sonicruiser
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 am

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:21 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
sonicruiser wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
The only way I would ever put a plane on the ground in Iran is if my wing fell off or I was on fire. An engine failure is NOT a reason to land in Iran.


Don't ever become a pilot. An engine failure, especially incidents like this prove otherwise.


Care to expand on why you know better than I do?


Why do you think the pilots of this plane diverted? By your logic, they should have continued with engine troubles even if it meant imminent danger to the plane.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:26 pm

sonicruiser wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
sonicruiser wrote:

Don't ever become a pilot. An engine failure, especially incidents like this prove otherwise.


Care to expand on why you know better than I do?


Why do you think the pilots of this plane diverted? By your logic, they should have continued with engine troubles even if it meant imminent danger to the plane.


I know why they diverted I don't know why they diverted to IRAN. The engine failure wasn't catastrophic, there was no fire, the wing didn't fall off.......This was a problem with oil pressure, there was no imminent danger to anybody. If an engine failure caused "imminent danger" then there would be no such thing as ETOPS I can fly the 787 for up to 240 minutes on one engine my divert time is limited to my cargo fire suppression system.

So again tell me in detail why you know better than me and why I should hang up my wings.
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 1536
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:30 pm

sonicruiser wrote:
Don't ever become a pilot.

Too late! He's already one.
Maybe you are advising your ownself?
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:32 pm

TC957 wrote:
smartplane wrote:
TC957 wrote:
Just a thought - FlyDubai operate to SYZ and are also a Max operator. Could Norwegian do some sort of deal to get a few engineers over there with some equipment and a spare engine from DXB ? What could the US do about that ?

Embargo busting US sanctions wouldn't do much for EK's desire for greater US access. And a breach of lease too.

EK aren't exactly expanding in the US now, plus it was FlyDubai I was referring to that flew to SYZ and has the Max's in their fleet.
And how do you know the lease terms state categorically that if you find the plane AOG in Iran, don't call us ?

EK and FlyDubai share ultimate common ownership.

No-one wants to be tainted by busting a US embargo. Even if privately they disagree, or question it's legitimacy.

Illegality clause is standard in every commercial aircraft lease, though not necessarily identically worded.

If the aircraft leasor and leasee were US owned, would approval to transfer parts (or complete engine), equipment, technical staff, data and money have been forthcoming more quickly?

Intense but discreet lobbying going on behind the scenes by the OEM's and Governments, but presumably consideration / approval is affected by the US shutdown.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3402
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:39 pm

In corporate flying, we overflew Iran, but briefed an ETP and divert plan as if on an ETOPS (overwater) leg. It’s not that far to divert to north into Turkey, south to the Gulf or to Pakistan, depending on routing. I’d have no problem landing there, but it’d be a hassle. A friend diverted into Tehran with a oil leak in a UAE-registered Challenger for an oil leak. Simple fix took about two hours after EIGHT days of making arrangements, getting local permits, visas for techs and access to the ramp. The bureaucratic problem isn’t just US sanctions. Red tape knows no borders and I’m sure the local Shiraz “officials” are milking this one for all they can get.

GF
 
User avatar
FlyXLsa
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:03 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:54 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
In corporate flying, we overflew Iran, but briefed an ETP and divert plan as if on an ETOPS (overwater) leg. It’s not that far to divert to north into Turkey, south to the Gulf or to Pakistan, depending on routing. I’d have no problem landing there, but it’d be a hassle. A friend diverted into Tehran with a oil leak in a UAE-registered Challenger for an oil leak. Simple fix took about two hours after EIGHT days of making arrangements, getting local permits, visas for techs and access to the ramp. The bureaucratic problem isn’t just US sanctions. Red tape knows no borders and I’m sure the local Shiraz “officials” are milking this one for all they can get.

GF


Red tape is right! I recall a few years ago Swiss Airlines did an engine swap in -40F winter weather at Iqaluit on a newer 777. They flew the engine, tent, mechanics, etc. in on an AN-124 IIRC. Unfortunately this event is likely to make that look like a walk in the park if they really do need to swap an engine?
Whiskey-Oscar-Oscar-Foxtrot
 
sonicruiser
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 am

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:30 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
sonicruiser wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:

Care to expand on why you know better than I do?


Why do you think the pilots of this plane diverted? By your logic, they should have continued with engine troubles even if it meant imminent danger to the plane.


I know why they diverted I don't know why they diverted to IRAN. The engine failure wasn't catastrophic, there was no fire, the wing didn't fall off.......This was a problem with oil pressure, there was no imminent danger to anybody. If an engine failure caused "imminent danger" then there would be no such thing as ETOPS I can fly the 787 for up to 240 minutes on one engine my divert time is limited to my cargo fire suppression system.

So again tell me in detail why you know better than me and why I should hang up my wings.


1. ETOPS would be great if the plane in question was certified for it which it was not.
2. Don't know how you can say it wasn't an immediate issue when it is crystal clear that if diverting somewhere else was an option, they would've done it. They didn't.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:40 pm

sonicruiser wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
sonicruiser wrote:

Why do you think the pilots of this plane diverted? By your logic, they should have continued with engine troubles even if it meant imminent danger to the plane.


I know why they diverted I don't know why they diverted to IRAN. The engine failure wasn't catastrophic, there was no fire, the wing didn't fall off.......This was a problem with oil pressure, there was no imminent danger to anybody. If an engine failure caused "imminent danger" then there would be no such thing as ETOPS I can fly the 787 for up to 240 minutes on one engine my divert time is limited to my cargo fire suppression system.

So again tell me in detail why you know better than me and why I should hang up my wings.


1. ETOPS would be great if the plane in question was certified for it which it was not.
2. Don't know how you can say it wasn't an immediate issue when it is crystal clear that if diverting somewhere else was an option, they would've done it. They didn't.


Certification doesn’t mean anything. any MAX in the world can fly ETOPS, certification just allows you to do it. It doesn’t change how an aircraft performs on one engine.

Correct they didn’t, was it a good choice or a bad choice? I don’t know because I don’t know what NAI manuals say about intl diversions but I can tell you that a non catestrophic engine failure is not a dire emergency. Everything I’ve read says it was a an inflight shut down due to oil pressure. The pictures I’ve seen the engine isn’t blown into pieces..... If NAI manuals say don’t go to Iran then it was a bad decision.

I have nothing against the Iranian people but politics is politics and it plays a role in aviation and the decisions REAL pilots make on a daily basis.

It’s clear you are an arm chair airliner fan and that’s ok. But don’t act like you are an expert when you clearly aren’t.
 
sonicruiser
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 am

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:58 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
Certification doesn’t mean anything. any MAX in the world can fly ETOPS, certification just allows you to do it. It doesn’t change how an aircraft performs on one engine.


Correct, but even then, if it's not certified, it's not certified. I get that the certification is more or less a placebo but there are rules in place that are designed to prevent a bad situation from becoming worse which is basically why only ETOPS certified planes are allowed to fly as such should the need arise. There are plenty of 737's flying around today that could operate ETOPS routes no problem but that's kind of useless if the plane you're flying isn't certified for it unless somehow the pilot can get special permission to do otherwise.
 
Bradin
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:12 am

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:12 pm

Wow... two months later, and the plane is still there? At this rate, it's going to be in Iran for a full year... or longer.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:22 pm

sonicruiser wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
Certification doesn’t mean anything. any MAX in the world can fly ETOPS, certification just allows you to do it. It doesn’t change how an aircraft performs on one engine.


Correct, but even then, if it's not certified, it's not certified. I get that the certification is more or less a placebo but there are rules in place that are designed to prevent a bad situation from becoming worse which is basically why only ETOPS certified planes are allowed to fly as such should the need arise. There are plenty of 737's flying around today that could operate ETOPS routes no problem but that's kind of useless if the plane you're flying isn't certified for it unless somehow the pilot can get special permission to do otherwise.



ETOPS doesn’t matter! I can takeoff and lose an engine and fly until I run out of gas and no one would be in danger. That’s why aviation is so safe.

ETOPS is paperwork that’s it. The engines on the MAX and the airframe itself is ETOPS certified by the world regulating authorities the paint on the side means nothing.

This airplane was filed to fly to Northern Europe they probably could have made it to Eastern Europe on their fuel load. They absolutely could have made it across the Iranian border......that’s NOT ETOPS
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3402
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:16 pm

They were about 40 minutes OEI from DXB and about 30 from DOH; turning, starting the checklist, getting clearance going to either would have been imminently sensible and defensible. I suspect no more flying time that was used to land in SYZ.

GF
 
User avatar
FlyXLsa
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:03 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:58 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
They were about 40 minutes OEI from DXB and about 30 from DOH; turning, starting the checklist, getting clearance going to either would have been imminently sensible and defensible. I suspect no more flying time that was used to land in SYZ.

GF


It took them 30 minutes to land at Shiraz with the Fuel they had to burn.
The following is from Southwest's QRH Note Section:

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.

Other companies may "expand" the Captain's authority even further at their individual discretion as was previously mentioned?
Whiskey-Oscar-Oscar-Foxtrot
 
nm2582
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:15 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:24 am

I'm kind of puzzled at the "ETOPS is just paperwork" posts and trying to justify continued flight.

If the pilots had just arbitrarily continued flying under the logic that "some other 737's have ETOPS, so ours can do it too", and found minutes later that their only other operating engine started to fail due to the same cause (perhaps a mechanic made same mistake on both engines due to no ETOPS procedures in effect), and something tragic happened....there would be hell to pay.

Everyone's safe. The aircraft is recoverable, the airline brand is not tarnished, and a year from now this will just be a curiosity. This industry is about multiple layers of safety. Everything worked as it was supposed to.... We all know that many (most?) incidents are the result of a series of events that, when put together, end in tragedy; there's no reason to force one of those events if you can avoid it and your procedures indicate that you are supposed to avoid it.
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Wed Jan 16, 2019 7:56 am

CriticalPoint wrote:
sonicruiser wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
Certification doesn’t mean anything. any MAX in the world can fly ETOPS, certification just allows you to do it. It doesn’t change how an aircraft performs on one engine.


Correct, but even then, if it's not certified, it's not certified. I get that the certification is more or less a placebo but there are rules in place that are designed to prevent a bad situation from becoming worse which is basically why only ETOPS certified planes are allowed to fly as such should the need arise. There are plenty of 737's flying around today that could operate ETOPS routes no problem but that's kind of useless if the plane you're flying isn't certified for it unless somehow the pilot can get special permission to do otherwise.



ETOPS doesn’t matter! I can takeoff and lose an engine and fly until I run out of gas and no one would be in danger. That’s why aviation is so safe.

ETOPS is paperwork that’s it. The engines on the MAX and the airframe itself is ETOPS certified by the world regulating authorities the paint on the side means nothing.

This airplane was filed to fly to Northern Europe they probably could have made it to Eastern Europe on their fuel load. They absolutely could have made it across the Iranian border......that’s NOT ETOPS

This proves that you have absolutely no idea and you should simply listen to others instead of trying to insert your nonsense.

ETOPS is not just paperwork, ETOPS is a whole set of procedures both flying the plane and maintaining the plane. If the plane is not ETOPS certified it is likely that the plane is maintained under a far relaxed procedure. What the hell would happen if another engine fails? Even if the plane is certified, if it's not maintained to ETOPS standard there is still a higher chance of that happening.

By your mean this plane should just fly further even when the chance of second engine also failing is likely to be higher than ETOPS planes? And deliberately choose to ignore SOP is FINE, right? Jesus, if you're a real pilot I seriously doubt how you passed all your exams and line checks.

Michael
 
estorilm
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:12 pm

eamondzhang wrote:
If the plane is not ETOPS certified it is likely that the plane is maintained under a far relaxed procedure. What the hell would happen if another engine fails? Even if the plane is certified, if it's not maintained to ETOPS standard there is still a higher chance of that happening.

By your mean this plane should just fly further even when the chance of second engine also failing is likely to be higher than ETOPS planes? And deliberately choose to ignore SOP is FINE, right? Jesus, if you're a real pilot I seriously doubt how you passed all your exams and line checks.

Michael

I kinda understand your logic, and would certainly hope (and expect) professional ATP's to adhere to correct protocol and ops for ETOPS (although that's up to the routing and type of flight, which equipment they give you, etc).

HOWEVER, having said that - I think your understanding of ETOPS is slightly flawed. There is no "relaxed maintenance" on the same aircraft which do not have ETOPS ratings - as others have said, there's simply a TON of paperwork and additional training for the mechanics and operations staff (and pilots, etc) some of which is established by the airline, and some directly by the FAA.

Yes generally the airlines training and some of the FAA protocols involve deeper inspections, but I wouldn't imply that any specific part can be neglected or treated any differently than a non-ETOPS plane. If the mx and service manuals say a part or piece needs to be a certain way - it still needs to be a certain way. Granted I will give you the benefit of the doubt that said part possibly has a minute chance of not being seen, given non-ETOPS mx schedules/depth - but this is totally hypothetical.

Also I think the overall point here is that the air frame and engine combination is really what is "certified ETOPS" to demonstrate the required redundancy involved in that certification. To obtain and retain the rating requires airlines to do the above (mx procedures, training, etc) and report stats on aircraft performance. They also must have complete information on single-engine ops for all phases of flight and supply them to both the air and ground crews. Again we are talking paperwork and ops, not necessarily hardware.

It's not something we are talking about making a habit of, but I think the simple point here is that that airframe and engine combination has been PROVEN reliable and ETOPS-capable.

If (with fuel burn, time to run checklists, etc) the crew deemed that the negligible increase in flight time was not only possible, but may result in a safer outcome for the crew/pax, and possibly (as a secondary consideration) a far more economical choice for the airline (pax and mx) - then I see absolutely no problems with their decision. Again, we're talking a few minutes here, not 180 as some of these birds are currently rated for.
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:23 pm

I am no commercial pilot but I am lead to understand that on an ETOPS aircraft - in this case a twin engined 737 - one glaring difference with non-ETOPS aircraft is that no mechanic is allowed to work on both engines, each engine must be serviced by a different set of staff. This is to avoid a mechanic who has misunderstood something doing his thing to both engines! I think nm2582 is alluding to this in his last post

If this aircraft has not been maintained to ETOPS standards, one engine out could perhaps be due to a mechanic's error, so there is a distinct and finite possibility that the same mechanic did the same to the other engine as well!
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:36 pm

sassiciai wrote:
I am no commercial pilot but I am lead to understand that on an ETOPS aircraft - in this case a twin engined 737 - one glaring difference with non-ETOPS aircraft is that no mechanic is allowed to work on both engines, each engine must be serviced by a different set of staff. This is to avoid a mechanic who has misunderstood something doing his thing to both engines! I think nm2582 is alluding to this in his last post

If this aircraft has not been maintained to ETOPS standards, one engine out could perhaps be due to a mechanic's error, so there is a distinct and finite possibility that the same mechanic did the same to the other engine as well!



This is correct. Plus a few other checks. But the peices and parts are not different or maintained any less just looked at more.
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:49 pm

This is correct. Plus a few other checks. But the peices and parts are not different or maintained any less just looked at more.[/quote]

To be a bit pedantic, not looked at "more", looked at by "different" eyes!

Most everybody knows IKEA furniture, and the required home-assembly that comes with much of it. I have seen engineers who "know" how to assemble it without reading the instructions, and who will make the same fundamental mistake at each of 2 assembly points on all 4 corners, leaving behind something that is not fit for purpose. And that's a bookcase or a desk. Now imagine if he does that to both engines on the 737 he has to do line maintenance on!

That is why ETOPS is much more stringent than non-ETOPS, and I am sure it costs more as well!
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:53 pm

eamondzhang wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
sonicruiser wrote:

Correct, but even then, if it's not certified, it's not certified. I get that the certification is more or less a placebo but there are rules in place that are designed to prevent a bad situation from becoming worse which is basically why only ETOPS certified planes are allowed to fly as such should the need arise. There are plenty of 737's flying around today that could operate ETOPS routes no problem but that's kind of useless if the plane you're flying isn't certified for it unless somehow the pilot can get special permission to do otherwise.



ETOPS doesn’t matter! I can takeoff and lose an engine and fly until I run out of gas and no one would be in danger. That’s why aviation is so safe.

ETOPS is paperwork that’s it. The engines on the MAX and the airframe itself is ETOPS certified by the world regulating authorities the paint on the side means nothing.

This airplane was filed to fly to Northern Europe they probably could have made it to Eastern Europe on their fuel load. They absolutely could have made it across the Iranian border......that’s NOT ETOPS

This proves that you have absolutely no idea and you should simply listen to others instead of trying to insert your nonsense.

ETOPS is not just paperwork, ETOPS is a whole set of procedures both flying the plane and maintaining the plane. If the plane is not ETOPS certified it is likely that the plane is maintained under a far relaxed procedure. What the hell would happen if another engine fails? Even if the plane is certified, if it's not maintained to ETOPS standard there is still a higher chance of that happening.

By your mean this plane should just fly further even when the chance of second engine also failing is likely to be higher than ETOPS planes? And deliberately choose to ignore SOP is FINE, right? Jesus, if you're a real pilot I seriously doubt how you passed all your exams and line checks.

Michael


Deliberately choose to ignore SOP?? Delta lost an engine over Russia and diverted to Shemya. Ask yourself why? I guarantee that they made the proper decision by not landing in Russia.

You have no idea what SOP is. You and the other aviation fans just want to prove how smart you think you are. You can either listen and learn from the professionals or just continue to tell us we are stupid. Your choice but I’m done being told I’m stupid by people who have never opened an airline manual and want to quote SOP.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:58 pm

sassiciai wrote:
This is correct. Plus a few other checks. But the peices and parts are not different or maintained any less just looked at more.


To be a bit pedantic, not looked at "more", looked at by "different" eyes!

Most everybody knows IKEA furniture, and the required home-assembly that comes with much of it. I have seen engineers who "know" how to assemble it without reading the instructions, and who will make the same fundamental mistake at each of 2 assembly points on all 4 corners, leaving behind something that is not fit for purpose. And that's a bookcase or a desk. Now imagine if he does that to both engines on the 737 he has to do line maintenance on!

That is why ETOPS is much more stringent than non-ETOPS, and I am sure it costs more as well![/quote]

Not to be pedantic but it’s looked at more because you need an ETOPS sign off prior to every ETOPS leg we’re as non ETOPS jets have a days or hours check.
 
User avatar
FlyXLsa
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:03 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:18 pm

FlyXLsa wrote:
FlyXLsa wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
You can either listen and learn from the professionals or just continue to tell us we are stupid. Your choice but I’m done being told I’m stupid by people who have never opened an airline manual and want to quote SOP.


I choose to listen and learn from those with more experience than I. I, for one, find your responses VERY reasoned CriticalPoint.

I can name 5 or 6 recent incidents where the Captain chose to divert to an airport that was not the "nearest suitable" - some good calls, some questionable. I have no clue whether on not this A330 was ETOPS and don't really care, but for some reason they continued to destination arriving some 55 minutes later. I don't fly internationally so it's a bit different within the US with so many alternates. I did see an AA flight overfly Cuba for Miami with a medical emergency a few days ago but that not the same as OEI. Here is just such an example in "friendly" territory:

Incident: Brussels A332 near Geneva on Nov 5th 2018, engine shut down in flight

A Brussels Airlines Airbus A330-200, registration OO-SFZ performing flight SN-359 (dep Nov 4th) from Kinshasa N'djili (DR Congo) to Brussels (Belgium), was enroute at FL400 about 20nm east of Geneva (Switzerland) within French Airspace when the left hand engine (PW4168) emitted a loud bang, the crew received an "ENG1 STALL" warning. The crew shut the engine down, drifted down to FL280 and continued to Brussels for a safe landing about 55 minutes later.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4bfe4c32&opt=769

As for this event over SHIRAZ, IRAN, I've said it before, but I point my nose in the direction of KWI at the first sign of trouble, work the checklists s-l-o-w-l-y, burn some fuel and put down in KWI. Management and regulatory authorities are HIGHLY UNLIKELY to question this action given the politically realities. Same applies to Cuba, Somalia, North Korea and any number of other countries.
Whiskey-Oscar-Oscar-Foxtrot
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:29 pm

FlyXLsa wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
You can either listen and learn from the professionals or just continue to tell us we are stupid. Your choice but I’m done being told I’m stupid by people who have never opened an airline manual and want to quote SOP.


I choose to listen and learn from those with more experience than I. I, for one, find your responses VERY reasoned CriticalPoint.

I can name 5 or 6 recent incidents where the Captain chose to divert to an airport that was not the "nearest suitable" - some good calls, some questionable. I have no clue whether on not this A330 was ETOPS and don't really care, but for some reason they continued to destination arriving some 55 minutes later. I don't fly internationally so it's a bit different within the US with so many alternates. I did see an AA flight overfly Cuba for Miami with a medical emergency a few days ago but that not the same as OEI. Here is just such an example in "friendly" territory:

Incident: Brussels A332 near Geneva on Nov 5th 2018, engine shut down in flight

A Brussels Airlines Airbus A330-200, registration OO-SFZ performing flight SN-359 (dep Nov 4th) from Kinshasa N'djili (DR Congo) to Brussels (Belgium), was enroute at FL400 about 20nm east of Geneva (Switzerland) within French Airspace when the left hand engine (PW4168) emitted a loud bang, the crew received an "ENG1 STALL" warning. The crew shut the engine down, drifted down to FL280 and continued to Brussels for a safe landing about 55 minutes later.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4bfe4c32&opt=769

As for this event over SHIRAZ, IRAN, I've said it before, but I point my nose in the direction of KWI at the first sign of trouble, work the checklists s-l-o-w-l-y, burn some fuel and put down in KWI. Management and regulatory authorities are HIGHLY UNLIKELY to question this action given the politically realities. Same applies to Cuba, Somalia, North Korea and any number of other countries.


Thanks XL there are several manuals we use not just an FOM and FM. They all list out specific things that need to be considered when diverting internationally, bottom line is it is not a cut and dry land at nearest suitable airport. The checklist says that because it’s generic the manuals closer define what that means. They are approved by the FAA so there is no issue.

Again I don’t know what NAIs manual says about Iran diversions but considering they are a western country I question whether or not the manual cautioned against landing there. If it didn’t then they are fine but again my manual says do not land in Iran unless continued flight is no longer an option....EX. NW cargo fire even though it was determined to be a false indication.

Brussels airlines in my opinion made a horrible choice to continue for hours after restarting an engine failure. I said so in that thread. I agreed Libya might not be the best place to land but as soon as I crossed the sea I’d be landing at the first European airport that could handle me. Zeek, longhaulr, MCDU, and mm320 (all) pilots got hammered in that thread for saying the same thing.
 
User avatar
FlyXLsa
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:03 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:40 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
Brussels airlines in my opinion made a horrible choice to continue for hours after restarting an engine failure. I said so in that thread. I agreed Libya might not be the best place to land but as soon as I crossed the sea I’d be landing at the first European airport that could handle me. Zeek, longhaulr, MCDU, and mm320 (all) pilots got hammered in that thread for saying the same thing.


Ironically THIS Brussels flight was another flight on the route about a month prior to the the "horrible flight" you reference where they restarted the engine, continued and then had another engine issue. The flight I referenced was a OEI near Geneva in November. IIRC the other flight was in Decemeber.
Whiskey-Oscar-Oscar-Foxtrot
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3402
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:52 pm

No pilot is saying fly it for hours, just if the choice is 30 minutes at Shiraz or 40-50 minutes to KWI, DOH or back to DXB, there’s a fine argument for doing so and doesn’t increase the risk based on the known reason for the failure—low/lost oil pressure. Yes, if accompanied with fire warning, vibrations, damage; land at Shiraz.

When I mentioned ETOPS, it was in vein of detailing where to go to the nearest airport outside Iran, what problems would entail immediate landing, etc.

GF
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:53 pm

FlyXLsa wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
Brussels airlines in my opinion made a horrible choice to continue for hours after restarting an engine failure. I said so in that thread. I agreed Libya might not be the best place to land but as soon as I crossed the sea I’d be landing at the first European airport that could handle me. Zeek, longhaulr, MCDU, and mm320 (all) pilots got hammered in that thread for saying the same thing.


Ironically THIS Brussels flight was another flight on the route about a month prior to the the "horrible flight" you reference where they restarted the engine, continued and then had another engine issue. The flight I referenced was a OEI near Geneva in November. IIRC the other flight was in Decemeber.


you are correct my apologies I didn’t click the link but just did. I question that decision as well you’re over Germany with plenty of airports to land an A330 at.

This appears to be a cultural issue at Brussels airlines with a complete the mission at all costs mindset. The FAA would have hung that crew but I don’t know what the European regulators will do, maybe it’s different.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:54 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
No pilot is saying fly it for hours, just if the choice is 30 minutes at Shiraz or 40-50 minutes to KWI, DOH or back to DXB, there’s a fine argument for doing so and doesn’t increase the risk based on the known reason for the failure—low/lost oil pressure. Yes, if accompanied with fire warning, vibrations, damage; land at Shiraz.

When I mentioned ETOPS, it was in vein of detailing where to go to the nearest airport outside Iran, what problems would entail immediate landing, etc.

