Are Movers Crackers? Explosive news...

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#1
File this under:

a) you couldn't make it up and
b) why everyone loves Movers soooo much

"Bang goes soldiers' cracker fun

Hundreds of crackers due to be sent to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan had to be defused after it was discovered they were classed as explosives.
Major Iain Dalziel-Job, 60, of the Scots Guards Association, learned of the regulation as he prepared to send 650 Christmas parcels to the soldiers.

The British Forces Post Office website defines Christmas cracker snaps as explosives, banned on RAF aircraft. There are no such rules for passenger aeroplanes.

Major Dalziel-Job, from Rosyth, had arranged for the festive packages to be taken by truck from Edinburgh to London on Tuesday before being handed over to the BFPO and then flown out from Brize Norton. He told The Sunday Post newspaper: "Every cracker has got to have the snap taken out of it because the RAF won't fly them with the bit still in. "It's quite tricky to get them out. It took us two hours to go through them all. The soldiers will just have to go 'bang' themselves when they pull them."

A Ministry of Defence spokesman told the newspaper: "The safety of our aircraft and personnel is paramount. Large numbers of Christmas crackers are classified as dangerous air cargo and therefore require special handling."

Civil Aviation Authority rules, which govern passenger aircraft, state that Christmas crackers which are complete and in their retail packaging do not have sufficient explosive in the "snap" to be regarded as dangerous."


So, OK to go on Civvy aircraft, but too risky for the Crabs. I suppose though, given the age of some of their airframes, and the propensity to leak fuel, they may have an excuse!

Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7135383.stm
 
#2
There are at least three DAC flights a week into these theatres.

So what exactly is the problem...?

Or wait..

Has the planned assination of the RAF Dangerous Air Cargo Committee not yet happened?
 
#3
Pathetic.

By the time live crackers would have got into theatre then it would have been a non-issue. SH captains are asked to apply captaincy away from any dick with a COSHH qualification. 'What's that? Crackers? Safe as houses - bung them in mate.'
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
Would it not be better for El Al, or maybe Virgin to ship bullets, rockets, missiles and bombs around the world on behalf of the MOD. After all, this kind of stuff is FAR too dangerous for the likes of Crab Air. Would the RAF prefer to lug water balloons around instead - they go bang too you know, and have a propensity for putting fuel fires out too.
 
#5
IIRC from the last time I checked, civvy regs didn't allow the movement of explosives other than 1.4S/5/6 on civvy aircraft. We have the JSP 335, to account for items we are prepared to move that civvies won't touch and provide a legal basis for relaxing regulations for operations.

I believe crackers are classified as UN Class 4.1 (flammable solids, a class which includes matches amongst others); they are dangerous because friction can cause them to combust. I was taught that crackers can't fly on civ air so the article's claims otherwise are news to me.

If you think crackers are bad, try sending carbon paper!
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
Bat_Crab said:
IIRC from the last time I checked, civvy regs didn't allow the movement of explosives other than 1.4S/5/6 on civvy aircraft. We have the JSP 335, to account for items we are prepared to move that civvies won't touch and provide a legal basis for relaxing regulations for operations.

I believe crackers are classified as UN Class 4.1 (flammable solids, a class which includes matches amongst others); they are dangerous because friction can cause them to combust. I was taught that crackers can't fly on civ air so the article's claims otherwise are news to me.

If you think crackers are bad, try sending carbon paper!
My bold - Class 1.4
 
#7
Before we decend into the normal "We Hate Movers" thread, who stopped this move? Did anyone talk to the "Movers," or did BFPO "The Posties" just quote direct from their website? Notice on the Press Link that the same organisation recently had to bin the idea of sending miniatures to a Muslim country (where alchohol is banned!) Perhaps a call to the local movers (2 Div) for advice would have saved this bad press and the items could have had the proper paperwork done. Once again the green machine does itself no favours and the press lap it up. It would seem to be BFPO not the Movers that have stopped this!

