Norwegian Air Boeing 737MAX8 stuck in Iran

[Gilles Hudicourt]

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

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/Trav...rline-20190104

[NWA SLF]

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]

Originally Posted by SLF3

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]

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

[Mr Angry from Purley]

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

[deadheader]

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]

Originally Posted by ph-sbe

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]

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]

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/w...n-air-jet.html

[FlyXLsa]

Originally Posted by ph-sbe

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

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]

Originally Posted by FlyXLsa

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]

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]

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

[FlyXLsa]

"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/2019/0...tmare-in-iran/

[costalpilot]

Originally Posted by climber314

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]

Originally Posted by FlyXLsa

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.