British Airways flight diverted to YVR after passengers suffer smoke inhalation
 

Nobody seems to be reporting the possible source of the smoke as of yet...

BBC seems to need a spotter on the books.

BBC NEWS

We do have some serious spotters here that the BBC could use. ;)

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:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/204592...ency-declared/

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

And had something more than a cottage hospital given that this was really a medical rather than an aviation problem.

Moose Jaw is a Military Aerodrome and not routinely open during those hours.

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.'

Yes.

Many BA flights, and those of other airlines, use alphanumerics to minimise potential callsign confusion.

Here's the track.

What diversion fields are available to BA A380's over Canada if any?
Doesn't this aircraft require more wing room?

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.

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.

There are a few suitable airports across the border that would be more practical than 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.

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.

Not BA but I've seen an Emirates A380 divert to Ottawa before.

There is sufficient runway length and ramp space at Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary to handle A380 ops.

Kelowna's runway length for take-off would be marginal, as would manoeuvring on the ramp. Regarding width, the A380 is approved for 150' wide runways, but 200' wide runways are
preferable.

For Polar routes, in an emergency, Whitehorse and Churchill are doe-able. Yellowknife not so much.

And an AF 777 diverted to Churchill (CYYQ) in 2002 - search for "air france churchill" - due to smoke. Churchill normally never sees anything with more than a couple of dozen seats and has no air stairs. They eventually got the pax off with a fork lift.

I once asked a BA 747 captain about diversions, after we had gone into Goose Bay with a medical issue (on this very same BA286, though it was a 747 then). He said "in a real emergency we can get a 747 into a 5000 foot runway, though we may not get it out again".

Back to the topic, I was wondering what has happened to the aircraft? Flightaware shows no movement CYVR-EGLL with a 380?

Management doesn't want you to divert to a remote station where they have to pay market prices for passenger accommodation, food, amenities, airport and mx charges. Take it back to where we have negotiated rock bottom prices.

I once ended up in Val d'or on a diversion. My canadian friends tried to correct me that it was actually called Dorval.....but it wasn't and they had a forklift too.

Oui, Val-d'Or, Quebec. 10,000 foot runway. 767 Freighters operate in (and out) of CYVO. Curious, what type of aircraft diverted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val-d%27Or_Airport

B767 after lightning strike on approach into Ottawa with Toronto and Montreal reporting CBs. One of the Diefenbacher air force bases, good runway....not a lot else there but trees.

Perhaps it's runway strength issues that stops the A380 selecting a wider range of alternates. She aint light!

YVR did upgrade the south runway specifically for the 380 a few years back. Kelowna does get the odd An-124, not sure what the weight difference is btwn 380 & 124 tho...BA is about to commence the first 380 service to YVR, maybe a little practice was in order. Local news reports only crew members went to hospital, interesting.

BA have been operating the A380 into YVR for some time now. If you are on Lulu Island, I'm surprised you haven't seen one.

Think they revert to a 744 for the winter but sked shows A380s next summer.

Montreal (CYUL) is also suitable for the A380 because Air France use to operate into Montreal.

Apart from the inaugural, it has always used the north runway for landings AFAIK, incl last night.

It is parked on remote stand all day today. The stories are really conflicting as to what happened, the most common seems to be food poisoning or some sort of sickness that affected many of the cabin crew - they were sent to hospital but have been discharged today. Another rumour is she is ferrying back to LHR empty and pax are being rerouted back during today by various means, incl via SEA.

Paine field? ;-)

Also Iqualuit where they cold tested the 380:
Frobisher Bay Touchdown Services

TV news in the states reporting PAX interviews that only the flight and/or cabin crew went to the hospital. No PAX involved. Further, some interviewed PAX were peeved that evidently all cabin crew left the plane before any PAX. Still quite mysterious as to the cause.

Ah yes, The Crimson East Route.. Frobisher Bay, CYFB, indeed! Good airport and pleasant staff. My previous posts were restricting my responses and expertise to the western half of The Dominion..


Re the BA A380 diversion, curious why only cabin staff were shuffled off to A&E (Emergency)..the mystery deepens.

Re Paine Field/Everett Washington (KPAE): I get the satire and irony. The airport control tower (and other ops) closes after 21:00 hrs local. Passenger facilities and Customs would have been severely taxed.. But yes, it would have been ironic to have the A380 land at Boeing's home turf.

This seems to be consistent with what the pilots told Edmonton Center well over an hour before landing. They seemed to think that a couple of pax would need to be checked out but all of the casualties were 'crewmembers'.

From my gist of the ATC comms posted above:

Yyz and Yed can both handle a diversion. Non land ASAP could result in a large amount of fuel dump and in that time Yvr became a more viable option.

How do they separate the air the cabin crew breathes from the air the passengers breath?

The air is the same, but the cabin crew are given a substance that makes them hyper-sensitive to oh-so-deadly cabin fumes. The name of that substance is "union".