HAZMAT part 91

Captain

Captain

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 12, 2012
Messages
8,002
Location
NOYB
Display Name
Display name:
First Officer
What can you carry on a private flight operating under part 91 and how much of it. I've persued part 175 and think I've come up with a max of 55 lbs for the whole plane.

Any comments?
 
If you read 49 CFR Part 175, you know that it only applies to "...the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce aboard (including attached to or suspended from) aircraft." As such, it does not apply to plain vanilla Part 91 operations since no charge is being made for the transportation or it wouldn't be Part 91. If you're operating under Part 91 Subpart F or K, this should have covered in your training program, just as it is under Part 135.

As such, for a plain vanilla Part 91 operation, the only regulation I see as being involved would be a possible FAA charge of careless/reckless under 14 CFR 91.13. So if you want to carry that stuff in an airplane under Part 91, just do it with prudence, caution, and wisdom, lest you end up like this guy.
 
Can we get more discussion on this?

If I get paid to fly a guy in his plane and he wants to haul 100 lbs of dynomite all I can cite is "Careless and reckless"? There isn't some reg that applies that I can say " nope, can't do it."?

All the rules out there you'd think there be more specific guidance.
 
Last edited:
Captain said:
Can we get more discussion on this?

If I get paid to fly a guy in his plane and he wants to haul 100 lbs of dynomite all I can cite is "Careless and reckless"? There isn't some reg that applies that I can say " nope, can't do it."?

All the rules out there you'd think there be more specific guidance.
Click to expand...

If you don't fly all that dynamite I am sure he will find someone that will, and cheaper than what you will do it for...:dunno:
 
I think 100 lbs of dynamite, properly secured and without detonators, would be safer than the 180 lbs of avgas you're already carrying.
 
Old Geek said:
I think 100 lbs of dynamite, properly secured and without detonators, would be safer than the 180 lbs of avgas you're already carrying.
Click to expand...

Plus, if anything goes wrong, you won't be around to care.

Ultimately, you're PIC, so you are the "final authority" on what you are comfortable putting in the plane. But you knew that.

Also see:
http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources.../Transportation-of-Hazardous-Materials.aspx#3

Note that the HAZMAT shipper training requirement may be limiting for you, though that training isn't hard to get (I think it can even be done online now).
 
Last edited:
Captain said:
Can we get more discussion on this?

If I get paid to fly a guy in his plane and he wants to haul 100 lbs of dynomite all I can cite is "Careless and reckless"? There isn't some reg that applies that I can say " nope, can't do it."?

All the rules out there you'd think there be more specific guidance.
Click to expand...
You might think so, but neither you nor I can find it. But I can still tell when something is a bad idea even if there's no specific Federal regulation against it.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Also see:
http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources.../Transportation-of-Hazardous-Materials.aspx#3

Note that the HAZMAT shipper training requirement may be limiting for you, though that training isn't hard to get (I think it can even be done online now).
Click to expand...
That link conveniently ignores the Applicability section for that Part, which I quoted above, and which tells us that it only applies when there is payment for air transportation. If you're just a hired pilot flying an aircraft carrying only the aircraft owners' property, the section AOPA quotes does not apply.
 
Google "AOPA Hazmat" and this link comes up. It says:

Sec. 175.5 Applicability

This part applies to the acceptance for transportation, loading and transportation of hazardous materials in any aircraft in the United States and in aircraft of United States registry anywhere in air commerce.
Click to expand...

That implies section 175 applies to ALL aircraft operating inside the US. But I can't find FAR 175.5 elsewhere online. Any ideas as to the disconnect? Is it old and since removed or revised?
 
Title 49 CFR is where you want to be looking.
 
I seem to remember reading a report of someone flying in to a backwoods strip carrying mowing equipment and gas cans, had a bad landing and the fuel in one of the mowers ignited and burned the plane on the ground. Took a repair job to a total loss pretty fast.

You're the PIC, load up what you will. But be careful!
 
Captain said:
Google "AOPA Hazmat" and this link comes up. It says:



That implies section 175 applies to ALL aircraft operating inside the US. But I can't find FAR 175.5 elsewhere online. Any ideas as to the disconnect? Is it old and since removed or revised?
Click to expand...
I have no idea where that came from, but the Code of Federal Regulations contains no such section as of May 23, 2014.
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49cfr175_main_02.tpl
The current applicability section 49 CFR 175.1 says:
(b) This part applies to the offering, acceptance, and transportation of hazardous materials in commerce by aircraft to, from, or within the United States, and to any aircraft of United States registry anywhere in air commerce. This subchapter applies to any person who performs, attempts to perform, or is required to perform any function subject to this subchapter, including—
(1) Air carriers, indirect air carriers, and freight forwarders and their flight and non-flight employees, agents, subsidiary and contract personnel (including cargo, passenger and baggage acceptance, handling, loading and unloading personnel); and
(2) Air passengers that carry any hazardous material on their person or in their carry-on or checked baggage.
Click to expand...
Thus, if there's no "commerce", there's no applicability.
 
Last edited:
If you look at 171.8 under Definitions and Abbreviations, "commerce" is defined this way..

§171.8 Definitions and abbreviations.
In this subchapter,

Commerce means trade or transportation in the jurisdiction of the United States within a single state; between a place in a state and a place outside of the state; that affects trade or transportation between a place in a state and place outside of the state; or on a United States-registered aircraft.
Click to expand...
If they intend this definition to only apply to for-pay operations they didn't do a very good job with the wording. It states "trade OR transportation".
 
Everskyward said:
If you look at 171.8 under Definitions and Abbreviations, "commerce" is defined this way..

If they intend this definition to only apply to for-pay operations they didn't do a very good job with the wording. It states "trade OR transportation".
Click to expand...
I think if you read 175.1(b) in its entirety, including the part about "Air carriers, indirect air carriers, and freight forwarders and their flight and non-flight employees, agents, subsidiary and contract personnel", as well as the FAA definitions of "commerce", you'll see that it really doesn't apply to noncommercial operations. Of course, you can always ask the Office of the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation for a reading, since that office is "the Chief Legal Officer of the Department, with final authority on questions of law".
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
I think if you read 175.1(b) in its entirety, including the part about "Air carriers, indirect air carriers, and freight forwarders and their flight and non-flight employees, agents, subsidiary and contract personnel", as well as the FAA definitions of "commerce", you'll see that it really doesn't apply to noncommercial operations.
Click to expand...
They use the word "commerce" a lot in 175.1 and if you use the definition stated above, it is not clear.

I'm not going to ask any authority because I don't care that much. I was only pointing out that the definition, as written, could mean either.
 
Everskyward said:
They use the word "commerce" a lot in 175.1 and if you use the definition stated above, it is not clear.

I'm not going to ask any authority because I don't care that much. I was only pointing out that the definition, as written, could mean either.
Click to expand...
FWIW, while I've heard of plenty of cases of DoT busting commercial operators on HAZMAT violations, I've never heard of them going after a private flyer for violating Part 175. That may not be the same as a legal interpretation, but it does give us a hint.
 
Is some guy asking you to bring propane to OSH?
 
Ron Levy said:
FWIW, while I've heard of plenty of cases of DoT busting commercial operators on HAZMAT violations, I've never heard of them going after a private flyer for violating Part 175. That may not be the same as a legal interpretation, but it does give us a hint.
Click to expand...
It could also mean that they care more about commercial operators for obvious reasons, but they are leaving it open-ended just in case. Or they could have screwed up with the definition. We don't know.
 
paflyer said:
Is some guy asking you to bring propane to OSH?
Click to expand...

No. Just a guy who owns a plane that I know how to fly. He wants to take stuff from his house in Florida to his house in the Bahamas. Hazmat of the flammable and Oxidizer type. About 6 hundred pounds of it.

As a pilot with all my time flying part 121, 135, and 91K my kneejerk reaction to Hazmat is to simply say 'no'. But that would cost me money in this case so I thought I'd at least look into what the regs say.
 
Last edited:
Whoa, international travel brings on a whole bunch more restrictions.
 
Everskyward said:
It could also mean that they care more about commercial operators for obvious reasons, but they are leaving it open-ended just in case. Or they could have screwed up with the definition. We don't know.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right, which is why if you really need to know, you should contact the DoT General Counsel. But even if it is legal, I wouldn't be carrying 100 lb of dynamite in any plane of which I am PIC (unless it's in an approved munition in the weapons bay of an F-111).
 
Captain said:
No. Just a guy who owns a plane that I know how to fly. He wants to take stuff from his house in Florida to his house in the Bahamas. Hazmat of the flammable and Oxidizer type. About 6 hundred pounds of it.

As a pilot with all my time flying part 121, 135, and 91K my kneejerk reaction to Hazmat is to simply say 'no'. But that would cost me money in this case so I thought I'd at least look into what the regs say.
Click to expand...
I think your initial reaction was appropriate. As mentioned by Ed, you need to find out what the Bahamians think about this, too -- showing up unannounced with 600 lb of explosives might be misinterpreted. Have you ever seen the inside of a Bahamian prison?
 
EdFred said:
Nope, and I don't go to the gymnasium either. :D
Click to expand...
I've been known to go to the gym, but not for the purpose of seeing a grown man naked. As for Turkish prisons, I've seen one from the outside, which was more than enough -- and you can keep your Victor Mature movies. For those reasons and others, you won't find me hauling 600 lb of dynamite to the Bahamas by air. :wink2:
 
Captain said:
No. Just a guy who owns a plane that I know how to fly. He wants to take stuff from his house in Florida to his house in the Bahamas. Hazmat of the flammable and Oxidizer type. About 6 hundred pounds of it.

As a pilot with all my time flying part 121, 135, and 91K my kneejerk reaction to Hazmat is to simply say 'no'. But that would cost me money in this case so I thought I'd at least look into what the regs say.
Click to expand...

Is the name "Enola Gay" painted on the nose? :yikes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top