GNSS Interference in Aviation—Threats, Responses, and Future Resilience

 The Evolving Threat Landscape

Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), primarily GPS, underpin modern aviation's precision navigation, surveillance, and timing. However, jamming—intentional signal overload—and spoofing—deceptive false signals—pose escalating risks, particularly as geopolitical tensions rise. Data from space-based surveillance provider Aireon indicates an 80% surge in GPS outage events from 2021 to 2024, with OPSGROUP estimating a staggering 500% increase in reported aviation incidents in 2024 alone. These disruptions, often indiscriminate, affect civilian flights over military hotspots like the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and the Black Sea, where state actors or non-state groups deploy portable jammers. While no direct fatalities have occurred, the evidence points to degraded safety margins, with the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) issuing urgent bulletins in 2024 highlighting inconsistent navigation and surveillance losses.

Impact of GPS Jamming and Spoofing

Jamming and spoofing erode GNSS reliability, cascading through aircraft subsystems. Jamming emits high-power noise on GPS frequencies (e.g., L1 band at 1575.42 MHz), overpowering faint satellite signals (as low as -160 dBW) and causing outright signal denial. Spoofing, more insidious, broadcasts counterfeit signals mimicking authentic ones, inducing false positions—e.g., an aircraft "teleporting" 100+ nautical miles or entering impossible circular loops at cruise altitude.

Core Aviation Impacts:

a) Navigation and Flight Management: Loss of GPS triggers autopilot disengagements, forcing manual reversion and increasing pilot workload by up to 300-500% in high-density airspace, per recent simulations. In performance-based navigation (PBN), this compromises RNP approaches, leading to go-arounds or diversions.

b) Surveillance and Collision Avoidance: Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) fails, creating "ghost" tracks or duplicates, complicating air traffic control (ATC) separation. Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) may issue erroneous resolutions.

c) Safety Systems: TAWS/EGPWS generates false terrain warnings based on spoofed altitudes, risking unnecessary evasive manoeuvres. Honeywell reports potential distortions in weather radar overlays and flight planning.

d) Geopolitical Hotspots: Effects are most pronounced near conflict zones like the Middle East and Black Sea, where state or non-state actors deploy jammers, impacting civilian flights indiscriminately.

e) Operational and Economic Consequences: Delays average 30-60 minutes per incident, with 2024 hotspots causing thousands of diversions. Aireon's data shows over 10,000 flights flagged as anomalies monthly in affected regions, eroding on-time performance and passenger trust. Some of the operational consequences are:

i. Delays and diversions due to unavailable GPS approaches

ii. Higher fuel burn from rerouting and vectoring

iii. Increased ATC workload and flow restrictions

iv. Potential cancellations in airports relying heavily on PBN

v. Operational disruptions in mixed fleet operations

Quantitative Trends from Aireon (August 2024–January 2025) :

Anomaly Type	Description	Frequency Trend	Example Impact
Low Position Integrity (PIC < 7)	Degraded GPS quality, radius >0.6 NM	Steady (10% dip in Oct 2024)	Multiple aircraft lose RAIM integrity over hours
Field Type Code 0 (FTC0)	Unknown position due to GPS failure	Stable	Airborne FTC0 spikes near Boise, ID (13x increase, Jan 2025, tied to US military tests)
Duplicate Addresses	Position errors >6 NM in 30s	Rising (spoofing indicator)	Lahore, Pakistan (Dec 2024): High duplicates aligning with pilot jamming reports
Track Discontinuities/IPC Flags	Jumps >3 NM from reference track	Spiking (Nov 2024 update)	Black Sea spoofing: Bangkok-Vienna flight "jumped" to Bulgaria/Ukraine
Improbable Tracks (e.g., Circles)	Low velocity (<100 kts) at altitude	Declining (new methods?)	Circular patterns over Eastern Europe, detected via low-velocity flags

These metrics, derived from billions of daily ADS-B messages, correlate strongly with interference events, underscoring the shift from localized to widespread threats.

