Originally Posted by
Imagegear
Just a comment from someone who has nothing to contribute from a technical or political perspective however,
As with the B787 battery fires, putting them in a box was never a solution but a workaround to get aircraft delivered and flying. Normally a workaround gets fixed. To date, the workaround remains, but no fix. How did these issues get past the FAA.
IG
This is one of those times of 'knowing just enough to be dangerous'. With the 787 battery fires, Boeing and the battery vendor redesigned the battery with better cell-to-cell isolation, they redesigned the charging system, they redesigned the way the battery and charging system where monitored. And then, because the fire damage made it impossible to positively determine the root cause of the problem, they did a 'belt and suspender' approach and put the whole thing in a stainless-steel box that would contain a total battery meltdown. Ten years later (with over a thousand 787s in service), there have been a handful of single cell battery failures, but no total battery meltdowns.
Yet the myth persists that all Boeing did was put the battery in a box and called it a day,
The FAA, EASA, and others went over the MAX certification with the proverbial fine-tooth comb - I seriously doubt you could do a similar review of
any commercial aircraft certification and not find some concerns or oversights - and implemented corrective action for anything they found before re-certification and return to flight. If you have concerns over the FAA, why would EASA do Boeing any favors and approve the MAX if they still had any concerns?