Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2013 16:19:07 GMT -8
Here's the article related to the wrapping up of the TSB report on the Coastal Inspiration's crash back in December 2011. The TSB mentioned that crews weren't trained with onboard emergency controls... www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/03/12/bc-ferries-tsb-duk-point-crash.html...recall that 'not enough training' (says the TSB) was also a factor back when the Queen of the North crashed. Either crews still aren't being properly trained, or they have too many electronics to work with? I don't know what bridge crews have to say about it, but the amount of devices on the Coastal's bridges seems to be overkill for a 1.5hr crossing. This latest report from the TSB cites training issues. It also and most importantly cites the failure by crew (read senior officers) to follow the procedures written in the VSM and directives from the vessel's senior master, specifically when to engage Mode 2, the requirement to test Mode 2 immediately after engagement, etc. The recent report into the hard landing of the Queen of Coquitlam at Departure Bay (November 2011) cites much the same issues. It is interesting that this new TSB report ( CI at Duke Point) says nothing about the Coastal class propulsion system design. Recall this warning given to BCFS by The Glosten Associates in their report prepared for BC Ferries entitled Due Diligence Review of the Super C Class FerryThis incident at Duke Point with the Coastal Inspiration was no doubt an expensive one for BCFS. As bad as it was, it could have been much more serious with injuries to those on board and berth attendants too. I guess so. The Propellar sitting high on the Coastals is definitly a design flaw. Again, I think the amount of electronics on the Coastals is more than ample for BC Ferries routes. And not to drift off topic, but the Coastals look great and have great passenger services, but they don't seem very functional for crews. I've heard from more than a few crews that they prefer the C class. Remeber when galley crew had knee soreness due to excessive vibration?
|
|
Mayne
Voyager
I come from a long line of sinners like me
Posts: 289
|
Post by Mayne on Mar 13, 2013 21:12:53 GMT -8
I find this very interesting for several reasons. The use of the "emergency" control button as a part of standard protocol when at berth to me seems to defeat the purpose of having a 'emergency" button. And with this button being used for a different purpose then it was meant for, I could see being lost in a emergency situation. Why when a failure occurred in the pitch system does only a little light on the console light up? In my mind this alarm that they now have would have been a must. Then there are the failures on behalf of the crew, not following the testing of the pitch of the bow propeller then not knowing how to run the emergency over ride. Finally the aspect that the bridge crew not simulating this a failure like loss of pitch control is more or less blows my mind. Add equipment failure and all the small mistakes and issues arise quickly.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 5, 2013 8:25:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Dec 22, 2013 13:49:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 22, 2013 17:02:24 GMT -8
Don't know if this is really "news" or not, but this article is from today's CBC News site: Oh yes, this is news. The lawsuit is a big story, at least to me. It would have been more interesting (in terms of the ongoing and future good relationship) if the suit had been "BCFS vs. FSG", but BCFS suing the subcontract is interesting enough. I would have thought that BCFS would be forced to sue the main contractor (FSG) and that FSG would then in-turn sue its own subcontractor. ie. under the premise that FSG is responsible for all the work that it had contacted out to its subcontractors. I think the real story here, for those who are interested in these things, is that BCFS did not sue FSG directly. I didn't think that BCFS had any sort of contractual relationship with SAM Electronics GmbH. ------------ ie. This is the same as if my camera fails, and I sue Carl Zeiss instead of Sony. Why would the customer sue the sub-trade? very strange...
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Dec 22, 2013 18:45:34 GMT -8
I'm wondering if BC Ferries actually chose some of the operational systems onboard the Coastals, and that Flensburger was just the 'installer', as opposed to a contractor who chooses all the sub-trades?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 22, 2013 18:58:16 GMT -8
I'm wondering if BC Ferries actually chose some of the operational systems onboard the Coastals, and that Flensburger was just the 'installer', as opposed to a contractor who chooses all the sub-trades? Good point; I hadn't thought of that possibility. Although I thought that FSG as the designer & builder, responsible for everything. However, if a buyer (BCFS) gets to pick & choose certain important components of a newbuild, doesn't that erode the effectiveness of having an expert (FSG) as the designer/builder? A form of buyer override.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Dec 22, 2013 20:17:31 GMT -8
To further arm chair speculation I am curious what sort of out-of-court negotiations went on prior to the suit. In general terms an attempt is made prior to a lawsuit to bring the parties together to clear or mitigate losses of the plaintiff. Following civil cases can be a bit difficult (as information isn't always published in an accessible manner) but nonetheless this should prove very interesting to see some technical internals of BCFS if this actually makes it to the court room.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2013 21:12:29 GMT -8
What a joke! Warning lights that are ignored,regularly using emergency switches when docking,and a confusing control system that is prone to operator error. It's easy to blame a manufacturer but it appears that BCF accepted the limitations of the system because they continued to operate knowing those limitations. I realize that I'm commenting on a media report but it seems that if the allegations and details are as stated, the owners and MANAGERS of the big blue and white boat should be wondering why they continued to operate in spite of some serious concerns. I have great sympathy for the bridge crews that have to work under that system.
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Dec 22, 2013 22:05:20 GMT -8
While BC Ferries is listed as the plaintiff, it's actually BC Ferries' insurance company who is suing SAM.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 22, 2013 22:20:58 GMT -8
While BC Ferries is listed as the plaintiff, it's actually BC Ferries' insurance company who is suing SAM. Here's an excerpt from a Vancouver Sun story that explains that BCFS' insurance company is forcing BCFS to sue the manufacturer, in order for the insurance company to recover some of its losses from in incident. ============================== ...or read the actual legal "Notice of Civil Claim" that was filed, HEREAnd here it is for you, even easier to see SOME of the excerpts from this link:
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Dec 22, 2013 22:44:33 GMT -8
Who the heck wrote that notice of civil claim!!??
"Coastal Installation"
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Dec 22, 2013 22:48:55 GMT -8
I have reproduced this post to remind people about what BC Ferries accepted when they took delivery of the three Coastal Class vessels. It appears to me that BC Ferries was warned about what would happen if a failure in pitch control was to occur. Mr. Horn originally posted this item on page 3 of this thread, two years ago.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Dec 22, 2013 22:51:52 GMT -8
Who the heck wrote that notice of civil claim!!??
"Coastal Installation"
That is funny & the result of choosing dumb names...
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 22, 2013 22:57:30 GMT -8
Who the heck wrote that notice of civil claim!!??
"Coastal Installation"
haha, first I thought it was just a PDF-to-text error. But that's what the actual claim on the stamped copy says. We have a new forum folklore item, which will amuse us for many years to come.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Dec 22, 2013 23:34:47 GMT -8
???heaven forbid, we're not questioning off-shore super-boots from the fatherland? :-Xmrdot.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 23, 2013 13:35:57 GMT -8
News media are realizing the error in the notice of claim: - an excerpt from a story by 24Hours Vancouver, HERE
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 23, 2013 13:38:58 GMT -8
Here's a company in an aptly named Missouri town:
This company specializes in kitchen renovations.
hmmmm, that's a funny coincidence, considering that kitchen items are a frequent spam item on our ferry forum.
|
|
KE7JFF
Chief Steward
Posts: 106
|
Post by KE7JFF on Dec 25, 2013 22:42:33 GMT -8
Here's a company in an aptly named Missouri town: This company specializes in kitchen renovations. hmmmm, that's a funny coincidence, considering that kitchen items are a frequent spam item on our ferry forum. MI is Michigan, not Missouri, which is MO
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Dec 25, 2013 22:44:38 GMT -8
Here's a company in an aptly named Missouri town: This company specializes in kitchen renovations. hmmmm, that's a funny coincidence, considering that kitchen items are a frequent spam item on our ferry forum. Wow, what are the odds? That is so funny!
|
|