Empty Boeing 787 catches fire at Boston airport
BOSTON (AP) - An electrical fire filled the cabin of a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 with smoke Monday minutes after passengers disembarked following a non-stop flight from Tokyo.
The Massachusetts Port Authority's fire chief, Bob Donahue, said the fire at Boston's Logan Airport began in a battery pack for the plane's auxiliary power unit, which runs the jet's electrical systems when it's not getting power from its engines.
Fire crews using infrared equipment found flames in a small compartment in the plane's belly and had the fire out in about 20 minutes, he said. There was a flare-up later when a battery exploded, he added.
"Something caused this battery pack to overheat, ignite," Donahue said, adding it's too soon to know the cause.
The flight landed normally at about 10:15 a.m. Its 173 passengers and 11 crew members had already gotten off the jet when a mechanic spotted light smoke in the cockpit and cabin about 15 minutes later and notified Massport.
"When we arrived, it was a heavy smoke, and that was in three minutes, so this was advancing," Donahue said.
The mechanic was the only person on board when the fire broke out. One firefighter had skin irritation after contact with a chemical used to douse the fire, Donahue said.
The 787 is Boeing's newest plane, and the first was delivered in late 2011. In November 2010, a test flight had to make an emergency landing after an in-flight electrical fire. The fire delayed flight tests for several weeks while Boeing investigated.
Last month, a United Airlines 787 flying from Houston to Newark, N.J., diverted to New Orleans because of an electrical problem with a power distribution panel. No one was injured.
The 787 uses two lithium ion batteries - including one for the auxiliary power unit, according to a Boeing guide for firefighters dealing with the 787.
The rechargeable batteries, widely used in consumer devices, have some pilots worried because batteries being shipped as cargo are suspected to have caused or contributed to the severity of fires in cargo planes.
When Boeing proposed using the batteries in the 787, the Federal Aviation Administration issued special rules, including a requirement that they be designed to prevent overheating.
The FAA noted in its 2007 rule that, "In general, lithium ion batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure. ... The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion."
The severity of overheating is higher in larger batteries, the FAA said in the rule.
The National Transportation Safety Board said it's sending an investigator to Boston. The Federal Aviation Administration also said it was investigating.
Boeing Co. spokeswoman Lori Gunter said the company was aware of the fire and was working with JAL. She said she couldn't immediately answer other questions because Boeing's technical team was focused on the investigation.
Boeing's stock fell $1.55 on Monday, or 2 percent, to $76.14.
Boeing has delivered 49 787s, including seven to Japan Airlines. Another 799 have been ordered by airlines worldwide.
Ed Freni, Massport's aviation director, said JAL officials reported that the plane that caught fire Monday was delivered to the airline in late December.
JAL began nonstop service between Boston and Tokyo's Narita Airport using the Boeing 787 in April. A return flight to Tokyo was cancelled Monday and JAL was working to reschedule passengers, a JAL spokeswoman said.
The Massachusetts Port Authority's fire chief, Bob Donahue, said the fire at Boston's Logan Airport began in a battery pack for the plane's auxiliary power unit, which runs the jet's electrical systems when it's not getting power from its engines.
Fire crews using infrared equipment found flames in a small compartment in the plane's belly and had the fire out in about 20 minutes, he said. There was a flare-up later when a battery exploded, he added.
"Something caused this battery pack to overheat, ignite," Donahue said, adding it's too soon to know the cause.
The flight landed normally at about 10:15 a.m. Its 173 passengers and 11 crew members had already gotten off the jet when a mechanic spotted light smoke in the cockpit and cabin about 15 minutes later and notified Massport.
"When we arrived, it was a heavy smoke, and that was in three minutes, so this was advancing," Donahue said.
The mechanic was the only person on board when the fire broke out. One firefighter had skin irritation after contact with a chemical used to douse the fire, Donahue said.
The 787 is Boeing's newest plane, and the first was delivered in late 2011. In November 2010, a test flight had to make an emergency landing after an in-flight electrical fire. The fire delayed flight tests for several weeks while Boeing investigated.
Last month, a United Airlines 787 flying from Houston to Newark, N.J., diverted to New Orleans because of an electrical problem with a power distribution panel. No one was injured.
The 787 uses two lithium ion batteries - including one for the auxiliary power unit, according to a Boeing guide for firefighters dealing with the 787.
The rechargeable batteries, widely used in consumer devices, have some pilots worried because batteries being shipped as cargo are suspected to have caused or contributed to the severity of fires in cargo planes.
When Boeing proposed using the batteries in the 787, the Federal Aviation Administration issued special rules, including a requirement that they be designed to prevent overheating.
The FAA noted in its 2007 rule that, "In general, lithium ion batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure. ... The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion."
The severity of overheating is higher in larger batteries, the FAA said in the rule.
The National Transportation Safety Board said it's sending an investigator to Boston. The Federal Aviation Administration also said it was investigating.
Boeing Co. spokeswoman Lori Gunter said the company was aware of the fire and was working with JAL. She said she couldn't immediately answer other questions because Boeing's technical team was focused on the investigation.
Boeing's stock fell $1.55 on Monday, or 2 percent, to $76.14.
Boeing has delivered 49 787s, including seven to Japan Airlines. Another 799 have been ordered by airlines worldwide.
Ed Freni, Massport's aviation director, said JAL officials reported that the plane that caught fire Monday was delivered to the airline in late December.
JAL began nonstop service between Boston and Tokyo's Narita Airport using the Boeing 787 in April. A return flight to Tokyo was cancelled Monday and JAL was working to reschedule passengers, a JAL spokeswoman said.
I'm going to make an educated guess and possible solution. Boeing wanted to lighten the battery pack and lower toxicity of the pack. So they avoided Nickel Cadmium aircraft batteries and chose a Lithium Cobalt Oxide pack. These are the lightest type of Lithium battery but also the most sensitive. This is the same type of battery used in some phones and laptops that have had issues with smoking or catching fire.Â
Â
Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries are a little heavier than Lithium Cobalt but lighter than Nickel Cadmium batteries. They are much more resistant to catching fire and are easier to suppress if they do catch fire. Modest overcharging or running a cell completely dead doesn't create an immediately unstable condition. Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries would probably be a better choice for a passenger airplane.Â
Made by Seattle union workers. When were they out on strike or threatening to?
"Boeing Co. spokeswoman Lori Gunter said the company was aware of the fire and was working with JAL"
Â
They should be all over Thales the Aux power contractor and GS Yuasa who supplies the Lithium ion battery. This could turn into a real nightmare if the failure is generic to the 787 battery.  The US Federal Aviation Administration voiced its concerns about the use of lithium ion batteries in an April 2007 proposed special condition.
Â
Sure glad they made a big deal out of it being empty. Next one at 36K feet?
It's Air Traffic Controls fault!!!Â
At least Boeing's 787 don't land on tree top or oceans like the Airbus.
No kidding...one after the after the other with this computerized jet that should have clearly been made with a mock-up as Boeing has done through out each and every plane they have designed!!
Unrealistic as always!!
Filthy rich and yet ignorant losing money as fast as it comes in.
All of Boeing employees tried desperately to tell them IT WON"T WORK!!!!
The people at Boeing has had to babysit, re-do and recall just about every part on that plane!! It is a disaster waiting to happen!! They're lucky it's on the ground when these things happen, one day they're not going to be so lucky!
At least no engines have fallen off during take off like the A380 had several times.
This will be an easy one to figure out. My guess is they plugged one too many lights into the same AC outlet, and it overloaded the circuit. Probably just need to reset the breaker at the box, and replace the AC outlet faceplate and whooosh....you're off flying again.
I believe the auxiliary battery is a Lithium battery. If the battery was the source of the fire this is really bad news.
