Is the seat-belt sign activation when a pilot goes to the lavatory standard procedure?Why is the seat belt mechanism on airplanes so different from the the one on cars?Did commercial airliners have microwave ovens in the past?Is locking the cockpit door from inside is a normal procedure when one pilot leaves?How tight should passengers wear the seat belt?Why is the takeoff decision point based only on speed and not time or distance?Are there rules about using the “Fasten seatbelt” sign outside of take-off/landing/turbulence?What is the proper procedure when a passenger seat belt becomes inoperable during flight?Does a 40 years clean crashes sheet of airliner makes people fear to fly with them because there is bigger pressure on the company?Does the FAA restrict the color of pilot seat belts?Why are on-board computers allowed to change controls without notifying the pilots?

When did game consoles begin including FPUs?

Will the volt, ampere, ohm or other electrical units change on May 20th, 2019?

Does it matter what way the tires go if no directional arrow?

What dog breeds survive the apocalypse for generations?

Why commonly or frequently used fonts sizes are even numbers like 10px, 12px, 16px, 24px, or 32px?

Word for "activity tracker" or "smart bracelet"

What was Varys trying to do at the beginning of S08E05?

Could a space colony 1g from the sun work?

Why would someone open a Netflix account using my Gmail address?

I recently started my machine learning PhD and I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing

To whom did Varys write those letters in Game of Thrones S8E5?

Who commanded or executed this action in Game of Thrones S8E5?

Using chord iii in a chord progression (major key)

Formal Definition of Dot Product

How does Ctrl+c and Ctrl+v work?

Why when I add jam to my tea it stops producing thin "membrane" on top?

Why is the German word for "cartridge" "die Patrone"?

Can anyone give me examples of the relative-determinative 'which'?

How do I know which cipher suites can be disabled?

God-Pharaoh's Statue and Finale Of Promise

How to describe a building set which is like LEGO without using the "LEGO" word?

What do the "optional" resistor and capacitor do in this circuit?

Is random forest for regression a 'true' regression?

Why would company (decision makers) wait for someone to retire, rather than lay them off, when their role is no longer needed?



Is the seat-belt sign activation when a pilot goes to the lavatory standard procedure?


Why is the seat belt mechanism on airplanes so different from the the one on cars?Did commercial airliners have microwave ovens in the past?Is locking the cockpit door from inside is a normal procedure when one pilot leaves?How tight should passengers wear the seat belt?Why is the takeoff decision point based only on speed and not time or distance?Are there rules about using the “Fasten seatbelt” sign outside of take-off/landing/turbulence?What is the proper procedure when a passenger seat belt becomes inoperable during flight?Does a 40 years clean crashes sheet of airliner makes people fear to fly with them because there is bigger pressure on the company?Does the FAA restrict the color of pilot seat belts?Why are on-board computers allowed to change controls without notifying the pilots?













20












$begingroup$


Yesterday, I took an inter-European commercial flight with a popular budget airline. Before take-off, the captain announced that the First Officer would be taking the entire flight today.



During the middle of the approximately 2 hour cruise, the seat-belt sign came on. The flight attendant, who was next to me at the time, quickly turned to look at the front of the cabin.



The captain came out of the cockpit, a flight attendant took his place and locked the door behind him, he spoke over the PA system and asked everyone to fasten their seat-belts. A couple of people stayed up and he firmly told them, again over the PA, to sit down and fasten their seat belts.



Despite largely overcoming my fear of flying recently, I was slightly alarmed at this point, so I asked the flight attendant if we were expecting some turbulence. He told me that no, we weren't and that the seat-belt was only because the captain needed to use the restroom.



Sure enough the captain used the restroom, came out, re-entered the cockpit and a few minutes later turned the light off.



My question - is this standard procedure or is it likely the flight attendant was giving me the 'passenger friendly' version of the story? I have since wondered if it was the FOs first 'solo' flight and if that might have been related.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    You've asked those with the answer, and the answer given seems logical for the captain's safety. What else is there? Why wouldn't it be standard for that airline? If it is passenger experience, i.e., is it common, then IMHO that's a question for Travel.SE.
    $endgroup$
    – ymb1
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    @ymb1 I want to know if this is the normal procedure for commercial airlines. It's a simple question I suppose, I'm just curious.
    $endgroup$
    – Cloud
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    "the captain announced that the First Officer would be taking the entire flight" That would hardly be unusual. "wondered if it was the FOs first 'solo' flight" Not sure what you mean by "solo" here, but if you mean in the sense of flying the entire time without assistance, as in the typical one-pilot-certified GA aircraft, then definitely no. That type of flying doesn't exist in large jet passenger operations, possibly short of some very specific emergency situations (see for example British Airways 5390).
    $endgroup$
    – a CVn
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @aCVn Meh, who knows - I thought maybe he was taking the flight unaided either to improve his skills or just for fun / to relieve boredom or the captain was tired.
    $endgroup$
    – Cloud
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @Cloud Virtually all airliners are multi-crew airplanes, meaning that at least the required number of crew (typically 2 pilots these days, but also included flight engineer and/or navigator in the past) must be on duty. Typically, though, the work is divided between "pilot flying" (the one actually manipulating the flight controls) and "pilot-not-flying" (who is reading checklists, working radios, etc.) It's normal for the Captain and FO to alternate segments for who is PF and who is PNF, particularly on short-haul flights. On your flight, the FO was PF.
    $endgroup$
    – reirab
    yesterday
















20












$begingroup$


Yesterday, I took an inter-European commercial flight with a popular budget airline. Before take-off, the captain announced that the First Officer would be taking the entire flight today.



During the middle of the approximately 2 hour cruise, the seat-belt sign came on. The flight attendant, who was next to me at the time, quickly turned to look at the front of the cabin.



The captain came out of the cockpit, a flight attendant took his place and locked the door behind him, he spoke over the PA system and asked everyone to fasten their seat-belts. A couple of people stayed up and he firmly told them, again over the PA, to sit down and fasten their seat belts.



Despite largely overcoming my fear of flying recently, I was slightly alarmed at this point, so I asked the flight attendant if we were expecting some turbulence. He told me that no, we weren't and that the seat-belt was only because the captain needed to use the restroom.



Sure enough the captain used the restroom, came out, re-entered the cockpit and a few minutes later turned the light off.



My question - is this standard procedure or is it likely the flight attendant was giving me the 'passenger friendly' version of the story? I have since wondered if it was the FOs first 'solo' flight and if that might have been related.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    You've asked those with the answer, and the answer given seems logical for the captain's safety. What else is there? Why wouldn't it be standard for that airline? If it is passenger experience, i.e., is it common, then IMHO that's a question for Travel.SE.
    $endgroup$
    – ymb1
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    @ymb1 I want to know if this is the normal procedure for commercial airlines. It's a simple question I suppose, I'm just curious.
    $endgroup$
    – Cloud
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    "the captain announced that the First Officer would be taking the entire flight" That would hardly be unusual. "wondered if it was the FOs first 'solo' flight" Not sure what you mean by "solo" here, but if you mean in the sense of flying the entire time without assistance, as in the typical one-pilot-certified GA aircraft, then definitely no. That type of flying doesn't exist in large jet passenger operations, possibly short of some very specific emergency situations (see for example British Airways 5390).
    $endgroup$
    – a CVn
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @aCVn Meh, who knows - I thought maybe he was taking the flight unaided either to improve his skills or just for fun / to relieve boredom or the captain was tired.
    $endgroup$
    – Cloud
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @Cloud Virtually all airliners are multi-crew airplanes, meaning that at least the required number of crew (typically 2 pilots these days, but also included flight engineer and/or navigator in the past) must be on duty. Typically, though, the work is divided between "pilot flying" (the one actually manipulating the flight controls) and "pilot-not-flying" (who is reading checklists, working radios, etc.) It's normal for the Captain and FO to alternate segments for who is PF and who is PNF, particularly on short-haul flights. On your flight, the FO was PF.
    $endgroup$
    – reirab
    yesterday














20












20








20





$begingroup$


Yesterday, I took an inter-European commercial flight with a popular budget airline. Before take-off, the captain announced that the First Officer would be taking the entire flight today.



During the middle of the approximately 2 hour cruise, the seat-belt sign came on. The flight attendant, who was next to me at the time, quickly turned to look at the front of the cabin.



The captain came out of the cockpit, a flight attendant took his place and locked the door behind him, he spoke over the PA system and asked everyone to fasten their seat-belts. A couple of people stayed up and he firmly told them, again over the PA, to sit down and fasten their seat belts.



Despite largely overcoming my fear of flying recently, I was slightly alarmed at this point, so I asked the flight attendant if we were expecting some turbulence. He told me that no, we weren't and that the seat-belt was only because the captain needed to use the restroom.



Sure enough the captain used the restroom, came out, re-entered the cockpit and a few minutes later turned the light off.



My question - is this standard procedure or is it likely the flight attendant was giving me the 'passenger friendly' version of the story? I have since wondered if it was the FOs first 'solo' flight and if that might have been related.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




Yesterday, I took an inter-European commercial flight with a popular budget airline. Before take-off, the captain announced that the First Officer would be taking the entire flight today.



During the middle of the approximately 2 hour cruise, the seat-belt sign came on. The flight attendant, who was next to me at the time, quickly turned to look at the front of the cabin.



The captain came out of the cockpit, a flight attendant took his place and locked the door behind him, he spoke over the PA system and asked everyone to fasten their seat-belts. A couple of people stayed up and he firmly told them, again over the PA, to sit down and fasten their seat belts.



Despite largely overcoming my fear of flying recently, I was slightly alarmed at this point, so I asked the flight attendant if we were expecting some turbulence. He told me that no, we weren't and that the seat-belt was only because the captain needed to use the restroom.



Sure enough the captain used the restroom, came out, re-entered the cockpit and a few minutes later turned the light off.



My question - is this standard procedure or is it likely the flight attendant was giving me the 'passenger friendly' version of the story? I have since wondered if it was the FOs first 'solo' flight and if that might have been related.







safety airline-operations seatbelts






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 48 mins ago









ymb1

72.2k7234388




72.2k7234388










asked yesterday









CloudCloud

3,47232562




3,47232562







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    You've asked those with the answer, and the answer given seems logical for the captain's safety. What else is there? Why wouldn't it be standard for that airline? If it is passenger experience, i.e., is it common, then IMHO that's a question for Travel.SE.
    $endgroup$
    – ymb1
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    @ymb1 I want to know if this is the normal procedure for commercial airlines. It's a simple question I suppose, I'm just curious.
    $endgroup$
    – Cloud
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    "the captain announced that the First Officer would be taking the entire flight" That would hardly be unusual. "wondered if it was the FOs first 'solo' flight" Not sure what you mean by "solo" here, but if you mean in the sense of flying the entire time without assistance, as in the typical one-pilot-certified GA aircraft, then definitely no. That type of flying doesn't exist in large jet passenger operations, possibly short of some very specific emergency situations (see for example British Airways 5390).
    $endgroup$
    – a CVn
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @aCVn Meh, who knows - I thought maybe he was taking the flight unaided either to improve his skills or just for fun / to relieve boredom or the captain was tired.
    $endgroup$
    – Cloud
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @Cloud Virtually all airliners are multi-crew airplanes, meaning that at least the required number of crew (typically 2 pilots these days, but also included flight engineer and/or navigator in the past) must be on duty. Typically, though, the work is divided between "pilot flying" (the one actually manipulating the flight controls) and "pilot-not-flying" (who is reading checklists, working radios, etc.) It's normal for the Captain and FO to alternate segments for who is PF and who is PNF, particularly on short-haul flights. On your flight, the FO was PF.
    $endgroup$
    – reirab
    yesterday













  • 4




    $begingroup$
    You've asked those with the answer, and the answer given seems logical for the captain's safety. What else is there? Why wouldn't it be standard for that airline? If it is passenger experience, i.e., is it common, then IMHO that's a question for Travel.SE.
    $endgroup$
    – ymb1
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    @ymb1 I want to know if this is the normal procedure for commercial airlines. It's a simple question I suppose, I'm just curious.
    $endgroup$
    – Cloud
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    "the captain announced that the First Officer would be taking the entire flight" That would hardly be unusual. "wondered if it was the FOs first 'solo' flight" Not sure what you mean by "solo" here, but if you mean in the sense of flying the entire time without assistance, as in the typical one-pilot-certified GA aircraft, then definitely no. That type of flying doesn't exist in large jet passenger operations, possibly short of some very specific emergency situations (see for example British Airways 5390).
    $endgroup$
    – a CVn
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @aCVn Meh, who knows - I thought maybe he was taking the flight unaided either to improve his skills or just for fun / to relieve boredom or the captain was tired.
    $endgroup$
    – Cloud
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @Cloud Virtually all airliners are multi-crew airplanes, meaning that at least the required number of crew (typically 2 pilots these days, but also included flight engineer and/or navigator in the past) must be on duty. Typically, though, the work is divided between "pilot flying" (the one actually manipulating the flight controls) and "pilot-not-flying" (who is reading checklists, working radios, etc.) It's normal for the Captain and FO to alternate segments for who is PF and who is PNF, particularly on short-haul flights. On your flight, the FO was PF.
    $endgroup$
    – reirab
    yesterday








4




4




$begingroup$
You've asked those with the answer, and the answer given seems logical for the captain's safety. What else is there? Why wouldn't it be standard for that airline? If it is passenger experience, i.e., is it common, then IMHO that's a question for Travel.SE.
$endgroup$
– ymb1
yesterday





$begingroup$
You've asked those with the answer, and the answer given seems logical for the captain's safety. What else is there? Why wouldn't it be standard for that airline? If it is passenger experience, i.e., is it common, then IMHO that's a question for Travel.SE.
$endgroup$
– ymb1
yesterday













$begingroup$
@ymb1 I want to know if this is the normal procedure for commercial airlines. It's a simple question I suppose, I'm just curious.
$endgroup$
– Cloud
yesterday




$begingroup$
@ymb1 I want to know if this is the normal procedure for commercial airlines. It's a simple question I suppose, I'm just curious.
$endgroup$
– Cloud
yesterday












$begingroup$
"the captain announced that the First Officer would be taking the entire flight" That would hardly be unusual. "wondered if it was the FOs first 'solo' flight" Not sure what you mean by "solo" here, but if you mean in the sense of flying the entire time without assistance, as in the typical one-pilot-certified GA aircraft, then definitely no. That type of flying doesn't exist in large jet passenger operations, possibly short of some very specific emergency situations (see for example British Airways 5390).
$endgroup$
– a CVn
yesterday




$begingroup$
"the captain announced that the First Officer would be taking the entire flight" That would hardly be unusual. "wondered if it was the FOs first 'solo' flight" Not sure what you mean by "solo" here, but if you mean in the sense of flying the entire time without assistance, as in the typical one-pilot-certified GA aircraft, then definitely no. That type of flying doesn't exist in large jet passenger operations, possibly short of some very specific emergency situations (see for example British Airways 5390).
$endgroup$
– a CVn
yesterday












$begingroup$
@aCVn Meh, who knows - I thought maybe he was taking the flight unaided either to improve his skills or just for fun / to relieve boredom or the captain was tired.
$endgroup$
– Cloud
yesterday




$begingroup$
@aCVn Meh, who knows - I thought maybe he was taking the flight unaided either to improve his skills or just for fun / to relieve boredom or the captain was tired.
$endgroup$
– Cloud
yesterday












$begingroup$
@Cloud Virtually all airliners are multi-crew airplanes, meaning that at least the required number of crew (typically 2 pilots these days, but also included flight engineer and/or navigator in the past) must be on duty. Typically, though, the work is divided between "pilot flying" (the one actually manipulating the flight controls) and "pilot-not-flying" (who is reading checklists, working radios, etc.) It's normal for the Captain and FO to alternate segments for who is PF and who is PNF, particularly on short-haul flights. On your flight, the FO was PF.
$endgroup$
– reirab
yesterday





$begingroup$
@Cloud Virtually all airliners are multi-crew airplanes, meaning that at least the required number of crew (typically 2 pilots these days, but also included flight engineer and/or navigator in the past) must be on duty. Typically, though, the work is divided between "pilot flying" (the one actually manipulating the flight controls) and "pilot-not-flying" (who is reading checklists, working radios, etc.) It's normal for the Captain and FO to alternate segments for who is PF and who is PNF, particularly on short-haul flights. On your flight, the FO was PF.
$endgroup$
– reirab
yesterday











4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















38












$begingroup$

In the US they do very similar theater when a pilot needs to relieve himself. There is an announcement that nobody is allowed to come forward, and grim looking flight attendants are blocking the aisles with coffee trolleys. The details surely depend on the airline.



Each of these procedures goes back to some bad incident. The cockpit doors are locked since 9/11. Since Germanwings 9525 (PIC on toilet, co-pilot had a death wish, cockpit door locked), a flight attendant has to replace the pilot in the cockpit. I'm not sure if there was an incident calling for body-guarding a pilot outside of the cockpit, but maybe someone can comment.



Even though it is much more likely to get killed by your angry spouse or just falling down the stairs at home, security procedure theater is in fashion, and it is just getting worse and worse. Yes, it is very plausible that the seat-belt sign activation in your flight was standard procedure to ensure that the PIC could pee in peace.



enter image description here



This photo of Thomas Cook Airlines (UK) is courtesy of TripAdvisor






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    PIP has just gotten a new meaning...
    $endgroup$
    – Arsenal
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I've never seen an airline in the US turn the seat-belt sign on in such situations. Blocking the forward galley, yes, but never "the entire plane must sit down until the captain's done with the restroom."
    $endgroup$
    – Zach Lipton
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @ZachLipton Cloud's flight was in EU, and they didn't use the juice cart.
    $endgroup$
    – bogl
    14 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    This is a truly comical answer. Two people in the cockpit rule has been around worldwide since well before Germanwings, and there have been plenty of incidents of people trying to jump the cockpit during events that require opening the cockpit door (meals, water, bathroom break on a long flight, etc.) Literally nobody cares about angry spouses or stairs when combing a hillside for human remains.
    $endgroup$
    – Juan Jimenez
    13 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @JuanJimenez May I take that as a compliment? 2 ppl rule existed before GW9525 in the US, but not in the EU. (And user71659 is right that most if not all EU airlines have abandoned it during 2017-18). My point about the angry spouses is that our perception of risk and death cause probabilities is very skewed. IMHO we should care much less about terrorism, and much more about more probable problems. IMHO the locked cockpit door creates much more threats than it prevents.
    $endgroup$
    – bogl
    13 hours ago



















12












$begingroup$

This is standard procedure when a pilot needs to use the lavatory (bathroom).



  1. The area near the front lavatory is blocked off by cabin crew, so you cannot get into this area.


  2. The pilot unlocks the cockpit door, steps out, and goes into the lav.


  3. a cabin crew member takes his place, and the cockpit door is closed.


  4. reverse steps 1-3.


Why step 1? To avoid a rush on the cockpit by malefactors. This change occurred after 9/11 -- prior to that, "The Book" on dealing with hijackers said to give them cockpit access, because they'd never done anything bad with it.



Why step 3? So the remaining pilot is not alone in the cockpit. In some airlines, this has been standard practice for years, because of fear of accidents suspected to be solo pilots making a horrible mistake. This was strongly disputed by the unions and doubters, and there wasn't data-recorder data. There was after a burst of them: 2013 LAM 470 (data recovered), 2014 Malaysian 370 (suspected; no data) and 2015 Germanwings 9525 (data recovered). Nobody could deny it anymore, and everyone applied the rule.



Interestingly, Tom Clancy predicted both 9/11 and the emotionally distraught solo pilot, in his 1994 book Debt of Honor.



By the way, the reason the copilot took the flight was that he needs a certain number of takeoffs, landings and hours of flight to keep his skills up.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    My two cents: the book's name is Debt of Honor
    $endgroup$
    – jmm
    7 hours ago


















5












$begingroup$

Airlines are free to add any safety procedures they deem necessary for safety-of-flight situations. If that is what they did, it's likely standard procedure for that airline.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    1












    $begingroup$

    Crews usually work together for several days as a unit, and the CA and FO usually alternate flying each leg. This allows each to stay current and for the FO's skills to grow through critique by the CA and by observing the CA, depending on whose leg it is. In the event of emergency, though, the CA will usually take over.



    Part of the reason the FO is there is to handle things if the CA is somehow incapacitated, so he is necessarily fully qualified to fly the plane alone. However, for security and safety reasons, both pilots are required to remain in the cockpit except during brief periods during cruise, such as the one you describe.



    It is remotely possible that it was the FO's first revenue flight in type; after all, everyone has a first day at any new job. But there is nothing in your story that would indicate that was true in this case. It just sounds like the CA needed to use the restroom, nothing more complicated than that.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "528"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f64263%2fis-the-seat-belt-sign-activation-when-a-pilot-goes-to-the-lavatory-standard-proc%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      38












      $begingroup$

      In the US they do very similar theater when a pilot needs to relieve himself. There is an announcement that nobody is allowed to come forward, and grim looking flight attendants are blocking the aisles with coffee trolleys. The details surely depend on the airline.



