Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

One lithium battery is all it took to turn a routine flight into a terrifying emergency. The cabin crew acted quickly, but videos like this show why airlines are so strict about batteries and power banks. Should there be even tighter restrictions on what passengers can bring onboard?

2,853,150 просмотров • 1 месяц назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

A bag for life? In an airplane emergency evacuation, you should not bring your carry-on luggage. This is not a suggestion. It is a life-saving principle. Here’s why: 1. It slows down the evacuation. An evacuation is designed to be completed in 90 seconds or less. Every second matters. Opening overhead bins, pulling bags out, and maneuvering them down the aisle creates congestion and blocks exits. 2. It endangers other passengers. A narrow aisle becomes impassable when even a few people stop to retrieve luggage. Those behind may be trapped in smoke, fire, or toxic fumes with no way forward. 3. It can damage evacuation slides and rafts. Cabin baggage can puncture or tear slides. If a slide fails, an entire exit becomes unusable. That directly reduces survival chances for everyone on board. 4. It increases the risk of injury. Bags can strike people in the face, hit children, or cause passengers to fall while exiting. In a high-stress environment, even small obstacles become dangerous. 5. It shows disregard for crew authority. Cabin crew are trained to shout commands like “Leave everything!” for a reason. In some cases, they are trained to physically remove bags from passengers if necessary because the risk is that serious. Now consider two real-world scenarios: The 2019 crash of Aeroflot SSJ-100 Flight 1492 The aircraft made an overweight emergency landing in crosswind and windshear conditions after lightning strike and loss of key electrical systems. It bounced three times. On the third impact, the main landing gear collapsed, punctured the wing, and caused a major fuel spill and fire. Only 37 of the 78 occupants survived. Forty-one died. The final report blamed several passengers for retrieving cabin baggage from overhead bins during evacuation. While difficult to quantify exactly, it almost certainly slowed the process in a rapidly worsening fire. In a post-crash fire, seconds determine survival. On 2 January 2024, a Japan Airlines Airbus A350 was engulfed in flames after a runway collision in Tokyo. The cabin quickly filled with smoke, and the fire intensified outside. All passengers followed crew instructions and left their baggage behind. All 379 passengers and crew evacuated successfully. No fatalities. No serious injuries. The difference was discipline and strict adherence to instructions. If passengers are determined to take baggage, there is very little cabin crew can realistically do in the chaos. That is why passenger behaviour is critical. So let’s settle this: No bag is worth a life. Not yours. Not someone else’s. In an evacuation, leave everything behind and get out.

Turbine Traveller

52,433 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

More Batteries vs. Submarines Now that the German TKMS and the French Naval Group have massively adopted lithium-ion batteries, following the Japanese lead, this is consolidating as a major trend, just as I had predicted. The next stage will be solid-state batteries, and at that point, we'll essentially be discussing only speed and submerged endurance in comparison to nuclear submarines. Since solid-state batteries are lighter, they will allow for a greater number to be installed, freeing up space for more powerful propulsion systems. Naval Group has already sold a version of the Scorpène to Indonesia capable of remaining submerged for up to 80 days. That's with lithium-ion batteries. Imagine what this could exceed, more than double, with solid-state batteries. In practical terms, a more powerful engine combined with solid-state batteries in the proportions that Naval Group is now using in the Scorpène would provide three times the speed, meaning something like 10–15 knots at constant speed while maintaining around 50 days submerged. This would give a range of 40,000–50,000 km, requiring less than one hour on the surface for a fast recharge. For speeds above 25 knots, simply adding more batteries and a better engine would suffice, as the solid-state system has high power output. All this at 15–20% of the cost of a nuclear submarine. And if the choice is to power the batteries with a micro-reactor, it would cost 25–35% of a conventional nuclear one. Then someone will say: “But a nuclear sub can stay submerged for years.” That makes no difference at all, since even with around 60 days of endurance, the crew still needs to surface to resupply provisions. The big advantages remain: battery-powered subs are superior in silence, and speed can be addressed with larger battery packs.

Patricia Marins

103,224 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад