Cadet looking for a little help...

[JK]

Not working on something "because you are paying for them anyway". If the Chief is unable to defend the work that his crew is performing - they would not be in the refit with him! it is that simple....In the CG that may be (well, actually it is), a wee bit different, and perhaps they should put them on the main engine to keep them working because they are paid for anyway

Well it is not quite like that! The crew is not just put on a "job" because they're paid anyway. When you are in a position of making choices of repair, driven by too small a budget on a 30-40 year old ship that has been managed for years on too small a budget, designed for double the people that are presently working there in the engineroom, the decisions are different then a commercial operation. Neither are wrong, they reflect the design, the budget and the job the ship is expected to do. Neither process is "better". For years I have been told how "commercial" is so great and the government fleets are scorned because of how they are managed. I have been both places and they are as different as you can get in drivers.It is what it is. In reality, what company in their right mind would ever choose a power plant using 80 large pistons in a v-configuration to drive 5 generators? Low dollar tenders did.

Add to that where some of those government ships go, you need to have people on board that can roll out a main bearing and do a power pack in a short period of time. With 100 crew, over half scientists, stopped in the ice 200 miles north of the furthest northern point of N.America, there is no help going to be getting there in anytime soon. You can't flip an engine tech on to the ship by chopper because it is just too far. A commercial job can roll around somewhere in the Pacific, lose part of the cargo,the Chief and Captain can take the opportunity to pack their bags, but a tug will get there eventually. I saw some pretty stressed guys when things were going to crap because their job was on the line, just the worry you need at a bad time.

Commercial ships are built to make money, which means they need to be under charter to have those costs covered No charter, the costs are the companies as you have pointed out (unless they are in a fiord somewhere winterized because there is no cargo). Totally different driver to refit\repair the ship. The Owner orders 4 new ships from a yard they choose, and by the way they will all be identical. The ships are run for 5-8 years by the company then sold to someone else, then when the ship is 20 years old, max-onto the beach she goes.
A 20 year old ship in both the US and Canadian government fleets is considered to be getting the bugs worked out ( in other words pretty new) and is fully expected to last another 20 years minimum because that is what they are built to. The scantlings, shafts , props are oversized, multiple engine configuration. 2-3 shafts, designed to be self-sufficient all winter in the Arctic, if need be. The bow design is for ice-breaking in just about all of the large ships, no fuel efficiency there. They are a work horse compared to the ocean greyhounds. They were built and maintained by low dollar tender in a convoluted, red tape filled process. With the NSPS, I doubt if the process will be smoother and the government will be lucky to get the quality of ship that they have in the past.

I wish more of our collegues would weight in here,

You and me both. I know that there are many people that read this forum that won't post. I can't understand it. What good is all of the knowledge and experience if it dies with that person. So frustrating.

and the shipyard is not "your friend"..............

No! Really?
I swoon...does that mean*GASP* they would lie to you.

[Cadet]

Do not despair my remarks, it is a wonderful place to learn what to do, and quite honestly, what not to do.

JFC, every comment you, JK, and the dieselduck have made i've learned from. And i agree this is a great place to learn from...during both sea phases i've referred to this site to see if one of your forums could answer the questions i had. It just took me a while to join. In regards to refit, i do have a bit of an understanding on how things work from my second sea phase. I've witnessed the arguments during, and the problems remaining after. I've seen the stress that the engineers were under, especially the Chief and Senior. And JK i know the feeling when your in the Arctic, in the middle of no where and another engine goes down; everyone is quickly tasked to get her up and running again.

When i asked the question here, i had very little knowledge of a engine refit, and no experience! I appreciate all the responses you three gave me! They've made me think a lot, have helped me start my report, and have helped me search for more information. There is some stuff that do not apply to the report itself, but is good knowledge to have when i get started.

For the report, i will compare Contractor+FSR, FSR+Crew, and CREW Alone. I will make all parts available by the ship to reduce time delays in having them shipped by the contractor. I will make up the man hours required for each of the three options (I assume that it would initially take longer for the crew because they are note engine fitters - specialized in engine work; do you think this is reasonable?), also i was planning to compare there cost based on hourly rate (for skilled and unskilled labour in regards to the contractors ... skilled being maybe 2 engine fitters, 1 electrician; and unskilled being maybe 2 labourers.... the FSR must be included for two of the three cases, and in regards to ships crew, i'll refer to the government pay skill). Now i also want to include warranty as this seems to be a major deciding factor, if a FSR is placed with ship's crew, i would assume because he is meant to be the supervisor, there would probably be something in his contract stating he is responsible if the engine fails on start up...i'm still unsure.

The best option seems to be FSR+ Crew and that will probably be my recommendations. Crew will gain experience, the chief can make the argument to keep an extra 5 men aboard, and assuming the FSR provides warranty, the government/chief will be taken care of if the engine goes for a s*** on start up. Also, a FSR would eliminate the problem posed by multiple crew changes because he will have been present for the entire overhaul!!

Also, in regards to the Turbos. If done by ship's crew, it will have to be sent out for sure. But how would it be handled by the contractors+FSR and FSR+Crew?

Thank You again, Cadet

[JK]

Turbos, you are better off bring in the ABB guys. They usually do them in place.It is cheaper in the long run.It is the same for the mechanical governors. They are very complicated, expensive piece of kit on those engines.

Now, for long term planning, you should be considering a continuous machinery survey board decision. You have to request a board decision from TC outlining the maintenance that is and will be done to the engines over a 5 year period following the engine manufacturers recommended procedures by hours.
The continuous machinery inspection board decision has a more realistic approach to the surveys based on engine hours instead of a fixed time period. Take the LSSL, she goes to sea for say 6 months. She coasts up to the Arctic on 2 or 3 engines, she may go to 4 in ice, rarely on 5 engines, that is the big ice and how often do you see that now?
So over 5 years, what would the engine see for hours? 8000 ? 10,000? My goesintas have gonesoutof.
Take a commercial job, they'd see 24hrs a day running, say 340 days a year. 340 days is a guess, Commercial sails, steams to next port, stops for 10-20 hours, discharges and repeats.

So you can see how little hours would be on the breakers's engines in comparison to commercial. What the CG engines do have is heavy, cyclic loads followed by low load periods.

With the board decision, instead of a huge chunk of work on one engine every year and replace it with planned maintenance and inspection of 5 engines. So in one year, you would do a power pack each bank, a engine driven pump, injectors and a couple of fuel pumps on every engine. The hours are tracked so that you do not go over the Mfrs recommendation for the units. This allows a more balanced approach to the workload and budget. The caveat is that if you find something questionable the inspector is going to have you opening the engine for a better look.

[JK]

FSR is placed with ship's crew, i would assume because he is meant to be the supervisor, there would probably be something in his contract stating he is responsible if the engine fails on start up...i'm still unsure.

How that works is that the FSR has complete charge of the rebuild. He oversees everything and has the final say. It would most likely be in the contract. Same if you hire a couple of laborers, their contract will tell them that they can't close anything up without him seeing it. That keeps the warranty clean, though if there is issue, sometimes there is a back and forth discussion on fault. Sometimes the Contractor comes through when you least expect them to. For instance when #1 engine was rebuilt on the LSSL, the FSR timed the camshaft on B bank the same as A bank. He must have had a brain fart after so many weeks of 12 hour days. It was never discovered until after the warranty period, because the generator had issues and the unit was not run until that was addressed. The engine would not run over 20% load and the FSR had to be brought back. It took a lot of digging to find the problem because it was the last thing anyone expected to find. Anyway MaK choked a bit (actually a lot) but they covered it. Sometimes a person gets lucky.

[Madzng]

There are so many variables to this question that it will be very hard to find two people that can agree on a answer.

I can only speak from a commercial perspective;

Every company, every vessel will be influenced by that companies core business, where the vessel trades, and their own experience. Some companies that have had costly f*ck ups by ships crew will only ever use sub contractors. Those that have had problems because the crew simply dont have the experience may use supervisors to oversee the ships staff and educate them as they go. Others will just use shore labour, because they dont care about the budget or because they feel it gives them a better nights sleep.

I think the most time consumiong part of the job is the overhaul/reconditioning of the cylinder heads, the rest should be done quite quickly - by experienced/competent engineers.

Many years ago, when sailing on Gas Tankers we used to overhaul the auxilairy engines with ships staff. This particular class of vessel carried a full set of overhauled cylinder heads. Due to the vessels schedule there was limited time between cargos, so if necessary indvidual cylinders were done as and when possible and a reconditioned head fitted. The removed heads would be overhauled and prepared for the next oppourtunity to overhaul. Working like this the whole engine can be done over a short time with no loss of operation. (Engine room compliment was Chief, Second, Third and Fourth, plus unskilled wiper).

When I sailed on containers, their requirement was differnet, high reefer load in one direction and low load in the other, this gave more time to carry out the overhauls. On those ships it was up the Chief if the overhaul was done by ships staff or a shore team - depending upon how he felt about the engineers on board.

Because of declining standards in training and the type of person being sought by the crewing department it is more common on our vessels to have our own in house riding squad join to do the overhaul. Not only because ships staff lack the competence and experience to overhaul the engine, but also that they cant manage the engine room and day to day operation efficiently.

No method is fool proof, late last year we had to take a vessel out of service for three days to exchange a MAN 32/40 entablature due to poor overhaul by a shore team. They didnt follow exactly the tightening proceedure for the bottom end bolts and the engine threw a leg out the side - a little under 500 hours after the running in was complete. New entablature, crankshaft, a big hole in the deck, plus three days off-service is costly. This is now in the hands of the insurance companies.

Don't asuume that because you use shore labour they will take care. Most companies use sub contractors who may not care about their employers reputation. They are paid whether it last 500 hours or 24 000 hours. Either way they wont be onboard when it all goes horribly wrong.

Complacency can be just as dangerous as inexperience, "they've done the job a 1000 times, and know a better way than the manual".

For the turbochargers, it will depend upon what is fitted, either the turbo is a "cartridge type" which can just be exchanged and sent ashore, or most alternator turbos are quite simple and can be overhauled by ships staff or the riding squad without any issue.

Turbos look complex, but they are really very simple once you have seen them overhauled once..

My ideal method would be to alternate the overhauls. The first 24 000 hour overhaul should be routine with no serious checks risk of damage . This gives the ships staff the experience. When the second overhaul is due and parts need to be checked more closely for wear or ovality etc then get someone skilled onboard either to oversee the ships staff or to do the whole job.

Commecial ships are in dock as long as it takes to do the underwater work and no more and satisfy class and no more.

On container vessels no engine work is done in dock (if it can be avoided) except maybe the main engine turbos. When the shipyard is grit blasting the hull, do you want your bearings or crank case exposed to the risk of contamination?
My last docking (Panamax container vessel) lasted 7 days and it would of been one less if it hadnt rained one afternoon.

Tankers may do Main Engine overhauls, as they are generally not allowed to disable the engine when in port.

In both cases a auxiliary engines can be overhauled whilst the ship is in service.

Things to taken into consider;

Many companies will have special terms and conditions for their riding squads, minimum 12 hour days, living allowance this needs to be factored into the budget.
Then there are miscellaneous costs, the food eaten, agents fees, visa and transportation costs. What if the vessel doesnt arrive in port for three days after they finish rebuilding the engine?

Employing additional crew either to travel around the fleet or simply having more engineers on a vessel is not a cheap option. There are a lot of hidden costs when you employ people. There is probably another 40% on a persons salary that needs to be budgeted for. The companies also pay income tax on your salary, contribute to pension schemes, give you health insurance etc.. Visa applications, training courses.. all this needs to be taken into account and budgeted for. Maybe employing extra seafarers means an extra person in the crewing department to handle the extra staff. What do you do with the extra people when the fleets engines have been overhauled?

What about loss of skills onboard - this cant easily be measured in terms of cost, but what happens if you break down in the ice, and you are the only one onboard who has actually pulled a piston, or even just changed a head? It is not a pleasent experience! What if there is no one onboard with the needed experience, what happens then?
Should this be considered when employing shore side contractors to do the job?

I'm sure that I have repeated a lot of what has already been said, but I hope that I have given you a few extra things to think about.

[JFC]

Hi Cadet,

I will try and nudge this back to your original question and what you are trying to compare. I think you should stick to apples to apples so that you can make a comparision. Diesel Duck gave you some good examples of commercial practice and also you as of recent saw some of the costs associated with extra crew onboard, dwell time as we call it, travel and transportation costs etc.....But, stick to the government ship example, and your three options as you have identified them. Donot complicate it with a commercial operation, however donot overlook the commercial example and never give up trying to apply commercial practises to your role in the future......You will learn from where you are and be really successful in the commercial industry from your experience (good and also bad). I can tell that with the way you are thinking..good for you .......you will do fine. When you finally get completely frustrated with the process of 30-40 year old ship with little budget etc.....you will make the switch to the "dark side"....... and later wish you had not....ha ha.

Okay,

"For the report, i will compare Contractor+FSR, FSR+Crew, and CREW Alone. I will make all parts available by the ship to reduce time delays in having them shipped by the contractor"

Comment, this is a good practical example but make sure that you identify in your matrix that in the first example C+FSR, what I said....."all the risk is bourne by the shipyard or contractor".....in otherwords.....if your rudder fell off 100s of miles from the shipyard in the Arctic and you limped home.... and, you specified and paid the shipyard to install it properly......... well..... guess who you are talking to about the costs associated with that minor snag?

I you paid for the FSR and used your own crew........and the rudder fell off......well guess what? it was "your" FSR tech and your crew. The shipyard did not hire the FSR in that case.

If you used your own crew to do the job well guess what? ......it is completely your responsibility.

I am being a bit simplified but the most important difference for you to learn about is the "RISK"......Today the way we operate as shipowners is that we are RISK adverse, and it is your generation coming up here.......

Remember using the gov ship model the only difference from 1 to option 2 and 3 is what is called "commercial risk". nothing to do with what we would like to do as Marine Engineers.......

Okay, now for a word on parts......

You make it the responsibility of the FSR to accept your spare parts onboard your vessel and if there is any concern from them then they are to renew the component with a factory spare, and supply you with an exchange as a result of the concern.

Make them satisfy themselves or accept your parts at the beginning. and .....here is the rub......that you may not understand at your level, but need to be aware of...........Contracts says......(cause guess what you are C/e and you wrote the contract yourself not "contract probably says")....."all After Market Competitors that may be in that engine from other suppliers are to be renewed with OEM".......Now, here is a great trick from Original equipment suppliers....OEM's. For example...they like to take your cylinder head after the fact and call you up and say, well you had after market valves,and valve seats, and springs, and nuts and bolts and we need to replace them with our own OEM because that is what we sold you.....so you need to come up with $$$ to pay for this"......NOPE you agree ahead of time that "in the event you come across a non-OEM part you remove that competitor and look upon it as that kind of service and replace with your own". I can explain this further if required, but suffice it to say that you make the FSR accept your parts and storage - period.

Now caluculate the man=hours. in the FSR example use the $1500/day for the cost. no donot confuse the issue....for those little engines it will be three men, for 15 days two shifts......You can get this somewhere, but for all three examples it is the same man hours.......the crew may take a bit longer but look upon it as minor lift.

At the end of the day, what do you get?

Eliminate the "gotta pay the crew anyway".................see what you have.

It all comes down to the "risk", and fundamentally ......consequence. PERIOD. Regardless of what others say here.

If the maker had to be responsible for more risk, they would send their best tech, that would not put the cams in backwards, because the consequence would be higher.....not merely the cost of the tech, but the cost of lost revenue, charter, fees, interruption, etc.......

At the end of the day.....the hourly rate of the FSR is.......guess what?.....real cheap and gets buried in the cost of a serious loss........

Remember Cadet, .....donot try to over complicate it........If the ship is tied up for months at a time.....then perhaps the example is a mute point.

Keep asking questions. You will do well.

JFC

[Cadet]

JK, JFC, MADZNG and dieselduck; thank you all for sharing your experience! I've finished the report!
-Cadet

[The Dieselduck]

Happy to share my limited knowledge... cheers. martin

[JK]

Let us know if you got more then 2\3 crew onboard and not a problem, I just happened to know a little about the specific topic

[JFC]

If you are comfortable I would like to see your report (not in this public forum, though).

Also, really good leaders and mentors you encounter, that are confident and comfortable with themselves - will allow you to "privately and discretely" question their decisions, actions, and leadership...but yet be comfortable with your professional curiosity and enjoy sharing their thought process with you................Sooooooo

Soak up all of that while you can!

Cheers

[JK]

You make it the responsibility of the FSR to accept your spare parts onboard your vessel and if there is any concern from them then they are to renew the component with a factory spare, and supply you with an exchange as a result of the concern.

Good plan, we buy OEM but sometimes stuff slips in. With the Alcos it can be a real issue,with low dollar tenders.

If the maker had to be responsible for more risk, they would send their best tech, that would not put the cams in backwards, because the consequence would be higher.....not merely the cost of the tech, but the cost of lost revenue, charter, fees, interruption, etc.......

I specifically said A bank and B bank were timed the same, not the cams were backwards.
Second the tech who was onboard for the engine rebuild, built and commissioned the engines when they were originally installed. He knew them inside out. He was hardly inexperienced. Shit happens at the end of a long job.