Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Cargo
Lithium Batteries...Who carries them? >

Lithium Batteries...Who carries them?

Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines

Lithium Batteries...Who carries them?

Old 03-31-2016, 02:12 PM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Adlerdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,987
Default

Originally Posted by Archie Bunker View Post
That's correct. The 747-400 has NO fire suppression on the main cargo deck. The controlled depressurization you mentioned brings the main cargo deck up to 25,000 ft, theoretically starving the fire of oxygen.
To be technically accurate, the depressurization is a form of fire suppression. Our manuals make a point of differentiation between the lower cargo fire extinguishing system and main deck fire suppression(attained via depressurization).

As someone mentioned, we also have an after market main deck fire suppression system(FSS) in addition to the Boeing depressurization option built into the aircraft. Supposedly it has some capability against lithium ion battery fires. http://venturaaerospace.com/news/suppressing-lithium-ion-battery-fires/ However, that FSS can be deferred (and has been on several of my flights) putting us back to the basic level of relying on depressurization for main deck fires. It's also had at least one, possibly two failures in actually puncturing the problem can and delivering the agent to the interior on our recent false alarms. All of our actual ADG (like explosives, corrosives, flammable liquids/gases, etc) cannot be packed inside cans for international flights and must be palletized. So if the FSS were to activate on those positions, it would simply be spraying the agent over top of the pallet which I have to assume would be less effective than into an enclosed can with a limited oxygen supply. Still better than nothing, I suppose. The actual fire diversion we had into RJTT last year was a belly can, so at least there was extinguishing available. No word yet on what was actually burning.

I'm in no way attempting to infer that the basic main deck suppression(depressurization) system is remotely adequate to deal with the battery problem. It may make a difference with a "normal" fire that could be starved of oxygen (i.e. "suppressed") and possibly allow an over-water flight to make a dash to the nearest field. We did the "15 minute drill" on our last round of recurrent as well.
Adlerdriver is offline  
Old 03-31-2016, 03:18 PM
  #12  
Where's my Mai Tai?
 
Swedish Blender's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: fins to the left, fins to the right
Posts: 1,713
Default

Originally Posted by blackace27 View Post
How close is UPS to using the reported newly designed containers? My understanding is that they supposedly are capable of containing a lithium battery runaway fire.

Thanks all for the input.
UPS does have some of the new fire resistant cans. The batteries are supposed to be put in them, but there are not enough in service yet. They are supposed to provide 4 hours of protection which may or may not be enough time to go somewhere.
Swedish Blender is offline  
Old 03-31-2016, 11:48 PM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: Retired from APC.
Posts: 507
Default

I read somewhere that the new macrolite cans won't contain a lithium metal combustion. Curious to know the ratio of Li- metal to Li-ion batteries shipped in a typical unit of time.
FTFF is offline  
Old 04-01-2016, 09:22 AM
  #14  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Adlerdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,987
Default

Originally Posted by FTFF View Post
Curious to know the ratio of Li- metal to Li-ion batteries shipped in a typical unit of time.
Considering a couple of factors: Li-metal batteries are not re-chargeable and are often used in long term applications (10-15 years) like pacemakers and other medical implants where they typically outlast the component they power. The "coin" style ones in calculators, watches, key fobs, clocks, cameras etc. usually last many years before they need replacement.

Additionally, just about every laptop, tablet and smart phone uses the Li-ion variety and many of those items are replaced by consumers far more frequently. So, as a complete guess - I would assume Li-ion shipments are much higher (if you include not only bulk shipments of batteries alone, but also those installed in bulk shipments of personal electronics).
Adlerdriver is offline  
Old 04-01-2016, 10:44 AM
  #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Archie Bunker's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Brown 747-400
Posts: 524
Default

Originally Posted by Adlerdriver View Post
To be technically accurate, the depressurization is a form of fire suppression. Our manuals make a point of differentiation between the lower cargo fire extinguishing system and main deck fire suppression(attained via depressurization).
You know what, I stand corrected. Our books distinguish between the two systems also. There's 3 whole sentences devoted to Main Deck Cargo Compartment Suppression in the systems manual. You can call it anything you want...suppression, protection, prevention...but in the case of a lithium battery fire, it doesn't do squat, and is completely ineffective. That's why I said that the 747-400 has no fire suppression on the main deck...because what we have is worthless, and gives aircrew a false sense of security. Our crew in Dubai (UPS 6, RIP) found this out the hard way.

Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
I'm in no way attempting to infer that the basic main deck suppression(depressurization) system is remotely adequate to deal with the battery problem. It may make a difference with a "normal" fire that could be starved of oxygen (i.e. "suppressed") and possibly allow an over-water flight to make a dash to the nearest field. We did the "15 minute drill" on our last round of recurrent as well.
I wouldn't want to bet my life on it...and that's pretty much what we're doing when we fly with this "suppression system." Flying lithium batteries on our aircraft takes it to a whole different level, and is kinda like playing Russian Roulette. Sooner or later, someone's number is going to be up. Trust me...it's not a matter of "if," it's a matter of "when."
Archie Bunker is offline  
Old 04-05-2016, 12:41 PM
  #16  
On Reserve
Thread Starter
 
blackace27's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Left Seat
Posts: 23
Default What's Next?

It's pretty clear that ICAO is not taking the lead on dealing with this problem. The are hiding behind their PCs. Likewise the FAA. How about EASA or CASA. Anything going on there?

I am no longer privy to what goes on at ALPA. Can anyone tell me what ALPA and Teamsters or any other organized group representing pilots are doing regarding this battery problem?

Thanks again for the very well stated and clear input.
blackace27 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Raptor
Cargo
0
05-05-2015 09:54 AM
satpak77
Corporate
7
08-29-2014 05:54 AM
Adlerdriver
Cargo
29
12-21-2011 07:16 AM
alarkyokie
Safety
1
10-31-2010 12:17 AM
Soyathink
Cargo
2
10-08-2010 06:31 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices