QF4 JFK-AKL diversion to Fiji (4/10/24)

[offshore171]

The 4 flight deck crew were standing around in arrivals looking rather annoyed along with a bunch of other passengers.

Is the suggestion that the plane diverted as a result of a disruptive group of passengers?

 

[Quickstatus]

Is the suggestion that the plane diverted as a result of a disruptive group of passengers?

I didnt get that impression from the original comment. Some of the passengers and crew would be NZ based. If i was NZ based i would be annoyed too.

I suspect the NZ bound pax/crew would be offered alternatives to get them to AKL on FJ or maybe even NZ

 

[jb747]

@henrus . Im not sure about the theory that the crew "timed out" given that it departed on time and flight time was about the same as a normal QF4.

Odd logic. They haven’t run out of hours in flight. But, having diverted, they’ve got an hour or so on the ground, and then a flight to Auckland. So that’s about 3-4 hours more than the normal JFK to AKL duty time. You cannot start a flight knowing that you’ll be in breach of the hours.

Also where did the crew come from to operate the subsequent sector. Maybe they flew up from AKL on a FJ/NZ flight?

This comes back to the why of the diversion. Many times, when the company gets wind of the possibility early enough, they’ll have a replacement crew on the move before the diversion happens. And as often as not, it doesn’t happen, and they’re called out in vain.

You can read a little bit into the geometry of the diversion. From the point they’ve gone, it’s about the same distance on as for the diversion. So, that means that the fuel required for the diversion is the same as required for the flight onwards. It implies that the diversion happened at the latest possible point, as does the 90º geometry. Knowing that it would terminate flight, that makes sense, but it also implies that they were pushing onwards in the hope that something would change that would allow them to continue. That’s a very common way of handling weather, especially when there’s rolling time changes on the TAFs.

One other thing is that you cannot generally read the behaviour of other aircraft into the decision. For instance the weather might be ok, but the TAF says periodic thunderstorms. They’re not actually there, and aircraft are happily coming and going. But, another aircraft on a longer flight may well still be forced to divert. The difference will lie in how far they’ve travelled and what sort of fuel loadings they have. Shorter flights may well have tonnes of spare fuel to cover weather, whilst the longer flights cannot miraculously upload any more.

 

[Quickstatus]

And as often as not, it doesn’t happen, and they’re called out in vain.

Assuming the company were told soon after the diversion - lets say 1530UTC, that gives a standby crew about 5hrs or likely 4-5hrs depending on when they were called to get on the SYD-NAN QF101. Not sure if thats enough time.

So that’s about 3 hours more than the normal JFK to AKL duty time.

If the "stars" aligned was a splash and dash possible if the destination weather was fine. I suspect they "called it" because even if they had available time, the weather at AKL was the no go.

 

[jb747]

Assuming the company were told soon after the diversion - lets say 1530UTC, that gives a standby crew about 5hrs or likely 4-5hrs depending on when they were called to get on the SYD-NAN QF101. Not sure if thats enough time.

1530UTC is 0130 in Sydney. I'm not sure of how they schedule standby these days (basings would have changed that), but there wouldn't be anyone available at that time of day. Probably not until around 6am in Sydney, and even then it's a 3 hour call out.

If the "stars" aligned was a splash and dash possible if the destination weather was fine. I suspect they "called it" because even if they had available time, the weather at AKL was the no go.

No, not ever possible. I just looked at the distance, and it's quite a bit further than my quick guess. So, the flight time would probably have been over 3 hours, plus the turnaround. And you aren't likely to get a splash and dash. So call it around 4 hours additional.

 

[henrus]

Is the suggestion that the plane diverted as a result of a disruptive group of passengers?

Not at all.

I wonder if it was something medical related? At this point all we can do is speculate as I can’t find anything else anywhere online.

 

[jb747]

I wonder if it was something medical related? At this point all we can do is speculate as I can’t find anything else anywhere online.

From the point at which they diverted, it's only marginally further to Auckland, so I'd suspect not. But, you never know.

 

[Denali]

Mr Denali's optometrist (and 2nd or 3rd cousin, it gets murky) was on this flight and apparently his departing Fiji flight had approx only 70 people on it. The comment was no concerns about upgrading as everyone had all the rows to choose from.

 

[Quickstatus]

apparently his departing Fiji flight had approx only 70 people on it

Interesting, so presumably QF4 passengers were mostly AKL bound? Or did some secide to stay a bit longer in Fiji? Its the long weekend after all

 

[Denali]

Interesting, so presumably QF4 passengers were mostly AKL bound? Or did some secide to stay a bit longer in Fiji? Its the long weekend after all

Ive asked Mr Denali for more info but hes currently magnesium floating so I will ask him later if he knows any more details. Cousin/Opto lives in Sydney so may re-routed flight?

 

[Denali]

From Mr Denali'S Opto/cousin SM.

Got to enjoy a bit of Fiji then flight to Sydney. I'm ignoring the socked feet on the seats

 

[SeatBackForward]

From that time I was on QF8 as an A380 (so nothing similar to this really..) Medical incident caused diversion to NAN. About an hour on the ground unloading the passenger, Then took off, then had to divert to AKL as crew would've been out of hours. As @jb747 said above, they wouldn't have started out of NAN if they knew they were out of hours, so I suspect that QF thought it was easier to deal with an A380 plane load of passengers from AKL than from NAN. It was a long weekend then too, so the remaining SYD bound passengers spent most of the day in AKL, while a relief crew on a 787 was sent out from Brisbane. I can't recall if the A380 was still there or had already been moved on by the time we left on the 787.

 

[DC3]

Does anyone know what caused the diversion?

Nothing so far. Mainly the irresistible AFFer conjecture that we have come to enjoy.

 

[p--and--t]

Nothing so far. Mainly the irresistible AFFer conjecture that we have come to enjoy.

Crystal ball gazing is still rather problematic as AFAIAA there is no current Standards Australia document for that class of device so consequently in the absence of facts, results of staring into one come up with weird and wonderful wildly disparate results.

 

[Rangalad]

1530UTC is 0130 in Sydney. I'm not sure of how they schedule standby these days (basings would have changed that), but there wouldn't be anyone available at that time of day. Probably not until around 6am in Sydney, and even then it's a 3 hour call out.

No, not ever possible. I just looked at the distance, and it's quite a bit further than my quick guess. So, the flight time would probably have been over 3 hours, plus the turnaround. And you aren't likely to get a splash and dash. So call it around 4 hours additional.

FWIW
Pre COVID, Long Haul FA standby used to be 0400-1600 or 1100-2300 (AEST).

 

[Quickstatus]

Long Haul FA standby

And Flight deck?
If the same, then the only crew available at short notice would have been the ones in AKL who would have to fly AKL-NAN that morning???.

 

[jb747]

FWIW
Pre COVID, Long Haul FA standby used to be 0400-1600 or 1100-2300 (AEST).

Historically, there were two timings 4 to 4, and 10 to 10. There were none downline. Bases may, or may not, have something. 9 times out of 10, they could fill a call out in less time, simply by ringing around. Domestic used this, and had no standby at all.

 

[henrus]

The AFF post on Facebook is wild , over 400 comments and a lot of people piling on Qantas. Still not very clear what the initial reason was.

Based on the comments on Facebook it seemed weather was an issue but given all other flights landing un Auckland around the same time weren’t impacted it’s possible it could be the weather along the way?

 

[SeatBackForward]

The AFF post on Facebook is wild , over 400 comments and a lot of people piling on Qantas. Still not very clear what the initial reason was.

Based on the comments on Facebook it seemed weather was an issue but given all other flights landing un Auckland around the same time weren’t impacted it’s possible it could be the weather along the way?

I'm glad I've managed to not use facebook at all. Luckily AFF posts have far more credibility than almost anything on FB.

 

[nlagalle]

The Facebook post is full of nuffy’s who have no idea! One person even said pilots get the weather forecast from other planes!