AA policy or FAA policy that no electronics can be plugged in during take off?
Dec 19, 2010, 9:23 pm
#31
Join Date: Dec 2005
Programs: AA EXP, Marriott Amb Elite & LT Titanium, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,230
The regulations require that all passenger carry-on items be stowed for taxi, takeoff, and landing. If you have a charger out then it, and probably the item that is being charged, is not stowed.
That is true. Some months ago the FAA issued guidance clarifying the carry-on rules which emphasized that passenger carry-on items are not considered stowed when placed in the seat-back pocket.
That is true. Some months ago the FAA issued guidance clarifying the carry-on rules which emphasized that passenger carry-on items are not considered stowed when placed in the seat-back pocket.
If this is the intent of the guidance, then it's misguided. Probably that last thing you want to have happen in an emergency situation is for all the papers and water bottles people are holding (the FA said we had to hold them) flying through the air. If they made us put them in our actual carry on item or in the oh bin, it would make sense.
Dec 19, 2010, 9:53 pm
#32
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: FLL
Programs: AA EXP 1MM, Hyatt Diamond, HH Diamond, Marriott Silver, Avis First
Posts: 419
According the Part 121, strictly speaking, no, unless the airline has determined that it will not interfere. If you're flying your own airplane, then its a totally different scenario.
Dec 20, 2010, 4:51 am
#33
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Programs: AS MVP Gold 75K, Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 1,598
Seems to me if this is the case then everything should be stowed overhead, electronics and all.
Dec 20, 2010, 5:18 am
#34
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 933
This topic comes up once every six weeks. Everyone beats the snot out of it. Here is the thing, if told to shut something off or stow something, DO IT!
You are not the boss, you don't know the rules. If you sit there and disagree with the FA or even the pilot, your flight, MY FLIGHT, will be late because they will have you thrown off of the plane!
Put it this way. You are a non smoker and don't want anyone smoking in your car because of the study's of second hand smoke indicate it may cause cancer. You give me a ride and I lite up a cig. You say put it out because of the second hand smoke issue. I say to you "I opened a window so the smoke shouldn't bother you" What part of "it's not your car" don't I understand!
Same thing here. The FAA or the airline said no electronic devices because it may cause interference with the aircrafts electronics. What part of "it's not your airplane or your rules" don't you understand!
You are not the boss, you don't know the rules. If you sit there and disagree with the FA or even the pilot, your flight, MY FLIGHT, will be late because they will have you thrown off of the plane!
Put it this way. You are a non smoker and don't want anyone smoking in your car because of the study's of second hand smoke indicate it may cause cancer. You give me a ride and I lite up a cig. You say put it out because of the second hand smoke issue. I say to you "I opened a window so the smoke shouldn't bother you" What part of "it's not your car" don't I understand!
Same thing here. The FAA or the airline said no electronic devices because it may cause interference with the aircrafts electronics. What part of "it's not your airplane or your rules" don't you understand!
Dec 20, 2010, 5:44 am
#35
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: BOS/UTH
Programs: AA LT PLT; QR GLD; Bonvoy LT TIT
Posts: 12,755
You make an interesting point that I never bothered to research until now. Note the italicized and bold section of the safety briefing (emphasis mine):
Every airline more or less reads the italicized portion verbatim, minus the smoking areas since it no longer applies, but they always leave off the part in bold. I'm sure that's intentional.
§ 121.571 Briefing passengers before takeoff.
(i) Smoking. Each passenger shall be briefed on when, where, and under what conditions smoking is prohibited including, but not limited to, any applicable requirements of part 252 of this title). This briefing shall include a statement that the Federal Aviation Regulations require passenger compliance with the lighted passenger information signs, posted placards, areas designated for safety purposes as no smoking areas, and crewmember instructions with regard to these items. The briefing shall also include a statement that Federal law prohibits tampering with, disabling, or destroying any smoke detector in an airplane lavatory; smoking in lavatories; and, when applicable, smoking in passenger compartments.
(i) Smoking. Each passenger shall be briefed on when, where, and under what conditions smoking is prohibited including, but not limited to, any applicable requirements of part 252 of this title). This briefing shall include a statement that the Federal Aviation Regulations require passenger compliance with the lighted passenger information signs, posted placards, areas designated for safety purposes as no smoking areas, and crewmember instructions with regard to these items. The briefing shall also include a statement that Federal law prohibits tampering with, disabling, or destroying any smoke detector in an airplane lavatory; smoking in lavatories; and, when applicable, smoking in passenger compartments.
Dec 20, 2010, 6:04 am
#36
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Shanghai
Programs: BAEC (Gold), PC (Plat), HH (Gold), MR (Gold)
Posts: 2,729
This topic comes up once every six weeks. Everyone beats the snot out of it. Here is the thing, if told to shut something off or stow something, DO IT!
You are not the boss, you don't know the rules. If you sit there and disagree with the FA or even the pilot, your flight, MY FLIGHT, will be late because they will have you thrown off of the plane!
Put it this way. You are a non smoker and don't want anyone smoking in your car because of the study's of second hand smoke indicate it may cause cancer. You give me a ride and I lite up a cig. You say put it out because of the second hand smoke issue. I say to you "I opened a window so the smoke shouldn't bother you" What part of "it's not your car" don't I understand!
Same thing here. The FAA or the airline said no electronic devices because it may cause interference with the aircrafts electronics. What part of "it's not your airplane or your rules" don't you understand!
You are not the boss, you don't know the rules. If you sit there and disagree with the FA or even the pilot, your flight, MY FLIGHT, will be late because they will have you thrown off of the plane!
Put it this way. You are a non smoker and don't want anyone smoking in your car because of the study's of second hand smoke indicate it may cause cancer. You give me a ride and I lite up a cig. You say put it out because of the second hand smoke issue. I say to you "I opened a window so the smoke shouldn't bother you" What part of "it's not your car" don't I understand!
Same thing here. The FAA or the airline said no electronic devices because it may cause interference with the aircrafts electronics. What part of "it's not your airplane or your rules" don't you understand!
Dec 20, 2010, 1:46 pm
#37
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: DTW
Programs: DL 0.22 MM, AA 0.34 MM, PC Plat Amb, Hertz #1 GC 5*
Posts: 7,511
Here's the actual law:
It gives a fair amount of leeway to the airline (part 119 certificate holder is the airline)
Good thing they exempted pacemakers. Otherwise, "Sir! I need you to turn that off...sir? sir?"
Feel free to charge your shaver during taxi, takeoff and landing though.
It gives a fair amount of leeway to the airline (part 119 certificate holder is the airline)
Good thing they exempted pacemakers. Otherwise, "Sir! I need you to turn that off...sir? sir?"
Feel free to charge your shaver during taxi, takeoff and landing though.
Yea, I know it's not going to fly, yet, c'mon... it's funny.
Dec 20, 2010, 2:01 pm
#38
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 3,049
You're kind of on the wrong forum for that particular approach.
We take great delight here in making sure we do know the rules, the wrinkles associated with the rules, the exceptions where they exist and preferably the color of ink the original rule was written in
What we don't take kindly to is the random invention of 'rules' that do not actually exist and citing FAA/TSA etc. to back up the invented rules when questioned about them.
Few of us here would push a point to the stage where a flight was delayed or anyone was at risk of being de-planed, but full knowledge of the rules does help us decide what to do about incidents before during and after the occurrence.
We take great delight here in making sure we do know the rules, the wrinkles associated with the rules, the exceptions where they exist and preferably the color of ink the original rule was written in
What we don't take kindly to is the random invention of 'rules' that do not actually exist and citing FAA/TSA etc. to back up the invented rules when questioned about them.
Few of us here would push a point to the stage where a flight was delayed or anyone was at risk of being de-planed, but full knowledge of the rules does help us decide what to do about incidents before during and after the occurrence.
Dec 20, 2010, 2:45 pm
#39
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Programs: My opinions are not those of AA or any affiliates of AMR Corp.
Posts: 2,096
Since all the pre-flight checks were posted.
On my AE flight last week, the FA actually told us that we could not have water bottles or newpapers in the seat back pockets. Not only did she say it, she went down the row and checked everyone and made them take out water bottles and newspapers.
I love the random rules that FA's come up with.
On my AE flight last week, the FA actually told us that we could not have water bottles or newpapers in the seat back pockets. Not only did she say it, she went down the row and checked everyone and made them take out water bottles and newspapers.
I love the random rules that FA's come up with.
Check out my Blog regarding seatback items. At some airlines, they have their own policies that aren't totally black/white to their FAs.
Prohibit the stowage of carry-on baggage and other items in the lavatories and seat back pockets (the only items allowed in seat back pockets should be magazines and passenger information cards)...
The intent of the carry-on baggage regulation, Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 121, § 121.58, is to prevent carry-on items from slowing an emergency evacuation and to prevent injury to passengers by ensuring items are properly restrained. Seat pockets have been designed to restrain approximately 3 pounds of weight and not the weight of additional carry-on items. Seat pockets are not listed in the regulation as an approved stowage location for carry-on baggage. If a seat pocket fails to restrain its contents, the contents of the seat pocket may impede emergency evacuation or may strike and injure a passenger.
If small, lightweight items, such as eyeglasses or a cell phone, can be placed in the seat pocket without exceeding the total designed weight limitation of the seat pocket or so that the seat pocket does not block anyone from evacuating the row of seats, it may be safe to do so.
The intent of the carry-on baggage regulation, Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 121, § 121.58, is to prevent carry-on items from slowing an emergency evacuation and to prevent injury to passengers by ensuring items are properly restrained. Seat pockets have been designed to restrain approximately 3 pounds of weight and not the weight of additional carry-on items. Seat pockets are not listed in the regulation as an approved stowage location for carry-on baggage. If a seat pocket fails to restrain its contents, the contents of the seat pocket may impede emergency evacuation or may strike and injure a passenger.
If small, lightweight items, such as eyeglasses or a cell phone, can be placed in the seat pocket without exceeding the total designed weight limitation of the seat pocket or so that the seat pocket does not block anyone from evacuating the row of seats, it may be safe to do so.
Dec 20, 2010, 3:08 pm
#40
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Programs: My opinions are not those of AA or any affiliates of AMR Corp.
Posts: 2,096
I'm still trying to find where the FARs state pax must comply with FA instruction to shut off all electronic devices. Many sections, including those pertaining to smoking and seat belts, have a specific clause stating a requirement to comply with crewmember instruction. But those clauses apply to only the requirements of that specific section. I have yet to find a general clause to comply with crewmembers and there is not a section in 121.306 that requires compliance with crewmebers when instructed to comply with 121.306. So this makes me wonder if the FARs provide crewmembers with the "teeth" to enforce this section. So this could put the compliance burden on the airline and not the offending pax. So the best the pilot could do would be to refuse to perform the flight or remove the pax. (See Josh Duhamel)
Anyone out there with more FAR experience who could provide more insight?
Anyone out there with more FAR experience who could provide more insight?
FAs must ensure the aircraft is ready for taxi-out, take-off, landing, and that all pax are following the FARs which were mentioned earlier. When a pax fails to turn off a device, or restow carry-on baggage when informed to do so, then they are interfering with a FAs duties. When a pax fails to comply with the instructions, a pax can been issued a fine for failing to comply with crewmember instructions.
as FXEpilot77 points out,
Interference With Flight Crew Members or Flight Attendants—49 U.S.C. 46504
One who assaults, threatens, or intimidates a flight crew member or attendant while aboard an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, and thereby interferes with the performance of that crew member's duties or lessens the ability of that crew member to perform his/her duties is punishable under this subsection.
One who assaults, threatens, or intimidates a flight crew member or attendant while aboard an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, and thereby interferes with the performance of that crew member's duties or lessens the ability of that crew member to perform his/her duties is punishable under this subsection.
Fortunately, there was an FAA inspector onboard who was seated in C, witnessing the ordeal. When the pax failed to comply with the crewmember instructions by the 4th request, the FAA inspector intervened and gave the couple a ticket for "Failing to comply with Crewmember instructions, and Interfering with a Crewmembers duties.
I often wish there were more FAA inspectors onboard that would give tickets to those who fail to comply, or blow off the FAs, but then we wouldn't have enough seats for regular paying pax who do comply
Dec 20, 2010, 3:21 pm
#41
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: LAX
Posts: 6,769
Fortunately, there was an FAA inspector onboard who was seated in C, witnessing the ordeal. When the pax failed to comply with the crewmember instructions by the 4th request, the FAA inspector intervened and gave the couple a ticket for "Failing to comply with Crewmember instructions, and Interfering with a Crewmembers duties.
I often wish there were more FAA inspectors onboard that would give tickets to those who fail to comply, or blow off the FAs, but then we wouldn't have enough seats for regular paying pax who do comply
I often wish there were more FAA inspectors onboard that would give tickets to those who fail to comply, or blow off the FAs, but then we wouldn't have enough seats for regular paying pax who do comply
Dec 20, 2010, 3:25 pm
#42
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 3,049
It is an imperfect world so I guess we will all have to continue to deal with each other and our imperfections for some time to come.
Seriously though, yes, I'd agree there are some customers with whom no amount of care and courtesy will yield a good response, but equally there are some staff on board that seem to exhibit close to zero people-handling skills and seem to tempt the wrong response with every interaction.
Thankfully not too many in either category on most flights.
Dec 20, 2010, 3:32 pm
#43
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 933
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL! I would like to thank everyone for not flaming me.
I know this forum is for asking question. Passengers just want to know what the correct rules and regulations are. People do ask questions but sometimes the one's answering have no mercy when they reply.
Yes, FA's do misrepresent the rules at times. Maybe they are over zealous, maybe lazy, who knows why. The thing is they are still the boss. If a passenger does not comply, no matter how silly the rule is, that passenger could get thrown off of the plane.
If that passenger is that disruptive to be thrown off, am I wrong to say there would be a gate hold or if the plane had been heading out to the runway, that the plane would head back to the gate? If so, that flight is delayed. If delayed, all of us could miss our connections. Is that fair to all of the passengers on that flight to miss thier connections, meetings, etc for a single passenger who decides to argue with the FA? Another thought. If a passenger gets tossed off a flight, could the remaining passenger sue that tossed passenger for damages, expenses, etc?
I know this forum is for asking question. Passengers just want to know what the correct rules and regulations are. People do ask questions but sometimes the one's answering have no mercy when they reply.
Yes, FA's do misrepresent the rules at times. Maybe they are over zealous, maybe lazy, who knows why. The thing is they are still the boss. If a passenger does not comply, no matter how silly the rule is, that passenger could get thrown off of the plane.
If that passenger is that disruptive to be thrown off, am I wrong to say there would be a gate hold or if the plane had been heading out to the runway, that the plane would head back to the gate? If so, that flight is delayed. If delayed, all of us could miss our connections. Is that fair to all of the passengers on that flight to miss thier connections, meetings, etc for a single passenger who decides to argue with the FA? Another thought. If a passenger gets tossed off a flight, could the remaining passenger sue that tossed passenger for damages, expenses, etc?
Dec 20, 2010, 7:21 pm
#44
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Programs: AS MVP Gold 75K, Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 1,598
The FAA has about 4,500 Aviation Safety Inspectors (ASIs) responsible for the safety of air operators, airmen and air agencies (schools and repair stations). Needless to say, they can't be on every flight. I didn't include designees in this count, they can't issue violations.
Dec 20, 2010, 8:02 pm
#45
Join Date: Dec 2005
Programs: AA EXP, Marriott Amb Elite & LT Titanium, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,230
Last year, this was actually addressed in depth.
Check out my Blog regarding seatback items. At some airlines, they have their own policies that aren't totally black/white to their FAs.
Check out my Blog regarding seatback items. At some airlines, they have their own policies that aren't totally black/white to their FAs.
"If small, lightweight items, such as eyeglasses or a cell phone, can be placed in the seat pocket without exceeding the total designed weight limitation of the seat pocket or so that the seat pocket does not block anyone from evacuating the row of seats, it may be safe to do so."
First I'd say somebody needs to define what 'carry on baggage' is. I would think a newspaper is not 'carry on baggage'. So saying you can't put carry on baggage in the seat back would not really address this.
Referring to weight limitations and blocking the row would be more accurate to to the issue.
So it comes back to my experience, which was being told I had to hold my newspaper during take off and landing.
Either way, like others here, I just want to know what the rule is and see it applied consistently. We've all heard the no laptop in the seat pocket announcement 100's of times, but unless the guidance for the FA's changed between Sunday (when I left) and Thursday (when I returned), I'd say the FA on the AE flight was getting a little carried away.