Illegal and improper carriage of chemical oxygen generators on ANZ long haul flight
 

We'll have to wait for the details to emerge but this sounds like a bit of a worry, especially given it's an ETOPS route.
Air force danger cargo sent on passenger jet - National - NZ Herald News

I'm slightly confused: how did the NZ Air Force put cargo on a passenger flight leaving from Vancouver???

So a disgruntled employee turned them in??? What' the big deal?

Thr load agent hands me a manifest documenting the cargo...What was on the form this Captain signed...

It happens all the time...this time nothing happened...So what's the purpose of this post?

Sh@t stirrimg,



i.'m sure...

Right. There's no real problem here. Unless... think Valujet at 30 West.

Wouldn't ANZ have a non CAO dangerous goods licence?

Safety management
 

The purpose of safety management is to discover events and risks so manageing them to reduce the chances of adverse outcome

Most rules in aviation are imposed as the result of adverse experience and so to disregard them enhances the risk they are designed to negate

Investigating events which seem to reveal a breach or rules is a valuable way to discover if the rules are wrong, outdated or an excessive constriction on trade. If the rule is not one of these it should be obeyed. If the rule is one of these it should be obeyed pending ammendment.

Risk management clearly shows we get a large number of warnings before an event becomes critical, ignoring the event series hastens that critical moment and usually makes the outcome inexcusable

Me too. Possibly NZAF got some replacement O2 generators from Boeing (near YVR) and shipped them by air? The legal alternative would have them going by surface transport, which might take weeks? I don't have a ton of DG experience, but I don't think you can get an exemption to carry those by air. I'll have to take a look at my DG manual later today.

Not being able to get my hands on a Dangerous Goods manual, as far as I am aware ICAO rules state that time-expired chemical oxygen generators are prohibited from carriage and MUST be transported by surface means, as a direct result of the ValuJet disaster. However, if they were new and being transported for fitment to aircraft at base then perhaps it is allowed as long as they were packaged in the permitted containers and amounts specified by ICAO. Possibly they can be carried in cargo-only aircraft. I stress I'm not sure as I do not have the manual to hand.

On coming across Ben Sandiland's article NZ air force outed for loading oxy cyclinders into Air NZ jet | Plane Talking I see they were going TO YVR.
Makes less sense now.

Per DG manual 53rd edition
 

Forbidden on passenger aircraft. May be carried on cargo aircraft max 25kg/pkg.

sb sfo : thank you, I thought as much.

Were they Oxygen Cylinders or Generators....completely different rules.

Definitely OBOGS canisters, according to the original NZ Herald article.

http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webconte...201242/460.jpg

I'd like to see the official report, there are conflicting stories about YVR-AKL or AKL-YVR and the Herald may have found a generator picture somewhere to link the story to The Everglades.

Who knows and this may be a serious incident or just be a document discrepancy, probably best wait for the real story before speculating.

Unlikely to be put into the public domain as it's an RNZAF internal report.

A bit of an update on this story. Details are still frustratingly sketchy, however.
 

OBOGS
 

There may be some confusion here

OBOGS. On Board Oxygen Generation, used to refer to a highly tuned system that isolated oxygen within the airmix by filtration for use on board. It was especially good for military aircraft as it avoided carrying large heavy cylinders and shortened rapid turnround time

On the other hand I could be out of date

You're not.

Possibly the wider issue here is the terminology used by the shipper.

In the Valujet accident, the shipper had described them as oxygen "canisters", rather than "generators". Additionally, the term "expired" (or words to that effect) were used to describe the shipment. This led to the assumption that they were not DG.

When we do DG training, we all learn about the responsibilities of shippers and acceptance staff, but the reality is that shipments are frequently packed/delivered/consigned by people who are acting on the instructions of the shipper. The appropriately trained people are simply too few to follow the packing/delivery/consignment process of every package, and therefore they delegate (some would suggest abrogate) their responsibility. It is therefore an unfortunate fact that many items travel by air every day that have the potential to cause harm.

I am frequently uncomfortable about carrying freight for these very reasons, but it is the crews that carry freight exclusively (freight dogs) that are at greatest risk here.

My only suggestion is that whilst you are walking around the aircraft, take a look at what is being loaded. If something looks like it shouldn't be there, ask questions. If you see something, say something.