|
Post by Starsteward on Jun 12, 2015 12:27:13 GMT -8
A couple of things I could add to this Conversation RE: Staten Island Ferries: 1- The reason why steam was chosen for the Merrell class boats was because it was felt that the Diesel Electric systems at that time did not offer fast enough response for reverse power. If you have ever ridden the SI Ferry, docking at the Manhattan End can be especially tricky if the tides are not friendly. The terminal is located at the worst possible location as far as tides. Having ridden the Kennedy and her sisters many times when I lived on Staten Island, and when I went to day camp there as a kid, there is nothing like the scream of those 4 GM 567c's to put the ship into reverse at the last second because the tide grabbed the boat, threatening to send it in to the pilings. Sometimes it wasn't fast enough, and there would be frantic, quick blasts of the horn, followed by the anticipation and hard knock in to the pilings... The Merrells were outfitted with Skinner Unaflow Engines, which were state of the art in 1951 and delivered fast reverse speed. Skinner Unaflows can still be found in operation on the Great Lakes Ferry Badger. 2- The reason there was no back up vessel after the Merrell and Kolff were retired is because the DOT had planned to run 3 boats an hour during rush hour rather than 4, counting on the increased passenger capacity of the Barberi and Newhouse. This turned out to be an unworkable plan as the bus systems, subways and loading and unloading were overwhelmed with 6000 passengers entering and exiting the boat at once. In addition, the DOT purchased two smaller boats for nighttime service, The Alice Austin and the John Noble, having cutting that back to once an hour. These boats could not be used practically during the day, further limiting options for fleet rotation. Unfortunately, because of the DOT's poor planning, the rush hour 4 boat schedule remained, placing greater burden on the remaining fleet. As a result, maintenance suffered, and the Kennedy Class boats were basically run in to the ground, as it were. By the end of its service life, the American Legion was suffering constant breakdowns. The Lehman was always the workhorse of the fleet, and was still running well when it was retired in 2007. It looked pretty worn out, though. The Kennedy was retained because it had the best balance of reliability and wear. Had the maintenance been better, there is no reason why the Lehman and American Legion could not still be in service. 50-80 years is not outside the limits for a welded hull. 3- The Kennedy is listed as a back up boat, but in reality, it runs in regular rotation. The Molinari boats have proved to be quite unreliable, so the Kennedy has been taking up the slack. The current plan is to convert the Molinari ships over to Voight egg beaters once the new fleet is delivered. The Molinaris have major issues with the DC to AC rectifiers in the drive system and also major issues with the service generator system as well. They look nice, though... To be honest, The Newhouse and Barberi are in pretty good shape. I don't know why they are being slated for replacement now, they should easily run for another 20 years without a problem. They are ugly, but they are fairly reliable. I think the Kennedy could continue too, but my understanding is that the Coast Guard does not like the wooden seats and the fire hazard they pose, coupled with the non ADA compliant bathrooms and lack of an elevator. The men's room, in particular, is one of the most disgusting places in New York City, in addition to being totally inaccessible to persons with disabilities.. There does not seem to be a practical way to put in a compliant bathroom or elevator without major reconstruction. This might be the issue with the Barberi and Newhouse as well, although there is plenty of room on those boats to do that. They are almost never more than 1/2 full to their 6000 passenger capacity. Welcome aboard our Forum and thanks for the significant insight into the state of ferry operations in your part of the world. Always interesting to see and hear how ferry boat operators carry out their operations.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jun 12, 2015 12:20:23 GMT -8
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm under the impression that the BS Connector has not as yet undergone nor finalized her sea trials? If she has not completed her sea trials, there is something in the picture of the BS Connector that seems rather odd. Anyone want to have a 'wack' at what it might be? Oh, pardon the pun. Can this thing even undergo standard sea trials? I mean, besides hooking it up to the cable and running it back and forth empty a few times, or dragging it around the harbour behind a tug for a couple hours, it doesn't seem like theres much more they can do. Interesting question there MileagePhoto. Maybe one of our learned Members who know more about testing cable ferries could shed some light on your question. It would seem to be a tedious affair to drag the BS Connector up the coast, hook it up and do testing there.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jun 12, 2015 12:16:44 GMT -8
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm under the impression that the BS Connector has not as yet undergone nor finalized her sea trials? If she has not completed her sea trials, there is something in the picture of the BS Connector that seems rather odd. Anyone want to have a 'wack' at what it might be? Oh, pardon the pun.
Her flying the BC Ferries flag from the mast, signifying she's a commissioned vessel, which usually happens only after yard trials? Usually after sea trials have been successfully completed and the ship receives the TC certificate and BC Ferries officially takes ownership of the vessel. Well done there 'timmyc'
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jun 12, 2015 7:00:31 GMT -8
BSC has hit the water - photo on Twitter: Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm under the impression that the BS Connector has not as yet undergone nor finalized her sea trials? If she has not completed her sea trials, there is something in the picture of the BS Connector that seems rather odd. Anyone want to have a 'wack' at what it might be? Oh, pardon the pun.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jun 12, 2015 6:45:00 GMT -8
Sometimes having a ferry system as part of a Government department isn't a good thing. It depends on how functional (or disfunctional) the Government is. This situation could get really bad for AMHS and its local users and the tourism economy. Good on AMHS for taking this measure to show everyone how unreasonable this government funding issue has become, and to clearly show the impact of the government on the ferries. ie. no funding = no sailings. from Alaska Public Media HERE========================== There is an undated news release on the AMHS website that might make the above story moot, or might not, depending on the unknown release date. undated press release hereSo whether the issue got fixed or not, it sure was stupid. And look out for 2016. Whether or not AMHS operations ground to a halt or not ultimately rested squarely on the shoulders of the State's "Elected Legislators" who serve at the pleasure of the good folks of Alaska! Thus, they are Accountable! British Columbians are served a pathetic gruel of accountability by comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jun 12, 2015 5:07:14 GMT -8
Thanks for the budget update 'Kevin'. Good to hear AMHS will continue to operate its full sailing schedules.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jun 11, 2015 7:16:58 GMT -8
Sorry Starsteward, I can not find any sympathy for BCF here. There are TWO petitions against this ferry, both signed by more people than the total populations of Denman and Hornby Islands. There remains three major design faults - BCF refuses to address: The wires can not be moved longitudinally to freshen the nip. The hull at moulded depth of 2.1 meters (compared to Quinitsa's 3.6) is inadequate for winter conditions. The wires at 1 and 5/8th diameter are too small. There are other things like inadequate crew and lowest bidder wires that are corroding badly before even in service. www.sendintheclowns.info. I am staking my 41 year sea career when I state that this ferry is a failure in the design stage. Thanks for the terrific insight into the design problems with the BS Connector. This project appears headed for major problems down the road for which BC Ferries is going to come clean on at some point. Any 'sympathy' for the company I was expressing was only with respect to the apparent inability of Seaspan to get the vessel built. HOWEVER, given your information it's no wonder Seaspan is having trouble constructing this barge given the parameters of the original BCF approved design foisted upon them.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jun 11, 2015 7:04:10 GMT -8
I was on that Queen of Nanaimo sailing today. Saw a few folks snapping photos, one of which was probably Wett Coast...gorgeous day for a ferry ride. Great shot of Village Bay there 'gulfislandkayaker'. Did you do a round trip from Tsawwassen and back on the 'Nanny'? Must do a trip or two before the 'Nanny' is recycled into Hondas or razor blades.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jun 10, 2015 5:38:19 GMT -8
Thanks to 'blackshadow' and 'propwash' for the BCS updates. One might actually start to feel sorry for BCF as they are caught between a rock and a hard place with this new vessel. Given the history that Seaspan rang up with the 'Island Sky' and now the apparent problems with the BSC, no wonder they may be worried about losing the Feds contract. Where oh where did our shipbuilding abilities go???
