Just reading something off a panel is tougher for some people than you might think. Have you heard of the game, telephone. It never works. Why risk even the smallest communication error? Even if the engineer goes back to the ECR and reads the alarm, post radio call from the dpo, there could be even more confusion. And you’ve lost all that time, time that could be used to troubleshoot and correct the problem. I don’t care how many fmeas the boats been through, shit happens, and when it happens and nobody responds fast enough, it can go to hell really quickly. Just because something hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t mean it won’t happen.
Sure but
your convinced there is somebody in each engine room on a multi engine roomed vessel?
20 years ago I was chatting to a ch eng from a tanker, he said the company pays wartsila to remotely monitor the engine room and he would get calls from shore re faults.
Saying that the guys on shore were engineers.
I think comparing daily operations in a tanker engine room and a dp vessel engine room is comparing apples to oranges. You can’t wait for a call to come from shore as you’re drifting off location…
It’s not that an engineer must be in both engine rooms, he just needs access to observe an alarm and diagnose the issue ASAP. Adding error or confusion to the mix is just asking for trouble. An engineer can get from an ECR to whatever engine room he or she needs to, quickly, if they deem necessary to rectify an issue…IF they can quickly assess the situation.
[QUOTE=gulf_engineer;156182]I think comparing daily operations in a tanker engine room and a dp vessel engine room is comparing apples to oranges. You can’t wait for a call to come from shore as you’re drifting off location…[/QUOTE]
Now you are comparing nutmegs to watermelons. Shore based data evaluation is not meant to replace an idiot light or an alarm. It provides an opportunity for very well qualified and experienced engineers and manufacturer’s technicians to evaluate longer term trends and project potential problems and solutions long before a periodically aware crewmember might recognize a pattern.
Airliner engine manufacturers do the same thing but they don’t call the captain to tell him his EPRs are a bit off …
We have automated processes to reduce human error as much as possible but the trend to use that technology to support eliminating the engineer from engineering activities with the expectation that a DPO driver will be capable (much less competent) to replace an engineer is absurd and will become the focus of a highly publicized “accident” investigation report in the future.
I didn’t bring the dog to the fight, I just called it ugly.
The max bmi number will have to come down for these engineers camped in one engine room as they will need to run to the next one quite often no doubt…
[QUOTE=Steamer;156187]Now you are comparing nutmegs to watermelons. Shore based data evaluation is not meant to replace an idiot light or an alarm. It provides an opportunity for very well qualified and experienced engineers and manufacturer’s technicians to evaluate longer term trends and project potential problems and solutions long before a periodically aware crewmember might recognize a pattern.
Airliner engine manufacturers do the same thing but they don’t call the captain to tell him his EPRs are a bit off …
We have automated processes to reduce human error as much as possible but the trend to use that technology to support eliminating the engineer from engineering activities with the expectation that a DPO driver will be capable (much less competent) to replace an engineer is absurd and will become the focus of a highly publicized “accident” investigation report in the future.[/QUOTE]
Precisely my point. Some oil companies will not allow and unmanned engine control room on drilling rigs for that very reason. During studies and audits I have been a part of unreported accidents have been discovered and near catastrophic errors made using these dual purpose DPOs, enough to worry that increasing this practice makes a serious accident statistically more likely. The nationality of the mate/DPO has little bearing. The fact that minimal automation is installed compounds the problem
[QUOTE=powerabout;156191]The max bmi number will have to come down for these engineers camped in one engine room as they will need to run to the next one quite often no doubt…[/QUOTE]
Engineers maintain MUCH more than engines on a drilling rig. It is difficult to get the maintenance done with the number of engineers the company is willing to pay for now. But considering the minimal automation installed to not provide one engineer to man the engine control console while the rest perform mandated maintenance is ludicrous. It is a disaster waiting to happen even with Scandinavian dual licensed supermen with over-enlarged egos.
I agree with thats its the amount of work that needs to be done on a drilling rig, on paper they decided not having a engineer on the panel is one engineer saved, thats how the panel ended up in the bridge.
Maybe all engineers need to carry a tablet that has the vms on it?
[QUOTE=powerabout;156291]I agree with thats its the amount of work that needs to be done on a drilling rig, on paper they decided not having a engineer on the panel is one engineer saved, thats how the panel ended up in the bridge.
Maybe all engineers need to carry a tablet that has the vms on it?[/QUOTE]
Actually this has been discussed as strange as that may sound. In seeking to modernize the industry and bring it up to standards that have been used for years in other industries that is a proposal. While VMS operation may not be possible at the budget most companies are willing to spend via a tablet real time VMS monitoring could be done. Beats the heck out of trying to get a engineer on the radio. We have shown data travels better than voice radio communication on vessels via wireless.
I suppose you also could give a tablet to one of those dual licensed DPOS and let him do deck maintenance instead of hanging out on the bridge watching a bunch of infallible automation… A AB could stand lookout and an administrative assistant could handle answering the phone etc
Just a thought…
No comments on multi engine roomed vessels as required by dp3, and the management thereof?
I’ve not worked on one.
