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

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.

:ouch:

Why do I suspect it was anything else but the batteries... ? :ooh:

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. :cool:

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 ANA’s Boeing 787 Dreamliners forced an emergency landing at Japan’s Takamatsu airport on Wednesday morning.

Japan’s ANA grounds 17 Dreamliners | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times

ANA Dreamliner makes emergency landing -NHK WORLD English-

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...

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...0115205952.jpg

Bad batteries, nothing to do with aircraft type? How can you blame Boeing on this?

No-one's blaming anyone at this point, bubbers. Wait and see, eh?

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.

ANA ground Dreamliner, according to BBC
 

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

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.

@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!]

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)

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?

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).

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

'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.

ANA and JAL have grounded all 24 of their 787's.