Regulations & Safety
Emirates Bans Power Bank Use on Flights to Enhance Safety
Emirates enforces strict power bank restrictions from October 2025 to reduce lithium battery fire risks amid rising aviation incidents.

Emirates Implements Comprehensive Power Bank Restrictions: Industry Response to Rising Lithium Battery Fire Incidents
The aviation industry is facing a new set of challenges as incidents involving lithium battery fires have surged, prompting airlines to rethink safety protocols for passenger electronics. Emirates, one of the world’s largest and most profitable airlines, has responded by introducing the strictest power bank policy to date, effective October 1, 2025. This move comes amid a dramatic rise in lithium battery-related incidents, including a high-profile aircraft destruction in South Korea earlier this year. The new Emirates policy, which bans all use of power banks during flight, is poised to set a new standard for airline safety and may signal broader changes across the sector.
The significance of this development extends beyond operational adjustments for a single airline. With lithium-ion batteries now ubiquitous in personal devices, the risks associated with their use at altitude have become a focal point for regulators and industry leaders. Emirates’ decision reflects both a response to recent catastrophic events and a proactive stance on passenger safety, likely influencing regulatory and competitive dynamics in the global aviation market.
This article examines the context, details, and implications of Emirates’ new power bank policy, exploring the technical, regulatory, and economic dimensions of lithium battery safety in modern air travel.
The Escalating Crisis of Lithium Battery Incidents in Aviation
Lithium battery fires have become an alarming trend in aviation, with data showing a 388% increase in such incidents since 2015. According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), there are now, on average, two lithium battery-related thermal runaway events per week on commercial flights worldwide. The FAA’s Thermal Runaway Incident Program documented 579 aviation-related lithium battery accidents between 2006 and 2024, with 69 incidents in the first eleven months of 2024 alone, one of the highest annual totals on record.
The root cause of these incidents is often “thermal runaway,” a process where a battery’s temperature rises uncontrollably due to internal faults, physical damage, or overcharging. This can result in fires, explosions, and the release of toxic gases. The confined environment of an aircraft cabin, combined with limited firefighting resources at high altitude, makes such events particularly hazardous. Experts from UL Standards & Engagement highlight the unique challenge posed by lithium-ion battery fires, which can burn hotter and faster than conventional material fires, often overwhelming standard suppression tools.
Surveys among flight attendants reveal a high level of concern, with 87% expressing significant worry about lithium-ion battery risks. Compounding the issue, a notable percentage of passengers (38%) admit to packing lithium-powered devices in checked luggage, despite regulations requiring such items to be carried in the cabin. Furthermore, many airlines have been inconsistent in enforcing these rules, particularly during busy travel periods when gate-checked bags may not be properly screened for battery-powered devices.
“Lithium battery fires on aircraft have increased by 388% since 2015, with incidents now occurring twice weekly on average.” — FAA Thermal Runaway Incident Program
Emirates’ Comprehensive New Power Bank Policy
In response to these safety concerns, Emirates has introduced a new policy that goes beyond industry norms. Effective October 1, 2025, all use of power banks during flight is prohibited. This includes charging devices from power banks and recharging power banks using the aircraft’s power supply. Passengers are still allowed to carry power banks under 100 Watt-hours, in line with international guidelines, but these must be visibly labeled with their capacity and stored in a seat pocket or under-seat bag, never in overhead bins or checked luggage.
The policy is a direct response to the technical realities of battery safety. Emirates notes that while many modern devices have built-in safety mechanisms to prevent overcharging, basic power banks often lack such features, increasing the risk of thermal runaway. By restricting both the use and storage of power banks, the airline aims to reduce the likelihood of undetected fires and improve the crew’s ability to respond quickly if an incident does occur.
Emirates has also launched a passenger education campaign to ensure travelers are aware of the new rules. The airline emphasizes that while safety is the primary concern, it is also committed to minimizing inconvenience by providing ample in-seat charging options for passenger devices. This approach underscores the balance between enhanced safety protocols and maintaining a high level of passenger service.
“The new Emirates policy prohibits all power bank use during flight and requires these devices to be stored only in seat pockets or under-seat bags, not overhead bins.” — AeroTime
The Air Busan Incident: Catalyst for Change
The urgency behind Emirates’ policy shift can be traced to a catastrophic event involving Air Busan Flight 391 in January 2025. While parked at Gimhae International Airport in South Korea, a fire broke out in the aircraft’s tail section, rapidly destroying half the fuselage. Investigators determined the fire originated from a power bank stored in an overhead compartment. Although all 176 passengers and crew evacuated safely, the aircraft was declared a total loss, the first recorded hull loss caused by a passenger’s power bank.
