DUI Conviction

On Aug 1, 6:46*am, "Bob F." wrote:
No...you are NOT mentally fit. *It doesn't sound like you are repentant
about this at all, have no morals and not willing to follow rules. *Do us
all a favor and look for another profession.

--
Regards, *BobF.

"ceaser28" u45176@uwe wrote in messagenews:87ffc1e08b8ab@uwe...
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?

--
Ceaser

You inferred all that from just one sentence? damn...

On Aug 1, 1:20*pm, gatt wrote:
Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:

On Jul 31, 9:54 pm, "ceaser28" u45176@uwe wrote:
Geez ....some of the posters make it out to be like you are a
stumbling falling down commode hugging drunk and you should be
pilloried for ever allowing evil alcohol to touch your lips.

I was thinking that if drinking misbehavior as a young adult was a
limiting factor in aviation, a whole hell of a lot of Navy and Marine
Corps veterans would never be allowed near an airplane. *Pappy
Boyington, for example.

Lots of people make mistakes when they're young and immortal. Assuming
it was just a simple offense and not some sort of crime, the test of
character is going to be whether the behavior was curbed or allowed to
continue.

-c

Consider this. You are a hiring authority, and you are examining the
paperwork of a number of prospects for a piloting job. Assume you've
done due dilligence so you know about the DUI, and further assume you
know it costs upwards of say $100,000 to take a new ATR pilot and
integrate him into your system.

You're making, in effect, a hundred thousand dollar bet on your
decision. Too many bad bets and your boss is not trust your judgement.
There is a small chance, of course, that one of the pilots you hire
will be involved in an accident, and you can be sure the hiring
criteria you used will be used by some lawyer to heap fault on your
airline. Are you going to be nice guy and give the kid a chance, or
are you going with an equally qualified applicant with a clean
record?

That is part of the reality in making hiring decisions. Guys and gals
who rise to the level where they are the decision makers on these
matters tend not to make rash decisions.

"buttman" wrote in message
...
You inferred all that from just one sentence? damn...

That one sentence told me that the OP is not only unrepentant, but marginally
illiterate. I certainly could be wrong, (and have been before) but I don't
think this person is prime airline material.

Vaughn

On Aug 1, 12:31*pm, wrote:
On Aug 1, 1:20*pm, gatt wrote:



Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:

On Jul 31, 9:54 pm, "ceaser28" u45176@uwe wrote:
Geez ....some of the posters make it out to be like you are a
stumbling falling down commode hugging drunk and you should be
pilloried for ever allowing evil alcohol to touch your lips.

I was thinking that if drinking misbehavior as a young adult was a
limiting factor in aviation, a whole hell of a lot of Navy and Marine
Corps veterans would never be allowed near an airplane. *Pappy
Boyington, for example.

Lots of people make mistakes when they're young and immortal. Assuming
it was just a simple offense and not some sort of crime, the test of
character is going to be whether the behavior was curbed or allowed to
continue.

-c

Consider this. You are a hiring authority, and you are examining the
paperwork of a number of prospects for a piloting job. Assume you've
done due dilligence so you know about the DUI, and further assume you
know it costs upwards of say $100,000 to take a new ATR pilot and
integrate him into your system.

You're making, in effect, a hundred thousand dollar bet on your
decision. Too many bad bets and your boss is not trust your judgement.
There is a small chance, of course, that one of the pilots you hire
will be involved in an accident, and you can be sure the hiring
criteria you used will be used by some lawyer to heap fault on your
airline. Are you going to be nice guy and give the kid a chance, or
are you going with an equally qualified applicant with a clean
record?

That is part of the reality in making hiring decisions. Guys and gals
who rise to the level where they are the decision makers on these
matters tend not to make rash decisions.

This argument only works if there is evidence that suggests that a
prior DUI conviction leads to a greater chance of getting into an
aviation accident. Do you have any kind of evidence to suggest this?

Remember, there are lots of people who have clean driving records, no
DUI's, good high school grades, etc etc etc, yet have still crashed an
airplane. At the same time, many successful people, in aviation as
well as the rest of the world, have gone on to do well despite a DUI
in their past.

That argument works when you can read between the lines intelligently. The
responses were not legal ones, just practical ones. You will never know why
your resume was rejected, but you can almost guarantee it will be. No
evidence needed. Just indications.

--
Regards, BobF.
"buttman" wrote in message
...
On Aug 1, 12:31 pm, wrote:
On Aug 1, 1:20 pm, gatt wrote:



Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:

On Jul 31, 9:54 pm, "ceaser28" u45176@uwe wrote:
Geez ....some of the posters make it out to be like you are a
stumbling falling down commode hugging drunk and you should be
pilloried for ever allowing evil alcohol to touch your lips.

I was thinking that if drinking misbehavior as a young adult was a
limiting factor in aviation, a whole hell of a lot of Navy and Marine
Corps veterans would never be allowed near an airplane. Pappy
Boyington, for example.

Lots of people make mistakes when they're young and immortal. Assuming
it was just a simple offense and not some sort of crime, the test of
character is going to be whether the behavior was curbed or allowed to
continue.

-c

Consider this. You are a hiring authority, and you are examining the
paperwork of a number of prospects for a piloting job. Assume you've
done due dilligence so you know about the DUI, and further assume you
know it costs upwards of say $100,000 to take a new ATR pilot and
integrate him into your system.

