Hi Kiskaloo
The Fore/Aft Bays are indeed enclosed, separate from the Hold. My point was to bring up the irony of prohibition as Cargo, vice approved use as equipment.
But the problem remains regulatory. I stopped bangng on containment v/v regs. last week.
From the public information, admittedly a little "Lite", a more robust container does nothing to address the failures that caused the grounding.
As a regulator, the position should be: "Your address of the container makes an emphasis on the lack of performance of the system's existence...."
It is a safety system, a NOGO item, these Batteries. The stated purpose of this equipment is not "Must not catch fire", It is instead, "Must supply dependable power in Emergency". The need for any container at all flirts with making the design unsatisfactory as an autonomous system.....from a design perspective.
'Rehabilitation' is a noble cause. But not satisfactory given the performance record of the BATTERY; the container is not the problem.
A Lithium Battery of the mass used in the aircraft system cannot be loaded into a cargo hold. But it is acceptable if it is in a robust box in an inaccessible area of the a/c in flight?
Life imitates Fiction... Dr. Crichton might have come up with this plot.