BA flight makes emergency landing
Some 118 passengers were on board
British Airways flight A983 has made an emergency landing at Schiphol airport in Amsterdam as a result of a “specific threat” to the flight, BA has said.
The crew on the aircraft, which was carrying 118 passengers from Berlin to London, asked ground staff in the Netherlands for a military escort.
Two Royal Dutch air force jets were immediately scrambled and the aircraft landed safely.
The passengers have been taken off the aircraft while police carry out checks.
Hoaxes
“There was a security threat to flight A983,” BA spokesman Steve Double told BBC News Online.
“Passengers are now being screened in the airport… we are still assessing the situation,” he said.
An airport spokeswoman said the baggage would be taken off the aircraft and checked.
“Hopefully, this will be completed soon and the passengers will be able to continue on,” Pamela Kuypers said.
Two Olympic Airways flights destined for New York were diverted this week after bomb scares which turned out to be hoaxes.
The first of these aircrafts made an emergency landing at Stansted airport in Essex on Sunday while the other landed at Shannon in Ireland on Tuesday.
Both were able to continue their journeys after searches of the aircraft revealed nothing.
By: Cking - 16th October 2008 at 19:34
But with NO burning smell, is a faulty IFE screen a reason to initiate emergency diversion?
No, un less flames are licking out of the vent holes.
Rgds Cking
By: LERX - 16th October 2008 at 00:59
The original post refers to 2 BA flights which diverted.
Only in the 2nd diverted BA flight was there any mention of a burning smell.
Of course I agree that if there is a burning smell, urgent diversion is required.
But with NO burning smell, is a faulty IFE screen a reason to initiate emergency diversion?
By: Cking - 15th October 2008 at 19:20
I don’t understand why a fault with an individual IFE system warrants an urgent diversion.
I was recently on a flight (NOT BA) where my IFE unit was clearly malfunctioning. The cabin crew tried re-booting it multiple times without success. No diversion or any other effect on the flight.
Je ne comprends pas.
I must be missing something….:confused:
The IFE is exposed to the most dangerous thing in the world “Joe public”!! It gets kicked and abused by them for the whole flight. It does fail a lot, wouldn’t you with hundreds of people messing with you? Like all electrical devices it can overheat and if it overheat it can catch fire so any burning smell is taken very seriously by the crews. The Swissair MD-11 has made everyone a lot more jumpy about burning smells and rightly so.
Rgds Cking
By: zoot horn rollo - 15th October 2008 at 11:22
I don’t understand why a fault with an individual IFE system warrants an urgent diversion.
I was recently on a flight (NOT BA) where my IFE unit was clearly malfunctioning. The cabin crew tried re-booting it multiple times without success. No diversion or any other effect on the flight.
Je ne comprends pas.
I must be missing something….:confused:
IIRC the fire that brought down the Swissair MD11 off Halifax was due to a fire starting in the IFE wiring loom (which then set alight the insulation).
If there was a burning smell I can understand why the BA crew treated it as an emergency
By: symon - 15th October 2008 at 01:37
I think the issue was that there may have been a ‘burning’ smell of such from a screen, indicating an electrical fault or somthing. In that case, if the origin of the smell cannot be seen (i.e. coming from within the seat), I think the diversion is made as a precaution.
By: kevinwm - 15th October 2008 at 00:19
cant take any chances with an electrical fire , Look what happened to the Swiss MD11 of the coast of Halifax a few years ago ,
beter to be safe than sorry
By: LERX - 14th October 2008 at 23:42
I don’t understand why a fault with an individual IFE system warrants an urgent diversion.
I was recently on a flight (NOT BA) where my IFE unit was clearly malfunctioning. The cabin crew tried re-booting it multiple times without success. No diversion or any other effect on the flight.
Je ne comprends pas.
I must be missing something….:confused:
By: symon - 13th October 2008 at 12:40
BA better be careful….it already seems as though things are going the same way they did/have for Qantas! Every little incident picked up by the news, just because ‘something happened the other day and because something has happened again today, it must mean something shoddy is going on!’ :rolleyes:
By: tomfellows - 13th October 2008 at 11:48
Another ’emergency’ today involving fumes onboard a 757. If I remember rightly it isn’t the first time that fumes have caused the diversion of 757 flights either.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7666873.stm
By: Mark L - 30th September 2004 at 17:59
In anything of this nature the Air Forces don’t have much time to analyse the situation. Fighters go up immediatly, and people give the orders on the ground after learning a bit more about the situation. Even if theres nothing the fighters can do there is a certain amount of good PR gained from it, as the majority of people would expect fighters to be scrambled whatever the circumstances.
By: Mark L - 30th September 2004 at 17:59
In anything of this nature the Air Forces don’t have much time to analyse the situation. Fighters go up immediatly, and people give the orders on the ground after learning a bit more about the situation. Even if theres nothing the fighters can do there is a certain amount of good PR gained from it, as the majority of people would expect fighters to be scrambled whatever the circumstances.
By: kev35 - 30th September 2004 at 16:57
Michael.
I think it’s to do with the words ‘specific threat.’ A threat against that specific flight but not the nature of the threat. Therefore it could be a bomb or a hijacking. In the event of the latter the Dutch Air Force would have been likely to shoot it down if it appeared to be heading for a mafor city etc. The RAF tornadoes would have had te same orfers for the Olympic A340. I think it said on the news that most nations had agreed to shoot down airliners if they were a proven threat.
Horrible thought isn’t it?
Regards,
kev35
By: kev35 - 30th September 2004 at 16:57
Michael.
I think it’s to do with the words ‘specific threat.’ A threat against that specific flight but not the nature of the threat. Therefore it could be a bomb or a hijacking. In the event of the latter the Dutch Air Force would have been likely to shoot it down if it appeared to be heading for a mafor city etc. The RAF tornadoes would have had te same orfers for the Olympic A340. I think it said on the news that most nations had agreed to shoot down airliners if they were a proven threat.
Horrible thought isn’t it?
Regards,
kev35
By: Grey Area - 30th September 2004 at 16:55
Their purpose is to shoot it down if it turns out to have been hi-jacked and disobeys ATC instructions in any way, shape or form.
By: Grey Area - 30th September 2004 at 16:55
Their purpose is to shoot it down if it turns out to have been hi-jacked and disobeys ATC instructions in any way, shape or form.
By: T5 - 30th September 2004 at 16:42
I cannot understand what purpose two fighter jets would serve?
They look great alongside the British Airways aircraft, but if there was a bomb on board or something like that, what are they expected to do?
By: T5 - 30th September 2004 at 16:42
I cannot understand what purpose two fighter jets would serve?
They look great alongside the British Airways aircraft, but if there was a bomb on board or something like that, what are they expected to do?
Sign In
September 30, 2004 at 3:22 pm