....Again?

[christopher_wolf]

First it was Qantas, now this

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/13 ... batteries/

The difference here is that they haven't stopped at just the Dells, but also included the Apples as well.

This had *really* better not give the TSA any bright ideas; as it is well known, they can come up with their own bright ideas.

[JHEM]

First it was Qantas, now this

Then this!

UPI reported the loss this way back in February:

WASHINGTON — Did laptop batteries aboard a UPS cargo plane ignite,
causing the aircraft to catch fire?

The National Transportation Safety Board began looking into the question
at a hearing Wednesday.

All three crew members on the plane were treated for minor injuries
after it made an emergency landing shortly after midnight Feb. 8 at
Philadelphia International Airport.

Several other incidents have occurred in recent years in which lithium
batteries _ used in laptops and cell phones _ have caught fire aboard
airplanes.

Less than two months ago in Chicago, a spare laptop battery packed in a
bag stored in an overhead bin started emitting smoke, chief crash
investigator Frank Hilldrup of the NTSB testified Wednesday.

A flight attendant used an extinguisher and the bag was removed, but the
bag caught fire on a ramp, Hilldrup said.

Investigators in the Philadelphia fire found that several computer
laptop batteries were on board the plane, and that in many cases
portions of the laptop batteries had burned, he said.

"It is not known at this time the role these batteries may have played
in the fire," Hilldrup said.

Lithium ion batteries are sometimes referred to as "rechargeable" or
"secondary" lithium batteries. They, along with primary or
"non-rechargeable" lithium batteries, can present fire hazards because
of the heat often generated when they are damaged or suffer a short circuit.

It is expected to take several months for the NTSB to reach a conclusion
about the cause of the fire in Philadelphia, although several hazardous
materials on board the plane have been determined not to be the cause.
The NTSB is also examining other related issues, such as what can be
done to make cargo flights safer and the overall emergency response to
the incident.

In 1999, a shipment of lithium batteries ignited after it was unloaded
from a passenger jet at Los Angeles International Airport. Another
shipment erupted into flames in Memphis in 2004 when it was being loaded
onto a FedEx plane bound for Paris.

In the case of the UPS cargo plane, the crew declared an emergency on
approach into Philadelphia. Fire and rescue crews met the four-engine
jet, a DC-8 that originated in Atlanta, when it touched down shortly
after midnight.

Firefighters said the blaze was under control about four hours later,
although the charred plane smoldered for hours.

[christopher_wolf]

Wow, that rings a bell as I barely remember hearing about the NTSB investigating that...I guess it remains to be seen if these are statistically significant, as well as stochastically significant given the number of suspect systems still out there with batteries that have yet to be recalled.

I already related the story about how that kind of stuff almost happened to one of my Profs.

Great, another aviation transport hazard!

[dsigma6]

First it was Qantas, now this

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/13 ... batteries/

Electronics discrimination? Where are we headed?
Not that this applies since it's in another country..But if only a small number of batteries explode, they are all banned. If only a small number of fundamentalists hijack planes...

[christopher_wolf]

First it was Qantas, now this

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/13 ... batteries/

Electronics discrimination? Where are we headed?

I don't care about that; what that means for societies of only laptops, I have no idea.I do, however, know what it means for a passenger on an aircraft that is headed to the edge of the air it is flying it (these edges include ground, dirt, mountains, dogs, cats, and people and should be avoided at all times) just because some package with a spare battery got knocked around enough during loading to cause the battery to crack and start the whole nasty process going.

[mattbiernat]

The ban applies to all Apple iBook and PowerBook notebooks and all Dell portables, and a terse statement from the airline indicated it will not even permit models unaffected by the two manufacturers' product recalls to be brought on board with the battery in place.

the same kind of people who banned nail clippers from planes. makes no sense whatsoever. just exacly the same situation when chinese killed all dogs in one city (those that had vaccination against rabies and those that didnt).
1. the terrorists are more likely to use a sharpened pencil rather than dull nail clipper to hijack a plane - how hard is it to figure out that sharpened pencil is much easier to stick into someones neck rather than nail clipper? how come nobody banned pencils on the planes?
2. banning objects that pose no threat? why?
2. banning unaffected batteries? why?
3. killing unaffected dogs? why?

conclusion: when threatened people use ignorance to feel safe again.

[DIGITALgimpus]

conclusion: when threatened people use ignorance to feel safe again.

Most accurate statement in this thread.

You could actually achieve better security at airports by just going 100% random than through any 'profiling' or 'screening'. Simply because of that famous: element of surprise.

Sadly any terrorist knows the things that will trigger security, and what will let them pass:
- Prefer lighter skinned recruits
- Prefer with american citizenship
- Have a good line of credit (poor credit is one way onto the do not fly list).
- Buy round trip tickets
- Purchase at least 14 days before travel
- Shave (9/11 terrorists remembered this one)
- Wear business casual clothing for least suspicion
- Have at least 1 checked bag (best to have 1 for each week of travel as airline permits), and 1 carry on.

That's just a handful of the things they know to evade detection. And they have either exploited (or attempted) each and every one of them. John Walker Lindh (remember that nut?) was to satisfy the first 2.

If you just go by rand(), the only way to ensure you get enough on board the aircraft is to brute force by having a large number attempt.

Of course the best security method is simply to hire enough staff to screen everyone/everything, and no longer allow exceptions for politicians and law enforcement. And quite possibly cheaper than all of the research and development they are doing.

But it's important to remember that airport security's first goal is to make you feel secure. It's secondary mission is the actual security.

That's why they make such a strong visual presence... like it would intimidate someone who intends to commit suicide. It would actually make more sense to keep security low key and quiet like other countries who have dealt with this stuff for decades (Britain, Israel, etc.).

[jdhurst]

I walk onto airlines (last time was week of August 13-20) virtually unchallenged. In that recent round trip, I was asked once to remove my laptop from my bag. It was not turned on or inspected. I didn't set off any alarms (I know how to get rid of all metal). They weren't alarmed at my small screwdriver (large handle - six blades) in my bag, nor the plethora of cables. I wasn't asked for identification at check-in counters. I *was* asked for passport at boarding counters. I wasn't asked any questions of any kind. I fit the perfect model of an invisible citizen.

And, as has been noted, terrorists know these tricks too.
... JD Hurst

[mattbiernat]

They weren't alarmed at my small screwdriver (large handle - six blades) in my bag, nor the plethora of cables.

see but you didn't happen to carry the number one items on the list:
1. dell batteries
2. nail clippers

heheh

[GomJabbar]

Many people need their laptops when they travel. Sure, they could live without them, but they would be terribly inconvenienced. It seems to me that a smarter solution than not allowing batteries (irrespective of manufacturer) is to tag and collect the batteries, and put them in a fireproof box for transit. The traveler could retrieve their battery at their destination.

I am not saying the above is really necessary, but if TSA must do something, then the above is preferrable to not allowing the battery to travel at all.

In the final analysis, the world is a dangerous place. There is no way that all risk can be eliminated - it can only be reduced. No matter what precautions are taken, it is the other thing that usually gets us. Just look at Steve Erwin. Who would have guessed that a stingray would be his demise? And what about 9/11? A handful of miscreants with box cutters killed how many thousand people? People need to just accept some degree of risk and get on with their lives. All risk avoidance is just too constricting IMO. If the government keeps adding restrictions to flying, it will become so inconvenient that it will be avoided by all except the ones that have little choice in the matter.

[DIGITALgimpus]

And, as has been noted, terrorists know these tricks too.
... JD Hurst

The problem is that it's considered "offensive" and "unpatriotic" to credit the terrorists for being intelligent and well coordinated. The 9/11 report was the first time the US government officially acknowledged that the attacks were well planned.

Just to put things into proper scale:

With billions of dollars, virtually unlimited resources, and what are considered the best trained individuals in the world, despite all the attempts (CIA allegedly hasn't given a number, but admits it's high), they still couldn't kill Castro on his little island just a few miles off the US coast.


Could the CIA pull off an operation of 9/11 size and accuracy? Not likely.

Never under estimate the enemy... it's a gigantic mistake. It's exactly what allowed 9/11 to happen.

Israel hit a similar mistake: they thought they figured out suicide bombers: all young arab males. So they setup their checkpoints to sort them out for further inspection. Brilliant! Then the terrorists moved to use women. Walked right by. Israel somehow never figured that a woman was physically capable of carrying and detonating a bomb.

That's the problem with anything short of complete security: You only need 1 loophole to get through.

[jdhurst]

It is too old to be relevant (1992), but once, I walked into the US from Mexico (I am neither American nor Mexican) absolutely unchallenged. US Customs were stopping all kinds of people, but not me. People assume if we look like them, we are them. One thing governments in general and the US government in particular utterly fail to understand is human frailty. Like I said in an earlier post, I am absolutely invisible, so I wander about anywhere (Canada, US, UK, and Europre) absolutely unchallenged.
... JD Hurst

[mattbiernat]

It is too old to be relevant (1992), but once, I walked into the US from Mexico (I am neither American nor Mexican) absolutely unchallenged. US Customs were stopping all kinds of people, but not me. People assume if we look like them, we are them. One thing governments in general and the US government in particular utterly fail to understand is human frailty. Like I said in an earlier post, I am absolutely invisible, so I wander about anywhere (Canada, US, UK, and Europre) absolutely unchallenged.
... JD Hurst

and here you go jdhurst, going in between US, canada, mexico and UK absolutely unchallenged, while check out this poor guy walking into an airport with guns and roses shirt:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006420095,00.html
i thought it was hilarious that a shirt can pose a risk to air travel.

[GomJabbar]

and here you go jdhurst, going in between US, canada, mexico and UK absolutely unchallenged, while check out this poor guy walking into an airport with guns and roses shirt:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006420095,00.html
i thought it was hilarious that a shirt can pose a risk to air travel.

Read more carefully. It is a GUNS N ROLLERS T-shirt - not that it makes a lot of difference.

[Rob Mayercik]

It seems to me that a smarter solution than not allowing batteries (irrespective of manufacturer) is to tag and collect the batteries, and put them in a fireproof box for transit. The traveler could retrieve their battery at their destination.

I for one would object to this.

Back in high school, I took a trip with the band to England. We flew Air India from JFK to Heathrow (don't ask me, the travel agent set it up). Upon arriving at the security checkpoint, we were told that no batteries of any kind were allowed in-cabin. They were even taking the batteries out of flash cameras. All batteries were tagged as security items and stoed in the hold. A friend of mine spent a couple minutes arguing about the NiCd pack for his gameboy (which he eventually got to keep), but most folks got their batteries confiscated.

[side note] My batteries weren't taken, interestingly enough - my carryon bag was my "gig bag", a soft-side over-the-shoulder case for my trumpet (there was no way in he!! I was going to let anybody but me touch that instrument). When the inspector opened the side compartment (where the camera was visibly stowed), he got distracted by my all-weather mouthpiece. He asked what it was, I explained, he said something similar to "neat", and sent me on my way without ever looking at the camera. [/side note]

Anyhow, one girl in the band had a sizeable bundle of AAs (she took a walkman along), and of course the airline took them and bagged them. We were told that we could pick them up at the "security desk" when we arrived at Heathrow.

Do I need to say it? Ok, the security desk closed for the day before most of our people that needed to get their batteries back could get to them (between deplaining, finding baggage claim, and so forth), and never got their batteries back. The girl I mentioned a moment ago lost something like $35 in batteries ($35 bought a LOT of AAs back in 1992). No one could find anyone to help, and with the bus waiting, there was nothing to be done.

Given that experience, there's no way on this earth I would hand over my $65 laptop battery to the airline to pick up later. If I was provided a power hookup to use in lieu, they can certainly bag it and hand it back to me with a tamper-evident seal. But I'll carry it myself, thank you very much.

Rob

[christopher_wolf]

$65?

Most laptop batteries, especially those for the T Series Thinkpads, cost $100+. I would be more than just irate if that had happened to me.

The important point that is being overlooked is that these batteries will not, in general, explode if not prompted as such by a mechanical shock or, possibly subsequent, chemical reaction with the atmosphere and any particulate matter contained therein.

A simple precaution that can be taken is to simply wrap the battery in a tight fitting, airtight plastic wrap. This will eliminate a large source of potential problems as the explosion is started by contact between the metal substrate, usually hyrdated Lithium, with moisture in the air. So, even if the battery suffers a mechanical shock strong enough to seriously comprimise its casing, the chances that it will react violently within a day are minimized by the plastic coating not letting moisture and air through. This is, of course, until you can examine the battery afterwards and get it to a safe area for disposal.