BMI captain has passenger arrested for peeing
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you are a first time flyer..then you wouldnt be aware of what happens onboard...ie seatbelt sign on at specific times,however this guy clerly had flown before and i agree with 13...should of gone b4 u got on! i believe the CP is totally in the right! during flight if the CP or FO needs the loo...our policy is tht there are minimum of 3 crew at door 1 and the seat belt sign is switched on! am sure that anyway SLF who wants to have a little moan and groan would be the first to complain if someone got into that flight deck - on or off the ground! 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FLORIDA
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure, but didnt the plane suffer a delay after they all got on.........
I have notice that on a few flight (longhaul, landing) the cockpit crew will PA through that the seatbelt sign will be going on in about 20 mins, and they suggest you use the toilets now........ That does stop that ' Oh my God, l gotta pee, and now they put the sign on ' panic attack......
Maybe all flights should have a 5 - 10 mins before seatbelt sign goes on call.....
MUST BEAT having to clean up a wet seat............
I have notice that on a few flight (longhaul, landing) the cockpit crew will PA through that the seatbelt sign will be going on in about 20 mins, and they suggest you use the toilets now........ That does stop that ' Oh my God, l gotta pee, and now they put the sign on ' panic attack......
Maybe all flights should have a 5 - 10 mins before seatbelt sign goes on call.....
MUST BEAT having to clean up a wet seat............
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of you seem to be sympathetic with this guy. Some guy on page one said some pilots would stop the aircraft so he could go quickly!!
What utter nonsense!
The guy disobeyed a serious health and safety requirement, and an order from the captain, which I believe is illegal.
The guy got a proper shake-up - good on the pilot.
What utter nonsense!
The guy disobeyed a serious health and safety requirement, and an order from the captain, which I believe is illegal.
The guy got a proper shake-up - good on the pilot.
yeah thats fine all 15 flights behind you will hold too...Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: I'll go and ask the Captain
Posts: 643
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the point is getting lost here.
If you're No1 for take off then then its a no brainer really, but if your sat in a line of 15 a/c waiting to take of 090 at LHR then there is at least 15 to 20 minutes before you are going anywhere.
The point is that all situations are different and should be treated as such and more importantly those on the a/c and not sat in an office should be given the respect and responsibility to act accordingly. As some one posted earlier the pax concerned could have a health problem and why should they divulge their very private information to crew on boarding? If the need arises to to make crew aware of their health concerns then that is the right time to do so.
We are in danger of becoming rather officious if we insist on the same level of compliance to rules regarding a passenger who is actually interfering with the safe operation of a flight and someone who just needs a pee! After all what would those of you who supported the police being involved have done if the pax concerned was a heavily pregnant lady? As you can see all situations need to be addressed individually. Illegal they may be but that is just the letter of the law not the spirit of it.
I have always found that helping my passengers not only makes them happy but it makes day a hell of a lot easier.........
6
If you're No1 for take off then then its a no brainer really, but if your sat in a line of 15 a/c waiting to take of 090 at LHR then there is at least 15 to 20 minutes before you are going anywhere.
The point is that all situations are different and should be treated as such and more importantly those on the a/c and not sat in an office should be given the respect and responsibility to act accordingly. As some one posted earlier the pax concerned could have a health problem and why should they divulge their very private information to crew on boarding? If the need arises to to make crew aware of their health concerns then that is the right time to do so.
We are in danger of becoming rather officious if we insist on the same level of compliance to rules regarding a passenger who is actually interfering with the safe operation of a flight and someone who just needs a pee! After all what would those of you who supported the police being involved have done if the pax concerned was a heavily pregnant lady? As you can see all situations need to be addressed individually. Illegal they may be but that is just the letter of the law not the spirit of it.
I have always found that helping my passengers not only makes them happy but it makes day a hell of a lot easier.........
6
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Luton
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6chimes
I'm crew and I agree that common sense should prevail whenever possible, but, and I've had this happen, you allow one person to go to the toilet while taxying and before you know it you have 10-15 people wanting to go, you then try to tell them no as you are close to take off! Near impossible and then the passengers become hostile 'cause you are playing favouritism!!!
Better to keep them in their seats till you are in the air and then let them all queue if they want to. I know it smacks of nannying, but if you ask the general public the one thing that is nearly always at the the top, or very close to of their list for an airline is being on time. If that is what they want then when the A/C is taxying or the seat belts sign is on then they need to play their part to and be in those seats with their seat belt fastened read to go.
Who know the other 15 A/C in front may end up letting passengers go to the toilet and then not being secure you get to jump the queue?
I'm crew and I agree that common sense should prevail whenever possible, but, and I've had this happen, you allow one person to go to the toilet while taxying and before you know it you have 10-15 people wanting to go, you then try to tell them no as you are close to take off! Near impossible and then the passengers become hostile 'cause you are playing favouritism!!!
Better to keep them in their seats till you are in the air and then let them all queue if they want to. I know it smacks of nannying, but if you ask the general public the one thing that is nearly always at the the top, or very close to of their list for an airline is being on time. If that is what they want then when the A/C is taxying or the seat belts sign is on then they need to play their part to and be in those seats with their seat belt fastened read to go.
Who know the other 15 A/C in front may end up letting passengers go to the toilet and then not being secure you get to jump the queue?
Guest
Posts: n/a
iain8867
I fly between 100-110 pax sectors per annum and have done for many years.
In that time, I have never witnessed what you describe.
This comment is not intended as an attack on you, nor am I suggesting that it has never happened to you, but as someone who spends a lot of time in the air, I would suggest that it is an uncommon event.
I read your comments as another example of trying to have a general rule for a particular situation, when judgement and common sense would be a better guide.
6chimes sums up the best approach in my opinion, which appears to come from a combination of pragmatism, experience and customer consideration.
For the record, I am still not convinced that this incident occured (or at least without there being more to it than meets the eye.)
I fly between 100-110 pax sectors per annum and have done for many years.
In that time, I have never witnessed what you describe.
This comment is not intended as an attack on you, nor am I suggesting that it has never happened to you, but as someone who spends a lot of time in the air, I would suggest that it is an uncommon event.
I read your comments as another example of trying to have a general rule for a particular situation, when judgement and common sense would be a better guide.
6chimes sums up the best approach in my opinion, which appears to come from a combination of pragmatism, experience and customer consideration.
For the record, I am still not convinced that this incident occured (or at least without there being more to it than meets the eye.)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: north of heathrow
Age: 55
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, for all we know, judgement, common sense, pragmatism, experience and customer consideration, were all used in this instance. Because really, we don't know everything that went on.
And I have witnessed this happen, not hundreds of times, but quite a few. We don't always know where we are in the queue, will the pax have inside info that the cabin crew do not? Even if we were 15th in the queue, as "Iain8867" pointed out, that can, and has changed. Again, not hundreds of times, but a few. The clue that you should be in your seat with your seatbelt fastened, is the fact that the sign above your head is lit. You do not need the seatbelt on just for takeoff, just taxiing round an airport is enough, possibly taxiing faster than it feels like. There has been instances where the pilots have had to slam on the brakes, and just like in your car, if you're not restrained, it may well hurt. We cannot physically stop people from getting up, but once they are up, we have to inform the flightdeck that we are now, not secure.
And I have witnessed this happen, not hundreds of times, but quite a few. We don't always know where we are in the queue, will the pax have inside info that the cabin crew do not? Even if we were 15th in the queue, as "Iain8867" pointed out, that can, and has changed. Again, not hundreds of times, but a few. The clue that you should be in your seat with your seatbelt fastened, is the fact that the sign above your head is lit. You do not need the seatbelt on just for takeoff, just taxiing round an airport is enough, possibly taxiing faster than it feels like. There has been instances where the pilots have had to slam on the brakes, and just like in your car, if you're not restrained, it may well hurt. We cannot physically stop people from getting up, but once they are up, we have to inform the flightdeck that we are now, not secure.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has been instances where the pilots have had to slam on the brakes, and just like in your car, if you're not restrained, it may well hurt.
That's the real point at issue.
And at last, the Government has realised how serious it is, and is introducing emergency legislation to enforce the carriage of staff on all buses and trains, especially local buses operating in heavy traffic, whose job is to make sure that no-one gets hurt by standing up, or, God Forbid, moving about until the vehicle has stopped and the driver has switched off the seat belt sign. These signs are being installed in all buses and trains as we speak, as are the seatbelts themselves, which until now no-one realised were so necessary.
The Government understands that the risk of the brakes being slammed on is even higher in these vehicles than it is in a taxying aircraft (where it happens on a daily basis) and that therefore people need protection from their own thoughtlessness, in the form of a uniformed school-leaver telling them it's all for their own good.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: north of heathrow
Age: 55
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you know what, Capot??.. You're absolutely right!!. Let's forget all our training. Tomorrow, when I go back to work, I'll let actually make a PA while taxiing, that now would be a great time to nip to the loo. Then maybe,like has happened before, a catering truck nips in front of us, the pilot slams on the brakes, we got 30 or so pax, piled up in the aisles... but I would have been using my common sense,right??..
You must tell me where you hone your standup skills....
When I said it may hurt a bit, I was being a litle sarcastic, it may hurt a lot.. I think most pax need protection from certain pax thoughtlessness..
