This is kind of disturbing (from the Washington Post today):
"It took firefighters 40 minutes to put out the blaze."
was in the article several paragraphs after
"Michael Huerta, the FAA administrator, said at a news conference Friday there is nothing in the data the agency has seen to suggest the plane isn’t safe,"
Huerta is in bed with the manufacturer. Even the military would ground all aircraft of that type if one caught fire unattended in such a way that it took 40 minutes to extinguish.
And it appears the 787 has a history of "random" failures. Which could be infant mortality in a new design, or it could be indicative of a design-assurance process that has big holes in it as regards reliability, and every system on the aircraft may be less reliable than they wanted.
FAA's job is to make sure, damn sure, that it's the former. The FAA Administrator making an easily disproved statement is a troubling plot twist.
The FAA operates on basis of acceptable potential losses.
When it was discovered that the electrical lines running through the wing tanks on some BA models had the potential of arc due to worn unsulators, the 2% per decade dice roll was deemed an accetable risk.
When the AB software failures emerged did anyone ground them?
For a variaety of reasons, I don't fly commercial anymore.
One day there will be an anomolous period of excessive losses. Probability tends to catch up with you.