U.M.S. V's Manned Engine Rooms.

paulm
16th December 2008, 02:47
This particular topic has excersised my mind for some time and I would like to hear other members opinions on the matter. I think it can be taken as read that U.M.S. was introduced primarily as a way to economise, by reducing the number of engineering staff required, and the whole concept was facillitated by the evolution of more sophisticated electronic monitoring and control systems than were available previously.
While I agree that we cannot stand still and ignore the advantages of modern electronic systems and computers I cannot help wonder how thoroughly the powers that be considered the full implications of the introduction of U.M.S.There is no doubt that many pages of varying opinion could be written on the subject so I have no intention of exploring all the pro's and cons at this juncture. Consider this one aspect of the whole debate if you will.An extra 3rd Eng that would facillitate the operation of a manned engine room would in today's terms (including his relief ), probably cost a shipowner in the region of£80K (open to correction on the figure).It is also a singular pre-occupation of the modern shipowner to keep dry docking costs, and the use of outside contractors while in service to a minimum.
Then consider how much work such as preventitive maintainance , and routine overhaul of equipment that can be achieved by a conscientous Eng
while on watch which drastically reduces the "dry dock list". How many of us have left a drydock only to find various pipes, pumps, etc leaking water, and various other machinery malfunctioning to various degrees - all because the dockyard personnel no matter how competent, are not, and cannot be expected to be, as intricately familiar with the ships equipment as its own engineers.
I would imagine the extra £80K in additional salaries would pale into significance when it is weighed against the aforementioned advantages,
would almost certainly save the shipowner money, and would most definitely make the E.R. a more safer place for all crew.
As they say in more exhalted circles - "I now throw the subject open to the floor"
Regards,
Paulm.

surfaceblow
16th December 2008, 06:00
I actually prefer the U.M.S. Engine Rooms after my experience on the T 2 Marine Floridian when the Second Assistant Engineer left the Engine Room with only the oiler down below. At least I knew that the alarm system worked each day.

In the U. S. the union rules prevented work on watch. Most Engineers would do minor maintenance while on watch but there were a few that would not. The U. M. S. vessels that I sailed on still had the four to five engineers onboard. The reduction in the engine room crew was in the unlicensed ratings. Two or three QMED's, and one or two wipers. A few times that the electronics failed we did have enough personnel to stand watches.

Most of the overhaul work was attended by the ships crew on both the T2 and the Marine Reliance. The only work that was contracted out was re-tubing the boilers, patching the holes in the hull, and rewindng motors. I remember the Volcano Boiler Representative standing on the top of the burner telling me that many second's blow up with Volcano while adjusting the burner safety shut downs after the retubing.

The Marine Superintendent told me that when I was Chief on the Floridian I spent 80 percent of the engine department budget on overtime and I spent 80 percent of the budget on spare parts on the Reliance.

I did not see any real savings in the cost of operation. The Floridian T2 had four engineers, three oilers, two wipers. The Reliance had four engineers, two QMED's and one wiper.

WilliamH
16th December 2008, 09:00
I would be interested to know the ratio of serious ER fires on ships with unmanned engine rooms to ships with fully manned engine rooms.

chadburn
16th December 2008, 11:31
paulm, in regards to your comments and repair's I think it's a matter of getting the repair right first time by the ship's own Engineer's because we had to live with it if it goes wrong again which is usually at the most awkward time and normally in bad weather, as far as Dockyard repairs are concerned I could always tell a repair that had been done by a Marine Fitter that had done sea-time as they have a different approach as in "I could have been one of the ships Engineer's and would want the job done correctly". Like yourself I am also interested in a serious incident comparison, but as to whether this information has ever been collated by a "central" body is open to question. Apparently these day's the Chief makes up a "default" list and at some point an engineering repair crew come on board with their own Cook/Steward and sail with the ship until the tasks are completed.

Derek Roger
16th December 2008, 18:34
My experience with UMS was between 68 and 76 mainly on the Mahsud / Maihar and the Moss tankers built in Eriksburgs .

The Mahsud and Maihar in particular were the best maintained vessels I ever sailed on . This due to the fact that the engineers were on day work and all planned maintainance was easy to keep up with . Having two engines was also a boon as if work was required it was easy to shut an engine down for a couple of hours and still be able to maintain charter speed .

That was my experience anyway . Regards Derek

Burntisland Ship Yard
16th December 2008, 18:58
Whilst in the late 70's /early 80's i sailed on the Texaco Spain which operated the UMS system, in my mind there was little doubt that "planned maintenace" worked by freeing off watchkeepers, whilst the duty engineer ran the shop.In general we resorted back to traditional watchkeeping when in port for loading/ unloading duties. The duty engineer picked up his duties at 16.00hrs, carried out pre UMS checks and shut the shop around about 18.00hours. Most of us used to pop back down around about 22.00hours (unless an alarm went off !) just to make sure all was well. There after, the duty engineer got a call about 06.00hours to open the shop, and start his daily tasks, such as soot blowing etc. The rest of the engineers started day work at 08.00hrs to do planned maintenance.

As I said that was a few years ago now, would be interesting to know how UMS works today.

paulm
16th December 2008, 19:02
Derek,
Hear what you are saying and I would say that you were fortunate to have the engineering staff on board to carry out the work you describe.
My point is that in the majority of cases U.M.S.was used by owners to reduce the number of engineers which made the type of p.m. you referred to well nigh impossible.No doubt everybody has different experiences, but on the whole I did not find mine advantageous to either crew or vessel.
Regards,
Paul.

david freeman
17th December 2008, 15:21
A very vexing subject. In the late 50's most ships except tankers and bulk carriers got time in port. Then the engineers did most of the main engine surveys and overhaul work betwen them, and I believe still got time in port for relaxation Quite offten watches except for junior officers were broken in port for daywork.(This was not so on tankers and bulkcarriers or vessels on time charter- one was assigned to a watch and you stayed on it unless of promotion and if the work load was heavy one had field days as FUN!). Quite an attraction for the voyages from the UK Out east. Some of the other companies like tankers and managment companies ran the ships like trains, where times between ports on voyage with no lay time was most important, and port time even at anchor was at a premium, and most vessels where on 12 hours notice. ( No time for overhaul). This was the main difference which I believe now has disappeared? The shipping companies also run the engines on 'crud' fuel, which they are designed to burn, but this is unfriendly long hours of non mainatainace with the fuel systems. In certain tanker fleets lub oil was loaded in one drydock and the engines ran on the stuff till next drydock-The prupose was to see how the engines held up ( The surveys being conducted for all major engine items in each annual drydock only). The staff in the engine rooms in my meagre experience where usually kep busy per watch running auxilary machinery and doing routine tasks, such as weeps and leaks in piping systems for steam, water, fuel etc. maintaining auxlary diesel generators the 1000 hour overhauls etc. And then helping the electrican with his major electric motor overhauls or tracing of earths. - The lecky could often be a watch keeper. There where more than enough routine jobs to keep a diligent engine crew at work. The problem was lack of ownership by a crew to one particular vessel, and if you got a rust bucket field days were the order of the day.
With the advent of UMS and minimum manning certificates the main survey items for the main engine and cargo plant was supposed to be by the companies hit squads, in various ports around the world or sailing as supernumaries. It is all pie in the sky- going to sea for the life and the money and being far from home can be a dogs life, so UMS only adds to the problems as most companies still expect the ships crew (ALL Hands to deal with a major engine failure, and to bring the ship and cargo safely to port!).
It does not add up but young people have dreams some like it some see reality, but do not be too sceptic? we all have to live. By the way what is a modern engineer and a budding chief at that, with UMS, mechanical plant, plumbing, electrics of the poer nature and electronic variety, plus housemaid in your own cabin, and there again the jibes from the deck (But they are in the same boat and we and they need each other.) How do you see the old BOT DOTTI and DOT 'ticket' system lasting, considering you may be the only national on your ship, and the only person to have english as a natural tounge and there may only be 15 to 19 of you on the ship- not like the 60's with 35-40 crew and 18 officers. Its a job of work but is it worth the price? away from ones loved ones, and if you are married to a fellow seafarer do you see each other, or are you passing ships in the night. Bye and good luck!

chadburn
17th December 2008, 17:46
David, I liked your piece and how true, the problem for those who had worked hard for their "ticket's" whether deck or engineroom was that most of the "good" British Companies had very slow advancement due to crew members sticking with that Company concerned (dead man's shoe's) and only the rubbish Companies were left which had you jumping through hoops with the carrot of promotion dangling in front of your nose. At this point a lot of British crew like myself decided to go Foreign or Contracting as it was known in those day's where a Ticketed British Eng O/ Deck O was the "Bee's knee's" as far as Foreign Companies were concerned and in general terms they employed one of each. Some of the ship's in those day's were old and a bit crabby but from my own experience I was well looked after. In todays Marine world it is the norm for foreign ship's to carry one of each but due to the measure's put in by Prescott it appears that non British can get what could be termed British Ticket's to the point of a certain British Company telling both it's Chief's and Master's not to return to their ships after leave as they had been finished, you know the old saying "he who works and does his best get's paid off just like the rest", how true.

