PDA

View Full Version : Iran accident


rcsa
9th Jan 2011, 16:33
BBC reporting an air crash in Iran. > 100 pax on board. No further info on their web site yet.

scr1
9th Jan 2011, 16:58
link to the story here

BBC News - Iranian passenger plane 'crashes' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12147872)

Squawk_ident
9th Jan 2011, 16:59
A French radio just informed that an Iranian airplane crashed in the North of Iran. About 150 passangers on board and about 50 escaped/survived.

WhiteSwan
9th Jan 2011, 17:12
The A/C is B727-200, EP-IRP
After go-around the aircraft hits to mountains around Oroumieh (NW of Iran)
105 people were on borad

rcsa
9th Jan 2011, 17:31
Associated Press report (here as used in the Independent, UK), reports 45 killed, 50 survivors.

45 people killed in Iranian plane crash - Middle East, World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/45-people-killed-in-iranian-plane-crash-2180167.html)

Kyprianos Biris
9th Jan 2011, 18:36
The plane crashed near Orumiyeh, 700km (430 miles) north-west of Tehran, at around 1945 local time (1615 GMT), an official in West

Accident time weather (source Ogimet home page (http://www.ogimet.com/index.phtml.en) ) :
OITR 091800Z 29004KT 0500 +SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1016=
OITR 091750Z 29004KT 0500 +SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1016=
OITR 091700Z 33004KT 0600 +SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1016=
OITR 091650Z 33004KT 0600 +SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1016=
OITR 091600Z 26004KT 0800 SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1016=
OITR 091550Z 26004KT 0800 SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1016=
OITR 091500Z 24006KT 0800 +SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1015=
OITR 091450Z 24006KT 0800 +SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1015=
OITR 091400Z 29004KT 0800 +SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1015=

The ILS procedure for runway 21 (elevation 4,274ft) has 800m RVR minima ...

411A
9th Jan 2011, 18:43
Anyone whom has flown in the northern part of Iran in the wintertime (as I certainly have, with 4-engine heavy jet and large turbopropeller types...CATII approved as well) can tell you about some of the most adverse weather conditions you might imagine....:yuk:
Makes Europe look like childs play.

crHedBngr
9th Jan 2011, 19:32
Here's a bit more info. from BBC News: BBC News - Iran passenger plane crash 'kills 70' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12147872)

thegypsy
9th Jan 2011, 19:33
411A I operated to THR in late 70's with KAC on B707 320-C and do not recall weather in winter being any different to that in Europe and certainly not CAT11 then.

hamid128
9th Jan 2011, 19:52
Crash Iran Air
B727 iranair EP-IRP after missed approach crash in uromiyeh :(( :(

411A
9th Jan 2011, 21:04
Keep in mind that the IranAir B727's (many of them, anyway) are older than dirt, and...due to western sanctions, have little in the way of adequate spares support.
A causitive factor?
Just a thought, but...time will tell.

Mercenary Pilot
9th Jan 2011, 21:29
I got up close not so long ago to a few Iranian airliners and I can confirm that they don't appear to be in good condition. The Fokker's in particular seemed patched up and the jetpipe noise and visible exhaust gases seemed excessive to me.

Brenoch
9th Jan 2011, 22:06
The METAR for the time of the accident seems to indicate weather quite acceptable for a CAT I approach pending the light facilities at OITR.

fmgc
9th Jan 2011, 22:17
Just because the MET Viz is 600 doesn't mean to say that the RVR isn't greater than that required for a CAT I!

Brenoch
9th Jan 2011, 22:30
fmgc;

Did you mean to say lower or did you beat me to it looking up the approach charts for OITR? Just had a quick look and the required visibility for the approach is 800m unless coming down on a LTS CAT I or with EVS which I much doubt was fitted to the airframe in question. I am well aware of the fact that the RVR value is usually higher than the reported met vis.

fmgc
9th Jan 2011, 22:33
I am well aware of the fact that the RVR value is usually higher than the reported met vis.

That is what I was saying in response to Kyprianos Biris who seemed to be implying that they made an approach below minimas, which isn't necessarily the case, we do not know what the RVR was which can often be greater then the met vis.

Brenoch
9th Jan 2011, 22:45
Oh, my apologies. I thought he highlighted the two METARs just to amplify the time of the accident. Sorry, I completely misunderstood your post. I thought you had a go at me for saying that the weather indicated it would be acceptable CAT I, but as it turned out, based on met vis alone it wouldn't be, not at 16:50 anyway.

Machaca
9th Jan 2011, 23:06
Mehr News Agency reports:

An Iranian passenger plane with 104 passengers aboard has crashed near the northwestern city of Orumiyeh. According to Mehr, 72 of the passengers, including the pilot and all flight attendants, have lost their lives.

The Boeing 727 had taken off from Mehr-Abad Airport in the Iranian capital, Tehran, with a one-hour delay and was en route to Orumiyeh International Airport when the incident happened.

Photos by Esfandiar Asgharkhani, Mehr News Agency

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/Orumiyeh00.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/Orumiyeh01.jpg

galaxy flyer
10th Jan 2011, 01:25
GobonaStick

In the US, there would not be a question of spares support, but there is in Iran. The embargoes are, no doubt, a factor, whether you or I agree with them. In Iran, there have been questions about airworthiness in past, far too many, crashes. So, yes, it is a legitimate question, if very speculative. But when has speculation not taken a backseat here at Pprune.

GF

Load Toad
10th Jan 2011, 01:55
OK - surely though if you can not maintain a 'plane or any vehicle for that matter to a suitable standard - you don't use it. To do so if that is not case is criminal irresponsibility. Sanctions or not.

There were over 10,000 exceptions to the U.S sanctions against Iran (With U.S. consent, companies skirt sanctions on Iran, others - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_16932455)) & I guess whilst aircraft parts would not be excepted it would be valid to find out if the sanctions in place would restrict Iran from obtaining parts necessary for the safe flight of civilian aircraft. i.e. Are they told they can not have or do they not ask?

SKS777FLYER
10th Jan 2011, 03:03
Snctions or not, no outside entity forces Iran to operate whatever aircraft they have in whatever condition Iran chooses to fly it's aircraft. Iran has many Russian aircraft with plenty of Russian spare parts available, yet Iran crashes many Russian aircraft. Iran has access to some European built aircraft and spares as well. The U.S. over the past 30 years, in an effort to improve aviation safety of Iranian civil aviation has supplied/sold the Iranian regime with some spare parts for it's aircraft.

cyflyer
10th Jan 2011, 04:14
Reading all the comments re embargo and lack of spares etc, I can't help wondering about another aspect of all this. What about crew training, licensing, etc ? Are the Iranian crews still allowed to train at US and European training facilities and have the Internationally recognised licenses ?, who checks these guys out ?

jackx123
10th Jan 2011, 05:56
in time of cholera are there any rules? as long as the local caa signs off they are fit to fly and hence the ban as of 6 July 2010 flying to the EU

matkat
10th Jan 2011, 08:27
I am probably best to answer the questions of sanctions on aircraft maintenance (I am of course not implying that this accident had anything to do with it) I finished working in an airworthines/QA role for an Iranian large airline last April having spent over a year there. The main problem I encountered was not a lack of spares (we flew Fokker 50s and 100s) though they did take alot of time clearing customs in Tehran no, the main issue I found was total lacking in basic aeronautical knowledge and trying to implement a part 145 ethos coupled with safety management and QA the nepotism is staggering inexperience people put in management because someone is married to the engineering directors daughter this guy (great guy personally) had no aeronautical training and had in fact failed the fokker 50 course prior to being appointed to mangement level in the engineering department. One thing I found that I could not get through to them was the ADs we once overflew and emergency AD I immediately put a plan together to ground and inspect the fleet, this was overuled and they continued to fly with an EAD that was out of date. There are many more instances of safety breach and blatant disregard of safety standards. I was at one point asked to instruct the Iranian CAA on 145 and continued airworthiness but whether it made and difference who knows??

willfly380
10th Jan 2011, 09:02
I was overflying Iran yesterday , and i got to tell you that i was feeling sorry for the guys doing domestic runs there yesterday. i did not know bout the crash at that time .Since we were overflying over some high terrain , i was constantly checking en route alternates and i had little to choose from as most ATIS were reporting snow and VOR approaches in use. In fact one was using a VOR approach circle to land in 2000m in heavy snow.
My condolence to all concerned .No crew wants to end up like this, what ever the reason.

Mr.Bloggs
10th Jan 2011, 09:31
The Iranian government would be better advised to invest some of its loot in a decent aviation safety culture for the state airline, instead of unnecessary nuclear power/weapons development. The above contributors make it abundantly clear that the airline is incompetently and dangerously run.

I also feel for the pilots who have to work in the environment described so articulately above. Iran is a hostile country both in terms of weather and terrain. The pilots need all the technology and training support they can get.

There is no excuse for poor nav systems on a 727, with GPS readily available. And aircraft parts can be sourced throughout the Middle East, as well as decent maintenance. No excuses on the sanctions front. The country is wealthy enough, but chooses to spend its money on other things. Dare I say Iran has something of a medieval outlook on its expenditure?

trex450
10th Jan 2011, 09:50
allowing for accuracy of the media in reporting this unfortunate accident in the BBC's report they mention that there was no explosion or fire. Unusual for an aircraft crash not to involve a fire, unless of course there was nothing onboard to catch light?

Brenoch
10th Jan 2011, 11:08
Jackx123;

in time of cholera are there any rules? as long as the local caa signs off they are fit to fly and hence the ban as of 6 July 2010 flying to the EU

I believe that ban is only valid for the Boeing fleet, they are still allowed to operate their A300s to the EU. I saw one of them at LHR just weeks ago.

lomapaseo
10th Jan 2011, 13:46
allowing for accuracy of the media in reporting this unfortunate accident in the BBC's report they mention that there was no explosion or fire. Unusual for an aircraft crash not to involve a fire, unless of course there was nothing onboard to catch light?


Not that unusual in a survivable breakup on snow or water.

Avenger
10th Jan 2011, 14:12
Quote:

An Iran Air Boeing 727-200, registration EP-IRP performing flight IR-277 from Tehran Mehrabad to Uromiyeh (Iran) with 94 passengers and 12 crew, was on final ILS approach to Uromiyeh's Urmia Airport runway 21 in fog and snowfall around 19:45L (16:15Z). The crew went around but the airplane impacted mountaineous terrain at Terman village about 5 miles southeast of the airport and broke up in six major parts. 73 occupants are confirmed dead, thereof 18 bodies were recovered, 33 occupants were hospitalised with a number in critical condition.

The Vice governor of West Azerbaijan province of Iran said, that the airplane was on short final when the crew declared emergency due to a technical problem explaining they could not land at Urmia in these circumstances and requested to return to Tehran. During the go-around the aircraft lost height for unknown reasons and impacted terrain.

Iran's Transport Ministry said, that there was no emergency. According to tower tapes the pilot aborted the approach when he could not establish visual contact with the runway at decision height and went around indicating they wanted to return to Tehran. 33 people have been taken to hospitals, 73 have perished.

Uromiyeh's Airport features a runway 03/21 of 3250 meters length, there are instrument approaches only to runway 21 (ILS, VOR/DME, VOR, NDB).

Metars:
OITR 091800Z 29004KT 0500 +SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1016
OITR 091750Z 29004KT 0500 +SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1016
OITR 091700Z 33004KT 0600 +SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1016
OITR 091650Z 33004KT 0600 +SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1016
OITR 091600Z 26004KT 0800 SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1016
OITR 091550Z 26004KT 0800 SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1016
OITR 091500Z 24006KT 0800 +SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1015

ATC Watcher
10th Jan 2011, 17:46
Re, training IR pilots and access to Sims abroad, incidentally the only functioning sim Iran Air has running in THR is a B727 sim.( I have been having some nostalgic sessions on it a year ago).
Re CAT 2 ops, if the aircraft that crashed had the same cockpit avionics as the sim, there is no flight director, no FMS and no integrated GPS. Just a basic and simple good old 727-200.
Spares is a huge problem. They get them at inflated prices and not always 100% tracable. Technical problems are one of their main problems and I would not be surprised if technical issues forced the go around.

