Howdy glenbrook....
you write....
In the medium term, we may need to accept a higher risk that batteries occasionally catch fire, perhaps in the same way that we accept that engines do.
That ship has sailed, in the form of what was essentially a "waiver" of the concern you discuss, in the form of consideration for allowing the LiIon technology aboard in the first place....
The list of special considerations has been posted elsewhere, and shows that most of the defining limits of the waiver were exceeded (violated) in the first incident JAL.
In allowing the technology, FAA has also restricted its use, there is no possibility this new technology will ever be allowed to attain the waiver given, say, A modern TURBOFAN, which in including its use on modern aircraft, assumes that an "UNCONTAINED EVENT" need not be demonstrated to be mitigable...
There are other technologies, that make the continuing use of LITHIUM ION not exclusive....
The waiver by FAA in itself cannot be discarded, to do so is to admit that LiION is exclusive, the only way to provide standby power, and that is not the case.
Your comment is thought provoking, in that if Boeing can demonstrate that LiION is critical for the Dreamliner, a special waiver can be granted, the basis for such a determination would end up being perhaps an economic one, even a survival one for the airframer.
That is what the FAA did, whether the waiver is type specific or becomes the new standard is not known. Boeing have painted everyone into a corner.
Will it come down to "NOTICE of proposed rulemaking"? That will be an interesting PUBLIC HEARING......
imo
Last edited by Lyman; 21st January 2013 at 14:52.