3 ms·

The security theater needs to go on. In the meantime batteries represent a much bigger risk with potential in flight fires but I guess nobody cares enough to do

by ekianjo 9mo ago

The security theater needs to go on. In the meantime batteries represent a much bigger risk with potential in flight fires but I guess nobody cares enough to do anything about it.

kbutler 9mo ago
When gate-checking carryon bags, staff told passengers to take batteries out of the carryons. It seems like something that is high risk during flight shouldn't be left to passenger compliance with spoken instructions.
dexwiz 9mo ago
If batteries were standardized and replaceable I bet they would force you to not bring your own, and only ones purchasable passed the gate could be used. Maybe that a silver lining to the repairability issues.
- harry8 9mo ago
  On Scoot (Budget Singapore Air) they let you bring your external phone batteries on the plane but do NOT let you use them. You have to rent one of theirs. Skyphone installation by the airlines led to "flight mode" because the horror of not paying is far more important than safety. All of this fake, useless theatre undermines real security and makes us less safe while picking our pockets. Fluids to bring down a plane? FFS every human is equipped with a bladder. Why was this charlatanism ever tolerated at all?
  - chihuahua 9mo ago
    The intention/purpose of the limit on fluids was to prevent people from assembling liquid explosives inside the plane. The contents of your bladder would not help with that.
    - ekianjo 9mo ago
      if you are really serious about this, you can hide a pocket a fluid inside your body, and nobody would know...
    - harry8 9mo ago
      So if you drink some of the fluid in front of the goon instead of being instructed to pour the water out, that would show it's not explosive and everything is fine? Test for is this fluid water isn't complex chemistry right? So we're good to go, yeah? No. It's an attack that never happened and wouldn't. It's nuts. They should have banned underwear because the underwear bomber /did/ happen. But sure, that's awkward and would impact revenue, (I don't wanna go nude so I won't fly unless I have to), so the ridiculousness of doing so triumphed where it did not with water and shoes. Lock on the cockpit door was worthwhile (unless the threat is a psychotic German copilot, worked bad then). Also the successful terrorist strategy had expired useless even before the end of its first use on 9/11 as passengers found out, realised new rules: fight back now, hard. Bastards at Heathrow stole a sealed jar of Fortnum & Mason jam from me. For security! Because onion jam could blow up a plane. FFS. But sure, you could buy the same stuff once through security and take it on the plane at inflated prices. Where there was a financial incentive to do so and a secial interest to lobby for it, the idiocy stopped. In 5 meters. The purpose of these moronic rules was /not/ what you think it was. It was just a sequence of moronic compromises around dumb ideas influenced by special interest. You can't respect it and respect your own intelligence. Security is actually important, do better.
  - jen20 9mo ago
    > Skyphone installation by the airlines led to "flight mode" because the horror of not paying is far more important than safety. By the time “airplane mode” became common on mobile phones, the phones installed in airplane seats were already decommissioned in most cases.
    - harry8 9mo ago
      The authorities can't admit they lied. Admit there was never any evidence that phones could interfere with anything on a plane other than the well being those around you. They can't admit they banned mobile phone usage but not skyphones because of special interest pressure. They can't do this because it would destroy their credibility with the ignorant as much as it has with the informed, that would get a critical mass. So yeah we have "flight mode" and every single flight someone breaks it. It isn't remotely enforceable so it is just as well that connecting to cellular is harmless. (Planes also have expensive wifi instead of expensive skyphones now, so the financial incentive remains.) Airplane mode was a figleaf to counter "your phone must be switched off" which was the old-school airplane mode enforcement. Undermining security for little bits of money for special interest. The naked corruption of purpose could make you angry if you let it.
arccy 9mo ago
south Korean airlines are banning battery use in flight now https://www.timeout.com/asia/news/psa-major-south-korean-airlines-have-officially-banned-power-bank-use-in-flight-012626 https://www.timeout.com/asia/news/psa-major-south-korean-air... other asian carriers will say they can't be in overhead compartments
- kijin 9mo ago
  South Korean here, it's all over the news but it sounds rather pointless. Faulty batteries can catch fire even when not in use. And the airlines still allow each passenger to carry up to 5 power banks, 100Wh each. That's enough power to blow up any aircraft.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
galuggus 9mo ago
Recently flew through china where they asked 3 times if if i had a portable charger and made everyone sign declarations to that effect.
- ekianjo 9mo ago
  Declarations are meaningless. This will not prevent fires ot occur.
  - rudhdb773b 9mo ago
    Are battery fires on planes a common problem? I haven't heard of many, at least with any significant consequences. And what would you suggest be done to reduce the risk? Asking passengers to travel without phones or laptops isn't realistic.
    - galuggus 9mo ago
      there was a viral video of one recently. i think thats what sparked the measures. the declaration is probably so if they find one in your luggage they can ban you from flying
    - ekianjo 9mo ago
      > common problem https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2025/08/26/lithium-battery-fires-planes-concerns-aviation-pros/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2025/08/26... It's statistics at the end of the day. If you have 300 people carrying several batteries in the body of the airplane, and any of them has enough energy to cause an immediate fire, you are playing with odds. > What we should do Completely banning portable batteries (chargers) would be a start. You cut the risk by a lot already because they are rampant.
      - rudhdb773b 9mo ago
        But does a battery fire on a plane pose a much more significant risk than anywhere else one carries a battery in his daily life? At least on a plane, you have well-trained staff and fire extinguishers readily available.
jonah 9mo ago
We flew a couple legs on Virgin Atlantic yesterday. The info session before takeoff made several mentions of batteries - unplug devices when not on use / not in your seat, if your battery gets hot, don't leave your seat/notify a flight attendant immediately. (I think they have containers to try to contain lithium fires onboard FWIW.)
bob1029 9mo ago
Batteries are such an incredible oversight if we are trying to control for kinetic energy. 100 watts for an hour ~= 36000 watts for ten seconds. Every fully charged laptop roughly has enough energy to bring an automobile up to highway speed (once). How many of these laptops exist on a typical flight?

by ekianjo 9mo ago

The security theater needs to go on. In the meantime batteries represent a much bigger risk with potential in flight fires but I guess nobody cares enough to do anything about it.

kbutler 9mo ago

When gate-checking carryon bags, staff told passengers to take batteries out of the carryons. It seems like something that is high risk during flight shouldn't be left to passenger compliance with spoken instructions.

dexwiz 9mo ago

If batteries were standardized and replaceable I bet they would force you to not bring your own, and only ones purchasable passed the gate could be used. Maybe that a silver lining to the repairability issues.

harry8 9mo ago
On Scoot (Budget Singapore Air) they let you bring your external phone batteries on the plane but do NOT let you use them. You have to rent one of theirs. Skyphone installation by the airlines led to "flight mode" because the horror of not paying is far more important than safety. All of this fake, useless theatre undermines real security and makes us less safe while picking our pockets. Fluids to bring down a plane? FFS every human is equipped with a bladder. Why was this charlatanism ever tolerated at all?
- chihuahua 9mo ago
  The intention/purpose of the limit on fluids was to prevent people from assembling liquid explosives inside the plane. The contents of your bladder would not help with that.
  - ekianjo 9mo ago
    if you are really serious about this, you can hide a pocket a fluid inside your body, and nobody would know...
  - harry8 9mo ago
    So if you drink some of the fluid in front of the goon instead of being instructed to pour the water out, that would show it's not explosive and everything is fine? Test for is this fluid water isn't complex chemistry right? So we're good to go, yeah? No. It's an attack that never happened and wouldn't. It's nuts. They should have banned underwear because the underwear bomber /did/ happen. But sure, that's awkward and would impact revenue, (I don't wanna go nude so I won't fly unless I have to), so the ridiculousness of doing so triumphed where it did not with water and shoes. Lock on the cockpit door was worthwhile (unless the threat is a psychotic German copilot, worked bad then). Also the successful terrorist strategy had expired useless even before the end of its first use on 9/11 as passengers found out, realised new rules: fight back now, hard. Bastards at Heathrow stole a sealed jar of Fortnum & Mason jam from me. For security! Because onion jam could blow up a plane. FFS. But sure, you could buy the same stuff once through security and take it on the plane at inflated prices. Where there was a financial incentive to do so and a secial interest to lobby for it, the idiocy stopped. In 5 meters. The purpose of these moronic rules was /not/ what you think it was. It was just a sequence of moronic compromises around dumb ideas influenced by special interest. You can't respect it and respect your own intelligence. Security is actually important, do better.
- jen20 9mo ago
  > Skyphone installation by the airlines led to "flight mode" because the horror of not paying is far more important than safety. By the time “airplane mode” became common on mobile phones, the phones installed in airplane seats were already decommissioned in most cases.
  - harry8 9mo ago
    The authorities can't admit they lied. Admit there was never any evidence that phones could interfere with anything on a plane other than the well being those around you. They can't admit they banned mobile phone usage but not skyphones because of special interest pressure. They can't do this because it would destroy their credibility with the ignorant as much as it has with the informed, that would get a critical mass. So yeah we have "flight mode" and every single flight someone breaks it. It isn't remotely enforceable so it is just as well that connecting to cellular is harmless. (Planes also have expensive wifi instead of expensive skyphones now, so the financial incentive remains.) Airplane mode was a figleaf to counter "your phone must be switched off" which was the old-school airplane mode enforcement. Undermining security for little bits of money for special interest. The naked corruption of purpose could make you angry if you let it.

arccy 9mo ago

south Korean airlines are banning battery use in flight now https://www.timeout.com/asia/news/psa-major-south-korean-airlines-have-officially-banned-power-bank-use-in-flight-012626 https://www.timeout.com/asia/news/psa-major-south-korean-air... other asian carriers will say they can't be in overhead compartments

kijin 9mo ago
South Korean here, it's all over the news but it sounds rather pointless. Faulty batteries can catch fire even when not in use. And the airlines still allow each passenger to carry up to 5 power banks, 100Wh each. That's enough power to blow up any aircraft.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

galuggus 9mo ago

Recently flew through china where they asked 3 times if if i had a portable charger and made everyone sign declarations to that effect.

ekianjo 9mo ago
Declarations are meaningless. This will not prevent fires ot occur.
- rudhdb773b 9mo ago
  Are battery fires on planes a common problem? I haven't heard of many, at least with any significant consequences. And what would you suggest be done to reduce the risk? Asking passengers to travel without phones or laptops isn't realistic.
  - galuggus 9mo ago
    there was a viral video of one recently. i think thats what sparked the measures. the declaration is probably so if they find one in your luggage they can ban you from flying
  - ekianjo 9mo ago
    > common problem https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2025/08/26/lithium-battery-fires-planes-concerns-aviation-pros/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2025/08/26... It's statistics at the end of the day. If you have 300 people carrying several batteries in the body of the airplane, and any of them has enough energy to cause an immediate fire, you are playing with odds. > What we should do Completely banning portable batteries (chargers) would be a start. You cut the risk by a lot already because they are rampant.
    - rudhdb773b 9mo ago
      But does a battery fire on a plane pose a much more significant risk than anywhere else one carries a battery in his daily life? At least on a plane, you have well-trained staff and fire extinguishers readily available.

jonah 9mo ago

We flew a couple legs on Virgin Atlantic yesterday. The info session before takeoff made several mentions of batteries - unplug devices when not on use / not in your seat, if your battery gets hot, don't leave your seat/notify a flight attendant immediately. (I think they have containers to try to contain lithium fires onboard FWIW.)

bob1029 9mo ago

Batteries are such an incredible oversight if we are trying to control for kinetic energy. 100 watts for an hour ~= 36000 watts for ten seconds. Every fully charged laptop roughly has enough energy to bring an automobile up to highway speed (once). How many of these laptops exist on a typical flight?