View Full Version : DRY ICE -- How Much is really allowed?
30th Apr 2001, 19:24
Does anybody have any info on how much Carbon Dioxide, Solid UN 1845 PG III is allowed to be hauled as a non - Dangerous Good? I know that if it is declared it is 200kg/pkg but I also know that it does not have to be declared if it is shipped as a refridgerant.
How do you determine how much can be hauled depending on the ventalilation rates of an aircraft?
Thanks in advance
30th Apr 2001, 22:53
Haven't got a DG manual here at home, but believe it is 200KG per inaccesible cargo hold (ie per belly). I'll have a read up on Wednesday.
There is usually a limit on how much can even be carried in the cabin, for use in the bars etc, varies with aircraft type.
"I USED to be a PPRuNaholic, but now I'm CURED"
1st May 2001, 06:46
Here is a quote from our Company Ops Manual (Canadian domestic carrier):
Carbon dioxide solid (dry ice), in quantities not exceeding 2 kg (4.4 lbs) per passenger when used to pack perishables not subject to these regulations in carry0on baggage provided the package permits the release of carbon dioxide gas. See note 2.
Note 2: Operator approval required for checked baggage only.
Permitted in or as carry-on baggage - YES
Permitted in or as checked baggage - YES
The approval of the operator is required - YES
The PIC must be informed of the location - NO
My book says nothing about the restrictions for checked baggage and fortunately as flight crew we do not deal with dangerous goods directly. This is handled by our cargo and check-in agents.
Hope this helps a bit.
1st May 2001, 08:45
No it cannot(in theory) be shipped as a non-dangerous good, it is a restricted article;but who knows what a passenger may get through with, without being spotted.
The limits shown in the DGR only give quantities per package and do not give limits per hold/aircraft type - this would of course be impossible.
The limit is usually set by the operator and it normally appears to be as CargoRat says, 200Kg per inaccessible hold (please note not compartment, there may be more than one compartment in a hold!) irrespective of whether that is all as cargo or a mixture of cargo/baggage.
Operators may also impose loading area restrictions due to non-ventilated holds (possible pressure build up due to the sublimation of CO2, or holds that re-circulate conditioned air through the cabin as well (don't want to suffucate the SLF do we?).
Also make sure its on your NOTOC (OK111 for those from the US) as Class-9 RMD and check that no-one was daft enough to stow any live animals in the same place!!
If you're operating more than 1 sector with it, during the transit stop make sure the hold is opened to ventilate it, and that no loading staff enter the hold for a few minutes after doors open.
[This message has been edited by Icarus (edited 01 May 2001).]
Thanks Again to all who have replied.
If it is 200kg / pkg in an inaccessible cargo hold...What if the cargo hold was accessible, would the QTY limits change as per the DGR ? For example, on a Beech1900 in the first bay behind the jump seat?
Another situation I have is I came across a situation of where to load different DG on the aircraft? (Cargo Beech 1900 at different times)
Would it be a good idea to stow Class 3&4 - Flammable Liquids/Flammable Solids;Substances liable of spontananeus combustion;Substances when in contact with water emit Flammable gases DG close to the flight deck in order to extinguish in case of an emergency?
Or, would it be better to stow Class 2,5&6 in the aft in case you get smoke or fumes in the cabin? In this case, the pilot would have to dump the cabin out of the rear section.
These are some other situations that have been brought up. Again any comments would be greatly appreciated.
1st May 2001, 12:15
733SS - I think the type of hold you are refering too is normally understood to be the cabin. It would not be wise to stow anything that would require a DG Label in such places. The only 'Accessible Hold' would be something like the main deck of a combi.
A HOLD is defined as - A space confined by ceiling, floor, walls and bulkhead used for carrying load.
The stowage area by your jumpseat for example may have to be considered in the same manner as for stowing DGR on the flight deck, i.e. Not Allowed Under Any Circumstances.
JAR–OPS 1.1210 Loading Restrictions
(a) Passenger Cabin and Flight Deck. An operator shall ensure that dangerous goods are not carried in an aeroplane cabin occupied by passengers or on the flight deck, unless otherwise specified in the Technical Instructions
[This message has been edited by Icarus (edited 01 May 2001).]
1st May 2001, 16:36
Rule of thumb for mixing/segregating ( Note rules become LESS restrictive effective 01JUL01). 1-5-8 SEGREGATE (explosive-oxydizer/organic peroxide-corrosive).
UN1845 does not require a "Shipper's Declaration for Dangerous Goods". A statement on the AirWayBill is enough (mentioning NET quantity). A NOTOC IS required, again with the net qty.
Icarus mentioned mixing 1845 with AVI. Correct! Again hope to update when I get back to the office.
200KG/Inaccessible cargo hold. 500KG/Accessible cargo hold. I'm pretty sure this is in the IATA DG Manual book TBC. I work with a 74F; So, 200KG each in forward belly/aft belly & 500KG for the maindeck; near as dammit a ton.
Interesting Q on non-declared CO2; have seen it in catering boxes...
Thanks for your info, However, I am unclear as to the clearity of the definition of the Cargo hold and cabin. You see, on a B1900 the cargo hold is right behind the jumpseat. So, are you saying that it is against the Regulations to stow DGR there? Would it be better to stow all of the DGR in the rear so long as the packagings comply with the stowage charts?
This issue and the UN 1845 Carbon Dioxide, solid issue have been an open debate therefore I would appreciate any more comments or ideas.
Sorry Cargo rat, I just saw your reply and thanks for the info.
So, from what you are saying 500KG is allowed if accessible? The question is where would the DGR be stowed to be considered accesible in a Cargo version Beech1900?
Where would I be able to verify this in the 2001 IATA DGR?
1st May 2001, 19:18
737SS I'm reading a 2 paged condensed version of some important DG rules that I keep in my flight bag. As I mentioned above, I need to have a re-read of the IATA DG manual sometime tomorrow.
I'm not sure if my info is 74 specific or aircraft in general. I THINK its in general. Since we are on the subject (and I've just re-read my notes) Polystyrene beads used as packing material (shock absorbant) are also DG... (they will expand during a decompression - could compromise a/c structure)
Indulge me until tomorrow ref 500KG on a Beech 1900 freighter. I'll ask around my DG instructors. I believe that since the rear cabin of your aircraft IS accessible, the 500KG rule is in effect.
Hope of some help - have a look tomorrow afternoon Z-time for more.
As far as Polymeric beads are concerned I have found this out in the DGR 9.3.13 -
" A totalo of not more than 100KG net weight of expandable polymeric beads(or granules) or plastic moulding materials referenced to Packing Instruction 908, may be carried in any accessible compartment on ANY aircraft"
Therefore you are right as far as Polymeric beads are concerned...I have consulted the compentant authoirty here an the have told me that the CO2 is under debate as far as
1) How much is allowed if accessible; and
2) Is it a DG when shipped alone? If so, How do we know how much to ship depending on the ventilation rates of an aircraft.
I have heard that some airlines are doing some studies to actually see how much they can carry. Obviously the ventilations rates are going to differ on the types of aircraft therefore the requirement of Packing Instruction 904 will vary...Don't you think?
1st May 2001, 21:34
I guess your 'hold' is just a netted area in the cabin rather than an enclosed area with a bulkhead. If so DGR should not be carried. A bit like the DHL 757 (or at least some to my knowledge) whereas they do not have a 'Class-1' Bulkhead only a crash net; which normally prevents the carriage of DGR on the maindeck.
Also 200kg is not the maximum, this is the maximum net quantity PER PACKAGE!
An operator will/may impose it's own limits for an aircraft type, IATA cannot and do not.
The 500kg max. for an accessible hold may just be 2kg/Passenger based on an average seating capacity of 250!
