ANA cancels Dreamliner flight due to brake glitch

I agree with Borscht that planes should be made without sub-contracting to the four corners of the earth. Quality and administrative control is easier that way.

Put a hold on the blustering, the 777, a mainstay of international flights went through initial problems when it was introduced and went on to become one of the bestselling models of all time.

One of the first planes not entirely made in the US by Boeing. They sub-contracted a lot of the work out - including to Japanese companies which is why ANA was so eager to buy them - to companies throughout the world (Korea, Japan, Italy, France, Sweden, and the UK).

Maybe Boeing should get rid of all those sub-contractors and go back to making planes themselves. The 747 has had very few design errors and it is or was made entirely in-house.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industry (wings) and Kawasaki Heavy Industries (fuselage sections)

BOEING 787 does not offer the high quality workmanship its reputation boasts. ..............................................A number of thier DREAMLINERS have showed with problems - -

Antonios_M

The JAL 787 that experienced the 40 gallon fuel leak while taxiing to the runway in Boston on Tuesday was inspected ny maintenance crews and flew back to Tokyo after just a four hour delay. What was more likely? A design flaw or malfunction with the plane's fuel systems? Or a ground crew member that failed to properly secure the fueling valve?

As for the non-incident in the story above, the 787's monitoring/warning systems functioned perfectly as designed. The fact that the brake part in question was automatically monitored means that it is a part that is worn out through regular use and requires periodic servicing and replacement. You should be more concerned that the ANA maintenance crews failed to replace this piece when conducting their preventive maintenance on the plane before the part was worn out to the point that the plane sensed the anomaly and issued a warning.

tmarieJan. 10, 2013 - 08:50AM JST Any place list the flights these are used for so I can avoid booking tickets!

You could just ask your travel agent or the airline itself to find out for you, but I don't think you'll have to worry too much since the Dreamliner is not being used by LCCs (low cost carriers).

787s?? They sound not like dream liners but more like nightmares!!

technosphere:

" when Boeing will begin to blame sub-contractors somewhere from China.... "

Since this is the first time Boeing has subcontracted critical parts of the systems wiring to cheap labour in China, you can both expect more problems and blame quite correctly laid on both the cost-cutting decision and the Chinese subcontractors.

And since this is the first time that a major aircraft manufacturer has reverted from using copper back to aluminum wiring (remember the house fires that used to be caused by that?) you can expect a long future of more unpleasant surprises with this aircraft model in the future.

AIRBUS all the way ;)... If it's not Airbus, I'm not going... There, this will convince "Boing" to make good planes now. I guess it's still better than the inflight explosion of a Rolls Royce engine that A380 experienced. That was a real close call

Thanks paulinusa, Finally a sensible comment. The A340-600, A380 and as Paul says, the 777 all had similar launch problems. The brake defect with the ANA plane wouldn't have even been reported if JAL hadn't had problems the last couple of days in Boston. Don't worry tmarie, it doesn't fly from anywhere to Canada - closest is Seattle.

Osprey may be safer than Dreamliner 787 but that is not commercial airline.

Sub contracting?? This also sounds like bad news!!

Guys, when you buy something - say a brand new TV or a car - and there seems to be a problem with it from the first day you use it, would you really accept as an excuse the "I am sorry, some parts of it were made abroad by the sub-contractors and it's not our fault. If we had made it all by ourselves, it would have been ok".

Good point. I am waiting for next logical step when Boeing will begin to blame sub-contractors somewhere from China....

The computer screen said it was a brake glitch, but as with the earliest ANA 787 problem in Okayama in November they had saying the undercarriage would not release for landing, was this a computer failure or a parts failure?

ah bet AIrbus is being quietly smug about all this. hehe

They have their own sac of problems to worry about. Pretty much normal business. Glad nobody got killed. Both the A380 and the 787 are monuments of human engineering and intelligence, but still not without flaw.

AIRBUS all the way ;)... If it's not Airbus, I'm not going... There, this will convince "Boing" to make good planes now. I guess it's still better than the inflight explosion of a Rolls Royce engine that A380 experienced. That was a real close call

Ebisen- I'll believe that claim when I see it. North America would be off limits to you unless you flew there via Europe as all Japanese and American airline companies are Boing fleets.

Well, isn't this a good sign. The warning light came on as it's supposed to. An inspection was carried out. It was clear that brake parts needed to replace. Plane never got off the ground. ANA took immediate preventive action but cancelling the flight. That's a success compared to JAL which decided to risk the lives of it's passengers with an AD in hand that warned of the very problem they experienced.

Seriously though, ground them all. If you work for Boeing your work is cut out for you right now.

ah bet AIrbus is being quietly smug about all this. hehe

If you squeeze it, you get lemonade? Hopefully, they work the bugs out.

Well, I am surprised how easily some people excused Boeing for the malfunction. In the JAL incident they said "It's JAL's problem because they can't read the English manual" or "It's the ground staff's error". In this case, they say "It's the sub-contractors' fault".

Guys, when you buy something - say a brand new TV or a car - and there seems to be a problem with it from the first day you use it, would you really accept as an excuse the "I am sorry, some parts of it were made abroad by the sub-contractors and it's not our fault. If we had made it all by ourselves, it would have been ok". Well, I bet you won't and you would demand to take it back and either fix it or give you a new one. That's what Boeing should do. All 787s must be recalled immediately before there is a worse accident and Boeing must provide the airline carriers with new ones or give them back their money. And no, the "But the airplanes are too expensive to be recalled and Boeing might have financial difficulties to do so" is not an excuse either. We are talking about human lives that are endangered here.

Not good. Poor and shoddy.

Hey ya ....who's pockets are being lined with bribe and influence money. Ordering more planes with more flaws ....does this come with a comprehensive customer loss package ....as in aircraft failure and crash !

Any place list the flights these are used for so I can avoid booking tickets!