Melbourne Airport: 737 cargo hold fire poss due to Lithium-ion battery
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Kentucky
Age: 77
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sentiment, Convenience and Safety
Luck and lack of negative experience is no proof of safety.
Talk to a chemist about the energy density equivalent between a
LI-on battery and an explosive device.
Next, the explosive device is designed to work right once.
The owners of PC's etc with portable battery power now expect the same energy density to be how safe for how long and how many operation cycles?
Li-on.. and other higher energy density technologies... more energy density is never safer. All of the chance factors remain the same once you close the package at the factory.
Talk to a chemist about the energy density equivalent between a
LI-on battery and an explosive device.
Next, the explosive device is designed to work right once.
The owners of PC's etc with portable battery power now expect the same energy density to be how safe for how long and how many operation cycles?
Li-on.. and other higher energy density technologies... more energy density is never safer. All of the chance factors remain the same once you close the package at the factory.
Airline safety is built on having more than one layer of defence to prevent high consequence events occurring.
If the flying pilot forgets to put the gear down, the pilot monitoring is there as a back up, if they both forget, the GPWS calls " too low gear" .
There are literally thousands of examples of this 'multi-layered defence' approach to aviation safety, the ATSB investigators are experts in this grand ethos of safety management. It is a good one, it works.
So what is wrong with the one and only safety action detailed in this report?
From the main body of the report;
The one and only 'Safety Action';
They may as well have added;
If the 'Safety Action ' above had been implemented three months prior to this incident it would have had no effect of the outcome because the passenger simply lied. Passengers will do this, it is human nature to favour a short term gain over the remote risk of a larger long term loss. It is Human Factors 101 and ATSB understand the inadequacy in expecting otherwise.
Whether or not there are large numbers of lithium batteries in the hold of a commercial airliner relies on
A) The potentially tired, undertrained, under resourced, minimum wage earning, shift worker remembering to ask the pax if there are batteries in the checked luggage, and
B) the passenger speaking the same language as the check in staff, and
C) the passenger telling the truth.
The above is fine for one layer of defence, but there needs to be a robust second layer.
We will lose more aircraft to battery fires and then stronger systems will be implemented.
If the flying pilot forgets to put the gear down, the pilot monitoring is there as a back up, if they both forget, the GPWS calls " too low gear" .
There are literally thousands of examples of this 'multi-layered defence' approach to aviation safety, the ATSB investigators are experts in this grand ethos of safety management. It is a good one, it works.
So what is wrong with the one and only safety action detailed in this report?
From the main body of the report;
The passenger stated during check-in that there were no batteries in the checked bags,
The passenger who had checked in the case was located and was asked whether any batteries were in it, to which the passenger responded there were none.
Safety Action As a result of this occurrence, Fiji Airways has issued an Airport Operations Standing Order: Lithium Metal & Lithium Ion Cells Batteries advising check-in staff to ask every passenger whether their baggage contains lithium batteries and to check batteries are carried in accordance with regulations. Any passenger carrying undeclared lithium batteries that are discovered prior to departure will be offloaded and refused carriage.
Any passenger carrying undeclared lithium batteries that are discovered subsequent to departure will most likely be burnt to death and therefore not likely to require further carriage.
Whether or not there are large numbers of lithium batteries in the hold of a commercial airliner relies on
A) The potentially tired, undertrained, under resourced, minimum wage earning, shift worker remembering to ask the pax if there are batteries in the checked luggage, and
B) the passenger speaking the same language as the check in staff, and
C) the passenger telling the truth.
The above is fine for one layer of defence, but there needs to be a robust second layer.
We will lose more aircraft to battery fires and then stronger systems will be implemented.
I would have thought with checked bag screening bags that have batteries in them would be reasonably easy to identify.
We pull laptops out and screen them separately as hand luggage because the batteries and hard drives are too dense to get a decent image on the scanners, surely a bunch of rectangular black objects on the X-ray would be easy to see?
I have never seen the images produced by the checked bag screening machines, so perhaps I am over stretching on the capability of the devices.
We pull laptops out and screen them separately as hand luggage because the batteries and hard drives are too dense to get a decent image on the scanners, surely a bunch of rectangular black objects on the X-ray would be easy to see?
I have never seen the images produced by the checked bag screening machines, so perhaps I am over stretching on the capability of the devices.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 74
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
violation means punishment
he lied
he should have known the rules and would be hard put to say otherwise
he continued to lie
it was not a small breach
he knowingly chose to put everyone at risk through reckless behaviour
send the pr_ck to gaol and make sure everyone hears about it - you violate, you pay!
he should have known the rules and would be hard put to say otherwise
he continued to lie
it was not a small breach
he knowingly chose to put everyone at risk through reckless behaviour
send the pr_ck to gaol and make sure everyone hears about it - you violate, you pay!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tropical Australia
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might be difficult to prosecute the passenger for such a breach when all that happened at check in was a question and answer session where the passenger simply lied. What can the check in person do about it?
CASA might be the regulator that makes the rules but the airline is the one who has to try to enforce the rules. At present, passengers only need to lie and then plead ignorance to get away with any breach that is eventually detected.
Perhaps getting passengers to sign a declaration that they understand the dangerous goods questions that SHOULD be asked at check in, and then declare that they are not carrying Lithium batteries in their luggage, might make them think twice about trying to get away with it?
At least with a signed declaration, the airlines and insurance companies might have a better chance of suing for damages? CASA would also have a leg to stand on when it comes to penalising the idiots. Taking a few idiots to court and getting publicity about successful outcomes might help get the message across?
CASA might be the regulator that makes the rules but the airline is the one who has to try to enforce the rules. At present, passengers only need to lie and then plead ignorance to get away with any breach that is eventually detected.
Perhaps getting passengers to sign a declaration that they understand the dangerous goods questions that SHOULD be asked at check in, and then declare that they are not carrying Lithium batteries in their luggage, might make them think twice about trying to get away with it?
At least with a signed declaration, the airlines and insurance companies might have a better chance of suing for damages? CASA would also have a leg to stand on when it comes to penalising the idiots. Taking a few idiots to court and getting publicity about successful outcomes might help get the message across?
That would be inline with Australia Post regulations (for example). When you express post something you must sign the declaration on the package and provide photo ID which is recorded.
But then again airlines don't want any human interaction with passengers checking in: not even an ID check let alone signing a DG declaration.
I saw an ad today for a line of garden equipment with a 40v, 4 amp/hour lithium ion battery pack. That's the kind of thing that we can look forward to unwittingly carrying, complete with exposed terminals.
Earlier this year I purchased two brick sized lithium polymer batteries which arrived in an overnight bag from Melbourne, no declaration, no insulation on the terminals, unpadded. When I asked the seller he said he shipped ten a day that way. Well, he doesn't anymore.
But then again airlines don't want any human interaction with passengers checking in: not even an ID check let alone signing a DG declaration.
I saw an ad today for a line of garden equipment with a 40v, 4 amp/hour lithium ion battery pack. That's the kind of thing that we can look forward to unwittingly carrying, complete with exposed terminals.
Earlier this year I purchased two brick sized lithium polymer batteries which arrived in an overnight bag from Melbourne, no declaration, no insulation on the terminals, unpadded. When I asked the seller he said he shipped ten a day that way. Well, he doesn't anymore.
Even if a jet went down locally and was big news some passengers would still lie about it because it makes their day a fraction easier.
I think any gains in safety are only going to be made if we assume that the odd passenger will lie or forget and we have scanning to pick up those instances.
I think any gains in safety are only going to be made if we assume that the odd passenger will lie or forget and we have scanning to pick up those instances.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eagles Nest
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there any difference in relation to legally defending something than was a known DG ie on NOTOC and something not known to airline ie not on NOTOC . Maybe explains why some companies removing these batteries from Notoc's
Seriously the shipping of LiIon and LiPo batteries has to be one of the biggest threats to aviation in Australia.
How many used phones/computers/iPods/GoPros and spare/replacement batteries are being sent on almost every flight?
I've always wondered how someone who isn't dangerous goods qualified can sign a dangerous goods declaration on a satchel.
As mentioned previously, youtube LiPo explosions if in doubt.
FFS there are ebay AU listings with LITHIUM and EXPRESS POST in the title.....
How many used phones/computers/iPods/GoPros and spare/replacement batteries are being sent on almost every flight?
I've always wondered how someone who isn't dangerous goods qualified can sign a dangerous goods declaration on a satchel.
As mentioned previously, youtube LiPo explosions if in doubt.
FFS there are ebay AU listings with LITHIUM and EXPRESS POST in the title.....
