The inaugural flight came as a surprise to the passengers...

[peakcrew]

Thanks, fenland, for your comments.

Any REC has a mixture of experts and lay members (as you may know), and we'll call in additional experts if needed, especially if there is something controversial or exceptionally difficult. Of course, we don't have to second-guess any other bodies, since any REC has the power to allow/deny any proposal as long as sufficient reasons are given. There is also an appeals process available to the researchers.

Now, with the issue here, we have one group of people (Boeing and airlines) that stand to lose/gain considerably depending on the decisions made. We also have a safety regulatory body which relies heavily on the information given by at least one of the parties (Boeing). On the other hand, we have a body of opinion from people who do not [seem to] have any advantage from decisions made, but which seems to have some reliability. Some of that opinion questions the use of lithium batteries at all, other sources question the use of the actual packs - this seems to have been borne out in incidents that have occurred, in which the separation of the cells seems to have been insufficient to control thermal runaway. Despite this, the solution which has been accepted by the safety authority can be phrased as, "Well, neither the interested parties nor we can find any actual reason for why this incident with novel technology (in this type of environment) has happened more than once, nor state reliably what might happen if it occurred whilst in flight. However, we accept the solution is to put the troublesome technology in a box that we hope will prevent any further incidents turning into catastrophes, and we'll hope for the best." To stick with aviation history, to my mind this is as if the safety body at the time of the Comet said, "Ah well, we don't know what the problem is, but let's put four-point harnesses on every seat and add an oxygen mask for each passenger. That should stop the effects of explosive decompression, and we'll hope for the best." This is unacceptable to my mind, and to several other posting on here.

I know that with any mechanical device, and even more so with electro-mechanical devices (that may not be quite the right phrase, but it seems to describe the new electricity-dependent planes well enough), there are going to be "unknown unknowns" - the things that could not really be anticipated, but for which the cause might seem obvious afterwards - and crash investigations often find these after the event. However, what we have with the 787 is at least one "known unknown", and on a plane capable of carrying 300+ people - and that has to be remembered here: the passengers and crew are *people*, not "self-loading freight" or whatever dehumanising term is in vogue at the moment - it is not acceptable to run on the equivalent of a rally driver sticking some gaffer tape and cable-ties around a broken bit to get to the end of the event (yes, I've done that. You might also infer from previous posts that I've had a lot to do with old Land-Rovers!) And this, to me seems to be where an REC would depart from the air-safety regulator here. Since there is no advantage to the passengers from letting the 787 fly with its "known unknown" battery problem - airlines have other planes with no "known unknowns" which can fulfil the needs of the people to get safely from A to B - we wouldn't let it through.

I am aware that, as a newbie here, I am coming across as a Boeing-hater. This isn't the case. I actually prefer Boeing to Airbus (Boeings seem better screwed together than Airbus'), and I would hate to see Boeing take a hit on this. However, I cannot see how it benefits anyone - Boeing, airlines, safety bodies, or the people that fly on them - to have this plane flying with a huge question-mark over it. I hope that I am wrong in my fears, and that in two or three years I will happily come on here and say so, and that I've just enjoyed my first flight on one. But if there is a loss in flight, and hundreds killed, as a result of a battery issue will reduce passenger - and investor - confidence so much that Boeing may well become just another old name.

Sorry for the long post.