Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EK308 : Battery Causes Fire On Board / Diversion  
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1996 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 21486 times:

Flight from Dubai to Beijing has to divert to Urumqi after fire in the cargo hold. 270 People on board.
The airline confirmed the aircraft diverted to Urumqi due to a fire alert in the aft cargo hold as result of smoke from a lithium battery. The passengers were provided with accomodation and have been rebooked onto connecting flights from Urumqui to Beijing on Jul 3rd.

Emergency services found some luggage damaged after the fire, so this was not a simple "smoke alarm".

This issue with the Li batteries is getting a little alarming IMHO, we have some incidents like this in the past, and was probably the main cause of the loss of a 747F not so long ago...
Maybe it is time to think in different measures to carry this things on board...

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4521d5ef&opt=0

Rgds.

G.

[Edited 2012-07-03 14:30:43]


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2840 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 21449 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
The passengers were provided with accomodation

Oh dear, some passengers, in particular those sitting in front of the wings, will not like accomodation in Urumqi.

However, more important is that nothing serious happened.


User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1996 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 21380 times:

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 1):
Oh dear, some passengers, in particular those sitting in front of the wings, will not like accomodation in Urumqi.

Indeed... Urumqi is not precisely a "luxury place".... but OTOH, I'm sure I will be very happy in a farm surrounded with cows and horses instead of a charred pile of burning metal, and that could be the case if the fire suppression system fails and they not land ASAP.

Rgds.

G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlinecrosswinds21 From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 699 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 21318 times:

Interesting. This may be a stupid question, but what would have happened if this situation occurred while the aircraft was flying over the middle of an ocean?

User currently offlineDL_Mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1995 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 21315 times:

It's always a good thing to see that a cargo smoke detection system works as advertised.........


This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
User currently offlineSenchingo From Germany, joined Oct 2010, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 21233 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):

This issue with the Li batteries is getting a little alarming IMHO, we have some incidents like this in the past, and was probably the main cause of the loss of a 747F not so long ago...
Maybe it is time to think in different measures to carry this things on board...

My alarms went off right there, too. This lithium battery issue is going on since quite a while and working in aircargo business i can just say that a small sticker on the package and a mention of IATA regulations to refer to on the AWB is not enough.
I very well remember Asiana 744F crashing due to the exact same problem and i'm glad that this EK a/c made it to the ground safely.
It is definitely time to take a close look at those batteries (no matter if lithium or metal) and either classify them as a really dangerous good (not just excepted) or ban them.
Maybe it's not correct, but i think i remember that back then the OZ 744F did ignite the fire suppression system but it did not work because of some physical issues (like using water vs. burning oil).

Another source pretty interesting: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...on-crashed-asiana-747-400f-360069/

Quote:
While there is no immediate evidence that the cargo contributed to the accident, lithium batteries are considered a potentially hazardous cargo owing to the risk they pose of in-flight fire.
The UPS 747-400F which crashed in Dubai in September last year had been transporting lithium batteries when the aircraft suffered a fire in cruise and attempted to divert.


User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1996 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 21004 times:

Quoting crosswinds21 (Reply 3):
Interesting. This may be a stupid question, but what would have happened if this situation occurred while the aircraft was flying over the middle of an ocean?

For this particular case, nothing ( since the fire suppression system did the work and extinguished the fire ), but IF ( I know that's a big "IF" ) the system is overwhelmed by the fire and they not land soon, the outcome can be very tragic like the SAA295 was years ago, or the Asiana 744F just months ago.

Quoting Senchingo (Reply 5):
My alarms went off right there, too. This lithium battery issue is going on since quite a while and working in aircargo business i can just say that a small sticker on the package and a mention of IATA regulations to refer to on the AWB is not enough.

The Li batteries should be forbidden in the luggage and should be mandatory to carry them in the hand luggage, were the crew or the same passengers can take some action against a "hot" battery, keeping a device that *can* auto ignite in the luggage cargo hold is not a good idea. Now, for the specific case of Freight flights, some ideas were "all over" after the Asiana crash, but I don't know if some of all that was implemented or not.

Rgds.

G.

[Edited 2012-07-03 15:22:47]


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offline9MMPQ From Netherlands, joined Nov 2011, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 20905 times:

Quoting crosswinds21 (Reply 3):
Interesting. This may be a stupid question, but what would have happened if this situation occurred while the aircraft was flying over the middle of an ocean?

The B777 has a number of fire suppression bottles. After the first 2 are discharged by the crew the remaining bottles come into play and provide another 3 hours of protection. With this case as an example i doubt the outcome would have been much different if this occurred over the middle of an ocean.

Quoting Senchingo (Reply 5):
Maybe it's not correct, but i think i remember that back then the OZ 744F did ignite the fire suppression system but it did not work because of some physical issues

Like UPS 6 i've read that Asiana 991 was carrying these batteries on the maindeck. Without a fire suppression system on the maindeck things become very difficult. Then again i haven't read that lithium batteries were officially marked as being the cause but they are definitely the first suspect.

Quoting Senchingo (Reply 5):
This lithium battery issue is going on since quite a while and working in aircargo business i can just say that a small sticker on the package and a mention of IATA regulations to refer to on the AWB is not enough.

Frankly i think it's downright dangerous, it only draws attention away further. Unfortunately i doubt we'll see a change soon. With so many being used in our societies there's obviously a big commercial stake in it & i doubt anyone would be happy if they're having to pay more & get it shipped via slower alternatives.

In any case these batteries can be a nasty piece of work. This FAA safety alert to operators makes for some interesting reading:

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat...all_safos/media/2010/SAFO10017.pdf



I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9829 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 20745 times:

Quoting 9MMPQ (Reply 7):
Quoting crosswinds21 (Reply 3):
Interesting. This may be a stupid question, but what would have happened if this situation occurred while the aircraft was flying over the middle of an ocean?

The B777 has a number of fire suppression bottles. After the first 2 are discharged by the crew the remaining bottles come into play and provide another 3 hours of protection. With this case as an example i doubt the outcome would have been much different if this occurred over the middle of an ocean.

Passenger planes have stricter fire suppression requirements. I’m not sure what ETOPS rating Emirates carries, but the airplane has to have fire suppression capability for the entire ETOPS diversion, so that is typically 3 hours of protection.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineSenchingo From Germany, joined Oct 2010, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 20700 times:

Quoting 9MMPQ (Reply 7):
Unfortunately i doubt we'll see a change soon. With so many being used in our societies there's obviously a big commercial stake in it & i doubt anyone would be happy if they're having to pay more & get it shipped via slower alternatives.
In any case these batteries can be a nasty piece of work. This FAA safety alert to operators makes for some interesting reading:

Thanks, 9MMPQ, for your reply, really appreciated! I agree in most points. It definitely is becoming a much bigger issue in times of all kinds of electronical equip being shipped (mobile phones/pads etc).

As i said "It is definitely time to take a close look at those batteries (no matter if lithium or metal) and either classify them as a really dangerous good (not just excepted) or ban them". Your (very impressive and to me unknown until now) posted report of the FAA states factually the same:

Quote:
Nonetheless, most lithium batteries and devices are currently classified as excepted from the Class 9 provisions of the HMR. Because of this exception, they do not require a Notice to the Pilot in Command (NOTOC) to alert the crew of their presence on-board an aircraft

This is to my believe the most severe factor for those batteries to be immidiately classified as "real" DG or at least pay attention to, which excepted DG is mostly not at the moment (due to the fact that it is not even mentioned on the Notoc or initial DG checks)

Quote:
Overheating has the potential to create thermal runaway, a chain reaction leading to self-heating and release of a battery’s stored energy. In a fire situation, the air temperature in a cargo compartment fire may be above the auto-ignition temperature of lithium. For this reason, batteries that are not involved in an initial fire may ignite and propagate, thus creating a risk of a catastrophic event

The following quotation is only referring to the FAA, but as far i know, specific airline restrictions (operator variations) as well as countries regulations (state variations) do not require the same

Quote:
these circumstances can potentially lead to a loss of Halon 1301, allowing rapid fire spread within a cargo compartment to other flammable materials. For this reason, lithium metal cells are currently prohibited as bulk cargo shipments on passenger carrying aircraft

The following part is maybe the most shocking to me. It states that once burning, those batteries ignite all kinds of typical packing material (like paper, fibreboard etc) around it and start a chain reaction. The a/c's suppression system can stop normal fires, but remember that it is limited to the lower deck of subject a/c. The main deck is most likely less effective, therefore the outcome of such fire would be tremendous.

Quote:
Like lithium metal batteries, lithium-ion batteries can be subject to thermal runaway. A battery in thermal runaway can reach temperatures above 1,100 degrees F, which exceeds the ignition temperature of most Class A materials, including paper and cardboard. These temperatures are also very close to the melting point of aluminum (1,220 degrees F). The fire suppression system in Class C compartments, Halon 1301, has been shown to be effective in suppressing fires generated by lithium-ion batteries, but does not eliminate the risk of transporting such batteries


User currently offlineAngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 20525 times:

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 1):
Oh dear, some passengers, in particular those sitting in front of the wings, will not like accomodation in Urumqi.

I did stay one night in a very nice 5-star hotel in Urumqi and I am pretty sure those passengers in the front would appreciate such a room. There are quite a number of other 5-star hotels. The place is not as retarded as you might think.

http://www.hongfuhotel.com/html1/266.aspx


User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1996 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 20363 times:

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 10):
I did stay one night in a very nice 5-star hotel in Urumqi and I am pretty sure those passengers in the front would appreciate such a room. There are quite a number of other 5-star hotels. The place is not as retarded as you might think.

Thanks for your input. Looking some pictures of the airport I thought that is was very "basic" and some sort of "sample" of the whole city, but later I searched for images of the city in the web and ( like almost every place in the world nowadays ), there are "wealthy" neighborhoods and more sophisticated places.

Quoting Senchingo (Reply 9):
This is to my believe the most severe factor for those batteries to be immidiately classified as "real" DG or at least pay attention to, which excepted DG is mostly not at the moment (due to the fact that it is not even mentioned on the Notoc or initial DG checks)
Quoting Senchingo (Reply 9):
The a/c's suppression system can stop normal fires, but remember that it is limited to the lower deck of subject a/c. The main deck is most likely less effective, therefore the outcome of such fire would be tremendous.

I agree with you. Sadly we are used in the industry to introduce the "hard" changes ( those that usually cost money, time and work ) only after a couple of hundreds of people lost their lives in an accident. One aviation safety expert from the NTSB called this practice "Sepulchral Technology", and that is a very appropriate name. I honestly hope we are "overreacting" here and nothing will ever proves our fears are justified.

Rgds.

G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5015 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 20300 times:

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 1):
Oh dear, some passengers, in particular those sitting in front of the wings, will not like accomodation in Urumqi.

I'm sure they are grateful to be safely on the ground... The airlines priority is to land safely and not just the "J/C, F/C" passengers...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinecoolum From United Arab Emirates, joined Jul 2008, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 19099 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Extract from IATA on the very subject.

The ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP) met in October 2011 and again in February 2012 to discuss revised procedures for Lithium Batteries. Specifically the handling of “bulk” shipments prepared under Section II of Packing Instructions 965 and 968 to appear on the information to the pilot-in-command. Full report of the February working group.

Changes on Lithium batteries in the Dangerous Goods Regulation
Below is a summary of changes to be incorporated into the 54th edition of the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations effective 1 January 2013 once approved by the ICAO Council.

These changes primarily concern:

New Section II lithium ion (PI 965 II) and lithium metal (PI 968 II) cell and batteries quantity limits per package
New Section “1B” for lithium ion (PI 965 1B) and metal (PI 968 1B)
The ICAO DGP does not consider however that these changes will necessarily reduce incidents involving lithium batteries. To significantly improve safety, IATA advocates for enhanced outreach of regulations applicable to the transport and testing of lithium batteries by manufacturers as well as shippers.

More info can be found here: https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/cargo/dangerous_goods/Pages/lithium-battery-change.aspx



Coolum
User currently offlineQatarA340 From Qatar, joined May 2006, 1883 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 18531 times:

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 1):
Oh dear, some passengers, in particular those sitting in front of the wings, will not like accomodation in Urumqi.

There are like 2 5-star hotels in Urumqi. LOL So, not really that bad!

Thank God nothing happened to the plane or passengers as batterys can explode. How many times do we see iPhones explode mysteriously? There was one incident when an iPhone exploded (albeit a minor one) but still; what would happen if a whole container of lithium batteries exploded?



لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
User currently offlineRIXrat From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 789 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 17730 times:

Maybe there should be a rule against bulk shipments of these batteries if they contain any electrical charge. It would be a hassle on the other end, though, especially if they are included with the communications device. I also remember several years ago on this site a number of postings about non-standard Chinese lighters being shipped by air.

User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9755 posts, RR: 31
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 16937 times:

Quoting Senchingo (Reply 9):
This is to my believe the most severe factor for those batteries to be immidiately classified as "real" DG or at least pay attention to, which excepted DG is mostly not at the moment (due to the fact that it is not even mentioned on the Notoc or initial DG checks)
Quoting coolum (Reply 13):
The ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP) met in October 2011 and again in February 2012 to discuss revised procedures for Lithium Batteries. Specifically the handling of “bulk” shipments prepared under Section II of Packing Instructions 965 and 968 to appear on the information to the pilot-in-command. Full report of the February working group

Yes, there have been changes to the regulations recently and there was also a recent article in DVZ (in german) about his matter.

The best IATA DGR regulations however are worthless when passengers pack items with Li batteries into their checked luggage. it does not help either when uneducated shippers send such parcels , ignoring rules and regulations. Since passenger baggage is screened before loading anyhow, methods should be developed to separate such luggage and have these inspected at the gate before loading.

Good IATA cargo agents know their customers and screen the declared contents. When I was in export operations, I always called the shipper, when in doubt, and asked if then contents could be in any way DG.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlinecoolum From United Arab Emirates, joined Jul 2008, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 16046 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Unfortunately some passengers will tend to try and do their own thing, no matter what regulations are in place.
This can be down to either ignorance or plain disregard for the regulations. This isn't just limited to Li batteries, but any DG item.

I know at most UK airports, any baggage that is suspected (after being screened or from profiling the pax) of containing prohibited items, is separated and taken to the gate for examination in the passengers presence. I'm not sure if this is the case for the rest of Europe (someone else may have that knowledge).

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 16):
Yes, there have been changes to the regulations recently

There have been some changes come into force already, but the real restrictive measures won't be brought into effect until next year.

With regards to the cargo agents, the same happens where I am now.
If there is a suspicion of hidden or undeclared dangerous goods, the agent is contacted, as the repercussions and penalties can be very severe.

[Edited 2012-07-04 02:06:40]


Coolum
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9755 posts, RR: 31
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 15359 times:

Quoting coolum (Reply 17):
If there is a suspicion of hidden or undeclared dangerous goods, the agent is contacted, as the repercussions and penalties can be very severe.

what I meant is, a good IATA cargo agent, and that was how I ran my shop when I was managing director of such an agency, detects a potential and undeclared DG shipment before it is delivered to the carrier.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlineabrown532 From UK - Northern Ireland, joined Feb 2008, 153 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 14890 times:

The main issue with these batteries is when they are fitted to electric wheelchairs for passenger who require that they bring their wheelchair with them on holiday. As a dispatcher I check at least 4 or 5 times that the battery is properly disconnected and loaded securely because they are damn dangerous! To be honest, I think wet/dry cell lithuim batteries should be banned or forced to travel is some sort of special fire-proof box.

User currently offlinecoolum From United Arab Emirates, joined Jul 2008, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 14829 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 18):
what I meant is, a good IATA cargo agent, and that was how I ran my shop when I was managing director of such an agency, detects a potential and undeclared DG shipment before it is delivered to the carrier.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you. Apologies for any misunderstanding  



Coolum
User currently offlinecoolum From United Arab Emirates, joined Jul 2008, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 14678 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting abrown532 (Reply 19):
The main issue with these batteries is when they are fitted to electric wheelchairs for passenger who require that they bring their wheelchair with them on holiday. As a dispatcher I check at least 4 or 5 times that the battery is properly disconnected and loaded securely because they are damn dangerous! To be honest, I think wet/dry cell lithuim batteries should be banned or forced to travel is some sort of special fire-proof box.

I used to be in the same situation as you.
While that would probably the safest solution, its probably not the most practicable.
Whether agreed with or not, it seems some things are done in the safest possible way, while still making things easy for the passenger.
There was an addendum to the 53rd ed DGR that added a lot about mobility aids. (http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/cargo/dangerous_goods/Documents/53rev01en-apr26.pdf)



Coolum
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1996 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 13435 times:

I know talking is easier than doing, but IMHO all the issue can be solved almost totally with measures that are pretty simple.
Cultural changes will be necessary, and probably some investments and developments, but nothing impossible or out of this world. For the "personal" shipments, is as simple as banning the batteries in the checked luggage, in the same way that you can not carry a knife in your hand luggage, this will be the opposite, and this batteries should be in the hand luggage. Is very easy to control this with the X-ray machines and a few announcements here and there, until the people familiarizes with the new rule.... is just a matter of time before no one even think in put his battery in the checked luggage in the same way that no one ( except crazy or very "distracted" people ) tries to sneak a knife in the hand luggage today.
The big shipments in the freight industry will be more complicated and probably will need some sort of investment or deeper changes, but again, nothing out of this world.

Let's hope the changes will come before we hear about more serious incidents or accidents.

Rgds.

G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13202 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 13220 times:

One other factor as to these types of batteries in passenger baggage going off is that they will usually be in bags or containers with clothing, cloth items, a variety of plastics, all of which can rapidly be ignited and feed a growing fire. Just one battery failure may be the cause of this serious incident, but the odds of such an event is tiny compared to the billions of these batteries in devices flying every year. Where I would have concerns would be many older and smaller aircraft without the fire suppression systems as on this flight to deal with such incidents.

As to mandating such devices being carried in the pax cabin, that has it's risks too. If they fail and in a place where their may not be fire suppression systems, a cabin with plenty of flammable materials and with the issues of the reaction of the human passengers to any fire or thinking a terror attack is taking place, the pax cabin may not be the best place for them either.

One also has to consider that maybe some pax bought some cheap and possibly illegal copies of some electronic devices with poorly made batteries or even legitimate ones with a flaw to bring home as gifts or to bring home for resale to make a few bucks back home. I don't know how you get around that problem without more onerous security procedures no one wants.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 12530 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 22):
Cultural changes will be necessary, and probably some investments and developments, but nothing impossible or out of this world. For the "personal" shipments, is as simple as banning the batteries in the checked luggage, in the same way that you can not carry a knife in your hand luggage, this will be the opposite, and this batteries should be in the hand luggage.

India has bizzarely insisted on the opposite for years... no batteries in hand luggage, only in checked luggage (resulting in amyn arguments at security)! I think the rationale has to do with bomb triggers etc, but has not really been thought through fully.


25 KDAYflyer : I thought that the cargo hold fire suppression system consisted of CO2, not water.
26 PITingres : I think you're being way too optimistic. I get the impression that most posters here are thinking in terms of a removable laptop battery. What about
27 Gonzalo : I'm afraid you're totally right on this. That's why I said earlier : It is a shame how innovative and creative the human being can be when making mon
28 Cubsrule : I'm not aware of any internal, non-removable batteries starting fires on airplanes. Are you?
29 Pellegrine : Another thing to think about: AFAIK Halon 1301 (or any other Halon) does not actually put out Class D metal fires. It isn't even rated for Class D fir
30 Post contains links lax25r : There was at least one incident that I'm aware of. The battery of an Iphone overheated and went into thermal runaway. It was caused by improper repai
31 mham001 : Batteries have many different chemistries. Not all "lithium" batteries are pure lithium and those are much safer. It is the prevalence of cheap, poor
32 Post contains links and images 777way : Not that backward from this image of the city. however the only international chain to run a hotel in Urumqi was Holiday Inn back in the 80s when Chi
33 na : If the Triple Seven would not have the detection system, we probably would have had the first major 777 crash to report, something like the SAA crash
34 Gonzalo : Not following you.... this flight originated in Dubai. As far as i know the products in Dubai are usually original brands and not fony bad copies. Ye
35 Post contains links 777way : ^Ok sorry I didnt notice that post of yours. BTW they have a Sheraton Hotel http://www.starwoodhotels.com/sherat...verview/index.html?propertyID=1707
36 BOAC911 : There are a number of nice looking hotels in this city.
37 Senchingo : That in some parts is referred to in the IATA regulations as "hidden dangerous good". There are several pages of examples what hidden DG could look l
38 rwy04lga : Oddly enough, it's within 200 miles of the point on earth furthest from the ocean. I'm sure he didn't think that. Lighten up.
39 PanHAM : I have to agree. It always depends on the persons in the office, but a good thing is the IATA agency and the standards that come with it. DG training
40 coolum : This should happen at any airport in the world (while admittedly it probably doesn't). You are allowed either 1 x lighter or box of matches only to b
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fire Crackers Causes Air China 738 Diversion posted Tue Mar 6 2012 14:52:39 by Gonzalo
Engine On Fire False Alarm On Board SQ A310-300 posted Mon Jan 31 2000 09:51:26 by Gundu
CO/UA On-Board Product Match-Up posted Mon Jun 25 2012 10:53:12 by cipango
Fight On Board An MEA Flight posted Tue Mar 13 2012 12:16:54 by OD-BWH
FAA Bill: Policy For Musical Instruments On-board posted Wed Feb 8 2012 14:12:30 by aircellist
Collecting Personal Data From Pax On Board. posted Tue Dec 20 2011 00:22:58 by lmml 14/32
Ryanair - Now Just One Toilet On-board? posted Wed Oct 12 2011 09:09:34 by planesmith
Fairchild Missing In Bolivia: 9 People On Board. posted Wed Sep 7 2011 11:07:51 by notaxonrotax
CO's New Buy On Board Program To Offer HOT Food posted Mon Sep 27 2010 10:18:28 by STT757
MU Engine Fire On Take Off From SIN posted Sat Sep 18 2010 20:03:18 by trent1000
National Holiday - Special Service On Board? posted Thu Aug 1 2013 13:11:14 by B738flyUIA