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jun 8, 2015 7:46:23 GMT -8
Just found the newest version of the Needles emergency plan. It seems the crew has been increased from 2 to 3 and a more detailed plan emergency plan is in effect. Will be interesting to see what TC decides for the BS Thing, considering twice the cars, twice the length and crossing time, tidal salt water, quite stormy during the none-summer month and a much older population on the islands compared with the BC average. online.fliphtml5.com/zige/nvsa/Given the crewing level on that inland ferry, it would indeed be astonishing if TC allowed BC Ferries to do the same at Denman. Gee... maybe they'll have to re-jig all their impressive sounding 'savings' over the forty years, still, of course, ignoring the cost of building the thing and the redundancy of the relatively recent rebuild at Buckley Bay. I'd love to see TC set new guidelines for the BS Connector that blows BC Ferries cost saving estimates right out of the water. Too bad BCF won't be able to blame Christie's crew for that debacle, should it unfold that way but will make BCF look silly and ill-prepared yet again. They'll have some 'splainin' to do.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jun 7, 2015 7:31:01 GMT -8
Rather than 'beat a dead horse to death', I think many members may just be taking notes and waiting for the next election as you suggest. Oh deja vu again... Was that not happening back in 2013? I remember watching the BC NDP snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It was as if they deliberately 'threw' the election. The pessimist in me says that the same will happen again in 2017. This coastal ferries stupidity will carry on forever. 'Oh yea of little faith' there Wett Coast. The 'Mr. Nice Guy' tactics of the previous NDP leader will not be repeated in 2017. The Liberals' dirty laundry hamper just keeps getting fuller and fuller, to the extent that the 'best before date' is fast approaching for the current administration in Victoria. British Columbians do have one of the most fascinating ways of rendering election outcomes in the country, (although our neighbours, next province over took a good chunk out of our election prognostications)..who saw that coming? I can't imagine that British Columbians could miss the (ferry)boat again in 2017!, or could they?
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jun 7, 2015 7:06:53 GMT -8
Listening to that CBC radio interview on the previous page of this thread, and subsequent utterings regarding the increased sailings to Haida Gwaii, I'm amazed that Deb Marshall can sleep at night after dishing out such balderdash! slightly off topic: I'll defend Ms. Marshall, as she is simply the voice of the company, and she does not create or decide on policy. Senior management in the company makes those company decision. It's interesting to note that Ms. Marshall has been the voice of the company under 2 different regimes: the 1990's NDP influenced corp (remember her defending the non-slickness of the FastCat vehicle decks?) and the post-2003 company. A good spokesperson just focuses on communicating the message, based on what the company wants the person to say. It does take a certain kind of spokesperson to be able to ignore the impact/truth/balderdash in the message, and just present the message. Not all people can do that. A good spokesperson needs to focus on the art of communication, and not worry about the policy/content. ...and some people might be ok with that for a while, and then finally reach a tipping point. I am aware that 'spokespersons' do not create or formulate government or business policies, they possess an 'intellectual bias' switch that does have a shelf life and Mike you're right when you state that some spokespersons are ok with managing that switch for a period of time until they arrive at the tipping point when they leave the position. Ms. Marshall performs her duties in a difficult environment very admirably. My comment nakedly exposed what would be my personal inability to perform in that role past my first public interview. I suppose "damnation with faint praise" might be more to the point.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jun 6, 2015 8:41:56 GMT -8
I think the 'Dear BC Ferries' chap is a little off base, though I can understand his interpretation of things.
Even if you go back to the early part of David Hahn's reign, I don't recall BC Ferries ever taking the initiative in suggesting service cuts. I do recall Hahn stating that BC Ferries had a mandate to deliver the service that the province was willing to pay for, and he did warn that the level of financing may not be able to sustain every route at the levels that were current at the time. it was always the province's call. I suppose that if Christy Clark were to be even more disingenuous than usual, she could claim that the province hadn't 'amended' the services contract as many times as Dear BC Ferries claims- that the contract was re-negotiated with BC Ferries at the appointed times.
Looking back at the 2003 contract, you see how meaningless that exercise was. The contract even allowed for service cuts at any time during the duration, as long as both parties agreed. WC is right; BC Ferries deserves none of the blame for what has transpired. The executive and front office salaries that Christy Clark was wagging her tongue about are a drop in the bucket compared to the restrictions that province has imposed- it was all just a straw man, to hide the identity of the real villain.
As for WC's complaint about a lack of substantial discussion around real ferry issues, I plead guilty for my part. At one time, I posted regularly, perhaps to the point of redundancy, about governance issues, and I often feel that I'm just talked out on this topic. And there are very few members of this forum interested in taking part in such discussions. Dear BC Ferries doesn't have a wealth of informed participants, either. Maybe Clark, Stone, and co. have beaten the critics into apathy and resignation... or maybe we're just waiting for the next election, where talking might actually mean something. My recent post on the Ferries Busy thread would have been more appropriate in this thread, my apologies. Neil, you're not entirely wrong as to why some Forum members aren't posting regarding some of these issues, however non-posting isn't because we've turned apathetic, I believe many of us are frustrated to the 'nth degree and, personally there are times when my blood is boiling to the extent that posting a comment as to how I really feel about some facet of the ridiculous guff we see and hear from both BC Ferries and the government, would most likely get me booted from the forum. Rather than 'beat a dead horse to death', I think many members may just be taking notes and waiting for the next election as you suggest.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jun 6, 2015 8:04:24 GMT -8
A ferry miracle... from HEREBCFS & the provincial government need to reinstate the 3rd sailing (per week) to Haida Gwaii at the beginning of May and keep it in place until the summer schedule kicks in in mid June. They need also to do the same in September after the summer schedule ends just after Labour Day. I believe there should be 3 sailings per week until Thanksgiving. Full (i.e. 'regular') fares are charged on this route from May 1st until September 30th. Full service, however, only kicks in in mid June and ends on the day after Labour Day. Deb Marshall said this: If the car deck is packed, and the passenger load is high also, then the ship's operation will be as close to 'break-even' financially as it ever is. Keep in mind that when they are tied up to the dock they have on board (I gather) a full crew. It is costing them a fair whack of money just to have the ship sitting there. Listening to that CBC radio interview on the previous page of this thread, and subsequent utterings regarding the increased sailings to Haida Gwaii, I'm amazed that Deb Marshall can sleep at night after dishing out such balderdash! Going forward, we get the strong sense that the fear of losing money trumps providing the required number of sailings to move 2+ months of backlogged freight, to say nothing of the horrible personal inconveniences being heaped on the good folks of Haida Gwaii. Private ferry/freight companies across Europe, Scandinavia and other enlightened parts of the maritime world must shake their heads and wish their companies had a basic monopoly on the services provided by BC Ferries, which begs one question: If a company namely BC Ferries has a virtual monopoly on the coast, how in the name of all that makes sense, can't they make money? Economics 101: You can't make money if your sole concern and fear is losing money!
The mess on the mid-coastal run is also sad proof that a supposed "free enterprise" government is an embarrassment to such terminology! Perhaps a class action lawsuit against BC Ferries and the BC Liberal party by all negatively affected stakeholders who share the conviction that both defendant parties are in contravention of the BC Coastal Ferry Act? ....Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jun 2, 2015 10:39:08 GMT -8
More often than not, footsies take priority over vehicles, as they have no where to go while waiting for the ferry. Drivers can always recline their seats and catch a snooze during a one sailing wait. This is especially the case at Snug Cove. The foot passenger facilities there are probably among the worst in the system... and that includes most of the northern terminals as well. I agree the Northern Terminals lack covered separated walkways for foot passengers to keep them out of the elements while they trek the long walks down to the car deck levels on the vessels. While the present system doesn't offer the foot traffic passenger amenities as do the southern terminals, there would be a great hue and cry from various sections of the stakeholders, given that BC Ferries has become so fixated on driving down the costs within sections of their operations.
If any of the northern terminals should be targeted for a foot passenger embarkation upgrade, let's start with Prince Rupert. (although I'm sure the good folks of Haida Gwaii could make a good case for the same amenities given they endure some nasty weather conditions year round).
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on May 24, 2015 12:12:52 GMT -8
Up until last year, Ballantyne Pier (located East of Downtown, in the industrial area) also provided overload capacity as required. Actually, this year I've seen three ships tied up at Canada Place so it shouldn't be a problem. Because Ballantyne needed some upgrades with all the hype about security, it was probably just easier to shut it down. I suspect the realities of East Hastings Street did not appeal to the cruise industry either. We can't forget the convention centre with the green roof was the fast cat fiasco of the BC Liberals - though it was covered up a LOT better. Canada Place has had capacity to handle three ship at once for quite a few years (since 2001, according to Wiki). I don't know why they would have used Ballantyne at all (in recent years) unless there were actually four cruise ships in port simultaneously. With the loss of a good portion of the Alaska traffic to Seattle, it seems unlikely that there would be more than three ships at once. BTW, the biggest 'fast cat fiasco' of the BC Liberals was actually the creation of 'BC Ferry Services', and it makes the fast cat fiasco of the NDP look like small potatoes in comparison. It baffles me why these so-called 'Liberals' have managed to pull this off without greater scrutiny from the media, and BC citizens in general. Canada Place can definitely handle 3 large ships now and actually there is room at Canada Place East and West for ships like the Seven Seas Navigator, Regatta, Silver Shadow et al. The 2015 cruise ship berth assignment schedule shows no more than 3 ships in port on any given day. Tuesdays and Thursdays show few or no arrivals.
Let's just hope the U.S. Federal government never gets around to changing the Jones Act or we could lose more traffic to U.S. ports, especially Seattle. Keeping in mind the Port of Seattle can only handle a certain amount of traffic. Two other factors give us an edge as to Companies choosing ports of call in that Vancouver and Victoria require less time to get to and from Alaska and as long as our dollar remains below the U.S. greenback, the cost of goods and services in Canada is less as well. It all adds up.
I'd comment on your comments about the BC Liberal's 'fast cat fiasco' ( I agree with you whole-heartedly), but this afternoon is carpet cleaning day at my abode and my steam machine beckons.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on May 24, 2015 10:33:37 GMT -8
Up until last year, Ballantyne Pier (located East of Downtown, in the industrial area) also provided overload capacity as required. Actually, this year I've seen three ships tied up at Canada Place so it shouldn't be a problem. Because Ballantyne needed some upgrades with all the hype about security, it was probably just easier to shut it down. I suspect the realities of East Hastings Street did not appeal to the cruise industry either. All the colourful bunting, and gallons of fresh paint could never cover up the disgusting mess that Ballantyne Pier offered up as a cruise ship terminal. You're correct in your comments about security as well. Not an easy facility to secure.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on May 24, 2015 10:21:11 GMT -8
We should be proud of our facilities and thankful they even exist. If it had not been for the tireless efforts of a senior cabinet minister of the provincial government of the day, we may well have been stuck with the old CPR docks. You know, in its day, the old CPR Pier B-C (that was on this site prior to Canada Pace) was a pretty nice facility itself (though, I agree, Canada Place is lovely). This post card photo, from Wiki, shows Pier B-C in its hey-day. See also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPR_Pier_B_and_CAnd here is another photo taken by my brother (Mr. DOT) not long before Pier B-C was levelled to make room for the Canada Place conversion: Fairsea (Sitmar Cruises, later became the Fair Princess with P&O/Princess) @ CPR Pier B-C (now Canada Place) Vancouver - c1981 photo © Mr. DOT by mrdot., on Flickr David (Mr. DOT) has an ever-expanding Flickr album of Vancouver cruise ships & ocean liners covering the years from the 1970's up through to about 2010. Have a look, here. Thanks for the post. I agree the CPR dock back in the day was quite the edifice. I remember years ago when I was a wee lad, going with my Dad who would give Granny a ride to the terminal from her home in New Westminster so that she could catch one of the night boats to Victoria. The boat was, for some reason always docked at the end of the pier, bow facing towards Coal Harbour. The walk seemed to be endless, as I got hauled along the dim corridor, finally the ship coming into view and watching Granny disappear into the lobby of the ship as white-coated stewards relieved her of her luggage. Then the walk back along that damned 10 mile corridor, or so it seemed, ah those were the days.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on May 24, 2015 8:52:39 GMT -8
Vancouver's cruise ship terminal at Canada Place is among the finest facilities in the world. Yes there are many worthy competitors. However the unique location of the terminal, somewhat hidden from view until an inbound cruise ship traverses English Bay with the West side of the city in view, gliding past our unique urban forested jewel Stanley Park, winding around Prospect Point at First Narrows, squeezing under the Lions Gate bridge, visitors are still moments away from camera shots of the gleaming white sails of Canada Place.
