Flybe 145 returns with fumes in the cabin

[FougaMagister]

"Strange odour" forces flight back to the runway

A plane had to make an emergency landing after fumes leaked into the cabin shortly after take-off from Birmingham International Airport. The Flybe service to Stuttgart with 24 passengers on board had only been airborne for a short time yesterday when crew noticed a "strange odour" in the cabin.

It is the third time this year this has happened on the budget airline's Birmingham flights. The two previous incidents were on the Belfast route. In February crew had to put on oxygen masks and turn back after fumes leaked 15 minutes into the flight. And in July two stewardesses collapsed and five of their colleagues were taken to hospital when they became ill.

All three incidents happened on the same fleet of British Aerospace 146s. Flybe has said it will be withdrawing the 16 planes from service by next February. Staff have claimed that in addition to the three reported leaks, there have been seven other similar incidents in the last 15 months. After the last two incidents some Flybe staff refused to fly on the 146s saying their health was being put at risk.

A spokeswoman for Flybe said the flight turned back when "an unpleasant odour and high temperatures" were reported in the cabin. "The safety of our passengers is of the utmost importance to Flybe and we apologise for any inconvenience caused to their journey this afternoon".
(The Birmingham News, Thursday 15th November 2007)

Interesting that the story, on page 4 of a local newspaper, seems more factual, and the reporting of a higher standard, than in the national tabloid press!

Interesting also that Flybe do not seem to have mentioned the safety of the crew in the same breath as that of the passengers - or are they regarded as expendable?

[timmcat]

Hasn't this been a problem for years on this type?

[Tailspin Tommy]

I though that fumes were standard anytime the flaps were activated up or down.

[ADC2604]

Maybe people should get the facts right first.

The aircraft was not a 146, it was a E145.

The smell was not confirmed as fumes - they didn't know what it was hence the decision to return.

No mega emergency - just another example of standard procedure being thrown into the spotlight as a near death drama. :)

[groundhogbhx]

The aircraft involved wasn't a 146 it was a 145!!

[FougaMagister]

... so much for accurate and factual reporting by the Birmingham News then!

(At least they didn't quote passengers seeing their life flash in front of their eyes! :rolleyes: )

[ADC2604]

I do try not to judge people until I meet them but I do feel that ALL journalists are the same - full of rubbish.

Looking so forward to FEB08 though.

[ADC2604]

That is when all of BE 146's will have been withdrawn. The E195s will replace them.

Hopefully no more 146s will mean no more negative stories of this nature for BE.

[Blue-Footed Boobie]

Not forgetting Canada's gift to aviation..the Q400! :}

Blue Foot

[hapzim]

was it that sweet smell of deicing fluid with the current cold weather. :ouch:

[Loose rivets]

The aircraft involved wasn't a 146 it was a 145!!

Aw 'cummon...they were only one out. ;)

[ADC2604]

:) Maybe I should cut them some slack - I mean whats one digit!

[Richard Taylor]

Well two engines for starters... :rolleyes:

[ADC2604]

Thank you Mr Taylor

[Richard Taylor]

Couldn't resist sorry ADC! :E

Is it the same sort of problem for the 145 that occasionally seems to befall the 146?

[ADC2604]

Well, I have heard it has happened on the E145s before but only on this forum........I personally have never 'come across' any problems with fumes on the now Flybe E145s.

One would think however that had it been fumes, the crew and engineers would have known it. The smell was unusual and not familiar so the crew decided it best to return to BHX as a precaution. Not sure why oxygen was used - I suppose this is standard in these situations.

[ewilliams]

My work colleague was actually on board and for her it was far from a routine precautionary return to Birmingham.
After the smell was detected, the crew decided to return to Birmingham but during the return smoke was seen in the cabin AND the Oxygen masks deployed automatically resulting in a full emergency descent to 10000 ft.

On arrival at Birmingham they were met by the airport fire crews.

Maybe thats routine for you guys but not for passengers.

On arrival Flybe supported the passengers very well and explained as much as they could under the circumstances..They were told that there had been a fault on the plane earlier that day but I have no idea if the earlier fault had anything to do with the eventual emergency.

[StoneyBridge Radar]

Can someone change the sodding thread title..... other online sites are quoting this thread and still claiming it was a 146. :ugh:

[FougaMagister]

Done!

;)

[ADC2604]

ewilliams - Hi, yes it probably would have been scary, I mean I wouldn't be particularly comfortable returning with oxygen masks in use.

