British Airways 747 diverts to Las Vegas - fumes in flight deck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Age: 53
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
See:
British Airways plane makes emergency landing in Las Vegas - www.ktnv.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
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 16:04.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The logic being . . . ?
I gather there was quite a sizeable fuel dump over the desert anyway.
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?
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?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
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!
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!
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?
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 .
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
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.)
~ 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.
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."
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."
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.