You must tell me where you hone your standup skills....
When I said it may hurt a bit, I was being a litle sarcastic, it may hurt a lot.. I think most pax need protection from certain pax thoughtlessness..
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13 please
The point I was trying to make fairly light-heartedly is that there is no more risk of injury to a passenger who happens to be standing up in a taxying aircraft than there is to one who happens to be standing up in a moving Tube train, bus, ordinary train or whatever. Millions do that every day without filling the hospitals. Astonishing, isn't it?
I'm not sure what you mean by "slamming on the brakes" but whatever it is, it is far more likely to happen in a bus than in an aircraft whose progress is almost as regulated as a train, in which the risk is about equal.
Using expressions like
is simple, laughable exaggeration and does nothing for your argument.
What I am promoting here is simple commonsense, and sensible consideration of the facts and risks. The chance of a passenger on the way to the loo after perhaps 2 hours of lockdown being hurt because the pilot "slams on the brakes" while the aircraft is slowly and intermittently making its way up a long queue is so small that it's not worthy of even mentioning.
Even if the brakes are "slammed on", as you put it, the aircraft taxy speed is less than the average bus or Tube train, and a fraction of a typical overland train's speed.
Does that tell you anything?
If you really think that it's not safe for people to move around in an aircraft while it's taxying, you should divert your attention from making people pee in their seats to a campaign to force the Government to instal seat belts in buses and trains, together with a law which says people must sit down wearing the belt while the vehicle is moving.
Oh yes, and cabin crew shouldn't move about if doing so is dangerous; if the brakes are "slammed on" and a CC is therefore injured, perhaps under the pile of 30 bodies, the flight would have to be terminated altogether due to the loss of a required crew member. So no more safety demos while taxying, eh, or any other movement in the cabin. Far too dangerous; standing up, facing backwards, sudden stop, serious injury. I'm amazed at the bravery of crew who do this daily.
The point I was trying to make fairly light-heartedly is that there is no more risk of injury to a passenger who happens to be standing up in a taxying aircraft than there is to one who happens to be standing up in a moving Tube train, bus, ordinary train or whatever. Millions do that every day without filling the hospitals. Astonishing, isn't it?
I'm not sure what you mean by "slamming on the brakes" but whatever it is, it is far more likely to happen in a bus than in an aircraft whose progress is almost as regulated as a train, in which the risk is about equal.
Using expressions like
the pilot slams on the brakes, we got 30 or so pax, piled up in the aisles
What I am promoting here is simple commonsense, and sensible consideration of the facts and risks. The chance of a passenger on the way to the loo after perhaps 2 hours of lockdown being hurt because the pilot "slams on the brakes" while the aircraft is slowly and intermittently making its way up a long queue is so small that it's not worthy of even mentioning.
Even if the brakes are "slammed on", as you put it, the aircraft taxy speed is less than the average bus or Tube train, and a fraction of a typical overland train's speed.
Does that tell you anything?
If you really think that it's not safe for people to move around in an aircraft while it's taxying, you should divert your attention from making people pee in their seats to a campaign to force the Government to instal seat belts in buses and trains, together with a law which says people must sit down wearing the belt while the vehicle is moving.
Oh yes, and cabin crew shouldn't move about if doing so is dangerous; if the brakes are "slammed on" and a CC is therefore injured, perhaps under the pile of 30 bodies, the flight would have to be terminated altogether due to the loss of a required crew member. So no more safety demos while taxying, eh, or any other movement in the cabin. Far too dangerous; standing up, facing backwards, sudden stop, serious injury. I'm amazed at the bravery of crew who do this daily.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: north of heathrow
Age: 55
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We do have the ability to use commom sense.We use it all the time at work. Well, most of us do, and pax do too, well most of them..
Slamming on the brakes means, slamming on the brakes, they can stop pretty quickly if they have to.Before takeoff, it's just the crew that go A over T. They were all a little shaken, had been lifted off the ground, would you believe! Bumps and bruises, no head injuries luckily. It was decided that they would carry on.
elsewhere there was a question re crew out of their seats b4 takeoff, the answer was something to do with balancing the product, with safety.
Of course I was exaggerating re 30 or so, but if you let 1 up, who knows how many will follow...
Slamming on the brakes means, slamming on the brakes, they can stop pretty quickly if they have to.Before takeoff, it's just the crew that go A over T. They were all a little shaken, had been lifted off the ground, would you believe! Bumps and bruises, no head injuries luckily. It was decided that they would carry on.
elsewhere there was a question re crew out of their seats b4 takeoff, the answer was something to do with balancing the product, with safety.
Of course I was exaggerating re 30 or so, but if you let 1 up, who knows how many will follow...
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
something to do with balancing the product, with safety.
but if you let 1 up, who knows how many will follow..
Oh dear, not much of what's been said in this thread seems to have got through.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe once a year or so, I need to stop quickly while taxiing. Everey time I do I find it very uncomfortable for me, an d I'm wearing a full harness with inertia locking shoulder straps. If you're up and walking on MY aeroplane when I've got the seat belt signs on then you're on your own. It just ain't safe. Period.
If however you need to move about, then ask and I'll be pleased to give an honest answer. Remote holding while waiting for a slot delay, engines are shut down and signs are normally off. Long queue at the holding point, then maybe time for a very quick pee. One or two in front, then no way.
If however you need to move about, then ask and I'll be pleased to give an honest answer. Remote holding while waiting for a slot delay, engines are shut down and signs are normally off. Long queue at the holding point, then maybe time for a very quick pee. One or two in front, then no way.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LGW
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cabin crew are on their feet during taxi for safety related duties, i.e. required duties such as door mode selection, the safety demonstration, and cabin secure checks. Crew are covered by insurance for injuries sustained whilst carrying out these duties.
Passengers do not have any duties to fulfill, nor any valid reasons to be standing while the aircraft is taxiing, and this is taken into account for insurance reasons. If a passenger is injured, or by extension injures other passengers or crew, due to not being appropriately restrained whilst the seatbelt sign is on, they must be held responsible for this and should not be covered by insurance.
I take a common sense approach to this whenever possible. If seatbelt signs are on during turbulence and a customer is in desperate need, I will assess the situation. If I'm standing, I will generally allow the customer to use the lavatory, but only after warning them that it is at their own risk. If I'm seated and harnessed under orders of the Commander, then it is by no means safe to leave your seat.
On the ground, I apply a similar logic. If I'm seated for takeoff, everyone else should be seated too. If I'm in the cabin performing the safety demonstration, everyone needs to be seated. If I'm doing a cabin secure check, same situation.
On most European airlines, the seatbelt signs are on for quite a short time in comparison to US airlines. While not wishing to sound like a "nursery nurse", I should hope the average adult would be able to hold it in for about 20-30 minutes.
13 please has not, from what I can see, shown any contempt for the customer, but has rather commented quite accurately on human nature. If one person gets out of their seat while the seatbelt signs are on, others will follow.
Capot, your arguments concerning aircraft taxi speed are interesting. I would suggest, however, that an airfield is host to a variety of moving machines of varying power and size and it would be sensible to have everyone seated where there is no requirement for them to be standing.
Passengers do not have any duties to fulfill, nor any valid reasons to be standing while the aircraft is taxiing, and this is taken into account for insurance reasons. If a passenger is injured, or by extension injures other passengers or crew, due to not being appropriately restrained whilst the seatbelt sign is on, they must be held responsible for this and should not be covered by insurance.
I take a common sense approach to this whenever possible. If seatbelt signs are on during turbulence and a customer is in desperate need, I will assess the situation. If I'm standing, I will generally allow the customer to use the lavatory, but only after warning them that it is at their own risk. If I'm seated and harnessed under orders of the Commander, then it is by no means safe to leave your seat.
On the ground, I apply a similar logic. If I'm seated for takeoff, everyone else should be seated too. If I'm in the cabin performing the safety demonstration, everyone needs to be seated. If I'm doing a cabin secure check, same situation.
On most European airlines, the seatbelt signs are on for quite a short time in comparison to US airlines. While not wishing to sound like a "nursery nurse", I should hope the average adult would be able to hold it in for about 20-30 minutes.
13 please has not, from what I can see, shown any contempt for the customer, but has rather commented quite accurately on human nature. If one person gets out of their seat while the seatbelt signs are on, others will follow.
Capot, your arguments concerning aircraft taxi speed are interesting. I would suggest, however, that an airfield is host to a variety of moving machines of varying power and size and it would be sensible to have everyone seated where there is no requirement for them to be standing.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: north of heathrow
Age: 55
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou....
Thankyou to G-TTIC and Nubboy, I really didn't mean to show any contempt for anybody, I was just speaking from experience. But I really couldn't be bothered to reply to Capot's last post as I thought he/she was just nit-picking, and attempting, and almost succeeding, to wind me up. many thanks again. Safe and happy travels to all out there.
I will refrain from getting drawn into the debate (if you can call it that) about "to pee or not to pee". What shocks me is the level of aggression and immaturity demonstrated by some posters - professing to be professional aircrew - in presenting their point of view. It would appear that on some airlines passenger and aircrew intellect and maturity seem to compliment each other rather well. 