British Airways flight diverted to YVR after passengers suffer smoke inhalation [Archive]

Airbubba

25th Oct 2016, 14:19

BBC seems to need a spotter on the books.

BBC NEWS (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37761980)

We do have some serious spotters here that the BBC could use. ;)

Looks like the plane was G-XLEB, an A380-841.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/g-xleb#b697f10

Here's the predictable lede from the Sun:

PANIC AT 30,000FT British Ariways [sic ;)] flight BA286 pilots among 25 crew rushed to Vancouver hospital for smoke inhalation after emergency landing

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2045923/passengers-and-crew-of-british-airlines-flight-rushed-to-hospital-for-smoke-inhalation-after-emergency-declared/

YRP

25th Oct 2016, 14:29

MarkD

25th Oct 2016, 14:59

Perhaps YYC 17L/35R was out of limits at the time. The initial course correction seemed to head in YYC's direction before a second change towards YVR. Seems odd to head back over the Rockies otherwise.

peekay4

25th Oct 2016, 15:02

Initial reports of smoke inhalation may have been false.

Looks like they initially decided to divert to Calgary, but due to marginal weather conditions there at the time (same with Edmonton) the crew elected to continue to Vancouver.

sudden twang

25th Oct 2016, 15:48

I don't get it. They ignored or nearly overflew Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton, Spokane, Great Falls, even Moose Jaw.

Are these really incapable of handling a 380 in an emergency or was only fresh Pacific sea air going to resuscitate them?

And only crew were affected? Seems unlikely somehow?
Do you know the precise location of the aircraft when it initiated its diversion to YVR?
Moose Jaw? A bit unfair to question a crews decision unless you have all of the facts. I can think of 10 reasons off the top of my head why I'd rule out Moose Jaw in a 380.
No charts and nothing in the FMGC are two. It's quite possible the crew have never heard of Moose Jaw let alone know it has a runway.

Airbubba

25th Oct 2016, 16:29

Listening to the CZEG 0430Z and 0500Z tapes over at liveatc.net you can hear the controller clearing aircraft from the path of the A380 as it dumps fuel at FL370. He says he needs the other planes to be at least 6000 feet below or 3000 feet above the dumping aircraft.

Speedbird Six Bravo Super checks in with a Pan Pan Pan. The controller is a Francophone and has trouble with the Speedbird Etonian accent.

I have trouble with both accents. ;)

Is Speedbird Six Bravo the normal enroute radio callsign of BA 286?

When asked the nature of the problem Speedbird says a 'fume event' which the controller misunderstands as a 'fuel event'. Further discussion clarifies that description and the controller asks if they want to go to YEG or YYC. Speedbird says there is more support and better handling for the A380 at YVR. And too many lawyers in SEA would be my guess. :)

The controller tries to get more information, confirms that they are Pan Pan Pan but no real emergency as he put it.

When asked what assistance they need on arrival, Speedbird says they need paramedics to meet the aircraft at the gate. They say eleven 'crewmembers' are 'directly affected' by the fumes and a few pax. A little later they say eleven to twelve people total max.

They emphasize that they are fine on the flight deck but will do a fumes on aircraft procedure on arrival.

Souls on board was given as 432 and later as 433 and the estimated landing fuel was 54 tonnes.

After checking, the controller said to plan 08R at YVR (it turned out to be 08L, I'm shocked :)).

Listening to the 0600Z CYVR tapes, on checkin with approach they request full length as one might expect with a heavy divert. But, there is no Pan Pan Pan or other explicit mention of urgency.

The pilot on the radio was perhaps on the O2 mask from the sound, probably part of the fumes on aircraft drill.

They were vectored for an ILS to 08L, exited M5 and held to be checked out by the emergency vehicles, then taxied M, J, JA, to Gate 64.

During the checkout at M5 Speedbird was switched temporarily to 126.75 to talk directly to the ground vehicles.

cairnshouse

25th Oct 2016, 16:37

Do you know the precise location of the aircraft when it initiated its diversion to YVR?
Moose Jaw? A bit unfair to question a crews decision unless you have all of the facts. I can think of 10 reasons off the top of my head why I'd rule out Moose Jaw in a 380.
No charts and nothing in the FMGC are two. It's quite possible the crew have never heard of Moose Jaw let alone know it has a runway.
And had something more than a cottage hospital given that this was really a medical rather than an aviation problem.

evansb

25th Oct 2016, 16:45

Moose Jaw is a Military Aerodrome and not routinely open during those hours.

strake

25th Oct 2016, 17:11

BBC now reporting:

'Twenty-five crew members went to local hospitals as a precaution but were later discharged, said BA spokeswoman Michele Kropf.
The crew were not treated for smoke inhalation as reported, she said.
The airline did not say what the cause of the problem was or what their symptoms were.'

DaveReidUK

25th Oct 2016, 17:14

Is Speedbird Six Bravo the normal enroute radio callsign of BA 286?

Yes.

Many BA flights, and those of other airlines, use alphanumerics to minimise potential callsign confusion.

India Four Two

25th Oct 2016, 17:19

Do you know the precise location of the aircraft when it initiated its diversion to YVR?

Here's the track.

Preon

25th Oct 2016, 17:34

Do you know the precise location of the aircraft when it initiated its diversion to YVR?
Moose Jaw? A bit unfair to question a crews decision unless you have all of the facts. I can think of 10 reasons off the top of my head why I'd rule out Moose Jaw in a 380.
No charts and nothing in the FMGC are two. It's quite possible the crew have never heard of Moose Jaw let alone know it has a runway.

What diversion fields are available to BA A380's over Canada if any?
Doesn't this aircraft require more wing room?

pineridge

25th Oct 2016, 17:54

Preon said..."..Having spoken to the Captain (on a Vancouver bound) A380 there's evidently no diversion field available to the BA380's over Canada other than Vancouver"

So if a BA 380 does a missed approach at YYZ, for example, they must divert to YVR?
Interesting.

lederhosen

25th Oct 2016, 18:01

It depends how you define a suitable airfield for a diversion. A380s fly regularly to YVR so maintenance and possibly additional crew members might be available. It seems a reasonable plan if you are not sure all of your crew will be fit to continue. Also might be a familiar airfield for the A 380 crew. I had a potential diversion (passenger sick) last week and that was certainly a factor we discussed. If there is no immediate danger in flying a bit further, this might be the best solution for the passengers.

Permafrost_ATPL

25th Oct 2016, 18:08

So if a BA 380 does a missed approach at YYZ, for example, they must divert to YVR?

There are a few suitable airports across the border that would be more practical than YVR :)

Because of taxi/gate/runway restrictions, A380 operators provide their crews with categories of airport to consider for diversion. Broadly:

a) Any time
b) Not ideal but you'll get off the runway and be able to park somewhere and takeoff again. Passenger handling might be very cumbersome.
c) Only if the proverbial excrement hits the fan, as you might not be able to get off the runway, park or takeoff again. But you'll land safely.

Medical facilities will also be categorised to help the diversion decision making process.

ExXB

25th Oct 2016, 18:22

Many years ago a NW B747 enroute to TYO diverted to CYXJ (Ft. St. John) due to medical. Ground staff used fork lift to get on top of a scissor lift catering truck (used for CP's B737-200s) to access passenger door.

Where there is a will there is a way.

Kelowna Flightcraft likely have stairs that would reach at YLW, if that had become necessary.

kgoodall

25th Oct 2016, 19:00

Not BA but I've seen an Emirates A380 divert to Ottawa before.

evansb

25th Oct 2016, 19:08

There is sufficient runway length and ramp space at Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary to handle A380 ops.

Kelowna's runway length for take-off would be marginal, as would manoeuvring on the ramp. Regarding width, the A380 is approved for 150' wide runways, but 200' wide runways are
preferable.

For Polar routes, in an emergency, Whitehorse and Churchill are doe-able. Yellowknife not so much.

n5296s

25th Oct 2016, 19:16

Many years ago a NW B747 enroute to TYO diverted to CYXJ
And an AF 777 diverted to Churchill (CYYQ) in 2002 - search for "air france churchill" - due to smoke. Churchill normally never sees anything with more than a couple of dozen seats and has no air stairs. They eventually got the pax off with a fork lift.

I once asked a BA 747 captain about diversions, after we had gone into Goose Bay with a medical issue (on this very same BA286, though it was a 747 then). He said "in a real emergency we can get a 747 into a 5000 foot runway, though we may not get it out again".

Back to the topic, I was wondering what has happened to the aircraft? Flightaware shows no movement CYVR-EGLL with a 380?

notapilot15

25th Oct 2016, 19:20

Management doesn't want you to divert to a remote station where they have to pay market prices for passenger accommodation, food, amenities, airport and mx charges. Take it back to where we have negotiated rock bottom prices.

lederhosen

25th Oct 2016, 19:24

I once ended up in Val d'or on a diversion. My canadian friends tried to correct me that it was actually called Dorval.....but it wasn't and they had a forklift too.

evansb

25th Oct 2016, 19:31

Oui, Val-d'Or, Quebec. 10,000 foot runway. 767 Freighters operate in (and out) of CYVO. Curious, what type of aircraft diverted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val-d%27Or_Airport

lederhosen

25th Oct 2016, 19:40

B767 after lightning strike on approach into Ottawa with Toronto and Montreal reporting CBs. One of the Diefenbacher air force bases, good runway....not a lot else there but trees.

giggitygiggity

25th Oct 2016, 19:41

Perhaps it's runway strength issues that stops the A380 selecting a wider range of alternates. She aint light!

Grizzz

25th Oct 2016, 20:06

ExXB

25th Oct 2016, 20:21

BA have been operating the A380 into YVR for some time now. If you are on Lulu Island, I'm surprised you haven't seen one.

Think they revert to a 744 for the winter but sked shows A380s next summer.

Jet Jockey A4

25th Oct 2016, 20:23

Montreal (CYUL) is also suitable for the A380 because Air France use to operate into Montreal.

YVRLTN

25th Oct 2016, 21:06

YVR did upgrade the south runway specifically for the 380 a few years back. Kelowna does get the odd An-124, not sure what the weight difference is btwn 380 & 124 tho...BA is about to commence the first 380 service to YVR, maybe a little practice was in order. Local news reports only crew members went to hospital, interesting.
Apart from the inaugural, it has always used the north runway for landings AFAIK, incl last night.

It is parked on remote stand all day today. The stories are really conflicting as to what happened, the most common seems to be food poisoning or some sort of sickness that affected many of the cabin crew - they were sent to hospital but have been discharged today. Another rumour is she is ferrying back to LHR empty and pax are being rerouted back during today by various means, incl via SEA.

procede

25th Oct 2016, 21:07

There are a few suitable airports across the border that would be more practical than YVR :)

Paine field? ;-)

rotornut

25th Oct 2016, 22:44

For Polar routes, in an emergency, Whitehorse and Churchill are doe-able. Also Iqualuit where they cold tested the 380:
Frobisher Bay Touchdown Services (http://www.frobisherbaytouchdown.com/index.php/component/content/article?id=26)

SeenItAll

25th Oct 2016, 23:17

evansb

25th Oct 2016, 23:24

Ah yes, The Crimson East Route.. Frobisher Bay, CYFB, indeed! Good airport and pleasant staff. My previous posts were restricting my responses and expertise to the western half of The Dominion..

Re the BA A380 diversion, curious why only cabin staff were shuffled off to A&E (Emergency)..the mystery deepens.

Re Paine Field/Everett Washington (KPAE): I get the satire and irony. The airport control tower (and other ops) closes after 21:00 hrs local. Passenger facilities and Customs would have been severely taxed.. But yes, it would have been ironic to have the A380 land at Boeing's home turf.

Airbubba

25th Oct 2016, 23:30

TV news in the states reporting PAX interviews that only the flight and/or cabin crew went to the hospital. No PAX involved. Further, some interviewed PAX were peeved that evidently all cabin crew left the plane before any PAX. Still quite mysterious as to the cause.

This seems to be consistent with what the pilots told Edmonton Center well over an hour before landing. They seemed to think that a couple of pax would need to be checked out but all of the casualties were 'crewmembers'.

From my gist of the ATC comms posted above:

When asked what assistance they need on arrival, Speedbird says they need paramedics to meet the aircraft at the gate. They say eleven 'crewmembers' are 'directly affected' by the fumes and a few pax. A little later they say eleven to twelve people total max.

They emphasize that they are fine on the flight deck but will do a fumes on aircraft procedure on arrival.

fatbus

26th Oct 2016, 04:25

Yyz and Yed can both handle a diversion. Non land ASAP could result in a large amount of fuel dump and in that time Yvr became a more viable option.

misd-agin

26th Oct 2016, 13:31

How do they separate the air the cabin crew breathes from the air the passengers breath?

core_dump

26th Oct 2016, 13:57

How do they separate the air the cabin crew breathes from the air the passengers breath?

The air is the same, but the cabin crew are given a substance that makes them hyper-sensitive to oh-so-deadly cabin fumes. The name of that substance is "union".

peekay4

26th Oct 2016, 14:03

Could be some sort of mass hysteria event... where a couple of the cabin crew genuinely felt ill (could be due to anything, such as a real or perceived fume event) -- then the rest of the cabin crew thought they must be unwell too as they must have been similarly exposed.

vapilot2004

26th Oct 2016, 14:09

The air is the same, but the cabin crew are given a substance that makes them hyper-sensitive to oh-so-deadly cabin fumes. The name of that substance is "union".

Funny but in this case, crap, me thinks Core Dump.

Airbubba

26th Oct 2016, 16:47

The air is the same, but the cabin crew are given a substance that makes them hyper-sensitive to oh-so-deadly cabin fumes. The name of that substance is "union".

Could be some sort of mass hysteria event... where a couple of the cabin crew genuinely felt ill (could be due to anything, such as a real or perceived fume event) -- then the rest of the cabin crew thought they must be unwell too as they must have been similarly exposed.

I hesitate to read too much into the pilot's calm demeanor while explaining the situation to Edmonton Center. However, my first blush impression listening to the liveatc.net recordings was that there was mild skepticism on the flight deck of the need for a divert.

I've certainly seen thinly disguised 'let's make a deal' union job actions done with 'safety' as a justification. As in 'we're going to call fatigued for the next sector unless the company drops next week's trip and gives us four hours of premium pay'.

Ian W

26th Oct 2016, 16:52

Airbubba

26th Oct 2016, 17:13

Perhaps totally coincidental but here's a news item from a few weeks ago:

British Airways cabin crew have voted for industrial action, but have stopped short of going on strike in the first dispute between the airline and its flight attendants since the bitter battles of 2010.

Members of the 8,800-strong British Airlines Stewards and Stewardesses Association (BASSA), a section of the country’s largest trade union Unite, backed action short of a strike, with 91% of votes returned in favour.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/17/british-airways-ba-cabin-crew-vote-industrial-action-no-strike

Whatever the cause, will some sort of safety report be publically issued since medical attention was requested in this case?

Or, will the details disappear into some internal company file citing 'privacy issues' and 'pending litigation'?

FlyingCanuk

26th Oct 2016, 17:25

CBC pax interviews state that the cabin crew took their bags and left the A/C on arrival at the gate. Pax were left onboard to fend for themselves.
Quite odd, and contrary to Regs if this is the case, to leave 400 plus pax onboard an A380 with no crew, especially if fumes on board suspected??

British Airways flight diverted to Vancouver after cabin crew becomes ill - British Columbia - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/british-columbia/emergency-landing-vancouver-1.3820082)

wiggy

26th Oct 2016, 17:33

FWIW these day's BASSA don't represent a significant number of the cabin crew in BA.

(Anyone know if this was a mixed fleet service?)

Or, will the details disappear into some internal company file citing 'privacy issues' and 'pending litigation'?

As I understand it a report (MOR) was filed with the UK national authorities, not just BA so if all else fails the UK's CAA should publish something at some point.....

tsgas

26th Oct 2016, 18:41

YVR makes sense when you consider that the pax and crew would have to clear Canada Customs and Immigration upon arrival and YVR is set up to clear a plane load of international travellers. Therefore Moose Jaw would be off the wall to begin with. Flying the extra distance to YVR would burn off fuel so the landing weight would be reduced. it's a judgement call and a lot of factors go into the final decision.

Then again , I can't fault the crew , for wanting to stay away from Londonstan for an extra day or two.

core_dump

26th Oct 2016, 18:46

As the crew rest area in the a380 is downstairs it might allow pooling of fumes from cleaning, disinfecting or insecticide that might affect the first 'off duty' team down there.

Perhaps, but such fumes rarely affect all people at the same speed; not all at once. If you're down there in the romper room and detect a strong odor and then one of your coworkers begins to become ill, are you going to stay down there sitting on your thumb until the last person keels over? All of you? Naw. I'd expect them to have enough common sense to move to safer air with only a few being affected badly enough to require a look-over.

Maybe one FA was a bit under the weather for legitimate reasons and had a good yack in his/her bunk. That could certainly set off a chain reaction, but it still doesn't explain the trip to hospital.

ph-sbe

26th Oct 2016, 18:48

The air is the same, but the cabin crew are given a substance that makes them hyper-sensitive to oh-so-deadly cabin fumes. The name of that substance is "union".

It is highly unfair to accuse the cabin crew of a willful action to disrupt a transatlantic flight for hundreds of passengers, especially when there is a high probability that there was an actual medical problem. It's even worse because the cabin crew are not in a position to defend themselves to this (at this point) ridiculous accusation.

Don't forget that the media is also reading on this forum. We don't need The Sun to have a headline which says "CREW ON BA FLIGHT WAS LIKELY FAKING ILLNESS, ACCORDING TO PROFESSIONAL PILOTS".

rondun

26th Oct 2016, 19:09

Probably not the best of ideas to post it in all caps then ...

baopsman

26th Oct 2016, 19:48

No fault found with the aircraft so far which positions back to LHR overnight 26OCT without cabin crew.

Dream Buster

26th Oct 2016, 20:10

Journalist Philip Whiteley & public cabin air quality Correspondence following BA 286 fume event with Dame Hutton, Chair of the Civil Aviation Authority - 26th October 2016 - PUBLIC INTEREST, PLEASE REPORT & SHARE... - Aerotoxic Association (http://aerotoxic.org/information/journalist-philip-whiteley-public-cabin-air-quality-correspondence-following-ba-286-fume-event-dame-hutton-chair-civil-aviation-authority-26th-october-2016-public-interest-please-r/)

An interesting public exchange today between a professional scientific writer and Chair of CAA concerning this flight.

lomapaseo

26th Oct 2016, 20:16

An interesting public exchange today between a professional scientific writer and Chair of CAA concerning this flight.

So there is no evidence that it is related to the engines.

that ought to narrow it down

SeenItAll

26th Oct 2016, 21:12

Interesting that the crew apparently were well enough to collect their luggage before deplaning ahead of the PAX. Kind of like PAX taking hand baggage during an emergency evacuation. It seems clear that much more exists to this story than is currently being revealed.

I was also struck by the letter given to PAX as they arrived at YVR seen in this link British Airways flight diverted to Vancouver after cabin crew becomes ill - British Columbia - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/emergency-landing-vancouver-1.3820082) It tells them that their first opportunity to rebook would be by calling BA beginning at 0400 YVR time. Why is this? Is it because BA does not maintain a 24-hour call center for such issues? In any event, this is brutal. You are dumped in YVR at 2330 local. If you are lucky, you will only be getting into bed at a hotel by 0200 -- and if you want to be first in line for rebooking, you need to wake up at 0400.

I had thought that US airlines were the champions of nongraceful service recovery. But if this is correct, BA would appear to be a strong contender for the title.

notapilot15

26th Oct 2016, 21:59

evansb

26th Oct 2016, 23:05

dartmoorman

26th Oct 2016, 23:25

Nth degree journo investigation - another LiO battery incident perhaps ?
Journalist Philip Whiteley & public cabin air quality Correspondence following BA 286 fume event with Dame Hutton, Chair of the Civil Aviation Authority - 26th October 2016 - PUBLIC INTEREST, PLEASE REPORT & SHARE... - Aerotoxic Association (http://aerotoxic.org/information/journalist-philip-whiteley-public-cabin-air-quality-correspondence-following-ba-286-fume-event-dame-hutton-chair-civil-aviation-authority-26th-october-2016-public-interest-please-r/)

Coochycool

26th Oct 2016, 23:36

So let me get this straight.

Allegedly, the Cabin Crew reported a trumped up in flight emergency to the flightdeck?

Which provoked an unnecessary divert?

Whereupon landing, they promptly abandoned their pax?

Surely there must also have been onboard announcements to pax to "explain" the divert? Were they advised it was a cabin air issue?

In which case the CC deplaning ahead of anybody else must have left any half knowledgable pax dumbfounded.

If I'd been onboard and next to an overwing exit I might have been tempted to pull the hatch just for extra added f@*kedupness.

Just to keep the lawyers happy, you understand.

I do hope they get royally sh@fted if that is the case.

misd-agin

27th Oct 2016, 00:47

The numbers are consistent with some kind of fume release in the rear-crew rest area. Is it possible that something went wrong there and assistants from unaffected attendants who descended into the area also got sick. Only those pax close to the crew rest area entrance may have been affected.
As the crew rest area in the a380 is downstairs it might allow pooling of fumes from cleaning, disinfecting or insecticide that might affect the first 'off duty' team down there.

So every F/A went down into the rest area? Otherwise only the one's that went on break would have been affected.

To have F/A's go on break meant that the entire meal service and clean up was accomplished. That should be easy enough for a passenger to comment on.

tdracer

27th Oct 2016, 00:59

Also Iqualuit where they cold tested the 380:Good luck putting up 500 passengers there. :rolleyes:
I was there for a 747-8F test, the Boeing test crew (~50 people) nearly booked up the whole town. :=

Airbubba

27th Oct 2016, 01:07

Dame Deidre Hutton of the CAA offers this early update on the incident in a reply to 'journalist' Philip Whiteley posted on a link listed above:

Regarding this particular event, we will receive the results of BA’s investigation and will await that report to see if there if further action required. Despite what has been reported in the media, this was not a ‘smoke event’ and passengers were not affected. Initial reports indicate that the event was highly localised within the aircraft (hence only some cabin crew affected and not the passengers). Whilst in no way excluding the possibility and noting that the investigation is ongoing, it appears highly likely that this event was NOT due to bleed air.

Whiteley seems to be an 'activist' for telling the 'truth' about 'fume events' causing 'aerotoxic syndrome':

Fume Events - Aerotoxic Association (http://aerotoxic.org/fume-events/)

This stuff looks like Chemtrails Area 51 conspiracy nonsense to me. :rolleyes:

BA 286 did use the term 'fume event' while talking with Edmonton.

evansb

27th Oct 2016, 01:48

The "fume event" could be traced to a Nob Hill brassiere serving the cabin staff a garbanzo, quinoa and kale salad earlier in the day. Sort of a fraternitas flatulance if you will..

FYI tdracer: Whitehorse, Churchill, Goose Bay, Frobisher Bay and Val-d'Or were referenced only as EMERGENCY A380 aerodromes. I still think a Paine Field A380 diversion would be kinda funny..

tdracer

27th Oct 2016, 03:36

FYI tdracer: Whitehorse, Churchill, Goose Bay, Frobisher Bay and Val-d'Or were referenced only as EMERGENCY A380 aerodromes. I still think Paine Field would be kinda funny..
I remember reading that SEA was approved as an Emergency A380 airport - but that some major upgrades would be necessary for regular A380 service (something no one has yet proposed so why spend the money). No idea if Paine is approved though I'm sure it could handle an A380 - but Paine lacks even basic passenger facilities (when we returned from Greenland for another 747-8 flight test, the only customs agent was otherwise occupied and we had to wait on the airplane for over an hour before he could make it over to process us back into the USA).
While I can certainly understand why it would be amusing for an A380 to divert into Paine, given Vancouver is barely 100 miles north, and SEA 40 miles south (and they have facilities to handle passengers by the thousands), it's hard to imagine a scenario where a diversion to Paine would even remotely make sense...

canuck slf

27th Oct 2016, 05:16

Currently en route YVR to LHR as BAW 9176.

Aluminium shuffler

27th Oct 2016, 06:54

"Fume Events - Aerotoxic Association

This stuff looks like Chemtrails Area 51 conspiracy nonsense to me.

BA 286 did use the term 'fume event' while talking with Edmonton."

Do you think the same about smoking tobacco, or do you accept the decades of the tobacco industry telling the public that smoking was good for you was a lie and authorities doing nothing was negligent? What about organo-phosphates being used in agriculture under the pretence of being safe? Aerotoxic syndrome is real; there have been plenty of documented cases but the industry obstructs objective testing and research because it's going to cost a fortune. It's not something that is frequent, but it does happen, and specific aircraft and engines have been identified as being more susceptible.

Nemrytter

27th Oct 2016, 07:06

Aerotoxic syndrome is real...industry obstructs objective testing and researchSaying something is real without any scientific evidence and saying that big business is obstructing the truth. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me!

Whether or not Aerotoxic syndrome is real, such posts don't help.

FYI: There's a lot of research going on into this right now - I'm involved in some of it. Much of that is independent of the industry. So far nothing has been found.

Aluminium shuffler

27th Oct 2016, 07:15

Nemrytter, it has already been demonstrated that hydraulic fluid and engine oil release organo-phosphates into the ac system at bleed air temperatures if they contaminate the pneumatic system, and that contamination has been found many, many times. The results of organo-phosphate inhalation are well known to the medical and agricultural industries. Why does the aviation industry think that such toxins will not affect people in an aircraft, even though the effects are proven in an open environment?

I have seen the effects first hand on my own aircraft (737) of hydraulic fluid getting into the pneumatic manifold, leading to over 75% of the pax and all the cabin crew being taken ill. It is very real, and your criticism of me and endorsement of Airbubba's comment of it all being unfounded conspiracy theory gives me little confidence in the honesty or legitimacy of your research.

Nemrytter

27th Oct 2016, 07:25

Fair enough, you might want to consider that anecdotal evidence and "it works in this environment, so it must also be true in another different environment" maketh research not.

Hard datapoints and careful examination is what's needed, not suppositions and anecdotes. As I said before, such things do not help.

overstress

27th Oct 2016, 10:47

evansb:

"..they left the A/C.."? Air conditioning? Good one. There are never enough undefined abbreviations and acronyms for us, the great unwashed, to get our collective heads around. Quite unusual and not in keeping for PPRune posters.

A common abbreviation amongst pilots, especially ex-RAF. The forum is for pilots, if the great unwashed, as you put it, wish to join in with the benefit of their knowledge, perhaps some research may be in order? ;)

anson harris

27th Oct 2016, 11:00

"CREW ON BA FLIGHT WAS LIKELY FAKING ILLNESS, ACCORDING TO PROFESSIONAL PILOTS".

What would give them the impression of there being any professional pilots here?

Basil

27th Oct 2016, 11:10

Nope! We are just not yet in possession of the facts of the matter.
Interesting one . . .

notapilot15

27th Oct 2016, 11:14

With the advent of Buy One Get One Free C/D Check in cheap outsourced MRO model, cabin fume events are more frequent now a days. Generally these occur when the aircraft reenters service after mx.

Is cabin fuming or cabin crew are fuming, debatable topic.

Ian W

27th Oct 2016, 12:01

So every F/A went down into the rest area? Otherwise only the one's that went on break would have been affected.

To have F/A's go on break meant that the entire meal service and clean up was accomplished. That should be easy enough for a passenger to comment on.
There are over 25 flight attendants on A380s the crew rest area is ~8 to 10 bunks dependent on fit. The divert appears to have happened at a time just after the first break could have started.

Private jet

27th Oct 2016, 12:58

Could very well be food poisoning IMO. I wonder if all those affected dined in the same restaurant at some point prior to starting duty or had the same food/drink on board?
All the cabin crew walking off with their bags and leaving the pax though, thats very odd. It's really not on & if true then service standards have indeed plummeted.

oldchina

27th Oct 2016, 13:37

"All the cabin crew walking off with their bags and leaving the pax though, thats very odd.
It's really not on & if true then service standards have indeed plummeted"

Which service standards? Those that require the cabin crew remain on duty even if they're sick or nearly dead? Jolly bad show, what?

FlyingCanuk

27th Oct 2016, 13:47

So let me get this straight...

Approximately 12 on duty cabin crew are serving dinner 1 1/2 into the flight

Standby cabin crew begin feeling ill, and inform operating crew

One would hope that all of the on duty cabin crew would not join the standby cabin crew in the "contaminated" crew rest area, leaving all pax unattended on the upper decks.

2 hours into the flight, the Captain declares a PAN PAN PAN with ATC and begins a diversion toward YVR

"Passenger Steve Lowy told CBC News that about two hours into the flight the crews started quickly clearing away dinner."
"They suddenly cleared the trays away, and said that we were going to do a landing in Calgary due to the fact that there was a technical issue with the plane and a number of the cabin staff weren't feeling well."

"After the plane landed, paramedics came on board and checked out the crew.
One passenger told CBC News the emergency crews that boarded the plane were wearing gas masks."

"We were kept in the dark.… When we landed what we did know is that the crew got their luggage and left immediately," said Blaser

"We're all sitting there looking around … the entire crew just got up and left the plane... why they took their luggage and left, we have no idea."

Short of being carried off on a stretcher, I find it reprehensible that the cabin crew would gather their bags and leave all 400 passengers on board, unattended.

In any non normal / emergency situation the passengers are the first to leave the A/C, followed by the cabin crew, followed by the First Officer, and Captain.

If this "fume event" had been an actual fire on board, I'd hate to think that this cabin crew would be the first to blow the slides and leave the A/C before the passengers?

SeenItAll

27th Oct 2016, 14:42

While it is impossible to know whether the news reports are true, it is reported that every FA left the plane, and with their baggage, before the PAX. This suggests the strange confluence of (a) FAs are too sick to continue the flight and divergence is required; (b) upon landing all FAs are so sick as to need to get off the plane before the PAX; but (c) well enough to take their bags.

Again, may be the news reports are inaccurate, but this situation seems a bit fishy. [I know, bad pun.]

daikilo

27th Oct 2016, 14:49

One possible common denominator would be e.g. a crew bus, maybe from the hotel, but why it would then take say 3 hours for the situation to become intollerable is inexplicable. In my experience, only a part of the crew would use the crew rest at any one time.

wiggy

27th Oct 2016, 15:01

, it is reported that every FA left the plane, and with their baggage, before the PAX.

Before some rush to blame the crew it's worth bearing in mind that once on the ground, shut down, doors open, authority for decisions changes somewhat.

I know it doesn't look good, etc, but perhaps the medics/others in authority insisted on deplanning some/all of the crew before any uneffected passengers.

core_dump

27th Oct 2016, 15:39

Could very well be food poisoning IMO.

If it was food poisoning, why would they fib to the captain causing him to tell center he had a "fume event"? Also keep in mind this little stunt caused rescue personnel to board the aircraft wearing respirators, according to interviewed witnesses, which probably didn't do much to comfort the already uneasy passengers.

What a screwed up situation this seems to be! I, for one, would welcome some ridiculous headlines from The Sun or whoever as has been suggested above. The only way we'll get any facts on this, it seems, is if the media starts badgering BA with questions.

TeachMe

27th Oct 2016, 17:34

With this situation, what is the conflict between passenger safety (need cabin crew in case of emergency while on ground) and the need to get cabin crew to hospital? Any thoughts on how this aspect could have been better handled?

langleybaston

27th Oct 2016, 18:04

I have strong opinions regarding how the aftermath should be handled!

As I understand the entire cabin crew disembarked in an orderly fashion, with baggage, leaving an aircraft full of punters?

It beggars belief.

PEI_3721

27th Oct 2016, 18:10

hr2pilot

27th Oct 2016, 20:18

If you swap the big "Emergency" sign with a "Hilton" sign, this would look like a typical day on the job!

http://i.cbc.ca/1.3820101.1477396398!/fileImage/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/original_940/british-airways-flight-emergency-landing.JPG

SeenItAll

27th Oct 2016, 21:22

While I am not familiar with particular BA procedures, it is my experience that on such a flight, all CC would be on duty until the dinner service was finished. Then half of the CC would take their rest, and after another 3-4 hours, the second half of the CC would take their rest. They would then be all back on duty roughly 1.5 to 2 hours before touchdown to serve breakfast.

The fact that the dinner service was not yet complete before the PAN was announced suggests that all CC would have been in the main cabin when the s___ hit the fan. Again, if BA allows some CC to take their rest immediately and not participate in the dinner service, my speculations are incorrect. But in any event, the vast majority of the CC would have been in the main cabin during the entire several hour length of the flight, so if there was a real problem, it would seem to have had as its origin something that happened prior to the flight, not during the flight.

Dream Buster

27th Oct 2016, 21:38

Aluminium Shuffler - please do everyone the courtesy of reading BALPA's April 22nd 2005 position on cabin air which when contaminated by toxic engine oil is either harmful or it isn't.

Then ask yourself whether it is more likely than not that BA, CAA etc can never, ever accept the 70 year old inconvenient evidence...

Proceedings of the BALPA Air Safety and Cabin Air Quality International Aero Industry Conference. Held at Imperial College, London (2005) - Aerotoxic Association (http://aerotoxic.org/information/proceedings-balpa-air-safety-cabin-air-quality-international-aero-industry-conference-held-imperial-college-london/)

Many thanks and respectfully.

yellowtriumph

27th Oct 2016, 21:44

There is no evidence that this event was not handled in the best manner; i.e. could what was done be done better.
Crews are expected to handle situations as they are understood. Manage the immediate threat to life - that of the cabin crew. The time of main threats to passenger safety - landing and/or evacuation had been passed; thus the 'present' focussed attention on the cabin crew.

By all means consider 'what if' scenarios, but do not attempt to base these on scant information, and particularly without understanding the crew's perception and decision process.
There were several passengers interviewed on the national television news last night stating that they were told to return to the airport at 4am the next day to rebook new flights back to the UK. They turned up at 4am to find the airport devoid of any BA staff. As reported by several passengers, not one - several. Are you still content to suggest that BA handled this well - from the pasengers perspective?

misd-agin

28th Oct 2016, 02:57

The F/A's apparently weren't on break if the passengers are reporting that they started rushing around picking up trays. And even if they were on break in the lower rest area gas did ALL if them fall ill and NONE of the passengers?

Food poisoning? Someone figured out which of the 400+ means the F/A's would eat? Or gave a snack to the F/AA's that emitted a fume??

zed3

28th Oct 2016, 09:58

As I have just posted on 'the other' similar Jet Blast subject... Is it normal for all the crew to have a tea/coffee brew up before pax boarding? Certainly on all my 'fam flights' tea or coffee was served in the cockpit before boarding. If the cabin crew also do that then to me there must have been something in the water.
Again... ready to be shot down!

core_dump

28th Oct 2016, 10:09

If the cabin crew also do that then to me there must have been something in the water.
1. The pax drank tea/coffee made from the same water, and they didn't get sick. This bad water must have been carefully crafted by a terrorist to only affect FAs.
2. Bad water doesn't take over your brain and make you tell lies about a "fume event". Me, I'd be in the loo instead of yapping with my coworkers trying to create hysteria or worse.

Again... ready to be shot down!
Anytime.

DaveReidUK

28th Oct 2016, 10:14

1. The pax drank tea/coffee made from the same water, and they didn't get sick.

Not necessarily.

The passengers hadn't finished their meal when the cabin crew started collecting their trays in a hurry, so they may have been still waiting for their tea/coffee.

core_dump

28th Oct 2016, 10:27

DaveReid- Is it not normal in the UK to have a beverage during your meal? Coffee off-limits until dinner is completed over there? Rough crowd! I find it hard to believe that with 400+ pax, nobody had something containing the same water before/during their meal. Or folks taking medications in the lavs, etc.

Basil

28th Oct 2016, 10:42

I would counsel against drinking water from tanks on any aircraft unless it's been boiled.
For cold drinking I want to see bottled water.

I refer, of course to bacterial contamination.

ExXB

28th Oct 2016, 11:06

At 8000 ft water boils at 91C/196F. Only drink the beer!

oldchina

28th Oct 2016, 11:08

core dump:

"Coffee off-limits until dinner is completed over there?"
Yep, that's about it, especially on the Continent.

And at home we don't drink coffee from pint-size polystyrene mugs.

Fortissimo

28th Oct 2016, 12:20

The food poisoning/contaminated water idea is as good as any other speculation in this thread. Less speculative is the suggestion that people going to hospital with food poisoning are far more likely to be carrying barf bags than cabin bags.

lomapaseo

28th Oct 2016, 14:35

I would counsel against drinking water from tanks on any aircraft unless it's been boiled.
For cold drinking I want to see bottled water.

I refer, of course to bacterial contamination.

It's safer to drink from the fuel tanks

notapilot15

28th Oct 2016, 15:00

Crew looked happy on videos posted by Canadian media outlets. They took they baggage, buttoned down their jackets and walked to bus on their own power.

FlyingCanuk

28th Oct 2016, 15:07

Foreign Air Operators
Transport Canada is responsible for the certification and safety oversight of all foreign air operators conducting commercial air services into and out of Canada; for certification and continuing safety oversight of Specialty Air Service (SAS) operations conducted pursuant to the Free Trade Agreement; and for approving overflights within Canadian airspace and technical stops at Canadian airports.

Canadian Aviation Regulations CAR 705
Embarking and Disembarking of Passengers
705.222 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), an air operator who operates an aeroplane to carry passengers shall ensure that all flight attendants assigned to a flight using that aeroplane are on board during passenger embarkation and disembarkation.

TURIN

28th Oct 2016, 17:20

"..they left the A/C.."? Air conditioning? Good one. There are never enough undefined abbreviations and acronyms for us, the great unwashed, to get our collective heads around. Quite unusual and not in keeping for PPRune posters.

A/C AirCraft Has been for years.

AC Air Conditioning. Quite a new one for me being in the temperate region we don't generally use it. ;)

Simples. :ok:

TLB

28th Oct 2016, 17:28

If all the reports we have received so far are accurate, that;

- the aircraft diverted from the Regina area to YVR without declaring an emergency;

- the entire cabin crew departed the aircraft upon arrival;

- leaving all the PAX on the aircraft; and

- neither BA nor any other authority have issued any kind of explanation why this occurred ...

