UnusualAttitude

I had a quick question for the cargo guys/gals. In the PAX world the CA has ultimate discretion over who and what is allowed to fly on the airplane. The CA can deny boarding to any passenger for safety of flight reasons, and while this could lead to an explanation in the CPO it often doesn't because usually the reason for denial of boarding is pretty obvious. CA also has the discretion to accept or deny any cargo being loaded into the cargo bins. My question to you is this, can the CA on a cargo plane (FedEx, UPS, all the others, etc.,) deny any cargo. I ask because quite frankly this lithium battery stuff is getting out of hand and is pretty scary. After reading the WSJ article on the UPS 6 investigation (which I realize may be completely accurate or totally off base) it seems that if I was a CA in the cargo world there is no way I would allow a shipment of Lithium batteries on board my airplane.

Just curious. Fly safe.

ptarmigan

The issue, first, is not with U.S. made Li batteries, but with those made in China, etc. FedEx already does not carry those.

Second, if you were to kick all the KNOWN Li's off, shippers would likely just not declare it and move it that way. Yes, that is a risk we are currently running with China, I suppose.

Third, guess what? YOU ARE carrying LOTS of Lithium batteries on your passenger flights, EVERY DAY, and probably a lot of cheapo China (et al) manufactured ones, as virtually ALL those various PED's that those people are carrying while riding in the back have Li as their power sources.

So, question back at you, what would happen if you started to deny all your pax the ability to carry their Li powered PEDs? Can you do that?

UnusualAttitude

I see what you are saying. Passengers are not supposed to check Li batteries unless they are original and installed in original packaging. Does it still happen? I'm sure it does. I think the ability to control a fire is greater if it is one item compared to what is described by U.S. Officials in the WSJ article as, "Large quantities of Lithium batteries".

It is hard to tell one's tone via a post on a website but my original post was not meant to be antagonistic. I'm just interested in this topic and look forward to supporting the Cargo guys any way I can.

I don't see the purpose in denying every individual with their Li powered PED as it doesn't seem to be same as carrying large quantities of Li batteries packaged together in close proximity. I'll do some more research on our exact policy as I am sure it mirrors whatever FAA minimum recommendations are.

Gunter

Undeclared Haz is the biggest threat to freight carriers, IMHO.

A lithium fire in the cabin can be covered and doused with water. Since, presumably, everything going below is screened better on an pax airliner I give the lithium safety nod to Pax carriers.


If you don't want to carry lithium batteries you should not be flying freight.

Nitefrater

A freight Capt can refuse a specific shipment (i.e. "I'm not going to take THAT particular pallet") because it's improperly packed or otherwise poses a safety risk. He can't refuse to take an entire type of otherwise allowed cargo, any more than a pax Capt could say "I'm not going to take any Muslims". The FAA probably won't take certificate action against him, but his employer is likely to determine that his particular squeamishness doesn't mesh well with their business model.

robthree

My last trip back from Korea we had nine pallets of hazmat - all Lithium batteries. If we didn't carry that stuff we probably wouldn't be hauling anything.

Jetjok

Gunter,

I believe you're completely incorrect on all of your above points, IMHO of course.

1. Since freighters obviously carry more declared lithium batteries than they do undeclared ones, and your point being (I'm assuming) that the undeclared ones are packaged in less appropriate ways, does not take into account the fact that these batteries can spontaneously combust, or explode, for almost no reason, at any time. And that they can then produce enough heat to put other lithium batteries that are in close proximity, in an excited state, which could then lead to more explosions or fires. So it would stand to reason that multiple lithium batteries are in fact more hazardous than fewer ones would be, regardless of whether they were declared or undeclared.

2. Your statement "A lithium fire in the cabin can be covered and doused with water." shows your complete lack of understanding of this critical issue.

Remember the days of High School chemistry class? Lithium is an alkali metal, and as a result it's very reactive. Once a lithium fire starts, it's incredibly hard to put out.

The WORST thing you can do is to throw water on it. Lithium will react with the water to produce hydrogen gas, which will only intensify the fire. The other problem is that most extinguishing agents don't do terribly much for a lithium fire either.

Metal fires will often burn hot enough to be able to strip the oxygen from CO2 and continue burning. They will also break down Halon and related agents into hydrogen chloride and other toxic compounds. Sodium Bicarbonate (Class BC dry chemical) and ammonium monophosphate (class ABC dry chemical) extingushers have little to no effect.

In the heat of a fire the chemicals in lithium ion batteries may also decompose to form lithium metal. This lithium metal combusts more violently than lithium compounds, and also releases dense lithum oxide smoke, which is an irritant.

3. And that of course brings us to your third statement "If you don't want to carry lithium batteries you should not be flying freight.", which I not only find to be a braggart-type statement, but one that seems to be backed up with little, if any understanding of the real issue. In fact, I'm sure if you took a poll of educated (on the subject) pilots, not a single one would opt to carry the damn things.

Other than that, I enjoyed your post and thought you brought out some good points.

JJ

As an afterthought I thought I'd share with you a link that has some real good information about these little buggers. I quoted from there, although I didn't give them credit in the original portion of this post, but wanted to pass this information along. http://laserpointerforums.com/f53/fi...ies-55214.html

FDXLAG

JJ I feel the same way about jet fuel. It is much to dangerous to carry.

Gunter

JJ,

I said covered, then water. The important part is to cover/wrap with a blanket or other item first if you're going to use water. The water is mostly to keep the blanket from burning or allow you to scoop the hot battery into something to help contain it. Read the whole paper for yourself.

Yeah JJ, lithium is nasty. If I follow your guidance all I'm going to do is watch it burn. I'm going to try and keep the battery from burning the rest of the airplane and, if it explodes, from sending schrapnel into my soft pink body.

Braggart? maybe. I'm also not afraid of those full body scanners.



United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Paper 2003/4 – Dealing With In-Flight Lithium Battery Fires In Portable Electronic Devices

General Conclusions

The following conclusions can be drawn from the tests described in this report:

a) Fires can occur in the battery packs of portable electronic devices, though the
probability of such a fire in-flight is considered to be extremely low, because of the
built in safety devices.
b) For a lithium ion battery fire to occur in a portable electronic device, there needs to
be a failure of the built in protection devices; most PEDs have three levels of
protection. Multiple failures in the protection system are unlikely, but not
completely unknown during ground based operation. They must therefore be
considered as a potential risk, and treated as a hazard to an aircraft during the
ground or flight phases of operation.
c) If a battery fire does occur, it will almost certainly cause severe harm to any
passengers in the immediate vicinity. There is also a risk that the fire will spread to
adjacent flammable material e.g. clothing, newspapers, rugs, carpet.
d) If a battery fire does occur, then there is a risk of harm from smoke inhalation to
passengers and crew members, particularly if the electronic device is inside a
carrying bag. Additionally, panic can be expected amongst the passengers who
see the fire, or subsequently smell burning plastic.
e) It is beyond the scope of this project to assess how quickly the smoke would be
cleared by the cabin air conditioning system, or how passengers would behave in
such a situation. However, these are issues that the CAA may want to consider.
f) If a battery fire does occur, the explosive effect is not judged to be of a size that
would cause damage to the aircraft structure. For example, the energy was not
sufficient to shake a video camera positioned within two metres of the battery fire.
However, individual cells may be propelled out from the battery pack.
g) The use of fire extinguishers did not aggravate the situation in any of the tests
performed during the project.
h) With some fires, halon and the halon replacement FE-36 were more effective than
water in extinguishing the flame. This was particularly true when the water could
not be aimed directly at the fire. (There is no guarantee that the fire will be pointing
towards the person operating the fire extinguisher).
i) The halon and FE-36 halon replacement extinguishers were rated as equally
effective. Standard tests on more quantifiable fires can almost certainly be used as
indication of their relative effectiveness.
j) Fire blankets were effective in extinguishing the fire, provided they completely
enclosed the item on fire. In this context, they may be more appropriate for
wrapping a still smoking item, after the initial flames have been knocked down by
a water, halon, or halon replacement extinguisher.

Gunter

4.1.1 Conclusions Relating to Batteries not Installed in a Device

a) The following procedures can be used to intiate battery fires in single cells:
- lithium ion prismatic cell - overcharge at four times the manufacturer’s
recommended charging current.
- lithium ion cyclindrical cell - overcharge at four times the manufacturer’s
recommended charging current, then heat.
30 July 2003
CAA Paper 2003/4 Dealing With In-Flight Lithium Battery Fires In Portable Electronic Devices
Page 17
b) A shutdown separator on its own is not necessarily sufficient to prevent a lithium
ion cell from catching fire, particularly with a higher than recommended charging
current. The main protection comes from the voltage and current protection
circuits incorporated in battery packs, and deliberately excluded in these tests.
c) With a pack of lithium ion prismatic or cylindrical cells, the battery fire started as a
series of explosions. There was no visual indication that this was about to occur,
though the pack would have felt hot to the touch. All the extinguishers were
effective in dealing with the fire. No extinguisher aggravated the situation, or
reacted in an adverse way with the battery materials.
d) There may be an instinctive reaction against using water on a “lithium” fire, but it
is actually the resultant plastic fire that needs to be extinguished.
e) With a pack of nickel – metal hydride cells, there was no fire or explosion, just
copious smoke. None of the extinguishers stopped the smoke, but they did not
make the situation worse. The smoke was stopped by switching off the charging
current.
f) The fires with lithium / MnO2 and lithium / SOCl2 primary cells self extinguished
within two minutes. With the former, immediate application of a fire extinguisher
prevented the fire from progressing from a “solvent” to a “lithium metal” fire.
With the latter, it was difficult to say that the extinguisher actually shortened the
fire.