The IR 727s are normally not used, just like their 2 747SPs ,only as Stand by spares I was told. On their published schedule the flights to that destination are (normally) all operated by F100 and A320s.

aterpster
10th Jan 2011, 23:12
Avenger:

Uromiyeh's Airport features a runway 03/21 of 3250 meters length, there are instrument approaches only to runway 21 (ILS, VOR/DME, VOR, NDB).

http://tinyurl.com/4kq3xya

pattern_is_full
11th Jan 2011, 03:09
"The crew went around but the airplane impacted mountaineous terrain at Terman village about 5 miles southeast of the airport..."

Ugh. The highest terrain is almost all west of the airport (there being a huge lake to the east) - but there is a isolated area of high ground (marked by 6414' on that VOR chart) along the lake shore. A left turn from 210 to avoid the really high stuff could take one right into it.

411A
11th Jan 2011, 05:50
Ugh. The highest terrain is almost all west of the airport (there being a huge lake to the east) - but there is a isolated area of high ground (marked by 6414' on that VOR chart) along the lake shore. A left turn from 210 to avoid the really high stuff could take one right into it.
Too right, pattern_is_full, I used to operate to that airport many years ago, and the terrain, coupled with the nasty winter weather that is present, adds up to a dicey situation if one is not very careful.
Lots of destroyed aircraft found in that part on Iran.

B737NG
11th Jan 2011, 05:56
Some statements made from non-aviators to the Media and Press are pure speculation and not sustainable at all as long as the FDR is not analyzed.

....sadly to say that it does not need a sanction to run short of quality spare parts.

RegDep
11th Jan 2011, 07:41
Atepster, you may wish to refer to Avherald's website, and there "Iran Air B722 near Uromiyeh on Jan 9th 2011, impacted terrain during go-around" for current information.

aterpster
11th Jan 2011, 09:20
RegDep:
Atepster, you may wish to refer to Avherald's website, and there "Iran Air B722 near Uromiyeh on Jan 9th 2011, impacted terrain during go-around" for current information.

I suppose Jepp could be wrong in showing a current VOR to RWY 3, but less likely than any media publication.

RegDep
11th Jan 2011, 10:36
It's not official information, though, mostly just rehashed press clippings as far as I can make out. I doubt they have a line to anyone official in Iran.

I suppose Jepp could be wrong in showing a current VOR to RWY 3, but less likely than any media publication.

I just recommend that you look at their editorial principles and follow the site for a while, before you discount it off hand.

I have nothing invested in it, just observing it.

Edit to say that I find an Iranian chart on an Iranian airport from 2009 more likely to be correct than a Jeppesen chart from 2007. Just a personal view :O.

RegDep
11th Jan 2011, 14:01
Sorry aterpster, my point was made in an indirect way, hence the excursion to validity of Jeppesens:

My point was why argue against one line the previous post of Avenger #32 with an instrument approach to runway 03 while it is known (see some lines up on said post) that the approach was to runway 21. The actual approach has not, to my knowledge, been disputed so far.

With best regards,

Reg

aterpster
11th Jan 2011, 14:17
RegDep:

My point was why argue against one line the previous post of Avenger #32 with an instrument approach to runway 03 while it is known (see some lines up on said post) that the approach was to runway 21. The actual approach has not, to my knowledge, been disputed so far.

I wasn't arguing. I was correcting a factual error in the post he made from AvHearld. Although it likely had no bearing on the accident it is pertinent to know there are IAPs in both directions. At least it is to me; too many years looking at this stuff, I guess. Further, the reader of Aviation Heard might draw an incorrect inference from their report, for whatever reason.
:)

RegDep
11th Jan 2011, 14:51
Thanks aterpster, I agree with you.

You might be interested that since post #32, Avherald has edited their information (at the time of me typing this it was last updated Monday, Jan 10th 2011 16:17Z), and they have, when adding the coordinates, changed the "mountaineous terrain" to "terrain", and edited the line for instrument approaches to read "...there are ILS instrument approaches only to runway 21 (21: ILS, VOR/DME, VOR, NDB, 03: VOR/DME)".

Copying and pasting (stopping the information from updating) from an evolving source of information has its problems. Watch them work, they are so not bad. :)

PJ2
11th Jan 2011, 15:45
I see they found the DFDR, and also that the aircraft crashed in a farmer's field, not in the mountains as first broadcast.

First flight 1974 - wonder what parameters will be available and which ones were working?

PJ2

RegDep
11th Jan 2011, 16:39
Jazz Hands, any better source you know of? I would be interested in finding some (honestly). Best combination of accuracy and speed. Anything to avoid unfounded speculation not based on plausible information (in shortage of hard facts). Assuming that you need to speculate :ooh: and do not want to just wait for the report.

Super VC-10
11th Jan 2011, 19:25
If it's speed and accuracy you want, Wikipedia is quite good at bashing an article into shape quickly.

Iran Air Flight 277 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_277)

Super VC-10
12th Jan 2011, 04:26
Yes, Wikipedia can be accurate, when it's done properly. You will notice that all statements are sourced, and there is no speculation in the article. The initial confusion over numbers is covered, with the official total given at the end of that paragraph.

If anyone notices any errors in the article, either post them here or edit the article yourself. You don't need to create an account to edit Wikipedia.

BOAC
12th Jan 2011, 07:58
Hopefully back to reality:ugh:

PJ2 - do you have a confirmed crash location?

aterpster
12th Jan 2011, 11:31
The forum police removed my graphics asserting they are too big and thus "ruin" the pages in this fora. That's my bad for having a modern display.:)

So, here are the links for those interested:

Orchard where the 727 crashed per coordinates posted on Aviation Hearld:

http://tinyurl.com/47ynvff (http://tinyurl.com/47ynvff)


Topography of OITR area:

http://tinyurl.com/4km4g5p (http://tinyurl.com/4km4g5p)



Three ILS procedures for OITR as charted by Jeppesen:

http://tinyurl.com/6695owe (http://tinyurl.com/6695owe)

BOAC
12th Jan 2011, 12:40
So, (apart from the fact that all aircraft crashes arrive on the ground eventually) elevated terrain does not appear to be a factor.

aterpster
12th Jan 2011, 14:19
BOAC:

So, (apart from the fact that all aircraft crashes arrive on the ground eventually) elevated terrain does not appear to be a factor.

Based on the Aviation Hearld's coordinates, the crash site is along the missed approach procedure, 8.2 southeast of the airport, at an elevation almost exactly the same as the airport's.

hetfield
12th Jan 2011, 15:01
Very strange.

A go around on B727 isn't that challenging.

PJ2
12th Jan 2011, 17:30
BOAC;

No, I don't have a confirmed location yet; the Airblue was straightforward as there were lots of photographs from which to work in Google Earth.

However, the location on AvHerald, (in decimal degrees) showed a location south of the mountains to the east of the airport and the article yesterday from the Curt Lewis' daily briefings of news items and articles on finding the two recorders was very clear on the description of the crash site, (quote below), so the location on the AvHerald began to make more sense than first reports of a "crash in the mountains".

"Footage on state TV showed the plane's crumpled fuselage lying in a field, torn apart in several places, under whirling snow in the darkness as rescue workers and local farmers searched for survivors in the hours after the crash."

With the wreckage "intact", (not disintegrated), most here experienced with the techniques of informed speculation may be thinking in a number of areas.... - pitch-power-speed, at and during the g/a, are obvious first things because a stall is possible given the wreckage configuration; next could be how the go-around sequence was handled, (SOPs/crew coordination) is important. Possible contributory factors, in no particular important order could be engine failure(s), GPWS/EGPWS and associated crew responses (appropriate or otherwise) need to be considered/ruled in/out, and early flap retraction below maneuvering speeds is also a possibility but that goes under examining the go-around sequence. Then the highly speculative/very improbable stuff like pitot icing, incorrect altimeter setting(s), QFE/QNH issues, mechanical failure where no one was watching the airplane, etc. Just some thoughts - it was a (relatively!) low forward speed impact but for me there is an inkling of fairly high vertical speed - just a sense.

PJ2

Machaca
12th Jan 2011, 17:33
Seems they were on track after their missed approach:

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/Uromiyeh-Missed-Scene.jpg

BOAC
12th Jan 2011, 18:27
pitch-power-speed, at and during the g/a, are obvious first things because a stall is possible given the wreckage configuration - that's one heck of a distance to carry a botched g/a! I think something else?

Super VC-10
13th Jan 2011, 06:19
For those complaining about the age of the aircraft, this particular aircraft would have had very low hours for its age, as it was impounded in Iraq from 1984-90, and stored from 1991-2002.

AIRFRAMES.ORG - Aircraft Database - EPIRP (http://www.airframes.org/reg/epirp)

PJ2
13th Jan 2011, 15:28
BOAC - yes, it is a long way. Perhaps something else.

charming snake
14th Jan 2011, 04:25
Dear Fellow pilots

I got some fresh news which i'd like to share with you :
Capt.Dad_Ras ( peace with him ) the PIC of 727 who had over 9250 HRS & with many type ratings on his back of his licence & on type experience such as : Fokker100 / 747-100 / 727 which most of his experience was on 727 ( almost 4000 HRS ) , & his F/O who had almost 1000 HRS on this type .
despite bad weather which caused almost 2 HRS delay for departure,finally he decided to fly in bad weather ( low viz & heavy snowing ) , the flight took normally 55 mins or 1 hr max , ..we all know about the metar .
so , he tried ILS 21 , descented to DA/H but couldn't see the visual refrences , so he decided to make missed approach & said to tower , 'm gonna make another try & if i can't with , second try i'll be back to alternate a/p which was the tehran & tower controller replied back as u prefer ...
& he followed the missed app procedure , he climbed to some 7200/7300 FT AGL & followed intercept R-150 , (since all iranian accidents recently happenes , the GOV point the poor pilot while he's dead & pour all those blames on him , he was very aware of the situation even at that moment ) while both engines #1 & #3 failed all of the sudden , he pressed the button & said to tower : mayday have 2 engines failure but , my anti ice is ON , so he knew after that , might be said : he didn't turn on the anti ice , so he got eng flamed out . he tried to control the A/C but only with one eng .....he could saved only 25 lifes .
the idea of : had no fuel at time a/c impacted to ground was vanished , basically bcoz no trace of burnin' obssessed me but once i heard he declared if we can not land durin' his second attempt we'll back to tehran again , & his FE was one of the most experienced person in iran .
so , it was only & only technical problem in his engs ....
God bless them all , .....

BOAC
14th Jan 2011, 07:39
Thank you, CS for that post.

Without wishing to start any 'hares running', since our new poster states #1 and #3 'failing', has the 727 ever experienced engine problems due to wing root ice shedding similar to other tail-engined a/c? Is there anything else common between #1 and #3?

Based on the R/T posted by CS it would certainly rule out lack of fuel.

hetfield
14th Jan 2011, 09:04
has the 727 ever experienced engine problems due to wing root ice shedding similar to other tail-engined a/c? Is there anything else common between #1 and #3?1. Not to my knowledge
2. No. Fuel is tank to engine as well.

Even with #2 remaining (HYD A sys avail) one should be able to make it, cause you can bring up gear and flaps and thrust is enough to maintain altitude with medium weight.

lomapaseo
14th Jan 2011, 13:54
Without wishing to start any 'hares running', since our new poster states #1 and #3 'failing', has the 727 ever experienced engine problems due to wing root ice shedding similar to other tail-engined a/c?

With the zillions of hours that the aircraft type has, just about everything possible has happened. However; the specifics must be examined via observation and DFDR. So it's a waste of band width to discuss this further unless some other evidence specific to this event turns up.

BOAC
14th Jan 2011, 14:14
Useful post on page 4! Anyone with anything really useful?