Case Studies:

a) Black Sea Incident (2024): A commercial flight reported spoofed positions across borders, triggering ATC alerts and a 45-minute delay; Aireon's Independent Position Check (IPC) validated the discrepancy.

b) Middle East Jamming (Ongoing): OPSGROUP logs show 80% of global reports here, with TAWS false alerts forcing climbs over safe terrain.

c) US Domestic Testing (Jan 2025): Military exercises near Idaho caused 13-fold anomaly surges, affecting Salt Lake City FIR traffic.

Critically, while media amplifies risks, aviation bodies like IATA stress that incidents remain manageable, with no evidence of targeted civilian attacks—yet the potential for escalation in contested airspace warrants vigilance.

Jamming vs. Spoofing: Technical Distinctions and Detection Challenges

1. Jamming

a) Mechanism: A jammer broadcasts strong RF signals on GNSS frequencies (L1, L2, etc.) to drown out or corrupt legitimate satellite signals.

b) Effect: Loss of signal, degraded signal-to-noise ratio, denial of position fix.

2. Spoofing

a) Mechanism: A spoofer transmits counterfeit GNSS signals that mimic real satellite signals. These Coherent fakes exploiting GNSS's unauthenticated design; subtler, as receivers may "lock" onto imposters, showing plausible but erroneous data (e.g., clock drifts or altitude mismatches). Both exploit GPS's civil signals' lack of encryption, though military P(Y)-code offers partial protection. Detection relies on cross-checks: e.g., inertial drift exceeding 1 NM/hour flags issues, or multi-antenna arrays spotting signal direction inconsistencies. Can mislead GNSS receivers into calculating false positions, altitudes, or time.

b) Spoofing-induced Hazards: Potentially more dangerous than jamming because the navigation system “thinks” the data is correct and may not declare an error. Spoofing may:

i. Mislead FMS position

ii. Trigger autopilot navigation on false waypoints

iii. Cause deviations without warning flags

This is significantly more dangerous than simple jamming.

3. Vulnerability

a) GNSS signals received by aircraft are extremely weak (very low power), making them susceptible to interference.

b) Many civil receivers do not have strong anti-jam or anti-spoofing protection.

c) In aviation, interference can propagate through FMS (Flight Management System), ADS-B, CPDLC (Controller-Pilot Data Link), and time-synchronization systems.

Oceanic and Remote Airspace Risks

Over oceans and deserts where ground-based navaids are absent, GNSS becomes a single point of failure. Jamming in these environments may cause:

a) Position uncertainty

b) Incorrect IRS drift corrections

c) Degraded CPDLC anchoring (time-stamp issues)

d) Contingency procedures being triggered (e.g., 15 NM offset or drift-down routes)

India’s Experience and Risks

India has recently reported significant GPS/GNSS interference, particularly spoofing, which has affected civil aviation operations in sensitive regions.

Incident Statistics & Geography

a) According to the Government of India, 465 GPS interference/spoofing incidents were reported between November 2023 and February 2025.

b) These incidents are concentrated in border regions — notably Amritsar and Jammu.

c) In parliamentary proceedings, the Minister of State for Civil Aviation confirmed these reports.

d) Some of these interference events are believed to be tied to cross-border electronic warfare, especially near conflict-prone zones. 4.2 Regulatory Response: DGCA’s Measures

e) The DGCA (Directorate General of Civil Aviation) has issued multiple advisories/circulars. In November 2023, it released an advisory circular on GNSS interference (jamming & spoofing), which outlines roles and responsibilities for airlines, ANSP (Air Navigation Service Providers), and ATC/aviation stakeholders.

f) DGCA formed a special committee (in October 2023) to monitor GNSS spoofing and make recommendations.

g) In November 2025, DGCA mandated a real-time reporting protocol: any pilot, ATC controller, or technical unit detecting “abnormal GPS behaviour” must report within 10 minutes.

Anti-Jamming Techniques: Engineering the Frontline Defence

Anti-jamming prioritizes signal preservation over full denial, leveraging physics and algorithms. These are mature in defence but emerging in civil aviation due to certification hurdles under RTCA DO-229 standards.

Primary Techniques:

1. Antenna-Based Solutions:

a) Controlled Reception Pattern Antennas (CRPA): Multi-element arrays (4-7 elements) adaptively nullify jammers (up to 40 dB attenuation) by steering beams—e.g., NovAtel's GAJT modules for aviation integration. Applicable to drones and airliners; CRFS notes efficacy in high-threat environments like Ukraine.

b) Directional Antennas: Fixed nulls toward ground-based threats, though less flexible than CRPAs.

2. Receiver-Level Processing:

a) Adaptive Nulling and Beamforming: Projects signals onto "jammer-free subspaces," suppressing interference while boosting satellites (DTIC research shows 30-50 dB gains).

b) Spread Spectrum and Frequency Hopping: Distributes power across bands (e.g., L1/L5 dual-use), resisting narrowband jammers; modern chips like those from u-blox enable this.

c) Power Minimisation: Dynamically lowers jammer influence via digital filtering, per NovAtel implementations.

3. Hybrid Approaches:

Infinidome-Style Dome Shields: Passive Faraday-like enclosures block ground jammers while passing skyward signals, ideal for low-altitude ops.

Technique	Pros	Cons	Aviation Maturity
CRPA	High gain (40+ dB), real-time adaptation	Cost ($10K+), power draw, certification delays	Military: High; Civil: Emerging (e.g., Boeing tests)
Spread Spectrum	Low cost, software-upgradable	Less effective vs. broadband jammers	Widespread in new GNSS receivers
Adaptive Filtering	Integrates with existing hardware	Computationally intensive	Proven in INS hybrids

These techniques, when layered, can extend GPS usability in 50-100 dB jamming fields, but spoofing demands orthogonal methods like authentication.

Comprehensive Mitigation Strategies: A Multi-Layered Framework

Mitigation spans technology, operations, and policy, as no single fix suffices—ICAO's 2025 paper advocates "defence in depth." Strategies address both jamming (denial) and spoofing (deception), with reversion to non-GNSS backups as the ultimate safeguard.

Technological Layers:

a) Receiver Enhancements: Dual-frequency multi-constellation (DFMC) receivers (GPS + Galileo + BeiDou) diversify signals, yielding 15 dB anti-jam margins and spoof detection via constellation cross-verification. Cryptographic authentication (e.g., Galileo's OS-NMA) verifies signals, though full rollout lags.

b) Sensor Fusion: Integrate GNSS with Inertial Navigation Systems (INS), baro-altimeters, and Doppler radars for hybrid PNT; Kalman filters detect outliers (e.g., >2σ position errors).

c) Detection Tools: Real-time monitors like GPSwise or NaviGuard apps flag anomalies via signal metrics; geofencing restricts ops in known hotspots.

d) PNT diversification: Long-term navigational resilience may depend on alternative PNT (Position, Navigation, Timing) systems. India’s indigenous GNSS (NavIC) could play a role, though its current civil aviation role is limited. Research in alternate nav technologies, including quantum-based navigation, may also contribute over the coming years. (See research trends in quantum navigation, though civilian aviation adoption remains nascent.)

Operational Protocols (Per CASA and EASA Guidelines):

a) Pre-Flight Planning: Assess route risks via NOTAMs; ensure backups for IMC approaches.

b) In-Flight Response:

a. Recognise: Monitor for TAWS anomalies, ADS-B drops, or inertial drifts.

b. Mitigate: Cross-check with VOR/DME/ILS; climb if below MSA.

c. Adapt: Notify ATC, vector to safe airspace, log for post-flight analysis. 

d. ATC Integration: Enhanced radar and multilateration for GNSS-denied surveillance.

Policy and Systemic Efforts:

a) ICAO standardisation for C-PNT (e.g., eLoran backups) and interference reporting.

b) Training: IATA workshops emphasise "GNSS hygiene"—e.g., avoiding sole reliance.

c) Emerging: AI-driven prediction models from Aireon forecast hotspots 24-48 hours ahead.

d) ICAO & AAPA / CANSO Engagement: At the 60th DGCA Asia-Pacific conference, a paper was presented on “safeguarding navigational safety and operational resilience amidst increasing GNSS interference.” This calls for reviewing over-reliance on GNSS, especially at airports lacking conventional navaids.

Strategy Layer	Jamming Focus	Spoofing Focus	Implementation Timeline
Technological	CRPA, DFMC	Authentication, multi-antenna	2-5 years (certification pending)
Operational	Backup aids, cross-checks	Anomaly alerts, crew drills	Immediate (via SOP updates)
Policy	Spectrum monitoring, NOTAMs	Global reporting networks	Ongoing (ICAO 2025-2030)

Challenges include cost (CRPAs add $50K/aircraft) and export controls, but incentives like FAA grants accelerate adoption. Future resilience hinges on hybrid ecosystems, reducing GNSS dependency to <50% of PNT.

Balancing Risks in a GNSS-Dependent Era

GPS interference underscores aviation's vulnerability to low-cost threats ($100 jammers vs. billion-dollar satellites), yet layered mitigations ensure safety continuity. As incidents trend upward—potentially doubling by 2026 per models—proactive investment in resilient tech and ops is essential. Stakeholders must collaborate, prioritising civil-military deconfliction to safeguard skies.

N.B. Part II of the article covers Flight crew procedures and checklists to counter GPS interference-induced errors in Navigation and Flight Operations.

Author: G R Mohan

Flying Safely with Lithium Batteries: Understanding IATA Guidelines and Best Practices

 Aviation safety, passenger convenience, and the growing prevalence of portable electronics converge in the regulation of lithium batteries. This article examines IATA’s current and emerging guidelines, the underlying science of lithium battery hazards, and practical steps to ensure the safe carriage and shipment of lithium batteries by air.

1. Introduction: The Ubiquity and Risk of Lithium Batteries

From smartphones and laptops to drones, e-bikes, and smart luggage, lithium-based batteries power nearly every portable electronic device of modern life. The same properties that make them efficient—high energy density, rechargeability, and lightweight construction—also make them potentially hazardous in the aviation environment. When improperly packed, damaged, or short-circuited, lithium batteries can enter thermal runaway, a rapid self-heating reaction that can cause fires or explosions.

As of October 2025, global aviation authorities report a sharp rise in lithium battery incidents. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has documented 50 verified cases of smoke, fire, or extreme heat from lithium batteries on U.S. flights through August alone—averaging over one per week. Internationally, incidents include an Air China flight's emergency landing in October due to a spontaneous battery combustion in carry-on luggage and a South Korean tarmac fire in January linked to a power bank. These events underscore the urgency of compliance with evolving regulations from bodies like the FAA, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the International Air Transport Association (IATA), and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

 Such incidents are particularly dangerous in aircraft, where accessibility and suppression are limited. The International Air Transport Association (IATA), along with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), has thus established stringent global standards to ensure that these batteries can be carried and transported safely.

2. Understanding Lithium Batteries: Types and Ratings

Lithium batteries fall into two primary categories, each with distinct risks  and regulatory treatment:

1) Lithium Metal Batteries (non-rechargeable)

a) Contain metallic lithium.

b) Common in small devices like watches, cameras, and remotes.

c) Classification: UN 3090 (batteries only), UN 3091 (batteries in/with equipment).

2) Lithium-Ion Batteries (rechargeable)

a) Contain lithium in ionic form.

b) Used in laptops, phones, tablets, and power banks.

c) Classification: UN 3480 (batteries only), UN 3481 (batteries in/with equipment).

