^What's funny about this whole thing:
Japan's transport safety board said a whole two days after the grounding that there was nothing wrong with the batteries and they were fine. And now the NTSB says the batteries do have flaws. Not to mention that this same issue happened in 2007 during testing with the same batteries that GS Yuasa then dumped into the 787. Trying to protect Japanese companies eh JTSB?
Another story in the 787's saga, apparently the FAA contracted out 90% of the safety / certification stuff to Boeing in order to save costs. So in essence Boeing engineers were the ones vouching for the safety of the plane.
In comparison, say you built your own kit airplane and wanted to get it certified. You'd call up the FAA and an inspector will come over to check it. This is for a tiny plane that can't be used for hire (and has a bunch of other restrictions too).
The tests on the lithium-ion batteries at the center of Boeing’s unprecedented crisis were conducted by the company. And the people the FAA designated on its behalf to ensure that the batteries conformed to its safety regulations also were Boeing employees.
In a 2011 review, the inspector general of the Department of Transportation found the FAA in one case delegated some 90 percent of the determination for regulatory compliance for new aircraft design to outside representatives. The Inspector General’s Office would not identify the company, but the report focused on Boeing, Cessna Aircraft and Bombardier-Learjet.
Among other things, the FAA required the battery design to prevent the possibility of spreading, uncontrolled overheating. That danger, known as thermal runaway, is exactly what occurred in the first of two 787 incidents, when a fire broke out aboard a Japan Airlines 787 after it landed in Boston’s Logan Airport on Jan. 7. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said the battery showed signs of short-circuit and thermal runaway.
The FAA also had decreed that any battery malfunction not damage surrounding electrical systems and equipment enough to cause a more serious failure. Yet the Japanese plane sustained damage to the adjacent electronics bay, although the NTSB has yet to determine whether the battery — located beneath the cabin in the plane’s rear and accessible only from the outside — could have disabled critical flight controls had the fire occurred in midair.