Lithium battery related incidences
 

Dear all

That was most interesting and rather sobering. I have oticed that when batteries get on a bit they tend to get rather hot during charging. Then they are disposed of.

See here

www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD201030.pdf

and

www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_04.PDF

This is the best training video for this
 

Dear all thank you for the prompt reply.
I have already been familiar to most of the documents and videos.
I was wandering if anyone knew about a flight deck laptop computer lithium battery giving problems to any paper less flight crew.

The big thing is not to allow them to heat in the sun...so say in Dubai 40C ambient plus solar easily above 70C after this temp the fire begins and as shown is impossible to stop Always always attended with you in a bag never leave them in the sun unattended

? No Flt Deck nor Cabin exemplars ? Lithium COMPUTER Bat'
 

Questions from first and previous slots:Other than that 7Feb06 DC8 case, search of the Cabin Safety Research Technical Group's database yields ONLY ONE lithium-battery related event -- that odd case of 15Dec06 in which the passenger had that Air Purifier on his neck: 20061215A, B737-824, N24202, NEAR COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO, U.S.A., 15-DEC-2006

That CSRTG database is available on the web, on contract from FAA Aircraft Fire Research Center:Hmmm -- ? so the industry has had ONLY ONE event of a lithium-battery fire, from a device while in-use??? And NO CASES of any Computer-battery fire, while the device was operating, while inflight???

Heads Up You Been Told
 

No Wrong Attitude

You Read This So You Know

Totally WRONG ATTITUDE

DERG

Please explain.

The hazard analysis of lithium-ion batteries stems from the known chemistry and physical characteristics.

They can do, and do, go into thermal positive-feedback. This is physical fact. It is hard to arrest, and most airlines have no practices in place or equipment in the cabin to deal with it.

Given that the hazard is known, the relevant question is how it is mitigated in commercial aviation. Mostly, it seems people just hope it won't occur to them. The question of how many actual incidents have occurred is secondary.

PBL

Now would there be a proven technique to addres those hazards?

Oh yes!
http://www.ppruneorg/safety-crm-qa-e...ety-cases.html

Heavens, SM, think before you speak (if it's possible)!

One addresses hazards by something known as "hazard analysis" or Hazan, for which there are many different specific methods available, such as FMEA, FMECA and Hazop (to mention just the three most-used, which are all standardised), Ontological Hazard Analysis (our technique, which addresses the issue of completeness) or Leveson's STPA.

PBL

If we're talking about lithium battery incidents in the passenger cabin, then most have been caused by passengers not protecting the battery terminals from short-circuit. The challenge here is educating passengers as to how they should protect spare batteries.

As for guidance on actions for cabin crew, the ICAO "red book" provides very clear guidance for cabin on how to respond to a fire involving lithium batteries.

1. deal with the fire using halon or other available fire extinguishers; and
2. cool the device/batteries by dousing with water or other non-flammable liquid.

This has been demonstated as putting out the fire and preventing subsequent reignition from the overheated lithium battery.

You appear to be downplaying a hazard, tantamount to dismissing it out of hand.

You might have missed the destruction of UPS 6 recently, likely the result of a fire initiated by lithium batteries. While your question asks about a "device while in use," do we really care if it's a computer in use, one in storage, a flashlight, or a box of batteries on the main cargo deck? Burned to death is rather final, and the hazard should never be understated.

I think the threat of lithium batteries has not been adequately addressed in the industry. My belief is, like anything else, we have not had an accident bad enough to warrant real action; but I believe we will.

2 incidents I was made aware of at a Cessna service center in Florida. They talked of 2 lithium power laptop/notepad devices which experienced lithium battery ruptures. One incident the airplane was on the ramp with no flight pending. As the crew member worked on charts the battery ruptured and they were able to get it off the airplane and throw it on the tarmac. A second very similar incident where the crew was doing updates sitting in the cockpit. They were a little slower to get the laptop off the airplane and the crew member sustained burns to the legs when his pants were ignited.

One of the WORST things you can do with a lithium battery fire is throw water on it. It mixes with the chemicals released and creates more hydrogen making a bad situation quickly lethal!

I tried bringing the issue up in our flight organization which uses many laptops and flight aids for charts. My chief pilot (who is pays people to change the oil in his lawnmower because he does not know how) told me I don't have the experience he and the others have and should shut up. He also was very upset with me because I would not fly below glide path approaches. We operated out of a 5000' strip and according to him and a few others you can make shorter landings de-tasseling corn in a low as possible approaches. When I demonstrated the opposite I was told since I came form a King Air background I did not know hot to fly jets like they did and was, in anger, ordered to fly bellow glide path approaches! Later our company had "anonymous" evaluations of our department where we evaluated the department and our supervisors. I gave him low marks in many areas. Soon after that I was let go with no reason.

But that is why I say the lithium battery problem will not be properly addressed until there is an adequate accident to warrant change.

Here is the problem. Once a lithium based battery starts it's melt down, it can't be stopped; very much like a Nicad battery. I am not well versed on how a fire extinguishers work but I know some have to be avoided.

Water is the absolute worst thing you can throw on a Lithium battery; even if just hot. If ANY material is pushed outside the wrapper it will ignite immediately.

Google 3 things;
lithium batter fire
Lithium Laptop fire
Lithium battery fire water

It becomes quite clear how bad the dangers are. Dealing with these batteries in the hobby world, lithium batteries are ALWAYS charged in a containment container, near a door, and always supervised until cool. I have personally ignited 2 battery packs myself by improper charging (my fault). Immediately out the door and thrown in the yard.I have a friend who has also done so and as he ran out the door the ooze leaking from the battery set his couch and carpet on fire. This was a pack about 1/4 the size of a laptop battery.

Have you ever seen robot wars? I was reading an article where they go on no matter what the damage. They can contain the fires and such in the metal arenas. What they cannot contain is lithium smoke. Even in a stadium, a lithium battery fire often requires stopping the event and evacuating the stadium till the smoke is cleared. Even the techs can't go in to put out the fire till the smoke is cleared in some fashion. The smoke is THAT BAD!

The preferred method to putting out a lithium fire is covering it in sand.

A battery fire clears a stadium, burns couches, carpets, requires fans to clear smoke before you can enter, NONE of these buildings are at FL400 in a confined compartment with NO ESCAPE!!

I personally would call on the aviation community to have a proactive search for how to deal with this. I have ideas but no answers. Answers would require testing, experimentation and a group effort.

My suggestions in our department were
1. Create some solutions
2. Test the solutions

My thoughts should this happen in a aircraft cockpit or cabin,
1. Remove from cockpit
2. Open largest metal container such as stainless ice bucket.
3. Wipe bucket dry quickly
4. Pull carpet back on floor
5. Put laptop in dry steel ice bucket, hit with extinguisher if we find this works in testing,
6. Turn laptop and bucket upside down and seal against metal floor as best you can to contain smoke

This is just procedures for handling the laptop to contain fire and smoke. Obviously the crew would be running their procedures for smoke and getting the airplane on the ground.

I was told to drop it because it was not my position to bring up such things and it makes the people who had been there for some time jealous (that was his exact words). If 50% of the flight departments took this seriously, you still have 50% where there is no avenue to even discuss such a thing. Quite often the people in charge of this stuff got in their position not because they know what they are doing but because they don't. To make up for what they lack in technical understanding they make up for in kissing ass and playing golf! They will run an aircraft off the runway some time. Sever of the guys struggle with what they do and I am glad I am not there any more.

In the future, after we have a major disaster or two I see two changes.
1. Containment boxes and procedures for all aircraft big and small.
2. Containment slots in larger aircraft where things like portable devices can be dropped into and contained OR even released from aircraft.

Other things to think about:
1. There are several types of lithium batteries and they are not all the same
2. If Lithium's were such a great improvement to power in a small package, what will be the next power improvement? We will be dealing with new high powered sources in small containers for here on out.

But what do I know......I can change my own oil! I know that much!

Assertion from SNS3:The question I had was about the accuracy of the mishap-DATA:
I had suspected that there were MORE cases (lithium-Laptop computer), but I couldn't locate any (not even one) in the records. You readers must have exemplars of a passenger's LAPTOP igniting/flaming during flight (??). Or the pilot's laptop??

We have that exemplar of the copilot's WATER-BOTTLE acting as a lens -- converging the SUN rays to ignite nearby materials (fire in the cockpit). ---- There must be at least ONE case of a pax or pilot's LAPTOP flaming (?????).

Some of the responses on here ANNOY ME.

If you cannot see WHY this important you need to get out of avaition NOW.

THIS IS THE LINK
Fire Safety Cabin Safety Research Technical Group

USE IT AND TAKE AN HOUR TO GO THRU IT.

So, craftmaster, you say don't put water anywhere near a lithium-ion battery fire.

The FAA says: first method of choice is to use a water extinguisher; second method of choice: halon 1211 extinguisher followed by dousing with water or whatever is on the drinks cart and has no alcohol (and is likely mainly water).

The crucial issue is that, once a cell has gone into thermal runaway, the other adjacent cells need to be cooled to ensure that they don't go into thermal runaway, even though the fire is out. And water or liquids which are mostly water (and no alcohol) are the best available substances to do that.

The FAA has videos (referenced already in this thread).

How do you reconcile your view with that of the FAA?

PBL

I am really not sure why the FAA say that. I frankly think they have not studied it enough. I understand not all lithium polymers are the same and I understand that I am no expert on it. None the less in hobby circles (yea I am a techno geek) water on lithium's and some fire extinguishers are taboo and only create more instant combustion.

I understand the desire to cool the batteries to stop the runaway. I also think without more accidents they will leave the recommendations there.

Do a google for lithium battery fire water. There are guys videos of people cutting open batteries (not in thermal runaway) and dropping parts in water to instant ignition; which brings even more questions to how TSA...........

Personally I would like to see a commission to study the dangers and the alternative containment.

One thing I was able to do was download a temperature program to the motion tabs to help monitor temps. They were notorious for getting too hot and locking up. While the temp was taken from the cpu, and not the most accurate temp reference, it did help us keep up with it some. Our motions tabs typically go so hot they spent half the time between the visor rail and the vent.

Maybe because it works?

They have studied it enough to produce a persuasive video on their studies some 4 years ago and not to have changed their advice in the interim.

My experience with the FAA fire people at Atlantic City is that they are very good at what they do. They produced a series of series of reports on arc-faulting on the inside of the insultation of wiring in common use in commercial aircraft that well anticipated all the stuff that came to light at and after TWA 800.

An airplane is not a hobby club.

Oddly enough, one of the least observed reactions to a laptop battery spontaneously catching fire is to take a knife to it and then drop the severed parts in water.

I think you haven't thought the situation through. Let's try again. You are in the situation on an airplane in which someone's laptop has a battery which has caught fire. What do you do?

The FAA has answered this question, many years ago. And they have made films to show people why and how their suggestions work. Now it's your turn to do better. But until you tell us how you do better, how about leaving the current best advice alone and not try to tell everyone it's wrong?

I see. You don't consider the FAA fire people competent to study it, and also not the CAA and their contractors? How about going through the CAA report line by line and telling us where it's wrong?

PBL

I have a lot of background which I am not about to lay out.

Suffice to say I don't agree. I understand the reasoning for cooling the laptop. BUT IF it has ruptured, it WILL ignite. I don't know what the FAA has tested but I do see them inact procedures with superficial data then when enough people get killed they examine it harder.

If you truly question the lethal application of water try it yourself. Worn out lap tops are cheap enough and your tech department probably has a couple to test. Testing was my whole premise. I don't see any testing; just a lot of guesses.

I don't presume to know the best solution but it would not be hard to try several things with real test. I really don't see why some main stream flight departments are not doing so.

This is a piece of a lithium camera battery dropped in water:

YouTube - Disposable lithium battery strip reacting in water

Here is another lithium battery cut up and dropped in water.

YouTube - danger, flames, water and lithium? interested yet?

Non of these batteries are running away; they are cold. Does this work the same for Lithium Ion, other Lithium polymer batteries? If an electronic devise is shorting out you may be ok if it has not ruptured. Do you know it has not?

What do you do when this happens to passengers in the back and you don't find out till you see or hear a ruckus. Do you throw water on it?:

YouTube - Lithium Ion battery fire

No I am not confident of the answer.

Congratulations on your considerable background!

Now answer my question: what would you suggest instead, and why? And why does it work better than what the people who have investigated this issue have proposed?

Consider this a chance to show us your superior skills and knowledge. But don't evade the question.

The answer, patently, is: (a) because the FAA and the CAA and various other bodies have already performed quite extensive tests; and (b) because the flight departments of airlines are not equipped to perform those tests for themselves.

I take it you are inexperienced with how safety issues get approached and resolved in aviation?

PBL

I am not sure why the hostility but I explained much of this in earlier post. I also know that class D fire extinguishers are the only one accepted. Halon fire extinguishers can react with the lithium making it worse.

Why should I "guess" how to deal with it? I have told you the limitations, problems and issues. I would specifically look toward containment in containers which starve the electronic devise of oxygen, contain the smoke, and keep the molt ant fireballs contained.

If you have FAA videos or data of water experiments on laptops I am sure everyone would love to see them. I never have seen them and I don't know of anyone who has.

Craftmaster,

no hostility on my part. Just decades of experience in getting people who think they know better to say what they think they know, and comparing the result with what is already out there. It's part of my job.

So far, you're doing much less well than the first two minutes of the FAA video, or the first six pages of the CAA report. They tell me what to do if my laptop (which I often have with me) has a battery fire when I am flying.

You are telling us you doubt all that, but you also say you are "no expert". That information so far does not tell anyone what to do who is experienced a laptop battery fire when flying. Which is the subject of this thread.

When I challenged you explicitly to give better advice, you declined.

This discussion may be a little uncomfortable for you, which I regret, but it does make the situation clear for other readers, namely that you have no useful advice to offer, even when asked explicitly.

PBL

I have stated the opinion that I would like to see the investigation of this taken to the next level. I believe test should be done and published for all to see. If it exist I would love to see it.

I have also posted many unanswered questions. I don't claim to be an expert but I am quite aware of the dangers. Perhaps I know enough not to be satisfied with the answers given by government people who have shown in the past to be reactive and not proactive.

I did work on a Truck GPS research project at one time and we looked into portable GPS devises. We quickly learned if we could not meet 2 requirements we were not going to bring lithium batteries into our project. The 2 things are:

1. A research team the size of say Toshiba to do battery and electronic design with controlled charging and temp monitoring with test to satisfy the insurance

2. The ability to absorb the consequncse of a fractional percent of catastrophic failures. So much as dropping a laptop just right can puncture a battery without knowing it.

Being in airplanes I don't consider .001% catastrophic failure acceptable.

I did make another post showing some videos but being new here every couple post needs to be approved. It will show up within 24hrs so I won't re-post the data.

Although I have a lot of experience in this area and have my own thoughts I have not presented as an expert because there is a lot of un answered questions. I am not about to say this is what needs to be done. Anyone can do that. I don't believe I am the only one with answers either. The first step is to identify the problem; all aspects of it. Being in a confined space at fl400 with no escape is the primary problem.

Suffice to say I do not believe it has adequately been addressed. There are 2 camps.

A. Those who think the government has done everything it needs to make us safe.

B. Those who think there has not been an accident bad enough for the government to take it seriously.

I am in camp B. I don't blindly rely on others to cover my butt. I would like to see people put their heads together and look at it seriously and publish info for all to see.

Take a look at my other post when it gets through.

I posted this earlier but I will try again.

Here are 2 different type of dry batteries not in thermal runaway when exposed to water. Halon is known to do the same thing:

YouTube - danger, flames, water and lithium? interested yet?

YouTube - Lithium Ion battery fire

I did find this FAA video which suports what everyone was referring to:

YouTube - Tests on lithium battery fire

It was not a comforting video. I found issues in several areas.

1. most lithium fires to not start under a fire thus the thermal runaway is not as abrupt.

2. They did not show cooling a cell before exploding only after catastrophic failure which much of the energy of the cell is consumed. With a slower process not triggered by a flame, the cells ruptured long before they ignited. Halon or water would ensure their ignition.

3. When the first halon fire extinguisher was sprayed noticed how one of the cells immediately blew.

4. Everything they did seem to keep the fire burning till it was cooled. It was subdued by overkill. Throw enough gas on a fire and it will go out.

5. This seemed to have an aircraft seat and a side wall but it was not in a confined aircraft.

6. They said don't smother the fire which makes sense but they smothered it in ice. If you look at what happen, the fire was out then the batteries began reacting with the water even after cooled to a safe temp!!!!

At the very least the film does nothing to comfort me. This is why I have shown interest in metal containment devices. A trash can can easily be converted on most aircraft to become a metal containment container to close off oxygen and contain smoke. Lithium may not need much oxygen to burn but once they have consumed their batteries, which happens fairly quickly, the only thing left to burn is the platics in the laptop. A well built container with air tight lids will contain this; without near the amount of smoke which was shown on the approve video.

I recognize there is more then one scenario. In an airplane over charge is not as much as a problem as overheat (laptop on lap with blanket blocking fans), and damage.

What I see is people with a blanket on their lap blocking fans overheating laptops. I have done it dozens of times in motels. Mine shuts off, but in the adverse case the batteries start to swell. One may rupture with out a lot of fire or fanfair...to start (unlike the video with the fire driven by another fire below the laptop). At that point you know you have a problem and you get the flight attendant or crews attention.

The crew, already knowing what to do grabs the trashcan, pulls out the trash bag, throws the laptop in the can. The crew grabs the sealable lid and takes the can to the rear of the aircraft nearest the outflow valves. If all goes well, your done! Compare that to the games they were playing in the video, in a confined space. One must realize just how toxic the gas given off is and ...when they do begin to bust how they ignite everything they touch within a 4 foot radius.

But I am no expert....but this is where I would go in testing. I would also test non-halon and non water extinguishing agents. Many have found a pile of sand to nearly contain these kind of battery fires; not that anyone is going to carry 50lbs of sand....but it opens the doors to alternative ideas.

Returning to the original QUESTION in the first slot of this thread, seeking information on actual inflight incidents involving lithium-batteries --

I was surprised that there were ONLY two incidents recorded in the CSRTG's online data-base (link shown in message #8). Neither of those two involved a LAPTOP computer.

Searching around some other papers, stumbled on an FAA document:

www.faa.gov/about/office_org/.../Battery_incident_chart.pdf

"BATTERIES & BATTERY-POWERED DEVICES
Aviation Incidents Involving Smoke, Fire, Extreme Heat or Explosion
As of August 3, 2010, 113 air incidents involving batteries have been recorded since March 20, 1991"

These incidents were MOSTLY inside cargo & baggage [some Overhead Bin incidents).

This document shows ONE Laptop event, inflight, while in-use:Here's a news story from Feb2010, with related analysis of such events:
Exploding batteries on planes: Rare and small risk | Reuters

Thanks for posting this info. The FAA is far from perfect and I am sure they will be interested on the posts so far. The stuff about lithium reacting with water took me back 45 years to my chemistry class.

CRAFTMASTER

Yes we are still learning..thanks for info.

craftmaster,

first of all, welcome to PPRuNe! You will find all sorts of people here, amongst them some people who have worked on and published on the issues of malfunctioning personal electronic devices and other electrical equipment on aircraft, such as myself. (I have even published on this theme a decade ago. But I wouldn't consider myself at all knowledgeable on the chemistry of batteries. I am more interested in the hazard analysis.)

You may also expect what some call "robust discussion".

You have just given us links to three videos. Two of them are by anonymous people. One cuts up a battery. The other lets a laptop battery fire burn. The third is an FAA video, with identifiable people behind it, who are fire safety professionals, and who have names, and whom you can call up on the telephone, which has been presented in public forms since 2007.

Neither of the first two videos are concerned with the theme of what you do if you have a battery fire in consumer electronics on board a passenger airplane. The third is explicitly concerned with that theme, and is filmed by people who are expert on it.

Now, I don't know who made your first two videos. In contrast, I have had some dealings with the FAA fire people, and I do know people at the CAA SRG, and it is evident to me (apparently in contrast to you) that considerable thought has gone into this.

I can also assure you that, given that suspected battery fires have been at the heart of a number of cargo-aircraft accidents, there are a lot of resources going into figuring out how to contain and suppress such fires.

Now, given that, let's look at your position.

First, you made a recommendation that directly contradicted the current best expert advice, based on your self-identifying as "hobbyist" and "not an expert". Now, if you think about it, that is just asking for a "robust" response by people who know more than you do about the matter. So you can hardly complain when you get one.

Second, you said you think the FAA "hadn't really thought about it". This is - let me say, "robustly" - obvious silliness. You very obviously have little dealings, if any, with the FAA fire safety people.

I agree with DERG that we are all still learning about this issue, some of us more than others.

Finally, let me suggest that if you have continual problems with battery fires in motel rooms, you change your battery supplier ASAP.

PBL

1. I didn't have a battery fire in the motel room. Mine was just overheating. I was just showing something which is similar and happens on airplanes. People put blankets on their laps, set their laptops on and heat is a common problem.

2. I personally have improperly charged...yes hobby batteries...and their failure is not as described on the video and more in line with 100's of videos online and other people I know who have done the same. They were not fed by a fire under the device but allowed to fail in a normal failure rate.

3. The 2 laptop fires discussed by the Citation service center was not reported to anyone. They were actually reluctant to even talk about it. I had to pry a bit to get info. As it turned out the charts the customers were using on the note books were not approved for their operation which brings another reporting problem.

Suffice to say I am not satisfied with where we are.

"I can also assure you that, given that suspected battery fires have been at the heart of a number of cargo-aircraft accidents, there are a lot of resources going into figuring out how to contain and suppress such fires."

Thats easy. Just educate the people who sell the shipping about Lithium batteries.. Then all you have to do is design a packing method that is secure and educate the loaders to keep the things cool and out the sun. If you have ambients of 40C and direct sunlight these batteries will explode.


Once one of these batteries has gone off in a cargo hold...seriously..with more of them in the whole consignment..is there ANYTHING you can do? Switch off the air con...so the flight deck has clean air..apart from that..what else can you do? Land anywhere FAST..? The highway will do anywhere..but FAST.

I agree wholeheartedly! Neither am I. I am not sure if I know anyone who is happy with the current situation.

I think the pressing issue, though, is cargo, because very very probably people have died, in more than one accident, and it is not clear the measures are in place to prevent it happening again.

Yes. General thoughts go along the following lines. First, you put cargo in containment vessels which are somewhat more robustly designed than current pallets. The containment vessels can contain thermal sensors (I am not sure if they already do, or only for self-declared "dangerous" cargo) which signal to the suppresion mechanisms. Then you starve the space of oxygen ASAP (flood with CO2, say). And then you cool it.

Wonderful in principle, but there are issues, as follows.

1. Designing the new pallets. This comes up regularly. The first time, I believe, concerning bomb-proofing after Lockerbie. Someone came up with a design that more or less worked (tried out on an old 747 in England), but it didn't prevail. Price-performance, I think. Since then, there have only recently been the computer-printer bombs that anyone has discovered, and none have gone off. The disadvantage to any pallet redesign is the cost. It will likely take a decade for a new design to become pervasive - pallets will be replaced as older ones are scrapped.

2. Thermal sensing and signalling to a airplane fire-suppression system. I think this is technically a solved problem, including the reliability of such systems. If the cargo airlines can control the pallets 100%, then pallet-level suppression might be an easier technical solution. However, all pallets would then need to be considered potentially-dangerous goods (there are suspicions that many clients fail to declare lithium batteries as "dangerous goods", for a variety of reasons ranging from ignorance to cost) and it is not clear this would be the more cost-effective solution.

3. Starving the fire of oxygen. I am not sure how well this is solved. In normal leaky spaces, if suffices to flood the immediate vicinity with something else, but in an airplane pressure vessel the displaced air needs to go somewhere, and that means pumping it out. Pumping stuff out violates the containment principle - maybe you would be pumping out flaming gas?

4. Cooling. I am not sure at all what people are thinking about this. I am not sure how well you can localise a cooling agent, and if you don't localise it then you are going to be cooling a largish airplane structure and that is going to have airworthiness consequences (though unlikely to be as pressing as the airworthiness consequences of an unsuppressed fire.

PBL

PBL

We had several incidents with cargo 'planes over the last two years.

Solutions.

The consignments which contain the batteries should not be carried as general freight added onto pax flights.

You have specially equiped freighters that can carry these goods.

No longer are they to be shipped in general cargo freighters.

In all cargo freighters you can seal the flight deck from fumes in a much better way than already done.

You make all freight decks ambient temp of no more than say 20C.

These are the techincal challenges. The rest is people management.

Well, no it's not. You have missed out any measures to address my steps 2-4. These are essential for fire risk in any situation in which you cannot control the source completely.

PBL

Fire Supression
 

Carbon Dioxide is ideal yes in every way does the job perfectly. You need to seal of completely the flight deck. Thats the big thing..seal off the flight deck.

Carbon Dioxide is COLD in a BIG way. Minus 70C Ice Cold.

SEAL OFF the FLIGHT DECK. Has it's own air supply. Free of gasses to see and breath.

This is a challenge mainly because it costs money.

An ejection pod for pilot exit...only answer for freighters carrying this stuff...cannot control these office nuggets who sell freight space. Most of them are clueless as to just what they are booking.

Then there is a whole bunch of less than responsible people in the third world...i.e. cash money in envelopes.

You will wait a hell of a long time for Boeing to do this..but LuftTek could easily do this themselves with EASA approval..This should be a prority of the Union you have over in Hamburg.

This is my conclusion for the discussion. These are some points I still have.

1. The best solutions start with the best questions.

2. When it comes to battery fires; primarily lithium battery fires there are many many situations and there is no one solution.
-small to midsized corporate airplane
-corporate airplanes as small as a phone booth with both passengers and crew having cell phones and laptops on chargers...Yes crews putting cell phones on chargers as they lay on the back panel under charts, coats, etc.
-regional airliners to 747
-Electronic devices containing batteries in cockpit, on someones lap, overhead compartments, or luggage compartment
-cargo planes

3. There are many many devices from laptops, cell phones, medical equipment, games, tools, and on and on to even batteries themself. We talk about laptops but cell phones igniting while on people's belt has been reported several times as well.

3. There are several types Lithium of batteries
-Lithium
-Lithium ion
-Lithium polly
-and well over a dozen more different type of chemistry's and mixes. All act a little differently.

When you see a devise with smoke coming out, who has time to ask "Sir, what type battery is that?". "I duno, let me read a manual".

4. What ever battery we deal with today, there will be a new battery and a new issue tomorrow. Water and Halon feed these fires today, what about tomorrows new power technology.

5. Isolating battery failurs with CO2 does not stop the battery failure; it needs no oxygen and is self sustaining. It would help however adjacent materials from continuing to burn.

Reading earlier about cooling the battery in a coffee pot; coffee pot containment good......Pooring water worked but only recomended if you can GARANTEE cell rupture.......Any cell rupture and water or halon will feed the fire creating the worst possible outcome, toxic smoke and more toxic smoke. This is what makes the FAA video such a joke. All they have done is feed the cells that have ruptured. It is minimized by the heavy fire which made the rupture consume most of the batteries where a slow rupture or burn would just be waiting for something such as water to ignite it.

6. There are different speeds at which a battery fails and NOT ONE would be relevant to a laptop with a fire burning underneath. If that were the case the fire below the laptop would be more concerning. A laptop test ignited by an outside fire source is simply irrelevant.
-Battery failures could be slow such as an overheat due to blocked fans where the circuitry in the computer was too slow to shut the computer down. You have time.
-Battery failure could be quicker where some one dropped the laptop while putting it in overhead storage and say it fell. In the process terminals were short circuiting in the damage and the laptop was put back in the overhead storage. That would be one of the worst scenarios.

7. Getting control over batteries in cargo would be tough. Even with strict rules batteries are shipped with new camera's, toys, tools, laptops, 100's of phones and many many other items. I don't see controlling batteries in cargo of a passenger craft or a cargo craft a very easy thing to accomplish. If I sell batteries for a project on ebay are you convinced I will disclose it in shipping?

8. The battery fires are not as bad as they seem. Once they explode, burn, etc, much of their volatility is gone. The risk after that is 2 fold:
-What else will it ignite? Other cells of course. Most airplane materials will not burn but clothing and personal belongings will. The lava that spews from these batteries will burn for some time too; and burn hot.
-Effects of the smoke which are worse then the fire in a compartments containing humans (or pets)
-For these two reasons I would push for containment testing.

9. I believe the industry needs to get together to really take a look at it. I still don't think they know what direction to go. In dealing with it I think it needs to broken down into several aspects:
-Adequate ways of containing battery fires...depending on the situation
-Different situations which need addressed
-Small corporate airplane
-Passenger Airline
-Cargo Airline
-Cockpit
-Passenger compartment
-In cabin storage
-Cargo compartment
-Slow failure
-Fast failure
-Associated fires
- And on and on and on.......

10. I would like to see the industry lead the way with the solutions. I have never seen the FAA create solutions for things like this. They throw the industry a bone till something worse happens and then they try something else. That is why the FAR's are known as a blood book. The FAA is nothing but a REACTIONARY organization not a proactive organization (sorry FAA guys but I think most of you there would agree).

If I said the FAA has not taken it seriously, let me rephrase that. They have responded to public pressure seriously but not attacked the battery problem seriously; there's a difference.
Industry involvement from:
-Aircraft manufacturers
-Airlines
-Large corporate operators
-Proactive refurbishment companies; I see a lot of opportunities for interior options
-Few other people

11. Safe solutions will involve techniques, technology, and education for everyone involved from the management to the person who throws bags on the airplane.

I am not talking about heavy regulation but about the industry taking it seriously. Before 1985 it was common or macho to fly the ILS regardless of weather even with thunderstorms on the airport or on final. After a Delta crash at Dallas in 1985 it changed how everyone viewed flying near thunderstorms in landings. Anyone who has ever flown a simulator has flown that profile if not once a 100 times.

The worst thing is a group of uninformed people standing around going hmm, what now? Try xyz.....That is what training is for. Figure it out before the accident.

Why should we wait for the equivalent of the 1985 L1011 crash?


In final, charging ...yes hobby batteries (which people ship too)...are charged in containers, clay pots and such. As a rule, Lithium batteries are stored in fireproof containers although few follow this rule. Lets face it, us hobby people who build circuits, write computer programs, and play with electronic hardware create situations a little less safe then commercial equipment (generally). We get to know our dangers and limitations. For that reason I have had one rule when owning a house; My shop is not attached. If I am welding, or creating an electronic device, or what ever, I can sleep knowing what ever I have done I am safe int he house while I sleep.

Here is someone charging a battery in a common manner, although my clay pots are upside right so I can carry it outside:


http://pics.stampedeproject.com/stam...1/16_small.jpg

Reactive NOT Proactive
 

" The FAA is nothing but a REACTIONARY organization not a proactive organization (sorry FAA guys but I think most of you there would agree)."

They are subject to political pressure in the same way the old USSR operated. The wait until the accident happens. This issue can be solved but the FAA are very timid.. WUSSES.. with mandates that cost the industry MONEY.

Just look at the 737NG scandal uncovered with the structural faults that went out the door at the factory.

Then we have the saga of the MD-11 instability.

FGS you would think they had the ability to progress this issue with ease.