Crabs 'n' Crackers

[professor moriarty]

You would have thought that in this non-PC day and age that we might have found a way around the rules...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7135383.stm

[Occasional Aviator]

And once again "The RAF" gets the blame for the TRI-SERVICE movements organisation enacting rules made by the CAA.

[charliegolf]

Blimey!

I carried real explosives on my Puma loads and loads of times in the 80s. Thank goodness I never got caught. I now realise that all those brown jobs we lifted in NI were being REALLY naughty.:uhoh:

More seriously, I never, ever saw a DAC Manual (correct name?) after leaving the loadie school at Brize.

Since most of this Christmas junk is from the 3rd world, and lots air freighted in to UK, it makes the rulebook an ass.

CG

who thinks our boys and girls should want for NOTHING overseas.

[Sven Sixtoo]

Thats an interesting bit of journalism. In the box bit it claims the CAA says that lots of crackers are a hazard, while in the text it claims that the MoD said it and that the CAA say something different.

Pass the aspirin.

Sven

[minigundiplomat]

The MOD movements organistaion should be operating on either of two authoritive documents. Either the IATA Dangerous Goods By Air Regulations, which are equally, if not more applicable to the civilians, or the JSP 335 which is the militray version of the regulations for military use (Civvy's don't often carry AIM9L or Spearfish Torpedoes between Luton and Malaga!).

Either way, if the document legislated that the 'crackers needed defusing' then it is wrong to say that the Civilian Airlines have no such restriction. Unless, as I fear, this is a zealous interpretation of the regulations by someone who doesn't fully understand them. That is not such an improbable scenario based on my experience.

[Occasional Aviator]

Check out the links at the bottom of the page. It appears that civil airlines have difficulties with christmas crackers as well as the MOD movements org/RAF (delete according to your prejudice).

Having said that, I heartily agree with Minigun's suggestyion that this is related to poor interpretation of regs by inexperienced people.......

[VP8]

I've got one of my cargo planes going from BZZ to KDH on Thursday can we send some to the boys on that:ok:

VEEPS

[L J R]

But 35 EPW2 aren't as dangerous when taken to theatre, nor is 15 Ft of MDC on a hot day 3" from my head on a daily basis........oh and I forgot, my Flares, blaah, blaah....


YGTBSM...

[skippedonce]

VEEPS,

Good luck; we had ours taken out of a load of freight about a month ago!:(

[Blacksheep]

When we ship fire extinguisher bottles we have to remove the squibs and send them by sea. I hope no-one ever tells "them" about the live ones fitted on the bottles behind the cargo bay linings... :rolleyes:

[PICKS135]

Dont forget the flares in the MS liferafts in the wings.
A fellow squipper flew back from Norway wearing a Lifejacket belonging to an F4 driver. Reason ? If he was wearing it he didnt have to dis-connect the PLB and remove the miniflares. If he was carrying it, he would have:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[larssnowpharter]

The Scots Guards Association had already had its plans to include alcohol miniatures in the packages scuppered due to alcohol being forbidden in Islamic countries.



far more serious!!!!!

[AT Mov]

If you have a problem with the JSP 335, why not take it up with the SUPPLY OFFICER who wrote it, rather than blaming the movements staff who have been trained, hold a CAA chit to use it (unlike ALM's) and have to put up with those who think they know better.

[Mr C Hinecap]

Thread drift I know....

AT Mov - are you trying to shift the blame onto an Officer whose Branch name happens not to be Movements? Would that be an Officer who was trained by Movs SNCOs to a required standard? Please get over the tired bleat that 'they are Supply Officers - not Movement Officers' - it is just a name - if their training isn't up to the job, please address it through your Trade Sponsor - a damned good bloke.

[St Johns Wort]

THREAD CREEP WARNING RED!

Mover scratching festering chip on shoulder.

[Fat Lad]

I hate to let the truth get in the way of a good story here, but providing that the crackers are in their original retail packaging, and they fit within the standard RAF cabin baggage dimensions, they are accepted for carriage on AT aircraft.

However, BFPO do prohibit the inclusion of crackers in mail at the request of their civilian counterparts. Irrespective of this difference, my understanding of the press articles is that Maj Dalziel-Job and his chums had placed individual crackers in each of the 650 parcels; assuming that they weren’t procured in packages containing a single cracker, the lack of retail packaging would ensure that they would not be accepted by any civilian and military carrier. Finally, as I am led to believe that crackers are available on a limited basis outside the UK, they are not mentioned in either IATA’s DG Regs or the ICAO’s Technical Instructions, so direction is provided by the CAA.

It’s so unusual for the fine upstanding British press corps to push a story that is full of inaccuracies and hearsay…..

(AT Mov – your argument is totally flawed – check your facts!)

[A and C]

Lets not have the CAA bashing please, this problem has come from inside the military.

Civil Aviation Authority rules, which govern passenger aircraft, state that Christmas crackers which are complete and in their retail packaging do not have sufficient explosive in the "snap" to be regarded as dangerous.

[professor moriarty]

Well, it was only a passing comment and I hate to ruin the festive mood with too much inter-service banter/rivalry/whatever. I shall take the bangs out of my own crackers in sympathy this Christmas Day, but more importantly, raise a glass to those who are not enjoying Christmas at home with loved ones.

[moggiee]

However, BFPO do prohibit the inclusion of crackers in mail at the request of their civilian counterparts.
The "snaps" in christmas crackers are prohibited items as far as the Post Office is concerned and therefore I believe that sending them through the mail is an offence.

Is it not the case that the Royal Mail does some of the handling of BFPO mail - in which case, Postman Pat is to blame?

PS - Don't the movers take it all too seriously on their website? Wanting to drum a member out of the "corps" for having the affrontery to even look at PPRUNE, let alone post. They need to lighten up and get laid!