And another BA 747 diversion

[jerrystinger]

Any more news on the BA204 MIA due to arrive at LHR at 11:10 today, but so far diverted twice due to engine/fuel problems???
So far the aircraft has done MIA-BOS and is now on BOS-CWL sector.....due to do CWL-LHR later...????

[barit1]

Tangential issue:

When a LHR-bound international flight diverts to another UK port of entry, are the pax obliged to continue to LHR? Are they permitted to clear immigration at CWL or MAN or wherever? What if their actual destination is the diversion city?

Does it make a difference if the carrier is BA?

(Partially answering my own question: two dozen widebodies diverted by weather to Prestwick in Oct/Nov 1987, tarmac cluttered with parked aluminum prisons...)

[BOAC]

barit

In my experience it is very rare for pax to be allowed off at a diversion airfield unless the flight is not going to proceed to destination - eg crew out of hours, tech or destination closed etc. It involves unloading ALL the baggage to find that of those who wish to disembark. Customs must always be cleared at the first point 'of entry'. It matters not which airline nor which original destination.

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

Well, I realize things may have changed these days, but some years back I was diverted from LHR due weather to MAN twice (BA and QF flights). On both occasions I was allowed off the flight and took a train down to London. My bag flew down later on the positioning flight or a regular service, and once I was allowed into the baggage hall to collect and another time it was delivered to my home.

A more interesting question is how US immigration deal with the situation of an ex-US flight that diverts back into the US, as apparently in this case. I guess you're not allowed off the plane, but suppose it was a 12 or 24 hours delay.....

[Globaliser]

Golf Charlie Charlie: Well, I realize things may have changed these days, but some years back I was diverted from LHR due weather to MAN twice (BA and QF flights). On both occasions I was allowed off the flight and took a train down to London. My bag flew down later on the positioning flight or a regular service, and once I was allowed into the baggage hall to collect and another time it was delivered to my home.My last weather diversion was from SYD to MEL. I was itching to get off at MEL because I was on a tight schedule to go on to WLG, and I could see that we were parked right next to the aircraft which was going to operate the MEL-WLG flight.

But if I had checked baggage on board, the answer was no. The only pax allowed off at MEL were those who did not have any checked baggage. After an hour of wrangling, three out of four members of a family were also allowed off, provided that daddy flew back to SYD with their bags and then got a connecting flight ... back to MEL.

Although this was QF and Australia, I imagine that the logic would now be of pretty universal application.A more interesting question is how US immigration deal with the situation of an ex-US flight that diverts back into the US, as apparently in this case. I guess you're not allowed off the plane, but suppose it was a 12 or 24 hours delay.....Surely they'd just re-admit all the pax unless there was a special problem in relation to any individual? No difficulty with that.

[LightTwin Driver]

Nice try jerry s!!
The diversion to BOS was for a medical emergency,so I don't know where you got the "engine/fuel problems " from.
The aircraft is planned (as against diverting) to CWL for a crew change as the original crew are up against FTL to continue to LHR
Shouldn't you be doing your homework on a Sunday afternoon ?

[JW411]

"The aircraft is planned (as against diverting) to CWL for a crew change as the original crew are up against FTL to continue to LHR".

That will be really handy for the passengers. The fact that CWL is a BA maintenance base has, of course, got absolutely nothing to do with it.

Personally, I would rather go into discretion by 30 minutes and overfly to LHR (unless the crew already have their cars at CWL of course).

[Carnage Matey!]

Personally, I would rather go into discretion by 30 minutes and overfly to LHR

But thats not an option if you've already used up all your discretion time by diverting to BOS.

[Rainboe]

JW411- you really have a major problem with BA, haven't you?
That will be really handy for the passengers. The fact that CWL is a BA maintenance base has, of course, got absolutely nothing to do with it.

Do you really think the crew are not into discretion as far as they can go already? Yes, CWL is a maintenance base for BA, it is also on the route between BOS and LHR, and it is also just down the M4 so another crew can be driven out there in the night to take over. You have a problem with that logic? It gets the passengers where they want to go with minimum fuss (apart from you)

[TopBunk]

CWL is also a place where (because of the Maintenance facility) BA get free landings. The overall cost to the operation is thereby minimised - a sound commercial decision imho.

