FAA needs to clarify its seatback safety policies so we can get on with our lives

We’ve known about the airline’s little seatback safety problem for months — long before our colleague Janice Hough asked about it last week, and long before other mainstream media outlets raised questions about it.

Like other experienced travelers, we dismissed it as just another airline policy quirk. But a few slow news days and a bored blogosphere can change all of that, and now many passengers are asking how a nonsensical policy like this — banning any personal items in the seat-back pocket — can ever be enacted. (If, indeed, it really is.)

Maybe heavy laptop computers might become dangerous projectiles in a crash if slipped into a seat-back pocket. But it is hard to imagine a Time Magazine or a comic book killing anyone more probably than the inflight magazine that is approved for storage. What about eyeshades? What about an empty clean diaper? What a about a pair of glasses? What about my cell phone?

Obviously, the airline world has lost any sense of common sense. How did we come to this point?

Somewhere along the line, an overambitious FAA official got SkyWest airlines scared enough of possible repercussions to begin enforcing an obscure line of FAA guidance issued back in 1998 and then promptly basically ignored for a decade.

The original guidance came from a 51-page 2007 F.A.A. directive on cabin safety, according to one mainstream media report:

C. Proper stowage of carry-on baggage is a major safety issue. Many FAA inspectors and air carrier crewmembers have asked for a definition of proper stowage of baggage. AC 121-29A asks the airlines to include in their carry-on baggage programs, a definition of properly stowed. Ensuring that baggage does not interfere with emergency equipment is an important part of the information about proper stowage. In addition, nothing can be stowed in the seat pockets except magazines and passenger information cards. It is not a good safety practice to stow meals, either brought onto the airplane by passengers or served by the air carrier, in seat back pockets. The FAA considers meals carried on by passengers to be carry-on baggage. Even though meals may be exempt by the air carrier from the number of bags permitted, they still must be stowed in accordance with the regulations pertaining to carry-on baggage. Nothing may be stowed in the lavatories, unless lavatories meet all the requirements for approved cargo stowage areas.

That paragraph came word for word from an earlier circular “Air Carrier Carry-On Baggage Programs” published back in 1998. No one has really paid any attention to it since then. One blogger noted that the current guidance does not mention airsick bags.

When I contacted the FAA about these stories, their spokesperson, Les Dorr, Jr., answered my email with this short note:

The guidance on what can be carried in the seat back pocket dates from at least 1998, and it hasn’t changed. Only company materials, i.e., passenger info card, magazines and presumably the airsickness bag, can be stowed there. The reason anything else is prohibited is because the seat back pocket hasn’t been tested for stowage of anything else, and is not marked for any maximum size or weight. The intent is to make sure nothing of any appreciable mass is stowed in the seat back during takeoff and landing, where it could break free and become a safety hazard in the event of an emergency during those phases of flight.

Apparently, that policy was reinforced to Skywest recently, hence the flight attendant’s “new FAA rule” comment. But it’s not new, and it’s not unique to Skywest.

I responded to him:

It might be time for someone to take a look at that paragraph and bring it up to date. A clarification from the FAA would be nice for passengers, airlines and flight attendants as well.
It can be something that is common sense and simple.
Something like:

— printed reading material OK.
— cell phones OK
— PDAs OK
— Glasses OK
— Airsick bags OK
— sleep mask OK
— buisiness class dopp kit — OK
— earphones OK
— baby diaper OK
— baby bib OK

Perhaps it should be common sense and simply say light articles such as but not limited to … the following.

— Laptop computers, no good
— Netbook computer, no good

Maybe an item of a certain weight that could be considered a projectile in case of a crash.

As of now, we have a situation where flight attendants are confused. Enforcement is not uniform. Passengers are irritated since their magazine is no more dangerous than the inflight magazine. Some have suggested throwing away the inflight magazine and replacing it with an equal one of their own.

The Consumer Travel Alliance will be writing to the FAA to ask for a common sense clarification of this newly uncovered guidance. The least we passengers can expect is a simple clear rule that makes a modicum of sense.