_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
URI Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
URI ICAO issued new power bank restriction on flight
broadsidepicnic wrote 1 hour 24 min ago:
Pilot here.
While I definitely approve this and consider the limit to be one too
many, I wish ecigarettes would be rather the target as soon as
possible. Those are dangerous, and lately the most potential culprit
for lithium related problems aboard.
tadfisher wrote 11 min ago:
That is surprising to me, considering the sheer number of
phones/tablets/laptops on every flight. Does anyone maintain a list
of incidents?
brcmthrowaway wrote 1 hour 50 min ago:
Can a battery be built up the same way as DRAM? Why are we using weird
chemicals?
perching_aix wrote 3 hours 51 min ago:
Fingers crossed the Donut Lab solid state battery ends up being the
real deal, lives up to the hype, and this sillyness can finally go
away. Recent tests look promising from a (lack of a) thermal runaway
standpoint at least.
The only question is if the rules will mind the difference in battery
composition and chemistry.
YesBox wrote 52 min ago:
I wasn't sure what a solid state battery is, so I looked it up on
Wikipedia.
Fun fact though:
> Between 1831 and 1834, Michael Faraday discovered the solid
electrolytes silver sulfide and lead(II) fluoride, which laid the
foundation for solid-state ionics. Through his research, Michael
Faraday took note of these solid compounds transitioning from
insulators to conductors after being heated. While this would take
almost another century to be acknowledged by Michael O'Keeffe in
1976, this mixed ionic/electronic conductions became the first record
of a solid-state battery
(emphasis mine)
mhjkl wrote 2 hours 14 min ago:
Afaik sodium batteries are much safer than li-ion and already in mass
production. Unless Donut scales up really quick I think it will be
more viable to just use sodium batteries for safety in the
medium-term future
Animats wrote 2 hours 58 min ago:
Most of the solid state batteries have far less thermal runaway
problem than lithium-ion batteries. At this point, several companies
have working demo solid state batteries, but the price is far too
high. Mercedes has one demo car with a solid state battery. Ducati
has one motorcycle.
Donut Labs just has one demo cell, not even enough for their
motorcycle. The technology works but is so expensive there aren't
even multiple prototypes.
Samsung says they will ship some solid state batteries in watches and
earbuds this year, where the batteries are so tiny they're
affordable. Even solid state batteries for phones are still too
costly.
Everybody in the industry is trying to solve the production price
problem.
Consensus is that the price starts to come down around 2028 or so.
Lithium iron phosphate batteries don't have a thermal runaway
problem, either, but they have about half the Wh/Kg of lithium-ion,
so they're not popular for portable devices.
Ten years out, lithium-ion batteries will probably be obsolete
technology and totally prohibited on aircraft.
jacquesm wrote 1 hour 20 min ago:
What is your take on Lithium-Titanate (sp?) cells?
rootusrootus wrote 7 hours 17 min ago:
Seems reasonable enough, though it will require a little extra work if
you're the designated battery-carrier when your family flies somewhere.
aitchnyu wrote 7 hours 18 min ago:
Umm, did they mention the Joules (mAh) limit and combustibility?
physhster wrote 3 hours 17 min ago:
Some airlines and/or local aviation authorities have additional
restrictions. China wants CCC certified power banks, Thailand has a
strict 160 Wh limit. Both are very strictly enforced.
baggy_trough wrote 7 hours 48 min ago:
I couldn't find the actual regulation. What counts as a "power bank"?
I travel with a bunch of GoPro batteries, but they are smaller.
broadsidepicnic wrote 1 hour 27 min ago:
It's no regulation, per se. ICAO sets up rules and its up to member
states to create regulation based on that.
snops wrote 7 hours 51 min ago:
Many airlines are going much further than this, for instance Virgin
Atlantic ban you from either charging or charging from any power bank,
and you can't keep them in the overhead locker, you must keep them next
to you in case it starts burning spontaneously!
They have a "fire containment bag" they can chuck it in should you
notice it getting hot or smoking.
URI [1]: https://www.virginatlantic.com/en-US/help/articles/powerbanks-...
OptionOfT wrote 5 hours 24 min ago:
Crazy thing about these bags is that they're just containment. Once
the thermal runaway has started, it's very hard to start as it brings
its own oxygen, heat and fuel.
Hence why many places bring a container filled with water to
extinguish an EV fire, and then probably send it to a wet shredder to
make sure it doesn't re-ignite.
Spooky23 wrote 1 hour 24 min ago:
My company distributed buckets filled with cat litter for
containment to every branch office.
We cut the rate of fire (already low) in half by containing
compromised batteries. Itâs something like 0.02%-0.03% which is
significant given the massive scope. Something like 200k devices
and about 3% with battery issues of all types.
When you think about the number of flights, passengers with lithium
batters and challenges of the airplane environment, itâs a hard
problem. Weâre lucky the engineering around these devices are as
good as it is.
3eb7988a1663 wrote 36 min ago:
Is there anything special about cat litter? Or just cheap and
abundant?
AlotOfReading wrote 17 min ago:
The common clumping litters are usually some form of clay,
dried to remove moisture. It's about as nonflammable as things
come and lighter than undried clay.
longislandguido wrote 7 hours 56 min ago:
Power banks were a mistake. It's akin to carrying fireworks in your
bag. Ban them all from air travel.
Every one I have owned has been recalled for being a fire hazard. EVERY
SINGLE ONE. I stopped buying them as a result. We're talking name brand
devices, not junk off AliExpress.
toast0 wrote 3 hours 8 min ago:
My power banks are my power tool batteries. Charge or discharge via
usb-c; drills and things use traditional rails.
netsharc wrote 3 hours 43 min ago:
It's great technology, but sadly humans are fucking morons, and dodgy
manufacturers making explosive power banks has lead to the
restrictions...
Although honestly how bad is it, powerbanks are very popular, I can
imagine in some regions there'd be hundreds of flights taking off
daily with 150+ power banks on board (the majority of passengers on a
737), and they've all landed safely.
In my city, I could scan a QR code and pay the parking meter that
way. Now they've decomissioned this and you have to go to the app and
select the section of the road you're parked at. Why, because
scammers made scammy QR codes. Great tech, can't have them because
humanity's inherent scumbaggery.
majorchord wrote 6 hours 58 min ago:
"Phones were a mistake. Every one I have owned has been recalled for
being a fire hazard."
drum55 wrote 7 hours 28 min ago:
I've never had any issues with brand name, not dollar store power
banks and I've been using them for more than a decade. I'd totally
expect a $5 pink power bank from a alphabet amazon seller to be an
issue, but anything modern and reasonable like Anker are very
unlikely to cause you any issues. Balancing, protection are very much
solved issues at this point for the cell chemistries we use.
If LiPo was the issue, using LiFePo4 or LTO cells for planes would be
a totally reasonable alternative too. LTO cells are so safe the
manufacturer of them has videos on youtube of them hammering nails
into the cells, cutting them with a saw, and crushing them with a
press and they don't really care.
longislandguido wrote 6 hours 12 min ago:
You bring dollar store power banks onto airplanes?
ryandrake wrote 3 hours 21 min ago:
I'm sure people do. People will buy the absolute shittiest things
to save a buck. The power bank could come with a skull and
crossbones painted on it, and have the product name "Deadly
Explosive Power Bank" and people would still buy it if it was $10
cheaper than a reputable one.
fragmede wrote 2 hours 21 min ago:
What, you want to pay extra to get the boring battery bank?
derekerdmann wrote 7 hours 8 min ago:
Not really, even Anker recalled a huge number of power banks last
year:
URI [1]: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2025/Anker-Power-Banks-Recall...
reorder9695 wrote 1 hour 15 min ago:
A company like Anker issuing a recall actually instils confidence
in me, the alternative is no recall when flaws in a product are
discovered.
drum55 wrote 7 hours 0 min ago:
That's a bit surprising to me, wonder what the root cause of that
was. It seems to be shared across multiple products at once so
maybe they had a bad batch of cells?
vdqtp3 wrote 4 hours 1 min ago:
URI [1]: https://www.androidauthority.com/anker-power-bank-x-ra...
thih9 wrote 7 hours 50 min ago:
Do you remember the model names?
miyuru wrote 7 hours 51 min ago:
what about your mobile phone or laptop?
omcnoe wrote 1 hour 10 min ago:
Powerbanks are simply manufactured to lower standards, by companies
that have no brand accountability.
longislandguido wrote 7 hours 50 min ago:
Phone batteries are typically smaller (less energy which can be
violently dissipated) than most power banks.
Naturally you will ask, what about tablets and laptops? They are
prohibited from checked luggage for this reason. Power banks
however are smaller and easier to conceal.
The risk is really in a fire developing in your bag down below in
cargo, where no one can see it. By the time the fire alarms go off,
it's too late and good luck if you are over water or the Arctic. If
it happens upstairs they can at least tend to it with a fire
extinguisher or bag/blanket.
See ValuJet Flight 592, fire in an airplane's cargo hold is
probably one of the scariest ways to slowly die.
It's all about corralling risk. You can't tell people they can't
bring their laptops. But power banks are unnecessary nice-to-haves.
NocturnalWaffle wrote 7 hours 25 min ago:
Laptops, at least in the US, are not banned in checked
luggage[1]. The airlines may have different rules, but generally
the airline is not the one inspecting your bag, TSA is.
URI [1]: https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibr...
longislandguido wrote 6 hours 0 min ago:
The policies are indeed confusing. FAA rules prohibit power
banks and spare (uninstalled) batteries from checked baggage.
It's a bit of a grey area on jurisdiction because FAA cares
about flight safety (fires) whilst TSA is primarily looking for
terrorists.
United Airlines, however, prohibits laptops and tablets:
* Remove any lithium batteries from electronic devices stored
in checked bags.
* If batteries cannot be removed, these devices must be stowed
in cabin bags only.
* Store any spare batteries in cabin bags.
brigade wrote 54 min ago:
And that itself is a recent policy change from just in the
last two months; as of January United's official policy [1]
matched the FAA's in only requiring checked devices to be
powered down
URI [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20260129152627/https://w...
drum55 wrote 7 hours 38 min ago:
There are fire extinguishers and smoke detectors in the holds of
aircraft.
longislandguido wrote 6 hours 17 min ago:
Halon apparently, which is ineffective against lithium battery
fires.
I'd rather not test this theory because of your cavalier
attitude while I'm in a chair 40,000 ft over the ocean.
petre wrote 6 hours 58 min ago:
Except you can't extingush a lithium cell fire because it has
the oxydizer inside. Once you see one you'll understand. It's
scary.
majorchord wrote 7 hours 0 min ago:
Li-ion fires do not require external oxygen, the cathode
decomposes to release its own oxygen gas during thermal
runaway... fire extinguishers will not stop it.
amelius wrote 8 hours 17 min ago:
Just give us internet free of extra charge.
quantummagic wrote 8 hours 20 min ago:
Limiting the devices to two per person seems nonsensical to me. The
devices are either dangerous, or they're not. If they're dangerous,
two is too many. And if they're not, then why limit them only to two?
tristanj wrote 7 hours 42 min ago:
These items are dangerous. The FAA limit for power bank capacity is
100Wh (~27000mAh), which is 360kJ of energy. A hand grenade has
approximately 700-800 kJ of energy.
Two powerbanks contain the same amount of energy as a hand grenade.
drum55 wrote 7 hours 36 min ago:
That's a kind of meaningless comparison. Peanuts are about 8kJ per
gram supposedly, by your measure we should ban even small amounts
of peanuts on planes because 100 grams of them contain more energy
than a hand grenade. Without talking about the time frame over
which the energy can be released you'd have to make sure that
everybody went onto the plane completely naked lest their clothes
ignited.
SoftTalker wrote 7 hours 10 min ago:
Not good enough, body fat contains about 35kJ per gram. So nobody
with over 1lb of excess body should be allowed on board. People
are known to occasionally spontaneously combust.
fragmede wrote 2 hours 23 min ago:
I thought that was proven to be people falling asleep with a
cigarette in their hands and lighting a blanket on fire.
hollerith wrote 7 hours 50 min ago:
Way to lean into binary thinking.
quantummagic wrote 7 hours 50 min ago:
Do you save your snark for batteries only, or are you equally
liberally minded with your non-binary thinking about the number of
bombs allowed on board?
unethical_ban wrote 7 hours 43 min ago:
You've now used this fallacious analogy twice.
Clearly, battery packs have more legit utility for more people at
much lower risk than a bomb.
quantummagic wrote 7 hours 38 min ago:
> You've now used this fallacious analogy twice.
It's not fallacious, it focuses the issue, and in this
particular case shows that it's not about "binary thinking"
it's about risk.
And my original puzzlement continues. At what level of risk,
does limiting the number of devices on board to 500 or even
more, actually accomplish anything?
If they're not all that dangerous, then why limit them at all?
And if they're dangerous enough to limit at all, why in God's
blue sky, would you allow that many of them on a plane?
We don't limit people to 1 knife per person, even though knives
have utility to a lot of people who carry one with them every
day.
unethical_ban wrote 3 hours 23 min ago:
If there are 20 battery banks on board a plane, each
possessed by a different person:
* Less likely to be of the same low quality
* Less likely to all go off
* Less likely that someone is doing something
malicious/suspicious with it
vs. someone who has 20 power banks themselves in a bag, in
which case if one of them catches fire unexpectedly, they
will probably all go up at once and create a cumulative
effect much more dangerous than 20 individuals.
majorchord wrote 7 hours 5 min ago:
> why limit them at all
Because it's a numbers game... the original order itself even
acknowledges that the problem is not unique to power banks,
but that what makes power banks unique is the amount of
increased risk they pose compared to other devices, due to a
higher ubiquity of them in general, and of low-quality unsafe
ones.
If laptops were catching fire with the same frequency, they'd
ban those too, but they're not. They technically can be made
just as unsafe as power banks, but they usually aren't, and
this directive is based on the frequency of occurrence of a
particular type of device, not a general "what if" strategy.
Banning all electronic devices would be extremely unpopular
and possibly tank their sales. They're trying to balance
safety with convenience at a level that is acceptable to most
people.
avidiax wrote 7 hours 54 min ago:
Maybe it's a sort of build-quality proxy.
Someone bringing 150 "lipstick" single-cell promotional chargers ->
bad
Someone bringing one phone and one laptop battery pack -> OK
If you are limited to two, you are probably not bringing anything
that is near e-waste quality.
nharada wrote 8 hours 1 min ago:
> The devices are either dangerous, or they're not
That's not actually how it works though, it's all a risk and
percentages. Nobody says "driving is either safe or it's not" or
"delivering a baby is either safe or it's not"
SilasX wrote 7 hours 23 min ago:
Correct, but I agree with the parent that this is a dubious case to
apply that reasoning.
To make it clearer, imagine another context: "It's dangerous for a
passenger to have a gun on board. Therefore, we're strictly
limiting passengers to only two guns."
Like, no. The relevant sad case is present with one gun just as
with two.
Of course, what complicates it is that these power banks present a
small but relevant risk of burning and killing everyone on board.
So yeah, you might be below the risk threshold if everyone brought
two, but not three. So it's not inherently a stupid idea, but
requires a really precise risk calculation to justify that figure.
quantummagic wrote 7 hours 56 min ago:
That's not actually how it works though. There's a reason we
restrict people to zero bombs allowed on board.
thih9 wrote 7 hours 41 min ago:
Only because bombs donât charge as well. Aerosol cans and
flammable liquids (e.g. alcohol) are allowed; in small quantities
- just like power banks.
majorchord wrote 7 hours 10 min ago:
There are non-rechargeable power banks too though.
quantummagic wrote 7 hours 26 min ago:
This is the first decent answer, which I appreciate. And while
my comparison to a bomb may have been over the top, I don't
think a comparison to shampoo is fair either. And in any case,
I'm not so sure whether the limit on toiletries is all that
sensical either.
thih9 wrote 5 hours 20 min ago:
> I don't think a comparison to shampoo is fair either
Iâm not sure what you mean; when I Ctrl+F âshampooâ,
this is the only hit I see.
bryant wrote 8 hours 5 min ago:
More batteries, more likely that you'll have even just one of them
fail. Since even one of them (to your point) failing is enough of a
reason to divert the flight, better to start by reducing the
probability of that happening in ways people can swallow.
quantummagic wrote 7 hours 53 min ago:
So having 500 batteries on board is okay.. but 750 is too risky?
I just have a hard time believing that the math is actually mathing
in this case. Maybe you're right, and this is just a first step to
get people to gradually accept more restrictions.
ddalex wrote 8 hours 11 min ago:
Quantity is a quality of its own.
Maybe there is enough plane onboard capacity to deal with just 50
batteries, let's say; multiply the failure rate expected and the pax
capacity of the plane and you get how many batteries you can afford
to have onboard and still be able to deal with worst case scenario.
nharada wrote 8 hours 43 min ago:
Was expecting to be annoyed but this seems reasonable. You can have 2
power banks and can't charge them during flight
Liftyee wrote 8 hours 46 min ago:
Interesting... anyone know if they've released the rationale/data
behind this? I could see a few reasons why power banks present a larger
risk than phones/computers (battery capacity, quality control), but it
seems like the 100Wh battery limit already covers one of these.
In a similar vein, China banned non-CCC certified (the equivalent to UL
or CE) power banks on flights from 2025, which seems to be targeting
the quality control side of the problem. Not just on paper - the
security officers inspected every lithium battery I was carrying, even
the one in my flashlight.
zarzavat wrote 2 hours 20 min ago:
Phones tend to be designed by companies competent enough to design a
phone. There's a skill floor required that just doesn't exist for
power banks.
Another reason is that phones get replaced more frequently, whereas a
power bank will be continually used essentially until failure. I only
stopped using my last power bank because it puffed up like a balloon.
But yes, probably where this is all headed is that some day in-seat
power will be banned so that you can only discharge and not charge
your devices.
mtmail wrote 1 hour 32 min ago:
Galaxy Note 7 was a notable exception
URI [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_Note_7#Batter...
dbcurtis wrote 2 hours 51 min ago:
It seems to me that compared to your phone, a power brick dangling
off a charging cable is much more likely to slip off your lap
unnoticed and get wedged in the seat hinge only to get subsequently
punctured.
I recently took a flight where I had a laptop, my phone, a power
brick, a new power brick for my wife, a second phone (for reasons)
and a battery for a piece of ham radio equipment in my backpack. As
I got on the plane, I was thinking I was probably one of the risker
passengers on board :) Anyway, when I use the brick, I keep it
zipped in a jacket pocket with just the charing cable coming out in
an effort to keep it from finding its way to a place that it
shouldn't.
capnrefsmmat wrote 7 hours 56 min ago:
Discussion is included in the Dangerous Goods Panel report, agenda
item 4.3 (pages 39-41) and Appendix E (beginning page 89). [1]
Paragraph 4.3.3:
> While data indicated that portable electronic devices were more
often the cause of fire in aircraft cabins than power banks were, the
latter were a significant concern due to their increased use and a
prevalence of lower-quality products with defects or vulnerabilities
that were more likely to lead to thermal events. Power banks were
also not offered the same level of protection that batteries
installed in portable electronic devices were provided. The
amendments therefore focused on power banks.
URI [1]: https://www.icao.int/sites/default/files/DangerousGoods/DGP%...
trebligdivad wrote 3 hours 49 min ago:
Another possibility is that you tend to keep an eye on where your
phone and laptop are; there have been some plane fires where people
drop a phone into a seat and it ends up getting bent, but at least
they notice it fairly quickly.
(Will people know the direction if their USB-C power bank is
charging from their phone or their phone is charging from their
power bank?)
sofixa wrote 8 hours 2 min ago:
> I could see a few reasons why power banks present a larger risk
than phones/computers (battery capacity, quality control), but it
seems like the 100Wh battery limit already covers one of these.
Yeah, and it's the other one that is the main problem. It is simply
impossible to know the quality of a power bank by looking at it.
> China banned non-CCC certified (the equivalent to UL or CE)
And it costs nothing to stamp the logo as if you're certified without
actually going through any certification. Powerbanks are almost
expendable, and can be acquried from supermarkets, corner shops,
airports, even night clubs. There are even disposable ones (horrible
idea). The more complex and expensive the device (like a laptop), the
more certain can you be that there will be at least some quality
control. In a $5/5eur powerbank, which any one could potentially be,
it's almost guaranteeed there would be none.
fmajid wrote 7 hours 39 min ago:
One deterrent is, in China corporate criminals are executed, like
those who put melamine in infant formula.
bilbo0s wrote 7 hours 27 min ago:
That's awesome for consumers in China.
What about the rest of us?
That kind of fraud is oftentimes only a fine in many other
nations.
hdgvhicv wrote 2 hours 18 min ago:
Maybe we should get our governments to execute corporate
criminals?
SoftTalker wrote 7 hours 14 min ago:
The Chinese fly internationally too. So there's some motivation
to not have these in other countries.
bilbo0s wrote 5 hours 57 min ago:
Not really worried about the Chinese. As was pointed out,
they just hang a sword of damocles over the head of every
entrepreneur and engineer who even thinks about doing
something like that.
What about power banks from India? Vietnam? Malaysia? Korea?
That's what I'm saying. If there are nations where you can
get away with it, then those power banks can end up in
Western, African or South American markets.
(I'm counting getting a fine, or paying a bribe, as getting
away with it. I don't really consider those punishments that
will provide sufficient deterrent.)
whatshisface wrote 1 hour 9 min ago:
You can get away with it in the US, if you can get
regulators to approve it.
tristanj wrote 8 hours 7 min ago:
Look up Air Busan Flight 391, a power bank in someone's carryon
caused the entire plane to burn down in 5 minutes. The airplane (an
Airbus A321) was destroyed. The only reason there was not total loss
of life was because the plane hadn't taken off yet.
URI [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Busan_Flight_391
ranger_danger wrote 7 hours 14 min ago:
This could happen with any battery-powered device though. But I
don't see ICAO or FAA banning e.g. laptops any time soon, even
though they may carry more energy than a single power bank.
markdown wrote 2 hours 43 min ago:
Random power banks are about the same quality as random USB
drives.
Blackthorn wrote 7 hours 1 min ago:
Have you seen what passes for quality on the random power banks
sold by Amazon?
DIR <- back to front page