British Airways flight diverted to YVR after passengers suffer smoke inhalation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Airways flight diverted to YVR after passengers suffer smoke inhalation
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Looks like the plane was G-XLEB, an A380-841.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...g-xleb#b697f10
Here's the predictable lede from the Sun:
PANIC AT 30,000FT British Ariways [sic ] flight BA286 pilots among 25 crew rushed to Vancouver hospital for smoke inhalation after emergency landing
] flight BA286 pilots among 25 crew rushed to Vancouver hospital for smoke inhalation after emergency landing
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't get it. They ignored or nearly overflew Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton, Spokane, Great Falls, even Moose Jaw.
Are these really incapable of handling a 380 in an emergency or was only fresh Pacific sea air going to resuscitate them?
And only crew were affected? Seems unlikely somehow?
Are these really incapable of handling a 380 in an emergency or was only fresh Pacific sea air going to resuscitate them?
And only crew were affected? Seems unlikely somehow?
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps YYC 17L/35R was out of limits at the time. The initial course correction seemed to head in YYC's direction before a second change towards YVR. Seems odd to head back over the Rockies otherwise.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Initial reports of smoke inhalation may have been false.
Looks like they initially decided to divert to Calgary, but due to marginal weather conditions there at the time (same with Edmonton) the crew elected to continue to Vancouver.
Looks like they initially decided to divert to Calgary, but due to marginal weather conditions there at the time (same with Edmonton) the crew elected to continue to Vancouver.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: s england
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't get it. They ignored or nearly overflew Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton, Spokane, Great Falls, even Moose Jaw.
Are these really incapable of handling a 380 in an emergency or was only fresh Pacific sea air going to resuscitate them?
And only crew were affected? Seems unlikely somehow?
Are these really incapable of handling a 380 in an emergency or was only fresh Pacific sea air going to resuscitate them?
And only crew were affected? Seems unlikely somehow?
Moose Jaw? A bit unfair to question a crews decision unless you have all of the facts. I can think of 10 reasons off the top of my head why I'd rule out Moose Jaw in a 380.
No charts and nothing in the FMGC are two. It's quite possible the crew have never heard of Moose Jaw let alone know it has a runway.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Listening to the CZEG 0430Z and 0500Z tapes over at liveatc.net you can hear the controller clearing aircraft from the path of the A380 as it dumps fuel at FL370. He says he needs the other planes to be at least 6000 feet below or 3000 feet above the dumping aircraft.
Speedbird Six Bravo Super checks in with a Pan Pan Pan. The controller is a Francophone and has trouble with the Speedbird Etonian accent.
I have trouble with both accents.
Is Speedbird Six Bravo the normal enroute radio callsign of BA 286?
When asked the nature of the problem Speedbird says a 'fume event' which the controller misunderstands as a 'fuel event'. Further discussion clarifies that description and the controller asks if they want to go to YEG or YYC. Speedbird says there is more support and better handling for the A380 at YVR. And too many lawyers in SEA would be my guess.
The controller tries to get more information, confirms that they are Pan Pan Pan but no real emergency as he put it.
When asked what assistance they need on arrival, Speedbird says they need paramedics to meet the aircraft at the gate. They say eleven 'crewmembers' are 'directly affected' by the fumes and a few pax. A little later they say eleven to twelve people total max.
They emphasize that they are fine on the flight deck but will do a fumes on aircraft procedure on arrival.
Souls on board was given as 432 and later as 433 and the estimated landing fuel was 54 tonnes.
After checking, the controller said to plan 08R at YVR (it turned out to be 08L, I'm shocked).
Listening to the 0600Z CYVR tapes, on checkin with approach they request full length as one might expect with a heavy divert. But, there is no Pan Pan Pan or other explicit mention of urgency.
The pilot on the radio was perhaps on the O2 mask from the sound, probably part of the fumes on aircraft drill.
They were vectored for an ILS to 08L, exited M5 and held to be checked out by the emergency vehicles, then taxied M, J, JA, to Gate 64.
During the checkout at M5 Speedbird was switched temporarily to 126.75 to talk directly to the ground vehicles.
Speedbird Six Bravo Super checks in with a Pan Pan Pan. The controller is a Francophone and has trouble with the Speedbird Etonian accent.
I have trouble with both accents.
Is Speedbird Six Bravo the normal enroute radio callsign of BA 286?
When asked the nature of the problem Speedbird says a 'fume event' which the controller misunderstands as a 'fuel event'. Further discussion clarifies that description and the controller asks if they want to go to YEG or YYC. Speedbird says there is more support and better handling for the A380 at YVR. And too many lawyers in SEA would be my guess.
The controller tries to get more information, confirms that they are Pan Pan Pan but no real emergency as he put it.
When asked what assistance they need on arrival, Speedbird says they need paramedics to meet the aircraft at the gate. They say eleven 'crewmembers' are 'directly affected' by the fumes and a few pax. A little later they say eleven to twelve people total max.
They emphasize that they are fine on the flight deck but will do a fumes on aircraft procedure on arrival.
Souls on board was given as 432 and later as 433 and the estimated landing fuel was 54 tonnes.
After checking, the controller said to plan 08R at YVR (it turned out to be 08L, I'm shocked
).Listening to the 0600Z CYVR tapes, on checkin with approach they request full length as one might expect with a heavy divert. But, there is no Pan Pan Pan or other explicit mention of urgency.
The pilot on the radio was perhaps on the O2 mask from the sound, probably part of the fumes on aircraft drill.
They were vectored for an ILS to 08L, exited M5 and held to be checked out by the emergency vehicles, then taxied M, J, JA, to Gate 64.
During the checkout at M5 Speedbird was switched temporarily to 126.75 to talk directly to the ground vehicles.
Last edited by Airbubba; 25th Oct 2016 at 18:32.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you know the precise location of the aircraft when it initiated its diversion to YVR?
Moose Jaw? A bit unfair to question a crews decision unless you have all of the facts. I can think of 10 reasons off the top of my head why I'd rule out Moose Jaw in a 380.
No charts and nothing in the FMGC are two. It's quite possible the crew have never heard of Moose Jaw let alone know it has a runway.
Moose Jaw? A bit unfair to question a crews decision unless you have all of the facts. I can think of 10 reasons off the top of my head why I'd rule out Moose Jaw in a 380.
No charts and nothing in the FMGC are two. It's quite possible the crew have never heard of Moose Jaw let alone know it has a runway.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC now reporting:
'Twenty-five crew members went to local hospitals as a precaution but were later discharged, said BA spokeswoman Michele Kropf.
The crew were not treated for smoke inhalation as reported, she said.
The airline did not say what the cause of the problem was or what their symptoms were.'
'Twenty-five crew members went to local hospitals as a precaution but were later discharged, said BA spokeswoman Michele Kropf.
The crew were not treated for smoke inhalation as reported, she said.
The airline did not say what the cause of the problem was or what their symptoms were.'
Do you know the precise location of the aircraft when it initiated its diversion to YVR?
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Quiet spot
Age: 74
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you know the precise location of the aircraft when it initiated its diversion to YVR?
Moose Jaw? A bit unfair to question a crews decision unless you have all of the facts. I can think of 10 reasons off the top of my head why I'd rule out Moose Jaw in a 380.
No charts and nothing in the FMGC are two. It's quite possible the crew have never heard of Moose Jaw let alone know it has a runway.
Moose Jaw? A bit unfair to question a crews decision unless you have all of the facts. I can think of 10 reasons off the top of my head why I'd rule out Moose Jaw in a 380.
No charts and nothing in the FMGC are two. It's quite possible the crew have never heard of Moose Jaw let alone know it has a runway.
Doesn't this aircraft require more wing room?
Last edited by Preon; 25th Oct 2016 at 17:52.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: norway
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Preon said..."..Having spoken to the Captain (on a Vancouver bound) A380 there's evidently no diversion field available to the BA380's over Canada other than Vancouver"
So if a BA 380 does a missed approach at YYZ, for example, they must divert to YVR?
Interesting.
So if a BA 380 does a missed approach at YYZ, for example, they must divert to YVR?
Interesting.
It depends how you define a suitable airfield for a diversion. A380s fly regularly to YVR so maintenance and possibly additional crew members might be available. It seems a reasonable plan if you are not sure all of your crew will be fit to continue. Also might be a familiar airfield for the A 380 crew. I had a potential diversion (passenger sick) last week and that was certainly a factor we discussed. If there is no immediate danger in flying a bit further, this might be the best solution for the passengers.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if a BA 380 does a missed approach at YYZ, for example, they must divert to YVR?
Because of taxi/gate/runway restrictions, A380 operators provide their crews with categories of airport to consider for diversion. Broadly:
a) Any time
b) Not ideal but you'll get off the runway and be able to park somewhere and takeoff again. Passenger handling might be very cumbersome.
c) Only if the proverbial excrement hits the fan, as you might not be able to get off the runway, park or takeoff again. But you'll land safely.
Medical facilities will also be categorised to help the diversion decision making process.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many years ago a NW B747 enroute to TYO diverted to CYXJ (Ft. St. John) due to medical. Ground staff used fork lift to get on top of a scissor lift catering truck (used for CP's B737-200s) to access passenger door.
Where there is a will there is a way.
Kelowna Flightcraft likely have stairs that would reach at YLW, if that had become necessary.
Where there is a will there is a way.
Kelowna Flightcraft likely have stairs that would reach at YLW, if that had become necessary.