DRY ICE -- How Much is really allowed?
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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...
Thanks Again
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...
Thanks Again
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
Quote
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.
Unquote (phew!)
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.
------------------
rgds Rat
[This message has been edited by CargoRat2 (edited 03 May 2001).]
Quote
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.
Unquote (phew!)
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.
------------------
rgds Rat
[This message has been edited by CargoRat2 (edited 03 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
"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."
HMMMMM.... Thinks..!!?
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!!)
HMMMMM.... Thinks..!!?
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!!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
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).
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).
Guest
Posts: n/a
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??
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??
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
------------------
rgds Rat
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.
------------------
rgds Rat
