Good luck putting up 500 passengers there. :rolleyes:
I was there for a 747-8F test, the Boeing test crew (~50 people) nearly booked up the whole town. :=

Dame Deidre Hutton of the CAA offers this early update on the incident in a reply to 'journalist' Philip Whiteley posted on a link listed above:

Whiteley seems to be an 'activist' for telling the 'truth' about 'fume events' causing 'aerotoxic syndrome':

Fume Events - Aerotoxic Association

This stuff looks like Chemtrails Area 51 conspiracy nonsense to me. :rolleyes:

BA 286 did use the term 'fume event' while talking with Edmonton.

The "fume event" could be traced to a Nob Hill brassiere serving the cabin staff a garbanzo, quinoa and kale salad earlier in the day. Sort of a fraternitas flatulance if you will..

FYI tdracer: Whitehorse, Churchill, Goose Bay, Frobisher Bay and Val-d'Or were referenced only as EMERGENCY A380 aerodromes. I still think a Paine Field A380 diversion would be kinda funny..

I remember reading that SEA was approved as an Emergency A380 airport - but that some major upgrades would be necessary for regular A380 service (something no one has yet proposed so why spend the money). No idea if Paine is approved though I'm sure it could handle an A380 - but Paine lacks even basic passenger facilities (when we returned from Greenland for another 747-8 flight test, the only customs agent was otherwise occupied and we had to wait on the airplane for over an hour before he could make it over to process us back into the USA).
While I can certainly understand why it would be amusing for an A380 to divert into Paine, given Vancouver is barely 100 miles north, and SEA 40 miles south (and they have facilities to handle passengers by the thousands), it's hard to imagine a scenario where a diversion to Paine would even remotely make sense...

Currently en route YVR to LHR as BAW 9176.

"Fume Events - Aerotoxic Association

This stuff looks like Chemtrails Area 51 conspiracy nonsense to me.

BA 286 did use the term 'fume event' while talking with Edmonton."

Do you think the same about smoking tobacco, or do you accept the decades of the tobacco industry telling the public that smoking was good for you was a lie and authorities doing nothing was negligent? What about organo-phosphates being used in agriculture under the pretence of being safe? Aerotoxic syndrome is real; there have been plenty of documented cases but the industry obstructs objective testing and research because it's going to cost a fortune. It's not something that is frequent, but it does happen, and specific aircraft and engines have been identified as being more susceptible.

Saying something is real without any scientific evidence and saying that big business is obstructing the truth. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me!

Whether or not Aerotoxic syndrome is real, such posts don't help.

FYI: There's a lot of research going on into this right now - I'm involved in some of it. Much of that is independent of the industry. So far nothing has been found.

Nemrytter, it has already been demonstrated that hydraulic fluid and engine oil release organo-phosphates into the ac system at bleed air temperatures if they contaminate the pneumatic system, and that contamination has been found many, many times. The results of organo-phosphate inhalation are well known to the medical and agricultural industries. Why does the aviation industry think that such toxins will not affect people in an aircraft, even though the effects are proven in an open environment?

I have seen the effects first hand on my own aircraft (737) of hydraulic fluid getting into the pneumatic manifold, leading to over 75% of the pax and all the cabin crew being taken ill. It is very real, and your criticism of me and endorsement of Airbubba's comment of it all being unfounded conspiracy theory gives me little confidence in the honesty or legitimacy of your research.

Fair enough, you might want to consider that anecdotal evidence and "it works in this environment, so it must also be true in another different environment" maketh research not.

Hard datapoints and careful examination is what's needed, not suppositions and anecdotes. As I said before, such things do not help.

evansb:

A common abbreviation amongst pilots, especially ex-RAF. The forum is for pilots, if the great unwashed, as you put it, wish to join in with the benefit of their knowledge, perhaps some research may be in order? ;)

What would give them the impression of there being any professional pilots here?

Nope! We are just not yet in possession of the facts of the matter.
Interesting one . . .

With the advent of Buy One Get One Free C/D Check in cheap outsourced MRO model, cabin fume events are more frequent now a days. Generally these occur when the aircraft reenters service after mx.

Is cabin fuming or cabin crew are fuming, debatable topic.

There are over 25 flight attendants on A380s the crew rest area is ~8 to 10 bunks dependent on fit. The divert appears to have happened at a time just after the first break could have started.

Could very well be food poisoning IMO. I wonder if all those affected dined in the same restaurant at some point prior to starting duty or had the same food/drink on board?
All the cabin crew walking off with their bags and leaving the pax though, thats very odd. It's really not on & if true then service standards have indeed plummeted.

"All the cabin crew walking off with their bags and leaving the pax though, thats very odd.
It's really not on & if true then service standards have indeed plummeted"

Which service standards? Those that require the cabin crew remain on duty even if they're sick or nearly dead? Jolly bad show, what?

So let me get this straight...

Approximately 12 on duty cabin crew are serving dinner 1 1/2 into the flight

Standby cabin crew begin feeling ill, and inform operating crew

One would hope that all of the on duty cabin crew would not join the standby cabin crew in the "contaminated" crew rest area, leaving all pax unattended on the upper decks.

2 hours into the flight, the Captain declares a PAN PAN PAN with ATC and begins a diversion toward YVR

"Passenger Steve Lowy told CBC News that about two hours into the flight the crews started quickly clearing away dinner."
"They suddenly cleared the trays away, and said that we were going to do a landing in Calgary due to the fact that there was a technical issue with the plane and a number of the cabin staff weren't feeling well."

"After the plane landed, paramedics came on board and checked out the crew.
One passenger told CBC News the emergency crews that boarded the plane were wearing gas masks."

"We were kept in the dark.… When we landed what we did know is that the crew got their luggage and left immediately," said Blaser

"We're all sitting there looking around … the entire crew just got up and left the plane... why they took their luggage and left, we have no idea."

Short of being carried off on a stretcher, I find it reprehensible that the cabin crew would gather their bags and leave all 400 passengers on board, unattended.

In any non normal / emergency situation the passengers are the first to leave the A/C, followed by the cabin crew, followed by the First Officer, and Captain.

If this "fume event" had been an actual fire on board, I'd hate to think that this cabin crew would be the first to blow the slides and leave the A/C before the passengers?

While it is impossible to know whether the news reports are true, it is reported that every FA left the plane, and with their baggage, before the PAX. This suggests the strange confluence of (a) FAs are too sick to continue the flight and divergence is required; (b) upon landing all FAs are so sick as to need to get off the plane before the PAX; but (c) well enough to take their bags.

Again, may be the news reports are inaccurate, but this situation seems a bit fishy. [I know, bad pun.]

One possible common denominator would be e.g. a crew bus, maybe from the hotel, but why it would then take say 3 hours for the situation to become intollerable is inexplicable. In my experience, only a part of the crew would use the crew rest at any one time.

Before some rush to blame the crew it's worth bearing in mind that once on the ground, shut down, doors open, authority for decisions changes somewhat.

I know it doesn't look good, etc, but perhaps the medics/others in authority insisted on deplanning some/all of the crew before any uneffected passengers.