      Each of these procedures goes back to some bad incident. The cockpit doors are locked since 9/11. Since Germanwings 9525 (PIC on toilet, co-pilot had a death wish, cockpit door locked), a flight attendant has to replace the pilot in the cockpit. I'm not sure if there was an incident calling for body-guarding a pilot outside of the cockpit, but maybe someone can comment.



      Even though it is much more likely to get killed by your angry spouse or just falling down the stairs at home, security procedure theater is in fashion, and it is just getting worse and worse. Yes, it is very plausible that the seat-belt sign activation in your flight was standard procedure to ensure that the PIC could pee in peace.



      enter image description here



      This photo of Thomas Cook Airlines (UK) is courtesy of TripAdvisor






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$








      • 4




        $begingroup$
        PIP has just gotten a new meaning...
        $endgroup$
        – Arsenal
        yesterday






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        I've never seen an airline in the US turn the seat-belt sign on in such situations. Blocking the forward galley, yes, but never "the entire plane must sit down until the captain's done with the restroom."
        $endgroup$
        – Zach Lipton
        yesterday






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @ZachLipton Cloud's flight was in EU, and they didn't use the juice cart.
        $endgroup$
        – bogl
        14 hours ago






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        This is a truly comical answer. Two people in the cockpit rule has been around worldwide since well before Germanwings, and there have been plenty of incidents of people trying to jump the cockpit during events that require opening the cockpit door (meals, water, bathroom break on a long flight, etc.) Literally nobody cares about angry spouses or stairs when combing a hillside for human remains.
        $endgroup$
        – Juan Jimenez
        13 hours ago






      • 5




        $begingroup$
        @JuanJimenez May I take that as a compliment? 2 ppl rule existed before GW9525 in the US, but not in the EU. (And user71659 is right that most if not all EU airlines have abandoned it during 2017-18). My point about the angry spouses is that our perception of risk and death cause probabilities is very skewed. IMHO we should care much less about terrorism, and much more about more probable problems. IMHO the locked cockpit door creates much more threats than it prevents.
        $endgroup$
        – bogl
        13 hours ago
















      38












      $begingroup$

      In the US they do very similar theater when a pilot needs to relieve himself. There is an announcement that nobody is allowed to come forward, and grim looking flight attendants are blocking the aisles with coffee trolleys. The details surely depend on the airline.



      Each of these procedures goes back to some bad incident. The cockpit doors are locked since 9/11. Since Germanwings 9525 (PIC on toilet, co-pilot had a death wish, cockpit door locked), a flight attendant has to replace the pilot in the cockpit. I'm not sure if there was an incident calling for body-guarding a pilot outside of the cockpit, but maybe someone can comment.



      Even though it is much more likely to get killed by your angry spouse or just falling down the stairs at home, security procedure theater is in fashion, and it is just getting worse and worse. Yes, it is very plausible that the seat-belt sign activation in your flight was standard procedure to ensure that the PIC could pee in peace.



      enter image description here



      This photo of Thomas Cook Airlines (UK) is courtesy of TripAdvisor






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$








      • 4




        $begingroup$
        PIP has just gotten a new meaning...
        $endgroup$
        – Arsenal
        yesterday






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        I've never seen an airline in the US turn the seat-belt sign on in such situations. Blocking the forward galley, yes, but never "the entire plane must sit down until the captain's done with the restroom."
        $endgroup$
        – Zach Lipton
        yesterday






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @ZachLipton Cloud's flight was in EU, and they didn't use the juice cart.
        $endgroup$
        – bogl
        14 hours ago






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        This is a truly comical answer. Two people in the cockpit rule has been around worldwide since well before Germanwings, and there have been plenty of incidents of people trying to jump the cockpit during events that require opening the cockpit door (meals, water, bathroom break on a long flight, etc.) Literally nobody cares about angry spouses or stairs when combing a hillside for human remains.
        $endgroup$
        – Juan Jimenez
        13 hours ago






      • 5




        $begingroup$
        @JuanJimenez May I take that as a compliment? 2 ppl rule existed before GW9525 in the US, but not in the EU. (And user71659 is right that most if not all EU airlines have abandoned it during 2017-18). My point about the angry spouses is that our perception of risk and death cause probabilities is very skewed. IMHO we should care much less about terrorism, and much more about more probable problems. IMHO the locked cockpit door creates much more threats than it prevents.
        $endgroup$
        – bogl
        13 hours ago














      38












      38








      38





      $begingroup$

      In the US they do very similar theater when a pilot needs to relieve himself. There is an announcement that nobody is allowed to come forward, and grim looking flight attendants are blocking the aisles with coffee trolleys. The details surely depend on the airline.



      Each of these procedures goes back to some bad incident. The cockpit doors are locked since 9/11. Since Germanwings 9525 (PIC on toilet, co-pilot had a death wish, cockpit door locked), a flight attendant has to replace the pilot in the cockpit. I'm not sure if there was an incident calling for body-guarding a pilot outside of the cockpit, but maybe someone can comment.



      Even though it is much more likely to get killed by your angry spouse or just falling down the stairs at home, security procedure theater is in fashion, and it is just getting worse and worse. Yes, it is very plausible that the seat-belt sign activation in your flight was standard procedure to ensure that the PIC could pee in peace.



      enter image description here



      This photo of Thomas Cook Airlines (UK) is courtesy of TripAdvisor






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      In the US they do very similar theater when a pilot needs to relieve himself. There is an announcement that nobody is allowed to come forward, and grim looking flight attendants are blocking the aisles with coffee trolleys. The details surely depend on the airline.



