Narrative:

Mar/wed/98, shipment of products containing magnets was tender for shipment by air. Total weight of the product shipment was 409 kgs, the weight of each magnet was unknown. According to the manufacture each product's magnet is encased with a steel shell on 3 of the 4 sides thus shielding the magnetic emissions to an extremely low level. The manufacture provided a certificate stating this was a non restr shipment safe for transportation by aircraft. The shipment was tested according to IATA packing instruction 902(C)(2). The magnetic field failed to deflect a compass at 2.1 meters also at 1 meter, it was determined not to meet the definition of a magnetized material and was safe for transportation by aircraft. The shipment was tendered to the airline for transport. During unloading of the shipment from the aircraft at the destination airport the ground crew dropped one of the boxes spilling the product out. The airline assumed this was restr article. The airline refused to release the shipment to the consignee until it could be proven the shipment was not a magnetized material and if they could not, it would be turned over to the FAA. After faxing the test data and reviewing the certificate and prolonged discussion with the airline's mgrs they determined that the shipment met IATA packing group 902(C)(2) definition of a non magnetized material and was not a restr article. They also declined to accept any future shipments, out of fear FAA might consider this one and proving it to the FAA would be a long and difficult process. Human performance considerations: the shipper in this case met all the rules for a non restr article and even provided a certificate stating so. The forwarder tested the shipment to IATA standards and found the shipments met the standards of a non restr article. The airline over reaction was to bar any future shipments out of fear of dealing with government regulators. To prevent a future problem a standardized system needs to be devised that will identify shipments as non restr article. Government regulators need to develop better relations with the airlines who now operate in total fear of government enforcement. Industry depends on rapid transit of material, they are also willing to comply with the present rules, but when they meet those rules they are entitled to unobstructed use of the transportation system.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757 BEING UNLOADED OF CARGO THE GND CREW DROPPED ONE OF THE BOXES SPILLING PRODUCT OUT. BECAUSE THE PRODUCT HAD MAGNETIZED MATERIAL THE ACR THOUGHT THEY WERE RESTR AND UNAUTH HAZMAT. CARGO FORWARDER HAD COMPLIED WITH PACKAGING AND TESTING REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO SHIPMENT SO THEY WERE LEGAL CARGO.

Narrative: MAR/WED/98, SHIPMENT OF PRODUCTS CONTAINING MAGNETS WAS TENDER FOR SHIPMENT BY AIR. TOTAL WT OF THE PRODUCT SHIPMENT WAS 409 KGS, THE WT OF EACH MAGNET WAS UNKNOWN. ACCORDING TO THE MANUFACTURE EACH PRODUCT'S MAGNET IS ENCASED WITH A STEEL SHELL ON 3 OF THE 4 SIDES THUS SHIELDING THE MAGNETIC EMISSIONS TO AN EXTREMELY LOW LEVEL. THE MANUFACTURE PROVIDED A CERTIFICATE STATING THIS WAS A NON RESTR SHIPMENT SAFE FOR TRANSPORTATION BY ACFT. THE SHIPMENT WAS TESTED ACCORDING TO IATA PACKING INSTRUCTION 902(C)(2). THE MAGNETIC FIELD FAILED TO DEFLECT A COMPASS AT 2.1 METERS ALSO AT 1 METER, IT WAS DETERMINED NOT TO MEET THE DEFINITION OF A MAGNETIZED MATERIAL AND WAS SAFE FOR TRANSPORTATION BY ACFT. THE SHIPMENT WAS TENDERED TO THE AIRLINE FOR TRANSPORT. DURING UNLOADING OF THE SHIPMENT FROM THE ACFT AT THE DEST ARPT THE GND CREW DROPPED ONE OF THE BOXES SPILLING THE PRODUCT OUT. THE AIRLINE ASSUMED THIS WAS RESTR ARTICLE. THE AIRLINE REFUSED TO RELEASE THE SHIPMENT TO THE CONSIGNEE UNTIL IT COULD BE PROVEN THE SHIPMENT WAS NOT A MAGNETIZED MATERIAL AND IF THEY COULD NOT, IT WOULD BE TURNED OVER TO THE FAA. AFTER FAXING THE TEST DATA AND REVIEWING THE CERTIFICATE AND PROLONGED DISCUSSION WITH THE AIRLINE'S MGRS THEY DETERMINED THAT THE SHIPMENT MET IATA PACKING GROUP 902(C)(2) DEFINITION OF A NON MAGNETIZED MATERIAL AND WAS NOT A RESTR ARTICLE. THEY ALSO DECLINED TO ACCEPT ANY FUTURE SHIPMENTS, OUT OF FEAR FAA MIGHT CONSIDER THIS ONE AND PROVING IT TO THE FAA WOULD BE A LONG AND DIFFICULT PROCESS. HUMAN PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS: THE SHIPPER IN THIS CASE MET ALL THE RULES FOR A NON RESTR ARTICLE AND EVEN PROVIDED A CERTIFICATE STATING SO. THE FORWARDER TESTED THE SHIPMENT TO IATA STANDARDS AND FOUND THE SHIPMENTS MET THE STANDARDS OF A NON RESTR ARTICLE. THE AIRLINE OVER REACTION WAS TO BAR ANY FUTURE SHIPMENTS OUT OF FEAR OF DEALING WITH GOV REGULATORS. TO PREVENT A FUTURE PROB A STANDARDIZED SYS NEEDS TO BE DEVISED THAT WILL IDENT SHIPMENTS AS NON RESTR ARTICLE. GOV REGULATORS NEED TO DEVELOP BETTER RELATIONS WITH THE AIRLINES WHO NOW OPERATE IN TOTAL FEAR OF GOV ENFORCEMENT. INDUSTRY DEPENDS ON RAPID TRANSIT OF MATERIAL, THEY ARE ALSO WILLING TO COMPLY WITH THE PRESENT RULES, BUT WHEN THEY MEET THOSE RULES THEY ARE ENTITLED TO UNOBSTRUCTED USE OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.