British Airways flight diverted to YVR after passengers suffer smoke inhalation
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, there it is. Sufficiently strong and obnoxious smell so that crew donned oxygen masks and diverted, however not so strong or pervasive as to be detected by any pax or subsequent inspection. Maybe it was the fish -- from a week ago. Or maybe still fishy.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh FFS don't you think ANY airline might have better things to do than placate a bunch of ill informed spotters, flight sim addicts and conspiracy theorists on an internet bulletin board? Get over yourselves.
The people affected by this are: the crew, the passengers, BA and the Canadian authorities. There's a post-incident information flow that goes on and you're not in it. You're not even incidental to it and the sooner you realise that, the sooner you can wipe the froth off your keyboard and replace it with the drool and toast crumbs that are normally there.
The people affected by this are: the crew, the passengers, BA and the Canadian authorities. There's a post-incident information flow that goes on and you're not in it. You're not even incidental to it and the sooner you realise that, the sooner you can wipe the froth off your keyboard and replace it with the drool and toast crumbs that are normally there.
Glad someone said it. Some of these threads remind me of the old poem about the blind men and the elephant...
As far as drool and toast crumbs, those have been washed away by the spray of a perfectly good vodka tonic. I'll PM you with the replacement cost.
Cheers!
I'm sure that you could have figured this out, but it's a 'better safe than sorry' thing 
.
Obnoxious smell with an unknown cause can be a symptom of a larger problem that may not contain itself to the rear while you are still airborne, so why risk it?
.Obnoxious smell with an unknown cause can be a symptom of a larger problem that may not contain itself to the rear while you are still airborne, so why risk it?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Common sense would dictate that if the fumes were way in the back, you wouldn't need to put on masks up front.
But the days of common sense have been superseded by somewhat blind adherence to procedure.
Many Boeing abnormal checklists I've used had something like:
O2 masks - (if required) on, 100%.
However, often you would be led to another Smoke or Fumes removal checklist that did not have the parenthetical 'if required' part.
In recent years Boeing has worked to go to more unified company checklists for things like SFF and hydraulic failures and it seems to me that many airlines are going back to standard Boeing checklists and procedures. I can remember when the Delta B-757 before takeoff checklist had nearly a dozen items while the Boeing checklist had only one. I was told that the Delta checklist was inherited from the DC-8 training department.
Any Nigel's care to enlighten us on how it's done on the BA Triple?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They reported a fume event because that's EXACTLY what it was
There is more logic to flightcrew going 100% Oxy. Some incapacitating conditions, fumes or toxic gases might be undetected by the flightcrew until damaging or debilitating effects are experienced. Therefore, generally if there are any signs of such conditions on the aeroplane, the flightcrew will go 100% Oxy.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Original question
Answer to question
Yes, as a matter of fact, I did figure it out. Wouldn't your answer apply in exactly the same manner when it comes to diverting to Calgary instead of overflying and going to Vancouver due to passenger handling issues.
Seems we have a case of using masks(and all its difficulties) due to a concern that there is a significant possibility of things getting bad but overflying an excellent airport due to convenience. But, perhaps it was known that the obnoxious fumes were definitely not fire related. Still, as a pax, I want fresh air soon and I would like to be on the ground safely sooner rather than an hour of potentially toxic fumes later.
Answer to question
Yes, as a matter of fact, I did figure it out. Wouldn't your answer apply in exactly the same manner when it comes to diverting to Calgary instead of overflying and going to Vancouver due to passenger handling issues.
Seems we have a case of using masks(and all its difficulties) due to a concern that there is a significant possibility of things getting bad but overflying an excellent airport due to convenience. But, perhaps it was known that the obnoxious fumes were definitely not fire related. Still, as a pax, I want fresh air soon and I would like to be on the ground safely sooner rather than an hour of potentially toxic fumes later.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But it is a OK to leisurely find a convenient airport and 1hr 45min on oxygen bottle. Smells like a f@rt event.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They needed to dump fuel. It could be that diverting to YYC wouldn't have got the wheels on the ground any quicker. It also appears that YYC doesn't have an A380 tow bar.
The real question
The outstanding question is still why the entire CC grabbed their gear and left the Pax alone in the aircraft. By their own account only four of the Crew were affected; and if their concerns were that something noxious was still around, were the Pax not a higher priority than their suitcases?
Has the word 'duty' been removed from the dictionary?
Has the word 'duty' been removed from the dictionary?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: in a house
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FYI,
The air circulation on the A380 goes from cabin, to cargo , then overboard. No chance of fumes from the cargo entering the cabin.
The A380 is certified to land over weight. Depending on the rate of desent at touchdown will depend on the post landing maintenance check.
The A380 PCN ( pavement calcification number) is not the restricting quantity. its the fact that the beast is almost 80m x 80 m. Most airports have not planned for this as such obstacle clearance for take off , taxi and parking is comprised.
In an emergency the A380 can land at any airport ( assuming enough LDA ).. land yes, takeoff again... well possible not.
From my point of view, i get it on the ground, what happens next, is not my problem. Remote parking and air stairs work very well as I have observed. If parked in an open area then no need for a tow bar also .
The air circulation on the A380 goes from cabin, to cargo , then overboard. No chance of fumes from the cargo entering the cabin.
The A380 is certified to land over weight. Depending on the rate of desent at touchdown will depend on the post landing maintenance check.
The A380 PCN ( pavement calcification number) is not the restricting quantity. its the fact that the beast is almost 80m x 80 m. Most airports have not planned for this as such obstacle clearance for take off , taxi and parking is comprised.
In an emergency the A380 can land at any airport ( assuming enough LDA ).. land yes, takeoff again... well possible not.
From my point of view, i get it on the ground, what happens next, is not my problem. Remote parking and air stairs work very well as I have observed. If parked in an open area then no need for a tow bar also .
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
There is more logic to flightcrew going 100% Oxy. Some incapacitating conditions, fumes or toxic gases might be undetected by the flightcrew until damaging or debilitating effects are experienced. Therefore, generally if there are any signs of such conditions on the aeroplane, the flightcrew will go 100% Oxy.
Whatever the case, it sounds to me like the BA 286 flight deck crew did not put on their masks while talking with Edmonton Center.
The PAN PAN PAN check in shows up at about 43:50 on this clip when I open it in a Windows 10 Edge browser:
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/cy...2016-0430Z.mp3
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever the case, it sounds to me like the BA 286 flight deck crew did not put on their masks while talking with Edmonton Center.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hornby Island, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK, today's Daily Telegraph has an article entitled "British Airways accused of 'shamefully' downgrading toxic fume events." The article contains a recording of the ATC interactions with the flight.
British Airways accused of 'shamefully' downplaying serious toxic fume events
British Airways accused of 'shamefully' downplaying serious toxic fume events
Another article about this event in today's Sunday Times. You need to be registered to read the rest.
British Airways flight attendants on board an Airbus A380 “superjumbo” vomited, became “spaced out” and had to use emergency oxygen after suspected “toxic fumes” were detected in the cabin during a long-haul flight, a leaked internal report reveals.
At least one crew member became so ill that he curled up on the floor and put a blanket over his head. Others displayed bizarre behaviour including “stuffing” food into their mouths while using oxygen masks and wandering around “lost” in the cabin.
The report, which has been seen by The Sunday Times, was written by the cabin service director (CSD), the most senior grade of flight attendant, who was in charge of the 22-strong cabin crew on a BA flight from San Francisco to London on October 25.
At least one crew member became so ill that he curled up on the floor and put a blanket over his head. Others displayed bizarre behaviour including “stuffing” food into their mouths while using oxygen masks and wandering around “lost” in the cabin.
The report, which has been seen by The Sunday Times, was written by the cabin service director (CSD), the most senior grade of flight attendant, who was in charge of the 22-strong cabin crew on a BA flight from San Francisco to London on October 25.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is indeed frighting. From memory, there are only so many substances that can cause that level of incapacitation, I wonder what the blood tests showed up??
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A second BA-268 fume event?
XLEK a couple of days later originating in F cabin according to a pax on the flight (comment on Simon's site). Reportedly attended to by a crew member on the diverted flight. Anyone confirm?