Director, Legislation and Regulations

Ms. Linda Hume-Sastre

Director, Legislation and Regulations

Transport Canada

Tower C 9th Floor

Place de Ville, 330 Sparks St.

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0N5

Dear Ms. Hume-Sastre:

The operating environment and remote nature of helicopter operations in Canada presents unique challenges for the transportation of Dangerous Goods. Our members serve the most isolated areas of the country and are frequently called upon to carry dangerous goods in the absence of infrastructure and under some of the most challenging circumstances. Our members support operations in some of Canada’s most extreme weather and to some of its most isolated communities – some of those communities depend on the services that we provide for their very survival.

Our members currently account for 80% of the helicopters in Canada and they take their responsibility to transport Dangerous Goods in compliance with the TDGRs seriously however, the regulations must contemplate these difficult, demanding and unique operational circumstances so that they reflect the realities of remote operations. Our members constantly ask, ‘How does this new procedure or documentation requirement support the safe transportation of Dangerous Goods?” The acid test for any proposed amendment is, ”Does the new requirement actually enhance safety, or does it simply make the TDGRs more difficult or impractical for the helicopter community to comply with?” It should be said that we are largely pleased with the proposed amendments and with the consultation process leading up the changes however, there are a number of areas where the regulations do not contemplate the unique operational circumstances of the Canadian helicopter industry.

Please accept the following comments on the proposed changes to the TDG Regulations from the Helicopter Association of Canada:

Section 1.4(b)(iv) – Definition of “Passenger”

This definition needs to be very clear. Transport Canada is proposing that the definition in ICAO is the one that Canada will use however, the ICAO definition will not work for the helicopter industry unless the “person accompanying a consignment or other cargo” and “an operator’s employee in an official capacity” are clearly understood.

The definition must make it clear that a person accompanying a consignment must include persons such as a welder travelling with his equipment, a wildlife officer with an oxygen cylinder, a tree planter with chainsaw and jerrycan, etc.

The definition must also make it clear that “an operator’s employee in an official capacity” must similarly encompass a load planner travelling to a location where their skills are required, etc. The level of vigilance for operator’s employees may be lower since all operators’ employees are required to have some level of Dangerous Goods training.

Section 1.19.1 – Geological Samples

Moving this exemption From Part 12 to Part 1 makes the TDGR more usable and consistent. It also eliminates having exemptions placed arbitrarily throughout the TDGR.

The proposal is somewhat confusing as it pertains to samples in general.

The language used should be clear that the exemption applies to all modes of transport. It places the onus on the shipper to determine if the geological sample is in any way hazardous. Air carrier personnel do not have the technical expertise or the equipment to make such a determination.

Section 1.29.1 – Air Transport of Measuring Instruments (Same as 12.13)

As in proposed 1.19.1, moving this exemption From Part 12 to Part 1 makes the TDGR more usable and consistent. It also eliminates having exemptions placed arbitrarily throughout the TDGR.

There are two cases to be addressed here - the first case covers “Measuring Instruments” being transported to a location where they will be used. Other than the reference to Part 11 Marine, which should be deleted, the revision is acceptable. References to checked baggage and carry-on baggage are redundant, as this distinction is not made in the helicopter industry, and a reference to baggage or cargo will suffice.

The second case is the use of the instrument in flight. HAC proposes that when the instrument is in use paragraphs 1.29.1 (a)(i) and (ii), (b) and (c) do not apply, and should be replaced with “the person using the instrument shall comply with the regulations applicable to use of the instrument.” For example, an infra-red scanner will not be labeled according to TDGR but the case it is shipped in would be.

Section 12.1 – International Air Transport

HAC does not have any issues on this subject however, HAC believes that operations conducted under the provisions of NAFTA be explained here or in a separate section 12.1 (2)

Section 12.2 – Domestic Air Transport

Section 12.2(4) – Prohibition of Class 4.3 materials

ICAO and the TDGR do not contain a definition of ‘flight deck’ and it is unclear if the term is intended to apply to helicopter operations of any description. It should be made clear that this section has no applicability to helicopter operations.

