Questo sito web utilizza cookie. Continuando a usare e a navigare su questo sito, accetti l'utilizzo dei cookie.
Sapevi che il tracking dei voli di FlightAware è supportato dalla pubblicità?
Puoi aiutarci a mantenere FlightAware gratuito accettando gli annunci pubblicitari di Ci impegniamo per far sì che i nostri annunci siano pertinenti e discreti per offrire la migliore esperienza. Aggiungere gli annunci ammessi su FlightAware è facile e veloce oppure puoi prendere in considerazione i nostri account premium.
Back to Squawk list
  • 11

Landing Gear Fire--Turkish Airlines

A sudden fire in the landing gear, taxing toward take-off? Probably a whole lot more to this story than published. Since the fire was only on the right side, wonder if the co-pilot had problems. ( Altro...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

siriusloon 11
I've seen a lot of stupid speculation on here, but this takes the cake: "A sudden fire in the landing gear, taxing toward take-off? Probably a whole lot more to this story than published. Since the fire was only on the right side, wonder if the co-pilot had problems."

Good grief.

Why do people who have NO clue what they're talking about make such an effort to publicly display their lack of knowledge" And of course everything such people can't understand must have some sinister aspect to it, like info deliberately withheld, conspiracy theories, etc.

If you don't know what happened, ask or wait until someone tells you. Don't post drivel that has no value whatsoever Like blaming the co-pilot because he/she sits on the starboard side.

Sometimes brakes can seize and it can happen from a variety of reasons and sometimes seized brakes cause fires. Most aviation accidents are caused by a chain of events, the elimination of any one of which breaks the chain and the accident doesn't happen. That's why accident investigations are held, so the contributing factors can be determined and steps taken to prevent them happening again.

Fortunately, professional accident investigators don't leap to unfounded conclusions and publish them as soon as possible after the event so as to demonstrate their stupidity.
sharon bias 0
The original article was posted on an aviation web site. The original posting was not on CNN or another generic news web site. I am not a pilot. Flight Aware is not just for pilots. This site is for people interested in aviation news. Even as a non-pilot, I found the original information posted on the other site as sketchy. I appreciate all the good information posted here. But you're right, I don't have a clue about some matters dealing with planes. But until FlightAware requires you to enter your aviation license to join the site, you just have to deal with us newbies. Please stop calling us stupid.
Jim Goldfuss -3
SPot on....I think it was MCAS! :-D
Rico van Dijk 4
Possibly a quick turnaround with heavy brakes use and idle reverse. Perhaps even residual heat from previous sectors. Brakes warm up significantly again during taxi. Still shouldn’t catch fire but just the smelt plugs should pop. Looking forward to the report.
hal pushpak 2
May we assume the "copilot" "right side" comment was in jest?
David Isaacs 2
Was it just the angle of the photography or was the plane taxiing toward the terminal building while burning with no fire personnel shown in the vicinity?
Patrick Mead-Robins 0
I sure didn't notice any sign of them in the video... maybe they thought they were BBQing some Turkish kebabs...??? ;-)


Non hai un account? Registrati adesso (è gratis) per usufruire di funzioni personalizzate, allarmi voli e molto altro!