BA15 LHR -SIN 5th May left with empty water tanks
May 7, 2022, 8:56 am
#46
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,875
I agree. Cutting corners, having work-arounds. The Swiss cheese theory of errors.
Won't have an issue right now, maybe wait a few years til nothing works properly and work-arounds are done all the time. Some significant issue will get missed cause people cannot tell the difference anymore between what "should be" and what "actually" should be.
Won't have an issue right now, maybe wait a few years til nothing works properly and work-arounds are done all the time. Some significant issue will get missed cause people cannot tell the difference anymore between what "should be" and what "actually" should be.
May 7, 2022, 8:58 am
#47
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,596
I'd be interested to hear from pilots whether a tonne would make any significant difference to the weights/speed/trim calculations.
The self-loading cargo isn't weighed, nor is the cargo that they schlep on board themselves, and the airline uses educated guesswork for this part of the payload. The 787-9 may have about 230 occupants when full. An average 5 kg error per person would be well over a tonne, yet there seems to be no hysteria about this possibility, which is simply just a known unknown.
In addition, does the 787-9 have stuff to help with trim once airborne, like shifting fuel about?
If the aircraft did depart without this being noticed, then it's pretty poor. And once airborne, the crew have to go through the same decision-making process about whether to live with a non-critical problem or to inflict a 24-hour delay on all the passengers as if the system had just broken down (as in other cases). But if it isn't a safety-of-flight issue, let's not go overboard about that.
And if you really want a genuinely toe-curling example of (many) things that should have been checked, but weren't, before the aircraft got airborne, try the ATSB's website for the recent report on 9M-MTK at BNE. If you don't want to be scared, don't read it.
The self-loading cargo isn't weighed, nor is the cargo that they schlep on board themselves, and the airline uses educated guesswork for this part of the payload. The 787-9 may have about 230 occupants when full. An average 5 kg error per person would be well over a tonne, yet there seems to be no hysteria about this possibility, which is simply just a known unknown.
In addition, does the 787-9 have stuff to help with trim once airborne, like shifting fuel about?
If the aircraft did depart without this being noticed, then it's pretty poor. And once airborne, the crew have to go through the same decision-making process about whether to live with a non-critical problem or to inflict a 24-hour delay on all the passengers as if the system had just broken down (as in other cases). But if it isn't a safety-of-flight issue, let's not go overboard about that.
And if you really want a genuinely toe-curling example of (many) things that should have been checked, but weren't, before the aircraft got airborne, try the ATSB's website for the recent report on 9M-MTK at BNE. If you don't want to be scared, don't read it.
A tonne makes little difference to a big aircraft. The B747 which has a self weighing system, the mel permitted departure providing the loadsheet weight agreed with the self weight within + or - 7 tonnes
May 7, 2022, 9:05 am
#48
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,930
I agree. Cutting corners, having work-arounds. The Swiss cheese theory of errors.
Won't have an issue right now, maybe wait a few years til nothing works properly and work-arounds are done all the time. Some significant issue will get missed cause people cannot tell the difference anymore between what "should be" and what "actually" should be.
Won't have an issue right now, maybe wait a few years til nothing works properly and work-arounds are done all the time. Some significant issue will get missed cause people cannot tell the difference anymore between what "should be" and what "actually" should be.
May 7, 2022, 9:26 am
#50
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,930
I’m not sure there is a point to the thread, other than just an observation that there was an issue with water.
May 7, 2022, 9:35 am
#51
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,875
What is the "alternative version"? I read through the thread, but may have missed it. There was a mention about another flight from SIN to LHR where the water was loaded but the pump didn't work, but that isn't this flight which is LHR to SIN.
May 7, 2022, 9:36 am
#52
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Lothian
Programs: BA Exec Club Silver, IHG Platinum Elite, Qatar Privilege Club
Posts: 508
I wasn’t speculating that I couldn’t get a cup of tea, or that the crew member showed my wife the water level indicator at zero, or that the IFM made a long and rambling apology on arrival, that there had been no water on board.
May 7, 2022, 9:41 am
#53
Suspended
Join Date: May 2022
Programs: BA
Posts: 41
Of course there is. It's in the very first post: Arrived in SIN earlier tonight from a flight which had no water on board.
I see the people for whom BA can do no wrong are out in force. A 12 hour flight with no water is shocking, no matter how you cut it.
I see the people for whom BA can do no wrong are out in force. A 12 hour flight with no water is shocking, no matter how you cut it.
May 7, 2022, 9:49 am
#54
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,930
There was obviously an issue with the water, no doubt about that. My comments were in relation to the assertion that BA had cut corners, or had otherwise failed to carry out safety checks that should have been.
May 7, 2022, 9:50 am
#55
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,875
Welcome first time poster! (long-time lurker I presume. Though of course, maybe this is not actually your first time posting but you are a long-term poster who just made a new account for the purpose of posting this comment, as I don't want to be just speculating).
May 7, 2022, 9:52 am
#56
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,930
May 7, 2022, 10:01 am
#57
Suspended
Join Date: May 2022
Programs: BA
Posts: 41
GrannyWeatherwax welcome to FlyerTalk and to the BA branch in particular. Your comments suggest you have been around for quite some time so congratulations on breaking your posting duck.
There was obviously an issue with the water, no doubt about that. My comments were in relation to the assertion that BA had cut corners, or had otherwise failed to carry out safety checks that should have been.
There was obviously an issue with the water, no doubt about that. My comments were in relation to the assertion that BA had cut corners, or had otherwise failed to carry out safety checks that should have been.
No, this is shameful and happened to me many years ago on a flight from San Francisco to London with BA where there was no water on board and that was a truly horrible experience. In business the toilets were grim by the end of the flight - not really anyone's fault - and I cannot imagine the state of the economy toilets given the sheer number of people using them. BA's offer of compensation was a big fat zero and it took a trip to the courts where they settled on the steps - literally - about 30 minutes before the case was scheduled to get them to pay up.
But given that BA can't even run a proper scheduled service at the moment, and are cancelling left, right and centre and are also unable to deal with the fallout because their call centres are so poorly staffed I don't really know why any of this comes as any great surprise.
May 7, 2022, 10:18 am
#59
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,211
May 7, 2022, 10:21 am
#60
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,281
So much wild hysteria about a bit of water when, as mentioned already, there are 200 unweighed lumps of flesh and bones onboard who could each weigh anywhere between 50 and 130kg easily. Put another way, the missing potable water is 0.4% of the estimated take off weight of the aircraft on that day. This flight was some way off "OMG we could have plunged into the Wraysbury Reservoir".