https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-46861324

Sad news. Loss of lives, all on board, except the Flight Engineer. No one on the ground.

May they all R.I.P.

Edited January 14, 20197 yr by vc10man

More than likely because of maintenance issues due to a shortage of spares, since the US is not allowed to supply them with parts. This will probably be a pattern from now on.

 

11 minutes ago, Jude Bradley said:

More than likely because of maintenance issues due to a shortage of spares, since the US is not allowed to supply them with parts. This will probably be a pattern from now on.

I don't think that's it, at least in this case. Looks like they mis-identified the airport, and landed at a different one very close to the destination, with a runway lined up the same way but MUCH shorter in length:

http://avherald.com/h?article=4c2d9613&opt=0

1 minute ago, Paraffin said:

I don't think that's it, at least in this case. Looks like they mis-identified the airport, and landed at a different one very close to the destination, with a runway lined up the same way but MUCH shorter in length:

http://avherald.com/h?article=4c2d9613&opt=0

That is far more revealing news than what the BBC was reporting. So, as you rightly state, spare parts sanctions cannot be blamed for aircrew error.

Aside from the fact that there were 16 crew members on a freighter flight, I'm wondering how 16 bodies were recovered. Unless they counted the flight engineer, which would be a little unusual if he survived.

I faithfully watch all of the Air Disaster investigations on the Smithsonian Channel - https://www.smithsonianchannel.com/shows/air-disasters/802 and sadly many of the disasters were caused by pilot error or a defective gauge.  Sometimes the Pilot and the Co-Pilot fought each other trying to make the aircraft to descend and the other trying to make it go up and they were both wondering why their commands were not working.  I doubt it was a part but doubt any embargo on any country would include anything that would make an aircraft unsafe.  Aircraft go in and out of Iran and would assume if an issue is found in at Heathrow, it would be fixed before departing for Tehran.  It is amazing how these investigators are able to find the reason for the crash even without a black box.

10 minutes ago, Jim Young said:

Pilot and the Co-Pilot fight each other trying to make the aircraft to descend and the other trying to

Like on that tragic AF444

If they were at the correct altitude/glideslope for the actual destination runway would they not have been too high to make a proper approach into that other airfield's runway? In the prevailing weather conditions at the time of the accident I'd think they would see any runway, whether the right or wrong one, rather late, making a controlled approach into a runway you're too high for very dangerous if not impossible? Not speculating as to the cause or anything, just wondering.

3 hours ago, Jim Young said:

I doubt it was a part but doubt any embargo on any country would include anything that would make an aircraft unsafe.

The sanctions on Iran have long affected their aircraft, including preventing them from acquiring spare parts for Western built aircraft. One of the first things Iran did when the sanctions were lifted a few years ago was acquire new, and far more modern, aircraft. Now that the US has pulled out of the deal and re-imposed sanctions, they are being forced to go back to stripping aircraft for parts.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/09/07/iran-old-aircraft-flying-sanctions-new-planes/#4cd109616156

 

May or may not have had any effect on this crash as it does sound like they landed at the wrong airport.

2 hours ago, threegreen said:

If they were at the correct altitude/glideslope for the actual destination runway would they not have been too high to make a proper approach into that other airfield's runway? In the prevailing weather conditions at the time of the accident I'd think they would see any runway, whether the right or wrong one, rather late, making a controlled approach into a runway you're too high for very dangerous if not impossible? Not speculating as to the cause or anything, just wondering.

I don't think they had a glidescope. Over on pprune it was mentioned that the chart shows only VOR/DME and NDB approach for the destination. Flying a non-precision approach, and with both runways in a line when coming from the SE, they might have just landed at the first runway they saw. Those two runways are very close together for that approach direction.

Possible causes might include fatigue, or poor CRM if it was a training flight. We'll never know, unless this had a functioning CVR and there's an actual investigation. For what looks like an Iranian military cargo flight, I don't think that's likely.

On 1/15/2019 at 1:33 AM, Paraffin said:

I don't think they had a glidescope. Over on pprune it was mentioned that the chart shows only VOR/DME and NDB approach for the destination. Flying a non-precision approach, and with both runways in a line when coming from the SE, they might have just landed at the first runway they saw. Those two runways are very close together for that approach direction.

Possible causes might include fatigue, or poor CRM if it was a training flight. We'll never know, unless this had a functioning CVR and there's an actual investigation. For what looks like an Iranian military cargo flight, I don't think that's likely.

Fair enough.