The Special Conditions for the batteries for type cert.
SLF/atty venturing out into this discussion more tentatively than usual....I have just a question. I recall discovering, at the time of the battery fires in early 2013 and which led to the grounding, that the type certification by FAA had involved Special Conditions for the lithium-ion batteries. The incidents were covered in the Wall Street Journal and, for better or worse, rekindled a long-time (long, long time gone) interest I have held, until now pointlessly, in aviation law and policy, particularly in the U.S. and internationally as well. Maybe the articles by Andy Pasztor (and was Jon Ostrower still at the Journal then?, I'm not certain) mentioned the Special Conditions, or someplace else, but I looked them up, and found a topic of interest that appeared maybe capable of ejecting your loyal atty-poster from what was a legal life of drudgery.
The question I have is, knowing what is known now, and realizing that the Boeing engineering and design planning (and market assessment and technology-visionary-encouraging) capacities had weakened even then, would you (a) write different Special Conditions for type certification, using the steel containment box, or (b) try to veto the design component and try sending the airframer back to its drawing board?
I don't know how unusual Special Conditions really are in type certification, or if they are more or less routine depending on what era of aeronautics and aeronautical engineering is being examined, or if it's entirely idle spec to consider these. But then, after the 787, I think the next thing I read about was Asiana in San Francisco in mid-2013, in which article a thing called PPRuNe was mentioned, so....in a sense the Special Conditions were the start of much idle spec overall, SLF/ atty, you know....
WillowRun 6-3