With all the wisdom and engineering knowledge (nudge, nudge, wink wink) on this forum, I suppose the members could design an outstanding aircraft themselves...

torque the bolt head from behind the flange? good luck with the ones on the bottom....

The bolt heads are facing out.

You seem hell bent on trying to stir up concern when none is warranted.

Surely you don't honestly believe the engineers gave no thought to the assembly and maintenance considerations of the enclosure?

well, at least it would have the bolt down lid on the top, so in case of an electrolyte leak, when you took the lid off, it wouldnt drain out onto the floor....

well, there you have it....I found a clear picture of this, and I am wrong...it looked like the bolt heads were on the inside of the flange....

and I will get new spectacles tomorrow :ok:

Pedant mode on...
Surely, one would torque tighten the nut, not the bolt.

Or are they captured nuts?

My eyes need testing too.

Since it does not appear they are using washers, one would apply the torque value to the bolt, not the nut.

thread drift (torque values)
 

It depends. If the materials under both the nut and the bolt are the same, it will (mostly) matter little. If the materials are different, then you need to read the manual about bolt / nut placement and which is 'torqued'.

Just for reference, Mitsubishi reckons a strong shock, eg battery dropped from a height of one meter in the testing process is enough to cause overheating. I wonder if Boeing and Yuasa have looked into this behind the scenes. (Hard landings?)
Mitsubishi to recall hybrids for battery problem -NHK WORLD English-

I very much doubt it as they would not be expecting a 1 meter drop.....

FAA Lifts 787 Grounding
 

The FAA today has formally lifted the AD grounding the 787, allowing UA to resume revenue flights at their discretion. EASA, JTSB and other agencies are expected to follow shortly:

FAA clears Boeing battery fix, ending 787 flight ban | Reuters

Surely the original AD remains in force, given that its objective is to prohibit operation of unmodified aircraft ?

Dave,

Actually no, United Airlines says it flew one of its 787s to a Boeing facility in San Antonio on Tuesday for the battery fix it needs to resume flying.

United (UA) #6850 ? 23-Apr-2013 ? KLAX - KSKF Flight Tracker ? FlightAware

So your are only allowed to fly a grounded aircraft when you want to.

On a side note, today the FAA estimated the cost to fix each ac is $465,000. Quite the box

FAA approved non-passenger flights for the 787 last week.

Would that be parts only, as the labour costs for a fix away from a Boeing plant would obviously be considerably higher than a factory fix.

That's just the costs of getting the coke machines flown out to remote...


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

Op-Ed piece in today's NY Times from James E. Hall, James E. Hall, a safety and crisis management consultant, who was chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board from 1994 to 2001.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/op...t-the-faa.html

From the NY times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/op...t-the-faa.html
I think I will be making an effort to avoid 787s until they've clocked up a significant number of hours without any battery fire/smoke incidents (contained or not) - if any occur it'll be until they fix the root cause.

OC619

Japan gives OK to resume flights, but this bit seems interesting:

Japan allows airlines set to resume 787 flights - AviationPros.com

Glad to see you won't be riding on 787's soon. What will you be riding that makes you feel secure, safe and without being in danger. How are getting to the airport BTW?