Contains an explosion.
Do we think that containing a momentary explosion caused by the introduction of propane gas, proves anything about an effective containment of the thermal runaway reactions of volatile chemicals released as a consequence of the battery failure they experienced twice already?
I don't think it does.
And I do not feel like flying on a 787 while it has that sort of technology which has now proven itself twice to do what it was said to be "impossible" to do - catch fire. I don't ever want to fly on one of those 787's because it looks like it has a potential bomb strapped to the fuselage. I hardly want to be at the same airport as one of those things.
Boeing has really screwed up over outsourcing the risk-sharing and external design parts of that airplane. The ultimate consequent risk-share is the penalties Boeing should have to pay those airlines they promised the benefits too - benefits that now look impossible to materialise in any safe and secure way. How much maintenance is that thing going to take also?
Why any engineer would think that the acceptable way to mitigate the risk of a runaway chemical reaction and consequences is by the containment of that fireball in a stainless steel housing for an hour while the plane attempts to land is beyond me. I won't be on board, that's for sure.
Last edited by LandIT; 24th Mar 2013 at 10:32.