BA0409 [VLC-LHR] lands with passenger in rear lavatory
Sep 3, 2019, 1:08 pm
#16
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK oop north
Programs: BMI Diamond Club RIP,BAEC Silver
Posts: 1,692
Sep 3, 2019, 1:08 pm
#17
Join Date: Dec 2016
Programs: BAEC GGL/CR; Hilton Diamond; Mucci des Puccis
Posts: 5,573
Because there are only two crew members in the back of the plane and this may be dropping them in it for no reason other than to have a whinge? Just a thought. I wouldn't do it anyway.
Sep 3, 2019, 1:11 pm
#18
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK oop north
Programs: BMI Diamond Club RIP,BAEC Silver
Posts: 1,692
I have to wonder why the OP felt it necessary to finger a cabin crew by being highly specific on flight details. Possibly it was a breach of regulations, in which case the consequences could be serious disciplinary action for a very rapid spur of the moment decision, which seems to have been helpful to the passenger involved without putting anyone else at risk. So maybe would have been better left there? If it was a general question, why identify the flight and date.
Sep 3, 2019, 1:28 pm
#19
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,745
It wasn't a whinge. OP was asking a genuine question if it was a breach of regulations. Whether it was or was not, I don't see why OP should cover up what flight it was in that context.
Sep 3, 2019, 1:31 pm
#20
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: LHR
Programs: BA Exec Club - Lowly Blue
Posts: 162
YorkieFlyer
... a female passenger leave her seat and enter the rear toilet telling the cabin crew she was travel sick and would likely vomit while we were on final approach, gear down, to LHR. Cabin crew opened toilet door for her and closed it after her telling her to remain in there and sat down until the aircraft had landed. Is this not a breach of regulations? There have been go arounds reported in similar cases ...
Yes, it is.
However, realistically, what else could the cabin crew member do about it? If, on final approach with the gear down, a passenger is determined - for whatever reason - to ignore the seat belt sign, landing announcements and cabin crew instructions, any attempt by the cabin crew physically to prevent that passenger entering the toilet is unlikely to improve matters and might result in one or more cabin crew members being out of their own seats on touchdown.
At this late stage on the approach, cabin crew, especially door operators, should be strapped in their seats ready to assist all passengers in the event of an emergency on or after touchdown.
In my view, this cabin crew member acted appropriately under the circumstances, and was correct to advise the passenger to stay in the toilet until after landing. An ill passenger, stumbling out of a toilet and back to her seat during a bumpy landing, is a hazard best avoided! It would be interesting to know if the passenger did as she was told.
Can I help you makes two good points I would strongly agree with.
Firstly, there are stages in a flight where it is not appropriate for the SCCM to contact the flight crew for anything other than a dire emergency (Power-Up to Gear Up on take-off and Gear Down to Touchdown on landing, but SEP protocols may have changed since I retired) and secondly, sometimes people must accept the consequences of their own actions if they are hurt or hurt others.
If, after landing, a SCCM had contacted me to say that, after they had reported the cabin was ready for landing and at a late stage on the approach, a passenger had dashed to the toilet but they had decided against informing me, I would have been quite happy they had made the right decision.
nk15 ...and a go around in a lower altitude would seem too dangerous, for a case like this...
I personally wouldn't use the word dangerous to describe a go-around, even a late-stage go-around, which after all is just a standard aviation manoeuvre practiced on nearly every simulator check, albeit one rarely carried out for real.
However I do agree that the decision to carry out a late-stage go-around for this reason must be made on the balance of risk and other factors must be considered, one of them being the possibility that the passenger may decide not to emerge from the toilet even after a go-around! Whilst the security services have effective techniques for removing an unwilling passenger from an aircraft toilet, the use of such techniques by cabin crew is generally frowned upon!
Being retired, it is very easy for me to be wise from the comfort of my armchair, but under these circumstances, even if the SCCM had contacted me, I doubt I would have gone around.
Kind Regards
Bellerophon
... a female passenger leave her seat and enter the rear toilet telling the cabin crew she was travel sick and would likely vomit while we were on final approach, gear down, to LHR. Cabin crew opened toilet door for her and closed it after her telling her to remain in there and sat down until the aircraft had landed. Is this not a breach of regulations? There have been go arounds reported in similar cases ...
Yes, it is.
However, realistically, what else could the cabin crew member do about it? If, on final approach with the gear down, a passenger is determined - for whatever reason - to ignore the seat belt sign, landing announcements and cabin crew instructions, any attempt by the cabin crew physically to prevent that passenger entering the toilet is unlikely to improve matters and might result in one or more cabin crew members being out of their own seats on touchdown.
At this late stage on the approach, cabin crew, especially door operators, should be strapped in their seats ready to assist all passengers in the event of an emergency on or after touchdown.
In my view, this cabin crew member acted appropriately under the circumstances, and was correct to advise the passenger to stay in the toilet until after landing. An ill passenger, stumbling out of a toilet and back to her seat during a bumpy landing, is a hazard best avoided! It would be interesting to know if the passenger did as she was told.
Can I help you makes two good points I would strongly agree with.
Firstly, there are stages in a flight where it is not appropriate for the SCCM to contact the flight crew for anything other than a dire emergency (Power-Up to Gear Up on take-off and Gear Down to Touchdown on landing, but SEP protocols may have changed since I retired) and secondly, sometimes people must accept the consequences of their own actions if they are hurt or hurt others.
If, after landing, a SCCM had contacted me to say that, after they had reported the cabin was ready for landing and at a late stage on the approach, a passenger had dashed to the toilet but they had decided against informing me, I would have been quite happy they had made the right decision.
nk15 ...and a go around in a lower altitude would seem too dangerous, for a case like this...
I personally wouldn't use the word dangerous to describe a go-around, even a late-stage go-around, which after all is just a standard aviation manoeuvre practiced on nearly every simulator check, albeit one rarely carried out for real.
However I do agree that the decision to carry out a late-stage go-around for this reason must be made on the balance of risk and other factors must be considered, one of them being the possibility that the passenger may decide not to emerge from the toilet even after a go-around! Whilst the security services have effective techniques for removing an unwilling passenger from an aircraft toilet, the use of such techniques by cabin crew is generally frowned upon!
Being retired, it is very easy for me to be wise from the comfort of my armchair, but under these circumstances, even if the SCCM had contacted me, I doubt I would have gone around.
Kind Regards
Bellerophon
Last edited by Bellerophon; Sep 3, 2019 at 1:37 pm Reason: spelllling
Sep 3, 2019, 1:55 pm
#22
Join Date: Oct 2005
Programs: BA GGL & GfL, AA LTP, Marriott (sigh) Ambassador, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 3,227
is it any different than when the seatbelt sign is on, cabin crew must be seated (for a short period) but you have to really really pee? i only suggest this because i do a lot of LAX-DEN and sometimes the turbulence over the rockies is crazy and CC and passengers must remain seated but there have been times i REALLY cannot hold it in any longer, and who knows how long the seating will remain.
plus the sick passenger here--far better in the loo rather than once on approach to auckland, i heard something behind me, then quickly after smelled something. poor person got very sick in window seat, violently vomited against window/wall, and you could see the splash back about three or so rows behind.
plus the sick passenger here--far better in the loo rather than once on approach to auckland, i heard something behind me, then quickly after smelled something. poor person got very sick in window seat, violently vomited against window/wall, and you could see the splash back about three or so rows behind.
Sep 3, 2019, 2:04 pm
#23
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,060
I wonder how many times I have typed this. A go around is a normal flight manoeuvre - they are not dangerous. It is only the idiocy of the tabloid press that fills people's minds with such errant nonsense.
Sep 3, 2019, 2:17 pm
#24
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: LBA
Programs: KLM FB Gold, LH M&M
Posts: 453
Isn't this what the paper bag in the seat back is for?
The passenger should have been sat in their seat, seat belt fastened, paper bag in hand.
Then see how things are when the plane has safely landed.
The passenger should have been sat in their seat, seat belt fastened, paper bag in hand.
Then see how things are when the plane has safely landed.
Sep 3, 2019, 2:19 pm
#25
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,745
While true that a go-around itself is not dangerous, the usual reason for a go-around is that attempting to complete the landing would indeed be dangerous. So it's not complete nonsense for the press (and indeed passengers) to highlight the scariness of a go-around situation, albeit rather inaccurately, as they are wont to do.
Sep 3, 2019, 2:26 pm
#26
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK oop north
Programs: BMI Diamond Club RIP,BAEC Silver
Posts: 1,692
In my view, this cabin crew member acted appropriately under the circumstances, and was correct to advise the passenger to stay in the toilet until after landing. An ill passenger, stumbling out of a toilet and back to her seat during a bumpy landing, is a hazard best avoided! It would be interesting to know if the passenger did as she was told
incidentally, I’m not suggesting that CC did anything wrong in the obviously difficult circumstances that required a split second decision, I merely wondered whether there was a standard protocol and whether it had been followed
Last edited by YorkieFlyer; Sep 3, 2019 at 2:32 pm
Sep 3, 2019, 2:50 pm
#27
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,742
I think it's safer to have an unbelted passenger in the toilet for landing, where they are contained, than out on the cabin. If they are thrown about due to the landing there is the potential to harm more passengers. In the toilet the only likely person to be injured is the sick passenger. Even then toilets are not spacious they might be wedged in and not moving very far.
Sep 3, 2019, 3:28 pm
#28
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,596
YorkieFlyer
... a female passenger leave her seat and enter the rear toilet telling the cabin crew she was travel sick and would likely vomit while we were on final approach, gear down, to LHR. Cabin crew opened toilet door for her and closed it after her telling her to remain in there and sat down until the aircraft had landed. Is this not a breach of regulations? There have been go arounds reported in similar cases ...
Yes, it is.
However, realistically, what else could the cabin crew member do about it? If, on final approach with the gear down, a passenger is determined - for whatever reason - to ignore the seat belt sign, landing announcements and cabin crew instructions, any attempt by the cabin crew physically to prevent that passenger entering the toilet is unlikely to improve matters and might result in one or more cabin crew members being out of their own seats on touchdown.
At this late stage on the approach, cabin crew, especially door operators, should be strapped in their seats ready to assist all passengers in the event of an emergency on or after touchdown.
In my view, this cabin crew member acted appropriately under the circumstances, and was correct to advise the passenger to stay in the toilet until after landing. An ill passenger, stumbling out of a toilet and back to her seat during a bumpy landing, is a hazard best avoided! It would be interesting to know if the passenger did as she was told.
Can I help you makes two good points I would strongly agree with.
Firstly, there are stages in a flight where it is not appropriate for the SCCM to contact the flight crew for anything other than a dire emergency (Power-Up to Gear Up on take-off and Gear Down to Touchdown on landing, but SEP protocols may have changed since I retired) and secondly, sometimes people must accept the consequences of their own actions if they are hurt or hurt others.
If, after landing, a SCCM had contacted me to say that, after they had reported the cabin was ready for landing and at a late stage on the approach, a passenger had dashed to the toilet but they had decided against informing me, I would have been quite happy they had made the right decision.
nk15 ...and a go around in a lower altitude would seem too dangerous, for a case like this...
I personally wouldn't use the word dangerous to describe a go-around, even a late-stage go-around, which after all is just a standard aviation manoeuvre practiced on nearly every simulator check, albeit one rarely carried out for real.
However I do agree that the decision to carry out a late-stage go-around for this reason must be made on the balance of risk and other factors must be considered, one of them being the possibility that the passenger may decide not to emerge from the toilet even after a go-around! Whilst the security services have effective techniques for removing an unwilling passenger from an aircraft toilet, the use of such techniques by cabin crew is generally frowned upon!
Being retired, it is very easy for me to be wise from the comfort of my armchair, but under these circumstances, even if the SCCM had contacted me, I doubt I would have gone around.
Kind Regards
Bellerophon
... a female passenger leave her seat and enter the rear toilet telling the cabin crew she was travel sick and would likely vomit while we were on final approach, gear down, to LHR. Cabin crew opened toilet door for her and closed it after her telling her to remain in there and sat down until the aircraft had landed. Is this not a breach of regulations? There have been go arounds reported in similar cases ...
Yes, it is.
However, realistically, what else could the cabin crew member do about it? If, on final approach with the gear down, a passenger is determined - for whatever reason - to ignore the seat belt sign, landing announcements and cabin crew instructions, any attempt by the cabin crew physically to prevent that passenger entering the toilet is unlikely to improve matters and might result in one or more cabin crew members being out of their own seats on touchdown.
At this late stage on the approach, cabin crew, especially door operators, should be strapped in their seats ready to assist all passengers in the event of an emergency on or after touchdown.
In my view, this cabin crew member acted appropriately under the circumstances, and was correct to advise the passenger to stay in the toilet until after landing. An ill passenger, stumbling out of a toilet and back to her seat during a bumpy landing, is a hazard best avoided! It would be interesting to know if the passenger did as she was told.
Can I help you makes two good points I would strongly agree with.
Firstly, there are stages in a flight where it is not appropriate for the SCCM to contact the flight crew for anything other than a dire emergency (Power-Up to Gear Up on take-off and Gear Down to Touchdown on landing, but SEP protocols may have changed since I retired) and secondly, sometimes people must accept the consequences of their own actions if they are hurt or hurt others.
If, after landing, a SCCM had contacted me to say that, after they had reported the cabin was ready for landing and at a late stage on the approach, a passenger had dashed to the toilet but they had decided against informing me, I would have been quite happy they had made the right decision.
nk15 ...and a go around in a lower altitude would seem too dangerous, for a case like this...
I personally wouldn't use the word dangerous to describe a go-around, even a late-stage go-around, which after all is just a standard aviation manoeuvre practiced on nearly every simulator check, albeit one rarely carried out for real.
However I do agree that the decision to carry out a late-stage go-around for this reason must be made on the balance of risk and other factors must be considered, one of them being the possibility that the passenger may decide not to emerge from the toilet even after a go-around! Whilst the security services have effective techniques for removing an unwilling passenger from an aircraft toilet, the use of such techniques by cabin crew is generally frowned upon!
Being retired, it is very easy for me to be wise from the comfort of my armchair, but under these circumstances, even if the SCCM had contacted me, I doubt I would have gone around.
Kind Regards
Bellerophon
Sep 3, 2019, 3:31 pm
#29
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: LON
Programs: Mucci, BAEC, Eurostar
Posts: 3,283
"Sorry folks but the wind was a bit weird so we were coming a bit long, we'll have another more reasonable approach if you don't mind" (those weren't the exact words but that was the general message)
Sep 3, 2019, 5:51 pm
#30
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2014
Programs: Top Tier with all 3 alliances
Posts: 11,641
Good responses regarding the go-around, that's what I meant, too. A go-around does not seem like that it would be worth it for a situation like this, even the hassle, brief delay, or extra fuel, and whatever tiny chance of a risk the maneuver may entail (say, 1-3% risk that something goes wrong).
Last edited by nk15; Sep 3, 2019 at 5:57 pm