But, it was a precautionary measure. There have been no confirmed reports of smoke in cabin however we were not onboard so fully respect the observations of your colleague. A PAN was declared, which whilst not a fully emergency would have meant that local airport services were on standby.

[StoneyBridge Radar]

Nice one :ok:

[ADC2604]

It is still showing as 146 returns on my screen - and can we also change the fumes....we do not know for certain it was fumes. It could have been a passengers poor choice of perfume for all we know at this stage!

[cheesycol]

It was definately not fumes or de-icing fluid. However, was significant enough to warrant an immediate return to BHX. Was also not a 146!

[OltonPete]

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=297115&page=6

As I said last Wednesday in the noxious air thread, I thought it was a
145 and so it proved to be.

The bbc online article was not too bad but it does show a 146.

However local radio really went to town on Wednesday morning.

The local free paper this week had an article underneath the
proposed runway extension and it is laughable, that is the fumes
article was laughable not the runway extension piece although it
came a close second.

As for fumes and the 145, I remember the BHX-MXP returning about
6-8 weeks ago and that was "alleged" fumes. I did ask the question
in the AAR thread but I don't think I got a definitive reply but I could
be wrong.

Pete

[cheesycol]

Tin hat at the ready:

The 145 fleet is, by some margin, the most reliable at Flybe.

[ADC2604]

cheesycol - Many Flybe staff including myself beg to differ with your statement.

However, now that we have all agreed that it was a 145 and there is no confirmation of fumes....I am not sure how far this topic can go.

[frequentflyer2]

'I do try not to judge people until I meet them but I do feel that ALL journalists are the same - full of rubbish'.

Really. I'm a journalist and the one thing that annoys me when I visit this website is the constant derogatory referrals to other members of my profession.
Yes - there are certain daily newspapers which write stories in an unjutifiably sensationalist way.
However, most of us want to file stories which are accurate in both the factual and grammatical sense.
Grammar and punctuation are of course our responsibility but when it comes to factual accuracy we are frequently at the mercy of those appointed to provide us with information.
If someone gave me a tip off that an airliner had returned to an airport because of cabin fumes my two main sources would be the airport's press office and whoever the airline concerned has appointed to deal with press inquiries.
This may be their own press officer or as is often the case a public relations company operating under contract.
If these people tell me the aircraft involved was an EMB 145 why on earth would I write 'BAe 146'?
The answer is I wouldn't. So if an aviation story of this type refers to the wrong make of plane it's likely the journalist is accurately reporting inaccurate information supplied by the airline's own spokesperson.
Generally, this problem is going to get worst. When my career began press officers were normally people who had worked as journalists, had a good knowledge of news outlets and understood the importance of accuracy.
Very often they moved to a press officer position because it allowed them to work in a field in which they had a particular interest.
In those days an airline press officer would probably be someone who had a strong interest in civil aviation.
Nowadays, an airline may well employ a PR company to deal with the press.
The people employed by these companies may have degrees and certificates lining their walls but most of them will never have worked as journalists and are also having to deal with inquiries about a number of their clients at once.
Under these circumstances inaccurate information is always a possibility.
As I said earlier some newspapers - and we all know which ones - do indulge in sensationalist reporting.
Very often this has nothing to do with the reporters. They supply perfectly accurate stories which are transformed by sub-editors into something which they believe will sell more copies.
However, in some cases journalists are accused of sensationalism when they are accurately reporting what they are told.
If several passengers on an airliner which experienced problems told me their lives had flashed before them and people had prayed as the drama unfolded why wouldn't I include this in a story?
An introductory paragraph such as 'Passengers on a flight which experienced engine failure immediately after take-off from Belfast City Airport have described how people prayed as the Pilot and First Officer did everything in their power to return the aircraft safely to the ground' is perfectly legitimate if that's what happened.
A quote such as: "There was a bang and the plane lurched to the side. My life flashed before my eyes" is also perfectly legitimate as long as it's an accurate verbatim report of something said by someone on the aircraft.
As a final point could I say that in my experience spokespeople appointed by airlines do play incidents down when possible.
I can think of one during the past two years where it was hard to believe the airline's statement in its immediate aftermath and the Civil Aviation Authority's official report some time later referred to the same aircraft at the same time on the same day.
In this case it was the CAA who referred to frightened passengers and alarming movements by the aircraft.

[ChristiaanJ]

frequentflyer2,
I won't slag you off for your speling mistake, or for your defense of the "narrowly missed a primary school" and "me life passed before me eyes" style.

Rather, I'd like to say thanks for what was IMHO a balanced view "from the other side of the airport fence".

[ADC2604]

frequentflyer - I have not yet met a single journalist, or read a completely factual article.

I apologise if you feel offended and whilst I have not read your post in full, as it is quite long, am sure you are an exception ;)

[ChristiaanJ]

pilotmike,In defence of good spellingForgive a Dutchman living in France... please?

[frequentflyer2]

I won't slag you off for your speling mistake, or for your defense of the "narrowly missed a primary school" and "me life passed before me eyes" style.
Rather, I'd like to say thanks for what was IMHO a balanced view "from the other side of the airport fence".

Sorry about the spelling mistake. I should have let Mrs. Frequentflyer read my post first. She's an absolute stickler for spelling.
As a journalist it's also gratifying to see anything I write described as 'a balanced view' - many thanks for that.

[Airways B]

'Strange Odour' ...over Birmingham! :}

[BeViRAAM]

I totally disagree with you frequentflyer. You can't just use the excuse, "thats what they told me" and then wash your hands of any responsibility.
Unless you write for your school newspaper, that is.
Surely you should be attempting to report the truth, a few simple questions (how many engines, how many seats wide, high or low wing) would have helped identify type.

Doing the basics correctly and being thorough and accurate, we call it professionalism. Just glad that the crew involved don't have the same sloppy attitude towards their jobs.

[ADC2604]

Yes that is exactly what happened - Flybe decided to take off, burn of fuel which had been paid for, return, land and pay the necessary fees and then refuel, taking off again.

I still reckon it was bad perfume....

[grundyhead]

Flybe Embraer G-EMBU back into BHX earlier today with Local Standby declared initially, then upgraded to Full Emergency.

Nature of problem?..wait for it, "Fumes on the Flightdeck"

[frequentflyer2]

I totally disagree with you frequentflyer. You can't just use the excuse, "thats what they told me" and then wash your hands of any responsibility.
Unless you write for your school newspaper, that is.
Surely you should be attempting to report the truth, a few simple questions (how many engines, how many seats wide, high or low wing) would have helped identify type.
Doing the basics correctly and being thorough and accurate, we call it professionalism. Just glad that the crew involved don't have the same sloppy attitude towards their jobs.

Actually, I write for one of Northern Ireland's leading weekly newspapers covering a wide area of Greater Belfast and beyond.
During my 26 years in journalism I've supplied copy to Belfast, London and Dublin based dailies as well as broadcasting outlets. I've also helped researchers gathering information for radio and television documentaries.
On the aviation front I've written about developments at both BFS and BHD and have never forgotten covering the harrowing aftermath of the Kegworth disaster which claimed the lives of a number of my newspaper's readers.
I'm confident if you spoke to my editor he would describe me as 'thorough, accurate and professional' in my approach to my job and for your information I left school almost 28 years ago without ever contributing to its newspaper.
All that said let's return to the scenario of the journalist covering the story of fumes in the cabin of the EMB 145.
His or her first course of action will be to confirm with the relevant press officer/PR company employee the incident took place.
Having obtained confirmation the journalist will want as many details as possible starting with the airline and type of aircraft involved.
Once again I have to say if an airline appointed spokesperson describes it as a BAe 146 the journalist really has no reason to doubt this.
It may well be he or she will then seek further details about the aircraft.
At this point the airline spokesperson will simply open information about the 146 stored on a computer and rhyme it off.
So there's no point in trying to cross reference all of this as you seem to be suggesting because the spokesperson's description of the aircraft will always match the type identified.
In this case the problem may well have started with the type of aircraft being incorrectly identified to the press officer by another airline employee.
I'm guessing he or she then prepared some kind of press release on the incident and released it to a number of news outlets. Hence the incorrect information.
I agree it should not happen but I maintain as long as the journalist has taken all possible measures to check the facts he or she cannot be held responsible.
Remember, the airline employees who really know what happened are not allowed to speak to the press so journalists are totally reliant on official spokespersons when it comes to gathering information about such incidents.

[Maude Charlee]

Shankill Mirror? :}

[MarkD]

No... Portadown News (http://www.portadownnews.com/15Aug05.htm) :ok: :D

[frequentflyer2]

Both wrong I'm afraid.