[QUOTE=MariaW;170172]There’s something I don’t understand. Why would a ship designer allow a system that shuts down when it is subject to “rolling” to power a ship, let alone a ship in a storm? That’s what seems to be implied from the explanations here. Surely humans can think of something better than a system that is most vulnerable when it’s most needed? That’s what seems to be implied from the explanations here. Am I missing something?[/QUOTE]
At some point they can’t design the ship for every extreme. Many of the alarms on ship are there to save your life, and they do that 99% of the time. In extreme circumstances they would alarm incorrectly, but no one builds a ship around the <1% conditions it will be in.
I don’t have extensive knowledge of that particular ship but the current ship and many that I have been on I can tell when it is raining outside as there is leaks into the engine room. How can a ship be considered watertight when a light rain can make it into a engine room.
[QUOTE=tengineer1;170186]You don’t need a foreign built merchant ship. Some of the AHTS OSVs being built in the USA approach the cost of a merchant ship. New tankers for Jones Act trade are being built and have been.A vessel to replace the El Faro is neither rocket science nor that expensive in the grand scheme of things. You just need someone to tell people like Tote/Saltchuck no, when it comes to 40 year old vessels. Old vessels continue to sail because they are allowed to. This vessel was safe according to the USCG and ABS.[/QUOTE]
If you are talking about Aker, I would not call the new tankers American built, they were built as lego pieces overseas and shipped to the US where they were assembled, the hull plate was built in in the US. I was on a couple of those tankers at one point and we were having SW pipe failures within the first 4 months of the ships life.