Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur

[Edward Campbell]

Thanks, Chief.

 

[Good2Golf]

Info from USNS Salvor's (T-ARS 52) AIS: HMCS Protecteur's position while under tow.

 

[Stoker]

Info from USNS Salvor's (T-ARS 52) AIS: HMCS Protecteur's position while under tow.

That's from 4 days ago, looks like they turned off their AIS as well.

 

[Good2Golf]

That's from 4 days ago, looks like they turned off their AIS as well.

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.

 

[Stoker]

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.

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.

 

[Navy_Pete]

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.

There was also a lot of work done on the flood side; all the hull valves (inlets for pumps etc) were locked shut and all the watertight doors etc are dogged shut, with a remote flood detection system installed with an strobe attached on the mast for a visual indication.

There were some other preps but those were the big ones.  If you are curious the USN salvage manuals are avail on their site; http://www.supsalv.org/00c2_publications.asp?destPage=00c2

I think we may just adopt their manual as our standard, it's pretty excellent.

For tows, you either go with everything but engines flashed up or dead ship.  Unless you are just going across the harbour or some other short distance, doesn't really make a lot of sense to tow with people onboard otherwise, as it's easier to sail.

As an aside, our ships don't normally transmit on AIS; we generally go on 'receive only'.  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)

edit: here's some info on the 'USNS ship, can't really call it a 'tug boat', it's pretty bad a$$;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Salvor_%28T-ARS-52%29

 

[Good2Golf]

Salvor is certainly a very capable vessel. I found it interesting, though, that she was running 4 x Cat D399s for prime power...the Cat 3600s were well into production when Salvor was first commissioned. 

 

[Nfld Sapper]

CAT classifies the 3600 as Auxiliary Engines vice the D399 as a Propulsion Engine...maybe that was the reason?

 

[Baz]

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.

There is, a few of them; one of the best is ExactEarth, a Canadian company:
http://www.exactearth.com/
MarineTraffic is quite spotty as its users who provide the data (hey don't buy it, so they certainly couldn't afford sat coverage):
http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/p/expand-coverage

There is also Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT, google it) which is merchant vessel sat comms to home flag, then shared government to government as agreed.

By the way, since AIS is supposed to be for safety primarily (not to help the Navy track stuff) the IMO doesn't like sites like MarineTraffic:

Maritime 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.

http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Safety/Navigation/Pages/AIS.aspx

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.

Since its a self synching network, with no control stations, some interesting tricks are required for sat AIS due to collisions; all the ships the sat can see can't see each other, which creates collisions.

Since a lot of ships have integrated AIS and radar displays, and some aircraft, not having your AIS on can be a dead giveaway to who you are, especially if your wasting fuel going in circles like the Navy tends to do; "when in danger, when in doubt, steam in circles, scream and shout."  AIS won't identify people who have it off or are spoofing it, but it makes them stand out on your plot!

 

[Good2Golf]

[slight OT]

CAT classifies the 3600 as Auxiliary Engines vice the D399 as a Propulsion Engine...maybe that was the reason?

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.

[/OT]

So at 6.5 its, there's another two weeks or so to get to Naden?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

[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.

[/OT]

So at 6.5 its, there's another two weeks or so to get to Naden?

Seen, I just looked for the 3600 which is an Aux Engine, didn't look at any of the others in the series

 

[Navy_Pete]

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.

Thanks, I stand corrected.  I guess that's what I get for not verifying how it works when it was explained to me like that!

 

[Occam]

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)

You're actually thinking of IFF (or SSR (Secondary Surveillance Radar) for the Air Force types).  Unlike radar, which has to be sent out and reflected back, IFF/SSR on one platform interrogates the aircraft/ship and a transponder in the aircraft/ship replies.  The RF energy only has to go one way, so detection ranges with IFF/SSR can be longer than primary radar.  Assuming it's a good guy squawking, of course.

 

[OldSolduer]

Infantry here - small words and short sentences please.

How difficult is it to tow a ship in the ocean?

 

[jollyjacktar]

It depends upon many factors.  As you can imagine, Jim, the size of each ship in respect to the other, their general condition, the distance to be covered and the sea state to name a few.  if the seas are calm, it's pretty good, but...  Tow exercises are something that's practiced during work ups etc.  I've been on several and they went as smooth as silk.

But it can be dicey to maneuver in close proximity to each other.  You remember the Protecteur taking a bite out of the hangar of the Algonquin when they were attempting to set up a tow.  Or the Athabaskan having her tow cable part when she was being returned to Halifax from refit.  She was in risk of foundering and was beaten up pretty badly when they tried to catch her again. 

I have no doubt that the tug and crew from Pearl are top notch and things will work out just fine.

 

[Edward Campbell]

There are reports in the media that HMCS Protecteur will be back home, in Esquimalt, today.

 

[mikeninercharlie]

Salvor and Protecteur are visible from the Victoria waterfront...

 

[Nfld Sapper]

HMCS Protecteur towed into home port in Esquimalt, B.C.

 

[MilEME09]

HMCS Protecteur towed into home port in Esquimalt, B.C.

I guess on the bright side she made it back without incident

 

[Navy_Pete]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hmcs-protecteur-s-electrical-system-flagged-as-dangerous-and-unsafe-1.2724443

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