Can we get more discussion on this?
All the rules out there you'd think there be more specific guidance.
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.
I think 100 lbs of dynamite, properly secured and without detonators, would be safer than the 180 lbs of avgas you're already carrying.
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.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.
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.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).
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.
I have no idea where that came from, but the Code of Federal Regulations contains no such section as of May 23, 2014.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?
Thus, if there's no "commerce", there's no applicability.(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.
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".§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.
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".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".
They use the word "commerce" a lot in 175.1 and if you use the definition stated above, it is not clear.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.
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.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.
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.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?
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).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.
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?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.
Have you ever seen the inside of a Bahamian prison?
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:Nope, and I don't go to the gymnasium either.
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.
The Enola Gay is not the bomber which comes to mind in this context (that plane finished the war in one piece), but rather the PB4Y (US Navy B-24) LT Joseph Kennedy Jr. was flying in August 1944.Is the name "Enola Gay" painted on the nose?