@al_wa: One other thing. If this was in fact the battery for the auxiliary power unit, both the battery and the power unit are pretty much off the shelf items. So this is really a case were everyone needs to take a deep breath and say, "Let's find out what the hell happened!" Other than that, one more observation; Whew! This could have been a lot uglier.
 @usnrbb usnrbb A much safer technology would have been the lithium ferrophosphate  ( LiFePO4) it is an intrinsically safer cathode material than LiCoO2 and manganese spinel. The Fe-P-O bond is stronger than the Co-O bond, so that when abused, (short-circuited, overheated, etc.) the oxygen atoms are much harder to remove. The availability of the LFP battery is poor. A123 Systems is a leading manufacturer of the LFP (lithium ferrophosphate) battery. They are in Bankruptcy proceedings and have been sold to a subsidiary of Chinese company Wanxiang.  A123 Systems bankruptcy is causing a temporary shutdown of Fisker production.  If this is a generic Lithium Cobalt Oxide battery/battery controller problem it will cost million and millions to recover
Please remember to carry gorilla tape in your carry-on as you never know when your plane needs repairing in flight.
 @32jim2 Or a need to tie up that unruly passenger!
If there must be a small fire on board glad its after the plane has landed, please remain seated till the plane comes to a complete stop...
Mechanic on plane probably forgot to de-enegize circuit resulting in an arc\spark and then fire. Happens more than you think but because it is a Boeing plane and a 787 we must sensationalize the whole incident. Lame news reporting.
 @ELITEMOTORS could also be a pilot left a switch on and caused an overheating and fire of the wiring. will hear from Boeing's after they investigate. i flew into seatac once late at night and the crew was off the plane and beat most the passengers to the main lobby. guess it must have been last one to the bar buys the drinks.
On budget (oops) On time (oops) Quality (oops) Other than that, a helluva job worthy of bonuses for everyone.
You mean bonuses for the executives, right?
@takncarabizniz Guess you missed the last contract.
I think maybe the wiring should not be self inspected. Too many mistakes get through without a second pair of eyes.
Â
I guess those made-in-china parts aren't working out like planned. Six-sigma myA$$
 @Duncan Construction most of the airplane is outsourced..............no control
Â
Did they find any claw marks?
 @Elvis William Shatner wasn't on this flight.
Looks like they still have the same E-rack electrical problem that was discovered during flight testing.
@Too funny!  No, no, no...now you know that was an errant tool left inside the e-rack, come on...
**heavy sarcasm**
 @takncarabizniz  @Too Most of the errant tools causing problems in just about every industry are the ones left in boardrooms and executive offices.Â
spontaneous combustion in an airplane is scary... Â
One of my son's will be flying home to Seattle from Tampa in a couple of days. I didn't need to know about this cuz now I will worry even more. Â I worry enough as it is! Yikes!
 @Laverne Swanson 787 aircraft that are in service are not serving any route flying out of Tampa...and the only domestic 787 service that you'll see so far is United from Los Angeles to Houston. Other than that...don't worry.
Â
Yet another reason why I go out of my way to book all my flying on Airbus aircraft, if whenever possible. If it's built by Boeing (and their strike-hungry labor unions), then I'm NOT going.
Laverne, the majority of planes are safe. So long as your son is not flying in a 787, at this time, I would not worry.Â
 @Laverne Swanson The frequency of airline crashes is a fraction of the amount of automobile crashes on the road. Your son will be safer in the air than on the road in a Greyhound Bus, where a 20-ton 18-wheeler could lose its brakes, careen through that blind left turn, and take out the bus in an eyeblink.
 @NKato  more likely the bus would crash by the driver of the bus speeding on ice covered roads than a 18 wheeler hitting it.
That is not good....
Yeah...I can't wait to fly over the Pacific in one of these....yeah...ummm....
 @Lookitsme i hear that tsunami dock riding across the Pacific is the safest form of travel but is is the slowest method.