<< >> NASA ASRS Report 160808, October 1990

Air carrier first officer questions dispatching an medium large transport with a full passenger load when the forward lav is inoperative.

Attributes
ACN	160808
Time
Date	199010
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : dfw
State Reference	TX
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : mia
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Navigation In Use	Other
Flight Phase	ground : preflight
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : flight engineer pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 7000 flight time type : 800
ASRS Report	160808
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Aircraft
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

On a flight from dfw-ord with a full load of passenger (142), the forward lav was blocked off. The captain SID he felt this was unsafe, due to the fact that if one of us needed to use the lav we would/could be stuck in the back for a long time. I advised that captain, 'if it's not safe, don't take the aircraft.' after talking to dispatch, technical services, maintenance, etc, he took the aircraft. The trip was uneventful. On the surface this is not a problem. However as you can see it certainly could be. Marketing department determined that the forward lav could be blocked, leaving the captain in a difficult situation of delaying/cancelling the flight due to a blocked lav. We are in a contract negotiation with the company and the company views us as being petty. Marketing department should have no say in maintenance affairs.

Related reports:

• A B737-300 pilot questions the legality of dispatching for t...
• An S80 PIC report wherein he questions the validity of the a...
• B767 questions legality of dispatching ETOPS flight with rig...
• Dash-8 captain questions dispatching an aircraft with MEL'd ...

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.37000feet.com

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR FO QUESTIONS DISPATCHING AN MLG WITH A FULL PASSENGER LOAD WHEN THE FORWARD LAV IS INOPERATIVE.

Narrative: ON A FLT FROM DFW-ORD WITH A FULL LOAD OF PAX (142), THE FORWARD LAV WAS BLOCKED OFF. THE CAPT SID HE FELT THIS WAS UNSAFE, DUE TO THE FACT THAT IF ONE OF US NEEDED TO USE THE LAV WE WOULD/COULD BE STUCK IN THE BACK FOR A LONG TIME. I ADVISED THAT CAPT, 'IF IT'S NOT SAFE, DON'T TAKE THE ACFT.' AFTER TALKING TO DISPATCH, TECHNICAL SVCS, MAINT, ETC, HE TOOK THE ACFT. THE TRIP WAS UNEVENTFUL. ON THE SURFACE THIS IS NOT A PROB. HOWEVER AS YOU CAN SEE IT CERTAINLY COULD BE. MARKETING DEPT DETERMINED THAT THE FORWARD LAV COULD BE BLOCKED, LEAVING THE CAPT IN A DIFFICULT SITUATION OF DELAYING/CANCELLING THE FLT DUE TO A BLOCKED LAV. WE ARE IN A CONTRACT NEGOTIATION WITH THE COMPANY AND THE COMPANY VIEWS US AS BEING PETTY. MARKETING DEPT SHOULD HAVE NO SAY IN MAINT AFFAIRS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.