|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 22, 2012 18:27:57 GMT -8
Views of the upper wing car-deck on the MV Island Sky - September 18, 2012    |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 22, 2012 18:49:56 GMT -8
A few more on-board view of MV Island Sky. - September 18, 2012.    |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 23, 2012 16:28:39 GMT -8
Views of Island Sky, as she makes her home-stretch run for Earls Cove. - seen by me on September 18, 2012.   Almost head-on  Pushing lots of water    |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 27, 2012 20:08:16 GMT -8
Tenaka and Island Sky at Saltery Bay terminal, south of Powell River. - September 18, 2012.  |
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Oct 7, 2012 13:23:27 GMT -8
Pano of the Island Sky in Jervis Inlet. If you look closely you can see the long span of powerlines that crosses the inlet.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 17:33:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Oct 13, 2012 23:05:20 GMT -8
Sorry - been a while since I've opened this thread and looked at photos of this vessel.
Are there any practicing naval architects with a sense of style? Anywhere? Because when viewed head on this thing is about the ugliest ferry I've ever seen.
Okay, maybe I'm being a bit harsh.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulvanb on Oct 14, 2012 7:39:38 GMT -8
Well, every kid with Lego can easily re-create her.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 30, 2012 6:11:40 GMT -8
Compilation of a few clips of video of Island Sky's approach to Earls Cove, on September 18, 2012.
- background noise courtesy of some motorcycles and waiting passengers....
|
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Jan 7, 2013 19:21:37 GMT -8
A few pictures of the Island Sky at Saltery Bay on December 31st. With the Bowen Queen.  Departing Saltery Bay.  |
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Jan 10, 2013 19:56:28 GMT -8
The Island Sky. Taken earlier today at Saltery Bay.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2013 14:13:20 GMT -8
Why is this ship not the regular ship on the Saltspring Island route?
I wouldn't imagine it would be very pleasent aboard this thing in rough seas on its current route
|
|
Koastal Karl
Voyager 
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Post by Koastal Karl on Jan 13, 2013 14:59:57 GMT -8
The Island Sky dosent go in open seas right now she is on the Jervis Inlet route which I think is pretty sheltered. I must admit I have an urge to take a trip on the island sky again soon. Be nice though if she wasent on one of the hardest routes to get to.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Jan 23, 2013 22:02:45 GMT -8
Some information somewhat relevant to this thread. Found in Port Townsend air museum: (second to last line of the paragraph)  |
|
Mayne
Voyager
I come from a long line of sinners like me
Posts: 289 
|
Post by Mayne on Jan 24, 2013 20:05:44 GMT -8
A question from someone who has never seen let alone ridden the Island Sky.
With the conversations around the lack of versatility in BC ferries fleet and this ship has been brought up several times in the "building for a particular route." My question is why is she not versatile? Based on numbers she would work in the locations that the Capilano or the Cumberland. (I know the Cumberland has a lager car capacity because of her upper rams that the Cap does not have)
Or is it just a matter that a ship that has a car capacity of 125 should have been built as a closed car deck allowing her to run the straight all year round?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jan 24, 2013 20:21:55 GMT -8
She was designed for:
- Bowen - HSB (primary)
- Earls Cove - Saltery Bay
- SGI
She is arguably very versatile, but unfortunately at the time of building she filled a vessel class that did not require mass replacement. It was pretty late in the game that the Island Sky was sent to her current assignment. Early in the build process the expectation was she would sail out of HSB for Bowen. Even when she entered service the crew all expected a vessel swap with the Cap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2013 20:28:34 GMT -8
She was designed for: - Bowen - HSB (primary) She is arguably very versatile, but unfortunately at the time of building she filled a vessel class that did not require mass replacement. It was pretty late in the game that the Island Sky was sent to her current assignment. Early in the build process the expectation was she would sail out of HSB for Bowen. Even when she entered service the crew all expected a vessel swap with the Cap. Maybe, the Island Sky will replace the Cap on the Bowen route, when the Snug Cove terminal gets rebuild. |
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jan 24, 2013 20:29:52 GMT -8
That was the limiting factor. They cannot queue enough vehicles for the Island Sky's capacity on Bowen. It has been several years now, though, and I am sufficiently out of touch to have no idea what the future plans are now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 24, 2013 20:53:00 GMT -8
I am confident that, had the Island Sky been designed as a closed deck vessel with the same AEQ, we would not be seeing the Chilliwack on Route 17, nor would we see our B-Class vessels slip into states of neglect. I am confident that the coordination requirements for relief vessels for the B-Class are a contributing factor to their decreased upkeep. It will be interesting to see what happens when they send this thing out into the chuck next winter (Departure Bay/Saltery Bay). If the Sky can prove herself, then I will stand corrected. Until then I stand by my assertion that this vessel is not flexible, and a Soup-At-Hand does not suffice for full cafeteria service  |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,307
|
Post by Neil on Jan 24, 2013 20:53:22 GMT -8
That was the limiting factor. They cannot queue enough vehicles for the Island Sky's capacity on Bowen. It has been several years now, though, and I am sufficiently out of touch to have no idea what the future plans are now. If you want a lesson in tedium, go to the Bowen Island forum and read their threads on ferry loading, vehicle marshalling, and the broader topic of where the terminal should be. No wonder BC Ferries gives them the ' Capilano, with no guarantee that they'll ever get anything bigger. |
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jan 24, 2013 21:53:14 GMT -8
I am confident that, had the Island Sky been designed as a closed deck vessel with the same AEQ, we would not be seeing the Chilliwack on Route 17, nor would we see our B-Class vessels slip into states of neglect. I am confident that the coordination requirements for relief vessels for the B-Class are a contributing factor to their decreased upkeep. It will be interesting to see what happens when they send this thing out into the chuck next winter (Departure Bay/Saltery Bay). If the Sky can prove herself, then I will stand corrected. Until then I stand by my assertion that this vessel is not flexible, and a Soup-At-Hand does not suffice for full cafeteria service The Queen of Alberni spent the first decade of its life as an open-decked vessel happily crossing Georgia Strait summer & winter in all kinds of weather. There were no issues then, that I am aware of. I don't think that she was pulled from service due to weather/sea conditions more frequently than her closed-deck sisters. Further, Seaspan's open-decked freight ferries continue to cross Georgia Strait under pretty much all conditions. Then there are WSF's open-decked ferries... So is there a Transport Canada rule restricting the use of the I-Sky on cross strait voyages? Or is this just a choice being made by BCFS management? If there is a prohibition in effect then how come this vessel is slated to run from Saltery Bay to Departure Bay next winter? |
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 24, 2013 22:20:35 GMT -8
I am confident that, had the Island Sky been designed as a closed deck vessel with the same AEQ, we would not be seeing the Chilliwack on Route 17, nor would we see our B-Class vessels slip into states of neglect. I am confident that the coordination requirements for relief vessels for the B-Class are a contributing factor to their decreased upkeep. It will be interesting to see what happens when they send this thing out into the chuck next winter (Departure Bay/Saltery Bay). If the Sky can prove herself, then I will stand corrected. Until then I stand by my assertion that this vessel is not flexible, and a Soup-At-Hand does not suffice for full cafeteria service So is there a Transport Canada rule restricting the use of the I-Sky on cross strait voyages? Or is this just a choice being made by BCFS management? If there is a prohibition in effect then how come this vessel is slated to run from Saltery Bay to Departure Bay next winter? Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the issue is Transport Canada. BCFS had not sought out recertification of the vessel until now. It sounds to me like Transport Canada will recertify the vessel to operate in the Strait on a temporary basis, and will judge a permanent recertification on the vessel's performance during that period. If the permanent recertification takes place, which is likely, the vessel will be the future relief for Route 17. Note that WSF's vessels are certified by the USCG as inland ferries, and would not be permitted to operate on the Strait of Georgia. |
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,080
|
Post by Nick on Jan 25, 2013 5:23:40 GMT -8
Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the issue is Transport Canada. BCFS had not sought out recertification of the vessel until now. It sounds to me like Transport Canada will recertify the vessel to operate in the Strait on a temporary basis, and will judge a permanent recertification on the vessel's performance during that period. If the permanent recertification takes place, which is likely, the vessel will be the future relief for Route 17. Note that WSF's vessels are certified by the USCG as inland ferries, and would not be permitted to operate on the Strait of Georgia. By my understanding, the only reason the I-sky is not currently certified for the strait is because BCF never applied for it. There isn't really any reason she can't be certified for it.. she has the high bulwarks and necessary watertight subdivisions. In many ways I would argue that she's as safe or safer than the Burnaby or Nanaimo. As it stands now, I don't really see the issue with the I-sky serving as a relief on route 17. Crossing time should be about the same, as the Burnaby seldom exceeds 14 knots, and she doesn't have to turn around. The lack of galley service is a disappointment, but as a relief vessel it's not a big deal. And a note about the Alberni: Bear in mind that TC regulations have changed immensely since the 70s and 80s. Just because something was allowed back then doesn't mean it is considered safe now. Since the Canada Shipping Act was amended in the late 90s/early 2000s, TC has become more stringent in following IMO (read: European) standards, particularly in the area of passenger ships. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 25, 2013 8:17:39 GMT -8
In June 2012, I had an informal chat with the BCF Marine Superintendent for the northern minor routes.
He said that the Island Sky was currently in the process of being certified to work the Comox - Little River route, in any season. She apparently is heavy and sturdy enough for that route in off-season weather.
He sounded like he really wanted the Island Sky to be the new permanent ship for the Comox route. He said that most of the teething-problems of a
new ship are now sorted out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2013 17:39:31 GMT -8
Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the issue is Transport Canada. BCFS had not sought out recertification of the vessel until now. It sounds to me like Transport Canada will recertify the vessel to operate in the Strait on a temporary basis, and will judge a permanent recertification on the vessel's performance during that period. If the permanent recertification takes place, which is likely, the vessel will be the future relief for Route 17. Note that WSF's vessels are certified by the USCG as inland ferries, and would not be permitted to operate on the Strait of Georgia. By my understanding, the only reason the I-sky is not currently certified for the strait is because BCF never applied for it. There isn't really any reason she can't be certified for it.. she has the high bulwarks and necessary watertight subdivisions. In many ways I would argue that she's as safe or safer than the Burnaby or Nanaimo. As it stands now, I don't really see the issue with the I-sky serving as a relief on route 17. Crossing time should be about the same, as the Burnaby seldom exceeds 14 knots, and she doesn't have to turn around. The lack of galley service is a disappointment, but as a relief vessel it's not a big deal. And a note about the Alberni: Bear in mind that TC regulations have changed immensely since the 70s and 80s. Just because something was allowed back then doesn't mean it is considered safe now. Since the Canada Shipping Act was amended in the late 90s/early 2000s, TC has become more stringent in following IMO (read: European) standards, particularly in the area of passenger ships. In addition, BCFS could add 'weather gates' to the Island Sky if it is deemed necessary. The so called weather gates are found today on the K and Q barges. |
|
