Originally Posted by ANAStarFlyer

The article mentions other systems (primary and secondary, vague), implied that it's related to the cabin pressure loss, failed or stopped. Perhaps someone with technical knowledge of aircraft parts in Japanese can chime in.

Regardless of whether loss of cabin pressure is a common occurrence or not, the JCAB ruled the incident as "critical." If I'm not mistaken, is it not uncommon, or to make it less confusing with double-negatives, is it common for governing bodies like the JCAB, NTSB, etc. to rule incidents as "critical"? Gosh, if so, that's something I didn't want to be aware of. Hopefully, the investigation concludes this was one of those common occurrences you mention, not something that could have led to a disaster.

Boeing's certification process has been under scrutiny after the MAX debacle. CFO revealed at UBS conference earlier today that Co is still facing questions from global regulators on MAX. The FAA issued an airworthiness directive on wheels and braking systems on less than a hundred 787-8 and 787-9's. In mid-May during 1x1 meetings at HQ, Mgmt gave perspective on the Lion Air and Ethiopian Air crashes - they said the crashes occurred due to failures in a long chain of events. Pointing to history, they said it's rare for a singular event to lead to a catastrophic end to a commercial jet.

Not fear-mongering, just stating facts, and more since you asked. Given how safe commercial aviation is, ANA's B787 incident likely a non-issue. And in light of controversies surrounding Boeing as of late, regulators likely being more prudent than usual, and they should.