“To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”
“A return spring broke in the helm steering mechanism.”
“The class of vessel involved in the incident had experienced similar return spring failures in recent times although the causes of such failures” etc..
“The master unsuccessfully attempted to use alternative steering controls to correct the uncommanded turn.”
“In 2021, a total of eight incidents relating to problems with DCV vessel steering systems have been reported to OTSI with varying failure modes.”
And, from the big book of the blindingly obvious:-
"..The steering system is critical for safe navigation and ought (MUST) to be designed and maintained to ensure its continued safe operation throughout the vessel’s life-cycle.
No kidding! What an astounding revelation. The use of the word 'ought' says it all - try 'must'. I wonder, is there a carefully researched engineering report anywhere which details 'why' the return spring 'broke' (technical descriptor for ?). Was it fatigue? Sheer stress? Load stress? Corrosion? Manufacturing fault? Installation fault? Operator fault? Where about did the spring 'broke' and what caused that 'brokenness'. Seems to me that there is some sort of 'design' or material specification problem there.
That 'spring' is a critical part of the primary control system (as demonstrated). One incident – fair enough 'stuff happens' - but repetitive incidents smacks of carelessness. Even the 'safety message' alludes to 'training' and and is couched in such a way as to imply ' easy acceptance' of and 'preparedness' for more steering failures; rather than preventing the bloody things getting 'broke' within the normal operational life span. WTD?
Aye; “your safety in our hands” - through OTSI peerless dynamic reporting, speedy investigative system and flawless rectification analysis? I think not. You pay your money and take your chances – new OTSI motto perhaps...Must send a memo to the minister, for immediate action. That should work - Right.....
Toot – toot.
“A return spring broke in the helm steering mechanism.”
“The class of vessel involved in the incident had experienced similar return spring failures in recent times although the causes of such failures” etc..
“The master unsuccessfully attempted to use alternative steering controls to correct the uncommanded turn.”
“In 2021, a total of eight incidents relating to problems with DCV vessel steering systems have been reported to OTSI with varying failure modes.”
And, from the big book of the blindingly obvious:-
"..The steering system is critical for safe navigation and ought (MUST) to be designed and maintained to ensure its continued safe operation throughout the vessel’s life-cycle.
No kidding! What an astounding revelation. The use of the word 'ought' says it all - try 'must'. I wonder, is there a carefully researched engineering report anywhere which details 'why' the return spring 'broke' (technical descriptor for ?). Was it fatigue? Sheer stress? Load stress? Corrosion? Manufacturing fault? Installation fault? Operator fault? Where about did the spring 'broke' and what caused that 'brokenness'. Seems to me that there is some sort of 'design' or material specification problem there.
That 'spring' is a critical part of the primary control system (as demonstrated). One incident – fair enough 'stuff happens' - but repetitive incidents smacks of carelessness. Even the 'safety message' alludes to 'training' and and is couched in such a way as to imply ' easy acceptance' of and 'preparedness' for more steering failures; rather than preventing the bloody things getting 'broke' within the normal operational life span. WTD?
Aye; “your safety in our hands” - through OTSI peerless dynamic reporting, speedy investigative system and flawless rectification analysis? I think not. You pay your money and take your chances – new OTSI motto perhaps...Must send a memo to the minister, for immediate action. That should work - Right.....
Toot – toot.