Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
According to the cargo manifest the aircraft was carrying 2453 kgs of cargo identified as Lithium Iron batteries.
What else would they say
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's Malaysia Airlines (not Malaysian Airlines)
It's not exactly confidence inspiring when the front page of a government report misspells the name of the flag carrier.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Toronto
Age: 69
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sudden decompression of lithium-based batteries
The risk posed by lithium-based batteries is, of course, fire. A fire can be triggered by several mechanisms, one being physical damage to the casing or the innards.
Most lithium-based batteries have a venting valve which opens when the internal pressure exceeds some threshold value above the ambient pressure. I believe the pressure differential which triggers the vent is somewhere between two or three atmospheres. The purpose of the valve is to allow gases produced by a fire inside the battery to escape, preventing an explosion which would make a bad situation even worse.
The difference between cabin/cargo hold pressure at sea level and FL350 is a little less than one atmosphere. In normal flight, it would be impossible for the pressure differential across the wall of a battery to ever exceed one atmosphere. Even in the event of a sudden decompression, the pressure differential would not exceed one atmosphere, and the venting valve would not open.
There is, however, another factor which needs to be taken into account. The rate of change in the pressure differential may produce unexpected results. A sudden reduction in the ambient pressure in the cargo hold, not equalized by an open venting valve, could cause the battery to swell. Sudden swelling could cause the internal components of the battery to shift relative to one another, possibly leading to physical damage and resulting in a fire.
If this sequence took place on MH370, then decompression would have led to a fire, rather than the other way around. Two events usually assumed to be unrelated would both have taken place.
Unfortunately, I cannot find on the internet any description of the effects of sudden decompression on lithium-based batteries. Does anyone know what happens?
Most lithium-based batteries have a venting valve which opens when the internal pressure exceeds some threshold value above the ambient pressure. I believe the pressure differential which triggers the vent is somewhere between two or three atmospheres. The purpose of the valve is to allow gases produced by a fire inside the battery to escape, preventing an explosion which would make a bad situation even worse.
The difference between cabin/cargo hold pressure at sea level and FL350 is a little less than one atmosphere. In normal flight, it would be impossible for the pressure differential across the wall of a battery to ever exceed one atmosphere. Even in the event of a sudden decompression, the pressure differential would not exceed one atmosphere, and the venting valve would not open.
There is, however, another factor which needs to be taken into account. The rate of change in the pressure differential may produce unexpected results. A sudden reduction in the ambient pressure in the cargo hold, not equalized by an open venting valve, could cause the battery to swell. Sudden swelling could cause the internal components of the battery to shift relative to one another, possibly leading to physical damage and resulting in a fire.
If this sequence took place on MH370, then decompression would have led to a fire, rather than the other way around. Two events usually assumed to be unrelated would both have taken place.
Unfortunately, I cannot find on the internet any description of the effects of sudden decompression on lithium-based batteries. Does anyone know what happens?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: In a Pineapple Under the Sea
Age: 61
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YYZJim:
But - if you have 2400kg of Li-ion batteries - and a single battery catches fire due to some runaway condition (whatever the cause) - that single battery would certainly lead to a chain reaction as neighboring batteries overheated - which would create a domino affect with the entire 2400kg.
So - I think a single Li-ion battery running away would necessarily lead to a horrific at catastrophic fire that would most certainly bring down an aircraft.
UPS 1307 . . .
UPS 6 . . .
My understanding is the state of charge is a factor in the likelihood of thermal runaway - as is the construction of the battery.
I've not seen information on the type (manufacturer and model) of the battery nor on the condition of the batteries as shipped. Surely someone is aware of both?
It is just hard to imagine 2400kg of Li-ion batteries on fire with any continued flight . . .
The risk posed by lithium-based batteries is, of course, fire. A fire can be triggered by several mechanisms, one being physical damage to the casing or the innards.
Most lithium-based batteries have a venting valve which opens when the internal pressure exceeds some threshold value above the ambient pressure. I believe the pressure differential which triggers the vent is somewhere between two or three atmospheres. The purpose of the valve is to allow gases produced by a fire inside the battery to escape, preventing an explosion which would make a bad situation even worse.
The difference between cabin/cargo hold pressure at sea level and FL350 is a little less than one atmosphere. In normal flight, it would be impossible for the pressure differential across the wall of a battery to ever exceed one atmosphere. Even in the event of a sudden decompression, the pressure differential would not exceed one atmosphere, and the venting valve would not open.
There is, however, another factor which needs to be taken into account. The rate of change in the pressure differential may produce unexpected results. A sudden reduction in the ambient pressure in the cargo hold, not equalized by an open venting valve, could cause the battery to swell. Sudden swelling could cause the internal components of the battery to shift relative to one another, possibly leading to physical damage and resulting in a fire.
If this sequence took place on MH370, then decompression would have led to a fire, rather than the other way around. Two events usually assumed to be unrelated would both have taken place.
Unfortunately, I cannot find on the internet any description of the effects of sudden decompression on lithium-based batteries. Does anyone know what happens?
Most lithium-based batteries have a venting valve which opens when the internal pressure exceeds some threshold value above the ambient pressure. I believe the pressure differential which triggers the vent is somewhere between two or three atmospheres. The purpose of the valve is to allow gases produced by a fire inside the battery to escape, preventing an explosion which would make a bad situation even worse.
The difference between cabin/cargo hold pressure at sea level and FL350 is a little less than one atmosphere. In normal flight, it would be impossible for the pressure differential across the wall of a battery to ever exceed one atmosphere. Even in the event of a sudden decompression, the pressure differential would not exceed one atmosphere, and the venting valve would not open.
There is, however, another factor which needs to be taken into account. The rate of change in the pressure differential may produce unexpected results. A sudden reduction in the ambient pressure in the cargo hold, not equalized by an open venting valve, could cause the battery to swell. Sudden swelling could cause the internal components of the battery to shift relative to one another, possibly leading to physical damage and resulting in a fire.
If this sequence took place on MH370, then decompression would have led to a fire, rather than the other way around. Two events usually assumed to be unrelated would both have taken place.
Unfortunately, I cannot find on the internet any description of the effects of sudden decompression on lithium-based batteries. Does anyone know what happens?
So - I think a single Li-ion battery running away would necessarily lead to a horrific at catastrophic fire that would most certainly bring down an aircraft.
UPS 1307 . . .
UPS 6 . . .
My understanding is the state of charge is a factor in the likelihood of thermal runaway - as is the construction of the battery.
I've not seen information on the type (manufacturer and model) of the battery nor on the condition of the batteries as shipped. Surely someone is aware of both?
It is just hard to imagine 2400kg of Li-ion batteries on fire with any continued flight . . .
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its definitely Kilos. Also it says packed under Section II PI 965.
133 PACKAGES total 1990KGS is roughly 15kg each package
and
67 loose packages total 463 kg average 7kg each package
They were packed in PMC 5871. Not sure if it was put in the forward or aft.
That's a lot of Lithium Ion batteries in a PAX aircraft.
LINK TO 965 Packing Instructions
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/cargo/d...965-970-EN.pdf
133 PACKAGES total 1990KGS is roughly 15kg each package
and
67 loose packages total 463 kg average 7kg each package
They were packed in PMC 5871. Not sure if it was put in the forward or aft.
That's a lot of Lithium Ion batteries in a PAX aircraft.
LINK TO 965 Packing Instructions
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/cargo/d...965-970-EN.pdf
P.S. Found one article that calls these items walkie talkies.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Subterranea
Age: 70
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the preliminary report is based on the few know facts at this time, however, no mention was made of the amount of fuel on board when departing from KUL.
A quantity of 49.100 kg. / 108.000 lb. was apparently released by MAS to the press a while ago (March 21) yet no mention of these figures in this report (dated April 9).
A quantity of 49.100 kg. / 108.000 lb. was apparently released by MAS to the press a while ago (March 21) yet no mention of these figures in this report (dated April 9).
Last edited by Green-dot; 1st May 2014 at 19:59.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bangladesh can dispatch whatever they want (their whole Navy too) - they have no technical prowess to check what's resting on the bottom at that depth. But they will check if anything floats ...
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Texas
Age: 62
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absence of "Consols" Items Noted
@hamster3null...
Exactly! "The detailed item breakdown should be in a separate manifest which is not part of the link."
Besides the "lithium batteries" being cargo, which was mentioned early on, none of these so-called consolodations tell us anything. Freight forwarders can shove anything in there
!
In the Malaysian's Official Report, note well the absence of the breakdown of item/contents in the "consol" shipping containers.
Exactly! "The detailed item breakdown should be in a separate manifest which is not part of the link."
Besides the "lithium batteries" being cargo, which was mentioned early on, none of these so-called consolodations tell us anything. Freight forwarders can shove anything in there
!In the Malaysian's Official Report, note well the absence of the breakdown of item/contents in the "consol" shipping containers.
But, he said, "It's more likely to be an inadvertent thing. But it's not the way to handle evidence." The recording also could have come from different sources, he added.
"You can assume that the recording while they're still on the ground came from the tower and then you could assume that the communication with air controllers was while they're in the air," he said.
"They may have just mishandled the cobbling of it together."
This doesn't necessarily prove anything about the investigation, he added.
"You can assume that the recording while they're still on the ground came from the tower and then you could assume that the communication with air controllers was while they're in the air," he said.
"They may have just mishandled the cobbling of it together."
This doesn't necessarily prove anything about the investigation, he added.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Media Reports
Surely I'm not the only one that hasn't tried to check the sources of the "official" reports being propagated by the media, and by others in this thread.
Can anyone point me to a Malaysian government website, e.g. MOT/DCA that has them?
Can anyone point me to a Malaysian government website, e.g. MOT/DCA that has them?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: australia
Age: 81
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Rampstriker
I think you will find that although the public name is Malaysia Airlines it is really Malaysian Airline System as you will see if you look at the copyright notice on the Malaysia airlines homepage English | Malaysia Airlines
I think you will find that although the public name is Malaysia Airlines it is really Malaysian Airline System as you will see if you look at the copyright notice on the Malaysia airlines homepage English | Malaysia Airlines
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 77
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The charts released recently all seem to show MH370 on a curving track towards WA. I am willing to believe that this is perhaps an anomaly caused by the type of chart used but if the projected tracks are accurate it blows the "find a quiet place to crash" theory right out of the window.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: sedna
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sky 9 :
you are right. according to packing instructions 965 section II,, only 35 kgs of lithium ion allowed for "CARGO ONLY A/C" but only 5kgs allowed for "PAX A/C"...
i am sure the capt of Mh370 will suspect something when he saw 2400++kgs of lithium ion in his cargo..
very suspicious...
you are right. according to packing instructions 965 section II,, only 35 kgs of lithium ion allowed for "CARGO ONLY A/C" but only 5kgs allowed for "PAX A/C"...
i am sure the capt of Mh370 will suspect something when he saw 2400++kgs of lithium ion in his cargo..
very suspicious...
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 77
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blake777
Yes, if the radar echoes seen heading West were actually MH370 we have to consider that there was someone in control of the aircraft at that time. After that we can imagine that if someone was deliberately flying the aircraft until it ran out of fuel, with the idea that the aircraft would never be found, they would take a more westerly heading than the published tracks. However, if the pilots were incapacitated the aircraft could have flown on the autopilot towards WA. I was a 400 driver but, unless the 777 system is different, heading select is the only AP mode that I can think of that would work without pilot intervention, I do not know if this fits in with the tracks.
Basically, if I wanted to crash an aircraft without it being found I would crash it into an uninhabited island jungle rather than the sea. That way it would be hidden by the jungle and terrain rather than having bits floating all over the place.
Yes, if the radar echoes seen heading West were actually MH370 we have to consider that there was someone in control of the aircraft at that time. After that we can imagine that if someone was deliberately flying the aircraft until it ran out of fuel, with the idea that the aircraft would never be found, they would take a more westerly heading than the published tracks. However, if the pilots were incapacitated the aircraft could have flown on the autopilot towards WA. I was a 400 driver but, unless the 777 system is different, heading select is the only AP mode that I can think of that would work without pilot intervention, I do not know if this fits in with the tracks.
Basically, if I wanted to crash an aircraft without it being found I would crash it into an uninhabited island jungle rather than the sea. That way it would be hidden by the jungle and terrain rather than having bits floating all over the place.