A380 G-XLEB SFO-LHR diverted to YVR due to staff sickness [25 Oct 2016]
#121
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,046
Ok, thanks for "laying it out in simple terms". A bit condescending but it still doesn't make sense any way you cut it. You quote one passenger. I've seen quotes from several other passengers that say something completely different. Unlike you, I haven't come to any firm conclusions on the basis of one persons conflicting report - and still want to know exactly what happened.
Here's some other quotes:
"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."
Others even say they saw (from their seat on the plane) the crew being loaded (into a bus and taken away.
There's also a press photo of a large group of the crew strolling into an emergency department with their luggage in tow.
It's all extremely strange, no matter how much you (and others) want to rush to BA's defence. I'd like to know what happened for sure, maybe it's all good, maybe not. But it doesn't add up at this point, no mater how "simply" you want to make your case.
Has anyone ever seen/heard anything quite like this before? I haven't.
Here's some other quotes:
"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."
Others even say they saw (from their seat on the plane) the crew being loaded (into a bus and taken away.
There's also a press photo of a large group of the crew strolling into an emergency department with their luggage in tow.
It's all extremely strange, no matter how much you (and others) want to rush to BA's defence. I'd like to know what happened for sure, maybe it's all good, maybe not. But it doesn't add up at this point, no mater how "simply" you want to make your case.
Has anyone ever seen/heard anything quite like this before? I haven't.
#123
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: yvr
Posts: 84
Someone who was on board has said in this very thread that it didn't happen.
Maybe only the crew were affected because only the crew stayed in a particular hotel and ate a particular item on the menu the day before. The illness may have nothing to do with the aircraft. It makes perfect sense for them all to go to hospital to keep them all together, regardless of whether they were ill or not.
Maybe only the crew were affected because only the crew stayed in a particular hotel and ate a particular item on the menu the day before. The illness may have nothing to do with the aircraft. It makes perfect sense for them all to go to hospital to keep them all together, regardless of whether they were ill or not.
Except they didn't keep them all together as reported by Vancouver Coastal Health to the BBC
Gavin Wilson, public affairs director for Vancouver Coastal Health, said all 25 crew members have been released as of 5am local time (12:00 GMT)
"They were brought into hospital as a precaution and they were subsequently discharged early this morning," he told the BBC.
Various crew members were sent to three separate Vancouver-area medical centres: Vancouver General Hospital, Delta Hospital and Richmond Hospital.
At the moment there are no further details on the reason for their hospitalisation.
"I can't tell you at this point what they were assessed for," Mr Wilson said.
#124
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: BAEC silver
Posts: 464
YYZflyboy sorry you don't trust my version of events. As a former senior police officer running the equivalent of swat teams I'm very used to understanding stressful situations, recording evidence and recalling events later under cross examination by good lawyers.
I'll say again there were 25 crew, they told us before take off there were 22 cabin crew and 3 flight deck (Captain and two senior first officers). Some of the sick crew may have been taken off before the passengers disembarked. But we were not abandoned and there were plenty of announcements. Not once did it feel like an emergency situation, the divert to Vancouver was at normal height and speed and no doubt huge amounts of fuel were dumped. The PAX with the hump will be those who waited several hours to get rooms allocated rather than being proactive and booking themselves a room.
I'll say again there were 25 crew, they told us before take off there were 22 cabin crew and 3 flight deck (Captain and two senior first officers). Some of the sick crew may have been taken off before the passengers disembarked. But we were not abandoned and there were plenty of announcements. Not once did it feel like an emergency situation, the divert to Vancouver was at normal height and speed and no doubt huge amounts of fuel were dumped. The PAX with the hump will be those who waited several hours to get rooms allocated rather than being proactive and booking themselves a room.
#127
Join Date: Mar 2016
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 677
So they didn't really know what they were dealing with, but they knew it was serious enough to warrant an unplanned landing, but they chose not to land at the nearest airport because another had better ground handling services?? I'd be seriously pissed if I had been on that plane that they didn't get on the ground at the earliest opportunity.
#128
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 770
So they didn't really know what they were dealing with, but they knew it was serious enough to warrant an unplanned landing, but they chose not to land at the nearest airport because another had better ground handling services?? I'd be seriously pissed if I had been on that plane that they didn't get on the ground at the earliest opportunity.
#129
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Hague, NL
Programs: GMLFL, Life 2.0 - Mucci Premiere Classe & des Chevaliers Toulousiens
Posts: 22,908
It wasn't an emergency... It was a pan-pan, which indicates an urgency level.
Which seems like it was the case. They also retracted the pan-pan during the fuel dump and after deciding to divert to Vancouver, quite possibly after having established that nobody was seriously ill. Maybe it was the fish, but fishy... Not sure.
Not overly impressed by the communication on either side, but what do I know...
A Pan-Pan call should be used for urgent situations that are not immediately life threatening, but require assistance from someone on the ground.
Not overly impressed by the communication on either side, but what do I know...
#130
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Home: East Mids UK - Work (Base): Accra, Ghana.
Programs: BAEC: Silver - Marriott: Titanium
Posts: 12,086
So they didn't really know what they were dealing with, but they knew it was serious enough to warrant an unplanned landing, but they chose not to land at the nearest airport because another had better ground handling services?? I'd be seriously pissed if I had been on that plane that they didn't get on the ground at the earliest opportunity.
#131
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: JAX
Programs: Ex-BA/AA/CP/LY staff, BA Executive Club Blue, IHG Diamond, Marriott Silver, Chick-fil-A Red
Posts: 3,569
Maybe it's the difference between 'we need medical attention NOW' and 'it'd be a good idea to get medical attention.' Having several crew unwell may not be an emergency per se, but can still create a need to divert.
In the end it was the Captain's decision as to where to divert - it'd be very unlikely that he'd have sought diversion preferences from the affected cabin crew before he made a decision - he would already have had details on nearby available diversion points and he chose one that regularly sees 380 service.
#132
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Home: East Mids UK - Work (Base): Accra, Ghana.
Programs: BAEC: Silver - Marriott: Titanium
Posts: 12,086
seriously. something is really fish here. something really doesn't make sense. i know others have slandered and assaulted () other users for saying this reeks of some type of employee strike, but really what other possible explanation can there be? i mean if it was truly an emergency they would have landed in calgary..
The flight crew and operations decided to take the aircraft to a station where they are familiar in dealing with an A380, they have the capabilities to deal with it, more staff, more hotel options, more ability to have someone look at the aircraft if there was a technical fault as YYC is a Boeing station which probably would not have had appropriate engineering support.
Comments like this, and others just go to show how little understanding people have about aviation, airlines and the world in which they operate, the aircraft in which they are flying and the operation of it. Bar the seat they are sitting in and the drink they are drinking and food they are eating, leave the rest to the people who have trained for years to do the rest.
#135
Join Date: Nov 2012
Programs: BAEC silver
Posts: 775
I believe you only have to dump until the plane can touch down at it's maximum permissible landing weight. Not sure what that is for an A380 or how much more heavy it would have been than that at take off from SFO. I think planes dump at quite a decent rate. I googled but came up short. That said Boeing have an article that explains you can land "overweight" if needed. I would imagine the same is true of Airbus types.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...icle_03_2.html
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...icle_03_2.html