passengers consuming alcohol on a part 91 flight

[Dave]

I'm unable to find the regulation I was told about where passengers
may *not* consume alcohol in an airplane flying under part 91. Can
someone help?

[Dave S]

I believe there is a restriction on carrying obviously intoxicated or
impaired individuals, but no restriction on serving the intoxicants.

Dave

Dave wrote:
> I'm unable to find the regulation I was told about where passengers
> may *not* consume alcohol in an airplane flying under part 91. Can
> someone help?

[Teacherjh]

>>
I believe there is a restriction on carrying obviously intoxicated or
impaired individuals
<<

So, consider a passenger who has had one drink with dinner and is not
"obviously impaired". It's probably legal (and safe) to take this passenger,
even in the right seat. But if this passenger also happens to be a pilot,
especially one with more hours and a higher rating than you, doesn't it become
careless and wreckless?

If there were an accident, wouldn't the FAA tend to go after that passenger
(who is a pilot) as if he (and not you) were PIC, and thus flying under the
influence?

I'd be really heasitant to be a passenger on part 91 if I had a drink, unless I
did NOT have a pilot certificate.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I'd be really heasitant to be a passenger on part 91 if I had a drink,
unless I
> did NOT have a pilot certificate.

Are you also afraid that, should your medical lapse or be invalid (taking
OTC cold medicine, for example), the FAA would come after you if you were a
passenger in an aircraft in which there had been an accident?

Maybe you are. I personally would have no worries. If I'm intoxicated, I
clearly don't meet the requirements for acting as PIC. How could the FAA
possibly accuse me of being at fault in an accident during which I was not
manipulating the controls, and during which I was ineligible to act as PIC?

Even the popular urban legends of higher-rated pilots being held responsible
for accidents caused by a lower-rated acting PIC are overblown. I've never
heard of a situation in which a higher-rated pilot that wasn't legal to act
as PIC was held responsible.

Pete

[Teacherjh]

>>
If I'm intoxicated, I
clearly don't meet the requirements for acting as PIC. How could the FAA
possibly accuse me of being at fault in an accident during which I was not
manipulating the controls, and during which I was ineligible to act as PIC?
<<

Wasn't there one where the passenger (a pilot too) was asleep in the back, and
was held to be responsible? I haven't read the original (I suppose it might be
a UL) but after all, I heard it on the internet. :)

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> Wasn't there one where the passenger (a pilot too) was asleep in the back,
and
> was held to be responsible?

Not that I'm aware of. However, there's no specific prohibition in the FARs
against being asleep while acting as PIC, so that wouldn't be exactly the
same situation. :)

(Seriously though...if you can provide a reference, I'm all ears...sounds
pretty far-fetched to me though).

Pete

[EDR]

In article >, Dave
> wrote:

> I'm unable to find the regulation I was told about where passengers
> may *not* consume alcohol in an airplane flying under part 91. Can
> someone help?

No, but it could make for an interesting accident investigation.
I took four friends to a stockcar race several years back. It was only
a 1.5 hr flight.
They brought along a cooler with adult beverages. The only problem,
which we had experienced previously and so were prepared for, was
having enough relief bottles (one-gallon anti-freeze containers) on
board.
I made the comment prior to departure that an accident investigation
would appear to be a foregone, if incorrect, conclusion.

[Todd Pattist]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> If I'm intoxicated, I
>clearly don't meet the requirements for acting as PIC. How could the FAA
>possibly accuse me of being at fault in an accident during which I was not
>manipulating the controls, and during which I was ineligible to act as PIC?

It might even be "safer" to have consumed alcohol if you
have a higher rating or greater experience than the true
PIC, in the sense that the FAA might otherwise be tempted to
label you as the PIC "after the fact" in the event of an
accident. If you'd consumed alcohol, that would be almost
impossible.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Steve Robertson]

The pilot who had a drink with dinner can't legally be the PIC, regardless of
his/her ratings. So as long as the "real" pilot was properly rated and current for
the operation, he/she is fully responsible for the flight.

Holy smokes! What are you worried about? Unless there was an accident that
destroyed the plane and/or injury or death. Let me guess ... You had a drink at
dinner then jumped in the right seat of a spam can piloted by your buddy who got
his PPL last week. He bent the plane on landing. Maybe you even were helping him
land 'cause he was in over his head. Have I about got it all right?

Steve Robertson

Teacherjh wrote:

> >>
> I believe there is a restriction on carrying obviously intoxicated or
> impaired individuals
> <<
>
> So, consider a passenger who has had one drink with dinner and is not
> "obviously impaired". It's probably legal (and safe) to take this passenger,
> even in the right seat. But if this passenger also happens to be a pilot,
> especially one with more hours and a higher rating than you, doesn't it become
> careless and wreckless?
>
> If there were an accident, wouldn't the FAA tend to go after that passenger
> (who is a pilot) as if he (and not you) were PIC, and thus flying under the
> influence?
>
> I'd be really heasitant to be a passenger on part 91 if I had a drink, unless I
> did NOT have a pilot certificate.
>
> Jose
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Teacherjh]

>>
Let me guess ... You had a drink at
dinner then jumped in the right seat of a spam can piloted by your buddy who
got
his PPL last week. He bent the plane on landing. Maybe you even were helping
him
land 'cause he was in over his head. Have I about got it all right?
<<

If you mean "did t his happen", then no. Nothing like that happened. (in
fact, the issue is hypothetical). But suppose it were exactly that. Would my
ticket be in jeopardy? I'd bet it would.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Toks Desalu]

I don't have FAR with me, but I remember somewhere in the FAR that you are
responsibility for the safety of flight. So, this rule does apply to your
situation. If your passengers are drunk and wild, then it is compromising
the safety of flight. If they can handle their drink, there is no rule that
prevent them from taking ride as long as they are not in PIC. Since, I fly a
very small aircraft, I wouldn't allow anyone who is drinking onboard. There
are no specific rules that prevent them from consuming alcohol onboard. Keep
in mind, if they are drinking at high attitude in non-pressured plane, they
will get drunk on their normal consumption (lack of oxygen). They probably
don't know this. Therefore, the risk factor is extremely high in your
situation.


Toks Desalu

[m pautz]

Dave wrote:

> I'm unable to find the regulation I was told about where passengers
> may *not* consume alcohol in an airplane flying under part 91. Can
> someone help?

While we are on this topic, 61.15(d) states:

"Each person holding a certificate issued under this part shall provide
a written report of each *motor vehicle* action to the FAA... no later
than 60 days"

So, if you are involved in an *automobile* DUI, you must report it to
the FAA within 60 days.

Failure to do so could result in revocation of your pilot certificate.

It doesn't seem fair, but if it happens, report it!

[Tom Sixkiller]

"m pautz" > wrote in message
news:WXHBc.90487$0y.35651@attbi_s03...
> Dave wrote:
>
> > I'm unable to find the regulation I was told about where passengers
> > may *not* consume alcohol in an airplane flying under part 91. Can
> > someone help?

Considering that Part 91 covers corporate flights and most all of these
aircraft have very nice and well stocked "refreshment" cabinets (i.e.,
"bars"), that would be unusual. Someone should tell Cessna, since all of
their bizjet ads are quite emphatic about this. :~)

[David Brooks]

Are you thinking of 91.17(b)?
Except in an emergency, no pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a person who
appears to be intoxicated or who demonstrates by manner or physical
indications that the individual is under the influence of drugs (except a
medical patient under proper care) to be carried in that aircraft.

So what about the person who doesn't appear to be intoxicated at the start
of a flight, but enters that state in flight. Does this FAR give you the
duty to eject mid-air, or would you be forgiven for landing as soon as
practicable?

-- David Brooks

"Dave S" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I believe there is a restriction on carrying obviously intoxicated or
> impaired individuals, but no restriction on serving the intoxicants.
>
> Dave
>
> Dave wrote:
> > I'm unable to find the regulation I was told about where passengers
> > may *not* consume alcohol in an airplane flying under part 91. Can
> > someone help?
>

[Greg Esres]

<<Wasn't there one where the passenger (a pilot too) was asleep in the
back, and was held to be responsible? >>

The only reference that anyone has been able to give me on this was to
a real incident in which an FAA Inspector in the back seat was held
responsible for an accident. However, he was giving instructions to
the PIC on a checkride, so there is some justice in the ruling.

[C J Campbell]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> Are you thinking of 91.17(b)?
> Except in an emergency, no pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a person
who
> appears to be intoxicated or who demonstrates by manner or physical
> indications that the individual is under the influence of drugs (except a
> medical patient under proper care) to be carried in that aircraft.
>
> So what about the person who doesn't appear to be intoxicated at the start
> of a flight, but enters that state in flight. Does this FAR give you the
> duty to eject mid-air, or would you be forgiven for landing as soon as
> practicable?
>

Ejecting someone in mid-air would violate the regulations unless the pilot
has first determined that there will be no damage to persons or property
below.

Actually, it is the duty of the pilot to see that his passengers do not
become intoxicated during the flight. If they do, then you have already
violated the regulations.

[C J Campbell]

"Dave" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm unable to find the regulation I was told about where passengers
> may *not* consume alcohol in an airplane flying under part 91. Can
> someone help?

You can't find it because it doesn't exist.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Teacherjh" wrote in message But if this passenger also happens to be a
>pilot, especially one with more hours and a higher rating than you, doesn't
it >become careless and wreckless?

Enforcement cases went along this guideline 20 years ago, but not now. These
days, they go after anyone who embarasses them, no matter their hours or
ratings.

D.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, it is the duty of the pilot to see that his passengers do not
> become intoxicated during the flight. If they do, then you have already
> violated the regulations.

Which ones?

[Steve Robertson]

I imagine it would be if you touched the controls. Otherwise not. You wouldn't
have been legal to be PIC. Having said that, were I in that situation, I would
have taken survival over a possible license action any day. Thought it's not
legal, one drink at dinner doesn't impair anybody to the point that they couldn't
save an out-of-control plane from going TU. Anyway, unless the real PIC is
dead/coma or points a finger at you, there's just nothing there for the
authorities go after you for.

Steve Robertson

Teacherjh wrote:

> >>
> Let me guess ... You had a drink at
> dinner then jumped in the right seat of a spam can piloted by your buddy who
> got
> his PPL last week. He bent the plane on landing. Maybe you even were helping
> him
> land 'cause he was in over his head. Have I about got it all right?
> <<
>
> If you mean "did t his happen", then no. Nothing like that happened. (in
> fact, the issue is hypothetical). But suppose it were exactly that. Would my
> ticket be in jeopardy? I'd bet it would.
>
> Jose
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Actually, it is the duty of the pilot to see that his passengers do not
> > become intoxicated during the flight. If they do, then you have already
> > violated the regulations.
>
> Which ones?

91.17

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Actually, it is the duty of the pilot to see that his passengers do
not
> > > become intoxicated during the flight. If they do, then you have
already
> > > violated the regulations.
> >
> > Which ones?
>
> 91.17
>
I know several people that won't fly if they're NOT intoxicated (my
mother-in-law).

My boss's idea of "on board refreshments" is a six pack of Diet RC. Mine,
too.

[Tony Cox]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ejecting someone in mid-air would violate the regulations unless the pilot
> has first determined that there will be no damage to persons or property
> below.

Not if the PIC declares an emergency. Then he can dispense
with the FARs, and, it would seem, the drunks too.

[G.R. Patterson III]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> Ejecting someone in mid-air would violate the regulations unless the pilot
> has first determined that there will be no damage to persons or property
> below.

If you eject someone, they will rapidly become a "person below", so I think it fairly
obvious that there will be such damage.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[SelwayKid]

(Dave) wrote in message >...
> I'm unable to find the regulation I was told about where passengers
> may *not* consume alcohol in an airplane flying under part 91. Can
> someone help?
Dave
I never heard of any such regulation for passengers. If that were
true, nearly every corporate flight in the world would be in
violation! It was always left to me as PIC in company aircraft about
when the bar was open or closed and particularly if a pax got out of
line or belligerent. That only happened a couple of times. One time
that was interesting on a charter flight out of BUR when the pax lit
their joints on the way to LAS at night..... I was single pilot in a
Navajo Chieftan with 7 pax.
Ol Shy & Bashful

[m pautz]

C J Campbell wrote:
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Actually, it is the duty of the pilot to see that his passengers do not
>>>become intoxicated during the flight. If they do, then you have already
>>>violated the regulations.
>>
>>Which ones?
>
>
> 91.17
>
>
91.17 "No pilot ... may allow a person who appears to be intoxicated...
to be carried in the aircraft." I suppose it is ok if the intoxicated
person is sober enough to crawl in the aircraft. :-)

[NW_PILOT]

What if they ask you to prove you were not acting as PIC? how would you
prove that you were not PIC if you had a set of controls in front of you?




"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...]
> > I'd be really heasitant to be a passenger on part 91 if I had a drink,
> unless I
> > did NOT have a pilot certificate.
>
> Are you also afraid that, should your medical lapse or be invalid (taking
> OTC cold medicine, for example), the FAA would come after you if you were
a
> passenger in an aircraft in which there had been an accident?
>
> Maybe you are. I personally would have no worries. If I'm intoxicated, I
> clearly don't meet the requirements for acting as PIC. How could the FAA
> possibly accuse me of being at fault in an accident during which I was not
> manipulating the controls, and during which I was ineligible to act as
PIC?
>
> Even the popular urban legends of higher-rated pilots being held
responsible
> for accidents caused by a lower-rated acting PIC are overblown. I've
never
> heard of a situation in which a higher-rated pilot that wasn't legal to
act
> as PIC was held responsible.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> What if they ask you to prove you were not acting as PIC? how would you
> prove that you were not PIC if you had a set of controls in front of you?

It is their burden to prove that you WERE acting as PIC. That would be
pretty difficult for them if you've got another pilot who was in the
airplane at the controls claiming that they were acting as PIC, especially
if that pilot was qualified to act as PIC while you were not.

Pete

[Tom Sixkiller]

"m pautz" > wrote in message
news:xTkCc.134276$3x.18672@attbi_s54...
>
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>Actually, it is the duty of the pilot to see that his passengers do not
> >>>become intoxicated during the flight. If they do, then you have already
> >>>violated the regulations.
> >>
> >>Which ones?
> >
> >
> > 91.17
> >
> >
> 91.17 "No pilot ... may allow a person who appears to be intoxicated...
> to be carried in the aircraft." I suppose it is ok if the intoxicated
> person is sober enough to crawl in the aircraft. :-)

And the point (I think) was SERVING alcohol, and the regulation infers
allowing a passenger to board when already intoxicated.

[m pautz]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> "m pautz" > wrote in message
> news:xTkCc.134276$3x.18672@attbi_s54...
>
>>
>>C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>>>"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Actually, it is the duty of the pilot to see that his passengers do not
>>>>>become intoxicated during the flight. If they do, then you have already
>>>>>violated the regulations.
>>>>
>>>>Which ones?
>>>
>>>
>>>91.17
>>>
>>>
>>
>>91.17 "No pilot ... may allow a person who appears to be intoxicated...
>>to be carried in the aircraft." I suppose it is ok if the intoxicated
>>person is sober enough to crawl in the aircraft. :-)
>
>
> And the point (I think) was SERVING alcohol, and the regulation infers
> allowing a passenger to board when already intoxicated.
>
>
>
My post was tongue-in-cheek. Since the the FARs don't have a definition
for "carried" in section 1.1, 91.17 is, tongue-in-cheek, vague and
could be interpretted to mean hand-carried in(to) the airplane.

I waited until all of the serious posts were complete before diverting
the topic with my meaningless post.

As has already been pointed out, there are no regs against serving
alcohol. 91.17 means "'transported' in an aircraft", not "carried
into". As CJ pointed out, this means that a pilot cannot allow a
passenger to start out intoxicated or become intoxicated while being
carried in that plane.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"m pautz" > wrote in message
news:QOzCc.94739$HG.58433@attbi_s53...
>
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > "m pautz" > wrote in message
> > news:xTkCc.134276$3x.18672@attbi_s54...
> >
> >>
> >>C J Campbell wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"C J Campbell" > wrote in
message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Actually, it is the duty of the pilot to see that his passengers do
not
> >>>>>become intoxicated during the flight. If they do, then you have
already
> >>>>>violated the regulations.
> >>>>
> >>>>Which ones?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>91.17
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>91.17 "No pilot ... may allow a person who appears to be intoxicated...
> >>to be carried in the aircraft." I suppose it is ok if the intoxicated
> >>person is sober enough to crawl in the aircraft. :-)
> >
> >
> > And the point (I think) was SERVING alcohol, and the regulation infers
> > allowing a passenger to board when already intoxicated.
> >
> >
> >
> My post was tongue-in-cheek. Since the the FARs don't have a definition
> for "carried" in section 1.1, 91.17 is, tongue-in-cheek, vague and
> could be interpretted to mean hand-carried in(to) the airplane.


Sometimes tongue-in-cheek (satire) can be very enlightening. For this case,
it shows (whether you intended it so or not) that the FAR is vague.

>
> I waited until all of the serious posts were complete before diverting
> the topic with my meaningless post.
>
> As has already been pointed out, there are no regs against serving
> alcohol. 91.17 means "'transported' in an aircraft", not "carried
> into".

And especially not "carried off of".

> As CJ pointed out, this means that a pilot cannot allow a
> passenger to start out intoxicated or become intoxicated while being
> carried in that plane.

I didn't see the CJ clarified THAT point.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> > As CJ pointed out, this means that a pilot cannot allow a
> > passenger to start out intoxicated or become intoxicated while being
> > carried in that plane.
>
> I didn't see the CJ clarified THAT point.

Seemed pretty clear to me. He said
"Actually, it is the duty of the pilot to see that his passengers do not
become intoxicated during the flight. If they do, then you have already
violated the regulations."

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >
> > > As CJ pointed out, this means that a pilot cannot allow a
> > > passenger to start out intoxicated or become intoxicated while being
> > > carried in that plane.
> >
> > I didn't see the CJ clarified THAT point.
>
> Seemed pretty clear to me. He said
> "Actually, it is the duty of the pilot to see that his passengers do not
> become intoxicated during the flight. If they do, then you have already
> violated the regulations."
>

Whoops, sorry! I missed that one...the one post of his I did see merely
stated the FAR in question, with no further comment.

(Three Our Father's and three Hail Mary's)