Return to Field
- Thread starter BobDDuck
- Start date
germb747
Well-Known Member
Cav
Former Maddog Whisperer
When I was an FO I flew with captains who were the type who it seemed would never have the balls to throw a passenger off the airplane and I flew with guys who it seemed showed up to work hoping for the opportunity even when several steps could have been taken before resorting to passenger removal....neither is a captain I emulate.
Just food for thought.
Just food for thought.
Think rationally. Come on man. It's not even a matter of not turning off the i-phone. It's a matter of respect. And if you can't respect those who are literally in charge of your saftey, then you don't belong there. I sense some entitlement in your tone.
E_Dawg
Moderator
THANK YOU. Yes. The seat belt sign is probably more liability than it's worth. I do turn it off whenever possible. But a bump here and there, no big deal for flight crew with hands on the overheads where they should be. Grandma who needed a wheelchair to even get to the plane... well she could be on the floor getting ready to sue me right about now, and I don't think for a second that anybody but me is gonna pay my legal bills. Just another inherent long term risk of flying for a career I suppose.
On the other hand if someone NEEDS the bathroom, well that's an emergency for that person. Which means they can do whatever is necessary for their own well being. On a human level, I really don't see the sanity in denying someone the restroom, especially when they are aware of and willing to accept the risk on their own accord. :dunno:
As to the original post. Interesting story, and great thread. In NO WAY am I second guessing the captain's decision. I do wonder if a strongly worded PA directed at the individual (making sure to mention his seat number) would have the same effect. The social pressure might be enough to get the guy to straighten up and fly right for the remainder of the flight, so to speak. But who knows.
Qgar
New Member
I believe it's to have their undivided attention while safety announcements/demos are being done. The problem with that is you can't FORCE someone to look at/listen to a FA during that time.
Qgar
New Member
The prudent thing for the pax to do is to ring for the FA, ask if it's safe to get up. If you're above 10,000 ft, you should be called to see if it's ok which would remind you to turn the sign off.
FAs always appreciated the pax who would do this as opposed to getting out of their seat and possibly risk injury to themselves or others (if there was some upcoming turbulence they weren't aware of.)
Well, I hope we would be landing on a runway, not a taxiway... :laff:
(in re-reading your post it makes sense, but the first time I read it, I read it as landing on a taxiway!)
As for the rationale of the rule, I think that because the plane is already AT the destination airport, that any interference a phone is causing the navigations systems doesn't really matter. But when taxiing out, you're preparing to take-off, and you want the risk of interference to be as low as possible.
Really, the rules about electronic devices are about the possibility of interference. Not that every and/or any electronic device IS going to mess with the radios or FMS or IRUs or anything, but that it might. Testing every situation involving every possible scenario to determine just HOW many devices WILL cause interference would be incredibly time-consuming and expensive. Therefore, we have the blanket rules we have in effect about electronics. Is one cell phone or one iPod going to crash the plane? Most likely no! However, we don't know exactly where the actual line of interference is, so we draw a line to eliminate the possibility as easily and best as we can. Bill has heard cell phone conversations bleeding in over the radios before, electronics CAN interfere, so please, just turn things off when you're supposed to. It's not that hard.
As for kicking this particular pax off, good. Someone who is that blatantly disrespectful needs to be removed. When I was flying I took pride in the fact that I always asked people nicely to do something. "We're getting ready to depart, could you please turn off your phone now?", said in a nice, pleasant tone of voice.... But a pax who refuses to comply with federal law has to face the consequences. Sorry.
TFaudree_ERAU
Mashin' dem buttons
The airplane had been airborne for all of 3 minutes. What was the FA doing up out of THEIR seat below 10,000? Was watching an ipod SUCH a safety hazard that they HAD to get out of the seat and address it?
If the kid had been disobeying instructions since they left the gate, why did they take off?
I get the sense that this never would have happened had the kid not challenged the FA. He was just being a smartass, not making a threat. To me, it sounds like the captain just wanted to prove that his dick was bigger.
F/As are often out of their jumpseats before 10,000. That is not uncommon, especially on a short flight when you've got to get moving to get the service done. At Eagle, especially, and at AA on the F-100 between ORD-MSP we had to get up as SOON as we heard the first chime (which was given before the sterile cockpit ended, and before reaching 10,000) in order to have enough time to get everything done.
FlyChicaga
Vintage Restoration
So when the FA says no, you cannot get up, what do you do? Disobey directions from a crewmember, or piss your pants? Let's see... Sit in my own piss for three hours, or have an overzealous FA ask for police to meet the airplane because I blow them off... Not good choices.
Face it: A good percentage of FA's these days are absolute Nazis when it comes to the seat belt sign.
