Can passengers drink alcohol?

mjburian

mjburian

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Display Name
Display name:
Marty
I was asked by a friend today if passengers could drink alcohol on a GA flight. And while I certainly do not intend to allow it on any flight in which I am PIC, I can't seem to find any information that disallows it.

What are your thoughts?
 
mjburian said:
I was asked by a friend today if passengers could drink alcohol on a GA flight. And while I certainly do not intend to allow it on any flight in which I am PIC, I can't seem to find any information that disallows it.

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? You don't think all those who travel by private jet sip a cocktail or two in flight?

Some of my pax will drink beer on my airplane but I generally discourage it. For one thing I hate it when they spill beer on my seats (happened at least twice) and unless we are within a 1/2 hour of landing, that beer will be wanting to come out the other end too soon for comfort.
 
Under 91.17(b), you may not carry someone who is or appears to be intoxicated. The exception is an emergency.

It says nothing about a passenger drinking during the flight. But, by my interpretation, if they become intoxicated during the flight you are then in violation.
 
KennyFlys said:
Under 91.17(b), you may not carry someone who is or appears to be intoxicated. The exception is an emergency.

It says nothing about a passenger drinking during the flight. But, by my interpretation, if they become intoxicated during the flight you are then in violation.
Click to expand...

So consumption of alcohol by people with way too much money on thousands of corporate jets each day is considered a violation of 91.17(b)? The galley isn't stocked with liquor so the pilots can be violated for permitting passengers to consume it. Equally, airlines still stock and serve alcohol on a daily basis.

I would suggest that the passenger(s) must already be intoxicated or under the influence prior to boarding to satisfy a violation under 91.17(b). There was a good article about a 91.17(b) violation in the latest edition of AOPA Pilot, where the violation was tacked on as another charge to a different violation, but the NTSB trial judge dropped the violation.

Needless to say, I couldn't find a chief legal counsel interpretation, so I'm still in the process of researching it. It's something I've pondered for a while as well.
 
Good article on this subject in this months AOPA Pilot magazine.
 
I would think so, but if they are riding in the FO position I wouldn't allow it for obvious reasons.
 
If you cross state lines during the flight, be careful about any different laws at your destination.
 
Ron Levy said:
If you cross state lines during the flight, be careful about any different laws at your destination.
Click to expand...

Since when do FARs change between states? Aviation is federally regulated, not by the states. I've never heard of anything like this. Do you know where this might be the case?

JimR
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
So consumption of alcohol by people with way too much money on thousands of corporate jets each day is considered a violation of 91.17(b)? The galley isn't stocked with liquor so the pilots can be violated for permitting passengers to consume it. Equally, airlines still stock and serve alcohol on a daily basis.
Click to expand...
No kidding. I would say the only time we don't carry alcohol is if the passengers or owners specifically request that it not be on board. This sometimes happens with companies who don't want their employees drinking, all-underage passengers with no adult supervision, certain religious groups, or recovering alcoholics.
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
So consumption of alcohol by people with way too much money on thousands of corporate jets each day is considered a violation of 91.17(b)? The galley isn't stocked with liquor so the pilots can be violated for permitting passengers to consume it. Equally, airlines still stock and serve alcohol on a daily basis.
Click to expand...
:cheerswine: In my book its a pretty tough guy that can put himself thru the whole cattle tube experience sober !:cheerswine:
 
N3368K said:
Since when do FARs change between states? Aviation is federally regulated, not by the states. I've never heard of anything like this. Do you know where this might be the case?

JimR
Click to expand...
Alcohol served while on the ground in a specific state, perhaps? It may be legal on the ground in one state but not in another.

It kind of goes along with the recent story I posted about the barber shop that could not give away free beer to customers because they did not have a license to sell alcohol. It did not matter the alcohol was given for free.

Once airborne, no state laws should apply; only federal.
 
N3368K said:
Since when do FARs change between states? Aviation is federally regulated, not by the states. I've never heard of anything like this. Do you know where this might be the case?

JimR
Click to expand...

I think the fear in this case, as Ken said, would be breaking state laws regarding the serving of alcohol, not the FARs regarding alcohol in flight.
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
I would suggest that the passenger(s) must already be intoxicated or under the influence prior to boarding to satisfy a violation under 91.17(b). There was a good article about a 91.17(b) violation in the latest edition of AOPA Pilot, where the violation was tacked on as another charge to a different violation, but the NTSB trial judge dropped the violation.
Click to expand...
If you look at the article again (the case itself has not appeared on the NTSB opinion web site), I think you are probably right about the 91.17(b) charge being "tacked on." Looks like the primary charges involved the FAA claiming it was a gray charter.

But if you think the 91.17(b) charge went away, you'd be wrong. Read the article again. The ALJ dismissed all of the charges, apparently saying that 91.17(b) did not apply to a pure Part 91 flight. The FAA appealed and the NTSB panel decided that the ALJ was wrong and 91.17(b) =did= apply.

As to the passenger that =becomes= intoxicated during flight, your guess is as good as mine, but the language of the reg

==============================
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.
==============================

ends with "to be carried in" not "to board" making it susceptible to an interpretation that it applies to someone who gets drunk on board.

The problem with this is that regs like these that have not been interpreted before tend to get interpreted when a problem comes up - like an inebriated passenger causing problems - and the FAA's interpretation, so long as not ridiculous, is the one that counts.
 
As a side question, do state "open bottle" laws apply to airplanes on the ground? IOW, are airplanes motor vehicles?
 
N3368K said:
Since when do FARs change between states? Aviation is federally regulated, not by the states. I've never heard of anything like this. Do you know where this might be the case?

JimR
Click to expand...

Yes, it's come up with commercial operators too - alcohol consumption is regulated by the states. The FARs only address aircrew consumption and passenger intoxication. So if you take off from a state where the legal drinking age is lower and fly to one where the drinking age is higher, you must ensure your pax stop drinking when you cross the border.
 
TMetzinger said:
Yes, it's come up with commercial operators too - alcohol consumption is regulated by the states. The FARs only address aircrew consumption and passenger intoxication. So if you take off from a state where the legal drinking age is lower and fly to one where the drinking age is higher, you must ensure your pax stop drinking when you cross the border.
Click to expand...

I believe that you mean to replace drinking age with legal bac %
 
No, I meant what I said. I believe there are still state-to-state differences in the ages where one may purchase and consume alcoholic beverages.

I know there are differences in the standards of intoxication, but the federal law states "appears to be intoxicated", which at least implies that they recognize the aircrew doesn't have a breathalyzer.
 
ahh.... but I know its 21 to buy, but I didn't know that a majority of the state make that the drinking age as well (which is why its always assumed to be 21 to drink), but with a parent/gaurdian, religious leader, or medical person, and a few cases, it is legal in all but ID, KS, IN, AL, WV, PA, NC, and Washington DC... as long as the kid doesn't get over the legal limit as the state says.

so I guess you are right, and I learned something new...... that I probably wouldn't be using much considering I don't drink.
 
Let them have 2 or 3 beers and put the rest in the baggage compartment due to reasons of weight & balance. That should avoid the intoxication problem.
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
So consumption of alcohol by people with way too much money on thousands of corporate jets each day is considered a violation of 91.17(b)? The galley isn't stocked with liquor so the pilots can be violated for permitting passengers to consume it. Equally, airlines still stock and serve alcohol on a daily basis.


Ill drink to that <G>. This is probably the best answer so far. If the jet is privatly owned no rules apply. If it is a charter then the rules in the ops specs apply. For the airlines, everything is strictly spelled out in the ops specs for each particular airline. What is interesting is that any requirements to comply with local and state regs was dropped years ago. For example there was a cetain western state that required a liquor licence be posted on the plane for flights originating out of SLC. This is no longer the case. This thread is making me thirsty <G>
Click to expand...
 
So "Victor" (the guy we met at 1:00am Sunday morning on the Gaston's flightline) would definately qualify as intoxicated :yes:, but what about his buddy Bob? He appeared to have had a couple drinks, but he was his "soberish" buddy that came along to keep him out of too much trouble.

The question is, what qualifies as intoxicated under that reg. It seems rather vague. would DUI satatues (.08%) apply here, or does the reg really refer more to the falling down type drunk?
 
vontresc said:
The question is, what qualifies as intoxicated under that reg. It seems rather vague. would DUI satatues (.08%) apply here, or does the reg really refer more to the falling down type drunk?
Click to expand...

Not legal advice or experience talking, but for this rule I think we should look more to the intent and reason for the rule.

I think the "intoxication rule" was drawn up for safety reason so that a drunken pax doesn't cause havoc in flight or an emergency. Basically the PIC looks at the pax and ask himself, "If this flight gets FUBAR, will his intoxication worsen the outcome?"
 
Related to this thread of why you don't fly drunken pax


Woman sues dead pilot for plane crash allegedly caused by drunken passenger

A Canadian woman whose common-law husband died in a plane crash after a drunken passenger allegedly kicked the pilot's seat forward, jamming him into the instrument panel, is suing the estate of the dead pilot in a British Columbia court.

The lawsuit alleges Damon York, 33, pilot of the Cessna plane, violated Canadian aviation regulations by allowing the drunken passenger to board his flight. In a Transportation Safety Board of Canada accident report, investigators said the intoxicated passenger most likely "kicked the pilot's seatback forward and held it there" until the plane hit the water.

(full article)
 
mjburian said:
I was asked by a friend today if passengers could drink alcohol on a GA flight. And while I certainly do not intend to allow it on any flight in which I am PIC, I can't seem to find any information that disallows it.

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

??? Hell yes, only person that's not supposed to drink is the pilot.
 
I think the problem is people tend to confuse having a drink and getting drunk. I have no problem letting my passengers drink. I have a problem having drunk passengers aboard. I have no problem having a drink and driving. I have a problem with drunk driving.

I wouldn't personally have a drink and fly, even if I thought I could.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Related to this thread of why you don't fly drunken pax
Click to expand...

Modest request to you and others: when posting to any thread where the last post is more than a few months old, please consider adding some marker indicating your post is tacked onto an old thread; e.g.:

Notice: This is a necropost to an old thread; the posters of the earlier messages may already be dead and unable to respond in a timely fashion.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Modest request to you and others: when posting to any thread where the last post is more than a few months old, please consider adding some marker indicating your post is tacked onto an old thread; e.g.:

Notice: This is a necropost to an old thread; the posters of the earlier messages may already be dead and unable to respond in a timely fashion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so dementia patients like me, don't respond to them...:D
 
The issue becomes a bit complex when the principle<sp?> is the one that is drunk and wants another drink. I was lucky with the last boat that the owner wanted it dry.
 
What if you are Snoop Dog's charter or part 91 pilot and smell something sweet and smokey coming from the back... I'm not talking about bbq!
 
spinfire said:
What if you are Snoop Dog's charter or part 91 pilot and smell something sweet and smokey coming from the back... I'm not talking about bbq!
Click to expand...


No worries, you'll never be in that position lol.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Modest request to you and others: when posting to any thread where the last post is more than a few months old, please consider adding some marker indicating your post is tacked onto an old thread; e.g.:

Notice: This is a necropost to an old thread; the posters of the earlier messages may already be dead and unable to respond in a timely fashion.
Click to expand...
Although I generally agree, what's the value added to this thread?:dunno:
 
Jaybird180 said:
Although I generally agree, what's the value added to this thread?:dunno:
Click to expand...

The OP hasn't logged into PoA in over two years.

Your article posting was about people getting stinking drunk before boarding, but the OP was asking about drinking after boarding.

Posts since your necropost were addressed to the OP and not your post.

So your objective would have been better served by starting a new thread.

Please remove your hands from the keyboard where I can see them - you're under arrest for violating section xyzzy of the Internet regulations. You have the right to remain silent; anything you intended to say has already been taken down in evidence against you. (Being a netcop is a thankless task.)
 
Jim Logajan said:
The OP hasn't logged into PoA in over two years.

Your article posting was about people getting stinking drunk before boarding, but the OP was asking about drinking after boarding.

Posts since your necropost were addressed to the OP and not your post.

So your objective would have been better served by starting a new thread.

Please remove your hands from the keyboard where I can see them - you're under arrest for violating section xyzzy of the Internet regulations. You have the right to remain silent; anything you intended to say has already been taken down in evidence against you. (Being a netcop is a thankless task.)
Click to expand...

OK, granted...your method is awarded a point for style. But considering that posts on PoA tend to drift anyhow...
 
I make it a habit to never serve anything on the Free Bird more opaque than distilled water. Airplane interiors are expensive!
 
spinfire said:
What if you are Snoop Dog's charter or part 91 pilot and smell something sweet and smokey coming from the back... I'm not talking about bbq!
Click to expand...

Maybe you would have to worry about your aircraft being confiscated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top