You're making, in effect, a hundred thousand dollar bet on your
decision. Too many bad bets and your boss is not trust your judgement.
There is a small chance, of course, that one of the pilots you hire
will be involved in an accident, and you can be sure the hiring
criteria you used will be used by some lawyer to heap fault on your
airline. Are you going to be nice guy and give the kid a chance, or
are you going with an equally qualified applicant with a clean
record?

That is part of the reality in making hiring decisions. Guys and gals
who rise to the level where they are the decision makers on these
matters tend not to make rash decisions.

This argument only works if there is evidence that suggests that a
prior DUI conviction leads to a greater chance of getting into an
aviation accident. Do you have any kind of evidence to suggest this?

Remember, there are lots of people who have clean driving records, no
DUI's, good high school grades, etc etc etc, yet have still crashed an
airplane. At the same time, many successful people, in aviation as
well as the rest of the world, have gone on to do well despite a DUI
in their past.

Vaughn Simon wrote:
"buttman" wrote in message
...

You inferred all that from just one sentence? damn...


That one sentence told me that the OP is not only unrepentant, but marginally
illiterate. I certainly could be wrong, (and have been before) but I don't
think this person is prime airline material.

Vaughn

He said "commercial pilot."

If anybody doesn't think there are successful commercial pilots out here
who have been in trouble with the law--or simply didn't get caught--and
who don't exhibit textbook grammar and punctuation on the usenet, I
suggest they check the archives.

wrote:


Consider this. You are a hiring authority, and you are examining the
paperwork of a number of prospects for a piloting job. Assume you've
done due dilligence so you know about the DUI, and further assume you
know it costs upwards of say $100,000 to take a new ATR pilot and
integrate him into your system.

He asked if he had a shot at being a commercial pilot. I'm a commercial
pilot, and I've never been anywhere near a "hiring authority."

Are you going to be nice guy and give the kid a chance, or
are you going with an equally qualified applicant with a clean
record?

Depends on the applicant. If the one with the clean record acts like a
hotshot or an arrogant know-it-all, it might be that he simply hasn't
been caught yet, or acquired his character deficiencies later in life.
If on the other hand the one with the DUII seems contrite and
intelligent and can demonstrate that he's improved himself, that might
mean a lot.

Ten years from now, for example, there will be a whole lot of former
Marines who did combat tours in Iraq, came home and got popped as soon
as they drove off base because one beer before they deployed has more
impact than one beer did when they were partying every weekend
stateside. I promise, if I am in some sort of context to evaluate them
for employment, I will take the -whole- of their character and
accomplishment into consideration.

-c

buttman wrote:

This argument only works if there is evidence that suggests that a
prior DUI conviction leads to a greater chance of getting into an
aviation accident. Do you have any kind of evidence to suggest this?

Remember, there are lots of people who have clean driving records, no
DUI's, good high school grades, etc etc etc, yet have still crashed an
airplane. At the same time, many successful people, in aviation as
well as the rest of the world, have gone on to do well despite a DUI
in their past.

buttman, have you ever been in a court room?

Here's how that one will play out.

Ambulance Chasing Lawyer: "Capt. Screwed did you have any reason to
beleive that Joe Justhadafewdrinks had a history of bad judgment?"

Capt Screwed (Hiring Officer for REALLY SCREWED Airline): "No, of course
not. He scored well on all pre-hire tests and check flights."

ACL: "Would you have hired him had you known that he had a history of
bad judgment?"

CS: "No"

ACL: "Would you say that a DUI conviction is proof of bad judgement?"

CS: "Uh..uh..yes."

ACL: "Capt., The airline records clearly show you knew Joe
Justhadafewdrinks had an arrest and conviction for DUI and you hired him
anyway. How many applications of equal qualification did you have in
your inbox the day you hired Joe Justhadafewdrinks?

CS: "One or two hundred."

ACL: "How many had DUI convictions?"

CS: "1 or 2"

ACL: "And yet you hired Joe Justhadafewdrinks? No further questions."

gatt wrote:
wrote:

Are you going to be nice guy and give the kid a chance, or
are you going with an equally qualified applicant with a clean
record?

Depends on the applicant. If the one with the clean record acts like a
hotshot or an arrogant know-it-all, it might be that he simply hasn't
been caught yet, or acquired his character deficiencies later in life.
If on the other hand the one with the DUII seems contrite and
intelligent and can demonstrate that he's improved himself, that might
mean a lot.

Ten years from now, for example, there will be a whole lot of former
Marines who did combat tours in Iraq, came home and got popped as soon
as they drove off base because one beer before they deployed has more
impact than one beer did when they were partying every weekend
stateside. I promise, if I am in some sort of context to evaluate them
for employment, I will take the -whole- of their character and
accomplishment into consideration.

-c

That really wasn't the question posed. If you have to applicants who are
in pretty much all ways equal which would you hire the guy with the DUI
or the one without?

To use your Marine example, let's say you are hiring one of two Marines
that were in the same squadron, their records are identical in pretty
much every way. One with a DUI, one without a DUI. Which one do you hire?

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:


That really wasn't the question posed. If you have to applicants who are
in pretty much all ways equal which would you hire the guy with the DUI
or the one without?

The one without. But that really wasn't the question posed either. All
he wanted to know was whether he'd be able to get his commercial license.

To use your Marine example, let's say you are hiring one of two Marines
that were in the same squadron, their records are identical in pretty
much every way. One with a DUI, one without a DUI. Which one do you hire?

Their records may be identical, but any two people are not:

How well do they fly the plane?
How well do they understand the regulations and the company?
How well do they present themselves professionally?
What are they trying to accomplish?
How hard are they willing to work to accomplish it?
What are they expecting to earn? ("I deserve more because...")

-c