New DCA Security Initiative?
 

Pilot this morning (EWR-DCA) acted as if he was reading a security directive and stated that everyone must remain seated for one hour prior to landing at DCA--including strong language about diverting if anyone stood up. Is this just a rogue pilot or something new? I know the 30-minute rule has been gone for ages.

That is patently false. Please report this to CO Insider. I think one of the reasons pilots leave the seat belt sign on or make up non-existant rules is so that the FA's can do drink service more quickly.

An hour? Isn't that just about the entire scheduled flight time? Most of my DCA-NYC flights feature just about 15-20 minutes (at most) of seat-belt sign OFF-time.

Yes - which means that passengers must be seated the entire flight. There is no reason for such a rule other than the FA's not wanting to deal with passengers in the aisle.

That needs to be reported to CO, TSA, and the FAA. Please.

This was an express flight, and I must say the flight attendant was one of the best I've encountered in 25+ years of flying. The pilot, on the other hand...

I was on mainline CO service from DCA-EWR about a month ago, and the pilot read the same message over the PA. He didn't use strong language; in fact, he didn't sound overly convicted for or against the rule - he appeared to be just reading it.

I thought it must just be some pilot who missed the memo.

But now, reading this, I wonder if its more than just that one pilot, or if its more widespread. And if the 30-minute rule out of DCA didn't exist (which it does not, as far as all my research tells me), but you stood up anyway, wouldn't you be eligible for arrest & prosecution at EWR for disobeying a flight crew instruction?

And to take this a bit further, what if they told you over the PA that no one was allowed to use laptops, for example, out of DCA or the plane would divert? Can the crew just make up rules and then hold the pax to them, regardless of whether they are actual rules or not? (I'm certain that TSA would happily arrest anyone breaking the "rule" without asking any questions first. :td: You know, "national security"... "terrorist threat"... etc.

Interference with Flight Crew
 

well, technically the charge is "interfering with a flight crew" here is part of how we were instructed:

-----------
9-63.110 Interference with Flight Crew Members and Attendants

Section 46504 of Title 49, United States Code (formerly section 1472(j) of Title 49 Appendix) sets forth the offense of interference with a flight crew member or flight attendant within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, which is defined in 49 U.S.C. § 46501(2). The statute applies to any "individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties." The statute provides for up to 20 years imprisonment, and further provides for imprisonment for any term of years or life if a dangerous weapon is used. Interference with a flight crew member or attendant is a general intent crime, and does not require a specific intent either to intimidate the flight crew member or attendant or to interfere with t he performance of his or her duties. United States v. Grossman, 131 F.3d 1449 (11th Cir. 1997).

Venue is governed by the standard venue provisions, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3237 and 3238 and Rule 18, Fed.R.Crim.Proc. See also United States v. Hall, 691 F.2d 48 (1st Cir. 1982). "[T]he offense continues for at least as long as the crew are responding directly, and in derogation of their ordinary duties, to the defendant's behavior." United States v. Hall, 691 F.2d at 50. Prosecution is always proper in the district over which the aircraft was flying when the interference took place, if that can be determined. In many cases, particularly those in which either (1) the aircraft is diverted due to the defendant's actions, (2) the defendant's interfering actions continue, or (3) the crew remains concerned about defendant's possible further actions, venue is also proper in the district in which the aircraft lands. Since determining the district over which the aircraft was flying when the action took place may be difficult, and that district may have little or no connection to the matter, the Department advocates prosecution in the district where the aircraft lands and the defendant is deboarded and arrested in all appropriate cases.

The interference and other Title 49 aircraft offenses are supervised by the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section (TVCS), which can be reached at (202) 514-xxxx.
--------------

so, it doesnt matter if they make something up or not - if the crew gives you an instruction and they get nervous because you dont comply you are gonna have a lot of paperwork to fill out and be late for whatever appointment you had.

anyway, there might have been a recent security warning issued, or there might not have been a marshal aboard, or they may just be feeling that passengers are getting a little too rowdy of late and they want to get them back in line. One passenger can make a lot of other passengers very nervous which can result in the beating of otherwise non-threatening passenger. which causes lots of paperwork for the crew and bad pr for the airline.

or it just could have been