chadburn
17th December 2008, 19:08
Now that I have finished at my retired workstation in the kitchen the point I was making in the above is that if I was starting out again and bearing in mind the words I have been reading on this Site in regards to "Lean manning" and the way British Companies (what is left of them) are treating their employee's I would think twice about going in the M.N. having tried both I would recommend a new starter who still want's to go to sea to either;

a) go to "Uni" and get an Engineering Degree and then go to Dartmouth if you have that ability.

b) Join the R.N. in the normal way.
Service's training is excellent if you give it your full commitment
If you do not want to be put in possibly "harms way" then try the Private large Motor Yacht scene.

cubpilot
20th December 2008, 00:04
first there was the junior engineers or apprentices with note book in hand doing the log, controlling the ts & ps and learning how the sytems functioned. learning also how to spot a problem before it became a disaster.
then we got data loggers and automatic valves and lost an engineer on watch but the skills could still be handed down
Then the powers that be could replace another watchkeeper with UMS. fine if the money was spent in building a sound ship but my first UMS engineroom was built on the cheap. so bad we went back to watchkeeping. sometime afterwards i was working for a consultancy, gossiping over coffee one day i mentioned the ships name and how bad she was to discover that she was designed by my boss.
on another UMS which was well built we nearly ended up hitting a bridge in calumet river when a pilot used up most of the start air. saved the day as i could get a few more starts by hand but discovered none of the other engineers had ever hand started an engine. next safe anchorage they all got intensive lessons.
i do wonder what the skill level is these days

david freeman
20th December 2008, 09:17
Now that I have finished at my retired workstation in the kitchen the point I was making in the above is that if I was starting out again and bearing in mind the words I have been reading on this Site in regards to "Lean manning" and the way British Companies (what is left of them) are treating their employee's I would think twice about going in the M.N. having tried both I would recommend a new starter who still want's to go to sea to either;

a) go to "Uni" and get an Engineering Degree and then go to Dartmouth if you have that ability.

b) Join the R.N. in the normal way.
Service's training is excellent if you give it your full commitment
If you do not want to be put in possibly "harms way" then try the Private large Motor Yacht scene.
By the way did you finish the kitchen decorations? I remember 'Battleships' by the caller of watches: What colour, how many guns: how many engineers: how many props? one was supposed to wake up full of the Joys of Watchkeeping: By the way was your kitchen funnel grey from the stores? Happy workstations.

cryan
30th December 2008, 18:45
I have sailed on both modern and older (70's) Boxboats that were UMS and sailed on ultra modern offshore vessels and passenger liners that were watchkeeping. And my vote is for UMS. From my experience people take more care with their rounds if missed details are going to get them out of bed, where as I have been handed over some terrible watches because they think, "oh well, the next watch will do it!"
On some anchor handlers I was on we were watchkeeping either 6 hours on 6 off or 12 on 12 off. they were capable of UMS but oil companies demanded that some one was on watch. 6 on 6 off is the worst as you never get any sleep and are constantly tired and mistakes happen, 12 hours is a long watch but 12 hours to recuperate is fine. Many skippers liked the Engineer in the ECR when under a rig which is fair enough although if a ME fails or a thruster their going to have to pull out anyway as its not going to be instantly fixed. but as I said I always recieved a better watch when UMS and so prefer that mode of working. As for computers I see it as just another piece of equipment you have o learn like any other. For info all ships that are Computer controlled under normal circumstance must be able to be manually operated by regulation.

chadburn
2nd January 2009, 15:17
cryan, I am afraid I don't have the authority to decide on the colour of the kitchen, do you in yours? All the Service's provide good training it's up to the person themselves as to whether they are prepared to put themselves "in harm's way" by joining them.
What the Service's don't want are people who see it as career but then decide they do't want to go to War when the call comes which is what happened on the way down to the Falklands with certainly one R.N. Officer. His training was a complete waste of Taxpayer's money.

cryan
2nd January 2009, 20:26
Chadburn, I was only talking about UMS V's Watchkeeping nothing about training etc. However I work with the modern RN on a daily basis these days and I would never recomend anyone to join as anything other than an Artificer as the routine incompetence of most that i meet is astonishing. And until two years ago when i moved to my current job and had never worked with them I would have thought otherwise and indeed held the RN in high esteem.

chadburn
3rd January 2009, 18:04
Perhaps a current serving member of the R.N. may be able to give a better answer to that one, although I do understand that a lot of experienced hands are leaving the R.N. these day's which is a great pity in that they are not passing their experience's on to the new generation which is the best way to learn, a lot of damage can be done in the engineroom in an hour when there is nobody down there using mark one eyeball.

Pilot mac
3rd January 2009, 18:59
I was sailing as Second Mate when I first encountered UMS and it proved to be a lonely six months with nobody to have a beer with at 0400! It also created a certain amount of grumbling regarding parity of working conditions between deck and engine departments. Engineers and Mates were on the same wages but engineers suddenly found themselves with every night in their bunk and time off at weekends.

regards
Dave

JT McRae
4th January 2009, 11:25
Pilot Mac
I've experienced situations just like you describe, especially in the earlier days of UMS. I think you'll find most Engineers at least will agree with me that the work parity argument given by Mates doesn't cut much ice. There is a huge difference in working conditions in any ships engine room (heat, noise, humidity etc) compared to the relative calm of a ships bridge. With UMS, an Engineer's day is most often busier and more productive, with the routine watchkeeping and monitoring tasks being carried out by computer. When carrying out the duty engineers role every few nights, your night in bed can sometimes be a nightmare.
Brgds Tim

twogrumpy
4th January 2009, 16:28
Pilot Mac
I've experienced situations just like you describe, especially in the earlier days of UMS. I think you'll find most Engineers at least will agree with me that the work parity argument given by Mates doesn't cut much ice. There is a huge difference in working conditions in any ships engine room (heat, noise, humidity etc) compared to the relative calm of a ships bridge. With UMS, an Engineer's day is most often busier and more productive, with the routine watchkeeping and monitoring tasks being carried out by computer. When carrying out the duty engineers role every few nights, your night in bed can sometimes be a nightmare.
Brgds Tim
Very well said, a point well put.
(Cloud)

Pilot mac
4th January 2009, 17:11
Tim,
My point was specific to the early days of UMS where there was still a full complement of engineers. In those days the actual time spent UMS was fairly small, a lot of 'traditional' Masters and Chief Engineers would keep the ER manned at the slightest whif of land or traffic.
Back to watchkeeping was not unusual 24 hours from Ushant. On more modern ships with drastically reduced ER manning the engineers certainly had their work cut out with nights on the bells and a full days work expected of them. I guess that UMS has been a great success in the owners eyes with manning now down to absolute bare bones. I frequently pilot small ships (up to about 4,000 tdw) that have only one engineer.

regards
Dave

paulm
5th January 2009, 03:36
Well said Pilot Mac as I have being saying all along the owner's were the winners - or were they in the long run? The ships,officers and crew were certainly the losers. As for the safety implications - don't start me !
Paulm

surfaceblow
5th January 2009, 06:46
In the US the Engineers use to got paid an hour overtime for each alarm. They were getting up all sorts of times during the night. By the time the companies restructured the pay schedule to have one hour overtime for a mid night and early morning round the alarms where virtually eliminated.

We had one Third Engineer that could not get the setting up the engine room to go unmanned. Each time it was his turn for the duty he would get about twenty alarms at night. The surprising fact was that the First Assistant Engineer duty watch was the next night and he usually had no alarms. Most of the time the First would be to busy for the end of day routine and have the luckless Third Engineer set up the plant for him.

There was a five minutes delay to get dressed and get to the control room to answer the alarm before the alarm was transfered to all of the engineers rooms and public spaces. The luckless Third would often sleep in the control room at night so he could answer the alarm before waking up the rest of the engineers. Even with sleeping in the control room he did not wake up in time to cancel the alarm.

The Engineers gave two awards each trip one was called a Tony for the most alarms and the other was the Connie for the least alarms.

MARINEJOCKY
5th January 2009, 19:46
On all of the British ships with UMS I never received or heard of anyone getting paid overtime for nights or weekends. I was one of the first to join Maersk Line under the Danish flag and was very pleasantly surprised to find we were paid for a 40 hour week and all work outside of that was overtime. The Danes were on a very high tax rate and did not want to do the overtime so I made a lot by doing it for them.

I then joined a Cyprus based company and had 2 engineers, an electrician and two wipers to work with me for a total of 17 onboard. We could carry 400TUE's and took over a run from Ellesmere Port to the Med. that had been done by a british ship/crew that could only carry 290 TUE's and with 37 crew.

I worked as hard on UMS ships as watchkeeping ships as they were mostly gas tankers or container ships that had very quick turn arounds in port. I never saw a bad attitude between deck & us and I think the mates realised that although we may be on day work they certainly were aware of the alarms going off during the night as they all sounded on the bridge and then they saw us working all kinds of hours in port, which they did as well.

Most of the controls systems that I worked with were fine and proved very reliable. I think my training during my college time at GCNS and the advanced electronics course at Shields stood me in good stead except for not understanding that a zero ground is not the same as a grounding cable inside the PC board cabinet. I had tested everything as per the book and when I got no reading at one test point I ordered a new board and kept us on watches. A new board arrived and we looked forward to going back to day work but within hours the same problem came up. I ended up on the radio to the design engineer in Japan who explained I had not tested the board correctly. Who was to know a ground cable is different from a zero ground point.

neilmarineng
21st January 2009, 05:36
I have sailed on about 8 ums vessels and in my opion is the way forward as far as producing a competent watchkeeper, anyone can walk around an engineroom whilst on watch shining a torch at pumps and bilge wells without paying any real attention, its a different type of watchkeeper on a UMS vessel, if you miss something on your 22.00 walkaround, your little alarm box in the cabin will kick into life at around 03.30 !!

john24601
8th March 2009, 16:31
UMS was great providing....a. You were not the duty engineer, and b. there were no major breakdowns because then you never had enough engineers to do the repairs.

Satanic Mechanic
14th March 2009, 04:55
To be honest they are both are good ways of working. If you wanted me at my happiest - I was a 3/E doing the midnight to 8 watch. If I wanted to get the most work done by the Engineers - UMS hands down. Also in these days of reduced manning its nice to have a few folk in the Engineroom

hamishb
3rd April 2009, 23:18
I would be interested to know the ratio of serious ER fires on ships with unmanned engine rooms to ships with fully manned engine rooms.

I sailed as Guarantee engineer on a new Mexican owned ship, and on my routine walk round the job before going UMS for the night I discovered that fuel was spraying out of the main engine fuel surcharge line pressure guage. This was easily stopped by closing the cock below the guage.
However if that had not been spotted the consequences could have been dire as no alarm would have been initiated by this unusual accourance, as it was it took several hours to clean up the mess. The cause of the problem was the failure of the burdon tube insibe the gauge, in turn caused by the failure of the snubber which would have caused the gauge to fluctuate wildly fracturing the tube.
A fire was a strong possibility in this circumstance. I suppose we were lucky as a few minutes either way and this would not have been found in time. Otherwise the UMS worked with very few alarms.
Cheers
Hamish

Ian J. Huckin
4th April 2009, 17:47
HamishB,

Had something very similar happen on the maiden voyage of a 30,000 bulker. 12/4 night watch and a fuel line to a pressure gauge (Fuel inlet pressure to Engine pumps) fractured. It blew out vaporized 140 DegC fuel and was thankfully caught by the third engineer, we had to keep watches through the guarantee period.

I was on that ship eight years later and the stain from the fuel was still on the wood cladding around the spare tailshaft located nearby.

The fire potential was horrifying.

Ian

Abbeywood.
2nd November 2009, 17:04
I joined the MN before the introduction of UMS and thru the experience of my seniors I was trained to use the senses, i.e. Sight, sound, smell, and touch,
and this served me well thru'out my career.
With the introduction of UMS I never felt at ease with leaving all the machinery to more or less fend for itself. Neither was I impressed with the extraneous alarms that inevitably sounded when one was in the deepest sleep. The descent into the ER, still half-asleep, not having a clue what to expect, left much to be desired. Especially when one had probably passed the source of the trouble on the way down.
Even having sorted the problem, one never seemed to be able to rest for the remainder of the night.
A manned ER would have discovered and sorted the problem before it ever reached the alarm stage.
UMS was definitely not my choice.

workforfun
27th February 2010, 23:59
I first stepped foot aboard a ship in 1963 as an engineering cadet and continued on through until 2001 (C/E from 1976 on). In this time I have seen the traditonal manned engine room, change over to UMS, straight UMS and then fully automated ER with single watchkeeping engineers with one oiler.

Each system has it's good and bad points and I think, most engineers just learned to deal with whatever they were faced with.

I personally didn't like UMS simply because eight hours working in tropical conditions, very trying. Also, as others have mentioned, once called out to fix a problem sleep was a long time in coming if at all: rsulting in another day dragging ones feet.

I personally found the automated ER with the engineers on watch to be the best solution. The tedious logging of temps and press. were done by computer freeing the engineer to work on other things.

Just like in any other situation or career - you follow a lazy or careless person then work becomes both hard and frustrating. It is essential in any operation, that there be good co-operation and adequate information passed between you.

Now retired for five years, you would never get me away to sea again - I am fully enjoying life now.

Thx

workforfun

john g
2nd March 2010, 17:04
Derek mentioned Moss Tankers UMS......well yes I did her 2nd trip when she was 6 months old. By todays standard she was totaly unreliable but this was new technology. We ended up on watches because of the alarm rate, at one stage a night on was rewarded with the following afternoon off.After nearly 40 years and with massive improvements in control systems I would expect to leave the job to look after itself at night

Abbeywood.
22nd March 2010, 17:41
Having read the previous postings regarding non-alarmed problems spotted in UMS Engine Rooms, revived an incident in the distant past,
While not being the duty Engineer at the time, indirectly it could have affected all on board.
On a passage from Ymuiden to Pepel, in an bulk-carrier, in ballast, the 4th Eng' was roused and found that E.R. tank top was awash.
The cause was that due to excessive vibration and, (as later discovered, mis-alignment of the inlet pipework), with the ship in a light condition, the Aft Pk ballast valve, ( a 10" valve), had fractured and dumped the contents of the Aft Peak into the E.R. bilges, setting off the bilge alarms, thus ensuring that the 4th, having advised the Bridge and called the Chief, spent the rest of the night pumping about 3-400 tons of ballast water from the E.R.
Had the E.R. been 'manned' the failure of the valve would stiil probably have occurred but would have received a more immediate response.
As it was, it took several hours to reduce the ingress of water thru' the OWS.
Its a definite 'NO' for UMS in my opinion

Derek Roger
23rd March 2010, 00:11
On Brocklebanks Mahsud I had a fire Alarm from the Minerva System . On inspection in the engine room found nothing amiss ; on further inspection I found a Gauge connection on the SW cooling system had failed and was spraying water under the floor plates .
Eventually the bilge alarm would have picked up the problem .

The Minerva picked up the effect of the small water spray under the floor plates yet the
nearest sensor was at least 12 feet away above floor plates . No watch keeper would have found that until the bilges and tank top were awash .

One Mans View Derek

Satanic Mechanic
23rd March 2010, 00:14
Having read the previous postings regarding non-alarmed problems spotted in UMS Engine Rooms, revived an incident in the distant past,
While not being the duty Engineer at the time, indirectly it could have affected all on board.
On a passage from Ymuiden to Pepel, in an bulk-carrier, in ballast, the 4th Eng' was roused and found that E.R. tank top was awash.
The cause was that due to excessive vibration and, (as later discovered, mis-alignment of the inlet pipework), with the ship in a light condition, the Aft Pk ballast valve, ( a 10" valve), had fractured and dumped the contents of the Aft Peak into the E.R. bilges, setting off the bilge alarms, thus ensuring that the 4th, having advised the Bridge and called the Chief, spent the rest of the night pumping about 3-400 tons of ballast water from the E.R.
Had the E.R. been 'manned' the failure of the valve would stiil probably have occurred but would have received a more immediate response.
As it was, it took several hours to reduce the ingress of water thru' the OWS.
Its a definite 'NO' for UMS in my opinion


or you could set the bilge alarms low down in the bilge well

john g
26th March 2010, 18:44
Going back to Moss Tankers Luminous. The job went to full astern in the early hours one morning, reason, leaking cooling water from the fridge comp spraying over the VP prop control box. I guess the bad welding on the pipework generally was sorted by the time you sailed on her Derek..................dreadfull vessel

Naytikos
2nd April 2010, 09:38
Combining an unmanned engine-room with a Continuous Machinery Survey saves both man-power and shipyard time. My experience is of a twin diesel VLCC using the A-MAR-Z inspection and repair schedule with the blessing of the classification society.
Chief, 2/E, two 3/E, two each oilers and wipers was sufficient. The 3/Es did 24 hours on call, the next day on day-work, changing over at 0800 each day. They received an hour's overtime for every call-out. Everyone else worked 0800-1700.
The C/E did the surveys according to the schedule with Class surveyors doing spot checks in drydock but contenting themselves with perusing the reports at other times.
This cut shipyard time down to as long as it took for pipeline repairs and the hull paint to dry!