BA A380 diverted to vancouver smoke in the cabin.

[Rookie50]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.3820082

[Mick G]

Shocking. Somebody needs to answer as to why they didnt divert to the nearest capable airport. I mean, common sense here folks, emergency over Saskatchewan, lets divert to Vancouver?

[FighterPilot]

It being an A380 may have had something to do with it, but I agree, I would think YWG would have been more than capable.

[Yycaviator]

if memory serves, the runway length is just the beginning. My initial thought was wtf, yyc is right there.

The duty manager at ywg once explained to me that although their runway was long enough, the taxi way angles (and even the signs) would have to be redesigned/replaced for a 380 to land.

Howver, if the smoke was bad enough, I wouldn't give a flying F about any of that. That is someone else's problem to figure out once I get it on the ground safely.

[fish4life]

YYC is designed for it though unless they don't have charts for those airports not sure how it works on that plane

[cdnpilot77]

First report I read was that it was only crew members sick and taken to hospital. I'm going to assume that it's because the pax got masks on while the crew scurried to prep the airplane for an emergency landing?

As to the choice of yvr, my guess is for landing weight restrictions? They were going to have to burn off that fuel anyways so why not go to the most suitable airport?

[Rockie]

On flightaware it looks like their initial diversion track had them going straight for Calgary, and just west of the Alberta-Saskatchewan border they turned left direct to YVR. It's apparent some kind of decision was made at that point, but as yet nobody outside the airline and authorities knows why. I feel pretty confident in saying though that if the crew thought anyone's life were in danger they would have put it down in YYC regardless of weight, availability of charts or whether or not they could taxi off the runway afterwards.

[navajo_jay]

could it be weather related? It was really foggy last night and still is.

METAR CYYC 250500Z 00000KT 3/8SM R29/2800FT/N FG VV002 01/01 A2993 RMK FG8 SLP179

[CpnCrunch]

Reports are saying there was no smoke. All very strange. Perhaps food poisoning?

[linecrew]

Reports are saying there was no smoke. All very strange. Perhaps food poisoning?

Maybe another toilet related issue?

Feb. 2016 British Airways plane en-route to London from the Bahamas diverts to Canada due to 'problem with the toilet'
March 2015 British Airways flight to Dubai forced to return to Heathrow Airport after 'smelly poo in the toilet' becomes unbearable for passengers

[Mick G]

I completely disagree with not committing to Calgary. Lets not forget Swissair 111, they could have made it to a closer airport, but chose differently and cost them thier lives. The safest thing to do when smoke is detected is land immediately at the closest capable airfield. No regrets

[Rockie]

It's a bit premature to vilify the crew for their decision making when almost none of the actual facts are known.

[7ECA]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37761980

According to BA spokesperson Michele Kropf, "the crew were not treated for smoke inhalation as reported".

[200hr Wonder]

Although YYC is setup for the A380 as far as I am aware the only gate that could take the beast is the new terminal which does not open to Halloween. Even if there was a suitable gate, I am sure there is no marking or lines to get it positioned properly to get a gate to dock with the aircraft.

So you land in YYC, no gate have to get a stair truck to get anyone on or off, which of course may or may not reach high enough. You end up in a place like YWG and you may not be able to get off of the runway due to pavement load baring. Back when the earth was cooling and the 747 was new many airports had similar problems with its size, now most descent sized airports can handle such a beast.

From the sounds of things it was not land immediately it was land at the nearest suitable airport, which YVR is just that. There was no smoke it was just a cabin crew illness, food poising, leagoniers from the hotel who knows. So glad that this site can villfy a very senior BA crew that got the aircraft into an airport and treatment for their sick crew members in a prudent manner without all the facts nor being in the actual aircraft.

[Zaibatsu]

They were headed to YYC, then they realized it was Calgary and diverted.

[J31]

I completely disagree with not committing to Calgary. Lets not forget Swissair 111, they could have made it to a closer airport, but chose differently and cost them thier lives. The safest thing to do when smoke is detected is land immediately at the closest capable airfield. No regrets

Vilifying the Swiss Air 111 crew and making uninformed comments like this shows that you have not even read the report.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 8h0003.pdf

Page 2: They went to the nearest airport....Halifax.

Page 247: 2.20.3 Effect of Fire-Related Failures on Landing

it is evident that even if the pilots had attempted a minimum-time
emergency diversion starting at 0114:18, it would have been impossible for the pilots to continue
maintaining control of the aircraft for the amount of time necessary to reach the airport and
complete a safe landing.

On topic, the British Airways 380 crew dealt with the situation and proceeded to a safe landing in Vancouver.

You don't just plunk a 380 down anywhere!

[Mick G]

I completely disagree with not committing to Calgary. Lets not forget Swissair 111, they could have made it to a closer airport, but chose differently and cost them thier lives. The safest thing to do when smoke is detected is land immediately at the closest capable airfield. No regrets

Vilifying the Swiss Air 111 crew and making uninformed comments like this shows that you have not even read the report.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 8h0003.pdf

Page 2: They went to the nearest airport....Halifax.

Page 247: 2.20.3 Effect of Fire-Related Failures on Landing

it is evident that even if the pilots had attempted a minimum-time
emergency diversion starting at 0114:18, it would have been impossible for the pilots to continue
maintaining control of the aircraft for the amount of time necessary to reach the airport and
complete a safe landing.

On topic, the British Airways 380 crew dealt with the situation and proceeded to a safe landing in Vancouver.

You don't just plunk a 380 down anywhere!

Yes Sir, I recant my previous statement about the nearest airport; as this was 18 years ago and my memory did not serve me correctly. It is true that they were fast, heavy and choose to circle and dump fuel. This arguably was the wrong decision, but if they did try to go straight in, could they have made it? Probably not without some loss of life, and possibly not at all. In all my years of flight training, I have always considered smoke in the cockpit as a serious event and one that far too many pilots take lightly. Live with no regrets, a small layover is an inconvenience and hotels can be expensive for the airline, but the possibility of loss of life pales in comparison. Sorry if this sounds obvious, but we don't need any cowboys trying to be the hero playing with peoples lives. At least that's how I feel if i fly as a passenger.

[CpnCrunch]

More speculation here, although not much information:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.3821059

[Donald]

http://avherald.com/h?article=49fd405e&opt=0

A British Airways Airbus A380-800, registration G-XLEB performing flight BA-286 from San Francisco,CA (USA) to London Heathrow,EN (UK) with 433 people on board, was enroute at FL370 about 640nm east of Vancouver,BC (Canada), when the crew declared medical emergency and initiated a diversion first in direction to Calgary,AB (Canada), subsequently to Vancouver reporting a number of crew and passenger were feeling sick due to fumes on board detailing "toxic gasses" when the controller understood "low on fuel". The aircraft landed safely on Vancouver's runway 08L about 105 minutes later. Ambulances took 25 occupants to local hospitals.

Vancouver Hospitals reported 25 patients, 20 crew and 5 passengers, suffering from smoke inhalation have been taken to three hospitals in Vancouver. 20, all of them members of the crew, were later discharged.

The airline reported 25 crew including the three pilots and 2 passengers were taken to hospitals as a precaution after a number of cabin crew became unwell during the flight, the causes of occurrence are under investigation, however, none of the occupants was treated for smoke inhalation. All 25 crew have been discharged already. The passengers have been taken to hotels and are being rebooked onto other flights.

[Sidebar]

Regarding Swiss Air 111:

Yes Sir, I recant my previous statement about the nearest airport; as this was 18 years ago and my memory did not serve me correctly. It is true that they were fast, heavy and choose to circle and dump fuel. This arguably was the wrong decision, but if they did try to go straight in, could they have made it? Probably not without some loss of life, and possibly not at all.

The crew could not have made a straight-in approach and landing on 06 at CYHZ. Here's what the TSB had to say:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... _20_04.asp

2.20.4 Theoretical Emergency Descent Calculations

By coincidence, the time at which an emergency descent would have needed to begin to achieve the optimum theoretical emergency descent profile to land at the Halifax International Airport coincided with the actual time of the Pan Pan radio transmission. Any delay in descending would mean that the aircraft would be above the ideal descent profile. During the Pan Pan transmission, the captain requested a diversion and suggested Boston. It was not until about 1 minute and 25 seconds later that the following events were completed: the controller offered Halifax as an alternative diversion airport, the pilots evaluated and accepted Halifax, and the pilots commenced a non-emergency but rapid descent.

During that time, the aircraft was travelling in the general direction of the Halifax International Airport at a ground speed of more than 8 nautical miles (nm) per minute. From the actual descent start point, it would not have been possible for the pilots to position the aircraft for a landing on Runway 06, without some form of off-track manoeuvre to lose altitude and slow to the appropriate speed. In a best-case scenario, the extra manoeuvring would have added two or three minutes to the landing time. More likely, a manoeuvre such as a 360-degree turn would have been necessary, or they would have had to switch to a different runway. Either choice would have added several minutes to the earliest possible landing time, and the effects of the fire would have negated the possibility of completing a safe landing.

At about 0125, when the fire condition became distinctly evident in the cockpit, the aircraft was about 25 nm from the airport, at an altitude of about 10 000 feet, and at an airspeed of about 320 knots. It was flying in a southerly direction, away from the airport. In optimum circumstances, from that point it would have taken a minimum of about six minutes to get to the runway.

Theoretical calculations confirm that from any point along the actual flight path after the aircraft started to descend, it would not have been possible for the pilots to continue maintaining control of the aircraft for the amount of time necessary to reach the airport and complete a landing.

[pelmet]

Vilifying the Swiss Air 111 crew and making uninformed comments like this shows that you have not even read the report.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 8h0003.pdf

Page 2: They went to the nearest airport....Halifax.

Page 247: 2.20.3 Effect of Fire-Related Failures on Landing

it is evident that even if the pilots had attempted a minimum-time
emergency diversion starting at 0114:18, it would have been impossible for the pilots to continue
maintaining control of the aircraft for the amount of time necessary to reach the airport and
complete a safe landing.

I have read the MD-11 report. Just because it is felt that they couldn't make the airport while on fire, doesn't mean that it is a good decision to turn away from the airport while on fire. Go to the nearest decent airport in a situation like that and if you have to put it down several miles early, so be it. Staying up high to dump fuel for(what reason are they dumping for anyways while on fire?). Land now? Get on final now? Pilots who could be at a stage where they are easily influenced don't need to be reading silly opinions that basically say that when on fire it is a good decision to fly away from a decent airport.

The next time, the crew might just have enough time to make it with some extra damage due to a runway overrun because they were too heavy because they went direct to an airport right away.

[pelmet]

As for the A380, the rumour on another forum ihints at a little union-induced sickness. If so, I'll take YVR thanks.

[Mick G]

Vilifying the Swiss Air 111 crew and making uninformed comments like this shows that you have not even read the report.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 8h0003.pdf

Page 2: They went to the nearest airport....Halifax.

Page 247: 2.20.3 Effect of Fire-Related Failures on Landing

it is evident that even if the pilots had attempted a minimum-time
emergency diversion starting at 0114:18, it would have been impossible for the pilots to continue
maintaining control of the aircraft for the amount of time necessary to reach the airport and
complete a safe landing.

I have read the MD-11 report. Just because it is felt that they couldn't make the airport while on fire, doesn't mean that it is a good decision to turn away from the airport while on fire. Go to the nearest decent airport in a situation like that and if you have to put it down several miles early, so be it. Staying up high to dump fuel for(what reason are they dumping for anyways while on fire?). Land now? Get on final now? Pilots who could be at a stage where they are easily influenced don't need to be reading silly opinions that basically say that when on fire it is a good decision to fly away from a decent airport.

The next time, the crew might just have enough time to make it with some extra damage due to a runway overrun because they were too heavy because they went direct to an airport right away.

I wholeheartedly agree with pelmet.

[Rockie]

Vilifying the Swiss Air 111 crew and making uninformed comments like this shows that you have not even read the report.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 8h0003.pdf

Page 2: They went to the nearest airport....Halifax.

Page 247: 2.20.3 Effect of Fire-Related Failures on Landing

it is evident that even if the pilots had attempted a minimum-time
emergency diversion starting at 0114:18, it would have been impossible for the pilots to continue
maintaining control of the aircraft for the amount of time necessary to reach the airport and
complete a safe landing.

I have read the MD-11 report. Just because it is felt that they couldn't make the airport while on fire, doesn't mean that it is a good decision to turn away from the airport while on fire. Go to the nearest decent airport in a situation like that and if you have to put it down several miles early, so be it. Staying up high to dump fuel for(what reason are they dumping for anyways while on fire?). Land now? Get on final now? Pilots who could be at a stage where they are easily influenced don't need to be reading silly opinions that basically say that when on fire it is a good decision to fly away from a decent airport.

The next time, the crew might just have enough time to make it with some extra damage due to a runway overrun because they were too heavy because they went direct to an airport right away.

I wholeheartedly agree with pelmet.

So do manufacturers. After the Swissair accident the thinking on cabin fires/smoke underwent a close review and now QRH's contain the following direction:

"AT ANY TIME of the procedure, if the situation becomes UNMANAGEABLE:

IMMEDIATE LANDING........CONSIDER"

That means put the thing down immediately, the rationale being you might survive an off airport landing - but you will not survive an uncontrollable cabin fire.

[wirez]

Looks like the crew is saying it was a fume event.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/ ... me-events/