
Fire breaks out midair on Virgin Australia flight from Sydney to Hobart
The blaze started in an overhead cabin on VA1528 from Sydney to Hobart about 9am on Monday, just as the plane began to land.
Passengers reported smelling smoke, and when cabin crew opened the overhead compartment, they found a lithium battery on fire.
The crew extinguished the fire before landing, and the bag containing the battery was removed once the plane was on the ground.
The plane 'landed safely at Hobart Airport' after the incident, a Virgin Australia spokesperson said in a statement.
'All guests disembarked the aircraft, as per standard operating procedures,' the spokesperson said.
No passengers required medical treatment.
Crew members were assessed by paramedics, but no injuries were reported.
The airline is following up with people who were seated nearby.
The plane was checked for damage, and a different aircraft was used for the return flight to Sydney.
This incident follows a similar one in January, when a fire believed to have started from a power bank in an overhead locker destroyed an Air Busan plane, forcing 179 passengers to evacuate.
The horrific incident has prompted a number of airlines to completely ban power banks in its carry-on luggage to ensure passengers' safety.
Back in April, Singapore Airlines went a step further, banning passengers from using their seat's USB charging port to juice up their power banks.
'Effective 1st April 2025, Singapore Airlines customers will not be allowed to charge portable power banks via the onboard USB ports, or use power banks to charge their personal devices, throughout the duration of the flight,' the airline said.
'This means power banks must be carried in cabin baggage on all SIA flights and are not permitted in checked baggage. Customers may bring power banks with a capacity of up to 100Wh without special approval, while those between 100Wh and 160Wh require airline approval.
'We seek customers' understanding that safety will always be our top priority.'
Qantas has also cracked down on power banks.
'Baggage fitted with non-removable lithium batteries or power banks are forbidden,' the national carrier said.
'If in checked baggage, the lithium battery or lithium power bank must be removed from the bag.
'The removed lithium battery or power bank must be in carry-on baggage only.
'Non-lithium batteries/power banks can remain fitted in the bag and carried as carry-on or checked baggage.'
Virgin Australia has similar rules.
'Spare/loose batteries (including power banks/packs must be in carry-on baggage only and must be protected against short circuit by, placing in its original retail packaging, placing each battery in a separate plastic bag or protective pouch or insulating terminals by taping over exposed terminals,' the airline said.
Experts warn they are 'playing catch-up' with new lithium batteries flooding the market as Australia's consumer watchdog issues a safety alert to any Australian buying the popular wireless chargers.
A lack of regulation and soaring demand has contributed to a growing number of wireless power banks getting recalled, experts added.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission warns 34,000 defective portable chargers are still being used by customers, after a surging number of recalls of the product.
The competition watchdog has issued 17 different recalls of power banks since 2020, with more than half being made since 2024.
Popular brands including Anker, Baseus and SnapWireless power banks were the most recent products to be recalled.
Power banks are portable battery chargers designed to power devices on-the-go.
They use rechargeable lithium-ion or lithium-polymer batteries that are highly flammable, can explode or vent toxic gas, the commission says.
The uptick in recalls is being caused by more products on the market, a lack of regulation and differing materials inside the models, University of Melbourne head of chemical biomedical engineering Amanda Ellis says.
While most power banks are safe to use, a person's safety rests on how they use them, she said.
'We don't have Australian standards for batteries at the moment so that's one of the problems,' Ellis said.
'We don't really know what is in these batteries because it's all (intellectual property) protected, so it's challenging, and more and more people are using them than five years ago.'
Some of the ways to lower the risk are following manufacturer instructions, not charging near flammable furniture and never using damaged or leaking power banks, the commission said.
'Some consumers have suffered serious burn injuries, and some have had their property damaged because of power banks overheating and catching fire,' the watchdog's deputy chair Catriona Lowe said.
Suppliers offer a full refund or free replacement under the recalls, Lowe said.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

The Age
3 hours ago
- The Age
Trump stumbled on Epstein, and Rupert Murdoch has pounced
Trump needs these viewers to help him stay in power – aided by the fawning Fox talent who are so attuned to his cause that many have been recruited to senior roles at the White House, including Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. Murdoch also needs these viewers if he wants to remain such a rich and powerful political force in the US. It means Murdoch has had to draw careful battle lines between his own media fiefdoms. News Corp offered the full-throated defence of the WSJ story: 'We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit,' it said. The WSJ doubled down, reporting that Attorney General Pam Bondi informed President Donald Trump in May that his name appeared multiple times in the government's files on Epstein. The message from inside News Corp is Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch are determined not to cave in to Trump and will go to court if necessary. Loading The Washington Post quoted Rupert telling associates: 'I'm 94 years old, and I will not be intimidated.' Meanwhile at Fox, the lawsuit and allegations have warranted a tepid mention at best. Australian columnist Miranda Divine, now at News Corp's Republican mouthpiece, the New York Post, described the WSJ reports as a 'nothingburger'. And if this delicate dance can be maintained, it will be lucrative for Murdoch. Both News Corp and Fox shares hit record highs in February, just weeks after Trump's inauguration. And there was no hiding Trump's role in the success of Fox News – the most profitable Fox Corp business – when Lachlan presented its most recent quarterly results in May. 'Nowhere is Fox's leadership more evident than Fox News,' he told analysts and investors. Ratings were up 30 per cent for the network in April, and it clinched top spot on prime-time ratings last week over mainstream networks such as CBS and ABC. This is a feat unheard of for a cable news network. 'The momentum that we're seeing within Fox News, obviously driven first by really sort of record-setting audience and share, that's flown through nicely to the revenue line,' Lachlan said. The problem for Rupert is that pandering to his Fox audience means pandering to Trump, and he has never been a fan of Trump's political aspirations. Murdoch publicly supported other candidates during the 2016 campaign before embracing Trump when his candidacy became inevitable. He has tolerated Trump's White House, and maintained close ties, but quickly tried to move the Republican base on to fresh leadership after the 2020 election loss. Murdoch said at the time: 'We want to make Trump a non-person.' That manoeuvre ended badly when Fox's acceptance of the result led to viewers defecting in droves to channels more loyal to Trump's claims that the election was stolen. It promised to be a financial disaster and Fox scrambled back into favour with an about-face supporting the stolen election theory. It is still counting the cost. In 2023, Fox paid Dominion Voting Systems $US787 million to settle claims the network promoted lies about the 2020 presidential election. It still faces a multibillion-dollar lawsuit from another voting systems provider, Smartmatic, which will go to court next year if Fox does not make an offer to settle. For Murdoch, the Epstein scandal serves as another opportunity to test Trump's hold on the Republican Party, and it should not prove as costly as the $US10 billion Trump headline suggests. A quick look at the details of his case reveals problems, starting with the fact that it appears to fall over at the first hurdle of failing to notify the WSJ of the lawsuit at least five days before filing it. Loading But that is the least of Trump's issues. 'The complaint is full of sound and fury but lacks legal merit,' Leonard M. Niehoff, a University of Michigan law professor who specialises in media law, told The Washington Post. 'It shouldn't intimidate a news organisation with good lawyers. The Wall Street Journal has those.' The high hurdles for Trump include having to meet the 'actual malice' standard which means proving the WSJ knew the information they published was false. Ironically, this is what Fox was accused of doing in promoting Trump's stolen election claim in 2020. That legal battle taught Murdoch a lesson on the damage that can be done by the legal discovery process, which produced embarrassing and costly revelations – including the contempt both Murdoch and Fox held for Trump's stolen election claims and the man himself. A text surfaced from Tucker Carlson – a Fox network star at that time – referring to Trump saying, 'I hate him passionately'. If Trump continues to pursue this case, the legal discovery process on his relationship with Epstein could further inflame his support base. A clear opportunity to fatally damage Trump's political standing with the Epstein scandal could be the avenue Murdoch is looking to exploit. And if it doesn't damage Trump? Both men are ruthlessly transactional and have made up before. 'We don't want to antagonise Trump further,' Murdoch said in a memo uncovered by the Dominion case. Murdoch explained in a later deposition relating to that matter: 'He had a very large following, and they were probably mostly viewers of Fox, so it would have been stupid.' And we know Trump's proven ability to chicken out and distract. Loading As he posted to Truth Social followers this week, survival comes first. 'Winning is important, but survival is even more important. If you don't survive, you don't get to fight the next battle.' Wise words for both sides as his latest battle with Murdoch gathers a head of steam.

Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Trump stumbled on Epstein, and Rupert Murdoch has pounced
Trump needs these viewers to help him stay in power – aided by the fawning Fox talent who are so attuned to his cause that many have been recruited to senior roles at the White House, including Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. Murdoch also needs these viewers if he wants to remain such a rich and powerful political force in the US. It means Murdoch has had to draw careful battle lines between his own media fiefdoms. News Corp offered the full-throated defence of the WSJ story: 'We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit,' it said. The WSJ doubled down, reporting that Attorney General Pam Bondi informed President Donald Trump in May that his name appeared multiple times in the government's files on Epstein. The message from inside News Corp is Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch are determined not to cave in to Trump and will go to court if necessary. Loading The Washington Post quoted Rupert telling associates: 'I'm 94 years old, and I will not be intimidated.' Meanwhile at Fox, the lawsuit and allegations have warranted a tepid mention at best. Australian columnist Miranda Divine, now at News Corp's Republican mouthpiece, the New York Post, described the WSJ reports as a 'nothingburger'. And if this delicate dance can be maintained, it will be lucrative for Murdoch. Both News Corp and Fox shares hit record highs in February, just weeks after Trump's inauguration. And there was no hiding Trump's role in the success of Fox News – the most profitable Fox Corp business – when Lachlan presented its most recent quarterly results in May. 'Nowhere is Fox's leadership more evident than Fox News,' he told analysts and investors. Ratings were up 30 per cent for the network in April, and it clinched top spot on prime-time ratings last week over mainstream networks such as CBS and ABC. This is a feat unheard of for a cable news network. 'The momentum that we're seeing within Fox News, obviously driven first by really sort of record-setting audience and share, that's flown through nicely to the revenue line,' Lachlan said. The problem for Rupert is that pandering to his Fox audience means pandering to Trump, and he has never been a fan of Trump's political aspirations. Murdoch publicly supported other candidates during the 2016 campaign before embracing Trump when his candidacy became inevitable. He has tolerated Trump's White House, and maintained close ties, but quickly tried to move the Republican base on to fresh leadership after the 2020 election loss. Murdoch said at the time: 'We want to make Trump a non-person.' That manoeuvre ended badly when Fox's acceptance of the result led to viewers defecting in droves to channels more loyal to Trump's claims that the election was stolen. It promised to be a financial disaster and Fox scrambled back into favour with an about-face supporting the stolen election theory. It is still counting the cost. In 2023, Fox paid Dominion Voting Systems $US787 million to settle claims the network promoted lies about the 2020 presidential election. It still faces a multibillion-dollar lawsuit from another voting systems provider, Smartmatic, which will go to court next year if Fox does not make an offer to settle. For Murdoch, the Epstein scandal serves as another opportunity to test Trump's hold on the Republican Party, and it should not prove as costly as the $US10 billion Trump headline suggests. A quick look at the details of his case reveals problems, starting with the fact that it appears to fall over at the first hurdle of failing to notify the WSJ of the lawsuit at least five days before filing it. Loading But that is the least of Trump's issues. 'The complaint is full of sound and fury but lacks legal merit,' Leonard M. Niehoff, a University of Michigan law professor who specialises in media law, told The Washington Post. 'It shouldn't intimidate a news organisation with good lawyers. The Wall Street Journal has those.' The high hurdles for Trump include having to meet the 'actual malice' standard which means proving the WSJ knew the information they published was false. Ironically, this is what Fox was accused of doing in promoting Trump's stolen election claim in 2020. That legal battle taught Murdoch a lesson on the damage that can be done by the legal discovery process, which produced embarrassing and costly revelations – including the contempt both Murdoch and Fox held for Trump's stolen election claims and the man himself. A text surfaced from Tucker Carlson – a Fox network star at that time – referring to Trump saying, 'I hate him passionately'. If Trump continues to pursue this case, the legal discovery process on his relationship with Epstein could further inflame his support base. A clear opportunity to fatally damage Trump's political standing with the Epstein scandal could be the avenue Murdoch is looking to exploit. And if it doesn't damage Trump? Both men are ruthlessly transactional and have made up before. 'We don't want to antagonise Trump further,' Murdoch said in a memo uncovered by the Dominion case. Murdoch explained in a later deposition relating to that matter: 'He had a very large following, and they were probably mostly viewers of Fox, so it would have been stupid.' And we know Trump's proven ability to chicken out and distract. Loading As he posted to Truth Social followers this week, survival comes first. 'Winning is important, but survival is even more important. If you don't survive, you don't get to fight the next battle.' Wise words for both sides as his latest battle with Murdoch gathers a head of steam.

Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The conman, the jet and the Australian developer who helped bring him down
Ahsan Ali Syed had all the trappings of wealth: a private jet, a luxury Swiss apartment overlooking Lake Lucerne, an opulent office in Bahrain and a top-tier Spanish football team, Racing Santander. But after a decade on the run, the jet-setting fraudster is behind bars in Switzerland, largely due to the efforts of Sydney property developer Keith Johnson and New Zealander Mark Van Leewarden, a former undercover cop turned barrister who specialises in international fraud investigations. From September 2010 to May 2011, Syed scammed close to $50 million from Australian and New Zealand businesspeople who had trouble getting finance in the wake of the 2007-2008 Global Financial Crisis. 'He used an opulent office in Bahrain to lure the victims,' said Van Leewarden, who has spent years in pursuit of Syed. From all accounts, Syed looked the part sitting at his polished desk, wearing a silk cravat, bejewelled fingers and surrounded by busts of horse heads. His company, Western Gulf Advisory (WGA), boasted that 'Mr Ali is a trusted adviser of royal individuals and families, high-profile luminaries and people of public importance'. He also claimed to have a family fortune of $8 billion to invest. The truth was far different. Syed was wanted in India over an immigration racket and, having moved to London, he fled from there in 2005 owing £7800 ($12,520) in rent, along with a string of unpaid bills. Three years later he set up WGA and began his scam, offering loans of up to $US200 million. However, borrowers had to stump up an establishment fee worth 1.6 per cent of the loan. The promised loans to his 23 victims never eventuated.