FAA and Reporting requirements

[jetstar1]

Just a question here,

I had a dui/violation back in 92 which was reported to the FAA as an arrest. I stopped flying due to family issues and never got a medical since the incident so it was only notified in letter format at this point. I got stung back in 94 again and went into counseling but was not an active pilot and did not think i was going to pursue it ever again so it was never reported to the FAA. I have learned my lesson and have been good ever since. I am by no means trying to buck the system here just need some advise from anyone that had a similar type of thing happen to them and what they did about it and what came out of it. I did call AOPA legal and they told me to just send a letter and deal with the actions after you apply for a medical/ maybe 180 day suspend for not reporting/ Believe it or not he even suggested that i could take my chances and not report the one from 94 but it would obviously be hanging over my head for some time to come. I have run an NDR check on myself and there is NO record at all so if i put previously reported for the one in 92 they won't even see in on NDR record so should i still report it from 94? These were not convictions at all on my record. Any advise would be helpful

 

[nosehair]

These were not convictions at all on my record.

If you were not convicted, you are not required to report.
FAR 61.15 talks about "convictions", not arrests. If you have not had a conviction, don't report anything.
If you have, report it. They'll find it.
​

 

[A Squared]

I got stung back in 94 again and went into counseling but was not an active pilot and did not think i was going to pursue it ever again so it was never reported to the FAA.

I don't know what you mean by "got stung", but I assume that you meant an arrest and conviction for DUI. I can sympathize with the not reporting because you wern't interested in flying any more. However, the FAA doesn't sympathize. I recall reading an NTSB transcript of a gut just like you. quite flyying, it was just a hobby and he didn't think he was interested any more. 6-7 years later he got re-interested in flying, but in the meantime, he'd had a DUI he hadn't reported. Anyway, the faa gave him an enforcement. DOn't recall what hte penalty was but he lost on appeal.

Maybe you do just have to take your lumps, I don't know.

 

[jetstar1]

Thanks for the reply, Yes this sucks i mean we all make mistakes and some just are a little more unlucky then others. I am not sure what i will do. I would like to to the right thing here but if it is going to cause me to go to hell and back (who know's). They should give some kind of lenencey at least since i did not fudge a medical form and was not an active pilot and this all took place over 10 yrs ago.

 

[SabreFlyR]

Thanks for the reply, Yes this sucks i mean we all make mistakes and some just are a little more unlucky then others. I am not sure what i will do. I would like to to the right thing here but if it is going to cause me to go to hell and back (who know's). They should give some kind of lenencey at least since i did not fudge a medical form and was not an active pilot and this all took place over 10 yrs ago.

If your serious you might want to find a good aviation attorney to help you or atleast give you some advice. If your serious he/she may be able to smooth things over with FAA, then again maybe not.

 

[midlifeflyer]

If you were not convicted, you are not required to report.​

Not true. Most states have procedures for loss of driving privileges even if the charge does not result in a conviction. That loss of driving privilege is a "motor vehicle action" under 61.15 and must be reported. If you lose your driving privileges =and= get convicted, you need to report twice.

jetstar? The problem is, as others noted, that 61.15 gives you reporting requirements so long as you have a pilot certificate, even if you are not actively flying and don't have a medical.

Advice: Get a lawyer. Hope is not necessarily lost even though the FAA does treat the failure to report very seriously. If you don't know one and are a AOPA member, you can check the Legal Service Plan list even if you don't subscribe to the plan. Not all handle everything, so call at least 3 in your area, tell them the situation, and get a feel for who seems to make sense and who you feel comfortable with.​

 

[jetstar1]

Yes thanks for the advice i am downloading the list from AOPA right now. I hope i can get some sound advice from one of these guys.

 

[FN FAL]

Not true. Most states have procedures for loss of driving privileges even if the charge does not result in a conviction...

Don't you mean to say that some states will apply to have you suspended or revoked prior to your court date or disposition?

If a state revoked me for six months and it turned out a year later THEY were wrong, I'd be getting me some of that state budget money.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Don't you mean to say that some states will apply to have you suspended or revoked prior to your court date or disposition?

Depends. There's a lot of variety out there.

In some states, suspension pending disposition is on application as part of the court proceedings, as you describe.

In other states, there is a separate administrative procedure in which the licensing agency can do the suspension through an administrative procedure that has nothing whatsoever to do with the criminal proceedings. It's possible to have your license suspended through that process even if you "win" the DUI trial in the criminal courts, due to different standards of proof in each.

There are at least a few other variations on the theme of loss of driving privilege without a conviction. That variety is probably the reason 61.15 defines "motor vehicle action" the way it does.

If a state revoked me for six months and it turned out a year later THEY were wrong, I'd be getting me some of that state budget money.

Good luck. First, it's not necessarily "wrong." Second, my bet would be that in better than 90% of the states, governmental immunity would apply to a "wrong" decision.

 

[FN FAL]

Good luck. First, it's not necessarily "wrong." Second, my bet would be that in better than 90% of the states, governmental immunity would apply to a "wrong" decision.

Randy Weaver got 3 million dollars in a "wrong" decision made by the federal government. I'd like to see you cite your references that the government can operate negiligently and not be held responsible for it's actions.

The military can't be sued...that's why the widows of the C 130 crew that flew the dead stick 4 engine flameout aircraft, sued manufacturers of the C 130 and it's components.