The incident exposed several vulnerabilities. The fire started just minutes after a takeoff delay was announced, and initial attempts to suppress it with handheld extinguishers proved insufficient. Crew protocols prevented passengers from opening the overhead bin, as increased oxygen would have intensified the fire. The event’s outcome could have been far graver had it occurred mid-flight, highlighting the need for preventive measures rather than reliance on emergency response.
In the aftermath, South Korea and several Asian carriers, including EVA Air and Singapore Airlines, rapidly introduced new restrictions: banning power bank storage in overhead bins, prohibiting in-flight charging, and capping the number of power banks per passenger. These regional actions provided a blueprint for Emirates and other global airlines to follow.
“The Air Busan incident was the first total aircraft loss attributed to a passenger power bank fire, prompting immediate regulatory changes across Asia.” — South Korea Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport
Industry-Wide Policy Evolution and Technical Considerations
Emirates’ new rules are part of a broader trend. Southwest Airlines was the first major U.S. carrier to restrict power bank usage, requiring devices to remain visible and accessible during charging. Lufthansa and its subsidiary Eurowings in Europe soon followed, banning in-seat power bank charging and mandating special crew announcements about battery safety.
These policies reflect growing recognition of the technical challenges posed by lithium batteries. Unlike smartphones and laptops, many power banks lack advanced circuitry to prevent thermal runaway. The variability in manufacturing standards, especially among counterfeit or low-cost devices, further complicates risk assessment for airlines. Regulatory bodies like the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) have responded by tightening guidelines, including new state-of-charge limits and enhanced labeling requirements.
Technological innovation is also underway. NASA has developed carbon fiber sleeves that contain thermal runaway events within individual battery cells, and researchers are exploring solid-state batteries with inherently safer chemistries. However, these solutions are not yet widely available, making policy restrictions the most immediate tool for risk mitigation.
“Battery design variations and lack of safety features in many power banks are a central concern for airlines and regulators.” — UL Standards & Engagement
Economic and Operational Implications
Implementing comprehensive power bank restrictions has both operational and financial implications for airlines. Emirates, with its strong profitability and global reach, is well positioned to absorb the costs of crew training, passenger education, and safety equipment upgrades. The airline reported pre-tax profits of $6.2 billion in the 2024–25 financial year, providing resources for extensive safety investments.
For other carriers, especially those under financial stress, the costs of similar policy rollouts may be more challenging. Enhanced crew training, specialized fire suppression equipment, and increased passenger communication all require ongoing investment. Airlines must also balance safety with passenger expectations for device connectivity, especially on long-haul flights where power banks have become a travel staple.
The competitive landscape may shift as a result. Passengers who prioritize safety may gravitate toward airlines with stricter policies, while others may seek out carriers with more lenient rules. Ultimately, industry-wide harmonization and technological innovation are likely to shape the future of lithium battery management in aviation.
Conclusion
Emirates’ decision to ban all power bank use during flights marks a turning point in aviation safety, reflecting both the scale of the lithium battery challenge and the airline’s commitment to proactive risk management. The policy is grounded in recent incident data and technical analysis, and it sets a new benchmark that other carriers and regulators may soon follow.
As the industry awaits breakthroughs in battery technology and fire suppression, comprehensive policy restrictions remain the most effective tool for minimizing risk. The future of air travel will depend on the ability of airlines, regulators, and passengers to adapt to evolving safety standards, balancing technological convenience with the imperative of protecting lives at 30,000 feet.
FAQ
Q: Can I still bring a power bank on Emirates flights?
A: Yes, but it must be under 100 Watt-hours, visibly labeled with capacity, and stored in a seat pocket or under-seat bag. It cannot be used or charged during the flight.
Q: Why are power banks now banned from use on Emirates flights?
A: The ban is a response to a significant increase in lithium battery fires and a catastrophic incident in South Korea. The policy aims to reduce the risk of onboard fires and improve safety.
Q: Are other airlines implementing similar policies?
A: Yes, several major airlines including Southwest, Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines, and others have introduced similar restrictions on power bank usage and storage.
Q: What should I do if my device overheats on a flight?
A: Immediately notify the cabin crew. Do not attempt to handle or open the device yourself, as lithium battery fires can escalate quickly.
Q: Will Emirates provide alternative charging options?
A: Emirates is committed to offering in-seat charging for passenger devices, minimizing inconvenience from the power bank ban.
Sources: Emirates, UL Standards & Engagement, IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations
Photo Credit: The New York Times, Emirates – Montage
Regulations & Safety
FAA Announces $481 Million Airport Infrastructure Grants
The FAA distributed 191 grants totaling $481M across 36 states to modernize runways, taxiways, and terminals.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced a $481 million infrastructure funding package on September 3, 2026, distributing 191 grants across 36 states and two U.S. territories to modernize runways, taxiways, and passenger terminals.
The Airport Infrastructure Grants (AIG) program allocations, announced by U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy and FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford, are timed ahead of the Labor Day travel period. The funding targets both major commercial hubs and general aviation facilities to accommodate increasing passenger volumes and enhance operational safety.
Targeting high-volume and regional infrastructure
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) secured the largest single allocation, receiving $100 million. The FAA stated these funds will support runway, taxiway, and terminal reconstruction, alongside improvements to the runway safety area.
San Diego International Airport (SAN) received $30.3 million for terminal construction, while Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport (SDF) was awarded $32.5 million for terminal reconstruction. Milwaukee Mitchell International Airport (MKE) secured $14.2 million for taxiway construction and rehabilitation, and El Paso International Airport (ELP) received $8.7 million to rehabilitate its apron.
General aviation also received targeted funding, including a combined $2.5 million for airports in Wisconsin to rebuild terminals, rehabilitate runways and taxiways, and reconstruct snow-removal-equipment buildings.
“From our regional hubs to some of America’s busiest airports, we are investing in critical infrastructure that will provide American families with a more seamless, efficient travel experience for years to come,” Duffy said in the press release.
Bedford added that the grants are designed to help airports meet current traveler demands while preparing for future capacity requirements.
Modernization efforts amid workforce tensions
The infrastructure grants follow another recent FAA milestone. On September 1, 2026, Duffy announced the agency had installed its 100th Surface Awareness Initiative (SAI) system. This deployment reaches nearly half of the 220 airports scheduled to receive the aircraft and vehicle surveillance technology, which is designed to reduce runway incursions.
While the agency highlights infrastructure and technology investments, FAA leadership faces concurrent pressure regarding workforce compensation. On September 4, 2026, U.S. Senators Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) issued a public letter demanding Bedford release a congressionally approved pay raise for air traffic controllers.
The senators allege Bedford has withheld a 2.8 percent portion of a 3.8 percent pay increase for four months to leverage workforce utilization.
AirPro News analysis
We note a distinct contrast between the FAA’s well-publicized capital expenditures and its ongoing labor management challenges. The $481 million AIG distribution and the SAI rollout demonstrate steady progress on the hardware and concrete side of the National Airspace System. However, the public intervention by Senators Duckworth and Durbin highlights a persistent friction point regarding the human capital required to operate that infrastructure. Upgraded taxiways and new terminals at facilities like ATL and SAN will yield limited capacity improvements if the air traffic control workforce remains strained by compensation disputes and staffing shortages.
Sources: Federal Aviation Administration
Photo Credit: Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Airport
Regulations & Safety
NTSB Releases Preliminary Report on Carlisle Airport Midair Collision
NTSB preliminary report details a fatal midair collision between a Cessna 150H and a PA State Police helicopter at Carlisle Airport.

This is a developing story. Information may change as official details are released.
This is original reporting and analysis by AirPro News.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has released its preliminary report on an August 19, 2026, midair collision at Carlisle Airports (N94) in Pennsylvania that resulted in the death of a civilian pilot and injuries to two state troopers. The collision involved a Cessna 150H and a hovering Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) Bell 407GX Helicopters during mixed-aircraft operations at the non-towered airfield.
Released on September 2, 2026, the preliminary investigation record outlines the sequence of events leading up to the 6:52 p.m. local time collision. The NTSB report confirms that both aircraft were in communication via the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) prior to the event. The exact cause of the collision remains under Investigation by the NTSB and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Flight path and collision sequence
According to the NTSB preliminary report and statements from the PSP, the Bell 407GX helicopter was conducting a training exercise. The helicopter crossed the runway threshold at an altitude of 50 feet before descending into a hover taxi. At the same time, the Cessna 150H was approaching the airport to land.
Radio communications detailed in the report indicate that the helicopter crew instructed the Cessna pilot to extend his downwind leg. The Cessna pilot acknowledged the instruction, stating his intention to land after the helicopter. However, as the helicopter hovered off the runway, the Cessna veered off its intended landing path to the north side of the runway. The fixed-wing aircraft subsequently collided with the rear of the hovering helicopter, striking its tail and main rotors.
Casualties and ongoing investigation
The collision resulted in one confirmed fatality. The pilot of the Cessna 150H, identified by his employer Penn State Health as 57-year-old Dr. Paul William Sokoloski, sustained fatal injuries. The two occupants of the PSP helicopter, identified as Corporal Bryce Corman and Trooper Jason Mills, sustained injuries in the collision.
