Came across this today.

http://venturebeat.com/2013/01/19/british-airways-may-be-banning-laptops-phones-and-other-lithium-ion-battery-devices-after-boeing-787-fires/

Although not mentioned specifically I'm sure they mean us as well. I would expect other airlines to be looking at this.

TTFN
John.

I am sure it will all be worked out.  Carry on may be possible.  Special containers may be approved. And you can always ship via ground ahead of time.  The big problem is not contest but buying new battries.  If they must be shipped as hazard material it will drive up the cost.

Just curious - doesn't glow fuel have similar restrictions?

Just curious - doesn't glow fuel have similar restrictions?

That is correct Dennis, you have never been able to ship glow fuel thru the airlines, or the  P.O. , , or at least for as long as I can remember, that was and still is a NO NO

The UPS jumbo jet that crashed a while back from the lithium battery fire got the attention of freight carriers like FED EX and UPS, They have also been incidents with cell phone and laptops with battery fires. It seems the passenger airlines also are looking at this closely .
It is so bad now, and has been for a while, that you cannot have anything in your airplane carry case that has had fuel in it, or carry LiPos, engines, empty fuel tanks, and mufflers/pipes are banned.
It was several years back that the FAA  issued a ban on airliners carrying lithium batteries in bulk, this is maybe an offshoot of that FAA directive.
Randy

  I had also heard that they were NiCads - not Lipos - but that seems like an odd choice given their fixation on weight. 

Not suprising consedering how long it takes to get FAA aprovial on anything.  Lipos are new compaired to NiCads.

BTW, the 787 battery issues appear to be caused by a problem in the charging & peak detection and thermal sensors, leading to overcharging - not a unprovoked failure of the packs.  I had also heard that they were NiCads - not Lipos - but that seems like an odd choice given their fixation on weight. 

Since I design circuits, and write software for deeply embedded microprocessors, and since I occasionally do this for LiPo charging systems, this particular issue is of interest.  I've been following what's been said in the media on this, both general and what little has shown up in the electronics industry media.  The were LiPos, and it's generally recognized that the problem was with the charging system.

Clearly, someone done messed up.  But LiPo batteries have such a huge advantage in aviation that someone was going to try to make them work sooner or later.  Boeing is just on the leading edge of this, and the leading edge can cut.  (Cynical engineers call it the "bleeding edge" for that reason). 

Stay tuned -- if I were a betting man I'd bet that we are soon going to hear that Thales (who designed the charge management system) has a bug in their software that's responsible for the whole thing.  Or that they have a problem in their hardware that they can fix with a software modification.  If it wasn't Thales, then it could be a breakdown in communications between Yuasa and Thales, meaning that Thales did just what they were told was right, but that the batteries don't like the result.  Also possible is that Yuasa got the charge parameters wrong, and then (properly) communicated the wrong thing. Whether it's Thales, Yuasa, Boeing or some other sub-contractor is an open question (and one that may never get answered to our satisfaction -- if the finger-pointing starts in earnest you can bet that the fix is going to take a long, long time to get implemented).

I'm just hoping that LiIons don't end up getting branded as impossibly dangerous.  I don't think you're going to find anything that packs that much energy into that little volume that doesn't have some sort of safety problem (how about using gasoline-powered fuel cells, instead?).  No matter what, if you cram that much energy into that much space, in a way that you can get it out quickly, you're making it so that nature can get it out quickly, too -- and nature is a bit of a pyromaniac in situations like this.

I have heard that the FAA is working on regulations for packaging of LiIon batteries so they can be shipped by air -- but I can't be sure of the source, so consider it a rumor.

Searching on FAA lithium battery gets a slew of interesting results, although there's not much recent material there.  If you look at the dates, though, you'll see that lithium battery shipping woes didn't start with the 787.  I did find this link to an FAA document dated 2008 that pretty much says that you can't carry big LiIon batteries anyway: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ash/ash_programs/hazmat/aircarrier_info/media/airline_passengers_and_batteries.pdf.  So the restriction against LiIon batteries isn't at all new in FAA-land.

(Come to think of it, searching on shipping lithium battery or shipping lithium battery by air may help).

Eric,

You bring up a good point about shipping faulty packs to the manufacturer. There is a way to "kill" the packs before sending them back. It amounts to driving a spike through it and drowning it in salt water. I have not done this yet nor have I seen any video showing the proper way to do this only read about it.

My concern is to see how its is to be done safely. If someone has a procedure and video that could be posted it would help the E power community. Manufactures will have to find a way to have their customers do some testing to verify the problem and then receive the "killed" battery pack for replacement.

Best,      DennisT

I believe this is the effect you are trying to avoid... I'd be careful where you apply the nail, and if this didn't happen, you probably missed the cell?




EricV

I believe this is the effect you are trying to avoid... I'd be careful where you apply the nail, and if this didn't happen, you probably missed the cell?




EricV

When the video is done, it looks just like the 787 battery packs.


PS.  If the LiPo pack is discharged or minimally charged, does anything happen when it is disturbed?

Well to me another scare tactic of which someone didn't follow procedure.  Can't remember how long ago it was or who it was, but remember several times of metal fuel cans exploding when a battery terminal came in contact with the can.   That was the only explanation and a reason to use plastic jugs for fuel.   I never seen it but was shown pictures of the vehicle afterwards.  Also remember the guys that used to put their Ni-starter in the pants pocket after starting and engine. 

It IS acceptable to bring li-po batteries in carry on luggage. When I went to Bulgaria last year I shipped 2 ahead to Igor. I the took 1 in my carry on baggage. I followed TSA's requirements for transport. It was in a sealed clear plastic container with the Dean's connector plugged.
When I went through TSA in Seattle the conveyor stopped and they spent some extra time looking at my bag. The person reviewing the scans called over another agent to look at it. He looked at it and said, "it's a battery.....long pause here....but he prepared it per our requirements....It's OK".

Again it was checked in Paris with no issues. On the trip back I got bold and brought all 3 batteries back. No issues in Sofia nor Paris. In fact, in Paris I didn't even remove them from the carryon backpack they were in. I was standing at the pick up side of the scanner there and could clearly see the batteries.

There is a limit on the amount of lithium that can be carried on, but these li-po's fall well short of that level.

Once again, carry on is OK, but nothing allowed in checked baggage.

I hope the 787 problem isn't going to change this policy.