Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Norwegian Air Boeing 737MAX8 stuck in Iran

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Norwegian Air Boeing 737MAX8 stuck in Iran

Reply

Old 16th Dec 2018, 21:56
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 551
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.
fox niner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Dec 2018, 22:47
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by c_coder View Post
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?
Joe_K is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 17th Dec 2018, 07:53
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 551
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.
fox niner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 17th Dec 2018, 09:06
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 510
Well, if these US sanctions are intended to make a point (like everything else Trump seems to do), it would certainly make a point.
golfyankeesierra is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 17th Dec 2018, 09:13
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Within 3 hours of a suitable alternate
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by climber314 View Post
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/w...e-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.
Capt Ecureuil is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 17th Dec 2018, 13:14
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Luton
Posts: 361
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.
clipstone1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 17th Dec 2018, 16:02
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 2,796
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 .
donpizmeov is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 17th Dec 2018, 22:05
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: It used to be an island...
Posts: 175
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?
nicolai is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 17th Dec 2018, 23:08
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 928
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.
CargoOne is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Dec 2018, 00:33
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 355
Originally Posted by nicolai View Post
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.
etudiant is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Dec 2018, 10:42
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Luton
Posts: 361
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...
clipstone1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Dec 2018, 11:58
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 510
Anyway, 3 days later, aircraft seems still stuck in Shiraz (flightradar24).

Last edited by golfyankeesierra; 18th Dec 2018 at 12:46.
golfyankeesierra is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Dec 2018, 13:03
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SAYE
Posts: 222
Originally Posted by golfyankeesierra View Post
Anyway, 3 days later, aircraft seems still stuck in Shiraz (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.
avionimc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Dec 2018, 17:09
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Back and forth
Posts: 304
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!
Yaw String is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 19th Dec 2018, 08:26
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: It used to be an island...
Posts: 175
Originally Posted by etudiant View Post
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.

Originally Posted by clipstone1 View Post
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.
nicolai is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 19th Dec 2018, 11:42
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Luton
Posts: 361
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.
clipstone1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 21st Dec 2018, 00:00
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Australia
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by ironbutt57 View Post
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.
Carlos Kaiser is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Dec 2018, 19:04
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 928
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.
CargoOne is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Dec 2018, 21:51
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,172
Originally Posted by donpizmeov View Post
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 .
Maybe some more comments from pizedoffdon?
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Dec 2018, 21:26
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Gardermoen
Posts: 1
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
LNBKE is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service