Willl05 you’re right. Let’s recap:
7 Jan 2013, battery self-ignited on JAL 787, on ground at Boston. NTSB report is at
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/A...ts/AIR1401.pdf. My post #2159 refers but NTSB link has changed.
16 Jan 2013, battery overheated and burst on ANA 787, in-flight over Shikoku Island. JTSB report is at
http://www.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/eng-air_report/JA804A.pdf. My post #2158 refers.
Jan – May 2013, 787 grounded while Boeing redesigned battery system. Main improvements were better quality control to avoid cells overheating, better separation between cells to avoid cascading failures and a fireproof box to contain any battery fire, plus a vent to squirt hot, noxious gases overboard. My account of events is at
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/dreaml...509-2jb30.html
14 Jan 2014, battery overheated and burst on JAL 787, on ground at Narita. Only one cell ruptured, there was slight thermal damage to adjacent cell but it remained "functionally operational” and there was no cascading "thermal runaway". JCAB report is at
http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001064275.pdf. My post #2162 refers.
Boeing and FAA seem satisfied with the modified battery system but NTSB, JTSB and JCAB are not so sanguine.
To me it seems that a large fleet of 787s could suffer several ruptured batteries each year, especially in winter. Some will pose OH&S risks on the ground especially during fuelling. Sooner or later there will be a cascading failure of adjacent cells.
I’m reminded of a precedent with the Boeing 737. It entered service with a known flaw in the fuselage lap joints. There were numerous failures but for 20 years Boeing contained the problem with a series of Service Bulletins; until 1988, when the top blew off Aloha Airlines Flight 243. My account of the saga is at
http://avstop.com/stories/aloha.html. FAA promised that it would never again be so complacent.