[HN Gopher] Why a plane turned around when a passenger lost a ph...
___________________________________________________________________
Why a plane turned around when a passenger lost a phone midflight
Author : bookofjoe
Score : 61 points
Date : 2025-03-30 12:50 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
| bookofjoe wrote:
| https://archive.ph/x1d1c
| mysterydip wrote:
| Is the risk of a phone overheating and exploding the battery less
| if the owner knows where it is?
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| Yes, because if you know where it is, you likely also know it's
| not wedged into a seat hinge getting crushed as you attempt to
| recline.
| jyounker wrote:
| I think the fear is that the user's phone is in the checked
| luggage.
| protimewaster wrote:
| At least in the USA, cell phones are allowed checked luggage.
| However, they are supposed to be powered of and "protected up
| prevent unintentional activation or damage".
|
| I realize this was an Air France flight, but I suspect the
| checked rules are nearly the same.
| op00to wrote:
| Overheating? Maybe. Preventing explosion? Absolutely.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Once you know about something you have to "do something" even if
| that something is stupid.
| barbazoo wrote:
| There is definitely truth to that. Example: Post 9/11 security
| theatre.
| bilsbie wrote:
| How did they know the phone was lost?
| Polizeiposaune wrote:
| Presumably a passenger came to them and asked for help
| extracting their phone from a crevice in a seat.
|
| If this keeps happening, providing an on-board toolkit and
| cross-training flight attendants in proper seat disassembly and
| reassembly could well pay off.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| Insurance companies and legal departments will nip that idea
| in the bud.
| eqvinox wrote:
| Turkish Airlines did exactly that (partially disassemble
| the seat) on a flight I've been on a little while ago.
| (Someone lost their phone in a business class seat.)
|
| The risks seem to be lower than the ones associated with
| landing with a device stuck somewhere.
|
| What I don't understand is why they don't construct the
| seats for less chances of things getting lost in them. Some
| seats have _huge_ holes to lose things in...
| burnished wrote:
| Huge holes are a lower risk since objects simply pass
| through
| eqvinox wrote:
| Except these holes open into the seat electromechanics,
| where moving the seat can easily catch and crush a
| phone...
|
| (Business class seats can adjust themselves with a person
| sitting in them, quite sure that's enough force to 'fold'
| a phone)
| jongjong wrote:
| It's crazy to think that anyone could, at no cost to themselves,
| cause a large commercial plane to be turned around and wipe out
| maybe $1 million dollars of value from the economy; if you count
| fuel costs, staff costs, lost hours of hundreds of passengers.
| Quarondeau wrote:
| Airlines have hugely benefited from moving travelers from paper
| tickets to the use of their phones, where everything is done in
| the airline's app. Even if a few flights get turned around now
| and then, that seems trivial compared to the benefits:
|
| - No need to print/distribute physical tickets
|
| - Check-ins via the app reduces the need for ground personnel
|
| - They can push inflight menus, shopping items, promotions etc.
|
| - Flight updates and other notifications can get pushed to your
| device
|
| - Integration of loyalty systems like airmiles
|
| - They get to track various user behaviors
| ghaff wrote:
| Passengers have benefited as well. Traditional tickets
| weren't quite like cash but they were a big hassle to replace
| if lost.
| rlpb wrote:
| This sort of thing happens all the time, just less obviously.
| For example in my city it's not unusual to hear that a major
| tram line is stopped during the morning commute due to a car
| driver blocking it inconsiderately or colliding.
|
| Once amortized against successful journeys the overall cost per
| passenger isn't significant. When it is, that's when we start
| seeing liability moved to the instigator.
| happytoexplain wrote:
| This train of reasoning goes to some very sick places very
| quickly. A more reasonable version of this is "it's crazy to
| think that anyone could _be put in a position to_ etc etc ".
| I.e. we live in a big complicated world - if an individual
| drops the production table, almost certainly something else was
| wrong besides that person making a mistake.
| NoahZuniga wrote:
| I don't think the parent comment is saying that this
| passenger is at fault, just that there is a lot of potential
| for abuse.
| shawabawa3 wrote:
| "upgrade me to business class or I won't remember where my
| phone is as we'll have to go back"
| franktankbank wrote:
| Wipe out 1 million dollars from the economy?? Au contraire mon
| frere they just added 1 million dollars to GDP!
| yaris wrote:
| While the point is valid, I can't help but think about "A
| hacker in a restaurant", english version found here:
| https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hacker-restaurant-alexander-s...
| (it's not mine and I'm in no way affiliated with the
| owner/author of the page).
| _ph_ wrote:
| It is the only sane way to handle things like this and I think
| it is the reason air travel is so secure that most regulations
| and practices make sense.
|
| You want the crew to be fully in charge of security. If they
| think the plane should turn around, it turns around. In the
| long term it is way cheaper to eat those costs then to start a
| whole industry about litigation for events like these, probably
| causing everyone to buy additional insurance etc.
|
| You definitely don't want to give any incentive to anyone to
| "overlook" possible problems.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| I strongly advise buying and always using a "phone lanyard" to
| tether your phone to your belt loop. A well-working example is
| ASIN B07ZSDFY85. With it, your phone won't get lost or get left
| behind. Even if the risk of losing the phone is just once in ten
| years, it still is worth it. If it drops with the tether, you can
| just lift the tether cable to get it back. If you're tall, you
| may need two, or something longer. Note that the tether works
| only with a compatible phone case to hold it in place.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| Bluetooth from a smartwatch or BLE locator beacon in your
| keys/wallet/bag works almost as well and is way more
| convenient.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| I have a smartwatch, but it won't help at all when leaving
| your phone in an Uber/Lyft which takes off. You will then be
| left with the awareness of having just left your phone rather
| than actually your phone.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| From Apple Support -- https://support.apple.com/en-
| us/101593
|
| >With your Apple Watch, in the Find My app, or on the web
| at iCloud.com/find, you can play a sound to help find your
| device if it's nearby or find it on a map.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| It can be tracked but that is entirely different from not
| losing it in the first place, which is what a lanyard
| does. Imagine leaving it on a public bus... good luck
| ever getting that back.
| macintux wrote:
| When I left my wallet on Boston's subway, I was able to
| retrieve it the next day with its contents intact. I was
| pleasantly shocked.
| tiahura wrote:
| I recommend a good pocket protector to accompany the phone
| lanyard. Here's a nice leather option. B08S6KMCGM
| girvo wrote:
| Well _I_ thought your reply was both amusing and technically
| relevant...
|
| I'd never be caught dead with that lanyard haha so it's
| amusing to see it recommended, though I don't blame others
| for using one!
|
| I've not considered it, but with the rise of phones and e-ink
| and so on, I assume pocket protectors are even less common
| than they were prior?
| _qua wrote:
| I would lose 5 phones before I wore that embarrassing thing
| diffxx wrote:
| Here's my countervailing advice for keeping your phone safe:
| don't use a case or any protection at all. This trains you to
| take care of it.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| That doesn't work for current gen iPhones, whose screens you
| can scratch seemingly with pocket mint.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZzZatxb9KQ
|
| _One thing I do appreciate about Apple is their new
| ceramic shield material on the 6.1-inch screen. It actually
| does appear to be more scratch-resistant than other
| smartphones. Working our way up through the Mohs scale of
| hardness, usually I can feel the level-6 pick grab the
| glass and start scratching, but with this latest generation
| of ceramic shield, it still feels pretty smooth--even with
| that sharp level-6 pick. The marks are still appearing, but
| they 're so faint and subtle that I almost can't say
| "scratches at a level-6, with deeper grooves at a level-7"
| anymore. Almost._
|
| You can get more scratch-resistant screen protectors, but
| as far as the builtin glass I don't think Apple is falling
| behind anywhere.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| I use this method and have only broken one phone in ten years
| because of it...
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| This little experiment lasted for about 6 weeks for me before
| I broke front and back glass and cracked the camera lens in
| one go on a cement floor. I'll take the $6 rubber case now
| and save me some grief.
| JoelMcCracken wrote:
| Thank you to whoever changed the title to omit the question mark.
| Question marks at the end of non questions drives me crazy. I've
| tried to accept it and accustom myself to it, but I still always
| trying to parse it multiple times
| bookofjoe wrote:
| That was me. I'm the idiot who originally added it to the
| published headline before I realized it and removed it.
| facile3232 wrote:
| Any statement can be a question with the right tone. I actually
| have the exact opposite stance: we expect formal questions when
| in most cases it makes more sense to simply state something
| with a lilting tone. But maybe it's just me?
| Jhsto wrote:
| I was on a flight where we had a fire inside of the cabin because
| of some mobile device. What I found weird was the only piece of
| communication being that "we are returning", around 15 minutes
| after the plane had turned back. I was able to smell the smoke at
| that point.
| cedws wrote:
| What airline was it?
|
| I've never been to the US but seen a lot of random videos and
| pilots in the US sound kind of unprofessional. They don't seem
| to communicate clearly and use very casual language. For
| instance I saw a video recently where the pilot refused a plane
| because he "wasn't feeling it" or something.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| If the pilot isn't feeling the plane, I don't want to be on
| it either, so I'm not sure that's an "unprofessional" issue.
| verzali wrote:
| No, that's a standard part of flying safety. If you are not
| in the right mental state to fly you shouldn't, and
| especially not if the lives of hundreds of people depend on
| you.
| cedws wrote:
| That isn't the point I was making. Read again.
| Spartan-S63 wrote:
| In that particular instance, that pilot also mentioned there
| were issues with engine oil pressure, IIRC, and the fuel
| filter was scheduled to be replaced after the long haul
| flight over water. Those concerning data points were what led
| to him not "feeling it." That type of casual language, IMO,
| makes it easier for people to empathize with the conclusion
| based on hard facts.
| cedws wrote:
| Still I've never heard a pilot communicate like that. On
| the European airlines I've flown on the pilot would
| concisely and professionally explain the situation and then
| make a formal apology.
| burnished wrote:
| OK, Karen
| jerlam wrote:
| This probably happens on American airlines, but it won't
| make the news so you won't know about it unless you were
| on the plane.
| DAGdug wrote:
| The language of the corporate meeting room in America is
| also a lot more casual than in Europe. It has zero
| bearing on actual professionalism (defined, " the
| competence or skill expected of a professional") given
| the results of American corporations (or the strong
| safety record of US pilots). So, while I can literally
| understand your point, I can't see why it's material to
| anything.
| Jhsto wrote:
| It was United.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| That video was noteworthy because it was such unusual
| phrasing.
| 6SixTy wrote:
| The pilot in command can refuse an aircraft because of
| unresolved mechanical or technical issues, and sometimes
| issues that for example are fine on a clear calm day can just
| not be in weather. Remember that the pilots themselves are
| responsible for the safety of the aircraft and all passengers
| for the duration of the flight, so it's up to their judgement
| to make sure that a flight is safe.
|
| But a fire on a plane is pretty much the most dangerous event
| you can have on a flight. Especially lithium battery fires
| since aircraft don't have the right extinguisher for them,
| and staff are generally trained to quarantine the fire just
| long enough so it can be taken care of on the ground.
| elcritch wrote:
| Seems like a "lithium fire box" or perhaps fireproof bag
| capable of containing lithium fires and smothering them
| would become standard on planes. Most personal electronics
| are fairly small as well.
| 6SixTy wrote:
| The official training video by the FAA outlines that crew
| should extinguish the fire with onboard equipment and
| keep it cool with water to prevent it from thermal
| runaway again. In one outline, FAA doesn't endorse
| putting it in a bag or touching it any further than it
| needs to be, and another in response to commercial "FAA
| approved" products for lithium battery fires, does not
| endorse nor discourage using such products.
| cactacea wrote:
| Why do you feel that is weird? Keeping the passengers informed
| isn't really a priority in a situation like that. They told you
| when you needed to know.
| Jhsto wrote:
| I thought that even the cabin crew did not know what's
| burning. There's also the feeling of helplessness -- you know
| something is wrong but you are not told that something is
| wrong. The hysteria at the back of the plane could have been
| alleviated by telling that the situation is under control.
| When the plane was landing, I could see fire trucks, an
| ambulance, and police of some sort driving in parallel to the
| plane to rush in. I only found out about the reason from the
| news later.
| maccard wrote:
| You are helpless, the cabin crew know what's going on but
| aren't telling you, and the hysteria at the back of the
| plane won't be alleviated by telling them there's a fire in
| the cabin, you're making an emergency landing and to
| prepare for an emergency response unit upon landing.
|
| There's nothing you can do other than stay in your seat and
| keep out of the way.
| IshKebab wrote:
| What? Keeping passengers informed is zero effort, a nice
| thing to do, and probably a good idea. Why would you _not_
| say "we are returning due to a battery fire. The fire has
| been contained but we must return because X y z" or whatever.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Why would you not say "we are returning due to a battery
| fire. The fire has been contained but we must return
| because X y z" or whatever.
|
| Because as soon as you mention "fire" you'll get a bunch of
| dumb fucks panicking themselves so hard they're going to
| behave completely irrationally (like attempting to rip open
| the emergency doors which IS possible at low enough
| altitudes) - or manage to induce legitimate medical
| problems. Heart attack for the older folks, dyspnea up to
| actually going unconscious from hyperventilation for the
| younger folks.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Ugh yeah that's why you tell them it's been put out.
| sowbug wrote:
| "Wait, did they just say batteries can start fires?"
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Bold of you to assume they'll continue to listen after
| the keyword "fire". In the worst case, they'll actively
| _doubt_ you and, worse, start doing so in a very public
| way ( "they're just claiming the fire is out").
|
| And yes this shit has happened in the past. Panicked
| people are uncontrollable and in a critical situation,
| priority #1 is to avoid panic to rise _at all costs_
| because panicked people can turn a critical situation
| into outright disaster.
| perihelions wrote:
| - _" panicking themselves so hard they're going to behave
| completely irrationally (like attempting to rip open the
| emergency doors which IS possible at low enough
| altitudes)"_
|
| The Denver airport fire this month was an object lesson.
| A panicking mob apparently ignored instructions and went
| out the wrong emergency exit door, onto the airplane
| wing, where they stood over the flaming jet-fuel smoke
| with no way down.
|
| (The other doors had slides).
| girvo wrote:
| Because passengers panic, and that makes the job of the
| crew harder?
| y33t wrote:
| Just curious, were they able to purge or scrub the smoke from
| the cabin? Seems like a battery fire in a closed space like
| that would be a lung hazard.
| jerlam wrote:
| Airliners have touted in the pandemic that planes have HEPA
| filtration which remove 99.95+% of particles in the air,
| which includes smoke particles.
|
| Battery fires will also produce other bad stuff in the air,
| but it's still a minor consideration compared to a fire which
| can bring down the plane.
| aeternum wrote:
| The issue is how quickly they cycle the full cabin air
| volume.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| > What I found weird was the only piece of communication being
| that "we are returning"
|
| Aviate, Navigate, Communicate
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Can you elaborate on how that is relevant?
|
| It's hard for me to imagine how the urgent aviation and
| navigation involved in turning the plane around takes two
| people 15 uninterrupted minutes, let alone the portion
| _after_ turning around needing 15 uninterrupted minutes.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| For a sense of scale, the FAA has been tracking battery related
| incidents, and you can take a looksie here:
| https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/resources/lithium_batteries/incid...
|
| You can click through to see specific incident summaries. It
| looks like a significant amount (if not majority) of events are
| inflight on passenger flights (as opposed to on the ground,
| tarmac, ground handling, or freight operations). There were 85
| total incidents in 2024 (there were some 9 million passenger
| revenue departures to give another sense of scale).
|
| Lost phone is a problem because:
|
| * Could be in a place that increases risk of thermal run away to
| begin with - classic example would be caught in the seat hinge.
| But even being stuck surrounding by cushioning could increase the
| risk of overheating
|
| * Decreased visibility. The faster you can react (ie, try to dump
| the thing into a thermal protection bag / get it away from other
| flammables) the better. If you read the incidents, you'll see
| time after time the sequence "passenger notified flight
| attendant, who then placed it in a thermal containment bag,
| flight completed normally".
|
| I could see changes to rules that will begin to prohibit storing
| batteries in overhead compartments (which aside from the pinch
| problem, actually has all the same risks of losing a phone). Or
| perhaps mandatory/routine pre-emptive use of thermal containment
| bags.
|
| The airliners know there's no going back. They must accommodate
| for batteries, so they'll seek the right balance.
| lsllc wrote:
| If you've ever had to fly with (cordless) power tools the rules
| allow this but the batteries must be in carry on and not be in
| the checked baggage (the tool itself must be checked!) and
| there's a limit on the max battery size (160 Wh), although I
| don't think there's a limit on how _many_ you can carry-on.
|
| For example, with DeWalt 20V batteries, 160Wh is an 8Ah (which
| is one of the larger sized batteries), but if you have 60V
| FlexVolt tools (circular saw) you are probably out of luck as
| they start around 6Ah (and @60V, 160Wh is only 2.6Ah), going up
| to 15Ah (which would be 900Wh).
| lesuorac wrote:
| > although I don't think there's a limit on how many you can
| carry-on.
|
| Correct. So long as it's for personal use.
|
| > [1] Quantity limits: None for most batteries -- but
| batteries must be for use by the passenger. Batteries carried
| for further sale or distribution (vendor samples, etc.) are
| prohibited. There is a limit of two spare batteries per
| person for the larger lithium ion batteries described above
| (101-160 watt hours per battery).
|
| [1]: https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/packsafe/lithium-batteries
| andrewaylett wrote:
| I assume this is because the thermal containment bags they
| have are only rated to a certain limit, but distinct
| batteries hopefully won't ignite at the same time and can in
| any case go in different bags?
| johnwalkr wrote:
| For the 60V flex volt battery, which is actually 3x 20v
| batteries which the tool can configure in series, the
| advertised capacity in Ah is almost certainly measured at
| 20V. And 20V is also a marketing term, with nominal voltage
| being around 18.5. So the 6Ah battery is probably around
| 111Wh and the 15Ah battery is probably around 278Wh. So only
| one of them is oversized but you should find a data sheet
| that clearly shows capacity in Wh.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Now we're losing international flights to lost phones? Sodium
| batteries can't come soon enough.
| inejge wrote:
| I can't blame them, an in-air cabin fire is no joke. This[1]
| happened on the ground and destroyed the plane. Another very
| recent one[2] was in the air and thankfully extinguished. But I
| don't see sodium batteries in portable devices any time soon:
| too bulky for the capacity. LFP, perhaps.
|
| [1] https://avherald.com/h?article=523644ed&opt=0
|
| [2] https://avherald.com/h?article=525739ed&opt=0
| thih9 wrote:
| > After checks by the maintenance teams, the device was found
|
| Do we know where the device was found?
| smeej wrote:
| I feel like I'm having some sort of Mandela Effect moment, but
| maybe I'm missing something a lot more obvious?
|
| I've had portable charging battery packs for at least a decade. I
| wasn't special. They were common. But it's only in the last few
| years that I've been hearing any concern about the batteries in
| consumer electronic devices causing aircraft fires.
|
| I remember hearing about the ones in hoverboards, and then there
| was one version of a Samsung device that had problems, but nobody
| generalized to " _all_ such electronic items must be in the cabin
| with you, and if you lose track of yours, we 're turning the
| plane around."
|
| Did something maybe change about battery chemistry that I don't
| know about? Or did the design change, such that the batteries
| aren't protected anymore or have enough more capacity that
| they've become dangerous?
|
| I can't imagine there were actually widespread battery fires for
| as long as I remember never having heard not to put a battery in
| checked luggage, so what else changed such that this is such a
| major issue now when it wasn't before?
| aoanevdus wrote:
| https://apnews.com/article/russia-poland-germany-sabotage-ca...
|
| November 5, 2024
|
| > WARSAW, Poland (AP) -- Western security officials suspect
| Russian intelligence was behind a plot to put incendiary
| devices in packages on cargo planes headed to North America,
| including one that caught fire at a courier hub in Germany and
| another that ignited in a warehouse in England.
|
| > Poland said last month that it has arrested four people
| suspected to be linked to a foreign intelligence operation that
| carried out sabotage and is searching for two others.
| Lithuania's prosecutor general Nida Grunskiene said Tuesday
| there were an unspecified number of people detained in several
| countries, offering no elaboration.
|
| People have been sending explodey batteries by air freight. In
| that context, requiring batteries on a plane to be in the cabin
| where they can be located, accompanied by the owner of the
| battery could be a good deterrent.
| op00to wrote:
| My wild ass guess: prices dropped, causing battery packs to get
| bigger and increase availability to people who may not
| understand or care about the risk. Additionally, with lower
| base cost of lithium ion batteries, you get more cheap crap
| that is not engineered well.
| muststopmyths wrote:
| > never having heard not to put a battery in checked luggage
|
| Maybe not conventional batteries, but you've been disallowed
| from putting lithium batteries in checked luggage for at least
| 16 years. I remember being dragged into the bowels of an
| airport by security to open my checked bag because I'd
| forgotten a device in it. That was in 2009.
|
| When you check in bags they ask you to make sure there aren't
| any rechargeable devices or battery packs in them and this has
| also been going on for a long time.
| sroussey wrote:
| I still send my AirTags in checked luggage. But they are
| small!
| ghaff wrote:
| Checked baggage is actually one of the better use cases for
| AirTags.
| josephg wrote:
| AirTags also don't use rechargeable lithium batteries.
| LoganDark wrote:
| Aren't non-rechargeable batteries still at least a little
| dangerous, though?
| ghaff wrote:
| Yeah, I've been aware of this for ages. That said I'm sure
| lithium batteries in checked luggage are super-common in
| things like electric razors and tooth brushes and a ton of
| other things we never think about.
|
| It's like airplane mode. How many cellphones on a given
| flight are actually in airplane mode?
| lxgr wrote:
| A phone not in airplane mode and a high capacity lithium
| battery are not comparable at all.
|
| Airplane mode is largely pseudoscience/an abundance of
| caution/solving a different problem than a safety one.
| There's approximately zero chance of a phone interfering
| with avionics, especially modern ones, with their very low
| transmission power.
|
| Supposedly the real reason has always been that mobile
| network operators don't like the interference high-altitude
| phones can cause: They're in view of potentially many base
| stations, some of which might be using the same frequency
| (which is possible since far-away regular-altitude phones
| are below the radio horizon and therefore not an issue).
|
| Some evidence for this theory: The "mobile phone ban" is an
| FCC regulation, not an FAA one, and many (non-US) airlines
| have been offering on-board microcells for decades without
| any issues.
| I_dream_of_Gen1 wrote:
| "the real reason has always been that mobile network
| operators don't like the interference high-altitude
| phones can cause: They're in view of potentially many
| base stations". This makes zero sense: the aircraft is on
| the ground and not moving when the ban is put in place.
| The ban is removed at altitude, when, you say, that the
| phones are potentially 'in view' of many 'cell towers'
| (not base stations). In fact, the plane is essentially a
| Faraday cage at altitude, and a phone has almost zero
| chance of connecting to a tower, even shoved into a
| window pocket.
| lxgr wrote:
| > The ban is removed at altitude
|
| Not in the US, where it applies throughout the flight.
|
| And at least in Europe, the ban is due to the risk of
| distraction/disorientation in case of an emergency, in my
| experience.
|
| > the plane is essentially a Faraday cage at altitude,
| and a phone has almost zero chance of connecting to a
| tower
|
| Counterpoint: I have a whole collection of "welcome to
| <place>, your roaming charges will be <exorbitant>" text
| messages on my phone from countries I've only ever
| overflown at 30k feet.
|
| This is from flights that do permit in-flight phone
| usage, but I believe my network has no roaming agreement
| with the microcell operator, so it keeps scanning and
| sometimes catches a bidirectional link to some long-range
| tower. (They're specifically optimized for that in the
| North Sea and Atlantic for fishing boats, as far as I
| know, so for regular modern towers it's probably less
| likely, but that separation hasn't always existed.)
| Reason077 wrote:
| Small Li-ion batteries installed in a device are allowed in
| check luggage.
|
| Loose/spare Li-ion batteries that are not installed in a
| device, and large batteries over 100-160 Wh are banned in
| checked luggage.
| ghaff wrote:
| It's unclear to me what the official requirements are.
| For example this is from the TSA's site:
|
| "Devices containing lithium metal or lithium ion
| batteries should be carried in carry-on baggage. Most
| other consumer electronic devices containing batteries
| are allowed in carry-on and checked baggage."
|
| Taken literally, this is of course widely ignored. There
| are also various requirements around spare batteries that
| do include capacity limits.
| therein wrote:
| > When you check in bags they ask you to make sure there
| aren't any rechargeable devices or battery packs in them and
| this has also been going on for a long time.
|
| Literally never once have I been asked that and I flew
| internationally 6 times a year for more than 5 years.
|
| The only thing I can think of is maybe you look like the kind
| of person that would have rechargeable devices and battery
| packs in his luggage? :)
| grepfru_it wrote:
| Before you accept your plane tickets you get asked question
| about illegal hazards you are flying with. Lithium
| batteries are clearly noted. Maybe you are just skipping
| that notice because you assume you are not a hazard? :)
|
| This definitely happens stateside. Usually during check-in
| TrainedMonkey wrote:
| I see a warning about rechargeable batteries in checked in
| luggage almost every time I check into a flight. I wonder
| what explains our difference of experiences. Maybe it's the
| fact that I mostly do electronic checkins vs just showing
| up at luggage drop off.
| girvo wrote:
| Luggage drop-off asks the same question, here in
| Australia anyway
| muststopmyths wrote:
| I do get pulled aside for "enhanced screening" consistently
| while transiting Europe :-)
|
| I'm sure you didn't actually mean it that way though :-)
|
| A sibling comment made me recheck the rules and it does
| seem like phones and other small rechargeable devices are
| allowed in checked baggage.
|
| Maybe I've been unconsciously extending "power banks and
| rechargeable batteries" to also mean device when
| questioned.
|
| Except that one time in Latin America where they would only
| let me put my ultra-compact camera in checked baggage if I
| took out the batteries.
| Reason077 wrote:
| > _"you 've been disallowed from putting lithium batteries in
| checked luggage for at least 16 years."_
|
| This rule only applies to loose (spare) Li-ion batteries, not
| batteries which are installed in a device.
|
| Batteries over 160 Wh (in some cases, 100 Wh) are banned
| whether they're in a device or not, but that's far bigger
| than any phone battery: an iPhone 16 Pro Max battery is about
| 16 Wh, and typical laptop batteries are around 60 Wh.
|
| IATA Li-ion battery fact sheet: https://www.iata.org/en/iata-
| repository/pressroom/fact-sheet...
| SllX wrote:
| Notably the 16" MacBook Pro (every model since 2019) goes
| right up to the 100 Wh limit.
| numpad0 wrote:
| (100Wh / 3.7V ~= 27000 mAh, 160Wh / 3.7V ~= 43000 mAh. Wh
| represents theoretical total energy, used as a normalized
| comparison, and Ah is used to practically determine max
| safe charge/discharge rates)
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Devices are smaller and portable batteries are treated roughly.
| Also, many devices have batteries with custom-ish shapes that
| may be better or worse than standardized designs that were
| popular before devices get thinner.
|
| The other thing is that consumers won't be aware of risks for
| semi-disposable batteries. I found out a few days ago that a
| high capacity Anker battery that I own was recalled last year.
| Would such a thing even happen for a random battery sold at
| CVS?
|
| I was in a leadership role for an org with about 95k laptops.
| We had, on average 4-6 significant battery incidents with an
| ignition per year. Anywhere from 30-250 reported battery
| swelling events annually. It's enough that we provided kits for
| safe storage of at risk batteries to every field office.
|
| Now that's a pretty low risk of an incident, but in an airline
| environment the impact of that risk is very high.
| renewiltord wrote:
| It's just that when something hits a process there's a massive
| step change as everyone normalizes processes around it. Until
| that moment, rare events are all that you see.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > I can't imagine there were actually widespread battery fires
| for as long as I remember never having heard not to put a
| battery in checked luggage
|
| This was pretty much the initiating incident, 15 years ago now:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> one version of a Samsung device that had problems_
|
| The best GTA mod: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IVk8PsSgEI
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-30 23:01 UTC)