The EMTRASUR Jumbo jet Saga came to an end...

[JanetFlight]

Since June 2022 the Iranian/Venezuelan 747-300 Freighter was impounded at Buenos Aires.

Today left Buenos Aires and arrived at "semi-closed" Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport, wich per NOTAM was closed for their arrival since yesterday.

I find curious two facts here wich i would love to know your opinions about it.

1) Besides the plane was using a USAF//Gov Callsign, TYSON23, the pilot speaking seems not english native at all.

2) Is it easy to find nowadays pilots with 743 TR?

And after almost two years what kind of MX did they do at Buenos Aires for this ferry flight..?

Here it is the Audio rec of their arr into KTNT and very curious the fact pilot is also adv ATC about the aerodrome KTNT its closed per NOTAM only for their arrival.

https://twitter.com/Arr3ch0/status/1757060696699699391/video/1

Further info »»»
https://twitter.com/Arr3ch0/status/1757063008809791773

[EDLB]

So they land a 743 into a CTAF Airport without any facilities and fuel with a .gov call sign. That smells like a clandestine Oliver North style operation. Wonder what the cargo holds. For long time parking there are plenty of less humid locations available in the US with available custom officers for international arrivals.
And it was worth the risk to land a Iran/Venezuela plane after over a year of storage into an airport with no fire and rescue services.

https://simpleflying.com/grounded-boeing-747-to-taken-by-us/

So the US Marshals did maintainance. But why fly it into a deserted landing strip?

[Non-Driver]

https://www.voanews.com/a/us-seizes-boeing-747-iran-illegally-sold-to-venezuelan-firm-/7484375.html

[Lonewolf_50]

So the US Marshals did maintainance. But why fly it into a deserted landing strip? To pick up all of the passengers still missing from MH 370. :p

[pattern_is_full]

Ennnh - the closest airport to the flight origin that is:

- On US territory
- 747-capable
- physically remote, not just in km/miles, but also surrounded by swampland and its denizens (snakes and alligators). Avoids protests and general "eyes-on" observation and publicity.

A government op, yes - but Treasury, not so much CIA or "other."

I flew over TNT inbound to MIA, 30 or so years ago. Always wondered what that huge runway, with no other infrastucture to speak of, was doing out in the green water. but you can look it up.

[EDLB]

So Treasury operates now Air Amerika style. I would have thought that it goes for scrap to Pinal or Mohave. With about 40 years and who knows how many hours and cycles the value will be the aluminum raw material.
Or did they expect some fun gift from Iran and could not identify all the cargo ingredients?

[treadigraph]

Came across TNT when driving back from Naples to Miami in 1984 - no idea it was there, not marked on our map; there was an Eastern 727, gear and flaps down and apparently descending into the Everglades...

[WHBM]

I am puzzled about the "authority" that news reports describe the USA has over the aircraft. It presumably has no US ownership, had not operated in US airspace, has no debt in the US,

[dixi188]

We used TNT for circuits in 1997 during our A300 course with Carnival Airlines out of FLL. One of our pilots asked where the fire cover was. Answer - err.

[atakacs]

I am puzzled about the "authority" that news reports describe the USA has over the aircraft. It presumably has no US ownership, had not operated in US airspace, has no debt in the US,
US has (or at the very least claims) global jurisdiction.
That being said this specific story is rather interesting.

[PC767]

US has (or at the very least claims) global jurisdiction.
That being said this specific story is rather interesting.

What does the USA have global jurisdiction over?
What is specifically interesting about this story?

My interest is now piqued.

[pattern_is_full]

What does the USA have global jurisdiction over?

Any aircraft of US manufacture (or aircraft that contains at least 25% US content) that is exported to another country, and which may contain certain technologies having national security implications. Also applies to such technologies themselves (chip designs, software code), whether aviation-related or not.

Among other things, that puts restrictions on resale or other delivery of such an aircraft to a third country, unless approved by the US.

That limitation is (or should be) incorporated into the exporter's (i.e. Boeing's) sales contract, so that the buyers know exactly what they are committing to.

Other economic sanctions of a punitive nature may also come into effect. Do business with a sanctioned country - and you are subject to the seizure of the proceeds or object of that business. Iran and Venezuela are both currently under such sanctions, for one reason or another.

Under US law for aircraft as specified in paragraph one - that makes this 747 subject to seizure. Argentina seized the 747 at US request - and has now turned it over to US authorties, who had it flown back to the US.

BTW I am not arguing for or against the laws - simply stating that they exist, and are enforceable in US courts when/where possible.

Regarding the "25% content" caveat, see also: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-adds-25-airbus-planes-operated-by-russian-airlines-export-violation-list-2022-08-02/

[Magplug]

Any aircraft of US manufacture (or aircraft that contains at least 25% US content) that is exported to another country, and which may contain certain technologies having national security implications. Also applies to such technologies themselves (chip designs, software code), whether aviation-related or not.
That is true of many technologies and products of US origin. However, regulating sales is one thing, clawing back that technology when your opinion of the recipient changes is quite another.

The population of the US expect their government to intervene with the 'Long Arm of Uncle Sam' whenever US interests are at stake. They are posessed with the notion that they have global jurisdiction. Watch any US TV action drama (NCIS and Hawaii 5-0 for example) and you will regularly see armed interventions being carried into other countries with no regard for their sovereignty. It appears to be accepted as the norm.

[WillowRun 6-3]

That is true of many technologies and products of US origin. However, regulating sales is one thing, clawing back that technology when your opinion of the recipient changes is quite another.

The population of the US expect their government to intervene with the 'Long Arm of Uncle Sam' whenever US interests are at stake. They are posessed with the notion that they have global jurisdiction. Watch any US TV action drama (NCIS and Hawaii 5-0 for example) and you will regularly see armed interventions being carried into other countries with no regard for their sovereignty. It appears to be accepted as the norm.

Sanctions derived from foreign policy concerns and also from national security factors actually are not better understood by reference to what can be invoked by reference to "US TV action drama" programs. Accuse me, if you like, of intuitive reasoning augmented by just very occasional legal experience with United States sanctions programs and their enforcement, but I'll assert that the writers who are responsible for "US TV action drama" programs have no actual appreciation for, or knowledge of, sanctions programs, their reasons for being, or enforcement.

Of course if you want to generalize from popular entertainment programming, why not include Rambo's mission back into Indian Country to liberate prisoners?

[WHBM]

Any aircraft of US manufacture (or aircraft that contains at least 25% US content) that is exported to another country, and which may contain certain technologies having national security implications. Also applies to such technologies themselves (chip designs, software code), whether aviation-related or not.

Among other things, that puts restrictions on resale or other delivery of such an aircraft to a third country, unless approved by the US.

That limitation is (or should be) incorporated into the exporter's (i.e. Boeing's) sales contract, so that the buyers know exactly what they are committing to.

Other economic sanctions of a punitive nature may also come into effect. Do business with a sanctioned country - and you are subject to the seizure of the proceeds or object of that business. Iran and Venezuela are both currently under such sanctions, for one reason or another.

Under US law for aircraft as specified in paragraph one - that makes this 747 subject to seizure. Argentina seized the 747 at US request - and has now turned it over to US authorties, who had it flown back to the US.

BTW I am not arguing for or against the laws - simply stating that they exist, and are enforceable in US courts when/where possible.

Regarding the "25% content" caveat, see also: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-adds-25-airbus-planes-operated-by-russian-airlines-export-violation-list-2022-08-02/
One really cannot see how such a Boeing contract can be enforceable. The aircraft was initially sold to UTA in France 35 years ago, and has been through multiple hands since. Eventually it got to Mahan in Iran, who doubtless did not contract to any US authority over what they had bought, and they in turn sold it to Venezuela, same applies.

If the USA doesn't like their products being sold overseas then tell Boeing and others not to offer them for export. You can't have it both ways.

[nicolai]

2) Is it easy to find nowadays pilots with 743 TR?


The largest operator of 747 Classics today is the US Government. That doesn't make it easy to find someone current on the Classic in the global sense, but it does make it easy if you're the US Government.

[NG1]

The largest operator of 747 Classics today is the US Government. That doesn't make it easy to find someone current on the Classic in the global sense, but it does make it easy if you're the US Government.

True, but though English is not my first language, the accent of that pilot does not sound American to me (contrary to what I'd expect from someone operating military versions of the 747-200 on behalf of the US Government). I might be wrong here, but after listening to the ATC audio my guess is this was some sort of contracted ferry crew.

[Magplug]

Accuse me, if you like, of intuitive reasoning augmented by just very occasional legal experience with United States sanctions programs and their enforcement, but I'll assert that the writers who are responsible for "US TV action drama" programs have no actual appreciation for, or knowledge of, sanctions programs, their reasons for being, or enforcement.

Of course if you want to generalize from popular entertainment programming, why not include Rambo's mission back into Indian Country to liberate prisoners?
WillowRun 6-3 You make a good point in your first sentence the priority of TV writers is primarily to increase their ratings by entertaining and giving the audience more of the content they crave. That content very often sees Americans as the good guys 'fixing broken stuff abroad'.

In the political arena, American politics is primarily all about getting bank-rolled. Once you have the money for a countrywide campaign you must then walk some fine lines to become 'all things to all men', in order to get elected. I would venture to suggest that popular TV entertainment gets far more American ''Eyeball Time', and so is far more influential, than any educated political debate.

[EDLB]

So what is the difference from USA takes the 747-300 and Russia takes and reregisters leased planes? As far as I know the 747-300 was paid for.
In essence governments do it because they can.

[WHBM]

True, but though English is not my first language, the accent of that pilot does not sound American to me (contrary to what I'd expect from someone operating military versions of the 747-200 on behalf of the US Government). I might be wrong here, but after listening to the ATC audio my guess is this was some sort of contracted ferry crew.
Maybe the US authorities contracted a 747-300 qualified crew from Mahan Air ? :)

[Winemaker]

Ennnh - the closest airport to the flight origin that is:

- On US territory
- 747-capable
- physically remote, not just in km/miles, but also surrounded by swampland and its denizens (snakes and alligators). Avoids protests and general "eyes-on" observation and publicity.

A government op, yes - but Treasury, not so much CIA or "other."

I flew over TNT inbound to MIA, 30 or so years ago. Always wondered what that huge runway, with no other infrastucture to speak of, was doing out in the green water. but you can look it up.
Here's a nice piece about TNT from Mentour Pilot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2814N7HmAQ

[pattern_is_full]

If the USA doesn't like their products being sold overseas then tell Boeing and others not to offer them for export. You can't have it both ways.

According to whom?

It is certainly the case that no-one has to import Boeing (or other US) products, if they don't like the strings attached. But (to use your words) the buyers cannot have it both ways either. Caveat emptor.

I am sure both Iran and Venezuela were (or should have been) well-aware that this aircraft would be "in play" as contraband, under the circumstances of sanctions and other US law. Had either one kept it within their own jurisdiction, the US would not have had any opportunity to re-claim it.

Venezuela made the mistake of sending it into a jurisdiction (Argentina) that is generally speaking (post-dictatorship) a US ally, and was willing to accede to a US diplomatic request for seizure.

BTW - I do understand the UK's own sometimes-strained relations with Argentina, and supported the UK's "re-claiming" of the Falklands by force (as did the US overall) 40 years ago.

[India Four Two]

Here's a nice piece about TNT from Mentour Pilot:

Who is wearing a Comet T-shirt! :ok:

[meleagertoo]

BTW - I do understand the UK's own sometimes-strained relations with Argentina, and supported the UK's "re-claiming" of the Falklands by force (as did the US overall) 40 years ago.
When stolen goods are returned to their rightful owner they are "recovered", not "re-claimed"...

[First_Principal]

When stolen goods are returned to their rightful owner they are "recovered", not "re-claimed"...

:ok: (no 'like' available here...)

Edited to add that some years ago we needed a couple of new P&W T1830's for a venerable C-47 .. these were not permitted to be exported direct from the U.S. as they still had a military designation. 'Fix' was to ship them across the border to Canada, then in the hold of a larger compatriot to their final destination. One then failed after < 100hrs, but that's another story, the point I guess is that some regulations/sanctions/whatever are ineffective (and/or ridiculous) and do nothing but impede and add costs.

FP.

[Less Hair]

Making things costly is part of the purpose of sanctions.

[TigerHeavy]

Making things costly is part of the purpose of sanctions.
And more so of business.

[oversteer]

a very definitive end, in fact
https://www.aviacionline.com/2024/02/venezuelan-boeing-747-seized-in-argentina-dismantled-in-the-us/
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/667x442/untitled_79aa8f4dae43af73ccfb5949dba9d6069e65f00a.png