Do you ever regulate other passengers?
 

Just out of curiousity, in the past several months I've had people sitting close to me who:
- turned on their cell phone while cruising at 38,000 ft and started texting one of their friends
- (on final approach) FA told them to put seat back upright, guy moved it until she walked back up front, then put it back down for landing

In these cases, would you intervene and ask/inform the person what they're doing is unsafe/illegal?

I'm of mixed opinion - on one hand, how somebody else acts on a plane is none of my business, but if it starts to put MY safety at risk (however so slightly) I think I have the right to speak up.

Thoughts?

I think we have all been in that situation. Ideally these transgressions would be observed and compliance gained by a member of the cabin crew; however, that often does not happen. It is an awkward situation. A fully reclined seat or a cell phone conversation during takeoff or landing stands out to me like a sore thumb. Some FA's don't seem to want to get involved in policing these things. Others are vigilant. It is sad when the cabin crew's responsibilities are left to the passengers.

It would depend on how aggressive the transgressor was and how much a threat they were posing.

I was at the bar near one of the DL gates at DCA and a kid came in (17-ish) and tried to order an alcoholic beverage. The bartender carded him and the kid was like. "uh, it's in my bag, I'll be right back..." well, he never came back but when I boarded my flight to ATL, he sat across from me with his Mom...we were in the first row bulkhead and he jammed his duffel under his seat and the older lady behind him complained that he needed to put his bag in an overhead because his duffel was blocking her footroom. He ignored her, so I intervened and told him to move his crap to the overhead. He mouthed off to me with that slightly-slurred inebriated voice and I figured he musta found some underage booze elswhere before boarding! I asked him if it was his first time on an airplane (ha ha), and he got all upset and stated he was not moving his duffel. So, I just got up and told the FA what was going on. The boy and his Mom ended up grabbing their crap and moving to the back of the plane in a huff since the overheads were full by that time...I was slightly inebriated myself but was still the hero of the front cabin that day...

Never done it.

I would only do it if the person were engaging in what I considered to be a real saftey/security problem, and would go through the FA, if at all possible.

When I saw this thread title, I had a vivid picture of handing out Metamucil to my fellow passengers.

Notify a flight attendant at once... let them do their job. If you intervene, they may turn out to be a wacko, and assault you.

Gotta stay regular! On a recent LH flight, my Serbian seatmate attempted to regulate my taking photos out the window. It was annoying, but he shut up once I started rolling out all the airline/TSA jargon I've learned on these boards.

Nope, but I do usually break the rules myself. Usually have my iPod on for landing. Makes things more dramatic (I actually enjoy flying, despite all the bs) and I'll eat my hat before I believe that it could in anyway interfere with the instrumentation. Key is to use earbud headphones, run cable through shirt, and have long hair. Wouldn't use my cell though. There actually is a (very) small chance of that causing some problems.

If a passenger leans his seat back into me before the captain switches off the 'seatbelt sign' then I most certainly ask them to stay in an upright position until this has been done.

Otherwise, I always insist (as gently as a I can) that the window blind is kept open for landings. Unfortunately, I'm not always backed up on this one - the FAs don't always announce this requirment through the tannoy :( . But I have an overactive imagination and the repercussions of not allowing potential rescuers a glimpse into the fuselage is pretty ugly.

And coolw12 - there are some extremely crucial moments at take off and landing. It is actually possible that your ipod could have an effect (think of a TV and the way certain things can affect the signal - ever had it 'sparkle' for a second when turning a light switch on or off? It's a similar thing). Ordinarily, a teeny glitch won't matter - but when you're just 20 metres from the ground it might possibly interfere with and impede that final crucial adjustment.... Why take the risk? I know this scenario must seem highly unlikely to you. I agree it is. Alas, it isn't actually impossible.

If you were sitting next to me, I'd certainly ask you to desist from using your player.

I am aware that there are crucial moments at take-off and landing when a tiny thing can cause major problems (I read "Ask The Pilot" every week on Salon), but the odds the amount of EM radiation put out by a tiny, power mising music player could interfere with the instruments or relays is just way too small to measure. It's theoretically possible, yes, but so is being struck by lightning in a well grounded house while staying away from electrical devices. And an iPod is in no way analagous to a TV, which has a RECIEVER in it and uses far, far more power.

And besides, most air crashes are due to A: pilot error or B: mechanical failure, usually due to lack of proper maintanence. And most air accidents don't even happen in the air. Most are runway incursions.

Wrong way round - I'm suggesting the aircraft acts as a receiver, not the ipod.

I have no problems with you taking chances with your own safety - but why should you gamble on everyone else's?

As I've also been in a house struck by lightning - I took the precaution to unplug all the appliances first. You should have seen the state of my neighbour's toaster! Not a very good comparison though. Very different things.

As I said, I agree the chances of anything happening are incredibly small. But they are there. Why risk everyone's safety for the sake of a soundtrack?

Agreed. I've pointed out to several people still wearing iPods on final approach that they're not supposed to be on - I usually tap the person on the arm, it generally goes like this:
Me: I don't think they like you to have those on for landing.
Her: Really? This thing?
Me: That's what the pilot just said (shrug)
Her: Oh, OK. (turns it off)

Generally, people just don't know the policy or didn't hear the announcement over their music.

That's because your TV and the light switch are connected to the same source of mains electricity, and when you increase/decrease the load by flipping that switch you get a little voltage spike. There's no such connection between an iPod and the avionics.

I think turning off cellphones is sensible, because they blast out so much radio frequency junk. But your average MP3 player is pretty much as quiet as an electronic device can get...

So, do you ask people to turn off their pacemaker as well? :D

I thought they had to be checked? :)

Isn't that another reason why pax shouldn't be using electronic equipment?

Cell phones are prohibited form being used on the Tokyo subway system – especially near certain designated seating areas – as there is a risk that the telephone signals will interfere with passengers’ pacemakers.

I agree on that, but I certainly doubt that an ipod would have impact on the avionics. However, it's a good rule to keep it that way until the airliners decide that it's ok. It's just a matter of time before cell phones will be allowed on all major carriers.

Regarding the no phone-policy on Tokyo subways and trains, people don't seem to care about it at all :-)

As long as other pax aren't impeding themselves on me personally, I won't take on the role as enforcer of regulations I didn't write. I mind my own business.

My experience is the opposite. People may play games on their phones (perhaps they receive/send texts too - I couldn't know) but actual phone calls on subway trains are pretty rare. Especially when you consider how much people use their phones once they're out of the train.

I'll do it to help out - for example, a bulkhead pax with a bag by their feet during boarding, if they wait until the FA comes by, there may not be nearby overhead space. But in general, only if my personal safety is an issue - a bag or reclining seat that blocks my egress.

One time on WN, this moron (my seatmate) had the audacity to ask me if he could put his huge bag under the seat in front ME! (while leaving the space under the seat in front of HIM empty) :rolleyes:

My first thought was, UGH, WN.....then I glared at him and said, "sure, but I am a kicker"

OMG, I was about to go off. I don't understand why people do the things they do

Sorry to inform you, the seatbelt sign is for seatbelts, not seat backs. If you're truly doing this then you are just being obnoxious because there is no rule that says what you're trying to enforce.

Is that a rule? I'm not trying to be confrontational -- I've just never heard it. I usually hit the recline button as soon as wheels are up -- I've done it in front of many an FA, and none have ever said anything. What happens if it's a bumpy flight and the seatbelt sign never gets turned off?

That's what I thought also. Personally, I carry boxes of dried apricots on the plane, and hand them out to my fellow passengers. Keeps everybody regulated, or at least properly ventilated.

I had the aisle pax stand up when we stopped short of the gate at DEN. I reminded her that the plane could not continue onward to the gate until she sat back down. It took the middle pax between us pulling on her shirt to get her to sit back down. I was in the window and could not reach her. She barely spoke English (no status on BP either), yet the UA FAs let her sit in the exit row with us.

i dun think anyone likes to be told off especially not by fellow passengers. its rude..period... but a bit of consideration goes a long way like not saying excuse me... excuse me... in an offensive manner

Not true.

This gets stated explicitly on most of the flights I go on, either in, or to and from Europe. (I'm not always paying attention and therefore cannot say all of them)

Passengers in Business are made particularly aware of this as they have to fold up every part of their seat for landing. (Often taking away about half an hour of valuable sleep time). And seats can only be unfurled once airborne.

Unless you are going to tell us that it is OK for seats to be reclined at take off and landing, please inform us when you are made aware of the cut off time for when it is OK to recline.

Ruling here: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...pandSection=-3
Under: (3)(e)(3)

All I see is keeping your seatback up for takeoff and landing. So exactly when is "takeoff" completed?

Exactly.

However, as seatbelts also need to be kept on as a requirement for take off and landing, the sign provides a useful guide.

(And I remind you that in Business/First class, most pax are not allowed to unfurl their seats until this sign is extinguished - although there are exceptions due to continued turbulance etc.)

I for one applaude this course of action.

Stick your nose in someone else's business, risk the breaking of said nose!

Unless the pax is trying to light his shoe fuse... BUT OUT ! :D

I don't know what airlines you fly, but I've never, not once, not ever heard an announcement requiring seats to remain upright until the seatbelt sign is turned off on any flight I've taken in the U.S., in Europe, in Africa or in Asia. I've flown on every major U.S. carrier, as well Lufthansa, Air France, TAP, EasyJet, KLM, Iberia, Royal Air Maroc, Al Italia, Cathay Pacific, Air China, China Southern, China Eastern, and Dragon Air (and I'm sure there are some others I just can't recall at the moment).

That's hundreds, probably thousands, of flights, yet not one announcement.

As I said, I do it on wheels up. The only instruction I've ever had is that seatbacks must be upright for takeoff. Once we've taken off, i.e. we're in he air, I can recline.

And, of course, the FAR you quoted doesn't say anything of the sort. Here's what it says:

"Except as provided in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) of this section, no certificate holder may take off or land an airplane unless each passenger seat back is in the upright position."

Seatbacks up for takeoff and landing. Nothing about keeping them up until the pilot turns off the seatbelt light.

Sorry, but I think you're wrong and, if you were to tell me to raise my seat until the seatbelt light is turned off, I'd politely tell you, "no way."

always
 

I'm the self-appointed cop aboard the plane. I tell people when to shut off their phones. I kick people out of the FC restrooms. I grab people's arms when they touch the back of my seat and give them a nasty look.

What not one person has said here is at what moment is the actual cut off point. When is a plane not taking off any more?

And when isn't it landing?


As the ruling is also that passengers must also have seatbelts fastened during take off and landing - why would the timeframe for this be any different?

Sorry, but without a dispositive answer, e.g. from an FA or pilot, it's just opinion and speculation on our part. If you want to keep your seat up until the seatbelt light is extinguished, that's fine, but it's hardly a "rule."

Because different safety concerns are addressed by each. Pilots keep on seatbelt signs until they think it is safe for passengers to get up and walk around. At minimum, things like steep climb to altitude, traffic avoidance and, of course, turbulence (including wake turbulence on occassion) mandate that the light be on, but have nothing to do with whether seats need to be upright (or, more, accurately, "in their upright and locked position").

However, again, this is only opinion and speculation and, obviously, doesn't have the force of a FAR, much less a mandate of courtesy.

FWIW, I looked around the FARs for a definition of "takeoff." Surprisingly, they don't have one. The closest thing I could find was when they were talking about certifying planes and about clearance areas around runways, for example about what happens if an engine fails just as you leave the ground. The limit of what they consider takeoff in that case seems to be 50 feet vertically. There was also one mention of, "Until the flaps are retracted."

Since the FARs don't define it, it's probably up to the airline, or the pilot.

ok, lets look at why we have to keep our seats upright.. its basically to do with the fact that seats are tested and certified in the upright position. They are designed to provide support and minimise injury when in the upright position in the event of a sudden deceleration. Sudden decelerations are most likely to occur when close to the ground or on it, hence the requirement for seat backs to be upright for take-off and landing. If you recline your seat as soon as the wheels are up, that's too soon, as you have not actually left the high risk zone the rules are in place to regulate. Planes have crashed shortly after take-off, (i can think of 4 or 5 incidents in my particular field of flight safety alone). Having your seat reclined is not going to help you or the person behind you survive the crash unscathed

Similarly, electronic equipment is not to be used during take-off and landing. This is signified by the use of the seatbelt sign. So why is the seatbelt sign suitable to signify for one thing that the landing and take-off is over, but not for another? I think you are chosing to interpret what seems like a pretty clear cut rule, because you don't like it.

I'm not aware of any particular formal definition of "take-off" and "landing" and there is considerable degree of overlap between "approach" and "climb-out". Indeed on the data I used to analyse, the two sets of terms were often used interchangeably - if there is one, then I'd say no-one has told most of the pilots submitting the data. Its possible one could define it by who the pilot is speaking to on ATC at the time, but that seems a bit impractical as that may vary country to country and airport to airport, depending upon what is the ATC set up.

I don't believe the iPod and other mp3 players are to be turned off due to "interference" with the airplane's systems. Rather, I believe that it is enforced for the fact that if something goes wrong during takeoff or landing, it is easier to alert the passengers what is wrong and give them instructions, especially emergency instructions including evacuation tactics. If someone is blaring their mp3 player, ignoring the usual dings and announcements that are common to takeoff and landing (such as the we are approaching such and such a city, the weather is blah blah blah...) wouldn't hear a crucial message, it becomes a safety hazard. My guess is that it is more of a safety/liability issue to not be able to hear the FA or Pilot's announcements during the first and last segments of the flight. Just my opinion...

Precisely.... the signs are a guide to seat reclining, nothing more.

And why would Y pax care what happens up front? ;)

Why is it so hard just to follow a few simple instructions and not question the why's and why not's? Afterall, we are only talking a few minutes here that your ipod would actually be turned off......it just makes it a lot less stressful on you and everybody else involved.....we have grown soooo impatient these days. I personally feel that it is just not wanting to accept that someone has asked you to do something that you don't want to do.