EMB120 - No water, food or electronics in Seatback during TO & Landing?
 

I've been riding SkyWest EMB120 for many years, but today is the first time the FA announced during her brief that water bottles, food or any electronics are no longer allowed in the seatback pocket during take-off and landing per the FAA. The FA had people taking stuff out of the backseat pocket and hold it until we were in the air.

Why?

Thanks

She might just be trying to keep junk out of the seat pockets because people inevitably leave it there and SHE has to clean it out. I doubt it's a FAA issue.

This is per the FAA. I asked one of our FA trainers about it, and she said it was true. It's bull if you ask me. Stupid FAA.

I know this is probably a stupid question, but in the FAA's infinite wisdom did they have any reasoning behind it? This is the first I've ever heard of anything like this. It wouldn't be the first time the FAA has made a completely bonehead regulation.

I guess from what I hear from the FAs that I fly with in the Brasilia is that the FAA looks at the seat back as not an approved storage place.

Its because the seatback pockets are attached with velcro which means that according to the FAA it is not secure enough to bear "cargo." Sounds like complete BS to me but Eagle FAs are harping on it too since the FAA is starting to enforce the rule (since they have so much free time). Its all a load of crap but according to our FA managers, thats the reasoning.

Not just the 120, its all our aircraft....complete nonsense if you ask me...Someone is just looking to make a name for himself...

[QUOTE=ChickenFlight;430551]Its because the seatback pockets are attached with velcro which means that according to the FAA it is not secure enough to bear "cargo."
So is my underwear!:confused: Should I be concerned?
fbh

We (yes I) have had FAA observers ride on along to insure that the FA's are making sure water bottles, food and electronics are not in the seat back pockets as well as under seat carry-on's are properly stowed.

Tax dollars at work guys. :eek:

It would seem that's an overzealous interpretation of 121.577.

Glad to see that ops inspectors are looking at what's important.:rolleyes: