As chief engineer on a large pax vessel I do not find this amusing at all, not one bit. This event highlights many of the things we’re up against - workloads, automation that needs to be understood, degradation of engineering knowledge because of the way we do things now, etc. All subjects for their own thread.
As you know a blackout on a D/E vessel is a very serious thing. At the MV Viking Sky blackout when the bridge called the E/R I believe the important thing they wanted to know was not so much what caused it but when can you get propulsion back? I’m sure the engineering staff knew what caused the problem but were not able to give a good timeline for propulsion to be restored (“No sweat mate all back online in a minute”).
I posted in the previous thread that it seems reasonable to acknowledge a few “low L/O level” alarms when you’re in a real seaway because operators know that engine oil sloshes around yet expect the engine installation to be able to handle the conditions it was designed for - the working environment they are going to be in (rough). But as KPChief has pointed out, 19 acknowledged alarms previous should have triggered some introspection (situation awareness) so I’m going to walk back that comment a bit if I may. Also of course the L/O levels allegedly not within the manufacturer’s specifications.
When the first generator (DG 4) indicated a low L/O pressure problem and said it was going to go offline then it seems that should have been “all hands on deck” and call the bridge to “ask” to come to a more comfortable weather course.
My main point still stands, which is that once propulsion is lost then the vessel is at the mercy of the seas, which is not where one wants to be. The L/O pump suction problems only become much worse (see the MV Faro rpt).
“The worst maritime disaster in Norwegian History” - I don’t know Norwegian maritime history but this was as close to a significant marine disaster as I’ve seen in a while. Kudos to getting through it without anyone getting hurt.
I am curious about the “low low L/O level alarm”. Is this different and more critical than a “low L/O level alarm” or is it a typo? Details, details. which we may hear about in the final report - or not…
3 Likes