Section 12.3 – Explosives

This section is going to create confusion in the helicopter community as one part makes reference to very safe explosives some of which can be purchased without restriction at retail outlets and the other to explosives which require an explosive’s license.

Section 12.3 Explosives in Division 1.4S

The carriage of UN0012 and UN0014 in quantities less than 5kg per passenger in passenger’s baggage is currently permitted. Marking, labeling and documentation is not required. The objective of this provision was to permit the carriage of other common explosives in Division 1.4S under the same conditions but in larger quantities. The requirement for a larger quantity is necessary for carrying shotgun shells, ammunition for hunting, target shooting, pentathlon contestants, etc. who may frequently need to exceed the quantity limit of 5 kg. ICAO does not restrict the caliber of the cartridge and it is unclear to HAC why is it necessary for the TDGRs to impose the restriction. HAC views this as unnecessary.

Other explosives in this very restricted list are used in construction. The emergency response for all the items listed is the same and the NAERG does not list the UN numbers. The requirement for the pilot to know and record the UN number is therefore superfluous. This serves no safety purpose and is irrelevant operationally.

Section 12.4 Explosives normally Forbidden in Air Transport The title of this section should be reworded as follows:

Section 12.4 Explosives Permitted by the ICAO Supplement

The first paragraph of this section (12.3)(2) allows for relief from the packaging requirements of ICAO i.e. the use of UN specification packaging, but the Explosives Act requires this packaging for transport to the aerodrome. HAC suggests that this paragraph should begin with:

“The explosives listed in the table below:

Then show the table with the class or division added.

Must be packaged in accordance with the Explosives Act. (see TDGR 5.7 & 5.8)

Must comply in all respects with the TDGR requirements and the Explosives Act.

HAC believes that the regulations should impose a requirement that a person handling or transporting these explosives should be licensed under the Explosives Act.

HAC believes it would make more sense to tell people what conditions must be followed rather than state that some provisions do not apply.

Section 12.4 – Limited Access

The current definition works better than the new definition being proposed: “where no other means of transport is readily available or practical” better demonstrates the areas of concern and addresses seasonal requirements (i.e. freeze-up and break-up) and operational considerations. HAC strongly opposes the proposed change. Economic factors will significantly affect the determination of what is practical.

The current definition has worked well for the past seven years and HAC is not aware of any accidents or incidents caused by the current definition, and we believe that the flexibility that the current wording provides is absolutely essential to capture the type of operations that helicopters carry out in Canada. The wording proposed by Transport Canada would be extremely restrictive, and would severely curtail the legitimate types of operations that can be carried out under the current definition, and it would sacrifice flexibility for predictability at a huge cost to the Canadian helicopter community.

Transport’s proposal to narrow this definition will certainly compromise the legality of some legitimate operations based on seasonal access, and the provision of medical or equipment supplies, for example. Transport Canada is not in a position to say if the recipient of the goods are hard-pressed to receive the goods in a more timely way than the scheduled service at the site could provide.

Documentation requirements are far too burdensome given the nature and quantities of the dangerous goods involved and the operational parameters under consideration. The requirement for having a “Notification-to-Pilot-in-Command” should be eliminated when:

1.  The PIC loads or directly supervises the loading of the aircraft

2.  At the pre-operational safety briefing, or through radio contact, the PIC determines the nature and quantity of any dangerous goods involved.

3.  The PIC establishes at the Passenger Safety Briefing what dangerous goods will be carried and how they are to be loaded. This latter case is essential to certain fire fighting, tree planting, forestry operations, etc. where it is undesirable, impractical or impossible to shut down the helicopter while loading at a specific landing site.

Subsection (2) – Class 1 – Explosives

HAC strongly supports the exception as it allows for the carriage of “bear bangers” for the protection of and use by Passenger/Person on the aircraft. It also dispenses with the need for the current permit, and its aircraft-specific requirements and brings this into line with similar provisions for the carriage of “Bear Spray”.

Subsection (3) – Class 2, Gases

HAC requests the addition of Hydrogen, Compressed, UN 1049 to the Table, as it is required in specialized welding applications. Also, since there are six gases permitted to be tendered under the shipping Liquefied Petroleum Gas, UN 1075, we believe that UN 1075 should be shown in the Table (3)(a).

HAC fully endorses the requirement that each means of containment has displayed labels or placards for gases to be in compliance with either TDGR – Part 4 or the ICAO T.I. Part 6.

HAC opposes the elimination of the current 12.8 re: Packing Instruction 910. As it is now proposed, except for (5) [Bear Spray] there are no other relaxations permitted for general aerosols (consumer commodities) such as bug repellant, personal care items or house hold products. HAC suggests that this could be addressed by permitting, for Limited Access only, the movement of consumer products under the provisions of TDGR Section 1.17.

Subsection (6) – Flammable Liquids

HAC requests a clarification regarding means of containment less than or equal to 25 L. Is this intended to include any container that may be used for transporting flammable liquids i.e. a “Canadian Tire” red plastic jerry can or a marine fuel tank? Lynda Hume, in our consultation meeting of February 27 2009, indicated that this is the case. Perhaps an explanatory note could be drafted as follows:

Containers exceeding 25 L require UN Spec package.

PI 310 (referred to in (b) (ii) relates in ICAO to PG III. Is the intent here to allow a PG II Flammable Liquid in a PG III package?

Paragraph (c) deals with marking and labeling requirements for small means of containment; paragraph (d) deals with bladders and collapsible fuel tanks, etc. Paragraph (e) and (f) then imposes package and over all capacity limits for small means of containment.

HAC does not have any issues with this section other than the confusion caused by the location of paragraphs (e) and (f). We suggest that subparagraph (e) and (f) immediately follow subparagraph (c) (Becoming subparagraphs (d) and (e) accordingly) and (d) be re-lettered as (f).)

RE: Subsection (10) – Sodium Chlorite (Class 5.1) and Hypochlorite Solutions (Class 8)

The quantity limit under PI 512 is 25 kg (Sodium Chlorite) and under PI 821 is 30 L yet this subsection restricts packages to 20 kg and 20 L respectively. These shipments under ICAO will come from a supplier in compliance to PI 512 and 821 respectively. A more likely scenario is that these items will come to plane-side as a “Limited Quantity” which limits packages to 30kg. In all cases the lesser limits proposed will require repacking at remote sites.

We suggest alignment with ICAO PI 512 and 821 Standards or as “Limited Quantity” under TDGR.

Subsection (11) – Records

HAC believes that Transport Canada is being inconsistent regarding documentation. The position is that the PIC must know in considerable detail what dangerous goods are on an aircraft. This is being justified on the grounds that “Emergency Responders” need to know what is involved when responding to an accident and that the P-I-C will advise air traffic services what is onboard the A/C if an emergency occurs.

The nature of “Limited Access” is such that in most cases “Emergency Services” are not present on-site to help, and given that most helicopter flights in these areas are below 2,000 feet AGL level, in the event of an engine loss, the crew would not have time to make contact other than giving “Mayday” transmission.

For ground transport, there is a 500 kg Exemption (TDGR 1.16), applicable to road and rail. This allows quantities of DG, in packages of under 30 kg or in drums, to be carried without documentation, other than a document that shows the Class and number of drums or packages. i.e. Class 3, 3 drums, Class 8, 4 packages. IF this is considered safe and acceptable to ERs in downtown Halifax, Ottawa, Toronto, etc. it should be safe and acceptable in areas of “Limited Access”. Alternatively, Transport Canada could limit this to CARS 703 and 704, and require CARS 705 operations to have the DG information on the weight and balance document, flight manifest, etc.

RE: Section 12.5 – Medical Aid

HAC endorses the proposal but queries the location in the regulations. We believe that this would be more appropriate in TDGR 1.48. In this way any differences from ICAO would be in one place. This will help in making the TDGR more understandable.

Section 12.6 – Specialized Operations

HAC believes that the reference should also include all “Aerial Work” operations, as the current list is too limiting and does not contemplate all types of Aerial Work operations that may be conducted.