Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Virgin and Qantas to ban use of portable power banks after string of fires

abc.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–78 of 78 posts

Re: Virgin and Qantas to ban use of portable power banks after string of fires

#71

Post by georgefrowny »

hexbin010 wrote: post #53
georgefrowny wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

British plugs are just better anyway. The rectangular pins have far better contacts mechanically and electrically and they're arranged in a triangle so the plug can't wobble its way out. It's really a very good design.

Indeed! Also: - The outlets have shutters preventing access to the contacts, until the longer earth pin is inserted - The live pins are on the bottom, making contact harder if it's partially pulled out. And the live pins have sleeved sections so even less live metal is exposed. - The cable drop is at 90 degrees, typically causing less pull on the plug

Also when the cable is pulled out of the plug by force, the live disconnects first, then neutral, and only then earth.

Re: Virgin and Qantas to ban use of portable power banks after string of fires

#72

Post by hexbin010 »

gruez wrote: post #69
georgefrowny wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

British plugs are just better anyway. The rectangular pins have far better contacts mechanically and electrically and they're arranged in a triangle so the plug can't wobble its way out. It's really a very good design.

You pay for it though, both in terms of extra manufacturing costs (presumably) and weight/bulk. Compare the north american apple usb-c power adapter to the british one: https://store.storeimages.cdn-apple.com/1/as-images.apple.co... https://store.storeimages.cdn-apple.com/1/as-images.apple.co...

The lower power versions have collapseble pins though:

https://www.apple.com/uk/shop/product/mgtv4b/a/40w-dynamic-p... (the clonking sound is extremely satisfying!)

The high watt chargers are heavy regardless

Does that US version even stay in the socket given the weight?

Tbh it's pretty tiny price to pay. And 5 -pack of double sockets costs £13 btw! ($17 ish)

Re: Virgin and Qantas to ban use of portable power banks after string of fires

#73

Post by aetherspawn »

ottah wrote: post #68
aetherspawn wrote: post #37

The 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 elect…

I swear the majority of UL and CE marked electronics on amazon are fraudulent. Honestly, I don't think certification is going to work, at least not with out a long term economic policy to onshore manufacture. There's just no practical system for verifying certification when the origin is obfuscated for the majority of our good, and produced outside of our regulatory system. We also just don't make these things in suf…

I think the mistake here is not printing the registration number on the products themselves so that you can type it into the portal or whatever and look up what it’s supposed to look like. Like photo ID.

Re: Virgin and Qantas to ban use of portable power banks after string of fires

#74

Post by kenny11 »

jerlam wrote: post #14

China bans non-certified power banks on their domestic flights, even if they're not in use. And the certification authority is China-specific, they don't care about UL or any others. https://www.travelofchina.com/china-power-bank-ban-2025-xiao...

I had this happen at the Shenzhen airport a few weeks ago. They confiscated my Apple MagSafe battery because it didn't have the CCC mark. From the looks of it, they were confiscating a lot of them.

It was a missed opportunity for someone to not have opened an approved power bank store just past security.

Re: Virgin and Qantas to ban use of portable power banks after string of fires

#75

Post by appreciatorBus »

JumpinJack_Cash wrote: post #58
appreciatorBus wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> > The day that we decide to stop focussing on what could go wrong, is the day that aviation stops being safe A rebalancing vis a vis cars, buses, ships and trains is due. All the effort and man hours wasted trying to clear the last 0.01% in aviation would be better spent focusing on the other means of transportation, or other stuff that actually kills people period. The goal is not to die period. Not avoiding dying…

Are you seriously suggesting the 20% of train trips and 30% of bus trips and in death or injury?

Big if true!

Re: Virgin and Qantas to ban use of portable power banks after string of fires

#76

Post by appreciatorBus »

TylerE wrote: post #39
appreciatorBus wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, of course that’s my point. We have to draw large safety margins around these systems, and then we have to treat incidents that breach those margins as seriously as we would an actual collision.

Re: Virgin and Qantas to ban use of portable power banks after string of fires

#77

Post by JumpinJack_Cash »

appreciatorBus wrote: post #75
JumpinJack_Cash wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > The day that we decide to stop focussing on what could go wrong, is the day that aviation stops being safe A rebalancing vis a vis cars, buses, ships and trains is due. All the effort and man hours wasted trying to clear the last 0.01% in aviation would be better spent focusing on the other means of transportation, or other stuff that actually kills people period. The goal is not to die period. Not avoiding dying…

Are you seriously suggesting the 20% of train trips and 30% of bus trips and in death or injury? Big if true!

On a global basis yes, they end up with injury or theft or molesties or attempt at such

Re: Virgin and Qantas to ban use of portable power banks after string of fires

#78

Post by abenga »

JumpinJack_Cash wrote: post #65
IAmBroom wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking for rail safety alone: rules are written in hypothetical blood. The FRA and similar bodies in CAN and EU are VERY proactive about safety, as are the light rail train companies themselves. In fact, new safety regs are often suggested by rail companies, who observe previously-unexpected situations IRL (despite the best attempts to nail these down in advance). You're enjoying tossing around a lot of "What if"s,…

> > Speaking for rail safety alone: rules are written in hypothetical blood. The FRA and similar bodies in CAN and EU are VERY proactive about safety, as are the light rail train companies themselves. Trains make thousands of victims each year, I think worldwide the number borders the 10,000 from all causes and nobody gets on their case like planes which in a good year make 0 victims per year worldwide So you have it…

So should we increase the "scare factor" on rail transport or reduce it on air transport?
Post reply on HN