I think M.Mouse has a point here. You shared with us a story and asked if the forum could shed light on these events. Now you know something which you are sure will "cause a stir" and yet you are withholding this information from the same forum. Cheers anyway.
Oggers, firstly I asked a question containing facts, some of you guys made it a story...... yes I have been contacted by the airline and no I will not divulge. If an initial post with a genuine concern can gather so much garbage and it has to be said malice on some occasions then Iím sure Iím not fueling the fire again, I must stem back to a fact that constantly gets forgotten 'I was there'. There have been some really good posts on this and some very interesting PMs on it and again thanks, but if the term 'back seat pilot' exists, then by god they found this post. The funny thing is that when we, the seemingly ignorant punter gets on a plane we are encouraged to raise any questions or concerns we have..........ha ha thatís laughable going by the attitude of some of you Professional PILOTS, there seems to be some heavy duty hypocrisy to be honest and to be honest, so many of your fellow pilots that have PMd me agree...... still it keeps you buys if nothing else.........so Oggers no he does not have a point, far from it.
firstly I asked a question containing facts, some of you guys made it a story
No, first you told a story containing possible facts and definite opinions, then you asked a question. Had you just stuck to the facts and left out the opinions perhaps responses would have been different.
It appears that your main concern is to be right and be able to say so.
Sit on this by all means. No doubt there are good reasons for keeping discreet at this stage. However, I think your initial cynicism toward the airline's use of the 'tech fault line' is unfair in view of the fact that it is now you withholding the facts.
On behalf of course_profile may I say I detect a touch of double standards
I guess someone has to say it - "Wait for the enquiry to complete" - it is the only way. We have been told (here) there was no tech fault, there will have been an internal investigation and apparently an AAIB one. Unless batboy has the inside track on this we will not know until....................
some of you guys made it a story...... yes I have been contacted by the airline and no I will not divulge.
I think you will find YOU made it a story and then added a question at the end. What I find interesting is that the airline contacted you directly. Now HOW and WHY did they do that? Did you write / call them first??? Otherwise they have done a masterful detective job to get hold of you!
As has been said, that could be the reason you've put backs up. Have you EVER been in the military, professional aviation, fire service, medical service or anywhere a terse and sharp command is issued? One uses the tone of one's voice as much as the content to elicit the desired response. That ain't 'panic'. Do you know the precise definition of a 'Panic' reaction? Sometimes it may be the correct response
Yes Basil, 15 years previously as a senior local authority fire officer, im more than versed in what a panicked abrupt message is, in fact i have more than likely sent one or two myself and not realised it.. Thanks
Batboy seems to get a lot of the flak because he thinks he heard panic which we all know is of course a physically impossible reaction for a subzero blooded BA captain. While the situation was without any doubt handled in a professional manner and brought to a safe conclusion, maybe it could be conceded that there may have been the remote possibility of a slightly tense undertone when being faced with a scenario of potentially becoming incapacitated midair?
As 'course profile' has pointed out, the paranoia certain posters are exhibiting over the apparent 'drama' needs to be controlled. As an industry AND professional pilots, we should be concerned about the 'impression' some of our actions create as well as the necessary effects. Perception can be as important as real meaning.
One comment from me as another lowly piece of self loading freight:
If even one passenger (i.e. Batboy) thought it sounded panicked then perhaps there might have been something wrong with the PA announcement.
If 15-20 passengers were concerned enough to leave their names and addresses with a BA manager (as per a recent post), there was very likely something wrong with the PA announcement.
Batboy is the only poster in this topic who was there and his perceptions are, perhaps, more valid than a pile of pilots saying "that can't be so".
I know nothing more than what I've read in this thread and will happily wait for an AAIB report if there is one. However, attacking a witness to the event for daring to suggest a pilot might have sounded panicked is missing the point by a very large margin.
I'll shut up now but perhaps some of you superman pilots should reflect on your own attitudes if you think all passengers are always wrong and all pilots always perfect.
It is not teh fact batboy posted but the way in which he did it, to quote from his initial post:
...at approx 20 mins into flight a very abrupt and panicked message came over the PA from the pilot " senior flight attendant to the flightdeck", at this point there were defined worried faces across all off attendants, next thing was an o2 cylinder and mask taken forward and we were heading back to LHR at great speed
He states as a fact that the PA was 'abrupt and panicked' not that to him it sounded so.
He got the PA quoted words completely wrong.
He states that the flight attendants all had defined (sic) worried faces, again as if that is fact not opinion.
He then implies that O2 was taken forward as if it was being taken to the pilots when it most definitely wasn't.
IF he had made a post from a more considered position he would probably have received a more sympathetic response.
From my point of view his post was ignorant an alarmist. Now he claims to be in possession of the facts but decides to withold that information I wonder why that is?