Then I can only conclude that this was a deliberate action by the cabin crew in some kind of a labour dispute.

Mr Angry from Purley

28th Oct 2016, 17:33

Then I can only conclude that this was a deliberate action by the cabin crew in some kind of a labour dispute.
TLB. Want to put a wager on that?
At my gaff its pretty standard that after any thing like the above the crew go to the hospital for a check up. At BA that's even more likely so. There are three questions;
1. What was it.
2. Why deplane with the punters onboard
3. Why just the Cabin Crew (you have to assume crew rest area)

jack11111

28th Oct 2016, 17:37

"Then I can only conclude that this was a deliberate action by the cabin crew in some kind of a labour dispute."

I can't believe it took 6 pages to mention this possibility.

Airbubba

28th Oct 2016, 17:49

"Then I can only conclude that this was a deliberate action by the cabin crew in some kind of a labour dispute."

I can't believe it took 6 pages to mention this possibility.

Actually, I think this possibility has indeed been raised earlier in this thread:

How do they separate the air the cabin crew breathes from the air the passengers breath?

The air is the same, but the cabin crew are given a substance that makes them hyper-sensitive to oh-so-deadly cabin fumes. The name of that substance is "union".

kenadams

28th Oct 2016, 18:52

If all the reports we have received so far are accurate, that;
- the aircraft diverted from the Regina area to YVR without declaring an emergency;

I am not an aviation professional so I don't usually post on PPRUNE: making an exception to point out that the crew declared PAN PAN.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odAHH5AkqRE

TLB

28th Oct 2016, 20:00

kenadams

28th Oct 2016, 20:14

PAN PAN means just that: an urgency with no immediate danger to anyone's life or the craft's airworthiness.
Given the circumstances, flying to Vancouver was hardly inconsistent: finding the most suitable close airfield instead of the closest suitable field was probably a relatively straightforward choice.
The recording I have posted shows that the flight deck crew had a solid understanding of the nature of the emergency. The pilot even communicated on frequency that "there is no urgent need [for emergency vehicles] really".
This was an unfortunate event, not a labor action, as far as I can tell.

McGinty

29th Oct 2016, 04:42

Pardon my ignorance, but should not a formal investigation of this incident have been initiated by the relevant Canadian aviation authority? If a plane that was supposed to overfly one's country lands and then deposits 25 crew members in the Emergency Department of the local hospital, then does this not constitute an incident that should have been investigated? Why was the plane itself allowed to leave Canada without some kind of investigative inspection designed to alert other A380 operators of some kind of hazard that could apply to all 380s?

What kind of gobbledy-gook did BA tell to Canadian authorities so as to duck this kind of inspection?

If this were a third world plane (Bangladesh? Eithiopia?) would the captain and the company have gotten away with whatever excuse was offered to Canadian authorities?

I suspect we will never hear the reason for this diversion, and this is inexcusable from a safety viewpoint in my opinion.

wiggy

29th Oct 2016, 04:54

McGinty

Pardon my ignorance,

Err, I'll try, but the tone of the rest of the post doesn't make it easy.

I suspect we will never hear the reason for this diversion, and this is inexcusable from a safety viewpoint in my opinion.

Wrong.

A report was filed with the relevant national authorities, the aircraft was inspected both in YVR and again on return to LHR. The findings will be released in due course, but I"m guessing that still won't stop the conspiracy theorists or those who seem to have started revving up the outrage bus.

As a general point this sounds to me to be an high profile example of the sort of suspected smoke/fumes event that unfortunately happens and is reported around the world by airlines on a regular basis..handled as per checklist, which often includes advice over donning of oxygen masks and the possible need divert to nearest suitable airport..not automatically the closest one.

What's seems to have got the attention this time is it was a 380 and involved BA and was therefore particularly newsworthy. From what I've heard there's no indication it was industrially motivated, and as for why the cabin crew were deplaned first and they were it seems the only ones to need medical attention -you need to ask the Canadian medical authorities, that wouldn't have been a decision anyone at BA forced upon anybody.

core_dump

29th Oct 2016, 05:03

A report was filed with the relevant authorities, the aircraft was inspected both in YVR and again on return to LHR. The findings will be released in due course, but I"m guessing that still won't stop the conspiracy theorists.

Yeah well, findings that simply say "No mechanical issues were found and this is an internal company issue" is NOT acceptable. If the FAs lied, BA needs to tell us that. If it was a medical issue with one FA and she caused mass hysteria, then BA needs to tell us that too, although of course they should withhold medical details. BA simply needs to stop being so British.

wiggy

29th Oct 2016, 06:36

BA simply needs to stop being so British.

You do know that BA is part of IAG, a large number of it's crew members don't live in the U.K. and/or aren't even UK nationals, and that the current BA CEO is Spanish don't you? :ok:

More seriously if people want to grumble about the way the passengers were handled I get it, I really do...most of those working for BA will empathise.

OTOH we have a hard core here who continually demand full answers now...scream that BA haven't released a report yet, therefore "it's a cover up" .." it's bound to be cover up" yadda yadda yadda......

The incident happened Monday night. If people are expecting the results of reports, investigations etc, to be published in the week of the incident I can only assume they haven't been around aviation for too long, if at all. IMHO BA's sensible holding position is it was an incident triggered by a perception of smoke/fumes "event"...because they know that for sure based on the initial reports from the crew.

FWIW it took two or three days to repatriate the aircraft and crew (after being checked in Canada), the aircraft was certainly checked again at LHR and it is possible, though I'm guessing, that BA may be waiting for the results of interviews and/or even medical reports on the crew.

Yeah well, findings that simply say "No mechanical issues were found and this is an internal company issue" is NOT acceptable. If the FAs lied, BA needs to tell us that. If it was a medical issue with one FA and she caused mass hysteria, then BA needs to tell us that too.

"NOT Acceptable" ah..ok..so what are BA meant to say if by chance this turns out to be along the lines of "No fault found, Awaiting further reports" (and fumes issues are often notoriously difficult to replicate, ask an engineer at any airline) but also that BA also think that the FA's acted in good faith and iaw with their training and iaw their manuals? What would be the "acceptable" course of action in that case? Blame/discipline somebody/anybody to satisfy the conspiracy theorists?

I know modern expectations are fuelled by the rush to publish something, anything, on twitter etc but as I think mentioned in an earlier post this isn't CSI, with the case solved within an hour.

notapilot15

29th Oct 2016, 09:34

What would be the "acceptable" course of action in that case? Blame/discipline somebody/anybody to satisfy the conspiracy theorists?

"Everything is awesome" is the only theory really out there. All other theories have higher probability.

I know modern expectations are fuelled by the rush to publish something, anything, on twitter etc but as I think mentioned in an earlier post this isn't CSI, with the case solved within an hour.

And this is not a multi season X-files either for a series of unexplained events with this airline.

Bottom line crew first abandoned the ship. There is video and passenger statement to prove it.

FlyingCanuk

29th Oct 2016, 09:57

Here is a link to the Transport Canada CADORS report

CADORS: Report (http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/cadors-screaq/rd.aspx?cno%3d%26dtef%3d%26dtet%3d2016-10-28%26otp%3d-1%26ftop%3d%253e%253d%26ftno%3d0%26ijop%3d%253e%253d%26ijno% 3d0%26olc%3d%26prv%3dBC%26rgn%3d6%26tsbno%3d%26tsbi%3d-1%26arno%3d%26ocatno%3d%26ocatop%3d1%26oevtno%3d%26oevtop%3d 1%26evtacoc%3d3%26fltno%3d%26fltr%3d-1%26cars%3d-1%26acat%3d1%26nar%3d%26aiddl%3d-1%26aidxt%3d%26optdl%3d-1%26optcomt%3d%26optseq%3d%26optxt%3d%26opdlxt%3dResults%2bw ill%2bappear%2bin%2bthis%2blist%26mkdl%3d-1%26mkxt%3d%26mdldl%3d-1%26mdlxt%3d%26cmkdl%3dC%26cmkxt%3d%26rt%3dQR%26hypl%3dy%26c num%3d2016P1892)

As much as I've tried, I don't have the technical knowhow to insert the image, although, here are some of the important bits.....

CADORS Number:
2016P1892

Aircraft Event Information
Crew incapacitation
Medical emergency
Declared emergency/priority
Fuel - dumping
Diversion

Occurrence Summary

Date Entered: 2016-10-27

Narrative:

A British Airways Airbus A380-800 (GXLEB/BAW6B) from San Francisco, CA (KSFO) to London, England (EGLL) declared PAN with the Edmonton area control centre (ACC) due to sickness with some crew and passengers. The aircraft dumped fuel for a diversion to Vancouver, BC (CYVR). The aircraft was given priority handling for Runway 08L.

wiggy

29th Oct 2016, 10:02

Bottom line crew first abandoned the ship. There is video and passenger statement to prove it.

Seen those reports, but you'll have to ask the Canadian authorities involved why the medics and others took (perhaps even insisted on) that course of action.

notapilot15

29th Oct 2016, 12:26

Seen those reports, but you'll have to ask the Canadian authorities involved why the medics and others took (perhaps even insisted on) that course of action.
Seriously, now it is Canadians fault playing along with tune tosh. If a plane diverts to your airport with medical emergency, you help without any second thoughts, even if they are faking it.

Ian W

29th Oct 2016, 13:53

I guess what I'm trying to point out here is that - according to my calculations - the aircraft captain decided to divert about 700 nm to the west, perhaps 1 hour 45 mins flying time. That, to me at least, indicates that he did not have a serious (aviation) problem on board. Especially with at least four International Airports with runways in the 10,000 foot range in the immediate area.

The captain did not have a serious (aviation) problem on board, that is why he only declared PAN and said emergency vehicles were not necessary on landing. Then the time to get down to a safe landing weight was about the time to fly to YVR a very suitable airport.