[QUOTE=tengineer1;156294]Actually this has been discussed as strange as that may sound. In seeking to modernize the industry and bring it up to standards that have been used for years in other industries that is a proposal. While VMS operation may not be possible at the budget most companies are willing to spend via a tablet real time VMS monitoring could be done. Beats the heck out of trying to get a engineer on the radio. We have shown data travels better than voice radio communication on vessels via wireless.
I suppose you also could give a tablet to one of those dual licensed DPOS and let him do deck maintenance instead of hanging out on the bridge watching a bunch of infallible automation… A AB could stand lookout and an administrative assistant could handle answering the phone etc
Just a thought…[/QUOTE]
Dont give anyone radical ideas in this downturn…lol
[QUOTE=powerabout;156297]No comments on multi engine roomed vessels as required by dp3, and the management thereof?
I’ve not worked on one.[/QUOTE]
The typical set up is three engine rooms separated by watertight doors with one central engine control room in the center engine room. They have from two to three engineers on each watch and a “motorman” who is not licensed. The motorman and the engineers take readings in remote areas [which is silly if you had proper VMS/monitoring] of the ship in addition to performing maintenance while one engineer monitors the VMS in the ECR, does reports, orders parts etc, the engineers will typically alternate control room watch. The maintenance involves all 6 engines and 6 thrusters or more and auxiliary equipment for normal power needs, hotel services, hazardous drain treatment and some drilling support equipment. They are stretched pretty thin on the vessels that have some age on them, 4+ years out of the yard. On vessels that have only two engineers and a motorman it is practically impossible to do the required PMs if they have an engineer in the control room. Thus the idea was born to turn the operation and monitoring of these systems over to the DPO. A lot of the engineers like the idea of not being tied down to the ECR so they are free to get out and about. The problem comes when they cut the engineers down to 2 because at that point it is sometimes impossible for them to be in close proximity to the engine room. Additionally, the systems as installed do not provide a lot of automation for routine things like pumping out bilge wells filled by condensate drains and other routine tasks. I have seen times when both engineers were up forward 150 meters and quite a few ladders away from the engine room performing maintenance or routine operations. Should a cascading fault occur in the engine room things could escalate to catastrophic, such as a disconnect which will hopefully work, before a qualified engineer arrived back in the ER. Add to that recipe a DPO with no engineering background to feed proper information by a radio to the engineer who may or may not be able to hear and things could get frightening quickly. The technology and training is available to make an unmanned engine room on drilling rigs safe but the dollars get in the way.
I have been on merchant ships where one engineer and an oiler could handle things quite well on each watch with an unmanned engine room but the amount of equipment was less and automation was better maintained and/or better off the shelf choices were made to begin with.
Hopefully this better explains the problem.
Yet another way cutting corners and being cheap will bite them in the ass.
“No, senator there were no engineers in the ER for over 12 hours but the DPO who was 5 decks and 600 ft away was watching on the video feed the whole time”
“Yes senator I understand what an environmental catastrophe this is but we saved $150k a year by not having to have a guy manning the space”
[QUOTE=Fraqrat;156367]Yet another way cutting corners and being cheap will bite them in the ass.
“No, senator there were no engineers in the ER for over 12 hours but the DPO who was 5 decks and 600 ft away was watching on the video feed the whole time”
“Yes senator I understand what an environmental catastrophe this is but we saved $150k a year by not having to have a guy manning the space”[/QUOTE]
Fraqrat, as usual, is absolutely right. It is an insane assumption of unnecessary risks, not to keep the ECR properly manned, in order to save a few peanuts. This is a disaster and a new moratorium waiting to happen. What will the next moratorium cost?
[QUOTE=tugsailor;156368]Fraqrat, as usual, is absolutely right. It is an insane assumption of unnecessary risks, not to keep the ECR properly manned, in order to save a few peanuts. This is a disaster and a new moratorium waiting to happen. What will the next moratorium cost?[/QUOTE]
Many rigs with wonderful records on paper have some really good up time and safety records simply because they do not report the facts. There are reputations and bonuses at stake you must understand. The disaster will come. Later rather than sooner I hope but with the on going cuts in manning due to the lowered day rates for the contractors? Not likely.They look short term towards the next monthly report or quarterly stock report.
You have only to check the manning history of the engine room of the Deepwater Horizon to understand the situation. How many licensed engineers were on watch? What were their qualifications? MODU? That is an oiler with a license in many cases, not all I must say. Read the testimony and see the future of undermanned maintenance departments, cutting corners and looking good on paper when in fact the paper is fiction.Nothing has changed.
When the vessel is maneuvering in port or on DP there is an engineer in the control room. Doesn’t the rigs 500m zone procedures require a manned engine room? I know our ASOP requires a manned engine room inside the 500. Why would they require us to be manned and the rig not be?
LOL, you forget, “Those with the money make the rules”
I wonder what the situation was on that eco ahts that had a fire reported as engine fuel return?
[QUOTE=cajuntugster;156466]When the vessel is maneuvering in port or on DP there is an engineer in the control room. Doesn’t the rigs 500m zone procedures require a manned engine room? I know our ASOP requires a manned engine room inside the 500. Why would they require us to be manned and the rig not be?
LOL, you forget, “Those with the money make the rules”[/QUOTE]
No rules for modu’s less what the operators have told the uscg they are prepared to do.