Every battery shipped or carried on an aircraft must meet the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III, Subsection 38.3, ensuring its resilience against vibration, thermal shock, and overcharge.

3 . The Regulatory Framework: Key Authorities and 2025 Updates

Air travel regulations harmonize under the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), but implementation varies by region. Here's a breakdown:

Authority	Scope	Key 2025 Focus
FAA (U.S.)	Domestic and international U.S. carriers	Issued a September safety alert urging airlines to enhance passenger communications on battery risks; no major limit changes, but reinforced carry-on-only for spares. Updated PackSafe guidelines in February.
TSA (U.S.)	Security screening	Aligns with FAA; emphasizes removal of spares from gate-checked bags. Final decisions at checkpoints rest with officers.
IATA	Global airlines and cargo	66th Edition Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR) effective 2025 introduces a 3m stack test for non-UN packaging of batteries in equipment (Packing Instructions 966-II, etc.); new FAQs for sodium-ion batteries; multilingual traveller campaigns launched in October.
EASA/ICAO (EU/International)	EU and global harmonization	May Safety Information Bulletin (SIB) reinforces passenger restrictions; October ICAO alert on cabin fire response; 300 Wh limit for mobility aid batteries; bans unmarked power banks on Chinese domestic flights.

These updates reflect a post-pandemic surge in device usage and incidents, with IATA's global campaign emphasizing proper handling to prevent mishaps.

4. Passenger Carriage: IATA Guidance for Air Travelers

IATA’s Passenger Lithium Battery Guidance Document defines what passengers can safely carry on board or check in. The most critical distinction is between installed and spare batteries. Passengers often carry an average of four such devices per flight, amplifying potential hazards. Always check markings on the battery or device for Wh ratings; if absent, consult the manufacturer.

The golden rule: Spare lithium batteries must always travel in carry-on baggage. Checked baggage poses insurmountable risks, as fires in cargo holds are hard to detect and extinguish.

4.1. Installed Batteries (In Devices)

Devices with lithium batteries (phones, laptops, cameras, tablets) are generally allowed in both carry-on and checked baggage.

a) Carry-On: Unlimited for personal use, provided under 100 Wh. Devices like laptops must be powered off and protected.

b) Checked Baggage: Permitted if the device is fully protected from accidental activation and damage (e.g., padded in a case).

 However, post-2025 FAA guidance strongly recommends carry-on to allow quick access in emergencies.

4.2. Spare Batteries (Including Power Banks)

a) Spare lithium batteries, including power banks and vape devices, must be carried in carry-on baggage only.

b) Checked baggage carriage is prohibited, as fires in cargo holds are difficult to detect or extinguish.

c) Terminals must be insulated (e.g., by taping over contacts or using protective pouches) to prevent short-circuit.

d) Gate-Checked Bags: Remove all spares before handing over; keep them in the cabin.

4.3. Capacity and Quantity Limits

IATA uses Watt-hour (Wh) rating for lithium-ion batteries and lithium content (grams) for lithium metal batteries:

Battery Type	Carry-On Limit	Checked Limit	Approval Needed?
Installed ≤100 Wh	Unlimited	Allowed (protected)	No
Spare ≤100 Wh	Unlimited	Prohibited	No
Installed/Spare 101–160 Wh	Up to 2 spares	Prohibited for spares	Yes (airline)
>160 Wh	Prohibited	Prohibited	N/A
Lithium metal ≤ 2 g	Permitted.	Prohibited	No
Lithium metal > 2 g	Prohibited	Prohibited	N/A

These limits apply to most personal electronics. High-capacity batteries (e.g., for professional film cameras, drones, or medical equipment) require explicit airline approval before travel.

5. Specific Items and Scenarios

a) Power Banks and Portable Chargers: Top incident culprits (39% of FAA cases since 2006). Carry-on only; no charging devices onboard with them (e.g., Southwest Airlines ban since May 2025). South Korea mandates clear safety markings.

b) E-Cigarettes and Vapes: Carry-on only; batteries must be removed and protected. No use or charging onboard. Prohibited in checked bags.

c) Laptops and Tablets: Carry-on preferred; if checked, ensure shutdown and padding. Extended-life batteries may need approval.

d) Medical Devices (e.g., CPAP Machines): Exempt from Wh limits if for personal medical use; notify airline in advance.

e) Commercial Quantities: Prohibited; only personal-use batteries allowed.

5.1. Packing and Handling Best Practices

To prevent short-circuiting—the primary trigger for thermal runaway—follow these steps:

a) Protect Terminals: Use original packaging, tape over contacts, or non-conductive pouches.

b) Avoid Extremes: Do not expose to heat (>140°F), cold, or moisture; turn off devices.

c) Stowage: Keep visible and accessible (e.g., seat pocket, not buried in overhead bins) for quick monitoring.

d) Charging: Use only aircraft seat power; no power banks onboard.

e) Pre-Flight Check: Verify no damage (e.g., swollen batteries) and review airline policy via apps or websites.

IATA's 2025 multilingual resources offer visual guides for packing.

5.2. Damaged, Defective, or Recalled Batteries

Do not fly with these—ever. Cracked screens, swelling, or recalls indicate internal damage priming thermal runaway. Check the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) or manufacturer sites. Remove and dispose safely per local hazardous waste rules; airlines may offer disposal guidance. In 2025, millions of chargers and vapes were recalled globally for fire risks.

5.3. Smart Baggage and Emerging Technologies

“Smart luggage” — bags containing built-in tracking, charging, or weighing systems — has prompted additional restrictions.
IATA’s Guidance on Smart Baggage with Integrated Lithium Batteries and Electronics mandates:

a) Lithium batteries must be removable if the bag is checked in.

b) Smart bags with non-removable batteries are only allowed as carry-on items.

c) If the battery exceeds 100 Wh or 2 g lithium, airline approval is required even for carry-on.

Airlines such as Lufthansa, Emirates, and Air India have adopted these standards, aligning their policies with IATA’s baseline.

6. Air Transport as Cargo: The IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR)

The IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR) provide the definitive framework for the safe shipment of lithium batteries by air. The relevant Packing Instructions (PI) are:

1) PI 965 — Lithium-ion batteries (UN 3480)

2) PI 966/967 — Lithium-ion batteries packed with/in equipment (UN 3481)

3) PI 968 — Lithium metal batteries (UN 3090)

4) PI 969/970 — Lithium metal batteries packed with/in equipment (UN 3091)

6.1. State of Charge (SoC) Limit

For stand-alone lithium-ion batteries (UN 3480), IATA mandates that they be shipped at no more than 30% State of Charge (SoC). This significantly reduces the likelihood of thermal events during transport.

From 1 January 2026, this 30% SoC restriction will extend to batteries packed with equipment (UN 3481) and vehicle batteries (UN 3556), reflecting growing concern over energy storage devices in larger systems.

6.2. Packaging, Marking, and Labelling

All lithium battery shipments must:

a) Use UN-specification packaging tested to withstand pressure and impact.

b) Display the lithium battery mark — a black battery symbol with red hatching and a telephone number for additional information.

c) Include proper documentation and dangerous goods declarations (where applicable).

Failure to comply can lead to shipment rejections, regulatory penalties, or, in worst cases, in-flight fires.

7. Operational Considerations for Airlines and Crew

7.1. Cabin Safety and Fire Mitigation

a) Flight and cabin crew should be trained to identify signs of battery failure — swelling, overheating, smoke, or odor.

b) IATA recommends the use of non-alcoholic water or halon extinguishers for initial flame suppression, followed by cooling with water to prevent re-ignition.

c) Passengers should immediately report dropped or damaged devices in seat mechanisms.

7.2. Dispatch and Ground Handling

a) Ground personnel must verify the correct packing instructions and SoC compliance for any battery shipments.

b) Safety management systems (SMS) should integrate lithium battery carriage procedures, risk assessments, and incident reporting mechanisms.

c) Airlines are encouraged to pre-emptively align with the 2026 SoC amendment to avoid last-minute operational disruptions.

7.3. Passenger Communication

a) Airline websites, check-in counters, and pre-flight announcements must clearly communicate lithium battery restrictions.

b) Harmonized signage (following IATA templates) improves compliance and reduces confrontations at security checkpoints.

7.4. Responding to an Emergency

If you notice overheating, smoke, or fire:

a) Alert Crew Immediately: Do not attempt to extinguish yourself—crews are trained with specialized tools like fire sleeves and cooling agents.

b) Evacuation Protocol: Follow crew instructions; isolate the device if possible.

c) Post-Incident: Report via FAA's hotline (1-866-TELL-FAA) to aid research.

8. Regulatory Evolution and Future Outlook

Lithium battery transport remains one of the most rapidly evolving areas in dangerous goods regulation. IATA’s 66th Edition (2025) DGR introduces several critical updates:

a) Expanded rules for sodium-ion batteries, an emerging lithium alternative.

b) Mandatory SoC limitation for more categories of batteries.

c) Revised training frameworks under ICAO’s competency-based training and assessment (CBTA) model.

As eVTOL aircraft, drones, and electric ground vehicles proliferate, the interface between passenger transport and energy storage will grow even more complex. A coordinated approach—linking design standards, certification, and transport regulation—will be key to ensuring both operational efficiency and public safety.

DGCA currently follows ICAO/IATA baselines; multiple Indian news outlets (Oct 2025) report DGCA is actively considering stricter rules for power banks after several incidents.

9. Recent Incidents and Emerging Trends

2025 has seen a 42% rise in U.S. lithium fires over five years, driven by increased device carriage. Notable events:

a) August: American Airlines emergency landing after device fire post-takeoff.

b) September: FAA alert following 50 incidents, including injuries and diversions.

c) October: Air China diversion; Airbus guidance on in-flight risks.

Trends point to power banks as primary offenders, prompting bans like Southwest's on onboard charging. Research into detection tech (e.g., EASA projects) promises future enhancements.

10. Summary and Best Practices

3.1. For Passengers:

1) Carry spare lithium batteries and power banks only in cabin baggage.

2) Protect terminals to prevent short-circuits.

3) Do not pack spares in checked baggage.

4) Obtain airline approval for batteries exceeding 100 Wh.

5) Remove or switch off batteries in smart baggage if checking in.

6) If a bag is selected for gate Check-in, remove all electronic items and batteries.

3.2. For Airlines and Operators:

1) Train crew and ground staff in lithium battery hazard recognition and response.

2) Verify SoC and packaging compliance for all shipments.

3) Integrate IATA’s latest DGR changes into manuals and SMS.

4) Communicate restrictions clearly to passengers at every touchpoint.

11. Conclusion

Lithium batteries are indispensable to modern life—but their energy potential demands respect and regulation. Flying with lithium batteries is safe when passengers prioritize knowledge and caution. Adhere to carry-on mandates, secure approvals for larger capacities, and pack proactively to sidestep the rare but severe risks of thermal runaway. As aviation evolves with battery-dependent tech, staying informed via official sources like FAA PackSafe or IATA's DGR ensures not just compliance, but collective safety. Bon voyage—powered responsibly.

References

1) IATA. Lithium Battery Guidance Document (2025 Edition).

2) IATA. Passenger Lithium Battery Guidance.

3) IATA. Dangerous Goods Regulations (66th Edition, 2025).

4) ICAO. Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (Doc 9284).

5) RRC Power Solutions. New IATA Regulations for Lithium Battery Transport (2025–2026).

6) Lion Technology. State of Charge Recommendations for 2025.

7) Reuters. Airlines Updating Lithium Battery Policies (2025).

Author: GR Mohan