During one of my ill-fated attempts at shoreside employment I was associated with the effort to bring a CMMS to the great good MSC fleet. This was when their computers were Zeniths and discs were actually floppy. Part of that experience was attending some conferences of maintenance managers and early developers of CMMS software and once such talk presented as fact that 80% of corrective maintenance was caused by preventive maintenance. In other words maintenance induced failures. I don’t know if they got the proportion correct or not (it appears very high to me) but it appears the phenomenon is measurable.
That appears to be the gist of infant mortality described above. For example changing a bearing in advance of its expected life and thinking that you will automatically reset the expected life to the maximum is not something you should count on for wide range of reasons including the quality of the replacement part and the quality of the workmanship. That is assuming you are basing your planned action only on running hours or other interval. For the most part (and I can think of very specific counter examples) unless you are basing your action on some vibration or noise measurements you may be disappointed in the results.
This is not meant to devalue all calendar or running hour maintenance. Just that experience should temper the default “manufacturers recommendations” or bright ideas from the office. In certain quarters the initial maintenance plans are taken as gospel and even suggesting changes is met with irrational push back and essentially wasted man-hours either pencil whipping tasks or rote performance of meaningless tasks (if its not broke now it will be soon after some well intentioned crew member tightens a foundation fastener to its yield strength) while for example, fire dampers go under-maintained.
Returning to the article in the OP and downloading the “investigation report” does little to technically enlighten either shipboard or experienced port engineer. It does seem well suited for the new generation of shoreside support staff to justify any of tens (hundreds?) management of change documents to add to shipboard misery. I’m sure it made the technical section at the Swedish Club feel better about things too.
Honestly, reading the “essentials” on page two is about as far as you need go to see where its headed. Aw heck here it is to save you wasting your bandwidth downloading it.
How to avoid auxiliary engine damage
Ensure you have the necessary knowledge and experience
before commencing any overhaul work.
If you have not received training on the specific engine
model, consider engaging an expert from the manufacturer.
Always strictly follow manufacturer’s instructions.
During overhaul, check and double check that stud bolts for
connection rods and bearing keeps are tightened 100% in
accordance with manufacturer’s instructions.
Ensure that required tools are available and calibrated as
Regularly monitor the quality of your lubrication oil and take
prompt action when irregularities are detected
Here is another gem.
Whilst prevention is always the best cure, steps can be taken to mitigate the damage caused by failure of the auxiliary engine. Most modern auxiliary engine installations can be started and stopped remotely from the engine control room. It is good practice to always be present at the engine when starting same, especially after longer periods of still-stand and after overhaul. During start-up, if anything goes wrong, it usually happens very quickly. If someone is present at the engine there is at least a possibility to intervene and shut down the engine manually.
Again, honestly who is going to sea these days?
What is the bar set at for publishing this sort of thing?
Anything else you want to add? Don’t run with scissors? Don’t stick screwdrivers in electrical outlets (Sorry Mr. Cavo)
It’s not that any of this is not true, it’s that they seem to aim it squarely at shipboard staff and frame it as a deficiency of theirs. What about ship management? Who hires such a unqualified crew then keeps them in place when not performing adequately? Who implements and monitors a lube oil analysis program? Who approves or even insists on calibration of instruments and tools? You’re a ship manager how about git to managing.
The analysis is an inch wide and a millimeter deep (to intentionally mix system of units). Do tell us more. How about claims by owner, fleet, class of ship. Or by make/model of engine. Maybe this uptick was all due to one or two substandard owners or poor selection of equipment.
Now on the other hand perhaps it can be used jujitsu style to use their own weight against them to recommend advanced makers training for all hands in order save them cost of future deductibles on future claims. Road trip!