I would suspect that the reason that all the rear crew were immediately evacuated to a hospital is to get a blood sample from each of them before traces of whatever caused the 'fume event' dissipated.

TLB

29th Oct 2016, 14:37

I would suspect that the reason that all the rear crew were immediately evacuated to a hospital is to get a blood sample from each of them before traces of whatever caused the 'fume event' dissipated.

But what about the 400+ pax who were breathing the same air ? That's what I don't get !

pants on fire...

29th Oct 2016, 14:48

Based on previous incidents of this nature - it was the fish! :cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkGR65CXaNA

expurser

29th Oct 2016, 14:56

Serious lot of CC bashing here without any facts. I get the feeling some shouting "hysteria" were the same ones doing so about the LCY evacuation, until they found the culprit. Lots of speculation, no facts yet. Oh, and union bashing? please, who's the first to go running to BALPA when the company tries to change things you don't like?

wiggy

29th Oct 2016, 16:01

notapilot15

Seriously, now it is Canadians fault playing along with tune tosh.

Since you quoted me..."tosh"? I'm not into fancy conspiracy theories and if you actually read what was written you'll see I didn't suggest that the Canadians were "playing along", as you put it..

I'm merely pointing out that if you want to know why the decision was made to disembark some or all of the crew first I'd suggest your best bet will be to ask the local authorities, most especially the medics..in my experience of medical emergencies and diversions the medics will almost certainly have been calling the shots over disembarkation priorities once they had got on board and assessed the situation....

FlyingCanuk

29th Oct 2016, 16:18

got to call BS on this wiggy :hmm:

"most especially the medics..in my experience of medical emergencies and diversions they will almost certainly have been calling the shots over disembarkation"

I don't know what your experience is in aviation, or "medical emergencies" wiggy, but the medics can certainly not "call the shots" on pulling the entire crew off of a fully loaded A380 - that is simply not true

Onceapilot

29th Oct 2016, 18:25

Does an A380 need a HUGE OUTRAGE BUS, or, have some people lost the power of rational thought?:rolleyes:

Ancient Mariner

29th Oct 2016, 20:43

Seen those reports, but you'll have to ask the Canadian authorities involved why the medics and others took (perhaps even insisted on) that course of action.
I've always heard that the Captain is the supreme commander and the one who's decision is final.
Is he now second to paramedics?

India Four Two

29th Oct 2016, 23:33

Maybe it's just poor reporting or perhaps I missed something, but did all the cabin crew leave, before the passengers did?

I was under the impression that passengers may not board, or be on board a commercial aircraft, if there are no cabin crew present.

SeenItAll

30th Oct 2016, 01:21

Whether or not all crew left the plane before the PAX is open to dispute. At least several PAX have claimed this was the case. But there is someone on FlyerTalk who claims he was on this plane, and that it is not true. My guess is that since the A380 is a huge plane with two decks, it is impossible for any one person to know what all crew did. I imagine that at least some of the crew (maybe even a whole level's worth) left before the PAX, but others remained. Note that to me it is no answer at all to say they couldn't have left because it is against regulations. Regulations are things people are supposed to follow -- but experience shows that when the s___ hits the fan, sometimes they may not be followed.

McGinty

30th Oct 2016, 01:31

OK, the cabin crew did all leave, but only after fire officers and paramedics and maybe BA ground staff were on board. So it is not really a matter of them abandoning the passengers on an otherwise un-crewed plane.

But what gets me is the fact that they all took their luggage with them. This indicates a total lack of medical urgency. A delay of 10 minutes or so to allow the passengers to get off first would not seem to be medically relevant if they had the time to invest in searching out their own luggage before getting into ambulances.

Parallels, perhaps, to evacuating passengers grabbing their own hand luggage before jumping down emergency door chutes?

expurser

30th Oct 2016, 01:40

I've always heard that the Captain is the supreme commander and the one who's decision is final.
Is he now second to paramedics?
Of course they are while the aircraft is on the ground. When did FC undertake medical training? So in the situation where a crew member is having a heart attack say, they have to wait for the captains permission to take them off the aircraft?

Ranger One

30th Oct 2016, 01:58

I've always heard that the Captain is the supreme commander and the one who's decision is final.
Is he now second to paramedics?

On the ground at the gate yes.

Consider situations of suspected serious communicable diseases. No-one on board from the captain on down is going anywhere until the boys and girls with masks and suits have done their job - and then they're going where they're told when they're told.

wiggy

30th Oct 2016, 03:35

FlyingCanUK

I don't know what your experience is in aviation, or "medical emergencies" wiggy, but the medics can certainly not "call the shots" on pulling the entire crew off of a fully loaded A380 - that is simply not true

Since you ask: over 40 years mil and civvie, mostly civvie, 20000ish hours wide body long haul, both seats, and yes I've seen a few medical emergencies over the years, even been to SFO, YVR, many many times, even done the actual "trip" in question (on another type) more than once.....will that do in the way of experience or should I get more time in before contributing?

In hind sight my "call the shots" was a poor choice of words - but as long as passenger safety wasn't compromised (and in the case in question there's actually conflicting evidence about whether all the crew disembarked first or not, and what ground staff were on board, etc ) IMVHO you could be very exposed legally as a PIC if on the ground you got the paramedics on board for a medical issue and then interfered with their chosen course of action..

I've always heard that the Captain is the supreme commander and the one who's decision is final.

Despite some opinions the contrary as others have said once at the gate, shut down, doors open, the rules change, or at the very least can reality of what you can and can't do as a commander become much less clear cut.

notapilot15

30th Oct 2016, 04:00

I'd suggest your best bet will be to ask the local authorities

I am guessing this is a rhetorical statement. Between ICAO rule crap, private company proprietary information protection laws, bilateral foreign company private information disclosure agreements, medical privacy laws, NDAs and paid silence you are still suggesting some one in Canada supposed provide this information.

evansb

30th Oct 2016, 04:02

Oh for cripes sake...the attending medical help were Vancouver EMTs (Emergency Medical Technicians) responding to a report of collective "swooning" and/or nausea.
NOT doctors performing triage involving a traumatic crash.

So the crux of this incident is based on passenger hearsay, as to whether some of the air crew, most likely flight attendants, (some of whom may not have been on duty), exited the aircraft before the passengers? The aforementioned scenario is a First World problem. i.e. NOT a major problem.

As an aside, this incident is only of interest because it was an international diversion of an A380. If a regional airliner was on a flight from Inuvik to Yellowknife and diverted to Norman Wells for the same reasons as the BA A380, I sincerely doubt it would make headlines south of Edmonton... and this thread would be around three posts deep, not seven pages.

wiggy

30th Oct 2016, 05:03

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggy View Post
I'd suggest your best bet will be to ask the local authorities
I am guessing this is a rhetorical statement....... are still suggesting some one in Canada supposed provide this information.

Wasn't rhetorical at all, Canadian decision for them to justify and as for Canadian privacy laws, don't know, and frankly close to past caring.

evansb - well said.....I think every time I open this thread and see yet another sentence or message that has been parsed by, followed by "but you said" I lose the will to live.

In summary, it was reported as a fumes incident. Seemingly handled iaw with BA and then Canadian procedures. No one was seriously hurt, nothing got damaged. Reports were filed with the UK CAA and others..........and that's it...really..at the moment that really is it.

There's nothing more I can add at the moment so I guess it is just best let the thread meander it's through crack pot conspiracy theories, anti-union, anti-cabin crew, anti BA theories....for the sensible few that remain: good luck, you're going to need it.

Mr Angry from Purley

30th Oct 2016, 14:46

Wiggy
Your the only one talking common sense mate. Thanks for answering some of these posts....:\

MarkD

30th Oct 2016, 15:23

CBC - 5 questions about British Airways Flight 286 emergency landing in Vancouver (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/5-unanswered-questions-british-airways-1.3821059)

core_dump

30th Oct 2016, 21:55

You do know that BA is part of IAG, a large number of it's crew members don't live in the U.K. and/or aren't even UK nationals, and that the current BA CEO is Spanish don't you? :ok:
Nope, I didn't know the whole of all that. But I did know that the IAG is a bunch of drunks leaning on each other, to paraphrase O'Leary. At the time I had a good chuckle. Now I'm not so sure.

evansb

31st Oct 2016, 05:06

is da air on dah planes poisine? A German scientific guy says the cabin air just maybe kinda foul..
Is the air on planes TOXIC? Dangerous chemicals found in blood samples of cabin crew raise fears about in-flight 'poisoning' | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3449634/Is-air-planes-TOXIC-Dangerous-chemicals-blood-samples-cabin-crew-raise-fears-flight-poisoning.html)

Oh by the way, what is a "personal"air mile any way?..?

Permafrost_ATPL

31st Oct 2016, 09:59

Since it is abundantly clear that the Daily Mail will publish any old crap to scare the public, could we not have a PPRuNe wide ban on links to that despicable "newspaper"?

The article quotes a study "to be published" and yet I cannot find one by that Gottingen professor on that topic anywhere. Which is typical of the Daily Mail, who seem to have no understanding that there is a considerable difference between a study "to be published" (any old crap) and a properly peer-reviewed, published study. On top of that, the "facts" quoted in her "study" reveals the presence of certain organic compounds in the blood of patients who became unwell after fume events. That's it. Nothing else. No actual LINK to cabin air whatsoever. Just speculation.

The title of the Daily Mail article says it all - "raise fears about in-flight poisoning". Raising fear is all they do. Stop reading that rubbish, it's bad for your brain...

flight_mode

2nd Nov 2016, 18:35

On Nov 1st 2016 the TSB reported that there was a strong obnoxious smell near the #4 main cabin door and upper flight deck galley. The crew consulted with dispatch and decided to divert to Calgary, but was subsequently notified that Calgary did not have the equipment needed to handle the A380, hence the crew decided to divert to Vancouver. The crew donned their oxygen masks and dumped fuel. The entire 25 crew and a passenger were taken to local hospitals for precautionary checks, 3 cabin crew and the passenger were affected by the fumes, all were released. The operator dispatched maintenance personnel as well as aircraft manufacturer's support personnel to Vancouver, however, no source of the problem could be found. The aircraft positioned to London with only flight crew and maintenance personnel on board, however, despite system troubleshooting in flight no faults were found. The aircraft returned to service.
Source: Accident: British Airways A388 near Vancouver on Oct 24th 2016, fumes on board, 26 treated for smoke inhalation (http://avherald.com/h?article=49fd405e&opt=0)

No mention of the crew rest area, alcohol, union activity or food poisoning. They reported a fume event because that's EXACTLY what it was :ugh:

v6g

2nd Nov 2016, 20:23

UPDATE TSB #A16P0192: G-XLEB, an Airbus A380-841 aircraft operated by British Airways, was conducting flight BAW286 from San Francisco Intl, CA (KSFO) to London/Heathrow, England (EGLL) with 388 passengers and 25 crew members on board. While in cruise flight overhead Alberta, Canada, the flight crew was advised that some cabin crew members and a passenger were becoming sick due to a strong noxious smell located near the number 4 main cabin door and upper flight deck galley. The flight crew consulted with the operator’s dispatch and elected to divert to Calgary Intl, AB (CYYC). However, the flight crew was notified that CYYC did not have the proper equipment to accommodate the A380, so the diversion was changed to Vancouver Intl, BC (CYVR). A PAN PAN was declared and the crew proceeded to lower the landing weight of the aircraft through fuel dumping. The crew donned their oxygen mask as a precaution. The aircraft landed in CYVR without further event and was met by medical staff. The entire 25 crew members and one passenger were taken to local hospitals for precautionary checks. 3 cabin crew members and the passenger were affected by the fumes and all were subsequently released. The operator’s maintenance and the aircraft manufacturer’s support personnel were sent to CYVR to investigate; the source of the problem could not be found. The aircraft repositioned to EGLL with the flight crew and maintenance personnel only. Despite troubleshooting systems in flight, no faults were found. The aircraft has since been returned to service.

SeenItAll

2nd Nov 2016, 21:00

OK, there it is. Sufficiently strong and obnoxious smell so that crew donned oxygen masks and diverted, however not so strong or pervasive as to be detected by any pax or subsequent inspection. Maybe it was the fish -- from a week ago. Or maybe still fishy.

rottenray

2nd Nov 2016, 21:38

Oh FFS don't you think ANY airline might have better things to do than placate a bunch of ill informed spotters, flight sim addicts and conspiracy theorists on an internet bulletin board? Get over yourselves.

The people affected by this are: the crew, the passengers, BA and the Canadian authorities. There's a post-incident information flow that goes on and you're not in it. You're not even incidental to it and the sooner you realise that, the sooner you can wipe the froth off your keyboard and replace it with the drool and toast crumbs that are normally there.

:D

Glad someone said it. Some of these threads remind me of the old poem about the blind men and the elephant...

As far as drool and toast crumbs, those have been washed away by the spray of a perfectly good vodka tonic. I'll PM you with the replacement cost.

Cheers!

JammedStab

2nd Nov 2016, 23:34

Quick question...why would the crew don their O2 masks if there is a "obnoxious smell" in the back? Isn't the smell way in the back. Why O2 masks?

Intrance

3rd Nov 2016, 00:33

Airbubba

3rd Nov 2016, 04:17

Quick question...why would the crew don their O2 masks if there is a "obnoxious smell" in the back? Isn't the smell way in the back. Why O2 masks?

Procedurally you do it as part of a SFF, or Smoke, Fire, or Fumes drill.

Common sense would dictate that if the fumes were way in the back, you wouldn't need to put on masks up front.

But the days of common sense have been superseded by somewhat blind adherence to procedure.

Many Boeing abnormal checklists I've used had something like:

O2 masks - (if required) on, 100%.

However, often you would be led to another Smoke or Fumes removal checklist that did not have the parenthetical 'if required' part.

In recent years Boeing has worked to go to more unified company checklists for things like SFF and hydraulic failures and it seems to me that many airlines are going back to standard Boeing checklists and procedures. I can remember when the Delta B-757 before takeoff checklist had nearly a dozen items while the Boeing checklist had only one. I was told that the Delta checklist was inherited from the DC-8 training department.

Any Nigel's care to enlighten us on how it's done on the BA Triple?

Nemrytter

3rd Nov 2016, 07:41

They reported a fume event because that's EXACTLY what it was Without reference to this specific incident I think it's worth pointing out that avherald has a bee in its bonnet about fume events. I'm sure that's wholly unrelated to the advertising revenue they get from an aerotoxic website.

Onceapilot

3rd Nov 2016, 10:04

Barcli

3rd Nov 2016, 11:29

its a SMELL - not fumes - you have to be able to tell the difference.....

JammedStab

3rd Nov 2016, 11:34

Original question
Quick question...why would the crew don their O2 masks if there is a "obnoxious smell" in the back? Isn't the smell way in the back. Why O2 masks?

Answer to question
I'm sure that you could have figured this out, but it's a 'better safe than sorry' thing :rolleyes:.

Obnoxious smell with an unknown cause can be a symptom of a larger problem that may not contain itself to the rear while you are still airborne, so why risk it?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I did figure it out. Wouldn't your answer apply in exactly the same manner when it comes to diverting to Calgary instead of overflying and going to Vancouver due to passenger handling issues.

Seems we have a case of using masks(and all its difficulties) due to a concern that there is a significant possibility of things getting bad but overflying an excellent airport due to convenience. But, perhaps it was known that the obnoxious fumes were definitely not fire related. Still, as a pax, I want fresh air soon and I would like to be on the ground safely sooner rather than an hour of potentially toxic fumes later.

notapilot15

3rd Nov 2016, 12:02

I'm sure that you could have figured this out, but it's a 'better safe than sorry' thing :rolleyes:.

Obnoxious smell with an unknown cause can be a symptom of a larger problem that may not contain itself to the rear while you are still airborne, so why risk it?

But it is a OK to leisurely find a convenient airport and 1hr 45min on oxygen bottle. Smells like a f@rt event.

ExXB

3rd Nov 2016, 12:07

They needed to dump fuel. It could be that diverting to YYC wouldn't have got the wheels on the ground any quicker. It also appears that YYC doesn't have an A380 tow bar.

KiloB

3rd Nov 2016, 13:17

The outstanding question is still why the entire CC grabbed their gear and left the Pax alone in the aircraft. By their own account only four of the Crew were affected; and if their concerns were that something noxious was still around, were the Pax not a higher priority than their suitcases?

Has the word 'duty' been removed from the dictionary?

neilb767

3rd Nov 2016, 13:24

FYI,

The air circulation on the A380 goes from cabin, to cargo , then overboard. No chance of fumes from the cargo entering the cabin.

The A380 is certified to land over weight. Depending on the rate of desent at touchdown will depend on the post landing maintenance check.

The A380 PCN ( pavement calcification number) is not the restricting quantity. its the fact that the beast is almost 80m x 80 m. Most airports have not planned for this as such obstacle clearance for take off , taxi and parking is comprised.

In an emergency the A380 can land at any airport ( assuming enough LDA ).. land yes, takeoff again... well possible not.

From my point of view, i get it on the ground, what happens next, is not my problem. Remote parking and air stairs work very well as I have observed. If parked in an open area then no need for a tow bar also .

Airbubba

3rd Nov 2016, 15:29

There is more logic to flightcrew going 100% Oxy. Some incapacitating conditions, fumes or toxic gases might be undetected by the flightcrew until damaging or debilitating effects are experienced. Therefore, generally if there are any signs of such conditions on the aeroplane, the flightcrew will go 100% Oxy.

Agreed.

Whatever the case, it sounds to me like the BA 286 flight deck crew did not put on their masks while talking with Edmonton Center.

The PAN PAN PAN check in shows up at about 43:50 on this clip when I open it in a Windows 10 Edge browser:

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/cyeg/CZEG-YEG-2-Oct-25-2016-0430Z.mp3

Hotel Tango

3rd Nov 2016, 15:49

Whatever the case, it sounds to me like the BA 286 flight deck crew did not put on their masks while talking with Edmonton Center.

Interesting, since I thought quite the opposite and possibly why Edmonton had some problems understanding them.

crewmeal

3rd Nov 2016, 19:06

ITV featured the incident on the 6.30 news tonight.

British Airways accused of downplaying toxic fume risk - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/2016-11-03/british-airways-accused-of-downplaying-toxic-fume-risk/)

McGinty

4th Nov 2016, 17:52

In the UK, today's Daily Telegraph has an article entitled "British Airways accused of 'shamefully' downgrading toxic fume events." The article contains a recording of the ATC interactions with the flight.

British Airways accused of 'shamefully' downplaying serious toxic fume events (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/ba-accused-of-playing-down-toxic-fume-events/)

Background Noise

1st Jan 2017, 14:26

Another article about this event in today's Sunday Times. You need to be registered to read the rest.

British Airways flight attendants on board an Airbus A380 “superjumbo” vomited, became “spaced out” and had to use emergency oxygen after suspected “toxic fumes” were detected in the cabin during a long-haul flight, a leaked internal report reveals.

At least one crew member became so ill that he curled up on the floor and put a blanket over his head. Others displayed bizarre behaviour including “stuffing” food into their mouths while using oxygen masks and wandering around “lost” in the cabin.

The report, which has been seen by The Sunday Times, was written by the cabin service director (CSD), the most senior grade of flight attendant, who was in charge of the 22-strong cabin crew on a BA flight from San Francisco to London on October 25.

glad rag

1st Jan 2017, 14:33

That is indeed frighting. From memory, there are only so many substances that can cause that level of incapacitation, I wonder what the blood tests showed up??

b1lanc

1st Jan 2017, 15:03

XLEK a couple of days later originating in F cabin according to a pax on the flight (comment on Simon's site). Reportedly attended to by a crew member on the diverted flight. Anyone confirm?

Lyneham Lad

1st Jan 2017, 16:19

The full article (Flight crew ‘spaced out’ on fumes

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/flight-crew-spaced-out-on-fumes-bzf7sxl65?shareToken=1745d4f001fb91143c184060928b5614) in The Sunday Times.

silverstrata

1st Jan 2017, 16:32

The Times link is paywalled. This is the article, in the Daily Mail.

Basically they give no reason why this happened. And no reason why it should be seemingly restricted to cabin crew and not passengers. The whole incident does seem a bit odd.

British Airways crew left 'vomiting and dizzy' after 'toxic fumes' leaked into cabin | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4079964/British-Airways-crew-left-vomiting-dizzy-confused-suspected-toxic-fumes-leaked-cabin-flight.html)

MrsDoubtfire

1st Jan 2017, 16:44

From memory, there are only so many substances that can cause that level of incapacitation

Carbon monoxide and/or hypoxia for example can cause confusion and other described symptoms:
https://www.cigna.com/healthwellness/hw/medical-topics/confusion-memory-loss-and-altered-alertness-confu
https://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=65703&CFID=73886200&CFTOKEN=19447862

The health effects associated with exposure to CO range from the more subtle cardiovascular and neuro-behavioral effects at low concentrations

After landing some passengers spoke about CO:
“It was pretty scary,” he said, adding they were told there were some technical problems with the plane. “The cabin crew on the top deck weren’t feeling very good because it was something to do with some carbon monoxide or something, that’s what [the firefighters] were talking about,” he said.
British Airways flight forced to land in Vancouver after crew members fall ill | Globalnews.ca (http://globalnews.ca/news/3023883/british-airways-flight-forced-to-land-at-yvr-after-crew-members-fall-ill/)

glad rag

1st Jan 2017, 17:03

Hmm CO build-up next to outlets? doubt it, I was thinking more of an introduced agent.

Background Noise

1st Jan 2017, 21:39

The Times link is paywalled. This is the article, in the Daily Mail.

It's not paywalled - like I said, you just have to register.

Flight crew ?spaced out? on fumes | News | The Times & The Sunday Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/flight-crew-spaced-out-on-fumes-bzf7sxl65)

Ian W

2nd Jan 2017, 10:51

Carbon monoxide and/or hypoxia for example can cause confusion and other described symptoms:
https://www.cigna.com/healthwellness/hw/medical-topics/confusion-memory-loss-and-altered-alertness-confu
https://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=65703&CFID=73886200&CFTOKEN=19447862

The health effects associated with exposure to CO range from the more subtle cardiovascular and neuro-behavioral effects at low concentrations

After landing some passengers spoke about CO:
“It was pretty scary,” he said, adding they were told there were some technical problems with the plane. “The cabin crew on the top deck weren’t feeling very good because it was something to do with some carbon monoxide or something, that’s what [the firefighters] were talking about,” he said.
British Airways flight forced to land in Vancouver after crew members fall ill | Globalnews.ca (http://globalnews.ca/news/3023883/british-airways-flight-forced-to-land-at-yvr-after-crew-members-fall-ill/)

The cabin crew all happily deplaned and walked into the hospital so it is unlikely that Carbon Monoxide was to blame as recovery from that takes some time as the haemoglobin has been bound with the carbon monoxide into carboxyheamoglobin which will take nearly an hour of 100% oxygen or ~6 hours with normal air to recover from.

Even Carbon Dioxide at high concentrations can give similar symptoms to those noted at high concentrations known as hypercapnia - perhaps a leaking CO2 bottle?

Symptoms and signs of early hypercapnia include flushed skin, full pulse, tachypnea, dyspnea, extrasystoles, muscle twitches, hand flaps, reduced neural activity, and possibly a raised blood pressure. According to other sources, symptoms of mild hypercapnia might include headache, confusion and lethargy. Hypercapnia can induce increased cardiac output, an elevation in arterial blood pressure, and a propensity toward arrhythmias.[4][5] In severe hypercapnia (generally PaCO2 greater than 10 kPa or 75 mmHg), symptomatology progresses to disorientation, panic, hyperventilation, convulsions, unconsciousness, and eventually death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia

b1lanc

2nd Jan 2017, 14:42

The curious symptoms to me are "stuffing food into their mouths" and a metallic taste. The first almost sounds hallucinogenic - the second can be caused by lots of things. In the early 60's our high school metal shop had a closed and well ventilated area for spraying zinc chromate primer on our projects and we were told never to heat painted surfaces (typically zinc chromate). Acute metal fume fever perhaps? Can be caused by fumes from heated metal or metal dust (magnesium for example) or heated zinc chromate.

Wonder if any toxicology studies have been performed on Airbus new Scalmalloy that makes up the bionic partition between pax and galley as well as the jumpseat (at least on the 320)? Lots of new generation alloys being used in today's environment.

RR22

2nd Jan 2017, 17:20

Won't be Foundryman's ague , unless they were up to a bit of brass smelting in
a spare oven, vaporized zinc is the cause , and the symptoms are similar to a bad Flu, or Malaria.

I suppose a new alloy could emit fumes, but modern metallurgy is so precise I cannot imagine such a novel characteristic escaping notice.

The Ancient Geek

2nd Jan 2017, 17:20

Simple case of mass hysteria.
Cabin crew talking to eachother about some imagined or minor symptoms, most probably one of them had eaten something wrong before the flight.
Not talking about it to the passengers so only the cabin crew affected.

McGinty

2nd Jan 2017, 20:27

I agree with the mass hysteria suspicion The fact that no passengers were involved when there were 400 of them on board the 380 and yet none reported any symptoms is simply not a sustainable alibi for the cabin crew's explanation of an on-board toxic fume event.

Along with the prior food ingestion explanation for the origin of the hysteria, there may also have been the possibility that some pollutant in the air in the crew bus that took the crew to San Francisco airport from their hotel may have been a cause of some of the cabin crew's subsequent symptoms. Or maybe something from the hotel itself affected them? The early days of the exploration of the causes of Legionnaire's Disease have a similar Sherlock Holmes-type series of conjectures as to the origins of the ailment.

b1lanc

2nd Jan 2017, 20:38

Although 25 crew and 1 pax were taken to hospitals for observation, TSB reports 3 crew and the one pax were "affected by the fumes". Hardly mass hysteria and doesn't seem to track with latest release of info which implied zombie crew, crew lying on the deck, etc.

ShotOne

6th Jan 2017, 10:09

Without prejudging the cause, one possible source of contamination is organophosphates from engine oil; wanting out of that environment is hardly "hysteria"

Swedish Steve

7th Jan 2017, 19:15

The air circulation on the A380 goes from cabin, to cargo , then overboard. No chance of fumes from the cargo entering the cabin.

Its the same on most big jets. I had an incident on a B767. There was a smell incident in the rear galley. One of the four cabin crew working there was incapacitated by the smell, and was taken off the aircraft by the paramedics and stayed in hospital overnight. The other three crew in that galley were not really concerned. I went to investigate, and finally found that the toilet/galley vent exhaust fan in the back of the bulk cargo hold had burnt out and tripped its CB. So I removed the plug and the aircraft departed (there are two fans). The steward that went to hospital was really bad, and he smelt the fumes from this burnt out motor in the galley about 1.5 meters above the fan.
The other 3 crew standing beside him were OK.
We wonder at times what they are thinking.

JammedStab

15th May 2018, 01:26

"In May 2018 The Aviation Herald received information that about 40-50 minutes into the flight an odour of glue type and burning plastics was detected near main deck door 4L. A family nearby had just oblate oil on their baby, however, the smell of the oblate oil was different to the odour detected near the door. A short time later the flight attendant in the upper deck galley began to vomit and reported there had been an odour of smelly feet during boarding and departure. Ovens and trash compactors were checked without success. During the following about 40 minutes other cabin crew members began to perform abnormally, complaints about headache, dizziness, lightheadedness, nausea, metallic taste in mouth surfaced, the cabin crew members showed itchy red eyes and became increasingly forgetful, aggressive and confused, e.g. replying completely out of context of an ongoing discussion then bluntly denying what just had been said. The worst affected flight attendant was put on oxygen. Medlink was contacted, at that point 12 cabin crew were cause of concern, the captain subsequently decided to divert. Cabin crew were slow in responding to the diversion and prepare the cabin due to inability to function normally and needed to be queried and guided by other crew. After the diversion was changed to Vancouver, which added another hour of flight time, 8 cabin crew were able to get on oxygen, a few other cabin crew went to go to the toilet but were subsequently found anywhere else in the aircraft but the lavatories. In the meantime the captain had donned his oxygen mask, while the two first officers continued without. Cabin crew became concerned they couldn't cover the doors for landing with that many cabin crew already affected and close to being incapacitated. After landing two firefighters with measurement devices and full protective gear boarded the aircraft, many passengers started to use their mobile phones to take photos and videos. Paramedics boarded and began to examine the cabin crew with the most affected being checked first, the paramedics became concerned with all cabin crew and wanted all of them checked. A number of passengers requested medical assistance, too. The worst affected flight attendant vomitted again and collapsed during disembarking. Cabin crew were taken to three different hospitals across the city but declared fit to fly home as passengers the following day."