Boeing 787 news

[Boeing767copilot]

Another 787 in Emergency Landing
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 83150.html

[MD-11forever]

The whole story on Bloomberg:

Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- All Nippon Airways Co. and Japan Airlines Co., the world’s largest users of Boeing Co. 787 jets, grounded their entire fleet of Dreamliners for today in the biggest blow yet to the troubled passenger jet’s image.
An All Nippon 787 made an emergency landing in Japan this morning after pilots got a battery-fault warning and smelled smoke, prompting the decision to ground the carrier’s entire fleet for the first time, said Ryosei Nomura, a spokesman for the Tokyo-based carrier. Japan Air followed suit. The carriers didn’t say how long their fleet of 24 planes will be parked.
The emergency landing comes a week after a battery in a Japan Airlines Dreamliner caught fire on Jan. 7 in Boston, prompting U.S. regulators to review the design and manufacturing of the 787. The jet entered service in 2011, more than three years late, as the first airliner with a composite-plastic body and the first Boeing plane to use lithium-ion batteries.
Pilots evacuated the 129 passengers and eight crew on board down emergency chutes today after diverting the domestic, Tokyo-bound flight to land at Takamatsu airport in southern Japan, All Nippon Vice President Osamu Shinobe said at a press conference in Tokyo. One passenger was taken to the hospital because of wrist pain. The 787-8 model can seat about 250 passengers.
The Japanese transport ministry said the pilots and air-traffic controllers saw smoke. Boeing has delivered 17 jets to All Nippon so far while Japan Air got seven, the ministry said. All Nippon still intends to increase its fleet to 20 by the end of the financial year, the carrier said after today’s incident.
“We are aware of the event and working with our customer,” Lori Gunter, a spokeswoman for Boeing in Everett, Washington, where the main 787 factory is, said in an e-mail. “We don’t have any more details to share at this point.”
The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board is monitoring the incident, said Kelly Nantel, a spokeswoman. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration said in a statement it will include the incident in the review it began last week of the 787’s critical systems.

[Streetstream]

Another major backdown for Boeing, lessons to take for Airbus ?

A lesson for Airbus? How about a lesson for Boeing?

[KriVa]

Unless I haven't read it all, but I don't think we know what caused the second incident for the moment, right?
While it was probably electric, judging by the witness reports, I think they're dealing with yet another problem, since the smoke was apparent in the flight deck, which would not be possible if the same battery/electric panel caught fire that was the culprit in BOS.
I was also wondering about this: Say(hypothetically) that it is a problem with one specific component coming from one specific (third party) supplier. Who is to blame? Boeing or that supplier?

[Streetstream]

I was also wondering about this: Say(hypothetically) that it is a problem with one specific component coming from one specific (third party) supplier. Who is to blame? Boeing or that supplier?

That depends, did Boeing make a fault in it's design and therefore the battery fails, Boeing is to blame. But if Boeing specifies how a battery should work and the suppliers battery doesn't meet the specifications, than that supplier is at fault.

[sn26567]

[RoMax]

So the battery again...first the JAL fire, next United that finds the same battery with faulty wiring in one of their 787's, and now again an emergency caused by...a/the battery.

[sn26567]

A Japanese battery grounds the Japanese Dreamliners!

The 787 involved in today's incident in Japan flew the final flight for the jet's certification in August 2011.

But LOT confirms it is going ahead with its inaugural Warsaw-Chicago Boeing 787 flight today (with SP-LRA). And all the other operators of the 787 seem to keep flying the aircraft.

Here is the report of The Aviation Herald:

Incident: ANA B788 near Takamatsu on Jan 16th 2013, battery problem and burning smell on board

An ANA All Nippon Airways Boeing 787-800, registration JA804A performing flight NH-692 from Ube to Tokyo Haneda (Japan) with 129 passengers and 8 crew, was climbing through FL330 out of Ube about 35nm west of Takamatsu (Japan) when the crew received indications of battery problems, at the same time a burning smell developed on board. The crew decided to divert to Takamatsu where the aircraft landed about 14 minutes later. The aircraft vacated the runway, stopped past the hold short line and was evacuated via slides. No injuries occurred.

