This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
LONDON — Air accident investigators in London were working Saturday to try to determine the precise cause of a fire that broke out inside a parked Boeing 787 Dreamliner, bringing disruption to the city’s main airport and more problems for the aircraft maker.
Air accident investigators in London said on Saturday that a fire inside a parked Boeing 787 Dreamliner on Friday did not appear to be caused by any problems with the plane’s batteries.
Britain’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch, which is responsible for investigating civil aviation incidents, said the airliner, operated by Ethiopian Airlines, had been moved to a secure hangar and that a full investigation was under way.
The British Air Accidents Investigation Branch said in a statement that the fire resulted in smoke throughout the plane and extensive heat damage in the upper part of the rear fuselage. But it said that the damage was not near either of the plane’s lithium-ion batteries. And “at this stage, there is no evidence of a direct causal relationship” between the batteries and the fire, the statement said.
The investigation branch also said its initial inquiry would most likely take several days. It did not offer any other comment on possible causes.
The innovative planes had been grounded worldwide from January to April after two episodes involving fire or smoke coming from the new and more volatile types of batteries. But the planes began flying again in late April after regulators approved a series of fixes, including adding insulation between the battery cells and encasing the batteries inside a steel box.
The initial finding that there was no link to the batteries in the fire on the Ethiopian Airlines plane parked at Heathrow Airport on Friday would be a relief to Boeing, its investors and the 12 airlines that have bought the plane. But the outcome of the investigation could still be significant, depending on whether the investigators find problems with other systems.
Ethiopian Airlines said in a statement earlier on Saturday that it was continuing to fly its other 787s because the fire at Heathrow occurred after the jet had been on the ground for eight hours and “was not related to flight safety.” The airline did not comment on the possible cause of the fire.
Separately, The Financial Times quoted an Ethiopian manager in Britain as saying that maintenance workers had discovered a problem with the plane’s air-conditioning system during a routine inspection and had seen sparks but no flames. The report did not say when the inspection occurred, and aviation-safety officials in the United States were not sure what to make of it.
In addition to the British investigators leading the inquiry, a team from Boeing was on site along with representatives from the airline and from two American government agencies, the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board.
In addition to the British investigators leading the inquiry, a team from Boeing was on site along with representatives from the airline and from two American government agencies, the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board.
The fire, which broke out Friday, caused no injuries or significant damage but did disrupt travel in Britain and elsewhere. Heathrow airport said that around 40 flights had been canceled on Saturday as it cleared its backlog of delays after planes were left in the wrong location.
The fire caused no injuries or significant damage but did disrupt travel in Britain and elsewhere. Investors reacted nervously, sending Boeing’s shares down 4.7 percent on Friday.
But the repercussions for Boeing could be more significant. Investors, mindful that hazards with the jet’s batteries had led to the grounding of the entire fleet from January to April, reacted nervously, sending Boeing’s shares down 4.7 percent on Friday.
Smoke came from the plane, named the Queen of Sheba, eight hours after it had been parked in a remote space at Heathrow and about four and a half hours before it was scheduled to depart for Ethiopia. No passengers were on the plane, which was connected to an external ground power source, according to people briefed on the episode.
Smoke came from the plane, named the Queen of Sheba, eight hours after it had been parked in a remote space at Heathrow and about four and a half hours before it was scheduled to depart for Ethiopia. No passengers were on the plane, which was connected to an external ground power source, according to people briefed on the incident.
It was also not clear if any maintenance was under way or how long the fire had been burning, though it was intense enough to burn through its carbon-composite skin on the top of the fuselage near the tail.
It was also not clear if any maintenance was under way or how long the fire had been burning, though it was intense enough to burn through its carbon-composite skin on the top of the fuselage near the tail.
That area was not next to either of the plane’s new lithium-ion batteries, which caught fire or emitted smoke in two earlier incidents that led to the grounding of the first 50 787s. Unless they were charging, aviation experts said, the batteries would not have been in use if the plane were connected to ground power.
That area was not next to either of the plane’s new lithium-ion batteries, which caught fire or emitted smoke in the two earlier cases that led to the grounding of the first 50 787s. Unless they were charging, aviation experts said, the batteries would not have been in use if the plane were connected to ground power.
A team of British safety investigators began examining the plane shortly after the fire was put out. But no one involved — the investigators, Boeing, the airline or the airport — commented on the possible cause of the fire.
Safety investigators and Boeing did not comment on the possible cause of the fire.
Other experts said that some of the plane’s wiring, and the oxygen systems for passengers, would have passed through the damaged area, which was above the rear galley. It was also possible the fire migrated from another part of the plane, they said.
Other experts said that some of the plane’s wiring, and the oxygen systems for passengers, would have passed through the damaged area, which was above the rear galley. It was also possible the fire migrated from another part of the plane, they said.
Richard L. Aboulafia, an aviation consultant at the Teal Group in Fairfax, Va., said the possibilities ranged from “something pretty benign,” like a lit cigarette or a coffee machine left on, to a serious flaw in the plane’s new electrical system, which includes other innovative components besides the batteries. Or, he said, it could be something “not as easy or as terrible,” like a component that was installed incorrectly.
Richard L. Aboulafia, an aviation consultant at the Teal Group in Fairfax, Va., said the possibilities ranged from “something pretty benign,” like a lighted cigarette or a coffee machine left on, to a serious flaw in the plane’s new electrical system, which includes other innovative components besides the batteries. Or, he said, it could be something “not as easy or as terrible,” like a component that was installed incorrectly.
The Heathrow incident was not the only problem aboard a 787 on Friday. Thomson Airways, a charter airline, said that one of its Dreamliner planes traveling from Manchester Airport in England to Orlando-Sanford International Airport in Florida had to turn back “as a precautionary measure.”
The Heathrow fire was not the only problem aboard a 787 on Friday. Thomson Airways, a charter airline, said that one of its Dreamliner planes traveling from Manchester Airport in England to Orlando-Sanford International Airport in Florida had to turn back “as a precautionary measure.”
The fire on the Ethiopian 787 forced Heathrow Airport to temporarily suspend arrivals and departures while fire crews responded to the incident at 4:36 p.m. local time. Once the fire was extinguished around 6 p.m., the runways reopened.
Friday’s incidents took place about two months after the 787 Dreamliners returned to the skies after being grounded over the battery problems. One of the new lithium-ion batteries caught fire on a 787 parked at a Boston airport on Jan. 7, and another began smoking in midflight nine days later, forcing a 787 to make an emergency landing in Japan.
Regulators lifted the grounding orders after Boeing came up with a plan to refit the first 50 to 60 of the new jets with more insulation between the battery cells and a new system for venting smoke or hazardous gases out of the planes. Ethiopian Airlines has four 787s, and the one that had the fire at Heathrow was the first 787 to return to service at any airline after the grounding ended.
Boeing said that while the planes were grounded, it also made changes in electrical components that had failed on occasion since the planes began to fly in late 2011.
At Heathrow, television video and photographs showed fire damage near the base of the vertical stabilizer, with fire-retardant foam having been sprayed on the area. That would be the first time a fire had burned through the 787’s carbon-composite skin, raising questions about its fire-retardant properties.
But most of the electrical panels and generators are in the center of the plane, below the passenger floor. That is also where one of the two lithium-ion batteries is situated. The second is under the cockpit.
Boeing has delivered 66 787s so far, with orders totaling 930 planes.
Uncertainty over the cause of the fire could make passengers more reluctant to fly on a new plane, or lead some airlines to delay or defer their 787 orders. Aviation analysts said that Boeing’s battery problems had cost it hundreds of millions of dollars.
For Boeing, the 787’s systems represent a significant advancement in technology. To reduce weight and improve the plane’s efficiency, for example, Boeing replaced many of the traditional pneumatic systems with electrical ones that do not rely on bleed air from the engines.
The 787 has six electrical power generators — including two that are near the rear of the plane, linked to the auxiliary power generator, and two on each of the plane’s two engines. These generators provide power to the plane’s electrical systems in flight, including the flight deck displays, flight controls and in-flight entertainment. The system is more efficient because it reduces the drag on the engines, and it generates less noise. During flight, the four engine generators are the primary sources of electrical power. The auxiliary power unit is a small jet engine that is used to produce power while on the ground if the plane is not connected to an external power source.
The 787 has also had a history of other mishaps since entering service in November 2011. Several airlines, including United Airlines, the sole American operator so far, Qatar Airways and All Nippon Airlines, have been forced to divert flights because of electrical problems or out of an abundance of caution given the limited experience pilots and crew have with the new plane.
Despite these problems, though, airlines have eagerly anticipated the plane, which has cut fuel costs by 20 percent.
Airbus, Boeing’s big European rival, is also planning its own carbon-fiber airplane, the A350, which is scheduled to enter service sometime next year.
Stephen Castle reported from London, and Christopher Drew from New York. Jad Mouawad contributed from New York.
