|
Post by kerryssi on Feb 12, 2008 9:46:51 GMT -8
The media has a strong influence on what people think. The media is owned and operated by big business and has a strong anti union bias. This influences what people think. "Heaven help the poor soul who gets all his information from newspapers"...Mark Twain. Does anyone realy believe that unions controll anything? If they did the government would not have torn up the health care workers contract and given them a 15% rollback in wages. Poorly trained and poorly paid people would not now be working in the health care area. The new ferries would not have been built in Germany. All the federal government contracts for shipbuilding would not go to Quebec. The fast cats were not destroyed by unions. (for more on that keep watching the Save our Ferries site.) The ferry workers would not have had about a 6% raise over ten years. As has been said " The management is free to mismanage in any way they see fit"
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Feb 29, 2008 8:43:33 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Feb 29, 2008 8:59:21 GMT -8
Thanks for posting Guest. That will be some fun reading.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Feb 29, 2008 9:33:56 GMT -8
I'm just curious about this. Didn't someone say that they used the same hull design as the Skeena Queen and then stacked this tall superstructure on top of it and so they have to use water ballasting to compensate for stability...
(you may have been joking, i don't know... as I said before, I don't doubt their engineering, only their sense of visual appeal in this case.)
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Feb 29, 2008 12:52:07 GMT -8
It is a new hull design, but the basic ideas and rudimentary design were taken from the Skeena Queen. Because of the superstructure, and because the ship is longer, they couldn't just "blow up" the skeena's hull. I haven't heard anything about having to use water ballasting at all.
The reason they went with a cumberland/capilano style superstructure is because theoretically it requires less crew. Apparently, when a ship has one passenger space, less crew are needed in an emergency, as opposed to having to crew 4 different spaces located throughout the ship like the Skeena has.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Feb 29, 2008 13:12:25 GMT -8
The reason they went with a cumberland/capilano style superstructure is because theoretically it requires less crew. Apparently, when a ship has one passenger space, less crew are needed in an emergency, as opposed to having to crew 4 different spaces located throughout the ship like the Skeena has. I don't think that's the case; the Skeena Queen is listed as having a crew of 8, the ' Cumberland, at least 10.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Feb 29, 2008 13:28:08 GMT -8
I'm not actually comparing ships, I'm looking at the overall layout of passenger areas, and the Cumberland was the best example I could think of that illustrates a single passenger area.
The Cumberland has more than the one passenger space, as it has a partial deck just below the wheelhouse.
Also, I'm not sure, but I think that the Cumberland has more crew in engineering than the Skeena. My friend's dad is the Senior Chief on the Cumberland, so I'll ask him next time I see him.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Feb 29, 2008 13:40:47 GMT -8
The reason they went with a cumberland/capilano style superstructure is because theoretically it requires less crew. Apparently, when a ship has one passenger space, less crew are needed in an emergency, as opposed to having to crew 4 different spaces located throughout the ship like the Skeena has. I don't think that's the case; the Skeena Queen is listed as having a crew of 8, the ' Cumberland, at least 10. Following this idea, i guess that's also why they only have the one deck of passenger spaces instead of trying to fill in those gaping holes in the superstructure with a few more creature comforts. I guess that would also be a reason why they went for the reduced size of the enclosed car deck space as well, rather than having a completely enclosed car deck with one long superstructure over top of it, because then the passenger areas would likely have to be divided into separate fire zones which would likely be viewed as unique passenger spaces requiring extra crew.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Feb 29, 2008 18:17:40 GMT -8
This is the same article that's in the January 2008 issue of "Western Mariner" Magazine. The only thing its missing is photos of the hull launching, and moving the superstructure on to the hull at Victoria. I mentioned in the other Island Sky thread that the drawings point out one of the pickle fork decks being dedicated for "Snug Cove passenger access". The quality of the drawing on that PDF isn't good enough to see that writing. But it's actually there.
|
|
|
Post by yvr on Mar 1, 2008 14:52:23 GMT -8
If the Washington Marine pdf document is correct, BCF have some explaining to do. I'm referring to the statement that says this ferry will comply with SOLAS. As we fully discussed, the 3 new Coastal class vessels do not comply with that regulation. Can someone explain this scenario?
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Mar 1, 2008 16:26:07 GMT -8
If the Washington Marine pdf document is correct, BCF have some explaining to do. I'm referring to the statement that says this ferry will comply with SOLAS. As we fully discussed, the 3 new Coastal class vessels do not comply with that regulation. Can someone explain this scenario? The information on the WMG link may be misleading. Remember the discussion over in the CR thread regarding WHY the Coastals were NOT SOLAS compliant - no actual helicopter LANDING pad, just a pickup area -- among other things. As Markus pointed out, the standards that the Coastals were built to were for restricted area service, and the standards were on par with SOLAS if not interchangeable. Extrapolating that against the I-class, I don't see a landing pad, nor is the vessel enclosed as per the SOLAS regs. I will wait and see what the final verdict is on this too. Are you saying that the I-class will be able to sail the Northern routes because by some chance it may be more of a SOLAS compliant vessel than the Coastals? What was your purpose for making the comments in the first place? Hopefully not to inflame the situation. I think the discussion re: the Coastals and SOLAS was back around page 40 or so of the CR discussion. Do a forum search on SOLAS ... page two has the CR stuff, as page 1 is mainly dealing with WSF boats.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Mar 1, 2008 19:08:00 GMT -8
What was your purpose for making the comments in the first place? Umm... idle scandal mongering? The Coastals are SOLAS compliant for vessels trading in the protected area they're trading in. They have to be.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 1, 2008 19:28:55 GMT -8
The Coastals are SOLAS compliant for vessels trading in the protected area they're trading in. They have to be. And the IS will be also. That says that there are different levels of SOLAS compliance that a vessel must meet, which depends on the circumstances of the service provided and the waters upon which it operates on.
|
|
|
Post by ferryking on Mar 1, 2008 22:20:24 GMT -8
Deja vu..haven't we all been here before.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Mar 3, 2008 9:54:42 GMT -8
Island Sky is SOLAS complaint - you on pg 3 of the pdf. It claims - right or wrong that it is SOLAS under Transport Canada and IMO rules. Therefore it is complaint.
The Coastal are not SOLAS complaint - even though they work in "protected" waters. If they were, then Flensburger would include that SOLAS mark under the "Classification" heading in there internal sales document. There are "Elements" of the Coastal that are SOLAS - but the ship as a complete unit is not.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Mar 3, 2008 10:20:23 GMT -8
There are different levels of SOLAS depending on use and the number of passengers. Yachts in particular keep their passenger levels below a certain size to not trigger the next level of SOLAS. So both the length and/or number of passengers of the IS may have different standards than the Coastals. So for example a helicopter landing pad may not be necessary for that size of vessel while it is for the Coastals.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Mar 3, 2008 11:25:12 GMT -8
If the Coastal complied under any level of SOLAS - then Flensburger would state that they comply - no matter where they worked in the World. There is not a version of SOLAS - purely for the West Coast of BC - it is a IMO regulation - and all ships who want to have the SOLAS classification listed on there records need to meet it - no matter where in the World they work.
As to why the Coastal don't need to be fully SOLAS complaint is down to the way that Transport Canada interpret the IMO rules and this is based on the Lobby group's which BCF belong to.
I am sure that most people who travel by Ferries that cross the Strait of Georgia, would not think of it as a "milk pond" nor a "protected inland water way". It can get pretty wild out there. So why didn't BCF go the extra mile and built the Coastal to meet the IMO regulations of been SOLAS98 compliant - is it down to cost? Then what price does BCF put on its passengers and crew.
If we are to believe - and so far no reason not to - then the Island Sky will be SOLAS under the IMO regulations as they have stated. Look up the SOLAS regulations - it is not about crew numbers, nor about helicopter pads - nor is it about the Strait of Georgia either.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Mar 3, 2008 12:06:00 GMT -8
"Guest" check the Coastal Renaissance thread and look for posts by herrbrinkman. He was the one who commented on the SOLAS requirements and since he works for Flensburger is familiar with the regulations. One of his examples of why the CR didn't need SOLAS was no one saw the need for a helicopter landing pad. That necessitates having fire fighting equipment and a whole range of other equipment installed. Instead the Coastal have a helicopter pick off area where people can be evacuated if necessary. So that is where the helicopter landing pad comment originated.
I didn't imply that there is a separate set of standards for "the West Coast". There are however different standards that apply to the size, use, number of passengers etc. of a vessel. It would make no sense to have the same standards for a 100 foot tug that has a crew of 10 versus a cruise ship that carries thousands.
One example of the difference quoted from SOLAS.
"Helicopter pick-up areas must be provided and ferries with a length of 130m or more must be fitted with a helicopter landing area. The requirement for a landing area will only apply to vessels constructed on or after I July 1999."
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Mar 3, 2008 12:25:05 GMT -8
Gawd, this is tiresome. It's also tiresome when people who are apparently ashamed of their lack of credibility on this forum hide behind 'guest' disguises.
The Coastals adhere to some SOLAS regulations, because they trade in domestic, relatively sheltered waters. Unlike some people, the IMO recognizes the difference between a Georgia Strait ferry which doesn't sail when it's too rough to dock at Tsawwassen, and an ocean liner. Demanding that they adhere to all SOLAS regulations is as assinine as saying that because 737s and space shuttles both fly through the air, they should both have the same standards of body integrity. Instead of prattling on about SOLAS regulations that you don't seem to understand, how about pointing out the specific areas where the new ships are safety deficient, given where they're sailing? And if you can't come up with anything, then find something more worthwhile to talk about.
from the IMO:
IMO has also recognized the need to focus on those ferries which do not come under SOLAS and is working on the development of standards for "non-convention" vessels - those passenger ferries which for reasons of being operated inland or solely on domestic routes are not required to conform with SOLAS.
from forum member 'Kevin':
The stairs down to the crew area are of no concern, they are for the crew. We will put a simple chain at the top just to remind passengers of the fact. We decided we could do that and not have FSG worry about the small housekeeping items. As far as the other door way concerns, FSG was contracted to build the vessel to SOLAS requirements, not BC Ferries, not Near Coastal Waters. If FSG tried to build a ship to SOLAS but not with that, or that, or that...then to what standard would it be built to? SOLAS requirements come about after shipping disasters, Herald of Free Enterprise, the Estonia to name but two. After each accident then SOLAS comes up with changes to the vessel construction regulations or the ship operations rules to attempt to ensure the accidents are not repeated. If the ship owner had the total say in the construction standards then there would be no standards as every ship owner has a different requirement for their vessels. If you go to the ABS web site you can search through the regulations that were used to build the ship. From their site you can see that the Comfort Class notation is just not a catch phrase but a set of requirements that FSG had to meet.
from forum member Herrbrinkmann:
Thanks to all - nevertheless I asked our chef desiner regarding the SOLAS stuff: What I understood is, that it is not fully SOLAS compliant because of the extremely restricted service area. Some examples are: We do not have a helicopter landing area (only pickoff), we only have life rafts and MES stations instead of rescue boats and some other small things. But the important thing to know is, that we did a full risk assessment on these items and prooved, that the safety level for this vessel on this route is equal to the SOLAS regulations, meaning that the exemptions from SOLAS do not minimise the safety level. But to say it again - this is only valid for this route, so it is e.g. not allowed to put this vessels on the Northern Route.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Mar 3, 2008 17:58:29 GMT -8
[mute]guest[/mute] [ignore]guest[/ignore]
...
Neil, pnwtraveler - thanks for saying what I had in my mind to say. As above, I feel the same way about some of the postings. We've been through all of this, and anyone with a shred of ______ would read back before making inflammatory statements such as those to which both of you have been forced to respond (not to belittle your descriptive and well thought out responses, mind you!).
edit: sp fix
|
|
|
Post by yvr on Mar 3, 2008 18:44:44 GMT -8
If the Washington Marine pdf document is correct, BCF have some explaining to do. I'm referring to the statement that says this ferry will comply with SOLAS. As we fully discussed, the 3 new Coastal class vessels do not comply with that regulation. Can someone explain this scenario? Are you saying that the I-class will be able to sail the Northern routes because by some chance it may be more of a SOLAS compliant vessel than the Coastals? "Nope didn't say anything about that." What was your purpose for making the comments in the first place? Hopefully not to inflame the situation. Inflame the situation you say. The purpose of the comment is - BCF orders new ferries - the first 3 German built vessels do not fully comply with SOLAS. Yet the ferry built in B.C. supposedly does. All I'm wondering is why? It would appear that only someone at BCF can explain this scenario.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 3, 2008 20:03:27 GMT -8
So why does a "Guest" who's posting from Europe, care or know so much about 2 BC Ferry newbuilds ?
I expect more of these comments, they come in bunches, as if they're cascading.
|
|
ferryking guest Guest
Guest
|
Post by ferryking guest Guest on Mar 3, 2008 21:49:13 GMT -8
Either 'guest' or yvr, just love reading their own posts and no one else's pr the 'block other peoples posts' check box in options must be check marked. this is a forum to share ideas...we have all noted that The Coastals...did i mention they are german...are not fully solas compliant. in fact experts from the builder and some insiders from BC ferries have even agreed. we all know that their is no helicopter landing pad. by the time they stop to load some one in the helicopter 9 times out of ten they probably will be able to dock. as for the life boats...god forbid there is ever a need for them but are you planning to sail the life boat some where or will inflated dingy be enought to save your complaing butts......there is no conspiracy here...thanksfk
|
|
|
Post by yvr on Mar 3, 2008 22:35:19 GMT -8
So glad we have some active posting going on. Rather boring reading where the CR was last spotted.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Mar 3, 2008 22:59:22 GMT -8
Just to be clear - it was not a conspiracy by FSG to build non-fully SOLAS-compliant vessels. It was a BCFS design decision, that I am sure was made, BEFORE the contract was awarded one way or the other. This is due to the fact of the service area that the vessels were designed for.
Furthermore, anyone who thinks that is fair to compare an I-class vessel to a Coastal-class vessel in terms of a sliding compliance/standard scale is completely out of their tree.
You could make a raft SOLAS compliant based on the fact that the rated passenger capacity on the raft is less than that of a Coastal-class boat. Sliding scale - the bigger the capacity the tougher the rules. Same thing applies to the IMO exemptions - for a 1.5-2h puddle-jump ride, in sheltered waters I may add, you are more likely to gain exemptions than say a 6h crossing to Nfld-Labrador, or worse yet, open seas cruise ships.
I think it is time that people took a good hard look at what they are commenting on before they waste their and everyone else's time by just randomly spouting off whatever trash is floating around in their heads.
Yes, I am all for open discussion and differing view points. I am against people ranting from their soap boxes when they do not even put in a cursory inspection of the facts before prattling on.
|
|