US Bars Lithium-ion Batteries From Passenger Aircraft Cargo (cnet.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Bars Lithium-ion Batteries From Passenger Aircraft Cargo (cnet.com)

Posted by msmash on Thursday February 28, 2019 @08:10AM from the greater-good dept.

The U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration have issued new rules designed to protect air passengers from the potential dangers of lithium ion batteries. From a report: The new Transportation Department rules come after Congress last year directed the agency to adopt the new rules. The new restriction doesn't apply to passengers or crew bringing electronics aboard aircraft. "This rule will strengthen safety for the traveling public by addressing the unique challenges lithium batteries pose in transportation," US Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao said in a statement. In the past couple of years, the use of lithium-ion batteries has been linked to fires and spewing smoke in a slew of products, including Samsung's now-canceled Galaxy Note 7, hoverboards and Boeing's 787 Dreamliner.

87 of 135 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Shame... by b0s0z0ku · 2019-02-28 08:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

The proper response would have been to ban all Li-Ion batteries from passenger aircraft holds and cargo aircraft. This would have forced manufacturers to air-ship phones and laptops without batteries. With any luck, this would have encouraged the development of standardized, user installable batteries for electronics that would have ground-shipped to brick-and-mortar places and been readily available for sale.
Sadly, no one has the balls to disrupt the disposable device cartels.
1. Re:Shame... by fustakrakich · 2019-02-28 08:24 · Score: 2
  
  ground shipped... Yeah, a 40 ton container full of batteries will make the best fires!
  I say we should use Bic lighters to power our phones. How many of them ever blow up during shipment or storage? I mean, if it weren't for the batteries in the next container?
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
2. Re:Shame... by Ksevio · 2019-02-28 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  That's quite the dream, but with people wanting sleeker laptops and devices, it's more likely that shipping would just take longer. When faced with the choice of waiting a couple extra days for the nicer looking, cheaper laptop or the more expensive bulky one with a removable battery, people are going to choose the former.
  
  Personally, this is annoying for me since I sometimes travel with laptops and this rule makes it basically impossible
3. Re:Shame... by b0s0z0ku · 2019-02-28 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, this is just proof that the average sheepsumer is a fucking cretin with no understanding of technology beyond "yeeeeeah, SHINY!" If you read the article, this only bans batteries as cargo, not as carry-on items.
4. Re:Shame... by 1ucius · 2019-02-28 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Given it doesn't apply to carry-on baggage, I'm not sure safety is the point either.
5. Re:Shame... by ShanghaiBill · 2019-02-28 08:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Given it doesn't apply to carry-on baggage, I'm not sure safety is the point either.
  A fire in the cargo hold is difficult to detect and contain.
  A fire in a passenger's pocket or backpack is immediately obvious and can be quickly isolated and extinguished by crew members.
6. Re:Shame... by b0s0z0ku · 2019-02-28 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  How common are battery explosions in Thinkpads and Moto phones with removable batteries, vs Crapple MacBooks and Samsung Galaxy S7s? Sounds like it's a non-issue in real life despite your paternalistic yammering.
7. Re:Shame... by b0s0z0ku · 2019-02-28 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  That's frankly BS, and you know it (thus your posting as AC). Most of the devices known for catching fire (Samsung S7, MacBooks) has built-in batteries. I haven't heard of many people being randomly blown up while plugging a battery in to a Thinkpad or Moto phone.
  It's planned obsolescence in the guise of cowardice (we must protect the cheeeeeeeelllldren).
8. Re:Shame... by viperidaenz · 2019-02-28 09:16 · Score: 2
  
  Most removable cellphone batteries and all removable laptop batteries have protection circuits built in.
  They're protected from short circuit, over charging, over discharging and reverse connection.
9. Re:Shame... by tlhIngan · 2019-02-28 10:04 · Score: 2
  
  The proper response would have been to ban all Li-Ion batteries from passenger aircraft holds and cargo aircraft. This would have forced manufacturers to air-ship phones and laptops without batteries. With any luck, this would have encouraged the development of standardized, user installable batteries for electronics that would have ground-shipped to brick-and-mortar places and been readily available for sale.
  Sadly, no one has the balls to disrupt the disposable device cartels.
  Well, for a while in the late 90s, they did standardize on batteries. Problem is, it died out quite rapidly because the batteries were of fixed shape which limited what form factors you could have (basically anything big and clunky - basically a brick).
  And because the batteries were often garish and full of shiny stickers, it also meant an internal battery compartment, wasting even more space and giving you an even brick-ier brick.
  Though if you really want a standard, the 18650 battery is pretty standard and lots of stuff can be purchased that take those batteries
  They tried in the 90s, but fixed format batteries were just too limiting - you couldn't build a thin and light laptop using them because they came in only a couple of formats (and it would defeat the purpose if they came in a half dozen formats). Plus it meant the more powerful laptops had short battery life while the weaker ones had longer life - again fixed format battery meant everyone had to design around a 4 cell battery.
  And heck, maybe you'll get your wish if that 18,000mAh Energizer phone gets popular. I don't know why they didn't just include 18650 battery holder with it.
10. Re:Shame... by Immerman · 2019-02-28 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  >but with people wanting sleeker laptops and devices
  Are you sure about that? I've met very few people that actually want thinner phones, tablets, etc. Most everybody I knows primarily wants more speed, size, functionality (e.g. camera quality) and battery life. But if you want high performance, you're pretty much stuck buying flagship devices, which are pretty much only available in "sleek" service-unfriendly devices.
  You can only use the market to evaluate the popular desirability of a particular feature when there are otherwise-similar products on the market with and without the feature in question.
  In the case of portable electronics, *marketers* are big fans of sleek and stylish (but lets be honest, there's not much in the way of visually distinguishable hardware features in a phone or tablet other than size), and *manufacturers* are big fans of the increased sales driven by service-unfriendly devices. The market has only really established that people are more interested in cutting-edge features than easy servicing.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
11. Re:Shame... by Speare · 2019-02-28 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  Lithium batteries are sensitive to large changes in temperature.
  
  --
  [ .sig file not found ]
12. Re:Shame... by TwoUtes · 2019-02-28 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  How about you post some evidence/citations for your claims instead of simply being a condescending ass?
13. Re:Shame... by 1ucius · 2019-02-28 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  "immediately obvious"
  Personally, I have doubts about my ability to detect fire in my carry-on in an overhead compartment - at least any quicker than would the on-board smoke detectors.
  And, of course, dealing with fire/smoke in the passenger compartment has it's own set of issues. In some ways, it would be worse than in the hold.
  Question, do planes have a fire suppression system in the hold?
14. Re:Shame... by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-02-28 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  Here you go. Big removable battery, big screen, lots of cores and memory, ready to roll! You can get what you want today... And a lot of the 2nd/3rd tier cellphone brands in Asia have removable batteries. The cartels you speak of tend to offer what people want - and most don't care about removable batteries.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
15. Re:Shame... by b0s0z0ku · 2019-02-28 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't do US 4G frequencies, unfortunately. If it did, I'd buy one (or 10) over any US "flagshit" phone.
16. Re:Shame... by b0s0z0ku · 2019-02-28 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Are they common as compared to non-removable battery devices? Statistics, please, not anecdotes.
17. Re:Shame... by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-02-28 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  Verizon does Band 1 - this phone does Band 1. But choose the bands you want to cover, you'll find equivalent phones all over Alibaba and other China-sourcing websites...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
18. Re:Shame... by arglebargle_xiv · 2019-02-28 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  A conventional fire, yes. A lithium fire, no.
19. Re: Shame... by c6gunner · 2019-02-28 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  Question, do planes have a fire suppression system in the hold?
  It depends on the type of aircraft. The FAA has a bunch of rules for various types of aircraft but all of them essentially boil down to:
  1. If the cargo compartment can be easily accessed by crew it does not require automatic suppression systems but does require fire fighting equipment.
  2. If the cargo compartment cannot be accessed by crew, it requires automatic detection and suppression systems.
20. Re: Shame... by c6gunner · 2019-02-28 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, this is annoying for me since I sometimes travel with laptops and this rule makes it basically impossible
  You find it impossible to put a laptop in your carry-on luggage?
21. Re:Shame... by mattb47 · 2019-02-28 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  At a concert once, someone 5-6 rows ahead of me was doing the lit lighter thing during a song. Along with hundreds if not thousands of others.
  Then his lighter catastrophically failed, shooting a small fireball into the sky.
  That was fun. (Well, probably not for that person so much...)
22. Re:Shame... by Zmobie · 2019-02-28 15:16 · Score: 1
  
