Can an Airplane Passenger Ignore the “Fasten Seat Belt” Sign?

I was on a plane recently, listening to the usual safety briefing, when I heard the flight attendant say that “it is a violation of federal law” to ignore illuminated safety signs, such as the “fasten seat belt” sign. I was surprised because, on another flight, I had overheard a flight attendant tell a passenger who wanted to use the bathroom while the “fasten seat belt” sign was illuminated that she couldn’t authorize him to get out of his seat but that she wouldn’t stop him either. The sense I got from that previous exchange was that the sign was essentially a recommendation. So, I decided to look into it.

It is a violation of federal law to ignore the sign. 14 C.F.R. 121.317(f) states that an airplane passenger “shall fasten his or her safety belt about him or her and keep it fastened while the ‘Fasten Seat Belt’ sign is lighted.” The statutory basis for the rule is 49 U.S.C. § 44701, which allows the FAA to issue “regulations and minimum standards for . . . practices, methods, and procedure the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce.”

The violation is civil, not criminal. The applicable penalty provision is 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A), which authorizes “a civil penalty of not more than $10,000” for violations of “a regulation prescribed . . . under” 49 U.S.C. § 44701.

Enforcement is extremely uncommon. This Slate article reports that “in the last five years, the [FAA] hasn’t taken any legal enforcement action against a passenger who was solely and allegedly in violation of 14 CFR 121.317(f),” but it “did issue four warning letters outlining the penalties for this kind of infraction over the same period.”

Ignoring a flight attendant is a different matter. There are several regulations that require passengers to comply with crewmembers’ instructions, including 14 C.F.R. 121.317(k): “Each passenger shall comply with instructions given him or her by a crewmember regarding compliance with” seat belt requirements. The Slate article linked above reports that the FAA is more likely to take enforcement action against passengers who disregard flight attendants’ instructions. An illustrative case is Wallaesa v. Federal Aviation Administration, 824 F.3d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 2016). A male passenger became infatuated with a female passenger and began to harass her. Flight attendants moved him away from her, but he continued to seek her out, ignoring the “fasten seat belt” sign and the repeated instructions of the flight attendants. An FBI agent who happened to be on the flight eventually intervened and restrained the passenger. The FAA imposed a civil penalty, initially citing both the seatbelt rules and the rules requiring compliance with flight attendants’ instructions. In litigation over the penalty, the FAA expressly took the position that while the passenger had violated the seatbelt rule, that violation “did not merit a penalty.” The agency contended that the passenger’s noncompliance with the flight attendants’ instructions did merit a financial consequence, and the various tribunals to consider the matter agreed.

So, can I go to the bathroom or not? Questions about the need to comply with the “fasten seat belt” sign typically arise when a passenger needs to go to the bathroom. This article for frequent flyers has some good practical advice: It’s better to wait if you can; don’t go right after takeoff or right before landing; don’t ask a flight attendant for permission to go, since they can’t give it to you; and don’t ignore a flight attendant’s order to stay in your seat. But if you really have to go, the odds of facing any legal sanction from ignoring the sign are slight.

Comedy. The comedy duo Key & Peele aren’t to everyone’s taste, but if you like them, their short entitled Turbulence is on point.

10 comments on “Can an Airplane Passenger Ignore the “Fasten Seat Belt” Sign?

  1. There’s reason for the rule and following it, for it applies to emergency circumstances when time is a factor. Unsecured items are subject to become flying missiles during emergencies which might happen on take offs, landings and turbulence — including loose bodies. All passengers should comply if at all possible to keep safety first. (I await the day carry on and overhead luggage is not allowed for safety reasons.)

    To only enforce the rules (and consequences) after there is a problem/injury is short sighted, or hindsighted, tho problems are rare on commercial flights, things do happen. As an aside, my smart key for my car warns me not to push buttons on flights due to possible plane control malfunctions. That’s a scary thought. Trapped on a flying ‘elevator’ makes me want rules and want rules to be obeyed.

    • Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
      Blockin’ out the scenery, breakin’ my mind
      Do this, don’t do that, can’t you read the sign?

    • I agree with your loose bodies argument, and think that it would be a good idea to have a lock on those overhead bins that only the attendants can open when there is turbulence, because that could affect someone who is not yourself. I think that you are someone however who places a much higher value on security than freedom. I place a much higher value on freedom over security. This leads to the question, for whom should the laws be made? I agree with your flying bodies argument because my actions could harm someone else. Laws should be made to protect 3rd party actions that could affect someone else. Laws themselves however affect an entire population. So should your preference for security decrease my freedom, or should my preference for security decrease MY (not your, MY) freedom? Again, I agree that laws preventing person A from violating person B are necessary. However, I assert that a world where security is maximized while restricting freedom leads to highway speed limits being decreased to 20 MPH and laws requiring people who have had 3 drinks or are over the age of 70 to wear helmets while bipedal.

  2. Who doesn’t like Key & (Oscar-winner) Peele????

  3. Jeff,
    Also see 91-107(3) for the separate requirement for wearing seat belts while aircraft is moving on the ground or during take-off and landing. Although the crew has a duty to brief passengers on this, rule would apply regardless. As an aside, I have heard anecdotally that the requirement for your seat to be straight up is due to certification standards for the crashworthiness of the seat … that they are only certified for crashworthiness in the straight up position.

  4. See, sometimes there is a cop around when you need one. Even at 25,000 feet.

  5. When ya gotta go, ya GOTTA go! Rule each situation on its own merits, spirit of the law vs. intent of the law. Some folks can’t hold it for various reasons, but primarily due to medical reasons (as in my case, my fight with cancer and radiation treatments which cause severe bladder problems out of nowhere; inasmuch I try to time my mens room visits all I may, “Mr. Bladder” will still pick the darndest times to inflate). In a perfect world everyone would remain belted in when the rules apply. But, we’re not in a perfect world. Conversely, if someone is unbelted for lesser reasons, i.e., harassment of a fellow passenger which doesn’t present a dire NEED, I say slap them with a warning/fine, depending upon the severity of the infraction.

  6. […] the practical real world answer. What about the law? Finally we have that answer […]

  7. This comes down to the question of does your body belong to you or not? If you think that your body does belong to you, then the sign should be a suggestion. If you think that your body belongs to the FAA and feel that the increase in safety from someone forcing you to remain seated is worth the loss of the freedom to your actions, then by all means, keep on encouraging these types of laws made for your own safety while reducing freedom. If you would rather be responsible for your own body which comes with an increased risk of injury because you slipped on an airplane, then come over to this side with me. Everything is a trade off. I would hope that the majority of Americans would prefer the trade off resulting in more responsibility and freedom, instead of the trade off decreasing freedom and increasing authoritarianism.

    • Shortsighted to think that your body is exempt from anyone else body! But the rule is an FAA rule; if you want to fly on the aircraft, you are compelled to obey the rule.