@rottenray
I second your post in its entirety.
Talking is just so much easier than understanding.
I read sites like pprune and avherald pretty much since their beginnings. Read, to learn. This is the first thread i contributed to. It is almost regrettable. The amount of noise is astounding and it seems to increase.
The industry has seen its share of design induced failures and learned from it. Some examples with fatal outcomes are: Comet square window fatigue failures, Electra whirl mode wing failures, 737 rudder pcu reversal.
In this case, no one got hurt. Plenty of red faces though, this is good. I once had an engineer fly in to find my design error in 5 minutes. I shall never forget.
Technology gets ever more complex. it takes time to learn and apply.
My background is electro mechanical engineering, I went into micros age 17, assembling code by hand. I do mostly systems software (C/C++/
JS) these days.
I am amazed how far young developers are removed from "deep" understanding of systems.
Things get abstracted. A does A, B does B, C does C.... Interfaces A<>B B<>C are defined but nobody will understand all permutations of interactions of A, B, C, especially when something breaks.
As we read often here, young pilots face similar problems.
It takes a positive mindset and do the best and learn and try again.
Back to topic.
Boeing needs to get the planes back into the air.
Their proposal is better management of the cells, more insulation and an additional layer, the firebox. IMHO, it will be sufficient to address the issues at hand, and mitigates further failures.
In short, the approved solution will be safe by the letter of the law.
I may wish to do more, for example it seems that the charger charged the failing battery for 3-4 seconds. I would like to avoid that. Anyway, improvement is incremental, it never ends.
The entire industry will benefit from this incident, as it did from incidents in the past.