DUI Guide for Air Traffic Controllers

The Part 61 60 day letter is a pilot rule, not a controller rule

If you are a California air traffic controller arrested for DUI, do not start with the wrong FAA rule, because the 60 day motor vehicle action report in 14 CFR 61.15(e) is a Part 61 pilot rule, while air traffic controller certification is governed by 14 CFR Part 65, Subpart B. Start there.

That distinction matters on day one after the arrest. A controller certificate under Part 65 does not, by itself, trigger the written report required by 14 CFR 61.15(e). Controller status alone is not enough.

Under the Part 61 rule, each person holding a certificate issued under Part 61 must send a written report of a motor vehicle action within 60 days to the FAA Civil Aviation Security Division, AMC-700, P.O. Box 25810, Oklahoma City, OK 73125. That is the address in 14 CFR 61.15(e). It is not a general FAA rule for every aviation employee.

I see this mistake because people search for "FAA DUI reporting" after a California arrest and land on pilot articles; a pilot article may be correct for a Part 61 airman, but it is wrong if it tells a Part 65 controller to mail the same 60 day letter solely because of the controller certificate.

Your Part 65 certificate is only one layer of the problem

A California air traffic controller has a different aviation problem than a private pilot with no FAA job. The certificate issue starts with 14 CFR Part 65, Subpart B, but an FAA employed controller also has federal employment conduct, suitability, and medical clearance concerns. Those sit on top of the Part 65 certificate issue.

Because of that, a controller DUI cannot be analyzed like a simple license question, since the criminal case in California, the DMV action, the Part 65 status issue, and the FAA employment issue can all look at the same arrest while asking different questions. Different questions matter.

The order matters because the first fixed deadline in California is usually not an FAA certificate deadline. The California DMV administrative hearing after a DUI arrest must be requested within 10 days of the arrest. If that request is missed, the license side can move without a hearing.

I treat the first 10 days as evidence preservation time; requesting the DMV hearing also allows the driver to request the DMV discovery packet, and that packet can include the DS-367 paperwork and related DMV documents before the first court date in many California DUI cases.

If you also hold a Part 61 pilot certificate, the 60 day report comes back

Many California controllers also fly. When you hold a Part 61 pilot certificate, the analysis changes because 14 CFR 61.15(e) applies by its terms to Part 61 certificate holders. In that situation, the controller must send the written FAA motor vehicle action report within 60 days.

The trigger is not the tower position. The trigger is the Part 61 certificate. A Part 65 controller with no Part 61 certificate is in a different reporting position than a Part 65 controller who also holds a Part 61 pilot certificate.

The words "motor vehicle action" also have a specific definition in 14 CFR 61.15(c), which includes a DUI conviction after November 29, 1990, a driver license cancellation, suspension, or revocation for an alcohol or drug impaired driving cause, and a driver license application denial for that cause. Precision matters here.

This definition matters because a California DUI arrest can create more than one possible event. There is the court case. There is the DMV action. There may be a driver license suspension. Under 14 CFR 61.15(c), the report question for a Part 61 holder is tied to a motor vehicle action, not merely the fact that a police officer made an arrest.

If you have both certificates, I want the FAA reporting calendar and the California DMV calendar in the same file by day 10; the DMV hearing request does not replace the 60 day Part 61 report, and the 60 day Part 61 report does not protect the California license.

The 10 day California DMV request should be handled before aviation guesses

After a California DUI arrest, the DMV hearing must be requested within 10 days of the arrest. That deadline is short. It arrives before most people have spoken with the prosecutor, before the court case has moved very far, and before many FAA employment questions are clear.

For a controller, the DMV hearing request matters because a California driver license suspension can become part of the aviation analysis if the controller also has a Part 61 certificate, and under 14 CFR 61.15(c), a driver license suspension for an alcohol or drug impaired driving cause is a motor vehicle action. That can matter even if the criminal case is still pending.

Requesting the DMV hearing also lets the driver request the DMV discovery packet. In a California DUI case, that packet is often the first organized set of documents. It may show what the officer claimed, what paperwork was filed, and what the DMV is using for the license action.

Do not wait for a court arraignment to start the DMV side, because the 10 day California DMV deadline is counted from the arrest, not from the first court date. A controller who waits for the court date can lose the chance to demand the DMV hearing.

I also do not treat the DMV packet as a side issue. The facts in that packet can affect the criminal defense, the driver license strategy, and any later FAA or employment explanation. One bad sentence in a police report can be repeated in three different settings.

The DS-367 gives 30 days of normal California driving

The California DMV DS-367 temporary license is a full, unrestricted California driver license for the 30 days it covers if the driver license was valid at arrest, and that remains true even when the allegation includes a chemical test refusal. The refusal does not change the 30 day status of the DS-367.

This point gets misstated constantly. The pink DS-367 is not a restricted license during those first 30 days. If the California license was valid at arrest, the DS-367 lets the person drive as a full California license for that 30 day period.

For a California controller, the practical issue is scheduling. You may have commute, court, DMV, union, medical, and agency questions within the same 30 days. The DS-367 period gives normal California driving status during that window if the license was valid at arrest.

Restrictions and ignition interlock device requirements belong to the suspension that begins on day 31 after the DS-367 temporary license period; they do not belong to the first 30 days covered by the DS-367. Keep those dates separate.

I like to write the arrest date, the DMV request deadline, the last DS-367 day, and day 31 on one page. Those four entries prevent a lot of bad decisions. No guessing before shift.

Day 31 is where restrictions and interlock questions begin

For a California DUI arrest, restrictions and ignition interlock device requirements are tied to the suspension that starts on day 31 after the DS-367 period, while the first 30 days are different because the DS-367 is a full, unrestricted California driver license if the license was valid at arrest. That difference affects planning.

If the DMV hearing is requested within 10 days, the license action can be contested through the DMV process. If no hearing is requested, the driver may be dealing with the day 31 suspension without having forced the DMV to produce and defend its paperwork.

A controller should not assume that a court plea fixes the DMV problem. The California DMV administrative action has its own 10 day hearing request rule. The criminal court case has its own path. The two can affect each other, but one does not erase the other just because the dates are close.

The discovery packet is useful here too. A DS-367 error, a timeline problem, or a paperwork issue can matter at the DMV hearing. I do not know whether those issues exist until the California DMV file is reviewed.

There is also a Part 61 overlay if the controller is a pilot, because under 14 CFR 61.15(c), a driver license suspension for an alcohol or drug impaired driving cause is a motor vehicle action. That is why the DMV result can matter beyond driving to work in California.

14 CFR 120.105(h) names air traffic control

Air traffic control is named in the FAA and DOT drug and alcohol testing rules. FAA regulation 14 CFR 120.105(h) lists air traffic control as a safety sensitive function covered by the FAA/DOT drug and alcohol testing program. That is a controller specific issue.

This is separate from the Part 61 reporting rule, because a controller can be outside the 14 CFR 61.15(e) pilot reporting duty because the controller certificate is under Part 65, while still being inside the FAA/DOT testing structure because 14 CFR 120.105(h) names air traffic control. Both statements can be true at the same time.

For an FAA employed controller, that testing context changes how I think about the DUI case. A criminal disposition may be read by people who care about alcohol use, duty fitness, candor, and safety sensitive work. The court sentence is only part of the record they may see.

I do not advise a controller to freelance explanations about alcohol, testing, or the arrest before the facts are pinned down, because the California DMV packet, the police report, the chemical test records, and the court complaint may use different words. A statement made too early can conflict with a document that arrives 2 weeks later.

The correct first step is not panic. It is sorting the arrest into the right boxes: 14 CFR Part 65 certificate status, possible Part 61 status, 14 CFR 120.105(h) testing context, California DMV license action, and the criminal case.

FAA employment adds conduct, suitability, and medical clearance concerns

An FAA employed air traffic controller has an employment layer that a non employee certificate holder does not have in the same way, so the DUI risk is not limited to Part 65 certificate status because FAA federal employment conduct, suitability, and medical clearance requirements sit on top of the certificate issue. That is the point.

That sentence is the reason this guide is different from a pilot only DUI page. A controller is not just asking whether 14 CFR 61.15(e) applies. The controller also has to think about the FAA as employer, the safety sensitive function listed in 14 CFR 120.105(h), and the medical clearance issue tied to the job.

The employment layer is also why accuracy matters. If the police report says one thing, the DMV packet says another, and the controller says a third thing to an FAA supervisor, the inconsistency can become its own problem. I want the documents first whenever the 10 day DMV deadline allows it.

There may be a need to notify or respond through employment channels, but I do not invent a universal deadline for every FAA employee in California; the correct answer depends on the actual job documents, agency instructions, and the facts of the DUI arrest. The fixed deadlines in this article are the 10 day California DMV request and, when Part 61 applies, the 60 day 14 CFR 61.15(e) report.

A controller should keep the certificate question and the employment question separate in writing. One page can say "Part 65 controller certificate, no Part 61 report unless pilot certificate exists." Another page can track FAA employment, suitability, medical clearance, and 14 CFR 120.105(h) testing concerns.

This is not the mechanic or flight attendant analysis

As a California air traffic controller, your key aviation framework is different from an A&P mechanic or a flight attendant, and revolves around 14 CFR Part 65, Subpart B, 14 CFR 120.105(h), your FAA employment, and any Part 61 certificate you also hold. Questions about entering Canada are secondary here; the focus is on your controller certificates, driving record, and FAA employment duties.

A mechanic article may focus on mechanic certificate consequences. A flight attendant article may focus on employer policies and travel consequences. A controller article has to start with the fact that the controller certificate is Part 65 and that air traffic control is named in 14 CFR 120.105(h).

The Part 61 mistake is common because aviation workers share words like "certificate," "medical," and "FAA." But the FAA rules do not all apply to every certificate in the same way. 14 CFR 61.15(e) says Part 61. Air traffic controller certification is under 14 CFR Part 65, Subpart B.

This is also why a generic California DUI checklist is incomplete for a controller, since a normal checklist may cover the 10 day DMV hearing request, the DS-367 30 day temporary license, and the day 31 suspension while missing the Part 65 certificate issue, the Part 61 cross over issue, and the 14 CFR 120.105(h) testing context.

I use the job title to decide what rules matter. For a California controller, the first question is not "What does the FAA require from pilots?" The first question is "Which certificates and FAA employment duties does this person actually have?"

The court result can change the FAA and employment conversation

A California DUI case can end in more than one way, and the wording matters. A DUI reduction to wet reckless is governed by Vehicle Code section 23103.5. That is a specific California statute, and it is different from a DUI conviction.

For a controller, a reduction can matter because the record may later be read outside the courthouse, and the FAA employment layer, the Part 65 certificate issue, and the 14 CFR 120.105(h) testing context all make the exact court disposition worth fighting over. A one word difference on the minute order can matter.

I do not treat Vehicle Code section 23103.5 as a magic fix. A wet reckless is still alcohol related under California law. It can still be relevant to an employer or to an aviation review, depending on the question being asked.

But the difference between a DUI conviction and a Vehicle Code section 23103.5 reduction is real. If the facts support a reduction, that issue should be developed before a plea is entered. The police report, chemical test evidence, driving facts, and DMV packet can all affect that negotiation.

The best record is built early, so in a California DUI case, I want the DMV discovery packet requested after the hearing demand, the court discovery reviewed, and the aviation status confirmed before the defense commits to a resolution. A Part 65 only controller and a Part 65 controller with a Part 61 pilot certificate do not have the same FAA reporting posture.

Motor vehicle action means more than a court conviction for Part 61 holders

If the controller also holds a Part 61 pilot certificate, 14 CFR 61.15(c) becomes a key definition. A motor vehicle action includes a DUI conviction after November 29, 1990. It also includes a driver license cancellation, suspension, or revocation for an alcohol or drug impaired driving cause.

The same regulation also includes a driver license application denial for an alcohol or drug impaired driving cause, which is why I do not look only at the criminal court file for a Part 61 controller. The California DMV file may contain the event that triggers the 60 day report under 14 CFR 61.15(e).

For a Part 65 only controller, that Part 61 reporting duty is not triggered by controller status alone. The DMV action still matters for the California driver license, and it may matter for employment and medical clearance. But the 60 day written report in 14 CFR 61.15(e) is tied to holding a Part 61 certificate.

This is the clean way to think about it. Part 65 answers the controller certificate question. Part 61 answers the pilot reporting question. 14 CFR 120.105(h) answers the safety sensitive testing category question.

Those categories should not be mixed in a rushed email, because a controller who writes "I know I have to report this to the FAA within 60 days" may be right if a Part 61 pilot certificate exists. The same sentence may be wrong if the only FAA certificate is under 14 CFR Part 65, Subpart B.

Penal Code section 1203.4 belongs after probation is completed

California Penal Code section 1203.4 allows a dismissal after successful completion of probation. It is a later step, not a first week step. A controller dealing with a fresh DUI arrest should not confuse Penal Code section 1203.4 with the 10 day DMV hearing request or the 60 day Part 61 report.

Penal Code section 1203.4 can matter for the record after the criminal case and probation are handled, but it does not undo the need to defend the case now. It also does not change the fact that the DS-367 lasts 30 days and that DMV restrictions or ignition interlock issues belong to the suspension that starts on day 31.

I also do not want a controller to plead quickly because "it can be dismissed later." The later Penal Code section 1203.4 option depends on successful completion of probation. The current case still controls what conviction, reduction, or dismissal exists in the first place.

The aviation side should be kept current as the criminal case moves. If the case is dismissed, reduced under Vehicle Code section 23103.5, or resolved as a DUI, each outcome creates a different record. The FAA employment layer, Part 65 status, possible Part 61 status, and 14 CFR 120.105(h) context all make the wording worth attention.

The useful work starts with the fixed dates: 10 days for the California DMV hearing request, 30 days for the DS-367 temporary license period, day 31 for any DMV suspension consequences, and 60 days for the 14 CFR 61.15(e) report only when a Part 61 certificate is in the picture.