LITHIUM FIRE DISASTERS : TIME TO BAN !

[douglas744]

Dear Collegues,

I don't usually post on this forum .
I am an end of career ' flying Dog ' with too numerous flight hours to even talk about it .
But today,enough is enough .
We need to get our brains together and start a movement to petition the FAA,DGAC,CAA,ICAO and every regulator with 2 cents in their brains .
IT IS HIGH TIME to BAN most CHEMICAL BATTERIES on aircraft , be it Cargo or
Passenger flights until someone comes up with a safe method of transportation.

Here is my Case :

UPS DC8 PHL FEB 2006
UPS B744 DUBAI SEP 2010
ASIANA B744 JEJU JUL 2011
EMIRATES B777 Urumqi JUL 2012...

Here is what I predict is coming soon 100% guaranteed :

ANYAIRLINE ( NAME YOUR FLIGHT HERE MAYBE ) ANYTIME SOON, ANYWHERE ( Why not over a major city ) and MANY PEOPLE KILLED including on the ground .


I personally am getting very nervous because I fly TONS of those dirty batteries . Yes, they have been moved to the forward lower compartment right
near the E&E compartment ( "the Brain " of any aircraft )to delay the onset of a loss of flight controls .
Will this prevent an air disaster ?
Was this procedure tested ?
The answers for the above is NO !
There is of course a huge economical impact if batteries are banned from flight.
So, first ,regulators have to determine from what point we have to start and I mean by this with real TESTING !
A cell phone battery that can be reached is probably less threat than a laptop stuck in the cargo hold .
Some kind of fire protection device should be engineered to contain a laptop fire in the cabin but as far as cargo is concerned,an immediate ban should be in effect .

For all those checklists recommendations like raising the cabin altitude ,
we don't get relief of course as those vicious batteries burn in all kinds of atmospheres.

Personally, I have decided ,in the event of such fire ( when I know I carry those batteries ) to initiate an emergency descent to 1500 feet ,even over ocean,and prepare to force land or ditch when I suspect I am losing flight controls ( which is what happened to 2 B744's from UPS and ASIANA ).
I have made this choice out of despair of course but what else can be done ?
A controlled forced landing or ditching is better than saying a last prayer with no flight controls at 25,000 feet !

I'd like to hear your arguments on this issue .

In conclusion , i'd like to get this forum to be of real use .
Le't's see how we could get together here and put real pressure on the regulators to come up with a real solution before the next disaster strikes.

Thank you for your ideas .

[Petrolhead]

In the RAF you had to show your batteries were isolated and the terminals covered - what do security require now? "Turn it on, Prove it works"

[Loose rivets]

I couldn't agree more. Having gone through 1950s C&G in things electrical, I always rubber band a cover over my laptop batteries...and have them near me.

This is something I posted in 2004 or thereabouts. It was made a sticky.


http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/145536-torch-batteries-safety-warning.html#post1529326

[autoflight]

douglas744,

I have waited a long time to see something like this on pprune! First issue re batteries is long overdue. I cannot believe nothing appears to have been done.

Second issue re procedure was my general personal policy for uncontrollable cabin smoke or fire in my life before retirement. It is so obvious that loss of control at 25,000 ft due smoke / fire does not carry much chance but low altitude flight in ditching or forced landing configuration enables increased chance for survival.

I know that the fly-by-numbers folks will cling to the 25,000 ft in spite of other more logical solutions. Some will mention it is a one way trip to a ditching or crash landing due increased fuel consumption at low altitude with that configuration. Your ditching config can be adjusted if you reach land and perhaps some reasonable crash landing area, a crappy strip acceptable under the dire circumstances or perhaps even an airfield where a safe landing can be made. On balance, all of the above are better than death at 25,000 ft. If the smoke/fire should ultimately become controllable, the height and configuration could be adjusted to reflect the new circumstances.

I accept that in some cases so far there would not be time to take the actions that d744 and I would follow, but we at least have an improved chance if we try.

I would like to see some very serious discussion about this. Those who are in a position to influence SOP for such matters are encouraged to do so instead of accepting current procedures.

[custardpsc]

already banned on Qatar Airways as cargo fyi

[Burr Styers]

Hi D744,

you say ban most chemical batteries, which ones would you allow ? Hot topic round here (SE Asia, and no pun intended). Fortunately our AOC forbids the carriage of D Goods, but that doesn't prevent any amount of cargo operators approaching us, with pallets loads of IATA approved lithium batteries, all perfectly legitimate according to them. That may well be true, but you ain't putting them in our pax planes ok ! "Yeh but others carriers do, why don't you" ? "Coz its the airline policy, and coz I said so, so please go away".

The months pass, and then up they pop, another country, another request, same conversation, and any amount of persuasive language/tactics - Nice try, but no cigar.

It is a problem no doubt, and as I am discovering in the world of cargo and their agents, it is rather murkier than I was expecting.

There is no doubt though that Lithium batteries (however they are constituted) are here for the forseeable future, and all freight/cargo service providers via land/sea/air need to sort this one out. If you ban them altogether from air freight, then some companies are going to lose a chunk of revenue, that they may well have fought hard to secure in the 1st place. You can carry many more tons of these things by sea than you can by air, wouldn't fancy being the skipper of container ship watching several tons of lithium batteries starting to melt the hull below the waterline, knowing that water as a medium will have little effect in extinguishing them !!

I don't have an answer, but support the motion that aviation needs protecting to a much greater degree than it currently is.

BS

[DGR]

Let's put a few facts back into this discussion. First of all there is no such thing as "IATA approved" lithium batteries. Lithium batteries are required to meet the design and test criteria set out in the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria. Second there is no evidence that lithium batteries that have passed the applicable UN tests and that have been prepared in accordance with the applicable provisions of the IATA DGR (or ICAO Technical Instructions) have been involved in any of the fires.

What does show up is that almost without exception the fires and other incidents involving lithium batteries have been where the shipped failed to comply with the relevant dangerous goods regulations.