Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Power Transportation

Why a Lost Cellphone Forced an Airplane to Turn Around in Mid-Flight (nzherald.co.nz) 61

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."

Why a Lost Cellphone Forced an Airplane to Turn Around in Mid-Flight

Comments Filter:
  • by blackomegax ( 807080 ) on Saturday March 29, 2025 @03:40PM (#65268315) Journal
    Make lithium batteries illegal already, They have proven themselves to be too dangerous. Sodium ion is a safe battery tech that doesn't suffer thermal runaways that fire departments can't put out.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Gravis Zero ( 934156 )

      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.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Samsung Galaxy Note 7 when I fly. Always causes a hoot of a scene.

      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        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

      • 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

        • 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?

          • 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?

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      LiFePo4 is apparently entirely fine. No thermal runaway.

    • 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.

  • ... if you can't be separated from your toys.

    Travel by Greyhound bus. Or the White Star Line if you must cross an ocean.

    • by Entrope ( 68843 )

      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.

    • 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]

    • by antdude ( 79039 )

      Or get use t(ele/rans)porter/portal. /s

  • the party who lost their phone for the operating time of the aircraft. That could be in the 100's of dollars.

  • 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.

    • 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.

      • by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

        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.

    • 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)

        by Bahbus ( 1180627 ) on Saturday March 29, 2025 @05:54PM (#65268601) Homepage

        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.

        • by mjwx ( 966435 )

          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.

          • by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

            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.

    • 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.)

      • (which was also on an Air France B777-300 headed to the Caribbean.)

        • by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

          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.

    • 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)

        by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

        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)

          by test321 ( 8891681 ) on Saturday March 29, 2025 @06:52PM (#65268711)

          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.

          • 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

    • 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

  • ... then perhaps they should all be stowed in a steel box when aloft? Sheesh.

    • Yes, exactly. If an unattended phone is so dangerous the plane needs to turn back, how dangerous could a phone be in malicious hands?

    • Start using safer battery technologies like LFP or get sued out of existence. Fire departments should run annual LiIon collections, gathering peoples old devices with LiIon batteries in them, especially the larger ones. Devices with LiIon batteries in them should have a firm recycle date, and stop working after that date.
  • Dipshit McGee dropped their phone in the toilet.

  • This means everyone should become irrational and panic about everything.
  • 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.

  • 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 ...

  • Or something like that. It's not clear why being able to see the phone would make it easier to extinguish. It's a metal fire.

Take everything in stride. Trample anyone who gets in your way.

Working...