Lithium batteries now safely stored AFT

[Oval3Holer]

Whew! So happy that, due to the proximity of critical aircraft systems adjacent to the forward cargo hold, lithium batteries will be loaded in the aft cargo hold, whenever possible.

At least I'll be able to read my instruments and make a MAYDAY call as the tail burns off!

[kenfoggo]

Very worrying !!!!

If Management acknowledge that there is such a threat to carrying Lithium Ion batteries that they need to be relocated, then surely they are too big a threat to be carried ANYWHERE on a passenger aircraft???

[Frogman1484]

In case of an accident how is an airline going to avoid a negligent claim from the victims families.

There was an article this week on the MH17, where the lawyers were asking the same question about flying over an known conflict zone.

Their argument was that MH will not be able to prove that they were not negligent, even if eurocontrol said it was safe. They say that MH knew that there was a conflict in Ukraine and therefore they were negligent in flying into the airspace.

I think the same argument can be had on the carriage of Lithium batteries on board.

What do you guys think?:confused:

[Sqwak7700]

whenever possible (my emphasis)

This NTC is useless. If you are carrying nothing but batteries, they can still jam-pack the whole airplane with them.

If a loader feels like putting them anywhere, his only excuse is that it is not possible to relocate them today due to (insert your own excuse here).

Like many of Cathay's initiatives, this NTC does absolutely nothing. It is business as usual.

[cxorcist]

Rod,

Yes, the aircraft is insured and the crew are entirely expendable. The company can cover the cost of three lost crew members and their death benefits in less than one days worth of ELI/ELM carriage.

The passenger operation is something altogether different. One hull loss and CX is no safer than any other Asian carrier by reputation.

[SMOC]

Total insurance for a a -8 freighter is US$550k split up as follows Crew $365k, property $185k. The premium per year $2000. Plus tax.

As you can see CX is confident they aren't going to lose a jet.

[A3301FD]

Hit the nail on the head:

"Whenever possible" - meaning it won't really be done.

[Fl00]

I believe this is where Front end crew should exercise their authority to insure that it is loaded in the back. It will only take one delay at each station to off load and reshuffle the cargo to insure compliance with the NTC in future. To have a safety issue( as flimsy as this one may be) negated by ramp side staff because of the term "whenever possible" would be sad to see.

[AsiaMiles]

Did any of you stop and breath for a moment before writing.

Ever thought "Whenever possible" refers to the loading of electric wheelchairs and other mobility aids which may need to be loaded in another position.

IATA guidelines do not require crew to be informed ELI/ELM are loaded. The IATA guidelines apply to RLI/RLM. The only airline in the world that informs crew with a NOTOC is the one you are saying is conspiring against you.

[Lowkoon]

Bring it into line with other carriers. All dangerous goods in the aft, No exception. If you cant get it in trim, it doesn't fly.

Safety first? Another clear case of greed first.

[Una Due Tfc]

We know for certain of two 744fs brought down by Lithium battery fires. There was a close call with a pax tripler in China a couple of years ago on initial climb out. Eventually they will be banned from pax aircraft at least......after it's been proven they brought one down. Just pray it isn't your flight that makes them change things....

[Runway101]

How can passengers ensure they are not getting on a flight with lithium batteries? Would that change anything?

[Oasis]

If it's in the front, I will ask the loader if it is possible to put it in the aft.
If he says yes to that, I wil make him do it.

It is 'whenever possible', not 'whenever practicable'.

[oriental flyer]

Okay before we all go off the deep end over this , in my humble opinion lithium batteries shouldn't be carried as freight in aircraft

But if there is a total ban then no cell phones , no iPads , no other equipment with lithium batteries in the aircraft, Not going to happen !
So do we ban all batteries in equipment as freight ?
To me this is no worse than the potential hazard in the passenger cabin from cell phones iPads etc

What worries me even more was the recent case of a passenger caught with over 100 lithium batteries in his suitcase, none of them were packed correctly terminals could touch terminals and potentially cause a fire . At least when it's packaged for air freight, one would hope that they were packaged correctly in accordance with recommended procedures . If the passengers bag caught fire in a hold the result would be the same .
Personally I would prefer batteries in equipment as a freight consignment , to some arbitrary passenger haphazardly throwing numerous charged lithium batteries into his suitcase, with no appreciation of the risks involved , just look at how well most cell phones and iPads are packed plus they are never fully charged which significantly reduces the risk factor .

[Flying Clog]

Do I smell a management mole in the house?

Yes. Yes indeed I do.

[oriental flyer]

flying clog if you think i'm management you are very much mistaken ,
The point that I was trying to get across is, that if we have to carry lithium batteries, I would rather carry batteries contained in equipment or correctly packaged batteries,in preference to batteries that some passenger carelessly throws into his suitcase
The potential for a battery fire is much higher in the latter case but the results would be about the same devastation !

[Flying Clog]

I'd rather not carry any of it thanks. We're one of the few idiots that do. :{

[SloppyJoe]

What about the idiots that carry flammable liquids in their suitcase whilst also full of batteries? How about a bag full of snakes?

I don't see the logic comparing a passenger braking the law and company policy.

[Buckshot]

Lucky it wasn't in the hold

A Qantas Airbus A380-800, registration VH-OQK performing flight QF-93 from Melbourne,VI (Australia) to Los Angeles,CA (USA), was enroute near Hawaii (USA) when the battery of a passenger's personal air purifier worn around the neck overheated and emitted smoke. The crew performed the relevant emergency actions and immersed the device in water which effectively dissipated the heat from the device and stopped the smoke. The passenger received superficial burns not needing medical assistance. The aircraft continued to Los Angeles for a safe landing.

The ATSB reported on Jul 28th 2014, that the investigation into the occurrence has been discontinued after the investigation established, that the battery, a non-rechargeable Lithium battery, was within the specifications permitted for carry on items and the crew reacted according to documented procedures, which proved effective. The ATSB reasoned: "Given that the ATSB’s records show that this type of battery failure is quite uncommon and both the crew’s actions and documented procedures were effective in managing the small risks involved, there would be limited safety benefit in investigating the matter further, and as such, the ATSB investigation has been discontinued."

Incident: Qantas A388 near Honolulu on May 21st 2014, personal electronic device's battery overheats (http://avherald.com/h?article=477fca60&opt=0)

[Moony123]

The only airline in the world that informs crew with a NOTOC is the one you are saying is conspiring against you.

Actually I can tell you that isn't true. There is at least one in the Mid East that does. They also don't allow ELM/RLM on Pax Aircraft, however they do carry ELM on Cargo Aircraft.

[Mr Angry from Purley]

We know for certain of two 744fs brought down by Lithium battery fires

One for sure, second one the report isn't out yet, plenty of talk that when it does it will be a "game changer"

[Not Hiding]

Naw, the report's not out yet...

http://araib.mltm.go.kr/LCMS/DWN.jsp?fold=/eaib0401/&fileName=Interim+Report%28Asiana+Airlines+Cargo+Flight+991+A ccident%29.pdf

Or, maybe this is the one that's not out...

http://www.gcaa.gov.ae/en/ePublication/admin/iradmin/Lists/Incidents%20Investigation%20Reports/Attachments/40/2010-2010%20-%20Final%20Report%20-%20Boeing%20747-44AF%20-%20N571UP%20-%20Report%2013%202010.pdf

[Javadreaming]

As of January 2015, lithium metal batteries are no longer allowed to be transported as cargo on passenger aircraft. Refer http://www.icao.int/safety/DangerousGoods/Working%20Group%20of%20the%20Whole%20on%20Lithium%20Batterie s%2020/DGPWGLB.2.WP.002.1.en.pdf

[BuzzBox]

That's an ICAO proposal that forbids the shipment of battery-only shipments of lithium metal batteries. It doesn't ban the shipment of lithium batteries shipped in or with equipment.

CX already has an embargo on lithium battery-only shipments.