Dangerous Goods Dill Code Z on PAX ETOPS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: hotels all over the globe
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dangerous Goods Dill Code Z on PAX ETOPS
Hello all,
I've recently offloaded a cargo of Lithium Ion Batteries (UN3480) as it's "red book" Drill Code was 9FZ.
This was loaded on an ETOPS flight, and even though IATA approves it, I really believe code Z in an ETOPS flight is not safe, and if PAX on board knew about this, they would feel that the captain would not be taking care of their safety.
The problem is, it seems like my management was not in agreement with my decision, and I will be called in "for a coffee". Now I need some supporting information for my decision. I have some, but more would certainly help. Can you help my on this one?
Does your company accept this kind of load on ETOPS flights?
I will copy paste what Z means in a new message.
I've recently offloaded a cargo of Lithium Ion Batteries (UN3480) as it's "red book" Drill Code was 9FZ.
This was loaded on an ETOPS flight, and even though IATA approves it, I really believe code Z in an ETOPS flight is not safe, and if PAX on board knew about this, they would feel that the captain would not be taking care of their safety.
The problem is, it seems like my management was not in agreement with my decision, and I will be called in "for a coffee". Now I need some supporting information for my decision. I have some, but more would certainly help. Can you help my on this one?
Does your company accept this kind of load on ETOPS flights?
I will copy paste what Z means in a new message.
Last edited by ricfly744; 2nd Mar 2014 at 10:27.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: hotels all over the globe
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really cannot understand how IATA and IFALPA can accept this on PAX flights, and worse, ETOPS flights. Leaving the PIC with a difficult and uncomfortable decision to make.
IFALPA is co-author of the ERG "RED BOOK" and accepts this practice.
In the end, I am the last in the chain of safety considerations and events, the one to finally accept or decide if is safe of not to fly. The PIC, and not ICAO, IATA, IFALPA or Company (operator) is the PERSON responsible for the safety of the flight, aircraft and all persons and cargo onboard. But if IATA and IFALPA does not impose limitations, the operator is happy and the PIC is considered too conservative and not productive, if he/she says NO and makes the company loose $.
http://www.icao.int/safety/Dangerous...P.020.4.en.pdf
IFALPA is co-author of the ERG "RED BOOK" and accepts this practice.
In the end, I am the last in the chain of safety considerations and events, the one to finally accept or decide if is safe of not to fly. The PIC, and not ICAO, IATA, IFALPA or Company (operator) is the PERSON responsible for the safety of the flight, aircraft and all persons and cargo onboard. But if IATA and IFALPA does not impose limitations, the operator is happy and the PIC is considered too conservative and not productive, if he/she says NO and makes the company loose $.
http://www.icao.int/safety/Dangerous...P.020.4.en.pdf
Last edited by ricfly744; 2nd Mar 2014 at 11:22.
In my understanding of the introduction of this code, it's as a result of the UPS and Asiana B747F crashes as a probable result of bulk cargo shipments of Li batteries. In both cases, it appears the aircraft both lost control after the fire burned through the exposed control cables running the along the top of the cabin after about 20 minutes.
The Z code makes scary reading, particularly when you consider what "immediate landing" means. It essentially requires you to put the aircraft down now. This means NOW!. On a highway, in a field, in the desert, or even in the sea. Just do it NOW, or you run the risk of losing control of the aircraft and everyone on board being killed. It's considered better to take your chances on the slide rafts in the middle of the pacific.
My company does not allow carriage of bulk cargo Li batteries on pax aircraft treating them as CAO only. PM me if you want to know which. I would be interested to know which company you fly for - so that I can avoid it! I suggest you take a copy of the ERG with you to the "chat" to point out the implications involved. Also, I would recommend a trawl through the IATA DG manual to find other companies which do the same as mine in banning bulk shipments. (We do allow them installed in equipment such as iPads, but these aren't covered by ERG Z).
There have been two freighters brought down by Li batteries. It's only a matter of time before it happens to a pax aircraft, and then everyone will be asking how it was allowed to happen knowing what we already know. I suggest to embolden yourself and ask your management if they have really considered the implications. Personally, if my company hadn't already banned ERG Z shipments on our aircraft, I would have taken the same action as you. As it is, my company management has had the sense to say no.
The Z code makes scary reading, particularly when you consider what "immediate landing" means. It essentially requires you to put the aircraft down now. This means NOW!. On a highway, in a field, in the desert, or even in the sea. Just do it NOW, or you run the risk of losing control of the aircraft and everyone on board being killed. It's considered better to take your chances on the slide rafts in the middle of the pacific.
My company does not allow carriage of bulk cargo Li batteries on pax aircraft treating them as CAO only. PM me if you want to know which. I would be interested to know which company you fly for - so that I can avoid it! I suggest you take a copy of the ERG with you to the "chat" to point out the implications involved. Also, I would recommend a trawl through the IATA DG manual to find other companies which do the same as mine in banning bulk shipments. (We do allow them installed in equipment such as iPads, but these aren't covered by ERG Z).
There have been two freighters brought down by Li batteries. It's only a matter of time before it happens to a pax aircraft, and then everyone will be asking how it was allowed to happen knowing what we already know. I suggest to embolden yourself and ask your management if they have really considered the implications. Personally, if my company hadn't already banned ERG Z shipments on our aircraft, I would have taken the same action as you. As it is, my company management has had the sense to say no.
Last edited by Dan Winterland; 3rd Mar 2014 at 00:45. Reason: spilling.
