Whoa whoa whoa one of the experts is none other than Capt. Jack Sparrow Hearn of the highly esteemed American Professional Mariners Association. With his expert market analysis he can pirate your money right into the high yield investment vehicle of your choice. He can also help you diversify your portfolio with many investment opportunities shipping products from south of the border.
[QUOTE=ombugge;184615]If I understand this right; one strap is broken and one remain intact, keeping the VDR attached to the mast structure?
Yes it is 15000 ft down, but an ROV with two manipulator arms should be able to unlatch the VDR and secure it from “drifting” away at the same time.
Alternatively; to secure it to the mast structure and attach a lifting wire to the structure to be recovered as well.
Yes this require equipment able to work efficiently at such depth and a vessel able to support such equipment, but we are not talking about any major weights, or anything outside the capabilities of a work ROV / AHC winch available in the Offshore Industry, or on some research vessels. Or a combination can be made up from both?
Maybe the “problem” is more bureaucratic then technical?? (I know there are some here with other ideas for the “reason”)[/QUOTE]
This is the type of ROV that most likely would have to be used. Its called the CURV-21. I think there is about a total of 50 of them in the world. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4300&tid=50&ct=4
These hearings will not solve anything.
[QUOTE=DeepSeaDiver;184648]This is the type of ROV that most likely would have to be used. Its called the CURV-21. I think there is about a total of 50 of them in the world. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4300&tid=50&ct=4[/QUOTE]
Isn’t the CURV-21 the same ROV they used on the first mission with the USNS Apache?
This is the NTSB most recent info and update. This includes the docket file and several photos.
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/2015_elfaro_jax.aspx
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
[QUOTE=PineappleOranges;184649]Isn’t the CURV-21 the same ROV they used on the first mission with the USNS Apache?[/QUOTE]
Not sure? - I will see if I can find any info on that?
Yes sir @PineappleOranges you are correct.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/pr20151031.aspx
Does anyone know actual facts of what data Tote had going to VDR? I know some companies do the minimum. Others go the full monte.
Wondering what exactly ( even if it’s readable) would be on it.
[QUOTE=cappy208;184670]Does anyone know actual facts of what data Tote had going to VDR? I know some companies do the minimum. Others go the full monte.
Wondering what exactly ( even if it’s readable) would be on it.[/QUOTE]
From what I have heard is that the model that was onboard was pretty bare bones. There should be voice from the bridge and maybe heading and speed. The voice is the most important to me but it will also be the hardest for the Families to hear.
Yea I have to agree, really the voice is the only useful piece of data that can be gained. I just hope the data is intact and of decent enough quality.
[QUOTE=LI_Domer;184672]Yea I have to agree, really the voice is the only useful piece of data that can be gained. I just hope the data is intact and of decent enough quality.[/QUOTE]
I hope the captain made all of the crucial phone calls from the bridge…
I would hope VHF recordings were on it. I am sure they were down to handheld VHFs with no power and limited emergency backup.
Anyone know what model VDR this was. And what it’s capabilities were?
So if we could get our hands on this annual certification results document - we might be able to tell which sensor inputs were on the El Faro. Was the VDR current to inspection standards is another question? With these hearings how come we do not hear about that? I wonder where the database of certifications is kept and recorded to include the never ending updates on a daily basis. I would think each flag country is in charge of their own records. As we all know El Faro was flagged in the United States.
It’s very interesting that the expiration date is not on the links document - it’s the top one guys and gals. http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/webpls/cgv_pkg.vessel_name_list
5.) Annual Performance Check and Certification.
5.1) Regulation 18.8 of SOLAS Chapter V requires that:
The voyage data recorder system, including all sensors, shall be subjected to an annual performance test. The test shall be conducted by an approved testing or servicing facility to verify the accuracy, duration and recoverability of the recorded data. In addition, tests and inspections shall be conducted to determine the serviceability of all protective enclosures and devices fitted to aid location. A copy of the certificate of compliance issued by the testing facility, stating the date of compliance and the applicable performance standards, shall be retained on board the ship.
- [SIZE=4][B][U]IMO GUIDELINES ON VOYAGE DATA RECORDERS (VDR) OWNERSHIP AND RECOVERY[/U][/B][/SIZE]
1.) Ownership of VDR/data:
The ship owner will, in all circumstances and at all times, own the VDR and its data. however, in the event of an accident the following guidelines would apply.
2.) Recovery of VDR:
Recovery of the VDR is conditional on the accessibility of the VDR or the data contained therein.
a.) In the case of a non-catastrophic accident, recovery of the memory should be straightforward. For example, in some VDRs it can be accomplished by removal of a hard disc from the VDR unit. This action will have to be taken soon after the accident to best preserve the relevant evidence for use by both the investigator [1] and the ship owner. As the investigator is very unlikely to be in a position to instigate this action soon enough after the accident, the owner must be responsible, through its on-board standing orders, for ensuring the timely preservation of this evidence in this circumstance.
b.) In the case of abandonment of a vessel during an emergency, masters should, where time and other responsibilities permit, recover the memory and remove it to a place of safety and preserve it until it can be passed to the investigator.
c.) In the case of a catastrophic accident, where the VDR is inaccessible and the data has not been retrieved prior to abandonment, a decision will need to be taken by the Flag State in co-operation with any other substantially interested States [2] on the viability and cost of recovering the VDR balanced against the potential use of the information. If it is decided to recover the VDR the investigator should be responsible for co-ordinating its recovery. The possibility of the capsule having sustained damage must be considered and specialist expertise will be required to ensure the best chance of recovering and preserving the evidence. In addition the assistance and co-operation of the owners, insurers and the manufacturers of the VDR and those of the protective capsule may be required.
3.) Custody of VDR/data:
In all circumstances, during the course of an investigation, the investigator should have custody of the original VDR data, perhaps in the form of the whole or part(s) of the VDR itself, in the same way as if he has custody of other records or evidence under the Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents.
4.) Read-out of VDR/data:
In all circumstances the responsibility to arrange down loading and read-out of the data from the recovered memory in whatever form should, in the first instance, be undertaken by the investigator who should keep the ship owner fully informed. Additionally, specially in the case of a catastrophic accident where the memory may have sustained damage, the assistance of specialist expertise may be required to ensure the best chance of success.
5.) Access to the data:
Although the investigator will have custody of the original VDR memory in whatever form for the duration of the investigation, a copy of the data must be provided to the ship owner at an early stage in all circumstances. Further access to the data will be governed by the applicable domestic legislation of the flag state, coastal state and the lead investigating state as appropriate and the guidelines given in the Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents.
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/mb/news/el-faros-black-box-battery-dead-from-the-start/54720300
There were many stories about the last VDR inspections during the preceding investigation hearings.
[QUOTE=Fraqrat;184690]http://www.firstcoastnews.com/mb/news/el-faros-black-box-battery-dead-from-the-start/54720300
There were many stories about the last VDR inspections during the preceding investigation hearings.[/QUOTE]
Good link thanks for the share Fraqrat.
[QUOTE=Fraqrat;184690]There were many stories about the last VDR inspections during the preceding investigation hearings.[/QUOTE]
I believe I am on record from early on saying how doubtful I am that the VDR when recovered will yield any data both due to battery drain and pressure at great depth. On top of that there would be the background noise of tremendous wind at the time of the loss so unless someone was speaking directly beneath the mic it would likely that their words would be unintelligible. The satphone would likely been quite far from the mic so would not expect any of that conversation to be recorded so it would only be the master speaking to the mates and maybe on the ship’s phone to the engineroom.
If only the master had made statements on that recording with the call center when he said “the clock is ticking” but I can forgive him from not thinking of making statements for posterity. Still, I refuse to believe that once he did speak with the DPA that the reason for the loss of propulsion was never disclosed and it is the refusal of TOTE to come clean with that is what smacks of coverup. I guess there is a port engineer scheduled in this round of hearings so maybe the cause of that casualty will become known at that time? Why do I have so many doubts though?
.
[QUOTE=c.captain;184695]I believe I am on record from early on saying how doubtful I am that the VDR when recovered will yield any data both due to battery drain and pressure at great depth.[/QUOTE]
I highly doubt lack of electric power could on any way affect the data. Whether it is a traditional magnetic disk or SSD it wouldn’t need a battery. The sole purpose of the battery that was discussed as possibly being insufficient was to power the location pinger.
[QUOTE=cappy208;184682]Anyone know what model VDR this was. And what it’s capabilities were?[/QUOTE]
Someone looked up the exact model they had and posted its specs and capabilities in the original thread.
The VDR was a type Sperry VoyageMaster II S-VDR, produced by Danalec. The specifications are here. See also chapter 4 for the required data to be written to the solid state memory.
I donot know much about boilers but the ones on board the El Faro were built for 1200 psi. Testing requires 1.5 times this pressure that is 1800 psi. During the hearing ABS surveyor Jamie D’Addieco said: “At my discretion, 800 PSI was satisfactory for the test on the economizer.” She also added: "Given the age of the vessel, and for a boiler that had been in service this long, going above the operating pressure may not be a safe way of testing it. In my opinion, it could lead to an unsafe situation.” She obviously looked at those old boilers and thought: Not on watch a 1200 psi test, let alone a 1800 psi, it probably will blow us all sky high. Her statement was as I understand not challenged and accepted ‘as is’ which, as a layman, seems a bit strange to me. The question that remains is what are the real ABS testing requirements, not only for the boilers but also for all the stuff attached to it, and is there a specific rule that allows the testing pressure to be drastically reduced for boiler age as was the case here?
Thanks for the reference info Dutchie.
I asked earlier about VDR info. I was specifically asking (although poorly worded) in reference to chapter 7 of the VDR guide.
On the El Faro what was the recorded installed effective VDR inputs as logged during install? Some companies put more into it than others. Some put barebones minimum.
[QUOTE=Dutchie;184793]
I donot know much about boilers but the ones on board the El Faro were built for 1200 psi. Testing requires 1.5 times this pressure that is 1800 psi. During the hearing ABS surveyor Jamie D’Addieco said: “At my discretion, 800 PSI was satisfactory for the test on the economizer.” [/QUOTE]
According to the machinery specifications published by the USCG the design pressure for those boilers is 1075 psig.
That means they are “900 pound boilers” which is, or was, the standard for American commercial steamships up to this time. The pressure in the economizer will be above drum pressure only enough to provide the volume of feed required for the boiler load.
That figure of 150% applies to fire tube boilers and new boilers. For boilers “in service” the CFRs call for 125% but ABS rules still call for 150% so there seems to be a conflict there. Maybe the hearings will address the differences. Why the ABS surveyor figured she could test at 800 psig is a mystery to me, and sounds ridiculous since it is below normal working pressure but is 25% below design pressure.
… it probably will blow us all sky high.
Hardly, the purpose of using water in a hydro test (see the connection in the term? hydro=water)is to ensure that there is little if any stored energy in the system under test. There is a check valve between the economizer and the drum so that the only part of the system pressurized is the economizer itself and its volume is very small compared to the boiler. An economizer tube failure during a hydro test would cause the loss of a few ounces of water, not an explosion.
[QUOTE=Steamer;184795]According to the machinery specifications published by the USCG the design pressure for those boilers is 1075 psig.
That means they are “900 pound boilers” which is, or was, the standard for American commercial steamships up to this time. The pressure in the economizer will be above drum pressure only enough to provide the volume of feed required for the boiler load.
That figure of 150% applies to fire tube boilers and new boilers. For boilers “in service” the CFRs call for 125% but ABS rules still call for 150% so there seems to be a conflict there. Maybe the hearings will address the differences. Why the ABS surveyor figured she could test at 800 psig is a mystery to me, and sounds ridiculous since it is below normal working pressure but is 25% below design pressure.
Hardly, the purpose of using water in a hydro test (see the connection in the term? hydro=water)is to ensure that there is little if any stored energy in the system under test. There is a check valve between the economizer and the drum so that the only part of the system pressurized is the economizer itself and its volume is very small compared to the boiler. An economizer tube failure during a hydro test would cause the loss of a few ounces of water, not an explosion.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the explanation! My view was a pure layman’s, dramatizing things, that is obvious now…