Dangerous Goods (Air) Incidents/Accidents?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Valujet a few years ago springs to mind (as well covered on the "Black Box" documentary series made by Channel 4 in the UK and now shown - frequently - on Discovery Wings)
[This message has been edited by Wycombe (edited 04 May 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Wycombe (edited 04 May 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Wycombe (edited 04 May 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Wycombe (edited 04 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
There was a baby elephant once that decided to go max power and break out of its crate. The captain asked the animal handler if he had a humane killer onboard. The answer was Yus sir! I have a tiger and a cobra!
------------------
We will do the drill according to the amendments to the amendments I er think?
------------------
We will do the drill according to the amendments to the amendments I er think?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have seen a fair number of offences involving major airlines. In most cases the offending freight was loaded by agents, and there lies the problem. The airline is legally responsible, and will pay the fine, so it is as well to double and treble check the agent's paperwork - in your plentiful time at the gate that is!
The fine is one thing, the danger is, in the last analysis, a captain's problem.
The fine is one thing, the danger is, in the last analysis, a captain's problem.
Guest
Posts: n/a
There's a thread in Tech Log on this subject (Dry Ice...).
An agent is an agent; responsibility remains with the carrier. A carrier can always take care of these things by itself. (No I'm not involved with an agent). I think IATA calls it a General Ground Handling Service Agreement - standard contract, where the GHA is not responsible for anything.
------------------
rgds Rat
An agent is an agent; responsibility remains with the carrier. A carrier can always take care of these things by itself. (No I'm not involved with an agent). I think IATA calls it a General Ground Handling Service Agreement - standard contract, where the GHA is not responsible for anything.
------------------
rgds Rat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Is there anyone else out there who finds the whole Dangerous Goods thing a joke?
I mean for instance, are you fully au fait with the latest details on packaging of Radioactive materials? Are you in the habit of getting into the hold with a Geiger counter and tape measure to check it complies?
Bet you aren't.
Yes, the old 'Captain is ultimately responsible' line...the company wants it's income...the handling agent is held blameless...so there's only one guy to blame...the one with the absolute least control over what the hell he's signing for!
I mean for instance, are you fully au fait with the latest details on packaging of Radioactive materials? Are you in the habit of getting into the hold with a Geiger counter and tape measure to check it complies?
Bet you aren't.
Yes, the old 'Captain is ultimately responsible' line...the company wants it's income...the handling agent is held blameless...so there's only one guy to blame...the one with the absolute least control over what the hell he's signing for!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Capt Sensible.
I've no axe to grind. As a L/M, my butt is on the line just like yours (assuming yr a capt).
My previous is FACT.
Don't bother blaming a handling agent. Why? Because an agent is representing our respective companies. The company (& by default the likes of us) carry the can. In other terms, ABC handling agent can screw up for DEF airlines. ABC will have to answer for it (unless gross negligence involved). It is OUR responsibilty! As they love to tell me, "you can delegate tasks, but never responsibility".
------------------
rgds Rat
I've no axe to grind. As a L/M, my butt is on the line just like yours (assuming yr a capt).
My previous is FACT.
Don't bother blaming a handling agent. Why? Because an agent is representing our respective companies. The company (& by default the likes of us) carry the can. In other terms, ABC handling agent can screw up for DEF airlines. ABC will have to answer for it (unless gross negligence involved). It is OUR responsibilty! As they love to tell me, "you can delegate tasks, but never responsibility".
------------------
rgds Rat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cargorat,
As Capt Sensible says the responsibilty is with the Capt. Not the agent not even the L/M - the Capt!!
Yes I have had problems with the Dangerous Goods act as an engineer.
Try getting a slide pack or liferaft, or even a lifejacket to an AOG !
As a matter of interest I was involved with shipping some oxy generators just after the Valujet thing. Again I requested the units but they were shipped via an "agent"
They were put on a flight and when they arrived all hell broke loose. Everybody and his dog (including moi!) was hauled into investigations by the FAA.
The crux of the story that there is no official way to make these emergency notifications after an incident like Value jet. It was done by the FAA to Airlines but as far as the cargo agent was concerned the IATA carriage of dangerous goods legislation allowed carriage of up to three units on a passenger aircraft !
We were just told don't do it again !!!
Again as a side line the O2 generators carried on the Valuejet aircraft are from DC10 which are mechanicaly triggered with a strike plunger and can be activated by hitting them - the L1011 generators are electrically ignited and can only be triggered by a current.
As an L/M you might take a look at the IATA manual and see if there is a new definition they were originally just classifed as chloric chemical devices (You have to be a smart "agent " to know that is an Oxygen generator !!)
[This message has been edited by GotTheTshirt (edited 05 May 2001).]
As Capt Sensible says the responsibilty is with the Capt. Not the agent not even the L/M - the Capt!!
Yes I have had problems with the Dangerous Goods act as an engineer.
Try getting a slide pack or liferaft, or even a lifejacket to an AOG !
As a matter of interest I was involved with shipping some oxy generators just after the Valujet thing. Again I requested the units but they were shipped via an "agent"
They were put on a flight and when they arrived all hell broke loose. Everybody and his dog (including moi!) was hauled into investigations by the FAA.
The crux of the story that there is no official way to make these emergency notifications after an incident like Value jet. It was done by the FAA to Airlines but as far as the cargo agent was concerned the IATA carriage of dangerous goods legislation allowed carriage of up to three units on a passenger aircraft !
We were just told don't do it again !!!
Again as a side line the O2 generators carried on the Valuejet aircraft are from DC10 which are mechanicaly triggered with a strike plunger and can be activated by hitting them - the L1011 generators are electrically ignited and can only be triggered by a current.