All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines have grounded their Dreamliners as result of the recent inflight incidents, see Incident: United B788 near New Orleans on Dec 4th 2012, electrical problems causing concerns of electrical heat on board, Incident: Qatar B788 near Doha on Dec 8th 2012, generator failure as well as an APU battery fire that occurred on board of Boeing 787-800 at Boston,MA (USA) on Jan 7th 2013.

The NTSB is currently investigating the APU battery fire that occurred in Boston on Jan 7th 2013 after the passengers and crew had disembarked at the gate.

The incidents prompted the FAA to conduct a general review of the Boeing 787 design, manufacturing and quality assurance processes, the American Ministry of Transport and the FAA are convinced, that the aircraft is safe reporting they spent more than 200,000 man hours during certification of the aircraft.

Japan's Tranportation Safety Board JTSB opened an investigation and dispatched three investigators on site.

[sn26567]

ANA says that the battery's blue cover had turned black "as though it had been burnt", and electrolyte solution had leaked.

The NTSB too will send investigators to Japan over the latest incident.

Amateur video of the evacuation of the plane: http://www.reuters.com/article/video/id ... fresh=true

[smokejumper]

This certainly puts a big black-eye on Boeing's already red face.

[RoMax]

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-c ... g-787-0116

FAA grounds 787 due to battery safety issues.

[Bralo20]

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-c ... g-787-0116

FAA grounds 787 due to battery safety issues.

EASA (Europe)
DGAC (India)
DGCA (Chili)

Are following FAA's advice, no official word yet about Ethiopia and Qatar.

[sn26567]

If you look at flightradar24 now with the aircraft filter B788 you'll see that no Dreamliner is flying anywhere in the world.

[Bralo20]

Ethiopian has also grounded their fleet and I guess Qatar did the same...

Wonder how long they will be grounded, it's from 1978 that the FAA issued an indefinitely grounding of an aircraft type. (last one was the the DC-10)

[Desert Rat]

(last one was the the DC-10)

Wasn't it a cargo door problem ?

[Bralo20]

(last one was the the DC-10)

Wasn't it a cargo door problem ?

I think that was the case yes, it was the last time that the FAA mandatory grounded an aircraft type indefinitely. However, afaik it was resolved rather quick thus the grounding wasn't to long (but I'll have to verify it to be sure).

[RoMax]

I think that was the case yes, it was the last time that the FAA mandatory grounded an aircraft type indefinitely. However, afaik it was resolved rather quick thus the grounding wasn't to long (but I'll have to verify it to be sure).

Wasn't it after the AA DC-10 crash, caused by the loss of an engine?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_A ... Flight_191
The cargo door problems were before 1979.

[cnc]

yes idd the AA cargo door incident didn't result in a grounding of all DC10's but only to recommendations from the NTSB

[RoMax]

yes idd the AA cargo door incident didn't result in a grounding of all DC10's but only to recommendations from the NTSB

And I think that's the big difference with the way of acting of the authorities when you compare these days with 20-30-40 years ago. If that AA accident (the first one, so with the cargo door) would happen with a brand new aircraft now, the wole fleet would be grounded if that proves to be a design fault, especially when you know that some time later another DC-10 crashed (the Turkish one) because of the cargo door problems.
So when you think about that, it's better that the authorities ground the whole fleet before these kind of accidents can actually happen. But of course, for Boeing (and the Japanese supplier of the batteries) this is a very critical situation. And so far the reliability of the 787 being on par with the early 777's...

[MD-11forever]

I think that was the case yes, it was the last time that the FAA mandatory grounded an aircraft type indefinitely. However, afaik it was resolved rather quick thus the grounding wasn't to long (but I'll have to verify it to be sure).

Wasn't it after the AA DC-10 crash, caused by the loss of an engine?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_A ... Flight_191
The cargo door problems were before 1979.

The DC-10 was grounded from 6 June 1979 until 13 July 1979, so for 37 days. But the crash of AA 191 was caused by improper maintaince procedures by AA (although exactly the same thing was also done by other DC-10 operaterors like UA and CO), not by any shortcomings in the design of the DC-10.