Wouldn’t all convictions call into question an individual’s integrity and trustworthiness? I would think so. And who are these individuals with impeccable integrity that we trust to resolve this question? Some random bureaucrat at the CAAs ? I think law in general has since long moved on from such inferred “judging of character”. Flying an aircraft does not require that you also fulfill the criteria of some gentleman’s high class private club where everybody can afford top lawyers.
Today these things are handled differently. EASA has no background checks for their FCLs. It’s only one reason for this, there is nothing about flying a plane that warrant poking into an individual’s private life regarding previous convictions. There could be aspects that are, but those are handled separately. The ones I know are ID cards to enter and do business at public/international airports (this is the same for everyone, pilots or no pilots), and there is also a requirement when instructing children (under 18 I think). In both cases it’s very specific what kind of convictions that are included.
LeSving wrote:
A history of alcohol/drug abuse is a medical issue. A history with convictions is a legal issue. They are not related, and if they are, it’s circumstantially at best.
Depends where. Some jurisdictions consider a conviction for drink driving to be evidence of alcohol abuse or dependence. It is quite obviously, on it’s own, not. But it may be an indicator.
It may be evidence of misuse (the rationale for a driving ban as a punishment) but none of these terms (abuse, dependency, misuse) have a single universally-accepted definition.
In the absence of an automatic mechanism for communicating say a driving ban to the national CAA (and no country seems to have that), this debate really pivots on whether the question is asked in the medical.
If yes, then you have to truthfully answer it.
If no, then you don’t have to tell them.
I am damn sure the UK used to ask the question, at some point after about 1980, but it does not ask it currently. I even searched for AME guidelines to see if there is anything “under the table” but unless it really is under the table properly, I found nothing. The likely exception, as I said, is the PMD which requires a driving license.
The likely exception, as I said, is the PMD which requires a driving license.
Is that definitely the case? You need to meet the medical standard of a driver, but I don’t hold a valid driving license and I wasn’t aware of it being a requirement.
As a holder of a stand alone FAA license, I’ve always been under the impression that you have to turn yourself in if convicted of a DUI. (Not that it’s happened to me!) Perhaps one of our US colleagues could comment?
Is that definitely the case? You need to meet the medical standard of a driver, but I don’t hold a valid driving license and I wasn’t aware of it being a requirement.
From CAA PMD page:
So I think you are right, except we can debate the bold bit, especially the “misuse” 
But not many PMD holders are flying >2000kg, because the extra requirements are close to a Class 2.
Peter wrote:
If yes, then you have to truthfully answer it.
If no, then you don’t have to tell them.
Class 1 medical (IIRC the initial one, I don’t remember for the subsequent ones) checks 3 months average alcohol intake (there’s some blood test for that) and you have question where you have to state your average intake at all medical forms.
I would imagine the main interest for a pilot in any DUI (driving over the limit may not be considered alcohol abuse eg a one off 3 glasses of wine when the limit is 2 can hardly be called abuse) would be from the insurance company which insures you, the aircraft and 3rd parties.
There is usually a box on those forms which asks have you ever been disqualified from driving and why? (Or words to that effect)
Being caught with a high alcohol levels, in charge of an aircraft (I don’t recall there being a legal definition of high but I believe the authorities consider it to be zero) would normally have the NAA taking action.
But all this is not part of the medical AFAIK.
Peter wrote:
any alcohol or drug abuse, addiction or misuse, [my bold]
Poor drafting. None of those three terms (especially the last one) have a definition which is sufficiently universal or commonly accepted.
However, ambiguity is sometimes a useful thing. If I had a conviction for drink driving (which I do not) I would not consider it as disqualifying me from a PMD on aircraft 2000kg – 5700kg on the basis of what is written there. Others may take a different view.
Graham wrote:
If I had a conviction for drink driving (which I do not) I would not consider it as disqualifying me from a PMD on aircraft 2000kg – 5700kg on the basis of what is written there. Others may take a different view.
Certainly DUI would be “misuse” of alcohol, which is disqualifying.
