Airlines now banning hoverboards on flights

[Dr Bob]

hoverboards are banned  outright in Australia until the 20th of April. yep all the folks still selling can be hit with huge fines and jail. seems no one cares as everyone is still selling them. on the 20th it is looking like this ban is for good or until someone gets type approval and challenges the legislaation.

[tjcooper]

Chuts,

I think you need to learn a little bit about how batteries operat, and what are the conditions under which they can become dangerous.

Here is a reference to "Battery University" on the web which has a complete breakdown and training course all all types of batteries used in normal operation:

http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/the_li_polymer_battery_substance_or_hype

Go to the top of the page to go to any type of battery you would like to learn about.  The URL here is for LiPoly.  there are two dominant conditions under which LiPo batteries can "vent and flame" .   This occurs during charge and discharge.   I have never seen a case where a LiPoly has gone to vent and flame while stored in a shut-down computer or a refrigerator (its best resting place) while not under stress.    I have had them explode in my pocket and in my model planes while flying.....but in both those cases I was responsible for setting up the condition for runaway thermal meltdown.  In the pocket, the recently discharged battery was "clinched" in my pocket while I was doing "discus" throw of my DLG glider.  That tension caused the aluminium and copper plates to come into contact.  that started the thermal runaway process.  I felt the heat build and was able to get the battery out of my pocket before it went to vent and flames.     In the model airplanes, the battery was at end-of-life and pushed too hard in driving the outrunner motor.  The heat build up at the electrodes caused the thermal runaway.   The orange-yellow flames were visible for several miles.    In neither case did anyone get hurt or property damage done (airplane excepted).

95% of all battery fires happen during charging.  The setting of a wrong voltage or current is the primary cause.  Not having a charger with a thermal sensor is a fault on the user.   I always charge my batteries with a temperature sensor and/or with a fire-proof container to restrict the battery from burning down the house.  There are good asbestos (yes, it is still used) bags that will really limit the damage that a vent and flame battery will do.    The other 5% during discharge are rare if one uses a good speed controller that limits current and voltage drain.  But occasionally they can fail.

In comercial airplanes, there have been about 10 reported cases of LiPoly batterys venting....only one case I am aware of where flames materialized but I could be wrong on that.  In all these cases the LiPoly battery were being used in a heater or computer or electronic circuit during the flight.  There have been cases where the LiPoly vented when the storage bin in the airplane hold was not secured and the soft-sided LiPoly's bashed into the side of the plane wall.  That can do it to.   I have not heard of a case where a commercial plane was crashed because of LiPoly fires on board......but there have been many cases of airplanes having to return to home because their on-board batteries over heated and started to vent.  A standard Boeing 747 has many LiPoly batteries on board used in the galley equipment and in the flight controls of the pilots cabin.  Needless to say, they have all the best PTC circuits available.

So putting a 18650 battery pack (below a certain wattage [typically 160 Watthours]) in the luggage of an airplane is no significant threat at all.   They are not in their devices and have no charge or discharge cycle going on.   Their chance of having problems (assuming the luggage is secured) is like 10^^-11 or better.   I am far more worried about airlines that allow agricultural and pharmaceutical bags of ammonium nitrate on the plane to ship from one place to another.   It only takes one 50-lbs of ammonium nitrate sent to flames to remove the entire rear half of a Boeing 747 plane.   So that is where I would put my real flight concerns when you next fly.

     tjcooper

[EU_commuter]

International Air Transport Association (IATA) has the following provision regarding to “portable electronic devices” (PED), EUs included:

https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/cargo/dgr/Documents/small-lithium-battery-powered-vehicles.pdf

Basically, it recommends

<100Wh, checked  or  carry-on  baggage.  Approval of the operator is not required.

100Wh-160Wh, checked  or  carry-on  baggage.  Approval of the operator is required.

>160Wh, not allowed on board.

However, practically all major airlines in the list of operators at the end of the document band all "small lithium battery powered vehicles".

[Chuts]

15 hours ago, tjcooper said:

Chuts,

I think you need to learn a little bit about how batteries operat, and what are the conditions under which they can become dangerous.

Here is a reference to "Battery University" on the web which has a complete breakdown and training course all all types of batteries used in normal operation:

http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/the_li_polymer_battery_substance_or_hype

Go to the top of the page to go to any type of battery you would like to learn about.  The URL here is for LiPoly.  there are two dominant conditions under which LiPo batteries can "vent and flame" .   This occurs during charge and discharge.   I have never seen a case where a LiPoly has gone to vent and flame while stored in a shut-down computer or a refrigerator (its best resting place) while not under stress.    I have had them explode in my pocket and in my model planes while flying.....but in both those cases I was responsible for setting up the condition for runaway thermal meltdown.  In the pocket, the recently discharged battery was "clinched" in my pocket while I was doing "discus" throw of my DLG glider.  That tension caused the aluminium and copper plates to come into contact.  that started the thermal runaway process.  I felt the heat build and was able to get the battery out of my pocket before it went to vent and flames.     In the model airplanes, the battery was at end-of-life and pushed too hard in driving the outrunner motor.  The heat build up at the electrodes caused the thermal runaway.   The orange-yellow flames were visible for several miles.    In neither case did anyone get hurt or property damage done (airplane excepted).

