View Full Version : Lets talk DG....
Cargo rat,
Thanks for the invite....At least I can go to a place to get some answers and post some queries on DG...among other topics...hello everybody...fairly new to the game but lovin it so far...
Thanks...
CargoRat2
6th May 2001, 18:22
So you found it! I think I'm going to have to steal a DGR manual to keep next to my PC :)
Any luck on the Dry Ice business from your company/Beech?
------------------
rgds Rat
CargoRat2
6th May 2001, 18:58
I studied the NOTOC the other day. The Captain (or Commander in JARspeak) is signing that the NOTOC has been recieved. Hogg was that radioactive Caesium by chance?
Just out of interest, what exactly was wrong with the shipment you had offloaded? Give me a UN number & quantity, can give you some answers.
------------------
rgds Rat
CargoRat2
6th May 2001, 19:23
Hogg,
The first number in the Packing Instruction refers to it's Class. Anything starting with 4 is flammable solid/dangerous when wet/& what the other one (4.1, 4.2, 4.3). Nothing wrong with a "4G fibreboard box" - I just called our office to check on PI 412! A 4G box is ok for the outer packaging.
Are you refering to CeRium? if so PI 415/417 depending on pax/cao. Couldn't find CeSium.
Flammable liquid will have a PI starting with 3. Explosive is Class 1.
------------------
rgds Rat
[This message has been edited by CargoRat2 (edited 06 May 2001).]
CargoRat2
6th May 2001, 20:11
Well there should have been someone around to answer queries. We have an H24 number we can call (which I just did!) to enquire (also happened to be a buddy of mine so he was quite happy to spend a few mins with his nose in the book). You mentioned the a DG clerk pre-signed the checklist. Do I understand without looking at the Declaration & the packaging? Should be shot if that the case. Our outfit regularly blocks DG freight because the Shipper's Declaration contains errors.
------------------
rgds Rat
Hogg,
Th notoc that you have signed simply means that you are aware of the DG and you know where it will be loaded on the aircraft. As far as responsibility is concerned...I will have to look deeper into the DGR. I will get back to you with an analysis...
Rat...the beech issue..no luck..however, i was speaking with anauthority the other day and he said no matter what the MAX qty of Dry Ice is 200kg regardless of the hold...(accessible or inaccessible)...I figure he knew more so I didn't argue..However, he was surprised on my new found info on ventilation rates in relation to the CO2...
Anymore ideas as too where i can find the exact info besides Raytheon?
CargoRat2
6th May 2001, 20:54
The DGR expert at IATA in YUL is a guy called Dick Elbourne. Sita address is somewhere in the first pages of DGR.
------------------
rgds Rat
CargoRat2
8th May 2001, 13:22
Found this
www.iata.org/cargo/dg (http://www.iata.or/cargo/dg)
Dangerous Goods information hotline
+1-514-3906770 tel
+1-514-8742660 fax
YMQFAXB
[email protected]
Edit: problem with the link: try
www.iata.org/cargo/dg (http://www.iata.org/cargo/dg)
------------------
rgds Rat
[This message has been edited by CargoRat2 (edited 08 May 2001).]
[This message has been edited by CargoRat2 (edited 08 May 2001).]
Pretty comprhensive site...
has anybody taken an IATA dg refresher recently?
CargoRat2
8th May 2001, 16:04
Yes...For Loadmasters (not the same as the full acceptance course; did that in 1990 - 8days). Had a refresher about 2 weeks ago.
------------------
rgds Rat
Rat,
Can you give me a brief outline of what it consisted of? I am looking for some new material?
Anything would help...email me and I will explain it to you.
Thanks
CargoRat2
8th May 2001, 17:33
737SS
Your Email address is not in your profile; mine is, if you want to mail me.
------------------
rgds Rat
Rat,
I just emailed you...
Thanks..
CargoRat2
8th May 2001, 20:02
737SS - see your Inbox!
Edit: Just got a message back from your postmaster: Undeliverable...
btw, check this one out
http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum51/HTML/000165.html
------------------
rgds Rat
[This message has been edited by CargoRat2 (edited 08 May 2001).]
CargoRat2
9th May 2001, 16:44
To Hogg:
I mentioned this earlier on:
I studied the NOTOC the other day. The Captain (or Commander in JARspeak) is signing that the NOTOC has been recieved.
Now I've just spoken to two of my DG instructors & they both were adamant that the Commander is ultimately responsible (read:blameable) for what is loaded on the aircraft.
------------------
rgds Rat
Of course the Captain is ultimately responsible for everything and everybody on board the aircraft. However, when he/she signs the NOTAC, he/she is acknowledging that information has been received regarding type of DG, quantity of DG and where it is loaded on the aircraft. The captain's responsibility can only go so far. The acceptance staff will have signed an acceptance check list and they have fullresponsibility for accepting the DG as suitable for transport by air.
It would be interesting to ask your two authorities to indicate the legal document and/or ICAO Annexe material upon which they base their adamant claim.
With best regards
DC8rider.
Welcome DC8rider. I'd completely forgotten about this thread!
I'm not necessarily agreeing with this, just passing on what I was told. Everything you wrote is of course 100% correct.
At the end of the day, I have to say I'm not quite sure anymore who ultimately "carries the can".
My thinking is along the lines of the TechLog; once the commander has accepted the aircraft (ie maintenance release), is he/she then ultimately responsible based on that signature?
Rat, You are most likely correct in following the tech log philosophy... once the capatin accepts the aircraft warts and all etc...
In reality, even the acceptance staff can only check the outer containers, hazard labels, handling labels, specification markings (if applicable)and so but cannot open the package to check the inner packagings, materials, etc. The Shipper's Declaration for DG (the DGD) is the legal document which clearly puts the responsibility for for declaring, packing, etc... squarely on the shoulders of the shipper... not the agent not the acceptance staff, not the airline, not the captain... the shipper. Nobody but nobody can alter teh content of the DGD. As I understand it, the Captain is the end of the chain of people who deal with the DG. By signing, he is simply acknowledging that he has been told about it.
He is not responsible for the correct packaging, labelling or documentation. Arguably perhaps he is responsible for its security and safety on board his aircraft but only if it was suitable for transport by air in the first instance. If it is not suitable and something happens, then he is really a victim of somebody else's perfidy and/or carelessness. I rest my case.
DC8rider.
Cornish Jack
24th Jul 2001, 17:48
Hogg
Apologies for butting in, but you have got me intrigued. My co-instructors and myself 'do' DG as part of the 744 package, so we have an interest in this particular thread.
We have found a reference to Cesium(alternative spelling Caesium) in the ERG document but not in the DG regulations. The ERG gives a UN of 1407 and a drill code of 4W. HOWEVER, that UN number does not appear in the DG 'bible' nor does the proper shipping name of CESIUM or CAESIUM. The other versions (C.hydroxide, C. hydroxide solution and C. nitrate)2682, 2681, 1451 respectively do appear but not the ordinary variety.
The W bit of the 4W drill code is the "dangerous when wet" indicator, so being presented with this stuff in a card box in the wet would be a very big No-No for this little chicken. :eek:
Finally, as I understand it, if the substance doesn't appear in the DG regs book, it cannot be carried :confused:
Would appreciate any follow-up info.
GlueBall
25th Jul 2001, 02:48
DC8Rider:
There are obvious limitations as to captain's responsibility about what is loaded aboard the airplane. Usually the cockpit crew isn't around to watch the loadmaster supervise the correct loading of the cargo. In fact, by the time the cockpit crew arrives the cargo door is already closed. The captain doesn't have a clue whether or not the DG is properly packaged, whether all supposedly spill proof containers are positioned upright on a pallet, whether all the required tie down straps are in place, whether all the beartraps are up and locked, etc. How can the aircraft commander or any other cockpit crewmember be held responsible for something he has no control over? Ultimate cargo loading responsibility rests with the air carrier. The operator has to provide training and supervision of cargo handlers. The captain only checks and signs the paperwork. Just as maintenance provides the maintenance log to the captain. What if a tire blows on taxi out because of underinflation? Is that the captain's responsibility too? Is he supposed to check the tire pressure before a flight? :eek:
Hi Glueball,
I agree totally. Getting back in the thread to whoever said that the "captain is totally responsible", as you say there has to be a limit to what the captain can reasonably be held responsible for. Your analagy about the under-inflated tyre really says it all.
Cheers etc
Hi Cornish Jack,
The absence of a substance from the DGR book does not mean that the substance cannot go by air. Likewise, its presence in the DGR book does not give it the right of passage.... look at all the forbidden substances in Section 2 and in Section 4 (Blue Pages). New substances and materials are coming on the market all the time and many of them are dangerous.
On many occasions I have been presented with the argument that if a substance is not listed in the DGR, it is OK to travel by air... Balderdash! This usually happened after I discovered some "know-it-all" pratt loading DG into an aircraft.
The shipper must decide the nature of his/her substance/material using guidelines in the DGR and in the ICAO Technical Instructions fo the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (the legal source document for the IATA DGR).
Having established the Flash Point and other characteristics of, for example, a flammable liquid, the shipper then establishes the Packing Group, thereby indicating the degree of danger. Provided all the requirements are met (packaging, documentation, labelling, etc...too detailed and numerous to mention here, the shipper can give the substance its Proper Shipping Name of, for example, Flammable Liquid N.O.S.
To recap, the presence in or absence from the DGR book of a specific substance/material does NOT necessarily mean that it can or cannot travel by air. It's just not that simple. The current DGR book probably went to print some time last autumn and at that point in time, it was reasonably up to date. How many new concoctions have emerged since?
Get on a full DG training course and all will be explained!
And yes you are right to treat "Dangerous when Wet" with the greatest of respect.
I hope this helps.
Still on the subject of DG.
Does anybody know of a web page where one can get details of air accidents/incidents caused by or related to Dangerous Goods?
Cornish Jack
26th Jul 2001, 17:43
Many thanks DC8rider.
I think I probably phrased my previous post badly re substances not in the DG Regs. I was trying to make the point that if something has obvious DG characteristics - as Caesium has - if it does not appear in the DG regs, how can one know which PG, Hazard group, ERG etc., etc. one should apply and if you don't have that info, how can it be accepted for transport by air?
I have actually done the DG course and the re-validaton and am happy with the general principles and their application but this particular instance seems to raise some questions which the 'bible' doesn't fully cover. I've since discovered why Caesium wasn't in the DG regs - I was looking at the latest version and it has been removed. However, strangely, UN 1407 still appears in the Packing group insructions. Curiouser and curiouser..... :confused:
Item of general interest: Most DGR changed effective 01JUL01. Forget all the old rules you had in your heads, they're much more liberal now. One of my favourites was "1-5-8 Segregate" (as a rule of thumb). No longer true!
Every company should have a revised incompatibility chart drawn up by now.
LatviaCalling
30th Jul 2001, 01:10
CargoRat2,
I'm glad you brought up the old subject about the lighters. Had completely forgotten about it.
I was in Morocco recently and had to buy a lighter. I put it in my shirt pocket and a few minutes later a felt a cool sensation against my chest.
It turned out that the lighter -- maybe I placed it my pocket upside down -- I don't know, leaked butane. Of course, when a small amount of butane comes in contact with oxygen it evaporates and creates a combustible gas. Luckily I was not smoking at the time or it could have been a little flamable.
I, for one, can not imagine transporting these type of dangerous goods anywhere. I don't want to scare anyone, but my company deals in tank container shipments in all IMO classes. We ship propane, similar to butane, but if the pressure from the liquid turning to gas is too much, they have a safety valve, which stored on the deck of a ship, will just vent into the air.
An airplane is different. Just imagine if this leak is in the belly of an aircraft with no place to get out. Methane gas (house gas) has an ignition point of between 8 and 13% of the total atmosphere. I think the same is true in its gaseous state of propane and butane.
As I said, I don't want to scare anyone, but this is not a picnick. Make sure you have ventilation (if possible) if you are carrying these dangerous goods. Again, I think these lighter are of the cheapest unknown Asian origin, probably China, since in Europe they don't have to mark the country of origin.
While I am sure that 95%(or more)of us value this forum and are using it to our advantage, a word of warning.
Recently, I received an Email under the guise of seeking assistance. It went something like "Dear Sir, please see attached file. I need your advice on this."
My first reaction was that maybe it was something to do with DG. I had a closer look before opening said attachment and saw that it had a file name of "xxxxxx.doc.bat." (The "xxxxxx" is mys substitute for the real name). I immediately deleted the whole Email from the PC and followed up with a virus scan. For those of you who never had the pleasure (!) operating in DOS, a file with the suffix "bat" is a Batch file and is used to create or delete files etc.. used correctly it is a powerful way of writing your own routines but it can also be used to erase your entire hard disc etc.
I am convinced that the above Email was an attempt to infect my PC.
While not strictly a subject for the DG Forum, I nonetheless think that an alert is appropriate. Enough said
Sounds like the SirCam virus.