# Dog Poo Forces Flight to Make Emergency Landing



## amtrakwolverine (May 30, 2014)

> Twitter was abuzz Wednesday with pictures -- and complaints -- after a dog poo'd in the middle of a Philadelphia-bound flight, forcing an emergency landing.


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dog-poo-forces-flight-make-emergency-landing-n118766


----------



## SarahZ (May 30, 2014)

I'm confused as to why a "full-size" dog was allowed in the cabin. It may have been a service dog?

Small dogs that are allowed in the cabin have to be kept in their carriers, under the seat.

Also, three times seems excessive. I wonder if it was sick.


----------



## XHRTSP (May 30, 2014)

Uh, I'm pretty sure it wasn't an 'emergency landing', ie I don't think the pilots declared an emergency and were given traffic priority. ******* media.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 30, 2014)

All in all a crappy situation.


----------



## railiner (May 31, 2014)

INMO, they should not allow animal's in the cabin, service animal or whatever.

That said, I don't understand why they couldn't somehow clean up the mess in flight. Sure it's unpleasant, but no worse than several passenger's getting airsick in rough turbulence. The flight attendants are trained to deal with that problem.....


----------



## AmtrakBlue (May 31, 2014)

railiner said:


> INMO, they should not allow animal's in the cabin, service animal or whatever.


Really!!??!!In that case people should not be allowed to wear glasses, contacts, hearing aids, CIs, etc on the plane (must be packed in checked bags).


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (May 31, 2014)

It is well past time this so-called service animal scenario be shut down once and for all. It should be limited to properly trained Seeing Eye Dogs and nothing more.


----------



## Eric S (May 31, 2014)

Why is one type of service animal different (evidently better) than others?


----------



## railiner (May 31, 2014)

OlympianHiawatha said:


> It is well past time this so-called service animal scenario be shut down once and for all. It should be limited to properly trained Seeing Eye Dogs and nothing more.


Strongly agree....in my business, there are a few legit service animal's s all right, but the vast majority of these "service animal's" are phonies...people just wanting to bring their pet's, and aware of the ADA law, and exploiting it to bring them aboard.

Even "seeing-eye" dogs, as noble a creature that ever existed, are not necessary once the passenger is aboard the flight....the flight attendants can aid the passenger in whatever way is necessary...


----------



## SarahZ (May 31, 2014)

The article never stated if it was a service dog or a Seeing Eye dog (which is what I meant by "service dog", by the way).


----------



## AmtrakBlue (May 31, 2014)

I agree that fake service dogs should not be allowed on the plane (outside of a carrier).

I would not want to depend on a FA being available whenever I need help if I relied on a service dog for those needs.

I guess people want to take away the freedom one gets from having a service dog because of a few bad people just like our freedom to enter buildings without going through security checks has been taken away from us because of a few bad people.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 31, 2014)

I think it's that most people have no concept at all what having serious disabilities can be like, and therefore don't understand how important it is to be able to survive with just their own tools. But hey, most people don't actually suffer through the disability, so why not take away help for the needy.


----------



## rickycourtney (May 31, 2014)

Eric S said:


> Why is one type of service animal different (evidently better) than others?


Seeing eye dogs (and other service dogs) spend a year learning the basics of obedience and how to interact with the world (things like not pooping on planes) after that they receive 4 months of very intensive training to do their work. Those special skill help mitigate their handlers disability. These dogs receive special protections in the ADA and exemptions from DOT rules.
There are no training requirements for an "emotional support animal". They are supposed to help people with severe depression or other similar conditions. While these animals are not protected by the ADA, they are protected under DOT rules that allow these animals with "proof of a disability" and therein lies the rub.

Some "pet" owners abuse these rules to take their beloved animal wherever they want. They simply need to get proof of a disability from an unscrupulous group (Google it, they aren't hard to find) and they can bring them on for free. Again, unlike a true service dogs, there are no training requirements for an emotional support animal (or a pet masquerading as one).

If there are enough of these incidents I expect there to be a crack down on this type of animal or on the groups that can certify them.


