Max allowed student pilot BAC?

BigBadLou

BigBadLou

Final Approach
Joined
Aug 6, 2014
Messages
5,166
Location
TX - the friendliest state
Display Name
Display name:
Lou
So I had a fun discussion with a student pilot friend.
He lives in a nearby city and I invited him to our local BBQ fly-in, especially since he needs to go on a X/C with his CFI.
And I made a joke (not really) that he could have a few beers with the BBQ.
He thinks he cannot.
I think he can.

Interesting concept, you think?
Well, FARs say that the PIC cannot have any alcohol 8 hours prior to the flight. (no mention of BAC, weird)
But my friend is not a PIC, cannot log PIC nor can he act as PIC.
So this rule does not apply to him, correct? :)

Now quote a FAR that says otherwise. :D

(P.S.: My student pilot friend, please be quiet, do not out yourself in case you do want to try this - you don't need an FAA investigation before you even get your cert)
 
Last edited:
BigBadLou said:
Well, FARs say that the PIC cannot have any alcohol 8 hours prior to the flight. (no mention of BAC, weird)
Click to expand...
The FARs do mention BAC. There's a limit of 0.04. I'm not sure how this would apply to a student with a CFI, but I would hope that any CFI that smelled alcohol on a student would not go through with the lesson.
 
When my instructor and I parked on an unused taxiway and walked to Hooters at/near FNL we both had iced tea...
 
Why would anyone think this is a good idea to begin with? How is the PIC or a student pilot going to know what their BAC is anyway? It should be zero!

Now lets talk BLUNTS... how much weed can a student pilot smoke the week/days before a 1500 mile solo CC?
 
The FARs state that he can't be a crewmember of a civil aircraft at all 8hrs bottle-to-throttle, so per the FAA he's probably illegal, PIC or not. However, if the CFI is okay with him having a beer at the BBQ, then I don't see the harm in it. I'd certainly limit it to one regular beer (none of that 12% ABV stuff, lol).
 
I think the letter of the law (I think you're right) is different from the spirit of the law.

Obviously the Feds don't want a student smashed during training. That said, where is it written you can't let your wife take the controls after a couple of glasses of wine?
 
What one MUST legally avoid doing and what would SHOULD wisely avoid doing are not always the same.
 
Kind of like the student pilot who was busted for flying sky divers..... except that he got off after it was known that the last jumper out of the plane was the CFI... Who was PIC on the climb up, and he was solo on the way down...
 
Glenn D said:
Kind of like the student pilot who was busted for flying sky divers..... except that he got off after it was known that the last jumper out of the plane was the CFI... Who was PIC on the climb up, and he was solo on the way down...
Click to expand...
Now that is good...
 
BigBadLou said:
Well, FARs say that the PIC cannot have any alcohol 8 hours prior to the flight. (no mention of BAC, weird)
But my friend is not a PIC, cannot log PIC nor can he act as PIC
Click to expand...
The FARs use the word "crewmember" not PIC. Otherwise the SIC could get plowed and be legal.

So is a student taking a lesson a crewmember?
 
Everskyward said:
The FARs use the word "crewmember" not PIC. Otherwise the SIC could get plowed and be legal.

So is a student taking a lesson a crewmember?
Click to expand...
Which is my exact question.. usually things say "required" crew member. A student just may be required if they are getting a dual log entry toward a certificate, but what if they don't log and apply toward a requirement?
But.... who really knows..???
 
Kritchlow said:
Which is my exact question.. usually things say "required" crew member. A student just may be required if they are getting a dual log entry toward a certificate, but what if they don't log and apply toward a requirement?
But.... who really knows..???
Click to expand...

Well, instructors do not have to adhere to the 90-day currency rule because it has been determined that students are not passengers. So if a student isn't a passenger, then...
 
I've had this thought before as well. I've also wanted to spend a bit of time in a red bird having a few drinks and shooting approaches just to see how quickly my flying skills go downhill.

Curiosity...
 
dmspilot said:
Well, instructors do not have to adhere to the 90-day currency rule because it has been determined that students are not passengers. So if a student isn't a passenger, then...
Click to expand...
But who is to say on that particular flight they are acting as a student? They could be a friend that is handling the controls. Nothing wrong with that, even if the PIC is a PP.
 
This is getting interesting

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
Somedudeintn said:
I've had this thought before as well. I've also wanted to spend a bit of time in a red bird having a few drinks and shooting approaches just to see how quickly my flying skills go downhill.

Curiosity...
Click to expand...

This could be a party game.
-Difficult landing. First person to crash buys the next round.
-See who can land, if at all, the shortest, maybe in a parking lot somewhere. Losers all drink. Crashers drink 2x
-Hard IFR, over-under bets on amount of time before vomit
-IFR - Fail one instrument. You survive 3 minutes, you take a shot plus another instrument fails. Repeat.

I have no experience in a motion sim, but I'm sure some of you have done this very thing. How can you not?
 
GRG55 said:
With, or without an airplane?
Click to expand...
It makes sense I guess, on a 1500 mile solo there will be plenty of time to smoke some loco weed, of course would have to consult with a world famous unnamed aviation attorney and get the green light.
 
Larry in TN said:
You think that a person receiving dual instruction under the applicable FAR (61 or 141) could reasonably be excluded from that definition?
Click to expand...
I think that many people can be excluded, based on the word "assigned".
 
Everskyward said:
I think that many people can be excluded, based on the word "assigned".
Click to expand...
No way to know for sure short of an official interpretation (which may already exist).

I'm not sure how you would exclude a pilot receiving dual instruction if we accept that a pilot-owner flying alone his own airplane (as far from the colloquial use of 'assigned' as I can think of) is prohibited from flying under the influence. For the pilot-owner to fall under the alcohol rule he must be considered a crewmember so his decision to fly his own airplane must qualify as "assigned".

If we agree so far, how does the pilot receiving dual instruction not also qualify?
 
In any case, one must always be ready to apply The Universal Rule of Aviation Enforcement:

If the FAA wants to get you, they can. :eek2:​
 
Last edited:
Kritchlow said:
I think the letter of the law (I think you're right) is different from the spirit of the law.

Obviously the Feds don't want a student smashed during training. That said, where is it written you can't let your wife take the controls after a couple of glasses of wine?
Click to expand...

Actually, the reg DOES forbid both of those cases.

8 hours bottle to throttle, not impaired, and BAC < 0.04 for any crewmember. Not any required crewmember. Per 14 CFR 1.1, a crewmember is anyone assigned duties on the airplane, regardless of any certifications. That's pretty broad; it includes flight attendants, photographers (if the purpose of the flight is photography), navigators, and anyone handling controls.

So, if I were to go on a CAP photography mission, and the right or back seat were smashed, we would all be in violation. My responsibility would be 14 CFR 91.17(b).
 
MAKG1 said:
So, if I were to go on a CAP photography mission, and the right or back seat were smashed, we would all be in violation. My responsibility would be 14 CFR 91.17(b).
Click to expand...

This is a bit unclear.

91.17(b) says if anyone is "smashed" on any flight then it's a no go. The fact that it's a photography mission is a red herring.

Now if the person just had a few but otherwise looks OK, then you have to examine whether he or she is a crewmember.
 
Larry in TN said:
No way to know for sure short of an official interpretation (which may already exist).
Click to expand...
I'm not interested in an official interpretation and DON'T ANYBODY ASK FOR ONE!

Larry in TN said:
I'm not sure how you would exclude a pilot receiving dual instruction if we accept that a pilot-owner flying alone his own airplane (as far from the colloquial use of 'assigned' as I can think of) is prohibited from flying under the influence. For the pilot-owner to fall under the alcohol rule he must be considered a crewmember so his decision to fly his own airplane must qualify as "assigned".
Click to expand...
A pilot-owner flying their own airplane is different than a student pilot receiving instruction. At what point does the student become a crewmember rather than a passenger? My own interpretation would be that the student is a crewmember if the flight is logged as instruction by the CFI, but others may have their own ideas.
 
Larry in TN said:
No way to know for sure short of an official interpretation (which may already exist).

I'm not sure how you would exclude a pilot receiving dual instruction if we accept that a pilot-owner flying alone his own airplane (as far from the colloquial use of 'assigned' as I can think of) is prohibited from flying under the influence. For the pilot-owner to fall under the alcohol rule he must be considered a crewmember so his decision to fly his own airplane must qualify as "assigned".

If we agree so far, how does the pilot receiving dual instruction not also qualify?
Click to expand...

Everskyward said:
I'm not interested in an official interpretation and DON'T ANYBODY ASK FOR ONE!

A pilot-owner flying their own airplane is different than a student pilot receiving instruction. At what point does the student become a crewmember rather than a passenger? My own interpretation would be that the student is a crewmember if the flight is logged as instruction by the CFI, but others may have their own ideas.
Click to expand...

As I wrote above in post 21, a student pilot receiving instruction is not a passenger, at least not for the purpose of 61.57:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2006/kortokrax - (2006) legal interpretation.pdf

I don't think it would be a stretch to consider the student to not be a passenger under 91.17. Also note that 91.17 uses the term "crewmember" rather than the term "required crewmember".

Kritchlow said:
But who is to say on that particular flight they are acting as a student? They could be a friend that is handling the controls. Nothing wrong with that, even if the PIC is a PP.
Click to expand...

If the PIC is a private pilot, not an instructor, I think it's safe to assume the student would be a passenger.
 
dmspilot said:
As I wrote above in post 21, a student pilot receiving instruction is not a passenger, at least not for the purpose of 61.57:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2006/kortokrax - (2006) legal interpretation.pdf

I don't think it would be a stretch to consider the student to not be a passenger under 91.17. Also note that 91.17 uses the term "crewmember" rather than the term "required crewmember".
Click to expand...
I don't think you completely understood my position. I'm saying if a student goes on a X-C with his or her CFI and ends up drinking beer at the BBQ, the CFI could log the oubound leg as instruction for the student, but not the return leg after the student has consumed alcohol. I'm not saying that the "student", who is now a passenger not a student, is prohibited from manipulating the controls, because I don't think there is a reg that states that, common sense and safety aside.
 
Everskyward said:
I don't think you completely understood my position. I'm saying if a student goes on a X-C with his or her CFI and ends up drinking beer at the BBQ, the CFI could log the oubound leg as instruction for the student, but not the return leg after the student has consumed alcohol. I'm not saying that the "student", who is now a passenger not a student, is prohibited from manipulating the controls, because I don't think there is a reg that states that, common sense and safety aside.
Click to expand...

The question raised in posts 18 and 31 was about a student receiving instruction. If the student is NOT receiving instruction, then I agree with you they are a passenger.
 
Last edited:
A couple of thoughts:

91.13 specifies "person," not "crewmember."

The 91.17 prohibition includes attempting to act as a crewmember. I can imagine the FAA successfully arguing that manipulating the controls constitutes such an attempt, regardless of what the instructor writes in a logbook.
 
Everskyward said:
At what point does the student become a crewmember rather than a passenger?
Click to expand...
Can't know for sure without that interpretation that you don't want.

You said that the word "assigned" was important but haven't said how.

I think you're making this far too complicated. The intent seems straightforward to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top