If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC4)   News: FAA restricts rechargeable batteries on flights. Fark: Because they can't figure out how to extinguish fires in non-rechargeable batteries   (nbc4.com) divider line 133
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

9141 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Dec 2007 at 5:10 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-12-28 05:40:29 PM
Metallica does not approve.

Lashing out the action, returning the reaction
Weak are ripped and torn away
Hypnotizing power, crushing all that cower
Battery is here to stay


Smashing through the boundaries
lunacy has found me
cannot stop the Battery
Pounding out aggression
turns into obsession
cannot kill the Battery
Cannot kill the family
Battery has found in me
Battery
Battery
 
2007-12-28 05:41:06 PM
Well, at least they didn't give the bull shiat "could interfere with in-flight electronic gear" excuse.

/Your dog wants in-flight cell phones.
 
2007-12-28 05:41:13 PM
Well I like the "and look what I married" meme better than the "I'm really getting a kick out these" one. I just don't post pics of the actual sparkly toothed, fresh breathed girl. I feel badly for her.
 
2007-12-28 05:41:29 PM
flood_guy: Fraggler: How is this not reasonable?

Inconvenience does not equal security and to profess otherwise is not reasonable.



What? The issue is with fires starting from the batteries. Where did security come from? It's about safety. Not the same things.
 
2007-12-28 05:44:26 PM
DaBishop: Bschott007: A woman that looks like a hooker...with too much makeup?

Isn't she married to a TV evangelist?


That's just Tammy Sue Bakker Chapman, Tammy Feye Bakker's daughter

/like mother like daughter
//not really tammy sue but still...
 
2007-12-28 05:51:07 PM
Bschott007: That's just Tammy Sue Bakker Chapman, Tammy Feye Bakker's daughter.

Are you kidding me? I honest to Dog had no idea.

Wow. Good lord, she' yucky.
 
2007-12-28 05:53:44 PM
REOIV: As long as I can still bring my rusty steel wool, magnesium fire starter and etch-a-sketch on the plain I don't care.

Thermite ftw.....

But look out for shampoo and titty milk!!


omg, you are a terrorist!!!

/didn't know etch a sketch powder was aluminum
//the more you know...
 
2007-12-28 05:55:26 PM
Pure "security theater".

www.art4me.com

(note: you will never get the smiling mask)
 
2007-12-28 05:55:26 PM
YouPeopleAreCrazy: FilmBELOH20: Once again, this is the idiot government negatively influencing my business because they can't pull their head out of their ass.

Once again, this is the government attempting to make air travel safer because the idiot companies you buy your batteries from can't design and build them to not explode.


Well, I guess you're right. Shiat, I can't count the number of times I've heard about an airplane going down in flames because a battery sparked a fire in the luggage compartment or on board somewhere. The reason I can't count the number of times, is because it's FARKING ZERO! Besides, what difference does it make if I have two batteries in carryon or ten? Oh, and plastic bags? That's stupid, since the contacts can still touch each other if they hit just the right way. Me? I cover the contacts on all my batteries with gaff tape as soon as they get charged. So, please, please tell me how this = the government making it safer for you and me to fly.
 
2007-12-28 05:57:38 PM
matrixxx1: Makes about as much sense as when a person tried to light a 'shoe bomb' with matches on a plane.

Result:
ban lighters, but matches are still ok!


well, a lighter might have actually helped. Not that lighters should be banned anyways. They should ban...oh I don't know...explosives?

Already done? Mix it up!

/smoker
 
2007-12-28 06:02:08 PM
No Such Agency: Pure "security theater".



(note: you will never get the smiling mask)


Only if you get to witness a pat down or strip search of a pretty hot woman...then it may be worth being a TSA goon...
 
2007-12-28 06:03:47 PM
Makes sense to me. Lithium batteries burn pretty hot and normal fire suppression systems i.e. water or water based foam only makes it worse. Lithium plus water makes lithium hydroxide and pure hydrogen gas. (2 Li(s) + 2 H2O -> 2 LiOH (aq) + H2(g)) for all you non-chemists. You can still bring you precious batteries on a plane. The FAA is just trying to prevent the possibility of two or more batteries making contact, shorting and causing a fire. They're trying to help us people. Calm the fark down. Planes fly much more smoothly when they're not on fire.
 
2007-12-28 06:05:14 PM
wmoonfox: Dear FAA:

Chemical fire extinguishers.

Cordially Yours,
Anyone born in the last fifty years.


Was not aware that chemical fire extinguishers would prevent a lithium battery that was internally shorting from exploding. Unless I am mistaken, batteries do not need oxygen to burn, so your typical ABC extinguisher would not be effective.

Did the math once, a 6000 mAH battery, if discharged at once, was roughly equivalent to a 12th of a stick of dynamite. Lithium batteries have a checkered safety history, with the most recent issues being less than a year ago. I really think your smugness is born of ignorance, not actualy knowledge of the situation.
 
2007-12-28 06:05:34 PM
In order to try and insert some logic and fact in this thread, instead of the reactionary knee-jerk TSA hate usually found here, I've been following this since it was pointed out earlier today on Boing Boing, and done some research.

"Lithium-ion batteries, often found in laptop computers, differ from primary lithium batteries, which are often used in cameras. Some newer AA-size batteries are also primary lithium.

While there is no explosion hazard associated with either kind of battery, the Federal Aviation Administration has studied fire hazards associated with both primary and lithium-ion cells, and their extensive research is publicly available. As a result of this research, the FAA no longer allows large, palletized shipments of these batteries to be transported as cargo on passenger aircraft.

The research also shows that an explosion will not result from shorting or damaging either lithium-ion or primary lithium batteries. Both are, however, extremely flammable. Primary lithium batteries cannot be extinguished with firefighting agents normally carried on aircraft, whereas lithium-ion batteries are easily extinguished by most common extinguishing agents, including those carried on board commercial aircraft. (Safe Travel with Batteries and Devices)

There is a real fire hazard. If the fire takes place in the passenger compartment it will be noticed immediately. So the goal is to keep the fire small enough to be controlled without losing the airplane. In the luggage compartment it will not be noticed until it is much larger, and there is no good access to fight the fire. So checked luggage sizes are smaller to keep the potential fires smaller and controllable by the more limited firefighting facilities there. (quoted from a poster "RJH" on Boing Boing who says this better than I could.)

And finally, yes, you can bring a laptop and a spare battery in cary on:

# Under the new rules, you can bring batteries with up to 8-gram equivalent lithium content. All lithium ion batteries in cell phones are below 8 gram equivalent lithium content. Nearly all laptop computers also are below this quantity threshold.
# You can also bring up to two spare batteries with an aggregate equivalent lithium content of up to 25 grams, in addition to any batteries that fall below the 8-gram threshold. Examples of two types of lithium ion batteries with equivalent lithium content over 8 grams but below 25 are shown below (on page marked "Source").

i12.tinypic.com
Source
 
2007-12-28 06:09:38 PM
sorry, it wasn't clear enough, the papragraph starting with "There is a real fire hazard" is the only part quoted from RJH.
 
2007-12-28 06:10:20 PM
The article writer is an idiot. He should have just cut and pasted his info instead of adding the "non-rechargeable." It should have read (from FAA site) "The FAA has found that current systems for putting out aircraft cargo fires could not suppress a fire if a shipment of non-rechargeable lithium batteries ignited during flight.". The current dry chemical halon or halatron extinguishers contained in the cargo holds are useless against a metal (lithium) fires. The class D extinguishers used to put out a lithium fire are ineffective against other fires (solid, liquid, electrical).

Here's a link to the NTSB briefing (new window) on the tests they condcuted. Lithium batteries are very bad news if not properly handled.
 
2007-12-28 06:11:34 PM
Somebody check to see if it's ok to bring a couple of car batteries on to power my Commodore SX64, the games are teh awsome!
 
2007-12-28 06:11:42 PM
flood_guy: Fraggler: How is this not reasonable?

Inconvenience does not equal security and to profess otherwise is not reasonable.


Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
 
2007-12-28 06:14:43 PM
This is why I only use DI-lithium batteries.
dilithiumcrystal.com
 
2007-12-28 06:15:59 PM
Are these the same people who allowed smoking on planes for years?
What about all the snail mail they fly around too?

Do they have a report from a specific experiment where a fire broke out?

I would suspect a bottle of everclear(tm) would ignore easier than a box of batteries.
 
2007-12-28 06:16:57 PM
MacgyverJr: In order to try and insert some logic and fact in this thread, instead of the reactionary knee-jerk TSA hate usually found here, I've been following this since it was pointed out earlier today on Boing Boing, and done some research.

Sorry, but in my case, it's not reactionary. I'm completely farked because of this stupid rule. And I can hardly rely on the TSA jerkwads to look at my video cam batteries and not confiscate them now, can I? Which means I have to spend more farking money, and risk UPS or FedEx losing them or damaging them. And how long before the FAA says they can't fly in a UPS or FedEx plane? Then what? I'm supposed to go buy $150 camera batteries when I get to location? I have 4 cameras, and take 3 per camera. That's $1800 if they get lost in shipping or if they get confiscated by TSA.
 
2007-12-28 06:17:06 PM
FTFA: The FAA has found that current systems for putting out aircraft cargo fires could not suppress a fire if a shipment of non-rechargeable batteries ignited during flight, the release said.

How about banning shipments of batteries from passenger planes? This is just another dumb-fark rule that lets the fascists at the TSA screw over more people.
 
2007-12-28 06:17:30 PM
[haiku]
batteries on fire
lithium cancels my fight
will never get home

[/haiku]
 
2007-12-28 06:18:44 PM
bobfarkerch: You can still bring you precious batteries on a plane. The FAA is just trying to prevent the possibility of two or more batteries making contact, shorting and causing a fire. They're trying to help us people. Calm the fark down. Planes fly much more smoothly when they're not on fire.

Yeah, tell me about it. I took 6 flights last week, and the endless battery fires really made them uncomfortable.
 
2007-12-28 06:20:16 PM
FTA:

The FAA has found that current systems for putting out aircraft cargo fires could not suppress a fire if a shipment of non-rechargeable batteries ignited during flight, the release said.

Hmm, high-energy flammable things in the belly of the plane haven't caused flights to crash? (paraphrasing many of the above posts) Can you say "ValuJet Flight 592"? (new window)

/Sure, I knoew you could
 
2007-12-28 06:22:31 PM
LowbrowDeluxe:
Methinks you might be just the enterprising fellow I've been looking for to sell these 100 slightly used lottery tickets to. Sure, the odds of winning are low, but if you buy 100 then obviously you're 100* times more likely to win, right?


What would you rather be holding when it explodes? One stick of dynamite or one hundred? It's not that 100 is more likely to explode than one is by itself, but uh, 100 would be like, worse... and stuff...

/Everything in moderation. If you need more portable dildo power than airlines allow, take a farking train and use the economy of the built in rocking motion and the vehicular vibrations to save your juice.
 
2007-12-28 06:23:52 PM
/Sure, I knoew you could

Damn!

/Sure, I knew you could
 
2007-12-28 06:29:08 PM
wmoonfox: Dear FAA:

Chemical fire extinguishers.

Cordially Yours,
Anyone born in the last fifty years.


I'd say you should have a job with the TSA, but you've already demonstrated far, far too much intelligence.
 
2007-12-28 06:29:21 PM
bobfarkerch: Makes sense to me. Lithium batteries burn pretty hot and normal fire suppression systems i.e. water or water based foam only makes it worse. Lithium plus water makes lithium hydroxide and pure hydrogen gas. (2 Li(s) + 2 H2O -> 2 LiOH (aq) + H2(g)) for all you non-chemists. You can still bring you precious batteries on a plane. The FAA is just trying to prevent the possibility of two or more batteries making contact, shorting and causing a fire. They're trying to help us people. Calm the fark down. Planes fly much more smoothly when they're not on fire.

You seem like an intelligent fellow with your fancy science slash chemistry thing you posted up there and all, but please provide me proof of a plane catching fire due to a lithium-ion battery incident.

Until you've done so, stop trying to make my life safer by supporting the government's unnecessary and previously unsuccessful penchant for attempting to predict future disasters.

No one has stabbed someone with a pencil on a plane, but it's possible they could. Let's have the FAA ban writing utensils in flight. No one has methodically given someone paper cuts and poured lemon juice in them on a plane, but it's possible someone could. Now no reading material or paper of any kind and lemon juice is out for mixers. The plane's fuel tanks never spontaneously combust without outside influence, but let's remove them anyways and ground the plane, then just make everyone walk or drive. That way the FAA won't be responsible for their safety any more.

... None of those sounds any more stupid than banning lithium-ion batteries because there's a one in a jillion chance that some idiot is going to somehow manage to complete a circuit with some amount of batteries in his luggage, causing a cargo fire which will down a plane.
 
2007-12-28 06:30:44 PM
FilmBELOH20: Sorry, but in my case, it's not reactionary.

And you are the exception to what I was referring to, I'm sorry to hear that this is going to cause problems. I was referring instead to the people similar to those in the TSA thread the other day who was making up a story about how he was repeatedly hit by a TSA agent to make a metal detector wand go off, while in plain view of every one in the airport while they tried to steal his stuff. There are some people who this is harder for, and I understand that. I ave a friend whos dad does demolitions for a living and it seems he always gets a secondary screening.

Are your batteries lithium metal or lithium ion?
 
2007-12-28 06:33:15 PM
MisterBill: FTFA: The FAA has found that current systems for putting out aircraft cargo fires could not suppress a fire if a shipment of non-rechargeable batteries ignited during flight, the release said.

How about banning shipments of batteries from passenger planes? This is just another dumb-fark rule that lets the fascists at the TSA screw over more people.


They already are. They are trying to keep people from "shipping" the batteries as checked baggage. Small numbers of batteries buring or exploding can be contained within a shipping container; large numbers cannot. When lithiukm batteries are shipped on cargo aircraft they have to be inspected and properly packaged. Passengers don't know fark on how to prepeare hazardous materials for air shipment and you can bet some dipwad will just throw a dozen or so loosely in his bag.
 
2007-12-28 06:34:12 PM
ZoeNekros 2007-12-28 06:18:44 PM
bobfarkerch: You can still bring you precious batteries on a plane. The FAA is just trying to prevent the possibility of two or more batteries making contact, shorting and causing a fire. They're trying to help us people.


I'm sick of their 'help.' The reality is that flying is safe, batteries are extraordinarily safe, and statistically, the odds of regular amount of batteries being carried by passengers catching fire are inordinately low. There's also a chance of a magic pig flying into the jet engine, but I continue not to support mandating the installation of flying pig defense systems in aircraft. If they wanted to help they could try screening non-passenger cargo that goes into passenger aircraft... they could try getting automatic breathalyzers to start aircraft... but the harsh reality is that the leading cause of crashes is CFIT, and there isn't shiate they can do to stop it.
 
2007-12-28 06:41:56 PM
How is this not reasonable? They found something that caused enough fires to become a hazard, not just to safety but to property. And they are attending to a solution.

My boyfriend is a photographer and had two batteries touch in his camera bag and the resulting fire caused a heck of a lot of damage. It was fortunate it happened when he was carrying it and not on the plane so he could take care of it relatively quickly. It HAPPENS. It's not as "statistically low" as some of you would like to think.
 
2007-12-28 06:42:59 PM
Befuddled: Damn, there goes my rechargable battery smuggling ring.

Aircraft should be required to provide power ports for laptops so people could stop trying to figure out ever more hazardous ways to keep their laptops going on extended flights.


WTF for? most of 'em just play freakin' solitaire anyway!
 
2007-12-28 06:45:49 PM
Sync9: but please provide me proof of a plane catching fire due to a lithium-ion battery incident.

So, your justification is "If it hasn't happened yet, we shouldn't anticipate, and try to prevent it?"

Let me know If you are eve driving in Minnesota, with that Attitude, I'll get off the roads. Because, for all I know, you haven't ever received a moving violation, so you shouldn't worry about driving safely.
 
2007-12-28 06:49:39 PM
the_colonel Quote 2007-12-28 06:33:15 PM
MisterBill: FTFA: The FAA has found that current systems for putting out aircraft cargo fires could not suppress a fire if a shipment of non-rechargeable batteries ignited during flight, the release said.

How about banning shipments of batteries from passenger planes? This is just another dumb-fark rule that lets the fascists at the TSA screw over more people.

They already are. They are trying to keep people from "shipping" the batteries as checked baggage. Small numbers of batteries buring or exploding can be contained within a shipping container; large numbers cannot. When lithiukm batteries are shipped on cargo aircraft they have to be inspected and properly packaged. Passengers don't know fark on how to prepeare hazardous materials for air shipment and you can bet some dipwad will just throw a dozen or so loosely in his bag.


They are banning commercial shipments in the same sense they were banning oxygen generators pre valujet... they say no.. but if you put something else on the box, they hardly ever check, so it'll go. With respect to Joe Schmo throwing 12 good size batteries in the bag... the 50 lb weight limit will hit him pretty quickly... aside from that, the idea that batteries are the same as other hazmats is just retarded... it's not like you're sending a ziploc bag full of radioactive waste... the shell of the battery is generally fairly rigid and secure, and most of the ignition danger comes from having something touching both contacts at the same time... that said, most people aren't flying with brillo pads and 9 volts (good tip for campers btw, that shiat will start in the rain no problem), and the statistical odds of this being a problem especially given the number of batteries currently ported by passengers... the odds are staggeringly low, while the cost of enforcing this policy, in terms of confiscated batteries, training, man hours, and tryin to teach a tsa asshat to convert from watt hours to quantities of lithium... the costs are staggeringly high. The reality is that lives are not of infinite value, and the cost of this barely marginally effective safety increase is not justified by the (statistically insignificant) enhancement it provides.
 
2007-12-28 06:50:54 PM
MacgyverJr Quote 2007-12-28 06:45:49 PM
Sync9: but please provide me proof of a plane catching fire due to a lithium-ion battery incident.

So, your justification is "If it hasn't happened yet, we shouldn't anticipate, and try to prevent it?"


And your rationale is that it's theoretically possible, so we must do everything, no matter the cost, to prevent it?
 
2007-12-28 06:52:30 PM
doofusgumby: THIRDED!

you have TF, go notify the mods instead of complaining. i did.

no idea why you have to pay them for that privilege, by the way.
 
2007-12-28 06:54:23 PM
For those of you using the logic "a lithium battery hasn't brought down a plane" so why have precautions are naive at best. We probably can't find an instance of a can of gas bringing down an aircraft so why shouldn't I be able to check a 5 gallon can of fuel?
The issue isn't so much as the batteries bursting into flames on their own, but igniting/exploding when damaged (i.e. suitcase dropped + improper packaging) or exploding as a result of an adjacent fire. Once lithium is ignited and it's more than just a couple of batteries, it will quickly exceed the capabilities of the on board dry chemical fire extinguishers in the cargo areas. Fires in airline cargo/baggage compartments are not that uncommon and when uncontained are nearly always catastrophic.
 
2007-12-28 06:59:47 PM
FilmBELOH20: The reason I can't count the number of times, is because it's FARKING ZERO!

What is the number of times batteries have exploded/caught on fire?
More than zero.

Is it rare? Hell yes. Has it happened on an aircraft? Not yet. Does it absolutely SUCK that these measure apparently need to be taken? YES.

You tell me...what should the evul govt do? Wait until there is a catastrophic fire on an airliner because of someones laptop battery?

Why isn't your rage directed at the idiot companies that make these defective batteries?
 
2007-12-28 07:06:31 PM
firefly212: And your rationale is that it's theoretically possible, so we must do everything, no matter the cost, to prevent it?

I never said, no matter the cost. That is taking this to the extremes. The equivalent would be NO batteries allowed on board. I'm advocating taking reasonable precautions, not extreme ones. We've already had 2 people in this thread cite personal examples of batteries shorting and causing heat or fire. The link I provided earlier "...the Federal Aviation Administration has studied fire hazards associated with both primary and lithium-ion cells, and their extensive research is publicly available. " from the FAA gives their research into this. So I now have to take my 2 spare laptop batteries in my laptop bag...darn. Now some people like FilmBELOH20 are affected greater than others, and that sucks, but they will find an alternative solution. That's the way life goes. Do the what's required to benefit/keep safe the majority, while impacting as few people as possible negatively. It sucks to be in the minority, I know, I've been the minority a few times, but I understand the reason for what was chosen and uit was the right decision.
 
2007-12-28 07:23:59 PM
Just for the sake of argument-

Why is everyone bashing the TSA about this when it's stated that the FAA is who placed the restriction on the batteries in the first place?

I know that TSA ends up being the regulatory enforcement arm on the new guidelines but isn't that like being pissed off at the police because the state legislature created a bill banning assault weapons?

0.o
 
2007-12-28 07:28:20 PM
nanny state... nuff said.
 
2007-12-28 07:28:48 PM
Pribar: Articles like this are why I drink.

This
 
2007-12-28 07:37:23 PM
Why does anybody fly these days unless they really really have to? Rules like this and all the useless "security" crap are the perfect excuse to explore the beauty of your own country/state before you jet off to Paris with the rest of the cattle. Re: airline "security" that stops us carrying dangerous weapons like nail clippers; the aim of the terrorist is to create terror - QED they win !
 
2007-12-28 07:40:01 PM
the_colonel: For those of you using the logic "a lithium battery hasn't brought down a plane" so why have precautions are naive at best. We probably can't find an instance of a can of gas bringing down an aircraft so why shouldn't I be able to check a 5 gallon can of fuel?
The issue isn't so much as the batteries bursting into flames on their own, but igniting/exploding when damaged (i.e. suitcase dropped + improper packaging) or exploding as a result of an adjacent fire. Once lithium is ignited and it's more than just a couple of batteries, it will quickly exceed the capabilities of the on board dry chemical fire extinguishers in the cargo areas. Fires in airline cargo/baggage compartments are not that uncommon and when uncontained are nearly always catastrophic.




Well I have never been trampelled by a huge elephant, and I can imagine it being quite bad if it were to happen... but ya, I'll be damned if the government tries to pass 'anti-elephant laws' that would cause hassle anytime a person leaves their house.

Frankly, flying is a disgustingly miserable experience now, and it has been since the war on common sense err, I mean the war on terror. Anything they could possible do to even cause 1 more slight disturbance to passengers will simply make the airports loose more passengers, which means the government will have to bail them out yet again with our tax dollars.
 
2007-12-28 07:46:41 PM
Whew! I first read it as lesbian batteries.
 
2007-12-28 07:47:44 PM
Of course it's company policy never to imply ownership in the event of a rechargable battery... always use the indefinite article "a battery", never "your battery".
 
2007-12-28 07:54:16 PM
matrixxx1: Well I have never been trampelled by a huge elephant, and I can imagine it being quite bad if it were to happen... but ya, I'll be damned if the government tries to pass 'anti-elephant laws' that would cause hassle anytime a person leaves their house.

Yeah.. I'll bet you take your elephant everywhere.
 
2007-12-28 07:57:09 PM
matrixxx1:
Well I have never been trampelled by a huge elephant, and I can imagine it being quite bad if it were to happen... but ya, I'll be damned if the government tries to pass 'anti-elephant laws' that would cause hassle anytime a person leaves their house.


People get trampled by elephants every year. That's why you don't see them running around loose. They try to keep them in cages in places called zoos. If millions of people had elephants and took them for a stroll around the neighborhood everyday, I would expect some sort of leash law to maintain safety in the area. So by your logic, because you personally haven't been trampled by an elephant, elephant owners should not have to take proper precautions to prevent the elephant from hurting anyone because it would be inconvenient. If you did get hurt by a free range elephant you would probably the first in line shouting "there ought to be a law", suing the owner, or crying "conspiracy" because the gov't new about the hazards of elephant trampling and did nothing about it.
 
Displayed 50 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report