Narrative:

In order to observe and learn the new centralized load planning system; I spent the morning on the ramp at sfo. I observed a number of flts being loaded as well as ramp's actions to update the computer to provide closeout information to centralized load planning. It was raining at sfo and ramp was having a difficult time keeping up with delayed flts. I observed a hazmat shipment scheduled to be loaded onto a flight held off the flight due to time constraints (only bags were loaded). I then boarded flight to YYY. Because the flight was full; I spent the flight in the cockpit. Upon entering the cockpit and before pushback; I noticed that a dangerous goods 'yes' notation appeared on the centralized load planning paperwork. I asked the crew if they had received a notification form for dangerous goods; and they replied that they had not. None was subsequently delivered. Because of the WX and what I had previously observed; I assumed the shipment had been held off the aircraft. Upon arrival; I obtained a copy of the finalized container manifest. The container manifest showed that a dangerous goods shipment (dry ice) had been boarded into pit 21; a final destination of YYY and a total weight of 1043 pounds. The code had been properly filled out and reflected 'ice.' I then met with a ramp lead and proceeded to observe the unloading of the aircraft. A container was removed from pit 21 and opened. Inside were two wooden shipments; each with a class 9 label. Contrary to DOT and ICAO requirements; there were no labels on the outside of the container. Attached to one of the shipments was an unopened pouch containing 2 sets of partially completed pilot notification forms. The 'air waybill number' and 'prepared by' segments of the form indicated that the shipment had been accepted in ymml by a dangerous goods specialist. The first notification form was for a flight from yssy to XXX. It was unclear how the shipment traveled between ymml and yssy. The portions of the form for container/cart number; loading location; and the container loaded and aircraft loaded signature blocks were blank for the yssy to XXX form. There was also a form for a sfo-YYY segment with the identical sections blank; and also nothing filled in for flight/date. The rest of the form was completed correctly; including the indication that there were 2 shipments of dry ice; each with a weight of 66 pounds. In summary; it is clear that there was no pilot notification for these two flts. There may have been no notification for a ymml-yssy segment. Additionally; there was no labeling on the outside of the container on the yssy/XXX leg. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the callback was made primarily to determine the meaning of several acronyms in the narrative with which the analyst was unfamiliar. Reporter did state he felt a large part of the problem was the result of reduced manpower levels which result in overtaxing of those remaining to not only do all the loading; but also to ensure compliance with required regulations and paperwork.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CONSCIENTIOUS B777 PLT MONITORING HIS ACR'S CENTRALIZED LOAD PLANNING SYSTEM FINDS HANDLING OF DANGEROUS GOODS SHIPMENT NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS OR COMPANY POLICIES.

Narrative: IN ORDER TO OBSERVE AND LEARN THE NEW CENTRALIZED LOAD PLANNING SYSTEM; I SPENT THE MORNING ON THE RAMP AT SFO. I OBSERVED A NUMBER OF FLTS BEING LOADED AS WELL AS RAMP'S ACTIONS TO UPDATE THE COMPUTER TO PROVIDE CLOSEOUT INFO TO CENTRALIZED LOAD PLANNING. IT WAS RAINING AT SFO AND RAMP WAS HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME KEEPING UP WITH DELAYED FLTS. I OBSERVED A HAZMAT SHIPMENT SCHEDULED TO BE LOADED ONTO A FLT HELD OFF THE FLT DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS (ONLY BAGS WERE LOADED). I THEN BOARDED FLT TO YYY. BECAUSE THE FLT WAS FULL; I SPENT THE FLT IN THE COCKPIT. UPON ENTERING THE COCKPIT AND BEFORE PUSHBACK; I NOTICED THAT A DANGEROUS GOODS 'YES' NOTATION APPEARED ON THE CENTRALIZED LOAD PLANNING PAPERWORK. I ASKED THE CREW IF THEY HAD RECEIVED A NOTIFICATION FORM FOR DANGEROUS GOODS; AND THEY REPLIED THAT THEY HAD NOT. NONE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DELIVERED. BECAUSE OF THE WX AND WHAT I HAD PREVIOUSLY OBSERVED; I ASSUMED THE SHIPMENT HAD BEEN HELD OFF THE ACFT. UPON ARR; I OBTAINED A COPY OF THE FINALIZED CONTAINER MANIFEST. THE CONTAINER MANIFEST SHOWED THAT A DANGEROUS GOODS SHIPMENT (DRY ICE) HAD BEEN BOARDED INTO PIT 21; A FINAL DEST OF YYY AND A TOTAL WT OF 1043 LBS. THE CODE HAD BEEN PROPERLY FILLED OUT AND REFLECTED 'ICE.' I THEN MET WITH A RAMP LEAD AND PROCEEDED TO OBSERVE THE UNLOADING OF THE ACFT. A CONTAINER WAS REMOVED FROM PIT 21 AND OPENED. INSIDE WERE TWO WOODEN SHIPMENTS; EACH WITH A CLASS 9 LABEL. CONTRARY TO DOT AND ICAO REQUIREMENTS; THERE WERE NO LABELS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE CONTAINER. ATTACHED TO ONE OF THE SHIPMENTS WAS AN UNOPENED POUCH CONTAINING 2 SETS OF PARTIALLY COMPLETED PLT NOTIFICATION FORMS. THE 'AIR WAYBILL NUMBER' AND 'PREPARED BY' SEGMENTS OF THE FORM INDICATED THAT THE SHIPMENT HAD BEEN ACCEPTED IN YMML BY A DANGEROUS GOODS SPECIALIST. THE FIRST NOTIFICATION FORM WAS FOR A FLT FROM YSSY TO XXX. IT WAS UNCLEAR HOW THE SHIPMENT TRAVELED BETWEEN YMML AND YSSY. THE PORTIONS OF THE FORM FOR CONTAINER/CART NUMBER; LOADING LOCATION; AND THE CONTAINER LOADED AND ACFT LOADED SIGNATURE BLOCKS WERE BLANK FOR THE YSSY TO XXX FORM. THERE WAS ALSO A FORM FOR A SFO-YYY SEGMENT WITH THE IDENTICAL SECTIONS BLANK; AND ALSO NOTHING FILLED IN FOR FLT/DATE. THE REST OF THE FORM WAS COMPLETED CORRECTLY; INCLUDING THE INDICATION THAT THERE WERE 2 SHIPMENTS OF DRY ICE; EACH WITH A WT OF 66 LBS. IN SUMMARY; IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO PLT NOTIFICATION FOR THESE TWO FLTS. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN NO NOTIFICATION FOR A YMML-YSSY SEGMENT. ADDITIONALLY; THERE WAS NO LABELING ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE CONTAINER ON THE YSSY/XXX LEG. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE CALLBACK WAS MADE PRIMARILY TO DETERMINE THE MEANING OF SEVERAL ACRONYMS IN THE NARRATIVE WITH WHICH THE ANALYST WAS UNFAMILIAR. RPTR DID STATE HE FELT A LARGE PART OF THE PROB WAS THE RESULT OF REDUCED MANPOWER LEVELS WHICH RESULT IN OVERTAXING OF THOSE REMAINING TO NOT ONLY DO ALL THE LOADING; BUT ALSO TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIRED REGULATIONS AND PAPERWORK.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.