THE STRANGE DIVERSION OF A BRITISH AIRWAYS AIRBUS A380

THE STRANGE DIVERSION OF A BRITISH AIRWAYS AIRBUS A380

Mr. S.C. shared this story, and there's more questions here than answers, and I can't help but talk about it because of its possible relationship to the still unresolved issue of missing Malaysia Air flight 370. We'll get back to that high octane speculation in a moment. For now, here's the story:

5 questions about British Airways Flight 286 emergency landing in Vancouver

Lisa Johnson, who wrote the story for the CBC, indicates that there are more questions here than answers, and Canadian and British authorities don't seem to be in any hurry to answer them, nor even to provide a plausible "cover story."

You'll note first of all that the enormous aircraft was flying from San Francisco to London, when it was then said to have been initially diverted to Calgary, which repportedly can handle the big Airbus aircraft, but wait, no, instead of diverting for the much closer Calgary, the aircraft flew on to Vancouver. So one question is:

4. Why didn't the plane land in Calgary?

And the provided answer is:

The passengers were initially told they'd land in Calgary, but actually touched down over the Rockies in Vancouver.

Some speculated that the size of the A380 — the largest commercial passenger jet in the world — meant it couldn't land at Calgary International, but the airport said it is "designed for and capable of accommodating A380 aircraft."

It's possible, said Williams, that burning more fuel en route to Vancouver made the landing easier.

OK, more fuel needed to be burned off. But as I recall, aircraft like the A380 are fitted with "dump" valves to jettison fuel for precisely such situations. Now, I'm certainly not an aircraft expert by any means, so someone out there might be able to provide more accurate information, but to the best of my knowledge, fuel dumps can be made for these types of situations. If... if... that is the case, then the "explanation" being offered here is no explanation at all: why, if there was an emergency, did the aircraft lumber on from Calgary to Vancouver, thus seemingly putting passengers and crew in more danger?

So what was such an emergency that the aircraft had to be diverted first to Calgary and thence to Vancouver? We're not told. All we're told is that the passengers as as mystified as we are. Those on the upper deck thought the problem was on the lower deck, and vice versa, those on the lower deck thought the problem was on the upper deck.

Then it gets more mystifying. At first the passengers are informed of a "technical difficulty":

Then, as dinner was being served, an announcement came from the captain.

"The captain came on and said there was some minor technical difficulties and we were diverting to Calgary instead of London," recalls passenger Jaakko Virtanan.

"I didn't smell any smoke.… I just smelled the roast beef or whatever that I didn't get, because they stopped serving dinner at that point."

Ok, so there were technical difficulties. But if there were technical difficulties, again, why not land at Calgary? Why seemingly compound the risk by flying on to Vancouver? Oh but wait, there weren't technical difficulties at all. Rather, someone (again unspecified), was ill:

Then, another announcement: someone was sick, and they'd land in Vancouver.

Who was sick? A passenger? A crew member? A member of the flight crew? Again, if someone was sick, and this is the reason the flight made an emergency landing, then why not Calgary? After all, they have electricity and indoor plumbing and hospitals and doctors in Calgary now, so why fly on to Vancouver?  And what was the nature of this "sickness"? Was it physical? Psychological?

The article suggests it was a crew member, or possibly, several:

2. How many people got sick?

The airline has said 25 crew members went to hospital — as a precaution — but it's not clear how many were actually ill.

An initial statement said "a crew member required medical attention," but by Tuesday afternoon the company said "several crew members reported feeling unwell."

"When we landed, the crew came and got their luggage and left immediately, and we're all sitting there looking around," said passenger Don Blaser, irritated that customers were left on the plane.

Video from the airport shows an ambulance leaving the scene, accompanied by a city bus filled with a number of crew members and paramedics.

At Vancouver General Hospital, flight crew could be seen walking through the emergency room doors with their carry-on bags, escorted by paramedics. All were discharged.

OK, so several crew members were sick, and went to the hospital in Vancouver, where "all were discharged." Strange, especially since one passenger stated that gas masks were seen, and others reported crew members asking them if they felt anything in their eyes:

One passenger told CBC News that rescue personnel came on the plane wearing "gas masks" or some kind of respirator, but that he didn't smell smoke.

Another passenger, Stefan Orberg, wondered if there was something in the air.

"The [flight] attendants asked me, did you feel anything in your eyes? I thought, well, maybe I had."

A number of technical problems can lead to smoke or air problems on the plane, said Williams, but the air conditioning system would be shared by the whole plane — not just a few crew members.

Alternatively, a malfunction in the cockpit could affect just the cockpit crew, said Williams.

The story ends by even suggesting some form of "mass hysteria."

So why bring this up in connection with the mysterious disappearance of MH 370? Well, for the simple reason that to this day no one seems to know exactly what happened to that flight, nor where it went down (nor even, really, if it went down, since most of the alleged wreckage from the craft that has been claimed to be found, according to some pilots, has not been conclusively shown to be from that flight. In some cases,the pictures of the actual alleged parts of the aircraft appear to be different than those of a Boeing 777, at least, to my highly untrained eye). In the case of this British airways flight, we're confronted by an equally mysterious event, and all public explanations are either just plain silly, or raise as many questions as they purport to answer.

Which brings me to an extraordinarily silly high octane speculation of my own, one which, I hasten to point out, has absolutely no evidence in its favor, other than a simple "gut intuition". And that intuition is perhaps, just perhaps, British Airways Flight 286 began to experience something very similar to MH 370, and the crew took action to avoid a similar fate. If that ridiculous idea did indeed happen, then it bears with it a hidden implication, namely, that there is a quiet and hidden protocol in place, based on whatever hidden conclusions might have been derived about the mysterious disappearance of MH flight 370. We'll call this the "MH370 emergency protocol" for what airliners are to do when confronted by highly abnormal circumstances. Part of that protocol might include cover stories about sick passengers, or crew, technical difficulties, and strange emergency landings.

See you on the flip side...

 

 

15 thoughts on “THE STRANGE DIVERSION OF A BRITISH AIRWAYS AIRBUS A380”

  1. Got it!! These guys flew through a zone of HAARP type wavelengths going hiccup-sy crazy, which probably sent off people feeling sick. They were probably retaliation for the Italien Incident.. Or someone at HAARP brought his kids in on an open day and left them next to the ‘AIM’ dial..

  2. I was a flight attendant for over 40 years. We had different situations that appeared somewhat like this at times. First off, the pilots were usually pretty secretive about some things, even from us. But the company had to be called and they were always the ones who decided and arranged where we would land. So, yes, this is a mystery but it is not really that odd.Things just were not discussed with the passengers mostly. And almost always there is surely enough kerosene on to land further like this did. I just think this was brought up activate the press to concern the public. This is my opinion, Joseph.

  3. They probably have developed a list of how a target is chosen. I doubt the targets were random. There are likely some common denominators. Once a probable target is determined; then some protocols are put in place; depending upon the accessed threat levels.
    The problem is that these threats are most likely from within the system; so a generalized protocol has a slim chance of averting poof, if the crew is alert/vigilant.
    It would be interest to know those tell-tale signs that signify being hit. What’s on that hit list?

  4. Ah, an “MH370 emergency protocol” derived after flight crews digested all the anomalous info. I imagine this involves making all the ‘squawks’ possible, to keep from disappearing. Make yourself really visible to the system, because your radar tracks will never be made public…

  5. It is interesting this incident occurred one day before the Italian earthquake. Could there be a connection between them and HM-370 bring up more questions of what is going on. This takes on material for scenarios for episodes for Lost, The Twilight Zone, X-Files, Fringe than reality truth is stranger than fiction.

  6. One obvious result of losing Israel as an “ally” is that we also lose their expertise in executing false flags. Was this then a blundered false flag carried out by a bunch of CIA nitwits intellectually compromised due to their American education? Possibly. Maybe the slow kill poison used in Mama Lao’s San Francisco eatery wasn’t strong enough and the flight crew was able to escape death and thereby land the plane. Or maybe it was a two stage poison but one of the CIA bunglers was too busy playing with his iphone and thus missed his opportunity to contribute to his executioner assignment. Certainly I think we can expect more of this incompetence in the future. Probably why we are seeing this move to earthquake weapons as it better circumvents this kind of human error. (Although considering the average American’s dismal grasp of geography, we could be opening up an entirely new can of worms as places like St. Petersburg, Florida are wrongly targeted for seismic attack).

    Will the Israelis bow out of the false flag business altogether as they join forces with Vladimir Putin who may be too honorable to condone this type of warfare, or at least too wise to allow the Israelis to perform this task for the Russian state? Why would Putin even use the mossad when he has his own supremely talented KGB to rely on for false flags? No. I think over time the Israelis will grow to miss engineering false flags in the west as I suspect it presents a much greater thrill than carrying out false flags in war torn areas such as Iraq or Pakistan where life is already so cheap. In the west you have the opportunity to blow up some precious fresh face individual whose only adversity in life up to that point was losing weight or getting a date. Not to mention minimal cover is needed as the west is friendly territory where false flag terrorists are honored and extended much hospitality. Moreover, chances of actually be implicated in the crime if caught are absolutely zilch.

    No, I would wager over time the Israelis will grow to miss their crucial role in western false flag operations and probably begin to reminisce about the days when they blew up places like NY, London and Madrid. Moreover, I suspect that over time the Deep State will grow to miss their ruthless professionalism as well and overtures will be made to invite the Israelis back into the massacre business, like an aged rock band reuniting to relive old times and create some new memories as well. Of course, it won’t come cheap and financial and military aid to Israel will have to be boosted, maybe even military aid which the Israelis could then peddle to the Russians and Chinese. But this is a small price to pay in order to get the old gang back together.

    1. did stanley kubrick reproduce? are any of his kids alive? if they are (and one of them is not already secretly vb), can we crowdsource a joint project between vb and one of kubrick’s kids? jesu bless us all. talk about on point.

      talent might be the right word. or it might be laser focus observational skills.

      doc. in all seriousness, i think we got your next coauthor here. please consider it.

    2. Thanks Button and Zendogbreath. Sitting here in my little cubicle overlooking the slums of Bangladesh and performing my customer support job for a soulless American corporation so I can sustain my eleven brothers and sisters, I find much solace in writing these comments.

    1. That was my first thought. The captain might have feared there was a biological attack happening on the plane and was following appropriate protocols for the potential of such. It may have been a harmless test run by some alphabet agency ,or other, or simply food poisoning. But they decided not to take any chances,

  7. Yes Airbus-380 does have the capability to dump fuel, general rule of thumb is an average of 2 tons per minute. It is a gravity feed system not a pump.

Comments are closed.