United Dreamliner flight from London to Houston diverted to Newark

[El Supremo]

Source: AP / Denver Post

NEWARK, n.j. — A United Airlines Boeing 787 flying from London to Houston was diverted to Newark, N.J., on Thursday because of a low-engine-oil indicator.

The Federal Aviation Administration said United Flight 125 landed safely at 2:10 p.m. EDT at Newark Liberty International Airport outside New York City. The agency said it would look into the incident.

United said there were 218 passengers, four pilots and 11 flight attendants on board.

Airline spokeswoman Christen David said the plane would undergo maintenance inspection. She said United was working on getting the passengers to Houston.

It was the second such incident involving a United Boeing 787 this week.

Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23505004/united-dreamliner-flight-from-london-houston-diverted-newark

---

This plane is a lemon.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Guess they don't have quite all the bugs out yet...

Low oil probably just an indicator failure, but you'd hope new machinery wouldn't have even little bugs.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. Lemon? Because on a single gauge reading?

You realize there are literally THOUSANDS of parts to this aircraft.

Calling the 787 a "lemon" is over the top.

[El Supremo]

4. Two flights diverted....

months of problems over a battery and fire. It's a lemon.

[Swede Atlanta]

5. Yes there are....I work in the passenger air transport industry but....

Given the limited number of 787s in service and the fact UA have had instances with 2 of them in a single week this does raise the question of their reliability. I am not saying they are not reliable but saying this calls that into question.

What Boeing needs to ensure is that they have a calm period of time during which there are virtually no incidents for ANY reason. If they don't it will raise the noise level about the unsafe aircraft.

If you recall what happened after the UA DC-10 crash in Chicago. That cemented the fate of the DC-10 as being unsafe.

Boeing needs to get technicians, etc. onsite to ensure their customers are running these aircraft with no-margin errors.

If they don't the 787 runs the risk of being labelled the "lemon" aircraft.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. The DC-10 got a bad rap on that accident --

it was caused by an incorrect engine installation procedure used by American Airlines, contrary to the manufacturer's recommendations. Before that there had been a problem with cargo door latches. But after the Chicago accident the FAA grounded the thing for awhile, and that really killed sales after that. The DC-10 wasn't really an unsafe airplane.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

3. Who on that flight had dreams of Jersey?

[Kablooie]

6. My wife flew on a 787 recently and some passengers couldn't turn off the blowing air.

The stewardesses taped cardboard over the vents for the people who wanted it off.

Also many of the in seat entertainment systems were broke.

[canonfodder]

12. So what?

In cabin system failures are common on all aircraft, on all carriers.
FYI, those are Flight Attendants, nor stewardesses.
They take great offense at the latter.

[Kablooie]

16. Oops. My bad. - Flight attendants. - I'm still living in the 60's I guess.

I'm sure you're right but the problems were prevalent enough for my wife to comment on them which is unusual.

Older planes are understandable but one would hope that a brand new plane would have a minimum of defects like this.

[canonfodder]

19. You'd be surprised

It is amazing that brand new aircraft have those minor problems such as that.
Every model does. Fortunately, they're quickly sorted out.
As your wife noted, most all are passenger convenience items.
Reading lights, gaspers, seat reclines, tray tables..etc.
Still an irritation for the affected passenger.

[MADem]

20. I don't think In-cabin system failures are "common" on brand new planes.

And not being able to turn off the air...on a brand new plane?

That's suggestive of a problem.

Aircraft is not ready for prime time. They need to go back and fix what's screwed up.

[BobbyBoring]

7. It's a lemon alright

Right up there with the F 35!

[YOHABLO]

8. I never fly United and won't get on the Dream Liner. I hope the others don't buy them.

[canonfodder]

13. Why?

They're new?
I hope BAC sells hundreds, if not thousands.

[PSPS]

9. Ah, the benefits of outsourcing.

[canonfodder]

14. What outsoursing?

A link for proof would be nice.

[PSPS]

17. LOL. You must work for the the Illinois company calling itself Boeing

Just Google boeing 787 outsourcing disaster and you'll get over a million hits. Here's one story from the Seattle Times:

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020275838_boeingoutsourcingxml.html

Remember the battery fiasco? Boeing used to have top notch battery design expertise in house. Then that too was outsourced resulting in the travesty you may have heard something about:

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2021045270_boeingoutsourcingxml.html

This is what happens when you build on the cheap.

[canonfodder]

21. sorry...no

Nope I don't.
What you are referring to are sub-contractors.
They are used by every manufacturer of commercial aircraft.
Believe me, I'm very aware of the battery issue.
You'd be dead wrong about the "cheap". Those batts cost 87K.

[Agschmid]

18. Lol to your comment...

Incredibly outsourced aircraft, I believe Boeing in fact had to buy a supplier because of outsourcing issues?

And I'm not going to link to it... Cause I'm not sure...

[canonfodder]

22. Pretty much correct

It was a sub-contracted supplier that couldn't get it's poop together.
BAC picked them up to streamline production.
No need for a link because I know it's true.

[cosmicone]

11. If Boeing was Microsoft

they'd send a bulletin saying "There is no problem really but we are releasing Service Pack 1 in near future"

[canonfodder]

15. Anyone, anyone at all

Does anyone here know anything at all about that aircraft??
Anybody?
I thought not.

[MADem]

23. You're disparaging people and they are TELLING you what the problems are.

You keep pooh-poohing.

Planes are supposed to work. The batteries should not catch fire. The entertainment systems should work. Customers should be able to regulate the air.

This isn't rocket science.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2013/06/21/boeing-dreamliner-safety-diversion/2446577/

Boeing Dreamliner faces image, safety concerns

...Ricardo Martinez-Cid, an aviation lawyer in Miami with Podhurst Orseck, said diversions can result from a variety of reasons, but that Boeing should have worked out the Dreamliner's problems already.

"What's supposed to happen is that all those kinks are worked out before they fly," he said. "I'm not going to say everyone should be terrified and shouldn't get on that airplane. But it's certainly a cause of some interest."

The FAA and other regulators grounded the worldwide fleet of Dreamliners from mid-January to mid-April because a battery caught fire on a plane parked in Boston and another smoldering battery forced an emergency landing in Japan.

Boeing won approval to fly again after putting more insulation into the batteries to prevent overheating, covering the batteries with a steel box and installing a titanium tube to carry any smoke or flammable electrolytes off the plane in case of a fire.

Since Dreamliners returned to service, incidents include:

--On Thursday, a United flight from London to Houston diverted to Newark because of a low-oil indicator.

--On Tuesday, a United flight from Tokyo to Denver diverted to Seattle because of an issue with an oil filter.

--On June 12, an All Nippon Airways flight in Japan from Ube to Tokyo was canceled when the right-side engine wouldn't start.

--On June 11, a Japan Airlines flight to Singapore returned to Tokyo's Haneda airport after takeoff because of a problem with the deicing system.