Why a Lost Cellphone Forced an Airplane to Turn Around in Mid-Flight (nzherald.co.nz)
- Reference: 0176853111
- News link: https://mobile.slashdot.org/story/25/03/29/0236203/why-a-lost-cellphone-forced-an-airplane-to-turn-around-in-mid-flight
- Source link: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/lost-phone-forces-air-france-flight-back-to-paris-amid-battery-safety-fears/FUJEOSJQTRC2RMOKMFDFYEEYOM/
Because of fears that an unattended cellphone could overheat — and because the passenger and crew couldn't find the phone — the Boeing 777 turned around off the coast of France "and returned to the airport, according to the flight-tracking service FlightAware. It landed back where it started a little more than two hours after taking off, with 375 passengers, 12 cabin crew and two pilots on board..."
> It was the airline's second Caribbean-bound flight to turn around because of a phone since early February as the aviation industry grapples with the risk of fires sparked by lithium batteries... Air France did not say where on the plane the phone was lost — or where it was ultimately located. "After checks by the maintenance teams, the device was found and the aircraft was able to take off again quickly," the airline said in an unsigned statement. "Air France regrets this situation and reminds that the safety of its customers and crew members is its absolute priority." The plane made it to Guadeloupe, a French overseas territory, about four hours later than scheduled...
The articles notes that U.S. air passengers "are required to keep vape pens and spare lithium batteries, such as portable chargers, in the cabin at all times, according to the Federal Aviation Administration. The items are not allowed in checked bags..."
The agency — which handles about 16.4 million flights per year — "says it is aware of 85 lithium battery air incidents involving smoke, fire or extreme heat last year."
[1] https://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/lost-phone-forces-air-france-flight-back-to-paris-amid-battery-safety-fears/FUJEOSJQTRC2RMOKMFDFYEEYOM/
Just don't fly (Score:2)
... if you can't be separated from your toys.
Travel by Greyhound bus. Or the White Star Line if you must cross an ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here was that the passenger was (unintentionally) separated from their phone. If they had never been separated, there would have been no problem.
Re: (Score:2)
They should make them wear the phone around their neck in a transparent pouch like you see on kayaking/rafting tours. The flight crew can tell at a glace if anyone lost their pacifier.
Re: (Score:1)
Or we can stop building shitty planes and let them be run by shitty companies with shitty maintenance records.
Re:Just don't fly (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you ever tried to put out a lithium battery fire?
Have you ever tried to put one out on a plane ?
Re: (Score:1)
> Have you ever tried to put out a lithium battery fire?
Yes, it's easy when you are prepared for the possibility of one, which any airplane should definitely be.
> Have you ever tried to put one out on a plane?
This does not increase the difficulty. This only increases the importance of being prepared for it. And turning around is not a form of preparedness.
Re: (Score:1)
> Or we can stop building shitty planes and let them be run by shitty companies with shitty maintenance records.
How does this have anything to do with the issue in TFA? Are you suggesting commercial aircraft be, what, impervious to fire? Once that is solved then they need to have a system in place to neutralize toxic chemicals in the air column inside the passenger cabin? While we're at it, lets make them crash and mechanical failure proof too. Hell, lets just put the entire interior of the plane in temporal stasis so if it does crash everyone will be ok. Wait, I'm not sure how the pilots will be able to fly the pla
Re: (Score:2)
> How does this have anything to do with the issue in TFA?
Because a passenger's lost phone should still be somewhere in the cabin and accessible by either flight staff or other passengers. Therefore, there is no reason to turn the plane around. If the phone can slip somewhere it can't be retrieved easily then the plane is not worthy to fly to begin with.
> Are you suggesting commercial aircraft be, what, impervious to fire?
No, but they should be properly prepared to take care of a simple battery fire somewhere in the cabin. It's not difficult.
> It always astounded me how angry people would get when a plane would get delayed or have to turn around for safety reasons.
For actual non-predictable safety issues that cannot be solved while in the air, not a probl
Re: (Score:2)
I checked out of curiosity and ship Costa Fascinosa does this route, from mainland France (Marseilles) to Guadeloupe. A one-way can be found for 730 €. At this very moment on the way back from the Caribbean heading to the Canary Islands [1]https://www.cruisemapper.com/s... [cruisemapper.com]
[1] https://www.cruisemapper.com/ships/Costa-Fascinosa-590?tab=itinerary
Let me guess: The carrier will attempt to bill (Score:2)
the party who lost their phone for the operating time of the aircraft. That could be in the 100's of dollars.