With the 'green roof' of Canada Place West to starboard, uplifting white sails, with Red Maple Leaf flags flying in abundance to port, the towering city vista dead ahead, our eager visitors sense that they are about to disembark at a truly special destination.
We should be proud of our facilities and thankful they even exist. If it had not been for the tireless efforts of a senior cabinet minister of the provincial government of the day, we may well have been stuck with the old CPR docks.
Who was that cabinet minister and which federal political figure was the recipient of that 'visionary's' campaign?
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on May 21, 2015 11:09:57 GMT -8
Apparently BC Ferries has pulled the plug on the name the new ships contest! What a corporate embarrassment! But they got exactly what they deserved, given the woeful list of criteria for the contest! What's next? Not sure what your source was for this, but BCFS is maintaining the contest page on their website... ...but I don't disagree with your last point Ooops, I'm claiming a 'senior' moment here, as I misread something on Global T.V.'s Morning Show out of Toronto. The other half of my research staff has been fired!
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on May 21, 2015 8:15:25 GMT -8
Apparently BC Ferries has pulled the plug on the name the new ships contest! What a corporate embarrassment! But they got exactly what they deserved, given the woeful list of criteria for the contest! What's next?
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on May 14, 2015 10:53:55 GMT -8
The MSM ( Minimum Save Manning ) Document is issued prior to going into service by TC, based on an application by the ship owner and demonstrations and investigations. To my knowledge, TC is not too happy about BCF's conduct, since TC has announced during several CMAC ( Canadian Marine Advisory Council )meetings in the past, that the rules with regard to crewing cable ferries will be changed. BCF has their head stuck in the sand, to keep the illusion of $2 million annual savings alive. Under the old rules, no Master, Mate or Engineer are needed on a cable ferry. Since one position on a 2-shift ferry equals about 3.5 jobs, dumping over 10 salaries for certified officers represents half the promised savings. A look at the "pre-evacuation muster list" of the Kahloke shows, that each of the 5 crew are needed for 150 passengers and the cable ferry will have a divided deck, which will make accounting for the number of passengers more difficult. So, with a life being worth equal on both ferries, the cable thing should have a crew of 5 to 6. Equally troublesome is the lack of propulsion redundancy, but BCF will get a tug if needed. The Ferry Commissioner has a condition, that the ferry can be retrieved in "reasonable time" in case of a propulsion break down, but failed to define "reasonable time".....around 7 hours for a tug from Vancouver, if no tug happens to wait in the neighbourhood. There is one slight problem with the tug rescue: the drive cable is pre-tensioned to 20 tons to prevent slipping on the bull-wheel drive. If a bearing or a hydraulic drive should seize, they will have to cut the cable to be able to move the ferry. Very interesting information! Correct me if I'm wrong but reading the 'manning' part of your post, I'm left with the impression that BC Ferries knew, or ought to have known that changes were coming with regards to crewing level for cable ferries, yet carried on claiming that there would be the $2 million in annual savings? Hmm. The number of crew members required for the evacuation of 150 passengers are to materialize from where?, according to the number of crew BC Ferries thinks they are going to man this vessel with.
