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.

 

[FN FAL]

...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.

First offense DUI is not a "criminal" offense in WI...it's a civil offense.

In WI, the officer will hand you a pink piece of paper that he will simply tell you is a "reciept" for your driver's license. This is really a "notice to suspend" and becomes a 30 day temporary license for the alleged violator and gives him/her something to drive on until they suspend you after the judicial review.

Here's where a pilot who gets pinched, may want to pay attention. You may attend the judicial review and ask that your license not be suspended untill your actual court disposition. Then, if you can postpone your court case for a year, you might be able to postpone your FAA notification and your employer notification until after you have met your probationary period of employment...it could be something to think about.

Otherwise, for most people, it's probably going to be better to get the suspension out of the way as soon as possible, by taking it up front at the judicial review determination. If you read the last sentence in the quoted material, it is said that the adminstrative and the court imposed suspensions run concurently...which means if you take your suspension up front, when you are tried and found guilty, the court will see that you already served your suspension already. You do not get a second suspension.

In Wisconsin, first-time Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) offenses are treated as civil rather than criminal offenses and may be adjudicated by municipal courts. Wisconsin statutes prohibit prosecutors from reducing OWI offenses to lesser offenses, and deferred prosecution also is generally prohibited.
Wisconsin imposes both an administrative and a court-imposed license suspension for the first OWI offense. The administrative penalties include a mandatory six-month suspension for persons who fail the BAC test and a mandatory one-year revocation if the BAC test is refused. The administrative penalties are imposed 30 days after the date of the offense. If the driver fails the test, the law enforcement officer takes immediate possession of the driver's license and gives notice to the driver that the license will be administratively suspended and that the driver has the right to obtain an administrative and judicial review. This notice serves as a 30-day temporary license. The officer then forwards the license to the Division of Motor Vehicles, which suspends the license if the driver does not appeal. The process is similar in the case of a test refusal, except that the officer gives the driver a notice to revoke by court order, and then forwards the license to the court, with copies to the prosecutor and the Division of Motor Vehicles. Upon conviction for OWI, offenders receive a court-imposed license revocation of six to nine months. The administrative and court-imposed license penalties must run concurrently.

 

[avbug]

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.

That wasn't a flame-out, it was a four engine roll back, and it wasn't the military's fault.

Proceedures are available for the four engine rollback in the Herc.

 

[FN FAL]

That wasn't a flame-out, it was a four engine roll back, and it wasn't the military's fault.

Proceedures are available for the four engine rollback in the Herc.

The us error force says King-56 flew on a single fuselage tank for their entire flight and ran that tank dry, causing four engines to flame out. You can argue your theories with them.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'd like to see you cite your references that the government can operate negligently and not be held responsible for it's actions.

Sorry. Too many decisions; too little time.

But you can look up "governmental immunity." It's a legal principle that goes back to the days of the old English monarchy. Except in rare circumstances, the government can't be sued unless it consents to it. That what the Federal Tort Claims Act and similar state laws are about. I doubt you'd find many states in which the act covers a judicial or quasi-judicial administrative decision that turns out to be incorrect.

In the federal arena, check out the decisions under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which is a federal law that allows defendants in certain cases (including FAA certificate actions) to be reimbursed for their legal expenses in certain cases of unjustified prosecution and the hoops that you have to go through to be successful.

 

[jetstar1]

just a little update after speaking to an Aviation attorney today. He stated to me that since i did not have an active medical (expired after 24 months) at the time that i was not required to notify the FAA (the letter stated in 61.15. But he stated that when i apply for a new medical that in 18V i have to put previously reported in 92 (obviously) and THEN state the offense (which was not a conviction) in 94. He sounded pretty sure of himself on this so i am wondering if anyone can shed a little more light on this for me. I still have yet to get in touch with a few more attorneys to get there perspective. Just trying to do the right thing here without screwing myself!

 

[FN FAL]

States sue Federal Government over "no child left behind act".

http://www.nea.org/lawsuit/index.html

 

[FN FAL]

This ruling was affirmed on February 23, 2001 by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Based on these significant court victories, the named plaintiffs have sought an interim award of expenses and attorneys’ fees in the amount of $14,528,467.71 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Under EAJA, a party that has won its case in whole or in part is called the “prevailing party” and if the criteria of EAJA are met, that party is eligible for an award of expenses and attorneys fees paid by the government. Such an award, as here, includes costs such as attorneys’ fees and fees paid to experts. In general, the EAJA award is calculated using a reasonable hourly rate and the time expended by the individual lawyer or expert.

Indians sue federal government under EAJA...

http://forums.flightinfo.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=842504

 

[FN FAL]

Corrupt LAPD sued by convicted murderer under the civil remedies portion of the R.I.C.O. Act...

​

Federal Judge Allows RICO to Be Used vs. LAPD

Federal District Judge William Rea ruled yesterday that anti-racketeering laws can be used in a current case against the Los Angeles Police Department and officers accused of corrupt acts in the continually unfolding Rampart Division police scandal. The court’s ruling will allow the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law to be used in a case in which plaintiffs are accusing LAPD officers of beating and false arrests, and arguing that the LAPD knew of and condoned these actions. Applying this statute to the case would treat the LAPD as a “criminal enterprise” that conspired to bring false drug charges, plant false evidence and brutalize citizens. Since the scandal erupted, over 100 criminal cases have been overturned. The LAPD has also been previously accused of systematically covering up brutality by officers toward their wives and girlfriends.
​

 

[jetstar1]

What is your point here FN FAL? (retard!)

 

[FN FAL]

Wrongfully convicted man sues county government over wrongful conviction...

WHITELAW, Wis. - The Avery family and the police don't mix. Never have.

Friday night, just hours after prosecutors announced Steven Avery would face a murder charge in the death of a Hilbert woman, his older brother, Chuck, popped the trunks of his family's cars. He said he wanted to make sure Manitowoc County sheriff's deputies hadn't planted more trouble for them.
"We're really on edge," he said outside his brother Earl's farmhouse as darkness fell.
Steven Avery spent 18 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit before DNA evidence exonerated him. He filed a $36 million wrongful conviction lawsuit against Manitowoc County.

 

[FN FAL]

State sued over sexual harrasment...

State settles current sexual-harassment suit

Statesman Journal

February 4, 2005
The state has reached an out-of-court settlement in a sexual-harassment case filed by a former Western Oregon University student against Gary Welander, a veteran professor at the school.
Rosemary Garcia, hospitalized with terminal cancer, accepted the $65,000 settlement, Martin Dolan, Garcia's lawyer said Thursday.
This is the second settlement of a sexual-harassment complaint brought against a WOU professor. In 2001, the state agreed to pay student Leah Mangis $110,000 to settle her complaint against the university and professor Norm Eburne. Eburne since has left the university.
George Pernsteiner, acting chancellor of the Oregon University System, said Thursday that he has asked Western Oregon President Philip W. Conn and Provost Jem Spectar to review the school's policies covering sexual harassment and consensual relationships, as well as its procedures for dealing with such complaints.
Pernsteiner said he called for the review after learning that Garcia's case was not the first of its kind involving a WOU professor.
Pernsteiner said students should not be subjected to sexual harassment or feel fearful about reporting it.
"We want them to feel safe and secure," he said.
Dolan, who described his client as gravely ill, said she was satisfied with the settlement.
"Money is always a component in these cases, but almost always there is a component of wanting to change something," he said. "I think there is real change going to happen with this. Her words were 'I'm just glad I could do something to help women who are going to be at Western Oregon in the future.'"
Oregon Attorney General spokesman Kevin Neely and Conn confirmed that the state had settled with Garcia.
In November, the state offered to pay Garcia $65,000 to settle her complaint but state lawyers later withdrew the offer. The state reopened settlement negotiations with Garcia shortly after the Statesman Journal published stories about the former student's multimillion-dollar lawsuit.
On Jan. 11, Dolan filed a $12.6 million lawsuit against Welander and the university on Garcia's behalf in U.S. District Court in Portland, claiming that Welander "visited her office regularly, gave her money, initiated physical contact in the form of hugging, and asked intimate questions of a personal and sexual nature."
Initially, the lawsuit also named WOU speech professor and academic adviser Peter Courtney, who also is the president of the Oregon Senate, as a defendant.
Neely said Thursday that Courtney's name has been dropped from the lawsuit.
Welander was asked to resign as chairman of the school's Teacher Education Division in June after Garcia complained to university officials.
In an interview late Thursday, Welander said he thought that he had been victimized by Garcia.
He said he ended a yearlong relationship with Garcia in December 2003. Shortly thereafter, Garcia began stalking him, threatening him and his girlfriend and calling them frequently to harass them, he said.
"I loved her," Welander said. "I cared about her. I had a relationship with her. Then I tried to get out of it."
Garcia's lawsuit alleged that faculty members reported their concerns about Welander's relationship with Garcia to a university dean in April 2003 but that no action was taken.
The suit also claimed that staff members and administrators were aware of Welander's "history of improper relationships with his students and of his predatory nature."
The university's internal investigation into Garcia's complaint was completed Tuesday, Conn said. Welander will remain on leave through next term, he said.

 

[A Squared]

just a little update after speaking to an Aviation attorney today. He stated to me that since i did not have an active medical (expired after 24 months) at the time that i was not required to notify the FAA (the letter stated in 61.15. But he stated that when i apply for a new medical that in 18V i have to put previously reported in 92 (obviously) and THEN state the offense (which was not a conviction) in 94. He sounded pretty sure of himself on this so i am wondering if anyone can shed a little more light on this for me. I still have yet to get in touch with a few more attorneys to get there perspective. Just trying to do the right thing here without screwing myself!

OK, I think you may be getting bad advice. First, I don't think the attorney is correct about not needing to report it if you don't have a medical. Read this NTSB decision:

http://www.ntsb.gov/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/4208.PDF

I think it's very applicable and relevant.

As for reporting it as "reviously reported" I'm confused, I thought you had not reported it? If so, don't say on the medical application that you reported it. If you do, that's falsification and the FAA will likely *revoke* your certificate instead of just suspending it. If hte lawyer is advising you to put it as "previously reported" when it's not (nd it's a little unclear to me if this is hte case) then that lawyer is giving you very bad advice.

I would proceed very carefully here.

 

[midlifeflyer]

just a little update after speaking to an Aviation attorney today. He stated to me that since i did not have an active medical (expired after 24 months) at the time that i was not required to notify the FAA (the letter stated in 61.15. But he stated that when i apply for a new medical that in 18V i have to put previously reported in 92 (obviously) and THEN state the offense (which was not a conviction) in 94. He sounded pretty sure of himself on this so i am wondering if anyone can shed a little more light on this for me. I still have yet to get in touch with a few more attorneys to get there perspective. Just trying to do the right thing here without screwing myself!

Speak to a few more attorneys.

And, this is important, don't assume that your description of the events is accurate from a legal standpoint. Some of the details about whether or not something is a "conviction" or an alcohol-related action that might be a "motor vehicle action" under 61.15 are highly technical and can only be determined accurately by looking at the court or administrative documents involved.

I don't know whether the attorney's advice was correct or not. But if you received it through an informal phone call without the attorney looking at the relevant documents, I'd go a bit further for my own peace of mind.

 

[jetstar1]

A squared,

Thanks for the advise. Yes i did report the 92 arrest to the FAA right after i got my Jan 92 medical for the Feb offense but did not fly after that and got the other offense (my medical was expired) in 94 which was NOT reported. According to the PDF you supplied maybe i should send a letter to them about the 94 arrest and then report it on my next medical (if i start flying again) and deal with it. I was told that since it was over 10 yrs ago that as long as i report it even after the fact in this case that i would not be severly repremanded(hopefully) and that this will be off my FAA record if i get a suspended in 5 years.

 

[A Squared]

A squared,

Thanks for the advise. Yes i did report the 92 arrest to the FAA right after i got my Jan 92 medical for the Feb offense but did not fly after that and got the other offense (my medical was expired) in 94 which was NOT reported. According to the PDF you supplied maybe i should send a letter to them about the 94 arrest and then report it on my next medical (if i start flying again) and deal with it. I was told that since it was over 10 yrs ago that as long as i report it even after the fact in this case that i would not be severly repremanded(hopefully) and that this will be off my FAA record if i get a suspended in 5 years.

OK, I misunderstood you about the reporting on hte medical app. I see wht you are saying now. That said, I still think your attorney is incorrect on 2 points:

1) even inactive plots are required to know the regulations and comply with them, if you hold a pilot certificate, you are required to report the DUI, regardless of you medical certificate or level of piloting activity. THis should be clear form the NTSB decision I posted.

2) Reporting a DUI on (or similar occurence which is required to report) your medical application absolutely does not fulfill the requiremnts of 61.15 you haveto send the notification to the address listed in the reg, and disclosing on a medical app will not suffice, even if it is within the required time period. THere have been many pilots who have been burned by this, and the FAA has been very consistent on it.

I'd get some second opinions if I were you. Good luck.

 

[jetstar1]

Please Remove This Thread