Go-Around for Pax in the Lav?
05-13-2013 | 03:45 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
From: JetRight, JetLeft
So here's the scenario as it happened to me (I have overheard such scenarios loitering around the briefing room in the past):
Gear down on final, short final, call comes from the back. Ding! Lead FA: "Hey, we have a passenger who jumped up and ran into the lav. I think you should go around. I told her to remain seated and she ignored me. Should I get her out?"
Me: "Uhhh, no say strapped in. But this isn't a good time right now, I gotta go. (Click)
Now, before the wheels spin up in your head and get wrapped around the brain stem, yes we continued the approach and landed (and filled out an FSR).
I have heard other crews electing to execute a go-around after receiving a call like this and I want to know what your thoughts are. Here are my bullet points:
- Passengers have been briefed on landing checks and policy, seatbelt sign is on.
- Cabin crew is seated and strapped in. They are secured in their jumpseats to facilitate egress to the passengers in the event of an evac. Removing their harnesses and getting up to retrieve a passenger from the lav during landing could injure the FA in the event of an incident and prohibit them from performing their duties (remember inform not enforce).
- Executing a go-around on short final for any reason is an added and significant risk to ALL aboard the aircraft not to mention other aircraft in the vicinity. An aircraft which fails to clear the runway is a good reason. But a potty break? (Hey, but when yo gotta go-you gotta GO)!
- Go-around hazards: Irregular op, high workload, loss of separation, mid-air, FOD or bird, engine or mechanical failure, weather or low visibility issues, fuel issues, communication, errors/stress, ATC complications, arrival delays, and of course, expense.
All for one person who couldn't hold it? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?
And you say?
Gear down on final, short final, call comes from the back. Ding! Lead FA: "Hey, we have a passenger who jumped up and ran into the lav. I think you should go around. I told her to remain seated and she ignored me. Should I get her out?"
Me: "Uhhh, no say strapped in. But this isn't a good time right now, I gotta go. (Click)
Now, before the wheels spin up in your head and get wrapped around the brain stem, yes we continued the approach and landed (and filled out an FSR).
I have heard other crews electing to execute a go-around after receiving a call like this and I want to know what your thoughts are. Here are my bullet points:
- Passengers have been briefed on landing checks and policy, seatbelt sign is on.
- Cabin crew is seated and strapped in. They are secured in their jumpseats to facilitate egress to the passengers in the event of an evac. Removing their harnesses and getting up to retrieve a passenger from the lav during landing could injure the FA in the event of an incident and prohibit them from performing their duties (remember inform not enforce).
- Executing a go-around on short final for any reason is an added and significant risk to ALL aboard the aircraft not to mention other aircraft in the vicinity. An aircraft which fails to clear the runway is a good reason. But a potty break? (Hey, but when yo gotta go-you gotta GO)!
- Go-around hazards: Irregular op, high workload, loss of separation, mid-air, FOD or bird, engine or mechanical failure, weather or low visibility issues, fuel issues, communication, errors/stress, ATC complications, arrival delays, and of course, expense.
All for one person who couldn't hold it? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?
And you say?
We get paid by the minute. If it benefits me, then yes, I'd go-around.
GP
05-13-2013 | 03:48 PM
#42
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
05-13-2013 | 04:10 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,149
Likes: 46
From: Volleyball Player
Original poster- great question! Maybe there needs to be more defined company procedures for both pilots and FAs to handle these situations. This situation seems both common enough AND serious enough to warrant planning and that general procedures are established. Also, my mom was non revving last week when when a pax ran to the lav on final. So I was wondering the same thing.
05-13-2013 | 04:28 PM
#44
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
This is probably the most reasonable post. If the FAA is on board and this happens, what are you going to do? What are you going to do if they are not? What if one of those "almost impossible" scenarios comes true? You end up having bet your career on just "ignoring it", it won't end well. It's ridiculous because the regulations are not written better and company policy is not better, but it is what it is. Going around IS the right thing, as long as it's safe. If it's safer to land, that's an "emergency", and you need to state that, because that's what it takes to operate contrary to regulations. It could go both ways, but what you can't do is just "ignore it".
Answering the I/C is a choice.
The seatbelt sign is on.
My opinion is that it is our job to "advise" not "enforce". The pax went into the can when everyone should be belted in. That is on him.
What's next, rejecting a takeoff when you hear someone making a cellphone call (you know the sound it makes in your headset).
05-13-2013 | 07:11 PM
#45
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,543
Likes: 0
From: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Thanks James. That the FAs are calling up front tells me there needs to be guidance as to what is the best action of risk management. That, and there seems to be ZERO consensus among pilots with *thousands* of hours of 121 experience. Nobody is on the same page.
A little company guidance seems to be necessary given the likelihood of occurrence multiplied by severity of the consequences- a pax potentially being hurled violently into something or someone in either a go around or landing. Taking into consideration that each situation is unique and requiring judgment, a little guidance in the FOM and FAM strikes me as prudent.
A little company guidance seems to be necessary given the likelihood of occurrence multiplied by severity of the consequences- a pax potentially being hurled violently into something or someone in either a go around or landing. Taking into consideration that each situation is unique and requiring judgment, a little guidance in the FOM and FAM strikes me as prudent.
05-13-2013 | 07:19 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,149
Likes: 46
From: Volleyball Player
I see it as the Px are not following the FAs instructions, which is enforcible, but if it's never enforced, what good is the rule? It's only going to get FAs and pilots in trouble, and no one else.
It's a catch 22, there's an enforcement for pilots "taxiing with passengers standing" in the FAA order 2150, but no established way to transfer the risk to the passenger and not hold the rest of the flight hostage. Passengers don't listen to FAs and the flight crew because there are no consequences (unless it's something affecting the safety of everyone else).
It's a catch 22, there's an enforcement for pilots "taxiing with passengers standing" in the FAA order 2150, but no established way to transfer the risk to the passenger and not hold the rest of the flight hostage. Passengers don't listen to FAs and the flight crew because there are no consequences (unless it's something affecting the safety of everyone else).
05-13-2013 | 08:00 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,070
Likes: 1
From: Urban chicken rancher.
Don't answer the phone on short final.
The pax get a safety video/briefing.
The FAs constantly address tray tables up, seats up, electronic devices off.
The seat belt sign is on.
The passenger = dumb ass.
The pax get a safety video/briefing.
The FAs constantly address tray tables up, seats up, electronic devices off.
The seat belt sign is on.
The passenger = dumb ass.
05-14-2013 | 04:00 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,217
Likes: 52
From: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Good opportunity for one and all to direct a query to your Safety Department, D/O, C/P as to what action should be taken. Good topic of discussion during recurrent whilst covering gerneral subjects. May save someone from Certificate Action by Fred T. Rukus of the FAA or the old carpet dance before youur frienldy C/P.
I've received calls due to pax collapsing in the aisle during approach, having an epileptic fit, gone sick, etc. However, not one F/A has ever over stepped their bounds by ordering, or suggesting that a go-around be accomplished. Luckely all of these have been very close to the FAF, or FDP where I was able to break off the approach. Events that I've experienced has been as an expat in foreign lands. An incident report is required by the PIC and Sr. F/A to the company, local ATC and some times with the Aaviation Authority. No issues other than a bit of inconvenience or writer's cramp is all... no witch hunt.
I've received calls due to pax collapsing in the aisle during approach, having an epileptic fit, gone sick, etc. However, not one F/A has ever over stepped their bounds by ordering, or suggesting that a go-around be accomplished. Luckely all of these have been very close to the FAF, or FDP where I was able to break off the approach. Events that I've experienced has been as an expat in foreign lands. An incident report is required by the PIC and Sr. F/A to the company, local ATC and some times with the Aaviation Authority. No issues other than a bit of inconvenience or writer's cramp is all... no witch hunt.
Last edited by captjns; 05-14-2013 at 04:32 AM.
05-14-2013 | 04:04 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
This is an interesting thread with no right answer.
Again, what can the FA say that might cause me to go around, assuming 3 green and everything looking good? "We're on fire." Well, we are landing in moments anyhow.
Then, I got to thinking a bit more, and the danger isn't from some dude with his pants around his ankles at touchdown, it is someone walking the aisle, trying to get back to his seat during the flare or TD. The potential for him to fall and injure someone or himself is not small.
Worst case: There's a cart loose. A cart cannot grab on to a seat back. So I'm starting to change my mind... IF the phone is answered, there just may be some info that might cause a go-around.
Again, what can the FA say that might cause me to go around, assuming 3 green and everything looking good? "We're on fire." Well, we are landing in moments anyhow.
Then, I got to thinking a bit more, and the danger isn't from some dude with his pants around his ankles at touchdown, it is someone walking the aisle, trying to get back to his seat during the flare or TD. The potential for him to fall and injure someone or himself is not small.
Worst case: There's a cart loose. A cart cannot grab on to a seat back. So I'm starting to change my mind... IF the phone is answered, there just may be some info that might cause a go-around.
05-14-2013 | 04:31 AM
#50
Junior Senior
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,851
Likes: 1
From: Whiskey Papa
FA shouldn't have suggested a go-around, BUT made the right call to let the pilots know. If they didn't and someone reported it to the company/FAA, their ass would be in a sling. The most they can do it call up front....you guys take it from there. (Unfortunately much of this is just covering one's ass.) 
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
