Couple Kicked Off Plane for Ignoring In-Flight Safety Briefing

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
121.311(b)

What’s your interpretation?

I see that as no one can takeoff without having seats (“available”) in a plane available for passengers on the plane, and belts “available” for those seats. (A1 and A2)


And


(b) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board an airplane operated under this part shall occupy an approved seat or berth with a separate safety belt properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing.”

They shall occupy a seat and belt secured properly. That’s on them, and they were all secured when they get up and create the “issue.”



Where does it say you must stop taxi? A and B said you must have seats available and belts available.
 

msmspilot

Well-Known Member
What’s your interpretation?

I see that as no one can takeoff without having seats (“available”) in a plane available for passengers on the plane, and belts “available” for those seats. (A1 and A2)


And


(b) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board an airplane operated under this part shall occupy an approved seat or berth with a separate safety belt properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing.”

They shall occupy a seat and belt secured properly. That’s on them, and they were all secured when they get up and create the “issue.”



Where does it say you must stop taxi? A and B said you must have seats available and belts available.
I interpret (b) as occupy. As be in the seat with the seat belt on. Now maybe that’s on the passenger, to some degree, but I’m operating an aircraft for hire under that part of the regulation. So I’m definitely responsible.

We’ve had an FAA inspector come after us for not keeping people in their seats in cruise when the seatbelt sign was on. I’d think this is a little more serious.
 

Autothrust Blue

"Duuuuuude."
Because that's not what that frakking says.
And to forestall the inevitable 'BUTBUTBUTBUT,' which is all the more substantive a counter-argument that pilots usually offer while discussing said regulations: I see nothing in 14 CFR 121.311(b) that mandates that a pilot-in-command to stop the airplane if the cabin is reported not-secure for whatever reason.

Your approved FOM may require that you stop upon notice of someone standing, but that's another story. The duty is on the passenger to comply, and on the certificate holder to supply the seat or berth and belt, not the pilot-in-command.
 

NovemberEcho

Dergs favorite member
And to forestall the inevitable 'BUTBUTBUTBUT,' which is all the more substantive a counter-argument that pilots usually offer while discussing said regulations: I see nothing in 14 CFR 121.311(b) that mandates that a pilot-in-command to stop the airplane if the cabin is reported not-secure for whatever reason.

Your approved FOM may require that you stop upon notice of someone standing, but that's another story. The duty is on the passenger to comply, and on the certificate holder to supply the seat or berth and belt, not the pilot-in-command.
Send a couple pax tumbling down the aisle and maybe they’ll stay seated next time
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
I interpret (b) as occupy. As be in the seat with the seat belt on. Now maybe that’s on the passenger, to some degree, but I’m operating an aircraft for hire under that part of the regulation. So I’m definitely responsible.

We’ve had an FAA inspector come after us for not keeping people in their seats in cruise when the seatbelt sign was on. I’d think this is a little more serious.
Our job is to inform. You can only get so much compliance. Our book says if FAs complain people aren't complying with the seat belt sign, we're suppose to make a PA announcement to that affect and remind them the sign is on. Your FAA inspector must have been bored.

The reg doesn't say anywhere we have to stop because someone got up. Part b applies to the pax himself/herself. We provided the seat, the seatbelt, and the fact they were seated and fastened at pushback.


As a pilot, I wouldn't takeoff knowing someone was up.
Taxiing, many cases I can see continuing to move. Eg, we land at ORD and taking the long airport tour, I'm not stopping. I'll go carefully and make the turns cautiously but there is no way I'm holding up the line behind me of landing traffic for their bladder.


The question is landing. What's safer? Go around or land? It happened at my regional once and we went around. Go arounds can still be sporty, especially low to the ground and already configured. You got full power coming on and nose up to 15-17 degrees and followed by a turn. It's sporty in terms of movement for someone in a lav. Personally, depending on runway length I think the safer course of action could very well be land and just use idle reverse / low autobrakes and let the airplane coast to a taxi speed.
 

msmspilot

Well-Known Member
Our job is to inform. You can only get so much compliance. Our book says if FAs complain people aren't complying with the seat belt sign, we're suppose to make a PA announcement to that affect and remind them the sign is on. Your FAA inspector must have been bored.

