Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5661439/

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: eksath
Posted 2013-01-15 16:41:07 and read 61622 times.

Just breaking...

"ANA-operated Boeing 787 makes emergency landing, smoke seen-NHK

Jan 16 (Reuters) - A Boeing 787 operated by All Nippon Airways Co made an emergency landing in Takamatsu in western Japan after smoke appeared in the Dreamliner cabin, public broadcaster NHK reported on Wednesday."


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...6/boeing-ana-idUST9N09U05C20130116

[Edited 2013-01-15 16:42:03]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: Acey
Posted 2013-01-15 16:54:34 and read 61519 times.

This is not good.

Grabbing some popcorn for this one. People say that as an expression, but I am literally going to make popcorn because a whole bunch of people will have a whole lot to say about this through the night and it's going to get interesting.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: Atlflyer
Posted 2013-01-15 16:55:39 and read 61459 times.

Everyday it's a new problem with this airplane. WTF Boeing?!

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-01-15 16:57:42 and read 61409 times.

If it's true that there was smoke again, this is bad. That said, let's wait and see what actually happened. More than one flaming wreck has been reported initially by the news media that wound up being a blown tire or IFSD or something else mundane.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: flood
Posted 2013-01-15 17:00:02 and read 61328 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
If it's true that there was smoke again

Interesting too, if it was again battery-related, as S.Ray from Bloomberg tweeted:

"NHK, Japan's public broadcaster, says that a Boeing 787 flown by ANA had an emergency landing; battery problem signalled, smoke seen in jet."

Still early.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: spacecadet
Posted 2013-01-15 17:00:04 and read 61256 times.

"Smoke in the cabin" never sounds good, but it can have its benign causes (certain engine or AC system issues, for example). Best to wait for more info.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: Wolbo
Posted 2013-01-15 17:01:28 and read 61251 times.

PR wise another bad day for the 787 but there is not really enough information available right now to judge how serious, or not, this incident is.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: Bau
Posted 2013-01-15 17:04:11 and read 61114 times.

Looking at flightradar 24 it seems like It could be flight NH692 UBJ-HND, reg: JA804A.
http://fr24.com/2013-01-15/23:38/ANA692

[Edited 2013-01-15 17:10:20]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: baldwin471
Posted 2013-01-15 17:05:41 and read 61108 times.

Can't jump to conclusions and no-one is saying this plane is not fit to fly, but even some of you boeing fanboy's need to acknowledge that these problems are not just teething. They are more than that. I'm still looking forwards to my first trip on QR's 788 next week.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: jetblueguy22
Posted 2013-01-15 17:10:40 and read 60940 times.

I'm a huge 787 guy, and it pains me to say it. But they need to really start getting serious here. They have to find the problem and fix it quick. Or else the aviation authorities are going to resort to something a little more serious. This has went from a teething issue to a big issue.
Blue

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: spacecadet
Posted 2013-01-15 17:10:43 and read 60953 times.

Evacuated using slides:



NHK story (in Japanese): http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20130116/t10014825641000.html

Not the photo the 787 needed right now.

This is also giving NHK the excuse to run stories like this: http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20130116/t10014825561000.html

That story goes into the history of the 787's problems. In Japan, this kind of thing can be very damaging, and so far Japan is the 787's biggest customer.

[Edited 2013-01-15 17:17:03]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: RicknRoll
Posted 2013-01-15 17:11:34 and read 60913 times.

First of all, is it the more probable galley overheating something in the microwave type of thing. Could be something worse, but it's always nice to get some facts first.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: Wolbo
Posted 2013-01-15 17:20:36 and read 60612 times.

From BBC:

"ANA said that there was an error message in the cockpit citing a battery malfunction.

However, it would not confirm or deny reports that there was smoke in the cockpit or in the cabin"

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: spacecadet
Posted 2013-01-15 17:22:36 and read 60579 times.

Quoting Wolbo (Reply 12):
However, it would not confirm or deny reports that there was smoke in the cockpit or in the cabin

Look at the photo above - a pilot (especially not an ANA pilot) is not going to evacuate a plane on the tarmac using slides solely due to a battery malfunction notification. According to NHK, this also closed the runway.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-15 17:24:27 and read 60468 times.

Lets wait to get something official from ANA. They are pretty level headed and will check things out before releasing information. There could be a ton of reasons for the diversion/landing - most having nothing to do with a "thermal event"   

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: rsmith6621a
Posted 2013-01-15 17:26:23 and read 60377 times.

Maybe ANA doesn't know how to maintain this aircraft... seems only ANA is having the bulk of the problems.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: Asiaflyer
Posted 2013-01-15 17:26:42 and read 60375 times.

I am truly surprised to see all this teething problems for the 787, considering how much time Boeing had to work on the plane and its systems. Systems not directly causing the almost 4 years delays should hence had reached a higher level of maturity.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: spacecadet
Posted 2013-01-15 17:33:42 and read 60165 times.

Just a bit more info - in the photo above, that is the hold line for Takamatsu's only runway, so he cleared the runway and immediately evacuated. Despite that, the runway is closed (I'm guessing to allow emergency vehicles to work, and passengers to remain safe).

Also, apparently this happened 16 minutes after departure.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-15 17:35:10 and read 60096 times.

Quoting rsmith6621a (Reply 15):
Maybe ANA doesn't know how to maintain this aircraft... seems only ANA is having the bulk of the problems.

That statement is not at all accurate. ANA is the largest operator of the 787. They had their hands on this plane before anyone else and haven't had that many issues with the a/c. We need to wait to see what took place but lets just hope this wasn't a repeat of the JL issue in BOS.

ANA was able to quickly divert and land this a/c on a domestic flight. This option isn't available for UA (for example) on their LAX to NRT route, especially eastbound.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-01-15 17:38:32 and read 59943 times.

Quoting flood (Reply 4):
Interesting too, if it was again battery-related, as S.Ray from Bloomberg tweeted:

"NHK, Japan's public broadcaster, says that a Boeing 787 flown by ANA had an emergency landing; battery problem signalled, smoke seen in jet."

Hi Flood,

Just to remind you that battery fires in flight will not lead to smoke in the cabin, have you not read the other thread?

Cheers

BV

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: flood
Posted 2013-01-15 17:40:09 and read 59952 times.

According to Reuters, ANA has grounded its 787 fleet for "emergency inspection".

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: 777fan
Posted 2013-01-15 17:41:33 and read 59895 times.

Quoting rsmith6621a (Reply 15):

Maybe ANA doesn't know how to maintain this aircraft... seems only ANA is having the bulk of the problems.

"Only" ANA...and also JAL. Oh yeah, and UA, too. I love Boeing, and think the 787 is a phenomenal aircraft but this is getting ridiculous. PR statements and pressers only go so far. Figure it out, already Boeing...

777fan

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: jumpjets
Posted 2013-01-15 17:41:52 and read 59877 times.

I wonder if anyone has done a correlation between which aircraft are having issues and those that were subject to major reworking and long delays in a semi finished condition - or is that all of them currently in service?

My gut feel is that the long delays and reworking of certain aircraft may well contributed in some way to systems not operating correctly and appliances deteriorating before the planes actually got to be used.

I am no engineer, so it is a layman's view, what do you professionals think?

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: B6JFKH81
Posted 2013-01-15 17:42:53 and read 59808 times.

Quoting rsmith6621a (Reply 15):
Maybe ANA doesn't know how to maintain this aircraft... seems only ANA is having the bulk of the problems.

Really? Some other airlines have had some pretty bad issues:

JL

Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS Part 2 (by jetblueguy22 Jan 8 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Another Fuel Leak On JAL 787 (by 71Zulu Jan 13 2013 in Civil Aviation)

UA

http://www.nbcnews.com/travel/united...-makes-emergency-landing-1C7423108

Yes, ANA may be experiencing the bulk of the problems....and they will continue to do so because they have a larger amount of frames delivered to them AND they are the older ones. First planes to fly experience the problems first unfortunately.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-01-15 17:43:57 and read 59799 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 18):
That statement is not at all accurate. ANA is the largest operator of the 787. They had their hands on this plane before anyone else and haven't had that many issues with the a/c. We need to wait to see what took place but lets just hope this wasn't a repeat of the JL issue in BOS.

Actually, I hope it is exactly that. If both incidents can be traced to the same battery, then the battery is the problem and the solution is to change battery types in future aircraft. A bit of a pain, but not insurmountable.

If the cause is wholly unrelated, then that would be more indicative of pervasive design and manufacturing flaws with the 787 and that would, IMHO, be a far worse situation.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: flood
Posted 2013-01-15 17:44:49 and read 63435 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 19):
Just to remind you that battery fires in flight will not lead to smoke in the cabin, have you not read the other thread?

My bad  

Reports are currently all over the place... cockpit smoke, cabin smoke... it could be the smoke was only visible upon landing. Maybe no smoke at all...

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: smolt
Posted 2013-01-15 17:47:38 and read 63144 times.

Radio News reports that one woman was taken to the hospital by ambulance after emergency evacuation complaining her back hurts. Also says ANA decided that the company stops to fly its all 787 until the cause is clear and removed.
Japanese internet news adds a passengers interview saying that soon after reaching cruise level, something stank and the ship start to descend for emergency landing. He saw no fire in the cabin.

smolt

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: ordwaw
Posted 2013-01-15 17:47:39 and read 65775 times.

I was watching today a documentary about SW111, Smoke in the Cockpit. One of the aftermaths of this flight was a directive to treat any unknown smoke onboard as uncontainable smoke and start emergency landing procedures immediatelly. I am not sure if this was just for MD 11 or FAA general recommendation (?) This could explain today's landing as well as UA diversion to MSY last year.

A while back I was planning on flying on what will take place later today, the launch flight LO 1 B788 WAW ORD. As much I am a huge fan of new technologies and Boeing, and that particular route in reverse given my nick, I must admit that I feel more comfortable following it on FlightRadar24.

It is unfortunate, but these incidents happen too often given just a few dozen B788 a/c doing scheduled revenue flights.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-15 17:51:27 and read 65290 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 24):
Actually, I hope it is exactly that.

The BOS incident was described and appeared to be a battery fire. I.E. the battery itself was involved and given its a Lithium Ion battery, that is a terrible thing to have happen in the air. I sincerely hope that wasn't the case even it we can trace it to defective batteries as that is potentially a much more dangerous situation in the air. Keep in mind it took firefighters about 30 mins to put out the fire.

[Edited 2013-01-15 17:54:54]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: RicknRoll
Posted 2013-01-15 17:52:55 and read 65170 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 19):
Just to remind you that battery fires in flight will not lead to smoke in the cabin, have you not read the other thread?

I would rephrase that to read "should not lead to smoke". The design intent is that they will not, real life events may prove otherwise.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: 777fan
Posted 2013-01-15 17:52:56 and read 65156 times.

Quoting smolt (Reply 26):
Also says ANA decided that the company stops to fly its all 787 until the cause is clear and removed.

Sounds like a prudent course of action that frankly, I'm surprised hadn't already been ordered by ANA or JAL after the BOS fiasco. I wonder how/if this might delay future deliveries...

777fan

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-01-15 17:58:49 and read 64665 times.

Quoting smolt (Reply 26):
Also says ANA decided that the company stops to fly its all 787 until the cause is clear and removed.

Not good. Not good at all for Boeing. I hope the FAA doesn't ground the fleet.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: F9animal
Posted 2013-01-15 18:00:25 and read 64682 times.

Guys! This is totally normal. Its a new airplane. Things like this happen. Probably another arc or battery containment. Nothing big.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-01-15 18:00:54 and read 64626 times.

Quoting 777fan (Reply 30):
Sounds like a prudent course of action that frankly, I'm surprised hadn't already been ordered by ANA or JAL after the BOS fiasco. I wonder how/if this might delay future deliveries...

And what financial impact it will have on Boeing. It's 6PM in Seattle right now and I bet that some high-ranking Boeing execs who just got home are hopping back in their cars.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: boacvc10
Posted 2013-01-15 18:04:46 and read 64283 times.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 32):

Guys! This is totally normal. Its a new airplane. Things like this happen. Probably another arc or battery containment. Nothing big.

just noted all news sources report ANA has grounded entire 787 fleet for inspections. news conf. at 0230 gmt ?


Reuters

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: Wolbo
Posted 2013-01-15 18:04:53 and read 64174 times.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 13):
Look at the photo above - a pilot (especially not an ANA pilot) is not going to evacuate a plane on the tarmac using slides solely due to a battery malfunction notification. According to NHK, this also closed the runway.

Perhaps, but it was apparently a battery malfunction notification plus reports of a strange smell. It's not unthinkable that the pilots put two and two together and, with previous incidents in mind, concluded it might well be a battery fire and based on that decided to be on the safe and order a full evacuation.

[Edited 2013-01-15 18:07:33]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: hnl2bos
Posted 2013-01-15 18:06:09 and read 64052 times.

Sounds like ANA is grounding their fleet:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...anding-amid-battery-indicator.html

Whoops I see its a repost. Anyways difference source for more reading. I hope this can get sorted out properly and quickly.

Quick question, if JAL were to ground their fleet what would they send to BOS? We have a trip planned leaving from BOS on the JAL 787.

[Edited 2013-01-15 18:08:01]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: wedgetail737
Posted 2013-01-15 18:06:21 and read 64061 times.

It's one thing to have the Lithium Ion battery to catch fire on the ground...it's a much more severe incident when one catches fire in flight. ANA is right to ground all of their 787's as precaution and determine the root cause of the problem. Once a suitable solution from Boeing or the battery manufacturer has been determined, I'm sure ANA will send those 787's back into service without delay.

What is ANA going to put in the 787 place from NRT to SEA, SJC and FRA?

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-15 18:07:15 and read 64049 times.

If smoke did appear in the cabin, it would be helpful to know when it did so and how much.

In cruise, there should be no smoke due to the cabin air-flow system.

Once on the ground, however, that system is no longer in effect.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: spacecadet
Posted 2013-01-15 18:07:47 and read 63940 times.

Quoting ordwaw (Reply 27):
I was watching today a documentary about SW111, Smoke in the Cockpit. One of the aftermaths of this flight was a directive to treat any unknown smoke onboard as uncontainable smoke and start emergency landing procedures immediatelly. I am not sure if this was just for MD 11 or FAA general recommendation

Either way, it wouldn't apply in Japan. But smoke in the cabin, unless it's from some clearly identifiable source, would never be treated as "containable" these days - if you can't find it/don't know what it is, land. That's regardless of SwissAir 111, which was neither the first nor the last uncontained fire resulting in fatalities on an airliner.

We still don't know for sure that there was "smoke" in the cabin on this flight, but as I made clear above, there had to be more than just a battery malfunction indication for a pilot to clear the runway and immediately evacuate the aircraft using slides on a taxiway. Slide evacuations can lead to injuries on their own (and it seems there's at least one from this incident) so a pilot's not going to order one if he doesn't feel the alternative is potentially worse. Even if it was just a "stink" from the battery, combined with a battery malfunction indication, that might be enough to convince a 787 pilot right now that the battery's on fire.

Either way, I personally would not prefer to fly on a 787 at this point, if only because the scrutiny this plane is undergoing can more easily lead to situations like this that are at best inconvenient for the passengers and at worst can lead (has led) to injury. And if ANA has grounded all of its 787's as reports suggest, that's even another black eye for Boeing.

[Edited 2013-01-15 18:09:18]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-01-15 18:07:53 and read 63957 times.

Video report in English from Japan's NHK:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/20130116_13.html

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: 777fan
Posted 2013-01-15 18:08:04 and read 63982 times.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 32):
Guys! This is totally normal. Its a new airplane. Things like this happen. Probably another arc or battery containment. Nothing big.

Tell that to Boeing, the FAA, the JAA, QR, UA, etc. For the memory-deficient, the Chicago Tribune provides this rundown of incidents (some 'normal', others notsomuch):

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...bre90f022-20130115,0,6622417.story

777fan

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-15 18:08:34 and read 63849 times.

Quoting Wolbo (Reply 35):
Perhaps, but it was apparently a battery malfunction notification plus reports of a strange smell. It's not unthinkable that the pilots put two and two together and, with previous incidents in mind, concluded that it might well be a battery fire and based on that decided to be on the safe and order a full evacuation.

This to me is the most likely scenario. Battery malfunction msg combined with "smell" (likely reported by F/A)=divert and evac ASAP. In this age of instant transfer of information, the pilots will not hesitate to divert on such a message....unless they are over the mid-(fill in your favorite ocean here).

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: TheSultanOfWing
Posted 2013-01-15 18:11:12 and read 63602 times.

Quoting Wolbo (Reply 35):

Perhaps, but it was apparently a battery malfunction notification plus reports of a strange smell.

Either way, it would have been quite uncomfortable if this were to happen somewhere over water still a few hours flying away from the nearest airport! I guess most pax have heard a thing or two about B787 lately, airplane enthousiast or not; and a strange smell in the cabin would probably ruin the in-flight experience for most.

I would imagine flight crew would try no to alarm the pax until they'd be close to a diversion strip.....panic is the last thing you need in a situation like that.

Good thing this happened over land anyways!

FH

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-15 18:11:18 and read 63854 times.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 32):
Guys! This is totally normal. Its a new airplane. Things like this happen. Probably another arc or battery containment. Nothing big.
Quoting 777fan (Reply 41):
Tell that to Boeing, the FAA, the JAA, QR, UA, etc.
F9animal is being sarcastic / trolling the thread, 777fan. He's on record as saying the 787 fleet should be grounded worldwide as unsafe.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-01-15 18:11:56 and read 63747 times.

Quoting boacvc10 (Reply 34):
just noted all news sources report ANA has grounded entire 787 fleet for inspections. news conf. at 0230 gmt ?

Again, this happens and life goes on, usually rather quickly.

757 fleet grounded at AA for inspection. MD80 fleet grounded at AA for inspection. MD80 fleet grounded at AS for inspection. A380 fleet grounded at SQ, QF for inspection.

I'm sure there were many more, it's just those I recall of the top of my head. Pretty sure airlines have had to ground the 747 a few times for inspection.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: PITingres
Posted 2013-01-15 18:13:53 and read 63410 times.

Quoting boacvc10 (Reply 34):
all news sources report ANA has grounded entire 787 fleet for inspections

I'd see that as good news. If they are inspecting then it is presumably inspecting for something specific, known, and fixable.

If the reg number was reported correctly, this is LN9, a very early build, which has been in service for almost exactly a year. Interesting.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: a380900
Posted 2013-01-15 18:16:12 and read 63054 times.

Well, at least the slides do work.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 16):
I am truly surprised to see all this teething problems for the 787, considering how much time Boeing had to work on the plane and its systems.

I'm not sure you read the time it took to complete the program the right way: they were not taking their time to make this thing perfect, they were struggling with an out of control program.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: CYLW
Posted 2013-01-15 18:16:16 and read 63089 times.

I don't think any crew would order an emergency evacuation based on a smell. Emergency evacs are dangerous in their own right. Injuries are common on these types of evacuations.

There must have been more than just a smell of smoke and a battery indication.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: smolt
Posted 2013-01-15 18:17:10 and read 63356 times.

I saw the burned-out lithium ion battery of JAL 787 in the internet. It does not allow us much optimistic view. I wonder this is the first time for lithium ion battery to be used in circumstance where air pressure is very frequently go up and down. When you send electric items such as digital camera or cell phone at the Japanese post office you will be asked if your package includes battery or not. Postal lady says Air transport is banned for battery including package and for that it takes a little longer before delivery because of land transportation. It is cynical that aircraft itself loads this chemically instaple battery.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: 777fan
Posted 2013-01-15 18:18:03 and read 62908 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 44):
F9animal is being sarcastic / trolling the thread, 777fan. He's on record as saying the 787 fleet should be grounded worldwide as unsafe.

Thanks - the flu apparently has affected my sarcasm detection system...in either case, the link will help jog other users' memories.

777fan

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: SCQ83
Posted 2013-01-15 18:18:22 and read 62910 times.

Is this the first 787 with an emergency evacuation on a commercial flight?

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: rampbro
Posted 2013-01-15 18:22:40 and read 61430 times.

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 22):
I wonder if anyone has done a correlation between which aircraft are having issues and those that were subject to major reworking and long delays in a semi finished condition - or is that all of them currently in service?

I wonder the same thing. I just don't want to crunch all the numbers.

Another question is how many hours do these aircraft have in service at this point? Is it more or less than the pilot test aircraft accrued traipsing all over the western United States?

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: azncsa4qf744er
Posted 2013-01-15 18:23:57 and read 61429 times.

Rumor has it ANA just announced grounding their fleet of B787-8, can any insider confirm?

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: PITingres
Posted 2013-01-15 18:25:01 and read 61392 times.

Quoting smolt (Reply 49):
I saw the burned-out lithium ion battery of JAL 787 in the internet. It does not allow us much optimistic view. I wonder this is the first time for lithium ion battery to be used in circumstance where air pressure is very frequently go up and down. When you send electric items such as digital camera or cell phone at the Japanese post office you will be asked if your package includes battery or not. Postal lady says Air transport is banned for battery including package and for that it takes a little longer before delivery because of land transportation.

When you ship your digital camera or cell phone it's not in a containment box designed to contain a battery fire. The 787 battery IS in a containment box, and from the pictures you cite, it seems like the containment did a great job. As rcair1 pointed out on a different thread, the paint wasn't even badly scorched.

If (if!) there is a problem of some sort with the containment design or manufacture, it will of course have to be corrected. But it is not correct to assume that Li batteries are automatically unsafe for use on an airliner, if properly designed in.

There's a lot hotter fire in the engine and nobody seems to worry about that too much.  

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: spacecadet
Posted 2013-01-15 18:25:21 and read 61289 times.

Quoting rampbro (Reply 52):
Is it more or less than the pilot test aircraft accrued traipsing all over the western United States?

Oh it would be much more at this point. This plane, if the reg is what people are saying it is, has been in service for a year on domestic runs all over Japan. It's probably got about 4,000 hours and 1,500 cycles or so by now.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-15 18:25:33 and read 61376 times.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...kes-emergency-landing-in-takamatsu


Not good. Boeing needs to figure this out.

Apparently by next week the ministry of transport is supposed to release a comprehensive review by next week



Damn, if only I had my MacBook I could keep up on this better and report in. I'm so limited by my iPad.

Guys i will try my best to get more from my contacts in Japan.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-01-15 18:26:02 and read 61342 times.

Quoting CYLW (Reply 48):
I don't think any crew would order an emergency evacuation based on a smell. Emergency evacs are dangerous in their own right. Injuries are common on these types of evacuations.

There must have been more than just a smell of smoke and a battery indication.

Over-reaction out of fear is not unknown to pilots. Over-reaction/mis-reading the situation is a main cause of pilot error.

At this point, all the hype has everyone freaked out.

Smoke and battery indication might have been all it was. But if you think your plane is on fire from the inside, do you just taxi back and deplane as usual? It's not like an engine fire where you can disconnect the fuel and have the fire trucks douse it.

