A Qatar Airways Airbus A321-200, registration A7-AIB, was parked at a remote stand for maintenance concerning the inflight entertainment system and satcom antenna, when at about 06:50L fire broke out in the cabin burning through the roof of the aircraft before the fire could be extinguished. There were no injuries, the aircraft sustained substantial damage and possibly needs to be written off.

The aircraft had last flown on Dec 6th 2017 performing flight QR-234 from Moscow Domodedovo (Russia) to Doha (Qatar).

The airline reported a fire broke out inside the cabin but was promptly extinguished. "Whilst there was some damage to the aircraft there were no injuries", the airline stated.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4b21b6e5

PatrickZ80 wrote:

flee wrote:

Would this not be a subject for an insurance claim? If so, the insurance company would have some input on whether it is a write off or not, wouldn't it?

I doubt if the aircraft was insured. As far as I know, most aircraft aren't.

What, are you crazy, of course they're insured and since 911 the insurance went up a hundred fold. My cousins little airline folded because they couldn't come up with the ridiculous increases.

"My dad is a tv repair man, he's got this ultimate set of tools, I can fix it."

You win!!!

Assuming a 93.5t mtow along with the usual high spec optioned by QR, this aircraft will have a market value in the region of $27m.

A new carpet for an A321 would cost $20-25k. I'm not sure about the rest of the damage.

scbriml wrote:

AAEK192 wrote:

I believe QR will decide to write the aircraft off just as Emirates did with A6-EMW involved on EK521

You say that as though EK had a choice:

I had to do a double take after reading that initially I was so sure A6-EMW was never decided to be written off. It was a crash.

Anyway, too bad we'll see this plane rotating in the parts bin rather than the runway. I believe its scrap value is now worth more than the cost to repair it and make it flyable again.

The word “Destroyed” seemed like an exaggeration, until I saw the cabin. Wow!

Balerit wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

The most helpful factor is going to be it happened at DOH so QR doesn't need to ship people and machinery to a remote location. That cuts repair costs straightaway.

Negatives are going to be procuring an out of sequence interior, although with the QR cancellations at Airbus even that could be less of an issue. The only showstopper I see is going to be electrical damage. If that's not too severe then the fact that the aircraft's tail is not on the ground means it is still intact enough for some qualified Airbus metalworkers to re-skin.

I would not write this off as the wings, engines, all landing gear, fuel tanks and cockpit are intact.

I would hazard a guess that this will be scrapped, it's not only the skin but also all those frames and stringers that will have to be replaced, but obviously it depends on the insurance company.

Obviously just my opinion, but I reckon as the four corners are all in place and everything under the wing is intact, then Comedy Al will want it repaired. Saving face and all that.

kmz wrote:

Makes me nervous to see how the fire spread....could that happen in flight? Flam characteristics of some part seems to be not per spec....

Remember, the A321 was added to the original 1988 A320 TC in '93 - the requirements for cabin furnishings and wiring insulation weren't quite as stringent as they are now.

For example, back then OEM's were still using flaky "kapton" wiring and mylar insulation blankets all over the place. Today, these items would likely be found non-compliant to certain FAR's, but as the two major "state of the art" NB designs today have their roots in the Cold War Era, certain things are grandfathered in.

Maybe Air India wants it?

1989worstyear wrote:

kmz wrote:

Makes me nervous to see how the fire spread....could that happen in flight? Flam characteristics of some part seems to be not per spec....

Remember, the A321 was added to the original 1988 A320 TC in '93 - the requirements for cabin furnishings and wiring insulation weren't quite as stringent as they are now.

For example, back then OEM's were still using flaky "kapton" wiring and mylar insulation blankets all over the place. Today, these items would likely be found non-compliant to certain FAR's, but as the two major "state of the art" NB designs today have their roots in the Cold War Era, certain things are grandfathered in.

... Not helping.....

Siren wrote:

neomax wrote:

Here, you're looking at a completely new cabin, avionics, and electronics at a MINIMUM.

New avionics and electronics? I'm assuming the flight deck wasn't touched by this event, and the avionics bay sits beneath the flight deck.. Are we talking about
new cabin electrics and IFE? That's a given. I would guess the data feeds for the CVR and FDR run through that area, plus the satellite receivers/transmitters
if the plane is so equipped... what else would be required in the electronics department, that lives up in the crown of the fuselage?

A genuine question. Is the A321's floor exactly horizontal when the aircraft is on the ground or does it have tilt in any direction?
Hypothetically speaking if the floor have an even so small forward tilt, wouldn't there be a risk that the water have flowed forward
and by that affect electronics in the forward end of the aircraft. Or is there bulkheads in place to prevents this?

It can be used aircraft damage parts use as flaps, wheels, engine, wing, tail if need to replace in the future. Keep the damage aircraft scrap for parts when it needs. Don't throw a whole aircraft scrapped.

Q

They are just stripping the interiors of the damaged area and check for leaks. Then they will make the final decision. We keyboard experts can only speculate a bit.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

flee wrote:

Would this not be a subject for an insurance claim? If so, the insurance company would have some input on whether it is a write off or not, wouldn't it?

I doubt if the aircraft was insured. As far as I know, most aircraft aren't.

What? All aircraft, at least in modern first world countries that have open and free elections, are definitely insured for hull and liability. No one any airplane is getting into Europe or the USA without insurance.

vhtje wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

one of the problems with this forum over recent years has been the marked degradation on the quality of comment and conversation, with too many amateur 'experts' asserting 'facts' with little real industry knowledge...

I resemble that comment very much, thank you!

In my defense can confidently say I have not contributed to the recent degradation in amateur posts -- I've been a member for 11 years, so my comments have degraded the site for a decade!

It will be interesting to hear from the investigators why this fire burned as extensively as it did. The photo showing the top of the aircraft shows multiple spots where the fire burned through the fuselage up down the length of the aircraft. I agree with the earlier post, how could an antennae fire cause such damage?

Heavierthanair wrote:

G'day

With the front including the cockpit, the wings and the tailplane left undamaged there is enough undamaged airplane left to turn this into an A 319

Cheers

Peter

You made my day, mate!

But based on the expert opinions here on this forum, an A318 will be the maximum, using the cockpit, the wings and the last intact rear section

amax1977 wrote:

Someone left Samsung Note 7 onboard

Has anyone seen my hamster? It bit a hole in my pocket and escaped when I fell asleep on a Qatar Airways flight.

All of the repaired examples so far in this thread have been widebodies. I'd guess that the economics of rebuilding an old generation NB that has a very efficient assembly line aren't as good.

How do insurance companies decide the value of the hull? Do they depreciate based on list price or what that particular frame cost?

If the latter, I wonder how it would work in situations such as United's $25 million 737s - if something were to happen to one of those birds and Boeing didn't want to go as cheap for a single replacement.

Chaostheory wrote:

Assuming a 93.5t mtow along with the usual high spec optioned by QR, this aircraft will have a market value in the region of $27m.

A new carpet for an A321 would cost $20-25k. I'm not sure about the rest of the damage.

What is it about aircraft carpets that makes them cost $25/square foot?

B777LRF wrote:

Hold on guys. It's a bit crispy around the edges, granted, and there's a fair bit of sheetmetal work to be done before a new IFE antenna can be fitted. But the interior is carpets, side-panels and chairs - hardly the most expensive or difficult parts to replace. Air it out for a while, stuff some Wunderbaum's behind the panels and she's good to go in a few weeks time.

PS
I do love statements along the lines of 'it's definitely never going to fly again', 'it's GOT to be a write-off' or 'the aircraft is a write off'. All made by people who've seen nothing but a couple of pictures and has absolutely zero experience assessing damage to aircraft. Yet, somehow that makes them instant experts.

I have experience assessing damage and developing repairs and my opinion is that it is way too costly to repair. That is far more than sheet metal work. The top structure is clearly damaged as can be seen from the interior photo and photos from avherald.

I am seeing millions of dollars in structural parts. An entirely new interior. Electrical, insulation, ducting, etc all needs replacement over a long stretch. The top of the airplane must be reskinned. There is a whole lot of engineering required to determine repairs and Airbus doesn’t do that for free. That will easily cost $20 Million or more in engineering, parts and labor on a 7 year old plane that is probably work $25-30 Million. Usually the insurance will scrap it if repair costs exceed 75% of value.

I expect that the plane can be repaired, but those costs are high. For comparisons sake the Ethiopian 787 was probably worth $100 Million, which means there is a whole lot more value in repairing that plane. Widebodies are more likely to get repaired than narrowbodies since the airplane may be 3 times more valuable but the engineering, labor and part cost for a narrowbody isn’t that much less than widebody.

luv2cattlecall wrote:

All of the repaired examples so far in this thread have been widebodies. I'd guess that the economics of rebuilding an old generation NB that has a very efficient assembly line aren't as good.

How do insurance companies decide the value of the hull? Do they depreciate based on list price or what that particular frame cost?

If the latter, I wonder how it would work in situations such as United's $25 million 737s - if something were to happen to one of those birds and Boeing didn't want to go as cheap for a single replacement.

Chaostheory wrote:

Assuming a 93.5t mtow along with the usual high spec optioned by QR, this aircraft will have a market value in the region of $27m.

A new carpet for an A321 would cost $20-25k. I'm not sure about the rest of the damage.

What is it about aircraft carpets that makes them cost $25/square foot?

Airplanes have blue book values and depreciation tables that insurance companies use. Assessing the value isn’t hard.

Carpet costs so much since it is supposed to be flame resistant. The photos look like the fire spread in the cabin, which is going to get the attention of EASA and the FAA most likely. Fires shouldn’t spread in the cabin like that.

What a shame! I love the Airbus A321!

Don't need to be an expert to know that's a write off.

Siren wrote:

Is it possible to repair that sort of damage? In theory, I think it is. I remember the ET 787 that burned due to the ELT wiring fault, which was repaired. Yes, I know, carbon barrel vs aluminum, but I would expect the aluminum to be much easier than what Boeing went through. The entire fuselage barrel doesn't need to be replaced, right? It's very clear that the entire frame wasn't subjected to fire and high heat - just the crown and top surfaces. The cabin is still intact. Depending on the age of the frame, is there any chance it might be economically feasible to rebuild it?

I'm guessing it might be better to sell off key parts that are still in tact, the engines, winglets, APU etc (depending on damage), than spend endless amounts of time trying to restore the frame sadly

“ At Farmers insurance we insure a thing or too because we seen a thing or too.”

PatrickZ80 wrote:

flee wrote:

Would this not be a subject for an insurance claim? If so, the insurance company would have some input on whether it is a write off or not, wouldn't it?

I doubt if the aircraft was insured. As far as I know, most aircraft aren't.

Could you elaborate on that a bit more???

AAEK192 wrote:

I believe QR will decide to write the aircraft off just as Emirates did with A6-EMW involved on EK521 , basically due to de blockade in the Middle East..And also due to the level of destruction of the cabin and the fuselage

I don't see what the blockade has to do with anything. Nobody in Europe is blockading Qatar, in fact French president Macron was there a couple days ago and sold 50 A351, 12 Rafale fighters and a whopping 490 infantry fighting vehicles.

luv2cattlecall wrote:

What is it about aircraft carpets that makes them cost $25/square foot?

Certification. It's what makes everything on an aircraft 5-10 times more expensive than the exact same part but not certified.

According to recent Aviation Safety Network- Airplane damage: Damaged beyond repair

cubastar wrote:

According to recent Aviation Safety Network- Airplane damage: Damaged beyond repair

That is unreliable as I can change the status of a/c at any given time. Granted I believe it was a w/o, but I think we still have to wait for a while to see what's the news coming out.

Michael

Next time junior doesn't turn off IFE, show these pictures.

bgm wrote:

Welcome to the a.net board of armchair experts. We have CEOs/maintenance/pilots/FAs all with zero experience but happy to share their opinions as if they were in those positions.

Don't forget fleet and route planners. ;p

That said, some of the other photos that have just appeared show much more substantial fuselage damage than the earlier ones.

kmz wrote:

1989worstyear wrote:

kmz wrote:

Makes me nervous to see how the fire spread....could that happen in flight? Flam characteristics of some part seems to be not per spec....

Remember, the A321 was added to the original 1988 A320 TC in '93 - the requirements for cabin furnishings and wiring insulation weren't quite as stringent as they are now.

For example, back then OEM's were still using flaky "kapton" wiring and mylar insulation blankets all over the place. Today, these items would likely be found non-compliant to certain FAR's, but as the two major "state of the art" NB designs today have their roots in the Cold War Era, certain things are grandfathered in.

... Not helping.....

Sorry - I was just referring to the "out of spec" comment. Don't worry - it looks like many other factors went into the spread of this fire (as others have mentioned), we'll have to wait for the investigation to complete. Also, neither Airbus or Boeing have used the kapton wire or mylar insulation for years so it's not a problem anymore.

Besides the repair-or-not question, shouldn't we discuss how on earth this fire got so bad? I worry that the same equipment could similarly burn while on flight...

AirlineCritic wrote:

Besides the repair-or-not question, shouldn't we discuss how on earth this fire got so bad? I worry that the same equipment could similarly burn while on flight...

I'm sure there will be an investigation. Because yes, that is a big question that needs to be answered.

The better questions are, what was the maintenance procedure that started the fire? And more importantly, when the article states the fire was extinguished promptly, what timeframe is defined as prompt??

Because to me, that looks like a fire that either ripped through the cabin or was allowed to continue for quite some time, but that's just my armchair opinion.

I wonder if when noticed it was extinguished promptly BUT as it was parked at a remote location that the fire burned for some time before the alarm was raised.

vhtje wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

I do love statements along the lines of 'it's definitely never going to fly again', 'it's GOT to be a write-off' or 'the aircraft is a write off'. All made by people who've seen nothing but a couple of pictures and has absolutely zero experience assessing damage to aircraft. Yet, somehow that makes them instant experts.

I kinda agree with you - one of the problems with this forum over recent years has been the marked degradation on the quality of comment and conversation, with too many amateur 'experts' asserting 'facts' with little real industry knowledge, and a corresponding decrease in contributions from real aviation industry scions.

On the other hand that is an awfully large hole in fuselage. But is it a write off? Who knows. Certainly not me. Plenty (on this forum!) said G-VIIO/BA 2276 was a "definite write-off" and yet 'VIIO is gracing the skies, and doing sterling service flying for BA - she is currently in Cancun, I believe.

To answer your first paragraph, wasting time with writing something like that is degrading the quality of “comment and conversation”. I myself keep a memory of who I think is worth listening to/interacting with and who isn’t. Second, conversation is a back and fourth between multiple people who think they have something worth saying about a topic and it isn’t a lecture where it’s listening to an expert speak about a topic. One cannot assume a person doesn’t have the experience for x,y or z unless they know that person in real life and not solely through a forum setting.

Now to your comments about the 777vs this A321. Yes you’re right, I was even assuming that the 777 was done but there’s quite a bit of difference in the damage/insurance value between the 777 and this A321. I would assume that this is a write off and if it isn’t no harm no foul, life goes on.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

flee wrote:

Would this not be a subject for an insurance claim? If so, the insurance company would have some input on whether it is a write off or not, wouldn't it?

I doubt if the aircraft was insured. As far as I know, most aircraft aren't.

Most aircraft are insured, especially if there is any money owed, or it's leased.

The aircraft owner and insurer will determine if the aircraft is repaired, based on the cost to repair versus write off.

First of all, it needs to be determined how this happened. Then once determined, then figure out if a problem with other similar model aircraft, with the same antenna, if a design, engineering flaw, mounting or maintenance flaw, or something wrong in the electrical system that caused a short or condition that affected the antenna. Then it may be necessary to make changes in other similar model aircraft, antenna systems used, installation or mx to prevent it from happening again.
As to repair or scrap out for parts QR, that will be made by the accountants for the insurers and the airline. With plenty of 321's out there, no doubt they could get a replacement one relatively cheap or just shift around some of their A321 fleet until scheduled replacements are due.

if it is repairable it looks like a good time to refit as a freighter

PatrickZ80 wrote:

flee wrote:

Would this not be a subject for an insurance claim? If so, the insurance company would have some input on whether it is a write off or not, wouldn't it?

I doubt if the aircraft was insured. As far as I know, most aircraft aren't.

If they fly into the US, Canada or the EU they are required to be insured by regulations. Any aircraft with a loan would be required to be from the banks. They are not going to loose their money.

leghorn wrote:

if it is repairable it looks like a good time to refit as a freighter

That wouldn't be such a bad idea IMO!!

PatrickZ80 wrote:

flee wrote:

Would this not be a subject for an insurance claim? If so, the insurance company would have some input on whether it is a write off or not, wouldn't it?

I doubt if the aircraft was insured. As far as I know, most aircraft aren't.

AFAIK even stored aircraft are insured. If it is leased/financed you are forced to insure. If you own it is prudent you protect your own investment.

Would like to know under what circumstances an airline wouldn't insure a frame?

leghorn wrote:

if it is repairable it looks like a good time to refit as a freighter

I think its better suited to become a convertible, now that that the roof is off anyway.

or a mini-super guppy

Slash787 wrote:

The airline reported a fire broke out inside the cabin but was promptly extinguished.

I would like to know Qatar´s definition of "promptly".

[photoid][/photoid]

dtw2hyd wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

flee wrote:

Would this not be a subject for an insurance claim? If so, the insurance company would have some input on whether it is a write off or not, wouldn't it?

I doubt if the aircraft was insured. As far as I know, most aircraft aren't.

AFAIK even stored aircraft are insured. If it is leased/financed you are forced to insure. If you own it is prudent you protect your own investment.

Would like to know under what circumstances an airline wouldn't insure a frame?

Yes all aircraft are required to be insured much like cars,trucks, etc.

I am curious, with an internal fire. How much better things would have been had the maintenance occurred inside a hangar with a proper fire suppression system.

Are there hoses in place on the maintenance ramp for fire??

dtw2hyd wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

flee wrote:

Would this not be a subject for an insurance claim? If so, the insurance company would have some input on whether it is a write off or not, wouldn't it?

I doubt if the aircraft was insured. As far as I know, most aircraft aren't.

AFAIK even stored aircraft are insured. If it is leased/financed you are forced to insure. If you own it is prudent you protect your own investment.

Would like to know under what circumstances an airline wouldn't insure a frame?

If the aircraft is parked in the desert?

Not just one cover for a commercial aircraft. Hull, engines, other, customer liability, business liability, product liability... You can take storage insurance cover, for aircraft grounded for extended time periods. And then you get to excesses.

Plus there are IATA and country regulations. And airline alliance & JV rules. And leasor and financier T&C's.....

Just like power by the hour contracts, commercial aircraft insurance isn't one size fits all. For example, premiums are based on cycles, hours and destinations. That's why airlines flying to high risk destinations, tend to identify a dedicated fleet, and pay a higher premium just for those aircraft. Also why rostered resting of aircraft rarely if ever occurs, because it won't trigger a 'rest' in insurance cover and consequential premium reductions.

You could very well have liability insurance, so that crew and passengers are insured, third party property is insured, but the aircraft itself isn't.

If you own a large fleet there could be a scenario where a write-off here and there would cost less than premiums for insuring the aircraft.