Seems that the lithium oxide materials (lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2 ), lithium manganese oxide (LiMn2 O4 ), lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (LiNiMnCoO2 ), lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (LiNiCoAlO2 ), or lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4 ) ) remain reactive. Ideally special extinguishers should be used. As far as I can see, in larger fires (EVs) water is used to cool the whole area, so any cells that are breached will react but cooling will stop others breaking open. So a balance of risks and expediency.
However a submerging a smaller battery (phone, tablet) may causing more shorting out and if a cell is damaged, hydrogen will be released.
So water may be the recommendation, but to me it seems counter-intuitive having seen Li dropped in water.
What fire extinguisher agents have been shown to be effective for this type of fire? What is their toxicity profile like, compared to other agents? For anything you might discharge near people, you have to consider this issue and current guidance for cabin hand held extinguishers is built around Halon 1211 and alternatives like FE-36 and 2-BTP.
Trading putting out the lithium fire for unconscious passengers might not be reasonable (and I’m incredibly disinclined to do the math and research on this as a hobby).
I do know there’s research on this, I’m unfamiliar with the current state of knowledge and haven’t seen the needle move yet. All that’s been happening is removing Halon 1211 in favour of other agents for EASA compliance but none of that is built around fighting lithium fires.
Definitely an industry challenge. These batteries aren’t going anywhere so solutions must be found.
In the Mentour Pilot video, Petter makes a similar point, but suggests that a fire suppression system might have bought them precious extra time. And a fire detector in the cargo area might have gone off before they’d even left the ground. One of the loading crew later said he thought he heard a “click” from one of the boxes as it was being loaded.
The final and most frustrating element in this chain of causation was the incredible incompetence of whoever packed these oxygen generators for shipment. They felt that their contractor should have provided the special safety caps that needed to be installed for shipment to prevent accidental activation. The contractor felt that ValuJet should provide them. These are just simple tabs that prevent the spring-loaded igniter from entering the chemical chamber if accidentally triggered. But since nobody had them, the ValuJet employee just said to hell with it and packed them up without the safety caps. And didn’t even label the boxes with any cautionary information!
Better than dropping a flaming 100,000+ lb airliner in one of those spots? At least that is my “small plane” thoughts on the matter. Would be tricky to add an ejection port to a pressurized plane, but I know it is done with those hurricane chasers.
Hurricane hunters are not flying high enough (10,000’ / 3000m) to require pressurization
Hurricane hunters aren’t loading a flaming object that will burn them
Even if they wanted to build a pressure lock port in new planes it would be tough to impossible to retrofit existing ones given the hulls weren’t designed with that requirement in the first place. It would take years for the first plane to have it & decades for it to propagate thru fleets.
Smaller planes with accessible cargo compartments on the same deck (like, if you just have a door at the back in a CRJ the way the Challenger does) can in theory get restricted operstions to allow that door to be opened in flight. This is done for search and rescue planes to be able to have a jumper or drop life rafts at least ostensibly per the regulatory guidelines.
This involves depressurization of the aircraft, reducing altitude and airspeed, having all sorts of special procedures and pretty much never done with passengers on board.
I would not want to try to convince Transport Canada that this is a good idea for regular commercial operations.
There are no extinguishing agents that work on lithium based batteries. Time is the only thing that works - let it run it’s course somewhere safe. “Safe” of course being a difficult concept inside the cabin of a Part 121 or Part 135 aircraft.
I have yet to see an extinguishing agent marketed for use on battery fires that isn’t akin to snake oil.
Granted there are some minor storage issues, but hypothetically would liquid helium be good? It is VERY cold and VERY nonreactive. Liquid Argon isn’t quite as cold (boiling point 87K) but may be more practical (to be clear, I’m not suggesting either for aircraft use, or more than a thought experiment)
FYI I did find this NIST paper on Argon (PDF)
Argon is my favorite extinguishing agent. I’ve had some complete oddball fire problems that argon was the only choice (titanium dust and/or powder being high on the list). One machine I did required several thousand cubic feet to reach the 90% concentration, then hold it for 25 minutes. Yep, local FD, don’t touch that thing for 25 minutes or it’s going to go boom. You can open the doors when the flashing light stops. I’d love to use it more, but the storage and health effects are pretty harsh.
Argon wouldn’t work for batteries. The reaction is self-sustaining and self-heating, it’s all about the cells being insulted and having an inappropriate response. Like 3 year olds. Argon will displace oxygen, but thermal runaway doesn’t care about oxygen. It’s still going to pop cells and release electrolyte, which is a flammable gas.
I’ve said it in other threads, and I’ll say it yet again - I really, really don’t like batteries.
I concur. I’m rather bothered by the number of posts on this board that do this. Please don’t just post a random YouTube link without telling us something about it. Preferably enough so that we don’t have to watch the video.
Now THIS is the way to post a video. @Pork_Rind linked to a video AND added a link to a text only version of the story. Thanks very much for doing that.
I was thinking about what containers aboard a jetliner have the volume in which to dunk a laptop.
Some overhead bins could hold enough water to submerge a burning laptop. It would only work on the bins that open downwards and a slight re-design ($$$ I know) might be needed to tilt the bin such that it could hold enough water for a submerging.
So why not design a chute that a laptop won’t get stuck in as it’s going down into the tank? Not likely to be something to be retrofitted into existing aircraft, but in terms of physics, a tank of liquid that can be vented to the outside seems like a great place to dump burning electronics in an emergency.
Thinking even further outside the box, there’s a resource a jetliner has that the earthbound don’t: a 500-mph stream of cold fluid. That’s an excellent way to remove heat. Not sure how the engineering would work, but a heat-resistant device that contains the burning object, while directing a large rate of air through it to remove heat. Call it the “blowing out the candle” method.
Areas that can’t easily be searched like a chute or storage box night become a problem for compliance with 14 CFR 25.795(c). So that adds to the complexity of this.
I’m not sure how well air can cool a lithium battery fire since it can’t really absorb as much heat as water. I’m also imagining just shooting flames down piping like a flamethrower!
I guess if researchers are looking for something new to try, these are interesting concepts to begin with. Start with some bench tests and see if it works at all, then see how to fit it into an aircraft! I do love the creativity.
storage issues, but hypothetically would liquid helium be good? It is VERY cold and VERY nonreactive. Liquid Argon isn’t quite as cold (boiling point 87K) but may be more practical (to be clear, I’m not suggesting either for aircraft use, or more than a thought experiment)