Federal statutes for legally drunk pilots

[anon]

Could someone please clarify what the legal FEDERAL minimum a pilot
must blow to be charged with a crime? also, could someone please confirm
that state or police have no jurisdiction over this offense if the accused
does NOT live within the same state or city.


Thanks

[James L. Freeman]

"anon" > wrote in message >...
> Could someone please clarify what the legal FEDERAL minimum a pilot
> must blow to be charged with a crime? also, could someone please confirm
> that state or police have no jurisdiction over this offense if the accused
> does NOT live within the same state or city.
>
>
> Thanks

FAR 91.17 says "under the influence" is .04 (by weight) or greater.
It also seems clear to me that FAR 91.17 says the local police DO have
jurisdiction regardless of the state of residence of the accused, the
same as they would for an automobile driver.

[Newps]

"anon" > wrote in message
...
> Could someone please clarify what the legal FEDERAL minimum a pilot
> must blow to be charged with a crime?

The FAR is less than .04 and also no drinking at least 12 hours prior to
flying. Break either one and you are illegal.


also, could someone please confirm
> that state or police have no jurisdiction over this offense if the
accused
> does NOT live within the same state or city.

Where you live is irrelavant. Some localities have tried to arrest and
charge pilots for flying under the influence. I'm not aware of any being
successful.

[Gary Drescher]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> "anon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Could someone please clarify what the legal FEDERAL minimum a pilot
> > must blow to be charged with a crime?
>
> The FAR is less than .04 and also no drinking at least 12 hours prior to
> flying.

Part 91 requires eight hours, not twelve: 91.17a1.

--Gary

[Peter Duniho]

"James L. Freeman" > wrote in message
om...
> FAR 91.17 says "under the influence" is .04 (by weight) or greater.
> It also seems clear to me that FAR 91.17 says the local police DO have
> jurisdiction regardless of the state of residence of the accused

It is not a crime to violate an FAR.

The original poster is asking what the *criminal* limit for BAC is. The
airline pilots recently acquitted of state "under the influence" laws
managed to do that because a) federal law took precedence, and b) their BAC
was below the federal law limit.

Under that case (which the state hasn't appealed, AFAIK), it shows that
local police do NOT have criminal jurisdiction over pilots flying under the
influence. I suppose a state could write some sort of "infraction" law
covering the issue, but I'm not sure why they'd bother.

I do not recall the exact figures, but it's my vague recollection that the
federal BAC limit is .10 or .12, while most states are at .08 these days.
And yes, that recent case confirmed that "state or police" (whatever that
means) have no jurisdiction over flying under the influence, since there is
federal law that takes precedence.

Pete

[Scott D.]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 00:00:23 -0400, "anon" > wrote:

>Could someone please clarify what the legal FEDERAL minimum a pilot
>must blow to be charged with a crime? also, could someone please confirm
>that state or police have no jurisdiction over this offense if the accused
>does NOT live within the same state or city.
>
>
>Thanks
>
Where you live has no bearing on you being charged by a state or city
entity for violating a state law. Thats like saying in my state I can
drive 75mph on the highway and just because I am now driving in
another state and their laws say 55 I dont have to abide by them.
From what I understand from previous arrests of other pilots in
different jurisdicitions is that some states do not have a flying
while intoxicated law on the books so they have tried to stretch the
law to make it fit. Like in the last case that went to trial, they
tried to tell the courts that the runway was a public roadway (which
did not work) and the case was thrown out, but other states do have
laws that identify specifically flying while intoxicated such as
Texas. Here is the code in Texas.

§ 49.05. FLYING WHILE INTOXICATED. (a) A person
commits an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating an
aircraft.
(b) Except as provided by Section 49.09, an offense under
this section is a Class B misdemeanor, with a minimum term of
confinement of 72 hours.

The part b exceptions are enhancement to the penalty that will give
you more time in the slammer.

For the definition of intoxication it is...

(2) "Intoxicated" means:
(A) not having the normal use of mental or
physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a
controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of
two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the
body; or
(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.



So the best thing to do is dont drink and fly and then you will not
have to worry about it.


Scott D.

[C J Campbell]

"anon" > wrote in message
...
> Could someone please clarify what the legal FEDERAL minimum a pilot
> must blow to be charged with a crime? also, could someone please
confirm
> that state or police have no jurisdiction over this offense if the
accused
> does NOT live within the same state or city.

It is not a crime for a pilot to violate the FARs. Violations of the FARs
are handled administratively. Consequently, pilots cannot expect the same
rights as those charged with crimes. Pilots may be required to testify
against themselves, may not be allowed to confront witnesses, or avail
themselves of many other Constitutional rights. Thus, no level of
drunkenness will allow a pilot to be charged with a Federal crime. Just
because it is not a Federal crime, though, doesn't mean that you aren't in
big trouble with the FAA or local governments.

The state and/or municipality have jurisdiction over anyone flying within
their borders, no matter where the pilot lives. If you are drunk and fly
over them, they can arrest you even if you don't land there. However, not
all states or other local governments have laws against flying drunk. FAR
91.17 specifically says that any local law enforcement officer is authorized
to make you take a blood alcohol test if they think you have violated any
state or local laws. Refusal to submit to a test is grounds for revocation
of your certificates. Any law enforcement officer may demand to see your
pilot certificate at any time. So, you are screwed. Not only does the FAA
say that local authorities can give you a blood alcohol test, but they want
to see the results of that test within four hours of it being given.

Not only is the federal blood alcohol limit .04 and you cannot fly within
eight hours of consuming alcohol, but you may not fly at all while under the
influence of alcohol, including having a hangover, no matter how long it was
since you last had a drink.

If you are arrested for violating any state law for operating a motor
vehicle while drunk (including a boat or an airplane), you must report the
incident to the FAA in Oklahoma within 60 days. Refusing to report an arrest
is grounds for revocation of your certificates.

Most of your fellow pilots are extremely unsympathetic to your plight. We
generally feel that you deserve to have the state throw the book at you and
that you also should lose your license to fly. We don't want drunk pilots
sharing our airspace or taxiing around our expensive airplanes.

The pertinent regulations (which include the address which you have to
report to the FAA) are below:

§ 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;

(3) While using any drug that affects the person's faculties in any way
contrary to safety; or

(4) While having .04 percent by weight or more alcohol in the blood.

(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.

(c) A crewmember shall do the following:

(1) On request of a law enforcement officer, submit to a test to indicate
the percentage by weight of alcohol in the blood, when—

(i) The law enforcement officer is authorized under State or local law to
conduct the test or to have the test conducted; and

(ii) The law enforcement officer is requesting submission to the test to
investigate a suspected violation of State or local law governing the same
or substantially similar conduct prohibited by paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or
(a)(4) of this section.

(2) Whenever the Administrator has a reasonable basis to believe that a
person may have violated paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(4) of this
section, that person shall, upon request by the Administrator, furnish the
Administrator, or authorize any clinic, hospital, doctor, or other person to
release to the Administrator, the results of each test taken within 4 hours
after acting or attempting to act as a crewmember that indicates percentage
by weight of alcohol in the blood.

(d) Whenever the Administrator has a reasonable basis to believe that a
person may have violated paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that person
shall, upon request by the Administrator, furnish the Administrator, or
authorize any clinic, hospital, doctor, or other person to release to the
Administrator, the results of each test taken within 4 hours after acting or
attempting to act as a crewmember that indicates the presence of any drugs
in the body.

(e) Any test information obtained by the Administrator under paragraph (c)
or (d) of this section may be evaluated in determining a person's
qualifications for any airman certificate or possible violations of this
chapter and may be used as evidence in any legal proceeding under section
602, 609, or 901 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.



§ 61.15 Offenses involving alcohol or drugs.
(a) A conviction for the violation of any Federal or State statute relating
to the growing, processing, manufacture, sale, disposition, possession,
transportation, or importation of narcotic drugs, marijuana, or depressant
or stimulant drugs or substances is grounds for:

(1) Denial of an application for any certificate, rating, or authorization
issued under this part for a period of up to 1 year after the date of final
conviction; or

(2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization
issued under this part.

(b) Committing an act prohibited by §91.17(a) or §91.19(a) of this chapter
is grounds for:

(1) Denial of an application for a certificate, rating, or authorization
issued under this part for a period of up to 1 year after the date of that
act; or

(2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization
issued under this part.

(c) For the purposes of paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this section, a
motor vehicle action means:

(1) A conviction after November 29, 1990, for the violation of any Federal
or State statute relating to the operation of a motor vehicle while
intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, while impaired by alcohol or a drug, or
while under the influence of alcohol or a drug;

(2) The cancellation, suspension, or revocation of a license to operate a
motor vehicle after November 29, 1990, for a cause related to the operation
of a motor vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, while impaired by
alcohol or a drug, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug; or

(3) The denial after November 29, 1990, of an application for a license to
operate a motor vehicle for a cause related to the operation of a motor
vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, while impaired by alcohol or
a drug, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug.

