- Reaction score
Oldgateboatdriver said:Let's deal with Transport Canada certification first: Point one here is, I am not sure that the Coast Guard fleets needs it (anymore than we, in the Navy need it either). But even if it was required, Transport Canada inspection/certification of Canadian flagged ships only addresses whether the proper pubs, charts, and life saving equipment is carried onboard and up to date and whether all the ship's paperwork is in order. Those certification have nothing to do with seaworthiness and do not address that aspect. So it is of no use in this discussion
I'm not familiar with the Navy, but I assume they have some sort of internal department to issue the appropriate certificates.
The Coast Guard does not.
Transport Canada Marine Safety absolutely does issue the required certificates of sea worthiness (not just the usual flag state stuff) to Coast Guard vessels on behalf of the Canadian Government, and they don't sail without the certificates.
Czech_pivo said:Also, has Transport Canada ever not certify one of our own ships? Would they even be allowed to be that bold?
Yes, has happened many times.
Same thing happens as any other ship not being certified.
You're given a list of deficiencies, and it's up to the ship owner to fix them.
With most privately owned ships, this usually leads to a cost-benefit analysis of the cost of repair vs replace.
Most government ships are usually just repaired.
We now come to Lloyd's. First, as pointed out, the survey is a few years old - and in old ship's estimating life time of the hull/machinery is not easy. Yet, the Lloyd's surveyors are professionals who work with limited information (the surveys are usually carried out with the ship in the water - not in dry dock - so many things are hidden to them) and usually do a good job of it. However, they are usually called upon to make a survey in order for the ship to be insurable. Canada, like most Western nations, self-insures it's own ships. Why the needs for a survey then? Because that survey was done shortly before the Hudson was turned over to a shipyard for her last refit ( the one that was screwed up). That survey was made so the yard could insure the ship while she was in their custody. It likely took into consideration the expected result from that refit work in coming to its conclusion.
As of a few years ago, Lloyds was taking over from Transport Canada Marine Safety in the role of surveyors on the coast guard vessels.
My understanding is that the ships were still "under written" by the Government of Canada, however Lloyds was would be acting as surveyors on behalf of the government of Canada.
This leads to problems on a few ships, when Lloyds inspectors suddenly found problems that had been previously overlooked by Transport Canada Inspectors (not intentionally... but that's a whole different discussion).
I'm not certain if Lloyds is acting as the surveyor for the Hudson if they were were in 2016, but that may be why they were commenting on it's condition.
Colin P said:Sadly my trust in the current senior management of the CCG is limited, much of it has no sea going experience and more concerned about their careers than ships.