Apple Shares Hit New High for 2016 as Samsung Considers Scrapping Note 7 [Update: Note 7 Officially Discontinued]

[dk001]

There was 2.5 million devices recalled but that includes unsold inventory. Around 1 million estimated sold in USA. 200,000 in China.

As someone pointed out ... in the USA the N7 was on sale 34 days total. In that time around 94 'reported' failures happened equating to 3 a day in the USA.

Had it launched in Europe where there is greater population and potential sales that could be double that number in Europe alone.

Essentially comparatively to any other smartphone or LiPo battery device 3 a day in America alone (and that number would have presumably escalated had they been on wider sale after the first recall, they were not) is ridiculously high.

Factor in the potential escalation of incidents from more devices in America had it been kept on sale (more devices sold = likely more reported incidents as the issue was not resolved) and throw Europe and India into the mix had they managed to get launched there and you had a potentially unprecedented level of failures going forward.

If we think the amount of failure coverage the device got was excessive now, imagine had it continued in all territories for another month or two unabated (as Samsung clearly did not fix this after first recall at all).

Imagine If the Note sold similar numbers to the standard Galaxy S or iPhone ranges, and in that 30 days it sold 10 million units in that period, we would based on the trajectory defined so far, be looking at around 30+ incidents a day of devices exploding/frying.

Thanks. It would be nice if Samsung would post actual numbers. Sometimes I get the feeling it is worse than it appears, other times it looks over-blown.

 

[kdarling]

Thanks. It would be nice if Samsung would post actual numbers. Sometimes I get the feeling it is worse than it appears, other times it looks over-blown.

I was looking at CPSC Note 7 (and iPhone) fire reports the other day, and some had comments like, "My husband charges his phone in bed. Last night he rolled over on top of the Note 7 while he was sleeping, and woke up to it overheating." Well, duh.

Most reports are brief, but one young male wrote a long story about buying a used Note 7 off Craigslist... which he no longer has because he says it caught fire on the way home, while he was charging it INSIDE its box. Not smart. So he threw it out the car window, never to be seen again... and now wants Samsung to give him a new one without any proof at all. Here, check it out:

"I had purchased a Note 7 on Craigslist and was returning home from the purchase with my buddy. I was charging the phone in the car and noticed it began to get quite hot to the touch, so I placed it in its box, closed the flap, and put it on the floorboard to continue charging. After about maybe 10 to 15 minutes we noticed a strange chemical smell, then there was a loud "POP" and the box was on fire and smoking. I instantly grabbed the box and threw it out the open window while we were going down the road, as to avoid injury to myself or the car, and to make sure it didn't cause my friend to crash."

"This was before the recall had been made, so I was unsure of what to do or what had really just happened. About a week later I saw the recall from Samsung, so I emailed them and was assured I would have their full support, I then called a few times to explain again what had occurred to them and went about the process of getting my replacement.

"Samsung is in the process of getting me my replacement now, buy [sic] are trying to change their terms and are asking for the IMEI and/or a reciept to complete the replacement, (Even after they have said they will replace or refund ALL Note 7's, your official recall has came out, and the factwo [sic] that it exploded.) which I have neither as the phone and box were destroyed by the fire and lost in the actions I took to protect myself and my friend, and there was never a reciept, as it was a seller to seller sale, and none are usually provided, and if are, aren't considered official enough in most cases."

"Luckily there were no injuries or property damage to myself, my friend, or the car, just the Note 7, likely because of it being contained in the box during the explosion, and my quick actions. I'm contacting you today so that you may require Samsung to do its duty, right it's wrong for releasing a faulty product to the consumers without proper testing and replace my Note 7, no more beating around the bush and trying to get over on me or any others that may have similar issues. Thank You."

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Greater? Can you explain that one for me?

Because you could be literally *anywhere* and have your note immolate itself. You had to be on one of those 737's and have the actuator valve 'fail' to die. If you didn't fly one, your chances were zero. Having flown over the past week, they are really rather pointed about declaring the Note 7 a grave and sure disaster waiting to happen.

 

[kdarling]

Because you could be literally *anywhere* and have your note immolate itself. You had to be on one of those 737's and have the actuator valve 'fail' to die. If you didn't fly one, your chances were zero. Having flown over the past week, they are really rather pointed about declaring the Note 7 a grave and sure disaster waiting to happen.

That's not because it's a grave and sure disaster. It's because diverting more than necessary costs the airlines extra money.

In just two 737 rudder incidents, over 150 people were killed. (Other rudder crashes are still suspected, but unproven.)

In dozens of airliner in-cabin lithium battery incidents, nobody has ever died. Some planes didn't even divert after the device was safely placed in a metal trashcan. Which incident would you rather be involved in?

For that matter, I think there was only one Note 7 fire on a plane, and that was at the gate. There's been two or more iPhone 6 fires alone that have happened while in-flight. Plus of course plenty of other phones, tablets, cameras, laptops, etc, And again, the worst injury was someone burned trying to pick one up, and maybe some smoke inhalation.

I understand what you mean: that the chances of being on a deadly 737 were low. But the chances of dying from a Note 7... or any other phone... airliner cabin fire is historically zero so far over the past twenty five years.

 

[dk001]

I was looking at CPSC Note 7 (and iPhone) fire reports the other day, and some had comments like, "My husband charges his phone in bed. Last night he rolled over on top of the Note 7 while he was sleeping, and woke up to it overheating." Well, duh.

Most reports are brief, but one young male wrote a long story about buying a used Note 7 off Craigslist... which he no longer has because he says it caught fire on the way home, while he was charging it INSIDE its box, so he threw it out the car window, never to be seen again... and now wants Samsung to give him a new one. Here, check it out:

"I had purchased a Note 7 on Craigslist and was returning home from the purchase with my buddy. I was charging the phone in the car and noticed it began to get quite hot to the touch, so I placed it in its box, closed the flap, and put it on the floorboard to continue charging. After about maybe 10 to 15 minutes we noticed a strange chemical smell, then there was a loud "POP" and the box was on fire and smoking. I instantly grabbed the box and threw it out the open window while we were going down the road, as to avoid injury to myself or the car, and to make sure it didn't cause my friend to crash."

"This was before the recall had been made, so I was unsure of what to do or what had really just happened. About a week later I saw the recall from Samsung, so I emailed them and was assured I would have their full support, I then called a few times to explain again what had occurred to them and went about the process of getting my replacement.

"Samsung is in the process of getting me my replacement now, buy [sic] are trying to change their terms and are asking for the IMEI and/or a reciept to complete the replacement, (Even after they have said they will replace or refund ALL Note 7's, your official recall has came out, and the factwo [sic] that it exploded.) which I have neither as the phone and box were destroyed by the fire and lost in the actions I took to protect myself and my friend, and there was never a reciept, as it was a seller to seller sale, and none are usually provided, and if are, aren't considered official enough in most cases."

"Luckily there were no injuries or property damage to myself, my friend, or the car, just the Note 7, likely because of it being contained in the box during the explosion, and my quick actions. I'm contacting you today so that you may require Samsung to do its duty, right it's wrong for releasing a faulty product to the consumers without proper testing and replace my Note 7, no more beating around the bush and trying to get over on me or any others that may have similar issues. Thank You."

Apparently stupidity not only abounds it is also rampant.
[doublepost=1477089206][/doublepost]

Because you could be literally *anywhere* and have your note immolate itself. You had to be on one of those 737's and have the actuator valve 'fail' to die. If you didn't fly one, your chances were zero. Having flown over the past week, they are really rather pointed about declaring the Note 7 a grave and sure disaster waiting to happen.

A Note 7 fire is easily containable. A 737, not so much. I'll take the Note 7 every time.

 

[loon3y]

That's not because it's a grave and sure disaster. It's because diverting more than necessary costs the airlines extra money.

In just two 737 rudder incidents, over 150 people were killed. (Other rudder crashes are still suspected, but unproven.)

In dozens of airliner in-cabin lithium battery incidents, nobody has ever died. Some planes didn't even divert after the device was safely placed in a metal trashcan. Which incident would you rather be involved in?

For that matter, I think there was only one Note 7 fire on a plane, and that was at the gate. There's been two or more iPhone 6 fires alone that have happened while in-flight. Plus of course plenty of other phones, tablets, cameras, laptops, etc, And again, the worst injury was someone burned trying to pick one up, and maybe some smoke inhalation.