  That is a complete crock. The same digital monitoring and care can be done with a modular battery if they take the time to engineer it (which really isn't that much effort). In fact there are a number of modular batteries that have on-board status monitoring that merely feeds the device that information.
  Beyond that a contact connection vs a soldered connection has very minimal difference from a safety perspective. Even then, at the voltages/currents these batteries are typically running the contact connection will never arc therefore eliminating the one real risk. Most of the fires have come from the actual construction of the cells being far too dense and/or the battery getting punctured. The galaxy incident for instance was traced to exactly that.
  The other issues that I'm familiar with mostly concern gas expansion inside the sealed battery compartment. My Razer Mamba mouse's battery over time would bloat so much with gas that the compartment stopped being able to close. After some research I discovered it was fairly common and a little dangerous if punctured because it was highly flammable. Bottom line, don't buy into that bunk crap, they could and have made them modular for years and it would still be plenty safe.
23. Re:Shame... by b0s0z0ku · 2019-02-28 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have any recommendations for T-mobile/MetroPCS bands?
24. Re:Shame... by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-02-28 17:58 · Score: 1
  
  Check out AGM Mobile, most of them have removable batteries, they have a wide variety of radios, tend to be IPX rated, and have features like enabled FM radios. The AGM A8 would work for you...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
25. Re:Shame... by bongey · 2019-02-28 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  Guess it doesn't apply to aircraft themselves, Boeing's solution for their burning batteries, put it in titanium box with tubes. They are still catching on fire 4 years later. https://www.forbes.com/sites/c...
26. Re:Shame... by radarskiy · 2019-03-01 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  "The proper response would have been to ban all Li-Ion batteries from passenger aircraft holds and cargo aircraft. "
  The issue is specifically batteries shipped when not contained in equipment. So you are trying to get a regulatory ruling from a agency unrelated to the field that is unrelated to problem that the agency was tasked to address. That's pretty much the definition of an improper response.
27. Re: Shame... by Ksevio · 2019-03-01 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  I can carry one, maybe two in carry-on, more than that isn't practical
28. Re:Shame... by Ksevio · 2019-03-01 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  I was talking about traveling with laptops in checked luggage. If you read the article, this doesn't ban batteries in carry-on items, so you could likely assume I wasn't talking about those.
29. Re:Shame... by b0s0z0ku · 2019-03-01 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Why would you check a laptop where some TSA smurf or ramp rat could easily steal it?
30. Re:Shame... by Ksevio · 2019-03-01 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  So I don't have to carry an extra laptop on the plane. How often have you had people stealing your baggage?
31. Re:Shame... by thegarbz · 2019-03-01 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  In some ways, it would be worse than in the hold.
  I take it you've never attempted to get from the passenger cabin to the hold mid flight, much less navigate it, find it and put out a fire.
  Sorry but the industry has quite a bit of experience with this. Fires in the cabin are trivial to deal with, and the USA is just behind the rest of the world in with this policy which has been in place for many airlines for years, even before the Galaxy Tab.
32. Re:Shame... by Obfuscant · 2019-03-01 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  How often have you had people stealing your baggage?
  I have TSA open my baggage semi-regularly. They are easily confused by simple things. Things that confuse them too much dissappear from my baggage. Or things where the rules change on a regular basis. For example, the original rule was "no lighters carry-on, check them." Now it's "no lighters". I wound up at a site one time with my portable toolkit missing the lighter to start the gas-powered soldering iron. Luckily they didn't notice the soldering iron was gas powered, too.
  But a more important question is, how often are really fragile things damaged in checked baggage, and the answer is "a lot more than they are stolen." Now, if you trust the monkeys who handle checked bags not to break your laptop (or any critical parts in it), that's fine for you. I've watched them load airplanes. They make a game out of how high they can toss the bag onto the belt and how loud a thump it makes. Hope you never learn the hard way.
33. Re:Shame... by Ksevio · 2019-03-01 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  If I check a laptop, it'll either be in a cardboard box with shipping padding, or a pelican case with padding. The TSA almost always will open the bags and leave a note. I always carry on my primary laptop, so it's usually basic demo machines that get checked. While I'd rather they not get damaged, I don't want to carry an extra 20lbs around the whole trip.
34. Re:Shame... by Obfuscant · 2019-03-01 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  If I check a laptop, it'll either be in a cardboard box with shipping padding, or a pelican case with padding.
  And any lithium battery will be installed in it. You'll have to carry spare batteries on-board.
35. Re:Shame... by Ksevio · 2019-03-02 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  The new regulation doesn't make clear if that's allowed though. It says batteries installed can be brought on, and batteries in devices on cargo flights can be in the cargo hold at 30%, but it doesn't make an exception for batteries in devices in the cargo hold on passenger flights
36. Re:Shame... by Obfuscant · 2019-03-04 06:56 · Score: 1
  The new regulation doesn't make clear if that's allowed though.
  