The reg doesn't say anywhere we have to stop because someone got up. Part b applies to the pax himself/herself. We provided the seat, the seatbelt, and the fact they were seated and fastened at pushback.


As a pilot, I wouldn't takeoff knowing someone was up.
Taxiing, many cases I can see continuing to move. Eg, we land at ORD and taking the long airport tour, I'm not stopping. I'll go carefully and make the turns cautiously but there is no way I'm holding up the line behind me of landing traffic for their bladder.


The question is landing. What's safer? Go around or land? It happened at my regional once and we went around. Go arounds can still be sporty, especially low to the ground and already configured. You got full power coming on and nose up to 15-17 degrees and followed by a turn. It's sporty in terms of movement for someone in a lav. Personally, depending on runway length I think the safer course of action could very well be land and just use idle reverse / low autobrakes and let the airplane coast to a taxi speed.
Bored or not, it’s not just a one time thing. It’s a big deal at my airline because of this inspector.

I may be wrong. There are no (as best I can tell) actual legal counsel interpretations of the issue.
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
Go arounds can still be sporty, especially low to the ground and already configured. You got full power coming on and nose up to 15-17 degrees and followed by a turn. It's sporty in terms of movement for someone in a lav. Personally, depending on runway length I think the safer course of action could very well be land and just use idle reverse / low autobrakes and let the airplane coast to a taxi speed.
Since when have go-arounds practically become something sporty or anything to remotely raise any kind of stress level?

Had one just the other day for a DHC-6 landing in front of me that decided to stop on the runway after missing the turnoff he wanted to take, presumably to try a hard turn to exit there. Tower is pushing him to keep moving to the next exit expeditiously because of me on final. Am told by tower to continue, but can see that he's not going to clear at the next exit in time, just like tower can see that, so they issue a go around at ~300 AGL. No biggie. Stand the throttles up vertical (didn't use TOGA, but FD was off anyway) and 5 degrees climb heading down the runway and accelerating slowly but nicely. Flaps 15, gear up, slow increase to 10 degrees climb, flaps 5. Tower gives runway heading to fly and changes us to departure.

It's day VMC, so other pilot asks "any chance of departure end closed, remain with you?"

"You want to fly the traffic pattern, not go to radar?"

"Sure, traffic permitting"

"Roger, cleared departure end right closed traffic"

Bump up the power, keep it flaps 5 and under 200 kts, execute an easy close traffic climbing turn, rolling out on downwind at 175 and 1500AGL. Drop the gear and flaps 15 to abeam the numbers, get landing clearance while slowing, flaps 30, make the descending 180 turn to final, roll out at 500 AGL at a little over 1.5 mile final near target speed, and land.

Whatev.....besides the extra fuel burnt. Nothing extreme or stressful, Kind of fun actually. Yet I hear a number of pilots talk about go arounds as something akin to an emergency procedure of some kind.
 
Last edited:

Derg

Cap, Roci
Staff member
121.311(b)
We can’t taxi when passengers are up, but if it’s a greater hazard to stop, we can continue until it’s no longer a hazard, but it better be a defensible reason when the fed walks up.

Like I wouldn’t stop on a runway with someone holding in position. But if I’m on a taxiway, yup.
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
Since when have go-arounds practically become something sporty or anything to remotely raise any kind of stress level?

Had one just the other day for a DHC-6 landing in front of me that decided to stop on the runway after missing the turnoff he wanted to take, presumably to try a hard turn to exit there. Tower is pushing him to keep moving to the next exit expeditiously because of me on final. Am told by tower to continue, but can see that he's not going to clear at the next exit in time, just like tower can see that, so they issue a go around at ~300 AGL. No biggie. Stand the throttles up vertical (didn't use TOGA, but FD was off anyway) and 5 degrees climb heading down the runway and accelerating slowly but nicely. Flaps 15, gear up, slow increase to 10 degrees climb, flaps 5. Tower gives runway heading to fly and changes us to departure.

It's day VMC, so other pilot asks "any chance of departure end closed, remain with you?"

"You want to fly the traffic pattern, not go to radar?"

"Sure, traffic permitting"

"Roger, cleared departure end right closed traffic"

Bump up the power, keep it flaps 5 and 200 kts, execute an easy close traffic climbing turn, rolling out on downwind at 175 and 1500AGL. Drop the gear and flaps 15 to abeam the numbers, get landing clearance while slowing, flaps 30, make the descending 180 turn to final, roll out at 500 AGL at a little over 1.5 mile final near target speed, and land.

Whatev.....besides the extra fuel burnt. Nothing extreme or stressful, Kind of fun actually. Yet I hear a number of pilots talk about go arounds as something akin to an emergency procedure of some kind.

I wasn’t talking about me, I mean the numbnut standing in the lav taking a wiz.

Probably a moot point for us because our policy requires the FAs lock the lava from closure to 10k on the way up, and from 10k to the gate coming down. So we shouldn’t have someone in the lav. Someone may make a run for it, but they’ll be forced to sit.
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
I wasn’t talking about me, I mean the numbnut standing in the lav taking a wiz.

Probably a moot point for us because our policy requires the FAs lock the lava from closure to 10k on the way up, and from 10k to the gate coming down. So we shouldn’t have someone in the lav. Someone may make a run for it, but they’ll be forced to sit.
No i got that regarding the pax, I was just asking an aside question based on overhearing other pilots conversations here and there, in the terminal etc.
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
No i got that regarding the pax, I was just asking an aside question based on overhearing other pilots conversations here and there, in the terminal etc.
Go arounds aren't bad. It's just that we don't usually do a whole lot of them. I think in my 7.5 yrs on the Bus I've done 4-5 go arounds. It can be busy with config changes and getting altitudes/headings. Nothing unmanageable, but the room for error increases and especially more so at places like SFO or LAX when parallel operations are in effect and you need to change your heading/altitude fairly quickly. Avoiding a go around is a key in the first place and of my go arounds, only 1 was because I wasn't stable enough (SAN Rwy 27 of course). The other go arounds were non-pilot reasons. One was coming into SFO on the 28s and someone aborted takeoff on the 01s. Another was at EWR and tower called for the go around (he had some spacing issue).

The key on the Bus is target 180 knots and flaps 2 by 2,000 AGL. Gear down, then flaps 3 and flaps full on schedule and by 1,000 ft you'll be fully stable and spooled up (even though we get a 500 ft gate for the engines to spool up and be on speed).
 

GypsyPilot

Well-Known Member
Since when have go-arounds practically become something sporty or anything to remotely raise any kind of stress level?
I agree, however... It’s not exactly an industry secret that pilots screw up go arounds.

Part of my FA brief was that I don’t care if a pax gets up to use the lav. If they felt a compelling need to call me and make me act like a kindergarten teacher, I would. But otherwise, deal with it and leave me out of it as we’re busy. Most places we went to we couldn’t stop anyway (lol at stopping in ORD or LAX for that!). Although I did see a Delta cause three go-arounds at LAX for that once. I don’t care who you are, that is ridiculous and is approaching unnecessary risk.
 

msmspilot

Well-Known Member
We can’t taxi when passengers are up, but if it’s a greater hazard to stop, we can continue until it’s no longer a hazard, but it better be a defensible reason when the fed walks up.

Like I wouldn’t stop on a runway with someone holding in position. But if I’m on a taxiway, yup.
The reasonable man approach. We can’t have that! This is the internet!!1!
 
Top