Martin Hotze wrote in
:

John Theune wrote:

It came up in another forum that O'Douls ( a non-alcoholic beer ) is
not truly non-alcoholic, but rather it's less then .5%. A reference
to a
http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/publica...ne/lowalc.html
tells more and points out that these types of beverages are not
considered alcoholic beverages. The FAR in question is


§ 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; (2) While under the influence of alcohol;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


which uses the term alcoholic beverage to describe the prohibited
item rather then consumption of alcohol as the item to be prohibited.

yes, under (1).
but what do _you_ read under (2)?


So the
$64,000 is, is the consumption of 1 O'Douls a violation of 91.17 (a)
(1). While it may be considered splitting hairs, the FARs are quite
adept at that and so are the FAA lawyers.


"While under the influence of alcohol"
"While under the influence of alcohol"
"While under the influence of alcohol"
"While under the influenc!"§$%&/%&/%§$""§!LOSTCARRIER

#m

Martin;
The question was is the consumption of 1 O'Douls a violation. I think
that it's safe to say that if OJ can have the same amount of alcohol as a
O'Douls, then your not "under the influence" if you drink one.

John