Airline logistics are incredibly complex, and while the diversion as such was outside of Virgin Atlantic’s control, the handling of this leaves a lot to be desired (thanks to PYOK for flagging this).
In this post:
Virgin Atlantic medical diversion suffers hard landing
This incident started on Wednesday, April 2, 2025, and involves Virgin Atlantic flight VS358, scheduled to operate the 4,487-mile service from London (LHR) to Mumbai (BOM). The flight was operated by a four-year-old Airbus A350-1000 with the registration code G-VTEA.
The flight departed Heathrow more or less on schedule, at 12:01PM, and began its journey across Europe and the Black Sea. However, around four hours after departure, there was a medical emergency involving a passenger, and the decision was made to divert, in order for the passenger to get medical attention.
The issue is, at this point, the plane was over eastern Türkiye, not far from the border with Iran, Iraq, and Syria. So there were limited diversion points, especially among major airports. The decision was made to divert to Diyarbakır (DIY), which is both a military airbase and a fairly small commercial airport, with regional service from carriers like AJet, Pegasus Airlines, and Turkish Airlines.
The intent was that the plane was just going to briefly stop there to drop off passengers, and then continue the journey to Mumbai. That’s not how things played out, though.
Unfortunately the aircraft suffered a hard landing, so an inspection needed to be carried out by maintenance personnel, in order to ensure the plane could continue service without any work being performed. As you may have guessed, there were no A350 engineers at the airport, stranding the aircraft, passengers, and crew. For what it’s worth, the runway at the airport is over 11,000 feet long, so that’s plenty big for an A350.
Virgin Atlantic strands passengers at remote airport
Admittedly this can be described as a “when it rains, it pours” situation. Medical diversions happen, and this wasn’t supposed to be a big deal, but then the hard landing incident made this a much bigger issue.
Having a wide body jet stranded at an international airport with no ground support, and where many travelers don’t have a visa to enter the country, is a really rough situation, and I sure wouldn’t want to be in charge of the logistics.
That being said, it sure seems like Virgin Atlantic’s handling of this should have been a bit better. Long story short, passengers ended up being stranded for nearly two days.
At first, passengers were reportedly told that a Virgin Atlantic engineer was being flown to the airport, but that wouldn’t be a straightforward process, given that the airport doesn’t have that much service. So for the first 24 hours, passengers had to stay in the terminal, where they had to sleep on the floor, and claim they didn’t receive sufficient food, or have access to usable toilets.
Local authorities then finally made an exception regarding travelers entering the country, so they were able to be put into hotels for the second night.
A Virgin Atlantic engineer finally landed at the airport on Friday morning, nearly two days after the aircraft first diverted, and gave it the all-clear to continue to Mumbai. It appears that the plane is finally boarding, and will continue its journey to Mumbai.
While it’s good that everyone can get on their way safely, it sure seems to me like this could’ve been handled better. For one, why did it take nearly 48 hours to fly in an engineer? There are all kinds of routings between London and Diyarbakır that take around eight hours.
Sure, it takes some time to find an engineer, have them pack their bags, etc., but it seems like worst case scenario, an engineer should’ve been there well within 24 hours. Alternatively, you’d think that the airline could’ve contracted with some A350 engineer in the country (after all, Turkish Airlines flies this aircraft as well) to carry out an inspection, or something.
I imagine that some airlines would’ve otherwise flown in a rescue aircraft, with a fresh crew and an engineer onboard. Of course that’s costly, but it’s also a reasonable way to take care of passengers. Admittedly Virgin Atlantic has a rather small fleet, so I imagine the airline doesn’t have as many spare aircraft.
No matter how you slice it, it just seems like taking nearly two days to carry out a basic inspection on an A350 with stranded passengers is a bit much.
Bottom line
A Virgin Atlantic Airbus A350 was stranded in Diyarbakır, Türkiye, for nearly two days, after a medical diversion suffered a hard landing, requiring an inspection. The airline ended up having to fly in an engineer to inspect the aircraft, though it took nearly two days before the airline found someone to do that.
Fortunately passengers finally seem to be headed to Mumbai, but I can only imagine how frustrated passengers must be.
What do you make of this Virgin Atlantic A350 diversion?
I’m glad that VS prioritize the health of a passenger and landed as soon as they could. I’m wondering if the hard landing was caused by being overweight due to the fuel on board.
This seems to have been an unpleasant experience due to the local authorities, not being pragmatic and helping sooner. VS probably don’t have spare aircraft sitting around and leasing another aircraft from euro Atlantic etc would probably have taken just as...
I’m glad that VS prioritize the health of a passenger and landed as soon as they could. I’m wondering if the hard landing was caused by being overweight due to the fuel on board.
This seems to have been an unpleasant experience due to the local authorities, not being pragmatic and helping sooner. VS probably don’t have spare aircraft sitting around and leasing another aircraft from euro Atlantic etc would probably have taken just as long so repair was the only option.
Sometimes bad things happen and nobody is to blame.
Ryanair have a Challenger and 4 Learjets to move parts, engineers and crew around their network. Some airlines are more focused on an efficient operation than others. EU261 made Ryanair focused.
You've mistaken avoiding EU261 for efficiency.
Their whole network is based on efficiency and utilization.
Paying out EU261 is much cheaper than a 737 not flying.
Diyarbakır? That was an AWESOME Led Zepplin song! ;)
It’s okay to write about the 12hr AA 789 diversion, but how dare you mention a company thats partially owned by the worlds most premium airline.
I had a very similar experience in Janurary, on a Saudi Air flight, Rydah to Manilla, 777. Medical issue on baord, and it diverted to Karachi. That resulted in ground delay of close to four hours becasue medical would not deplane the person wihtout a visa, and it took that long to get one. FAs told us no chance that anyone else would be allowed even to deplane, and then had of course no catering...
I had a very similar experience in Janurary, on a Saudi Air flight, Rydah to Manilla, 777. Medical issue on baord, and it diverted to Karachi. That resulted in ground delay of close to four hours becasue medical would not deplane the person wihtout a visa, and it took that long to get one. FAs told us no chance that anyone else would be allowed even to deplane, and then had of course no catering there, so there was not even water provided. I think flights like that and the one described above have an inherent difficulty if emergencies happen.
Could passengers theoretically book themselves out of that airport on another commercial flight? Of course the airline should take better care of them, but just more as a thought process, would it have been possible to book a flight out of there on Turkish Airlines and find another way to Mumbai? If it were me, I’d probably just eat the cost of whatever it took to not be stuck in an airport with hundreds of other people for 24+ hours.
This is why insurance is always good to have whether it’s included with your credit card or a separate policy. I’ve filed claims twice and it was easy to file and I was paid without any pushback.
Booking a new flight out of the diversion airport would likely be very difficult to do if a passenger had bags checked, which many of them likely did on a flight of this duration. Plus, passengers were likely initially given an optimistic estimate of how long they would be stuck there. This is the challenge I've faced with similar IRROPS - you either need to decide relatively quickly to bail on the situation and make...
Booking a new flight out of the diversion airport would likely be very difficult to do if a passenger had bags checked, which many of them likely did on a flight of this duration. Plus, passengers were likely initially given an optimistic estimate of how long they would be stuck there. This is the challenge I've faced with similar IRROPS - you either need to decide relatively quickly to bail on the situation and make alternative arrangements or you get stuck in a "sunk cost" situation where once you've been waiting for a day, you may not want to pay for alternative transportation when the situation may end in a few hours.
Why is one not surprised to note the comments from the “Armchair experts” and the “Armchair expert deniers”, etc?
At the very least it lets DL off the “Fluff” presently.
this isn't about DL. It is not the operating carrier regardless of its ownership in VS or not.
VS made the decision based on a decision to get on the ground quickly. They didn't have the support needed if anything went wrong - and it did.
it has happened multiple times and Ben has covered other incidents.
Ownership or not of the airline had nothing to do with those incidents or this one.
@AeroB13a
You keep fighting Eskimo yet use the same word as him to attack Tim?
What a hypocrite.
Mason, please be advised that I am not “Fighting Eskimo” nor am I attempting to “Attack Tim”.
In the event that you care to actually read all the comments prior to my own above, the discerning observer will note that I have simply quoted words used by people other than Tim.
I am however guilty of also quoting only a single word used by Eskimo …. I repeat that the discerning observer could...
Mason, please be advised that I am not “Fighting Eskimo” nor am I attempting to “Attack Tim”.
In the event that you care to actually read all the comments prior to my own above, the discerning observer will note that I have simply quoted words used by people other than Tim.
I am however guilty of also quoting only a single word used by Eskimo …. I repeat that the discerning observer could never interpret that to be ‘fighting talk’, nor, in any way hypocritical darlink, yes?
Ultimately if you can't get a engineer there in a reasonable amount of time they should have chartered a private jet engineer.
What I find most intriguing is the reason for the diversion - which UK media is reporting as a 'panic attack'.
Medical training is usually pretty good for flight attendants at UK airlines (as mandated by CAA/EASA) and the crew would have definitely been in contact with specialised aviation medical experts on the ground.
I am really surprised they diverted due to a condition that did not require it at all.
Perhaps they mistook the...
What I find most intriguing is the reason for the diversion - which UK media is reporting as a 'panic attack'.
Medical training is usually pretty good for flight attendants at UK airlines (as mandated by CAA/EASA) and the crew would have definitely been in contact with specialised aviation medical experts on the ground.
I am really surprised they diverted due to a condition that did not require it at all.
Perhaps they mistook the symptoms as something far more serious...or the UK media have it wrong which wouldn't be surprising!
Could be that the panic attack had similar symptoms to a heart attack. Can’t really rule it out without proper lab results.
If a plane diverted every time a passenger had a panic attack on a plane we would see around twenty plus diversions daily.
As a registered ER nurse as well flight attendant I can say this:
First thing we would consider is the age of the passenger (apparently a 17 year old in this case so heart attack HIGHLY unlikely).
Secondly, anyone experiencing these symptoms (especially a 17 year old) would be asked for any...
If a plane diverted every time a passenger had a panic attack on a plane we would see around twenty plus diversions daily.
As a registered ER nurse as well flight attendant I can say this:
First thing we would consider is the age of the passenger (apparently a 17 year old in this case so heart attack HIGHLY unlikely).
Secondly, anyone experiencing these symptoms (especially a 17 year old) would be asked for any history that may make them more susceptible to a heart attack - angina, family history, heart problems.
Thirdly, a heart attack is nearly always accompanied by an intense crushing type of pain. A panic attack does not involve this pain.
Finally, a panic attack with some reassurance will nearly always dispel within ten minutes - the adrenaline peaks at this point. A heart attack will not.
If the crew were in doubt they should have made an announcement for medical personnel onboard to assist.
Might be all true. But as a nurse you should also know not to diagnose based off non-medical news reports. We weren’t onboard. A diversion is usually not done light heartedly.
Completely agree.
Which is why I am leaning to the side of inaccurate news reports by the UK media with the 'panic attack' story.
story in another paper, the panic attack was about her dog, who wasn't on the flight.
let's not forget that there have been multiple cases of aircraft being stranded in remote locations after something goes wrong - as they usually do after a diversion.
Diverting to a non-commercial remote airport for a medical condition almost always goes bad regardless of the airline.
The simple solution for airlines is not to divert where they cannot support the remainder of the flight unless a medical professional says that an hour will make the...
let's not forget that there have been multiple cases of aircraft being stranded in remote locations after something goes wrong - as they usually do after a diversion.
Diverting to a non-commercial remote airport for a medical condition almost always goes bad regardless of the airline.
The simple solution for airlines is not to divert where they cannot support the remainder of the flight unless a medical professional says that an hour will make the difference in life and death.
and then the question is why the person ever boarded the flight if their health deteriorated in 4 hours.
just one of many of these types of stories - and certainly won't be the last. doesn't make it any less sensational but it is hardly unique
Diyarbakir is not a remote location though.
It is an international airport with scheduled international flights.
VS clearly did not have the support to provide meals even while on the ground. Immigrations refused to allow pax to clear immigration so they could get into hotels. both of these are not unique to VS.
it doesn't matter what int'l services other airlines offer. Either the airport does not support A350s or VS wanted for some reason to do that inspection themselves.
the issue is why VS chose to divert to a city...
VS clearly did not have the support to provide meals even while on the ground. Immigrations refused to allow pax to clear immigration so they could get into hotels. both of these are not unique to VS.
it doesn't matter what int'l services other airlines offer. Either the airport does not support A350s or VS wanted for some reason to do that inspection themselves.
the issue is why VS chose to divert to a city that had so little support - and somebody- probably a doctor onboard - told the crew they needed to divert immediately. Airlines have significant liability if they don't get on the ground when a medical professional says that life and death is at stake.
Why VS made a hard landing in the first place is part of the question.
@Tim Dunn - I don't think you understand how this kind of thing works. If I wanted meals in Diyarbakir for a planeload of passengers, I can make a few phonecalls to and those will be delivered within a couple of hours at most. This holds for pretty much anywhere in the world, including a lot more remote places than an international airport in Turkiye. It may not be fancy, but it will be edible....
@Tim Dunn - I don't think you understand how this kind of thing works. If I wanted meals in Diyarbakir for a planeload of passengers, I can make a few phonecalls to and those will be delivered within a couple of hours at most. This holds for pretty much anywhere in the world, including a lot more remote places than an international airport in Turkiye. It may not be fancy, but it will be edible.
That they didn't do so is either incompetence (which it isn't since I've worked with a number of the ops team at Virgin and they sure aren't incompetent) or negligent - where bad information got fed into the decision tree or someone failed to escalate the situation appropriately to the right manager. There is no excuse here. They screwed up. Who specifically screwed up they will determine internally and hopefully resolve for the future, but this could have been resolved 24 hours quicker than it was without anyone breaking a sweat.
The armchair experts
a VS has no staff or representation so it takes time to work with authorities in a country which is bureaucratic.
b immigration refused to let customers leave and they had to remain airside and dependent on the facilities.
c don’t forget this affects all the staff too including them timing out. Every time passengers complain they think the staff are not affected. They are also concerned and without nutrition.
...The armchair experts
a VS has no staff or representation so it takes time to work with authorities in a country which is bureaucratic.
b immigration refused to let customers leave and they had to remain airside and dependent on the facilities.
c don’t forget this affects all the staff too including them timing out. Every time passengers complain they think the staff are not affected. They are also concerned and without nutrition.
d. Virgin has no local representatives to organise accommodation etc You really want to keep people together.
e How to you know they did not contact TK ? It also takes time to organise a charter, file a flight plan s etc. It is not Avis rent a car. In order to use an alternative VS aircraft, they may have had to cancel one or two flights.
@Icarus - I am not an armchair expert, but rather a real world one. I have developed and executed diversion recovery programs in far more remote situations than this in a fraction of the elapsed time. Whatever the reasons for the delay in recertifying the aircraft, there is no excuse for leaving the passengers stranded there. I could have arranged a rescue charter to move them back to London for rebooking with three phonecalls, and...
@Icarus - I am not an armchair expert, but rather a real world one. I have developed and executed diversion recovery programs in far more remote situations than this in a fraction of the elapsed time. Whatever the reasons for the delay in recertifying the aircraft, there is no excuse for leaving the passengers stranded there. I could have arranged a rescue charter to move them back to London for rebooking with three phonecalls, and I know the management team at Virgin have no lesser contacts than I do. They chose to be ignorant of the conditions and consequently failed to take adequate actions to resolve the situation.
Common Icarus L
Coming from Virgin Atlantic, I'm not surprised in the least. Last time I flew them, I also experienced a disruption, but thankfully of shorter duration (only one day). Scheduled to fly from JFK to LHR on the early morning service. Aircraft went tech after we all checked in. Was advised that a spare part would be flown in from LHR on the next JFK bound flight. Sitting in the lounge, a fellow pax ruefully remarked...
Coming from Virgin Atlantic, I'm not surprised in the least. Last time I flew them, I also experienced a disruption, but thankfully of shorter duration (only one day). Scheduled to fly from JFK to LHR on the early morning service. Aircraft went tech after we all checked in. Was advised that a spare part would be flown in from LHR on the next JFK bound flight. Sitting in the lounge, a fellow pax ruefully remarked that "....at least BA is a real airline with more than a handful of planes.." - that damning verdict has stuck with me ever since! By the time our flight departed late that evening, BA had already seen off at least 4 flights, while we were left watching and waiting, and waiting. End result: have avoided Virgin for the past 12 years now... I see that redundancy and recovery have not improved one bit since then.
Virgin should have chartered an aircraft to get the engineer to the aircraft. Expensive, yes... But leaving an A350 on the ground is much more expensive than paying for a charter.
If the aircraft had to get on the ground that quickly and at such a remote airport, it must have been a serious emergency. I hope the passenger is ok. Hard landings are not a 5 minute job to work, it is likely that flight data analysis and thorough inspections of the aircraft had to happen to release to service safely, and access may not be easy at such an airport. Even a basic google...
If the aircraft had to get on the ground that quickly and at such a remote airport, it must have been a serious emergency. I hope the passenger is ok. Hard landings are not a 5 minute job to work, it is likely that flight data analysis and thorough inspections of the aircraft had to happen to release to service safely, and access may not be easy at such an airport. Even a basic google search can tell you that, engineers were probably working it non stop for the 2 days.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The real mark of a well-run airline is how they handle IROPs. It never ceases to astonish me that some of the world's biggest airlines - no matter how premium they might insist they are - seem to approach every disruption as if it's the first time there's ever been a disruption in the history of commercial aviation.
"Hard landing..." A momentary error and 2 days later they're all still stuffed. :(
A350-1000
Virgin Atlantic 49% ownership
And now, the fluff.