Reduction in sea days perhaps to save costs.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Cuts in NS ?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by danno View PostReduction in sea days perhaps to save costs.
Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.
-
Originally posted by Goldie fish View PostAlready done as part of McCarthy. Keeping the older ships going until their replacement in 2013/14 will be the hard part though, as well as retaining key personnel.
Nothing to say that more cuts can't happen.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DeV View PostWould it be safe to assume that as the vessels get older un-scheduled maintanance will be required more frequently and both scheduled and un-scheduled maintanance will take longer as well personnel are available ??
Nothing to say that more cuts can't happen.
There is no such thing as un-scheduled maintenance when it comes to ships. A fault is identified, it can happen as much with new ship as old, and you then decide whether a repair necessitates a drydocking, or can it be done on the quayside.
This is what the Marine Engineering dept do. Things don't just "break".
The hull problems are as likely with old ships as new, though Emers problems are a unique design flaw.
Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Goldie fish View PostNo.
There is no such thing as un-scheduled maintenance when it comes to ships.
In 2006, the target of patrol days wasn't met due to 9 days unscheduled maintenance on Ciara (and 19 days scheduled maintenance on Orla).
Source: http://www.defence.ie/website.nsf/fba727373c93a4f080256c53004d976e/ef9d4e29bab79533802575b400303652/$FILE/NS%20Maintenance.pdf
It depends on the problem, most faults can be fixed at sea and wouldn't prevent a vessel putting to sea.
Things don't just "break".
The hull problems are as likely with old ships as new, though Emers problems are a unique design flaw.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by DeV View PostAround 0.5% of NS fleet days are lost due to unscheduled maintenance annually and account for 30% of maintenance undertaken by he NS on the fleet !
In 2006, the target of patrol days wasn't met due to 9 days unscheduled maintenance on Ciara (and 19 days scheduled maintenance on Orla).
Source: http://www.defence.ie/website.nsf/fba727373c93a4f080256c53004d976e/ef9d4e29bab79533802575b400303652/$FILE/NS%20Maintenance.pdf
It depends on the problem, most faults can be fixed at sea and wouldn't prevent a vessel putting to sea.
Eh Niamh when she was going to the aid of the Canadian submarine!?
WTF does this have to do with the TOPIC???
Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Goldie fish View PostAlready done as part of McCarthy. Keeping the older ships going until their replacement in 2013/14 will be the hard part though, as well as retaining key personnel.
Comment
-
It depends on the problem, most faults can be fixed at sea and wouldn't prevent a vessel putting to sea
Going to sea with a known fault would be career ending descision, while faults discovered while at sea can be fixed if the situation dictates that there is a short term solution, it would be optimal that major faults would be investigated while alongside with a preventive solution put in place rather than a quick fix.
Your suggestion is tantamount to a a culture of negligence and disregard of safety procedures and would suggest your knowledge of maritime matters to be nothing other than a self generated opinion based on assumption as opposed to actual experience or in the least enlightened ignorance.
To assume that The NS would put a ship to sea with a known fault on the assumption that said fault could be fixed while under way would be a suggestion of gross negligence on the behalf of any ships Officer Commanding. Ships may develop problems while within an AO that may have short term solutions but on return to port whether it be enforced or optional all corrective measures would take place before putting said same ship back on operational duties.
Relates to the standard of vessel maintenance the Naval Service set which is informed by the standards set
down by International Convention for the Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) and prevention of Marine Pollution
(MARPOL) that are appropriate to the Naval Service.
there ya go....Last edited by hptmurphy; 1 January 2012, 03:45.Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
Comment
-
Originally posted by Goldie fish View PostWhat do you know about it? Are you agreeing or disagreeing?
You said there was no such thing as unscheduled maintenance.
I provided evidence that there is.
My question still stands.
Originally posted by danno View PostStill NS will need to look at FP as it is a dead man walking in the long term
Originally posted by Seanachie View PostContradiction there,problems are often only found while at sea and the long term solution is not a quick fix while at sea but may required dockyard maintainence and given you have six ships in three classes the fault may be replicated on another vessel.
Going to sea with a known fault would be career ending descision, while faults discovered while at sea can be fixed if the situation dictates that there is a short term solution, it would be optimal that major faults would be investigated while alongside with a preventive solution put in place rather than a quick fix.
Your suggestion is tantamount to a a culture of negligence and disregard of safety procedures and would suggest your knowledge of maritime matters to be nothing other than a self generated opinion based on assumption as opposed to actual experience or in the least enlightened ignorance.
To assume that The NS would put a ship to sea with a known fault on the assumption that said fault could be fixed while under way would be a suggestion of gross negligence on the behalf of any ships Officer Commanding. Ships may develop problems while within an AO that may have short term solutions but on return to port whether it be enforced or optional all corrective measures would take place before putting said same ship back on operational duties.
I'm not 100% sure, but I'm sure it would depend on the problem. If there was a major problem with an engine it is different from a major problem with the main armament.
Also the vessel would have the skillset onboard to fix many faults without the need for dry docking.
Originally posted by over the bridge View PostWhile MARPOL is applicable to the NS SOLAS is not.Wake up and smell the coffee. If a ship is ordered to sea it will sail and has sailed with technical problems.
Comment
-
Dev, I find it difficult to critique your post because it always appears to me that you have never been on a ship in your life, let alone worked on one.
There is more to life than one VFM report. You seem to suggest you know all about ship maintenance based on what you read on one report.
Without resorting to quoting from yet another report, please answer the following questions.
1. What malfunction do you think would require drydocking?
2. What does drydocking involve?
3. How long will drydocking take from the ships schedule of patrol commitments?
Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.
Comment
-
To clarify, unscheduled maintenance is that which does not fall under a forecasted schedule/maintenance planning routine, such as simple things like bulbs blowing to major things like leaks. They happen out of sequence and when it suits them. I'm quite sure ships are allowed to continue in service with minor snags on board, knowing that the techs/mechs/engineers on board can fix them. I'm quite sure the Captain of an INS vessel is not going to fail to set sail with a cabin bulb blown, yet he does know he can sail with an oil filter change due the next day because the job can be done at sea. Aircraft fly with snags because they have Minimum Equipment Lists so the Captain knows what he can legally do without. I'm sure ships Captains have leeway to continue or not.
regards
GttC
- Likes 1
Comment
-
It depends on the problem, most faults can be fixed at sea and wouldn't prevent a vessel putting to sea.
a lot of routine maintenanace is undertaken at sea.'m quite sure the Captain of an INS vessel is not going to fail to set sail with a cabin bulb blown, yet he does know he can sail with an oil filter change due the next day because the job can be done at sea.
Read the repor
Dev, I find it difficult to critique your post because it always appears to me that you have never been on a ship in your life, let alone worked on one.
There is more to life than one VFM report. You seem to suggest you know all about ship maintenance based on what you read on one report.
Without resorting to quoting from yet another report, please answer the following questions
Interesting to note how out of date the report is with Capt Keaney have retire two years ago, Pakenham is now GOC Southern brigade and some of the technical details in relation to all the ships have changed.
The Patrol days stated in the report have also since been revised.Last edited by hptmurphy; 1 January 2012, 20:14.Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
Comment
-
To elaborate,looking medium term,all aspects of State fish sector save Mar Inst and SFPA could be victims of a VFM exercise.The TAC(total Allowable Catch) at 250M is very nearly the value of the cost of NS(90%FP),CASAs,SFPA,BIM,SAR,B'Bia etc.As the housewife does not buy fish from a Pedlar at the back of the Jax in the carpark etc fish has to enter the food chain in an orderly fashion and port control by the SFPA at 14M is the most cost effective method of FP.
As there is a shortage of fish and plenty of boats/fishermen little need for BIM to train f'men or B'Bia to market them.Likewise as fish belong to EEC very easy for offshore FP to be pooled leaving NS with reduced workload and in consequence reduced funding.
Comment
-
Originally posted by danno View PostTo elaborate,looking medium term,all aspects of State fish sector save Mar Inst and SFPA could be victims of a VFM exercise.The TAC(total Allowable Catch) at 250M is very nearly the value of the cost of NS(90%FP),CASAs,SFPA,BIM,SAR,B'Bia etc.As the housewife does not buy fish from a Pedlar at the back of the Jax in the carpark etc fish has to enter the food chain in an orderly fashion and port control by the SFPA at 14M is the most cost effective method of FP.
Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.
Comment
Comment