The propulsion redundancy issue is very concerning, given your revelation re: The Ferry Commissioner's 'condition', re: tug boat assistance/ retrieval/ cutting the cable etc. I doubt whether there was any information offered or a 'Q & A' session with the residents most affected by the implementation of the cable ferry system. Might I be correct in thinking that once the issues you've raised in your posts sees the 'public light of day' that someone is going to have some 'splainin' to do.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on May 13, 2015 7:32:12 GMT -8
The Quinitsa has over 749kW and requires an Engineer with a 4th class certificate, the Kahloke with 477kW only requires an Engineer with a SVMO certificate. The BS Con will have 600kW and BCF wants to use the cable ferry exemption in the Marine Personnel Regulations to run the thing without any certified officers. Transport Canada is in the process of changing those rules and have said they will require a Master ( not only a Head Operator ) on the bridge, but nothing seems decided with regard to Mate and Engineer. The big question is: if it takes a crew of 5 ( including 3 certified officers ) to evacuate 150 passengers from the Kahloke over at Hornby, how can the thing, also carrying 150 passengers be evacuated by a crew of 3 without certified officers? On top, the Kahloke has 2 engines and 2 props and has "getting home" ability if one system fails. The cable thing won't have that ability, if something goes wrong with the drive cable or the bull wheel the thing is stuck! This entry by 'propwash' is both informative and troubling. The drive cable and bull wheel's inability to "get home" as 'propwash' points out won't exactly exude warm fuzzy feelings of security from the travelling public. That Transport Canada is " in the process of changing the Marine Personnel Regulations" so that BC Ferries' will not be able to operate the vessel without certified officers, implies that BC Ferries wasn't too concerned about such things as the evacuation of the vessel should the need arise. The concerns being raised at this stage of implementing a new vessel's service pose the question: Why is Transport Canada dealing with the crewing/certification issues at this stage of the game? Shouldn't BC Ferries have presented crewing plans to T.C. prior to starting construction or is T.C.'s involvement after a vessel has been constructed the normal practise?
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on May 12, 2015 7:01:13 GMT -8
I am interested in knowing what a "SVMO" is (with or without exclamation mark) thanks. Biggest difference is training and experience. As I understand it, the Quinitsa would currently require a 4th class marine engineer. In order to obtain a 4th class certificate, one must have 36 months of qualifying sea service (36*30 8 hour days), pass two written multiple choice examinations (3 hours each), a simulator course (80 hours), and sit an oral examination with a TC examiner. The sea service can be reduced by taking a TC approved marine engineering course, which is around 3 years. In contrast, a Small Vessel Machinery Operator certificate requires two months of qualifying sea service, one written multiple choice examination and an oral exam. The revelation that this new vessel will be operated by a "SVMO", hasn't been widely reported by BC Ferries, if at all. Once the vessel is towed into place and attached to the cable system, wouldn't Transport Canada have to issue a certificate of sea-worthiness etc.? Given that this vessel is the longest cable operated system, I suspect Transport Canada would have to be very comfortable in the overall cable design features and also be comfortable with having a "SVMO" at the controls? Hopefully this cable operated ferry meets all BC Ferries and Transport Canada's operational objectives, but should an 'incident' occur that is deemed to be the result of either a design flaw or an operational error, the question of 'liability' will certainly come into question. Great comfort for the travelling public. I'd rather have a ferry 'boat' and a 'captain' and crew providing the service.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on May 11, 2015 6:38:46 GMT -8
Obviously the brain-trust at BC Ferries didn't spend much time contemplating an appropriate name for the new cable ferry. Generally speaking whenever a new 'product' is launched, the company launching the new product takes considerable time evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of a new product name. They take into consideration the negative machinations a new product name might be stuck with by potential end users of their new offering. Like lambs to the slaughter, out rolls the 'Baynes Sound Connector', instantly dubbed the 'B.S.' Connector. The brain-trust at Head Office must surely be hoping that the world's longest cable ferry experiment is successful, if not,the 'BSC' will garner a few more negative colloquialisms, especially from the captive Hornby Island - Denman Island travelling public.
|
|