Diese Website verwendet Cookies. Mit der Weiternutzung der Website drücken Sie Ihr Einverständnis mit dem Einsatz von Cookies aus.
Schließen
Wussten Sie schon, dass die Flugverfolgung auf FlightAware durch Werbung finanziert wird?
Sie können uns dabei helfen, FlightAware weiterhin kostenlos anzubieten, indem Sie Werbung auf FlightAware.com zulassen. Wir engagieren uns dafür, dass unsere Werbung auch in Zukunft zweckmäßig und unaufdringlich ist und Sie beim Surfen nicht stört. Das Erstellen einer Positivliste für Anzeigen auf FlightAware geht schnell und unkompliziert. Alternativ können Sie sich auch für eines unserer Premium-Benutzerkonten entscheiden..
Schließen
Back to Squawk list
  • 21

FAA warns of potentially 'catastrophic' battery explosions

Übermittelt
 
The Federal Aviation Administration wants airlines to think twice about carrying lithium batteries. But don't worry, you're still allowed to bring your laptop and phone with you on a flight. The FAA on Tuesday issued a safety alert urging airlines to examine the risks associated with transporting lithium batteries as cargo, including "the potential risk for a catastrophic hull loss." The alert covers batteries being transported as components and not those already inside… (www.cnet.com) Mehr...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


jbqwik
jbqwik 4
The FAA leaves me skeptical; they seem to have conflicted interests. On the one hand they admonish and propose limits for LiON transport yet they let Boeing have their way on the 787 and even placated them with a special waiver. Not until two *reported* incidents did they clamp down, but still allowing continued use of LiON power supply system, again after Boeing promised, pleaded, cajoled.
Seems double standard to me.
linbb
linbb 2
Two different sets of batterys. The ones they are STILL concerned with have brought down several AC if you would read the reports. This is a very old and well worn topic on here and nothing new about it or the difference in what they are. The ones that cause the concern the MOST are cheep knock offs like the ones in the new hover boards. So read more about what is the real problem batterys.
jbqwik
jbqwik 3
yes, sort-of. I can point to the 45 years I worked closely with various chemistry cells and large battery plants doing tech support in the power biz. I have seen inexplicable outcomes. So, technically, you can point to a different chemistry mix but it doesn't change the underlying, and very poorly understood, chemical personality of a cell.
Just like any group of people, at some point someone is going to have a slightly off day and the rest of the players will not be happy.
AeroComEnt
Gee EmCee 1
As this is an obvious safety issue shouldn't the FAA be implementing REGULATIONS, rather than asking airlines "to think twice about carrying" these? I'm baffled.
biggerthenthose747s
I am not so sure about these batteries type there has being incidents of fires on board aircraft of these lethal items exploding inflight but does anyone look at there flight itinerary if you read the fine writing it does state on some carrier tickets no explosive type materials allowed which included these batteries
jbqwik
jbqwik 3
Good point. It's a complicated issue: On one hand the potential for thermal runaway is well documented, has occurred thousands of times. OTOH, the air, comm and regulatory industry is gearing-up to provide in-flight wifi and broadband services, which means allowing all manner of battery powered devices onboard. As the technology advances (chemistry, power draw, power gain) this risk is being reduced. But will never be zero as far as these type chemical cells go. The Boeing redesign has had at least two reported instances of thermal runaway since the redesign of the initial package. It doesn't make me feel any better than this was contained. Sort of like saying 'yes it's a bomb but we have it inside a box, no worries'..
Jjsalem
John Salem 1
Never had any of those problems with Ni-Cad batteries, Back in "the Day" That's all there was in turbine aircraft. After I left the industry (aviation) in 1992, I got an invoice from my maintenance Co. for $5,000, something to do with EPA, 2 years later. I ignored it, and never heard anything again. Now I just fly my 340A for personal, twin piston w lead acid.
jbqwik
jbqwik 1
In turbines we used NiCad mainly for their ability to dump thousands of amps at low temps and recharge much quicker than lead-acid. NiCAD has a few specific faults but bomb-like combustion isn't one.

Anmelden

Haben Sie kein Konto? Jetzt (kostenlos) registrieren für kundenspezifische Funktionen, Flugbenachrichtigungen und vieles mehr!