Part 121 Regulations Question

I'm a PPL-ASEL-IA and familiar with Part 91 of course. I'm also a
frequent flier (a 1K in fact....100k plus miles per year). I often hear
flight attendants (FA's), TSA, etc. saying "oh you can't do that. it's
against the security regulations since 9/11." Many times I think or
know that there is no such regulation and all they want is the passenger
to do something without arguing.

Yesterday the middle seat was empty so I strapped my laptop bag into the
seat using the seat belts secured around both shoulder loops, 2 hand
handles and 2 other straps. I've done this many times before without a
problem. For t/o the FA's were fine. For landing, the FA said "you
can't do that." First off, I started to put it under the seat so not to
interfere with a crew member but I also made the comment that it was
allowed. She said, "oh, regulations." I said, "Really? As far as I
know, the federal aviation regulations Part 91.523 and 525 say that this
allowed." Yes, other passengers looked at me like I was nuts for
knowing such stuff. I said, "What regulation is that as I've never heard
of it before." All she said, "oh this is nothing new" but of course was
not able to cite any regulation. I'm not expecting them to know the
details like pilots do but they should know something and should be
consistent. Now I am admittedly not familiar with Part 121 (and the UA
Op Specs, etc.) but as far as I could find, what I did was perfectly
allowable under the FAR's. On the ground while I was "taxi'ing" to the
baggage claim, I checked with a pilot afterwards and he also believed it
was allowed. Was I wrong?

I'm not out to get the FA at all but I've heard such nonsense so many
times that it is starting annoy me when they are worried about a
completely secured laptop bag meanwhile they completely ignore that half
the cabin is on their cell phone "honey, we just arrived" while still
150' AGL on a Cat IIIc approach. If this were a 40 pound child sitting
on my lap and not secured, then most likely there would be no problem
(but that is another story). Further, I realize 100% consistency is not
realistic but using "it's against regulations" and "for security" as an
excuse really dilutes the purpose of the real regulations.

Gerald sylvester

"GS" wrote in message
om...
[...] I said, "What regulation is that as I've never heard of it before."
All she said, "oh this is nothing new" but of course was not able to cite
any regulation. I'm not expecting them to know the details like pilots do
but they should know something and should be consistent. Now I am
admittedly not familiar with Part 121 (and the UA Op Specs, etc.) but as
far as I could find, what I did was perfectly allowable under the FAR's.
On the ground while I was "taxi'ing" to the baggage claim, I checked with
a pilot afterwards and he also believed it was allowed. Was I wrong?

As surprising to you as it may be, the flight attendant is correct and you
and the pilot you asked are both wrong (or he misunderstood your question).
FAR 121.589 and 121.285 govern how carry-on baggage must be secured. Your
technique is allowed on Part 121 operations, but only on a non-transport
category airplane. I doubt United Airlines flies non-transport category
airplanes, thus your method of securing your carry-on was not allowed in
that situation.

I won't get too much into the other part of your question. That is, the
supposed quoting of non-existent regulations. You say you think it happens
a lot, but at least in this case you made a false assumption that it was
happening, and I wonder how many other times you similarly do so. I'm sure
such quoting of non-existing regulations does happen, but flight attendants
also have to deal with people who, inspite of federal regulations requiring
them to comply with crew member requests (and that includes anything a
flight attendant tells them to do), will argue with them about it.

A flight attendant *ought* to be able to tell passengers to do things, even
when they are not required by regulation, if those things still appear to be
necessary for safety on the flight. They do in fact have that authority,
and for good reason. A flight attendant *ought* to be able to explain that
there is a safety need for the request, and that *ought* to be sufficient.
But for some reason, there are lots of people who armchair quarterback the
situation and think they know better than the flight attendant and who argue
with them. I'm sure that flight attendants just get sick and tired of
dealing with people like that and find it easier to claim that it's a
regulation.

And I'll bet that in many cases, the flight attendant who quotes regulations
actually *is* telling the truth and the passenger just blindly assumes they
know better, even when it's the passenger who is ignorant of the facts.

Sure, it would be great if every time a flight attendant quoted a
regulation, they could quote chapter and verse. But I'll bet there's a lot
of rules just in Parts 61 and 91 (the ones that govern your flying) that you
can't quote chapter and verse, and airlines and their employees have WAY
more regulations to deal with than we do. It's not surprising that on
occasion, they may know the rule, but can't tell you exactly where to find
it. If it bugs you so much, get an unabridged copy of the FARs, and the
next time something like that happens, spend the rest of your time looking
through them to verify it yourself.

Pete

Thanks, Pete. Diplomatic.

Peter Duniho wrote:

for once, I pretty much agree with everything you say, but

sufficient. But for some reason, there are lots of people who armchair
quarterback the situation and think they know better than the flight
attendant and who argue
with them. I'm sure that flight attendants just get sick and tired of
dealing with people like that and find it easier to claim that it's a
regulation.

keep in mind that airline passengers are being treated more and more
like cattle and subjected to completely inane new rules -- some of them
being genuine regulations I doubt not, but at times you have to wonder
The same passengers are under increasingly dire threats if they do not
comply obediently, or should they read the wrong book, speak the
wrong language, wear the wrong garnment, or whatever new arbitrary
reason (threats ranging from degrading public humiliation, to lethal
force). So it is not surprising if said passengers -- who actually
PAID to get there -- are themselves getting sick and tired of the
situation, and start questioning everything. Being PAYING customers
they have a far more legitimate reason to complain than employees
whose job it is to deal with the situation...

--Sylvain

"Sylvain" wrote in message
...
[...] Being PAYING customers
they have a far more legitimate reason to complain than employees
whose job it is to deal with the situation...

There is a time and place for everything. In the airplane during a flight
is not the time or place for arguing with a flight attendant.

Furthermore, if things are so bad as you say, then why are the airlines
seeing such high numbers of customers? I personally agree that airline
travel is pure hell. Passengers are not treated with respect, and are
forced to do all sorts of ridiculous things and jump through all sorts of
ridiculous hoops just to get from Point A to Point B.

But guess what? Most people obviously don't mind enough to put their money
where their mouth is. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who
complain about the situation but can't be bothered to do anything except put
up with it. Obviously, most people don't agree with us that airline travel
includes a lot of unreasonable expectations and unreasonable treatment of
passengers. They deserve the crappy experience that they get.

In any case, in the particular scenario described here, the passenger was
actually wrong, the flight attendant was actually right, and even if there
wasn't a regulation addressing the situation, the flight attendant was well
within her rights to ask for the luggage to be moved to a position she found
more suitable.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

Furthermore, if things are so bad as you say, then why are the airlines
seeing such high numbers of customers?

Lack of choice.

In USA we have both huge distances between major urban areas and
no practical alternative to flying (driving or using the bus or
extremely slow and unreliable amtrak are not practical alternatives).
In comparison, in Europe, the train is a practical alternative to
flying, and many have switched actually. Airlines there are
loosing a lot of customers to the railways; but then Europe has
modern trains (non existent in USA) and smaller distances between
large urban area, i.e., door to door time more often than not works
in favor of the railways (and without the hassle airline passengers
are subjected to, and with added bonuses like cell phone and wifi
coverage, etc.).

I am looking forward to the day when I can affort my own fast enough/
long enough range aircraft :-)

--Sylvain

"Sylvain" wrote in message
t...
Furthermore, if things are so bad as you say, then why are the airlines
seeing such high numbers of customers?

Lack of choice.

In USA we have both huge distances between major urban areas and
no practical alternative to flying (driving or using the bus or
extremely slow and unreliable amtrak are not practical alternatives).

Define "practical".

Even before 9/11, airline travel was starting to get on my nerves. Since
then, the overbearing security rules have been horrible, IMHO. I have not
traveled on an airline once since 9/11, and not because I haven't needed to
go anywhere.

Driving takes longer, but it's not that hard to do. Simply foregoing some
trips is also an option I've chosen at times.

In case you hadn't noticed, airline travel dropped off *dramatically*
immediately after 9/11. It took the better part of a year for the airline
business to even start looking like it was going to recover.

Obviously there's a large portion of the airline business that is optional
for the people traveling. When push came to shove, they were willing to
avoid the airlines if they felt there was a good reason.

So obviously they can do it. They simply choose not to. And they deserve
the crappy service they get for their lack of complaint with the current
situation.

This is one of the problems with society, and US society in particular,
IMHO. People value their convenience much more than they value anything
else. They are perfectly happy putting up with all sorts of dangerous,
ineffective, wasteful, or just plain dumb things if in return they get to
keep some of their convenience.

Pete

People value their convenience much more than they value anything
else. They are perfectly happy putting up with all sorts of dangerous,
ineffective, wasteful, or just plain dumb things if in return they get to
keep some of their convenience.

That statement is laughable, given the "convenience" of modern air travel.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
People value their convenience much more than they value anything
else. They are perfectly happy putting up with all sorts of
dangerous, ineffective, wasteful, or just plain dumb things if in
return they get to keep some of their convenience.

That statement is laughable, given the "convenience" of modern air travel.

Jose
Yeah...I asked my boss if I could drive to San Francisco next week
instead of flying, and he just looked at me. But you know, it would be
a lot less stressful.

Yeah...I asked my boss if I could drive to San Francisco next week instead of flying, and he just looked at me. But you know, it would be a lot less stressful.

Didja ask if you could fly yourself?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.