Thomson 787 returns to MAN

[fantom]

...so the Beeb reports.

Oh, now Yates is giving his opinion so that's alright then.

[The Royal Family]

Strangely quiet on this subject, considering the top news right now is on the B787, come on guys:confused:

[chakolovsky]

Aircraft experienced a "technical" issue.

Thomson: Tech issue on Boeing 787 from Manchester | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.com/html/boeingaerospace/2021380220_apeubritainplanefire.html)

[Airbourne-Adamski]

Thomson statement at 18.45 says it was a flight to Florida, got as far as Irish sea and did an immediate return to MAN with a tech fault. A/C landed safely, technical engineers are now investigating. No info though on actual fault.

[The Royal Family]

BBC North West saying that "aircraft circled over Anglesey for 5 hours burning off fuel before its return MAN"

[Dannyboy39]

Aircraft turns back to the UK from over the Irish Sea due to tech problem. Isn't this almost a weekly (perhaps more so) occurrence?

Big news story?

[Runway 31]

Footage from flight tracker websites shows that it was over the Atlantic to the east of Ireland nearly 10w when it returned and went into a holding pattern over the Irish Sea for a couple of hours.

[The Royal Family]

Florida-bound Thomson Boeing 787 Dreamliner forced to return to Manchester Airport after a 'technical issue' - Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/florida-bound-thomson-boeing-787-dreamliner-5076706)


A Boeing 787 Dreamliner jet has been forced to return to Manchester Airport after it developed a mid-flight 'technical issue'.

The Thomson Boeing 787 Dreamliner departed from the airport for Sanford in Orlando, Florida, this afternoon.

It was later spotted on a plane-tracking website circling over north Wales, understood to be dumping fuel.

The luxury jet later returned to Manchester Airport and landed safely tonight.

A spokesman for Thomson said the return to Manchester was a precaution and passengers were being moved to an alternative aircraft.

The airline said the incident was not connected to a fire on a parked Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 787 Dreamliner at London Heathrow today.

Runways at Heathrow were closed and all arrivals and departures were suspended after the incident at 4.30pm. No passengers were aboard at the time.

[Big Eric]

Runway 31, 10W is to the West of Ireland surely ?

[Runway 31]

Thanks Eric of course it is. It was nearly at 10w west of Ireland when it turned back.

[rab-k]

I think that 53N/017W is a wee bit further from the point of departure than the "Irish Sea".

[HeathrowAirport]

Gear Problem this one apparently....

[JackRalston]

BBC North West say the aircraft circled for "5 hours" yet the BBC website article says "30 minutes", they really are as bad as Sky News today. The plane circled for just over 1hr 30minutes, not 30 minutes and certainly not 5 hours!

[Daily Dalaman Dave]

Dannyboy39,

If it was any aircraft other than the 787 then you would have a point. But in light of the aircrafts troubled introduction to the skies, plus today's Ethiopian incident at LHR then yes it is very relevant news to most people interested in aviation. :ok:

[peterhr]

They would prefer to return to MAN if they had a problem that needed engineers to look at the plane before it could take off again - That's where the Monarch team are based that look after the Thomson 787s.

Much better to swap planes back in the UK

[glad rag]

Gear problems huh...

wheels go up, wheels go down. the problems are usually immediately obvious.

Now, how about a wheel bay over-temp :} ?

[Lon More]

53N 015W is an OEP
My initial thought was Coms/Nav problem.

[robertbartsch]

CNN is reporting that the 787 was burning. The network has pictures of the plane with heavy smoke coming from under the wings.

Is this another battery issue???

Boeing stock has been hit hard in late trading in NY.

[dash6]

Fuel jettison.

[Lon More]

CNN is reporting that the 787 was burning. The network has pictures of the plane with heavy smoke coming from under the wings.

Is this another battery issue???


I suspect that´s the other one on the ground at LHR

[UAVop]

Its getting tough to keep track of all the 787's that are NOT flying.

[rab-k]

Lon

If by "OEP" you refer to an Oceanic Entry Point, then "53N 010W" isn't.

However, 53N 015W is an OEP: MALOT

The turnback occurred west of MALOT, in Shanwick airspace.

[Lemain]

At what stage will the underwriters say 'enough'? All the while there are (western) flight crew and airlines prepared to fly, I for one will fly without concern; no western pilot is going to risk his or her neck, and no insurer is going to cover a bad risk.

[BAe 146-100]

It was in holding for 3 hours at least, but they didn't at any point declare an emergency and landed as normal.

[EGNT]

I'm no expert here, but from a business point of view surely Thomson would want this plane back on the ground in the UK after hearing of the incident at LHR?

If the 787 were to be grounded again, i'm sure it would save them alot of hassle having the a/c at their base airport, for works to be carried out with minimal disruption? Not to mention the return pax being stranded over in the U.S, they would have to organise for them to be returned, at great cost/delay.

To me, seems a bit of a coincidence for this to be turned back at the same time.

[CityofFlight]

Does anyone here find it interesting that the "technical" issue has not been disclosed after all this time? :confused:

[parabellum]

At what stage will the underwriters say 'enough'?


Not for a long time yet. The battery issue was very serious and the a/c grounded but apart from that this is no more than to be expected with any new aircraft entering service, had it been a B767 turning back it would probably only have made it to the local news.

[silverhawk]

Perhaps that was their EDTO or ETOPS entry point rather than OEP.

As an aside, with the cost of fuel and the fact the aircraft was going to be on the ground for a while anyway, why not just accept the overweight landing and avoid dumping fuel?

[Lon More]

why not just accept the overweight landing and avoid dumping fuel?
The thought of all those tyres going bang and the aircraft sliding off he runway might have been a consideration.
I watched it on FlightRadar an it looked like he used al the runway and was stationary at the end for minute or so before going back to the apron.

I think that by not being a bit more open about the cause they are only fuelling further speculation which may be even more damaging to Boeing's tattered reputation

[manrow]

I do think the Thomson PR machine needs to get organised and feed relevant truthful information to a concerned public and a nervous media who look for any silence on incidents to exaggerate?

[The Fat Controller]

A couple of points to add.

They wanted the aircraft back in Manchester as that was where the 767 was waiting to take the passengers to Florida.

The extended holding time was to BURN the fuel, not to dump it.

According to the Aviation Herald and other sources, the electrical problem that the aircraft had meant that the fuel dumping system was not available.

[glad rag]

Incident: Thomson B788 over Atlantic on Jul 12th 2013, lavatory woes (http://avherald.com/h?article=4653cb10&opt=0)

"Passengers reported that all but 2 lavatories malfunctioned obviously as result of an electrical problem. "

HOWEVER.

Having been one of the teams installing PGE harnesses in tranche one and two A380's I say do not to underestimate the power consumption of these services, even on a "smaller" aircraft.....

[rab-k]

Oh well, that explains it then...

Lon - No probs. (10 West may not have known as it stayed clear of his patch and went out via the Shannon FIR to pick up NAT Track 'A', commencing at MALOT. Didn't see him yesterday so he may be on days off).

:ok:

[LadyL2013]

Thomson are saying mechanical fault according to their FB site, yet passengers seem to be saying pilot said it was an electrical fault.

I'm trying to find the sources.

[Weary]

Before people start getting carried away with the imagined seriousness of an event or technical fault that may cause an aircraft (ANY aircraft) to divert off the ocean and land ASAP, you may be interested to know that TOILETS are statistically the No. 1 cause.*
Simply - full, blocked, or unserviceable toilets may mean you cannot possibly continue (for obvious reasons), or indeed may mean you cannot even begin the crossing.
Still - despite all the warning signs in every loo, there are people who still insist on putting nappies etc. down there .....:ugh:
In this case however, clearly there was a fault with the system rather than a blockage. Not a flight safety issue, but a "stopper" nonetheless.

Edit * some aircraft types and/or pax/loo configurations being more susceptible than others.

[cockney steve]

@ Alexander de Meercat (post 42)....It was used in the early stages of one of the "Battery" threads (modesty prevents me naming the originator ;)

@ Legacy Driver...The sheer Fuel efficiency of the airframe , was a compelling reason for adopters...Unfortunately, Boeing management blew that one by their incompetence and lack of ability to manage an AIRCRAFT builder

Load of bull was talked about the impossibility of adapting / using / certifying a more stable and proven Lithium technology, yet they had a vast team of highly qualified engineers , working day and night on.........A tin box with a vent-pipe:eek:

Given some decent Quality Control , Management who understand the product and it's market, and Engineers with the power to resist coercion to compromise and Kludge, this aircraft could STILL be a world-beater.
Seems the arrogant tossers are just going to keep taking their no-doubt-generous salaries until the milch cow keels over and dies.

[ANW]

Well whatever the cause was, it must be fixed.
This morning, G-TUIC left MAN at 0915 UTC (1015 LT) as TOM144,
with (at the time of writing), an ETA 1814 UTC for Cancun.

[slf4life]

That's good news, really hope these general electrical systems issues settle down. A shame to see a beautiful and comfortable new aircraft having such potentially dangerous teething problems. Once stabilized and racking up the miles on the line it'll be a win win for all concerned.

[Bigpants]

Some might have said the Titanic was beautiful and comfortable too.

Still contained design flaws, a lack of lifeboats and was foolishly steaming at night into an area with icebergs with a lookout sans binos.

The 787 is badly made and all the more dangerous because so much is riding on it. As we speak Boeing will be applying all of its considerable lobbying muscle to keep this plastic fantastic aircraft flying.

Safety is our highest priority?

[El Bunto]

Once stabilized and racking up the miles on the line it'll be a win win for all concerned.Well other than for economy pax going from a 17.8"-wide 767 seat to 17.2" in the 787.

Though perhaps this will be offset by the view from the windows when the FAs permit exterior viewing?

[slf4life]

In terms of comfort I'm primarily interested in the cabin (pressure) altitude change. And I think that because so much is riding on this for one of only two majors on the entire planet, it must be sorted out one way or other.

[John Farley]

From the engineers or test pilots’ perspective when anything goes wrong in the early service of any new aircraft and nobody is hurt every such incident represents invaluable knowledge which will allow them to refine the design or procedures associated with it.

Such incidents are therefore to be welcomed not wailed about on the internet.

It may be hard on the commercial and PR folk but it leads in the long term to a really well sorted aircraft.

[Legacy Driver]

@cockney steve: Thanks for replying, though my post seems to have been removed [I'm still trying to work out what attracts the mods' delete key!] "... yet they had a vast team of highly qualified engineers , working day and night on.........A tin box with a vent-pipe" [sorry, still can't work out how to quote properly on here]. Yes, I've been following the developments on one of the other threads. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Like many others, I want to see the 787 work, but I just feel it is almost a the point of no return. I know there will be the folk who say "this is entirely normal for a new type - it is just the reporting that has increased" (and I really don't know whether that is true or not). However, the point is that the 787 is developing the sort of reputation that gets into the group mind, and so every incident gets reported. Eventually, unless Boeing have truly excellent PR (which doesn't seem to be the case) the whole thing will end up being so toxic that it will have to be binned, along with a lot of the potentially good developments.

[UAVop]

The bathrooms are certainly of interest. They are not gravity flow, and do rely on the electrical system to flush.

Also of interest in the Heathrow fire which started at the back at the bathroom location.
It appears they are looking at the airconditioning unit, but, they stated at ALL power had been shut down for 8 hours.

[Laarbruch72]

El Bunto:

Well other than for economy pax going from a 17.8"-wide 767 seat to 17.2" in the 787.

You're worrying about .6 of an inch in width, seriously?
The economy pax will have 34 inch seat pitch which is better than pretty much anyone, the space is very noticeable and I've sat in those economy seats.

Though perhaps this will be offset by the view from the windows when the FAs permit exterior viewing?

Cabin crew permit it constantly, only disabling the system when safety dictates. That's standard for this aircraft.

[Local Variation]

Reports on SSN last night that a hundred or so Thomson customers had contacted the company querying whether their planned future flight was to be on a 787.

Thomson declined to comment, but the inference was pretty obvious in the news report.

[joy ride]

I wonder if the passengers were aware of the Heathrow 787 fire. If I had been on board I certainly would have been worried even though I like flying.

Any definitive news about whether or not the Thomson 787 galleys were also affected by the technical problem?

[Agaricus bisporus]

Please explain "when cabin crew permit viewing". Do they somehow have control of window access? How? When? Why?

[TWT]

How The Magical Windows in Boeing's 787 Dreamliner Work (http://gizmodo.com/5829395/how-boeings-magical-787-dreamliner-windows-work)




nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

[tubby linton]

So why did the jettison fail to work?

[Herod]

Electrically operated pumps and valves?

[MarcJF]

G-TUIC has just returned from Cancun, tracking the east coast of USA, was due to land in Manchester, circled a few times and then diverted to Gatwick where it's just landed. Are there any problems in Manchester this morning or is this a case of needing to get the aircraft back to base?

[SilentHandover]

MarcJF, there is fog at Manchester this morning, I assume that is the reason for the divert.

[A4]

Perhaps Tom don't have clearance yet for CAT IIIB as it's such a new type to them? Otherwise ......?

[Una Due Tfc]

So has it been established as fact that the crew lost the ability to dump fuel and had reduced braking?

If so then what if they had a birdstrike when flying back over Ireland? Or the battery caught fire like it has previously and the crew needed to land immediately and couldn't make it to a nice long runway like Shannon or Manchester? Landing heavy with reduced braking on possibly a short runway? Lovely :uhoh:

[jamesanthony1943]

Having flown about 12,000 DC10 I agree with Mr Farley. It will be sorted eventually or sooner.

[doublesix]

I spoke to some passengers on this mornings 787 from Cancun when it landed at Manchester early afternoon.. They were told the diversion to Gatwick was due to fog at Manchester. I know of at least one other aircraft which diverted to Liverpool for the same reason.

[fantom]

Hmm...not CATIII or no fuel?

[overstress]

Does anyone here find it interesting that the "technical" issue has not been disclosed after all this time?

Hmm. Electrical aeroplane. How about electrics? What if, say, a busbar failed on a new twin engined aircraft, leading to all sorts of issues?

[EPRman]

Thomson hasn't got 787 CAT III approval yet. It's imminent though.

[MarcJF]

I was on the Tom30 flight to Cancun. The delay of two hours was due to crew and the previous days divert. The aeroplane is fantastic, quiet, lighting is very different, wings take a bit of getting used to as they are bouncing around but the turbulence on the plane much reduced. The crew seemed genuinely happy to be working on this craft and whilst we were a tad apprehensive thoroughly enjoyed the flight. I hope these initial teething troubles are fixed quickly.

[beamender99]

According to a statement by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration quoted by local Boston station WCVB, the plane had a fuel pump problem. The crew decided to return to Boston after an indicator light came on signaling that there may be an issue.

[jolihokistix]

beamender99, different aircraft and story.

[cyflyer]

I think he was referring to this in todays news

Maintenance light prompts flight to return to Boston - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/18/travel/boston-flight-u-turn/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)

[gcal]

At post #56

I very much tend to agree and given the bird below was the 2nd off the line and has flown many thousands of hours in safety; including years carrying 380 bums on seats to tourist destinations all over the shop (as G-GCAL with CalAir/Novair) and is stil going strong.
Yet look at the early history this very new technology aircraft had.

Photo: N220AU (CN: 46501) ORBIS Flying Eye Hospital McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10 by Juan Carlos Aponte - JetPhotos.Net (http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7499655&nseq=5)

[UAVop]

It would seem that the Boeing Ops Center would know exactly what was wrong with the aircraft.

Aircraft Health Management for 787 (http://www.boeing.com/787-media-resource/docs/AHM-overview.pdf)

"This communications center tells Boeing and the airline that owns the jet what's going on with every system inside the planes. Each plane is sending up to 5,000 indications about itself at any time, including the oil level in the Auxiliary Power Unit, the status of the heater that keeps the pilot's cockpit windows free of ice and the health of the recently modified lithium-ion batteries. If needed, the team can call up over 140,000 sources of data on each jet."

[OFSO]

Boeing Ops Center

Anyone from Rolls Royce here ? Don't they have a similar monitoring centre for their aviation engines ?

[E_S_P]

Aircraft Health Management for 787 (http://www.boeing.com/787-media-resource/docs/AHM-overview.pdf)

"This communications center tells Boeing and the airline that owns the jet what's going on with every system inside the planes. Each plane is sending up to 5,000 indications about itself at any time, including the oil level in the Auxiliary Power Unit, the status of the heater that keeps the pilot's cockpit windows free of ice and the health of the recently modified lithium-ion batteries. If needed, the team can call up over 140,000 sources of data .... "

I wonder how long before the stats/data collected by these systems become used as another bean counter tool to help carry out individual crew 'performance' analysis or benchmarking...

That is of course if they are not already being used for that purpose :rolleyes:

[Speed of Sound]

Anyone from Rolls Royce here ? Don't they have a similar monitoring centre for their aviation engines ?

Not sure about all their aero engines but the Trent 900 is monitored 24/7 worldwide as are many of their more recent sea-going engines and power generation units. Apparently this is done to help develop maintenance schedules rather than fault find.

(I remember having doubts about the main bearings on my GSXR600R as a youth and spending the best part of three days removing the engine from the bike and then stripping it down to the crank. There was nothing wrong with the bearings (it turned out to be a fuelling problem!) but cost me nearly £200 in replacement gaskets and oil seals to find that out. Now a #3 engine on an A380 flying at 39,000ft on the other side of the world can have its vibration spectrum analysed to check on the state of a bearing at the click of a mouse.

Isn't technology marvellous? :) )

[noughtsnones]

OFSO
Operations Room features in The Jet Engine (6 edition) chapter 3.3 "maintenance".
Other hints of the concept maturity and scope on such monitoring can estimated from:-
Engine Monitoring Multiplex Unit can be fitted on RB211-524G/H-T (B747-400 & B767-300)
http://www.ingenia.org.uk/ingenia/issues/issue39/waters.pdf
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/technology_today/2012_i2/pdf/2012_i2.pdf pp16/17 :8

[OFSO]

Great/Thanks.

[Fliifast1]

It's already started!

[Iver]

Great Thomson 787 photo for the pilots taken at Tenerife:

G-TUID - Thomson Airways Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner at Tenerife Sur - Reina Sofia | Photo ID 317471 | Airplane-Pictures.net (http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/317471/g-tuid-thomson-airways-boeing-787-8-dreamliner/)

I bet some of the Thomson pilots will be able to recognize these 2 pilots. Great photo!

[ericlday]

Any details of Flight number/destination ? Thanks

[LiamNCL]

TOM2203 /MAN

[jolihokistix]

Looks like another electrical problem with the lavatories.

"Toilets shutdown force B-787 returns to Moscow

Malfunctioning cabin toilets have forced a Japan Airlines Dreamliner bound for Tokyo to return to Moscow. The airline suspects an electrical problem.

Airline officials say the mid-flight malfunction occurred on Wednesday afternoon.

The jetliner was carrying 151 crew and passengers when it changed its destination to an embarking airport in Moscow and landed safely 5 hours later.

They say the plane was fine on the outward journey from Tokyo to Moscow.

Dreamliners were grounded earlier this year after a string of battery problems. But the airline insists the two problems are unrelated.
Oct. 9, 2013 - Updated 23:08 UTC"
Toilets shutdown force B-787 returns to Moscow -NHK WORLD English- (http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20131010_11.html)

[Burnie5204]

OFSO - I'm ex-RR.

As you say they have a 24/7 Ops centre staffed by engineers continually monitoring the health of any engines they monitor (I'm not familiar with which engines they cover in addition to 8/9/1000 series Trents). However, I cant be 100% as I didnt have much to do with post-production but I seem to recall them saying that they only proactively monitor those that take out a monitoring contract but passively monitor all engines.

As above they primarily monitor engine health to determine when proactive preventative maintenance is required and gather data for engine development and future projects, however, an in-flight engine abnormality/part failure on any engine with the data transmitters will alert the Ops room who will then alert the operator and, if neccesary, dispatch and engineering team to meet the aircraft.

Their claim to fame for customer service being when they had a long-haul flight alert the RR Operations Centre for abnormal in-flight vibration, above normal but below the safety limit, and because they received the alert on engines they had a line maintenance contract for they had engineers waiting on ramp when the aircraft arrived with the neccesary parts required to do the works. Aircrew had no idea that they'd had an issue as RR monitoring had allowed the engineers to intervene before the vibration had even reached the EICAS alert limit.

The engineers are also able to remotely adjust the FADEC settings to help deal with in-flight problems.