KL809 diversion/Li Battery thermal runaway
The manufacturing quality of these batteries is a major issue too. You can be carrying a pallet of thousands of the things and all it takes is one bad sucker in there to make the situation totally unwinable if you’re more than say 10 mins from getting wheels on ground.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is most Li battery problems arise when the battery is charging. Isn't the simple solution just to remove the power plugs from the PAX compartment? I know this will send a lot of PAX around the bend -- because how can they not work electronically while on the plane, but arrive with a charged battery, and when it is discharged, read some papers. It wasn't so awful during the 20th century.
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: London
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Failure of the battery can have different causes. Some are just faulty like in the Samsung phones and some laptops before them. Shorting the terminals, which is why the terminals are supposed to be protected. Mechanical damage is a pretty sure way to do it though.
I can't see any of the media reports that mention that fact. How do you know ?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps Trump's choice of ignoring the ICAO is simply contrarian, his logic being "if Obama wanted it, it must have been bad" - reality be damned.
And I thought that happily only in marriages. Silly me. However, does the FAA not also have a duty of care towards pax on US reg a/c? If they believe a presidential order, contrary to ICAO recommendations, is endangering US citizens does it not have a duty to expose and publish that? In fact does the president have the power to over-rule an FAA safety directive? How come it is trivia that gets leaked to the media, but some other important issues stay hidden?
And I thought that happily only in marriages. Silly me. However, does the FAA not also have a duty of care towards pax on US reg a/c? If they believe a presidential order, contrary to ICAO recommendations, is endangering US citizens does it not have a duty to expose and publish that? In fact does the president have the power to over-rule an FAA safety directive? How come it is trivia that gets leaked to the media, but some other important issues stay hidden?
My understanding is most Li battery problems arise when the battery is charging. Isn't the simple solution just to remove the power plugs from the PAX compartment? I know this will send a lot of PAX around the bend -- because how can they not work electronically while on the plane, but arrive with a charged battery, and when it is discharged, read some papers. It wasn't so awful during the 20th century.
"Many battery users are unaware that consumer-grade lithium-ion batteries cannot be charged below 0°C (32°F). Although the pack appears to be charging normally, plating of metallic lithium can occur on the anode during a sub-freezing charge. This is permanent and cannot be removed with cycling. Batteries with lithium plating are more vulnerable to failure if exposed to vibration or other stressful conditions."
Once this internal damage has occurred, the battery becomes highly volatile, and extremely susceptible to any mechanical shock or vibration. Just moving it can set off an uncontained fire / explosion. And this can happen ANY time after the incorrect charging has occurred.
Only half a speed-brake
td, it was fire suppression for the underfloor compartments that I had in mind.
The aircraft is almost beyond doubt operated i.a.w. 180 (or more!) rules, where cargo fire is an assessed, and acceptable hazard. Various clever and well-minding people, together with multiple regulators agree that fire going off in the cargo hold is severely survivable on this machine. If you can produce a workable scenario how to land inside 3 hours flying time after the eventuality, you're good to go.
Then, a story appears that an identical aircraft diverted due to a cellphone battery going ablaze in the middle of the PAX compartment. I do have high degrees of trust that
- LH KLM skipper knows how to evaluate the risk
- KLM OPS have all the resources and training to assist with taking the optimal decision (which is a safe one by definition)
- KLM CC are trained to the world's best standard how to handle small PED fires
- as pointed out before, there actually might have been several real tin buckets available to drown the device (that's the gist of the procedure)
That's where I cannot connect the dots. An approved, and well established 180 ETOPS operation - as opposed to a T7 diverting because of a small accumulator fire - AS REPORTED. Had it happened half-way over the Atlantic, surely they wouldn't had burned in the midair.
Should I said LROPS, yes.
Last edited by FlightDetent; 16th May 2018 at 01:51.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But isn't the position of FAA Administrator in the gift of the President ... ?
I do not know, but if they can separate church & state I would have thought it appropriate that one of the country's largest institutions with an eye on the safety of millions would also be separate from the state. The church is trying to save souls, the FAA is charged with saving bodies.
I do not know, but if they can separate church & state I would have thought it appropriate that one of the country's largest institutions with an eye on the safety of millions would also be separate from the state. The church is trying to save souls, the FAA is charged with saving bodies.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bulk shipments of Lion Batteries in Passenger Aircraft Cargo Holds - the US Political Story:
The ICAO rule was held up by Congress over an FAA budget bill fight going back to 2016. The Obama administration requested a fast track adoption soon after the ICAO recommendation, but Congress refused, mainly due to their rolling the ICAO safety requirement into a larger (Republican) funding bill seeking the privatization of ATC services, which ultimately failed.
That failure has led to a slowdown on Next Gen due to a lack of long term planning and funding guidance from Congress. The Republican controlled House passed several temporary funding authorizations for the FAA, the latest expiring October 2018, when Congress must act to provide long-term funding for the FAA.
Science trumped by politics and money. Lion battery equipment and manufacturers groups claim they can lower the odds of a battery-induced fire by shipping batteries that are charged to 30% or less - something rather difficult for a shipper or captain to confidently sign off on when thousands of individual batteries can be involved. In addition, that 30% claim was based on a short FAA study and has yet to be verified by a full round of independent testing and research.
How can Trump overrule ICAO and FAA safety recommendations? Our government is set up so Congress (or an executive order from the president) controls what the FAA can and cannot do. Shortly after inauguration, in March 2017, Trump issued his EO preventing the FAA from acting on this internationally adopted safety ruling. We have been in a holding pattern ever since, with bulk shipments of lithium ion batteries still carried below on passenger aircraft, thumbing our noses at the ICAO's safety recommendations.
The ICAO rule was held up by Congress over an FAA budget bill fight going back to 2016. The Obama administration requested a fast track adoption soon after the ICAO recommendation, but Congress refused, mainly due to their rolling the ICAO safety requirement into a larger (Republican) funding bill seeking the privatization of ATC services, which ultimately failed.
That failure has led to a slowdown on Next Gen due to a lack of long term planning and funding guidance from Congress. The Republican controlled House passed several temporary funding authorizations for the FAA, the latest expiring October 2018, when Congress must act to provide long-term funding for the FAA.
Science trumped by politics and money. Lion battery equipment and manufacturers groups claim they can lower the odds of a battery-induced fire by shipping batteries that are charged to 30% or less - something rather difficult for a shipper or captain to confidently sign off on when thousands of individual batteries can be involved. In addition, that 30% claim was based on a short FAA study and has yet to be verified by a full round of independent testing and research.
How can Trump overrule ICAO and FAA safety recommendations? Our government is set up so Congress (or an executive order from the president) controls what the FAA can and cannot do. Shortly after inauguration, in March 2017, Trump issued his EO preventing the FAA from acting on this internationally adopted safety ruling. We have been in a holding pattern ever since, with bulk shipments of lithium ion batteries still carried below on passenger aircraft, thumbing our noses at the ICAO's safety recommendations.
Paxing All Over The World
If pax are expecting to take their bags into the cabin and they are then placed in the hold, I'd say there is a much higher chance of devices being in stand-by, rather than shut off. However we know from long and bitter experience that nothing will change - until there are some tombstones.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vapilot2004: Many thanks for a succinct explanation; not completely understandable, but no doubt plausible to some. How does banning Li-on batteries being shipped in bulk on pax a/c cause a funding issue for the FAA? That is where I lost the gist of the argument. As someone suggested, was this a Republican Congress being childish with anything Obama proposed? Let's hope it never happens, but the fall out for the FAA & the White House/Congress will be vicious should there be an event. But either way I'm surprised the public is not aware that the government is playing fast & loose with their safety. Considering the public reaction to the road/rail shipping of nuclear waste, i.e. lots of NIMBYs, I suspect many would be perturbed to learn of it. I wonder why the FAA doesn't leak this fact to gain some leverage to do what it knows is right.
Is the bulk shipping of Li-on batteries on pax a/c limited to US domestic flights and US a/c or allowed on intercontinental ones? If ICAO recommendations have been adopted by e.g. all EU countries, and therefore implemented by all EU carriers but not US ones, then a EU pax could unwittingly board a US flight in the belief that the standards were the same or similar to their own national carrier. If a state believes a carrier is carrying hazardous freight being transported incorrectly, are they not empowered to ban it from their airspace?