Lighten up folks.

[sammypilot]

If Light Twin Driver is correct and the stop at Cardiff is pre-planned for all flights on this particular service, how many passengers know in advance that they will be making an extra stop. Not many I would guess and it would terrify the nervous flyers who have probably steeled themselves for one take off and one landing.

[Tadger]

Sammypilot

I think you must have misread the post by Light Twin Driver. The stop in Cardiff is not pre-planned for ALL flights, just today's flight due to the exceptional circumstances already mentioned.

[DRAGONBREATH]

The time difference between continuing to LHR or landing at CWL surely cannot reflect FTL issues... what's the difference; fifteen minutes? It surely must have been a weather diversion?

[WindSheer]

If and when the aircraft lands at CWL, you cannot stop passengers getting of if they want to. As much as you say, "YOU CANT DO IT", that should be refrased "YOU CANT STOP THEM"!!!

As mentioned above, BA have an excellent hangar ready for use at CWL, with free landings. The engineers will be waiting for it, and have hangar space available.

All makes sense to me!

[Human Factor]

Not with you Windsheer. Why does the aeroplane need hangar space if it diverted for a medical emergency and a crew change?

[Carnage Matey!]

The difference between CWL and LHR is probably more like 30+ minutes when factoring in standard holding delays at LHR. FTLs are FTLs and telling the CAA "well it was just 15 minutes more" doesn't cut much ice when you've already used your full 3 hours of discretion. Also its all well and good to say you can't stop the pasengers getting off at CWL but I think you'll find HM Customs can stop the passengers getting off, especially as they don't have the facilitities at CWL to deal with 300 diverted passengers in anything like a timely fashion.

[WindSheer]

My apologies for my stupid post - I missed the one in the middle stating med emergency.

Carnage matey is correct. CWL - LHR is roughly 25 mins. Given the freak possibility that you are vectored immediately onto one of the 09's, then it could be a chance worth taking.

But, the likelyhood is that there will be a hold before making your way 'around the corner' to one of the 27's, adding vital minutes to an already 'sweaty lip' situation.:ok:

[LightTwin Driver]

The thing is,this is just another pathetic attempt to imply that BA has dodgy 747 SOP's.
This is nothing to do with a technical problem.
A pax was going to peg it,so they diverted to BOS.
I take it that one of you saddos that tries to stir all the time would rather they had continue and possibly have an unneeded death ?
Unbelievable!

[jerrystinger]

Light Twin Driver - MIA-BOS-CWL.... and then a crew change? So, since the aircraft already diverted to BOS did London not know that a crew would be needed to operate CWL-LHR? The flight landed around 3pm into Cardiff, but is now due tomorrow morning. Me thinks it will be the same crew! Someone's telling porkies....:O

Only BA.

[Carnage Matey!]

Crew out of hours, aircraft goes to CWL. What is your problem stinger? The only porkies I can see being told around here are your claims about engine failures.

[Rainboe]

Only Stinger. It almost verges on being deceitful, doesn't it? Why do we mix it with fools? They won't take an explanation.

[Omark44]

If the a/c landed CWL around 15:00hrs then, with a crew change, the pax could have expected to be in LHR by, say, 17:00hrs?
If the a/c is not coming until the morning did the pax:
a). get hotac or

b), do the CWL-LHR bit by road?

Did the aircraft get a scheduled maintenance check over night?;)

[JW411]

So what happened to the relief crew that we were told was winging its way down the M4 to the rescue?

Were they so exhausted on arrival that they had to night stop?

[Rainboe]

Nobody 'told' you anything! In the dark as much as you, one can only say 'likelihoods'. Cardiff is a good station to divert to. Transport for the passengers can easily be arranged. If something caused the delay, there could be serviceability problems or crewing problems.

Are you deeply affected in some way?

[JW411]

In other words, you don't know any more about this situation than the rest of us.

Does that also apply to the bit about the crew were into discretion as far as they could go already or were you actually guessing?

[Rainboe]

The crew would want to get home to their cars as much as the passengers! If they could not make LHR and had to stop at CWL, then the only reason would be they were up to their duty limit extension and could not risk going on. They would not accept any 'instruction' to divert htere for any other reason. So from long experience being caught in such situations, I do have an excellent idea what is going on and why.

Do you think there is some secret plan to dump the aeroplane at CWL for heavy maintenance without bothering to get it back to LHR? Don't you think that is a bit paranoid? Such diversions are a nightmare for the crew- they would not do it willingly. All this is doing is costing them a day off at home. They will be earning almost nothing extra for the loss of a day off- probably less than £30 (taxed). The Cabin Crew will be earning far, far more, but then that is the BA way.

It's really nice talking to you, but I feel I am pandering to someone who has unmovable ideas of their own, and I am wasting time trying to explain. You obviously have frustrations with BA you need to iron out yourself. You can avoid BA like the plague, as I think BA should avoid you like the plague, but you aren't achieving anyhting with all this hostility except to make yourself look a bit dated.

[skydriller]

If and when the aircraft lands at CWL, you cannot stop passengers getting of if they want to. As much as you say, "YOU CANT DO IT", that should be refrased "YOU CANT STOP THEM"!!!

Is this really true? If I lived near the divert airport and not the destination then I for one would want to get off the aeroplane. What are your rights?

Regards, SD..

[Rainboe]

You are not allowed to be 'detained' or 'kidnapped'. Of course, UK Customs & Immigration may not allow you to officially enter the country there, but no airline is allowed to kidnap you. I have had to delay on a flight with 400 people when someone decided they wanted to get off at boarding- their bag had to be located and removed. It cost 400 people 90 minutes, but there is nothing you can do.

[traveller5]

Whatever happened, in all this there is practically no mention of the needs of the customers being met as it is all geared towards what the crew need!!!!

I do NOT believe for one minute that "the" crew involved or in fact a different crew could not get the customers (ie the reason the flight and crew are on board!!) from Cardiff to Heathrow by yesterday evening!

Yes, I understand crew are bound by certain flying regs, BUT my impression is that BA operates a completely inflexible system to other airlines, which has the effect of bypassing the customers! Pretty poor really, but a routine BA 'customer comes last' scenario that doesn't actually surprise me (my last experience was on a SYD-BKK-LHR flight where on the BKK-LHR sector we were not offered food or drink for over 8 hrs and saw one crew member as they were all resting! No doubt all the pilots were "resting" as well....... Resting from what? Is that not the purpose of their time downroute?).

[jerrystinger]

traveller - The cabin crew were exhausted after a meal service and the pilots after pushing "autopilot"..... And the crew on the MIA-BOS-CWL are now resting in CWL because their rest between MIA-LHR was disturbed!:{

[Rainboe]

You are both very bizarre people! Go on.....it's a leg pull, isn't it? Or are you really both a bit odd?

[traveller5]

Rainboe - reading some of your posts, you seem to think everyone is bizarre! What is bizarre about mentioning the blatant lack of customer care regarding needs of the customers on the diverted flight? Presuming you are BA crew of some sort, the customer concept is probably irrelevant. What was the logo....eerrmm, "to fly to serve". They soon dropped that!

Anyway, time I was "resting".

[fastjet2k]

It's amazes me that people seem to spend time in their lives simply slagging off the aviation industry (BA in particular) and simply using Pprune as a point for venting frustration. Jerrystinger, you seem to make a habit out of suggesting that being a pilot is an easy and rewardless job. Fine, have your opinion, but it's probably wasted on a website originally designed for the people whose jobs you are slagging off.....

Besides, I think you'll agree that the crew on this particular flight would much rather have continued to LHR rather than divert, I'm sure you'd also agree that would be easier for everybody on that flight, pilot's and cabin crew included. I'm sure you're also aware that there may have been legal reasons for them to be unable to do this.

Finally, speaking personally, I'm working my nuts off on an ATPL course at the moment. Please don't insult the work that I am doing by suggesting that all a pilot does is operate the autopilot. I wish it was the case, I'd be finished by now and it would cost me a lot less.

[Rainboe]

This forum is not the place for you to work off your frustrations or dislikes of BA. It is actually meant to be a Pilots Forum- there are fruystrated passenger Forums elsewhere where people can grumble about not enough diet Tonic on their flight!

[Globaliser]

traveller5: Whatever happened, in all this there is practically no mention of the needs of the customers being met as it is all geared towards what the crew need!!!!

I do NOT believe for one minute that "the" crew involved or in fact a different crew could not get the customers (ie the reason the flight and crew are on board!!) from Cardiff to Heathrow by yesterday evening!Can I point out that on the BA website last night there was a message to the effect that pax off this flight would be getting to LHR at about 2030. Originally, it was to be at T4, but later this was changed to T1. The information was being given for the benefit of meeters and greeters.

Given that the flight itself was supposed to go to T3, this suggested to me that BA may have laid on coaches to recover the pax from CWL to LHR. Obviously, it doesn't itself answer the question why the aircraft could not have been flown from CWL to LHR yesterday afternoon, but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that (a) the crew on board were out of hours and (b) no spare crew could be found at short notice, bearing in mind that a full cabin crew would presumably have been needed as well as tech crew because of the pax on board. If that was indeed the case, then it seems that BA may have gone for the second best option.

The aircraft seems to have come back to LHR this morning. I assume that if it was an empty ferry flight, only tech crew would have been needed.

[Heavy Wake]

traveller5 says:
No doubt all the pilots were "resting" as well....... Resting from what? Is that not the purpose of their time downroute?).

:mad: This simply demonstrates the lack of common sense and ignorance within the general public when it comes to commercial operations. Pilots don't simply slam the throttles forward at departure, pull back, reach TOC and then engage AP, allowing themselves to put their feet up and sleep for the entire cruise phase and then at TOD wake up and disengage AP.

Whatever happened, in all this there is practically no mention of the needs of the customers being met as it is all geared towards what the crew need!!!!

Safety!! That should be the primary concern for both the airline and the crew.
Lets say, hypothetically, there was an incident/accident involving an aircraft caused by the crew being fatigued etc. from going over FTL just to provide for the "needs of the customers", how stupid would that look. The crew clearly knew what they were doing and took a sensible decision to divert rather than continuing on to destination outside their safe duty time extension.

Yes, I understand crew are bound by certain flying regs,

Then why argue about them needing to rest? The regulations are set out in the interests of safety and not to deliberately disadvantage "customers" wanting to get home.

[Rainboe]

I suspect that this may have been a 2 pilot Miami. Diverted to BOS- on the ground an uncertain length of time. They would have extended up to max (3 hours over duty limitations)- I guess carrying on that bit more would have taken them over 3 hour Duty limit extension (and you don't even dream of doing that or you will be in big trouble unless it is Fire/Flood/Revolution). All over a natural sleep period- 2 pilots- they must have been exhausted, and this idiot implies all they do is 'Autopilot On'! And as if the needs of the passengers are not a top priority! Where do these people come from?

I think that comment about the pilots was totally crass. It is no use discussing these things with fools like this- it just gives them a platform to spout their petty animosities and raise further irrelevancies.

[BEagle]

So much of the comment on this thread is total nonsense!

This is a totally different kettle de poissons to the '10 hours post-EFATO 747' thread.

Here we read that Nigel diverts into BOS for a life-threatening medical emergency. Top chaps - hope the poor passenger survived thanks to their timely action.

They then tried their best to get the rest of their customers as close to their destination as they could; bearing in mind the sheer handling problems of an unscheduled 747 load of passengers arriving unexpectedly at any airport, CWL seems an excellent choice of alternate when the sheer impossibility of making LHR within CDT became obvious. A fleet of luxury coaches 153 miles up the M4 to London would very probably be the quickest way onwards to their destination - and perhaps less of a hassle than transferring to another flight unless it was a quick splash and dash with a new crew.

