http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-08-16-airlinebatteries16_CV_N.htm A refresh of this oldie topic! http://www.themagicinpixels.com/forum/index.php/topic,1741.0.html Anyway, this is really really bad because they really want to ban spare batteries! ; While I doubt it'll get that far, beginning to enforce the current restriction might help (see the old post). ; On top of banning cordless hair irons in your luggage.
i have two batteries that ride in my battery grip. ; never had a problem about them. ; at some point, common sense needs to start prevailing. ; there is a reason that customers and agents are getting so hostile toward each other.
I can still understand where things like this come from. ; I'm not necessarily fond of it, but it's a question of what sort of fire the passenger compartment can tolerate, I think. ; It's kind of like the no electronics during takeoff and landing rules, and no cellphones ever. ; Cellphones are an extra problem, but regarding other electronics it's likely that you could safely use a lot of stuff with no problems. ; But the aviation world likes to be extra sure. ; The potential, however unlikely, exists, and that's enough. I'll sort of repeat what I've said before.. in the remote control world the dominant lithium chemistry is lithium polymer instead of lithium ion, it's capable of higher discharge rates which is what powerful RC motors need. ; And I've heard stories of people burning their car down after they left a battery charging inside it and something went awry. It's probably more likely for one of those kinds of batteries to catch fire, and they're likely to be larger as well. ; So the risk is probably greater. ; But the aviation world is (rightfully, I'd say) obsessed about reducing risk to the lowest possible level. ; I suspect the news stories about those sony laptop batteries presenting a fire risk was a rude awakening to the FAA and they've been trying to figure out what to make of lithium batteries ever since. However this whole "omg, maybe they could be made into a crude bomb" thing is pissing me off to no end. With a little ingenuity almost ANYTHING could be made into a bomb. ; They're honestly not going to be able to legislate away every potential threat. ; This is the consequence of living in a free society and I'm starting to wonder if anyone is ever going to remember that that's what we were supposed to be living in. I mean.. with regards to the current limit on carry on liquids? ; Yeah... ; I know of a chemist who has boldly stated that those are pointless. ; He seems to feel that he could bring a plane down using liquids within the current limits. ; I can't judge the accuracy of his claims, he is known to stretch the truth on occasion... ; but in this case I tend to trust him. ; The current limit is a nice round number that's just barely practical to allow people to carry what they must while making them feel comfy and secure so long as they don't really examine things. I hate that I feel like I even have to say this... ; but I guess I'll stress that the person in question has no actual interest in destroying an aircraft, he was merely pointing out that based on his knowledge the carry on liquids policy was futile.
The part of the USA Today article that rubbed me wrong, was that you won't be able to check the batteries in your luggage either UNLESS they are in an electronic gadget. I got through at least 1.5 batteries a day with my Nikon and that isn't including the rechargeable I burn through in my flash unit. But if they flat out ban the batteries even in gadgets and that means that laptops are banned as carry-ons, I know my current employer (I recently changed jobs) would then start requiring us to drive
Ray, I think one the biggest problems is that cordless curling iron that started a fire - because the battery was installed! ; It's almost like they'll ban batteries completely in the checked luggage but then restrict them in carryon luggage. ; Maybe they should ban cordless curling irons for now.
Banning spare batteries would be easy to get around. ; In my case, the only spare lithium ion battery I carry is for my camera, so I would just buy a second battery grip which would count as installed in a "device." ; However if it gets to the point that they ban all lithium ion batteries, then I would have to get a couple of Pelican cases and ship my stuff to anywhere that I can't drive.
They won't. See the iPhone and the new MacBooks. ; There would be too much of a backlash. ; The easiest way would be to enforce reasonable limits in carryons, and prohibit any device that produces heat as it's intended purpose.
Wouldn't it be safest and easiest to just ban everything? ; If you came to the airport naked with no belongings, and were subjected to a thorough body cavity search, and boarded with no baggage, personal possessions, or clothing, you couldn't be carrying a bomb. ; Oh...but wait...maybe you could swallow something and explode it from inside. ; Hmmm, maybe you'd have to ban people as well - too dangerous to let people fly. ; The airlines would feel much safer and less stressed if they just had a bunch of empty planes flying around, and we could all just drive, sail, or walk to our destinations.
The problem is that I'm sure just like me, most people didn't even know that you could get a curling iron that was cordless. ; It really seems like an engineering disaster waiting to happen when the device is meant to generate heat and that would require a lot of power. The only batteries I have known to catch fire (from first hand experience) is those associated with cordless power tools. ; But, they are banned already on planes. I thought curling irons were banned from carryons?
How long till Spirit has a camera fee? FAA admits lithium battery problem http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20101008/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_faa_lithium_batteries I'm only joking about the camera fee, but I can see it happening. ; The problem is that they should also charge for laptops, and that will kill the business travel.
