Is there a chance?

[upandlocked]

Hi everyone,

After years of dreaming to become a professional pilot, and after many hours reading this forum I have decided that I really want to take the plunge and embark on that long, hard journey into the RHS.

I have, however, a big problem that I feel will make it alot harder to find that first job. I'm actually very embarrassed to say this but about 20 months ago I was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, and before the lectures start I know that I was an idiot, to say it nicely!! The fact is its happend now and if I could do anything to turn back time and change it I would. I'm not a bad person and I was only a nats whisker over the limit, which is besides the point but I have never been in any other kind of trouble and would never dream of doing it again. I totally understand the implicatons of alcohol and flying, and I would never put passengers lives at risk by flying under the influence. To be totally honest it was completly out of character and I don't even drink much, which is why I think I was over.

Obviously I would have to disclose this conviction on a job application and my worry is that my application would just get thrown onto the rejected pile without even a sniff at an interview. After all why would they want to give me an interview when they could interview the thousand other applicants without a conviction. This is how I see it anyway.

I'm not worried about gaining an airside pass as I already have one for my job as an aircraft maintenance engineer, and I believe that if I did get an interview I would have a good chance of showing them that I really am not a bad person.

Anyway the reason I have posted this is because I would be very grateful if anyone could give me some advice/info or if anyone has gained employment with such a conviction. Please help it is really getting me down .

Thanks alot in advance!!

[Mercenary Pilot]

I'd leave it at least another year. It's my understanding that most airlines expect you to have a driving licence and under my contract at least, a loss of driving licence is grounds for dismissal.

[lazy george]

If your training the integrated route,and one of the FTO's take you on with any conviction (unlikely), then you'll be trained in approx 2 years which will be nearlly 4 years since your conviction. This means when employable your conviction will show up on a disclosure and slim chances of landing a first job, as you say why you when there's a non-convicted pilot..

But if you train the modular way and take your time with the training, when you become employable your conviction is spent and will not show up on a disclosure aslong as it over 5 years since convicted.Not completely dishonest as in the eyes of the law it is classed as spent and your legally obliged to omit it from applications.

I was in the same situation as you a few years ago and after lots of consideration took the latter option. CTC told me although they liked my honesty there is no market for a pilot with a alcohol based conviction, not when there's another 1000 pilots without. Hope it helps.

[Wee Willy Winky]

Criminal convictions which are dealt with by way of a fine have a 5 year 'life span' before becoming 'spent', under the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

I believe that Drink Driving might well fall into that category, so it would remain visible on any Disclosure Scotland Basic Disclosure for those 5 years.

After a conviction becomes spent, it no longer needs to be revealed when asked "do you have any Criminal Convictions?"

Though you already have an Airside Pass, I don't think Drink Driving is listed as a Conviction which would prevent the granting of such a pass. Rather it is the lawful ability not to have to reveal the spent conviction from over 5 years ago which would be advantageous in your scenario.

An unspent drink driving conviction would appear unattractive to prospective employers when declared before becoming spent.

Good luck

WWW
Flocci non faccio

[nick14]

Unfortunatly sir I am under the impression that the act stating wether convictions are "spent" or "Unspent" doesn't apply when applying for jobs in the aviation industry.

You can always take the risk.

Good luck
Nick

[clanger32]

PM, whilst I do agree with you, that in this instance facts are critical, your post seems somewhat and unnecessarily harsh.
For example, if Nick14 is right, then I would seriously suggest that upandlocked considers and researchs this point very carefully. To follow the other advice only to find out several thousand pounds and years of training later that (s)he will still have to disclose the conviction anyway would be both soul and bank balance destroying.

Were I in the same situation, I would consider this useful info and perhaps request further clarification. I happen to know from other posts that Nick is currently training himself, so perhaps he has neither the time or the inclination to review this further himself. Either way, he is not the one affected by this, so the onus should remain with upandlocked.

I do agree however, that the statement would be significantly more useful if backed with a reference and perhaps the tone of Nicks post (which implies, to me at least, a finality not confirmed with evidence) could be softer. Either way, people should not be discouraged from posting any information which may or may not be helpful. As I said earlier, whether Nicks info is correct or not, if I were in this situation I'd much rather spend half an hour researching it now to find it incorrect than having it never posted and finding out the hard way.

[redsnail]

In reality, it won't really make much of a difference. I won't bang on about it as you already know it was a foolish thing to do.

Depending on how old you are, I'd say that it's not that uncommon within a certain age group. I know of a few airline captains who have a DUI in their history. The trick is not to repeat that mistake.

Owning up and admitting an error is a good thing and you can discuss how the error happened and the steps you've taken to avoid that mistake.

Now, if you lie about it and a check reveals it, then you're looking pretty bad.

[nick14]

sorry if my post appeared harsh but my opinion is based on fact.

A friend on my course researched this exact point for his speeding ticket and found the above answer.

i will ask where he got his info from.

Nick

[nick14]

The above mentioned person consulted a solicitor and was told that the conviction stands no matter what time period has passed, when applying for a career in aviation.

Good luck anyway

[clanger32]

Pilotmike,
I have no wish to engage in an argument or even a heated discussion with you, or anyone else. I'm sure you are both a top guy and extremely knowledgable and that this is just one of those differences of opinion type things, that we'd most likely laugh about over a beer.

However, Nicks' responses quite neatly highlight my point. Albeit second hand, if someone in a similar situation has sought and been given legal advice - by someone with probably a greater knowledge than my own, or even indeed the indomitable Scroggs, that the conviction would be notifiable, then it is not only a useful contribution to the conversation, but you could go so far as to say it is both pertinent and vital.

