3 ms·

Oh I don't know, such a ban might be uncharacteristically rational for the TSA. ...actually, how many plane crashes have Li-ion battery failures in luggage cau

by jlgreco 14y ago

Oh I don't know, such a ban might be uncharacteristically rational for the TSA. ...actually, how many plane crashes have Li-ion battery failures in luggage caused? No it wouldn't be, a ban like that would be par for the course.

United857 14y ago
At least one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6#FAA_Reaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6#FAA_React...
rayiner 14y ago
Risk management for rare events does not mean only taking precautions against things that have already caused problems.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  I don't think I have suggested otherwise.
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    I interpreted your comment as suggesting such a ban is irrational because not enough planes have crashed.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      The ban would be irrational because there is no reason to think that batteries will suddenly start causing unacceptable rates of plane failure in the near future. Presumably such a blanket ban would come in the wake of a single high profile incident, so in fact I am saying quite the opposite of "we should only take precautions against things that have already caused problems." Taking precautions against things that happened, instead of things which are likely to happen in the future is irrational. Box cutters took down a few planes, so we banned them. This is an irrational ban, because box cutters now have an infinitesimally small chance of taking down planes. Whether box-cutters took down 4 planes or 100 planes in the past really doesn't matter since it does not indicate future performance.
cpleppert 14y ago
The luggage compartment is much hotter than the flight deck, especially on a freighter. If your luggage is parked in the hold during summer when the air conditioning units are off that is a major concern. There is concern that DHL flight 6 could have crashed for that reason.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  What we know is that, for whatever the reason, the rate of catastrophic failure has been quite low in the past. When new information becomes available we are able to update our risk assessment, it isn't necessary for us to wait for more plane crashes. I don't see any new information here though, the risks posed by Li-ion batteries and fires on airplanes have been well understood for quite some time.

by jlgreco 14y ago

United857 14y ago

At least one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6#FAA_Reaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6#FAA_React...

rayiner 14y ago

Risk management for rare events does not mean only taking precautions against things that have already caused problems.

jlgreco 14y ago
I don't think I have suggested otherwise.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  I interpreted your comment as suggesting such a ban is irrational because not enough planes have crashed.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    The ban would be irrational because there is no reason to think that batteries will suddenly start causing unacceptable rates of plane failure in the near future. Presumably such a blanket ban would come in the wake of a single high profile incident, so in fact I am saying quite the opposite of "we should only take precautions against things that have already caused problems." Taking precautions against things that happened, instead of things which are likely to happen in the future is irrational. Box cutters took down a few planes, so we banned them. This is an irrational ban, because box cutters now have an infinitesimally small chance of taking down planes. Whether box-cutters took down 4 planes or 100 planes in the past really doesn't matter since it does not indicate future performance.

cpleppert 14y ago

The luggage compartment is much hotter than the flight deck, especially on a freighter. If your luggage is parked in the hold during summer when the air conditioning units are off that is a major concern. There is concern that DHL flight 6 could have crashed for that reason.

jlgreco 14y ago
What we know is that, for whatever the reason, the rate of catastrophic failure has been quite low in the past. When new information becomes available we are able to update our risk assessment, it isn't necessary for us to wait for more plane crashes. I don't see any new information here though, the risks posed by Li-ion batteries and fires on airplanes have been well understood for quite some time.