Saw this yesterday, cemented down in a school playground of all places. Anyone have an idea what it may have been used for? I'm thinking for luggage or something but I've never seen a container like this one before.

The identification on the first side leads me to believe it's a container of some sort. Not sure what a BMB container is, though.

Interesting! I thought BMB's were pallets?

The M in BMB, in current ULD standards, implies a base plate dimension of 96x125 inch. It's hard to tell if it's that big from the pictures.

Maybe its a custom container only used by CP Air?

CrimsonNL wrote:

The M in BMB, in current ULD standards, implies a base plate dimension of 96x125 inch. It's hard to tell if it's that big from the pictures.

Maybe its a custom container only used by CP Air?

Its a good 5 feet tall, 4 feet wide and 3 feet deep (rough estimates).

Whats so bizarre about it is that its just randomly sitting in a school playground at Pebble Hill Elementary in Tsawwassen BC. Theres another plate on it (the black one in the first picture) and says something about "burn rate". Not sure if that has anything to do with what it originally was or what its being used for today, which I also have no clue about.

I will admit, I was pretty tempted in thinking about prying the CP Air signs off

ACDC8 wrote:

CrimsonNL wrote:

The M in BMB, in current ULD standards, implies a base plate dimension of 96x125 inch. It's hard to tell if it's that big from the pictures.

Maybe its a custom container only used by CP Air?

Its a good 5 feet tall, 4 feet wide and 3 feet deep (rough estimates).

Whats so bizarre about it is that its just randomly sitting in a school playground at Pebble Hill Elementary in Tsawwassen BC. Theres another plate on it (the black one in the first picture) and says something about "burn rate". Not sure if that has anything to do with what it originally was or what its being used for today, which I also have no clue about.

I will admit, I was pretty tempted in thinking about prying the CP Air signs off

Burn rate is a standard thing to have on the side of a ULD.

This thing has me stumped. The base is definitely a loadable pallet. But I’ve never heard of a BMB, and following the standard IATA ULD conventions for coding, this thing doesn’t follow any of them.

My best guess is this was some sort of custom container, probably used as a flight kit. Basically a tool box ULD that mostly stays with aircraft that frequently travel to outstations that might not have full maintenance readily available. (usually has spare bulbs, manuals, tools, etc)

It reminds me of the containers that the RAF used on their Tristars.
They were loaded through the L2 pax door and ran on a track in the fwd cabin.

CP had DC8s, which were container loaded from below the plane with some kind of mechanized system from within the plane. Maybe it's special for the 8?

TWA772LR wrote:

CP had DC8s, which were container loaded from below the plane with some kind of mechanized system from within the plane. Maybe it's special for the 8?

This thread shows the belly loaded DC-8 containers and they look different:

viewtopic.php?t=1355907

Thanks for all the replies, super grateful with all the input.

I went by it yesterday again and took a picture of the other placard, quite a bit more info on that, not sure why I didn't take a picture of it the first time.

So, looks like the manufacturer was Brooks and Perkins out of Michigan and the unit was built January 1974.



Doing a bit of looking on the ol' Google, I did find this:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=M22azv ... ns&f=false

"Install Cargo Container Part 17617-e-100"
"Amended 7/14/75"
"747 Series"

CP Air got their 747s back in 73, so that totally lines up.

Interesting!
What would the "burn rate" on the sticker specify?
Did that container protect an auxiliary heating or fuel-operated generator?
Or has it to do with the fire load for fire safety assessment?

I'm puzzled...
Hendric

Interesting!
What would the "burn rate" on the sticker specify?
Did that container protect an auxiliary heating or fuel-operated generator?
Or has it to do with the fire load for fire safety assessment?

I'm puzzled...
Hendric

So here’s my take on it.
Answers up thread say it’s from a CP 747.
In the rear hold/ bulk area, the floor is generally sloped up towards the tail, except for when you crawl in thru the inward opening door.
That part of hold5 / the bulk is actually flat iirc.
My take is that container was probably a CP order specifically to fit the rest of that flat area in the bulk after you open the door, similar to where KE used to have the Co-mail safe on their 747’s. I guess CP used it as a fly-away mechanics kit, Accessible from the rear hold.( looks like hinged door) and looks like the width of an LD3. So I’d guess that as it looks “pallet based “ that it was also loaded/swapped out as needed for each flight. And also loaded via the rear cargo door, but sent right over to left side Then sent aft 3 ft into the converted bulk area.
Didn’t PK pick up the CP742’s in latter life via a CP742/PKD10 swap…?
Anyone remember working those old 742 frames ????

TUGMASTER wrote:

So here’s my take on it.
Answers up thread say it’s from a CP 747.
In the rear hold/ bulk area, the floor is generally sloped up towards the tail, except for when you crawl in thru the inward opening door.
That part of hold5 / the bulk is actually flat iirc.
My take is that container was probably a CP order specifically to fit the rest of that flat area in the bulk after you open the door, similar to where KE used to have the Co-mail safe on their 747’s. I guess CP used it as a fly-away mechanics kit, Accessible from the rear hold.( looks like hinged door) and looks like the width of an LD3. So I’d guess that as it looks “pallet based “ that it was also loaded/swapped out as needed for each flight. And also loaded via the rear cargo door, but sent right over to left side Then sent aft 3 ft into the converted bulk area.
Didn’t PK pick up the CP742’s in latter life via a CP742/PKD10 swap…?
Anyone remember working those old 742 frames ????

Its a main deck luggage container with sliding door, its sized to fit though the passenger door.

hitower3 wrote:

What would the "burn rate" on the sticker specify?

Pretty much anything that goes inside of an airplane has some certification for flame propagation, self extinguishing, and how long it can contain a fire.

zeke wrote:

TUGMASTER wrote:

So here’s my take on it.
Answers up thread say it’s from a CP 747.
In the rear hold/ bulk area, the floor is generally sloped up towards the tail, except for when you crawl in thru the inward opening door.
That part of hold5 / the bulk is actually flat iirc.
My take is that container was probably a CP order specifically to fit the rest of that flat area in the bulk after you open the door, similar to where KE used to have the Co-mail safe on their 747’s. I guess CP used it as a fly-away mechanics kit, Accessible from the rear hold.( looks like hinged door) and looks like the width of an LD3. So I’d guess that as it looks “pallet based “ that it was also loaded/swapped out as needed for each flight. And also loaded via the rear cargo door, but sent right over to left side Then sent aft 3 ft into the converted bulk area.
Didn’t PK pick up the CP742’s in latter life via a CP742/PKD10 swap…?
Anyone remember working those old 742 frames ????

Its a main deck luggage container with sliding door, its sized to fit though the passenger door.

I was thinking that as well, but even on the old aircraft with the movable restraints I struggle to think of a configuration in which you could actually lock one of these things into any main deck.

I think I agree overall with TUGMASTER. Even on the 744s hold 5 has a flat section that you could feasibly put this into. I’ve seen “similar” containers that more closely resemble a big lockbox or chest in that area of the aircraft, usually like you said, flyaway kits

FGITD wrote:

I was thinking that as well, but even on the old aircraft with the movable restraints I struggle to think of a configuration in which you could actually lock one of these things into any main deck.

What I posted was accurate, this is the old B&P brochure for the container.



Some more background https://www.uldcare.com/wp-content/uplo ... tments.pdf

“ Creating Combi models of today's mainstream aircraft such as B777, B787 and A350 XWB would clearly take enormous amount of time and money, and also be non- reversible, but there are actually a couple of ”combi lite” options that may be well worth considering, being low cost and avoiding complex and expensive aircraft modifications while enabling the use of container type loading reduce manpower and turnaround times.
Method A.

