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

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.

"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.

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

"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