The amateur aviation community really likes to make a huge deal out of these diversions. Forums were full of speculation about the crew or passengers being taken hostage (!), Russia impounding/stealing the aircraft, it being stuck there for months due to sanctions preventing the import of parts, etc.
The reality is quite boring. It should come as no surprise that Air India was not flying over Russia without any idea what they would do if they had to divert to an airport there. As for sanctions, they are mostly concerned with end users, and if Air India flies in their own aircraft with their own parts and engineers, they really present no barrier to getting the aircraft fixed. A lot of tedious paperwork is probably the biggest challenge.
(The logistical challenges if it had required an engine change are certainly real, though.)
> >f Air India wants to risk sanctions, There are approx. 34 Billion[1] reasons why that won't happen
See my other comment [1]. Nobody thinks the U.S. will permanently stick Air India with sanctions. But everyone knows there is a gray area during which, if you're an American or do business with America, particularly if you are in a regulated field, you do not want to be the banker or engineer who kept doing business with an entity that just publicly violated sanctions.
And both sides' politicians would love this. Private parties bear the cost. New Delhi can rail on American imperialism, the immorality of sanctions and the pragmatism of its geopolitical strategy. Washington can talk up how it pragmatically exempted India while throwing pot shots at Russia's isolation. It's a manufactured crisis with a simple solution whose costs are borne by a third party: that's catnip to electeds.
Please enlighten everyone: in what way is an Indian entity paying their own engineers to use their own parts to fix their own aircraft “violating sanctions”? Please give as much detail as possible.
> in what way is an Indian entity paying their own engineers to use their own parts to fix their own aircraft “violating sanctions”
These products are subjext to reëxport controls—that’s what sanctions bite with. Air India transporting a controlled engine component into Russia violates those June 2022 sanctions. (It’s the same reason e.g. Germany can block the reëxport of its tanks, or Russia can tell India it’s not allowed to donate its new Su’s to the USAF.) It’s similar to if Air India starts importing American computer components and reëxporting them to North Korea; it would be blocked from accessing American and allied services. That’s the entire point of sanctions.
This is clearly-established law and precedent that is easily available from any competent attorney in India familiar with export/import of restricted goods.
This is just completely incorrect. There is no export here. Air India is not receiving an engine (or its components) and then giving them to a Russian entity. The mere movement of an item from one geographic location to another is not necessarily sufficient to cause an export, as any "competent attorney" could tell you, as opposed to a person who wants to sound confident while inventing facts on an Internet forum.
This kind of shrill nonsense is exactly what I was talking about. Rather than posting about risks you invented, learn a little about the subject you’re discussing. There is no barrier other than paperwork to Air India flying their own engineers (which they in fact did) along with parts to fix their own aircraft, which will not remain in Russia.
We’re looking the other way. India is more important as a regional relation than global player, and the degree to which it’s practically enabling Moscow is minimal. India has its own interest in not becoming a Chinese vassal, something Russia is rapidly devolving into. Any military planner in India worth their salt is keenly aware that in a conflict between New Delhi and Beijing, one would have the leverage in Moscow.
You should take a look at the ongoing deals and negotiations between the US on India. You're right that as it stands Moscow is important, but as I said, the US is making a huge effort in changing that.
> If Air India wants to risk sanctions, whereby their entire fleet loses access to new planes, engines, parts and servicing, sure.
I highly doubt that because these kind of sanctions given with absolute bullshit reason would really hurt west's claim of being better. Even the Russia's sanctions is going really badly for Europe and west is not in a good time to extend their arms further. Also China is developing its own airplane and now is definitely not a great time to encourage other countries which don't have good relation with west.
> Maybe start with punishing Europe then where the trade increased after the war
Importing the same amount or even much lower amounts of oil/gas at much higher prices would result in higher overall imports yes.
Also Russian a lot natural resource exports were/are exempt from sanctions due to practical reasons so what are you trying to say?
> India and China haven't even agreed to sanction ever.
Yet their companies will at least more or less outwardly comply with them because they want to continue doing business with western companies. It makes zero sense for Air India to ship GE engines to Russia without getting an exemption.
All of that is completely irrelevant of course since the airplane in question is already back in India...
> these kind of sanctions given with absolute bullshit reason would really hurt west's claim of being better
Point is if Air India strolled into Russia with restricted engine components, there would be consequences. Everyone at GE involved would be subject to criminal investigation. Everyone's banking relationships would be in jeopardy.
Sanctions indirectly enforce themselves. Air India could get a waiver, but that takes time, time during which that plane would be stranded and unproductive. Those were the stakes here. Because nobody is stupid enough to stick their finger to U.S. sanctions and rely on the “West’s claim of being better.”
West is all about PR and jeopardizing 100s of billions of dollars of trade for few equipments that Air India shifted from India to Russia to help a stranded airplane is the worst possible thing any politician could do. And what has it to do with GE? The equipment belongs to Air India in India.
And just if you don't know, India is not part of US Russia sanctions and trades with both.
> West is all about PR and jeopardizing 100s of billions of dollars of trade for few equipments that Air India shifted from India to Russia to help a stranded airplane is the worst possible thing any politician could do
It's not a political decision. It's current law. What Air India would have needed would have been a political decision, a waiver, to an understandable but unforeseen situation.
New Delhi would be fine asking for forgiveness if this were military plane. But Air India, a private company, has to deal with other private companies. Do you think Air India's banks want to bet their livelihoods on an ex post facto waiver? Even if (read: when) Air India is given a waiver, the American wire officer who processed their transactions after a known sanctions violation would be in personal jeopardy, legally, professionally and possibly criminally. Same for every engineer who provided support, every courier who knowingly transported parts.
> what has it to do with GE? The equipment belongs to Air India in India.
The engine on that 777 is made by GE. It has to comply with U.S. law. You don't want every part and service contract with GE and Boeing and who knows who else being held up while you get forgiveness.
There is no "law" for this. Stop making things up. Just because GE made the engine doesn't mean that their customers are bound to US policies. Sure, GE could stop selling the engine in the future but the engine that has been sold is Air India's property not GE.
Indian policy is to do trade with Russia and that is all that matters here.
> ure, GE could stop selling the engine in the future but the engine that has been sold is Air India's property not G
You do realize engines like this require continuous maintenance, access to parts etc? They couldn't safely operate their fleet for very long without western companies.
Risking all of that just so that they wouldn't have to delay the repairs for a few weeks or even months would make zero sense.
> Indian policy is to do trade with Russia and that is all that matters here.
Air India operates zero Russian airplanes and it's fleet is exclusively made up from Airbus and Boeing jets. There are zero practical reasons for them to want to move away from that now.
> couldn't safely operate their fleet for very long without western companies
Nor legally. Overfly regulations generally require minimum standards be met. This is why Iranian and Russian jets are largely confined to domestic service.
Check out your favorite ADS-B website some time to see the extent of that “domestic service”.
Russian regs are frequently in the Middle East, China and South East Asia. Iranian regs operate scheduled service to EU airports and China and also frequently visit South America.
Hence “largely.” And look at which planes and engines are flowing as well as how they’re owned and serviced. It’s deliberate, costly and not something you voluntarily subject yourself to for the benefit of salvaging a single jet.
The EU flights of Iranian airlines are an example of this, but virtually none of the others are; Iranian aircraft with undoubtedly questionable parts provenance are flying over myriad countries daily on their way to and from East Asia and South America. Your assertion about countries imposing tight standards on overflights really only applies to EU, US and a handful of other countries; most are not really willing / in a position to do so.
Of course there is. The Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917, together with a series of E. O.s, namely, 14024 and 14068, as implemented last June [1]. Everyone knew the rules they were playing by going into this.
> jeopardizing 100s of billions of dollars of trade
Jeopardizing what? There are no real alternatives to Airbus and Boeing and won't be for years.
Also at the end it's a signal aircraft which will be fixed and back in service even if might take a few weeks or even months than it would ussually. No need to blow this out of proportion.
I went to Russia twice since the start of the war, and really, other than border control agents being swapped for FSB, and them pulling a few people (me included) to the side for brief questioning, it was all quite normal and friendly as always.
You could add Turkey to the list. In the end, only one country is in Syria at the invitation of the internationally recognized government of Syria, while the other is not.
Sure, like some preferred to think of Guaidó as the president of Venezuela for a while. But the Syrian government is recognised by the UN, the Arab league, Syria's trading partners and allies etc. Not worth beating a dead horse... or empty white helmet.
Not until quite recently and several years after the US et al. significantly toned down their involvement in Syria. I'm not sure if you remember but Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Jordan also participated in the intervention.
Saudi Arabia for instance only restored diplomatic relations with Assad's government last month after Syria was readmitted back into the Arab league (from which it was suspended until MAY 2023).
Prior to last month the Arab League still officially considered the 'Syrian National Coalition' to be the legitimate government of Syria.
So really what you're saying was far from accurate for the last 10 years.
List of countries which recognized the 'Syrian National Coalition' as the sole legitimate government of Syria between 2012 and the last year or two (or technically still do):
Qatar,
Saudi Arabia,
Yemen,
France,
Turkey,
Italy,
United Kingdom,
Spain,
Denmark,
Norway,
The Netherlands,
Germany,
Belgium,
Luxembourg,
United States,
Australia,
Malta,
and also the European Union and the Arab League...
Yeah definitely recommend Kherson and its 2023 spring flooding. Commuting to work by boat Venice’s style and big free surprise washing of entire neighborhoods. What a normal and friendly place!
To be honest, Ukraine wasn’t ever exactly “normal and friendly”. I’ve been there multiple times. The last time I was in Kiev I witnessed a drunk man urinating in public - at noon - on a center street. Everyone treated this like it was a perfectly normal occurrence.
It wasn’t a bad place to spend a few weeks but you would definitely get the occasional reminder that hey, this isn’t Europe anymore, Dorothy.
> The last time I was in Kiev I witnessed a drunk man urinating in public - at noon - on a center street. Everyone treated this like it was a perfectly normal occurrence.
If this shocks you, you might want to avoid visiting San Francisco. I hate pulling out this tired trope, but it felt actually appropriate here.
Welcome to (certain parts of) Berlin, SF, NYC and scores of other places. Where sometimes even less pleasant things are to be seen. The fact that nobody does anything doesn't mean they find it to be "perfectly normal". Rather they are horrified, or simply inured -- and don't dare get involved for obvious reasons.
If anything such occurrences are far less common in Kyiv than in the above 3 places.
If that’s your “normal and friendly”
Threshold I dread to think what you believe about Washington DC!
Haven’t been to Kyiv for a few months but immigration was fine, shops restaurants were open, people were normal. Sure you might get an air raid, but then in the US you might get shot
I live in Moscow. There's plenty of Americans and other Westerners visiting here regularly for business or tourism with no problems. Just don't try to smuggle any weed in, Americans keep getting into trouble for that.
Yeah, there's one less than 5 minutes from my flat, and I live a little outside of the centre. I've used crypto very little in recent years, so not a lot of personal experience to share, but I know some people who use them (or just the P2P market places of sites like Binance).
I suspect the ATMs will give you a worse exchange rate than what you'd get on a P2P exchange online.
What's unclear? Most Americans are fine in Russia; the exceptions are unpleasant. I wouldn't worry too much as a nobody, but if I had any sort of high profile, Russia has plenty of motivations to play the tit-for-tat game right now.
Russia has been known to imprison Western civilians on trumped-up drug charges, then exchange them for hardcore criminals imprisoned in the US or elsewhere (the recent exchange of Brittney Griner, a basketball player arrested for having a bit of cannabis oil, for Viktor Bout, an arms dealer nicknamed the "Merchant of Death", comes to mind).
> Russia impounding/stealing the aircraft
Other countries are impounding Russians' yachts, I can see where the Russian government would see it as reasonable to impound planes in retaliation.
Yet the article cites a concrete example of similar sanctions causing exactly that problem.
> For instance, when a Norwegian 737-8 MAX diverted to Shiraz, Iran in December 2018, the aircraft sat on the ground in Iran for 70 days. Much of that time was spent arranging an export license for a CFM LEAP1-B engine for the stricken aircraft.
