It's nice when rules can be written in sense instead of blood. I don't know if that's the case here. But any fire on an aircraft is close to the latter.
Virgin and Qantas to ban use of portable power banks after string of fires
31–40 of 78 posts
Re: Virgin and Qantas to ban use of portable power banks after string of fires
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
A train can go from "cruising speed" to letting passengers off to escape a fire in about a minute. A plane might take anywhere from five minutes to several hours to be able to safely let passengers out. Personally I feel that's a good enough reason to impose more robust restrictions on Things Which May Cause Fire on planes compared to trains. Especially in the case of lithium batteries where they're more or less impo…
I agree with the concept of comparing risk being the meaningful approach, but I disagree this is how you go about measuring risk. How many people are being injured/killed per million km or something is the type of metric. Air travel far exceeds those types of metrics vs other common modes of travel, yet is always the first one to be further focused on how bad it could potentially be.
I would argue at the performance of aviation safety, and the constant focus on how bad it could be, is exactly why aviation is safe. The day that we decide to stop focussing on what could go wrong, is the day that aviation stops being safe.
For example, if aircraft come within five nautical miles or I think it’s 1000 vertical feet, it’s considered a very serious incident. Not because anyone is in danger at five nautical miles or 1000 vertical feet, but because if you don’t draw the line there, and treat that barrier as seriously as if two aircraft had collided, then there isn’t really a barrier at all.
Re: Virgin and Qantas to ban use of portable power banks after string of fires
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the odds that a lithium battery would cause uncontrolled fire? We are around them daily, ever since the 80s-90s , to this day I have never seen one in person. Look at this guy, he puts a screwdriver through phones for show off on youtube, intentionally damaging the battry...nothing dangerous or uncontrolled happens, the little smoke is the equivalent of a couple of cigarettes. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/…
Non-zero: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6 > The report indicated that the fire was caused by the autoignition of the contents of a cargo pallet that contained more than 81,000 lithium batteries and other combustible materials
So we just need to limit to 80,999 power banks on a plane at once
Re: Virgin and Qantas to ban use of portable power banks after string of fires
#34Meanwhile you can carry a nuclear bomb on a train and nobody even bothers to check the id or ticket up until you are on board. Irrational fear of flight strikes again, it's a very long list actually of standards that aviation has to comply with in order not to thrive but to merely exist , all because people are irrationally fearful about being suspended mid air. It's the same thing for nuclear
A train can go from "cruising speed" to letting passengers off to escape a fire in about a minute. A plane might take anywhere from five minutes to several hours to be able to safely let passengers out. Personally I feel that's a good enough reason to impose more robust restrictions on Things Which May Cause Fire on planes compared to trains. Especially in the case of lithium batteries where they're more or less impo…
I have, for a while now, wondered when an airborne battery incident will be calamitous enough for a complete ban on power banks.
Re: Virgin and Qantas to ban use of portable power banks after string of fires
#35The title is misleading unless you read it carefully. They are not banning bringing power banks, they are banning using power banks. On the plane you have to keep the power bank on your person, but not use it. This would be a lot more defensible if they had high-power USB-C ports by every seat.
I’m sure you don’t mean this, but it sounds like you’re saying that if airlines don’t provide high-power USB, passengers would prefer the risk of dying in a fire rather than going without their devices. Of course, now that I type that out, I worry that perhaps many people would make exactly that choice. Regardless, I would argue that aviation safety is much more important than device preference - if that means, we al…
I'm pretty certain their intent was that passengers would be less upset by the rule change, and certainly less motivated to try to circumvent/violate them if they had reliable charging ports available
Re: Virgin and Qantas to ban use of portable power banks after string of fires
#36I would use a battery pack less if the outlets on the planes actually worked! On my last 4 flights I've had outlets completely disabled.
And when they do work, my North American two prong plug falls right out half of the time.
A trick (on U.S. airlines) is to plug in an overseas adapter (British style plugs seem to work pretty well for this purpose), since those prongs see far less use and still grip well.
Re: Virgin and Qantas to ban use of portable power banks after string of fires
#37The issue is that these power banks are often cheapo corporate gifts or bought out of vending machines, catering to the cheapest possible price and not certified to anything.
In this case they have crappy BMS that doesn’t have thermal sensors or even make sure the cells are balanced during charging, and no mechanical integrity so the cell can just get crushed and explode.
The solution is to require all consumer electronics with batteries to be certified (if carried on a plane or in the post), and part of that certification process needs to be mechanical; including crushing with normal levels of in-transit forces, and electrical testing; including charging the device at a high temperature.
Re: Virgin and Qantas to ban use of portable power banks after string of fires
#38Is the issue that many power banks have cheaply made batteries compared to phones, tablets, and laptops? Why power banks specifically? If the issue is quality control is there certification that airlines might require?
Because the quality control on power banks is absolute rubbish. They're typically bought from no-name vendors on Amazon with zero accountability for if they go bad.
Overall, the U.S. and other countries need to start requiring UL listing for stuff like this before it can be imported into the country (and strict liability for any domestic manufacturers).
Re: Virgin and Qantas to ban use of portable power banks after string of fires
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with the concept of comparing risk being the meaningful approach, but I disagree this is how you go about measuring risk. How many people are being injured/killed per million km or something is the type of metric. Air travel far exceeds those types of metrics vs other common modes of travel, yet is always the first one to be further focused on how bad it could potentially be.
I would argue at the performance of aviation safety, and the constant focus on how bad it could be, is exactly why aviation is safe. The day that we decide to stop focussing on what could go wrong, is the day that aviation stops being safe. For example, if aircraft come within five nautical miles or I think it’s 1000 vertical feet, it’s considered a very serious incident. Not because anyone is in danger at five nauti…
I disagree with there being no danger at 5nm.
Depending on courses and speeds that 5nm could go to zero in as little as 16 seconds or so. Airliners are not especially maneuverable.
Yes, the odds of the courses actually intersecting are small, but not zero.
Re: Virgin and Qantas to ban use of portable power banks after string of fires
#40I would use a battery pack less if the outlets on the planes actually worked! On my last 4 flights I've had outlets completely disabled.
You have to look up the maximum wattage for the given cabin configuration. I’ve found 30W to be about as high as I can go without it cutting out. Use a phone charger for your laptop. This is where it’s helpful to have a multi-port charger where they’re not all high-draw. IMO more important to go with something flat or light that won’t fall out under its own weight.
Assuming this is USB-C ports, they're supposed to negotiate a supported power limit with the device you plug in. If the port is saying "I can deliver 60W" and then cutting out if you draw more than 30, there's something wrong with their chargers.