1. Back in the 1970’s/80’s a number of B747 /DC10 operators utilised a system whereby a lightweight non powered cargo loading/restraint system could be laid onto the floor of the rearmost compartment of the aircraft and secured to the seat tracks. The system was removable ( maybe half a day to remove or install) and enabled the use of special cargo containers that were typically having dimension of 38 ins wide ( to fit through the pax door ) by 64” high by either 61.5 or 125” long. There was no significant modification to the airframe.

2. A number of airlines used these systems, Alitalia and Philippine Airlines, Lufthansa and Aer Lingus are four ( also KL used on DC 10‘s), and they were manufactured by Transequip ( now owned by Telair) and Brooks and Perkins

3. Certification was by STC, a search under the FAA’s STC library at
https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guid ... inFrame?Op enFrameSet throws up a number of possible hits, most specifically SA3740WE and SA 2801WE .Although these are of course for 747-100 and -200 aircraft the principles would be the same.

4. The containers had a max gross weight of about 800 lbs, presumably to be capable of handling a 9G load as there was no 9G barrier net, and had to be loaded with doors facing aft.

5. The containers were loaded using either a a main deck loader or a modified catering truck and the cargo loading system
provided a ball mat right up the door sill, so the containers could be easily moved into position.

6. There was some kind of aisle allowing passenger access to the rear toilets and lightweight vertical panels to close off the cargo holding area.

This is a proven concept, used by a number of airlines years ago but long since forgotten however it would seem very feasible to dust off this concept, adapt it to today’s aircraft and put it into service within a realistic time and cost.”

Wow, very interesting. A bit before my time so I never had the chance to see such a system at work.

Great detective skills there

Wacker1000 wrote:

Pretty much anything that goes inside of an airplane has some certification for flame propagation, self extinguishing, and how long it can contain a fire.

And here I thought it was in reference to "fuel burn rate" - thanks for that, completely makes sense

zeke wrote:

What I posted was accurate, this is the old B&P brochure for the container.



Some more background https://www.uldcare.com/wp-content/uplo ... tments.pdf

“ Creating Combi models of today's mainstream aircraft such as B777, B787 and A350 XWB would clearly take enormous amount of time and money, and also be non- reversible, but there are actually a couple of ”combi lite” options that may be well worth considering, being low cost and avoiding complex and expensive aircraft modifications while enabling the use of container type loading reduce manpower and turnaround times.
Method A.

1. Back in the 1970’s/80’s a number of B747 /DC10 operators utilised a system whereby a lightweight non powered cargo loading/restraint system could be laid onto the floor of the rearmost compartment of the aircraft and secured to the seat tracks. The system was removable ( maybe half a day to remove or install) and enabled the use of special cargo containers that were typically having dimension of 38 ins wide ( to fit through the pax door ) by 64” high by either 61.5 or 125” long. There was no significant modification to the airframe.

2. A number of airlines used these systems, Alitalia and Philippine Airlines, Lufthansa and Aer Lingus are four ( also KL used on DC 10‘s), and they were manufactured by Transequip ( now owned by Telair) and Brooks and Perkins

3. Certification was by STC, a search under the FAA’s STC library at
https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guid ... inFrame?Op enFrameSet throws up a number of possible hits, most specifically SA3740WE and SA 2801WE .Although these are of course for 747-100 and -200 aircraft the principles would be the same.

4. The containers had a max gross weight of about 800 lbs, presumably to be capable of handling a 9G load as there was no 9G barrier net, and had to be loaded with doors facing aft.

5. The containers were loaded using either a a main deck loader or a modified catering truck and the cargo loading system
provided a ball mat right up the door sill, so the containers could be easily moved into position.

6. There was some kind of aisle allowing passenger access to the rear toilets and lightweight vertical panels to close off the cargo holding area.

This is a proven concept, used by a number of airlines years ago but long since forgotten however it would seem very feasible to dust off this concept, adapt it to today’s aircraft and put it into service within a realistic time and cost.”

Thank you Zeke, I am eternally grateful for your insight

Now the next question looms - what the heck is it doing in a school playground?

https://goo.gl/maps/tGP9y4bLve5cQKqM6

I think that's it here in the playground

airportugal310 wrote:

https://goo.gl/maps/tGP9y4bLve5cQKqM6

I think that's it here in the playground

That it is.

ACDC8 wrote:

Now the next question looms - what the heck is it doing in a school playground?

One might imagine a conversation similar to the one I had some 30 years ago, when I tried to bring home a DEC KI-10 that was going to be salvaged.

He: Hon! Guess what! They were junking this cargo container and I snagged it! We'll put it in the garden and make a planter out of it!

She: No we're not.

He: Sure, it will be great! We can <natter natter>...

She: No we're not.

He: But, you don't understand...

She: No, YOU don't understand. It goes or I go. Get rid of it.

He: Oh. (scratches head and dumps it in a playground for lack of any better ideas.)

(In my case, I hadn't actually rented a truck to bring the 3-cabinet monstrosity home, so I was saved the "get rid of it" part.)

PITingres wrote:

One might imagine a conversation similar to the one I had some 30 years ago, when I tried to bring home a DEC KI-10 that was going to be salvaged.

He: Hon! Guess what! They were junking this cargo container and I snagged it! We'll put it in the garden and make a planter out of it!

She: No we're not.

He: Sure, it will be great! We can <natter natter>...

She: No we're not.

He: But, you don't understand...

She: No, YOU don't understand. It goes or I go. Get rid of it.

He: Oh. (scratches head and dumps it in a playground for lack of any better ideas.)

(In my case, I hadn't actually rented a truck to bring the 3-cabinet monstrosity home, so I was saved the "get rid of it" part.)

LOL, I assure you that I've been actively figuring out a way to snag it. Turn it into a nice wardrobe. Put a few shelves and hangers in it, that would be real nice

PITingres wrote:

She: No, YOU don't understand. It goes or I go. Get rid of it.

Would need to sleep on it for a night, would have kept it if that was the deal and replaced her.

It was probably picked up in a surplus auction of some sort. They didn't know what it was but decided it was just about the right size to store some stuff in without having to go and build a proper shed and go through the paperwork hassle of putting out a RFP for.

Or it may have ended up at a shipping container supplier, and when the school called about the smallest container they have they said "We have had this weird thing sitting in the back by the fence for 15 years. Please come get it for free, we'll help you load it!"

I find these things interesting!

jetmatt777 wrote:

It was probably picked up in a surplus auction of some sort. They didn't know what it was but decided it was just about the right size to store some stuff in without having to go and build a proper shed and go through the paperwork hassle of putting out a RFP for.

Or it may have ended up at a shipping container supplier, and when the school called about the smallest container they have they said "We have had this weird thing sitting in the back by the fence for 15 years. Please come get it for free, we'll help you load it!"

I find these things interesting!

Either that or some kids dad/mom worked there and the school asked parents if anyone had some sort of storage locker/shed that they could donate to the school. I figure it's just being used for sports equipment or something uninteresting like that.

This is great info- I've been trying to see what these containers looked like for a while now. Are there any pictures of aircraft cabins with the containers? I managed to find a PK DC10 seating chart here:
https://www.pinterest.it/pin/423831014904184796/

eta unknown wrote:

This is great info- I've been trying to see what these containers looked like for a while now. Are there any pictures of aircraft cabins with the containers? I managed to find a PK DC10 seating chart here:
https://www.pinterest.it/pin/423831014904184796/

Yes that is the one, same container could be used on the 747 and DC10.

Love the classic manufacturer plate that lists relevant facts, including the city of manufacture. Things were built to last 100 years.

LCDFlight wrote:

Things were built to last 100 years.

I wouldn't put it past rampers to challenge that claim. "100 years" = about 3 months on the modern ramp.