DUI Conviction

Nomen Nescio wrote in
:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Mxsmanic

The regulation makes no special distinction based on age.

Moron!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQCVAwUBSJSyTZMoscYxZNI5AQFUsQP8Dj6xP+4Bbe2jkeUAyk DIS+d7VYnVdajr
zj5LVnDIxjTj1GEszD/KZNElAGhz1rxN4qB/D0m2LSzIPtXSRZ8neatgOxdtLSwy
lIckuIkwZS1I/SrG53u0/eluRLEh2wtssM0el6z+ScFF87dYmThLzT7+TzMLN3KZ
3AVVvXFLhR4=
=GtZo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Anthony would need to boost the intelligence of his remark by several
thousand orders of magnitude to reach the level of moron.

Calling Anthony ****ing stupid is giving him way, way too much credit for
intelligence.

A fly hovering around dog **** has thousands of times more intelligence
than Anthony. The fly even knows the difference between **** and shinola!

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
gatt writes:

Asthmatics generally don't have a problem with the FAA.

That depends on the severity, frequency, and nature of their attacks.

In any case, there are many categories of medical conditions that the
FAA excludes for no clear reason. At the same time, however, it
allows the use of recreational drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.

Some people on the forum act like they've never gotten away with
doing something really stupid when they were young and immortal.

Some people have never been stupid.


And you, Anthony, have never been intelligent.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Ol Shy & Bashful writes:

In and of itself, a DUI is
simply a flag of stupidity or poor judgement. Additional ones
indicates a serious mental problem as in addiction and can prevent you
from getting the required flight physical.

Stupidity and poor judgement are quite dangerous in the cockpit.

Ahhh. So that explains, Anthony, why you will never be in the cockpit of a
real airplane.

On Aug 2, 6:25*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
Who was suggesting anything in this thread about flying under the
influence of alcohol?

Someone with a DUI conviction has already demonstrated his willingness to
operate a vehicle while impaired by alcohol. *If he's willing to do it with a
car, it's entirely plausible that he'll be willing to do it with an airplane.

I think someone with a driving DUI is much less likely to be a PIC
while under the influence. That's my opinion, and in this circumstance
I give it more weight than yours. You have no basis for comparison
since you don't live where most general aviation is flown, you most
likely do not socialize with pilots, at least not as much as I do. You
are entitled to your opinion, of course.

Even given what I said, I would be reluctant to hire someone with a
DUI conviction. I like to stack the odds as much as possible in favor
of a good decision.

writes:

I think someone with a driving DUI is much less likely to be a PIC
while under the influence. That's my opinion, and in this circumstance
I give it more weight than yours.

What line of reasoning leads you to this opinion?

You have no basis for comparison
since you don't live where most general aviation is flown, you most
likely do not socialize with pilots, at least not as much as I do. You
are entitled to your opinion, of course.

My conclusion is based upon reasoning that is independent of aviation. A
person who engages in substance abuse in one circumstance would logically be
more likely to do so in another. It's hard to see how or why he would be
_less_ likely to abuse in other circumstances.

Some of the behavior that DUI represents is also behavior that studies in
aviation have found to be correlated with a higher rate of incidents and
accidents among pilots.

Even given what I said, I would be reluctant to hire someone with a
DUI conviction. I like to stack the odds as much as possible in favor
of a good decision.

That doesn't make sense. If you truly believe that someone with a DUI
conviction is less likely to be a PIC while under the influence, then you
should prefer such people when hiring pilots. Why would you be reluctant?

On Aug 3, 4:27*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
I think someone with a driving DUI is much less likely to be a PIC
while under the influence. That's my opinion, and in this circumstance
I give it more weight than yours.

What line of reasoning leads you to this opinion?

You have no basis for comparison
since you don't live where most general aviation is flown, you most
likely do not socialize with pilots, at least not as much as I do. You
are entitled to your opinion, of course.

My conclusion is based upon reasoning that is independent of aviation. *A
person who engages in substance abuse in one circumstance would logically be
more likely to do so in another. *It's hard to see how or why he would be
_less_ likely to abuse in other circumstances.

Some of the behavior that DUI represents is also behavior that studies in
aviation have found to be correlated with a higher rate of incidents and
accidents among pilots.

Even given what I said, I would be reluctant to hire someone with a
DUI conviction. I like to stack the odds as much as possible in favor
of a good decision.

That doesn't make sense. *If you truly believe that someone with a DUI
conviction is less likely to be a PIC while under the influence, then you
should prefer such people when hiring pilots. *Why would you be reluctant?

I tend not to consider people for employment who have documented
histories of poor judgment, and I assert it makes great sense. Should
you ever be a hiring authority decision maker you'll learn to stack
the odds by choosing people who avoid making poor decisions.

I would, by the way, enjoy seeing citations for your comment
Some of the behavior that DUI represents is also behavior that studies in
aviation have found to be correlated with a higher rate of incidents and
accidents among pilots
.
It may be true, but doubt you read any such studies. Further, your
comment validates my policy of NOT hiring people who have
demonstrated, in the past, the potential for being losers. It need not
be a DWI convection, there could be other evidence of poor judgment.
Not to be snide, but look at your own history and ask yourself if
you'd be a prudent hire for a job where acute decision making is a
critical skill.

writes:

It may be true, but doubt you read any such studies. Further, your
comment validates my policy of NOT hiring people who have
demonstrated, in the past, the potential for being losers. It need not
be a DWI convection, there could be other evidence of poor judgment.
Not to be snide, but look at your own history and ask yourself if
you'd be a prudent hire for a job where acute decision making is a
critical skill.

I'm not trying to become a commercial pilot. And I don't have any DUI
convictions.

Mxsmanic wrote:

My conclusion is based upon reasoning that is independent of aviation. A
person who engages in substance abuse in one circumstance would logically be
more likely to do so in another.

From www.medterms.com:


"Substance abuse: The excessive use of a substance, especially alcohol
or a drug. (There is no universally accepted definition of substance abuse.)

A definition of substance abuse that is frequently cited is that in DSM-IV,
the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM) issued by the American Psychiatric Association. The DSM-IV
definition is as follows:

* A. A maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically
significant impairment or distress, as manifested by one (or more) of
the following, occurring within a 12-month period:
1. Recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfill
major role obligations at work, school, or home (e.g., repeated absences
or poor work performance related to substance use; substance-related
absences, suspensions or expulsions from school; neglect of children or
household)
2. Recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically
hazardous (e.g., driving an automobile or operating a machine when impaired
by substance use)
3. Recurrent substance-related legal problems (e.g., arrests for
substance-related disorderly conduct
4. Continued substance use despite having persistent or
recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the
effects of the substance (e.g., arguments with spouse about consequences
of intoxication, physical fights)
* B. The symptoms have never met the criteria for Substance Dependence
for this class of substance."

Notice the use of the words "pattern", "continued" and "recurrent" in
the definition?

One DUI isn't "substance abuse", proof of "substance abuse", or anything
other than one DUI.

It seems you don't know **** from shinola about substance abuse.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Aug 3, 4:27 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
I think someone with a driving DUI is much less likely to be a PIC
while under the influence. That's my opinion, and in this circumstance
I give it more weight than yours.

What line of reasoning leads you to this opinion?

You have no basis for comparison
since you don't live where most general aviation is flown, you most
likely do not socialize with pilots, at least not as much as I do. You
are entitled to your opinion, of course.

My conclusion is based upon reasoning that is independent of aviation. A
person who engages in substance abuse in one circumstance would logically be
more likely to do so in another. It's hard to see how or why he would be
_less_ likely to abuse in other circumstances.


What I'm pretty sure he meant is that he would be less likely to be
drunk as PIC than he would be as a driver, NOT that he would be less
likely to be drunk as PIC than someone who did not have a DUI. This
definitely makes sense; there is much more incentive to driving drunk
than flying drunk (i.e. you need to get home from the bar). Also, the
OP is talking about being a commercial pilot; one is a lot less likely
to be drinking on the job (and thus flying drunk) than drinking on the
weekend (and thus driving drunk because you drive as a matter of
course anyway).

Now, obviously P(X flying drunk) P(Y flying drunk) if X has one DUI
conviction and Y has zero. But I doubt it would be an absolute deal
killer.

To the OP - Again, give AOPA a shot. They have people you can call to
ask these kinds of questions in addition to their forums.

I'm not trying to become a commercial pilot. And I don't have any DUI
convictions.

But Anthony, you're not a pilot of any kind, and never will be. As for
DUI's- who cares?