FAA issues warning on Li-On batteries
 

FAA issues fire warning for lithium batteries - Yahoo! News

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../SAFO10017.pdf

Considering that most cellphone and laptop batteries are now li-ion, I suppose this could be the next hot potato in carryon vs checked luggage.

(On a less serious note, and with the risk of being a spelling nazi, could this be considered lion battery?)
http://www.davidkoning.com/wp-conten...on-300x214.jpg

Bfisk, not if "i" have anything to do with it.

Sorry, I'll go now, I'm not being positive enough about this am I?

CW

Not at all.
The statement addresses the bulk carriage of lithium batteries as cargo. Individual batteries carried by passengers or crew are not an issue.

This finding is from the UPS 747 Dubai incident.

No it is not.

"Investigation of the crash is still underway, and the cause of the crash has not been determined," the FAA says.

Of course the FAA would not say that their rules for DG shippment are weaker than IATA/ICAO.

I wonder what the UPS SMS is like, if they have one.

It depends on what your definition of "finding" is:

If "finding" = cause of Dubai crash, the above is true.

Mine was "finding" = FAA's motivation for the Li-Ion's are dangerous notice.

NASA and NCAR removed the Li-Ion batteries from the laptops on all their research aircraft several years ago.

G

GtE - very interesting. What are they doing instead.

Guppy - Where do I start?

• The UPS aircraft was US registered so the FARs apply no matter what its departure point.
• Its true FedEx has put a lot of effort into fire protected freight containers and I did not comment on their SMS, which I am actually very familiar with.
• However the number of US cargo accidents is actually pretty high.
• I won't comment on the irony of your statements after an accident;)

That's entirely up to you, but I strongly suggest that you start by attempting to understand your subject material. You'll look far less foolish if you know what it is that you're talking about.

You don't.

As you're clearly not aware, I'll allow you some leeway.

While US operators are never permitted deviation from US regulation save for an emergency, US operators are always obligated to the legal requirements of every jurisdiction through which they pass, per convention.

Shipping out of Dubai isn't established or regulated by the US HMR, but is done in accordance to international convention. When a shipper places cargo aboard a US aircraft while operating internationally, the cargo carrier is not responsible for ensuring that the shipping has been done correctly, and will not open overpacks to verify or correct labeling packing, etc. That packaging will have been done in accordance with the local requirements. Therefore, when a US carrier picks up freight internationally, don't start whining about DOT regulation...it only paints you in your true light, as one who hasn't a clue whence he or she speaks.

Ignoring your grammar, I doubt you are familiar with the safety management, despite your claims. FedEx and UPS are by far the best, biggest, and most advanced freight carriers out there. Their operations set the standard for efficiency, safety, quality, and reputation, globally.

Those in this industry know and understand this. You don't, which further reinforces the fact that you really have no idea what you're talking about. This should really go without saying.

Not at all. Never the less, you're doubtless like much of the rest of the jealous world, anxious to blame your own problems on the US, or diminish them by slighting or demeaning the United States.

The US holds a very high standard in aviation operations. Then again, where a pilot in the US might require 5,000 hours of experience to be competitive for a position, many European pilots might require 250 hours to be competitive for the same...you really want to talk about standards?

US cargo operations are greater in scope, number, hours, and reach than any other, to say noting of hours flown, cargo carried, etc. US cargo operations are not the issue here. Lithium batteries are.

That is well. You have no need to embarrass yourself further.

Thanks for confirming a major weakness is US regulations.

Pity you feel so insecure about you nation.

I'll bite; it's your funeral, after all. Which regulation is it that you find "weak?"

Be specific. Can you do that?

I said nothing about US regulation being weak.

The cargo in Dubai, as you're clearly unaware was packaged and shipped under regulations other than the "FAR," and the HMR.

I'm quite secure in "my nation," incidentally. It would appear to be you that has both the misunderstand, and the misapprehension.

Running on aircraft power supplies, with UPS systems on the most critical instruments and their computers.

Nobody however has really addressed the problem of AVAPS, which various research aircraft use and contains a lot of Li-Ion batteries.

G

Not exactly a wide spread problem, is it?

I flew atmospheric research, and we used exactly 0 of those batteries.

Although NASA's Global Hawks and DC8 use loads, as do NCAR's various aircraft nowadays I believe.

Which aircraft were you on?

G

Genghis - I think we all know who has more atomospheric research aircraft experience:ok:

I am surprised though that NASA would rather run off aircraft power. AFAIC the real issue in PED is the possibility of an uncontained thermal runaway, which are very rare for an uninstalled battery and can be countered fairly simple cooling procedures (on a normal airliner by cooling with ice). Of course not a option with a pallet of them!

SNS

As the FAA say:
Thats one shortcoming of US regs. Plus, if as you claim, US operators don't have to meet US DG regs when departing overseas thats another big failing in US regs. Are US security regs so lax too? I think not.

As you said elsewhere (after saying here how great the US carriers safety record is):

I said no such thing. Your failure to comprehend doesn't change the fact.

The record of US carriers is excellent. My previous statements were accurate, consistent, and correct.

When you are able to contain comments in context, and confine your commentary to the thread at hand, perhaps we can have a discussion. Then again, you are ssg, the imposter who returns again and again under different names, and there is no having a discussion with you. You have no relevant experience upon which to stand, and any meaningful discourse on any subject aviation related is, therefore, a waste.

SNS your posts are anything but consistent.

To be accurate, can you just clarify the EXACT names you think I'm posting under as I'd like a really good laugth at you paranoia.

I already have, but I'll do this for you: you're now on the Ignore list, where you belong.

Clearly along with any valid challenges to your own misunderstandings.:D