|
Originally Posted by Can I help you
(Post 27403404)
Can I just throw something in here, sometimes I wonder what age some of the posters are?
|
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave
(Post 27403313)
Let me try and explain this. I'm just a passenger, and a regular in this forum, I haven't much of a clue how aircraft work. But I've a good grasp about how BA works in these circumstances, and it's on the tape really, some fumes in a limited area - not unusual in flying terms unfortunately - caused concern and temporarily took out some crew, the captain therefore decided to land as soon as reasonably possible. It wasn't such an emergency that a landing at Calgary was absolutely required, they went to a BA A380 location not so far off, a much larger airport with better technical facilities. It's actually not that unusual, we've had more details in this post than normal, if an A319 had this sort of problem it would get a few lines in avherald - and by all means check that website to confirm my comments.
In this thread you have a large number of staff members, of various backgrounds, quite annoyed at the trolling. Why is that? Well it's not out of protecting the company, at least one of the staff members is so fed up with BA he is leaving. Another has left less willingly. Many of them have a track record here of criticising BA's management. But that all that stops on an event like this, the professionalism of the company and its entire staff is what you are seeing here, all trivialities are discarded. All involved here worked or would work to keep passengers safe. So they get understandably totally narked when people who probably never stepped on a BA A380 throw out silly comments, just for the fun of it. It's juvenile and doesn't reflect well on the uninformed and lazy commentator. Incidentally BA staff have in the distant past taken industrial action, it follows a defined procedure which is now well respected, it protects everyone. There is just no way that some wildcat action would arise here, it's pointless, illegal, and unnecessary since there is an easier and more effective alternative. |
Well there's a question we will never know the answer too.
It seems to me that some people treat these sorts of incidents like a soap opera and are desperate to get the next episode and forget that answers only come after the investigation has been completed. |
Originally Posted by Can I help you
(Post 27403451)
Well there's a question we will never know the answer too.
It seems to me that some people treat these sorts of incidents like a soap opera and are desperate to get the next episode and forget that answers only come after the investigation has been completed. |
Flyertalk. NOT Conspiracy Theory Talk.............
S |
Just had a flick through this. The obvious questions that arise for me were what sort of fumes were there and why did they affect only the crew?
Sorry if that appears like trolling but those questions will occur to most people on a first read. |
Originally Posted by Nuster
(Post 27403531)
Just had a flick through this. The obvious questions that arise for me were what sort of fumes were there and why did they affect only the crew?
Sorry if that appears like trolling but those questions will occur to most people on a first read. |
Originally Posted by Nuster
(Post 27403531)
Just had a flick through this. The obvious questions that arise for me were what sort of fumes were there and why did they affect only the crew?
Sorry if that appears like trolling but those questions will occur to most people on a first read. |
Post virgin here and a lot of aggravation going on...
I'm flying to SFO next week with BA and this has obviously caught my eye. I'm by no means an expert or a frequent flyer, I take 3 or 4 flights a year but I'm an aviation enthusiast since I was a small kid. I'll give my 2cents from someone with some psychology background. When you talk about a traumatic experience as this would have been for some/many passengers people are normally quick to inflate things, the fact that perhaps the 2 cabin crew that fainted were escorted out of the aircraft before the passgengers could very easily mean in some people's account that "the crew left the airplane without saying anything". Having read through most of the posts in this thread I didn't see anyone mention the crew rest area in the A380. This could explain why only 2 crew fainted and no passengers were affected, the fact that all crew was seen at an hospital may very well be BA procedure (idk). The 2 crew could be at the rest area when this happened. Anyways, here's my 0.02c on the issue. Hope my flight goes a lot smoother. |
Originally Posted by rcdesign
(Post 27403659)
Anyways, here's my 0.02c on the issue. Hope my flight goes a lot smoother.
|
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave
(Post 27403313)
Incidentally BA staff have in the distant past taken industrial action, it follows a defined procedure which is now well respected, it protects everyone. There is just no way that some wildcat action would arise here, it's pointless, illegal, and unnecessary since there is an easier and more effective alternative.
I wouldn't necessarily expect everyone on a forum with contributors worldwide to know, but wildcat action - and action in support of other unions - has been illegal in the UK for something approaching 30 years, and the rules covering union strike ballots, and strike notice periods, are very stringent these days. I would hope, however, that those who are not resident in the UK would at least accept the word of those who are. Even if those laws were not in place, I simply do not believe for one second that BA crew would strike whilst in the air. The hurt to the company in monetary terms of dumping fuel and paying for some hotels is absolute peanuts compared to a legal, lengthy strike arranged through a proper ballot and involving large numbers of staff. As has been said, it would be a totally futile exercise that would hurt the staff members concerned far more than it would BA. This is unquestionably genuine, and - having seen and been talked through flight plans for the Babybus - I would absolutely trust the flight crew's decision in which of their pre-planned divert points was most appropriate at a given point in time, and how that might change with evolving circumstances. |
Originally Posted by rcdesign
(Post 27403659)
This could explain why only 2 crew fainted and no passengers were affected, ...
Also, I think it was clear he was getting input from BA in the UK about 'prefered options' for landing location, and when he got this, made the decision, he then told ATC what he wanted to do. |
I'm as curious as the next person to find out what actually happened re: the fumes, is BA (or any airline for that matter) required by law or authority to share their findings?
not withstanding the inconvenience for all those aboard, I'm glad that the crew made the right decision to divert. I've had my fair share over the years, and even though my initial reaction is always annoyance (hotels, rebooking etc), over time I've always been glad that the crew made the decisions when they felt the need to. |
Originally Posted by Can I help you
(Post 27398584)
I don't know how much clearer we can be, IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN.
We don't just do what we feel onboard with have SOPs which we MUST follow. I'm guessing that the reports of the crew picking up their bags and leaving was from the baggage hall, once we had completed all duties and our ground staff had taken over then we would have left for the hospital. Even on a narrow body like a B737, I can't possibly tell you what all the cabin crew are doing when I disembark the plane. On something like an A380, you can't even see most of them.On a plane which has a few people over the minimum, perhaps a couple left the plane first and some passengers described that as the whole crew leaving them behind. The crew would not abandon the plane - it would be a serious offense to do so. |
For those who are curious in things like that, I believe that A380 G-XLEB went to Jo'burg after arriving from Vancouver and is now on the way to LAX.
|
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave
(Post 27403702)
And I hope so too. I hope the weather improves for you too, it's not so good at the moment. Having said that, welcome to Flyertalk rcdesign and welcome to the BA board, it's really good of you to delurk yourself, and after a sane, rational post like that I would very much encourage you to continue to participate here.
|
Originally Posted by techie
(Post 27407990)
For those who are curious in things like that, I believe that A380 G-XLEB went to Jo'burg after arriving from Vancouver and is now on the way to LAX.
An information vacuum just increases speculation. |
Presumably Transport Canada got involved at YVR and will release some sort of update when they have investigated?
|
From The Aviation Herald:
"On Nov 1st 2016 the TSB reported that there was a strong obnoxious smell near the #4 main cabin door and upper flight deck galley. The crew consulted with dispatch and decided to divert to Calgary, but was subsequently notified that Calgary did not have the equipment needed to handle the A380, hence the crew decided to divert to Vancouver. The crew donned their oxygen masks and dumped fuel. The entire 25 crew and a passenger were taken to local hospitals for precautionary checks, 3 cabin crew and the passenger were affected by the fumes, all were released. The operator dispatched maintenance personnel as well as aircraft manufacturer's support personnel to Vancouver, however, no source of the problem could be found. The aircraft positioned to London with only flight crew and maintenance personnel on board, however, despite system troubleshooting in flight no faults were found. The aircraft returned to service." :confused: |
Originally Posted by Innocent Abroad
(Post 27423387)
From The Aviation Herald:
"On Nov 1st 2016 the TSB reported that there was a strong obnoxious smell near the #4 main cabin door and upper flight deck galley. The crew consulted with dispatch and decided to divert to Calgary, but was subsequently notified that Calgary did not have the equipment needed to handle the A380, hence the crew decided to divert to Vancouver. The crew donned their oxygen masks and dumped fuel. The entire 25 crew and a passenger were taken to local hospitals for precautionary checks, 3 cabin crew and the passenger were affected by the fumes, all were released. The operator dispatched maintenance personnel as well as aircraft manufacturer's support personnel to Vancouver, however, no source of the problem could be found. The aircraft positioned to London with only flight crew and maintenance personnel on board, however, despite system troubleshooting in flight no faults were found. The aircraft returned to service." :confused: |
Originally Posted by Innocent Abroad
(Post 27423387)
From The Aviation Herald:
"On Nov 1st 2016 the TSB reported that there was a strong obnoxious smell near the #4 main cabin door and upper flight deck galley. The crew consulted with dispatch and decided to divert to Calgary, but was subsequently notified that Calgary did not have the equipment needed to handle the A380, hence the crew decided to divert to Vancouver. The crew donned their oxygen masks and dumped fuel. The entire 25 crew and a passenger were taken to local hospitals for precautionary checks, 3 cabin crew and the passenger were affected by the fumes, all were released. The operator dispatched maintenance personnel as well as aircraft manufacturer's support personnel to Vancouver, however, no source of the problem could be found. The aircraft positioned to London with only flight crew and maintenance personnel on board, however, despite system troubleshooting in flight no faults were found. The aircraft returned to service." |
Originally Posted by Purim
(Post 27423835)
Sounds like C-W-S is onto something with his Fried Rodent theory. But surely this would effect all flights? :D
|
Originally Posted by Purim
(Post 27423835)
Sounds like C-W-S is onto something with his Fried Rodent theory. But surely this would effect all flights? :D
|
Originally Posted by rapidex
(Post 27424847)
BA would never be able to load enough rodents for frying on all flights:D
|
Originally Posted by Silver Fox
(Post 27424865)
BA has enhanced the amount of rodents they take. :D
M |
Originally Posted by sxc
(Post 27423923)
And also wouldn't make people faint.
|
Originally Posted by wanderingjock
(Post 27404669)
I think on the ATC recording the captain said 11 crew affected ?
Also, I think it was clear he was getting input from BA in the UK about 'prefered options' for landing location, and when he got this, made the decision, he then told ATC what he wanted to do. |
|
Originally Posted by CanuckFan
(Post 27438524)
That article even links to another that gives the correct details. Rather sloppy. |
So after the incident involving XLEB I was on XLEK Wednesday night on the 268 from LAX chatting to the CSD when she was required urgently in the F cabin for report of fumes in that cabin. I was in row 15 and didn't smell anything untoward. The CSD later told me there was an odor in the F cabin and it was being worked by a crew member who was on the diverted flight to YVR.
Thankfully whatever the issue was we had no need to divert and had an unenventful flight to LHR. Just wondering is there some kind of issue with the A380? |
You are correct there was another fumes incident on that flight, our union are very aware of this but BA are saying nothing.
|
Originally Posted by Can I help you
(Post 27440509)
You are correct there was another fumes incident on that flight, our union are very aware of this but BA are saying nothing.
|
The report written by the CSD into this incident now features in today's Sunday Times. That is behind a paywall, but this report in The Australian gives a good summary of this somewhat unusual if troubling event.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...39c83a42130231 |
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave
(Post 27687839)
The report written by the CSD into this incident now features in today's Sunday Times. That is behind a paywall, but this report in The Australian gives a good summary of this somewhat unusual if troubling event.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...39c83a42130231 |
Originally Posted by madfish
(Post 27687849)
Sorry, but The Australian article linked is also behind a paywall.
|
Somebody needs to copy and paste the text please!
|
|
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave
(Post 27687839)
...this somewhat unusual if troubling event.
No idea how much hyperbole is in the article but 'somewhat' seems like an understatement* if the article is even 50% correct. :) Unless the behaviour below is of course simply the effect of the way BA treat their cabin crew... “it soon became apparent that more crew were behaving in a non-normal manner ... [with] reports of dizziness, light heads, headaches, nausea, itchy red eyes, metallic taste in mouth, floating-type feelings, flushed, aggression and, most worryingly, forgetfulness and confusion, inability to think straight and converse in normal manner.” It describes how one crew member said something “completely out of context” and seconds later had forgotten that he had said it. Senior flight attendants would “lose” colleagues who would say they were going to the lavatory but then ended up at the other end of the aircraft “not knowing how they got there”, it adds. The CSD described “crew in corners on [the] floor with blankets over their heads” and “crew ‘stuffing food’ in their mouths while on oxygen”. |
Indeed, for "somewhat unusual" I would substitute "very disturbing".
|
Originally Posted by ahmetdouas
(Post 27687861)
Somebody needs to copy and paste the text please!
The report, which has been seen by The Sunday Times, was written by the cabin service director (CSD), the most senior grade of flight attendant, who was in charge of the 22-strong cabin crew on a BA flight from San Francisco to London on October 25..... ..About 40 minutes after take-off, while the airliner was over Canada, crew detected a strong noxious smell similar to burning plastic and the flight was diverted to Vancouver. The captain declared an emergency, telling air traffic control that the problem was “toxic gas-type fumes”. After the aircraft landed safely, all the flight attendants and the three pilots were taken to hospital... ...BA later described the incident as an “odour event”, prompting claims by the Unite union that it was downplaying the health risks of potentially toxic fumes in aircraft cabins... ...The leaked report graphically describes the severity of the incident. It details how 12 crew members displayed symptoms that gave “cause for concern” and that eight of the nine crew members on the upper deck plus the captain used emergency oxygen. After the smell was detected by a door towards the back of the main cabin and on the upper deck, the report says “it soon became apparent that more crew were behaving in a non-normal manner . . . [with] reports of dizziness, light heads, headaches, nausea, itchy red eyes, metallic taste in mouth, floating-type feelings, flushed, aggression and, most worryingly, forgetfulness and confusion, inability to think straight and converse in normal manner.” It describes how one crew member said something “completely out of context” and seconds later had forgotten that he had said it. Senior flight attendants would “lose” colleagues who would say they were going to the lavatory but then ended up at the other end of the aircraft “not knowing how they got there”, it adds. The CSD described “crew in corners on [the] floor with blankets over their heads” and “crew ‘stuffing food’ in their mouths while on oxygen”... BA said its engineers had inspected the aircraft in Vancouver and “no fault was found”. It added: “The safety of our customers and crew is always our top priority. We have shared our detailed and thorough investigation with the Civil Aviation Authority and fully comply with all safety regulations...” |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:11 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.