FAA Data Shows Exploding Batteries Are Rare, Small Risk

ericatcw writes "While the US government is intent on adding new rules around the shipment and carrying of Lithium-Ion batteries on passenger and cargo planes, data from its own Federal Aviation Agency show that the risk of being on an airplane where someone — not necessarily you — suffers a minor injury due to a battery is only one in 28 million, reports Computerworld, which analyzed the data (skip to the chart here) using the free Tableau Public data visualization service. Getting killed in a car accident, by contrast, is 4,300 times more likely. Opponents say the rules could raise the cost of shopping online and add hassles for fliers and consumers."

Comments

Sanity

[BSAtHome]

Unfortunately, sanity is not the most common attribute for rule-makers. It is all about perceived risk, not actual risk.

Re:Sanity

[ScrewMaster]

How many unruly passengers would be pacified by the plane's WiFi?

Gas masks for the cabin crew, and a cylinder of knockout gas for the passengers would be just as effective, and would avoid the monthly service charges.

Re:Sanity

[0100010001010011]

Don't even need knock out gas. Just drop cabin pressure, everyone will fall asleep eventually.

This would have seriously pissed me off when I was traveling to India. I took 6 spare batteries for my SLR. (Electricity was shaky, and I could get almost a full week of shooting with out recharging)

Re:Sanity

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

It is all about perceived risk, not actual risk.

That's because hindsight is 20/20. If a battery explodes and downs a flight, suddenly lots of noisy people are going "Why would they even let something that stores as much energy as a battery on a flight in the first place?!?!?" and people start shaking their fists. I personally blame the sensationalist media.

Re:Sanity

[Idiomatick]

I wish people logically applied statistics to all of these decisions. It always horrifies me that people state that human lives are invaluable and then go making decisions to that end. Which does of course put a value on a life but it does so at pretty much random. Some safety features or systems could save lives at a few hundred bucks each. But often we get safety laws put in place where it saves lives at the cost of trillions of dollars each (aka, it will likely never save a single life), certain types of chemical bans is an example of that.

Stating that human lives are invaluable is a demonstrably false statement that nearly everyone has heard and the vast majority accept (though they won't practice it). Were it true, it'd be near impossible to leave the house due to the risk of death clearly not being worth whatever job you might have, cars would be horrifying death traps, yaddayadda, we'd all end up being terrified paranoid hermits. With hospitals blanketing the countryside.

Re:Sanity

[MrNaz]

Another part of the problem is the absurd legal system that makes people forget that unforseen risks are just that: unforseen.

If you die in an accident that could have been avoided, but only if someone had foreknowledge of the future, then well, you died expanding humans' knowledge. Accidents, even death, are just a part of life. We need to live with them.

And yes, before some smartass youngun tells me I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm old enough to know what its like losing family members to accidents. I'm not being callous, I've just realized that no amount of hand wringing and fist shaking will bring them back, or even mitigate the feeling of loss. This realization actually makes grief easier to deal with, not harder.

Re:Sanity

[theshowmecanuck]

Risk management in NOT just about the odds of some event or action happening like almost everyone seems to think. It also has to take into account the impact of the event or action. Low risk low impact, don't worry so much. High risk low impact, still don't have to worry that much unless the frequency is an issue. Low risk high impact (like death), take actions to prevent it. High risk high impact, just don't even bother.

Re:Sanity

[joocemann]

Unfortunately, sanity is not the most common attribute for rule-makers. It is all about perceived risk, not actual risk.

The university I go to is basically banning bake sales and 'cooked goods' sales on campus for fear of the event that someone might get sick from it.... nevermind the fact that they've been going on nearly daily for decades without issues... nevermind the fact that there haven't been any complaints about it and the buyers are fully aware of the food and its production/delivery.

Move along and keep your head down, it is now illegal to look up because you might accidentally look right at the sun and suffer eye damage...

(sarcastic example of the bleak future of this kind of thinking)

Re:Sanity

[rockNme2349]

This is already known by anyone in the field. IIRC the EPA values each American life at around $7 million. They use this figure to make decisions on whether safety features are worth the cost. I believe the value is based around the gross output of the average working person over the span of their life.

If just one life is saved, it's worth it.

[zippthorne]

We could make air travel even safer by making the planes travel slower. Cut the speeds by half or more. No one needs to travel 500mph. That's just an unnecessary luxury, nay, an irresponsible thrill. We should limit aircraft to no more than Mach 5%, and require that their wheels are never more than three or four inches above the ground, so that in the event of a lift failure, there's not far to fall.

There are other measures that can be enacted to improve airline safety even further, and if it saves even one life, we should enact them, too. It's unacceptable that anyone should die as a result of anything they do.

Re:If just one life is saved, it's worth it.

[noidentity]

I know you were being sarcastic, but still, the thing the argument misses is the hidden cost of flying planes slowly (or not at all). For one, more people would use cars, which are less safe than planes. There would also be the reduction in general wealth and efficiency, which indirectly costs lives. Now, if a large group of people really did want such measures taken, the market would give them flights that went more slowly, took even more hours to board due to extra security checks, etc. These people surely exist, but they either aren't willing to pay the costs their approach would involve, or it's an untapped market.

Re:The real problem

[RajivSLK]

This rule also applies to the shipment of batteries on Cargo planes...

Who are these people who feel safer when...

[paulsnx2]

... the people running our security repeatedly prove to be absolutely clueless?

Let's look at a list, shall we?

They want to ban batteries when there isn't any scientific proof of an interesting risk.

They ban knitting needles when nobody has ever hijacked a plane with knitting needles.

Liquids are banned outside 3 oz amounts held in a quart bag despite their own scientists failing to demonstrate how such fluids can be used as an explosive, and the only terrorist to date that has used fluids only succeeded in burning himself.

They banned pilots from carrying tweezers after 9/11. Why, because pilots might honestly hijack themselves should they find tweezers in their pocket?

Pocket knives continue to be banned, and are thrown away costing consumers millions in lost property without any evidence that having pocket knives adds to any risk to anyone.

Canes *are* allowed on planes. Clearly a better choice of a weapon than a pen knife.

Cell phones clearly thwarted a attack on the capital on 9/11, but the use of cell phones on planes continues to be banned.... despite no evidence that cell phones pose any risk to navigation equipment (despite years of claims otherwise without scientific proof).

A MIT student is nearly shot while picking up a friend at the air port because her T-Shirt had a proto board mounted between her boobs. It had blinking lights and wires.... Seriously, I can understand how a regular person might not understand the situation, but don't they actually train security people? And if they are not trained, are we safer?

I could go on. That's just off the top of my head.

Seriously, when are we going to make rules based on actual risk? When are we going to admit you can't eliminate all risk? When are we going to deal with risks we can address, and accept risks we can't do anything reasonable about?

Re:Who are these people who feel safer when...

[RoboRay]

I feel that if they are going to ban liquids because somebody tried to make a bomb with liquids, they need to look at a far greater risk... solids. Every single bomb every brought aboard an airliner, except that one particular liquid bomb, was made from solid materials. They present a clear and consistent danger to all travelers and therefore must be prohibited from aircraft cabins. All solid materials that cannot fit into a single quart-sized bag must be removed from the passenger before passing through security and placed in their checked baggage. There is no valid reason that anyone would need more solid materials than that aboard an airplane.

Re:Who are these people who feel safer when...

[Darkness404]

The only way that we are "safer" than pre-9/11 is because now when someone tries to hijack a plane passengers are going to outnumber the hijackers and subdue them. Before 9/11, you complied with the hijackers, ended up in Cuba somewhere, the hijacker gave up, or shot someone and then the police stormed the plane and you were back where you were supposed to be in a few hours. Now anytime someone does something to try to take over the plane, they will be tackled and taken down.

Re:Not the Problem

[shermo]

I was going to mod you down, but then I saw you used the correct homonym "you're" so I couldn't bring myself to do it.

Re:Perspective.

[interkin3tic]

Getting killed in a car accident, by contrast, is 4,300 times more likely.

That is probably very close to the same odds as being on a plane targeted by terrorists; look how calmly we are responding to that threat.

Furthermore, we've banned terrorists from getting onto planes, but have we banned people from driving cars on the plane???

research

[commodoresloat]

Of course, do your research first.

I did my research; I read the summary on slashdot!

Re:oblig xkcd

[NeutronCowboy]

Maybe we should have a story feature that adds an automatic link to the appropriate xkcd comic. I think it would be more useful than the current twitter or facebook links.