Yep, and now most all shippers put their non-hazmat, might be hazmat, could it be hazmat(?) or their hazmat on non-passenger cargo flights via the cargo shippers. both ground and air.
they still have compatibility issues with cargo only flights.
I've heard igloos have been out now for hazmat and only mil style webbing over pallets are allowed with real hazmat in the cargo planes.
I could have bad intel on that however at this late hour.
I would have to agree that is true.
that is why the USPS has those nice NO AIRPLANE stickers they put on all the packages
that fit their parcel post shipping exceptions.
they even have 1.4s stickers in some offices and the endicia.com place that does online shipping labels has the
1.4s numbered label to print out on your package for non air shipments parcel post only.however, that clearly is for and I quote their label::
Toy Propellant Device/Ignition Device Less then 62.5 grams Surface Mail Parcel Post Only As Per Division 1.4s
Cargo aircraft only.
I do.
Which is part of what changed. It's all arbitrary and stopped or prevented no accidents. It just added bureaucracy, limits to commerce, and cost.
Thank you.
Your theory relies on multiple cascading improbable events.
ie fire hazard shaver in first place, next to a box of J's in the first place, that can so easily be ignited in the first place, for example.
While in the air and . . . and . . . and . . .
I've seen that kind of cascading event happen in shiping and internet networking systems
From the NTSB report I saw, it appeared that the unsafed initiators on the oxygen generators were the _primary_ ignition sources, and _started_ the fire. For model rocket motors to ignite in transit, there would have been required an external fire of such intensity that the heat released by the burning of the motors themselves would have been only a small portion of the threat to the vehicle.
-dave w
Jerry,
Let me get this right. You don't see any problem with shipping a box containing APCP on a passenger aircraft in a bulk cargo hold without IATA, DOT and UN compatibility or shipping requirements met?
Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
Rocket motors are not on pasanger planes , so why do we talk about it like they might be ?
My point is that, unlike oxygen generators with their trigger mechanisms left armed, model rocket engines aren't likely to _start_ a fire in _any_ sort of vehicle unless it's already on fire.
(Fred seems to be using the Valujet incident as generic evidence that "violating The Regulations" is bad, and therefore that Jerry was Evil for not declaring model rocket motors, shipped by truck, as "hazardous". I think his logic is a bit weak...)
-dave w
OK, I just want people to stop talking about rocket motors on pasanger jets when they are not ;-)
As I understand it, the carrier involved with Jerry's disputed shipment was "Yellow Freight"... last I heard, they ran 18-wheeler trucks, not "passenger aircraft with bulk cargo holds"...
-dave w
I'm convinced Anthony; but you probably figured that out..(:-)
Fred
I give up, you just don't get it..
Yea, that was the case he was busted for. It is still illegal to ship improperly or deceptively marked hazmat by any common carrier; plane, train, motor freight, and boat. What don't you understand about that concept. Jerry is lucky he was not pooped for some of the other s#$t he shipped USPS for sure; and more than likely other common carriers he used. I wonder how much of his postal shipments inadvertently made it on to passenger acft, because it was improperly marked, not to mentioned packaged???
You still don't get it, do you???
Fred
AND depressurizing the cargo bay would not put it out.
Unlikely.
Or visa versa.
They USED to be and there was NEVER an incident.
Or at minimum over escalated by 2-4 orders of magnitude.
I agree they are not at present, but people willing to falsify that arguement (Fred Wallace, but NOT Ray Dunakin notably) and actively advocate ATF permits for rocket motors even though they fit perfectly in all the reasoning for exewmptions (CTI, AT, AMW, LR, TRA, Magnum, Countdown, Hangar11, Performance Hobbies, etc, etc. Notably NOT NAR, Kosdon, Vulcan, USR, ACS, DPT, Powertech-RIP), will never listen to reason.
Just Jerry
Who was fined for improper shipping of hazmat?????????????
Nope.
I suggest changing those requirements back to pre-1978 levels for a WIDE SWATH of commodities that are not self-hazardous (ie NOT clorine, 1.1, biohazard, whatever). Those that need 2 or more concurrent unlikely events to be a real hazard.
APCP is among the most stable substances even declared haxardous.
Jerry
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.