A few weeks ago, the FlyingTypers exclusive report, “I Want You Harmonized" offered our global audience an updated overview and opinion of how the Global Harmonized System (GHS) is finally maturing and impacting the ways of international trade and commerce.
     So far, there has been significant progress toward greater harmonization in most areas of the world; 49 CFR (the U.S. legal foundation for the transport of dangerous goods—or hazardous materials, as they’re called here) especially has seen a great amount of changes, including a move to universal language as a driver toward harmonizing with UN Model Regulations.

But Germany Is Different

     Across Europe, the European modal framework for transport by road, rail, and inland waterway are ADR, RID, and ADN. Likewise, application of the IMO’s IMDG code is mandated for maritime shipping.
Theoretically, this should warrant a uniform level of training and implementation of the rules--but not in Germany.

Watch Your Language

     Although the ADR has three official languages--English, French, and German, which are equally acceptable--dangerous goods departing Germany or Austria or transported domestically by road must be declared by law on the shipping paper in German.
     So elsewhere where the rule is harmonized, with regulations, uniform terms, language, and multi-modal training streamlined and simplified in English, that is simply not the case in Germany.
     Most everywhere else in the world packaging utilizes markings, packaging specification markings, hazard labels and placards, and handling labels that are reviewed and updated regularly.
     But in Germany, the surface mode transport manual translations have for decades been maintained and updated by the same three gentlemen and—putting it bluntly—their command of the English language must be seriously called into question.

Baseline Problem Is Training

     While every trainer worth his salt emphasizes that there is no such thing as an “Excepted Quantity Label” or “Limited Quantity Label," but only an “Excepted Quantity Mark” and “Limited Quantity Mark”, the German Manuals use the term “Kennzeichen” (meaning “label”) not only for the Excepted Quantity and Limited Quantity marks but also for the required marking of the UN-Number.
     Likewise, German surface transport manuals come with abbreviations that contradict international accepted rules--such as KG for kilogram instead of “kg” and “l” for liter instead of “L.”
     This actually causes greater difficulties in air transport training as instructors have a problem explaining to students--most of whom have undergone surface transport training beforehand—that they must not apply the term “Kennzeichen” (label) to the required package markings or the Excepted/Limited quantities mark as is instructed in the surface manuals, but instead stick to the precise terms mandated in the German version of the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations.
     While the IATA Gefahrgutvorschriften, as the IATA DGR is called in German, is not a grammatically pleasing and exact translation, these important matters are absolutely clear even in the German IATA DGR.
     Still, it makes little sense that under German law, Excepted quantities and Limited Quantities bear “labels” in the surface transport modes but “marks” in air transport.
     Training, of course, is a much greater issue because these important terms have been muddled and at times lost in translation as regulators actually approve—perhaps unwittingly—such translations without verification.

The Regulator's Role

     A part of the problem is that regulators as well as a multi-governmental coordination group tasked with “harmonizing” the languages in the Swiss, Austrian, and German DG surface manuals and other regulatory publications refuses to acknowledge the issue at hand.
     Their position simply is that according to the Merriam-Webster, Oxford Unabridged, and other standard dictionaries, the terms “Excepted” and “Exempt” are synonyms. That, however, is true only grammatically speaking; in the fine-tuned language of DG professionals, a unique but different meaning has been assigned to either term.

Making the Grade

     It’s an almost logical result of these issues that the pass mark required to obtain DGSA (Dangerous Goods Safety Advisor) qualifications is a mere 50 percent in Germany.
     In the UK, a pass mark of 75 percent is required. However, if the German pass marks were raised any higher, it is likely almost nobody would pass.
     The following excerpts were taken from the German official DGSA questionnaire:
     “Question 69: Which writing must be applied to a package containing UN 1805 for the maritime transport?
     "Correct answer: UN 1805, Correct technical name in English: Phosphoric Acid Solution, Orientation labels where applicable."
     The word “writing” in the question of course is not defined in any handbooks, so a DGSA candidate is left to figure what he’s supposed to answer—are labels or marks asked for, or both?
     "Question 75: Which additional labeling is required on a Package containing substances in Class 7 in non-excepted form? The UN Number with the prefix 'UN' has already been applied.
     "Correct answer: Official name for transport, address Identification for shipper and consignee."
     The reader should note that the clumsy English above is an exact translation from the clumsy German in the questionnaire. In case one wonders what a “correct technical name” is, it is the expression used throughout the four surface mode manuals in German language for the English term “Proper shipping Name.”

IATA To The Rescue?

     IATA quite correctly translates the “Proper Shipping Name” into the term “Richtige Versandbezeichnung.”
     Because most of the so-called “generic” or “n.o.s.” (not otherwise specified) proper shipping names (a generic proper shipping name is one used to describe substances not specifically listed by name, such as “Flammable liquid, n.o.s.”) require the indication of a technical name in brackets, using this term in lieu of a proper shipping name within the surface mode manuals was probably the worst idea.
     German air transport trainees are notorious for having difficulties to distinguishing the “Proper Shipping Name” from the “Technical Name” in brackets required for most generic and n.o.s. substances.
     For the reader’s ease of understanding: Both Ethanol (UN 1170) and Methanol (UN 1230) are listed by name.
     However, a 50/50 mixture needs a generic name assigned (in this case, Flammable liquid, toxic, n.o.s.).
     The regulations also require that the two substances most predominantly contributing to the risk of such solutions or mixtures be identified in brackets where so indicated, in this case (Mixture of Methanol and Ethanol).

Self Imposed English Test

     Last but not least, it must be said that for the sake of European harmonization, Germany has permitted the DGSA test be administered in the English language (at least, theoretically) since 2011.
     The Chambers of Industry and Commerce—who are in charge of DGSA certifications in Germany—require that where the DGSA exam is administered in the English language, the official DGSA test questionnaire must be translated into English at the sole expense of the person or institution requesting the test.
     The fact that there is an excellent DGSA test questionnaire in English created and maintained by the UK DoT has seemingly flown under the radar of the good Germans.

Deutsche Pride?

     No one denies that the culture for cargo is advanced on a teaching and apprenticeship basis in Germany, and most agree even grudgingly that the German logistics education foundation for learning transportation arts is the best in the world.
     But may we gently suggest that Germans insisting on their use of DG-relevant wording and markings is inconsistent and misses the point that the rest of the world is the common denominator, especially given the fact that there is a considerable number of nations who do not have the benefit of translations into their national language and simply have to make do with the English, French, Russian, Arabic, or Spanish base regulations.
     Therefore, Germany has much more to gain by adapting to the common usage (like it or not) to better streamline itself with the rest of the world; in today's globalized economy, where the industrial workbenches are more often than not outsourced to states where human labor is cheaper than in the developed regions, any deviation from the standardized language developed by the UN—with considerable contribution from Germany as well—may come at a great expense in terms of training efforts, unclear requirements applicable to shipments, and possibly non-compliance.
Jens

   “EMEA is one of the key markets for our scheduled business operations.
   “Georges Biwer's appointment is in line with our further expansion plans and our determination to build the best air cargo team in the industry for the benefit of our customers,” said Executive President Denis Ilin, as Air Bridge Cargo (ABC) appointed Georges Biwer as vice president for EMEA.
   Biwer will focus on growing ABC’s scheduled cargo operations inside and beyond Europe.
   Mr. Biwer recently served Cargolux and is a 24-year veteran of the air cargo business with special experience in Africa and elsewhere. With ABC going online in the Middle East and the African continent, Mr. Biwer's previous background should provide an immediate impact on ABC’s ambitious plan to provide a broader variety of export destinations for European customers.
   “I am pleased to join the ABC team,” Mr. Biwer said.
   “Being a challenge-motivated person, I am excited to join a company with ambitious goals,” he added.
(Read recent story on Charter)

Photo shows the Yamuna Expressway from Delhi to Agra. Apartments and business and commercial complexes are coming up on two sides of the Expressway in Greater Noida.

“Air cargo business is almost nil compared to its actual potential and if we really open all our doors for cargo, Delhi roads will be choked further . . . ” So said Mahesh Sharma, Minister of State for Civil Aviation (the junior minister in the Ministry led by Ashok Gajapathi Raju, the Minister for Civil Aviation).
 

The Union Minister for Civil Aviation, Ashok Gajapathi Raju Pusapati with the Minister of State for Civil Aviation, Dr. Mahesh Sharma (right) releasing the calendar for 2015. 

   His words came after the civil aviation ministry approved the proposal to build a second international airport in the Delhi NCR region at Jewar in Greater Noida (the National Capital Region of the country includes the cities of Gurgaon, Noida, and Faridabad; Jewar is around 100 km from Delhi) in a meeting with officials from the ministry, the Airports Authority of India, and others. Incidentally, Sharma represents the Noida area in Parliament and is a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
     The civil aviation ministry pointed out that the airport would need 2,200 acres of land, which, according to Sharma, had already been acquired. More land could be acquired, he said, “since land availability is not an issue in that area . . . Plus, the road infrastructure till the site for the proposed Jewar airport is also adequate.”

Don’t Hold Your Breath

     The actual construction of the airport, however, is still a long way off. To start, the proposal will have to be cleared by the Cabinet before anything else is done. With the BJP government in power in Delhi, the proposal is likely to be passed without any hindrance. However, the obstacles could come from the state government of Uttar Pradesh (Noida is part of Uttar Pradesh), which is ruled by a party that does not see eye to eye with the BJP—in fact, it is opposed to it. The UP government wants an international airport between the cities of Agra (around 165 km from Delhi), where the Taj Mahal is located, and Mathura, 50 km away.
     Another hurdle the airport at Jewar would face would be from GMR, the operators of the Delhi International Airport. According to the agreement, the government cannot permit construction of any airport within 150 km radius of the Delhi airport. And if it did, the first right of refusal for construction and operation would be GMR.

No Problem Sharma

     For Mahesh Sharma, these issues are no problem.
     He was quoted as saying GMR would indeed be given first right of refusal, and if it refused, “we are committed to completing it in time once we put it on the drawing board.”
     There are reports, too, that the government could even change the 150-km radius rule in view of the demands from fliers and airlines.
     “Unless an existing airport is functioning beyond its operational capacity, existing rules do not allow a second airport to come up within a 150-km radius of an existing one.”

Changing Laws

     “For the new project, the government will be required to amend certain regulations," Minister Sharma said.
     The question is whether Delhi will reach saturation in the time the Jewar airport is completed—between three and five years. Airport authorities believe that Delhi is nowhere near saturation: in cargo, for example, the airport handled 0.7 million tons in 2014-15 when it has a capacity of 1.5 million tonnes. As for passengers, the airport can handle 62.5 million passengers, but it saw only 40.9 million in 2014-15.
     A second international airport for Delhi has been in the news for quite some time. Perhaps, what is more important to note is that it has been embroiled in politics. Back in 2001, when the present Home Minister Rajnath Singh from the BJP was the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, he had raised the idea of an international airport around Noida. When he quit, Ms. Mayawati (from a different political party and opposed to the BJP) pushed the project. She lent her support to the government at the Centre in Delhi and in turn got the clearance for the Jewar airport.
     Today, the government in the state of Uttar Pradesh is in no mood to accept the Jewar project simply because it was promoted by a party and personality who has been its ‘worst enemy.’ And with the BJP-led government at the Centre, the signs of a protracted tug-of-war are clear. This, despite protestations from Mahesh Sharma that he was pandering to his constituents by bringing the airport to their doorsteps.

Jumping The Gun?

     While two airports serving the capital city would be a godsend for fliers, aviation pundits believe the government and Minister Sharma are jumping the gun. First and foremost, Delhi airport is capable of handling more cargo and passengers for quite a few years.
     Amber Dubey, partner and India head of Aerospace and Defence at KPMG, felt that Delhi and the NCR would probably need three or more airports like London or New York, but that situation was still many years away. Since airports were costly to build and maintain, two airports in close proximity handling 1.5 million tons of cargo and 55 million passengers would create high airport tariffs for passengers. Additionally, it will also be difficult for airlines, cargo stakeholders, and others to station staff at two airports for a small demand base. He felt that the central government should get a techno-commercial viability analysis done before bowing to political demands.
     Meanwhile, property developers and housing complex builders in the Greater Noida area are the ones who are smiling. The news about the BJP minister’s initiative for the airport has suddenly seen a rise in prices in a market that had become virtually stagnant.
Tirthankar Ghosh

     A new transportation hub designed to look like a bird in flight will begin opening in phases this month at New York’s World Trade Center.
     Over budget and years late, Santiago Calatrava designed the glass structure, which has been subject to much criticism and has amassed about $4 billion in expenses.
     When the plan was proposed in 2004, officials projected a $2 billion construction bill.
     New York Magazine called it "The Glorious Boondoggle."
     “Santiago Calatrava was commissioned to design an architectural extravagance at Ground Zero.
     “He succeeded, an accomplishment that threatens to destroy his reputation,” NYM writes.

Trains & Planes

     The most amazing thing about a building shaped like a bird in flight is that it was built to serve as a railroad station, which will eventually handle 200,000 commuters every day.
     In the 1940s, airlines in New York City gathered en-masse in offices and ticket counters, and even an Airlines Terminal across 42nd Street from Grand Central Station, the great railroad hub of the greatest city in the world.
     Later, when they could stand it no more, Pan Am built a sprawling skyscraper that lorded over the beautiful, iconic train station. Today it is known as the MetLife building; it still obliterates the view up and down Park Avenue.
     Now, in 2015, it seems as if the ghost of competition between railroads and the airlines gets one more jolt as we witness the erection of a train station shaped like a bird.
     Well, why not?
     Imagine if pigs could fly?
     Your move.
Geoffrey

   Today one can barely find a trace of Wiley Post's great accomplishment in the vast field of concrete at the now-closed airport, save for a small marker on the spot where he landed. Here we see him as he climbs out of the cockpit of his Lockheed Vega monoplane “Winnie Mae” after completing the first solo flight around the world, arriving at Floyd Bennett Field at the end of Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn, N.Y., around midnight on July 22, 1933.
   Eighty-two years ago, Wiley had set a new record for flying a distance of 15,596 miles, (25,099 kilometers,) in 7 days, 18 hours, and 49 minutes. The American aviator was the first person in history to fly solo around the world.
   Post, instantly recognizable by the patch he wore over one eye, began the journey on July 15, 1933, setting another record as the first aircraft to fly nonstop between New York and Berlin.
   After a brief rest, he flew on to the Soviet Union, where he made several stops before returning to North America, with stops in Alaska, Canada, and finally a triumphant landing at his starting point in New York.
   The next day everybody celebrated Post with a ticker tape parade down lower Broadway’s “Canyon Of Heroes.”
   Two years earlier, Post had won fame when he successfully flew around the northern part of the earth with aviator Harold Gatty. For his solo around-the-world flight in 1933, he flew a slightly greater distance--15,596 miles--in less time.
   For both flights, he used the Winnie Mae, a Lockheed Vega monoplane that was equipped with a Sperry automatic pilot and a direction radio for Post’s solo journey.
   In August 1935 he attempted to fly across the North Pole to the USSR with American humorist Will Rogers (above left) when both men were killed in a crash near Point Barrow, Alaska.
Geoffrey

If You Missed Any Of The Previous 3 Issues Of FlyingTypers
Access complete issue by clicking on issue icon or
Access specific articles by clicking on article title