I'm arguing with an idiot - need FAR reference

alaskaflyer said:
Are public school teachers?
Click to expand...

No. I also believe there will be move civil rights cases coming when a school teacher confiscates a $500 ipod and refuses to return it.
Courtroom bailiffs (and I'm not thinking of the other thread here :D )?
Click to expand...
Not familiar with the other thread, but courts and airline security (not aircraft cabins) are treated differently by the courts.
Shop owners? (Leave your backpacks at the register.)
Click to expand...
Again, you are making a choice to enter. Once you enter, the shop owner cannot simply confiscate your property.

We aren't talking about unilateral authority here are we? But a more narrowly-tailored authority - or only a policy - for specific items, in specific circumstances?
Click to expand...
There are several situations possible:

  • Passenger refuses to comply with instruction to turn off electronic device. FA confiscates device.
  • Passenger complies with instruction, FA confiscates device anyway
  • FA simply confiscates device.

In all three cases, I do not believe the FA is legally entitled to take the device, as due process has not been followed. I do believe in case #1, FA can claim justification, and will likely prevail.

Similarly to self defence, justification is a affirmative defence. There is no claim that the elements of the assault or illegal taking were met. There is a claim that the assault or taking was justified.
 
Last edited:
Ghery said:
Mine, too. No biometrics yet, but right now it takes 3 independent passwords/phrases to boot my laptop. 1 to get the process started, a passphrase to get the whole disc encryption going and a final one to log on as me. Good luck, TSA or CBP. And my files are backed up somewhere in the company network (daily) so I wouldn't lose much. Just so long as they don't take my Bose QC2 headset. :D
Click to expand...

No biometrics here, either, but the laptop does have a fingerprint reader so we are ready to go. I have one password for PGP, then another to get on the laptop, a third for email, and a two-factor authorization for the VPN (or any sort of web access).

Further, we are outright prohibited from taking the laptop out of the country (and even taking a blackberry requires special company approval). Traveling outside the US requires a "loaner" laptop that's clean with additional encryption/restrictions.
 
Steve Foley said:
I still don't think a flight attendant is unilaterally granted authority to seize personal property.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I'm sure the Captain is when it's being used in violation of the law in flight, and can delegate that authority to other crewmembers as long as the property (if legal to possess -- I don't think the airline would be required to return your drug stash) is returned to the passenger after the flight in no worse condition than when it was taken.
 
Steve Foley said:
No. I also believe there will be move civil rights cases coming when a school teacher confiscates a $500 ipod and refuses to return it.
Click to expand...
Your statement assumes facts not in evidence, to wit, that the device is not properly returned to the child or parent after school.
There are several situations possible:

  • Passenger refuses to comply with instruction to turn off electronic device. FA confiscates device.
  • Passenger complies with instruction, FA confiscates device anyway
  • FA simply confiscates device.
In all three cases, I do not believe the FA is legally entitled to take the device,
Click to expand...
I agree with the last. I agree conditionally with the second -- assuming the passenger does not continue to turn it back on. I disagree completely with the first, and am certain the courts would say the same.
as due process has not been followed.
Click to expand...
I don't think you fully understand the concept of "due process." All that means is that the government must respect your legal rights. Since you do not have a legal right to refuse turn off your portable electronic device in flight, and the airline is required to ensure that it is off, the airline has the authority to take whatever action is necessary to ensure the safety of the flight, including taking that device from you. As long as you were warned to turn it off, and informed of the consequences for failing to do so, there is no violation of the law on their part if you continue to refuse to turn it off and the only way the crew can obtain compliance is to take the device from you.

Further, "due process" only applies to cases involving government actions. Since the crew are not acting as agents of the government, it is an issue of civil law (conversion), or perhaps criminal law (theft), not a constitutional "due process" issue. "Due process" is simply not an issue in private disputes between non-governmental entities. It only becomes an issue when the matter moves to governmental processes, say, the passenger suing the airline over this event, and the court not permitting a hearing on the matter. That might be a denial of "due process."
 
Last edited:
wsuffa said:
No biometrics here, either, but the laptop does have a fingerprint reader so we are ready to go. I have one password for PGP, then another to get on the laptop, a third for email, and a two-factor authorization for the VPN (or any sort of web access).

Further, we are outright prohibited from taking the laptop out of the country (and even taking a blackberry requires special company approval). Traveling outside the US requires a "loaner" laptop that's clean with additional encryption/restrictions.
Click to expand...

I have the fingerprint reader, as well, but I haven't programmed it. I forgot about the VPN password, but I only need that when connecting to the work network from outside. And taking it out of the country hasn't been an issue yet. Given the international nature of the company, I don't expect it to be, either. But, you never know...
 
Ron Levy said:
. Since the crew are not acting as agents of the government, it is an issue of civil law (conversion), or perhaps criminal law (theft), not a constitutional "due process" issue.
Click to expand...

To act “under color” of law does not require that the accused be an officer of the State. It is enough that he is a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents. Latosky v. Strunc 2009 WL 1073680, 8 (E.D.Wis.) (E.D.Wis.,2009)

Again, if they crew is acting under FEDERAL regulations, that's color of law.
 
Last edited:
Steve Foley said:
To act “under color” of law does not require that the accused be an officer of the State. It is enough that he is a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents. Latosky v. Strunc 2009 WL 1073680, 8 (E.D.Wis.) (E.D.Wis.,2009)

Again, if they crew is acting under FEDERAL regulations, that's color of law.
Click to expand...

Only if those regulations authorize the actions.

If I'm flying and I take a passenger's iPod and claim that it's because I'm PIC, I'm operating under regulations, but I'm not authorized to do that under the regulations, so no constitutional violation occurs...were I to find the passenger's iPod packed with kiddie-porn, and turn it into the cops, they could rightly use it as evidence of a crime.
 
According to my FA wife, a Delta FA would not confiscate anything. A more common problem would be someone drinking booze from their own bottle (also an airline no-no). The flight deck crew would be notified. The CA could then decide what if anything to do. The likely scenario would be to have local LEOs meet the flight and deal with the offender.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Just struck me...
If you're arguing with an idiot, why would you think a FAR reference would help? :nonod:
Click to expand...

Guy wanted documented proof that the FA had real authority on the plane. According to him, "FA's are just glorified waitresses".
 
Greebo said:
Guy wanted documented proof that the FA had real authority on the plane. According to him, "FA's are just glorified waitresses".
Click to expand...
Then the regs making it illegal to interfere with crewmembers in the performance of their duties, which by other regulations include making sure no PED's are on during certain phases of flight, should do the trick. If it doesn't, forget about it, and let this person get to meet an Air Marshal in person to explain it to him as the cuffs are going on.
 
Ron Levy said:
Then the regs making it illegal to interfere with crewmembers in the performance of their duties, which by other regulations include making sure no PED's are on during certain phases of flight, should do the trick. If it doesn't, forget about it, and let this person get to meet an Air Marshal in person to explain it to him as the cuffs are going on.
Click to expand...
Now =there's= something an idiot might understand.
 
Greebo said:
Idiot on another forum insists that Flight attendant has no authority to confiscate an item - specifically in this case to confiscate an electronic device a passenger refused to turn off.


Need some hard references to back this up if there are any, or to be corrected.
Click to expand...
Hi , Newbie here . I didnt see the " Introduce yourself " thread so Ill just start here . Not using my full name thanks to an internet stalker situation awhile ago . If you need my last name feel free to PM and Ill give it to you .
You will not find a FAR reference to this . The answer lies in the Operations Specifications for the Air Carrier . The FA has the right , and the obligation , to confiscate a PED if it is used during inappropriate times or not in the flight mode . Typically , you are ask to turn it off/stow it first .
If the idiot you refer to worked for an Certificated Carrier he would know this .
Alice
 
Alice R said:
Hi , Newbie here . I didnt see the " Introduce yourself " thread so Ill just start here . Not using my full name thanks to an internet stalker situation awhile ago . If you need my last name feel free to PM and Ill give it to you .
You will not find a FAR reference to this . The answer lies in the Operations Specifications for the Air Carrier . The FA has the right , and the obligation , to confiscate a PED if it is used during inappropriate times or not in the flight mode . Typically , you are ask to turn it off/stow it first .
If the idiot you refer to worked for an Certificated Carrier he would know this .
Alice
Click to expand...
Welcome, Alice!
 
I recently took an RJ (American Eagle) from DFW to Greenville/Spartinburg. After takeoff and in the climb, it was announced no GPS devises could be used during the flight.

Why is that and on what grounds can it be prohibited?

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I recently took an RJ (American Eagle) from DFW to Greenville/Spartinburg. After takeoff and in the climb, it was announced no GPS devises could be used during the flight.

Why is that and on what grounds can it be prohibited?

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

Technically, it has a "radio" of sorts, and any device that emits or receives radio signals is verboten....

Its wrong, but I can see their justification.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I recently took an RJ (American Eagle) from DFW to Greenville/Spartinburg. After takeoff and in the climb, it was announced no GPS devises could be used during the flight.

Why is that and on what grounds can it be prohibited?

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

SkyHog said:
Technically, it has a "radio" of sorts, and any device that emits or receives radio signals is verboten....

Its wrong, but I can see their justification.
Click to expand...


AA (now) allows GPS on flights, subject to discretion of the captain. That does not necessarily apply to Eagle.
 
Depends on the carrier. Some prohibit, some don't care. Even the passenger seat-back magazines have different rules. Go figure.

Dave Siciliano said:
I recently took an RJ (American Eagle) from DFW to Greenville/Spartinburg. After takeoff and in the climb, it was announced no GPS devises could be used during the flight.

Why is that and on what grounds can it be prohibited?

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I recently took an RJ (American Eagle) from DFW to Greenville/Spartinburg. After takeoff and in the climb, it was announced no GPS devises could be used during the flight.

Why is that and on what grounds can it be prohibited?
Click to expand...
The "why" is probably a misunderstanding of the electronic risk inherent in an aviation GPS, which is designed so it won't interfere, but AFAIK isn't certified to guarantee noninterference in all aircraft. The authority for them to prohibit its use is 14 CFR 91.21(a) and 14 CFR 121.306(a) -- in fact, it's a requirement, not just an authorization, to prohibit such use except as provided in paragraph (b) of those sections.

Note that the the exception in paragraph (b)(5) of both those sections (which is what would cover a portable GPS) only applies when the operator has determined that there will be no interference. Thus, if the operator hasn't gone through the effort to make that determination, use of the is prohibited. Some operators simply may not have done what is necessary to make that determination, and my guess is that you ran into one.
 
Thanks y'all. I don't understand the specific prohibition against GPS which was specifically named as prohibited along with a cell phone IIRC. GPS is a passive receiver. I could understand on departure and approach. Just didn't understand why it couldn't be used in cruise which is where it's nice to follow along.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Thanks y'all. I don't understand the specific prohibition against GPS which was specifically named as prohibited along with a cell phone IIRC. GPS is a passive receiver.
Click to expand...
Receivers aren't entirely passive. They generate and emit RF fields. The fields from modern solid-state receivers are orders of magnitude less than those from the vacuum-tube receivers I built as a ham operator more than 40 years ago, but they are measurable.

The question that must be answered is whether modern FBW aircraft or digital avionics are going to be affected by the field generated by your Garmin 496 or whatever. The answer is almost certainly "no," but by reg, the operator must make that determination before allowing its use. Further, since they aren't going to test every single GPS out there, they'll have to try it with the worst offenders, i.e., the oldest units, and if those fail, they'll prohibit all GPS's rather than get into quibble contests with passengers over the merits of a 2009 Garmin 560 vs an ancient Garmin 96.

BTW, I've found that the use of a portable XM radio is also subject to variations between airlines.
 
Southwest Airlines magazine shows GPS receivers as allowable and acceptable electronic devices for use above 10,000'.
 
Why would anyone want to bother to expend energy to argue with an idiot? Smile, say "Hmmm, well that's a thought", and write em off is what I'd do. Unless it specifically impacted the safety of my activity at the time or say the "airport culture".

Considering the questions/legality is interesting but not in order to win over someone who's being a jerk.

Just my opinion........
 
gkainz said:
Southwest Airlines magazine shows GPS receivers as allowable and acceptable electronic devices for use above 10,000'.
Click to expand...

That may change now that TSA has ruled that at least on international flights the passengers are supposed to be kept in the dark WRT their position over the Earth.
 
gismo said:
That may change now that TSA has ruled that at least on international flights the passengers are supposed to be kept in the dark WRT their position over the Earth.
Click to expand...

Gotta love it. On clear days on airlines, I just do it the old fashioned way. From the flight levels on a clear day you can see far enough that figuring out your position is pretty easy if you have any clue of geography, no sectionals required.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Gotta love it. On clear days on airlines, I just do it the old fashioned way. From the flight levels on a clear day you can see far enough that figuring out your position is pretty easy if you have any clue of geography, no sectionals required.
Click to expand...

Keep that under wraps...not long before the TSA mandates welded shut window covers.
 
NEWS FLASH: You can figure out where you are by looking out the window. New regulations require pilots to be unable to see out the window during flight. The windows will automatically open 200 ft off of the ground to allow the final portion of landing to be done by the pilots.

Sadly, I could see the TSA mandating something about removing windows entirely.
 
gismo said:
That may change now that TSA has ruled that at least on international flights the passengers are supposed to be kept in the dark WRT their position over the Earth.
Click to expand...
Only during the last hour of inbound international flights. There is no TSA restriction otherwise, although reports suggest some airlines may be doing more than TSA requires.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top