It does seem an astonishing turn of events. There have been a few recent withdrawals/rejections by the USA of internationally agreed protocols and treaties. Is this just another? It has nothing to do with America First. And considering how many flights Congress members take per year, why do they want to put themselves at risk?
Is the bulk shipping of Li-on batteries on pax a/c limited to US domestic flights and US a/c or allowed on intercontinental ones? If ICAO recommendations have been adopted by e.g. all EU countries, and therefore implemented by all EU carriers but not US ones, then a EU pax could unwittingly board a US flight in the belief that the standards were the same or similar to their own national carrier. If a state believes a carrier is carrying hazardous freight being transported incorrectly, are they not empowered to ban it from their airspace?
It does seem an astonishing turn of events. There have been a few recent withdrawals/rejections by the USA of internationally agreed protocols and treaties. Is this just another? It has nothing to do with America First. And considering how many flights Congress members take per year, why do they want to put themselves at risk?
Paxing All Over The World
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Age: 34
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT 5;
The layout of US government and current politics make a mess of at all. For something like this, there are two ways a ban goes into place (or is blocked).
1) Executive action.
a) The FAA, acting under its general authority for aviation safety (either granted generally by the constitution or explicitly by Congress) implements a ban.
b) The president signs an Executive Order directing the FAA to implement a ban (alongside this there will usually be some argument about how/why Congress has already granted the authority for this action).
2) Legislative action. Specifically, Congress writes the ban into law and it is then enforced by the executive.
An argument (which I don't agree with, but is beside the point) that is popular among libertarians and small-government favoring Republicans is that #1 should be an infrequent exception to the norm (of #2). Of course, #2 has many other challenges because instead of a specialized agency (who understands what their dealing with) making rules quickly we need legislative leaders to agree to a vote and at least 268 politicians to vote for a rule.
Aside from the fact that all of this can be undone by the judiciary (assuming a plaintiff convinces the courts the rule or how it was enacted/implemented* is unconstitutional) *This part is what makes any executive action more "difficult" because the authority must show some basis for authority. 1a can be undone because someone at the FAA feels like it or if it is superseded by EO/Law. 1b can only be undone if the original EO expires or it is superseded. 2 should only be able to be undone by a change in the law, but there are numerous examples where the executive branch declines to enforce the law (the most recent being Trump's EO to effectively end the "individual mandate" for health insurance by instructing the IRS to not enforce the financial penalty).
Obama's administration was going the 1a route by referring to ICAO rules. Congress tried #2, but it got lumped in with ATC privatization, NextGen, et al.. It's a longer side-story here involving legislative rules I don't know, but with Republicans in charge and pushing for privatization they were incentivized to combine as much as possible. Form the most cynical view it's essentially holding safety hostage for the sake of passing their agenda (but this sort of crap is unfortunately common).
Where things really go off the rails is Trump. Regardless of my other opinions on the person, it's pretty clear he's broken a lot of norms/convention surrounding American politics and isn't concerned with "small details" that get caught up. An early EO designed to reduce red tape was essentially using 1b to override nearly all agencies' rules justified by 1a type reasons (and "freeze" them until they could be reviewed and passed into law). While the EO allowed for "urgent safety" exemptions the new crew at DOT/FAA declined to use it for the Li-ion ban (although I have seen no news on the fact and don't claim to know any specifics my guess is that DOT/FAA have been stuffed with just enough industry-insiders and former lobbyists than any call for reason was overridden).
Circling back to your point about how this would play out if it were forced into the national news I'm less confident. A similar example to all of this is the net neutrality battle that's been waging for years (replace FAA with FCC and add some extra twists-and-turns because the FCC is more complicated). Months ago the regulations were stripped and (despite public outcry) Congress is just barely getting to it (and there's no guarantee it could pass).
The layout of US government and current politics make a mess of at all. For something like this, there are two ways a ban goes into place (or is blocked).
1) Executive action.
a) The FAA, acting under its general authority for aviation safety (either granted generally by the constitution or explicitly by Congress) implements a ban.
b) The president signs an Executive Order directing the FAA to implement a ban (alongside this there will usually be some argument about how/why Congress has already granted the authority for this action).
2) Legislative action. Specifically, Congress writes the ban into law and it is then enforced by the executive.
