www.thesafepassenger.com

I am interested in the 787 and any related ADs. To be able to consider it meaningfully could we please see the source information which led to the AD being issued - together with any subsequent information. Without such information it is very difficult to comment constructively. For example: -any initial and subsequent reports from Boston JAL 787 fire and Japan ANA emergency landing incident. - information about any other reported or unreported incidents and the damage. - nature of damage -affect of battery failure and fire-smoke on other systems - to what extent certification requirements were not met or possibly not met e.g. was there smoke in passenger or cockpit - was there damage to composite fuselage etc. - basis for approval in the first place including historic and projected data relating to lithium-ion battery incidents and their impact if they did occur. -any commonalities between 2012-13 recent incidents with Nov. 2010 test aircraft ZA002 Laredo fire and emergency landing and any other historic incidents. Did remedial action work successfully. -any analysis done or comments or reports on the affect - if any- on ETOPs approvals or the safety of the aircraft to fly over oceans or poles and reach alternate airports safely. - is the Battery Electrical AD and related inquiries considered to have any possible impact on other certification issues and if so what e.g. -Special Conditions No. 25-360-SC]--Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787-8 Airplane; Composite Fuselage In-Flight Fire/Flammability Resistance. (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-08-15/html/E7-16020.htm) OR -Crashworthiness of composite fuselage (e.g. in case of heat damaged portion); -Special Condition 25-362-SC Given the historic result of close FAA Boeing certification (and NTSB review of certification process) I believe it would be much safer to adopt a more transparent and open process for disclosing 787 certification and AD issues for wider public and industry comments. Thank you