Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Skywest FA makes Guy Pi$$ his Pants

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Hovernut

Home Based Again!
Joined
May 7, 2002
Posts
720
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5453315

For God's sake, if the light is out, give the poor fella a flashlight! The CRJ's glorified outhouse is usable under most all conditions. You can manually flush it for Pete's sake by poking open the darned flapper.

Yes, defer it if you must, but 'emergency use' should always be considered! Nothing more painful than trying to tanker pi$$! Gotta love these militant FAs!
 
My favorite are the nazi hags who lock the crapper anytime the seatbelt sign is on. Get a life!
 
If its MEL'd, then its out of service. It is not up to the CA or the FA. What do you want to do, CX a flight so that the crapper is in service?
 
Even if its MEL'd, when somebody has a dire emergency then go...nobody is going to pee in their pants on my flights...similar to when we have an emergency during flight, throw the FARs out, do what you have to do...

Just my 2cents

JvW
 
Here's the whole story:

Desperate, he used air sickness bag for urinary relief
By Paul Beebe
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 03/16/2007 03:40:46 PM MDT

Posted: 2:05 PM- SkyWest Airlines has apologized to a passenger barred from a plane's restroom by a flight attendant.
James Whipple says that after repeated pleas to empty his beer-filled bladder on a recent flight, he finally found relief - with an air sickness bag.
Now, the Sandy man says SkyWest has issued him an apology for his distress.
"It was like I had no choice. I started to urinate on myself. So, thinking the way I thought, I grabbed one of those vomit bags," Whipple said.
"I didn't think I did anything wrong. I could have relieved myself all over my pants. It was almost like that was what she preferred me to do," he said.
On Wednesday, an airline representative apologized to Whipple on behalf of the attendant and promised to send him some travel vouchers.
But a SkyWest spokeswoman also said Whipple wanted to use the bathroom while the fasten-seatbelt light was illuminated. That is against Federal Aviation Administration regulations.
The captain had switched on the fasten-seatbelt light during the hour-long flight because the bathroom was unusable - the light was out.
SkyWest spokeswoman Sabrena Suite-Mangum says that policy is a matter of passenger safety. "As such we expect all our employees to adhere to those federal regulations," she
Advertisement

said.
The episode occurred amid renewed scrutiny of how airlines treat passengers. A poll by Siena College in New York discovered that three in four fliers support calls for a passenger Bill of Rights. The poll was motivated by reports of a JetBlue Airways flight that stranded passengers on a New York runway for more than 10 hours last month.
"For a pilot to declare a lavatory inoperable for a one-hour flight is acceptable to the FAA," Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Mike Fergus said.
Whipple's travails began on the evening of March 7. Whipple, who had been working in Boise all day, was dropped off at the airport about 90 minutes before his flight departed. With little to do, he retired to an airport bar for "two really big beers," he said.
Whipple visited a bathroom in the airport before getting on board for the 67-minute flight to Salt Lake. He said he was allowed to use the aircraft's bathroom while the jet was taxiing from the gate. Whipple said the attendant had announced to passengers that the bathroom was out of order, but didn't explain further.
Suite-Mangum said the captain did allow passengers to use the bathroom as long as the plane was stationary. She said the plane was not moving when Whipple was relieving himself in the bathroom.
"We took a minor delay for this," Suite-Mangum said.
When the 50-seat aircraft was aloft, Whipple drank a soft drink. He said his ordeal began shortly afterward.
"I really had to go. I kept asking three or four times, 'may I use the bathroom?'. She kept telling me no. The fourth time I asked, we were in final descent [into Salt Lake], which was her excuse," Whipple said.
Whipple said there didn't seem to be anything wrong with the bathroom when he used it earlier.
"She [the attendant] acted like we were all cattle and she wanted her shift done," Whipple said.
The airplane wasn't full, Whipple said. Nobody was seated next to him, and the closest passenger was across the aisle in a window seat. So he unzipped his pants, covered himself and urinated into the bag. He closed the bag and laid it on the seat beside him.
The attendant, who had been sitting in a jump seat as the plane descended, confronted Whipple. She asked if he had relieved himself. Whipple replied he had.
"I wasn't trying to hide anything," he said.
The attendant then telephoned the captain. When the plane reached the terminal, Whipple was asked to stay on board while the other passengers got off. A policewoman entered the jet and escorted him to the tarmac, where more than a dozen officers were waiting. Some of the officers questioned the attendant. Other police spoke to passengers. Some said they had seen nothing. One passenger said Whipple wasn't abusive or belligerent.
Whipple was taken to a police station at Salt Lake City International Airport. He said he asked to take a sobriety test, which showed his blood alcohol content was 0.08 percent, which is considered legally impaired. After two hours, he took a taxi home. No charges were filed.
Whipple said he isn't placated, in spite of SkyWest's apology.
"I think it's very wrong for them to put a commercial airliner in the air if it's not in complete working order, regardless of whether [the problem] is a lavatory, or a tire, or anything. We are paying customers, and we put our lives in their hands to fly," he said.

The FA didn't "make him piss". The lav was deferred. Period. When that happens, your MEL states "Lavatory must not be used...". If you or the FA allow someone to use it you are putting your career on the line.

Blame management for letting a plane fly without a lav and blame a a drunk (yes, his BAC was 0.08% AFTER the flight!) for pissing in an airsickness bag, which got him arrested. Now his only defense is to play the victim for public sympathy.

Nothing to see here, folks, move on...
 
Last edited:
"I think it's very wrong for them to put a commercial airliner in the air if it's not in complete working order, regardless of whether [the problem] is a lavatory, or a tire, or anything. We are paying customers, and we put our lives in their hands to fly," he said.

I love this line. If the average passenger had any idea...
 
He should have been aboard one corpex flight when the CA had an explosive failure of the air-sheite seperator...

I know that there were several times that coffee cups were used on jetstreams...
 
Last edited:
What do you want to do, CX a flight so that the crapper is in service?


Depending on the flight YES! 1 hour flight maybe not but with some of the stage lengths that CRJ/ERJs are flying these days I would consider it a necessity. I delayed (greatly) 2 flights in a CRJ-200 that were blocked at 3+30 due to an inop crapper.
 
Blame management for letting a plane fly without a lav and blame a a drunk (yes, his BAC was 0.08% AFTER the flight!) for pissing in an airsickness bag, which got him arrested. Now his only defense is to play the victim for public sympathy.

Hate to respond like this on a Sunday morning, but if he was drunk, why did the CSA's, the FA, and the CA permit him to board in Boise anyway?

Also, it's a light bulb that was broken, get it fixed at the hub and delay if you have to! Takes 5 min tops.

SKW is know for their superior customer service, what happened in this case? FA let him borrow your flashlight, or one of the pilots. Move pax out of the way of the lav door and leave it cracked open.

Thumbs down to SKW. We used to get piss bags regularly flying the long routes for GLA.
 
They let pax use the lav on the ground, so apparently it was not deferred. Give the guy a flash light, and let him use the d@mn lav.

For all you "letter of the law types": back when pax absolutely, positively had to remain seated for the final 30 minutes into DC, the crew I was with asked a fed marshal about "what if someone really needs to go?". The Fed rolled his eyes and said, effectively: use some common sense! If they have to go, let them go, just be aware, and don't let them go for the cockpit door.

Even when pax were absolutely prohibited from using the lavs, the federals said go ahead and let them use it, if the HAVE to.

What a bunch of uptight jerks some flight crews can be. A flipping burned out light does not mean the whole d@mned lav is inop, no matter what some book or guidline says. Grow a pair and use common sense.
 
What a bunch of uptight jerks some flight crews can be. A flipping burned out light does not mean the whole d@mned lav is inop, no matter what some book or guidline says. Grow a pair and use common sense.

Then explain your decision to your wife and kids when the FAA inspector or company official you didn't know was deadheading writes you up and you're out of work. Grow a pair and do your job the way you are supposed to, not "make your own rules".

What other deferrals are we allowed to ignore?

There's no room for a cowboy who thinks he is above the rules in the airlines. Airline flying is all about flying the book.
 
Yeah, well they let him use the lav on the ground, so apparently it was not "officially" inop. How about working with mx on the ground, so you do not need to officially declare what you know to be a perfectly serviceable lav to be "inop". Use some common sense, for cripes sake.

By the way, any trouble caused by reasonably accomidating a pax who is obviously in distress is a fight I would gladly take on. "Cowboy", huh? Yeah, boy, I guess it is very dangerous to let a desperate pax use a flashlight in the lav. My bad.

For what it's worth, if the lav itself was truly broken, then I would not let anyone use it, as it would then be possibly dangerous (leaks, etc.) But, then, if at a Mx hub, don't take the plane. As far as delays, take the delay. I've been on NWA flts delayed over an hour, because they wanted to fix one broken lav, even though several others were still working. Good for them.

If you claim to have never ever in your life maybe not noticed something, like maybe a non-lit backup nav light on a day vfr flight, then you are either a liar, or one of those rare capt that everyone else hates flying with. Save the stones for your own glass house.

Airline flying is all about managing a very complex system to the utmost of your abilities, using skill, knowledge, experience, and common sense, while abiding to a rediculously complex set of regulations, containing sometimes contractictory guidance containing throughout several lengthy guidance manuals. I'm sure you could find something which would let you allow the pax to use a lav with a burnt out light. Hey, say, how about "emergency authority", familiar with that one? Yes, pissing you pants could easily fit under medical emergency. I don't think any airline would be anxious to go after you when you just saved them from a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

If airline flying was all about "flying by the book", how far would you go with that. Have you ever heard of the work action called "flying by the book"? When you litterally fly by the letter of every rule, guideline, and directive, things tend to slow down by a factor of 2-4 or so. Lots of flights get cancelled, too. Airline flying is complex, and takes the ability to make good decisions, which you can back up using logic.

I am not talking about "making your own rules" willy nilly. I am talking about using common sense. Is that too non-autocratic for you?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, well they let him use the lav on the ground, so apparently it was not "officially" inop. How about working with mx on the ground, so you do not need to officially declare what you know to be a perfectly serviceable lav to be "inop". Use some common sense, for cripes sake.

By the way, any trouble caused by reasonably accomidating a pax who is obviously in distress is a fight I would gladly take on. "Cowboy", huh? Yeah, boy, I guess it is very dangerous to let a desperate pax use a flashlight in the lav. My bad.

For what it's worth, if the lav itself was truly broken, then I would not let anyone use it, as it would then be possibly dangerous (leaks, etc.) But, then, if at a Mx hub, don't take the plane. As far as delays, take the delay. I've been on NWA flts delayed over an hour, because they wanted to fix one broken lav, even though several others were still working. Good for them.

If you claim to have never ever in your life maybe not noticed something, like maybe a non-lit backup nav light on a day vfr flight, then you are either a liar, or one of those rare capt that everyone else hates flying with. Save the stones for your own glass house.

Airline flying is all about managing a very complex system to the utmost of your abilities, using skill, knowledge, experience, and common sense, while abiding to a rediculously complex set of regulations, containing sometimes contractictory guidance containing throughout several lengthy guidance manuals. I'm sure you could find something which would let you allow the pax to use a lav with a burnt out light. Grow up big man.


Clearly by the sentence you used to close your rant, you're incapable of having a rational discussission sans insults.

I have news for you. You do not have the authority to overrule a deferral, common sense or not. You have the authority to either insist the deferral is fixed or refuse the airplane.

Have I ever "not noticed" something minor? Of course. Have I ever intentionally used something that was deferred out of service? No. That's liability I'm not willing to shoulder. If you are, good for you.
 
Oh, I'm sorry,

You don't consider "cowboy" to be an insult? How about accusing a guy of having insufficient concern for the well being of his family, (or pax)?

Have you ever heard of "emergency authority"? You think maybe you could use that to give a pax a flashlight and use what you know to be a perfectly working lav?
 
Last edited:
Oh, I'm sorry,

You don't consider "cowboy" to be an insult? Have you ever heard of "emergency authority"? You think maybe you could use that to give a pax a flashlight and use what you know to be a perfectly working lav?

Cowboy is an insult? I'm sure some would consider it a complement. I meant it as an adjective.

Now let me get this straight. You're going to declare an emergency to overrule the deferred lav and let a drunk "go" on a one hour flight? That's rich.

The original post was a question of a drunk and disorderly passenger acting badly, not a flightcrew issue. Get over it.
 
"Airline flying is all about managing a very complex system to the utmost of your abilities, using skill, knowledge, experience, and common sense, while abiding to a rediculously complex set of regulations, containing sometimes contractictory guidance containing throughout several lengthy guidance manuals."

Long time lurker first time poster - but whoever wrote that is right on the money. Thank you.
 
I apologize for the rancor. I did not read it as being about d+d pax. If I'm wrong, then I apologize. I read it as about a guy not being allowed to use the lav by an autocratic, snarly FA.

Who said anything about going on the radio and declaring an emergency? It is an internal procedure. There is a lot of reading between the lines when dealing with regs. All you have to do is: Let the guy use the lav, which everyone knows is a working lav. Get back to base. Fill out an ASAP: "the guy was desperate, possibly becoming disruptive. We felt the best course was to let him use the lav, despite the fact that the light was burnt out." Problem solved. If the co. agrees, new guidance is written. If they disagree, then they let the pilot know. Everyone moves on, no one is hurt.

Sorry about the rancor. Different interpretations of the situation happing here. Go back to your regular programming.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top