Narrative:

Captain was running late, gave no group briefing to the crew, but stated in passing to me that all would be SOP. First flight attendant: flight attendant 'a' or lead position, gave no briefing. Charter coordinator: flight attendant in charge of the charter, she briefed all 5 flight attendants on service expectations and service flow. Mr X, non in-flight qualified employee on board, who acted like a charter liaison. Overloading of door 2L closet: the charter coordinator instructed the flight attendants to refrain from stowing their bags in the areas where they are normally stowed and place all of their bags in the same closet. The closet was subsequently overloaded and the doors had to be pressed upon in order to close and lock them. I was uncomfortable with exceeding weight limits, but was made to feel that this was the way things were done on a charter flight. This was done purely to accommodate the customers. Episode: prior to pushback, main cabin door still open, I noticed a passenger had mounted a radio on top of his armrest, positioning the ample antenna next to the window. I said, 'you're not planning to listen to that during flight are you?' he was joined in a chorus of passenger saying, 'mr X always lets us listen to the radios during the flight.' I immediately went to speak with the charter coordinator. She and I stepped onto the jetway. I told her what the passenger said. As she is a fully qualified flight attendant, I knew she was aware that SOP does not allow the use of unapproved electronic devices in the cabin. She said we were not operating under part 121 (untrue -- subsequently, I confirmed we were part 121) and these people were media people, whose equipment contained special shielding, and they were allowed to use their equipment (small hand-held radios). I told her I would have appreciated being told during her briefing which regulations we were to follow and which regulations to ignore. As far as I knew, our flight to bwi took us over our nation's most restrictive and sensitive airspace. I was upset and concerned. As I perceived her as my superior, I did not challenge her by then speaking with the captain. After landing: this was a flight where I truly felt the passenger were treated as what the company wants us to call them, 'customers.' I felt the 'customers' had been given carte blanche and some of the far's ignored. I was repeatedly told the 'customers' were paying a lot of money. By the time we landed, I felt ineffectual to exercise any authority/authorized. During taxi, I observed 2 passenger get out of their seats, 1 passenger walked around, stood in the aisle and another passenger took his suitcase out of the overhead bin. This appeared to be 'business as usual.' after the flight: I spoke with the captain at the hotel. I discovered no one had informed him of the authority/authorized use of the unapproved electronic devices in the cabin. Further, he said there is no conclusive evidence through testing that the use of unapproved electronic devices interferes with aircraft system. He said their use poses virtually no threat, and therefore would have allowed their use had he been asked. I disagreed with his opinion. I told him I did not want to fly under these conditions. I called scheduling and requested to be removed from the return charter flight. My request to be reassigned was granted. Concerns: the chain of command was blurred -- I believe the captain was in charge of the flight, flight deck door forward, but behind the flight deck door, things got blurred. The charter coordinator acted in charge, and mr X (non-in-flight qualified) was authorizing the use of unapproved electronic devices. The first flight attendant, who was technically in charge, appeared unaware and unconcerned. Crew communication broke down -- I was told by the captain, all would be SOP, then told by the charter coordinator that the regulations were different and that part 121 did not apply. Later, I discovered the captain had not been informed of the use of the unapproved electronic devices. Captain's disregard -- the air carrier's flight operations manual, as well as the far's, prohibits the use of unapproved electronic devices in the cabin. Regardless of thecapt's personal opinion, adherence to SOP's and compliance with FARS should prevail.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757-200. DURING A CHARTER FLT, THE ACR IGNORED FAR'S APPLYING TO PAX CONDUCT AND OP OF PAX ELECTRONIC DEVICES.

Narrative: CAPT WAS RUNNING LATE, GAVE NO GROUP BRIEFING TO THE CREW, BUT STATED IN PASSING TO ME THAT ALL WOULD BE SOP. FIRST FLT ATTENDANT: FLT ATTENDANT 'A' OR LEAD POS, GAVE NO BRIEFING. CHARTER COORDINATOR: FLT ATTENDANT IN CHARGE OF THE CHARTER, SHE BRIEFED ALL 5 FLT ATTENDANTS ON SVC EXPECTATIONS AND SVC FLOW. MR X, NON INFLT QUALIFIED EMPLOYEE ON BOARD, WHO ACTED LIKE A CHARTER LIAISON. OVERLOADING OF DOOR 2L CLOSET: THE CHARTER COORDINATOR INSTRUCTED THE FLT ATTENDANTS TO REFRAIN FROM STOWING THEIR BAGS IN THE AREAS WHERE THEY ARE NORMALLY STOWED AND PLACE ALL OF THEIR BAGS IN THE SAME CLOSET. THE CLOSET WAS SUBSEQUENTLY OVERLOADED AND THE DOORS HAD TO BE PRESSED UPON IN ORDER TO CLOSE AND LOCK THEM. I WAS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH EXCEEDING WT LIMITS, BUT WAS MADE TO FEEL THAT THIS WAS THE WAY THINGS WERE DONE ON A CHARTER FLT. THIS WAS DONE PURELY TO ACCOMMODATE THE CUSTOMERS. EPISODE: PRIOR TO PUSHBACK, MAIN CABIN DOOR STILL OPEN, I NOTICED A PAX HAD MOUNTED A RADIO ON TOP OF HIS ARMREST, POSITIONING THE AMPLE ANTENNA NEXT TO THE WINDOW. I SAID, 'YOU'RE NOT PLANNING TO LISTEN TO THAT DURING FLT ARE YOU?' HE WAS JOINED IN A CHORUS OF PAX SAYING, 'MR X ALWAYS LETS US LISTEN TO THE RADIOS DURING THE FLT.' I IMMEDIATELY WENT TO SPEAK WITH THE CHARTER COORDINATOR. SHE AND I STEPPED ONTO THE JETWAY. I TOLD HER WHAT THE PAX SAID. AS SHE IS A FULLY QUALIFIED FLT ATTENDANT, I KNEW SHE WAS AWARE THAT SOP DOES NOT ALLOW THE USE OF UNAPPROVED ELECTRONIC DEVICES IN THE CABIN. SHE SAID WE WERE NOT OPERATING UNDER PART 121 (UNTRUE -- SUBSEQUENTLY, I CONFIRMED WE WERE PART 121) AND THESE PEOPLE WERE MEDIA PEOPLE, WHOSE EQUIP CONTAINED SPECIAL SHIELDING, AND THEY WERE ALLOWED TO USE THEIR EQUIP (SMALL HAND-HELD RADIOS). I TOLD HER I WOULD HAVE APPRECIATED BEING TOLD DURING HER BRIEFING WHICH REGS WE WERE TO FOLLOW AND WHICH REGS TO IGNORE. AS FAR AS I KNEW, OUR FLT TO BWI TOOK US OVER OUR NATION'S MOST RESTRICTIVE AND SENSITIVE AIRSPACE. I WAS UPSET AND CONCERNED. AS I PERCEIVED HER AS MY SUPERIOR, I DID NOT CHALLENGE HER BY THEN SPEAKING WITH THE CAPT. AFTER LNDG: THIS WAS A FLT WHERE I TRULY FELT THE PAX WERE TREATED AS WHAT THE COMPANY WANTS US TO CALL THEM, 'CUSTOMERS.' I FELT THE 'CUSTOMERS' HAD BEEN GIVEN CARTE BLANCHE AND SOME OF THE FAR'S IGNORED. I WAS REPEATEDLY TOLD THE 'CUSTOMERS' WERE PAYING A LOT OF MONEY. BY THE TIME WE LANDED, I FELT INEFFECTUAL TO EXERCISE ANY AUTH. DURING TAXI, I OBSERVED 2 PAX GET OUT OF THEIR SEATS, 1 PAX WALKED AROUND, STOOD IN THE AISLE AND ANOTHER PAX TOOK HIS SUITCASE OUT OF THE OVERHEAD BIN. THIS APPEARED TO BE 'BUSINESS AS USUAL.' AFTER THE FLT: I SPOKE WITH THE CAPT AT THE HOTEL. I DISCOVERED NO ONE HAD INFORMED HIM OF THE AUTH USE OF THE UNAPPROVED ELECTRONIC DEVICES IN THE CABIN. FURTHER, HE SAID THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THROUGH TESTING THAT THE USE OF UNAPPROVED ELECTRONIC DEVICES INTERFERES WITH ACFT SYS. HE SAID THEIR USE POSES VIRTUALLY NO THREAT, AND THEREFORE WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THEIR USE HAD HE BEEN ASKED. I DISAGREED WITH HIS OPINION. I TOLD HIM I DID NOT WANT TO FLY UNDER THESE CONDITIONS. I CALLED SCHEDULING AND REQUESTED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE RETURN CHARTER FLT. MY REQUEST TO BE REASSIGNED WAS GRANTED. CONCERNS: THE CHAIN OF COMMAND WAS BLURRED -- I BELIEVE THE CAPT WAS IN CHARGE OF THE FLT, FLT DECK DOOR FORWARD, BUT BEHIND THE FLT DECK DOOR, THINGS GOT BLURRED. THE CHARTER COORDINATOR ACTED IN CHARGE, AND MR X (NON-INFLT QUALIFIED) WAS AUTHORIZING THE USE OF UNAPPROVED ELECTRONIC DEVICES. THE FIRST FLT ATTENDANT, WHO WAS TECHNICALLY IN CHARGE, APPEARED UNAWARE AND UNCONCERNED. CREW COM BROKE DOWN -- I WAS TOLD BY THE CAPT, ALL WOULD BE SOP, THEN TOLD BY THE CHARTER COORDINATOR THAT THE REGS WERE DIFFERENT AND THAT PART 121 DID NOT APPLY. LATER, I DISCOVERED THE CAPT HAD NOT BEEN INFORMED OF THE USE OF THE UNAPPROVED ELECTRONIC DEVICES. CAPT'S DISREGARD -- THE ACR'S FLT OPS MANUAL, AS WELL AS THE FAR'S, PROHIBITS THE USE OF UNAPPROVED ELECTRONIC DEVICES IN THE CABIN. REGARDLESS OF THECAPT'S PERSONAL OPINION, ADHERENCE TO SOP'S AND COMPLIANCE WITH FARS SHOULD PREVAIL.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.