Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA 787 FLT 139 Air Turn Back  
User currently offlineflybaurlax From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 638 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 26802 times:

It looks like United Flight 139 is diverting to SEA from its DEN-NRT flight.

I heard through the grapevine it's engine trouble. I"ll post pictures if I see it here.

http://www.flightradar24.com/


Boilerup! Go Purdue!
81 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3085 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 26791 times:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...9/history/20130618/1835Z/KDEN/RJAA


The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9665 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 26731 times:

Technically SEA would be a diversion and not an Air Turn Back. It wasn't a diversion to the nearest alternate since they were over 1 hour from SEA. The associated slow descent (driftdown style) from altitude is interesting. I'm struggling to think of a reason why they would descent at 300 fpm without diverting to the nearest alternate.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineflybaurlax From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 26373 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 2):

Good point. Should have been divert, sorry.

Yeah there were fire truck escorts and the FAA Mercedes up to it immediately at the gate. There are guys looking under the #1 engine, cowl not open yet.



Boilerup! Go Purdue!
User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5252 posts, RR: 23
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 26012 times:

What is it with United and this aircraft? The word on other threads is that the 787 is presently a PITA because the monitoring systems and buggy software produce a million little squawks that have to be handled before the next flight.

However, everyone but United seems to be able to get their aircraft ready for the next flight.

Is it just that the Japanese, Polish, and Ethiopian workers put their heads down and get the job done faster and better than their United brethren?

Or is there something else going on? I know there are relatively-few data points out there, but if ANA can run 60 of these things on-time, why can't United make 5 work?

[Edited 2013-06-18 17:16:21]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31096 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 25945 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Seattle's NBC affiliate reports that the flight crew received a warning about the oil filter ( assume in one of the GEnx engines): http://www.king5.com/news/aerospace/...deverted-to-Sea-Tac-212068071.html

[Edited 2013-06-18 17:19:45]

User currently offlineAztrainer From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 590 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 25934 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 4):
What is it with United and this aircraft? The word on other threads is that the 787 is presently a PITA because the monitoring systems and buggy software produce a million little squawks that have to be handled before the next flight.

However, everyone but United seems to be able to get their aircraft ready for the next flight.

Is it just that the Japanese, Polish, and Ethiopian workers put their heads down and get the job done faster and better than their United brethren?

Or is there something else going on? I know there are relatively-few data points out there, but if ANA can run 60 of these things on-time, why can't United make 5 work?

Good question, but it also could be a learning curve for the UA crews.

Also, if this was a 767, 777, or 747 (or any other aircraft) this may of been a blip on the news or not made any news at all. I think a lot of it is due to the previous problems with the 787, so the media will blow anything that happens on one out of portions. IMHO


User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5252 posts, RR: 23
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 25856 times:

Oh, I know we will hear about every single problem. The Japanese media, in particular, is on high alert about this aircraft. More and more, though, the Problem Child seems to be UA.

Are there any below-the-radar labor issues burbling around this a/c?


User currently offlineFirstClass From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 25629 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 4):

United operates roughly 10% of the 787 delivered so far, so any issue with the 787 has quite a fair chance being one of the United birds


User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 980 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 25590 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 4):
However, everyone but United seems to be able to get their aircraft ready for the next flight.

Is it just that the Japanese, Polish, and Ethiopian workers put their heads down and get the job done faster and better than their United brethren?

Or is there something else going on? I know there are relatively-few data points out there, but if ANA can run 60 of these things on-time, why can't United make 5 work?

Really then explain this article which hasn't been reported on this website it pertains to ANA and their 787's the article states that the week of Jun 12th ANA had to cancel 3 of their Dreamliner flights one was due in no small part to the fact on of the engines would even start. But yet you claim ANA is running all 60 Dreamliner's ontime. I think not.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...fter-engine-fails-to-start-1-.html

You want to come after United come after us for a real reason God knows we have plenty of things that are wrong and we need to fix but what is happening with the 788 is normal and it is happening to all operators just because its not reported on A.netters every time other airlines have issues with their Dreamliner's does not mean that those operators are not experience problems just the same.


User currently offlineklkla From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 937 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 25549 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 7):
Are there any below-the-radar labor issues burbling around this a/c?

This was my initial reaction, too, being as they seem to be having a lot more issues than other 787 operators. But probably just an abundance of caution (which isn't necessarily a bad thing from a passenger safety standpoint).


User currently offlineseahawks7757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 25514 times:

Here is a pic of it that has come online on the ground in Seattle-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawks7757/9079096923/


User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 902 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 25421 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 7):
Are there any below-the-radar labor issues burbling around this a/c?
Quoting klkla (Reply 10):
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 7):
Are there any below-the-radar labor issues burbling around this a/c?

This was my initial reaction, too, being as they seem to be having a lot more issues than other 787 operators.

Yes, by all means, let's blame labor without a shred of evidence.

For what's it worth, the handful of guys I know on the 787s are staunchly pro-787 and rave about the aircraft. They want it to work.

Could it be that they did the right thing in reacting to a caution or warning EICAS message?

This is armchair quarterbacking at it's worst. You should know better. It's a new aircraft and will be buggy for some time.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 24788 times:

Quoting jayunited (Reply 9):
Really then explain this article which hasn't been reported on this website it pertains to ANA and their 787's the article states that the week of Jun 12th ANA had to cancel 3 of their Dreamliner flights

From June 7-9 alone and with only six 787s, UA had more disruptions to their schedule than ANA has had all month thus far - and ANA operates 18 of them.

The issues you're referring to were reported here:
ANA 787 Engine Issue At Fukuoka (by PHX787 Jun 10 2013 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlinekalvado From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 491 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 24698 times:

Quoting Aztrainer (Reply 6):
Also, if this was a 767, 777, or 747 (or any other aircraft) this may of been a blip on the news or not made any news at all. I think a lot of it is due to the previous problems with the 787, so the media will blow anything that happens on one out of portions. IMHO

More interesting question is how this event would affect type statistics. Given there are not that may frames, and event being an engine issue - if it counts towards ETOPS failure rate, event may be more newsworthy than average 767/777/330 issue due to the hit on performance stats.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3448 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 24679 times:

Is this the first service to SEA? Do they get a water cannon welcome ?     

Hope they get it figured out an turned around.

tortugamon


User currently offlinejben From Australia, joined Aug 2006, 77 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 24609 times:

Oh good grief. On any given day, every airline (of sufficient size) will have at least one aircraft that has an issue. I'm waiting for a 787 to fly into heavy chop and some coffee spills onto a passenger's chair. The headline will be "passengers nearly killed by flying coffin".

No, this should be a sign that everything is working as designed. The pilots got a warning from the system involved and followed the company procedures. Everything went brilliantly. People were only mildly inconvenienced. Nobody lost anything. Also, it's a new aircraft with new engines. Every single aircraft ever introduced has problems, every aircraft has AD's and every individual plane will go tech at some point in its service life.


User currently onlinePEK777 From China, joined Jun 2012, 151 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 24587 times:

The bird was just a little homesick, wanted to visit the old neighborhood.

User currently offlineklkla From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 937 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 24500 times:

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 12):
This is armchair quarterbacking at it's worst. You should know better. It's a new aircraft and will be buggy for some time.

You should now better than quoting someone out of context

When you quote this:

Quoting klkla (Reply 10):

This was my initial reaction, too, being as they seem to be having a lot more issues than other 787 operators.

Without including this:

Quoting klkla (Reply 10):
But probably just an abundance of caution (which isn't necessarily a bad thing from a passenger safety standpoint).

You are being misleading.


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5790 posts, RR: 47
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 24439 times:

Geez, just an oil filter issue. Bet this aircraft will be back in service in 2 days max. The press has got to chill out.


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2280 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 24277 times:

What is a 'air turn back? ' A 'air return' would see the aircraft landing back at the airport it took off from, which is serious. It did not go back to Denver, but diverted into Seattle, which is a serious event too.

Some of these posts, yeah, wow, labor issues ? How about a engine that has a delta p message for oil filter clogging, which is what it sounds like ? United should have flown the airplane until the engine might have destroyed it's bearings among other things ? Now that would have made real noteworthy news. Hopefully it is just a bad indication and the filter did not clog with material.

[Edited 2013-06-18 20:16:53]


UNITED We Stand
User currently offlineGoBoeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2706 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 24278 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 2):
I'm struggling to think of a reason why they would descent at 300 fpm without diverting to the nearest alternate.

Maybe they pulled back the power on the trouble engine to keep oil temp or pressure within limits, but kept the engine running at idle.

I have no idea what the UAL or 787 policy would be on that particular scenario but perhaps it's land as soon as practical and not as soon as possible.


User currently offlinejreuschl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 549 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 24062 times:

Why didn't they bring it back to the store in PAE? "I just bought this, fix it NOW!"

 


User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3148 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 24055 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 15):
Is this the first service to SEA? Do they get a water cannon welcome ?

No. NH did NRT-SEA with a 787 before the grounding.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1581 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 23897 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 2):
I'm struggling to think of a reason why they would descent at 300 fpm without diverting to the nearest alternate.
Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 21):
Maybe they pulled back the power on the trouble engine to keep oil temp or pressure within limits, but kept the engine running at idle.

ETOPS, it doesn't count as an engine shutdown if it remains at idle. I imagine the FAA will look at it anyway.



BV
User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 902 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 23608 times:

Quoting klkla (Reply 18):
You are being misleading.

Yet you admitted that you had considered some sort of labor action, too (in addition to the earlier post by wjcandee).

Perhaps the context of my post wasn't clear to you (and therefore, maybe to others as well) - it was more about the concern expressed about labor - including a comment made by you - rather than the bugs the aircraft has.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 23765 times:

Looks like N26902 will be positioning as UA6854 IAH-SEA tomorrow morning to collect pax and operate as UA1749 SEA-NRT with departure 9:30 AM.

edit to add: UA initially had 902's positioning flight scheduled for this evening but moved it to tomorrow morning. The aircraft hasn't flown since arriving from LHR on Sunday. With 902 scheduled to collect the pax at SEA, Wednesday's UA134 IAH-ORD will be subbed by a 764ER.

[Edited 2013-06-18 21:11:22]

User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5252 posts, RR: 23
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 24200 times:

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 12):
This is armchair quarterbacking at it's worst.

Nonsense. It's a reasonable question. Someone said, "Well, 10% of the birds flying are United, so there's a good chance a problem will end up being on a United a/c." I say: 90% of the a/c flying are NOT United, and yet we're seeing lots of delays and are hearing reports that this is because UA maint is having to tackle a million squawks. I'm giving UA maint credit that all the other airlines must be having the same squawks (if they aren't, that's a separate issue), so it's not unreasonable to ask the question.

If the answer is that the UA mechanics are God, are the best anywhere on the a/c, love the thing, have no issues with management, and have plenty of time to do the work, then so be it.

But it's hardly armchair quarterbacking to ask what's up.


User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5252 posts, RR: 23
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 23907 times:

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 12):
Could it be that they did the right thing in reacting to a caution or warning EICAS message?

Oh, please. If you get the message, you follow the procedure. I have been around here far too long to merit that kind of shot, and it was not even remotely my point.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 20):
United should have flown the airplane until the engine might have destroyed it's bearings among other things ?

Ditto what I said above.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 20):
Hopefully it is just a bad indication and the filter did not clog with material.

Absolutely agreed. And I'm also confident that we aren't going to be seeing an issue like the RB211 on the L1011 (metal shavings).

Quoting flood (Reply 13):
From June 7-9 alone and with only six 787s, UA had more disruptions to their schedule than ANA has had all month thus far - and ANA operates 18 of them.

THIS is the point -- and why it's appropriate to at least ask the question: bad luck, or something else?

Quoting jben (Reply 16):
Everything went brilliantly. People were only mildly inconvenienced.

I'm thinking that waiting -- what? -- almost 24 hours for another aircraft isn't going to be considered a "minor inconvenience" by the business folks paying $8,316 to ride BusinessFirst one way to NRT.


User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2280 posts, RR: 26
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 23226 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 28):
Oh, please. If you get the message, you follow the procedure. I have been around here far too long to merit that kind of shot, and it was not even remotely my point.

That's not how you posted it, as below. It just seemed like a cheap shot. It is a new bird and there is a learning curve.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 4):
What is it with United and this aircraft? The word on other threads is that the 787 is presently a PITA because the monitoring systems and buggy software produce a million little squawks that have to be handled before the next flight.

However, everyone but United seems to be able to get their aircraft ready for the next flight.

Is it just that the Japanese, Polish, and Ethiopian workers put their heads down and get the job done faster and better than their United brethren?

Or is there something else going on? I know there are relatively-few data points out there, but if ANA can run 60 of these things on-time, why can't United make 5 work?
Quoting flood (Reply 13):
From June 7-9 alone and with only six 787s, UA had more disruptions to their schedule than ANA has had all month thus far - and ANA operates 18 of them.

Ya think maybe ANA operating more 787s gives them a better opportunity to sub a aircraft for one that has gone tech ?
Should we say that ANA and JAL somehow are not as good as other 787 operators since they were the only ones who had battery incidents with thermal runaways that caused groundings of the 787 ? Maybe United is more cautious and safer than the Japanese, Polish and Ethiopian operators with a new aircraft ? Geez, it is a new aircraft and being cautious with it is not a bad way to be.
With this oil filter message, again, does anyone believe that the United flight should have pressed on ?



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4900 posts, RR: 16
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 22944 times:

In the days of yore, (McAUTO and BCS) great pride was taken in the quality if software written, and these guys arguably wrote the book on software development. So what happened to the software on the 787? Is it as buggy as alleged, and was it also contracted out? Given the acute shortage of quality software engineers in the industry (all selling their souls in Silicon Valley writing Javascript) I am not surprised.

I also know there is a move in the aerospace industry to move to COTS product but I would not want to be flying on something powered by Jelly Bean.

I am very curious to hear from a.netters in the industry about 787 software issues, real and imagined - thanks!

McAuto = McDonnell Douglas Automation Services
BCS = Boeing Computer Services
COTS = Commercial Off The Shelf


User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 31, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 22525 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 29):
Ya think maybe ANA operating more 787s gives them a better opportunity to sub a aircraft for one that has gone tech ?

Obviously, but I'm not talking about substitutions in advance. When your aircraft goes tech and has to return to the gate, having another 20 aircraft sitting around as spares won't magically make the delays associated with an aircraft change go away.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4973 posts, RR: 4
Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 22529 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 4):
Or is there something else going on? I know there are relatively-few data points out there, but if ANA can run 60 of these things on-time, why can't United make 5 work?

No offence but Japanese have efficiency programmed in their DNA. I travelled in Tokyo last month & their transportation network operates like clockwork & reliable! (I know Japanese are not robots)

EK8413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31096 posts, RR: 85
Reply 33, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 22518 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 29):
Ya think maybe ANA operating more 787s gives them a better opportunity to sub a aircraft for one that has gone tech?

I believe both NH and JL keeps spare 787s on "hot standby" in Tokyo to sub in for a broken bird, though depending on where the original went tech, there could be a fair bit of delay in getting the replacement on site (as flood noted).

[Edited 2013-06-18 22:41:06]

User currently offlinecopter808 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1105 posts, RR: 1
Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 22436 times:

Quoting comorin (Reply 31):
I am very curious to hear from a.netters in the industry about 787 software issues, real and imagined - thanks!

I flew on it last Thursday, NRT-DEN with no problems, and will do it again. I've also flown aircraft as a crewmember and gotten warning lights. We did what we gotta do--landed and fixed it. NO emergency, just following procedures.


User currently offlineAquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 273 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 21909 times:

Quoting comorin (Reply 31):
I am very curious to hear from a.netters in the industry about 787 software issues, real and imagined - thanks!

