BA 826 Diversion : Passengers Right To Know

Back to Forum
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)

  • Cleancabinair
    Participant

    Given the ‘incident’ BA 826 SFO to LHR being diverted in Vancouver, where all the crew including the 3 pilots being taken to hospital for check ups for ‘smoke/fume inhalation’, should the passengers be entitled to know more about what affected the crew as it most likely affected the passengers? Thus there should be ‘Charter of Rights’ as suggested by http://www.holidaytravelwatch.com/press/call-for-ba-to-provide-for-a-passengers-right-to-know

    The charter is as follows:
    A Passengers Right to Know:
    1.In the event that a smoke or fume event arises during the operation of an aircraft, passengers should be advised of that event by the crew, if not already apparent;
    2.Where a smoke or fume event arises during the operation of an aircraft, where possible, passengers should be advised as to the source of that event and its chemical or other constituency;
    3.If a smoke or fume event arises during the operation of an aircraft, passengers should be provided with immediate written confirmation of the event along with contact details for further information on that event;
    4.A right for passengers to know the reasons why aircraft crew are removed to hospital following a smoke or fume event;
    5.In the event of crew being exposed to fumes, that passengers are equally advised as to the health issues and offered immediate medical treatment;
    6.That National Civil Aviation Authorities publish details of all enquiries carried out by them relating to any smoke or fume events;
    7.That a pan-European register of smoke or fume event complaints be created which is fully open and accessible to all Consumers;
    8.That a pan-European body be created, possibly through EASA, charged with the investigation of all smoke or fume event complaints compiled on the register;
    9.That an independent body be created to receive and accept pilot and crew complaints into the operation and safety issues affecting aircraft, which is open to public scrutiny;
    10. That the EU creates a pan-European wide ‘Whistleblow’ campaign to heighten aircraft safety issues so as to encourage an environment of disclosure.


    GivingupBA
    Participant

    I think there is sense in most of what you wrote, but I suggest that no. 4 in the charter is impinging on the right to privacy [private medical information] of the crew.


    FDOS_UK
    Participant

    [quote quote=770726]I think there is sense in most of what you wrote, but I suggest that no. 4 in the charter is impinging on the right to privacy [private medical information] of the crew.

    [/quote]

    I don’t agree – the reason the crew were required to attend hospital would also potentially be the reason pax may have to – disclosing the reasons for sending the crew would not cause their individual medical treatment or outcome.

    Full disclosure is required.


    LuganoPirate
    Participant

    I agree. Full disclosure should be mandatory and I’m surprised it isn’t already. If I was on board I’d want to know so I could get checked over and the doctor would know what to look for.


    canucklad
    Participant

    Some interesting reading,and a lesson to companies on how not to handle a seemingly mild drama. And textbook reading on how to turn that same drama into a crisis.

    http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/british-columbia/5-unanswered-questions-british-airways-1.3821059


    LuganoPirate
    Participant

    I just read the link given by Cleancabinair and feel that all the passengers should have been checked over. Surely they breathed the same air as the crew?


    GivingupBA
    Participant

    FDOS_UK, you wrote “I don’t agree – the reason the crew were required to attend hospital would also potentially be the reason pax may have to – disclosing the reasons for sending the crew would not cause their individual medical treatment or outcome….”, thanks for your input, but it seems to me that this disclosure is already very well covered by points 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the charter – so I thought no. 4 could be left out.


    mroo_ywg
    Participant

    There seems to be a lot we do not know about this particular incident, and I am not sure we will ever be told the full story. It started with the rather sketchy reason why the flight went to Vancouver, and did not land in the designated emergency airport for flights from the west coast – Winnipeg, which was only an hour east of the diversion position, overflew Calgary an hour west, and ended up in Vancouver. Indeed for both Winnipeg and Calgary which are both more than capable of handling the A380, the flight would have had to dump fuel, but I am not sure the extra hour to Vancouver would have gotten it under the landing limit, so it probably did have to dump fuel regardless. Other questions to ask – has the flight left for London? If so, did it use a replacement crew, or the same crew? I guess we will have to wait and see how this unfolds.


    GivingupBA
    Participant

    mroo_ywg said, “There seems to be a lot we do not know about this particular incident….”. Right, and the first thing I want to know is – many have written or speculated that the entire cockpit and cabin crew were affected by smoke. If that happened, why were no passengers affected? That looks very strange to me, because cabin crew and passengers at least were in the same space: so I also wonder what’s going on.


    ConstantFlyer
    Participant

    It was BA286, not 826. Frankly a ‘Charter of Rights’ is a ridiculous over-reaction. Sounds like an underworked lawyer has too much time on their hands. Just ask BA for an explanation, or wait for the AAIB report.


    Cleancabinair
    Participant

    well slap my wrists for being dyslexic! 286 it is!

    The AAIB report will be welcomed as we shall only get a glib BA response with the usual pronouncements that customer safety is their top priority!

    This is not an isolated event as any person checking Avherald.com will note from the number of incidents across the globe so this not about BA in isolation. Rather the airline industry which is doing little if anything to protect passengers and crews from contaminated cabin air, generated by engine oil entering the aircraft via the Bleed Air systems on the engines(except the B787 Dreamliner that uses separate air compressors) The engine oil has a potent neuro-toxin in it called Tri Crysl Phosphate, which affects the central nervous system. The cognitive responses of the body are impacted including the brains ability to react quickly and assess situations. In pilots this is critical as they have to respond to dynamic situations where the recalculation of situations and risk to ensure that an aircraft remains safe.

    The charter is a suggestion as there is little if anything that protects the travelling public when flying. As for crews the normal UK laws relating to the protection of the employees in their workplace are excluded on aircraft!

    It is time that the travelling public realise that the airlines and aviation industry understand the implications of smoke / fumes emanating from the Bleed Air intakes.


    ConstantFlyer
    Participant

    Seriously, I think the most toxic fumes air passengers breathe are the exhaust fumes from cars, buses and taxis sitting with their engines running outside arrivals.


    MrMichael
    Participant

    @cleancabinair, this is evidently something you feel strongly about, as well as something you clearly have knowledge of, so I am figuring you work in the industry.

    Your quite correct in that nobody wants to be poisoned as they travel. However I have no doubt that whatever BA said about it would not satisfy you short of the board resigning having admitted a ploy to poison crew and passengers in a bid to enhance their brand.

    This does periodically happen, but I am somewhat perturbed by all the crew trooping off to the hospital leaving the pax wondering what the heck happened. I take the view that the crew were making a point more than having serious concerns about their health. “Where there’s blame there’s a claim”. Lots of things happen regularly in the airline industry, from bird strikes to wheels falling off to being shadowed by a fighter due to a Comms problem. I do not think BA or any other airline has more of these incidents than any other. They happen. We wish they didn’t, but they do. Move along now.


    TCSH11
    Participant

    [quote quote=770771]I agree. Full disclosure should be mandatory and I’m surprised it isn’t already. If I was on board I’d want to know so I could get checked over and the doctor would know what to look for.

    [/quote]

    Just go get checked out anyway… they will not tell you what’s wrong with crew… patient confidentiality


    rferguson
    Participant

    http://aerotoxic.org/information/fume-events/information-regarding-british-airways-fume-event-days-ago-30-10-16/

    Although not from an ‘official’ source this link gives some more information on what was going on on the flight.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Business Traveller March 2024 edition
Business Traveller March 2024 edition
Be up-to-date
Magazine Subscription
To see our latest subscription offers for Business Traveller editions worldwide, click on the Subscribe & Save link below
Polls