El Faro letter to NTSB

General maritime and engineering discussion occurs on this board. Feel free to post newsbits, comments, ask questions about maritime matters and post your opinions.
User avatar
JK
Enduring Contributor
Posts: 2676
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:29 am
Currently located: East Coast, Canada

El Faro letter to NTSB

Postby JK » Sat Feb 04, 2017 4:50 am

Funny how I have heard many of the same opinions regarding TC moving to DSIP.


http://gcaptain.com/el-faro-open-letter-investigators/

User avatar
D Winsor
Superintendent
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:23 am
Currently located: Dartmouth

Re: El Faro letter to NTSB

Postby D Winsor » Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:32 am

A well written letter

What else can be expected, when the responsibility for oversight of the regulatory compliance of a "For profit" private sector enterprise is divested from a public sector agency with little or no interest in the profitability of a private enterprise, and turned over to a "For profit" agency. Who in turn is, in part, dependent on the profitability of the private sector enterprise to insure the agency's own profitability.

This basically leaves little or no incentive for the private sector enterprise to correct defects because they know there is little or no chance they will be held responsible, even when they are ultimately responsible for scheduling and providing funds for preventive and corrective maintenance. They also know that if the regulatory agency were to go after the ship owner/manager the "For Profit" regulatory agency would be "Biting the hand that feeds them". It is also still too easy for management through various means such as various forms of intimidation or after frustrating the seafarer by ignoring even their documented complaints, to make like the the Seafarer is responsible for his or her own misfortune. Seafarers, especially high priced ones, are expendable in favor of less expensive seafarers who will accept defects will not "Rock the Boat"

It is also well known that there are, for every high profile case like this one, dozens of other ships around the world that disappear in the same mysterious circumstances that do not even get a parting mention.

After all It's "All about the Money" and "Dead men can tell no Tales"
Troubleshooting 101 "Don't over think it - K.I.S.S. it"

User avatar
JK
Enduring Contributor
Posts: 2676
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:29 am
Currently located: East Coast, Canada

Re: El Faro letter to NTSB

Postby JK » Mon Feb 06, 2017 5:34 am

I was talking to a very experienced ship master who has done just about every version of the marine industry.

He was telling me Class is having problems getting and keeping good inspectors as well. Transport Canada has had problems for years in staffing.
At the end of the day, what highly experienced ships Master or Chief are going to give up a high paying job and go work for a pittance unless they are needing to get back to a shore life.

Which brings us back to the ElFaro. And the Bounty, And the Gold Bond Conveyor.

User avatar
JollyJack
Fleet Engineer
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:57 am
Currently located: Eastern Canada

Re: El Faro letter to NTSB

Postby JollyJack » Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:54 pm

SSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
Discourage incest, ban country "music".

User avatar
JK
Enduring Contributor
Posts: 2676
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:29 am
Currently located: East Coast, Canada

Re: El Faro letter to NTSB

Postby JK » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:40 am

Hey JJ, I look at it like it is a Dilbert cartoon.
People are totally ignorant of the level of knowledge and experience it requires to do the inspection work and the technical support, and really don't care.
There's only a couple of hundred of these fellows across the country.
So to keep the masses happy, the salary increase the tech inspectors should have is split up, to 0.25$ each of said mass and the government wonders why they can't staff a Chief engineer with a combined ticket, icebreaker and LNG experience, lol.

User avatar
JK
Enduring Contributor
Posts: 2676
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:29 am
Currently located: East Coast, Canada

Re: El Faro sister ship to be scrapped

Postby JK » Wed Feb 08, 2017 6:18 am


User avatar
Big Pete
Engineering Mentor
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:18 pm
Currently located: Solihull, England

Re: El Faro letter to NTSB

Postby Big Pete » Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:31 pm

Hi JJ,

Should it be $$$$$$$$$HHHHHHHH!!!

BP
It is always better to ask a stupid question than to do a stupid thing.

User avatar
JK
Enduring Contributor
Posts: 2676
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:29 am
Currently located: East Coast, Canada

Re: El Faro letter to NTSB

Postby JK » Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:10 am

I just pulled this one paragraph out because it just blew me away

The ABS surveyor did not perform a test because she thought it was an unsafe situation due to the age of the boiler. Holy shit, this is when you do every test you can possibly do to prove the boiler is safe for use.


“concerning” comments from prior testimony by an ABS surveyor, who declined to perform a specific pressure test on a boiler component, following a repair. Per ABS guidelines, whether to perform the test is at the discretion of the surveyor. When asked why she didn’t perform the test, the surveyor said she was concerned there would be an unsafe situation because of the age of the boiler. Flaherty says, based on that, he doesn’t believe she understood the true purpose of the test, and that he’s had issues like this with ABS in the past.

http://m.wokv.com/news/news/local/after ... cti/nthcM/

User avatar
D Winsor
Superintendent
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:23 am
Currently located: Dartmouth

Re: El Faro letter to NTSB

Postby D Winsor » Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:25 am

If an inspector deems a boiler unsafe to pressure test wouldn't that condemn the boiler or at least require the issuing of a COC reducing the working pressure until the boiler is made safe to undergo a full pressure test?
Troubleshooting 101 "Don't over think it - K.I.S.S. it"

User avatar
JK
Enduring Contributor
Posts: 2676
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:29 am
Currently located: East Coast, Canada

Re: El Faro letter to NTSB

Postby JK » Wed Feb 15, 2017 12:14 pm

It always worked that way.
Do these inspectors have a COC?

Remember when the Norway boiler blew up in 2005 or so? A friend of mine ended up on the NTSB stand, even though he had not been associated with the ship for 5 years and it had changed company hands.

User avatar
D Winsor
Superintendent
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:23 am
Currently located: Dartmouth

Re: El Faro letter to NTSB

Postby D Winsor » Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:45 am

I believe they do plus when it comes to Pressure Vessels I believe from what I've read that the USCG has the authority to impose restrictions the same way T/C can do on a Canadian Vessel.
It's also my understanding that The EL Faro was also delegated to ABS. So if the condition of the boiler didn't meet the requirements that would dictate the imposition of restrictions under ABS Rules they could possibly have been able to issue restrictions under USCG Rules
Troubleshooting 101 "Don't over think it - K.I.S.S. it"

User avatar
JK
Enduring Contributor
Posts: 2676
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:29 am
Currently located: East Coast, Canada

El Faro Stability Briefing to investigation

Postby JK » Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:03 am



Return to “Crew Mess”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Merlyn and 2 guests