“It’s gonna be stuck there for some time” doesn’t appear to be a comical understanding of the situation.
> Thinking that passengers will get taken hostage is a comical understanding of the situation.
Are we talking about the same Russia that is engaged in a genocide against it's neighbour? The one that purposefully destroys civilian infrastructure to cause death and suffering? Kidnaps children? Did multiple false flag operations against it's own civilians? Murders journalists and dissidents, even abroad, in brutal ways, with nerve agents and radioactive materials? That Russia, right? Taking civilians from an airliner hostage wouldn't even get close to the top 10 of their state organised terror acts in the past 2 years...
Please, feel free to refute any points with proof. On top of the tons of video and personal evidence we have confirming them, pretty much all of them have been admitted by Russian officials directly - they have admitted to the kidnapping and resettling of children, the intentional bombing of civilian infrastructure, destroying the dam, etc.
Of course considering the comical levels of evilness Russia has displayed in this war, things could easily slip through because they're believable. I'm not fully convinced on Nordstream either way, but there's undeniable proof for lots of other atrocities (like the dam) which is more than enough.
> speculation about the crew or passengers being taken hostage (!)
Russia is a terrorist state, run by war criminals that has engaged in genocide, horrific human rights abuses, where rule of law doesn't matter. Yes, them kidnapping civilians isn't out of the question because they literally kidnap children en masse from the neighbour they've invaded.
> Russia impounding/stealing the aircraft
It's not like they didn't do that after the beginning of the war, so it wasn't a crazy thing to be fearful of Russia pulling off. What made that unlikely was the fact that it's an Indian airliner; if it was an American one, I wouldn't have been surprised if they did decide to steal it.
> they really present no barrier to getting the aircraft fixed
Except for all those listed in the article, such as a full engine replacement being hard to do at an airport not equipped for it, the engine being very hard to ship because it only fits on 2 plane models, with very few operators available, etc. Just because the repairs turned out to be quick doesn't mean that a full engine replacement wouldn't have been a significant multi-week undertaking.
> Except for all those listed in the article, such as a full engine replacement being hard to do at an airport not equipped for it, the engine being very hard to ship because it only fits on 2 plane models, with very few operators available, etc. Just because the repairs turned out to be quick doesn't mean that a full engine replacement wouldn't have been a significant multi-week undertaking.
Hence why I said: "the logistical challenges if it had required an engine change are certainly real, though."
It's still the case that all of those logistical challenges were considered when Air India decided to continue flying over Russia, it's not some kind of movie-plot "oh shit" moment when a diversion inevitably happens.
>US is a terrorist state, run by war criminals that has engaged in genocide, horrific human rights abuses, where rule of law doesn't matter. Yes, them kidnapping civilians isn't out of the question
Oh dear.
Anyone remember Guantánamo? Tuskegee? The Rwandan genocide?
If whataboutism is the best defence of Russia you can come up with, you're not denying anything, right?
Once that's out of the way and we've cleared that indeed Russia is a terrorist state committing a genocide, we can also discuss the now lone superpower. The US indeed has committed a lot of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are more relevant than the Tuskagee experiments which ended 50 years ago. However the US hasn't actually perpetrated a genocide, unlike Russia which is actively engaged in one as a matter of state policy. The Rwandan genocide, complicit as the US and other countries such as France and Belgium may be, was perpetrated and organised by Rwandans against other Rwandans.
Comparing the two is useful to an extent, but excusing Russia's actions with "well the US does something vaguely similar on a small scale, so that's all fine" is bullshit. Also, comparing rule of law in Russia vs US is.. laughable. Feel free to share examples of dissidents being murdered brutally in broad daylight recently with no consequences.
A Turkish source pissed off because Biden recognised the historical facts and existence of the Armenian genocide, I'm sure that's completely and totally unbiased. And still, nothing to refute that Russia is a genocidal terrorist state, right?
Apart from the genocide against Native Americans, the rest are just highly deadly wars with civilian casualties. In no other scenario was the goal of American intervention/occupation/invasion to annihilate a group of people, which is a necessary qualifier from the Genocide convention for something to be considered a genocide:
> In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such
Which is why the Armenian Genocide is a genocide. The Turkish government, mostly led by some of the most incompetent people to walk this planet, blamed Armenians for their own incompetence, and ordered and enticed forced marches, massacres, etc. Nothing new for the barbaric Ottoman regime, after all this was done numerous times against practically all peoples occupied by the Ottomans, only this time ot was on such a scale that most Armenians were murdered (estimates vary, between 800,000 and 1.5 million, out of a pre-war population of between 1.1 and 2.1 million people).
In the early 1960s, a 707 landing at Heathrow mistook a nearby WW2 airfield for Heathrow(!). How the pilot[1] got the 707 stopped on that short field is a miracle. But the problem was getting it off the ground again, the runway was too short.
They stripped everything out of the aircraft - seats, galleys, everything. Then put in just enough gas to hop over the hedges to Heathrow. They barely made it.
> Cashiering (or degradation ceremony), generally within military forces, is a ritual dismissal of an individual from some position of responsibility for a breach of discipline.
Same thing happened at Hanksville, Utah, in the 1950s or 60s, except not because of pilot error. They had a strip there that was a designated emergency strip for the LA-Chicago route, and a plane (707, I think?) had to use it. And it landed OK. But, even once they got the plane fixed, taking off was problematic.
They bussed off the passengers (and luggage), took out the seats, put on enough fuel to reach Grand Junction, and managed to get it airborne.
This was a big enough deal in Hanksville that they closed school so that all the kids could come down and see the big plane.
Details are slightly unreliable - my parents told me about it when I was a kid; I have no independent information.
Wow, I thought that was a long-forgotten incident. My dad (USAF) was stationed nearby when it happened, and he told me about it years later (with a big laugh about it, the story must have made the rounds at the office). I'm glad my memory of the story correlates with the facts.
The article makes it sound like the ferry mission wasn't quite as tight as you suggested ("barely made it"):
"As a precaution, the main A40 trunk road, which runs past the bottom of the easterly end of the runway at Northolt, was closed to traffic until the Boeing 707 had taken off. However, much lighter without much of its interior, the aircraft was airborne quickly off the Northolt runway and successfully landed at Heathrow a few minutes later."
Similar things happened on military aircraft too: I remember ~2yrs ago a gigantic C-17 mistaken a tiny airport near San Fransisco as an AF base located not far away.
A similar but more recent (and on-topic) occurrence when a Tu-154 landed on disused airstrip in Izhma and had to be recovered in a similar fashion by a test pilot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_KOktzoKfU
Eyeballing it with Google areal view (I appreciate what it looks like today may not be what it looked like at the time), I think you'd have to demolish several entire streets of houses and/or some bridges to do that.
Man, I was just getting my problem solving hat adjusted ("Hey that looks pretty close to the sea, maybe they could get the plane on a ship") and I got to your comment. Thanks for the update though!
It has enough thrust on one engine to take off empty. But, to expand on my edit, it requires both a test pilot and way more runway than the airport has.
Edit: Numbers
Empty operating weight: 134,800 kg (297,300 lb)
Maximum Takeoff Weight(MTOW):
247,200 kg (545,000 lb)
The empty operating weight includes everything needed to fly (including crew) minus useable fuel. So the only additional weight need is fuel.
No. Keep in mind most commercial operators are going to run derated thrust (a.k.a. flex thrust) for takeoffs to save on maintenance. Engine failure after V1 is regularly practiced. The big problem will be directional stability on the way V2.
Sure it is. Being capable of generating takeoff thrust on one engine and being able to climb on one engine are part of the FAA requirements. You will need more runway, but you don't need a test pilot as planning for obstacles you may not be able to clear at an airport is something every commercial pilot has to do.
Quite amusing responses there and the whole tone of [0].
The biggest problem were not delivering repairs and taking off the plane but to house 200+ foreign people at once in a very remote Siberian town (population: 95,982).
It’s not 3” of ground clearance. You can get a person comfortably to lay down under any engine.
There is easily over a foot. Plus you could overservice the strut. Plus if you really needed to you could fly without the cowlings. Still most practical would be just to pull the inlet to save space.
