CO2 cartridges and flying

Discussion in 'Triathlon' started by RAS, Jan 9, 2006.

  1. RAS

    RAS Guest

    REMEMBER: CO2 Cartridges are NOT ALLOWED on airlines in either checked bags,
    bike cases, or carry-on luggage.

    Ok, I got this right off of ironmanarizona's website.

    do you buy new cartridges there and give them away before your return
    flight?

    thanks again for the help!!!!

    randy
     
    Tags:


  2. Mark \(MSA\)

    Mark \(MSA\) Guest

    > REMEMBER: CO2 Cartridges are NOT ALLOWED on airlines in either checked bags,
    > bike cases, or carry-on luggage.
    >
    > Ok, I got this right off of ironmanarizona's website.
    >
    > do you buy new cartridges there and give them away before your return
    > flight?
    >
    > thanks again for the help!!!!
    >
    > randy


    They are allowed on some, but I'm only talking European. They always
    get spotted in my bike box, and 9 times out of 10 the guy knows what
    they are before I explain. Never had a problem.

    When I bring back cannisters from Germany (v. cheap there) I have to
    put them in the hold of my company's aircraft, they are not allowed on
    as 'hand baggage'.

    Your suggestion sounds the best though, buy 2 or 3 and give 'em
    away...that's a good deed done!

    --
    Mark
    _______________________________________
    Nerves of Steel, Heart of Gold, Knob of Butter
     
  3. Rod Richeson

    Rod Richeson Guest

    Last time I was at IM Canada, the Bike Shack charged like $2 for them
    and gave you $1 if you returned unopened. I was driving so it wasn't a
    big deal.

    Leave them with the locals when you go home.

    TriRod

    RAS wrote:
    > REMEMBER: CO2 Cartridges are NOT ALLOWED on airlines in either checked bags,
    > bike cases, or carry-on luggage.
    >
    > Ok, I got this right off of ironmanarizona's website.
    >
    > do you buy new cartridges there and give them away before your return
    > flight?
    >
    > thanks again for the help!!!!
    >
    > randy
    >
    >
     
  4. Yep, first thing I do is find the closest bike shop and purchase my CO2
    cartridges.

    Also, I prefer to actually use a small pump to re-inflate my tires
    instead of CO2. For me, CO2 is only for emergency purposes if I flat on
    the course. I bought the "Topeak Road Morph Bike Pump w/ Gauge" to
    inflate the tires after arriving.

    --
    Bryan Woodruff
    Redmond, WA


    "RAS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]:

    > REMEMBER: CO2 Cartridges are NOT ALLOWED on airlines in either checked bags,
    > bike cases, or carry-on luggage.
    >
    > Ok, I got this right off of ironmanarizona's website.
    >
    > do you buy new cartridges there and give them away before your return
    > flight?
    >
    > thanks again for the help!!!!
    >
    > randy
     
  5. trimark

    trimark Guest

    Well you can't get 'em cheaper than the paintball dept. at Walmart. And
    these days all jet plane holds are pressurised so there really isn't
    any problem, although it is as pointed out against the rules.

    I've heard that people drop their C02 carts down the seat tube and
    thats pretty much takes care of any risk of explosion damage and they
    don't show up if sanned.
     
  6. Harold Buck

    Harold Buck Guest

    In article <%[email protected]>,
    "John Hardt" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Anyway, explosion or not, FAA regulations pretty clearly forbid such things,
    > I'm not convinced that trying to hid something from Homeland Security is
    > necessarily the best way to get your stuff to a race. Maybe I'm paranoid,
    > but seems like getting thrown into some security interrogation room while
    > your flight heads into the friendly skies and you miss an Ironman mandatory
    > check-in isn't worth a $2 CO2 cartridge. Just my opinion though. Why don't
    > you go ahead and give it a shot? Maybe we're in the same age group - I
    > could use less competition.



    Maybe he likes being stripped searched.

    --Harold Buck


    "Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."

    -Homer J. Simpson
     
  7. Tamyka Bell

    Tamyka Bell Guest

    Harold Buck wrote:
    >
    > In article <%[email protected]>,
    > "John Hardt" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > Anyway, explosion or not, FAA regulations pretty clearly forbid such things,
    > > I'm not convinced that trying to hid something from Homeland Security is
    > > necessarily the best way to get your stuff to a race. Maybe I'm paranoid,
    > > but seems like getting thrown into some security interrogation room while
    > > your flight heads into the friendly skies and you miss an Ironman mandatory
    > > check-in isn't worth a $2 CO2 cartridge. Just my opinion though. Why don't
    > > you go ahead and give it a shot? Maybe we're in the same age group - I
    > > could use less competition.

    >
    > Maybe he likes being stripped searched.
    >
    > --Harold Buck
    >
    > "Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."
    >
    > -Homer J. Simpson


    I've flown with them by mistake. They didn't explode. I didn't get strip
    searched. Damn, it all could've been so much more fun.

    Tam
     
  8. I've flown maybe 10 times with my bike in its IronCase bike case
    with 2 CO2 cartridges attached in their usual place, which is on
    the downtube in a special holder where the water bottle cage
    would usually go. Have never had a problem, even when I had
    to open the case for inspection.

    David

    <script type="text/javascript"
    src="http://www.qbike.com/cgi-bin/rjs.cgi?jid=2&t
    ype=pr&show=tri&nbr=4"></script>

    Mark (MSA) wrote:
    > > REMEMBER: CO2 Cartridges are NOT ALLOWED on airlines in either checked bags,
    > > bike cases, or carry-on luggage.
    > >
    > > Ok, I got this right off of ironmanarizona's website.
    > >
    > > do you buy new cartridges there and give them away before your return
    > > flight?
    > >
    > > thanks again for the help!!!!
    > >
    > > randy

    >
    > They are allowed on some, but I'm only talking European. They always
    > get spotted in my bike box, and 9 times out of 10 the guy knows what
    > they are before I explain. Never had a problem.
    >
    > When I bring back cannisters from Germany (v. cheap there) I have to
    > put them in the hold of my company's aircraft, they are not allowed on
    > as 'hand baggage'.
    >
    > Your suggestion sounds the best though, buy 2 or 3 and give 'em
    > away...that's a good deed done!
    >
    > --
    > Mark
    > _______________________________________
    > Nerves of Steel, Heart of Gold, Knob of Butter
     
  9. I've flown maybe 10 times with my bike in its IronCase bike case
    with 2 CO2 cartridges attached in their usual place, which is on
    the downtube in a special holder where the water bottle cage
    would usually go. Have never had a problem, even when I had
    to open the case for inspection.

    David

    <script type="text/javascript"
    src="http://www.qbike.com/cgi-bin/rjs.cgi?jid=2&type=pr&show=tri&nbr=4"></script>

    Mark (MSA) wrote:
    > > REMEMBER: CO2 Cartridges are NOT ALLOWED on airlines in either checked bags,
    > > bike cases, or carry-on luggage.
    > >
    > > Ok, I got this right off of ironmanarizona's website.
    > >
    > > do you buy new cartridges there and give them away before your return
    > > flight?
    > >
    > > thanks again for the help!!!!
    > >
    > > randy

    >
    > They are allowed on some, but I'm only talking European. They always
    > get spotted in my bike box, and 9 times out of 10 the guy knows what
    > they are before I explain. Never had a problem.
    >
    > When I bring back cannisters from Germany (v. cheap there) I have to
    > put them in the hold of my company's aircraft, they are not allowed on
    > as 'hand baggage'.
    >
    > Your suggestion sounds the best though, buy 2 or 3 and give 'em
    > away...that's a good deed done!
    >
    > --
    > Mark
    > _______________________________________
    > Nerves of Steel, Heart of Gold, Knob of Butter
     
  10. >>I've flown maybe 10 times with my bike in its IronCase bike case
    >>with 2 CO2 cartridges attached in their usual place, which is on
    >>the downtube in a special holder where the water bottle cage
    >>would usually go. Have never had a problem, even when I had
    >>to open the case for inspection.


    Then you broke US federal law and the people that did the inspection
    failed to do their duty, especially if they saw the CO2 carts. Whe you
    check in you are supposed to agree or confirm that you have no items
    that are banned on planes by agreed international law. That includes
    pressurised canisters, failure to do so can land you in jail for
    5-years... that would make one hell of a transition time although would
    give you plenty of opportunity to practise your mounts/dismounts...

    Here are the North West rules:
    http://www.nwa.com/travel/luggage/restricted.html

    Now, as I said earlier in this thread... these days the holds of most
    planes are pressurised so its not likely to be a problem... but that
    doesn't make it ok.
     
  11. Tim Downie

    Tim Downie Guest

    "Mark Cathcart" <[email protected]> wrote in message

    > Now, as I said earlier in this thread... these days the holds of most
    > planes are pressurised so its not likely to be a problem... but that
    > doesn't make it ok.


    I doubt very much whether pressurisation makes any significant difference.

    Lets see, an 8gm CO2 bulb = 22.4*8/44= about 4L CO2 at STP.

    If the cylinder is approx 10cc volume then the internal pressure is 400bar.
    Even if the airplane was to fly into outerspace with an unpressurised hold,
    the increase in pressure differential would only be a max of 1bar. I rather
    suspect that the bulbs have a design tolerance considerably greater than
    this.

    Of course I've made a number of guesses (and possibly got my sums wrong) but
    I still think that a maximum external pressure change of 1 bar is
    insignificant in terms of explosion risk.

    Tim
     
  12. Harold Buck

    Harold Buck Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Tim Downie" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    > "Mark Cathcart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    > > Now, as I said earlier in this thread... these days the holds of most
    > > planes are pressurised so its not likely to be a problem... but that
    > > doesn't make it ok.

    >
    > I doubt very much whether pressurisation makes any significant difference.
    >
    > Lets see, an 8gm CO2 bulb = 22.4*8/44= about 4L CO2 at STP.
    >
    > If the cylinder is approx 10cc volume then the internal pressure is 400bar.
    > Even if the airplane was to fly into outerspace with an unpressurised hold,
    > the increase in pressure differential would only be a max of 1bar. I rather
    > suspect that the bulbs have a design tolerance considerably greater than
    > this.
    >
    > Of course I've made a number of guesses (and possibly got my sums wrong) but
    > I still think that a maximum external pressure change of 1 bar is
    > insignificant in terms of explosion risk.
    >


    I'm sure if someone explains all that in court, they'll throw out the
    charges.

    --Harold Buck


    "Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."

    -Homer J. Simpson
     
  13. Tim quiet so. Which begs the question why would they have been banned
    in the first place?

    C02 Carts are explicity listed as a prohibited item rather than listed
    in some catch-all of pressurised containers... I assume like most
    things related to flying, just becuase it could explode... which when
    you are 35,000 ft in the air is a good enough reason.
     
  14. John Hardt

    John Hardt Guest

    "Harold Buck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Tim Downie" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Mark Cathcart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>
    >> > Now, as I said earlier in this thread... these days the holds of most
    >> > planes are pressurised so its not likely to be a problem... but that
    >> > doesn't make it ok.

    >>
    >> I doubt very much whether pressurisation makes any significant
    >> difference.
    >>
    >> Lets see, an 8gm CO2 bulb = 22.4*8/44= about 4L CO2 at STP.
    >>
    >> If the cylinder is approx 10cc volume then the internal pressure is
    >> 400bar.
    >> Even if the airplane was to fly into outerspace with an unpressurised
    >> hold,
    >> the increase in pressure differential would only be a max of 1bar. I
    >> rather
    >> suspect that the bulbs have a design tolerance considerably greater than
    >> this.
    >>
    >> Of course I've made a number of guesses (and possibly got my sums wrong)
    >> but
    >> I still think that a maximum external pressure change of 1 bar is
    >> insignificant in terms of explosion risk.
    >>

    >
    > I'm sure if someone explains all that in court, they'll throw out the
    > charges.
    >



    Anyone here remember Value Jet flight 592?

    A DC-9 crashed in the everglades in 1996 because some oxygen canisters were
    transported illegally onboard, leaked, and caught fire in the cargo hold.
    So, Tim, if you forgive me I'd rather not take your advice as to what is
    safe and what isn't.

    John
     
  15. Tim Downie

    Tim Downie Guest

    John Hardt wrote:

    > Anyone here remember Value Jet flight 592?
    >
    > A DC-9 crashed in the everglades in 1996 because some oxygen
    > canisters were transported illegally onboard, leaked, and caught fire
    > in the cargo hold. So, Tim, if you forgive me I'd rather not take
    > your advice as to what is safe and what isn't.


    I beg your pardon? I'm afraid I don't see the connection. A leaking O2
    cannister is a bazillion miles removed from the risk imposed by a dinky CO2
    cylinder. Besides, it was chemical oxygen generators that caused the fire,
    not conventional cylinders.

    And as you're hard of reading, I never said that CO2 cyclinders were safe,
    I was just pointing out that whether the hold is pressurised or not is a
    non-issue as far as explosion hazard goes for cylinders. I did *not* say
    they were safe.

    Tim
     
  16. Here's the issue, the planes cargo hold is not air conditioned and they
    probably store electrical equipment; and other fire hazards may be there.
    If you will read your CO2 cartridge it says to not store above 120 F because
    what will happen is the gas will expand and the pressure will change much
    more rapidly then an increase in altitude. Now if your cartridges happen to
    be near a fire that breaks out then BOOM (actually I would assume the
    weakest point of the cartridges (the seal) would burst and turn your
    cartridge stuffed into you seat tube in to a rocket launcher)! I would
    assume this is the real issue.

    Sandy


    "Mark Cathcart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Tim quiet so. Which begs the question why would they have been banned
    > in the first place?
    >
    > C02 Carts are explicity listed as a prohibited item rather than listed
    > in some catch-all of pressurised containers... I assume like most
    > things related to flying, just becuase it could explode... which when
    > you are 35,000 ft in the air is a good enough reason.
    >
     
  17. Drifter

    Drifter Guest

    Interesting science from Georgia Tech . . . I'm not sure where they've
    flown lately, pehaps too close to the sun . . . airplane cargo holds
    are very COLD places, and should a fire break out, the least concern is
    going to be CO2 cartridges, unless you happened to ship several dozen
    cases. Ever notice the "explosion" when you puncture one of these?
    Next time you put one into the hand-held nozzle of your inflator and
    screw in that cap, notice that nothing really happens. Yes, it's still
    under pressure by that silly little cap, but when you depress the
    plunger, and gas is released, it works as advertised. No recoil at all
    - no back-pressure, not like firing a gun. A leaky seal on a CO2
    cartridge is only a hazzard to the person who tries to use it next - it
    will be a dud. Pack that same (now empty) CO2 cartridge with match
    heads (a propellant) and light it, and you have a real projectile. Why
    are they banned? Because the rocket scientist who prepared that
    portion of the law probably didn't know the difference beyween CO2 and
    O gases. Those leaky oxygen containers on the Air Trans were USED
    containers which had been certified as empty, and thus presented a real
    hazard because the seals were broken - oxygen is fire fuel. But, the
    law is the law, or the law is whatever the President says it is in our
    new society.

    Georgia Tech News wrote:
    > Here's the issue, the planes cargo hold is not air conditioned and they
    > probably store electrical equipment; and other fire hazards may be there.
    > If you will read your CO2 cartridge it says to not store above 120 F . . .
     
  18. John Hardt

    John Hardt Guest

    "Tim Downie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > John Hardt wrote:
    >
    >> Anyone here remember Value Jet flight 592?
    >>
    >> A DC-9 crashed in the everglades in 1996 because some oxygen
    >> canisters were transported illegally onboard, leaked, and caught fire
    >> in the cargo hold. So, Tim, if you forgive me I'd rather not take
    >> your advice as to what is safe and what isn't.

    >
    > I beg your pardon? I'm afraid I don't see the connection. A leaking O2
    > cannister is a bazillion miles removed from the risk imposed by a dinky
    > CO2 cylinder. Besides, it was chemical oxygen generators that caused the
    > fire, not conventional cylinders.
    >
    > And as you're hard of reading, I never said that CO2 cyclinders were
    > safe, I was just pointing out that whether the hold is pressurised or not
    > is a non-issue as far as explosion hazard goes for cylinders. I did *not*
    > say they were safe.
    >
    > Tim


    Tim,

    The connection? Simple; the connection is that in 1996, someone
    rationalized that they THOUGHT a particular item posed no risk. So they
    took the situation upon themselves and went ahead and put that item on an
    airplane even though it was expressly prohibited by regulations. They were
    wrong.

    In this thread, someone initially asked whether it was OK to bring CO2
    cartridges on a plane or whether they should buy them at the race site.
    Several people have responded with various suggestions to get them on a
    plane including everything from leaving them in the open and hoping for the
    best to actually concealing them in seat tubes. Many of those same people
    here - including you - have said in effect, "for the following reasons, CO2
    cartridges can't possibly [fill in the blank]". You may not have expressly
    said they were safe or unsafe, but it doesn't matter - is the
    rationalization that is the problem.

    If the people who govern the air travel industry have gone through the
    trouble of EXPRESSLY listing CO2 cartridges as something that is BANNED from
    airline flights, then the original question is simple: leave the damn things
    at home and spend $2 at the race site.

    John
     
  19. Tim Downie

    Tim Downie Guest

    John Hardt wrote:

    > You may not have expressly said they were safe or
    > unsafe, but it doesn't matter - is the rationalization that is the
    > problem.


    But it does. I deliberately avoided stating whether they were safe or
    unsafe. I was singling out the issue of pressurisation as an added risk.
    How you or others choose to interpret that I cannot control.

    You accused me of offering unsafe advice which I did not.

    Tim
     
  20. "John Hardt" <[email protected]> wrote in news:pmqAf.31863$PY6.26907
    @tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:

    > The connection? Simple; the connection is that in 1996, someone
    > rationalized that they THOUGHT a particular item posed no risk.


    Oxygen generators were known to produce dangerous amount of heat when set
    off and if I remember correctly, were not supposed to have been
    transported in the manner that they were on that flight. They weren't O2
    cannisters, they were chemical packages that generate oxygen (and heat as
    a byproduct) when set off. So they ended up with way too much heat and
    oxygen together in the hold. You are right in the sense that someone
    thought it would be safe regardless of posted policies and procedures,
    but the oxygen generators were a known fire threat, which certainly is
    not true of CO2 cartridges. The reason CO2 cartridges are banned is that
    you could make a nasty little explosive with one and it wouldn't look any
    different than a regular CO2 cartridge with the detection devices
    currently in use at our airports.

    You shouldn't avoid taking CO2 cartidges on a flight because they might
    explode, you should avoid it because you might end up in the basement of
    the airport with some big dude from the TSA doing a cavity search on you
    for weapons and explosives.

    The NTSB reporton the Miami crash:

    Accident description


    Status: Final
    Date: 11 MAY 1996
    Time: 14:25 ET
    Type: McDonnell Douglas DC-9-32
    Operator: ValuJet Airlines
    Registration: N904VJ
    Msn / C/n: 47377/496
    Year built: 1969
    Total airframe hrs: 68395 hours
    Cycles: 80663 cycles
    Engines: 2 Pratt & Whitney JT8D-7B
    Crew: 5 fatalities / 5 on board
    Passengers: 105 fatalities / 105 on board
    Total: 110 fatalities / 110 on board
    Airplane damage: Written off
    Location: Everglades, FL (United States of America)
    Phase: En route (ENR)
    Nature: Domestic Scheduled Passenger
    Departure airport: Miami International Airport, FL (MIA)
    Destination airport: Atlanta-William B. Hartsfield International Airport,
    GA (ATL)
    Flightnumber: 592
    Narrative:
    ValuJet Flight 592 took off from Miami runway 09L at 14:04 for a flight
    to Atlanta. At 14:10, while flying at 10628 feet at 232 knots IAS
    (heading 300 ) the altitude dropped 815 feet and the IAS decreased 34
    knots in 3 seconds time. From then on, the FDR recorded intermittent data
    dropouts.
    Shortly thereafter the crew requested to return to Miami due to smoke in
    the cockpit. Flight 592 was vectored for a runway 12 approach. At 7207
    feet, descending at 260 knots on a 210 heading, the FDR stopped
    recording. Fifty seconds later ValuJet 592 struck a swamp with the nose
    pitched down 75-80 and disintegrated.
    It was concluded that there had been a very intense fire in the middle of
    the forward cargo hold, which burned through the cabin floor at seat rows
    5 and 6 on the left hand side.
    Investigations focus on a fire, possibly caused by oxygen generators
    carried in the cargo hold. The aircraft carried boxes containing 144
    oxygen canisters and two MD-80 main wheel tires in the forward hold.

    PROBABLE CAUSE: "The National Transportation Safety Board determines that
    the probable causes of the accident, resulting in a fire in the Class D
    cargo compartment from the actuation of one or more oxygen generators
    improperly carried as cargo, were: (1) the failure of SabreTech to
    properly prepare, package, identify, and track unexpended chemical oxygen
    generators before presenting them to ValuJet for carriage; (2) the
    failure of ValuJet to properly oversee its contract maintenance program
    to ensure compliance with maintenance, maintenance training, and
    hazardous materials requirements and practices; and (3) the failure of
    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to require smoke detection and fire
    suppression systems in Class D cargo compartments.
    Contributing to the accident was the failure of the FAA to adequately
    monitor ValuJet's heavy maintenance program and responsibilities,
    including ValuJet's oversight of its contractors, and SabreTech's repair
    station certificate; the failure of the FAA to adequately respond to
    prior chemical oxygen generator fires with programs to address the
    potential hazards; and the failure of ValuJet to ensure that both ValuJet
    and contract maintenance employees were aware of the carrier's no-carry
    hazardous materials policy and had received appropriate hazardous
    materials training." (NTSB/AAR-97/06)
     
Loading...
Loading...