      Each of these procedures goes back to some bad incident. The cockpit doors are locked since 9/11. Since Germanwings 9525 (PIC on toilet, co-pilot had a death wish, cockpit door locked), a flight attendant has to replace the pilot in the cockpit. I'm not sure if there was an incident calling for body-guarding a pilot outside of the cockpit, but maybe someone can comment.



      Even though it is much more likely to get killed by your angry spouse or just falling down the stairs at home, security procedure theater is in fashion, and it is just getting worse and worse. Yes, it is very plausible that the seat-belt sign activation in your flight was standard procedure to ensure that the PIC could pee in peace.



      enter image description here



      This photo of Thomas Cook Airlines (UK) is courtesy of TripAdvisor







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 9 hours ago

























      answered yesterday









      boglbogl

      5,22912543




      5,22912543







      • 4




        $begingroup$
        PIP has just gotten a new meaning...
        $endgroup$
        – Arsenal
        yesterday






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        I've never seen an airline in the US turn the seat-belt sign on in such situations. Blocking the forward galley, yes, but never "the entire plane must sit down until the captain's done with the restroom."
        $endgroup$
        – Zach Lipton
        yesterday






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @ZachLipton Cloud's flight was in EU, and they didn't use the juice cart.
        $endgroup$
        – bogl
        14 hours ago






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        This is a truly comical answer. Two people in the cockpit rule has been around worldwide since well before Germanwings, and there have been plenty of incidents of people trying to jump the cockpit during events that require opening the cockpit door (meals, water, bathroom break on a long flight, etc.) Literally nobody cares about angry spouses or stairs when combing a hillside for human remains.
        $endgroup$
        – Juan Jimenez
        13 hours ago






      • 5




        $begingroup$
        @JuanJimenez May I take that as a compliment? 2 ppl rule existed before GW9525 in the US, but not in the EU. (And user71659 is right that most if not all EU airlines have abandoned it during 2017-18). My point about the angry spouses is that our perception of risk and death cause probabilities is very skewed. IMHO we should care much less about terrorism, and much more about more probable problems. IMHO the locked cockpit door creates much more threats than it prevents.
        $endgroup$
        – bogl
        13 hours ago













      • 4




        $begingroup$
        PIP has just gotten a new meaning...
        $endgroup$
        – Arsenal
        yesterday






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        I've never seen an airline in the US turn the seat-belt sign on in such situations. Blocking the forward galley, yes, but never "the entire plane must sit down until the captain's done with the restroom."
        $endgroup$
        – Zach Lipton
        yesterday






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @ZachLipton Cloud's flight was in EU, and they didn't use the juice cart.
        $endgroup$
        – bogl
        14 hours ago






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        This is a truly comical answer. Two people in the cockpit rule has been around worldwide since well before Germanwings, and there have been plenty of incidents of people trying to jump the cockpit during events that require opening the cockpit door (meals, water, bathroom break on a long flight, etc.) Literally nobody cares about angry spouses or stairs when combing a hillside for human remains.
        $endgroup$
        – Juan Jimenez
        13 hours ago






      • 5




        $begingroup$
        @JuanJimenez May I take that as a compliment? 2 ppl rule existed before GW9525 in the US, but not in the EU. (And user71659 is right that most if not all EU airlines have abandoned it during 2017-18). My point about the angry spouses is that our perception of risk and death cause probabilities is very skewed. IMHO we should care much less about terrorism, and much more about more probable problems. IMHO the locked cockpit door creates much more threats than it prevents.
        $endgroup$
        – bogl
        13 hours ago








      4




      4




      $begingroup$
      PIP has just gotten a new meaning...
      $endgroup$
      – Arsenal
      yesterday




      $begingroup$
      PIP has just gotten a new meaning...
      $endgroup$
      – Arsenal
      yesterday




      3




      3




      $begingroup$
      I've never seen an airline in the US turn the seat-belt sign on in such situations. Blocking the forward galley, yes, but never "the entire plane must sit down until the captain's done with the restroom."
      $endgroup$
      – Zach Lipton
      yesterday




      $begingroup$
      I've never seen an airline in the US turn the seat-belt sign on in such situations. Blocking the forward galley, yes, but never "the entire plane must sit down until the captain's done with the restroom."
      $endgroup$
      – Zach Lipton
      yesterday




      2




      2




      $begingroup$
      @ZachLipton Cloud's flight was in EU, and they didn't use the juice cart.
      $endgroup$
      – bogl
      14 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      @ZachLipton Cloud's flight was in EU, and they didn't use the juice cart.
      $endgroup$
      – bogl
      14 hours ago




      2




      2




      $begingroup$
      This is a truly comical answer. Two people in the cockpit rule has been around worldwide since well before Germanwings, and there have been plenty of incidents of people trying to jump the cockpit during events that require opening the cockpit door (meals, water, bathroom break on a long flight, etc.) Literally nobody cares about angry spouses or stairs when combing a hillside for human remains.
      $endgroup$
      – Juan Jimenez
      13 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      This is a truly comical answer. Two people in the cockpit rule has been around worldwide since well before Germanwings, and there have been plenty of incidents of people trying to jump the cockpit during events that require opening the cockpit door (meals, water, bathroom break on a long flight, etc.) Literally nobody cares about angry spouses or stairs when combing a hillside for human remains.
      $endgroup$
      – Juan Jimenez
      13 hours ago




      5




      5




      $begingroup$
      @JuanJimenez May I take that as a compliment? 2 ppl rule existed before GW9525 in the US, but not in the EU. (And user71659 is right that most if not all EU airlines have abandoned it during 2017-18). My point about the angry spouses is that our perception of risk and death cause probabilities is very skewed. IMHO we should care much less about terrorism, and much more about more probable problems. IMHO the locked cockpit door creates much more threats than it prevents.
      $endgroup$
      – bogl
      13 hours ago





      $begingroup$
      @JuanJimenez May I take that as a compliment? 2 ppl rule existed before GW9525 in the US, but not in the EU. (And user71659 is right that most if not all EU airlines have abandoned it during 2017-18). My point about the angry spouses is that our perception of risk and death cause probabilities is very skewed. IMHO we should care much less about terrorism, and much more about more probable problems. IMHO the locked cockpit door creates much more threats than it prevents.
      $endgroup$
      – bogl
      13 hours ago












      12












      $begingroup$

      This is standard procedure when a pilot needs to use the lavatory (bathroom).



      1. The area near the front lavatory is blocked off by cabin crew, so you cannot get into this area.


      2. The pilot unlocks the cockpit door, steps out, and goes into the lav.


      3. a cabin crew member takes his place, and the cockpit door is closed.


      4. reverse steps 1-3.


      Why step 1? To avoid a rush on the cockpit by malefactors. This change occurred after 9/11 -- prior to that, "The Book" on dealing with hijackers said to give them cockpit access, because they'd never done anything bad with it.



      Why step 3? So the remaining pilot is not alone in the cockpit. In some airlines, this has been standard practice for years, because of fear of accidents suspected to be solo pilots making a horrible mistake. This was strongly disputed by the unions and doubters, and there wasn't data-recorder data. There was after a burst of them: 2013 LAM 470 (data recovered), 2014 Malaysian 370 (suspected; no data) and 2015 Germanwings 9525 (data recovered). Nobody could deny it anymore, and everyone applied the rule.



      Interestingly, Tom Clancy predicted both 9/11 and the emotionally distraught solo pilot, in his 1994 book Debt of Honor.



      By the way, the reason the copilot took the flight was that he needs a certain number of takeoffs, landings and hours of flight to keep his skills up.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$








      • 2




        $begingroup$
        My two cents: the book's name is Debt of Honor
        $endgroup$
        – jmm
        7 hours ago















      12












      $begingroup$

      This is standard procedure when a pilot needs to use the lavatory (bathroom).



      1. The area near the front lavatory is blocked off by cabin crew, so you cannot get into this area.


      2. The pilot unlocks the cockpit door, steps out, and goes into the lav.


      3. a cabin crew member takes his place, and the cockpit door is closed.


      4. reverse steps 1-3.


      Why step 1? To avoid a rush on the cockpit by malefactors. This change occurred after 9/11 -- prior to that, "The Book" on dealing with hijackers said to give them cockpit access, because they'd never done anything bad with it.



      Why step 3? So the remaining pilot is not alone in the cockpit. In some airlines, this has been standard practice for years, because of fear of accidents suspected to be solo pilots making a horrible mistake. This was strongly disputed by the unions and doubters, and there wasn't data-recorder data. There was after a burst of them: 2013 LAM 470 (data recovered), 2014 Malaysian 370 (suspected; no data) and 2015 Germanwings 9525 (data recovered). Nobody could deny it anymore, and everyone applied the rule.



      Interestingly, Tom Clancy predicted both 9/11 and the emotionally distraught solo pilot, in his 1994 book Debt of Honor.



      By the way, the reason the copilot took the flight was that he needs a certain number of takeoffs, landings and hours of flight to keep his skills up.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$








      • 2




        $begingroup$
        My two cents: the book's name is Debt of Honor
        $endgroup$
        – jmm
        7 hours ago













      12












      12








      12





      $begingroup$

      This is standard procedure when a pilot needs to use the lavatory (bathroom).



      1. The area near the front lavatory is blocked off by cabin crew, so you cannot get into this area.


      2. The pilot unlocks the cockpit door, steps out, and goes into the lav.


      3. a cabin crew member takes his place, and the cockpit door is closed.


      4. reverse steps 1-3.


      Why step 1? To avoid a rush on the cockpit by malefactors. This change occurred after 9/11 -- prior to that, "The Book" on dealing with hijackers said to give them cockpit access, because they'd never done anything bad with it.



      Why step 3? So the remaining pilot is not alone in the cockpit. In some airlines, this has been standard practice for years, because of fear of accidents suspected to be solo pilots making a horrible mistake. This was strongly disputed by the unions and doubters, and there wasn't data-recorder data. There was after a burst of them: 2013 LAM 470 (data recovered), 2014 Malaysian 370 (suspected; no data) and 2015 Germanwings 9525 (data recovered). Nobody could deny it anymore, and everyone applied the rule.



      Interestingly, Tom Clancy predicted both 9/11 and the emotionally distraught solo pilot, in his 1994 book Debt of Honor.



      By the way, the reason the copilot took the flight was that he needs a certain number of takeoffs, landings and hours of flight to keep his skills up.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      This is standard procedure when a pilot needs to use the lavatory (bathroom).



      1. The area near the front lavatory is blocked off by cabin crew, so you cannot get into this area.


      2. The pilot unlocks the cockpit door, steps out, and goes into the lav.


      3. a cabin crew member takes his place, and the cockpit door is closed.


      4. reverse steps 1-3.