NTSB aviation Accident investigator Aaron McCarter is leading the inquiry. While surveillance video captured the collision, the NTSB has not yet determined why the Cessna deviated from its landing path. A final report detailing the probable cause is not expected for several months.
AirPro News analysis
We note that mixed-aircraft operations at non-towered airports inherently require precise communication and situational awareness, particularly when fixed-wing aircraft and rotorcraft share the same traffic pattern. While some aviation commentators have speculated that rotor wash or wake turbulence from the hovering Bell 407GX may have contributed to the Cessna 150H veering off course, this remains entirely unverified. The NTSB has explicitly stated that it is too early to attribute the Cessna’s flight path deviation to any specific factor. Investigators will likely examine environmental conditions, aircraft performance data, and pilot actions as they work toward a final probable cause determination.
Sources: National Transportation Safety Board
Photo Credit: NTSB
Regulations & Safety
NTSB: Thermal Plugs Caused AA Flight 3023 Tire Failure
NTSB determines melted thermal relief plugs caused tire failure on American Airlines 737-8 at Denver, triggering emergency evacuation.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has determined that melted thermal relief plugs caused the left main landing gear tires to fail on an American Airlines Boeing 737-8 during a July 2025 takeoff roll at Denver International Airport (DEN), prompting a high-speed rejected takeoff and emergency evacuation.
The final aviation investigation report, published on August 26, 2026, officially closes the inquiry into American Airlines Flight 3023. The document details the mechanical sequence that led to the tire failure while highlighting significant passenger noncompliance during the subsequent evacuation, as travelers ignored crew commands and retrieved carry-on baggage.
Mechanical sequence and rejected takeoff
The incident occurred on July 26, 2025, involving a Boeing 737-8, registration N306SW, equipped with CFM International LEAP-1B28 engines. According to the NTSB, the flight experienced an approximate 25-minute delay while awaiting departure at runway 34L.
During the subsequent takeoff roll, as the aircraft reached an indicated airspeed between 90 and 100 knots, the captain reported hearing a loud pop accompanied by a noticeable bump. The flight crew initiated a rejected takeoff at speeds above 80 knots.
The NTSB determined the probable cause of the incident was the melting of thermal relief plugs in the left main landing gear. This melting released tire pressure and caused the tires and wheels to fail during the takeoff roll. The agency noted that this failure resulted in abnormal airplane handling characteristics, which prompted the flight crew to reject the takeoff. Debris from the fractured wheels caused minor damage to the aircraft, including a three-inch dent on the lower skin of the left wing.
Emergency evacuation and passenger behavior
Following the rejected takeoff, the flight crew initially instructed the cabin to remain seated. Between 30 and 45 seconds later, after identifying smoke and fire originating from the left main landing gear, the crew ordered an emergency evacuation.
The aircraft carried 175 occupants, comprising 169 passengers and six crew members. The NTSB final report confirms that zero injuries occurred during the event. This official casualty figure supersedes preliminary media reports from July 2025 that had indicated minor injuries and hospital evaluations.
The investigation report draws specific attention to passenger behavior during the emergency egress. The NTSB stated that the cabin crew described the evacuation as rapid but hindered by significant passenger confusion and noncompliance. Despite flight attendants repeatedly commanding passengers to leave their belongings behind, multiple individuals retrieved their carry-on baggage. The NTSB concluded that this noncompliance directly slowed the flow of egress from the aircraft.
AirPro News analysis
The NTSB findings regarding American Airlines Flight 3023 add to a well-documented and growing safety concern within the commercial aviation sector. Passenger retrieval of carry-on baggage during emergency evacuations is a recurring issue that compromises the 90-second evacuation standard mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
When passengers stop to open overhead bins and carry luggage down escape slides, they not only slow the egress rate for those behind them but also introduce the risk of puncturing the evacuation slides or injuring fellow passengers. We continue to see official accident reports cite passenger noncompliance as a negative factor in evacuation efficiency. This recurring behavioral pattern has prompted safety advocates and lawmakers to question whether current FAA evacuation certification tests, which rely on compliant participants, accurately reflect real-world human behavior during an emergency.
Sources: National Transportation Safety Board
Photo Credit: National Transportation Safety Board
-
Commercial Aviation5 days agoBoeing 767-300 Runway Excursion at Miami Airport Sept 2026
-
Space & Satellites4 days agoIsar Aerospace Spectrum Rocket Reaches Orbit From Norway
-
Regulations & Safety6 days agoFAA Announces $481 Million Airport Infrastructure Grants
-
MRO & Manufacturing6 days agoAirbus A330neo Deliveries Halted by Foreign Object Debris Find
-
Sustainable Aviation3 days agoCathay Pacific and Google Expand AI Contrail Avoidance Program