An argument (which I don't agree with, but is beside the point) that is popular among libertarians and small-government favoring Republicans is that #1 should be an infrequent exception to the norm (of #2). Of course, #2 has many other challenges because instead of a specialized agency (who understands what their dealing with) making rules quickly we need legislative leaders to agree to a vote and at least 268 politicians to vote for a rule.
Aside from the fact that all of this can be undone by the judiciary (assuming a plaintiff convinces the courts the rule or how it was enacted/implemented* is unconstitutional) *This part is what makes any executive action more "difficult" because the authority must show some basis for authority. 1a can be undone because someone at the FAA feels like it or if it is superseded by EO/Law. 1b can only be undone if the original EO expires or it is superseded. 2 should only be able to be undone by a change in the law, but there are numerous examples where the executive branch declines to enforce the law (the most recent being Trump's EO to effectively end the "individual mandate" for health insurance by instructing the IRS to not enforce the financial penalty).
Obama's administration was going the 1a route by referring to ICAO rules. Congress tried #2, but it got lumped in with ATC privatization, NextGen, et al.. It's a longer side-story here involving legislative rules I don't know, but with Republicans in charge and pushing for privatization they were incentivized to combine as much as possible. Form the most cynical view it's essentially holding safety hostage for the sake of passing their agenda (but this sort of crap is unfortunately common).
Where things really go off the rails is Trump. Regardless of my other opinions on the person, it's pretty clear he's broken a lot of norms/convention surrounding American politics and isn't concerned with "small details" that get caught up. An early EO designed to reduce red tape was essentially using 1b to override nearly all agencies' rules justified by 1a type reasons (and "freeze" them until they could be reviewed and passed into law). While the EO allowed for "urgent safety" exemptions the new crew at DOT/FAA declined to use it for the Li-ion ban (although I have seen no news on the fact and don't claim to know any specifics my guess is that DOT/FAA have been stuffed with just enough industry-insiders and former lobbyists than any call for reason was overridden).
Circling back to your point about how this would play out if it were forced into the national news I'm less confident. A similar example to all of this is the net neutrality battle that's been waging for years (replace FAA with FCC and add some extra twists-and-turns because the FCC is more complicated). Months ago the regulations were stripped and (despite public outcry) Congress is just barely getting to it (and there's no guarantee it could pass).
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hold fires caused by Lithium ion batteries contained in consumer devices should be well within the capabilities of aircraft fire suppression systems. A fire of this type occuring within a piece of luggage will in many cases be self extinguishing due to a limited air supply once the Lithium fuel is exhausted.
A container of Lithium batteries is a completely different matter as a chain reaction can be triggered by just one bad cell.
Countering this possibility is the fact that the majority of Lithium battery failures are caused by short circuits in used barreries that have been charged and discharged many times, resulting in the growth of internal metallic tendrils between the anode and cathode plates or sheets. Brand new batteries are "safe" unless they suffer physical damage causing a short circuit.
Considering the billions of batteries that are carried on flights every day around the world, there are surprisingly few incidents. Every passenger potentially carries half a dozen batteries every time they fly, mobile phone, battery pack, camera, spare camera battery, laptop, vaping device, e-reader, etc., typically over 1,500 batteries on every 737 flying and a lot more on wide bodied aircraft. Makes you think.
A container of Lithium batteries is a completely different matter as a chain reaction can be triggered by just one bad cell.
Countering this possibility is the fact that the majority of Lithium battery failures are caused by short circuits in used barreries that have been charged and discharged many times, resulting in the growth of internal metallic tendrils between the anode and cathode plates or sheets. Brand new batteries are "safe" unless they suffer physical damage causing a short circuit.
Considering the billions of batteries that are carried on flights every day around the world, there are surprisingly few incidents. Every passenger potentially carries half a dozen batteries every time they fly, mobile phone, battery pack, camera, spare camera battery, laptop, vaping device, e-reader, etc., typically over 1,500 batteries on every 737 flying and a lot more on wide bodied aircraft. Makes you think.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it, in the US legislative process, a bill that proposes, let us say, implementation of an ICAO rule, can have attached to it an entirely unrelated addition or amendment, let us say, privatisation of ATC. There might be a bill creating a national park, and then there could be attached to it a clause removing all controls on the emissions of coal-fired power stations. The two items don't have to be connected in any way at all. Some people might think this dysfunctional, but the citizens of the US are happy with it, it seems.
