CAR 602.04 Section 3
Guest
Posts: n/a
CAR 602.04 Section 3
(3) No operator of an aircraft shall provide or serve any intoxicating(*) liquor to a person on board the aircraft, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person's faculties are impaired by alcohol or a drug to an extent that may present a hazard to the aircraft or to persons on board the aircraft.
(*)"intoxicating liquor" means a beverage that contains more than 2.5 per cent proof spirits
So, if we know that he will not behave, we will not serve alcohol... Does this show on their boarding pass?
I am not sure how to put it, but this CAR dosen't make sense to me!
You guys see what I mean?
Ah well
(*)"intoxicating liquor" means a beverage that contains more than 2.5 per cent proof spirits
So, if we know that he will not behave, we will not serve alcohol... Does this show on their boarding pass?
I am not sure how to put it, but this CAR dosen't make sense to me!
You guys see what I mean?
Ah well
Guest
Posts: n/a
I do see what you mean, but I'm convinced they're not meant to make sense - it's so you can be got at the subsequent board of inquiry - that is, some civil servant who is responsible for that aspect of aviation doesn't have his pension snatched because you broke the law.
It's the same reasoning behind the banning of night flying in single-engined helicopters with passengers in UK - you can still fly with pilot only, so it's obvious that the absence of passengers doesn't make the process any safer - it just covers someone's backside.
However, that particular phrase says "operator", the definition of which does not include the word "pilot", so, unless you are also the owner or person leasing it you should be safe from hassle if you get a drunk on board.
But what are "reasonable grounds" anyway?
What prompted your query, BTW - were you just reading CARs one day in the bath (as one does) and come across it, or did you get an incident?
cheers
Phil
It's the same reasoning behind the banning of night flying in single-engined helicopters with passengers in UK - you can still fly with pilot only, so it's obvious that the absence of passengers doesn't make the process any safer - it just covers someone's backside.
However, that particular phrase says "operator", the definition of which does not include the word "pilot", so, unless you are also the owner or person leasing it you should be safe from hassle if you get a drunk on board.
But what are "reasonable grounds" anyway?
What prompted your query, BTW - were you just reading CARs one day in the bath (as one does) and come across it, or did you get an incident?
cheers
Phil
Guest
Posts: n/a
Microbus:
I think you would have to be a lawyer to figure out the reasoning behind it, but to put it simply, CARs are written to comply with the Law of the Land (in this case The Criminal Code of Canada).
It has to do with the liability issues of allowing an individual to become so intoxicated that they do damage to themselves or other PAX or the Aircraft.
I think we've seen enough Lawsuits against people who have allowed someone to go driving after they got tanked at a party!
I think it's there to give the operator an out of an otherwise ugly situation.
Cheers, OffshoreIgor
I think you would have to be a lawyer to figure out the reasoning behind it, but to put it simply, CARs are written to comply with the Law of the Land (in this case The Criminal Code of Canada).
It has to do with the liability issues of allowing an individual to become so intoxicated that they do damage to themselves or other PAX or the Aircraft.
I think we've seen enough Lawsuits against people who have allowed someone to go driving after they got tanked at a party!
I think it's there to give the operator an out of an otherwise ugly situation.
Cheers, OffshoreIgor
Guest
Posts: n/a
Microbus,
It's the F/A who is sevrving the drinks that has to make that decision. She does it by looking at the Pax bording the plan, how the walk, talk and behave in general. A person that had to much to drink tends to act difrently from an other. For some reason when they walk on an aircraft they check not only there bags at the counter but they check there brains as well. So if you had a little alcool on top of that you got your self a real boso. Of course the F/As does have to pay attention....
It's the F/A who is sevrving the drinks that has to make that decision. She does it by looking at the Pax bording the plan, how the walk, talk and behave in general. A person that had to much to drink tends to act difrently from an other. For some reason when they walk on an aircraft they check not only there bags at the counter but they check there brains as well. So if you had a little alcool on top of that you got your self a real boso. Of course the F/As does have to pay attention....
Guest
Posts: n/a
I read this as not to serve them liquor if their faculties are ALREADY impaired by alcohol. i.e. don't give more booze to someone who is already drunk.
I don't believe the interpretation is meant to be not to serve alcohol to someone whose faculties might become impaired after drinking the alcohol.
I don't believe the interpretation is meant to be not to serve alcohol to someone whose faculties might become impaired after drinking the alcohol.
