Slashdot Mirror
New Rules May Raise Cost of Buying Gadgets Online
ericatcw writes "Buying your next laptop or smartphone online could suddenly get a lot more expensive if a little-known US Department of Transportation proposal to tighten rules around the shipment of small, Lithium-Ion battery-powered devices by air goes through, says an industry group opposing the move. The changes, designed primarily to reduce the risk from Lithium-Ion batteries, would also forbid air travelers from carrying spare alkaline or NiMH batteries in their checked-in luggage, according to the head of the Portable Rechargeable Battery Association. The proposal is under review until March 12. It can be viewed and commented upon by members of the public."
Seriously. Look at it. Just look at it:
http://xkcd.com/651/
moox. for a new generation.
The proposed rule itself is pretty inscrutable (as usual, I suppose), but the article's examples are all over the map. Some of the examples seem like the small-scale sort of thing that would indeed cause inconvenience to ban: individual electronic devices sent air-freight from NewEgg to a consumer, or spare batteries in checked luggage. But it also mentions that existing regulations exempt "a pallet containing thousands of lithium batteries" from hazardous-material reporting and packaging requirements... and in that case the change doesn't seem too unreasonable to me, because maybe a pallet with thousands of batteries really should be subjected to the packaging and reporting requirements?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"would also forbid air travelers from carrying spare alkaline or NiMH batteries in their checked-in luggage" If it's so "dangerous" to be in the checked bags, then why is it safe to be on carry-on bags?
Batteries can be dangerous if not looked after, especially in a flying aeroplane scenario.
An easy solution would be standardised batteries that you can buy from the supermarket. (strangely enough, we actually used to have these in the old days)
I can't see the need for special batteries for every single device. How is that progress? (And Apple and Logitech have one step stupider and made devices with irreplacable batteries).
Perhaps a battery size standard law is required instead?
Ban humans on flights. The even present threat of spontaneous combustion threatens us all.
I record my sleeptalking
. . . I find them much more annoying than exploding Lithium Ion batteries . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
This would result in all the gadgets I use in flight (Nintendo DS, iPod, Laptop) to be stocked away, making airtravel an even bigger pain in the ass.
How many incidents with batteries occur anyway? The figures suggest that a small percentage of all batteries are potentially dangerous, and I've never seen figures of how many people die of these batteries. Small fires can be put out by the cabin crew, and it certainly sounds it's going to cost a lot more than it will generate in terms of safety
Just one more reason not to fly.
Pardon me, but when the second sentence ends with "argues George Kerchner, executive director of the Washington D.C.-based Portable Rechargeable Battery Association," I tend to think that article doesn't have much credibility.
Would we pay attention if an article said something like:
So, some lobbyist for the battery cartel (Big Battery?) says new regulations will make batteries costly. I don't buy it. Sounds that Energizer Bunny's gotten too fat on his wide margins.
Since over 20 years i wasn't allowed to put ANY kind of battery inside check-in luggage for flying .... really a big change! oh wait....
Forbid forbid forbid, that's all I hear coming out of the "land of the free" lately. I went to the US 2 months ago, and I have never heard "you can't" as often as I did when I was there.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
There's an obvious way to solve the problem: Don't package the battery with the gadget. The Li-Ion batteries can be shipped by sea. Additional benefit: Standardizing Li-Ion batteries would make this more economical and user friendly.
"Sec. 173.220 (d) Lithium batteries. Except as provided in Sec. 172.102, Special Provision A101 of this subchapter, vehicles, engines and machinery powered by lithium metal batteries that are transported with these batteries installed are forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft."
Laptops, cell phones, iPods, etc. are all "machinery powered by lithium metal batteries". And it doesn't say anything about shipping or checked luggage, it says they shall be forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft!!!
One could argue that they are not "machinery" in the conventional sense, but this is far too vague. In my experience, when the language of a law allows it to be enforced in some way, eventually it will be.
The changes, designed primarily to reduce the risk from Lithium-Ion batteries, would also forbid air travelers from carrying spare alkaline or NiMH batteries
Well, that there should do it!
The key to fighting this idiocy is to hit the bureaucrats back, HARD and where it hurts! Just make sure the rules are applied to the battery operated sex toys that their hookers bring with them on their junkets.
Someone should start up Hell-Air, an airline where children are banned and you can freely smoke on the flight.
All the more reasons to build a planetary maglev transit system. Unless Tesla's going to come out with some kind of electric airbus, we better start building the future now. Heck, it'll even create jobs and save the economy.
Because you never know when the next flight might be threatened by lithium-powered underwear
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
As a resident of Hawaii this proposal causes me great concern. The majority of the people here buy electronics items online that come by air shipping. The price is generally 10-20% cheaper online due to the high cost of living out here. It sounds like a real boon to the local merchants but it sucks for the consumer looking for the best prices. I know we're small but I hope they think of us before they enact this ban.
While he acknowledged the department's figure of 40 air transport-related incidents since 1991 involving lithium batteries and devices powered by lithium batteries, Kerchner said it is a small number in the context of the 3.3 billion lithium batteries transported in 2008 alone.
This is a pressing matter. 2.105263158 "incidents" per year is obviously unacceptable.
...the battery inside an already-padded box for a new notebook PC might need to be packaged in an additional fiberboard box along with extra shipping documents, he said.
Obviously this is a ploy set up by HP's packaging engineers.
You're now limited to a maximum of two batteries with between 8 and 25 grams of lithium in them. They ... must be carried now in plastic bags... If you carry on three such batteries, security will take one of them away.
So forget bringing multiple 9-cell batteries on a plane. FedEx'ing the whole thing sounds better and better every day now, since TSA can sieze anything they want, including your data and now your expensive extended batteries.
So when buying stuff with batteries in, check the cheapest and slowest shipping option. If it comes by USPS or UPS Ground, it won't be a problem.
Even cigars? I would gladly pay double for this. It sounds more like "Heaven-Air" to me. But I want to be the only one smoking. I hate enclosed smoky rooms.
But I'd settle for reasonably-sized seats...and no children or young men on their way to Vegas to get crazy.
You are welcome on my lawn.
An obvious risk mitigation would be to ban carrying in the cabin of any device where the battery is not properly sealed and cannot easily be made open circuit.
As an electronics engineer aware of corners cut, tolerances reduced, and the plain immense amount of energy in a modern battery, it makes me cringe whenever I see a device which cannot simply be "turned off" if something malfunctions. It's like having a gas hob and never being able to stop the flow of gas completely: you can implement safety measures to reduce the risk of explosion, but if the circuitry of pipes is always live, you have no option to isolate the source of danger.
Of course li-ion batteries should not be carried in the hold of a passenger plane, but neither should they be carried in any sealed piece of equipment which makes electrical contact with the battery.
What do batteries look like on security scans? Can the scanners not penetrate them? If the scanners have trouble with them, then I submit that this is a veiled attempt at stopping terrorists from hiding bombs in or behind lithium-ion batteries.
(d) Lithium batteries. Except as provided in Sec. 172.102, Special
Provision A101 of this subchapter, vehicles, engines and machinery
powered by lithium metal batteries that are transported with these
batteries installed are forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft. *
Are electronic devices part of "vehicles, engines, and machinery?" I hope not. Else you can't use your ipod. 172.102 isn't in the linked article so I don't know what the special provisions are.
I sleep hooked up to one of them darn fangled cpap machines ... planning a trip soon and bought a 222Wh lithium-ion battery to allow me to go camping etc.
found out I can't use the bloody thing now!
This was discussed ad nauseum at photography forums last year. Key is to read the actual proposal and not depend on the warmongerings of a journalist trying to attract more traffic to his site:
Cartridges packed with equipment to be packed in intermediate packagings together with the equipment they are capable of powering.
The fuel cell cartridges and the equipment must be packaged with cushioning material or dividers or inner packaging so that the fuel cell cartridges are protected against damage that may be caused by the shifting or placement of the equipment and the cartridges within the outer packaging.
All the rule is basically doing is requiring that batteries are transported in such a way that they cannot short out. Either by putting them in the device they are made for (so your gameboy is safe) or by putting them in a special container (the big Li-Ion batteries for SLR's come like that in the box anyway).
After the Great Battery Scare last year with all those laptops combusting spontaneously their was little choice but to start with at least some regulation regarding the combustable nature of these batteries. The requirements are minimal and reasonable and quite frankly I have yet to see anything shipped commercially that doesn't meet those standards.
The proposed rule itself is pretty inscrutable (as usual, I suppose),
.
But don't worry - we can rely on all those helpful and well-educated airport ground staff to correctly and consistently interpret the law and offer balanced and sensible advice to travelers.
We can also re-assure the check-in person that we haven't got batteries at the same time we're assuring them that our luggage has never left our side (even in the trunk of the bus, or when we left it behind the desk at the hotel while we went for lunch); avoiding asking whether the rules on flammable liquids applies to our bottle of "Jungle Formula" and assuming "has anybody given you anything to carry" only applies to ticking teddy bears and bags of white powder handed over by suspicious-looking johnny foreigners. (Seriously, in the entire history of air travel has anybody actually given the "wrong" answer to those questions?)
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Sure people could use batteries in a dangerous way, but at least there are others that could do something about the fire/damage. Down with the checked luggage, I assume the plane would not react until things were much worse...
How many incidents with batteries occur anyway?
It seems obvious that planes are falling out of the sky daily because of the innumerable detonating batteries but it's all hushed up by people in dark suits. Presumably so that the public won't panic.
Thankfully I've converted all my gadgets to using a steam-engine attached to a little turbine. Carrying a few bottle of highly flammable alcohol is much safer than those unpredictable batteries.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Not sure about alkaline and NiMHs, but the cabin crew is not going to be able to put out a lithium battery that's on fire. They self oxidize. And what would you think they could do? Pour water over it?
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Not to go to the US of A. This country, wow, it's moving with amazing speed from last remaining superpower (Bush sr, clinton) to facist dictatorship (king bush II) to truly insane "strip before you even consider flying across our border" country.
Far more efficient than light rail would be a "separate security envelope" for commuter flights.
Requirements:
*Plane too small to take down a big building even with full fuel tanks. Think no more than 20-30 passengers. Sorry Southwest.
*Domestic flights only.
*No checked baggage, only carry-on, and only 1 or 2 full-sized items or equivalent. BUT items normally checked for size like golf clubs could be carried on. No items like guns and such, sorry, ship those ahead.
*Pre-screened, green-lighted passengers only, ID verified with fingerprint or other biometric to prevent boarding via identity theft. This will be designed for the regular business traveler, not vacationers. People who are rejected in pre-screening will have administrative appeals and can sue in federal court if necessary. This is to speed up the line by virtually eliminating passengers who need to be pulled off for watchlist reasons.
*There will be baggage screening and a last-minute, expedited passenger screening to check for recent events (did a passenger suddenly land on a watch list after he got green-carded?).
*Takeoffs and landings are at commuter-only airports or terminals or in a segregated security zone. While you aren't supposed to connect to a "non-commuter" flight, if you do, you'll have to go through "regular" security, so plan a 2+ hour layover.
This should cut the "arrive before departure" time down to 30 minutes or less. You'll still have to worry about parking, waiting on the tarmac, and the rental car though. The latter can be addressed by express bus or rail service from the airports to major in-city destinations, such as convention centers, sporting arenas and other venues on event days, major hotels, and major businesses that generate a lot of commuter traffic.
Civil libertarians will have a fit on the pre-screening and fingerprint requirements, and I'm all for removing them if it won't defeat the purpose of reducing net travel time compared to the status quo. The alternative is keeping the status quo or very expensive new rail (which will likely have its own security- and security-theater delays).
By the way - I probably would not fly in the face of fingerprint requirements on general principles, but many people would and it would make overall air travel more efficient.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
To go and leave your comment on the proposal. That way you'll know you did your part when the public's comments are ignored and it happens anyway ...
"Spoken like someone who is too self-important and socially inept to ever get to the point of being a parent."
Spoken like a parent who cannot control their screaming snot monsters and thinks that having them around is a blessing for bystanders.
If it screams, stop it from screaming.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Not sure about alkaline and NiMHs, but the cabin crew is not going to be able to put out a lithium battery that's on fire. They self oxidize. And what would you think they could do? Pour water over it?
From TSA: Primary lithium batteries cannot be extinguished with firefighting agents normally carried on aircraft, whereas lithium-ion batteries are easily extinguished by most common extinguishing agents, including those carried on board commercial aircraft.
Primary lithium cells are non-rechargeable cells (what devices use them?); most cells carried on board would be lithium ion. Given that a fire from one could be extinguished it seems that since it would be more easily discovered early in the cabin vs in cargo a cargo ban seems reasonable. I fly a lot and can carry all my battery needs in carry on luggage; in fact I never check luggage unless absolutely necessary.
As for cargo flights, where significant amounts of batteries would be carried, figuring out how to safely do it seems reasonable. Given the lack of problems so far it would seem that significant changes would not be needed; but one can never be sure of what a change in regulation will cause. Perhaps fire suppression systems in containers carrying batteries? Then again, that will take space away from goods and result in higher per item transportation costs.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Much like other "safety" laws, this one will not be enforced on anyone but Arabs. But heavens forbid an Arab carries a spare camera battery and off to interrogation he is! FOX NEWS ALERT: TERROR IN THE AIR! Accordingly, most of you dont have to worry, until it is your turn to be the bad guy.
Googling the quoted text got one hit, Hazardous Materials: Revision to Requirements for the Transportation of Batteries and Battery-Powered Devices, etc.; Correction .
I don't speak bureaucrat well enough to be sure, but this seems to be a year old rule, one that is already in force.
As anyone who can read could tell you, the rule-making linked in the summary is for a final rule. The final rule isn't open for comment anymore - it's already published, already effective, and would require a new notice-and-comment cycle in order to change.
The rulemaking PHMSA is proposing is at PHMSA-2009-0095. PHMSA is not required to listen to any comments posted on the link above, because that docket is closed. Therefore, if you want your comments to be read, you should use the above link.
Because the analysis of many people has been on a rule that's only tangentially related to the rule-making at issue, much of what's been posted in this thread is 100% wrong. For instance, many people are saying that the rule would prohibit people from carrying spare batteries with them.
Not only can you continue to bring your electronics on the plane, you can bring spares for the devices as well, so long as you take the reasonable step of taping over the terminals.
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
So, the NSA finally classified Sony as terrorists?
Visit www.growingbettersoftware.com to download your free copy of the book
I tried... and was greeted with
This Account Has Been Suspended Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.
You might want to fix your sig 'til you get that taken care of.
...I will only fly completely naked.
Let‘s see how long they can stand that, before they overturn the laws. :P
But I can raise the bar too, by employing this technique: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9yLKnC5bho
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Lets call the US the "No Fly Zone".
Come on guys. Use your Geek fu. This isn't hard:
... duct tape.
Got batteries with accessible conductors - use duct tape to cover them.
Got annoying, noisy children or adults - use duct tape to cover them.
Got a terrorist trying to blow up the plane - tape 'em to the seat with
Just give out a roll to each flight attendant and you're golden. Nothing hard about this at all.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I've not seen anything but charter planes doing this since 9/11, but then again, I haven't been looking.
The person in an upstream post wanted to fly from Dallas to San Antonio. There are bound to be commuter airports in the Dallas and San Antonio areas that allow small-plane commercial traffic.
If there is enough demand to build a train, surely there is enough demand for a commuter airline, or even a "big airline" operating a commuter jet, to advertise "We are the real air bus - Dallas to San Antonio in 90 minutes - from our parking lot to your rental car."
Given the poster's comment, I doubt such a service exists in that market.
If there is not a market for this service, then I can't see the market for high-speed commuter rail either.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
here has been no evidence that lithium ion, nickel metal hydrid, nor aklaline batteries present any kind of danger to air travel. Regulstions such as these are reactionary knee jerk responses to problems that do not exist. Please consider the times in which we live, humans are connected 24-7 by devices powered by these batteries. Money spent of these regulations would be better invested in foreign intelligence, even though the public already has such an extremely low chance of dying on a terrorist act anyway. Getting back to the point, this measure only serves to harass airline passengers, increase spiralling costs of air safety and further send a troubled nation into panic while buying us absolutely no 'real' safety. Myself and every other reasonable person in the united states are apposed to this measure.
