ICAO rejects ban on lithium battery shipments
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO rejects ban on lithium battery shipments
(AP) — A U.N. aviation panel Wednesday rejected a ban on rechargeable battery shipments on passenger airliners despite evidence they can cause explosions and unstoppable, in-flight fires, aviation officials told The Associated Press.
The International Civil Aviation Organization panel on dangerous goods voted 10 to 7 against a ban, said officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak about the vote publicly. One official said Germany also voted against the ban, but that couldn't be confirmed. The panel's decision is a recommendation to ICAO's air navigation bureau. It would be unusual for the bureau not to follow the recommendation.
The United States, Russia, Brazil, China and Spain, as well as organizations representing airline pilots and aircraft manufacturers, voted in favor of the ban. The Netherlands, Canada, France, Australia, Italy, United Arab Emirates, South Korea, Japan and the United Kingdom, as well as the International Air Transport Association, a global airline trade group, voted against it.
The International Civil Aviation Organization panel on dangerous goods voted 10 to 7 against a ban, said officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak about the vote publicly. One official said Germany also voted against the ban, but that couldn't be confirmed. The panel's decision is a recommendation to ICAO's air navigation bureau. It would be unusual for the bureau not to follow the recommendation.
The United States, Russia, Brazil, China and Spain, as well as organizations representing airline pilots and aircraft manufacturers, voted in favor of the ban. The Netherlands, Canada, France, Australia, Italy, United Arab Emirates, South Korea, Japan and the United Kingdom, as well as the International Air Transport Association, a global airline trade group, voted against it.
Panel rejects ban on air shipments of fire-prone batteries - US News
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The title is a bit misleading. ICAO as such does not reject things, not do they " vote" It works by consensus in issuing standards and it is up to individual States to follow or file a difference.
This " vote" was inside a panel, like an advisory working group, and it is an unusual procedure. It is also something taken out of its context . If you read the Working paper and its conclusions , it gives a different outloook.
This " vote" was inside a panel, like an advisory working group, and it is an unusual procedure. It is also something taken out of its context . If you read the Working paper and its conclusions , it gives a different outloook.
Good to see cargo crew lives still don't matter...
A U.N. aviation panel Wednesday rejected a ban on rechargeable battery shipments on passenger airliners despite evidence they can cause explosions and unstoppable, in-flight fires
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trust me ATC watcher...this carries a lot of weight...airlines make good use money from DG shipments..."ICAO says its safe"....so carriage will continue..if a plane burns down (again) because of these shipments, I hope their families are aboard...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The title is a bit misleading. ICAO as such does not reject things, not do they " vote" It works by consensus in issuing standards and it is up to individual States to follow or file a difference.
This " vote" was inside a panel, like an advisory working group, and it is an unusual procedure. ...
This " vote" was inside a panel, like an advisory working group, and it is an unusual procedure. ...
Dangerous Goods Technical Instructions are different from other ICAO standards/recommendations because States are generally required to comply by Annex 18 or must file a variation:
ANNEX 18
2.2.1 Each Contracting State shall take the necessary measures to achieve compliance with the detailed provisions
contained in the Technical Instructions. Each Contracting State shall also take the necessary measures to achieve compliance
with any amendment to the Technical Instructions which may be published during the specified period of applicability of an
edition of the Technical Instructions.
2.2.1 Each Contracting State shall take the necessary measures to achieve compliance with the detailed provisions
contained in the Technical Instructions. Each Contracting State shall also take the necessary measures to achieve compliance
with any amendment to the Technical Instructions which may be published during the specified period of applicability of an
edition of the Technical Instructions.
49 CFR § 171.22 Authorization and conditions for the use of international standards and regulations.
(a) Authorized international standards and regulations. This subpart authorizes, with certain conditions and limitations, the offering for transportation and the transportation in commerce of hazardous materials in accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO Technical Instructions) ...
(a) Authorized international standards and regulations. This subpart authorizes, with certain conditions and limitations, the offering for transportation and the transportation in commerce of hazardous materials in accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO Technical Instructions) ...
From the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act:
SEC. 828. AIR TRANSPORTATION OF LITHIUM CELLS AND BATTERIES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Transportation, including a
designee of the Secretary, may not issue or enforce any regulation
or other requirement regarding the transportation by aircraft of lithium
metal cells or batteries or lithium ion cells or batteries, whether
transported separately or packed with or contained in equipment, if
the requirement is more stringent than the requirements of the
ICAO Technical Instructions.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Transportation, including a
designee of the Secretary, may not issue or enforce any regulation
or other requirement regarding the transportation by aircraft of lithium
metal cells or batteries or lithium ion cells or batteries, whether
transported separately or packed with or contained in equipment, if
the requirement is more stringent than the requirements of the
ICAO Technical Instructions.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Or-E-Gun, USA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very Difficult Question...
I sure do not know the correct answer. Take a look at the nations voting for and against the shipping ban, then consider who manufactures the stuff and who consumes a lot of it. I think I'd favor sea shipping, but I still need more detail. A very difficult question and yes, there is a Lot Of Money at stake.
It may be a bit too easy to ban these items from PAX flights, but what about cargo-only flights? Since when are two - four lives less important - even disposable - than a few hundred fare-paid pax? IMO, the Freight Dogs also have value and the numbers simply do not mater.
Again, why not restrict this cargo class to ocean freight. With proper scheduling, where is the rush that demands Air Freight? what am I missing?
It may be a bit too easy to ban these items from PAX flights, but what about cargo-only flights? Since when are two - four lives less important - even disposable - than a few hundred fare-paid pax? IMO, the Freight Dogs also have value and the numbers simply do not mater.
Again, why not restrict this cargo class to ocean freight. With proper scheduling, where is the rush that demands Air Freight? what am I missing?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: <60 minutes
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lithium in pax holds.
To my knowledge the data produced so far makes it clear that HALON is ineffective in suppressing lithium type hold fires.
The MEL for my pax aircraft states that the hold must be EMPTY if the extinguishing system is inoperative.
My conclusion then is that ineffective and inoperative amount to the same thing as far as the end result (a fire successfully suppressed) is concerned so carriage of this stuff, should be carefully considered by the flight crew.
Thats my view, and I agree that commercial versus safety risk decisions by the panel above are not being made robustly. Shame.
Does this panel have an accountable manager?
The MEL for my pax aircraft states that the hold must be EMPTY if the extinguishing system is inoperative.
My conclusion then is that ineffective and inoperative amount to the same thing as far as the end result (a fire successfully suppressed) is concerned so carriage of this stuff, should be carefully considered by the flight crew.
Thats my view, and I agree that commercial versus safety risk decisions by the panel above are not being made robustly. Shame.
Does this panel have an accountable manager?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Panel reports to the Air Navigation Commission, which reviews all panel decisions. After that, the ICAO Council must then ratify any decision by majority vote.
Air shipments of non-rechargeable Lithium Metal batteries are already banned on board passenger aircraft. Many airlines and cargo operators have also imposed their own bans or restrictions on other types of Lithium batteries.
Air shipments of non-rechargeable Lithium Metal batteries are already banned on board passenger aircraft. Many airlines and cargo operators have also imposed their own bans or restrictions on other types of Lithium batteries.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To my knowledge the data produced so far makes it clear that HALON is ineffective in suppressing lithium type hold fires.
The MEL for my pax aircraft states that the hold must be EMPTY if the extinguishing system is inoperative.
My conclusion then is that ineffective and inoperative amount to the same thing as far as the end result (a fire successfully suppressed) is concerned so carriage of this stuff, should be carefully considered by the flight crew.
Thats my view, and I agree that commercial versus safety risk decisions by the panel above are not being made robustly. Shame.
Does this panel have an accountable manager?
