PDA

View Full Version : British Airways 747 diverts to Las Vegas - fumes in flight deck


AdamFlyer
16th Feb 2013, 10:04
A British Airways Boeing 747-400, registration G-CIVF performing flight BA-268 from LAX to LHR, was enroute at FL330 about 145nm southeast of Las Vegas when the crew donned their oxygen masks and diverted the aircraft to Las Vegas requesting medical assistance to await the aircraft, they had four crew members feeling unwell.

See:

British Airways plane makes emergency landing in Las Vegas - www.ktnv.com (http://www.ktnv.com/news/local/191416201.html)

seat 0A
16th Feb 2013, 14:54
That would be the second one in a short time for BA.
What's going on there? Activism or a BA restricted fume-problem?

Mr A Tis
16th Feb 2013, 14:55
BA longhaul fleet seem to be having a run of bad luck.
This div on top of the 777 diverting into Goose bay the other day with a "similar" problem.
Right now, B744 GBYGC LHR-SEA has been doing some orbits & appears heading out to Clacton, presumably a return to LHR is on the cards.

Hand Solo
16th Feb 2013, 14:59
That would be the second one in a short time for BA.
What's going on there? Activism or a BA restricted fume-problem?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

misd-agin
16th Feb 2013, 15:00
FlightAware (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW268/history/20130215/0440Z/KLAX/KLAS)


The flight path is even more puzzling. Looks like they started to return to LAX and then diverted to LAS, which was farther away then LAX at the time. :confused:

misd-agin
16th Feb 2013, 15:07
As mentioned BA 49 LHR-SEA is now holding east of London along the eastern coastline.

Airborne 1:10 ago and holding east along the coast. SEA is not in the cards today.

bhx bod
16th Feb 2013, 15:17
AdamFlyer.
Can,t answer your question but showing on FR24 right now(16:12 16/02/13) is BAW49 currently doing a series of turns out on the coast near Clacton.
I first noticed it circling over Milton Keynes and Northampton @FL90.
It then headed south then east which at that point i thought it was heading back to LHR.Obviously not going to SEA any time soon.
Anybody know anything?

bhx bod
16th Feb 2013, 15:20
misd-agin.
Sorry didn,t see your post.

Dannyboy39
16th Feb 2013, 15:24
Wouldn't it have made more sense to divert to Phoenix?

SLATS_EXTEND
16th Feb 2013, 16:04
That flight track to KLAS may have been due to dumping fuel in the desert areas before proceeding with a max wt landing.

I arrived shortly after BA had blocked into the international terminal. Many emergency vehicles around the area.

As of yesterday, the 747-400 was parked on a remote cargo ramp

Akrapovic
16th Feb 2013, 16:49
Wouldn't it have made more sense to divert to Phoenix?


The logic being . . . ?

Dream Buster
17th Feb 2013, 21:39
Second BA jet in 'toxic fumes' scare forced to make emergency landing | UK | News | Daily Express (http://www.sundayexpress.co.uk/news/uk/378192/Second-BA-jet-in-toxic-fumes-scare-forced-to-make-emergency-landing)

Dannyboy39
18th Feb 2013, 17:10
The logic being . . . ?
The logic being it was closer to Phoenix than Las Vegas when the commander initiated the turn back, although I suppose there are more onward travel options from LAS than PHX - British Airways and Virgin Atlantic to Heathrow and Gatwick plus other UK tour operators and other Oneworld partners to the other North American hubs.

I gather there was quite a sizeable fuel dump over the desert anyway.

Hotel Tango
18th Feb 2013, 18:31
Wouldn't it have made more sense to divert to Phoenix?

Absolutely. Let's face it, these BA Captains are just bus drivers and haven't got a clue what they're doing flying an aeroplane. It's a pity you weren't on board to advise them. BA would have been grateful.

SMT Member
19th Feb 2013, 10:17
+1 for the above poster.

toxic-avenger
19th Feb 2013, 10:26
Chaps, i think we are missing the point here. Lets not focus on what in essence is a standard procedure (diversion). Think about how many passengers and crew have yet AGAIN been exposed to toxic chemicals and are now at risk of long term health problems. How many children and pregnant woman were on this flight?

Dream Buster
19th Feb 2013, 12:09
Toxic - avenger,

Here is the first published paper on Aerotoxic Syndrome:

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/reports_and_evidence/ICOH_2000_Paper.pdf

Date: 4-6 September 2000

Illness from breathing toxic fumes in a confined space is not new....but when are aircrew and passengers going to demand the known solutions?

Good luck to the airline which introduces the solutions!

Craggenmore
19th Feb 2013, 15:35
Had these planes recently been in the hangar...........

Roll on the 380.

lomapaseo
19th Feb 2013, 17:38
Think about how many passengers and crew have yet AGAIN been exposed to toxic chemicals and are now at risk of long term health problems. How many children and pregnant woman were on this flight?

as long as your thinking, why stop there.

Think about all the incidents in the past 50 years of flight that have involved toxic fumes of one sort or the other and think about all the crews and passengers aboard who have subsequently died that could be blamed on association with those fumes.

Data for the zealots is in the numbers, not the scientific proof .

Dream Buster
19th Feb 2013, 18:52
http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/reports_and_evidence/MackenzieRoss%20Harper%20Burdon%202006.pdf

Here is a University College London paper from 2006 estimating that:

(Top of page 523.)


".......recorded a total of 72 flights experiencing
contaminated air. Given the low reporting rate of
3.66%, this could indicate that up to 1,967 flights in
the UK may have experienced contaminated air
events during 2004. If a modest passenger number
of 100 per flight is assumed, over 196,000
passengers could potentially present to general
physicians with symptoms of acute toxicity."

~ 500 a day.

The numbers game is impossible with no toxic air detection systems - remember, that's how the airlines want it....

And the doctors can't work out why their anti-depressants aren't working.

toxic-avenger
19th Feb 2013, 18:56
Yes I agree, people die from many causes. Including inhalation of cabin air.

Gauges and Dials
20th Feb 2013, 20:07
This (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2279678/Holding-wind-flights-bad-body-claims-scientists-suggest-flatulence-absorbing-solutions.html)well-researched and scientifically literate article from the Daily Mail might shed a little light on the origins and effects of fumes encountered onboard aircraft.

Fargoo
21st Feb 2013, 00:54
http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/do...don%202006.pdf

Here is a University College London paper from 2006 estimating that:

(Top of page 523.)


Quote:
".......recorded a total of 72 flights experiencing
contaminated air. Given the low reporting rate of
3.66%, this could indicate that up to 1,967 flights in
the UK may have experienced contaminated air
events during 2004. If a modest passenger number
of 100 per flight is assumed, over 196,000
passengers could potentially present to general
physicians with symptoms of acute toxicity."
~ 500 a day.

The numbers game is impossible with no toxic air detection systems - remember, that's how the airlines want it....

And the doctors can't work out why their anti-depressants aren't working.

Is there such a system that could be installed on the market? We were told when these fume events started appearing in great numbers that the PPM of the particles was so small that they could not be detected.

As for filters, are there any on the market that could filter out these harmful fumes. I doubt it. We have high quality HEPA filters on all of our aircraft but they don't filter out smells.

Is there really a conspiracy? Have hundreds of airline employees been systematically hiding evidence of physical damage to their flight crews or is it a small number of individuals that are unfortunately very sensitive to these events?

It's an interesting subject and one I'd particularly like to see put to bed properly one way or another.

Unfortunately sloppy research like that quoted above does nothing to further this subject. Extrapolation like that is pure fantasy. I'm sure if there were 500 people a day reporting to GPs with acute symptoms it would become obvious to everyone what the cause was. Or are you suggesting all patients with depression have been poisoned on board an aircraft?

Dream Buster
21st Feb 2013, 07:45
Fargoo,

It is reckoned that about 30% of the population are vulnerable and 3% are extremely vulnerable - a minority.

Sloppy research? UCL is a top notch UK University which has been studying this issue for 10 years but have not been helped and currently lack further funding - I wonder why?

Cranfield University, who are funded by the Aero$pace indu$try, were asked to measure a fume event in 2007 by The House of Lords.

By 2011 they had eventually identified all of the neurotoxins, but incredibly had not measured a single fume event....

Aircraft Cabin Air Quality: 10 May 2011: Hansard Written Answers and Statements - TheyWorkForYou (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2011-05-10b.35WS.1)

This was despite being advised exactly how to fill a BAe 146 with visible oil fumes, on the ground (for ease of testing) in 2007.

A 'fume event' and something I and others have witnessed many, many times.

Don't worry, there's only a little bit of poison in the cabin air today - Learmount (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/learmount/2011/05/dont-worry-theres-only-a-littl.html)

This is the report which the Governments and industry are now using to say 'it's all ok.'


Meantime 'expert' aviation doctors are not accepting Aerotoxic Syndrome, so what chance have GP's and passengers got in a 10 minute consultation?

How come breathing tobacco smoke is death, but oil smoke is safe?

How do they get away with it. I guess you've heard of the shenanigans with horsement?

Conspiracy? - When the history of the world is written - No question.

Fargoo
21st Feb 2013, 12:36
Thanks for the honest reply. I hope there isn't a giant conspiracy as you suspect.

What would you like to see done given that you don't trust the current aviation experts to investigate this properly?

Dream Buster
21st Feb 2013, 16:58
Fargoo,

A conspiracy is 'a secret plan or agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal or subversive act' - so here we have medical and legal 'professionals' preventing the following statement from being accepted - causing untold misery for many, but as it's a key industry - Governments are also conspiring:

"Exposure to oil fumes in a confined space can cause ill health"

This means that they have been blatantly ignoring:


Basic Health and Safety rules.


Genuine testimonies from aircrew and passengers.


Published accepted science.


Previous High Court judgements.


The future is:



Accepting the above, which would result in correct Diagnosisís and treatments, saving both health and money.


Adopting known solutions - B787, Toxic air detectors etc


Free and open public debate - at present the mass media appear to be gagged from even mentioning the word AEROTOXIC. Yet everything else seems to be toxic....


Educating aircrew and passengers that invisible oil fumes can do serious harm.


Emerging scientific tests - which are already proving the cause of illness 'Beyond reasonable doubt'.


Winning by natural competition - a brave airline which promotes 'clean air' and accepts responsibility for their staff and customers. Short term pain for long term gain.


Forcing any dubious doctors, CEO's, scientists to be repeatedly exposed to visible oil fumes in a confined space on the ground - so that they can demonstrate to their shareholders their faith in their (mistaken) opinion - that oil fumes are somehow not dangerous, whilst other smoke is universally accepted as - deadly.


Stop lawyers from Judging cases before they even get to Court - leave it to Judges and juries.


The health and safety of our children.

BRE
22nd Feb 2013, 07:34
Fargoo,

yes, it is possible to catch and analyse oil fumes. I work for a company that makes precision optics. Hydrocarbons may be cracked by UV light and deposit on lens and mirror surfaces. We have been hunting for outgassing components for more than a decade. Typically, we let some of the purge air flow through a tube that is filled with a high surface area mineral. The, offline, the tube is heated with a slow ramp, and the substances that are released from the mineral filling are analysed with a gas chromatograph.

Lufthansa is participating in a study where they are installing monitors on some planes. This announcement (unfortunately in German but with google translation at the bottom) is from 2012, pertinent sections are F and I:
http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/17%2012%2012%20Cabin%20Air%20Quality%20Lufthansa%20Thema%20T CP.pdf

I believe I read somewhere that they have installed the sensors by now but can't find the link right now.

It is intesting to see that the Lufthansa CP acknowledges known problems with RR power plants in the 346 (solved) and 380 (being addressed).


As for filtering, hepa filters have a hard time catching particles in the 100 to 300 nm range which would be the size of a larghish oil droplet but they do achieve this, depending on what filter class is used and how much loss of space and increase in flow resistance can be accepted.

Fargoo
22nd Feb 2013, 15:39
Excellent thanks DB and BRE :ok:

SLF3
22nd Feb 2013, 16:29
Read somewhere the 787 was to have electrically driven air compressors for cabin air, which, assuming the bearings were not lubricated with oil containing organo-phosphates, would solve the problem. Did this happen, or was it too hard?

As long as engines use organo-phosphate containing oils and cabin air is a bleed from the engine this problem will not go away.

Dream Buster
22nd Feb 2013, 19:10
SLF3,

Correct.

That's why:


Boeing changed back to compressed outside air (as on the B707) in around 1999 - ironically EXACTLY when Aerotoxic Syndrome was identified.

Everyone wants to fly the 787 in the future.

Boeing have record orders - 950?



Boeing 787 Dreamliner: "Cleaner air" - YouTube

It's still incredible to hear so called 'experts' say that the main reason for the change is for 'fuel economy etc'.

The absolute reason is to simply not poison the crews and customers; but they obviously can't EVER admit that.....

Capt_Tech
13th Mar 2013, 19:16
Dodgy maintenance by engineers cause aero toxic syndrome

NSEU
14th Mar 2013, 01:04
Dodgy maintenance by engineers cause aero toxic syndrome

:{

How to win friends and influence people?

flyawaybird
14th Mar 2013, 04:04
Seat 0A
"Better a thousand times careful than once dead" (Proverb)
Or better still, "Safety is cheap and effective insurance policy"(anonymous)
And as they say, "Better safe than sorry".
Does this makes sense?