Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BA flight to Düsseldorf diverts to Edinburgh. Seriously.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    also, every flight i've ever been on in the last 15 years, has had an announcement before takeoff stating the destination. AA, Copa, Avianca, TACA, SWA, BA, and Delta. i may have missed a few.

    how is it that this flight took off with no announcements regarding destination? i imagine that if the FA had said, "welcome aboard BA flight 3271 with service to ?????? would the pax not have yelled, hey wtf?!?!?!

    more and more a rod serling occurrence.

    Comment


    • #17
      First of all, I believe this flight crew, flight attendants and aircraft all believed they were going to Edinburgh, and the flight crew briefed and prepared for such, via an automated flight plan. Clearly the passengers were put on the wrong aircraft.

      Boarding passes are rarely examined these days in Europe at the point of entering the aircraft, especially on narrow body aircraft, and to the extent they are, it’s for seat guidance.

      Another point not yet mentioned is that this wasn’t a British Airways aircraft. It was a WDL 146 subcontracted on an ACMI to BA Cityflyer, which code shares with British Airways. They may or may not have made an announcement. In this situation it’s possible no announcement was made. In any case there were only 5 passengers on board, it was a business flight, and who listens to flight announcements anyway.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by NeilA330 View Post
        Flights plans are all submitted automatically without the pilots knowing crap.
        Is that so?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
          Is that so?
          Must be true, we read it here.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
            Must be true, we read it here.
            Word choice means a lot. Doctors have cut off the wrong leg and killed people with the wrong meds.

            Us outsiders can envision a couple of folks a bit fried from many days and many legs...they sit in the cockpit, do otherwise aswesome CRM, and take the airplane where the flight plan tells them to.

            Is there some rock solid procedure to guarantee that this will never ever ever ever ever ever ever happen?...just like the doc using a red sharpie pen to write “NOT_THIS ONE” on your good leg?
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
              Word choice means a lot. Doctors have cut off the wrong leg and killed people with the wrong meds.

              Us outsiders can envision a couple of folks a bit fried from many days and many legs...they sit in the cockpit, do otherwise aswesome CRM, and take the airplane where the flight plan tells them to.

              Is there some rock solid procedure to guarantee that this will never ever ever ever ever ever ever happen?...just like the doc using a red sharpie pen to write “NOT_THIS ONE” on your good leg?
              speaking of which...when i had a second surgery on my busted ankle in 2012, the made me write "this leg" on my already busted up leg that had been operated on only 6 weeks earlier. effin retarded.

              go ahead evan, blame it on my profession....

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                go ahead evan, blame it on my profession....
                Why tell you what you already know. The problem isn't really your profession, per se. It is what you, as a lawyer, choose to do with it. The problem lies in the opportunistic abuse of lawsuits and the abusive rewards paid out by them. I met with a lawyer yesterday to defend my basic rights against a leviathan institution. Thank gawd for those lawyers.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Youtube's chief pilot's take on the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4WxF2gYWWw
                  Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                  Eric Law

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    Why tell you what you already know. The problem isn't really your profession, per se. It is what you, as a lawyer, choose to do with it. The problem lies in the opportunistic abuse of lawsuits and the abusive rewards paid out by them. I met with a lawyer yesterday to defend my basic rights against a leviathan institution. Thank gawd for those lawyers.
                    your basic rights? do tell more. are you actually paying him out of your own pocket with no chance of recovery from the big evil leviathan? if not, she/he's just in it for the big leviathan's $$$$. it bothers you that we get paid to do what we do, yet, as i predicted loooooooooong ago, the day you needed one of us dirtbags, you'd be thankful for our existence.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                      your basic rights? do tell more. are you actually paying him out of your own pocket with no chance of recovery from the big evil leviathan? if not, she/he's just in it for the big leviathan's $$$$. it bothers you that we get paid to do what we do, yet, as i predicted loooooooooong ago, the day you needed one of us dirtbags, you'd be thankful for our existence.
                      Just like any profession, the majority are part of the mediocrity which means for straightforward stuff, you'll get what you need for money paid. There are a small percentage of crooks and idiots, and there are a small percentage that are worth every cent. I have had the privilege of working with some really good lawyers both paid for out of pocket, or on the payroll at my company. I love working with them. The mediocrity, fine if it's a rote simple thing.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        My dad flew our Cessna 172 into the wrong airport once when I was a kid. We were flying at night trying for Southern Pines, NC and there was another airport (not sure which one) that had a beacon that he mistook for the destination. Classic confirmation bias. Sadly this wouldn't be the worst mistake he made as a pilot, not by a long shot.

                        One other thing that happened to me was a red-eye from SFO back to FLL. There was a thunderstorm hovering over the airport so the pilot told us we'd circle for a while until it cleared. After maybe 20 minutes, without coming on the intercom and saying anything, we landed. Something didn't feel right and when I looked out the window it was a bizarre site. Turns out he'd landed in Sarasota because the fuel was running low. It was a very weird feeling - the pilot came on and made a joke about how you may have noticed we're not in Fort Lauderdale!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          How does this happen? I thought flight plans were downlinked directly to the FMS these days.

                          https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47691478
                          Well. BA #3271 on that Monday was operated with a WDL Aviation BAe 146-200, if flightradar24 is right. I could ask somebody who like me is based on EDDL. But I don't know if he's already back online here at jetphotos, after a serious laughter. WH is an airline based on the EDDK airport.

                          Thus, I was able to see headlines from the yellow press, based in Cologne.. 'Das ist nicht mehr zum Lachen.' In English: 'Nobody should laugh about that.'
                          I like to contradict.

                          1. Nobody was hurt. WH knows how to calculate fuel, a rather extraordinary alternate airport like Edinburgh included (cp Chapecoense...) .

                          2. Did somebody here already mention that the Flight Captain of that WH Jumbolino asked his passengers one indeed funny question.
                          'Ahm. Nobody for Edinburgh? Who boarded this a/c for Düsseldorf?' - with an overwhelming answer, afaik all passengers said
                          'yes. Scotland is beautiful but we payed for DUS.'

                          Lol.

                          Back to Evan's question. How does this happen. WDL filed the wrong flight plan. If you'd ask me, the Flight Captain is responsible for doing so, but that might be different from airline to airline. And also with the background that I don't get paid by LH for what I'm writing here, so rather take it as an assumption based on.. let's say aviation history, how things were done 10 or 20 years ago. And somebody sat down and told the story to a rather young aviation enthusiast...

                          Thus, you 'are able' , or better in history you were able to file a wrong flight plan, if not the London City air traffic controller said, wait a moment,
                          BA #3271 dep LCY 0715 - arr DUS 0940 .
                          What do you look for in Edinburgh.. ?
                          That's what airlines are good for, amongst others,
                          The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
                          And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
                          Aviation enthusiast, since more than 35 years with home airport EDDL.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Chris K View Post
                            My dad flew our Cessna 172 into the wrong airport once when I was a kid. We were flying at night trying for Southern Pines, NC and there was another airport (not sure which one) that had a beacon that he mistook for the destination. Classic confirmation bias. Sadly this wouldn't be the worst mistake he made as a pilot, not by a long shot.

                            One other thing that happened to me was a red-eye from SFO back to FLL. There was a thunderstorm hovering over the airport so the pilot told us we'd circle for a while until it cleared. After maybe 20 minutes, without coming on the intercom and saying anything, we landed. Something didn't feel right and when I looked out the window it was a bizarre site. Turns out he'd landed in Sarasota because the fuel was running low. It was a very weird feeling - the pilot came on and made a joke about how you may have noticed we're not in Fort Lauderdale!
                            Yes. I don't know how old you are, but God save us, if even a Junior discovers what went wrong here... And nobody should say that's not funny,
                            always assumed that nobody was hurt, like during that BA #3271 flight last Monday lol.

                            he'd landed in Sarasota because the fuel was running low.
                            That's a different story. I just had to look up the Cessna 172 maximum range. In my eyes, i.e. if I were the Leftseat in a Cessna 172,
                            definitely not more than 5 flight hours before you land again because you need fuel. 600 nautical miles nonstop, not more.

                            Some people must've shown a quite scared expression in their face when I made my comments about the Chapecoense flight, back then November 28th 2016.

                            A/c type back then was exactly the same as last Monday. Somebody likes to confirm that, a BAe 146-200, or also known as Avro RJ85. That bird provides a
                            maximum range (!) of definitely not more than ? nautical miles, assumed that within the last two feet you reach a gas station.
                            Not more than 1400 nmi if you ask me. There are sentences which I'm not able to translate.

                            'Die Flugstrecke war mit 2994 km länger als die vom Hersteller mit 2965 km angegebene treibstoffbedingte maximale Reichweite des Maschinentyps.'
                            (German wiki concerning November 28th 2016).

                            What the hell. I still know what I wrote during the Chapecoense discussion here on jetphotos.
                            1. The airline is younger than me. Be aware.
                            2. And I like to say sorry for that words, not everybody knows how much fuel he needs for a certain route. Back then I said, why didn't you call a 747.

                            If I had the choice, call a 747 (expensive, I know) or die in an Avro RJ 85 which definitely by the manufacturer was not invented for routes longer than 2600 km (!!),
                            [source: German wiki 'BAe 146']
                            then I'd decide for the type 747, which indeed was invented for routes longer than 1,403 nautical miles (which are 2600 km).

                            That indeed seems easy. But the only thing which I like to mention is, fuel starvation is not fun. There are a/c types which are more affordable than type 747 and who also fulfil
                            'invented for routes longer than 1400 nmi'. Beech King Air 350, B737, B757, B767, A318, A319, A320, A321, et cetera et cetera.

                            In case of a doubt you better take the bigger aircraft, compared to a Cessna 172. Please promise me that.

                            I like 'our' Juniors here at jetphotos too much to see another Chapecoense happening!
                            Last edited by LH-B744; 2019-03-30, 00:17. Reason: Hm, de wiki BAe146 says max 1400 nmi (en: 1900). In doubt take the smaller number!
                            That's what airlines are good for, amongst others,
                            The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
                            And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
                            Aviation enthusiast, since more than 35 years with home airport EDDL.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Sorry again, but Gabriel knows that problem, if you are in the topic, lengthy entries might occur..

