ANA, JAL ground Dreamliner fleet after emergency landing

Fire on a plane is very serious and very dangerous. Another example of outsourcing killing a company. Boeing doesn't make batteries or engines but the more you outsource the less control you have and the harder to over see. As for the batteries themselves, this is the first time to use Lithium ion batteries on a plane. Maybe they shouldn't and go back to the old reliable batteries.

NessieJan. 17, 2013 - 11:54AM JST

The proper comparison is with contemporary models.

Which I had already given in past posts you must have skipped over. In case you want one case, within 2 years of delivery the 737-200 (still in service in some airlines, though many frames are now 400+) already had one hull loss due to engine failure. If you want more recent ones, check the massive issues with the A380, most of which were far more dangerous than a battery fire.

787 looks like an incredibly safe plane compared to those older models.

Not saying much. The proper comparison is with contemporary models.

sfjp330Jan. 17, 2013 - 05:45AM JST

Problem might be that lithium ion batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in iincreases in temperature and pressure.

Those are issues in overcharging, which can at least partially explain why issues are with planes that were either being prepped or recently took off. That has nothing to do with internal failure, though internal failure can result from it. Internal shorts can happen if the battery design is bad or manufacturing introduced metal particles not meant to be in solution.

The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

That's a myth that people get wrong again and again. There is no metallic lithium in lithium ion or lithium iron phosphate batteries used in plane batteries. And even lithium fires are NOT self-sustaining, at least no more so than a wood stove is. What is important is that metallic lithium fire can break down normal extinguishers and water into toxic chemicals and fuel. However, lithium-ion batteries can easily be extinguished with normal protocols, the issue is simply finding out where the problem is.

CrazedinjapanJan. 16, 2013 - 11:45PM JST

love the subtle back peddling that's happening.

I never did that. There's a difference between those here calling for Boeing's head based on rumor, and those who want more information before assuming anything as more than theory.

From a statement of building bunkers to it being said zero margin of error

You're jumping to conclusions I never suggested there, and taking hyperbole as fact. I discussed both the incident rate for a similarly "revolutionary" model from Boeing compared to the new 787, and that planes in general have low margin of safety (amount of overengineering compared to design basis). No mention of margin of error, which is completely irrelevant to this conversation.

and it not being a bad idea to not ignore these issues of underlying problems

Don't make things up and try to say that I said them. You are perfectly in your right to state your opinion on the matter, but you cannot say that I said that statement which is completely contrary to by statements. I have made no mention of underlying problems, and at most regarded what appears to be battery problems as a transient issue. That has nothing to do with the pilot's judgement on a case by case basis.

Antonios_MJan. 16, 2013 - 11:41PM JST

no airplane should be allowed to commercial aviation after experiencing so many malfunctions

Have fun driving and riding boats to Boston, since most of the models in service have had as many issues at some point. Hell, only the 777 (and technically the 787, but it's about 10 years too soon to compare) could be said to be safe (lowest death rate of any plane in service at 0 deaths), and even that has problems all the time.

It's the first Boeing plane to use rechargeable lithium ion batteries, which charge faster and they are molded into space saving shapes compared to other conventional airplane batteries. Problem might be that lithium ion batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in iincreases in temperature and pressure. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

Swissair flight has nothing to do with Boeing (at the time), since that was a DC-10 which competed with the 727 and 737. Incidentally, within a year of release it already had a case where a door blew out mid-air and damaged an engine. The 727 in it's first two years had six crashes killing 340, of which most of the deaths and 3 of the crashes were due at least in large part to the plane. One of those was ANA Flight 60, which mysteriously dropped off radar just after the pilot said he would land without instruments (usually indicating an problem), killing all 133 aboard. The 787 looks like an incredibly safe plane compared to those older models.

@Fadamor

I'm just going on reports of the Swissair accident. The consensus is that the heat messed up the operating systems, especially the control panel. I remember this accident particularly well.

Exactly. Otherwise people wouldn't be able to pilot planes at night. I suspect the fact that the fire melted the control panel was a lot more relevant than the smoke.

I take it you have not been in a smoke-filled compartment before. Your eyes water so much that you can't see ANYTHING inside or out of the compartment. The control panel could have been working fine and the pilots wouldn't be able to tell.

The fire was hot enough to cause the ceiling to melt down onto the floor below, so I'm not sure it was smoke and not being able to see that were the height of their worries.

Exactly. Otherwise people wouldn't be able to pilot planes at night. I suspect the fact that the fire melted the control panel was a lot more relevant than the smoke.

wtfjapan

@the passage smoke in the cabin is just as dangerous as say engines stalling, a few years back Swissair Flight 111 pilots alerted smoke in the cockpit, fire broke out pilots counld see where they were flying and crashed into the ocean this all happened in less a space of 20-30minutes.

The fire was hot enough to cause the ceiling to melt down onto the floor below, so I'm not sure it was smoke and not being able to see that were the height of their worries.

Basroil, love the subtle back peddling that's happening. From a statement of building bunkers to it being said zero margin of error and it not being a bad idea to not ignore these issues of underlying problems with no difinitive value as of yet ... "A" plus for ANA and JAL for grounding these planes. It's a shame Boeing didn't take the initiative to declare this themselves. It's easy to say or suggest being over cautious is overreacting ....it's even harder to respond to dozens of families that ask after a large loss of life ..."why didn't you take caution after so many instances of problems concerning this model of aircraft???"

It was about time! Too bad it took them so long though! I commented about a week ago (and received thumbs down) that no airplane should be allowed to commercial aviation after experiencing so many malfunctions. In any case, I hope that no one blames the JAL or ANA staff for "not being able to understand the manual" anymore....

I have said it before and I will say it again. Lithium Ion batteries have no business as critical components in these planes. They are volatile and a bit dangerous in in pressurized air. They are OK in cell phones and laptops, but not as power supplies on jets.

They interviewed a former ANA pilot on the news this evening, and focused on the smell of burning plastic in the cabin and in the cockpit. He claimed that in such a case, when the source of the burning smell can't be identified, the only option is to abort the flight. He called it an "iron rule" of aviation. As a nervous flyer, I'd have to agree with him.

The 787 Dreamliner is having tons of problems. And they are many different kinds of problems: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/16/business/dreamliner-grounding-explainer/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

FadamorJan. 16, 2013 - 10:11PM JST

An "error message" wouldn't normaly abort a flight. A "warning" (light or message), however, that could do it depending on what the warning was.

Perhaps they're being real cautious in regards to anything being out of the ordinary with the batteries. Not a bad decision considering the potential downside to ignoring the message.

Does sound like an abundance of caution rather than normal operational measures. When it comes to something with near zero margin of safety, it's not necessarily a bad idea. Does beg the question as to if they had been advised by the battery supplier or Boeing to treat battery issues as emergencies, or if the government had quietly started demanding it.

GS Yuasa Corp, the Japanese company that supplies all the lithium ion batteries for the 787, had no comment as the investigation was still ongoing.

Says is all. No?

Actually, it doesn't. Any smart company will remain silent while an investigation over something the company makes is ongoing. Better to wait for the results of the investigation and respond to THAT rather than to the 100 silly questions that the reporters will ask before the facts are determined.

One passenger was quoted by broadcaster NHK as saying he “smelled something strange” after take-off and feared the plane was going to crash.

The guy smells a fart and gets interviewed by NHK. Must be a slow news day. LOL.

The problem as described seems a bit tame for an emergency landing:

a battery problem triggered a cockpit error message that forced the pilots to land the plane in Takamatsu, Kagawa Prefecture

An "error message" wouldn't normaly abort a flight. A "warning" (light or message), however, that could do it depending on what the warning was.

Perhaps they're being real cautious in regards to anything being out of the ordinary with the batteries. Not a bad decision considering the potential downside to ignoring the message.

GS Yuasa Corp, the Japanese company that supplies all the lithium ion batteries for the 787, had no comment as the investigation was still ongoing.

Says is all. No?

The passageJan. 16, 2013 - 04:20PM JST

Did anyone see the BBC TV report on this? What on earth was happening on inflight entertainment screen as the guy filming got out? It was like a DOS prompt scrolling error messages! Some screens were OK closer to the exit - just weird.

The in flight systems usually use linux , and they can crash spectacularly. Kernel panic could be caused by power issues, so not necessarily that odd when emergency procedures are activated. I have a few photos of the penguin crashing from personal experience, and it's hard to know if that was caused by the same issue.

KnowBetterJan. 16, 2013 - 04:54PM JST

Batteries just as any power supply are fused so why would the battery cause wiring to catch fire? Would that not be a faulty fuse/circuit breaker? That's not the battery's fault.

Batteries, unlike other power supplies, can short with spectacular amounts of amperage. Even small lithium batteries can go well above 300 amp, and in performance systems fuses can be so large that they are practically useless in protecting anything but the battery itself. I don't know how many times I've fried smaller cables when temporary power spikes don't trip protections but still cause shorts. Of course the systems are planes are redundantly protected, but it's not unheard of for faulty batteries to cause shorts in similar systems (though usually it's an issue with the battery controller rather than battery cells themselves)

why blame US manufacturing for problems created by Japanese parts?

Like I said before.

A battery pack does not just simply catch fire. Every case has always been linked to an outside force whether it be temperature and/or humidity, damaging impact force, power overload factor, liquid spill/shorting, excessive vibration, etc. If all 787s have the exact same setup for these batteries then I would assume as soon as they figure out the cause that all current operational 787s and future 787 will have this problem resolved. There may even be a temporary grounding of all 787s if concerns are high enough of that this battery issue could lead to possible deaths. Only time will tell how Boeing handles this case and whether it snowballs or not.

And now the groundings begin.

Batteries just as any power supply are fused so why would the battery cause wiring to catch fire? Would that not be a faulty fuse/circuit breaker? That's not the battery's fault.

From the BBC this morning

Shortly after take-off, smoke was seen in the cockpit but not in the passenger compartment, and a strange smell was reported. ANA says that it does not yet know the source of the smoke and is investigating the problem. However, it added that the battery in the forward cargo hold was the same type as the one involved in a fire on another Dreamliner at a US airport last week. The ANA flight landed at Takamatsu airport at 08:47 on Wednesday after the pilot saw an error message in the cockpit. "There was a battery alert in the cockpit and there was an odd smell detected in the cockpit and cabin, and [the pilot] decided to make an emergency landing," said Osamu Shinobe, an ANA vice president, at a news conference.

YongYangJan. 16, 2013 - 10:12AM JST ENOUGH! Ground these shoddy tin cans

Um, they're mainly made up of Carbon Fibre... just sayin'

Did anyone see the BBC TV report on this? What on earth was happening on inflight entertainment screen as the guy filming got out? It was like a DOS prompt scrolling error messages! Some screens were OK closer to the exit - just weird.

lostrune2 - Concorde has one of the strongest records in terms of miles flown vs fatalities. It was grounded because it was too expensive to maintain the airframe and the engines developed in the 60's. EADS as successor owner of the Certificate of Airworthiness pulled maintenance, hence disabling the CoA.

nikkelboy - still going on and still not closely followed in Japanese media.

Entitlement programs for bloated corporations must end.

A couple of years back the Airbus 380 had quite a few issues. We just didn't hear about it in Japan since ANA and JAL don't have any in their fleets.

Ground them like they finally grounded the Concorde because of the fatal design flaw.

@Probie

I thought these planes went through thousands of hours of tests before they fly? Nothing showed up??

You are right, they do, hundreds of hours, anyway. Thing with life tests, though, they tell you something still worked after 2000 hours. They don't tell you if it still works after 2001 hours (which is why you swap things out, after all) and they don't tell you if the test item was put together extra special carefully because it was the test item and not just thrown together on a Friday afternoon by someone in a hurry to get to the game.

As Crazedinjapan said, there's only been one publicly released incident report so far and that blamed the wiring in the aircraft, not the battery. The JAL fire and the ANA incident may or may not have the same root cause, we have to wait and see.

Looks like the article was updated to show GS Yuasa Corp's involvement in the problem.

Well done, Boeing. Way to demonstrate pride in craftmanship by putting these turkeys in the air. Nothing but problems since they started operating. Boeing should be sued by these air carriers for fraud.

Roger that, basroil san. The news on the 787 has been downright nuts all over the web. Lots of jumping into conclusion. The US news have been hot on it as well. I'm sure there are people who stand to gain from all the negative publicity. Like news outlets on a slow news day :(i)

Readers, please stay on topic. This discussion has nothing to do with non-Japanese companies vs Japanese companies.

Eautaceux JanaisJan. 16, 2013 - 02:18PM JST

In the meantime, I also hope the media doesn't sensationalize the news.

It's a non-Japanese company having problems (possibly caused by faulty Japanese maintenance) in Japan, of course the Japanese media will sensationalize it. Happens all the time, just look at how they failed to mention the fact that Japanese companies make 30%+ of the plane, including all the parts that have had issues. (well, they did put in "Boeing, which outsourced much of the production to Japanese and other contractors", but that hardly counts as a mention)

Glad no one has been hurt, but doubtless the past week has been a nightmare for Boeing. Let's not forget that just a few years ago Airbus had arguably worse news with their A380 (cracked wings, engine explosion mid-flight=much worse than batteries catching fire). The thing is, THEY FIXED IT. I have no doubts that Boeing will do the same, but I hope they do it quickly and at the same time, I hope they do it right. Heck, the 777 had teething problems when they it was new, with BA yanking them from transatlantic flights for a while, but the 777 now has some of the best safety records of any commercial aircraft. Ever. And no one talks about that now.

In the meantime, I also hope the media doesn't sensationalize the news. Freaks everyone out.

CrazedinjapanJan. 16, 2013 - 10:07AM JST

The news about these aircraft gets progressively worse. Nothing written positive about them. I've been saying this since the issues started coming to light ...ground these planes,

Good thing you weren't around for the 747 launch, that would have had you building a bunker under your house in case one fell on you. That aircraft had well over three dozen issues involving engine failures, cabin fires, and control surface failures. The 787 is far safer even with this string of issues and adjusting for amount of delivered.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx

bajhista65Jan. 16, 2013 - 01:24PM JST

just point back to Boeing quality control department and assembler.

Batteries get replaced all the time, and it's not Boeing that does it. That's the responsibility of the maintenance crew, and the QC responsibility is with the manufacturer. If the batteries are the original ones then, yes, Boeing is entirely responsible for the proper QC. But at this time, there's not enough info to place the blame squarely on any one party (though the batteries catching on fire are at least mostly the manufacture's fault).

If you want more info, you'll find it at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5661439/#menu27, and these guys know planes quite well, some members are even retired designers and pilots (and most others super-otaku that put most people making planes to shame)

The passageJan. 16, 2013 - 01:50PM JST

You wouldn't need to replace batteries after just one year (this isn't the type you put in a kids toy). Further, components on aircraft are very strictly certified, so the originals would have most likely been Yuasa too (since only they can make that shape right now).

You don't need to, but you usually have several spares to swap out and test without aircraft downtime. It's much like engine components. And because these aren't like the batteries in your toys, they do get replaced more often (also worn down more between vibration, temperature changes, and recharge cycles).

As for Yuasa making all the batteries, very true, but they usually make them in batches, so perhaps they had a bad batch recently and the aircraft got switched to those. They probably already have the information on what lot(s) caught fire over at NTSB, but so far that information isn't public. If it is a bad lot, the fix is fairly simple (and should be done immediately), if not, probably a much more costly issue is at fault.

@tMMt2

@Probie, it's not just Japan. United, Air India, Qatar and LAN have reported electrical problems and the launch was delayed after a fire in the electrical bay of one of the proving planes. United have reported the battery wiring was incorrect. Source nyc787.blogspot.jp.

Thanks. I'd never heard of the other incidents.

Anyway, even if the batteries are faulty, the QC department should have picked that up. Also, the ground staff engineers (in the U.S. and Japan) should have noticed something, shouldn't they? I thought these planes went through thousands of hours of tests before they fly? Nothing showed up??

It's interesting that the batteries are all the cause of the issues, and all happen to fail around the same time. Since each of the three companies received the planes at different times, we can expect these batteries were replacements, and the Japanese manufacturer that made these replacements (GS Yuasa Corp ) is to blame.

Basroil - not exactly clear what you want to say here. You wouldn't need to replace batteries after just one year (this isn't the type you put in a kids toy). Further, components on aircraft are very strictly certified, so the originals would have most likely been Yuasa too (since only they can make that shape right now). But as you can see as this story develops, more pertinent information comes up which is why it is best not to assume anything until all the facts are known.

@Basroil..... "the batteries are made by Japanese companies!" hahahaha sorry though but and still, doesn't justify your blame but just point back to Boeing quality control department and assembler.

Everyone keeps putting blame on the batteries on these posts. Fact is there's only been one official report stating the wiring was at fault and not the battery with United. This article makes note of a battery warning "with" the smoke appearing in the cockpit ....opposite end of the plane where the battery is located. It's probably a electrical issue with wiring/voltage regulating at fault and not the batteries which non of the companies have directly implicated as the fault. Over charge a battery ....is the battery at fault if it overheats and burns up ??? No. Poor connections at batteries can cause fires, improperly wired batteries can cause fires, overcharged or poorly cooled batteries can cause fires.

WAIT until they explicitly issue a bulletin condemning these batteries then blast Japan's manufacturing if it makes ya happy !

jj1980Jan. 16, 2013 - 10:39AM JST

This one hits close to home because my in laws live in Takamatsu. There is a very good chance that any one of us could of been on that plane.

I live in Takamatsu. You and your in-laws wouldn't have been on this flight unless you were flying from Ube to Tokyo. The plane was diverted here for the emergency landing.

globalwatcherJan. 16, 2013 - 01:01PM JST

I was told that the problem is all related to quality control issues.

No mistakes allowed, and all Boeing workers need to go back to QUALITY just like assembling their own PACE MAKERS. The stakes are too high.

Does look like a QC issue, but on the maintenance end rather than build side. Half the planes delivered are in Japan, but 90% of the major issues too (100% if you include the fact that the battery in the United Airlines plane was made by a Japanese company). That sounds like NISA's demise let companies normally regulated by them slip in Q.C. Perhaps Boeing does have issues, but right now it really looks like the Japanese suppliers and maintenance crews are at fault.

Funny that this misleading article ignores a MASSIVE chuck of pertinent information, the batteries are made by Japanese companies!

http://news.yahoo.com/ana-operated-boeing-787-makes-emergency-landing-smoke-003317726--finance.html

It's interesting that the batteries are all the cause of the issues, and all happen to fail around the same time. Since each of the three companies received the planes at different times, we can expect these batteries were replacements, and the Japanese manufacturer that made these replacements (GS Yuasa Corp ) is to blame. Luckily battery fires are not necessarily life threatening in domestic flights, but the company that made these replacement batteries should be fined for all the losses incurred because of the faulty batteries.

It would also be interesting to see who lobbied for the planes to be grounded, because it sounds like Mitsubishi is the only one that comes out winning regardless of the outcome.

I agree with MY2. It's a great leap ahead in design. Every vehicle that is designed with huge advances seems to get ahead of the personnel that are supposed to monitor and service them.

More extensive quality control coupled with compatibility issues between companies involved in the production and assembly of this aircraft should be amped up. Then followed with repetitive rigorous flight testing with no passengers aboard.

If pilots know the inherent risk and choose to pilot ...fine let them use it for cargo shipments over unpopulated areas until they prove themselves airworthy without incidents.

I was told that the problem is all related to quality control issues.

No mistakes allowed, and all Boeing workers need to go back to QUALITY just like assembling their own PACE MAKERS. The stakes are too high.

This is not good! Like I said way before, BOEING, needs to get to the bottom of this ASAP! I just hope and pray we never have any deadly accidents with these DREAM liners.

@wtfjapan

Don't disagree, but as you are aware this story is evolving, and when I first posted it was just to report that a 787 made an emergency landing - the title has now changed to say ANA (and now JAL) have grounded their fleets. I said I'd leave it to the engineers to decide, they can judge better than the wolves here.

According to Boeing's website, 24 of the 49 planes delivered are used in Japan by JAL and ANA (7 and 17 respectively). So chances are, Japan will experience most design/material/structural/etc problems the Dreamliner has.

Made in America!

You're right dude... Flying is American...we're ***** nuts. Kitty Hawk.

Saw this bit... FYI...

This plane is over engineered. When a vehicle is over engineered it has to be micro-managed. If you let your guard down for a minute you have a disaster. That's why two of our space shuttles fell apart. They were over engineered and mismanaged. It's called "technological arrogance."

the airplane is such a quantum leap...mostly electric, composite airframe, new battery type, pressurized to 5000 ft....it is bound to have some teething issues, but they need to get on top of it NOW!!!.....

Made in America!

AIRBUS & BOEING have all had there share crashes over the years, 70% of all crashes are caused by pilot error/bad weather 30% from manufacturer fault.

@Probie, it's not just Japan. United, Air India, Qatar and LAN have reported electrical problems and the launch was delayed after a fire in the electrical bay of one of the proving planes. United have reported the battery wiring was incorrect. Source nyc787.blogspot.jp.

rickyvee am sure the people at Airbus are not smiling. Two of their Airbus 330's fell from the sky killing all but one. Yet people still fly on them. A 747 exploded out of New York on a problem that took 30 years to develop. Am positive the people of Airbus are not happy. I do think UAL is still flying their planes, wonder what the differences could be between them?

yep Airbus will be getting the sales guys to call up the 787 backorder customers as we speak, Hi Sir we have a sale on at Airbus, just wondering if you may be interested. LOL

Hate to say, but I told ya so. I will try to avoid flying in this contraption as much as possible.

another smoke/fire in the cabin of a (British airways I think) cause toxic smoke to build up 20+ people died. etc etc SMOKE IN THE CABIN can be deadly as history has shown us.

@the passage smoke in the cabin is just as dangerous as say engines stalling, a few years back Swissair Flight 111 pilots alerted smoke in the cockpit, fire broke out pilots counld see where they were flying and crashed into the ocean this all happened in less a space of 20-30minutes. There have been numerous fires/smoke in the cabins of planes that have killed many people over the years.

dreamliner? should be called nightmareliner. glad they finally grounded them, was about time.

We were the First to flight it!, and now we are the First to ground then!

Well that's what happens when you want to be the first!

@nanda - I'm not! Thats my point!

Anyway, from another news source...

"An error was coming up for a battery," says the spokesman. "So it was decided to make an emergency landing." Media reports indicate that smoke was also observed in the aircraft's cabin, but the spokesman was unable to confirm this.

So not crystal clear, and we really should wait for results of an investigation before we condemn anyone/thing. Ground them? I'll leave that to the engineers most closely involved - they will NOT risk lives, I am sure of that. One thing is assured, anyone flying it (pilot) is going to be doubly cautious, and that may actually make it the safest thing in the air right now!

rickyvee and The passage, this is not the time to start the old Boeing vs Airbus fight, IMHO. An airframe has a problem and it needs to be fixed if we the passengers are going to be flying on it.

I will be one of the guys sitting on one (time after time) in 10, 20, 30 years with my grown kids saying... memba the time...

It's about time! Thank god it only took four minor incidents and not a major accident for them to come to the sane conclusion most of us made after the SECOND incident.

i imagine the people over at airbus just grinning from ear to ear right about now.

Actually, I doubt it as they are way too busy fixing the cracks in the wings of the A380's they've sold to date. Which would you rather have, a battery that keeps belching smoke or cracked wings?

ENOUGH! Ground these shoddy tin cans!

Carbon fibre actually!

This one hits close to home because my in laws live in Takamatsu. There is a very good chance that any one of us could of been on that plane. Or not even... They live not that far from the airport. Even though this is a countryside airport doesn't mean these things have plenty of room to land if they miss the runway. This gets creepier everyday.

Ok, NOW I'm worried.

Are these incidents only happening in Japan?

Reports in the press of an ANA homepage statement about a warning on the cockpit computer of a battery irregularity. Some talk of smoke in the cockpit, but this latter not confirmed.

i imagine the people over at airbus just grinning from ear to ear right about now.

ENOUGH! Ground these shoddy tin cans!

The news about these aircraft gets progressively worse. Nothing written positive about them. I've been saying this since the issues started coming to light ...ground these planes, this time they were able to land ...next time ?? What's it going to cost to get people to stop brushing off these warnings and ground them ?? 200+

Also it's not just up to the governing bodies for approval on these planes to pull them , it's Boeing's duty and responsibility to set an example to follow and pull these planes then put them through more extreme testing to work potentially life threatening bugs out of them .