Lithium batteries in checked luggage

[StevePER]

Another reminder not to leave lithium batteries in your checked luggage

A potentially serious incident on an Air China flight on the weekend is a reminder to never pack the lithium batteries commonly found in computers and ‘smart’ phones in your checked luggage.

It is also a reminder that the Qantas and Virgin Australia rules that permit lithium battery carriage in checked luggage ought to be abolished and replaced with a ban, because at present no inspections to enforce them take place, with the airlines relying instead on a tick the box declaration in the dangerous goods section of the check-in processes, something which is totally useless.

Interesting reading - I've probably packed batteries in checked luggage a couple of times without thinking about it.

 

[jb747]

Without doubt, they are the most dangerous items regularly carried on aircraft.

Lithium batteries are not permitted in checked luggage on QF aircraft at all, and are severely limited in cabin luggage. I very much doubt that Virgin's rules are any different, as both of these airlines follow the IATA dangerous goods guidance. So, where did that comment come from?

 

[mannej]

With the source being Crikey- I guess that would be Ben Sandilands

 

[markis10]

Lithium batteries are not permitted in checked luggage on QF aircraft at all, and are severely limited in cabin luggage. I very much doubt that Virgin's rules are any different, as both of these airlines follow the IATA dangerous goods guidance. So, where did that comment come from?

Lithium Batteries are only dangerous goods when they meet a certain capacity and I agree that QF are very good in making it clear what the rules are:

http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/cargo/dangerous_goods/Documents/Guidance%20Document%20on%20the%20Transport%20of%20Li-Batt_2011.pdf

Qantas is clear in its guidance that they are banned when they meet the dangerous goods spec:

"Security type attache cases incorporating Dangerous Goods, such as lithium batteries or pyrotechnic devices, are totally forbidden."

Qantas does not totally ban lithium batteries so long as they are not classified as dangerous, this is clearly spelt out in this letter:

http://www.cinematographer.org.au/_...l_Australian_Cinematographers_Society_LAW.pdf


And on the website:

Portable electronic devices containing lithium or lithium ion cells or batteries and Spare lithium or lithium ion cells or batteries

• Spare Lithium ion batteries and cells with a Watt hour rating greater than 160Wh, are not permitted on an aircraft under any circumstances.
• Spare lithium ion batteries and cells with a Watt hour rating of between 100Wh and 160Wh are limited to two batteries per passenger. Batteries must have terminals insulated or protected to prevent short circuit and must be carried in cabin baggage only. – Operator approval is required for these prior to travel.
• Spare Lithium ion batteries and cells with a Watt hour rating or less than 100Wh have no limit to the number that can be carried, batteries must have terminals insulated or protected to prevent short circuit and must be carried in cabin baggage only
• Spare Lithium metal or Lithium alloy batteries with a lithium content of less than 2 grams have no limit to the number that can be carried, however, batteries must have terminals insulated or protected to prevent short circuit and must be carried in cabin baggage only.
• If batteries are installed in equipment such as laptop computers, camera, calculators etc – the above limits still apply, however they can be carried as checked baggage, provided the electronic device is protected from accidental activation.

Fly - Baggage - Dangerous Goods

I suspect the article is calling for a total ban even for those in laptops or cameras etc that are part of checked baggage, something IATA is not yet requiring/recommending.

 

[jb747]

Installed into their equipment, they've never been considered as batteries.

Reality is that if we had a look in ALL passenger luggage we'd find all sorts of goodies that aren't supposed to be there. It would also mean that air delivery of your new laptop would now happen by ship...

I'm liking my idea of always leaving all luggage behind to be better and better.....

 

[cove]

jb747 is it possible to dispose of something like a malfunctioning lithium battery from a 747 or similar when the plane is in the air?

 

[simongr]

Well colour me ignorant on this topic

I have never considered whether my batteries are a dangerous item. I just checked my laptop and thankfully it is only 42 WH. This really is something that is not obvious in the same way that explosives are obvious.

The wording on the dangerous goods site says:

Lithium ion batteries with a Watt-hour rating exceeding 100 Wh but not exceeding 160 Wh for portable electronic devices. No more than two spare batteries may be carried in carry-on baggage only. These batteries must be individually protected to prevent short circuits. Equipment containing such batteries may be in checked or carry-on baggage

I have bolded an important part. If you compare the bolded part to the X/Tick (tick=+) column it says against the five options:

+X++X

Permitted as carry on - +
Permitted as checked - X
permitted on one's person - +
Permission of the operator - +
Notification to the pilot - X

So the text says "Equipment containing such batteries may be in checked or carry-on baggage" but the X/+ says "Not permitted as checked"

http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/dangerous-goods/global/en#lithiumbatteries

 

[jb747]

jb747 is it possible to dispose of something like a malfunctioning lithium battery from a 747 or similar when the plane is in the air?

Not unless you're on one of my previous flights.

 

[ozmille]

To be honest I never paid attention to this. Usually had some spare batteries in my checked luggage but will leave them at home from now on. Never had to use them anyway...

 

[tuppaware]

jb747 is it possible to dispose of something like a malfunctioning lithium battery from a 747 or similar when the plane is in the air?

I think throwing pax attached to cases out the cabin doors is a little extreme !

 

[Nigelinoz]

I think throwing pax attached to cases out the cabin doors is a little extreme !

Oh I don't know,I guess it depends if they are what munitalP like to refer to as "riff raff":!::mrgreen::mrgreen:
Cheers
N'oz

 

[tuppaware]

Oh I don't know,I guess it depends if they are what munitalP like to refer to as "riff raff":!::mrgreen::mrgreen:
Cheers
N'oz

if they are wearing footy shorts and thongs ?

 

[Nigelinoz]

if they are wearing footy shorts and thongs ?

Or eating fried chicken and wiping their hands on the seats .(I've seen it happen on Q'link ABX-SYD):shock::shock:
Cheers
N'oz
(Sorry mods for going off topic)

 

[haydensydney]

If the pilots suspect a fire (whether by Lithium battery or other means) in the cargo hold, do they have the ability to remove the oxygen to prevent the spread of the fire (unpressurise the cargo hold perhaps?)

 

[Nigelinoz]

Anyone who doubts how dangerous these things are should read the preliminary report into the crash of UPS 6 last year,that aircraft was carrying large quantities of lithium batteries and although a cause of the crash has not been officially determined it is likely that the fire that broke out on the plane was caused by the batteries that the flight was carrying as freight.
Cheers
N'oz

 

[mannej]

If the pilots suspect a fire (whether by Lithium battery or other means) in the cargo hold, do they have the ability to remove the oxygen to prevent the spread of the fire (unpressurise the cargo hold perhaps?)

I don't know the answer, but UPS 6 looks like it may be a relevant example in this topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app

 

[Nigelinoz]

Evidence of smoke in the coughpit as two UPS pilots attempted a doomed emergency landing last week near Dubai is expected to give new fervor to a debate over requiring cargo jets to carry an automatic fire extinguisher system in its main cargo hold.

The National Transportation Safety Board has been pushing federal regulators for years to require freight carriers to use devices that would flood fires with foam at the first sign of smoke or flame. The agency’s most recent push came after a 2006 fire on a UPS plane that landed safely in Philadelphia.
But as recently as Monday, the Federal Aviation Administration reiterated its stance that such fire control systems are too expensive.

The fire suppressors “do not justify the cost” of adding them to the main deck cargo compartments,” FAA Administrator J. Randolph Babbitt wrote to NTSB chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman in a letter dated Sept. 6. The letter’s timing just three days after the UPS crash was a coincidence, an FAA spokeswoman said.

For large cargo planes, a 2009 study conducted for the FAA estimated the total cost of installing a fire suppression system at $7 million per aircraft. Operating costs would be another $140,000 per aircraft per year. The list price for a new Boeing 747-400 freighter starts at $238 million.

The NTSB declined to comment on the FAA’s response on Wednesday. “We have not yet had an opportunity to do a thorough review” of the FAA report, said NTSB spokeswoman Bridget Serchak.
UPS archrival FedEx last year decided to exceed FAA requirements and accept the NTSB recommendations by equipping 74 of its large, international planes with fire suppression systems that inject Argon foam into fires detected in the main cargo hold once heat sensors are triggered.

Louisville-based UPS Airlines, meanwhile, continues to follow FAA regulations that state that, should a fire be detected, cargo pilots should depressurize the main cabin and climb to at least 20,000 feet of altitude to starve flames of oxygen.
FedEx officials declined on Wednesday to discuss their fire suppression technology, or how much it cost, so close on the heels of the UPS crash Friday

NTSB has been seeking fire fighting equipment on cargo planes

 

[FlyboyAl]

On May 20, I flew out of Adelaide on a QF 737, and we were over 40 mins late leaving because there was a cinematographer on board with a "big movie camera"(the FA's words when she paged him.)
Turned out someone put 2 and 2 together and figured he might have checked more gear, and it turned out he had put Li-Ion batteries in his checked baggage.
We had to sit on the tarmac while ground crew went though the forward and rear baggage lockers to locate the additional batteries!!
He looked somewhat sheepish when he walked down the middle of the plane to his seat, particularly after all the phone calls being made to move/change appointments in Syd.

It really brought it home just how seriously Qantas regard these batteries in the hold.

Interestingly, almost every new digital camera, and all mobile phones use Li-Ion batteries, although they are not what you call "high capacity" batteries.

 

[jb747]

If the pilots suspect a fire (whether by Lithium battery or other means) in the cargo hold, do they have the ability to remove the oxygen to prevent the spread of the fire (unpressurise the cargo hold perhaps?)

You can't selectively remove the air from the hold, whilst leaving the cabin pressurised. The floor will not take the loading from the differential pressure, and will collapse. There are blowout panels in the aircraft to ensure that hold and cabin stay at the same altitude.

Of course, I could remove it from both.....

The hold also has a fire suppression system...just how effective it would be, I'd rather not find out.

 

[cove]

Haydensydney I thought aircraft might have an expulsion system to get rid of stuff that was misbehaving like we had at UNI but apparently not the case.
I heard a lithium battery burning is very difficult to deal with so there I was thinking drop it out of the plane but no go!