JAL reports problem with 787 battery on Helsinki-Tokyo flight

If the 787 hadn't had the other (actual) battery problems, this would never have been reported in the news. Indicator glitches like this happen on all plane models, even ones that have been flying safely for decades. I was on an A340 that stopped on the runway since an indicator showed there was a fire in the engine (there was no fire), the pilots ran the fire extinguisher anyway to be sure, and we had to return to gate and fly the next day.

As a European, I'd love to gloat over Airbus vs Boeing, but a lot of these small reports (broken toilets? seriously?) are non-issues that happen to any plane with 100 airframes in the sky.

That's it. I am sure it's all under control but I am not taking any chances.

@Weasel

Could be, but it amounts to the same thing in the end. Whether the parts are cheap or expensive, it's the sum of them that makes or breaks a product.

Are those batteries made by GS Yuasa (here in Shinagawa)? Or do they only make the Toyota Prius batteries?

MM. Hardly a 'Lemon' , 982 orders, 98 delivered. No deferrals unlike the A380, or the 747-8.

I don't read 'problem with a battery' here, I read 'possible problem with some connection'. Some maintenance worker could have improperly connected something. Daily, planes around the world experience a variety of engine related problems, cracked window shields, flat tires, faulty instrumentation, leaking fuel or hydraulic oil etc. etc. And it's not reported as news worthy. Of course, after serious incidents with some part or system you should keep an eye on it, but don't sensationalize it. It's getting tiresome. It's only newsworthy if another battery catches fire.

Paragraph 4: "Engine monitoring systems showed the voltage and electrical current were within normal ranges and the plane arrived at Helsinki without delay, a JAL spokesman said" makes no sense.

Various J sources indicate it should say: "Remote engine monitoring systems on the ground showed... "

sf2k- so put your money where your mouth is and refuse to fly in every model that has seen an accident. In other words, Happy Sails, Sailor!

Well said forzaducati. I have done, and will continue to fly the 787 long haul. Comfortable, a lot less 'dry' and will a very common sight on the air 2-3 years down the line. Guess the rest of you will be back on ocean liners!

look at all these chicken littles declaring silliness over a glitch that had to be "monitered". Like theResident, I can't wait to fly in one, and with increasing orders, looks like it won't be long.

Well Elbuda - Sadly the only non-stop way home for you is now on an 787!

Sorry, me no fly in crap 787 for a LONG, LONG time, me value my life!! NO WAY JOSE!!

I've watched enough episodes of Mayday to know even a "minor" glitch can be enough to name the part after the tragedy it caused.

Why does not change name Dreamliner to Nightmareliner?

The Dream Lemon?

"state-of-the-art jet"

When it's outsourced to cheapest possible labour, it's no longer state-of-the-art. It's a flying wreck just waiting to fall apart.

Hence I don't fly JAL, just beacuse of the issues with 787......