Why a Lost Cellphone Forced an Airplane to Turn Around in Mid-Flight (nzherald.co.nz) 62
Last week an Air France flight to the Caribbean had to turn around and return to Paris, reports the Washington Post, "after a passenger could not locate their cellphone."
Because of fears that an unattended cellphone could overheat — and because the passenger and crew couldn't find the phone — the Boeing 777 turned around off the coast of France "and returned to the airport, according to the flight-tracking service FlightAware. It landed back where it started a little more than two hours after taking off, with 375 passengers, 12 cabin crew and two pilots on board..." It was the airline's second Caribbean-bound flight to turn around because of a phone since early February as the aviation industry grapples with the risk of fires sparked by lithium batteries... Air France did not say where on the plane the phone was lost — or where it was ultimately located. "After checks by the maintenance teams, the device was found and the aircraft was able to take off again quickly," the airline said in an unsigned statement. "Air France regrets this situation and reminds that the safety of its customers and crew members is its absolute priority." The plane made it to Guadeloupe, a French overseas territory, about four hours later than scheduled...
The articles notes that U.S. air passengers "are required to keep vape pens and spare lithium batteries, such as portable chargers, in the cabin at all times, according to the Federal Aviation Administration. The items are not allowed in checked bags..."
The agency — which handles about 16.4 million flights per year — "says it is aware of 85 lithium battery air incidents involving smoke, fire or extreme heat last year."
Because of fears that an unattended cellphone could overheat — and because the passenger and crew couldn't find the phone — the Boeing 777 turned around off the coast of France "and returned to the airport, according to the flight-tracking service FlightAware. It landed back where it started a little more than two hours after taking off, with 375 passengers, 12 cabin crew and two pilots on board..." It was the airline's second Caribbean-bound flight to turn around because of a phone since early February as the aviation industry grapples with the risk of fires sparked by lithium batteries... Air France did not say where on the plane the phone was lost — or where it was ultimately located. "After checks by the maintenance teams, the device was found and the aircraft was able to take off again quickly," the airline said in an unsigned statement. "Air France regrets this situation and reminds that the safety of its customers and crew members is its absolute priority." The plane made it to Guadeloupe, a French overseas territory, about four hours later than scheduled...
The articles notes that U.S. air passengers "are required to keep vape pens and spare lithium batteries, such as portable chargers, in the cabin at all times, according to the Federal Aviation Administration. The items are not allowed in checked bags..."
The agency — which handles about 16.4 million flights per year — "says it is aware of 85 lithium battery air incidents involving smoke, fire or extreme heat last year."
Use sodium ion (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Make lithium batteries illegal already,
Of all the things to outlaw, that's up there on the "really dumb" chart. You might as well have declared that we should "make smartphones illegal already".
Sodium ion is a safe battery tech that doesn't suffer thermal runaways that fire departments can't put out.
If you wish for the government to promote one technology over another then you simply need them to subsidize it and not the other. This would include research into increasing battery capacity.
I change my phone name to... (Score:2, Insightful)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7 when I fly. Always causes a hoot of a scene.
Re: (Score:2)
Sodium ions have many advantages, but portability isn't one of them, because the sodium atom is about 3 times heavier (atomic weight 23) versus lithium (7). This is because lithium is atomic number 3, while sodium is 11.
It is, however, a much cleaner chemistry - using water based electrolytes, and sustainable iron based electrodes. It's also much cheaper to use because everything in a sodium ion battery is cheap - the raw materials are common (sodium, iron are easy and cheap materials) and plentiful.
The cur
Re: (Score:1)
If you wish for the government to promote one technology over another then you simply need them to subsidize it and not the other.
I remember the government subsidizing CFL lighting, and that was a disaster.
There's mercury in fluorescent lights so if one breaks then that produces a health hazard. There's florescent lights all over in commercial and industrial settings but these tend to be places with hard surfaces that are easy to clean, and are places where adults go but not spend a lot of time there. If a florescent light breaks in some child's bedroom, or in someone's kitchen, that's a different kind of deal.
I found out that CFL b
Re: (Score:2)
I remember the government subsidizing CFL lighting, and that was a disaster.
I remember government subsidizing LED lighting and it has been a huge success.
What can we take away from this contrast of outcomes?
Re: (Score:1)
What can we take away from this contrast of outcomes?
That even a stopped clock can be right twice per day? Even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while? Flip a coin long enough and you'll see it land on an edge?
Re: (Score:2)
How sad that you can't even see that good outcomes depend on proper regulation and oversight.
Re: (Score:2)
LiFePo4 is apparently entirely fine. No thermal runaway.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it. We'd see a lot more sodium batteries if they were adequate just for the much lower price of sodium compared to lithium.
Just don't fly (Score:2)
Travel by Greyhound bus. Or the White Star Line if you must cross an ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here was that the passenger was (unintentionally) separated from their phone. If they had never been separated, there would have been no problem.
Re:Just don't fly (Score:5, Funny)
They should make them wear the phone around their neck in a transparent pouch like you see on kayaking/rafting tours. The flight crew can tell at a glace if anyone lost their pacifier.
Re:Just don't fly (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever tried to put out a lithium battery fire?
Have you ever tried to put one out on a plane?
Re: (Score:2)
Playing devils advocate some more...
The idea here is to be overly cautious because it's a bit different to have something ready to go in an isle versus having a phone completely wedged and inaccessible. Obviously something like this could also happen mid-flight as well, there's nothing preventing someone from throwing a leaking battery into a trash bin.
I would also have to dispute that having an issue like this on a plane does not increase difficulty. Although one would have to do some experiments to know
Re: (Score:3)
phone completely wedged and inaccessible.
There shouldn't be anywhere within the cabin that a phone can accidentally get to that would be considered inaccessible by both flight attendants and other passengers. That means other objects the same size or smaller can also get into the inaccessible areas that could also be dangerous, but yet, we don't hear about all these other small objects getting lost and needing to be found later. Because there normally isn't anywhere for these things to actually hide.
due to the lack of being able to just 'open a window real quick'
Then you already fundamentally don't understand
Re: (Score:1)
Then you already fundamentally don't understand how to quickly put out a battery fire. Throwing it out a window isn't a solution regardless of where you are.
Having grown up on a farm it was pretty standard procedure to deal with a fire by chucking anything on fire out a window. The area out of the window tended to be dry sand or wet grass, both well suited for allowing a fire to burn itself out. There were some times of the year when out of the window meant dry grass which could pose a problem with chucking burning things out of a window, that just meant using a different window or running for a garden hose after the chucking.
The quickest solution for when you aren't prepared at all, is to submerge the device in water.
Maybe that works as a general rul
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that works as a general rule but I have to wonder if there aren't exceptions. Water can react poorly with some things, as in feeding the fire than extinguishing it.
The exceptions are if it's not lithium ion. Water works well on lithium ion but does not work well with lithium-metal batteries. However, no cell phone uses lithium-metal.
I have only a vague idea how airplanes are ventilated but I suspect the ovens on aircraft are built to vent to the outside.
They use specialized, pure convection ovens, and one could provide a decent backup, but wouldn't be my first go-to for containing a device fire.
The entire last paragraph kinda gets silly. Foam extinguisher plus a fire containment bag (https://brimstonefireprotection.com/collections/fire-containment-bags) is all you need. It's faster than t
Re: (Score:2)
The 787 battery fires just ended up with a metal box that vented outside. Maybe planes need a little mailbox slot that's laptop sized in every plane.
Re: (Score:1)
> Have you ever tried to put out [a lithium fire] on a plane?
I just smother it with snakes. Moist when hot.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever tried to put out a lithium battery fire?
Have you ever tried to put one out on a plane?
It's quite simple really,
Aircraft will carry something like this for the purpose [cabincrewsafety.aero], the bag will typically contain a gel or foam to smother the device and cool it to prevent thermal runaway.
Larger devices can be problematic as Australia found out a few years back as they don't make a bag big enough.
Re: (Score:1)
Or we can stop building shitty planes and let them be run by shitty companies with shitty maintenance records.
How does this have anything to do with the issue in TFA? Are you suggesting commercial aircraft be, what, impervious to fire? Once that is solved then they need to have a system in place to neutralize toxic chemicals in the air column inside the passenger cabin? While we're at it, lets make them crash and mechanical failure proof too. Hell, lets just put the entire interior of the plane in temporal stasis so if it does crash everyone will be ok. Wait, I'm not sure how the pilots will be able to fly the pla
Re: (Score:2)
How does this have anything to do with the issue in TFA?
Because a passenger's lost phone should still be somewhere in the cabin and accessible by either flight staff or other passengers. Therefore, there is no reason to turn the plane around. If the phone can slip somewhere it can't be retrieved easily then the plane is not worthy to fly to begin with.
Are you suggesting commercial aircraft be, what, impervious to fire?
No, but they should be properly prepared to take care of a simple battery fire somewhere in the cabin. It's not difficult.
It always astounded me how angry people would get when a plane would get delayed or have to turn around for safety reasons.
For actual non-predictable safety issues that cannot be solved while in the air, not a probl
Re: (Score:2)
If the phone can slip somewhere it can't be retrieved easily then the plane is not worthy to fly to begin with.
I'd like to see you try and certify an airplane cabin to this requirement.
Re: (Score:1)
Not hard at all if the planes weren't designed and engineered like ass to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Because a passenger's lost phone should still be somewhere in the cabin and accessible by either flight staff or other passengers.
The problem is not mathematical accessibility but practical accessibility. If one doesn't know where an object currently is, that object is practically inaccessible.
Are you suggesting commercial aircraft be, what, impervious to fire?
No, but they should be properly prepared to take care of a simple battery fire somewhere in the cabin. It's not difficult.
But this wasn't a real safety issue. This was nothing, that *could* in very, very rare circumstances (0.00000518292683% chance per TFA) could become a minor safety issue but can be handled midair.
Risk = likelihood * severity * lack of mitigation. The likelihood of a battery fire is very low. However, the severity is extremely high, at least partly because the available migration options are extremely limited on a plane in midair.
Re: (Score:2)
If one doesn't know where an object currently is, that object is practically inaccessible.
Only to the owner looking for it. And if it were to start smoking and showing signs of fire, it would become much more obvious where the lost phone is.
at least partly because the available migration options are extremely limited on a plane in midair
False. Foam extinguishers are simple, easy, and the best way to prevent/stop a battery fire. Fireproof containers designed to hold batteries that are in this state are also readily available. There is no reason a plane shouldn't have at least one of each of these items. Otherwise, it's just negligence on the airline's part.
Re: (Score:2)
I checked out of curiosity and ship Costa Fascinosa does this route, from mainland France (Marseilles) to Guadeloupe. A one-way can be found for 730 €. At this very moment on the way back from the Caribbean heading to the Canary Islands https://www.cruisemapper.com/s... [cruisemapper.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Or get use t(ele/rans)porter/portal. /s
Let me guess: The carrier will attempt to bill (Score:2)
the party who lost their phone for the operating time of the aircraft. That could be in the 100's of dollars.
Re:Let me guess: The carrier will attempt to bill (Score:5, Informative)
The press says 1) it cost the carrier 9,000 dollars in jet fuel, 2) to charge the passenger, the carrier would have to prove intentional action or gross negligence. Source (in French) https://www.presse-citron.net/... [presse-citron.net]
Re:Let me guess: The carrier will attempt to bill (Score:4, Informative)
That sounds right. Generally in Europe you can't sue someone for making a genuine mistake, only for negligence. If non-negligent mistakes can cost you money, it's regarded as a process issue, as in the process is unreasonably prone to error.
Re:Let me guess: The carrier will attempt to bill (Score:4, Insightful)
There's the additional complication of it not being the passenger's decision to turn the plane around. It's a lost phone. The additional risk it poses is infinitesimal, especially since it will have to either be not on the plane or in the cabin somewhere. If it catches fire people will notice it pretty damn quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
The risk is relatively high. Because a lot of lost phones end up in the seat back hinge area. So, you move a seat up for landing and now you have a lever practically designed for bending fragile phone cases in half. A lost phone just sitting on the floor is one level of risk. A lost phone potentially inside a levered lamp is another order of magnitude risk of fire.
Lmao (Score:1)
Air France did not say where on the plane the phone was lost — or where it was ultimately located.
Which tells me that the phone got somewhere it wasn't supposed to be able to get to, probably due to negligence in Air France's maintenance and general Boeing shit quality.
There should be no places a passenger's phone can get lost and not easily found. There especially shouldn't be any places a passenger's phone can get to where a problem (like a battery fire) can't be noticed and contained. Any plane that can't pass those two checks should not be in service at all. So, I call bullshit on this whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
There should be no places a passenger's phone can get lost and not easily found.
Look, I hate to talk shit about comments, but the crap the design and engineering people have to put up with should tank people’s expectations. Things really go down the drain from there.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the designers and the engineers aren't on the same page, and pretty much never have been. The current design of planes isn't good - from a financial, engineering, or safety standpoint. Mediocre to bad across the board.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, there's something fishy about the story. One would think the passenger suspected the phone is in the checked luggage, but if that's SO dangerous that a plane shouldn't be operated normally to destination with it onboard they should just scan for it and not let it pass, I'm sure a phone lights up in the scanning machine better than really mostly anything on that size, most likely even than a b_o_m_b.
Re:Lmao (Score:4, Insightful)
If lithium-ion battery fires were as much of a concern as people make them out to be, the airlines would just straight ban them outright. They aren't that dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
If lithium-ion battery fires were as much of a concern as people make them out to be, the airlines would just straight ban them outright. They aren't that dangerous.
They've tried, several times... But people whinged, cried and complained that "it wasn't that bad" despite having no understanding of the subject, time and time again. We can't even get people to turn them off for a few hours they're so selfish and ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
They've tried, several times...
No, they really haven't. Outside of the Samsung Note 7.
We can't even get people to turn them off for a few hours
Because they don't have a legitimate reason to be turned off.
Re: (Score:2)
The previous time in February, a phone fell through the vent grid of the galley (which internet says is the place where they park the food cart). https://x.com/airplusnews/stat... [x.com] (They didn't say this time.)
Re: (Score:2)
(which was also on an Air France B777-300 headed to the Caribbean.)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It's either negligence and shouldn't have been in the air in the first place, or they're embarrassed they turned around for nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
Which tells me that the phone got somewhere it wasn't supposed to be able to get to, probably due to negligence in Air France's maintenance and general Boeing shit quality.
Or maybe, operational decisions are none of your business and you're not entitled to understand every tiny thing that goes on in what is ultimately other people's lives with whom you have zero connection.
"No comment" = "worst case conspiracy" is the dumbest level of sideline commentary in existence. Do better. Think better. Be better.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well, it's either that, or they are too embarrassed to admit that they literally turned around for literally no reason, because their operational decisions are borderline retarded. This wasn't a real safety issue.
Re:Lmao (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact that it's second time in one month they have a plane turn back means they are applying a policy. The fact that they're willing to eat the cost of a plane turning back for what would appear as a minor incident is a sign their policy is safety first. I'd rather fly a company turning back on incidents than another one putting profits first.
Besides, turning back in this particular situation was the most rational decision: the plane was still close to land and could easily turn back at the only cost of a minor delay. However if not turning back, they would face several hours across the ocean with nowhere to land in an emergency.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather fly a company turning back on incidents than another one putting profits first.
While I agree in principle one can go overboard. If we were talking about a Chinese no name scooter checked into the hold, sure turn it around, but my concern here is that if the phone was "lost" it means that the phone was either not on the plane, or on the plane in an area accessible by people. That is the risk management right there. We ask people to bring phones into the cabin so they can be reached in the case of a fire. If the thing caught fire you'd very quickly find the source and deal with it that
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly all of this. It just screams a lack of critical thinking and understanding.
Re: (Score:2)
You would be surprised. My wife lost her phone on a flight last year. It fell out of her pocket and into the seat crack. As required, we had the flight attendant help find it. It took a surprisingly long time to find. It turns out it wasn't in the seat at all, it had managed to slip out the bottom and the people behind us must have then accidentally kicked it another row back and it was kind of bounced/wedged against one of the seat legs on the outer wall side upright. Very tricky because we weren't lookin
If they are *that* dangerous ... (Score:2)
... then perhaps they should all be stowed in a steel box when aloft? Sheesh.
Re: If they are *that* dangerous ... (Score:3)
Yes, exactly. If an unattended phone is so dangerous the plane needs to turn back, how dangerous could a phone be in malicious hands?
ticking time bombs in everyone's homes (Score:2)
It sounds like... (Score:1)
Dipshit McGee dropped their phone in the toilet.
It's an airplane (Score:2)
Beat the shit out of the passenger (Score:2)
The passenger should have been tied to stake at the gate and any passenger who wanted to should have been allowed to punch the fucker.
That is a risk-management fail (Score:2)
Yes, you should keep them in sight on planes. But if 1 in 1'000'000 is not kept in sight, that is not an issue.
Panicy idiots at work ...
A watched phone never burns (Score:2)
More security theater (Score:2)
OK, so they make us all take our shoes off, because there might be a bomb in a shoe. They make us tip out our bottle of water and throw away our tubes of toothpaste and bottles of shampoo, because there might be a bomb in our toiletries. They make every passenger walk through a nudie scanner because there might be a bomb in your underpants.
But somehow it's totally just fine for every single passenger to carry a phone with a super-flammable battery? Until one phone goes missing, then it suddenly becomes so d