From the BFPO website:

Class 1: Explosives

Definition: Any chemical compound, mixture or device capable of producing an explosive-pyrotechnic effect, with substantial instantaneous release of heat and gas. All explosives are prohibited. Examples: Nitro-glycerine; Fireworks; Blasting Caps; Christmas Cracker Snaps; Ignitors; Fuses; Flares; Ammunition, etc.

From Royal Mail website:

Christmas Crackers
These can only be sent in their complete made-up form and in their original retail packaging

From the IATA website:
Christmas Crackers and Party Poppers
1.3.1 At this time of year the Authority is often asked about whether Christmas crackers can be carried by
passengers and whether operators can provide them to passengers with their meals at Christmas time.
Christmas crackers when complete and in their retail packaging (ie: in a box of Christmas crackers) do
not have sufficient grains of explosive in the "snap" to be regarded as dangerous goods and they can be
carried without restriction. However, the snaps when shipped on their own are regarded as having an
explosive potential because of the number likely to be contained in a single package and they need to
be consigned as dangerous goods under the classification assigned to them by the relevant competent
authority and in accordance with the requirements of the Technical Instructions.
 
#8
Snowy - you need to pick better, less worn, more accurate stories than this for Mover-bashing - you tard. If you could understand issues beyond the reach of your own arms I'd try to explain. But you can't. So I won't. I'll settle on calling you a tard and keeping it at the proper level.
 
#9
Biped said:
Bat_Crab said:
IIRC from the last time I checked, civvy regs didn't allow the movement of explosives other than 1.4S/5/6 on civvy aircraft. We have the JSP 335, to account for items we are prepared to move that civvies won't touch and provide a legal basis for relaxing regulations for operations.

I believe crackers are classified as UN Class 4.1 (flammable solids, a class which includes matches amongst others); they are dangerous because friction can cause them to combust. I was taught that crackers can't fly on civ air so the article's claims otherwise are news to me.

If you think crackers are bad, try sending carbon paper!
My bold - Class 1.4
Biped,

I was under the impression that they were 4.1 (I don't have access to IATA regs in my current job), because they were a flammable solid rather than an explosive. Big Red has done an excellent job of seeing me off on this!

Ultimately if you want to send something even slightly bangy or fizzy, check with DTMA first, you don't want to find yourself up sh1t creek on this sort of matter with two weeks to go before Christmas.
 
#10
Well, I've no doubt the locals will provide the appropriate sound effects.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#11
Mr_C_Hinecap said:
Snowy - you need to pick better, less worn, more accurate stories than this for Mover-bashing - you tard. If you could understand issues beyond the reach of your own arms I'd try to explain. But you can't. So I won't. I'll settle on calling you a tard and keeping it at the proper level.
Thanks for that fine and moving comment. I simply raised a story of obvious interest, but there you are. Don't worry - I may be a Tard, but it's better than being a Mover. Despite all the pro-Mover propoganda that can be pushed, I am certain that I share with the vast majority of ARRSE users the dubious pleasures of having been fecked about by various parts of the movement chain on many, many occasions. I am sure, however, that each time we are buggered about it is obviously for very important and clever reasons far beyond the reach of a thick-as-pigshit Infantryman. As such, I am not fit to comment on the paragons of efficiency that our the movers of today, and will duly shut up.
 
#12
EasyJet has no problems with Christmas crackers provided they are in their original, sealed packaging. They have two riders though: party poppers - NO, and if you are travelling through Stansted they must go in hold baggage and can not be hand-carried. (Why this is specified only for Stansted, I have no idea.)
 
#13
OldSnowy said:
Mr_C_Hinecap said:
Snowy - you need to pick better, less worn, more accurate stories than this for Mover-bashing - you tard. If you could understand issues beyond the reach of your own arms I'd try to explain. But you can't. So I won't. I'll settle on calling you a tard and keeping it at the proper level.
Thanks for that fine and moving comment. I simply raised a story of obvious interest, but there you are. Don't worry - I may be a Tard, but it's better than being a Mover. Despite all the pro-Mover propoganda that can be pushed, I am certain that I share with the vast majority of ARRSE users the dubious pleasures of having been fecked about by various parts of the movement chain on many, many occasions. I am sure, however, that each time we are buggered about it is obviously for very important and clever reasons far beyond the reach of a thick-as-pigshit Infantryman. As such, I am not fit to comment on the paragons of efficiency that our the movers of today, and will duly shut up.
Old Snowy, unfortunately for you Mr C Hinecap has stereotyped you due to past posts or because of your trade (Infantry) strange you take such offence as that is exactly what you have done to movers (take it you have lumped Mov Con, Postie, RAF, Suppliers into the same bag.) You have tried to start a Movers Hate thread when no reference to movers was made. BFPO stopped the shipment due to their interpretation of the IATA rules. Very few of us are perfect however in this situation a bit of 7P action could have avoided the final outcome.

If I were planning an Infantry Ex for the troops I would contact the Professionals for advice/help, if only everyone did the same!
 
#14
BigRed said:
OldSnowy said:
Mr_C_Hinecap said:
Snowy - you need to pick better, less worn, more accurate stories than this for Mover-bashing - you tard. If you could understand issues beyond the reach of your own arms I'd try to explain. But you can't. So I won't. I'll settle on calling you a tard and keeping it at the proper level.
Thanks for that fine and moving comment. I simply raised a story of obvious interest, but there you are. Don't worry - I may be a Tard, but it's better than being a Mover. Despite all the pro-Mover propoganda that can be pushed, I am certain that I share with the vast majority of ARRSE users the dubious pleasures of having been fecked about by various parts of the movement chain on many, many occasions. I am sure, however, that each time we are buggered about it is obviously for very important and clever reasons far beyond the reach of a thick-as-pigshit Infantryman. As such, I am not fit to comment on the paragons of efficiency that our the movers of today, and will duly shut up.
Old Snowy, unfortunately for you Mr C Hinecap has stereotyped you due to past posts or because of your trade (Infantry) strange you take such offence as that is exactly what you have done to movers (take it you have lumped Mov Con, Postie, RAF, Suppliers into the same bag.) You have tried to start a Movers Hate thread when no reference to movers was made. BFPO stopped the shipment due to their interpretation of the IATA rules. Very few of us are perfect however in this situation a bit of 7P action could have avoided the final outcome.

If I were planning an Infantry Ex for the troops I would contact the Professionals for advice/help, if only everyone did the same!
My bold - why on earth would you do that? Simply turn up with 15 extra blokes and an extra four tonner of kit, don't bother checking if anything is dangerous, let alone prep it before you arrive and then expect the movers to sort it all out in the space of two hours. If the movers take longer than half an hour to check in 120 of you, send a LE major to the pax desk to individually supervise each check in; if he can offer advice to the mover behind the desk on how to do his job then all the better!

Above all else remember, if the aircraft breaks, it's the movers' fault; if the in-flight catering is sh1t, it's the movers' fault; if the regs say something can't fly, it's the movers' fault; but above all remember yours is the only flight departing today, you are more important than everyone else and you are the only people in the military who are under-manned and supplied with inferior equipment.

We movers aren't perfect, but we aren't clairvoyants or miracle workers. Sorry.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
Bat_Crab said:
Biped said:
Bat_Crab said:
IIRC from the last time I checked, civvy regs didn't allow the movement of explosives other than 1.4S/5/6 on civvy aircraft. We have the JSP 335, to account for items we are prepared to move that civvies won't touch and provide a legal basis for relaxing regulations for operations.

I believe crackers are classified as UN Class 4.1 (flammable solids, a class which includes matches amongst others); they are dangerous because friction can cause them to combust. I was taught that crackers can't fly on civ air so the article's claims otherwise are news to me.

If you think crackers are bad, try sending carbon paper!
My bold - Class 1.4
Biped,

I was under the impression that they were 4.1 (I don't have access to IATA regs in my current job), because they were a flammable solid rather than an explosive. Big Red has done an excellent job of seeing me off on this!
AFAIK, you've got ammunition, pyros and the like coming in under U.N. 1.4S and 1.4 respectively. Mind you, this may be because they constitute powders rather than solids, although for pyros, the powder is compressed using a 10 ton press, and basically becomes a solid.
 
#16
Biped said:
Bat_Crab said:
Biped said:
Bat_Crab said:
IIRC from the last time I checked, civvy regs didn't allow the movement of explosives other than 1.4S/5/6 on civvy aircraft. We have the JSP 335, to account for items we are prepared to move that civvies won't touch and provide a legal basis for relaxing regulations for operations.

I believe crackers are classified as UN Class 4.1 (flammable solids, a class which includes matches amongst others); they are dangerous because friction can cause them to combust. I was taught that crackers can't fly on civ air so the article's claims otherwise are news to me.

If you think crackers are bad, try sending carbon paper!
My bold - Class 1.4
Biped,

I was under the impression that they were 4.1 (I don't have access to IATA regs in my current job), because they were a flammable solid rather than an explosive. Big Red has done an excellent job of seeing me off on this!
AFAIK, you've got ammunition, pyros and the like coming in under U.N. 1.4S and 1.4 respectively. Mind you, this may be because they constitute powders rather than solids, although for pyros, the powder is compressed using a 10 ton press, and basically becomes a solid.
Noted, Big Red has quoted the chapter and verse on this to put me back in my box.
 
#17
How sad that such a thread has been started by a so called 'Moderator', particularly one who sees fit to throw in a little aside about fuel leaks on RAF aircraft less than a week after the Nimrod BoI. :censored:

As far as this issue goes, it seems to have originated by the BFPO's interpretation of the rules regarding DAC and alcohol. The likleyhood is that the person making that judgement was a civvy, not a mover from either service.

As far as the RAF flying such items, it was done last Xmas, and indeed considerable effort was expended upon including small amounts of suitable 'festive' material in operational C-130 air drops to forces in the field.

It therefore seems a little harsh to throw the blame at the movers without the whole story being known.

Oldsnowy, you may wish to reflect a little on the example a mod is perhaps meant to set in his posts. :banned:

Regards,
MM
 
#19
Old, but off the CAA website:


1.3 Christmas Crackers and Party Poppers

1.3.1 At this time of year the Authority is often asked about whether Christmas crackers can be carried by passengers and whether operators can provide them to passengers with their meals at Christmas time.

Christmas crackers when complete and in their retail packaging (ie: in a box of Christmas crackers) do not have sufficient grains of explosive in the "snap" to be regarded as dangerous goods and they can be carried without restriction.

However, the snaps when shipped on their own are regarded as having an explosive potential because of the number likely to be contained in a single package and they need to be consigned as dangerous goods under the classification assigned to them by the relevant competent authority and in accordance with the requirements of the Technical Instructions.


So I think somewhere there may have been a common sense failure.......
 
#20
Culled from elsewhere - just to put the more probable angle on this one - for the tards out there:

"I hate to let the truth get in the way of a good story here, but providing that the crackers are in their original retail packaging, and they fit within the standard RAF cabin baggage dimensions, they are accepted for carriage on AT aircraft.

However, BFPO do prohibit the inclusion of crackers in mail at the request of their civilian counterparts. Irrespective of this difference, my understanding of the press articles is that Maj Dalziel-Job and his chums had placed individual crackers in each of the 650 parcels; assuming that they weren’t procured in packages containing a single cracker, the lack of retail packaging would ensure that they would not be accepted by any civilian and military carrier."
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads