- Reaction score
Chief Stoker said:That's from 4 days ago, looks like they turned off their AIS as well.
Good2Golf said:True, although I didn't know if that was for operational reasons or just because it may have been irregularly updated. Interestingly, many of MSC's support vessels seem to run AIS when alongside or administratively underway, but then don't transmit at other times.
Chief Stoker said:Unmanned tows are pretty standard from a safety standpoint, the RCN does them all the time. No need to run a generator and there is only four RCN personnel on the US Navy tug. I would imagine the Protecteur had everything shutdown, UPS's disconnected, no fuel or ammo on board etc, the fire risk on that ship is very low.
Chief Stoker said:The AIS is based on VHF and antenna height so you should not see them 20 or 30 miles away from land. I don't think there is a satellite based AIS.
http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Safety/Navigation/Pages/AIS.aspxMaritime security - AIS ship data
At its79th session in December 2004, the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) agreed that, in relation to the issue of freely available automatic information system (AIS)-generated ship data on the world-wide web, the publication on the world-wide web or elsewhere of AIS data transmitted by ships could be detrimental to the safety and security of ships and port facilities and was undermining the efforts of the Organization and its Member States to enhance the safety of navigation and security in the international maritime transport sector.
The Committee condemned the regrettable publication on the world-wide web, or elsewhere, of AIS data transmitted by ships and urged Member Governments, subject to the provisions of their national laws, to discourage those who make available AIS data to others for publication on the world-wide web, or elsewhere from doing so.
In addition, the Committee condemned those who irresponsibly publish AIS data transmitted by ships on the world-wide web, or elsewhere, particularly if they offer services to the shipping and port industries.
NFLD Sapper said:CAT classifies the 3600 as Auxiliary Engines vice the D399 as a Propulsion Engine...maybe that was the reason?
Good2Golf said:[slight OT]
Strange, Cat shows 3612s and 3616 as (legacy) propulsion engines here.
I got my scales off a bit, though...the 3600 is significantly larger than a D399...a 3500 was more a replacement for the D399.
So at 6.5 its, there's another two weeks or so to get to Naden?
Baz said:AIS isn't piggybacked on radar, its VHF-FM (around 162MHz) and radar is much higher; good bridge systems will display them together but they are separate signals. Although both are line of site, AIS, being lower freq, sometimes ducts (I've seen 300nm+ on a good airborne receiver at 400ft), but the range over some radars is due to reflectivity primarily.
Navy_Pete said:The signal can also get piggybacked on the standard nav radar, so you can easily pick ships up 60-100 miles away from their broadcast (twice the detection range, as it doesn't have to go and come back to the antennae)
NFLD Sapper said:
National Defence was warned a year before the devastating fire aboard HMCS Protecteur that the electrical system, main engine controls and navigation system aboard both of the navy's supply ships were on their last legs — and prone to catastrophic failure.
The unusually blunt assessment was contained in a four-page confidential briefing note prepared by the former head of the navy as he was about to retire last year.
The document, from former vice-admiral Paul Maddison, was prepared as the Harper government debated whether long-promised replacement vessels would take priority at the assigned shipyard in Vancouver — or a new coast guard heavy icebreaker.
Maddison noted that the power generators were showing their age and that replacement parts were no longer available for both Protecteur and her sister ship HMCS Preserver, which were ordered replaced by the former Liberal government a decade ago.
There had been failures of the turbo generators that caused ship-wide blackouts and loss of propulsion, creating "dangerous" conditions for a ship at sea.
The navy said Thursday it was still investigating the cause of the Feb. 27 engine-room fire aboard Protecteur, which left the ship burning, powerless and adrift off Hawaii for 11 hours.
But "first-hand accounts from eyewitnesses and first responders indicate that the fire may have originated from one of the generators inside the engine room."
The military wouldn't say when the investigation would be completed. The blaze saw 20 crew members suffer minor injuries.
Briefing warned ships were 'showing their ... age'
Protecteur, commissioned in 1969, was towed first to Pearl Harbor, then towed back to its home port of Esquimalt, B.C.
"They are the oldest ships in the (Royal Canadian Navy) and are well past their original design life of 25 years," Maddison said in the briefing, obtained by The Canadian Press under access-to-information legislation.
"Numerous systems, that are as old as the ships, are no longer supported by an Original Equipment Manufacturer. All systems are showing their 40 plus years of age with increased failure rates."
"For example, recent failures of the 1000 (kilowatt) Turbo Alternators have resulted in total ship blackouts and loss of propulsion, creating a potentially dangerous and unsafe situation for the ship and crew."
In a written statement Thursday, the navy would not be specific about how many times the generators have failed but noted that the last incident involving Protecteur occurred at the harbour entrance to San Diego in 2011.
Navy Lt. Kelly Boyden described that incident as minor.
"It did not represent a fire hazard," he said in an email.
"The ship was being assisted by tugs at the time and back-up generators were quickly back on line, causing no danger to the ship or ship's company."
Replacement contract cancelled in 2008
The ships had for years been on track for replacement when, just before the 2008 federal election, the Harper government cancelled the procurement because shipyard bids had come in higher than the project's budget envelope.
A report by the parliamentary budget office last year said that had the government stuck with the original program, instead of restarting it, the navy would already have its supply ships, likely at a cheaper cost than the new program, and they would be more capable than the ones now being planned.
Last year, there was vigorous debate within government about whether the navy could get more life out of the existing boats until their replacements arrived in 2019-20.
But Maddison's note laid out in painstaking detail how worn out the vessels had become despite the best efforts of the fleet maintainers.
"Frequent mechanical breakdowns are beginning to affect the operational availability of the two ships and efforts to ensure their reliability are putting increasing pressure on an already strained engineering work force and budget," said the documents.
"Even if increased funding is directed towards the (Protecteur) Class ships, there is a limit as to how long the onboard systems can be supported and certified given their age and operational effectiveness."
Maddison cited not only the electrical system, but the main engine controls where the failure of obsolete parts would "render the propulsion system inoperable" and the outdated navigation system panel that "distributes critical" data.
NDP defence critic Jack Harris said the memo raises important questions about whether both ships should be decommissioned now.
"I would be concerned about the safety of naval personnel aboard these ships," he said.
"In 2008, the government cancelled the (replacement) contract. We would have new ships now. This represents a political failure on the part of this government."
© The Canadian Press, 2014