----------



## Eric S (May 31, 2014)

Oh, I agree and understand. I was just questioning the idea that only seeing-eye dogs should be permitted, as opposed to any and all (properly trained/certified/whatever) service animals.

As far as people abusing the rules, I don't doubt that happens. Is there some sort of certification or proof that could be easily/readily provided by persons with disabilities to prevent or reduce the potential for abuse? Not that I want to put too great a burden on the person with a disability, as everyday life already does that. And maybe the abuse just can't really be prevented; it's not as if we would expect someone in a wheelchair or using crutches to prove that they are actually necessary. I can't say I've necessarily given this a great deal of thought or research, just sort of thinking out loud here.


----------



## rickycourtney (May 31, 2014)

Eric S said:


> Oh, I agree and understand. I was just questioning the idea that only seeing-eye dogs should be permitted, as opposed to any and all (properly trained/certified/whatever) service animals.


Right. I think the argument shouldn't be between seeing eye dogs and other highly trained service animals. It should be between highly trained service animals and the unregulated emotional support animals.



Eric S said:


> As far as people abusing the rules, I don't doubt that happens. Is there some sort of certification or proof that could be easily/readily provided by persons with disabilities to prevent or reduce the potential for abuse? Not that I want to put too great a burden on the person with a disability, as everyday life already does that. And maybe the abuse just can't really be prevented; it's not as if we would expect someone in a wheelchair or using crutches to prove that they are actually necessary. I can't say I've necessarily given this a great deal of thought or research, just sort of thinking out loud here.


There are plenty of groups that offer certification or proof... but it's unregulated and some groups are more unscrupulous than others. The other issue at hand here is that airlines (or any company) don't want to be the target of a lawsuit... so if they see a certificate, any certificate... they don't bother challenging whether the group that issued it is on the up-and-up.


----------



## fairviewroad (Jun 2, 2014)

One problem here is that the article in the OP is simply a boiled-down re-write of an article from somewhere else. Ah, the internet. :mellow:

If you click through to the article that features original reporting, you will discover that yes, this was a Service Animal. [The article does not

delve into whether or not this was a Service Animal that would meet the high standards espoused on this thread.]

The article also includes the key detail that the flight was delayed two hours on the taxiway in LAX prior to takeoff due to a fuel spill. Now, you

can start doing some math and say that a LAX-PHL flight that was delayed two hours in LAX would still not have made it to PHL by the time

the plane reached Kansas City, so the dog may have run into issues regardless of the delay. What we don't know is whether the dog's owner

was connecting in LAX....did she have time to let the dog relieve itself in LAX? Was her inbound flight delayed? Does LAX offer places for Service

Animals to relieve themselves without having to exit out through security?

All of these are relevant questions that simply won't be addressed in a short article like this. Much easier to jump to conclusions and pass judgement.

Ah, the internet. :mellow:


----------



## SarahZ (Jun 2, 2014)

^^^^ Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

I don't know many people who can "hold it" between LAX and PHL, let alone with a two-hour delay tossed in there. Normally, a dog would be fine for that length of flight, but with the two-hour delay, that could put a kink in things. And, as fairview mentioned, we don't know if the owner was connecting from another flight and unable to give the dog a chance to relieve itself. If the first flight arrived late, there might not have been time.

I'm not saying the owner shouldn't have been prepared with some towels and baggies for disposing of any droppings, should they occur, but I wouldn't blame the dog itself. The poor pup could have been airsick too, for all we know, leading to tummy distress.

I would forgive this in much the same way I forgive parents who experience diaper issues.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 2, 2014)

What a crappy situation!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 2, 2014)

I already made that joke, Jim. We don't need to repeat this crap.


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Jun 2, 2014)

Holy **** should be the topic for this thread.


----------



## tp49 (Jun 3, 2014)

Better the dog than a passenger...


----------



## Texan Eagle (Jun 3, 2014)

Question- would a legitimately trained service dog be able to use the airplane lavatory in some way to relieve itself? After it dropped the crap once, the passenger and/or flight attendant should have tried to take the dog to the lavatory the next time it happened and make it do its business there.


----------

