I can tell you I have seen a 2 1/2" Towline break at 1200’ and it doesn’t recoil like that from what I remember.
[QUOTE=rshrew;110270]I can tell you I have seen a 2 1/2" Towline break at 1200’ and it doesn’t recoil like that from what I remember.[/QUOTE]
This video to me says everything and is exactly what I have been saying all along since this whole mess started in late December. TOWING TOO FUCKING SHORT WITH TOO LIGHT OF TOW GEAR FOR THE TIME OF YEAR AND LOCATION! PISS POOR PLANNING and LACK OF SPECIFIC LOCAL TOWING KNOWLEDGE! ECO blew it when they picked a master for the AIVIQ who was not an Alaskan seasoned mariner. Shame on them!
The story I’ve heard is that the tug/psv has common vent system on its fuel tanks and the vents are to low/close to the water. So the theory is the vent system failed and they were getting shit load of water in all the F/O tanks at once. This info I recieved third hand. Could be BS, I’ve only seen photos and read articles about this vessel…just another possibility, and since the truth may never come out I think speculation is justified.
[QUOTE=Left Coast;110273]The story I’ve heard is that the tug/psv has common vent system on its fuel tanks and the vents are to low/close to the water. So the theory is the vent system failed and they were getting shit load of water in all the F/O tanks at once. This info I recieved third hand. Could be BS, I’ve only seen photos and read articles about this vessel…just another possibility, and since the truth may never come out I think speculation is justified.[/QUOTE]
I had that same problem on a new tug. The fuel tanks vented into common over-flow tanks. The vent catch-pans could not drain fast enough in heavy weather. I caught it in plenty of time to take action. The vent pipes were extended 3 ft at the next port.
The fuel contamination by additive sounds completely specious. As others have said, no one else seems to have had problems with the fuel in Dutch.
The other part of that story is, or should be asked about by one of the CG morons who are pretending to hold a hearing to find facts, is how (if the fuel loaded in Dutch was contaminated) could those engines quit after running for 154 hours then miraculously run for another 244 hours after an injector change with no problems reported?
This is based on the boat leaving Dutch on the afternoon of the 21st, running until the engines quit at 0030 on the 28th. They restarted at 0800 on the 28th and ran until noon on the 7th of January.
Seems to me that unless they dumped the fuel and cleaned the tanks and did an at sea refueling from someone or found some miracle additive in the parts dropped onboard by the CG, they had to have burned the same fuel that they claim caused the problem. Something stinks here and it isn’t diesel fuel.
Do you think any of the Coasties will ask why the same fuel was problem free for 10 days afterward?
Late thought … so this contaminated fuel didn’t take out the generators?
I go along with the theory that they got a load of seawater through badly designed vents (nobody on board had any GofA or Bering Sea experience to know better) or someone is lying through their teeth. Unless the CG hearing officer is really really stupid, he has to know the witnesses are lying. I don’t think the CG clowns are that stupid but I do think they are that corrupt.
Your right they normally go limp not snake like that. That looks like he snagged something on the bottom.
After they lost the tow focus in the engine room was compromised and they didn’t notice a problem before it got to that point. Seasickness, distraction, etc
I am going to disclose that I know this chief engineer but will not comment further on him specifically or his professional abilities except to say that I stand by everything I have already posted concerning Chouest trying to throw up a smokescreen to duck any responsibility for what happened!
[QUOTE=“c.captain;110287”]I am going to disclose that I know this chief engineer but will not comment further on him specifically or his professional abilities except to say that I stand by everything I have already posted concerning Chouest trying to throw up a smokescreen to duck any responsibility for what happened![/QUOTE]
After read the above posts I’m more convinced that the main engine failures where caused by sea water contamination. It would be interesting to know if they lost any of the auxiliary generators or not. It’s been my experience (long ago) that if there is water or any other contamination the mains will usually be the first to show problems and then the auxs. if you let the problem continue to develop. Heavy weather with confused seas require extreme diligence on fuel management. I’ve experienced sea water in the fuel supply tanks and making ballast water through the ball vents in extreme heavy weather with confused seas. Requires repeated fuel tank stripping, checking filter bowls, and ensuring that the centrifuge is in perfect condition with a tattle tell container on the water discharge hose for a visual witness.
Other problems I’ve run into on newbuilds, specifically the first of a class, going into heavy weather are leaks in tank penetrations from torsional stresses and tow gear flailing on deck.
[QUOTE=Steamer;110280]Late thought … so this contaminated fuel didn’t take out the generators?[/QUOTE]
I’m curious as to the chain of failure on the gen system. Was it from propulsion gen to house gen to emergency gen? Or did they go straight to emergency gen? It would have a seperate fuel tank.
[QUOTE=Left Coast;110289]After read the above posts I’m more convinced that the main engine failures where caused by sea water contamination. It would be interesting to know if they lost any of the auxiliary generators or not. It’s been my experience (long ago) that if there is water or any other contamination the mains will usually be the first to show problems and then the auxs. if you let the problem continue to develop. Heavy weather with confused seas require extreme diligence on fuel management. I’ve experienced sea water in the fuel supply tanks and making ballast water through the ball vents in extreme heavy weather with confused seas. Requires repeated fuel tank stripping, checking filter bowls, and ensuring that the centrifuge is in perfect condition with a tattle tell container on the water discharge hose for a visual witness.[/QUOTE]
Diesel electric vessels like AIVIQ do not have separate auxiliary generators, all four gens feed a single switchboard with split buss arrangement. If both A & B buss sides go dark, then the relay would bring the emergency generator online.
Now being DP2 class, the AIVIQ should have had a split engineroom with port side engines having their own service and settling tanks and starboard their own but it is possible that all engines were being supplied directly from one single tank. If that tank became contaminated by water intrusion then all four main engines would quickly fail in succession or perhaps they were operating as a split fuel supply configuration but having both service tanks getting seawater in them is quite possible if the inherent flaw that led to the water getting into those tanks existed on both sides.
Damned, I hope Lisa Demer is reading these posts!
[QUOTE=c.captain;110295]Diesel electric vessels like AIVIQ do not have separate auxiliary generators, all four gens feed a single switchboard with split buss arrangement. If both A & B buss sides go dark, then the relay would bring the emergency generator online[/QUOTE]
from wiki: She also has two 2,000 kW shaft generators and four 1,700 kW Caterpillar 3512C auxiliary diesel generators that provide power for onboard consumers, including the firefighting system.
I was just curious with the 3512s as how they picked up.
The only thing diesel electric about the aiviq are the TTs. Other than that, it’s shaft driven.
[QUOTE=c.captain;110269]everything looks wrong in the video. The wire looks small, there are no tow pins up, no chafe gear in place, the rig looks way too close and the wire almost appears to tightline in the second before it breaks. Why is the wire not leading downwards as it crosses the roller? I believe there is no surge gear at all in place, the rig was too close and the AIVIQ pulling too hard! POP GOES THE WEASEL![/QUOTE]
Yup. Bet it was felt too, more than once before she popped. Ask that question. Because if you tight line a heavy tow - you never, ever forget the feeling so someone would have noticed.
From video - that ain’t rough wx for towing - but it does only show a few seconds, so judgment entirely reserved …
The tow wire is your friend … use all you can, ease off and life is just fine.
As for the engines, reserve all comment for now…
[QUOTE=c.captain;110268]It wasn’t the GODDAMNED fuel! Literally hundreds of vessels took that same diesel from the jobber and if it was bad then there would have been dozens of boats going DIW out in the Bering Sea and elsewhere.
All four mains were pulling from the same day tank I believe and there was a shitload of water in it from seas washing on the decks! ECO is throwing up a smokescreen here to pass the blame to something that can easily be proved negatively with simple tests of the samples.[/QUOTE]
Remember these words?? "I am only going to post the direct articles from the ADN here and will add my comments separately in subsequent posts below and boy there are going to be a bunch! "
[QUOTE=+A465B;110310]Yup. Bet it was felt too, more than once before she popped. Ask that question. Because if you tight line a heavy tow - you never, ever forget the feeling so someone would have noticed.
From video - that ain’t rough wx for towing - but it does only show a few seconds, so judgment entirely reserved …
The tow wire is your friend … use all you can, ease off and life is just fine.
As for the engines, reserve all comment for now…[/QUOTE]
I know near nothing about towing but I would assume the Aviq master had some heavy duty towing experience. I am sure Shell would have insisted on that considering everything that was at stake and with the whole world was watching to see how this Alaskan drilling was going to work out.
[QUOTE=tengineer;110319]I know near nothing about towing but I would assume the Aviq master had some heavy duty towing experience. I am sure Shell would have insisted on that considering everything that was at stake and with the whole world was watching to see how this Alaskan drilling was going to work out.[/QUOTE]
Was the Aviq crewed with UL?
[QUOTE=Tugs;110321]Was the Aviq crewed with UL?[/QUOTE]
Who cares?
If they were crewed with Orangutans that had heavy duty experience in that sort of situation I wouldn’t care if I was Shell.
[QUOTE=tengineer;110323]Who cares?
If they were crewed with Orangutans that had heavy duty experience in that sort of situation I wouldn’t care if I was Shell.[/QUOTE]
Sorry if I pissed you off. I was just asking a question and am still wondering.
I guess I found my answer.