Boston Flt Returns.

roundymac

The Dub-Bos flight had to return yesterday due to 7 out the 8cc complaining of feeling sick. None of them were in need of hospital treatment. The flight was cancelled. Anyone any more news of this?. My source is aertel/rte.

ectoraige

Some new strain of flu? Green flu?

owenc

Are they doing three flights today?

Cessna_Pilot

Aertel?! Jesus is that still going?

roundymac

ectoraige wrote: »

Some new strain of flu? Green flu?

New form of work to rule perhaps, or maybe just a nice day to be at the beach with the family?

owenc

Is it not a tad rude to curse on an online forum?

Maybe manners down there are different but certainly up here we wouldn't be cursing.

L1011

owenc wrote: »

Is it not a tad rude to curse on an online forum?

Maybe manners down there are different but certainly up here we wouldn't be cursing.

Where's there cursing?

Growler!!!

owenc wrote: »

Is it not a tad rude to curse on an online forum?

Maybe manners down there are different but certainly up here we wouldn't be cursing.

But what if:



But once he gains a bit more experience he'll go back to Mexico.

Bummer1234

EIN111 currently on the move,

http://www.flightradar24.com/EIN111/396779d

Is this to bring the pax who had to return yesterday?

I googled the address and it says its SNN - JFK

Would Aer lingus have to get a replacement A/C to even cover people who maybe stuck in Boston?

L1011

What I've seen elsewhere is that the SNN-JFK flight is going SNN-DUB-JFK to replace the second JFK flight ex-DUB to give them the craft to do more to Boston. That its a 757 going to somewhere other than Toronto out of DUB seems to suggest that's the case anyway.

Alaba320

Slow decompression

Red Alert

Surely you'd have had pax very unwell also?

Tenger

Red Alert wrote: »

Surely you'd have had pax very unwell also?

Not necessarily, if the crew were serving drinks/food then they would be first affected due to physical exertion. And I would guess that airline crew are trained to identify the symptoms, I would guess some pax did feel less that 100% but may not have known what was wrong.
Isn't lost of judgment one of the first signs of hypoxia?

Red Alert

Would the differential pressure change be seen on the cockpit?

pclive

Two business class pax were also taken ill

Suasdaguna1

Alaba320 wrote: »

Slow decompression

There was nothing , nada, zilch , wrong with the aircraft re technical issues. To accuse that the aircraft had a decompression is a scurrilous remark.

Jack1985

Suasdaguna1 wrote: »

There was nothing , nada, zilch , wrong with the aircraft re technical issues. To accuse that the aircraft had a decompression is a scurrilous remark.

That's not confirmed at all. That is why there is an investigation being carried out to confirm what exactly happened.

Would the differential pressure change be seen on the cockpit?

It would be if a large jump in pressure was detected (even by the aircraft itself) however, if its a slow decompression it would be a while before it would be noticed. For example if you are carrying out your ECAM check and spot the Cabin Altitude at 7,656ft - Then in the next 30 minutes you see it at 7,895ft and then again in 30 minutes see it at 8,118ft - You are only to notice it properly on the second check. What could further throw you off a suspected decompression is there being no data suggesting the cabin altitude climbing e.g. on the Airbus an arrow can point upwards/downwards with the rate of pressure change in the cabin.

Suasdaguna1

There was no cabin altitude issues jack. Get off your moral high horse and accept same.

Jack1985

Suasdaguna1 wrote: »

There was no cabin altitude issues jack. Get off your moral high horse and accept same.

Did I say there was? I gave an example of a slow decompression. So turn the advice on yourself there I'd say. I'm not the one spouting my mouth off when there has been no actual determination made yet.

Tenger

Both of the above posters are technically correct.

There is an ongoing investigation into the issues that lead to an A330 returning to base with 7 of 8 cabin crew members ill, (reports of at least 2 J class pax being ill are unconfirmed) The initial media reports (always suspect) do seem to line up with a possible cabin air/pressure issue. (Unless of course most of the crew all had a pre-flight curry!!) However no info on an actual fault have been published. EI of course will be tightlipped for commercial reasons, that's completely understandable.

