passengers consuming alcohol on a part 91 flight

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?

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?

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" 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

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)

"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

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.

"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.

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)

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)