Norwegian Air Boeing 737MAX8 stuck in Iran [Archive]

climber314

15th Dec 2018, 19:05

“Due to a technical issue, the flight from Dubai (DXB) to Oslo (OSL) diverted to Shiraz International Airport. The aircraft landed normally and taxied to a gate allowing passengers to disembark. The safety of our passengers and crew is always our number one priority. Passengers are being looked after by airport staff. Norwegian has sent a relief aircraft to Shiraz International Airport to allow passengers to continue their journey to Oslo as soon as possible. We would like to apologise for any inconvenience that this delay may have caused.”

https://aviationanalyst.co.uk/2018/12/14/norwegian-air-boeing-737max-8-stuck-in-iran/

c_coder

15th Dec 2018, 20:05

Oh I see, a fixing or replacing the broken engine will break restrictions on export to Iran.

horizon flyer

15th Dec 2018, 20:21

c_coder

15th Dec 2018, 20:42

Would it not be sensible to load the incoming aircraft with support staff and the expected spares, then off load the spares airside directly onto the faulty aircraft. No import as the spares leave on the repaired aircraft and never cross the customs border into Iran. Or is that to simple.Yeah I think thats too simple.
Even though its airside, the Iranians could get their hands on parts, tools, etc. So fixing the airplane is going to take longer than getting the passengers out. The best case might be if an engineer can get the engine working with minimal work and zero parts, then they might be able to fly it out to somewhere like Dubai without the passengers.

climber314

15th Dec 2018, 22:37

With fuel to burn, a jet certified for ETOPS and one good engine, KWI is only 280 miles.
Iran doesn't make my alternate list unless it's a life or death emergency.

c_coder

15th Dec 2018, 22:59

With fuel to burn, a jet certified for ETOPS and one good engine, KWI is only 280 miles.
Iran doesn't make my alternate list unless it's a life or death emergency.

So probably not a quick repair then.

climber314

16th Dec 2018, 00:20

I haven't seen anything new on Twitter and the one thing I did see sounded a little too "glowing" about Iranian hospitality. The Ayatollah's probably trying to figure out how to maximize propaganda from the event? I hope these pax are on their way home soon.

As for the Norwegian Jet, I wouldn't be surprised to see it stripped and resting on cinder blocks like a Cadillac in South Central L.A. I hope I'm wrong.

Airbubba

16th Dec 2018, 03:03

Northwest dropped into Tehran with a cargo fire indication on a DC-10 in 2005 and were treated very well.

On June 19, 2005 at 0435 in the morning Tehran local time, Northwest Airlines Flight 41 made an emergency landing at the Mehrabad International Airport in Tehran, Iran, the first American air carrier to land in Iran in 26 years. Iran is considered to be a hostile country by the US Government and relations between the two countries are poor.

NWA Flight 41 was operated with a DC-10 EER aircraft, Ship No. 1243, from Bombay to Amsterdam on June 19, 2005. After a climb through moderate turbulence, the flight was being operated under normal conditions at FL320, at night, in VMC conditions, with smooth air, and no extenuating weather or mechanical conditions. The flight was southeast of Dobas intersection on airway UL124 at approximately 2240z. The Captain noticed a momentary illumination of the forward Master Warning light. All cockpit indications were confirmed to be normal. After several further momentary illuminations it was determined that the nature of the Master Warning light illumination was the Aft Cargo Fire-Warning Indicator.

The flight diverted to Tehran, the capital of Iran due to an aft cargo fire warning. The resulting maintenance issues were resolved, and operational requirements were addressed on the ground in Tehran, the flight departed and continued safely to Amsterdam.

Captain Bo Corby tells the story of Flight 41 in detail. For that reason, and as a matter of making a permanent record to aviation safety, we have not edited that part of the audio. It is a magnificent example of teamwork, communication and resolve – despite NWA operations telling the crew that “they were on their own”.

The incident woke up the President. It was a matter of interest to the FBI, and it is remembered as an incident of national interest.

The hoops Captain Corby had to jump through to get the plane fixed, fueled and flight planned are familiar to many of us who have flown charters or diversions in that part of the world.

Maps, pictures and an interview with Bo Corby on this podcast page:

Episode 4: Bo Corby & NWA Flight 41 into Tehran : Flight Podcast (http://www.flightpodcast.com/episode-4-bo-corby-nwa-flight-41-into-tehran)

donpizmeov

16th Dec 2018, 03:06

ironbutt57

16th Dec 2018, 03:46

Yeah I think thats too simple.
Even though its airside, the Iranians could get their hands on parts, tools, etc. So fixing the airplane is going to take longer than getting the passengers out. The best case might be if an engineer can get the engine working with minimal work and zero parts, then they might be able to fly it out to somewhere like Dubai without the passengers.

ya think possibly with all the trade between Iran and the UAE specifically Dubai there isn't a chance of this happening anyway? or even more likely some enterprising person in the USA hasn't already facilitated this?

KelvinD

16th Dec 2018, 06:42

It's all a bit academic. Norwegian sent out a replacement aircraft to Shiraz, picked up the passengers and flew them back to Oslo, arriving on the 15th. FR24 indicates the ferry aircraft was diverted to Warsaw on its way home to Oslo.

pilotmike

16th Dec 2018, 07:32

Etops has nothing to do with this. You cannot take of on one engine so the faulty one has te be repaired anyway.

Wrong and right.

It cannot depart with only one engine - right.:D

But the original comment about ETOPS from the OP, 'Climber314' clearly stated:
With fuel to burn, a jet certified for ETOPS and one good engine, KWI is only 280 miles.
Iran doesn't make my alternate list unless it's a life or death emergency.
so they were clearly referring to the possibility of continuing the flight WITHOUT diverting, rather than the possibility of taking off one engine inop!

A and C

16th Dec 2018, 08:06

What on earth are you people thinking ?

ETOPS is to allow you to continue when there is no suitable airport to land at, not an excuse to keep flying on one engine because landing might be inconvenient. The single engine landing checklist says “ land at the nearest suitable airport” and the crew did exactly that...... A wise decision !

Iran has a long reputation of behaving correctly when it comes to emergency’s that are threat to life and will no doubt behave correctly in this case.

The US export ban is intended to put pressure on the Iranian govenment NOT strand almost new American supplied aircraft in Iran, part of the export controls allow for special licences to be issued just to allow for cases such as this in this situation the US product is clearly not being supplied to Iran but being fitted to a Norwegian aircraft to enable it to leave Iran.

All a bit of a storm in a tea cup.

CargoOne

16th Dec 2018, 08:27

If that was just an engine shut down for isolated problem, I am not buying decision to divert to Shiraz, while Dubai, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait were less than 60 min single engine away. There is no danger in diverting to Iran, it is just a logistical and legal nightmare, especially outside Tehran.

A and C

16th Dec 2018, 08:41

What part of the QRH statement “ land at the nearest suitable airport “ is confusing You ?

CargoOne

16th Dec 2018, 08:52

What part of the QRH statement “ land at the nearest suitable airport “ is confusing You ?

This topic has been beaten to death many times before and still I maintain my opinion for this particular occurrence if that was just an oil leak.

A and C

16th Dec 2018, 08:54

It matters not why the engine is inoperative the QRH statement stands.

vctenderness

16th Dec 2018, 10:20

I think this problem will be solved by a brown envelope stuffed with US dollars being slipped to a convenient Ayatollah.

ManaAdaSystem

16th Dec 2018, 10:47

This will be fun to follow. Which Norwegian is the operator? Where is the aircraft registered; Norway, Ireland or UK?
What is the nationality of the crew?
I’m sure the company would have preferred a diversion to Kuwait, Saudia or Bahrain, despite the «Land at nearest suitable airport» rule.
If it’s just a repair, it may get solved pretty fast. An engine change will be a nightmare.

BluSdUp

16th Dec 2018, 12:29

Dear me!
Were to start.
Iran is a ICAO country and at all times adhere to international agreements with other ICAO country, namely Norway.
AOG aircraft parts are not " exported", they are often even held at outbases at Bonded stores as agreed with the host country.
Norway and Iran has no issues other then any active UN sanctioned restrictions of which there is non in the aviation operation part of things as per date.
This has NOTHING to do with USA and I am pretty sure Norwegian is fully capable to solve the logistics without any help whatsoever from that side. Furthermore it is Norwegian property that is repaired in an ICAO country with Norwegian parts, to retrieve in a safe and orderly manner to Norway.
Anyone that has a problem with this concept clearly are not remotely familiar with how international aviation works.
This is not remotely similar to Carters predicament!
Nothing to see here.
Regards
Cpt B
Norway

PS Yes, a single engine takeoff is no problem, If you are mad or in a Sim!
Been there done that!
DS

A and C

16th Dec 2018, 12:49

I don’t quite understand why an engine change would be a nightmare, would you care to illuminate us as to why this might be the case ?

ManaAdaSystem

16th Dec 2018, 12:53

ManaAdaSystem

16th Dec 2018, 12:57

I don’t quite understand why an engine change would be a nightmare, would you care to illuminate us as to why this might be the case ?

Maybe I’m wrong, but I believe the logistics and red tape involved will be excessive.

CargoOne

16th Dec 2018, 13:03

AOG aircraft parts are not " exported", they are often even held at outbases at Bonded stores as agreed with the host country.
Norway and Iran has no issues other then any active UN sanctioned restrictions of which there is non in the aviation operation part of things as per date.
This has NOTHING to do with USA

With all respect you have no idea about customs regulations nor US sanctions mechanism. If Norwegian would like to change the engine down there in official way, it would take them to get Donald to make a direct order to OFAC to solve it before the new year.
ps there are “other” ways too - which everyone else is using but if you want to be 100% compliant you should not use them.

wheelbarrow

16th Dec 2018, 13:16

climber314

16th Dec 2018, 13:19

What part of the QRH statement “ land at the nearest suitable airport “ is confusing You ?

Suitable?

"The @Fly_Nowegian Boeing 737-8MAX performed a ground engine running/taxi test at Shiraz (SYZ) today." -Twitter

CargoOne

16th Dec 2018, 13:27

This particular airframe is wholly owned by an Irish Finance Company, registered in Norway and operated by Norwegian Air Norway.
TBH so far the Iranians have been very supportive and helpful and theres no issues working on said airframe.

Got to snigger at some of the comments on here especially the Usa comments.
A little knowledge .........................

The fact you resorting to the owner, country of operator and aircraft registration clearly shows you are not aware about what US sanction mechanism is. Try to google something about OFAC, “substantial US interest” and “threshold on the parts of US origin”.

Newcomer2

16th Dec 2018, 13:51

Suitable?

"Suitable" has nothing to do with politics/spare parts/...

here is the definition:

Adequate - an adequate airport is an airport, which the operator and TCCA consider to be adequate, having regard to the performance requirements applicable at the expected landing weight. In particular, it should be anticipated that at the expected time of use:

the airport will be available, and equipped with the necessary ancillary services, such as ATS, lighting, communications, weather reporting, navaids and emergency services; and
at least one approach aid will be available for an instrument approach.

Suitable - a suitable airport is an adequate airport with weather reports, forecasts or combination thereof, indicating that the weather conditions will be at or above minima as specified AppendixB (https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp6327-tp6327v00a-appendixb-menu-4312.htm) of this document, and field condition reports indicate that a safe landing can be accomplished during the period of intended operation.

Capt Ecureuil

16th Dec 2018, 13:56

The Persians are some of the nicest, polite, and helpful people on the planet, unfortunately the [censored]-up US foreign policy keeps on screwing them and so no wonder they get anti.

Webby737

16th Dec 2018, 14:21

The Persians are some of the nicest, polite, and helpful people on the planet, unfortunately the [censored]-up US foreign policy keeps on screwing them and so no wonder they get anti.
I completely agree with Capt. Ecureuil on this, having done a couple of weeks work for Mahan Air in Tehran a while back we where treated very well by the locals.
As for spares, I can't see it being a problem, nothing is being sold or staying in the country so all that should be required is a bit of paperwork stating that the parts/tools etc. are for temporary import/export only, normally a Carnet ATA should do the job.

BluSdUp

16th Dec 2018, 14:33

CargoOne
If you indeed are the nr 1 cargo pilot in Europe , it could be that you know something about customs.
What I know with regards to spare parts , repair and AOG is , may I brag, a tad above nothing.
What is more: What I know about international politics is above anything Donald could ever dream of....

The USA has no problem with Bjørn Kjos in Norwegian fixing his broken Boeing in Iran and fly it home , on the contrary, they would DEMAND him to fix this high teck wonder so it could be removed from the evil people of Iran. Dont you think!

This recovery will be done properly and swiftly according to longterm International agreements, most of which the US honor.

BluSdUp

16th Dec 2018, 14:41

Manadasystem
I like Norwegian Air Shuttle or NAS as we called it.
But the use of Norwegian is getting a bit annoying!
Regards
Cpt B
Norwegian by birth , not by employment!

arketip

16th Dec 2018, 15:34

The fact you resorting to the owner, country of operator and aircraft registration clearly shows you are not aware about what US sanction mechanism is. Try to google something about OFAC, “substantial US interest” and “threshold on the parts of US origin”.

You mean that the US would rather gift a whole aircraft to Iran instead of having Norvegian repair it and bring it home?

CargoOne

16th Dec 2018, 17:17

You mean that the US would rather gift a whole aircraft to Iran instead of having Norvegian repair it and bring it home?

I mean that doing everything as per book to get a Leap engine shipped to and changed at Shiraz is not a quick nor cheap exercise. There is nothing in relevant US sanctions which says “Mr Kjoss is exempted”. I very much doubt there are spare Leap engines outside OEM possession at this stage, and you dont ask Snecma or GE to release an engine with Shiraz airport as destination on airwaybill just like business as usual. I have been dealing with similar situations myself and it takes time, money and pain.

climber314

16th Dec 2018, 18:56

"Suitable" has nothing to do with politics/spare parts/...

I don't agree it's that black and white. There's a number of "practical considerations" that could factor into a diversion decision.

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/why-dont-they-just-land-why-the-best-diversion-airport-may-not-be-the-closest/

RHSandLovingIt

16th Dec 2018, 19:30

What part of the QRH statement “ land at the nearest suitable airport “ is confusing You ?
Granted, this is not from a 737 QRH... but I've seen the following definitions:

The statement “Land immediately at nearest suitable airport” is defined as:
• Land at the nearest airport that offers sufficient landing distance available and if required, emergency services to support the emergency or abnormality.

The statement “Land at nearest suitable airport” is defined as:
• The airplane may continue to the destination airport or the nearest airport where maintenance services are available.

Does the 737 QRH differentiate between the two? :confused:

Joe_K

16th Dec 2018, 19:51

Even though its airside, the Iranians could get their hands on parts, tools, etc.
So what? AFAIK Iranian airlines are operating a number of Airbus A320 and A330, and have operated 727, 737 and 747 in the past. Politics aside, what difference would getting their hands on 737 spares and tools make?

Newcomer2

16th Dec 2018, 19:58

I don't agree it's that black and white. There's a number of "practical considerations" that could factor into a diversion decision.

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/why-dont-they-just-land-why-the-best-diversion-airport-may-not-be-the-closest/

Of course, it all depends on the situation and the reason why you need to divert, BUT when the QRH tells you to land at the nearest suitable airport, you need to land at the nearest suitable airport. If you decide otherwise, and in the end something goes wrong, you're gonna have to give some serious explanation to the judge. Sorry but spare parts paperwork will not be seen as a valid reason.

Newcomer2

16th Dec 2018, 20:03

Granted, this is not from a 737 QRH... but I've seen the following definitions:

Does the 737 QRH differentiate between the two? :confused:

No such thing in the 737 QRH.

And the only definition I found about "land at the nearest suitable airport" in my manuals is in my OM-B, and is "land at the nearest airport where a safe landing can be made".

c_coder

16th Dec 2018, 20:04

So what? AFAIK Iranian airlines are operating a number of Airbus A320 and A330, and have operated 727, 737 and 747 in the past. Politics aside, what difference would getting their hands on 737 spares and tools make?

https://gov-relations.com/itar/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations (https://gov-relations.com/itar/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations)

The 737 Max 8 likely contains many Controlled Items (for the purpose of ITAR) which can not be exported to Iran without approval.

From the wikipedia article:

> theoretical access to the USML items overseas or by foreign persons is sufficient to constitute a breach of ITAR

Reading above, it looks like membership with ICAO may provide specific ways around ITAR to help with this case. But I personally know that there is a lot of technology which you just can't send to Iran.

Edit: the whole point of ITAR is to keep the US and their allies ahead of potential enemies. So the restrict export of the latest hardware and software, It doesn't have to be specifically military, but the hardware and software in a modern radar would certainly be covered.

fox niner

16th Dec 2018, 20:56

Shiraz IS a suitable airport. No discussion about it.
And Iran is going to handle this well, they always do. If the iranians had any double intentions, they could as well simply impound a random aircraft that lands there for spare parts. They dont because they are smart enough to know to play by the rules here.
Having said that: I would have limped toward OKBK. Just to make things easier.

Joe_K

16th Dec 2018, 21:47

The 737 Max 8 likely contains many Controlled Items (for the purpose of ITAR) which can not be exported to Iran without approval.(...)
Edit: the whole point of ITAR is to keep the US and their allies ahead of potential enemies. So the restrict export of the latest hardware and software, It doesn't have to be specifically military, but the hardware and software in a modern radar would certainly be covered.
ITAR is what I meant by "leaving politics aside". Leaving ITAR aside, what would they learn technologically from having access to 737Max8 spares and tools during an engine change which they haven't already learned from operating A320 and A330? Didn't they have 737Max8 aircraft on order anyway before sanctions where re-imposed?

fox niner

17th Dec 2018, 06:53

True. The iranians have NOTHING to learn from a 737max aircraft.
Especially since the “modern” 737 is actually a badly designed 1960s aircraft with good modifications added each decade.
This is a nation that builds uranium centrifuges faster than china builds iphones.

golfyankeesierra

17th Dec 2018, 08:06

Well, if these US sanctions are intended to make a point (like everything else Trump seems to do), it would certainly make a point.

Capt Ecureuil

17th Dec 2018, 08:13

I don't agree it's that black and white. There's a number of "practical considerations" that could factor into a diversion decision.

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/why-dont-they-just-land-why-the-best-diversion-airport-may-not-be-the-closest/

I'm willing to bet that you don't fly 2 engined airliners, have never been to Iran and believe the US propaganda about those nasty people that live there.

For those of us that do fly these type of airplanes we don't need some blog to tell us where is "suitable", we consider it every time we get airborne. You may not agree with what the professionals are telling you but that is was it is.

clipstone1

17th Dec 2018, 12:14

from a repair viewpoint, the issue might be that anything with a US involvement (so fitting a replacement LEAP engine for example) very likely would need to be referred to OFAC for approval. Those referrals can take up to a year. There is therefore a potential risk that the aircraft could need to sit there pending approval from OFAC to the supply and fitting of an engine. Fingers crossed for NAS they have a spare engine and can ship it using a local cargo carrier and undertake the engine or component change either themselves or not involving a business involved in the USA.

donpizmeov

17th Dec 2018, 15:02

The problem with anonymous threads, is that people who have no idea (through no fault of their own), still go ahead and make stupid statements of what they might happen .

If broken, the aeroplane will be AOG. Either the companies own maintenance department, or an approved contract company, will provide the parts and manpower required .the aeroplane will be fixed . And it will rejoin it's fleet . Just as every other aeroplane that went tech in Iran has done before it .

nicolai

17th Dec 2018, 21:05

CargoOne

17th Dec 2018, 22:08

donpizmeov, the problem with anonymous treads are people who trying to apply common practice and common sense to this particular problem without realising there is very little common sense in US sanctions but they exist anyway and no large company like CFM or DY can risk bypassing it like smaller companies do by asking garage of friend Mohammed to ship them a junky JT9 from Ras-el-Kaimah to Tehran. This is the Leap engine and this is a major airline, I truly hope they don't need to drop an engine. Getting just a part could be much easier and don't attract much attention. It will not work like that with a complete engine like Leap to be shipped from OEM, it is totally different story from JT8/JT9/old211/cfm-3 and other old garbage available from hundreds of sources. Another poster have correctly mentioned the typical timeframe to get a nod from OFAC even if it is a genuine case of no wrongdoing.

etudiant

17th Dec 2018, 23:33

Norwegian could, quietly, tell Boeing that if this Boeing is not repaired as quickly as a Boeing AOG in another country then Norwegian will not buy any more aircraft from Boeing.

That makes sorting out the US government a problem for Boeing, not just for Norweigan.

After all, what is the point in buying aircraft you can't get reliable manufacturer support for?

Seen that the issue is with the GE engine, which is also used on the A 320, Norwegian would be just as stuck if they were flying A 320s.
ITAR is really problematic for all aerospace suppliers, it is just more obviously so with this incident.

clipstone1

18th Dec 2018, 09:42

I know of another case, where a Spanish airline operating a Boeing airliner, suffered damage on departure from Cuba. It continued the flight to Spain, but the insurers were prohibited from paying for the repair without referral to OFAC, all because the flight had originated in Cuba. Took over 12 months for approval from OFAC to pay for that repair.

So it is very much watch this space...

golfyankeesierra

18th Dec 2018, 10:58

Anyway, 3 days later, aircraft seems still stuck in Shiraz (https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/ln-bke) (flightradar24).

avionimc

18th Dec 2018, 12:03

Anyway, 3 days later, aircraft seems still stuck in Shiraz (https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/ln-bke) (flightradar24).
In comparison so far, last year a Swiss brand new B773 was stuck in Iqaluit for about a week. It took an An-124 to deliver a replacement engine. And, the entire experience was less than pleasant for the LAX bound PAX.

Yaw String

18th Dec 2018, 16:09

Talk to anyone who has landed with one engine shutdown,and subsequently found damage to the other engine,and you will pay more attention to the statement in the QRH.
I can refer you!

nicolai

19th Dec 2018, 07:26

Seen that the issue is with the GE engine, which is also used on the A 320, Norwegian would be just as stuck if they were flying A 320s.
ITAR is really problematic for all aerospace suppliers, it is just more obviously so with this incident.

I completely agree it's very problematic. I'm suggesting making it also the problem of a large American corporation, rather than just trying to complain to the US government as a foreign airline.

I know of another case, where a Spanish airline operating a Boeing airliner, suffered damage on departure from Cuba. It continued the flight to Spain, but the insurers were prohibited from paying for the repair without referral to OFAC, all because the flight had originated in Cuba. Took over 12 months for approval from OFAC to pay for that repair.

So it is very much watch this space...

Perhaps it is time to change insurers, then? What is the point of an insurer who doesn't pay out claims in a timely fashion?

Seriously, these laws are all b***s***. It must be made an American problem, as well as a problem for everyone else, by transferring the cost (and therefore the pain, as cost is the only pain a corporation knows) to American corporations that have control (or at least influence) over politicians in the USA that make these laws.

clipstone1

19th Dec 2018, 10:42

Alas it's not that simple.

there is a potential issue for eveyr insurer in the world and pretty much every airline (assuming they don't fly a Chinese or Russian made aircraft) since the OFAC rules say:

All U.S. persons must comply with OFAC regulations, including all U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens regardless of where they are located, all persons and entities within the United States, all U.S incorporated entities and their foreign branches. In the cases of certain programs, such as those regarding Cuba and North Korea, all foreign subsidiaries owned or controlled by U.S. companies also must comply. Certain programs also require foreign persons in possession of U.S. origin goods to comply

US Origin goods, includes Boeing aircraft, GE engines plus anyone with a subsidiary in the USA, such as Rolls Royce, any bank that deals in US$....hence the need to gain OFAC approval even if the insurer involved in EU based and the airline is EU based.

Carlos Kaiser

20th Dec 2018, 23:00

ya think possibly with all the trade between Iran and the UAE specifically Dubai there isn't a chance of this happening anyway? or even more likely some enterprising person in the USA hasn't already facilitated this?

That might very well be the case, but it’s still very illegal.

CargoOne

22nd Dec 2018, 18:04

Newspaper Aftenposten reported that passengers were sent home the next day on another flight, but problems have persisted for Norwegian. DN reported that’s because sanctions imposed on Iran by US President Donald Trump hinder Seattle-based Boeing from sending reserve parts to enable the aircraft to fly again.

“It’s correct that the aircraft is still in Iran and it’s not yet been clarified when technicians can start their work,” Lasse Sandaker-Nielsen, communications chief for Norwegian, told DN. The aircraft, delivered just two months ago, cost around NOK 550 million.

So far it goes as I have expected. People now bet on the range from several month upto Constructive Total Loss.

ManaAdaSystem

22nd Dec 2018, 20:51

LNBKE

23rd Dec 2018, 20:26

The aircraft involved is LNBKE ( LN B(jorn(] K( jos) E. It belongs to Norwegian Air Shuttle (NAS) . It’s only the airlines chief pilot that is employed in NAS. Allmost all pilots are hired through Staff companies. From my knowledge is was manned with an all Scandinavian crew.
The flight encountered problems at FL320 just south of Shiraz. A “ normal” decent would have taken around 20 minutes and would have taken them more than half way to Kuwait. Why was this not an option. No violation of any laws and a scenery where both engines should quit ( in a brand new aircraft) Iii not likely to happen.
The airline Norwegian is in serious economic problems , but not affecting flight safety. But they need to sell at lot of aircraft in order to fulfill

cappt

23rd Dec 2018, 20:44

It's insured, write it off.

edmundronald

24th Dec 2018, 03:01

Can't the govt of Norway nicely ask the US for a sanction waiver?

A and C

24th Dec 2018, 06:07

I just have to ask questions of the people who think an aircraft that is just weeks old should be abandoned on an airfield in Iran.

How do you expect Boeing to sell aircraft if the aircraft can’t be fixed when it lands someplace the USA has a problem with ?

Do you think any US administration will damage a major US company by imposing such conditions ?

What is the point of leaving a whole new aircraft in Iran for the locals to examine and gain industrial knowledge when the alternative is for a Norwegian mantanance crew to show up with a new engine, fix the aircraft and pack the whole show up and go home leaving nothing for the Iranians to look at ?

Given the above facts why would the US govenment not issue an export licence to enable the parts to be exported to Norway and fitted to he aircraft in Iran ? otherwise you have just exported a whole aircraft to Iran !

InfrequentFlier511

24th Dec 2018, 07:24

I don't think the US sanctions are about denying Iran access to knowledge, but rather they are to deny procurement of technological assets. The Iranians already know how their current fleet works, they just can't get the parts for them. This aircraft is no use to them because it's broken, they can't get the parts to fix it and they can't use its parts to fix anything else. It's up to people on a much higher pay grade than us to decide what matters more - recovering a commercial aircraft that Iran could easily learn about by embedding technicians in the workforce of a sympathetic airline, or holding the line that sanctions will not be compromised, no matter what commercial interests (or common sense) may say.

CargoOne

24th Dec 2018, 13:44

The only minor problem with normal logic is somehow the American people have put Mr Stupid in the white house.

These sanctions are not something new, they are in place for decades. It was just a matter how strictly US was observing compliance to it - and now it is tightened. Single 737max value is nothing in this game, US President will not pick up the phone to solve a problem of $50m unless it is his private property...
So Merry XMas and hope OFAC will say something before Spring...

FlyXLsa

24th Dec 2018, 14:51

Interesting that DY is still routing flights over Iran to OSL.
BA seems to be flying up the Gulf and over Iraq to LHR.

lomapaseo

24th Dec 2018, 15:10

Why the speculation?

Has the airline itself said that a parts embargo is restricting the repair. If that were true, it would be all over the news in the US.

It's up to the airline to work this out. I doubt if anybody in the US will interfere (although probably nobody is at work answering phones)

The AvgasDinosaur

24th Dec 2018, 17:25

Just a curious point, Does any one schedule 737Maxs into Iran?
Be lucky
David

FlyXLsa

24th Dec 2018, 22:32

(Google Chrome Translation)
But now technicians from Norwegian have started the repair. Pictures, which aeroTELEGRAPH got from Shiraz, they show when working on the Boeing 737 Max. The machine is still in Shiraz. The left engine cowling is open. The aircraft with the license plate LN-BKE was only delivered to Norwegian at the end of October.

aerotelegraph.com/norwegian-techniker-beginnen-mit-reparatur

NWA SLF

26th Dec 2018, 23:14

Isn't everyone making a lot of noise over almost nothing? Parts aren't being exported to Iran. It's a LEAP engine being repaired or replaced under warranty. Falls under international air transport rules of which Iran is a member. Of more interest is delay in repair unless engine is more severe than indicated and engine needs to be replaced. LEAP engines are not that easy to come by. We aren't talking about KAL 007 here.

RatherBeFlying

27th Dec 2018, 00:49

We should compare how long it takes to resolve an AOG in Shiraz vs. Shemya:p

ironbutt57

27th Dec 2018, 03:43

Isn't everyone making a lot of noise over almost nothing? Parts aren't being exported to Iran. It's a LEAP engine being repaired or replaced under warranty. Falls under international air transport rules of which Iran is a member. Of more interest is delay in repair unless engine is more severe than indicated and engine needs to be replaced. LEAP engines are not that easy to come by. We aren't talking about KAL 007 here.

exactly....too many experts...

BluSdUp

27th Dec 2018, 09:50

OK!
I suppose You refer to his rather clumsy attempt to underpay the US based cabin crew on the 787.
Or OSM contracts for pilots?
I am not a 100% up to speed on what happened there, BUT:
Bjørn Kjos has stated several times that if he had it his way the aviation industry should be like the shipping industry: Totally global, lowcost cabin crew and just a few senior officers to make sure the the ships dont run aground on a regular basis!
As fare as he is concerned it is all about the money, if Liberia , Andorra or Ullan Bator gives him better conditions then Norway USA or Ireland that is were he is heading. Fortunately now it looks like Sweden is his latest foxhole??
This man make Micahel O and Gordon Gecko look like armatures, IF he pulls it off!
I have very mixed feelings about this man.
I still wish him luck ,BUT as MOL has found out, one must follow the law of the land.
He, of all, should know, considering he is an accomplished Merchant marine Lawyer.
To be continued

3RDi

27th Dec 2018, 11:48

With fuel to burn, a jet certified for ETOPS and one good engine, KWI is only 280 miles.
Iran doesn't make my alternate list unless it's a life or death emergency.

This guy needs to be schooled in procedures, reduce his reliance on social media for facts and actually get first hand knowledge.

FlyXLsa

27th Dec 2018, 13:28

We should compare how long it takes to resolve an AOG in Shiraz vs. Shemya:p

Delta wins.
flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n1612t

CargoOne

28th Dec 2018, 10:21

Isn't everyone making a lot of noise over almost nothing? Parts aren't being exported to Iran. It's a LEAP engine being repaired or replaced under warranty. Falls under international air transport rules of which Iran is a member.

Another one here with a common sense but no practical knowlegde. Anyway would you kindly make a reference to so called “international air transport rules” and specifically to the part dealing with customs regulations (even before considering sanctions)? Hint: anything UN or ICAO is not a rule but just a guidance no one cares about. Anyone in airline spares logistics can tell you what it is in real world to ship and clear parts in Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Russia, Cuba, Chad or Congo. Now add OFAC angle on top of it...

ironbutt57

28th Dec 2018, 23:49

and clear parts.... parts not entering country??

Bksmithca

29th Dec 2018, 02:56

We should compare how long it takes to resolve an AOG in Shiraz vs. Shemya:p

Rather Be Flying Shemya is part of Alaska so trade rules won't apply

CargoOne

29th Dec 2018, 09:59

and clear parts.... parts not entering country??

You have to clear the parts. Many countries do not charge taxes and duties on transport category aircraft parts but you still need to clear it. I don”t know where this popular idea of parts not entering country coming from.

BAengineer

29th Dec 2018, 13:38

I think CargoOne is correct - I have attended many overseas AOG situations and any spares always had to be Customs cleared irrespective of whether they were staying in the country or being shipped straight back out. The only exception was for small spares that were going hand of crew on the flight deck of another service.

FlyXLsa

30th Dec 2018, 17:10

A recent Instagram post has a photo of the 737 MAX sans engine and states something like engineers attempted to fix the problem, were unsuccessful and they are now waiting on a replacement due to "paperwork" issues. I don't speak Arabic/Farsi/Persian(?)
www.instagram.com/p/Br-JX90BDo0/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

BluSdUp

30th Dec 2018, 22:22

Just a quick one.
RYR has ca 80 of 440 odd aircraft on the ground this winter.
Almost on spare per base.
So, if Norwegian has , say 5 or ten aircraft parked, one in Iran is inconvenient and not cheap , but not catastrophic economically.
Not like they need it now in the low season.

ironbutt57

31st Dec 2018, 06:40

Such special arrangement, while being reasonably popular within the industry, is called “smuggling” in criminal law. But it doesnt work with complete engine anyway.

well it was delivered by the National airline accompanied by an airport security vehicle....whatever..

BAengineer

31st Dec 2018, 13:28

The last airline I worked for had a practice of putting spares on the aircraft to 'protect the service' for any system that had multiple intermittent faults. We used to put the spares in the coat closet on the flight deck to just strapped them into the jump seat. After some queries were raised during EASA inspections at outstations the policy was changed to manifest the spares as freight and put them in the bulk cargo hold. Needless to say that after that we lost hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of spares that went missing down route when the baggage handlers decided to offload the boxes and then they were lost in the system.. :p

clipstone1

3rd Jan 2019, 08:46

I believe an engine change is definitely required and approval from OFAC is pending for the shipment of the engine to Iran. So far its been 3 weeks, with the Xmas break as well, no telling how long it will be before approval is given by the US authorities. Until then, Norwegian has to pay parking and for someone to ensure the aircraft is being stored approproately as well as having an aircraft that is less than 3 months old out of their fleet (and then having to go collect it at some point in the futureonce it is finally rectified)

4 Holer

3rd Jan 2019, 08:50

We don't get this problem with 4 motors and only three turning still gets us home...... Welcome to the 70s were planes were fast and had 3-4 engines for this very reason.

AviatorDave

3rd Jan 2019, 09:01

We don't get this problem with 4 motors and only three turning still gets us home...... Welcome to the 70s were planes were fast and had 3-4 engines for this very reason.

We're not dealing with flying the Atlantic or Pacific here. Plenty of airports to go in case of engine failure. The aftermath we're seeing now is purely a political issue.

