US Bars Lithium-ion Batteries From Passenger Aircraft Cargo (cnet.com) 135
The U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration have issued new rules designed to protect air passengers from the potential dangers of lithium ion batteries. From a report: The new Transportation Department rules come after Congress last year directed the agency to adopt the new rules. The new restriction doesn't apply to passengers or crew bringing electronics aboard aircraft. "This rule will strengthen safety for the traveling public by addressing the unique challenges lithium batteries pose in transportation," US Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao said in a statement. In the past couple of years, the use of lithium-ion batteries has been linked to fires and spewing smoke in a slew of products, including Samsung's now-canceled Galaxy Note 7, hoverboards and Boeing's 787 Dreamliner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Shame... (Score:5, Interesting)
The proper response would have been to ban all Li-Ion batteries from passenger aircraft holds and cargo aircraft. This would have forced manufacturers to air-ship phones and laptops without batteries. With any luck, this would have encouraged the development of standardized, user installable batteries for electronics that would have ground-shipped to brick-and-mortar places and been readily available for sale.
Sadly, no one has the balls to disrupt the disposable device cartels.
Re: (Score:2)
ground shipped... Yeah, a 40 ton container full of batteries will make the best fires!
I say we should use Bic lighters to power our phones. How many of them ever blow up during shipment or storage? I mean, if it weren't for the batteries in the next container?
Re: (Score:2)
At a concert once, someone 5-6 rows ahead of me was doing the lit lighter thing during a song. Along with hundreds if not thousands of others.
Then his lighter catastrophically failed, shooting a small fireball into the sky.
That was fun. (Well, probably not for that person so much...)
Re: (Score:2)
Given it doesn't apply to carry-on baggage, I'm not sure safety is the point either.
Re:Shame... (Score:5, Insightful)
Given it doesn't apply to carry-on baggage, I'm not sure safety is the point either.
A fire in the cargo hold is difficult to detect and contain.
A fire in a passenger's pocket or backpack is immediately obvious and can be quickly isolated and extinguished by crew members.
Re: (Score:2)
"immediately obvious"
Personally, I have doubts about my ability to detect fire in my carry-on in an overhead compartment - at least any quicker than would the on-board smoke detectors.
And, of course, dealing with fire/smoke in the passenger compartment has it's own set of issues. In some ways, it would be worse than in the hold.
Question, do planes have a fire suppression system in the hold?
Re: Shame... (Score:2)
Question, do planes have a fire suppression system in the hold?
It depends on the type of aircraft. The FAA has a bunch of rules for various types of aircraft but all of them essentially boil down to:
1. If the cargo compartment can be easily accessed by crew it does not require automatic suppression systems but does require fire fighting equipment.
2. If the cargo compartment cannot be accessed by crew, it requires automatic detection and suppression systems.
Re: (Score:2)
In some ways, it would be worse than in the hold.
I take it you've never attempted to get from the passenger cabin to the hold mid flight, much less navigate it, find it and put out a fire.
Sorry but the industry has quite a bit of experience with this. Fires in the cabin are trivial to deal with, and the USA is just behind the rest of the world in with this policy which has been in place for many airlines for years, even before the Galaxy Tab.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, this is annoying for me since I sometimes travel with laptops and this rule makes it basically impossible
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How often have you had people stealing your baggage?
I have TSA open my baggage semi-regularly. They are easily confused by simple things. Things that confuse them too much dissappear from my baggage. Or things where the rules change on a regular basis. For example, the original rule was "no lighters carry-on, check them." Now it's "no lighters". I wound up at a site one time with my portable toolkit missing the lighter to start the gas-powered soldering iron. Luckily they didn't notice the soldering iron was gas powered, too.
But a more important question i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I check a laptop, it'll either be in a cardboard box with shipping padding, or a pelican case with padding.
And any lithium battery will be installed in it. You'll have to carry spare batteries on-board.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The new regulation doesn't make clear if that's allowed though.
Really? From page 1 of the regulation:
If your laptop contains a lithium battery, then it "contains lithium cells or batteries".
It says batteries installed can be brought on,
So if your laptop has a battery installed in it, it has a battery installed in it.
and batteries in devices on cargo flights can be in the cargo hold at 30%
This has been a rule for a long time.
but it doesn't make an exception for batteries in devices in the cargo hold on passenger flights
Other than saying explicitly that it doesn't prohibit them, you're right, it doesn't "make an excep
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>but with people wanting sleeker laptops and devices
Are you sure about that? I've met very few people that actually want thinner phones, tablets, etc. Most everybody I knows primarily wants more speed, size, functionality (e.g. camera quality) and battery life. But if you want high performance, you're pretty much stuck buying flagship devices, which are pretty much only available in "sleek" service-unfriendly devices.
You can only use the market to evaluate the popular desirability of a particular feat
Re: Shame... (Score:2)
Personally, this is annoying for me since I sometimes travel with laptops and this rule makes it basically impossible
You find it impossible to put a laptop in your carry-on luggage?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Most removable cellphone batteries and all removable laptop batteries have protection circuits built in.
They're protected from short circuit, over charging, over discharging and reverse connection.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a complete crock. The same digital monitoring and care can be done with a modular battery if they take the time to engineer it (which really isn't that much effort). In fact there are a number of modular batteries that have on-board status monitoring that merely feeds the device that information.
Beyond that a contact connection vs a soldered connection has very minimal difference from a safety perspective. Even then, at the voltages/currents these batteries are typically running the contact conne
Re: (Score:2)
That's frankly BS, and you know it (thus your posting as AC). Most of the devices known for catching fire (Samsung S7, MacBooks) has built-in batteries. I haven't heard of many people being randomly blown up while plugging a battery in to a Thinkpad or Moto phone.
It's planned obsolescence in the guise of cowardice (we must protect the cheeeeeeeelllldren).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, for a while in the late
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Guess it doesn't apply to aircraft themselves, Boeing's solution for their burning batteries, put it in titanium box with tubes. They are still catching on fire 4 years later. https://www.forbes.com/sites/c... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"The proper response would have been to ban all Li-Ion batteries from passenger aircraft holds and cargo aircraft. "
The issue is specifically batteries shipped when not contained in equipment. So you are trying to get a regulatory ruling from a agency unrelated to the field that is unrelated to problem that the agency was tasked to address. That's pretty much the definition of an improper response.
So much for electric powered aircraft (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The 787 avionic batteries where "FAA Certified" but we all know what happened with those things.
Now they are packaged in "flame proof" containment systems designed to keep stuff around them from going up in flames. Good luck doing that with a battery designed to hold enough energy to power an aircraft on a 9 hour flight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck doing that with a battery designed to hold enough energy to power an aircraft on a 9 hour flight.
Battery tech is improving by leaps and bounds. Reliability is way better than it was even 5 years ago.
Also, nobody is going to use batteries for a 9 hour flight. Electric planes will be used for short hops, like LAX to Las Vegas, or Boston to NYC.
Long flights may go to hydrogen, but certainly not batteries.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Flying LA-Vegas or Boston-NYC is idiotic when you could build a train or hyperloop
Airports already exist. High-speed rails and hyperloops don't.
Flying requires expending energy to climb to altitude, whereas trains run on the surface
The air density, and thus the drag, is far higher on the ground than at 30,000 feet.
Trains are not much better than current aircraft [energy.gov] at energy efficiency, so electric planes will be better than trains. And the planes don't need a trillion dollars of new infrastructure.
Progress on electric buses and short-haul electric planes was part of the reason California killed their SF-LA high-speed rail project.
Better Data (Score:2)
The air density, and thus the drag, is far higher on the ground than at 30,000 feet.
You are certainly right that the lack of infrastructure for Hyperloop is a major disadvantage but Hyperloop runs in a vacuum so the above is not a valid criticism.
Trains are not much better than current aircraft [energy.gov] at energy efficiency
These are statistics from US trains. If you look at the data for European Trains [wikipedia.org] the data show 65 MJ/km vs. 209.1 l/100 km for US trains which already tells you something about the age of US trains. Converting this into energy 1 l diesel is 38.29 MJ so this gives 80 MJ/km. So EU trains use 81% of the energy of US trains. Using the statistics you
Re: (Score:2)
High speed rail is not just about the two cities at either end, it is also about, developing those towns that are stops along the way, the first of which become major supporting communities for the connected major city. Providing residential accommodation for commuters working in the city and also providing opportunity for businesses to move out of the city to those regional zones now supported by high speed rail from that city.
High speed rail connections should be all about shifting focus from the connect
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Hyperloop has numerous severe engineering problems that mean it is unlikely to ever progress beyond the test track stage. Rail does work, and is a very well-established technology. Air travel does offer potential speed advantages though.
Re: (Score:2)
and the higher you fly, the lower the energy required to push yourself through less dense air.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
.... and yet the airline companies still climb that high. It's more fuel efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hydrogen will never be a fuel for airliners. Compressed to 700 bar, it has a specific energy about 3.5 times greater than jet fuel but energy density one quarter that of jet fuel. The containment vessels will be too heavy to justify the increased specific energy, and it would require an increase in the volume (or a substantial reduction in maximum range) anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Compressed to 700 bar
No compression is needed: Just use cryogenic hydrogen with aerogel insulation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: So much for electric powered aircraft (Score:2)
Weight isn't the only problem; the big issue for hydrogen is volume.
Your energy numbers assume 100% efficiency turning the hydrogen back into usable energy. This is silly. I'm not even sure how you're planning to use it exactly. Current turbines can't burn pure hydrogen so you would need another fuel to go with it. You could use a fuel cell maybe, but those are maybe 50% efficient and add extra weight and volume (over and above what batterirs would require) which you haven't accounted for. You planning
Re: (Score:3)
Re: So much for electric powered aircraft (Score:2)
If you're only getting 50% efficiency then it's a 104 L tank. Still better in terms of volume but the other issue is that it has to be cylindrical which limits where you can put it and wastes space around it.
It may not be as much of an issue with planes as it is for cars, but it would depend on the airframe. On smaller aircraft the wings tend not to be too thick, which limits the possible diameter of your hydrogen tanks. You can keep them smaller and shove more of them in there, but then you need extra p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck doing that with a battery designed to hold enough energy to power an aircraft on a 9 hour flight.
Battery tech is improving by leaps and bounds. Reliability is way better than it was even 5 years ago.
Right... Look, all you need to understand is the *potential* is the problem... The Avionic backup batteries in the 787 where "aircraft" parts, meaning that they where manufactured and tracked to very strict and exacting specifications. These where the best quality we could manage at the time and we've seen at least three fires, one during flight testing and at least two I remember since. The aircraft was even grounded by the FAA for a couple of weeks due to this problem, until the containment system was
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing's decision to put Li-IOn on a plane was the dumbest idea ever. Boeing had to add a 185 lb safety enclosure for the batteries making the use of LI-ION type batteries heavier than using lead acid batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
Which defeats the purpose of trying to save a little weight with LI-ION batteries. It's probably less than 30lbs now in weight savings. I would take the extra lbs vs plane catching on fire.
Re: (Score:2)
The rule is specifically about packed batteries not contained in equipment. It would not apply to batteries connected to the airplanes other systems.
Re: (Score:3)
and li-ion batteries and the devices that contain them are allowed in the mail.
There are restriction on Li-ion batteries in airmail and priority mail. There are limits on size, and the package must be specially marked.
MH370 may of been downed by them! (Score:1)
MH370 may of been downed by them!
Um. . . . ok (Score:4, Insightful)
So I'm curious how this is going to work when I bring my Camera bag ( Think Tank Glass Limo ) with me as a carry-on and the flight attendant tells me there isn't any room and I will need to check my bag. Batteries already installed in the camera bodies should be fine, but I'm curious how they'll deal with the spares I carry. Typically, one spare per camera body.
Not that I'm about to check my camera gear. I'll deplane before I do so since the airline will refuse to reimburse me for the $15k+ worth of gear in said bag when one of their thugs . . . . er ' baggage handlers ' helps themselves to the contents or bounces it off the pavement.
I suppose, under the new rules, I can just tell the flight attendant that my bag contains fully charged Li-Ion batteries and cannot be checked ?
This should be fun :|
Re: (Score:2)
They'll tell you to remove them just like they do now.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they won't actually give a shit, just like they don't now.
The person at check in might give a shit, but he mentioned flight attendant. He's already on the plane, and all anyone cares about at that point, including the crew, is getting the sheep in the seats and getting the tin can off the fucking ground.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if it's realistic in your scenario but could you ship the gear to your destination ahead of time?
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm curious how this is going to work when I bring my Camera bag ( Think Tank Glass Limo ) with me as a carry-on and the flight attendant tells me there isn't any room and I will need to check my bag. Batteries already installed in the camera bodies should be fine, but I'm curious how they'll deal with the spares I carry. Typically, one spare per camera body.
Not that I'm about to check my camera gear. I'll deplane before I do so since the airline will refuse to reimburse me for the $15k+ worth of gear in said bag when one of their thugs . . . . er ' baggage handlers ' helps themselves to the contents or bounces it off the pavement.
I suppose, under the new rules, I can just tell the flight attendant that my bag contains fully charged Li-Ion batteries and cannot be checked ?
This should be fun :|
They'll just tell you the bag must be abandoned or sent via ground freight.
Michael O'Leary, Scumbag CEO of one of the worlds worst Airlines, Ryanair has been quoted as saying "Our booking engine is full of passengers who have sworn they will never fly with us again". Not like airlines are really scared of upset customers.
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm curious how this is going to work when I bring my Camera bag ( Think Tank Glass Limo ) with me as a carry-on and the flight attendant tells me there isn't any room and I will need to check my bag.
That's easy: "Miss, there's a camera in here and it's not going in the hold." Done. That easy. You'll also notice that camera and laptop bags are pretty much never the first to get put in the hold. You'll see those rude f-wits who bring oversized trolleys full of cloths because they don't want to pay $10 for checked bagging giving up their bags long before you have to worry about your precious camera and it's tiny battery.
This should be fun :|
It's far more mundane than you think. At least that's my experience with European and
Point? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes; they have procedures for flames in the cabin— extinguishers and bags apparently. Won’t work for a large battery, hence the size limits.
Re: (Score:2)
South African Airways Flight 295 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Portable batteries? (Score:1)
news for nerds with limited reading comprehension (Score:5, Informative)
Passenger flights often allocate some of their space for regular air cargo. This isn't about banning your computer or camera from being in your luggage. Luggage hold is not cargo hold. What they are avoiding is a passenger plane being used to ferry batteries as a cargo carrier where you could have a box of dozens of them in a confined space. I don't have an issue with this.
Re: (Score:2)
"Luggage hold is not cargo hold."
It's literally the same hold.
Re: (Score:2)
Admittedly poorly worded. It's not about where it's held, but whether it's associated with a flyer. What they don't want is cases of lithiums flying on commercial airlines. This is the difference between luggage and cargo, not where it's held.
Re: (Score:2)
Packed batteries not contained in equipment are prohibited from passenger luggage. Batteries contained in equipment are allowed in cargo. Luggage and cargo are being treated the same.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about banning your computer or camera from being in your luggage.
Err no. This is *exactly* about that, and has been a policy in Europe and Asia for a long time now. Here's an excerpt from some airline rules:
KLM (Netherlands): Therefore, lithium batteries and power banks for personal use in devices such as laptops, mobile phones and DVD players, and for medical equipment is restricted and may only be carried in hand baggage. Each spare battery must be packed separately in the original packaging. If you no longer have this packaging, you must cover the battery contact poin
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about banning your computer or camera from being in your luggage.
Err no. This is *exactly* about that,
Err, no, it is not. Your computer or camera can still be in your luggage. Nothing in this new rule prohibits that.
and has been a policy in Europe and Asia for a long time now. Here's an excerpt from some airline rules:
Those rules don't ban cameras or laptops from luggage. Read them again. They talk about batteries, not the equipment they are installed in.
Singapore actually allow you to check in devices with lithium batteries,
So do KLM and QANTAS and United and ...
Pocket plane (Score:1)
Damn! I always had packed a Dreamliner or two with me on trips.
Original announcement (Score:5, Informative)
For those who would prefer to see the actual announcement rather than discussion of it on an add ridden site with auto-play video you can go to
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/news... [dot.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
For those who would prefer to see the actual Interim Final Rule rather than a press release you can go to https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/site... [dot.gov]
Re: (Score:1)
Do not forget to pay attention to our shitty selection of paid movies.