Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5798141/

Topic: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: n797mx
Posted 2013-06-23 09:07:53 and read 24731 times.

http://fr24.com/UAL94
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...4/history/20130623/1400Z/KIAH/KIAH

At the time of this post it has done 4-5 holds over I believe the Millsap VOR while maintaining 41,000ft. Tail number N27903.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: SpaceshipDC10
Posted 2013-06-23 09:15:13 and read 24680 times.

It's now descending.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: klwright69
Posted 2013-06-23 09:57:44 and read 24294 times.

This flight is about to land in DEN. Its scheduled arrival is within minutes.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: 71Zulu
Posted 2013-06-23 10:06:25 and read 24166 times.

Not sure what is going on, FA shows a diversion to IAH, United.com shows arriving DEN

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-06-23 10:07:34 and read 24165 times.

Quoting klwright69 (Reply 2):
This flight is about to land in DEN.

Flight tracker shows the landing in IAH not DEN.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: TheRedBaron
Posted 2013-06-23 10:08:16 and read 24136 times.

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 3):

??? is it in Denver or Houston?

weird...

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: kl911
Posted 2013-06-23 10:10:38 and read 24107 times.

Flightradar24 has it coming back to IAH, and is based on real-time user data, users with transponder receivers. Above the US that is only the case if the symbol is yellow on the screen. When orange, it is based on FAA data.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: 71Zulu
Posted 2013-06-23 10:16:44 and read 24026 times.

It is definitely back in IAH, united.com is wrong. I just listened to the liveatc archive and UAL 94 arrived at IAH

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ki...-Twr-App-ZHU-Jun-23-2013-1630Z.mp3

First hear him about 21:40

Didn't hear the approach and landing but after landing, the pilot says We're OK

[Edited 2013-06-23 10:24:59]

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: burnsie28
Posted 2013-06-23 10:26:27 and read 23888 times.

They have now delayed the DEN-NRT flight, it will now operate with the aircraft that just came from NRT.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: klwright69
Posted 2013-06-23 10:32:26 and read 23795 times.

Yes, the website has said contradictory things over the last 15 minutes regarding this flight.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: Tigerguy
Posted 2013-06-23 10:32:55 and read 23829 times.

I was on this flight. Currently standing in line in IAH to be rebooked. About halfway through, they did not know whether the brakes would work when we landed, so we turned back here. Emergency procedures were demonstrated, but the brakes worked and we did not have to brace. Excellent job by the crew and the pax for remaining calm.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: klwright69
Posted 2013-06-23 10:40:56 and read 23690 times.

I hope this plane will be ready to do the expanded international flying in August: IAH-LOS and LAX-NRT. The LHR-IAH 787 flight has been late everyday, flights always delayed by several hours.

What a mess. I hope the issues get sorted out.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: 71Zulu
Posted 2013-06-23 10:45:27 and read 23625 times.

Quoting Tigerguy (Reply 10):

OK, thanks for the report.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: HOmSaR
Posted 2013-06-23 10:52:06 and read 23514 times.

Quoting Tigerguy (Reply 10):
I was on this flight. Currently standing in line in IAH to be rebooked. About halfway through, they did not know whether the brakes would work when we landed, so we turned back here. Emergency procedures were demonstrated, but the brakes worked and we did not have to brace. Excellent job by the crew and the pax for remaining calm.

I'm curious. If the question is about how something might/might not work on landing, why the need to divert/turn back?

Is it because 787 maintenance is done in IAH that, if something went wrong, they could repair it easier?

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: mcdu
Posted 2013-06-23 11:05:34 and read 23376 times.

Quoting HOmSaR (Reply 13):
I'm curious. If the question is about how something might/might not work on landing, why the need to divert/turn back?

Is it because 787 maintenance is done in IAH that, if something went wrong, they could repair it easier?

Yes. The 787 maintenance base is in IAH. Along with the Boeing tech reps that scratch their head each time something like this happens. The 787 is filled with mechanical abnormalities. I just find it hard to believe that Boeing put forth such a shoddy product. The airplanes are maintained according to the Boeing standards and requirements. It seems apart from the recent eng problems the big issue is the computer code. It is as buggy as something Microsoft would put out. Horrendously temperamental and it gives false failure warnings at outrageous rates.

Personally I don't think the big issues with this plane will be over for a long time to come . Worries me that UA has staked so much on the 787 going forward. Currently it is a mass of Carbon Fiber crap.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: Tigerguy
Posted 2013-06-23 11:17:41 and read 23245 times.

Quoting HOmSaR (Reply 13):
Is it because 787 maintenance is done in IAH that, if something went wrong, they could repair it easier?

Yes. The captain did mention that IAH was preferred due to it being the base. His exact words about the problem were "we may or may not have brakes". I've since heard that it may have been a computer glitch, but it was just gossip from someone in line and I cannot confirm.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: Goldenshield
Posted 2013-06-23 11:37:14 and read 23052 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 14):
It seems apart from the recent eng problems the big issue is the computer code.

And despite the engineers' best efforts and intentions, bugs may still happen if the software is patched, and no matter how tight the QA on something, something will still slip through. Anyone remember the Mars lander accident a few years ago?

(Yes, folks, I'm agreeing with McDu here...)

Quoting Tigerguy (Reply 10):
Emergency procedures were demonstrated, but the brakes worked and we did not have to brace

Did they say what the primary issue was?

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-06-23 11:38:35 and read 23026 times.

Quoting Tigerguy (Reply 10):

I was on this flight. Currently standing in line in IAH to be rebooked. About halfway through, they did not know whether the brakes would work when we landed, so we turned back here.

Ok, I know you are all thinking it.. Electric brakes.. battery power..

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: cjg225
Posted 2013-06-23 11:48:08 and read 22858 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 14):
Yes. The 787 maintenance base is in IAH. Along with the Boeing tech reps that scratch their head each time something like this happens. The 787 is filled with mechanical abnormalities. I just find it hard to believe that Boeing put forth such a shoddy product. The airplanes are maintained according to the Boeing standards and requirements. It seems apart from the recent eng problems the big issue is the computer code. It is as buggy as something Microsoft would put out. Horrendously temperamental and it gives false failure warnings at outrageous rates.

Personally I don't think the big issues with this plane will be over for a long time to come . Worries me that UA has staked so much on the 787 going forward. Currently it is a mass of Carbon Fiber crap.

It's a relatively brand new aircraft with a lot of new design features previously not seen in wide commercial use. I can't see how any of this can being something other than, "unfortunate, but to be expected given the totality of the circumstances."

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: aerobalance
Posted 2013-06-23 11:57:16 and read 22761 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 17):
Ok, I know you are all thinking it.. Electric brakes.. battery power..

No, actually, I'm not thinking that. I'm thinking software issue.

The brakes worked

[Edited 2013-06-23 11:58:13]

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: captainmeeerkat
Posted 2013-06-23 12:01:59 and read 22724 times.

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 18):
It's a relatively brand new aircraft with a lot of new design features previously not seen in wide commercial use. I can't see how any of this can being something other than, "unfortunate, but to be expected given the totality of the circumstances."


If it were a new TV or a faulty iPhone, we would understand. It is not - it is a machine that defies the laws of nature and it had better do it well. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to do so very well - be it software, hardware, or something with United who seem to have no end to the trouble with their 787s.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: jayunited
Posted 2013-06-23 12:26:03 and read 22299 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 14):
Yes. The 787 maintenance base is in IAH. Along with the Boeing tech reps that scratch their head each time something like this happens. The 787 is filled with mechanical abnormalities. I just find it hard to believe that Boeing put forth such a shoddy product. The airplanes are maintained according to the Boeing standards and requirements. It seems apart from the recent eng problems the big issue is the computer code. It is as buggy as something Microsoft would put out. Horrendously temperamental and it gives false failure warnings at outrageous rates.

You are absolutely correct. A few weeks ago a 788 from ORD-IAH was canceled due to computer glitches the plane remained in Chicago till the next afternoon waiting for engineers from IAH to show up because even after the pilots and ORD maintenance shut down the aircraft completely several times they could not clear out the error messages. It rare that you hear a sCO pilot getting pissed off but these guys were highly upset because they knew the error message was wrong and that the issue had been fixed but they could not clear the error message out of the computer and since they could not clear the message United had no choice but to cancel the flight. I know sCO pilots love flying the 787 but I have heard a few of them complain about the onboard computer system and if they can not clear out an error message while in flight then they have no choice but to follow procedure and get the plane on the ground as soon as possible because it could be the computer or it could actually be a real issue. You just don't know till you get the plane on the ground.

But Boeing needs to fix the computer system because in an situation like this the computer is saying one thing but the plane landed safely and the braking system is working just fine in fact the same plane 903 is schedule to leave IAH at 15:15 local time going to DEN.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: AA94
Posted 2013-06-23 12:40:20 and read 21979 times.

Serious question here.

Does it seem to anyone else that UA seems to have the lion's share of 787 issues? It seems that every week or so, there's a reported problem with a UA aircraft that results in a diversion or cancellation. On the other hand, I haven't heard about any reported problems with JL/NH/AI/QR 787s since they reentered service.

Is this simply because our media is spinning every technical glitch into a "The 787 is a Flying Death Trap" story, or is UA actually having more problems with their aircraft than other operators? Or is every operator having similar problems, and the media in the US doesn't cover them as doggedly?

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: wjcandee
Posted 2013-06-23 13:01:51 and read 21541 times.

Quoting AA94 (Reply 22):
Or is every operator having similar problems, and the media in the US doesn't cover them as doggedly?

The Japanese media are watching the 787 like a hawk, and trumpet every little issue. A.net thereafter picks up whatever story arises. So, no, for some reason the Nihon carriers aren't experiencing the same level of dispatch reliability issues, before or after the grounding. But then again, they are used to putting a lot of money and effort into maintaining reliability. Ever been on a Japanese subway? There's a clock onboard, with a "seconds" function. The subway has a schedule. It leaves and arrives on the second, or someone has to apologize. Different culture. Different proportion of resources tasked to reliability.

[Edited 2013-06-23 13:02:34]

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: Flighty
Posted 2013-06-23 13:03:21 and read 21496 times.

People seem very impatient. It is a numbers game. The 787 has done very few departures in its short life. So many new components. It is still undergoing "user acceptance testing." A period of constant fine tuning and analysis. "Should" it be perfect right now? Who is to say? What other similar program has there been?

Oh well. By definition, we are getting ever closer to the time when 787 ops are reliable. People who expected more/sooner were simply wrong.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: TheRedBaron
Posted 2013-06-23 13:15:11 and read 22380 times.

Its not a good sign that a plane that was delayed so many times enters service to have software/sensors/warning BUGS.

I have said it before, this plane will be flying under a microscope for a LONG TIME, Boeing better get their act together ASAP.

TRB

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: VC10er
Posted 2013-06-23 13:38:21 and read 22011 times.

As for United, an airline where critizism is a national sport, they seem to come away totally unscathed by any 787 issues.

I have read many times that for all the customer service issues, that sUA ALWAYS had a great maintience record. Is that true? Is that reputation protecting them from any blame? As much as I fly United, one thing about the United brand I took comfort in was United's safety record. I applaud them to err on the side of safety - I would get on a United 787 today if I could.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: mcdu
Posted 2013-06-23 13:51:43 and read 22322 times.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 24):
People seem very impatient. It is a numbers game. The 787 has done very few departures in its short life. So many new components. It is still undergoing "user acceptance testing." A period of constant fine tuning and analysis. "Should" it be perfect right now? Who is to say? What other similar program has there been?

Oh well. By definition, we are getting ever closer to the time when 787 ops are reliable. People who expected more/sooner were simply wrong.

If all this is acceptable shouldn't Boeing be putting this in print? The certified airplane is not user acceptance testing. The airplane was flown for months before it entered service to work out these flaws. However, each time Boeing sends a software update it creates 50 other bug anomalies. Perhaps it is Boeing that wasn't ready for prime time when they finally pushed this heap to market? They had a lot of egg on their face and needed to get the thing in the air. This is the result, a marginally acceptable airplane with software issues and a high component failure rate.

Perhaps this project will be an eye opener at BA to let them fix the -9 and -10 before entry. With a flop in the 748 and the issues of the 787 BA has painted themselves into a corner. An overhaul of the corporation may be required to fix what is poor execution and lack of market analysis.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: 777ord
Posted 2013-06-23 13:57:00 and read 22186 times.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 26):
I have read many times that for all the customer service issues, that sUA ALWAYS had a great maintience record. Is that true? Is that reputation protecting them from any blame? As much as I fly United, one thing about the United brand I took comfort in was United's safety record. I applaud them to err on the side of safety - I would get on a United 787 today if I could.

Very well said! its something we here at United take great pride in!

The same can be said about the other US carriers as well.

At the end of the day our job is to get you to your destination safely, and as close to on time as possible. Everything is truly optional. United is making a lot of changes, and will be stronger when this merger ends.  

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: Tigerguy
Posted 2013-06-23 13:58:45 and read 22085 times.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 21):
 in fact the same plane 903 is schedule to leave IAH at 15:15 local time going to DEN.

They changed planes. Ship 902 is going to DEN. 903 was being tinkered with outside of Terminal D, last I saw.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: humanitarian
Posted 2013-06-23 14:09:52 and read 21840 times.

I am able to observe the ANA operation at SJC up close. So far the flights have come and gone without a problem. In fact, lately they have been arriving early and leaving early.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: jayunited
Posted 2013-06-23 14:10:49 and read 21752 times.

Quoting Tigerguy (Reply 29):
They changed planes. Ship 902 is going to DEN. 903 was being tinkered with outside of Terminal D, last I saw.

Yeah they just canceled 94 and the replacement is flight number is 1757 on ship 902 now scheduled to leave IAH at 1615.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: EASTERN747
Posted 2013-06-23 14:13:15 and read 21708 times.

well, one more reason I won't fly UA. It's out of control both in pax svc, inflight svc, food service and MTX. Take the damn plane out of service for 3-4 days....put a mtx guy and boeing rep. on check flights, fly them around for 10 hours and check it out. But then again, I don't care....won't fly UA.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: blueflyer
Posted 2013-06-23 14:23:48 and read 21413 times.

Is UA experiencing issues across all the (small) fleet or just one or two aircraft? Every aircraft series has a hangar queen or two. Maybe United just drew the short stick already...

Quoting mcdu (Reply 27):
The airplane was flown for months before it entered service to work out these flaws.

The 787 test fleet flew for months. Most other aircraft sat on the ground without engines, and flew the same amount of hours any new aircraft does before customer acceptance.

With Boeing making so many changes during production and so much re-work, it is quite possible that the aircraft delivered to United do not have an exact match in the test fleet.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: Goldenshield
Posted 2013-06-23 15:14:51 and read 20320 times.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 33):
Is UA experiencing issues across all the (small) fleet or just one or two aircraft? Every aircraft series has a hangar queen or two. Maybe United just drew the short stick already...

I'd say that it's closer to first batch jitters. Same with any other thing manufactured out there.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: XEspecialist
Posted 2013-06-23 15:24:29 and read 20124 times.

Quoting 777ord (Reply 28):
If all this is acceptable shouldn't Boeing be putting this in print? The certified airplane is not user acceptance testing. The airplane was flown for months before it entered service to work out these flaws. However, each time Boeing sends a software update it creates 50 other bug anomalies. Perhaps it is Boeing that wasn't ready for prime time when they finally pushed this heap to market? They had a lot of egg on their face and needed to get the thing in the air. This is the result, a marginally acceptable airplane with software issues and a high component failure rate.

If I didn't know any better I'd say someone is anti-Boeing for nay-sayer's sake. Any time there is a leap in technology in any field, there are going to be squawks to address. The Concorde had issues (one of which haunted its entire career, which tragically ended as a direct result of the flaw). The 747 (which I see you aren't a fan of either), was delayed on its inaugural flight for engine troubles, yet many more frames went on to have very long profitable careers. How many frames were lost when the Fly-by-Wire A320 came out? Haunting crash transcripts with gems like "what mode is it in?" and "what is it doing?" (see the Indian Airlines transcript). Using your logic, Airbus "wasn't ready for prime time when they finally pushed this heap to market? They had a lot of egg on their face and needed to get the thing in the air. This is the result, a marginally acceptable airplane with software issues, [and deaths]"

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-06-23 15:26:22 and read 20100 times.

I wonder how ANA with by far the most 787s appear to have the fewest problems.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: mcdu
Posted 2013-06-23 15:26:35 and read 20163 times.

Quoting EASTERN747 (Reply 32):

well, one more reason I won't fly UA. It's out of control both in pax svc, inflight svc, food service and MTX. Take the damn plane out of service for 3-4 days....put a mtx guy and boeing rep. on check flights, fly them around for 10 hours and check it out. But then again, I don't care....won't fly UA.


They did do what you are saying. The airplane breaks at an astronomical rate to other airplanes in the fleet. Take this issue today. You have high load factors and very little ability to rebook the passengers. This summer was supposed to be about operating ontime and reliable. Two things the 787 isn't and it creates ripples in the rest of the schedule.

Boeing should be held liable for damages from this shoddy airplane and its continuous faults.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-06-23 15:40:08 and read 19844 times.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 23):
So, no, for some reason the Nihon carriers aren't experiencing the same level of dispatch reliability issues, before or after the grounding
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 36):
I wonder how ANA with by far the most 787s appear to have the fewest problems.

Perhaps the 200+ test flights they conducted after the battery fixes (and that they were roundly criticized for by many) helped them identify / resolve / learn how to handle the 787's glitches, while UA is having to learn on revenue flights?

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-06-23 15:52:51 and read 19697 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 36):
I wonder how ANA with by far the most 787s appear to have the fewest problems.

  

To put things in perspective, ANA has had 1200 flights between June 1st and June 20th with only 8 cancellations or delays in excess of 2 hours -- that's 99.33% reliable -- they must be doing something right. 19 airplanes, a little over 3 flights/day. Looks like flights to San Jose and Frankfurt are running like clockwork.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2013-06-23 15:53:15 and read 19669 times.

Quoting aerobalance (Reply 19):
No, actually, I'm not thinking that. I'm thinking software issue.

The brakes worked

Brake Warning Message, as said above.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 26):
Is that true? Is that reputation protecting them from any blame?

Blame for a warning message that comes on in flight ? Shirley, you can not be Sirius ?

These 787s are looking more and more like the A-320 and it's messages that we see on a daily basis. Too many spurious electrons floating around. Oh for the days of the 727s !

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: StuckInCA
Posted 2013-06-23 16:16:31 and read 19083 times.

Quoting captainmeeerkat (Reply 20):
If it were a new TV or a faulty iPhone, we would understand. It is not - it is a machine that defies the laws of nature and it had better do it well.

Time to ease up on the hyperbole boys. It was either a software or sensor issue.

Airplanes to not defy the laws of nature.

Take a deep breath.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: jayunited
Posted 2013-06-23 16:32:24 and read 18783 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 36):
I wonder how ANA with by far the most 787s appear to have the fewest problems.

tortugamon

Well for starters they have had their 787's much longer than United has had their's which gives them experience working on the aircraft and dealing with the computer systems on this plane. ANA pilots and maintenance staff have clocked many hours on 787 long before the grounding took place. United did not put the plane into service till mid fall of 2012 and a few months later the airplanes were grounded and although maintenance probably did get some hands on experience during the grounding there is only so much that can be replicated on the ground. For all intents and purposes United has only been flying revenue service on 787 for about 5 months although on paper United has had the aircraft in their possession much longer. ANA 787 should be operating better because they have had more time actually flying the aircraft than United which gives them more experience and knowledge on how to deal with the issues that arise.

It is easy to say United should have the 787 together by now but what many of you fail to realize is just how different the 787 aircraft is from any other aircraft that is flying today (except for the A350). It is going to take time for people to learn this aircraft and all the systems that are on this aircraft. Now the DEN-NRT flight that diverted due to the oil filter I'll give you guys that one and say United needs to check the oil filters on these aircraft probably more often than they originally planed. But most of the delays and cancellations that United is see with the 787 fleet is not due to a failure to properly maintain the aircraft it is due to the fact that people need more familiarization with the computer systems that are on board. If you can't clear out an error message the plane is not going anywhere.

So ANA should be better because they have had the planes much much longer than United and they have had more revenue flight than United so by now they should now almost everything there is to know about the 787 and its touchy computer system.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-06-23 17:02:42 and read 18104 times.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 42):
So ANA should be better because they have had the planes much much longer than United

I am not sure that ANA had this many problems when they first received this aircraft either though. Regardless, I think you have a valid point. Also, I believe ANA has a spare 787 at all times so if there is an issue there generally is not too long of a delay because it gets swapped out.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 39):
NA has had 1200 flights between June 1st and June 20th with only 8 cancellations or delays in excess of 2 hours -- that's 99.33% reliable

Very good point.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: BN747DFWHNL
Posted 2013-06-23 17:10:14 and read 17958 times.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 31):
replacement is flight number is 1757 on ship 902


Those passengers are going to be ready to land in Denver. After circling/returning to IAH as 94, they also had to endure circling NW of Lamar, CO, as 1757, due to major thunderstorms south and east of DEN:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL1757

1757 finally descending towards airport now from the SW (6:05 pm MST). Getting my binoculars and heading outside in a few minutes.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-06-23 17:31:23 and read 17522 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 43):
I am not sure that ANA had this many problems when they first received this aircraft either though

If you look at the chart part way down the page they have been above 97% "On time operation results" from the beginning and after about 9 months of service continually above 99% prior to the grounding. So they had some issues to begin with -- maybe not as many as UAL.

http://www.ana.co.jp/wws/japan/e/local/common/share/boeing787info/

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: 777ord
Posted 2013-06-23 17:31:43 and read 17472 times.

Quoting XEspecialist (Reply 35):
Quoting 777ord (Reply 28):
If all this is acceptable shouldn't Boeing be putting this in print? The certified airplane is not user acceptance testing. The airplane was flown for months before it entered service to work out these flaws. However, each time Boeing sends a software update it creates 50 other bug anomalies. Perhaps it is Boeing that wasn't ready for prime time when they finally pushed this heap to market? They had a lot of egg on their face and needed to get the thing in the air. This is the result, a marginally acceptable airplane with software issues and a high component failure rate.

If I didn't know any better I'd say someone is anti-Boeing for nay-sayer's sake. Any time there is a leap in technology in any field, there are going to be squawks to address. The Concorde had issues (one of which haunted its entire career, which tragically ended as a direct result of the flaw). The 747 (which I see you aren't a fan of either), was delayed on its inaugural flight for engine troubles, yet many more frames went on to have very long profitable careers. How many frames were lost when the Fly-by-Wire A320 came out? Haunting crash transcripts with gems like "what mode is it in?" and "what is it doing?" (see the Indian Airlines transcript). Using your logic, Airbus "wasn't ready for prime time when they finally pushed this heap to market? They had a lot of egg on their face and needed to get the thing in the air. This is the result, a marginally acceptable airplane with software issues, [and deaths]"

I never said that... that wasn't what I used in reference...

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-06-23 17:51:12 and read 17093 times.

Quoting captainmeeerkat (Reply 20):
it is a machine that defies the laws of nature

Actually I'm quite sure it obeys the laws of nature. Go for a glider flight some time. I assure you that you will not plummet to the earth like a brick.

Quoting AA94 (Reply 22):
Is this simply because our media is spinning every technical glitch into a "The 787 is a Flying Death Trap" story

Seems this story is just an a.net story, no?

Quoting BN747DFWHNL (Reply 44):
After circling/returning to IAH as 94, they also had to endure circling NW of Lamar, CO, as 1757, due to major thunderstorms south and east of DEN:

Looks like the crew did a good job dodging the thunderstorms.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: ltbewr
Posted 2013-06-23 18:09:15 and read 16638 times.

