Rechargeable battery shipments to be barred from airliners

WASHINGTON (AP) — Cargo shipments of the rechargeable lithium batteries used in countless consumer products should no longer be allowed on passenger planes because they can create intense fires capable of destroying an aircraft, a U.N. aviation agency has concluded.

The decision late Monday by the Montreal-based International Civil Aviation Organization’s top-level governing council to ban the shipments isn’t binding, but most countries follow the agency’s standards. The ban is effective on April 1.

“This interim prohibition will continue to be in force as separate work continues through ICAO on a new lithium battery packaging performance standard, currently expected by 2018,” said Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu, the ICAO council’s president.

Namrata Kolachalam, a U.S. Transportation Department spokeswoman, called the ban “a necessary action to protect passengers, crews, and aircraft from the current risk to aviation safety.”

ICAO’s decision frees the department to begin work on regulations to impose a ban. Airlines flying to and from the U.S. that accept lithium battery shipments carry 26 million passengers a year, the Federal Aviation Administration estimates.

A law passed by Congress in 2012 at the behest of industry prohibits the Transportation Department from issuing any regulations regarding air shipments of lithium batteries that are more stringent than ICAO standards unless there is a crash that can be shown to have been started by batteries. Since most evidence in crashes is destroyed by fire, that’s virtually impossible to do, critics of the provision say.

Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., who authored the provision, has said that since batteries are an international industry there should be a single, international standard, otherwise it would be too confusing for shippers to follow multiple rules.

Lithium-ion batteries are used in a vast array of products from cellphones and laptops to some electric cars. About 5.4 billion lithium-ion cells were manufactured worldwide in 2014. A battery is made up of two or more cells. A majority of batteries are transported on cargo ships, but about 30 percent are shipped by air.

The ban doesn’t apply to batteries packaged inside equipment like a laptop with a battery inside, for example.

PRBA — The Rechargeable Battery Association, which opposed the ban, said in a statement that the industry is preparing to comply with the ban, but there may be “significant disruption in the logistics supply chain,” especially for batteries used in medical devices.

Aviation authorities have long known that the batteries can self-ignite, creating fires that are hotter than 1,100 degrees. That’s near the melting point of aluminum, which is used in aircraft construction.

Safety concerns increased after FAA tests showed gases emitted by overheated batteries can build up in cargo containers, leading to explosions capable of disabling aircraft fire suppression systems and allowing fires to rage unchecked. As a result of the tests, an organization representing aircraft manufacturers — including the world’s two largest, Boeing and Airbus — said last year that airliners aren’t designed to withstand lithium battery fires and that continuing to accept battery shipments is “an unacceptable risk.”

More than other types of batteries, li-ion batteries are susceptible to short-circuit if they are damaged, exposed to extreme temperatures, overcharged, packed too close to together or contain manufacturing defects. When they short-circuit, the batteries can experience uncontrolled temperature increases known as “thermal runaway.” That, in turn, can spread short-circuiting to nearby batteries until an entire shipment is overheating and emitting explosive gases.

It’s not unusual for tens of thousands of batteries to be shipped in a single cargo container.

The U.S delegation to ICAO decided last October to back a ban, calling the risk “immediate and urgent.”

Since 2006, three cargo jets have been destroyed and four pilots killed in in-flight fires that accident investigators say where either started by batteries or made more severe by their proximity. The International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations lobbied the ICAO council unsuccessfully to extend the ban to cargo carriers.

Dozens of airlines have already voluntarily stopped accepting battery shipments, but others oppose a ban. KLM, the royal Dutch airline, made a presentation to a lower-level ICAO panel arguing against a ban, according to an aviation official familiar with the presentation. KLM and Air France are owned by a Franco-Dutch holding company. Representatives from the Netherlands and France on the dangerous goods panel voted last fall against a ban.

The official wasn’t authorized to speak publicly and spoke on the condition that he not be named.

KLM officials didn’t respond to requests for comment.

_

Follow Joan Lowy at twitter.com/AP_Joan_Lowy. Her work can be found at http://bigstory.ap.org/content/joan-lowy

http://news.yahoo.com/rechargeable-battery-shipments-barred-airliners-093429702—politics.html

:O >:#

Yeah, the cargo aircraft carry significantly larger quantities, and

So above some limited amount of cargo in the box, it hardly matters
except to the people on the aircraft and those on whom it lands.

Shippers are going to get a much bigger bang for their buck, as they begin shipping large volumes by sea:

Put that in your seaport and smoke it, eh? Not going to be able to steer that away in a hurry if it goes up.

Does that mean that no one can have a cell phone or tablet or laptop computer or electronic cigarette or hoverboard or iPod or high end flashlight or UPS or phone power bank on planes too?

Sorry, but I think you get the point. Fires from lithium batteries are rare, but they are ultrafires when they do happen :).

There are a lot of devices with the evil lithium batteries inside them that no one seems to think could ever possibly cause a problem.

Good question.

Let’s see what the actual text that you read above says.

The agency is recommending a ban on:

So, no.

What they’re trying to avoid happening — in a passenger aircraft —- is known to have crashed three cargo aircraft that we know about:
Fires intense enough to blow open a sealed, supposedly fireproof cargo container, and bring down the aircraft or disable the crew.

That’s why, if you go back and read the text posted in the original post, you’ll see this ban is to avoid losing a passenger aircraft until better shipping containers pass safety tests.
That will take a few years.

As I recall the FAA was rather surprised to find the existing storage containers made the fires and explosions worse (think ‘pressure cooker bomb’ issues), when tested.

The passenger aircraft missing that were known to be carrying lithium batteries as cargo — most recently this one, with 440 pounds of lithium batteries aboard — went down in the Pacific Ocean.

You know the most important thing about handling a li-ion battery fire, right?
Don’t inhale. Leave the area.

And — did you read all the way to the bottom of the linked story

Takes effect 4/1. That should make for an interesting day.

Emphasis mine.
Hoverboards are not permitted on most airlines.

And the usa has just said that all current hoverboards are hazardous. Hoverboards That Don’t Comply With UL Safety Standards Now Considered Defective, Hazardous Target and Toys R us have just pulled all their hoverboards. Amazon is letting people get refunds.

After a months-long investigation into the safety hazards posed by hoverboards the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has determined that all current hoverboards are hazardous.

They just sent out an official notice to retailers, manufacturers and importers with new hoverboard safety standards. And warned them that that continuing to sell the current hoverboard models may result seizure of the devices as well as civil and criminal penalties.

Sorry guys I kinda lost my cool a little there. It just irritates me how the media and the powers that be misrepresent Li-ion, due to lack of information.

They sound as though they could be compared to micro Nuke plants, at least in respect to the possible devastation within close proximity, and everything else being relative. IMHO

I hope there is a safer alternative that is economical as well.

“Safety” is a very subjective topic. Toss in money and stir, and wahlah,somebody is going to get hurt

Shipping evolution in progress.

I wonder how the safety handbook read in Captain Blackbeards fleet.

I wonder how pricing and ship times will be affected with the change.

It takes effect on April fools day?


  • Behest is an authoritative command or request. If your boss or principal asks to see you, you go to their office at their behest.
    ——-
    Some copywriter let more truth than usual there about who runs Congress. I’m sure the nitroglycerine industry was equally protective of their right to ship, back in the day. It takes a whole lot of evidence before Congress will believe the statistics, for problems like this. I recall much the same long delay and many avoidable fires before flammability standards finally happened for household electronics equipment, decades ago. Same argument — if there were any evidence, the fire destroyed it, so ya can’t prove anything is dangerous. Until enough evidence and bodies accumulated that it was impossible to keep arguing that it couldn’t be a problem.

We’re getting there on this issue.

If it were just human lives at issue, you could have 2 classes of passenger airfares — with or without cargo protection regulations — and people could freely choose to fly cheaper at their own risk.
But aircraft manufacturers, and aircraft pilots, are refusing (for passenger aircraft so far) to be put at risk.

The fires on cargo aircraft will continue until shipping containers, or cell chemistry, or shippers’ honesty about labeling improve sufficiently to prevent further problems.
Who ya gonna trust? Boeing, or BangGood? Airbus, or TinyDeal?

Not sure? You can look this stuff up for yourself. Or not. I’m done with this thread, it keeps coming up, and each time, after a little while, the conversation ends up is in a death spiral.

So the Gearbest “Bag O’ Batteries” orders are going to be even slower now?