Lithium battery related incidences
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Geneva
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Craftmaster there is a significant difference between lithium cells / batteries used in hobby application and those in consumer electronic devices such as laptop computers, mobile phones, etc. Those in consumer electronics are designed and tested with overcharge protections and also protections against forced discharge. Unfortunately many of those sold by hobby shops lack all of those protections, which is why you have to charge them outside or in a clay flowerpot as you demonstrate.
Bare metallic lithium will certainly react to water. A lithium ion battery will not as there is no metallic lithium. That applies to lithium polymer, lithium iron phospate as well, they don't contain metallic lithium and won't react to water.
As I mentioned in a previous post every incident involving lithium batteries that I've seen reported has been as a result of non-compliance with the correct packing method for cargo shipments, damage to the battery due to improper handling, or in a number of cases conterfeit batteries that had not met the UN test criteria. There have been no incidents where the batteries were prepared in accordance with the regulations.
Bare metallic lithium will certainly react to water. A lithium ion battery will not as there is no metallic lithium. That applies to lithium polymer, lithium iron phospate as well, they don't contain metallic lithium and won't react to water.
As I mentioned in a previous post every incident involving lithium batteries that I've seen reported has been as a result of non-compliance with the correct packing method for cargo shipments, damage to the battery due to improper handling, or in a number of cases conterfeit batteries that had not met the UN test criteria. There have been no incidents where the batteries were prepared in accordance with the regulations.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Where it's Too Cold
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been using laptops for years, in and out of the cockpit...this discussion is a non starter and simply is looking for yet another problem where one doesn't exist. Why don't we start with airline hiring practices, then work our way down to the myth of exploding laptops...
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Halon fire extinguishers can react with the lithium making it worse.
My background, incidentally, includes experience as a firefighter (and hazmat specialist). I'm curious about your views, which thus far are very off-base.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kindly qualify that untrue statement, if you will.
My background, incidentally, includes experience as a firefighter (and hazmat specialist). I'm curious about your views, which thus far are very off-base.
My background, incidentally, includes experience as a firefighter (and hazmat specialist). I'm curious about your views, which thus far are very off-base.
FAA test show lithium cells to return to cherry red while using Halon but continue to do so to keep associated material fires to a minimum.
From the book "A comprehensive guide to the hazardous properties of chemical substances" by Pradyot Patnaik:
"Water, carbon dioxide and Halon extinguishers are ineffective against Alkali metal fires. These substances, include carbon tetrachloride which is used in Halon extinguishers react violently with alkali metals."
"Vigorous reaction occurs when the metal is mixed with water. The heat of the reaction, if not dissipated, can ignite or explode hydrogen that s liberated."
More events from ALPA:
http://safetravel.dot.gov/alpa.pdf
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the lithium is contained it will not burned. Lithium ION is not as bad as Lithium. Some newer polymers are not as bad either.
In say a laptop the cells are pretty well packaged themselves. After the package they are then in a pretty tight plastic battery case. You can do anything you want until they burst. When they burst they can make a small pop and start oozing and smoking or in the case of say a short circuit, they can dump energy fast enough to blow it right through the keyboard.
If you have a battery which is smoking it has likely lost containment. You fight a fire in an aircraft with Halon because it's well all you have.
I always look at operations as odds. Can you get away with it once? 100 times? 1000x? 100,000 operations per day? what is acceptable risk? If this was a discussion of only a 1000 flights it wouldn't even be a topic of discussion.
In say a laptop the cells are pretty well packaged themselves. After the package they are then in a pretty tight plastic battery case. You can do anything you want until they burst. When they burst they can make a small pop and start oozing and smoking or in the case of say a short circuit, they can dump energy fast enough to blow it right through the keyboard.
If you have a battery which is smoking it has likely lost containment. You fight a fire in an aircraft with Halon because it's well all you have.
I always look at operations as odds. Can you get away with it once? 100 times? 1000x? 100,000 operations per day? what is acceptable risk? If this was a discussion of only a 1000 flights it wouldn't even be a topic of discussion.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for advice. As you will know there have been some fatal incidents on freighters due to fire. As yet we had no formal report on what caused the fires or suspected fires.
Now it would be fair to guess that the cells themsleves could be made in say A then shipped in bulk to B for a consumer product. It is these large consignments that focus my mind.
How could you pack these cells so they are less prone to self ignition? Thats whay I ask about the vacuum. Am I correct in thinking the cells need air to combust...or are the oxides already in the cell content?
Now it would be fair to guess that the cells themsleves could be made in say A then shipped in bulk to B for a consumer product. It is these large consignments that focus my mind.
How could you pack these cells so they are less prone to self ignition? Thats whay I ask about the vacuum. Am I correct in thinking the cells need air to combust...or are the oxides already in the cell content?
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure what the vacuum would do. The energy from the battery failure comes from the battery itself. It does not need oxygen to burn. I would surmise issues in shipping come from damages which cause a short or rupture to the pack.
This was a container which addresses this :
Ventura Aerospace Systems
This was a container which addresses this :
Ventura Aerospace Systems
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From that link
Thanks for the link..
Cargo Foam used in our suppression systems have been demonstrated to extinguish the FAA standard fire in an AMJ container. Cargo Foam has also been used to extinguish sodium fires. Even though the water in Cargo Foam reacts with sodium, the combination with Argon allows a hydrate layer to form around the sodium. This stops the fire.
This looks to be the answer.
Cargo Foam used in our suppression systems have been demonstrated to extinguish the FAA standard fire in an AMJ container. Cargo Foam has also been used to extinguish sodium fires. Even though the water in Cargo Foam reacts with sodium, the combination with Argon allows a hydrate layer to form around the sodium. This stops the fire.
This looks to be the answer.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Craftmaster,
Your information is inaccurate and dated.
Carbon tet was used in various extinguishing agents, and was part of the propellant in various Halon extinguishers some time ago. It's a hazardous material, and one significant property lead to it's demise in extinguishers quite a few years ago. Carbon tet in the presence of heat forms phosgene gas, which is lethal. Phosgene gas is better known as a chemical weapon used in WW1 and WWII.
Carbon tetrachloride was used in early fire extinguishers (early 1900's), but was dangerous and fell out of favor, losing ground to other preferable agents. Today, it's not used for firefighting. Carbon tet extinguishers fell into disuse in the 50's. An interesting innovation of carbon tet use was the grenade system, which used a glass or frangible globe containing tet which was thrown into a fire. These were early 1900's innovations, also long outof disuse. They make great museum pieces, if you can find them.
A few years ago, numerous extinguishers were still available using old stock which did provide hazardous byproducts in a fire, including some use of carbon tet. This isn't the case now. A thread that's several years old addressed some of these hazards on this site; I won't bother retyping my comments there: http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...inguisher.html
For now, the discussion touches on the use of halon on a lithium fire. The FAA determined that halon wasn't particularly effective on a lithium battery fire. The FAA did not determine that halon increased or worsened the fire, as it does not.
Your comments in the thread thus far are ill informed and misleading.
Your information is inaccurate and dated.
Carbon tet was used in various extinguishing agents, and was part of the propellant in various Halon extinguishers some time ago. It's a hazardous material, and one significant property lead to it's demise in extinguishers quite a few years ago. Carbon tet in the presence of heat forms phosgene gas, which is lethal. Phosgene gas is better known as a chemical weapon used in WW1 and WWII.
Carbon tetrachloride was used in early fire extinguishers (early 1900's), but was dangerous and fell out of favor, losing ground to other preferable agents. Today, it's not used for firefighting. Carbon tet extinguishers fell into disuse in the 50's. An interesting innovation of carbon tet use was the grenade system, which used a glass or frangible globe containing tet which was thrown into a fire. These were early 1900's innovations, also long outof disuse. They make great museum pieces, if you can find them.
A few years ago, numerous extinguishers were still available using old stock which did provide hazardous byproducts in a fire, including some use of carbon tet. This isn't the case now. A thread that's several years old addressed some of these hazards on this site; I won't bother retyping my comments there: http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...inguisher.html
For now, the discussion touches on the use of halon on a lithium fire. The FAA determined that halon wasn't particularly effective on a lithium battery fire. The FAA did not determine that halon increased or worsened the fire, as it does not.
Your comments in the thread thus far are ill informed and misleading.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can beat your chest all you like but the main point is we are not where we should be. FAA is only going to react to industry failures. This is really on the shoulders of industry to find better solutions. Poring water on and spraying a halon fire extinguisher on a spewing lap filling a small cabin with massive amounts of un-breathable heavy toxic smoke is not a solution.
We can all beat our chest an question the definition of what "is" is, or what defines the term expert but that doesn't bring anyone closer to anything.
We can all beat our chest an question the definition of what "is" is, or what defines the term expert but that doesn't bring anyone closer to anything.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's no chest beating going on here. In fact, you previously posted in this thread stating "I have a lot of background which I am not about to lay out." The only person "chest beating" is you.
I don't suppose any of that background includes firefighting and hazardous materials, does it? Your responses in this thread strongly suggest that not to be the case.
You did previously correctly state "I am not well versed on how a fire extinguishers work but I know some have to be avoided." Attempting to expound to the contrary, as you've done, is inappropriate.
No, but you do realize that this is an aviation forum?
You apparently aware that this conversation already took place following the loss of UPS 6.
I don't suppose any of that background includes firefighting and hazardous materials, does it? Your responses in this thread strongly suggest that not to be the case.
You did previously correctly state "I am not well versed on how a fire extinguishers work but I know some have to be avoided." Attempting to expound to the contrary, as you've done, is inappropriate.
Have you ever seen robot wars?
You apparently aware that this conversation already took place following the loss of UPS 6.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that, to get taken a little more seriously, craftmaster, there are a few tropes to give up.
First, that the FAA fire safety people know little about fires. They know a lot, and they are very good at what they do. If you are interested in inadvertent fires, you should get to know them.
Second, you need to stop propagating any "advice" which is different from that currently being proposed by airworthiness authorities. Theirs is based on research and testing, whereas yours appears to be based on a superficial knowledge of battery types and technologies, on some of your own self-described limited experience, and on some anonymous internet videos. A little more social responsibility is in order. You need to take on board the advice of people with experience dealing with fire hazards in aviation contexts, for example the FAA fire safety people.
Third, if you don't like the advice given by FAA fire safety people, then look a little further afield, such as the UK report cited here, for example, which was written on the basis of contract research performed by an industrial lab.
Fourth, a little more discriminative subtlety in your hazard analysis (if one may glorify it with such a phrase) would help. Crew using laptops in cockpits are using devices with batteries whose risk of fire is very low indeed. All of the problems with cell phone batteries to date, as well as most of the problems with laptop batteries, except for a batch that came with some Sony machines a few years ago, are with "aftermarket" batteries, many of which do not have the quality control or inbuilt hazard-mitigation structure of the batteries which OEMs install in their devices. There lies a simple mitigation strategy for the hazard of electronic-device fires in cockpits: don't use aftermarket batteries. However, it is difficult to prevent passengers from doing so, which means one needs a different strategy for the cabin. There is one for the airplane in general in most jurisdictions: no laptops or other consumer electronics with large long-life batteries in checked baggage. There is a third: no hazmat cargo on passenger airplanes. All those batteries have to get from where they are built to where they are going, however, and while one imagines most cheaper products are shipped by sea, some of them find their way onto pallets on airplanes, not necessarily classified as hazmat. That, apparently, is where the freight people have what seems to be a major problem. But that is worlds away from portable computers on the flight deck.
Everyone agrees that portable-electronics-battery fires are a problem. It doesn't help solve the problem to suggest that people who have been working hard on that problem for years, with some success, really don't have a clue.
PBL
First, that the FAA fire safety people know little about fires. They know a lot, and they are very good at what they do. If you are interested in inadvertent fires, you should get to know them.
Second, you need to stop propagating any "advice" which is different from that currently being proposed by airworthiness authorities. Theirs is based on research and testing, whereas yours appears to be based on a superficial knowledge of battery types and technologies, on some of your own self-described limited experience, and on some anonymous internet videos. A little more social responsibility is in order. You need to take on board the advice of people with experience dealing with fire hazards in aviation contexts, for example the FAA fire safety people.
Third, if you don't like the advice given by FAA fire safety people, then look a little further afield, such as the UK report cited here, for example, which was written on the basis of contract research performed by an industrial lab.
Fourth, a little more discriminative subtlety in your hazard analysis (if one may glorify it with such a phrase) would help. Crew using laptops in cockpits are using devices with batteries whose risk of fire is very low indeed. All of the problems with cell phone batteries to date, as well as most of the problems with laptop batteries, except for a batch that came with some Sony machines a few years ago, are with "aftermarket" batteries, many of which do not have the quality control or inbuilt hazard-mitigation structure of the batteries which OEMs install in their devices. There lies a simple mitigation strategy for the hazard of electronic-device fires in cockpits: don't use aftermarket batteries. However, it is difficult to prevent passengers from doing so, which means one needs a different strategy for the cabin. There is one for the airplane in general in most jurisdictions: no laptops or other consumer electronics with large long-life batteries in checked baggage. There is a third: no hazmat cargo on passenger airplanes. All those batteries have to get from where they are built to where they are going, however, and while one imagines most cheaper products are shipped by sea, some of them find their way onto pallets on airplanes, not necessarily classified as hazmat. That, apparently, is where the freight people have what seems to be a major problem. But that is worlds away from portable computers on the flight deck.
Everyone agrees that portable-electronics-battery fires are a problem. It doesn't help solve the problem to suggest that people who have been working hard on that problem for years, with some success, really don't have a clue.
PBL
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the FAA is truly testing these, good for them. This is exactly what I have been talking about:
YouTube - FAA TESTING OF THE HOT-STOP 'L' LAPTOP FIRE CONTAINMENT BAG.wmv
YouTube - FAA TESTING OF THE HOT-STOP 'L' LAPTOP FIRE CONTAINMENT BAG.wmv
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Manchester
Age: 66
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest problem is that battery design is changing faster than regulation can keep up with it. Many new batteries are being sent I suspect without being submitted for testing....and that's apart from those that aren't even being declared.
Some airlines may be tempted to ban all lithium batteries, but unless the handling agents can detect every battery a ban will not work. Shippers will deliberately or ignorantly not declare them. The dangerous goods regualtions are so complicated with lithium batteries I would suggest many shippers are tempted to misdeclare them. Compliance is too awkward.
In my view the authorities must quickly move to penalise ANY shipper found to have misdeclared such batteries, whether deliberately or innocently, to get the message out there: these sort of batteries can be very dangerous to aircraft. And by misdeclaration I also mean if someone declares them but also does not correctly classify them by their specific physical properties, pack them in accordance with the correct packing instructions and comply completely with every detailled aspect of the applicable regulations. You can't forbid them from aircraft. New technology batteries are such an integral part of everyday life, a ban will not work.
Some airlines may be tempted to ban all lithium batteries, but unless the handling agents can detect every battery a ban will not work. Shippers will deliberately or ignorantly not declare them. The dangerous goods regualtions are so complicated with lithium batteries I would suggest many shippers are tempted to misdeclare them. Compliance is too awkward.
In my view the authorities must quickly move to penalise ANY shipper found to have misdeclared such batteries, whether deliberately or innocently, to get the message out there: these sort of batteries can be very dangerous to aircraft. And by misdeclaration I also mean if someone declares them but also does not correctly classify them by their specific physical properties, pack them in accordance with the correct packing instructions and comply completely with every detailled aspect of the applicable regulations. You can't forbid them from aircraft. New technology batteries are such an integral part of everyday life, a ban will not work.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Castlegar
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Li-battery, cargo, fire 25Aug09 during "sort"
From FAA's site:
Press Release – FAA Proposes $175,000 Civil Penalty Against MIT
Press Release – FAA Proposes $175,000 Civil Penalty Against MIT
"... a fiberboard box containing 33 electronic devices ... Aug. 25, 2009. Each electronic device consisted of a lithium battery attached to a circuit board and tube-like container.The package was discovered with smoke and flames coming from it while it was moving on a conveyor at the FedEx sorting facility in Medford, Mass. Two of the devices in the package heated and melted, which caused the surrounding cushioning and packaging to catch fire. ... package was not properly labeled ... did not know the shipment contained hazardous material. ... unsuccessful attempts to extinguish the flames with a fire extinguisher.
"... batteries were not packaged in a manner that would prevent a short-circuit that could create sparks or generate a dangerous quantity of heat...."
"... batteries were not packaged in a manner that would prevent a short-circuit that could create sparks or generate a dangerous quantity of heat...."
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The EU
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fire in the Cabin
As you have all discussed, the problem is most crew are not aware of the issue and do not know the best way to fight a Lithium Fire.
The best fire extinguisher to use on them is water not halon, as water not just puts out the fire but also cools the battery cells.
After studying the recommendations from many sources, we have produced a free short online course that we have made available to anyone. The course is aimed at Flight & Cabin Crew but is also recommended for personnel that handle baggage and cargo. You can view the course at XXX and just follow the links.
The course has a link to the FAA video on YouTube
XXX - bit close to marketing, methinks. Anyone interested should PM the poster for details. JT
The best fire extinguisher to use on them is water not halon, as water not just puts out the fire but also cools the battery cells.
After studying the recommendations from many sources, we have produced a free short online course that we have made available to anyone. The course is aimed at Flight & Cabin Crew but is also recommended for personnel that handle baggage and cargo. You can view the course at XXX and just follow the links.
The course has a link to the FAA video on YouTube
XXX - bit close to marketing, methinks. Anyone interested should PM the poster for details. JT