The video above mentions that the Antonov An 225 was the only aircraft large enough to carry the engine referenced in the hold (versus a pod ferry position). That aircraft was destroyed in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War as of February 2022.
Is takeoff on a single engine not possible at all? With the very minimum weight to get to the closest friendly airfield. Sapporo is only 2003 km away...
Of course it's not designed to. It certainly has enough thrust to be able to do it. The empty weight is 145 metric tons, MTOW is 347. With no cargo and a light fuel load, the T/W ratio would be the same as a normal takeoff. The asymmetric thrust complicates things, but I'd be surprised if it couldn't get off the ground with a decently long runway.
The only real question is whether they'd be willing to take the risk and the appropriate people are willing to sign off on it.
It's designed to handle a one engine takeoff even when fully loaded, just in case an engine fails above V1.
Sure, it's not actually designed to go from standstill to V1 on a single engine, but it shouldn't have any problems. It's just going to increase the takeoff roll slightly (or decrease the maximum takeoff weight)
Imagine this happening b/c the US would be finally put on sanctions for the wars and foreign interferences they have a history about.
Seriously, think about it.
Air India has always had a YOLO attitude to air traffic control. I'm somewhat surprised America doesn't restrict inbound and outbound flights from overflying Russia.
AI 121 came to mind [1]. I've also been on domestic Air India flights where e.g. the plane never bothered leveling off. We just flew from Bombay to Delhi at a 30-degree angle.
If you actually did do that, you probably ended up 500km in the atmosphere. I'm all for criticising the Indian carrier but stuff like "it never levelled off" makes no sense given the scale of airline operations in India.
Between America and whom? The only places I'm imagining going nonviable are Central Asia. (China Airlines' New York <> Taipei is a 16-hour flight and doesn't overfly Russia.)
Air Canada used to have some direct flights Toronto<->Mumbai that are now unviable because of the russian airspace restrictions. So it now stops over in London under 5th freedom rights to refuel/load/unload passengers and continue. This London<->Mumbai leg is one of the few unusual routes that Air Canada flies that doesn't start or stop in Canada.
(It probably could be viable direct with limited passengers/cargo, but financially unviable).
They were flying 787-9s, which per Wikipedia have a 7630 nautical mile range, longest of any 787 variant. Direct its 6700 nautical miles but with that routing it’s 7360.
Add some winds, takeoffs/landings in the “wrong direction”, weather diversions and it probably needs a tech stop in at least one direction to do that routing. Maybe both.
777-200LR could do it easily, but United doesn’t operate any, and few others do
They were avoiding the Tibetian plateau not China. The plateau is about 4000 m above sea level, 2,500,000 sq kms and does not have many airports. This makes it very risky for civilian aircrafts and almost everyone avoids it. Additionally, if you are starting from New Delhi, you have to fly over the Himalayas which is even riskier.
If you fly to Japan from Finland then you have to fly over the North Pole, because the Russian airspace is closed. Seems to be a lot more dangerous than the Himalayas.
Sometimes it's easier/cheaper to avoid a country's airspace through a slight diversion than pay the overfly costs. Some country's ATC's can be kinda hostile/annoying/unprofessional/expensive. (I've heard China likes surprise military airspace restrictions that make flight planning annoying).
Plenty of routes that don't take shortest path for geo-political & artificial cost reasons (but you don't hear climate change activists raising issues with that much).
Technical problems aside, there were probably many American citizens onboard. Landing in Russia. perhaps even getting a stamp in the passport, may not be very favourable for some of them.
I don't know what is the situation today but there was a time where American citizens visiting Cuba were very careful not to get a Cuban passport stamp. It was problematic if the US border police discovered such a stamp. So the Cuban authorities helped out by supplying a stamped card to said American tourists.
The reality is quite boring. It should come as no surprise that Air India was not flying over Russia without any idea what they would do if they had to divert to an airport there. As for sanctions, they are mostly concerned with end users, and if Air India flies in their own aircraft with their own parts and engineers, they really present no barrier to getting the aircraft fixed. A lot of tedious paperwork is probably the biggest challenge.
(The logistical challenges if it had required an engine change are certainly real, though.)