Re:Let me guess: The carrier will attempt to bill (Score:5, Informative)
The press says 1) it cost the carrier 9,000 dollars in jet fuel, 2) to charge the passenger, the carrier would have to prove intentional action or gross negligence. Source (in French) [1]https://www.presse-citron.net/... [presse-citron.net]
[1] https://www.presse-citron.net/un-iphone-egare-dans-un-avion-dair-france-le-cout-de-lincident-est-hallucinant/
Re:Let me guess: The carrier will attempt to bill (Score:4, Informative)
That sounds right. Generally in Europe you can't sue someone for making a genuine mistake, only for negligence. If non-negligent mistakes can cost you money, it's regarded as a process issue, as in the process is unreasonably prone to error.
Re: (Score:2)
There's the additional complication of it not being the passenger's decision to turn the plane around. It's a lost phone. The additional risk it poses is infinitesimal, especially since it will have to either be not on the plane or in the cabin somewhere. If it catches fire people will notice it pretty damn quickly.
Lmao (Score:2)
> Air France did not say where on the plane the phone was lost — or where it was ultimately located.
Which tells me that the phone got somewhere it wasn't supposed to be able to get to, probably due to negligence in Air France's maintenance and general Boeing shit quality.
There should be no places a passenger's phone can get lost and not easily found. There especially shouldn't be any places a passenger's phone can get to where a problem (like a battery fire) can't be noticed and contained. Any plane that can't pass those two checks should not be in service at all. So, I call bullshit on this whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
> There should be no places a passenger's phone can get lost and not easily found.
Look, I hate to talk shit about comments, but the crap the design and engineering people have to put up with should tank people’s expectations. Things really go down the drain from there.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the designers and the engineers aren't on the same page, and pretty much never have been. The current design of planes isn't good - from a financial, engineering, or safety standpoint. Mediocre to bad across the board.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, there's something fishy about the story. One would think the passenger suspected the phone is in the checked luggage, but if that's SO dangerous that a plane shouldn't be operated normally to destination with it onboard they should just scan for it and not let it pass, I'm sure a phone lights up in the scanning machine better than really mostly anything on that size, most likely even than a b_o_m_b.
Re: (Score:2)
If lithium-ion battery fires were as much of a concern as people make them out to be, the airlines would just straight ban them outright. They aren't that dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
The previous time in February, a phone fell through the vent grid of the galley (which internet says is the place where they park the food cart). [1]https://x.com/airplusnews/stat... [x.com] (They didn't say this time.)
[1] https://x.com/airplusnews/status/1887974806881960086
Re: (Score:2)
(which was also on an Air France B777-300 headed to the Caribbean.)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It's either negligence and shouldn't have been in the air in the first place, or they're embarrassed they turned around for nothing.
Re: (Score:1)
> Which tells me that the phone got somewhere it wasn't supposed to be able to get to, probably due to negligence in Air France's maintenance and general Boeing shit quality.
Or maybe, operational decisions are none of your business and you're not entitled to understand every tiny thing that goes on in what is ultimately other people's lives with whom you have zero connection.
"No comment" = "worst case conspiracy" is the dumbest level of sideline commentary in existence. Do better. Think better. Be better.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it's either that, or they are too embarrassed to admit that they literally turned around for literally no reason, because their operational decisions are borderline retarded. This wasn't a real safety issue.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that it's second time in one month they have a plane turn back means they are applying a policy. The fact that they're willing to eat the cost of a plane turning back for what would appear as a minor incident is a sign their policy is safety first. I'd rather fly a company turning back on incidents than another one putting profits first.
Besides, turning back in this particular situation was the most rational decision: the plane was still close to land and could easily turn back at the only cost of
If they are *that* dangerous ... (Score:1)
... then perhaps they should all be stowed in a steel box when aloft? Sheesh.
Re: If they are *that* dangerous ... (Score:3)
Yes, exactly. If an unattended phone is so dangerous the plane needs to turn back, how dangerous could a phone be in malicious hands?
ticking time bombs in everyone's homes (Score:2)
Start using safer battery technologies like LFP or get sued out of existence. Fire departments should run annual LiIon collections, gathering peoples old devices with LiIon batteries in them, especially the larger ones. Devices with LiIon batteries in them should have a firm recycle date, and stop working after that date.
It sounds like... (Score:1)
Dipshit McGee dropped their phone in the toilet.
Use sodium ion (Score:2)
Make lithium batteries illegal already, They have proven themselves to be too dangerous. Sodium ion is a safe battery tech that doesn't suffer thermal runaways that fire departments can't put out.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> Make lithium batteries illegal already,
Of all the things to outlaw, that's up there on the "really dumb" chart. You might as well have declared that we should "make smartphones illegal already".
> Sodium ion is a safe battery tech that doesn't suffer thermal runaways that fire departments can't put out.
If you wish for the government to promote one technology over another then you simply need them to subsidize it and not the other. This would include research into increasing battery capacity.