14 C.F.R. § 91.11
Prohibition on interference with crewmembers
No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Timothy French v. Pan Am Express, Inc., 869 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989).
Timothy French v. Pan Am Express, Inc., 869 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989). “” 14 C.F.R. § 91.11 (a)(3). The regulations tell us: Whenever the Administrator has a reasonable basis to believe that a person may have violated [the prohibition against drug use] that person shall, upon request by the Administrator, furnish the Administrator, or authorize any…”
Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 808 F.2d 76 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “14 C.F.R. § 91.11 (a)(4) (1986). 3 . See Northwest Airlines, Inc.”
Hughes v. State, 943 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). “1992) (upholding the revocation of Johnson's commercial pilot certificate for allowing his intoxicated copilot to fly the aircraft); 14 C.F.R § 91.11 (1999)(federal aeronautics safety regulation which prohibits any crewmember from serving as a crewmember with a .”
Lee Sorenson v. The Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd. & Charles E. Weithoner, Acting Adm'r, Fed. Aviation Admin., 684 F.2d 683 (10th Cir. 1982). “Sor-enson violated 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.11 (a)(1) and (2) which prohibit a pilot from piloting an aircraft within eight hours of drinking an alcoholic beverage or while under the influence of alcohol.”
Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 633 F. Supp. 779 (D.D.C. 1985). “; [w]hile under the influence of alcohol; or [while] using any drug that affects his faculties in any way contrary to safety,” 14 C.F.R. § 91.11 (a), a history of alcoholism need not preclude the issuance of a valid medical certificate.”
Rubin v. United Air Lines, Inc., 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1645 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “For example, regulations grant authority (1) to the pilot and crew members to prohibit anyone from interfering, intimidating or threatening a crew member or interfering with his or her duties ( 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.11 , 121.580 (2001)); (2) jointly to the pilot and director of…”
Husain v. Olympic Airways, 116 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2000). “As an element of this unwritten compact, passengers bestow upon the airline and the flight crew nearly absolute authority to control and manipulate the mobile environment for the benefit of all those aboard.”
James Kenneth Gallagher v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd. & Adm'r, Fed. Aviation Admin., 953 F.2d 1214 (10th Cir. 1992). “14 C.F.R. § 91.11 (a) (1990). This section is currently found at 14 C.”
United States v. Norman Lyle Prouse, United States of Am. v. Robert John Kirchner, United States of Am. v. Joseph Wesley Balzer, 945 F.2d 1017 (8th Cir. 1991). “See 14 C.F.R. § 91.11 (a)(1), (2) (1987). At the time of their arrests, Solseth read appellants an Implied Consent Advisory 2 requesting that they submit to a blood alcohol test.”
Schaeffer v. Cavallero, 54 F. Supp. 2d 350 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). “By, instead, choosing not to disembark on his own and, rather, demanding that he be escorted off by the police, the plaintiff brought upon himself the “battery” and “false imprisonment” he seeks to attribute to the defendants.”
Cloyd v. State, 943 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). “1992)(upholding the revocation of Johnson's commercial pilot certificate for allowing his intoxicated copilot to fly the aircraft); 14 C.F.R § 91.11 (1999)(federal aeronautics safety regulation which prohibits any crewmember from serving as a crewmember with a .”
Gibbs v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 191 F. Supp. 2d 144 (D.D.C. 2002). “Gibbs an official warning card containing language based upon 14 C.F.R. § 91.11 (stating that “[n]o person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember’s duties aboard an aircraft being operated”).”
— 14 C.F.R. § 91.11(a)(1) — 1 case
James L. Aadland v. Alexander P. Butterfield, Adm'r, Fed. Aviation Admin., & Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 502 F.2d 799 (8th Cir. 1974).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.