TSA Limits Lithium Batteries on Airplanes

yali writes "The U.S. Transportation and Security Administration has issued new rules limiting travel with lithium batteries. As of January 1, no spare lithium batteries are allowed in checked luggage. Batteries carried in the cabin are subject to limitations on per-battery and total lithium content, and spare batteries must have the terminals covered. If you're returning home from the holidays with new toys, be sure to check out the new restrictions before you pack."

awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[BWJones (18351)]

And as usual, there is no explanation as to *why* lithium batteries are now illegal to carry. I assume this is to reduce the possibility of a lithium battery shorting out, but if the batteries are contained in their shipping packages, they should be no more dangerous than many other items that you can carry on planes. This of course means a whole new hassle for those folks that use lithium batteries for their work such as photographers who need to travel by air to many of their assignments among many other folks and carry with them batteries to sometimes remote locations. What is the rationale? Have they examined the potential impact before coming up with yet another new restriction on travel? Are they worried about this as a terrorist act? Because, look, if someone really wants to bring down a plane, there are many ways to do it even without using lithium batteries. Think sodium metal or any explosive really, that is keister stashed until the terrorist gets to the lavatory. Think any common item on a plane that can be used as a weapon including newspaper, components of the interior finish and cabin materials,

Every time I come back into my own country after spending time abroad, I am frustrated and depressed over how bad things are getting here. I talked about some of it including the marketing problem we are manufacturing for ourselves here [utah.edu] after my last trip to Japan.

It also makes one wonder how much all this is costing the US in terms of lost business, lost productivity, airline delays, increased cost burdens on airlines and passengers and more... And this is all being done in the name of safety and terrorism, but you know... it's funny because I remember flying back in the 70's and 80's where people routinely carried firearms on planes. The restriction was that they had to be long guns and unloaded. I even remember one Texan getting on a plane and commenting to his friend that he would never check his shotgun because it might get damaged by the baggage handlers. I also routinely used to carry a pocket knife with me wherever I went even up to a few years ago on planes before they were outlawed... which leads me to wonder if the per capita risk of hijacking is any different now versus what it was back then.

Re:

[Bootle (816136)]

Think sodium metal or any explosive really, that is keister stashed until the terrorist gets to the lavatory.

Keister stashed? Slashdot, you teach me something new every single day!

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[wattrlz (1162603)]

Think sodium metal or any explosive really, that is keister stashed until the terrorist gets to the lavatory.

Keister stashed? Slashdot, you teach me something new every single day!

Somehow the idea of a terrorist trying to keister stash a significant quantity of sodium metal (which is not explosive so much as pyrophoric... ) signifcantly brightened my day.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[creimer (824291)]

And as usual, there is no explanation as to *why* lithium batteries are now illegal to carry.

Obviously, they don't want terrorists buying black market Sony batteries that will explode during the flight.

Actually that Is in the request...

[howlatthemoon (718490)]

that you not travel with recalled batteries. http://safetravel.dot.gov/remember.html [dot.gov]

Other things that you can find are why they are doing this e.g. flight crews can better monitor safety conditions to prevent an incident, and can access fire extinguishers, if an incident does happen -- http://safetravel.dot.gov/tips.html [dot.gov]

YOU CAN TRAVEL WITH MOST LI-ION CONSUMER BATTERIES assuming the TSA agents follow the rules as stated

For the lazy people not willing to look at the actual page, nor the willingness to get through the TSA's obtuse writing here is the punch line:
The following quantity limits apply to both your spare and installed batteries. The limits are expressed in grams of "equivalent lithium content." 8 grams of equivalent lithium content is approximately 100 watt-hours. 25 grams is approximately 300 watt-hours:
* Under the new rules, you can bring batteries with up to 8-gram equivalent lithium content. All lithium ion batteries in cell phones are below 8 gram equivalent lithium content. Nearly all laptop computers also are below this quantity threshold. -- My Macbook Pro battery is 60 watt hours or about 5.5 grams of lithium
* You can also bring up to two spare batteries with an aggregate equivalent lithium content of up to 25 grams, in addition to any batteries that fall below the 8-gram threshold. Examples of two types of lithium ion batteries with equivalent lithium content over 8 grams but below 25 are shown below ( the picture shows a pro-camcoder extended use battery and an external extended use laptop battery).

I usually travel with 10 or more Li-ion batteries of various sizes and this language does not lead me to believe that I will have any trouble because I never check my batteries.I am still concerned as enforcement of these new rules is left up to poorly trained agents, so I worry about losing very expensive batteries because one idiot see lithium on the label and chucks it.

IAAP

[by Anonymous Coward]

I am a commercial pilot. I've had a large battery go into thermal runaway in flight. It scared the hell out of me. The flight crew put it in a metal trashcan (so the firefighting gloves are a good idea) and I had depresurized and was going to toss it out over Kansas when it stopped venting and pulsing. I didn't see it; I was on oxygen up front, but my crew really wanted to throw it out even though it stopped pulsing.

So yeah, this is an annoyance, but, in retrospect, I think it's a good idea, and thinking about the spare laptop battery showed into a pocket with some random AV cables, it could light off the overhead compartment before anyone notices.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[4D6963 (933028)]

which leads me to wonder if the per capita risk of hijacking is any different now versus what it was back then.

And that makes me wonder what the risk of hijacking would be if carrying guns was allowed (even encouraged?) on airplanes. I'd love to see a terrorist managing to take control of a plane for more than 5 minutes if other passengers had guns.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Harmonious Botch (921977)]

Can we put some restrictions on the ammo that you can carry? It is ok with me if you kill a hijacker, but I don't want you putting holes in the plane.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Harmonious Botch (921977)]

I recall a rather nasty home-defense weapon that a friend of mine had for his wife to use ( they were in a rather rural area with slow police response ). It was a short-barrel .44 revolver - light, easy to use, won't jam - with a load that looked like a miniature shotgun shell. It had a bunch of pellets about 1 mm in diameter. He said that it could rip a person apart at close range, but could not penetrate 2 sheets of drywall.

Re:awww jeez,

[Phanatic1a (413374)]

Generally it is best to avoid any kind of pellet/shot loads, also you absolutely must avoid hollow points

This is completely untrue. Completely and thoroughly. Police departments, almost to a man, issue hollowpointed ammunition. Why? Because it has the highest chance of stopping the threat in the event lethal force is necessary. If you end up on the stand, yes, the prosecutor's going to ask why you were using hollowpointed ammunition. Then, since you've been prepared by your own defense, you're going to be able to say that you use them for the same reason 99% of police, including the police from the largest departments in the country such as the NYPD and LAPD, walk around with hollowpoints loaded: because they have the highest chance of stopping the threat and the lowest chance of penetrating to where they're not supposed to and hit an innocent person inadvertently. The cops aren't out there trying to be cruel, and neither are you.

What you want to avoid are hand-loads. You want to use factory ammunition.

Personally I would go with a 357magnum over a 44mag for home defense

ObJeffCooper:

The difference between any two handguns is this much: (holds fingers up about a half-inch apart)

The difference between a handgun and a longarm is this much: (stretches arms apart)

Handguns are marginal against human targets. If you're going to use one for self-defense, then arguing over things like "stopping power" and so forth is just so much intellectual masturbation. Yeah, yeah, I wouldn't use a .25ACP for home defense either, but worrying about .357 vs. .44 is just silly. You want a handgun that is

a. reliable
b. reliable
c. isn't so expensive or unpleasant to shoot that you won't practice with it.
d. isn't so inaccurate that you'll get discouraged and stop practicing with it.

If you're defending your *home*, the only reason you should be carrying a handgun is to let you fight your way to your long arm. A shotgun or something like an 1892 chambered in something ridiculously potent like .454 Casull or .480 Ruger puts you in an entirely different realm of energy, and the carbine will give you more rounds than the shotgun does. Fundamentally, it's up to what the individual feels comfortable with, but *anything* is better than nothing, and quibbling about .357 vs .44 or 9mm vs. .45 is just silly. Your standard AK/AR15/HK91 clone isn't a bad idea, either.

S&W sells a 5-shot revolver w/ 2" barrel that fires .500S&W (that's a half-inch diameter bullet). It's too much for carry, but home defense it would do well (of course like a 44, there will be no follow up shot). I think it is probably best for shooting a bear/lion/tiger when he starts eating your face though

This is nonsense. What that will generate is an enormous muzzle flash as the majority of unburned powder rapidly combusts upon leaving the barrel and a mind-boggling amount of felt recoil. The internal ballistics of the .500S&W are completely ill-suited to that sort of barrel length. And it's not a surprise to me that I can't find this weapon in any of S&W's sales ads. It's not even on their homepage. There is a 2.75" barreled version, but even that's completely ridiculous and there's no *way* I'd rely on that in a bear-defense situation.

is a pretty serious cartridge, might even stop a rhino. (nobody has tried)

Nobody has tried, because it'd be just as much suicide as putting the thing to your head and pulling the trigger. In the full-length barrel, it develops just a hair over 3000 ft-lbs at the muzzle. That is indeed an enormous quantity of energy for a handgun, and compares to a .308 out of a rifle. But compared to cartridges used for dangerous big game, it's puny. .460 Weatherby Magnum is over 7000 ft

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Lost Engineer (459920)]

I seriously wish Mythbusters would put a hole in an airliner just to prove you (ok not you, but other people too) wrong. I realize I am stating this without proof, but logic should indicate that a tiny little hole will not lead to a catastrophic failure, regardless of how many feet above see level you happen to be. Except in space. There, you can suck a whole alien through a tiny hole in a the craft, or so I hear.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[swillden (191260)]

Can we put some restrictions on the ammo that you can carry? It is ok with me if you kill a hijacker, but I don't want you putting holes in the plane.

Air marshals don't carry special ammo, and there's no reason that others would need to, either. Air marshals did briefly flirt with frangible ammunition, but soon realized that the Hollywood idea of what happens when you poke a 1/2 inch hold in the skin of a plane is just as valid as the Hollywood notion of what happens when a bullet hits a car. Basically, if you poke a small hole in a pressurized airplane's skin the pressure begins to drop a tiny bit faster than it did before you poked a hole, and not likely fast enough to even overcome the systems that maintain the pressure.

As a result, air marshals now carry regular hollowpoint ammunition, just like pretty much all other law enforcement officers, on the grounds that it's (a) more effective at stopping the bad guy than ball, (b) less likely to go through the bad guy and hurt someone behind him than ball and (c) less likely to shatter ineffectually on a bone or other hard object than frangible. Frangible ammo sometimes produces horrific wounds similar to those of a shotgun at short range, but other times will impact a rib, or just about anything a little tougher than flesh and then produce a broad but extremely shallow and ultimately ineffective wound. And it really doesn't make shooting on an airplane any safer.

Re:Kill two birds with one stone

[lgw (121541)]

Do even /.ers get their science from movies these days? 1 atmosphere ~= 14.7 psi. A .45 hangun would likely punch a neat .45 hole in the skin of the plane. That's 0.16 square inches, or just over 2 pounds of total force if it were a vacuum outside and the plane was at 1 atm inside. Of course, neither of those would be true, so it more like 1 pound of force. Damn our education system is depressing me.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[plague3106 (71849)]

Well, if you had a gun, would you shoot anyone that annoys you? Perhaps you would just be annoyed, yet not murder anyone. If you wouldn't, there's a good chance other people won't either. Honestly, do you think that large numbers of people aren't murdered everyday simply because most aren't carrying? Or are most people just not going to kill someone over something stupid. Peole get mad, yes, but the person that would actually kill when pissed is rare.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[sconeu (64226)]

Yeah, the 9/11 guys screwed things up for the "ordinary" political hijacker.

Safety issue not terrorism

[calidoscope (312571)]

Restrictions on shipping lithium primary batteries by air cargo have been in place for over a year now and this also applied to equipment with lithium primary batteries. There are similar restriction for shipping large lithium secondary batteries.

The news rules do make sense, a in-flight fire on an airliner is pretty serious, especially if there is no nearby place to land (e.g. halfway between California and Hawaii).

Re:Safety issue not terrorism

[ray-auch (454705)]

No place to land, sure, but plenty of water to put out the fire!

Umm... you want to put out a _lithium_ fire using _water_ ?

Re:

[mr_mischief (456295)]

When you outlaw common everyday items on planes, only forgetful people and outlaws will try to board the plane with those items.

Given that a good laptop battery or a high-quality pocket knife can approach the price of a cheap off-season weekend ticket on a discount airline, just ditching your stuff looks pretty unappealing. It's a pain to leave the security screening, go back to the luggage check, check your stuff in your carry-on, and then get screened by security again. I'm not sure all airports will even

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[hughk (248126)]

Seen at London City airport in London by security - a vending machine selling pre-stamped mailers and a post collection point. Such a small thing to organise but how many passengers feel happier not having to 'lose' stuff at security.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Firethorn (177587)]

It's a pain to leave the security screening, go back to the luggage check, check your stuff in your carry-on, and then get screened by security again. I'm not sure all airports will even let you do that.

Except that, per the article, Lithium batteries are expressly forbidden in check-in baggage. So you'd be screwed either way.

Makes me wish for an airline not subject to TSA stupidity.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Roogna (9643)]

Figures the one time I don't have mod points is the one time I see a post by someone who obviously didn't read the actual links. Lithium batteries are NOT "now illegal to carry". There's just some rules being put in place for when they can be in checked baggage or must be carried on, and how they must be stored. Looking at the actual page on the subject, it looks like they went to great lengths to make sure it won't directly impact most travelers with regards to the batteries people tend to travel with. On that note I see nothing anywhere suggesting that this has anything to do with terrorism. And as you say if it's "to reduce the possibility of a lithium battery shorting out" then they can be in their shipping packages and be "no more dangerous than many other items that you can carry on planes". Which is exactly what they suggest for storing spare batteries.

I'm all for government conspiracy theories and thinking most of this stuff is completely idiotic. But nothing is going to improve if we go around making grossly inaccurate statements about what a rule actually is.

Re:Why

[jj00 (599158)]

From their FAQ [dot.gov]:
"...In the passenger compartment, flight crews can better monitor safety conditions to prevent an incident, and can access fire extinguishers, if an incident does happen."

I'd say the real reason is that they don't want a fire to start in the luggage compartment.

Re:

[LWATCDR (28044)]

I doubt this has much to do with terrorism and everything to do with safety.
A lithium battery in checked luggage that shorts out could be a major disaster. Take a look at what happened when some oxygen generators where not shipped properly.

If a fire happens in the passenger cabin it will be noticed and hopefully put out quickly. One in the luggage hold could be a bigger problem.
When I think about just how battery/energy crazy we are getting I have to wonder if it really is a good idea.
I have a six gigabyte

Precedent

[cgenman (325138)]

Obviously they needed to be banned. Lithium batteries are much, much more dangerous than 3oz of water outside of a plastic baggie.

And for that matter, people bleed to death of papercuts all the time. Paper must be banned from airlines. Similarly, Cheeseburgers, umbrellas during lightning storms, and those shoes with little wheels in them must be stopped. On airplanes.

Other things that should never be brought on an airplane include: step ladders, Christmas lights, and Chuck Norris. Gambling is a very serious addiction, and as such fliers are hereby banned from setting foot inside of Las Vegas McCarron Airport.

Thank you for your attention, and thank you for flying with the TSA. The TSA: [tsa.gov] Drawing on our imagination to creatively protect America from imagined harm.

Re:

[smooth wombat (796938)]

head back to the restroom crack them open and construct and incendiary device.

And you can't do the same thing with sodium and water or a hundred other items that can be brought on board?

I said it in a previous posting, but soon, the only way to get onto a plane will be like this [mwctoys.com].

Re:you can't put packages in roadside drop bins

[Justus (18814)]

Having "enjoyed" airline travel over the holidays this year, I suppose I can comment a bit on what I dislike about the state of airport security in the US these days.

Mostly, I feel it's rather demeaning. I used to travel a lot in the late nineties, when security was much less invasive, and I feel that it's no safer today than it was back then. There have been many instances of prohibited materials being slipped past TSA security, and oftentimes the regulations are overly restrictive and do little to nothing to improve actual security. I'm not going to be hijacking an airplane with my Swiss Army keychain (1" blade). I don't feel that I should be hassled about taking off my shoes for the X-ray machine when I've just watched eight people go through the metal detector without doing so. If we're going to have substantial airport security (which I would suggest is not necessary), it should be evenly enforced by well-paid, well-trained individuals with policies that are shown to have an impact. What we have now does little more than inconvenience travelers and provide a false sense of security.

This may be middle class whining, but I feel that it's not unreasonable.

Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[DaRat (678130)]

Given how well current TSA rules are implemented by the agents, I expect that there will be considerable confusion at the security checkpoints.

Hell, I'm a geek, and I'm not sure how many grams of lithium metal are in my laptop's batteries. How should I expect a nontechnical person be able to size up a battery and tell which batteries should be allowed and which shouldn't?

And, are they even going to count batteries in cellphones and iPods?

I expect that many spare batteries will simply be seized and tossed in the trash.

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[Obyron (615547)]

I expect that many spare batteries will simply be seized and tossed in the trash.

Try sold on eBay [ebay.com] instead. Seized property is typically sold by the states in Surplus Property [ky.gov] auctions, where it can be bid on by the public at large, or in some cases the airports themselves sell the stuff in lots on eBay. The government is making a buck on the battery it confiscates from you.

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[whoever57 (658626)]

Read the article - it clearly states that installed batteries are exempt.

The AP article may state this, but the DOT page does not. Installed batteries are also subject to limits -- from the DOT page [dot.gov]:

The following quantity limits apply to both your spare and installed batteries. The limits are expressed in grams of "equivalent lithium content." 8 grams of equivalent lithium content is approximately 100 watt-hours. 25 grams is approximately 300 watt-hours:

Wait let me get this straight...

[pwnies (1034518)]

Spare batteries are more dangerous than installed batteries? Maybe it's just me, but the large majority of the lithium batteries that I've read about exploding were ones that were installed. I've yet to hear about a spare one going jihad on the luggage next to it.

New rule

[Etrias (1121031)]

There must be a contest at the TSA to come up with the most ridiculous ideas for restrictions. Winners get a tote bag, mug and an "I is stoppin' der terrarists" t-shirt.

Can't tell from the link

[Lookin4Trouble (1112649)]

Does this mean I can't bring the external 4-hour battery I bought for my laptop? My laptop's battery lasts ~2 hours, and I bought the external with the sole purpose of USING IT ON THE FREAKING PLANE for the additional four hours it takes to get from East Coast to West Coast...

$1 Camcorder

[muffel (42979)]

So all you need is a really cheap and small camcorder -- which doesn't really work but still uses a lithium battery. Thus turning your forbidden spare into an allowed non-spare battery?

Gotta go, fill out my patent application...

Retarded

[ewhac (5844)]

From an Administration whose keynote from the word Go has been, "Failure," this is just fscking retarded. What, exactly, is this supposed to accomplish?

I have LIon batteries in my laptop, my cell phone, my Bluetooth earpiece, my Nintendo DS, and probably my shoes for all I know. I already have to remove my screwdrivers from my carry-on bag and place them in checked baggage or leave them at home, because they are Official Threats To The Integrity Of The Republic ("Take this plane to Cuba or I'll unscrew the wings from the plane").

Someone needs to slap around the retards coming up with this stuff and force-feed them a clue.

Schwab

For reference, lithium content of non-rechargeable

[amper (33785)]

Energizer AA (L91) ~.98 grams
Energizer AAA (L92) ~.5 grams
Energizer 123 ~.55 grams

as per Energizer technical data PDF's

*sigh*

[WizMaster (974384)]

At this point, I don't care anymore. Really, is anyone actually bothered by this? Should've seen it comming though. This is a waste of my tax money. Hell, it would be worth it if they were transparent and we knew the reasons for all of these rules. This goes far below checking shoes for bombs and even not allowing nail clippers on board. Whatever. Hopefully the next administration would bring some sense (*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*) to the US government.

Stop allowing humans on flights

[Dunbal (464142)]

Because of the risk of an in-flight hazard [wikipedia.org], humans should no longer be allowed on aircraft. Airlines will, however, continue to fly your luggage anywhere you please, provided it contains no shoes, liquids, or lithium batteries.

I imagine...

[jd (1658)]

...that this is in response to all the horror stories of the last year of batteries catching fire and/or exploding. Neither of which would be unique to lithium batteries, and is more a product of lousy quality control than rogue individuals. If Firestone/Bridgestone could end up having to explain themselves to Congress, and face hefty consequences, then why not do the same to battery makers who produce lithium bombs? You don't see bans on Jeeps or SUVs with Bridgestone tires on roll-on/roll-off/roll-over ferries, but far more vehicles were impacted (and far more severely) by the tire issue than computers have been by the battery issue.

There have been numerous comments on the inept handling of existing regulations by the TSA, including on here and including many by people currently or formerly employed by the TSA itself. Journalists and Government watchdog officials are forever getting banned items that are infinitely more dangerous than a battery past screeners. Mind you, other countries aren't any better. The French managed to lose a whole load of plastic explosives during a test run at a busy airport.

Bass Ackwards

[Quila (201335)]

The TSA seems to be able to implement all sorts of insane, useless rules on a moment's notice.

But when it comes to a rule that averts something that actually has a reasonable chance of endangering a flight, they wait months after the hazard was known to the whole world before taking any action.

How low... can you go?!!!

[Nexus7 (2919)]

Maybe they want to see what they can make us do. They said one time you couldn't carry water bottles on-board. Then you could carry them on as long as they were purchased after the security check. I don't know what it is now... then they said that cosmetics, shampoos, soaps, etc. containing liquids had to be less that 4 oz and all of them had to fit in a quart bag, my sizes might be off, but something like that. Why quart size? Maybe it's a carefully determined threshold, above which everyone is still resentful, but not so much that they'd protest. Or maybe they made it up, as long as they were making stuff up anyway. Or maybe the water-boarded guy said they had a plot to use 2 quart bags.. then they water-boarded him some more and he said one-and-a-half qt bags; so they decided they'd allow only 1 qt bags so that the evil ones did have anything to blow up. Now it's 1 spare battery (or whatever number). I suppose we hear that and go, hey, they allow a spare, and that's good around. I mean, who needs a hundred spares anyway? And so we accept one more thing, more or less unquestioningly.

I know this sounds like a slippery slope argument, but this stuff is being made up as we go along. They got the idiot shoe guy trying to light a match, so they said we've got to take our shoes off and run them through the machines. I mean, this could go on ad infinitum.

The TSA found the terrorist instruction manual

[sm62704 (957197)]

Page 37:

To blow up an airplane

1. obtain lithium battery
   
2. board aircraft with battery
   
3. Wait until airborn at 30,000 ft
   
4. Short out terminals
   
5. Hold under shoe
   
6. ???????????
   
7. 48 virgins are yours! Enjoy!

Very vague information

[amper (33785)]

What really bothers me about this is that the info page from the TSA provides only very vague information concerning exactly what is or is not permitted, and the rules seem to be defined so poorly as to beg for inadvertent violation of the rules by passengers as well as violation of passengers' rights by overzealous security personnel.

There is no distinction made between non-rechargeable and rechargeable batteries. This may be for a good reason, but the TSA page seems to refer primarily to rechargeable batteries.

• Under the new rules, you can bring batteries with up to 8-gram equivalent lithium content. All lithium ion batteries in cell phones are below 8 gram equivalent lithium content. Nearly all laptop computers also are below this quantity threshold.
  
• You can also bring up to two spare batteries with an aggregate equivalent lithium content of up to 25 grams, in addition to any batteries that fall below the 8-gram threshold. Examples of two types of lithium ion batteries with equivalent lithium content over 8 grams but below 25 are shown below.
  
• For a lithium metal battery, whether installed in a device or carried as a spare, the limit on lithium content is 2 grams of lithium metal per battery.
  
• Almost all consumer-type lithium metal batteries are below 2 grams of lithium metal. But if you are unsure, contact the manufacturer!

Note the specification of the word "aggregate" in the second item. That word doesn't appear in the first item. Does that mean I can bring *any number* of batteries that have an individual lithium content of less than 8-grams?

Note the specification of "lithium metal battery" in the third and fourth items. This term does not appear in either of the first or second items. The first and second items refer to "lithium ion batteries". What is the distinction between a "lithium ion battery" and a "lithium metal battery"? Even worse, in the second item, the term "lithium ion battery" is only referred to as an example. The operative phrase only says "up to two spare batteries with an aggregate equivalent lithium content of up to 25 grams, in addition to any batteries that fall below the 8-gram threshold".

Can anyone cite the relevant regulations rather than this public info disaster?

Worry or Don't Worry?

[madsheep (984404)]

Well I am not sure whether people should worry much about this. Why you ask? Well the TSA folks generally aren't that bright. This means one of two things will happen.

1) The TSA agents won't know what a Lithium battery is and people that have extra batteries won't be affected - should they forget about or ignore the rule.

2) The TSA agent won't know what a Lithium battery is and people that don't have Lithium batteries will have them confiscated/removed because they are idiots.

Which one is more likely and should we worry in either case? :D

Need the TSA to explain it, Nutrition-Facts-style

[Killer Eye (3711)]

Rulemakers like the TSA need to be forced to explain the rationales for every decision.

But, before they're allowed to get all legalese on us, there should also be a brevity requirement. Like the Nutrition Facts on the side of your average can of soup, probably one of the best examples I can think of where a government requirement *didn't* turn into 4 paragraphs of fine print, but rather is presented in a way Joe Sixpack can understand.

I'd like to see something like:
TSA Security Facts
--------------
Restriction: No lithium batteries.
Applies to Flights: International
Rationale: We don't have a clue but we read something bad about them in Newsweek.
Since: 2007
Terrorist Plots Known to Use This Method: 0

The TSA doesn't exist to stop terror

[Ralph Spoilsport (673134)]

It exists to

1. convince the American sheeple think that the .gov is actually doing something about terrorism
2. instill fear in the sheeple so they continue making poor risk assessments re: terrorism, and thus support wingnuttery like the TSA.

The TSA hasn't done jack shit to prevent terrorism. Terrorism is defeated by police work and good intelligence, not invading far off countries. Terrorism is not defeated militarily. It is defeated politically and socially: politically through a practice of non-intervention and socially through a process of co-operative engagement. To put it in more common terms: respect others and trade with them. Don't invade and steal resources. Present yourself as something to emulate. Over time, people will leave you the hell alone, because you leave them the hell alone.

The TSA is a crime of an agency, and should be disbanded. Airport security is one thing. Tin horn fascist fear mongering is another.

RS

This sucks!

[AaronW (33736)]

I may not carry a laptop, but I do travel with a few cameras. I have my dSLR with one spare lithium battery, a small point-and-shoot camera with a bunch of spares, and a video camera. I need a bunch of spares for my old P&S camera since it eats them like there's no tomorrow and if I use that camera much I'll easily go through 3-4 batteries before I can get back and have a chance to charge them. Granted, the batteries are quite small but I don't feel like replacing it just yet.

Being limited to one spare battery for everything absolutely sucks and is unacceptable. I could see carrying one spare for a laptop, but this will really suck for photographers.

Screw air travel

[nsayer (86181)]

Airport security has become a ridiculous game of "Simon Says," only in this case Simon has a taser and the ability to ruin your vacation plans. Every congress-critter from any tourism-oriented state should be holding daily hearings with the head of the TSA asking for cost:benefit analyses on all of these stupid rules.

Unsafe at any speed

[EdIII (1114411)]

I know some of these policies make sense, even if not implemented correctly. The limit itself is ridiculous. They should just enforce proper packaging during transit.

Flying in this country is going to get to the point where EVERYTHING will be packed according to a 1000+ point policy and checked. Carry-ons will be banned entirely. Ohhh, and you will have ditch all of your clothes, submit yourself to the "high colonic" security scanner, and travel in a one size does not fit all jumpsuit. I just hope when safety and terrorism inevitably bring us there that I can at least choose the color of my jumpsuit.

The sad fact is that with the corruption of the airlines and FAA still allowing critical design flaws to exist, that the military itself corrected over 20 years ago, you will be flying very safely in a progressively unsafe plane. Makes perfect sense.

I got an idea... Why not just go back to the way it was before? Where we accepted a certain level of risk to travel. People do stupid stuff all the time like drinking too much and smoking. I don't see how far fetched it is to get a little excitement riding in a plane that may explode due to a design flaw from the airplane manufacturers, Sony, or some fucked in the head terrorist :)

P.S - We had a close family friend die on Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. My position has always been that the airlines themselves do not do enough to protect us. There was technology back then, and still exists today, that could have stopped that. It would cost a couple hundred thousand dollars but would essentially retrofit the cargo compartments with blast proof material. The containers themselves would also be fitted with it. Had that existed on Flight 103, they would probably not even have noticed that blast till they landed. So without trying to sound like a troll, I do believe these TSA policies are just window dressing and that they don't ever intend to focus on real security solutions that could be effective.

Re:NOT Lithium-Ion, just Lithium

[timster (32400)]

Sorry, I don't think so. Check out the handy chart in TFA.

Lithium Ion too - just not as restrictive

[El Gigante de Justic (994299)]

From the TSA webpage, it does apply to some Lithium-Ion batteries.
        Batteries up to 8-grams "equivalent lithium content" installed in devices or as spares are allowed. For Lithium-ion batteries between 8 and 25 grams aggregate lithium equivalent content are also allowed, but you can only have 2 total (both spare and installed).
        Lithium Metal batteries just have tighter restrictions.

As for the reasons behind this (since some apparantly didn't read TFA)- it sounds like there was a cargo hold fire on one plane caused by lithium batteries and apparently the current fire control systems in planes can't handle lithium fires.