                              Again, I tried to confirm that it was a BAe 146-200 here in this topic.

                              Well. Flightradar24 says, yes indeed. And they are able to precisely name the aircraft by registration. D-AMGL. Which exactly is this little bird:
                              https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9170185

                              So, imho we can trust Flightradar24. They are able to name the a/c, or at least 1 a/c which today is part of the WDL Aviation fleet. Although...

                              EDDL control tower does not quite confirm that. At least for next Monday (April 2019), the schedule says 'Embraer'. Or how do you read
                              'Embraer, ERJ 170-100 STD; AR; LR; SU; SE'
                              ?

                              I know that ARJ sometimes is the code for an Avro RJ85. So the EDDL schedule only says, what all experienced aviation enthusiasts know?
                              'a/c type is subject to change 1 second before boarding.'

                              Let's say it was a BAe 146-200, until EDDL control tower shows us what really took off under their eyes last Monday.

                              PS: Again. Today we somehow are in danger to get used to a/c types like A320, A321, B737, B757 or B763ER.

                              But although neither the manufacturer nor the type ARJ (B142) has one active aircraft production (!), both are history since 2001, they are still in the air.
                              -
                              These extremely short haul jets type ARJ, which only look like the long haul Original..
                              ARJ85 Jumbolino - max range 1400 nmi
                              A320 max range - more than 3000 nautical miles
                              B744 Jumbo (the older brother) max range - ... enough.

                              PS: Edinburgh ICAO code is EGPH. You can't really confuse that with my home airport EDDL. Only if someone tried EDI for Lohausen.
                              EDI is the IATA code for Edinburgh.
                              That completely has nothin to do with DUS.
                              But I was able to find the distance between EGPH and EDDL. With only a rough guess, 455 nautical miles nonstop if you fly one straight line without waypoints.
                              That's a 'really short' short haul, good for the ARJ85.

                              There are jetpilots who even regard the Fiumicino route as rather short, which is true. An official short haul.

                              But again that ARJ? As far as I remember, concerning Chapecoense I said, you better land an ARJ after not more than 700 nmi, which is 50% of the maximum range, to refuel.
                              And that's what the WDL aviation crew did. So nobody was hurt. Good.
                              Last edited by LH-B744; 2019-03-30, 01:39. Reason: Really short short haul, 0 - 499 nautical miles.
                              That's what airlines are good for, amongst others,
                              The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
                              And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
                              Aviation enthusiast, since more than 35 years with home airport EDDL.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
                                Yes. I don't know how old you are, but God save us, if even a Junior discovers what went wrong here... And nobody should say that's not funny,
                                always assumed that nobody was hurt, like during that BA #3271 flight last Monday lol.



                                That's a different story. I just had to look up the Cessna 172 maximum range. In my eyes, i.e. if I were the Leftseat in a Cessna 172,
                                definitely not more than 5 flight hours before you land again because you need fuel. 600 nautical miles nonstop, not more.

                                Some people must've shown a quite scared expression in their face when I made my comments about the Chapecoense flight, back then November 28th 2016.

                                A/c type back then was exactly the same as last Monday. Somebody likes to confirm that, a BAe 146-200, or also known as Avro RJ85. That bird provides a
                                maximum range (!) of definitely not more than ? nautical miles, assumed that within the last two feet you reach a gas station.
                                Not more than 1400 nmi if you ask me. There are sentences which I'm not able to translate.

                                'Die Flugstrecke war mit 2994 km länger als die vom Hersteller mit 2965 km angegebene treibstoffbedingte maximale Reichweite des Maschinentyps.'
                                (German wiki concerning November 28th 2016).

                                What the hell. I still know what I wrote during the Chapecoense discussion here on jetphotos.
                                1. The airline is younger than me. Be aware.
                                2. And I like to say sorry for that words, not everybody knows how much fuel he needs for a certain route. Back then I said, why didn't you call a 747.

                                If I had the choice, call a 747 (expensive, I know) or die in an Avro RJ 85 which definitely by the manufacturer was not invented for routes longer than 2600 km (!!),
                                [source: German wiki 'BAe 146']
                                then I'd decide for the type 747, which indeed was invented for routes longer than 1,403 nautical miles (which are 2600 km).

                                That indeed seems easy. But the only thing which I like to mention is, fuel starvation is not fun. There are a/c types which are more affordable than type 747 and who also fulfil
                                'invented for routes longer than 1400 nmi'. Beech King Air 350, B737, B757, B767, A318, A319, A320, A321, et cetera et cetera.

                                In case of a doubt you better take the bigger aircraft, compared to a Cessna 172. Please promise me that.

                                I like 'our' Juniors here at jetphotos too much to see another Chapecoense happening!
                                As far as the Cessna, low fuel, and landing at Sarasota, those were 2 separate incidents. Landing at the wrong airport was all on my dad and the Cessna. The Sarasota landing was a commercial JetBlue flight which, as far as I can tell, was handled fine. It was just weird and disorienting (likely compounded by early morning red eye).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X