(See what I did there? Nazi reference. This thread can now be closed.)
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
F/A's are nazi's, I tried to bring my rolleron on board on another commuter and the f/a told me it wouldn't fit and I had to gate check it. "It's OK I'm crew, it'll fit, I fly the same plane". She repeated her instructions, FIRMLY. Fine, whatever, treat me like I'm 2 years old and stupid. I'm not going to argue. Just a PITA when I have to take out my wallet, keys, and laptop so they don't get stolen.
I understand they have to be firm, but there doesn't seem to be any common sense in regards to that seatbelt sign either. On one of our flights a women actually pissed her pants because the f/a kept telling her to stay seated (she was in the first row). As an F/O I don't even mention the seatbelt sign, it's up to the CA when to turn it on and off.
I understand they have to be firm, but there doesn't seem to be any common sense in regards to that seatbelt sign either. On one of our flights a women actually pissed her pants because the f/a kept telling her to stay seated (she was in the first row). As an F/O I don't even mention the seatbelt sign, it's up to the CA when to turn it on and off.
Baronman
Well-Known Member
Tough call..
As someone said, some Captains/FAs are just looking for a reason to get on someone's ass.
Perhaps I would tell the FA to inform the pax one more time to turn it off, "the capt has advised me that your failure to cooperate will result in us returning to Springfield."
Really it's a shame if it gets to this point. I can't blame the FA for doing her job, however some seem to overlook items like this (and the bathroom/seatbelt).
Personally I don't equate some jerk not willing to turn off his ipod to some guy not willing to open a door facing an emergency. It's just apples and oranges.
As someone said, some Captains/FAs are just looking for a reason to get on someone's ass.
Perhaps I would tell the FA to inform the pax one more time to turn it off, "the capt has advised me that your failure to cooperate will result in us returning to Springfield."
Really it's a shame if it gets to this point. I can't blame the FA for doing her job, however some seem to overlook items like this (and the bathroom/seatbelt).
Personally I don't equate some jerk not willing to turn off his ipod to some guy not willing to open a door facing an emergency. It's just apples and oranges.
Murdoughnut
Well sized member
Perhaps, but if you had to deal with the people they have to deal with, I think you'd be one too. It's easy for those of us who don't have jobs requiring direct interaction with the trash that make up this country to criticize.
If the passengers see you, as a uniformed pilot, DEMAND to bring on a rollerboard when they all have been asked to gate check theirs, then suddenly everyone is going to demand to bring theirs on... "Well why does that pilot get to bring his on and I can't!!" There isn't enough space for ALL rollerboards, even if size-wise it may actually fit. When I was at Eagle, we gate checked rollerbags, even though technically the bag may fit in the overhead, there wasn't enough room to accommodate everyone's. With rollerbags gate checked, that left the overheads open for briefcases and smaller carryon bags. We would frequently FILL UP the overheads, WITH rollerbags gate checked. Not trying to be bitchy, just explaining the probable reason why you were asked to gate check your bag.
Thank you
I find that a nice smile and a sincere "Good morning!" make most people's day.
In regards to the seat belt sign, unless we were taxiing, or actually taking off/landing, I would just tell people that the seatbelt sign is on, and if they needed to use the lav they should do so with that in mind. I would tell people, firmly if necessary, to sit down if we were taxiing or in the actual process of taking off or landing, this was safety-based. A person does NOT need to be up and about while we are taking off or landing, but once airborne, if the sign was on I just told them the sign was on, and let it be at that. No big deal.
CaptBill
Well-Known Member
Interesting thread. There are many many issued here but I will just make two quick comments.
1. Common sense should always play a role in these type situations.
2. It is detrimental to overall safety when passengers are allowed to disregard crew member instructions.
There are many solutions to deal with Mr. Troublemaker. There is no single right answer but if prudence and maturity are employed, the result will likely be appropriate. Despite times when we crew members take passenger infractions personally, it is incumbent upon us to rise above the "I am pissed and offended" level and deal with things in a broader and more mature perspective. By the way, that's much easier said than done.
1. Common sense should always play a role in these type situations.
2. It is detrimental to overall safety when passengers are allowed to disregard crew member instructions.
There are many solutions to deal with Mr. Troublemaker. There is no single right answer but if prudence and maturity are employed, the result will likely be appropriate. Despite times when we crew members take passenger infractions personally, it is incumbent upon us to rise above the "I am pissed and offended" level and deal with things in a broader and more mature perspective. By the way, that's much easier said than done.
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
I didn't DEMAND. I wasn't in uniform either. It was a quiet conversation (not even that, it was an exchange of two lines) at the front of a cabin. I've never had an issue before bringing on my bags, which is what made this so awkward.