It is far better that the problems have been determined before they cause a crash with a loss of life or a/c.
This is a new a/c. They are still working out bugs that only come out in real daily use. It is one of the most complex aircraft made to date, with a very new structure, systems and so on. I just hope the problems work out and the 787 becomes the great a/c it was intended to be.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: Oroka
Posted 2013-06-23 18:16:39 and read 16556 times.

You cant compare the software on the 787 with something microsoft puts out. If you have a new computer with a new version of windows (7/8), when was the last time you seen a blue screen of death? Probably been a long time... and it was probably a hardware failure, not Windows dying. That is software maturity. The 787 still has that new plane smell.


The 787 software is NEW... millions of lines of codes, it takes time to work bugs out of any software. Never has an airliner been so software controlled, there is a lot of systems and a lot of software. To find some of those bugs, you can stare at the code for years and it doesn't pop out... it will take a fair while for most of these bugs to show up, years most likely. The core software is most likely the same that is in 748 and 777, but so much new hardware has been added. Only way to find those flaws is to send 787s out and watch for things to crop up.

Look at the F-35... massively computer controlled, the software is probably one of its biggest problems, yet one of its biggest advantages. A lot of capacity is just a matter of writing new software... the F-22 is still getting new capacity from software upgrades, but it takes time.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: DTW2HYD
Posted 2013-06-23 18:22:32 and read 16462 times.

Quoting AA94 (Reply 22):
On the other hand, I haven't heard about any reported problems with JL/NH/AI/QR 787s since they reentered service.

1) NH has RR engines, so GeNX related issues has no impact.
2) Could be most of the JL/NH 787 flights are domestic (flying within Montana), may be diversion is not required.
3) They figured out to ignore certain alarms/warnings. Probably developed internal procedure to verify and validate alarms.

4)Obviously UA is the new kid on the block. Even though it is against standard process, old boys are not showing the ropes to UA. (This idea was ruled out by experts)

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: ual747-600
Posted 2013-06-23 18:46:27 and read 15946 times.

Anyone have any ideas why UA's Denver-Narita flights are on time and IAH-LHR are mostly significantly late?

UAL747-600

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: JAAlbert
Posted 2013-06-23 20:06:09 and read 14378 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 14):
Worries me that UA has staked so much on the 787 going forward.

UA certainly doesn't seem to be worried. They just signed on for a bunch of new 787s. It would be nice to hear from UA whether the airline believes the 787 suffers more glitches than other planes in its fleet, or whether they find the 787 running about what they expected and it's just us geeks obsessing over the matter.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2013-06-23 20:51:42 and read 13686 times.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 42):
Now the DEN-NRT flight that diverted due to the oil filter I'll give you guys that one and say United needs to check the oil filters on these aircraft probably more often than they originally planed.

Changing the filter more often wiould have done nothing and will do nothing for a clogged oil filter warning. The filter could have been changed the night before and that would not have stopped the oil filter from clogging in this incident.

The DebrisMonitoringSystem, or old school chip detector, was said to have had metallic fuzz on it. The filter actually was clogging, there should be nothing on the chip detectors or filters at all. The engine oil filters and chip detectors should be always be clean of debris, otherwise the differential pressure indicator will sense the pressure difference of the oil coming into the filter and the oil flowing out of the filter and set off the warning messages. Of all the filters I have seen changed, only 2 or 3 had fuzz on them.

As far as this air return from IAH-DEN back to IAH with brake issues, it seems to be a software glitch so far. All the other recent incidents were real problems an not software glitches.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: wjcandee
Posted 2013-06-23 21:23:27 and read 13260 times.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 52):
(questioning whether) it's just us geeks obsessing over the matter.

Well, when you have a United pilot contributor who indicates that UA Maint is buried with squawks every trip, calls the aircraft "shoddy" and references its "continuous faults", I don't think it's just geeks obsessing over the matter.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: BestWestern
Posted 2013-06-23 22:44:49 and read 12167 times.

Can we put all this hype into perspective?

Does anyone have any statistics on UA's 787 fleet reliability?

Is it over 95%?

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: flood
Posted 2013-06-23 22:51:34 and read 12153 times.

Quoting AA94 (Reply 22):
It seems that every week or so, there's a reported problem with a UA aircraft that results in a diversion or cancellation.

UA has probably seen only 2-3 days this month without some kind of maintenance delay or a return to gate, substitution, cancellation, etc.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 24):
By definition, we are getting ever closer to the time when 787 ops are reliable.

Particularly at United, where the reliability of their fleet has improved by leaps and bounds this month  



Not official figures, mind you, they're my estimates. I have them up by 0.1% over the month though   

There was a bump in reliability after the grounding, where UA had announced the implementation of various software and hardware upgrades. Per Boeing's recommendation, they also increased their scheduled turn-around times to two hours minimum.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 39):
To put things in perspective, ANA has had 1200 flights between June 1st and June 20th with only 8 cancellations or delays in excess of 2 hours -- that's 99.33% reliable

That's "99.33% reliability" based on a generous 2 hour "cut-off" for their report - which allows plenty of room for error and ample time for swapping aircraft. The other chart you linked to is far more relevant in my opinion as I'm assuming they applied the standard metric of 15 minutes.

I'm not suggesting ANA's comparisons with the 777 are invalid, but it would have been more interesting had ANA launched the 777 and we could compare reliability figures of the two aircraft within one operator. ANA boasts an impeccable on-time performance record for their entire fleet as it is, and I think Boeing is incredibly fortunate in this regard - as they operate the most aircraft and the most flights by a wide margin.

If we take JAL's reported 787 operations, they appear to be at 97.3% for the month - using a similar two-hour "cut-off" period. I don't follow their fleet but know of at least one flight which didn't make the list as it was a tech delay of 90 minutes. Adding this one delay alone would drop their June figure to 96.9%.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 52):
UA certainly doesn't seem to be worried.

No, but I certainly don't think they're delighted either. Give Smisek a call and start comparing the 787's reliability to that of the 777 and I'd venture to guess the last thing you'd hear is laughter as he hangs up on you  
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 53):
As far as this air return from IAH-DEN back to IAH with brake issues, it seems to be a software glitch so far. All the other recent incidents were real problems an not software glitches.

Do you happen to know what the problem was with UA32 IAH-ORD this morning? It was scheduled to be operated by ship 902, which was then swapped to 905 with a half hour delay.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-06-24 01:02:33 and read 10665 times.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 40):

These 787s are looking more and more like the A-320 and it's messages that we see on a daily basis.

Are you saying the A320 is having the same problems today, or are you referring to when it was first introduced in 1988? We certainly don't see A320s being diverted due to s/w issues anywhere close to the rate as we are seeing on UA's 787s recently!

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: Lostmoon744
Posted 2013-06-24 01:29:49 and read 10388 times.

Quoting Tigerguy (Reply 10):

I was on this flight. Currently standing in line in IAH to be rebooked. About halfway through, they did not know whether the brakes would work when we landed, so we turned back here. Emergency procedures were demonstrated, but the brakes worked and we did not have to brace. Excellent job by the crew and the pax for remaining calm.

I think this was the same bird I was on about 2 weeks ago. We landed at LAX and I went to the flightdeck after we parked at the gate. The f/o was very nice and he invited me to sit on the left side. I took lots of pics. One of the maintenance guys came in and the f/o said, "Did you see that brake message?" He replied, "Yeah, that's why we're here. I want to take a look." Then the f/o said, "Yeah, it's the #6 actuator."

I wonder if that was something that was an indication of the discussed issue.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: Navigator
Posted 2013-06-24 04:48:29 and read 8187 times.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 40):
These 787s are looking more and more like the A-320 and it's messages that we see on a daily basis. Too many spurious electrons floating around. Oh for the days of the 727s !

I was under the impression that the A320 is a mature airplane and has nothing of the kind of problems the 787 has right now. Could you give any examples here?

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: 0NEWAIR0
Posted 2013-06-24 04:58:58 and read 8065 times.

As time goes on and the UA 787 fleet continues to grow, at what point will "blame" (for lack of a better word) for maintenance issues shift from the equipment to the operator if the current rate of maintenace issues remains the same at United and decreases at other airlines?

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: ggflyboy
Posted 2013-06-24 07:32:12 and read 5777 times.

I know that altitude makes a difference with landing speeds, but if there truly were "no brakes", wouldn't the 16,000 ft runway at DEN give a better chance for roll-out with minimal damage?

IAH has 12,000 ft. Not sure what the prevailing winds were, maybe 6 one, half dozen the other.

For reference, the Shuttle Landing Facility is 15,000 ft long.

Any predictions on landing roll-out distance with thrust reversers / spoilers only?

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: EnviableOne
Posted 2013-06-24 07:40:43 and read 5593 times.

Quoting XEspecialist (Reply 35):
The Concorde had issues (one of which haunted its entire career, which tragically ended as a direct result of the flaw)

Concorde only went out of service as AF wouldn't make the necessary alterations and as such Airbus (a French company) would not re-apply for licence so BA could be the only operator. its main flaw was it never made any money, BA said if it too 125 instead of 100 it would have been viable, but they were ready to take it back in the air.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: JAAlbert
Posted 2013-06-24 08:14:18 and read 5072 times.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 54):
Well, when you have a United pilot contributor who indicates that UA Maint is buried with squawks every trip, calls the aircraft "shoddy" and references its "continuous faults", I don't think it's just geeks obsessing over the matter.

Yes, I read his posts. We all have opinions and its great to hear about them. But, what I'd like to see a fact-based report of findings and conclusions from either within - or independent of - the airline that catalogs each incident and compares it to a standard for other aircraft by various measures. Of course, such a report is probably proprietary information, but that doesn't mean I'd like to see it.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 55):

Does anyone have any statistics on UA's 787 fleet reliability?

My question exactly.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: Flighty
Posted 2013-06-24 08:55:03 and read 4388 times.

Quoting flood (Reply 56):
Particularly at United, where the reliability of their fleet has improved by leaps and bounds this month

Ha ha. This kind of thing isn't fixed in a few days. It's a function more like, every 1,000 operations, your problems will go down by 20%. Eventually it will smooth out (2014). I think it is understandable that entry into revenue service introduces unforeseen issues. Simulation can solve a million issues but there will still be a thousand issues that were impossible to forecast. It is just about knocking them down & taking delays while keeping pax safe. Fun to watch it smooth out over time.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-06-24 09:04:46 and read 4233 times.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 64):
Simulation can solve a million issues but there will still be a thousand issues that were impossible to forecast.

More and more therefore, it seems like JAL and ANA's decision to have 200+ test flights was a wise one!

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: RWA380
Posted 2013-06-24 09:58:06 and read 3894 times.

Quoting AA94 (Reply 22):
Does it seem to anyone else that UA seems to have the lion's share of 787 issues?

It does seem that UA is having a disproportionate number of issues.

Quoting AA94 (Reply 22):
Is this simply because our media is spinning every technical glitch into a "The 787 is a Flying Death Trap" story, or is UA actually having more problems with their aircraft than other operators? Or is every operator having similar problems, and the media in the US doesn't cover them as doggedly?

Even our local news here in Portland picked this story up off the wires, and they immediately brought up the grounding.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 36):
I wonder how ANA with by far the most 787s appear to have the fewest problems.

As was stated above ANA has had longer to work with the 787, plus I think NH has taken the process more seriously, and over come the challenges they may have faced originally.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-06-24 10:11:48 and read 3779 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 65):
More and more therefore, it seems like JAL and ANA's decision to have 200+ test flights was a wise one!

I agree it was a good decision, but using that logic with a lot more than 200 flights under their belt UAL should no longer be having issues.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: flood
Posted 2013-06-24 10:29:09 and read 3697 times.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 64):
I think it is understandable that entry into revenue service introduces unforeseen issues.

Nobody disputes that. What's not understandable, however, is when the amount of these unforeseen issues lead to a dispatch reliability at UA of around 92%. Compare this to Boeing's own and often cited benchmark the 777, where UA hit 97.3% within the first three months.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-06-24 11:40:46 and read 3495 times.

Interesting article/video about 787 issues:


http://www.cnbc.com/id/100838334?__s...838334%7CTracking+Dreamliners+in+t

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-06-24 12:55:56 and read 3269 times.

Looks like UAL almost had another divert -- for toilet paper. If they can't get this right .......

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: PW100
Posted 2013-06-24 13:41:01 and read 3125 times.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 69):
Interesting article/video about 787 issues:

Hey, there using fr24.com! And on their big screen as well!
Wonder if they have A.net also somewhere in a hidden window 

PW100

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: mcdu
Posted 2013-06-24 14:12:39 and read 3004 times.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 70):

Looks like UAL almost had another divert -- for toilet paper. If they can't get this right .......

Do you know the plane departed without toilet paper? It was high consumption and only affected a small number of lavs.

Boeing rolled out the 787 with fasteners from Home Depot....if they can't even get that right, we can only imagine what other corners were cut.......

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-06-24 14:43:34 and read 2854 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 72):
Do you know the plane departed without toilet paper? It was high consumption and only affected a small number of lavs

Lucky they had a large supply of napkins. Actually I was shocked it wasn't a 787 but the press still found something to beat up UAL about.

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-06-24 16:05:08 and read 2642 times.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 70):
Looks like UAL almost had another divert -- for toilet paper. If they can't get this right .......

Seems like UAL needs to update their tech:

Venezuelans use smartphone app to find toilet paper

Topic: RE: Another 787 Diversion: UAL94 IAH-DEN
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2013-06-24 16:47:24 and read 2520 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 57):
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 40):

These 787s are looking more and more like the A-320 and it's messages that we see on a daily basis.

Are you saying the A320 is having the same problems today, or are you referring to when it was first introduced in 1988? We certainly don't see A320s being diverted due to s/w issues anywhere close to the rate as we are seeing on UA's 787s recently!

Yes, I am talking about 1988 in the present tense.  

Obviously you do not work on the A-320.

Quoting Navigator (Reply 59):
I was under the impression that the A320 is a mature airplane and has nothing of the kind of problems the 787 has right now. Could you give any examples here?

It is mature and the way many messages are dealt with is to remove power and allow the computer to reboot itself. ELACs, SECs, LGCIU, CIDS, SDCU and other computer messages daily. The A-320 has some software issues to this day.

All the required and scheduled maintenance was performed on the 787s that have had growing pains these past few days.

Preventative or Scheduled maintenance would not have and did not stop these diversions and problems.


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/