|
Post by Northern Exploration on Mar 4, 2008 9:44:21 GMT -8
I thought that Guest posting had been disabled.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Mar 5, 2008 4:28:55 GMT -8
I thought that Guest posting had been disabled. Maybe it's all a rouse! As I understood it from Fluge, only certain areas were locked as was deemed prudent to minimize the trolls under the bridge.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Mar 10, 2008 0:45:36 GMT -8
I thought that Guest posting had been disabled. Maybe it's all a rouse! As I understood it from Fluge, only certain areas were locked as was deemed prudent to minimize the trolls under the bridge. Disabled? Perhaps. But I think it has now found a wheelchair and some crutches and its prognosis is improving day by day.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Mar 10, 2008 1:01:41 GMT -8
On a more serious note..............
With all due respect, the way this discussion is going, do we really know what the SOLAS requirements are? Where would a person find information on them?
In general, it seems that the only ferries in our region that seem to be SOLAS compliant are those that are required to because they ply international routes. My first gut reaction on finding out about that was to wonder why we the public would not insist on an internationally recognized set of standards that try to ensure Safety of Life at Sea. After all, I'm all for that.
But then I remember about double-speak. I know that the conservatives in the US Government, for example, tend to give bills names like the "child protection act" or the "anti-terrorism act" to things that have nothing to do with children or terrorists, simply to get attention.
Is "Safety of Life at Sea" the same sort of concept? Who wouldn't want that?
So, just what is this SOLAS standard? A standard which sounds good, but that the ferry operators in at least BC, Washington, and Alaska seem to agree aren't necessary? Is our safety too expensive? Or do the standards have nothing to do with safety of lives at all?
What the heck are we talking about here?
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Mar 10, 2008 6:16:35 GMT -8
Happy reading. www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?topic_id=257&doc_id=647There are many ammendments as well - I am not sure if they are all contained. Just because the ferries are not SOLAS compliant doesn't mean they are compliant with all sorts of other safety standards. Transport Canada, other IMO standards, ABS etc. Not to mention the insurance companies.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 10, 2008 17:59:49 GMT -8
Maybe it's all a rouse! As I understood it from Fluge, only certain areas were locked as was deemed prudent to minimize the trolls under the bridge. Disabled? Perhaps. But I think it has now found a wheelchair and some crutches and its prognosis is improving day by day. More areas are open again. The automatic spambots have found their way back to us already, so we're deleting these spam autoposts as we find them. The "Guest formerly known as Cascade" has been back. (I'm not suggesting that he's spam; really, I'm not) But we haven't seen the problem-twit-posters, so far. We're keeping our fingers crossed on that one. A guest-access forum has more upside than downside. Even if this forum isn't fully SOLAS certified.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Mar 10, 2008 19:02:29 GMT -8
Solas is international in scope. I believe there are different levels of compliance required according to the waters they are sailing and the passenger capacity. The size of the crew is determined by TC depending on the ability of the crew to evacuate a fully loaded ship and fight a fire. BCFC has spent a lot of money lobbying for many years to get the Georgia strait declared protected waters. This would allow them to build cheaper ships. Frank Rhodes told me that the design for the Skeena Queen was one of three. He chose the cheapest. Safety costs money. That is the bottom line. Whenever possible any company will put safety second to the bottom line and hope they don't get caught. The hull design of the Skeena is very good. The foot passengers were not a consideration nor were passengers getting out of their cars, therefor the passenger accommodation was secondary to cost.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Mar 10, 2008 19:27:40 GMT -8
My first gut reaction on finding out about that was to wonder why we the public would not insist on an internationally recognized set of standards that try to ensure Safety of Life at Sea. After all, I'm all for that. Thanks for bringing us back around again! ;D Some of the things where, CR for example, is not fully SOLAS compliant, is, due to her displacement and rated pax capacity, she does not have a full heli-pad, and there is no "double door" on the bow (ie: inner and outer). She also does not have any/enough "self-propelled" rescue boats ... the list goes on. Contrast this though, CR has a helicopter "pick-off" area, where someone requiring extraction can be hoisted onto the helo, she's got massive bow/stern doors which have proven they can survive a Trans-Atlantic voyage (albeit in limited sea states), and she has various other rescue apparatus. Factor in that she is operating in the Strait of Georgia, where an SOS call by a BC Ferry would have the Coast Guard (both US and Canadian), as well as 442 Rescue out of Comox (and probably some WA reserve forces!) scrambled within moments. Not to mention other ships which would render assistance. Vancouver Island provides a nice "breakwater" for any "ocean waves" ... So when you compare this to say a cruise ship sailing the HIGH seas, which one is safer IN IT'S ENVIRONMENT? While those that can, bandy about the fact that the Coastals are not SOLAS compliant, we have to remember where they are being used and what they are being used for. Do you really think, that BCFS would buy 3 brand spanking new ships that might somehow be proven not to be 'safe-enough' after the QoTN episode?? I don't think so even for a moment, or a fleeting nano-second.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Mar 11, 2008 11:13:00 GMT -8
The main reason as to why the Coastal are not completely SOLAS90 compliant is down to the design of the ship.
The main part of SOLAS90 is a section called damage stability standard. What this means is that if water was to enter the main car deck - and more than 2 compartment were flooded - what is the stability of the vessel? They are allow to heel - but not more than a certain amount - degree.
So for the design element - here they could have gone for internal spontoons - which are designed - against the internal walls of the ship. These add weight to the ship. They would also need a central line bulkhead - with each ends sealed. In other words doors across the forward and stern sections - that meet the central line bulkhead.
This is the main reason for the lack of SOLAS90 compliant - as forum members know - from visiting the coastal they do have wide open car decks - and there appears to be no internal spontoons.
As for the Island Sky - from the information at hand - she does have a number of compartments built into her hull - and therefore if she was hit - the changes are that given the number of compartment she would stay afloat. As for the element of heel - that is into the design.
The SOLAS rules also make the point - which a lot of people have comment on - and that is - when a vessel carries more than 400 passenger - she must have a helicopter zone - but not having this zone - point - it will not make you lose your SOLAS classification.
The point for the people of BC - is do they feel safe in a the Coastal and if there is a collision and water enters the car deck - what will happen? No one knows - but the designer and the tank testing which they have done.
One additional point to remember - the Coastal has very small fuel tanks - 400Tons - while it has 600tons of ballast. If there is a collision and the machinery is still working - they could in theory use the ballast tanks as a form of flotations or spontoons
BC Ferries are making the point that these Coastal works in "A Inland Protect Waterway" - so if that is the case - then why does BC Ferries cancel a number of trips - given that BC Ferries and Transport Canada claim the Strait of Georgia is really a "Protect inland waterway" I am sure that forum members would most likely disagree with the Strait of Georgia been classified as protected - there have been days and pictures to back it up as anything but protected....
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Mar 11, 2008 12:22:04 GMT -8
Actually, Cascade, I believe you're refering to 'sponsons', not 'spontoons'. Spontoons were a form of lance, not commonly found on ferries.
The idea that 'no one knows' what would happen if water entered the cardeck of the Coastals is absurd, but of course, you don't back it up.
The reason BC Ferries cancels sailings on exceedingly rough days is more because of the difficulties of docking and loading/unloading, and not so much the danger of the crossing itself, or worries about the compartmental integrity of it's vessels. It doesn't change the fact that compared to the open ocean, Georgia Strait is indeed a protected waterway.
|
|
|
Post by Guest Horn on Mar 11, 2008 12:37:44 GMT -8
If the Coastal had a collision and water enter the main car deck - and flood more than 2 compartments - what would happen?
Would you stay around and find out?
If BC Ferries think the vessel will stay afloat - then publish the results from there test - and the issue of been SOLAS complaint is put to bed.
Yes there are many elements within the Coastal that are SOLAS complaint - but the main one is "Damage Stability Standard" and you haven't addressed that issue. Maybe your contact within BC Ferries will be so keen as to shed some light on this subject of Stability after a collision. To what degree of heel is the Coastal still safe - stable? How much water will be allowed on her car decks before she is un-seaworthy?
As a possible passenger aren't you a little bit concerned given the current track record that BCFS has - with regards to safety and telling the truth or do you believe everything they tell you?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Mar 11, 2008 13:57:17 GMT -8
Cascade, here's the big picture regarding BC Ferries' safety record.
On route 1, where ferries have been passing in restricted waters at close quarters for 48 years, their boats have transited Active Pass approximately 375,000 times. Total passengers carried, in the neighborhood of 125,000,000. Total passengers lost in accidents: 3.
System wide, they have probably carried in the neighborhood of half a billion passengers. Total passengers lost in accidents, including the three aforementioned : 5.
BC Ferries isn't under any obligation to respond to every inane, unfounded allegation by carping pseudo-experts. Few ferry companies launch new boats by publishing detailed, technical accounts of the exact accident specifications. Obviously, whatever the legal requirements are in this country for new boats, they meet or exceed. You apparently have nothing to back up your suspicions other than attitude.
|
|
|
Post by Guest Horn on Mar 11, 2008 14:14:00 GMT -8
So I therefore gather that you believe there will not be a single collision with the Coastal for the next 40 plus years - and if there a collision - no one will die - as we go by our pass records.
So I wonder what the TSB report on the Queen of the North sinking will say about the safety - management - training of crew and the company in general. From everything that has been leaked - safety issue and training are looking to be top of the list - of course there is the drug issue on top of this.....but never mind you feel safe in vessel that will stay afloat if in a collision and you don't appear to mind if the crew had smoked while on or off duty...
From what has been released it appears the problems are getting worse within BC Ferries over the years not better - like it was in the beginning.
Why didn't BC Ferries make the Coastal SOLAS compliant - when it appears they have made the Island Sky compliant. Are we saying that the waters the Island Sky will work in are worst than the Coastal?
Maybe the whole thing about safety is purely down to money - therefore what price has BC Ferries put on there passengers? Given of course the record you have produced about there safety - and comparing it to other ferry fleets around the world.
So we are to believe the BC Ferries mission statement - that they put safety of there crews and passengers at the top of the list with no compromises. (Of course BCFS don't lie)
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Mar 11, 2008 14:27:29 GMT -8
Now, in the absence of any substantial insight into safety aboard the Coastals, you're retreating into totally muddled rhetoric about smoking, mission statements, and whatever else comes to mind. You should have quit while you had the chance.
It's worthwhile to note that, as far as I can tell, not one single reputable voice has raised any safety concerns about the Coastals. No union people, no shipping experts, no opposition politicians, no other commentators. Only a couple of people on this forum, who are in the habit of yelling "wolf!" every time they see a chihuahua.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Mar 11, 2008 16:58:49 GMT -8
Moderators. Can I request that during your next conflab will you please discuss "guest" posting. I can refer you to another forum I am a member have as well that has some interesting guidelines (similar to our own) that pop up every time you post something.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Mar 11, 2008 17:38:03 GMT -8
The reason that more and more sailings are being cancelled on rts 1 and 2 is because the ferries are getting bigger. We used to take the Nanaimo out in nearly any weather and the Sidney and Tsa were unstoppable. Now the management has let the captains know that if they sail and anything happens it is on their heads. The big ships they have today have no problem crossing the gulf but there is so much windage on them that they can't get into or out of the dock. I once watched one of the super ferries helplessly pinned against the end dolphin for nearly a half hour by the wind. I watched as they used max power ahead and astern with max rudder and thrusters, it did not move an inch. You have all put your hand out a car window and felt the pressure, imagine what it is on one of those big ships. Another factor is that all the ships I have been on seek the wind. That is when you are going slow they try to turn into the wind. The slower you go the less steerage you have. This can make docking very problematic in high winds. Some, I am sure will fall off the wind but the result is the same.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Mar 11, 2008 19:00:34 GMT -8
kerryssi: How much of the concern in rough weather is loading and unloading a not quite stationary vessel, or is it pretty much all about getting the boat safely into dock?
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Mar 11, 2008 22:48:40 GMT -8
Let me ask you this, Do you as a citizen of BC continue to ride the ferries, even after the QotN sinking, the Marijuana, the Oak Bay grounding, and the Non-SOLAS compliant Coastals enter service? If so, safety in the fleet obviously it is not of great concern to you. The ships and the fleet are SAFE, otherwise TC would shut the fleet down. I don't want to sound to naive, but there is a better chance of an airplane crash than a ferry sinking. There are two ways to spend your money, prevention and damage control. Have you seen all the computers and electronic navigation equipment on the bridge of the Spirits, and they still use the search light when transiting active pass. Then, there is all the state of the art stuff on the CR. These people plan for an accident never to happen, but there is still provisions for when it does. The only thing BCF is doing is shooting themselves in the arse, regulations don't care if the ship ultimately sinks (minus environmental issues) they just want to make sure she can float long enough to get everyone off the thing before it does. Then I ask what happens if the completely SOLAS compliant ship strikes ground at 20 knots and tears a hole down the entire length of the hull? No sponson or sealed compartment of any size is going to keep that thing up. I do not criticize BCF for not making the Coastals completely SOLAS compliant, they have provided enough saftey measures to get me OFF the boat when she sinks, as a human I don't care about the boat. Even if the crew is high on MJ they still got it together to get 99 people of the QotN in less than an hour and she had them old stupid life boats. I wouldn't harp on the new ferries, if you need something to harp on try and get the old beloved single compartment death traps off the water, the service is becoming much safer and I am happy to be here to see it. I think we should all be glad we aren't running a boat crewed by incompetent crews in beach shirts and flower print shorts (QoV), there are enough intelligent people around here to tell when something isn't safe, and there is a line that has been crossed. I agree with Neil 5 in 500,000,000 or 0.00000001% chance of dying on a ferry related accident, I'm going to play the odds. Cheers, PS. This has been my day so don't take anything personally. glumbert.com/media/baddayoffice
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Mar 12, 2008 15:56:44 GMT -8
completely OT, but I just howled at that video, cadmunkey. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Mar 12, 2008 19:03:12 GMT -8
Holy smokes, talk about trying to compare oranges to bananas. I feel bad about even responding to the crud that has been posted but ...
I-class - consider it a Ford Taurus. It's built to be a 4-door sedan, hauls 5 people, ABS brakes, etc etc.
Coastal-class - consider it a MINI bus, like a 15-pax shorty school bus. You can make it a Limo bus and have all the on-par seating etc that the Taurus has, but it also has to be a BEEFIER vehicle, bigger motor, larger doors, beefier brakes etc.
Your Taurus gets around on 90hp, while the bus may need 170hp. Bus needs more marker lights than the car, and has to have lettering on the side cuz it carries more pax.
Does this comparison make any sense?
As for crash sustainability, lets look at that a little. How wide would you need to make a boat to have internal longitudinal walls/bulkeads? You can't have perpendicular ones, as you don't know the load out mix of cars. Impractical jumps to mind. I am POSITITVE that below decks (where water intrusion is MUCH more a concern than the MCD) is compartmentalized.
On to the MCD. I think that the Surrey incident with the engine room fire is pretty clear on this. Look at the pix of that incident and the list that the ferry had after the water that was expended to fight the fire. Also look at how it is POURING OFF the MCD. That's why there are hatches and covers on everything that is on the MCD, to prevent water ON the MCD from getting into the spaces below. Belowdecks is compartmentalized, and there is also a system of pumps built into the system to allow to for extraction of water. I am positive that there are other systems as well, someone more technically skilled can speak to this. The idea of compartmentalizing the MCD is absurd in the case of a limited-run ferry (ie: short haul 2-3 hours). You'd have to build an open-sea ferry at 4x the cost to do what was propose. Insanity at it's peak.
WRT to sailing in bad weather. The issues of leaving and entering dock are the ones that are always listed, and yes, the weather does play havoc with this. I've been onboard while trying for 45+ mins to get lined up on Rte-30 into Tsawwassen; it is hard to do the finesse maneuvers at low enough speed without drifting, and you can't run in there full throttle and slam on the brakes at the last minute and pull off a "Dukes of Hazzard" slide into dock. The other concern is the roughness of the crossing and the affect on the pax and cargo. Rough seas will toss the vehicles on the UCD/MCD around a bit and potentially cause damage. How many green puking pax do you want too? And how about unsecured items in the galley, gift shop, cafeteria etc flying around? All bad things.
Sure the older class of boats ran in bad weather, and heck, I was on some of them. I remember seeing stuff go flying and pax at the rails puking. My mom's VW Rabbit (a charcoal 2-door) was damaged on one Rte-1 crossing as it 'skipped' sideways into a parked van due to the roughness of the crossing (this was back when they did park vehicles awfully close, to try to squeeze everyone on!).
So the decision to cancel sailings due to weather takes into account more than the safety of the ship. I bet these boats could ALL sail in just about any weather, but why would they WANT to?? No trip is worth it if there is avoidable damage or injury.
Bottom line ... postpone or cancel to err on the side of caution.
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Mar 12, 2008 22:15:47 GMT -8
Thanks Hardy, Your argument is much better than mine. I am not a writer, more of a speaker, meaning I convey better in person. I just get frustrated sometimes when what I consider to be small issues get blown out of proportion . Personally I trust BCF to run safe SHIPS , but there is absolutely nothing they can do control the minds of the CREW . I resign myself from this conversation as I don't think going any farther is going to get anyone anywhere, but confused. ;D Cheers,
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Mar 13, 2008 3:56:34 GMT -8
Your argument is much better than mine. I am not a writer, more of a speaker, meaning I convey better in person. I've spent hours trying to convey points and present (and then defend) my opinions and/or facts. Some people are better speakers than writers, I tend to be good at writing. That is why it is good to have a decent cross section. I just get frustrated sometimes when what I consider to be small issues get blown out of proportion I find this vexing also, and is one of the reasons I HAD to jump in on this topic. I was trying to step back from it and not get sucked in, but the continuing drivel forced me to act. I love how certain 'soap box frequenters' like to hide behind the cloak of anonymity and then just spout off .... I resign myself from this conversation as I don't think going any farther is going to get anyone anywhere, but confused. ;D Don't do that! You have a lot of valuable insight to add to this. As a matter of fact, and I am quite surprised that no one brought this up, but as a modeller (model builder? Which term do you prefer?), you would be a good one to speak to the complexities of trying to construct a ferry vessel with internal MCD/UCD compartments, bulkheads, sponsons, etc. Not only would it greatly increase the complexity of the build, but would also serve to vastly reduce the 'flexibility' of potential loading of the decks etc. No more "going around" a stalled car - heck you are in a tunnel now, wait until that sucker moves ... Semis could not swing wide for exiting/entering the vessel - yup, great idea for high volume, short-turn routes!. I'd suspect too, that some of your models have suffered accidents. You could probably speak to how they handled crash/flood survivability, listing, sinking etc. Not saying that your models would be 'scales' of the real thing down to the construction, etc of every bulkhead etc, but in your amount of detail, the general layout is the same. You can also speak expertly, on how adding extra structure and ballast and changing weight loadings affects stability. I think that this is overlooked in the current conversation. For example, adding extra bulkheads to compartmentalize adds weight above the water line. Now you also have to add either more keel depth or ballast below the waterline to counteract that for stability - at what point are you past the trade-off?
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Mar 13, 2008 13:01:16 GMT -8
Ok, I'm going to try a different aproach
There is one major show-stopping difference between the IS and the CR. The CR is TOP HEAVY and the IS is NOT. In any ship you want the "center of gravity" or :center of mass" below or slightly above the waterline. I am thinking it is slightly above on most ferries. In order to get the CG to become lower in a vessel you have to add weight under the waterline.
Torque is a simple way to calculate the required ballast so that weight can be added above the waterline without changing or raising the CG:
T=FxD
Or
The rotational force of a mass is equal to the amount of weight times the distance from the center point or CG.
The rotation in the clockwise direction has to equal the rotation in the counterclockwise direction or else the boat will flip.
Of course none of this matters if the ship were to be fully vertically oriented, but we all know that ships roll side to side and therefore weight becomes off balance from the centerline of the ship where no torque is exerted.
Example if you have 10 kg 1m above the water line you need 10 kg 1 m below the waterline for the hull to have a chance of being stable. Know apply this same reasoning to a larger ship. Now you have 5 tonnes 7 stories up, using the above described formula we can conclude that we need 5 tonnes 7 stories below the CG. This is a problem, the ship only has 2 stories below the water line so we need to find a happy ratio of weight to distance from CG.
so, 5 tonnes 7 stories up. If we were to divide the number of stories down by 2 we have to do the inverse to the weight, so we multiply the weight by 2.
This gives us 10 tonnes at 3.5 stories down. This still isn't good enough, so i pull out my calculator and try a factor of 4 instead of 2, so we need 20 tonnes at 1.75 stories below the CG to keep the ship upright if we were to add 5 tonnes 7 stories above the CG.
This may seem confusing and pointless, but if you have any physics background and can follow the math you can see how it adds up real fast.
Now you ask what does this have to do with the the IS being SOLAS and the CR not? Think about how top heavy the CR is compared to the IS, you can see are going to need a tonne of weight below the CG in the CR to keep her upright, sure you could fill her with very dense lead or steel but that is completely wasted money and bad management of resources. The most economical solution is to use water ballast, now water weighs just as much as the water around the hull so it does not have a major advantage and extream volumes are required to meet the needs. 1 tonne of water is approximately 1,000 litres of seawater. There quickly becomes no room in the hull for airtight, waterless compartments and bulkheads that add weight that cannot be counteracted without extreme hull form changes witch probably means performance loss.
Thats enough for now,
I am a shipbuilder x 1/60,
In the hobby we don't generally add big divisions or bulkheads to our models unless it is convenient. People fingers don't work to well in confined areas. In my Chilliwack model the front 1/4 and rear 1/4 are going to be sealed in case water comes in from the top but I have not and wont make any provisions for hull penetrations. It becomes mayhem when routing wires and pacing components unless your building a huge model, but even at 6'8" my chilliwack inst big enough for that.
Cheers,
PS. Hopefully you can follow my math. ;D
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Mar 13, 2008 17:48:05 GMT -8
Also included in calculations should be the " free surface effect". This is the effect that flowing liquids such as water, fuel, oil, sewage have in shifting the balance to the down side of a ship. On the older ships the car deck is slightly higher in the center than on the outer edges. this encourages any free flowing water such as from large waves to flow out to and through the freeing ports.
|
|
|
Post by herrbrinkmann on Mar 13, 2008 22:23:22 GMT -8
I am wondering about all the speculation going around now. Re center of gravity it is not as simples as stated by cadmunkey. The important thing is the metacentric height: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacentric_heightThis height must have to have a value in a specific vessel-depentend range to have the ship not to stiff and not to soft (rolling from one side to the other). For now I don´t have the time, but I will try to find out, in which specific points CR is not SOLAS compliant and why (though I did that in excerpts before) and try to find something out about damage stability.
|
|