Qatar Airways A321 Damaged by Fire in Satcom Antenna

An under-maintanence Qatar Airways A321 caught fire at Hamad International Airport, Doha.

The aircraft was under maintenance and was parked at a remote stand when it caught fire. The fire is said to have started in the cabin, probably originating in the satcom antenna. This, however, has not been confirmed officially as the investigation has only just begun.

There were no injuries as a result of the fire and the fire was promptly contained. As reported by The Peninsula, a statement from the airline said:

“At 06:50am today a Qatar Airways Airbus A321 aircraft positioned at a remote stand experienced a fire whilst under maintenance at Hamad International Airport (HIA). The fire inside the cabin was promptly contained and extinguished. Whilst there was some damage to the aircraft there were no injuries. A full investigation is being conducted by the local authorities to establish the cause. Traffic at HIA was not affected and is running as normal.”

The aircraft appears to have been extensively damaged, both inside and outside by the fire, as can be seen in the pictures. There is a large hole in the fuselage, which can be seen in the photo below (highlighted by the large circle). The hole in the fuselage can also be seen in the photo of the cabin interior, where you can see sunlight coming through it. It is important to note, however, that there is as yet no official statement from the airline about the extent of damage or the status of the investigation into the matter.

With such extensive damage, one wonders if the aircraft has been damaged beyond repair. What do you think? Let us know in the comments section below.


(Images: Social media)

11 thoughts on “Qatar Airways A321 Damaged by Fire in Satcom Antenna

  1. You should be careful when disseminating wrong info about airlines in gebe real that can damage the corporate image. That is sensationalism press. Avoid it if you want to maintain some credibility in your website

    1. In our considered opinion, there is no wrong information that has been circulated. Initial reports suggested that the fire broke out inflight but as soon as that was clarified, we updated the news item. Also, our comments regarding the damage are based on photographs from the incident. Which part of the article seems to be “wrong information” to you? Perhaps if you can elaborate, we can clarify or explain better. Good day!

      1. I fully agree with Carolus. What are the “Initial reports” you mentioned that “suggested” the fire was caught in-flight ? Are they they coming from an official source, or even QR ? If so, is it the same reference who has clarified and provided more information ?

        1. There were several news and aviation related outlets that reported the inflight fire, including That was where we got our initial information from as well. However, as more information became available, all the websites – including ours – corrected their information and presented the facts as they had been clarified. It happens in news reporting sometimes, that the initial reports are found to be inaccurate at that the news is promptly updated and corrected as more information becomes available. We try our best to adhere to respectable standards in reporting: for example, there are some websites who are suggesting that some personnel have been injured in this incident, but since the official statement from QR says there were no injuries, we have not mentioned any such thing in our article.

          We value your readership of your website and greatly value your comments and suggestions regarding our news reporting, which have been taken under advisement.

  2. I am supporting aviation business in general and pilot’s community in particular. And this is not the first time I write to communicators and moreover newspapers for their lack of background information and the way they treat lightly the repercussions of their comments in their news. MANY THANKS

  3. Indeed someone from the payroll is successful at putting the author of the post on the defensive. The discussion could instead focus on the Root Cause Analysis of the problem and leading and lagging human factors that ,any have lead to this event.

  4. hi – actually let’s review the facts :
    All the analysis carried out in this article was based on external sources – all now credited – and on photos – this is empirical factual information. Where the author has mentioned the term “suggested” – they imply there may be variance. This is actually more balanced and sensible reporting than the major news carriers – ie BBC, CNN etc. The above is sensible reporting – not sensationalism. All the information above – quite clearly – has been cited from pictures or other sources. So commentary should be directed to those other sources if dissatisfaction ensues. My comment is supported by years in the aviation industry through one of my particular roles. Readers should be more appreciative of such balanced reporting. Hunain – Aviation Safety Consultant.

    1. Thank you Hunain for your appreciation. As a new aviation website, we aim to be balanced and credible and look forward to the guidance and support of readers like yourself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *