12 ms·
Logistics challenges of saving Air India’s diverted 777 in Russia
- throwawaysleep 3y agoGood. Hopefully they cannot recover it. Increases the risk of using Russian airspace.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Increases the risk of using Russian airspace 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.
- dmitrygr 3y ago> I'm somewhat surprised America doesn't restrict inbound and outbound flights from overflying Russia. That would make a lot of non-stops not viable. Russia is gigantic.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> would make a lot of non-stops not viable 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.)
- FpUser 3y ago[flagged]
- Scoundreller 3y agoAir 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). https://onemileatatime.com/news/air-canada-london-mumbai-flight/ https://onemileatatime.com/news/air-canada-london-mumbai-fli... But if you fly this route on Air India, it's still non-stop, utilizing Russian airspace: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AIC188/history/20230610/1625Z/CYYZ/VIDP https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AIC188/history/20230610/...
- Scoundreller 3y agoLooks like United Airlines used to have an SFO-Delhi flight, last ran 15 months ago... UA867: https://www.flightera.net/en/flight/United+Airlines-San+Francisco-Delhi/UA867 https://www.flightera.net/en/flight/United+Airlines-San+Fran... It would need quite a diversion to avoid russian airspace: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=sfo-del http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=sfo-del Newark-Mumbai by United also cancelled: https://www.indianeagle.com/travelbeats/united-airlines-suspends-flights-india https://www.indianeagle.com/travelbeats/united-airlines-susp...
- zokier 3y ago> It would need quite a diversion to avoid russian airspace: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=sfo-del http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=sfo-del sfo-cts-del is 9.9% longer according to that website, that doesn't seem that much especially if its just cruising.
- Scoundreller 3y agoThey 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. http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=sfo-Cts-del&MS=wls&DU=nm http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=sfo-Cts-del&MS=wls&DU=nm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner 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 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_777_orders_and_deliveries https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_777_orders_an... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777
- zokier 3y ago> 777-200LR could do it easily, but United doesn’t operate any, and few others do Well, of course the Air India plane where this discussion started was one of those 777s
- actuator 3y ago> Air India has always had a YOLO attitude to air traffic control. What do you mean by this? Do you have some examples in mind. Also, the airline is a different entity now from a few years back. > I'm somewhat surprised America doesn't restrict inbound and outbound flights from overflying Russia. I am sure they would have but this might have been a concession few governments might have secured to keep flights economically viable.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Do you have some examples in mind 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. [1] https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2323889-air-india-flight-121 https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2323889-air-india-flight-121
- govg 3y agoIf 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.
- anaganisk 3y agoI believe you, how was it flying by ISS? Did you wave hands at the astronauts?
- unmole 3y ago> AI 121 came to mind You mean a misunderstanding arising from a glitch in the app? https://twitter.com/QuebecTango/status/1496835604503576582 https://twitter.com/QuebecTango/status/1496835604503576582 > We just flew from Bombay to Delhi at a 30-degree angle. I didn't realise Avatar was commercially operational already. Someone should update the Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(spacecraft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(spacecraft) Air India has plenty of real issues worth criticising. There's no need to make up plainly nonsensical stuff.
- joezydeco 3y agoThe path of the original flight was interesting. They avoided flying over China, but Russia was OK.
- ronsor 3y agoRussia and China combined are most of Asia - you can't practically avoid flying over both.
- zokier 3y agoThe original path was pretty close to great circle path. Its just map projection that makes it confusing
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Scoundreller 3y ago> They avoided flying over China 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).
- manfromearth 3y agoThey 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.
- zirgs 3y agoIf 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.
- unmole 3y agoIt was successfully recovered and was flown back to Mumbai. Must be so disappointing for you.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dehrmann 3y agoSince the plane would be empty, I wonder if there are any smaller engines they could use.
- throw9away6 3y agoNo
- throw9away6 3y agoThey could probably attach it to a 747 and fly it in position 5 if needed. Or ship it by water+truck it.
- dmitrygr 3y agoIt is likely too big. There are limitations to position 5 size and weight.
- kayodelycaon 3y agoThe engine would be scraping the runway as the 747 took off. :) Edit: The fan of a 777 engine is 10in wider than a 747-8. According to a chart from https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21375/what-is-the-height-of-the-boeing-747-8-landing-gear https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21375/what-is-t..., the ground clearance is 3-5 inches. Which is a bit short of 10 inches. :)
- throw9away6 3y agoIt’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.
- pests 3y agoPosition 5?
- toomuchtodo 3y ago5th pod/pylon to ferry an extra engine with. https://simpleflying.com/boeing-747-5-engines/ https://simpleflying.com/boeing-747-5-engines/ https://youtu.be/Da7VjWkzbn8 https://youtu.be/Da7VjWkzbn8 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya
- cameldrv 3y agoWhat a nightmare. I wonder if they're looking at getting it somewhere more hospitable on a single engine.
