BA15 LHR -SIN 5th May left with empty water tanks
May 7, 2022, 10:21 am
#61
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,913
May 7, 2022, 10:22 am
#62
Suspended
Join Date: May 2022
Programs: BA
Posts: 41
But it isn't 'no tap water' is it ? It's no tap water, no water to wash your hands, no water so the toilets can flush properly every time someone uses them and so it goes on. You may be happy to live like that. I am not - and I suspect few others are.
May 7, 2022, 10:26 am
#63
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,875
Or that something wasn't checked that should have been?
Checking to ensure the tanks have been filled is a mandatory check. There was no water in the tanks.
(I guess I will not await your speculative theory)
May 7, 2022, 10:45 am
#64
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,164
In the world of Covid, anti-bac wipes/sprays/gels etc etc of which we are literally swimming in onboard these days I’m sure can handle the job. Yes warm water and soap would be preferable I agree, but it’s lack of presence will not cause the fall of Rome on one flight.
Everything on the 787 goes to a waste tank via a vacuum system. There are no drain masts. We rely on deferential pressure for toilets to work. Two full waste tanks would however be cause for concern as the toilets would shut down.
Why would the indicator indicate zero and still the relevant checks have happened? RDC failures. They occur. They are not a diversion or turn back generating event. The 787 is just a giant flying server with a lot of demand for cooling, the zeros and ones doesn’t always get along. Yes there IS a chance that no body could be bothered to do their checks…… I also COULD have won the euromillions……perhaps one is more likely than the other. Most of us that flew the pilot only extended FTL cargo flights sans cabin crew during the various restriction of the past two years have become adept at doing things/checks etc not technicallly in our normal area or remit, but as learnt behaviours to compensate for lack of crew onboard and the established procedures to mitigate. As such we by and large so have a look at items such as water and waste tank levels when we board as we tend to be there prior to the crew, not always, but sometimes. So again the fact that at least two, and likely three different roles didn’t look….I’m finding it rather unlikely.
If the hosted cabin function fails (potable water outlets are a program function hosted by a server), and a spare RDC doesn’t pick up the slack…you’ll see zero or full on that panel. It s just a computer.
As for ‘legality’…you can legally fly without any potable water system for 10 days. This complies with FAA/EASA/CAA requirements.
Again, very annoying and very sub-optimal indeed. I’d be mightily annoyed at the lack of suitable caffeine too if operating that sector.
Near death or life threatening danger? No.
May 7, 2022, 10:48 am
#65
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,164
On another airline I got told off for sitting in row 9 instead of row 8, for "weight and balance" reasons. Clearly this wasn't going to crash the plane, there's no way airlines operate so close to the limits. But air travel is so safe because of this laser-focus on small things.
Last edited by Sigwx; May 7, 2022 at 11:13 am
May 7, 2022, 10:51 am
#66
Suspended
Join Date: May 2022
Programs: BA
Posts: 41
They work perfectly fine and use just the smallest spray of water. They are vacuum toilets, the small spray of water is merely used to ‘lubricate’ residue on the sides, nothing more. A bottle of water as a back up over does the job required by that spray.
In the world of Covid, anti-bac wipes/sprays/gels etc etc of which we are literally swimming in onboard these days I’m sure can handle the job. Yes warm water and soap would be preferable I agree, but it’s lack of presence will not cause the fall of Rome on one flight.
Everything on the 787 goes to a waste tank via a vacuum system. There are no drain masts. We relay on deferential pressure for toilets to work. Two full waste tanks would however be cause for concern as the toilets would shut down.
Why would the indicator indicate zero and still the relevant checks have happened? RDC failures. They occur. They are not a diversion or turn back generating event. The 787 is just a giant flying server with a lot of demand for cooling, the zeros and ones doesn’t always get along. Yes there IS a chance that no body could be bothered to do their checks…… I also COULD have won the euromillions……perhaps one is more likely than the other. Most of us that flew the pilot only extended FTL cargo flights sans cabin crew during the various restriction of the past two years have become adept at doing things/checks etc not technicallly in our normal area or remit, but as learnt behaviours to compensate for lack of crew onboard and the established procedures to mitigate. As such we by and large so have a look at items such as water and waste tank levels when we board as we tend to be there prior to the crew, not always, but sometimes. So again the fact that at least two, and likely three different roles didn’t look….I’m finding it rather unlikely.
If the hosted cabin function fails (potable water outlets are a program function hosted by a server), and a spare RDC doesn’t pick up the slack…you’ll see zero or full on that panel. It s just a computer.
As for ‘legality’…you can legally fly without any potable water system for 10 days. This complies with FAA/EASA/CAA requirements.
Again, very annoying and very sub-optimal indeed. I’d be mightily annoyed at the lack of suitable caffeine too if operating that sector.
Near death or life threatening danger? No.
In the world of Covid, anti-bac wipes/sprays/gels etc etc of which we are literally swimming in onboard these days I’m sure can handle the job. Yes warm water and soap would be preferable I agree, but it’s lack of presence will not cause the fall of Rome on one flight.
Everything on the 787 goes to a waste tank via a vacuum system. There are no drain masts. We relay on deferential pressure for toilets to work. Two full waste tanks would however be cause for concern as the toilets would shut down.
Why would the indicator indicate zero and still the relevant checks have happened? RDC failures. They occur. They are not a diversion or turn back generating event. The 787 is just a giant flying server with a lot of demand for cooling, the zeros and ones doesn’t always get along. Yes there IS a chance that no body could be bothered to do their checks…… I also COULD have won the euromillions……perhaps one is more likely than the other. Most of us that flew the pilot only extended FTL cargo flights sans cabin crew during the various restriction of the past two years have become adept at doing things/checks etc not technicallly in our normal area or remit, but as learnt behaviours to compensate for lack of crew onboard and the established procedures to mitigate. As such we by and large so have a look at items such as water and waste tank levels when we board as we tend to be there prior to the crew, not always, but sometimes. So again the fact that at least two, and likely three different roles didn’t look….I’m finding it rather unlikely.
If the hosted cabin function fails (potable water outlets are a program function hosted by a server), and a spare RDC doesn’t pick up the slack…you’ll see zero or full on that panel. It s just a computer.
As for ‘legality’…you can legally fly without any potable water system for 10 days. This complies with FAA/EASA/CAA requirements.
Again, very annoying and very sub-optimal indeed. I’d be mightily annoyed at the lack of suitable caffeine too if operating that sector.
Near death or life threatening danger? No.
I don't really care about the explanations either. It's disgusting and that's the end of the matter.
May 7, 2022, 11:15 am
#68
Join Date: Jan 2017
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 461
I've learned a lot on this thread! Firstly, flying for 12 hours without water is shonky. End of.
Secondly, that "Crew Duvets" are a thing... Does anyone know if these are specified by the CAA? Or how they differ from other blankets etc?
Thirdly (and the biggest learning)... I'm astounded by how little water is needed on an A380 for a 12 hour flight... It must make sense (clearly it works) but I'm currently in a part of the world where we have only just (as in last week) been connected to mains water having relied on tankers and then well water for 15 years so I know what 500kg / litres of water looks like... and it's not a lot! It also would not take a lot of time to actually move that from one place to another with a pump... Certainly less that the time it took to wait for the duvets assuming somebody had a "tap" nearby.
And then finally, just for interest / a data point my flight to LCA last Saturday the bags were apparently loaded in the "wrong hold" which meant our "trim was out" according to the captain and so the cabin crew had to spend about 30 minutes wandering around and grabbing people and moving them forwards (some of them to occupy the middle seat in the club cabin, the horror). It took them a while but I think they only moved about 8 people (there are not infinite free seats towards the front of the plane) and so 500kg does seem like a significant amount... admittedly this was an A321 which is a completely different ballpark to an A380 especially as (I believe) they have an issue with trim anyway but perhaps relevant.
Secondly, that "Crew Duvets" are a thing... Does anyone know if these are specified by the CAA? Or how they differ from other blankets etc?
Thirdly (and the biggest learning)... I'm astounded by how little water is needed on an A380 for a 12 hour flight... It must make sense (clearly it works) but I'm currently in a part of the world where we have only just (as in last week) been connected to mains water having relied on tankers and then well water for 15 years so I know what 500kg / litres of water looks like... and it's not a lot! It also would not take a lot of time to actually move that from one place to another with a pump... Certainly less that the time it took to wait for the duvets assuming somebody had a "tap" nearby.
And then finally, just for interest / a data point my flight to LCA last Saturday the bags were apparently loaded in the "wrong hold" which meant our "trim was out" according to the captain and so the cabin crew had to spend about 30 minutes wandering around and grabbing people and moving them forwards (some of them to occupy the middle seat in the club cabin, the horror). It took them a while but I think they only moved about 8 people (there are not infinite free seats towards the front of the plane) and so 500kg does seem like a significant amount... admittedly this was an A321 which is a completely different ballpark to an A380 especially as (I believe) they have an issue with trim anyway but perhaps relevant.
Last edited by Prospero; May 7, 2022 at 12:09 pm Reason: Remove an incendiary remark. Let’s keep the discussion civil
May 7, 2022, 11:48 am
#69
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,913
It’s very sad, and very much against the spirit of FlyerTalk, to see an increasing number of rude or snide personal digs appearing in this topic. Debating the issues is healthy, insulting isn’t.
May 7, 2022, 11:54 am
#70
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Programs: Hilton, IHG - BA, GA, LH, QR, SV, TK
Posts: 17,005
As has been mentioned by IAN-UK there are a lot of fudge factors in load and balance calculations.
We know the empty weight of the aircraft and they are weighed on a regular basis, we also know the weight on the catering and all of its equipment. We know the weight of the cargo and the Mail and all of the baggage. The human beings are total guess work but organisations such as the CAA and the likes of IATA (iirc) do regular sample audits of human traffic weights.
As such we use different assumption for the mass of humanity based on regions of the world in longhaul. USA is more mass or weight per head than the Far East. But is is all still a guess and a fudge.
…...
Given the state of resourcing with various service partners airport wide, I would be sceptical of stories that the water was simply forgotten. The attendant panel is accessed a good few times pre departure by the IFM/L and various inputs are needed, such as the passenger head count figure. Given there is a TRM/C who needs to update load control with actual figures I have a feeling this was probably more to do with no staff available to service the tanks without incurring a significant and sizeable delay….or that there was a problem with the potable water system once under way.
We know the empty weight of the aircraft and they are weighed on a regular basis, we also know the weight on the catering and all of its equipment. We know the weight of the cargo and the Mail and all of the baggage. The human beings are total guess work but organisations such as the CAA and the likes of IATA (iirc) do regular sample audits of human traffic weights.
As such we use different assumption for the mass of humanity based on regions of the world in longhaul. USA is more mass or weight per head than the Far East. But is is all still a guess and a fudge.
…...
Given the state of resourcing with various service partners airport wide, I would be sceptical of stories that the water was simply forgotten. The attendant panel is accessed a good few times pre departure by the IFM/L and various inputs are needed, such as the passenger head count figure. Given there is a TRM/C who needs to update load control with actual figures I have a feeling this was probably more to do with no staff available to service the tanks without incurring a significant and sizeable delay….or that there was a problem with the potable water system once under way.
From your analysis it appears that "empty tanks" was unlikely to have been a revelation after take-off. So no drama.
It was likely a calculated decision while on the ground to leave without water. Whether tanks were unfilled because a fill up had been forgotten, or there was some fault in the system, Lord knows: but a potential time penalty involved in rectifying the situation was probably the crucial contributor to abandon water.
May 7, 2022, 12:31 pm
#71
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,875
Why would the indicator indicate zero and still the relevant checks have happened? RDC failures. They occur. They are not a diversion or turn back generating event. The 787 is just a giant flying server with a lot of demand for cooling, the zeros and ones doesn’t always get along. Yes there IS a chance that no body could be bothered to do their checks…… I also COULD have won the euromillions……perhaps one is more likely than the other. Most of us that flew the pilot only extended FTL cargo flights sans cabin crew during the various restriction of the past two years have become adept at doing things/checks etc not technicallly in our normal area or remit, but as learnt behaviours to compensate for lack of crew onboard and the established procedures to mitigate. As such we by and large so have a look at items such as water and waste tank levels when we board as we tend to be there prior to the crew, not always, but sometimes. So again the fact that at least two, and likely three different roles didn’t look….I’m finding it rather unlikely.
The whole waiting for duvet issue may have distracted the crew, and that is the whole point of checklists. They aren't supposed to require your attention, and supposed to catch when something is missed because of inattention (fatigue, what have you).
Again, very annoying and very sub-optimal indeed. I’d be mightily annoyed at the lack of suitable caffeine too if operating that sector.
Near death or life threatening danger? No.
Near death or life threatening danger? No.
I guess Ryanair can say: "we give you the option of paying for running water in the toilet (unlike BA which doesn't provide it at all costs)".
May 7, 2022, 12:34 pm
#72
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,875
May 7, 2022, 12:43 pm
#73
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,913
May 7, 2022, 1:00 pm
#74
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,875
So, the fact is there was no water on the plane for passengers to use.
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.
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.
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.
You were the one saying FT members have a certain spirit. I'm only trying to hold you to your own standard.
I'm not sure you distinguish between "argumentative" and "purposely argumentative" (and may I add "purposefully argumentative") but I fail to see how you were debating issues. Your language could be sarcastic or polite, but it seems that my reference to your point about another rationale being proposed was another thread, another flight, years ago, and you completely ignored it.
May 7, 2022, 1:37 pm
#75
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 1,573
Is there any water in the tanks? No. OK, check done.