You’re entering this discussion at a disadvantage. You know plenty about batteries and how they should operate, their limits, etc. You appear to know very little about freighter aircraft operations and how that might affect these batteries. Presenting us with theoretical data on how these batteries are supposed to work is really meaningless.
The simple fact is that self-sustaining fires caused by these batteries or exacerbated by the presence of them have brought several freighters down. Existing fire suppression systems install in our freighters are not effective in dealing with L-I battery fires. We operate our aircraft many hours away from any suitable runway and it’s likely an aircraft and crew in that position would be lost in the event of a battery fire. Even crews who were very close to suitable runways were unable to recover in time.
Neither are firearms, automobiles or even aircraft. People die every day using these “not inherently dangerous” things because of misuse, inattention or recklessness. Sh!t happens so you need to have a plan, redundancy and logical procedures/restrictions to deal with it.
There’s no guarantee every packing job is going to be accomplished effectively. Just because you get well packed boxes doesn’t mean everyone does. Someone gets lazy or a bad package slips through and we pay – not them.
?Knee jerk? Dude, you’re losing credibility fast with comments like that. Putting these batteries on a ship isn’t going to “kill all electronic devices”. They just get where they’re going a little slower.
We do worry about these batteries, ESPECIALLY in bulk shipments. That’s the point. A large quantity of these has all the more potential to become dangerous as a result of mishandling or poor packing.
I really don’t care what kind of inspection the shipper performs. That package has the potential to be damaged or mishandled any time after it leaves the shipper’s custody. Once it does, those who are handling the package at Fedex don’t have the option to open the package and inspect each battery or evaluate how well they are packed and separated. Damage to shipments isn’t always evident from an outside inspection and mishandling may go unreported.
Your view on this is too rooted in theory and absolutes.
There is no “unpressurized section of cargo” on an MD-11 or any other freighter or passenger aircraft I’ve operated – but thanks for the suggestion.
Once an improperly packed shipment leaves the shipper, it becomes a pilot issue – no longer a shipper issue.
“a good shake”??
Welcome to Fantasy Island. You do realize that some of these shipments are THOUSANDS of pounds? You’re suggesting pilots interrupt their normal duties to go back as the loading crew loads 180,000 lbs. of freight and shake some batteries? Are you going to shake the whole 3-4,000 lb. pallet at once or remove the tie downs, take off all the shrink wrap plastic and pull out each package of batteries separately? Just wondering.
Ahh – now I feel so much better. I didn’t realize that the battery business had such stringent criteria for entry into the market place. The only unscrupulous business people in China are involved in producing baby formula – those low life types would never try to make a quick buck in the battery trade.
More theory. So, what if the damage happens during loading onto the aircraft? – long after the shipment has left the ramp. What if the damage is unnoticed? What if the damage isn’t a problem until the aircraft and all its contents encounter some severe turbulence over the north pacific, 4 hours from any possible landing site?
I don’t know what a LiFepo4 is and I really don’t care. If the batteries I’m carrying ignite and do a “china syndrome” through the floor of my aircraft because they were poorly packaged, damaged or mishandled in some way, I’m not going to care that they didn’t ignite by themselves or they did it with little smoke and no fire.
There is nothing in the article that says the aircraft caught fire for other reasons. The investigation is focusing on the batteries as the cause of the fire and ultimate loss of the aircraft. A hazardous
label wouldn’t have changed anything, but the procedures that go along with that label might. If L-I batteries had restrictions placed on their carriage similar to other hazardous material, it most certainly would change things. We carry explosives, corrosives, toxic and a bunch of other pretty scary cargo. They are inspected by the pilots prior to takeoff to ensure they are secure, things that are incompatible have proper separation and a number of other safety related criteria have been met. Flights within the US have this type of cargo placed inside special sealed containers with dedicated halon fire extinguishers attached to each one. There are limits to the amounts of certain items and all such cargo must be accessible to the crew. Currently these restrictions do not apply to L-I batteries. So, yeah – a hazardous label might have made a difference because of the restrictions that go along with that label.
Re-read the article. An “initial report” of an explosion is quite different than a confirmed explosion. There was no explosion. The aircraft had an uncontrolled fire and the first officer was attempting to fly it until he lost control cables, was overcome by smoke or could no longer see to operate it.
As I said earlier – don’t really care what type of batteries. If they can do this to a 747, then they can stay on the ground until someone is willing to require them to be handled commensurate with the potential threat they pose.