Had Nick withdrawn his comment based on your earlier note and indeed the referenced post from Scroggs, then would this information be there? Probably not. Could that lead to absolute disaster for upandlocked? You DAMN right it could. I actually fully agree that ill informed or just plain incorrect posts are more dangerous than helpful, but we need to be very careful before we shout LIAR [*metaphorically, of course] at everyone who posts something just because it happens to go against our own personal world view. In this case, it strikes me that perhaps a better option would have been to simply post something along the lines of "Nick, that is not how I understood it, but perhaps you have information I don't - could you elaborate".

Anyway, Lets go off and have that beer now....got some laughing to do...

[clanger32]

...and just for reference (cos I'm not doing anything else right now, sofas are a GOOOOOOD thing...) I have just spent five mins looking it up on tinterweb.
The following link [below] states that the following positions are exempt from the rehabilitation of offenders act (i.e. spent offences still need to be declared, although you have to be told why):

"Any office or employment where the question about spent convictions is asked for the purpose of safeguarding national security - for example, if you wish to be employed by the UK Atomic Energy Authority, the Civil Aviation Authority or as an officer of the Crown"

Now this clearly states that this applies to employment by the CAA. Pilots are clearly not employed by the CAA, but I would suggest there is a clear and distinct correlation between the two, regarding a "potential threat to national security". I would humbly suggest, therefore, that if it were me, this would be good enough grounds to be going and having a chat with my friendly local lawyer to check out exactly where I stood. May cost £500 -but that might be the best £500 you ever spend

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-ri...bilitati.shtml

[clanger32]

Oh dear god. Firstly, the comment about not accusing someone else of providing incorrect information was not aimed at you. It is a catch-all for this site in general. There are WAAAY too many people on this site who slay people for posting good intentioned questions and answers without actually checking first that they have the full story. And yes, I do believe you have fallen fowl of that here. What it actually refers to is the fact that Nicks initial post was meant in good spirit and yet he has been given a wrist slap for it. He has since backed it up with anecdotal evidence that it has been checked by a professional in the field and yet you still insist that it's actually the legal professional that has it wrong, because of a thread on an internet message board. I don't profess to know the answer, I know enough to know I know nothing. How about you?

Secondly, rehabilitation of offenders act - True, in the link I posted it does not say that pilots are on the exemption list, but then (unless my eyesight is completely shot, which would be interesting being as I've just renewed my class 1) it doesn't say they're not either. What it does say is that employment by the CAA is definitely invovled, on the grounds that it might threaten national security.

Now, I THINK...let me just check....ooh, oooh...yes...there it is, that I said "pilots are not employed by the CAA". Who'd a thunk it, eh! However, applying a little common sense and logic here, it's not too far a stretch of the imagination that if the powers that be consider working for the CAA a potential threat to national security, then they might just consider those who fly around in several thousand tons of metal and aviation gasoline might also pose some form of threat to national security. Just in case someone decides to, oooh, I don't know....fly one into a building or something, just as was suggested in the link you posted. So I think that what I actually said was that it would be worth pursuing legal advice on this. Just to be sure that you're squeaky clean. I fail to see how this is detrimental or bad advice given the initial posting. Of course, taking the advice of some punters on an internet message board is clearly every bit as safe and certain when you're talking about your future and investing thousands of pounds, isn't it?

You posit that the solicitor (somewhat removed at this stage from this discussion) contacted by someone Nick knows has given incorrect advice, yet your backup for this is that there's anecdotal evidence that other people have been able to use the RoOA to not declare their convictions. Ok. Mental note, if I ever DO need legal advice, lawyers can't be trusted....

Finally, I have in no way, shape or form put forward ANY views as to whether or not a conviction of any type would be a bar to obtaining employment. All I have said is that 1/ I felt your initial reaction to Nicks post was a little OTT 2/ a quick five minute search of the internet suggests there is at least some reference to aviation not being exempt and 3/ On the basis of 2/ I personally would consider getting some proper legal advice.

Clearly however, I am insane and if I ever find myself in the unfortunate situation Upandlocked finds him/herself in I should just turn to an internet message board.

All joking and sarcasm aside, it's entirely possible that you are correct and that Nicks friend would have a case for suing his solicitor. However, I would respectfully suggest that of lawyers are not in the habit of doing this, for exactly the reasons you mention - namely getting sued.

So, to conclude, my ONLY points here are that Nick has posted in good faith something that has come from a legal professional and that seeking a professional opinion would be the most prudent way forward. I would suggest this is fair game and indeed a very valid point.

I'm not in the habit of making personal attacks, so please be assured that nothing personal was aimed at you specifically. However, I shall now bow out of this, gracefully or not, as determined by my peers.

[redsnail]

Have you two read the initial post?

Our bloke here wants to know about a job application as he already has an airside pass. For peace of mind, head down to your local cop shop and ask their opinion. Since it isn't a criminal conviction I doubt it will affect your airside pass.

The key to your success is not to lie about it and you can use it as a "mistake and now fixed" sort of thing. As stated above, I know a few guys who've picked up a DUI and now command B737s and the like.

[clanger32]

Blood pressure is fine

Now let's stop this silly nonsense, as I'm sure no-one wants to read our disagreements on here!
cheers! (good to see someone that can at least write some decent English....more than can be said for me!)

[nick14]

The speeding ticket in question, warrented a loss of licence/ban for a period of time.

I was under the impression that you have a record kept on file about offences such as the above.

I'm a little confused as to where you got your information from as I would like to read it and correct my opinion if necessary.