Narrative:

About an hour into the flight a status message come up on the EICAS (engine indicating and crew alerting system). It showed 5 channels on the 28V dc electrical system had failed. I satcom'd (satellite communication) dispatch who patched me into tech services. He looked up the status messages and replied that 4 of the 5 were placard-able but was not sure of the 5th. I told him to look it up and be sure but also keep in mind that we were on our way on a 14 hour flight to ZZZZ and that we were planned over [country] and that a diversion over that part of the world would be a major issue and be avoided. He acknowledged. A couple minutes later he came back and said that the 5th channel was not placard-able and that we needed to bring the airplane back to ZZZ. We all agreed that was the safest course of action and we initiated a return to ZZZ. Along the way we made our predicament known to ATC (air traffic control); PA (public address) to the passengers; went through all required checklists and prepared for an overweight landing. We descended to FL210 (21;000 ft) from 360 (36;000 ft) so as to dramatically increase fuel burn before arrival to minimize our weight along the way. 15 minutes later I got a call from dispatch who said that they had changed their mind and to continue on to ZZZZ. I found that advisement incredible and they repeated the message. I advised the dispatcher to tell whoever came up with that assessment and advisement that it was too late. We had already advised ATC (air traffic control); the passengers; crew; as well as off our fuel and flight plan profile-it simply could not be done. I found this lack of judgment absolutely incredible. We continued on to ZZZ and [notified] ATC for our overweight landing. Landing was successful and no further issues and parked the airplane. System failure-nothing more can be said. However advising reversing a maintenance decision and advising us to reverse a diversion already in progress is simply asinine and unsafe. I still can't believe that someone actually expected us to do such an incredibly foolish action. Enough said.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Flight Crew flying 787-800 encountered electrical system failure.

Narrative: About an hour into the flight a STATUS message come up on the EICAS (Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System). It showed 5 channels on the 28V DC electrical system had failed. I SATCOM'd (Satellite Communication) Dispatch who patched me into Tech Services. He looked up the STATUS messages and replied that 4 of the 5 were placard-able but was not sure of the 5th. I told him to look it up and be sure but also keep in mind that we were on our way on a 14 hour flight to ZZZZ and that we were planned over [country] and that a diversion over that part of the world would be a major issue and be avoided. He acknowledged. A couple minutes later he came back and said that the 5th channel was not placard-able and that we needed to bring the airplane back to ZZZ. We all agreed that was the safest course of action and we initiated a return to ZZZ. Along the way we made our predicament known to ATC (Air Traffic Control); PA (Public Address) to the passengers; went through all required checklists and prepared for an overweight landing. We descended to FL210 (21;000 ft) from 360 (36;000 ft) so as to dramatically increase fuel burn before arrival to minimize our weight along the way. 15 minutes later I got a call from Dispatch who said that they had changed their mind and to continue on to ZZZZ. I found that advisement incredible and they repeated the message. I advised the Dispatcher to tell whoever came up with that assessment and advisement that it was too late. We had already advised ATC (Air Traffic Control); the passengers; crew; as well as off our fuel and flight plan profile-it simply could not be done. I found this lack of judgment absolutely incredible. We continued on to ZZZ and [notified] ATC for our overweight landing. Landing was successful and no further issues and parked the airplane. System failure-nothing more can be said. However advising reversing a maintenance decision and advising us to reverse a diversion already in progress is simply asinine and unsafe. I still can't believe that someone actually expected us to do such an incredibly foolish action. Enough said.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.