Paint can in pressurized plane

There's only a tiny amount of gas inside an unopened can of paint. I don't think there's enough to where it the can would expand enough to make the lid come off.

I sure would secure them so they don't move around, if you got into turbulence or had to make a forced landing they could become lethal.
 
Not any amount. See 49CFR parts 171, 172, 173, and 175.

Part 171, Applicability: Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish regulations for the safe and secure transportation of hazardous materials in commerce... Doesn't look applicable. The paragraph is long, but every sentence appears to end with the words "in commerce".

Part 172, Applicability: This part applies to -
(1) Each person who offers a hazardous material for transportation, and
(2) Each carrier by air, highway, rail, or water who transports a hazardous material.​
Similarly, language in this part is limited by "people who offer transport" or "carriers".

Part 173, Applicability, limits the scope of part 173 to shippers affected by this subchapter. That appears to be related to commerce only.

Part 175, Applicability similarly refers to "in commerce".

None of this appears to apply to the average GA, non-commerce pilot.
 
Part 171, Applicability: Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish regulations for the safe and secure transportation of hazardous materials in commerce... Doesn't look applicable. The paragraph is long, but every sentence appears to end with the words "in commerce".

Part 172, Applicability: This part applies to -
(1) Each person who offers a hazardous material for transportation, and
(2) Each carrier by air, highway, rail, or water who transports a hazardous material.​
Similarly, language in this part is limited by "people who offer transport" or "carriers".

Part 173, Applicability, limits the scope of part 173 to shippers affected by this subchapter. That appears to be related to commerce only.

Part 175, Applicability similarly refers to "in commerce".

None of this appears to apply to the average GA, non-commerce pilot.

True, but if I am landing at a public airport, they have hazmat policies in place. If they have hazmat policies in place, they will refer to the parts previously mentioned.

And 91 Subpart K (while that is fractional, is still GA) does reference part 171 also.
 
Last edited:
True, but if I am landing at a public airport, they have hazmat policies in place. If they have hazmat policies in place, they will refer to the parts previously mentioned.

Ok. And they will find that you were not engaged in commerce and those parts don't apply to private transport. Do you carry a quart of oil with you?
 
Ok. And they will find that you were not engaged in commerce and those parts don't apply to private transport. Do you carry a quart of oil with you?

Oil isn't classified as hazmat under 49CFR :) But on my last flight I didn't because I had to shed all weight to make weight and balance.
 
I have 4 quarts of spare oil in the baggage compartment. How is that 0k but a gallon of paint that has linseed oil going to explode?
 
Part 171, Applicability: Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish regulations for the safe and secure transportation of hazardous materials in commerce... Doesn't look applicable. The paragraph is long, but every sentence appears to end with the words "in commerce".
And if you look here
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/171.1
and click on the word “commerce”, you get (emphasis mine):
Commerce
Commerce means trade or transportation in the jurisdiction of the United States within a single state; between a place in a state and a place outside of the state; that affects trade or transportation between a place in a state and place outside of the state; or on a United States-registered aircraft.
 
I have 4 quarts of spare oil in the baggage compartment. How is that 0k but a gallon of paint that has linseed oil going to explode?

It's not about explosion, it's about chemical composition and in the case of some classes of hazmat, flash point.
 
It's not about explosion, it's about chemical composition and in the case of some classes of hazmat, flash point.
Explosion was hyperbole - point is that oil is more dangerous than a can of paint from Lowe’s.
 
Explosion was hyperbole - point is that oil is more dangerous than a can of paint from Lowe’s.

Oil isn't dangerous though. Oil's flash point is so high that it's not considered flammable. Some paints, not so much.
 
Well darn.

How am I supposed to move the paint can from the store to my house? It's hazmat, I can't transport it.

I believe you must be misreading that. Transportation must mean in the context of commercial transport.

Read through the previously mentioned parts see what the limits are for transport and why you don't need to be certified to bring it from Home Depot to your house in your car or truck.

I only know this stuff, because I ship hazmat.
 
Well darn.

How am I supposed to move the paint can from the store to my house? It's hazmat, I can't transport it.

I believe you must be misreading that. Transportation must mean in the context of commercial transport.
It must mean something other than what it says? What says you can’t transport it?
 
Read through the previously mentioned parts see what the limits are for transport and why you don't need to be certified to bring it from Home Depot to your house in your car or truck.

I only know this stuff, because I ship hazmat.

I work with it too from time to time, but the rules of commercial transport do no apply to private citizens moving private stuff. Example, I had some used power steering oil that I took to the county landfill for disposal - used oil is hazmat. Was I required to follow 49 CFR to drive it over there? No, because I am not involved with commerce. Similarly, I can jump in my car and drive for as long as I can stay awake and it's nobody's business but mine. I'm not limited to 11 hours like a commercial driver is.

It must mean something other than what it says? What says you can’t transport it?

According to you, 49 CFR. I made the distinction of private vs commercial transportation and you rebutted that by posting a definition out of context which implies that all forms of transportation is commerce. If that isn't what you intended, please verify. It certainly isn't true.

Otherwise, I'm back with my original assertion that 49 CFR does not apply to private individuals.

Regardless, this isn't really relevant to the OP who just wants to know if the lid will pop on a paint can at 8000 ft. With a 4 PSI difference between sea level and 8000', I'm thinking no, but I really don't know where that limit is.
 
I work with it too from time to time, but the rules of commercial transport do no apply to private citizens moving private stuff. Example, I had some used power steering oil that I took to the county landfill for disposal - used oil is hazmat. Was I required to follow 49 CFR to drive it over there? No, because I am not involved with commerce. Similarly, I can jump in my car and drive for as long as I can stay awake and it's nobody's business but mine. I'm not limited to 11 hours like a commercial driver is.



According to you, 49 CFR. I made the distinction of private vs commercial transportation and you rebutted that by posting a definition out of context which implies that all forms of transportation is commerce. If that isn't what you intended, please verify. It certainly isn't true.

Otherwise, I'm back with my original assertion that 49 CFR does not apply to private individuals.

Regardless, this isn't really relevant to the OP who just wants to know if the lid will pop on a paint can at 8000 ft. with a 4 PSI difference, I'm thinking no, but I really don't know where that limit is.

Hazmat according to EPA, but not hazmat according to the DOT. Different agencies, different rules, so it doesn't apply.
 
Hazmat according to EPA, but not hazmat according to the DOT. Different agencies, different rules, so it doesn't apply.

If you want to pick nits, I also carried a quart of oil based primer that I wasn't using anymore. Should I be looking out for the Po Po?
 
According to you, 49 CFR. I made the distinction of private vs commercial transportation and you rebutted that by posting a definition out of context which implies that all forms of transportation is commerce. If that isn't what you intended, please verify. It certainly isn't true.

Otherwise, I'm back with my original assertion that 49 CFR does not apply to private individuals.
No, I didn’t say you couldn’t carry it. I merely pointed out the way “commerce” is defined. You simply chose not to read far enough into the HMR to get to the exceptions.

It’s not because it means something other than what it says. It’s because they thought it through and said what they actually wanted to say.
 
No, I didn’t say you couldn’t carry it. I merely pointed out the way “commerce” is defined. You simply chose not to read far enough into the HMR to get to the exceptions.

So you do mean to assert that all transportation is commerce?
 
If you want to pick nits, I also carried a quart of oil based primer that I wasn't using anymore. Should I be looking out for the Po Po?

Nope. Check out 49CFR 172 and 173.
 
Nope. Check out 49CFR 172 and 173.

Ah, so oil based paint is ok to transport. Cool, then the whole issue of applicability isn't even relevant.
 
Ah, so oil based paint is ok to transport. Cool, then the whole issue of applicability isn't even relevant.
But it’s not irrelevant because it can’t mean what it says. It’s irrelevant because the it specifically states that it is.
 
It's not about explosion, it's about chemical composition and in the case of some classes of hazmat, flash point.
But I also remember that nobody found it to be illegal to carry 2 - 5 gallons cans of Mogas in the back of an airplane to refuel at an airport without and gas. If you can carry large amounts of highly explosive fuel, how can you not carry basically any other flammable liquid?
 
But I also remember that nobody found it to be illegal to carry 2 - 5 gallons cans of Mogas in the back of an airplane to refuel at an airport without and gas. If you can carry large amounts of highly explosive fuel, how can you not carry basically any other flammable liquid?
So you’re going with @bflynn ’s argument that it’s legal because “it can’t be illegal”, rather than because the HMRs say so?
 
So you’re going with @bflynn ’s argument that it’s legal because “it can’t be illegal”, rather than because the HMRs say so?
Is there a different law up in Alaska? Because otherwise nobody would do any flying or hunting if they can’t carry cans of gas in the aircraft. Even outside of part 91, nearly every aircraft carries cans and barrels of Mogas and Avgas all the time.

I am happy to read the regulation that states that it is illegal to carry gas in an aircraft. If you can find one, then I will read it and ask how every Alaskan gets around the reg.
 
Is there a different law up in Alaska? Because otherwise nobody would do any flying or hunting if they can’t carry cans of gas in the aircraft. Even outside of part 91, nearly every aircraft carries cans and barrels of Mogas and Avgas all the time.

I am happy to read the regulation that states that it is illegal to carry gas in an aircraft. If you can find one, then I will read it and ask how every Alaskan gets around the reg.
I didn’t say it was illegal. Your argument that it can’t be illegal because everyone does it is as ridiculous here as it would be in court.
 
I didn’t say it was illegal. Your argument that it can’t be illegal because everyone does it is as ridiculous here as it would be in court.
No, I was bringing up an old post (can't find it right now) where it was argued here on POA, and it was determined that it was legal to carry gas in can inside the aircraft. If you have new information that you would like to share, showing that it is, in fact, illegal to carry cans of gas in the aircraft, please share it with us.

But it also is a decent data point that gas in carried in part 91, 121, 135, every aircraft in Alaska and not hidden in any way, including being shown on television shows, discussed openly, etc. If it was illegal, there is no way that would be allowed. So regardless of if I can find the regulation that allows it, it is quite obvious that it is a legal thing to do, otherwise there are thousands of outlaws that the FAA and DOT is doing nothing about on a daily basis with all the evidence in the world to prosecute.
 
No, I was bringing up an old post (can't find it right now) where it was argued here on POA, and it was determined that it was legal to carry gas in can inside the aircraft. If you have new information that you would like to share, showing that it is, in fact, illegal to carry cans of gas in the aircraft, please share it with us.

But it also is a decent data point that gas in carried in part 91, 121, 135, every aircraft in Alaska and not hidden in any way, including being shown on television shows, discussed openly, etc. If it was illegal, there is no way that would be allowed. So regardless of if I can find the regulation that allows it, it is quite obvious that it is a legal thing to do, otherwise there are thousands of outlaws that the FAA and DOT is doing nothing about on a daily basis with all the evidence in the world to prosecute.
Again, I am not saying that it’s illegal. And the 121 and 135 operators could have hazmat authorizations. But if all of your friends jump off a bridge, feel free to follow.
 
Last edited:
Again, I am not saying that it’s illegal. 121 and 135 operators could have hazmat authorizations. But if all of your friends jump off a bridge, feel free to follow.
So what is your point? You didn’t mention part 91. Are you trying to be cryptic and say it is illegal for part 91 in a round about manner?

Or are you just arguing some nonexistent point?
 
So what is your point? You didn’t mention part 91. Are you trying to be cryptic and say it is illegal for part 91 in a round about manner?

Or are you just arguing some nonexistent point?
I didn’t mention Part 91 because that’s different than Parts 121 and 135, and could very well not need an authorization.

the point I am arguing is that your preference to use ignorance as a guiding principle in life doesn’t work for me.
 
I didn’t mention Part 91 because that’s different than Parts 121 and 135, and could very well not need an authorization.

the point I am arguing is that your preference to use ignorance as a guiding principle in life doesn’t work for me.
Why would you bother with a personal attack on me?

And since you do not know the difference in rules between part 91 and 121/135 in this area, does that not make you as ignorant of the rules as me?

Here is the previous thread, of which you were a part.
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/carrying-extra-gas-tank-inside-cabin.115597/

Here is a quote from Bell206 that may help, but didn't last time, so probably not.

"There is specific hazmat guidance in 49CR 175.310 on aircraft only ops. There is even a separate paragraph on Alaska ops. The key applicability is only for "commerce" ops. The regs do not apply to private individuals operating in a personal capacity. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/175.310

For example, I supported remote 135 ops. For helicopters it was easy as we transported all fuel and other hazmat externally in baskets or longline. But we still had to follow our certified hazmat process. However, when I flew back to the staging area and loaded my tools and 10 gallons of sump turbine fuel in my truck all requirements to follow Part 175 on the turbine fuel ended provided I was off the clock and on my own time. And the same goes for a person who loads 10 gallons of avgas and a propane bottle in his personal Cub and heads out to his remote camp on his own time. No hazmat regs to follow except common sense."

The original post, plus most of the additional discussion had nothing to do with commerce, just a guy flying various fluids in his private airplane. Be it paint, gas, oil, Doritos (future gas), they all seem to fall under the same exception, as far as I can tell.

Now I did learn that there is a specific exemption for Alaska, but it is still only for operations involving commerce.
 
Why would you bother with a personal attack on me?

And since you do not know the difference in rules between part 91 and 121/135 in this area, does that not make you as ignorant of the rules as me?

Here is the previous thread, of which you were a part.
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/carrying-extra-gas-tank-inside-cabin.115597/

Here is a quote from Bell206 that may help, but didn't last time, so probably not.

"There is specific hazmat guidance in 49CR 175.310 on aircraft only ops. There is even a separate paragraph on Alaska ops. The key applicability is only for "commerce" ops. The regs do not apply to private individuals operating in a personal capacity. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/175.310

For example, I supported remote 135 ops. For helicopters it was easy as we transported all fuel and other hazmat externally in baskets or longline. But we still had to follow our certified hazmat process. However, when I flew back to the staging area and loaded my tools and 10 gallons of sump turbine fuel in my truck all requirements to follow Part 175 on the turbine fuel ended provided I was off the clock and on my own time. And the same goes for a person who loads 10 gallons of avgas and a propane bottle in his personal Cub and heads out to his remote camp on his own time. No hazmat regs to follow except common sense."

The original post, plus most of the additional discussion had nothing to do with commerce, just a guy flying various fluids in his private airplane. Be it paint, gas, oil, Doritos (future gas), they all seem to fall under the same exception, as far as I can tell.

Now I did learn that there is a specific exemption for Alaska, but it is still only for operations involving commerce.
It wasn’t a resonant attack, it was a direct answer to a direct question.

prior to this post, you have absolutely refused any reference to HMRs, other than to demand a reference to prove an argument that I wasn’t making. Purposeful ignorance in my view.

you have repeatedly stated that since everybody does it, and therefore it must be legal. Purposeful ignorance in my view.

you have now presented a statement that says it only applies to commerce, without refuting the definition of commerce that I presented earlier which appears to include private transport. The exception provided in that HMR is now being presented as proof that an exception not provided in that HMR is excepted as well, especially when the HMR linked in the statement specifically mentions the requirement for a written hazmat handling plan submitted to the FAA for Part 91 operations. Purposeful ignorance, in my view.
 
It wasn’t a resonant attack, it was a direct answer to a direct question.

prior to this post, you have absolutely refused any reference to HMRs, other than to demand a reference to prove an argument that I wasn’t making. Purposeful ignorance in my view.

you have repeatedly stated that since everybody does it, and therefore it must be legal. Purposeful ignorance in my view.

you have now presented a statement that says it only applies to commerce, without refuting the definition of commerce that I presented earlier which appears to include private transport. The exception provided in that HMR is now being presented as proof that an exception not provided in that HMR is excepted as well, especially when the HMR linked in the statement specifically mentions the requirement for a written hazmat handling plan submitted to the FAA for Part 91 operations. Purposeful ignorance, in my view.
Whatever. You are the only one that thinks you are right. Argue the details and semantics with @Bell206 again. Everyone else will keep breaking the law and apparently nobody cares because there does not seem to be any documented enforcement or punishment over the issue for private part 91 flights.

If nobody ever bothers enforcing a rule, does the rule even exist? Eventually it often becomes a legal precedent that the rule has never been enforced, and is therefore no longer applicable.
 
Well the end decision was why risk it so he mailed it.
 
Personally I would sweat those 80 gallons of highly explosive liquid in my wings and engine compartment more. But you could also put the can in a large plastic bag.

The fuel in the wings are contained in something designed to carry fuel during all modes of operation. A gallon of possibly flammable paint carried in the cabin in a vessel possibly not stressed for large changes in atmospheric pressure is a completely different animal. But you do you.
 
Back
Top