Boeing 787 Makes Emergency Landing

[crHedBngr]

United Dreamliner makes emergency landing in New Orleans - chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-united-dreamliner-emergency-landing-20121204,0,6952404.story)

Anyone know more about this?

[TURIN]

reported electrical problems.

:eek::eek::eek:

It was bound to happen sooner or later. :suspect:

[grumpyoldgeek]

Not clear whether it was an actual emergency or a precautionary landing. I'm leaning toward precautionary...

[archae86]

The current article on the Wall Street Journal web page states that the flight crew requested by radio for responders to check for discoloration or dripping plastic near the aft electrical equipment bay.

It also asserts that the current investigation focus is on a generator.

Lastly it quotes an airline spokesman to as saying in an e-mail "As you can imagine, we're going to let the technical teams do their jobs and not speculate. We're not providing details about the event at this point in time as the teams are still working to understand it."

[Lyman]

"The current article on the Wall Street Journal web page states that the flight crew requested by radio for responders to check for discoloration or dripping plastic near the aft electrical equipment bay"

Deja vu....

[Capn Bloggs]

The current article on the Wall Street Journal web page states that the flight crew requested by radio for responders to check for discoloration or dripping plastic near the aft electrical equipment bay
Loose lips sink ships...

[Lyman]

Maybe its in the QRH.

[ZFT]

so in flight incidents should not be reported?

[Lyman]

This would appear at first blush to be a second emergency landing for problems relating to the same electrical closet in the fuselage, aft, portside.

I hope it isn't.

[Capn Bloggs]

Maybe its in the QRH.
Got my copy of the 787 QRH right here:

Electrical Issues of Unknown Origin
Hop onto Maintenance on the VHF and pass all symptoms, as well as preferred troubleshooting/rectification actions, in as much detail as possible, so the whole world knows what might or might not have happened: :p

[Lyman]

I think this disclosure issue will quickly pass. Who remembers that 447's private ACARS were tipped to the Press?

[crewmeal]

Hell the Daily Mail have got hold of the story. But give them their due they have printed some good pics instead of the usual 'terror at 10 feet!

United Dreamliner flight makes emergency landing due to mechanical issue one month after airline introduced new plane | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2243080/United-Dreamliner-flight-makes-emergency-landing-mechanical-issue-month-airline-introduced-new-plane.html)

[obgraham]

One news report yesterday claimed that a flight tracking site showed a "sudden loss of power, rapid loss of altitude, and sudden turn".

I thought that's what you were supposed to do when you deviate!

[Brian Abraham]

From Avweb.Fuel Leaks Reported In Dreamliners

The FAA has ordered inspections of Boeing 787 aircraft after improperly installed fuel line hardware was discovered on in-service aircraft and on the production line. The inspections were ordered after two airlines reported fuel leaks on their Dreamliners. The agency gave airlines a week to check the lockwires and another two weeks to look at the connectors. Boeing said half of the 38 airplanes that have been delivered have been checked and they're working on a production-line fix.

"Certainly we would prefer not to have workmanship issues," Boeing spokeswoman Lori Gunter told the Seattle Times. "But the system finds them, we report them and we develop a solution." The inspections came as the FAA was investigating an emergency landing of a United Airlines 787 in New Orleans on Tuesday. The aircraft was on its way to Newark when it diverted to New Orleans with an undisclosed "mechanical problem." Gunter said the diversion had nothing to do with the fuel issue, however.

[Basset hound]

I believe that in normal configuration, only 4 of the ship's 6 generators would be turning. The 2 on the APU would not be. So, one of the 4 engine-driven gennies failed, and caused multiple EICAS messages... prompting a diversion. Wait 'till it happens mid Pacific... :)

[Lyman]

The fuel AD. Not to be associated with this electrical issue and emergency landing. issued today, I believe.

************************************************************ **

[4910-13-P]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2012-1220; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-208-AD; Amendment 39-17277; AD 2012-24-07]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. This AD requires ensuring that lockwire is installed correctly on the engine fuel feed manifold couplings. This AD also requires inspecting the assembly of the engine fuel feed manifold rigid and full flexible couplings. This AD was prompted by reports of fuel leaks due to improperly assembled engine fuel feed manifold couplings. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct improperly assembled couplings, which could result in fuel leaks and consequent fuel exhaustion, engine power loss or shutdown, or leaks on hot engine parts that could lead to fire.

************************************************************ **

The public report is that a generator failed. That is not cute, but machinery can go south. The troubling, no disturbing thing is that the load failed to re distribute, and the a/c was without power, causing an emergency landing. The selection of Louisiana is a mystery, if not an extreme emergency, why not return?

Losing a generator is not entirely unlike losing any part of a redundant system. Even an engine. Losing an engine on a twin is quite manageable, it better be.

One is not able to "err on the side of safety" and land immediately on routes this a/c is proposed to serve, this is not flight test. Reports of "Smoke", "Dripping plastic", and "aft electrical equipment bay" indicate an urgent need to stop the flight and land. There are three of these a/c in service. AD, and an unrelated emergency landing. Now an opportunity to vet a Public Relations effort.

Hi TURIN "There are three of these in service." (with UNITED)

....my bad

[TURIN]

There's a few more than three in service, but I take your point.

One genny off line should not be a major drama.
Summat is up!!

[Diamond Bob]

The troubling, no disturbing thing is that the load failed to re distribute, and the a/c was without power, causing an emergency landing..

Lyman -- Where did you get this information that the load failed to redistribute and there was a loss of power? I have not seen this. Have you got a source?

[FR8R H8R]

Dripping plastic? This does not instill much confidence in the airframe integrity. I will stick to a metal aeroplane anyday.

[Lyman]

Diamond Bob


"Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyman
The troubling, no disturbing thing is that the load failed to re distribute, and the a/c was without designed power, causing an emergency landing.."


Let's be clear. The initial report had the genesis of the emergency in the aft EE bay. That would be the second time this location has caused an immediate landing, the first time in Laredo.

No following Internal Press have disabused this as the cause here, the EE bay.



With six generators available, the loss of one should never cause a forced landing. Yet we see that the reporting is targeting a "mechanical issue". Mechanical includes electrical. If the load had been re distributed to solve the electrical issue, why not continue? What is the systems reversion that follows the loss of a generator? Evidently one that did not work?

A precautionary landing? That is absurd. There is no such animal in overwater operations. The landing was immediate and unavoidable, that is the conclusion.

I pray the problem is not as serious as it seems. Far from solving an "appearance problem" with the public, a lack of information and even misdirection only makes perception more murky.

Have you found the original thread here on PPRuNe? The discussion about the fire on the flight test that caused the program to stop for a time?

There was professional concern about safety v/v burning resin, and the lack of a sacrificial airframe in fire tests.

[Diamond Bob]

The initial report had the genesis of the emergency in the aft EE bay. That
would be the second time this location has caused an immediate landing, the
first time in Laredo.

No following Internal Press have disabused this as the cause here, the EE
bay.



The pilot of last Tuesday's flight reportedly asked the firefighters to check for dripping plastic at the electrical bay. But, according to Boeing, there was no problem there.


There was no fire and no sign or electrical arcing, Lori Gunter, a spokeswoman for Chicago-based Boeing Co., said in a statement Wednesday.

The generator breakdown wasn't related to a 2010 short circuit and fire caused by debris in an electrical panel during a test flight, said two people familiar with the matter who weren't authorized to speak publicly.


Boeing 787 generator failure forces jet to land, United says | Tulsa World (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=45&articleid=20121206_45_E2_CUTLIN164545)

It's been suggested in another forum that the pilots thought the problem was more serious than it was. I still don't see where you got to "load failed to redistribute". I haven't seen that reported anywhere.

[dash6]

Wow Clay.We are duly reprimanded.Thankfully,like your company,the 787 will be flown by the most senior pilots and trainers....BYEEEE! The belt loaders and catering trucks will,of course,be driven by the finest operators....

[dash6]

Sorry Clay. Since you had not addressed your comments,I assumed you were talking to the Aviation community as a whole.
How do the rest of the whole feel? I had assumed that you worked for the company mentioned. Hence the "your company"

[glad rag]

Do I need to remind you

OK go on then.....:hmm:

[archae86]

As I type, Flightaware shows three United Airlines 787 flights in the air, having departed Houston over a short period this morning, bound for Newark, Chicago, and Denver.

As United was reported to have taken delivery on three 787's at the time of the incident (LN50, LN53, and LN77) and no new delivery has been reported, this suggests that the incident aircraft has returned to service--possibly some time ago.

Two additional United deliveries are in a late stage of preparation and listed by the All Things 787 (http://nyc787.********.com/) site maintainer as possible December deliveries.

[misd-agin]

Claybird - "Edit: By the way, I have no desire to fly the 787-8. The 777 pays better anyway."

Aren't they in the same pay bucket?

[Diamond Bob]

According to some inside information posted on A-net, it appears this incident was indeed more serious than Boeing would lead us to believe. Two generator failures, strange banging noises, cabin lights going out and lots of cascading error messages. Also, components in the electrical bay were replaced and there was some evidence of arcing.

Then the mods at A-net locked the thread at it's most interesting phase because some were trying to "derail" the thread by bringing up the Laredo incident! As if they're not related? Ridiculous.

I should say that Lyman appears to be closer to the truth on this incident than I thought.

[ITman]

Looks like this electrical problem is more widespread after all, from Flight Global:

Qatar Airways chief executive Akbar Al Baker has vented his frustration about more technical problems blighting his Boeing 787s after the airline's third aircraft suffered an electrical issue on its delivery flight and had to be grounded for repairs.

The carrier, which operated its inaugural long-haul 787 service on 13 December from its Doha base to London Heathrow, has received three 787s and will take two more before year-end.

Speaking at Heathrow following the flight from Doha, Al Baker described his frustration about the latest problem and warned Boeing that it had to raise its game. "Unfortunately our third 787 has the same [generator control unit] problem that diverted a United 787," he said. "Fortunately it was on a delivery flight, but the aircraft is grounded and I am very disappointed with Boeing. They have to get their act together very fast because we will not accept any more defects with our aeroplanes because we have waited too long for them."

Al Baker says that the 787 has been "on the ground" since 9 December but he hopes the fault will be rectified and it will be cleared to fly again by around 15 December. "We are happy with Boeing's reaction to our AOG situation," he says.

Qatar is due to receive five more 787s during 2013 and will gradually introduce the type across its network as the fleet expands. The aircraft is now operating daily flights to Heathrow and its next destination will be Perth. Other early European 787 destinations will be Frankfurt and Munich. 787 Flights to Tokyo Haneda and Osaka in Japan as well as to the USA are also planned, says Al Baker.

[JimNtexas]

Audio recording of the B787 precautionary landing at KMSY is available on this page: LiveATC Recordings | LiveATC.net (http://www.liveatc.net/recordings.php)

(free registration required)

Not much drama on the radio.

[Lyman]

Howdy.....

"........Not much drama on the radio."

When aircrew does what is trained, does it well, and there is nothing left to do, the ride is surprisingly calm. That is of course, if there is nothing left to do.

Case in point: "they'll be looking for discoloration and dripping plastic."

Or.... "We'll be in the Hudson..."

That isn't drama, that is skill, competence, and professionalism.

:ok:

[captjns]

Same mechanical happened to QATAR last week.



Incident: Qatar B788 near Doha on Dec 8th 2012, generator failure
By Simon Hradecky, created Thursday, Dec 13th 2012 22:03Z, last updated Thursday, Dec 13th 2012 22:12Z
A Qatar Airways Boeing 787-800, registration A7-BCA performing delivery flight QR-3787 (dep Dec 7th) from Victorville,CA (USA) to Doha (Qatar), completed what appeared to be an eventless 14:37 hours flight with a safe landing on Doha's runway 33 at about 20:06L (17:06Z).

The aircraft wasn't seen since.

On Dec 13th the chairman of Qatar Airways said in an interview that on its delivery flight their third Boeing 787 suffered the same generator failure, that had caused a United Boeing 787 to divert to New Orleans, see Incident: United B788 near New Orleans on Dec 4th 2012, electrical problems causing concerns of electrical heat on board (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=45a0903f&opt=0), causing the aircraft to be grounded since Dec 9th. A Boeing repair team and spare parts are being dispatched, the aircraft is expected to remain on the ground for four more days. The chairman voiced his disappointment with Boeing stating "we are buying planes from them to use them, not to put in a museum".

Qatar Airways had received their first Boeing 787 A7-BCB on Nov 13th, which began service on Nov 20th, and their second Boeing 787 A7-BCL on Nov 23rd beginning service on Nov 26th.


FlightAware (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/QTR3787/history/20121208/0130Z/KVCV/OTBD)


Bad batch of generators?

[Lyman]

A. Inflight test, tramp metal in the EE bay, Laredo..

B. Generator(s) with noise, surge, and arcing, EE bay. New Orleans.

C. "Same issues as (B)"...... Al Baker, Qatar.

One in flight test, one on revenue, and one on delivery.


Toss out (A), due to tramp conductor left by mechanic. (it could happen...)

This bird has caution all over it, given its problems. And eyeballs focused on her from all corners.

Bad generators, a batch of them?

It sounds more like a systemic controls issue, something more complex than poor QA. The banging on the Newark flight might have been breakers, that is a lot of current in there.

It could easily be poor quality in the collateral equipment, but since it happened twice (thrice?) and given the sensitivity of the situation, it sounds systemic, even perhaps a design issue.

Al Baker was vocal about the engines issue, also, he can't be too pleased just now. Whatever happened on the Doha delivery seemingly was benign enough to allow the completion of the flight to destination.....

[Heathrow Harry]

"Once is happenstance, twice is co-incidence, the third time is enemy action Mr Bond"

Auric Goldfinger

[EEngr]

It sounds more like a systemic controls issue, something more complex than poor QA. The banging on the Newark flight might have been breakers, that is a lot of current in there.Perhaps it's a combination of both. The 787 (and 777) don't have the same electrical protection systems that older models to. Specifically, differential protection systems. This kind of sensing can be set at very sensitive levels (a few 10s of Amperes on a 600 Amp load bus*) and quickly clear arcing faults. Differential protection can also localize faults and is used by load transfer logic to switch unfaulted load buses to alternate sources. Without this capability, upon sensing a fault, the entire path from generator to individual load circuit breaker must be considered suspect and cannot be re-energized.

The banging could be caused by an arcing fault that does not have sufficient energy to overload a generator or bus. That's bad, as an arc can dissipate quite a bit of energy without reaching a detectable level.

When one deletes such a critical fault detection scheme, the level of QA and maintenance must be increased dramatically to ensure that faults it would have caught are lowered to the 'extremely unlikely' catagory.

*A more sophisticated version of the GFCI (RCD) breaker found on residential branch circuits. While the circuit overload setting is 20 Amps (US std), the GFCI device can detect leakage currents of 5 milliamps.
:8