Haan From South Africa, joined Aug 2004, 279 posts, RR: 2 Posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 13149 times:
Hi all
I believe a SQ A380 is diverting to Dubai due to a medical emergency.
I presume it is the SIN--LHR flight.
Will be touching down in 2 hours from now at 12H45 UTC.
Babybus From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2235 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 12854 times:
Wow, those A380 passengers sure do get over-excited about flying the new baby. It must be some elderly person who has saved up their retirement bonus to fly the bird.
At this rate airlines should consider using all that extra space to put in a medical room. Forget the bowling alley and casino.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
Myt332 From United Kingdom (England), joined Sep 2003, 8736 posts, RR: 91 Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 12744 times:
Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 5): Hopefully nothing serious has occurred to the ill passenger(s).
I can only imagine that if something bad had happened then the aircraft would be classed as having bad luck. Even worse, what if the passenger has puked in a new light all over the romance of travel?
BrightCedars From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 1043 posts, RR: 4 Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 12708 times:
Quoting Myt332 (Reply 6):
I can only imagine that if something bad had happened then the aircraft would be classed as having bad luck. Even worse, what if the passenger has puked in a new light all over the romance of travel?
If the condition of the unfortunate passenger was known and stable, I may share a laugh with you, but right now and after this week's fatalities I think it's a wrongly placed comment.
Myt332 From United Kingdom (England), joined Sep 2003, 8736 posts, RR: 91 Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 12638 times:
Quoting BrightCedars (Reply 7): If the condition of the unfortunate passenger was known and stable, I may share a laugh with you, but right now and after this week's fatalities I think it's a
wrongly placed comment.
I don't. Just because this ill person is a passenger on an aircraft doesn't mean I have any more feelings towards this person than any other ill person. I'm not saying I wish people bad luck, I wish all people good health but the fact you missed the point of my post doesn't really help.
Haan From South Africa, joined Aug 2004, 279 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 12542 times:
Ok the A380 touched down in Dubai at 12h05 UTC
Hope the medical passenger is ok thou.
Quoting Haggis79 (Reply 8): Are you sure this info is correct? DXB is nowhere near the great circle for SIN-LHR...
Yes u are right, guess their routing would take them over Northern India, Pakistan, Iran, over Turkey and on to London
But the crew had to make a decision 02H30 ago. The best place for the A380 was Dubai, for support wise and for medical care. And Dubai is not actually that off route.
BrightCedars From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 1043 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 12539 times:
Quoting Haggis79 (Reply 8): Are you sure this info is correct? DXB is nowhere near the great circle for SIN-LHR...
According the same source SIN-DXB-LHR is only 4% longer than SIN-LHR the shortest way. And since winds need to be taken into account, I'm not surprised to see the flight routed near DXB.
Airlineaddict From United States, joined Jan 2005, 380 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 12411 times:
Quoting Haan (Thread starter): I believe a SQ A380 is diverting to Dubai due to a medical emergency.
I presume it is the SIN--LHR flight.
Will be touching down in 2 hours from now at 12H45 UTC.
2 hours notice seems like a long time. If it was a very serious condition, would they have diverted to a closer airport in Pakistan like KHI?
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18447 posts, RR: 59 Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 12339 times:
Quoting Airlineaddict (Reply 13): If it was a very serious condition, would they have diverted to a closer airport in Pakistan like KHI?
If the passenger is conscious, they can say "no way in heck I'm going to hospital in pakistan" and then they could figure out the best place to stop. It's not like an ETOPS emergency that has a requirement to set down at the closest suitable airport.
Between SQ preferring to put the A380 down in DXB, which has the tugs and facilities to handle it, and the pax likely wanting a more secure country with better medical care, I would think DXB was a no brainer if the emergency was of the right nature.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Voodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 1860 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 12336 times:
I guess the more pax on board the more statistically likely a medical emergency will arise. Plus the (possible) fact that long haul pax are older (more wealth) than short distance (e.g. LCC) pax. Possibly. I wonder if some bean counters will consider this worthwhile to statistically work out financially and pass it onto marketing (e.g. 787 point-to-point vs. 380 hub ops).
BBADXB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 12305 times:
Can KHI or any other airport in the region handle the A380? 2hrs might have been the shortest time to an airport that can handle the A380. I would not want to fall very ill on the A380, in a region where there are very few (or none at all!) nearby airports that can handle it.
Regarding the romance of air travel, I think that LCCs have long killed that concept unfortunately, making air travel not much different than taking a bus (and there are positive and less positive aspect to this). It is good to see though that airlines like Singapore Airlines are trying frantically to rescucsitate the romance of air travel.
Slz396 From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2467 posts, RR: 21 Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 12036 times:
Quoting Hiflyer (Reply 14): One of the problems about carrying more passengers is that you expose yourself to more of these diversions.....
Not as an airline.
Remember the number of ill pax still remains the same, regardless how you transport them: X ill pax / million of pax transported, thus also X medical diversions / million of pax transported.
In fact, by cramming more people into a plane, you statistically INCREASE the chance of having a multiple-ill pax event on a single flight, thus REDUCING the overall number of diversions...
Haggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1068 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 12019 times:
Quoting Voodoo (Reply 16): I guess the more pax on board the more statistically likely a medical emergency will arise. Plus the (possible) fact that long haul pax are older (more wealth) than short distance (e.g. LCC) pax. Possibly. I wonder if some bean counters will consider this worthwhile to statistically work out financially and pass it onto marketing (e.g. 787 point-to-point vs. 380 hub ops).
well, statistically spoken yes.... the percentage of planes making a diversion might increase. Yet, the absolute number of diversions will stay the same as long as neither the number of people flying nor the percentage of people getting so sick that a diversion is needed changes.... regardless from if you put 500 people onto 1 A380 or 2 787s, you will still end up with one plane diverting if one of the 500 gets sick...
so sorry to disappoint you, but you can't make an advantage of the 787 over the 380 out of this one...
AirNZ From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Feb 2005, 3087 posts, RR: 13 Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 11941 times:
Quoting Myt332 (Reply 9): I don't. Just because this ill person is a passenger on an aircraft doesn't mean I have any more feelings towards this person than any other ill person. I'm not saying I wish people bad luck, I wish all people good health but the fact you missed the point of my post doesn't really help.
Then I certainly missed it as well, as I fully agree with BrightCedars in that it was really entirely inappropriate. We are discussing a medical emergency to a passenger, in which case what was your point?
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15): If the passenger is conscious, they can say "no way in heck I'm going to hospital in pakistan" and then they could figure out the best place to stop.
Well, I have to say that if any aircraft needs diverted because of a medical emergency then, in my opinion, it would be a rather piss-poor 'judgement call' by such a said passenger (as per your statement) as to 'choosing' where to divert to. If emergency medical assistance is required then get the damn aircraft on the ground and the passenger to a hospital irrespective of where it is!
26 Slz396: In fact you could turn it into an -albeit purely theoretical- DISADVANTAGE for the 787 (or any other smaller plane), because the statistical fact rem
27 Myt332: It was a reference to Singapore_air and the SQ product and associated propaganda. Don't worry your head anyway, I'll let you get back phoning around
28 Khobar: Because the medical conditions are statistically unrelated, there is nothing to support the idea that they would happen simultaneously, thus nothing
29 Lapper: According to the BAA website, there is already one flight breaking the curfew, this mornings QF9 arrival, due in at 0530 is not expected until 0133 S
30 Ruscoe: The chances of an individual 380 diverting for a medical emergency is twice that of a smaller aircraft such as 350. Athought he rate of sick passenger
31 Steex: Nah, the most of the 744D's trips are so short that they would probably be faster to just execute the planned flight than make a change!
32 707lvr: We should try to get away from our prejudices regarding any event with the 380 (or the 787 for that matter.) The point of this incident is that it was
33 AirNZ: Sorry, but how does two medical diversions put any negatives into people's minds about the A380......what and who's? And yet your first sentence proc
34 OA260: I think people know the difference between a medical emergency and an issue with the A/C itself . I cant understand how that puts any negative though
35 Qantas744: Just seen SQ318 arrive from my hotel, touched down at 2149 with the delayed QF now expected at 0532-24 hours late. Will be interesting to see how quic
36 AustrianZRH: That is based on the assumption that to carry x passengers, you need either two 787s or one 380. Now every now and then, one of those x pax falls ill
37 BMIFlyer: 22:05 SQ321 SINGAPORE AIRBORNE 2358 Terminal three
38 BMIFlyer: By the way, todays (Sat) early morning flights from HKG are very late! 05:25 VS201 SYDNEY VIA HONG KONG EXPECTED 1340 Terminal three 05:35 BA032 HONG
39 Lightsaber: I wish the diverted passenger a quick recovery. Outside of a.net, no one seems to know about these diversions. They're too focused on work or the Olym
40 Jokestar: Would the weight of the plane been a factor as well? Flying to Dubai might have brought them under the MLW and also given them the all the advantages
41 Lightsaber: Let me second that question. If one of the route planners could offer a quantitative guess, it would be appreciated. Got Popcorn? Neil
42 Haan: Yes they could have stopped at Delhi, Karachi or Bombay, but the crew decided that the best technical support they would be able to get for the A380
43 Fly-K: I believe the EK 380 was not in town at this time but on its way to JFK again. Thanks to Hannes for the heads-up! Great to see both A380 operators wi
44 SSTsomeday: Yes, and statistics can be manipulated. I would estimate, rather: 1) that the percentage of diversions for a single medical event is greater than div
45 Point8six: Dubai is now a 380 'base' (EK) with engineering cover for the refuel/turnround, whereas neither DEL nor KHI have such cover. The routeing to LHR via t
46 Flexo: I was wondering about that. Is that an unusually high rate or do we just hear about it because it's the A380 and other planes divert for medical reas
47 Speedbirdie: Hmm that cant be right.. The SQ318 inbound goes out as the SQ319 LHR-SIN and departs at 1830 where as the SQ320 goes out as the SQ321 at 2215...
48 BMIFlyer: SQ318 inbound (19:10) goes back out as SQ321 (22:15) SQ320 inbound returns as SQ319 From the SQ website... 22nd August 2008 - Friday - Flight Number
49 Speedbirdie: When the hell did that all change??? Thats wierd..
50 Qantas744: And what has happened tonight? SQ318 is four hours late, ETA now 23:21. Matt
51 Lightsaber: I'd like to know more about this from the operations side. Yea... we test the airframes and do crosswind/overweight/etc. But what are the rules/conse
52 Alessandro: The EK medical diversion was due to sick young boy, anyone can get sick. Today, the A380 don´t carry many more passengers than the B747-400, so no b
53 BMIFlyer: 23rd August 2008 - Saturday - Flight Number SQ318 / Aircraft (B747-400) Airport Scheduled Time Actual Time Estimated Time Status Departure From Singa
Sponsor Message: 
From South Africa, joined Aug 2004, 279 posts, 
From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 689 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2235 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Mar 2002, 4296 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Sep 2003, 8736 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 1043 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1068 posts, 
From United States, joined Jan 2005, 380 posts, 
From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 1860 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1144 posts, 
From Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4220 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 207 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Feb 2005, 3087 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
