Singapore Airlines & Scoot Ban On-Board Power Bank Use From April 1, 2025

[Beano]

Fires originally attributed to elecric car batteries were subsequently proven to be unfounded. Perhaps the same with powerbanks! My IT department recommends completely switching of a laptop and not just putting it to sleep because they say the battery could overheat. Is that another source if fires?

 

[serfty]

Fires originally attributed to elecric car batteries were subsequently proven to be unfounded.

Some were, but there are indeed proven incidents.

Understanding electric vehicle fires: A comprehensive guide | Advice and How-to | Open Road | The NRMA

Any new technology can come with concerning risks and challenges. However, you’ll be glad to know that EV battery fires are very rare.

www.mynrma.com.au

 

[Beano]

Fires originally attributed to elecric car batteries were subsequently proven to be unfounded. Perhaps the same with powerbanks! My IT department recommends completely switching off a laptop and not just putting it to sleep because they say the battery could overheat. Is that another source if fires?

 

[Ktan89]

Panic As Flight Attendants Scramble to Extnguish Fire in Overhead Locker of Hong Kong-Bound Flight; Power Bank Likely Culprit

Flight attendants on a Hong Kong Airlines flight from the Chinese city of Hangzhou on Thursday rushed to put out a fire that erupted in an overhead locker using anything at their disposal, including bottles of water and even cartons of juice. The cause of the fire is yet to be fully established...

www.paddleyourownkanoo.com

 

[oz_mark]

Fires originally attributed to elecric car batteries were subsequently proven to be unfounded. Perhaps the same with powerbanks! My IT department recommends completely switching of a laptop and not just putting it to sleep because they say the battery could overheat. Is that another source if fires?

Rare they may be, but having seen phones and powerbanks on fire, they are hard fires to put out. Risk management is not just about the frequency of incidents, it is also about the consequences of an incident.

 

[jb747]

A couple of weeks ago, a nearby house burnt down. The fire was started by a battery. The house was ‘gone’ by the time the brigade arrived, in an impressive 10 minutes. But, nobody was trapped inside the house, and everyone could stand on the street and watch (or run away as appropriate). Sadly neither of those options exist for an aircraft in flight. I think it’s fair to say that the airlines would like there to be zero batteries carried, of any size or use. As that ship has sailed, they’re stuck with constantly trying to tweak to rules to find something both safe(ish) and workable. When we eventually have a complete loss of aircraft and passengers, it will be taken out of their hands, with overarching laws that have no need to be passenger friendly. Nor, as we have also seen before, are they likely to be all that effective. But, if they inconvenience everyone, then they must be good.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The new ‘rules’ don’t make a lot of sense.

If power banks are this dangerous they should be banned immediately… passengers don’t need time to ‘adjust’.

The fire in the overhead means the power bank wasn’t being charged at the time. So banning the ‘charging’ of power banks is really not the root cause.

The immediate solution should be that all power banks need to be carried on person, or placed in the seat pocket in front of you. No carriage in cabin baggage or overhead lockers allowed. This will identify any heat, smoke or fire issues in as timely manner as possible.

Stage two… after giving passengers time to buy one… all power banks to be carried in a ‘safe box’ which is fire proof.

 

[Beano]

Stage two… after giving passengers time to buy one… all power banks to be carried in a ‘safe box’ which is fire proof.

You would probably exceed your carry-on allowance, dimensions and weight!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

You would probably exceed your carry-on allowance, dimensions and weight!

$18 at Bunnings - 19x7x7 (cm): FirePro Lithium-Ion Battery Fire Resistant Bag

 

[Beano]

$18 at Bunnings - 19x7x7 (cm): FirePro Lithium-Ion Battery Fire Resistant Bag

Yeah Right! A battery can burn at 1000C so no go. Also it's for fire from outside and if a battery ignites it won't stop the bag getting hot and transfer heat to neighbouring materials.

Also remember one up, one down. Another bag to carry.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yeah Right! A battery can burn at 1000C so no go. Also it's for fire from outside and if a battery ignites it won't stop the bag getting hot and transfer heat to neighbouring materials.

Also remember one up, one down. Another bag to carry.

True. But the point is to be able to identify the issue and have crew handle it before it creates a major fire.

The alternative is to ban power banks completely. Airlines and passengers will need to make a choice.

 

[Gold Member]

The new ‘rules’ don’t make a lot of sense.

If power banks are this dangerous they should be banned immediately… passengers don’t need time to ‘adjust’.

Sure we do. We’ve all recently been labelled “not match fit” by our ex-Overlord. How much more evidence do you need?

As described upthread, there’s a lot of differing chemical ingredients that can make some not fit for flying depending on the makeup and usage of each battery. The average consumer would have no idea about the suitability. Given the risk posed, I can understand the Airlines’ caution as the consequences of even just a small battery fire/explosion could be devastating in the worst case scenario. The flow on effect to overall travel similarly harmful. In fact, one could argue for battery checks and bans to be extended to trains and other forms of travel. Let’s hope this doesn’t snowball.

Crystal balling a whacky idea for a second and some food for thought... I wonder if the airlines (led by the Yanks of course, cos #World Leaders and We’re No. 1 etc) will eventually be forced to introduce appropriate Airplane-safe battery standards with the support of the Chinese manufacturers. Airport security screening might then be able to verify eligibility, somehow? Batteries that don’t meet the new safety standards would not be eligible to fly. Given the impracticalities of retaining your newly labelled ineligible-to-fly batteries at the security screening points, most would reluctantly be abandoned at the airport. This could be similar to the great nail clippers fiasco post 9/11 which empowered the TSA to a frightening level of undeserved entitlement. But this time around the Airports make a killing reselling all the battery packs on eBay and the retail outlets post-security would smirk on every RRP battery sale

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Sure we do. We’ve all recently been labelled “not match fit” by our ex-Overlord. How much more evidence do you need?

As described upthread, there’s a lot of differing chemical ingredients that can make some not fit for flying depending on the makeup and usage of each battery. The average consumer would have no idea about the suitability. Given the risk posed, I can understand the Airlines’ caution as the consequences of even just a small battery fire/explosion could be devastating in the worst case scenario. The flow on effect to overall travel similarly harmful. In fact, one could argue for battery checks and bans to be extended to trains and other forms of travel. Let’s hope this doesn’t snowball.

Crystal balling a whacky idea for a second and some food for thought... I wonder if the airlines (led by the Yanks of course, cos #World Leaders and We’re No. 1 etc) will eventually be forced to introduce appropriate Airplane-safe battery standards with the support of the Chinese manufacturers. Airport security screening might then be able to verify eligibility, somehow? Batteries that don’t meet the new safety standards would not be eligible to fly. Given the impracticalities of retaining your newly labelled ineligible-to-fly batteries at the security screening points, most would reluctantly be abandoned at the airport. This could be similar to the great nail clippers fiasco post 9/11 which empowered the TSA to a frightening level of undeserved entitlement. But this time around the Airports make a killing reselling all the battery packs on eBay and the retail outlets post-security would smirk on every RRP battery sale

The ban is only from using or charging power banks in flight. Not from carrying them.

Most aircraft have power outlets so there really is no need to be using a power bank in flight. Pax don’t need time to ‘adjust’ to that.

 

[Gold Member]

The ban is only from using or charging power banks in flight. Not from carrying them.

Most aircraft have power outlets so there really is no need to be using a power bank in flight. Pax don’t need time to ‘adjust’ to that.

Dunno about you but most people have more than one device that may need charging onboard. Unless you’re flying in biz+, very few airlines are equipped with more than one charging port, if at all. I personally wouldn’t rely on the charging port being available or working, hence carrying one or more battery packs and charging inflight across multiple devices so that you can have certainty of hitting the ground running fully charged.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Dunno about you but most people have more than one device that may need charging onboard. Unless you’re flying in biz+, very few airlines are equipped with more than one charging port, if at all. I personally wouldn’t rely on the charging port being available or working, hence carrying one or more battery packs and charging inflight across multiple devices so that you can have certainty of hitting the ground running fully charged.

Ok… but then how are people going to manage come 1 April? Still going to be the same issue.

How many devices can people use in flight? Surely you only need to charge the one you are using?

I dont understand … it’s either critical and you ban it immediately, or it’s not, and you don’t.

 

[Beano]

INT flights have 240 V points. You can charge your laptop. How is that going to work?

 

[Gold Member]

Ok… but then how are people going to manage come 1 April? Still going to be the same issue.

How many devices can people use in flight? Surely you only need to charge the one you are using?

I dont understand … it’s either critical and you ban it immediately, or it’s not, and you don’t.

It seems to be an evolving situation and criticality is determined by each Airline's assessment of the risks posed to the safety of the aircraft. Some Airlines have chosen to impose bans now, other are perhaps still considering their position. Once the situation is better understood, there may be end up being a mix of airlines that choose to allow inflight charging but not others. But if you're referring to my comment regarding Uncle Al ("not match fit"), perhaps you missed the sarcasm intended.

WRT to charging multiple devices, I agree that most people would typically be charging one device. But what if you're a road warrior and have multiple devices that all need charging because you didn't get a chance to do so in the office or elsewhere before boarding, and you're on a short flight with little time to charge? Or what if you're just a slave to the Apple ecosystem or just love having gadgets and all are running low? Personally, I'd be looking at charging my laptop, iPad, iPhone, Apple Watch, and possibly one other device depending on battery levels.

 

[anat0l]

As mentioned in my post in another power bank thread, I wonder what this means for medical devices, like CPAP machines?

Most CPAPs may not be able to be powered reliably on inflight power sockets (and W and Y don't have these), let alone USB power. I have a specific power bank that can supply enough DC power to run my CPAP.

That's actually a good point. I travel with a CPAP and do use it on board (including recently on a SQ flight before these rules came about). Most airlines don't require any clearance at all to use a CPAP (they do warn that inflight power often can't support the operation of a CPAP); QF and JL are amongst some notable exceptions where clearance must be sought prior to the use in flight (specifically for the machine, not the battery).

Surely SQ et al would allow battery bank use for medical devices, perhaps needing to apply for paperwork in advance of flight. My CPAP battery can also be used to charge USB devices, but I suspect that would fall outside the scope of acceptable (excepted) use.


Something that also isn't all that clear is whether these rules are as a result of local laws (e.g. instituted by the host country of the airline) or merely a policy of the airline. If it is the former, surely all airlines flying to and from said jurisdiction would be subject to the same kinds of rules and restrictions.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It seems to be an evolving situation and criticality is determined by each Airline's assessment of the risks posed to the safety of the aircraft. Some Airlines have chosen to impose bans now, other are perhaps still considering their position. Once the situation is better understood, there may be end up being a mix of airlines that choose to allow inflight charging but not others. But if you're referring to my comment regarding Uncle Al ("not match fit"), perhaps you missed the sarcasm intended.

WRT to charging multiple devices, I agree that most people would typically be charging one device. But what if you're a road warrior and have multiple devices that all need charging because you didn't get a chance to do so in the office or elsewhere before boarding, and you're on a short flight with little time to charge? Or what if you're just a slave to the Apple ecosystem or just love having gadgets and all are running low? Personally, I'd be looking at charging my laptop, iPad, iPhone, Apple Watch, and possibly one other device depending on battery levels.

I get there being a grace period if the carriage of power banks was to be banned outright. Pax who have already commenced their journeys should be given the opportunity, perhaps, to bring them home.

But the ban on charging them inflight? It doesn’t make sense to have a grace period for that. Why do people need three weeks to get used to the idea they can’t use a power bank in flight? What possible other alternative will they find,mother than to buy a charging cable to hook up to USB, or plug in? And they can buy that at the airport.

 

[oz_mark]

As mentioned in my post in another power bank thread, I wonder what this means for medical devices, like CPAP machines?

Most CPAPs may not be able to be powered reliably on inflight power sockets (and W and Y don't have these), let alone USB power. I have a specific power bank that can supply enough DC power to run my CPAP.

You'll probably find that you have to have a CPAP machine that can run off batteries, without a powerbank


SQ:
We recommend that you use a gel or dry battery that can power the equipment for at least 150% of the flight time. For instance, if your flight is 10 hours long, please have a battery supply of 15 hours.