Question (Dr Bruce?)

O

onwards

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
1,998
Location
CA
Display Name
Display name:
onwards
Something I have wondered about. I rarely drink alcohol (being diabetic) so it's not really an issue for me, but I am confused about the rules regarding alcohol. My questions may well be ignorant, but are based on the various things I "learned" during primary training.

I believe that one rule says "no alcohol 8 hours before a flight".

I also believe another rule says "alcohol legal limit is .04". This would track with, say, a single drink within an hour before a flight for a 200lb man.

Of course, most states would not convict on a DUI with less .08, so this is really just for flying. Also, I am specifically interested in GA, not commercial.

Can someone sort this out for me? I'm really curious.
 
Usually in aviation, the stricter of any two conflicting rules applies and rules overlap.

So a "single drink within an hour" doesn't meet the 8-hour rule and is a no-go. Doesn't matter what the BAC rule is at that point. One of the multiple criteria isn't met.
 
I added the or's for effect but like it 91.17 say.
You may not have had a drink for 8 hours but still be intoxicated or have a BAC over .04 so you are still not legal. Also AIM 8-1-1 addresses this issue also. hope that helps
Sec. 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;or
(2) While under the influence of alcohol;or
(3) While using any drug that affects the person's faculties in any way contrary to safety; or
[(4) While having an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater in a blood or breath specimen. Alcohol concentration means grams of alcohol per deciliter of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.]
 
I'm guessing that this rule is for the person who get's so drunk that they wake up 8 hours later with a .04 BAC.
 
MadseasoN said:
I'm guessing that this rule is for the person who get's so drunk that they wake up 8 hours later with a .04 BAC.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup: YOu got it! I once flew with a captain who passed out in Charlotte terminal on the way to the plane in the morning. I had no Idea untill he fell out. I called him in sick!
 
flyingmoose said:
I added the or's for effect but like it 91.17 say.
You may not have had a drink for 8 hours but still be intoxicated or have a BAC over .04 so you are still not legal. Also AIM 8-1-1 addresses this issue also. hope that helps
Sec. 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;or
(2) While under the influence of alcohol;or
(3) While using any drug that affects the person's faculties in any way contrary to safety; or
[(4) While having an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater in a blood or breath specimen. Alcohol concentration means grams of alcohol per deciliter of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.]
Click to expand...

Right, so that's where I'm confused.

In order for someone to not have a drink in 8 hours and STILL be over .04, they need to have had acute alcohol poisoning. But that's besides the point. Let's say I am sitting down to dinner and having braised duck - cooked, it so happens, in wine. How is that different than eating tuna casserole and having a beer? yet I strongly suspect that in the minds of many the former would be OK, the latter not so.

Just trying to understand the reasoning and concepts behind these things, and how they work in reality. Obviously, if someone breathalyzes you and you have a .04 you are still "OK" from a rules perspective, or am I getting that wrong, too?
 
onwards said:
Right, so that's where I'm confused.

In order for someone to not have a drink in 8 hours and STILL be over .04, they need to have had acute alcohol poisoning. But that's besides the point. Let's say I am sitting down to dinner and having braised duck - cooked, it so happens, in wine. How is that different than eating tuna casserole and having a beer? yet I strongly suspect that in the minds of many the former would be OK, the latter not so.

Just trying to understand the reasoning and concepts behind these things, and how they work in reality. Obviously, if someone breathalyzes you and you have a .04 you are still "OK" from a rules perspective, or am I getting that wrong, too?
Click to expand...

as a small aside, if the duck was cooked in the wine then the alcohol would have been cooked off so you would not have consumed any.

As far as the rules they are logically and'ed not or'ed so it's no drinks for 8 hours AND anything consumed prior to 8 hours must have been metabolized already.
 
onwards said:
Just trying to understand the reasoning and concepts behind these things, and how they work in reality. Obviously, if someone breathalyzes you and you have a .04 you are still "OK" from a rules perspective, or am I getting that wrong, too?
Click to expand...

Are you "under the influence of alcohol" at that point? Could a lawyer make a case that you were?

If yes, THAT rule applies, and you're nailed.
 
Similar question - same topic:

What is the policy on non-crew members consuming alcohol while in a GA aircraft with a private pilot at the controls (no alcohol for the PP)? I am familiar with the FAR that states no pilot or crew member can let a person that is intoxicated on the plane. Is it acceptable to let a pass or two consume a drink or two while in route? Is there a restriction on seating location -i.e. no (easy) access to controls?
 
Someone with more experience will chime in, but pax drinking in your typical GA plane can be tricky. Depending on your state and local laws use of the term "motor vehicle" it might run afoul of open bottle laws upon landing. But that's pure speculation on my part.
 
jtheune said:
as a small aside, if the duck was cooked in the wine then the alcohol would have been cooked off so you would not have consumed any.

As far as the rules they are logically and'ed not or'ed so it's no drinks for 8 hours AND anything consumed prior to 8 hours must have been metabolized already.
Click to expand...
Any of the single lines 1-4 are no-go items. So that makes them or's not and's since you don't need multiple items to make it a no-go item.
 
onwards said:
Right, so that's where I'm confused.

In order for someone to not have a drink in 8 hours and STILL be over .04, they need to have had acute alcohol poisoning. But that's besides the point. Let's say I am sitting down to dinner and having braised duck - cooked, it so happens, in wine. How is that different than eating tuna casserole and having a beer? yet I strongly suspect that in the minds of many the former would be OK, the latter not so.

Just trying to understand the reasoning and concepts behind these things, and how they work in reality. Obviously, if someone breathalyzes you and you have a .04 you are still "OK" from a rules perspective, or am I getting that wrong, too?
Click to expand...
Not quite accurate.If a person chronically ingests alcohol, eventuallly the endorgans get tolerant. A really tolerant alcoholic can function perfectly well at a BAC of .12, and pass a sobriety check.

That is why FAA wants both the BAC and the arresting officer's detailed sobriety exam. It is also why at over .15 operating a motor vehicle, they think there is enough of a chance that you are tolerant (chronic abuse) that they ought to review your information. At 0.20 the examiner (OKC) gets looked at closely if he recertifies you based on the Substance Evaluator's report of no chronic abuse or alcohol dependence. If you are operating a vehicle at .25, you are tolerant period and there is good literature evidence that you are chronic. No further evaluation is necessary at that point.

At .15 you would probably put a tube in my breathing airway without much protest. I would be alcohol poisoned by that level and you'd save my life. But there are a lot of folks who can operate a motor vehicle passibly at 0.15.....their judgement stinks and they usually get pulled over- and they do amazingly well on the field sobriety checks.
 
Good God, Doctor.

I get a hangover just *reading* about .15; guess I am an old faht.
 
I have heard, though not verified, the military flight crews have gone to a more restrictive ruling on alcohol. 12 hours min to BRIEFING. That would mean more hours to actual flight. And 12 seems conservative still.
 
silver-eagle said:
I have heard, though not verified, the military flight crews have gone to a more restrictive ruling on alcohol. 12 hours min to BRIEFING. That would mean more hours to actual flight. And 12 seems conservative still.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? the Navy rule is no joints 8 hours before a flight and no alcohol within 50ft of the aircraft. Why would the military design special rules for others?
 
flyingmoose said:
What is "Enabling?"
Click to expand...
Well, if your captain had showed up for work so drunk that he passed out, and you called him in "sick" instead of reporting him "drunk", you enabled him to avoid the consequences and the learning opportunity that goes with them.

Not saying that's the situation, but based on the limited information in your post, it could be.

Or, when someone talks about scud-running for 50NM, if all you did was say "glad you made it" instead of "damn, that was stupid, glad you made it, don't do it again", then you enabled him to avoid recognizing the problem.

And, when something bad happens because of your "enabling", you share some of the blame.
 
TMetzinger said:
Well, if your captain had showed up for work so drunk that he passed out, and you called him in "sick" instead of reporting him "drunk", you enabled him to avoid the consequences and the learning opportunity that goes with them.

Not saying that's the situation, but based on the limited information in your post, it could be.

Or, when someone talks about scud-running for 50NM, if all you did was say "glad you made it" instead of "damn, that was stupid, glad you made it, don't do it again", then you enabled him to avoid recognizing the problem.

And, when something bad happens because of your "enabling", you share some of the blame.
Click to expand...
Well it seems that with you limited information that you assumed that is what happened.

First off I did not enable him to do anything. I had no idea why he passed out in the terminal all I knew was he was not going to make it to the plane and when he got put into the ambulance I called him in sick. I later found out from the feds and company safety people, who were asking alot of questions about what he had been doing that he was apparently feeling the effects of alcohol. What would you have liked me to do? Call the police when he fell? I don't share the blame in anything he did, and last I heard (long time ago) he was not flying anymore, so i guess he did suffer the consequences of his actions. This was not a thread about me or what happened to me so please don't make snark comments about my character.
 
flyingmoose said:
Well it seems that with you limited information that you assumed that is what happened.

First off I did not enable him to do anything. I had no idea why he passed out in the terminal all I knew was he was not going to make it to the plane and when he got put into the ambulance I called him in sick. I later found out from the feds and company safety people, who were asking alot of questions about what he had been doing that he was apparently feeling the effects of alcohol. What would you have liked me to do? Call the police when he fell? I don't share the blame in anything he did, and last I heard (long time ago) he was not flying anymore, so i guess he did suffer the consequences of his actions. This was not a thread about me or what happened to me so please don't make snark comments about my character.
Click to expand...

Whoa...

Nobody made any comments about your character, so please don't get defensive. I even specifically said that this may not have been what happened.

You asked what "enabling" meant, so I gave examples of "enabling" and the bad results of it.
 
