No announcement yet.

Lithium batteries as cargo

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Please stop the BS and baloney in absolute terms.

    The idea of a proper package is to slow down a fire perhaps. Given time and fuel a fire ... there is no such thing as a "fireproof building" either.

    In the cabin perhaps someone could have put out an appliance in carry on.

    If the packaging had been ID'd and if it was even the source the crew may have made it back. Mid ocean or something, well it ain't a perfect world so they would die.

    If I respond to an incident, I may be wearing a fire or chemical resistant piece of gear. It is not chemical proof or fire proof ... it resists it for a period of time.

    Ban something? The world changes be it drunk driving or transport needs to meet changing markets.
    Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.


    • #17
      From what I remember being told about the DXB/UPS fire, that aircraft was carrying a pallet of button cells that had been left on the ramp in extremely hot conditions and the pallet had heated to a very high temperature due to the beating sun, therefore the batteries were far too hot to have been put on the flight. Again my source is someone who works in the freight terminal at DXB.

      With all the safety concerns about batteries being transported on aircraft there is a price to pay and as usual it will be the consumer who will pay the price. Button cells cost pennies in China and to put them in the likes of digital thermometers makes a unit price of about USD 2.50 per thermometer, without the batteries included the unit price is USD 2.25 but to buy the batteries in your local shop is about USD 4.00 making the battery price more than the original goods... who pays?

      All I was saying, and it will never come out in an official report are 3 things, 1. the LAX incident was caused by a non licenced worker driving a fork truck, not batteries self combusting 2. the DXB fire was cause by over heating due to the sun rising the temperature of the pallet, not by the batteries self combusting and 3. the laptop battery fires were caused by a manufacturing defect that was detected and sorted out by the manufacturer and not by batteries self combusting.

      In all these cases the batteries were never the instigator of the fire but the result of a 'problem' which caused them to explode, it's not BS and it's not baloney - it is fact.


      • #18
        Originally posted by Cargo Runner View Post
        ...............In all these cases the batteries were never the instigator of the fire but the result of a 'problem' which caused them to explode, it's not BS and it's not baloney - it is fact.
        Exactly - that why the DOT and international organizations place restraints on certain cargo items.

        These restraints cost my clients several hundred thousand dollars per year but their only grumble is that it sometimes impacts delivery dates.


        • #19
          From today's AIAA Newsletter:

          ICAO Rejects Ban On Lithium-Ion Battery Shipments.

          The AP (10/28, Lowy) reports that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) panel on dangerous goods voted down a ban on shipments of lithium-ion batteries. The AP reports that the ban was supported by the U.S., China, Russia, Brazil, Spain, and “organizations representing airline pilots and aircraft manufacturers,” while the ban was opposed by the Netherlands, Canada, France, Australia, Italy, United Arab Emirates, South Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the International Air Transport Association. However, the panel voted in favor of limiting the “number of batteries that can be shipped without requiring the shipper to inform the airline that the shipment contains batteries,” as well as requiring that batteries be shipped with only a 30 percent charge. About 30 airlines have already banned shipments of the batteries as cargo.


          • #20
            Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 787 Fire Incident – Final Report


            And it is not just the batteries that are carried as cargo either that you have to watch out for.... see there was nothing wrong "with the battery" it was a(nother) contributing factor, as is always the case.


            • #21
              Originally posted by Cargo Runner View Post
              see there was nothing wrong "with the battery" it was a(nother) contributing factor, as is always the case.
              Here's what was wrong with the battery:

              b) The ELT battery may have exhibited an unbalanced discharge response, resulting in the early depletion of a single cell which experienced a voltage reversal, leading to a thermal runaway failure.
              c) The Positive Temperature Coefficient (PTC) protective device in the battery did not provide the level of external short-circuit protection intended in the design.
              d) There was no evidence that the reset behaviour, and the implications of the variable switching point of the PTC, had been fully taken into account during the design of the ELT battery.
              e) The absence of cell segregation features in the battery or ELT design meant the single-cell thermal runaway failure was able to propagate rapidly to the remaining cells.


              • #22
                Yeah, and in the 787 incident at BOS, it *was* the battery's fault:

                Besides, when do contributing factors remove blame? "Well if the hill wasn't there, the plane being below MDA wouldn't have been a problem"

                The fact that a charging system defect might have caused a Li-ion battery to catch fire doesn't negate the fact that it was the battery itself that caught fire, and all the hazards that resulted from that fact. Nor does it alter the fact that Li batteries (apparently) are more prone to catch fire, and harder to extinguish when they do, than other types of batteries. Hence the restrictions.
                Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                Eric Law