168

Yikes, some story to tell if you were on this flight...... Glad all worked out!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_usa_plane_dc

TEHRAN (Reuters) - A U.S. airliner flying from Bombay to Amsterdam made an emergency landing in Tehran on Sunday, but no one was hurt, a civil aviation official said. The United States and

nydonwvu

Wow, I feel for the passengers. Maybe now I won't complain when my flight arrives early but the gate isn't ready yet.

Imagine expecting the next city will be in to be AMS and instead you are diverted to an airport in Iran. I guess, for their sake, thank god its not the 80's.

MikeMpls

It is now on its way to AMS.

GUWonder

Even then hardliners like Khomeini would not likely have messed with passengers from a distressed commercial plane. Perhaps forced to fly Iran Air and leave the commercial plane as collateral for assets seized, but that's about it.

Threy

Not to go too much into detail, but the US played a crucial role that the diplomatic relations went down the drain...

More important though that NW 41 is on its way to Schiphol again with a scheduled arrival time of just after 2 p.m.

It seems that the second leg of NW 41 departed on time, so they were able to use one of the spare DC 10 at Schiphol.Hopefully all connecting pax will be rebooked on the later flights to the US without too much hassle.

Oh wait, KLM will take over the handling of an unplanned event, so it will end in a complete chaos and people wish to fly back to Teheran asap...

socrates

Glad to see AMS-MSP is on time....I'm assuming they are using a different AC


Departs: Mumbai/Bombay, India ( BOM ) Arrives: Tehran, Iran ( THR )


Gate: 45 Gate:

Scheduled: 12:50AM Scheduled:

Actual: 12:43AM Actual: 4:08AM

Aircraft: DC10-30 Weather: THR

Status: Arrived Sign up for



Departs: Tehran, Iran ( THR ) Arrives: Amsterdam-Schiphol, Netherlands (AMS)


Gate: Gate:

Scheduled: Scheduled: 6:40AM

Actual: 10:35AM Estimated: 2:21PM

Aircraft: DC10-30 Weather: AMS

Note: Diversion/delay due to mechanical problem.


Status: In Flight Sign up for



Departs: Amsterdam-Schiphol, Netherlands (AMS) Arrives: Minneapolis/St. Paul-Int'l, MN (MSP)


Gate: Gate: G8

Scheduled: 10:45AM Scheduled: 12:35PM

Actual: 10:38AM Estimated: 12:01PM

Aircraft: DC10-30 Weather: MSP

Note: Flight scheduled for ontime departure.

shedwannabe

Hmm, I haven't landed at Tehran's airport since 1969, en route to Persepoiis via Shiraz and Isfahan. I don't remember Tehran airport, but i do remember Shiraz airport because we were flying low to the ground (say 1000 feet) and I saw a runway to the right of us and I said "Are we missing the runway" then the pilot put the wing to the ground (the type of manuever you start trying to claw out of your seat on) and did a U turn, then landed on the runway that had been just to the right of us....

Incidentally, in 1969 the flight to Tehran came FROM Tel Aviv. None of the Arab countries near Israel would let a Western plane overfly them after landing in Israel, so we had to take off, head north over the Meditterranean to Turkey, across Turkey, then down into Iran.

it was a fascinating country then. I hear things have changed a bit since i was there...

djohannw

Not sure what you wanted to imply with your post, but my take from what I have read about this so far is that authorities in Iran handled the situation very professionally and according to all applicable international laws. And as Iran Air is very much used to operating and servicing vintage-airliners their mechanics were even able to get the DC10 airworthy again after a few hours so it could continue on to AMS without too much delay...

I can imagine that being on board of a plane that suffers an inflight mechanical emergency is not one of the things I would enjoy, but everything beyond that in this case is just the same as if they had diverted to KTM or some other "non-standard" diversion-airport...

Greetings - Dirk

RobertS975

I am a bit surprised that NW uses DC10s for the BOM run... I may be wrong, but aren't they maintenence hogs?

kv99

Thanks Dirk for saying this so lucidly... do people really think that these people were actually in any danger from having to land in Tehran?

rwill11

i wonder if the Iranian GAs were friendlier than the ones at our hubs

LucWise

I, for one, certainly would not be comfortable landing in Iran on a U.S. airliner. The people in that part of the world are not too fond of the United States and you never know what could happen.

TRVLRZ

Sure, here in America however our history with Iran is somewhat different than Germany’s. A lot of us remember when our Embassy was seized in Iran and the subsequent relationship that the US had with them.

Not to mention the fact that there is a Travel Advisory cautioning US citizens on going to Iran. Apparently, some elements of the Iranian government and population remain hostile to U.S. American citizens and they may be subject to harassment or kidnapping.

Or that our countries do not currently have diplomatic or consular relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran and therefore cannot provide protection or routine consular services to American citizens in Iran.

Other than those two small issues, I am sure it’s a garden spot of the mid-east.

@:-) @:-) @:-) I hope that helps in your & KV99's sense of wonderment on why a lot of Americans are not comfortable in Iran. .

Happy travels.

kyushuman

Yes, there are plenty of cases in the news of westerners with troubles in Islamic countries. And no, the Iranian government are not fans of the US government.
But I've never had a problem in Islamic countries as a US citizen. I have had many political discussions with people who don't like George Bush, however. But somehow, Muslims in Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt, and Turkey that I met were able to decipher the difference between the US government and its citizens.
PS--I guess all of the pax on the LH and AF flights to Teheran over the past several years--and all of the American tourists who flew them there--must have been jailed and tied up, huh? Funny we never heard about them........

djohannw

I fully accept that there are historical events preventing Americans from going to Iran, and I can understand you would not voluntarily go there.

However I would expect any country that gives overflight-rights to aircrafts of another country (that's what I assume the NW-flight had before it diverted to THR) will also honor international treaties in how to handle aircraft and crew should an emergency arise that has the airliner landing unplanned while it is crossing through their airspace. And that's what Iran has delivered as far as I can judge from the news coming in over here.

So in my opinion there has been no reason to assume anything different while the aircraft was in THR...no matter what happened in the past. Had there been any reason to assume something different it would have been reckless by NW to file a flight-plan over Iran in the first place.

Greetings - Dirk