95% of all battery fires happen during charging.  The setting of a wrong voltage or current is the primary cause.  Not having a charger with a thermal sensor is a fault on the user.   I always charge my batteries with a temperature sensor and/or with a fire-proof container to restrict the battery from burning down the house.  There are good asbestos (yes, it is still used) bags that will really limit the damage that a vent and flame battery will do.    The other 5% during discharge are rare if one uses a good speed controller that limits current and voltage drain.  But occasionally they can fail.

In comercial airplanes, there have been about 10 reported cases of LiPoly batterys venting....only one case I am aware of where flames materialized but I could be wrong on that.  In all these cases the LiPoly battery were being used in a heater or computer or electronic circuit during the flight.  There have been cases where the LiPoly vented when the storage bin in the airplane hold was not secured and the soft-sided LiPoly's bashed into the side of the plane wall.  That can do it to.   I have not heard of a case where a commercial plane was crashed because of LiPoly fires on board......but there have been many cases of airplanes having to return to home because their on-board batteries over heated and started to vent.  A standard Boeing 747 has many LiPoly batteries on board used in the galley equipment and in the flight controls of the pilots cabin.  Needless to say, they have all the best PTC circuits available.

So putting a 18650 battery pack (below a certain wattage [typically 160 Watthours]) in the luggage of an airplane is no significant threat at all.   They are not in their devices and have no charge or discharge cycle going on.   Their chance of having problems (assuming the luggage is secured) is like 10^^-11 or better.   I am far more worried about airlines that allow agricultural and pharmaceutical bags of ammonium nitrate on the plane to ship from one place to another.   It only takes one 50-lbs of ammonium nitrate sent to flames to remove the entire rear half of a Boeing 747 plane.   So that is where I would put my real flight concerns when you next fly.

     tjcooper

Doesn't matter how you reason with it.  There is a chance nothing will happen and there is a chance that batteries you or others take on board bring down the plane killing 300+ people.  Batteries once in suitcase placed in the hold are no longer in your control and anything could happened to them. 

[tjcooper]

Please re-read the IATA specifications on battery powered "mobile assisted" vehicles.   If the batteries are removed from the vehicle, the vehicle can be shipped as normal cargo.  The shipment of "Lithium ion" and "Lithium metal" batteries are then subject to the other regulations for passenger aircraft.  Since I hand make my own 18650 battery systems, as long as my packs are 100 Watt-hours or less, then those can be shipped in luggage.

 

The IATA had some new proposals that want to ban all "Lithium ion" batteries from passenger aircraft as either cargo in crew areas or cargo in hold area or carry on.   This really strikes me as strange since almost all new aircraft have rechargeable batteries of the LiPo type included in the basic aircraft configuration.  Such a ban would require the flight computer not to have power failure battery backup (a really bad thing to have happen).  It seems the IATA does not understand how aircraft are powered and the nature of batteries.  They require all shipped batteries in cargo with LiPo to have only 30% State Of Charge (SOC).  In such a low state of charge, this significantly damages the lifetime of a LiPo battery that wants normal storage to be at 50% SOC.  Sounds like the engineers and the regulators for commercial aircraft have never had the right hand and the left hand ever shake.   I found it very interesting that the IATA document recommended that all cargo procurement people use boats to ship all batteries in the future.   If you look at the published volumes of electronic equipment that Sony ships to USA, more than 50% of their electronics items ship via air cargo with the batteries present in the retail package.  It really sounds like there is a huge disconnect between what happens in "the real world" and what regulation agencies are proposing.  Please read the Wikipedia page on Boeing 787 DreamLiner and its LiPo battery problems.  While it was grounded for a while, the current outcome is that the LiPo batteries in the 787 have had some signs of thermal runaway but that the failure is from protection circuitry and not from the LiPo batteries themselves.  The reference material indicates that currently there are no crashes attributed to LiPo battery failure either internal to the aircraft or those contain in their cargo hold.  There are a number of references to controlled fires when batteries were not properly secured in the holds.

BOTTOM LINE: LiPo batteries have problems during charge and discharge state.  Commercial aircraft have been affected by bad LiPo battery designs in their systems but current research shows problems in electronics and not in the batteries.  No crashes have been registered with the FAA because of LiPo fire while the aircraft was in the air.  LiPo batteries need to be strictly controlled while in operation in aircraft (commerial and cargo).  Proper storage and packaging of batteries (all types) in aircraft is essental for operation safety.  So almost all commercial airplanes USE LiPo batteries in their operation.  How we control those LiPo batteries is the biggest issue, not whether all LiPo's should be banned from the plane.  Think about it.

    tjcooper

[jbwheel]

On samedi 9 avril 2016 at 2:39 AM, tjcooper said:

I think you need to learn a little bit about how batteries operat, and what are the conditions under which they can become dangerous.

 I have never seen a case where a LiPoly has gone to vent and flame while stored in a shut-down computer or a refrigerator (its best resting place) while not under stress.

95% of all battery fires happen during charging.  The setting of a wrong voltage or current is the primary cause.  The other 5% during discharge are rare if one uses a good speed controller that limits current and voltage drain.  But occasionally they can fail.

In comercial airplanes, there have been about 10 reported cases of LiPoly batterys venting....

So putting a 18650 battery pack (below a certain wattage [typically 160 Watthours]) in the luggage of an airplane is no significant threat at all.   They are not in their devices and have no charge or discharge cycle going on.   Their chance of having problems (assuming the luggage is secured) is like 10^^-11 or better.

It is a matter of probabilities and I do not agree with the 10^-11 figure and the way you use it (plus you are not defining the "chance of having problems"). The chance of having a nuclear plant meltdown is for example 10^-6 per year per plant, taking into account floods, plane crash, combined failure etc.

And if 10^11 is the right figure because you consider chinese makers can handle these security matters in an almost perfect way, then you have to multiply it by the number of batteries and flights. Within 10 years, the chance of having a major accident somewhere would be at least increased by 10^6 or 10^7. You could also increase the chance by the number of cells (between 16 and 128 for some KS18) in the battery pack.

Interestingly you mention "assuming the luggage is secured", but why ? How many luggage get crushed or have to handle anormal shocks during transportion or transit that you would ignore the probability of an internal short, cell deformation or BMS breaking resulting from a luggage "mistreatment" ?

I also don't get the point of making the demonstration with LiPo batteries when the vast majority of euc or hoverboard use li-ion 18650 cells.

About the real world, at least one plane has already crashed because of lithium batteries (3 sept 2010, UPS Boeing 747), even if it is a cargo (and not what you call commercial), it almost crashed on the city / airport nearby. 2 pilots died and maybe this is not a another risk pilots are willing to take. There is also suspiscion on the lost MH370 carrying passengers. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/612389/MH370-lithium-mobile-phone-batteries-missing-Boeing-777-crash, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586308/Missing-jet-WAS-carrying-highly-flammable-lithium-batteries-CEO-Malaysian-Airlines-finally-admits-dangerous-cargo.html

About the 2013 grounding of 50 boeing 787 dreamliner because of 5 incidents involving japanese Yuasa LiCoO2 batteries (chemistry used by some 18650 li-ion cells). We are talking about aerospace tested products, not consumer electronics. And the wiki say they dont know the root cause of the fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_problems

Plus the chance of having a faceplant being close to 100% if not 1000% during the lifetime of a 170Wh li-ion (not li-po, those are very rare) euc, I don't understand why those are not also forbidden... especially when LiFePO4 are much safer and can do the job.
 

 

[dmethvin]

On 4/11/2016 at 11:19 PM, tjcooper said:

The IATA had some new proposals that want to ban all "Lithium ion" batteries from passenger aircraft as either cargo in crew areas or cargo in hold area or carry on.   This really strikes me as strange since almost all new aircraft have rechargeable batteries of the LiPo type included in the basic aircraft configuration.  Such a ban would require the flight computer not to have power failure battery backup (a really bad thing to have happen).  It seems the IATA does not understand how aircraft are powered and the nature of batteries.

Well the difference with batteries installed in the plane by the manufacturer is that they would have supposedly gone through much more stringent testing and have higher quality BMS/charging circuitry than the average consumer e-cigarette, hoverboard or EUC. It turns out that is not always enough, for example the 787 had some issues with its backup batteries and Deta had some handheld credit card terminals that caught fire. But even so, they have a lot more control over how to fix those situations than they do the situation that passengers bring cheap batteries on board or ship them as baggage.

[tjcooper]

If you read the post on "battery university" you will see that LiPo is now a generic term that covers all Lithium batteries where a Polymer is used in their chemical construction.  Only the Lithium Primary batteries (that I know of) have a solid matrix and have no polymer in their construction.

The UPS 747 plane crashed because "it is believed" that the fire in the cargo hold was do to LiPo batteries going to "vent and flame" condition and supposedly shut down the oxygen supply to the pilots.   The FAA gave the ultimate cause for the crash as "pilots unconcious" and listed it under pilot error because there was a secondary oxygen supply that could have been used.  There is no flight recorder in the cargo hold that tells which pallet caught fire and what fire caused the electronics supply of pilot oxygen not to function.   I do admit that the most likely cause is what all the tabliods listed as Lithium battery fire and shut down pilot oxygen and they were too slow to get secondary oxygen to continue on.  It is interesting to note that that model of 747 has emergency  "air dump" of the cargo hold pressurized air.  Since the pilots knew of the fire for like 15 minutes, why did they not depressurize the cargo hold in an attempt to cool the LiPo flames to extinquish (or at least retard) them.   Maybe that is another reason why the FAA listed the crash under pilot error.

 

The Japanese  Yuasa factory that makes the batteries for the 787 which was grounded also makes on the same factory line the batteries for 18650 types and for the food-bag type used in many computers and most tablets.  I have been on that line and seen their quality control.  They really do work hard to remove defects.   It is the testing at the end of the line that separates out the batteries used for critical purposes (medical and airlines) versus consumer products.  But the product is the same except for some exotic housing products.    So I think the bottom line is the amount of testing that goes into the batteries....and whether they have the proper circuits to shut down operation if a problem occurs.

The 10^^-11 probability that I gave was just a "swag" for what Sony speculates is the probability that a LiPo battery (18650 type) will go to "vent and flame" if it is not in active use in either charge or discharge, and just sitting on the shelf.   But my swag cannot be too far off if Boeing set the probability of the 787 Lithium supply as 20 million hours of operation.   But clearly that has not been the case with the two failures thus far.

I said that batteries need to be "secured in luggage" and I got the retort that luggage is damaged everyday at the airport.  But his is in handling on the ground and loading and unloading the airplane.   It is very rare for cargo luggage to get damage in the air......except for collision with another airplane.   I think the biggest problem in transportation of LiPo batteries in aircraft is that they are not packaged correctly and that too many batteries are put on one box and many boxes on one pallet.   They should go into stainless steel holding containers with no more than 5 lbs of batteries in each container.   And then the containers should be distributed throughout the cargo hold.....not all concentrated in one position.  The one thing I learned at Sony about LiPo batteries is that they form the "domino effect".  The first cell goes to flame and then 10 seconds later it sets off the second cell and then 10 seconds later goes off the third cell, etc.    If they can keep the packs isolated with a little heat dissipation metal containers, they can contain the problem to a few cells.   When 450 lbs of batteries get a chance to all burn, there will be a sizeable hole in the airplane.

    tjcooper

 

[robca]

People here seem to forget that rules are designed for "the average user". I have used LiPo as a RC hobbyist for a long time, and I have seen incredibly stupid things done by inexperienced users. There are cases of people putting drones with attached batteries in their carry on baggage, where the drone was not shut down, overheating ans starting a thermal runoff and fire. Cases of batteries removed from the devices but left with exposed wires. Batteries that have been over-discharged, and then "resuscitated" following one of the many Youtube videos (basically forcing the battery to take a change when a smart charger will refuse to do so). Batteries that have been in a crash and partially damaged... in both cases those batteries are a time bomb. That's what you see in real life, and that's what airlines must protect from. 

Built-in batteries in planes these days are fully monitored, so any problem will be immediately reported. There's a reason why we are still allowed to carry <100Wh batteries on board: a small LiPo fire in the cabin can be quickly and safely put off. A fire in the checked baggage can get out of control

So, no, LiPo batteries "in real life" are not safe when not being charged. People abuse their batteries before getting on board, and there's no way for the airline personnel to determine which battery is safe and which one is not. I know that all my batteries are safe, but I would not make the same assumption for many of my fellow RC hobbyists

[tjcooper]

robca,

I fully agree with you.  Stupid people do all kinds of weird things with "toys" that have high power batteries.   But when the batteries are removed from the device and put in "safe" packaging, I think you can make a case for allowing them to be transported by commercial airlines.  Again, it is the packaging and the quantity that must be controlled.

For real humor on LiPo batteries, go to www.rc-groups.com and put in the key words LiPo and fires.   I contributed many of those test pictures.  Some of the fireballs are 6 feet in diameter when the full pack finally goes into flame.   The best picture is a 50mm ammo can with a 3 inch hole cut in it for ventilation with a 3S 2800maH food-package type LiPo.  The resulting fire blew the lid off the ammo can.

    tjcooper

[US69]

Its just:

we can Talk As Long As we want, if we "find" them Safe or Not....Nobody Cares!!!

everything over a 100wh (or 160wh maybe...)

is now Banned and when You Are Catched on Check-in You can Leave your Batteries/Electronics at Home.....or Stay at Home...your Choice ;-)

 

i don't Know exactly...but from 1. April 2016 on....Perhaps there is a One year "Go over Phase" this Regulations Are there and have to been Followed...

its even getting difficult to find a shipping Partner for sending such goods by air....You have to get them to Cargo and whatever high wh they have...we have to send them As dangerous goods....on an Cargo freight plane....

 

in May i am in Asia/Thailand and think/thought about bringing an EUC with me....no Chance! I asked my flight Carrier-emirates...

EUC's, hoverboards and Personal Transporters Are generally prohibited....so i Checked DHL...The major European shipping/Express sending  Partner.....

same rules:

everthing over a 100wh and more than 4 Cells...has to be Cargo and dangerous goods and to be Declared and so on(thats The Short Version)...

 

And to be clear:

i also think that is all stupid....

[tjcooper]

KingSong69,

I think a lot of people care about LiPo shipping on commercial airlines....either as cargo or as passenger.  The soft-sided "food package" type LiPo still come from China by air every day.  I just got a 10000maH 6S pack in the mail that indicated Hong Kong air freight for my electric bicycle.  That is 10 amps times 4.2 times 6 = 151 amp - volts which should exceed the 100 Watt hour you spoke about.   So I think they still come by air frieght everyday.   My guess is that they are all cargo but you can never tell.  Did you check with your flight carrier - Emirates if an electric bicycle or electric unicycle could be shipped if there were no batteries inside the unit?   I think they would stammer and stutter and eventually say yes they could ship if you could prove there was no battery.  In that case, use DHL to ship the battery and you carry the EUC with you on the airplane (cargo I am sure).

    tjcooper

[jbwheel]

On lundi 11 avril 2016 at 9:44 PM, tjcooper said:

If you read the post on "battery university" you will see that LiPo is now a generic term that covers all Lithium batteries where a Polymer is used in their chemical construction.  Only the Lithium Primary batteries (that I know of) have a solid matrix and have no polymer in their construction.

The UPS 747 plane crashed because "it is believed" that the fire in the cargo hold was do to LiPo batteries going to "vent and flame" condition and supposedly shut down the oxygen supply to the pilots.     Since the pilots knew of the fire for like 15 minutes, why did they not depressurize the cargo hold in an attempt to cool the LiPo flames to extinquish (or at least retard) them.   Maybe that is another reason why the FAA listed the crash under pilot error.

I said that batteries need to be "secured in luggage" and I got the retort that luggage is damaged everyday at the airport.  But his is in handling on the ground and loading and unloading the airplane.   It is very rare for cargo luggage to get damage in the air......except for collision with another airplane.

http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/the_li_polymer_battery_substance_or_hype : "Li-polymer is unique in that a micro porous electrolyte replaces the traditional porous separator. Li-polymer offers slightly higher specific energy and can be made thinner than conventional Li-ion, but the manufacturing cost is said to be higher than cylindrical design. For the purpose of discussion, pouch cells are often identified as being Li-polymer".  Most of the time they speak about li-ion and not lipo on their website. Just check the left column with the main titles. The way you use it is confusing.

UPS747 : There is no way it could be avoided. They began to lost control 3 min after fire alarm. Here are the details.  http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/519857-ups-747-dubai-final-report.html. You can read "The main deck fire suppression system was activatedand the cabin depressurized. ". UPS started to add more safety systems because of that plane crash but this is only UPS. http://www.flyingmag.com/news/ups-747-crash-highlights-lithium-battery-danger. There is NO pilot error.

UPS747 fire started minutes after taking off, what is the most obvious explanation ? Your luggage can be damaged before or while loadind and unloading (before taking another flight...) and/or get hot while waiting outside in the sun, then start to flame during the flight. And there are plenty of documented cases of cargo becoming loose during flight. What do you mean by very rare ? The chances of it happening is not comparable with 2 planes colliding.

The most obvious source of mistake is human. Chance of failing is 10^-2 for a simple routine task. But I am convinced that some stupid folk will eventually make false statements and try to hide their euc / hoverboard batteries because of some erroneous or commercial reading. It is why it is important to not let people think that LiPo or Li-ion are safe.

[tjcooper]

JBWHEEL,

your first report is from "rumor-news" and I think that pretty much tells the story.

In the second report you have conflicting statements in your story and that contained by the report in "flyingmagazine":

"The crew in Dubai reported the fire about 22 minutes into the flight. They tried to turn back to the airport to land, but smoke obscured their view outside and of the instruments. The captain’s oxygen supply also stopped working at some point. The 747 flew past the airport and crashed minutes later"

22 minutes and 3 minutes is a very large time difference.  One of the major items in the FAA report was how long it took the pilots to switch from normal cabin emergency oxygen to backup bottled oxygen.  The FAA considered that a major shortcoming in the pilot's performance and that is one of the major reasons that the FAA deemed the accident "pilot error".   There have been subsequent reports looking through the wreckage that some of the LiPoly batteries were found singed but not driven to "vent and flame".  Others were burned out completely.....but so was almost all of the contents of the cargo compartment.   Legal documents trying to determine the "blame" for the fire also pointed out that there is no definitive evidence that the LiPo batteries went up first and then everything else caught fire and all the safety systems for the aircraft were compromised and the plane crashed.   There were other flammable articles on that 747 in the cargo hold listed in the manifest.  (see my other threads where I talk about 50lbs of ammonium nitrate bags for fertilizer that are allowed on commerical jets in the cargo hold).  So anything could have started the fire.

However, I have to agree that there is good speculation that some of the LiPoly went to flames in the hold.   I am told by my old friends at Boeing (I used to work there on the 747 long ago) that all new planes have video cameras in cargo area and that their timeframe compressed video is stored with the "black box" video in the tail of the plane so that in future crashes they should be able to pin point what went wrong in the cargo hold (there biggest reason is to see if terrorists put undetected bombs in the cargo, or if rockets crash into the body of the plane).

Another viewpoint:  there are between 4-6 billion LiPo batteries made yearly.  Most in China and shipped throughout the world.  China has the largest network of warehouses that hold 100million batteries per day waiting for shipment (want to guess what percentage of the "plastic pouch" batteries travel to their destination via commerical jets?).  If these LiPo batteries are so potentially "fire laden" after manufacture, one would expect there to be hundreds of reported disasters at the warehouse facilities with world-wide coverage.  The only one I am aware of while I was working in China was in a storage warehouse where two fork-lift trucks collided into each other and set their propane tanks on fire.   Because LiPoly batteries produce their own oxygen when they go to flames, standard fire fighting techniques are not very useful.  The important thing to do is "cool" the batteries.  Halon has very little effect on LiPoly flames.   CO2 and liquid nitrogen do a great job.  Water can do a good job to cool, but mis-used it will spread the flaming batteries to other batteries.  Sand also works well to reduce the flame front and to cool the batteries in flame.   So why do we not see hundreds of burning buildings if LiPoly batteries are so dangerous in their "resting state" on warehouse shelves?   Is it because the airline cargo holds are too hot or vibrate with 10Gs of acceleration?  I have my doubts about this.

Want to drop this line of debate now......got many other interesting things to do with EUCs.  But I also agree that LiPoly batteries are not particularly safe....but only when being charged and discharged.   In their "resting state" they are probably no more dangerous than formulate of mercury used in bullets for the primer cap......and those items do travel in the holds of cargo planes.  I truly believe that LiPoly batteries need to be shipped in steel cases where no more than 5lbs per container are present.  I also believe that large pallets of the batteries should not be stored in a single place in the cargo hold.....they should be distributed.   signing over and out.

    tjcooper

 

[jbwheel]

@tjccooper :

1st link I provided : http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/519857-ups-747-dubai-final-report.html.  Full GCAA report available with professionnal pilots comments on the forum. This report is made with the support of the american NTSB (324 pages). Chronology of event : 15:12 : fire alarm, 15:15 : fire suppression, pitch control anomalies etc. all is there. Even recommandations made by the experts, details of the battery cargo etc.  There is nothing about a pilot error and lithium battery are incriminated, not fertilizer (and ammoniun nitrate is known to detonate at some point, not just burn is such circonstances). If anybody think they are mistaking, then prove it because I also would like to bring my euc on a plane.

2nd link (flying magazine, the one you chose to comment) : I just wanted to show that UPS chose is adding some security systems (company policy) => they do not think it is their pilote fault either. They also chose fiber-reinforced container.

I am more incline to believe the GCAA report and what I have read there. If you have any proof that FAA through a "FAA report" is disavowing the GCAA / NTSB report then provide it. So far, I only see FAA issuing a restriction on the carrying of lithium batteries in bulk on passenger flights in USA and same with IATA at international level.

FYI : cargo / passenger flight acceleration are between -1 et +3,8G (limits !). 10G is for some military combat aircraft... For ground incidents, do some google, my guess is Chinese are not reporting all the incidents...

[US69]

On ‎13‎.‎04‎.‎2016 at 3:52 AM, tjcooper said:

KingSong69,

I think a lot of people care about LiPo shipping on commercial airlines....either as cargo or as passenger.  The soft-sided "food package" type LiPo still come from China by air every day.  I just got a 10000maH 6S pack in the mail that indicated Hong Kong air freight for my electric bicycle.  That is 10 amps times 4.2 times 6 = 151 amp - volts which should exceed the 100 Watt hour you spoke about.   So I think they still come by air frieght everyday.   My guess is that they are all cargo but you can never tell.  Did you check with your flight carrier - Emirates if an electric bicycle or electric unicycle could be shipped if there were no batteries inside the unit?   I think they would stammer and stutter and eventually say yes they could ship if you could prove there was no battery.  In that case, use DHL to ship the battery and you carry the EUC with you on the airplane (cargo I am sure).

    tjcooper

Jaja...

i tried and thought about all that......

To carry a EUC or hoverboard without batteries: Normally No! I asked....

Yeah...it is forbidden because of the Lithium batteries...but to make the decision easier for their employers, they forbidden them completly.....

Can be...Point is CAN...that i will found someone working there who says:

"Ok, without batteries you can take it in your luggage...."

BUT:

With sending Lithium-Ion batteries by DHL you are also wrong.....Everything over a 100wh is not allowed on PAX flight and has to go to Cargo only ...remarked as "Dangerous goods"-class 9

I have checked it over and over again....

Yeah at least...it is somehow possible: Batteries/EUC as cargo...perhaps declared correctly as Dangerous goods!

The Problem is: You are not able to do this yourself! Partly because of Speech Barrier....You Need the help of someone who knows how to do it and how to deal with DHL or any other sending Partner...

And if you get the wrong Person...which is easy in asia, as "No-i can not" is not in their language included ....you have throwed your nice Money out of the window :-)

 

DHL sending rules batteries thailand:

http://www.dhl.co.th/content/dam/downloads/g0/express/shipping/lithium_batteries/lithium_ion_batteries_regulations.pdf

What we are takling about you find down under in the left down Corner---CAO only Class 9 "DG"= Dangereous Goods

And you have to fill out some certifications....puuuuuuh! That i even don't link here....ridiculous

[jbwheel]

1 hour ago, KingSong69 said:

DHL sending rules batteries thailand: http://www.dhl.co.th/content/dam/downloads/g0/express/shipping/lithium_batteries/lithium_ion_batteries_regulations.pdf

What we are takling about you find down under in the left down Corner---CAO only Class 9 "DG"= Dangereous Goods

These DHL documents are IATA so not only for Thailand but for all international flights. Might be different for domestic flights and depending on the country. So I guess the list provided before is the best one (http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/cargo/dgr/Documents/small-lithium-battery-powered-vehicles.pdf). Makers have to find a solution on how to easily remove the batteries and show it to the company staff and also split the batteries in smaller packs than 160Wh...

Note that some people did send big battery packs without declaring it on the UPS flight which crashed and other still do it... I dont know what kind of problem they may be facing.

[tjcooper]

Long time since I visited this thread.   Thought I would share what I received in the mail from Hong Kong shipped airmail via UPS.  www.banggood.com just shipped me my replacement LiPo battery for my electric bike.  This half of the battery pack is a 12 Amp-hour pack at 6S.  So it is way above 100 Watt-hours,  which the accompanying ICAO/IATA form says is the limit that can be shipped.  I got three different pages of different forms that tell all the limits on Lithium Batteries and Safety Document.  So my 12 amp * 4.2 volts * 6 cells = 302 watt-hours means absolutely nothing to UPS and airline inspections.  This limitation is for lithium cells as different from lithium metal.

All of these are signed documents by Hong Kong shippers,  UPS receivers in Seattle, and the UPS receiver in San Francisco where it was transferred to truck and delivered to my house.  The documents clearly show the battery as "12000maH at 6S".  Perhaps what lets them get through the IATA is the phrase on one document that says "The lithium ion batteries/cells are at 30% SoC or less".   Could it be if you discharge that LiPo to almost zero before shipping you could send 1,000,000 Watt-hours of a battery pack through the IATA regulations?   That would be crazy because it is well known in the battery industry that LiPo significantly below 2.5 volts/cell are very dangerous to "vent and flame" when exposed to vibration and shock conditions.

Changing subjects:  I see more and more EUC providers now making up multiple battery packs to go in the heavier duty machines (Ninebot, Gotway, etc).  So the small packs are like 130 Watt-hour each but when "Y" together can give 260- 550 Watt-hour total capacity.  Maybe this is how they will circumvent the IATA restructions when shipping their machines via airlines.  Inside the EUC is only one small battery pack.  In separate individual boxes are the other battery packs.  The dealer receives all the boxes and joins all the battery packs together to make the "big boys" we are used to.

What is really interesting is the Samsung S7 problem.  The polypropylene LiPo of that large size only comes from 4 major Chinese vendors.  Samsung says they have no way to track the 100,000 bad cells that came from the factory because they are drop shipped to many assembly plants that make the various models of the phone.  And now rumors are starting to rise that iPhone 7S buys some of their LiPo packs from the same vendor(s) that have had the assembly problem.   So instead of worrying about LiPo packs down in the shipping compartments, they are now terrified by the packs that are present in the passenger compartment.  Could it be that the future of airplane flying is that all cell phones and tablets are removed by security from the passengers and placed in a cryogenic fire-proof container in the tail of the plane.   If any phone does go up in flames, the whole cryogenic container is jettisoned.    Since everything is up on the cloud, you just get a new phone when you land at the airport.   This could be part of a whole new recycling plan that Apple is looking for.  LOL.

   tjcooper

[dmethvin]

6 hours ago, tjcooper said:

Perhaps what lets them get through the IATA is the phrase on one document that says "The lithium ion batteries/cells are at 30% SoC or less".   Could it be if you discharge that LiPo to almost zero before shipping you could send 1,000,000 Watt-hours of a battery pack through the IATA regulations?   That would be crazy because it is well known in the battery industry that LiPo significantly below 2.5 volts/cell are very dangerous to "vent and flame" when exposed to vibration and shock conditions.

There are several IATA regulations in play here. One set is for passenger planes, that is usually what we're talking about in this thread regarding battery size and count. However, the IATA also says you can't ship Li-Ion batteries as cargo on a passenger plane. They must only be shipped on cargo planes, clearly identified by a "Class 9" label on the outside box. So if your battery came by plane it was a cargo plane.

6 hours ago, tjcooper said:

Could it be that the future of airplane flying is that all cell phones and tablets are removed by security from the passengers and placed in a cryogenic fire-proof container in the tail of the plane. 

If the batteries are really that unsafe they're just as much a danger to your house, car, body, etc. We need to hold these manufacturers to a higher standard, I don't think they're choosing the right tradeoffs here.

[tjcooper]

dmethvin,

indeed my package was marked as class 9 and labeled as having Lithium Ion batteries.   I thought that somewhere earlier in this discussion it was said that IATA was limiting Lithium Ion batteries on "cargo only" planes when the Watt-hr exceeded 100 or 135 Watt-hr in a single package?   Can any size Lithium battery be shipped via cargo plane?  If this is true, then an EUC can be taken on vacation by having it shipped via cargo plane while you take a passenger plane to the same destination.  Some international airlines now offer that service to people who are relocating from China so that they get their "heavy items" the same day that they land in the new country.

COMMENT on "held to higher standards".   I don't think it is the Lithium Ion battery that needs so much to be held to a higher standard.  They do an amazing job given how they are constructed and used.  I think what must be held to a higher standard is the design and use of the charger (and discharger [the cell phone]) for the product.  People are pushing too hard for "fast charge" that pushes the cell to the limit of when a marginal pack could start to go thermal.  No commercial cell phone charger I know of contains a temperature sensor that reads the temperature of the pack while it is charging [on both sides].   This could stop 99% of the thermal run-away problems.  It is just that no one wants the extra weight and cost of a charger that does the full 'cradle to grave" handling of the Lithium battery.  There are rare cases where just the storage or transport of the battery can go to "vent and flames".  But if the battery was always in "monitor mode" even when stored, I think this extremely rare problem could be handled.  The "smartphone public" just want smaller, faster, cheaper results out of their phones.   They assume safety is not an issue they need to consider.   Same was true of Arsenic as a cosmetic for women in the 1890's.   No one considered the downstream effects until there was a major epidemic of Arsenic deaths.

 

QUESTION: thanks for you list of what is in Class 9.  Why would "first aid kits" be in the same dangerous class as "Lithium metal batteries" and "ammonium nitrate fertilizers"?  Bandaids and Betadyne generally do not kill airplanes.  Or is this a really big first aid kit with ether and oxygen bottles for doing surgery?

   tjcooper

[dmethvin]

On 9/12/2016 at 2:50 AM, tjcooper said:

I thought that somewhere earlier in this discussion it was said that IATA was limiting Lithium Ion batteries on "cargo only" planes when the Watt-hr exceeded 100 or 135 Watt-hr in a single package? 

Yeah, the links to those docs are up the thread somewhere. For passenger planes you can check luggage with a device that has up to a 132Wh battery installed. In a passenger plane you can't have a loose/spare Li-Ion battery as checked luggage at all. You can carry on up to 2 loose batteries as carry ons (in the passenger compartment). I guess the logic is that if a fire starts they can put it out better there, and batteries not being charged in equipment are unlikely to catch fire. The most common reason for spares to overheat is shorting against metal while moving around in bags.

On 9/12/2016 at 2:50 AM, tjcooper said:

QUESTION: thanks for you list of what is in Class 9.  Why would "first aid kits" be in the same dangerous class as "Lithium metal batteries" and "ammonium nitrate fertilizers"?  Bandaids and Betadyne generally do not kill airplanes.  Or is this a really big first aid kit with ether and oxygen bottles for doing surgery?

I don't know for sure. Any oxidizers would be a risk, that includes oxygen bottles and hydrogen peroxide. Also I found this:

 

[Keith]

On 12 September 2016 at 7:50 AM, tjcooper said:

iQUESTION: thanks for you list of what is in Class 9.  Why would "first aid kits" be in the same dangerous class as "Lithium metal batteries" and "ammonium nitrate fertilizers"? 

We should obviously ask @Rehab1? Could it be the mercury thermometers? If broken, Mercury could eat right through the skin of the 'plane.

3 hours ago, dmethvin said:

I don't know for sure. Any oxidizers would be a risk, that includes oxygen bottles and hydrogen peroxide. Also I found this:

Who the hell carries Potassium Permanganate in their first aid kit these days? As a child we were taught that reaction, and I could buy it over the country in any Pharmacy as long as it was nowhere near Fireworks night (Nov 5 in the UK)  at that time of year I couldn't even buy Sodium Silicate, which is a fire retardant, I can't imagine it being readily available these days. Oh and no I wasn't  making fire, Potasium Permanganate solution neutralises the lime in a cement built pond so it is safe to add the fish, or, of course, frogs and toads if you are a schoolboy building a pond! 

[Rehab1]

@keith Oh boy...this is out of my purview.  I'm a pediatric rehab specialist. I sucked in chemistry! Maybe someone from a local 'ISIS' training camp can provide a detailed explanation and method to bypass airline regulations

[Flash]

On ‎2015‎-‎12‎-‎11 at 4:20 PM, Cranium said:

While I would love to be able to take my EU with me on a flight and on vacation, I would prefer to not have people bringing questionable devices on board and risking an in-flight fire.  So I gladly sacrifice the convenience of my EU traveling with me and hope that all airlines buckle down on these [for now].  

I hope that at some point there will be better quality assurance of devices like this to ensure that they meet safety standards of each country they are being delivered to.  If we can get to this point, maybe airlines can loosen restrictions.

and how can coins and other metals shortcircuit batteries , it's all sealed inside the plastic body , sound more realistic to happen if you carry batteries in your bag or pocket , it's not euc or hooverboard that is the problem

On ‎2016‎-‎04‎-‎04 at 4:38 AM, Dr Bob said:

hoverboards are banned  outright in Australia until the 20th of April. yep all the folks still selling can be hit with huge fines and jail. seems no one cares as everyone is still selling them. on the 20th it is looking like this ban is for good or until someone gets type approval and challenges the legislaation.

Ban kanogaroos

On ‎2016‎-‎04‎-‎04 at 4:38 AM, Dr Bob said:

hoverboards are banned  outright in Australia until the 20th of April. yep all the folks still selling can be hit with huge fines and jail. seems no one cares as everyone is still selling them. on the 20th it is looking like this ban is for good or until someone gets type approval and challenges the legislaation.

 

[Flash]

On ‎2016‎-‎04‎-‎11 at 5:19 AM, tjcooper said:

Please re-read the IATA specifications on battery powered "mobile assisted" vehicles.   If the batteries are removed from the vehicle, the vehicle can be shipped as normal cargo.  The shipment of "Lithium ion" and "Lithium metal" batteries are then subject to the other regulations for passenger aircraft.  Since I hand make my own 18650 battery systems, as long as my packs are 100 Watt-hours or less, then those can be shipped in luggage.

 

The IATA had some new proposals that want to ban all "Lithium ion" batteries from passenger aircraft as either cargo in crew areas or cargo in hold area or carry on.   This really strikes me as strange since almost all new aircraft have rechargeable batteries of the LiPo type included in the basic aircraft configuration.  Such a ban would require the flight computer not to have power failure battery backup (a really bad thing to have happen).  It seems the IATA does not understand how aircraft are powered and the nature of batteries.  They require all shipped batteries in cargo with LiPo to have only 30% State Of Charge (SOC).  In such a low state of charge, this significantly damages the lifetime of a LiPo battery that wants normal storage to be at 50% SOC.  Sounds like the engineers and the regulators for commercial aircraft have never had the right hand and the left hand ever shake.   I found it very interesting that the IATA document recommended that all cargo procurement people use boats to ship all batteries in the future.   If you look at the published volumes of electronic equipment that Sony ships to USA, more than 50% of their electronics items ship via air cargo with the batteries present in the retail package.  It really sounds like there is a huge disconnect between what happens in "the real world" and what regulation agencies are proposing.  Please read the Wikipedia page on Boeing 787 DreamLiner and its LiPo battery problems.  While it was grounded for a while, the current outcome is that the LiPo batteries in the 787 have had some signs of thermal runaway but that the failure is from protection circuitry and not from the LiPo batteries themselves.  The reference material indicates that currently there are no crashes attributed to LiPo battery failure either internal to the aircraft or those contain in their cargo hold.  There are a number of references to controlled fires when batteries were not properly secured in the holds.

BOTTOM LINE: LiPo batteries have problems during charge and discharge state.  Commercial aircraft have been affected by bad LiPo battery designs in their systems but current research shows problems in electronics and not in the batteries.  No crashes have been registered with the FAA because of LiPo fire while the aircraft was in the air.  LiPo batteries need to be strictly controlled while in operation in aircraft (commerial and cargo).  Proper storage and packaging of batteries (all types) in aircraft is essental for operation safety.  So almost all commercial airplanes USE LiPo batteries in their operation.  How we control those LiPo batteries is the biggest issue, not whether all LiPo's should be banned from the plane.  Think about it.

    tjcooper

World gliders , passangers included