BA A320. Onion bahjis smell.
"The doctors recommended the flight crew to stay in hospital overnight for monitoring, however, the pilots preferred to go to the hotel and returned to London the next day as passengers, refusing to fly on the occurrence aircraft."
"The occurrence aircraft remained on the ground for about 27 hours, then returned to London Gatwick as flight BA-2675 and continued service."
https://avherald.com/h?article=4cfb5c82&opt=0
"The occurrence aircraft remained on the ground for about 27 hours, then returned to London Gatwick as flight BA-2675 and continued service."
https://avherald.com/h?article=4cfb5c82&opt=0
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Here
Age: 73
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No sir, no paranoia, personally experienced the issue, not to that extent fortunately. once on a wide body, other times on single aile and having flown both main manufacturers with same engines over 3k hours each, only on one type so far.
A few lines of second hand information is meaningless. The captain's situation isnt clear as there was a communication issue. I would love to see the actual saturation readings in the hospital as I struggle to reconcile this with any known condition. On the face of it both felt unwell and had a temperature so looking at a viral infection... we often find several nurses go ill on the same shift......But not as sexy as organophosphate toxicity
I am more worried with the finding that the 2 pilots couldn't communicate with each other with masks on. Either they didnt use them properly, indicating a training issue, or the equipment had a fault. Surely this is far more serious in terms of the risk of a recurrent hazard?
I am more worried with the finding that the 2 pilots couldn't communicate with each other with masks on. Either they didnt use them properly, indicating a training issue, or the equipment had a fault. Surely this is far more serious in terms of the risk of a recurrent hazard?
Could it be that they struggled to use the equipment efficiently because of the impairment from a toxin or fume effect rather than blaming poor training?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for the thread drift but I remember that I was once told of a good (but expensive) post-flight test of a suspect aerotoxic event. It required vacuum packing your shirt (or something else you wore) and sending it for testing.
while googling for it I just found another test:
Aerotoxic hair test
Anyone experience with one of those tests?
while googling for it I just found another test:
Aerotoxic hair test
Anyone experience with one of those tests?
A few lines of second hand information is meaningless. The captain's situation isnt clear as there was a communication issue. I would love to see the actual saturation readings in the hospital as I struggle to reconcile this with any known condition. On the face of it both felt unwell and had a temperature so looking at a viral infection... we often find several nurses go ill on the same shift......But not as sexy as organophosphate toxicity
I am more worried with the finding that the 2 pilots couldn't communicate with each other with masks on. Either they didnt use them properly, indicating a training issue, or the equipment had a fault. Surely this is far more serious in terms of the risk of a recurrent hazard?
I am more worried with the finding that the 2 pilots couldn't communicate with each other with masks on. Either they didnt use them properly, indicating a training issue, or the equipment had a fault. Surely this is far more serious in terms of the risk of a recurrent hazard?
