ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding

eksath · Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:41 am

Just breaking...

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

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

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

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

Acey · Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:54 am

This is not good.

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

atlflyer · Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:55 am

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

DocLightning · Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:57 am

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

flood · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:00 am

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

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

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

Still early.

spacecadet · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:00 am

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

wolbo · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:01 am

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

Bau · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:04 am

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

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

baldwin471 · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

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

jetblueguy22 · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:10 am

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

spacecadet · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:10 am

Evacuated using slides:

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

Not the photo the 787 needed right now.

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

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

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

RickNRoll · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:11 am

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

wolbo · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:20 am

From BBC:

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

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

spacecadet · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:22 am

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

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

SonomaFlyer · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:24 am

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

rsmith6621a · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:26 am

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

Asiaflyer · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:26 am

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

spacecadet · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:33 am

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

Also, apparently this happened 16 minutes after departure.

SonomaFlyer · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:35 am

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

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

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

BoeingVista · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:38 am

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

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

Hi Flood,

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

Cheers

BV

flood · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:40 am

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

777fan · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:41 am

Quoting rsmith6621a (Reply 15):

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

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

777fan

jumpjets · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:41 am

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

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

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

B6JFKH81 · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:42 am

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

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

JL

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

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

UA

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

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

DocLightning · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:43 am

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

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

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

flood · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:44 am

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

My bad

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

smolt · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:47 am

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

smolt

ordwaw · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:47 am

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

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

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

SonomaFlyer · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:51 am

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

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

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

RickNRoll · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:52 am

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

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

777fan · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:52 am

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

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

777fan

DocLightning · Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:58 am

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

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

F9Animal · Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:00 am

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

DocLightning · Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:00 am

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

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

boacvc10 · Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:04 am

Quoting F9animal (Reply 32):

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

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

Reuters

wolbo · Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:04 am

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

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

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

HNL2BOS · Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:06 am

Sounds like ANA is grounding their fleet:

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

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

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

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

wedgetail737 · Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:06 am

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

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

Stitch · Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:07 am

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

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

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

spacecadet · Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:07 am

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

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

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

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

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

AeroWesty · Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:07 am

Video report in English from Japan's NHK:

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

777fan · Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:08 am

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

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

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

777fan

SonomaFlyer · Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:08 am

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

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

TheSultanOfWing · Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:11 am

Quoting Wolbo (Reply 35):

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

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

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

Good thing this happened over land anyways!

FH

Stitch · Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:11 am

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

Quoting 777fan (Reply 41):
Tell that to Boeing, the FAA, the JAA, QR, UA, etc.

F9animal is being sarcastic / trolling the thread, 777fan. He's on record as saying the 787 fleet should be grounded worldwide as unsafe.

ikramerica · Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:11 am

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

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

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

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

PITingres · Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:13 am

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

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

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

a380900 · Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:16 am

Well, at least the slides do work.

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

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

cylw · Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:16 am

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

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

smolt · Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:17 am

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

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net