I understand what you mean: that the chances of being on a deadly 737 were low. But the chances of dying from a Note 7... or any other phone... airliner cabin fire is historically zero so far over the past twenty five years.

......I fly around 20 times a year, i'll take the fiery note 7 then anything on a plane. Although low chances, if something happens on plane to a point where you have to crash land, you're pretty much dead

 

[I7guy]

That's not because it's a grave and sure disaster. It's because diverting more than necessary costs the airlines extra money.

In just two 737 rudder incidents, over 150 people were killed. (Other rudder crashes are still suspected, but unproven.)

In dozens of airliner in-cabin lithium battery incidents, nobody has ever died. Some planes didn't even divert after the device was safely placed in a metal trashcan. Which incident would you rather be involved in?

For that matter, I think there was only one Note 7 fire on a plane, and that was at the gate. There's been two or more iPhone 6 fires alone that have happened while in-flight. Plus of course plenty of other phones, tablets, cameras, laptops, etc, And again, the worst injury was someone burned trying to pick one up, and maybe some smoke inhalation.

I understand what you mean: that the chances of being on a deadly 737 were low. But the chances of dying from a Note 7... or any other phone... airliner cabin fire is historically zero so far over the past twenty five years.

Is that my only two choices; note 7 fire or rudder issue? How about neither? Seems one is more under direct control than the other.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

That's not because it's a grave and sure disaster. It's because diverting more than necessary costs the airlines extra money.

In just two 737 rudder incidents, over 150 people were killed. (Other rudder crashes are still suspected, but unproven.)

In dozens of airliner in-cabin lithium battery incidents, nobody has ever died. Some planes didn't even divert after the device was safely placed in a metal trashcan. Which incident would you rather be involved in?

For that matter, I think there was only one Note 7 fire on a plane, and that was at the gate. There's been two or more iPhone 6 fires alone that have happened while in-flight. Plus of course plenty of other phones, tablets, cameras, laptops, etc, And again, the worst injury was someone burned trying to pick one up, and maybe some smoke inhalation.

I understand what you mean: that the chances of being on a deadly 737 were low. But the chances of dying from a Note 7... or any other phone... airliner cabin fire is historically zero so far over the past twenty five years.

I was referring to the 'loss of the device', and life.

I had read that there were over a dozen suspected 'hard overs' due to the rudder actuator, but many happened in foreign countries that are not required to replace parts recalled, and many didn't investigate the incidents to find the root cause. The Note 7 fires and explosions don't seem to be as violent as I was lead to believe, still, the chance for a smokey smoldering fire incident on an inflight air plane is nothing to be taken lightly. Several planes have crashed because of crew misinterpreting the incident, or the incident getting out of control. The potential for loss of life is there.

Plus 'historically' doesn't mean probability. The actuator failed because of certain movements of the rudder caused by pilot or environmental action. Well, and overzealous engineers trying to save weight, and time, and could have happened on ANY 737 with those actuators at ANY moment...

But, whatever. The actuators are gone, and the Note 7 damn well should be.
[doublepost=1477147681][/doublepost]

......I fly around 20 times a year, i'll take the fiery note 7 then anything on a plane. Although low chances, if something happens on plane to a point where you have to crash land, you're pretty much dead

Which brings up, to me, the 'Miracle on the Hudson(tm)'.

In the past, the vast majority of the passengers on flights that have ditched in rivers and oceans (water) have died. That one incident was a fluke. Luck. Pure and simple. Why did the FAA 'ruthlessly' interrogate the 'miracle' pilot? Because what he did was reckless, and apparently he had another choice at the time, but took the river over an alternate. Heck, landing on its belly on a runway would have been safer. People can credit 'skill' and the pilot all they want, and rip the government as ruthlessly as they want (persecuting him as they imply in the movie), but the one thing that worked in their favor was pure luck. If the wind had been different, waves bigger, etc... Totally different ending.

But anyway...

 

[kdarling]

The Note 7 fires and explosions don't seem to be as violent as I was lead to believe, still, the chance for a smokey smoldering fire incident on an inflight air plane is nothing to be taken lightly. Several planes have crashed because of crew misinterpreting the incident, or the incident getting out of control. The potential for loss of life is there.

There have been ZERO plane crashes because of an in-cabin PED (Personal Electronic Device) on an airliner.

Yes, the potential is always there. But that's been true for decades even without the Note 7. As I noted, iPhones and many other devices have caught fire ("exploded" as some like to call it) in-flight, and they will continue to do so in the future. As long as it happens in-cabin, chances are very very good that the worst that will happen is a diversion.

So the ban isn't about safety anywhere near as much, as about airlines wanting to avoid more inconveniences than normal, and without ticking off all the other passengers by banning their own dangerous devices. Airlines allow PEDs because they help mollify passengers who are upset about all the other downsides of commercial flying these days.

It's okay to ban the Note 7. Heck, they should ban a lot of things that catch fire more often, like loose lithium batteries packaged together in carry-on luggage. But there's no need for them to pull a Chicken Little act, and scare people for little reason.

Which brings up, to me, the 'Miracle on the Hudson(tm)'.

Ever flown a plane? Ever trained for loss of power? You've got just seconds to make the initial decision of the best place to land.

It's very easy to criticize such a decision in hindsight, especially with safe do-over computer simulations which have no chance of killing hundreds on the ground.

Man, by the time they had turned back towards LGA, the aircraft was down to 1600'. Do you have any idea how low that is? Plus there's Manhattan and Queens between him and LGA, and heavily populated NJ between him and TEB. If something else goes wrong, or he's misjudged his glide rate, he hits buildings, which could easily kill hundreds both in the plane AND on the ground.

Which brings up this: if a pilot is in a bad situation, most will try to avoid also killing innocent people on the ground. Think of all the times that you've read about a small plane crash, that "it was a miracle it didn't kill anyone on the ground" etc. Quite often that's a result of the pilot deliberately lowering his own chances, in order to not kill others as well.

So... not only were their chances far, far better attempting a water landing on a smooth river than crashing into any city neighborhood, but there was almost zero risk of killing extra people.

 

[I7guy]

There have been ZERO plane crashes because of an in-cabin PED (Personal Electronic Device) on an airliner.

Yes, the potential is always there. But that's been true for decades even without the Note 7. As I noted, iPhones and many other devices have caught fire ("exploded" as some like to call it) in-flight, and they will continue to do so in the future. As long as it happens in-cabin, chances are very very good that the worst that will happen is a diversion.

So the ban isn't about safety anywhere near as much, as about airlines wanting to avoid more inconveniences than normal, and without ticking off all the other passengers by banning their own dangerous devices. Airlines allow PEDs because they help mollify passengers who are upset about all the other downsides of commercial flying these days.

It's okay to ban the Note 7. Heck, they should ban a lot of things that catch fire more often, like loose lithium batteries packaged together in carry-on luggage. But there's no need for them to pull a Chicken Little act, and scare people for little reason.



Ever flown a plane? Ever trained for loss of power? You've got just seconds to make the initial decision of the best place to land.

It's very easy to criticize such a decision in hindsight, especially with safe do-over computer simulations which have no chance of killing hundreds on the ground.

Man, by the time they had turned back towards LGA, the aircraft was down to 1600'. Do you have any idea how low that is? Plus there's Manhattan and Queens between him and LGA, and heavily populated NJ between him and TEB. If something else goes wrong, or he's misjudged his glide rate, he hits buildings, which could easily kill hundreds both in the plane AND on the ground.

Which brings up this: if a pilot is in a bad situation, most will try to avoid also killing innocent people on the ground. Think of all the times that you've read about a small plane crash, that "it was a miracle it didn't kill anyone on the ground" etc. Quite often that's a result of the pilot deliberately lowering his own chances, in order to not kill others as well.

So... not only where their chances far, far better attempting a water landing on a smooth river than crashing into any city neighborhood, but there was almost zero risk of killing extra people.

The note 7 seemingly has a statistical propensity to catch fire that's outside of the bell curve. That is why it was recalled and banned, IMO. It's not about htc or iPhones or peds also catch fire.

Agree about capn scully comments and there were some bridges to avoid also.

 

[kdarling]

The note 7 seemingly has a statistical propensity to catch fire that's outside of the bell curve. That is why it was recalled and banned, IMO. It's not about htc or iPhones or peds also catch fire.

Yep that's what I've been saying.

Such incidents will continue to occur about once a month even without any Note 7s around. Thus the ban was not about totally stopping in-cabin lithium fires. For that, they'd have to ban all lithium powered devices.

Instead, the ban was more about airlines wanting to avoid the cleanup and diversion cost of the Note potentially causing more incidents than usual.

 

[I7guy]

Yep that's what I've been saying.

Such incidents will continue to occur about once a month even without any Note 7s around. Thus the ban was not about stopping fires. To do that, they'd have to ban all lithium powered devices.

Instead, the ban was more about airlines wanting to avoid the cleanup and diversion cost of the Note potentially causing more incidents than usual.

And reduce the of risk something more than a cabin fire with a device that seems to be of an incendiary nature.

 

[kdarling]

And reduce the of risk something more than a cabin fire with a device that seems to be of an incendiary nature.

There's nothing different about Note 7 fires than other device fires.

Except, of course, that any single cell lithium fire (such as a smartphone) is less problem than with a multicell battery such as laptops use, where one failed cell will often cause its neighbors to go into thermal runaway as well.

Laptops also are harder to find containers for, because of their size. Phones fit in metal coffepots or small metal trashcans. Laptops don't. That's one reason why more and more airlines now carry special large bags designed to scoop up and contain devices that have caught fire.

 

[I7guy]

There's nothing different about Note 7 fires than other device fires.

Except, of course, that any single cell lithium fire (such as a smartphone) is less problem than with a multicell battery such as laptops use, where one failed cell will often cause its neighbors to inflame as well.

Laptops also are harder to find containers for, because of their size. Phones fit in metal coffepots or small metal trashcans. Laptops don't. That's one reason why more and more airlines now carry special large bags designed to scoop up and contain devices that have caught fire.

The difference with the note is the nature of the recall, the penalty for bringing it aboard the plane and the frequency of the fires relative to the timespan it's been released; Well other than the that a cabin fire is a cabin fire, which I agree but why tempt fate? There was no need to make it a criminal offense to bring a note 7 aboard for just a cabin fire.

 

[kdarling]

There was no need to make it a criminal offense to bring a note 7 aboard for just a cabin fire.

Bingo.

It was about airline costs (and the FAA generally sides with airlines about that) and a Presidentially appointed DOT Secretary either wanting to look proactive, or ordered to be. The publicity was a factor as well. of course.

As for the potential maximum fines (which of course never happen), compare the up to $180K and Ten years in jail for bringing a Note 7 onboard, to the up to $250K and Twenty years you can get for disobeying or threatening any flight crew member.

--

A side note: I read an interesting article which took the supposed 1 in 10 million failure rate of lithium cells... with laptops using around 8 cells per battery, and all the phones, cameras and tablets people carry each with at least one celled batteries... and points out that with 2.5 million passengers a day in the US alone, the chances of a lithium incident seem pretty darned high no matter what.

Even on a single flight with say, 100 passengers, there's probably going to be 100 to 200+ cells in the cabin. If it's full of business people with laptops and phones, there could be 1,000 cells. Suddenly one in ten million cells doesn't sound as rare

 

[I7guy]

Bingo.

It was about airline costs (and the FAA generally sides with airlines about that) and a Presidentially appointed DOT Secretary either wanting to look proactive, or ordered to be. The publicity was a factor as well. of course.

As for the potential maximum fines (which of course never happen), compare the up to $180K and Ten years in jail for bringing a Note 7 onboard, to the up to $250K and Twenty years you can get for disobeying or threatening any flight crew member.

--

A side note: I read an interesting article which took the supposed 1 in 10 million failure rate of lithium cells, and laptops using around 8 cells per battery, and all the phones, cameras and tablets people carry each with at least one celled batteries... and points out that with 2.5 million passengers a day in the US alone, the chances of a lithium incident seem pretty darned high no matter what.

Even on a single flight with say, 100 passengers, there's probably going to be 100 to 200+ cells in the cabin. If it's full of business people with laptops and phones, there could be 1,000 cells. Suddenly one in ten million doesn't sound as rare

I'm not of the opinion this is about convenience, this is about safety. Safety trumps convenience moreso in all facets of air travel. Of course as I can tell there is no proof either way of the genesis of this fine. And it's not about all batteries can catch fire, it's about a specific model randomly showing a design defect and catching fire with a probability that seems high for its short lifespan. Not to mention public perception of the airline industry if they failed to enact a ban.

 

[Savor]

Because there's only two companies that make any profit in the smartphone industry. Only two that, in the public perception, are smartphones. You buy a Galaxy or you buy an iPhone. All the others are also-rans

In the States, it is a duopoly where Apple is leading by a good 15% over Samsung. All others without the marketing budget like Apple and Samsung are left in the small corner where nobody notices. Talk about "choice." You are only left with two.

In 95% of the world population where Android users outnumber iPhone users 7:1, different ballgame. I compare iPhone to the NFL. Americans love their football. Nobody outside the States for it. Americans love Star Wars. Not many from a 2B population like China cares for it as much.

Rarely anybody in the States knows about the Xiaomi Redmi 3s with the 4100 mAh battery or how beautiful the ceramic white Huawei P9 Plus is because nobody knows about either brand. Shame Samsung has to represent Android being the most popular OEM.

 

[Suckfest 9001]

I'm happy with their decision to ban these from airlines. Making it a criminal offence is the only way to get people to comply with the ban. I don't care how harmless some people here think cabin fires are, but they do pose a risk and it is very expensive to repair a fire-damaged cabin. We wouldn't need this ban if Note 7s weren't catching fire with a likelihood way over the acceptable threshold; lithium cells have a failure rate, yes, but this is on a completely different scale of failure.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

There have been ZERO plane crashes because of an in-cabin PED (Personal Electronic Device) on an airliner.

Yes, the potential is always there. But that's been true for decades even without the Note 7. As I noted, iPhones and many other devices have caught fire ("exploded" as some like to call it) in-flight, and they will continue to do so in the future. As long as it happens in-cabin, chances are very very good that the worst that will happen is a diversion.

So the ban isn't about safety anywhere near as much, as about airlines wanting to avoid more inconveniences than normal, and without ticking off all the other passengers by banning their own dangerous devices. Airlines allow PEDs because they help mollify passengers who are upset about all the other downsides of commercial flying these days.

It's okay to ban the Note 7. Heck, they should ban a lot of things that catch fire more often, like loose lithium batteries packaged together in carry-on luggage. But there's no need for them to pull a Chicken Little act, and scare people for little reason.



Ever flown a plane? Ever trained for loss of power? You've got just seconds to make the initial decision of the best place to land.

It's very easy to criticize such a decision in hindsight, especially with safe do-over computer simulations which have no chance of killing hundreds on the ground.

Man, by the time they had turned back towards LGA, the aircraft was down to 1600'. Do you have any idea how low that is? Plus there's Manhattan and Queens between him and LGA, and heavily populated NJ between him and TEB. If something else goes wrong, or he's misjudged his glide rate, he hits buildings, which could easily kill hundreds both in the plane AND on the ground.

Which brings up this: if a pilot is in a bad situation, most will try to avoid also killing innocent people on the ground. Think of all the times that you've read about a small plane crash, that "it was a miracle it didn't kill anyone on the ground" etc. Quite often that's a result of the pilot deliberately lowering his own chances, in order to not kill others as well.

So... not only were their chances far, far better attempting a water landing on a smooth river than crashing into any city neighborhood, but there was almost zero risk of killing extra people.

But every time they tried to recreate the 'Miracle on the Hudson(tm)' in a simulator, with experienced pilots, they FAILED. Every time.

In that scenario, the FAA looked on the Hudson as a non-choice, and a highly reckless decision. That it worked out, in hindsight, doesn't make it any more of a 'safe decision'. But let's argue luck, chance, probability, and recklessness...

Given the number of Note 7's in the wild, and their propensity for overheating/'exploding', and the injuries so far, it's incredible that nothing worse has happened. Samsung deserves the knocks. Their 'fixed' units burned too. That's more than embarrassing...

Apparently a higher degree of care and technique(?) needs to go into the manufacture of those batteries and the devices that use them. Boeing, I'm sure, went through hell over their battery packs, and they 'found a way'.

That (Note 7) should be a lesson that manufacturers shouldn't soon forget. Since the batteries tend to cascade fail, there should be more testing, and perhaps a 'stress test' for batteries to see if they are prone to cascade and burn.
[doublepost=1477254455][/doublepost]

There's nothing different about Note 7 fires than other device fires.

Except, of course, that any single cell lithium fire (such as a smartphone) is less problem than with a multicell battery such as laptops use, where one failed cell will often cause its neighbors to go into thermal runaway as well.

Laptops also are harder to find containers for, because of their size. Phones fit in metal coffepots or small metal trashcans. Laptops don't. That's one reason why more and more airlines now carry special large bags designed to scoop up and contain devices that have caught fire.

But the Note 7 was way outside of the bell curve. I heard of three in one day! How many iPhones have torched? How many in one day?

The Note 7 has earned the ban. Well earned...
[doublepost=1477255116][/doublepost]

I'm happy with their decision to ban these from airlines. Making it a criminal offence is the only way to get people to comply with the ban. I don't care how harmless some people here think cabin fires are, but they do pose a risk and it is very expensive to repair a fire-damaged cabin. We wouldn't need this ban if Note 7s weren't catching fire with a likelihood way over the acceptable threshold; lithium cells have a failure rate, yes, but this is on a completely different scale of failure.

It's not an actual 'criminal offense' to my knowledge. They just advise people to not charge them, and leave them off for the duration of the flight. I flew last week, and there are banners and posters in airports, and announcements on the planes. One announcement joked that 'If anyone still has a Note 7, ...' I thought it funny. Several chuckled on that flight...

 

[kdarling]

I'm not of the opinion this is about convenience, this is about safety. Safety trumps convenience moreso in all facets of air travel.

No sir, it doesn't. You're making the common mistake of confusing the NTSB (which is all about safety), with the FAA (which often balances cost vs. safety).

But every time they tried to recreate the 'Miracle on the Hudson(tm)' in a simulator, with experienced pilots, they FAILED. Every time.

So what. It's not unusual for simulations to fail quite often at something that an experienced pilot managed to do in real life with adrenaline and fear for his own life, and those of his passengers, flowing through his veins.

In that scenario, the FAA looked on the Hudson as a non-choice, and a highly reckless decision. That it worked out, in hindsight, doesn't make it any more of a 'safe decision'. But let's argue luck, chance, probability, and recklessness...

Where is this nonsense coming from? The movie, which FAA and NTSB investigators have already said does not reflect the intentions of their questions? They were not attacking his choices, but getting details that would help with future recommendations.

In real life, any pilot would agree that Sully made the choice with the best likely outcome, and least likely to harm people on the ground.

In fact, the NTSB said in their accident report conclusions:

"15. The captain’s decision to ditch on the Hudson River rather than attempting to land at an airport provided the highest probability that the accident would be survivable."

Moreover, pilots are warned over and over again to NEVER give into the temptation to turn back towards the airport after a complete engine failure, because such a turn virtually always results in fatalities. (There were simulations where sometimes it was possible to make it back to LGA, but they required an instant turn back right after the strike, which again, no pilot would do outside of a simulation.)

Simply put, there was no other realistic snap choice that would not risk having an airliner crashing short of a runway (even into a city) with wings full of fuel, which would be deadly for both the passengers and people on the ground.

But the Note 7 was way outside of the bell curve. I heard of three in one day! How many iPhones have torched? How many in one day? The Note 7 has earned the ban. Well earned...

Yep, as I've said many times, the Note 7 earned the ban. However, there was zero need for the DOT to make it sound scarier than it is. Not when there have been many in-cabin lithium battery fires -- fires which will continue to occur without the Note 7 around. They had a great chance to educate the public instead of scaring them, and blew it.

As for iPhones, more of them have exploded and burned on an airliner while in-flight than the Note 7. That's because the only Note 7 incident was while still at the gate, and everyone calmly walked off the plane. (Heh. And yes, I'm noting this ironic fact with tongue in cheek.)

 

[I7guy]

No sir, it doesn't. You're making the common mistake of confusing the NTSB (which is all about safety), with the FAA (which often balances cost vs. safety).



So what. It's not unusual for simulations to fail quite often at something that an experienced pilot managed to do in real life with adrenaline and fear for his own life, and those of his passengers, flowing through his veins.



Where is this nonsense coming from? The movie, which FAA and NTSB investigators have already said does not reflect the intentions of their questions? They were not attacking his choices, but getting details that would help with future recommendations.

In real life, any pilot would agree that Sully made the choice with the best likely outcome, and least likely to harm people on the ground.

