PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 16th Jan 2013, 00:06   #1 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 396
ANA 787 makes emergency landing due 'battery fire warning'

BBC News now reporting that an ANA Dreamliner has made an emergency landing at Takamatsu due to a 'battery fire warning'.

BBC News - A Boeing 787 plane makes an emergency landing in Japan
Speed of Sound is online now   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2013, 00:34   #2 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: CLE
Posts: 30
Goodness. We're going to need a new forum for these threads.

Can anyone tell if the airplanes with battery problems are the same planes, or even the same batteries on different aircraft? A single battery seems like a much more tractable problem than if the (alleged) overheating is taking place on different batteries.

asc12 is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2013, 00:38   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Just around the corner
Posts: 45
Why do I suspect it was anything else but the batteries... ?
GuilhasXXI is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2013, 00:43   #4 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 396
At least two different planes as one JAL and the other ANA.

JAL 787 still on ground in BOS. As all we know is that tonight's landing was prompted by a 'battery malfunction warning', we won't know what battery it is.

I suspect that this was probably an over-reaction to something that must be at the back of the minds of all 787 flight crew. If it was a genuine battery malfunction then we have to start considering whether there is any significance in the fact that so many incidents have occurred in Japanese operated 787's.

Is there something in the 'customer electrical specification' of the of the planes built for JAL and ANA that could be initiating these fires/warnings?

Just a thought.
Speed of Sound is online now   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2013, 00:59   #5 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6
All Nippon Airways grounds all Dreamliners in fleet after emergency landing — RT



All Nippon Airways has grounded all 17 Boeing 787 planes in its fleet for emergency inspections after a malfunction on board forced one of the Dreamliners to make an emergency landing at Takamatsu Airport in the west of Japan.
*A battery malfunction on one of ANAís Boeing 787 Dreamliners forced an emergency landing at Japanís Takamatsu airport on Wednesday morning.
Undertow is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2013, 01:14   #7 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 301
SoS I think it was a little more than a 'battery warning'; landing was due to smoke on flight deck and was followed promptly by a full evac...

Ranger One is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2013, 01:14   #8 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Quote:
I suspect that this was probably an over-reaction to something that must be at the back of the minds of all 787 flight crew.
I don't think that would be the case, the fact that they are reporting smoke in the cockpit is a good indication that this is a real problem. Even if it is in the minds of all 787 crew, then that means there is a problem that needs to be fixed and fixed quickly.
angryrat is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2013, 01:15   #9 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,479
Bad batteries, nothing to do with aircraft type? How can you blame Boeing on this?
bubbers44 is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2013, 01:26   #10 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,974
No-one's blaming anyone at this point, bubbers. Wait and see, eh?
DozyWannabe is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2013, 01:30   #11 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 61
Quote:
Quote:
I suspect that this was probably an over-reaction to something that must be at the back of the minds of all 787 flight crew.
I don't think that would be the case, the fact that they are reporting smoke in the cockpit is a good indication that this is a real problem. Even if it is in the minds of all 787 crew, then that means there is a problem that needs to be fixed and fixed quickly.
In flight the pressure should push the smoke away from there, but once you're back down it will change. That could by itself set of a quick reaction.

Last edited by Phalanger; 16th Jan 2013 at 01:31.
Phalanger is online now   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2013, 01:44   #12 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,119
ANA ground Dreamliner, according to BBC

BBC News - Japan's ANA grounds Dreamliners after emergency landing
silverknapper is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2013, 01:47   #13 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 109
Quote:
No-one's blaming anyone at this point, bubbers. Wait and see, eh?
I for one would be very surprised if they weren't grounded as a result of this last event. Maybe too soon for such a call, but we'll see
Squawk-7600 is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2013, 01:56   #14 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 1,083
Smoke in Cockpit

Phalanger. Don't know what your background is, but your statement that inflight the pressure should push the smoke away from the cockpit is pretty "Broad-Brush". Depending on the source of the smoke and how it is entering the cockpit it may not always be possible to evacuate the smoke from the cockpit area immediately. Until the source can be isolated and removed the smoke will continue. Once this is accomplished the "Smoke Evacuation Procedure" would follow.
Old Fella is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2013, 02:00   #15 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,974
@Squawk-7600 - That's not the same thing as "blaming" Boeing though, is it?

As is invariably the case these days, the components have come from all over the world, and from various suppliers - it's no different for Airbus. If ANA ground their B787s then that's a matter for them and Boeing to hash out in terms of responsibility - it's not a given that Boeing themselves are responsible for the problem, just as it's not a given that Airbus are solely responsible for any issues on their types.

[EDIT : Tempting as it may be to engage in "schadenfreude", it just makes the person that does so look like as much of an arse as the folks who do so when the boot is on the other foot. Be a grown-up - don't fall into that trap!]

Last edited by DozyWannabe; 16th Jan 2013 at 02:15.
DozyWannabe is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2013, 02:00   #16 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,414
Actually, the inflight movement would create denser air at the tail of the aircraft, and any smoke would move forward.

(put a helium balloon in your car and accelerate, it will move forward)
FlightPathOBN is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2013, 02:02   #17 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,122
Post JAL/BOS, Boeing reported that "cockpit pressurization" would keep smoke out if the cockpit....And cabin.

Squawk7600

I think the authority is about to put an end to further "flight test" with pax aboard....

Wasn't ANA debut operator?
Lyman is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2013, 02:05   #18 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 61
The idea is it should move with the flow. Same reason smoke goes up from a fire, heat creates an airflow that it follows. So while you may not get none, it should be moving concentrations away from such areas (unless they are generated in those areas).

Last edited by Phalanger; 16th Jan 2013 at 02:10.
Phalanger is online now   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2013, 02:06   #19 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Albuquerque USA
Posts: 133
also JAL, according to Al-Jazeera

Al-Jazeera reports both All Nippon and Japan Airlines have "grounded" their 787 fleets.

Boeing 787 makes emergency landing in Japan - Asia-Pacific - Al Jazeera English
archae86 is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2013, 02:14   #20 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Secessionist Republic of Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 22
'Flight' is considering the case of a container under accelleration. I don't have a helium balloon handy, but I suspect that it would move aft, relatively, due to the inertia of it's mass. The aircraft in question would likely have velocity but not accelleration in flight.
Weeds round the prop is offline   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 12:20.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network