British Airways Pan and return to Heathrow
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so fantastic , Without wishing to enter into an argument ending behind the bike shed I was there, I spoke to the flight crew and that is what they told me. Take a breath before you reply.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Breath taken. I'm sure their private comments to you were 'not intended for publication!' Yes, they would undoubtedly have been tired, but I doubt the reason the operation was postponed to later in the day was because they were 'too shaken'- rather it was the lack of a serviceable aeroplane at the early hours and also the complete inability to replace it AND cater/load/fuel it.
It is obviously necessary to warn all my colleagues to watch everything they say to ground staff now. You don't reveal what your connection is, MT driver, engineer, ground ops staff. I would think the crew wouldn't speak too complimentary to you following your 'snitching'.
It is obviously necessary to warn all my colleagues to watch everything they say to ground staff now. You don't reveal what your connection is, MT driver, engineer, ground ops staff. I would think the crew wouldn't speak too complimentary to you following your 'snitching'.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so fantastic, You seem to feel being "too shaken" is a sign of weakness and something not to be admitted. This is not a "mine is bigger than yours match." Sadly you seem determined to "defend " your company colleagues from what you see as criticism. As I said, I was there . They were shaken and the decision they made was for the best. I was always taught , " To assume is to make an ass out of me and you !" Don't be so defensive. These grown men don't need your blind support. Just let the rest of us empathise with them. As for snitching.What did they do wrong ?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well maybe you think it OK to spout stuff like that. I think they may be rather offended. I am trying to find out who it was and inform them of your kind comments. It would be interesting to get some idea of who it is rushes off to announce to the world comments made in private. Perhaps we have to announce now to any ground staff 'these comments are not intended for publication!'.
Mistrust in Management
Pinkaroo
Your first comment was "but the flightcrew were too shaken so pax went to hotels".
Your other comment was "I spoke to the flight crew and that is what they told me."
I personally find it hard to believe that the Flight Crew would have made that earlier statement as you so say. I believe that you 'may' have gleaned some of the facts and then formed an opinion which you have decided to post here.
I support Not So Fantastic in his defence of the Flight Crew involved. I would not expect any comments I make to other staff to be interpreted in any manner they see fit and then placed on this public site as a complete representation of the 'truth'.
You have seen fit to discuss the Flight Crew in such a knowlegable manner, so perhaps you would be kind enough to let us all know what you do for a living. It may add to your credibility, or then again.......
Regards
Exeng
Your other comment was "I spoke to the flight crew and that is what they told me."
I personally find it hard to believe that the Flight Crew would have made that earlier statement as you so say. I believe that you 'may' have gleaned some of the facts and then formed an opinion which you have decided to post here.
I support Not So Fantastic in his defence of the Flight Crew involved. I would not expect any comments I make to other staff to be interpreted in any manner they see fit and then placed on this public site as a complete representation of the 'truth'.
You have seen fit to discuss the Flight Crew in such a knowlegable manner, so perhaps you would be kind enough to let us all know what you do for a living. It may add to your credibility, or then again.......
Regards
Exeng
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pinkaroo,
Having had a few 'nasties' in my time, I can tell you that the worst situation by far is when you are airborne and know you have a problem but don't know what in Hell it is. Engine failures, fires etc are not at all nice, but at least you know what you are dealing with.
When I was in my single-crew air taxi days I heard the most Godalmighty banging noise coming from somewhere, but no idea where. Then it stopped. Silence for 20 minutes. Then it happened again. Eventually looked around behind my shoulder to see how the pax were faring.......to see one of them bashing his pipe out against the side of the aircraft. Funny now, but I've never been so s..t scared in my life.
What were you doing at Heathrow at midnight?
FWIW I support Exeung & Notso - what was said to you in private by flight crew following an 'event' should be kept private, not published anonymously on a very public forum.
Having had a few 'nasties' in my time, I can tell you that the worst situation by far is when you are airborne and know you have a problem but don't know what in Hell it is. Engine failures, fires etc are not at all nice, but at least you know what you are dealing with.
When I was in my single-crew air taxi days I heard the most Godalmighty banging noise coming from somewhere, but no idea where. Then it stopped. Silence for 20 minutes. Then it happened again. Eventually looked around behind my shoulder to see how the pax were faring.......to see one of them bashing his pipe out against the side of the aircraft. Funny now, but I've never been so s..t scared in my life.
What were you doing at Heathrow at midnight?
FWIW I support Exeung & Notso - what was said to you in private by flight crew following an 'event' should be kept private, not published anonymously on a very public forum.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The 4th Quark Galaxy
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"As I said, I was there . They were shaken......"
With such a determined and knowledgeable opinon I can only assume Pinkaroo would have been the doctor who met the flight (what do you mean there wasn't one). Who else could possibly be qualified to correctly determine the pyschological state of the crew.
Pinkaroo,
You just leave the flying and emergency drills to us and keep your opinions to yourself. Dumping a bunch of fuel doesn't 'shake' anyone. The reasons for not continuing are much more in line with Notso's thinking, rather than those expressed by someone on the 'outside' spouting rubbish in order to get 'in' on the action
With such a determined and knowledgeable opinon I can only assume Pinkaroo would have been the doctor who met the flight (what do you mean there wasn't one). Who else could possibly be qualified to correctly determine the pyschological state of the crew.
Pinkaroo,
You just leave the flying and emergency drills to us and keep your opinions to yourself. Dumping a bunch of fuel doesn't 'shake' anyone. The reasons for not continuing are much more in line with Notso's thinking, rather than those expressed by someone on the 'outside' spouting rubbish in order to get 'in' on the action
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: one dot low as usual
Age: 66
Posts: 536
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon Pinkaroo misheard the crew say the whole thing was straightforward and they'd be outbound again in two shakes.
Still bad form to report your opinion of first hand information here as "fact".
Still bad form to report your opinion of first hand information here as "fact".
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SE UK
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pinkaroo,
It transpires the knocking was the flapping sound made by the headset operative as the aircraft passed through 250kts. He had unfortunately failed to disconnect his headset and was wrapped around the forward drain mast. You heard right about the 'too shaken' to fly, but it was the headset operative to whom this comment referred.
It transpires the knocking was the flapping sound made by the headset operative as the aircraft passed through 250kts. He had unfortunately failed to disconnect his headset and was wrapped around the forward drain mast. You heard right about the 'too shaken' to fly, but it was the headset operative to whom this comment referred.
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poor fellow is probably round behind the bikesheds trying to recover. Actually come to think... what does go on behind the sheds??
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SW UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I suggest that there is actually two issues here.
Firstly, whether a private comment should be repeated on a public forum - sorry, pinkaroo, but that is bad form.
Secondly, and more importantly, if we assume that the pilots were, shall we say, a bit spooked by this (whether or not that is the real case), whether they should:
a) have charged on regardless or
b) stopped and said 'actually, I'm a bit shaken and would rather not fly'.
I know which one I'd rather they took. And I get a bit nervous of the folks on this thread who think that it's not the done thing to say that you've been spooked.
Spooked and honest about it = delayed flight
Spooked and macho about it = operating at significantly less than 100% and increasing the risk associated with any subsequent incident.
Firstly, whether a private comment should be repeated on a public forum - sorry, pinkaroo, but that is bad form.
Secondly, and more importantly, if we assume that the pilots were, shall we say, a bit spooked by this (whether or not that is the real case), whether they should:
a) have charged on regardless or
b) stopped and said 'actually, I'm a bit shaken and would rather not fly'.
I know which one I'd rather they took. And I get a bit nervous of the folks on this thread who think that it's not the done thing to say that you've been spooked.
Spooked and honest about it = delayed flight
Spooked and macho about it = operating at significantly less than 100% and increasing the risk associated with any subsequent incident.