Interesting. Lithium non-rechargeable sound like the ones I see in the grocery stores that are made as alkaline substitutes. The batteries I work with are Lithium-Ion rechargeable. I'd like to know how they expect to put out the rechargeable ones. So far as I know, they can't be put out. I would really like to know what they think could be used to extinguish them.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Interesting. Lithium non-rechargeable sound like the ones I see in the grocery stores that are made as alkaline substitutes. The batteries I work with are Lithium-Ion rechargeable. I'd like to know how they expect to put out the rechargeable ones. So far as I know, they can't be put out. I would really like to know what they think could be used to extinguish them.
According to what I could find they recommend Halon extinguishers are effective, followed by cooling of the battery.
Relevant links I found are:
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2009/SAFO09013.pdf
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/batteries.shtm
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Are those exploding batteries in your pocket, or are just glad to see me?
Fire spreads to stuff that can be could extinguished if you can get to it.\b If the fire kindly limited itself to the battery, it would not be an issue.\b It takes a long time to get down from 30,000 feet unless you turn the plane into a lawn dart like the valuejet crash.
That sounds like it would make a lot of sense. Amtrak already has a route from Fort Worth to San Antonio, the "Texas Eagle", but it's dog slow. According to Amtrak, a one-way trip from FW to SA is $30, but takes 7 hrs, 45 min. According to Kayak, I can get a flight from DFW to SAT for about $155 one way, but it only takes an hour of flight time. According to Google, it would take about 4 hrs to drive one way. It seems like if you could build along the existing rights-of-way for the existing rail, you could put in an pretty awesome high-speed rail system for not-so-much money. One way to work it might be through the "Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority". They are primarily focused on toll roads around Austin, but could provide a venue to study high-speed rail capabilities.
Air travel in Texas is messed up anyway. I went to visit my sister in Austin, and it was cheaper to fly to Austin, through DFW, than it was to get a direct flight to DFW and drive down.
Utilize a Halon, Halon replacement or water extinguisher to extinguish the fire and prevent its spread to additional flammable materials.
Ok, this makes some sense. But as to the battery itself:
After extinguishing the fire, douse the device with water or other non-alcoholic liquids to cool the device and prevent additional battery cells from reaching thermal runaway.
... Ok, so the battery is on fire and they want you to douse it with water. A LITHIUM battery... Cripes, I'm thinking these guys don't know what they are talking about. By the way, here's the doc I deal with at work
Hm.. This page has some interesting things on it.
*Water may be used to extinguish packaging fires if batteries have not ruptured; water is not an effective extinguishing agent for a battery fire.
* For small fires involving the battery [extinguishing] media such as Lith-X or copper powder may be used, but should be applied with a long handled tool. Do not use CO2 or Halon directly on a battery fire as the exposed surface of the contained lithium may react with these materials.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Read the regulation. It does nothing of the kind. The point of not allowing batteries in CHECKED baggage is so that the "small fires" are in an area accessible to the cabin crew. There is no ban on the devices in carry-on. And if the airline just installs fire-suppression equipment (halon?) in the cargo hold, there is no need to ban the batteries in checked-luggage either. The airlines can recover their costs by raising the checked-bag fee by a buck or two.
We are the 198 proof..
The regulation link in the main article is a regulation that already took effect in January. The new regulation under discussion is the one referenced by parent. And that regulation ONLY discusses Li-ion batteries. Nothing about NiMH or Alkaline except to contrast their relative safety with the fire risks of lithium.
Don't fall for scare-mongering industry whores that masquerade as journalists.
"Sec. 171.12 North American shipments.
(a) * * *
(6) Lithium cells and batteries. Lithium cells and batteries must
be offered for transport and transported in accordance with the
provisions of this subchapter. Lithium metal cells and batteries
(UN3090) are forbidden for transport aboard passenger-carrying
aircraft.
(i) The provisions of this paragraph (a)(6) do not apply to
packages that contain 5 kg (11 pounds) net weight or less lithium metal
cells or batteries that are contained in or packed with equipment
(UN3091).
"
There are similar provisions for international travel, but citing a different regulation.
We are the 198 proof..
You have a great point. We should shoot all babies and people who were once babies. Starting with you. Asshole.
When laptop batteries began exploding left and right if you looked at them wrong, I gave my father a call.
He worked for many years at the Lithium Corporation of America, where they mined and refined Lithium ore for all sorts of purposes (shoe rubber, axle grease, pool chlorine, etc, etc..).
I asked him about the exploding batteries, expecting a tirade on how bad manufacturing was to blame, rather than lithium.
Instead, he surprised me with a rant about the old-old lithium batteries - small things about half the size of a double-A battery - used in (pro-)photography flash units. "They banned those from passenger flights because if you hit one with a hammer, it would go off like a shotgun shell. The whole point of using lithium in a battery is because it releases stored energy quickly, to recharge the flash." He seemed a bit shaken and a little surprised that one of those exploding batteries hadn't taken down an airliner.
I don't know why people worry about this kind of thing being made law. Why am I not worried? Think about it.
Who are the people who use planes all the time? Business people, government workers.
And who are the people who need to use their laptops on all those plane trips? Business people, government workers.
And who are the people in real control of all of the laws in the country? That's right, the wealthy business people, the lawmaking government workers.
In 2010+, No law or regulation is ever going to happen that makes air travel require you to not have a working computer. It is just not realistic given the players involved.
After extinguishing the fire, douse the device with water or other non-alcoholic liquids to cool the device and prevent additional battery cells from reaching thermal runaway.
... Ok, so the battery is on fire and they want you to douse it with water. A LITHIUM battery... Cripes, I'm thinking these guys don't know what they are talking about. By the way, here's the doc I deal with at work
Hm.. This page has some interesting things on it. [findarticles.com]
*Water may be used to extinguish packaging fires if batteries have not ruptured; water is not an effective extinguishing agent for a battery fire. * For small fires involving the battery [extinguishing] media such as Lith-X or copper powder may be used, but should be applied with a long handled tool. Do not use CO2 or Halon directly on a battery fire as the exposed surface of the contained lithium may react with these materials.
Interesting stuff. I'm glad to see NAVSEA requires no venting for sub batteries; I wonder what they use on fires? Purple K was the old standby; made a hell of a mess though. A fire on a boat would be as dangerous as on a plane.
What's interesting is the divergent recommendations - on says Halon is OK; the other not. The FAA recommends dousing the battery in water to cool it after the fire is out. Halon was always the magic fire stopper since it interfered with the reaction with out reacting with the flammables; maybe that's not the case with Li-Ion cells? I don't know but am genuinely curious; especially as a real frequent flier.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Thanks for the research. Glad to see my feeling that something was fishy with the original article is confirmed.
Too bad your clarification is too late to get any traction. Slashdot time runs even faster than Internet time.
I get ground shipping free and automatically unles I choose air
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
You can buy Gadgets online?
Errrr... Ummm...
Why didn't anybody tell... me?
Thanks,
Dave Small
(formerly of Gadgets by Small)
NAVSEA actually requires that they not vent at all, or not vent outside of the container. Normally batteries have safety circuitry to prevent the overcharging/discharging that would lead to thermal runaway or venting. That document covers batteries for Navy & Marine Corp Aircraft, Ships and Subs. Note that the FAA recommends halon to put out the secondary fires (i.e. carpeting), not the primary fire (battery). A lithium battery on runaway isn't fire in the normal sense as I understand it. It isn't consuming oxygen as performing another chemical reaction. I just don't see how they expect to stop the reaction.
One of the byproducts of a lithium-ion fire, from what I have been told, is Hydrogen Fluoride, which produces this stuff when inhaled. Nasty stuff. This is one reason allowing power outlets on aircraft for charging consumer electronic devices has a few people I work with nervous about flying. So far as I've figured it, the only thing I could do is grab the battery, toss it into the lavatory on an aircraft, shut the door and get the pilots to go low and slow enough to vent the atmosphere of the cabin. Somehow I doubt they could do it fast enough given the lethality of HF.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars