• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
4,630
Points
1,160
The media (Mercedes Stephenson. CTV News, on Twitter) reports that HMCS Protecteur has had an engine room fire. No fatalities; minor injuries only. She's enroute to Hawaii.


Edit to add: Here is the DND News Release
 
Happy to see minor injuries only. Sounds like the Engine Room crew deserve a BZ.

Also, giving credit where due, the clear DND release alluding right away to presence of family onboard and to the commonality of that practice will go a long way to prevent a "shocking development just learned" type of piece in the media. So well done on the PA office that drafted this one.
 
CTV is reporting sources as saying 20 injured, and that the left coast commander Commodore Bob Auchterlonie said it took some time to get the fire out.  Might have been more than just lagging, by the sounds of it.  The USN is sending a destroyer to assist; I would say a tow isn't out of the question, as I'm reading other sources saying she's operating on her emergency generator.
 
No deaths.  Good.

Still on top of the waves.  Good.

Fires happen on ships at sea.  I've been in the navy for over 2 decades, and I think 4 of the ships I've sailed on have had fires.

Hard to dial 911 from the middle of the ocean, which is why we spend so much time training for this stuff.  I was actually just out at the DC Trainer for a DCOTT with almost our whole crew on Monday and Tuesday of this week.  We train, and we respond.  Same as a soldier responding to a jam on his C-7 (or more likely his Browning...tee hee) we get our bunker gear on, close up our section base teams and DC organization and go get the wet stuff on the hot stuff. 

NS
 
I'm glad injuries sound minor and the troops are alright.

Now, someone educate me please. What is the "so what?" of this if she's out of commission for a considerable time? I understand we have three coasts and two AORs. I don't know what our tempo is like and if the other AOR has been busy. OPSEC in mind, what is the potential/realistic impact of this?
 
Well, we operated on the West Coast without tankers before. It just means we need to rely more on our allies... USN.

I've been stranded in foreign ports before. There are far worse paces to be stuck than Pearl. I wonder how long it'll take and cost to repair her.
 
Time to approach the US about the USS(USNS?) Rainier and Bridge AOR's which are due to be decommissioned this year?
 
suffolkowner said:
Time to approach the US about the USS(USNS?) Rainier and Bridge AOR's which are due to be decommissioned this year?

If Canada could afford them, they'd be a great stop-gap solution.
 
AirDet said:
There are far worse paces to be stuck than Pearl. I wonder how long it'll take and cost to repair her.

Funny, but from what I've seen the more appealing the port the longer repairs seem to take ;)
 
What would be a realistic cost to acquire them? I mean the US  is planning on shutting them down.
 
Here's hoping for a full & speedy recovery to all concerned.

AirDet said:
suffolkowner said:
Time to approach the US about the USS(USNS?) Rainier and Bridge AOR's which are due to be decommissioned this year?
If Canada could afford them, they'd be a great stop-gap solution.
Methinks the "naval buy/lease used" option might not be, well, as optically sound at it might be, given Canada's history with the approach.
 
As a long time former Tanker Wanker I'm really happy to hear that all in all everything worked out.  We had a small insignificant fire (by comparison)  in our engine room on PRE when I was there and it was no fun to deal with.  This, was much more of an event from what I read/hear.  It's sometimes bloody dangerous going to sea and as NS say's that's why we train the way we do.  No 911 or roadside assistance out there and you can't damn well walk home either.

Another nail in the coffins for the old girls though. 
 
suffolkowner said:
What would be a realistic cost to acquire them? I mean the US  is planning on shutting them down.


The dollar cost might be important but the political price would be HUGE. Leasing or buying an interim ship would look like the government is considering abandoning the Canadian shipbuilding industry.

It is important to understand that almost no one cares if we spend the defence budget wisely, what's important is that we appear to spend it on Canadian jobs! Jobs!! JOBS!!!
 
I haven't a clue what would be a reasonable cost. Leasing them sounds like something we could justify to the Canadian people so long as it won't cost us a fortune to upgrade (if required).
 
Fair enough ERC, but I think the Queenstown's are probably still a long way off. 7 years maybe?
 
E.R. Campbell said:
It is important to understand that almost no one cares if we spend the defence budget wisely, what's important is that we appear to spend it on Canadian jobs! Jobs!! JOBS!!!

That's true. I hate seeing our budgets spent unwisely but as in ethics, we need to always appear to be doing the right thing. It all has to pass the Globe & Mail test.
 
I think it's fair to say, if the repair cost of the Oiler is too high she'll be paid-off. If I were paying the bill I wouldn't put any more money into her than absolutely necessary.
 
For those with access to Facebook, MARPAC just posted a 15 minute audio file update on the situation, given by Commodore Bob Auchterlonie.

Some points:
- approx. 20 minor injuries:  eg. dehydration, exhaustion, smoke inhalation
- a "major" fire in the engineering space, fought throughout much of the night.  Damage is extensive.
- she will require a tow to return to Pearl
 
Does Canadian jobs mean a tow back to Canada for repair to extensive damage?
 
Back
Top