In the March 25 2013 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology they have a nice write up on page 35-36 .
The fixes are , encase the battery in an .125 inch , 3.175mm thick stainless steel airtight case so that if it starts to go bad it will be starved for oxygen , if it does really go bad again they have installed 1 inch titanium tubes to vent the hot gasses overboard , they have poked new holes in the skin of the plane so that the titanium tubes will vent the crap coming out of the melting / burning battery overboard . They have upped the insulation heat rating in and around the battery , from 150C to >550C , 302F to >1022F .
The old battery is going to be put on an improved frame that has drain holes in it .
They are changing the charging so as to make sure to not overcharge the battery so that the battery will not melt down or go up in flames from overcharging .
Boeing is going to test the cells before they put them together to make the battery and then they are going to test the battery .
"At a cell level , we do more extensive voltage checks over several days and chart its voltage over time."
They are going to reuse the old batteries .
Airline sources say the batteries on each aircraft also must be either original "901" units that have passed Boeing's new inspection system or be of the new updated design ...
I've read the story a few times looking for the "outsourcing" problem ,
for the life of me I can't see it .
There is no mention of any "outsourcing" problem or "outsourcing" fix .
All I see is a redesign of things Boeing designed before in their attempts to use an unstable / volatile / low temp for melting and burning / lightweight battery .
In related news ,
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Airbus Drops Lithium-Ion Batteries
When it comes to the volatile new lithium-ion battery technology, Boeing and Airbus are heading in different directions.
Airbus has told customers of its A350 that it would revert to a conventional battery, made of nickel-cadmium, rather than lithium-ion batteries.
Faced with the potential of a lengthy investigation into what caused batteries on two Boeing 787 jets to ignite or emit smoke last month, Airbus said Friday that it had dropped plans to use the technology on its forthcoming wide-body jet, the A350-XWB, to avoid possible delays in producing the planes. But Boeing, which has much more at stake, said later in the day that it would stick with the batteries, and the company is working with regulators to reduce risks even if the cause of the hazards is not clearly found.
If Airbus thought the Boeing's burning batteries was just an "outsourcing problem" , would they not just make sure to not have an "outsourcing problem" ? Why would they back away from that type of battery if it was only an outsourcing problem ? Could it be that they learned not to touch a hot stove when they saw someone else get burnt ?