New US air travel rules for cam. batteries

[Allan Black]

From Jan 1 08 there are new US air travel regs for lithium batteries.

http://safetravel.dot.gov/whats_new_batteries.html

[Bob Willis]

A charger is a "device". So if you install the spares in a charger you might be able to check them.

[Carl Middleton]

Originally Posted by Bob Willis

A charger is a "device". So if you install the spares in a charger you might be able to check them.

That'd at least be something. I'd always hate to leave batteries behind, especially going anywhere requiring flight to get to!

I think it's time for me to do the research on lithium content on my batteries...

C

[John Miller]

The travel restrictions in the US are completely ungrounded (no pun intended!) in reality.

They should restrict the number of pens or pencils in case you have a sudden urge to stab someone in the jugular.

I wonder who decides these idiotic things that serve no purpose other than to remind travelers of the boogie man.

[Boyd Ostroff]

I don't know.... when I saw that video of the exploding Dell laptop which started all the recalls, the first thing I thought was "what if he had been in an airplane?" There seem to be some legitimate safety concerns regarding these things. I'm not thinking of a terrorist, just a guy sitting next to me with a laptop that explodes :-0

[Bob Hart]

Insane?

No. Just not what you happen to want is all.

It seems to be a reasonable compromise on what is a well known and proven fire risk. The industry would probably prefer you did not take a lithium battery aboard an aircraft at all.

A bit of common sense layman's logic, not science follows so it is well in the firing line of repudiation and debate. So read on and then have at it with vigor.

The "carry-on" luggage requirement is about the lithium battery being accessable in the event it goes off. The prospect of a small concentrated and toxic fire in an aircraft cabin is not a happy one but intervention can be assured and attempts made to contain the burning battery.

If it is buried inaccessably deep in the baggage hold when it goes off, every body is there for the ride wherever it takes them as the fire may spread uncontrollably. The journey is down sooner or later. The landing is another matter.

It is not improbable for somebody who wants to bring down an aircraft to rig a lithium battery to consume itself or substitute within the battery cores something more sinister that might escape detection though being masked by the lithium or falsely representing the cores to the xray detection.

We have had recent revelations about how infallible that system is haven't we.

If you were to do a poll of other aircraft travellers as to whether their rights to fly as safely as possible in the current environment should be made subordinate to your desire to transport your batteries without any controls, you may find yourself on the losing end of an argument.

It is a hassle for sure but like everything else in this life, one has to organise and plan around it.

[Allan Black]

Imagine 10xA380s at the gates, too awful to contemplate.

Start getting a list of lithium in the batteries. Stick it on each one I guess.

[Tom Roper]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071228/...tteries_travel

[Tom Roper]

http://www.antonbauer.com/battery_trans_info.htm

[John Miller]

Originally Posted by Bob Hart

The "carry-on" luggage requirement is about the lithium battery being accessable in the event it goes off. The prospect of a small concentrated and toxic fire in an aircraft cabin is not a happy one but intervention can be assured and attempts made to contain the burning battery.

That's certainly a very valid point but the new regulations are not in line with that sensibility.

Li-Ion batteries installed in their host equipment are not subject to the limitations - but what if your laptop is in the overhead bin?

That's why I believe the regulations are inappropriate. No more than 3oz of liquids and gells - what about pastes??? As a chemist by training, I can think of many ways of creating havoc within the limits.

Domestically, you can take small pets into the main cabin. It's a matter of time before that becomes a security/safety risk. From the wanton damage angle, explosives inserted into the animal could currently get through undetected (pets aren't subject to x-ray scanning or rectal examination).

I get the impression that within the US, safety issues are about probabilities and not absolutes.

[Kevin Martorana]

Well...it all comes down to this.
Since 9/11 we all know it's been difficult to do our jobs with our equipment...if you have to fly to locations.

Since you can't lock your equipment cases any more...(use of an authorized TSA lock is okay...but they are flimsy and found to be easily broken off cases)...I've been shipping my equipment ahead of my travel.

I ship it FedEx ...have a tracking number....it's insured for the value of the gear and when I get to my hotel....voila !

I don't have to worry about schlepping heavy batteries, chargers, monitors...mics...etc. I carryon the camera, and one battery. I usually ship my gear 2 days ahead ...if possible. Save on the shipping ..PLUS any kind of kinks in getting the gear there.

I charge the client for this...and haven't had a problem. I've also found this is a better solution from when I had 6 cases of gear....and trying to get it on the airline....because...

Every airline had different "standards"...weight, size....etc. You never knew what to expect. Even the same airline would treat cases differently from one airport to another. Tripod case is too large....charge you $50 extra in Atlanta....but in Baltimore...no problem.

Also...the airlines don't give a squat about your gear or luggage. IF anything happens...they're liable for 100.00 TOPS. And you're in for the fight of your life for that little amount.

Shipping with a FEDEX or UPS...and INSURING your shippment GUARANTEES you can track your gear...AND if something happens ...you have a recourse. I shipped my Steadicam back from Vegas a few years back...and it was damaged. Fedex not only paid for the repairs....but for lost time...and jobs.

OHHH...they came and looked at the case...and how it was shipped....but couldn't dispute the insurance that I had placed on the unit.

So...I guess I'm saying...even thought I don't like the changes...I guess I understand them. And frankly...not having to heave equipment cases around in an airport any more doesn't bother me one bit.

A little food for thought !

[John Miller]

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071228/...tteries_travel

That makes sense about loose batteries, especially Li-ion. But then that's common sense, isn't it?

Even for batteries installed in their equipment, I always either install at least one the wrong way to prevent accidently energizing of the equipment or use pieces of cardboard or plastic to insulation at least one cell from the equipment's connections.

This latter method is in line with IATA regulations that prohibit electronic goods from being transported with batteries installed. That's why they are often packed separately or you find plastic films in the battery compartments.

[John Miller]

Originally Posted by Kevin Martorana

Shipping with a FEDEX or UPS...and INSURING your shippment GUARANTEES you can track your gear...AND if something happens ...you have a recourse.

Word of warning - don't use Fed Ex Ground as I have found out. I bought a used DSR-11 off eBay and the seller sent it Fed Ex Ground. No problem, we both tracked it and everything seemed to be going okay. Then it got stuck in Charlotte. After waiting the required amount of time, both the seller and I contacted Fed Ex Ground. They couldn't find the package. That's what the insurance is for, we thought. The seller put in a claim. Fed Ex Ground refused it. At this point, the seller had my money and Fed Ex Ground had lost the package. The seller refunded my money. Ultimately, Fed Ex Ground never did pay out even though the package was shipped with the necessary insurance coverage.

Fed Ex Ground's "reason" was a little known get-out clause in their terms and conditions. Basically, they can choose to use a third-party company to fulfill part or all of the shipment. Usually, this is the final out-for-delivery stage but not always. Fed Ex Ground claim that they are not responsible for lost packages while in the "care" of the third-party agent. However, the customer cannot possibly know if a third-party agent will be used or not for their particular shipment.

Since that experience, I refuse to let anyone ship anything to me Fed Ex Ground.

Note, this is a Fed Ex Ground affair, not Fed Ex proper. They are separate entities.

[Bob Hart]

QUOTE "Fed Ex Ground's "reason" was a little known get-out clause in their terms and conditions. Basically, they can choose to use a third-party company to fulfill part or all of the shipment."

Fed Ex Ground has just lost some business on the basis of their behaviour.

It would be interesting for them to know that forums like this exist and I would not be surprised if there was a change in policy which insured losses so that the customer would be paid out and secondary recovery from the "loser" of the consignment undertaken by Fed Ex Ground.

This business model is simply bad, unthorough and expedient, the product of overleaning for maximising profit, short term gains versus long term viability.

Might be worthwhile dropping Fed Ex Ground's topdogs a link to this discussion and the original claim might just happen to be re-opened and settled favourably in corporate self-interest dressed up as "good-neighbourliness".

Fed Ex Ground might find itself on the wrong end of the Trade Practices Act if they pulled this on in Australia unless that "out" clause is well evident to the customer. Fed Ex Ground versus Fed Ex as separate entities. Fed Ex air has more than a little interest in this anomaly and should probably do as big a 500lb gorilla-sit on the Fed Ex Ground business entity as possible because the overall brand takes a hit regardless.

[Jack Zhang]

How much does a Sony FH100 have? If it's too much I have no idea about flying with it.