Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

British Airways 747 diverts to Las Vegas - fumes in flight deck

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

British Airways 747 diverts to Las Vegas - fumes in flight deck

Old 16th Feb 2013, 11:04
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Age: 51
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
British Airways 747 diverts to Las Vegas - fumes in flight deck

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
AdamFlyer is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2013, 15:54
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -11`
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That would be the second one in a short time for BA.
What's going on there? Activism or a BA restricted fume-problem?
seat 0A is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2013, 15:55
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Mr A Tis is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2013, 15:59
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Hand Solo is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2013, 16:00
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FlightAware


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.
misd-agin is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2013, 16:07
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
misd-agin is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2013, 16:17
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2013, 16:20
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
misd-agin.
Sorry didn,t see your post.
bhx bod is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2013, 16:24
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wouldn't it have made more sense to divert to Phoenix?
Dannyboy39 is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2013, 17:04
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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

Last edited by SLATS_EXTEND; 16th Feb 2013 at 17:04.
SLATS_EXTEND is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2013, 17:49
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wouldn't it have made more sense to divert to Phoenix?

The logic being . . . ?
Akrapovic is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2013, 22:39
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sunday Express

Second BA jet in 'toxic fumes' scare forced to make emergency landing | UK | News | Daily Express
Dream Buster is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2013, 18:10
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Dannyboy39 is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2013, 19:31
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Hotel Tango is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 11:17
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 43
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
+1 for the above poster.
SMT Member is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 11:26
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toxic Haze
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
toxic-avenger is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 13:09
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aerotoxic Syndrome

Toxic - avenger,

Here is the first published paper on Aerotoxic Syndrome:

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/do...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!
Dream Buster is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 16:35
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: ex-DXB
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Had these planes recently been in the hangar...........

Roll on the 380.
Craggenmore is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 18:38
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 .
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 19:52
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
UCL - 196,000 p.a in 2004.

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/do...don%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.
Dream Buster is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.