British Airways flight diverted to YVR after passengers suffer smoke inhalation
notapilot15
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....
Seriously, now it is Canadians fault playing along with tune tosh.
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....
Last edited by wiggy; 29th Oct 2016 at 16:40.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
got to call BS on this wiggy 
"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
"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
Is he now second to paramedics?
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.
I was under the impression that passengers may not board, or be on board a commercial aircraft, if there are no cabin crew present.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hornby Island, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Scotland
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
FlyingCanUK
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..
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.
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
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.
Last edited by wiggy; 30th Oct 2016 at 04:46.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by evansb; 30th Oct 2016 at 06:55.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by wiggy; 30th Oct 2016 at 06:11.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Oh by the way, what is a "personal"air mile any way?..?
Is the air on planes TOXIC? Dangerous chemicals found in blood samples of cabin crew raise fears about in-flight 'poisoning' | Daily Mail Online
Oh by the way, what is a "personal"air mile any way?..?
Last edited by evansb; 31st Oct 2016 at 05:57.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: ZRH
Age: 43
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Age: 46
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.