In fact, the NTSB said in their accident report conclusions:

"15. The captain’s decision to ditch on the Hudson River rather than attempting to land at an airport provided the highest probability that the accident would be survivable."

Moreover, pilots are warned over and over again to NEVER give into the temptation to turn back towards the airport after a complete engine failure, because such a turn virtually always results in fatalities. (There were simulations where sometimes it was possible to make it back to LGA, but they required an instant turn back right after the strike, which again, no pilot would do outside of a simulation.)

Simply put, there was no other realistic snap choice that would not risk having an airliner crashing short of a runway (even into a city) with wings full of fuel, which would be deadly for both the passengers and people on the ground.



Yep, as I've said many times, the Note 7 earned the ban. However, there was zero need for the DOT to make it sound scarier than it is. Not when there have been many in-cabin lithium battery fires -- fires which will continue to occur without the Note 7 around. They had a great chance to educate the public instead of scaring them, and blew it.

As for iPhones, more of them have exploded and burned on an airliner while in-flight than the Note 7. That's because the only Note 7 incident was while still at the gate, and everyone calmly walked off the plane. (Heh. And yes, I'm noting this ironic fact with tongue in cheek.)

This is not about the NTSB vs FAA, this is about a product that has been recalled, that has the propensity to burst into flames with, one could argue, more than the probability of other models. Nobody needs an in-cabin fire or to inhale those noxious fumes, but given the recall and the imminent statistical danger, it seems prudent to keep everyone as safe as can be by banning said model. It's not about worrying about saving a few bucks because the flight crew might be on stand-by alert to contain note 7 fires.

 

[Suckfest 9001]

Gotta love how his proposed solution is literally "educate people that fires are a natural, common occurrence mid-flight inside the cabin."

Not how the real world works, bub. Fires in cabins are obviously a huge deal, even if you don't think so, and I'm glad they took it seriously with an attitude reflective of reality. I'll take their word for it over yours any day.

 

[kdarling]

Gotta love how his proposed solution is literally "educate people that fires are a natural, common occurrence mid-flight inside the cabin."

I wouldn't put it the casual way that you do, but lithium fires around airliners do occur about once a month on average in the US alone. In over twenty five years of them, no in-cabin passenger liner fire has been deadly. Not even close.

So yeah, instead of scaring people about the wrong danger, they could've used the ban to teach something useful, like how to avoid getting burned by a battery fire, while alerting the crew.

More importantly, they could've used the publicity to teach the public that, while in-cabin battery fires can be easily handled, such fires in checked luggage in the baggage hold can truly be deadly because they cannot be reached by crew. And baggage hold extinguishers might not work on a lithium fire that sets off other flammables.

 

[I7guy]

I wouldn't put it the casual way that you do, but lithium fires around airliners do occur about once a month on average in the US alone. In over twenty five years of them, no in-cabin passenger liner fire has been deadly. Not even close.

So yeah, instead of scaring people about the wrong danger, they could've used the ban to teach something useful, like how to avoid getting burned by a battery fire, while alerting the crew.

More importantly, they could've used the publicity to teach the public that, while in-cabin battery fires can be easily handled, such fires in checked luggage in the baggage hold can truly be deadly because they cannot be reached by crew. And baggage hold extinguishers might not work on a lithium fire that sets off other flammables.

While one can't disagree with this, I still don't see how it's germane to the conversation of a ban by lumping the entire kit and kaboodle until ped fires; considering the cpsc recall specifically was for the note 7.

 

[dk001]

I wouldn't put it the casual way that you do, but lithium fires around airliners do occur about once a month on average in the US alone. In over twenty five years of them, no in-cabin passenger liner fire has been deadly. Not even close.

So yeah, instead of scaring people about the wrong danger, they could've used the ban to teach something useful, like how to avoid getting burned by a battery fire, while alerting the crew.

More importantly, they could've used the publicity to teach the public that, while in-cabin battery fires can be easily handled, such fires in checked luggage in the baggage hold can truly be deadly because they cannot be reached by crew. And baggage hold extinguishers might not work on a lithium fire that sets off other flammables.

Great comments. So many miss teachable moments. Unfortunately, these (lithium danger) teaching moments do not sell advertising nor encourage headline reading. This issue could have been handled much better.