Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Maintaining Iran's Airliners  
User currently offlineAn225 From Israel, joined May 2005, 189 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5608 times:

Hello all,
Sorry if this topic was posted in the past. I couldn't find any when I searched the forum.

I have looked at Sam Chui's picture of the Iran Air B747-SP (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran-Air/Boeing-747SP-86/2168785/L/) and it looks in a very well preserved condition. Looking at Wikipedia it states that other Boeing aircraft are in use, including 727 and 747. Given the more than 30 years long US embargo on Iran this is remarkable that these planes are still flying, not mentioning the SP plane pictured by Sam.

My question is how do the Iranians are able to still keep these birds in the air? especially the SP's which were rare planes to begin with

Thanks,

An225

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19378 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5569 times:

Quoting An225 (Thread starter):
My question is how do the Iranians are able to still keep these birds in the air? especially the SP's which were rare planes to begin with

I have to imagine: 1) A lot of unapproved repairs (technically, all repairs not done while in contact with the OEM would be unapproved, no?) 2) Machining a lot of parts locally. 3) *Really* good mechanics.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16992 posts, RR: 67
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5548 times:

Picture here:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui




"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7571 posts, RR: 32
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5518 times:

Along with those items mentioned above - the Iranian airline folks have been able to purchase many parts through third parties.

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5513 times:

Quoting An225 (Thread starter):
My question is how do the Iranians are able to still keep these birds in the air?

There are lots of people with Boeing parts that aren't subject to the US embargo...as long as they're willing to sell to the Iranians, they're good. They also must have fantastic mechanics.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
1) A lot of unapproved repairs (technically, all repairs not done while in contact with the OEM would be unapproved, no?)

Most repairs are done without contacting the OEM. That's what the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Component Maintenance Manuals (CMM), and Structural Repair Manual (SRM) are for. Repairs are approved if they meet the requirements of the local regulator...as long as the Iranians are doing whatever the Iranian CAA requires, they're technically covered.

Tom.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19378 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5507 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
Most repairs are done without contacting the OEM. That's what the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Component Maintenance Manuals (CMM), and Structural Repair Manual (SRM) are for. Repairs are approved if they meet the requirements of the local regulator...as long as the Iranians are doing whatever the Iranian CAA requires, they're technically covered.

Then what is the brouhaha about IR acquiring 743's without Boeing having updated the manuals?


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24813 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5465 times:

Until recently lots of help from KLM and Lufthansa...

Lufthansa Technics even list them as a customer
http://www.guideline.aero/references/oems_types_and_customers.html

Here is a news story how LH had to stop helping Iran Air after 40-years as a customer
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...r-iran-air-in-europe-a-858886.html

There are other vendors around the world such as France, Turkey and Japan that have worked with IR in the past also.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinetom355uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5403 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
Then what is the brouhaha about IR acquiring 743's without Boeing having updated the manuals?

Because if the manual being used is not the most up to date version, then technically I don't think it is meant to be used. For all intents and purposes, most of the information will be the same but there may be certain AD's and procedure changes that are not implemented or described in older versions.



on Twitter @tombeckett2285
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5354 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
Repairs are approved if they meet the requirements of the local regulator...as long as the Iranians are doing whatever the Iranian CAA requires, they're technically covered.

Are they not then restricted from US airspace as a result of questionable maintenance practices?...The UN general assembly makes exception to this?. They probably operate the same way "Tower Air" used to...they would purchase some timed out equipment from out west and cannibalize the airframes for parts. Bone-yards are now a global reality so the availability of parts worldwide is still fairly robust.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7571 posts, RR: 32
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5288 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 8):
The UN general assembly makes exception to this?.

Diplomatic flights by heads of state are exempt from a lot of rules that apply to commercial airlines, or private aircraft.

Such as the Tu-114 that flew into Andrews AFB in Sept 1959 with Nikita Khrushchev - that certainly wasn't an aircraft or airline 'certified' in the US.

The only reason the Iran aircraft is allowed into the US is that it is a diplomatic aircraft. The maintenance history of the aircraft, or lack of, has no bearing on the decision.

Because the United Nations is headquartered in New York City - a long list of 'enemies' of the United States have been able to fly into the US on UN official business over the past 60+ years.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5156 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
Then what is the brouhaha about IR acquiring 743's without Boeing having updated the manuals?

It all depends on what your OpsSpec says, which depends on your regulator. Most regualators will require that aircraft be maintained per the most Instructions For Continued Airworthiness (ICAs), which the OEM's are obligated to provide. However, for obvious reasons, the Iranian regulators know that Boeing isn't going to be providing them with manual support so there's no reason they'd write that into Iranian's OpsSpec.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 8):
Are they not then restricted from US airspace as a result of questionable maintenance practices?...The UN general assembly makes exception to this?

Generally not. The existing treaties basically allow the aircraft of a country that's a signatory to the relevant UN treaties to operate in the airspace of any other provided that the aircraft meets the regulations of the *home* country. In other words, an Iranian registered aircraft that's compliant with Iranian regulations is generally allowed to operate in other countries' airspace. However, there are specific country-by-country restrictions (e.g. Cuban aircraft over the US) but those are purely based on politics, not maintenance practices. The EU has an airline blacklist that is based on maintenance practices; a portion, but not all, of Iran's fleet is on the blacklist.

Tom.


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2543 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5025 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 8):
Are they not then restricted from US airspace as a result of questionable maintenance practices?

I think this is the saddest side effect from US and UN sanctions policy against Iran. The US declares Iran Air a terrorist organistation because it might have shipped parts for their nuclear programme. So no one can risk trading with Iran Air to supply parts or expertise (they can't even buy fuel in many countries). Then maintenance bacomes a problem and the airline is declared unsafe to operate in US airspace. Meantime flight safety is compromised within Iran too and quite innocent civilians put at risk.

I'm not questioning sanctions in general, but sanctions should not be imposed against civil aviation.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlinetod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1724 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5011 times:

As stated above, there are plenty of third/fourth party work-arounds.

When I buy parts off of scrapped planes, nobody asks me what plane they are going onto next and if I turned around and sold them again I don't think that I need to know where they are going, just where they've been.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5336 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5011 times:

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 11):
I'm not questioning sanctions in general, but sanctions should not be imposed against civil aviation.

But, the function of sanctions is to make everyone uncomfortable. Indeed, their function is to hurt everyone in the target nation. The assumption is that if you make the populace uncomfortable enough, the government will capitulate on the issue.

There should be no exceptions to sanctions. Not civil aviation, not medical, not humanitarian...nothing.

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 7):
Because if the manual being used is not the most up to date version, then technically I don't think it is meant to be used. For all intents and purposes, most of the information will be the same but there may be certain AD's and procedure changes that are not implemented or described in older versions.

It is reasonable to assume that since they are not getting direct Boeing support, they are not incorporating Service Bulletins and/or Service Letters. Therefore, an updated manual isn't strictly necessary. Yes, Boeing will occasionally change a procedure or limit or parameter or make a correction, but with the marvel we call the Internet, the stuff becomes open source pretty quick.

We all know that AD's should be incorporated within the timetable; and again, with the Internet, getting the information is pretty easy. After that, it's a matter of the engineering department putting together the procedure for incorporation. The sticking point comes from parts (if they are required), that's where 3rd parties come in and/or your own manufacturing.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2543 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5003 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 13):
But, the function of sanctions is to make everyone uncomfortable. Indeed, their function is to hurt everyone in the target nation. The assumption is that if you make the populace uncomfortable enough, the government will capitulate on the issue.

There should be no exceptions to sanctions. Not civil aviation, not medical, not humanitarian...nothing.

That may be your opinion, but that's not the policy. Sanctions are specifically targetted against certain areas. Google Iran sanctions and see how specific they are. The aim is to hurt the government, not the civilian population. Even in the case of Iraq this was the case. Humanitarian supplies were allowed. In Iran's case the stated purpose is to stop them developing nuclear technology for weapons, not cause more fatalities in civil aircraft.

As for making the populace uncomfortable, why should a dicatorship care about that? It certainly never bothered Saddam.

[Edited 2012-10-10 07:26:02]


The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4920 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 13):
It is reasonable to assume that since they are not getting direct Boeing support, they are not incorporating Service Bulletins and/or Service Letters.

Thanks to the Internet, I'm pretty sure they've probably got all the SB's and SL's. I'd be surprised if they aren't incorporating the ones that make sense for them.

Tom.


User currently offline9MMPQ From Netherlands, joined Nov 2011, 304 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4894 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
Then what is the brouhaha about IR acquiring 743's without Boeing having updated the manuals?

And to add to everything that has already been said, these were former QF birds. I'd be very surprised if QF would not have had all documentation fully up to date before offloading these aircraft to the next owners.

By the way, I've not heard of these aircraft being in actual service since. Perhaps they've been bought for parts ?



I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4363 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4758 times:

No fan of the Iranian government but I am always amazed and impressed at Iran Air's technical capability keeping these wonderful classics flying.


Not to mention the incomparable F14 !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4713 times:

Does Iran Air have a pooling agreement with other airlines/thirdparty vendors for spares.


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1533 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4459 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
Quoting An225 (Thread starter):
My question is how do the Iranians are able to still keep these birds in the air?

There are lots of people with Boeing parts that aren't subject to the US embargo...as long as they're willing to sell to the Iranians, they're good. They also must have fantastic mechanics.

US persons wishing export to Iran "goods, service and/or technology to insure the safety of civil aviation and safe operation of U.S. origin commercial passenger aircraft" can apply for a specific licence with the Office of Foreign Assets Control in he US:

http://www.sanctionlaw.com/2010/04/0...n-ofac-is-not-entirely-in-the-way/

It wouldn't make much sense otherwise; there are many parts which I imagine are too difficult/risky not be be sourced directly from the OEM.


Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 45
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4449 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think that having an embargo on some things is wrong commercial aircraft is one.
Why play politics with peoples lives. ?



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4005 times:

True....I believe Iran should source their aircraft from other manufacturers/suppliers if spares is an issue....


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 45
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3990 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think they cant buy directly from any manufacturer and risk the wrath of the US
The manufacturers wont sell to them and risk the wrath of the US

[Edited 2012-10-17 01:47:24]


On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineSXDFC From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 2296 posts, RR: 19
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3805 times:

If Air Koryo ( N.Korea ) can order Russian planes, whats stopping IR? I am also curious as to if IR can order the SSJ-100..

[Edited 2012-10-18 12:03:23]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3738 times:

Quoting SXDFC (Reply 23):
If Air Koryo ( N.Korea ) can order Russian planes, whats stopping IR? I am also curious as to if IR can order the SSJ-100..

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the SSJ has western avionics. Also, Honeywell, an American company, makes the APU. And also a lot of foreign companies, including companies from the USA, UK, EU, Switzerland, among others have parts in the aircraft. So that would make the SSJ a no-go for IR, until they can get them second hand. Possibly from Armavia?



Go coogs! \n//
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2744 times:

Which countries who manufacture aircraft and are not sanctioning Iran?.


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinetod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1724 posts, RR: 3
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2739 times:

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 24):
And also a lot of foreign companies, including companies from the USA, UK, EU, Switzerland, among others have parts in the aircraft.

Like a B/E interior.


User currently offlineamccann From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2758 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
Most repairs are done without contacting the OEM. That's what the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Component Maintenance Manuals (CMM), and Structural Repair Manual (SRM) are for.

I agree that most repairs are done without contacting the OEM however as airplanes age and accumulate damage it becomes much more difficult to perform a 100% SRM repair. Operators begin running in to issues such as co located damages and/or repairs or the SRM does not contain a repair for a specific damage.

I've often wondered if Iranian ground service personal are instructed to be extra careful around their airplanes so that they do not inflict any additional damage.

[Edited 2012-11-12 22:57:51]


What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2714 times:

Quoting amccann (Reply 27):
I've often wondered if Iranian ground service personal are instructed to be extra careful around their airplanes so that they do not inflict any additional damage.

What would Extra carefull mean.....In aviation its doing ones job with attention to safety......which is 100% carefull.....cannot be more detailed.......Im sure the professionals out there know their job well.....The damage if you are implying would be structural......in most cases can be fixed.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineamccann From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2695 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 28):
Quoting amccann (Reply 27):
I've often wondered if Iranian ground service personal are instructed to be extra careful around their airplanes so that they do not inflict any additional damage.

What would Extra carefull mean.....In aviation its doing ones job with attention to safety......which is 100% carefull.....cannot be more detailed.......Im sure the professionals out there know their job well.....The damage if you are implying would be structural......in most cases can be fixed.

My statement can obviously be interpreted incorrectly. Of course all aviation/aerospace employees are extra careful, critical of their actions, and safety conscious. I never intended on implying any aviation/aerospace employee were not careful, critical, or safe.

I am fully aware of structural repairs. However, it can be said that a portion of structural repairs are due to preventable damage.

[Edited 2012-11-15 17:58:41]


What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. - Ronald Reagan
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Maintaining Iran's Airliners
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Best Maintained Airliners posted Sat Apr 14 2012 06:18:28 by Max Q
Electricity On Airliners posted Sat Mar 31 2012 11:56:24 by Ferroviarius
Avanti Aerodynamics For Future Airliners? posted Thu Jan 19 2012 12:31:24 by ferpe
How Often Is AMS Runway 04-22 Used By Airliners? posted Tue Jan 3 2012 00:56:08 by Viscount724
Cfrp Airliners: How Long A Useful Life? posted Fri Sep 2 2011 03:18:17 by faro
Why No Pitot Covers On Airliners? posted Fri Jul 22 2011 10:12:49 by notaxonrotax
New Composite Airliners, Why No Paint Issues? posted Sun Jul 17 2011 16:14:50 by Northwest727
Advantages/Disadvntages Of Top Wing Airliners? posted Sat Jun 11 2011 16:36:32 by jonathanxxxx
Efficiency Of Modern Cfrp Airliners posted Sun May 22 2011 00:09:29 by ferpe
Problems On Commercial Airliners In Service? posted Thu Apr 28 2011 06:37:28 by jayeshrulz

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format