A few facts might be of interest
 

Andrew Barnes' body was found on Hythe Beach in Kent on April 11 and he was off work from March 12th.

Flight BA460 from Heathrow to Madrid landed at the Spanish Barajas airport on March 12. Eight members of the cabin crew were signed off sick after the landing.

The aircraft continued to operate flights as scheduled and no contact from customers concerned about the landing.

Sure looks like media trying to make news where there is simply a death of someone who was on a plane that had a hard landing a month before. :ugh:

The truth is still not out. How come only trained cabin crew signed off sick and no passenger injuries.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story!

The 'media' are not interested in accuracy, just selling newspapers or advertising time. :mad:

Does it also truly beggar your belief that:

• All cabin crew were assessed as unfit to continue duties.
• The Captain, whether PF or PNF, reportedly apologised on the PA for the landing. Yet BA reportedly declared a 'normal landing'.
• The Captain reportedly blamed the wind, yet another source reports that the wind was light and virtually constant.
• There are no reports of a heavy landing check. So what was the Captain apologising for?
• There are no reports of an MOR being filed.
• There are no reports that the CAA have been involved.

• Where is the basis of your suspicion that 'a group of militant cabin crew' exist? How does such a group form when it is composed of individuals who are extremely unlikely to work together as precisely that same group on anything other than very rare occasions, if ever?
• Where is it published that anyone is 'accusing the entire pilot community' of anything?
• Where is it published that anyone is 'accusing the CAA' of anything?
• Where is it published that anyone is 'accusing FOQA' of anything?
• Where is it published that anyone is 'accusing the passengers involved' of anything?

Are 'BA management closing ranks'? Do you have proof whether they are? Does that possibility 'beggar belief'?

How do you "know" they were "assessed" as unfit to continue duties? If you had ever worked in BA you might have some idea of the work ethic and culture of some work groups where the first port of call is to the union rather than line management. I've had plenty of landings well within "normal" parameters which the passengers might have felt as firm. I've been asked to apologise for a landing by a captain even though there was nothing wrong it other than being more agricultural than usual.

As for the wind, the surface wind may have been light and variable but do you know what the winds were on approach? Was there any shear? Was there an inversion?

As for heavy landing check, only needs to be raised if in the opinion of the captain, it's required or there is an ACMS print out. So, as explained above and earlier, he might well have apologised but that doesn't mean that it necessarily meets the criterion for a heavy landing check.

As for militant cabin crew? Have you no memory of recent industrial disputes within BA? Pprune is not the place to air dirty laundry but your witch hunt is mis-directed and I'll-informed.

BA Crew injured in Madrid hard landing (Mar '14), Steward dies (Apr '14). - boards.ie

'Crew were examined by paramedics on the aircraft who confirmed that they were not fit to operate as crew but were fit to passenger back.'

'…the crew were signed off sick by a doctor and none has flown since. Claimed injuries include damage to legs, neck, back, vertebrae and coccyx. A legal case against BA is being considered.'

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that those claims apply in the case of BA460?

'Plenty' might suggest incorrect technique or inadequate basic ability. Have you considered seeking the input of more experienced, qualified training pilots in similar conditions?

Your opinion of your own abilities in that respect and in that instance is clearly at complete odds with that of your Captain. Do you often disagree with your Captain?

Hard landing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'Hard landings can vary in seriousness from simply causing mild passenger discomfort to situations resulting in serious vehicle damage, structural failure, injuries, and/or loss of life.'

My bold formatting.

Injuries are referenced in my earlier text of this post. Based upon that, injuries occurred; the only conclusion can therefore be that the landing was a heavy landing.

I thought the Captain was a 'she'. Are you revealing yet another injury?

I recall a significant series of cabin crew strikes a few years ago. Do you refer to those? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that those strikes have any relevance to this case?

PPRuNe is exactly the place to air dirty laundry. That is one of its main purposes, as far as I am concerned.

Where is there any evidence that I am conducting a witch hunt? Please indicate where that evidence occurs. I am seeking the truth, nothing else.

As for ill informed, I am obliged to work with the material available, extracted from a thorough online search.

