Lets talk DG....
Lets talk DG....
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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).]
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).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
------------------
rgds Rat
Guest
Posts: n/a
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?
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?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Found this
www.iata.org/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
------------------
rgds Rat
[This message has been edited by CargoRat2 (edited 08 May 2001).]
[This message has been edited by CargoRat2 (edited 08 May 2001).]
www.iata.org/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
------------------
rgds Rat
[This message has been edited by CargoRat2 (edited 08 May 2001).]
[This message has been edited by CargoRat2 (edited 08 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
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/For...ML/000165.html
------------------
rgds Rat
[This message has been edited by CargoRat2 (edited 08 May 2001).]
Edit: Just got a message back from your postmaster: Undeliverable...
btw, check this one out
http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/For...ML/000165.html
------------------
rgds Rat
[This message has been edited by CargoRat2 (edited 08 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ireland
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Top Dog
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Close to FACT
Age: 55
Posts: 2,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ireland
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Finally, as I understand it, if the substance doesn't appear in the DG regs book, it cannot be carried
Would appreciate any follow-up info.
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.
Finally, as I understand it, if the substance doesn't appear in the DG regs book, it cannot be carried
Would appreciate any follow-up info.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?