QF2 diversion to Baku

[NM]

I do wonder if there was an option to off-load the unfortunate ill passenger at Baku to receive the medical care needed, perhaps top up some fuel if needed, and then proceed to Dubai via Turkiye and Iraq within the flight crew's legal operating hours?. 400 pax arriving at Dubai might be easier to deal with for Qantas, especially leveraging their relationship with Emirates and potentially getting some of the passengers onto alternate flights top their destinations? I do not recall every seeing such partial continuation after a medical emergency diversion, but that does not mean it has not happened or is not considered as one of the options.

I can only assume that all viable and suitable options were considered by both Qantas flight operations and the Captain. Obviously first priority is to get the passengers to a location where appropriate medical assistance is available. Then deal with the disruption for the rest of the passengers.

 

[elanshin]

I sometimes wonder - after seeing the mayhem from these events - what the costs might be of having the means to deal with such medical episodes in the air? I guess this wouldn't come cheap, but if it could be done, and it reduced the instances of medical diversion like this by a significant measure (or in full), then perhaps the investment would be less than the cost of disruptions, service recovery and/or insurance premiums as they currently deal with.

Maybe a question for the medicos on here - If an airline wanted to do this, would it be possible to carry the necessary equipment and personnel on all flights of a certain duration or routing, to treat, stabilise and monitor a patient through to the intended or at least a more preferred destination? What would it take to achieve that, or is this simply a non-starter?

Cheers,
Matt.

Liability reasons. Oftentimes it's not as simple as "can we do something."

 

[burmans]

I'm sure it is, but things go wrong even in the safest of countries. My point is around the potential for mishap when you throw a bunch of tired and frustrated people into a strange environment where you (as the airline) have little control and no presence on the ground.

The plane has to go somewhere in a medical emergency! I think that what we are seeing here is that it is common to over estimate the risk of the unknown.

Having just been there I don’t regard Baku as risky at all. It’s safe, has high levels of infrastructure/services available, English is widely understood, they are a secular country that is very tolerant of other religions (nominally Muslim but in reality very low % are actually practicing). Plenty of quality hotels etc.

 

[jb747]

My first thought as well, Dubai or Doha would have been better choices. I can only guess they preferred to avoid any unusual diversions into Iran and Afghanistan airspace?

Baku is a good choice for many reasons. The medical people would possibly have suggested Dubai (as their choices are only related to medical facilities), but they would also have taken into account the timing. ATC, airfield, etc, issues are left to the crew.

I assume there is this Middle East corridor that QF uses possibly avoids certain countries, including Iran (which the A380 would have to cross to get to DXB). Beside existing tensions and potential conflict (between Israel and Iran with its nuclear facilities targeted), there may be other potential obstacles like negotiating a flight path etc with the Iranians.

Whilst I'd be happy enough to fly over Iran on a standard air route, on the normal flight plan, in amongst 100 other aircraft, I'd not be doing so as on one off, on a strange routing, arranged at the last minute. Recipe for a unfriendly meeting with a SAM.

I am however wondering why don’t they land at ISB which is capable of handling an A380, and Pakistan has been known to accomodate medical emergency landing at ISB and KHI in recent years

Pakistan is an emergency only country. And by that I mean the aircraft is incapable of flying anywhere else.

I wonder if Tbilisi was considered? An extra 20 minutes of flying (or so), but Georgia has visa-free entry for Australians. Obviously I don't know what the condition of the sick passenger was like, and whether those extra minutes would have been critical.

Visas are not a consideration. Baku is a good airport; it has the needed facilities.

'Can't exceed crew hours'. 'Diddums'. If they had been in a military aircraft they would have carried on until they had completed their flight. Time they were told to get a reality check in circumstances like this....

Guess what, this isn't the military, and they actually plan on getting their aircraft back. This is an extremely ignorant statement. And to whom would you be giving the reality check?

I don’t think it needs to be binary, e.g. in the event of emergency where certain parameters are met, crew hours can be exceed by [10%].

There already is such an extension. Slightly more than 10%. And guess what...they would have exceeded that too, and by quite some margin.

The aviation industry have the a bunch of exemptions for curfews and landing rights too for emergencies

All of which come with requirements, both before and after. There is no emergency here. Once the sick person has been taken away, it's just another flight, with all of the normal rules.

Stupid question but it’s a 13.5hr flight between LHR and SIN, so I would assume there should be 2 sets of crews including pilots to make the flight legal for fatigue management? If so then where is the second crew?

There is no second crew as such. And even if there was, they have the same start time, and would have done half of the flying to get to Baku.

Flight hours are strictly governed by CAA
I think it's 18hrs + i think there is possibility of extending a bit at pilots discretion.
(Its actually a lot more complicated than that)

Quite a bit more. I used to use a flow chart to work it all out.

So the typical LHR-SIN takes 14:30hrs
The diversion cost 3.5hrs

The airborne part of the diversion cost around 2 hours....IN EACH DIRECTION. So, now you have approximately 4 hours additional flight time, plus whatever ground time you end up with. Let's be generous and call it two hours. So there's a minimum of 6 hours total that you're adding to the duty period, making a total of at least 22 hours. Way beyond anything legal.

Pakistan? Not unless there's 3 engines out and they are losing the 4th.

Sums it up pretty well.

9 News reporting that the aircraft was due for routine maintenance in Singapore which seems to have added more complexity as well.

Out of cycles? I find it intriguing how they’ve cut it so fine that there’s no allowance for a divert.

More than likely something that has come up in flight, or something that has an MEL allowing one flight.

Oh, and if anyone is thinking "Sunrise", it's probably worth noting that they will have zero ability to restart after any diversion. A single continuous flight will be a condition of that operation.

 

[Quickstatus]

The airborne part of the diversion cost around 2 hours....IN EACH DIRECTION

Yes I calculated 3.5 hours from when it first overflew GYD to turnaround point to landing at GYD
.....

Liability reasons

No, it won't get off the start line because of the enormous cost.

 

[Warragul]

An airline shouldn't be dumping passengers where they face danger or potential for persecution. Passengers on the flight who are for example, LGB or Jewish face a realistic possibility of persecution in Pakistan. It only takes one tinpot local official to make an innocent traveller's life hell. Qantas can't be throwing passengers into harms way.

I think a passenger has some responsibility to try and avoid routes that have a reasonable chance of going to such places that they don't feel safe going to or feel strongly enough about. Acquaintances of mine have done this for years.
It's a bit of a stretch for an airline to try and factor in the ( unknown) circumstances/beliefs/views etc. in a diversion scenario.

 

[offshore171]

It's a bit of a stretch for an airline to try and factor in the ( unknown) circumstances/beliefs/views etc. in a diversion scenario.

It's the overall safety of the country.

Reckon a western airline would divert to DRC, Yemen, Afghanistan or Somalia for a single medical incident if that was the nearest airfield?

I doubt they would, unless it was a 10/10th's emergency like a fire, engines out, etc.

I think a passenger has some responsibility to try and avoid routes that have a reasonable chance of going to such places that they don't feel safe going to or feel strongly enough about. Acquaintances of mine have done this for years.

This reads like victim blaming to be honest. A gay passenger shouldnt fly QF2 from LHR to SIN in case it has to divert to a high risk nation during the flight?

 

[Quickstatus]

I think a passenger has some responsibility to try and avoid routes that have a reasonable chance of going to such places that they don't feel safe going to or feel strongly enough about

In that case dont travel out side of own country?

I thinkit that when flying long haul, there is a reasonable expectation of an unexpected diversion to the places you mentioned.

 

[dajop]

This reads like victim blaming to be honest. A gay passenger shouldnt fly QF2 from LHR to SIN in case it has to divert to a high risk nation during the flight?

TBH, if you look at countries that tend to have draconian laws against being gay, there's pretty low risk to an individual during a transit or an overnight stay due to diversion, unless there doing something intimate with a local. Often it's difficult to even tell if someone outside your own culture is gay or just the way people from that culture are. There's probably greater chance of women facing problems in many such countries than a gay man.

 

[readyone]

Maybe a question for the medicos on here - If an airline wanted to do this, would it be possible to carry the necessary equipment and personnel on all flights of a certain duration or routing, to treat, stabilise and monitor a patient through to the intended or at least a more preferred destination? What would it take to achieve that, or is this simply a non-starter

Fair point - I reckon airlines would constantly assess the exact cost of each category of disruption (medical, engineering, weather) to their operations and make a call on what the most cost-effective way forward is.

 

[Warragul]

It's the overall safety of the country.

Reckon a western airline would divert to DRC, Yemen, Afghanistan or Somalia for a single medical incident if that was the nearest airfield?

I doubt they would, unless it was a 10/10th's emergency like a fire, engines out, etc.



This reads like victim blaming to be honest. A gay passenger shouldnt fly QF2 from LHR to SIN in case it has to divert to a high risk nation during the flight?

Agree about the overall safety of the country being a consideration, I differ over qualities like religious or sexual identity freedoms ( or lack thereof) being a significant factor in the pilots decision making. If the airline does this in their policies and procedures, then all credit to them.

If a person feels endangered strongly enough and doesn't want to take the relative small risk then maybe not, which is what my acquaintance does. Somewhat paranoid to a degree but they'd rather not worry about it.

Given the amount of traffic from the ME 3 ports that fly over countries where just being gay is punishable by death (KSA, Iran) I imagine the numbers who feel this way are pretty low in the grand scheme of things, which is a good thing.