PDA

View Full Version : British Airways 777 diverts to Goose Bay - fumes in flight deck - FO incapacitated


FNFF
5th Feb 2013, 09:11
The Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System (CADORS) under Cadors Number: 2013A0105 reports that on 3 February 2013 as follows:

An emergency (Pan Pan) was declared by BAW67V, Boeing 777-200, enroute from London (EGLL) to Philadelphia (KPHL), due to an incapacitated first officer. The pilot also reported fumes in the flight deck that was limited to the flight deck, requested and was cleared to Goose Bay (CYYR). No landing assistance was required; however medical assistance was requested for the first officer. The aircraft landed without incident at 18:18Z.

More info go to:

Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System (CADORS) - Query (http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/cadors-screaq/qs.aspx?lang=eng)

Ambient Sheep
5th Feb 2013, 12:03
Interestingly, the report seems to have disappeared.

DouglasFlyer
5th Feb 2013, 14:08
@Ambient Sheep:

It's still there - just put in the CADORS-Number and hit the search button...

Astrax
5th Feb 2013, 14:27
Seems is is still at Goose Bay according to flightradar24 or at least hav not made it to other destination covered by flightradar24 yet. G-ZZZC was flying as BA188 (EWR-LHR) the night before. When tracking on flightradar24 it change from BAW67V to BAW67.

kotakota
5th Feb 2013, 16:52
Weather is shocking in Goose , not helping departure .

Ambient Sheep
5th Feb 2013, 18:48
@Ambient Sheep:

It's still there - just put in the CADORS-Number and hit the search button...

I did. It came back with no results, despite me double-checking the number. I then also searched for all reports since the 2nd February, and the reports stopped at 2013A0104. Hence me assuming that 2013A0105 had been pulled for some reason.

It works for me now though, so I'm glad to see that it's back. Apologies for the digression.

Lonewolf_50
5th Feb 2013, 19:42
In a jocular mode, perhaps the curry shouldn't have been quite so hot for the pre-flight meal? :}

On a more serious note, the brief summary does not indicate whether or not the Captain needed to don oxygen mask to complete flight.

Precautionary landing, hope all is well with the crew. :ok:

Dream Buster
5th Feb 2013, 19:55
Here is a copy of the incident if unable to access it:

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/news_and_articles/Emergency%20diversion%20details%20of%20a%20BA%20Boeing%20777 %20flight%20on%203%20February%202013.pdf

Never give up!

BARKINGMAD
5th Feb 2013, 22:05
Pity the poor skipper if the 777 is fitted with those awful "Eros" O2 masks.

Doubtless a lot of heavy breathing and if using one, (s)he would deafen and distract themselves with the racket every time a breath is taken.

There must be some fume events in real aircraft where comms, both internal and with external agencies, have been degraded and corrupted, yet the aircraft manufacturers and the certifying authorities insist on their fitment.

Bad enough in the simulator, but trying to switch the damn things off whilst inhaling in the real event, in an attempt to make comms clearer, must make one curse their designers and manufacturers.

The recent sad losses of freighters from inflight fires may have been adversely affected by these masks-does anyone know if the subsequent accident reports mentioned the disgraceful audio quality from inhalation noise?

But then it would be too expensive to change them for a properly designed off-the-peg O2 mask/audio combo, such as are fitted to most military aircraft.

Back yet again to "The Tombstone Imperative"! :ugh:

nitpicker330
6th Feb 2013, 07:10
Yes it is a pain but you can turn off the hot mic when you don't need to speak!!:ok:

BARKINGMAD
6th Feb 2013, 08:22
Granted nitpicker, I can flick the mic off when I want to inhale and reselect it active when I wish to speak. Many aircraft, same type, same company, different airframe, have latching mic switches and some which should have them don't. So I'll just try to remember which one it is I'm driving today as the instrument panel and everything else disappear in the choking smoke!

Great!! Is that the best DESIGN the industry can manage to enable those stressed and possibly already intoxicated to try to manage and operate the flight to a successful conclusion?

And if it's so good, why haven't the military, who use masks virtually 100% of the time in their fast pointy things, gone over to the same design??

No. I don't think so. You are accepting another unnecessary psycho-motor response to be deliberately added to the workload at exactly the time when the pilots' medical fitness may already be severely compromised and degraded!

Do our ATC colleagues have any feedback on comms quality during incidents which they have handled?

Maybe pause and think before transmitting a comment like that!? :mad:

BOAC
6th Feb 2013, 08:56
Indeed, BM, I suspect nitp has not actually tried to co-ordinate this switching dance in an emergency in a smoke-filled cockpit. I have, fortunately, only experienced it in the sim but found myself NOT talking when I wanted to but breathing very hard when I didn't need to broadcast that, and the extra work-load in having to constantly remember and make this selection was excessive and distracting.

nitpicker330
6th Feb 2013, 09:02
Granted I haven't done it in a smoke filled cockpit for real but I have done it many times in the Simulator. Using the Oxy whilst trying to read checklists, read the over head panel etc using glasses and then the distraction of the breathing through the speaker is a pain in the ass and I acknowledge the problem.

It certainly does increase the workload trying to remember to turn off the hot mic.....

Lord Spandex Masher
6th Feb 2013, 09:15
Why can't you just turn off the hot mic and use the column switch like normal? Or is the 777 different to every other aircraft in the world?

M.Mouse
6th Feb 2013, 09:41
At TOD into LGW with an empty B777 with just myself and my co-pilot on board we had to don oxygen masks and remained wearing them until after landing.

A couple of issues:

The deafening noise when breathing if the intercom is NOT switched off is a major distraction. Continually trying to co-ordinate breathing/talking and switching is an unwelcome distraction in a demanding situation.

Wearing the full face EROS mask is not something a pilot experiences very often and the isolation it engenders is quite a surprise. e.g. it is almost impossible to look face to face at your colleague, your communication is entirely conducted via the intercom. Not an impossible situation but one rarely experienced in the civilian world.

jet_737ng
6th Feb 2013, 10:01
It's suprising that manufacturers and airlines don't pay attention to small things like masks and communications . If they are capable in putting their engg degrees to put in cup holders in every nook definately they can design oxygen mask more user friendly .
Most flight crews can't manage comm in a sim situation with masks, dread to find myself in a situation where it's critical to wear your mask , get the right switch for O2 , get the smoke diffuser going and bark instructions to RHS....

direct ortac
6th Feb 2013, 10:21
Could this be another Oil vapor incident?

JW411
6th Feb 2013, 10:31
I cannot begin to tell you how many smoke drills I have conducted in the simulator. Despite a thorough briefing, a lot of people would keep forgetting to switch off their mike when not actually talking and give us all the benefit of their particular version of heavy breathing.

I could always tell when I had ex-military pilots in the front. They were much more disciplined simply because they had come from a background where as many as five crew members would be wearing oxygen masks and they had learned that without discipline, chaos would quickly ensue.

wiggy
6th Feb 2013, 10:52
Could this be another Oil vapor incident?

Don't know (yet ;)

Despite the fact that it's currently an "unknown" it's interesting to see how quickly Aerotoxic provided a link.......

ubreakemifixem
6th Feb 2013, 17:22
G-ZZZC has just landed at LHR looks like it was attended by a fleet of emergency vechiles.Hope everything is OK.

Astrax
6th Feb 2013, 20:41
The bird have landed in LHR today at 17:25 z as BAW9157. At least it have been safe to fly at FL410.

Count Niemantznarr
7th Feb 2013, 22:27
G-ZZZC veered of the centre line landing back at LHR. Caused a VS jet to go-round.

Richard J.
7th Feb 2013, 23:02
G-ZZZC veered of the centre line landing back at LHR. Caused a VS jet to go-round.

And various other diversions to runway 27L. 27R was apparently closed for nearly 20 minutes after the 777 landed.

bubbers44
9th Feb 2013, 23:00
I had fumes in the cabin and cockpit leaving MIA for Honduras, declared an emergency and returned. It was about a year after the Swissair crash off Halifax. It smelled like electrical smoke. I shut off all non essential busses and landed our major airliner using immediate action before checklist. Two weeks later our airline changed our procedure to what I did. Prior.to this it was a check list item. Swissair crashed because they delayed landing to dump fuel and didn't eliminate the source of the fire. The galley oven was the source of our problem even though we could smell the fumes on landing. I knew our procedures were the same as Swissair so made my own to protect our crew and passengers.

Airbubba
10th Feb 2013, 03:20
Granted nitpicker, I can flick the mic off when I want to inhale and reselect it active when I wish to speak. Many aircraft, same type, same company, different airframe, have latching mic switches and some which should have them don't

I think this latching switch is an old CAA/UK thing, I don't think many, if any, U.S. spec'ed airliners have it.

Pity the poor skipper if the 777 is fitted with those awful "Eros" O2 masks.

Doubtless a lot of heavy breathing and if using one, (s)he would deafen and distract themselves with the racket every time a breath is taken.

Most flight crews can't manage comm in a sim situation with masks, dread to find myself in a situation where it's critical to wear your mask , get the right switch for O2 , get the smoke diffuser going and bark instructions to RHS....

I agree, those O2 masks and the comm panels are a joke in the simulator, worse in the plane, and need to be improved.

FullWings
10th Feb 2013, 08:39
Having had a smoke incident on the 777 and been on O2 from shortly after rotation until shutdown on the ground, I have to agree that the masks could do with a bit of a re-design. Running the smoke and/or smoke removal checklist involves a fair amount of work on the overhead panel and coordinating that with breathing, etc. can be a bit of a game, especially if the ECL was obscured and you ended up with the QRH in one hand.

The major consideration was that I was glad to have a mask that fitted and was supplying 100% oxygen and for that purpose it worked excellently...

captplaystation
10th Feb 2013, 08:55
Going back to post #21, why did it veer off the centre-line after landing having completed a long flight with (assumedly) no crew incapacitation issues ? :confused: or this was a totally unrelated whoopsy that coincidentally involved the same airframe ?

BOAC
10th Feb 2013, 09:02
Accident: British Airways B772 over Atlantic on Feb 3rd 2013, first officer incapacitated due to fumes on flight deck (http://avherald.com/h?article=45d588a2&opt=0)

Dream Buster
10th Feb 2013, 09:26
Jet terror on day of our exclusive | UK | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/376677/Jet-terror-on-day-of-our-exclusive)

traction
10th Feb 2013, 10:45
@BUBBERS Wow, and you were single crew as well. Well done you :D

F Dolarhyde
11th Feb 2013, 00:40
Bubbers

Your statement on SR111 is wrong and disrespectful. These rumours went on for some years but professional pilots should read the investigation before they make judgements.

From the investigation:

"Based on these factors, it is evident that even if the pilots had attempted a minimum-time emergency diversion starting at 0114:18, it would have been impossible for the pilots to continue maintaining control of the aircraft for the amount of time necessary to reach the airport and complete a safe landing."

blind pew
12th Feb 2013, 17:15
You are correct - they didn't have time whatever anyone else says - had two mates who were on the aeropers team.
What you would need to ask is who was responsible for the design of the system and the materials.

Kristupito
12th Feb 2013, 20:08
I have one question... If pilot during the flight became's incapacitated, what happens to his career? Does he still can be a pilot?:confused: Can he still work as a commercial pilot after such an accident?

DozyWannabe
13th Feb 2013, 13:09
@F Dolarhyde/blind pew - correct.

The other crucial aspect was that the seat of the SR111 fire was in the IFE wiring bundle. It ran through the ceiling behind a panel and the thermal insulation blankets (which in turn caught light) - there was no practical way to get even hand-held fire suppression apparatus to the source of the fire.

Dream Buster
13th Feb 2013, 13:35
Kristupito,

Anybody exposed to toxic fumes, along with their medical providers should read this 2009 US funded advice - which refers to long term effects:

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/news_and_articles/Medicalprotocol031909.pdf

But many 'interested parties' insist there is 'no evidence' of ill health from toxic fumes in a confined space.

Sorry if i've already published this, but few seem to know about it.

Why would anybody make it all up?

JammedStab
13th Feb 2013, 20:38
Bubbers

Your statement on SR111 is wrong and disrespectful. These rumours went on for some years but professional pilots should read the investigation before they make judgements.

From the investigation:

"Based on these factors, it is evident that even if the pilots had attempted a minimum-time emergency diversion starting at 0114:18, it would have been impossible for the pilots to continue maintaining control of the aircraft for the amount of time necessary to reach the airport and complete a safe landing."

The investigation report did state what you posted, however, the accident did raise the question of whether it is a good idea when on fire, to delay landing in order to dump fuel. Something to consider.

deptrai
14th Feb 2013, 05:49
the question of whether it is a good idea when on fire, to delay landing in order to dump fuel. Something to consider.

or more generally...to what degree should (priorities?) - and even can (time constraints?) - checklists and ECAM actions be followed in an emergency.

SR111 could, as has been pointed out, not have been saved even with an immediate landing, but clearly the SR A/C smoke checklist was taking too much time to complete, and many checklists have been adapted to reflect this. Yet, the crew of US1549 did not have the luxury to ponder whether to complete various checklists while gliding and preparing to ditch, their aircraft simply didn't wait for checklist completion.

UA232 didn't have any checklists for complete loss of hydraulics and flight controls...

QF32...a torrent of ECAM actions, some of which contradict each other ( "aircraft CoG out of limits", asking to transfer fuel, and then "THS transfer not available").

The final report for QF32 isn't out yet I think (?), but I believe one of the lessons to take away - once again - is that while non-normal checklists and ECAM actions are extremely important tools, and can no doubt be further streamlined and improved, no standardized course of action can completely and safely resolve EVERY possible emergency situation.

square leg
14th Feb 2013, 06:53
Sometimes that which appears to be the smell of an electrical fire might just be an ACM that has packed up.

Propellerhead
19th Feb 2013, 13:20
Boeing QRH for smoke was amended after swissair crash to include:

Initiate a diversion to the nearest suitable airport
while continuing the checklist.

and

Consider an immediate landing if the smoke, fire or
fumes situation becomes uncontrollable.

and

If a smoke, fire or fumes situation becomes uncontrollable, the flight crew should consider an immediate landing. Immediate landing implies immediate diversion to a runway. However, in a severe situation, the flight crew should consider an overweight landing, a tailwind landing, an off-airport landing, or a ditching.

Cubs2jets
19th Feb 2013, 13:34
So, what is the outcome of this incident? What is the condition of the co-pilot? What as found to be the source of the fumes?

BOAC
19th Feb 2013, 14:27
Probably hyperventilation according to Bagshaw. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif

I'm sure Bagshaw will happily confirm that 100% Oxygen is the correct action in the event of hyperventilation..

Dream Buster
21st Feb 2013, 10:31
Relax everyone - here is BALPA's 'latest position' plus a challenging letter to BALPA from a hyperventilation expert...

BALPA Position on Cabin Air Quality (http://www.aerotoxic.org/news-and-articles/815-balpa-position-on-cabin-air-quality)