Flying while suspended for Impaired

[DanWEC]

I'm not minimizing it, but you've never made a mistake as a kid? That's all he was when this happened. It wasn't a random car accident out on the street, there's more to the story than that. The event was an absolute personal tragedy for which he certainly paid a heavy price.

Regardless, if the poster knew the person he'd know that his subsequent career success is entirely his own doing. He can fly my family for the rest of their lives without hesitation.

Anyways, this all sounds fishy, a poster revives a 10 year old thread, with a 15 year old event including some uneccessary current details. He might know him and is bitter. Pathetic.

[photofly]

Should be a public registry.
Like being a sex offender.
You're done.

Might be time to dig up some of that compassion for which you're so famous.

[rookiepilot]

Should be a public registry.
Like being a sex offender.
You're done.

Might be time to dig up some of that compassion for which you're so famous.

Photofly. You would hire a convicted drunk driver as an instructor at YTZ? You'd load your kids in the plane with this person and wave bye bye?

If not ------- anyway.

Thanks for your opinion. My compassion is based on my principles, not yours, but you're just trolling for a response. I get it.

There have been a NUMBER of ugly repeat drunk driving offenders in Canada. Key word "repeat". One recent repeat offender in our fair town, which only stopped when a whole family was wiped out. Hey, now we can get legally stoned too, and drive. or attempt to.

It's a willful act. That bus driver who wiped out the hockey team -- look what happened to him. Not drunk, stoned, or texting, and he got the book thrown at him. Drunk drivers who've done it repeatedly and willfully, have gotten a lot less, even after killing people.

Yeah. I don't want the movie Flight, on my next flight, thanks.

No offense.

[photofly]

Compassion towards those whose tragedy is caused by random events is cheap. It takes hard work to be compassionate towards those who cause tragedy.

[tsgarp]

It takes hard work to be compassionate towards those who cause tragedy.

Don't mistake sound risk assessment for a lack of compassion. Barring someone from a position of trust after they have committed a major breach of trust is simple risk assessment; cold hard logic. Letting them out of jail to start over, that is compassion.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

It takes hard work to be compassionate towards those who cause tragedy.

Don't mistake sound risk assessment for a lack of compassion. Barring someone from a position of trust after they have committed a major breach of trust is simple risk assessment; cold hard logic. Letting them out of jail to start over, that is compassion.

Barring someone from ever again holding a position of trust based on a youthful mistake decades ago (if one ascribes to rookie's point of view) is not a logical risk assessment in my view. It is an emotional risk assessment, based on evidence that may no longer be relevant.

[rookiepilot]

It takes hard work to be compassionate towards those who cause tragedy.

Don't mistake sound risk assessment for a lack of compassion. Barring someone from a position of trust after they have committed a major breach of trust is simple risk assessment; cold hard logic. Letting them out of jail to start over, that is compassion.

This.

Compassion, and wisdom, are 2 totally different principles.

[photofly]

Don't mistake sound risk assessment for a lack of compassion. Barring someone from a position of trust after they have committed a major breach of trust is simple risk assessment; cold hard logic. Letting them out of jail to start over, that is compassion.

Barring someone is not logic at all. It's a value judgement with which one may or may not agree. Lots of people are readmitted to positions of trust, and I didn't say compassion automatically means letting him fly an airplane, but this:

Should be a public registry.
Like being a sex offender.
You're done.

displays a lack of compassion.

[rookiepilot]

Don't mistake sound risk assessment for a lack of compassion. Barring someone from a position of trust after they have committed a major breach of trust is simple risk assessment; cold hard logic. Letting them out of jail to start over, that is compassion.

Barring someone is not logic at all. It's a value judgement with which one may or may not agree. Lots of people are readmitted to positions of trust, and I didn't say compassion automatically means letting him fly an airplane, but this:

Should be a public registry.
Like being a sex offender.
You're done.

displays a lack of compassion.

Why?

BTW --
We are talking specifically about an example of someone under current driving suspension for impaired driving, who resulted in another persons death.

Red Baron is alluding to something decades ago. Where did that come in?

I'm in a position of trust with my volunteer work. I've undergone police checks a couple of times, as has my wife.

But a convicted drunk driver who's killed someone, under suspension, need not disclose that fact when applying for a position of trust with many lives under their care?

So you'd hire this person, and load up your kids in their airplane.

Got it. I would not do either, hypothetically speaking.

[photofly]

Primarily because it denies the possibility of rehabilitation.

But a convicted drunk driver who's killed someone, need not disclose that fact when applying for a position of trust with many lives under their care?
So you'd hire this person, and load up your kids in their car / airplane.
Got it. I would not do either.

I'm happy for you to invent things you'd like me to have said, so you can rail against them. But that's all you're doing.

We are talking specifically about an example of someone under current driving suspension for impaired driving, who resulted in another persons death.

You might be now, but you weren't when you said

Should be a public registry.
Like being a sex offender.
You're done.

[rookiepilot]

Primarily because it denies the possibility of rehabilitation.

Ok. Why not. So Again --- why?

Should we disband the sex offender registry, too?

[Squaretail]

What's with the zombie thread?

You guys made me sad when I ended up reading shitdisturber's post.

[photofly]

Primarily because it denies the possibility of rehabilitation.

Ok. Why not. So Again --- why?

Are you asking why does it deny the possibility of rehabilitation? Or why does denying the possibility of rehabilitation display a lack of compassion?

Should we disband the sex offender registry, too?

What do you mean by “too”? In addition to what?

I think you’re again inventing things you’d like me to have said so you can argue with them.

[EPR]

I remember that tragedy, it happened in a parking lot in YOW during a night out on the town. Very irresponsible of him, but he has had to live with those fatal decisions ever since and even though he comes from a well to do family, I believe he paid the price, and showed remorse.
Everyone deserves a 2nd chance!

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Don't mistake sound risk assessment for a lack of compassion. Barring someone from a position of trust after they have committed a major breach of trust is simple risk assessment; cold hard logic. Letting them out of jail to start over, that is compassion.

Barring someone is not logic at all. It's a value judgement with which one may or may not agree. Lots of people are readmitted to positions of trust, and I didn't say compassion automatically means letting him fly an airplane, but this:

Should be a public registry.
Like being a sex offender.
You're done.

displays a lack of compassion.

Rookie and photofly, you have misquoted me, likely inadvertently as the result of mis-editing a rather long quote chain. tsgarp wrote that.

What I actually said was:

It takes hard work to be compassionate towards those who cause tragedy.

Don't mistake sound risk assessment for a lack of compassion. Barring someone from a position of trust after they have committed a major breach of trust is simple risk assessment; cold hard logic. Letting them out of jail to start over, that is compassion.

Barring someone from ever again holding a position of trust based on a youthful mistake decades ago (if one ascribes to rookie's point of view) is not a logical risk assessment in my view. It is an emotional risk assessment, based on evidence that may no longer be relevant.

Now that that's hopefully cleared up, allow me to respond.

Why?

BTW --
We are talking specifically about an example of someone under current driving suspension for impaired driving, who resulted in another persons death.

Red Baron is alluding to something decades ago. Where did that come in?

I'm in a position of trust with my volunteer work. I've undergone police checks a couple of times, as has my wife.

But a convicted drunk driver who's killed someone, under suspension, need not disclose that fact when applying for a position of trust with many lives under their care?

So you'd hire this person, and load up your kids in their airplane.

Got it. I would not do either, hypothetically speaking.

I was alluding to something decades ago as a response to your support for lifetime bans as a penalty for a first offense. A currently suspended driver, I agree with you. If you're legally prohibited from driving you should also be legally prohibited from piloting an aircraft, in my opinion.

[shimmydampner]

Should we disband the sex offender registry, too?

Intentionally preying upon the vulnerable is a very different thing than making an isolated, terrible choice that leads to an accident. And driving a personal vehicle is a very different thing from a commercial aircraft operation in which there are things like operational control, regular stringent testing of performance and adherence to rules and constant observation and monitoring of day to day performance by other crew members. Last I checked, there is no provision to prevent a person from operating as a flight crew member based solely on any poor decisions they may have made before their frontal cortex was fully developed, so maybe rather than blanket statements, similar situations should be judged on an individual basis.

[tsgarp]

It takes hard work to be compassionate towards those who cause tragedy.

Don't mistake sound risk assessment for a lack of compassion. Barring someone from a position of trust after they have committed a major breach of trust is simple risk assessment; cold hard logic. Letting them out of jail to start over, that is compassion.

Barring someone from ever again holding a position of trust based on a youthful mistake decades ago (if one ascribes to rookie's point of view) is not a logical risk assessment in my view. It is an emotional risk assessment, based on evidence that may no longer be relevant.

Many years ago, when I was being trained to do interviews and selection the HR professionals really hammered on the idea that past performance is the best indicator of future performance. When I was taught to do risk assessment we were told to account for probability of an adverse occurrence and the consequences of that adverse occurrence.

Applying that to the situation at hand, what we have is an individual that is at significantly higher than average chance of showing bad judgment being placed in a position where bad judgement has catastrophic consequences. No emotion there.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

what we have is an individual that is at significantly higher than average chance of showing bad judgment

Citation needed. I still believe you are making an emotional argument here.

It very much depends on how long ago something happened, would you not agree? Something that happened 20 years ago is far less relevant than something that happened 5 years ago - and something that happened 5 years ago is far less relevant than something that happened 5 months ago.

I would also posit that a clean driving/criminal record for 20 years is pretty solid evidence in and of itself that the issue has been dealt with, in my hypothetical 20 year timeline scenario.

And what if they've been pardoned (er, obtained a record suspension)? You'd never know. Unless you disagree with pardons on principle, they would carry some weight with you, right?

But do let me reiterate that I agree that anyone currently under a driving suspension should also be under a piloting suspension.

[Needswork2020]

I came back to look at CV's to hire someone as a FO on the jet I was hired on.


I found this thread. God, you are all horrible.

People change and accidents happen. I have never done as much cocaine as with a CX B747 guy on his Command party.

It takes all kinds in our industry. Shutting someone out for a past indiscretion is silly and doesn't show a very well-developed failure model.

[rookiepilot]

But do let me reiterate that I agree that anyone currently under a driving suspension should also be under a piloting suspension.

That is the title and subject of this thread.

[tsgarp]

I would also posit that a clean driving/criminal record for 20 years is pretty solid evidence in and of itself that the issue has been dealt with, in my hypothetical 20 year timeline scenario.

I think this just come down to you having a much higher appetite for risk than some of the rest of us. Either that or you are confusing risk mitigation with punishment.

[flyboy14914]

Another subtle consideration... an impaired driving conviction is a criminal code conviction. If you have a DUI conviction you will never get past the criminal record check to get your RAIC which every commercial pilot will require...

[Dh8Classic]

Shutting someone out for a past indiscretion is silly and doesn't show a very well-developed failure model.

Wow, A330 and A321. I wonder what airline flies those aircraft with furloughed pilots.

I remember one airline that hired a convicted drug run ner. He ended up getting an award for ‘heroic action’ at the airline and has written a book.

I’m sure these guys met some sort of important hiring requirement by whatever airline it is, while others didn’t make the grade.

N’est ce pas?

[tsgarp]

Shutting someone out for a past indiscretion is silly and doesn't show a very well-developed failure model.

Wow, A330 and A321. I wonder what airline flies those aircraft with furloughed pilots.

I remember one airline that hired a convicted drug run ner. He ended up getting an award for ‘heroic action’ at the airline and has written a book.

I’m sure these guys met some sort of important hiring requirement by whatever airline it is, while others didn’t make the grade.

N’est ce pas?

I think we might want to read the entire narrative about the Azores glider before we start heaping praise on anyone’s judgement.

[digits_]

Another subtle consideration... an impaired driving conviction is a criminal code conviction. If you have a DUI conviction you will never get past the criminal record check to get your RAIC which every commercial pilot will require...

There are plenty of commercial jobs you can get without a RAIC.

I don't deny it happens, but I'm not sure why a DUI would automatically mean you shouldn't get a RAIC.

To broaden the discussion a bit: be aware that limitations vary significantly between countries. What gets you a DUI in Canada, might just be a slap on the wrist in another country. Your DUI convicted Canadian might be less of a drunk than a foreign pilot without any DUI convictions, and yet you share the same airspace.