Author Topic: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur  (Read 115589 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 555,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,182
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #100 on: March 27, 2014, 11:20:54 »
I wonder what will become of the crew.....Released?
    ::)

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 297,696
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,960
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #101 on: March 27, 2014, 11:55:20 »
If the CF chooses to retire the ship would it be a dumb idea to suggest turning the ship into some kind of training vessel?  It can't sail but considering what happened it could be turned into a good simulator to train crews how to fight an epic fire in the dark, no electricity etc..

They could also section off an area of the ship put up some rubber walls and make a live fire kill house type range on board for boarding party training.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Danjanou

  • Reporting from Goat Rodeo Central
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 92,839
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,433
  • Butt Party NCO on the 81mm Mortar Range
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #102 on: March 27, 2014, 12:16:49 »
Quote
The military announced in October that Protecteur and its sister supply ship on the East Coast, HMCS Preserver, will be retired in 2015. Construction of new supply ships is expected to begin in late 2016, with a target of having them in service by 2019-20.

Oh yeah that works .

"You have reached the RCN, please be advised that we will be unable to assist you and/or conduct major naval operations for the next 4 years. If you would like to speak to one of our allies please use your touch tone key pad.

For the USN prsss 1
For the RN press 2
For the RAN press 3"

 ::)
NASA spent $12 Million designing a pen that could write in the zero gravity environment of space. The Russians went with pencils.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,927
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,056
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #103 on: March 27, 2014, 16:36:02 »
I wonder what will become of the crew.  Will they be spread out through the fleet? Released? They should be rewarded.
'
I would imagine some crew will stay with the ship until its final disposition, some will augment the KIN class out west and the rest will be absorbed into fleet shortages which are many.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,927
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,056
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #104 on: March 27, 2014, 16:42:50 »
If the CF chooses to retire the ship would it be a dumb idea to suggest turning the ship into some kind of training vessel?  It can't sail but considering what happened it could be turned into a good simulator to train crews how to fight an epic fire in the dark, no electricity etc..

They could also section off an area of the ship put up some rubber walls and make a live fire kill house type range on board for boarding party training.

At one point in time the RCN actually had old ships that they did controlled burns for shipboard fire fighting. We now have environmentally friendly ship simulators on each coast to conduct DC/FF training.  HMCS Protecteur is so full of hazardous materials that turning it into a training simulator wouldn't work, she'll end up at the breakers at some point.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 345
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #105 on: March 27, 2014, 18:10:00 »
'
I would imagine some crew will stay with the ship until its final disposition, some will augment the KIN class out west and the rest will be absorbed into fleet shortages which are many.

Thanks Chief
It seemed a reasonable question to me

Offline Pat in Halifax

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 33,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 906
  • Jackwagon
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #106 on: March 28, 2014, 05:08:57 »
Further to this, I am now being told that junior PRO personnel are already being picked up for support to this summer's MARS training in the ORCAs. This is fine but remember that there is more to FG than MARS training. As was mentioned, the west coast ships are at a manning level that is  unprecedented. The problem is, if PRO actually gets decommissioned; that would send all those positions back to VCDS. We learned that the hard way with HURON's decommissioning. Figure out who is close to finishing their training, get them sailing with PRE to finish and move the remainder to HAL and KIN class to begin the transition. Some would say that it is not that simple but you know what?...It actually is...The archaic policies in place and mixed priorities which will actually hamper this are what is not simple.
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb ******* die for his"
George S. Patton

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 214,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,167
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #107 on: March 28, 2014, 07:06:01 »
The difference being that HUR was being struck from the fleet as part of directed structural drawdowns, thus an establishment reduction vice REMAR redistribution, whereas PRO is the current embodiment (REMAR, if you will) of an ongoing AOR capability (justified establishment).

Cheers
G2G

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 555,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,182
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #108 on: March 28, 2014, 07:27:55 »
It seemed a reasonable question to me
Yes, because our initial reaction to CAF personnel exposed to a catastrophic incident is to release them.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 119,779
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,202
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #109 on: March 28, 2014, 07:55:06 »
Yes, because our initial reaction to CAF personnel exposed to a catastrophic incident is to release them.

 :rofl:

We actually treat it like a baseball team, the members get placed on waivers! 

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #110 on: March 28, 2014, 09:28:03 »
I can't speak for the west coast as I don't know where they bunker PRO, but if this was to happen to PRE it could be possible to use her as an alongside fuel depot.  They have electric pumps which are supplied from shore power that are used to fuel other ships in harbor.  Imperial Oil is just across the harbour at Dartmouth for top ups etc.

In addition, if they do decide that PRO is beyond economical repair then she will become a source of parts for PRE until she is retired as well.  For many of the engineering systems the companies that made the original parts are no longer in business or OEM parts are not available.  We once had to find a head for the joy air compressor in a scrap yard in northern Texas.


Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,715
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,835
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #111 on: March 28, 2014, 09:55:46 »
I can't speak for the west coast as I don't know where they bunker PRO, but if this was to happen to PRE it could be possible to use her as an alongside fuel depot.  They have electric pumps which are supplied from shore power that are used to fuel other ships in harbour.  Imperial Oil is just across the harbour at Dartmouth for top ups etc.

In addition, if they do decide that PRO is beyond economical repair then she will become a source of parts for PRE until she is retired as well.  For many of the engineering systems the companies that made the original parts are no longer in business or OEM parts are not available.  We once had to find a head for the joy air compressor in a scrap yard in northern Texas.

Our fuelling facility is across the harbour in Colwood.

Since it will be an unmanned tow from Pearl to Esquimalt, all our disposal issues and an honourable end to a great lady would be solved about midway between Hawaii and BC.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,927
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,056
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #112 on: March 28, 2014, 13:48:47 »
I'll throw this idea out , what coast has the greater need for a tanker? Why not send the PRE hull out west. PRE crews fill the shortages within the fleet and supplement shortages in the KIN class.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Pat in Halifax

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 33,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 906
  • Jackwagon
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #113 on: March 28, 2014, 13:55:32 »
Oh I see PRE guys punching their screens right now for you even suggesting such a thing!!

I am sure that is one of the COAs being discussed though.
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb ******* die for his"
George S. Patton

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 31,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 874
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #114 on: March 28, 2014, 18:57:49 »
I'll throw this idea out , what coast has the greater need for a tanker? Why not send the PRE hull out west. PRE crews fill the shortages within the fleet and supplement shortages in the KIN class.

Aside from the fact then we would have three ships stuck alongside out west, with the disposal yards out east?

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 462,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,781
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #115 on: March 28, 2014, 19:26:54 »
I'll throw this idea out , what coast has the greater need for a tanker? Why not send the PRE hull out west. PRE crews fill the shortages within the fleet and supplement shortages in the KIN class.

Or do hot crewing - Halifax crew six months, take the canal, change to Esquimalt crew, six months, take the canal, back to Halifax... lather, rinse, repeat.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 31,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 874
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #116 on: March 29, 2014, 07:50:48 »
There is a big cost to transit the canal, plus it takes a fair bit of time.  They'd leave one coast, get stuck on breakdowns along the way, maybe get through the line eventually (assuming they get a waiver for single hull tankers to go through the canal), break down and travel up along the west coast, then do a crew swap, a work period (with no available parts), then turn around and try and get her back....

Plus the PRO would still need some min crew/maintenance if they shelve her to keep her safe alongside while they are working out the disposal contract (requires extensive environmental and controlled goods surveys) so not something that gets done overnight.

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 17,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,348
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #117 on: March 29, 2014, 09:53:20 »
There is a big cost to transit the canal, plus it takes a fair bit of time.

Not really, a fully loaded container ship can expect to pay around 500,000; which isn't much in the big picture.   As for it taking a fair bit of time, the tanker should be able to do it in a month or less (considering a fully loaded container ship can get to NY from China in 26 days).

Disposal yards out east?  The west coast is more than capable to handle disposing of vessels.




Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,927
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,056
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #118 on: March 29, 2014, 10:46:53 »
Not really, a fully loaded container ship can expect to pay around 500,000; which isn't much in the big picture.   As for it taking a fair bit of time, the tanker should be able to do it in a month or less (considering a fully loaded container ship can get to NY from China in 26 days).

Disposal yards out east?  The west coast is more than capable to handle disposing of vessels.

I believe naval vessels get a break on the transit costs or they used to. Lots of places on the west coast to scrap a vessel, including the US.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 31,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 874
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #119 on: March 29, 2014, 11:12:59 »
I believe naval vessels get a break on the transit costs or they used to. Lots of places on the west coast to scrap a vessel, including the US.

Single hull tankers older then 25 years old no longer allowed to transit the Panama Canal (PTR class is cat 2 oiler);
https://www.pancanal.com/common/maritime/advisories/2011/a-17-2011.pdf
If they get a waiver, guessing there will be a big cost (escort tugs, etc).  Also, last time one of our tankers went through it got no special treatment and wasn't considered a warship.


Also, there aren't many disposal yards at that size/draft.  Disposal isn't worth enough money for anyone with that kind of facility in BC to care, as they make far more money building/repairing ships.  You need to find a marine scrap yard, and there are only a few in Canada (Sault St Marie, Port Colburne and on in NS).  Environmental disposal is also a big deal, so also need to be able to handle PCBs and a few other legacy hazmat items.

Few in the US (few in Maine/Oregon, one in California), but the US has some interesting rules wrt taking any other countries HazMat, or even going through their territorial waters, so they are cost prohibitive (may need to remove all hazmat, which includes some of the primers in the old coatings, gaskets, etc).  There is a spot in Mexico, but then there is the CG aspect, plus politics of doing it outside of Canada.

Ship disposal is a lot more complicated then you may think, if you do it IAW our laws.  We could always tow the ship the other way (ie further west), assuming we are okay with ignoring our own laws and a number of international treaties.


Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 17,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,348
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #120 on: March 29, 2014, 11:21:40 »
HMCS Provider was towed to Turkey, I don't see why this would be an issue with the remaining tankers.

http://www.wellandcanal.ca/shiparc/warships/provider/provider.htm



Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,927
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,056
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #121 on: March 29, 2014, 11:26:39 »
Single hull tankers older then 25 years old no longer allowed to transit the Panama Canal (PTR class is cat 2 oiler);
https://www.pancanal.com/common/maritime/advisories/2011/a-17-2011.pdf
If they get a waiver, guessing there will be a big cost (escort tugs, etc).  Also, last time one of our tankers went through it got no special treatment and wasn't considered a warship.


Also, there aren't many disposal yards at that size/draft.  Disposal isn't worth enough money for anyone with that kind of facility in BC to care, as they make far more money building/repairing ships.  You need to find a marine scrap yard, and there are only a few in Canada (Sault St Marie, Port Colburne and on in NS).  Environmental disposal is also a big deal, so also need to be able to handle PCBs and a few other legacy hazmat items.

Few in the US (few in Maine/Oregon, one in California), but the US has some interesting rules wrt taking any other countries HazMat, or even going through their territorial waters, so they are cost prohibitive (may need to remove all hazmat, which includes some of the primers in the old coatings, gaskets, etc).  There is a spot in Mexico, but then there is the CG aspect, plus politics of doing it outside of Canada.

Ship disposal is a lot more complicated then you may think, if you do it IAW our laws.  We could always tow the ship the other way (ie further west), assuming we are okay with ignoring our own laws and a number of international treaties.

Interesting on the warship aspect of the transit, I believe back in the day a 3" 50 Cal was mounted on the front of the tanker to take advantage of the warship aspect. Certainly makes sense to restrict access of single hulled vessels. I suspect PRO and PRE will sit along side for a number of years until they decide what to do with them after they are paid off.
I think its a good bet that any newly built tankers are at least 5 yrs away, unless they buy offshore or lease something.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 31,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 874
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #122 on: March 30, 2014, 15:20:21 »
HMCS Provider was towed to Turkey, I don't see why this would be an issue with the remaining tankers.

http://www.wellandcanal.ca/shiparc/warships/provider/provider.htm

Aside from the fact that after pictures popped up of the Provider beached somewhere with guys using their hands as welding shields cutting it up?  Hence Canadian govt policy that all ships will be disposed in Canada?

Also, that was in 2002; there has since been big changes in environmental regulations and Controlled Goods.

There are issues with ships with certain Hazmats even transiting US waters under tow under some of their newer laws (active warships are exempt from it).  The whole thing is kind of complicated.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,593
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #123 on: March 31, 2014, 10:09:38 »
There is no one here on the West Coast with the facilities and experience to scrap a vessel of that size. We worked with a guy to get several derelict vessels towed out of Canadian waters to Mexico. He seems to have disappeared and we are wondering if he ran afoul of the gangs down there.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,758
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur
« Reply #124 on: March 31, 2014, 10:48:37 »
.....
I hate hearing things like "the engineering world learns more from it's failures..." ....

Pat, I wouldn't get bent about that statement.  It is a truism and it doesn't apply just to the RCN but to any endeavour.

I used to say of the mob that I used to work for that the key to its commercial success was record of its failures held in the project library in Lund.

I am constantly arguing that too little time is spent on history (researching those failures) and too much time is spent pondering (Oo! I wonder what will happen if I do this?)  I find that that "pondering" bit ultimately is what slows down projects.   You can never get a 100% solution.  History studies might get you into the 85 to 95%  bracket.  All the pondering in the world won't improve on that.

All you can ever do is prepare yourself to manage the failures.

And on which note .... God be thanked everyone came home safe and well done to those involved.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"