[traveller5]

Heavy Wake - Safety? Please give an example of a major incident due to cabin and flight crew lack of rest.
The reason crews have a stopover is surely to rest. If you are well rested, you should be fit to operate a flight back, but you seem to imply the flight itself is the rest period!! The facts: crew had 20hrs (or whatever it is) in MIA from arriving to departing to rest , then they did MIA-BOS full service, BOS-CWL crew probably had split rest and then in CWL needed more rest and now have days off to rest. Can you maybe see my point? Are you suggesting that after having operated LHR-MIA followed by at least 12 hrs "rest", then to operate a MIA-BOS the pilots would have been exhausted? Are they fit to fly?

Rainboe - this isn't about venting frustrations, but about establishing BA policy v CAA policy. What would be the point of this forum, if we all just sat and agreed!
I have frequently travelled in FIRST and can tell you I am never impressed when I see a pilot slouching next to me in the middle seats of a 777 to take his "rest" or the times I have stood waiting by the front toilets and hear crew say, "don't ring the flight crew, the captain's asleep. They'll ring us, if they want something." Maybe you can change the misconception about what commercial pilots do inflight as we FIRST passengers see pilots as paid to ensure safe take offs and landings.


By the way, Rainboe, do you have spell/grammar check on your PC?

[Rainboe]

By the way, Rainboe, do you have spell/grammar check on your PC?
It's on my wish list. Dear Santa- I would like a spell/grammar checker that stops me doing 2 of those '!' things together!

You are talking so much nonsense I really have no answer to you.

[Heavy Wake]

Can you maybe see my point?

No, and I'm not prepared to become involved in a petty argument.
I agree with Rainboe that you are talking nonsense, and like him I'm going to walk away from this one.

[fastjet2k]

Traveller5... I think you're missing the point about the reason the crew need rest - It's the law. There is nothing they, nor Operations, nor BA Management can do about it. The same laws apply to all airlines operating withing JAA and can be found within JAR-OPS. BA doesn't choose it's policy on crew rest, it's dictated by JAA and BA's op's policy is legally not allowed to be any less restrictive than those regulations.

With all due respect, I don't think anybody will be overly concerned whether you are impressed by a sleeping pilot or not. Do you need sleep? Would you want to try landing a 747 having just spent the last 24 hours in a completely different time zone to the one your body is used to? Do you think you could do that job without resting during a flight? Do you think you could do the job full stop? More to the point, why should they not rest, that is why they put 3 pilots on many long haul routes after all...

as we FIRST passengers see pilots as paid to ensure safe take offs and landings.

If the flight crew are fatigued (be it from the time zone change, the having to be awake and alert, in spite of the fact that the aircraft is in the cruise or the length of the duty) then the takeoffs/landings may NOT be safe in which case they are not doing what you say they are paid to do.

However, I think you forget that pilot's are there for your safety in all circumstances, not just normal take-off's and landing's. What happens if the flight encounters engine problems at any time? What happens if the aircraft has to do a last minute go-around? What happens in any abnormal situation? The flight crew need to be alert to prevent incidents occuring and it's not like flying Microsoft Flight Sim... It's easy to sit in your first class seat and criticise, but I guess there just isn't any pleasing some people.

If you don't want to see the flight crew resting, I suggest you sit in Economy in the future.

[Carnage Matey!]

Oh dear, for someone who travels in First then I can only conclude that traveller5 inherited his wealth due to his utterly moronic comments.

Heavy Wake - Safety? Please give an example of a major incident due to cabin and flight crew lack of rest.

Do you suppose flight time limitations were drafted by an over zealous pilot union seeking to make its members life more leisurely? In the UK FTLs were first introduced after a spate of fatigue related accidents. If you want something more recent take a look at the report of the AA MD80 crash at Little Rock in the 90s. Lots of fatalities in because the crew were exhausted and forgot to arm the spoilers. IIRC the Britannia crash at GRN was partly attributable to the crews tiredness as well.

The facts: crew had 20hrs...... Can you maybe see my point? Are you suggesting that after having operated LHR-MIA followed by at least 12 hrs "rest", then to operate a MIA-BOS the pilots would have been exhausted

No, you don't have a point. 20 hrs rest means the crew are not acclimatised. The LAW states that the maximum duty for two crew, non-acclimatised, for 2 sectors is 11 hours. This can be extended in extremis by three hours. MIA-LHR is about 9 hours before you add in an unplanned diversion. BOS-LHR is about 7 hours. The numbers aren't going to add up are they?

don't ring the flight crew, the captain's asleep

I can only assume you are too important to listen to the Captains initial PA and realise there are often more than two pilots on board. That'll be to comply with the CAAs FTLs again, which as I may have previously emphasised, is the law. If you want to go long distances non stop you're going to have to use more than two pilots. Its the way every major airline works, not just BA.

we FIRST passengers see pilots as paid to ensure safe take offs and landings.

Not 'we', 'you'. Fortunately most of the passengers I speak to are not daft enough to think that absolutely nothing happens in flight once you get above 1000ft

[grimmrad]

quote traveller5:"my last experience was on a SYD-BKK-LHR flight where on the BKK-LHR sector we were not offered food or drink for over 8 hrs and saw one crew member as they were all resting!"

quote Rainboe: "...where people can grumble about not enough diet Tonic on their flight!"


A little off the main topic, my apologies, but I just want to make the comment that an 8 hour flight without being offered anything to drink (as mentioned) is not only a lack of service. There is a good medical reason to get as much to drink as possible (and this excludes coffee, tea and alcoholics), which is dehydration during flight, subsequent increased viscosity of blood and danger of thrombus formation and pulmonary embolism (add to that too little leg space and excercise during flight as a factor).

Best

[fastjet2k]

grimmrad: There's not much of a topic to leave behind, you're doing us all a favour by helping us off it! With regards to your comments, you're absolutely right. It is imperative to remain hydrated during a flight, this obviously goes for passengers and crew alike. I've always seen the crew pass through the cabin at a fairly reasonable frequency to distribute juice and water on a long haul flight. However, there are also a minimum number of crew required to remain 'not resting' and as such they will always be available in the galley areas should a passenger require a drink at any other time.

It is also recommended by British Airways (in the Highlife Magazine and on the Well Being broadcast on the IFE) that passengers do drink plenty of water and drink tea, coffee and alcohol only in moderation.

[Final 3 Greens]

Please will a mod divert this load of compost to Jet Blast, where it seems to belong ;)

[TightSlot]

Tempting, but for the time being, no.

Just a gentle reminder about keeping a thread on track and avoiding thread creep.

Also a reminder about arguing the issues rather than the personality.

:(

Would it be possible for somebody who knows, to actually post the definitive facts of the incident? Much of the heat on this thread seems to have been generated by conjecture and preconception...

If the crew were out of duty hours, then they had no option but to divert: Whether BA could have managed things better (or not) once the diversion became necessary is another matter.

[alterego]

As I was departing CWL, we were told by ATC that there was an Aircraft inbound on a fuel diversion.

The BA 744 then landed.

[Thunderbug]

Alterego

Not sure if you are trying to get a bite..........

but the 204 diverted due to crew FTL. When the aircraft parked the crew were within 5 minutes of going out of hours, having extended their duty by the max allowable 3 hours.


T'bug :ok:

[frangatang]

Dont blame the pilots as the cabin crew are the problem with their industrial limits out of the dark ages. The miami flight would not be a :long range: agreement so there is very little discretion that can be applied to their duty day. They are of course in bed for much of the flight,sod the service!.They would also be given shed loads of money for doing this diversion and ending up in an hotel in cardiff. So remember ,the pilots were not the limiting case here.

[Carnage Matey!]

For once I'm going to side with the cabin crew. Away from base they can actually work for a very long time under their scheduling agreement. They'll be hosed down with money for doing so, but in cases like this their industrial agreement goes further than scheme, and their scheme goes an hour further than ours. In this situation it is almost certain that flight crew hours would be up before cabin crew and the situation Thunderbug describes is most likely.

[alterego]

Thunderbug

No, not trying to get a bite just telling you what ATC, told us as we were backtracking down the runway.