|
ManaAdasystem
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 ?
|
Originally Posted by BluSdUp
(Post 10336914)
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 |
Originally Posted by A and C
(Post 10336927)
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 ?
|
Originally Posted by BluSdUp
(Post 10336914)
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 ps there are “other” ways too - which everyone else is using but if you want to be 100% compliant you should not use them. |
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 ......................... |
Originally Posted by A and C
(Post 10336789)
What part of the QRH statement “ land at the nearest suitable airport “ is confusing You ?
"The @Fly_Nowegian Boeing 737-8MAX performed a ground engine running/taxi test at Shiraz (SYZ) today." -Twitter |
Originally Posted by wheelbarrow
(Post 10336945)
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 ......................... |
Originally Posted by climber314
(Post 10336948)
Suitable?
here is the definition:
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by Capt Ecureuil
(Post 10336967)
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.
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. |
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. |
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! |
Originally Posted by CargoOne
(Post 10336954)
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”. |
Originally Posted by arketip
(Post 10337025)
You mean that the US would rather gift a whole aircraft to Iran instead of having Norvegian repair it and bring it home?
|
Originally Posted by Newcomer2
(Post 10336966)
"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/w...e-the-closest/ |
Originally Posted by A and C
(Post 10336789)
What part of the QRH statement “ land at the nearest suitable airport “ is confusing You ?
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. |
Originally Posted by c_coder
(Post 10336561)
Even though its airside, the Iranians could get their hands on parts, tools, etc.
|
Originally Posted by climber314
(Post 10337124)
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/ |
Originally Posted by RHSandLovingIt
(Post 10337152)
Granted, this is not from a 737 QRH... but I've seen the following definitions:
Does the 737 QRH differentiate between the two? :confused: 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". |
Originally Posted by Joe_K
(Post 10337164)
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://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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:29. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.