GA Stops Man from Boarding for Drinking
Jul 29, 2014, 1:02 am
#46
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: SEA, NYC
Programs: DL PM, Bonvoy Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 645
First, let me say I am not providing anyone legal advice and if you have issues with this, go seek your own lawyer.
As a friendly addition to this discussion, I believe you are all making reference to the .04BAC limitation placed upon crew members. You can find this at FAR 91.17(a)(4). From a plain language reading of the rule, it appears the .04BAC is referring only to crew members and not to the general flying public.
I did a little research on cases interpreting FAR 121.575 and did not find a standard for BAC of passengers as to whether they should be allowed to board or not. On the contrary, the cases recognized the difficulty associated with determining whether someone is "drunk"/intoxicated or has merely been drinking.
If I may add my own opinion, FAR 121.575 is like every other dram shop law that requires a bartender not to serve an intoxicated person. It goes farther in saying that an intoxicated person is not allowed to fly. FAR 91.17 also adds that a captain may not allow an intoxicated person to fly. Although some of us may have experience with pax boarding while intoxicated or becoming intoxicated inflight, just because it has happened or happens all the time does not mean the rules are being followed.
As a friendly addition to this discussion, I believe you are all making reference to the .04BAC limitation placed upon crew members. You can find this at FAR 91.17(a)(4). From a plain language reading of the rule, it appears the .04BAC is referring only to crew members and not to the general flying public.
I did a little research on cases interpreting FAR 121.575 and did not find a standard for BAC of passengers as to whether they should be allowed to board or not. On the contrary, the cases recognized the difficulty associated with determining whether someone is "drunk"/intoxicated or has merely been drinking.
If I may add my own opinion, FAR 121.575 is like every other dram shop law that requires a bartender not to serve an intoxicated person. It goes farther in saying that an intoxicated person is not allowed to fly. FAR 91.17 also adds that a captain may not allow an intoxicated person to fly. Although some of us may have experience with pax boarding while intoxicated or becoming intoxicated inflight, just because it has happened or happens all the time does not mean the rules are being followed.
Jul 29, 2014, 1:58 am
#48
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Southern California/In the air
Programs: DL
Posts: 10,382
It's not written in the law. However based on FAA actions and legal enforcement, they consider .04BAC to be legally drunk. Remember the grounds is appearing intoxicated, a BAC is one of many pieces of information a crew member can use to determine if they appear intoxicated.
However, as I posted above, absent a police officer doing a breath test there's no way for crew to know. The only times I've known of enforcement action, based on BAC, is when the police were called out and did a field test. In those cases the crew/pilot was clearly aware of what the persons BAC was.
However, as I posted above, absent a police officer doing a breath test there's no way for crew to know. The only times I've known of enforcement action, based on BAC, is when the police were called out and did a field test. In those cases the crew/pilot was clearly aware of what the persons BAC was.
Jul 29, 2014, 3:26 am
#49
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: BDU
Programs: DL:MM, Marriott:LTT
Posts: 8,779
This is incorrect. While one is legally considered impaired at .08, one can be considered impaired at a lower rate. You will be considered impaired at .08, you can be deemed impaired at a lower rate. There is a legal level of intoxication, but below that isn't definitive sobriety. The law is inclusionary, not exclusionary. While I've been reading this thread, I didn't want to get sucked back into posting. However, that statement needed to be set straight, pardon the pun.
Last edited by CJKatl; Jul 29, 2014 at 5:35 am
Jul 29, 2014, 4:35 am
#50
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Antonio
Programs: DL DM, Former AA EXP now AY Plat, AC 75K, NW Plat, Former CO Gold, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 27,042
It's just like selling cigarettes in a state that prohibits third party sales (you can't buy for someone else). As long as the seller is not aware you're buying for someone else they've not violated the law. They are however liable if they're aware that you're buying for someone else.
Jul 29, 2014, 7:00 am
#51
Join Date: Jan 2010
Programs: AA Plat 2MM/UA G MM/DL MM DM 2015/BA Silver/Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 3,103
This is incorrect. While one is legally considered impaired at .08, one can be considered impaired at a lower rate. You will be considered impaired at .08, you can be deemed impaired at a lower rate. There is a legal level of intoxication, but below that isn't definitive sobriety. The law is inclusionary, not exclusionary. While I've been reading this thread, I didn't want to get sucked back into posting. However, that statement needed to be set straight, pardon the pun.
It's a curious part of the law (in most states) - when you reach the magic below 0.04, in some cases, you are NOT impaired and cannot be charged with DUI - Alcohol - you can be charged with a variety of traffic violations up to and including reckless driving. In the case of an accident, well, then all bets are off regarding liability and charges, but DUI is off the table (absent drugs of course).
There are exceptions - underage drivers and drivers holding commercial licenses and driving a commercial vehicle. No need to show impairment at BACs at 0.01, 0.02, or 0.04 depending on the person.
Jul 29, 2014, 7:39 am
#52
Join Date: Jun 2013
Programs: DL Plat, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Plat, IHG Plat, Hertz Prez Circle, National Exec
Posts: 1,357
Remember the standard is appearing/is intoxicated. A BAC over .04 is considered by the FAA intoxicated, regardless of how the person appears. However, a BAC is NOT generally going to be available to them. As I pointed out absent a cop doing a breath test at the gate/airport no one will know what the persons BAC is. The only two cases I'm aware of involved a police officer testing a person on grounds of possible public intoxication. Since it was below the state limit they couldn't be arrested. However the FAA found that since they had greater then .04 and the pilot knew of it that they were in violation of the rule.
It's just like selling cigarettes in a state that prohibits third party sales (you can't buy for someone else). As long as the seller is not aware you're buying for someone else they've not violated the law. They are however liable if they're aware that you're buying for someone else.
It's just like selling cigarettes in a state that prohibits third party sales (you can't buy for someone else). As long as the seller is not aware you're buying for someone else they've not violated the law. They are however liable if they're aware that you're buying for someone else.
If you're drunk enough to get a public intox, then you're too drunk to be on a plane. That amount is going to vary from person to person. But it is well above .04
Last edited by Zeeb; Jul 29, 2014 at 7:51 am
Jul 29, 2014, 7:46 am
#53
Join Date: Jan 2010
Programs: AA Plat 2MM/UA G MM/DL MM DM 2015/BA Silver/Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 3,103
Congratulations on providing the perfectly aligned analogy.
Jul 29, 2014, 10:41 am
#54
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy LT Gold, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Diamond, others
Posts: 12,159
I'm still waiting for a citation showing that the FAA considers BAC over .04 intoxicated for a passenger. There has yet to be one provided.
Jul 29, 2014, 1:08 pm
#56
Join Date: Jan 2010
Programs: AA Plat 2MM/UA G MM/DL MM DM 2015/BA Silver/Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 3,103
Jul 29, 2014, 1:11 pm
#57
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2012
Programs: DL FO/KM, AA PLT
Posts: 2,594
Finished the drink in the club, walked down to the gate and boarded, took my seat in FC, and ordered another drink. 
Jul 29, 2014, 1:58 pm
#58
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego
Programs: IHG Spire Amb, HH Diamond, DL Diamond and 1MM
Posts: 3,610
Jul 29, 2014, 2:48 pm
#59
Join Date: Jan 2010
Programs: AA Plat 2MM/UA G MM/DL MM DM 2015/BA Silver/Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 3,103
OK - will need to practice - traveling tomorrow....I have to work on my timing of the gate lice and jetway congestion better - there's a sweet spot....Just before SKY is called on the trailing edge of FC. That or wait to the very end - but then there's that pesky overhead space issue.
Jul 29, 2014, 9:51 pm
#60
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: On the road somewhere
Programs: DL, National, Marriott, Hilton
Posts: 4,304
Would it change the scenario if we were told the passenger was a non-rev employee? They may have rules of conduct for their employees when they are flying on the company dime.
IIRC they formerly were required to wear business attire during non-rev travel. Perhaps the rules are simply "no alcohol" since individuals have differing opinions about what amount of booze is reasonable. Having a "zero tolerance" policy avoids the need to negotiate.
Since the traveler gave up so easily (according to OP), it made me think there's something non-sinister going on. Just my two cents...
IIRC they formerly were required to wear business attire during non-rev travel. Perhaps the rules are simply "no alcohol" since individuals have differing opinions about what amount of booze is reasonable. Having a "zero tolerance" policy avoids the need to negotiate.
Since the traveler gave up so easily (according to OP), it made me think there's something non-sinister going on. Just my two cents...