Go-Around for Pax in the Lav?
05-14-2013 | 04:43 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
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.) 
Let's say the guy steps into the lav 45 seconds from touchdown. At a bare minimum, if I am the FA involved, I'd probably say something like "I understand, you've GOT to go, you're sick, can't hold it. But stay in the lav, seated, until I knock on the door." That way, you don't have a guy standing during the touchdown and rollout.
05-14-2013 | 05:26 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 0
From: 777 Captain in Training
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).
05-14-2013 | 05:52 AM
#53
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
From: Upright
This happened to me at ROA on a clear day. We were informed after configuring the aircraft.
1. I answered the phone becuase the possibility existed she was going to inform us of an emergency, even though she did not select the emergency call button. No guarantee a scared flight attended watching a fire growing at the back of the aircraft isn't going to revert to the way she calls us 99 times out of 100 to inform us.
2. Mountainous terrain. Continuing the landing ensures the least risk to the pax who aren't in the lavs.
1. I answered the phone becuase the possibility existed she was going to inform us of an emergency, even though she did not select the emergency call button. No guarantee a scared flight attended watching a fire growing at the back of the aircraft isn't going to revert to the way she calls us 99 times out of 100 to inform us.
2. Mountainous terrain. Continuing the landing ensures the least risk to the pax who aren't in the lavs.
05-14-2013 | 06:15 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Which is the greatest risk to your other passengers? There is quite a bit of risk to nearby passengers if the person exits the lav during the touchdown. I had this happen two years ago and the captain asked for vectors back around. It all depends on your current environment though.
05-14-2013 | 07:59 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,823
Likes: 169
From: window seat
Which is the greatest risk to your other passengers? There is quite a bit of risk to nearby passengers if the person exits the lav during the touchdown. I had this happen two years ago and the captain asked for vectors back around. It all depends on your current environment though.
Asking them to stay in the lav until the plane comes to a stop makes a lot of sense but there is a 100% chance they will grab an ambulance chaser scum bag lawyer and sue for wrongful imprisionment and the lamestream media will run with it with extreme predjudice.
There is no one single absolute right answer on this. Either position is very defensibile in most cases. Either way that pax needs to be met by LE for disruptive behavior because they endangered others in addition to themselves because they couldn't hold it for one more minute?
Bottom line, whichever correct choice you make, defend it from a safety perspective. If pax up = automatic go-around then that needs to be in the manuals as a bolded memory item. It won't ever be of course, because that would be rediculous. Either way has risk, which was created by the passenger in question.
05-14-2013 | 08:09 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
From: missionary
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?
Agree 100% with you. Land the airplane.
05-14-2013 | 08:24 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
From: Doing what you do, for less.
05-14-2013 | 08:50 AM
#59
Flies With The Hat On
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
From: Right of the Left Seat
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?
I tell the flight attendant we're landing and hangup. Land smoothly and don't get on the brakes heavily.
My crew had a passenger opt to use the bathroom during landing two weeks ago—no one told us. The landing was perfect, but our braking surely put the person in the lav against the wall. Thankfully the individual was in the lav during landing.
05-14-2013 | 09:11 AM
#60
On Reserve
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 184
Likes: 1
From: B757/B767
And if you're landing on a runway where stopping distance is marginal/critical i.e. SNA or someplace like that?
But how about if you're on short final going into Aspen? Would anyone go around there? For this?? A low altitude go-around at ASE is something of an emergency maneuver in-and-of itself.
Really, really depends on the situation. If you're going to put the safety of the passengers and the plane into jeopordy by going around, yes landing becomes something of a no-brainer at that point.
But how about if you're on short final going into Aspen? Would anyone go around there? For this?? A low altitude go-around at ASE is something of an emergency maneuver in-and-of itself.
Really, really depends on the situation. If you're going to put the safety of the passengers and the plane into jeopordy by going around, yes landing becomes something of a no-brainer at that point.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
