British Airways flight diverted to YVR after passengers suffer smoke inhalation

[TURIN]

"..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.

[TLB]

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]

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]

"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]

Originally Posted by jack11111

"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:

Originally Posted by misd-agin

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

Originally Posted by core_dump

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]

Originally Posted by TLB

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]

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.

[kenadams]

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]

Why no formal investigation?

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]

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]

Originally Posted by wiggy

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]

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?

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]

Originally Posted by wiggy

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.

Originally Posted by wiggy

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]

Here is a link to the Transport Canada CADORS report

CADORS: Report

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]

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]

Originally Posted by wiggy

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]

Originally Posted by TLB

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]

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...]

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

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

[expurser]

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?