TSA Limits Lithium Batteries on Airplanes

yali writes "The U.S. Transportation and Security Administration has issued new rules limiting travel with lithium batteries. As of January 1, no spare lithium batteries are allowed in checked luggage. Batteries carried in the cabin are subject to limitations on per-battery and total lithium content, and spare batteries must have the terminals covered. If you're returning home from the holidays with new toys, be sure to check out the new restrictions before you pack."

Comments

awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[BWJones]

And as usual, there is no explanation as to *why* lithium batteries are now illegal to carry. I assume this is to reduce the possibility of a lithium battery shorting out, but if the batteries are contained in their shipping packages, they should be no more dangerous than many other items that you can carry on planes. This of course means a whole new hassle for those folks that use lithium batteries for their work such as photographers who need to travel by air to many of their assignments among many other folks and carry with them batteries to sometimes remote locations. What is the rationale? Have they examined the potential impact before coming up with yet another new restriction on travel? Are they worried about this as a terrorist act? Because, look, if someone really wants to bring down a plane, there are many ways to do it even without using lithium batteries. Think sodium metal or any explosive really, that is keister stashed until the terrorist gets to the lavatory. Think any common item on a plane that can be used as a weapon including newspaper, components of the interior finish and cabin materials,

Every time I come back into my own country after spending time abroad, I am frustrated and depressed over how bad things are getting here. I talked about some of it including the marketing problem we are manufacturing for ourselves here after my last trip to Japan.

It also makes one wonder how much all this is costing the US in terms of lost business, lost productivity, airline delays, increased cost burdens on airlines and passengers and more... And this is all being done in the name of safety and terrorism, but you know... it's funny because I remember flying back in the 70's and 80's where people routinely carried firearms on planes. The restriction was that they had to be long guns and unloaded. I even remember one Texan getting on a plane and commenting to his friend that he would never check his shotgun because it might get damaged by the baggage handlers. I also routinely used to carry a pocket knife with me wherever I went even up to a few years ago on planes before they were outlawed... which leads me to wonder if the per capita risk of hijacking is any different now versus what it was back then.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Bootle]

Think sodium metal or any explosive really, that is keister stashed until the terrorist gets to the lavatory. Keister stashed? Slashdot, you teach me something new every single day!

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[__aaclcg7560]

And as usual, there is no explanation as to *why* lithium batteries are now illegal to carry.

Obviously, they don't want terrorists buying black market Sony batteries that will explode during the flight.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[4D6963]

which leads me to wonder if the per capita risk of hijacking is any different now versus what it was back then.

And that makes me wonder what the risk of hijacking would be if carrying guns was allowed (even encouraged?) on airplanes. I'd love to see a terrorist managing to take control of a plane for more than 5 minutes if other passengers had guns.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Harmonious Botch]

Can we put some restrictions on the ammo that you can carry? It is ok with me if you kill a hijacker, but I don't want you putting holes in the plane.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[mr_mischief]

When you outlaw common everyday items on planes, only forgetful people and outlaws will try to board the plane with those items.

Given that a good laptop battery or a high-quality pocket knife can approach the price of a cheap off-season weekend ticket on a discount airline, just ditching your stuff looks pretty unappealing. It's a pain to leave the security screening, go back to the luggage check, check your stuff in your carry-on, and then get screened by security again. I'm not sure all airports will even let you do that.

It'd be nice if there was a way to combined baggage check and security so that knives, lighters, and other such things normally carried in pockets could be checked straight from your pockets into your checked luggage. Even a good reminder system to get fewer people forgetting to check those items in their checked bags would be nice.

The lithium battery limit in the checked bags makes this situation even more of a hassle. I guess soon people buying large quantities of laptop batteries will need to register with the government just like farmers with anhydrous ammonia and pseudoephidrine purchasers do in problem meth states,

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Starteck81]

In all fairness lithium is a highly reactive substance. You could conceivably take a number of batteries on a flight head back to the restroom crack them open and construct and incendiary device. Check out this link for a little more info The Preparatory Manual of Black Powder and Pyrotechnics

Granted the laptop batteries aren't lithium nitride but they are close.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Roogna]

Figures the one time I don't have mod points is the one time I see a post by someone who obviously didn't read the actual links. Lithium batteries are NOT "now illegal to carry". There's just some rules being put in place for when they can be in checked baggage or must be carried on, and how they must be stored. Looking at the actual page on the subject, it looks like they went to great lengths to make sure it won't directly impact most travelers with regards to the batteries people tend to travel with. On that note I see nothing anywhere suggesting that this has anything to do with terrorism. And as you say if it's "to reduce the possibility of a lithium battery shorting out" then they can be in their shipping packages and be "no more dangerous than many other items that you can carry on planes". Which is exactly what they suggest for storing spare batteries.

I'm all for government conspiracy theories and thinking most of this stuff is completely idiotic. But nothing is going to improve if we go around making grossly inaccurate statements about what a rule actually is.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[LWATCDR]

I doubt this has much to do with terrorism and everything to do with safety.
A lithium battery in checked luggage that shorts out could be a major disaster. Take a look at what happened when some oxygen generators where not shipped properly.

If a fire happens in the passenger cabin it will be noticed and hopefully put out quickly. One in the luggage hold could be a bigger problem.
When I think about just how battery/energy crazy we are getting I have to wonder if it really is a good idea.
I have a six gigabyte memory card in my cellphone. When my wife and I travel we have two notebooks, two Nintendo DS's, two cell phones, an iPod video, and at least one digital camera!
I wonder just how many batteries are being made a year these days?

Frankly these rules are a lot more logical than the restrictions on screwdrivers, nail files, nail clippers, and pocketknives.
BTW great pictures on your blog.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Harmonious Botch]

I recall a rather nasty home-defense weapon that a friend of mine had for his wife to use ( they were in a rather rural area with slow police response ). It was a short-barrel .44 revolver - light, easy to use, won't jam - with a load that looked like a miniature shotgun shell. It had a bunch of pellets about 1 mm in diameter. He said that it could rip a person apart at close range, but could not penetrate 2 sheets of drywall.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[smooth wombat]

head back to the restroom crack them open and construct and incendiary device.

And you can't do the same thing with sodium and water or a hundred other items that can be brought on board?

I said it in a previous posting, but soon, the only way to get onto a plane will be like this.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

Glaser rounds.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[hughk]

Seen at London City airport in London by security - a vending machine selling pre-stamped mailers and a post collection point. Such a small thing to organise but how many passengers feel happier not having to 'lose' stuff at security.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[that this is not und]

I see it as an opportunity for somebody to sell 'this device blinks a silly little LED if button pressed' devices for people to 'install' their spare battery packs in before going to the airport. Little nominal 'shell' devices that just happen to fit the same battery packs as the flier's other device.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[willyhill]

which leads me to wonder if the per capita risk of hijacking is any different now versus what it was back then.

After 9/11 the chances of someone actually falling for a hijacker with a box cutter is right around zero. Security could have been maintained as it was before the attacks, at the same cost, preventing small arms from getting on board as always, and we'd all be OK. But if you routinely ban things like shoes, water and pocket knifes, it gives the impression that you're "protecting" people, and thus validating those enormous expenditures. Everybody wins, except those of us who actually have to travel.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[bryanp]

I'm going to guess that if that were the case 9/11 might have looked something like this:

http://www.scottbieser.com/sept11.html

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Have Blue]

Easily. They'd just shoot you while you're struggling to drag your gun case out of the overhead compartment.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Rob the Bold]

Can we put some restrictions on the ammo that you can carry?

OK, we'll only allow "Ich luge" bullets.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[plague3106]

Well, if you had a gun, would you shoot anyone that annoys you? Perhaps you would just be annoyed, yet not murder anyone. If you wouldn't, there's a good chance other people won't either. Honestly, do you think that large numbers of people aren't murdered everyday simply because most aren't carrying? Or are most people just not going to kill someone over something stupid. Peole get mad, yes, but the person that would actually kill when pissed is rare.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[LWATCDR]

Just how would you get Sodium on to an airliner?
Every time I have seen Sodium it was stored under kerosene or some other oil.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Firethorn]

1 mm pellets wouldn't do much, but there is a revolver handgun caliber which can have chambers compatible with .410 shotgun loads.

At close range it'd do more than piss off a person.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Firethorn]

It's a pain to leave the security screening, go back to the luggage check, check your stuff in your carry-on, and then get screened by security again. I'm not sure all airports will even let you do that.

Except that, per the article, Lithium batteries are expressly forbidden in check-in baggage. So you'd be screwed either way.

Makes me wish for an airline not subject to TSA stupidity.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[AshtangiMan]

I don't know how rare . . . maybe with guns but not with cars. I walk/bike exclusively and at least once per week am confronted with angry drivers who speed up and swerve towards me. Now, they are counting on not hitting me, but are acting in a way that removes any tolerance for error. So if I trip, or swerve, then I'm dead. People who are frustrated and or angry are capable of doing almost anything. And the US is becoming a country full of people who are frustrated and or angry.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[vijayiyer]

The airplane's compressors have enough reserve capacity to pressurize the plane even with a small hole in the skin. There would be air blowing out through the hole, but that's about it.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[LWATCDR]

"Put it in an empty tube of toothpaste, a small bottle used for lotion, a remanufactured film container (not the plastic container but the metal one the film comes in) and a whole bunch of other places."

All of which will be put through an X-Ray machine. You may get away with it but I doubt it.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[4D6963]

Easily. They'd just shoot you while you're struggling to drag your gun case out of the overhead compartment.

Yeah, because everybody knows that people who carry guns for protection like to leave them in their luggage rather than under their belts/inside a holster.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[plague3106]

I walk/bike exclusively and at least once per week am confronted with angry drivers who speed up and swerve towards me. Now, they are counting on not hitting me, but are acting in a way that removes any tolerance for error. So if I trip, or swerve, then I'm dead.

Are you sure they're not speeding up to get AROUND you, and not attempting to hit you? I find allowing bikes onto roadways a stupid idea. I have to ask.. how is anyone in a position to hit you when walking though? I'd expect you would be on a side walk, and obeying the cross signals. Well... that's what I do expect, but pedestrians rarely seem to do so. I've never sped up to hit one though.

People who are frustrated and or angry are capable of doing almost anything.

So if someone frustrates / pisses you off, I can expect you would kill them?

And the US is becoming a country full of people who are frustrated and or angry.

Agreed.. I think that has to do with problems which are not being solved, because our government is focusing on issues like batteries, which have not yet caused an issue..

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[networkBoy]

0) get permission to place your business at security checkpoints (???)
1) Set up a kiosk at large airports immediately next to the security checkpoint.
2) Sell postage paid USPS flat rate boxes for $20.00
3) profit!

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[BirdDoggy]

You're talking about the Taurus Judge. Chambers .410 shotshell and .45 Colt. Touted as a vehicle defense weapon.
http://www.taurususa.com/whatsnew/revolvers.cfm

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[mea37]

Funny, I tend to think that allowing motorized vehicles under the control of minimally-trained individuals onto the roads was a mistake.

If you really believe motorists are just trying to get around bikes, you haven't seen what's really going on. Unless and until there's a separate bike trail infrastructure, any discussion of restricting bikes from the roads is unreasonable. But those points are both off the topic.

The question was about how people behave, and the current situation (bikes sharing the road with cars) is a perfect example of how people, out of anger whether specific or general, will put others' lives at risk when they have no right to do so. They may not be first-degree murderers, but they're perfectly willing to become manslaughterers.

The same will hold true for guns on planes.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[ChameleonDave]

It's funny because I remember flying back in the 70's and 80's where people routinely carried firearms on planes. The restriction was that they had to be long guns and unloaded. I even remember one Texan getting on a plane and commenting to his friend that he would never check his shotgun because it might get damaged by the baggage handlers. I also routinely used to carry a pocket knife with me wherever I went even up to a few years ago on planes before they were outlawed... which leads me to wonder if the per capita risk of hijacking is any different now versus what it was back then.

Around 2000, I used to carry a small penknife all the time. One day, I was catching a plane from the UK to Spain, and going through the checks. I studied the sign in front of me, which listed the things not allowed in the cabin. It mentioned drugs, volatile substances and suchlike, but said nothing about sharp objects. I continued, secure in the knowledge that everything I was carrying was OK. When it came to putting my metal objects in a box while I walked through the detector, the guy went weird about the penknife. I pointed out that it was permitted, and that if he really didn't want it in my possession during the trip, I was quite willing to let a crew member hang on to it until we got to the other end. He just told me that that wasn't possible, and that it would stay in the airport and later be sent on to me. I just wanted to catch the plane, so I said that I supposed that would have to do.

He also told me (almost trembling with officious vexation) that had I not been a UK citizen, he would have arrested me. I didn't bother arguing, but that seemed like a bizarre thing to say. You arrest someone if they commit a crime, and don't arrest them if they don't commit a crime. There ought not to be any discretion of the sort he wanted to exercise. I don't know what the charge would have been for this hypothetical arrest. Penknives are legal unless they have a flick-release, measure over four inches (11cm in Spain), or are wielded as a weapon (in the same way that a cricket bat becomes illegal if I swing it around threateningly). None of that applied. A few weeks later, I wrote to the e-mail address provided, in order to have my property returned to me, and I got a reply back saying that I'd have to send them £10 first. Since that was almost enough to buy the penknife new, I told them to keep it. It's quite a little extortion racket, especially as he only got my consent to leave my property in the airport because he failed to admit that money would be demanded for its return.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Peganthyrus]

You're too late, someone already filled this niche. Seriously.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[rbanffy]

I don't believe anyone could sneak Sodium in any useful (read "dangerous") form into a plane.

The very way you have to pack it necessarily looks suspicious.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[swillden]

Can we put some restrictions on the ammo that you can carry? It is ok with me if you kill a hijacker, but I don't want you putting holes in the plane.

Air marshals don't carry special ammo, and there's no reason that others would need to, either. Air marshals did briefly flirt with frangible ammunition, but soon realized that the Hollywood idea of what happens when you poke a 1/2 inch hold in the skin of a plane is just as valid as the Hollywood notion of what happens when a bullet hits a car. Basically, if you poke a small hole in a pressurized airplane's skin the pressure begins to drop a tiny bit faster than it did before you poked a hole, and not likely fast enough to even overcome the systems that maintain the pressure.

As a result, air marshals now carry regular hollowpoint ammunition, just like pretty much all other law enforcement officers, on the grounds that it's (a) more effective at stopping the bad guy than ball, (b) less likely to go through the bad guy and hurt someone behind him than ball and (c) less likely to shatter ineffectually on a bone or other hard object than frangible. Frangible ammo sometimes produces horrific wounds similar to those of a shotgun at short range, but other times will impact a rib, or just about anything a little tougher than flesh and then produce a broad but extremely shallow and ultimately ineffective wound. And it really doesn't make shooting on an airplane any safer.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[sconeu]

Yeah, the 9/11 guys screwed things up for the "ordinary" political hijacker.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[wattrlz]

Think sodium metal or any explosive really, that is keister stashed until the terrorist gets to the lavatory. Keister stashed? Slashdot, you teach me something new every single day! Somehow the idea of a terrorist trying to keister stash a significant quantity of sodium metal (which is not explosive so much as pyrophoric... ) signifcantly brightened my day.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[4D6963]

And more people would see it as a great way to commit suicide without having to bother to turn your own gun on yourself.

Really, then how come this happens so rarely in police stations, shooting ranges and military bases? I love how most anti-gun arguments are based on people's imagination-based theories rather than statistical or anecdotal evidence.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[OrangeTide]

There are liability issues when it comes with unconventional loads. Anything that can be deemed as cruel or meant to inflict injury above what is necessary for self defense can open you up to serious litigation. And the ones who get to deem what is and is not cruel? Civil court judge and lawyers. All bets are off on people being sane when someone is going to get paid a million bucks to sue you.

Generally it is best to avoid any kind of pellet/shot loads, also you absolutely must avoid hollow points. Plain old lead round nose or semi-jacketed soft points are less controversial in a court, from my understand (IANAL).

Technically speaking a good semi-jacket hollow point or those hydrashok JHP will be the best for actually stopping a baddie without going through walls. Personally I would go with a 357magnum over a 44mag for home defense, because the recoil is too severe for most of us to make a follow up shot worthwhile. if it's not going to hit the target, then no point in pulling the trigger. Now I can't do a double-tap with a 357 revolver, but I can hit the mark with a follow up shot in well under a second. (and I have very little practice)

And with a 9mm one can easily do a double-tap, although I wouldn't trust my life to a 9mm because all autopistols are jam-o-matics in my opinion. But I cannot deny that 9mm are effective and popular.

S&W sells a 5-shot revolver w/ 2" barrel that fires .500S&W (that's a half-inch diameter bullet). It's too much for carry, but home defense it would do well (of course like a 44, there will be no follow up shot). I think it is probably best for shooting a bear/lion/tiger when he starts eating your face though. It is a pretty serious cartridge, might even stop a rhino. (nobody has tried) I do recall some have used it effectively against moose though.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[lysse]

I dunno, much the same as the risk of another Columbine if pupils were allowed (even encouraged) to bring guns into school with them...?

It's a claustrophobia-promoting tin tube with no contact with the outside world, horrid recycled air, plastic food, and a whole bunch of people anaesthetising themselves against the horror of being there with a drug noted for promoting violent behaviour. What do you think would happen if weaponry were added to that equation? Sorry, but the risk of a hijacking conspiracy is one of those things you'll have to put up with on planes... unless you think that they should also not be permitted to fly more than 20 feet up to counter the risk of falling out of the sky (which, let's face it, is a much larger risk and a much more common occurrence).

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[4D6963]

after the hassle of getting to the airport and getting through the security line, and getting the additional security checks, which involve large ugly men cupping my balls, then having a screw driver and my batteries confiscated, and then having to walk a mile through the air port terminal to my gate, and then crammed onto an air planes tiny little seats with a screaming baby and smug barbie doll flight attendents and then you want to give me a gun?

Yes. Solves the security check problem. Potential weapons other than explosive devices wouldn't be checked for anymore, that means security would be only about looking for bombs, not maces/knives/scissors/box cutters and so on. Two birds, one stone.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[4D6963]

Rawlpindi is a garisson city. No shortage of arms there. Yet the suicide bomber still managed to kill rather more than any US spree shooter.

People carrying guns help solve the problem of criminality, doesn't help preventing suicide bombings and doesn't help curing cancer.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[treeves]

X-ray blocking (which shows up as opacity) is proportional to the atomic weight and density of the stuff.
e.g. lead, atomic weight 207, is much better at blocking x-rays than sodium, atomic weight 23. And sodium is harder to distinguish from organic material (C, H, N, O: all /= 16) than lead is, but it is distinguishable.
And having a toothpaste tube with a chunk of higher density material inside it is certainly going to raise suspicion, don't you think?
Finally, sodium, and the hydrogen generated when it contacts water, is not going give much of a bang. You'd make a mess, maybe burn somebody, but you wouldn't bring a plane down with it.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[fredklein]

There are liability issues when it comes with unconventional loads. Anything that can be deemed as cruel or meant to inflict injury above what is necessary for self defense can open you up to serious litigation

This a result of the pussy-ification of the American Legal System. Actually, it's the pussy-ification of America.

When I was young, I climbed metal monkey-bars in a sand-covered park. I climbed 6', even 8' high slides made of steel and sheet metal, and slid down them. Today, all the fixtures are low to the ground, plactic, and the ground itself is padded. All because our society (thru the Legal System) won't stand up and say "Too Bad." "It's too bad your kid got hurt when he attempted to run up the slide while you were not supervising him. You should have 1)taught himthe right way to use a slide, and 2) been watching him."

Now we just award the mommy a few million dollars, and the kid learns he can run wild with no consequences.

More on topic- If someone is trying to hijack a plane, quite possibly to kill everyone on board and cause Billions in damage (not to mention the whole 'terror' angle), then it's quite justified in causing them a little pain. This Society has Rules. A criminal, by breaking those Rules, has clearly shown their preference to not have those rules apply to them. But, the Rules go both ways- they regulate how an individual is supposed to act toward everyone else, AND how everyone else is supposed to act toward a given individual. By wanting the Rules to not apply to them, criminals have given up their protection By the Rules. (You want to cheat? Fine- but you can't complain if others cheat back.)

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[rujholla]

SHEESH RTFA

They are not prevented from carrying them as carryon, only as checked baggage. They are doing it because the onboard firefighting systems in the cargo compartments cannot put out a lithium fire.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Lost Engineer]

I seriously wish Mythbusters would put a hole in an airliner just to prove you (ok not you, but other people too) wrong. I realize I am stating this without proof, but logic should indicate that a tiny little hole will not lead to a catastrophic failure, regardless of how many feet above see level you happen to be. Except in space. There, you can suck a whole alien through a tiny hole in a the craft, or so I hear.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[lewko]

I seriously wish Mythbusters would put a hole in an airliner just to prove you (ok not you, but other people too) wrong.

They did.

Myth busted.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[mpe]

The airplane's compressors have enough reserve capacity to pressurize the plane even with a small hole in the skin. There would be air blowing out through the hole, but that's about it.

Aircraft already tend to have lots of tiny holes in both the skin and the rear preassure bulkhead. Made by these things called rivets. Building an aircraft which was totally airtight would only increase the price.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Dripdry]

I guess the sun would sort of shine out of his ass, then, huh?

Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[DaRat]

Given how well current TSA rules are implemented by the agents, I expect that there will be considerable confusion at the security checkpoints.

Hell, I'm a geek, and I'm not sure how many grams of lithium metal are in my laptop's batteries. How should I expect a nontechnical person be able to size up a battery and tell which batteries should be allowed and which shouldn't?

And, are they even going to count batteries in cellphones and iPods?

I expect that many spare batteries will simply be seized and tossed in the trash.

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[Obyron]

I expect that many spare batteries will simply be seized and tossed in the trash.

Try sold on eBay instead. Seized property is typically sold by the states in Surplus Property auctions, where it can be bid on by the public at large, or in some cases the airports themselves sell the stuff in lots on eBay. The government is making a buck on the battery it confiscates from you.

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[Revotron]

Read the article - it clearly states that installed batteries are exempt. Therefore, your cellphones, cameras, iPods and laptops aren't affected. They're talking about spare batteries that are loose in the luggage, and they even mention that placing your batteries in their original packaging or in a zip-lock bag is deemed a safe storage location that prevents shorting.

It took longer to type this response than it did to read and comprehend the article itself.

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[whoever57]

Read the article - it clearly states that installed batteries are exempt.

The AP article may state this, but the DOT page does not. Installed batteries are also subject to limits -- from the DOT page:

The following quantity limits apply to both your spare and installed batteries. The limits are expressed in grams of "equivalent lithium content." 8 grams of equivalent lithium content is approximately 100 watt-hours. 25 grams is approximately 300 watt-hours:

Wait let me get this straight...

[pwnies]

Spare batteries are more dangerous than installed batteries? Maybe it's just me, but the large majority of the lithium batteries that I've read about exploding were ones that were installed. I've yet to hear about a spare one going jihad on the luggage next to it.

New rule

[Etrias]

There must be a contest at the TSA to come up with the most ridiculous ideas for restrictions. Winners get a tote bag, mug and an "I is stoppin' der terrarists" t-shirt.

Can't tell from the link

[Lookin4Trouble]

Does this mean I can't bring the external 4-hour battery I bought for my laptop? My laptop's battery lasts ~2 hours, and I bought the external with the sole purpose of USING IT ON THE FREAKING PLANE for the additional four hours it takes to get from East Coast to West Coast...

$1 Camcorder

[muffel]

So all you need is a really cheap and small camcorder -- which doesn't really work but still uses a lithium battery. Thus turning your forbidden spare into an allowed non-spare battery?

Gotta go, fill out my patent application...

Retarded

[ewhac]

From an Administration whose keynote from the word Go has been, "Failure," this is just fscking retarded. What, exactly, is this supposed to accomplish?

I have LIon batteries in my laptop, my cell phone, my Bluetooth earpiece, my Nintendo DS, and probably my shoes for all I know. I already have to remove my screwdrivers from my carry-on bag and place them in checked baggage or leave them at home, because they are Official Threats To The Integrity Of The Republic ("Take this plane to Cuba or I'll unscrew the wings from the plane").

Someone needs to slap around the retards coming up with this stuff and force-feed them a clue.

Schwab

Re:Retarded

[SanguineV]

Little known fact; the ban on screwdrivers was initiated by the airlines who were afraid that economy passangers might remount the seats to have sufficient leg room.

For reference, lithium content of non-rechargeable

[amper]

Energizer AA (L91) ~.98 grams
Energizer AAA (L92) ~.5 grams
Energizer 123 ~.55 grams

as per Energizer technical data PDF's

*sigh*

[WizMaster]

At this point, I don't care anymore. Really, is anyone actually bothered by this? Should've seen it comming though. This is a waste of my tax money. Hell, it would be worth it if they were transparent and we knew the reasons for all of these rules. This goes far below checking shoes for bombs and even not allowing nail clippers on board. Whatever. Hopefully the next administration would bring some sense (*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*) to the US government.

Re:NOT Lithium-Ion, just Lithium

[timster]

Sorry, I don't think so. Check out the handy chart in TFA.

Stop allowing humans on flights

[Dunbal]

Because of the risk of an in-flight hazard, humans should no longer be allowed on aircraft. Airlines will, however, continue to fly your luggage anywhere you please, provided it contains no shoes, liquids, or lithium batteries.

I imagine...

[jd]

...that this is in response to all the horror stories of the last year of batteries catching fire and/or exploding. Neither of which would be unique to lithium batteries, and is more a product of lousy quality control than rogue individuals. If Firestone/Bridgestone could end up having to explain themselves to Congress, and face hefty consequences, then why not do the same to battery makers who produce lithium bombs? You don't see bans on Jeeps or SUVs with Bridgestone tires on roll-on/roll-off/roll-over ferries, but far more vehicles were impacted (and far more severely) by the tire issue than computers have been by the battery issue.

There have been numerous comments on the inept handling of existing regulations by the TSA, including on here and including many by people currently or formerly employed by the TSA itself. Journalists and Government watchdog officials are forever getting banned items that are infinitely more dangerous than a battery past screeners. Mind you, other countries aren't any better. The French managed to lose a whole load of plastic explosives during a test run at a busy airport.

Lithium Ion too - just not as restrictive

[El Gigante de Justic]

From the TSA webpage, it does apply to some Lithium-Ion batteries.
        Batteries up to 8-grams "equivalent lithium content" installed in devices or as spares are allowed. For Lithium-ion batteries between 8 and 25 grams aggregate lithium equivalent content are also allowed, but you can only have 2 total (both spare and installed).
        Lithium Metal batteries just have tighter restrictions.

As for the reasons behind this (since some apparantly didn't read TFA)- it sounds like there was a cargo hold fire on one plane caused by lithium batteries and apparently the current fire control systems in planes can't handle lithium fires.

Re:Lithium Ion too - just not as restrictive

[DragonWriter]

As for the reasons behind this (since some apparantly didn't read TFA)- it sounds like there was a cargo hold fire on one plane caused by lithium batteries

Are you one that didn't read TFA? Because there is a big gap between "The National Transportation Safety Board earlier this month said it could not rule out lithium batteries as the source of a cargo plane fire at Philadelphia International Airport last year" and "there was a cargo hold fire on one plane caused by lithium batteries".

Safety issue not terrorism

[calidoscope]

Restrictions on shipping lithium primary batteries by air cargo have been in place for over a year now and this also applied to equipment with lithium primary batteries. There are similar restriction for shipping large lithium secondary batteries.

The news rules do make sense, a in-flight fire on an airliner is pretty serious, especially if there is no nearby place to land (e.g. halfway between California and Hawaii).

Re:Safety issue not terrorism

[RealGrouchy]

an in-flight fire on an airliner is pretty serious, especially if there is no nearby place to land (e.g. halfway between California and Hawaii). No place to land, sure, but plenty of water to put out the fire!

- RG>

Re:Safety issue not terrorism

[ray-auch]

No place to land, sure, but plenty of water to put out the fire!

Umm... you want to put out a _lithium_ fire using _water_ ?

Re:Safety issue not terrorism

[ray-auch]

> what's wrong with the pacific ocean? Surely if you've got a fire, ditching in water is perfect! Do I get a job in airline management now?

No, but you could maybe get a job in chemistry - just take a small piece of lithium, set fire to it and then throw it in a big bucket of water to put that fire out... should be "perfect", right ?

PS: if the penny hasn't dropped yet: "DON'T try this at home kids".

Re:Safety issue not terrorism

[calidoscope]

Good point wrt class-D extinguishers. One substitute is sand, but you're pretty much out of luck unless flying a DC-2 (which had a 1,000 lbm of sand in the back to fix weight and balance problems).

Re:Why

[jj00]

From their FAQ:
"...In the passenger compartment, flight crews can better monitor safety conditions to prevent an incident, and can access fire extinguishers, if an incident does happen."

I'd say the real reason is that they don't want a fire to start in the luggage compartment.

RTFA

[KingBozo]

There is a reason given if you take the time to read.

The FAA has found that current systems for putting out aircraft cargo fires could not suppress a fire if a shipment of non-rechargeable batteries ignited during flight, the release said.

-Dave

Um.... Only Regular Lithium Batteries

[TheOddOne]

from TFA:

The ban affects shipments of non-rechargeable lithium batteries, such as those made by Energizer Holdings Inc. and Procter & Gamble Co.'s Duracell brand.

So this does not appear to affect RECHARGABLE Batteries... Once again, out great save-us-from-ourselves administration making rules so difficult to understand that we cant help us help ourselves to not hurt ourselves, so that they will have to help us not hurt us... I think...

Bass Ackwards

[Quila]

The TSA seems to be able to implement all sorts of insane, useless rules on a moment's notice.

But when it comes to a rule that averts something that actually has a reasonable chance of endangering a flight, they wait months after the hazard was known to the whole world before taking any action.

How low... can you go?!!!

[Nexus7]

Maybe they want to see what they can make us do. They said one time you couldn't carry water bottles on-board. Then you could carry them on as long as they were purchased after the security check. I don't know what it is now... then they said that cosmetics, shampoos, soaps, etc. containing liquids had to be less that 4 oz and all of them had to fit in a quart bag, my sizes might be off, but something like that. Why quart size? Maybe it's a carefully determined threshold, above which everyone is still resentful, but not so much that they'd protest. Or maybe they made it up, as long as they were making stuff up anyway. Or maybe the water-boarded guy said they had a plot to use 2 quart bags.. then they water-boarded him some more and he said one-and-a-half qt bags; so they decided they'd allow only 1 qt bags so that the evil ones did have anything to blow up. Now it's 1 spare battery (or whatever number). I suppose we hear that and go, hey, they allow a spare, and that's good around. I mean, who needs a hundred spares anyway? And so we accept one more thing, more or less unquestioningly.

I know this sounds like a slippery slope argument, but this stuff is being made up as we go along. They got the idiot shoe guy trying to light a match, so they said we've got to take our shoes off and run them through the machines. I mean, this could go on ad infinitum.

The TSA found the terrorist instruction manual

[sm62704]

Page 37:

To blow up an airplane

1. obtain lithium battery
   
2. board aircraft with battery
   
3. Wait until airborn at 30,000 ft
   
4. Short out terminals
   
5. Hold under shoe
   
6. ???????????
   
7. 48 virgins are yours! Enjoy!

Re:The TSA found the terrorist instruction manual

[PPH]

48? Who gets the other 24?

The IRS. If you're in the 33% tax bracket, that is.

Very vague information

[amper]

What really bothers me about this is that the info page from the TSA provides only very vague information concerning exactly what is or is not permitted, and the rules seem to be defined so poorly as to beg for inadvertent violation of the rules by passengers as well as violation of passengers' rights by overzealous security personnel.

There is no distinction made between non-rechargeable and rechargeable batteries. This may be for a good reason, but the TSA page seems to refer primarily to rechargeable batteries.

• Under the new rules, you can bring batteries with up to 8-gram equivalent lithium content. All lithium ion batteries in cell phones are below 8 gram equivalent lithium content. Nearly all laptop computers also are below this quantity threshold.
  
• You can also bring up to two spare batteries with an aggregate equivalent lithium content of up to 25 grams, in addition to any batteries that fall below the 8-gram threshold. Examples of two types of lithium ion batteries with equivalent lithium content over 8 grams but below 25 are shown below.
  
• For a lithium metal battery, whether installed in a device or carried as a spare, the limit on lithium content is 2 grams of lithium metal per battery.
  
• Almost all consumer-type lithium metal batteries are below 2 grams of lithium metal. But if you are unsure, contact the manufacturer!

Note the specification of the word "aggregate" in the second item. That word doesn't appear in the first item. Does that mean I can bring *any number* of batteries that have an individual lithium content of less than 8-grams?

Note the specification of "lithium metal battery" in the third and fourth items. This term does not appear in either of the first or second items. The first and second items refer to "lithium ion batteries". What is the distinction between a "lithium ion battery" and a "lithium metal battery"? Even worse, in the second item, the term "lithium ion battery" is only referred to as an example. The operative phrase only says "up to two spare batteries with an aggregate equivalent lithium content of up to 25 grams, in addition to any batteries that fall below the 8-gram threshold".

Can anyone cite the relevant regulations rather than this public info disaster?

Worry or Don't Worry?

[madsheep]

Well I am not sure whether people should worry much about this. Why you ask? Well the TSA folks generally aren't that bright. This means one of two things will happen.

1) The TSA agents won't know what a Lithium battery is and people that have extra batteries won't be affected - should they forget about or ignore the rule.

2) The TSA agent won't know what a Lithium battery is and people that don't have Lithium batteries will have them confiscated/removed because they are idiots.

Which one is more likely and should we worry in either case? :D

Re:Still Fscking Retarded

[bleh-of-the-huns]

No, the TSA website lists both lithium, and lithium ion batteries, but with varying quantities of lithium installed in each type. The article, which I did not read, instead I just hit up the TSA website, but the article appears to be incorrect based on what people are posting.

Re:Still Fscking Retarded

[whoever57]

Okay, so the TSA Web site expressly discusses lithium batteries, and not lithium-ion batteries, the latter of which are used in laptops, cell phones, etc.

What is it about this article that people seem to have difficulty reading it? The DOT page clearly gives limits for Lithium-ion batteries. For example:

Lithium-Ion Battery Installed in a Device (up to 8 grams lithium equivalent content)

Need the TSA to explain it, Nutrition-Facts-style

[Killer Eye]

Rulemakers like the TSA need to be forced to explain the rationales for every decision.

But, before they're allowed to get all legalese on us, there should also be a brevity requirement. Like the Nutrition Facts on the side of your average can of soup, probably one of the best examples I can think of where a government requirement *didn't* turn into 4 paragraphs of fine print, but rather is presented in a way Joe Sixpack can understand.

I'd like to see something like:
TSA Security Facts
--------------
Restriction: No lithium batteries.
Applies to Flights: International
Rationale: We don't have a clue but we read something bad about them in Newsweek.
Since: 2007
Terrorist Plots Known to Use This Method: 0

For the record... it's not a TSA rule

[bleh-of-the-huns]

But rather a PHMSA (Pipeline and Hazard Materials Safety Administration), an operation unit of the USDOT (I used to work at the USDOT). The rule is being enforced by the TSA, but it was not developed by them. How they enforce it, I don't know, since I seriously doubt any of them (or atleast very very few of them) would be able to figure out what quantities of what chemicals are in different batteries. Hell, even most techies probably do not know what the chemical makeup is, since its not something printed on the spec sheets of batteries.

Just for shits and giggles, I hit up dell's site looking for a spare battery for my vostro 1500...

These are the tech specs for the battery...

Tech Specs
General
Device Type: Notebook battery
Battery Enclosure Type: Internal
Localization: United States
Battery
Technology: 9-cell lithium ion
Capacity: 85 Wh

That does not provide much info.

Here is anoterh battery from a site that specializes in batteries (this one for a HID or LED bicycle light)

Packing

        *
            14.8V , 2400mAh battery pack is made by 4 pcs High quality 18650 2400mAh Li-Ion cells packed by 4 series side by side
        *
            The battery pack is Wapped by white PVC shrink tube

  Voltage Voltage: 14.8V (working) 16.8V ( peak) 11.0V ( cut-off)
  Capacity 2400 mAh min. (35.5 wh)
Protection

        * One PCB (8A) installed with the battery pack and protects the battery from
                    o Overcharge (>16.8V)
                    o Overdischarge ( 8 Amp)
                    o Short circuits
        * One 4.2 Amp polyswitch installed to limit max. discharging current at 4A

Prewired

        * 6" length 18 AWG wires without connector

Max. Discharging Rate 4.2 Amp limited by polyswitch

No where do they list the chemical contents....

Precedent

[cgenman]

Obviously they needed to be banned. Lithium batteries are much, much more dangerous than 3oz of water outside of a plastic baggie.

And for that matter, people bleed to death of papercuts all the time. Paper must be banned from airlines. Similarly, Cheeseburgers, umbrellas during lightning storms, and those shoes with little wheels in them must be stopped. On airplanes.

Other things that should never be brought on an airplane include: step ladders, Christmas lights, and Chuck Norris. Gambling is a very serious addiction, and as such fliers are hereby banned from setting foot inside of Las Vegas McCarron Airport.

Thank you for your attention, and thank you for flying with the TSA. The TSA: Drawing on our imagination to creatively protect America from imagined harm.

The TSA doesn't exist to stop terror

[Ralph Spoilsport]

It exists to

1. convince the American sheeple think that the .gov is actually doing something about terrorism
2. instill fear in the sheeple so they continue making poor risk assessments re: terrorism, and thus support wingnuttery like the TSA.

The TSA hasn't done jack shit to prevent terrorism. Terrorism is defeated by police work and good intelligence, not invading far off countries. Terrorism is not defeated militarily. It is defeated politically and socially: politically through a practice of non-intervention and socially through a process of co-operative engagement. To put it in more common terms: respect others and trade with them. Don't invade and steal resources. Present yourself as something to emulate. Over time, people will leave you the hell alone, because you leave them the hell alone.

The TSA is a crime of an agency, and should be disbanded. Airport security is one thing. Tin horn fascist fear mongering is another.

RS

This sucks!

[AaronW]

I may not carry a laptop, but I do travel with a few cameras. I have my dSLR with one spare lithium battery, a small point-and-shoot camera with a bunch of spares, and a video camera. I need a bunch of spares for my old P&S camera since it eats them like there's no tomorrow and if I use that camera much I'll easily go through 3-4 batteries before I can get back and have a chance to charge them. Granted, the batteries are quite small but I don't feel like replacing it just yet.

Being limited to one spare battery for everything absolutely sucks and is unacceptable. I could see carrying one spare for a laptop, but this will really suck for photographers.

The goal of Bureaucracy is continued existence

[Avenel]

Once you create a bureaucracy, it will do ANYTHING to stay in existence. The TSA has to keep coming up with new "security" measures in order to justify its budget. Take for example the lock chock devices airlines are being required to use. These are basically bicycle tire locks for large planes to prevent people stealing a plane while its on the ground. I was very excited to see these devices when they arrived at work. I couldn't wait to see what sort of clever device the government had come up with. Imagine my disappointment when I saw that you could easily disable the devices in about 30 seconds USING A WRENCH. That's right people... our planes are safe unless the terrorists know how to use a wrench. Do you feel safer? Or just poorer?

Re:Control NOT Security

[Sciros]

Hey by all means disobey the seatbelt regulations bud, I'm not gonna get on your case about it. Please disobey it, also disobey some speed limits while you're at it for good measure.

Re:you can't put packages in roadside drop bins

[Justus]

Having "enjoyed" airline travel over the holidays this year, I suppose I can comment a bit on what I dislike about the state of airport security in the US these days.

Mostly, I feel it's rather demeaning. I used to travel a lot in the late nineties, when security was much less invasive, and I feel that it's no safer today than it was back then. There have been many instances of prohibited materials being slipped past TSA security, and oftentimes the regulations are overly restrictive and do little to nothing to improve actual security. I'm not going to be hijacking an airplane with my Swiss Army keychain (1" blade). I don't feel that I should be hassled about taking off my shoes for the X-ray machine when I've just watched eight people go through the metal detector without doing so. If we're going to have substantial airport security (which I would suggest is not necessary), it should be evenly enforced by well-paid, well-trained individuals with policies that are shown to have an impact. What we have now does little more than inconvenience travelers and provide a false sense of security.

This may be middle class whining, but I feel that it's not unreasonable.

Screw air travel

[nsayer]

Airport security has become a ridiculous game of "Simon Says," only in this case Simon has a taser and the ability to ruin your vacation plans. Every congress-critter from any tourism-oriented state should be holding daily hearings with the head of the TSA asking for cost:benefit analyses on all of these stupid rules.

Actually that Is in the request...

[howlatthemoon]

that you not travel with recalled batteries. http://safetravel.dot.gov/remember.html

Other things that you can find are why they are doing this e.g. flight crews can better monitor safety conditions to prevent an incident, and can access fire extinguishers, if an incident does happen -- http://safetravel.dot.gov/tips.html

YOU CAN TRAVEL WITH MOST LI-ION CONSUMER BATTERIES assuming the TSA agents follow the rules as stated

For the lazy people not willing to look at the actual page, nor the willingness to get through the TSA's obtuse writing here is the punch line:
The following quantity limits apply to both your spare and installed batteries. The limits are expressed in grams of "equivalent lithium content." 8 grams of equivalent lithium content is approximately 100 watt-hours. 25 grams is approximately 300 watt-hours:
* Under the new rules, you can bring batteries with up to 8-gram equivalent lithium content. All lithium ion batteries in cell phones are below 8 gram equivalent lithium content. Nearly all laptop computers also are below this quantity threshold. -- My Macbook Pro battery is 60 watt hours or about 5.5 grams of lithium
* You can also bring up to two spare batteries with an aggregate equivalent lithium content of up to 25 grams, in addition to any batteries that fall below the 8-gram threshold. Examples of two types of lithium ion batteries with equivalent lithium content over 8 grams but below 25 are shown below ( the picture shows a pro-camcoder extended use battery and an external extended use laptop battery).

I usually travel with 10 or more Li-ion batteries of various sizes and this language does not lead me to believe that I will have any trouble because I never check my batteries.I am still concerned as enforcement of these new rules is left up to poorly trained agents, so I worry about losing very expensive batteries because one idiot see lithium on the label and chucks it.

Re:Actually that Is in the request...

[Anonymous Coward]

function acceptable(luggage){

  bigcount=0;
  bigsum=0;

  foreach (battery in luggage.carryon){
    if (battery.capacity>100Wh){
      bigcount++;
      bigsum+=battery.capacity;
    }
  }
  if (bigcount>2 || bigsum>300Wh){
    return false;
  }

  foreach (battery in luggage.checked){
    if (battery.capacity>100Wh || !battery.inDevice){
      return false;
    }
  }

  return true;
}

Re:Actually that Is in the request...

[BoomerSooner]

Oh yeah, some moron TSA employee that makes $7.50/hour can really determine how much lithium is in your batteries. I trust them to measure properly. Like they did with my 3oz of hair gel.

This is fucking moronic. Yet another unnecessary safety step for no reason other than to inconvenience people for the perception (really does anyone believe we're safer when TSA fails almost every test they are put under) of safety.

America is fucked.

Re:Actually that Is in the request...

[syousef]

My wife and I went to New Zealand for our honeymoon. We took 2 SLRs, a point and shoot camera, and a laptop (would have been with a spare battery, but I forgot to put it in the bag and we were pushing cabin baggage weight limits as it was). We took 20,000 pictures in 3 weeks. The emphasis wasn't even photography and we aren't pros - it was our honeymoon and we still had plenty of time to drive 6000km and do all the things honeymooners do. We just take a shitload of pictures and then sort the good from the bad when we get home.

Now she's a nervous flyer and it was her first time overseas. I've been wanting to get her to do a longer trip - the grand canyon followed by the Canadian mountains would be great. However if we go to the US, we have to worry about being finger printed, having our equipment tossed away, she has allergies that can stop her breathing so carries epi pens (adrenaline needles) which literally stand between her and death if she has a reaction. Oh and she's just changed her last name to Yousef. Never mind that she's blonde and blue eyed and that although I look Arabic I think all religion and politics is poison. We're about as low risk in terms of terrorism as a couple could be.

What it boils down to is this. American's have been running around since headless chooks since 9/11. I simply don't trust those in charge to get it right and see us as no threat. I think a holiday to the US for us is high risk and would be about as much fun as major dental work. I can't justify it. It's a real pity.

Unsafe at any speed

[EdIII]

I know some of these policies make sense, even if not implemented correctly. The limit itself is ridiculous. They should just enforce proper packaging during transit.

Flying in this country is going to get to the point where EVERYTHING will be packed according to a 1000+ point policy and checked. Carry-ons will be banned entirely. Ohhh, and you will have ditch all of your clothes, submit yourself to the "high colonic" security scanner, and travel in a one size does not fit all jumpsuit. I just hope when safety and terrorism inevitably bring us there that I can at least choose the color of my jumpsuit.

The sad fact is that with the corruption of the airlines and FAA still allowing critical design flaws to exist, that the military itself corrected over 20 years ago, you will be flying very safely in a progressively unsafe plane. Makes perfect sense.

I got an idea... Why not just go back to the way it was before? Where we accepted a certain level of risk to travel. People do stupid stuff all the time like drinking too much and smoking. I don't see how far fetched it is to get a little excitement riding in a plane that may explode due to a design flaw from the airplane manufacturers, Sony, or some fucked in the head terrorist :)

P.S - We had a close family friend die on Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. My position has always been that the airlines themselves do not do enough to protect us. There was technology back then, and still exists today, that could have stopped that. It would cost a couple hundred thousand dollars but would essentially retrofit the cargo compartments with blast proof material. The containers themselves would also be fitted with it. Had that existed on Flight 103, they would probably not even have noticed that blast till they landed. So without trying to sound like a troll, I do believe these TSA policies are just window dressing and that they don't ever intend to focus on real security solutions that could be effective.

Re:Kill two birds with one stone

[lgw]

Do even /.ers get their science from movies these days? 1 atmosphere ~= 14.7 psi. A .45 hangun would likely punch a neat .45 hole in the skin of the plane. That's 0.16 square inches, or just over 2 pounds of total force if it were a vacuum outside and the plane was at 1 atm inside. Of course, neither of those would be true, so it more like 1 pound of force. Damn our education system is depressing me.

IAAP

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a commercial pilot. I've had a large battery go into thermal runaway in flight. It scared the hell out of me. The flight crew put it in a metal trashcan (so the firefighting gloves are a good idea) and I had depresurized and was going to toss it out over Kansas when it stopped venting and pulsing. I didn't see it; I was on oxygen up front, but my crew really wanted to throw it out even though it stopped pulsing.

So yeah, this is an annoyance, but, in retrospect, I think it's a good idea, and thinking about the spare laptop battery showed into a pocket with some random AV cables, it could light off the overhead compartment before anyone notices.

Re:awww jeez,

[Phanatic1a]

Generally it is best to avoid any kind of pellet/shot loads, also you absolutely must avoid hollow points

This is completely untrue. Completely and thoroughly. Police departments, almost to a man, issue hollowpointed ammunition. Why? Because it has the highest chance of stopping the threat in the event lethal force is necessary. If you end up on the stand, yes, the prosecutor's going to ask why you were using hollowpointed ammunition. Then, since you've been prepared by your own defense, you're going to be able to say that you use them for the same reason 99% of police, including the police from the largest departments in the country such as the NYPD and LAPD, walk around with hollowpoints loaded: because they have the highest chance of stopping the threat and the lowest chance of penetrating to where they're not supposed to and hit an innocent person inadvertently. The cops aren't out there trying to be cruel, and neither are you.

What you want to avoid are hand-loads. You want to use factory ammunition.

Personally I would go with a 357magnum over a 44mag for home defense

ObJeffCooper:

The difference between any two handguns is this much: (holds fingers up about a half-inch apart)

The difference between a handgun and a longarm is this much: (stretches arms apart)

Handguns are marginal against human targets. If you're going to use one for self-defense, then arguing over things like "stopping power" and so forth is just so much intellectual masturbation. Yeah, yeah, I wouldn't use a .25ACP for home defense either, but worrying about .357 vs. .44 is just silly. You want a handgun that is

a. reliable
b. reliable
c. isn't so expensive or unpleasant to shoot that you won't practice with it.
d. isn't so inaccurate that you'll get discouraged and stop practicing with it.

If you're defending your *home*, the only reason you should be carrying a handgun is to let you fight your way to your long arm. A shotgun or something like an 1892 chambered in something ridiculously potent like .454 Casull or .480 Ruger puts you in an entirely different realm of energy, and the carbine will give you more rounds than the shotgun does. Fundamentally, it's up to what the individual feels comfortable with, but *anything* is better than nothing, and quibbling about .357 vs .44 or 9mm vs. .45 is just silly. Your standard AK/AR15/HK91 clone isn't a bad idea, either.

S&W sells a 5-shot revolver w/ 2" barrel that fires .500S&W (that's a half-inch diameter bullet). It's too much for carry, but home defense it would do well (of course like a 44, there will be no follow up shot). I think it is probably best for shooting a bear/lion/tiger when he starts eating your face though

This is nonsense. What that will generate is an enormous muzzle flash as the majority of unburned powder rapidly combusts upon leaving the barrel and a mind-boggling amount of felt recoil. The internal ballistics of the .500S&W are completely ill-suited to that sort of barrel length. And it's not a surprise to me that I can't find this weapon in any of S&W's sales ads. It's not even on their homepage. There is a 2.75" barreled version, but even that's completely ridiculous and there's no *way* I'd rely on that in a bear-defense situation.

is a pretty serious cartridge, might even stop a rhino. (nobody has tried)

Nobody has tried, because it'd be just as much suicide as putting the thing to your head and pulling the trigger. In the full-length barrel, it develops just a hair over 3000 ft-lbs at the muzzle. That is indeed an enormous quantity of energy for a handgun, and compares to a .308 out of a rifle. But compared to cartridges used for dangerous big game, it's puny. .460 Weatherby Magnum is over 7000 ft

This is all assuming you can trust the TSA

[RobinH]

A couple years ago I went on a camping trip for a week and had to fly there. My father and I flew out of Detroit to Salt Lake City, and among the stuff we packed in our checked luggage for the camping trip was an air mattress and battery operated inflater (quite common in any camping equipment store). On the way out, there was a note in the bag saying the luggage had been searched, and we noticed the batteries had been removed from the inflater... not a big deal, as I'm sure they show up looking odd on an X-ray.

On the way back home, though, there was another note from the TSA, and the inflater was just gone. They didn't remove the batteries and put it back, or anything, it was just stolen.

I looked into submitting a claim for the lost item, and discovered that the form I would have to submit was the same form you used to make a wrongful death claim. Nice. I decided it wasn't worth my effort to try and get reimbursed for a $25 or so item.

Readers Digest did a little unscientific poll recently to figure out who were the most and least honest people in the world. They did this by dropping cell phones in odd places, then calling them so people would find the phone, and seeing how many people would return it. I found it quite interesting that the least honest group was security guards. Of course, this is practically the same demographic as TSA agents, so I guess it's no surprise that some of them are looting peoples' luggage.

Solution

[PPH]

I don't need to carry spare batteries in my checked luggage. I can always buy some at my destination. The spares I do carry are for my laptop so I can use it on long flights.

Want me to minimize my spare battery load? Then get the airlines to fix the friggin seat power outlets!!!I'd be more than happy to leave the spares if I could use my power supply, but on over half the flights I've taken that have them (and the airlines are more than happy to advertise their presence when I'm buying a ticket) the damned things are busted and/or shut off.

Re:Kill two birds with one stone

[mpe]

Do even /.ers get their science from movies these days?

There's also the question of where does Hollywood get it's science from..

1 atmosphere ~= 14.7 psi. A .45 hangun would likely punch a neat .45 hole in the skin of the plane. That's 0.16 square inches, or just over 2 pounds of total force if it were a vacuum outside and the plane was at 1 atm inside. Of course, neither of those would be true, so it more like 1 pound of force.

The maximum pressure differential with an aircraft is something around 8 psi. N.B. A spacecraft is more likely to be around 11 rather than nearly 15 psi.