This is like listening to brietbart.
Next thing we know he’ll claim the GPS was hacked on the crystal and some black hat hacker steered it into the Fitzgerald.
Crop is used when discussing ship steel repairs. It means to cut away damaged or corroded steel back to sound, undamaged material, so that you can insert pieces of original thickness to restore the original structure. I have done it many times. Such jobs cannot be left to the Master or the Chief Engineer to carry out … they are not trained for it … and such jobs are not done underwater.
The reinforcements of hull plates are called frames, stiffeners, beams, etc, and are fitted on the inside.
The job shown on the photo looks like a Mickey Mouse job.
No. The job was a temporary patch to stabilize the vessel and pump water out of damaged spaces so it could safely enter dry-dock.
2 Likes
Then obviously this doesn’t qualify as such because it WAS done underwater.
No duh dumbfuck, this was a temp job to get it into drydock for real repairs. How dense are you?
3 Likes
Micky Mouse is a stud to get it done as quick as he did.
1 Like
Easy - MM had help from Donald Duck and Sponge Bob SquarePatch! 
1 Like
When I was in the Navy, I learnt how to stop hull leakages from the inside with water flowing in through a leakage (due to enemy fire).
That knowledge has come in handy later as also merchant marine vessels are subject to leaks. I was pretty good at making cement boxes and similar devices during my long career in ship operations and repairs.
However cropping away hull plates under water and then fitting a big, heavy patch and beams over the hole, I never did. That patch must have weighed >1 000 kgs and could only have been handled using a crane.
Anyway, it would have been nice to see a photo of the damages before the patch was fitted.
Right…“small” hull contact.
Running into a rock pinnacle and having a 80 tons of it wind up lodged in your hull sure is a minor inconvenience.
I don’t post here often, but this is the most asinine thing I’ve read in this forum. Not only was her tow to Genoa, partial scrapping while still afloat and subsequent move to drydock heavily covered on THIS VERY WEBSITE, but just YESTERDAY there was an article covering the completion of the scrapping.
Just stop. You clearly have zero idea what you are talking about.
4 Likes
Careful what you say, the same poster has posted some other things that take the cake (you know, like Schettino does not deserve the 16 years he got, little gems like that) and others of a more competitive bent may try and outdo the post.
1 Like
From the end of last month. I highlighted a few points.
"USS Fitzgerald is preparing to enter drydock on Fleet Activities Yokosuka early next month to conduct follow on inspections and repairs,” Doss said. “An ammo offload was completed June 25. Additional preparations include dewatering, defueling and temporary patch installation on the hull. Once the ship is docked, technical assessments will commence that will inform options to conduct long term repairs in the United States.”
Yeah, I’m really glad they took the time to do the job right.
Sorry, I know what I am talking about. Only criminal, irresponsible shipowners blame their employed officers and crew members for incidents at sea, which are always stupid accidents. Shore based administrations and authorities are happy to assist.
I describe the Costa Concordia incident in detail at http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm and why the not seaworthy ship sank.
Regarding the disappearance of the wreck and all its toxic waste I describe it at http://heiwaco.com.news811.htm
There is no evidence that the 17 000 tons light ship wreck was cut up in drydock February-May 2017.and disposed of for recycling. I think it was simply towed out to sea again and sunk.
But if you can show me some photos of the wreck in drydock March and April 2017 I am happy to see them. It also applies to Fitz in DD July 2017.
But why not scrap the ship or, simpler, just tow it out to sea and sink it? A ship that is completely destroyed by a little 14x17’ hole in the side below waterline upflooding three (?) compartments, destroying the machinery, communications equipment and crew accommodation cannot be worth repairing.
Sorry, to me it does not sound like you know what your ranting about. Now, I will agree that there are serious issues in many companies on the shoreside part, but that does not excuse what the captain did. Yes, some of the shoreside management should probably be flogged to allow a company culture with Schettino as a captain. No, it still does not remove his responsibility.
[quote=“Heiwa, post:605, topic:45129”]
A ship that is completely destroyed by a little 14x17’ hole in the side below waterline upflooding three (?) compartments, destroying the machinery, communications equipment and crew accommodation cannot be worth repairing.
[/quote] It was not completely destroyed. It was major damage that could have sank the ship had the crew not reacted well at that point. I would hope people here, even if critical about the watchstanders allowing themselves to be struck by a container ship to consider that the follow-up efforts were certainly admirable. There can be plenty worth repairing, for old times sake research just how many major ships actually sunk at Pearl Harbor ended up fighting another day.
I wonder if those clown is making any money off ad traffic from his certain uptick in site visits for posting his delusions of grandeur and conspiracy theories.
3 Likes
Mr. Robot?
Come on. This is Max Turdberger. Fess up!
1 Like
Well, I remain surprised that seven persons drowned and that three watertight compartments were upflooded due to leakage by collision. As the damage has small longitudinal extent only one watertight compartment was probably upflooded, so I assume two other compartments were progressively flooded through open, watertight doors.
But why would seven persons drown? Why didn’t they escape up to open decks? Why were they trapped down below? It would be interesting to see a layout of the decks where crew drowned. Were the escape arrangements as per ordinary passenger/ferry ship standards?
Thanks!
What puzzles me is that three watertight compartments reportedly flooded following the collision even though the damage caused by the bulbous bow is very localized. Even if it had hit a transverse watertight bulkhead dead-on, it should have not flooded more than two compartments. To my knowledge, naval ships do not have watertight doors below the damage control deck, meaning that either a second transverse watertight bulkhead was damaged following the collision - perhaps indicating more serious global deformations in the hull - or there was a minor error in reporting and spaces within the same watertight compartment (but on different decks) were referred to as being different watertight spaces. I doubt there were watertight subdivision in the vertical direction.
When discussing watertight subdivision, escape arrangements etc., keep in mind that this is a front-line combat vessel, not a civilian ship. Instead of IMO, SOLAS etc. regulations, it is built according to US Navy’s own standards which take into account for example the fact that every crew member receives continuous training for damage control, escape etc. I don’t wish to speculate how the seven crew members died, but the fact that there were no more casualties proves that the crew, as a whole, had been properly trained.