Passengers love exit row seats for the extra legroom, but in exchange they’re supposed to be willing and able to assist in an emergency. Crew provide an ‘exit row briefing’ in which each passenger is supposed to acknowledge this.

But what happens when a passenger does acknowledge it, but maybe they aren’t in a position to actually assist?

@AmericanAir can a passenger sitting in an exit row have a foot boot on and able to perform the functions of an exit row in an emergency? AA402 dfw to Phl today pic.twitter.com/TC734LJ5sL

— BelieveNU2030 (@investNU2030) October 5, 2025

In the U.S. (and pretty much everywhere else) exit row eligibility is not just “self‑certification.” The airline is responsible for deciding who can sit there, and crew are expected to verify and, if necessary, re‑seat someone who isn’t “willing and able.” A passenger in a cast or boot is commonly moved.

The FAA rule is explicit: the certificate holder (airline) must determine the suitability of each person in an exit seat. It’s the carrier’s call, not the passenger’s. Disqualifiers include:

• lacking “sufficient mobility, strength, or dexterity in both arms and hands, and both legs”
• inability to understand instructions/crew commands
  
• being responsible for someone else (e.g., a child).

Before pushback, a crewmember must verify that no exit seat is occupied by someone likely unable to perform the functions. They have to do more than collect a rote “yes.” Visual and verbal assessment of each exit‑row occupant is supposed to happen. The FAA has found flight attendants “coaching” a verbal yes and instead advises asking questions that actually test suitability.

Safety rules like FAA exit‑row criteria are actually a permitted exception to nondiscrimination rules. Airlines may keep someone out of an exit row to comply with safety requirements. Normally you don’t ask for proof of fitness or disability. Here you can make assumptions and that judgment generally isn’t questioned.

In Europe, airlines must have procedures so that only passengers who “appear to be reasonably fit, strong and able” occupy seats with direct access to emergency exits; passengers who would “have difficulty moving quickly” should not be seated there.

In Canada, airlines must have procedures to ensure exit seats are not occupied by passengers whose presence could adversely affect evacuation. Eligibility criteria largely mirror the FAA’s (physical capability, understanding instructions, ability to assess conditions, not responsible for others, etc.).

Here’s what’s actually a bit strange about these rules.

1. Passengers don’t get in trouble for not actually helping in an emergency. They have to be able to, but in effect they do not have to.

   There have been exit row passengers who failed to help in an emergency. For instance,
   

   • USAir 1493 (LAX runway collision, 1991): The right over wing exit occupant “froze” and didn’t open the exit door. Another passenger climbed over, opened it, and pushed her out. The NTSB report noted the delay at that exit hampered the evacuation.

   • American 1420 (Little Rock, 1999): The NTSB evacuation study describes exit row passengers at over wing exits who abandoned or couldn’t not open the door until others stepped in.

   I can’t find a single documented case where a passenger was prosecuted for failing to assist in an emergency after they agreed to do so. Civil liability is theoretically possible under negligence theories (negligently failing to perform the duties and thereby causing harm). But that’s just a theory, not actual case law.

2. And having someone in an exit row to assist in an emergency is not actually necessary – exit rows don’t need to be occupied for safety reasons and airlines don’t have an obligation to fill those seats.

My view is that this passenger in a boot shouldn’t be in an exit row, and the FAA likely agrees with that.