BA Crew injured in Madrid hard landing (Mar '14), Steward dies (Apr '14).

Jack1985

A BRITISH Airways steward was found dead on a beach weeks after a horror landing that left a plane’s entire cabin crew signed off sick and unfit to fly.

Andrew Barnes washed up on a Kent beach on April 11, a month after a BA flight from Heathrow to Madrid that caused deep anxiety to the crew.

It had been flown by a senior BA manager who may have made an error as she came in to land, injuring all eight cabin crew.

Andrew, 46, and described by friends as “kind, gentle and lovely”, was cremated in Folkestone on Friday.

A friend said he loved his job, but felt his account of what happened to flight BA460 on March 12 was not believed.

Details of what happened in its final moments are now the centre of an extraordinary dispute between the company and its cabin crew.

BA said a “thorough safety investigation” had concluded the Boeing 767, with about 150 passengers on board, “landed normally” at Madrid’s Barajas airport.

Yet witnesses told the Sunday Express cabin crew adopted the emergency brace position after the heavy landing as it sped along the runway, that overhead lockers opened, that oxygen masks dropped down and that passengers began screaming.

The landing had been “unlike anything I’ve ever experienced in decades of flying”, a witness said.

The witness added: “As the plane approached the runway, there was suddenly a huge roar.


"And then for what seemed like a few seconds, there was a sensation as if we were no longer flying.

"It went all quiet.

“And then it dropped vertically with a real thud.

"It was awful.”

The witness said the female pilot apologised for the unusual landing and blamed the wind.

However, the Sunday Express has established the winds at the airport at the time of landing, 5.30pm Spanish time, varied between 5-7 knots, equivalent to a gentle maximum of 8mph.

The Civil Aviation Authority has also confirmed that it has received a Mandatory Occurrence Report, either from a pilot or crew member, which referred to a heavy landing.

Additionally, the Sunday Express has obtained the flight's classified landing report logged on BA's internal systems. The report says: "Variable winds on approach into MAD. Approx 50ft aircraft Rate of Descent (ROD) increased.

"A lot of thrust applied but aircraft landed firmly before ROD could be arrested. All cabin crew complained of back or neck pain. Crew were examined by paramedics on the aircraft who confirmed that they were not fit to operate as crew but were fit to passenger back."

According to one experienced pilot, the fact that a lot of thrust had to be applied suggests the BA captain may have momentarily misjudged the landing. The report added that the return flight was cancelled and the crew booked into a hotel in Madrid.

In BA's favour, though, it also said there had been no printout for a heavy landing from the cockpit's automated systems. The airline also pointed out it had received no complaints from passengers. However, the crew jump seats at the front and rear of the aircraft are less sturdy than those in which the passengers sit.

Among the passengers was a flight inspector from another airline who was also apparently concerned about the way the plane landed.

He left his business card with crew members and said he would verify their accounts if asked to do so.

The Sunday Express contacted the inspector last week but he said he did not want to comment. He said if matters came to a court case, he would give his evidence then.

What is clear, however, is that the crew were signed off sick by a doctor and none has flown since. Claimed injuries include damage to legs, neck, back, vertebrae and coccyx. A legal case against BA is being considered.

Days after the flight, Andrew returned home. He had reported neck injuries and in text messages to friends he is said to have expressed anger at BA bosses. A friend said: "He was really fearful. He didn't think BA would believe his story. He worried they would sack him. What happened at Madrid definitely affected him."

Morale among BA cabin crew is believed to be extremely low. Managers sent an e-mail last month warning that sickness rates were unacceptably high and investigations were under way on how to reduce them.

A BA spokesman said: "The wellbeing and safety of our crew are of paramount importance to us and we have measures in place to support staff around the world. The flight to Madrid has been thoroughly investigated by our safety team who concluded the aircraft landed normally."

Police said Andrew's death was not being treated as suspicious.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/473941/British-Airways-steward-s-death-is-linked-to-horror-landing

Very worrying that all Cabin Crew were injured and not approved to fly the return leg, all remain on leave and the crew member who died had felt unwell since the incident. However needs to be pointed out what happened exactly to the steward on the beach remains ''shady''.

Nonoperational

There must be another side to this. Only the crew injured? And how does a death on a beach a month later have anything to do with the landing? Hmm...

folbotcar

Saw the headline in passing. My BS meter went the off the scale. A heavy landing that hurt the cabin crew but no passengers or flight crew on the plane.

Yeah plausible!

Jack1985

Nonoperational wrote: »

There must be another side to this. Only the crew injured? And how does a death on a beach a month later have anything to do with the landing? Hmm...

folbotcar wrote: »

Saw the headline in passing. My BS meter went the off the scale. A heavy landing that hurt the cabin crew but no passengers or flight crew on the plane.

Yeah plausible!

Indeed thought the same, but all crew on leave? Something up there, stewards death is more than likely unconnected.

Nonoperational

Definitely something fishy there. All crew on leave yet nothing from the passengers?

sully2010

Very strange case indeed and there's something not quite right about it. No passengers making claims of injuries due to a bad landing but the crew are, very odd.

On a side note I flew BA recently and they are definitely suffering from low morale(on this flight anyway) compared to what I have seen in the past. They seemed disinterested and just going with the flow.

fr336

Nonoperational wrote: »

There must be another side to this. Only the crew injured? And how does a death on a beach a month later have anything to do with the landing? Hmm...

Wow.

IngazZagni

Management pilot......no further comment. :pac:

GTE

Nonoperational wrote: »

There must be another side to this. Only the crew injured? And how does a death on a beach a month later have anything to do with the landing? Hmm...

Whether the story is to be believed or not, I can't see how you missed the connection being made between the incident, injury, possible consequences to the persons career and then a reactionary action on the part of the deceased.

That is as far as this point should go as it is speculation on the part of the news outlet (which is to be expected) but I am surprised it needs explaining so thoughts to the person who is dead and lets wait for further investigation.

Nonoperational

fr336 wrote: »

Wow.

What?

bbk wrote: »

Whether the story is to be believed or not, I can't see how you missed the connection being made between the incident, injury, possible consequences to the persons career and then a reactionary action on the part of the deceased.

That is as far as this point should go as it is speculation on the part of the news outlet (which is to be expected) but I am surprised it needs explaining so thoughts to the person who is dead and lets wait for further investigation.

You are implying he committed suicide because the incident had an adverse effect on his career and therefore mental health? Fine, but it still doesn't make the incident, as reported, anything other than extremely odd. Unless there is the implication that the pilot wanted to cover up the hard landing and the crew were silenced in which case this is an extremely serious incident and the fact we are hearing about it in the Daily Mail makes it hard for me to believe.

I tend to treat aviation stories in these rags as pieces bordering fiction, that's why I said I find the whole thing extremely odd and strange.

GTE

Nonoperational wrote: »

What?



You are implying he committed suicide because the incident had an adverse effect on his career and therefore mental health? Fine, but it still doesn't make the incident, as reported, anything other than extremely odd. Unless there is the implication that the pilot wanted to cover up the hard landing and the crew were silenced in which case this is an extremely serious incident and the fact we are hearing about it in the Daily Mail makes it hard for me to believe.

I tend to treat aviation stories in these rags as pieces bordering fiction, that's why I said I find the whole thing extremely odd and strange.

No, I'm showing you the clear line, regardless of the merits of the story, that the article is trying to go down and imply itself, otherwise its a non story. You not getting this is odd.

The rest of your post is of little relevance to that point and is just more speculation.

Nonoperational

Ok I phrased it poorly. I see the line they are trying to draw, but I find it extremely tenuous as reported.

arubex

Aircraft involved appears to have been G-BNWA which has been busy ever since, so apparently nothing structural occurred.

Edit: looks like BAW461, the return flight to Heathrow, was two hours late on the 12th March which I suppose is understanable if they had to check and restow.

Locker10a

Was it suicide ? I was under the impression it was related to a spinal injury .... maybe I picked that up wrong! And yes its strange that only the crew were injured but maybe it is genuinely down to the types of seats (rear facing) but ya all the same interesting ....

arubex

Locker10a wrote: »

And yes its strange that only the crew were injured but maybe it is genuinely down to the types of seats (rear facing) but ya all the same interesting ....

Rear-facing seats are actually the safest! Also the crew seatbelts are multiple-point anchor if I recall correctly, instead of the inadequate two-point belts they issue the passengers.

Locker10a

arubex wrote: »

Rear-facing seats are actually the safest! Also the crew seatbelts are multiple-point anchor if I recall correctly, instead of the inadequate two-point belts they issue the passengers.

Yes you are correct ,jump seats normally have a 5point harness but perhaps due to the nature of the landing the jumpseat occupants due to their seats experienced some injury I mean if the medical examination deemed them unfit to operate there must have been something!! I wonder has there ever been issues with 767 seats in the past

lintdrummer

First of all:

Anonymous Witness wrote:

“As the plane approached the runway, there was suddenly a huge roar. ie increased thrust to adjust for wind or some other factor that needed to be corrected for

"And then for what seemed like a few seconds, there was a sensation as if we were no longer flying. Thrust reduced to idle for flare

"It went all quiet. Because thrust was reduced to idle

“And then it dropped vertically with a real thud. Touch down

So by my reckoning a seemingly normal landing according to that account.

Cabin Crew seats are definitely less comfortable than pax seats. They don't do a whole lot of sitting in them so they aren't luxury by any means. If there was a hard landing the crew would definitely feel it more than the pax. That could reasonably explain why only crew reported injury.

However there was seemingly no physical evidence of the hard landing. If g force limits were exceeded then the aircraft would have been subjected to serious structural inspection and would absolutely not have done the return flight 2 hours later.

Then there's the notion that the flight crew were/are covering up a hard landing. The idea that not one but two airline pilots would conspire to such a cover up is absurd.

As for the tragic death of the cabin crew member, it's just that. Unless there is more detail that we don't know I can't see how it would be connected.

I hate to say it but if morale was low then it seems to me that this was a handy way of getting a nice paid vacation with possible compo to boot. Cynical, yes, but that's how I see it.

lintdrummer

Locker10a wrote: »

experienced some injury I mean if the medical examination deemed them unfit to operate there must have been something!!

Not fit to work but not so unfit as to require a trip to hospital, perfectly alright to travel home on the same aircraft as passengers.
If you or I complained of back pain after a landing and there was no physical swelling and we had full range of movement etc. then how can someone deny that you are indeed in pain? All they can do is say that you show no signs of serious injury but if you are in pain you need to take time off.

Locker10a

lintdrummer wrote: »

Not fit to work but not so unfit as to require a trip to hospital, perfectly alright to travel home on the same aircraft as passengers.
If you or I complained of back pain after a landing and there was no physical swelling and we had full range of movement etc. then how can someone deny that you are indeed in pain? All they can do is say that you show no signs of serious injury but if you are in pain you need to take time off.

Ya it makes sense I suppose!! I still find the whole thing strange!! I sit in jump seats all the time and there is not that much difference in sensation on landing but I have never done so on a 767

lintdrummer

Yeah, there is something odd about the whole story but it's probably been badly reported considering the source. I can't find anything about it on the AV Herald.

Arniebarnie

I think before any of you speculate and try to work out what happened, you wait for the facts. Reading your comments is proving no comfort to the family of the deceased.

The deceased death is most certainly connected to the incident on BA460.

Believe me - therefore, before speculating and commenting on suicide etc, please think of the family and friends involved.

Personally, reading your comments is angering the family and it is bad enough you all commenting but this person is dead. So until you get the facts - do not comment.

This is an open blog but the family are reading your comments and it is hurtful.

Please show some discretion and keep your thoughts on Andrew's death to yourself. Especially when using the term "suicide".

Arniebarnie

Locker10a wrote: »

Ya it makes sense I suppose!! I still find the whole thing strange!! I sit in jump seats all the time and there is not that much difference in sensation on landing but I have never done so on a 767

Do you get off on making comments like this? You were not on the flight, you cannot comment as you were not on that flight. You don't know the story, you don't know the facts but the fact is that Mr Barnes is dead and was perfectly fine before the BA460. Therefore, keep your opinion in your head and don't type on here.

Arniebarnie

lintdrummer wrote: »

Not fit to work but not so unfit as to require a trip to hospital, perfectly alright to travel home on the same aircraft as passengers.
If you or I complained of back pain after a landing and there was no physical swelling and we had full range of movement etc. then how can someone deny that you are indeed in pain? All they can do is say that you show no signs of serious injury but if you are in pain you need to take time off.[/


Not helpful comment at all, if you don't know the facts then don't comment and speculate.

galwayjohn89

Arniebarnie wrote: »

Do you get off on making comments like this? You were not on the flight, you cannot comment as you were not on that flight. You don't know the story, you don't know the facts but the fact is that Mr Barnes is dead and was perfectly fine before the BA460. Therefore, keep your opinion in your head and don't type on here.

What are you talking about. He said his experience of him sitting in jump seats and then even said he never sat on one in the B767 and commented that he finds the situation strange. There is no issue there at all. He never stated he knew the story, or the facts.

Arniebarnie

lintdrummer wrote: »

First of all:



So by my reckoning a seemingly normal landing according to that account.

Cabin Crew seats are definitely less comfortable than pax seats. They don't do a whole lot of sitting in them so they aren't luxury by any means. If there was a hard landing the crew would definitely feel it more than the pax. That could reasonably explain why only crew reported injury.

However there was seemingly no physical evidence of the hard landing. If g force limits were exceeded then the aircraft would have been subjected to serious structural inspection and would absolutely not have done the return flight 2 hours later.

Then there's the notion that the flight crew were/are covering up a hard landing. The idea that not one but two airline pilots would conspire to such a cover up is absurd.

As for the tragic death of the cabin crew member, it's just that. Unless there is more detail that we don't know I can't see how it would be connected.

I hate to say it but if morale was low then it seems to me that this was a handy way of getting a nice paid vacation with possible compo to boot. Cynical, yes, but that's how I see it.

Paid vacation? Paid vacation? Explain to me how the steward is on holiday? He is dead.

Perfectly fine before 12 March and deteriorated significantly over the course of a month and then dead. Until you have the facts, kindly reword your blog. Or remove it.

There is a whole lot of detail that you don't know of, yet you post a blog of this nature without the facts. As per usual, flight crew sticking together and have no consideration for the crew, especially those involved in this incident of a Heavy landing. I would love to find out who reported this story in the first place as it has shaken the whole family involved.

The deceased is definitely not on vacation, as he is dead.

gordongekko

Arniebarnie wrote: »

Paid vacation? Paid vacation? Explain to me how the steward is on holiday? He is dead.

Perfectly fine before 12 March and deteriorated significantly over the course of a month and then dead. Until you have the facts, kindly reword your blog. Or remove it.

There is a whole lot of detail that you don't know of, yet you post a blog of this nature without the facts. As per usual, flight crew sticking together and have no consideration for the crew, especially those involved in this incident of a Heavy landing. I would love to find out who reported this story in the first place as it has shaken the whole family involved.

The deceased is definitely on vacation, as he is dead.

There is a report button beside each post for you to use if you have an issue with any posts

Arniebarnie

Jack1985 wrote: »

Indeed thought the same, but all crew on leave? Something up there, stewards death is more than likely unconnected.

Stewards death unconnected? You clearly get off on comments like this, the deceased death is most definitely connected and you clearly don't know the facts (and you never will).

andy_g

Arniebarnie wrote: »

Do you get off on making comments like this? You were not on the flight, you cannot comment as you were not on that flight. You don't know the story, you don't know the facts but the fact is that Mr Barnes is dead and was perfectly fine before the BA460. Therefore, keep your opinion in your head and don't type on here.

I would suggest you attack the post not the poster. As you are new to the forum please read our rules failure to do so may end up in a ban or infraction.
Thanks

L1011

Arniebarnie wrote: »

Therefore, keep your opinion in your head and don't type on here.

Do you understand what a discussion forum exists for?

Arniebarnie wrote: »

Stewards death unconnected? You clearly get off on comments like this, the deceased death is most definitely connected and you clearly don't know the facts (and you never will).

What facts are there that you know with such certainty yet aren't revealing?

ProfessorPlum

Arniebarnie wrote: »

Paid vacation? Paid vacation? Explain to me how the steward is on holiday? He is dead.

Perfectly fine before 12 March and deteriorated significantly over the course of a month and then dead. Until you have the facts, kindly reword your blog. Or remove it.

There is a whole lot of detail that you don't know of, yet you post a blog of this nature without the facts. As per usual, flight crew sticking together and have no consideration for the crew, especially those involved in this incident of a Heavy landing. I would love to find out who reported this story in the first place as it has shaken the whole family involved.

The deceased is definitely not on vacation, as he is dead.

That's an outrageous accusation to make about the professional flight crew involved. There was no heavy landing, as confirmed by the aircraft system, and I am sure the flight crew are also saddened, as I'm sure are the vast majority of people to hear this sad story. Maybe you should take a leaf out of your own book and hold your tongue.

Jack1985

Arniebarnie wrote: »

Stewards death unconnected? You clearly get off on comments like this, the deceased death is most definitely connected and you clearly don't know the facts (and you never will).

Did you forget to take your meds this morning? I love how you can determine how I can get of on a young man's death???? None of us know the facts and YOU most definitely never will.

Locker10a

Arniebarnie wrote: »

. As per usual, flight crew sticking together and have no consideration for the crew, especially those involved in this incident of a Heavy landing.

That's very unfair I think ! perhaps the pilots are very much to blame in this incident however to make such a sweeping statement about flight crew is unfair, and frankly just untrue! I am not familiar with BAs crm and relationship between crew but where I work we treat one another as one and the same and everyone has respect for one another and we all look out for one another and I have never had an issue with flight crew , its either all of us in it together or not at all.

andy_g

Jack1985 wrote: »

Did you forget to take your meds this morning? I love how you can determine how I can get of on a young man's death???? None of us know the facts and YOU most definitely never will.

Attack the post not the poster.

lintdrummer

Arniebarnie wrote: »

Do you get off on making comments like this? You were not on the flight, you cannot comment as you were not on that flight. You don't know the story, you don't know the facts but the fact is that Mr Barnes is dead and was perfectly fine before the BA460. Therefore, keep your opinion in your head and don't type on here.

I most certainly can comment on it, that's what this website is for, regardless of my involvement in the issue. It's a discussion forum, we discuss things that interest us and we speculate. That's just the nature of it. And no of course I don't "get off" on it. Stop being sensationalist.

Arniebarnie wrote: »

Not helpful comment at all, if you don't know the facts then don't comment and speculate.

Again, I'm not trying to help anyone, I'm just discussing a news story.

Arniebarnie wrote: »

Paid vacation? Paid vacation? Explain to me how the steward is on holiday? He is dead.

Perfectly fine before 12 March and deteriorated significantly over the course of a month and then dead. Until you have the facts, kindly reword your blog. Or remove it.

There is a whole lot of detail that you don't know of, yet you post a blog of this nature without the facts. As per usual, flight crew sticking together and have no consideration for the crew, especially those involved in this incident of a Heavy landing. I would love to find out who reported this story in the first place as it has shaken the whole family involved.

The deceased is definitely not on vacation, as he is dead.

The truth is that none of the cabin crew were hospitalised so were seemingly not seriously hurt. There is no evidence that there was a hard landing and there is no way of covering up such an event if there had been.

As I said in my post, there probably is detail I'm unaware of which would turn this into something more, but that information, if it exists, hasn't been made public.

Listen, I get the impression that you are in some way related to the cabin crew member that passed away, and if that is the case may I offer my sincerest condolences on his tragic loss. You must realise however that all we were commenting on was a news article and the little information it contains. Please don't let your emotion cloud that.

Arniebarnie

Maybe instead of speculation you look to fact.

Under oath, the partner of Mr Barnes stated that the landing had an adverse effect on his health. That's why he's dead. Suicide was never a cause of death, yet some people on this forum chose to speculate without fact.

For the pilots on this forum who speculated suicide - it wasn't that. And you should be ashamed of yourselves stating this on a forum.

It's a pretty sick and distasteful.

Maybe ask the captain of that fateful flight what really happened? Don't point the finger at suicide when the finger should be pointed at someone else - who STILL flies.


Be ashamed. You publicly criticized and dismissed the claims of a dead cabin crew member.

To Fly To Serve. For those working for that airline and believe this. You are clearly brain washed.

Tenger

Arniebarnie wrote: »

Maybe instead of speculation you look to fact.

Under oath, the partner of Mr Barnes stated that the landing had an adverse effect on his health. That's why he's dead. Suicide was never a cause of death, yet some people on this forum chose to speculate without fact.

Maybe ask the captain of that fateful flight what really happened.......

Well if they is an official inquiry onging then someone will ask the captain of that fateful flight.

This is a discussion forum in which people speculate. The death of BA CCM is a tragedy. But from an outsiders point of view the facts do not link directly to your statements. No-one here was being disrespectful (and I doubt a BA stafers family are reading this forum)

lintdrummer wrote: »

........
However there was seemingly no physical evidence of the hard landing. If g force limits were exceeded then the aircraft would have been subjected to serious structural inspection and would absolutely not have done the return flight 2 hours later.........
As for the tragic death of the cabin crew member, it's just that. Unless there is more detail that we don't know I can't see how it would be connected........

Posters here are going on what info is in the public forum. You yourself stated-

Arniebarnie wrote: »

I think before any of you speculate and try to work out what happened, you wait for the facts. .....

The deceased death is most certainly connected to the incident on BA460.

Believe me - therefore, before speculating and commenting on suicide etc, please think of the family and friends involved.......

Posters were only speculating on known 'facts'

lintdrummer wrote: »

Yeah, there is something odd about the whole story but it's probably been badly reported considering the source. I can't find anything about it on the AV Herald.

I appreciate that you may have a connection to this story but your own posts aren't really aiding your aim to get everyone else to agree with you.

Arniebarnie wrote: »

.....Not helpful comment at all, if you don't know the facts then don't comment and speculate.

Personally I have a belief in the UK courts of inquiry and feel they will get to the bottom of this tragic death.

Arniebarnie

Fact is that the ccm death was attributable to the landing.

Fact is that BA staffer family DOES read this forum

Fact is that Barnes didn't take his life - his injuries Killed him.

Fact - the airline is covering up that incident


The express article was written so badly but stated fact. One fact that you bloggers missed is that suicide was NOT mentioned in that article. The press are forbidden to comment on death.

Maybe do some research and then comment on here once you've done that........might be an idea.

A320

Arniebarnie wrote: »

Under oath, the partner of Mr Barnes stated that the landing had an adverse effect on his health. That's why he's dead. Suicide was never a cause of death, yet some people on this forum chose to speculate without fact.

Is he a doctor? if not,that in itself is speculation

man98

What are you hoping to establish here? This is an Irish discussion forum, holding no ground with the CAA, BA or any British Court.

smurfjed

A cabin crew member found dead on a Kent beach felt "bullied" by his airline to return to work after being off injured, an inquest heard.
Andrew Barnes, from Hythe, was left in pain after a horrific landing and needed physiotherapy.
But the 46-year-old felt British Airways pressurised him to get back to work and he felt agitated, the hearing was told.
Police on the beach at Hythe where Andrew Barnes was found dead
On April 11 this year, the day after he missed a meeting with his employers, Mr Barnes was found dead on the beach off Hythe's Princes Parade.
He died primarily from an artery blockage, a coroner heard at Folkestone Magistrates' Court.
His partner, Geoff Hutton, told the hearing: "He was very conscientious of being a good employee for British Airways but felt treated badly, almost bullied into going back to work.
"He was very stressed because he was very conscientious about his job, but felt they used unnecessary force to get him back."
Mr Barnes, of St Leonard's Road, had suffered whiplash and was left with back and neck pain after his plane had a heavy landing in Madrid on March 12.
Mr Hutton said: "He received no real medical care from the airline from the time he arrive back.
"British Airways' health services contacted with the intent of him getting back to work as soon as possible. But he was signed off by his GP."
Andrew Barnes was discovered dead on the beach at Hythe
Mr Barnes needed painkillers and a doctor who saw him believed he had post-traumatic stress disorder.
The inquest heard Mr Barnes was drinking more than usual, most unusually during the day.
A post-mortem examination found his body had 158mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, twice the drink-drive limit of 80mg.
Mr Barnes went for a swim on the afternoon of April 11. Witnesses had seen him in the water for as long as 40 minutes, but he did not appear to be in difficulty, the inquest heard.
Police were called to the beach at just before 3.45pm, when his body was found washed up.
Emergency services near the beach of Princes Parade in Hythe
A post-mortem found Mr Barnes had died above all from a pulmonary embolism - a blockage in the artery that takes blood to the lungs - due to deep vein thrombosis that had developed over the previous three to eight days.
Contributory factors were immersion in the water and intoxication.
Rachel Redman, Central and South East Kent coroner, ruled out suicide but said she was puzzled as to why Mr Barnes would swim in the Channel in April.
The inquest heard the sea water at that time of year would have been too cold to endure for long.
Pathologist Dr Miklos Perenyei said there were no specific signs of hypothermia, but the alcohol would have clouded Mr Barnes' judgement and numbed his feeling of cold.
Recording a narrative conclusion, Mrs Redman summed up Mr Barnes' injury at work, his suffering anxiety and inability to return to work. She said he died from the embolism, thrombosis and immersion in water.

RIP Mr Barnes....

ArnieBarnie, in order to give your friend the respect that he deserves, i would suggest that you stop commenting on this thread.

Tenger

With a re-read of the media article and the logic expresses by Smurfjed this thread is going to be locked. The poor guy's family and memory doesn't need his death analysed by online posters.