Lets talk DG....
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ireland
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ireland
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.....
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.....
Top Dog
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Close to FACT
Age: 55
Posts: 2,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Every company should have a revised incompatibility chart drawn up by now.
Still behind the curtain
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ireland
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