I am interested too, from a professional POW.
Maybe would be interesting to open a topic in tech/ops , tough.



chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1062 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 21015 times:

Done!

787 Software Incidents (by justloveplanes Jun 19 2013 in Tech Ops)

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 37):
I am interested too, from a professional POW.
Maybe would be interesting to open a topic in tech/ops , tough.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4296 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 19992 times:

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 12):

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 7):
Are there any below-the-radar labor issues burbling around this a/c?
Quoting klkla (Reply 10):
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 7):
Are there any below-the-radar labor issues burbling around this a/c?

This was my initial reaction, too, being as they seem to be having a lot more issues than other 787 operators.

Yes, by all means, let's blame labor without a shred of evidence.

For what's it worth, the handful of guys I know on the 787s are staunchly pro-787 and rave about the aircraft. They want it to work.

Could it be that they did the right thing in reacting to a caution or warning EICAS message?

This is armchair quarterbacking at it's worst. You should know better. It's a new aircraft and will be buggy for some time.

It could also be a collision with a UFO like the plane in China...

I love this forum, I love a good story without facts and take what is said to be the facts without evidence. People are looking for fire where there is no smoke...pun intended.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinesoftrally From Canada, joined Mar 2012, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 19845 times:

Does anyone know the registration for this aircraft? I flew on this flight last Saturday on N20904.


Flown on: 738, 744, 762/763, 772, 77W, 788, A306, A318/319/320/321, A332/333, E145, E190, CRJ700
User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 19853 times:

It was N26906.

Now being substituted by 904 (UA initially scheduled 902)


User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4299 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 19915 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

table border="0" align="CENTER" width="95%" class="quote" >
Quoting PEK777 (Reply 17):
The bird was just a little homesick, wanted to visit the old neighborhood.
Quoting jreuschl (Reply 22):
Why didn't they bring it back to the store in PAE? "I just bought this, fix it NOW!"

Two great lines.   

User currently offlineklwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 2066 posts, RR: 3
Reply 41, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 19861 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 28):
Quoting jben (Reply 16):
Everything went brilliantly. People were only mildly inconvenienced.

I'm thinking that waiting -- what? -- almost 24 hours for another aircraft isn't going to be considered a "minor inconvenience" by the business folks paying $8,316 to ride BusinessFirst one way to NRT.

The flight from NRT to DEN is cancelled today. Earlier, as in two hours ago, it showed a 19 hour delay. I then looked at the seat map. Nearly all the seats were empty. Clearly everyone had already been rebooked on other flights today. Therefore with the 19 hour delay it would have gone out empty anyway. So cancellation was the obvious next step.

The same flight for tomorrow is showing space available in both business and economy. Therefore everyone got out today.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 2082 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 19202 times:

Is it true, US based airlines have very tight turnaround times. Could this be a factor for UA 787's poor dispatch reliability and glitches. May be UA need to pad few extra hours to their 787 schedules. Also offer yoga lessons to 787 maintenance engineers.

User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 18787 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 44):
Is it true, US based airlines have very tight turnaround times.

I'm not familiar with average turnaround times but UA appears to have increased the turnaround times for their 787s slightly since before the grounding. They used to do some at around 1.5 hrs, now they're at 2 hrs or longer.

Here's a sample schedule from May 28th... been too lazy to do a current one.
http://www.pdxlight.com/787/UA787may.jpg

Last I checked (many moons ago) ANA was doing some turns in 45 mins and didn't appear to be having any issues doing so.


User currently offlinen797mx From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days ago) and read 18073 times:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...4/history/20130619/1030Z/KIAH/KSEA

Another 787 being ferried out to SEA on N20904.



Clear skies and strong tail winds.
User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3045 posts, RR: 4
Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14889 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 36):
Or is it never permitted to question whether there might be a labor issue lurking? They pop up in unexpected places...like AA 965, for example.

What would you say the "labor issue" was that led to the crash?


User currently offlineklwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 2066 posts, RR: 3
Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14396 times:

If you look at UA's website and check the flight's status, yesterday's flight has been completely taken down, no delay, no cancellation, no nothing. It's as if the flight didn't exist that day at all.

User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3148 posts, RR: 7
Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14376 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 47):
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 36):
Or is it never permitted to question whether there might be a labor issue lurking? They pop up in unexpected places...like AA 965, for example.

What would you say the "labor issue" was that led to the crash?

I'm not getting it either. AA 965 was a combination of factors that had nothing to do with, say, the maintenance of the airplane or any other labor related things. The fact that Colombian rebels had destroyed the ILS didn't help.

No matter how bad a labor dispute in any industry could be, I can't imagine anyone ever intentionally taking action that could risk other people's lives.


User currently offlineUSAIRWAYS321 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1848 posts, RR: 9
Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14025 times:

Quoting klwright69 (Reply 43):
The flight from NRT to DEN is cancelled today. Earlier, as in two hours ago, it showed a 19 hour delay. I then looked at the seat map. Nearly all the seats were empty. Clearly everyone had already been rebooked on other flights today. Therefore with the 19 hour delay it would have gone out empty anyway. So cancellation was the obvious next step.

The same flight for tomorrow is showing space available in both business and economy. Therefore everyone got out today.

The passengers needing to be accommodated would be in SEA, not DEN. Available space on DEN-NRT wouldn't prove that everyone got out the same day.


User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1619 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 13649 times:

Worthless Thread. Should be closed.   


