Land after learning about reg violation?

[Autothrust Blue]

You have gotten the same answer from everyone who has replied. Some, very experienced airline captains. Interesting hypothetical, but there's nothing you can do about it in the air.

Some of us are proceeding to be grouchy Captains, at this rate.

 

[msmspilot]

Some of us are proceeding to be grouchy Captains, at this rate.

I'm working on being a grumpy captain. I need a few more years to get there.

Edit: just saw your tag under your username. So appropriate.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

I'm working on being a grumpy captain. I need a few more years to get there.

Edit: just saw your tag under your username. So appropriate.

Route them out over the lake, at least they won't kill innocent people!

 

[propsync]

So what are you going to do? Not land? There is no way to avoid the landing. The regulations you quoted say an "approved" seatbelt, which arguably isn't an FA jumpseat (not that the planes I fly have a spare one anyway). Declaring an emergency literally does nothing to make the situation more safe.

And your less serious diversions might have happened, but I'd be finding out how close the captain's girlfriend lived to the airport they diverted to.

You are not "intentionally" violating a reg when the discovery is after takeoff. As the saying goes, landings are mandatory.

You have gotten the same answer from everyone who has replied. Some, very experienced airline captains. Interesting hypothetical, but there's nothing you can do about it in the air.

I agree, declaring an emergency does nothing to make the situation safer. It was simply 1 of 5 options to choose from in a hypothetical situation in the original post.

But I disagree with your premise that you are not intentionally violating a reg. You weren't on takeoff, but if you do nothing about the situation you became aware of, you will be on landing. And there is a solution where everyone can have a seat with a seat belt.

I'm more concerned about the pax welfare though. ie putting someone in the FA jump seat with a working seat belt and not going through moderate turbulence if not buckled up.

 

[msmspilot]

I agree, declaring an emergency does nothing to make the situation safer. It was simply 1 of 5 options to choose from in a hypothetical situation in the original post.

But I disagree with your premise that you are not intentionally violating a reg. You weren't on takeoff, but if you do nothing about the situation you became aware of, you will be on landing. And there is a solution where everyone can have a seat with a seat belt.

I'm more concerned about the pax welfare though. ie putting someone in the FA jump seat with a working seat belt and not going through moderate turbulence if not buckled up.

Ok. Putting a passenger in an FA jumpseat IS an intentional regulation violation. That's why everyone is saying no. Not doing something when there is no good option is not an intentional reg violation.

You might, and I emphasize might, argue safest alternative to put a passenger in an FA jumpseat (again, if you even have an extra one), but you're still choosing to actively violate a reg at that point as opposed to letting a situation you did not create and have little control over play out.

You keep trying to say landing is an intentional violation, while suggesting an intentional reg violation. That's why people are mocking you and getting frustrated. Especially since what you think is a violation would only be a violation if you'd known before takeoff. You can't just not land.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Ok. Putting a passenger in an FA jumpseat IS an intentional regulation violation. That's why everyone is saying no. Not doing something when there is no good option is not an intentional reg violation.

You might, and I emphasize might, argue safest alternative to put a passenger in an FA jumpseat (again, if you even have an extra one), but you're still choosing to actively violate a reg at that point as opposed to letting a situation you did not create and have little control over play out.

You keep trying to say landing is an intentional violation, while suggesting an intentional reg violation. That's why people are mocking you and getting frustrated. Especially since what you think is a violation would only be a violation if you'd known before takeoff. You can't just not land.

"What do you want me to do, leave this thing up there?"

 

[mikecweb]

I'm posting in the "You're The Captain" Forum. This is the right place for these discussions is it not?

You asked and got answers, with no one siding on divert. On to the next hypothetical....or scotch.

 

[msmspilot]

"What do you want me to do, leave this thing up there?"

Airplanes are safer than submarines. We've never left an airplane in the sky.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

You asked and got answers, with no one siding on divert. On to the next hypothetical....or scotch.

 

[propsync]

I'm suggesting that you not violate 121.311 upon landing by supplying all passengers 2 years of age and older a seat with a seat belt if possible. I'm also suggesting the safest course of action regardless of regulation is for all passengers to have a seat with a seat belt on landing and through turbulence. Finally I'm suggesting when you, as Captain, become aware of a situation that might be unsafe or violate a regulation, you have a duty to do something about it. Some of you are saying basically screw it, keep on trucking, file a report and have some scotch.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

I'm suggesting that you not violate 121.311 upon landing by supplying all passengers 2 years of age and older a seat with a seat belt if possible. I'm also suggesting the safest course of action regardless of regulation is for all passengers to have a seat with a seat belt on landing and through turbulence. Finally I'm suggesting when you, as Captain, become aware of a situation that might be unsafe or violate a regulation, you have a duty to do something about it. Some of you are saying basically screw it, keep on trucking, file a report and have some scotch.

Go have some scotch.

 

[propsync]

Ok. Putting a passenger in an FA jumpseat IS an intentional regulation violation..

Which reg is that?

 

[propsync]

Go have some scotch.

Are you a pilot? I find it hard to believe you care so little about people under your charge. Maybe you are just mocking me or maybe you really don't care about the job anymore, but you are not much help.

 

[mikecweb]

Are you a pilot?

 

[milleR]

E) Gather all of the seat belt extenders and strap the child to the parent. Child secure, adult taught a lesson, everybody wins.

 

[propsync]

E) Gather all of the seat belt extenders and strap the child to the parent. Child secure, adult taught a lesson, everybody wins.

Actually that is specifically forbidden.

 

[propsync]

Are you a pilot?

Yes, FO for a US Major Airline.

 

[milleR]

Actually that is specifically forbidden.

You mean like having a non-qualified individual sitting in a flight crew members seat?

 

[ShortField]

I have an annecdotal response. This is better.

 

[propsync]

You mean like having a non-qualified individual sitting in a flight crew members seat?

Explain how that is forbidden?