BluSdUp

3rd Jan 2019, 09:15

So , for the experts here that knows all about the US embargo.
What if Norwegian just changes the engine and get all the parts home , or exported as some would call it.
1 What can the USA do?
2 What will they do?

I think:
1 A lot!
2 Nothing!

clipstone1

3rd Jan 2019, 10:14

who knows, they could:

a) stop any payment that involves USD
b) stop any flights to and from the USA
c) arrest anyone that has breached the sanction

clipstone1

3rd Jan 2019, 12:49

It's insured, write it off.
think you'll find the aircraft has suffered no insured event, unless the engine failure is due to FOD or the aircraft has been confiscated, and to the best of public knowledge neither had occured. There would be exactly the same situation if a Boeing (or probably airbus) aircraft was damaged and sitting in Cuba.

Boeing 7E7

4th Jan 2019, 06:51

There really are some ignorant posts here. Many it would seem by Americans. Outside of the great USA many western airlines fly to and from Iran as do the big Middle 3 East airlines, all of whom operate Boeing or Airbus aircraft. If one of their Boeing aircraft goes AOG in Iran on a scheduled service, it will be fixed like it would anywhere else. US sanctions in Iran have no relevance in this situation.

Wickerbill

4th Jan 2019, 08:41

BluSdUp wrote a sensible reply on page one and 7E7 has just done another one. The rest, I guess, is just people wanting to have a what if conversation. Any delays to the aircraft getting fixed are likely down to the unit having to be shopped or replaced. There may be some red tape, but no more than usual; and this sort of thing is usual in countries like Iran.

Now if the Iranians wanted to buy a Max 8 or CFM engine for themselves, that's a different story...

FlyXLsa

4th Jan 2019, 13:27

"Norwegian sent a crew of engineers and maintenance personnel to Iran but it looks like the plane was not able to be fixed and is going to need a new engine.
But due to various sanctions on Iran, importing spare parts for existing Airbus and Boeing aircraft in Iran is forbidden.
Special arrangements will have to be made between Iranian and US authorities."

www.airlive.net/boeing-737-max-8-stuck-in-iran-since-december-14-a-real-headache-for-norwegian/

lomapaseo

5th Jan 2019, 01:18

And you are wrong, as well as your two friends. This has everything to do with the sanctions and the situation between USA and Iran.
As FlyXLsa just posted.
Still waiting for Don to tell us all how easy this will be and how stupid the rest of us are.

That sounds like opinion and not fact.

If things are that bad why don't we hear from Norwegian asking for relief?

ManaAdaSystem

5th Jan 2019, 07:37

That sounds like opinion and not fact.

If things are that bad why don't we hear from Norwegian asking for relief?

Maybe you should read the link FlyZLsa posted? He even did a quote so you did not have to press the link.
Three weeks, and the aircraft is still sitting there.

KelvinD

5th Jan 2019, 08:03

Be fair: the link supplied was to an aviation related magazine and is presumably the product of a journalist. Nowhere does it report views/comments from any government or the airline itself. It therefore remains speculation. It may turn out to be accurate, who knows? But in the meantime it remains speculation.

CargoOne

5th Jan 2019, 08:23

That sounds like opinion and not fact.

If things are that bad why don't we hear from Norwegian asking for relief?

Because when you want to apply to OFAC you dont do it on PPRUNE and instead you ask a Washington based law firm to do that (there are few of them specializing on sanctions and OFAC relations). Making public drama out of it would not help anyone.

ManaAdaSystem

5th Jan 2019, 08:24

The aircraft is still there. That’s a fact.

RatherBeFlying

5th Jan 2019, 14:11

It may take a while before any civil servant has a look at the OFAC application:p

SLF3

7th Jan 2019, 12:48

I have worked in both the USA and Iran and like the people of both countries and the politicians of neither. I found Iranians polite, hospitable, worldly wise and pragmatic. And they don't believe propaganda, from either their own leaders or from outsiders.

If Norwegian keep this low key, any problems getting their plane fixed are unlikely to originate in Teheran.

When the US invaded Iraq a friend described it to me as the high noon of American power and influence. I think he was right. The US is increasingly unloved and hard to deal with, but its current behaviours will hasten its decline.

Gilles Hudicourt

7th Jan 2019, 13:46

Are you familiar with this incident, where a Canadian owned, registered and operated aircraft lost its rudder in flight after taking off from Cuba and returned to Cuba?

Air Transat Flight 961 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_961)

It was an Airbus A310, that was no longer in production. It needed a new rudder, and because no one knew the stress the vertical stabilizer had suffered when the rudder sheared off, a new vertical stabilizer as well. Airbus had some A310s aircraft parked in a desert in the US. When they tried to take take parts on those aircraft, to ship to Cuba to repair the Canadian Aircraft, the US prevented it, claiming this fell under the embargo the US imposed on Cuba. The aircraft was stuck in Cuba for months while Airbus found a solution that did not involve any parts located in the US. The Cubans had no role in the problems that were encountered to fix the aircraft. It all came from Washington.

Those here that think that the flak, if any is encountered in this case, will come from the Iranians, think again. I hope that cool heads will prevail.

Edit: This article, from 2 days ago, seems to confirm my statement:

https://www.fin24.com/Companies/TravelAndLeisure/boeing-stuck-in-iran-creates-headaches-for-norwegian-airline-20190104

NWA SLF

7th Jan 2019, 21:16

I assume being a large air carrier with so much focus on this plane sitting there smuggling is not an option. About 10 years ago I had customer problems - customers in UAE and Saudi Arabia were having a very high diesel fuel injection pump failure rate. Inspection showed fuel with so much water the injection pumps were rusting internally on parts that were always submerged in fuel. Our water separator removed 90% of the water but enough got through to cause the failures. If I remember correctly a Saudi customer with 43 of this model had 19 failures. Customer wanted to wring my neck but fortunately visa approval for me to visit would take too long but my investigation found those customers were using diesel smuggled from Iran. Cost was almost nothing. Quality was poor. I learned things were moving quite freely across the Persian Gulf. Right, the USA is killing itself.

ph-sbe

8th Jan 2019, 01:29

IThe US is increasingly unloved and hard to deal with, but its current behaviours will hasten its decline.

Regardless, any PIC not landing at the nearest airfield when needed strictly for political reasons, should consider buying shredder and testing it with their airman certificate.

The Iranian government might be a bunch of crooks, I will guarantee you that the Iranian firemen on the ground will be more than happy to point their nozzles to your aircraft regardless of your country of origin. Or the Russian firemen. Or the Iraqi firemen. Or the North Korean firemen.

Don't confuse crooked government with crooked working individuals.

lomapaseo

8th Jan 2019, 02:19

I see this thread has degraded into political mud slinging with aviation sideline discussion

Mr Angry from Purley

8th Jan 2019, 15:46

I wonder if any airlines will be reviewing their risk assessments of flying over Iran and looking at Iraq instead...

deadheader

9th Jan 2019, 08:00

Cpt on BA12 departing yesterday announced on the PA that the current route avoids overflying Iran and therefore has a longer journey time than usual, a little over 14hrs I believe it took us. No reason stated, none implied, just posting in response to the above post in case of interest/relevence...

SLF3

9th Jan 2019, 12:04

Regardless, any PIC not landing at the nearest airfield when needed strictly for political reasons, should consider buying shredder and testing it with their airman certificate.

The Iranian government might be a bunch of crooks, I will guarantee you that the Iranian firemen on the ground will be more than happy to point their nozzles to your aircraft regardless of your country of origin. Or the Russian firemen. Or the Iraqi firemen. Or the North Korean firemen.

Don't confuse crooked government with crooked working individuals.

I agree with you entirely. Maybe I did not make my point very well.

oliver2002

9th Jan 2019, 12:27

Considering the tremendous congestion in the small Basra-Erbil corridor currently open over Iraq (UM860 and UM688) I doubt any western airline is taking specific detours to avoid Iranian airspace. The payment of fees for overflight and nav is probably an issue for US carriers, but others seem to have no issues. If you look at the traffic in the airspace there is an obvious dominance of the ME3 since they have to fly thru there to get to Europe, but a significant traffic from European carriers on tracks south of the Himalaya toward India and S.E. Asia.

oliver2002

9th Jan 2019, 18:59

The NYT covered the story today:

A technical error in one of the engines prompted the landing on Dec. 14, a spokesman for Norwegian Air said by phone on Tuesday, and the 186 passengers and six crew members on board were unharmed. They spent the night in Iran and flew to Oslo the next day.But things are more complicated for the plane. The spokesman said that Norwegian Air had never before dealt with regulations on the ground in Iran, and that the paperwork for anything from getting engineers to spare parts was taking longer than usual. He did not give an estimate of when the plane might take off again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/world/middleeast/iran-norwegian-air-jet.html

FlyXLsa

10th Jan 2019, 13:09

Regardless, any PIC not landing at the nearest airfield when needed strictly for political reasons, should consider buying shredder and testing it with their airman certificate.

Why did this British Airways 777 divert to Baku when they were actually closer to Tehran?

"A British Airways Boeing 777-200, registration G-VIIA performing flight BA-199 (dep Jul 11th) from London Heathrow (UK) to Mumbai (India) with 197 passengers and 17 crew, was enroute at FL370 about 170nm south of Baku (Azerbaijan) in Iranian air space when the crew decided to divert to Baku after needing to shut the left hand engine (GE90) down. The aircraft landed safely on Baku's runway 16 about 70 minutes later."

Incident: British Airways B772 near Baku on Jul 12th 2018, engine shut down in flight (http://avherald.com/h?article=4bb10768&opt=769)

Nearest Airport - Nearest airport in point of time. Two airports of
different distances may be considered equal airports if a normal descent
requires the same amount of time to arrive at either airport. If persistent
smoke, fire or other potentially catastrophic situation is encountered, an
emergency descent may be appropriate, in which case the closer airport
may be the better choice.

ray cosmic

10th Jan 2019, 13:57

Why did this British Airways 777 divert to Baku when they were actually closer to Tehran?

Perhaps their engine shutdown was precautionary, and the gain in time marginal. On top of that it can be the crew was more familiar with Baku than Tehran.
Nearest suitable doesn't necessarily mean to spiral down to the nearest strip underneath if there are other (safer) options available in the immediate area.
170 NM is a little over 20 minutes to landing, which is pretty tight for a decent approach preparation into a diversion airfield. As long as nothing is burning, time is your friend..

calypso

10th Jan 2019, 16:45

Regardless, any PIC not landing at the nearest airfield when needed strictly for political reasons, should consider buying shredder and testing it with their airman certificate.

Clearly not true. As PIC I will take many bits of information into consideration of which geometrical proximity is but one. Airfield facilities, weather conditions, Approach aids available, familiarity with the airport, time required to start an approach v time needed to get there and many more. They pay me to make sensible decisions and make risk assessments, not to follow rules blindly. One thing is to continue for hours and quite another to choose a better airport 5 or 10 further minutes away. You are the PIC and you make the decision, no one is going to shred your license.

This crew decided to land in Iran and they must have their reasons, in hindsight I would have used the time they took on the hold to prepare for the approach to reach a better airport.

donpizmeov

10th Jan 2019, 17:25

Hindsight always allows for perceived better solutions . If only someone had the cash for the fix.

FlyXLsa

11th Jan 2019, 13:27

"Norwegian Air’s spokesperson admitted the airline “had never before dealt with regulations on the ground in Iran” and that “paperwork for anything from getting engineers to spare parts” was taking a very long time."

https://aviationanalyst.co.uk/2019/01/10/norwegian-airs-ongoing-nightmare-in-iran/

costalpilot

11th Jan 2019, 16:35

With fuel to burn, a jet certified for ETOPS and one good engine, KWI is only 280 miles.
Iran doesn't make my alternate list unless it's a life or death emergency.

im guessing the note on that indication would be land at the nearest airport

as opposed to land at the nearest politically approved airport.

Capt Ecureuil

11th Jan 2019, 17:24

Why did this British Airways 777 divert to Baku when they were actually closer to Tehran?

"A British Airways Boeing 777-200, registration G-VIIA performing flight BA-199 (dep Jul 11th) from London Heathrow (UK) to Mumbai (India) with 197 passengers and 17 crew, was enroute at FL370 about 170nm south of Baku (Azerbaijan) in Iranian air space when the crew decided to divert to Baku after needing to shut the left hand engine (GE90) down. The aircraft landed safely on Baku's runway 16 about 70 minutes later."

Incident: British Airways B772 near Baku on Jul 12th 2018, engine shut down in flight (http://avherald.com/h?article=4bb10768&opt=769)

Nearest Airport - Nearest airport in point of time. Two airports of
different distances may be considered equal airports if a normal descent
requires the same amount of time to arrive at either airport. If persistent
smoke, fire or other potentially catastrophic situation is encountered, an
emergency descent may be appropriate, in which case the closer airport
may be the better choice.

Have you ever looked at the terrain in that part of the world?

calypso

12th Jan 2019, 05:38

My experience of emergency engine shutdowns is thankfully limited to watching crews in the sim. In that context the vast majority of problems arise when crews rush into an approach not fully prepared. The 737 MAX is an ETOPs airplane in Norwegian (no idea if this airframe in particular was ETOPS) the idea that everyone will die a "horrible death" because the crew took a few minutes to consider the best course of action is emotive but unrealistic. Name a single 737 accident caused by a double engine failure resulting from extending the flight time after the first engine failed. For further reading of what does happen when rushing have a look at British Midland Flight 092, Kegworth.

777boyo

12th Jan 2019, 07:09

Come late to this discussion, but just wondering what (Single Engine) Missed Approach Climb Gradient the 737 Max under discussion would be capable of at MLW? There's some fairly impressive terrain around Shiraz.
Just for the record - absolutely no criticism of anyone implied by the question - just curious.
Thanks,
7B

JW411

12th Jan 2019, 10:39

Well, I used to go into and out of Shiraz 50 years ago when I was in the RAF flying the old Argosy which had the climb performance (on all four) of a wet brick. I don't remember it being a problem and I am still here to tell the tale.

andrasz

12th Jan 2019, 11:37

There's some fairly impressive terrain around Shiraz.

Indeed, but if you look at the airport location, it sits on a dry lakebed with zero obstacles for 15-20 kilometres in either runway direction, plenty of room for low altitude maneouvreing.
In any case, several airlines operate 73' s into/out of Shiraz, so the field must meet one engine out takeoff performance requirements (to my knowledge without any limitations), performance on a missed approach can only be better.

EIFFS

15th Jan 2019, 22:49

It’s all down to the word ‘suitable’ and provides some degree of flexibility to the crew.

Clearly safety is the paramount consideration, but in the case of an engine shutdown and everything is stable you will normally have a number options.

All things being equal you then need to consider commercial considerations of the airline and that of the passengers.

Gilles Hudicourt

16th Jan 2019, 02:13

I wonder if any airlines will be reviewing their risk assessments of flying over Iran and looking at Iraq instead...

Norwegian isn't. They have aircraft over Iran as I write these words.
The irony of it all, is that if any airline decides to avoid Iranian airspace because of this incident, it wont be for fear of the Iranians but for fear of the Americans.

FlyXLsa

16th Jan 2019, 16:56

Norwegian isn't. They have aircraft over Iran as I write these words.
The irony of it all, is that if any airline decides to avoid Iranian airspace because of this incident, it wont be for fear of the Iranians but for fear of the Americans.

Nobody seems to be avoiding overflying Iran from what I've seen on FlightRadar24. I see DY, BA, LH, UA, DL and many ME3 flights daily. For these flights to continue flying in Iranian airspace tells me that it's possible that some "contingency" plans exist for diversions. Nobody wants to end up in the situation that Norwegian ET AL is presently in with a $50,000,000+ asset AOG. For the US airlines, I can't see the FAA having any problem whatsoever with a US jet diverting to an airport outside Iran.

I'm sure the Iranians are wonderful people, but the fact remains there's a US/Iran p!$$!ng contest ATM and sanctions are going to create problems for Airlines and Passengers.

Capt Ecureuil

16th Jan 2019, 19:40

Precisely, calypso. In my book, the immediate 'aviate, navigate, communicate', includes pointing in the direction of a friendly diversion field, whilst dealing with an emergency. Even if you end up doubling back after 50 miles to where you were originally, you've not significantly extended the flight time, but more likely, you are now considerably closer to that friendly field. Quite possibly the crew had only known Europe and a bit beyond, but doing long haul over extremely inhospitable areas (physically and politically) gives appreciation that many of the blue circles on the ND are places you really really don't want to put your passengers, crew and aeroplane (unless on fire). Some general knowledge also helps on that count.

I consider the Iranians to be friendly, all my dealings with Iran have been more than friendly.

Just wondering all those questioning (and almost criticising) the commanders decision know exactly what was going on at the time and exactly where the aircraft was when the event happened. What airway and position was it? To get to a so called "friendly" airfield from Shiraz is a good 200 miles to either Kuwait, Damman (Ha! friendly??), or Bahrain with over 12000ft MSA.

I'll say it again... It's Trump causing the problem not the Iranian people

FlyXLsa

16th Jan 2019, 22:47

I consider the Iranians to be friendly, all my dealings with Iran have been more than friendly.
Just wondering all those questioning (and almost criticising) the commanders decision know exactly what was going on at the time and exactly where the aircraft was when the event happened. What airway and position was it? To get to a so called "friendly" airfield from Shiraz is a good 200 miles to either Kuwait, Damman (Ha! friendly??), or Bahrain with over 12000ft MSA.
I'll say it again... It's Trump causing the problem not the Iranian people

Might I suggest that Jet Blast would be a better forum to bash the leaders of either the USA or Iran? There are Iranians chanting "Death to America" and Americans singing "Bomb, bomb Iran" but I find both sentiments (fortunately) in the minority. Whether or not we agree or disagree with the Sanctions or Travel Ban, they exist and as such present a number of challenges for aviation professionals.
Thank you and carry on.

inducedrag

24th Jan 2019, 08:23

What is the status of this aircraft?

The Bartender

24th Jan 2019, 09:04

What is the status of this aircraft?
Still there.... 41 days now?
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1060x2000/screenshot_20190124_105936_flightradar24_0560117f65d76c06c0d 563622e2c5fbbadf66bc7.jpg

ironbutt57

24th Jan 2019, 10:43

Indeed, but if you look at the airport location, it sits on a dry lakebed with zero obstacles for 15-20 kilometres in either runway direction, plenty of room for low altitude maneouvreing.
In any case, several airlines operate 73' s into/out of Shiraz, so the field must meet one engine out takeoff performance requirements (to my knowledge without any limitations), performance on a missed approach can only be better.

one would imagine they incorporate engine-out SIDs as we did in the 767 and A320

CodyBlade

25th Jan 2019, 06:27

Tehran to Oslo is a long way by 737.

FRogge

25th Jan 2019, 08:35

Herod

25th Jan 2019, 09:57

do you think any insurance would ever cover a single engine T/O with a twin engined passenger jet?

No chance. It's one thing covering the possibility of one engine failing, but that is not the case here. It's a whole new scenario, with what is effectively a single-engine aircraft. Besides which, I suspect there isn't a crew anywhere who would take it on.

Diavel

25th Jan 2019, 10:01

I believe it’s the take off which is problematic, not the climb out. And even if you would be able to slowly spool up the operating engine and use 4000m of runway to get airborne, do you think any insurance would ever cover a single engine T/O with a twin engined passenger jet?

Excuse me for intruding, but the real question is, what is the problem with the faulty engine. I assume it is not something trivial as a defektive oil temp sensor or similar, because if that was the case it wouldbe”just a question of utilising that engine for t/o then it could be shut down while enroute to the nearest ”better” airport

Espada III

25th Jan 2019, 10:31

My only experience here is as an SLF who flew frmo MAN - LHR one evening on an A319 with one passenger (me) four cabin crew, one deadheading pilot and two pilots. as we taxied out I saw two A330 ME aircraft taxying to the end of the runway and I hoped we would by-pass them; which we did. We took off from a long way down 23R (estimate less than 1,900m remaining) and were airborne very quickly.

Whilst I appreciate that this is a different scenario, in terms of pure physics, a single engine take-off of this 737 on a 4,000m runway should be possible, even with a gentle run up. if the flight was only a couple of hundred miles to an easier airport to fix the second engine... I bow to the experts when it comes the operational side of matters which render this idea not worthy of consideration.

Zlinguy

27th Jan 2019, 21:28

Obviously never heard of Vmcg

Although it would never be attempted/approved by any sane pilot or governing authority, I believe it would be entirely possible to depart on one engine in a 737, although my gut tells me even 4,000 meters isn't enough. I think that given a forward CG as well as a large enough coefficient of friction from the nosewheel tires as well as a gradual power increase until the rudder increases in effectiveness it would be possible ( if I recall, VMCG is determined using only aerodynamic controls).

I guess the big concerns would be the nosewheel tires maintaining structural integrity ( as well as the whole nosegear assembly) due to the sideslip angle. Also I don't know what rate (if any) the MAX automatically reduces nosewheel steering angle as speed increases.

I see 737's taxiing single-engine in excess of 30 kts on a daily basis without running off the side of a narrow taxiway...

suninmyeyes

27th Jan 2019, 22:45

Hi Espada 3. Your suggestion is not impossible. I have done several 3 engine takeoffs for real on a 747. There was a special procedure for it, crew only and no passengers allowed. I have also done rejected landings on a twin jet simulator on one engine which involved touching down and putting full power on one engine at a speed of about 120 knots and it took off very easily.

I have also on a Boeing twin jet simulator tried doing a single engine takeoff. It is not that difficult. You cannot put on full power because you would lose directional control sideways. You have to start the takeoff roll by applying about 50% N1. As the speed increases and the rudder gains authority you can gently increase the power and once you get to V2 you can increase to full power. You use quite a bit more runway than usual. However Shiraz has an elevation of almost 5000 feet which would make the takeoff roll required much longer. You would never get authority from any Civil Aviation Authority to do a single engine takeoff in a twin jet which is why it is impossible. Theoretically though if someone experienced were to get in to the plane and steal it they could takeoff on one engine.

Incidentally as an aside I know someone who did a single engine engine takeoff in a Piper Navajo Chieftain at Jan Smuts airport in Johannesburg in the early 1980s. One engine had serious problems so was run at 900 rpm which was little more than zero thrust. The pilot used a lot more of the runway than he expected.

As for the Cessna 337 mentioned by a poster above. It is a central axis push-me-pull you type. When it first came out Cessna had a promotional picture showing it taking off with the front engine shut down. Several people tried it and there were a couple of accidents. I was once in a Cessna 337 and we shut down an engine in flight and could not restart it. We were disappointed to find it would not maintain altitude on one. No real problem as there were airfields nearby but I would never try to take off on one.

matkat

27th Jan 2019, 22:59

As a maintenance guy I have been involved in several 3 engine ferry flights with B747 and 2 eng with a Tristar in over 40 years in A/C maintenance I have never heard of a 1 eng ferry on a commercial aircraft. Likely because it has never happened.

tdracer

27th Jan 2019, 23:43

atakacs

28th Jan 2019, 10:16

What is the status of this aircraft?
Well despite some supposedly very informed posters have told us it would seem this is not an easy situation. Someone is bleeding money on this one...

DaveReidUK

28th Jan 2019, 14:30

Those procedures simply do not and cannot exist for a twin with an engine inop. Very obviously, if you attempt a takeoff on a single engine on a twin, and that engine fails above V1, a safe outcome is very unlikely.

I'm not sure which is more worrying - a SLF asking if it can be done, or someone who flies for a living saying it's possible because it's like a 747 taking off on 3 engines.

suninmyeyes

28th Jan 2019, 18:30

Dave Reid. You are worrying unnecessarily! I never said it was like a 747 taking off on three engines. I was explaining to the SLF that although some aircraft like 747’s can take off legally with an engine not working a twin engine aircraft would not be allowed to do so. There is a big difference between something being legal and something being feasible. However if you try it in a simulator you will find that a single engine takeoff in a twin jet is quite feasible given a long enough runway and a pilot that understands the relationship between thrust, rudder and rudder fine steering.

J.O.

28th Jan 2019, 18:56

However if you try it in a simulator you will find that a single engine takeoff in a twin jet is quite feasible given a long enough runway and a pilot that understands the relationship between thrust, rudder and rudder fine steering.

Simulations are based on mathematical modelling of the real thing. I can pretty well guarantee that no one has done the work of capturing actual single engine takeoff data in a B737 to aid in programming a simulator for that scenario. If indeed you were successful at trying it, all you saw was a "best guess" performed by the software.

Airbubba

28th Jan 2019, 19:48

Some earlier single engine ferry discussion on PPRuNe in this 2005 thread:

https://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/198922-a330-one-engine-ferry.html

pilotmike

31st Jan 2019, 11:53

Sobelena

31st Jan 2019, 13:41

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/616369-norwegian-air-boeing-737max8-stuck-iran-8.html#post10373487)
I'm not sure which is more worrying - a SLF asking if it can be done, or someone who flies for a living saying it's possible because it's like a 747 taking off on 3 engines.

tdracer didn't say that. Not for the first time, you like to misquote people in attempting to make your point. It is not clever.

Whilst DRUK is reasonably well informed in aviation matters, this is a niggling trait of his, not to mention his air of supremacy and contempt for posters when replying. Pity really.

DaveReidUK

31st Jan 2019, 15:14

I'm not sure which is more worrying - a SLF asking if it can be done, or someone who flies for a living saying it's possible because it's like a 747 taking off on 3 engines.

tdracer didn't say that.

Correct, tdracer didn't say that, nor did I say that he/she had. You should read what I actually wrote more carefully.

As far as I know, tdracer is an engineer and does not fly for a living. As one might therefore expect, his/her posts invariably make a lot of sense and he/she always seems willing to debate technical subjects in a civilised manner.

Now can we get back on-topic, please?

inducedrag

31st Jan 2019, 16:14

Fly Dubai fly to SHZ with B737 they can use their help

pilotmike

31st Jan 2019, 16:26

Correct, tdracer didn't say that, nor did I say that he/she had.
So why quote tdracer in your post which you make your criticisms if you weren't directing your remarks at him/her? It very much implies they are the target of your criticism, and is not clever. If your criticism referred to comments from someone else, why not quote them and the relevant comments instead? But as always, I'm sure you know best, and you'll probably be back to let us all know.

tdracer

31st Jan 2019, 22:13

So why quote tdracer in your post which you make your criticisms if you weren't directing your remarks at him/her? It very much implies they are the target of your criticism, and is not clever. If your criticism referred to comments from someone else, why not quote them and the relevant comments instead? But as always, I'm sure you know best, and you'll probably be back to let us all know.

For the record, I did not take DR's post as a criticism, rather it was as an endorsement of my statement that an engine-out ferry of a twin would never be an approved procedure (unlike the 747) - hence the quote. DR is quite right that I'm not a pilot (never have been), but I worked as a propulsion engineer at Boeing for nearly 40 years (now retired) and hence know a bit about engine related issues.

Now back to your regularly schedule program...

I suspect getting the needed paperwork to send a replacement LEAP engine to Iran was caught up in the US government shutdown. The shutdown is now ended (at least temporarily) so maybe this can now get straightened out.

Preemo

7th Feb 2019, 05:51

Any news?
I just heard an NPR Planet Money podcast on this, they interviewed passengers, a lawyer specialising in sanctions, described the passenger's experience in Iran, and that they plane that evacuated them also needed to make an emergency landing.

No talk of a one engine getaway unfortunately :-)

https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510289/planet-money

4runner

7th Feb 2019, 06:18

a lot of armchair consultants here. None of whom have flown a 73. There’s a reason the rudder is big. Vmcg. Google that and go play flight sim in your moms house some more. The pilots will be chasing girls and sippin’ Duty free whiskey while you’re doing that. Get back to us and let us know what you think. Cheers. DRUK, you’re ok in my book.

golfyankeesierra

7th Feb 2019, 07:16

Is it stil there?
8 weeks!!

rog747

7th Feb 2019, 08:05

ATC Watcher

7th Feb 2019, 08:17

CargoOne

7th Feb 2019, 10:07

2 months ! This fiasco is also sending the wrong message safety-wise , putting unnecessary pressure to crews by their Ops not to divert to Iran anymore in case of problems or even emergency, and possibly try to stretch it to divert in a neighboring place ( although Afghanistan is probably not much better). Putting political issues /sanctions on aircraft AOG after a diversion should not be there.

Iran and Afghanistan are not the same. There is little to none security risk in Iran but sanctions are there, and Afghanistan is opposite - no sanctions but security risk to passengers and crew is very high. But engine would have been changed long ago if DY have ended up in Kabul or Kandahar. All in all Kuwait is the right answer if you face situation like this.
I know from reliable source Boeing is pushing OFAC on this but it still can take a few month more.

BluSdUp

7th Feb 2019, 12:49

4runner

7th Feb 2019, 22:07

TUI/TOM/BY blew an engine about a week ago on a new MAX flying from Egypt to UK and diverted to Crete - A new LEAP was flown out a few days ago and the MAX flew back to the UK yesterday.

Still took over a week but not like the sanctions debacle facing the D8 /DI MAX stranded in Iran for past 2 months.

african countries love it when western aircraft break. They’ll charge 100% duty on the parts and that doesn’t include “handling” fees.

the_stranger

8th Feb 2019, 06:44

African countries love it when western aircraft break. They’ll charge 100% duty on the parts and that doesn’t include “handling” fees.
Just to be sure, you do know Crete isn't in Africa?

EIFFS

10th Feb 2019, 21:13

ATC Watcher.
Spot on You are.
We need to get back to basics as per ICAO agreement, rules and recommendations.
We are in a sad state when Crew need to make political considerations before committing to an alternate in an Emergency.

Cargo one.
Yes, I would imagine that Mr Boeing is not happy with Washington on this one. I hope they push hard. ( Over the cliff he goes, sorry, could not be helped.)
The idea that I have to ask Donald were to bring my excellent Buck folding knife ( purchased in Canada exported to Norway with no export licence in 1993 ) does not appeal to me.
F35s sure,but taping up a busted MAX and getting it home to Oslo ASAP should trigger some RealPolitik executive orders.

BTW
The longer it sit there the more tempted I would be to have a look/see at all the fancy modern stuff inside it , if I was the top Spy Guy in Iran.
Just an observation.
Mind You Iran is adhering to the letter and intent of the old Nuclear agreement and are honoring any ICAO commitments in this case.
Anyway
It will be back before Easter, I bet.
Consider it a novel winter dry storage of excess aircraft.

It should be back early mid March latest, the US shutdown hasn’t helped any, Norwegian continue to overfly Iran, no real change in guidance, the commander has the ultimate responsibility for passengers and crew, but should consider politics in considering where to divert, the QRH continues unchanged land at the nearest suitable airport.

Norwegians pilot management are in the main a practical bunch, you won’t be invited for tea no biscuits for flying a further 10-30 minutes with OEI and avoiding Iran, most of the guys doing these routes have ETOPS experience, the biggest practicality is explaining to ATC why you need to descend to FL230 but not diverting.

IMPO having the aircraft stuck in a country under sanctions might make it not suitable

Airbubba

22nd Feb 2019, 19:43

NAX8921 is airborne out of Shiraz:

https://www.flightradar24.com/NAX8921/1f9675b0

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1651x1074/nax8921_59dda8c06789e2662d5ef5c2acfc532913eedf83.jpg

atakacs

22nd Feb 2019, 20:38

FL400. Pretty impressive on one engine...

DaveReidUK

22nd Feb 2019, 21:11

FL400. Pretty impressive on one engine...

Very droll. :O

Preemo

23rd Feb 2019, 08:11

https://simpleflying.com/norwegian-737-leaving-iran/

EIFFS

23rd Feb 2019, 22:59

https://simpleflying.com/norwegian-737-leaving-iran/

well worth a look look at the pictures on this link, not only have they swapped the engine, but also the under carriage, it now has 4 wheels on each bogie and it’s seems they got around the scantions by fitting a RR Trent engine Muppets

flynerd

24th Feb 2019, 00:47

well worth a look look at the pictures on this link, not only have they swapped the engine, but also the under carriage, it now has 4 wheels on each bogie and it’s seems they got around the sanctions by fitting a RR Trent engine

Well worth ignoring that picture showing a RR power plant and double wheel bogies. It is of another aircraft type unless they also changed the hull by removing an over-wing emergency exit to LN-BKE.

4runner

24th Feb 2019, 05:17

Just to be sure, you do know Crete isn't in Africa?
yes. We are discussing the logistics of airplanes stuck in places and how sanctions, politics and customs can affect further ops. Hence my post.

Non-Driver

4th Mar 2019, 08:06

Looks like they've now got it out:

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/75679-norwegian-repatriates-b737-max-8-from-iran-after-2-months

A and C

4th Mar 2019, 09:04

How can this have happened ? The pprune experts who posted above assured us the aircraft would be stuck in Iran forever.

BluSdUp

4th Mar 2019, 10:50

A and C
Told You!
Realpolitik!
Decisions made on what is actually the the state of affairs , as opposed to moral principals!
I mentioned it in one of my earlier posts.
How it actually happened I do not know, but again I bet Mr Boeing leaned on Washington?
OR
It could be a clearcut case that just had to run the natural paper course in Washington.
After all it was a super simple case, as some experts here failed to appreciate.
Happy Diversions Everyone
Cpt B

ManaAdaSystem

5th Mar 2019, 06:25

How can this have happened ? The pprune experts who posted above assured us the aircraft would be stuck in Iran forever.

It’s been sitting there for nearly 3 months.
The PPRuNe experts who posted above assured us it would be fixed and out of there in a week or so.

Bidule

5th Mar 2019, 08:41

it would be fixed and out of there in a week or so.

Just take the shutdown period out (plus the time needed to recover the delay accumulated during the shutdown) and it will be much better!

nicolai

6th Mar 2019, 05:45

Sorry, I didn't realise the experts were quoting us "US Government Time", I thought we were discussing in terms of airline and passenger time - the time that doesn't stop counting even when politicians decide their personal prestige is more important than doing their jobs. That aircraft has been held up for 3 months because of US political and government incompetence and there's no other way to look at it.

I'm sure pilots will be strongly inclined mentally to add "EXCEPT IN IRAN" to any "LAND AT NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT" instructions they read in future. Thank you, politicians of the USA, for your contribution to flight safety over central Asia.