Am I screwed?

[Way2Broke]

I agree the law should be .00. But nobody, even myself wants to have to bring a designated driver to dinner for just one or two beers.
We've all gone out intending to have "one or two" and ended up closing the place down. But what happens after that is still a choice. In my case, I'll either take a cab or get picked up. The person who chooses to drive anyway is knowingly putting others at risk.
If you get behind the wheel pissed drunk, it could be argued that yes, in fact, you ARE out to kill someone. You are knowingly putting people in danger, and premeditation could be argued in court.
But in this country it truly is all about the money.

The problem is that your ability to make a decision after closing the place down is impaired just like you.

 

[partypilot1]

Don’t sweat it too much, accidents happen just be thankful no one was hurt. You did show that you are human and as a human, you make mistakes. You did choose to exercise your right as a human to make a mistake. It is imperative that you learn from this one. Luckily, it happened 5 years ago. The 2007 FAR 67.207 under mental standards states ANY bal test showing over 0.04 % constitutes alcohol dependency, meaning NO medical 1st, 2nd or 3rd for at least 2 years. The test doesn’t have to be from DOT either.
I have no respect for people who think if you put a skid mark on your record you should stop flying professionally. Most of the best pilots I know have some kind of mark on their record, but they did learn from it and make corrections accordingly. Good luck, be safe, and think when you drink.

 

[tyuwerty]

The 2007 FAR 67.207 under mental standards states ANY bal test showing over 0.04 % constitutes alcohol dependency, meaning NO medical 1st, 2nd or 3rd for at least 2 years. The test doesn’t have to be from DOT either.
.

There has been no change to FAR 67.107/.207 it always read this way:

2) A verified positive drug test result, an alcohol test result of 0.04 or greater alcohol concentration, or a refusal to submit to a drug or alcohol test required by the U.S. Department of Transportation or an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation;

A police breathalyzer for DUI does not fall under DOT rules/ requirements.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]e-CFR Data is current as of October 12, 2006[/FONT]​

 

[flynryan15]

Russian

After our Sat Night Rockstar Party at unnamed Bar located in Beach Place at Ft. Lauderdale beach. I am calling you out!!!!!!

 

[ponder]

I'd hire you. Unless you were an anti-drinking zealot now.
Who among us except the Russian can say they will
never be in your shoes.

 

[partypilot1]

There has been no change to FAR 67.107/.207 it always read this way:

2) A verified positive drug test result, an alcohol test result of 0.04 or greater alcohol concentration, or a refusal to submit to a drug or alcohol test required by the U.S. Department of Transportation or an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation;

A police breathalyzer for DUI does not fall under DOT rules/ requirements.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]e-CFR Data is current as of October 12, 2006[/FONT]​

I think you need to grab a current FAR/AIM bro..
As of June 21, 2006 Effective Date
FAR 107/207/307 state...
(b) No substance abuse within the preceding 2 years defined as:
(1) Same as before
(2) A verified positive drug test result, an alcohol test result of 0.04 or greater alcohol concentration,.. OR.. a refusal to submit to a drug or alcohol test required by the US Department of Transportation.. OR.. an agency of the US Department of Transportation; or exc..exc..

That is out of the FAR/AIM 2007
Nice try though, I would rather have it the old way

 

[Vne0]

When you get an interview, let them know that you did learn from it, and you are now less likely to drink and drive than anyone there who has not had a DUI. If you really did learn from it, and want to continue life as a pilot, that really will be the case.
If you’re out drinking just remember, a cab may seem expensive, but sure is cheaper that a DUI!