Back to the Batteries, I think the NTSB and JTSB being open about the issue and publishing pictures is highly political, they make clear they have nothing to hide, are open to everyone having a look/ opinion. Defusing any attempt to make them look subjective, hiding anything, being pressured. The stakes are so high I think it’s a smart PR tactic.

Looking at the battery, seeing the passenger video of it leaking and smooking, how long did it take the ANA 787 to get on the ground with this one getting out of control? And why was Boeing feeling the initial reaction the FAA overreacted. All part of the wider FAA program review announced a few days before this incident I guess.

http://www.reuters.com/video/2013/01/16/video-captures-dramatic-boeing-787-evacu?videoId=240514851

“if the battery’s safety depends on a bonding lead that is capable of being severed so easily and so early in the aircraft’s life the mind boggles”

I wondered about that too, but not being remotely familiar with how aircraft internal electrics are organised I shied away from comment. Being more familiar with road vehicles it strikes me that any potentially vital part exposed to being so easily severed is a design fault (assuming that this isn’t a freak occurrence).

Not sure why the Japanese Aviation published the picture. The supplier of the battery has to carry some culpability as it is their design. Many experts carry the view that the monolith blocs design lends itself to thermal runaways. The additional stories of multiple battery replacements, as much as one new battery per plane per week is in itself a poor advert for the manufacturer.

The difference between the DH 106 and the 787 is that the problem was the poorly understood physics of metal fatigue rather than (what appears to be)a blythe acceptance that she’ll be right.

As a perspective check it’s worth noting that only(?) three DH 106s broke up. Five perfectly good aircraft were flown into the ground.

Now imagine Boeing’s supposed fix: Putting a domed lid on top, with an extra vent for the fumes, and continuing as is. When you look at the photo, also consider Boeing’s statement that the 787 “is safe”.

I truly believe that the 787 is at risk of becoming a total right-off. Yes, the battery issue will eventually be resolved. But then there’s the looming issue of the poor design and build of the wider electrical system (eg power distribution panels). Then there are the issues with the plastic composite airframe (eg hidden damage / delamination).

The 787 Dreamliner is the most radical airliner to grace the skies since the Dehavilland Comet in the 1950s. A radical design, combined with poor oversight due to outsourcing, combined with a management with a culture where marketing trumps engineering, is a recipe for disaster.