mgcsinc

Well, in your original unedited post, I think you had said you were glad that the FA forced him to open it, hence my comment.

In general, I agree that the nocturnalness is sorta weird and pervasive.

demkr

Oh, I see. It is strange because I notice it mainly on UA flights. And there seems to be a complaint if someone leaves it open even during the day. I guess I can understand early in the morning but I feel like the majority of F cabin closes up for the entire flight

mgcsinc

Yeah. The other thing is that there is a way to deal with light (eyeshades) if the shades are up, but the reading lights on some of the planes are so bad that it can actually be quite hard to read when the shades are down.

n9536j

I believe the statute is quite clear that the requirement to follow instructions are limited to the items listed in the FAR quoted below (bolding mine). The only other general prohibition they sometime cite is the general interference with a crewmember in the performance of their assigned duty but in general it is difficult to show not doing something is interference.


prev | next
§ 121.571
Briefing passengers before takeoff.
(a) Each certificate holder operating a passenger-carrying airplane shall insure that all passengers are orally briefed by the appropriate crewmember as follows:
(1) Before each takeoff, on each of the following:
(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.

mgcsinc

For the record, just since this distinction is important to me (and probably no one else), the CFR is not statute.

Always Flyin

14 C.F.R. § 91.11

14 C.F.R. § 121.580

14 C.F.R. § 125.328

14 C.F.R. § 135.120

Interference with a crewmember has been defined by courts as including failure to comply with instructions given by crewmembers, e.g.:

Schaeffer v. Cavallero (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 54 F.Supp.2d 350, 352 [citing 14 C.F.R. § 91.11.]

You are correct, but they do have the force of law since they define and implement the authorizing statute.

mgcsinc

Sure, assuming that they're within the statutory ambit, not arbitrary and capricious, etc.

Always Flyin

Of course. Agencies seem to be given tremendous latitude, however, so it is not often regulations are thrown out by the courts.

Look how far the TSA has run with their authorizing statute.

xliioper

I think there's an area of confusion here regarding criminal actions and non-criminal acts which can get you removed from the aircraft based on the airline's Contract of Carriage. In short, there are things you can do that will not result in arrest and criminal prosecution, but can result in the airline legally removing you from the aircraft and refusing to provide transport. I give you the following example from a CoC under the "Refusal to Transport" section:

"When the passenger attempts to interfere with any member of the flight crew in the pursuit of his or her duties, or fails to obey the instruction of any member of the flight crew."

So you can claim moral victory that nothing you have done was illegal while watching your plane depart without you aboard

mgcsinc

This.

Ignoring all of the other issues (like the fact that the regs are probably unconstitutional as applied to someone who merely talks back to an FA), it ain't gonna help you if you're still on the ground. That's why, unless you have a lot of time on your hands, it's usually better to just shut up.

Of course, if it weren't for people who cast aside such self-interest, we wouldn't have the civil rights that we have.

Often1

+1 - People mixing apples & oranges. Whether there is a criminal prosecution, a civil fine or you are simply punted by the Captain who has the final say, are three different propositions. Whether you are simply booted off the flight or booted off the carrier for a little R&R are different issues.

Passive agressive fights with air crew are losing propositions,

mwk190

+1

For example in DFW throughout the summer you'll be instructed upon landing to lower the shades and turn on your air vents to keep the plane cool.

justhere

Just think if the OP had said "sure no problem, can I do it when you close the door?" I bet this thread wouldn't exist.

bocastephen

Actually the limitation is defined by the statute itself - a crew member cannot give an order or command which is not supported by either a federal statute or documented airline procedure.

For example, a crew member cannot legally instruct you to stand on your head, remove your clothing, spend the flight in the restroom, chew your food before swallowing, not read Time Magazine, etc.

The fiasco about the photography incident was a fine line - UA has a policy prohibiting photography of equipment and procedures, but that was not what the victim of that incident was doing - not to mention the mentally unstable state of the FA in question contributed to their over-reaction.

Now being booted off a flight is at the discretion of the crew - so while you can be removed from a flight, you cannot be charged with interfering if all you did was refuse to comply with an unenforceable crew member instruction.

Michael El

Thanks bocastephen. I was having trouble coming up with analogies and these are perfect.