Norweigan flight 1933 flying Dubai to Oslo diverted to Shiraz with engine trouble.

This will be quite a interesting diversion recovery considering the sanctions currently imposed on Iran and the general lack of resources in Shiraz to handle Norweigan.

[url]https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1073589476457369600
[/url]

It must have been serious enough to warrant going to the nearest airport. I mean Doha, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Kuwait are all 'closeby' in consideration to most diversions

Looks like Norweigan is sending a 738 from Oslo to pick up the stranded passengers at SYZ.

https://twitter.com/flightradar24/statu ... 3460769792

It'll be interesting how diplomatically this incident will play out and get resolved for the poor Max.
Glad the passengers are getting rescued at least !

Section 560.528 of the ITR provides that specific licenses may be issued, on a case-bycase
basis, for the exportation and reexportation of goods, services and technology to
insure the safety of civil aviation and safe operation of U.S.-origin commercial passenger
aircraft.

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-cente ... /iran.aspx

If the aircraft is unairworthy without a part and such parts cannot be obtained or repaired otherwise, I guess they (or their maintenance contractor) might try to get such a license for this particular case, for the particular parts needed.

I'm not sure though, if they could pursue such a license for an Airbus or any other non-US aircraft. Would be very inconvenient to divert to Iran only to have the plane stuck there.

I feel bad for that recovery team. That is going to be a PITA to get in there and fix the jet and get back out. I"m sure the parking fees are going to be a bit inflated as well.

Am I missing something here? Nothing is being sold to Iran. No parts, nothing. It is sold to Norwegian, shipped to Iran and installed on Norwegian's aircraft. Much ado about nothing. Or do you guys think that no part is ever replaced among all the regularly scheduled flights into Iran (and Cuba, Syria, et cetera) operated by foreign (non-Irani) Boeing and Airbus aircraft?

mxaxai wrote:

Section 560.528 of the ITR provides that specific licenses may be issued, on a case-bycase
basis, for the exportation and reexportation of goods, services and technology to
insure the safety of civil aviation and safe operation of U.S.-origin commercial passenger
aircraft.

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-cente ... /iran.aspx

If the aircraft is unairworthy without a part and such parts cannot be obtained or repaired otherwise, I guess they (or their maintenance contractor) might try to get such a license for this particular case, for the particular parts needed.

I'm not sure though, if they could pursue such a license for an Airbus or any other non-US aircraft. Would be very inconvenient to divert to Iran only to have the plane stuck there.

I don't see why the part would require an OFAC license. It is a Norwegian-flagged aircraft in the fleet of a non-Iranian legal entity. Not too long ago there was a LH plane (I recall a 747 with an engine issue) that could not make the return trip from IKA. Parts were flown in and repairs made. The ship left after a day or two.

amishfarmer wrote:

I feel bad for that recovery team. That is going to be a PITA to get in there and fix the jet and get back out. I"m sure the parking fees are going to be a bit inflated as well.

Again, I don't see a major disaster. Compared to the cost of engine, crew and mechanics' salaries, the parking fees would be minor.

Further, Iran Aseman has a maintenance base at SYZ that does heavy checks on the ATR-72. There is plenty of hanger space and tools. Aseman also has 737-400 in its fleet and has certified A&P mechanics (not sure whether they are based in THR or SYZ, but that's hardly an issue)

Another airline company, Sepehran, is actually based at SYZ (it's call sign is "Shirazi) and does line maintenance on its 737 (-300 and -500) fleet.

I realize that the MAX is significantly different than the Classic. The point though is there is plenty of equipment, tools and engineering expertise to assist the NX team, should they require it.

a300 wrote:

I don't see why the part would require an OFAC license. It is a Norwegian-flagged aircraft in the fleet of a non-Iranian legal entity.

The ban not only includes named Iranian operators, but Iran as a whole. And also includes export of testing / diagnostic equipment, and trained technicians and technology transfer. Using Iranian technicians would be an issue if knowledge is acquired in the process, and accessing technical files online from PW within Iran is blocked.

In a perfect world, the operator puts replacement parts and testing / diagnostic equipment on board the rescue aircraft, together with trained staff, borrows hanger space, tools and local expertise, and the aircraft is back in the air asap.

If the part has to be ordered in / foreign contractors used............... A lot of t's will need to be crossed, and i's dotted, to ensure no collateral trade damage due to the perception or reality of embargo busting, including the re-export of all faulty / replaced parts.

smartplane wrote:

a300 wrote:

I don't see why the part would require an OFAC license. It is a Norwegian-flagged aircraft in the fleet of a non-Iranian legal entity.

The ban not only includes named Iranian operators, but Iran as a whole. And also includes export of testing / diagnostic equipment, and trained technicians and technology transfer. Using Iranian technicians would be an issue if knowledge is acquired in the process, and accessing technical files online from PW within Iran is blocked.

In a perfect world, the operator puts replacement parts and testing / diagnostic equipment on board the rescue aircraft, together with trained staff, borrows hanger space, tools and local expertise, and the aircraft is back in the air asap.

If the part has to be ordered in / foreign contractors used............... A lot of t's will need to be crossed, and i's dotted, to ensure no collateral trade damage due to the perception or reality of embargo busting, including the re-export of all faulty / replaced parts.

As I mentioned, this was recently done with a LH aircraft at IKA. IR does some of the line maintenance for LH at THR. LH has some technical staff there that oversee LH and OS aircraft. I am not sure how they arrange payments with Iran Air, but they do.

Let's see what happens with the Norwegian aircraft. My educated guess is that it will be gone in under a week. Of course, time will tell.

There won’t be much of an issue. ~15 years ago a NW DC-10 actually had an emergency diversion to Tehran. They were still able to get things checked out and pay for fuel (I think diversion was a false alarm). Plane and passengers got out.

What happens with the PAX?

If most of them are Norwegian, will they lose the ESTA privilege for their next visit to the US because they have visited Iran?

If the pax were kept airside, then technically they never entered Iran so that shouldn't be an issue.

SCQ83 wrote:

What happens with the PAX?

If most of them are Norwegian, will they lose the ESTA privilege for their next visit to the US because they have visited Iran?

I would think they are in an "sterile" transit area and have not officially crossed Iranian immigration check. This was how the NW passengers were handled many years ago. Diversions to Iran happen from time to time. An Air India B787 did that a while back.

I doubt that this will be an issue.

SCQ83 wrote:

What happens with the PAX?

If most of them are Norwegian, will they lose the ESTA privilege for their next visit to the US because they have visited Iran?

A replacement aircraft is already on it's way to pick up the passengers. I guess they will stay airside waiting for this replacement aircraft and thus not clearing immigration in Iran. Therefor technically they haven't been there.

I don't see any proplem at all. Lots of people travel between UAE and Iran everyday, Iranian people are very hospitable ......possible delay due to US sanctions making parts difficult but the USA could't care less about the difficulties arising sadly

Another engine issue

Entirely possible they might be able to just ferry flight it somewhere on flight restrictions.

Polot wrote:

There won’t be much of an issue. ~15 years ago a NW DC-10 actually had an emergency diversion to Tehran. They were still able to get things checked out and pay for fuel (I think diversion was a false alarm). Plane and passengers got out.

Northwest Flight 41 in June 2005 from Mumbai-Amsterdam. Yep, it was a false alarm. There is an AWESOME podcast from back in 2010 where the captain of that flight describes the incident in extreme detail. By some amazing stroke of luck, the captain had flown for Iran Air before the revolution and know some Farsi. It's really interesting to hear how they navigated the cultural, political, and logistic challenges. I listen to it once every couple of months because it's just that good.

You can get it free here:
http://www.flightpodcast.com/episode-4- ... nto-tehran

N415XJ wrote:

Polot wrote:

There won’t be much of an issue. ~15 years ago a NW DC-10 actually had an emergency diversion to Tehran. They were still able to get things checked out and pay for fuel (I think diversion was a false alarm). Plane and passengers got out.

Northwest Flight 41 in June 2005 from Mumbai-Amsterdam. Yep, it was a false alarm. There is an AWESOME podcast from back in 2010 where the captain of that flight describes the incident in extreme detail. By some amazing stroke of luck, the captain had flown for Iran Air before the revolution and know some Farsi. It's really interesting to hear how they navigated the cultural, political, and logistic challenges. I listen to it once every couple of months because it's just that good.

You can get it free here:
http://www.flightpodcast.com/episode-4- ... nto-tehran

The correct name for the official language of Iran is Persian (in English). "Farsi" (more correctly "Parsi") is Persian for Persian. A common inaccuracy that both Iranians and non-Iranians use. If you see Iran Air's website, the term Persian (is correctly) used.

I have a family member who was on the flight. They were transferred to a hotel in the city but their passports were retained by flight or airport personnel-they were told the crew timed out and they are now scheduled to leave at 1300 local time.

I'm sure they were all being taken care of nicely. Will be a fun tale to tell family and friends.

I was flying DME-DOH on QR roughly two months ago, and we diverted to KIH - Kish Island in Iran due to poor weather in Doha. All the Russians on board (most of the pax) didn't even realize we diverted and it was fun to watch them all gather their belongings and get in line to deplane. I had to tell some people that ahem... we are actually in Iran waiting out the storm. The expressions on their faces... priceless. Crew was having a hard time explaining the situation since they didn't speak Russian.

We sat on the tarmac for a few hours, refueled and carried on. The ground staff was super friendly, joked around and exchanged some goods with the Qatari crew. Most importantly, kept our plane air conditioned in the insane heat. Seems like this is a rare event as normally QR planes divert to Bahrain.

And for me as an avgeek, a cool little unplanned experience of landing on a tiny (but gorgeous) island in Iran.

Glad the passengers are getting rescued at least ![/quote]

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.

Aeroflot777 wrote:

I was flying DME-DOH on QR roughly two months ago, and we diverted to KIH - Kish Island in Iran due to poor weather in Doha. Seems like this is a rare event as normally QR planes divert to Bahrain.

And for me as an avgeek, a cool little unplanned experience of landing on a tiny (but gorgeous) island in Iran.

They can’t divert to Bahrain anymore. (Or UAE, Saudi Arabia or Egypt) anymore for the last 18 months or so for political reasons. Their closest options are now Iran, Kuwait and (slightly further away) Oman.

george77300 wrote:

They can’t divert to Bahrain anymore. (Or UAE, Saudi Arabia or Egypt) anymore for the last 18 months or so for political reasons. Their closest options are now Iran, Kuwait and (slightly further away) Oman.

Correct! I meant to write Kuwait and wrote Bahrain. Woke up too early, thanks for the correction. The QR crew mentioned that Kuwait was their go-to diversion these days.

Polot wrote:

There won’t be much of an issue. ~15 years ago a NW DC-10 actually had an emergency diversion to Tehran. They were still able to get things checked out and pay for fuel (I think diversion was a false alarm). Plane and passengers got out.

Northwest Flight 41, with a cargo bay fire alarm issue. Yes, it was a false. They did not pay for fuel as such - Northwest had to promise to pay for the fuel, and the Iranians supplied it and they departed to continue to AMS.

The Captain of the flight gave an interview - a fantastic hour long recounting of the entire event with lots of little details. This is a link to the interview: http://www.flightpodcast.com/episode-4- ... nto-tehran

Norwegian is probably not going to be facing the same issues as Northwest - Iran maintains diplomatic relations with the Europeans and the Europeans aren't nearly as punitive re: sanctions and such as the Americans - so it should be relatively straightforward in theory to get this issue fixed.

EDIT: I see somebody else dropped the link in here already ... oops. Late to the party I guess. But as N415XJ stated, the Podcast really is *that good* - give it a listen.

Kadish wrote:

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.

Hopefully just poorly worded. However, this thread is rather full of uninformed people to say it at least.

While Norway is part of the Iran embargo (we’re forced as US is a much more important trade partner), Norway has full diplomatic relations with Iran and Norwegian can visit Iran freely, although there is some issues getting the ESTA afterwards


And about fixing the plane: It is just to bring the tools and spareparts down there, fix the aircraft and fly it home. It is not like there is much CFM Leap spare parts in Iran anyway. This isn’t more complicated than when Air France had to divert a 777 to somewhere in Siberia

Norwegian 8402 LN-DYG just took off from Shiraz back to Oslo.

Given that it was not a planned stop, I don’t see that anyone can be penalised for going to Iran.

Is this the first B737MAX which has landed in Iran?

Someone83 wrote:

Kadish wrote:

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.

Hopefully just poorly worded. However, this thread is rather full of uninformed people to say it at least.

While Norway is part of the Iran embargo (we’re forced as US is a much more important trade partner), Norway has full diplomatic relations with Iran and Norwegian can visit Iran freely, although there is some issues getting the ESTA afterwards


And about fixing the plane: It is just to bring the tools and spareparts down there, fix the aircraft and fly it home. It is not like there is much CFM Leap spare parts in Iran anyway. This isn’t more complicated than when Air France had to divert a 777 to somewhere in Siberia

Absolutely agree, wonderful and charming people. Shiraz is a cozy little city with plenty of historic and cultural places to indulge in. Too bad they are unable to exit the airport due to visa requirements :/

Slash787 wrote:

Is this the first B737MAX which has landed in Iran?

No. flyDubai have flown the B737MAX to Iran on scheduled flights.

LTU330 wrote:

Slash787 wrote:

Is this the first B737MAX which has landed in Iran?

No. flyDubai have flown the B737MAX to Iran on scheduled flights.

Also can’t confirm necessarily but TK and WY also have 737 flights to Tehran at least so chances are one of their MAXs has been to Iran too.

fallap wrote:

Shiraz is a cozy little city with plenty of historic and cultural places to indulge in. Too bad they are unable to exit the airport due to visa requirements :/

No, the passengers did exit the airport and transferred to a city hotel. Did you not read the post (no reason to doubt its veracity) a dozen above yours? Here, in case you are too lazy to look up:-
You're welcome.

cj477 wrote:

I have a family member who was on the flight. They were transferred to a hotel in the city but their passports were retained by flight or airport personnel-they were told the crew timed out and they are now scheduled to leave at 1300 local time.

Aeroflot777 wrote:

And for me as an avgeek, a cool little unplanned experience of landing on a tiny (but gorgeous) island in Iran.

Almost 30 years ago, shortly before the USSR was dissolved, I missed my connecting plane to Milan due to my incoming flight to Moscow being delayed at both the origin and fuel stop cities. I arrived at the terminal just in time to see my aircraft take off. The next flight was for 48 hours later, in the evening.
No visa so passport not stamped (though allowed to hold on to it), but me together with a few other fellow passengers were accommodated at a gorgeous state guesthouse, on the city outskirts, for 2 nights.
We were not allowed to exit the vast fenced and guarded compound but on the second morning, the guesthouse manager brought us to the city for a few hours' tour. We were firmly told to stay very close to her side since we were legally not in the USSR. The US$20 that we were asked to pay for the favor/service was very much worth it.

"a cool little unplanned experience" for me too, and save for the US$20 that I gladly ante up, the VIP stay was totally free.

As a follow up, they left Shiraz pretty much as (newly) scheduled. For a bonus item, they stopped in Warsaw to refuel!

teusje wrote:

Norwegian 8402 LN-DYG just took off from Shiraz back to Oslo.

...and was diverted to WAW...for whatever reason….but finally arrived OSL...

neutrino wrote:

fallap wrote:

Shiraz is a cozy little city with plenty of historic and cultural places to indulge in. Too bad they are unable to exit the airport due to visa requirements :/

No, the passengers did exit the airport and transferred to a city hotel. Did you not read the post (no reason to doubt its veracity) a dozen above yours? Here, in case you are too lazy to look up:-
You're welcome.

Yes I read the post, and yes I doubted its veracity. This is the internet after all.

Although I do value your input to this thread, I also hope they were able to spend the night(s) at a local hotel and see what Shiraz has to offer.

TC957 wrote:

It'll be interesting how diplomatically this incident will play out and get resolved for the poor Max.
Glad the passengers are getting rescued at least !

The poor MAX? I don't understand that. Since the beginning of powered flight, airplanes have gone tech and in this case the crew did what their SOP required them to do. I can't imagine any Jerry Springer outcome to this minor incident. Did the female pilot not properly wear her Burqa according to Islam tradition or something? Was there an issue as to who the father was?

WIederling wrote:

The proper name for the big town near Bonn is "Cologne". "Köln" is just Cologne for the natives.

But in an aviation context, if you're filing a flight there you'll call it Köln:

EDDK KOELN/BONN

That's what it's registered as in the ICAO database. Similarly:

EDDM MUENCHEN

Shiraz is a great place. Good people and a city known to have some of the best looking girls in that part of the world. Iranians, who we westerners interact with, tend to be liberal and smart whether inside Iran or outside Iran. Very different people compared to the neighbouring arabs.

Not a major issue for most on this plane to get an Iranian stamp in ones passport (assuming the majority are Europeans). Most EU nations already allows for two passports. If a person needs to travel to the US and the US cause troubles due to an entry/exit stamp from Iran, just apply for a second passport where there are no stamps. Its the same procedure for us who have Israeli stamps and travel to the Middle East. While you are unlikely to see trouble, even the risk of potential barriers to entry is ground enough to obtain a second passport. A nice letter of support from employer or family member and voila the issue is solved.
Cant say I have experienced to much trouble anywhere despite stamps from less visited nations. A few questions, an explanation of work and voila I am in.

AirbusOnly wrote:

teusje wrote:

Norwegian 8402 LN-DYG just took off from Shiraz back to Oslo.

...and was diverted to WAW...for whatever reason….but finally arrived OSL...

this plane just cant catch a break

INFINITI329 wrote:

AirbusOnly wrote:

teusje wrote:

Norwegian 8402 LN-DYG just took off from Shiraz back to Oslo.

...and was diverted to WAW...for whatever reason….but finally arrived OSL...

this plane just cant catch a break

Ah it got two breaks, - albeit unplanned - Shiraz and Warsaw.

AirbusOnly wrote:

teusje wrote:

Norwegian 8402 LN-DYG just took off from Shiraz back to Oslo.

...and was diverted to WAW...for whatever reason….but finally arrived OSL...

AFAIK it was a fuel stop.

Remember LN-DYG is a 737-800 and not a -MAX 8. That aircraft is still in Iran

N415XJ wrote:

Polot wrote:

There won’t be much of an issue. ~15 years ago a NW DC-10 actually had an emergency diversion to Tehran. They were still able to get things checked out and pay for fuel (I think diversion was a false alarm). Plane and passengers got out.

Northwest Flight 41 in June 2005 from Mumbai-Amsterdam. Yep, it was a false alarm. There is an AWESOME podcast from back in 2010 where the captain of that flight describes the incident in extreme detail. By some amazing stroke of luck, the captain had flown for Iran Air before the revolution and know some Farsi. It's really interesting to hear how they navigated the cultural, political, and logistic challenges. I listen to it once every couple of months because it's just that good.

You can get it free here:
http://www.flightpodcast.com/episode-4- ... nto-tehran

An interesting side bar to the NW DC10 diversion is that the Captain, Bo Corby, had flown under contract for Iran Air previous to joining up with NWA. When he pulled into the gate, he was met by several former Iranian ground workers that he knew from his previous experience working there. Aviation can be a very small world at times.

I think the real story here is that there is a 7+
hour 737 flight. I’d rather walk.

aden23 wrote:

I think the real story here is that there is a 7+
hour 737 flight. I’d rather walk.

Whats the difference between comfort in a 737 and a widebody.

mxaxai wrote:

Section 560.528 of the ITR provides that specific licenses may be issued, on a case-bycase
basis, for the exportation and reexportation of goods, services and technology to
insure the safety of civil aviation and safe operation of U.S.-origin commercial passenger
aircraft.

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-cente ... /iran.aspx

If the aircraft is unairworthy without a part and such parts cannot be obtained or repaired otherwise, I guess they (or their maintenance contractor) might try to get such a license for this particular case, for the particular parts needed.

I'm not sure though, if they could pursue such a license for an Airbus or any other non-US aircraft. Would be very inconvenient to divert to Iran only to have the plane stuck there.

They’ll just fly a spare engine in. No big deal.

smartplane wrote:

a300 wrote:

I don't see why the part would require an OFAC license. It is a Norwegian-flagged aircraft in the fleet of a non-Iranian legal entity.

The ban not only includes named Iranian operators, but Iran as a whole. And also includes export of testing / diagnostic equipment, and trained technicians and technology transfer. Using Iranian technicians would be an issue if knowledge is acquired in the process, and accessing technical files online from PW within Iran is blocked.

In a perfect world, the operator puts replacement parts and testing / diagnostic equipment on board the rescue aircraft, together with trained staff, borrows hanger space, tools and local expertise, and the aircraft is back in the air asap.

If the part has to be ordered in / foreign contractors used............... A lot of t's will need to be crossed, and i's dotted, to ensure no collateral trade damage due to the perception or reality of embargo busting, including the re-export of all faulty / replaced parts.

Norwegian are gonna use sketchy Iranian mechanics they don’t know. They’ll just fly their own in. Airlines with no relationships don’t just fix each other’s planes.

Kadish wrote:

Glad the passengers are getting rescued at least !

[/quote]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.