  Really? From page 1 of the regulation:
  
  "This IFR does not restrict passengers or crew members from bringing personal items or electronic devices containing lithium cells or batteries aboard aircraft..."
  If your laptop contains a lithium battery, then it "contains lithium cells or batteries".
  
  It says batteries installed can be brought on,
  
  So if your laptop has a battery installed in it, it has a battery installed in it.
  
  and batteries in devices on cargo flights can be in the cargo hold at 30%
  This has been a rule for a long time.
  
  but it doesn't make an exception for batteries in devices in the cargo hold on passenger flights
  Other than saying explicitly that it doesn't prohibit them, you're right, it doesn't "make an exception". The sentence just prior to the one I quoted summarizes the rule. It:
  
  prohibits the transport of lithium ion cells and batteries as cargo ...
  requires lithium ion cells and batteries to be shipped at not more than 30% state of charge aboard cargo-only aircraft when not packed with or contained in equipment, and
  limits the use of alternative provisions for small lithium cell or battery shipments to one package per consignment.
  Now, read those three things again, and tell me where there is a prohibition on lithium batteries installed in your laptop packed in checked baggage. Note: checked baggage is not "cargo", and passenger aircraft carrying your sorry ass somewhere isn't a "cargo-only aircraft". https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/site...
37. Re:Shame... by Ksevio · 2019-03-04 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  I interpreted "Bringing aboard" to mean carry-on. I guess if baggage in the cargo area of an aircraft counts as something brought aboard by a passenger instead of cargo then it's ok.
So much for electric powered aircraft by jfdavis668 · 2019-02-28 08:17 · Score: 1

As long as they are carrying passengers.
1. Re:So much for electric powered aircraft by bobbied · 2019-02-28 08:30 · Score: 2
  
  The 787 avionic batteries where "FAA Certified" but we all know what happened with those things.
  Now they are packaged in "flame proof" containment systems designed to keep stuff around them from going up in flames. Good luck doing that with a battery designed to hold enough energy to power an aircraft on a 9 hour flight.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
2. Re:So much for electric powered aircraft by ShanghaiBill · 2019-02-28 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck doing that with a battery designed to hold enough energy to power an aircraft on a 9 hour flight.
  Battery tech is improving by leaps and bounds. Reliability is way better than it was even 5 years ago.
  Also, nobody is going to use batteries for a 9 hour flight. Electric planes will be used for short hops, like LAX to Las Vegas, or Boston to NYC.
  Long flights may go to hydrogen, but certainly not batteries.
3. Re:So much for electric powered aircraft by b0s0z0ku · 2019-02-28 08:57 · Score: 2
  
  Flying LA-Vegas or Boston-NYC is idiotic when you could build a train or hyperloop, both of which can be powered electrically without dealing with batteries. Flying requires expending energy to climb to altitude, whereas trains run on the surface (more or less). And regenerative braking in planes would tend to be inefficient compared to wheeled vehicles.
4. Re:So much for electric powered aircraft by ShanghaiBill · 2019-02-28 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Flying LA-Vegas or Boston-NYC is idiotic when you could build a train or hyperloop
  Airports already exist. High-speed rails and hyperloops don't.
  
  Flying requires expending energy to climb to altitude, whereas trains run on the surface
  The air density, and thus the drag, is far higher on the ground than at 30,000 feet.
  Trains are not much better than current aircraft at energy efficiency, so electric planes will be better than trains. And the planes don't need a trillion dollars of new infrastructure.
  Progress on electric buses and short-haul electric planes was part of the reason California killed their SF-LA high-speed rail project.
5. Re:So much for electric powered aircraft by Martin+Blank · 2019-02-28 09:17 · Score: 2
  
  Hydrogen will never be a fuel for airliners. Compressed to 700 bar, it has a specific energy about 3.5 times greater than jet fuel but energy density one quarter that of jet fuel. The containment vessels will be too heavy to justify the increased specific energy, and it would require an increase in the volume (or a substantial reduction in maximum range) anyway.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
6. Re: So much for electric powered aircraft by viperidaenz · 2019-02-28 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  and the higher you fly, the lower the energy required to push yourself through less dense air.
7. Re:So much for electric powered aircraft by ShanghaiBill · 2019-02-28 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Compressed to 700 bar
  No compression is needed: Just use cryogenic hydrogen with aerogel insulation.
8. Re:So much for electric powered aircraft by bobbied · 2019-02-28 09:38 · Score: 2
  
  Good luck doing that with a battery designed to hold enough energy to power an aircraft on a 9 hour flight.
  Battery tech is improving by leaps and bounds. Reliability is way better than it was even 5 years ago.
  Right... Look, all you need to understand is the *potential* is the problem... The Avionic backup batteries in the 787 where "aircraft" parts, meaning that they where manufactured and tracked to very strict and exacting specifications. These where the best quality we could manage at the time and we've seen at least three fires, one during flight testing and at least two I remember since. The aircraft was even grounded by the FAA for a couple of weeks due to this problem, until the containment system was retrofitted and put into place on all flying aircraft.
  The FAA simply won't let this happen again. So battery tech may be getting better, but history shows that even under the best manufacturing and quality situation we can muster, they still can catch fire and release huge amounts of energy. Which is why, in this case, the FAA is taking such batteries OUT of the cargo holds of passenger aircraft. They are too dangerous. I don't see technology improvements fixing this anytime soon.
  
  Also, nobody is going to use batteries for a 9 hour flight. Electric planes will be used for short hops, like LAX to Las Vegas, or Boston to NYC.
  Long flights may go to hydrogen, but certainly not batteries.
  Now I AM laughing at you... Do you have ANY clue how dangerous hydrogen is to handle and use? Any idea how much hydrogen you'd need for a 9 hour flight and how much space this would take, even if you went with liquid hydrogen? Compared to kerosene (which Jet 1A really is) the energy density isn't even close and the fuel handling problems are a lot less of an issue. BESIDES... How do you think industrial level production of hydrogen gas works? Right now, hydrogen is generated from reforming Natural Gas....
  Honestly, you'd be better off trying bio-fuels for this... Except that growing enough corn to power a 747 for 9 hours is going to take a LOT of ground, fertilizer, and fuel to run the farming equipment. I shudder to thing of how much environmental impact all that would have.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
9. Re:So much for electric powered aircraft by SuricouRaven · 2019-02-28 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  The Hyperloop has numerous severe engineering problems that mean it is unlikely to ever progress beyond the test track stage. Rail does work, and is a very well-established technology. Air travel does offer potential speed advantages though.
10. Re:So much for electric powered aircraft by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-02-28 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  Jet fuel typically doesn't spontaneously self-combust, especially if you try to pull too much fuel from the fuel tank...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
11. Re:So much for electric powered aircraft by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-02-28 11:54 · Score: 2
  
  A 52L tank weighs around 54 kg and hold about 2 kg of hydrogen, meaning energy stored - by weight - it's quite a bit lighter than batteries, even when you figure in the weight of the tank. That's about 280 MJ of storage for 56 kg, whereas LiIon batteries would be around 322 kg. Jet A still beats both, but compressed hydrogen is a lot better than batteries when it comes to weight - and that's a big killer to get things into the air.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
12. Re: So much for electric powered aircraft by b0s0z0ku · 2019-02-28 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  Except that you're only spending 15 minutes at cruising altitude (if you even get there) on a 300km flight.
13. Re: So much for electric powered aircraft by b0s0z0ku · 2019-02-28 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Not for most aircraft -- they typically use devices like spoilers to increase drag to bleed off speed when descending from altitude.
14. Re:So much for electric powered aircraft by rtb61 · 2019-02-28 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  High speed rail is not just about the two cities at either end, it is also about, developing those towns that are stops along the way, the first of which become major supporting communities for the connected major city. Providing residential accommodation for commuters working in the city and also providing opportunity for businesses to move out of the city to those regional zones now supported by high speed rail from that city.
  High speed rail connections should be all about shifting focus from the connected major cities, to the regional centres along the route that haves stops, the route should never be the cheapest shortest route but the route that is reasonably efficient and provides links to the best regional development opportunities, for the majority of people. This is where high speed rail absolutely craps over air travel.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
15. Re: So much for electric powered aircraft by viperidaenz · 2019-02-28 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  .... and yet the airline companies still climb that high. It's more fuel efficient.
16. Re: So much for electric powered aircraft by c6gunner · 2019-02-28 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  Weight isn't the only problem; the big issue for hydrogen is volume.
  Your energy numbers assume 100% efficiency turning the hydrogen back into usable energy. This is silly. I'm not even sure how you're planning to use it exactly. Current turbines can't burn pure hydrogen so you would need another fuel to go with it. You could use a fuel cell maybe, but those are maybe 50% efficient and add extra weight and volume (over and above what batterirs would require) which you haven't accounted for. You planning on turning your plane into a rocket? That's even less efficient.
17. Re:So much for electric powered aircraft by kenai_alpenglow · 2019-02-28 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  when you develop the "stops between the end cities", the high-speed rail ceases to be high-speed. That is what our current rail infrastructure is like.
18. Re: So much for electric powered aircraft by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-02-28 15:35 · Score: 2
  
  It's a 52L tank - that's pretty darn small. By volume, compressed hydrogen is about 4 times as efficient as Li-Ion batteries; you get ~4 times the energy in a liter of volume. AC points out the fuel cell efficiency gains - meaning that instead of completely wiping the floor with batteries, compressed hydrogen only wipes 90% of the floor with batteries.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
19. Re:So much for electric powered aircraft by b0s0z0ku · 2019-02-28 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  You can still go pretty fast and stop for 1-2 minutes every 30 miles/80km or so. Bit more difficult to do with a plane.
20. Re:So much for electric powered aircraft by bongey · 2019-02-28 18:30 · Score: 1
  
  Which defeats the purpose of trying to save a little weight with LI-ION batteries. It's probably less than 30lbs now in weight savings. I would take the extra lbs vs plane catching on fire.
21. Re:So much for electric powered aircraft by bongey · 2019-02-28 18:40 · Score: 1
  
  Boeing's decision to put Li-IOn on a plane was the dumbest idea ever. Boeing had to add a 185 lb safety enclosure for the batteries making the use of LI-ION type batteries heavier than using lead acid batteries.
22. Re: So much for electric powered aircraft by c6gunner · 2019-03-01 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  If you're only getting 50% efficiency then it's a 104 L tank. Still better in terms of volume but the other issue is that it has to be cylindrical which limits where you can put it and wastes space around it.
  It may not be as much of an issue with planes as it is for cars, but it would depend on the airframe. On smaller aircraft the wings tend not to be too thick, which limits the possible diameter of your hydrogen tanks. You can keep them smaller and shove more of them in there, but then you need extra plumbing too, which also adds weight and volume.
  I'm not saying that hydrogen can't be a viable alternative; there hasn't really been enough research into electric planes in general to be drawing any solid conclusions on the subject. I'm just pointing out that it's a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be, and that you're massively exaggerating the benefits of hydrogen.
23. Re:So much for electric powered aircraft by radarskiy · 2019-03-01 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  The rule is specifically about packed batteries not contained in equipment. It would not apply to batteries connected to the airplanes other systems.
24. Re: So much for electric powered aircraft by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-03-01 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  An order of magnitude more energy per liter, a couple of orders of magnitude more by weight - and much faster refill/recharge times (seconds, or a few minutes at worst case as compared to tens of minutes or hours). There's a lot of downside to batteries, comparatively.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Um. . . . ok by nehumanuscrede · 2019-02-28 08:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

So I'm curious how this is going to work when I bring my Camera bag ( Think Tank Glass Limo ) with me as a carry-on and the flight attendant tells me there isn't any room and I will need to check my bag. Batteries already installed in the camera bodies should be fine, but I'm curious how they'll deal with the spares I carry. Typically, one spare per camera body.
Not that I'm about to check my camera gear. I'll deplane before I do so since the airline will refuse to reimburse me for the $15k+ worth of gear in said bag when one of their thugs . . . . er ' baggage handlers ' helps themselves to the contents or bounces it off the pavement.
I suppose, under the new rules, I can just tell the flight attendant that my bag contains fully charged Li-Ion batteries and cannot be checked ?
This should be fun :|
1. Re:Um. . . . ok by Patent+Lover · 2019-02-28 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  They'll tell you to remove them just like they do now.
2. Re:Um. . . . ok by sexconker · 2019-02-28 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  No, they won't actually give a shit, just like they don't now.
  The person at check in might give a shit, but he mentioned flight attendant. He's already on the plane, and all anyone cares about at that point, including the crew, is getting the sheep in the seats and getting the tin can off the fucking ground.
3. Re:Um. . . . ok by GonzoPhysicist · 2019-02-28 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know if it's realistic in your scenario but could you ship the gear to your destination ahead of time?
  
  --
  horror vacui
4. Re:Um. . . . ok by mjwx · 2019-03-01 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  So I'm curious how this is going to work when I bring my Camera bag ( Think Tank Glass Limo ) with me as a carry-on and the flight attendant tells me there isn't any room and I will need to check my bag. Batteries already installed in the camera bodies should be fine, but I'm curious how they'll deal with the spares I carry. Typically, one spare per camera body.
  Not that I'm about to check my camera gear. I'll deplane before I do so since the airline will refuse to reimburse me for the $15k+ worth of gear in said bag when one of their thugs . . . . er ' baggage handlers ' helps themselves to the contents or bounces it off the pavement.
  I suppose, under the new rules, I can just tell the flight attendant that my bag contains fully charged Li-Ion batteries and cannot be checked ?
  This should be fun :|
  They'll just tell you the bag must be abandoned or sent via ground freight.
  
  Michael O'Leary, Scumbag CEO of one of the worlds worst Airlines, Ryanair has been quoted as saying "Our booking engine is full of passengers who have sworn they will never fly with us again". Not like airlines are really scared of upset customers.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
5. Re:Um. . . . ok by thegarbz · 2019-03-01 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  So I'm curious how this is going to work when I bring my Camera bag ( Think Tank Glass Limo ) with me as a carry-on and the flight attendant tells me there isn't any room and I will need to check my bag.
  That's easy: "Miss, there's a camera in here and it's not going in the hold." Done. That easy. You'll also notice that camera and laptop bags are pretty much never the first to get put in the hold. You'll see those rude f-wits who bring oversized trolleys full of cloths because they don't want to pay $10 for checked bagging giving up their bags long before you have to worry about your precious camera and it's tiny battery.
  
  This should be fun :|
  It's far more mundane than you think. At least that's my experience with European and Asian airliners. But then we haven't punched any passengers and dragged them bleeding off the flight yet either so we may have differing opinions on customer service ;-)
Point? by fluffernutter · 2019-02-28 08:47 · Score: 1

If the electronics are going to be aboard the aircraft what's the point? Can they put out a lithium fire?

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
1. Re:Point? by aaarrrgggh · 2019-02-28 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yes; they have procedures for flames in the cabin— extinguishers and bags apparently. Won’t work for a large battery, hence the size limits.
2. Re:Point? by AHuxley · 2019-02-28 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  To stop another event like
  South African Airways Flight 295 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Portable batteries? by mfgFactor · 2019-02-28 08:55 · Score: 1

Does this possibly pertain to things like portable chargers/larger battery packs? Mobile devices still don't usually have the juice for constant use for long distance flights, so a portable charger is pretty much a must have.
news for nerds with limited reading comprehension by sunking2 · 2019-02-28 08:59 · Score: 5, Informative

Passenger flights often allocate some of their space for regular air cargo. This isn't about banning your computer or camera from being in your luggage. Luggage hold is not cargo hold. What they are avoiding is a passenger plane being used to ferry batteries as a cargo carrier where you could have a box of dozens of them in a confined space. I don't have an issue with this.
Re:Doesn't impact many small device batteries by tiberius0 · 2019-02-28 09:13 · Score: 2

But google co-founder larry page funded startup Kitty Hawk wants you to strap a nice big lithium battery between your legs and go weeeeeee https://flyer.aero/
Re:Doesn't impact many small device batteries by tiberius0 · 2019-02-28 09:17 · Score: 1

Yeah, we could all just use safer batteries that aren't as dense like the lithium polymer ones they are using in the flyer.aero designs... my bad.
Re:how about the mail? by ShanghaiBill · 2019-02-28 09:28 · Score: 2

and li-ion batteries and the devices that contain them are allowed in the mail.
There are restriction on Li-ion batteries in airmail and priority mail. There are limits on size, and the package must be specially marked.
Better Data by Roger+W+Moore · 2019-02-28 10:08 · Score: 1

The air density, and thus the drag, is far higher on the ground than at 30,000 feet.
You are certainly right that the lack of infrastructure for Hyperloop is a major disadvantage but Hyperloop runs in a vacuum so the above is not a valid criticism.