      Why step 1? To avoid a rush on the cockpit by malefactors. This change occurred after 9/11 -- prior to that, "The Book" on dealing with hijackers said to give them cockpit access, because they'd never done anything bad with it.



      Why step 3? So the remaining pilot is not alone in the cockpit. In some airlines, this has been standard practice for years, because of fear of accidents suspected to be solo pilots making a horrible mistake. This was strongly disputed by the unions and doubters, and there wasn't data-recorder data. There was after a burst of them: 2013 LAM 470 (data recovered), 2014 Malaysian 370 (suspected; no data) and 2015 Germanwings 9525 (data recovered). Nobody could deny it anymore, and everyone applied the rule.



      Interestingly, Tom Clancy predicted both 9/11 and the emotionally distraught solo pilot, in his 1994 book Debt of Honor.



      By the way, the reason the copilot took the flight was that he needs a certain number of takeoffs, landings and hours of flight to keep his skills up.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 1 hour ago

























      answered yesterday









      HarperHarper

      5,195929




      5,195929







      • 2




        $begingroup$
        My two cents: the book's name is Debt of Honor
        $endgroup$
        – jmm
        7 hours ago












      • 2




        $begingroup$
        My two cents: the book's name is Debt of Honor
        $endgroup$
        – jmm
        7 hours ago







      2




      2




      $begingroup$
      My two cents: the book's name is Debt of Honor
      $endgroup$
      – jmm
      7 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      My two cents: the book's name is Debt of Honor
      $endgroup$
      – jmm
      7 hours ago











      5












      $begingroup$

      Airlines are free to add any safety procedures they deem necessary for safety-of-flight situations. If that is what they did, it's likely standard procedure for that airline.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        5












        $begingroup$

        Airlines are free to add any safety procedures they deem necessary for safety-of-flight situations. If that is what they did, it's likely standard procedure for that airline.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$















          5












          5








          5





          $begingroup$

          Airlines are free to add any safety procedures they deem necessary for safety-of-flight situations. If that is what they did, it's likely standard procedure for that airline.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Airlines are free to add any safety procedures they deem necessary for safety-of-flight situations. If that is what they did, it's likely standard procedure for that airline.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered yesterday









          Juan JimenezJuan Jimenez

          4,3491633




          4,3491633





















              1












              $begingroup$

              Crews usually work together for several days as a unit, and the CA and FO usually alternate flying each leg. This allows each to stay current and for the FO's skills to grow through critique by the CA and by observing the CA, depending on whose leg it is. In the event of emergency, though, the CA will usually take over.



              Part of the reason the FO is there is to handle things if the CA is somehow incapacitated, so he is necessarily fully qualified to fly the plane alone. However, for security and safety reasons, both pilots are required to remain in the cockpit except during brief periods during cruise, such as the one you describe.



              It is remotely possible that it was the FO's first revenue flight in type; after all, everyone has a first day at any new job. But there is nothing in your story that would indicate that was true in this case. It just sounds like the CA needed to use the restroom, nothing more complicated than that.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                1












                $begingroup$

                Crews usually work together for several days as a unit, and the CA and FO usually alternate flying each leg. This allows each to stay current and for the FO's skills to grow through critique by the CA and by observing the CA, depending on whose leg it is. In the event of emergency, though, the CA will usually take over.



                Part of the reason the FO is there is to handle things if the CA is somehow incapacitated, so he is necessarily fully qualified to fly the plane alone. However, for security and safety reasons, both pilots are required to remain in the cockpit except during brief periods during cruise, such as the one you describe.



                It is remotely possible that it was the FO's first revenue flight in type; after all, everyone has a first day at any new job. But there is nothing in your story that would indicate that was true in this case. It just sounds like the CA needed to use the restroom, nothing more complicated than that.






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  Crews usually work together for several days as a unit, and the CA and FO usually alternate flying each leg. This allows each to stay current and for the FO's skills to grow through critique by the CA and by observing the CA, depending on whose leg it is. In the event of emergency, though, the CA will usually take over.



                  Part of the reason the FO is there is to handle things if the CA is somehow incapacitated, so he is necessarily fully qualified to fly the plane alone. However, for security and safety reasons, both pilots are required to remain in the cockpit except during brief periods during cruise, such as the one you describe.



                  It is remotely possible that it was the FO's first revenue flight in type; after all, everyone has a first day at any new job. But there is nothing in your story that would indicate that was true in this case. It just sounds like the CA needed to use the restroom, nothing more complicated than that.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Crews usually work together for several days as a unit, and the CA and FO usually alternate flying each leg. This allows each to stay current and for the FO's skills to grow through critique by the CA and by observing the CA, depending on whose leg it is. In the event of emergency, though, the CA will usually take over.



                  Part of the reason the FO is there is to handle things if the CA is somehow incapacitated, so he is necessarily fully qualified to fly the plane alone. However, for security and safety reasons, both pilots are required to remain in the cockpit except during brief periods during cruise, such as the one you describe.



                  It is remotely possible that it was the FO's first revenue flight in type; after all, everyone has a first day at any new job. But there is nothing in your story that would indicate that was true in this case. It just sounds like the CA needed to use the restroom, nothing more complicated than that.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 16 hours ago









                  StephenSStephenS

                  5,9311930




                  5,9311930



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f64263%2fis-the-seat-belt-sign-activation-when-a-pilot-goes-to-the-lavatory-standard-proc%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Siegen Nawigatsjuun

                      Log på Navigationsmenu

                      Log på Navigationsmenu