So lets all just stop with the verging on insulting/ tit for tat posts and wait to see what the investigation throws up.


EDIT: I stand corrected....the incident has made AVHerald. the comments are worthy of journal.ie

Jack1985

Just on Avherald now spotted it, very much initial details - http://avherald.com/h?article=475f1a22&opt=0

Alaba320

Suasdaguna1 wrote: »

There was nothing , nada, zilch , wrong with the aircraft re technical issues. To accuse that the aircraft had a decompression is a scurrilous remark.

You're gonna look pretty silly when the report comes out.

Tenger

Alaba320 wrote: »

You're gonna look pretty silly when the report comes out.

I could have sworn I asked for a little bit of maturity and less finger pointing in relation to this incident.....

A319er

Ok no tech issues found
No cargo hold issues
No air conditioning issues
No pressurisation issues
No temperature issues
No food issues
No dry ice issues

So?

Suasdaguna1

Alaba320 wrote: »

You're gonna look pretty silly when the report comes out.

Yeap a total fool

Jack1985

Suasdaguna1 wrote: »

Yeap a total fool

Just to point out I had it confirmed this morning that a fault was indeed found and it is being investigated if that fault let to the nausea experienced by crew and two pax in J (although the latter can't be confirmed still) - And also to point out if there is even a remote possibility of there being an issue with the packs (and I'm not saying there is Suasdaguna just to make sure you can distinguish opinions and facts) they will be the first to feel it as there respiratory system is working harder than anyone else's because there moving.

As has been pointed out what actually happened won't be known for a while yet, so this who's right or wrong commenting is pitiful - given that this an aviation forum there is no issue discussing possible scenarios people are asking. Don't worry though for you anti EI guys/gals, Cessna Pilot will be along liking your posts soon enough.

kub

I trust they have found the reason, as if it was with the actual aircraft then surely it would not have been back in service.

Jack1985

kub wrote: »

I trust they have found the reason, as if it was with the actual aircraft then surely it would not have been back in service.

They have indeed, they are simply investigating if the fault found could cause the effects felt by crew.

lord lucan

Jack1985 wrote: »

Don't worry though for you anti EI guys/gals, Cessna Pilot will be along liking your posts soon enough.

You were going grand until you added this at the end of your post. It's uncalled for and could be viewed as baiting another poster. Tenger already issued a warning on thread, any more of this and there'll be infractions.

Bussywussy

Jack1985 wrote: »

They have indeed.

Really,enlighten us?? I Assume you are A330 rated or some sort of manager

billie1b

Bussywussy wrote: »

Really,enlighten us?? I Assume you are A330 rated or some sort of manager

No need to be smart to be honest, he doesn't need to be a rated pilot or manager to know if the problem was found, he could simply be ground staff, station control, ops, engineer and so on. The airline industry is a close knit place, when problems like these occur we all find out the reasons why and so on.

A320

billie1b wrote: »

No need to be smart to be honest, he doesn't need to be a rated pilot or manager to know if the problem was found, he could simply be ground staff, station control, ops, engineer and so on. The airline industry is a close knit place, when problems like these occur we all find out the reasons why and so on.

Well his posts are pure speculative and it makes him look silly

billie1b

A320 wrote: »

Well his posts are pure speculative and it makes him look silly

Regardless of if he looks silly or not, I dont see the need for smart, sarcastic comments, he works for EI, i'm sure he would have more information available to him than the rest of us who don't work there. In that regard I trust his comments more.

Jack1985

Well his posts are pure speculative and it makes him look silly

I haven't speculated once on the subject, I answered a question of what a slow decompression was like on the A330 - Never did I say that occurred. So if you could tell me where I have been speculative, I would appreciate that.

BonkeyDonker

I heard it was a leak in the chemtrail tanks.

AirMechMan

"The aircraft was subject to intensive maintenance inspections overnight with no technical faults found."

Was not caused by any technical issues. Other potential causes are being looked into, the IAA, aer lingus, and airbus are all involved.

Suasdaguna1

Jack1985 wrote: »

Just to point out I had it confirmed this morning that a fault was indeed found

You knew it all .......not.

lord lucan

Suasdaguna1 wrote: »

You knew it all .......not.

Give it over,it's like 2 kids on a playground ffs.

suasdaguna2

Bussywussy wrote: »

Really,enlighten us?? I Assume you are A330 rated or some sort of manager

Ask Lord Lucan......he locked and loaded with me

Nonoperational

billie1b wrote: »

Regardless of if he looks silly or not, I dont see the need for smart, sarcastic comments, he works for EI, i'm sure he would have more information available to him than the rest of us who don't work there. In that regard I trust his comments more.

He's coming out with these semi-cryptic comments that a fault was found although no report anywhere can back it up. For all intents and purposes he could be making it up. It's actually very frustrating for the casual reader of the forum.

Jack1985

Honestly this is laughable at this stage, a second account and you have a grudge this long??? LOL have a life.

semi-cryptic comments

Ahhh, and what would you exactly call accusing the cc on the day of either being unfit for work or pulling ''green flu'' when all have disputed such. Because that's the only alternative motion put forward here that the aircraft was clean and they were not. Which is incorrect.

Such a time as the report is released and the reason is confirmed I will gladly accept it, but I will not read this forum and have colleagues accused left and right and centre and then be lambasted by a few posters who can't seem to handle a contributor on the forum that has an alternative view. Get over yourselves and indeed have a read of post #38.

Nonoperational

Jack1985 wrote: »

Honestly this is laughable at this stage, a second account and you have a grudge this long??? LOL have a life.



Ahhh, and what would you exactly call accusing the cc on the day of either being unfit for work or pulling ''green flu'' when all have disputed such. Because that's the only alternative motion put forward here that the aircraft was clean and they were not. Which is incorrect.

Such a time as the report is released and the reason is confirmed I will gladly accept it, but I will not read this forum and have colleagues accused left and right and centre and then be lambasted by a few posters who can't seem to handle a contributor on the forum that has an alternative view. Get over yourselves and indeed have a read of post #38.

I didn't accuse them of anything. The only facts I can see are that 7 of the 8 crew felt unwell and the aircraft turned back. No confirmed reports of passengers being unwell, no mention of flight crew being unwell and no mention of any issue with the aircraft. Until something is confirmed we simply have no idea what the reason for the illness was. For you to come on and say that there was "something" up with the aircraft that may or may not be connected is interesting but adds nothing concrete to the discussion. Are you EI cabin crew is it?

Jack1985

I didn't accuse them of anything. The only facts I can see are that 7 of the 8 crew felt unwell and the aircraft turned back. No confirmed reports of passengers being unwell, no mention of flight crew being unwell and no mention of any issue with the aircraft.

Fair enough you didn't accuse them of anything, there are 2 reports of two J passengers being unwell its still unclear as to whether they will be included in the report - The flight deck crew were not unwell - And there was a slight issue with the aircraft rectified and that issue is the one being primarily investigated to determine if its fault caused cc to be unwell - If it finds that's not the case then I am totally unsure as to where the investigation will switch. By the way that slight issue was rectified and the aircraft subsequently released by line maintenance.

For you to come on and say that there was "something" up with the aircraft that may or may not be connected is interesting but adds nothing concrete to the discussion.

And likewise accusing cabin crew (granted not by you) also adds nada to the discussion. And also as I'm sure you're aware many of us on here work in the sector and its not for you do to be calling people out (or anyone) asking for their work details - With all due respect, have I done the same to you? And I fail if I'm honest to see how that would add anything concrete to any sort of discussion.

Nonoperational

Ok.

lord lucan

This thread is getting locked and will stay locked until official word of what happened becomes available. It's sad that it has to happen but if it continued on the way it was going it would have resulted in bans all over the place.

I always find that if something really riles you up,step away from the keyboard and give it a few minutes before posting.:)