US Airliner Makes Emergency Landing At Tehran

JoKeR · Sun Jun 19, 2005 3:38 pm

A NW DC-10 (BOM-AMS) had to make an emergency landing due to a technical problem in its cargo bay.

Technicians are attending to the aircraft which is expected to depart to its destination.

Full story available here :< http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1723448,00.html >

IslipWN · Sun Jun 19, 2005 3:48 pm

I wonder what the pax are doing while they fix the problem. Will Tehran Airport supply the plane with any water or food if they run out (Depending on how long they are there for)?

Joe

JoKeR · Sun Jun 19, 2005 3:54 pm

Quoting IslipWN (Reply 1):
Will Tehran Airport supply the plane with any water or food if they run out

Just because Iran and the US are not the best of friends does not mean that these passengers will be left to dehydrate or starve, I'm pretty sure they will get all the necessary help and support.

Saying that though, it must have been one big problem aboard as I'm sure they would have preferred a more "neutral" alternate field, perhaps time was precious in this case?

PanAm747 · Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:17 pm

I remember a thread a long time ago about the U.S. State Department pulling the rights for American Airliners to overfly Iran, including routes over the Persian Gulf.

One of the respondents was a United Airlines pilot, who flew the route to India quite frequently. He commented that he was quite disapppointed as the Iranian controllers were actually quite friendly and extremely professional.

The "guests" of the Islamic Republic of Iran I'm sure will be made to feel quite welcome, even if all they ever get to see is Mehrebad airport. The plane will be adequately repaired (perhaps by one of the European airlines that flies into THR) and a bill will be sent to NW Airlines.

The Iranian people have always had a history of great hospitality, going back to the Persian Empire. Just because a country has been taken over by religious fanatics hostile to "non-believers" and claim "this is what God wants" does not mean that everyone in the country will be hostile.

That's not a quip at any of the previous replies - just a reminder to the world that ANY country can have a non representational blindly religious government that doesn't represent the goodness of its people.

bassie2010 · Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:39 pm

It was a false alarm. The plane is expected to land at AMS in the afternoon. Current ETA 14:18 local time. I expect that the pilot had to dump fuel before he could land. Since he is probably already airborne again, it is safe to say that Teheran helped the plane on its way. Maybe the fuel is even cheaper over there Smile

IslipWN · Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:39 pm

Quoting JoKeR (Reply 2):
Just because Iran and the US are not the best of friends does not mean that these passengers will be left to dehydrate or starve, I'm pretty sure they will get all the necessary help and support.

I didn't mean it like that, but I guess I should have been more clear. I meant will they have enough supplies for a NW DC-10? I have no clue how big Tehran airport is, nor do I know what airlines even serve it. Have I heard of it before? Yes. But I don't know anything about it.

IslipWN · Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:41 pm

Thats good that it was a false alarm. How long did it even stay on the ground in Tehran for?

Leskova · Sun Jun 19, 2005 5:08 pm

Quoting IslipWN (Reply 5):
I meant will they have enough supplies for a NW DC-10?

LH flies there with A340s (or was it A330s now?), EK flies there with A330s, other airlines operate aircraft the same size there, and Iran Air itself has planes up to B747s...

So, yes, they will have enough supplies for a DC10.

Regards,
Frank

bassie2010 · Sun Jun 19, 2005 5:10 pm

Quoting IslipWN (Reply 6):
Thats good that it was a false alarm. How long did it even stay on the ground in Tehran for?

It had an eight hour delay, so something along those lines.

JoKeR · Sun Jun 19, 2005 5:20 pm

Quoting IslipWN (Reply 5):
I have no clue how big Tehran airport is, nor do I know what airlines even serve it. Have I heard of it before? Yes. But I don't know anything about it.

Fair enough; haven't been there myself, the city recently activated its new - 1 year old (if that makes any sense) but controversial Imam Khomeini International Airport, a modern structure that was caught in the middle of a publicity storm; I actually don't quite know what the fuss was all about but it caused the new airport to be opened for just a few hours last year before getting shut down for a period of one year. This facility replaces the old Mehrabad (sp?) Airport. With regards to your question regarding the size, both facilities are/were capable of handling the largest airliners and transport planes and do so on a daily basis (747s, 777s, MD-11s, 767s, A330s etc).

The city is served by most European carriers, as well as by airlines from the Middle East and Asia.

SEAPlane10 · Sun Jun 19, 2005 5:27 pm

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 3):
He commented that he was quite disapppointed as the Iranian controllers were actually quite friendly and extremely professional.

That is good to hear that.

It's been said that air traffic controllers are often able to keeps politics out of the radar rooms....a plane is a plane no matter where it is from.

LAXintl · Sun Jun 19, 2005 5:45 pm

Quoting JoKeR (Reply 9):
I actually don't quite know what the fuss was all about but it caused the new airport to be opened for just a few hours last year before getting shut down for a period of one year.

Internal Iranian politics.

The new Imam Khomeini airport IKIA was built by a Turkish-Austrian consortium per a BOT (Build, Operate, Transfer) agreement which it had won from the Iranian Ministry of Public Works.

Upon completion of the facility and just after the 1st plane landed, hardline elements in the Iran government and military forced the closure of the facility. These hardliners claimed, that the facility did not meet required safety and security codes. All types of trumped up claims were placed regarding the unsafe nature of the facility, from an improperly designed roof, to unsafe escalator and on and on.

Shortly it became clear however that these hardliners were in reality objecting to foreign parties having control of the facility. It was claimed the Turkish-Austrian group had secret Israeli links.

As a result while internal and legal rangling continued the facility remained closed for an additional year.

The Turkish-Austrian group has since had its 20 year contract cancelled and have had their financial claims settled for the most part.
The new airport now is being managed by a joint Iran Air, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Interestingly the near the same thing happended to another Turkish company. Couple years back a Turkish telecommunications company won the bid to establish Irancell which would be the countries second cell phone operator. This year various parties in Iran forced the legislature to enact new laws banning foreign ownership of Irancell on grounds a threat to national security. The Turkish company now is negotiating either for new terms in its investment or would like to have its investment bought out to the tune of 300million Euro's.

Bascially what one hand does in Iran, the other hand cancels!

brons2 · Sun Jun 19, 2005 5:51 pm

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 3):
One of the respondents was a United Airlines pilot, who flew the route to India quite frequently. He commented that he was quite disapppointed as the Iranian controllers were actually quite friendly and extremely professional.

The pilots on Iran Air were very friendly at our a.net CGN sightseeing trip on the 747SP.

They encouaged me to visit Iran, but I'm not sure how the State Department would feel about that upon my return.

ltbewr · Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:26 pm

Per NW's website, this is Flt. # 41, which departed BOM about 12:43 am June 19th, scheduled to arrive in AMS at 6:40 am, but instead diverted to Terhan at about 4:08 am. It departed about 10:35 am, after mechanical repairs. It was/is scheduled to arrive in AMS 2:20 pm local time (original time 6:40 am). the continuation of this flight # 41 AMS-MSP was cancelled for it's ops on June 19.

IFLYMCO · Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:26 pm

Quoting Brons2 (Reply 12):
They encouaged me to visit Iran, but I'm not sure how the State Department would feel about that upon my return

It is still possible (despite popular belief) to visit Iran. I have many persian friends and I would love to visit Iran.. I looked into going and it is still OK to do as long as a persian person invites you to go. I have heard stories of "interviews" upon entering Iran and coming back into the US but nothing serious.

(Ignore my flag, I am a US citizen)

dtwclipper · Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:40 pm

So, is this the first US airline to visit THR since Pan Ams last flight out?

How long do we have to wait for NW to start service between DTW & THR?

Quoting IFLYMCO (Reply 14):
It is still possible (despite popular belief) to visit Iran

Me too, I know a number of people who still have family in Iran, and visit on a regular basis.

SATL382G · Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:47 pm

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 3):
The "guests" of the Islamic Republic of Iran I'm sure will be made to feel quite welcome

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 3):
The Iranian people have always had a history of great hospitality

Yes Americans have always been well treated in Iran...

I've got to wonder what the Capt. was thinking when he made the decision to divert and if the political situation influenced his decision at all.

ahlfors · Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:48 pm

There are no US laws against travelling to Iran. There are laws against doing business (as in import/export/investment) with Iran, with exceptions made for those expenses normally incurred as a visitor/traveller/tourist, and certain products like persian carpets and personal effects. You do need an invitation from an Iranian to get a visa, but there are several travel agencies that can do that. As for safety, I felt much safer in Iran than I do in most US or European cities.

Though I must say, some people on that plane must have been rather nervous landing in Tehran on an American airliner.

ahlfors · Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:53 pm

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 16):
Yes Americans have always been well treated in Iran...

Iran today is very different from Iran in 1979.

Also, the Iranians make a very clear distinction between the US government (and government officials) on one hand and private American citizens on the other. The latter are warmly welcomed. They should know, seeing as their own government most certainly does not represent their people.

SATL382G · Sun Jun 19, 2005 10:06 pm

Quoting Ahlfors (Reply 18):
Also, the Iranians make a very clear distinction between the US government (and government officials) on one hand and private American citizens on the other. The latter are warmly welcomed. They should know, seeing as their own government most certainly does not represent their people.

Odd, the gov't officials they took hostage WERE private American citizens.

The thing that the Iranians need to understand is that the U.S. has a representative gov't (though not perfect) and most (but not all) Americans will view an attack upon our gov't as an attack upon ourselves.

The story on this DC10 diversion will be an interesting read when the details emerge.

dtwclipper · Sun Jun 19, 2005 10:07 pm

NBC just showed a picture of the A/C in Iran on the Today show.

whitehatter · Sun Jun 19, 2005 10:12 pm

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 16):

Yes Americans have always been well treated in Iran...

Incredibly blinkered comment.

Those events happened as a result of Iran being embroiled in a revolution against an unpopular dictatorship supported by the USA.

Iran today is much more stable and there is absolutely no reason why an American airliner with Americans on board would not be warmly welcomed, and offered every assistance to rectify the problem the plane had.

If anything it is good for Iran to behave in that fashion as it reinforces their case that they are good international citizens and honour the conventions of air travel.

Aleksandar · Sun Jun 19, 2005 10:18 pm

Quoting Brons2 (Reply 12):
They encouaged me to visit Iran, but I'm not sure how the State Department would feel about that upon my return.

Would State Department make you any problems?

1MillionFlyer · Sun Jun 19, 2005 10:54 pm

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 16):
I've got to wonder what the Capt. was thinking when he made the decision to divert and if the political situation influenced his decision at all.

If the plane had a cargo fire light you put it on the ground, period.

I have a very good friend from Iran she is a PHD and one of the smartest most open minded to religion person I know.

you can't judge the actions of a few radicals 16 years ago as the entire country's attitude toward others.

I guess if you wanted to carry that logic to the US no one should come here because our military rejects blow up federal buildings all the time!

ahlfors · Sun Jun 19, 2005 10:59 pm

Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 23):
you can't judge the actions of a few radicals 16 years ago as the entire country's attitude toward others.

Try 26 years ago.

1MillionFlyer · Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:47 pm

LOl sorry, it is only 9 AM here and I had not had enough coffee when I posted that, yes it was 26 years ago.

Thanks Smile

xpat · Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:48 pm

Quoting Ahlfors (Reply 18):
Also, the Iranians make a very clear distinction between the US government (and government officials) on one hand and private American citizens on the other

When will the majority of us learn to make the distinction between governments and private citizens of all nations??

efcar98 · Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:56 pm

If only they could have made it to Saddam Intl...thats a MUCH safer place to land

kl911 · Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:59 pm

Quoting EFCar98 (Reply 27):
If only they could have made it to Saddam Intl...thats a MUCH safer place to land

I don't think so... Talking about one of the most dangerous places in the world thanks to a certain nations army.....

I choose Teheran anyday over Bagdad for an emergency landing...

KL911

trident2e · Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:06 am

Quoting IslipWN (Reply 1):
Will Tehran Airport supply the plane with any water or food if they run out

What a stupid thing to say.

GQfluffy · Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:04 am

Quoting KL911 (Reply 28):
I don't think so... Talking about one of the most dangerous places in the world thanks to a certain nations army.....

You just don't get sarcasm, don't you? And before this nation's army was in Iraq, do you think landing a US airliner there would've been any different then it is now?

fluffy

SATL382G · Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:14 am

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 21):
Those events happened as a result of Iran being embroiled in a revolution against an unpopular dictatorship supported by the USA.

No doubt. Why take hostages? It would be much simpler and more civilized to simply say to the ambassador "You and your staff are persona nongrata - please leave, you have 72 hours." It is a weak people that threatens and terrorizes hostages to achieve their ends.

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 21):
Iran today is much more stable and there is absolutely no reason why an American airliner with Americans on board would not be warmly welcomed, and offered every assistance to rectify the problem the plane had.

I'm very sure the same could have been said before the revolution as well. The situation could be different very rapidly.

Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 23):
I have a very good friend from Iran she is a PHD and one of the smartest most open minded to religion person I know.

...again no doubt. What is her opinion of her gov't? Does she have any say in what her gov't does in her name?

Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 23):
you can't judge the actions of a few radicals 16 years ago as the entire country's attitude toward others.

Do you honestly believe those "few radicals" actually had no sympathy or support from their gov't? Talk about "blinkered"....

Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 23):
If the plane had a cargo fire light you put it on the ground, period

I can think of a few political situations that altered the emergency diversion thinking of a Capt. A World 727 doing an evacuation flight from Saigon comes to mind.

jacobin777 · Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:18 am

Quoting Brons2 (Reply 12):

They encouaged me to visit Iran, but I'm not sure how the State Department would feel about that upon my return.

i know many people who have gone to Iran without a problem, you should go, the Iranians are very hospitable people (IMHO)

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 16):
I've got to wonder what the Capt. was thinking when he made the decision to divert and if the political situation influenced his decision at all

he was afraid of his pax and himself being subjugated to rape, kidnapping, torture amongst other things..... sarcastic

maybe you should learn a thing or two about world history, politics, people and culture before you make such an ignorant statement... butthead

Indio66 · Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:20 am

Actually, the NWA flight stopped to pick up Sean Penn. Smile

Seriously, I think that most of the Iranian people are fine (indeed, most have a relative living in Los Angeles). Unfortunately, the government is the problem.

MKEdude · Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:31 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 3):
and a bill will be sent to NW Airlines.

Will NW be allowed to bay the bill? Seriously, dosent the State Department prohibit any American company from putting money in their economy?

burnsie28 · Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:03 am

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 13):
the continuation of this flight # 41 AMS-MSP was cancelled for it's ops on June 19

Wrong, it shows that flight 41 AMS-MSP is currently "in-flight"

Edit: The flight arrived at 11:58am, 37 minutes early.

CHI787ORD · Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:07 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 3):
One of the respondents was a United Airlines pilot, who flew the route to India quite frequently. He commented that he was quite disapppointed as the Iranian controllers were actually quite friendly and extremely professional.

UAL doesn't fly to India.

SATL382G · Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:12 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 32):
he was afraid of his pax and himself being subjugated to rape, kidnapping, torture amongst other things.....

Are you being sarcastic?

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 32):
maybe you should learn a thing or two about world history, politics, people and culture before you make such an ignorant statement...

I have lived and traveled abroad extensively. I was alive and politically aware at the time of the hostage crisis in Iran. How about you?

WDBRR · Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:13 am

Here is a question.....all women must cover their
heads in Iran, including foreigners. I am sure most
women on that flight did not have a scarf or Chador
with them. I wondered if the airport handed out
scarves for them to put on their heads before getting
off that plane.

kl911 · Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:28 am

Quoting CHI787ORD (Reply 36):
UAL doesn't fly to India

No, but UA did fly to India daily from LHR and HKG as part of the round the world flight UA1 and UA2 for many years....

KL911

hawk44 · Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:38 am

Does KLM fly to Tehran from AMS?

Hawk44

Gary2880 · Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:56 am

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 31):
...again No doubt. What is her opinion of her gov't? Does she have any say in what her gov't does in her name?

I'd say about as much as you do. Could she walk up and ask her leader to do things differently? er... No, could I walk up to Downing St and ask Tony to do things differently er no. Could you walk up to the white house and ask Mr bush to do things differently eer no!

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 37):
Are you being sarcastic?

float your wee mouse over the green face next to the sentence and you`ll get your answer

Leskova · Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:56 am

Quoting Hawk44 (Reply 40):
Does KLM fly to Tehran from AMS?

Yes, they do. Just as most other major European airlines.

Regards,
Frank

AeroWesty · Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:28 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 3):
The "guests" of the Islamic Republic of Iran I'm sure will be made to feel quite welcome, even if all they ever get to see is Mehrebad airport. The plane will be adequately repaired (perhaps by one of the European airlines that flies into THR) and a bill will be sent to NW Airlines.

Kudos for the most reasonable, level-headed comment of this entire thread, PanAm747. I can barely believe what has followed.

GMUAirbusA320 · Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:33 am

Wow...that Probably gave the CPT and FO a little pucker or two for the first few minutes on the ground. To me, no matter where you are most people will accept your "Americanism." Many people in Europe and Asia recognize their disdain taste for the American government and not the individual. I've been to Spain and friends told me that "they may not like you." But, I don't go around wearing cowboy boots and spitting tobacco everywhere. I respect local rules and customs.

BTW, are there any spotters in CDG that could give me any insight on places to go in Paris? I'm really excited to go to Paris and Pamplona (for the Running of the Bulls).

Cheers,

GMUAirbusA320

m404 · Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:40 am

After reading all the above I'm still not sure which airport NW landed at. It seems to be assumed it is not the new one but if it's made for International traffic would it not have been preferred?

Udo · Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:55 am

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 16):
Yes Americans have always been well treated in Iran...

Just like they have always been treated very well in Germany, e.g. 61 years ago... sarcastic

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 16):
I've got to wonder what the Capt. was thinking when he made the decision to divert and if the political situation influenced his decision at all.

The captain is responsible for the safety of his passengers and his crew, certain ideologies should not influence such a decision. It was a smart move to divert to Teheran rather than risk the safety of the flight. The people on board can be happy that their captain wasn't as "politically correct" as certain users on this board... relieved

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 19):
The thing that the Iranians need to understand is that the U.S. has a representative gov't (though not perfect) and most (but not all) Americans will view an attack upon our gov't as an attack upon ourselves.

Oh and following that logic "some (but not all) Americans" cannot distinguish between normal citizens and government officials in other countries either... sarcastic

Quoting EFCar98 (Reply 27):
If only they could have made it to Saddam Intl...thats a MUCH safer place to land

Absolutely, a Stinger in the DC-10's butt wouldn't have been much of a problem at all... Wink

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 31):
I'm very sure the same could have been said before the revolution as well. The situation could be different very rapidly.

True. The DC-10 pax could be hijacked every minute... sarcastic

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 37):
I have lived and traveled abroad extensively.

And you have certainly met many Iranians... sarcastic

Regards
Udo

aa777jr · Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:14 am

What was the captain thinking diverting to Tehran. Was DXB too far?

Where was Sean Penn when this was all happening? Smile

N160LH · Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:23 am

Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 23):
If the plane had a cargo fire light you put it on the ground, period.

I could not agree more!

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 31):
Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 23):
If the plane had a cargo fire light you put it on the ground, period

I can think of a few political situations that altered the emergency diversion thinking of a Capt. A World 727 doing an evacuation flight from Saigon comes to mind.

That all does not make a lot of difference if your dead! Remember a few years back when the US Navy had a P-3 make an emergency landing at CHina military base....? Same type thing the pilot and the crew of the P-3 are alive today because the pilot put the aircraft safely on the ground, and worried about the political concerns later!

Quoting Jetpixx (Reply 43):
There will be plenty of US aircraft flying in and out and Iran if they don't decide to come clean with their nuke program.

Sad but true..... That's if they are not flying over North Korea!

Quoting Udo (Reply 49):
The captain is responsible for the safety of his passengers and his crew, certain ideologies should not influence such a decision. It was a smart move to divert to Teheran rather than risk the safety of the flight. The people on board can be happy that their captain wasn't as "politically correct" as certain users on this board...

Once again I could not agree more.

N160LH

bobnwa · Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:35 am

Aa777jr,

What aviation degrees or pilot license do you hold to second guess the pilot of this aircraft? Do you really think he arrived at his decision without considering all possibilities?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net