BA 2166 from Tampa [Archive]

Mr Pax

11th Oct 2006, 11:10

I was on the Tampa flight.
Approximately 15 mins into the climb the aircraft suddenly dropped out of the sky; luckily all the passengers were all still strapped in but unfortunately the cabin crew were starting to prepare for service and several were badly injured - at least 4 were so bad that they were unable to continue working.
The captain came on and apologised, saying that he had to take 'immediate evasion action' to avoid a collision with another aircraft 'above him'.
There was a paramedic on board who apparently said that it would be okay to continue but it was touch and go as to whether they returned to TPA (this came from a flight attendant).
One of the forward club cabins was used as an area for the injured, we know this because we were asked to move to the forward cabin to make room.
I hope that the injured crew are all okay. I've been a frequent flyer for over forty years and it's the scariest thing I've ever experienced
I'm off now to change my underwear!:eek:

jerrystinger

11th Oct 2006, 11:23

Richard Spandit

11th Oct 2006, 11:31

A TCAS RA should not be a violent procedure. I am surprised that injuries could occur from pilot input in such a large aircraft anyway - perhaps they were hit by wake turbulence?

Superpilot

11th Oct 2006, 11:34

Maybe he accidently knee'd the yoke? who would admit to that? :rolleyes:

OK, a bit far fetched ;)

Andy_S

11th Oct 2006, 11:36

forget

11th Oct 2006, 11:51

The only incredible thing here Mr Stinger is your complete misreading of a post followed by world class exaggeration. We'll await your more detailed criticism of flying a 747 on 3.

goshdarnit

11th Oct 2006, 11:56

Technically and objectively speaking - what constitutes "serious" injury, or "badly injured" as Mr Pax put it. Inability to carry on with normal working practice could be anything from a twisted ankle to a broken leg (or worse).
And if "several" cabin crew were "badly injured", are there now sufficient to carry out safety procedures should they be required?
What is an airline's (or the CAA's) policy under these circumstances?

jerrystinger

11th Oct 2006, 12:06

I was expecting to be shouted down by defensive BA drivers....The point is still being (conveniently) missed, though.

apaddyinuk

11th Oct 2006, 12:07

Personally if I was one of the crew on that flight that had been injured, I think (unless it was a potentially fatal incident) I would rather continue on home and at least get to my friends and family instead of diverting and dwelling over the incident alone in a strange hotel or hospital!!!

What makes a good Captain is the ability to make such desicisions and decide what will be best for the crew/passengers and on this occassion I think he/she made the best decision!

And no Stringer, it is not being missed, you are simply misinformed and not understanding of the situation. And it is clear that you want to turn this into a BA bashing thread so lets not rise to it everyone!

outofsynch

11th Oct 2006, 12:16

I would think the 'injured' may well have been consulted on the decision, and agreed they would much rather get attention at home... I see it more their decision than anyone elses - isnt it?

eidah

11th Oct 2006, 12:42

Wheather you want to get home or not its your decisions its the safety of the passengers which is more important. Dont know the extent of the injuries if it was only cuts and bruises fair enough. If it was a serious cut/bruise would the cabin crew be able to perform his/her SAFETY duties i.e. assist with a fire, evacuation, deompression etc etc. Dosent matter if you cant do the drinks/food service thats not important as your main reason you are there is for passenger safety.

Speedpig

11th Oct 2006, 12:49

I was expecting to be shouted down by defensive BA drivers....The point is still being (conveniently) missed, though.

I think you are missing some points jerry.
There were paramedics on board (as reported by someone present) who would assess injuries and inform the captain to enable his decision making.

The aircraft was fully serviceable (I presume).

Presumably the injured would be made comfortable, and, depending on the number of pax on board, were the crew below operating limits? If not, the remaining crew could elect to continue.
The injured could elect to continue, I would.

Let's see what the crew say?

forget

11th Oct 2006, 13:01

"...........were the crew below (LEGAL) operating limits? If not, the remaining crew could elect to continue".

I'm not sure where 'crew below operating limits' comes into the equation.:confused: :confused: The only options are 1) Continue. 2) Return. As both options involve a landing what's the down side of continuing?

sinala1

11th Oct 2006, 13:14

Forget: There is much more to CC's job than safety during take-off and landing. Inflight medical emergencies, inflight fires etc - these are all part of the safety aspects of the role of CC.

What type of A/C crewed this flight, and how many crew do BA usually have on said type?

I would be interested to hear from crew involved in this - see how bad injuries were, how they were consulted, why the decision was made to continue as opposed to returning etc etc

Off Stand

11th Oct 2006, 13:20

From TPA, it is a B772, 3 class, therefore 11 cabin crew.

lomapaseo

11th Oct 2006, 15:38

I would think the 'injured' may well have been consulted on the decision, and agreed they would much rather get attention at home... I see it more their decision than anyone elses - isnt it?

I agree, with any knowledge of the triage system in the emergency rooms of US hospitals, it would have been quicker to take the service of onboard paramedics and continue the flight to home base. Their call, obviously and I would have done the same thing. As far as the safety of the flight, that's the captains call.

SuperBoy

11th Oct 2006, 15:44

Forget: There is much more to CC's job than safety during take-off and landing. Inflight medical emergencies, inflight fires etc - these are all part of the safety aspects of the role of CC.

Very true but only a few of the crew were injured, thus I'm sure the remaining crew would've been able to deal with whichever incidents arose. If not I'm sure alternative arrangements would've been made.

What type of A/C crewed this flight, and how many crew do BA usually have on said type?

777 at present there would be 11 crew operating the flight so even if 3 members of crew were injured there would still be enough crew onboard to operate based on min crew numbers. It can be further reduced as you only need 1 crew member per 50 pax so 6 members of crew would suffice ( I know there are a vast number of variables to concider but it is possible)

jondc9

11th Oct 2006, 15:55

jerrystinger

we now have a plane with injured people on board...while a paramedic is nice to have, it is not a full diagnosis.

we have a plane that could potentially (as any plane might) suddenly need an evacuation and now 4 people who are in charge of evacuation cannot respond to an emergency.

as to triage in an american hospital, I've gone and signed my name and been in a bed in less than 5minutes...

In america, we have a radio patch to medical advice from doctors on the ground, does BA have that option?

having seen seemingly small injuries turn into career ending injuries, I agree with jerry stringer.

I would have gone back to get real medical help...someone may have a subtle spinal injury that will only get worse.

A captain is paid to make decisions...the conservative decision was to get medical hep from a doctor and a well equipped hospital as soon as possible.

jon

Pigsfly

11th Oct 2006, 17:24

At a first glance, one could be excused for suspecting BA is suffering from no-turnback-itis. The famous 3 Eng LAX to MAN and now long flight with injured crew. Thats if the facts are as stated.

forget

11th Oct 2006, 17:34

At a first glance, one could be excused for suspecting BA is suffering from no-turnback-itis. The famous 3 Eng LAX to MAN and now long flight with injured crew. Thats if the facts are as stated.

I don't understand. Surely a flight only turns back if circumstances require this.

wow400

11th Oct 2006, 18:01

Guys, there was no conspiricy theory, no push-on itis, just an airborne incident that was dealt with by all the crew with the utmost professionalism.
'It was a TCAS RA passing through 16.4k, ATC told a/c to level off at 16.5k (not much use when you're doing 2000fpm climb!) & then went into 'descend descend'.
Felt like turb in club cabin but of course the poor guys & girls at the back got their freefall experience.
None of the injurys life threatening etc, were assessed using on board paramedic/medlink & continue descision made. Flight was up the east coast of the US (not straight over the oggin) so looked like a million & one places to jump into if the injured started feeling a lot worse.
Rest of the crew did a sterling job doing the service with 4 down without any complaints etc - and there were a lot of very complimentary words said to the crew as everyone got off.

Wow

ornithopter

11th Oct 2006, 18:19

wow400 seems to have it spot on. It is amazing how many people hang others out to dry without any facts at all. For those who keep bleating about 3 engine 747's, perhaps you might like to look at the facts of the story. Not worth listing them here, but the fact of the matter is that the crew followed BA and CAA procedures, were taken to task by outside agencies and found that they had acted CORRECTLY. What more could you want?

This TCAS incident is similar, the crew made a good decision which is only challengable in Newspaper headline fashion, rather than head thinking fashion.

Do any of you out there think a BA Captain would continue with serious injuries on board? What sort of idiots do you think we are?

SADDLER

11th Oct 2006, 18:25

Thanks 400 for bringing a bit of sense into the nursery.

peeteechase

11th Oct 2006, 18:44

Not involved personally but I can assure you that on any BA flight the well-being of all on board is first priority.

The comments otherwise on this Forum are childish, mis-informed and quite probably journalistic, get a life guys:ugh:
ATB,
ptc

Pax72

11th Oct 2006, 18:46

Thanks for all your comments, my folks did say that they thought the whole thing was dealt with fantastically well, and that they were well-informed. However, it has shaken them up a bit. They were in Club (a one-off treat, not their usual situ) and they did think it was turbulence at first, but at the end of the day the passengers were the lucky ones.
I think it's important to remember (certainly from a Pax pov) that the fact the flight arrived safely and comfortably at its destination is really a credit to all on board and their professionalism. It certainly won't prevent them flying BA again as they were impressed by the handling of the situation.
My intention when starting this thread was to get some info on what happened to cause the event, thanks for those insights!
Get well crew!:ouch:
Pax72

Mr Pax

11th Oct 2006, 18:50

I would like to add my congratulations to all the flight crew an the excellent way in which they handled the situation :D
I sincerely hope the injured crew are all ok.
Thanks WOW its interesting to know what the cause of the incident was.
MP

overstress

11th Oct 2006, 18:54

Agree totally, 'chase.

The 'zero g' experience cannot be pleasant for crew down the back but it's a lot better than the potential alternative in this case.

Just curious: what is going on with the current trend on these forums for Monday-morning quarterbacks to wibble on and on about the flight 'turning back'???

In civil aviation, you press on to destination unless, considering all circumstances, it's better to divert. This decision is made in the air, by professionals, with all the information at their disposal.

To some on here it may come as a surprise that we don't consider the potential fallout on PPRuNe as part of our decision-making process!

Lucifer

11th Oct 2006, 19:40

I'm sorry, but this is simply incredible! Evasive action, followed by serious injuries and yet the flight crew continue? First a BA 747 loses an engine, but goes on and then this....You may have serious injuries, but hey, the crew need to get home.
Doesn't say much about BA's incident procedures. What other serious things happen that passengers are powerless to do anything about at 37,000ft? I'm truly surprised.
Jerry Stinger, your post is uninformed tosh. With the exception of the comment that "passengers are powerless to do anything", your post is otherwise rubbish and implies that professional aircrew are operating like cowboys. This is simply not true, and is - I think - more a reflection of your ignorance of the decisions that are made by professional crew, and a somewhat typical inability to accept that there are many situations in which you as a passenger will never be in control, often displayed by armchair commentators with little or no aviation experience.

After appropriate medical advice, a decision was made. What more can you ask from a professional crew?

Though the thread was started by a reasonable question, I am unable to see why every single aviation abnormality requires a comment from the uninformed who think they can do the job better.

RoyHudd

11th Oct 2006, 20:35

Lucifer, you are correct. Cabin Crew, Pax, ground staff, journos; you name them, they think they have a better grasp of the overall situation! (And just to be fair, they may often have one snippet of info which could be needed by the Flight Deck for a better decision to be taken. But never the whole picture, how could they?)

Imagine if surgeons had a professional forum open to the public. Every opinionated person who had ever had an operation would be shooting from the hip, with their ill-informed views. Same stuff here, sadly.

Keep the punters out, I say!:E

Flying Fred

11th Oct 2006, 22:50

I'm sorry, but this is simply incredible! Evasive action, followed by serious injuries and yet the flight crew continue? First a BA 747 loses an engine, but goes on and then this....You may have serious injuries, but hey, the crew need to get home.
Doesn't say much about BA's incident procedures. What other serious things happen that passengers are powerless to do anything about at 37,000ft? I'm truly surprised.
Jerrystinger,
Your post illustrates the worst excesses of this forum. You jump to amazing conclusions with no access to the facts.
Evasive action, followed by serious injuries
The crew were responding to ATC instructions followed by a TCAS RA. What do you expect them to do? Carry on as they were and risk a collision? Who mentioned serious injuries? For your information it is standard procedure to get a paramedic out to assess injuries before people are moved from the aircraft. The last time I had to do this, it was for a cabin crew member who had slipped on a wet floor and twisted his knee. According to your instant analysis of the situation, should we have diverted for that?
You may have serious injuries, but hey, the crew need to get home.
That comment is cheap and contemptible
Doesn't say much about BA's incident procedures
I'm sorry to disagree but it says completely the opposite. The crew reacted correctly to ATC and subsequent TCAS instructions. They then assessed the situation, using the onboard medical professional and Medlink (a dedicated team of doctors based in Phoenix Arizona who BA contract to supply expert advise for airborne medical problems) via satcom plus talking to the injured themselves. Only then did they make the decision to continue.
You owe a big apology to that crew and to BA.

Pigsfly

11th Oct 2006, 23:04

D`Pig is far from silly, he is well aware of the capabilities of a 747 to continue flight one engine out, he is well experienced in pax ops, he is well experienced in how commercial pressures can influence crews. This is neither good nor professional operating. And while you guys pat yourselves on the backs saying well done, I say ....commercial pressures ruled....

Carnage Matey!

11th Oct 2006, 23:17

D`Pig is far from silly....... This is neither good nor professional operating.

So the cabin crew got off safely, the paramedics were satisfied with the decision to continue, Medlink were satisfied with the decision to continue, the company got the aircraft where they wanted it, the passengers got where they wanted and seem to be full of praise for the crew and you think that is neither good nor professional operating? Heaven knows what you consider good and professional operating to be.

Flying Fred

11th Oct 2006, 23:38

D`Pig is far from silly This is neither good nor professional operating. And while you guys pat yourselves on the backs saying well done, I say ....commercial pressures ruled....
Pigsfly, so you would have dumped 30T of fuel and returned to TPA would you? Just what were the crew's injuries? I don't know and you don't either because nobody on here has given those details. And you call the BA crew unprofessional! You clearly have no knowledge of BAs operating procedures. Read again what I said about Medlink and obtaining professional advice.

Last year I diverted into a Canadian airfield after a female passenger complained of chest pains. We rang Medlink on the satcom, described in detail her symptoms and were advised that we should divert. This we did, no commercial pressure to continue. Pax was met by paramedics and hospitalised in the shortest time possible time. We then departed for our final destination in the southern US, arriving 1.5 hours late. This happens about once a week in BA but you don't read about it on here. By the way, it turned out she was having a panic attack - c'est la vie

The crew on the Tampa used the same process but this time the advice from the medical professionals was to continue. End of story. I know you as a 747 pilot sitting in your armchair are obviously more qualified than the Medlink doctors but, hey, you weren't on board. How about trusting it to the folk who were?

mini

12th Oct 2006, 00:03

If we can move on from the usual bunfight, what caused the TCAS RA?

Danny

12th Oct 2006, 00:41

Thank you to all those professional pilots who have clarified the reasons for the incident and the subsequent decision to continue to destination. Those posters who insist on 'quarterbacking', very obviously with no real experience of our jobs, only serve to show themselves up with their ill thought through posts and lack of real knowledge other than that gleaned from computer games, books and Discovery Wings. :rolleyes:

I am very tempted to introduce a rating system. This system could be applied to individuals which will show the readership whether the poster is considered to be knowledgeable, if not experienced in airline operations and procedures. There could also be another rating for posters who are some of the many pretenders who voice off on here with their ill informed and very obvious, to us airline pilots and crews, arguments based on nothing but ill informed speculation and PC simulator 'experience'.

The vast majority of people quite rightly enter the discussions with questions as many of the more obscure and mundane aspects of our jobs are not that obvious. It is the few amateurs or those posters who have ego's that can't be satisfied because whilst their claims to members of our fraternity ring hollow, they remove all doubt as soon as they click the 'submit' button! :hmm:

cornwallis

12th Oct 2006, 00:56

Danny perhaps you would like to adopt this as your signature http://usera.imagecave.com/andym/cars/warn.gif
I found it on Rumration

Flying Fred

12th Oct 2006, 10:51

I'm with you Danny. As you can see, this is only my fifth post on this forum. I normally just observe and occasionally wince as some of the uninformed rubbish that is posted. This one made my blood boil. When I read comments like I'm sorry, but this is simply incredible! Evasive action, followed by serious injuries and yet the flight crew continue? First a BA 747 loses an engine, but goes on and then this....You may have serious injuries, but hey, the crew need to get home.
Doesn't say much about BA's incident procedures.
and
This is neither good nor professional operating. And while you guys pat yourselves on the backs saying well done, I say ....commercial pressures ruled....
based on absolutely no knowledge of the facts, I have to say something.

Even the passengers saidmy folks did say that they thought the whole thing was dealt with fantastically well, and that they were well-informed.
So, sounds like a good idea to rate people on their knowledge/lack of tendency to armchair quarterback.
FF

amanoffewwords

12th Oct 2006, 10:55

I am very tempted to introduce a rating system.

It's easier to add users to your personal ignore list* - that way their posts don't show and suddenly pprune becomes a lot more interesting.

*Pigsfly is the latest member of my list - congratulations!

Human Factor

12th Oct 2006, 11:03

There could also be another rating for posters who are some of the many pretenders who voice off on here with their ill informed and very obvious, to us airline pilots and crews, arguments based on nothing but ill informed speculation and PC simulator 'experience'.

Please, please, please, please..... :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :E

west atc

12th Oct 2006, 11:16

If we can move on from the usual bunfight, what caused the TCAS RA?

As an ATC I am interested in the TCAS RA, does anybody know what caused it?

perkin

12th Oct 2006, 13:24

I'm with you Danny

Likewise here, I consider myself to be a reasonably well informed by-stander (well travelled pax & interest in aviation) but I do not have the intimate knowledge of the professionals on here. I will contribute if I have something of genuine interest/use and know from bitter experience not to post to the wrong forums (only did it once, sorry!) and will just observe and absorb when the subjects are beyond my experience/knowledge (most of the time). I wish the know-it-alls would butt out and just sit back and glean some knowledge from the experts, rather than contributing bullsh!t, as if this resorts to being a professionals only forum, then a wealth of knowledge is lost for interested parties and/or wannabes.

Following this thread makes you realise there's some real @rseholes out there, how can anyone know what was going on on that flight if they weren't even on it as pax, let alone flight/cabin crew??!! Must be some talented psychics out there...! :ugh:

lomapaseo

12th Oct 2006, 13:58

Just some slightly related experience.

Was aboard a longhaul flight entering US when we got a report from the back of the plane about serious burn injuries to several passengers from a trolley accident. We went back and forth with the cabin crew on triage assessments and assurances that the affected were stable and cared for (moved to first class seats and compresses etc.) We then discussed with passengers and cabin crew the adviseability of continuing vs diverting. You see at cruise you would almost be at scheduled destination by the time you diverted. So the captain called for the equipment to meet us and we continued on to destination.

No, this didn't get in the newspapers. Nothing to see here folks, just move on

late developer

12th Oct 2006, 16:46

I will attempt to share a thought...

I think the word "professional" is now seriously overused.

Is it not a bit bold to use it? Do messages containing it really get perceived as wisdom?

I'll be 50 next year but have never dared use it to describe my skills.

But then I have never earned a living as a doctor, lawyer, accountant, surgeon, footballer or pilot!

I will admit to being chartered once, but I've never been an aircraft or a boat!

I find my occasional visits to pprune entertaining, informative, but aboveall, everso slightly worrying, very much like attending an England away game I imagine.

forget

12th Oct 2006, 16:59

Describing someone as professional doesn't automatically mean they are good at what they do. It simply means they get paid to do what they do. The assumption is, if someone pays them to do it, then they must know what they are doing. Gerrit?

TimV

12th Oct 2006, 19:49

Errm excuse me folks whilst you bicker. Sadly for me I am not a pilot - would like to have been but hey I have to make do with sitting out back - and I do that a lot.

Can someone answer the real question here - how come this situation arose in the first place? We're still waiting for the findings on the Brazil mid-air and here we have the potential of another one. Are TCAS alerts an every day occurence or are we heading that way?

Carnage Matey!

12th Oct 2006, 20:04

and here we have the potential of another one. Are TCAS alerts an every day occurence or are we heading that way?

Every time there is more than one aircraft in the air at the same time there is the potential for a mid-air collision. Just like every time you get in your car there is the potential to be rammed off the road by a lorry. But that doesn't happen to you very often. TCAS event are a daily occurence throughout the world. Mid air collisions are not.

5milesbaby

12th Oct 2006, 22:42

Its not the first time someone has been injured by a TCAS RA manouvre, check http://deadbrain.co.uk/news/article_2004_01_20_5549.php out. Also can be found on PPRuNe http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=116070&highlight=Virgin+Airprox

Capt Pit Bull

13th Oct 2006, 00:09

someone has been injured by a TCAS RA manouvre

Standard early days caveat, but just because an RA was issued at some point in proceedings, doesn't mean that the someone has been injured by the RA. My bet would be on the earlier part of the manoeuvre.

pb

west atc

13th Oct 2006, 01:07

Are TCAS alerts an every day occurence or are we heading that way?

TCAS Alerts do happen, but they do not necessarily mean that there was a risk of a "Mid-Air Collision". An aircraft can be assigned 1000 Feet above or below the conflicting traffic but because of the rate of descent or climb, a TCAS RA can be triggered. As an ATC in a complex bit of airspace with a lot of crossing tracks, I have seen it happen several times, but not once a day!

ExSimGuy

13th Oct 2006, 01:08

Danny, now that's quite a good idea - as long as it is very visible. It might be very useful to point journos to the more reliable posts.

I post rarely on this part of PPRuNe, mostly just read and observe, as I am aware of my limitations (Ex Flight Sim Eng, many moons ago and well out of date!) so I wouldn't expect a high "rating":oh:

As for "carry on or return/divert", I mentioned it at the time on here - flying with my daughter from SYD to SFO back in early 2000, she was taken sick soon after take-off (connected with the reduced cabin altitude) and I wonder, in hindsight, how I would have coped with being diverted and left in Kiwi or somewhere mid-Pacific, with only my debit card (my daughter had earlier in the holiday lost her credit cards!)

As it happened, we had a doc and his wife sitting right in front of us and, in consultation with the CC, I spent the reat of flight with a "green bottle" on my lap; daughter was "uncomfortable", but we made it fine to SFO where her US-Air company medical cover was accepted.

A sensible decision by the CC definitely did not hazard my kid and got her "home" to where we were far better able to cope with the problem (just a 3 day flying ban before we could go onwards to her home in Boston)

Sounds to me (from partial info posted) that the BA crew did exactly the right thing.

Hope all the injured CC were not too bad and wish them a swift recovery.

As a PS, my thanks to PPRuNe as I posted "words" on this forum, praising the UA crew of that flight and asking that my thanks could be passed to the crew and to the pax doc and his wife - I understand that the info was passed on and the doc got my appreciation passed on by UA (hopefully an upgrade on their next flight:D)

powerset

13th Oct 2006, 11:26

West ATC. It would be great if you could accompany us into Miami or chicago sometime to see the level of atc on offer. TCAS alerts in the states are much more common than in the U.K. A result of using the least appropriate runways due noise considerations, a mix of heavy and light traffic and unfortunately the loss of all of their best airtrafficers in the eighties. The current bunch just want to pass off responsibility to you as soon as they can. The best words in aviation are still "good morning, this is london control".

FullWings

13th Oct 2006, 12:20

I am very tempted to introduce a rating system...
Good idea.

I frequent a few bulletin boards which have 'moderation systems'; i.e. a percentage of regular posters are automatically given 'mod points' that they can use to flag a particular post as good/bad/offtopic/offensive, etc. The users of these BBs can then browse the board at their chosen level of moderation: this allows them to view all the posts or to gradually restrict themselves to those that have been deemed more 'worthy' by other users.

If you want to see what this is like in action, one of the more well-known BBs with this feature is slashdot (http://www.slashdot.org), a technology biased site. It also has a detailed explanation of why the moderation system was introduced (http://slashdot.org/faq/com-mod.shtml#cm520) and how it works. (http://slashdot.org/faq/com-mod.shtml#cm600)

jondc9

13th Oct 2006, 13:56

gee danny

if people didn't disagree with you, why bother having a forum? just post the facts as YOU see them and leave it at that.

forum is for debate, not for a monolithic answer from your side.

By the way, thanks for the TACIT appology to me!

regards

jon

frangatang

13th Oct 2006, 21:50

Two things:

1. Were the cabin crew looking for bunk rest(club class flat beds) as bunks are not fitted to the gatwick 777 s.

2. will the injured cabin crew now seek to sue the captain as they have tried in the past?

BEagle

13th Oct 2006, 23:27

I hope that the cabin crew were not badly hurt - it can't have been a very nice experience.

I don't know how many seats there are in a ba 777 - is it 330-ish? If so, then the JAR minimum (1 per 50 or fraction of seat numbers) is 7 cabin crew. If, to provide a higher standard of cabin service, ba cabin crews are larger than this, then there will clearly be some redundancy over the legal minimum. E.g. if there are 11 cabin crew of whom 4 become incapacitated, then there are still 7 available if the incapacitation of the others is not sufficiently life threatening to merit an immediate diversion.

Gipsy Queen

14th Oct 2006, 06:27

". . . . if this resorts to being a professionals only forum, then a wealth of knowledge is lost for interested parties and/or wannabes".

A valid point, in my view.

For the travelling public to have the opportunity (albeit vicarious) to get into the office and be able to eavesdrop on coversations at the sharp end is, in this age of travelling paranoia, a wondrous thing and in my judgment Pprune is doing an excellent PR job here.

It does no harm for the SLF to have an appreciation (not the same as an understanding but that's not important) of the many and often complicated decisions that flight crew have to make and why - the thread on the VS low fuel into GTW is a good example.

The transport flight deck crew has always - I can say "always" as I once discussed this subject with Capt. Ollie at Croydon a very long time ago - been made up of well trained and thoroughly professional people. This is very evident from the postings on Pprune. The forthright and open manner in which things, good and bad, are discussed can only increase the level of confidence held by those sitting in the back in the ability of those sitting in the front.

From this standpoint, I feel that a rating system would be counter-productive and needlessly exclude a lot of people from the forum. The armchair pundits easily are recognised and the twoddle that many of them spout is just as easily ignored. But don't condemn the armchair brigade out of hand - many of us have been there before you and whilst the cockpit demands of my old DH114 differ from those of your modern seven four, I suspect the atmosphere and decision-making processes have changed not at all.

Off Stand

14th Oct 2006, 10:05

BEagle, on the 3 class at LGW there are 280 seats. Minimum crew is 8 as there are 8 exits.

Hotel Mode

14th Oct 2006, 10:35

Minimum crew is 8 as there are 8 exits.

Common misconception, number of exits does not have to equal number of crew. Its 1 crew member per pair of main doors. Ie 737's can fly with 3 crew.

Mac the Knife

14th Oct 2006, 11:06

Imagine if surgeons had a professional forum open to the public. Every opinionated person who had ever had an operation would be shooting from the hip, with their ill-informed views.

And then us professionals could put 'em right, so their views would be a little better informed!

I'm sure it would be irritating at times, with trolls, halfwits, wannabees and the press ever eager to grasp the wrong end of the stick (just like PPRuNe), but we'd end up with a small segment of the public having a better understanding of how we work and the decisions that we make.

And that, I believe, is a function that PPRuNe fulfils rather well.

:ok:

Off Stand

14th Oct 2006, 12:42

That is true that 737's can operate with 3 crew, I used to do just that. However, on the 772, the min crew compliment is 8, 773 is 10, 744 is 12.

With 4 crew injured on the TPA, 7 remained fit to fly and the 8th exit was covered by the 2nd FO operating the flight.

BEagle

14th Oct 2006, 13:14

JAR-OPS minimum for 280 passengers would be 6 cabin crew - one per 50 pax seats or fraction thereof - if even one passenger is carried. What airlines and/or unions impose above this is up to them. For example, Lufthansa used to be able to offer a reasonable Business Class service from UK-Germany when they carried 4 cabin crew; ever since Apr 2004 when they reduced that to only 3, they have reduced their service standards to almost Ryanair levels.... But not their ticket prices.

Nothing at all to do with 'number of exits' - those will be scaled as required to meet the regulatory requirements of certification authorities.

fox niner

14th Oct 2006, 14:31

People, the minimum crew for a B777 is 7 cabin attendants for any seating configuration between 291 and 340 passenger seats...Regardless the actual number of pax on board. It says so in my flight manuals. (JAA)

Besides that, I can imagine a light aircraft or glider or similar coming too close to the big jet, because it didn't have a transponder. That's why it is called "indian territory" below 18,000 ft in the USA. Keep a sharp lookout for VFR non-transponding cherokees, archer, warriors and seminoles...

And Danny, your marvellous creation we all call PPRuNe owes its existence to the fact that anyone can join in and ask questions. This thread was started by someone who doesn't know anything about flying but asked a genuine question. And that is perfectly allright. For some reason other posters found it necessary to contaminate this thread with newspaper-type one-liners. Let them! Real professionals are able to distinguish between real remarks and bogus ones.

jondc9

14th Oct 2006, 16:01

I do hope someone will post the status of those injured.

I know of a number of situations in which injuries grew worse over a course of days, particularly spinal injuries.

I know of one flight attendent (not on this flight) who was injured when the cockpit crew failed to give the standard signal prior to takeoff to make sure f/a's were strapped in.

That flight attendent fell down as the engines came up to power and has never flown again...the captain never appologized.

Things do happen.

Anyone know how the injured are doing today?

jon

hobie

14th Oct 2006, 20:05

Have to say I was impressed with wow400's post and in particular medilink support mentioned ..... post #27

The subject of injury en-route is not a simple one and I rem a similar incident reported only a few weeks ago ..... see http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/august_2006/boeing_777_236__g_viip.cfm

The crew with onboard and remote medical advice did their best but the incident report ends with a distressing discovery upon landing .....

Life is not easy ... that's for sure ....

Marsh Hawk

15th Oct 2006, 02:58

And then us professionals could put 'em right, so their views would be a little better informed!

I'm sure it would be irritating at times, with trolls, halfwits, wannabees and the press ever eager to grasp the wrong end of the stick (just like PPRuNe), but we'd end up with a small segment of the public having a better understanding of how we work and the decisions that we make.

And that, I believe, is a function that PPRuNe fulfils rather well.

:ok:

Well, that's the reason I'm here. I want the inside scoop from the very people that fly for a living. I have some knowledge of flying from my dad, a pilot for 46 years, but I've never held a private pilot's license. I admire the men and women who do this for a living, day in and day out, in all kinds of weather and situations, and I'm here to see what they've got to say.

bealine

15th Oct 2006, 14:41

.......and what a sad forum this would be, to be sure, if it was only populated by Professional Pilots without any comments from other airline workers, wannabes and aviation enthusiasts!

For a start, it would stop comments like mine who only wanted to praise the Gatwick Flying Staff involved! Knowing you as I do, I know why British Airways employed you and it's incidents like this, where you can be relied upon to do the right thing!

I may have taken myself off to Terminal One in order to try to kick-start my career, but Gatwick and its wonderful team will always have a special place in my heart!

Take care of yourselves - You'll always be a Nigel!

Strepsils

16th Oct 2006, 11:58

late developer

16th Oct 2006, 19:02

Well I for one naturally believe that PPrune might contribute less to the common good if posting by non-ops was restricted!

Referring back to that report of the G-VIIP turbulence incident that hobie linked to a few posts back, I read:

The aircraft entered the cloud and experienced two or three large jolts over a period of approximately 10 seconds. It then exited the cloud and the turbulence dissipated.

The aircraft’s flight data recorder revealed that during the turbulence, the aircraft experienced a maximum vertical acceleration of 1.633g and a minimum
of -0.023g two seconds later. There was also an uncommanded autothrottle disconnection.

My physics is rusty, but from that snippet I have estimated that the worst jolt in that turbulence may have caused a relative DOWN acceleration of about 0-140mph in 2 secs - is that right??

Had everyone/everything been strapped in and no-one hurt, would the airframe normally require some kind of engineer inspection after such a flight? What kind of jolt would break it?

jondc9

16th Oct 2006, 19:10

an extreme turbulence event is likely to require an inspection.

while your story is interesting, it appears the plane was under control at least most of the time...surely a severe event, but extreme might actually be worse

and I hope none of us hit a truly "extreme" event.

PaperTiger

16th Oct 2006, 19:34

If we regard Pilots, Engs and ATC as operational staff, couldn't we just make the flight crew forum "Read Only" to non-operational staff (i.e. pax, spotters, everybody else) and have the questions forum for when non-ops folk want to ask the hows and whys?Sigh. We've been through this umpteen times. How do you verify that an anonymous member actually is a Pilot, Eng or ATC ?
The best method to 'sanitize' the forums is to not respond to idiotic posts/trolls or at least simply put them succinctly in their place once and leave it at that.

Far too many "professionals" seem to want a bl:mad:dy good row though. Wonder why ?

jondc9

16th Oct 2006, 19:45

< The best method to 'sanitize' the forums is to not respond to idiotic posts/trolls or at least simply put them succinctly in their place once and leave it at that.>

Of course this would lead to a one sided view of the world. How many sanitizers told Columbus the world was flat? Or told the Wright Brothers that "if God had intended man to fly, He would have given man wings"?

And who would sanitize the self appointed sanitizers?

Another great method would be to just call the forum something other than Professional Pilots rumor network.

I recall two good suggestions.

Strepsils

16th Oct 2006, 20:37

How do you verify that an anonymous member actually is a Pilot, Eng or ATC

By the same methods used in the company forums on this site? I'm not convinced myself that this would improve the site overall, just thinking out loud really!

The Controlller

16th Oct 2006, 21:26

Gents and ladies

You have heard friom me before and the the Tampa incident was handled by the crew and ops in the best possible way. Believe you me if it wasn`t I would tell you all.
BA have their problems but safety is not one of them.
All credit to crew and ops.

Go well

sky9

17th Oct 2006, 07:52

Just a couple of points from a retired pilot.
1 Pilots should not take it personally if Cabin Staff attempt to sue the commander of the aircraft. As I understand it that is the way the law works. Are we all too eager to allow the cabin staff out of their seats with the seatbelt sign on? The aircraft was at 16000 going up at 2000fpm so 8 mins after TO with an 8 hr flight ahead. I always used to work on the basis that if it was bad enough for the passengers it was bad enough for the cabin staff.
2 With the high performance of modern twins and the limitations of TCAS only showing 2500 ft above and below it is common that the returns only give 40 secs notice.

TopBunk

17th Oct 2006, 08:14

2 With the high performance of modern twins and the limitations of TCAS only showing 2500 ft above and below it is common that the returns only give 40 secs notice.

TCAS can be 'pointed' up or down, in which case the display will show you traffic up to about 7000ft above/below depending on whether it's pointing up or down.

Capt Pit Bull

17th Oct 2006, 08:21

Quote:
Originally Posted by sky9
2 With the high performance of modern twins and the limitations of TCAS only showing 2500 ft above and below it is common that the returns only give 40 secs notice.

and by topbunk:

TCAS can be 'pointed' up or down, in which case the display will show you traffic up to about 7000ft above/below depending on whether it's pointing up or down.

Neither of which has any bearing on when you receive an RA. Don't confuse display volume with tracking volume.

You get an RA when all the conditions (predicted vertical & horizontal separations, and time to closest point of approach) are met. This has nothing to do with how your traffic display is set up.

pb

TopBunk

17th Oct 2006, 08:38

CPB

I do know how the system works! I was merely pointing out that the system is not limited to DISPLAYING +/-2500ft, but that making a pilot controlled selection you can improve your SA when climbing or descending. Even if you choose not to display traffic information, the TCAS system is still active.

angels

17th Oct 2006, 09:12

Strepsils - I rarely post on this forum, because I am not a professional pilot. My profile tells you that.

When I do post it is normally to c&p wire reports (which we get earlier in dealing rooms) about, sadly, air accidents. Do a search and you'll see I often crop up with stuff early on in an incident (eg the Stord crash) and then fade out to let the professionals, argue, bicker, slag and, very occasionally intelligently discuss and debate the incident.

By all means stop me posting, but I think you'd lose a sometimes useful conduit of information.

M.Mouse

17th Oct 2006, 09:49

Are we all too eager to allow the cabin staff out of their seats with the seatbelt sign on? The aircraft was at 16000 going up at 2000fpm so 8 mins after TO with an 8 hr flight ahead. I always used to work on the basis that if it was bad enough for the passengers it was bad enough for the cabin staff.

In BA the sooner the cabin crew can finish the meal service and turn the lights out the more time they get in the bunks/rest seats. Industrially they are entitled to short rest breaks but a culture has developed where they, even on a short flight, e.g. New York, will contrive to manage an hour an a half rest.

I remember travelling as a passenger with QANTAS from the UK to BKK some years back and was interested to learn that when the seat belt sign was switched on the meal service stopped and ALL crew had to strap in. No discretion. I do not know if that is still the case.

sky9 has a very salient point, if it is too unsafe for passengers to walk around then why are CC with trollies allowed to do so?

Strepsils

17th Oct 2006, 11:21

angels - I think you're right, which is why I said I was just thinking out loud. The problem is trying to sift through the rubbish disguised as genuine information to find the real genuine information.

If more of the "interested observers" on the site followed your own code of conduct it would be a much better place!:ok:

SteveSmith

17th Oct 2006, 13:41

As another interested non-pilot, I think that perhaps a voluntary code of conduct might be a good way to start. Perhaps members could all be asked to categorise themselves as pilot, atc, engineer, enthusiast, etc, and this could be displayed under their name whenever they post.

Of course some sad individuals would lie about it, but I expect that they'd pretty quickly give themselves away to people who really do know what they're talking about.

As others have said, to those of us who sit at the back, Pprune is a very enlightening way to understand what's going on. I am very grateful to those professionals who take the time to answer silly questions from people like myself, and I think it would be a great shame to deny us access to it because of the actions of a few idiots. Perhaps a seperate thread is required to discuss this topic?

Steve.

jondc9

17th Oct 2006, 13:46

Top Bunk

is quite right. the volume of area displayed can be increased to about 7000' above or below ( I think the exact number is 6700') by the use of the A/B (above/below) switch.

while this doesn't change the R/A, a prudent pilot can certainly gain a better sense of a POTENTIAL upcoming R/A and act a little bit earlier, including reducing rate of climb/descent or asking ATC about the impending situation. Also a swift activation of all external lights might be in order.

To not expect traffic conflicts on climbout of a busy Florida airport is being behind the power curve. So many little planes, one must be vigilant, especially for the odd NON TRANSPONDER plane.

Two's in

21st Oct 2006, 01:27

This is being reported on a popular blog in the US (The Drudge Report) as the following:

TERROR OUT OF TAMPA: British Airways jet seconds from disaster in 'near collision'...

It then links to the Daily Mail site below, using such objective phrases as "The stricken BA plane left Tampa..." and "The emergency started over the Atlantic Ocean" despite having said earlier "just 15 minutes after take off from Tampa in Florida".

I dont blame the journo's, I blame their parents for not knowing more about contraception.

BA jet seconds from disaster in US 'near collision'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411695&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

Last updated at 22:00pm on 20th October 2006

packed British Airways jet was just seconds from disaster after plummeting out of the sky in a dramatic near miss over America, it has emerged.

BA flight 2166 carrying 175 terrified passengers, three pilots and 11 crew plunged 600 feet in a bid to avoid collision with another plane above it.

Two passengers and four crew members were injured in the dramatic incident which took place at 16,500 feet just 15 minutes after take off from Tampa in Florida.

US air traffic controllers had just seconds earlier told the BA flight to start ascending from 16,000ft to 20,000ft when the emergency happened.

The emergency collision avoidance system on the Boeing 777 plane kicked in over the Atlantic Ocean, causing lights to flash and an alarm to sound in the cockpit, with the pilot hearing the words "descend,descend,descend."

The descent was so sudden that some of the crew members left the floor, went into "freefall" and hit their heads on the ceiling of the plane as it plummeted.

Others slammed into the bulkheads. All four crew were stood down from their duties while being treated for bruises on board in the Club cabin for the remainder of the flight.

They were met by paramedics when the plane landed at London Gatwick.

Injuries included back pains, bruises and swelling to arms and hands,

BA confirmed last night that the near miss is now being formally investigated by the US Federal Aviation Administration.

It said its pilots had acted properly and professionally but had been under the authority of US air traffic controllers when the emergency occurred.

Staff were praised for their handling of the emergency.

One eyewitness said: "I was on the Tampa flight. About 15 minutes into the climb the aircraft suddenly dropped out of the sky."

"Luckily all of other passengers were all still strapped in. But unfortunately the cabin crew were starting to prepare for service and were badly injured."

"At least four were so bad that they were unable to continue working."

The eye-witness said: "The captain came on and apologised saying that he had to take emergency evasion action to avoid a collision with another aircraft above him."

"There was a paramedic on board who apparently said 'It will be OK to continue but it was touch and go as to whether they return to Tampa."

BA confirmed that one of the forward Club class cabins was used as an impromptu sick-bay in which the injured stewardesses were treated and allowed to recuperate.

The eyewitness said: "I have been a frequent flyer for over 40 years and it is the scariest thing I have ever experienced."

"I'm off now to change my underwear."

Another said: "It felt like turbulence in the Club cabin but of course the poor guys and girls at the back got their freefall experience."

The stricken BA plane left Tampa, Florida at 6.30pm on Tuesday October 10 and landed at Gatwick at 8am on Wednesday October 11th. But details have only today emerged.

A BA spokesman said: "Our pilots were under the control of US air traffic controllers when the incident happened."

"They had been asked to ascend from 16,000ft to 20,000ft, but then told to hold at 16,500ft. At the same time the emergency collision avoidance system - TCAS- told our crew to descend. They followed this command."

BA said it did not know the identity of the other plane involved in the near miss - or how close - only that it had been above their plane.

Collision avoidance systems are programmed only to operate when a collision is likely and the safe space between aircraft - whether horizontally or vertically, has been compromised.

BA said: "We have filed a report with the US Federal Aviation Authority which is investigating."

jondc9

21st Oct 2006, 01:47

so, is the real question: is it better to be on a BA 777 with 4 inop f/a's or a BA 747 with one engine inop?

But thank goodness they were both under US air traffic control

;-)

PS

even danny might lighten up and laugh if he went to:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23371540-details/BA+jet+seconds+from+disaster+in+US+'near+collision'/article.do

it is the same article as above from a UK source and cool picture of a NON British Airways 777 with the caption regarding the atlantic

would still love to know how those who were injured are doing

admiral ackbar

21st Oct 2006, 02:44

I was just about to post that article linked on Drudge, what a worhtless piece of drivel and the picture is "hilarious".

FWIW, I'm just an enthusiast and frequent flyer, from day 1 I have understood what this site is about, I keep my mouth shut in threads that I can't contribute to (the truth usually comes out by people that know what they are talking about, one of the things I love about this board) but some threads allow me to comment without sticking my foot in my mouth and for that I am grateful.

So to all the trolls, go back under your bridge and let the adults talk...

Seems like everything worked the way it should and good job to everyone involved, to keep on the subject at hand! :)

Pinkman

21st Oct 2006, 07:28

sky9 has a very salient point, if it is too unsafe for passengers to walk around then why are CC with trollies allowed to do so?
I asked about that when being scolded for nipping for an emergency pee just before TOC with the SB light still on and the CC up and about, and was told, somewhat tartly "We're insured. You're not".

sky9

21st Oct 2006, 08:06

I'd like to see the insurance policy that prevents people from being injured, it most certainly didn't work on this occcasion:hmm:

lexxity

21st Oct 2006, 09:03

But details have only today emerged.

No, what they mean is today they happened to search PPRuNe and found this thread and then proceeded to directly steal quotes and make it appear as if these contributors had spoken to the Daily Mail.

Nice work by the journos, how much do you paid for that?:ugh:

Jordan D

21st Oct 2006, 15:07

Just on the 1500L News on BBC Radio 2 - it was stated that the FAA have started an investigation into a mid-air incident involving a BA plane from Florida which had to decend "sharply" to avoid a Mid-Air Collision. No article on BBC News online, but it appears that either the FAA have a slow press office, or they like reading the Drudge Report/PPRuNe on their quieter days.

Jordan

jondc9

21st Oct 2006, 15:52

mike jenvey and others responding to terrible news article.

this is why I get involved with a place like cnn...as you have all read and seen the article and picture of a completely different type of plane than the one involved and comment on such...why not do something?

why not speak out and try to explain to your news media what probably happened and not wait for the article to appear and be so awful?

It is better to have someone who actually has used TCAS to speak about what happened than have someone make it up and then publish it.

I think I finally started to speak out when I saw the headline "10 passengers die aboard Cessna 152". I hope that speaks for itself.

Obviously if a 777 pilot or any other pilot saw a TCAS RA, he had to respond to it.

The mention by top bunk of selecting the display to show almost 7000 feet higher is an important one. One can prepare with information gleaned from this method...if it is available.

the question about well being of injured and decision to continue will take time to judge. that judgement will be based on the long term health of the injured parties.

Some of you take such delight in attacking those of us who actually try to lift the media standards of aviation coverage. You are part of the problem as much as the publisher of this drudge report (and other sites).

jon

ps. on one of my airline's flights, someone got up to use the restroom with the seat belt sign illuminated...mamouth turbulence encounter(CAT), damage to aircraft and this poor man was left a paraplegic.

Stay in your seats as much as humanly possible with your seat belt fastened!

Lucifer

21st Oct 2006, 16:34

I'd like to see the insurance policy that prevents people from being injured, it most certainly didn't work on this occcasion:hmm:
Eh?
Seatbelt signs on = you are not insured by the airline's coverage if you choose to get up and are subsequently injured - therefore no liability.

sky9

21st Oct 2006, 16:42

Lucifer, I always used to agree with your views and acted accordingly. I did however ask a lawyer what his view was on CS carrying out non safety essential work with the SB signs ON and he didn't back me up, so watch and see what happens.

SLATS_EXTEND

21st Oct 2006, 20:56

TAMPA, Fla. Oct 21, 2006 (AP)— Six people were injured when a British Airways passenger jet was ordered to descend after a small plane nearby triggered its collision warning system, officials said Saturday.
Four crew members and two passengers suffered cuts and bruises on the Oct. 10 flight from Tampa to London, British Airways spokesman Richard Goodfellow said Saturday.
Goodfellow said the aircraft, which had 175 passengers onboard, was put into a quick descent, dropping around 500 feet within seconds after the collision avoidance system went off.
However, the Federal Aviation Administration said Saturday the plane made a "controlled descent" of about 700 feet and was not in danger of collision.
FAA spokeswoman Kathleen Bergen said the British Airways 777 was traveling 50 to 60 miles north of Tampa when it was first instructed by air traffic controllers to climb to 26,000 feet.
Meanwhile, a privately operated Beechcraft King Air was located a mile away and flying about 1,400 feet above the British Airways flight's altitude. The private aircraft told air traffic controllers that it was aware of the commercial airliner's position, Bergen said.
Air controllers instructed the British Airways flight, which had then reached an altitude of 16,800 feet, to go to 16,500 feet. The collision avoidance system was triggered and the pilot brought the plane down 700 feet in the controlled descent, Bergen said.
"British Airways didn't mention anything to air traffic control about injuries" during the flight, and the flight continued to London as planned, Bergen said.
She said the FAA was later notified by British Airways that four flight attendants received minor injuries.

RobertK

21st Oct 2006, 22:06

Besides that, I can imagine a light aircraft or glider or similar coming too close to the big jet, because it didn't have a transponder.
Okay, but if it didn't have a transponder, there would be no TCAS alert, no?

Regards,

Robert

RobertK

21st Oct 2006, 22:09

This is being reported on a popular blog in the US (The Drudge Report) as the following:
[...]

Am I fantasizing or were there quotes right out of this thread?

11K-AVML

21st Oct 2006, 23:05

Update: Caveat - What I've said here is wrong

Okay, but if it didn't have a transponder, there would be no TCAS alert, no?

Regards,

RobertCorrect. Both aircraft must have the TCAS equipment fitted and operating for any TCAS alert to occur in either aircraft. Light aircraft would most likily NOT have a TCAS transponder fitted.

And yes, the quotes in the tabolid article as well as much of the rest of the content was taken straight from here - copy 'n paste style. :* But of course not referenced, and rather made to sound like the copy&paster had done some investigative work which of course they hadn't.

wiggy

22nd Oct 2006, 15:58

Both aircraft must have the TCAS equipment fitted and operating for any TCAS alert to occur in either aircraft.

Hmm don't have the manuals with me but I'm not convinced by that statement. If the light aircraft had been squawking mode C then surely the the 777's TCAS would have been able to provide a TA/RA.

G--SPOT

22nd Oct 2006, 16:21

Think you are correct wiggy, have had numerous TA's, especially across pond, with light a/c with no alt read out.
Don't think you would get RA though.

bookworm

22nd Oct 2006, 17:00

One eyewitness said: "I was on the Tampa flight. About 15 minutes into the climb the aircraft suddenly dropped out of the sky."
"Luckily all of other passengers were all still strapped in. But unfortunately the cabin crew were starting to prepare for service and were badly injured."
"At least four were so bad that they were unable to continue working."
The eye-witness said: "The captain came on and apologised saying that he had to take emergency evasion action to avoid a collision with another aircraft above him."
"There was a paramedic on board who apparently said 'It will be OK to continue but it was touch and go as to whether they return to Tampa."
BA confirmed that one of the forward Club class cabins was used as an impromptu sick-bay in which the injured stewardesses were treated and allowed to recuperate.
The eyewitness said: "I have been a frequent flyer for over 40 years and it is the scariest thing I have ever experienced."
"I'm off now to change my underwear."
Hmm. That rings a bell... (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2901891&postcount=7).

jondc9

23rd Oct 2006, 02:00

ok

I got my "book" out and checked a few things...

one. TCAS can determine range and bearing even if mode "C" is not transmitted....it can show relative altitude if mode "C" is being transmitted.

selecting A or B ( above or below) can expand display to 8700' above or below when selected, while 2700' the other way.

and this is the gotcha: under normal conditions a "TA" will precede an "RA" by 15 seconds...this to give a chance to find visually the traffic.

while conceivably an intruder aircraft could turn on his transponder at the last second and offer less than the 15 second time warning, one wonders if the BA plane did get 15 seconds warning (TA) prior to the "RA".

does anyone know?

j

11K-AVML

23rd Oct 2006, 20:05

Update: Caveat - What I've said here is wrong
Think you are correct wiggy, have had numerous TA's, especially across pond, with light a/c with no alt read out.
Don't think you would get RA though.
The TCA System advises each pilot where the other a/c in their vicinity are and when alerting the pilots of the need for evasion action (RA) each TCAS unit involved will have and be communicating with each other so that the directions given do not conflict. If an aircraft were to be involved that did not have TCAS fitted, the available TCAS would not be able to determine what appropriate evasive action would be necessary.
I guess I should be more careful with my use of "TCAS alert"; I'm not aware of the ability of the system to use Mode C to advice of a conflict alert but I do have it on good authority that a RA will not be given without there being at least two TCAS units involved.

In the above posts it mentions the TCAS RA of descend descend descend. This would require two TCAS units to be involved.

BTW, I wouldn't put a Beechcraft King Air aircraft within my definition of a light aircraft. Although the model of the a/c involved hasn't been given, I would expect it to have TCAS as they do seem to be designed for passenger carrying purposes and similarly not simply private GA use.
(Caveat, I don't know the FAA regulations determining which a/c require TCAS as a mandatory condition).