It came up in another forum that O'Douls ( a non-alcoholic beer ) is not
truly non-alcoholic, but rather it's less then .5%. A reference to a
http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/publications/iprc/factline/lowalc.html tells
more and points out that these types of beverages are not considered
alcoholic beverages. The FAR in question is


§ 91.17 Alcohol or drugs.
(a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil
aircraft --
(1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage;
(2) While under the influence of alcohol;

which uses the term alcoholic beverage to describe the prohibited item
rather then consumption of alcohol as the item to be prohibited. So the
$64,000 is, is the consumption of 1 O'Douls a violation of 91.17 (a) (1).
While it may be considered splitting hairs, the FARs are quite adept at
that and so are the FAA lawyers.

MANDATORY WARNING: This is not a attempt to boost the sales or usage of
Non-Alcoholic beers, I'm just curious.

John Theune

I know the EAA doesn't allow alcoholic beverages to be sold at any
fly-ins. But at Sun-n-Fun every year O'Douls is dished out free of
charge to any participant regardless of age.

Doesn't that make it legit to consume and fly? I would not think so.



John Theune wrote:
> It came up in another forum that O'Douls ( a non-alcoholic beer ) is not
> truly non-alcoholic, but rather it's less then .5%. A reference to a
> http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/publications/iprc/factline/lowalc.html tells
> more and points out that these types of beverages are not considered
> alcoholic beverages. The FAR in question is
>
>
> § 91.17 Alcohol or drugs.
> (a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil
> aircraft --
> (1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage;
> (2) While under the influence of alcohol;
>
> which uses the term alcoholic beverage to describe the prohibited item
> rather then consumption of alcohol as the item to be prohibited. So the
> $64,000 is, is the consumption of 1 O'Douls a violation of 91.17 (a) (1).
> While it may be considered splitting hairs, the FARs are quite adept at
> that and so are the FAA lawyers.
>
> MANDATORY WARNING: This is not a attempt to boost the sales or usage of
> Non-Alcoholic beers, I'm just curious.
>
> John Theune

Martin Hotze > wrote in
:

> John Theune > wrote:
>
>> It came up in another forum that O'Douls ( a non-alcoholic beer ) is
>> not truly non-alcoholic, but rather it's less then .5%. A reference
>> to a
>> http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/publications/iprc/factline/lowalc.html
>> tells more and points out that these types of beverages are not
>> considered alcoholic beverages. The FAR in question is
>>
>>
>> § 91.17 Alcohol or drugs.
>> (a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil
>> aircraft --
>> (1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic
>> beverage; (2) While under the influence of alcohol;
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>> which uses the term alcoholic beverage to describe the prohibited
>> item rather then consumption of alcohol as the item to be prohibited.
>
> yes, under (1).
> but what do _you_ read under (2)?
>
>
>> So the
>> $64,000 is, is the consumption of 1 O'Douls a violation of 91.17 (a)
>> (1). While it may be considered splitting hairs, the FARs are quite
>> adept at that and so are the FAA lawyers.
>
>
> "While under the influence of alcohol"
> "While under the influence of alcohol"
> "While under the influence of alcohol"
> "While under the influenc!"§$%&/%&/%§$""§!LOSTCARRIER
>
> #m

Martin;
The question was is the consumption of 1 O'Douls a violation. I think
that it's safe to say that if OJ can have the same amount of alcohol as a
O'Douls, then your not "under the influence" if you drink one.

John

One of those questions that keeps lawyers in business. There is no
definitive answer to that question. There is only a solution. The
solution for me is to decide what's more important, flying or drinking
O'Douls. And for me, that question is easy to answer. ;)
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


"John Theune" > wrote in message
1...
> It came up in another forum that O'Douls ( a non-alcoholic beer ) is
not
> truly non-alcoholic, but rather it's less then .5%. A reference to
a
> http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/publications/iprc/factline/lowalc.html
tells
> more and points out that these types of beverages are not considered
> alcoholic beverages. The FAR in question is
>
>
> § 91.17 Alcohol or drugs.
> (a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a
civil
> aircraft --
> (1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic
beverage;
> (2) While under the influence of alcohol;
>
> which uses the term alcoholic beverage to describe the prohibited
item
> rather then consumption of alcohol as the item to be prohibited. So
the
> $64,000 is, is the consumption of 1 O'Douls a violation of 91.17 (a)
(1).
> While it may be considered splitting hairs, the FARs are quite adept
at
> that and so are the FAA lawyers.
>
> MANDATORY WARNING: This is not a attempt to boost the sales or usage
of
> Non-Alcoholic beers, I'm just curious.
>
> John Theune
>

Nick Funk wrote

> I know the EAA doesn't allow alcoholic beverages to be sold at
> any fly-ins. But at Sun-n-Fun every year O'Douls is dished out
> free of charge to any participant regardless of age.

First, although every attempt is made to make it appear to
be an official EAA event, Sun-n-Fun is a privately held
corporation.
Second, as of this past year, real beer is now widely sold
on the Sun-n-Fun grounds.

Bob Moore

You cannot drink O'Douls less than 8 hours before flying because of
its (although low) alcohol content.

-Robert


John Theune > wrote in message >...
> It came up in another forum that O'Douls ( a non-alcoholic beer ) is not
> truly non-alcoholic, but rather it's less then .5%. A reference to a
> http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/publications/iprc/factline/lowalc.html tells
> more and points out that these types of beverages are not considered
> alcoholic beverages. The FAR in question is
>
>
> § 91.17 Alcohol or drugs.
> (a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil
> aircraft --
> (1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage;
> (2) While under the influence of alcohol;
>
> which uses the term alcoholic beverage to describe the prohibited item
> rather then consumption of alcohol as the item to be prohibited. So the
> $64,000 is, is the consumption of 1 O'Douls a violation of 91.17 (a) (1).
> While it may be considered splitting hairs, the FARs are quite adept at
> that and so are the FAA lawyers.
>
> MANDATORY WARNING: This is not a attempt to boost the sales or usage of
> Non-Alcoholic beers, I'm just curious.
>
> John Theune

Martin Hotze wrote:

> Have you consumed alcohol? IMHO yes. Very little, but you have. At least
> you have a not so good standpoint in court.
> But you're right, the question stands, even when 0,0001% is also alcohol.

Not to the FAA. We controllers can be drug tested on a random basis.
We can also be tested for alcohol. You are allowed, I believe, a .02 in
your system and still be legal. It might be .04 but that seems a
little high. I believe the rules for flying would also follw these
numbers.

Martin Hotze wrote:
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>>Have you consumed alcohol? IMHO yes. Very little, but you have. At least
>>>you have a not so good standpoint in court.
>>>But you're right, the question stands, even when 0,0001% is also alcohol.
>>
>>Not to the FAA. We controllers can be drug tested on a random basis.
>>We can also be tested for alcohol. You are allowed, I believe, a .02 in
>>your system and still be legal. It might be .04 but that seems a
>>little high. I believe the rules for flying would also follw these
>>numbers.
>
>
>
> isn't it 0.0 for pilots? -> bottle or throttle.

No. Many mouthwashes, for example, contain alcohol. Take a swig of
mouthwash and then blow into the machine and you will not blow a 0.0.
For us it is not a breathalyzer. It is a coated plastic or wooden
stick, similar to what the doctor has when he says "open up and say
ahhh". If it turns a certain color then you have too high an alcohol
content. At that point you would have to go to the doctor for a blood
test. The stick will not register at or below the allowed amount of
alcohol.

John Theune > wrote in message >...
> It came up in another forum that O'Douls ( a non-alcoholic beer ) is not

O'Douls??? Blechhhh!!!! Somebody had to say it.

If it ain't at absolute minimum, at least a Bass Ale or better,
preferably better, it ain't worth drinking and you should just have a
nice glass of icewater instead.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> You cannot drink O'Douls less than 8 hours before flying
> because of its (although low) alcohol content.

Hmmm. How low would the alcohol content have to be before you'd consider it
to cease to be relevant? 0.1%? 0.01%? 0.001%? Below measurable limits?

--
Mike Granby, PP-ASEL,IA
Warrior N44578
http://www.mikeg.net/plane

On 29 Jul 2003 10:25:01 -0700, (One's Too Many)
wrote:

>John Theune > wrote in message >...
>> It came up in another forum that O'Douls ( a non-alcoholic beer ) is not
>
>O'Douls??? Blechhhh!!!! Somebody had to say it.
>
>If it ain't at absolute minimum, at least a Bass Ale or better,
>preferably better, it ain't worth drinking and you should just have a
>nice glass of icewater instead.

Finally, a voice of reason!

If it ain't real (good) beer, I'd rather just drink water too....

Bela P. Havasreti

Big John > wrote in
:

> You go hang one one and then sleep for 8 hours and are then tested.
>
> How much alchol will the test show remaining in your system?
>
> Would you be legal to fly per FAA regs?
>
> Big John
>
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:56:33 +0200, Martin Hotze
> > wrote:
>
>>John Theune > wrote:
>>
>>> >> § 91.17 Alcohol or drugs.
>>> >> (a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a
>>> >> civil
>>> >> aircraft --
>>> >> (1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic
>>> >> beverage; (2) While under the influence of alcohol;
>>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> >
>>
>>> > "While under the influence of alcohol"
>>> > "While under the influence of alcohol"
>>> > "While under the influence of alcohol"
>>> > "While under the influenc!"§$%&/%&/%§$""§!LOSTCARRIER
>>
>>> Martin;
>>> The question was is the consumption of 1 O'Douls a violation. I
>>> think that it's safe to say that if OJ can have the same amount of
>>> alcohol as a O'Douls, then your not "under the influence" if you
>>> drink one.
>>
>>
>>Have you consumed alcohol? IMHO yes. Very little, but you have. At
>>least you have a not so good standpoint in court.
>>But you're right, the question stands, even when 0,0001% is also
>>alcohol.
>>
>>> John
>>
>>#m
>
>

The regs gone on to say that the limit is .04. The point I'm trying to
get to is not if your drunk on these things ( since it would take a ton
on them at a 1 to 16 ratio ) but what if you had one or two. By the
definitions cited above they are not considered alcoholic beverages and
you also would not be violating under (2) under the influence or (4) the
..04% rule. I think that the immediate answer that some gave of "it's got
some alcohol in it therefor your breaking the rules" does not address the
finer point of if orange juice or mouth wash can have a alcohol level
equal to these drinks, should the wording of the FAA be changed or is it
okay to drink ( or use ) these things. There's also the minor point that
if these things contain enough alcohol to effect people, then the FDA (
or other agencies ) should not allow them to be labeled as non-alcoholic
beverages.

(Robert M. Gary) writes:

>You cannot drink O'Douls less than 8 hours before flying because of
>its (although low) alcohol content.

Great. Next I expect to see CNN air a scandalous video shot by a
passenger of a pilot consuming orange juice while flying.

--kyler

Tell that to the EAA crew that loads up the plane with bundles of cash
before the trip back to Wisconsin ;).

Before Sun-N-Fun, the SouthEastern flyin was held not to far from me
(Tullahoma, TN). They had it for a few years with great success. But the
organizers quickly learned who got to keep the cash. Dunno if SNF is the
same, but can't imagine it being much different the way that the EAA
promotes it.


"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 8...
> Nick Funk wrote
>
> > I know the EAA doesn't allow alcoholic beverages to be sold at
> > any fly-ins. But at Sun-n-Fun every year O'Douls is dished out
> > free of charge to any participant regardless of age.
>
> First, although every attempt is made to make it appear to
> be an official EAA event, Sun-n-Fun is a privately held
> corporation.
> Second, as of this past year, real beer is now widely sold
> on the Sun-n-Fun grounds.
>
> Bob Moore

Big John wrote:

> Newps
>
> They don't say 8 from bottle to throttle AND test "x" amount of
> alcohol in system do they?
>
> Aren't both of these separate stand alone constraints?

You cannot drink within 8 hours of flying or controlling. Also,
regardless of how much time since you last drank, you cannot blow a .05
or above and still be legal.

Newps

Looks like I would have lost on both counts many time in the distant
past in a land far away :o(.

Not sure if I knew any better or just didn't care?

Things were different in those days. Breathalizers had not been
invented. A snort in the middle of a winter snowstorm in an open
cockpit, helped one survive until the next field/landing and a hot
wood fire in the shack. A shot before take off also helped counteract
the cold.

People forget how flying started and struggled for years until WWII
when big advances were made culminating in supersonic flight (and
space travel, a fall our of the maned air vehicle program).

Have one on me See you in the Pub.


Big John


On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:37:47 GMT, Newps > wrote:

You cannot drink within 8 hours of flying or controlling. Also,
>regardless of how much time since you last drank, you cannot blow a .05
>or above and still be legal.

>Big John wrote:
>
>> Newps
>>
>> They don't say 8 from bottle to throttle AND test "x" amount of
>> alcohol in system do they?
>>
>> Aren't both of these separate stand alone constraints?
>
>You cannot drink within 8 hours of flying or controlling. Also,
>regardless of how much time since you last drank, you cannot blow a .05
>or above and still be legal.

Those are just the legalities. Like the maintenence thread earlier it
is widely disregarded.

Big John wrote:
> Newps
>
> Looks like I would have lost on both counts many time in the distant
> past in a land far away :o(.
>
> Not sure if I knew any better or just didn't care?
>
> Things were different in those days. Breathalizers had not been
> invented. A snort in the middle of a winter snowstorm in an open
> cockpit, helped one survive until the next field/landing and a hot
> wood fire in the shack. A shot before take off also helped counteract
> the cold.
>
> People forget how flying started and struggled for years until WWII
> when big advances were made culminating in supersonic flight (and
> space travel, a fall our of the maned air vehicle program).
>
> Have one on me See you in the Pub.
>
>
> Big John
>
>
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:37:47 GMT, Newps > wrote:
>
> You cannot drink within 8 hours of flying or controlling. Also,
>
>>regardless of how much time since you last drank, you cannot blow a .05
>>or above and still be legal.
>
>
>>Big John wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Newps
>>>
>>>They don't say 8 from bottle to throttle AND test "x" amount of
>>>alcohol in system do they?
>>>
>>>Aren't both of these separate stand alone constraints?
>>
>>You cannot drink within 8 hours of flying or controlling. Also,
>>regardless of how much time since you last drank, you cannot blow a .05
>>or above and still be legal.
>
>

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> yes, under (1).
> but what do _you_ read under (2)?

A data point (stolen from google somewhere):
"Natural fermentation produces similar low levels of alcohol in most fruit
juices. Typical levels of alcohol in orange juice range from 0.2 percent to
0.5 percent. The alcohol level in the two best selling "non-alcoholic brews"
is 0.28 percent and 0.37 percent.

(. . . ) it would take about 30 12-ounce servings in one hour to bring a
150-pound man's blood-alcohol concentration up to about 0.10 percent "

--

Jim Fisher

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> You cannot drink O'Douls less than 8 hours before flying because of
> its (although low) alcohol content.

Orange juice contains more alcohol than non-alcoholic beers. I'm not
grounding myself after a hearty breakfast of eggs, toast, grits and orange
juice.

Now that you know the truth about JOB, would you?

--
Jim Fisher

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 16:24:57 -0500, "Jim Fisher"
> wrote:


>> You cannot drink O'Douls less than 8 hours before flying because of
>> its (although low) alcohol content.
>
>Orange juice contains more alcohol than non-alcoholic beers. I'm not
>grounding myself after a hearty breakfast of eggs, toast, grits and orange
>juice.

I am not going to drink any kind of beer if I am going flying within
8 hours.

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message

> Now that you know the truth about JOB, would you?

Stupid chelling specker changed "OJ" to "JOB" without my permission. Sorry.

"ArtP" > wrote in message
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 16:24:57 -0500, "Jim Fisher"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> You cannot drink O'Douls less than 8 hours before flying because of
> >> its (although low) alcohol content.
> >
> >Orange juice contains more alcohol than non-alcoholic beers. I'm not
> >grounding myself after a hearty breakfast of eggs, toast, grits and
orange
> >juice.
>
> I am not going to drink any kind of beer if I am going flying within
> 8 hours.

But what about OJ?

--
Jim Fisher

Jim Fisher wrote:
> "Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Now that you know the truth about JOB, would you?
>
>
> Stupid chelling specker changed "OJ" to "JOB" without my permission. Sorry.
>
>
>


Heyyyyy! Jim-bo! So I'm at Amazon and making the rounds of the latest
flight books and I spy a name that rings a bell, one Bob Gardner, and
his "Say Again, Please" tome. Looked good and naturally I took a peek at
what readers had to say, and, voila, an old amigo from the southern
regions! ;-) Good stuff, Jim...and yes, I got the book!

Anyway, just passing through and saw your moniker so I figured I would
do a quick 'Hey.' Actually Jim, I thought you might be over Chicago way
with a banner tied to your Cherokee to the tune of "DALY! WHAT THE HELL
ARE YOU DOING?" in re the trench bit at Meigs which "His Lordship"
figures will do the trick and keep Meigs shut down permanently [*Story
in the 'Private Pilot' editorial, July issue as memory serves]. Whew!
And I thought we had 'King of the Universe' political syndromes in NY!

Stay well Jim...

Doc Tony

Away, away with rum by gum, rum by gum, rum by gum
Away, away with rum by gum, rum by gum, rum by gum
The song of the Temperance Union.

We never eat fruitcake because it has rum
And one little bite turns a man to a bum
Can you imagine the horrible sight
Of a man eating fruitcake until he is tight.

Away, away with rum by gum, rum by gum, rum by gum
Away, away with rum by gum, rum by gum, rum by gum
The song of the Temperance Union.

We never eat cookies because they have yeast
And one little bite turns a man to a beast
Can you imagine the total disgrace
Of a man in the gutter with crumbs on his face.

Away, away with rum by gum, rum by gum, rum by gum
Away, away with rum by gum, rum by gum, rum by gum
The song of the Temperance Union.

(I can't remember the rest of the lyrics.)

Jim


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

Jim Weir > wrote in message >...

We're coming, we're coming, our brave little band
On the right side of Temperance we take our firm stand
We don't use tobacco, because we do think
That the people who use it are likely to drink

> Away, away with rum by gum, rum by gum, rum by gum
> Away, away with rum by gum, rum by gum, rum by gum
> The song of the Temperance Union.
>
> We never eat fruitcake because it has rum
> And one little bite turns a man to a bum
> Can you imagine the horrible sight
> Of a man eating fruitcake until he is tight.
>
> Away, away with rum by gum, rum by gum, rum by gum
> Away, away with rum by gum, rum by gum, rum by gum
> The song of the Temperance Union.
>
> We never eat cookies because they have yeast
> And one little bite turns a man to a beast
> Can you imagine the total disgrace
> Of a man in the gutter with crumbs on his face.
>
> Away, away with rum by gum, rum by gum, rum by gum
> Away, away with rum by gum, rum by gum, rum by gum
> The song of the Temperance Union.

We never eat peaches because they ferment
Just one little bite and a man gets quite bent
Can you imagine anything more crude
Than a man eating peaches until he gets stewed?

> (I can't remember the rest of the lyrics.)

Two more verses...

Sydney

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 20:19:06 -0500, "Jim Fisher"
> wrote:

>"ArtP" > wrote in message
>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 16:24:57 -0500, "Jim Fisher"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> You cannot drink O'Douls less than 8 hours before flying because of
>> >> its (although low) alcohol content.
>> >
>> >Orange juice contains more alcohol than non-alcoholic beers. I'm not
>> >grounding myself after a hearty breakfast of eggs, toast, grits and
>orange
>> >juice.
>>
>> I am not going to drink any kind of beer if I am going flying within
>> 8 hours.
>
>But what about OJ?

I wouldn't have to worry. At that point I'd be too sick to fly any
way. I'm alergic to Orange Juice.

Roger

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)