Please supply the well informed material you most certainly must posses, for how else can you possibly be qualified to claim that available material is incorrect or inadequate?

Given that:

"'…the crew were signed off sick by a doctor and none has flown since. Claimed injuries include damage to legs, neck, back, vertebrae and coccyx. A legal case against BA is being considered.'"

if I was BA, if there was any real basis in this, I would now have contacted all of the pax and arranged independent medical investigations for them in order to mimimise any future liabilities, and to conform with my duty of care. Is there any evidence of that sort of activity ?

Coming across as a bit Anal, there, Mr. Schroedinger.
for example.. Where did he say that he was the P.F.?....He didn't!...Merely that the Captain delegated the task to him.
Jeez, a bunch of precious wilting violets appear to have ganged up on one or more flight-crew to "mix them a bottle" (a Northern term for "causing them some trouble!)
The present litigious climate ensures that any poor lamb that bleats about "pain" or "discomfort" Is given disproportionately excessive credence....It's commonly called "ass-covering" The penalty for dismissing frivolous and spurious reports, is so much higher than the penalty for getting it wrong, there is an absolute incentive to "tick all the boxes", as the professional gets zero credit for weeding out malingerers and cheats.......the fact that the entire contingent of Pax apparently failed to file any adverse reports, despite the "ambulance-chasing claim-leeches", suggests a strong odour of piscine decomposition.

I rest my case.

Go on, I'll take the bait.

Why should Ham Phisted stating that he has had plenty of normal landings imply incorrect technique or inadequate basic ability? Do you have any evidence...

Good landing: right place, right speed, right attitude. Boeing, and if I remember correctly Airbus, specifically advise against holding off to achieve a gentle touchdown. Unfortunately, there's not many professional pilots on these forums any more.

I came here to seek the truth, given that there is so much conflicting information regarding this flight.

I'm clearly wasting my time, except to raise a question in perceptive minds as to how many BA managers and/or their minions are posting.


Anyone know of any Professional Pilot Rumour Networks online?

At last the penny has dropped. And if you think you're perceptive, you're even further from the mark than in your previous postings. I'm just a common or garden line pilot with no aspirations, or history, of management.

What truth, exactly, are you seeking and why? Perhaps might raise a question in perceptive minds how many muck-raking journos are posting?

If you think BA managers and their minions are posting replies to your posts, on PPRuNe of all places then you are clearly deluded. BA managers barely know this site exists, let alone your posts on this thread. This site is no longer a place for professional pilots to communicate. It has not been for a long long while.

I have read your shrill "questions" in this thread. Your questions demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of how the world of aviation works, from the individual, corporate, to the governmental level. I understand some of your logic, but it is logic born of ignorance.

Quoting Wikipedia to define a "hard landing" is simply not good enough.

Quote: I've had plenty of landings well within "normal" parameters which the passengers might have felt as firm.

Answer: 'Plenty' might suggest incorrect technique or inadequate basic ability. Have you considered seeking the input of more experienced, qualified training pilots in similar conditions?

That passage perfectly demonstrates why PPRuNe and you are mostly irrelevant to a professional pilot.

Schroedinger, you are clearly not trying to establish the truth - that is already plain. You are trawling for dirt to create a "terror in the skies" headline and blame pilots for a non-incident.

BA cabin crew are notoriously militant, and any chance at embarrassing a management pilot will be made the best of. As for the crews' reported injuries, we all know how that works, just like whiplash claims in the car insurance industry.

If you couldn't find a bunch of claims by the passengers, then accept this is a cock and bull story by disgruntled staff who don't face strong enough disciplinary processes. As for your suggestions to professional pilots that they seek training to make sure every landing is perfect, I'd love to see you manage something so complex with utter perfection every time. The autopilots can't do it, and often come down with a bump, and so will humans, but there is a world of difference between a bumpy landing and a heavy landing. Trust me, if it had been heavy, you'd have your passenger quotes. Now, I suggest you heed your own advice and get some retraining over your own professional standards.

The problem for cabin crew at their door positions, is that the jump seats on the 767 are just a pull down flap that offers little protection from a severe landing or crash, compared to the padded comfort of a passenger seat. There is nothing to absorb the impact energy apart from the crew member perched there.

Accusing BA cabin crew of being "notoriously militant", or casting aspersions that the injuries were no more than some fraudulent and spurious whiplash injury claim, is a serious libel by Aluminium Shuffler.

As for the cabin crew using the incident to embarrass a management pilot, does seem rather far fetched. BA pilots are more than capable of embarrassing themselves, as the written off 747 in JNB is testament to.

Are you on day release Count or did you escape this time?

damn...sorry, but one of the worst threads on this site...

It is very easy to get the data from the ac.

Hard landings happen and bad landings happen, but a hard landing is not necessarily a bad landing...

apologizing for the landing...well, perhaps that is just the British way. :}

Ham Phisted in post 44 alludes to the "work ethic and culture of some work groups where the first port of call is to the union". Again another serious libel.

HP also states that " a Heavy Landing Check only needs to be raised if in the opinion of the Captain, or there is an ACMS printout". Clearly the opinion of a Captain is unreliable and even a Heavy Landing Check down route may not determine any structural damage, for instance to the keel.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_501899.pdf

In the incident subject of the report you link to the captain recognised that he had made a heavy landing. The engineer on site did not recognise some of the indications of airframe damage despite damage being in evidence. The damage was recognised when a further check was made back at base.

I am not sure what your point is.

A statement has to be untrue to be libellous. Anybody with any experience of working within BA would understand the statement. If you were part of the group alluded to then it would be natural to deny such behaviour.

There is something rotten in the state of Big Airways.

in the middle 1970's I worked for the insurance company that held BA's Emplyer's Liability contract. My first job, in fact. At the one extreme was the big fat file labelled STAINES and at the other, endless, and I do mean endless, bogus claims by, almost always, male cabin staff. I recall very few complaints by female cabin staff and none by living flight deck staff. But there were enough claims to require a monthly drive to the Heathrow offices which were notable for their "bunker" atmosphere even then.

So what damage did the turnround engineer miss, despite it being "evident" ?

Methersgate...you probably handled the steward who was killed at Fumicono due to the incorrect positioning of the air stairs....
Fortunately you didn't have a claim from my wife when she was forced to operate back from Athens whilst threatening to miscarry.
One forgets the misogynistic times of the 70s.
And I suppose that the recent claim from Richard Westgate (rip) is another ploy?

The damage the report refers to, but to save you the trouble of actually reading what it says here it is:

'During the repeat Phase I Inspection at London Gatwick signs off fuselage skin damage were noted, just aft of the wing (stations1480 to 2181), with substantial areas of 'quilting' and 'rippling'of the skin panels.'

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the incident that's the subject of the thread, i.e. damage that the engineer at MAD hadn't picked up.

Many 747s have rippling and quilting of the skin aft of the wings due apparently to pressurisation cycles.

Checks by ground engineers after aircraft have encountered a heavy landing or severe turbulence, are no guarantee that it is in a safe condition for further revenue flights. How can the keel or wheel hubs be checked on a ramp?

The VC10 on display at Brooklands has an interesting history. After encountering severe turbulence over the Andes, it was flown commercially from Santiago to Gatwick but on closer inspection, the aircraft was virtually a write off requiring extensive repairs.

BCal Flight over the Andes 1

Why do I get the impression one thread contributor is either a hack or para-legal while another is a shop steward?

I think you'll find there are more than just two axes being ground in here.

Aluminium shuffler. I bet I could name at least one of them:ok:

Yes Ham Phisted. I see what you mean. A little rippling or quilting of the skin is nothing to worry about.

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Boeing 747 Disintegrating

Although the picture appears to be photo shopped

So, you use a self-confessed photo-shopped photo of an event that never occurred to justify your hounding of a pilot over another event that never occurred? :ugh:

Skin rippling behind the wings is normal on any aircraft over a couple of years of age. 737s do it, and they are built like tanks and have relatively small mass and moment on that area, so bigger jets will suffer it even more. Really, stop trying to stir trouble where no story exists.

The best skin-rippler that I have ever seen was the B-52.