Earlier you said alcohol always results in impairment irrespective of
the dose.

That's the guideline that I follow. I'm not interested in taking chances.

Smoking increases the probablility of developing certain diseases,
but does not itself result in any "impairment".

Smoking increases susceptibility to high altitudes, which is an impairment.
For example, smoker pilots are already losing significant night vision at
around 5000 feet, and should consider using oxygen at that altitude or above
when flying at night.

Nicotine causes blood pressure to increase, which could marginally
be concidered an "impairment" in those with already high blood
pressure.

The medical is supposed to screen for hypertension.