CNN Exclusive: Analysis shows Flight 370 crashed in Indian Ocean - CNN.com

CNN Exclusive: Analysis shows Flight 370 crashed in Indian Ocean - CNN.com: "



• Lithium batteries: U.S. officials say investigators are looking into concerns that lithium batteries in the cargo hold, which have been blamed in previous crashes, played a role in the disappearance, according to U.S. officials briefed on the latest intelligence and law-enforcement developments in the investigation. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release details to release details to the media.
If the batteries being carried on the plane caused a fire, it still doesn't fully explain other anomalies with Flight 370, the officials say, such as why it may have turned west and then flown toward the Indian Ocean.
If lithium batteries were smoldering, likely the first instinct of the pilots would have been to turn around and return to the airport -- not fly for an additional five hours, said Arthur Rosenberg, an aviation expert who is a pilot, engineer and partner in the New York-based law firm Soberman & Rosenberg.
It's also likely radio traffic would have initially been picked up, as it was with the pilots aboard Swissair Flight 111 that crashed off the coast of Canada following a fire, he said"



'via Blog this'



I knew that someone would try to work this angle.  It just doesn't compute well with all the other anomalies.

IATA Dangerous Goods Board Meeting

I leave for LAX tomorrow to attend the IATA DG Board meeting.  Like the last meeting in Sept., I am a Subject Matter Expert attending as part of the panel.  But I am nominated to be one of the 12 elected members ... Wish me luck!!!

We have a lot to cover in two days, I suspect it will be a busy few days.  I will post what I can!

Class 10?

I personally think that putting Lithium and other similar new-technology batteries into a class all by themselves.

Incorporating them in to Class 9, I believe takes away from the hazard which they truly post.  I remember back in the 1990s when the military used to move these, how dangerous they were and how they were forbidden in air transportation at any time, but flew with a number of Special Permits following them around.  It was a pain!

We continue to debate these things, slap band-aids on the existing rules, to the point that the lay-person has no idea what they are doing any more and are terrified to accept or load them, yet we run around with two or three of them on our person at any given time.  The Packing instructions with their subsections and limits are changing every year and becoming even more complicated for both the shipper and acceptance person to comprehend.  This may lead to clandestine shipments of undocumented packaged just to get around the fact that the rules are becoming a nuisance.  

Of all the DG that I experience, these need to be the most straightforward and simple to understand so that there is no question and that compliance is easy for all concerned.  So that acceptance is achieved without difficulty and so that it does not promote the practice of clandestine shipping.  To make things worse, the differences between US and ICAO regulations complicates the matter to the point, where it can become confusing even to "experts".

Screw it....just ship everything as fully regulated.   I've hear that exclaimed before.

The rules for Lithium batteries need to be completely overhauled.  They need to be classified in their own Class / Division and the Packing Instructions need to be easy to read and understand so that there are no questions as to how to comply.

Im am not certain as to the politics concerned with why this has not been done.  I understand that it has been brought up in the past and often shot down.  I sit and read the continuing debate by the ICAO DGO to ban these items all together and the differenced that the IATA DGB have with the ICAO proposal.  The fact the the US FAA has yet to Harmonize completely with the International regs and that the proposals all seem to continue the cycle of making the existing rules much more complicated.

What do you think?

FAA Proposes $78,000 Civil Penalty Against Amazon Fulfillment Services

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                            

Date:   February 6, 2014     

FAA Proposes $78,000 Civil Penalty Against Amazon Fulfillment Services

FORT WORTH, Texas – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing a $78,000 civil penalty against Amazon Fulfillment Services of North Las Vegas, Nev., for allegedly violating U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations.

The FAA alleges that on August 29, 2013, Amazon Fulfillment Services shipped a quart of high gloss enamel paint on a FedEx Corp. aircraft from Lexington, Ky., to Corpus Christi, Texas, where workers discovered that leaking paint had soaked through the shipping box. Paint is considered to be a Hazard Class 3 Flammable Liquid.

Investigators determined the shipment was not accompanied by shipping papers to indicate the hazardous nature of its contents and it was not marked, labeled or packed in accordance with the Hazardous Materials Regulations. The box also contained no hazardous material inner packing, such as inserts or absorbent materials. Finally, the package failed to protect against a release of hazardous material into the environment under normal transportation conditions.

Amazon Fulfillment Services has 30 days from the receipt of the FAA's enforcement letter to respond to the agency. 

BBC News - Batteries on planes pose 'increased fire risk'

In June last year, police at San Diego International Airport noticed a passenger's bag was smoking as it journeyed around the carousel.

Inside, a lithium-ion battery had touched a screwdriver and both had melted.

BBC News - Batteries on planes pose 'increased fire risk'