Wine tasting: Is it considered drinking if you don't swallow?

C

Cavorter

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
160
Display Name
Display name:
Robert
I flew with some friends to a couple of vineyards and stood by while they all sampled. I then got to thinking: What if I just tasted but then spat out and made sure I didn't drink? Strictly speaking doesn't the 8 hour bottle to throttle rule apply to alcohol actually ingested? I mean how can you be drinking if you don't swallow?

:confused:
 
Depends on whether it is red wine, white wine, or a plaid.

Whatever you do, don't inhale.
 
Cavorter said:
I flew with some friends to a couple of vineyards and stood by while they all sampled. I then got to thinking: What if I just tasted but then spat out and made sure I didn't drink? Strictly speaking doesn't the 8 hour bottle to throttle rule apply to alcohol actually ingested? I mean how can you be drinking if you don't swallow?

:confused:
Click to expand...

Putting this in the "really dude?" file, but I will answer anyway

the rule deals with CONSUMPTION of alcohol

http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/alcohol.pdf

which is basically the same thing as drinking it

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drinking

So if you did not swallow it, it could be argued you did not consume it.
 
I am sure a small amount would be absorbed via your mouth. No idea how to quantify that "small" though.
 
B350ATP said:
So if you did not swallow it, it could be argued you did not consume it.
Click to expand...
You could argue that, but I wouldn't want to have to do that before the FAA. And I wouldn't be surprised if swishing several glasses around in your mouth and then spitting them out wouldn't still produce a measurable blood alcohol level by absorption and a bit of leakage down the throat.

I'd put this in a class with a pilot drinking non-alcoholic beer before flight -- technically legal, but you won't see anyone in an American Airlines uniform sitting at the deli on the A-concourse at the big airport drinking an O'Doul's with their pastrami sandwich.
 
Ron Levy said:
You could argue that, but I wouldn't want to have to do that before the FAA. And I wouldn't be surprised if swishing several glasses around in your mouth and then spitting them out wouldn't still produce a measurable blood alcohol level by absorption and a bit of leakage down the throat.

I'd put this in a class with a pilot drinking non-alcoholic beer before flight -- technically legal, but you won't see anyone in an American Airlines uniform sitting there drinking an O'Doul's with their pastrami sandwich at the deli on the A-concourse at the big airport.
Click to expand...

Your points are fully correct. We have different points of view on the other thread. Here you are fully correct. Take care
 
I wouldn't do it. I'm in the third year of the AWS Wine Judge Certification Program, I hold four or five other wine certifications, have judged in a couple of competitions, made commercial wine, and ben to massive tasiting sessions with hundreds of wines.

Yeah, I spit.

No I would not consider it "not to have drank." Even spitting you'll absorb a bit of alcohol. And god help the time they had me judging the spirits category. Even spitting you're getting toasted. Good thing it was the last one of the day.
 
There's a bill pending in the California legislature. It would allow UC Davis students under 21 who are taking winemaking or beer brewing classes to sip, taste and spit out samples of beer and wine while in class.
 
I think this would be ok. You are not consuming it, and it's virtually impossible that you would exceed the .04 percent limit stipulated in the FAR just through absorption (assuming just a few tastings). Obviously if after tasting you FEEL any effects, then better lay off the throttle for awhile.
 
"This year, three researchers in the Netherlands published a paper in the journal Wine Studies, comparing the blood-alcohol levels of wine tasters who spit versus those who don't. Volunteers tasted 10 wines in an hour. In the first session, they spat out the wine, then rinsed their mouth with water. Two weeks later, the same volunteers (to avoid bias from body types) drank a 15-ml taste of each wine.

The researchers – from the Meander Medical Centre, a Dutch clinical hospital – chose five white wines and five reds, all between 11.5 percent and 13.5 percent alcohol.

All told, the 10 samples equaled about one glass of wine, consumed slowly over an hour. Yet five of the volunteers who swallowed had blood-alcohol levels in excess of the Netherlands' legal limit of 0.5. In contrast, the volunteers who spat averaged 0.025, indicating that spitting prevented them from absorbing about 95 percent of the alcohol in wine."​
http://m.wine-searcher.com/magazine-article.lml?Xpage_url=2012%2F12%2Fmasters-of-wine-spitting
 
Why the hell would you spit out perfectly good wine.
 
Well, one might claim that a lot of the submissions at least in the amateur categories are perfectly good wine like airplanes are like jump planes are perfectly good airplanes. I've also had to taste through 100 REALLY good wines. Yeah you might savor a couple, but you spit a lot.

But getting back to the FAA, I wouldn't risk it. Maybe you can get away with spitting four or five tastes from a winery visit, but I can tell you I feel buzzed enough not to risk it at a lager tasting.

Being below .04 won't help you, it's juat a provision they put in to presume you busted the 8 hour limit (or you got so smashed 8 hours ago that you're still got a non-trivial amount in your system).
 
Sac Arrow said:
Why the hell would you spit out perfectly good wine.
Click to expand...
There was a wonderful episode of "Rumpole of the Bailey" based around just that question -- see "Rumpole and the Blind Tasting", which you may be able to find for viewing on line. You can also read it in the collection "Rumpole's Last Case".
 
I'm glad to see the California legislature has as little to do as the ones in the other 56 states! :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Old Geek said:
There's a bill pending in the California legislature. It would allow UC Davis students under 21 who are taking winemaking or beer brewing classes to sip, taste and spit out samples of beer and wine while in class.
Click to expand...
 
flyingron said:
Being below .04 won't help you, it's juat a provision they put in to presume you busted the 8 hour limit (or you got so smashed 8 hours ago that you're still got a non-trivial amount in your system).
Click to expand...
FWIW, the FAA Regional Flight Surgeon and I did some research (purely academic, mind you) regarding the 0.04% limit and "non-alcoholic" beer (which is actually about 0.4% ABV, but is legally not an "alcoholic beverage" because that is defined by an ABV of 0.05% or more) and thus not covered by the 91.15(a)(1) prohibition on consumption of alcoholic beverages within 8 hours before flight. Our calculations suggested that a 200-lb man would have to consume about a case of non-alcoholic beer in about one hour in order to reach the 0.04% BAC level which would violate 91.15(a)(4). We decided that there would be other limiting factors which would come into play in such an attempt which would make it a practical impossibility, and that it was unlikely anyone could actually drink enough fast enough to reach that level without metabolizing it back down below 0.04%.

Yeah, we were both bored that day.
 
I can tell you that I attend regular trade tastings where it's not uncommon to have 36 wines out. Even spitting I can tell you that you get enough in you either by absorbtion or just what little residue you can't help but swallow to start to get buzzed.

I'm not risking my certificate on the FAA buying the "I didn't inhale" argument. Frankly, I don't even drive to such events usually (well at least not without recovery time).
 
I just walked by a bar and saw alcohol. I felt my BAC increase.

Guess no flying for me today.
 
Jim Logajan said:
"All told, the 10 samples equaled about one glass of wine, consumed slowly over an hour. Yet five of the volunteers who swallowed had blood-alcohol levels in excess of the Netherlands' legal limit of 0.5. In contrast, the volunteers who spat averaged 0.025, indicating that spitting prevented them from absorbing about 95 percent of the alcohol in wine."
Click to expand...

Two things seem odd about this passage. First, it does not say which group had a higher average blood-alcohol level (even with five of the swallowers above 0.5, the average among all the swallowers could be less than 0.25); similarly, it does not say how many spitters, if any, were likewise over 0.5.

Second, it is surprising that an adult would measure above 0.5 after consuming just one drink (150 ml of wine) over an hour. So I'm a bit skeptical that the measurements were accurate.
 
Depends on how much the weigh. My wife was playing with this little drinks->bac calculator and found that I can drink substantially more than she can. Your 90 lb little woman will be at .05 with one drink. It only puts me at .02.
 
I always wondered... is there a good story behind the 8 hour bottle to throttle and .04 rules both existing?

Every time I think of that, my first thought is how drunk was the guy who hadn't had anything in 8 hours but was still over .04?
 
Yeah, soft, plush seats, air conditioning, perfect to drive me to the bar for a few beers.
 
cowman said:
I always wondered... is there a good story behind the 8 hour bottle to throttle and .04 rules both existing?

Every time I think of that, my first thought is how drunk was the guy who hadn't had anything in 8 hours but was still over .04?
Click to expand...

I think you'd be surprised how long it takes to drop below .04. I check a couple calculators online (so no, hardly scientific but probably in the ballpark) and for my weight, a bottle of wine will put me around .13. Certainly doable in an evening, and you'd clearly be drunk but not absurdly so. It will take 4 hours to fall under .08, but nearly 7 hours to hit .04.

On the other hand, who would even remotely feel capable of flying a plane just a few hours after pounding a bottle of wine? Not me...
 
But isn't the OP screwed either way? If he doesn't taste then where's the common purpose?

:rolleyes:
 
B350ATP said:
So if you did not swallow it, it could be argued you did not consume it.
Click to expand...


Yes this is the way I see it. The 8 hour rule really only speaks to what is swallowed. I don't know if there is any evidence that you will absorb alcohol through your tongue... Those tests where people spat and did not swallow but still showed some alcohol well I would be suspicious of whether they really spat or fully spat? I would full on and completely spit. Vigorously spit.
 
You could ingest about as much alcohol from a desert at a nice restaurant as you could from tasting and spitting.
 
flyingron said:
I wouldn't do it. I'm in the third year of the AWS Wine Judge Certification Program, I hold four or five other wine certifications, have judged in a couple of competitions, made commercial wine, and ben to massive tasiting sessions with hundreds of wines.

Yeah, I spit.

No I would not consider it "not to have drank." Even spitting you'll absorb a bit of alcohol. And god help the time they had me judging the spirits category. Even spitting you're getting toasted. Good thing it was the last one of the day.
Click to expand...

If you are judging quality wines and spirits, that must be some expensive spit! I don't put a lot of wine in my mouth, but I do swallow whatever gets past my lips.
 
flytime said:
You could ingest about as much alcohol from a desert at a nice restaurant as you could from tasting and spitting.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of Alton Brown's episode "Fermentation Nation" about cooking with beer and wine (in the food, not in the cook) and gets around to checking the claim that cooking burns off most of the alcohol:

http://www.ulive.com/video/fermentation-nation
 
cowman said:
I always wondered... is there a good story behind the 8 hour bottle to throttle and .04 rules both existing?

Every time I think of that, my first thought is how drunk was the guy who hadn't had anything in 8 hours but was still over .04?
Click to expand...

The 8 hours from bottle to throttle has existed for 30+ years. The .04 BAC is a more recent addition.

Mostly it gives a number to hang someone on. .02 is low enough that some natural fermentation from those even to drinking could trigger. .04 is a sure sign you've had something. The FAA when they come to enforce doesn't need to argue how long ago your drink was...you're at .04, you're screwed.
 
It seems everyone is trying to look at this logically (to the letter of the law, what constitutes consumption, etc.). In my view, the only way to look at this is FAAically (which we all know defies many things resembling logic).

At the end of the day, if you tasted without swallowing some amount of alcohol and circumstances come such that the FAA is investigating your fine day... will you feel comfortable knowing you've got moral superiority when the FAA suspends or revokes your certificate? Or are you so certain it could never come to that, that you feel it's a risk worth taking?

My opinion is that regardless of when I consumed alcohol or how much, at any given point of time I'm either fit to fly or I'm not. The FAA needs a way to measure that though, and I certainly don't trust them to say "oh, well he only tasted he didn't swallow, so it's ok". Not when it seems the US government as a whole goes out of its way to reduce general aviation.
 
flytime said:
You could ingest about as much alcohol from a desert at a nice restaurant as you could from tasting and spitting.
Click to expand...

It has to be a pretty potent desert then and you ought not to be flying then either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top