DGR is not a
problem or an issue
to us
Tan Chee Hong, COO, Hactl
RISK
REDUCTION
STRATEGIES
existing, proven technology
like barcodes and scanners, and
will be thus for the foreseeable
future, except perhaps for a
move to QR codes. RFID (radio
frequency identifi cation)
systems have been tried but are
affected by liquids or metals,
while tags can also be hidden
from the readers by other
cargo. In essence, an RFID
application would also need
specialist readers to be installed
throughout the network.
Presenting the airline’s
annual results in March, Chief
Executive and Chairman of the
Executive Board, Peter Gerber,
said: “With our new, fully
digital PreCheck process, we
will now signifi cantly accelerate
and simplify handling processes
for our customers. And we will
also continue to roll out the
eDGD electronic dangerous
goods declaration so that even
more customers and shippers
will be able to benefi t from this
digital solution.”
Dangerous goods are not,
of course, dangerous, if you
handle them correctly. Tan
Chee Hong, Chief Operation
Offi cer at Hong Kong airfreight
handler Hactl, is no stranger
to dangerous goods: Hactl has
been handling huge volumes
for many years, he points out.
“We have a dedicated zone for
it, staff who are trained in its
special requirements, and we
also work with customers to
provide advice on the correct
packaging and presentation
of such goods for air
transportation.”
A DGR specialist on the
team heads this part of the
operation, and works closely
with IATA and others to help
formulate practice throughout
the industry. Hactl is actually
an accredited IATA DGR
training centre, which trains
its own staff and those of
customers and other parties.
“DGR is not a problem or an
issue to us,” he affi rms.
A number of software
vendors already provide
electronic assistance in
chemical verifi cation, such as
Chemwatch and ChemAxon,
but the most relevant to Hactl,
says Chee Hong, is IATA’s DG
AutoCheck digital solution,
which is just starting to gain
traction. This will permit the
user to check compliance with
the Shipper’s Declaration for
Dangerous Goods against all
the IATA rules and regulations,
without needing to refer to
the various sections of the
1,000 page IATA DGR Manual.
The system will also confi rm
the correct markings and
labels required on the outer
packaging. The adoption of
this kind of checking system
will ensure a high level of
consistency and greatly reduce
the possibility of human error,
as well as saving time, Chee
Hong explains.
Hactl plans to implement
IATA’s DG Auto-Check later
this year, in conjunction with
partner airlines who agree to
its use and accept the cost
involved. Discussions on this
are under way at present.
Despite this advance, there
will always be goods that
are presented incorrectly, or
misdeclared, generally through
ignorance. Hactl has robust
systems in place to identify
and check such cargo, and a
safe dedicated zone in which
to do it; thus it generally has
no impact on the mainstream
operation. The priority here
is not speed and ensuring
cargo doesn’t miss fl ights, it’s
ensuring aviation safety is
maintained at all costs.
As for undeclared DG,
Chee Hong points out that
multiple checks take place
on all incoming cargo.
Firstly, it is scanned by the
airport nominated security
contractors, AVSECO; then
Hactl operational staff inspect
the packaging at the physical
acceptance stage; fi nally, they
check all information shown in
the AWB during acceptance of
documents. Any concerns are
followed up by more detailed
inspection (if necessary, the
opening of packaging), and
wrongly declared cargo will
result in immediate action. It
would also be reported to the
carrier.
All this could have very
serious consequences, says
Chee Hong “so nobody would
deliberately misdeclare cargo.
Because of our processes, we are
confi dent of identifying any
accidentally undeclared DGR
cargo, and we do not regard
DGR as a problem.”
A de-skilled future?
But will the development
of electronic checklists and
acceptance lead to a de-skilling
of the DG process, and are
there any dangers in that?
Certainly, the risks of taking
decisions away from people is
something that the airfreight
industry needs to be mindful
of, agrees Navaratnarajah at
Unisys, although he believes
that human beings will still
have an important role to play
in the DG process.
For a start, many carriers’
rules go beyond what IATA
stipulates – for example, the
distance separating DG from
other types of cargo in the
aircraft hold. Initial efforts to
automate the DG process will
probably be centred on the
basic IATA regulations and
human beings will probably
still be needed to intervene in
those cases where they are only
a minimum; although in time,
individual airlines will probably
also automate their specifi c DG
rules.
DG experts will also still
be very necessary at the sharp
end of the airfreight operation.
Likewise, there will still be a
need for people who know
what to do in the event of a
spillage or other emergency.
Finally, however automated
the acceptance systems
eventually become, there
will remain a requirement
for judgement calls, and
that means people with a
profound knowledge of the
DG regulations. An airline will
still need staff who can deal
with the unexpected, such as a
passenger turning up at a cargo
shed demanding that a luxury
car be shipped on the next
available fl ight, or who can
recognise that potentially highrisk
lithium batteries might be
hidden inside various electronic
goods – to say nothing of the
less innocent shippers who may
try to hide the presence of DG
items altogether.
With that in mind, it’s
unlikely that the need for
IATA’s intensive DG training
will disappear in the foreseeable
future.
18 June 2019 www.airlogisticsinternational.com
/www.airlogisticsinternational.com
/www.airlogisticsinternational.com