Narrative:

FAA inspector was onboard our flight dfw-smf conducting an in-flight cabin inspection. The inspector was seated in the coach cabin. About 1 hour after takeoff I received word the inspector suggested we call law enforcement auths to meet aircraft on arrival smf. Apparently after takeoff, during climb, 2 passenger, one an elderly gentleman, the other a father with his young son got up and went to the bathroom. The flight attendants had made all required PA's and advised the passenger to return to their seats because seat belt sign was on. Both passenger returned to their seats after using the restroom. The inspector wanted us to call for law enforcement so she could cite the elderly man and father and son. My next hour and 1/2 were taken up conferring with flight attendants, dispatch, and seeking guidance from the company manual dealing with this situation. A major portion of my time was taken away from performing my cockpit in-flight duties. About 40 mins out of smf I was informed that if I didn't call for auths soon, it would be too late. I sent word back that we would discuss the matter on the ground, and devoted my entire attention to my in-flight duties. Upon researching the company manual, I came to the conclusion that perhaps a category 1 passenger misconduct occurred, in this case after using the restroom due to physiological necessity. After landing during debrief the inspector became quite agitated when I explained my situation and stormed off stating, 'I'm going to see the rules are enforced this time. This time, rules are rules.' if my assessment of this type of situation is wrong, please provide me with guidance. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that after conferring with the company and discussions with the passenger, it was his opinion that company rules, which are FAA approved, do allow passenger the discretion of using the restroom with the seat belt sign on if they are in physiological discomfort. Therefore, he deferred the matter until landing to discuss further with the FAA inspector. However, the FAA inspector threatened violation action and to press the matter further. To date there has been no other action by the FAA. He further stated that the passenger had a cooperative attitude.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FAA INSPECTOR DURING A CABIN INSPECTION FLT ON AN MD80 REQUESTED THE AUTHS MEET THE ACFT AT DEST FOR SUPPORTING THE INSPECTOR IN PROVIDING ENFORCEMENT ACTION TO 3 PAX THAT WENT TO THE RESTROOM DURING DEP CLB INSTEAD OF REMAINING SEATED WITH THE SEAT BELT FASTENED. CAPT DID NOT COMPLY WITH REQUEST SINCE HE BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION DUE TO THE PHYSIOLOGICAL NECESSITY OF THE PAX.

Narrative: FAA INSPECTOR WAS ONBOARD OUR FLT DFW-SMF CONDUCTING AN INFLT CABIN INSPECTION. THE INSPECTOR WAS SEATED IN THE COACH CABIN. ABOUT 1 HR AFTER TKOF I RECEIVED WORD THE INSPECTOR SUGGESTED WE CALL LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHS TO MEET ACFT ON ARR SMF. APPARENTLY AFTER TKOF, DURING CLB, 2 PAX, ONE AN ELDERLY GENTLEMAN, THE OTHER A FATHER WITH HIS YOUNG SON GOT UP AND WENT TO THE BATHROOM. THE FLT ATTENDANTS HAD MADE ALL REQUIRED PA'S AND ADVISED THE PAX TO RETURN TO THEIR SEATS BECAUSE SEAT BELT SIGN WAS ON. BOTH PAX RETURNED TO THEIR SEATS AFTER USING THE RESTROOM. THE INSPECTOR WANTED US TO CALL FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SO SHE COULD CITE THE ELDERLY MAN AND FATHER AND SON. MY NEXT HR AND 1/2 WERE TAKEN UP CONFERRING WITH FLT ATTENDANTS, DISPATCH, AND SEEKING GUIDANCE FROM THE COMPANY MANUAL DEALING WITH THIS SIT. A MAJOR PORTION OF MY TIME WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM PERFORMING MY COCKPIT INFLT DUTIES. ABOUT 40 MINS OUT OF SMF I WAS INFORMED THAT IF I DIDN'T CALL FOR AUTHS SOON, IT WOULD BE TOO LATE. I SENT WORD BACK THAT WE WOULD DISCUSS THE MATTER ON THE GND, AND DEVOTED MY ENTIRE ATTN TO MY INFLT DUTIES. UPON RESEARCHING THE COMPANY MANUAL, I CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT PERHAPS A CATEGORY 1 PAX MISCONDUCT OCCURRED, IN THIS CASE AFTER USING THE RESTROOM DUE TO PHYSIOLOGICAL NECESSITY. AFTER LNDG DURING DEBRIEF THE INSPECTOR BECAME QUITE AGITATED WHEN I EXPLAINED MY SIT AND STORMED OFF STATING, 'I'M GOING TO SEE THE RULES ARE ENFORCED THIS TIME. THIS TIME, RULES ARE RULES.' IF MY ASSESSMENT OF THIS TYPE OF SIT IS WRONG, PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH GUIDANCE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT AFTER CONFERRING WITH THE COMPANY AND DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PAX, IT WAS HIS OPINION THAT COMPANY RULES, WHICH ARE FAA APPROVED, DO ALLOW PAX THE DISCRETION OF USING THE RESTROOM WITH THE SEAT BELT SIGN ON IF THEY ARE IN PHYSIOLOGICAL DISCOMFORT. THEREFORE, HE DEFERRED THE MATTER UNTIL LNDG TO DISCUSS FURTHER WITH THE FAA INSPECTOR. HOWEVER, THE FAA INSPECTOR THREATENED VIOLATION ACTION AND TO PRESS THE MATTER FURTHER. TO DATE THERE HAS BEEN NO OTHER ACTION BY THE FAA. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE PAX HAD A COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE.

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.