GF


Well said I mentioned ETOPS to make a point that an engine failure is not “imminent danger”
 
a350lover
Posts: 715
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 11:21 am

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:45 pm

Is there any update on the situation of this 737 "stranded" in Shiraz?
 
TC957
Posts: 3452
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:57 pm

Anyone know what happened to the flight crew once they got back to Norway ? I mean, where they criticized for landing in SYZ when another 10 mins flying would have taken them to KWI etc, or congratulated for a job well done ?
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 2278
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:02 am

a350lover wrote:
Is there any update on the situation of this 737 "stranded" in Shiraz?


So far as we know, it's still there, and they're still trying to cut through red tape to get started on the repair
 
a350lover
Posts: 715
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 11:21 am

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:38 pm

Any news about this? How much hassle has this cost to the airline already!

Any way they could figure out what the final cost of all this could be?
 
Mangs
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 7:09 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:18 pm

 
User avatar
dara88
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:35 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:18 am

The engine is being replaced at the moment.
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 5687
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Fri Feb 22, 2019 12:35 pm

This is indeed great news !
 
TC957
Posts: 3452
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:54 pm

Thanks for the update - dara88, are you able to post any pictures of the work I progress ?
 
User avatar
dara88
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:35 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:14 pm

TC957 wrote:
Thanks for the update - dara88, are you able to post any pictures of the work I progress ?

This is the only leaked photo yet. The engine is sent via that IL-76.
Image
 
Boof02671
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:16 pm

How much technology did the Iranians steal from it?
 
User avatar
dara88
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:35 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:42 pm

Boof02671 wrote:
How much technology did the Iranians steal from it?

Every bit of its technology!
 
Boof02671
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:46 pm

dara88 wrote:
Boof02671 wrote:
How much technology did the Iranians steal from it?

Every bit of its technology!

I agree
 
itisi
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:37 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm

Nice one America. Maybe they can sue the US government to get all their loses back.
737-300/400/500 ... are NOT classics :)
 
vinniewinnie
Posts: 713
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:23 am

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:52 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
FlyXLsa wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
Brussels airlines in my opinion made a horrible choice to continue for hours after restarting an engine failure. I said so in that thread. I agreed Libya might not be the best place to land but as soon as I crossed the sea I’d be landing at the first European airport that could handle me. Zeek, longhaulr, MCDU, and mm320 (all) pilots got hammered in that thread for saying the same thing.


Ironically THIS Brussels flight was another flight on the route about a month prior to the the "horrible flight" you reference where they restarted the engine, continued and then had another engine issue. The flight I referenced was a OEI near Geneva in November. IIRC the other flight was in Decemeber.


you are correct my apologies I didn’t click the link but just did. I question that decision as well you’re over Germany with plenty of airports to land an A330 at.

This appears to be a cultural issue at Brussels airlines with a complete the mission at all costs mindset. The FAA would have hung that crew but I don’t know what the European regulators will do, maybe it’s different.


Says who? Unless you were there, unless you work in the company or you have access to some documents no-one else has, I would refrain from judging an airline with words such as cultural issue...
 
airlinereporter
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:34 am

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:41 pm

She's finally back on her way to ARN https://twitter.com/AirlineFlyer/status ... 8881341440
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2619
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:53 pm

Back to work LN-BKE, vacation is over!
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Norweigan 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:29 pm

cbphoto wrote:
Kadish wrote:
Glad the passengers are getting rescued at least !


Rescued?! Is there a war and I havent noticed?
I was in Iran last summer n believe me they are extremly friendly, caring....the worst the heat but im not sure they cant be blamed for that.[/quote]

I don’t think they meant it that way. We use the term “rescue” for flights here in the states that rescue a plane that went tech. I’m sure that’s all they meant by that comment.[/quote]

Yes agree. The term is routinely used informally in the US for a flight sent to pick up customers stranded at some intermediate airport due to tech.

Offense-sensitivity.
 
TC957
Posts: 3452
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Sat Feb 23, 2019 7:35 pm

Looks like the engine replacement went well and according to Aviation Herald, LN-BKE has flown to ARN now.
 
M564038
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

Re: Norwegian 737 Max Diverts to Shiraz, Iran

Wed Feb 27, 2019 8:30 am

Just Boarded -BKE doing it’s first revenue flight after it’s comeback.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos