FA Calls on short final..

[Bumblebee]

the title of the thread is short final....if you are 1000' alt you are not in that situation, so going with the 1000' from the threshold idea, I wouldn't have answered the phone in the first place, and if it is an emergency call, I probably wouldn't have answered it either, rather get on the ground and find out what her emergency is.

 

[Roger Roger]

Roll inverted and pull.

 

[derg]

I love it when they call during pushback, "There's someone in the Lav!"

Well, do your job next time.


Sent from my Colecovision Adam

 

[jtrain609]

I'm not sure the MEL or dispatch parallel holds though. What does the wording on the MEL reg say - something to the effect of the aircraft cannot be flown with broke equipment unless blah, blah, blah....where the responsibility of the aircraft operator (crew, company, et al) is specific. As opposed to the seat belt rule, or as another example the requirement to obey all posted placards, or not smoke, lies primarily with the passenger. If a passenger decides to smoke, to what extent is the crew required to make them comply with the FAR? Can they use force? MUST they do what ever is necessary to make him comply? Back to the sick passenger example, if they're puking (or have diarrhea) is there really a requirement for the crew to put them in their seat anyway? Doesn't the crew responsibility end with doing their best to get them to comply, then when unable leave the enforcement/punishment up to the FAA after the fact?

The responsibility to follow the far becomes affirmative as soon as you're put on notice that somebody is up.

Also, think about it like this; you don't go around, you willfully violate an FAR, and you land with somebody up. You ASAP it; it's kicked out, and certificate action is brought against you for willfully breaking the FAR.

If you don't think it's possible, the FAA has been busting guys that weren't able to get ahold of ground in Atlanta who simply pulled into their ramp entrance (which was about 50' away from where they were). It didn't used to be a problem, especially if you didn't get in anybody's way. But now the FAA is dropping the hammer on mundane enforcement items.

If a POI finds out about this through something like an ASAP, you really think they're going to sit back and say, "Hey guys, it's ok!"

I'm not 121, so in reading the OP I assumed that the FA was seated and just making an advisory phone call. Standing F/A is a different story as far as go-around versus land. Can the FA really "go get them"?

Why couldn't they? I don't exactly mean to be obtuse in asking this; but really, what is stoping the FA from doing exactly that? Don't your lav doors have way to be unlocked from the outside?

 

[jtrain609]

the title of the thread is short final....if you are 1000' alt you are not in that situation, so going with the 1000' from the threshold idea, I wouldn't have answered the phone in the first place, and if it is an emergency call, I probably wouldn't have answered it either, rather get on the ground and find out what her emergency is.

First post of the thread:

Approximatly 1000feet from touchdown...We have somone in the lav....WWYD.../quote]​

 

[Boris Badenov]

jtrain. Are you positing that the feds have cameras in the lavs? HOW DO YOU KNOW?

 

[Pilotforhire587]

I had one give the emergency chime during the flare into SNA... Pulled off the runway, I called back and she said it was a little hot.

Grr.

Ha! I have never had one use the EMER chime but I have had enough FA's chime me for stupid things in sterile that it is now part of my daily brief to them.

 

[jtrain609]

jtrain. Are you positing that the feds have cameras in the lavs? HOW DO YOU KNOW?

I am positing that the lawyers who will be unleashed on you will be animals.

Ain't personal, just business.

 

[dasleben]

I've been contemplating the answer to this, in order to put it away in my own personal reference bank for when I upgrade.

Honestly, I'm with Bumblebee. At 1000', I don't even answer the phone. You're busy, you have a jet to land. Whatever is so crucial that must be called to the front end on short final (and the FAs do know when you're about to land) is either 1) Very important, in which case you may consider landing the jet pronto (smoke in a galley, etc.), or 2) A new FA asking if you want a bottle of water for the overnight.

Either way, you're landing. No reason to break sterile at 1000'.

 

[Pilotforhire587]

jtrain609 I can't think of many things that would move me to answer the interphone below 1000' with the gear down and ready to land.

 

[jtrain609]

jtrain609 I can't think of many things that would move me to answer the interphone below 1000' with the gear down and ready to land.

And that's fine, if you don't answer you don't answer.

I'm saying if you do, then you go around. If you don't, then you have no idea what's going on back there.

 

[Boris Badenov]

I am positing that the lawyers who will be unleashed on you will be animals.

Ain't personal, just business.

Whatever. I'm just about to break the story on your little upskirt lav video franchise, you monster!

 

[jtrain609]

Whatever. I'm just about to break the story on your little upskirt lav video franchise, you monster!

The FEDS man, you want to be after the FEDS. This could LavGate!

 

[Bumblebee]

First post of the thread:

1000'horizontal feet, right? as in .2 miles? at 120 that's .1 minute? like 6 seconds?

 

[Boris Badenov]

Either way, you're landing. No reason to break sterile at 1000'.

Speed 4, there's a bomb set to explode if the landing gear touch the ground. Keanu Reeves is on the interphone, but the pilots won't answer. Probably because they've already pressed the big red "land" button and are busy eating steak and getting hummers from the stews. Freaking pilots.

 

[dasleben]

Speed 4, there's a bomb set to explode if the landing gear touch the ground. Keanu Reeves is on the interphone, but the pilots won't answer. Probably because they've already pressed the big red "land" button and are busy eating steak and getting hummers from the stews. Freaking pilots.

Well, you do have to make sure that the gear is down and the flaps are out, and have the speed set. Oh, and make sure the green flippy thing stays green. All good in the hood!

 

[SteveC]

...Don't your lav doors have way to be unlocked from the outside?

Our lav "doors" don't even have locks.

The difference between our operations can be pretty big - that's what got me started on this whole line of questioning. In our airplane we don't have an attendant - it's just me and the guy in the right seat. Someone in the back doesn't want to buckle their seat belt, well, we'll tell him he needs to do so, more than once, and we'll even turn the speaker volume waaaaay up, but then we're landing whether he buckles up or not. No way I'm doing a go-around, then having a flight deck crew member get out of his seat in the terminal environment and go back to MAKE HIM buckle up, much less drag him out of the lav. We're landing, and THEN there's going to be a discussion about rules that may or may not have been broken and the ramifications - doesn't matter that he just spent 20K on his flight.

Can you see how in our situation it isn't super high on my priority list to get him to buckle his seat belt? I have limited resources, and I have better things for the guy in the right seat to do, so as far as I'm concerned my "responsibility" to make that passenger obey the FAR's is limited, and in fact is over-ridden by the responsibility of the flight crew to meet the FARs that are specific to US - i.e. safe flight operation.

I'm following what you're saying, it's just a little different than my mind set. Like I said earlier, some of the FAR's are directed at me and what I can and can't do, some of them are directed at the guy sitting in back. They get a different priority level because I can fully control one, maybe not quite so much the other.

 

[Boris Badenov]

They get a different priority level because I can fully control one, maybe not quite so much the other.

When I was doing vaguely similar flying to yours, I would just close the divider if I was being ignored in the back. No longer my problem. Some jackhole falls down and breaks his leg because he was running around in turbulence? Not my problem, the door was closed to protect my night vision and the sign was on. Somebody grinding doritoes in to the carpet? They can pick up the bill and/or argue about it with my boss.

The problem is that when you have an F/A who is a crewmember telling you about these things, you can't very well plead ignorance. I think it's more like the old "Guy is smoking ganja in the back" argument. You can't very well pretend you didn't smell it if the Feds step on and the whole cabin is hotboxed (plus I'm not even risking failing a drug test for some jackass). In that situation (which I was lucky never to actually encounter), my response was something along the lines of "Sir, you are violating multiple Federal Aviation Regulations not to mention Criminal Law, and if you don't stop right now, I will radio the to have the plane met by the police".

In this case, though, I think you could plead "exigent circumstance". We were commited to land, the aircraft was fully configured, the approach was stabilized, and the passenger had been notified that they were expected to be sitting down in their seat. Upon their idiot head be it.

 

[jtrain609]

Can you see how in our situation it isn't super high on my priority list to get him to buckle his seat belt? I have limited resources, and I have better things for the guy in the right seat to do, so as far as I'm concerned my "responsibility" to make that passenger obey the FAR's is limited, and in fact is over-ridden by the responsibility of the flight crew to meet the FARs that are specific to US - i.e. safe flight operation.

I'm following what you're saying, it's just a little different than my mind set. Like I said earlier, some of the FAR's are directed at me and what I can and can't do, some of them are directed at the guy sitting in back. They get a different priority level because I can fully control one, maybe not quite so much the other.

Sure I understand what you're saying.

And let's get down to brass tacks; what are the chances somebody is injured while not having a belt on/being in the lav? I don't know, but if nothing goes wrong, then no harm and you likely don't hear much about it.

 

[jtrain609]

In this case, though, I think you could plead "exigent circumstance". We were commited to land, the aircraft was fully configured, the approach was stabilized, and the passenger had been notified that they were expected to be sitting down in their seat. Upon their idiot head be it.

Again, will your chief pilot and/or the FAA agree that violating a rule is allowable because the passenger was "an idiot?"

I don't think so, but you roll the dice however you see fit.