Man, I sure wish that they would hurry up and fix climate change so that we wouldn't have turbulence any more. Then we could ride safely without seatbelts.

I fly a lot, including a lot of long legs, and other than trips to the lavatory when it's calm, I stay belted in.

People who get tossed around the cabin aren't just a danger to themselves.

I'e been pinned to the ceiling in the cabin before, and I've seen people ejected from their seat. Many underestimate turbulence or think it won't happen to them because they haven't seen it; the idea of dangerous turbulence is academic to them, a cartoon symbol on the briefing card and a little light over their head. That's fine, but it shouldn't take getting tossed for someone to take their seat when the light is on or keep their belt on.

Over the years, I've been in severe and extreme turbulence that's bounced my head off canopies, violently tossed things, made it impossible to see, with everything a blur, rolled the aircraft inverted, and stalled the airplane and activated various systems in response. Turbulence is something that can be found at any altitude, and most passengers never encounter more than only light to moderate chop or turbulence. Belts should still be worn. It seems that every poster here exercises good judgement and common sense in wearing their belt, but we all see plenty who don't, and let's face it, when you've got to go, you've got to go. Whether it's worth the risk of severe injury, however, or injury to others, is something many don't consider well enough.

You think that’s bad?

Next time you are flying and in the lavatory just take notice there is no seat belt for the toilet.

No armrests either.

That’s all I’m going to say.



.

Some business aircraft feature a "belted potty," but because the lav doesn't have the support, crush capability, and engineered protection of an aircraft seat, it's not certified nor intended to be occupied other than times when the seat belt sign is not illuminated, and isn't to be occupied for takeoff or landing.

That comes back to people not getting up to go to the lav when the seat belt sign is illuminated. Folks in back may think there's a bit of a tremor or light turbulence. The crew may be seeing something entirely different out the front of the cockpit, on radar, or may be receiving pilot reports from other aircraft or air traffic control regarding weather or turbulence coming up.

If the seat belt sign is illuminated, the lav isn't the place to be.

Unforecast clear air turbulence, not visible on radar, unknown, and not something that can be seen by the naked eye can be the result of mountains hundreds of miles away, interference between the jet stream and an adjacent layer of air, or wake turbulence from another aircraft. There may be no warning for that.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
People who get tossed around the cabin aren't just a danger to themselves.

And that’s the real problem. I have little sympathy for anyone whose head gets stuck in the overhead because he wasn’t belted in while seated, but having some 220 pound porker dropping into my lap from two or three feet up isn’t going to do my back and bones any good.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
Some business aircraft feature a "belted potty," but because the lav doesn't have the support, crush capability, and engineered protection of an aircraft seat, it's not certified nor intended to be occupied other than times when the seat belt sign is not illuminated, and isn't to be occupied for takeoff or landing.

That comes back to people not getting up to go to the lav when the seat belt sign is illuminated. Folks in back may think there's a bit of a tremor or light turbulence. The crew may be seeing something entirely different out the front of the cockpit, on radar, or may be receiving pilot reports from other aircraft or air traffic control regarding weather or turbulence coming up.

If the seat belt sign is illuminated, the lav isn't the place to be.

Unforecast clear air turbulence, not visible on radar, unknown, and not something that can be seen by the naked eye can be the result of mountains hundreds of miles away, interference between the jet stream and an adjacent layer of air, or wake turbulence from another aircraft. There may be no warning for that.

This is false. Belted lavatories are “official seats” and may be occupied during takeoff and landing. I don't what planes you are referring to, but every plane at my company with a belted lav is continuously occupiable.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:


This is false. Belted lavatories are “official seats” and may be occupied during takeoff and landing. I don't what planes you are referring to, but every plane at my company with a belted lav is continuously occupiable.

No, it's not false, you just can't read.

I said that aircraft without a belted lav should NOT be occupied when the seatbelt sign is on.

A "belted seat" in a lav may be occupied for each phase of flight for which it's certified, but most airlines do NOT use belted lavs, and a lavatory seat which is not belted is not intended to be used for takeoff or landing, or occupation when the seatbelt sign is illuminated.

So no, my statement is not false. Reading comprehension is key. It also pays to read the whole post and not cherrypick out of context. We're talking about airline lavatories, in this case, and those do not use seatbelts and are not designed, certified, nor intended as such. I pointed out that some business aircraft do have belted lavs. This is in contrast to airline lavatories which are not intended to be occupied for takeoff, landing, or when the seat belt sign is illuminated.

A belted lav, incidentally, is designed to be occupied with the lid down, not being used as a lav, when the belt is in use, in which case it. becomes an occupiable seat. They are not intended to be used with the lid open as a toilet while belted or for takeoff or landing.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:


This is false. Belted lavatories are “official seats” and may be occupied during takeoff and landing. I don't what planes you are referring to, but every plane at my company with a belted lav is continuously occupiable.

No, it's not false, you just can't read.

I said that aircraft without a belted lav should NOT be occupied when the seatbelt sign is on.

A "belted seat" in a lav may be occupied for each phase of flight for which it's certified, but most airlines do NOT use belted lavs, and a lavatory seat which is not belted is not intended to be used for takeoff or landing, or occupation when the seatbelt sign is illuminated.

So no, my statement is not false. Reading comprehension is key. It also pays to read the whole post and not cherrypick out of context. We're talking about airline lavatories, in this case, and those do not use seatbelts and are not designed, certified, nor intended as such. I pointed out that some business aircraft do have belted lavs. This is in contrast to airline lavatories which are not intended to be occupied for takeoff, landing, or when the seat belt sign is illuminated.

A belted lav, incidentally, is designed to be occupied with the lid down, not being used as a lav, when the belt is in use, in which case it. becomes an occupiable seat. They are not intended to be used with the lid open as a toilet while belted or for takeoff or landing.

Apparently your reading comprehension is as bad as your writing.

"Some business aircraft feature a "belted potty," but because the lav doesn't have the support, crush capability, and engineered protection of an aircraft seat, it's not certified nor intended to be occupied other than times when the seat belt sign is not illuminated, and isn't to be occupied for takeoff or landing."

You are talking about Business aircraft. Did you switch to airline potty's in the middle of this paragraph? If so why didn't you specify that? When you lead off with "business aircraft...." most people will assume the entire paragraph is about business aircraft lav's. So could you clarify?

And yes, I know exactly how lav's work. You are not the only professional pilot on this board.

We're talking about airline operations, brightspark.

Read.

Some corporate aircraft use belted lavs. Airliners do not.

Clear air turbulence is not what I would consider "fun", especially after seeing it in action.

Back when local flights in Europe were twin engine prop driven we were on a flight towards Frankfurt. My estimate is that we were about 12-15K feet above ground. I looked ahead and saw some very dark clouds right in our flight path.

Told the wife to make sure her seat belt was fastened and tight. Guy across the aisle from us was drinking a cup of coffee. (hot).

Pilot came on the intercom and said to make sure we were buckled up and to secure meal items.

Guy with the coffee decided he knew better, and commenced to compensate for the abrupt changes in altitude. You know, down, up, down, up etc.

Worked out just fine until it went DOWN, DOWN.

He ended up with a string of hot coffee about 18 inches above his cup. Then that stream of hot coffee stopped forward motion, the plane did not. And he ended up wearing that hot coffee.

We all got a kick out of it, him? Not so much.