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

Old 12th Jan 2019, 11:52
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: chances are, not at home
Posts: 257
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.
Joe le Taxi is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2019, 22:49
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 174
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.

EIFFS is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2019, 02:13
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Montréal
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by Mr Angry from Purley View Post
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.
Gilles Hudicourt is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2019, 16:56
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Area 51
Posts: 25
Originally Posted by Gilles Hudicourt View Post
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.
FlyXLsa is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2019, 19:40
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Within 3 hours of a suitable alternate
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by Joe le Taxi View Post
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
Capt Ecureuil is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2019, 21:06
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: chances are, not at home
Posts: 257
Yeah, so you double back to Shiraz after 50 miles and you've lost nothing ... is my point. Or alternatively take good time to dodar or whatever, carefully run the checklists, manage the situation and waddaya know, you're 100 miles to KWI.

Your geopolitical opinions are just that - opinions - everyone has one.
Joe le Taxi is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2019, 22:47
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Area 51
Posts: 25
Originally Posted by Capt Ecureuil View Post
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.
FlyXLsa is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 08:23
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: N24 E56
Posts: 106
What is the status of this aircraft?
inducedrag is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 09:04
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northern Europe
Age: 40
Posts: 121
Originally Posted by inducedrag View Post
What is the status of this aircraft?
Still there.... 41 days now?

The Bartender is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 10:43
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,676
Originally Posted by andrasz View Post
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
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 06:27
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 337
Tehran to Oslo is a long way by 737.
CodyBlade is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 08:35
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Never home
Age: 32
Posts: 57
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?
FRogge is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 09:57
  #133 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 72
Posts: 2,847
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.
Herod is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 10:01
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 5
Two engines possible

Originally Posted by FRogge View Post
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
Diavel is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 10:31
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North West UK
Posts: 504
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.
Espada III is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 21:28
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by Chris2303 View Post
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...
Zlinguy is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 22:45
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 248
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.



suninmyeyes is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 22:59
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Balmullo,Scotland
Posts: 894
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.
matkat is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 23:43
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,163
Originally Posted by suninmyeyes View Post
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.


Three engine ferry is an approved AFM procedure for the 747 (obviously non-revenue only) - with established procedures and limits. Those procedures and limits take into account the possibility of an engine failure at/above V1 with proper margins to permit a safe outcome. No first hand knowledge for the L1011, but I assume it has similar approved procedures and limits.

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.
tdracer is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2019, 10:16
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 49
Posts: 1,255
Originally Posted by inducedrag View Post
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...
atakacs is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.