Bell 412 fuel leak in Cargolux 747-8F
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Bell 412 fuel leak in Cargolux 747-8F
A story from our brethren over in Freight Dogs regarding a Cargolux 747-8F freighter which was stuck in Prestwick for 12 days following the reported leak of "several hundred liters" of Jet-A from a Bristow Bell 412EP. The aircraft finally departed PIK yesterday. "Ya see, Timmy..."
Cargolux 747-8 trashed at Prestwick
I/C
Cargolux 747-8 trashed at Prestwick
Was carrying a helicopter on board which sprung a fuel leak and soaked all the avionics bay with gas. Plane has been on ground about a week with nose open trying to dry it out.
I/C
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5,223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never drained fuel when shifting helicopters world wide. Used to take them off, throw the blades on and then punch off to the contract area. Same with cars. The pilot's Ferraris and the engineer's Ladas used to be driven on to the jack lift and straight into customs clearance.
TDG HAZMAT-NEWS -Shipping Dangerous Goods and Transport News
Don't screw up in a US regulated area the fines are serious. Lucky it was in Europe.
Look at the sample fines listed above.
I think somebody is in for as big bill having the freighter grounded for 12 days alone can't be cheap.
Don't screw up in a US regulated area the fines are serious. Lucky it was in Europe.
Look at the sample fines listed above.
I think somebody is in for as big bill having the freighter grounded for 12 days alone can't be cheap.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bell_ringer
Isn't it mandatory to drain fuel?
You can't move an engine without certifying it isn't hazardous by draining liquids..
You can't move an engine without certifying it isn't hazardous by draining liquids..
Unless you can certify that all traces of fuel including any vapours have been totally removed, the engine or other item would have to be shipped as class 9 miscellaneous with a UN code of 3363 (dangerous goods in machinery)
The only reason I know this is that a short while ago I was required to ship a number of aircraft engine fuel control units and even though these had been drained of all fuel, they still had to be shipped as DG.
Never drained fuel when shifting helicopters world wide. Used to take them off, throw the blades on and then punch off to the contract area.
Originally Posted by ericferret
TDG HAZMAT-NEWS -Shipping Dangerous Goods and Transport News
Don't screw up in a US regulated area the fines are serious. Lucky it was in Europe.
Look at the sample fines listed above.
I think somebody is in for as big bill having the freighter grounded for 12 days alone can't be cheap.
Don't screw up in a US regulated area the fines are serious. Lucky it was in Europe.
Look at the sample fines listed above.
I think somebody is in for as big bill having the freighter grounded for 12 days alone can't be cheap.
"Most of those fines relate to DG transgressions on passenger aircraft"
How do you work that out as the only statement appears to be offered "for transportation by air" no mention of what type of carrier.
How do you work that out as the only statement appears to be offered "for transportation by air" no mention of what type of carrier.
Originally Posted by 419
..The only reason I know this is that a short while ago I was required to ship a number of aircraft engine fuel control units and even though these had been drained of all fuel, they still had to be shipped as DG.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gulliBell
This doesn't make sense...if there is no fuel in the component it can't possibly be described as DG.
Drain all of the fuel out of your car petrol tank then drop a match down the filler cap and providing that there is also a bit of oxygen available, you will soon see why it makes sense.
In some cases, a container or casing which has a mixture of oxygen and an inflammable vapour can be more dangerous than a container filled to the brim with an inflammable liquid with no space for air/oxygen.
Do a quick search on Google and you will find plenty of example such as this one:
4 Men Injured When Empty Fuel Tank Explodes | NBC 6 South Florida
But it's kerosene, and it's packed in a box. I find it very difficult to believe that an FCU which has been emptied of fuel would present any DG hazard, even if you tried to set it on fire with a match, or sparked any residual vapour.
There is no common sense applied to Dangerous goods.
Please dont try to over analyze or understand the regulations.
I had to get qualified once and hope never to open that particular tome every again.
Please dont try to over analyze or understand the regulations.
I had to get qualified once and hope never to open that particular tome every again.
Originally Posted by 419
Doesn't make sense?
Drain all of the fuel out of your car petrol tank then drop a match down the filler cap and providing that there is also a bit of oxygen available, you will soon see why it makes sense.
Drain all of the fuel out of your car petrol tank then drop a match down the filler cap and providing that there is also a bit of oxygen available, you will soon see why it makes sense.
Jet-A has a flashpoint from +38C, gasoline/petrol from -43C.... which makes an enormous difference.
Cargolux is an approved DG carrier, and it is not the first time they shift helicopters. Something tells me they know the regs better than the average PPRuNe here. Accidents can occur though.
Different rules for passenger and cargo aircrafts...
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nubian
Apples and oranges...
Jet-A has a flashpoint from +38C, gasoline/petrol from -43C.... which makes an enormous difference.
Jet-A has a flashpoint from +38C, gasoline/petrol from -43C.... which makes an enormous difference.
As lowfat rightly stated. When it comes to DG shipping, there is never any common sense applied. If an appliance or piece of machinery contains, could contain, or did contain fuel then it must normally be assumed that despite it being removed, some still remains and this it has be shipped as DG.
DG in limited quantities, but still DG and any reputable airline who see any used fuel related component that hasn't been packed and certified as DG will refuse to accept it for carriage.
Originally Posted by ericferret
"Most of those fines relate to DG transgressions on passenger aircraft"
How do you work that out as the only statement appears to be offered "for transportation by air" no mention of what type of carrier.
How do you work that out as the only statement appears to be offered "for transportation by air" no mention of what type of carrier.
If the goods were correctly declared, and labeled and packaged accordingly, it would then be the carrier's responsibility to choose the correct way of shipping (e.g., cargo only aircraft, etc.).
In other words, the proposer's responsibility ends with the correct declaration and packaging. The carrier then has to decide how the good are to be carried.
How not to transport a B412
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib...47-8r7f-lx-vcf
I think the expression "a catalogue of errors" is an understatement!
I think the expression "a catalogue of errors" is an understatement!
Last edited by 212man; 12th Jul 2018 at 09:26. Reason: New link
