British Airways Airbus A320 Airborne return due to smoke in the cabin
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Airways Airbus A320 Airborne return due to smoke in the cabin
BA370
G-MIDX
LHR-MRS
SUNDAY 17 FEB 2013
Smoke in the cabin. Mayday call for immediate return. Crew on oxygen. Autoland carried out, fire services inspected aircraft. Aircraft had No.2 engine changed.
G-MIDX
LHR-MRS
SUNDAY 17 FEB 2013
Smoke in the cabin. Mayday call for immediate return. Crew on oxygen. Autoland carried out, fire services inspected aircraft. Aircraft had No.2 engine changed.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for doing that, W C.
Two more:
Why has this not appeared on Av Herald?
Why are BA pilots suddenly hyperventilating so much in flight? (refer Dr Bagshaw)
Two more:
Why has this not appeared on Av Herald?
Why are BA pilots suddenly hyperventilating so much in flight? (refer Dr Bagshaw)
I should imagine that raised awareness is a factor? Historically, pilots may have smelt something odd and thought nothing of it. I guess now, they may be thinking it could be something more.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Accidents.com
BOAC,
I am also concerned that certain 'mayday' incidents don't seem to be reported, although they can be found by other means.
It makes one realise that information 'out' is only as good as information 'in'.
Hence it is easy for airlines to say 'There is no evidence'.
Here is a new site with a special section for fume event flights.
Air-Accidents.com | Antonio Bordoni
I am also concerned that certain 'mayday' incidents don't seem to be reported, although they can be found by other means.
It makes one realise that information 'out' is only as good as information 'in'.
Hence it is easy for airlines to say 'There is no evidence'.
Here is a new site with a special section for fume event flights.
Air-Accidents.com | Antonio Bordoni
They certainly are.
Is that the third occurrence with a BA flight within a week ? Different types and circumstances but still perplexing.
Also wondering if auto land is the preferred response in such a case ? Unless you have positively identified the fire not being avionic related I would not put too much trust into those pesky computers...
Also wondering if auto land is the preferred response in such a case ? Unless you have positively identified the fire not being avionic related I would not put too much trust into those pesky computers...
Does anyone know how thick the smoke was? Was it just fumes or was the visibility inside the aircraft affected? And were there any fire warnings? There is big difference between smelling fumes and believing there is a fire on board.
I would have assumed that a Mayday would qualify for inclusion on AvH.
).
Last edited by wiggy; 20th Feb 2013 at 18:37.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since neither of us know from whence Simon gets his information, there is little point in discussing your point. I would however observe that, as I'm sure you know, a few more people then you and BA 'notice' a Mayday so the aviation world does not hang on your 'cc'.
I'm sure you know, a few more people then you and BA 'notice' a Mayday so the aviation world does not hang on your 'cc'.
Given that nobody else "noticed" this incident maybe the OP should tell us more?
Given that nobody else "noticed" this incident maybe the OP should tell us more?
Given that, as BOAC has helpfully pointed out, the incident must have been apparent to anyone who was monitoring departures at the time, or indeed the world and his wife looking at WebTrak in retrospect, why it didn't make AvHerald is one of life's mysteries that will doubtless never be explained.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I need to apologise to West Coast, I deleted a post between his and the original poster by mistake last night and it totally changed the context of his reply.
I was questioning why this wasn't in the spotters forum given that it was a report of a defect that would normally not get a second glance.
Is it purely because it was fumes and that is a hot topic for a couple of people on here?
I was questioning why this wasn't in the spotters forum given that it was a report of a defect that would normally not get a second glance.
Is it purely because it was fumes and that is a hot topic for a couple of people on here?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the aircraft made an immediate right turnout onto a downwind leg and subseqently landed on 09R, squawking 7700, after less than 15 minutes airborne.
Also wondering if auto land is the preferred response in such a case ?
If I understand it, the latest BALPA belief is that fumes do not really do us any harm and that we are all hyperventillating. Why is that British Airways seem to be going through a week of hyperventillating?
I am astonished that BAPLA have taken this view especially since two BA pilots have recently died with more than a suspicion of aero-toxicity involved.
Something does not add up in this argument.
Why are BALPA so keen to avoid the possibility of toxic poisoning?
Are they possibly being paid by the other side?
I am astonished that BAPLA have taken this view especially since two BA pilots have recently died with more than a suspicion of aero-toxicity involved.
Something does not add up in this argument.
Why are BALPA so keen to avoid the possibility of toxic poisoning?
Are they possibly being paid by the other side?
Last edited by JW411; 21st Feb 2013 at 17:02.
A BA A319 (320?) emergency landing, Lisbon, cockpit smoke! 08:30