Featured Aircrash Litigation

Follow The Process

Litigation before the National Transportation Safety Board and appeals to the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal of revocation and suspension actions taken against airmen by the Federal Aviation Administration.

We could write volumes about "refusal of a random drug test." The biggest thing to remember is DO NOT LEAVE THE FACILITY UNTIL THE DRUG TEST IS COMPLETED AND YOU ARE TOLD YOU CAN LEAVE. Please see the articles on this website on the subject of drug testing.

Actions That Can Be Taken:

  • Pilot deviations
  • DUI – Drugs or Alcohol
  • Refusal of a random drug test*
  • Failure of a random drug test
  • Incursions into restricted Airspace
  • Temporary Flight Restrictions Penetration
  • Expired Aircraft Registration
  • Airworthiness
  • Altitude Deviation
  • Weight & Balance Issues
  • Fuel Exhaustion
  • PIC Authority
  • Deviation from ATC Clearance
  • Corporations & Personnel Aircraft
  • Notice of Civil Penalty
  • False Response to Question 18v/18w on the Medical Application Form
  • Aircraft Confiscated by DEA, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol
  • Careless or reckless operation of aircraft
  • Emergency Airman Certificate Revocations
  • Airport Owners and Federal Funds
  • Grant Assurances
  • Allegations of falsified records or applications for airman certificates
  • Allegations of falsified aircraft maintenance records
  • Allegations of low flying over congested areas
  • Allegations of flying un-airworthy aircraft
  • Allegations of flying in instrument meteorological conditions without an IFR flight plan
  • Aircraft crashes following fuel exhaustion/starvation
  • Declarations of emergencies created by improper/deficient pre-flight planning
  • FAA requests for a re-examination of the airman’s qualifications
  • Allegations of counterfeit aircraft parts
  • Other situations that may result in the FAA issuing an order suspending/revoking an airman’s certificate

PLEASE NOTE: This is by no means a complete listing. Remember, Alan handles all things aviation.

Drug Testing Cliff Notes for Pilots

1

You have the right to request the Sample Collector provide his or her identification. 49 C.F.R. §40.61(d).

2

The Sample Collector is required to explain the collection procedures including showing you the instructions on the back of the Custody Control Form (CCF). 49 C.F.R. §40.61(e).

3

One you enter the collection site, the testing process should commence without undue delay. 49 C.F.R. §40.61(b).

4

The Sample Collector must instruct you to wash and dry your hands before the testing commences. 49 C.F.R. §40.63(b).

5

Collector must tell you that you cannot wash your hands again until after delivring the specimen. 49 C.F.R. §40.63(d).

6

Either you or the Collector or both of you must unwrap or break the seal of the collection container; provided the seal of the specimen bottle should be unbroken at that time. 49 C.F.R. §40.63(d).

7

Collector is required to tell you that you (1) must provide a 45mL sample of urine, (2) not to flush the toilet, and (3) to return the specimen to the Collector as soon as the voiding process has been completed.C.F.R. §40.63(d).

8

Generally, the Collector is not allowed to go into the restroom with you. C.F.R. §40.63(d)(1).

9

Collector may set a reasonable time for the voiding. C.F.R. §40.63(d)(2)

10

Remain at the drug testing facility until the drug testing process is complete. Until then, do not leave the drug testing facility. C.F.R. §40.191(a)(2).

11

While hair testing samples may be admissible in evidence, because hair testing may not reveal a single instance of illicit drug use, the judge may give more weight to the urine test than the hair sample test. Administrator v, Taylor, supra.

12

If the airman can demonstrate that the Sample Collector failed to follow proper protocols and procedures, the Court may consider the drug test results unreliable allowing the airman to prevail. Petersen v. Hinson, supra.

13

In the event you observe irregularities in the testing process, make a note of them and keep them for future reference. Petersen v. Hinson, supra.