(d) Except for a motor vehicle action that results from the same incident or
arises out of the same factual circumstances, a motor vehicle action
occurring within 3 years of a previous motor vehicle action is grounds for:

(1) Denial of an application for any certificate, rating, or authorization
issued under this part for a period of up to 1 year after the date of the
last motor vehicle action; or

(2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization
issued under this part.

(e) Each person holding a certificate issued under this part shall provide a
written report of each motor vehicle action to the FAA, Civil Aviation
Security Division (AMC–700), P.O. Box 25810, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, not
later than 60 days after the motor vehicle action. The report must include:

(1) The person's name, address, date of birth, and airman certificate
number;

(2) The type of violation that resulted in the conviction or the
administrative action;

(3) The date of the conviction or administrative action;

(4) The State that holds the record of conviction or administrative action;
and

(5) A statement of whether the motor vehicle action resulted from the same
incident or arose out of the same factual circumstances related to a
previously reported motor vehicle action.

(f) Failure to comply with paragraph (e) of this section is grounds for:

(1) Denial of an application for any certificate, rating, or authorization
issued under this part for a period of up to 1 year after the date of the
motor vehicle action; or

(2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization
issued under this part.

§ 61.16 Refusal to submit to an alcohol test or to furnish test results.
A refusal to submit to a test to indicate the percentage by weight of
alcohol in the blood, when requested by a law enforcement officer in
accordance with §91.17(c) of this chapter, or a refusal to furnish or
authorize the release of the test results requested by the Administrator in
accordance with §91.17(c) or (d) of this chapter, is grounds for:

(a) Denial of an application for any certificate, rating, or authorization
issued under this part for a period of up to 1 year after the date of that
refusal; or

(b) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization
issued under this part.

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> I do not recall the exact figures, but it's my vague recollection that the
> federal BAC limit is .10 or .12, while most states are at .08 these days.
> And yes, that recent case confirmed that "state or police" (whatever that
> means) have no jurisdiction over flying under the influence, since there
is
> federal law that takes precedence.

The federal BAC limit is .04. Unfortunately, some states' laws are so poorly
written that they do not cover flying an airplane while under the influence.

[Todd Pattist]

"C J Campbell" >
wrote:

>The state and/or municipality have jurisdiction over anyone flying within
>their borders, no matter where the pilot lives. If you are drunk and fly
>over them, they can arrest you even if you don't land there.

There are some cases involving attempts by dry states or
municipalities to prohibit in-flight alcoholic consumption
during overflights by national air carriers. They all
failed, so this power is probably limited.


>§ 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;

I've always wondered what the definition of "alcoholic
beverage" is. Orange juice has a measurable amount of
alcohol, and I've wondered about so called "non-alcoholic"
beers. This is a purely theoretical interest, as I'm
confident that no one will be arrested for consuming orange
juice and I hate non-alcoholic beverages, but I am
interested in what the formal definition is considered to be
- anything controlled or taxed as "alcoholic"?
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> The federal BAC limit is .04.

Huh? The news report that I'm recalling indicated that the federal criminal
limit was *higher* than the local (state) limit.

I could be misremembering the article, or the article could have been
mistaken. But .04 doesn't sound right to me. I remember when I read about
the pilots' acquittal that the federal limit seemed unreasonably high.

Do you have a source for your .04?

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> It is not a crime for a pilot to violate the FARs. Violations of
> the FARsare handled administratively. Consequently, pilots cannot
> expect the same rights as those charged with crimes. Pilots may be
> required to testify against themselves, may not be allowed to
> confront witnesses, or avail themselves of many other Constitutional
> rights. Thus, no level of drunkenness will allow a pilot to be charged
> with a Federal crime. [...]

Okay, I think I see where you're getting the .04 from.

I'm pretty sure you are incorrect that there is "no level of drunkennes
[that] will allow a pilot to be charged with a Federal crime". The news
coverage of the two pilots who were just acquitted made it clear that there
IS a law, but that they simply didn't meet the standard. They weren't drunk
enough.

Had they had a higher BAC, they would have been guilty of, and probably
convicted of, breaking the federal law.

I'm not talking FAR here...I'm talking federal criminal law. I believe the
original poster is too (though I suppose he could be equally confused about
the difference between FAR and criminal law).

Pete

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The federal BAC limit is .04.
>
> Huh? The news report that I'm recalling indicated that the federal
criminal
> limit was *higher* than the local (state) limit.
>
> I could be misremembering the article, or the article could have been
> mistaken. But .04 doesn't sound right to me. I remember when I read
about
> the pilots' acquittal that the federal limit seemed unreasonably high.
>
> Do you have a source for your .04?

FAR 91.17

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> FAR 91.17

See my other posts. That's not where the BAC limit for criminal prosecution
is found. It is *a* federal limit, not *the* federal limit.

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 00:00:23 -0400, "anon" > wrote:

>Could someone please clarify what the legal FEDERAL minimum a pilot
>must blow to be charged with a crime? also, could someone please confirm
>that state or police have no jurisdiction over this offense if the accused
>does NOT live within the same state or city?

You don't fly from around Philly, PA do you?

[TaxSrv]

> I'm pretty sure you are incorrect that there is "no level of
drunkennes
> [that] will allow a pilot to be charged with a Federal crime". The
news
> coverage of the two pilots who were just acquitted made it clear
that there
> IS a law, but that they simply didn't meet the standard. They
weren't drunk
> enough.
>
> Had they had a higher BAC, they would have been guilty of, and
probably
> convicted of, breaking the federal law.

> Pete

Federal criminal law is 18 USC 343, but it applies only to "operation
of a common carrier." I.e., including airline pilot. There the BAC
presumption is .10, and max sentence is 15 years. There's no federal
criminal law, however, for drunken Part 91 ops. However, the
majority of states which have a criminal statute apply it to all
aircraft operations while intoxicated, with a BAC presumption mostly
..04, same as federal civil (the "FARs"). Also, in those states, it is
a only misdemenanor.

Fred F.

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:32:04 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>> The federal BAC limit is .04.
>
>Huh? The news report that I'm recalling indicated that the federal criminal
>limit was *higher* than the local (state) limit.
>
>I could be misremembering the article, or the article could have been
>mistaken. But .04 doesn't sound right to me. I remember when I read about
>the pilots' acquittal that the federal limit seemed unreasonably high.
>
>Do you have a source for your .04?

Are you thinking 18 USC 17A sec 342 "Operation of a common carrier
under the influence of alcohol or drugs"?

"Whoever operates or directs the operation of a common carrier while
under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance (as defined
in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)),
shall be imprisoned not more than fifteen years or fined under this
title, or both"

17A sec 343 defines blood alcohol of .10 as the alcohol limit.

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> Are you thinking 18 USC 17A sec 342 "Operation of a common carrier
> under the influence of alcohol or drugs"?
>
> "Whoever operates or directs the operation of a common carrier while
> under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance (as defined
> in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)),
> shall be imprisoned not more than fifteen years or fined under this
> title, or both"
>
> 17A sec 343 defines blood alcohol of .10 as the alcohol limit.

Yes, that sounds about right.

Thanks for looking that up!

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> Federal criminal law is 18 USC 343, but it applies only to "operation
> of a common carrier." I.e., including airline pilot. There the BAC
> presumption is .10, and max sentence is 15 years. There's no federal
> criminal law, however, for drunken Part 91 ops.

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. I'd forgotten that the federal statute
applied only to airline pilots.

[Dave Stadt]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> "anon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Could someone please clarify what the legal FEDERAL minimum a pilot
> > must blow to be charged with a crime?
>
> The FAR is less than .04 and also no drinking at least 12 hours prior to
> flying. Break either one and you are illegal.


It's 8 hours and even if you are under .04 but under the influence you are
not fit to fly. Any one of the three will do you in.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> I do not recall the exact figures, but it's my vague recollection that the
> federal BAC limit is .10 or .12, while most states are at .08 these days.

IIRC, the news said the Federal limit is .10 and Florida is .08.

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

[Morgans]

"G.R. Patterson III" these days.
>
> IIRC, the news said the Federal limit is .10 and Florida is .08.
>
> George Patterson

In NC, it is .08 for regular drivers, and .06 for commercial drivers.

As a matter of fact, I think it is .06 for all commercial drivers,
throughout the US?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 6/26/2004

[Capt.Doug]

>"anon" wrote in message > Could someone please clarify what the legal
>FEDERAL minimum a pilot must blow to be charged with a crime? also,
>could someone please confirm
> that state or police have no jurisdiction over this offense if the
accused
> does NOT live within the same state or city.

Maximum blood alcohol level under FAA regs is .04%.
A recent court case involving airline pilots charged by local police was
dismissed. The judge ruled that federal laws pre-empt state and local laws
as concerns *commercial* aviation. Commercial aviation is considered
interstate commerce. It doesn't matter where the pilots live. The ruling
didn't mention anything about local police charging private pilots with
unlawful intoxication.

D.

[Bill Denton]

Violation of an FAR is a civil infraction, not a crime. So the .04% rule is
a violation of a regulation, not a crime.

Given that the FAA generally has jurisdiction over all aviation operational
matters, there may not be any criminal statue that would apply.



"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> >"anon" wrote in message > Could someone please clarify what the legal
> >FEDERAL minimum a pilot must blow to be charged with a crime? also,
> >could someone please confirm
> > that state or police have no jurisdiction over this offense if the
> accused
> > does NOT live within the same state or city.
>
> Maximum blood alcohol level under FAA regs is .04%.
> A recent court case involving airline pilots charged by local police was
> dismissed. The judge ruled that federal laws pre-empt state and local laws
> as concerns *commercial* aviation. Commercial aviation is considered
> interstate commerce. It doesn't matter where the pilots live. The ruling
> didn't mention anything about local police charging private pilots with
> unlawful intoxication.
>
> D.
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Capt.Doug" wrote:
>
> The ruling
> didn't mention anything about local police charging private pilots with
> unlawful intoxication.

Pennsylvania pressed several charges against that drunk who buzzed Philadelphia a few
months ago. His attorneys have argued that Federal law preempts those charges, but I
have not heard that either the Feds or local courts agree with them on that.

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

[John Galban]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message >...
>
> Maximum blood alcohol level under FAA regs is .04%.
> A recent court case involving airline pilots charged by local police was
> dismissed. The judge ruled that federal laws pre-empt state and local laws
> as concerns *commercial* aviation. Commercial aviation is considered
> interstate commerce. It doesn't matter where the pilots live. The ruling
> didn't mention anything about local police charging private pilots with
> unlawful intoxication.
>

That's correct. Since there is a federal criminal statute that
covers drunk commercial flying, it preempts the state (Florida?)
drunken flying statute. If the case involved a non-commercial flight,
there is no federal criminal statute that covers it, so presumably,
federal preemption would not happen.

That was the problem in the case of the (allegedly) drunk PA pilot
several months ago. The feds threw their hands up and said they
couldn't criminally prosecute because there was no law covering
non-commercial ops. The state had no drunken flying law and was
trying to broaden the scope of existing motor vehicle laws to cover
the incident. So far, the judge has not bought it.

I heard last week that PA now has a "flying while intoxicated" law
working its way through the legislature because of that case. Other
states have used similar laws to prosecute drunk, non-commercial
pilots in the past.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, June 27, 2004 11:00:23 PM UTC-5, anon wrote:
> Could someone please clarify what the legal FEDERAL minimum a pilot
> must blow to be charged with a crime? also, could someone please confirm
> that state or police have no jurisdiction over this offense if the accused
> does NOT live within the same state or city.
>
>
> Thanks

This is a great question i would imagine that they couldnt blow anything all i know is i would hope so anyway i wouldnt want to get on a plane with a drunk pilot even if he just had a little and i like to drink but thats insane <a href"www.drinkinpeople.com">DrinkinPeople</a>

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Sunday, June 27, 2004 11:00:23 PM UTC-5, anon wrote:
> > Could someone please clarify what the legal FEDERAL minimum a pilot
> > must blow to be charged with a crime? also, could someone please
> > confirm
> > that state or police have no jurisdiction over this offense if the
> > accused
> > does NOT live within the same state or city.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
>
> This is a great question i would imagine that they couldnt blow anything all
> i know is i would hope so anyway i wouldnt want to get on a plane with a
> drunk pilot even if he just had a little and i like to drink but thats insane
> <a href"www.drinkinpeople.com">DrinkinPeople</a>

Then you should NEVER fly on Air France, UTA, etc. They serve wine with
the cockpit meals.

[george152]

On 22/01/14 07:56, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, June 27, 2004 11:00:23 PM UTC-5, anon wrote:
>>> Could someone please clarify what the legal FEDERAL minimum a pilot
>>> must blow to be charged with a crime? also, could someone please
>>> confirm
>>> that state or police have no jurisdiction over this offense if the
>>> accused
>>> does NOT live within the same state or city.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>> This is a great question i would imagine that they couldnt blow anything all
>> i know is i would hope so anyway i wouldnt want to get on a plane with a
>> drunk pilot even if he just had a little and i like to drink but thats insane
>> <a href"www.drinkinpeople.com">DrinkinPeople</a>
>
> Then you should NEVER fly on Air France, UTA, etc. They serve wine with
> the cockpit meals.
>
Civilised

[Arouet]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:17:13 +1300, george152 wrote:

>> Then you should NEVER fly on Air France, UTA, etc. They serve wine with
>> the cockpit meals.
>>
> Civilised

Homosexuals. Not that I mind. :)
--
The Storage Neighbor-Crabapple | 12390-C Arnold Mill Road
Alpharetta, Georgia 30004 | Tel: 770.569.0060
"Free blow job with every rental"| www.storageneighbor.com