Iran Air 727 Crash

pclancy

Taken from BBC:

An Iranian passenger plane with more than 100 people on board has crashed, killing at least 70 people, according to the state news agency Irna.

Thirty-two people were injured, the agency said, quoting deputy head of the Iranian Red Crescent Heidar Heidari.

The IranAir plane was flying from the capital Tehran when it came down near the north-western city of Orumiyeh - which was its final destination.

Reports said it crashed in bad weather, and snow was hampering rescue efforts.

"At least 70 people have been killed and 32 others were injured in the crash," Mr Heidari said, according to Irna.

"The death toll is expected to increase."

Earlier reports had said that 50 people survived the crash.

The plane came down near Orumiyeh, 700km (430 miles) north-west of Tehran, at around 1945 local time (1615 GMT), an official in West Azerbaijan province said earlier, quoted on Iranian state television's website.

The official said the plane had taken off an hour later than scheduled, and came down because of bad weather conditions.

The head of Iran's emergency services, Gholam Reza Masoumi, said rescue work was being made more difficult by heavy snow, which was around 70cm (27 inches) deep around the crash site.

His remarks were quoted by the semi-official Fars news agency.
Old planes

There have been a number of accidents involving Iranian planes over the last few years.

The last major crash was in July 2009, when a plane caught fire mid-air and crashed in northern Iran, killing 168 people.

In 2003 an Iranian troop carrier crashed in the southeast, killing all 276 soldiers and crew on board.

Iran's civil fleet is made up of planes in poor condition due to their old age and lack of maintenance.

Another reason why America's stupid sanctions are hurting the Iranian people and not the regieme in charge just like their embargos on Iraq in the 90s and 00s.

Dogwatch

How is the Americans fault if the Iranians are flying unsafe aircraft?

Stinicker

Dogwatch wrote: »

How is the Americans fault if the Iranians are flying unsafe aircraft?

There is a trade embargo by the US against Iran, although why this should stop the Iranians from buying Airbuses is beyond me.

pclancy

They are prevented from performing fleet renewal and purchase of spare parts from US and US-aligned countries or companies due to the embargo on any dealings with Iran.


From Wikipedia Article

According to an Iranian journalist, the effects of sanctions in Iran include expensive basic goods and an aging and increasingly unsafe aircraft fleet. "According to reports from Iranian news agencies, 17 planes have crashed over the past 25 years, killing approximately 1,500 people."[15]

The U.S. forbids aircraft manufacturer Boeing to sell aircraft to Iranian aviation companies.[16]

A 2005 report, presented at the 36th session of the International Civil Aviation Organization, reported that the U.S. sanctions had endangered the safety of civil aviation in Iran because it prevented Iran from acquiring parts and support essential for aviation safety. It also stated that the sanctions were contrary to article 44 of the Chicago convention (to which the US is a member). The ICAO report said aviation safety affects human lives and human rights, stands above political differences, and that the assembly should bring international public pressure on the United States to lift the sanctions against Iran.[17]

The European Union has been critical of most of the U.S. trade sanctions against Iran. Some EU Member States have criticized ILSA as a "double standard" in U.S. foreign policy, in which the United States vigorously worked against the Arab League boycott of Israel while at the same time promoted a worldwide boycott of Iran. The EU Member States have threatened formal counter-action in the World Trade Organization.[3]

According to a study by Akbar E. Torbat, "overall, the sanctions' economic effect" on Iran "has been significant, while its political effect has been minimal.

ICAO report: http://www.icao.int/icao/en/assembl/a36/wp/wp275_en.pdf

Danbo!

Stinicker wrote: »

There is a trade embargo by the US against Iran, although why this should stop the Iranians from buying Airbuses is beyond me.

From their wikipedia page, all their boeings have been in service with them since the 1970s (1974 in the case of their 727s) and any newer, ie 1980s+, aircraft have been mainly airbus.

Dogwatch

So if the Iranians are unable to maintain the aircraft is a safe condition, why let them fly. The Iranians action are wholly irresponsible and criminal.

If they are unable to source the correct spares, ground the aircraft and replace them with safe aircraft.

troposphere

On Friday, September 29, 2006, the Departments of State and Commerce informed Congress of its intent to recommend
that the Department of Treasury issue a license to a U.S. company to permit the exportation of spare and replacement
parts, components and technical data for the repair and overhaul of a limited number of U.S. manufacture civil aero
turbine engines on Airbus aircraft operated by Iran Air. The Department’s recommendation is based on an
airworthiness warning issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that calls for the immediate overhaul of
these engines. As conditions for the license approval, all repairs will be performed in third countries and no exports will
go directly to Iran.

We believe the concerns associated with the FAA warning and the air safety threat posed by the operation of these
airplanes, absent these vital repairs, are sufficient grounds to recommend these immediate actions. Our recommendation
is consistent with the U.S. Government’s commitment to promote international safety-of-flight standards and ensure
the safety of all aviation passengers, including the citizens of Iran.

Through its support for terrorism and pursuit of a nuclear weapons program in defiance of its international obligations,
the Iranian regime continues to subordinate the Iranian people’s interests to its own extremist agenda. The United States
is focused on the pressing humanitarian concerns that affect the Iranian people. Therefore, despite our grave
concerns regarding the Iranian regime’s activities, we believe this decision is consistent with our commitment to support
the Iranian people and to use U.S sanctions to target the regime, not the Iranian people.

14/08/07

Iran Air has reportedly overcome sanctions by the West on aircraft spare parts and is ready to resume flights with Airbus aircraft acquired in 2001.
Iran had grounded a fleet of Airbus A310-200/300sdue to lack of spare parts and technical problems with their General Electric CF6-80C2A2 powerplants.

Now, Iranian engineers have “succeeded in repairing the aircraft after long arduous work,” the Fars News Agency reports. “All the technical problems in the engines of the aircraft have been removed and the aircraft is now ready to fly.”

The carrier owns two A310-300s and perhaps six A310-200s, according to ATI affiliate ACAS and published reports.
Last year, Iran Air chairman and managing director Saeid Hesami told ATI, a flightglobal.com sister news source, that the West’s sanctions had grounded a number of A310 aircraft.

Iran’s aerospace industry has been seeking to develop an ability to build and maintain aircraft independently of US and European supply chains.
The Iranian military has reportedly developed several types of new fighters, including two different copies of modified Northrop F-5s.

Could it be that the Iranians succeeded in repairing their aircraft with the help of the great Satan?

Run_to_da_hills

Dogwatch wrote: »

So if the Iranians are unable to maintain the aircraft is a safe condition, why let them fly. The Iranians action are wholly irresponsible and criminal.

If they are unable to source the correct spares, ground the aircraft and replace them with safe aircraft.

No, it is the Americans that are criminal.

Civil aircraft safety should be EXEMPT from any sanctions and spare parts for any of their existing planes no matter how old they are should be readily availible along with any technical assistance required from Boeing.

It would be a different story if Iran wanted to purchase new planes from Boeing and were refused.

The current situation that Iran is in at the moment is only encouraging the manufacture and destribution of bogus and uncertified black market aircraft components and it is the ordinary people that suffer.

Dogwatch

So using unsafe equipment knowingly is not criminal then?

If the Iranians are unable/ unwilling to properly maintain their civil aircraft, then it is criminally irresponsible to let them fly.

The Americans have no control over what the Iranians do with their equipment, so are not responsible. The Iranian military grounded their F4 Phantoms because they could not repair/maintain them in safe flying condition.

Using our argument every time a Boeing aircraft has an incident, it is the fault of the Americans. I think not!!!!

A little less propoganda please.

FlutterinBantam

Iranians want to have their cake and eat it.

FlutterinBantam

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

No, it is the Americans that are criminal.

Civil aircraft safety should be EXEMPT from any sanctions and spare parts for any of their existing planes no matter how old they are should be readily availible along with any technical assistance required from Boeing.

It would be a different story if Iran wanted to purchase new planes from Boeing and were refused.

The current situation that Iran is in at the moment is only encouraging the manufacture and destribution of bogus and uncertified black market aircraft components and it is the ordinary people that suffer.

Can't believe someone could post that stuff.

Run_to_da_hills

China may soon be able to entertain them with the C919

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11764653

troposphere

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

China may soon be able to entertain them with the C919

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11764653

You should check out what companies supply most of the parts for that plane.

amen

You do all realise that the plane is less than 40 years old? there are western airlines flying planes at least that old. There was some company flying C47s from WWII in the UK within the last 5 years. The A380 is meant to fly at least 50+ years, There are b52s flying over 50+ years.

Anyway looks failed approach in bad visibility weather.

pclancy

Dogwatch wrote: »

A little less propoganda please.

:rolleyes:

The point was how sanctions only hurt the populous of a country, not any attempt at propoganda.

It does seem criminal to fly aircraft that are not airworthy and they do have russian and european aircraft that should be taking over from the 70's era Boeings. It appears this incident was weather related anyway so the sanctions can't be blamed as a total cause, its just something I feel strong about in general that affects the average joe on the street, not the regieme.

Dogwatch

Usually what affects the joe in the street is the stupidity of the johns at the top.

Dont like to hear of any aircraft coming down whatever the reason. No doubt the investigation will tell us eventually.

Will the Iranians allow NTSB and Boeing to attend the crash site and take part/ assist in the investigation???

youcrazyjesus!

If it is the case that an embargo is preventing Iran sourcing legitimate parts and forcing them onto the black market then it's a criminal act, an attempt at sabotage. Civil aviation should exist above and beyond political issues. Every civilian aircraft and every airline should have access to the same spares and maintenance procedures. Anybody saying otherwise doesn't have a clue about pretty much anything.

That said Iran, if not Iran Air, has a poor record for aviation safety and previous crashes have involved Russian made aircraft.

Run_to_da_hills

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

That said Iran, if not Iran Air, has a poor record for aviation safety and previous crashes have involved Russian made aircraft.

Prior to the revolution, Iran Airways had a safety record in par with Quantas.

FlutterinBantam

pclancy wrote: »

:rolleyes:

The point was how sanctions only hurt the populous of a country, not any attempt at propoganda.

It does seem criminal to fly aircraft that are not airworthy and they do have russian and european aircraft that should be taking over from the 70's era Boeings. It appears this incident was weather related anyway so the sanctions can't be blamed as a total cause, its just something I feel strong about in general that affects the average joe on the street, not the regieme.

Maybe you should consider going to the politics forum with that stuff.

This is the Aviation forum and that kind of propaganda and rhetoric have no place here in my opinion.

The usual suspects weighed in immediately to get their 'cut ' in.


We can do without that stuff here in my opinion.

Run_to_da_hills

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Maybe you should consider going to the politics forum with that stuff.

This is the Aviation forum and that kind of propaganda and rhetoric have no place here in my opinion.

The usual suspects weighed in immediately to get their 'cut ' in.


We can do without that stuff here in my opinion.

Maybe you should consider taking this issue to the help desk. :rolleyes:

IrishB.ie

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Maybe you should consider going to the politics forum with that stuff.

This is the Aviation forum and that kind of propaganda and rhetoric have no place here in my opinion.

The usual suspects weighed in immediately to get their 'cut ' in.


We :eek: can do without that stuff here in my opinion.

Thats it, its your opinion.

What you quoted was also an opinion. When people use phrases such as

pclancy wrote: »

The point was, It does seem, It appears, its just something I feel strong about

,
that indicates to me the person is expressing an opinion on the subject. Nowhere do I get any sense of propaganda and rhetoric.

Also, please do not use the word "We" in your posts. Remember, you are only posting on behalf of yourself and nobody else, certainly not on my behalf.

troposphere

I already pointed out that congress in 2006 approved a "license to a U.S. company to permit the exportation of spare and replacement parts, components and technical data for the repair and overhaul of a limited number of U.S. manufacture civil aero turbine engines on Airbus aircraft operated by Iran Air."

In 2007 Iran Air announced "Iranian engineers have “succeeded in repairing the aircraft after long arduous work,” the Fars News Agency reports. “All the technical problems in the engines of the aircraft have been removed and the aircraft is now ready to fly.”

See the Iranians do not even want to give credit to the Americans when they help them out.

FlutterinBantam

IrishB.ie wrote: »

Thats it, its your opinion.

What you quoted was also an opinion. When people use phrases such as ,
that indicates to me the person is expressing an opinion on the subject. Nowhere do I get any sense of propaganda and rhetoric.

Also, please do not use the word "We" in your posts. Remember, you are only posting on behalf of yourself and nobody else, certainly not on my behalf.

You have a good point there and I agree I should not use we.

PClancy is a poster I have a lot of respect for , but it boils my piss to see this anti- American stuff appearing everywhere and then the piling on starts with monotonous regularity.

I had hoped that the Aviation Forum could avoid this shite, and if I offended anyone or insulted anyone of took the wrong inference, I unreservedly apologise.

pclancy

Points taken but i think you'll find we've always let discussion about an aviation theme include politics or other ideals as long as it stays within the topic of the thread, as many other forums will do on Boards. As pointed out above I did make an effort not to preach my own opinion or use propoganda, I stated facts and personal opinion, something everyone is entitled to do everywhere on this site as long as it causes no offence or stray too far off topic.

I don't harbour any anti-american sentiment but I do feel strongly about human rights and in this case I personally believe the sanctions against this country in question are unfair, irresponsible and affect aviation safety and the population at large. I hold no respect for the regeime in charge of the country so therefore for me to express any kind of propoganda on their behalf would be illogical.

Lets get back to discussion of the crash itself, it there is any more to be said.

Dogwatch

Apologies for repeating the question but will NTSB and/or Boeing be allowed to assist the crash investigation?

IrishB.ie

Dogwatch wrote: »

Apologies for repeating the question but will NTSB and/or Boeing be allowed to assist the crash investigation?

Not sure about Boeing but why would the NTSB be involved? Iran has its own state body, Iranian Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO, its not)

andy_g

IrishB.ie wrote: »

Not sure about Boeing but why would the NTSB be involved? Iran has its own state body, Iranian Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO, its not)

As in most case's regarding boeing A/C the NTSB sometime's send an inspector along as it's an American built A/C.

IrishB.ie

andy_g wrote: »

As in most case's regarding boeing A/C the NTSB sometime's send an inspector along as it's an American built A/C.

Most cases occur in 'States' that are bound by the provisions of Annex 13 to the ICAO Convention

If an accident or serious incident occurs in a foreign state not bound by the provisions of Annex 13 to the ICAO Convention, or if a foreign state delegates all or part of an investigation by mutual consent to the NTSB, or if the accident or serious incident involves a public aircraft, the conduct of the investigation shall be in consonance with any agreement entered into between and the United States and the foreign state.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/foreign.asp

Iran is not bound by the provisions of Annex 13, therefore the NTSB would have to await an invite.