lithium batteries
 

I registered to clear up some misconceptions to the Lithium battery topic.
I work w Lithium batteries everyday.
They are NOT inherently dangerous. If they were, the world / iindustry would still be using NiMh or older carbon types...that was the dark ages of batteries and modern devices / cell phones would not be possible.
No, the danger lies in the PACKING of the cells.
No one will ever know exactly the cause of how the fire started in the 2 flights, but, my guess is, the cells were repacked after they left china where all cells originate.
I deal in secondary - rechargeable cells. They do not spontaneously ignite by themselves. The only way cells become volatile is if 2 or more are shorted across each other somehow. This would mean a very sloppy packing job.
All boxes I get from china to USA are VERY well packed and inspected. each cell isolated from one another. I also pay extra attention when I reship them.
The knee jerk reaction is that of the uninformed.
Dont let a couple incidents, while tragic, stop u from flying batteries. and if so, yes, it would kill all electronic devices as we know them today.
so, all of you on china to US flights, I would not worry about it on bulk shipments.
Other flights elsewhere, there should be an inspection to assure safety. Its not that complicated.

Battman,

No disrespect intended ... seriously.

Your professional observations and opinions while quite educational do not make me feel especially safe. I have no way of confirming that they have been properly packed and they could be loaded in a position that I am unable to fight the resulting fire. We have special procedures for all sorts of other Dangerous Goods shipments, why not LI batteries also?

How about if we put these lithium batteries on the flights you are on?


Regards ... Mark

ok
To that I would say.
It is not up to the pilot to inspect all packages, naturally.
It is the job of the shipper and those who handle the shipment on the ground before it ever gets to the aircraft.
Load the lithium in the unpressurized section of cargo and isolate it , only thing i can think of.
Li batteries are not dangerous with proper packing. This is a shipper issue.
I suppose any dangerous thing is possible other than with batteries.
Accidents happen for all sorts of reasons.
If I knew there was a lithium shipment ?? yes, I would go look at the boxes. give them a good shake, see if anything moves around inside, especially if these are originating from outside china or USA,
Anybody in their right mind engaged in commerce sending these batteries is not going to just dump them all together in a box.

Lets say you work in a warehouse someplace in Mexico. Your buddy accidentally damages a pallet of packages being shipped to the USA. Your buddy turns himself in and gets canned for his honesty. The next week you damage a pallet, assuming you are in your right mind, do you report it or attempt to hide it?

Review the ditching procedure and cross your fingers you don't have a real bad day. If those things cook off at 170W you're going to get wet--one way or the other.

With the $$ and politics involved, hard to see this changing.

ok
If a lithium pack or cell is damaged by outside fires from something else, or penetration / crushing or brought together someway to cause a short....the resulting chemical reaction will take place in a few minutes. Long before it reaches the ramp.
In the case of LiFepo4 type, it will be a little smoke, no fire.
Lithium batteries do not ignite by themselves.
UPS pilot lost steering control before plane crash - Transport - ArabianBusiness.com
Even IF the shipment was labeled as hazardous, that would not have changed anything. The plane caught fire for other reasons. the batteries just added to it. Since the pilots had no time even for an emergency landing, that says it was an explosion, and, batteries dont explode. Also, the type lithium battery was not cleary indicated, just a big wide brush saying ALL lithium batteries are now suspect.
That should answer all your Q's.

Please explain ... do you actually know how UPS flight # 6 ended ?

The plane caught fire for other reasons ... HUH ? ...

:confused:

Have you surmised on your own that the flight "exploded" ?

This is only the interim report ...

http://www.gcaa.gov.ae/en/ePublicati...%20Rev%201.pdf


--------------------------


The investigation has centered on a probable uncontained fire on the cargo main deck as the primary significant factor.

The probable location of the fire has been determined through analyzing the available data in conjunction with onsite investigation of debris and assumptions based on investigative engineering judgment.

The investigation is focusing on several possible ignition sources, primarily the location in the cargo of lithium and lithium derivative batteries that were onboard.

----------------------

And here is a synopsis of that report:

Report on UPS B747F in-flight fire accident: captain likely incapacitated Aviation Safety Network's News

Battman, you may know about Li batteries, but you evidently haven't familiarized yourself with all of the issues related to aviation and what has already happened with these batteries.

battman
 

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 their presence have brought several freighters down. Existing fire suppression systems installed 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.:rolleyes: Once an improperly packed shipment leaves the shipper, it becomes a pilot issue – no longer a shipper issue.

“a good shake”??:confused: 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.