To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20728 posts, RR: 62
Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12926 times:

Quoting glideslope (Reply 49):
Worthless Thread. Should be closed.

Why? This story made the local news here in Portland this morning. The CBS station here did say that the flight was from Tokyo to Denver though, getting the direction wrong, even though one passenger interviewed clearly said he took the flight to get to Japan faster.  



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5252 posts, RR: 23
Reply 51, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12898 times:

AA965 was a case of some incredibly-experienced, incredibly-competent pilots flying a perfectly-airworthy 757 into a mountain.

On AA965, a major failure of the crew, as identified in the report, was that they did nada in terms of approach planning, despite the fact that they were heading into an area that had no radar, at night, with primitive navigational aids, in the middle of mountains and hills on approach. Because they did nothing to plan for the approach, other than enter some minimal info into the FMC before the flight, they were well behind the airplane when they were offered a straight in approach. And they really didn't take the time to determine whether it was worth the extra work to take that approach, i.e. whether it would have been easier just to fly the plan. What they did do from 2104 until 2128, when they actually started the descent, plenty of time to do an approach plan, was instead bitch about, generally-speaking, "labor stuff". AA and their pilots were at odds at the time. The exact words are on the CVR transcript -- endless babble. They were well removed from what should have been their primary focus by the time they began their descent, and they never got it back. At the time, there was a lot of very surprised commentary by the folks who reviewed the CVR.

A report by the Flight Safety Foundation which highlights what should have been done as far as approach planning, why it is important generally and why it was particularly important here, and which documents what conversation was had instead, is here: http://flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_may-june98.pdf

[Edited 2013-06-19 09:46:11]

User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12704 times:

United just cancelled UA32 ORD-IAH as well... seems N27903 is stuck at ORD for now. The aircraft was later scheduled to do a second IAH-ORD-IAH run which got the axe too.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 51):

I think there's just a misunderstanding as the term "labor issues" often refers to disruptive or hostile labor action, whereas it seems you're simply referring to human factors in general, ie mistakes.


User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 53, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12594 times:

Scratch that... UA32 ORD-IAH was cancelled because N27903 is now being repositioned to DEN so it can operate the NRT flight. I guess 902 went tech in DEN as the NRT flight shows an aircraft change with 90 min delay.

User currently offlineEyeSky From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 312 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 11734 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Flight just left SEA for NRT. Nice to see a 787 here even if it was for a mechanical.

User currently offlineNorcal773 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1448 posts, RR: 12
Reply 55, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 11637 times:

Quoting flood (Reply 26):
Looks like N26902 will be positioning as UA6854 IAH-SEA tomorrow morning to collect pax and operate as UA1749 SEA-NRT with departure 9:30 AM.

edit to add: UA initially had 902's positioning flight scheduled for this evening but moved it to tomorrow morning. The aircraft hasn't flown since arriving from LHR on Sunday. With 902 scheduled to collect the pax at SEA, Wednesday's UA134 IAH-ORD will be subbed by a 764ER.

FYI....... Ship 904 is up in the air now doing UA1749 SEA-DEN climbing out of FL250. Left gate about 45 minutes late around 10:14AM PST (was scheduled for 9:30AM)



If you're going through hell, keep going
User currently offlineNavigator From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 1213 posts, RR: 14
Reply 56, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11410 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 4):
However, everyone but United seems to be able to get their aircraft ready for the next flight.

Is it just that the Japanese, Polish, and Ethiopian workers put their heads down and get the job done faster and better than their United brethren?

I do not think you should judge Uniteds handling of this based on the limited information available. I have full confidence in United when it comes to technical issues. To be honest I would put them ahead of at least LOT. But without full insight conclusions like the one you are trying to make should not be done.



747-400/747-200/L1011/DC-10/DC-9/DC-8/MD-80/MD90/A340/A330/A300/A310/A321/A320/A319/767/757/737/727/HS-121/CV990/CV440/S
User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 57, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11083 times:

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 55):
FYI....... Ship 904 is up in the air now doing UA1749 SEA-DEN climbing out of FL250. Left gate about 45 minutes late around 10:14AM PST (was scheduled for 9:30AM)

Thanks. Small typo, I know you meant SEA-NRT... good to see them on their way  

Originally United had scheduled 902 to do SEA-NRT but changed it to 904 sometime last night. So today 902 went tech in DEN... it would've been a little embarrassing had they sent it to SEA and it went tech there instead - leaving the pax stranded yet again. Probably would've made the news again too.


User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5252 posts, RR: 23
Reply 58, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10036 times:

Quoting Navigator (Reply 56):
But without full insight conclusions like the one you are trying to make should not be done.

Nobody's "trying" to make any conclusions. It's a question. Looking for an answer.


User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2207 posts, RR: 15
Reply 59, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9863 times:

Quoting flood (Reply 53):
Scratch that... UA32 ORD-IAH was cancelled because N27903 is now being repositioned to DEN so it can operate the NRT flight. I guess 902 went tech in DEN as the NRT flight shows an aircraft change with 90 min delay.

Crazy. I flew UA 32 yesterday from IAH to ORD.



next flights: jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg, cdg-phl-msp
User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5252 posts, RR: 23
Reply 60, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9797 times:

Quoting flood (Reply 52):
I think there's just a misunderstanding as the term "labor issues" often refers to disruptive or hostile labor action, whereas it seems you're simply referring to human factors in general, ie mistakes.

Interesting. I'm not saying "mistakes" per se; but I am also certainly not saying "sabotage" or even intentionally-disruptive acts. I am using the term broadly, to mean such things as tensions/disputes/confusion between labor and management, which often (as in the AA example) cause people to take their eye off the ball at a Very Bad Time or just say, "Screw it, I'm not busting my butt to get this thing out the door for these unappreciative jerks." Stuff like that.

Another possibility here is that Management, for whatever reason, isn't giving the folks who need to do the stuff enough tools to do the stuff, enough bodies to do the stuff, enough training to do the stuff, enough factory reps to help them learn to do the stuff, enough Acquired Wisdom (through the shared/distributed experiences of other carriers) to do the stuff, etc.

When 787 sections began arriving in Washington State incomplete or with mistakes, it was up to Boeing management to choose how aggressively to investigate/correct the issues, whether to take the word of the companies, to immediately assign additional monitoring, to exercise draconian rights under their agreements, etc. With full hindsight, they needed to be very aggressive to the point of replacing certain contractors, but there were reasons they didn't...reasons that now look insufficient.

In the end, it's about identifying a problem/issue/anomaly, and asking the hard questions that lead to meaningful action to address it. It seems like United's experience is anomalous to some degree, at least from this distance, so I am asking the question of those who know more what they think some of the reasons for that might be. Twenty-five years ago, an enormous percentage of my CO flights from EWR were delayed by tech issues. There were myriad reasons for this, including apathy, demoralized work force, poor management (or poor management action; there's a difference). Then Gordon Bethune arrived, and the turnaround in performance of the organization was quick, palpable and amazing, even though it employed largely the exact same work force, exact same mid-level managers, etc. It's a skill to get everything moving cohesively in the right direction, and when it seems not to be, finger-pointing does little while leadership in the problem area does a lot.

But you have to admit the existence of a problem, and then ask the questions about what will help fix it.

[Edited 2013-06-19 12:31:52]

User currently offlineNorcal773 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1448 posts, RR: 12
Reply 61, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 9165 times:

Quoting flood (Reply 57):
Thanks. Small typo, I know you meant SEA-NRT... good to see them on their way  

Oops, Thanks for the correction, I meant NRT indeed.

Quoting flood (Reply 57):
Originally United had scheduled 902 to do SEA-NRT but changed it to 904 sometime last night. So today 902 went tech in DEN... it would've been a little embarrassing had they sent it to SEA and it went tech there instead - leaving the pax stranded yet again. Probably would've made the news again too.

Ooh that would have stunk, and you bet the media and wjcandees of this world would have been all over it!



If you're going through hell, keep going
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9665 posts, RR: 52
Reply 62, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8814 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 60):

Interesting. I'm not saying "mistakes" per se; but I am also certainly not saying "sabotage" or even intentionally-disruptive acts. I am using the term broadly, to mean such things as tensions/disputes/confusion between labor and management, which often (as in the AA example) cause people to take their eye off the ball at a Very Bad Time or just say, "Screw it, I'm not busting my butt to get this thing out the door for these unappreciative jerks." Stuff like that.

Every airline has problems. Subfleets have problems from time to time. However, despite labor and management problems, UA still has the largest fleet in the world and is an industry leader in maintenance. United, Delta, American, and Southwest are industry leaders and if you ever go to an industry conference about maintenance, you’ll see good representation from UA showing the engineering and technological expertise. UA has vast engineering resources and afterall they were the ones who invented the whole concept of maintenance programs in the 1960s. US operators push their airplanes hard and tend to have lower dispatch reliability than their Japanese peers. ANA and JAL are always the industry leaders in dispatch reliability, but they also have incredibly expensive maintenance programs. JAL required so many resources to fund their near perfect dispatch reliability that it almost bankrupted the company.

I’m not trying to just defend UA and proclaim they are perfect. They are far from it, but according to the article posted earlier, the diversion was caused by an oil filter. The 787 filters are too new to ever been changed by United, so it is likely problems resulting from some infant mortality of parts and associated debris tracing back to the engine manufacturer. That’s not United’s fault. New airplanes always have some infant mortality problems. Even brand new 737s have problems, but add in the new technology and limited experience with the 787s, there are bound to be problems.

Sure UA is having some problems. I am sure they along with Boeing and GE will solve it. UA is a high profile airline operating a high profile fleet in the most media hungry market in the world, so their problems are going to be reported. I am sure they could have done a better job getting ready to support their fleet with training and spare parts. They may have tried to get away and saving money by not completing all the familiarization training with the 787 fleet for the mechanics, but with time I have no doubt the problems will get solved. UA has plenty of labor problems, but their mechanics still do top notch work and are some of the most experienced in the industry.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineklwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 2066 posts, RR: 3
Reply 63, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6469 times:

Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 48):
Quoting klwright69 (Reply 43):The flight from NRT to DEN is cancelled today. Earlier, as in two hours ago, it showed a 19 hour delay. I then looked at the seat map. Nearly all the seats were empty. Clearly everyone had already been rebooked on other flights today. Therefore with the 19 hour delay it would have gone out empty anyway. So cancellation was the obvious next step.

The same flight for tomorrow is showing space available in both business and economy. Therefore everyone got out today.
The passengers needing to be accommodated would be in SEA, not DEN. Available space on DEN-NRT wouldn't prove that everyone got out the same day.

I was talking about the return flight from NRT back to DEN. The flight was showing 19 hours late, then it cancelled. Before it cancelled, the flight was almost empty as everyone had been rebooked.


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1390 posts, RR: 2
Reply 64, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6385 times:

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 61):
Oops, Thanks for the correction, I meant NRT indeed.

So 906 ended up flying DEN-SEA.
902 was scheduled to end up in SEA to fly SEA-NRT, but went technical
904 ended up actually flying SEA-NRT on 6/19

What ship flew DEN-NRT on 6.19?

904's return trip NRT-DEN was cancelled. Now there is an extra 787 in NRT? Will they cancel a trip to even it out, or ferry a 787 back to the states, or fly an extra section one day?


User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 65, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6347 times:

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 59):
Crazy. I flew UA 32 yesterday from IAH to ORD.

Got lucky! And if you had booked for today you would've ended up on a 739  
Quoting ADent (Reply 64):
What ship flew DEN-NRT on 6.19?

904's return trip NRT-DEN was cancelled. Now there is an extra 787 in NRT? Will they cancel a trip to even it out, or ferry a 787 back to the states, or fly an extra section one day?
DEN-NRT was operated by 903 on 6/19.

Friday will see 2x NRT-DEN flights

903 is just about to arrive at NRT, will depart NRT Friday
904 picked up stranded pax and did SEA-NRT, departs NRT today (Thursday)
901 operating today's DEN-NRT, departing NRT Friday

[Edited 2013-06-20 02:08:35]

User currently offlinetraindoc From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 361 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days ago) and read 6200 times:

Since the problem was with the GE built engine, why not divert to CVG where GE has their engine business headquartered. Just fly in and request an oil and filter change. Sort of like Jiffy Lube, but for planes rather than cars. Sounds like a great new business to me.      

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3448 posts, RR: 10
Reply 67, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5936 times:

Rats. Not another oil issue:

The Federal Aviation Administration says a United Airlines Boeing 787 flying from London to Houston was diverted to Newark, N.J., because of a low engine oil indicator.

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationw...1234918_apusboeing787diverted.html

tortugamom


User currently offlinetwinotter From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 204 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5735 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 19):
The press has got to chill out.

Yeah, the press should only report incidents that are serious enough to have a thread in airliners.net that generates dozens of comments . . .

The press isn't reporting it because it was dangerous or serious. They are reporting it because people are obviously interested in 787 diversions right now, as evidenced by this forum. That is called "doing their job".

[Edited 2013-06-20 16:45:31]

User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2280 posts, RR: 26
Reply 69, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days ago) and read 5341 times:

Debris was actually found on the chip detector.


UNITED We Stand
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1628 posts, RR: 8
Reply 70, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5189 times:

There is no actual procedure for low oil quantity, per se. If you see a loss of oil quantity you monitor the oil pressure (low) and temperature (high) and if they can't be kept in limits by reducing thrust you shut the engine down and "Plan to land at the nearest suitable airport". You can also check the engines visually for an oil leak if you don't mind scaring the passengers.

User currently offlineKLAXAirport From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5103 times:

Is the 787 safe to fly? I have an upcoming flight on UA with the 787 and I fear it is not safe with all these problems within the last few days.

Cheers,
KLAXAirport   


User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2280 posts, RR: 26
Reply 72, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5036 times:

The diversion into EWR was for a steady loss of oil quantity, not 'low oil quantity.' The quantity had gone from normal and double digits in quarts, to single digits for quarts remaining.

I would fly on the 787.



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5252 posts, RR: 23
Reply 73, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4775 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 69):
Debris was actually found on the chip detector.

Huh. There ya go. It was either a faulty sensor (= no actual problem) or a problem. Sad to see it was the latter.

[Edited 2013-06-21 12:58:37]

User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1628 posts, RR: 8
Reply 74, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4649 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 72):
The diversion into EWR was for a steady loss of oil quantity, not 'low oil quantity.'

There is also not a procedure for "steady loss of oil quantity" -- same rules apply. The pilot obviously had a conversation with dispatch and they said "park it". I'm guessing he was having some oil temperature/pressure issues also.

Relative to the chip detector, that's the SEA divert right??


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 2082 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4591 times:

Is it possible other 787/GeNX airlines are not showing the ropes to UA MX? It appears they are keeping the tricks to themselves, probably not even telling Boeing.

User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2280 posts, RR: 26
Reply 76, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4525 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 73):
Huh. There ya go. It was either a faulty sensor (= no actual problem) or a problem. Sad to see it was the latter.

Will be interesting to see what the debris is composed of and where it comes from.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 74):
There is also not a procedure for "steady loss of oil quantity" -- same rules apply. The pilot obviously had a conversation with dispatch and they said "park it". I'm guessing he was having some oil temperature/pressure issues also.

While there maybe no procedure for 'steady loss of oil', when the engine runs out of oil, there will be a procedure for that shutdown. Preventative maintenace to keep from seeing EnginesTurning Or Passengers Swimming.

Actually it seems the engine just suffered a steady loss of oil. All other indications seem to have been normal.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 74):
Relative to the chip detector, that's the SEA divert right??

Yes, the SEA diversion was a Debris Monitoring System detector that was hairy. But the oil filter clogging was the message. The differential pressure from the oil filter set off that message.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 75):
Is it possible other 787/GeNX airlines are not showing the ropes to UA MX? It appears they are keeping the tricks to themselves, probably not even telling Boeing.

Actually from what I hear, the airlines are sharing their 787 experiences, I believe Boeing is putting the knowledge out there. Believe it, if there is any problem, the first to hear about it from the airlines would be Boeing.



UNITED We Stand
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1628 posts, RR: 8
Reply 77, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4450 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 76):
While there maybe no procedure for 'steady loss of oil', when the engine runs out of oil, there will be a procedure for that shutdown.

Per Boeing "There is no minimum oil quantity limit...... There are no operating limitations for the engine oil quantity: therefore there are no flight crew procedures based solely on a response to low oil quantity." If you have no oil and no other indications, it's assumed to be a bad indication. If you actually have very low/no oil you will have other indications and they will have you shut the engine down.

I've actually had both. A "no oil indication", but it was on the ground so we just shut it down within seconds of the reverse display indication. Turns out it was valid, there was no oil in the tank, it was all trapped in the engine due to a manufacturing error. And a "steady loss of oil" on climbout, but it had happened on a previous flight of the same airplane so we knew what the issue was and shut it down and came home -- no harm , no foul.

Obviously dispatch called the shots here, did he land with the engine shutdown???


User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2280 posts, RR: 26
Reply 78, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day ago) and read 4182 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 77):
Per Boeing "There is no minimum oil quantity limit...... There are no operating limitations for the engine oil quantity: therefore there are no flight crew procedures based solely on a response to low oil quantity." If you have no oil and no other indications, it's assumed to be a bad indication. If you actually have very low/no oil you will have other indications and they will have you shut the engine down.

   There is nothing in the United Airlines QRHs for low oil quantity either. As long as oil pressure indicates normal. But in this case, with a actual oil leak, when the engine runs out of oil, you will lose oil pressure, then it will be off to the Engine Failure or Shutdown/Secure checklist. So low oil quantity due to a leak will get you to a shutdown, agreed.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 77):
Obviously dispatch called the shots here, did he land with the engine shutdown???

It seems they kept it running. There wasn't much oil left on landing.



UNITED We Stand
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1628 posts, RR: 8
Reply 79, posted (1 year 4 months 19 hours ago) and read 3949 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 78):
It seems they kept it running. There wasn't much oil left on landing.

Thanks for the info.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 77):
As long as oil pressure indicates normal. But in this case, with a actual oil leak, when the engine runs out of oil, you will lose oil pressure, then it will be off to the Engine Failure or Shutdown/Secure checklist

Actually the LOW OIL PRESSURE checklist has the shutdown, approach and landing checklists incorporated in it these days both ECL and paper for the 777 and 787.


User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1628 posts, RR: 8
Reply 80, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3633 times:

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.

User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2280 posts, RR: 26
Reply 81, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3383 times:

To put things in another perspective, maybe like the A-320, some other operators are doing resets or power downs to get rid of the messages on the 787. And a airline seeming to have issues with 787 messages on the ground, not the ones in the air, might be trying to find out why the message came on, how to get rid of the message, and how to keep the message from coming back on in the future. More high tech, more stuff to go wrong.


UNITED We Stand
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...
Air Vents On UA's 787's posted Wed Dec 5 2012 16:18:13 by cosyr
2 Air NZ Flights Turn Back posted Mon Jan 29 2001 00:30:11 by ZK-NBT
Is Air Zimbabwe Back? posted Thu Mar 7 2013 11:19:45 by vasu
UA 787 Aircraft / Schedule Changes posted Thu Jan 17 2013 11:44:46 by fun2fly
Outlook For UA 787's In 2013 posted Wed Jan 2 2013 10:51:15 by Transpac787
IAH Again To Have First Intl Route For UA 787! posted Fri Nov 30 2012 21:54:00 by AVENSAB727
UA Wants VS In Star, Plus UA 787 Speculation posted Mon Nov 12 2012 05:28:12 by STT757
Are UA 787 Deliveries Behind Schedule? posted Thu Oct 25 2012 21:43:34 by Transpac787
Any Special Ceremonies For UA 787 Entry Into Servi posted Fri Oct 19 2012 17:50:43 by vulindlela744
UA 787: Timelapse Production Video posted Mon Sep 24 2012 18:24:23 by holzmann
QF Jet Air Turn Back After Engine Shut Down... posted Fri Nov 28 2008 12:21:17 by EK413
Air Vents On UA's 787's posted Wed Dec 5 2012 16:18:13 by cosyr
2 Air NZ Flights Turn Back posted Mon Jan 29 2001 00:30:11 by ZK-NBT
With UA Leaving CLE, Cleveland Should Turn To BKL posted Sun Feb 2 2014 17:34:46 by thomacf
Could We See The UA 787 Cheatline On All UA A/c? posted Wed Dec 4 2013 15:42:14 by Burchfiel
UA 787 Chasing posted Fri Nov 1 2013 17:04:38 by VC10er
UA 787 NRT-ORD 09-07-13 posted Mon Sep 9 2013 05:42:16 by airfinair
UA 787 Routes From EWR posted Tue Sep 3 2013 19:00:41 by Yazoo
UA SFO-KIX 787, US-Australia 777, 744 Back To ORD posted Thu Aug 15 2013 16:25:44 by LAXintl
NPR: Boeing Monitors 787 While On Air posted Thu Aug 8 2013 06:33:49 by airdfw