Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

771 NAS Rescue MSC NAPOLI's Ship's Company (18/1/07)

Re: 771 NAS Rescue Ship's Company in Channel (18/1/07)

Seadog wrote
The MAIB have begun a preliminary investigation.

The MAIB have progressed to a Full Investigation. I'll post their report when it's published. I wonder if they'll agree with safewalrus who said

Looks like the crew panicked and abandoned ship too soon, made the job harder!
 
Re: 771 NAS Rescue Ship's Company in Channel (18/1/07)

The MAIB's report has been published.

As he started to return to the ECR, the tank top forward of the main engine appeared to open up across the ship (Figure 2), and a “wall of oily water†shot upwards before cascading down across the pump flat and bottom plates. The third engineer quickly evacuated the area and returned to the ECR.

After talking to the chief engineer, the master went onto the starboard bridge wing from where he could see that the ship’s side plating directly below the bridge was bulging outwards. He also saw what appeared to be a vertical fracture below the waterline as the ship rolled to port. When similar damage was seen on the port side, the master assessed that MSC Napoli had ‘broken her back’ (Figure 3), and decided to abandon the vessel.

The account of the abandonment paints it as appropriate and professional. I'll need my sensible head on for the technical part.
 
Re: 771 NAS Rescue Ship's Company in Channel (18/1/07)

Seadog said:
The MAIB's report has been published.

As he started to return to the ECR, the tank top forward of the main engine appeared to open up across the ship (Figure 2), and a “wall of oily water†shot upwards before cascading down across the pump flat and bottom plates. The third engineer quickly evacuated the area and returned to the ECR.

After talking to the chief engineer, the master went onto the starboard bridge wing from where he could see that the ship’s side plating directly below the bridge was bulging outwards. He also saw what appeared to be a vertical fracture below the waterline as the ship rolled to port. When similar damage was seen on the port side, the master assessed that MSC Napoli had ‘broken her back’ (Figure 3), and decided to abandon the vessel.

The account of the abandonment paints it as appropriate and professional. I'll need my sensible head on for the technical part.



Interesting reading....ty
 
Interesting (well, actually, irritating) that the only part of the Report that has proper paragraph marking is the Noggie bit. What price JSP101!

From the Synopsis, para 3 (not marked) 2nd dot; presumably there must be other vessels at sea in this structural state. Is there no retrospective safety notification system?

From the Synopsis, para 3 (not marked) 5th dot; economic imperatives are a wonderful thing.

A slight aside: I asked on another Forum how that rescue would have been executed in the absence of a SAR Diver. Strangely, I received no sensible answers.
 
Bit of a resurrection going on.

I have just finished reading the SAR divers, (Jay O'Donnell), version of events regarding the Napoli, (Rescue 194), and Rum Rationers get a mention right at the end. Some of the comments (Chieftiffs) about mad sar diver etc.

The book is a bloody good read.

Rescue 194: Amazon.co.uk: P.O. Aircrewman Jay O'Donnell QGM, Humphrey Price: Books
we have met him at Greenwich fly navy 100 some years ago...what a good egg, easy to talk to....and no edge BZ ...to the QGM Matelot ps you need to step up to the mark with "A Bosuns Call". Lol
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top