As an L/M you might take a look at the IATA manual and see if there is a new definition they were originally just classifed as chloric chemical devices (You have to be a smart "agent " to know that is an Oxygen generator !!)
[This message has been edited by GotTheTshirt (edited 05 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Got The TShirt,
Oxygen Generators are CAO (Cargo Aircraft Only. The Propper Shipping Name now reflects this.
Don't have the manual here at home, so can't give you page numbers.
A carrier is responsible for it's agents. The carrier has to verify what it is carrying. The only way out is if a shipper (nb:not agent) deliberately cheats. That is a crime.
------------------
rgds Rat
Oxygen Generators are CAO (Cargo Aircraft Only. The Propper Shipping Name now reflects this.
Don't have the manual here at home, so can't give you page numbers.
A carrier is responsible for it's agents. The carrier has to verify what it is carrying. The only way out is if a shipper (nb:not agent) deliberately cheats. That is a crime.
------------------
rgds Rat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Regarding the "Spanish lighters" - I have seen the matter twice on this section, but it vanished "off the page" very quickly.
I started a thread on the "Pax/Slf" section, where I thought it would do more good, but there was very little factual response. (the thread's still there if anyone wants to nip over to the section to enlighten the customers about this one - or any other pax-related dangerous goods issues)
------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!
I started a thread on the "Pax/Slf" section, where I thought it would do more good, but there was very little factual response. (the thread's still there if anyone wants to nip over to the section to enlighten the customers about this one - or any other pax-related dangerous goods issues)
------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!
Guest
Posts: n/a
WE carried Bank Data for a large Currier, who wanted to fill out the load with "rush" general cargo. They supplied a written undertaking it would have no DG in.
Often while loading I would find and off load automotive paint or toxic farm chemicals.
How would You clasify 100Kg of worm untested human blood in a C172 ATO. BioHazard ?
------------------
FlySafe
Often while loading I would find and off load automotive paint or toxic farm chemicals.
How would You clasify 100Kg of worm untested human blood in a C172 ATO. BioHazard ?
------------------
FlySafe
Guest
Posts: n/a
6.2 but only if it is capable of speadin the pathogen...
As for the lighter subject lets start the thread again...It is a matter of safety..
So..am i to get this right...Is the reason airlines have operator variations is so that they can impose stricter regulations than IATA?
Do they do this becausre they know if something is undecleared or classified wrongly by the agent then they are at fault? (airlines)? I understand that the shipper is always to blame if they can prove that he was intentionally lying...what if he wasn't? the Freight Forwarder would be liable?
Just a thought...and a question...
Keep it going..I beleive this is a topic many people were afraid to touch on..
Thanks in advance
As for the lighter subject lets start the thread again...It is a matter of safety..
So..am i to get this right...Is the reason airlines have operator variations is so that they can impose stricter regulations than IATA?
Do they do this becausre they know if something is undecleared or classified wrongly by the agent then they are at fault? (airlines)? I understand that the shipper is always to blame if they can prove that he was intentionally lying...what if he wasn't? the Freight Forwarder would be liable?
Just a thought...and a question...
Keep it going..I beleive this is a topic many people were afraid to touch on..
Thanks in advance
Guest
Posts: n/a
Surely you won't know if the blood is capable of spreading a pathogen until it's tested. That's why untested blood should be 6.2 until proven otherwise.
The shipper will get hammered for lying. Those guys in China responsible for writing off the Malaysian A330 are in for millions in damages. Undeclared barrels of improperly packed DG split open in flight. Can't remember all the details.
Carrier variations are more restrictve than IATA regs. I believe SQ ban everything except class 9 into the States. CX had a ban on Gallium on all their aircraft after an acccident. (Nasty stuff Gallium; stable when kept cold, highly corrosive if it gets warm).
------------------
rgds Rat
The shipper will get hammered for lying. Those guys in China responsible for writing off the Malaysian A330 are in for millions in damages. Undeclared barrels of improperly packed DG split open in flight. Can't remember all the details.
Carrier variations are more restrictve than IATA regs. I believe SQ ban everything except class 9 into the States. CX had a ban on Gallium on all their aircraft after an acccident. (Nasty stuff Gallium; stable when kept cold, highly corrosive if it gets warm).
------------------
rgds Rat
Guest
Posts: n/a
733SS,
Not much point restarting the "lighters" thread again as it drops off the page too fast - seems like nobody is very interested
- I never saw any 'hard facts' on it, or on the one I started in the SLF section. Does nobody know the facts behind the reported incident that prompted it - apparently a fire in the hold of a flight returning from the Med somewhere??
Not much point restarting the "lighters" thread again as it drops off the page too fast - seems like nobody is very interested
- I never saw any 'hard facts' on it, or on the one I started in the SLF section. Does nobody know the facts behind the reported incident that prompted it - apparently a fire in the hold of a flight returning from the Med somewhere??
Guest
Posts: n/a
737SS
I need to look in the DG Manual. Operator variations are in the front somewhere along with State variations.
Like to join us on the brand new hot off the press Freight Dogs Forum?
Perhaps one of the Cathay guys can brief us on the Gallium story. If I remember correctly, the stuff burned right through the fuselage in the air.
------------------
rgds Rat
I need to look in the DG Manual. Operator variations are in the front somewhere along with State variations.
Like to join us on the brand new hot off the press Freight Dogs Forum?
Perhaps one of the Cathay guys can brief us on the Gallium story. If I remember correctly, the stuff burned right through the fuselage in the air.
------------------
rgds Rat