There is no exemption that allows an airline to add or change what is defined by government or other statutory bodies as mandated DG or PI and I dont believe anyone is saying they can, these goods have set procedures and extra requirements in terms of their handling for obvious reasons and such definitions should be seen as a minimum list rather then an ultimate definitive list.
You say this but then you go and contradict yourself in the very next sentence. As you clearly state above they cannot
add to the list. But that doesn't prevent them having a policy not to carry certain things.
Not to mention post #8 in this thread which started this whole thing in the first place
By the same token there is no law that prevents an entity from adding to that list as they see fit in terms of their own policies and procedures.
I'll fully support the right of a company to determine how it runs it's business by setting policy. But the below position is illogical. The whole point of safe trasnport of DG rules is that hazard materials are made
safe for transport. It is a fundamental contradiction to claim something that the whole world has agree is safe for transport (yes even on an aircraft) is not safe.
Airlines and cargo carriers are empowered under aviation law to make their own definitions and policies in order to meet their obligations under Section 10 of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, specifically preventing the placement on board an aircraft that is in service, anything that puts the safety of the aircraft, or any person on board or outside the aircraft, at risk. As I previously mentioned there are good examples of additions to the dangerous goods lists by authorised government and private air operators when it comes to dangerous goods, for example this government agency has declared dangerous goods that are in addition to the rules and guidelines prescribed in law, that is they are defining a dangerous good that is not dangerous under the normal legislation:
Australia Post - Dangerous goods
As you can see, this is an example of an aircraft operator very clearly doing what you say is not possible, that is defining something that ICAO has declared non hazerdous as DG (when you read the ICAO fine print), one which BTW is in partnership 50% with QF as a air freight operator with aircraft.
Ok the Australia post bit doesn't support your point at all. It says they are following the rules, not an Australia Post policy.
Australia Post said:
All lithium batteries are now classified as dangerous goods and cannot be carried by air.
The airport is responsible for providing a screen service under Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 which requires a screening point to ensure all passengers beyond that point have met ALL regulations and requirements for them to board the aircraft. This includes airline policies in respect to articles to be carried onboard in terms of prohibited/dangerous items by content, dimension or weight. Cabin baggage exceeding the designated limits set by each airline is considered dangerous goods under the said act.
The screening point is empowered to police all laws and policys in effect for boarding an aircraft.
Straitman here is the quote from post #8 with my emphasis that started this all off. There is the link to the OP for you. This has gone of on a tangent because there seems to be an unwillingness to accept that other people know something about this subject and can spot an obviously incorrect statement.
As for continually quoting one class, that is actually called an example. A very relevant example, because it is about separate regulations that covers all modes of transport including Air.
By the same token I don't believe that continually quoting 1 set of regulations is helping arguments either. You've come on here to comment on a post I made, what, 3 days ago. To tell me that I don't understand the complexity involved in this area. Yet then somehow it doesn't help when I refer to more than just 1 limited set of regulations.
I am referred to in condescending terms to say that I don't understand aviation and that things need to be kept simple for me, as an effort to, what, put me in my box because I dare to speak up to correct an obvious mistake. There is nothing special about aviation compared to other transport modes that makes it right to falsely classify non-hazardous materials as DG. Then again I do have and have heard some stories of the stupidity on aviation types to do with class 7, (whoops, there I go again talking about aviation related DG that I have experience with :shock
Keeping this on topic then, and ignoring those issues of the tone of some posts here, tell me, Can an airline designate an overweight cabin bag as Dangerous Goods? Are DG laws a reason that Security can weight passengers bags?
medhead,
- There was no jumping down anyones throat. I was imply stating my opinion just as you were stating yours. (statement of fact)
- There are many other classes in the DG regulations so I don't believe continually quoting one class alone is helping the arguments at all. (statement of fact)
- This is another thread that has been allowed to go off topic as the thread title is: Is it the job of airport security to weigh passenger's cabin baggage? (statement of fact)
markis10, you and I (and others) arguing about the merits and application or otherwise of parts of thethe DG regulations has nothing to do with the original topic :!: Unless the thread is split off I will make no further comments unless it is about the original question asked.
