Skywest FA makes Guy Pi$$ his Pants

[Stifler's Mom]

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?

How about replace the friggin' lightbulb insead of deferring the whole lav?

 

[XJohXJ]

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.

 

[John Pennekamp]

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.

 

[XJohXJ]

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?

 

[PSPFAWILL]

Apparantly this FA did not attend my class where I tell them "It's a pair of wings, NOT a badge!"

 

[John Pennekamp]

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.

 

[XJohXJ]

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?

 

[John Pennekamp]

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.

 

[trickle99]

"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.

 

[XJohXJ]

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.