Trains are not much better than current aircraft [energy.gov] at energy efficiency
These are statistics from US trains. If you look at the data for European Trains the data show 65 MJ/km vs. 209.1 l/100 km for US trains which already tells you something about the age of US trains. Converting this into energy 1 l diesel is 38.29 MJ so this gives 80 MJ/km. So EU trains use 81% of the energy of US trains. Using the statistics you linked airlines use 91% of the energy of US trains. Hence, modern trains, such as those in the EU, are definitely more efficient per passenger kilometre than airlines and can run on renewable sources of electricity which aeroplanes currently cannot. US trains are old-fashioned diesels so it is not surprising that they are much less efficient.
Pocket plane by Tablizer · 2019-02-28 10:36 · Score: 1

[banning] products, including Samsung's now-canceled Galaxy Note 7, hoverboards and Boeing's 787 Dreamliner.
Damn! I always had packed a Dreamliner or two with me on trips.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Original announcement by Walter+White · 2019-02-28 11:31 · Score: 4, Informative

For those who would prefer to see the actual announcement rather than discussion of it on an add ridden site with auto-play video you can go to
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/news...
1. Re:Original announcement by radarskiy · 2019-03-01 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  For those who would prefer to see the actual Interim Final Rule rather than a press release you can go to https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/site...
Re:This just in... by RuiFRibeiro · 2019-02-28 16:51 · Score: 1

Hey, suck it up and pay attention to the flight entertainment system.
Do not forget to pay attention to our shitty selection of paid movies.
Re:news for nerds with limited reading comprehensi by radarskiy · 2019-03-01 02:41 · Score: 1

"Luggage hold is not cargo hold."
It's literally the same hold.
Re:news for nerds with limited reading comprehensi by sunking2 · 2019-03-01 06:05 · Score: 1

Admittedly poorly worded. It's not about where it's held, but whether it's associated with a flyer. What they don't want is cases of lithiums flying on commercial airlines. This is the difference between luggage and cargo, not where it's held.
Re:news for nerds with limited reading comprehensi by thegarbz · 2019-03-01 08:57 · Score: 1

This isn't about banning your computer or camera from being in your luggage.
Err no. This is *exactly* about that, and has been a policy in Europe and Asia for a long time now. Here's an excerpt from some airline rules:
KLM (Netherlands): Therefore, lithium batteries and power banks for personal use in devices such as laptops, mobile phones and DVD players, and for medical equipment is restricted and may only be carried in hand baggage. Each spare battery must be packed separately in the original packaging. If you no longer have this packaging, you must cover the battery contact points with non-conductive tape to insulate them and pack each battery in a separate plastic bag.
QANTAS (Australia): Lithium Ion batteries (rechargeable) - not more than 100Wh {insert little picture with red X through the checked baggage symbol} - The battery terminals must be protected e.g. in a device or taping over the exposed terminals.
Singapore actually allow you to check in devices with lithium batteries, but any spare battery must be in carry-on.

Luggage hold is not cargo hold.

A distinction without a difference for firefighting.
Re:news for nerds with limited reading comprehensi by Obfuscant · 2019-03-01 13:44 · Score: 1

This isn't about banning your computer or camera from being in your luggage.
Err no. This is *exactly* about that,
Err, no, it is not. Your computer or camera can still be in your luggage. Nothing in this new rule prohibits that.

and has been a policy in Europe and Asia for a long time now. Here's an excerpt from some airline rules:
Those rules don't ban cameras or laptops from luggage. Read them again. They talk about batteries, not the equipment they are installed in.

Singapore actually allow you to check in devices with lithium batteries,

So do KLM and QANTAS and United and ...
Re:news for nerds with limited reading comprehensi by radarskiy · 2019-03-02 08:11 · Score: 1

Packed batteries not contained in equipment are prohibited from passenger luggage. Batteries contained in equipment are allowed in cargo. Luggage and cargo are being treated the same.