archae86,
thanks for the reply.
I didn't mean to downplay the event(s). This is serious stuff and it is not supposed to happen. And for all we know, there could be worse battery fires.
Just saying that it was an event that was considered during risk analysis, and they seem to have gotten the mitigating measures not totally wrong: chanelling and dumping of hot gases and fumes, instead of trying to contain them.
I don't think that outer battery case was designed to contain a full thermal runaway event without hazard to surroundings, and I don't think we'd want to see many repetitions to see whether we continue to be lucky with that particular hot fluid spraying about in an electronics bay.
I fully agree. I wouldn't want to play my chances on another similar event.
We'll see, but I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing was going back to Ni-Cd, with all the redesign that requires. Airbus may then have to rethink their A350 battery system, as well. I don't see Ni-MH happening here: they cannot deliver discharge currents anywhere near what Li-Ion or Ni-Cd can deliver.
Bernd