Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Regional
EMB120 - No water, food or electronics in Seatback during TO & Landing? >

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

Search
Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

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

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-21-2008, 05:59 PM
  #1  
On Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 22
Default 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
T2Pilot is offline  
Old 07-21-2008, 06:04 PM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
KiloAlpha's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: AA A320
Posts: 1,624
Default

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.
KiloAlpha is offline  
Old 07-21-2008, 06:14 PM
  #3  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: EMB CA
Posts: 40
Default

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.
copcar1988 is offline  
Old 07-21-2008, 06:17 PM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
fjetter's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: King Air 200 CA Hawker 800/900 FO
Posts: 810
Default

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.
fjetter is offline  
Old 07-21-2008, 06:19 PM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
BHopper88's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: CRJ FO
Posts: 325
Default

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.
BHopper88 is offline  
Old 07-21-2008, 06:22 PM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: CR7 FO
Posts: 141
Default

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.
ChickenFlight is offline  
Old 07-21-2008, 06:22 PM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
DitchDog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Sitting
Posts: 137
Default

Not just the 120, its all our aircraft....complete nonsense if you ask me...Someone is just looking to make a name for himself...
DitchDog is offline  
Old 07-21-2008, 06:29 PM
  #8  
Nice lookin' tree, there!
 
frozenboxhauler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD-11, old man
Posts: 2,198
Default

[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! Should I be concerned?
fbh
frozenboxhauler is offline  
Old 07-21-2008, 06:41 PM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
JetJock16's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: SkyWest Capt.
Posts: 2,963
Default

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.
JetJock16 is offline  
Old 07-21-2008, 06:44 PM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
SomedayRJ's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: BE50C (A), BE95 (A), C172S (B)
Posts: 349
Default

Originally Posted by fjetter View Post
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.
It would seem that's an overzealous interpretation of 121.577.

Glad to see that ops inspectors are looking at what's important.
SomedayRJ is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
vagabond
Hangar Talk
1
01-11-2008 07:14 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices