Slashdot Mirror


Laptop Fires On Airplanes

The risk posed by lithium batteries on airplanes is not exactly new news to this community; but the issue is starting to get wider exposure. Reader Maximum Prophet points out that as usual xkcd gets it right, and sends in an NY Times article calling the batteries a fire risk that clears security. "More than half of the 22 battery fires in the cabin of passenger planes since 1999 have been in the last three years. One air safety expert suggested that these devices might be 'the last unrestricted fire hazard' people can bring on airplanes."

92 of 560 comments (clear)

  1. Liquids on planes by the_one(2) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope that if they listen to Randall about the dangers of laptop batteries that they at least listens to his point about the relative dangers of liquids as well.

    1. Re:Liquids on planes by spydabyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the point of his argument is they don't listen. That by proving something wrong with their system doesn't fix their system, it gets you arrested (or without batteries to use a laptop on airlines).

      Sucks for those new mac owners, without removable batteries.

    2. Re:Liquids on planes by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're Right, they don't listen. But it's not their job to listen. You don't walk into a store and tell the janitor what products that the store should stock.

      These security agents are paid $14/hr, and probably don't have any connection to the TSA rulemakers. Whether the security guards can honestly tell a security suggestion from a security threat, I do not know, but I'd like to think they have to treat them all with caution.

      --
      All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
    3. Re:Liquids on planes by megamerican · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tying in a logical and reasonable statement with government policy should be immeidately +5 funny and not insightful/informative.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    4. Re:Liquids on planes by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These security agents are paid $14/hr, and probably don't have any connection to the TSA rulemakers.

      Any security focused organization that doesn't listen to its people on the ground is failing at its mission.
      Not to mention that an inability to provide feedback is a good way to kill moral in an organization.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:Liquids on planes by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also, they don't actually have any constitutional authority to search you (something that they didn't need when it was just a private company and terms of sale).

      Not that that stops them. I've a good mind to say, "no thank you" next time I travel and they ask to search something. Or say, "I've got a pass." and hand them a copy of the constitution.

      Except that I'm a coward, and I usually have somewhere to be when I travel, so I don't rock the boat. Mostly the coward thing, though. I don't need to justify my cowardice. I'm not proud of it either, but I don't see anyone behaving any less cowardly than myself either.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    6. Re:Liquids on planes by QuantumRiff · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But banning liquids is a good thing.. Nobody has blown up a plane with a baby bottle since the law went into effect.

      It works as good as my Cougar repelling rock in my office. I haven't seen a cougar in the office since I got it.

      Sadly, sarcasm is about all I got left anymore...

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    7. Re:Liquids on planes by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I just assumed they were seizing liquids so that you are forced to overpay for the same thing on the other side of the gate.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    8. Re:Liquids on planes by vlm · · Score: 3, Funny

      It works as good as my Cougar repelling rock in my office. I haven't seen a cougar in the office since I got it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships#Slang_terms

      Your loss.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    9. Re:Liquids on planes by maharb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They have the right to search you just as much as you have a right to be on that plane(none at all). If you chose to not be searched then you chose to not get on the plane, its that simple. I don't like the searching policies as they currently stand as much as you but I think its a bit outrageous to claim you should be able to walk on the plane without being screened in any way.

    10. Re:Liquids on planes by Abstrackt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here in Canada most, if not all, of the airports have signs at security that basically say "you don't have to get searched if you don't want to, but you're not getting on the plane without getting searched". You're more than welcome to refuse a search, politely or otherwise, but security can and will prevent you from moving further into the terminal if you exercise that right. The fact that people play along with the security theater isn't a sign of cowardice so much as the fact that they just want to get it over with and get on the damn plane.

      While I think the liquid ban thing and taking off my orthopedic shoes is a waste of time and money it doesn't mean I'm going to try making a statement about it at airport security. When they quiz me on my solid deodorant, solid shampoo, solid soap, and powdered toothpaste (just add water) I politely inform them I can't bring liquids on the plane and I don't want to pack a suitcase for my toiletries or buy them when I land so this is my compromise. I've never had a problem with that answer in any airport (including several in the US).

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    11. Re:Liquids on planes by QuoteMstr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      airports have signs at security that basically say "you don't have to get searched if you don't want to, but you're not getting on the plane without getting searched".

      Making basic parts of modern society contingent upon our choosing to waive our natural rights is no choice at all. Doing that is tantamount to infringing those rights. How is that any different from "you may criticize the government, but if you do, you'll never fly again" or "sure, you can can wear that head scarf, but you're not getting on that plane with it in"?

    12. Re:Liquids on planes by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

      >>>"No thank you" next time I travel and they ask to search

      Good luck with that. The guy in this audio recording tried the same tactic, first with the TSA and then some cops, when they demanded to search his cash box ("Where'd you get all this money?"). They had no constitutional warrant, but still they said they can stop Him from entering the airplane. Laws don't matter when the uniformed men on the street can detain you at will.

      10-minute version (unedited) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEJpzVPmih0
      3-minute version (edited) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMB6L487LHM

      I think it's funny when one of the guards says, "You act like a child." No. He's acting like a Man standing-up for his inalienable rights.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    13. Re:Liquids on planes by Carik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The key here is that flying isn't a basic human right. Those airplanes are privately owned, and the people who own them can make any rules they want about who can ride. If they want to insist that only people with purple hair can fly, that's their perogative. If they want to insist that no-one more than eighteen inches tall can fly, they're allowed to do so. If they want to insist that people submit to a ridiculous, ineffective security screening before flying, they can.

      All three rules are equally silly, and all three rules are equally legitimate. If you don't like the rules, you can find a different way to travel. If they make compliance difficult and annoying enough, many people will, and then the airlines will go under. Until then, you're stuck with it.

      (And yes, there's a lot of pressure from the government for them to run this level of security, but if you believe the airlines don't have enough lobbying power to fight back, you're insufficiently cynical.)

    14. Re:Liquids on planes by QuoteMstr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Flying may not be a human right, but it is a one of the major boons of living in the modern world, and if you can meet the ticket price, you should be able to fly. Making large parts of society contingent on surrendering human rights is tantamount to taking those rights away.

      Also, I see your argument all the time. It's a cop-out. I don't think a world in which large companies can arbitrarily refuse to provide service is the best of all possible worlds. Once a company, or a set of companies, becomes an integral part of our social fabric, it should be placed under a different, more stringent set of rules that ensure the greatest benefit for all.

    15. Re:Liquids on planes by Abreu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope, he's acting like a child.

      If an amusement park does not want to allow you on a ride because you are taller than 5ft, it is their right to deny you, even if you just know the ride can support your height and weight without problems.

      The amusement park ride, and the airplane, are privately owned and they can deny you access for whatever reason, even if you don't like it.

      (or maybe I should have used a car analogy)

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    16. Re:Liquids on planes by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The TSA and their guidelines are no longer private by any means. They are thoroughly up the government's ass.

      The constitution says ol' Uncle Sam can't perform unreasonable searches or seizures without a warrant, and that to issue a warrant they need probable cause. Probable cause must be supported by things that have happened or someone testifies has happened (see oath or affirmation) regarding the specific person. FUD about terrorism does not count, no matter how real the threat is.

      Now before you try to dodge simple facts with bullshit about no one forcing you to board a plane...

      1 - Commercial air travel is the only method of air travel available to 99.999% of people. Going by boat, by car, or on foot will often result in similar infringements upon your rights. Hell, you don't even have to be crossing a national or even state border to be subjected to this shit. Just drive anywhere near the US border and your rights are fucking GONE in the interest of "national security".

      2 - Something something Pursuit of Happiness something something. Seems to me the restrictions and "security" put in place constitute significant barriers to a person's basic freedom of movement if they wish to avoid said searches. Well of course they do - that's the goal. Keep you in your densely packed urban center, try to squash "suburban sprawl", and in general, exercise as much control over you as possible.

      3 - Get up to the security checkpoint at an airport, ticket in hand. When you're next in line to go through the various scanners, give a wave to the friendly TSA employee, put your shoes back on, grab your stuff, turn around, and leave. Explain that you decided you did not want to be searched today. You'll be free to leave, right?

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      If 99% of planes got hijacked and crashed, it would still be unconstitutional.

    17. Re:Liquids on planes by Abstrackt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the current level of security is ridiculous and barely grounded in reality but I also think it makes sense that airlines want to know what people are bringing on their planes seeing as they're responsible for the lives of everyone on board.

      In a perfect world we wouldn't need any security at airports but history has proven that it is necessary. There needs to be a compromise between security that's too lax (who needs a box cutter in the cabin anyway?) and security that's too tight and driven by fear ("I'm sorry sir, but that bottle of water might cause an action movie explosion"); I think letting someone have a quick peek in my backpack is a decent compromise.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    18. Re:Liquids on planes by jgeada · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I do not believe that the statement "private companies aren't required to make any service available to anyone they don't want to" is quite correct. Once a product is on the market you do have to sell it to everyone on equal terms. You are not allowed to discriminate against potential clients on the base of gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs/non-beliefs, political affiliations etc. Just try to run a bus service that requires people of different races to sit in different sections of the bus to see what I mean. Just being a corporation does not give you the rights to ignore the law.

    19. Re:Liquids on planes by conspirator57 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      while i agree with you...

      this is settled case law.

      http://www.papersplease.org/wp/

      yes, i know it's to do with id rather than searches, but the government is of one opinion in all of this.

      "you have other choices on how to travel. we don't acknowledge any timeliness issues."

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    20. Re:Liquids on planes by BetterSense · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd also mod u up, but I spent all my mod points in the libertarianism/foss thread.

    21. Re:Liquids on planes by pilgrim23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      3 generations of people rode airplanes without needing to be subjected to just short of anal probe (coming soon) and we got on fine. Terrorism was as much a threat in 1950 in 1960 in 1970 as it is today yet in those times we walked right up to the plane without hassle. Its all about people control. it has zero to do with your protection. Just consider it as rude and don't fly. seems pretty simple to me

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    22. Re:Liquids on planes by lennier · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The Bill of Rights only guarantees the rights of the People against the Government. There are seperate laws covering what companies may and may not do"

      And that's why Outsourcing and Public/Private Partnerships are such wonderful, wonderful things.

      "It wasn't me - my Global Executive Human Data Resources Acquisition Outcomes Scalable Solution Deliverance Provider did it! That naughty, naughty private company! O how I shall fire them when my office learns of their scallywag exploits, see if I don't! O what a shame that commercial secrecy forbids the democratic process from ever learning the truth!"

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    23. Re:Liquids on planes by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>I still stand by my opinion that throwing a tantrum

      You just demonstrated yourself to be a fool. If you had bothered to listen to the recording I linked off youtube, then you'd know the young man did NOT throw a tantrum. In fact the way he acted (calm, cool, collected) was admirable, and I hope I act as well if I am ever in that situation.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  2. They'll never outlaw batteries on planes by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The backlash of removing batteries would outweigh the safety benefit.

    Knowing the airlines, they could turn this into some type of profit scheme. Make users store batteries in suitcase, make users bring special plane chargers/buy one ($50) and charge a usage fee ($50)

    --
    All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
    1. Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes by FauxReal · · Score: 4, Informative
      I booked a flight on Alaska Airlines today and decided to actually read their restrictions on baggage and I saw this.

      As of January 1, 2008, customers may no longer pack spare lithium batteries of any kind in checked baggage. Customers can carry spare lithium batteries for devices such as laptops, cell phones and cameras, but they must be packed in their carry-on baggage with the terminals covered/insulated. Customers may check bags that contain lithium batteries only if they are installed in the electronic devices. Damaged batteries will not be accepted for transport. For important details regarding the safe transportation of batteries/battery-powered devices while flying, please visit http://safetravel.dot.gov/.

      I wonder if TSA agents are trained to actually take out and read the packaging/label of all batteries they come across as they rifle through your belongings.

    2. Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes by metlin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, I usually carry a spare battery and an additional laptop when I travel, and so far I've not had any problems whatosever.

      The times I've had any problems, I've told them that I travel a lot and spend a lot of time flying (or stranded) and joke about it (which is true).

      I've never really tried checking anything in, though.

    3. Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder if TSA agents are trained to actually take out and read the packaging/label of all batteries they come across as they rifle through your belongings.

      Certainly. They're trained to take everything battery operated.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    4. Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That would be pointless, as the idea is to have no battery on the plane, not that they do not trust the battery you have. If it can interface with your laptop, the same conditions that could have made your normal battery burst into flames would make the substitute one do so as well.

  3. They can't ban them. by snowraver1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Could you imagine what would happen if you told all the business people that they had to either put thier (soon to be broken) laptop in checked luggage or couldn't board the plane.

    It's one thing to get felt up by security, but you will never pry a laptop or blackberry from a business person unless thier hands are cold and dead.

    --
    Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    1. Re:They can't ban them. by ircmaxell · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, putting it in checked luggage would be worse (in fact, most airlines ban batteries from checked luggage already)... If they did catch fire, by the time passengers/crew realized it (from alarms, etc), the fire would be significantly more advanced than if it happened in cabin...

      --
      If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
    2. Re:They can't ban them. by natehoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Could you imagine what would happen if you told every urbanite that they couldn't bring a bottle of Evian on the plane?
      Could you imagine what would happen if you told ever Mom that she couldn't bring a box of apple juice for her kid?
      Could you imagine what would happen if you told the guy with the fancy cowboy boots or the woman wearing Prada shoes that they have to come off and go through the scanner, and they have to walk through security on the icky floors wearing only socks/stockings?

      Oh, wait, you don't have to. The sheeple just throw the stuff away they can't check, maybe bleat a little, and get baa-aa-aa-ck in line.

      And don't think the problem will be isolated to blackberries and laptops carried by business folk. Helicopter-Soccer Mom and Socially Enabled 12-Year Old have cell phones and laptops, too, and those have Li-Ion batteries. Not to mention Electronic-Dependent Cannot Entertain Him/Herself for an hour Child and their ever-present array of Gaming Devices and/or DVD Players. PhotoAmateur Dad always carries his Digicamera or Camcorder. In fact, I think you'd be amazed at how many people DO NOT carry at least one Li-Ion battery in their carryon or on their person today.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    3. Re:They can't ban them. by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It is a government run agency. It will only become a problem when the senator who is chairman of some committee was told he couldn't bring his laptop as carry on, and it gets stolen as a checked item."

      You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works. Said senator would not get the law changed; he would simply make sure that he got a special exception from complying with the law.

      Example - when Ted Kennedy got held up at an airport for his name being on the no-fly list, the system didn't get changed. The list just had an asterisk added at the name "Kennedy" that said " *does not apply to the fat drunk claiming to be a Senator - he really is one."

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    4. Re:They can't ban them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Checked luggage? Who can afford it? Some airlines are charging up to $25 for the first checked bag, and the price goes up for additional bags or "overweight/oversized items".

      Thinking of going skiing? Play the Cello? Hell, rent your equipment, or ship it ahead of time.

      For longer trips, I've resorted to shipping via USPS: It's a hell of a lot easier in the airport, and you can simply ship more for less money... as a large cardboard box is about 10 lbs lighter than a large suitcase.

    5. Re:They can't ban them. by mathx314 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You realize that every time you use the word "sheeple" a lot of people immediately stop reading your post, no matter how valid your points may be?

    6. Re:They can't ban them. by jandrese · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, look at the alternative: Adding many days to travel over long distances. Taking the train from New York to LA takes literally days longer than a flight, and I don't know if anybody does business-class transatlantic cruises anymore. I mean if your work tells you "Go to this conference in Copenhagen" and you're in San Fransisco, then you can't exactly tell your boss "Ok, but I need 2 weeks of travel time on either side of the 1 day conference".

      That's why people accept it. There are really no viable alternatives.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    7. Re:They can't ban them. by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Funny, I took off my shoes after 9/11 but before they required it, precisely because my work boots always set off the metal detectors.

      Yeah, but Evian water is just an inconvenience, as I'll buy some when I get there (if I drank bottled water). I'm not dropping the money for a laptop on the other side, especially if I can't bring it back with me. I'm highly unlikely to check my $1800 laptop. For my work, I'd not go on the trip, as me without my laptop has virtually no value. It'd take a half day just to get a machine setup so I could get logged in over the VPN, and get all of the tools I need installed.

      So cheap items, there's no big deal, but items that are too expensive to just replace upon every trip, are likely to cause a much bigger backlash. Especially if they affect business people, who generate the bulk of the revenue in flying. Hell, they could tell me I couldn't take clothes except what I had on, and I'd deal with that (assuming there I could locate a decent big and tall shop in town). Who knows, maybe they'll create a "laptop license", and charge $50/year to get it renewed, and have a background check done on it. My work would cover that.

      If they do ban them, look for people to start carrying on laptop hard drives, and using laptop rentals. Or a lot more driving than flying.

      Kirby

    8. Re:They can't ban them. by NiteShaed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And don't think the problem will be isolated to blackberries and laptops carried by business folk. Helicopter-Soccer Mom and Socially Enabled 12-Year Old have cell phones and laptops, too, and those have Li-Ion batteries. Not to mention Electronic-Dependent Cannot Entertain Him/Herself for an hour Child and their ever-present array of Gaming Devices and/or DVD Players. PhotoAmateur Dad always carries his Digicamera or Camcorder. In fact, I think you'd be amazed at how many people DO NOT carry at least one Li-Ion battery in their carryon or on their person today.

      Luckily Overly-Impressed-With-Himself-Slashdot-Poster doesn't have any of these problems since there are no direct flights out of his mom's basement.....

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    9. Re:They can't ban them. by sjames · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's a shame really. If people actually did say I'd rather ride a bicycle there than be dehumanized by airport security the airlines would gang up and demand that the TSA get lost.

  4. Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries? by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, because the TSA would be happy to see you jerry-rigging aluminum foil to your laptop

    --
    All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
  5. Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries? by Golddess · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What good is a laptop without one?

    What makes you think they care?

    --
    "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
  6. Do we WANT them to ban laptops? by danaris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If they start looking into this, they might decide to not only ban laptops, but everything else that might have a lithium battery...

    Of course, it might be that banning nearly everything electronic from the cabins is just the kind of ridiculousness we need to get a backlash against all this security theater, and get the people in charge to actually take some time to come up with reasonable restrictions on what we can bring on an airplane.

    ...The other alternative seems to be to go all the way in the other direction: all our luggage gets checked into an ultra-secure compartment, and we have to turn in our clothes at the security checkpoint and be issued uniform form-fitting clothes that can't be used to conceal anything in.

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    1. Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops? by pongo000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they start looking into this, they might decide to not only ban laptops, but everything else that might have a lithium battery...

      And where, exactly, is the problem with this? I long for the days of a relaxing flight that isn't marred by the clickety-click of a keyboard next to me, the horrendous sounds of Windows booting up, or the tinny whine of a pair of inferior earbuds hooked up to an iPod.

      Yes, I'm serious: Ban everything, and force passengers to maybe, I don't know, read a book perhaps?

    2. Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Yes, I'm serious: Ban everything, and force passengers to maybe, I don't know, read a book perhaps?"

      You must be joking. How can I read a book without a battery in my Kindle?

    3. Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops? by Minwee · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, I'm serious: Ban everything, and force passengers to maybe, I don't know, read a book perhaps?

      You have obviously never seen how much damage a terrorist could do by hitting someone on the head with a hardcover book. They're far worse than toenail clippers, pliers or bottles of water larger than 100mL. Nothing is more dangerous to the American people than books.

    4. Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops? by dontmakemethink · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do not interfere with my dream of mile-high club webcasting!!

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
  7. unilkely by damn_registrars · · Score: 2, Insightful

    make users bring special plane chargers/buy one ($50) and charge a usage fee ($50)

    A large number of planes in service today (at least for domestic flights within the US) aren't wired for electrical service to passenger seats. The airlines would lose more money in lost customers than they would make in revenue after considering what it would cost to add electrical service to the currently unwired planes.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:unilkely by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, they wouldn't really. The airlines don't make the rules; the TSA would be the ones to outlaw batteries. The airlines would just take advantage of the situation (like how "complementary" half cans of coke were no longer free once liquids were banned).

      People devoted to certain airlines wouldn't switch because of this if they're all doing it. And remember, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

      --
      All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
    2. Re:unilkely by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The airlines don't make the rules; the TSA would be the ones to outlaw batteries

      That statement seems to hinge on the assumption that the TSA is free to take action without concern of the airline industry. The airline industry pays for the security theater that we are exposed to at the airports; if there were no airlines there would be no TSA.

      (like how "complementary" half cans of coke were no longer free once liquids were banned).

      I don't know what airline you are flying; I still get soda and pretzels for free on the flights I'm on; and they are all steerage (or as they say, "economy") class flights.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  8. Laptop Fires On Airplanes by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Headlines; I wish people writing headlines (especially the professionals at places like the Chicago Tribune) would look at what their headlines may be saying.

    Before I read TFS I thoght it was about somebody controlling a Predator with a laptop and making the predator shoot at manned planes. Or something.

    Would it be too much to add "Risk of" before "Laptop Fires On Airplanes"?

    Why is it legal to bring a laptop, far more of a fire hazard than a bic lighter (Bics don't spontaneously combust, nore do they contain as much energy as a laptop battery) but not the lighter? If I was a smoker, after a three hour flight the first thing I'd want to do would be get the hell outside and smoke, and I wouldn't want to waste time buying a lighter.

    The linked comic is good, but it has more to do with security theater. Of course, when it comes to flying, all "security" is nothing BUT theater.

    1. Re:Laptop Fires On Airplanes by QuoteMstr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yet another way in which we can attribute the poverty of modern culture to those with marketing degrees.

  9. Can't eliminate every hazard by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is this really enough for us to go running scared about yet another airplane hazard? 22 incidents over 10 years is enough to make you think, but when there are hundreds of flights a day I would have to say it's one of the more minor problems that commercial airlines have to face and it seems like it can be solved by properly training crew members how to deal with that sort of fire. You could probably eliminate loads of possible "hazards" off of commercial flights, but not without major inconvenience and making the entire flight experience more miserable than it already is.

    1. Re:Can't eliminate every hazard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      +1 (no real mod points). You cannot keep every bad thing from happening in the world. If people would get enough common sense (and balls) to interfere with idiots misbehaving, this world would be a better and safer place.

      Also, its thousands of flights per day; somewhere in the range of 20k-30k.

    2. Re:Can't eliminate every hazard by syousef · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's a proven fact that if you eliminate all the people from flights and only fly them over completely unpopulated areas, we'll never have another air fatality again! We must do this now! Not just because we can, but because we are fucking morons.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  10. Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Reporters carry laptops. We will here about anything that inconveniences reporters.

    Reporters wear shoes, drink fluids, use toothpaste and shampoo, but hearing about those inconveniences hasn't made an iota of difference.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  11. 22 fires out of how many? by s31523 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    22 fires out of how many millions of flights, of which none resulted in any catastrophe.. I think I am more worried about pilots updating their facebook pages and overshooting their destination airport by 150 miles.

    1. Re:22 fires out of how many? by The+Moof · · Score: 5, Insightful

      22 fires out of how many millions of flights

      That's still significantly higher than the number of bottled water related casualties, and those are still banned.

    2. Re:22 fires out of how many? by kencurry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      this assumes that logic has anything to do with TSA decision making. Of course, it does not.

      --
      sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
    3. Re:22 fires out of how many? by dontmakemethink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      22 fires out of how many millions of flights

      That's still significantly lower than the number of casualties from bomb components that ressembled water bottles, which is why they're banned.

      Fixed that for you.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    4. Re:22 fires out of how many? by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since when have those rules been about actual risk, instead of perceived risk?

  12. Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries? by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Funny

    What good is my water bottle without water?

    You can pee in it whe the security screening line gets
    backed up because the TSA agents have to screen the battery of every electronic device that comes through.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  13. I'll check my batteries... by Beau6183 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'll check my batteries...when you give me 110v AC 60hz plugs in business class. Of course this wouldn't help the international traveler (where laptops REALLY help pass the time). Most airliners have 115v AC @ 400hz and 28vdc systems... Or perhaps a universal 12v DC plug. This would require laptop manufacturers to standardize power supplies and plug fittings (yay!). Not an immediate fix by any stretch, but probably the safest ("low" voltage) most efficient (no inverter inefficiencies).

  14. Re:Problem? Really? by maxume · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even that is too much. There have been 11 incidents in the last 3 years, leading to 0 deaths. There is not a problem.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  15. Enough is enough! by swanzilla · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have had it with these motherfucking batteries on this motherfucking plane!

  16. Laptop fires on airplanes? by MarkvW · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is SKYNET taking over? Should we be concerned. That's one powerful laptop, if it can fire on an airplane.

  17. They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because nobody has intentionally tried to start a fire with one.
    We take off our shoes because someone tried to light exploding shoes. We surrender liquids because someone tried to use liquid explosive on a plane.

    If someone brings an explosive piggy-bank shaped like a Raiders helmet, we will ban piggy-banks... and Raiders gear. We're just proactive like that.

    So don't sweat it. Until some 'turrist' uses a laptop battery, you're good to go.

    1. Re:They won't by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And how would that be hard to get that much on a plane? It would just take a dozen people buying tickets.

      Not actually getting on the plane, mind you. Just buying tickets on some flight, not even the one they're going to blow up, to get through security.

      Or they could even print fake tickets to get through security. You can't get on a plane with a fake ticket, but you can get through security just fine, as they don't actually check that your home-printed ticket is actually legit. As has been repeatedly pointed out. (You could even use people flying in to transport the stuff.)

      And then they all sit down next to each other at some terminal at the back of the airport, and pass their little baggies to each other. You can think of less noticeable and more convoluted schemes to pass stuff to each other, but, frankly, most waiting areas at airports have seats that face 'backwards' away from any possible onlookers, so really just having them sit next to each other would work. (And you pass clothing backwards.)

      Anyone who thinks this is suspicious has never observed their own behavior at an airport. The very first thing anyone does after sitting down at their terminal is to rearrange their bags (Which were organized weird for security, and now need to be organized for the plane.), often trading items with people who are in their group.

      The last collector then purchases some bottled water, goes to the bathroom, pours it out, and sits on the toilet for ten minutes putting it all together. (If it's a binary explosive, have one guy collect one side, and another guy collect the other, and put it together, and then one person does one more handoff.)

      Meanwhile, all but that person walk happily out of the airport, or, heck, get on their flight.

      Anyone who can't figure out how to get 2 two liters amounts of any liquid, together, behind airport security, is a moron. It's trivially easy. (Although it'd end up being in a plastic bag or something, not a two liter bottle, as those are hard to find at airports, and suspicious for security. 'Luckily', we're supposed to take liter plastic bags through security, and having more than one isn't suspicious.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    2. Re:They won't by profplump · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd rather not surrender my liquids at all, even if there had already been a bombing using liquid explosives on a plane. It seems absurd to surrender anything until and unless there's decent evidence that some device/material/etc. poses a practical, likely threat.

      The fact that someone planned a liquid-based plane bombing does not make it plausible, and even if it is plausible it does not mean that it poses a statistically significant risk (i.e. that it will happen often enough to be important) or an economically relevant threat (that it's among the cheaper ways to blow up a plane).

      Terrorists are, by definition, irrational from a societal viewpoint, so maybe we shouldn't rely on them to determine what constitutes a valid security policy. I'll take that one step further and suggest letting terrorists define our security policy so directly is a bad plan -- we're giving the terrorist the ability to get anything they want banned from flights just by drawing up a crude plan and getting some patsy caught with it.

  18. In Related News by quercus.aeternam · · Score: 5, Funny

    In related news, Chuck Norris has been banned from all Airlines.

    Officials stated that "... Well, obviously he's a weapon. I mean, would you want to travel with a nuclear weapon your airliner?"

    It remains to be seen how they intend on /stopping/ Chuck Norris from boarding a plane.

    Chuck's only comment on the matter was "why would I need a plane to fly?"

    We agree.

  19. Re:Liar, liar, pants on fire! by jav1231 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Been free-basing on the tray?

  20. Re:Ah, the optimistic type, I see by pongo000 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Really? You think that would work?

    Well, it seemed to work fine during the first 60-70 years of commercial aviation...

  21. Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries? by Bakkster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But you just named things that don't affect the flight itself. Nor do they affect the reporter/congressmen/businessman's work if they are not allowed to have toothpaste in their carryon. Comparing the backlash of not being able to clip your fingernails to that of not being able to use a laptop is silly.

    --
    Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  22. Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries? by maharb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They don't need to use these things while on the plane and all of these are allowed anyway. You are allowed to wear shoes, you are allowed to bring toothpaste, you are allowed to bring shampoo. That might be why it hasn't made a difference. If you were going to bring anything up it should have at least been true, as there are some things that are banned that people could use.

    Regardless, laptops are going to be allowed because they have the same risk of (malicious) fire as carry on as they would in checked baggage. Try telling the world they can't transport laptops in a plane and see how well that goes over. I would predict the death of the public airline industry and a rise in video conferencing and private jets.

  23. Re:xkcd wrong by Nick+Ives · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Laptop batteries have protective circuits to prevent rapid discharge and eliminate that risk

    I bet you could open a laptop battery and bypass those circuits, then you'd just have the positive and negative poles connecting straight to the contacts on the outside of the battery. After that it's just a matter of shorting the battery out.

    The advantage of doing that rather than just filling a laptop battery shell with other more powerful explosives is that, if done with skill, it'd look just like a normal laptop battery in the X-Ray machines.

    I seriously doubt Islamic-fascist terrorists have failed to think of this. The reason why no more planes have gone down is because either nobody wants to suicide bomb planes or because our security services are doing a good job of stopping such plots. If anyone really wants to bring down a plane they can and nobody can stop them, security theatre be damned!

    --
    Nick
  24. Business business model by carvalhao · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The type of customer regular airlines take the most profit from is the business customer. Now, let me see: I can take 4 hours by train to get there and get 4 hours of work in the meantime OR spend 30 minutes going through security check, spend 2 hours on flight with no laptop and work 1 and a half hours when I get there... Hummmmmmmmmmmm... It ain't going to happen.

  25. Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 3, Funny

    They wouldn't care because I borrowed it from their helmets.

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  26. Damn by overcaffein8d · · Score: 4, Funny

    i knew there was something wrong with buying a macbook pro with a non-removable battery...

    --
    Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
  27. Re:Problem? Really? by Volante3192 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And how do you remove a MacBook battery?

  28. Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries? by Kemanorel · · Score: 2, Informative

    Last time I checked (30 seconds ago), you are allowed to bring all of those in the carryon. The TSA's 3-1-1 rule allows you to bring as many 3.4 oz. (100 ml) containers of any liquid (or toothpaste) as you can fit in a single 1 quart clear plastic bag. It's just a pain to limit to those amounts and have the bag separated from your carryon at security.

    --
    Mess not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
  29. Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries? by justdaven · · Score: 2, Funny

    Probably because Condoms are on the watch list. :)

  30. It matters who is doing the search. by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When it was a private security firm hired by the airlines, it was a perfectly reasonable term of sale. "You want to travel on my plane, you agree to my let agents verify that you're not taking anything aboard that will increase my liability. You don't agree, well, here's a refund." They were conspicuous about it, too, the security checkpoint was a selling point.

    But it is no longer a reasonable term of sale. The TSA is a federal agency, and the officers are federal agents. They are governed by the Constitution, which not only does not grant them the authority to molest passengers, but also specifically forbids them from unwarranted search and seizure, which a choke point search of EVERYBODY who passes certainly is.

    It is also not the same thing as customs enforcement, which obviously must happen at a border, or at least at a virtual border. Completely domestic travel most certainly does not justify border search authority, let alone for reasons unrelated to customs enforcement.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  31. Re:Problem? Really? by jitterman · · Score: 2, Funny

    The same way you remove a MacBook any time you find one - with a hammer!

    :-)

    I kid, I kid...

    --
    For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
  32. A new revenue stream from flights by Valdez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can see it already...

    TSA bans the carrying of batteries over a certain size (size is their "see, we thought this through and want to be reasonable" argument). They'll release a special video on YouTube showing exactly how big an explosion they can get from a common laptop battery, and the masses will be in awe that they ever boarded a plane with such a disaster waiting to happen. Mystbusters will also film an episode where they Confirm the "Exploding Laptop Battery" myth... the episode will when a laptop battery they stuffed with 11 pounds of C4, rolled in a coating of thermite, and dipped in ball bearings is used to destroy 4 decomissioned planes somewhere in the middle of the desert.

    This ban will affect laptops, portable game systems, video players, etc... the things you actually use during the flight. You'll have to remove your battery at the ticket counter, and your airline will give it to TSA to put in a special fireproof container for the duration of the flight.

    The airlines come in and say "We're on your side, travellers" and begin to retrofit planes with power outlets at the seats. Ticket prices will increase slightly to help cover this retrofitting on behalf of all travellers.

    Of course, 110v will be "too dangerous" and 12V cigarette lighters will be "too big to fit", even though both would allow you to use things you probably already have in your laptop bag.

    Instead, they fit the planes with 8.23 V outlets which require a special 103, 72, or 45.8 degree angle doohicky (depending on the aircraft manufacturer) with three and a half prongs, which is now the special "Saf-T-FlitePower" plug. You can buy cheap throwaway adapters on each flight for something like $25 (these fall into 23 pieces or short out after 3 uses), and travel accessory companies will start selling slightly better made adapters for $75-$150. Dell will add one to your laptop for $250 if you check the correct box on the 8th tab while building it online, but it's ok, because 67% of the time the box will magically be checked by default (people who didn't mean to get one will wonder WTF this this with 3.5 plugs is when they open their UPS box and it will ride around in their laptop bag unused for 4 years).

    Now, when you're on the plane, your outlet will be disabled, and it will take the flight attendant typing in a special code with your seat number to turn it on. You can buy one of these codes with your ticket, or may get one automatically if you purchase a certain fare class, and the reason for the whole thing is to cover the cost of the retrofitting (nevermind that they already increased the base cost of the ticket to help cover this, and the functionality which allows them to turn off individual outlets quadrupled the cost of the retrofit in the first place). Also, please be patient while the flight attendant enters your code... for safety reasons this has to be done after reaching cruising altitude, so on some flights you may be halfway through the flight before you even get power. (No kidding, if you've ever been on Frontier and gotten a DirecTV access code).

    Once you get off the plane, you'll travel down to the baggage claim, where an avalanche of special fireproof containers will come tumbling down the little ramp. Have fun sorting them out with everyone else on the flight who had to check their battery.

    Of course, those of us who don't check bags (I haven't checked a bag in over 10 years and fly 4 segments a week), will just be screwed, but luckily the SkyMall catalog will start selling a cool new device which allows you to pedal up some power for your laptop while in flight! (Eventually, there will be alternatives, such as The Wind Powered Laptop Energy Device" you attach to the overhead air duct, and The Solar Laptop Power Supply which you suction cup to your window and hope you have an AM flight with a starboard window seat on a flight headed due north.)

  33. Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries? by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Informative
    "The airlines are trying to protect their profits..."

    From what I can tell...it isn't like the airlines are making money hand over fist. They seem to be running razor thin margins with fuel costs and all. I saw a tv show about the airlines, and they showed on one flight from say, NYC to L.A., all things considered, they only had like a $360 or so profit. If one less person had booked, it would have lost money on that flight.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  34. Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries? by s2theg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The carriers would be happier to charge you to plug into a laptop electricity port.

  35. Hey, at least ... by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... the occasional laptop going 'Bang!' will keep the Northwest pilots awake.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  36. Re:Liquids on planes (slightly OT) by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bring an EMPTY water bottle and fill it with water after you get through the check points. Generally works fine if you put it in your carry on luggage. Some people have reported problems with some guards however ...

    You could also probably buy Vodka at the bar past security and fill it with that as well. :-)

  37. Don't matter, he can still feel smugly superior by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While of course he himself also goes into the line, like everyone else. After all, the alternative is to take a train. That is borderline communist.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  38. What about humans spontaneously combusting? by c4str4t0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    We should start banning humans from boarding aircraft as well since they could be another potential fire hazard.

  39. nothing to see here by TRRosen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That works out to a bit over 3 "battery" fires per year (not just laptops but all batteries) out of more than 10 million flights in the us alone,
    That takes it down to statistical anomaly area. and the number of injuries? None?..two? basically minor burns for the person holding the device at the time. Batteries don't just explode you have too short them with a solid piece of copper to get those kinds of reaction (don't bother sending links to people purposely shorting RC batteries that would never happen in a consumer electronic device) at best they go poof. Scary as shit if it happens in your lap but Hot coffee is probably a bigger threat to air safety.

    1. Re:nothing to see here by aXis100 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did you not hear/read about the several large battery recalls last year? The batteries were internally shorting on their own (flakes of lithium floating around), no solid piece of copper required.

  40. Statistics game by Silicon_Knight · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's two issues here: There's the issue of whether current (or more stringent) security measures can still be beaten by a determined foe, then there's the issue of actual Li-Ion batteries going kaboom. I'll address the later.

    Li-Ion batteries are some of the highest energy-density storage devices available to the general public. As such, they *are* dangerous. I design battery packs for a living, and let me tell you - if not for microprocessors and safety circuits, we wouldn't use Li-Ion batteries.

    They are the only batteries that I know of that can fail dangerously when over-discharged. You start creating internal shorts of lithium whiskers between the cathode and anode, which bypasses any cell safety circuits.
    They go boom very spectacularly if you overcharge them. The model RC heli folks have found this out the hard way, as they tend to run bare cells without protection circuits to save weight. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcwOwf55Rtc).
    They have very low internal resistance, which means in a short circuit, they can release energy very quickly. Every manufacturing engineer at the company I work at have welded calipers to cell tabs, from accidentally touching the wrong stuff while taking measurements.

    For a good cell manufacturer - and I'm talking about the LiShens, Sanyos, Kokams, and Panasonics of the world, the failure rate is 1 in 1 million. It's just a fact of life. The fly-by-night operations in China, responsible for some of the god-awful counterfeit cells out there, god knows what those failure rates are. And the vendors who use these cells tends to not put in the safety features (look up a BQ20Z70 chip, for example) to make a failure more likely.

    The nightmare scenario would be some dude getting some last minute work in at the terminal, plugging the battery in for charging. Then the plane takes off with the laptop in the overhead compartment where the oxygen lines for the safety masks are kept, and the cells let go. Judging from how much energy a single 18650 cell can contain, it could easily do some very serious damage.

    With the prices on Li-Ion dropping and more devices using them, it's no wonder that almost all of the 22 incidents reported occured in the last 3 years. Still a small number considering the amount of airplanes in the air at any given time, but enough for someone to pause and think...