As for CO2 solid (ICE) being shipped alone, I cannot think of any reason why, it is primarily used to refrigerate something else, such as Blood/Organs, maybe even some foodstuffs and other chemicals and/or samples. If you see ICE on your NOTOC that is the least of your worries, look more closely at what is is keeping cold!
[This message has been edited by Icarus (edited 01 May 2001).]
Thanks. I understand that it is QTY per package and that the operator has the right to be more restrictive that IATA DGR.
You are right in the fact that we do have netting and the DG is accessible if necessary depending on the stowage and the rest of the cargo.
There are times where we are shipping it alone in great amounts. All I wanted to know what was the relationship between the CO2 (solid) and the ventilation rates of different aircraft. Therefore, depending on the ventilation rates and stowage area does it matter how much CO2 is allowed be shipped up to a MAX 200/500KG per pkg?
I understand that all of the variables are a factor and they are relative to each other therfore the answer could be different depending on what aircraft it is and where it is being stowed.
1st May 2001, 23:40
Icarus: with my previous previsos; 200KG per HOLD. The restriction comes from protecting not dangerous in itself.
I'm sticking my neck out a bit on this, but never mind. Good reason to delve into the DG manual again.
Someone mentioned above that DG was not the ground handling staff since UN1845 CO2 is cockpit crew's business. Suggest a rethink on that attitude - it is OUR business. 4 people put their names to DG;
-The shipper who declares the stuff
-The airline "checking agent" (paperwork/packaging)
-The Loadmaster (on -F aeroplanes) - correctly loaded, not leaking/damaged & correctly reported (NOTOC).
-The CAPTAIN - who carries the can if all of above screw up.
Another edit for 737SS: Suggest getting Beech's input on this. IATA will NEVER let themselves be tied down when it comes to this kind of question. You just have to look at all the vague terminology in the DG book!
[This message has been edited by CargoRat2 (edited 01 May 2001).]
[This message has been edited by CargoRat2 (edited 01 May 2001).]
2nd May 2001, 08:25
CargoRat - I will be harsher than you on the suject of Handling Agents/Crew.
The Captain signs the NOTOC simply to confirm he is aware of the the carriage of DGR, and where they are loaded, nothing to do with accepting, that is the Cargo/Loadings staff responsibility.
Flight crew should also make sure they have a copy of ICAO Emergency Response Guidance for aircraft incidents involving DGR (Doc 9481-AN/928) on board.
Aircraft manufacturers will normally publish information on AVI stowage in their Wt&Bal manauls but he carriage if DGR is normally set by two things,
Your AOC permits the transportation of DGR.
Your COMPANY will decide what limits (if any) for a particular operation/aircraft type.
I understand what you and Cargorat are saying however, I do disagree with you as far as the NOTOC is concerned. I know that the "signature" signifys the undersanding and awareness of DG being aboard the aircraft. However, the PIC may not accept the pkg if it has not complied with the IATA DGR. That is everybody's responsibility down the chain. The PIC shouldn't be just limited to "signing" and "flying".
2nd May 2001, 12:00
Got The Book open in front of me. Have to appologise, I made an error before.
These are the limits for our 74F.
Front Belly 500KG
Aft Belly 200KG
Front Belly 500KG
Aft Belly 500KG
If all aircon packs running (3), maximum 6000KG on maindeck, 500KG in each belly for a max combined of 7T.
Packing Instruction 904 mentions "Note 1: Refer to the relevant airline's loading procedures for Carbon dioxide, solid (dry ice) limitations." There's your answer 737SS.
Futhermore, Icarus was correct, max 200KG/package for both pax & cao aircraft. (Knew I should have kept quiet!).
Last info note A48 "packaging tests are not considered necessary".
2nd May 2001, 12:49
73SS disagree all you like!
The Captain signs the NOTOC to confirm he has read and is aware of what is loaded on his aircraft and where it is stowed, nothing more.
It is the responsibility of the cargo acceptance staff to prepare this document and to check the shipments against the regulations. Show me a Captain who can tell you the exact requirements of PKG group I II or III and the associated packing instuction which is of course the all important bit.
Cargorat, thanks...Icarus, the debate continues...
According to the minimum curricula of IATA DGR there is criteria that has to be emphasized in a basic DGR course. However, if a Captain would be aware of the Packing Grps if reference to the PKG instructions then all to him. I would want to know and I do know and check all of the time because I know the knowledge and I am not unintentionally ignorant of the fact.
However, i do agree that the operator is more restrictive than the IATA DGR and therefore it does depend on what their manual states...
Take it easy. It only a discussion. Nothing personal.
2nd May 2001, 15:23
I wasn't having a bash at you! Sorry if you thought so.
But the Capt. does not (theoretically) have any right to refuse (he certainly has no right to accept) DGR if the paperwork and loading procedures are followed.
I know of 1 SQ Capt many moons ago who did refuse to carry a shipment on a 747-300 Combi, he was severely reprimanded on return to base (perhaps that's SQ?!), but I wouldn't count on much support if you dd refuse a shipment (therefore company revenue) unless you are 100% sure that the cargo staff/loading staff have messed up big time.
2nd May 2001, 15:47
Quite a few operators require the Captain to physically check the DG (Atlas springs to mind).
Thats a tough one...Refuse or Accept? I guess it depends on the circumstances of the consignment. This would be a good thread to start don't you think? It would be interesting to see how many would actually own up to accepting instead of refusing or vis versa.
Anyway, I have another question...Can anyone explain to me the Difference between the "Icao Technical Instructions" and the "IATA DGR". I understand the at the "DGR" is more restrictive than the "TI" but but is the relationship between them both. In addtion, How does the "UN" fall into the picture?
I have read the DGR to try and clarify however I think I need someone to explain it to me in simple terms...
3rd May 2001, 15:07
The IATA DGR manual is based on ICAO's Technical Instructions. The IATA manual is in a more user friendly format ie you don't have to be a chemistry professor to understand it.
The IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations are published by the IATA Dangerous Goods Board pursuant to IATA resolutions 618 and 619 and constitute a manual of industry carrier regulations to be followed by all IATA Member airlines. This edition of the IATA Regulations is based on the requirements of Annex 18 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago, 1944) and the 2001-2002 Edition of the associated Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (Doc 9284-AN/905) adopted by the Council of ICAO and published by ICAO.
Annex 18 to the Chicago Convention and the associated Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air are recognised as the sole authentic legal source material in the air transport of dangerous goods. Consequently, any additional or explanatory material added by IATA does not form part of the authentic text of the ICAO Technical Instructions and does not have the same legal force.
In developing its Regulations, IATA has drawn on its extensive experience to give special attention to the format and wording of these Regulations to make this a readily understandable and easy-to-use manual. There are certain differences between IATA and ICAO regulations which stem from operational considerations and result in a regulatory regime which is necessarily more restrictive than the ICAO requirements.
Interesting to note that non-IATA airlines don't necessarily have to follow the IATA DG manual. I guess they do anyway, 'coz I've seen the ICAO manual. Not easy to comprehend.
Edit: The UN stands for United Nations; ICAO is part of the UN. Can't really give more than that. All DG "approved" boxes/barrels/drums etc show UN with the U above the N so that they are identifiable even when upside down (so I've always been told)! DG is given a UN number instead of some complicated chemical name. They also use Proper Shipping Names like "Flammable Liquid NOS" NOS=Not Otherwise Specified. That way you can tell at a glance what the danger is all about. The technical name is given in brackets on the Shiper's Declaration; interesting to the emergency services - little interest to us.
[This message has been edited by CargoRat2 (edited 03 May 2001).]
8th May 2001, 19:25
"But the Capt. does not (theoretically) have any right to refuse (he certainly has no right to accept) DGR if the paperwork and loading procedures are followed."
Some interesting exchanges. Perhaps there haven't been more contributors because many crew have scant or very little knowledge in finding their way round the IATA DG Regs. Let's face it, it's hardly a "Thumping Good Read" destined for a Pulitzer!!
Trouble is, you piloting chaps/chapesses are the last in the line of the many persons who are responsible for the safe carriage of a consignement of DGs. You are totally reliant on everyone else in the chain having performed their role industriously and in total COMPLIANCE with the ICAO Tech Inst. / IATA DG Regs.
Sure... checks are made, signatures obtained, sworn affidavits on mothers' lives that all is OK, yet Sh*t still happens!!
(You only need to ask yr CAA for extracts from DG Occurence Reports database to prove so)
I would suggest that if a captain had any serious misgivings about a consignement then he/she had every right to refuse and his/her company should give 100% support to that decision.
One instance comes to mind of Fluorine and Neon compressed gas being offered for shipment. There was no NOTOC, no extract from IATA Regs. Both items listed separately on "blue pages" are forbidden on any a/c. Captain refused the load. Transpires that the mix of gases rendered the combined substance non-dangerous and the goods travelled 2 days later.
Was the captain right? He thought so, I think so and what's more his company thought so.
It can be a nightmare sifting through the DG Regs and I do not for one minute suggest crews need in-depth knowledge of all the sections but a sound appreciation of how the book "works" should you require info could prove invaluable. Sections 2 /3/4 are particularly applicable to Flt Crew.
Hopefully some Ppruners may find the following post of use (I almost typed interest!!)
8th May 2001, 19:36
Following is an extract from what is currently being circulated in my airline.
The IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations is the "Field Document" used on board the aircraft.
This document is based on the ICAO Technical Instructions. These manuals are normally both
issued to be effective as of the 1st of January and thus wholly compatible. This year however,there has been a delay in the production of the Technical Instructions, so the two manuals have been slightly "out of Sync!"
Crews are reminded that certain data in the current version of the IATA DG Regulations will become effective as of 01 July 01.
On some of the "Blue Pages" from Sect 4 of DG Regs, there are shaded entries. The shading indicates an effective date of 01 July 01, and 2 new symbols(hour glass / calendar) are used.
(Introduction pages xx xxi and Appx B page 641 refer).
A major change becoming effective as of 01 July, is that of compatibility of the different classes of DG's. See Tables 9.3.A(I)/(II) on page 564.
The change means that the rules will be LESS restrictive than previously shown and will
be at variance with the table on the plasticised cards that most of you carry.
As we regularly carry wheelchairs your attention is drawn to Special Provisions instruction A67
(page 276) which has been amended to indicate that wheelchairs with gel type batteries do not require the battery to be disconnected provided terminals are insulated against accidental
short-circuits. For further info on wheelchairs see page 570 9.3.15. (This was effective as of 01/01/01).
8th May 2001, 19:50
Further to my post ref changes eff. 01 July..
Consider the dilemma of a Cargo A/L who earns serious wedge from the transportation of Morpholine. (See pages 192 / 193 of IATA Regs).
For those "non-professionals" who don't keep a copy at home (insert yr own smiley) howzabout this:
Up to 30 June Pax / Cargo a/c may carry 10Ltrs per package in Ltd. Qty. or 60 Ltrs / pkg under PI 309.
On 01 July those values change to Nil in Ltd. Qty. and 0.5Ltr for pax/cargo a/c under PI 807. Cargo a/c will be restricted to 2.5Ltr per pkg.
Substance changes from Flam Liquid Pkg Gp III to Corrosive Flammable Liquid Pkg Grp I.
Doesn't seem very nice stuff does it?
Anybody know if this was what leaked to write-off the Airbus through corrosion??
8th May 2001, 20:19
Dunno exactly. It was in Air Cargo News about 3 weeks ago - some kind of a powder. There's another DG discussion going on in Freight Dogs if you'd like to join in. 737SS is over there too.
Your right in that the DGR are becoming in general less restrictive, but therefore in some cases more complicated...
I've also come to the conclusion that the Captain's signature is for "having recieved the notoc", and not being responsible for it's correctness.
9th May 2001, 12:31
Just wondering where my previous posts got to.