Prosthetic leg and exit row?
Sep 30, 2013, 5:30 am
#16
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 270
Sec. 25.803 - Emergency evacuation
(c) For airplanes having a seating capacity of more than 44 passengers, it must be shown that the maximum seating capacity, including the number of crewmembers required by the operating rules for which certification is requested, can be evacuated from the airplane to the ground under simulated emergency conditions within 90 seconds. Compliance with this requirement must be shown by actual demonstration using the test criteria outlined in Appendix J of this part unless the Administrator finds that a combination of analysis and testing will provide data equivalent to that which would be obtained by actual demonstration.
....
Sec. J25.1 - Emergency Evacuation
The following test criteria and procedures must be used for showing compliance with Sec. 25.803:
(p) Exits used in the demonstration must consist of one exit from each exit pair. The demonstration may be conducted with the escape slides, if provided, inflated and the exits open at the beginning of the demonstration. In this case, all exits must be configured such that the active exits are not disclosed to the occupants. If this method is used, the exit preparation time for each exit utilized must be accounted for, and exits that are not to be used in the demonstration must not be indicated before the demonstration has started. The exits to be used must be representative of all of the emergency exits on the airplane and must be designated by the applicant, subject to approval by the Administrator. At least one floor level exit must be used.
(c) For airplanes having a seating capacity of more than 44 passengers, it must be shown that the maximum seating capacity, including the number of crewmembers required by the operating rules for which certification is requested, can be evacuated from the airplane to the ground under simulated emergency conditions within 90 seconds. Compliance with this requirement must be shown by actual demonstration using the test criteria outlined in Appendix J of this part unless the Administrator finds that a combination of analysis and testing will provide data equivalent to that which would be obtained by actual demonstration.
....
Sec. J25.1 - Emergency Evacuation
The following test criteria and procedures must be used for showing compliance with Sec. 25.803:
(p) Exits used in the demonstration must consist of one exit from each exit pair. The demonstration may be conducted with the escape slides, if provided, inflated and the exits open at the beginning of the demonstration. In this case, all exits must be configured such that the active exits are not disclosed to the occupants. If this method is used, the exit preparation time for each exit utilized must be accounted for, and exits that are not to be used in the demonstration must not be indicated before the demonstration has started. The exits to be used must be representative of all of the emergency exits on the airplane and must be designated by the applicant, subject to approval by the Administrator. At least one floor level exit must be used.
Sep 30, 2013, 4:09 pm
#17
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: ORD
Programs: UA Platinum, Starwood Platinum
Posts: 89
Post-trip update - we decided not to chance it on the exit row and just stuck with E+. As others have noted, opinions seem to go both ways, and while I would agree with those who say he is likely more competant than others who DO sit in the exit row, it doesn't seem like its a debate worth getting into with a flight attendant while on a plane... I do find it slightly off though that it would likely really come down to what he's wearing and whether his prosthesis is visible or not!
Oct 1, 2013, 8:43 pm
#18
Moderator: American AAdvantage
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
No apologies necessary, but I think you miss the mark - its about functionality, not the type of leg one has. 14 CFR Part 121.585 - Exit seating quoted above is all about functionality and abilities, not about conditions. After all, if soldiers (speaking broadly, as it includes rotary and fixed wing pilots, etc.) can be fully qualified to fly, why not merely to operate an emergency exit?
Once not that long ago, it was lawful to discriminate against FAs in the USA (weight, marital status, age, etc.) - now it's whether they (you) can pass the necessary tests and do your job, whether it is evacuating an aircraft or etc.
A seat belt extender is an indication the individual may have difficulties fulfilling his/her functional requirements and even egress easily; I can understand that. But a prosthesis? Really? If your airline sanctions that, they are likely to find themselves paying a significant fine one of these days, IMO.
(I can see it now: "Sorry, Major Simoleon, you have been found fit for active duty in the US Army and to fly a helicopter and participate in maneuvers (Or Capt. Smith, who flies 747s for an airline when not flying USAF Reserve), but I just don't feel you can cut the mustard on my airplane."
Nah, it just won't wash.)
If your BF can functionally act in such ways as might be required to participate in an evacuation, he should be allowed to sit in the exit row. If you are concerned, contact the airline in question and get clarification - but there is no FAR I am aware of that would prevent him from sitting in an exit row. The printed information from the airline will certainly deter an overeager and ignorant FA (of which, thankfully, there aren't too many on US and Canada airlines).
(I've had a colleague I fly with told to leave the exit row by Southwest FAs because she boards early - making the assumption she asked for early boarding due to a disability. The fact is she is required to pre-board because she is carrying a firearm, which she has cleared with the airline in advance, as an employee of the Department of Justice. But it seems that argument occurs with some regularity, and she always wins.)
Once not that long ago, it was lawful to discriminate against FAs in the USA (weight, marital status, age, etc.) - now it's whether they (you) can pass the necessary tests and do your job, whether it is evacuating an aircraft or etc.
A seat belt extender is an indication the individual may have difficulties fulfilling his/her functional requirements and even egress easily; I can understand that. But a prosthesis? Really? If your airline sanctions that, they are likely to find themselves paying a significant fine one of these days, IMO.
(I can see it now: "Sorry, Major Simoleon, you have been found fit for active duty in the US Army and to fly a helicopter and participate in maneuvers (Or Capt. Smith, who flies 747s for an airline when not flying USAF Reserve), but I just don't feel you can cut the mustard on my airplane."
Nah, it just won't wash.)If your BF can functionally act in such ways as might be required to participate in an evacuation, he should be allowed to sit in the exit row. If you are concerned, contact the airline in question and get clarification - but there is no FAR I am aware of that would prevent him from sitting in an exit row. The printed information from the airline will certainly deter an overeager and ignorant FA (of which, thankfully, there aren't too many on US and Canada airlines).
(I've had a colleague I fly with told to leave the exit row by Southwest FAs because she boards early - making the assumption she asked for early boarding due to a disability. The fact is she is required to pre-board because she is carrying a firearm, which she has cleared with the airline in advance, as an employee of the Department of Justice. But it seems that argument occurs with some regularity, and she always wins.)
Sorry, but as a flight attendant (16 years) I would never allow your boyfriend to sit there. Even if he could very well open the door and help in an evac, other people on board (possibly including FAA inspectors) might not feel as confident. I also don't allow those who need a seatbelt extender or who don't absolutely convince me that they can actually FIT through the exit door. I am very fussy about my exit rows and I don't apologize for it one bit.
Last edited by JDiver; Oct 1, 2013 at 8:51 pm
Oct 28, 2013, 1:34 pm
#19
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Florida
Programs: Delta frequent flyer Gold Medallion Status
Posts: 876
I am not sure why one would risk the danger of a disagreement with a flight attendant merely to sit in a exit row. I realize there is a bit of extra leg room, but is the comfort factor so large as to justify an argument. Unless someone is looking for a reason to sue an aircraft, I would feel just as comfortable in an E+ seat.
I do agree that those of us with disabilities need to continue to educate the public about the things we can do and those we cannot do, but I pick my battles, and I do not think I would pick this one.
I do agree that those of us with disabilities need to continue to educate the public about the things we can do and those we cannot do, but I pick my battles, and I do not think I would pick this one.
Oct 30, 2013, 7:57 pm
#20
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ADL
Programs: QFF, HH
Posts: 83
As an AK amp I often sit in the exit row (although I do usually wear long pants) - my arm strength is stronger than most for my age due to home use of crutches/wheelchair and unless I am on them, I am quite capable of walking as quickly as most people ... the reason I choose the extra leg room is that having your prosthesis squashed between skinny rows with sometimes less than average sized people can quickly ruin the entire trip I am taking, as the swelling from restricted movement on a flight can cause quite a lot of damage, so yes in some cases it is worth risking an argument over my abilities (not, I admit, that I've ever really had one - most FA's accept I can do the job when asked)
Jul 14, 2018, 1:28 am
#21
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1
As a gate agent...
...I must not only comply with FAA regulations, but also Part 382 of DOT Regulations (Air Carrier Access Act).
Besides the usual spiel that accompanies the exit rows, we also have to respect those with disabilities, within reason.
In short, if someone disclosed their disability, I apply more scrutiny. Otherwise, I treat them the same as everyone else.
But, if there happens to be open seats in first class, I don’t mind upgrading them and their companion, as an empty exit row seat is of no consequence to me, and the passenger will likely accept it over the exit row.
Problem solved.
Each airline has their own rules and everyone is a lawyer when problems arise. The path of least resistance is always the best, in my opinion.
Besides the usual spiel that accompanies the exit rows, we also have to respect those with disabilities, within reason.
In short, if someone disclosed their disability, I apply more scrutiny. Otherwise, I treat them the same as everyone else.
But, if there happens to be open seats in first class, I don’t mind upgrading them and their companion, as an empty exit row seat is of no consequence to me, and the passenger will likely accept it over the exit row.
Problem solved.
Each airline has their own rules and everyone is a lawyer when problems arise. The path of least resistance is always the best, in my opinion.