Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United 787 Ship 902 Diverted Enroute IAH-EWR  
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3217 posts, RR: 16
Posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 42486 times:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N26902

Enroute divert on UA1146 IAH-EWR into MSY. Does anyone know why??

222 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMSYtristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 42432 times:

Per my friend at MSY, it was a mechanical diversion. I'm going to try to go get a few shots.

User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10938 posts, RR: 37
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 42231 times:

Quote poster from Flyertalk who was on board:

I was on Flight 146 (787 #3902) this morning, when we had a power/electrical issue. We've ended up being diverted to MSY and they are bringing in a replacement aircraft to continue on. About 75 minutes into the flight the electrical power flickered a couple of times and then I noticed us making a long right hand turn. I was expecting us to be headed back to IAH. Once the AVOD got rebooted I checked the online map and it showed us headed to MSY with a landing in 30 minutes. Up till this point no announcement had been made, so on the way back from a trip to the washroom, I asked one of the FA's when they would be making an announcement about the diversion. She was shocked that I knew about it, and asked how did I know. I calmly replied that the flight map now shows us heading for a MSY landing at 9:25. A few minutes after this, one of the FA's announce the diversion.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...02-diverted-msy-flight-1146-a.html

  



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinexjramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2473 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 41750 times:

I'm sure the crew had justification, but why in the world would they divert to MSY when the distance between their turn to MSY and what would have been back to IAH was negligible? Coupled with the storms that went thru MSY a little bit ago, that wasn't a very smart move.


Look ma' no hands!
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1892 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 41588 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting xjramper (Reply 3):
but why in the world would they divert to MSY when the distance between their turn to MSY and what would have been back to IAH was negligible?

Likely UA's protocol is to divert to the nearest airport able to safely handle the aircraft in the event this type of malfunction takes place. It will be a while until word leaks out exactly what the issue was but it was obviously on the list of immediate diversion/landing for this a/c with this airline.


User currently offlineMSYtristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 41470 times:

I'm going to preface this picture by saying I have a terrible camera and I was taking this through a chain link fence over a mile away.



From the parking garage. Almost a good shot.



User currently offlineBraniffMSY From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 41282 times:

It diverted due to multiple electrical failures. I was on one of the 787's on 05Nov and we were delayed for 1.5 hour as well at ORD due to something related to the electrical system. Although United claimed it was 'environmental aircraft damage'. Not sure what that covers?

User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1892 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 41188 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Multiple failures could mean a lot of things. It makes me wonder if there was a electrical junction/controller that failed which caused the system to fail over to the back up requiring the diversion.

Hopefully the design is modular and a new controller is sitting at IAH and can be plugged in. Otherwise, sounds like Boeing is flying something out from SEA.


User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3090 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 41000 times:

Here is the permanent link:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...6/history/20121204/1330Z/KIAH/KEWR

Guess they sent a 762 to replace,

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...2/history/20121204/1715Z/KIAH/KMSY

Quoting MSYtristar (Reply 5):

Good try anyway.

This is the first 787 in MSY right?



The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlineBraniffMSY From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 40810 times:

This is the first 787 ever at MSY.
Trying to determine if the United 787's have had any other diversions anywhere since they entered service with the carrier.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26815 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 40652 times:

Quoting BraniffMSY (Reply 6):
Although United claimed it was 'environmental aircraft damage'.

Bird Strike?



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineMSYtristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 40697 times:

Here's one more courtesy of a friend of mine.



User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3090 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 40345 times:

Runway 10/28 was closed due to maintenance and I guess they didn't want the shorter 19, so they cleared the vehicles off of 10/28 and the aircraft landed on runway 10. Crew reported 182 souls on board. United 1146 Heavy. It's in the Live ATC archives, 1500-1530Z has it all. Pilot asked ground crew to check for "discoloration or dripping plastic", yikes.  Wow!
Quoting xjramper (Reply 3):
I'm sure the crew had justification, but why in the world would they divert to MSY when the distance between their turn to MSY and what would have been back to IAH was negligible? Coupled with the storms that went thru MSY a little bit ago, that wasn't a very smart move.

The crew declared an emergency so I guess MSY was the nearest suitable airport as required.



[Edited 2012-12-04 12:27:55]


The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently onlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 2497 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 40261 times:

Possibly a lightning strike? How would a CFRP airframe hold up to one?


A landing EVERYONE can walk away from, is a good landing.
User currently offlinemigair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1925 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 40022 times:

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 12):
Pilot asked ground crew to check for "discoloration or dripping plastic",

lighting strike must the cause.... an Electrical failure is a serious issue and sometimes going back to your base is not an option hence the diversion to MSY, also consider that the pilots are very new on that plane and they might get some problems understanding some failures, maybe it´s even a failure that has never happen before and they don´t know how to react... So better to be on ground asap.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3077 posts, RR: 37
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 39779 times:

Quoting migair54 (Reply 14):
lighting strike must the cause....

How so?



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlinemigair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1925 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 39425 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 15):
How so?

when you have a lighting strike you can see de-coloration in the exact place where the strike hit the plane with a bit of like burning marks as well, and if the crew was asking for that is because the felt something like that or they really suspect about that,

however i should have said: Lighting strike could be the cause.....

[Edited 2012-12-04 13:29:13]

User currently offlineJosh32121 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 39081 times:

Quoting MSYtristar (Reply 11):

"Which line do we stop at????"   

Wouldn't a lightning strike on a 787 have different effects (or less of an effect) because of the composite skin as compared to a lightning strike on a conventional aluminum-bodied plane?


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 38710 times:

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 12):
Pilot asked ground crew to check for "discoloration or dripping plastic", yikes.

This is starting to sound a bit more serious than the usual new type teething problems - It will be interesting to see how long the repairs take....

Quoting BraniffMSY (Reply 9):
Trying to determine if the United 787's have had any other diversions anywhere since they entered service with the carrier.

There was a thread posted a few weeks ago regarding Air India's problems with the 787 in which it was repeatedly claimed that United were having no problems with it. I'm starting to wonder how accurate that is....


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 38530 times:

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 17):
Wouldn't a lightning strike on a 787 have different effects (or less of an effect) because of the composite skin as compared to a lightning strike on a conventional aluminum-bodied plane?

VERY much so. The plane has a metal mesh system to wick lightning away from critical areas.

NS


User currently offlineSTEVE7E7 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 478 posts, RR: 50
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 38107 times:

Didn't a test 787 suffer a fire in the same electrical bay during flight testing?

I hope for Boeings sake this is an isolated incident.


User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3090 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 38057 times:

It's on Av Herald now,

http://avherald.com/h?article=45a0903f&opt=0

though it does not mention at this time that this was an emergency landing and not just a diversion.



The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 37998 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 7):
It makes me wonder if there was a electrical junction/controller that failed which caused the system to fail over to the back up requiring the diversion.

The 787, like most modern large jets, uses a parallel electrical architecture. It's not a matter of primary/backup, it's a matter of multiple parallel systems that each take some share of the total aircraft load. In the event of failures, the faulty system is either isolated or ganged together with it's neighbor (i.e. share a generator) depending on the nature of the failure.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 7):
Hopefully the design is modular

It is.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 13):
Possibly a lightning strike? How would a CFRP airframe hold up to one?

Very well. The 787 has been hit by lightning several times already.

Quoting migair54 (Reply 14):
maybe it´s even a failure that has never happen before and they don´t know how to react...

The flight crew has no detailed visibility into the electrical system; at the level they can see, there is an EICAS message for every failure that requires tehm to take action and a defined procedure to follow for that message. It's very difficult to think of a plausible scenario where the crew didn't know how to react, even if they didn't know the precise nature of the failure.

Quoting migair54 (Reply 16):
when you have a lighting strike you can see de-coloration in the exact place where the strike hit the plane with a bit of like burning marks as well

That can happen with a lightning strike but isn't guaranteed. Especially if it's a lower power strike that attaches to particularly conductive bits (lip skins, fin leading edge, etc.).

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 17):
Wouldn't a lightning strike on a 787 have different effects (or less of an effect) because of the composite skin as compared to a lightning strike on a conventional aluminum-bodied plane?

The detailed current flows are different (it's not skin flow like it would be in solid aluminum) but the gross airplane-level behavior is basically the same.

Tom.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 37743 times:

Quoting STEVE7E7 (Reply 20):
Didn't a test 787 suffer a fire in the same electrical bay during flight testing?

I hope for Boeings sake this is an isolated incident.

Yes - I believe that incident was blamed on FOD being left inside an electrical panel so it should be a one off incident...


I've just listened to the ATC recordings for this incident - I'm still none the wiser to what went on, but it doesn't look like a minor electrical problem. The crew actually direct ground staff to inspect the outside of the rear avionics bay for evidence of fire..


User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6963 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 37358 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 23):
Yes - I believe that incident was blamed on FOD being left inside an electrical panel so it should be a one off incident...

The fire was a one off but the fact it shut down almost everything led to some changes I seem to remember.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
25 UALWN : Interesting. I'm scheduled to be flying on that plane this Thursday EWR-IAH. I hope they fix it on time...
26 jporterfi : I can't tell what aircraft the line they stopped at was designed for (I imagine it doesn't say 787 on the pavement!). Interesting that they used airs
27 Post contains images dreyes78 : Of course this happens on my only day off this week..... Photo courtesy of my coworker....
28 FlyHossD : That's out of line - you weren't there. Given that the crew was looking for damage ("discoloration"), it's a smart move to get the plane on the groun
29 Post contains links phxa340 : No its really not ... amazing how 1 diversion brings out the 787 doomsdayers ... "Initial inspections showed that there was no fire in the aft electr
30 EASTERN747 : WTF?????? The flight is diverting from the planned flight and the FA;s know nothing? Panic in the cockpit, maybe/ Just takes a simple announcement fro
31 7gm7 : Hope so. Similarly, I am on UA flt. 1737 EWR-IAH next Tues 12/11.....same thoughts here...
32 Post contains images dreyes78 : Now the fire trucks came out to the plane.....
33 United1 : go back and re-read....F/As knew but they hadn't announced to the passengers yet.
34 tdscanuck : There is zero evidence (so far) that the issue on United was actually in the aft electrical bay. The flight crew did ask for an inspection during the
35 Daysleeper : When and where did I say anything about the 787 being "doomed"? I said that this looks to be more than simple teething trouble, which it does. The fa
36 BoeingVista : Surely there must be some sort of fire indicator in the EE bay. The flyertalk guys pointed out that Flightaware shows the aircraft started drifting d
37 Post contains images MSYtristar : Well, there's a jetway attached now.
38 phxa340 : You didn't What facts are you using to develop this hypothesis ? I just ask because every news source is stating that there was no evidence of fire o
39 Post contains images F9animal : I will chime in and shed some light on this incident. It has been very well covered up so to speak. I will make it short and sweet. Had the aircraft
40 AeroWesty : I assume you're referring to the test flight, not today's UA flight?
41 usflyguy : If that's the case, why didn't they land in MEM, LIT, JAN, MLU, SHV, etc which were all much closer than MSY?
42 BoeingVista : The same reason that SR111 didn't make for the closest airport, sometimes you don't know how much time you have until the post morten. I am not sayin
43 HNL-Jack : That is exactly right, don't share what you really know nothing about.
44 tp1040 : Still wondering about the diversion to MSY. MEM has an 11,000 runway and the fed ex base.
45 Post contains images lightsaber : That it is. I will be curious to find out more. I will happily fly on a 787. Preferably in J. Come on, if you worked the fire crew, wouldn't you go o
46 Post contains images ferpe : I think there is evidence that there was ample electrical power on the plane when it landed, something which was not the case in the Laredo incident.
47 type-rated : On the map it looks like they were closer to MEM than to MSY. I wonder why they didn't go there. MEM can support a 787.
48 FlyHossD : That might have been a weather related decision. Wasn't there a front crossing MEM about that same time?
49 Post contains links boacvc10 : I initially thought fuel exhaustion, upon reading the sentence above, and only now noticed this news article: (Bloomberg News: Boeing Dreamliners Lea
50 AirlineCritic : That sounds disturbing... unless it is about a run-of-the-mill lightning strike. ... and it seems that it is not about lightning strike. Hmm. Would l
51 aviatorcraig : Which particular DC-10 incident was that? There were many.
52 777fan : If this indeed was a lightning strike, I can't help but wonder when/where in the flight this may have taken place. The a/c climbed to FL410 shortly af
53 Antoniemey : Probably a 767 line, since that's roughly the equivalent size. With regards to the airstair, I was thinking the same thing.
54 Unflug : There are different assumptions which incident you are refering to. Would you mind to enlighten me?
55 sweair : Add me, it would be very interesting to know what that was about, that sound very serious indeed if true.
56 tdscanuck : Except they're not. They've already looked and found nothing, according to all the press I can find. Except they didn't have a fire in the avionics b
57 holzmann : Do these things come with a warranty? Will the 787 be labeled a lemon? Is here a "lemon law" for aircraft? Will the 787 further degrade the "Made in U
58 Daysleeper : Okay – They aren’t looking for evidence of a fire because they already looked and didn’t find anything ? – that makes sense. Regardless of if
59 nkops : Was probably a good time for the ARFF crews to do some familiarization with a new a/c type... I have seen our ARFF crews do that on diversions after
60 Post contains links BoeingVista : Well Boeing doesn't always tell the absolute truth on these matters, neither does it flat out lie of course, it depends on how you define fire I susp
61 Post contains links mayor : Here's what the NYT has to say.....doesn't sound near as dire as some have stated, unless we're talking about two different incidents: http://www.nyti
62 spacecadet : The fuel line problems seem to be a USA assembly error. Most of the other problems I've heard about were related to overseas suppliers. So it's a com
63 CM : I'll add to what Tom has already written. There was an FAA pilot in the flight deck at the time of the event, so your theory of a cover-up is an extr
64 mayor : Ok.......just for us dunces, on here.........are we talking about two different incidents......the one referred by the thread starter and another, in
65 tdscanuck : OK, I worded that terribly. The pilots asked ARFF to look for evidence of a fire but we don't know why they said that...as I noted farther up, the af
66 sweair : A bit sad if people use an incident to spread false information, it is not ok IMO!
67 tommy767 : Out of curiosity, how severe was this diversion? Electrical seems be an issue with this aircraft.
68 tdscanuck : In what terms? System degradation? Workload? Distance? Pax disruption? Something to keep in mind with the 787, specifically, is that the electrical s
69 F9animal : Tom, I fully respect your views. No need to be so harsh. Like I said, 2 minutes more, the aircraft would have gone down. This is from a very knowledg
70 CM : Yes. Two separate incidents. It is unfortunate that has not been made more clear in this thread. During 787 flight test, airplane # ZA002 suffered se
71 bhmdiversion : MEM is a UAX station and can't handle an aircraft of this size.
72 mayor : Thank you. Yes, it is unfortunate because it seems like info from the first incident is making it look like the more recent incident is worse than it
73 CM : You really need to stop repeating this. I won't dispute you heard it from someone. It remains entirely untrue. Further proof that knowledgeable, high
74 boacvc10 : Ok, could you please clarify you were referring to the incident that happened December 4, 2012. There were a lot of crosstalk with other poster comme
75 RDH3E : You need to continue to clarify that you're talking about the incident during the test flight and NOT the UA diversion from yesterday.
76 Post contains images bikerthai : Now if the As all of us on here are aware that executives are not to be trusted, it is be a sad day when the front line Engineers and Mechanics on A-n
77 CM : In regard to the ZA002 flight test incident which occurred on 9-Nov, 2010: There is no access to, or way to view the aft E/E bay from the main deck wh
78 type-rated : You mean that the MEM UA station can't handle a plane of this size because it's a United Express station.... The airport itself could handle anything
79 tdscanuck : Although I respect that you got different information, and are fully entitled to post that here, I feel I need to be somewhat direct (not, harsh) bec
80 PlanesNTrains : How can you say that you fully respect his views when you turn right around and tell him he's wrong, or worse, lying? He is intimately involved with
81 Post contains images lightsaber : The information I'm getting backs up tdscanuck (I cannot post). The plane 'rapidly recovered speed' as noted in the NYTimes article indicates full co
82 RyanairGuru : As I'm sure you are aware, the lines are set at the right position so that the jetbridge can be attached easily. In this case there was no 787 line,
83 PlanesNTrains : It's a sad testament to A.net that such a disclaimer needs to be made in a discussion, but I understand why some feel the need to do so. Absolutely.
84 CALTECH : Electrical Failure is the word, what exactly, do not know yet. Could have been a burning smell in the cabin, and after the AirTran Everglades incident
85 tdscanuck : I appreciate the support. In F9Animal's defense, if he received information from a source in a position to know and that he trusted, he would not hav
86 NYC777 : Boeing and United is now saying that one of the 6 starter generators in the aircraft failed. Hardly something that wold lead to bringing down the airc
87 Kaiarahi : For clarity, can we stop conflating the UA diversion that occurred on December 4 with the ZA002 flight test incident that occurred on November 9, 201
88 Post contains images United1 : ...which itself is an indication that the plane was not in imanent danger. If they were 2 minutes from disaster they would have diverted to MEM or an
89 nomadd22 : Is that number for two generators in each engine and two for the APU? It sounds like the confusing cockpit messages might be more responsible for the
90 ltbewr : To me there is going to a tight standard of any apparent problem, including electrical, which means get the aircraft ASAP to the nearest capable airpo
91 CM : Yes. It was an engine VFSG (variable frequency starter generator) which failed. I would take it from comments further up in this thread that some non
92 Kaiarahi : So everything functioned the way it was designed to do (apart from the VFSG, which is why there's redundancy). Almost a non-event.
93 Daysleeper : If this was a none event why did the crew declare an emergency and suspect fire? I've no doubt a generator failed, but thats not the whole story here
94 Post contains images CM : This I am not so sure of. I no longer work on the program, so I can only speculate with everyone else, but given the circumstances, it seems there is
95 Kaiarahi : Did they? I may have missed it. Fair enough. I've certainly been guilty of the first two. There's no NTSB docket so far.
96 BoeingVista : True but this means that they are inside the bubble to some extent, Tom is always careful to make the disclaimer of 'publicly available information'
97 usflyguy : So they aren't posting confidential information but I seriously doubt they would post erroneous information on a voluntary basis on a web board.
98 spacecadet : We're all getting dangerously close to trying to guess another person's personal motivation. Why does *anyone* post *anything* on a web board? We all
99 Post contains links phxa340 : I think that is the whole story. Reuters and the Tribune are reporting that the United Pilots received messages in the cockpit about possible electri
100 Post contains images F9animal : I read it, and understand where you are confused. And that is partly my fault here. It was in response to post 20, which was about the 787 during tes
101 Post contains images BoeingVista : I think that you need to slice this a bit thinner. They post publicly available information, some of which turns out in hindsight to be incorrect (I
102 tdscanuck : Building on CM's post, the VFSGs are on the engines (two on each engine for a total of four) and the ASGs are on the APU (two on the single APU), for
103 Post contains links Revelation : Re: ZA002 incident: I guess I'm not 100% with you. Google's definition of "fire" is "combustion or burning, in which substances combine chemically wit
104 PlanesNTrains : Very true. However, I think we also will all use our experience with various posters, including what and how they post, their wording, etc. to make a
105 CM : Boeing's public communication in the days follwing the ZA002 incident used the word "fire". Myself and many others on the engineering side objected v
106 huxrules : I'm guessing that the pilots know bout the Laredo incident and just wanted someone to look just in case. Even if they didn't have an indication of a f
107 Post contains links and images flood : Well, here's a scenario just for the sake of wild and unqualified speculation. I came across a comment on another forum where someone posted a 'rumor
108 Daysleeper : I spent ages looking for them also, does anyone have them? I think they were also posted to a thread here, but after spending sometime with the forum
109 nomadd22 : Fire, combustion and burning are three different things. Smoke can come from something being vaporized by an arc. Even if the smoke was from RUO (Rap
110 tdscanuck : CM and nomadd22 did it better than I could. So, "Yeah, what they said." That doesn't square with the claims that the cabin systems stayed up or the R
111 Post contains images Revelation : Thanks again for the insight. I can see it both ways. Clearly there is a need for the technical professionals to have an exact definition, however in
112 BoeingVista : They were posted to a thread here but disappeared almost immediately, the rumours around other forums was that Boeing was claiming IP on them. I have
113 Post contains images bikerthai : So far as we have been told, most of the management cuts at Boeing are over on the defense side. Not sure if there's bumping allowed with executives
114 Post contains images MSYtristar : This was taken last night.
115 strfyr51 : They diverted because we already have a maintenance crew @ MSY. The airplane could be repaired on the ramp with no actual Hanger space needed. Why No
116 tdscanuck : Yes, that's what he's saying. Charring and soot is the result of heat...heat can come from fire or, in this case, an arc. An electric arc in air is a
117 rcair1 : Okay - since there is such a discussion on 'fire' on 002 - I thought I chime in from a fireman standpoint (26 yrs). What does it take to make a fire?
118 BoeingVista : Interesting, if its just a failed generator in the EE bay why have they got the cowlings open? Unless the generators that failed are the permanent ma
119 CM : The VFSGs and the PMGs are both inside the engine cowl. No loads are shed if a PMG fails. They are basically a standby power device. Thanks for that.
120 Daysleeper : It would be very much appreciated if you could find them out. I have to say I find it somewhat intriguing that Boeing would take the time and effort
121 tdscanuck : Exactly. Even early Boeing press releases at the time noted that the "fire" self-extinguished when power was removed. Exactly. That's why a true fire
122 Stitch : Unfortunately, since the term "where there is smoke there is fire" is so ingrained in the general populace, I do not believe they would be able to co
123 Daysleeper : So Boeing removed the photo's because to none-Boeing engineers they appeared to show evidence of a fire? For example, this is how an analyst describe
124 Tristarsteve : Engine driven generators do not always fail simply. Quite often they start to misbehave, with fluctuating volts and frequency before they actually fa
125 RDH3E : Note Boeing probably did not use the word "blaze" that was more likely the author of whatever you just quoted. Boeing probably said the "incident las
126 Post contains links and images tdscanuck : They wouldn't help demonstrate no fire or lack of danger. As this thread is ably demonstrating, distinguishing heat damage from fire damage is nearly
127 SavannahMark : While reading over all of these comments, that was exactly my thought as well.
128 Stitch : Based on tdscanuck's response in 126, such a decision would have been a logical one.
129 bikerthai : Typically Boeing do not release these types of photos. (For obvious reason). If there were photos out there, it may have been taken by a Boeing perso
130 PlanesNTrains : He didn't say that. I don't think he can speak to their motives. They didn't say that - that isn't a direct quote. I'm not sure what that incident ha
131 CM : The photos showed the internal architecture of the power panel which have a unique level of power density - something achieved via a design which is
132 Post contains links and images tdscanuck : Fair enough. A recent article on the Seattle PI, quoting United, says that one generator failed and the other five continued to operate, which is wha
133 Daysleeper : They perhaps didn't use the term "blaze" but it doesn't take much searching to find nemours reports quoting Boeing in which they use the term fire. T
134 ER757 : It's possible that the engine cowling being open have nothing at all to do with the incident and there is inspection going on for another reason. The
135 Stitch : And with respect, we need to discuss such matters in another thread and allow this one to return back on topic to United Ship 902.
136 odwyerpw : For the sake of making this thread easy to follow, .can we stop putting information about ZA002 Test Flight incident in this thread? It's confusing. I
137 Kaiarahi : Maybe I've missed it, but I can't find this reported anywhere. Unfortunately, flightaware doesn't show what they were squawking (although even that w
138 ryanov : Was there even a fire during the ZA002 test flight, or just arcing? Because the article from the NYTimes posted says fire, but I think tdscanuck said
139 Stitch : Asled and answered up thread. If somebody disagrees, again, start a new thread on that, please.
140 Post contains images tarheelwings : It's obvious by now based on your posting that you're going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what evidence, testimony, facts, etc ar
141 71Zulu : You can go to liveatc.net for MSY and listen to the entire atc audio, it occured between 1500-1530Z. The first time the pilot called MSY he checked i
142 flashmeister : I have to concur with odwyerpw here: please stop hijacking this thread with ZA002 arguments and keep on topic to the UA incident in MSY. We'd all app
143 mayor : I agree......maybe we should eliminate all posts on this thread that reference ZA002.......the first time it was referenced was when this started to
144 Post contains images Daysleeper : In order to keep everyone happy I won't post in this thread regarding ZA002 - As soon as I get hold of the photo's I'll start a new thread l and peop
145 akelley728 : Back to the 787 that diverted to MSY - is it still there? If so where is it? I am flying out of MSY this evening and would like to snap a pic or two i
146 Kaiarahi : Thanks. I just listened to ZHU and MSY. The communication with ZHU was more "precautionary", although the word "emergency" was used. They didn't seem
147 MSYtristar : Still here. Parked at gate C-11.
148 PlaneAdmirer : Ugh.. I am supposed be on a 787 from DEN to IAH on Monday. I hope still get to otherwise I am going to have a long day for nothing.
149 Post contains images akelley728 : Darn! I am flying out of Terminal D.
150 ikramerica : If pilots are going to over-react and divert due to a non-diversion required electrical problem because of memories of ZA002, Boeing needs to install
151 Kaiarahi : We don't know that. See, for example:
152 FlyHossD : Do we know that they over-reacted? It seems to me that we need more information (facts) before drawing that conclusion.
153 maxpower1954 : Spoken like a true arm-chair expert. Who would be first to blame the crew if they had a problem and something terrible happened because they didn't g
154 Post contains images Revelation : Apologies to those bothered by thread drift, and thanks to those who taught me something new!
155 Kaiarahi : For this, patently obvious, reason: I wouldn't allow proprietary information to be posted either.
156 ual747-600 : Does anyone know why it's taking so long to get the plane back to KIAH? You basically have an AOG situation which usually means parts flow quickly to
157 Post contains images UALWN : All I can say is that I was scheduled to fly on ZA002 today as UA 1737 EWR-IAH and, instead, it was operated with a 764. There goes my first 787 flig
158 tdscanuck : Whatever aircraft you were supposed to fly on, it wasn't ZA002. ZA002 isn't even legal for revenue passenger service, doesn't belong to United, and d
159 UALWN : Of course! It was supposed to be #3902, the aircraft still at MSY. Apologies. I shouldn't have posted after being up for over 24 hours coming from BC
160 BoeingVista : Can you get pics or give us a run down on whats being fixed? This is the reason I heard for the removal demands by Boeing but I've just had another l
161 FlyAA757 : At msy right now - 787 is gone
162 COEWR787 : I suspect you mean #3902 which actually belongs to United and was involved in the MSY incident.
163 MSYtristar : All I can tell you is that it's still here. My friends at the airport have been keeping me in the loop. I might be able to get some more pics today.
164 UGA777 : FlyAA757 just said it is no longer there. I have a question: I am scheduled to fly on a 787 Sunday from DEN-IAH on Flight 1688. Will this affect that
165 PlaneAdmirer : Are you kidding? I am doing the exact same thing on Monday. Hope we both get what we hoped for.
166 rcair1 : The photos don't have to reveal it to be a problem. If it reveals enough to cause somebody to want to investigate further, one tactic would be to sue
167 MSPNWA : I would be a little concerned. Right now it takes all three 787s to fly the normal schedule. So with #3902 down, at least one of the IAH-EWR/ORD/DEN
168 FlyAA757 : I was wrong - still there - just very foggy this am in MSy!
169 UGA777 : I just checked the flight status and my flight is now showing a 767-400 from DEN-IAH on Sunday. Bummer.
170 Aquila3 : Well, to my inexperienced view, it looks like there is something more serious (or just more nasty to troubleshoot, probably) than a generator fault. I
171 MSYtristar : Yeah, I was just out near the airport, and it is indeed still there. From what I hear, I wouldn't expect it to leave anytime soon. Certainly not toda
172 CALTECH : Last I read, wiring was being checked and megged. Didn't see any parts changes yet.
173 BoeingVista : 3 days seems an awfully long time to deal with a simple generator fault, also we have to assume that she is not flyable otherwise they would have fer
174 flood : What was the issue with 3904?
175 UALWN : Yep, thanks. Corrected in reply #159 above.
176 bhmdiversion : I landed in MSY about 2pm today and the aircraft is still here. All GSE was moved off, but the jet ridge was still attached?
177 ual747-600 : I wonder when this aircraft will be going back to KIAH as I'm surprised that it has not left MSY already. I hope that they'll get it back in service q
178 MSPNWA : I don't know. That's what I'd like to know too. Actually it looks like the problems started yesterday. I have a 787 trip coming soon, and so far they
179 BoeingVista : Doesn't look like the 787 teething problems are limited to Air India So the rights owners (Boeing's) argument to suppress the pictures is in case the
180 7BOEING7 : I think you read that wrong. Boeing isn't worried about showing they are infringing on somebody else's patent--somebody who wanted the technology wou
181 BoeingVista : You are both clearly wrong as the pictures are out there and nobody has made such a claim.. Boeing's IP assertions were just a ahem, smokescreen, to
182 dynamicsguy : Regardless of the reason they want to suppress them, the images belong to Boeing and were released without authorisation. Isn't that enough?
183 Post contains images CXB77L : The other way that you can look at it is that the photographs are subject to copyright by the copyright owner - in this case, Boeing. It cannot be re
184 BoeingVista : Image copyright is not absolute, there is a public interest exception. If say a manufacturer was producing a faulty part they would not be able to cl
185 Kaiarahi : 1. Not in this situation. 2. Can you cite any legal authorities for that proposition (Wiki doesn't count)? To the best of my knowledge, it's just wron
186 Post contains images RyanairGuru : They've already been asked to up-thread, and still didn't go. This getting very tiresome.
187 babybus : Thanks for letting us know about this. I'm just happy everyone got off the aircraft safely and no one got killed. I suspect that plane will be on the
188 tdscanuck : The other thread got started but seems to have vanished.
189 ikramerica : I am in no way blaming the crew for being safe, but it was an over-reaction from everything revealed so far. The over-reaction was because of a near
190 tdscanuck : What incident are we talking about that was near fatal? Tom.
191 BoeingVista : Sorry but you are very wrong, a public interest defence would be easy to make. UA1146 had an electrical issue that has still not really been explaine
192 tdscanuck : What possible public interest does it serve? The photos do not tell you how the event started, how it progressed, or what the danger level was to the
193 dynamicsguy : How so? What is Boeing covering up that is shown in these photos but is contrary to what they have released in statements on the matter? How does thi
194 PlanesNTrains : Apparently it's public interest to those who are on a witch hunt. I fail to see how it is in the public interest for me to see them if I have no idea
195 tdscanuck : That's correct. There was an FAA pilot and FAA engineer onboard. In addition, the FAA suspended certification testing on the 787's until Boeing could
196 Kaiarahi : So you already know, based on "everything revealed so far" (which is not much - 1 of 6 generators cut out and the flight diverted): 1. that it was an
197 tdscanuck : ikramerica was clear...based on *everything we know so far*. And, as you noted, what we know so far is that 1 of 6 generators cut out and the flight
198 Kaiarahi : Agreed - which would make it not an overreaction. I did listen to the ZHU and MSY atc feeds - nothing there. The pilots simply told ZHU they were div
199 Post contains links and images CALTECH : Do not believe for a second that it was a overreaction. http://blog.seattlepi.com/airlinerep...diverts-to-new-orleans-mid-flight/ "UA 1146: If in fact
200 Kaiarahi : It's moot anyway, since there's no such thing as a "public interest" exception to breach of copyright, especially in U.S. law where copyright flows f
201 Unflug : Great post, Thanks! I have to deal a lot with copyright issues and I think you are 100% correct.
202 Post contains images okie : I would speculate the same along with the amount of time the plane has been at MSY. Generator/Alternator replacement should not take more than a few
203 tdscanuck : With one generator down the 787 can depart for full Part 121 revenue service without restrictions (MMEL). It can even go with two generators down, as
204 flood : 902 was ferried back to IAH as UA6880 this evening and is scheduled to operate to EWR in the morning.
205 Revelation : Much appreciated! The chemical reaction part gets to the heart of the matter to me. I'm curious to the point of re-asking the question: would these s
206 SavannahMark : Operating as UAL1146. Pushed from the gate and should be airborne soon.
207 Post contains images bikerthai : Technically speaking the incident involved was on a plane that was still flying under an experimental ticket (right Tom)? So should the bar have been
208 cmf : Everything is so easy in hindsight. Reality is that you go with what you have and update as you learn more.
209 tdscanuck : Correct. Anything and everything that happens in an environment like that really has no public disclosure right of any kind...it's all massively prop
210 SonomaFlyer : Folks, continuing to sprinkle in references to what was alleged to be a near fatal incident (ZA002) during the testing phase in a thread about UA 1146
211 Norcal773 : Agreed. Lock this baby up Mods, the plane is back in service anyways.
212 CALTECH : Best as heard, first off, they had a RT 1 GEN message appear. Started up the APU. About 5 minutes later, the APU L GEN failed. As this happened, a F/A
213 tdscanuck : Not really. NTSB only gets involved for a certain class of incidents. Even if the airplane didn't do what it was supposed to do, nobody was hurt, the
214 CALTECH : There was a reported flash mark behind the P200 below the RT GCU slot, along with some CT's that went bad. A RT BTB was also found to be bad. Electri
215 SonomaFlyer : Based on CALTECH's account, no wonder they diverted. This sounds like a multi-stage electrical issue. Whether each of the faults is premised on the fi
216 Tardis : This confuses me very much. Does anyone know what really happened? Are there any United employees who can answer this?
217 phxa340 : Dude read the above comments. We have been fortunate enough to have insiders and engineers break it down for us in simple terms - there is no conspir
218 spacecadet : That sounds a little more serious than a simple generator failure. What could cause all that? To someone who's not familiar with the 787's electrical
219 SonomaFlyer : It is which is why I suspect the aircraft sat in New Orleans for roughly three days before ferrying back to IAH. Its a safe bet that Boeing engineers
220 7BOEING7 : It's a very complicated and "smart" system. Like the 777 electric loads are shed due to an initial loss of power then recovered automaticallly to part
221 Antoniemey : If that's anything like the "Smart" bag belts I have to deal with, that means every once in awhile it takes a big crap that no one present on the sce
222 SA7700 : As ship 902 was ferried back to IAH on December 2012 (UA6880) and is scheduled to operate to EWR in the next few days, this thread will now be locked.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
United 787 #3904 To IAH posted Sat Sep 22 2012 06:25:35 by CALTECH
CO Flt 62 IAH-EWR Diverted To PHL? posted Mon Mar 29 2004 21:26:33 by JoseMEX
MegaDo On The United 787 posted Sun Dec 2 2012 12:18:54 by caliatenza
United 787 First Revenue Flight Underway posted Sun Nov 4 2012 06:19:18 by womenbeshoppin
United 787 @ ORD This Sunday posted Fri Nov 2 2012 23:35:08 by boxsmasher
United 787 Flight Schedule Loaded posted Wed Aug 22 2012 19:39:07 by LAXintl
PmUA Changes At IAH/EWR Of Note posted Wed May 30 2012 08:46:54 by drerx7
United 787 Order Finalized posted Thu Feb 25 2010 09:32:31 by OldAeroGuy
ERJ And IAH, EWR posted Mon Mar 2 2009 07:59:34 by Bradley639
AA 1520 LAX-MIA 777 Diverted To IAH posted Thu Dec 27 2007 17:16:44 by Sflaflight