Jenbel

It's always been really unlikely to be a birdstrike, despite the press speculation. Like many other things, it cannot be completely ruled out, but it would be a very unusual strike. Usually if you have an engine ingestion, you get vibration or an increase in core temp - I can think of one engine where the power selection was affected. To have exactly the same effect on both engines would be extremely unlikely (even allowing for the lack of independence on damage probabilities).

I really don't think this was birdstrike.

LapLap

Actually it's three people and I focused only on comments I could present links to here as 'fact'.

I heard more yesterday, but not from sources I can get links to (and I responded BEFORE the Mark Tamburro article was published). Naturally, there've been no further comments today as passengers can now put their experiences into perspective.

The comments I made yesterday were not supposed to survive or even be expanded on today - alas they were completely warped and misquoted (or rather 'misreplied' to) so I was compelled to revive them.

---
Here's another example of what it's like to be caught up in a 'procedure'.

I was in Liverpool Street station (the higher part) just as it was being cleared following a bomb alert. Police in yellow jackets were clearing people from the station. I went to the nearest exit only to be told I couldn't leave that way. I went to the next nearest exit and was told I couldn't leave that way. This meant that many of us started to mill around aimlessly having no idea where to go. So I approached a policeman and asked which exit I should use. He just yelled at me to get out. I persisted that I wanted to leave but he would have to tell me from where I could leave from. He used his radio and I found out. This meant I was able to purposefully sweep everyone away with me and insist that everyone I met walking towards me turned around and got out of the only exit we could use.
I still have no idea why the police didn't 'sweep' everyone out in the same way. They were acting instead like paddles churning everyone into a mill pool. Yet I'm sure they were doing exactly what they were trained to do. When initiative by intelligent people gets surpressed by processes and procedures the results can get depressingly ugly. It gave me no sense of satisfaction whatsoever to have done a better job of evacuating people that day than the authorities did.

Wingnut

I do think the "the press are hopeless they get everything wrong" line is a little hysterical. Yes, the press do get things wrong, such as what design the tailfins were. They're not perfect. Likewise, it appears that BA gets things wrong too now and then, like getting the aircraft as far as runway. They're not perfect either.

SpeedbirdLHR

Just to add to this, one key reason for not allowing the passengers on that service access to television and as much as possible, anyone not connected with the airline or the incident is to maintain as much as possible their actual recollections rather than anything that might be tainted by other reports. This is particularly important when it comes time for them to be interviewed.

I can say that my colleagues did their best to assist the passengers from that service.

Also, there are generally persons on hand to provide basic counselling in events such as this and while I wasn't there, I would be surprised if they weren't present. One of the complaints have been about the lack of such and that they were given information on where to get counselling if needed, but I am sure this would have been to get further assistance if they needed it and not in place of help at the airport.

As for their personal belongings, anything left on the aircraft essentially became part of the investigation and has to be cleared by the authorities before being handed to BA for release to the passengers. However, as pointed out, the passengers were indeed given assistance. There are special groups who are called in during such events who deal with these matters and they have worked through the night examining the items in the cabin.

Not everyone will be happy with how events unfolded, but there is a process that has to be followed and BA would not at the end of it, just abandon the passengers in that scenario. There were many people in the terminals yesterday complaining that their flights were cancelled and there were no staff to give information. One reason was that the main aim was to look after those passengers from the incident. BA also move rather quickly to have as many staff available to help out in the terminals. To the extent that many people who were off doing various projects (including some T5), recruitment and even training were called back to the terminals shortly after the incident occurred.

Many of us that work for BA are justifiably be critical of the airline many of the times cause we want the best, but I am pretty sure that most will agree that when incidents happen, the airline and the many staff personally try to help as much as we can. This is a situation where the vast majority of BA staff have never experienced, but would have done everything possible to look after those in their care.

While I can't tell those passengers who are critical of events that they didn't experience what they say they did, the one thing I can say is that know my colleagues did everything to assist those involved.

As for the BBC reporting, there were some errors, as with much of the media. I was happy when the BALPA member essentially told them to stop the speculation, as that is essentially what they were doing, driving lots of the speculation and in some ways being very sensational with a serious event. The manner in which some of their reporters put questions to the passengers and 'witnesses' left much to be desired, such as the unnamed airport worker. unfortunately that is the world we live in where the news media try to compete to see who can get the best take on a story, no matter what.

sunrisegirl

If you can access PpRuNe (difficult right now due to volume of members and visitors) and go to the Jet Blast: Media Accident Coverage section, post 9, you will see a rather interesting comment re. Mr Tamburro. I won't repeat it here, but suffice to say they've not been as considerate as I've been in my comments.

Yes you have posted links as facts, but BA staff working in this situation are bound by confidentiality and hence are not officially allowed to talk about the facts of what they experienced face to face with the passengers.

AJLondon

Can you please provide a link sunrisegirl. It really might help alleviate some of the misperceptions that might exist here.

dolcevita

This has been my (admittedly highly non-professional) opinion from the start. I know it would sound silly, but I do recall watching a Discovery programme a few years ago about the 777, where they were discussing the vigorous testing the aircraft went through. They showed how they threw 300 kgs of frozen birds at the engines, which were able to handle it. Even accounting for the controlled environment of the testing, I would imagine that a bird capable of shutting down these engines has probably not been seen since the Cretaceous.

toothpick

In other words, a routine landing experience at YYZ

heartybob

As I mentioned in a post towards the top of this thread, Miss HB's (my daughter's) boyfriend was on this flight.

His story coincides with what sunrisegirl says in every respect, except that pax were not given full access to all the drink that is usually available in the lounge .

It is also a fact that a considerable number of the Chinese pax on this flight had a limited or no understanding of English, which complicated the post-incident processing.

A number of bilungual pax were more than happy to assist with the translation of documents and interpretation.

Another fact that complicated the process was that many pax naturally left most of their personal belonings on the aircraft, including passports, cash, credit cards, mobile phones, address books, hotel reservations etc.

Contrary to what a small number posters have said in this thread with apparent authority:

It is untrue that pax were not taken to a lounge;
It is untrue that pax were not offered counselling;
It is untrue that pax were only offered water;
It is untrue that pax were denied food and refreshments;
It is untrue that relatives and friends were kept in the dark, and
It is untrue that pax were not offered assistance to get to their ultimate destinations;

I'm sorry to say that this thread seems to have degenerated into a slanging match based on rumour and inuendo that IMHO is unworthy of FT.

I have given up reading any further, so if these points have already been addressed then I am more than happy to receive a prodding.

Jenbel

300kg is a little bit more than they actually test - and they don't generally use frozen either But you are correct, all engines are certificated to be able to withstand a certain impact size.

The Trents on the plane would have likely (depending on how long ago the type was certified) been certified to an 8lb safe shutdown and a 4lb with run-on capability. Safe shut down means that it can ingest a bird the size of a Canada Goose without basically exploding (uncontained failure) but is not expected to be able to continue to function. Birds these days can and do cause engines to fail.

sunrisegirl

Unfortunately I can't post a link to the actual thread at this time as PpRuNe is only allowing these to be viewed by members due to sheer volume looking over there. It reverts to the "server is busy" message when I try.

However, this is the link to their page where you can register. Be warned though even members are having a hard time accessing info consistently as their servers are struggling to cope with volume.

LHR Tim

HB, thank you!

I'm not an employee of BA but have friends that work for BA and do not doubt that for one second that

a) The mountain of procedures that BA have for just such incident we not followed
b) The passengers were well looked after according to those procedures.

All I can say is that some here do not work for BA and probably don't know what went on, nor the whys and wherefores.

sunrise, Speedbird, bealine: I'm sure your colleagues did the best job they could given the circumstances and hats off to them as well ^ ^ ^

And I do hope you've not been put off by the comments of some here.

Petrus

While I am not an expert on aviation, I would have to agree this could not have been a bird strike.
Engines don't show any traces of this like others have mentioned.

From what I have seen and read a bird getting sucked into an engine which fails, equals vibration and noise which any regular flyer, and most definately a pilot, would notice.

What I don't understand is some of the accounts from onboard PAX, which of some appear to be fairly frequent flyers.

They said all appeared normal and then they slammed the ground.
I've experienced a few missed approaches while sitting at a window. Twice we've been at idle engines, if that is the correct term, teens above the ground, yet no RWY to be seen outside. Not surprised to hear engines going full throttle and shoot back up to the sky.

Judging from that video the AC pitches the nose at a high angle, I for one as a PAX would assume a go-around, but with engines not revving up I would become alarmed.
It may just be me but I am very involved and alert while flying. And after 25 years very excited during take-offs and landings

zedhead

This incident reminds of the Air Canada DC-8 crash at Woodbridge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_621

LapLap

So commenting on these perfectly clear comments from passengers involved:

As well as Mark Tamburro's comments http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7196128.stm
There's also video footage of Chloe Richards and Ian Newborn shown on BBC News24 (there's a link on this page on the right "Passengers describe evacuation" showing these pax) saying very similar things. (I can't open that link, but I can see this one: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fc6_1200603997&c=1 the comments I've reacted to come after the 3 minute mark)

is responding to rumour and innuendo...

My compliments to sunrisegirl who has addressed my concerns with grace and consideration whilst putting her own view across.

Too many others seem far too quick to rubbish points of view they are uncomfortable with. Perhaps if they meet Chloe Richards face to face they can tell her in person that her comments were meaningless rumour and innuendo.