The United debarcle

[Evan]

CAT is probably more dangerous than being parked, not too much debate although there's a steady stream of ground collisions (A-380 vs. CRJ comes to mind).

Remind me how many people fell to their deaths in that one...

The fact is, TeeVee is right. CAT is a far more dangerous possibility and yet we allow pax to walk about the plane and freely visit the lav where that possibility exists. We even put bars and lounges on some airplanes that encourage this (or at least we used to).

It comes down to practical measures. For flights over and hour or so, must put lavs on airplanes and people must be allowed to use them. It is statistically safer (I guess, bases on ATL's experience) to do this in the air. So thems the rules.

But the deciding factor, the one that makes lavs necessary, is time. A one-hour flight that gets stuck on the ground for two hours is three-hour flight. And we need a clear rule of law that prevents airlines from restricting lav access for more than one hour.

What would be the result? Flights delayed over an hour might be delayed a bit longer. People might be upset, but airlines would be more upset. Perhaps pressure would be directed toward identifying the things that cause lengthy delays and perhaps steps would be taken to eliminate them. It's amazing what happens when customer problems become industry problems...

[3WE]

The fact is...It comes down to practical measures...the deciding factor...What would be the result?... Perhaps pressure would be directed toward identifying the things that cause lengthy delays and perhaps steps would be taken to eliminate them.

As you continue to admonish the evil profit driven industry for their utterly stupid policies, let me convey a story from jut a few days ago, Monday, September 30, 2019. BWI to flyover in a 737-MaxLav. No brake slams. Please try to understand the gray area of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

We push, we taxi a few hundred feet and there goes the engines...

"Umm, folks from the flight deck, there's a little weather enroute (indeed, some moderate rain showers were north of our route, probably cramming more planes down south), ATC is metering westbound traffic, we have a short hold, probably no more than 15 minutes..." Seatbelt sign stays on.

Now, the pilot probably knew it was a good bet it would only be a 5 or 10 min delay and he didn't want a ton of folks lining up for the Lav nor folks getting all their crap from the overhead bin IN CASE our clearance came.

Now, the pilot ALSO probably knew that it COULD be a 1-hour delay (ATC does that to you)- but the 5 min was more likely. What's he supposed to do...If he hit 15 min- ATC is PROBABLY going to tell him 15 more minutes with a risk of it being 5:00...Again, the pilot is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Now what if the slot did open up and someone was in the can. You CAN lose your clearance if you can't depart when ATC wants you to.

So, point #1, is that perhaps ATC is "the problem" and not the airline's policy.

So, let's make ATC provide better info (I suspect ATL might like that). But, not being a controller, I have zero idea where these "departure holes" come from...perhaps they come when another plane at New Yark needs a new light bulb for the landing gear lights- THAT flight is delayed, BUT HEY we got a slot for the WN plane at BWI now. BUT, if you can't make the takeoff window, too phugoid bad, sucks to be you.

Evan: Please do go to work on "steps to be taken to eliminate this awful policy and procedure. Please also note that I suggested that ramp behavior is another area that could use some work. My guess is that ATL would very much appreciate your help with that issue too so he doesn't have to do sudden and harder-than-preferred braking that sooner or later might put a hostie on the floor and bruise, sprain or break something.

Anyway, after about 5 min, the engines spool up and we resume our taxi. I wasn't really watching, but I didn't see any Lav usage during our short period of "parking on an active taxiway", and I was very happy 1) that ATC wasn't playing the multiple 15-min delay game AND that 2) when our clearance DID come, someone wasn't in the lav (because we WOULD have stayed parked, and possibly missed our departure slot.

After 20 or so minutes, I would agree that 'procedures' allow bathroom trips and that the crew switch to an honest communication- "Ok, folks, use the Lav, but we need you to be ready...if the seatbelt sign goes on, and you hear the engines spooling, you've got 3 minutes to be seated and buckled because we can't move until you are...and this is important we will have a very narrow departure slot to make, thanks for your patience and sorry about the traffic delays".

[3WE]

Remind me how many people fell to their deaths in that one.

If you can supply data that any passengers were in route to the lavatory when that collision happened, we can talk.

Since they were at the end of the alley, pointed in I assume everyone was freshly landed and still seated and buckled, and thus no one fell to their deaths. Given that the plane very quickly made a ~70-degree yaw, the front folks probably had some decent lateral acceleration- EXTREMELY lucky that there were no injures. Also lucky that folks were still belted in. It could easily have been worse if you had folks up and walking to/from the lav.

[Evan]

Now what if the slot did open up and someone was in the can. You CAN lose your clearance if you can't depart when ATC wants you to.

Ok, let's remember what we are discussing again. Two hours delay, no, you can't use the lav, pee in the seat, good day to you.

There is a point at which, oh wait...

