NTSB CAROL · Event
Event NYC07IA063
Registry · N648JB
FAA Aircraft Registry record.
Make / Model
AIRBUS A320-232
Year of manufacture
2006 · 1 years old at event
TCDS
A28NM · AIRBUS SAS
Engine
IAE V2527-A5
Seats / Engines
200 seats · 2 engines
Last airworthiness date
20061208
ADS-B equipped
Yes — Mode-S A883BD
Registrant of record
JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORP
Source: FAA Aircraft Registry (releasable master file).
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The in-flight fire which was caused by the catastrophic failure of a 9-volt battery from an unknown cause.
Factual narrative
HISTORY OF FLIGHT
On February 2, 2007, at 1245 eastern standard time, an Airbus A-320-232, N648JB, operated by JetBlue Airways as flight 721, experienced an in-flight fire after takeoff from John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), New York, New York. The airplane returned to JFK, and landed without incident at approximately 1300. There were no injuries to the 2 certificated airline transport pilots, 4 flight attendants, and 130 passengers. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight that was destined for Nassau International Airport (NAS), Nassau, Bahamas. An instrument flight rules flight plan was filed for the scheduled air carrier flight conducted under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121. According to the captain, the flight departed uneventfully and the first officer (FO) was the pilot flying. As the airplane climbed through approximately 6,000 feet, the flight attendant called the cockpit and reported there was smoke coming from one of the overhead luggage bins. The captain asked the flight attendant to provide additional information as soon as she could and instructed the FO to level the airplane. The captain then monitored the Cabin Surveillance System (CSS), and observed passengers and crewmembers attempting to contain the source of the smoke in the overhead bin, near row 19 aircraft left. The captain declared an emergency and requested an immediate return to JFK due to smoke in the aircraft cabin. The FO initiated a left descending turn toward JFK, and the captain continued to communicate with the cabin crew. Shortly after, the captain resumed control of the airplane and performed an uneventful landing on runway 31L. After the airplane was stopped on the runway, the captain confirmed with the cabin crew that the fire was contained and proceeded to the gate. The passengers deplaned normally through the jet way. The number 2 flight attendant reported that she responded to a call button at row 19, during which passengers notified her of smoke coming from the overhead bin. She immediately requested halon from another flight attendant and deployed the halon into the overhead bin above row 19 left. After the smoke seemed to subside, the flight attendant noticed burning embers of cloth, which seemed unresponsive to the halon. She doused the embers with water, and eventually removed a bag containing camera equipment from the overhead bin, and stored it in the aft lavoratory. The flight attendants continued to communicate with the cockpit crew as they prepared the cabin for an emergency landing. According to the passenger who brought the camera equipment onboard, he placed the camera equipment in an overhead bin on the left side of the airplane, and then sat in his aisle seat approximately two rows behind the equipment, on the right side of the airplane (he was seated diagonally from the overhead bin). The passenger reported that his first indication of the event was that he smelled a "nail polish odor." He stated that it was about 20 minutes later that he began to smell smoke, similar to "burning rubber." The passenger stated the smoke in the overhead began as a "thin" amount, and gradually got "thicker." The flight attendant then rushed forward with a fire extinguisher and sprayed the camera equipment while it was still in the overhead bin. She then removed the equipment, placed it on the floor, in the aisle, and continued to spray it with the extinguisher. The passenger noted that he did not observe any flames during the event, and did not hear any noises prior to, or during the event.
FLIGHT RECORDERS
According to a simulation created from crew statements and flight data recorder (FDR) data, the flight attendant initially reported smoke to the captain while the airplane was climbing through 7,000 feet, approximately 4 minutes after departure. The captain immediately commanded an early level off at an altitude of 7,600 feet, and then requested an immediate return to JFK. A left, descending turn was initiated, and the captain disengaged the autopilot and took over the flight controls. The airplane landed approximately 6 minutes later on runway 31L.
AIRCRAFT INFORMATION
Examination of the airplane after the incident revealed fire/heat damage was limited to the overhead bin in the area of the camera equipment. The airplane structure did not sustain any heat or fire damage.
TESTS AND RESEARCH
The camera equipment was sent to the National Transportation Safety Board's Research and Engineering Laboratory, Washington, DC, for further examination. The retained equipment consisted of a nylon camera bag, with a video camera contained in the large section of the bag. A large pocket was noted on the front of the bag, which contained a 9-volt lithium battery in its original packaging, seven AA batteries, a hand-held microphone, a set of headphones, an audio mixer, three wireless transmitters, four wireless receivers, a walkie-talkie, two 14-volt rechargeable lithium ion battery packs and several pieces of debris. The examination revealed that the fire damage was concentrated in the front pocket of the nylon bag. Both 14-volt rechargeable lithium ion battery packs displayed fire damage. Pack "1" had a small burn hole on the back of the exterior case. Pack "2" exhibited more severe thermal damage, and a large hole was observed burned through the front of the case. The bottom of the case was also melted near the battery contacts. No evidence of damage to the interior cells and circuitry was observed on either battery pack. Both packs were also examined by X-ray to determine if damage had occurred within the cells of the battery pack. The X-ray was negative for interior damage or anomalies. According to the battery manufacturer, a typical fully charged battery pack should have a measured voltage (V) of approximately 14.4 volts. Examination of Pack "1" measured 14.8 V and Pack "2" measured 15.8 V. The contacts on the bottom of the packs were found uncovered by the operator after the accident, and no contact covers were observed in the bag. Several pieces of debris were collected and examined, from the front pocket of the bag. Examination of the debris revealed a label from a 9-volt battery. The label displayed severe thermal damage. The remaining debris was from the inside of a battery. The composition of the electrolyte solvents used in the 9-volt lithium battery, and the boiling and flash points of the individual components, were provided by the manufacturer. The flash points of the components ranged from 21 degrees Fahrenheit to 306 degrees Fahrenheit. During climbout from the departure airport, a flight attendant noticed smoke coming from a bag containing camera equipment in one of the overhead bins. She extinguished the smoke, and notified the captain of the situation. He declared an emergency, and the airplane landed uneventfully at the departure airport approximately 6 minutes later. Examination of the bag containing camera equipment revealed that remnants of a 9-volt battery sustained damage consistent with a catastrophic battery failure. The main component of the 9-volt battery had a flashpoint of 21 degrees Fahrenheit, or room temperature. Other batteries, located in the same pocket of the equipment bag as the 9-volt battery, had unprotected contacts, including two fully charged 14-volt battery packs. One of the 14-volt battery packs displayed significant exterior thermal damage, consistent with damage from coming in contact with another battery. Battery industry research has revealed that a short circuit is the most common cause of battery fires, often initiated by contacts coming into contact with metal objects. Batteries are generally not designed to be able to contain catastrophic failures, and when they go into thermal runaway, they often explode and expel their contents into the environment, potentially causing ignition in areas well beyond the initiating battery cell. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2007_NYC07IA063.txt.
Findings + structured fields enriched from FAA avall.mdb.
Full investigation docket on
data.ntsb.gov ↗.
Beyond the agency record
Search this event elsewhere.
Pre-filled searches into the sources where news + community discussion of aviation events lives. External sources are reported, not agency. Treat them as signal that something happened, not as fact about what happened.
Entity-clustered aviation events in the press — last 24 hr + 30-day archive.
Official agency record + docket.
Investigative docket: factual reports, photos, transcripts.
Long-running aviation incident database (Flight Safety Foundation).
Community NTSB synthesis blog — often has photos and witness reports.
Gold-standard aviation incident blog.
Aviation industry news search.
GA pilot forum — informed but rumor-prone.
GA pilot subreddit search.
Tail-number page — flight history (free tier limited).
AOPA Air Safety Institute search.
Mainstream press coverage. Recent events only.
Privacy-preserving news search.
External links open in a new tab. We don't ingest their content; we deep-link search queries.
Related research
What the literature says.
Academic papers and agency reports matching this event's aircraft type or causal vocabulary (autopilot). Sourced from NASA NTRS, NTSB Safety Studies, FAA CAMI, AOPA Air Safety Institute, Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons, arXiv, and the Semantic Scholar academic graph.
- arXiv 2025 · arXiv preprint
ROSflight 2.0: Lean ROS 2-Based Autopilot for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
ROSflight is a lean, open-source autopilot ecosystem for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Designed by researchers for researchers, it is built to lower the barrier to entry to UAV research and acceler…
- arXiv 2025 · arXiv preprint
ROSplane 2.0: A Fixed-Wing Autopilot for Research
Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) research requires the integration of cutting-edge technology into existing autopilot frameworks.
- arXiv 2024 · arXiv preprint
A Data-Driven Autopilot for Fixed-Wing Aircraft Based on Model Predictive Control
Autopilots for fixed-wing aircraft are typically designed based on linearized aerodynamic models consisting of stability and control derivatives obtained from wind-tunnel testing.
- arXiv 2022 · arXiv preprint
Experimental Flight Testing of a Fault-Tolerant Adaptive Autopilot for Fixed-Wing Aircraft
This paper presents an adaptive autopilot for fixed-wing aircraft and compares its performance with a fixed-gain autopilot.
- arXiv 2021 · arXiv preprint
An Adaptive Digital Autopilot for Fixed-Wing Aircraft with Actuator Faults
This paper develops an adaptive digital autopilot for a fixed-wing aircraft and compares its performance with a fixed-gain autopilot.
- arXiv 2020 · arXiv preprint
Reinforcement Learning for Robust Missile Autopilot Design
Designing missiles' autopilot controllers has been a complex task, given the extensive flight envelope and the nonlinear flight dynamics.
Browse the full corpus — academia portal ↗