Unfortunately at my Christmas party I saw my young cousin who I haven't seen in years. When telling her my uncle (her uncle too) was the only one in the family brave enough to volunteer to climb into a small plane with me, I asked if she had ever been in one. She said, in Arizona, she gets "lots" of offers to fly in people's planes but they are all drunk and/or high or otherwise intoxicated when they go. This shocked me but then again she is a few years younger than I am, and she is a bartender.

Yikes.

Kimberly
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
She said, in Arizona, she gets "lots" of offers to fly in people's planes but they are all drunk and/or high or otherwise intoxicated when they go. This shocked me but then again she is a few years younger than I am, and she is a bartender.
Click to expand...

ROFL... "Hey baby, wanna go fly with me in my airplane?"

Somehow, I don't think they actually have airplanes...
 
bbchien said:
Not quite accurate.If a person chronically ingests alcohol, eventuallly the endorgans get tolerant. A really tolerant alcoholic can function perfectly well at a BAC of .12, and pass a sobriety check....
Click to expand...
we had a guy WALK IN to the ER I was working at - he'd fallen and cut his hair. He was obviously drunk, but could talk and walk and navigate his way through the world. The doc ordered a blood alcohol...

0.275

Once we knew how high that was we couldn't let him leave - but he'd been drinking hard for so many years (though he was only in his mid-30's) that it wasn't killing him (well, not immediately, anyway). We couldn't get a single person to come get him - they were all done with him. It was sad. His blood test results did go up on the bulletin board, though (with his name redacted, of course)...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
- he'd fallen and cut his hair.

I've had haircuts that LOOKED like that's what happened!

Paul
 
jtheune said:
as a small aside, if the duck was cooked in the wine then the alcohol would have been cooked off so you would not have consumed any.
Click to expand...
I've heard this is not the case with Rum Cake. Anyone know the truth of it?
 
And what about those rum balls in the other POA posts? Do they get you too? And the tequila cookies? I was sick last week and saw Nyquil has 10% alcohol. The stuff is everywhere, out to get you.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
And what about those rum balls in the other POA posts? Do they get you too? And the tequila cookies? I was sick last week and saw Nyquil has 10% alcohol. The stuff is everywhere, out to get you.
Click to expand...

affirmative on the rum balls... no cooking involved (other than melting some chocolate)
 
mikea said:
How about 0.41?
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/dec/22/no-headline---ev_intoxicated/?partner=popular
Click to expand...

We had a guy walk into our ER at 0.415. There was another guy that came in at .63 and he lived. The funny thing about him was the fact that he lived two doors down from me in the dorms. He was so embarased when he later found out I had the joy of giving him a catheter.

My last story is about a 25 year old that was bored. He and his wife decided that they would take as many shots as they could in a short amount of time. The male supposedly took 45 shots of vodka in less than 20 minutes. When he passed out his wife waited an hour before calling EMS. I don't remember his BAC... he didn't make it.
 
onwards said:
I also believe another rule says "alcohol legal limit is .04". This would track with, say, a single drink within an hour before a flight for a 200lb man.
Click to expand...
Actually it takes a couple of drinks of the "standard" size to get me to .04, but the rules are NO DRINKING. It's quite possible to go on a good bender and still be above .04 even after 8 hours. That is what I think the point is there.
Of course, most states would not convict on a DUI with less .08, so this is really just for flying. Also, I am specifically interested in GA, not commercial.
Click to expand...
You better rethink that if you're driving. In most states, 0.08 is only he prima facie limit. That is, the BAC that if you have they presume you are intoxicated without having to show any legal impairment. You can still be convicted of DUI at lower amounts but the officer would have to show such signs.
 
flyingron said:
but the rules are NO DRINKING. It's quite possible to go on a good bender and still be above .04 even after 8 hours. That is what I think the point is there.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think I got that. But I wonder about the practical aspect of this, since any rule or law is useless if it cannot be enforced. In other words, if the quantitative rule states .04, and somehow for some odd reason you get tested randomly with a .03 while PIC, and you have not had any incident, what happens? (the pilot will, of course, say they did not drink, but maybe unbeknownst to them the food they ate was spiked) more importantly, say you HAVE had an incident, and got tested, and were .03, what happens then? (similar argument by pilot)

flyingron said:
You better rethink that if you're driving. In most states, 0.08 is only he prima facie limit. That is, the BAC that if you have they presume you are intoxicated without having to show any legal impairment. You can still be convicted of DUI at lower amounts but the officer would have to show such signs.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's true, but I don't think it happens much, because in the end, good luck proving that in court without very very solid evidence, and a good lawyer will skewer such arguments.
 
onwards said:
But I wonder about the practical aspect of this... say you HAVE had an incident, and got tested, and were .03, what happens then
Click to expand...

That just means it'll take a lot more lawyers and a lot more money than if you tested 0.0 or 0.4.

;)
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top