After 20 or so minutes, I would agree that 'procedures' allow bathroom trips and that the crew switch to an honest communication- "Ok, folks, use the Lav, but we need you to be ready...if the seatbelt sign goes on, and you hear the engines spooling, you've got 3 minutes to be seated and buckled because we can't move until you are...and this is important we will have a very narrow departure slot to make, thanks for your patience and sorry about the traffic delays".

So we are in agreement.

[Evan]

If you can supply data that any passengers were in route to the lavatory when that collision happened, we can talk.

OK, hypothetically, all of them were en route to the lavatory at the time. None did died. Many lost their balance and experienced mild embarassment. An emotional support peacock was injured. The flight was cancelled.

[Gabriel]

But the deciding factor, the one that makes lavs necessary, is time.

I disagree, and so do you. Or would you endorse this version of your story?

Pax: Excuse me, I absolutely need to use the lavatory right away.

FA: We need to keep everyone seated and ready for takeoff. Is it urgent?

Pax: Very.

FA: Well, I am sorry but 14 CFR part 121.3 b) iii. says "Accommodations should be made for passengers to be able to access and use the lavatory if ground delays exceed 1 hour", so, since we have only been parked here for just 15 minutes, mess yourself.

Neither you, the FAA or the airline get to decide when the lavs are necessary. When one needs to go, one will go.

[Evan]

FA: Well, I am sorry but 14 CFR part 121.3 b) iii. says "Accommodations should be made for passengers to be able to access and use the lavatory if ground delays exceed 1 hour", so, since we have only been parked here for just 15 minutes, mess yourself.

Neither you, the FAA or the airline get to decide when the lavs are necessary. When one needs to go, one will go.

Yeah, I guess you missed my point about human decency trumping cold legal strictures.

[3WE]

So we are in agreement.

We agree that airlines need to do a little better job on 20 (+/-) minute PARKING delays. I do give them a little sympathy for ATC dangling carrots PAIRED WITH the fear of a plane load of pandemonium with bins open, laptops scattered everywhere and EVERYONE stretching their legs, etc.

We will agree more if you will acknowledge that the ATC system isn't much help.

BUT, yes, an extra sentence and an occasional polite PA reminder- "hey, folks, OK to run to the lav, but if you don't absolutely have to be up, please stay seated- we may be leaving on very short notice."


That aside, TeeVee said this:

and once again i'll point out the painfully obvious contradiction in policies: ABSOLUTELY no standing or going to the lav while on "an active taxiway"--where speeds are generally sub 25 mph--but standing, lav visits, walking around etc. are perfectly ok at 36,000' hurtling through clear air (which sometimes has this thing called CAT, e.g., http://avherald.com/h?article=4cd94404&opt=0) at 500+ mph.

oh yeah, they got their priorities perfectly in order.

Did he or did he not imply that it was OK to be standing during a 20 MPH taxi? (Especially since he never experienced a brake slam on ~2000 flights and especially since 500 mph is 20 times faster than 25 mph)

I side with the airlines- probably best to be seated for taxi. And although Flyboy hasn't killed any hosties yet (just lost their clothes), I think there are quit a few sudden, firmer-than-preferable, marginally-safe stopping incidents that make the in-seats-for-taxi rule valid.

And not just TeeVee- I seem to recall some very firm statements from Evan, that there should be essentially no reason for a sudden stop. As ATL And I both said, the reasons are pretty obvious. Should we maybe try to do better? Yeah, we should, but my magic wand needs new batteries. Please feel free to try that with yours. In the meantime, we disagree on the frequency of sudden stops.

[Evan]

We agree that airlines need to do a little better job on 20 (+/-) minute PARKING delays. I do give them a little sympathy for ATC dangling carrots PAIRED WITH the fear of a plane load of pandemonium with bins open, laptops scattered everywhere and EVERYONE stretching their legs, etc.

We will agree more if you will acknowledge that the ATC system isn't much help.

BUT, yes, an extra sentence and an occasional polite PA reminder- "hey, folks, OK to run to the lav, but if you don't absolutely have to be up, please stay seated- we may be leaving on very short notice."

Yes, that's the very obvious human solution, rather than an argument between hyperbolic polarities like 'a plane load of pandemonium with bins open, laptops scattered everywhere' (why does every argument in this age end up at one of these?).

Just, ok, woman who obviously can't hold it much longer, we can make an exception for you but please hurry back. Versus, no, you wretch, pee in the seat. Duh.

And not just TeeVee- I seem to recall some very firm statements from Evan, that there should be essentially no reason for a sudden stop.

I, of course, defer to ATL and acknowledge that it happens more than I thought, but I admit I still don't see why it should happen. I guess Atlanta is a study in chaos. If the FAA wants to address that risk, maybe seatbelts aren't the place to start...

[TeeVee]

3bs is earning his moniker here for sure.

the term active taxiway is horseshit. if you are parked, YOU are not active. taxiways are one way. so if you are parked, very likely the only threat is being rear-ended. tell me where that has happened.

i've heard many, many announcements about active taxiways while parked securely in a penalty box, specifically designed to hold a PARKED aircraft, while other planes are routed around the penalty box.

let's face it, if there is a will, there is a way. the preference is for everyone to stay seated and belted the entire time. i do this. i minimize my time standing for my own safety and not for any regs or policies. the regs are clearly broken on a regular basis. even when pilots announce turbulence and light up the signs, people get up to pee and crap. i don't recall any FA getting hysterical about it. on the ground though, where the dangers are FAR less, no matter what 3bs says, the fa's tend to get crazy and lose their shit. human decency is trashed far more often.

because 3bs and perhaps others seem to be reading into my words more than is justified, let me be crystal clear: i am NOT advocating that people should be allowed to stroll about willy-nilly during all phases of flight.

[3WE]

the term active taxiway is horseshit. if you are parked, YOU are not active.

I tend to agree. You will find that stated above.

the only threat is being rear-ended. tell me where that has happened.

You will find that immediately below.

https://youtu.be/qeC1OwrBsS8

because 3bs and perhaps others seem to be reading into my words more than is justified, let me be crystal clear: i am NOT advocating that people should be allowed to stroll about willy-nilly during all phases of flight.

Nice try on moving the goal posts, you didn’t say “all phases of flight”, you said during taxi because it’s over 475 MPH slower than cruise, and because pilots almost never slam on the brakes. You will find all of that stated above by you.

Yeah, I paraphrased, but the statements you made were very clear and with much emphasis.

[TeeVee]

and once again i'll point out the painfully obvious contradiction in policies: ABSOLUTELY no standing or going to the lav while on "an active taxiway"--where speeds are generally sub 25 mph--but standing, lav visits, walking around etc. are perfectly ok at 36,000' hurtling through clear air (which sometimes has this thing called CAT, e.g., http://avherald.com/h?article=4cd94404&opt=0) at 500+ mph.

oh yeah, they got their priorities perfectly in order.

because 3bs can't read english without reading into it (maybe because, like atl whines, i don't use caps).

[Gabriel]

because 3bs can't read english without reading into it (maybe because, like atl whines, i don't use caps).

I didn't understand your red highlighting of "on". As opposed to....? Beneath? Next to? Behind?

[3WE]

policies: ABSOLUTELY no standing or going to the lav while on "an active taxiway"

Is there a policy of ABSOLUTELY no standing or going to the lav while "on an active taxiway"?

If there is, I have seen a whole crew violate it by telling us on the PA that we were free to get up and use the Lav, and seen it on more than on occasion. I've also seen bathroom dashes while parked-seatbelt sign on, and not a peep from the FA's too. But since, I don't fly as much as you, I guess that's wrong and there is a policy of ABSOLUTELY no standing or going to the lav while on "an active taxiway".

Seems to me there is no policy and again, you try to make brash and invalid arguments.

As to the tendency to try and keep folks seated while PARKED where speeds are 0 MPH (please note the attempt to be factual as opposed to theatrical). I have stated numerous times (in English no less, with somewhat proper use of capitalization) that I'd like to see that handled better.

No big deal, but in between joking around, I do have this thing for accuracy.

I guess you didn't like my video?

[TeeVee]

Is there a policy of ABSOLUTELY no standing or going to the lav while "on an active taxiway"?

If there is, I have seen a whole crew violate it by telling us on the PA that we were free to get up and use the Lav, and seen it on more than on occasion. I've also seen bathroom dashes while parked-seatbelt sign on, and not a peep from the FA's too. But since, I don't fly as much as you, I guess that's wrong and there is a policy of ABSOLUTELY no standing or going to the lav while on "an active taxiway".

Seems to me there is no policy and again, you try to make brash and invalid arguments.

As to the tendency to try and keep folks seated while PARKED where speeds are 0 MPH (please note the attempt to be factual as opposed to theatrical). I have stated numerous times (in English no less, with somewhat proper use of capitalization) that I'd like to see that handled better.

No big deal, but in between joking around, I do have this thing for accuracy.

I guess you didn't like my video?

this is the last i'm gonna say on this, cuz i'm starting to feel like evan when it comes to talking to you. you seem to want to make an argument when there may not be one, just for the sake of being a PITA or some other such bs.

i never stated that the rule preventing walking around while taxiing was stupid. YOU read into my very plain statement that i intended something else. too bad for you. "while on" does NOT mean "while moving on." period. end of story.

and please, quote my theatrical statements or court room antics or whatever other bullshit you have accused me of using in this thread. if you can't, then simply STFU.

your video, a 20+ year old event, depicts a single event that did not occur on a taxiway. rather the apron. and yes, the same rule applies. should we talk about the handful of mid-air collisions and use them to support a new rule requiring seatbelts 100% of the time?