Thus, when any short or arc occurs close to CFRP, the skin temperature always peaks higher than the highly conductive aluminum alloys, thereby exacerbating any or all fires besides which, incurring permanent structural damage starting at around 375 degrees F and being flammable with a very low self ignition temperature of 580 degrees F.
Hence, fire damage will always be far worse in CFRP with irreversible structural damage vis-a-vis metallics. This plight, of course, also incurs the rightly dreaded FST products of combustion.
This is the case for any or all electrical shorts, arcs, or any other fire sources not merely ELT's. Hence, any fire adjacent to fuselage skin or wing skin will always be far worse for CFRP versus metallics.
Now, was this accounted for in any FAA Special conditions, was it tested for extensively during certification, and finally has Boeing properly assessed all very low thermal conductivity risks due to shorts,chafing, aging, arcs of all electrical wiring, batteries, et al ?
I do not believe such to be the case and now we have a forlorn, and possibly terminally damaged Ethiopian 787, based upon actual repair costs . This aircraft is still sitting in a remote LHR hangar while Boeing and the insurance underwriters presumably debate its final fate. And what might have been merely a minor ELT shorting incident on a metallic aircraft is looking like a total hull loss or a huge and very difficult repair face-saving exercise.
And this present exercise will be replicated many more times for the 787, particularly as electrics age even assuming that they are correctly wired in the first place, I venture to predict. Some airlines and MRO's might care to ponder this note.
Repair issues are between the manufacturer, the operator and the insurer.
Damage assessment is the concern of the regulator and the flying public and that is of my interest as well.
If I understand correctly what you are saying, is that given a small area of overheat will lead to a more severe level of damage in a non-metallic structure. That the lower ignition point contributes to this damage and that said ignition and subsequent flammability gives off noxious fumes.
But yet no confirmation is given that the area of damage thus occurred will grow to the point where safety of flight is affected as compared to the same heat source in an metallic skinned aircraft.
Likewise no confirmation is given that the noxious by-products for such level of "structurally safe" damage will be perfused to affect the passengers.