If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Ever wonder what happens when you flush the toilet in mid-flight? This and other common myths about flying answered by pilot who wrote a book   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 82
    More: Interesting, Cockpit confidential, Flushing, cockpits, flights  
•       •       •

13490 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Sep 2013 at 3:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-13 08:56:23 PM  
I always just assumed there was a garbage disposal at the bottom of that thing...
 
2013-09-13 10:04:56 PM  
US Air is trialing new weight saving toilets.

i.imgur.com

Virgin Airlines crapper (747)

i.imgur.com

Delta Airlines - We love to fly and it shows

i.imgur.com

SkyWest

i.imgur.com

United Airlines - Official 2012 Rhapsody In Blue Motif

i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-14 01:40:10 AM  
I thought it became a chunk of blue ice that fatally strikes a suburban Armenian-American housewife.

/weird reference, maybe...but not at all obscure
 
FNG [TotalFark]
2013-09-14 01:46:49 AM  
I'm fine with keeping the cell phone myth alive.

A large percentage of people fly for business reasons. Can you imagine every sales rep on your plane on the way to a meeting or conference talking loudly on their phones the whole flight?

When you land, what happens? All those phone calls you would have had to endure as a passenger all happen at once as you're trying to get off the plane.

Keep the myth alive, people.
 
2013-09-14 03:46:57 AM  
During the 1980s, toilets on planes used a blue liquid that pushed waster from the bowl into a storage tank.

This liquid added weight to the aircraft


Say what? Did they teleport the blue liquid up from ground control for each flush?
 
2013-09-14 03:53:09 AM  
The stupidity in the comments section is a sight to behold. Pray those people aren't seated in an exit row on your flight.
 
2013-09-14 03:54:56 AM  
So I cant really get my very own Joe Dirt asteroid?
 
2013-09-14 03:55:07 AM  

HotWingAgenda: During the 1980s, toilets on planes used a blue liquid that pushed waster from the bowl into a storage tank.

This liquid added weight to the aircraft

Say what? Did they teleport the blue liquid up from ground control for each flush?


I think they mean "having to carry that liquid added weight ..."
 
2013-09-14 03:56:29 AM  

cmdwedge: The stupidity in the comments section is a sight to behold. Pray those people aren't seated in an exit row on your flight.


I'm usually seated in the exit row. Only damn seat I can be semi-comfortable in.
 
2013-09-14 03:58:19 AM  

HotWingAgenda: During the 1980s, toilets on planes used a blue liquid that pushed waster from the bowl into a storage tank.

This liquid added weight to the aircraft

Say what? Did they teleport the blue liquid up from ground control for each flush?


It doesn't say each flush added to the weight of the aircraft...
 
2013-09-14 03:58:50 AM  
Subby: Don't be ridiculous! I can't fly!
 
2013-09-14 04:00:03 AM  

FNG: I'm fine with keeping the cell phone myth alive.

A large percentage of people fly for business reasons. Can you imagine every sales rep on your plane on the way to a meeting or conference talking loudly on their phones the whole flight?

When you land, what happens? All those phone calls you would have had to endure as a passenger all happen at once as you're trying to get off the plane.

Keep the myth alive, people.


If you've ever turned you phone on during flight, you'd know that this is a non-issue as well.  Typically, you're flying way out of the range of any cell tower to get a good and stable enough signal to carry a conversation.

The only time that isn't an issue are the critical phases of flight: take-off and landing.  These are times in the flight where you want people paying as much attention as possible, so use of electronics is a safety issue.
 
2013-09-14 04:05:20 AM  

RoyBatty: US Air is trialing new weight saving toilets.

[i.imgur.com image 737x513]

Virgin Airlines crapper (747)

[i.imgur.com image 290x386]

Delta Airlines - We love to fly and it shows

[i.imgur.com image 216x372]

SkyWest

[i.imgur.com image 331x439]

United Airlines - Official 2012 Rhapsody In Blue Motif

[i.imgur.com image 259x332]


Do you take pictures of all the toilets you use, or just airline ones?
 
2013-09-14 04:10:00 AM  

opaqueluminosity: HotWingAgenda: During the 1980s, toilets on planes used a blue liquid that pushed waster from the bowl into a storage tank.

This liquid added weight to the aircraft

Say what? Did they teleport the blue liquid up from ground control for each flush?

It doesn't say each flush added to the weight of the aircraft...


Well the full passage says, "During the 1980s, toilets on planes used a blue liquid that pushed waster from the bowl into a storage tank. This liquid added weight to the aircraft, which consumed more fuel, and if it leaked, frozen blocks of waste could end up falling over town and cities." That implies that the flushing was what added weight, and more fuel was consumed when the toilet added that weight, potentially causing a leak in the waste tank.

I'm sick of journalists not having a basic grasp of the English language.
 
2013-09-14 04:16:55 AM  

HotWingAgenda: During the 1980s, toilets on planes used a blue liquid that pushed waster from the bowl into a storage tank.

This liquid added weight to the aircraft

Say what? Did they teleport the blue liquid up from ground control for each flush?


I don't know what the author is talking about. They still use blue juice to this day. You only get smurf'd once.
 
2013-09-14 04:32:16 AM  
i expect my piss and poo go all over middle america. right?
 
2013-09-14 04:37:52 AM  
www.blogcdn.com
I know, it's fake.  Not blue, and the angle's all wrong.
 
2013-09-14 04:41:39 AM  

Summoner101: FNG: I'm fine with keeping the cell phone myth alive.

A large percentage of people fly for business reasons. Can you imagine every sales rep on your plane on the way to a meeting or conference talking loudly on their phones the whole flight?

When you land, what happens? All those phone calls you would have had to endure as a passenger all happen at once as you're trying to get off the plane.

Keep the myth alive, people.

If you've ever turned you phone on during flight, you'd know that this is a non-issue as well.  Typically, you're flying way out of the range of any cell tower to get a good and stable enough signal to carry a conversation.

The only time that isn't an issue are the critical phases of flight: take-off and landing.  These are times in the flight where you want people paying as much attention as possible, so use of electronics is a safety issue.



You can get a cell signal at altitude. In the right area you might even be able to make a lengthy call.

Agree on the safety issue, also with the projectile issue.

Interference, while not a primary concern, is not a myth. It's possible. There have been a handful of suspected interference incidents documented, but only one of those has been verified in testing. In that particular case I use the term verified loosely, because the levels of interference they had to recreate the incident were well above the levels transmitted by most radio devices.
 
2013-09-14 04:52:14 AM  
No but this seems as good a thread as any to state I HAVE HAD IT WITH THESE MOTHER FARKING CRICKETS IN THIS MOTHER FARKING HOUSE.

/I'm not an entomologist, man
//RouBatty, you need a new hobby, dude
///I just want to sleep!!!
 
2013-09-14 04:54:32 AM  
I thought an angel got his wings.
 
2013-09-14 05:08:11 AM  
I flew with SWA over the weekend and they are so intent on not having phone conversations in flight that they block viber, skype and vonage on their wifi they have you pay $8 for.
 
2013-09-14 05:19:07 AM  
"He continues that although cellular communication can 'potentially' interfere with cockpit equipment, 'in all likelihood' it doesn't"
Oh, as well as a pilot, he's also an expert on electromagnetic physics and a highly qualified electrical engineer too? Marvelous.

Working tech shouldn't cause problems, but broken tech might.  Thus, instead of having airline staff wandering the aisles with electrical testers, basic volt meters to see if devices work/don't work, they just tell everyone 'turn it off when there's most risk'.   Simple
 
2013-09-14 05:25:39 AM  
Because being stuck in close quarters with 150 other people who are trying to talk on the phone to anyone who will listen really sucks.

I could see people getting in fights over inconsiderate and rude behavior that comes from cell phone usage. I dont want to hear you talking to your great aunt rita about her variance of health problems.... just like you dont want to hear me leaving voice mail messages to my cat.

Wait... did i say cat? I mean... nevermind. Lol
 
2013-09-14 05:26:09 AM  

FNG: I'm fine with keeping the cell phone myth alive.

A large percentage of people fly for business reasons. Can you imagine every sales rep on your plane on the way to a meeting or conference talking loudly on their phones the whole flight?

When you land, what happens? All those phone calls you would have had to endure as a passenger all happen at once as you're trying to get off the plane.

Keep the myth alive, people.


Absolutely 110% this.

WHO CARES if it doesn't really screw with the airplane's electronics? If it keeps the tweenage girl from yakking on her phone in my ear the whole farking flight, I'll endure the "myth". Anything to keep her quiet.
 
2013-09-14 05:49:01 AM  

MrDoh: "He continues that although cellular communication can 'potentially' interfere with cockpit equipment, 'in all likelihood' it doesn't"
Oh, as well as a pilot, he's also an expert on electromagnetic physics and a highly qualified electrical engineer too? Marvelous.

Working tech shouldn't cause problems, but broken tech might.  Thus, instead of having airline staff wandering the aisles with electrical testers, basic volt meters to see if devices work/don't work, they just tell everyone 'turn it off when there's most risk'.   Simple


Did you read the rest of what he said? Who said anything about testers and volt meters? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.....
 
2013-09-14 06:10:05 AM  
What is book?
 
2013-09-14 06:20:52 AM  
book is a added mass to the flight that comes only after you flush, 380 has big issues with tons of shiat that added, but in general use of fuel upset this, and partly why food is not served until after some time, and low budget flights that tend to carry less fuel is skipped 100%.

your well come
 
2013-09-14 06:37:21 AM  

IsNoGood: book is a added mass to the flight that comes only after you flush, 380 has big issues with tons of shiat that added, but in general use of fuel upset this, and partly why food is not served until after some time, and low budget flights that tend to carry less fuel is skipped 100%.

your well come


What? It's a closed system, and as the aircraft burns fuel it becomes lighter. FFS, have I missed something - inflight sevice by way of a flying restaurant along side the aircraft?
 
2013-09-14 06:42:08 AM  
Who the fark flushes after using an airliner toilet? I leave my steamer there, for the next person to enjoy. Even better when you can speckle the seat like Jackson Pollack in a 'brown' period.
 
2013-09-14 06:53:25 AM  
I believe you CAN open a door before you reach cruising altitude. Pressure isn't that different. Just saying....,
 
2013-09-14 06:55:47 AM  
The newer airliner toilets only suck on the ground and up to 10000ft. Higher then that the system uses cabin pressure to BLOW the turds to the holding tank (which, by the way, is filled with blue juice).
 
2013-09-14 06:57:10 AM  
i am a big fan of the upper decker. since there is no tank, ill just leave the log on the back of the seat.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=742_1378572473
 
2013-09-14 07:08:52 AM  

filter: I believe you CAN open a door before you reach cruising altitude. Pressure isn't that different. Just saying....,


I don't understand the authors point here.  You cruise at something like 33,000 feet, give or take.  I'm pretty sure the cabing is pressurize at something like...uh...8000 feet? I'm not sure where I read this but it certainly would explain a lot of people having ear problems and having a hard time equilizing to the new air pressure.  I know I do.

I was about to mention the door opening bit, but then I realized that his explanation only works if the door opens inward.  The negative pressure outside relative to the cabin pressure would make it very hard to open the door inward.  Now if it opened outward his explanation sucks.

I've got a few of you pilots here favorited.  Hurry up and explain this because I think this might be a competant pilot who wrote this, but he just sucks at dumbing down the facts for the plebs.

I'm not a pilot but I landed a Cessna 172 once.  Wooo!
 
2013-09-14 07:10:01 AM  

HotWingAgenda: opaqueluminosity: HotWingAgenda: During the 1980s, toilets on planes used a blue liquid that pushed waster from the bowl into a storage tank.

This liquid added weight to the aircraft

Say what? Did they teleport the blue liquid up from ground control for each flush?

It doesn't say each flush added to the weight of the aircraft...

Well the full passage says, "During the 1980s, toilets on planes used a blue liquid that pushed waster from the bowl into a storage tank. This liquid added weight to the aircraft, which consumed more fuel, and if it leaked, frozen blocks of waste could end up falling over town and cities." That implies that the flushing was what added weight, and more fuel was consumed when the toilet added that weight, potentially causing a leak in the waste tank.

I'm sick of journalists not having a basic grasp of the English language.



It says the blue liquid they had to store in a tank added weight. They had to store it before it was flushed and it added weight to the aircraft. I think it's the reader that doesnt understand what's going on here.
 
2013-09-14 07:15:19 AM  
As I will be flying today I'm getting a kick.

/Exit row for me.
//Keep the myth alive thank you
///airlines should have flights only for families with children
 
2013-09-14 07:15:33 AM  
HotWingAgenda:

Well the full passage says, "During the 1980s, toilets on planes used a blue liquid that pushed waster from the bowl into a storage tank. This liquid added weight to the aircraft, which consumed more fuel, and if it leaked, frozen blocks of waste could end up falling over town and cities." That implies that the flushing was what added weight, and more fuel was consumed when the toilet added that weight, potentially causing a leak in the waste tank.

Sadly, if the journalist had a basic grasp of the English language he would have made clear that the blue liquid that pushed "waster" into the tank came from a reservoir on the plane.  The writer's failure to make that clear evidently has led at least one logician to assume that some amazing delivery system propelled the liquid onto the plane for each flush.
 
2013-09-14 07:21:48 AM  
content8.flixster.com
 
2013-09-14 07:28:56 AM  

White_Scarf_Syndrome: filter: I believe you CAN open a door before you reach cruising altitude. Pressure isn't that different. Just saying....,

I don't understand the authors point here.  You cruise at something like 33,000 feet, give or take.  I'm pretty sure the cabing is pressurize at something like...uh...8000 feet? I'm not sure where I read this but it certainly would explain a lot of people having ear problems and having a hard time equilizing to the new air pressure.  I know I do.

I was about to mention the door opening bit, but then I realized that his explanation only works if the door opens inward.  The negative pressure outside relative to the cabin pressure would make it very hard to open the door inward.  Now if it opened outward his explanation sucks.

I've got a few of you pilots here favorited.  Hurry up and explain this because I think this might be a competant pilot who wrote this, but he just sucks at dumbing down the facts for the plebs.

I'm not a pilot but I landed a Cessna 172 once.  Wooo!


The door blowing outward issue applies to the cargo hold doors not the passenger doors.
 
2013-09-14 07:30:40 AM  

some_beer_drinker: i am a big fan of the upper decker. since there is no tank, ill just leave the log on the back of the seat.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=742_1378572473


Holy crap!  You gotta be shiattin' me.
 
2013-09-14 07:35:51 AM  

some_beer_drinker: i am a big fan of the upper decker. since there is no tank, ill just leave the log on the back of the seat.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=742_1378572473


Nothing good has ever come from clicking on a liveleak link, yet I did anyway.
 
2013-09-14 07:46:08 AM  

FNG: I'm fine with keeping the cell phone myth alive.

A large percentage of people fly for business reasons. Can you imagine every sales rep on your plane on the way to a meeting or conference talking loudly on their phones the whole flight?

When you land, what happens? All those phone calls you would have had to endure as a passenger all happen at once as you're trying to get off the plane.

Keep the myth alive, people.


Unless the plane is flying at 5000 ft, you will not have a signal.
 
2013-09-14 07:53:00 AM  

RoyBatty: US Air is trialing new weight saving toilets.



Virgin Airlines crapper (747)



Delta Airlines - We love to fly and it shows



SkyWest



United Airlines - Official 2012 Rhapsody In Blue Motif


I don't mind those ground level toilets (you get them all over Asia) as much as I mind a speckled toilet seat.

People! Don't you think you are coming back to the toilet, or do you just not care what you sit on?!


/person going in after me gets the cleanest bathroom ever from all my scrubbing and wiping
//it might be wet though as I wash up for prayer
///in-flight slashies!
 
2013-09-14 08:30:32 AM  

RatMaster999: some_beer_drinker: i am a big fan of the upper decker. since there is no tank, ill just leave the log on the back of the seat.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=742_1378572473

Holy crap!  You gotta be shiattin' me.


I wonder who the asshole was who did that.  Assholes just want to shiat all over everything.
 
2013-09-14 08:46:50 AM  

HotWingAgenda: That implies that the flushing was what added weight, and more fuel was consumed when the toilet added that weight, potentially causing a leak in the waste tank.

I'm sick of journalists not having a basic grasp of the English language.


I took it as there probably a pair of tanks, one for fresh and one for waste. It makes perfect sense to me. Simply having that system added weight and also had other potential problems. Even if the wording is somewhat poor I'd like to think that a little common sense would fill in the gaps...

italie: Interference, while not a primary concern, is not a myth. It's possible. There have been a handful of suspected interference incidents documented, but only one of those has been verified in testing. In that particular case I use the term verified loosely, because the levels of interference they had to recreate the incident were well above the levels transmitted by most radio devices.


So, the only proof that a consumer device caused radio interference was when the strength of the recreated signal was greater than the consumer device is able to produce? That means that the never happened then. You might as well say that's it verified that a toddler can punch a hole in an engine block. Hell, it's "possible".

Plane electronics are HEAVILY shielded for this very reason. No mass market cell phone is able to effect a properly designed plane. It might be an issue for random third world planes but here in the first world it isn't an issue.

Think about this, when the plane is on the ground and during ascent and decent it's being bombarded with radio signals anyway. Thousands, if not millions, of radio signals from varying sources stronger than produced by a cell phone are hitting the plane anyway.

Although technically possible it's not probable. It's never happened in this modern age, there's never been proof of it, and as such it is a myth.
 
2013-09-14 08:49:42 AM  
"I was about to mention the door opening bit, but then I realized that his explanation only works if the door opens inward.  The negative pressure outside relative to the cabin pressure would make it very hard to open the door inward.  Now if it opened outward his explanation sucks."

"The door blowing outward issue applies to the cargo hold doors not the passenger doors.
"

Newer emergency overwing exit doors are designed to open outward on a hinge instead of the "plug" type, and this is the same for cargo doors: almost every door that isn't plug type has pins or latches. When you pressurize the cabin, you create the differential pressure that pushes a plug type door into the frame, and that same differential pressure pushes the pins/latches against their corresponding holes/bars. The amount of friction created from that pressure makes it impossible to move the pin/latch, and you'd likely break the handle that would release them before you got any of them to move, provided the metal used in the pins/latches is strong enough, and you don't have a motor working to help you unlatch it (see UA 811).
 
2013-09-14 08:54:00 AM  
Patrick Smith wrote a regular column for Salon back when Salon was worth reading. His site is askthepilot.com
 
2013-09-14 09:01:35 AM  

FNG: I'm fine with keeping the cell phone myth alive.

A large percentage of people fly for business reasons. Can you imagine every sales rep on your plane on the way to a meeting or conference talking loudly on their phones the whole flight?

When you land, what happens? All those phone calls you would have had to endure as a passenger all happen at once as you're trying to get off the plane.

Keep the myth alive, people.


THIS!!

I fly to Alaska a few times a year (painfully beautiful place if you've never been) and TRY to get overnight flights so I arrive in the morning.

I xanax the shiat out of myself (flying makes me VERY nervous) and try to get some sleep on the flight.

If the business ppl were on their phones all night long, i'd end up being shot by an air marshall for attempting to choke the life out of all the p who wont stfu and let the other 90% of us sleep.

/dont wake me up for snacks either.
 
2013-09-14 09:01:59 AM  
italie:
Interference, while not a primary concern, is not a myth. It's possible. There have been a handful of suspected interference incidents documented, but only one of those has been verified in testing. In that particular case I use the term verified loosely, because the levels of interference they had to recreate the incident were well above the levels transmitted by most radio devices.

Yup.  No matter how well designed and how frequently inpected, the electronics in a plane aren't perfect.  Shielding wires get disconnected, grounds aren't perfect, due to corrosion, wear or breakage. MOST of the time, you're fine, but please don't make that phone call when the plane's coming down through rain and clouds and the pilot's depending on the ILS to find the runway.  We'd like to LAND on the runway, not be splattered all over it because some d*ckwad's cellphone signal interfered with the ILS system.
 
2013-09-14 09:26:11 AM  
ka1axy:

Yup.  No matter how well designed and how frequently inpected, the electronics in a plane aren't perfect.  Shielding wires get disconnected, grounds aren't perfect, due to corrosion, wear or breakage. MOST of the time, you're fine, but please don't make that phone call when the plane's coming down through rain and clouds and the pilot's depending on the ILS to find the runway.  We'd like to LAND on the runway, not be splattered all over it because some d*ckwad's cellphone signal interfered with the ILS system.

They bother to shield the wires now?  I thought they didn't do that, so they could save weight.
 
2013-09-14 09:28:36 AM  

CtrlAltDestroy: HotWingAgenda: That implies that the flushing was what added weight, and more fuel was consumed when the toilet added that weight, potentially causing a leak in the waste tank.

I'm sick of journalists not having a basic grasp of the English language.

I took it as there probably a pair of tanks, one for fresh and one for waste. It makes perfect sense to me. Simply having that system added weight and also had other potential problems. Even if the wording is somewhat poor I'd like to think that a little common sense would fill in the gaps...

italie: Interference, while not a primary concern, is not a myth. It's possible. There have been a handful of suspected interference incidents documented, but only one of those has been verified in testing. In that particular case I use the term verified loosely, because the levels of interference they had to recreate the incident were well above the levels transmitted by most radio devices.

So, the only proof that a consumer device caused radio interference was when the strength of the recreated signal was greater than the consumer device is able to produce? That means that the never happened then. You might as well say that's it verified that a toddler can punch a hole in an engine block. Hell, it's "possible".

Plane electronics are HEAVILY shielded for this very reason. No mass market cell phone is able to effect a properly designed plane. It might be an issue for random third world planes but here in the first world it isn't an issue.

Think about this, when the plane is on the ground and during ascent and decent it's being bombarded with radio signals anyway. Thousands, if not millions, of radio signals from varying sources stronger than produced by a cell phone are hitting the plane anyway.

Although technically possible it's not probable. It's never happened in this modern age, there's never been proof of it, and as such it is a myth.


It used to happen all the time. All I've ever experienced from it is a static clicking through the headphones. I've never had one interfere with a navigation system. Since things have gone digital, its increasingly more rare to have any interference at all.
 
Displayed 50 of 82 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report