Are Aircraft Toilets Really a Regulatory Requirement???
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Keeping The Enema Bandit in line
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are Aircraft Toilets Really a Regulatory Requirement???
Well according to Pacific Blue they are. Better to be stuck on the ground I say. 
From News.com
Nick Higginbottom
August 14, 2007 12:00am
DOZENS of passengers were left stranded in Vanuatu when the toilets on a Pacific Blue 737 aircraft failed yesterday.
Brisbane-bound flight DJ 180, which was due to leave at 3.05pm local time yesterday, was cancelled when an electrical fault left the plane's toilets inoperable.
Passengers were told they may be left on the island for up to four days before they were taken to accommodation while a pilot flew the aircraft to Brisbane for repairs.
Melbourne man Graham Sherry was one of many passengers stuck on the island and said it was "poor form" on the airline's behalf.
"They told us there was a problem with the toilets and they couldn't fly us back for three to four days," Mr Sherry said.
"It's only a couple of hours' flight and I think (to wait) three or four days is extreme."
But a Pacific Blue spokeswoman said the airline was doing everything possible to secure the safe return of the stranded passengers as quickly as possible.
"Obviously our priority is to move people back," she said.
"But it's a regulatory requirement that there have to be working lavatories on the flight."
From News.com
Nick Higginbottom
August 14, 2007 12:00am
DOZENS of passengers were left stranded in Vanuatu when the toilets on a Pacific Blue 737 aircraft failed yesterday.
Brisbane-bound flight DJ 180, which was due to leave at 3.05pm local time yesterday, was cancelled when an electrical fault left the plane's toilets inoperable.
Passengers were told they may be left on the island for up to four days before they were taken to accommodation while a pilot flew the aircraft to Brisbane for repairs.
Melbourne man Graham Sherry was one of many passengers stuck on the island and said it was "poor form" on the airline's behalf.
"They told us there was a problem with the toilets and they couldn't fly us back for three to four days," Mr Sherry said.
"It's only a couple of hours' flight and I think (to wait) three or four days is extreme."
But a Pacific Blue spokeswoman said the airline was doing everything possible to secure the safe return of the stranded passengers as quickly as possible.
"Obviously our priority is to move people back," she said.
"But it's a regulatory requirement that there have to be working lavatories on the flight."
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I can imagine the fuss if they were inoperative, but surely they could all be informed, take a vote, those that can wait....they all get on. Those who dont.......wait a lot longer.
But maybe its a reg. Wouldn't want that to be a BNE-LAX trip though
J
But maybe its a reg. Wouldn't want that to be a BNE-LAX trip though
J
It will be laid out in the MEL. The MEL is derived from the manufacturers master MEL, regulatory requirements and company policy. If the MEL states that there must be “X” number of lavatories then it becomes a legal requirement for dispatch.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: in a sorry state of permit-icitus
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MEL XX.XX U/S dunnys
No. required for dispatch 0
Remarks and/or Exceptions
(O) Poll passengers and off load any potential No.1's and No.2's.
(O) Don't serve the airline food.
(O) pissa phone servicable for the Captain/FO (preferably 2 'phones)
No. required for dispatch 0
Remarks and/or Exceptions
(O) Poll passengers and off load any potential No.1's and No.2's.
(O) Don't serve the airline food.
(O) pissa phone servicable for the Captain/FO (preferably 2 'phones)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Delayed 4 hours in LAX on one occasion DC-10 to Honolulu because were below the number of servicable toilets - so we were told, so presume that was a MEL issue. Certainly was serious work being done in the cubicle.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly on the A320 the toilets do appear in the M.E.L (minimum equipment list), can't remember the exact figures but if all the toilets are unservicable then it is an item that will ground the aircraft regardless of whether the pax will be willing to hold on.
Kiwiconehead
You have forgotten the human interface component of an “Airworthiness Requirement”. A couple of pilots busting for a piss can be a very serious problem, especially when they are trying to land.
You have forgotten the human interface component of an “Airworthiness Requirement”. A couple of pilots busting for a piss can be a very serious problem, especially when they are trying to land.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing a Gatoraid bottle won't fix. I use em all the time (has to have the LARGE opening 
) they are a pretty convenient size too.
) they are a pretty convenient size too.
Nothing a Gatoraid bottle won't fix. I use em all the time (has to have the LARGE opening ) they are a pretty convenient size too.
What about a SOLO bottle? I thought they had a large opening so you could slam it in fast?
) they are a pretty convenient size too.What about a SOLO bottle? I thought they had a large opening so you could slam it in fast?
