Would an Airline Laptop Ban Increase the Risk of Flying?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

From the Los Angeles Times:

As the U.S. government considers expanding a ban on laptop computers and other electronic devices from the cabins of commercial flights, federal data show that storing such devices in the cargo area of a plane could increase the risk of fires.

Indeed. Here’s FAA data on known fires from lithium-ion batteries on passenger flights:

Battery fires have skyrocketed since 2015. When they’re in the passenger compartment, they can usually be extinguished without too much trouble. But if they’re in the cargo hold, there’s a greater risk of a battery explosion causing major damage—and possible loss of life—before it’s put out.

Ironically, this is an example of something I was complaining about yesterday: comparing deaths from terrorism with deaths from accidents like bathtub falls. In this case, though, it’s a live question. What are the odds of a plane going down because a terrorist has smuggled an explosive onto a plane inside a laptop computer? And what are the odds of a plane going down because of a laptop battery fire in a cargo hold?

I assume the chances of the latter are small, since it’s never happened. Then again, the chances of the former are pretty minuscule too. Has anyone tried to do a hazard analysis of this? Are there better ways of making sure electronic devices don’t contain explosives? And how do you factor in the loss of convenience from banning laptops? Those are good questions. Anyone have any answers?

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate