Quality control, boys.

If you're going to fly by wire, you gotta get the wiring done right.

It certainly doesn't speak highly of Boeing's quality assurance / acceptance testing if they overlook this problem and it gets discovered by a line technician at ANA. And clearly it isn't a one-time mistake since the same problem affected at least three of their aircraft.

wow - unfortunately this always happens when companies rush out the new product after it is showcased. while boeing is extremely reputable, i can see where the $$ signs take over given the competition and the urge to get orders, etc. and its not just boeing, just my humble opinion, saw this many times before

It's not like Airbus and the A350 will not have in service flaws and issues discovered as the bird is broke in. Come on people this is a ground breaking
bird of course there will be issues. In the long run the Dreamliner will be the best aircraft in the sky when the bugs are ironed out. Give it some time how often have you been going down the interstate and see a brand new BMW or Lexus sitting on the side of the road dead still with a sticker on the window? It happens the world and technology is not perfect. Boeing has and still makes the best aircraft on Earth.

I hear all the "teething problems" excuses but this is really shoddy design, shoddy manufacturing procedures, and/or shoddy QC. I deal with lots of equipment that carries virtually no life safety risks at all. It is pretty common practice to make things like wiring connections idiotproof. Sensor 1 has a four prong connector, sensor 2 has a 6 prong connector (even though they are only two wire sensors). That sort of thing. I realize that there are probably 10s of thousands of wiring terminations on a 787 and only so many ways to key them. But beyond that, wouldn't you expect that there is a routine function check for something like this as part of quality control? Again, much lower risk equipment I deal with gets checked thoroughly - input 101 turns on, output 201 must turn on and activate device 301. The rule is if it's possible to connect it wrong, then you check to verify that it is connected right. Period. And that's for machines that just make plastic doodads. Factory engineering teams show up with long checklists and do what is called, in my industry, I/O checks, verifying that every input is properly connected to the right device and every output is properly connected to the right device and that triggering the input generates the right response at the output device. It's a routine part of commissioning an automated machine. I do it, too. It is time consuming and expensive and, in many smaller pieces of equipment that don't get any field connections, frequently automated.

Sorry. I'd like to love Boeing but this is just very sloppy. If an assembly step carries the risk of failure due to human error, you put steps in place to make sure no errors have occurred.

I find it strange that all of the production didn't suffer from the same malady. Of all 73 aircraft only a few were miswired? ANA put the 787 back in service over a month ago yet only found the wiring error yesterday or the day before in a pre-flight maintenance procedure. What's the different in the current pre-flight and the inspection used previously? I've read three different articles about this and all of them generate more questions than they answer.

Wouldn't a fire suppressor be a network addressable device, and therefore the problem be an incorrect network address which might happen during an engine swap for instance?

Wiring issues will always occur on brand new developed machines as complicated as an airliner. A light switch wrongly connected? No fuzz, small repair, should have been detected by quality control at the manufacturer, but hey, its a job done by people and people do make mistakes.
Now, for a pilot, the biggest hazard on board during a flight is fire. Can you imagine getting an actual engine fire on the starboard engine, following the checklist to shutdown and secure that engine........and then finding out that all of a sudden you find yourself on an aircraft that has its port engine choked by the fire bottles (can't restart it) and its starboard engine still on fire???????
Yes, mistakes are made, we all do, but this one would have had catastrophic results if it wasn't discovered.......and that discovery should have taken place in Seattle!!! This is why in aviation we check and double or triple check. There are checklists, also at quality control. Not checked and confirmed = not ready to proceed......no matter what pressure from the management!
I'm a huge fan of Boeing and would choose them over Airbus anytime, still this is very unacceptable.

great comments... it is sad to see this happen, Boeing has been one of the best companies in the world.. they have to be careful and not repeat the mistakes of McDonnell-Douglas.. Airbus is just sitting and waiting for mistakes to show up and lower the reputation!

This airplane is a digital colossus. The carbon fiber structures are not so worrisome. Boeing has mostly eliminated hydraulics for control surfaces to save weight. It's just about all electrical now and dependent entirely on the integrity of software systems. Software cowboys will tell you that it is virtually impossible to track down many glitches. Finding some is a matter more of statistical probability than chasing down a wire or connector. Mostly it's luck. So? Thinking that there must be someone to blame, an incompetent mechanic, a conspirator, an Airbus saboteur, is a leap into the abyss. What if it's a series of intermittent problems no one of which can be traced. There are "ghosts" in these machines and most likely the problems will, like many bizarre medical symptoms caused by hidden lesions or strange viruses, either surface or disappear. Airbus A-350's, as the A-380 will have the same sort of malfunctions most of which cannot be predicted. So, my hope is that a bunch of these issues will "pack down." Of course, new ones will surface.

Whatever the root of the problems (carelessness, engineering, haste, sabotage) they need to get it together SOON.

Boeing is reputed company. They should look into this matter seriously. after all it is a tough business competition, and to survive these small problems should be looked into seriously.

That Is a good new for 787-8
Finally the problem will be repair

Boeing, Boeing... GONE.