- dmitrygr 3y ago777 is not designed to take off on one engine. Not even while empty.
- cameldrv 3y agoOf 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.
- phire 3y agoIt'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)
- kayodelycaon 3y agoWhy can’t they just strip the plane down and fly it out with one engine to the nearest airport outside Russia? Edit: Answered my own question. The runway is barely long enough for 777 with two working engines. The asymmetric thrust requires a long, careful takeoff roll until the plane has enough rudder authority to keep it straight.
- dmitrygr 3y ago777 is not designed to take off on one engine. Not even while empty.
- kayodelycaon 3y agoIt 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.
- cameldrv 3y agoThe plane in question is a -200LR which has the GE90-115B engines at 115 klbs of thrust. The numbers on that variant are OEW 145t and MTOW of 347t.
- kayodelycaon 3y agoCool! Thanks for checking my numbers. :)
- inferiorhuman 3y agoit requires both a test pilot 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. https://www.infinidim.org/b777-engine-failure-on-takeoff-efato https://www.infinidim.org/b777-engine-failure-on-takeoff-efa... https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=747649 https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=747649
- james_pm 3y agoIt's already back in India. Flew out on June 10.
- salicideblock 3y agoThanks! Adding source, on Flightradar24 itself (same as the article): https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/vt-alh https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/vt-alh
- high_pathetic 3y agoSo much for the drama.
- tedunangst 3y agoSounds like they just needed to tighten some screws, and came back with the original engine.
- viewtransform 3y agoEngine issue resolved, stranded Air India plane returns to India from Russia https://indianexpress.com/article/india/engine-issue-resolved-air-indias-stranded-plane-way-india-from-russias-magadan-8655871/ https://indianexpress.com/article/india/engine-issue-resolve...
- lastofthemojito 3y agoMan, 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!
- WalterBright 3y agoIn 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. [1] The pilot was cashiered.
- timthorn 3y agoSome more detail: https://simpleflying.com/pan-am-707-raf-northolt/ https://simpleflying.com/pan-am-707-raf-northolt/
- WalterBright 3y agoWow, 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.
- dTal 3y agoThe 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."
- version_five 3y agoI didn't know what cashiered meant. > 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. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashiering https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashiering
- 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jhugo 3y agoThe 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.)
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> if Air India flies in their own aircraft with their own parts and engineers, they really present no barrier to getting the aircraft fixed If Air India wants to risk sanctions, whereby their entire fleet loses access to new planes, engines, parts and servicing, sure.
- nightowl_games 3y agoIf the West wants to push India into Russia's open arms, sure.
- viksit 3y agoIndia and russia are actually pretty tightly coupled in defence and civil industry actually…
- batter 3y agoJust watch hiw rhis will change. It's clear now that russian military is garbage (mostly).
- sudosysgen 3y agoAnd the US is making a huge effort in stopping that.
- 1024core 3y agoLooking at FlightRadar24, it looks like the aircraft, VT-ALH flew from Magadan from Mumbai a couple of days later. https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/vt-alh#30a79da6 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/vt-alh#30a79da6 So all of this speculation is outdated.
- girishso 3y agoThat sounds correct https://simpleflying.com/air-india-fixes-defect-boeing-777-russia/ https://simpleflying.com/air-india-fixes-defect-boeing-777-r...
- trustingtrust 3y agoThis is funny because comments here are talking about going to war with the west over an airplane.
- xattt 3y agoAre you familiar with a world war that started because of a wrong turn?
- x3874 3y agoImagine 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.
- serpix 3y agoUS has friends, so it wouldn't happen.
- anovikov 3y agoIs 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...
- mrabcx 3y agoTechnical 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.
- sampa 3y agononsense
- marcus0x62 3y agoWhat do you imagine these unfavorable circumstances to be?
- VK538FY 3y agoI 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.
- thriftwy 3y agoI doubt they were getting any stamps because they were inadmissible anyway. Likely never legally crossed the border.
- justsomehnguy 3y agoQuite 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). https://news.sky.com/story/us-bound-passenger-plane-stranded-in-remote-russian-town-after-engine-problem-12898168 https://news.sky.com/story/us-bound-passenger-plane-stranded... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magadan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magadan
- iavael 3y agoAlso the fact that their bank cards don't work in Russia doesn't help.
- PaywallBuster 3y agoCan someone explain the whole detour? Looks like the plane was out of route right from the beginning? Why not turn around from where it took off? Is there an overlay somewhere? And why would it drive all the way to a deserted airbase with no qualified personal to fix it?
- FireBeyond 3y agoIt was flying a polar route.