Observed cabin fire on descent.

[ExSp33db1rd]

A friend recently flew from SFO to Denver, and whilst on the descent heard a loud bang from the seat row in front of him, followed by smoke and flames. The cabin crew doused the fire with jugs of water from the galley, and my friend considers the cause of the fire may have been a Lithium battery, but he has no confirmation of this, and he also queries why no fire extinguisher was used ?

Q.1 If the TSA allow a device to be carried on board that can accidentally cause a fire, what is to stop them allowing someone to deliberately use this technique ? Seems that toothpaste and nail clippers are forbidden, but potential incendiary devices are acceptable. I bet the pax. involved had to take his shoes off to board.

Q.2. My memory of emergency equipment carried in the cabin is now well past its Use By date, but I'm of the opinion that the cabin crew had access to fire extinguishers carried near to the galleys, albeit maybe maybe not obvious to the pax., in which case the lack of use in this incident is indeed puzzling.

I don't know the airline involved, nor the exact date, but it was in the past 10 days.

Google hasn't helped.

[vapilot2004]

While Halon can chemically suppress the burning of combustible materials, in a Lion-battery fire, most of the heat is internally generated and water (or soda) is more effective at sinking the heat produced within the battery.

Keeping Lithium-ion (Lion) batteries from the cabin would be impractical as most electronic devices use them including phones, laptops and portable DVD players.

[nicolai]

The recommended way of dealing with lithium battery fires is cooling with water in or on a non-flammable surface, not least because the typical failure mode is that cells are made into a battery pack and then one fails (due to damage, poor construction, etc) and overheats, heating the others which then also fail, etc. Cooling the pack slows the release of energy from the failed cell and prevents the others from also overheating and failing, minimising energy release.

Using a Halon(-type) extinguisher will cool the pack exterior briefly, but not remove much energy overall, nor slow the chemical reactions in the pack for long. So it would seem appropriate if the battery pack has set something else on fire, but not for a pack on its own where plenty of water will be more effective.

[PDR1]

my friend considers the cause of the fire may have been a Lithium battery


On what basis? Did your friend see a lithium battery? does your friend know what a lithium battery looks like? Or was it just some kind of divine inspiration, or simply the well known piece of fundamental physics:

"Fire + Aeroplane = Lithium Battery + lawsuit"?


Q.1 If the TSA allow a device to be carried on board that can accidentally cause a fire, what is to stop them allowing someone to deliberately use this technique ? Seems that toothpaste and nail clippers are forbidden, but potential incendiary devices are acceptable. I bet the pax. involved had to take his shoes off to board.


Interesting. Have you considered what the likely public response would be to a blanket ban on phones, tablets, laptops, vaping machines, cameras, chordless shavers, women's personal pleasure devices, MP3 players etc etc etc on aeroplanes, either in the hold or in the cabin?

Does the phrase "mind-bogglingly disproportionate over-reaction" mean anything to you?

[core_dump]

I would encourage your friend to learn the difference between lithium and lithium ion at his earliest convenience. Preferably before he is allowed near a charger. Thanks.

[Airbubba]

I would encourage your friend to learn the difference between lithium and lithium ion at his earliest convenience.

So please tell us, at your earliest convenience, what is the difference? :confused:

Both terms are used somewhat interchangeably in media coverage, e.g.:

Lithium Batteries Could Spark ‘Catastrophic’ Plane Fires, FAA Warns - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/lithium-batteries-spark-catastrophic-plane-fires-faa-warns/story?id=36816040)

And the feds collectively refer to the various primary and secondary chemistries as 'lithium batteries' in the title of this recent fire safety presentation:

https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/systems/May16Meeting/Maloney-0516-Thermalrunaway.pdf

[compressor stall]

Normal fires need oxygen in the surrounding environment. The use of Halon or other suppressants in extinguishers suffocates the fire, removing the oxygen.

Lithium fires generate their own oxygen. Covering them with a halon or other suppressant doesn't work as it's not isolating the fire from the oxygen.

The only way to extinguish the fire is to reduce the temperature below that which the lithium is generating its own oxygen. Obviously water or other similar liquids is the best or that. Ice is NOT recommended.

We have these on board. http://www.aircareinternational.com/product/aircare-firesock-battery-risk-management-system/

Haven't had to use it yet. Touch wood.

As for the danger, I'd rather have the phone burning in the cabin, than in the hold.

[rjtjrt]

As for the danger, I'd rather have the phone burning in the cabin, than in the hold.

That is the real point. Knee jerk reaction of banning in cabin would increase the danger, not reduce it.

[Capot]

On a point of order;

It is a common misconception that Halon, like CO2, "removes oxygen from the air."

According to the Halon Alternative Research Corporation (www.harc.org): "Three things must come together at the same time to start a fire. The first ingredient is fuel (anything that can burn), the second is oxygen and the last is an ignition source. Traditionally, to stop a fire you need to remove one side of the triangle-the ignition, the fuel or the oxygen. Halon adds a fourth dimension to fire fighting-breaking the chain reaction. It stops the fuel, the ignition and the oxygen from working together by chemically reacting with them."

Credit to H3R Cleanagents (http://www.h3rcleanagents.com/support_faq_2.htm) who put it much better than I could.

[Wageslave]

It is a common misconception that Halon, like CO2, "removes oxygen from the air."

If that is indeed a "common misconception" it reveals a staggering - utterly staggering level of pig-ignorance in the fundamental nature of fire that should shame every "Professional" pilot that ascribes to it.

Bah!

[OldLurker]

It is a common misconception that Halon, like CO2, "removes oxygen from the air."CO2 doesn't "remove oxygen from the air" either. CO2 from an extinguisher suppresses combustion by displacing air (and therefore oxygen) from the fire site, taking away one side of the triangle mentioned above.

[+TSRA]

utterly staggering level of pig-ignorance in the fundamental nature of fire that should shame every "Professional" pilot that ascribes to it.


I've spent enough time trying to correct the "halon removes oxygen" line of thinking when teaching ground schools to strongly agree with your sentiment.