The MEL for my pax aircraft states that the hold must be EMPTY if the extinguishing system is inoperative.
My conclusion then is that ineffective and inoperative amount to the same thing as far as the end result (a fire successfully suppressed) is concerned so carriage of this stuff, should be carefully considered by the flight crew.
Thats my view, and I agree that commercial versus safety risk decisions by the panel above are not being made robustly. Shame.
Does this panel have an accountable manager?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Espaņa
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO rejects ban on lithium battery shipments
Ian W,
I am afraid so. Companies will always go for the commercial option afforded to them by regulation, even if they say "safety is our first priority".
To be fair so many products require lithium batteries, the airlines may see it as a hard call - I don't.
I am afraid so. Companies will always go for the commercial option afforded to them by regulation, even if they say "safety is our first priority".
To be fair so many products require lithium batteries, the airlines may see it as a hard call - I don't.
To me as self loading freight it does all seem rather odd.
The whole point of regulations such as the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air is to control circumstances not under the full control of, in this case, the pilots and airline, and also the crew and customers on passenger flights.
Regulations get drawn up in the light of worldwide experience of what can go wrong. In the case of rechargable lithiums consensus appears to have been reached that they don't go bang often enough to justify an outright ban. So far there have been comparatively few problems. Billions of rechargable lithium batteries have been made, not very many social media pics.
This is where I start getting worried.
Battery technology is forever changing. Placing every single rechargable 'lithium' battery into a single category and pronouncing on whether they can be air freighted in the hold or not is too broad brushed. Furthermore, if a single manufacturer cocks up either in design or manufacture of just one single battery, the first time we'll hear about it is in the accident investigation report.
It's also a bit odd given that there have been cases where passenger-carried batteries have let go in flight. There is precedent for them failing...
So that's my concern. The ICAO consensus is founded upon everyone else's standards of quality control and testing and their adherence to them. So far as I'm aware the aviation industry has no control or visibility of those standards, yet safe aircraft operation carrying a cargo of batteries is dependent on them.
The regulations could require a thorough inspection of the paperwork (test results for the design and batch, manufacturer background check, etc). That would go quite a long way towards knowing whether a cargo is likely to be problematic. Anyone know whether such a paperwork regime is on the table? Afterall, an aircraft wouldn't be allowed to carry explosives unless an awful lot about the sender, recipient, manufacturer, etc. was known in advance (though of course that is a hypothetical situation, but not so far removed from carrying tens of kilos of highly fraught lithium...).
Otherwise it seems that literally anyone could place a cargo labelled "rechargable lithium batteries", and it would be accepted.
The whole point of regulations such as the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air is to control circumstances not under the full control of, in this case, the pilots and airline, and also the crew and customers on passenger flights.
Regulations get drawn up in the light of worldwide experience of what can go wrong. In the case of rechargable lithiums consensus appears to have been reached that they don't go bang often enough to justify an outright ban. So far there have been comparatively few problems. Billions of rechargable lithium batteries have been made, not very many social media pics.
This is where I start getting worried.
Battery technology is forever changing. Placing every single rechargable 'lithium' battery into a single category and pronouncing on whether they can be air freighted in the hold or not is too broad brushed. Furthermore, if a single manufacturer cocks up either in design or manufacture of just one single battery, the first time we'll hear about it is in the accident investigation report.
It's also a bit odd given that there have been cases where passenger-carried batteries have let go in flight. There is precedent for them failing...
So that's my concern. The ICAO consensus is founded upon everyone else's standards of quality control and testing and their adherence to them. So far as I'm aware the aviation industry has no control or visibility of those standards, yet safe aircraft operation carrying a cargo of batteries is dependent on them.
The regulations could require a thorough inspection of the paperwork (test results for the design and batch, manufacturer background check, etc). That would go quite a long way towards knowing whether a cargo is likely to be problematic. Anyone know whether such a paperwork regime is on the table? Afterall, an aircraft wouldn't be allowed to carry explosives unless an awful lot about the sender, recipient, manufacturer, etc. was known in advance (though of course that is a hypothetical situation, but not so far removed from carrying tens of kilos of highly fraught lithium...).
Otherwise it seems that literally anyone could place a cargo labelled "rechargable lithium batteries", and it would be accepted.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All lithium-based batteries are considered dangerous goods and require a trail of paperwork for shipment. One of the largest risks is from poorly-made counterfeit batteries, so many cargo and airline operators only accept shipments from pre-approved, bonafide companies.
From a fire-fighting perspective, the big problem is lithium in metallic form. Metallic lithium reacts violently with both water and halon, so they require special "Class D" extinguishers. They also self-ignite at relatively low temperatures. And, in an explosion, molten metal gets ejected everywhere, burning through compartments and starting additional fires.
The rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, on the other hand, use non-metallic lithium (lithium compounds) by definition. And since the lithium is combined with other materials, rechargeables only contain relatively small amounts of lithium. Up to 8 grams of "Equivalent Lithium Content" (ELC) is usually allowed by regulation.
Lithium-ion battery fires can be extinguished with water or halon -- up to some limits of course. So there are rules on how many batteries or cells may be packed together, the types of cargo containers which may house them, etc.
There's a large amount of energy in these batteries, especially when they are fully charged. Any short circuit will start a fire and cause a thermal runaway. Therefore, the new regulations will focus on limiting the % charge allowed on shipped batteries, probably in the 30%-40% region.
From a fire-fighting perspective, the big problem is lithium in metallic form. Metallic lithium reacts violently with both water and halon, so they require special "Class D" extinguishers. They also self-ignite at relatively low temperatures. And, in an explosion, molten metal gets ejected everywhere, burning through compartments and starting additional fires.
The rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, on the other hand, use non-metallic lithium (lithium compounds) by definition. And since the lithium is combined with other materials, rechargeables only contain relatively small amounts of lithium. Up to 8 grams of "Equivalent Lithium Content" (ELC) is usually allowed by regulation.
Lithium-ion battery fires can be extinguished with water or halon -- up to some limits of course. So there are rules on how many batteries or cells may be packed together, the types of cargo containers which may house them, etc.
There's a large amount of energy in these batteries, especially when they are fully charged. Any short circuit will start a fire and cause a thermal runaway. Therefore, the new regulations will focus on limiting the % charge allowed on shipped batteries, probably in the 30%-40% region.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: <60 minutes
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lithium-ion battery fires can be extinguished with water or halon
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, no, maybe...
Halon is effective in extinguishing a Lithium Ion battery fire. A typical use case is an undeclared lithium ion battery shorting, catching fire, then igniting everything else in the cargo hold container. Halon will extinguish this type of fire.
But, if there are many batteries or cells close together (such as in bulk shipments), the remaining heat from one cell due to thermal runaway will probably ignite adjacent cells, even if the flame has been extinguished. Halon is not effective in preventing this from happening.
But, along with halon, there are Fire Containment Covers and Fire Resistant Containers (FCC/FRC) demonstrating containment of a 1,500 cell Lithium Ion fire for a full 6 hours. Many operators are already using FCCs and FRCs on highest risk cargo.
Halon is effective in extinguishing a Lithium Ion battery fire. A typical use case is an undeclared lithium ion battery shorting, catching fire, then igniting everything else in the cargo hold container. Halon will extinguish this type of fire.
But, if there are many batteries or cells close together (such as in bulk shipments), the remaining heat from one cell due to thermal runaway will probably ignite adjacent cells, even if the flame has been extinguished. Halon is not effective in preventing this from happening.
But, along with halon, there are Fire Containment Covers and Fire Resistant Containers (FCC/FRC) demonstrating containment of a 1,500 cell Lithium Ion fire for a full 6 hours. Many operators are already using FCCs and FRCs on highest risk cargo.
