Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur

[Sub_Guy]

HMCS Provider was towed to Turkey, I don't see why this would be an issue with the remaining tankers.

http://www.wellandcanal.ca/shiparc/warships/provider/provider.htm

 

[Stoker]

Single hull tankers older then 25 years old no longer allowed to transit the Panama Canal (PTR class is cat 2 oiler);
https://www.pancanal.com/common/maritime/advisories/2011/a-17-2011.pdf
If they get a waiver, guessing there will be a big cost (escort tugs, etc).  Also, last time one of our tankers went through it got no special treatment and wasn't considered a warship.


Also, there aren't many disposal yards at that size/draft.  Disposal isn't worth enough money for anyone with that kind of facility in BC to care, as they make far more money building/repairing ships.  You need to find a marine scrap yard, and there are only a few in Canada (Sault St Marie, Port Colburne and on in NS).  Environmental disposal is also a big deal, so also need to be able to handle PCBs and a few other legacy hazmat items.

Few in the US (few in Maine/Oregon, one in California), but the US has some interesting rules wrt taking any other countries HazMat, or even going through their territorial waters, so they are cost prohibitive (may need to remove all hazmat, which includes some of the primers in the old coatings, gaskets, etc).  There is a spot in Mexico, but then there is the CG aspect, plus politics of doing it outside of Canada.

Ship disposal is a lot more complicated then you may think, if you do it IAW our laws.  We could always tow the ship the other way (ie further west), assuming we are okay with ignoring our own laws and a number of international treaties.

Interesting on the warship aspect of the transit, I believe back in the day a 3" 50 Cal was mounted on the front of the tanker to take advantage of the warship aspect. Certainly makes sense to restrict access of single hulled vessels. I suspect PRO and PRE will sit along side for a number of years until they decide what to do with them after they are paid off.
I think its a good bet that any newly built tankers are at least 5 yrs away, unless they buy offshore or lease something.

 

[Navy_Pete]

HMCS Provider was towed to Turkey, I don't see why this would be an issue with the remaining tankers.

http://www.wellandcanal.ca/shiparc/warships/provider/provider.htm

Aside from the fact that after pictures popped up of the Provider beached somewhere with guys using their hands as welding shields cutting it up?  Hence Canadian govt policy that all ships will be disposed in Canada?

Also, that was in 2002; there has since been big changes in environmental regulations and Controlled Goods.

There are issues with ships with certain Hazmats even transiting US waters under tow under some of their newer laws (active warships are exempt from it).  The whole thing is kind of complicated.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There is no one here on the West Coast with the facilities and experience to scrap a vessel of that size. We worked with a guy to get several derelict vessels towed out of Canadian waters to Mexico. He seems to have disappeared and we are wondering if he ran afoul of the gangs down there.

 

[Kirkhill]

.....
I hate hearing things like "the engineering world learns more from it's failures..." ....

Pat, I wouldn't get bent about that statement.  It is a truism and it doesn't apply just to the RCN but to any endeavour.

I used to say of the mob that I used to work for that the key to its commercial success was record of its failures held in the project library in Lund.

I am constantly arguing that too little time is spent on history (researching those failures) and too much time is spent pondering (Oo! I wonder what will happen if I do this?)  I find that that "pondering" bit ultimately is what slows down projects.  You can never get a 100% solution.  History studies might get you into the 85 to 95%  bracket.  All the pondering in the world won't improve on that.

All you can ever do is prepare yourself to manage the failures.

And on which note .... God be thanked everyone came home safe and well done to those involved.

 

[Navy_Pete]

The Kootenay fire is a good example; there were some major lessons learned implemented on DC procedures after that.

And generally in R&D and testing, you run things to breaking point to find the weaknesses.  I'm sure businesses do the same with products that don't work to get better the next time.

 

[OldSolduer]

So if I am correct that if a fire is large enough and hot enough to destroy the integrity of the steel in the hull, the ship is no longer seaworthy?

Infantard here so small sentences, short words please.......

 

[Stoker]

So if I am correct that if a fire is large enough and hot enough to destroy the integrity of the steel in the hull, the ship is no longer seaworthy?

Infantard here so small sentences, short words please.......

If the fire was hot enough, it'll melt steel decks. Any structural damage of that sort if extensive enough, ie affecting frames, watertight bulkheads or ship's side will certainly affect structural integrity. I would imagine the ship has already been surveyed to ensure seaworthiness for the trip back.

 

[cupper]

So if I am correct that if a fire is large enough and hot enough to destroy the integrity of the steel in the hull, the ship is no longer seaworthy?

Infantard here so small sentences, short words please.......

Jim:

Speaking as a structural engineer who's field of study is designing buildings and other structures, and not ships, There are a couple of different considerations that can come into play here.

First and most simple is that the heat  of the fire itself can cause distortion to the framing and plates, and I believe a couple of mentions have been made about a bulge in the side around the location of the engine room. The integrity of the structure would be suspect at best. Members and connections would be over stressed, and would not stand up to the dynamic forces that come into play from normal operations, like waves pounding the side, bending of the hull from manouvering, etc.

But you can also get changes to the steel itself if the heat generated by the fire is hot enough. Like tempering a knife blade, you can make the steel more or less brittle depending on how you treat it. The steel in the hull could have gone through a change in temper, and become brittle, and would easily crack under normal loads, when it should be ductile to allow it to bend and deform under loads.


Pat:

I hope that you didn't take offense to my comment about the Engineering World learning more from Failure. If you did, it was not my intent.

I did not mean to single out the MarEng world, but it was a comment about the history of Engineering in general. My father as a MarEng Tech for 22 years, and I have the greatest respect for him and all those in the trade. Growing up I wanted to follow in his footsteps, and due to the ever changing fortunes of life, ended up graduating with an Engineering degree in Civil / Structural. I joined the reserves as a Vehicle Tech while going through school, but there is still a small part of me that regrets not following my father's footsteps, either asan NCM or an Officer.

 

[cupper]

The Kootenay fire is a good example; there were some major lessons learned implemented on DC procedures after that.

And generally in R&D and testing, you run things to breaking point to find the weaknesses.  I'm sure businesses do the same with products that don't work to get better the next time.

One of the biggest design changes was the replacement of the aluminum ladders with steel ladders. One of the most vivid images I saw from the display that was put together commemorating the 30th anniversary was of a ladder that had softened to the point that one of the engine room crew had tried to climb. The rungs deformed like stiff toffee under his feet.

And you have the Kootenay Hatch that was added to all ships as an alternate means of escape.

 

[Navy_Pete]

There is a pretty interesting demonstration of that where someone took a sheet of aluminum, put it over a fire and let it heat up until it melted through.  Unlike steel, which glows, aluminum gives no visual indications that it has no structural strength left and simply melts.  There is some pretty vivid testimony (Falklands war?) where guys trying to climb up an aluminum ladder stepped right through it.

Jim, just to add a few more details, you have to bear in mind that the engine room is roughly the size of a school gymnasium with several decks, and the ship itself has numerous parts to its structure.  You can have localized damage and warping from fires, but the overall structure is still sound.  In layman's terms, if you think of a box cabinet, with a bunch of shelves, and dividers between them, you can have brackets break, or individual shelves fail, but the box itself is still good enough.  Maybe a better analogy is a kitchen fire, where you can have a lot of localized damage to the range hood, cupboards etc plus smoke damage elsewhere, but the house itself isn't in danger of falling over.

Part of the tow preps would be a very thorough structural inspection, as watertight integrity is their main concern.  The tow masters won't do it unless they feel its safe, so if repairs are needed, they'll get done.  No indication any are required though, and the things like that also tend to get mangled when filtered through PAs as well.  So some minor warping to local structure could easily change to more ominous sounding 'strucutral issues' by the time it gets to the MRLs.

Tow masters won't hook on until its safe anyway, and they'll require repairs to be done if needed.  They'll also do their best to find a window of good weather, and also have speed restrictions, so the PRO won't have a lot of loading on it.  That part should be good; but very unlikely the ship isn't beyond economical repair.

 

[OldSolduer]

Thanks very much!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If she was newer she would be repaired, but given the her planned decommissioned date, the time and cost of repairs and the benefits of doing so will have to be weighed.

 

[Navy_Pete]

The crack reporters at CBC noticed the 25000 tonne ship being towed out of a major port by a 3000 tonne ship!

HMCS Protecteur heading home under tow from U.S. navy tug
Canadian supply ship damaged by 2 fires in February departed Hawaii's Pearl Harbor on Thursday

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/hmcs-protecteur-heading-home-under-tow-from-u-s-navy-tug-1.2645465

A Canadian navy warship that was badly damaged in U.S. waters by a massive fire at sea in February is on its way back to Canadian waters, under tow by a U.S. tug, CBC News has learned.

HMCS Protecteur departed Pearl Harbor on Thursday morning under tow from USNS Salvor, beginning a slow voyage across the North Pacific back to its home port of CFB Esquimalt near Victoria, B.C.

There are four Royal Canadian Navy sailors aboard Salvor for the sail home.

"She's making six knots right now, which is good," said navy spokesman Lt.-Cmdr LCdr Des James. "From our perspective, everything looks promising."

The trip under tow is expected to take as long as three weeks, depending on the weather, but it could be Protecteur's last trip.

Commissioned in 1969, the ship was due to be retired in 2017, but the damage aboard following two fires at sea over three days was so severe that it's likely repairs will be too expensive for the navy to consider for just a couple years of service.

"It's still too early to make those calls," said James.

"We have to wait 'til we get her alongside and then get on board and get a detailed damage assessment. That work will happen in the next weeks or months. There's still a long journey ahead."

About 20 crew suffered minor injuries — including dehydration, exhaustion and smoke inhalation — fighting the first of the two fires, an effort that lasted more than 11 hours.

The vessel was more than a day — and 600 kilometres — out of Pearl Harbor in the north Pacific in rough seas at the time the fire broke out.

Sailors were able to save the ship from sinking, but it nevertheless lost all power, including the ability to generate electricity to run communications gear and pumps to fight the blaze.

It took a week for the U.S. navy to tow the ship into Pearl Harbor after the incident.

 

[NavyShooter]

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-158.1181/centery:21.20271/zoom:8/oldmmsi:316146000/olddate:lastknown#

 

[Occam]

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-158.1181/centery:21.20271/zoom:8/oldmmsi:316146000/olddate:lastknown#

HMCS PROTECTEUR
Position Recorded on:
2014-02-26 20:36:00 (UTC)

I don't think her position is being updated...  ;D

 

[NavyShooter]

Nope.....I saw that, but figured they might have flashed up their AIS while under tow on the way back home.....guess not!

 

[Occam]

It's an unmanned tow; there's no power aboard PRO for AIS to operate.  Unless the tug can update PRO's data, that is...I don't know enough about the setup of AIS to know if that's possible.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It's an unmanned tow; there's no power aboard PRO for AIS to operate.  Unless the tug can update PRO's data, that is...I don't know enough about the setup of AIS to know if that's possible.

Am I reading too much into "unmanned tow" or has the RCN already decided that PRO is beyond economical repair? I have some trouble imagining that one would not want to keep a small maintenance team on board even for a very long, very slow tow, if the ships is to be repaired and return to service.

 

[Stoker]

Am I reading too much into "unmanned tow" or has the RCN already decided that PRO is beyond economical repair? I have some trouble imagining that one would not want to keep a small maintenance team on board even for a very long, very slow tow, if the ships is to be repaired and return to service.

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.