Dreamliner 787 makes emergency landing in Siberia after Smartphone disobeys No Smoking order!
Cluso99
Posts: 18,069
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/british-airways-dreamliner-makes-emergency-landing-siberia-after-burning-smartphone-triggers-alarm-1516585
http://www.aeroinside.com/item/6196/british-airways-b788-near-irkutsk-on-aug-21st-2015-smartphone-disobeys-no-smoking-instruction
My daughter and husband with their twin 15mth boys were on the flight when it began an emergency decent and dumped fuel. Pretty scary as only a forest of trees could be seen.
Crew and passengers were obviously extremely concerned, but there was calm as the crew packed everything in the overhead lockers in preparation for an emergency landing.
One passenger was overheard asking where they were, and the response from another passenger... The best place on earth - an airport !
The cause... a Smartphone caught in the seat mechanism of a first class seat. Apparently the battery was pierced and was smoking.
From what I understand, the power was cut to the seat but the smoke continued (the phone wasn't found until after the plane landed).
So the pilot made an emergency landing. Precisely what you want - take no chances!
When on the ground, my son-in-law made a quick call to his mother (in London) who sent us an SMS. A while later my daughter phone us. I looked on BA's website, and sure enough, it said the plane was diverted to Russia and listed the expected departure time plus the new landing time in Heathrow. I sent this info to the in-laws via SMS.
No doubt, comms has become an almost immediate thing.
I gather the Phone is not going to be charged for illegal smoking
http://www.aeroinside.com/item/6196/british-airways-b788-near-irkutsk-on-aug-21st-2015-smartphone-disobeys-no-smoking-instruction
My daughter and husband with their twin 15mth boys were on the flight when it began an emergency decent and dumped fuel. Pretty scary as only a forest of trees could be seen.
Crew and passengers were obviously extremely concerned, but there was calm as the crew packed everything in the overhead lockers in preparation for an emergency landing.
One passenger was overheard asking where they were, and the response from another passenger... The best place on earth - an airport !
The cause... a Smartphone caught in the seat mechanism of a first class seat. Apparently the battery was pierced and was smoking.
From what I understand, the power was cut to the seat but the smoke continued (the phone wasn't found until after the plane landed).
So the pilot made an emergency landing. Precisely what you want - take no chances!
When on the ground, my son-in-law made a quick call to his mother (in London) who sent us an SMS. A while later my daughter phone us. I looked on BA's website, and sure enough, it said the plane was diverted to Russia and listed the expected departure time plus the new landing time in Heathrow. I sent this info to the in-laws via SMS.
No doubt, comms has become an almost immediate thing.
I gather the Phone is not going to be charged for illegal smoking
Comments
It's not just lithium-cobalt batteries. The higher the energy capacity/density of a battery is the more hazardous it is.
Since this was a 'cabin fire' senario, regardlless of the source - the plane must decend and land ASAP. Like submarines, a fire of any sort will consume all the oxygen post haste and emergency O2 is both limited and dangerous in this situation.
Even the LiPO4 chemistry has its problems. Lithium burns at room temperature. Gases can include toxic, but non-combusible factors -- such as Fluroine. And of course, there are tons of plastic in an airplane's interior that may emit toxic smoke.
Toxic gases from the burning seat actually may have been more of a hazard than the phone itself.
++++++++++
Seems to me that the flight crew was aware of all this and good training kicked in.
BTW they put the seat in the toilet compartment. The phone was not discovered until after they landed.
Of course it is. Older tech didn't have such a problem with fires and newer tech mostly doesn't either. Lithium-cobalt's are pretty much the exception.
Here's an example test comparison of cobalt vs phosphate - http://www.battcon.com/papersfinal2004/nguyenpaper2004.pdf
Page 24 of the PDF (Page 22 numbered) is of particular interest here. It shows the resulting mass loss in the damaged cells. The lithium-phosphate loses 2% compared to 25-30% for the two lithium-cobalts.
PS: I consider the "mixed oxide" to still be a cobalt. These are usually referred to as long-life batteries in consumer devices.