Royal Jordanian Airlines bans electronic devices on some flights

[Guest]

Royal Jordanian Airlines bans electronic devices on flights

The prohibition applies to flights between Amman and United States from tomorrow

 The Royal Jordanian airline has banned electronic devices on flights to the US Björn Strey/Wikimedia

One of the leading Middle East airlines has abruptly told passengers they cannot take electronic devices on flights to or from the US. The ban applies from tomorrow.

Royal Jordanian, which flies between its hub in Amman and New York, Detroit and Chicago, tweeted: 

“Following instructions from the concerned US departments, we kindly inform our dearest passengers departing to and arriving from the United States that carrying any electronic or electrical device on board the flight cabins is strictly prohibited.”

While mobile phones and “medical devices needed during the flight” are permitted in the cabin, all other devices are banned.

“Prohibited devices, including for instance laptops, tablets, cameras, DVD players and electronic games … etc, can be carried in the checked baggage only,” says the airline.

Many passengers will be unhappy about checking in valuable devices, for fear that they may go missing, as well as the loss of enjoyment or the chance to work during the flight.

The airline’s tweet concludes: “Thank you for your understanding. We wish you pleasant flights on board RJ.”

 

Ben Schlappig, who writes the One Mile At A Time frequent-flyer blog, said: “Is this some gross misinterpretation of something, or are they going off specific intelligence? If the latter, I’m not sure how it’s safer for there to be electronic devices in the cargo hold than in the cabin.

“If we’re talking about explosives, a majority of explosives that have gone off on planes in the past were in the cargo hold and not in the cabin.”

Mr Schlappig also observed: “From a safety perspective, the chances of a battery fire or something in the cargo hold seems much higher than in the cabin, where it can at least be dealt with.”

The Independent has been trying to contact Royal Jordanian’s New York office for further comment.

It is not clear if the ban is a temporary measure ahead of the Arab Summit, due to be held in Jordan on 29 and 30 March. 

[blues deville]

There are other airlines to choose from so not an issue for those wanting to use their device in flight. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, blues deville said:

There are other airlines to choose from so not an issue for those wanting to use their device in flight. 

Perhaps but you have to wonder why????  The wording "Following concerns from the concerned US Departments" almost sounds like they received some sort of "threat" alert.

[blues deville]

1 minute ago, Malcolm said:

Perhaps but you have to wonder why????  The wording "Following concerns from the concerned US Departments" almost sounds like they received some sort of "threat" alert.

Sounds like some kind of overreaction. However, if the problematic Samsung tablets are not being used or re-charged I think there is little likelihood of an overheat/fire incident when not operating. Carrying them in checked luggage shouldn't be a hazard. I'm sure there are worse items transported daily and never detected.

[moeman]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/20/us-forbids-devices-larger-cell-phones-flights-13-countries

 

Quote

US authorities have secretly required airlines from 13 nations to forbid passengers from carrying any electronic or electrical device larger than a cellphone.

The new edict was distributed in an email described as “confidential” from the US transportation safety administration (TSA) on Monday.

The requirement forbids passengers from bringing laptops, iPads, Kindles and even cameras larger than mobile phones into the cabin. All such devices must be checked.

Saudi Arabia’s Saudia Airlines and Royal Jordanian airlines are among the affected countries; the full list has not been revealed to the affected airlines themselves.

 

 

[dagger]

This appears to be a terrorist threat response of some kind.

 

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/843937234340470784

 

 

[blues deville]

More industry response.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-government-laptop-ban-middle-east-africa-flights-dhs-2017-3

[Guest]

1 hour ago, blues deville said:

Sounds like some kind of overreaction. However, if the problematic Samsung tablets are not being used or re-charged I think there is little likelihood of an overheat/fire incident when not operating. Carrying them in checked luggage shouldn't be a hazard. I'm sure there are worse items transported daily and never detected.

it does give certain "bent" baggage handlers room to prosper. 

[Kip Powick]

Update...............

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/21/news/airline-electronics-ban-middle-east-africa/index.html

[deicer]

Wouldn't having all those lithium batteries in the hold pose more of a problem?  With all the incidents that have happened in the cabin with phone/tablet/laptop/earphone batteries exploding and catching fire, wouldn't you want it to be more detectable and easier to deal with when somebody notices it sooner?

From the reports I've read, inflight crews have procedures to handle battery incidents, but if it were in the hold, wouldn't it be catastrophic?

Maybe a better suggestion is to have them turned in at the desk and returned at the bridge head on arrival, much like skycheck baggage? Then if they are in the cabin, they can be monitored?

[dagger]

8 minutes ago, deicer said:

Wouldn't having all those lithium batteries in the hold pose more of a problem?  With all the incidents that have happened in the cabin with phone/tablet/laptop/earphone batteries exploding and catching fire, wouldn't you want it to be more detectable and easier to deal with when somebody notices it sooner?

From the reports I've read, inflight crews have procedures to handle battery incidents, but if it were in the hold, wouldn't it be catastrophic?

Maybe a better suggestion is to have them turned in at the desk and returned at the bridge head on arrival, much like skycheck baggage? Then if they are in the cabin, they can be monitored?

That, and giving out loaner iPads and even laptops, would certainly be a long-term workaround. Basically, the ban is a head scratcher and people I've been interacting with on Twitter can't decide whether it is a security issue, a de facto Muslim harassment or a non-tariff trade barrier of sorts to hit primarily at the ME3. I'm leaning towards the latter. I can't see the security issue. A suicide bomber can put a bomb in checked luggage.

[conehead]

I would not want all those lithium batteries traveling in the cargo pit.

[Kip Powick]

I don't think a turned off electronic device with Lithium batteries is an issue. 

I really think Trump has been shot down on his "travel ban" so often that the creatures in the White House zoo figured another way to make it inconvenient for folks coming over from the middle east.

Always expect the unexpected from a clown....

 

[blues deville]

1 hour ago, deicer said:

Wouldn't having all those lithium batteries in the hold pose more of a problem?  With all the incidents that have happened in the cabin with phone/tablet/laptop/earphone batteries exploding and catching fire, wouldn't you want it to be more detectable and easier to deal with when somebody notices it sooner?

From the reports I've read, inflight crews have procedures to handle battery incidents, but if it were in the hold, wouldn't it be catastrophic?

Maybe a better suggestion is to have them turned in at the desk and returned at the bridge head on arrival, much like skycheck baggage? Then if they are in the cabin, they can be monitored?

Lithium powered electronics are not the danger. It's large shipments of lithium batteries to and from China (I know.....it's pronounced Jina.) China buys tons of used lithium batteries to power all kinds of crap. That'a the real scary stuff.

[J.O.]

This is stupid for so many reasons, I hardly know where to begin. If the concern is a PED that contains some type of terrorist device, then hiding it in the cargo hold is no guarantee that the prospective terrorist couldn't activate it remotely using their cell phone from inside the cabin. Also, unless you can guarantee that none of the devices in checked baggage are turned on and that none of the bags will be damaged during handling, I want no part of flying (or riding in) an aircraft with that many personal devices sitting in checked baggage. The chance of a problem may be small, but it's much easier to deal with such problems in the cabin than it is in a hold you can't access when you're half way out over the ocean.

[boestar]

2 hours ago, Kip Powick said:

I don't think a turned off electronic device with Lithium batteries is an issue. 

I really think Trump has been shot down on his "travel ban" so often that the creatures in the White House zoo figured another way to make it inconvenient for folks coming over from the middle east.

Always expect the unexpected from a clown....

 

the device does not need to be powered on to explode.  There have been many cases.

[dagger]

The Brits are going along with the ban, but only from five countries: NOT from the UAE or Qatar - so that only raises more questions. And Canada is looking at what the US and UK are doing, but has not yet committed to doing same - yet. Stay tuned. The only major aviation countries (intercontinentally at least) in both the US and UK bans is Turkey. I don't consider Jordan or Egypt that big intercontinentally, not on the scale of Qatar or the UAE. 

It strikes me that part of the problem here is a diminished trust among the western allies - if the US was fully trusted on this, the UK would have taken mirror image action based on an acceptance of the nature of the security threat. There might be a genuine security threat, but that Trump has amplified it to include the ME3 hubs that the Brits are excluding from their ban.

 

Also, the Brits added Beirut - the Americans didn't, probably because no US or Middle Eastern airline flies to the US directly from BEY.

[Guest]

And a comment attributed to our Transport Minister

Canada looking carefully at facts behind electronics on board aircraft: Garneau

The U.S. government is temporarily barring passengers on certain flights originating in eight Muslim-majority countries from bringing laptops, iPads, cameras and most other electronics in carry-on luggage.

The Canadian Press
Published Tuesday, March 21, 2017 1:03PM EDT

OTTAWA -- Canada's transport minister says the federal government is taking a close look at the circumstances behind efforts in the United States and the U.K. to ban certain electronic devices from carry-on baggage.

But Marc Garneau is stopping short of saying whether Canada will follow the lead of the two countries in banning the devices from flights originating in six countries in the Middle East and Africa.

The U.K. government says it is imposing the new aviation security measures on all inbound direct flights from Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia.

That follows a similar U.S. ban on "any phones, laptops or tablets larger than a normal-sized mobile or smartphone" inside the aircraft cabin.

The U.S. government is temporarily barring passengers on certain flights originating in eight Muslim-majority countries from bringing laptops, iPads, cameras and most other electronics in carry-on luggage.

The indefinite U.S. ban, which affects nine airlines and seeks to bolster airline security, was to go into effect next week once the Transportation Security Administration informs the affected airlines.

"We will be reviewing the information that has been provided," Garneau said Tuesday after the government's weekly cabinet meeting.

"We are looking at the information that has been presented to us we will look at it very carefully.... There is not a specific timeline; we are acting expeditiously."

[Guest]

Another note of caution re the additional batteries in the holds, a lot of folks believe that there will be no hazard posed by the "turned off" devices when placed into checked baggage but will there be measures in place to make sure the devices are actually turned off?  Will the airlines insist that the baggage be opened so as to be able to be certain the devices are actually switched off vs sleeping or just left on?

Following is another article on the possible hazards.

Does Security Trump Safety In DHS Electronics Ban?

Mar 21, 2017John Croft | Aviation Daily

COMMENTS 17

 

“We’re going to introduce into the cargo hold a significant number of lithium-ion batteries that are packed with luggage, which acts as an insulator.”

 

WASHINGTON—Travelers from 10 Middle Eastern and African airports flying to the U.S. under a new Homeland Security Department (DHS) electronics ban could see an increased risk from lithium battery-ignited fires in the cargo holds of their aircraft, according to two battery and aircraft safety experts.

The security directive, which goes into effect March 25, requires passengers on nine carriers with nonstop flights to the U.S. from specified airports—eight in the Middle East and two in North Africa—to check personal electronic devices larger than a mobile phone. The ban requires putting laptops; tablets; e-readers; cameras; portable DVD players; larger electronic gaming units; and travel printers and scanners into cargo holds.

While implemented for security reasons (The DHS said “evaluated evidence indicates that terrorist groups continue to target commercial aviation, including transportation hubs”), the ban likely could have safety implications for passengers on those flights, given that many of the batteries that power consumer devices use lithium chemistry.

“I was disheartened to read the way DHS is going about this,” said John Cox, a battery safety expert and president of Safety Operating Systems. “We’re going to introduce into the cargo hold a significant number of lithium-ion batteries that are packed with luggage, which acts as an insulator.”

The move is problematic on at least two fronts, Cox explained:

• The insulation can accelerate a temperature rise that can cause a faulty battery to transition into thermal runaway, a high temperature condition that ignites other batteries, materials in the luggage (and fire hold) and generates explosive hydrogen gas.
• The halon fire-extinguishing agent in cargo holds will not put out a lithium-ion battery fire.

Another lithium-battery safety expert, who was not authorized to speak to the press, agreed that there is an increased risk of having more batteries in the cargo hold, but said he was not able to quantify the increased risk.

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), which considers the safe shipment of hazardous materials one of its top priorities, continues to analyze the ban, noting that DHS actions must be “coordinated with other government agencies” and parts of industry to avoid possible unintended consequences.

“ALPA has been in touch with officials at the DHS and the FAA to better understand what, if any, impacts these new security protocols may have on our members and the flying public,” a spokeswoman said. She added: “Aviation continues to be a target of terrorist activity, which is why ALPA has worked with authorities around the world to help safeguard air transport.”

The FAA’s Office of Security and Hazardous Materials Safety’s most recent listing of lithium-battery incidents, published in December, lists 138 events of smoke, fire, extreme heat or explosions in cargo or carry-on baggage in the air and at airports since 1991.

In 2016, the FAA reported five events specifically for laptops, all of which were in the cabin. Included was a Dec. 22 incident in which flames came from a laptop in an overhead bin on a Delta Air Lines flight from Honolulu to Atlanta. Flight at

tendants used three halon extinguishers and a containment bag in a cooler with ice to put out the fire. Delta later replaced the overhead bin.

While the FAA already allows laptops and similar devices to be shipped in cargo holds, there is a safety benefit to taking the devices on board: If a battery fire were to break out, flight attendants could isolate an errant device and extinguish the fire. In the cargo hold, no such intervention is possible.

Cox said that even with a device turned off, there is a change that a “spontaneous thermal runaway event” could occur—a rare but possible scenario. He said the ban will boost the number of devices placed in cargo holds, a location that passengers would not likely ship their high-value items like laptops. The risks are higher if the devices were to be left energized.

“I’ve worked with lithium batteries a long time,” Cox said. “I would hope that the risk analysis was done appropriately.”

In an email response to Aviation Daily, the DHS said it “coordinated closely with the FAA and provided an information bulletin to the air carriers regarding the appropriate handling of electronics, including lithium batteries.” However, since the banned items are already allowed in cargo holds, the FAA’s primary concern was giving airlines impacted by the ban new guidance on how laptops and other electronics should be packed, particularly when checked at the gate.

[boestar]

so riddle me this... if an explosive device can be placed in a laptop and detonated at altitude in the cabin, can the same not be done with a laptop in the cargo hold?  Barometric switch? Timer? GPS?

if you ban something just ban it outright or the element of danger still exists.

[DEFCON]

Once again, without a single fact in hand and someone here finds it fashionable to denigrate Trump; must be premature 'naughty word' too.

 

[deicer]

And they call me sensitive

[DEFCON]

Yes they do Deicer.

When someone gathers the actual facts, they'll almost certainly be worth debating, but in the meantime it's fair to say; premature assumptions supported by personally injurious comments are downright rude.

BTW Malcolm, 'ejaculation' is not a dirty word and is used as an adjective pretty much everywhere other than within the Catholic Church.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, DEFCON said:

Yes they do Deicer.

When someone gathers the actual facts, they'll almost certainly be worth debating, but in the meantime it's fair to say; premature assumptions supported by personally injurious comments are downright rude.

BTW Malcolm, 'ejaculation' is not a dirty word and is used as an adjective pretty much everywhere other than within the Catholic Church.

 

Not sure why you are addressing your comment to me as I did not comment on your post in fact by the time I got back online this morning, the word you used had disappeared.  I am however curious as to what post you were directing your comment to?  Next time why not quote the offending post so we can all be completely informed / or annoyed? 

[dagger]

Then there is this article by a former head of Israeli aviation security ridiculing the ban. I'd think the Israelis know a thing or two about protecting passenger and cargo planes.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-airlines-electronics-israel-idUSKBN16T1K5?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=58d2848f04d3012fcdd65f7f&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter