The verdict on the ValuJet crash:

The NTSB investigation eventually determined that the fire that downed Flight 592 began in a cargo compartment below the passenger cabin. The cargo compartment was of a Class D design, in which fire suppression is accomplished by sealing off the hold from outside air. Any fire in such an airtight compartment will in theory quickly exhaust all available oxygen and then burn itself out. As the fire suppression is accomplished without any intervention by the crew, such holds are not equipped with smoke detectors. However, the NTSB determined that just before takeoff, expired chemical oxygen generators were placed in the cargo compartment in five boxes marked COMAT (Company-owned material) by ValuJet's maintenance contractor, SabreTech, in contravention of FAA regulations forbidding the transport of hazardous materials in aircraft cargo holds. Failure to cover the firing pins for the generators with the prescribed plastic caps made an accidental activation much more likely. Rather than covering the firing pins, the SabreTech workers simply duct taped the cords around the cans, or cut them, and used tape to stick the ends down. It is also possible that the cylindrical, tennis ball can-sized generators were loaded onboard in the mistaken belief that they were just empty canisters, thus being certified as safe to transport in an aircraft cargo compartment. SabreTech employees indicated on the cargo manifest that the "canisters" were empty, when in fact they were not.

Chemical oxygen generators, when activated, produce oxygen. As a byproduct of the exothermic chemical reaction, they also produce a great quantity of heat. These two together were sufficient not only to start an accidental fire, but also to produce enough oxygen to keep the fire burning. The fire risk was made much worse by the presence of combustible aircraft wheels in the hold. Two main tires and wheels and a nose tire and wheel were also included in the COMAT. NTSB investigators theorized that when the plane experienced a slight jolt while taxiing on the runway, an oxygen generator unintentionally activated, producing oxygen and heat. Laboratory testing showed that canisters of the same type could heat nearby materials up to 500 °F (260 °C), enough to ignite a smouldering fire. The oxygen from the generators fed the resulting fire in the cargo hold. A pop and jolt heard on the cockpit voice recording and correlated with a brief and dramatic spike in the altimeter reading in the flight data recording were attributed to the sudden cabin pressure change caused by a semi-inflated aircraft wheel in the cargo hold exploding in the fire.

Smoke detectors in the cargo holds can alert the flight crew of a fire long before the problem becomes apparent in the cabin, and a fire suppression system buys valuable time to land the plane safely. In February 1998, the FAA issued revised standards requiring all Class D cargo holds to be converted by early 2001 to Class C or E; these types of holds have additional fire detection and suppression equipment.[6]

They didn't have a chance. They hit the Glades doing 500 knots, but it is likely that most were already dead from fire and smoke inhalation prior to impact.

I was home at the time on time off and I vividly remember that accident and the usual misreporting by the news hawks. It was as bad as it gets.

Thanks jetdrvr, that is the crash I was thinking of, I knew it was started by something improperly packed that started the tires on fire.

I put the Ballistol in a pyrex dish and had it "boiling", the flame was touching it for quite a while, and still could not get it to flame up.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:

I put the Ballistol in a pyrex dish and had it "boiling", the flame was touching it for quite a while, and still could not get it to flame up.

Working on the assumption that it is classified as flammable and that it is banned from travel, I'll absolutely guarantee there's a reason for it.

Either it'll burn suddenly under certain circumstances such as when turned into a spray or is exposed to high temperature flames such as might be encountered in an aircraft crash but there will definitely be a reason the UN guys have classified it the way they have.

Fred,

I also remember the Value Jet incident and also remember all the speculation caused in the industry by that the bad reporting you mentioned.

As is so often the case, it was a tragic accident that could so easily have been avoided by sticking the rules....... which is why I used it as an example in the first place.

I would consider the Valujet crash fairly different than the 500ml of gun oil. The reason being that the Oxygen generators were "taped off" instead of having the plastic covers over the firing pins. The small Oxygen generator caused enough heat to get the airplane tires to burn that were stored by them. I would bet that the gun oil would not "feed oxygen" and "generate heat" if sat next to tires on an airplane.

I would bet there are quite a few people on this website alone that have flown with items not normally allowed on a commercial aircraft.

I do suggest bringing a different brand of "non flammable" to the outfitter you plan on bringing it to.

For the simple fact that if another company plans on putting "empty" oxygen generators by your gun oil and by some tires and the firing pins back out of the generators and go off on take off, they do not blame you only because the flashpoint on the oil is 499 degrees and the chemical reaction could exceed 500 degrees.



We could go all day on the what if's

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
As is so often the case, it was a tragic accident that could so easily have been avoided by sticking the rules....... which is why I used it as an example in the first place.

This

quote:

Originally posted by Buglemintoday:
I would consider the Valujet crash fairly different than the 500ml of gun oil. The reason being that the Oxygen generators were "taped off" instead of having the plastic covers over the firing pins. The small Oxygen generator caused enough heat to get the airplane tires to burn that were stored by them. I would bet that the gun oil would not "feed oxygen" and "generate heat" if sat next to tires on an airplane.

I would bet there are quite a few people on this website alone that have flown with items not normally allowed on a commercial aircraft.

I do suggest bringing a different brand of "non flammable" to the outfitter you plan on bringing it to.

For the simple fact that if another company plans on putting "empty" oxygen generators by your gun oil and by some tires and the firing pins back out of the generators and go off on take off, they do not blame you only because the flashpoint on the oil is 499 degrees and the chemical reaction could exceed 500 degrees.



We could go all day on the what if's

You've missed my point completely.

The point I was trying to make is that air accidents very often happen because of a sequence of events, each one of which may well often be considered fairly innocuous on it's own and often involving materials that shouldn't have been loaded (often) for safety reasons, that then combine to cause an accident.

I personally think the Value Jet case is a perfect example but another one might be the SAA Heldeberg where someone, somewhere, put something on that flight that shouldn't have been there. IMO of the two, the former is a better example.

I'm not suggesting Ballistol is dangerous on it's own, just that it might be considered as a potential danger if/when combined with other materials and/or events........ and the UN classifications dept obviously agree or they wouldn't have rated it as they did.

At the end of the day, anyone who puts or has put any hazardous rated & banned material onto a commercial aircraft is nothing short of a fucking idiot because he's gambling with the lives of everyone aboard that aircraft and those of anyone it might fall on (and their families) and quite honestly, they'd receive no sympathy from me if they got caught and sent to jail for it.

The O2 generators are prohibited items under the regulations in both CFR 49 and IATA Hazmat manuals on passenger aircraft. That is the point. How they were packaged in irrelevant, for crying out loud! All the bullshit and speculation aside, if it is on either or both of those lists, there is a very good reason for it! If you don't like the listing, then take it up with the controlling agencies. End of story.

One of the Sabre Tech supervisors who was involved in loading that stuff aboard the aircraft is still an international fugitive. That says it all.

quote:

At the end of the day, anyone who puts or has put any hazardous rated & banned material onto a commercial aircraft is nothing short of a fucking idiot because he's gambling with the lives of everyone aboard that aircraft and those of anyone it might fall on (and their families) and quite honestly, they'd receive no sympathy from me if they got caught and sent to jail for it.

Very well said. There's one in every crowd who thinks he knows better than the people who have done extensive testing on these materials and screws the pooch.

Those ignorant fools who loaded those O2 generators should have been hanged, as far as I am concerned, and the supervisor, if they ever locate the son of a bitch, should swing higher than the rest. They murdered 110 people by burning them to death.

So all you clowns who want to play footsie with hazmat just remember that you might possibly be charged with a felony. If you live.

I've flown and hunted all over the world and I do not carry flammables with me because every pilot's greatest fear is fire aboard an aircraft. Every one.

And ignorant passengers who don't know shit from Shinola about hazardous materials and are out to beat the system are fucking everybody if something goes wrong.

I just had to Google Shinola to find out what the hell it was!

Apart from the arrogance of any serious dimwit taking "haz-mat" stuff onto an aircraft, and the potential danger to fellow passengers, he has the potential of not arriving at his destination himself. Geez, how bright is that? ? ? ? The bloke should join the ANC Youth League.

quote:

The point I was trying to make is that air accidents very often happen because of a sequence of events,

Shakari

I agree and this is shown up in numerous accidents.


.

There is very little logic or even common sense in some of these rules. As has been suggested, ethyl alcohol, as in hard liquor, is far more hazardous than Ballistol.

But of course we must follow the rules.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
There is very little logic or even common sense in some of these rules. As has been suggested, ethyl alcohol, as in hard liquor, is far more hazardous than Ballistol.

But of course we must follow the rules.

In the case of HAZMAT on aircraft, there's always common sense and hard science in the rules.

In this particular case, we just haven't found it yet. It could be something such as altitude or soaking the liquid into a material or something else but I guarantee if it's classified as HAZMAT there's a bloody good reason for it.

Why don't the skeptics call up Atlas Air Cargo Operations and ask them about the hazmat regulations, or Southern Air? These people deal with this stuff on a daily basis.

I used to haul hazmat by the ton out of ORD to LAX and SFO on a contract for JAL in the Hercs. We hauled some nasty stuff. Even then, a lot of hazmat has be be trucked. You cannot carry certain chemicals on adjacent pallets because of the possibility of cross-contamination. Chemical reactions can occur if certain substances are mixed or even come in minute contact with each other.

It is a whole different world out her that Joe Public is totally unaware of and a lot of this stuff flies right over your head every night and you would not want to be near the accident scene if a crash occurs.

I don't write the regs. But they exist for the mutual safety and benefit of all. Maybe they're not logical in a citizen's definition of logic. Whatever the case, they are written for mutual benefit.

Why can I carry a ballpoint pen aboard an aircraft and not a Swiss knife? I can kill someone dead as hell with a ball point, but it is not classified as a weapon, even though it is. Go figger.

quote:

Originally posted by jetdrvr:
Very well said. There's one in every crowd who thinks he knows better than the people who have done extensive testing on these materials and screws the pooch.

Jetdrvr:

My thoughts whenever I see some dickhead using his/her mobile phone after being told not to do so. I recently read where there have been several incidents where phones have interferred with aircraft navigation.

Hey, no one is busier than me, and I can shut the damn thing off, so can everyone else.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
My thoughts whenever I see some dickhead using his/her mobile phone after being told not to do so. I recently read where there have been several incidents where phones have interferred with aircraft navigation.

Far worse than just interfered with aircraft navigation.


interfered with the flight control systems !!!

.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
There is very little logic or even common sense in some of these rules. As has been suggested, ethyl alcohol, as in hard liquor, is far more hazardous than Ballistol.

But of course we must follow the rules.

In the case of HAZMAT on aircraft, there's always common sense and hard science in the rules.

In this particular case, we just haven't found it yet. It could be something such as altitude or soaking the liquid into a material or something else but I guarantee if it's classified as HAZMAT there's a bloody good reason for it.

Your faith in the rule makers is touching, although naive.

But we must of course follow the rules.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
Your faith in the rule makers is touching, although naive.
But we must of course follow the rules.

Not naive at all Michael.

I just happen to have a fair bit of experience (albeit a long time ago) of various aspects, including but not wholly restricted to HAZMAT & security of commercial aircraft & aviation with everything from BAC 1-11s to Tridents to 747s to Airbus to Concorde and know how very easily these things can happen...... Which incidentally is why I know things like the Air Navigation Order (Carriage of Dangerous Goods) Act as well as I do.

You are right about us needing to stick to the rules though.

quote:

Your faith in the rule makers is touching, although naive.

Hey, pal, if you don't like it, you can always take it up with the controlling agencies. I lived by those rules for over thirty years and I am still alive. What's your excuse?

You're insufferable.

Lighten up. I don't wish to "take it up" with anyone. You are missing my point entirely.

It's a simple and incontrovertible point.

Rules of this kind judge all of humankind by very low standards - not a bad policy, as a general matter, IMHO.

But frequently grating on those of us blessed with a smidgeon of the gray matter.

For obvious business reasons, no airline requires a minimum intelligence quotient for its passengers as a pre-requisite to boarding.

The planes would be empty if that were the case, and fares for the rest of us would rise precipitously.

In consequence of such liberal boarding rules, prohibitions of this kind (i.e., no Ballistol allowed) are radically over-broad and over-inclusive or -exclusive, as the case may be.

They are sledgehammers wielded against mosquitos. So be it.

Far be it from me to imperil myself or my fellow passengers.

We must all of us, of course, follow the rules.

quote:

Originally posted by jetdrvr:
Don't waste anymore time on this guy, Steve. He's an idiot, arrogant and has no respect for anyone including himself. He's always right. He is a total waste of time.

Reasonable people get the point. Fools never do.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
There is very little logic or even common sense in some of these rules. As has been suggested, ethyl alcohol, as in hard liquor, is far more hazardous than Ballistol.

But of course we must follow the rules.

In the case of HAZMAT on aircraft, there's always common sense and hard science in the rules.

In this particular case, we just haven't found it yet. It could be something such as altitude or soaking the liquid into a material or something else but I guarantee if it's classified as HAZMAT there's a bloody good reason for it.

Your faith in the rule makers is touching, although naive.

But we must of course follow the rules.

my faith in the rule makers is a lot greater than my faith in know-nothing scofflaws- no offense intended of course. it's my life on the line when some fool violates a safety regulation and shit happens.

If fly Airbus, crew may need to keep plane fly. If not, can drink when broken plane stuck at gate.