A Necessity Airlines Shouldn't Take for Granted (BARF ALERT)

The New York Times ^ | 12-06-2005 | Christopher Elliott

[zipper]

So you think having lavatories on an airliner is merely for "convenience"? I suppose you think passenger airliners come equipped with lavatories as an "option" from the factory? What about freighters? Do you think they come without a lavatory from the factory as an option?

Any pilot-in-command that takes off with passengers on board and without an operative lavatory is sorely lacking in common sense, to say the least.

All I found after a quick search of administrative law on lavaratories on transport-category airplanes was 14 C.F.R. §25.820 (requiring that the door be unlockable from the outside) and §25.854 (requiring a smoke detector and automatic trash fire extinguisher in each lavaratory). These regs are pretty clearly for flight safety. Anything else would be in the specific airplane's Type Certificate (the design of the airplane as built) and Minimum Equipment List (basically, what items can and can't be functional for the airplane to fly legally), which are also written for flight safety.

But everything "required for flight safety" is not in the MEL. And if you can't find it in the MEL-- such as engines, for example, or wings, or doors, or lavatories-- they're required. It doesn't have to spell it out in the MEL or MMEL.

Here's a minor passage from the B-737 MMEL, page 38-1, dealing with "Lavatory Waste Systems":

(M) Associated lavatory system(s) may be inoperative provided: a) Associated components are deactivated or isolated to prevent leaks, b) The Pilot-in-Command will determine if flight duration is acceptable with a forward lavatory unusable, and c) Associated lavatory door(s) is secured closed and placarded “INOPERATIVE – DO NOT ENTER”.

Clearly the intent is operation with degraded lavatory capacity is acceptable only if remaining capacity is sufficient.

[Turbopilot]

So you think having lavatories on an airliner is merely for "convenience"?

Clearly, yes. I'm not sure why you seem to think that operating lavaratories are safety-of-flight items. I've had multiple 4+hour flights on an aircraft whose MTOW is probably less than the weight of an average transport-class jet lavaratory system.

I suppose you think passenger airliners come equipped with lavatories as an "option" from the factory?

Nah, I bet they're pretty much standard. But I bet if you call up Boeing and tell them you want to buy a 737-800 at list price, but want extra seats (or a hot tub) instead of lavaratories, they'll be happy to sell it to you.

< snip >

I don't have access to any 737 MELs, so I have no reason to doubt your accurate quote. It seems to indicate that lavaratories are not, in fact, safety-of-flight items, but rather are optional convenience items whose operability may be waived by the PIC. If no lavs worked, the PIC would probably reject the aircraft if it were going, say, JFK-DFW. But on a half-hour flight from JFK-ABY? Or a ferry flight JFK-LGA? If they were safety-of-flight items, a crew wouldn't take an airplane any distance without them. But, of course, it's ridiculous to think that a lavaratory has anything to do with flight safety, but only to do with passenger convenience. Thus it is not mandated by the FAA, at least per the MEL you quoted for the 737.

[zipper]

What is a lavaratory?

I never said lavatories are safety-of-flight items, you did. I said they are required, and used the B-737 MMEL to back up my claim. If you don't know how to interpret an MEL (or what the lack of an item in the MEL means) that's another issue entirely.

I've had multiple 4+hour flights on an aircraft whose MTOW is probably less than the weight of an average transport-class jet lavaratory system.

Is that supposed to be a joke? What, an ultralight? Yes, they probably don't require lavatories on ultralights. But then, they don't have MELs or MMELs.

It seems to indicate that lavaratories are not, in fact, safety-of-flight items, but rather are optional convenience items whose operability may be waived by the PIC.

You misinterpreted the MEL. It said a particular one may be inoperative provided the others are sufficient in capacity. Which indicates some (appropriate) capability is required. There may be some shorter flights (as I mentioned, 30 minutes or less, maybe) where the lavatories are not critical in flight. But there are sometimes long ground delays for traffic, anti/de-icing, ATC, in-flight holding, diversion to alternate, that would greatly extend the amount of time passengers have to spend on a given flight without relief. Any captain who would deliberately put passengers in a position such as you are suggesting is a fool.

If I ever had the misfortune of flying with one of those jerks as a captain, hopefully there'll be a passenger bulletin so I will know to bring a water bottle to piss in.

[zipper]

Boeing 737 MMEL

[Turbopilot]

I never said lavatories are safety-of-flight items, you did.

No, you claimed that FARs regulated that a certain number of lavatories must be operational for a given pt. 121 flight. You also never posted anything proving that claim. Since my post was about the ridiculousness of the government regulating non-safety-of-flight items, I presumed you were claiming that lavatories were safety-of-flight items. If I was incorrect in my presumption, then at least admit you are saying that lavatories should be regulated, even though they are not safety items.

I said they are required, and used the B-737 MMEL to back up my claim.

As I said, I don't have access to said MEL. And what you posted did not, in fact, show that lavatories are required items, in that what you posted clearly shows that lavatories are at the discretion of the PIC as to whether they are necessary on a given flight.

Is that supposed to be a joke?

Nope; I'm sorry you've not had the pleasure of flying via general aviation, but the Mooney 201 on which I frequently travel (as well as aircraft including, but not restricted to, a Cessna 182, Piper 160/180/lots of others, Beech Bonanza/Twin Bonanza/Baron/Sierra/lots of others, and many, many other models) are completely capable of 4+ hours in the air, and none has any option of an airborne lavatory. One can travel many hours in an aircraft without any restroom capabilities whatsoever, and it doesn't seem to have caused any sort of problem at all.

You misinterpreted the MEL. It said a particular one may be inoperative provided the others are sufficient in capacity.

That may be so, but it is not so per the portions of the MEL you chose to post. I already said I don't have access to the whole thing. If you had evidence of your claim that the MEL forbids a 737 captain taking off without operative lavatories, you should have posted that part of the MEL.

If I ever had the misfortune of flying with one of those jerks as a captain, hopefully there'll be a passenger bulletin so I will know to bring a water bottle to piss in.

On that much, we agree. If a flight of significant (more than an hour, at least) length is to depart without working lavatories, a responsible captain should alert his passengers while they still have a chance to relieve themselves on the ground.

[zipper]

Respectfully, I'm beginning to think you are untrainable. You aren't willing to look at the MMEL I specifically pointed you to (on the web, public access, the "whole thing"); you don't understand what an MEL is for; and you didn't get my point when I said engines and wings are not included in the MEL either. If you understood the MMEL and what it's about then you would never assume an inoperable piece of equipment is not required.

Further, you apparently think because a light twin barely as heavy as a Volkswagon doesn't come equipped with a lavatory it somehow means big transport-category jets shouldn't either. I disagree, not agree, that a captain of a passenger airline such as the one cited in this story (part 121 ops) can legally depart with all lavatory facilities inoperative. And yes I said all, not slightly degraded as I cited from the B-737 MMEL.

In summary, FAR's require that all equipment installed on an aircraft (in compliance with the Airworthiness Standards and the Operating Rules) must be operative. However, an airline may publish a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) allowing relief from this rule in certain specific situations. Since the lavatory itself is required equipment, going without it (them) is not an option, though dispatching with slightly degraded lavatory capacity is, as spelled out in the MEL.

[Turbopilot]

Respectfully, I'm beginning to think you are untrainable.

That's arrogant and rude, "respectfully" or not. Since (contrary to your inexplicable assertion) we agree on what an MEL is, your argument is with the plain language of the MEL you posted, not with me. The only thing you need to post back to me is an apology.

[zipper]

Definitely untrainable.

[Turbopilot]

Don't post to me again.

[zipper]

Well, I guess he's all tuckered out. At least I taught him it's not "lavaratories"