A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

passengers consuming alcohol on a part 91 flight



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 22nd 04, 03:17 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #22  
Old June 22nd 04, 03:45 PM
Tom Sixkiller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #23  
Old June 22nd 04, 04:02 PM
Tony Cox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.



  #24  
Old June 22nd 04, 06:03 PM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.
  #26  
Old June 23rd 04, 08:30 PM
m pautz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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. :-)

  #27  
Old June 23rd 04, 09:43 PM
NW_PILOT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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




  #28  
Old June 23rd 04, 11:17 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #29  
Old June 24th 04, 03:30 AM
Tom Sixkiller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.



  #30  
Old June 24th 04, 01:29 PM
m pautz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 02:26 PM
WINGS: When do the clocks start ticking? Andrew Gideon Piloting 6 February 3rd 04 03:01 PM
FAA letter on flight into known icing C J Campbell Instrument Flight Rules 78 December 22nd 03 07:44 PM
Sim time loggable? [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 12 December 6th 03 07:47 AM
CFI logging instrument time Barry Instrument Flight Rules 21 November 11th 03 12:23 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.