This goes back to my comment about the UA diversion. Boeing needs to install a camera in that rear E bay for visual feedback in the cockpit, because as it stands now, both real and imagined problems are going to lead to over-reactions on the side of safety, and that could lead to injury itself.

We've now had "fires" in two different locations in that bay. I don't blame pilots for being spooked and taking the maximum precaution. But if it reaches the point of hysteria, then what?

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: ThomasCook
Posted 2013-01-15 18:26:28 and read 61203 times.

Quoting azncsa4qf744er (Reply 53):
Rumor has it ANA just announced grounding their fleet of B787-8, can any insider confirm?

The moderators just deleted my separate topic on this as apparently a fleet grounding and an emergency landing are the same topic...right...;

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...na-grounding-idUST9N09U05G20130116

ThomasCook

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: 9w748capt
Posted 2013-01-15 18:27:18 and read 61137 times.

Quoting eksath (Thread starter):

Why "episode" in the thread title? Makes it seem like this is reality TV or something. Oh wait, I suppose it kind of is  

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: ZKOJH
Posted 2013-01-15 18:28:50 and read 61161 times.

Sky News are reporting ANA have grounded all 17 dream-liners now, What is going on? did we have so many problems with the A380?

http://news.sky.com/story/1038642/an...nds-all-17-dreamliners-after-fault

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-15 18:37:06 and read 60425 times.

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 60):

When the 380 suffered those engine problems they were briefly grounded too.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: a380900
Posted 2013-01-15 18:38:14 and read 60600 times.

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 60):
did we have so many problems with the A380?

In one word: no. The entire 787 has had more issues than the A380. The "flying" part of the A380 has always been sound and was only 6 months late or so. Fitting the cabins were another issue altogether.

One has to mention that the Qantas engine issue has grounded many planes for some time but not all at once so it was not as spectacular. Also it was a RR thing. GE A380 could still fly...

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: rsmith6621a
Posted 2013-01-15 18:38:40 and read 60417 times.

By this time tomorrow the FAA will ground all 787s until Boeing fixes all issues with this aircraft.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: AFGMEL
Posted 2013-01-15 18:39:01 and read 60371 times.

Grounding the whole fleet sounds like ANA are worried.

I am all for pilots erring on the side of extreme caution when it comes to smoke and fires. Nobody wants a repeat of Swiss 111.

How often to these fire events happen on other types of aircraft? My logic tells me if this was a normal event there wouldn't be a fleet grounding. Happy to learn however.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: SSTeve
Posted 2013-01-15 18:41:19 and read 60071 times.

Quoting 9w748capt (Reply 59):
Why "episode" in the thread title?

I assume to make clear it's a new incident.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: eksath
Posted 2013-01-15 18:44:21 and read 59775 times.

Quoting 9w748capt (Reply 59):
Why "episode" in the thread title? Makes it seem like this is reality TV or something. Oh wait, I suppose it kind of is  

The way things have been going over the last week or so, it seems that this is a serialized drama (either imagined or actual) hence I used the term "episode" for this thread title. Sadly, there will probably be something else in the near future, if the laws of probability follow its course. My hope is that it is a mundane issue. Unfortunately, it will not stop the press from jumping on it hence the next episode of the 787 saga.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: spacecadet
Posted 2013-01-15 18:44:30 and read 59843 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 57):
Over-reaction out of fear is not unknown to pilots. Over-reaction/mis-reading the situation is a main cause of pilot error.

I would be very careful about even appearing to accuse ANA pilots of overreacting. The pressure in Japan is so far in the opposite direction that this is *extremely* rare - if anything, Japanese pilots err too far on the other side. If there's a way of saving company resources and not creating a public spectacle, they'll find it.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-15 18:44:44 and read 59966 times.

In the air currently is the ANA flight from SEA and one en route to FRA. Anyone know if that return flight is going to happen or is it just going to repo back?

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: bioyuki
Posted 2013-01-15 18:50:46 and read 59433 times.

JL is reportedly grounding their fleet of 788s as well:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-...o-ground-entire-dreamliner-fleets/

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: a300
Posted 2013-01-15 18:54:43 and read 59464 times.

I flew on two of UAL 's 787s this month (LAX-IAH-LAX). Both aircraft had been delivered less than a month before. I was generally unimpressed by the interior of the 787 (I guess I had developed too much expectation). It looks like a 767 with bunch of funky lights, windows and toilets. On the return flight, two rows of three seats each were cordoned off. One of the pilots said over the PA that seats are intentionally blocked because their oxygen masks don't work.

On positive side: I did notice a higher cabin air humidity than the more conventional types.

On less Boeing and more UA issues: The economy (plus at exit) seats were just as uncomfortable as those on the 767. While the content of the IFE was excellent, my unit kept freezing all flight long.

Undoubtedly this is a revolutionary plane, with markedly lower fuel burn, etc. So far at least, I have been under-impressed by it as a passenger.

UA Boeing 787-8 ship 0905, 12JAN2013

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: flood
Posted 2013-01-15 18:55:43 and read 59056 times.

Quoting rsmith6621a (Reply 63):
By this time tomorrow the FAA will ground all 787s until Boeing fixes all issues with this aircraft.

At this point the extent of the grounding only appears to cover the necessary time for fleet-wide inspections. Jon O tweeted that ANA hasn't decided yet on whether ANA will resume operations on Thursday.

Quoting bioyuki (Reply 69):
JL is reportedly grounding their fleet of 788s as well:

I was just about to raise the question if they would follow suit... and am not surprised. If anything, merely from a local PR standpoint they're left with little choice.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: bioyuki
Posted 2013-01-15 18:57:33 and read 58923 times.

Quoting flood (Reply 71):
was just about to raise the question if they would follow suit... and am not surprised. If anything, merely from a local PR standpoint they're left with little choice.

I'm not surprised either considering this is Japanese airlines we're talking about...出る杭は打たれる: the nail that sticks out gets hammered down

[Edited 2013-01-15 18:58:27]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: AA94
Posted 2013-01-15 18:57:38 and read 59119 times.

ANA

According to ANA, their entire fleet of 787s is grounded until further notice.

Once NH203 reaches FRA, it will remain on ground there. It will not return back to Tokyo.

All other flights planned with the 787 for 16JAN are cancelled indefinitely.

ANA presser began at 0230 GMT / 1130 JST.

JAL

JAL has followed suit and cancelled all 787 flights planned for 16JAN.

JL719 NRT-SIN will be operated by 777 on 16JAN.

JAL HND - PEK services will be operated by 777 through 18JAN.

JAL has only announced cancellations for 16JAN; no word on 787 operations after 16JAN.

General

According to multiple news sources, reports of smoke in the cabin are UNCONFIRMED as of yet.

In other news, LOT starts 787 service on WAW-ORD on 16JAN.




[Edited 2013-01-15 19:02:21]

[Edited 2013-01-15 19:04:33]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: a36001
Posted 2013-01-15 19:02:24 and read 58584 times.

O boy! It's one thing to have EIS teething trouble, they are expected, it is however IMHO a very different thing to have smoke in cabin, emergency landing, evacuation soon after landing, and then the grounding of a newly introduced type of aircraft. This is not good.

I love the 787 and want it to suceed, and I have every confidence in it and Boeing, but when they have to start evac's and fleet groundings, at what point do the teething troubles turn into major problems.  

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: ordwaw
Posted 2013-01-15 19:04:01 and read 58424 times.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 32):
Guys! This is totally normal. Its a new airplane. Things like this happen. Probably another arc or battery containment. Nothing big.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 44):
F9animal is being sarcastic / trolling the thread, 777fan.

I know it is sarcastic ... yet having seen the same message in a second or third thread within a week or so makes you think that some of us enthusiasts may be downplaying the impact and what is really happening.

Quoting ThomasCook (Reply 58):
I don't blame pilots for being spooked and taking the maximum precaution. But if it reaches the point of hysteria, then what?

I do not think pilots are being spooked. My understanding is they are strictly following their operational manuals. And with the plane being new these manuals may still be in version 1.x, which I would assume errs on the safe side and the below ...

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 42):
This to me is the most likely scenario. Battery malfunction msg combined with "smell" (likely reported by F/A)=divert and evac ASAP.

is most likely what I would I agree is happening too.

Quoting AFGMEL (Reply 64):
I am all for pilots erring on the side of extreme caution when it comes to smoke and fires. Nobody wants a repeat of Swiss 111.

Couldn't agree more ... and again, they are most likely not erring but following the OM (which at this time is erring .on the safe side)

Quoting rsmith6621a (Reply 63):
By this time tomorrow the FAA will ground all 787s until Boeing fixes all issues with this aircraft.

Considering that B788 is already under FAA investigation, and ANA has decided to ground its fleet, JAL may follow the path, so 1/2 of flying 788's will be grounded, and then why not to be on the safe side and ground all 788's until end of investigation.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-15 19:07:59 and read 58072 times.

Will NH/Japan's MoT send someone to FRA?


Yomiuri is saying this is indefinite. We could be talking about a 2-3 week grounding potentially.

[Edited 2013-01-15 19:11:17]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: ChrisNH
Posted 2013-01-15 19:09:10 and read 57639 times.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 16):
I am truly surprised to see all this teething problems for the 787, considering how much time Boeing had to work on the plane and its systems.

I agree. But I had one Boeing apologist declare that we should expect these teething problems EVEN THOUGH the plane was YEARS late and was flying test flights almost around the clock. THAT is where your 'teething' should occur, right? Otherwise, why have a test program? So they can go up and draw sky letters spelling out '787' across the USA?

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-15 19:35:44 and read 56599 times.

Looks like the forums are back and the thread was renamed. Any more updates?




I would like to rant and rave about how poor USAToday, FOX, and MSNBC are reporting on this issue. It's NHK, not NTV. It's the 787, not a 767. It's Takamatsu, not Takayama (although takayama is a beautiful town.)

Edits: looks like those articles have had some corrected.

[Edited 2013-01-15 19:42:01]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: laxboeingman
Posted 2013-01-15 19:37:08 and read 56518 times.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/travel...gency-landing/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Here is another link. This is serious and not the first battery problem for the 787. I hope Boeing can get the problem fixed quickly.

laxboeingman

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2013-01-15 19:41:19 and read 56080 times.

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 77):
But I had one Boeing apologist declare that we should expect these teething problems EVEN THOUGH the plane was YEARS late and was flying test flights almost around the clock.

How many teething problems are acceptable? Is the 777 a bad airplane because it had a very rough EIS?

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-01-15 19:45:36 and read 55834 times.

Hey an A333 had smoke in the cabin today.. in Tokyo no less.. where's the hysteria?

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: StuckInCA
Posted 2013-01-15 19:48:22 and read 55382 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 44):
F9animal is being sarcastic / trolling the thread, 777fan. He's on record as saying the 787 fleet should be grounded worldwide as unsafe.

I thought he was a Boeing employee too. Maybe my memory is fading.

Hope they sort this out. Smoke and fire (not this flight so far as I know) are not a good thing.

[Edited 2013-01-15 19:54:23]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: ely747
Posted 2013-01-15 19:51:53 and read 55214 times.

This ain't funny any more. Regardless of bad reports coming in last weeks to me the 787 is a beautiful piece of engineering and I am definitely looking forward to take a flight on one of them ...

[Edited 2013-01-15 19:57:34]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: flylonghaul
Posted 2013-01-15 19:55:23 and read 54863 times.

I must say I'm rather pleased I decided not to fly LO to ORD. I was booking purely as it was the 787.

As doubtful as I usually am that nothing will happen in flight. This is just one issue too many for comfort on a trans Atlantic.

I very much hope that this is a relatively easy fix and doesn't further delay deliveries.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-01-15 19:56:26 and read 54763 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 81):

Exactly my point. At this point pilots are spooked. Sorry if this isn't Pc because pilots are supposed to have nerves of steel and all, but everyone gets spooked. If you don't have confidence in your equipment... If I were a pilot I would be doubting the equipment at this point too.

[Edited 2013-01-15 20:00:13]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: F9animal
Posted 2013-01-15 19:57:28 and read 54787 times.

Guys... I am confident that this airplane is safe. It is a very reliable airplane. The media, the crews, and the passengers are overreacting.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: ordwaw
Posted 2013-01-15 19:59:09 and read 54763 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 81):
Hey an A333 had smoke in the cabin today.. in Tokyo no less.. where's the hysteria?

There isn't.

- The A333 aircraft taxied to the gate on its own power rather than stopping in the middle of the airport and having people evacuated via slides on B788.
- There have been close to 1,000 A333's built with say 600+ in service Vs. say 50 B788s in service
- Media loves B788 and A333 is old news

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-15 20:00:35 and read 54718 times.

Updated article from Japan Today. I trust this source best.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...kes-emergency-landing-in-takamatsu

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: Lufthansa411
Posted 2013-01-15 20:02:34 and read 54362 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 81):

Hey an A333 had smoke in the cabin today.. in Tokyo no less.. where's the hysteria?

When the 787 has 925+ frames produced and has proven itself a safe and reliable aircraft overall then we can start wondering why there is so much hype regarding these incidents. In the mean time, I think it is appropriate to question things.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-01-15 20:04:17 and read 54050 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 88):
Updated article from Japan Today. I trust this source best.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...matsu

Didn't mention anything about smoke or smelling something.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: trent1000
Posted 2013-01-15 20:05:25 and read 54199 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 81):
an A333 had smoke in the cabin today.. in Tokyo no less.. where's the hysteria?

Perhaps so, but the A333 is a proven workhorse and common aircraft type.
The 787 has been extensively tested, but has yet to be proven to be as reliable and safe in service as have other aircraft types.
But the 787 is also unique in some ways, so there might be issues that other aircraft don't experience short and long-term.

JAL has also grounded their 787 fleet.

It's worthwhile mentioning that today's ANA evacuation saw one minor (back) injury [reported on CNNj ]. I think that demonstrates that a normal cross section of the travelling public were able to safely escape in a real situation versus a test, further validating that safety aspect.

2012 was the safest year ever in world commercial aviation - easily Googled fact. The current attention to the 787 means that safety is taken seriously by the manufacturer, airlines, the media and the travelling public. A good thing, no?

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: Norcal773
Posted 2013-01-15 20:07:08 and read 53899 times.

Ooh boy, Boeing sure need a break with this thing now. It'll be interesting to see if the other operators ground their Dreamliners too and my guess is they will for inspection but then again inspection means they know what they're looking for.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 28):
Keep in mind it took firefighters about 30 mins to put out the fire.

40 minutes to be exact.

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 37):

It's one thing to have the Lithium Ion battery to catch fire on the ground...it's a much more severe incident when one catches fire in flight.

It was my understanding this could not have happened in flight because the battery used to start the APU isn't being used.

Quoting a380900 (Reply 47):
I'm not sure you read the time it took to complete the program the right way: they were not taking their time to make this thing perfect, they were struggling with an out of control program.

Struggling with an out-of-control program? Are you kidding? They struggled alright, as did Airbus with the A380 but 'out of control' is a bit much really.

Quoting CYLW (Reply 48):

I don't think any crew would order an emergency evacuation based on a smell. Emergency evacs are dangerous in their own right. Injuries are common on these types of evacuations.

There must have been more than just a smell of smoke and a battery indication.

That's speculation, ain't it?

Quoting a380900 (Reply 62):
In one word: no. The entire 787 has had more issues than the A380. The "flying" part of the A380 has always been sound and was only 6 months late or so. Fitting the cabins were another issue altogether.

One has to mention that the Qantas engine issue has grounded many planes for some time but not all at once so it was not as spectacular. Also it was a RR thing. GE A380 could still fly...

Right, we get it.. you're not a 787 fan but you're big on the A380. You might as well say that.

Quoting rsmith6621a (Reply 63):

By this time tomorrow the FAA will ground all 787s until Boeing fixes all issues with this aircraft.

You know that how?

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 68):
n the air currently is the ANA flight from SEA and one en route to FRA. Anyone know if that return flight is going to happen or is it just going to repo back?

I see we prescribe to the same App... I love that App!

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: holzmann
Posted 2013-01-15 20:08:52 and read 53781 times.

E-Trade -> BA -> Short

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-15 20:10:13 and read 53591 times.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 90):

Was that confirmed from other sources? Yomiuri had it earlier that it "may have been" smoke. But that's not a confirming word in Japanese.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-01-15 20:10:55 and read 53564 times.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 92):
It was my understanding this could not have happened in flight because the battery used to start the APU isn't being used.

But it may still be charging.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-01-15 20:11:39 and read 53701 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 80):
How many teething problems are acceptable? Is the 777 a bad airplane because it had a very rough EIS?

Was it three years late? Did it catch fire twice (perhaps three times)?

Quoting kanban (Reply 81):

Hey an A333 had smoke in the cabin today.. in Tokyo no less.. where's the hysteria?

The A330 has around a thousand frames delivered, IIRC and has been in service for twenty years. When was the last time an A330 had smoke in the cabin? I dunno; months or years? The 787 has less than 30 frames in operation and has had smoke twice now in 2 days. So if there are 30 787's in service and 900 A330's in service, this would be the equivalent of smoke on an A330 about 30 times per day. If you want to call it three days, then 20 times per day. If the A330 did that, you bet it would be grounded.

This minimization (some of it from seasoned posters on this forum who I usually respect very much) is really tiresome. The vast majority of 787's in service were just grounded by their airlines, which is a very rare event for an airline that will lose money by grounding these aircraft.

The 777 had some glitches at EIS. A lot of them. The A380 had some serious issues, as well and those issues were serious enough that they will probably disastrous for Airbus. But this is more than a "glitch."

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-15 20:17:55 and read 53299 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 96):
The A330 has around a thousand frames delivered, IIRC and has been in service for twenty years. When was the last time an A330 had smoke in the cabin? I dunno; months or years? The 787 has less than 30 frames in operation and has had smoke twice now in 2 days. So if there are 30 787's in service and 900 A330's in service, this would be the equivalent of smoke on an A330 about 30 times per day. If you want to call it three days, then 20 times per day. If the A330 did that, you bet it would be grounded.

Didn't an A330 have a crash during testing too?

More updates: apparently the NPA is proposing a raid on the company that built the APU for the 787 but again nothing confirmed. At the same time this is just through the grapevine with my Japanese contacts.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-01-15 20:19:12 and read 53055 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 96):
This minimization (some of it from seasoned posters on this forum who I usually respect very much) is really tiresome.

I've actually found it enlightening. Watching engineers close to the program working through each issue thoroughly and methodically one-by-one, which is what I'd expect to be happening to rule out each problem. Physicians do that in the differential diagnosis process, right?  

The only thing that hasn't been revealed here so far on today's incident is what will ANA and JAL be looking for during the groundings. What needs to be confirmed as in good working order before the planes may be released for service?

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: Norcal773
Posted 2013-01-15 20:20:11 and read 52832 times.

Why in the hell is this main News on cnn.com. Really?

Quoting holzmann (Reply 93):
E-Trade -> BA -> Short

Insider trading? haha.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: AA94
Posted 2013-01-15 20:20:38 and read 52835 times.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 92):
That's speculation, ain't it?

Correct. No one - news sources or ANA - have confirmed that there was in fact smoke in the aircraft.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-01-15 20:24:16 and read 52496 times.

Quoting rsmith6621a (Reply 15):
Maybe ANA doesn't know how to maintain this aircraft... seems only ANA is having the bulk of the problems.

They have the largest fleet so of course with these problems that the aircraft is having right now, these things that are happening are magnified due to the Internet as well. As soon as there is a rumour of a problem, the electronic media jumps on it and if it is related to aviation the rumour mill that is A-net jumps all over it.

[Edited 2013-01-15 20:25:26]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-15 20:25:32 and read 52376 times.

Guys I am concerned about facts only not anything about opinions on the aircraft itself.


Ok look at the photo linked here.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...s-boeing-ana-idUSBRE90F01820130116

Why were the rear door slides not deployed?...

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: cbphoto
Posted 2013-01-15 20:26:28 and read 52158 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 85):
Exactly my point. At this point pilots are spooked. Sorry if this isn't Pc because pilots are supposed to have nerves of steel and all, but everyone gets spooked. If you don't have confidence in your equipment... If I were a pilot I would be doubting the equipment at this point too.

What the heck does that mean, the pilots are spooked? I bet the pilots got the information from the FAs about smoke in the cabin, followed company protocol, possibly even discussed it with their dispatchers and came to the decision to divert. The Capt. once on the ground, then made the executive decision to evacuate the aircraft, based on the reports of the smoke in the cabin. Whether this would have happened on a 787, 747, A380 or a Saab-340, the protocol is likely the same. Collectively as a company, the airlines themselves might be more cautious about situations like this with their 787s and may elect to err on the side of caution when it comes to dealing with the 787. Any smoke in the cabin situation is a serious one that warrants immediate action from the crew to ensure a safe outcome, 787 or not!

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: ely747
Posted 2013-01-15 20:27:36 and read 52117 times.

Quoting Lufthansa411 (Reply 89):

You might as well question why was FAA certification granted if the plane wasn't safe or fit enough to fly. I don't think they would ever put people at risk. Let us all just recall incidents the A380 have had. All were much serious than these ones with 787 ....

[Edited 2013-01-15 20:29:30]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: deltaflyertoo
Posted 2013-01-15 20:28:12 and read 52002 times.

Japan Airlines now grounding their 787 too.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: F9animal
Posted 2013-01-15 20:30:26 and read 51966 times.

I find it funny that anyone can bring up that a 777 had smoke issues today. There are about 50 787s in service worldwide. The 777 has several hundred aircraft in the air worldwide. Do the math. I applaud a total grounding of this airplane. It needs to be done. It is a late night comedy shows dream come true. For the sake of the lives transported on this airplane, grounding it and fixing the problems are the only answer. Smoke, fire, whatever it is.... I dont see it as a minor issue, and neither should Boeing. This airplane has already been proven as an electrical nightmare. We dont need more headlines to prove it. This airplane has already terrified enough passengers, and really puts the airlines in a bad position. I know for a fact that there are plenty of the flying public calling to ensure they are not booked on a 787. Enough of this parade. Ground them, and fix it now. 50 airplanes is nothing in comparrison if there were a thousand flying right now.

And I am sure I will get flamed for expressing my opinion. No pun intended on the flame part of it by the way. Would you like a smoking or non smoking flight?

[Edited 2013-01-15 20:32:45]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: wjcandee
Posted 2013-01-15 20:31:51 and read 51967 times.

This is like all the pilots overtesting and burning out the stab trim on the MD80 after the Alaska accident.

Sounds like they got a warning they would normally have ignored and instead did an emergency landing, ignoring, of course, the fact that a battery fire would be self-limiting and that smoke wouldn't enter the cabin.

This little hiccup will now be seen as a justification to ground the airliner.

Idiotic.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: Norcal773
Posted 2013-01-15 20:32:33 and read 51878 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 102):
Why were the rear door slides not deployed?...

If you actually look at the next picture on the link you provided, the rear slide on the other side was actually deployed.

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 103):
Any smoke in the cabin situation is a serious one that warrants immediate action from the crew to ensure a safe outcome, 787 or not!

We don't know there was smoke in the cabin just yet.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-01-15 20:35:05 and read 51705 times.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 108):
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 102):
Why were the rear door slides not deployed?...

If you actually look at the next picture on the link you provided, the rear slide on the other side was actually deployed.

  

There were only 137 passengers on the flight. Perhaps no one was seated in the area near the other door.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: flightsimer
Posted 2013-01-15 20:40:24 and read 51415 times.

Quoting a380900 (Reply 62):
Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 60):
did we have so many problems with the A380?

In one word: no. The entire 787 has had more issues than the A380. The "flying" part of the A380 has always been sound and was only 6 months late or so. Fitting the cabins were another issue altogether.

One has to mention that the Qantas engine issue has grounded many planes for some time but not all at once so it was not as spectacular. Also it was a RR thing. GE A380 could still fly...



Really, the Flying of a A380 has ALWAYS been sound? What about the multiple engine shut downs that happened after EIS on multiple carriers BEFORE the uncontained failure with both engine manufacturers? And the wings cracks, that was a RR thing as well? Had it not been for the RR failure, the cracks may have never been found until further down the road when the first A380s starting coming in for heavy MX. By then, who knows, they could have become a bigger issue than they ended up being.

Why should the interiors be considered separately like they have a different importance level than the issues the 787 had? After all, a delay is a delay, it shouldn't matter what the component is, as both manufacturers dropped the ball on the design/implementation of the component.

And why is it that you out the issues as being just RR and not the A380 program, but when components on the 787, which aren't made by Boeing, fail or have issues, its a 787 program problem?

So far, we have had multiple incidents with the 787, but none so far have been established as being connected to each other. If every plane was having the same issues, then I would say its not teething and there indeed is a (major?) problem. but since it has been random frames with random problems, I can not say that it might not just be teething. Its still TBD on all of this.

I also don't get why people expect Boeing to have answers for things right after they happen. Can we give them some time to actually investigate what happened and determine what is going on? If not, Boeing might as well just come out and say after __(insert problem here)__ problem has become apparent, that the Flux Capacitor is malfunctioning and is causing said issue(s) on the 787. And by replacing the flux capacitor with a new model, which will be available tomorrow, all issues will be solved. Will it make you feel any better if they did that?

I for one, want to know they have done a complete and thorough investigation and find the fault that caused the problem (present or future) with the system than for them to come out just after the problem has been discovered and say they have the answer already.

Give it time people. Most of you guys are getting ready to hang Boeing on rope and it still has not even been confirmed if smoke was even in the cabin at all.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: jreuschl
Posted 2013-01-15 20:40:31 and read 51258 times.

I know no smoke was confirmed, but it must be a semi-serious or very serious issue for them to ground their whole fleet.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-15 20:42:00 and read 51396 times.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/ne...-OYT1T00225.htm?from=rss&ref=rssad

Japanese only.
Says the cockpit received a battery error, as we all confirmed.
Also says there was smoke seen on board, which therefore answered Stich's and Norcal's previous question. The fire department confirmed seeing smoke in the cabin and 12 fire engines were dispatched.

A 60 year old was taken to the hospital with a hip injury sustained during evacuation.

Takamatsu Airport is closed.

The Japanese transport ministry rated this as an accident.


Please excuse any translation error and please use this as a basis for facts for now. The Yomiuri Shimbun is one of the most trusted newspapers in japan.
We need more Japanese people here checking this. I forwarded this to a bunch of my contacts.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 108):
We don't know there was smoke in the cabin just yet.

See above  Smile

[Edited 2013-01-15 20:47:47]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: qf340500
Posted 2013-01-15 20:47:23 and read 50835 times.

wjcandee, i cant believe that you are putting now the blame on the pilots, for them being vigilant and not ignoring a warning on a relatively new plane with passengers?

So i really hope you are NOT a pilot and put, for whatever reasons, peoples lives at risk by ignoring a warning which appears? You would do that with all warning all the time? Is it idiotic, in your eyes, to put a warning mechanism in in the first place?

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: jreuschl
Posted 2013-01-15 20:48:57 and read 50689 times.

I guess at this point we can hope for Boeing that these smoke issues are "only" bad batteries.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: ordwaw
Posted 2013-01-15 20:49:19 and read 50763 times.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 107):
Sounds like they got a warning they would normally have ignored and instead did an emergency landing, ignoring, of course, the fact that a battery fire would be self-limiting and that smoke wouldn't enter the cabin.

This little hiccup will now be seen as a justification to ground the airliner.

Idiotic.

Idiotic? Tell it to the lady with a hip injury, fire department, the pilot, and all affected by SW111 ...

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 112):
The fire department confirmed seeing smoke in the cabin and 12 fire engines were dispatched.

A 60 year old was taken to the hospital with a hip injury sustained during evacuation.


[Edited 2013-01-15 20:56:14]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: dcann40
Posted 2013-01-15 20:50:12 and read 50762 times.

Additional coverage which reminds the reader that LOT has its 787 launch tomorrow

ANA, JAL Ground Dreamliners for Inspection

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-15 20:50:27 and read 50568 times.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 110):
Give it time people.

Problem is that many folks have a short attention span and expect instant answers to their every question.

Tracking and solving issues such as these are methodical and painstaking processes. It isn't fast.

ANA and JL will inspect their fleets for "." They will either find nothing or perhaps a frame that has the same issue and will repair the problem. The fleet will return to the air save the frame from today which will be thoroughly inspected by the airline, Boeing and Japan's Civil Air Authority before it is repaired.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: flightsimer
Posted 2013-01-15 20:51:22 and read 50685 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 45):

757 fleet grounded at AA for inspection. MD80 fleet grounded at AA for inspection. MD80 fleet grounded at AS for inspection. A380 fleet grounded at SQ, QF for inspection.
I'm sure there were many more, it's just those I recall of the top of my head. Pretty sure airlines have had to ground the 747 a few times for inspection.

Weren't most 777-200A's grounded briefly in 2009/2010? I remember AA's were for sure, but i thought United's were as well.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 51):
Is this the first 787 with an emergency evacuation on a commercial flight?


This is the first full evacuation of a 787 Period.

Boeing never did an evacuation test on the 787 for certification as it was allowed to be piggy-backed on the 767's evac tests due to very similar door layouts and sizes. At least this is what Boeing reported was going to happen a few years ago. If i wasn't too lazy and had not flightglobal changed their layout, I would go and search for the article there. I would also say this is still likely true as I never did see them post pictures or videos or even a press release about it saying that they had completed it.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: ely747
Posted 2013-01-15 20:52:28 and read 50584 times.

I guess, this is the right time to buy Boeing shares and keep them for a while ...

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: AA94
Posted 2013-01-15 20:59:25 and read 50157 times.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 106):
I find it funny that anyone can bring up that a 777 had smoke issues today. There are about 50 787s in service worldwide. The 777 has several hundred aircraft in the air worldwide. Do the math. I applaud a total grounding of this airplane. It needs to be done. It is a late night comedy shows dream come true. For the sake of the lives transported on this airplane, grounding it and fixing the problems are the only answer. Smoke, fire, whatever it is.... I dont see it as a minor issue, and neither should Boeing. This airplane has already been proven as an electrical nightmare. We dont need more headlines to prove it. This airplane has already terrified enough passengers, and really puts the airlines in a bad position. I know for a fact that there are plenty of the flying public calling to ensure they are not booked on a 787. Enough of this parade. Ground them, and fix it now. 50 airplanes is nothing in comparrison if there were a thousand flying right now.

This is so overly dramatic. I am in agreement with you that the plane needs to be grounded, the cause of these problems identified, and fixed accordingly.

However, saying things like "electrical nightmare" and that the passengers are "terrified" is such a gross exaggeration. This reminds me of CNN, who said last week that the JAL battery incident at BOS was a "massive explosion" when, in reality, it was a small, contained electrical fire.

Let's leave facts as facts and cut down on the unnecessary drama.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: DeltaB717
Posted 2013-01-15 21:00:34 and read 50034 times.

Would it not be possible to start the APU using a GPU to avoid using/charging the APU battery until such time as the inspections/investigations are complete?

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-01-15 21:02:39 and read 50242 times.

Wow. Just wow. With the other 787 issues, I was discussing the plane losing the longer ETOPS (but keeping the TPAC capability). Now I wonder if the ETOPS rating might not be suspended.  

It no longer matters if it is really justified or not, those lithium batteries will have to be replaced just to save the plane's reputation. Even if wiring is at fault, no one will want to fly with those batteries. It is a shame, as the concept is good, but emotions will over-rule any math on this issue.

This amazes me considering how long the development time of the 787 was. Oh, I expected issues at entry into service, but not batter and fuel system issues. The basic plane is a good concept, but Boeing now will be under the FAA microscope.

Sigh... 24 of 50 aircraft now voluntarily grounded.    I would like to say I think it unlikely to see the rest of the fleet grounded... but now I think it more likely than not. I am personally debating if the fleet should be or not. But this number of incidents means that statistically a big problem (lives lost) is pending. I am almost, but not quite yet, about to switch my opinion that the fleet should be grounded. But tonight... I will go to sleep on record stating the 787s should fly. But if I were a deciding vote, I would be very close to grounding the passenger fleet (still allow flight testing for delivery though).

Quoting Acey (Reply 1):
This is not good.

Understatement.

Quoting Acey (Reply 1):
but I am literally going to make popcorn because a whole bunch of people will have a whole lot to say about this through the night and it's going to get interesting.

True, but I need sleep tonight! Might I recommend Amish country popcorn (Purple, red or blue are my favorites. But the 'ladyfinger' is excellent too. Don't bother with the yellow or white, nothing unique about that popcorn even though the quality from Amish country is excellent.)

Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 2):

Everyday it's a new problem with this airplane. WTF Boeing?!

Sadly I had that thought to and I'm a 787 fan.

Quoting rsmith6621a (Reply 15):
seems only ANA is having the bulk of the problems.

Huh? JAL, UA, and reportedly AI (I admit to discounting their complaints) have reported issues. Of course the two largest operators of the type will see the most issues (ANA and JAL).

Lightsaber

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: cbphoto
Posted 2013-01-15 21:03:19 and read 50074 times.

Yahoo news is now saying an "odd smell was detected in the flight deck and cabin, along with a battery error message relayed to the pilots!

More info,

http://news.yahoo.com/ana-operated-b...ding-smoke-003317726--finance.html

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-15 21:06:39 and read 49887 times.


JL 7 in Japanese aerospace now.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-01-15 21:09:20 and read 49755 times.

Quoting qf340500 (Reply 113):
wjcandee, i cant believe that you are putting now the blame on the pilots, for them being vigilant and not ignoring a warning on a relatively new plane with passengers?

As far as "warnings" are concerned, there are no WARNING, CAUTION or ADVISORY messages that relate to the APU BATTERY. There are ADVISORY messages that deal with the MAIN BATTERY. There are a million STATUS messages but those are something the flight crew doesn't normally react to. However, combine a STATUS message with "smoke" and the present concerns with 787 issues over the last week and I'd probably do the same thing the ANA Captain did--even using the slides after landing. Ever since SW111 there has been a large emphasis put on getting the airplane on the ground for any smoke or smell of undetermined nature. Hopefully we'll be saying this was an over reaction in the weeks/months ahead, but it was the right reaction under the circumstances regardless.

[Edited 2013-01-15 21:16:48]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-15 21:13:01 and read 49502 times.

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 123):

Yahoo news is now saying an "odd smell was detected in the flight deck and cabin, along with a battery error message relayed to the pilots!

More info,

http://news.yahoo.com/ana-operated-b...ding-smoke-003317726--finance.html


Confirmed as well by Yomiuri and the Japanese transport ministry. I'm trying to see if I can find any LiveATC recordings of this flight but I'm not holding out any hope.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: flightsimer
Posted 2013-01-15 21:14:37 and read 49415 times.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 106):
I find it funny that anyone can bring up that a 777 had smoke issues today. There are about 50 787s in service worldwide. The 777 has several hundred aircraft in the air worldwide. Do the math


And we can also say that the 777 has had 2 hull loss accidents and the A330 has had 4 with one being while it was still in testing. The 787 has had ZERO, which must mean its the safer plane right?

Now you surely wouldn't make that statement, even though it is statistically correct would you? So why are you even remotely trying to compare the operating statistics of two 20+ year old programs with a program that has been in service for only a year and a half and has only been flying for ~3 years?

And would it really make any difference in importance if these two smoke incidents happened in 5 years time when there would be at minimum 500 787s flying or now with only 50?

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-01-15 21:14:53 and read 49179 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 124):
JL 7 in Japanese aerospace now.

I wonder if the passengers aboard have heard about this yet?

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: F9animal
Posted 2013-01-15 21:15:26 and read 49181 times.

We forget that ordinary passengers are experiencing these issues. When you are jumping down a slide, and being told to run for your life... I think your perspective of the airplane changes a bit. The paying passengers are not amused, nor are they going to be patient for Boeing to fix the "normal teething issues".

ANA should be absolutely furious. Boeing better come up with some rapid answers. This is unacceptable.

I said it awhile back. CEO Jim McNerney is proud of his outsourcing model on the 787. This fiasco is so bad, McNerney can't figure out fast enough what part is burning anymore. Cheaper is not better when it comes to sophisticated airplanes.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-01-15 21:20:38 and read 48895 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 128):
I wonder if the passengers aboard have heard about this yet?

Think about it, think about it … "Ladies and gentlemen, madams and messieurs, this plane will be grounded upon arrival in Tokyo for a safety inspection. Please remain calm for the rest of the flight."  

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-15 21:20:49 and read 48855 times.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 129):
ANA should be absolutely furious. Boeing better come up with some rapid answers. This is unacceptable.


Now were you just being facetious about your previous posts about the "teething issues"
  

Rumor time: UA planning on comprehensive checks and the ones to be delivered soon may not be taken up for a while.

From some Facebook contacts.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: SOBHI51
Posted 2013-01-15 21:22:33 and read 48667 times.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 92):
I see we prescribe to the same App... I love that App!

Any chance of telling us what is that App?

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: spacecadet
Posted 2013-01-15 21:25:04 and read 48742 times.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 107):
Idiotic.

You and other 787 apologists need to finally give it a rest. You do not know more than the airlines that own and operate this plane. If you did, *you'd* be running an airline. Are you?

Stop being so blindly loyal to a piece of metal. (Er, carbon fiber.) These are machines, built to serve us. They need to be absolutely safe. The 787 has had a poor recent history, and neither you nor anyone else can deny that fact at this point. It needs to be fixed.

This is beyond the point of "normal teething problems". See below:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 112):
Says the cockpit received a battery error, as we all confirmed.
Also says there was smoke seen on board, which therefore answered Stich's and Norcal's previous question. The fire department confirmed seeing smoke in the cabin and 12 fire engines were dispatched.

This is no joke.

[Edited 2013-01-15 21:30:06]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-01-15 21:25:52 and read 48762 times.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 107):
Sounds like they got a warning they would normally have ignored and instead did an emergency landing, ignoring, of course, the fact that a battery fire would be self-limiting and that smoke wouldn't enter the cabin.

This shows how little you know about the Aviation industry, sir. The current Boeing SMOKE, FIRE, or FUMES checklist for all models, which conforms to industry standards developed in about 2005, call for landing at the nearest suitable landing site when you have smoke or burning smells and cannot VISUAL see that it's out.

SW111 and AC797 had about 20 minute of survivability. In each case the crews initially mistakenly thought it was harmless air conditioning smoke, when in fact it was a catastrophic electrical fire, and didn't get on the ground as quickly as they could of (AC flew past SDF and SW was flying around dumping fuel). That's why you get the airplane on the ground immediately. Although that kind of fire is fortunately highly unlikely, the consequences of the crew guessing wrong are not acceptable.

Further, you know nothing about Boeing's alerting systems or procedures for such. You don't ignore an EICAS Warning, especially not one for fire just because the captain might think it's self limiting (I'm speaking in generalities as I don't know what alerts, if any, ANA got).

Only when the crew can VISUALLY confirm the source of the smoke is out (e.g. they can see the wastepaper basket, or food in the microwave was burning and is now out), should the captain even consider flying on.

I don't have the details of the ANA event, but it sounds like the captain did EXACTLY the right thing by landing at the nearest suitable airport. Good job.

Quoting rsmith6621a (Reply 15):
Maybe ANA doesn't know how to maintain this aircraft... seems only ANA is having the bulk of the problems.

Another uneducated inappropriate statement by someone who has no clue about aviation. In my past experiences, ANA is a very well run and outstanding operator. As I said, it appears the crew handled the emergency exactly correctly and with the utmost professionalism.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-15 21:32:41 and read 48471 times.

AV Herald on top of things.
http://avherald.com/h?article=45c377c5&opt=0

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 132):
Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 92):
I see we prescribe to the same App... I love that App!

Any chance of telling us what is that App?


Flightradar24

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 133):
This is no joke.

This indeed is serious and we should all be thankful Japanese airlines are on top of this. This is also why I don't take a side on the Boeing versus airbus argument despite my username   
All kidding aside, we also need to figure out what caused the fire in the first place.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: F9animal
Posted 2013-01-15 21:33:04 and read 48293 times.

Quoting AA94 (Reply 120):
However, saying things like "electrical nightmare" and that the passengers are "terrified" is such a gross exaggeration. This reminds me of CNN, who said last week that the JAL battery incident at BOS was a "massive explosion" when, in reality, it was a small, contained electrical fire.

Let's leave facts as facts and cut down on the unnecessary drama.

You better believe passengers were terrified. Come on now! It is a plane built of plastic. When they boarded that plane, they were fully aware that it was a brand new airplane. A few hours later, they are being told to jump down a slide and run. If you think that is gross exaggeration, I don't know what to say. Not to mention, we have a poor 60 year old hurt by this. There is nothing small about it. Nothing. If that was my mother or father being carted off in an ambulance, I would be absolutely furious. I would be demanding my payment from Boeing in gold. In fact, I would be on the next smoking 787 headed to Boeing in Chicago.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: jporterfi
Posted 2013-01-15 21:33:06 and read 48209 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 124):

Not to detract from the topic at hand, but what website/database/software did you use to get that image?

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: Norcal773
Posted 2013-01-15 21:33:56 and read 48206 times.

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 132):
Any chance of telling us what is that App?

Flightradar24 on iOS devices.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: cmf
Posted 2013-01-15 21:36:20 and read 47990 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 96):
This minimization (some of it from seasoned posters on this forum who I usually respect very much) is really tiresome.

I too am puzzled by this. I find it as bad as the doom and gloom predictions.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: Norcal773
Posted 2013-01-15 21:38:14 and read 47899 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 124):
JL 7 in Japanese aerospace now.

Flight Radar does have a big delay today.. JL7 landed at 2:32PM local time (5 minutes ago) but Flight Radar shows it at FL250 and descending as I type this.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-15 21:40:57 and read 47864 times.

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 137):

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 124):

Not to detract from the topic at hand, but what website/database/software did you use to get that image?


Flightradar24 for my iPad mini which has saved my ass throughout this whole thing, including apps for aiding in translating and with various Japanese sources feeding me info.

I screen-shotted the screen with the descending 787 with my filter set to "787 only."
You can filter any views possible with origin, speed, and aircraft type.
The only drawback is that it sometimes has a 5 minute delay based off of FAA or regional radar analysis.
Edit.........looks like that this particular flight is actually set to live feed.....hmmm something's not right ...
...
Back to updates.......no more updates as of now   

[Edited 2013-01-15 21:42:46]

[Edited 2013-01-15 21:44:06]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-01-15 21:46:36 and read 47436 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 130):
Think about it, think about it … "Ladies and gentlemen, madams and messieurs, this plane will be grounded upon arrival in Tokyo for a safety inspection. Please remain calm for the rest of the flight."  

Yes, but don't they have live TV news and inflight internet?

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-01-15 21:51:49 and read 47422 times.

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 22):
I wonder if anyone has done a correlation between which aircraft are having issues and those that were subject to major reworking and long delays in a semi finished condition - or is that all of them currently in service?

I must admit that that's where my thinking goes too.....

Quoting ely747 (Reply 104):
Let us all just recall incidents the A380 have had. All were much serious than these ones with 787 ....

ONE uncontained engine failure? Yes all of it was serious.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 110):
What about the multiple engine shut downs that happened after EIS on multiple carriers BEFORE the uncontained failure with both engine manufacturers?

What multiple engine failures? On what multiple carriers?
I'm sure that the A380 has experienced IFSD's just like every other aircraft. I'm equally sure there have been absolutely zero "multiple" shutdowns....

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 110):
And the wings cracks, that was a RR thing as well?

And were considered perfectly safe by the authorities, and did not result in any fleet groundings, and did not cause any emergency landings..   

You might feel sensitive to the press the 787 is receiving at the moment, and perhaps with some justification.
Throwing mud at the A380 (and missing in most cases) isn't a good defence IMO

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 110):
So far, we have had multiple incidents with the 787, but none so far have been established as being connected to each other

You make that sound like a good thing.
If the bulk of these issues are due to the APU battery then the fix is easily contained and we will soon move on.
And then perhaps we can point out in Boeing's defence that the issue wasn't related to any of the more cutting edge innovations that the 787 brings with it...
Which would be a good defence, wouldn't it?

Rgds

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-01-15 21:54:05 and read 47142 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 143):
don't they have live TV news and inflight internet?

Satellite-based, on the 787? Not that they've ever announced.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: flyingbird
Posted 2013-01-15 21:55:01 and read 47119 times.

Quoting RicknRoll (Reply 141):
Flight Radar does have a big delay today.. JL7 landed at 2:32PM local time (5 minutes ago) but Flight Radar shows it at FL250 and descending as I type this.

Flightradar24 have 2 data sources. ADS-B that is 100% real time and FAA that is 5 minutes delayed. There are absolutely no other delays on FR24. Find more information on http://www.flightradar24.com/how-it-works

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: spacecadet
Posted 2013-01-15 21:58:30 and read 46890 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 139):
I too am puzzled by this. I find it as bad as the doom and gloom predictions.

I agree - people really need to use their own critical thinking skills some of the time. Not *every* incident is serious and not *every* incident is nothing - thinking either of those two ways is just two sides of the same coin. Some incidents are nothing while others are serious. This incident on its own might not merit much attention, but it fits a pattern of electrical issues that we've seen over the past few weeks.

To not see the possibility of any connection, or to not see the benefit in pressing the pause button for a little while to check things out, is just... I dunno. I can't picture what the thought process could be there.

Maybe there is no systemic problem with the 787; maybe the few remaining diehards here are right. But you know how many people are going to die by grounding the fleet until they can check it out? None.

Unless you're an investor in one of these airlines, or in Boeing, there is no reason to even argue against it. And even if you are an investor, you'd have to be putting money over the assurance of safety.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-15 22:01:51 and read 46829 times.

Quoting flyingbird (Reply 146):

Passing through 5,000 feet now JAL7

[Edited 2013-01-15 22:12:51]

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-15 22:02:18 and read 46749 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 38):
If smoke did appear in the cabin, it would be helpful to know when it did so and how much.

In cruise, there should be no smoke due to the cabin air-flow system.

Once on the ground, however, that system is no longer in effect.

There can be smoke in then cabin during cruise if the problem is in the AC pack or elsewhere in the air distribution system. Fan failures regularly result in smoke/odors in the cabin. As do oven and coffee maker failures in the galleys. All of these are common failures which happen on aircraft every day, but likely not in conjunction with an annunciated battery fault.

I'm not sure if the battery fault indication and the smoke in the cabin are fact or rumor, but I do not blame the pilots for diverting for even minor smoke in the cabin, if it was truly accompanied by a battery fault indication. The unfinished investigation into the 787's recent battery fire would pretty much guarantee this outcome.



For those who are saying this problem is somehow ANA's fault: it is almost certainly not. ANA is a very unique operator. They are at the same time one of the most conservative and most technically competent airlines I have ever worked with. They routinely achieve higher reliability with a type than any other operator. It is not uncommon for their widebody fleets to operate at 99.9% dispatch reliability. One of the ways they accomplish this is very restrictive use of the MEL, which is one way their conservative side shows itself. When an airplane in ANA's fleet has a problem, they do amazing levels of research and analysis to understand the problem and make sure it does not happen again. It has been supporting them through some of these research projects that I have seen how technically competent they are.

The problem with the airplane will almost certainly not have anything to do with ANA's level of competence. The pilot decision to divert and the airline decision to ground the type may have a lot to do with the airline's conservative philosophies.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2013-01-15 22:03:54 and read 46815 times.

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 8):
Can't jump to conclusions and no-one is saying this plane is not fit to fly, but even some of you boeing fanboy's need to acknowledge that these problems are not just teething.

If we don't know what the problem is, how do we know they're not just teething? I don't think two of these types of events in rapid succession is teething either, but I'm pointing out the inconsistency in your statement. Either you know what the problem is and it's not teething, or you don't and you can't tell.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 9):
I'm a huge 787 guy, and it pains me to say it. But they need to really start getting serious here. They have to find the problem and fix it quick.

What, of any, evidence suggests that there is a "the problem"? The hysteria around the brakes and windows, at least, would appear to have nothing to do with this event.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 19):
Just to remind you that battery fires in flight will not lead to smoke in the cabin, have you not read the other thread?

You're misrepresenting the other thread. An *APU* or *main* battery fire will not lead to smoke in the cabin, since those will create smoke in the lower lobe and the lower lobe is smoke-isolated from the main deck. Those are not the only two batteries on the aircraft; there are several smaller emergency batteries located around the aircraft, including on the main deck. Ironically, several of them would have been in use during this evacuation. For hopefully obviously reasons, if those let go you will get smoke on the main deck (although the same design features that keep lower lobe smoke in the lower lobe will also clear the main cabin after a period of time).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 38):

If smoke did appear in the cabin, it would be helpful to know when it did so and how much.

In cruise, there should be no smoke due to the cabin air-flow system.

That applies to the lower lobe. Smoke generated on the main deck needs to be cleared by the ECS system before you'll have no smoke in the cabin.

Quoting smolt (Reply 49):
I wonder this is the first time for lithium ion battery to be used in circumstance where air pressure is very frequently go up and down.

It is not.

Quoting rampbro (Reply 52):
Another question is how many hours do these aircraft have in service at this point? Is it more or less than the pilot test aircraft accrued traipsing all over the western United States?

It's a huge amount more than the ETOPS/F&R test flying. I don't think, at this point, that it's more than the total test fleet.

Quoting rsmith6621a (Reply 63):
By this time tomorrow the FAA will ground all 787s until Boeing fixes all issues with this aircraft.

I'll take that bet. It's physically impossible to fix *all* issues with any aircraft...we still get AD's on the A320 and 737 today.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 92):

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 28):
Keep in mind it took firefighters about 30 mins to put out the fire.

40 minutes to be exact.

40 minutes from the time of the alarm to fire extinguished...they didn't actually fight the fire for 40 minutes.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 92):
Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 37):

It's one thing to have the Lithium Ion battery to catch fire on the ground...it's a much more severe incident when one catches fire in flight.

It was my understanding this could not have happened in flight because the battery used to start the APU isn't being used.

There's nothing to prevent the APU battery from catching fire in flight. What's true is that the APU battery isn't discharged in flight. It may be charging in flight. Also, "it" in the context of that event was the smoke that came into the cabin from the aft EE bay...*that* won't happen in flight.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 106):
I applaud a total grounding of this airplane. It needs to be done.

Until what? You want to ground the fleet forever? Because that's what you're suggesting.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 106):
For the sake of the lives transported on this airplane, grounding it and fixing the problems are the only answer.

How have lives been put at risk by any of the events that have occured so far? Every time somebody comes up with "if such and such other events had *also* occured it would be bad..." we run up against the fact that these events are designed for so that they *don't* compromise continued safe flight and landing. And, in fact, in each case continued safe flight and landing has been maintained as designed. I would agree that many of these design cases, which are put in just in case and hoped to never be required, should not statistically show up this quickly.

Is it a PR fiasco? Yes. Is it a major dispatch reliability hit to ground half the fleet? Absolutely. Would Boeing, FAA, JCAB, EASA, JAL/ANA/United/everyone else want 100% reliability? Absolutely. But to suggest that any of these events have threatened lives is just fear mongering. If anything, they're proving that all the design features to protect lives in the face of unplanned events are working properly.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 118):
Boeing never did an evacuation test on the 787 for certification as it was allowed to be piggy-backed on the 767's evac tests due to very similar door layouts and sizes.

Wrong way...it was allowed because of the *777* evac tests. The 787 has the same aisles and doors but less seats, so if you can get a 777 out (which was proved by evac test) then you can get a 787 out.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 129):
I said it awhile back. CEO Jim McNerney is proud of his outsourcing model on the 787.

The outsourcing of the 787 was locked in long before McNearney took the reigns. You can criticize a lot of people for that decision but he's not one of them.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 133):
These are machines, built to serve us. They need to be absolutely safe.

No aircraft is absolutely safe, nor will one ever be. I am *not* trying to minimize the significance of any of these events. I am pushing back against wholely unrealistic concepts of aircraft safety.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 133):
The 787 has had a poor recent history, and neither you nor anyone else can deny that fact at this point.

Up until today, it was having a better history than the 777 or 767, which keep getting held up as model EIS's because of a combination of ignorance and rose-coloured glasses. Depending on how long these voluntary groundings last, I suspect it might finally push 787 dispatch reliability below those aircraft at equivalent points in service. A whole lot of people don't seem to know or remember what new type introductions usually look like.

Tom.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: smolt
Posted 2013-01-15 22:05:39 and read 46723 times.

The link above which PHX787 gave us
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/ne...-OYT1T00225.htm?from=rss&ref=rssad

also tells that ATC controller observed thin white smoke short above nose gear, called "electric room" after landing.

JAL 007 is now on final ILS course at NARITA.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: multimark
Posted 2013-01-15 22:06:52 and read 46585 times.

Quoting CYLW (Reply 48):
I don't think any crew would order an emergency evacuation based on a smell. Emergency evacs are dangerous in their own right. Injuries are common on these types of evacuations.

There must have been more than just a smell of smoke and a battery indication.

Isn't there also a substantial cost to repacking all the slides?

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-15 22:09:42 and read 46426 times.

Quoting smolt (Reply 151):
The link above which PHX787 gave us
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/ne...-OYT1T00225.htm?from=rss&ref=rssad

also tells that ATC controller observed thin white smoke short above nose gear, called "electric room" after landing.

JAL 007 is now on final ILS course at NARITA.

Short finals and touchdown now. It's eerie almost seeing it grounded like this. Is my translation ok? Haha

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2013-01-15 22:13:25 and read 46207 times.

Quoting multimark (Reply 152):
Isn't there also a substantial cost to repacking all the slides?

Yes, although I'm not aware that anybody ever considers that in the process of doing an evacuation...if you need to evacuate, you evacuate. If you think you might need to evacuate, you evacuate. Good action by the crew.

Various sources are reporting ANA and JAL are grounding for inspections...do we know what they're inspecting? That would be rather telling that they know what they're looking for.

Tom.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-01-15 22:17:29 and read 45956 times.

Quoting multimark (Reply 152):
Isn't there also a substantial cost to repacking all the slides?

So? It's more expensive to recover dead bodies, if it were that kind of situation.

The captain wasn't thinking of the inconvenience of repacking the slides. He apparently felt that an emergency evacuation was warranted and had the right the make the judgement call.

Remember, the crew smelled burning smells, apparently had some EICAS messages and did not have a clear picture as to the extent of the smoke source. It's easy for you to turn on the TV news and play "arm chair quarterback" and decide he didn't need to order an evacuation down the slides. It's a totally different situation for the crew during an incident who is responsible for the people sitting behind them..

Remember Air Canada 797? Everyone was alive when they stopped on the runway at CVG. More than half died during the evacuation when the fire flashed through the cabin. Seconds meant life or death. Thankfully, it was not the kind of situation in this incident, but apparently the Captain felt an emergency evacuation was appropriate based the information he had - and didn't have.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: Markhkg
Posted 2013-01-15 22:18:29 and read 46121 times.

Video of the 787 Evacuation (TBS News - In Japanese)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yty-zd1rDnc

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: mingocr83
Posted 2013-01-15 22:20:59 and read 45757 times.

7 incidents in 8 days...not normal. I feel sorry for Boeing at this point. One thing that all these planes have in common is that they needed a ton of rework at Everett, could this be the culprit?

For the 787 personnel on the forums, how is the battery installed on the 787...where are the electrical bays?

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-15 22:21:13 and read 45797 times.

Quoting Markhkg (Reply 156):

Thank you for this video. About :25 into the video you can see the smoke that smolt referenced.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: pilotanthony
Posted 2013-01-15 22:21:22 and read 45683 times.

is Boeing going to release any statement? or ANA? anybody? lol

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: spacecadet
Posted 2013-01-15 22:25:27 and read 45488 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 150):
Up until today, it was having a better history than the 777 or 767, which keep getting held up as model EIS's because of a combination of ignorance and rose-coloured glasses.

Not by me. You're putting words in my mouth.

But I don't recall any electrical arcing or fires on board early 767's or 777's, nor do I recall major airlines grounding them even for a few days, though maybe I am just looking back with "rose colored glasses". If I had been here during those types of events on early 767's and 777's, I'd be saying the exact same things.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: pilotanthony
Posted 2013-01-15 22:28:04 and read 45228 times.

cant have been that serious is everybody is standing around the plane after evacuation, and not running.....

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-15 22:30:50 and read 45428 times.

Quoting pilotanthony (Reply 159):
is Boeing going to release any statement? or ANA? anybody? lol


ANA held a news conference with them being reportedly excessively apologetic. "Bowing deeply" according to fox.


Guys it's late in Arizona and I am gonna have to get up early.   

I'll have to catch up tomorrow and I'll translate the updated article. I'm hitting the hay for tonight. Keep me updated.

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2013-01-15 22:32:46 and read 45130 times.

Quoting mingocr83 (Reply 157):
One thing that all these planes have in common is that they needed a ton of rework at Everett, could this be the culprit?

It's possible. Has anyone correlated the incidents to line numbers? Lower line numbers have more rework. That would have some positive aspects...it would mean the incidents aren't design problems and are contained to a relatively small block.

Quoting mingocr83 (Reply 157):
For the 787 personnel on the forums, how is the battery installed on the 787...where are the electrical bays?

The forward EE bay is below the flight deck, the normal position on most aircraft. The main battery is in the forward EE bay. The aft EE bay is immediately aft of the main landing gear wheel well (the forward end of the aft cargo bay). For most layouts, it's below about the middle of economy class.

There are emergency batteries over the doors, in portions of the ceiling, and in a couple of spots in the flight deck. These are much smaller batteries to power dedicated emergency systems in special circumstances and, for the vast majority of an aircraft's life, never do anything.

Quoting pilotanthony (Reply 159):
is Boeing going to release any statement? or ANA? anybody? lol

I would assume so. I can't see how they can't.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 160):
Not by me. You're putting words in my mouth.

Sorry, I worded that poorly. I did not mean to imply that you, specifically, were overselling the 767 or 777 EIS. There are several posters who have said that Boeing is slipping because the 787 EIS "should be more like the 767 or 777" when, in fact, those were just as bad if not worse (so far).

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 160):
But I don't recall any electrical arcing or fires on board early 767's or 777's

I don't recall any arcing. I recall fires, engine surges, generator failures, a litany of very-hard-to-troubleshoot electrical gremlins (the 777 in particular used an all new ARINC communication bus).

Tom.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: spacecadet
Posted 2013-01-15 22:33:47 and read 45062 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 158):
About :25 into the video you can see the smoke that smolt referenced.

I can't tell where that smoke is coming from - it appears to be coming from the ground? Is it actually smoke and not steam?

Quoting pilotanthony (Reply 161):
cant have been that serious is everybody is standing around the plane after evacuation, and not running.....

Well, what do you expect them to do? Where do you expect them to run?

a) There is an active runway on one side

b) There are fire engines all around getting ready to move

c) The other sides are bordered by grass... and more taxiway.

It seems to me that the passengers are waiting for the f/a's to tell them what to do, and at one point you see one f/a running and other people then start following her. But she looks like she's running the way Japanese people at work always run, not out of fear. Once they're off the plane, I'm not sure why you'd think they'd keep running - they got a safe distance away, they're not going to die from smoke inhalation 100 feet away from the plane. Nobody has suggested there were bombs going off on the plane, or fuel tanks on fire.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: NorthstarBoy
Posted 2013-01-15 22:36:55 and read 44985 times.

I can't help but wonder:

A. If the 787 is going to be the modern day equivalent of the Comet, totally revolutionary, but with unforseen problems that are going to require some kind of massive redesign before re-entry into service is permitted.

B. If any of these problems could have been solved by creating a full scale mockup ala the 707/727/737/747.

I also cant help but wonder why any of these problems weren't caught during the test program, isnt' that why they have the test program, to find, document, and fix any possible bug that could develop over the equivalent of a 30 year service life?

It seems like maybe someone in the engineering department was asleep at the wheel or else these batteries weren't properly quality controlled before being installed into the airplane. IMO this problem should have been discovered and fixed long before the airplanes ever entered commercial service.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: flightsimer
Posted 2013-01-15 22:37:12 and read 44858 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 144):
What multiple engine failures? On what multiple carriers?
I'm sure that the A380 has experienced IFSD's just like every other aircraft. I'm equally sure there have been absolutely zero "multiple" shutdowns....


I guess i worded it in a way that could lead to misunderstanding... I did not mean multiple engine shut downs on one flight.

What I meant was there were multiple cases of which engines were shut down during a flight. If I remember correctly, both Singapore and/or Emirates have experienced multiple cases of shutdowns with one or both of the carriers having to replace whole engines on certain cases.

As for the wing cracks, like I said above, we don't know what would have happened had they not been found. All we know is that they are not considered a major issue at the very moment. And if they are "perfectly safe" as you say, then Airbus wouldn't be making a fix to correct it and they would not require inspections on them either.

Again, your assuming that the smell came from the battery area. We still don't know for sure where it came from. Just because we know a battery warning was given, doesn't mean it had anything to do with the battery.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 150):
Wrong way...it was allowed because of the *777* evac tests. The 787 has the same aisles and doors but less seats, so if you can get a 777 out (which was proved by evac test) then you can get a 787 out.

Thanks for the correction. Do you know, will they be able to do this with the -9 and presumably the -10 as well?

I do remember the article said 767 though, so it must have been an error back then.

Edit: i found these two articles, the one, which i remember only lists the 767 but the other lists both as being used
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...reamliner-evacuation-trial-345176/
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...d-evacuation-demonstration-211920/

[Edited 2013-01-15 23:38:40]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-15 22:40:39 and read 44799 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 158):
Thank you for this video. About :25 into the video you can see the smoke that smolt referenced

The smoke in the video appears to be coming from the forward outflow valve. The cabin (at least the aft cabin) appeared in the video to be entirely smoke free. To me, the indicates something in the forward part of the airplane (fwd cabin or fwd equipment bay). Incidentally, the 787's main battery (which is identical to the APU battery) is located in the forward equipment bay.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: mingocr83
Posted 2013-01-15 22:43:08 and read 44463 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 163):
It's possible. Has anyone correlated the incidents to line numbers? Lower line numbers have more rework. That would have some positive aspects...it would mean the incidents aren't design problems and are contained to a relatively small block.

That is my point, if all the incidents can be correlated to the Line number it could narrow down the problems and provide a quicker solution being a small block.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 163):
The forward EE bay is below the flight deck, the normal position on most aircraft. The main battery is in the forward EE bay. The aft EE bay is immediately aft of the main landing gear wheel well (the forward end of the aft cargo bay). For most layouts, it's below about the middle of economy class.

There are emergency batteries over the doors, in portions of the ceiling, and in a couple of spots in the flight deck. These are much smaller batteries to power dedicated emergency systems in special circumstances and, for the vast majority of an aircraft's life, never do anything.

Thanks for the info Tom! Appreciate the explanation!

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: airlinebuilder
Posted 2013-01-15 22:44:53 and read 44383 times.

this is what we call total haste that made a whole lot of waste just to win their share of the market since Airbus has grown to be a formidable giant and Boeing the was once grand and institution now reached a point to be being a subterranean existence.

Lately Boeing has been consistent to losing the race except for 2012 which i believe is a fluke.....just being honest guys!

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-01-15 22:47:24 and read 44325 times.

Quoting rsmith6621a (Reply 15):
Maybe ANA doesn't know how to maintain this aircraft... seems only ANA is having the bulk of the problems.

Surely one of the most uninformed statements on this entire sorry series of episodes.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 32):
Guys! This is totally normal. Its a new airplane. Things like this happen. Probably another arc or battery containment. Nothing big.

This is sarcasm, correct? Or a troll?

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 45):
Again, this happens and life goes on, usually rather quickly.

757 fleet grounded at AA for inspection. MD80 fleet grounded at AA for inspection. MD80 fleet grounded at AS for inspection. A380 fleet grounded at SQ, QF for inspection.

I'm sure there were many more, it's just those I recall of the top of my head. Pretty sure airlines have had to ground the 747 a few times for inspection.

Sure, but for what kinds of issues, over what period of time, and with how many airframes in service?

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 57):
Over-reaction out of fear is not unknown to pilots. Over-reaction/mis-reading the situation is a main cause of pilot error.

At this point, all the hype has everyone freaked out.

The minimization of the issues and shifting of "blame" to anyone or anything while strenuously defending the aircraft is getting to be really tiring.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 61):
When the 380 suffered those engine problems they were briefly grounded too.

Only the 380s with RR engines were grounded for inspection. It had nothing to do with the intrinsic design and systems of the A380 itself, just with onw of the engine providers (no problems with the other).

Quoting kanban (Reply 81):
Hey an A333 had smoke in the cabin today.. in Tokyo no less.. where's the hysteria?

Sure, we would be hysterical too if 20 different A330s had smoke in the cabin today (given they have almost 1000 frames in service compared to less than 50 787s).

Quoting Lufthansa411 (Reply 89):
When the 787 has 925+ frames produced and has proven itself a safe and reliable aircraft overall then we can start wondering why there is so much hype regarding these incidents. In the mean time, I think it is appropriate to question things.

Exactly!

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 97):
Didn't an A330 have a crash during testing too?

Yes, when the crew over-rode the safety systems and took the aircraft beyond design limits when demonstrating a one-engine roll at low altitude.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 96):
This minimization (some of it from seasoned posters on this forum who I usually respect very much) is really tiresome. The vast majority of 787's in service were just grounded by their airlines, which is a very rare event for an airline that will lose money by grounding these aircraft.

Exactly!

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 127):
And we can also say that the 777 has had 2 hull loss accidents and the A330 has had 4 with one being while it was still in testing. The 787 has had ZERO, which must mean its the safer plane right?

With all due respect, the statement above shows a very tenuous understanding of the field of statistics.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 150):
f we don't know what the problem is, how do we know they're not just teething?

Sure they are teething problems as in problems associated with a new aircraft, but these do not appear to be minor or routine teething problems, these appear to be very serious teething problems. Not problems that can be minimized by dismissing them to be the usual teeting problems.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: pilotanthony
Posted 2013-01-15 22:49:38 and read 44204 times.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 164):
Well, what do you expect them to do? Where do you expect them to run?

a) There is an active runway on one side

b) There are fire engines all around getting ready to move

c) The other sides are bordered by grass... and more taxiway.

1. The active runway is behind the aircraft
2. The active runway was closed, making it no longer ACTIVE
3. Run to the grass as long as you are away from danger, who knows if theres a fire or not in there, safety always must come first in aviation, obviously there was no major issue since nobody was told to move well CLEAR of the aircraft.

here's the video of the aircraft after evacuation.... http://news.sky.com/story/1038642/bo...mliners-grounded-by-japan-airlines

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: apodino
Posted 2013-01-15 23:02:31 and read 43624 times.

Not saying that the 787 doesn't have its issues...but I see a lot of these types of problems on the CRJ on a daily basis, and yet there is no media outcry over the CRJ is there?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: flood
Posted 2013-01-15 23:05:31 and read 43454 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 150):
Depending on how long these voluntary groundings last, I suspect it might finally push 787 dispatch reliability below those aircraft at equivalent points in service.

That makes no sense to me. If ANA were to voluntarily ground the fleet for 10 days, surely that wouldn't be counted as a 500+ flight cancellation hit due to MX. I don't see how this incident affects DR at all. If anything, it will affect their flight completion rate (by a mere 1).

[Edited 2013-01-15 23:19:40]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-15 23:10:32 and read 43125 times.

One more thing before I hit the sack for tonight: aircraft in question which landed in Takamatsu is JA804A.


Takamatsu's IAT code is TAK and ISCO code RJOT.

The airfield offers one runway, 08/26, which is 2,500 meters, or 8,202 feet.

[Edited 2013-01-15 23:18:22]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: cbphoto
Posted 2013-01-15 23:15:54 and read 42918 times.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 165):
I can't help but wonder:

A. If the 787 is going to be the modern day equivalent of the Comet, totally revolutionary, but with unforseen problems that are going to require some kind of massive redesign before re-entry into service is permitted.

B. If any of these problems could have been solved by creating a full scale mockup ala the 707/727/737/747.

I also cant help but wonder why any of these problems weren't caught during the test program, isnt' that why they have the test program, to find, document, and fix any possible bug that could develop over the equivalent of a 30 year service life?

It seems like maybe someone in the engineering department was asleep at the wheel or else these batteries weren't properly quality controlled before being installed into the airplane. IMO this problem should have been discovered and fixed long before the airplanes ever entered commercial service.

First things first, comparing the Comet to the 787 is extremely inaccurate. The Comet had numerous in flight break ups, which resulted in a string of crashes and deaths. The issues with the 787 are no where near the scale of the Comet.

Again, with computers and technology we have today, a full scale mockup would be just a waste of resources. With the computers alone, engineers can run many more tests and get quicker results, rather then building a full scale model.

We still don't know what is wrong with the aircraft, whether its an issue with the electrical system on the 787, or just a bad batch of batteries manufactured by a third party vendor. Before we accuse engineers of sleeping on the job, or quality assurance people of not showing up to work, lets figure out what is wrong with the aircraft!

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-01-15 23:25:46 and read 42311 times.

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 175):
We still don't know what is wrong with the aircraft, whether its an issue with the electrical system on the 787, or just a bad batch of batteries manufactured by a third party vendor. Before we accuse engineers of sleeping on the job, or quality assurance people of not showing up to work, lets figure out what is wrong with the aircraft!

The first step of which is to acknowledge there may indeed be something or things wrong with the aircraft (ie it not just dismiss as routine teething problems anymore), which in itself seems like a huge deal for some of us to come to terms with.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: PITingres
Posted 2013-01-15 23:33:48 and read 42263 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 176):
The first step of which is to acknowledge there may indeed be something or things wrong with the aircraft (ie it not just dismiss as routine teething problems anymore)

Certainly there may be something systemically wrong with the aircraft. The point is, that unless you KNOW what the problems are, you DON'T KNOW if they are or are not routine teething problems. That's not an apologist position, that's just logic. Neither the hand-wringers nor the optimists have any factual basis for their statements at this point, which makes this entire thread very annoying to be honest.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: peterjohns
Posted 2013-01-15 23:45:32 and read 41669 times.

Now we know if anything goes wrong, especially in the aeronautical world, someone usually has pictures or even a film of it.
But if you are told that "we have to land again due to a minor technical problem involving a little smoke- and err- don´t be surprised, we are going to use these chutes for disembarking today" which translates into english "get the f*.. out- we´re ablaze!" then somebody has the nerve to get his Camcorder out and film the whole thing... Wow!! These japanese must have nerves of steel or... no, let´s hope for this possibility  

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: FlyingAY
Posted 2013-01-15 23:50:28 and read 41324 times.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 164):
I can't tell where that smoke is coming from - it appears to be coming from the ground? Is it actually smoke and not steam?

Considering they've probably braked rather hard to get the plane to stop as soon as possible, could it just be coming from the brakes?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: vegas005
Posted 2013-01-15 23:53:59 and read 41289 times.

Fortunate enough to have flown it, but was not really impressed by it. I was flamed last week when I said I won't fly it again until it is fixed. What do you think now...smoke is nothing to joke about and this needs to be fixed. Boeing quality control is horrible and so far we have battery fires, batteries smoking, fuel leaks (multiple times), brake issues, windows cracking, toilets not working, oxygen masks inop, computer issues and the list goes on and on.

As a side note, I listened to and watched the Qatar first takeoff in a 787 from Zurich on Monday, and the Tower was all over them because the microphone/antenna was not transmitting properly. Not a biggie, but just add that to the list of issues.....

Hoping they get everything sorted quickly and get a solid reputation going!

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: bluesky73
Posted 2013-01-15 23:54:43 and read 41152 times.

I know there are bigger priorities to fix issues but bet ANA paint those 787 titles out over next few months. My wife that knows nothing about planes said this morning "is that another problem with the 787"?

Hope Boeing sort teething issues soon and get the confidence of airlines and passengers. Unfortunately 24hournews will repeat this all today and lead to exaggerated hysteria.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-01-15 23:59:51 and read 40911 times.

Quoting PITingres (Reply 177):
Certainly there may be something systemically wrong with the aircraft. The point is, that unless you KNOW what the problems are, you DON'T KNOW if they are or are not routine teething problems. That's not an apologist position, that's just logic. Neither the hand-wringers nor the optimists have any factual basis for their statements at this point, which makes this entire thread very annoying to be honest.

Agreed.

Most of the hand-wringers are not saying there is definitively something wrong with the aircraft, but are saying these incidents cannot just be dismissed as routine teething (which is usually synonymous with minor) problems by the optimists or minimizers of whatever we term we want to use, using false comparisons to "an A330 also had smoke in the cabin today" to minimize the issue. These problems need to be investigated thoroughly and that is what it appears tha FAA, Boeing, and the airlines are headed towards doing.

I am also stunned by those who suggest the ANA pilots over-reacted. After SR 111, and after the DHL 747 fire and crash in DXB, which themselves were after the Saudia L1011 fire and the British Airtours 737 fires in the 1980s, there are those who still think there is room for over-reaction when there is smoke in the cabin???

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-01-16 00:12:23 and read 40401 times.

Just appeared on CNN:

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/01/...e-biggest-lemon-in-history/?iid=EL

Not the type of headlines Boeing would want.


In terms of recent incidents on the 787 I think that Murphy's Law has raised its head again.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: ba319-131
Posted 2013-01-16 00:19:05 and read 40017 times.

Quoting a300 (Reply 70):
I did notice a higher cabin air humidity than the more conventional types.

- I'm impressed you noticed this after such short flights, I've flown the 787 on the FRA-HND and HND-FRA sectors, never noticed the difference.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: ordwaw
Posted 2013-01-16 00:20:34 and read 39910 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 183):
Just appeared on CNN:

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/01/...e-biggest-lemon-in-history/?iid=EL

Not the type of headlines Boeing would want.

Why is CNN publishing articles with such crazy titles?
The headline pretty much suggests 787 is a lemon, and many people just remember headlines. Then, the first sentence of the article reads ... "Far from it. In fact, many of the concerns over the new aircraft are vastly overstated." And then it goes to suggest most problems are minor and it is the media that has blown everything out of proportions.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: a36001
Posted 2013-01-16 00:35:16 and read 39250 times.

I imagine Air India will have a field day with this! Bet they demand Boeing take all their fleet back for refund plus compensation!   Sorry but I am not a fan of Air India and their behaviour over the 787 has been borderline childish, IMO  

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: n729pa
Posted 2013-01-16 00:42:32 and read 38765 times.

I love planes regardless of who makes them, but there are some one-eyed Airbus and Boeing fans on this site, and whilst some were quick to kick Airbus and the A380 not that long ago, the shoe is as they say on the other foot now. So let this be a lesson to anyone that thinks that one brand is superior to the other, and boy there are some that get hot under the collar over it.

I like a great many of you can't wait to fly on a 787, but all this news in the past few weeks is indeed not good...not good for Boeing and more importantly not good for the aviation industry when times are hard enough.

I'm not an engineer, but are Boeing rushing some of these aircraft out after all the delays etc? I would never say they are cutting corners in quality control, but perhaps checks haven't been a good as they should have been under pressure to meet targets or avoid further delay penalties. In which case they need to get a grip on that PBQ.

Some of these aircraft were sat around for months (as many pictures on this site will testify), but should that make a difference? It would still have to be checked over before delivery and upon removal from storage.

Given that there have been several different issues, we can't say it's for example a faulty batch of batteries, because it doesn't explain the fuel leaks and brake problems. Hence my question about the final checks before delivery above. There is something wrong, more than just teething problems and if I was an operator of the 787 today, I too would be considering grounding them just as ANA and JAL have. Before the airlinersnet armchair CEOs jump on that remark, think about how you would answer the media if one of your 787s was lost with all on board because you choose to put your head in the sand. ANA and JAL have no choice this has to be done, in the same way Qantas did with the A380, because the risks are too high and you can't gamble with the lives of your passengers/crew (and those on the ground) and after a string of incidents it would be foolhardy not to heed those warnings.

On a positive note, Boeing haven't just forgotten how to make planes or fundamentally made a bad one, it's just they need to get to grips with all of these issues as fast as possible, which I'm sure they will. In the meantime I hope all other 787 flights remain safe and nothing more happens.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: MillwallSean
Posted 2013-01-16 00:50:30 and read 38428 times.

As long as no fatal crash occurs the 787 should be able to survive relatively unscratched. A fatal crash and all bets are off.
However this epidemic of issues with Japanese 787 isn't good in a market with a collective psyche as the Japanese. the grounding today might be warranted from a safety standpoint but might also be a necessity to keep the confidence in the plane by the flying public and the large corporates that fly.

The closest resemblance to this for me is the Q400.
For Q400 the early models were clearly lemons. The plane kept on having issues, being called xmas tree by the early customers because of their warning signals going off so often. Small and annoying incidents that got pretty bad press locally kept on happening. SK in particular struggled and the Swedish media didnt like the plane one bit after to many minor incidents and one major (Kalmar).
Then came 2 major SK incidents that were filmed and shown for days on the local newschannels. Two similar accidents where the landing gear collapsed. No one knew why it happened. Most Canadians posters blamed SK, most European posters blamed Bombardier. Few cared about facts and it became a symbol of national pride or perceived such. Several months later the definite answer came, it was a manufacturing error with the plane, and Bombardier fixed it. In one of the major incidents the SK pilots could have handled the situation better too.
However for SK that report came to late, they had a third accident, one most probably caused by a mechanic. This one was obviously not related to the Q400 but that didn't matter, the flying public in Scandinavia had enough and wouldn't accept any SK Q400 anymore. SK had to ground the plane and get rid of it.
Ground well functioning planes where the cause of the issue had been found and addressed because the customer base demanded it and they couldn't afford to go against public perception.

In a collective society like in Asia its a higher likelihood that a similar scenario can occur. Boeing is probably well aware of it.

I would like to know and gain some understanding to what has happened here. So far no one seems to have an idea and its yet again rhetoric between pro and anti 787 people. Pointless, its a plane, a machine not a puppy.

There must be some reason why JAL grounded the 787 too?
Is it because of public pressure or because there is something worrying with the plane. I guess we shall see tomorrow when thet will decide whether to fly again or ground the 787 longer than a day.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: ordwaw
Posted 2013-01-16 00:57:22 and read 38109 times.

With regard to the "teething" problems ... Is it just me, but I have not heard of any for LA and ET? Other than seeing the opposite, a concurrent thread dedicated to ET and their great satisfaction with the Dreamliner.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: keuleatr72
Posted 2013-01-16 01:00:03 and read 37932 times.

Quoting ordwaw (Reply 189):
With regard to the "teething" problems ... Is it just me, but I have not heard of any for LA and ET? Other than seeing the opposite, a concurrent thread dedicated to ET and their great satisfaction with the Dreamliner.

LA had some reliability issues. No word from ET though.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-on-787-reliability-issues-380664/

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: brushpilot
Posted 2013-01-16 01:11:00 and read 37563 times.

It's just a bad day for the 787 CHRISTINELINER...  

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: GBOAD
Posted 2013-01-16 01:19:41 and read 37152 times.

Looking on the bright side, that was a sweet-looking slide deployment on the RH side of the aircraft. Looks like Dr 4L didn't deploy, though, which will raise questions....

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: LH526
Posted 2013-01-16 01:22:35 and read 37023 times.

One ANA B787 is currently stored at FRA (Golf positions)

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-01-16 01:24:34 and read 36921 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 167):

Hello CM
You can see some fluid under the belly where the smoke is
What can it be ?
Is there a fire protection in this forward electronic bay ?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2013-01-16 01:26:51 and read 36928 times.

Quoting ordwaw (Reply 185):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 183):
Just appeared on CNN:

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/01/...e-biggest-lemon-in-history/?iid=EL

Not the type of headlines Boeing would want.

Why is CNN publishing articles with such crazy titles?
The headline pretty much suggests 787 is a lemon, and many people just remember headlines.

Boeing's lawyers must agree with you. CNN has taken down the headline!

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2013-01-16 01:29:06 and read 36751 times.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 32):
Guys! This is totally normal. Its a new airplane.

No.
This is NOT normal.
Not with the same issue affecting three different airframes operating with three different carriers.

Sorry.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: BEG2IAH
Posted 2013-01-16 01:32:22 and read 36553 times.

192 responses and only a few that are actually informative. This thread just proves why the mass media that we accuse of being full of it actually exist. They found their followers even on this website. I thought A.net folks would know more about aviation than the uneducated average Joe, especially since we all claim we are super duper aviation enthusiasts. I would just let people in the know do their jobs and figure out the issues. I didn't expect this much hysteria here. The most amuzing ones are those that in essence read "we demand responses from Boeing".



[Edited 2013-01-16 01:40:21]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: BEG2IAH
Posted 2013-01-16 01:34:10 and read 36408 times.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 196):
No.
This is NOT normal.
Not with the same issue affecting three different airframes operating with three different carriers.

Sorry.

Check his other posts, he has a slow day and is trying to be sarcastic.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: SKAirbus
Posted 2013-01-16 01:55:35 and read 35776 times.

Whoever said, "if it ain't Boeing, it ain't going" is an idiot...

The 787 is starting to become the Marilyn Monroe of the skies... Looks pretty but has some serious issues!

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2013-01-16 02:04:58 and read 35397 times.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 165):
I also cant help but wonder why any of these problems weren't caught during the test program, isnt' that why they have the test program, to find, document, and fix any possible bug that could develop over the equivalent of a 30 year service life?

The point of a test program is, among other things, to find problems. However, no test program in the history of aviation has (or probably ever will) find all the problems. This is why even extremely established types that have been in production for decades still have AD's and Service Bulletins issued against them. All the OEM's are extremely good at accelerated aging and getting confidence, to a very high degree, that their designs won't kill anybody. However, not matter how good they are, there is no test that will simulate in-service operation with full fidelity other than in-service operation. The object of testing, in practical terms, isn't to make sure the aircraft is perfect at EIS, but to make sure it's prefect enough that any issues that do drop up are purely economic (dispatch reliability, part replacement, etc.) and not safety threats. Economic performance is something that will continue to be addressed from the first day until several decades after the last frame is delivered.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 166):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 150):
Wrong way...it was allowed because of the *777* evac tests. The 787 has the same aisles and doors but less seats, so if you can get a 777 out (which was proved by evac test) then you can get a 787 out.

Thanks for the correction. Do you know, will they be able to do this with the -9 and presumably the -10 as well?

I believe so. Even the -10 doesn't have the passenger capacity of the 777-300ER.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 170):
Sure they are teething problems as in problems associated with a new aircraft, but these do not appear to be minor or routine teething problems, these appear to be very serious teething problems.

I think there's a misunderstanding about what "teething problems" are. There is no assumption that they'll all be minor (although that's obviously preferred). "Teething problems" just means, basically, "problems because the airplane is new" as opposed to "problems due to normal operation". All types, from all OEM's, undergo teething problems. Some are minor, some are major. I would agree that these are serious teething problems. Serious (and minor) teething problems are expected. The whole point of the excercise is to 1) make sure that even the serious problems don't hurt anybody and 2) fix the serious ones before the minor ones.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 170):
Not problems that can be minimized by dismissing them to be the usual teeting problems.

Calling something a teething problem isn't minimization. Most types have at least one or two major issues that show up soon after EIS. Nobody should be minimizing (most of) the recent issues as minor...they're important and will be investigated and corrected as such. The main point behind comments like "teething issues" is to distinguish those issues from issues like, as was brought up earlier, Comet...fundamental design flaws. *All* aircraft have problems...this continues through their entire life. Much of the effort of supporting aircraft is identifying and correcting issues that crop up while they're still economic and fixing them before they become safety issues. It's expected that aircraft will identify such issues at a high rate when they're new and at a lower (but never zero) rate as they age. There are usually spikes around the first major maintenance check intervals as well.

Quoting flood (Reply 173):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 150):
Depending on how long these voluntary groundings last, I suspect it might finally push 787 dispatch reliability below those aircraft at equivalent points in service.

That makes no sense to me. If ANA were to voluntarily ground the fleet for 10 days, surely that wouldn't be counted as a 500+ flight cancellation hit due to MX. I don't see how this incident affects DR at all.

Good point...I'm not sure how they intend to account for a voluntary grounding.

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 175):
Again, with computers and technology we have today, a full scale mockup would be just a waste of resources.

Not necessarily...one of the challenges that has come up with highly integrated aircraft with high fidelity hardware-in-the-loop simulation is that it gets very hard to tell errors that are actually in the design apart from errors as a result of the simulation. This problem is getting worse, not better, with computers and technology. As a result, there's something of a push to go back towards full scale systems mockups (nobody really needs full scale structure or installation mockups anymore thanks to CAD/CAM).

Quoting sankaps (Reply 176):
The first step of which is to acknowledge there may indeed be something or things wrong with the aircraft (ie it not just dismiss as routine teething problems anymore), which in itself seems like a huge deal for some of us to come to terms with.

Anyone who claims there's nothing wrong with the aircraft is lying. I guarantee there is something wrong with the aircraft...just as I guarantee there are things wrong with the 737, A320, 777, A380, etc. that we don't know about yet. Aircraft aren't designed to break. When they break, it means something has gone wrong. However, engineeings know stuff goes wrong and they design for it. The fundamental question for any EIS (or any problem) is, "Is this thing that's going wrong something I designed for, or something I didn't?".

Quoting vegas005 (Reply 180):
Boeing quality control is horrible and so far we have battery fires, batteries smoking, fuel leaks (multiple times), brake issues, windows cracking, toilets not working, oxygen masks inop, computer issues and the list goes on and on.

This kind of lumping is what's contributing to the hysteria in the press right now. Some issues are major, some are minor. Counting number of incidents isn't very helpful. Breaking down the list above:
Battery fire(s?): very not good, but also designed for...major question here is why the battery failed.
Battery smoking: also very not good, but also designed for...at the moment, lots of conflicting data, but even assuming the worst the question is also why the battery failed and (depending on location) did the smoke containment do its job.
Fuel leaks: Last report I saw was that the same leak happened twice on the same aircraft...that's much more likely to be the same problem not resolved, rather than two independant leaks, but it's pretty clearly nothing related to batteries so it's a different issue (and minor in impact, though very annoying).
Brake issues: This is probably the goofiest of all the reports...LRU's have MTBF's and they fail. In this case, an LRU failed, reported itself as failed (as designed to do), and was replaced. This happens thousands of time a day all over the globe on all types.
Window cracking: Very similar to the brake event...windows crack on all types. Absent additional data, as yet unreported (and hence probably not present given the level of current scrutiny), this is normal aircraft operation.
Oxygen masks inop: I don't know enough to comment on this one but, since the airline at least knew about it, they BITE system did its job and told the crew what was inop so they could deactiavte the seats. A reliability and economic hit, to be sure, but not a safety one.
Computers issues: I don't know what this one refers to.

I'm pretty sure I'm lumped into the list of some people of "Boeing defenders". My point here is not that these issues aren't important...they're important. But some are much more significant than others. Some may be, quite literally, normal operation. Some are absolutely odd and may or may not represent problems with the design (as opposed to problems with quality, installaiton, or just terrible luck). To determine what's what takes disciplined investigation of each event, which is what's happening.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 182):
These problems need to be investigated thoroughly and that is what it appears tha FAA, Boeing, and the airlines are headed towards doing.

Exactly. The processes are running normally, as one would expect.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 194):
You can see some fluid under the belly where the smoke is
What can it be ?
Is there a fire protection in this forward electronic bay ?

EE bays are normally protected through containment, isolation, and flammability control (i.e. very limited fuel). So they're heavily protected by design and material selection. This is different than the cargo bays, where you can't control the contents to nearly the same degree, so suppression is used.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 196):
Quoting F9animal (Reply 32):
Guys! This is totally normal. Its a new airplane.

No.
This is NOT normal.

F9animal was being sarcastic. He's been posting similar comments in most threads for a few days to (incorrectly) mock those he perceives as claiming that this is all normal.

Tom.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: abba
Posted 2013-01-16 02:06:57 and read 35206 times.

Quoting LH526 (Reply 193):
One ANA B787 is currently stored at FRA (Golf positions)


I understand that JAL and ANA are going to inspect their planes before flying them again in a few days - Thursday I think I saw in a press report. Back in Japan, I would guess that it will be ANA/JAL's own personnel who would do the actual inspection possibly with help from Boeing.

But what about the birds that are now parked overseas? How will they be handled in a situation like this?

Out of curiosity - are JAL/ANA going to fly their own people to eg FRA to do the inspection - and if that is the case: which facilities will they use?

Or do they have local partners to look after their aircraft when abroad - who will then do the inspection? Now, the 787 is a new type and there is not yet any German operator so the local expertise must be limited i guess. Or?

Or can they do nothing but ferry them home? And if they do find something (I know it is highly unlikely - but for the sake of the argument'only) that must be done before they can take to the air - then what?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: blueflyer
Posted 2013-01-16 02:09:18 and read 35434 times.

Isn't it standard practice to shut down the engines in case of an emergency evacuation?

In the TBS news video, the left engine is clearly spinning still as passengers evacuate. I suppose it could be spooling down, but as the cockpit crew is coming down and passengers are led away, the background noise sounds, to me, like aircraft engines idling (although to be fair, it could also be the emergency vehicles engines).

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 188):
There must be some reason why JAL grounded the 787 too?

The rest of your post answers your own question. If ANA grounds its fleet, then presumably it must be unsafe (as perceived by its customers anyhow). If it is unsafe under ANA's livery, then it has to be unsafe under JAL's as well and not grounding it would be tantamount to telling the passengers that safety isn't priority number one. In other words, it is about perception.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 182):
after the DHL 747 fire and crash in DXB

UPS, not DHL.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-01-16 02:18:47 and read 35260 times.

Update on the smoke:

"The airline added that “there [was] no smoke visually confirmed but there was also an unusual smell in the cockpit as well as in the cabin.”

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_01_16_2013_p0-537245.xml

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: flood
Posted 2013-01-16 02:19:36 and read 35204 times.

These problems may be contagious. UA 33 NRT-LAX just returned to gate and is showing a 2hr MX delay.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-01-16 02:22:45 and read 34897 times.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 202):
Quoting sankaps (Reply 182):
after the DHL 747 fire and crash in DXB

UPS, not DHL.

Thanks, you are right, I meant UPS.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: PlaneInsomniac
Posted 2013-01-16 02:31:34 and read 34563 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 200):
Counting number of incidents isn't very helpful.

Artificially treating each incident as completely isolated is not very helpful either. In particular if they occur within days on a small-ish fleet of very young planes and some of them appear to (at least at first glance) relate to the same technical systems. Frankly, this argument is getting a little tired, as is "every plane type has some technical issues now and then".

Frankly, we have now again reached the point where instead of discussing the facts as they are known, we end up debating the semantics of words such as "teething problem". This follows the recent, beyond-bizarre discussion over the exact meaning of the word "fire". Being supportive and defensive is good, but if all that is left for now is descending into splitting hairs over common language, I cannot help but wonder whether this is worth filling pages and pages of screen space. (With all due respect.)

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: captcufflinks
Posted 2013-01-16 02:44:14 and read 33988 times.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 202):
Isn't it standard practice to shut down the engines in case of an emergency evacuation?

Absolutely. You cannot have passengers walking around in front of a jet engine for obvious reasons. Or, indeed, in emergency situations when there are other objects that could be ingested - slides, emergency vehicles equipment or indeed Boeing's PR people (last one is a joke - thought I better point that out in this thread).

You'll often see jet engines rotating slowly when they're parked at the gate, they're not 'on'.

The sound you can hear in the video doesn't belong to the 787.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: BlueShamu330s
Posted 2013-01-16 02:50:00 and read 33790 times.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 195):
Boeing's lawyers must agree with you. CNN has taken down the headline!

No, it's still there, unchanged. Its tone echoes the pieces on other networks.

Quote:

Boeing 787: The biggest lemon in history?
January 11, 2013: 9:40 AM ET

Far from it. In fact, many of the concerns over the new aircraft are vastly overstated.

By Cyrus Sanati, contributor

FORTUNE -- The recent worries over the safety and soundness of Boeing's new 787 aircraft appear vastly overblown. The unfortunate series of technical glitches that occurred this week are not only minor in nature, but are also cheap to fix—that is, if any system-wide repair is even necessary. That doesn't mean Boeing is out of the woods.
It hasn't been the greatest week for Boeing (BA). The aircraft maker saw its stock tumble as much as 7% at one point this week due to three separate technical incidents involving its relatively brand new 787 aircraft. The first incident Monday morning involved a fire breaking out on a Japanese Air Line (JAL) aircraft that was sitting empty on the tarmac in Boston. The next day another JAL 787 in Boston was forced to turn back to the gate after its pilots discovered a fuel leak. And if that weren't enough, an All Nippon Airways 787 in Japan was forced to cancel its flight when the pilots received an error message related to the aircraft's braking system.
While a fire on board an aircraft and a leaky fuel system are concerning— especially given how sensitive the public can be about mechanical issues on an aircraft—the way the incidents have been portrayed have set off an unnecessary panic in general and among investors. For example, preliminary reports by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) indicate that the fire broke out in one of the aircraft's two lithium-ion batteries, which are only engaged when the plane is on the ground and never in flight. The fire was small, creeping only two feet from its source, making it far from the raging inferno of people's nightmares.
The auxiliary battery may have overheated due to faulty wiring causing it to overheat. United Air Lines, the only US carrier to fly the new aircraft, reported that the wiring to lithium-ion batteries on one of its six brand new 787s was done improperly. If this turns out to be the root cause of the fire, then it would be a quick and cheap fix.

MORE: FAA opens probe of Boeing Dreamliner woes....... continued

Rgds

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: vivekman2006
Posted 2013-01-16 02:57:33 and read 33622 times.

Quoting a36001 (Reply 186):
I imagine Air India will have a field day with this! Bet they demand Boeing take all their fleet back for refund plus compensation!   Sorry but I am not a fan of Air India and their behaviour over the 787 has been borderline childish, IMO


Huh! Far from it in reality.... All six 787s delivered to Air India so far are still flying!  http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/b...y-landing/articleshow/18042616.cms


Read this quote from the article above!

Quote:
India's aviation regulator said it was reviewing the Dreamliner's safety and would talk to parts makers, but had no plans to ground the planes. State-owned Air India has six of the aircraft in service and more on order

Agreed that you are no Air India fan, (neither am I) but your statement couldn't be farther from the truth - unless of course you were planning to be sarcastic!

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: IL96M
Posted 2013-01-16 03:06:36 and read 33222 times.

I was at Beijing's T3 waiting for my flight last night and watched Ethiopian's 787 depart for Addis Ababa. I wonder what they will do with their flleet?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: ba319-131
Posted 2013-01-16 03:38:12 and read 31795 times.

Quoting IL96M (Reply 210):
I was at Beijing's T3 waiting for my flight last night and watched Ethiopian's 787 depart for Addis Ababa. I wonder what they will do with their flleet?

- What do you mean? - NH & JL are volunterily grounding their's for checks, there is no AD that calls for a mandatory grounding.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: moo
Posted 2013-01-16 03:43:47 and read 31570 times.

Quoting ba319-131 (Reply 211):
- What do you mean? - NH & JL are volunterily grounding their's for checks, there is no AD that calls for a mandatory grounding.

There doesn't need to be an AD - people are wondering what other operators are going to do with regard to their fleets now, and its a valid point. Here we have two major operators grounding their fleets, are other operators going to sit up and take notice (even if just for PR purposes)? Not saying they have to ground them, but the impact of two fellow operators having taken that step will not be a minor one in decisions - you can bet your arse that this is being discussed at high level in several airlines today...

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-16 03:49:47 and read 31361 times.

Interesting to have my morning ritual interrupted by the dulcet tones of the BBC World Service telling me about the ANA and JAL fleet groundings...

I've read a bunch of the posts and have seen some exaggerate what is going on and some understate what is going on.

It certainly is a PR/image disaster for Boeing and the 787. Unfortunately these things have a habit of staying in general public's minds a very long time, because the issue gets a lot more press than does the resolution.

It is also a big technical issue for Boeing. JAL and ANA are very conservative, and will require major amounts of clarity before they go flying again. I don't know who foots the bill for the missed flights, but given it's the largest fleet flying, it can add up quickly.

Interesting how the Japanese airlines have had one problem with the Li-Ion battery made in Japan, and if this turns out to be the same thing, two. I suppose that tends to mitigate against an over-reaction in Japan since they also tend not to want to draw negative attention to their industries.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: Wisdom
Posted 2013-01-16 03:51:02 and read 31292 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 61):
When the 380 suffered those engine problems they were briefly grounded too.

The QF uncontained engine failure happened 3 years after EIS.

We're barely 14 months after EIS on the 787 and major problems are occurring on frames with barely any flight cycles and total time. The big problems start occurring after years of service, when the airframe's design defects find their way into the structure and start producing failures.

This is only the beginning.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: Wisdom
Posted 2013-01-16 04:10:45 and read 30443 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 213):
It is also a big technical issue for Boeing. JAL and ANA are very conservative, and will require major amounts of clarity before they go flying again. I don't know who foots the bill for the missed flights, but given it's the largest fleet flying, it can add up quickly.

True. In Japan reputation is very important. NH and JL invest the most money into maintenance than any other carrier in the world.
Usually, when a carrier grounds its fleet unilaterally, the carrier will carry the bill. But the manufacturer takes the heat...

Quoting Revelation (Reply 213):
Interesting how the Japanese airlines have had one problem with the Li-Ion battery made in Japan, and if this turns out to be the same thing, two. I suppose that tends to mitigate against an over-reaction in Japan since they also tend not to want to draw negative attention to their industries.

As long as the Japanese manufacturer has produced batteries answering to Boeing's specs, Boeing will be blamed.

I don't think that the issue is with the Li-ion batteries. Li-ion batteries are shipped by air and carried by pax onto flights on a daily basis and very rarely does it directly result in a fire/explosion. Here we have 2 incidents in 2 weeks.

So it's clear to me that the source of the problem is how they interact with other circuitry, remember that the B787 runs on "wild frequency" generators requiring special converters. It could also be that the wiring going to the battery is causing the fire.
Li-ion's by themselves are safe but they are very very sensitive to unexpected changes in voltage and current, so any issue with the wiring can easily result in the battery catching fire.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: ltbewr
Posted 2013-01-16 04:16:08 and read 30112 times.

The need to immediately land with a fire, especially as to certain types of batteries, although of cargo both were with UPS. There was a case of a DC-8 near approach to PHL that landed quickly and the cockpit crew survived with no injuries and the aircraft a total loss with the subsequent fire. UPS 6 near Dubai had a very quick cargo battery fire which unfortunately didn't allow enough time to land at an airport, although it was able to land away from populated areas.

Clearly there are potentially serious problems with the 787 that needs to be reviewed and already in process by authorities and Boeing. The problem needs to be identified and resolved quickly to reassure the public and the airlines. The related issue is the potential financial costs to Boeing and the airlines from groundings, inspections and continuing problems they can ill afford, including it's stock price to it's investors.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: a36001
Posted 2013-01-16 04:19:28 and read 30029 times.

Quoting vivekman2006 (Reply 209):

Yes I was being sarcastic.... 

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: scbriml
Posted 2013-01-16 04:20:24 and read 29949 times.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 195):
Boeing's lawyers must agree with you. CNN has taken down the headline!

I think you're giving Boeing's lawyers too much credit. The headline is still there for me.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-01-16 04:20:58 and read 29981 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 212):
Not saying they have to ground them, but the impact of two fellow operators having taken that step will not be a minor one in decisions - you can bet your arse that this is being discussed at high level in several airlines today...

QF grounded their entire 380 fleet after the QF32 incident but other operators of RR engined 380's did not do so. It would be a carefully considered decision to continue flying as any potential subsequent incidents of a serious nature would be very difficult for an airline to defend.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-01-16 04:30:31 and read 29547 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 203):
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_01_16_2013_p0-537245.xml

A further quote from the article:

.... “Later it was confirmed that the main battery in the forward electronic equipment bay was discolored and the electrolysis solution had leaked,” says ANA....

Not sure if this has already been posted but it does seem to confirm that the incident is likely to be battery related.
I stress the word "likely" as it is still early days yet.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: BestWestern
Posted 2013-01-16 04:30:42 and read 29462 times.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 188):
I would like to know and gain some understanding to what has happened here. So far no one seems to have an idea and its yet again rhetoric between pro and anti 787 people. Pointless, its a plane, a machine not a puppy.

Excellent point, as usual. As I said after the Boston incident, Nobody knows what went wrong, and until then we should all take a chill pill, and come back in 24 hours.

BBC Global reported (in a report full of errors presented by their hysterical business news 'presenter') that the Japanese CAA had stated that the flying public had lost confidence in the 787. The Japanese population has a collective knee jerk reaction to issues, so the grounding and corrective issues will be the best way to reinstate a nations confidence - in a similar way to the CEO of BA flying in the first BA aircraft in the ash cloud.

This whole issue wasn't helped yesterday by the huge 787 in super bold font on the side of the evacuated 787 in Japan. The news video focused on this too.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: LY777
Posted 2013-01-16 04:33:54 and read 29351 times.

This is not the first time that a new airplane has problems during EIS:
- the A380: QF had to ground their A380 fleet
- the 77W: there were numerous IFSD for the 77Ws: don't you remember when AF had an IFSD almost every week at some point? Then, everything turned OK.
http://ww.airliners.net/aviation-for...eneral_aviation/read.main/3909440/
http://www.thedigitalaviator.com/blog/?p=469
http://avherald.com/h?article=412eeed6
http://avherald.com/h?article=3fecfae4/0000&opt=0


Boeing must find out what is wrong with the 787, and then, everything will turn OK.

[Edited 2013-01-16 04:38:04]

[Edited 2013-01-16 04:42:19]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2013-01-16 04:44:00 and read 28798 times.

Quoting LY777 (Reply 222):
Boeing must find out what is wrong with the 787, and then, everything will turn OK.

That would be nice. At the other end of the scale of possibilities: the program itself could be found to have been pressured to push through milestones when not really ready, due to delays and costs, and a range of systemic problems in design and or manufacture could be found. That was the case with the DC10 for example.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: capri
Posted 2013-01-16 04:52:13 and read 28456 times.

remember guys A320 first flight tests, it even crashed, and look where is A320 family now

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: moo
Posted 2013-01-16 04:54:32 and read 28275 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 219):
QF grounded their entire 380 fleet after the QF32 incident but other operators of RR engined 380's did not do so. It would be a carefully considered decision to continue flying as any potential subsequent incidents of a serious nature would be very difficult for an airline to defend.

It does help that there are two engine manufacturers who have engines on the A380 - what occurs on one manufacturers engine is unlikely to happen on anothers...

It also helps that RR and Airbus had an advisory out very quickly after the event requiring operators to check for certain things such as leaks in the correct area, as the direct cause of the failure was quickly identified.

All of these things are held in consideration when action is debated.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-01-16 04:56:13 and read 28237 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 220):

.... “Later it was confirmed that the main battery in the forward electronic equipment bay was discolored and the electrolysis solution had leaked,” says ANA....

Y'know, if this is confirmed to be another battery fire Boeing or the FAA should seriously consider grounding the fleet because there is no apparent link between these 1 in a billion battery events so they are probably not 1 in a billion events. At this point I don't think that anybody can hold their hand up with confidence and say that Boeing has a handle on these issues but either of these battery meltdowns could have ended very very badly if they happened over the North Pacific.

Yes, I know I've been tagged as anti 787 but I would suggest that people look around and smell the coffee; we are not making these incidents up, they really are happening to the 787 on a daily basis and they have to stop before people get hurt.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2013-01-16 04:58:10 and read 28295 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 226):
At this point I don't think that anybody can hold their hand up with confidence and say that Boeing has a handle on these issues but either of these battery meltdowns could have ended very very badly if they happened over the North Pacific.

How, exactly, could the BOS incident have "ended badly if it had happened over the North Pacific?"

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-01-16 05:04:34 and read 28199 times.

Quoting LY777 (Reply 222):
the A380: QF had to ground their A380 fleet

3 years after EIS.   And the engine was the single cause for that very short grounding period. And it was only QF who grounded their A380's. Here two airlines have grounded more then 30 airplanes until some clarity comes up on the issues the B787 sadly enough seems to go through.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-01-16 05:08:03 and read 28019 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 227):

How, exactly, could the BOS incident have "ended badly if it had happened over the North Pacific?"

Are you serious? By setting the plane alight.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2013-01-16 05:10:28 and read 27874 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 229):
Are you serious? By setting the plane alight.

In view of the containment structure for the battery, how would that have happened?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-01-16 05:18:12 and read 27498 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 230):
In view of the containment structure for the battery, how would that have happened?

The BFD described it as being on fire...

Maybe you should read some of the previous threads or this one.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-01-16 05:24:22 and read 27162 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 61):
When the 380 suffered those engine problems they were briefly grounded too.

Qantas grounded their fleet for a few weeks, but no other airline did (although all operators of RR-powered A380s carried out inspections). There wouldn't have been any reason to do so for those that operate A380s with IAE engines, anyway.

The two recent 787 incidents events that involve its battery systems are different from that because these systems are to be found on each and every 787.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: SKAirbus
Posted 2013-01-16 05:25:34 and read 27285 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 230):
In view of the containment structure for the battery, how would that have happened?

Bloody hell the cargo hold was smoking!!

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2013-01-16 05:26:16 and read 27164 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 231):
The BFD described it as being on fire...

. . . AFTER they breached the containment structure which, of course, would not happen in flight.

If there is some evidence of fire damage to anything outside the containment structure before firefighting efforts began, please point me to it. I'm not aware of any.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: Aesma
Posted 2013-01-16 05:27:00 and read 27158 times.

Well, I didn't expect another incident so soon.

Quoting smolt (Reply 49):
I wonder this is the first time for lithium ion battery to be used in circumstance where air pressure is very frequently go up and down.

Not the first time. For example the Lange Antares 20E/23E uses 150Kg of Li-Ion battery packs in the wings, with heaters and coolers to keep them in their optimal temperature range :





According to Lange those same battery packs are used on the A380, F35, Global Hawk.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: Aesma
Posted 2013-01-16 05:42:10 and read 26504 times.

Quoting capri (Reply 224):
remember guys A320 first flight tests, it even crashed, and look where is A320 family now

There was nothing special that I heard of during the A320 flight testing. It crashed after EIS.

And the A330 crash on a test flight was also after EIS.

Both crashes happened while performing extreme maneuvers, not regular commercial operations.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-01-16 05:57:56 and read 25732 times.

Quoting qf340500 (Reply 113):

wjcandee, i cant believe that you are putting now the blame on the pilots, for them being vigilant and not ignoring a warning on a relatively new plane with passengers?

So i really hope you are NOT a pilot and put, for whatever reasons, peoples lives at risk by ignoring a warning which appears? You would do that with all warning all the time? Is it idiotic, in your eyes, to put a warning mechanism in in the first place?

This is becoming a joke from some of you. Really, ignoring a warning light actually leaves the pilot liable for the incident. If it turned out that he ignored the warning and then it crashed with the recorders having a warning light on would cause serious lawsuits for the deaths of all those people that may have been on board. Remember the AC incident at CVG? I am glad that they don't ignore warnings.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: capri
Posted 2013-01-16 06:02:59 and read 25369 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 236):
There was nothing special that I heard of during the A320 flight testing. It crashed after EIS.

And the A330 crash on a test flight was also after EIS.

Both crashes happened while performing extreme maneuvers, not regular commercial operations.

i was not sure about the cause, but my point was about the outcry and publicity that surrounds early types incidents, then there was no mass digital media exposure unlike today especially what is going on this forum, average consumer don't care if was related to design or errors from pilots, when a type is new and experience these problems, that's what the tabloids enjoy to milk out

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: airmagnac
Posted 2013-01-16 06:25:37 and read 24253 times.

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 206):
Artificially treating each incident as completely isolated is not very helpful either

There is no information I've seen that suggests any link in the causes or consequences of these problems ; the only link between batteries, landing gear and wndshield is that they are on the same airframe.
Say you break a taillight while backing up, and your car radio stops working 2 days later, would you lump these problems together as "your car is unreliable" ?

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 206):
we have now again reached the point where instead of discussing the facts as they are known

What facts ? We know close to nothing about what caused the ANA diversion, and little more than "the APU battery caught fire" in the case of JAL. What we are discussing here are claims, guesses and rumours produced to try to fill a lack of knowledge of system engineering, testing protocols and certification rules. There is nothing wrong with that as long as you keep in mind this is all speculation
The underlying problem IMO is really that the human mind tends to think in binary terms - yes/no, good/bad, black/white, or in this case, pro-Boeing/anti/Boeing, normal-and-100% safe/catastrophically-dangerous-the-whole-fleet-has-to-be-grounded. The real world is slightly more subtle and has more shades of gray to it. This problem is certainly not normal, this is certainly bad, this is certainly to be investigated, this is certainly to be solved. But this not does necessarily mean that this battery issue will be

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 229):
setting the plane alight.

Aircraft are designed to continue to work after the failure of a single component. It's a known property called robustness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness). It's not voodoo or black magic ; there are established processes, methods, organisations, testing means and checks to make sure an airliner won't suddenly fall out of the sky. It's not perfect, there are some loopholes, but the pictures of the JAL battery posted in the other thread and rcair1's comments can give you some idea that in the case of the JAL case, the fire was mostly contained as it should have been. Another example mentioned several times here is the QF A380, which suffered a terrible failure yet the aircraft itself survived and was still sufficiently controllable to be brought back to the ground.
Failures happen all the time, again it is NOT NORMAL, but it is to be expected and it is designed for, and in almost every case the failures is contained, and nothing dramatic happens.

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 206):
Being supportive and defensive is good, but if all that is left for now is descending into splitting hairs over common language, I cannot help but wonder whether this is worth filling pages and pages of screen space. (With all due respect.)

I'll take the opposite view. The various issues have to be precisely understood, and precisely solved. This means using precise wording to precisely describe the involved phenomena and avoid ambiguity. If you can't (or worse, will not) understand the difference between the landing gear system, the windshield and the batteries, between "arcing" and "fire", between "safety issue" and "economic issue" or between "teething problem", "minor problem" and "major problem", then this discussion is indeed pointless.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: InsideMan
Posted 2013-01-16 06:25:53 and read 24347 times.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 218):
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 195):
Boeing's lawyers must agree with you. CNN has taken down the headline!

I think you're giving Boeing's lawyers too much credit. The headline is still there for me.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/01/...-787-the-biggest-lemon-in-history/

it's still there......

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: PITingres
Posted 2013-01-16 06:26:08 and read 24274 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 231):
Maybe you should read some of the previous threads or this one.

An excellent suggestion. If you do that you'll see from an official NTSB photo that the containment was so successful that the paint on the battery box was still largely intact. It's completely obvious that there could not have been a general fire.

Sorry, but you are 100% factually wrong on this one.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: ual777uk
Posted 2013-01-16 06:30:52 and read 24030 times.

I just know and hope that Boeing are running around like hot potatoes trying to get all these issues sorted and instill confidence back in those people that doubt this beauty of an aircraft, god forbid if something worse were to happen.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-01-16 06:36:42 and read 23840 times.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 239):
What facts ? We know close to nothing about what caused the ANA diversion, and little more than "the APU battery caught fire" in the case of JAL. What we are discussing here are claims, guesses and rumours produced to try to fill a lack of knowledge of system engineering, testing protocols and certification rules. There is nothing wrong with that as long as you keep in mind this is all speculation

The underlying problem IMO is really that the human mind tends to think in binary terms - yes/no, good/bad, black/white, or in this case, pro-Boeing/anti/Boeing, normal-and-100% safe/catastrophically-dangerous-the-whole-fleet-has-to-be-grounded. The real world is slightly more subtle and has more shades of gray to it. This problem is certainly not normal, this is certainly bad, this is certainly to be investigated, this is certainly to be solved. But this not does necessarily mean that this battery issue will be

Very well written.   I completely agree with your analysis of which I highlighted this part as the best.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-01-16 06:46:31 and read 23417 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 235):
According to Lange those same battery packs are used on the A380, F35, Global Hawk.

Finally some information worth going through all the posts. Thank you.

I believe (but my friends who could confirm are being quiet as their NDAs require) that it is a wiring issue. Perhaps a software issue. But not an issue that couldn't be overcome.

However, I think Boeing will have to change the batteries for PR and not technical reasons.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 144):
You might feel sensitive to the press the 787 is receiving at the moment, and perhaps with some justification.
Throwing mud at the A380 (and missing in most cases) isn't a good defence IMO

Well said my friend. Let's talk about the true issues.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 150):
No aircraft is absolutely safe, nor will one ever be. I am *not* trying to minimize the significance of any of these events. I am pushing back against wholely unrealistic concepts of aircraft safety.

100% agree. If bicycle riding was held to the same standard as aviation... there wouldn't be bicycle riding!

Quoting mingocr83 (Reply 157):
7 incidents in 8 days...not normal.

Is it really that many? I cannot recall 7 incidents.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 165):
B. If any of these problems could have been solved by creating a full scale mockup ala the 707/727/737/747.

   These are EIS issues. A mockup might have solved the wingbox fit, but who doesn't specify a that dimension?   

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 175):
First things first, comparing the Comet to the 787 is extremely inaccurate. The Comet had numerous in flight break ups, which resulted in a string of crashes and deaths. The issues with the 787 are no where near the scale of the Comet.

Agreed. Boeing is being roasted in the press. Sad... but that is the press.

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 197):
The most amuzing ones are those that in essence read "we demand responses from Boeing".

Sad but true. Boeing will need to reply though just for PR reasons.

Quoting abba (Reply 201):
I understand that JAL and ANA are going to inspect their planes before flying them again in a few days

Reasonable. If UA found a wiring issue...

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 203):
“there [was] no smoke visually confirmed but there was also an unusual smell in the cockpit as well as in the cabin.”

Really? That is interesting...

Quoting PITingres (Reply 241):
If you do that you'll see from an official NTSB photo that the containment was so successful that the paint on the battery box was still largely intact.

That says a lot for how good the containment is.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: trex8
Posted 2013-01-16 06:51:05 and read 23111 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 227):
How, exactly, could the BOS incident have "ended badly if it had happened over the North Pacific?"

IF (and its a big if admittedly) the fire had gotten out of control, like Swissair 111, it took only 20 minutes to fall out of the sky, or 10 minutes for the Asiana 911 flight.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: TheRedBaron
Posted 2013-01-16 06:52:07 and read 23046 times.

When Aeromexico recieves their 787 I will be sure to bring my marshmallows on board !!!      

Well back on topic, I am happy that this incident was handled so profesionally by ANA pilots, also happy that ANA and JAL are taking a very cautious approach to this problem.

I am sure today Boeing will be 110% on the issues and working to see were this originated and or if its a design error.

Anyways good luck because with that many orders and $$$$ id be scared.

Best Regards TRB

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: PITingres
Posted 2013-01-16 06:59:16 and read 22801 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 244):
However, I think Boeing will have to change the batteries for PR and not technical reasons.

I hope not. That would impact the A350 as well, since I believe I read that it's using 4 Li-ion batteries (roughly the equivalent energy storage as the 787's pair I think, although I can't recall for sure if I read that or assumed that).

I have to wonder what the size and weight differential would be if Boeing had to a) replace the 2 large main batteries with say 4 smaller ones with individual containment, or b) drop Li entirely and revert to NiMH or some such tech.

Given that the primary containment seems to have worked (in the one situation for which we have some facts), if I were engineering it I think I'd try for some sort of secondary "fume hood" enclosure before giving up on Li. Or maybe a little ee-bay camera.  

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: martinrpo1
Posted 2013-01-16 07:00:07 and read 22684 times.

Grounding is ridiculous. The things that are happening are normal coming from a brand new aircraft. The media just exaggerates things out of proportion. If they followed all the airplane emergencies that they are following the 787, all aircraft types would be grounded by now

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: moo
Posted 2013-01-16 07:03:24 and read 22563 times.

Quoting martinrpo1 (Reply 247):
Grounding is ridiculous.

Did you just call two major Japanese airlines "ridiculous"? I hope not...

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: rcair1
Posted 2013-01-16 07:05:27 and read 22468 times.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 134):
I don't have the details of the ANA event, but it sounds like the captain did EXACTLY the right thing by landing at the nearest suitable airport. Good job.

Yes and evacuating. Unless the crew could physically determine the source of the smell and determine it was contained, the safe thing to do was to evacuation. Applause to ANA.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 136):
I would be demanding my payment from Boeing in gold. In fact, I would be on the next smoking 787 headed to Boeing in Chicago.

I assume you would be doing the same thing after every evacuation of every aircraft - except the destination might change. Evacuating an a/c is serious and typical some injuries happen. Hopefully the injuries to the lady are minimal and she recovers quickly.
Why gold?

Quoting RicknRoll (Reply 141):
Well, I'm out of popcorn, and every time I hit refresh, there are more replies.

But, no information.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 147):
To not see the possibility of any connection, or to not see the benefit in pressing the pause button for a little while to check things out, is just... I dunno. I can't picture what the thought process could be there.

The decision to inspect fleets by JAL and ANA will be informed by multiple items. At this early stage in an investigation - where we really don't know much (they know far more than us BTW) - one of the major factors will be the culture of the Japanese people and the conservativness of the companies. This may drive different behavior than other companies in other cultures.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 162):
ANA held a news conference with them being reportedly excessively apologetic. "Bowing deeply" according to fox.

Yes - that is what you would expect.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 165):
I also cant help but wonder why any of these problems weren't caught during the test program, isnt' that why they have the test program, to find, document, and fix any possible bug that could develop over the equivalent of a 30 year service life?

No - that would be testing in quality - and it never works. You design in quality, test subsystems and monitor.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 165):
wheel or else these batteries weren't properly quality controlled before being installed into the airplane.

We don't know. We don't even know what caused the JAL failure yet - much less the ANA one.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 165):
IMO this problem should have been discovered and fixed long before the airplanes ever entered commercial service.

What problem?
Please elucidate.
I'm sure Boeing, ANA and JAL would really appreciate you telling them what the problem is so they can fix it. It would save everybody a lot of time.

We don't know if we have a battery problem, a charging system problem, a wiring problem. BWT - how does a battery problem related to a fuel leak and a broken window. We don't even know if the JAL and ANA problem are related.

Quoting ordwaw (Reply 185):
Why is CNN publishing articles with such crazy titles?

Why should you be surprised by what the press does.

BTW - I've heard no reports of active fire fighting in Japan on the ANA a/c. Did the fire department take actions as they did in BOS, or did the event self limit?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: art
Posted 2013-01-16 07:13:07 and read 22021 times.

Quoting PITingres (Reply 246):
Given that the primary containment seems to have worked (in the one situation for which we have some facts), if I were engineering it I think I'd try for some sort of secondary "fume hood" enclosure before giving up on Li. Or maybe a little ee-bay camera.

Surely the temperature in each battery is monitored? Is there no warning that a battery is overheating so that the crew can switch systems off to reduce the load on the batteries and contain any further rise in temperature? Doesn't fix the problem that is causing the overheating but it would stop the situation escalating into an emergency.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 07:13:13 and read 22077 times.

Glad to see this wasn't locked given the back and forth I had to just sift through. Updated Japan Today article:
http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...kes-emergency-landing-in-takamatsu
Looks like more injuries upon landing at TAK were reported. Smoke alarms also went off too. One passenger reported a strange smell during takeoff. Ube isn't too far from TAK so this had to have transpired quickly.

Quoting LH526 (Reply 192):

That was yesterday's NH flight which landed from NRT

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-16 07:15:09 and read 22146 times.

Quoting martinrpo1 (Reply 247):
Grounding is ridiculous.
Quoting moo (Reply 248):
Did you just call two major Japanese airlines "ridiculous"? I hope not...

An airline must weigh the public perception factor into their decision making WRT a decision like this. Living in the western world, it is hard for us to imagine the public scrutiny Japanese airlines operate under. Even very minor problems are heavily reported in the media and a made excruciatingly painful for them.

The comments above about ANA executives at a press conference apologizing and bowing deeply is very telling to anyone who knows Japanese culture... this is a unspeakably huge embarrassment to them, even though it is not their fault. They would easily ground the fleet to save face at this point.

The industry processes used by the FAA, Boeing (and I'm sure Airbus) to decide if and when an airplane must be grounded is systematic and mathematical, based on a scorecard system which calculates the seriousness of an issue. If and when the 787 fleet is grounded, it will be a result of this safety review process, not because of any public hysteria.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: JAAlbert
Posted 2013-01-16 07:16:12 and read 22004 times.

If nothing else, it's nice knowing that the 787's slides operate flawlessly!

So if the battery is the problem and it's determined the battery must go, what does Boeing have available to replace it with?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: quiet1
Posted 2013-01-16 07:18:12 and read 22015 times.

Interesting photo on Yahoo: http://news.yahoo.com/photos/photo-t...gers-photo-124807541--finance.html

What the heck are those two F/A's doing still on the airplane, peering out the door? Shouldn't they evacuate with the passengers and tend to them -- assess injuries, calm & reassure, lead them to a safe location/distance from the aircraft, etc?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: UALWN
Posted 2013-01-16 07:24:37 and read 21614 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 252):
They would easily ground the fleet to save face at this point.

I would draw exactly the opposite conclusion: grounding the fleet is a huge loss of face. Hence they must have very good reasons to do it.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-01-16 07:30:43 and read 21286 times.

Quoting martinrpo1 (Reply 247):
Grounding is ridiculous. The things that are happening are normal coming from a brand new aircraft. The media just exaggerates things out of proportion. If they followed all the airplane emergencies that they are following the 787, all aircraft types would be grounded by now

I agree that the media have a tendency to blow things out of proportion and make connections between unconnected things - e.g. a battery failure and a crack in a windscreen.
That's by no means limited to the 787, though - after the Qantas A380 engine failure, everything and anything to do with the A380 was reported, down to a single blown tyre. You can find plenty of examples for this for all kinds of airplane types.

However, we currently had two serious issues that - as far as we know at this point - involve the 787's battery system. This means that both issues may actually be connected even before contemplating that the plane had its first electrical fire incident during flight testing.
Thus, some scrutiny is definitely warranted - in the same way that it was warranted regarding the A380's RR engines.

I think the trick is to neither blow things out of proportion nor pretend that everything's hunky dory and a battery fire and (probably) battery malfunction-induced emergency landing are no cause for concern.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: luv2fly
Posted 2013-01-16 07:34:25 and read 21087 times.

Quoting quiet1 (Reply 254):
What the heck are those two F/A's doing still on the airplane, peering out the door? Shouldn't they evacuate with the passengers and tend to them -- assess injuries, calm & reassure, lead them to a safe location/distance from the aircraft, etc?

2 crew members out of how many are still on the plane. Maybe they are the last to leave.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: oldeuropean
Posted 2013-01-16 07:35:08 and read 21133 times.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 244):
IF (and its a big if admittedly) the fire had gotten out of control, like Swissair 111, it took only 20 minutes to fall out of the sky, or 10 minutes for the Asiana 911 flight.

Or some minutes for UPS 6 after take off from DXB.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: mcdu
Posted 2013-01-16 07:35:37 and read 21182 times.

Quoting LY777 (Reply 221):
the 77W: there were numerous IFSD for the 77Ws: don't you remember when AF had an IFSD almost every week at some point? Then, everything turned OK.

I will give you the choice. You are at 30 West in the Atlantic. Your choice, fire on board or engine inflight shutdown. Think about Swissair, UPS and Asaina Cargo hull losses recently from fire. Now go look at the number of IFSD accidents.

If you prefer fire then so be it. I would prefer to take my chances with an IFSD.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 233):
If there is some evidence of fire damage to anything outside the containment structure before firefighting efforts began, please point me to it. I'm not aware of any.

How willing are you to test the limits of the containment box at 207 minutes ETOPS? You wouldn't mind flying 3:27 minutes with a burning/runaway battery? The mid-Pacific is not a place I would want to test the limits of this box and the other issues this plane is experiencing. Just to put 207 ETOPS in perspective, that is roughly the flight time from LAS to ORD with smoke,fumes etc. also the 787 is looking for 330 minute ETOPS or 5+30 minutes from suitable airport

Boeing may need to start asking some of the elder McD folks about the DC-10 program. This is starting to look similar. While the DC-10 survived a grounding by the FAA it was an ever present black eye for the fleet and company.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-01-16 07:36:08 and read 21104 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 252):
Even very minor problems are heavily reported in the media and a made excruciatingly painful for them.

I do not agree with that. The Japanese public do not chase "minor problems". This is far from minor, using the slides to get off the aircraft in a hurry at an unscheduled location is not minor, it is considered very serious. Minor, that would be the areas of resetting a computer, a seat that does not work, windows shade fault, unable to open a cargo door, APU inop, not an emergency evacuation due smoke.

Quoting CM (Reply 252):
The industry processes used by the FAA, Boeing (and I'm sure Airbus) to decide if and when an airplane must be grounded is systematic and mathematical, based on a scorecard system which calculates the seriousness of an issue.

What is more serious than smoke/fire in flight ? Give me an engine failure any day over that.

Quoting CM (Reply 252):
If and when the 787 fleet is grounded, it will be a result of this safety review process, not because of any public hysteria.

Or an accident, or an emergency AD, withdrawing the TCDS. Fact is no one knows what the problem is. IMHO the 787 is very close to a fleet wide grounding unless someone can identify the common cause. Regulators do not like aircraft making unscheduled landings for smoke for unknown reasons, historically it is a very dangerous in flight emergency resulting in a lot of aircraft lost and deaths.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-16 07:41:09 and read 20883 times.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 146):
To not see the possibility of any connection, or to not see the benefit in pressing the pause button for a little while to check things out, is just... I dunno. I can't picture what the thought process could be there.

Considering that all of these issues are occurring with airframes in revenue service, I admit to not seeing how grounding the fleet will help identify everything that is "wrong" with the plane. Yes, they would prevent any issues from happening again while the known problems are being examined and corrected, but then when the planes go back into service, new issues will assuredly crop up.

This particular airframe (JA804A) was delivered one year ago to the day of the incident. If there is a design problem in the batteries or the charging system, why did the plane not have this type of issue in the past 52 weeks? Is it because there is no design problem? Or is there a design problem that only manifests itself under a certain set of conditions and those conditions had not manifested themselves until yesterday?

JA829J, the JL plane that caught fire in Boston, had been delivered on 20 December 2012 - some two weeks before the incident. If there is a design issue that can and will cause the battery to catch fire in under three weeks, JA804A should have encountered a score of such incidents during her service life to date.

I would like to know old is the Ship's Battery on JA804A? Has it been in the airframe since delivery, or did NH replace it in the recent past?

[Edited 2013-01-16 07:58:53]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: starrion
Posted 2013-01-16 07:47:32 and read 20565 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 259):
How willing are you to test the limits of the containment box at 207 minutes ETOPS? You wouldn't mind flying 3:27 minutes with a burning/runaway battery? The mid-Pacific is not a place I would want to test the limits of this box and the other issues this plane is experiencing. Just to put 207 ETOPS in perspective, that is roughly the flight time from LAS to ORD with smoke,fumes etc. also the 787 is looking for 330 minute ETOPS or 5+30 minutes from suitable airportBoeing may need to start asking some of the elder McD folks about the DC-10 program. This is starting to look similar. While the DC-10 survived a grounding by the FAA it was an ever present black eye for the fleet and company.

The DC-10 that had a rear cargo door blowout that caused a hull loss and 300+ casualties?
The same model that had photos of another plane rolling after an engine fell off?

They are clearly equivilent.

Boeing needs to deal with this battery issue, but we do need to maintain perspective. This may be just a bad run of batteries.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 07:54:29 and read 20156 times.

More reading with your coffee this morning.
http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...reamliner-at-stake-as-probes-begin

Quoting zeke (Reply 260):

I do not agree with that. The Japanese public do not chase "minor problems". This is far from minor, using the slides to get off the aircraft in a hurry at an unscheduled location is not minor, it is considered very serious. Minor, that would be the areas of resetting a computer, a seat that does not work, windows shade fault, unable to open a cargo door, APU inop, not an emergency evacuation due smoke.

   if you need proof of this see my above article. With these incidents, especially with an emergency slide evacuation WITH injuries, the Japanese public is going to be really cautious about this.
Until Boeing does something proactive here, the 787 has a ruined rep in japan.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-16 07:56:14 and read 19992 times.

Crew leave the a/c last. Each airline's procedures are a bit different but at least one f/a sweeps the passenger area to check for people. In this case given there is little/no smoke or visible fire - they may stay on board and verify with crew on the ground as to the passenger count as well before leaving.

There would be f/a s who left the a/c earlier to assist passengers on the ground.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: blrsea
Posted 2013-01-16 07:56:14 and read 20013 times.

Quoting a36001 (Reply 185):
I imagine Air India will have a field day with this! Bet they demand Boeing take all their fleet back for refund plus compensation! Sorry but I am not a fan of Air India and their behaviour over the 787 has been borderline childish, IMO

And yours is a mature response??   Some people just want to take potshots at AI for unrelated issues. Whatever AI does will be as per the contract signed between AI and Boeing.

Are all these 787s facing issues manufactured/assembled in WA or are there some from the SC lines too? I don't believe any of SC assembled planes had rework done on them, right? It was mostly the WA ones?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: rcair1
Posted 2013-01-16 08:01:18 and read 19791 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 243):
However, I think Boeing will have to change the batteries for PR and not technical reasons.

I disagree. PR is the worst possible reason to make a technical decision because the PR 'mind' is notoriously fickle and short term. What they should do is find the problem(s), clearly articulate them and how they are fixed or mitigated.
It is a PR disaster to say 'we know the problem was xxx, but we will change yyy because and uninformed somebody thinks it may be yyy." Essentially, you are inferring you really don't know it was xxx - so you are changing yyy because you have low confidence.
BUT you'd better be darn sure it is xxx, and not yyy.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 244):
IF (and its a big if admittedly) the fire had gotten out of control, like Swissair 111, it took only 20 minutes to fall out of the sky, or 10 minutes for the Asiana 911 flight.

Given me a break. The fire on SW 111 was on wiring that had flammability issues, was not contained and was next to insulation that burned easily and quickly. There were no mechanisms or design features to contain or extinguish that fire. The fire on the JAL a/c was inside a containment system, located in a contained area, designed to contain the fire. We have no evidence, yet, that the containment failed or would have failed. Actions by the BFD, while effective and understandable, may have a deleterious effect on determining if the containment would have worked. The Heisenberg uncertainly principle writ large.

We don't even know if there was a fire on the ANA 787. We only know there was a smell and an abnormal battery indication. I've seen one report of leaking electrolytic fluid (does anybody know if the batteries or electrolytic or Li-polymer?). I've read no data that says the fire department in Japan breached the forward electrical bay or took any actions. Did the 'incident' self limit? What actions were taken by the crew? Was the battery isolated? What the battery hot? What was the indication provided to the crew?

Relating SW111 and the ANA incidents is only appropriate in one aspect - judging if the ANA crew did the right thing by putting the a/c on the ground and evacuating. In that regard - I think the judgment by all credible people here is that the actions they would were appropriate, if cautious. If you have an undetermined source of burning smell/smoke - you land and evacuate. The consequences of landing/evacuating are small compared to the consequences of an unconstrained fire on board and a/c - so you act on the worst case scenario.

Quoting martinrpo1 (Reply 247):
Grounding is ridiculous.

No - it is not. Grounding by ANA and JAL is a reflection of 2 incidents and a culture of caution/responsibility in Japan. Remember - this is a culture where people who have been perceived to fail have committed suicide. It may or may not be warranted on a technical basis - I suspect not - or there would have been a directive to ground all 787's. (If ANA or JAL have real evidence of a systematic and dangerous condition - do you think the regulatory agencies would not be informed and take action?) I think it is a cautious approach completely in keeping with their culture. It is cautious, it is not unreasonable and it is certainly not ridiculous.

At most it is over cautious - but that is a judgement call made by the airlines.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 255):
grounding the fleet is a huge loss of face.

For Boeing - not for JAL and ANA. ANA will suffer a small loss of face for not delivering the passengers as they said they will - that is cultural. They will suffer slightly more for forcing evac and for injuries sustained. They would suffer great loss of face if they did not ground the fleet and another thing (serious or not) happened shortly.

It is loss of face for Boeing and you can be sure the Boeing execs working with JAL and ANA are bowing deeply.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: Aesma
Posted 2013-01-16 08:02:08 and read 19691 times.

Another thing about Japan, don't forget Japanese companies are very involved in the building of the 787, the wings are made there !

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-16 08:03:01 and read 19755 times.

Quoting blrsea (Reply 265):
Are all these 787s facing issues manufactured/assembled in WA or are there some from the SC lines too? I don't believe any of SC assembled planes had rework done on them, right? It was mostly the WA ones?

Most of Air India's current fleet is from CHS and they have had undefined "electrical issues".


Quoting Aesma (Reply 267):
Another thing about Japan, don't forget Japanese companies are very involved in the building of the 787, the wings are made there !

They also make Section 43 (the forward fuselage), Section 45 (the main landing gear wheel well) and the Ship's and APU Batteries.

[Edited 2013-01-16 08:10:46]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-16 08:06:12 and read 19525 times.

UA a/c #8 to be delivered at the end of 2013 will come from CHS, the other seven have or will come from PAE.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: na
Posted 2013-01-16 08:12:13 and read 19174 times.

I wonder if the accident investigations into the two 744F fires (UPS and Asiana) in 2010/11 have been further narrowed down to be Lithium-battery related.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: UALWN
Posted 2013-01-16 08:13:50 and read 19189 times.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 266):
Quoting UALWN (Reply 255):
grounding the fleet is a huge loss of face.

For Boeing - not for JAL and ANA. ANA will suffer a small loss of face for not delivering the passengers as they said they will - that is cultural. They will suffer slightly more for forcing evac and for injuries sustained. They would suffer great loss of face if they did not ground the fleet and another thing (serious or not) happened shortly.

It is loss of face for Boeing and you can be sure the Boeing execs working with JAL and ANA are bowing deeply.

It is certainly a loss of face for Boeing, but also for NH and JL, which now have accepted that they have bought a plane that is somewhat "unsafe," or simply "less than perfect." That's a loss of face for them right there.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-01-16 08:21:33 and read 18788 times.

The JAL airplane was Line #84 (highest Line # delivered so far) and the ANA airplane was Line #9.

And I'll say again:

As far as "warnings" are concerned, there are no WARNING, CAUTION or ADVISORY messages that relate to the APU BATTERY. There are ADVISORY messages that deal with the MAIN BATTERY. There are a million STATUS messages but those are something the flight crew doesn't normally react to.


There were no red lights, bells, whistles or buzzers going off in the cockpit. There was a "smell", an ADVISORY message (maybe) and a weeks worth of bad PR.

Quoting quiet1 (Reply 254):
What the heck are those two F/A's doing still on the airplane, peering out the door? Shouldn't they evacuate with the passengers and tend to them -- assess injuries, calm & reassure, lead them to a safe location/distance from the aircraft, etc?

They've decided it's safer to stay on the airplane than it is to go down the slide--good choice.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: tarheelwings
Posted 2013-01-16 08:28:18 and read 18368 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 260):
This is far from minor, using the slides to get off the aircraft in a hurry at an unscheduled location is not minor, it is considered very serious. Minor, that would be the areas of resetting a computer, a seat that does not work, windows shade fault, unable to open a cargo door, APU inop, not an emergency evacuation due smoke.

Not sure why you think CM is stating this is a minor event.....in fact, he is not. He is simply making a statement on what he believes the Japanese reaction is to certain events.

Quoting zeke (Reply 260):
What is more serious than smoke/fire in flight ? Give me an engine failure any day over that.

Again, CM is not saying this issue is not serious....he is pointing out what the process is in deciding whether or not to ground a plane.

Quoting zeke (Reply 260):
Or an accident, or an emergency AD, withdrawing the TCDS. Fact is no one knows what the problem is. IMHO the 787 is very close to a fleet wide grounding unless someone can identify the common cause. Regulators do not like aircraft making unscheduled landings for smoke for unknown reasons, historically it is a very dangerous in flight emergency resulting in a lot of aircraft lost and deaths.


   I think everyone would agree with this statement.....the question is, are we at the point where the authorities know enough to ground the plane? Or should they err on the side of safety and ground it immediately?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-01-16 08:32:06 and read 18250 times.

It was a battery problem also for this flight:

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine...a-787-had-battery-leak-flight-0116

According to a statement, ANA flight NH692 was flying from Yamaguchi Ube to Haneda when aircraft indicators showed messages related to the battery. “There was also an unusual smell in the cockpit as well as in the cabin and the flight made an emergency landing at Takamatsu Airport,” ANA said.

“Later it was confirmed that the main battery in the forward electronic equipment bay was discolored and the electrolysis solution had leaked.”

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-16 08:32:29 and read 18253 times.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 272):
As far as "warnings" are concerned, there are no WARNING, CAUTION or ADVISORY messages that relate to the APU BATTERY. There are ADVISORY messages that deal with the MAIN BATTERY. There are a million STATUS messages but those are something the flight crew doesn't normally react to.

Not sure if you are referring to this specific incident or not, but if you are, the issue isa said to have happened with the Ship's (Main) Battery.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: CO953
Posted 2013-01-16 08:37:17 and read 17987 times.

What bothers me a bit is that due to the extended delays/rollout of the 787, one would think that a recurring problem with batteries would have surfaced at some point during test flights. Maybe it's an issue where - if, and that's a big "if," - if it's the batteries and not the wiring, it was of the sort that required the batteries to reach a certain number of cycles before the problem cropped up - a number of cycles that was not reached in any testing?.

I would be curious to see the cycle-count in all affected frames.

[Edited 2013-01-16 08:39:05]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: rcair1
Posted 2013-01-16 08:39:35 and read 18302 times.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 256):
its first electrical fire incident during flight testing.

Are you implying that they are related? The issue during flight test was FOD causing an arc. How is that related to battery issues? If we find FOD inside the battery that shorted - then we will have a link - but since the two items are built by different people in different places, it will be hard to relate them even then.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 259):
How willing are you to test the limits of the containment box at 207 minutes ETOPS?

While ETOPS 207 allows an aircraft to be that far away - the period of time at which the a/c is that far away is measured in minutes. Obviously if you don't want to test this with people on board and in real situations - it would be equivalent testing your new SCBA design by sending a fire fighter into smoke with it. You test in controlled situations where peoples lives are not at risk. The point of the test is to prove that the design is such that if it did happen in real life, the system would work. Similarly, you test the a/c failure mode in a lab, not while 207 minutes away from safety.
If Boeing did their job - the containment system for the battery would work long enough for it to self extinguish - which is far less than 207 minutes.

Let's drop the hyperbole.
The pertinent questions are:
- In the JAL case - what cause the failure and would containment have worked to the design specification?
- In ANA case - what caused the failure and would containment have worked to the design specification?
- Are they related at all?
- If the answer to the "would they have worked" question in either case is no - what actions do we need to take on a fleet basis immediately and long term. This, by the way, is the most critical and short term question. The grounding of the JAL and ANA fleet is a partial answer to that. Largely, I think, for cultural reasons they are choosing to take the cautious approach. The fact that the batteries are Japanese may even play into this.
- In either case, was the failure systematic (design) or component (manf) related?

Quoting starrion (Reply 262):
The DC-10 that had a rear cargo door blowout that caused a hull loss and 300+ casualties?
The same model that had photos of another plane rolling after an engine fell off?

They are clearly equivilent.

I don't understand. The cause of the DC-10 engine loss was maintenance procedures being used - procedures that were not approved. The door issue was design. How are these equivalent to anything we are talking about here?

The 747 also had a cargo door blowout - which did not result in hull loss, but did kill. That was a design flaw. Yet the 747 survived and is well respected.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 263):
Until Boeing does something proactive here, the 787 has a ruined rep in japan.

I would agree. However, remember that the 747 crash after the rear pressure bulkhead failed due to a clearly flawed Boeing repair did not cause Japan to "loose respect" for the 747 or Boeing. Boeing responded in a way that allowed Japan to accept it.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: jreuschl
Posted 2013-01-16 08:41:38 and read 18209 times.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 276):
batteries to reach a certian number of cycles before the problem cropped up - a number of cycles that was not reached in any testing?.

The BOS incident was on a 787 less than a month old, though.

I guess Boeing has to hope it is "just" a battery problem and nothing more. That still may involve finding another supplier or battery design.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: CO953
Posted 2013-01-16 08:42:25 and read 18130 times.

Regarding loss of "face," I would suspect that the Japanese public, fairly or not, would blame "sloppy Americans" for the problem, more than ANA or JAL, as Boeing is an American company, regardless of the actual provenance of individual components.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-01-16 08:44:18 and read 18049 times.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 220):
As I said after the Boston incident, Nobody knows what went wrong, and until then we should all take a chill pill, and come back in 24 hours

There have been many 24-hour periods since the BOS incident, and more incidents have occurred in these periods. So how much longer do you suggest people take a chill pill and not take act with some urgency?

Quoting capri (Reply 223):
remember guys A320 first flight tests, it even crashed, and look where is A320 family now

No A320 crashed during test flights. No A330 either. In fact no commercial jet aircraft I am aware of has crashed during testing / prior to EIS, other than the Sukhoi SJ-100.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 235):
Quoting capri (Reply 224):
remember guys A320 first flight tests, it even crashed, and look where is A320 family now

There was nothing special that I heard of during the A320 flight testing. It crashed after EIS.

And the A330 crash on a test flight was also after EIS.

Both crashes happened while performing extreme maneuvers, not regular commercial operations.

Exactly.

Quoting martinrpo1 (Reply 247):
Grounding is ridiculous. The things that are happening are normal coming from a brand new aircraft.

Teeething problems are to be expected, but the rate of occurence and apparent severity of these incidents in a short period of time is certainly not normal.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 255):
I would draw exactly the opposite conclusion: grounding the fleet is a huge loss of face. Hence they must have very good reasons to do it.

Agree 100%.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: wb556
Posted 2013-01-16 08:45:57 and read 18085 times.

Quoting brushpilot (Reply 190):




I know everyone says the battery fires in flight would be contained but I'm sorry I wouldn't want to be in the middle of a trans-pacific flight with this going on below deck.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: jreuschl
Posted 2013-01-16 08:46:52 and read 17960 times.

Out of curiosity, do new airplanes come with a warranty from Boeing like a new car would?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-16 08:48:22 and read 17950 times.

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 278):
The BOS incident was on a 787 less than a month old, though.

And the TAK incident was on a 787 delivered exactly one year prior.


Quoting sankaps (Reply 280):
No A320 crashed during test flights. No A330 either.

Incorrect on the A330. The type's first fatal accident occurred on 30 June 1994 near Toulouse on a test flight when an Airbus-owned A330-300 crashed while simulating an engine failure on climbout, killing all seven on board.



Quoting wb556 (Reply 281):
I know everyone says the battery fires in flight would be contained but I'm sorry I wouldn't want to be in the middle of a trans-pacific flight with this going on below deck.

But look at the containment box. The paint is not even blackened in most places.

Clearly a major thermal event was occurring inside, but the containment box appears to have been containing it. And a battery can only burn for so long. It does not have an inexhaustible fuel source. So even if this had happened in the middle of a trans-Pacific flight, I don't see evidence that it would have burned for so long as to breach the containment box (at least in a catastrophic way). It appears to me that it would have self-extinguised when it ran out of fuel before then.

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 282):
Out of curiosity, do new airplanes come with a warranty from Boeing like a new car would?

Yes they do.

[Edited 2013-01-16 08:53:25]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: CO953
Posted 2013-01-16 08:49:09 and read 17891 times.

I think Cajun sometimes, being from south Louisiana. If it were Cajun Airlines, Troy Landry and the "Swamp People" would be busy rigging up a 50-pound bag of sand and a rope the pilots could cut in the cockpit to drop the sand on a burning battery  

[Edited 2013-01-16 08:50:18]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: rcair1
Posted 2013-01-16 08:55:57 and read 17605 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 271):
which now have accepted that they have bought a plane that is somewhat "unsafe," or simply "less than perfect." That's a loss of face for them right there.

No - they have not. This would happen if they start canceling orders, etc.
The loss of face, to date, is related to not providing the carriage they promised. It may extend, strangely, to causing injuries on evacuation if there is a determination that evacuation was not required - however I think that unlikely.
The Japanese battery company MAY loose face if they find that there is a battery issue.

BTW - the data I see the ANA aircraft is 1 yr old, and the JAL one is 3 weeks, is an indicator to me these problems are probably unrelated to systems and more related to components or manf error. Not a conclusion, just an indicator. The 'distance' in time of electronic failures is an indicator of different mechanisms. Again - not a conclusion, just an indicator.
BTW - this is from the perspective of an Electrical Engineer (Ph.D.) who did quality control on consumer electronics for 20+ years. Electronic failures tend to happen in 2 modes - an infancy mode and an operation mode. Typically, if electronics survive the initial hours of operation - they live to expected end of life.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: art
Posted 2013-01-16 08:57:54 and read 17498 times.

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 278):
I guess Boeing has to hope it is "just" a battery problem and nothing more. That still may involve finding another supplier or battery design.

"Were it to be "just" a battery problem and nothing more, how long to find another supplier? How long would a redesign take and manufacturing of new batteries? Would the Japanese 787's remain grounded until new batteries were available?

If the problem is the batteries, good news for A350XWB - Airbus should be spared the problem that Boeing is experiencing since the problem will have been identified and resolved before the A350XWB goes into service.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-01-16 08:59:44 and read 17404 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 283):
Incorrect on the A330. The type's first fatal accident occurred on 30 June 1994 near Toulouse on a test flight when an Airbus-owned A330-300 crashed while simulating an engine failure on climbout, killing all seven on board.

You are splitting hairs here. It was not a pre-EIS test flight for the type. It was a certificato flight for P&W engines and the crash was the result of the crew putting the aircraft through stresses it was not designed for.

[Edited 2013-01-16 09:05:41]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: wb556
Posted 2013-01-16 09:00:00 and read 17429 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 283):

Yes silly me, looks perfectly safe.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: UALWN
Posted 2013-01-16 09:02:28 and read 17284 times.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 285):
No - they have not. This would happen if they start canceling orders, etc.

I know this is a pontless discussion, but I fail to see why canceling orders would lead to lose of face while grounding the fleet would not: both are admissions of poor judgement when ordering the planes in the first place.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 09:08:58 and read 17008 times.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 277):
I would agree. However, remember that the 747 crash after the rear pressure bulkhead failed due to a clearly flawed Boeing repair did not cause Japan to "loose respect" for the 747 or Boeing. Boeing responded in a way that allowed Japan to accept it.

I agree here, but what has Boeing done so far? Obviously this is very early into the investigation.

As for updates from japan: it's late over there so nothing showing so far.
A brief Yomiuri headline says that the JMoT and the NTSB are going to TAK to investigate what specifically happened on ship 804. That's all it says so far.

AV Herald reported that the lithium ion battery overheated and leaked. I didn't see that in any article I read thus far.

[Edited 2013-01-16 09:16:08]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-16 09:13:36 and read 16887 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 260):
The Japanese public do not chase "minor problems".

Actually, the Japanese media do. Delays of any consequence at all in their domestic operation are frequently in the press.

Quoting zeke (Reply 260):
This is far from minor,

I did not say nor mean to imply this event was minor in any way whatsoever. Obviously it was a serious event and I do not question the crew decision to put the airplane on the ground and evacuate via the slides. Please reference my comment in #148...

Quoting CM (Reply 148):
I do not blame the pilots for diverting for even minor smoke in the cabin, if it was truly accompanied by a battery fault indication. The unfinished investigation into the 787's recent battery fire would pretty much guarantee this outcome.



Quoting zeke (Reply 260):
Or an accident, or an emergency AD, withdrawing the TCDS. Fact is no one knows what the problem is. IMHO the 787 is very close to a fleet wide grounding unless someone can identify the common cause. Regulators do not like aircraft making unscheduled landings for smoke for unknown reasons, historically it is a very dangerous in flight emergency resulting in a lot of aircraft lost and deaths.

My point was that if the airplane is grounded by the FAA and / or Boeing, it will not be because of any level of hysteria or emotional response to these issues (see approximately 50% of the posts above). The grounding decision will be based on a very established SRB process, which is agnostic to public perception, media hype and PR influences. Would you want it any other way? This is why I wrote...

Quoting CM (Reply 252):
The industry processes used by the FAA, Boeing (and I'm sure Airbus) to decide if and when an airplane must be grounded is systematic and mathematical, based on a scorecard system which calculates the seriousness of an issue. If and when the 787 fleet is grounded, it will be a result of this safety review process, not because of any public hysteria.

Since I received a PM asking if I felt the grounding was "idiotic" (as was mentioned by one poster above), or was warranted, I'll clarify my earlier post: The ANA and JAL decisions to ground the 787 are certainly not "idiotic". I cannot say whether the decision is justified technically or not, the SRB process, in conjunction with the FAA investigation will sort out the technical justification for continuing to fly or for any kind of fleet action. However, in the case of ANA and JAL, they are dealing with more than just the technical aspects of the 787. This is their flagship aircraft, it is the product they sell to the public, and the 787 is very much at the heart of how their business is perceived by the world. Because of this, they must weigh in the PR aspect of operating the airplane at this time, in addition to any technical considerations. ANA and JAL don't know something about the safety of the airplane which LOT, UAL, QTR, AIN and ETH unaware of. ANA and JAL are just facing different pressures, which is why it is silly for any of us to question or challenge their decision to ground their fleet.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-01-16 09:18:34 and read 16598 times.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 272):
As far as "warnings" are concerned, there are no WARNING, CAUTION or ADVISORY messages that relate to the APU BATTERY. There are ADVISORY messages that deal with the MAIN BATTERY. There are a million STATUS messages but those are something the flight crew doesn't normally react to. There were no red lights, bells, whistles or buzzers going off in the cockpit. There was a "smell", an ADVISORY message (maybe) and a weeks worth of bad PR.

As you mention a "smell", you're talking about the ANA plane, in which case I don't know why you mention APU Battery, as the battery involved here was the main battery, and the cockpit crew were given an error message about that battery during flight.

I couldn't find any details about the exact nature of the error message, but I can certainly understand if the pilots decide to do an emergency landing with a main battery failure message and an unusual odour in the plane. Sure, trying to avoid a fire similar to the JAL 787's - except at 30,000ft - may have contributed to that decision.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 277):
Quoting anfromme (Reply 256):
its first electrical fire incident during flight testing.
Are you implying that they are related? The issue during flight test was FOD causing an arc. How is that related to battery issues?

I'm not saying they are related, I'm saying they could be related and I can certainly see a reason for checking the 787's electrical systems, just to be safe. (Which seems to be what the FAA is planning to do anyway.)

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 277):
The pertinent questions are:
- In the JAL case - what cause the failure and would containment have worked to the design specification?
- In ANA case - what caused the failure and would containment have worked to the design specification?
- Are they related at all?
- If the answer to the "would they have worked" question in either case is no - what actions do we need to take on a fleet basis immediately and long term. This, by the way, is the most critical and short term question. The grounding of the JAL and ANA fleet is a partial answer to that. Largely, I think, for cultural reasons they are choosing to take the cautious approach. The fact that the batteries are Japanese may even play into this.
- In either case, was the failure systematic (design) or component (manf) related?

I fully agree.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: spacecadet
Posted 2013-01-16 09:34:50 and read 15919 times.

Quoting pilotanthony (Reply 170):
2. The active runway was closed, making it no longer ACTIVE

And the passengers would know this how?

If you are a passenger, and you have just landed on a runway, would you assume it's closed?

Regardless, there *were* people on the grass - did you watch the video? I still don't understand where you think people should have gone. The safety instructions specifically tell passengers to wait for instructions from the crew after deplaning. They don't say "run for your lives!" because that would frankly and obviously be unsafe, in the same way randomly running around runways and taxiways of any major airport any other time would be unsafe.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 238):
Say you break a taillight while backing up, and your car radio stops working 2 days later, would you lump these problems together as "your car is unreliable" ?

If my tail light went out, and then 2 days later my radio went out, you bet I would lump them together and say "hey, maybe my car has an electrical problem."

Quoting Stitch (Reply 261):
If there is a design problem in the batteries or the charging system, why did the plane not have this type of issue in the past 52 weeks?

Because not every potential problem happens on the first day of delivery?

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 266):
The fire on SW 111 was on wiring that had flammability issues, was not contained and was next to insulation that burned easily and quickly. There were no mechanisms or design features to contain or extinguish that fire.

The insulation was supposed to be fireproof. That was the design feature meant to contain that fire, and it failed. It had been tested under circumstances that differed from the small, enclosed space in which it was used in the ceiling of the DC-10.

Engineers are not infallible.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 279):
I would suspect that the Japanese public, fairly or not, would blame "sloppy Americans" for the problem, more than ANA or JAL

The Japanese still blame JAL for flight 123, and always have, even though it was 100% Boeing's fault.

Many westerners still don't understand the Japanese work ethic or culture of responsibility. There's no passing the buck. JAL 123 was a JAL plane and JAL should have known what was going on with it and fixed it; that's how the Japanese feel about it. If Boeing made a faulty repair, JAL should have checked it and shouldn't have flown the plane until they did. Boeing didn't choose to fly that plane, JAL did.

The same would be true of this kind of thing. It's a PR nightmare not just for Boeing, but for ANA and JAL too. And it's no doubt one big reason for the groundings. JAL and ANA have to do everything they can do to reassure the public; these are their planes, not Boeing's, and they are responsible for any technical problems in the eyes of the public.

[Edited 2013-01-16 09:40:43]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: art
Posted 2013-01-16 09:35:15 and read 15986 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 280):
In fact no commercial jet aircraft I am aware of has crashed during testing / prior to EIS,

There is one that I am aware of: the BAC 1-11 went down in testing in 1963 because it could not recover from a "superstall".

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: seahawks7757
Posted 2013-01-16 09:42:15 and read 15591 times.

A report about all of the 787 issues in the last several weeks-
http://www.airlinereporter.com/2013/...ner-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 09:43:56 and read 15664 times.

All,
I just finished translating an article from the Asahi Shimbun, another major news source in Japan.
http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0116/TKY201301160371.html?ref=rss

Please bear with me as its a lot of information.
On the morning of the 16th, NH 692, JA804A, took off from Yamaguchi Airport in Ube, at 8:28 local.
30 minutes into flight, the pilot flying contacted ATC in Fukuoka (FUK) and stated there was smoke in the cockpit, with a slight English anomaly: "cockpit in smoke."
Passengers reported that smoke began appearing in the cabin at the same time.
A gradual descent was initiated.
Sensors on board detected serious smoke in the cargo hold under the main cabin.
The actual lithium ion battery by the APU indeed failed as it overheated as established from other sources.
No power output therefore could occur. Auxilillary batteries would have had to been activated.
Because of that, and the smoke not subsiding, the pilots requested emergency landing at TAK, as it would have been right by TAK at that time.
Descent and landing took about 10 minutes, which passengers described as extremely tense and nervous. By this time the whole cabin was filled with an acrid smell.

The plane, as we have established, made its successful emergency landing on the runway and pulled off to a runway exit and evacuated using emergency slides. 1 person was taken to the hospital with hip injuries and other abrasion related injuries were treated on site. Smoke subsided in the cabin after landing but poured from an outflow valve while on the ground.

TAK was closed but I think they towed ship 804 to a remote for investigation. I'll check later when the airports normally open if TAK is open for business today.

Please refer to this for updated news and factual information. But as for the Japanese public, they're quite shaken by this. The Asahi Shimbun is calling this a strange anomaly, which are words which could create nervousness among the society.


Please excuse any erroneous translation, as my Japanese isn't the best. This took about 30 minutes to do.

Non translation references:
Ube Airport in Yamaguchi has the IATA code of UBJ with runway 7/35 as 2500 m, 8,202 f.

[Edited 2013-01-16 09:47:35]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: jetblueguy22
Posted 2013-01-16 09:46:04 and read 15505 times.

This thread has become quite long. A second thread was started to continue the discussion. It can be found here ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2 (by jetblueguy22 Jan 16 2013 in Civil Aviation)
All posts after this will be removed for housekeeping purposes only.
Thanks
Blue

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-16 09:48:12 and read 15433 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 261):
If there is a design problem in the batteries or the charging system, why did the plane not have this type of issue in the past 52 weeks?
Quoting spacecadet (Reply 293):
Because not every potential problem happens on the first day of delivery?

Gee, I said exactly that in the same post. I wonder why you chose not to quote that, as well...   

Quoting Stitch (Reply 261):
Is it because there is no design problem? Or is there a design problem that only manifests itself under a certain set of conditions and those conditions had not manifested themselves until yesterday?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2013-01-16 12:39:37 and read 10448 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 243):

Finally some information worth going through all the posts. Thank you.

I believe (but my friends who could confirm are being quiet as their NDAs require) that it is a wiring issue. Perhaps a software issue. But not an issue that couldn't be overcome.

As a software engineer I disagree with that. Batteries you can just replace, but with problems in software... just being able to replicate the conditions that lead to inappropriate behavior could turn out to be very difficult. Give me a battery replacement any day over software fix.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 242):
Quoting airmagnac (Reply 239):
What facts ? We know close to nothing about what caused the ANA diversion, and little more than "the APU battery caught fire" in the case of JAL. What we are discussing here are claims, guesses and rumours produced to try to fill a lack of knowledge of system engineering, testing protocols and certification rules. There is nothing wrong with that as long as you keep in mind this is all speculation

The underlying problem IMO is really that the human mind tends to think in binary terms - yes/no, good/bad, black/white, or in this case, pro-Boeing/anti/Boeing, normal-and-100% safe/catastrophically-dangerous-the-whole-fleet-has-to-be-grounded. The real world is slightly more subtle and has more shades of gray to it. This problem is certainly not normal, this is certainly bad, this is certainly to be investigated, this is certainly to be solved. But this not does necessarily mean that this battery issue will be

Very well written.   I completely agree with your analysis of which I highlighted this part as the best.

  

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 243):
Quoting PITingres (Reply 241):
If you do that you'll see from an official NTSB photo that the containment was so successful that the paint on the battery box was still largely intact.

That says a lot for how good the containment is.

Yes, but the containment was demonstrably not complete. Or else there would not have been smoke in the cabin. We could argue whether the situation would have been different in the air. Tom and CM have given good reasons why it would be, but that's a case that was not tested in Boston.

If (and that's a big if) the Tokyo incident turns out to be an issue with the same battery, I'd argue that containment in the air wasn't perfect for some reason. You could certainly argue that it was good enough, just smells and no dangerous amounts of smoke. But it was not a 100% clean containment.

Anyway, I fully agree with people who are saying we need to understand these events before classifying them or assigning the final significance to them. There is a very big difference between:

  • * Manufacturing fault in a specific battery model
  • * Design fault in the electrical system, air flows, containment, etc.
  • * Software fault in the management system
  • * General workmanship quality problem
  • * General design quality problem


We just do not know which category or categories these events belong to. It could be very, very bad depending on the outcome. Or absolutely minor. I'm thinking minor, because battery containment, air flows, fire suppression should be relatively well known issues and the appropriate fixes should have been taken into account by the engineers. I'm keeping thumbs up that FAA studies and airline inspections will indeed verify that all this has been true teething problems. But we just don't know yet. Sorry. You have to wait a few days or even longer before anyone knows what the issues are, and why they are happening.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing And Fleet Grounding
Username: mham001
Posted 2013-01-16 18:15:59 and read 5803 times.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 253):
So if the battery is the problem and it's determined the battery must go, what does Boeing have available to replace it with?

LiFePo4 is safer but not as dense so they would probably need more space. They also have slightly different voltage than the Yuasa's.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/