ANA B788 near Matsuyama on Jan 11th 2013, cracked windshield

Last Update: January 13, 2013 / 18:06:01 GMT/Zulu time

Bookmark this article

Photo of ANA All Nippon Airways JA816A, Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner — ANA All Nippon Airways JA816A, Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner (Photo credit: Kentaro IEMOTO@Tokyo / Flickr / License: CC by-sa)

Incident Facts

Date of incident
Jan 11, 2013

Classification
Incident

Cause
Cracked windshield

Airline
ANA All Nippon Airways

Flight number
NH-585

Departure
Tokyo Haneda, Japan

Destination
Matsuyama, Japan

Aircraft Registration
JA816A

Aircraft Type
Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner

ICAO Type Designator
B788

An ANA All Nippon Airways Boeing 787-800, registration JA816A performing flight NH-585 from Tokyo Haneda to Matsuyama (Japan) with 246 people on board, was enroute at FL200 about 70nm northeast of Matsuyama when one of the windshield windows developed crack, that extended into a web structure of cracks of about one square meter. The crew continued for a safe landing at Matsuyama about 20 minutes later.

The return flight NH-590 was cancelled.

This incident together with three ground incidents of Boeing 787-800, that are outside The Aviation Herald's coverage, created an unbelievable and unjustified hysteria throughout global media. A fuel spill, like it happened at Boston, can happen due to overfill during refueling or perhaps a ruptured fuel line on any aircraft and was identified as caused by a faulty valve on this occasion. A brakes problem as happened in Japan during flight preparation would normally not at all be mentioned in general media but now is used again to create hysteria. The only incident, capable of raising concern beyond the usual teething problems of an aircraft, is being monitored by The Aviation Herald despite being outside coverage, the APU battery fire in Boston. Both FAA and NTSB rate this as an incident (even though the aircraft had not yet been boarded with the intention to flight, so that even per ICAO definition this can not even be an incident), the NTSB reported a fire damage confined to the immediate vicinity of the APU battery with severe fire damage to the battery, the airline reported they discovered a wiring fault which may have caused the fire. The Aviation Herald continues to monitor this ground incident; should it become rated an accident by the NTSB, we'll enter into full coverage.

The media hysteria, the previous generator failure incidents, see Incident: United B788 near New Orleans on Dec 4th 2012, electrical problems causing concerns of electrical heat on board, Incident: Qatar B788 near Doha on Dec 8th 2012, generator failure and a similiar incident during certification tests of the aircraft, as well as the APU battery fire incident at the gate in Boston on Jan 7th 2013 prompted the FAA to announce a review of the Boeing 787 design, manufacturing and quality assurance processes although both the United States Department of Transport and the FAA are convinced the aircraft is safe.

For those readers, who still inquire about why the ground incidents are not covered: read our FAQ and watch the right hand bar for notifications. It is beyond belief that some people assume we would not be aware of such occurrences. These limitations in our coverage are not made for fun, but to make the workload manageable and thus The Aviation Herald possible at all.

The Aviation Herald does not care how excited other media get about aviation occurrences, but researches and reports those incidents based on the facts as usual and sticks to published editorial policies, even though this may mean we miss a "great story".